Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. Welcome to the Merin
Speaker 1: Trugs Money Weekly round Up, our debrief on the biggest
Speaker 1: stories in markets and economics. I'm Merin Zumzet, Web Editor
Speaker 1: at Large for Bloomberg UK Wealth.
Speaker 2: And I'm joint therapey, author of the Money Distilled newsletter
Speaker 2: and senior reporter for Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: Excellent, John, your Scottish?
Speaker 2: Yes, can you tell?
Speaker 1: And you said to me the other day that I
Speaker 1: was the token Scott in the run, but kind of
Speaker 1: I'm not.
Speaker 3: You're You're the actual Scott in the run.
Speaker 1: So you will have noticed that a court has just
Speaker 1: ruled that the consent for two new Scottish oil and
Speaker 1: gasfield has been granted unlawfully and their owners must seek
Speaker 1: fresh approval from the UK government before product you can begin.
Speaker 1: And I thought I would just mention that because we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about a couple of things today, and
Speaker 1: the first thing we're going to talk about is Rachel
Speaker 1: Reeves and her drive for growth, because it is her mission, her.
Speaker 3: Drive for growth.
Speaker 1: And then we're going to talk about deep seek and
Speaker 1: the US dot market and AI a little bit. But
Speaker 1: I just thought a fabulous introduction to talking about who
Speaker 1: we now call poor Rachel Reeves is this fact that
Speaker 1: every way a government turns, there's a court there, often
Speaker 1: with Greenpeace behind it, say actually, no, you can't.
Speaker 3: And do you remember poor Rachel? Last week she said?
Speaker 1: The answer can't always be no. She said that Davil
Speaker 1: didn't she Well, you know what, Rachel, The answer always
Speaker 1: is no.
Speaker 3: What's she going to do about it? What is she
Speaker 3: going to do about it? John?
Speaker 2: Normally I would feel that it's not necessarily a good
Speaker 2: thing you have a lawyer as a prime minister. But
Speaker 2: I'm starting to feel that maybe that is the kind
Speaker 2: of wine great sport about Kirstana's being the prime minister.
Speaker 2: It's like the level of I mean, people call it
Speaker 2: judicial activism, and I get that. But the only reason
Speaker 2: that this stuff can happen is because a politician passed
Speaker 2: a lot at some point in the past that Noney
Speaker 2: has quite noticed the repercussions of at the time. So
Speaker 2: we need, we do need to do something about this.
Speaker 2: It shouldn't really be up to a small pressure group
Speaker 2: bringing i mean quite a fringe kind of case that
Speaker 2: can then shut down something that the democratically elected government
Speaker 2: has already approved. This isn't okay. Actually the course of
Speaker 2: going too far. There's a lot of examples of this
Speaker 2: sort of stuff and it needs to stop. Unfortunately, I'm
Speaker 2: not a lawyer, nor a politician, not someone who is
Speaker 2: deeping the weeds on this stuff, so I don't know
Speaker 2: how this has come about, but we need to get idiot.
Speaker 2: It just needs to end because it's not acceptable we
Speaker 2: have this kind of thing continuously stopping is from getting in.
Speaker 3: It's absurd.
Speaker 1: And when you look at the I'm just going to
Speaker 1: say before we start here, hate mail directly to John
Speaker 1: not me, right, because he's Scottish, so probably he was
Speaker 1: the one who wanted these oil fields in the first place.
Speaker 3: Not me totally, but yes.
Speaker 1: But the case is we talked about Aberdeen last week,
Speaker 1: didn't we. But the cases were bought by two environmental
Speaker 1: campaigning groups, and Greenpeace obviously and another one called Uplift.
Speaker 1: And I haven't done this yet, but I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: that if we check where the cash that goes to
Speaker 1: Uplift and Greenpeace comes from, we'll find that quite a
Speaker 1: lot of it comes one way or another via our
Speaker 1: tax contributions.
Speaker 3: So we are caught in this ridiculous situation.
Speaker 1: By time after time after time you find the government
Speaker 1: thoughted by government taxpayer financed organizations, and this.
Speaker 3: Is what we have here.
Speaker 1: So we're a fifty seven page judgment where the judge
Speaker 1: said there's a public interest in having the decision remade
Speaker 1: on a lawful basis because of the effects of climate change,
Speaker 1: which you said outweighed the interests of developers. Of course,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe something like this, the Rosemanck oilfield and
Speaker 1: the jack Door gasfield. Rose is a bit north of
Speaker 1: Shetland and Jackdaw is a bit too, the east of Aberdeen.
Speaker 1: I would say this isn't just about the interest of
Speaker 1: the developers. It's about the interests of the ordinary, ordinary
Speaker 1: population of the UK and their living standards. But hey,
Speaker 1: that's just me. Anyway, onto Rachel Rage and all the
Speaker 1: other things that she isn't going to be able to
Speaker 1: get done.
Speaker 3: There's the Heathrow runway, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean if she can't get a couple of oil
Speaker 2: fields opened, then I do wonder. I mean, Rachel Reaves
Speaker 2: was actually on Bloomberg Telly and she said that she
Speaker 2: wants speeds to be in the ground by the end
Speaker 2: of this parliament and I mean, the normal circumstances tell
Speaker 2: me that you're going to start on an extension in
Speaker 2: four years time would seem like a long time, but
Speaker 2: that seems miraculously fast for you know, an extra kind
Speaker 2: of runway that's already been delayed by you know, countless
Speaker 2: times over various legal challenges, and you know, and obviously
Speaker 2: you've already got side Can saying that he's definitely going
Speaker 2: to take it to court. So I am going to
Speaker 2: be interested to see how this happens.
Speaker 3: He's going to take it to court. He's going to
Speaker 3: take it to court, and he's going to.
Speaker 1: Use climate change legislation net zero all that stuff, and
Speaker 1: he's going to have green Place and Uplift with him.
Speaker 1: And once again, this is how low fair is used
Speaker 1: in the UK to for the government.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, let's say one thing that I am
Speaker 2: interested in, and you know, obviously made an awful lot
Speaker 2: of criticisms of the government and the decisions that it's made,
Speaker 2: but I am curious to see if someone who is
Speaker 2: as presumably versed in law fare and this way of
Speaker 2: doing things as Kirstarmer presumably is, has got a way
Speaker 2: to counteract it. Now that he's the one that's you know,
Speaker 2: taking the flag from it. I am hoping that if
Speaker 2: nothing else comes about, we will see a pushback against
Speaker 2: this basically governance via the courts. But you're right the
Speaker 2: other thing and also also getting ready gift aid, gift
Speaker 2: aid needs to stop, you know.
Speaker 3: All of this kind of get rid of gifted.
Speaker 2: Garridy, gifted. You've been saying it for the ages. You know, anything,
Speaker 2: any any grant to any charity should be much more transpardoned.
Speaker 2: I mean, in an idea world, I would say, don't
Speaker 2: give any tax payer money to charities at.
Speaker 3: All, or whether every single.
Speaker 2: Team is hinded it in fifty were saying that the
Speaker 2: population nice to be for it or something like that,
Speaker 2: because this is just going beyond their jok.
Speaker 1: No grants to charities of any kind out of taxpayer money.
Speaker 1: The government should do what the government should do. And
Speaker 1: charities are outside the government, and I'm not sure that
Speaker 1: any of them, any of them be it squirrels or greenpeace,
Speaker 1: and should be financed by government, by taxpayer. The government
Speaker 1: should you know, for phillip democratic mandate, which is to
Speaker 1: do what the population wants, not to give money to
Speaker 1: organizations that are doing things that the population might not
Speaker 1: necessarily want, which brings me very neatly to something that
Speaker 1: I've been looking at this week. We haven't really finished
Speaker 1: on growth. We'll come back to growth. But this is connected.
Speaker 3: Over half of gen Z.
Speaker 1: I can never remember which gens which, but let's say
Speaker 1: young people, over half of gen Z wants to the
Speaker 1: UK to become a dictatorship. Now, why do they want
Speaker 1: the UK to become a dictatorship. There's all sorts of
Speaker 1: theories out there, but I can't answer that for you.
Speaker 1: It's because they would like to see something, just something, anything,
Speaker 1: get done.
Speaker 3: They see the.
Speaker 1: Electorate going out them voting again and again and again.
Speaker 1: Build stuff, do stuff, make a smaller state, have lower taxes,
Speaker 1: reduce immigration, whatever it is people vote for over and over.
Speaker 1: These things never happen. Nothing anybody votes for ever happens.
Speaker 1: So they think to themselves, well, if anything's ever going
Speaker 1: to get done, maybe we should just have a dictator.
Speaker 3: Hey, maybe the stuff that gets.
Speaker 1: Done won't be what we want, but something will happen.
Speaker 3: I mean, do you think that's it.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's probably an element of them wanting a
Speaker 2: better drama in the lives. Yeah, I mean, obviously we
Speaker 2: all of these, said SVIs, I'd take me a massive
Speaker 2: pinch of salt, because I don't I don't think the
Speaker 2: more I mean generations said, this is the generation that's
Speaker 2: actually older than old kids, but younger than the millennials.
Speaker 2: So I know, twenties.
Speaker 3: Oh, they're really difficult ones, aren't they.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're kind of like they are kind of yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean the other interesting things. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe maybe it's just not true, but people say about
Speaker 2: young people getting more being more left wing, they're just
Speaker 2: want the opposite of what they've got.
Speaker 1: Now, well, it depends what they want to communist dictator
Speaker 1: or right wing to dictator. I mean, no one said them,
Speaker 1: No one said, did they want a fascist or a communist?
Speaker 3: I mean, they didn't get the right choices, I guess.
Speaker 1: So we don't know whether they're extreme left or extreme right,
Speaker 1: or if they yet know that extreme left and extreme
Speaker 1: right are the same thing.
Speaker 3: Maybe they don't know that yet. The young they may not.
Speaker 2: And also, I don't know, they've got a lot I'm
Speaker 2: not sure that they I'm not sure left and right
Speaker 2: make a lot of sense anymore. I think I think
Speaker 2: whenever I think about all of the things that are
Speaker 2: going on. You can basically split any people who are
Speaker 2: still pro something resembling progress and that kind of and
Speaker 2: that kind of degrow with anti growth nihilism on the
Speaker 2: other side. And did those two things, And I think
Speaker 2: that then makes a little bit more sense of the
Speaker 2: voting for a dictatorship element, because that's quite a nihilistic
Speaker 2: way look at things on nihilistic and I'm never prety
Speaker 2: sure you pronounced that. So I think that that then
Speaker 2: makes more sense than them thinking about I don't think
Speaker 2: they're thinking, you know, a woint, a stylin or a woint.
Speaker 2: They're thinking, A want somebody who's going to set my
Speaker 2: enemies whoever they are straight, if you know what I mean,
Speaker 2: I mean they want a dictators on their said, yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Suspect it's more it's more about or it's a lot
Speaker 1: about the absolute lack of growth over the last couple
Speaker 1: of decades. So you have an entire generation here that
Speaker 1: they've never really experienced the growth, the innovation, the creativity, etcetera.
Speaker 1: That leads to sustained economic growth that you and I
Speaker 1: saw when we were young.
Speaker 3: So we maybe have more of a growth.
Speaker 1: Mindset, as they now say in the school's growth mindset,
Speaker 1: and I that growth is the default that it's possible,
Speaker 1: that it should be, that things should be improving.
Speaker 3: And getting better all the time.
Speaker 1: And therefore the idea that wealth should constantly be redistributed
Speaker 1: isn't necessary because the pie is growing. Whereas if you
Speaker 1: are perhaps generations, that your default belief, which is entirely reasonable,
Speaker 1: is that the pie isn't growing, and crucially that, particularly
Speaker 1: with poor Rachel in charge, it isn't going to grow.
Speaker 3: So what you need is a.
Speaker 1: More extreme level of redistribution than democracy will allow. So
Speaker 1: if you don't get growth, and you don't get living
Speaker 1: standards growing, again, what is it that you would expect
Speaker 1: except for maybe this?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's yeah, that's really true. And I
Speaker 2: do forget that we grew up in the nineties and
Speaker 2: the nineties were very much everything did to keep getting
Speaker 2: up particuli at your political level.
Speaker 1: We had great jobs, we could have you know, we
Speaker 1: were educated for free, We had great jobs, we could
Speaker 1: afford houses. You know, we have children, we had them
Speaker 1: at a reasonable age, et cetera, et cetera. A lot
Speaker 1: of the things that people stuck in a no growth
Speaker 1: mindset and a no growth assumption find very hard to
Speaker 1: think that they will ever have, So I totally understand this,
Speaker 1: But I've gone off topic again. This is not that
Speaker 1: kind of podcast. So let's I think we've talked quite
Speaker 1: a lot in the past on this podcast about what
Speaker 1: Rachel Reeves could do to allow growth rather than to
Speaker 1: pretend that she can create growth. So I would suggest
Speaker 1: anyone who wants to hear a little more about that
Speaker 1: goes back to the podcast that we did with Simon French,
Speaker 1: which was excellent on all that, the main thing being that.
Speaker 3: If Rachel really believes that growth.
Speaker 1: Is a fight, she's fighting the wrong thing. You know,
Speaker 1: she doesn't need to fight. She needs to get out
Speaker 1: of the way. Less fighting, less fighting, and less of
Speaker 1: course you are fighting the course, which he's going to
Speaker 1: be doing for a while. Onto something, John, Onto something
Speaker 1: that you've written about a lot this week and which
Speaker 1: we already released what we don't call an emergency podcast
Speaker 1: but we call an early podcast on Tuesday. AI Deep
Speaker 1: Seek and the effect on the US technology sector. Are
Speaker 1: you in the camp that says deep Seek It's great.
Speaker 1: Everything just goes better for US tech as a result
Speaker 1: of Deep Seek, and we should all buy more and
Speaker 1: more in video or are you in the camp that says, oh, look,
Speaker 1: China one, this stuff can be done cheaply and easily
Speaker 1: with low energy. Therefore, no one wants to own a
Speaker 1: video chips anymore. It's all over for them, and it's
Speaker 1: all over everyone who's spent billions and billions and billions
Speaker 1: on building or attempting to build an AI infrastructure that
Speaker 1: doesn't look like it's already needed. Oh, and could buy
Speaker 1: nuclear energy at the same time. Oh, you could be
Speaker 1: somewhere in the middle. I guess, But those are the
Speaker 1: two camps, right.
Speaker 2: Don't think I mean I that camp, and I think
Speaker 2: the only count I'm actually in is more that this
Speaker 2: has remainded people, That unexpected stuff throws spinals in the
Speaker 2: walks all the team and the one the mental problem
Speaker 2: here has been the AI bubble. I feel like, let's
Speaker 2: call it the AI bubble has been massively overinflated. So
Speaker 2: stocks are very overvalued compared to anything but the most
Speaker 2: perfect event unfolding. And the one thing that Deepseek shows
Speaker 2: is that you don't know the future paths. You can't
Speaker 2: assume that it's going to be perfect, and you can't
Speaker 2: assume that in the video is going to be the
Speaker 2: only contender for the rest of eternity, and therefore probably
Speaker 2: there should be a little more room for uncertainty in
Speaker 2: the price, which means that the current price, or the
Speaker 2: price you know, a couple of days ago, was probably
Speaker 2: not the right price. And I think that's about the
Speaker 2: only useful thing that especially, I mean anno specialist like me,
Speaker 2: but even you know, the specialists unfortunate. If you're a
Speaker 2: non specialist, you don't know the details we are talking about.
Speaker 2: But if you're a specialist, you're two way far too
Speaker 2: into the details to be able to give a decent
Speaker 2: big picture look. So I think that, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: I think that's it. I think all we knew before,
Speaker 2: for almost sure, was that these thoughts were overvalued. And
Speaker 2: this is a remainder why they were overvalues, because they
Speaker 2: were placing and perfection rather than anything else.
Speaker 1: My takes would be that one exactly never pay for
Speaker 1: perfect because you're never going to get perfect. And you know,
Speaker 1: the dynamic of of all of history is that some
Speaker 1: technology that looks expensive and difficult is always disrupted by
Speaker 1: someone who can do it at a fraction of the cost,
Speaker 1: where a fraction of the effort happens every single time.
Speaker 1: That would be my first takeaway. The second one would
Speaker 1: be the weirdness of I don't know when when you
Speaker 1: and I were reading all the stuff about Davos, where
Speaker 1: we weren't by the way, you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: the talk at Davos was about deep seek, right, this
Speaker 1: was new information. It had been out there before, but
Speaker 1: it only hit the stock market on Monday. That was
Speaker 1: really interesting because everyone's at worst talking about how there
Speaker 1: you know, the market gets hold of information before anybody
Speaker 1: else and it's a perfect waging machine.
Speaker 3: E cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But actually it was a long time in market terms
Speaker 1: for the information about deep seek and what it could
Speaker 1: do and how it had been trained to do it
Speaker 1: to move from DeVos chatter to the market. Information doesn't
Speaker 1: matter until suddenly it really mattered. That's also I thought
Speaker 1: very interesting. Yeah, that from the non expert point of view,
Speaker 1: cheap AI might not be good for big tech, and
Speaker 1: might not be good for anyone who's just promised to
Speaker 1: check one hundred billion into Donald Trump's AI infrastructure ideas.
Speaker 1: Maybe not good for that, but really good surely for
Speaker 1: productivity across the board, which brings us back to poor
Speaker 1: Rachel Reeves and her desperation to create growth. But she
Speaker 1: might not necessarily have to do that. But she can't
Speaker 1: do that, but she might be able to step back
Speaker 1: and just say, well, hang on, if cheap AI is
Speaker 1: out there and it's going to make its way round
Speaker 1: the economy without her having to do anything, that could
Speaker 1: be conceivably a huge cheap productivity boat boost will give
Speaker 1: us growth anyway, not just here but in the US
Speaker 1: of course as well. And then we have the classic
Speaker 1: situation where you have a bubble, massive capex bubble. You
Speaker 1: have the creation of the technology of some kind or another.
Speaker 1: You have a product productivity boom, but we don't actually
Speaker 1: see any profitability to the big companies. You may have
Speaker 1: developed the technology in the first place for a good decade,
Speaker 1: like well, like the Internet, like railways, all.
Speaker 3: This kind of thing.
Speaker 1: I'm amusing myself at the moment looking at mini bubbles,
Speaker 1: and you know, the AI bubble fits perfectly into the
Speaker 1: dynamic of a mini bubble right above a sector bubble
Speaker 1: inside a market.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I mean's this it's one of those. It's
Speaker 2: like a productive bubble. So like the entern they ultimately
Speaker 2: boys our productive bubble and the minute boss that I
Speaker 2: actually didn't cause that much damage. It's only when you've
Speaker 2: get stuff like properly that you've got a real problem.
Speaker 2: But you know, I mean, the the I thing I
Speaker 2: do find fascinating then you know, I mean, obviously if
Speaker 2: they've found the way they do chat GP, but like
Speaker 2: you know, one hundredfold cheaper, it's then that's that's great.
Speaker 2: That's like, you know, that's fantastic. It's very hard to
Speaker 2: say that's a bad thing. My going back to Rachel
Speaker 2: Reeves and growth. The one issue that I have and
Speaker 2: just to be clear, I'm not an AI skeptic. I
Speaker 2: can see that it's useful for stuff, but the sorts
Speaker 2: of things that it would be really useful for, like
Speaker 2: the kind of you know, AI and medicine, AI and law.
Speaker 2: I can see that sort of stuff being kind of
Speaker 2: held up by you know, the guilds, if you like,
Speaker 2: in those areas the human element rather than the technological element.
Speaker 2: And I think that is again that's sort of is
Speaker 2: a little bit like what we've been talking about earlier.
Speaker 2: We you know, the kind of battle against the courts
Speaker 2: to actually get anything done. It's not that we can't
Speaker 2: do any of this stuff. Is that if you like,
Speaker 2: the kind of social structures around them are stopping is
Speaker 2: you know, it's highly qualified lawyers and highly qualified doctors
Speaker 2: aren't going to want to introduce you know, it can
Speaker 2: have EI and the workflow for the same reason the
Speaker 2: printer was back when the print and unions were around.
Speaker 2: Didn't want desktop publishing software coming in and getting over
Speaker 2: that is going to be difficult. I think maybe I'm wrong, Yeah, just.
Speaker 3: The misery guts.
Speaker 1: I'm much more optimistic about it.
Speaker 2: It's true.
Speaker 1: I think ai AI is one of those things that
Speaker 1: can kind of, you know, creep creep through the system
Speaker 1: without being noticed in quite that way.
Speaker 3: But we will see.
Speaker 1: As you say, neither neither of us are proper experts
Speaker 1: here anyway that I want to go back if you
Speaker 1: don't mind. Two mini bubbles sector bubbles inside markets, okay,
Speaker 1: And obviously we have a we've collected a lot over
Speaker 1: the years, the Great Diving Bell bubble and you know
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. I've got a new one I've
Speaker 1: been looking at, which was the listed nursing home company bubble,
Speaker 1: the Fevered fifty they were called. That was a bubble
Speaker 1: in the late sixties and early seventies. Wow, you know,
Speaker 1: obviously there was a lot of all sorts of regulatory change.
Speaker 1: That meant that people started manically building nursing homes and
Speaker 1: they would list them before they'd finished the construction, all
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. There were only a couple listed
Speaker 1: in nineteen sixty six. By nineteen seventy there were ninety,
Speaker 1: and then suddenly the bottom fell out completely in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy one. There was a big fraud case. Of course,
Speaker 1: there's always a big fraud case, and that meant that
Speaker 1: everyone started going, whoa, whoa, whoa. We we can't return
Speaker 1: of twenty percent a year and you've got that much done.
Speaker 1: You haven't even built the nursing home yet. Over the
Speaker 1: collapse anyway, talking to someone about this the other day,
Speaker 1: and he said to me, had I ever heard of
Speaker 1: the great cryonics bubble crygenics bubble?
Speaker 2: Come?
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I cannot find anything about this on the
Speaker 1: internet anywhere, not even with the little use of AI.
Speaker 1: So this is a call out to our listeners. Does
Speaker 1: anybody know anything about the cryonics bubble or the cryogenics bubble,
Speaker 1: depending on what you call it, which I understand happened
Speaker 1: in the early eighties, when there was a great boom
Speaker 1: in the technology of freezing people's heads or freezing people's
Speaker 1: bodies to wake them up. Later on various scandals where
Speaker 1: bodies turned out not we've been frozen after all, people
Speaker 1: turning the electricity off at night, this kind of thing,
Speaker 1: and then this mini bubble crash. But I can find
Speaker 1: nothing about it. Anybody knows anything about this bubble, or
Speaker 1: indeed has another favorite mini bubble they'd like to tell
Speaker 1: us about.
Speaker 3: Please do get in touch. Was that in the US?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's really interesting. I have no idea.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's really interesting. But I have asked.
Speaker 1: I have asked our two favorite financial historians. I've asked
Speaker 1: Russell Napier and I've asked Eddie Chancellor. I've asked both
Speaker 1: of them if they know of the freezing people's body's bubble.
Speaker 2: And as I thought, what we are scooped, I mean,
Speaker 2: that would be tough to end up. We could have
Speaker 2: some of these heads in the Library of mistakes. That
Speaker 2: would be great.
Speaker 1: That It's not where I was expecting the conversation to go.
Speaker 1: But yes, we could indeed have a defrosted body in
Speaker 1: the Library of mistakes. I mean, the problem John of
Speaker 1: course is you know, and the reason why all these
Speaker 1: companies go wrong is because it's really really expensive to
Speaker 1: keep bodies frozen at an appropriate level so that you
Speaker 1: can bring them back.
Speaker 3: To life later.
Speaker 1: It's very expensive, very high fixed costs things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, you're not get brilliant cash flows from that
Speaker 2: business side.
Speaker 1: Well, each each body needs a permanent portfolio with it, right,
Speaker 1: So every time you take your body, it's like giving
Speaker 1: a house to the National Trust in the old days, right,
Speaker 1: you hand it over it and you have to give
Speaker 1: a portfolio for its upkeep at the same time.
Speaker 2: Ah, you know what it would be like a different
Speaker 2: benefit patient scheme exactly.
Speaker 1: So if you were to be a successful cryonics company,
Speaker 1: which clearly none of them were, you would also have
Speaker 1: to be a very expert manager of a permanent portfolio.
Speaker 1: And I'm guessing that these two skills don't normally go together.
Speaker 3: I think we need to end this podcast.
Speaker 2: No, I was just saying, there's an opportunity here. Well,
Speaker 2: you know, active managers another ESG. That's kind of going away,
Speaker 2: I know, but this is your chance, you know, or
Speaker 2: can like deep freeze deep frees of clients the cleogenic portfolio.
Speaker 2: So there's something going on here.
Speaker 3: I think we'll come back to this one. We'll come
Speaker 3: back to this one. Let's lets see if we can
Speaker 3: find a couple of.
Speaker 1: Fund managers who would tell us how they would run
Speaker 1: a permanent portfolio designed to finance the cost of keeping
Speaker 1: the original client's body frozen in. Definitely anyone who'd like
Speaker 1: to be on that part. Also do get in touch.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to this week's Marrin Talks Money debrief.
Speaker 1: If you like our show, rate review, and subscribe wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to follow me
Speaker 1: in John on ex or Twitter at marinas w and
Speaker 1: John Underscore Stepic. This episode was produced by Summersidi and
Speaker 1: Moses and Brendan Francis Newnham is our executive producer. Question
Speaker 1: and comments on this show and I think there might
Speaker 1: be a lot and all our shows always welcome. Our
Speaker 1: show email is Merrin Money at Bloomberg dot net.