May 14, 2025 • 17 mins
In this week's roundup, Merryn Somerset Webb, speaks with Money Distilled newsletter author John Stepek about new proposals to get pension funds to invest more in the UK, whether ISA allowances should be adjusted and UK Chancellor, Rachel Reeves's current performance.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Welcome to the Marrin
Talks Money Market Rap, where we talk about the biggest
moves in the market this week and what's driving them.
(00:24):
I'm marrying Something's that, web editor at large for Bloomberg
UK Wealth.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
And I'm joined Stebic, senior reporter at Bloomberg and author
of the Money Distilled newsletter.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Do you know what, John? Today, we're not going to
talk about the biggest moves in the market this week,
although we could up a lot, right, up a lot.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Up a lot, up a lot, and also also gold
down a bit.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Yeah, okay, Tech up a lot, gold down a bit.
Top tap for now. But you know, all this will
turn around in a heartbeat because it happens all the time.
So keep an eye on gold, keep an eye on tech.
There have been some interesting moves in the UK market.
Everyone go back and listen to the podcasts where are
I think for two sets, fund managers talk about how
marvelous berbarreas and how you should invest in Berberatus today alone.
(01:06):
But we're talking on Wednesday, by the way, up fifteen
percent to nearly fifteen percent when I last looked. So
if only people listen to all the podcasts. Everything will
be fine, right except for the bit when we keep
telling them not to invest in our US equities and
diversified by.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
The depth dice hard as you meet the point in
your newsletter the other day.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
I did, and you'd still have been way better off
in Europe a year to date. Anyway, I don't want
to dwell on that, because we talk about all this
stuff a lot. I want to actually today talk about
the UK and these two things that are floating around.
The first thing floating around being this this new deal
Mansion House that the seventeen of our biggest pench of
funds have agreed by the end of the decade to
(01:45):
have ten percent of their assets in private assets and
half of that so five percent of their assets in
UK private assets. So we're talking about unlisted companies, so
private equity of various sourts and infrastructure. So that's the
first thing that's going on. Second is this ongoing rumbling
conversation about cash ices and how they should be limited
(02:07):
and people shouldn't be allowed to keep very much catching
them and that cash should be redirected into public markets,
or that's the idea at the moment, not that this
two should be forced into private markets, but public markets.
So a shift to try and make pension funds get
out of listed equities and into unlisted stuff, and a
shift to try and make individual investors in their iss
(02:29):
get out of cash and into listeds. So two separate
things going on here, both actually really interesting. Do you
John approve of the Reeves plan to have five percent
of your pension money in UK private assets and ten
percent of your pension money in private assets all around?
(02:49):
I repeat your money because her ideas your money, yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Exactly, her ideas earn money.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
No, I don't particularly like the idea of being forced,
And if I'm honest, I'm not that keen on the
default being that either. I just don't think it's the
best time for pension funds to be mandated to go
into private assets, given that the private area in general
(03:18):
is generally regarded as not having quite caught up with
reality in terms of the value of the assets that
they hold firsts where interest rates currently are. So that
is one reason. The other reason is I want a
bit more detail on this mandation, like, so what.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
There isn't mandation yet? This is not mandation, This is
just voluntary about Rachel Reason When asked if she would
make it managaries one of our colleagues, a Bloomberg by
the way, she said never say never, which is kind
of irritated all the pension funds because they agreed to
do this on the basis that it wouldn't be mandatory
but a voluntary target. And now she's saying, oh, well,
(04:00):
they don't do it like it will be mandatory, so
you know, and she's managed to irritate everybody, not just
you and me for change, but everybody.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yeah, I mean, to be fair, I can see that's
just kind of average politicians caution, which she's sort of
being caught not ruling something out.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
You having a be kind day? You aren't you.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Having a wee kind.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Thing. It's hard.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
They can't win from that point of view, But I mean,
not that they necessarily should. Look, I think it's not
necessarily a great time to be buying into this sector,
this area, and also the idea that pension funds are
all agreeing to this off the back of what exactly
I mean. I think this is interesting because we often
(04:44):
talk here about whether it would be reasonable to say
that we're only going to give you a tax break
on certain parts of your eyes at if you invest
those in UK listed equities. And the reason that we
talk about that is because we think that capital markets
are important and that functioning capital markets are important. And also,
at the end of the day, one of the reasons
(05:05):
that UK equities have been so heavily sold out of
is because of regulatory intervention in other areas. So the
fact that define benefit pension schemes have become promises rather
than hopes over the course of the last forty fifty years,
which is forced that may sell out equities and buy
(05:26):
more points. So we talk about it in terms of
leaning against that, but this is more, this is something
completely different. Actually, it's kind of ten percent of the money.
Why should they go into private assis in the first place?
Speaker 1 (05:39):
The story you're going to be told is you go
into private equity because private equity has outperformed listed equities
over the long term. And so if pension funds do
not have a significant amount of money in private equity,
they will be, you know, not not doing their produciary
duty properly because they won't be making the best possible returns.
So therefore they have to go into private equity. Now
(05:59):
they're probably with that so many problems, but the main
problem is that that record of long term returns has
been made. And of course it's very difficult, by the way,
to know exactly what the returns from private equity are
because not everyone's telling you, you know, you can't listed equities,
you can see the performance is out there. Yeah, there's
a lot of kind of shoveling together of all the
different types of private equity, venture capital, etc. Not everyone
(06:22):
is declaring not everyone knows what the results does You can't.
You can't really be sure, but in general consensus that
private equity may have outperformed over the last fifteen twenty years,
but it's done that in a period when a debt
has been remarkably cheap. And a lot of the private
equity model is about leveraging up, getting companies, jamming them
full of debt, et cetera. That's a big part of
(06:43):
the model. And when debt is cheap, obviously that works really,
really well. And it's also we have to go back
to the beginning of the period when they weren't that
many people working in private equity, so it's quite easy
to come across cheap companies and you know, restructure them
in such a way that you could make them worth more.
But of course those is a long gun. Now the
private equity market is absolutely huge, this huge competition for
(07:03):
every single asset anymore by the way they used to be,
and of course the low interest rate environment has gone completely.
So you look at this environment and you say, well, okay,
there's a massive amount of money sitting around in private
equity investments, in the assets that it's very difficult to
flog on. At the moment, there isn't that much appetite
for IPOs. There's no way for no way for investors
(07:26):
to exit. So what do you need if you have
a business that is almost entirely institutional and those institutions
are going, oh, do you know what kind of had
enough of this? I'm not putting any more money in.
I'd really like to get some more money out. What
do you need? A big pile of new buyers. And
if that was you, what would you do? You'd go?
Do you know what? Seems to me that pension funds
(07:48):
would not be doing their for duciary duty if they
didn't hold a whole loado I don't know, maybe ten
percent in private equity. Would you like some private equity
rates because you're we've got some around the back. I
can bring it right out, am I being to cecle? No?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I mean I think the backholder of last resort is
you know, one element of this for definitely, and I
guess the UK angle, Well, the problem there is you
think is this just all going to get piled into
you know, things like wind farms or anything that Ed
millerband kind of like puts his stamp on and that. Again,
(08:24):
this is completely separate from other conversations about should we
be supporting the UK public markets, where yes, you know,
by saying you won't get tax relief unless you invest
at least some of it in the public markets was
a whole different conversation.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
It's the one thing, private markets are a totally different
thing and infrastructure is a totally different thing.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Well, the other thing I'm curious about in this havn't
got the figures on this. Unfortunately, perhaps I should have
done my homework before I came on.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
One job jump.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Yeah exactly. But so we've got these seventeen pension points
talking about this. I mean presumably they already hold a
chunk and private assets.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
O I can't get I have looked it up actually,
and it's well under two percent for most of them.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Oh that's centrist as.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Far as I can see. Happy to be corrected on
that if anyone knows more precise numbers. But the middle
of research I was doing early suggested we really are
in the very very low single leship percentages. So so
the answer kind of know that they haven't gone there.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
So basically we are the Johnny come latelies as well
on top of the else. Oh yeah, that's good to know.
So having sold everything to Australian Canadian pension finds them
having wrong the best of tons out of them. Well,
and it's what's coming down. We are now going to
buy them back.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Worse, we're gonna we're going to force our pensioners to
invest in new projects government government decided government run at
very high interest rates. So we see how that pans
out because the pension funds will have to insist on some
kind of guaranteed return or some sort with infratuxture projects.
So this is gonna be very interesting. But we haven't
got there yet. I will say, by the way, I
don't know if you've noticed that there has been a
(10:12):
lot of talk in US private equity as well about
how this is a fabulous opportunity and it is time
for everyone to take a pile of private equity into
their four O one case. So you know, this is
not just a UK private equity thing, it's a US
private equity thing as well. How can we how can
we get somebody else to back up the truck and
take the stuff off our hands? And you know, the
(10:33):
retail infestors are out there for their very purpose.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
If I was these guys, then I would be drumming
up the APU R market again at least try and
get some excitement about reequitization. You know, at the end
of the daily what's better than a passive fund coming
along with this kind of relentless bed and just buying
up the stuff that you're offloording.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
But what John, what John will really? What will do
that for us? There is something that will make the
UK market go berserk, for example, and everyone want to
ipo here And that's something that's something is everyone's eyes
of money being channeled out of their cash ices and
into the market. Yes, can we disapprove.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Of that channeled? Yeah? Look, I mean I've said this
before the sort of like the tying vestiges of my
kind of like libertarian twenties, sort of like twitch against
the idea of you know, oh no, the government shouldn't
be interfered with this or interfered with that. But it's
not as if the government isn't already interfering in every
other kind of like layer of the kind of savings market.
(11:42):
So I don't think there's anything wrong we suggest and
that a they kind of cash allowance should be lower
than it is, or be that some it would be
fine to say some of your money has to go
into UK markets if you point to get that actually
for an aser for example.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
I agree. And we've talked about this before. Remember how
much we approved of the Britte Icer. And let's be honest,
this is really just a new iteration of the Brittan Icer,
isn't it. Yeah?
Speaker 2 (12:11):
And I mean stupidly with the flag taken off it,
because you know, just if you want, if you want
to give it a bit of publicity, then you know,
I realize there's a low, kind of high maintained people
who object to anything that's got the flag going it.
But most normal people don't bring out the bunting all
around on this podcast. Yeah, exactly, exactly right.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
We have we actually have a report on that feeds
into this which we both found very interesting in this
by my old friend doun La Mondasrodis, and he has
taken a look at what your returns would be if
you simply stayed in cash for the twenty years running
up to twenty twenty three, or if you had invested
in global equities, and he really makes it extremely clear
(12:58):
that if you keep your money in cash, you are
missing out on an awful lot of money. You've been
what they call recklessly cautious. You know, you've tried so
hard to be cautious that you've actually ended up being
rather reckless because you've made a significant negative difference to
your future.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Yeah, I mean it's the ten tax years up to
April twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Sorry, not the twenty to ten apologies.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Yeah, well even worse because so in the ten tax years,
essentially if you stuck on the money in global stocks
instead of a cash hezer, you'd now be more than
also collective way, we would be more than five hundred
billion better off, and as dunkin points, so that's about
twenty percent the UK GDP, So that is a huge
(13:43):
amount of wealth creation missed out on by individuals, which
strikes me, as you know, that's a real issue. And
all right, you can't say that all of that money
should have been invested in stockstyle and cash, because, as
Dunkin points out, everyone needs an emergency fund, and as
(14:03):
we've discussed here before, if you're retiring, then you probably
need but you do need significantly more cash than you
normally would to smooth your time in case something bad
hams in the stock market. But even putting those aside,
there's clearly a lot of excess cash saving going on
that could be in the stock market. And the point
is that it would almost certainly then make more money,
(14:25):
because that's the only reason. You know, we wouldn't be
sitting here talking about this every week if it wasn't
for the fact that over the long term, the stock
market does beat inflation and it does beat cash. You know,
if this was something that genuinely was up for debate,
then we wouldn't we wouldn't be constantly repeating it. It's like,
over the long term, it beats it. And yeah, you know,
(14:47):
you can say that if you'd stuck out your money
in Japan in nineteen ninety. Well then what would have happened,
But you wouldn't have done that, you know, you you
put it in diversified global markets blah blah blah, and
you do it a month at a time. Nobody puts
their lifetime earnings in the stock market on one day
that happens to be the peak. So you know, this
(15:08):
is the point. And it's just as Duncan's sort of
really getting that we need a culture shift whereby we
acknowledge that cash actually over the long run is risky
because it's probably going to get eroaded away by inflation.
And Duncan doesn't talk about property, but we should have
a serious conversation about how it sees because people still
(15:30):
see that as being you know, bricks and water. You
can't go wrong with bricks and waters, when in fact,
actually it's a leveraged asset. You and if you're only
buying one of them, then anything could happen to that
bricks and water, well.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
And leverage asset with quite a high carrying cost. Yes,
And as I'm going to read read you this one
sentence from Duncan, which is very compelling. The real risk
for most people. Is not the risk of losing money
in the show term, but the risk of not achieving
your long run goal to be there a comfortable time
and house purchase, providing financial suport to your children, or
simply making sure your savings keep pace with inflation. This
(16:06):
is the risk of not taking enough risk. So I
think it's fair to say that Duncan in this arena
at least is on Rachel Reeves side.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Right, Yeah, I think that would be fair to say.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
And we are too, or you are too. I think
I am too.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Yeah, I mean, I'm sure they'll find a way mess
it up and make it something that we don't like,
but the principletensible. I think it's a it's a good idea.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
All right. Well, we'll come back to why we don't
like it when when it actually happens. Thanks John, Thanks
thanks for listening to this week's maryn Talks Money de Briefly.
If you like USh are rate, review, and subscribe wherever
you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to follow me
and John on exor Twitter. I'm at marinas w and
(16:54):
John is John Underscore Stepic. This episode was produced by
Summersadia Moses and The Question Comments on this show and
all our shows are always welcome. Our show email Ismerimany
at bloomberg dot net.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Welcome to the Marrin
Talks Money Market Rap, where we talk about the biggest
moves in the market this week and what's driving them.
(00:24):
I'm marrying Something's that, web editor at large for Bloomberg
UK Wealth.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
And I'm joined Stebic, senior reporter at Bloomberg and author
of the Money Distilled newsletter.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Do you know what, John? Today, we're not going to
talk about the biggest moves in the market this week,
although we could up a lot, right, up a lot.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Up a lot, up a lot, and also also gold
down a bit.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Yeah, okay, Tech up a lot, gold down a bit.
Top tap for now. But you know, all this will
turn around in a heartbeat because it happens all the time.
So keep an eye on gold, keep an eye on tech.
There have been some interesting moves in the UK market.
Everyone go back and listen to the podcasts where are
I think for two sets, fund managers talk about how
marvelous berbarreas and how you should invest in Berberatus today alone.
(01:06):
But we're talking on Wednesday, by the way, up fifteen
percent to nearly fifteen percent when I last looked. So
if only people listen to all the podcasts. Everything will
be fine, right except for the bit when we keep
telling them not to invest in our US equities and
diversified by.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
The depth dice hard as you meet the point in
your newsletter the other day.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
I did, and you'd still have been way better off
in Europe a year to date. Anyway, I don't want
to dwell on that, because we talk about all this
stuff a lot. I want to actually today talk about
the UK and these two things that are floating around.
The first thing floating around being this this new deal
Mansion House that the seventeen of our biggest pench of
funds have agreed by the end of the decade to
(01:45):
have ten percent of their assets in private assets and
half of that so five percent of their assets in
UK private assets. So we're talking about unlisted companies, so
private equity of various sourts and infrastructure. So that's the
first thing that's going on. Second is this ongoing rumbling
conversation about cash ices and how they should be limited
(02:07):
and people shouldn't be allowed to keep very much catching
them and that cash should be redirected into public markets,
or that's the idea at the moment, not that this
two should be forced into private markets, but public markets.
So a shift to try and make pension funds get
out of listed equities and into unlisted stuff, and a
shift to try and make individual investors in their iss
(02:29):
get out of cash and into listeds. So two separate
things going on here, both actually really interesting. Do you
John approve of the Reeves plan to have five percent
of your pension money in UK private assets and ten
percent of your pension money in private assets all around?
(02:49):
I repeat your money because her ideas your money, yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Exactly, her ideas earn money.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
No, I don't particularly like the idea of being forced,
And if I'm honest, I'm not that keen on the
default being that either. I just don't think it's the
best time for pension funds to be mandated to go
into private assets, given that the private area in general
(03:18):
is generally regarded as not having quite caught up with
reality in terms of the value of the assets that
they hold firsts where interest rates currently are. So that
is one reason. The other reason is I want a
bit more detail on this mandation, like, so what.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
There isn't mandation yet? This is not mandation, This is
just voluntary about Rachel Reason When asked if she would
make it managaries one of our colleagues, a Bloomberg by
the way, she said never say never, which is kind
of irritated all the pension funds because they agreed to
do this on the basis that it wouldn't be mandatory
but a voluntary target. And now she's saying, oh, well,
(04:00):
they don't do it like it will be mandatory, so
you know, and she's managed to irritate everybody, not just
you and me for change, but everybody.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yeah, I mean, to be fair, I can see that's
just kind of average politicians caution, which she's sort of
being caught not ruling something out.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
You having a be kind day? You aren't you.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Having a wee kind.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Thing. It's hard.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
They can't win from that point of view, But I mean,
not that they necessarily should. Look, I think it's not
necessarily a great time to be buying into this sector,
this area, and also the idea that pension funds are
all agreeing to this off the back of what exactly
I mean. I think this is interesting because we often
(04:44):
talk here about whether it would be reasonable to say
that we're only going to give you a tax break
on certain parts of your eyes at if you invest
those in UK listed equities. And the reason that we
talk about that is because we think that capital markets
are important and that functioning capital markets are important. And also,
at the end of the day, one of the reasons
(05:05):
that UK equities have been so heavily sold out of
is because of regulatory intervention in other areas. So the
fact that define benefit pension schemes have become promises rather
than hopes over the course of the last forty fifty years,
which is forced that may sell out equities and buy
(05:26):
more points. So we talk about it in terms of
leaning against that, but this is more, this is something
completely different. Actually, it's kind of ten percent of the money.
Why should they go into private assis in the first place?
Speaker 1 (05:39):
The story you're going to be told is you go
into private equity because private equity has outperformed listed equities
over the long term. And so if pension funds do
not have a significant amount of money in private equity,
they will be, you know, not not doing their produciary
duty properly because they won't be making the best possible returns.
So therefore they have to go into private equity. Now
(05:59):
they're probably with that so many problems, but the main
problem is that that record of long term returns has
been made. And of course it's very difficult, by the way,
to know exactly what the returns from private equity are
because not everyone's telling you, you know, you can't listed equities,
you can see the performance is out there. Yeah, there's
a lot of kind of shoveling together of all the
different types of private equity, venture capital, etc. Not everyone
(06:22):
is declaring not everyone knows what the results does You can't.
You can't really be sure, but in general consensus that
private equity may have outperformed over the last fifteen twenty years,
but it's done that in a period when a debt
has been remarkably cheap. And a lot of the private
equity model is about leveraging up, getting companies, jamming them
full of debt, et cetera. That's a big part of
(06:43):
the model. And when debt is cheap, obviously that works really,
really well. And it's also we have to go back
to the beginning of the period when they weren't that
many people working in private equity, so it's quite easy
to come across cheap companies and you know, restructure them
in such a way that you could make them worth more.
But of course those is a long gun. Now the
private equity market is absolutely huge, this huge competition for
(07:03):
every single asset anymore by the way they used to be,
and of course the low interest rate environment has gone completely.
So you look at this environment and you say, well, okay,
there's a massive amount of money sitting around in private
equity investments, in the assets that it's very difficult to
flog on. At the moment, there isn't that much appetite
for IPOs. There's no way for no way for investors
(07:26):
to exit. So what do you need if you have
a business that is almost entirely institutional and those institutions
are going, oh, do you know what kind of had
enough of this? I'm not putting any more money in.
I'd really like to get some more money out. What
do you need? A big pile of new buyers. And
if that was you, what would you do? You'd go?
Do you know what? Seems to me that pension funds
(07:48):
would not be doing their for duciary duty if they
didn't hold a whole loado I don't know, maybe ten
percent in private equity. Would you like some private equity
rates because you're we've got some around the back. I
can bring it right out, am I being to cecle? No?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I mean I think the backholder of last resort is
you know, one element of this for definitely, and I
guess the UK angle, Well, the problem there is you
think is this just all going to get piled into
you know, things like wind farms or anything that Ed
millerband kind of like puts his stamp on and that. Again,
(08:24):
this is completely separate from other conversations about should we
be supporting the UK public markets, where yes, you know,
by saying you won't get tax relief unless you invest
at least some of it in the public markets was
a whole different conversation.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
It's the one thing, private markets are a totally different
thing and infrastructure is a totally different thing.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Well, the other thing I'm curious about in this havn't
got the figures on this. Unfortunately, perhaps I should have
done my homework before I came on.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
One job jump.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Yeah exactly. But so we've got these seventeen pension points
talking about this. I mean presumably they already hold a
chunk and private assets.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
O I can't get I have looked it up actually,
and it's well under two percent for most of them.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Oh that's centrist as.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Far as I can see. Happy to be corrected on
that if anyone knows more precise numbers. But the middle
of research I was doing early suggested we really are
in the very very low single leship percentages. So so
the answer kind of know that they haven't gone there.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
So basically we are the Johnny come latelies as well
on top of the else. Oh yeah, that's good to know.
So having sold everything to Australian Canadian pension finds them
having wrong the best of tons out of them. Well,
and it's what's coming down. We are now going to
buy them back.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Worse, we're gonna we're going to force our pensioners to
invest in new projects government government decided government run at
very high interest rates. So we see how that pans
out because the pension funds will have to insist on some
kind of guaranteed return or some sort with infratuxture projects.
So this is gonna be very interesting. But we haven't
got there yet. I will say, by the way, I
don't know if you've noticed that there has been a
(10:12):
lot of talk in US private equity as well about
how this is a fabulous opportunity and it is time
for everyone to take a pile of private equity into
their four O one case. So you know, this is
not just a UK private equity thing, it's a US
private equity thing as well. How can we how can
we get somebody else to back up the truck and
take the stuff off our hands? And you know, the
(10:33):
retail infestors are out there for their very purpose.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
If I was these guys, then I would be drumming
up the APU R market again at least try and
get some excitement about reequitization. You know, at the end
of the daily what's better than a passive fund coming
along with this kind of relentless bed and just buying
up the stuff that you're offloording.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
But what John, what John will really? What will do
that for us? There is something that will make the
UK market go berserk, for example, and everyone want to
ipo here And that's something that's something is everyone's eyes
of money being channeled out of their cash ices and
into the market. Yes, can we disapprove.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Of that channeled? Yeah? Look, I mean I've said this
before the sort of like the tying vestiges of my
kind of like libertarian twenties, sort of like twitch against
the idea of you know, oh no, the government shouldn't
be interfered with this or interfered with that. But it's
not as if the government isn't already interfering in every
other kind of like layer of the kind of savings market.
(11:42):
So I don't think there's anything wrong we suggest and
that a they kind of cash allowance should be lower
than it is, or be that some it would be
fine to say some of your money has to go
into UK markets if you point to get that actually
for an aser for example.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
I agree. And we've talked about this before. Remember how
much we approved of the Britte Icer. And let's be honest,
this is really just a new iteration of the Brittan Icer,
isn't it. Yeah?
Speaker 2 (12:11):
And I mean stupidly with the flag taken off it,
because you know, just if you want, if you want
to give it a bit of publicity, then you know,
I realize there's a low, kind of high maintained people
who object to anything that's got the flag going it.
But most normal people don't bring out the bunting all
around on this podcast. Yeah, exactly, exactly right.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
We have we actually have a report on that feeds
into this which we both found very interesting in this
by my old friend doun La Mondasrodis, and he has
taken a look at what your returns would be if
you simply stayed in cash for the twenty years running
up to twenty twenty three, or if you had invested
in global equities, and he really makes it extremely clear
(12:58):
that if you keep your money in cash, you are
missing out on an awful lot of money. You've been
what they call recklessly cautious. You know, you've tried so
hard to be cautious that you've actually ended up being
rather reckless because you've made a significant negative difference to
your future.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Yeah, I mean it's the ten tax years up to
April twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Sorry, not the twenty to ten apologies.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Yeah, well even worse because so in the ten tax years,
essentially if you stuck on the money in global stocks
instead of a cash hezer, you'd now be more than
also collective way, we would be more than five hundred
billion better off, and as dunkin points, so that's about
twenty percent the UK GDP, So that is a huge
(13:43):
amount of wealth creation missed out on by individuals, which
strikes me, as you know, that's a real issue. And
all right, you can't say that all of that money
should have been invested in stockstyle and cash, because, as
Dunkin points out, everyone needs an emergency fund, and as
(14:03):
we've discussed here before, if you're retiring, then you probably
need but you do need significantly more cash than you
normally would to smooth your time in case something bad
hams in the stock market. But even putting those aside,
there's clearly a lot of excess cash saving going on
that could be in the stock market. And the point
is that it would almost certainly then make more money,
(14:25):
because that's the only reason. You know, we wouldn't be
sitting here talking about this every week if it wasn't
for the fact that over the long term, the stock
market does beat inflation and it does beat cash. You know,
if this was something that genuinely was up for debate,
then we wouldn't we wouldn't be constantly repeating it. It's like,
over the long term, it beats it. And yeah, you know,
(14:47):
you can say that if you'd stuck out your money
in Japan in nineteen ninety. Well then what would have happened,
But you wouldn't have done that, you know, you you
put it in diversified global markets blah blah blah, and
you do it a month at a time. Nobody puts
their lifetime earnings in the stock market on one day
that happens to be the peak. So you know, this
(15:08):
is the point. And it's just as Duncan's sort of
really getting that we need a culture shift whereby we
acknowledge that cash actually over the long run is risky
because it's probably going to get eroaded away by inflation.
And Duncan doesn't talk about property, but we should have
a serious conversation about how it sees because people still
(15:30):
see that as being you know, bricks and water. You
can't go wrong with bricks and waters, when in fact,
actually it's a leveraged asset. You and if you're only
buying one of them, then anything could happen to that
bricks and water, well.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
And leverage asset with quite a high carrying cost. Yes,
And as I'm going to read read you this one
sentence from Duncan, which is very compelling. The real risk
for most people. Is not the risk of losing money
in the show term, but the risk of not achieving
your long run goal to be there a comfortable time
and house purchase, providing financial suport to your children, or
simply making sure your savings keep pace with inflation. This
(16:06):
is the risk of not taking enough risk. So I
think it's fair to say that Duncan in this arena
at least is on Rachel Reeves side.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Right, Yeah, I think that would be fair to say.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
And we are too, or you are too. I think
I am too.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Yeah, I mean, I'm sure they'll find a way mess
it up and make it something that we don't like,
but the principletensible. I think it's a it's a good idea.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
All right. Well, we'll come back to why we don't
like it when when it actually happens. Thanks John, Thanks
thanks for listening to this week's maryn Talks Money de Briefly.
If you like USh are rate, review, and subscribe wherever
you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to follow me
and John on exor Twitter. I'm at marinas w and
(16:54):
John is John Underscore Stepic. This episode was produced by
Summersadia Moses and The Question Comments on this show and
all our shows are always welcome. Our show email Ismerimany
at bloomberg dot net.
Host
Merryn Somerset Webb
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.