September 24, 2025 • 26 mins
In lieu of a personal finance episode this week, Merryn Somerset Webb and John Stepek host a mailbag session answering listener questions on pensions, taxation, absolute return funds, and the risks around UK debt. They clarify common misconceptions, discuss practical investment considerations, and explore how policy decisions could shape the financial outlook.
As always, send thoughts to merrynmoney@bloomberg.net
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 Meren Dog's
Your Money, the personal finance edition of Meron Talks Money
and these bonus podcasts we talk about the best strategudes
(00:25):
and making the most of your money. I am Meren
Sumset Web Bloomberg UK Wealth Editor at Large and with me,
of course award winning. There's another award, isn't there John
Award winning Senior a border and author of the Money
digital newsletter John Stebeck. Hi, John, tell us about your award.
Come on, get it over with.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I am I'd say I'm not looted because it's some
pard I'd tell you. So anyway, there you go.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Okay, well watch this space everyone. So that's exciting news
and award. We can't tell you about it. And also
the other thing I wanted to tell you is that
it's rapture week. Woo.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yeah, that's sort of some mutterings about this, but I'm
not really I think I've avoided the topic.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Yeah, you're missing all the important stuff. Time to have
out there in the world is ending. Well. Actually, I'll
tell you what, listeners, if you hear this podcast, it
probably hasn't happened because today we're recording on Tuesday, and
that is the end of the world day, according to
those who believe in the rapture of of course, having
thought of that, think about that little further, John, I'm
kind of guessing that neither you or I are going
(01:25):
to be lifted up. So actually you'll probably hear this
podcast anyway. Our producers will still be on, it will
still be here, maybe maybe not. M will change and
I'm just going to leave that topic completely.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Literally enjoying meldonn talks money in hell. That's a nice
part for the weekend.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
I was hoping for Pergetry.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
No such thing at the pool, I think, really, yeah,
did they not change his mains with that? Or was
that lumble? So that might have been lumble. Even though
we are getting weired on then, I have.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Not been fully focused. I we'll come back to this
another time anyway. Luckily we have a very informed and
very engaged this in a base. I'm pretty sure one
of them is going to email in and tell us
the difference between Purgatory and Limbo Go listeners. Now, we
are going to answer a few questions from our readers,
and one other thing that I want to address before
we get going on that. Lots of you will have
(02:16):
listened to the episode that I did last week with
Mark Wood, who's chairman of Everest's Funeral Concierge. We spoke
about with drawing the tax free amount from your pension
fund and the potential changes coming in twenty twenty seven
and what you might or might not do about that.
Lots of you already know exactly what you're doing. There's
been seventy billion quid pulled out of pension pots in
(02:36):
the last twelve months. Is people desperately try and get
ahead of any nasties coming up in the budget. Will
come on to that in a minute, but clarifying a
few points so I want to reiterate this and to
make absolutely clear what the reality is of this. Mark
suggested during our discussion that taking your twenty five percent
tax free at lump sum at age fifty five or
later means that you have effectively retired. I'm going no
(02:59):
longer put my mine into your pension with tax Really
that's not quite the whole story. It is correct that
from the normal minimum pension age, which is currently fifty five,
it will be up to fifty seven and twenty twenty
eight and trust me, it's going higher. You can access
up to twenty five percent of your pension pot tax free. Now,
if you also start taking taxable income I dro done
(03:21):
or more lump sums. At that point, something called the
Money Purchase Annual Allowance MPAA rules apply, and your future
tax relievable contributions are capped at ten thousand pounds a year.
There are also various rules around recycling, so you're not
allowed to take money out in your lump sum and
then shove it back in again. That's against the rules.
That's recycling. You will get in trouble, however, So what
(03:44):
this means is that withdrawing the lump sum alone and
not putting it back in again does not mean that
you are treated as retired. You can continue to contribute
to your pension and to receive tax police on those contributions,
subject to the standard annual allowance. Right that out of
the way, We've al then had quite a lot of
feedback about the data Helm interview. Not all of you
were happy with that. Maybe you don't have the opinions, etc.
(04:06):
But I thought it was personal excellent. But I would
wouldn't I, John, you weren't here for that interview or
on one of your many, many holidays. How you get
all these awards? I was on a beach. I don't know,
but you listened to this Pine and I hope you
did while you were on a sunny beach in Greece.
And by the way, everyone will while in the pre
chat before we started recording, John has been giving me
(04:26):
advice on way to go holiday in Greece, because that's
how often he's been on holidays. Yes, so while you
were in Greece listening to this what did you think
about it?
Speaker 2 (04:34):
I thought it was great, And I thought it was
great because I think it's the clearest explanation of what
the issues are surround in the line and intermittent sources
of energy for all of our energy, particularly in the UK,
and I have to see. The other thing I thought
was good was that I thought the detail pushed back
at you quite a few times whenever you raised points
(04:55):
by them. He's clearly not rapidly anti these sources of energy.
He's just pointing out the practical issues were over relying
on them. You know. So you said that faintly building
more of X and more of Y, it's just that
you need to be a weird of what the problems are.
So no, I thought it was really good.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Okay, interesting, But I do want to just add one
thing to that. Some people have commented that they see
that episode as political and leaning to the right. Now,
I think that brings us into a definition problem of
what is right wing and lot of what is left wing.
But either way, the intention of the show is not
to be political. We are concerned with the economic prosperity
of the UK and how we can make it better.
(05:36):
We're interested in abundance, we're interested in plenty, and we're
interested in wealth. Nadita was very frank regarding his opinions
on the UK's energy strategy and the performance thus far
of Ed Miliband. But this is not about politics from
his point of view. It's about research and it's about evidence.
(05:57):
And now on to today's show. In the spirit of
hearing from your listeners nicely, even maybe listening to your listeners,
we have decided to have a mail bag episode. We're
going to answer a few of the questions you've put
to us. Some of them you've sent to me directly,
some of them you sent to our email address, which
is Merror and Money at Bloomberg dot net for those
of you who haven't done it yet. So to kick
things off. And by the way, some of these questions
(06:18):
are more statements masquerading as questions, but we're going to
make them into questions to a degree. The first one,
the ostensibly the question is what can Rachel Reeves still tax?
And then Nigel, who's written and tells us what he
believes should still be taxed. I manage got quite a
long list of things that Rachel could still tax, but
I'm not sending it to So Nigel suggests that we
(06:40):
should tax all the things that we currently do not
pay for for all the things that are currently free.
So what this means, he says, is you effectively make
it illegal to sell anything below is actual cost plus
five percent. So all the things we get for free podcasts,
online exercise classes, online training, etcetera, etcetera, all these would
(07:04):
be put on the subscription model, and then a sales
tax is imposed on top. So Niger's wife, for example,
who uses a free Pilatus podcast compiled by people all
over the world, but her use of that podcast gives
no revenue to the UK government, she could be paying
a subscription and v eighteen Now, Nigel, I suspect that's
possibly the most unpopular thing that has ever been set
(07:26):
on this podcast, and it's a very very high bar, John.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
I mean, if the way to charge for free things
was just to put a place on the media in
this country, would not be in any trouble at all.
In a business model, we'd be at all and then
we'd all just launch substacks and take the money ourselves down.
I feel this is impractical. I also hope that Nigel's
wave doesn't listen to the podcast.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Yes, yes, I mean I suppose. The other thing I
would say is that you're right. If putting a price
on something meant meant that you could sell it, everyone
would have put a price on But if everything have
the same price on it, oh you.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Can eat Childs for the ear as well. I mean,
I stop lessening the podcast.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
We're just getting to that because I just said that
was the most unpopular thing ever said on this podcast.
But Nigel has raised his own bar with his second suggestion.
Ideal second suggestion is that the cost of a unit
of energy and of water should escalate pro rata to
the amount used so heavy users, by which I assume
he means that those were swimming pools would be paying
(08:31):
a lot more per unit for their top end use
than they would for the first few units. This would
encourage investment in energy and water saving devices, but also
provide funding to allow a very basic, tough to keep
within amount of energy and water to be made available
to every consumer for free. You're too good to us, Nigel.
I mean that if you find yourself unemployed, you still
have a little water to flush the loo and to drink. Well,
(08:52):
that's nice. This is essentially a wealth tax, Yes, it is,
but would end up driving the innovation to lower consumption
for all. Now, John, I'm going to let you have
your rant on this is a minute, but the risk
of sounding right wing, my own view on this is this, This,
this suggestion is exactly the problem that we should find
(09:13):
ways to use less, not just to be efficient. Because
we're all pro efficiency. Let's do more with less, but
let's not always aim to use less. Let's aim for abundance.
Let's aim for plenty. Let's aim for rising living standards.
Let's aim for long hot showers. Right, Let's not aim
to make stuff worse.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, I mean, I just I really dislike this. This
this sort of modalizing almost a bit something that is
also not you know, it's just it's not it shouldn't
be necessarily irrash and water in this country for the start,
And I mean one thing.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
I'm telling you there really is plenty of water, especially
a reservoir.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Yeah, I mean, I mean one thing, to be slightly fairly,
nigelized that some countries do actually price water and energy
along these lines, like I'm pretty sure that Portugal has it.
I don't think it's so much as a free bit,
but there is either are kind of domestic rates and
then industrial rates or whatever. Once you get above using
a certain amount, it jumps. And I guess that in
(10:19):
I can, particularly water scarce country like Portical, that is
maybe a more appealing approach. But also, I mean they are.
The other thing is so if you find your someone
employed still with water, flush the loo and they drink.
I mean there's lots of unemployed people in this country
and none of them are short of water. So actually
Nigel is sort of talking about a drastic change there.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
So I just maybe anyway, Nigel, I didn't mean to
be unkind. Please keep listening and please keep sending in
your ideas. We do appreciate them. It gives us something
to stoke a bad thank you. Right now, we're moving
on to Tristan and well, you know, as I say,
hi Bot, but boy, these people can jump it. This
(11:01):
is trust in wonders if there should be a tax
on social media. As a concerned parent, I'm with him there.
I am also a concerned parent when it comes to
social media. I'm against most forms of social media. So
I began to nickname it the toxic tax, for the
damage it is doing to young people in society as
a whole. Ah, okay, there is probably an applicable Adam
Smith quote. There is I should be adding here. I'll
(11:21):
find it later. I think the simplest way to think
of it is to use the cliche of there is
no such thing as a free lunch to highlight that
while people may consider the consumption of social media to
be free, they are paying for it in other ways.
I think most people, maybe not all in particularly not
young children, but most people understand that it's a straightforward
swap entertainment for data, addiction for data for implementation. I
(11:42):
was thinking that either a flat charge could be placed
on the mobile phone and broadband bills, but anyone wishing
to have their data social media enabled or potentially a
data dependent variable charge with a cap to avoid young
people racking up big bills, et cetera, etc. And then
he suggest the public WiFi is in cafes, library, schools, hotels, workplaces,
et cetera. Well, then have the option of restricting social
media or not as they wish. Now, this is all
(12:04):
about trying to repla reprise social media, to reflect the
negative externalities that they impost and to send a message
particularly the young people have heard damaging They are in
line with similar other activities drinking, smoking, driving. Now I
can't even begin to see how this can be implicated,
but nically I am all over it. This is an
absolutely fantastic idea. It should be taxed or well, okay, taxes,
(12:26):
maybe that is not that straightforward, but it should be disencouraged.
I listened to Tim Bernerdley speak the other day and
he had this very interesting idea about social media on phones,
because you know, he genuinely feels that this is a
terrible thing for a young people, a terrible thing for
our children, and it's one of the big downsides of
course to the World Wide Web that he actually invented,
(12:48):
and his thought was that there should be a specific
simple phone, initially designed specifically for children, for the under
sixteens with the under eighteens that cannot be social media enabled,
a simple old treashion phone that is only a phone
and a texting device and WhatsApp device. You know, maybe
they can have one or two things. It's involved, but
(13:09):
that's a that's a that's a blur thing, gray areas
all over the place. And you might say, well, this
phone already exists because you can use your your family
protections to chopple sorts of things off your children's phones,
and so you have to get permission if they download
this or down or downloads. But nonetheless, well.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
No, the actual phoone exists as well. They do have
you've got They're called domb points and there's a law.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Oh yes, yes, yes, not that young guy.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
That leads a bit who reading't this collapse and the
Taine John list, he's very good.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah, yeah, no, I know that the phone itself exists,
but that's not Tim's idea. Tim's idea is that this
is compulsory for the under sixteen. Oh okay, so in
the same way that you can't buy cigarettes. And I
don't know why can you buy cigarettes? I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well these days you can't I buy them, can you?
Because you under eighteen? And then it keeps rightchetting up
until you're going to be thoughty and you're not giving
a small ca Can I remember some stupid thing that
we soon acted in desperation before the last election.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
I've forgotten about that. I've forgotten about that. But basically
it's not about cigarettes. Yeah it's not. It's not. But
you know all those that is that constantly show that
most children say that they would love to not have
social media, but they have to have it. Everyone else
had it. If you could put maybe it's only fourteen,
maybe it's thirteen, maybe it's sixteen. I don't know, but
if you could put a blanket down. And I hate
(14:27):
banding stuff. I'm a libertarian, a hot but sometimes, you know,
you do look at this stuff and think, actually, maybe
it's time to do something.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
I agree with the basic point. And there is a
sort of reverse tragedy of the commons going on with
social media that you just pinpointed, which is that everybody
feels they have to use it, even thothough each individual
or most individuals are like I hate using this stuff
and looking at more in kids that feel the same
way about it, I think it's more of a find
in practical ways to do it. And I think I
(14:55):
think taxing it probably taxing it is like, for example,
seeing me thought when we actually got serious about smoking
and we banned it in pubs, that kind of went
against every liberty and instinct that I've got, but it
worked and it actually made going to the pub much
more pleasant for most people. And I think the problem
with this idea that tax is actually a form of
banning stuff is nonsense. I think what you have to
(15:17):
do is you have to if you think that something
should be banned, then ban it. If you don't, then
you know taxes should be raising for raising revenue. Ultimately,
too much of this social engineering that's going through the
tax system and it's busy. It's like we've sown a
whole load of weeds and now nobody knows what the
tax system is for, which is why we get so
many useless budgets coming up. So I think I think
(15:40):
Tristan's heart is in the right place. I think your
solution is completely kind of bonkers, and it just no way.
It shouldn't be on the tax system. It should be
on legislators to come up way away like Tim's suggested
of you know, rendering every smartphone illegal for the under
sixteens or whatever you want to do. I think that's far.
That is the root to go down and just confront
(16:00):
the fact that we are actually being anti libertarian. We
are saying that people not we don't think this is
suitable for kids, and so we're going to ban it
in this country. I think we just got to confront
these things head on, as opposed to you know, messing
around because you know what, you tax it, So what
it means that just the wealthy kids have got it
or the you know what, you know, you're just going
(16:23):
to you're going to entraine certain social me and girls
problems even worse.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Then, Okay, so don't tax, just ban I think what
you say about trying to use the wrong instruments for
the wrong things, you know, the idea of using the
tax system to try and disencourage things that maybe should
just be banned out right at the extent that we
agree with banning anything ever, and then things like you know,
using using GPS using the and it's just to police
the benefit system, using people working in call centers to
(16:48):
try and tell whether people are telling the truth or not.
We're using the wrong things for the wrong things. That's
a different podcast come back then.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Ye, but it means nut ideology has been actually has
been toxic, even if it was a good idea to
come about to start worth But anyway, Yeah, there is
another podcast. We should do something in that.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Yeah, we should really do something on nuge. We didn't
be the nudge guy once another? Right, anyway, moving on
this one is shifting away from banning stuff and taxing
stuff and back to investment outlook seems quite gloomy. Yeah,
it's tempting to allocate much more heavily to absolute return funds.
Funds like are gonna absolute returns Go Barry and API
(17:25):
effects have been delivering great returns for a number of
years now, and based on all the doom and gloom
I'm hearing about the global outlook, I'm wondering why I'm
invested in anything else. Absolute returns sounds rather than nice. Yet,
typically people don't invest more than twenty percent of their portfolio,
and such funds I'm not sure many people in verse
twenty percent in what factage I consider when thinking about
allocating more unusually like this, and it's interesting one John,
(17:45):
We've talked a lot about absolute return funds over the
over the years, and one of the questions one should
ask is why isn't every fund an absolute return fund?
The idea of relativity has always been ridiculous. That you
pay someone a lot of money and their job is
to beat an indoyk like that. Their job should be
to make you some more money than inflation. If you
just want inflation or a little bit more money than inflation,
(18:06):
then these days issues you can have a posit account.
That's nice. You couldn't for a long time, but now
you can. And if you want to have, you know,
a couple of percentage points above inflation, then you should
be able to go and buy an equity, an equity
or a multi multi asset fund, and you should be
relatively confident if your manager is competent, that you should
get that on a rolling three year basis. Right. That
seems entirely straight forward. An absolute return fund, by the way,
(18:29):
for anyone who is not experienced in this area, is
a it's effectively a multi asset fund that aims not
to track an index or not too slightly beaten index,
but just to give make you money every year. And
I can hear you going, we'll surely everyone's both to
do that. No, No, they're not.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Yeah, it's usually like inflation plus eight percent or something.
I mean, I think the big problem with absolutely ton
points is basically what you've said, and as a result
of what you're seeing, they all have different ideas about
it's level the absolutely tons. So I think if you
look inside the sector, you'll find there's quite a big
divergence in the best performers and the worst performers, and
(19:07):
also in what they hold. I mean, Argonaut is a
is a great fund, to be very clear, But usually
when people think about absolute return funds, I think they
would tend to believe that they would be on the
lower risk side of the spectrum and whatever else Argonaut
is and Barrie certainly wouldn't claim that it isn't. I
would say it's it's a higher risk on it in
(19:27):
terms of volatility, exposure to equities, exposure to things like
you know, Argentina and things like that. So and whereas
you know the other ones that are kind of you know,
maybe not as interesting or you know, I've had I
held a lot in bonds or gold or whatever. I
mean not gold. But you know, recently a lot of
the absolute return investment trusts have not done that well,
(19:50):
and I think I think this is the problem. You
really need to look at the individual fund. And I'm
not sure the label absolutely turn tells you very much
except giving you a rough idea that it's not bench
mark to anything specific other than inflation.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
I suppose the answer is it's not any easier than
investing in any other type of fund. Sorry, ten, Yeah,
but we we approved the concept right. Next question, bitcoin
investment via listed vehicles. You suggested this was new and
the market value to nav premium reflect discussing, I said,
we didn't suggest that it was new. We suggested that
the bitcoin treasury business was new to the UK. And
(20:26):
so Jeff suggests we look at the Gray Scale Investment Trust,
which is a US listed stock invested in bitcoin since
twenty thirteen. Got to hope some people were in that.
They literally went to a massive premium to nav net
as at value, then fell to a huge discount around
fifty percent, recovered to one hundred percent when he converted
into an ETF. Take a look and see if you
think the new listed bitcoin players just like gray Scale
(20:48):
did in its hey day. And the art of that
is yes, absolutely they do, and we agree entirely. He
finishes off by saying, do we not find historically that
investment trust that net as a value premiums quite often
tell you the underlying asset is fashionably overpriced. I think
you know the answer. Oh, we do we know that answer, John,
(21:10):
Do we know that answer?
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Yes? And I appreciate Jeffrey, And then to Taylor's.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Give us give us the opportunity to read out on
our side exactly, Thank you, jeff Okay, one more, one
more question, as you know, two more questions, but they're
kind of the same question. Actually. The first one is
fifty two billion pounds in debt. Seems like rather a
large problem. We've had a great ride this past eight months,
but we'll our UK debt and ravel it all horribly
(21:38):
somehow this autumn. That's from Stuart. Oh, hang on. The
next one is also from Stewart. Is it the same Stewart?
The next one different question? Jesus says it's a different Stewart. Hello,
Marion and John, I'm a regular listener. Follow up your
podcast there are any answer discussion on the doom loop
and what private investors should do in a doom loop. Well,
the first thing to say is that, boy, do I
(21:58):
have disappointing us for us Stewart number one, which is
that fifty two billion is nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing. In fact,
the UK level of debt is about two point nine
trillion pounds, which is closing in on one hundred percent
of GDP. Last year or the year up to and
the financial year March, we borrowed one hundred and forty
(22:20):
six billion pounds and we are spending eight and a
half billion pounds a year loan on interest payment and
by the way, and rising. So yes, going on three
trillion pounds worth of debt is a large problem, John,
You've got thoughts on that.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
No other than that the only upside, that's all, is
that we are not the only country to send that
situation and this technically, well, one thing I would make
clear is this technically should be manageable if the people
run in the country are competent enough to manage it properly.
And I think that actually is and I'm not even joking.
(23:01):
I think that is where we have the problem, right
though Britain does not need to be in as much
trouble as it's in. It needs more effective leadership and
that's the mess and con pointing.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Yeah, and the question here is what will happen? How
bad will it be? Our people watching? I mean, there
is that wonderful thing we say often in the UK
the world is watching. Were mostly it totally, totally, isn't
and simply doesn't care. When you look at the market,
there was I don't know if you wrote about this, John,
but the Bank of America the most recent survey is
(23:31):
showing that there flows out of the UK were huge
and you know, the biggest month about flows of equity
in the UK since the early two thousands, and global
alligators less keen since since the beginning of time, et cetera,
et cetera. But that's a survey that's not real life, right,
and so it's what they say rather than what they do.
And if you look at the market itself, there is
(23:51):
no evidence that there is a massive outflow of capital
from the UK equity market. Most of our indices are
not all of them, but the Footy one hundred is
knocking around US all time highs on the two fifty.
Isn't that far off, it's it's highest for the years.
Stelling is kind of okay, guilt heels have come down
a little bit. So I'm not for a second suggesting,
don't get me wrong, that there's anything good about the
UK economy or about well that's good things about the
(24:13):
UK economy, but about the UK public finances absolute rubbish,
remaining rubbish, and no clear plan to make them less rubbish.
But but that is something that for our equity markets
at least foreign investors are appear to be prepared to overlook.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Yeah yeah, And because it only marks to an extent
for the equity market, and the meanesture for the equity
market again is how the government can sorts it hurt.
This is the problem, because we're going to be all
set and chatting a bit less right up until the
hul Reeves sets down in November the twenty sixth, and
then beyond that we need to worry about whether she
can even make whatever she does stick with her own party,
(24:51):
because you know, we could end up getting the Chanceloran
and underplayment. It's still replaced at some point in the
next twelve months. That's certainly not beyind the bones of possibility.
But I do think that advice we joy that has
faced in the UK are political ones rather than financial ones,
because we are by no means the only country with
public finances this bad and it can be solved, and
(25:12):
we have the second fastest grown economy in the G
seven right now, which is you know, because the other
five are terrible. But it's still you know, it's still
something that we should be able to get out of
this if we can just get a better sense. And
that's the only thing that's messing well.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
As we keep saying, there's a lot wrong with the UK,
but there is nothing wrong with the UK that can't
be fixed by other policies. No, someone one day will
bring us those There's going to be a lot more
talk about this on this podcast over the next little while.
We've got a lot to say about tax and a
lot to say about budgets. But you know, we'll save
some of those joys for later in the month, shall we.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Good idea? Oh doom?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Look, by the way, what should you have in a
proper role? Doom loop? Well, I think you know the
answer is you're buying it already. It's probably cold. Yeah, Hi,
and it is out there. I'm listening to radio in
the car this morning, long chat about gold, and I
am also hearing from friends at the big asset Managers
that those fund managers who've been sniffy about gold for
ever are starting to buy it on their own account,
(26:14):
so you know, getting out there. Thanks for listening to
this week's Marry Drugs Your Money if you like or share, rate, review,
and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be short
follow me and John on x or Twitter at Marnis
w and John Underscore Steppack. This episode was produced by
Summersardi and Moses and questions and comments on this show
(26:36):
and all our shows are always welcome. Our show email
is Merri Money at Bloomberg dot net
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. Welcome to Meren Dog's
Your Money, the personal finance edition of Meron Talks Money
and these bonus podcasts we talk about the best strategudes
(00:25):
and making the most of your money. I am Meren
Sumset Web Bloomberg UK Wealth Editor at Large and with me,
of course award winning. There's another award, isn't there John
Award winning Senior a border and author of the Money
digital newsletter John Stebeck. Hi, John, tell us about your award.
Come on, get it over with.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
I am I'd say I'm not looted because it's some
pard I'd tell you. So anyway, there you go.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Okay, well watch this space everyone. So that's exciting news
and award. We can't tell you about it. And also
the other thing I wanted to tell you is that
it's rapture week. Woo.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yeah, that's sort of some mutterings about this, but I'm
not really I think I've avoided the topic.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Yeah, you're missing all the important stuff. Time to have
out there in the world is ending. Well. Actually, I'll
tell you what, listeners, if you hear this podcast, it
probably hasn't happened because today we're recording on Tuesday, and
that is the end of the world day, according to
those who believe in the rapture of of course, having
thought of that, think about that little further, John, I'm
kind of guessing that neither you or I are going
(01:25):
to be lifted up. So actually you'll probably hear this
podcast anyway. Our producers will still be on, it will
still be here, maybe maybe not. M will change and
I'm just going to leave that topic completely.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Literally enjoying meldonn talks money in hell. That's a nice
part for the weekend.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
I was hoping for Pergetry.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
No such thing at the pool, I think, really, yeah,
did they not change his mains with that? Or was
that lumble? So that might have been lumble. Even though
we are getting weired on then, I have.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Not been fully focused. I we'll come back to this
another time anyway. Luckily we have a very informed and
very engaged this in a base. I'm pretty sure one
of them is going to email in and tell us
the difference between Purgatory and Limbo Go listeners. Now, we
are going to answer a few questions from our readers,
and one other thing that I want to address before
we get going on that. Lots of you will have
(02:16):
listened to the episode that I did last week with
Mark Wood, who's chairman of Everest's Funeral Concierge. We spoke
about with drawing the tax free amount from your pension
fund and the potential changes coming in twenty twenty seven
and what you might or might not do about that.
Lots of you already know exactly what you're doing. There's
been seventy billion quid pulled out of pension pots in
(02:36):
the last twelve months. Is people desperately try and get
ahead of any nasties coming up in the budget. Will
come on to that in a minute, but clarifying a
few points so I want to reiterate this and to
make absolutely clear what the reality is of this. Mark
suggested during our discussion that taking your twenty five percent
tax free at lump sum at age fifty five or
later means that you have effectively retired. I'm going no
(02:59):
longer put my mine into your pension with tax Really
that's not quite the whole story. It is correct that
from the normal minimum pension age, which is currently fifty five,
it will be up to fifty seven and twenty twenty
eight and trust me, it's going higher. You can access
up to twenty five percent of your pension pot tax free. Now,
if you also start taking taxable income I dro done
(03:21):
or more lump sums. At that point, something called the
Money Purchase Annual Allowance MPAA rules apply, and your future
tax relievable contributions are capped at ten thousand pounds a year.
There are also various rules around recycling, so you're not
allowed to take money out in your lump sum and
then shove it back in again. That's against the rules.
That's recycling. You will get in trouble, however, So what
(03:44):
this means is that withdrawing the lump sum alone and
not putting it back in again does not mean that
you are treated as retired. You can continue to contribute
to your pension and to receive tax police on those contributions,
subject to the standard annual allowance. Right that out of
the way, We've al then had quite a lot of
feedback about the data Helm interview. Not all of you
were happy with that. Maybe you don't have the opinions, etc.
(04:06):
But I thought it was personal excellent. But I would
wouldn't I, John, you weren't here for that interview or
on one of your many, many holidays. How you get
all these awards? I was on a beach. I don't know,
but you listened to this Pine and I hope you
did while you were on a sunny beach in Greece.
And by the way, everyone will while in the pre
chat before we started recording, John has been giving me
(04:26):
advice on way to go holiday in Greece, because that's
how often he's been on holidays. Yes, so while you
were in Greece listening to this what did you think
about it?
Speaker 2 (04:34):
I thought it was great, And I thought it was
great because I think it's the clearest explanation of what
the issues are surround in the line and intermittent sources
of energy for all of our energy, particularly in the UK,
and I have to see. The other thing I thought
was good was that I thought the detail pushed back
at you quite a few times whenever you raised points
(04:55):
by them. He's clearly not rapidly anti these sources of energy.
He's just pointing out the practical issues were over relying
on them. You know. So you said that faintly building
more of X and more of Y, it's just that
you need to be a weird of what the problems are.
So no, I thought it was really good.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Okay, interesting, But I do want to just add one
thing to that. Some people have commented that they see
that episode as political and leaning to the right. Now,
I think that brings us into a definition problem of
what is right wing and lot of what is left wing.
But either way, the intention of the show is not
to be political. We are concerned with the economic prosperity
of the UK and how we can make it better.
(05:36):
We're interested in abundance, we're interested in plenty, and we're
interested in wealth. Nadita was very frank regarding his opinions
on the UK's energy strategy and the performance thus far
of Ed Miliband. But this is not about politics from
his point of view. It's about research and it's about evidence.
(05:57):
And now on to today's show. In the spirit of
hearing from your listeners nicely, even maybe listening to your listeners,
we have decided to have a mail bag episode. We're
going to answer a few of the questions you've put
to us. Some of them you've sent to me directly,
some of them you sent to our email address, which
is Merror and Money at Bloomberg dot net for those
of you who haven't done it yet. So to kick
things off. And by the way, some of these questions
(06:18):
are more statements masquerading as questions, but we're going to
make them into questions to a degree. The first one,
the ostensibly the question is what can Rachel Reeves still tax?
And then Nigel, who's written and tells us what he
believes should still be taxed. I manage got quite a
long list of things that Rachel could still tax, but
I'm not sending it to So Nigel suggests that we
(06:40):
should tax all the things that we currently do not
pay for for all the things that are currently free.
So what this means, he says, is you effectively make
it illegal to sell anything below is actual cost plus
five percent. So all the things we get for free podcasts,
online exercise classes, online training, etcetera, etcetera, all these would
(07:04):
be put on the subscription model, and then a sales
tax is imposed on top. So Niger's wife, for example,
who uses a free Pilatus podcast compiled by people all
over the world, but her use of that podcast gives
no revenue to the UK government, she could be paying
a subscription and v eighteen Now, Nigel, I suspect that's
possibly the most unpopular thing that has ever been set
(07:26):
on this podcast, and it's a very very high bar, John.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
I mean, if the way to charge for free things
was just to put a place on the media in
this country, would not be in any trouble at all.
In a business model, we'd be at all and then
we'd all just launch substacks and take the money ourselves down.
I feel this is impractical. I also hope that Nigel's
wave doesn't listen to the podcast.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Yes, yes, I mean I suppose. The other thing I
would say is that you're right. If putting a price
on something meant meant that you could sell it, everyone
would have put a price on But if everything have
the same price on it, oh you.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Can eat Childs for the ear as well. I mean,
I stop lessening the podcast.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
We're just getting to that because I just said that
was the most unpopular thing ever said on this podcast.
But Nigel has raised his own bar with his second suggestion.
Ideal second suggestion is that the cost of a unit
of energy and of water should escalate pro rata to
the amount used so heavy users, by which I assume
he means that those were swimming pools would be paying
(08:31):
a lot more per unit for their top end use
than they would for the first few units. This would
encourage investment in energy and water saving devices, but also
provide funding to allow a very basic, tough to keep
within amount of energy and water to be made available
to every consumer for free. You're too good to us, Nigel.
I mean that if you find yourself unemployed, you still
have a little water to flush the loo and to drink. Well,
(08:52):
that's nice. This is essentially a wealth tax, Yes, it is,
but would end up driving the innovation to lower consumption
for all. Now, John, I'm going to let you have
your rant on this is a minute, but the risk
of sounding right wing, my own view on this is this, This,
this suggestion is exactly the problem that we should find
(09:13):
ways to use less, not just to be efficient. Because
we're all pro efficiency. Let's do more with less, but
let's not always aim to use less. Let's aim for abundance.
Let's aim for plenty. Let's aim for rising living standards.
Let's aim for long hot showers. Right, Let's not aim
to make stuff worse.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, I mean, I just I really dislike this. This
this sort of modalizing almost a bit something that is
also not you know, it's just it's not it shouldn't
be necessarily irrash and water in this country for the start,
And I mean one thing.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
I'm telling you there really is plenty of water, especially
a reservoir.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Yeah, I mean, I mean one thing, to be slightly fairly,
nigelized that some countries do actually price water and energy
along these lines, like I'm pretty sure that Portugal has it.
I don't think it's so much as a free bit,
but there is either are kind of domestic rates and
then industrial rates or whatever. Once you get above using
a certain amount, it jumps. And I guess that in
(10:19):
I can, particularly water scarce country like Portical, that is
maybe a more appealing approach. But also, I mean they are.
The other thing is so if you find your someone
employed still with water, flush the loo and they drink.
I mean there's lots of unemployed people in this country
and none of them are short of water. So actually
Nigel is sort of talking about a drastic change there.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
So I just maybe anyway, Nigel, I didn't mean to
be unkind. Please keep listening and please keep sending in
your ideas. We do appreciate them. It gives us something
to stoke a bad thank you. Right now, we're moving
on to Tristan and well, you know, as I say,
hi Bot, but boy, these people can jump it. This
(11:01):
is trust in wonders if there should be a tax
on social media. As a concerned parent, I'm with him there.
I am also a concerned parent when it comes to
social media. I'm against most forms of social media. So
I began to nickname it the toxic tax, for the
damage it is doing to young people in society as
a whole. Ah, okay, there is probably an applicable Adam
Smith quote. There is I should be adding here. I'll
(11:21):
find it later. I think the simplest way to think
of it is to use the cliche of there is
no such thing as a free lunch to highlight that
while people may consider the consumption of social media to
be free, they are paying for it in other ways.
I think most people, maybe not all in particularly not
young children, but most people understand that it's a straightforward
swap entertainment for data, addiction for data for implementation. I
(11:42):
was thinking that either a flat charge could be placed
on the mobile phone and broadband bills, but anyone wishing
to have their data social media enabled or potentially a
data dependent variable charge with a cap to avoid young
people racking up big bills, et cetera, etc. And then
he suggest the public WiFi is in cafes, library, schools, hotels, workplaces,
et cetera. Well, then have the option of restricting social
media or not as they wish. Now, this is all
(12:04):
about trying to repla reprise social media, to reflect the
negative externalities that they impost and to send a message
particularly the young people have heard damaging They are in
line with similar other activities drinking, smoking, driving. Now I
can't even begin to see how this can be implicated,
but nically I am all over it. This is an
absolutely fantastic idea. It should be taxed or well, okay, taxes,
(12:26):
maybe that is not that straightforward, but it should be disencouraged.
I listened to Tim Bernerdley speak the other day and
he had this very interesting idea about social media on phones,
because you know, he genuinely feels that this is a
terrible thing for a young people, a terrible thing for
our children, and it's one of the big downsides of
course to the World Wide Web that he actually invented,
(12:48):
and his thought was that there should be a specific
simple phone, initially designed specifically for children, for the under
sixteens with the under eighteens that cannot be social media enabled,
a simple old treashion phone that is only a phone
and a texting device and WhatsApp device. You know, maybe
they can have one or two things. It's involved, but
(13:09):
that's a that's a that's a blur thing, gray areas
all over the place. And you might say, well, this
phone already exists because you can use your your family
protections to chopple sorts of things off your children's phones,
and so you have to get permission if they download
this or down or downloads. But nonetheless, well.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
No, the actual phoone exists as well. They do have
you've got They're called domb points and there's a law.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Oh yes, yes, yes, not that young guy.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
That leads a bit who reading't this collapse and the
Taine John list, he's very good.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah, yeah, no, I know that the phone itself exists,
but that's not Tim's idea. Tim's idea is that this
is compulsory for the under sixteen. Oh okay, so in
the same way that you can't buy cigarettes. And I
don't know why can you buy cigarettes? I have no idea.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well these days you can't I buy them, can you?
Because you under eighteen? And then it keeps rightchetting up
until you're going to be thoughty and you're not giving
a small ca Can I remember some stupid thing that
we soon acted in desperation before the last election.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
I've forgotten about that. I've forgotten about that. But basically
it's not about cigarettes. Yeah it's not. It's not. But
you know all those that is that constantly show that
most children say that they would love to not have
social media, but they have to have it. Everyone else
had it. If you could put maybe it's only fourteen,
maybe it's thirteen, maybe it's sixteen. I don't know, but
if you could put a blanket down. And I hate
(14:27):
banding stuff. I'm a libertarian, a hot but sometimes, you know,
you do look at this stuff and think, actually, maybe
it's time to do something.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
I agree with the basic point. And there is a
sort of reverse tragedy of the commons going on with
social media that you just pinpointed, which is that everybody
feels they have to use it, even thothough each individual
or most individuals are like I hate using this stuff
and looking at more in kids that feel the same
way about it, I think it's more of a find
in practical ways to do it. And I think I
(14:55):
think taxing it probably taxing it is like, for example,
seeing me thought when we actually got serious about smoking
and we banned it in pubs, that kind of went
against every liberty and instinct that I've got, but it
worked and it actually made going to the pub much
more pleasant for most people. And I think the problem
with this idea that tax is actually a form of
banning stuff is nonsense. I think what you have to
(15:17):
do is you have to if you think that something
should be banned, then ban it. If you don't, then
you know taxes should be raising for raising revenue. Ultimately,
too much of this social engineering that's going through the
tax system and it's busy. It's like we've sown a
whole load of weeds and now nobody knows what the
tax system is for, which is why we get so
many useless budgets coming up. So I think I think
(15:40):
Tristan's heart is in the right place. I think your
solution is completely kind of bonkers, and it just no way.
It shouldn't be on the tax system. It should be
on legislators to come up way away like Tim's suggested
of you know, rendering every smartphone illegal for the under
sixteens or whatever you want to do. I think that's far.
That is the root to go down and just confront
(16:00):
the fact that we are actually being anti libertarian. We
are saying that people not we don't think this is
suitable for kids, and so we're going to ban it
in this country. I think we just got to confront
these things head on, as opposed to you know, messing
around because you know what, you tax it, So what
it means that just the wealthy kids have got it
or the you know what, you know, you're just going
(16:23):
to you're going to entraine certain social me and girls
problems even worse.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
Then, Okay, so don't tax, just ban I think what
you say about trying to use the wrong instruments for
the wrong things, you know, the idea of using the
tax system to try and disencourage things that maybe should
just be banned out right at the extent that we
agree with banning anything ever, and then things like you know,
using using GPS using the and it's just to police
the benefit system, using people working in call centers to
(16:48):
try and tell whether people are telling the truth or not.
We're using the wrong things for the wrong things. That's
a different podcast come back then.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Ye, but it means nut ideology has been actually has
been toxic, even if it was a good idea to
come about to start worth But anyway, Yeah, there is
another podcast. We should do something in that.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Yeah, we should really do something on nuge. We didn't
be the nudge guy once another? Right, anyway, moving on
this one is shifting away from banning stuff and taxing
stuff and back to investment outlook seems quite gloomy. Yeah,
it's tempting to allocate much more heavily to absolute return funds.
Funds like are gonna absolute returns Go Barry and API
(17:25):
effects have been delivering great returns for a number of
years now, and based on all the doom and gloom
I'm hearing about the global outlook, I'm wondering why I'm
invested in anything else. Absolute returns sounds rather than nice. Yet,
typically people don't invest more than twenty percent of their portfolio,
and such funds I'm not sure many people in verse
twenty percent in what factage I consider when thinking about
allocating more unusually like this, and it's interesting one John,
(17:45):
We've talked a lot about absolute return funds over the
over the years, and one of the questions one should
ask is why isn't every fund an absolute return fund?
The idea of relativity has always been ridiculous. That you
pay someone a lot of money and their job is
to beat an indoyk like that. Their job should be
to make you some more money than inflation. If you
just want inflation or a little bit more money than inflation,
(18:06):
then these days issues you can have a posit account.
That's nice. You couldn't for a long time, but now
you can. And if you want to have, you know,
a couple of percentage points above inflation, then you should
be able to go and buy an equity, an equity
or a multi multi asset fund, and you should be
relatively confident if your manager is competent, that you should
get that on a rolling three year basis. Right. That
seems entirely straight forward. An absolute return fund, by the way,
(18:29):
for anyone who is not experienced in this area, is
a it's effectively a multi asset fund that aims not
to track an index or not too slightly beaten index,
but just to give make you money every year. And
I can hear you going, we'll surely everyone's both to
do that. No, No, they're not.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Yeah, it's usually like inflation plus eight percent or something.
I mean, I think the big problem with absolutely ton
points is basically what you've said, and as a result
of what you're seeing, they all have different ideas about
it's level the absolutely tons. So I think if you
look inside the sector, you'll find there's quite a big
divergence in the best performers and the worst performers, and
(19:07):
also in what they hold. I mean, Argonaut is a
is a great fund, to be very clear, But usually
when people think about absolute return funds, I think they
would tend to believe that they would be on the
lower risk side of the spectrum and whatever else Argonaut
is and Barrie certainly wouldn't claim that it isn't. I
would say it's it's a higher risk on it in
(19:27):
terms of volatility, exposure to equities, exposure to things like
you know, Argentina and things like that. So and whereas
you know the other ones that are kind of you know,
maybe not as interesting or you know, I've had I
held a lot in bonds or gold or whatever. I
mean not gold. But you know, recently a lot of
the absolute return investment trusts have not done that well,
(19:50):
and I think I think this is the problem. You
really need to look at the individual fund. And I'm
not sure the label absolutely turn tells you very much
except giving you a rough idea that it's not bench
mark to anything specific other than inflation.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
I suppose the answer is it's not any easier than
investing in any other type of fund. Sorry, ten, Yeah,
but we we approved the concept right. Next question, bitcoin
investment via listed vehicles. You suggested this was new and
the market value to nav premium reflect discussing, I said,
we didn't suggest that it was new. We suggested that
the bitcoin treasury business was new to the UK. And
(20:26):
so Jeff suggests we look at the Gray Scale Investment Trust,
which is a US listed stock invested in bitcoin since
twenty thirteen. Got to hope some people were in that.
They literally went to a massive premium to nav net
as at value, then fell to a huge discount around
fifty percent, recovered to one hundred percent when he converted
into an ETF. Take a look and see if you
think the new listed bitcoin players just like gray Scale
(20:48):
did in its hey day. And the art of that
is yes, absolutely they do, and we agree entirely. He
finishes off by saying, do we not find historically that
investment trust that net as a value premiums quite often
tell you the underlying asset is fashionably overpriced. I think
you know the answer. Oh, we do we know that answer, John,
(21:10):
Do we know that answer?
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Yes? And I appreciate Jeffrey, And then to Taylor's.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Give us give us the opportunity to read out on
our side exactly, Thank you, jeff Okay, one more, one
more question, as you know, two more questions, but they're
kind of the same question. Actually. The first one is
fifty two billion pounds in debt. Seems like rather a
large problem. We've had a great ride this past eight months,
but we'll our UK debt and ravel it all horribly
(21:38):
somehow this autumn. That's from Stuart. Oh, hang on. The
next one is also from Stewart. Is it the same Stewart?
The next one different question? Jesus says it's a different Stewart. Hello,
Marion and John, I'm a regular listener. Follow up your
podcast there are any answer discussion on the doom loop
and what private investors should do in a doom loop. Well,
the first thing to say is that, boy, do I
(21:58):
have disappointing us for us Stewart number one, which is
that fifty two billion is nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing. In fact,
the UK level of debt is about two point nine
trillion pounds, which is closing in on one hundred percent
of GDP. Last year or the year up to and
the financial year March, we borrowed one hundred and forty
(22:20):
six billion pounds and we are spending eight and a
half billion pounds a year loan on interest payment and
by the way, and rising. So yes, going on three
trillion pounds worth of debt is a large problem, John,
You've got thoughts on that.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
No other than that the only upside, that's all, is
that we are not the only country to send that
situation and this technically, well, one thing I would make
clear is this technically should be manageable if the people
run in the country are competent enough to manage it properly.
And I think that actually is and I'm not even joking.
(23:01):
I think that is where we have the problem, right
though Britain does not need to be in as much
trouble as it's in. It needs more effective leadership and
that's the mess and con pointing.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Yeah, and the question here is what will happen? How
bad will it be? Our people watching? I mean, there
is that wonderful thing we say often in the UK
the world is watching. Were mostly it totally, totally, isn't
and simply doesn't care. When you look at the market,
there was I don't know if you wrote about this, John,
but the Bank of America the most recent survey is
(23:31):
showing that there flows out of the UK were huge
and you know, the biggest month about flows of equity
in the UK since the early two thousands, and global
alligators less keen since since the beginning of time, et cetera,
et cetera. But that's a survey that's not real life, right,
and so it's what they say rather than what they do.
And if you look at the market itself, there is
(23:51):
no evidence that there is a massive outflow of capital
from the UK equity market. Most of our indices are
not all of them, but the Footy one hundred is
knocking around US all time highs on the two fifty.
Isn't that far off, it's it's highest for the years.
Stelling is kind of okay, guilt heels have come down
a little bit. So I'm not for a second suggesting,
don't get me wrong, that there's anything good about the
UK economy or about well that's good things about the
(24:13):
UK economy, but about the UK public finances absolute rubbish,
remaining rubbish, and no clear plan to make them less rubbish.
But but that is something that for our equity markets
at least foreign investors are appear to be prepared to overlook.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Yeah yeah, And because it only marks to an extent
for the equity market, and the meanesture for the equity
market again is how the government can sorts it hurt.
This is the problem, because we're going to be all
set and chatting a bit less right up until the
hul Reeves sets down in November the twenty sixth, and
then beyond that we need to worry about whether she
can even make whatever she does stick with her own party,
(24:51):
because you know, we could end up getting the Chanceloran
and underplayment. It's still replaced at some point in the
next twelve months. That's certainly not beyind the bones of possibility.
But I do think that advice we joy that has
faced in the UK are political ones rather than financial ones,
because we are by no means the only country with
public finances this bad and it can be solved, and
(25:12):
we have the second fastest grown economy in the G
seven right now, which is you know, because the other
five are terrible. But it's still you know, it's still
something that we should be able to get out of
this if we can just get a better sense. And
that's the only thing that's messing well.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
As we keep saying, there's a lot wrong with the UK,
but there is nothing wrong with the UK that can't
be fixed by other policies. No, someone one day will
bring us those There's going to be a lot more
talk about this on this podcast over the next little while.
We've got a lot to say about tax and a
lot to say about budgets. But you know, we'll save
some of those joys for later in the month, shall we.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Good idea? Oh doom?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Look, by the way, what should you have in a
proper role? Doom loop? Well, I think you know the
answer is you're buying it already. It's probably cold. Yeah, Hi,
and it is out there. I'm listening to radio in
the car this morning, long chat about gold, and I
am also hearing from friends at the big asset Managers
that those fund managers who've been sniffy about gold for
ever are starting to buy it on their own account,
(26:14):
so you know, getting out there. Thanks for listening to
this week's Marry Drugs Your Money if you like or share, rate, review,
and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be short
follow me and John on x or Twitter at Marnis
w and John Underscore Steppack. This episode was produced by
Summersardi and Moses and questions and comments on this show
(26:36):
and all our shows are always welcome. Our show email
is Merri Money at Bloomberg dot net
Host
Merryn Somerset Webb
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.