March 15, 2025 • 12 mins
The Government has done it's best to impress investors over the Investment Summit - and economists are hopeful it has worked.
Multiple projects have already been proposed, and Italian tunnelling company Ghella, who had been planning to leave New Zealand due to lack of work, have confirmed it will keep workers and machinery here after hearing the outlined infrastructure pipeline.
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend collective podcast from News Talks'd be.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The Investments Summit is done and dusted and the government
has done its best to impress investors with generally good reviews.
We had a small few smaller announcements come out of
the summit, upgrades for Christ Churchmen's Prison and new highway,
the Italian Tunnel is. They're loving it over here. They're
staying in New Zealand for new projects and the government
seems to be bubbling at the opportunities. But what can
New Zealand has come to expect out of all of this,
(00:31):
And for Metrics Principal economist Brad Olsen is with me.
Good afternoon, Good afternoon, Tim. What did you make of
it all?
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Oh? I thought it was pretty upbeat to sort of
see the level of energy that we were putting out there,
and because let's be real, this was trying to present
a bit more of a shopfront to the world for
New Zealand and all the projects that we've got going on.
We know we've got a lot of infrastructure that needs
to be built. We know there's a lot of money
that's going to be poured through those pipelines over the
(01:00):
next decade or so. But this was trying to get
some of those foreign investors over the line, go look,
actually there's a lot to do here. You should invest here,
you should keep some people here, you should make sure
that you're part of it. And I think on that score,
the fact that you've got at least one big furd
that said actually, okay, we'll stick around sort of seems
to show that it worked quite well.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
What makes these PPPs attractive to foreign investors, Well.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
I think I mean, there's a lot of work obviously
to be done, and having a project like that, it
means that they have a return that they know is
going to continue to come forward. They know that, you know,
they need to stump up some of the money as
a private business themselves to start with, and that means
that they're also wanting to make sure they've got the return.
On the other side, for the government, it means that
(01:45):
they can sort of spread their costs and their resource
over a bit more of a longer period instead of
having a sort of stump it up all at once.
They can make those progress payments over time, and so
really when there's still only a limited amount of money
that the government itself has right here right now, they
can start to spread that opportunity over a longer period
of time. So there does seem to be some pretty
(02:05):
big opportunities on the cards here. And I think probably
most importantly for me coming out of the summit is
there seemed to be a pretty good level of agreement
from those international investors that actually the government both of
the day but also the opposition. We're all broadly talking
off the same song sheet. Because if I'm an international investor,
I don't want to sink a couple billion into a
(02:25):
project and then all of a sudden it gets ripped
out from under me. And that seems unlikely given the
sort of more bipartisan talk that came out of the summit.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah, because some Barbara Edmonds being there. Normally it's sort
of lip service. We've got someone from the opposition, But
that actually is quite a significant thing for the government
to have done from those investors' point of view, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Oh? Absolutely, And there's obviously always concern given that we
do often have those changes in infrastructure every time that
a government shifts. So to sort of have the opposition
spokesperson there, you know, got a pretty decent speaking slot
to highlight you know what that opposition view was, give
a little bit more confidence and give a little guidance.
(03:06):
I think as well, you know, the opposition still got
a different view on some things than the current government,
but at least investors now have a bit of an
idea of how the process might go where the red
lines are probably a bit closer to So again from
that confidence point of view, it's important. I think also
it showed that, you know, New Zealand, we really sort
of did pull out the big guns here in terms
(03:27):
of making sure that investors felt that the decision makers
they were listening, they were sitting in their seats. I
think you had the majority of the cabinet who attended,
You had the opposition spokesperson, you know, you had some
some of those bigger higher flyers. So it was important
that it wasn't pitched at a sort of wrong level.
This was right up the top and it meant that
those who do and can make some of those big
(03:48):
decisions overseas they got airtime and face to face time
with the local decision makers.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Do you think in general the public understand how this
all works. Because I was trying to explain it to
my daughters actually, and I was sort of thinking, how
do I explain the nature of what the government's trying
to do with foreign and vas versus the government simply
funding these things.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Yeah, I mean it's always a difficult conversation. I think,
to be fair, that just the size that we're talking
about is pretty hard to comprehend. And I say that, Look,
I don't know about you, Tim, but I've never seen
a billion dollars in my bank account or eything like that.
I wish, so, you know, like like these sort of
the size of these projects that we're talking about are
just enormous in the grand scheme of things. I've never
(04:29):
thought about trying to build a hospital or a prison
or eything like that. So at that scale, I think,
you know, it's a bit hard to And I think
that's probably also important why the coverage this week wasn't
sort of too front focused on households. You know, it
wasn't designed to be at that household level, or was
designed to be at the bordroom table level. But I
think as well, the conversations that are now coming out
(04:52):
are going, well, what does that mean to the average household?
And been a bit surprised by some of the comments
that have emerged, where people have been going, oh, I've
heard a lot more about tolling this week, and you know,
I just I don't want that in the future. Some
of the Australian investors said, well, look, you know, we're
paying quite a good amount of money every day every
week for tolls, but we also get places, and so
(05:13):
I feel like for New Zealand, it also says to us, look,
if the status quo is what we want and we
don't want to pay tolls and we're happy with congestion
and never being able to get around and okay, but
if we want to move into the future, then that costs.
And personally, I'd rather pay a bit more money to
make sure that I could be more efficient to do
more things in the day than what we've currently got
as status quo.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Because broadly speaking, the trade off is we either have
user pays for some of these infrastructure projects or we
just pay more tax. And I for me, I quite
like the idea of user pays for certain things because
I know what that money is going for every time
I pay that toll as opposed to your tax. Sort
of goes well, who knows where it goes.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
What do you think, Well, definitely, and that's why in
particularly you see a lot of those transport projects that
do often have more of a user pays model, something
like a toll because it means that as well, if
I'm a you know, a driver down in christ Church
or in the cargo, do I want to be paying
for a new highway between Northland and Auckland. Well not
unless I'm using it, So there is an element of
(06:15):
that user pays means that the people who get the
benefit also were the cost a bit more. Other things
are a little bit trickier. I mean, you look at
the likes of courthouses or jails are not the sort
of easiest thing to do.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Covering more people would love to use a phrase for
jails anyway, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
But then we probably have substandard jails and you know
we wouldn't be able to do what we need to
with them. So again, horses for courses here. But I
think it does show that overall, someone's got to pay,
and either we sort of spread that over the population
through general taxes or you do it a bit more specific
to use the pays. At the end of the day,
you've still got to have that money available, and so
if we're going to lift our game on infrastructure, yes,
(06:51):
we're asking the private sector and some of those overseas
investors to come in and help front foot some of that.
But over time we are going to have to pay more.
But I really do think it's going to be beneficial.
It's going to be worth the cost because we are
going to have, you know, better outcome. We're going to
have better services and better infrastructure.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
How does it work if it's not user pays? So
you've mentioned obviously we can all imagine a toll highway
and that's an easy one to understand that it get
it gets paid for by tolls. But how does it work?
Is it basically the government gets foreign investment to pay
for a prison or dare I say that's more inflammatory
hospital or something? But how does that model work for
(07:28):
the private investors? Generally speaking?
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Normally, what you'd see is that the private investor might
agree to pay and build, you know, let's let's call
it a prison in this example, and so they would
front foot that. However, you know, let's say it's a
three hundred million dollar prison or something, but then over
they might want to payback period, so they will get
paid effectively the equivalent of that three hundred million, plus
a margin over the next I don't know, ten years
(07:53):
or whatever it might be, sort of how some private
roads are and some roads across the country have also
been built, so you can sort of do it that way.
And again from a government point of view, it means
you don't have to stump up all of that money
all at once. We've already seen, for example, the likes
of in the hospital space. There's a lot of hospitals
that we need to get going with, but we just
don't have the capital like right here right now. The
(08:14):
second and so again you can sometimes get the private
sector to front up a little bit earlier on the process.
Then you can spread your costs a little bit further
over time.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
What would what do you think should be out of
bounds when it comes to private money?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I mean that's really again probably a bit more of
an almost personal choice across different groups in society and
similar I think though that.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
In another way, what do you think the hardest seller
is to the to the New Zealand voter, not just
to Brad Olsen. He's only got one.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Exactly Okay, No, that's that's a fair phrasing. I think
probably where the difference often comes in is a little
bit more around operational activity. So building a road or
a courthouse, or a prison or a hospital, that's one thing.
Getting someone private to run it, you know, day to
day to be delivering those hospital services, the prison services,
(09:04):
the courthouse. That's often where I think people draw the
line and say, actually, that's the job of the government
to do. They should pay for it, because then also
they are accountable if you don't have the government involved.
If it's a private sector thing and they do something
in the hospital, the prison, the courthouse, whatever it might
be that the public doesn't like, there's sort of no
accountability because the government says, well, look we've got contracts
(09:25):
in place and maybe we can or we can't change it.
So that's often where direct provision government doing it itself
is often in the running of things. But again the
question I think is more how do we get the
stuff built, and then we do have to figure out
to resource it. That is still important. You can't build
a bunch of stuff and then not have it staffed.
But I think, you know, let's get it built first
and then we can work over the next couple of
(09:46):
years on the resourcing ongoing.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
So I'm hearing you saying, I mean, I don't want
to paint you into a corner on this, but generally
when it comes to just hard bricks and mortar sort
of infrastructure, the potential is pretty broad in terms of
what could be funded by foreign investors.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
I would have thought so, and I think as well,
it's a good important additional lever in there. Often what
you find is that you know, government and the private sector,
they always trying to sort of figure out where the
balance lies. How do you get it so that look,
you want the infrastructure delivered on time, and generally, you know,
if it doesn't get delivered up by the agreed date,
(10:22):
then the government wouldn't be paying a private sector contractor
as much. But there's also that question, and we saw
this during COVID what happens if you have something completely
out of the blue, like a pandemic hit. Who wears
the cost of that delay Because the contract, you know,
might have been written one way, it might favor someone
or the other. So getting the contracting right and trying
to balance that so the government gets what they want
(10:42):
stuff built and stuff built at the right time and
at the right price. And from the private sect point
of view, they don't want to sort of undersell themselves,
but they equally they want to get a little bit
of profit out it out of it at the end.
So again balancing those two is difficult and a little
bit tricky, but often it does also give you the
ability to say, well, look, if you get this done
real quick and faster than we'd be able to do
it ourselves, we'll pay you more. But if you don't,
(11:04):
then we'll pay you less. So odds on private sector
tries their best to get it done quick because then
there's a bit of payoffs. So there's an incentive, and.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
That's the advantage to just a government borrowing money for
a project as opposed to getting it funded through a PPP.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
Is that right generally, that's a big part of it
is you want to put the right incentives in there
so they get it done right, They get it done
on time, they get it done in fact quicker or
cheaper if they can. But again there's there's that balance
where people go, we'll hold on, I don't want to
pay too much extra money. You know, yes, they might
build the hospital really quick, but also you know how
much difference am I paying between getting them to front
(11:38):
the cost and the private sector or doing myself. So again,
that balance is a lovely word in all of these conversations.
That's actually pretty critical.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
So easy to throw it out. We can talk the
sum it up as a win so far, though, can't we?
Can we?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
Oh? I would have thought so. I mean, I think
the fact that you've had a lot of investors say, look, actually,
that's given me a pretty good idea of what's on
the menu. Because before everyone kept telling me to go
to the restaurant that is New Zealand, but I wasn't
quite sure what was actually being offered up. Now I
know what things I can sort of pick off the
menu and what I can start to bid for the
fact you've had a few of those those investors say look,
(12:10):
I'm keen, I'm keen to stick around. I'm keen to
see what I can get involved with, and people who
are saying, actually, you know what, I've only been to
a few of these sort of things over my life
as an investor, but this one's been pretty good and
really showcased things. I think that's a win. I think
it's absolutely win for the moment proof is always in
the putting. How much more do you get out of
it out the other side?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Excellent? Hey, thanks so much for your time, Brad, I
really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk Said Be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend collective podcast from News Talks'd be.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The Investments Summit is done and dusted and the government
has done its best to impress investors with generally good reviews.
We had a small few smaller announcements come out of
the summit, upgrades for Christ Churchmen's Prison and new highway,
the Italian Tunnel is. They're loving it over here. They're
staying in New Zealand for new projects and the government
seems to be bubbling at the opportunities. But what can
New Zealand has come to expect out of all of this,
(00:31):
And for Metrics Principal economist Brad Olsen is with me.
Good afternoon, Good afternoon, Tim. What did you make of
it all?
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Oh? I thought it was pretty upbeat to sort of
see the level of energy that we were putting out there,
and because let's be real, this was trying to present
a bit more of a shopfront to the world for
New Zealand and all the projects that we've got going on.
We know we've got a lot of infrastructure that needs
to be built. We know there's a lot of money
that's going to be poured through those pipelines over the
(01:00):
next decade or so. But this was trying to get
some of those foreign investors over the line, go look,
actually there's a lot to do here. You should invest here,
you should keep some people here, you should make sure
that you're part of it. And I think on that score,
the fact that you've got at least one big furd
that said actually, okay, we'll stick around sort of seems
to show that it worked quite well.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
What makes these PPPs attractive to foreign investors, Well.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
I think I mean, there's a lot of work obviously
to be done, and having a project like that, it
means that they have a return that they know is
going to continue to come forward. They know that, you know,
they need to stump up some of the money as
a private business themselves to start with, and that means
that they're also wanting to make sure they've got the return.
On the other side, for the government, it means that
(01:45):
they can sort of spread their costs and their resource
over a bit more of a longer period instead of
having a sort of stump it up all at once.
They can make those progress payments over time, and so
really when there's still only a limited amount of money
that the government itself has right here right now, they
can start to spread that opportunity over a longer period
of time. So there does seem to be some pretty
(02:05):
big opportunities on the cards here. And I think probably
most importantly for me coming out of the summit is
there seemed to be a pretty good level of agreement
from those international investors that actually the government both of
the day but also the opposition. We're all broadly talking
off the same song sheet. Because if I'm an international investor,
I don't want to sink a couple billion into a
(02:25):
project and then all of a sudden it gets ripped
out from under me. And that seems unlikely given the
sort of more bipartisan talk that came out of the summit.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah, because some Barbara Edmonds being there. Normally it's sort
of lip service. We've got someone from the opposition, But
that actually is quite a significant thing for the government
to have done from those investors' point of view, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Oh? Absolutely, And there's obviously always concern given that we
do often have those changes in infrastructure every time that
a government shifts. So to sort of have the opposition
spokesperson there, you know, got a pretty decent speaking slot
to highlight you know what that opposition view was, give
a little bit more confidence and give a little guidance.
(03:06):
I think as well, you know, the opposition still got
a different view on some things than the current government,
but at least investors now have a bit of an
idea of how the process might go where the red
lines are probably a bit closer to So again from
that confidence point of view, it's important. I think also
it showed that, you know, New Zealand, we really sort
of did pull out the big guns here in terms
(03:27):
of making sure that investors felt that the decision makers
they were listening, they were sitting in their seats. I
think you had the majority of the cabinet who attended,
You had the opposition spokesperson, you know, you had some
some of those bigger higher flyers. So it was important
that it wasn't pitched at a sort of wrong level.
This was right up the top and it meant that
those who do and can make some of those big
(03:48):
decisions overseas they got airtime and face to face time
with the local decision makers.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Do you think in general the public understand how this
all works. Because I was trying to explain it to
my daughters actually, and I was sort of thinking, how
do I explain the nature of what the government's trying
to do with foreign and vas versus the government simply
funding these things.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Yeah, I mean it's always a difficult conversation. I think,
to be fair, that just the size that we're talking
about is pretty hard to comprehend. And I say that, Look,
I don't know about you, Tim, but I've never seen
a billion dollars in my bank account or eything like that.
I wish, so, you know, like like these sort of
the size of these projects that we're talking about are
just enormous in the grand scheme of things. I've never
(04:29):
thought about trying to build a hospital or a prison
or eything like that. So at that scale, I think,
you know, it's a bit hard to And I think
that's probably also important why the coverage this week wasn't
sort of too front focused on households. You know, it
wasn't designed to be at that household level, or was
designed to be at the bordroom table level. But I
think as well, the conversations that are now coming out
(04:52):
are going, well, what does that mean to the average household?
And been a bit surprised by some of the comments
that have emerged, where people have been going, oh, I've
heard a lot more about tolling this week, and you know,
I just I don't want that in the future. Some
of the Australian investors said, well, look, you know, we're
paying quite a good amount of money every day every
week for tolls, but we also get places, and so
(05:13):
I feel like for New Zealand, it also says to us, look,
if the status quo is what we want and we
don't want to pay tolls and we're happy with congestion
and never being able to get around and okay, but
if we want to move into the future, then that costs.
And personally, I'd rather pay a bit more money to
make sure that I could be more efficient to do
more things in the day than what we've currently got
as status quo.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Because broadly speaking, the trade off is we either have
user pays for some of these infrastructure projects or we
just pay more tax. And I for me, I quite
like the idea of user pays for certain things because
I know what that money is going for every time
I pay that toll as opposed to your tax. Sort
of goes well, who knows where it goes.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
What do you think, Well, definitely, and that's why in
particularly you see a lot of those transport projects that
do often have more of a user pays model, something
like a toll because it means that as well, if
I'm a you know, a driver down in christ Church
or in the cargo, do I want to be paying
for a new highway between Northland and Auckland. Well not
unless I'm using it, So there is an element of
(06:15):
that user pays means that the people who get the
benefit also were the cost a bit more. Other things
are a little bit trickier. I mean, you look at
the likes of courthouses or jails are not the sort
of easiest thing to do.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Covering more people would love to use a phrase for
jails anyway, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
But then we probably have substandard jails and you know
we wouldn't be able to do what we need to
with them. So again, horses for courses here. But I
think it does show that overall, someone's got to pay,
and either we sort of spread that over the population
through general taxes or you do it a bit more specific
to use the pays. At the end of the day,
you've still got to have that money available, and so
if we're going to lift our game on infrastructure, yes,
(06:51):
we're asking the private sector and some of those overseas
investors to come in and help front foot some of that.
But over time we are going to have to pay more.
But I really do think it's going to be beneficial.
It's going to be worth the cost because we are
going to have, you know, better outcome. We're going to
have better services and better infrastructure.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
How does it work if it's not user pays? So
you've mentioned obviously we can all imagine a toll highway
and that's an easy one to understand that it get
it gets paid for by tolls. But how does it work?
Is it basically the government gets foreign investment to pay
for a prison or dare I say that's more inflammatory
hospital or something? But how does that model work for
(07:28):
the private investors? Generally speaking?
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Normally, what you'd see is that the private investor might
agree to pay and build, you know, let's let's call
it a prison in this example, and so they would
front foot that. However, you know, let's say it's a
three hundred million dollar prison or something, but then over
they might want to payback period, so they will get
paid effectively the equivalent of that three hundred million, plus
a margin over the next I don't know, ten years
(07:53):
or whatever it might be, sort of how some private
roads are and some roads across the country have also
been built, so you can sort of do it that way.
And again from a government point of view, it means
you don't have to stump up all of that money
all at once. We've already seen, for example, the likes
of in the hospital space. There's a lot of hospitals
that we need to get going with, but we just
don't have the capital like right here right now. The
(08:14):
second and so again you can sometimes get the private
sector to front up a little bit earlier on the process.
Then you can spread your costs a little bit further
over time.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
What would what do you think should be out of
bounds when it comes to private money?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I mean that's really again probably a bit more of
an almost personal choice across different groups in society and
similar I think though that.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
In another way, what do you think the hardest seller
is to the to the New Zealand voter, not just
to Brad Olsen. He's only got one.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Exactly Okay, No, that's that's a fair phrasing. I think
probably where the difference often comes in is a little
bit more around operational activity. So building a road or
a courthouse, or a prison or a hospital, that's one thing.
Getting someone private to run it, you know, day to
day to be delivering those hospital services, the prison services,
(09:04):
the courthouse. That's often where I think people draw the
line and say, actually, that's the job of the government
to do. They should pay for it, because then also
they are accountable if you don't have the government involved.
If it's a private sector thing and they do something
in the hospital, the prison, the courthouse, whatever it might
be that the public doesn't like, there's sort of no
accountability because the government says, well, look we've got contracts
(09:25):
in place and maybe we can or we can't change it.
So that's often where direct provision government doing it itself
is often in the running of things. But again the
question I think is more how do we get the
stuff built, and then we do have to figure out
to resource it. That is still important. You can't build
a bunch of stuff and then not have it staffed.
But I think, you know, let's get it built first
and then we can work over the next couple of
(09:46):
years on the resourcing ongoing.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
So I'm hearing you saying, I mean, I don't want
to paint you into a corner on this, but generally
when it comes to just hard bricks and mortar sort
of infrastructure, the potential is pretty broad in terms of
what could be funded by foreign investors.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
I would have thought so, and I think as well,
it's a good important additional lever in there. Often what
you find is that you know, government and the private sector,
they always trying to sort of figure out where the
balance lies. How do you get it so that look,
you want the infrastructure delivered on time, and generally, you know,
if it doesn't get delivered up by the agreed date,
(10:22):
then the government wouldn't be paying a private sector contractor
as much. But there's also that question, and we saw
this during COVID what happens if you have something completely
out of the blue, like a pandemic hit. Who wears
the cost of that delay Because the contract, you know,
might have been written one way, it might favor someone
or the other. So getting the contracting right and trying
to balance that so the government gets what they want
(10:42):
stuff built and stuff built at the right time and
at the right price. And from the private sect point
of view, they don't want to sort of undersell themselves,
but they equally they want to get a little bit
of profit out it out of it at the end.
So again balancing those two is difficult and a little
bit tricky, but often it does also give you the
ability to say, well, look, if you get this done
real quick and faster than we'd be able to do
it ourselves, we'll pay you more. But if you don't,
(11:04):
then we'll pay you less. So odds on private sector
tries their best to get it done quick because then
there's a bit of payoffs. So there's an incentive, and.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
That's the advantage to just a government borrowing money for
a project as opposed to getting it funded through a PPP.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
Is that right generally, that's a big part of it
is you want to put the right incentives in there
so they get it done right, They get it done
on time, they get it done in fact quicker or
cheaper if they can. But again there's there's that balance
where people go, we'll hold on, I don't want to
pay too much extra money. You know, yes, they might
build the hospital really quick, but also you know how
much difference am I paying between getting them to front
(11:38):
the cost and the private sector or doing myself. So again,
that balance is a lovely word in all of these conversations.
That's actually pretty critical.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
So easy to throw it out. We can talk the
sum it up as a win so far, though, can't we?
Can we?
Speaker 3 (11:50):
Oh? I would have thought so. I mean, I think
the fact that you've had a lot of investors say, look, actually,
that's given me a pretty good idea of what's on
the menu. Because before everyone kept telling me to go
to the restaurant that is New Zealand, but I wasn't
quite sure what was actually being offered up. Now I
know what things I can sort of pick off the
menu and what I can start to bid for the
fact you've had a few of those those investors say look,
(12:10):
I'm keen, I'm keen to stick around. I'm keen to
see what I can get involved with, and people who
are saying, actually, you know what, I've only been to
a few of these sort of things over my life
as an investor, but this one's been pretty good and
really showcased things. I think that's a win. I think
it's absolutely win for the moment proof is always in
the putting. How much more do you get out of
it out the other side?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Excellent? Hey, thanks so much for your time, Brad, I
really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk Said Be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
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!