Hello, this is Kieran Hancock, welcome to Inside Business. This week I'm looking at AI and its role in the hiring and firing of workers. Kieran Ryan and Emma Milone of the Irish Times join me for that segment. In a second half of the show, Dar burn, chief executive of Irish Stock Exchange operator URNEXT. Join us for a studio to talk about the future of the market here and the proposal he has put forward for a new savings and investment product. First to AI. Amazon recently announced 14,000 job cuts globally. Is this driven by AI? Kieran Ryan joins me in a moment to discuss this. Separately, we have new research from hiring platform greenhouse, which suggests that AI has created a doom loop between applicants and those who are hiring. Emma Milone of the Irish Times will explain exactly what's going on in a few moments, and he'll also talk about the phenomenon of fake job postings. I began by asking Kieran Ryan if the Amazon job cuts were related to the greater use of AI by the tech giant. Here we go. There's perhaps two skills of all on that. One is that yes, it is AI related because inevitably as the technology advances, they need fewer people to do certain types of jobs. The other kind of skill of all on this is a kind of a handy smoke screen for companies to cut jobs because we've seen, you know, it's not just Amazon that's doing this. We've seen jobs go say the likes of Salesforce and they're not the only ones cutting back jobs, but whether or not AI is solely sublime or whether it's just a handy way to kind of first of all justify the massive amounts of money that's been invested in this technology. And second of all kind of screen out, I suppose it's a handy excuse to just cut jobs because they've over hired. You know, we saw this with all the tech companies, particularly in the wake of COVID. They were all scrambling to kind of right size themselves. They're still doing that now and that's partly because they were hiring for a different kind of environment and a different kind of tech landscape that hasn't necessarily been sold out as well as they might have hoped. Now, just because they're cutting jobs in one area, it doesn't mean there's not still hiring in others. And then you'll see what all of these companies, even though they're cutting back say jobs in corporate, they're also still hiring for kind of higher tech roles. So there is still scope for gaining employment at these companies provided you have the right skills. And that's where the problems are going to set in. Yeah, now this comes after they previously cut 27,000 jobs. Didn't they? And the world presumably in Ireland as well. And that was that was when 22 23. Yes, there was a kind of like a big swath of job losses seemed like there was a new one every week, particularly in tech companies or internet related companies. And again, that was down to I suppose people saw this bump from COVID, you know, this this increase in activity that they thought would last and it turns out actually now it didn't because as we've seen, like with a lot of things around COVID, as soon as the world opened back up again, well, some things did kind of stick around to a certain degree. Like not everybody was doing all their shopping online. Not everybody was working from home all the time. And we've seen a kind of things kind of normalize. And as a result, obviously these companies had hired massively to try and take advantage of what they were hoping will be a supposed sustained rise in their growth, but it just didn't pan out. So there was thousands and thousands of jobs gone between kind of November 2022 and 2022 and I felt like it wouldn't stop. Note that job losses, obviously, Amazon's are headline, but like there happened other smaller figures, you know, they were a couple of hundred jobs here and there. Obviously, these are not small figures to the people who in effect sport. It did very much taper off. Unlike 22, 23, though the companies are still hiring for certain roles. They're high in for what they term their key roles. And a lot of this is actually ironically in AI and the kind of the higher end of the scale and where we're seeing the impact, I suppose, or where we're seeing AI blamed for job losses. It's kind of like in the lower end of the scale or the jobs that can be easily automated, you know, data entry stuff has been automated for years, but now they're stepping it up to supposed customer service agents. There's AI bots that can now do the job around the clock without breaks, without pay of a customer service agent to a certain degree. And then after a while, people do want a person to step in. So the idea is it's coding out a lot of the kind of early tedious work that people have to do over and over again that can be solved by, you know, mining the frequently asked questions of a company where people are answering these routine questions as customer service reps when they could be doing what companies keep calling higher value work. Now when you start talking about doing higher value work, it means that they don't need as many people doing the kind of the lower value work because they have been taken over by AI bots and that means those jobs are then gone. Yeah. And now Andy Jassy and June did say that more AI would mean fewer corporate staff at Amazon with generous of AI and high tech agents picking up the slack. What have other companies been doing? Well, Marcus Zuckerberg was very clear that he thought AI would take up a good chunk actually of the coding that matters. So, you know, I think he said up to 50% of the coding could be done in 2026. So within that kind of a conversation with Sachin Adela and when he asked, you know, what Microsoft was doing, he said, you know, maybe 20 to 30% of the code inside of it today and some of its projects, you know, that that was being written by AI bots in some areas. All of it was being written by AI bots, but like 20 to 30% is still quite low, but like he sees, Marcus Zuckerberg sees a future where a good chunk of the code is actually written by AI bots. And it's kind of caused a few raise eyebrows for a couple of reasons. I mean, look, there's a certain logic to having AI do this kind of low level work, but if the AI does the low level work, what do you train people on? Because this would have been typically where engineers, software engineers and coders would cut their teeth. They would learn all this from the ground up. Now, if you don't learn from the ground up, you know, how do you get to those higher levels and how do you get that skill that to kind of reach those kind of senior software engineer, kind of roles. Again, we're coming back to people keep saying that it's AI is supposed to be collaborative rather than replacing people. So if you keep up to date with all the AI developments, which is becoming increasingly difficult because it's happening so quickly, but if you do kind of you stay up to date and become comfortable with this technology, you're less likely to be replaced by AI because the idea is it's not AI that's going to replace you with somebody who is comfortable with the technology and knows how to use it properly. Yeah. Is AI being used as a smoke screen by companies, tax staff? I think there is definitely an element of it being used as a smoke screen. We saw, and it's not the, it's just, it's an easy thing to kind of hang it on, isn't it? Because we saw before people who were being forced to return to the office. There was a lot of speculation and I think Amazon was one of the companies that has insisted on five days, returning on a lot of speculation at the time was that Amazon would use this as a way to stealthily push jobs because people would leave. They don't want to be back in the office five days a week. They want a certain level of flexibility. They would leave. Amazon wouldn't have to be the bad guy by actually firing people or an answer more layoffs. Now when this latest round of layoffs was announced, it was like, oh, it's the AI. It's clearly because the return to office mandate hasn't yielded enough of a decrease, particularly among those corporate workers. So now they have to bring in something else. And when you're talking about AI kind of replacing people, are they really replacing them? Or is it just a handy way to blame the AI? Well, still kind of like I'm saying, well, look, we just, we're still hiring. We just don't need as many people doing these kinds of jobs because a bot can do it. It's kind of, it's, it's tiny bit insulting to the corporate workers that are there as well. By the way, you know, you're basically told you're easily replaced by a bit of technology. But I'm not entirely sure that it's purely down to AI that this is why these job losses have happened, but again, you know, we only know when Amazon tell us and they're not going to kind of contradict their own corporate messaging. All right, Kara Bryan, thank you for joining us. Thank you very much. Okay, that was Kara on Amazon over to Emmett now and this AI doom loop in recruitment. What's going on? So what you're seeing here is the gradual evolution of the use of AI in job applications and hiring. You know, you might remember that more than a decade ago, Amazon got itself into a situation where it starts to use AI for hiring people and then had to abandon a project that it had established because its AI model was only hiring men are essentially for the most part only hiring men because it had studied the hiring patterns at the company beforehand. And because men were predominantly applying for all the tech jobs, it continued to just hire men and discrimination against women. So we have early use of AI in the area of hiring because it seemed absolutely ideal to take on some of the tasks involved in that area. It's come a long, long way since then and companies that hire a lot of people have become extremely reliant on it. It's very central to their hiring operations in many cases. But what has happened is that the people applying for jobs are also using it extensively now. Since chat GPT became available, it's become extremely accessible to job applicants. They are using it to tailor their applications. They're sending out a lot more applications because it's extremely easy to multiply applications for jobs and to tailor them individually. The people who are using AI to screen the applications are finding it harder and harder to delve through all the AI generated text. And what you're finding is that both sides are essentially becoming disadvantaged by the process. Employers can't actually find the best people for jobs and the people who are applying for jobs are finding it harder where they are suitable to stand out in a very credit market. And AI is all to blame. 45% of job applicants who responded in Ireland said they'd lost trust in the process, with almost all of those blaming AI. Yeah, it's an extremely large problem. I mean, we have a good bit of research, including very recent research from Princeton, which looked at hiring in the freelance market. And they found that in cases where AI was used, the least capable candidates for jobs stood a far better chance because all, you know, AI is boosting the quality of their applications very considerably. The best candidates for jobs are significantly less likely to get the jobs that they're applying for. And this is down to AI making it extremely easy to come up with a high quality application. In their research, they suggested that the number of applications had doubled since chat TPP became widely available. Daniel Chate, the CEO of Greenhouse, I spoke to last week. In his experience, he was finding that their clients were experienced a 350% increase in applications. The irony of this is that it makes the employers more reliant than ever on AI to weigh through the greatly increased volume of applications. But that's only, you know, essentially propagating a situation that kind of needs or side is happy with at the moment. Yeah, it's a huge increase in the number of applications. I'll write, I must make it difficult for companies to weigh through them. Now, you talked about Daniel Chate of Greenhouse, the CEO there. I mean, his own company is using AI and the course of its work, isn't it? It is. Absolutely. And I don't think any company operating in this sphere wouldn't be using AI. And yet, the point he makes is that they have to get back to some sort of human connection here. That there has to be some sort of human engagement at an earlier stage in the process to kind of help employers establish who the worthy candidates are because at the moment, this kind of, you know, nuclear arms race between AI is making it extremely difficult to do that. I like, at the moment, about half of employers are using AI to detect whether applicants are using AI in their applications. That's the sort of kind of situation that we're in with both sides kind of battling the other to use AI to their greatest advantage. Again, another irony is that if you hire an Escapable candidate at the end of all of this, it may well be that AI will help them do the job more effectively than they might otherwise have been able to. But in many cases, you're not getting the best people. And that's that that was what AI was supposed to help you get in the first place. Yeah, the other issues fake job postings. And I was surprised to see that in Ireland, the number of people who encountered a fake job posting was at the level of 54% in the US. It's over 70% of job seekers have come across fake postings. What's going on? Yeah, I thought this was kind of remarkable. There's two phenomena here. One is kind of those postings, which is a slightly different thing, which is where, you know, AI has actually made it so easy to write up job specs that a lot of companies are kind of putting out job postings and sort of kind of floating the idea of hiring somebody and then not actually completing the hire. So there's a lot of jobs being advertised that are in fact, you know, not translating into actual real jobs. And so people are applying for those jobs and not really obviously the process is going nowhere. And that's the problem. But the other problem and then it's like, outline this, the kind of experience that is clients are having and that a lot of people applying for jobs are having is that entirely fictitious jobs are advertised. There is a kind of elaborate setup. People are, you know, go go through several layers of processing for this initial assessment and in some cases, interviews and then the suggestion is that somebody has got a job and they're contacted and they're told they'll be starting and they're asked for a lot of personal details and ID and bank account details. So that our wages can be paid and what it is is quite elaborate kind of, you know, standards of these things, long term scam, yeah, where people are investing several weeks into a process which is essentially just a long wind way of emptying your bank account. Okay. Is there some AI tool you can use to sort through the job postings to see if they're fake or not? Yeah, I don't tell you. I don't tell you that you can ask you, you know, fill in your job posting, put it into chat GPT and maybe ask it if somebody else has asked them to make it open the first place. Yeah, interesting. Now, Daniel Chage, you mentioned him and he's the CEO of Greenhouse. Does he have any solution to all of this? No. Well, I don't think at this stage there is a very closely identified solution. I mean, what, you know, it was interesting when I asked him this specifically, he was saying that somehow we have to get back into this more human interaction. And I certainly think that Greenhouse are trying to look at ways of doing that and there's a variety of ways have been floated, both by academics and by people in the hiring market. A lot of it requires, you know, earlier contact in real time between somebody from the hiring side and the applicant. But, you know, there's no doubt about it that requires added resources. All of this was supposed to save time and money, supposed to save personnel and help pay your departments in the hiring process. But it seems that we're very quickly getting to a stage where it is going to have to be a major rethink and people are going to have to go back to basics. All right, so we'll take the journey. Thanks, Kiran. We're going to take a short break now. We're going to return. I'll be talking to Darrell Bern. I'm going to talk to you about the first executive of Irish Stock Exchange operator, you're next Dublin. Back in a few moments. Welcome back. This is Inside Business with Kiran Hancock. Darrell Bern is chief executive of you're next Dublin. And he joined me in studio recently to talk about the future of the market here and a proposal he has put forward for a new savings and investment products. Here we go. Last year was a very strong year. I mean, when you look at your next Dublin as part of the you're next group, where the number one exchange in the world for listing bonds and you know, within the year and next group, where the center of excellence for investment fund and bond listings. And on the back of that and being part of your next, we've really grown and expanded that business. When you look at trends in finance as well, I mean, we've had a big growth in terms of sustainable finance as well. So on the bond side, we've actually become the number one exchange in the world for listing ESG bonds as well. So you know, significant growth there. You've seen a lot of listings on the fund side in terms of ETFs of the strong momentum there after back of Ireland being the number one time a silent the world for structuring ETFs. There's no getting away from the fact that when people think of stock markets and I know you're you're an ex Dublin, you already are a stock exchange previously. They think about shares in public companies and there's no getting away from the fact that Dublin has lost a lot of its big public companies. And in parallel with that, there's really been no IPOs of note for a number of years now. So Lexix here, H. Gunter, New York, Fluffer, which used to be Paddy Per, Gunter, New York, Smurfish, now Smurfy Westrock, Gunter, New York. A number of companies some years ago had gone to London, the Lexix DC and Greencore, Graffton for example. So the Irish stock exchange has been shrinking substantially in terms of those, you know, those kind of core activities that everybody, everybody knows it for. I know you're doing well in bonds and funds and that's great. But everybody knows it for stocks and shares. And yeah, it's shrinking in that context. It's interesting because when you mention the Irish stock exchange, you're an ex Dublin. In Ireland, people automatically think of the eye seconded domestic equity market as you say. When you mention the Irish stock exchange, you're an ex Dublin outside of Ireland. You know, people think of bonds and international bond listings that we have. But you're right. We've experienced challenges over the last number of years we've had some of our largest companies leave in favor of US listings. You know, there has been a decline in the number of companies listed on the markets and D listings are part and parcel of markets, you know, as a small market. So what was the last time you had a list? No, absolutely. But I think in terms of smaller market, the impact of the D listings has been significant in terms of trading volumes. But the real issue for us is around the lack of pipeline coming true. But that's improved over the course of this year. But we haven't had the number of new listings coming true as we need or that we would like. Because the offering that we have from an equity markets perspective in Dublin is exactly the same as all the other urinex locations. The big difference when we look at other urinex locations and particularly smaller markets is that in those markets, they have certain features that are absent in the Irish market. So for example, they have cornerstone investments. So when a company goes to the market that there's a fund there, stay back to fund that will take a percentage of the company when it IPOs and that draws in other investors. Savings and investments accounts is another feature that exists in other urinex markets. We don't have here in Ireland. So we don't have retail investment in Irish equities. And then tax incentives for founders of companies are absent in the Irish market. If entrepreneur relief and it was welcomed in the budget to see the increase from a million to one and a half million, but there aren't a huge range of incentives for entrepreneurs and founders of companies. So these are features and that's why with our pre-budget submission, we were putting the case forward to introduce these two. I hear it all up. But none of those features were in place when CIRH was set up, our carry group, our Glambia or Ryanair. Oh great, companies are floater, etc. There's a few key important points here. So the first is back at that time, you had domestic institutions taking stakes in Irish companies when they IPO'd. So that was a big feature of the market back then. So the likes of Irish life investors, bank of Ireland investors, all of these big domestic institutions were taking stakes in Irish stocks. It was also very much active stock selecting at the time, whereas in today's world, there's been such a movement towards passive investment as well and investing in indices back then as well, particularly for those companies, you would have had more local brokers in the market, a bigger ecosystem. So the world today is very different to what it was back then. But the world, one face after the other isn't that right. So the reason why we fear brokers is because the Irish stock market is strong. But in terms of the Irish stock market and that kind of core activity that everybody would know it for, do we need a stock market in double? Absolutely we do. We need essentially to support the growth and the funding of Irish companies and particularly smaller companies. And I think when we look at things today compared to even 10 years ago, so the path for an Irish company was, we go through various stages of funding privately and then at some point, private equity would back out and use the IPO as an exit. And typically companies need to be of a much larger scale. So you know, north to 500 million in terms of size. And also they tend to be kind of further down their stage of growth. In the urnx world, it's very different. So we have companies that access the market at a much earlier stage, so much smaller companies doing smaller fund raising. And to give you a few examples, I mean across the urnx group, we've had about 50 companies joined the market this year. A number of those initially just to give you a labor of size, around a 20 million market valuation raising maybe four or five million coming to the market. The path for Irish companies in the past was always around taking a dual listing. So you know, listing in Dublin and listing in London, being part of urnx, a single listing on urnx will deliver everything that a company needs. And I suppose what we're doing is trying to get in front of companies at a much earlier stage. What hold on, King Span is a company that's listed on the Irish market. Yes. And it's spinning off a substantial business that it has. And it's going to IPO in part in Amsterdam. It is, it is chosen Amsterdam over Dublin. It looks that way for sure. But I mean, that's a nice thing. Just like that market, it kind of is that way, isn't it? Being part of the urnx group enables us to offer a company's choice. So if, you know, if Amsterdam is a better home for that company, that's absolutely fine. You know, it's on the urnx market. And that's, as I say, with the same offering as the other urnx markets. But what we need to do is get more companies, particularly at an earlier stage joining. And we know that for companies, our scaling Irish companies, that there's funding gaps, particularly in the 5 to 10 million range. But is urnx Dublin top to ball in terms of share listings and IPOs? I don't think we have. I mean, we have, we've strengthened our offering over the last number of years since we've joined urnx. We also have a number of programs. I mean, I think, you know, for us what's really important is getting in front of companies and demystifying IPO because a lot of times it seemed to be super costly, super complex. When an actual fact, it isn't particularly for the smaller markets, so we run our IPO ready program. We had 12 companies on that program this year, really, really good companies. Some of them could be potential IPO candidates. Where until last time you had an IPO over? We two companies come to the market in 2021. And then we had one company, the health of 2020, health beginning core. And their boats gone. Yes. So, King Span, you know, which is a substantial company, it wasn't when it listed first. Yes. It's become a major global player now. Yes, absolutely. And it's spinning off this entity. I'm sure you had winded that. I'm sure you were there pitching for them to come to Dublin rather than Amsterdam. And yet we've lost that. Would we like them to list in Dublin, of course, we would. And, you know, but if Amsterdam is a more appropriate market for them, then we're glad that's been part of your next that we can offer that rather than have them go to the state or go to London. Okay. So, what proportion of your business at the moment is that sort of core stocks and shares that everybody would know you about and how much of it is funds and bonds, listings and so forth. So about two thirds is funds and bonds, listings and one third is around the equity markets. And that's a combination of listing, but also trading as well. Right. Okay. How do you see that evolving over the next five years, let's say? We're doing everything in our power to grow our equity markets. I mean, that's our objective. So we're doing a huge amount to work and working with the ecosystem here, you know, from the brokers to the accounting firms, law firms, attach really to promote IPOs to smaller companies to promote the new way. Now there were parts of your next and put IPO on the radar because for a lot of companies what we find is they go down one particular funding avenue and when IPO is put on the radar, it's too late in the day. So we need to address that and that's why things like IPO ready also are market floor. And you know, we've had a lot of events in the market floor and we rent it out now as well. But one of the reasons for doing that is because we have a lot of trade associations or different groups like guaranteed Irish bringing in groups of CEOs and companies where we can get them front of them and we can explain about IPO, about the process what's involved and demystify it and present it as a viable funding option for companies. There is still a lot of money being raised in the Irish market isn't there for technology companies and startups, Metech and so forth. It's just not going to stock market. Exactly. So at an earlier stage, there's plenty of money being raised, you know, there's whether it's venture capital, private equity, etc. But at that later stage, you know, we see a lot of companies sell out, leave Ireland, you know, whereas what we want to do is keep companies firmly grounded in Ireland and we think that an IPO for companies is an avenue that can keep them grounded in Ireland but allow them to expand and grow internationally. Yeah. You talk to somebody, as I do from time to time, talk to somebody companies and they say, "I have the rules and regulations about an IPO and listening on the stock market to owners, better to say private and build from there." Is that a fair point? And Donald Trump in fact is, you know, he's commout and said, "We should look at quarterly reporting." It's just a place too big a burden on businesses. Yeah. So I mean, I think the nice thing is we provide a range of market options for companies. So for a regulated market, yes, there's European legislation attached and there's stock exchange rules for the other markets. It's just stock exchange rules and we've calibrated the rules for it to be appropriate for companies over a particular size. What's happening at a European level, which is quite helpful, is that there's a recognition that some of the rules are too heavy for, particularly for smaller companies and true European initiatives such as the Listing Act, there's an attempt there to introduce changes and to, I suppose, reduce the level of regulatory complexity and burden on companies and reduce the cost, particularly for smaller companies. So that's a good development at a European level, at a local level here in terms of our own rules. We've done refreshes of our rulebooks where we've looked at them to see our rulebook still appropriate for companies given the size and the type of market and, you know, bearing in mind they need for investor protection as well. So we've calibrated the rules appropriately. We have a choice, a range of markets for companies, there's choice there and depending on the stage that the companies ask, depending on how much money a company wants to raise, they need to decide on the appropriate market. So in terms of equities, it's the future for doubling, focusing on smaller companies rather than pretending to be in the market for big IPOs. The nice thing is we can cater for all companies, whether it's bigger companies or smaller companies, but I think what we found is that with the range of markets that we have now particularly with access on our growth markets, they are appropriate for smaller companies and the hope would be that companies joined, they fundraise on these markets and then they grow to be of a certain size where they can graduate up to our regulated markets. So we can cater for all companies, but the issue though for us is that we haven't had that pipeline of companies coming true and we need to build that and we're doing a lot of work ourselves and with the ecosystem to address that. So in your view, Donald Trump and his presidency has been a positive or negative for the stock market because it's been on a great run. Markets globally have been on a great run of late. Yeah, I mean, I think what we've seen is in the earlier part of this year with various announcements on a daily basis, there was a lot of uncertainty in the market. So a lot of deals got put on hold or companies that were considering an IPO just put the brakes on temporarily, but I think things have stabilized a bit now at this stage. So we are seeing the pipeline companies that had paused, starting to look at doing things again. And we saw, I suppose in the earlier part of the year, all of that uncertainty then leads to volatility in the markets and we see increases in trading taking place on the back of that as well. Right. So what else is new from you and next up? Well, I suppose one of our big focuses on it was that it was one of our asks in our pre-budget submission was around savings and investment accounts and introducing those to the Irish market because we think there's a real missed opportunity for Irish households and citizens in terms of not having this product available in the Irish market. It exists in other European locations, you know, in France initially. The UK have their eyes as regime and in Sweden they have a savings and investment account that's very successful. So we're looking and we include in our pre-budgets submission a proposal around introducing a savings and investment account in Ireland, which would be really good in terms of providing a new investment mechanism for Irish citizens, but also unlocking some of the 165 billion that's sashing in Irish deposits and putting it to productive use in the economy. So particularly for smaller companies that are looking to grow. Yeah, okay. You didn't that measure to come to in the budget. So in the budget, just before the budget, actually the European Commission published a recommendation for member states and in that, you know, was around the establishment of savings and investment accounts and also proposals around financial literacy as well. In the budget, the government earned the budget and the announcement, the government said I said that they would have a road map for around the taxation of retail investment and really I suppose simplifying and adapting the tax treatment of retail investment and part of that is looking at the commission recommendation for savings and investment accounts. So the government is going to set up a savings and investment forum and then prepare a road map in relation to this. So that's a positive signal of intent from the government, which is welcome. Yeah, sure. Could be just then kicking it down the road too. Yeah, but I think, I mean, there's a lot of momentum behind this. And we've even found, you know, I suppose we've done a lot of work on this ourselves. We worked with the ecosystem last year and in fact in our 2025 pre-budget submission, we had a proposal there around savings and investment accounts where we looked at the features of these accounts in other markets and, you know, set out a proposal for government but also drafted the legislation that could be used to implement savings investments accounts. So I think between, you know, I suppose the work that we've done previously with the ecosystem and then with the commission recommendation, there's enough there. And there's a swell of support within the industry as well. And behind this, certainly for our citizens, there's a real opportunity there, particularly when you look at the amount of money sitting on deposits that's earning very little interest. What about the risks involved in some tonalities? Because everybody would like a better rate of return on their deposits or investments, but there is risk, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. But, you know, we're investing, you know, I've seen there's the potential for upside, but also there's the potential for downside as well. But I think with these types of accounts, I mean, the idea is to make them, I suppose, as accessible and as simple and streamlined for people as possible, but also what we'd be looking for is that there's tax advantages to investing in these. So maybe no tax on dividends or no tax on interest, no capital gains, taxes, et cetera. So there'd be a tax incentive and we need that to drive behavior to get citizens investing in these types of products because without the tax incentives, there isn't an incentive to drive behavior and get people investing in the product. So look out, ten years, what does your next look like? Continued strength in terms of our Bonnephone's listings, but also growth in terms of our domestic equity markets, what we would love to see in the vision would be that we have a vibrant domestic equity market that has lots of companies on us that are using the markets to fund their growth, remain granted in Ireland, but as global champions as well. So a strong act of domestic market as well. Darborn, thank you for joining us. Thank you very much. Okay, that's it for this week from Inside Business, my thanks again to Kiro Bryan, Emma Malone and Darryl Burm for joining me on the show. John Casey produced his episode with JD Vernon on Sound. Thanks also to our sponsor, EY, for its continued support. Remember, as an Irish Times subscriber, you can sign up to our daily business
[email protected] and you can also follow the Irish Times Business Feed on X-Linked in and Facebook each day. I'm Kiro Bryan, Hancock, until next time, take care.
PodcastTranscript AI