V-FM Pensions #175: Pensions, politics and private markets

On this week's video, then, Darryl and I chat to each other about who knows what. Hello and welcome to the VFM Pensions podcast. I'm Darren Philp. I'm Nico Astable. How are you, Darryl? I'm good, Nico. I'm good. A bit under the weather this week. I think I've got the sort of autumn bug, you know, kids being back at school, lots of germs going around. Yeah. You know, weather has changed a bit. It's a bit sort of, it's a bit down, it's a bit colder. So I've had the snivels, Nico. I've had the snivels. I hope the snivels will go before Pensions as you can actually. Do you smell snivels with a V? I'd smell it with an F. Yeah, definitely with an F. Okay, all right. Then you don't pronounce it. I'm all right. I'm all right. So I'm all right. I might be in the incubation zone of a nasty bug. This isn't one for Mosher, is it? No, the pneumonic plague. No. I had to leave work early yesterday to pick up Thomas from his nursery and they handed him to me like a tube of pneumonic plague. Like, here he is. It's too graphic for the podcast, what happened next? But basically yesterday I had a little boy who couldn't understand why he couldn't keep any food down, who could sleep for 15 minutes and then screamed in his car. And then basically from about 3pm afterward onwards, he would only sleep in my arms. And every time I sort of sneaked upstairs to try and put him back in his car, he's like, no, he's like hungry. I know you are. So I'd like to add to it today. Good luck Emma. Good luck Emma. Oh yeah. It's horrible when they will. It really is horrible when they will. Like, because you know they're struggling, but there's not a lot you could do about it. No, no, you can't keep his phone all the reason. Yeah, it's fluids, you know, maybe a cow power, depending on, you know, what the other. So you're going to say, yeah, I washed my hands more often than I did during COVID yesterday. I just do not wear what he had. So, but I think he slept quite well last night. So hopefully it was just, you know, it's like the storm is on the plane. It's very intense for a short period of time and then it goes somewhere else. But they all have these rules of like 48 hours since he last Wellman said, you can't keep him in nursery. So, you know, I'm paying for a day and a half nursery. I can't use that. You don't get away from it. No, you don't get. Well, let's, you know, on behalf of obviously me, the podcast and all of our listeners, I hope, you know, Thomas is okay and gets well soon. Yes. And I hope you're, you know, fighting fit for eager their pensions UK. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, we, let's, let's have a look forward to that in a second. But, um, you were in turn, I mean, Boxel on the long past this week. But she's, she's not able to join us. So we're going to be, um, you know, we, she may have this disease. Who knows? Who knows? Who knows? Yes. The sympathies with her as well. Um, but yeah, so we're, we're, you know, we're rescheduling that podcast at the moment. Um, but we've had such, uh, such fun recently in terms of the episodes and came back from our summer break. And we thought, you know, we're sort of overdue a catch-up anyway. We are. And, you know, and we've always got plenty to talk about haven't we, Niko? We do. We're just going to sort of add lip this one a bit, um, without, without much preparation, but we'll be fine. Um, just to, just to sort of give a bit of a shout out, actually, um, you know, just to sort of take a quick look back at some of the guests that we've had in this what I kept sort of the, the autumn season of the podcast. So we had, um, Shulka Brow from, um, Nixon. You know, when we were talking about pop-for-life, innovation, consumer choice. Um, and if you remember, we also talked about General Levy and, you know, um, there, and it wasn't the wrap, it wasn't the wrap or whatever. MC, MC, MC, MC. Um, and that was, that was a great, great chat about innovation. Um, we also had, um, Bryan, Bryan Henderson, um, talking about him, his series of papers, which was really good. And, um, I saw in professional pensions and other, you know, uh, pension publications that he's actually launched his, um, new company, yeah, keen, um, helping, you know, schemes, et cetera, et cetera, think about the time and, um, yeah, I think it is. So, um, you know, it's a pension, pension, pension fit. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, you know, best of luck for Bryan for that, you know, really, really enjoyed that discussion. He buried the leads like he didn't need, he didn't need, he was, he was, as I've just been niggling this stuff around. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It was, it was well planned. It was well planned. Well, um, to be honest, we'd have launched it for him. Um, I don't know if the 180 people who have listened to that episode would have clicked straight onto his website and become customers, but, you know, you know, it's a bit, no, it's, it's, it's, it's great. And what I like about what Bryan's done there is he's, he's actually put some thought in terms of a series of essays and think pieces. Yeah, and then he's spinning something out off the back of that. Yeah, um, so it's not just, um, you know, setting something up for the sake of saying something up. It's, there's some intellectual thought and intellectual vigor behind that, you know, which was, which was good. Um, then we had book Sam book. Yes. And that was a great episode. And that's, um, you know, I really enjoyed talking to Will about adequacy, self-employed, psych, housing, pension commissions. And it was quite, it was quite nice actually because, um, you know, quite often, and it is because of where the, the debate has been recently. You know, we've been a bit more technical, we've been a bit more investment focused, you know, we've been talking a lot about the VFM consultation. And what I, what I really enjoyed about the Will Sam book podcast was sort of take an almost a step back and, you know, looking down on the industry and thinking about, you know, what, what we know, what we don't know, what assumptions we should challenge. Um, and, you know, I really, I, I, I, I think, well, it was a great bloke. Um, and he's done, they've done, done, done really well with what he's, what he's doing there. And then last week, um, what is it, Go, go, go, go, go doodles, go, go doodles, go doodles, go doodles, go doodles, go doodles, go doodles, go episode you know I think we will hit 200 we will definitely hit 200 and you're always learning something new and you're always hearing a different perspective which is you know which is good yeah and and if you think about the sort of consequences of the value for money consultation with you know that the framework has like reducing dispersion it's very interesting that our industry has got so many different opinions and to contrast those two things so you know so we're looking forward to PUK next week I'm on stage I've got a slot in I think it's still called officially VFM question time with our former boss Patrick Heathlay from people's but also Charlotte Clarke from FCA and Richard Knox from pensions regulator for what are you going to give them to this is this is going to be this is going to be spicy you know what I'm going to I'm going to be hopefully you know it's 5 p.m. on the Wednesday 5 p.m. on Wednesday okay which is when you know the John Paul Roger stand at JP Morgan sorry I just say the JP Morgan stand with John Paul Roger will I'm sure be doing great great traction and the champagne cocks will be flying but nonetheless if you can avoid you know if you can resist a drink for all of 45 minutes come and come and see the sparks fly yeah just just between us Niko you just you know you know there's there's lots of water bottles and cups and stuff like that you know will be floating around the conference or you know so if any of our listeners want to go and see Niko but also have a have a tip at the same time you know there's there's plenty of options for doing that well I did say to Jamie Follivash so Jamie's obviously friend of the podcast your former boss at SMAR and people's and people's yep and so he's he's chairing the session he's chair of PUK and he's chairing the session and at one point in our prep call there was some some comment from him, which was like, of course, you'll have to avoid having a drink. And I said, there's no reason you can't bring a GNT on to stage. I mean, you know, I don't know if the Liverpool arena or whatever it's called, has any rules against alcohol on stage, but they'll be serving us water. So we'll see. Indeed, and you know, there's this precedent for this as well. Is that going to take two precedents? Yeah. Okay. One is when the chancellor gives his or her budget speech. Yes. They are allowed to have a tip of something, you know, and I think that's the only time that alcohol is allowed within the common streamer and and he's allowed to drink well, delivering a speech. Yes. So that's not sure that's really precedent. I mean, it's it's similar, I guess, no, no, but do they do that anymore? Did Rachel Reeves have the drink at any point? No, she didn't know. I think, um, who's the job before? I, I, the last one I remember was King Clark doing this. I might be easy going on. Yeah, easy guy. I think your job's built my well, I love. Yeah, I can, yeah, yeah, it's still for time. Yeah, yeah, it's still for time. You're going to do some Googling. Okay. Um, so the other precedent as well is, um, events that I run, Nico. Yeah, so I'm running an event on the Tuesday. Yeah, um, at the one o'clock gun, um, um, uh, untank consulting, um, more squared communications and Daniela Silklock research called beyond the bottom line. It's between five and seven. Um, it's in a pub, as you'd expect. Um, you know, we, there's, there's myself, um, Charlotte, who's going to chair, uh, Danielle's, Danielle is going to cover some research that she's been doing, which is looking at, um, some of the sort of drivers for decision making, um, behind providers and, um, got Carl Emerson on stage. Yeah, you know, you put chef from scratch with us again, friend of the book cast on stage, so, so looking for that. And I'm in the protocol, you know, my one instruction was make sure I've got a beer in hand. Yeah, and, and if you've got to wait, and if I, yeah, I said to Natasha, I said, Natasha, well, I said, if, if I start waving my bottle, you know what I'm doing, you, you, you shouldn't really have a rider for your own event, but, uh, I love, I love the spirit, um, so Google tells me, or Gemini tells me Ken Clarke is the last chance to drink during the, during the budget, um, and Gordon Brown had mineral water, uh, George Osborne had mineral water. And then it tells me, uh, the favorite drinks of other chances of the extractors. So Nigel Lawson liked to, uh, Spritzer, uh, Jeffrey Howe took gin and tonic, uh, and Benjamin Disraeli, um, Benjamin Disraeli had browned in water. Gladstone, what's a Gladstone drink? It's so big to me, I don't, I don't, no, no, no, no, sherry and beat an egg. Oh, I'm not sure that's a drink that you can order in a bar anymore. Um, it's not an egg, it's not far off an egg dog, is it? Um, any egg gnomes, do you think in your, um, in, uh, the one o'clock gun? I doubt it, I doubt it. But anyway, um, I don't know if there's any spaces left. So I don't know why I'm promoting it, but we, we, um, I think we've got about 75 people coming along to the event. So it's, um, a packed house, but I'm sure we can speak with ease in a couple more, um, and you always get dropouts and stuff. So, you know, look out at my LinkedIn if people want to register. Yeah. And, you know, if you're at the conference and fancy coming along, just message me on the app or just email me, um, Darren on tamedconsulting.com. And we'll squeeze people in, but looking forward, looking forward to that. Yeah, it was a great event in Edinburgh. I really enjoyed it. Um, cause, you know, yeah, poor Maynard and, uh, Charlotte Ellery, didn't you? Um, yeah, yeah. So this one's slightly different, um, because we've, um, you know, it's a very, very similar format, yeah. And this one's slightly different because, you know, we wanted to get Danny Ella to do some research and she's indeed, um, a number of sort of proposition and investment people at master trust GPPs, advisory companies. Um, so, you know, there's a bit of a question. Um, yeah, looking forward to just sort of, you know, randomly, you know, chatting about all the, the, the, you know, the stuff that a comes out of the research. But what I really liked about the Edinburgh event, um, is it's sort of less stage than a lot of events. Yeah, and I get what, you know, corporates have to stage events and all of that. But this is a bit more open mic, a bit more spit and saw dusty. Yeah. And, you know, a bit more authentic, authentic, a bit more banter and a bit more, you know, a bit more sort of, um, a bit, a bit more fun, I would say. That's what you and I bring to this industry, you know, um, the authenticity of our podcast. Um, yeah, it was, it was also probably my favorite heckle, um, that I've done. I'm not big, big audience heckler. Um, but there was a comment you said, telling on stage along the lines of, um, I think our podcast is, is great value for money, but he said, like, well, I, of course, I've always been the value, and I say, I've always been the money. That was quite nice. That was quite nice. So, um, is it apart from your session, um, is it unique in particular that you're looking forward to from pensions UK? Yeah, I mean, um, I guess so that the, you know, we both, we have both the shadow work and pensions and, um, pensions ministers speaking. Um, so Helen Wheatley on the Wednesday and Torsten on the, on the Thursday. Um, so they will be, I think it's a really interesting moment, actually. Um, you know, we've got Torsten. He's obviously got a huge, um, head of steam. A lot of momentum, um, uh, you might say that I couldn't possibly comment. Um, and, um, and then Helen who, uh, you know, I think disagrees, let's say politically with a number of different things. So, so disagrees with mandation, disagrees, um, I think with the scale test. Um, and but that would be really interesting to see if she emphasizes her political disagreements or her agreements, because there's a lot, you know, there's a lot to love in the reform agenda. A lot of it is guy opiments work that has been continued. Um, so the contrast between those two, I'm, I'm really looking forward to. Um, but you're in the tent as well. There are any, you know, what, what are you looking at? So, so yeah, I'm just, I'd like to get, I've been just a bit of a shout out, actually, because we've been talking to them alongside others for a number of years and said that, you know, like for a small business in particular, membership is incredibly expensive. And for business members, it's incredibly expensive, you know, and it's all business. You, you know, you just can't afford to go. Yeah. Um, so what they're doing is they're actually troiling a membership. Uh, a micro membership, um, offer. So, you know, you have your membership fee for the company, which is 500 pound a year. Um, then it's, uh, 500 pound, uh, event, obviously all plus that. Um, so for the annual conference and the investment conference. Yeah. So, you know, it's still, you know, it's, it's, it's a little bit of money. You know, it's, it's still chunky for a small business, you know, um, you know, not sort of gripping a cash, but at least it gives people the opportunity, um, to get along. And, you know, whereas before I wouldn't have had a choice, it was just a, there's no way. Um, now I think there's a decision for me to make. Um, which, um, which is good. So yeah, I'm, I think very subtle. We've signed up to pensions. You came membership, um, we're going along to annual conference and the investment conference. So, you know, like, I know that quite often can be some criticism of trade associations and stuff. And some of it's valid. Some of it isn't. Some of it comes to me. Some of it's political, some of it, you know, like, it always, yeah. And you're always going to get that with a no representative body. And, you know, we've talked a lot. Also, Nick, about, um, you know, your brother and other than this as well, the, um, my FOA and stuff, you know, as soon as you bring people together in that environment, there's all sorts of trade-offs and things like that. You know, you know, credit work, it's true. You know, they, they, they listened, they've engaged, you know, they, they've discussed it. Um, and they're twiling it. So, yeah, it's, it's, it's great to be in the term. So, I mean, the best thing, I think is just wondering around and bumping into people that you haven't seen for 10 years. And, you know, just, just the, the fact that not everyone from the pension industry is there. I'm sorry to say, but there's so many kind of familiar faces. Um, so it's a little bit like a school reunion, or something like that. The community aspects of it is quite good fun. Um, and as you say from being to people, um, I think we've established on the podcast that, that the pensions people are the best people, right? Um, so, yeah, no, I'm really looking forward to it. So, yeah, look at, yeah, so, so like you, I always think that, you know, a highlight is the minister and the shadow minister. And I think it's important to be in the room. So, yeah, I know Torsten spoke, um, last year, um, but actually getting a proper read out of what he said was actually quite difficult. Yeah. Right. So there was, there was announcements and there was positioning what he said to pensions UK last year. And the, you know, the pensions press, um, they pick it up. Yeah. Yeah. Um, they'll cover the big things. But what really, um, well, I thought was quite a lot. actually from a DWP perspective is I think if ministers are doing speeches like that, you know, they should publish a speech, yeah, they did publish a speech, yeah. And obviously there's stuff about how speech is delivered, there's the Q&A and all of that, yeah, which is interesting, well they probably slightly staged, managed. But you know, I think. Oh, I don't know actually, I think that's slightly unfair, I think because the P.I.C.A has a, sorry, P.U.K. has an app. So and then he votes up the questions. And then Zoe was very good at picking the most voted questions. So yeah, so they went to Steve Webb who if you'd planted a question, you would have not sat your questioner at the most inaccessible part of the audience because he was right at the top. No, I know, because I've done this, it's not planted questions or anything like that. I just mean that, you know, so I'm not saying that questions are filtered and stuff, but there's only too much debate and discussion you can have in that environment. What are their politicians? You know, I mean, they're not, they're trained to say anything. Yeah, I mean, I've had to talk and speak a lot before, but I think it makes a difference being in the room, hearing something like that, especially if you're not getting a speech afterwards, you know, BP are listening to this. Then, you know, yes, Torsten, talk into a pension UK, I'll talk into this conference or that conference is important. But if there's an ounce and stuff, yeah, then they probably should release the speeches as well. But anyway, that's really, absolutely. I'm also looking forward to Helen as well. And I'll tell you why, because I think we're entering into a slightly different phase of politics now that stems from the Burnham party conference, and, you know, you know, before, basically, on the triple lock, but also, you know, basically, asserting quite a left-of-center agenda, yeah, economically and socially, socially for the Labour Party. It was a deliberate shift away from, you know, what the sort of consensus politics from Labour and the Tourists has been basically since, you know, Blair came in. Yeah. But also, I think, that, you know, came about at Badalok, you know, was really distancing herself in her party conference from the far right. And some of, yeah. And I think that what you've got, yeah, is you've got some parties that are polarised now on the spectrums, yeah, on the outer bits of the spectrum, you know, so obviously the women's and the store, you know, and I think what the Tourists are trying to do is to put, you know, clearly water between them and, you know, those parties, yeah. And I think, you know, that's going to be quite interesting to see how that plays out. Because basically, I think the Tourist Attics to date, yeah, have been, we've almost got to out with form reform, yeah, all right, at least, at least on some issues. Yeah, but I think, I think with the Labour shift to the left, yeah, there is that middle ground to play for now, yeah. And there's more of a clear economic societal choice between soft left and soft right, yeah. So you're almost going back to, you know, some of what more of our traditional politics, yeah, because I think our politics has been very, very divisive. And I'm actually looking forward to the next couple of years in terms of that debate and the discussion because, you know, rather than it being, you know, populist politics, sensationalism, all of that, you know, if you can have a proper debate between the Conservatives and Labour, yeah, you know, about, you know, economics, welfare, defence, health, education, you know, and there's no way on to this. We know there's no way on to it, yeah, but actually have that proper debate, yeah, about the big issues, around that center ground, yeah, and I think that's going to be quite interesting, yeah. And I think that's going to be potentially quite healthy. Now, you've still got a form, you've still got, you know, they're, they're, they're, they're probably not going to win the next election now, given the latest polling and they've been damaged, yeah, but they're not going away. There's still going to be an influential plan. And I think there's going to be a lot of positioning between the parties, between now and the election, about choice. Yeah. Yeah. So I thought Burnham was making a pitch, yeah, to the Lib Dems, yeah, what he was saying on Europe, what he was saying on electoral reform, yeah, it was almost like, okay, we might not have a majority at the next government, but we're the people to do business with because there is probably going to be enough votes in a center left pro-European pro-electual reform coalition. Yeah. Yeah. What Badenock and the Tourist did was really interesting because they were saying, you know, there's no way we're going with those loons on the far end. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. And I think they're just trying to make some of those choices a bit clearer. And that'll really be interesting for tactical voting. Yeah. Anyway, this is the pension's podcast now. Well, and then Burnham also promised proportional representation, one election down the line, right? So then all of these coalition debates in the 20 what would be 34 election and formation of parliament will be potentially incredibly germane. So there may not be important in 29 who knows. But you could see a massive, you could, I mean, you know, all bets are up for it. Yeah. So I'm interested because you know, this is bringing it back to the point of what you know, interesting to see whether that sort of feeds into, you know, what the, the minister and the shadow minister are saying. Yeah. And whether there is a sort of change of approach, yeah, because it takes them to lead food. So yeah, I'm looking forward to that. Yeah. So just to just to try and draw some potential dividing lines on pension's policy, I do think the post-retirement default is a potential illiberal, you know, positioning that the conservatives can have. And I, I'm really interested because it's such an early day in the policy. You know, I've been complaining that that Tuston has destroyed the language. It used to be really clear. We know what default is. It's a choice that others make if you don't. Well, the post-retirement default is not that. It's no kind of default. It's an anchoring, right? Yeah. It's not a default. A default is a choice that somebody else makes for you. So it's an anchoring, which is fine. You know, I'm happy to frame people onto income for life. But you know, there's absolutely no way any pension provider is retiring you without knowledge of A your bank account, bank details and be your tax status, right? Because just can you imagine me coming to a life site and saying, thank you. Here's my tax bill. And then, right, doing that, you know, 5,000 times a year, that is bankruptcy. So it is not a default. The word default, I think, is one word that could send a shadow down the new conservative sort of, yeah, what do you want to call it? Like consumer positioning or role of individuals in society, you know, it's shivered down their spine. It may not. I don't know that they've kind of crystallized that kind of philosophy of, you know, what does a good society do for its it's people in terms of making choices on its behalf. But I think that's quite an interesting dividing line because it is so early in the policy. We have guided retirement, we have targeted support, we know what those things are. But even the fact that the value for money regulations, obviously, were written without any knowledge of default pension benefit solutions, you know, suggest that these things are pretty nation in the mind of DWP. Yeah, and you've been doing some thinking about this over the last few weeks and been discussing it with a few people. And I think it's going to be bloody difficult if not impossible, both schemes to, you know, have that pretty inverted commas now, but default. Yeah, you know, like you can only do your best for your members in this space, especially in the DC space, when you've got an appreciation of, you know, you mentioned that you need, you need to know your bank account details, you need to know your text, right? Actually, it's more than that. Oh sure, yeah, you need to know my pension, you need to know my children, you need to know my mortgage status, you need to know, yeah, and health. And there's something in this, which is, you know, basically, there's probably a school of thought, which says, you know, we're over complicating it. You know, the question is, how do you make DC as much like DB as possible without the guarantee in the risk? And, you know, it will just wash through and sort itself out, etc, etc. I don't know, I don't, you know, I sort of buy that and I sort of see that, you know, that's one of the reasons you've got CDC, you know, coming to the fore. Yeah. And I get that as part of the mix. I just think divided to the time and default retirement in DC. Yeah, it's going to be really tricky. Yeah, it's going to be bloody difficult for those trustees to get comfortable about what some of those options are, especially on the basis of partial information. Yeah. So yeah, no, I think that is a dividing line. And obviously, we know one of the reason that one of the reasons for, you know, the removal of the annuitable Yeah, from George Osborne, you know, was it, was it sensible penitence policy by, well, who knows? Yeah, I think you could argue it both ways. Yeah, the genie's out of the bottle right the genie is out of the bottle, but why did you do it? It's because it's bloody popular with the, um, the, the toy glass routes. The thing about behavioral finance, right? Nobody wants to be told that they are not very good at making decisions. So the pensions industry may well believe that and it may have huge amounts of evidence to back that up, but it is not a vote winner. So I mean, and, and going back to the pensions act 2006, 2006, you know, there was an opportunity, I think, to say, by the way, pensions of own income for life. If you're a trustee who essentially through that retirement journey puts people into an investment design intended to generate an income for life, then you will have a safe harbor you cannot be sued from a fiduciary perspective. There was an opportunity and that, that to me is where, um, you know, we're, we're surprisingly unradical to us and surprisingly unradical if he wants to achieve this policy, then I think that's the platform he has to kind of build for those trustees. Otherwise, they're going to make decisions they're scared of and what do you do when you're scared? You know, you status quo, right? Yeah, hold that thought, Nico. Oh, yeah, because I, there's another thing that I just wanted to pick up on, um, before we go into some of that, which is, you know, the difference between the tourism labor. Yeah, um, we talked a bit about the triple lock with Glenn last week and I don't want to do that debate and discussion because I think we covered it pretty comprehensive. People, we've agreed, Darren, not, not to kind of retread the previous episode, so people should go and listen to 174 if you haven't already. Exactly. You know, that's, that's a, that's a behavioral framing, isn't it, Nico? Yeah, you know, if you, if you want to hear about what we were running about on the triple lock, you're going to have to go back to. And, uh, does incomplete this theorem and the cheering stopping from, I call it the stopping promise, the whole thing problem, I think. Okay, okay, so I think, um, and we picked up on this a bit, but Burnham was brave, you know, um, opening the Pandora's box of the triple lock. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and, and I think, you know, it's, you can argue about, you know, how brave the action was, what the change actually is. Yeah. What really annoyed me, uh, what happened politically, but what really annoyed me is basically, you know, you had to reform come out saying, oh, this is, um, an attack on pensioners, we would guarantee and protect the triple lock. Right. Yeah. Of course they would. Right. Um, you know, there's the schizophrenic in terms of their positioning on a lot of this stuff. Yeah. Well, it's free when you know you're not going to win power. Right. Exactly. Exactly. But what really pissed me off. Yeah. I was, um, when the tour was did the same. Right. Yeah. Um, because ultimately, yeah, there's a proper debate and discussion to be had about the level of state pension and how it's operating. Yeah. Um, no one, yeah, has, um, almost dead to touch this and to open that Pandora's box. Yeah. Yeah. And I think it was just, um, and you can see why they've done it. Of course you can. It's politics, isn't it? Yeah. But I would have thought a more grown up and mature Tory party. Yeah. Would say yes, physical discipline is important. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, you know, yes, um, making sure that we have the right level of the state pension is important. Yeah. That's where we need to focus and debate on the discussion, not about the actual operating mechanism. You know, our position will be we will make sure the pensioners get a fair deal and pensioners are predicted. That's what that's what they should have done. If they are actually interested in physical discipline, economics, the welfare bill and our pension system. Yeah. Right. Um, they scored lots of cheap political points. Yes. Um, and I think that, you know, a more confident party. Yeah. Actually, I'm knows and understands what it believes in. Yeah. Right. Economically and visibly would have been more nuanced. Yeah. And he was quite nuanced on it. Yeah. Yeah. And the Pandora's box all the way. And like if you're going to solve some of these big problems. Yeah. That's where you've got to stop the point scoring. I think. Yeah. Because you can just see right away for it. Anyway, that's a bit of a, a van. Well, let's keep on this team. I really like the dividing lines narrative. So because I think there's one thing that it's amazing how little content at PUK there is on it is climate change. And net zero as a sort of policy framing, you know, the conservatives have abandoned, right? They introduced it. They've now abandoned it. It's a, it's a U turn because Cameron was very big on this, wasn't it? Yeah. Well, they put it into the trees and they put into law. Right. So. And we haven't seen, we know that. So what does net zero mean? It means essentially that the UK's emissions need to hit zero at 2015. So what is that led to? It doesn't reduce any of the consumption of energy. It leads to you offshoring those emissions. So that's one of the major. It's again, it's not, this is some of the points I make on VFM. It's not actually the intent of the policy. It's the structuring of the incentives that is the critical piece. So, you know, it's better under the net zero law for us to import fossil fuels from other countries than to dig them out of the North Sea for instance. And argument there is that, well, if you're going to consume this stuff anyway, you know, you might as well do it in the most economically beneficial way for you. Yeah, and security and jobs and et cetera. So that's an argument. And, you know, we haven't heard. So we know that Jack Daw and Rose Bank has sort of still sat at some ministers desk somewhere. But we will see essentially if there's nuances to the labor version of net zero. This autumn, I don't think Torsten's going to be making that announcement next week. But the reason to talk about this is pension's initiative is that the mansion house and the reserve power that they've taken is, I think, the only bit of the Tory manifesto that we understand already, which is that they would remove the reserve power from law. What might use that? Yeah, they said that's that's manifesto. But they did say it will be in our next manifesto. Now whether, you know, who knows, but there you go. It was a surprising announcement. It was last year, I think that it was one of the earlier this year that that hasn't. So that's again, it's sort of said, what are these private market assets going to be doing? You know, again, as a, as a lowercase g green, I don't want to be affiliated with the party really at the moment. Then, then, you know, those are infrastructure investments that UK pensions could finance that are desperately needed. It's about the grid. It's about all sorts, you know, car charging points, all sorts of stuff. Is that something that you could see the net zero? Now that they've walked away from net zero, they can tie that reserve mandation power, you know, two, two, two, two different concepts. And will we see tossed and saying the opposite? I think it's going to be, as you say, I think it's a really interesting period. I have to say, as a spectator and not a player on the political field, that the result of the game is always kind of more boring than than you hope for. You know, it's always kind of more kind of hidden behind hyperbole and smoking mirrors is always quite hard to really work out what any politician in these speeches actually say. It's not what you talk to me, okay. I would don't get to all of that. It's like watching, I saw Alistair Bern, friend of the podcast and he took me to his, I'm going to say, working man's club to make it clear, it wasn't a gentleman's club. And he had a huge snooker ball and I was like, come on Alistair, it's like being the difference between hoping for a good one for seven from Ronnie O's elephant and then actually watching two total amateurs struggle to put a single ball alone, two in a row. I mean, I did beat him, but it was mostly on fouls. It was like 20 fouls plays 19. It's a devil's own game of snooker. It's difficult to really enjoy. It's really difficult. Yeah, it's not content. They have an eye sustained a bit of strokes, which is a dance thing, which was amazing. It was so good like the quality of the bands was unbelievable. And you know, I was there cheering on him and beasting and day books in there. Green, I think it was the green fighters bands that they had and they were really, really good plans to song some green day in the food fighters. So, what an evening, what an evening. How many bands are there? I think they're gosh, there was last year's winner that opened with a set. And I think what they do is the previous year's winner can't enter the competition, but they get to play, yeah. I think from memory, there were four bands, all playing a sort of 25 minute or so set. Yeah, and um, get it. There was one band, I can't remember what they were called, but I think they were a second off the head out. And it was a free piece band, so Trumac, bass guitarist and lead guitarist, and they ended up winning. Right. I think they were really, really good, but what happened is halfway through a song, the lead guitarist's string, one of the strings broke, which is an absolute nightmare when you're doing something like that. And especially if you've only got a bassist and a, so the guitarist had to sort of rush off the stage, and be restring, and the bassist was just doing a bit of bum, bum, just trying to keep things ticking over, I was thinking, oh my god, this is a bit. And then they did, I always think it's, I can never remember the name of the song, but you just played this song, and Adlib this song, yeah, you know, it's when it's um, um, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, yeah, and you just played that on the bass, yeah, Adlib did on the bass, sang it, yeah, and the drummer of the world just then came in with a bit of a beat, yeah, and it was just incredible. And they're adlibbing that they did, and just messing about doing that. And how they just played with a bass guitar and a drum kit, well, um, the guitar lead guitarist was changing, um, sort of sorted the guitar out, was absolutely incredible. But yeah, it was great to bump into a Alistair, um, which was really good. Right, let's get back on to some pension stuff. Yes. Um, you mentioned Safe Harbor earlier, and you mentioned, um, you know, retirement outcomes, and what that default in inverted commas could potentially look like, yeah. And, um, I just wanted to sort of link that back sort of to some A on research that came out, yeah, um, and I'm just looking at, um, I think it's pension's age, yeah, pension's age, yeah. And, and it's about DCC games facing adequacy blind spot ahead of the VFM machine, yeah, is basically what the thing is about. And it's a survey by A on covering 98 billion DC assets and over 1.2 million sabers. Um, and, and, and, and, and I think that, you know, what is doing is, um, it's just, it's one of those sort of around woven surveys, um, that just asks about, um, like, employees and trustees, what they sort of think of the state of the nation, yeah, um, but the, the headline figure that sort of leaped it left out for me, there's a few actually, but this is the one that I want to pick up on is A on finds that 73% of employers and trustees don't know the expected retirement outcome for a typical lifetime member of their DC scheme. Okay. All right. And I think this, um, this builds on your point as well. Right. What, what we actually deliver in here, yeah, people, and it's like, okay, you know, we, we talk about VFM, we talk about mentation, we talk about productive finance, we talk about scale, you know, there's, there's so many different input things that we end up talking about on this, right? Um, now, what, what we're trying to achieve, like, yeah, we, we're probably trying to achieve decent retirement outcomes for people. Okay. Great. We can probably all agree with that. That's a given. That's why we're in this industry. Yeah. But what does it actually mean? Yeah. Because we don't know. Yeah. No one knows, right? And I think this is the, you know, we can talk about VFM, we can talk about all of these different areas and stuff. Yeah. All right. Um, because, you know, where I've got to with VFM is that, you know, what we're, it's, it's making your money work as hard as you possibly can. Yeah. Um, but the condition is the money. Yeah. Um, for that, for every pound you put in, you know, how do you get the best experience return outcome from that pound? Yeah. I'm just talking investment return there. You know, I'm talking, you know, the value of that, that, that, that, that pound. Yeah. Um, but that actually, you know, where is, and I'm hoping, Janie and the Engines Committee and actually you can actually start putting a proper framework around this. Because I think we're going to end up tripping up in a few years' time when, you know, we, we have all these initiatives in play. We'll get herding, we'll get, um, all of the sort of intended and unintended consequences of the policy. Yeah. And then we're just going to be like, okay, well, what were we actually trying to achieve? What was this, what does good look like? What was our objectives? You know, what is that end outcome? Um, and, and I think that what I would like to see happen is, and this might happen through pension commission work too. But, you know, let's spend some time discussing debating and focusing that. So this, Nicole, is my gift to you for your VFM panel at the Engines Committee, right? Okay. This is my gift that actually, yes, do you with the actual NICO type nerdy stuff? Yeah. All right. Yeah. I'm actually going to take that as the most flattering thing you've ever said on this podcast. Thank you. Have a debate about arithmetic means geographic means whether the regulated connect or not. Yeah. But actually, yeah, leave their audience and leave the panel with one big, bigger macro thought. Yeah. And, um, if I, I will be in the session, I'm definitely going to make that session. And I'm going to raise my hand. And I'm going to give you advanced warning. It's on the app. You need to get the app. Oh, they don't let you raise your hand. I think they do, but they want you to, they want you to put the questions the app and then people up to out the question they want to hear. Yeah. So it's not just first come first said. Come on, you're a populace. Come on. You can ask a popular question. What's our pensions for? There you go. That's your answer. What does value for money mean to you? So you get a chance to answer that on stage? Are you going to want to? Yeah. So anyway, anyway. Well, I mean, so there is, there is traction. Obviously in that question. I mean, look, so, so, but you've asked two questions, right? So one is what is a pension for? Right. And then the other is what does value in pensions mean? Right. And I have to say, I don't think we can get on to the value for money in pensions questions. Yeah. That's not my answer. That's got that's well political answer. But I do agree that we haven't really, so George Osborne changed to move the goalposts or open the goal. And we haven't really tried to decide what we're shooting now. Right. So is a pension an income for life? And let's say locked away from you? Or is it something more flexible? Or is it capital? And my guess is that most people expect it to be flexible, actually. And that's the, that's my big concern with retirement CDC. Does this massive say do, say do gap? You say to people, would you like an income for life? You go, yes. And would you like to be able to access your capital in case, you know, the gas boiler breaks? And they say yes. Okay. So if it is so important that it's an income for life, then I think you have to follow through and take away choice of retirement. So the analogy here is, it's, you know, you're, it's having your cake and eating it and using the money more than once. Yeah, but look at the electric bikes, right? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And I just want to bring it back to our political conversation earlier, because you know, you're probably going to get a, what is it, a Britannia dome? Yeah. Yes. Only a billion a year. Well, that doesn't seem enough to be able to do that. It's a bunch of drawings, isn't it? Yeah, exactly. But there's all these things that are going to be paid for, Nico. Yeah, by what I know for by, well, I'm by removing attacks a yet. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So again, there's a, yeah, I do love the cakey stuff. It's true. It's like, you know, I don't think we, we fully understand what people actually want. No, I mean, that's that was right. We don't fully understand what people want from their retirement. So not just the pension, but from their retirement. And we don't understand people's views on trade-offs. Yeah. No, but between consumption today versus consumption tomorrow. Yeah. Yeah. So there's a short term versus long term trade-off. Yeah. Also, there's lots and lots of potential trade-offs in retirement. Yeah. And I think sometimes we can be, and we're all guilty of this. Yeah. We can be very well meaning as the pensions industry. Yeah. You think pensions are special. Yeah. Right. They have their place. Yeah. Yeah. But ultimately, I think that until we really get to the bottom of and understand that sort of preference curve for people. Yeah. And it is really, really difficult to even start thinking about what the system should look like. Yeah, and designing a system that can actually meet those preferences and meet those needs of people and then assess whether the system is actually delivering, yeah, it feels we are so far away from that. Yeah, yeah, it really does. Yeah, and I know that securing come for life inflation links is a really important part of the bundle. It is, right? But it's just not the only game in town, just not the only game in town. And the trade-offs are the critical piece, right? So there's so many, it's a multivariate optimization and I just don't think we've got any kind of a current baseline for understanding as you, you know, those consumption bundles, those preferences, and that's got to be at the heart of it. So I mean, you'll have a bit of multivariate optimization, okay? Yes. I know about a quarter of our audience actually understand better than I do, I just said. But you know, I think you're absolutely right and I don't think we've asked people. I think it's, I do think it's really difficult to ask people because again, what my vision of my retirement is in my 40s versus what my vision might be on the day I retire versus what it might be 10 or 15 years later, you know, I don't, I'm not very good at looking after tomorrow, Nico, looking after 20 years away, Nico is not, it's not really a big, big part of my, my game. So I do think there's, there's massive issues in the question. So having political views, capital P, around what the system should be providing, it's a wicked problem. You know, you're going to dissatisfy some people, but I don't think you can kind of leave it to capitalism and this sort of regulation of default. I mean, it just, I don't think the market mechanism is going to work, to be honest. I just, I just, I don't believe it. I think you're going to find all of your most economic parts who are normally cross subsidizing or are people go off. If you, if you squeeze too hard, both on private markets, by the way, and and default retirement, and then I think you've got this sort of additional balkanization of pensions which I just think is harmful. So yeah, I'd, it's that kind of level of vision that coming all the way back to the, the political speakers, I would love to hear particularly from Torston book, but also from, from Helen Wheatley, to just see if that is, is there some playbook somewhere that they are developing that they can start to have this vision of the interaction between individuals, you know, tax relief and the state? My guess is no. It's very incremental, right? We need to draw this episode to a close and now it's been quite good fun, actually. But we haven't done the corporate advisor research. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that was going to be, I was going to give you one more or suggest we do one more and then we can, when we can sort of close the show. Um, I just wanted to add in, right, one of the things that we haven't really discussed on this podcast yet, either today or today, yeah, yeah, and I think it really does impact on the shape of people's retirement income, yeah, and how they take their retirement. Yeah. Right. And this was, you know, a big announcement, yeah, in the bad luck speech, yeah, but there's an implication from it that is coming in from not from bad luck speech, but from the policy area that is coming in place for April, 2026, it's the old Chester inheritance tax. Yeah. Right. Bring in that into the pensions there and the technical aspects of that, um, while it is, um, you know, removing it, depending on your point of view, depending on your argument and that, like, you know, the government would say it's removing a tax loophole, you know, um, as, you know, it was never meant to be, you know, just a free fall that, uh, pensions were never meant to be a way that people could just pass their wealth on future generations tax rate that I think has massive implications, um, as to what people do with their pension and pens as well. Yeah. And it's incredibly complicated and we can't do it justice now, but we might want to think about exploring this in an episode, yeah, not just the technical rules, but what the implications of that actually are, because basically in a nutshell, right, anything that isn't secured, yeah, or anything that has a degree of flexibility around it, yeah, um, basically, um, you know, falls into that inheritance tax net, yeah, um, and I think when that washes itself through, yeah, in a way that is one, even though you've got freedom and choice, yeah, you know, one other element of the tax system is basically telling you, yeah, to secure an income. So I think, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm what we, I don't think we've done is we've actually taken a step back and think, okay, well, yeah, you've got freedom and choice, you don't have to renew a ties, but then you've got this other thing over here, which will change the dynamic and change the behaviors. I don't want to explore it now unless you've got any sort of initial reactions, um, because I'd like to get someone on that actually knows, um, something about this. When I think that, you know, again, it, it goes into the, how does all this stuff interrelate and interact? Yeah. Um, you know, um, and I think that's well worth exploring. Yeah, I mean, look, I do have an initial reaction, um, but it is maybe additional questions for our expert. So, so I think inheritance tax, the, the, the, the hatred of inheritance tax is about double taxation, right? So, so, so my assets are the result of net income, um, and I should be able to pass that net income onto whom, whomever I want, right? So, so, I've built up a, you know, I'm lucky enough to have so much net income and, um, you know, net of capital gains or whatever to have a pot to pass on. And the state has already had its debil, right, um, let it, let it go on. So, that's the, that's the inheritance tax narrative, um, what I find interesting about the pension's narrative is that this is gross income, right? Yes. Yeah. So, in a way, you should be subject to inheritance tax and other investments and, well, all the withdrawals, so it took, and then I'll come back to side cars, right? So, side cars, you cannot save gross income outside of pensions, right? You can have it gross sort of, well, sorry, you can have your capital gains, um, uh, excluded and your income taxing ises. You can have a sort of grossing up in lices, but that's now dead, right? And what's interesting about the lice of policy is it goes in, you know, it gets, it goes in there, it gets this additional, um, you know, up to £1,000 on the floor that you put in. And then when you pull it back out, in theory, that, that one goes back to the government and fairness, I mean, the, the madness of the policy is it's like £1,500, I don't know exactly how numbers, you know, they take more than they get, which is, which is very annoying in the lice situation. So, um, if you could just have this joined up, look, we've given you tax relief on the way in, I think you should be able to put tax relief into a cash account, which essentially says, look, if you're not, if you're going to spend it in the real world, um, you know, at the age of 25 on stuff, then we're going to, sorry, we're going to have to take your income tax back, but you can see it outside of the pension system and wash it in at that value. Um, and then one on earth, can't you have that sort of that, that carried tax relief through the system. One of the big issues with pension savings is essentially that you go from income tax to income tax, and therefore you probably don't, the state does actually end up giving you money. If you're a higher rate taxpayer, the more of your income will come out as at a lower rate. But you could be carrying the step down, but you could be carrying an accrued tax relief, uh, you know, value all the way through, you know, it's just more maths. It's just a bigger database. You could have that system, um, and then rather than discussing it as inheritance tax, you could just say, look, you know, we've given you this money. You can, you can give it gross to your spouse, but you can't give it gross to anyone else. Um, yeah, so there you are, I've sold it. [laughter] That's interesting. Some of this, I'll be good to have a proper discussion about this because it's something we haven't really touched on on the podcast. Yeah. You know, um, so let's do that. Right. Um, we have got crack on, yeah. Um, you had, um, a corporate analysis always, didn't you? Well, I just found out. I mean, we obviously learned that, um, Emily was not going to be on the podcast relatively late on, so we had a little bit of a scramble around, uh, the internet and we came across. This has probably been one of our most slickest messages ever, um, episodes for quite a while. [laughter] I would like the listeners to say that, um, so, uh, it's private markets in DC, advisor and trustee perspective. So we're recording on the 9th of October. I think it, oh, it's got September on it, oh, they must have just done another press. It's trying to get more reading. So I hadn't read it until this morning and I haven't read it at all. I've got to the key findings, they came out as a hard copy with the, um, latest edition of the corporate advisor magazine, February, 20th, December. And I think it's just landed over the last sort of week, a few days or so. So I mean, look, so it's one of those documents that I can tell from the key finding, there's plenty that I need to be reading up on in it. I wanted to raise a couple of points, and I'm not winging it at all, Darren. So one is that this 5% UK ambition, I'm just going to read verbatim, raises concerns about capacity crowding and valuations. And, you know, this so looking to invest in a potentially limited pool of high quality domestic opportunities, I think that is really, really germane. We know that in the Manchin House court, there was a commitment from the government to build the pipeline of opportunities. Right. That's a bit that's crap. So, so, so, this is the one is we have trick at me, because this is why is we up about all thing, right? So, you know, I get that the government is looking for economic growth, right? Yeah. It is an argument, yeah. The pension funds should back the UK and back UK businesses and all of that. There is. Yeah. However, you know, if you get the economics right, if you get a business climate right, if you've got the investment opportunities right, capital will naturally flow. Yeah. There's no shortage of Canadian and Australian pension funds investing in the UK. Right. Yeah. The pipeline is all important on this, and we're crap at delivering that pipeline. I want to say we have been the government, right? Yeah. But then you take a step back and think, okay, what types of sums are we actually talking about here? And what is the transmission mechanism of those sums in terms of real economic value for the UK? Yeah. Okay. Well, in 34 years time, we might notice a marginal difference on GDP. A marginal difference? Well, I mean, but like, let's let's discuss that, right? Because since the global financial crisis, banks have been really banned from lending to mid-sized businesses. So, if you essentially allow pension schemes or, sorry, allow encouraged pension schemes to lend debt, possibly equity to mid-sized businesses, then I think that could have very, very good economic impact very rapidly, actually. Now, what's weird is you just would not go through private equity and private debt to do that because they're only interested in a time, the total addressable market, which is the entire, I'm just going to swear, planet, right? So, how would you do it then? Well, I think you'd create, you'd potentially get, I mean, like fundamentally what you do is liberate the banks. There's actually what I do, right? If that's now, you know, they're now not allowed to do this stuff, then I think there are opportunities, I mean, I'll mention thin cats, which I know has just got a new owner, and I can't think which investment manager has picked it up, who trying to fill that mezzanine funding gap. So, yeah, I think credit inequity into that, I mean, it's sort of, you can get an overdraft if you want as a small employer, and it probably will give you some day-to-day cash, but like maybe five to 5,000 staff, you're stuck. So, that's where, if you look at the German strategy, I think they call it the middle strad, which are these sort of family-oriented businesses, that's really had been the sort of economic heartland of Germany. And yeah, you get the headline, you know, DAX40, Siemens, and who knows, but it's actually the small, to-medium businesses that they are the employer of the country, you know, not least anyone else, right? It's the engine of work. Yeah, but I can't, so I might think totally missing something here. Yeah, I can't see how what the government is doing at the moment helps those small businesses. It doesn't, it doesn't. So, you mentioned private equity, you know, everyone talks about private markets, is if it's some form of, you know, panacea, some, you know, alchemy, magic and stuff. Actually, if you see this about it, think about the financing structures, yeah, or the current structures or whatever, yeah, that those companies actually actually need. So, I think then, if you create a structure like that, that's when you move the dial. Yeah, yeah. My point is that actually, what we're talking about at the moment, isn't going to move the dial, because it's the wrong instruments. Yes. And it's the wrong instruments benefiting the wrong people. Yeah. And, you know, the capture that the government have had around this sort of whole private markets, private equity stuff, it's just unbelievable. Yeah. Especially the government actually going back to the politics point. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, look, taking 20% to the upside, it's just not, you know, it's just, it's just, it's just, it's just paracissism. You tricked me. I didn't come from out that research. So, um, well, um, I'm, you know, it's, it's, what's it? Don't nobody cares how much, you know, they want to know how much you care. So, I'm glad that we got you on that one. Um, uh, I'm baiting you. I don't think this is going to bait you. It sort of baits me. Um, so, I'll, I'll have to have delivered on their primary goal of removing important barriers to DC investment. No, it's maintained them. Um, it's maintained them. It's, it's allowed FCA regulation and retail to be dominating and institutional. Anyway, so, um, that's my, there was a parenthesis there from me. Um, so important barriers to DC investment in private markets, but are not seen as the complete solution. So I think this is, I'm really glad tidings, um, for a lot of the work that, um, well, a lot of the investment strategies I think for, for the master's trust, but a lot of the work that I do here at BNY, which is just making people realize how much better it is to come into the, you know, the deep oceans of the real world, instead of the, the, the total pool that we've got the, the pensions industry or the DC industry invests. Yeah. Um, you know, where can you do that kind of lending that I just mentioned? You know, if you try and structure it as an LTAF, you're just going to kill it because you, you just can't scale it in the same way. Um, so come into the GPLP world, go and hold direct bonds that you've issued to, you know, thousands of companies. We have the technology. Um, don't allow the managers to essentially take 20% of your upside. It's just bizarre. Um, so the LTAF piece, you know, the, the, the straight jacket of the LTAFs. I mean, one of the, one of the weird things with the LTAFs and this is, as I said, I think I've triggered myself. Um, is that a lot of them been designed for the wealth market. So those cross subsidized with liquidity, um, between institutional investors and in the, in the DC side and, and, and, and wealth managers and private market, private investors on the, on the other side. Now to do that, you essentially have to, uh, corrupt your, uh, private markets design by holding excess liquidity. Um, and the objectives that you have in those two different parts are totally different. Um, so what, what the LTAFs designs have done is essentially create a product which is not fit for master trusts and that nobody in wealth management wants to buy. So, you know, LTAFs, um, they're already topi, already topi. Um, yeah, but, you know, you know, you come, come and have a chat with me if you want to learn, um, what, what else, uh, you can do. Um, and then, um, yeah, so, uh, I'll skip over the, uh, yeah, where's the infrastructure one, um, so, uh, sorry, uh, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, um, uh, uh, the, uh, yeah, infrastructure, uh, no one would do, do, do, do, do, do, I haven't broken a string. Infrastructure, real estate, private credit, offer, predictable returns and cash flow, needed to build more diversified decumulation strategies. Right. Um, I think there was a real set, it comes back to my previous point. What, what is, again, what is the objective that we want private markets to deliver? Is it super peppy growth, which might be a venture capital and private equity portfolio? Or is it essentially immunization from the, from the hyper trading of public markets and, and you just get a bit more, you know, I, it's the same economy. I mean, that's the, that's the magic that, uh, really frustrates me about private markets. It's the same bloody economy that you're investing in. But if you stop, if you stop trading on the markets, then you just don't have the mad people jumping from one side of the boat to the other. Um, so it'd be nice to avoid the bubbles. I think they've actually kind of managed to create bubbles in their own, uh, assets, but that, that's, you know, you don't have to. Um, but if you can, essentially kind of have your own internal valuation process, which, um, you know, doesn't, doesn't have to be too. oriented to some markets, then you do get a smoother line. Now that actually is an argument for adjusted values in DC more generally, which is a discussion that if we were actuaries in the early northeast, we might have been having. But yeah, so the predictable returns and cash flows, this is exactly the product that wealth managers don't want. They want to sell, they want to sell the pet, right? They want to sell the 10x, right? That's what they want to sell. And trustees in Master Trusts just won't trust it. Right, so they're just not gamblers in the same way. So this is where it's just again, it's a sort of eye-catching headline, but like coloring in underneath, it's just, it's the wrong colors and you go over all the lines. So, yeah, that's, I mean, look, as I say, I'm sort of reading it on the fly. I think there's a load more in here. We need to get John Greenwood back on. I know we had some seats in earlier in the year, but they've just celebrated their what, 20th anniversary. Yeah. Unfortunately, I was out in inference, but congratulations, John. Yeah, I went and I had a really nice event at the Hermione Hotel with a bowling alley, and that was really good fun. And I've got a great picture. They had this booth, and I'm going to show Nico the picture. Is that what they're going to be? Yeah, definitely in front of yourself. The AI is exploring it. Oh, yeah. Oh, cool. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know how you were John. I'm going to put that on the in the comments to the show to take a picture of it. Wait, we're bumbling now. We should, we should call it quits. I think that was quite a, there were QTK episodes, Nico. I think so. Will you be submitting to LinkedIn a photo of you at a train station on Monday at some point and going, look forward to seeing you at PUK. Is that going to be your timeline? I'm not, but I'm going to, I'm triggered me. Yeah, now you're triggered me. Yeah, I'm not going to do that because that's just, you're baiting me now. I just, I think it's the worst, worst media that you can do. This is the right. This is, this is funny to leave, leave this podcast on. I don't, I was on Twitter. Yeah, I don't very rarely use Twitter now. Or ex or whatever is called, yeah, but I was just scrolling through a timeline. Yeah. And you had Fergal Sharkey. Yeah, yeah. He basically, big water campaigner. Yeah. He was basically moaning about trains, yeah, and the underground. And he took his picture of the, I think it's Northern line at King's Cross or something like that. You know, no trains, massively crowded platform and all that. It's like, I mean, seriously, Northern line 630 PN all on Thursday evening, get your act together at May of London. Yeah, all right. And then basically, you had this guy who responded saying, a good train these days is hard. I mean, I saw that, I was, I always fell off my chair. Did Fergal, did Fergal engage? I don't know. I just, I'm just screenshot of it. I haven't talked about it. I don't know. It's a train. I don't know. I said it's Karen. Yeah, we're business father. And she said, and then she just responded saying, please be gentle to this train. Anyway, I'll just bring it. So we're ending it on a light height. No, we're at the pensions, you get this week. We're going to say hello. I'm going to say hello. Yeah. Do ask Nicole lots and lots of difficult questions in his VFM session. If you want to come along, it's in Venice. So, so you'll be asking the FCA and the pensions regulator. So, so you don't, I don't think that they're prepped for the storm of years asking them what value for money means to them. Yeah, let's do it. And yeah, if you want to come along to the 1 o'clock gold, just give me an email. So, the 1 o'clock gold at 5 p.m. It is a confusing destination, because it contains a time. That is true. That is true. Cool. Right. And we're going to be doing some, we might do some recording around the conference, but we'll definitely do a wrap up at the end of next week as well. Yes. And we'll let this us know. Well, that will go out on Friday. And usual time. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, looking forward to it. Yeah. I think that worked, didn't it? We did all right. Yeah. I think so. It's goodbye for me. And it's goodbye for me. [Music]