Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Welcome to Maren Talks Money, the podcast in which people who know the markets explain the markets. I'm Maren sumsat Web. This week i am speaking with Luca Paulini, chief strategist at Pictaate Asset Management.
Now.
We had Luca on the show back in January twenty twenty three when he made the case of things we're looking up for the global economy and not quite as bad as other people thought in terms of both inflation and recession risk. We wanted to bring him back saf his outlook has changed, and to talk to him about the end of American acceptionalism and the beginning of what he called the age of convergence. Luca, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it. It's
nice to have you on again. We haven't had you on, we think for about two years, maybe more at this point, so we've got a lot to catch up on.
Sure.
When you put out your report at the beginning of the year about what you expect next, you talked about the three phases that we've been through and we're about to go through. The first was the Great Moderation, which we've talked about a lot on this podcast over the last few years. So that was the period from nineteen eighty to two thousand and seven, the end of the Cold War, the introduction of the Internet to our economies, disinflation and globalization or as a result of China entering
the global economy that is long behind us now. And then you put down two thousand and eight post financial crisis to twenty twenty four as what you call the age of uncertainty, and that is the period of the euro crisis, of Brexit, of COVID, of the beginning of the war in Ukraine, and also of course this long, long period of US exceptionalism and super low interest rates. And you now say that we have moved from this age of uncertainty into what you called the Great convergence.
So can we start by just talking about what you mean by this, what is taking out from the older age into when new age.
Well let me say though, that the age of uncertainty, or let's really uncertainty, is still with us. We're not saying that the Great Conversion will imply, you know, a return to a golden age for financial markets and societies and the economy. What we are saying, is that the phase of exceptionalism where US outperform financially but also politically,
is pretty much over. Europe may not see a boom, and it's difficult to imagine that, but Europe is i think going slowly as always in the right direction, and China is kind of stabilizing in a way. So you see the US from our point of view, we lose some of the kind of this kind of big performance that the US had in the past. China we stabilized. Europe will get better and this kind of environment is still very uncertain, right, very uncertain, but will not be
kind of dominated by the US only. So it's a much more you know, with the convergence, talk about convention, it's more about the economics, economic growth, monetary policy, but also financial returns. It's not kind of we are well aware of the fact that when you look at political joe politically, you're going to see even more fragmentation. So in a way it's not a convergence there, but from a purely economic and financial point of view. Again, the era of this US our performance coming to an end.
Europe is recovering Chinese stabiliaity, which is very different from obviously, let's say in the past five to ten years.
But if we look at it like that, this is not about the US performing less well, it's about other areas performing better.
Well. Yes and no, because you know it's interesting, you know that when you look at the performance of the past five, ten years or seven years, right, the initial of the starting point is critical. A lot of investors very surprised when I tell them the UK the UK equities eies are beaten US equities since the end of twenty twenties. It really depends when when you start your charge. In a way, right, what we are saying here is that again is financial returns on equitism bonds will be
much lower than the low terme average. Effectively, everything will be kind of will be lower. And this, in a way, that's the conversion we are talking about. It's not that Europe would be the new US. It's more than most countries we go to a period of let's say we
growth and relatively moderate returns. And so in that sense, that's what the conversions that were in mind now Europe and China becoming let's see the new US internal performance rather a convergence to a very low, relatively low level of economic growth, but also of financial returns.
Okay, so we divide it up into two and look first at the economic growth bet and then move on to talking about the market reaction to that economic growth. So DUS is still growing faster than most of Europe, and we would still expect that to continue. Right hard to see the UK and much of Europe hitting growth rates above a couple of percent.
Yes, but you know, I think what we are missing here is that we look the last five years atriast on our analysis, roughly forty percent of US growth has come from an exceptionally loose physical monetary policy. You may say, well, in Europe has been the same, Not really, because in Europe, if you look at dept to GDP ratio, it's pretty much the same of five years ago. In the US
is much much higher. So the US had a combination of factors and on the AI is also an incredibly loose and expansion in physical policy that is not, in our view, sustainable in the very long term. So if you remove let's say the policy aspect of that, you know the gap between Europe and US. It's significant, but not extremely so. So this is I think the starting point.
The second is that Europe, with all the problems, I think it's fair to say that what's going on in Germany, especially the end of the day break, this is really like a kind of a game changer. Now we know, as always things in Europe will move very very slowly, but I think Germany embracing physical activism is something new and we have obviously consequences and split over also for other countries. Now we may say that this is not
what Europe need. We need obviously in Europe a big boost to productive they may not come from physical activism, but you see there's a big change. So Europe in a way will reflate, while the US will face constraints politically economic in terms of the amount of stimulus that can provide. And this is actually the main difference. So when you look at the next five years, we expect Europe and the US to growth pretty much at the
same level across to one point five. The difference though that at least in Europe we will have inflation back to normal, but in the US will remain higher. And I think the ratio between growth and inflation, the mix is will really matter for an markets would become much less favorable for the US and better for Europe. That's one of the things that we are saying about these conversion that we'll see in the next few years.
Okay, So to agree that the US will be held back by its very high levels of debt and deficit and unable to push forward fiscally in the same way as Europe. But then when you look at and we talk about Germany and the end of the debt break, et cetera, but Germany has its own massive problem with it with debt and deficits, et cetera. And I saw something in the paper this morning and I hadn't realized
it was quite so high. That German welfare payments including pensions are about thirty percent of GDP and that clearly unsustainable. And you look at a similar situation in the UK and France and do you think, well, the fiscal position of these countries is basically unsustainable even and you know, we might say previously we used to say unsustainable in the long term, Now we're going there kind of unsustainable
in the short term. So these have got to be massive drags on growth and the ability of any of these countries to move forward unless they see massive gains in productivity.
But I think I think one thing that is very important Twilight is demographics. We still have the idea that demographics in the US is great and in Europe is bad. When you look at the employment rate in euro US is pretty much the same. Population growth in the US is pretty much growing in line with Europe, mainly because again a decline in immigration. So again it's not that we're not saying that Europe will boom. What we are saying is that this gap that we have seen in
the past we shrink. And again you're totally right in Europe, it's not. You know, what Europe need is first of all, a change in the mindset was resk taking and this requires also a change in the mindset exactly of European economic agents and an investor. It's not just you know, a few points of fiscal definity that can make a difference. But you know, the trend I think is in place. I think Europe is aware of the weaknesses. I think is moving very slowly. The US, i'm afraid, is going
the opposite direction. And and I think again the crackdown on immigration is one I think and the fact that you know, we are even talking about the independence for this example of the fact, well the US is not in a way in such a solid place it was just a few years ago, and that's the difference. I think that that is for US very relevant.
Is there evidence yet that the crackdown on immigration is affecting growth.
We have seen a significant weakening on deliberate market in the US, but it's very difficult to say this it is down to immigration, is probably down to the impact of tariffs, and also the fact that the US economy has been very strong for five years, so a phase of weakness is inevitable. No, I don't think that it's too early to say there is an impact on that.
But you know, the US, this access the ES was based on human capital and in few immigration faults and universities are not let's say US free to operate as before for a number of reasons. Well, you know, it's just an impact on on productive and impact on growth.
But I guess you could still afire. We're still looking for a way to explain the future for the US and say well, exceptionalism is still there. They're very much ahead of US and of Europe in terms of AI for example, and in terms of the cheap energy required to drive the AI revolution, So that is something that still remains specific to the US.
There is no question that the US is economically more competitive than Europe. You mentioned the cost of energy is totally right, but bear in mind that we are going into a phase where a lot of energy we come from basically solar panels, and that would be renewables, which obviously makes Europe less dependent on energy import and make the US in a way less exceptional because if all the energy is produced locally solar panel for example, then obviously the
energy dominus the US become less less relevant. On tech, you're totally right. The question though on tech is that, especially what's going on AAAI, there is a clear advantage of the US in terms of spending. We see that on a daily basis. The question though, is that is this kind of all this investment pay off or not is the US and all US overspending on AI. This
is really an open question. I don't have an answer for that, but there is no question that if there is one element that makes the US still an economy which is much more kind of than am the Europe. So the right is tech, but it's not you know, it's not just tech. When you look also the US market, right or the global market, tech is only only twenty seven percent of the market. It's not one hundred percent. There are other elements if you have to take into consideration.
But yeah, we don't expect the tech gap between US and Europe to close, but maybe again would be less dramatic, less visible than it is now.
So you say, the question, the real question is whether all this investment in AI pays off or not? What is what is your view there there's a great AI bubble that's going to collapse and leave a lot of people like it' slightly red faced or something else.
Well, you know, there is some elements of a bubble. First of all, bubbles also need a macrocroonomy outlook the allow bubble to happen, typically abundant liquidity, financial deregulation, and a strong kind of narrative. I think probably all three are there. I don't think the evaluation is so extreme for AI stocks to say, well, that's a bubble. But it's almost inevitable when you have such a big increase in spending, some of this money will be wasted. It's
inevitable that happened all the time. I don't know when this will materialize. There could be a second wave. It was with the internet. You know, you have a bubble, then you have a period of in a thousand, then there was the real kind of boom also for the economy later on. No, look, I am a strong believer in A. I my worry here is that what happened, for example, with deep sick, the risk is that I
will be commody time is sooner rather than later. And so all this advantage the US has as a first mover will at the end not this disappear, but may be actually reduced. And this again, this is really what matters for financial returns, right, is the rate of change, not the level. And I think in this sense, I think I see that again this advantage of the US, even in tech, may not last forever, at least not in the same extent.
Okay, so does that suggest to you that a large part of the US market is very overvalued?
You know, we always think about tech talks, and you know, I think, what is I think not well known that Walmart, which is you know, it was actually an early adopter of A but Walmart is the biggest return in the world. Is not a tech company's trading and a higher multiple than Amazon costco is trading and a multiple or peer ratio of fifty start US more than thirty. So it's not just tech. Actually tech, when you look at the
growth rates, I think it's almost fairly valued. Is part of the US market is I think, much more expensive, and nobody's talking about it. Again. It made down to a you know, too much liquidity in the system, too much optimism. Also the fact that, let's be very honest, some of these companies are incredibly good, incredibly efficient, and so maybe they deserve this kind of multiple when I see kind of retailers start trading a fifty time for earnings.
But I start to feel that it is a little bit stretched. So it's not just tech, it's the overall mark in the US, which I think is quite expensive. Considering the gross is not five it's two five percent. If you're not in the nineties right when gross was five percent, inflation was one percent, is a very different environment which I think will require multiples and need to be lower than the current levels.
It's interesting, isn't At first? I love that. I love the phrase a little bit stretched, which is a great financial markets usemism for screamingly expensive, getat while you still can. So there are there will be an over lot of people and invested in the US. You think that because they have a track of fund of some kind, they're diversified, so they feel that they're holding lots of different companies
and therefore they're diversified across the board. But of course they kind of not because they're still very overexposed to the expensive end of the US. So it's one of those occasions when the idea that you're diversified is untrue because you're effectively exposed to the same type of companies across the board.
Yeah, and I think Marian, it's what is also important is that let's say you are European investors that invest passively, but you have almost seventy percent of your wealth in the US. You're taking on the evaluation risk but also the currency risk, and you know you know what I mean, as we have seen it recently. So again we're not
saying that the US talks are terrible. Not. What we are saying is that, especially if you're not in US investor holding so much in a market which is heavily concentrated, it's expensively expensive currency with all the political risks, I think is a risk that is not worth taking. And so yeah, that we have is to reduce these explosions on term in the US and adding to either domestic stocks,
but even the bond market. Obviously very few people want to invest in, and I think it's almost time to reconsider that.
So if you're moving money out of the US, and you're moving it, where where do you move into? I mean, is it still oky to by German stocks, by Spanish dogs? They've gone up so much over the last year, the UK slightly less, but nonetheless we've performed reasonably well. Where where is the safest equity market to move into?
Well, safest is a tricky one because we know that when things go wrong, the correlation goes to one right, and this is this is one actually one of the reasons why investors still like the SMP We have stocked because we say, well, everything goes down, maybe I lose less in the US than in Europe. No, our view is that again it depends where you First of all, where you are, So let's say if you are in the UK, I think the choice for us pretty straightforward.
You should invest and know that we discussed this before. You should invest a little bit more in UK stocks, so in domestic stock similar for Europe, right, But also I think what our approach is is try to think more inequal weighted terms. So let's say instead of having seventy percent in the US and thirty percent elsewhere, I think fifty percent, say in the US and fifty percent no US. It makes sense. It really depends where you are. If you are in the UK Switzerland, for example, you
should have probably more in the domestic stocks. You should also add to emerging market where they're doing very well, not because there is anything dramatic happening, just because the dollar is getting weaker and the dollar will continue to get weak, emerging market will rate. So again it's a little bit of everything, but really depends on where you're from. For UK investors, I think that's I think a good
time to invest in UK stocks. But we also have the view that you should have a second look at mid caps, small caps that have been a little bit lagging even in the UK, and so they have I think good valuation, the kind of I think a recent outlook for earnings. So I think again diversification not for the because the usual thing you have to diversify, know, is the evaluation element. The market economy out look point to a more diversified but let's see equally weighted kind of approach.
Yeah, so diversify and part across the valuations and the UK. You said, put a little bit more into the UK. But the UK is really very cheap relative to most other markets still, so it would seem a perfectly reasonab place.
I mean, evaluation is not everything, right, well, it's quite a lot everything, but you know it's the UK market trade at the same level of emerging markets right in term before earn. Now you can say there is less growth and you can emerging market, that's true, but the risk still is still less. So I do think that again investors should focus a little bit more on their domestic market and also move away from just simply investing in large caps. Look at me caps. There are some
great stocks there, even small caps. So that's that's the strategy that we have.
Okay, let's go back then to the bond market. You're say, no one really feels most like investing in bones at the moment, which is fair. They kind of don't. So what's the reasoning.
There, Well, you know, a few years ago, I remember you remember that the assumption was there is nothing safer than German bones, you remember, right, Yeah, Well, you know, in real terms you would have lost almost seventy percent in a couple of years. So now if you are investors, and you know and and you lose so much on an asset class that's supposed to be safe, well I can understand they're quite investor reluctant to be invested in it.
But again, it's not just valuation. But let's look at valuation, right, what is the anchor? What is the right value for you know, a domestic government bonds? I mean historically but also in theory, the yield that you get from let's say guilds or bones or treasure should be more or less in live with trend growth. This is the valuation anchor for bonds. And you know a few years ago when boones was negative, very close to zero, close to zero,
clearly there was an evaluation program. And now we're in a situation where roughly speaking, roughly speaking, bone yields, government bond yields are more or less in line with the trend growth rate of their respective economy. So you ask close to four percent. You know in the UK is all higher because of inflation. So we are in a position where you know, bonds are not particularly cheap, but they're not as expensive and ecreites are not as good.
To say, well adjust in that inequities forget about bonds. You have to be selective, though. I think there is I think value guilds very good value, and I think especially in inflation protected bonds because if you're wrong on inflation and inflation goes through the roof, at least we have the inflation protection if you go into a recession, which is possible globally, well, inflation protected bones are bones, so they will all perform. So we like inflation protective bonds.
We also like credit because you know, we have spreads are very very close to historical law, but the balance sheet of the private sector or company is incredibly strong, and so we do believe that, you know, there is still value in credit, especially in Europe and emerging markets. You know, emerging markets this year done fifteen percent emerging market debt. Why because again they tend to benefit from from the dollar. Inflation is folding great cuts and good valuation.
You know, Brazilian bonds will give you a real, kind of real close to ten percent. So I think that investors should forget the past. In a way. The reason why bond of so much was a combination of what incredibly expensive saluation because of QE. If you want an inflation shocked then nobody expected. Now inflation may remain sticky, but I don't think we're going to see what was twententy twenty two in terms of inflation spike. And you
know we're getting older, all of us. And when again, you need income when you invest in US equities, you know you may get the upside from capital gains, but you don't get any income. So I think there is an underlying demand for bonds of fixing and coming from aging, which I think I'm afraid we cannot change. And this is this is I think one of the factors which I think we support bond markets going forward.
And what's the risk to that view? What would make inflation suddenly go much higher than you might expect?
Well, I think you know what is amazing of what we have seen in the past few years is that we were all shocked by this increase in inflation, right we were, Even if looking back you may say, well, it was obvious, right, big increase in demand loss apply a lot of money, but it's very easy to say, you know, looking back, what hasn't changed is that inflation expectations,
the long term inflation expectations hasn't changed. So if you look, we look at seven eight measured inflation expectations in the US, and apart from the consumer expectations, they tend to be, by the way, the one that tend to be more less reliable in the long term. All the market based measure of expecting infliction in the US are all between two point one and two point five, so they haven't moved.
And I think what can change completely the picture is that if there is a second wave of inflation, potentially because the FED loser is independence, then you start to see a significant inflation premium being priced in the bond market. For now, you don't really see it. You don't see it because central banks they have maintained their inflation credibility, but this can go. I think what is going on in the US. I think it's particularly dangerous in a way.
Right now the FED is cutting rates, that's fine, but the idea that potentially the White House can dictate the monetary policy at some point. Well, that obviously is very dangerous for the bone mark. That's to me is the risk that the anchoring of inflation expectation in the US is the risk number one for bond markets globally.
Is that. Do you think the reason why the goal price is so high? Is it that concern of the risk of high inflation or is it simply to do with central bank buying.
No, it's not just the central bank buying. I think the critical factory here is, Yes, investors still want to have an edge against the risk over inflation. There is still demand for real assets, and gold offer pretty much all of them, even bit coin in a way that's
going to happen party for the same reason. So I think there is demand for real acids and because they really, let's be very honest, your political risk has sitting incredibly high, and so you look around and you know gold is probably one of the few options that you have, and
you know, we are overweight gold, They've been overweight gold. Yes, the price is very elevated in nominal and real terms, but as long as the as the fundamental study hasn't changed, I think that the trend is still higher and I think that's what we have been saying in our in our second outrook this year.
Yeah, look, what do you mean by overweight gold? Overweight relative to what?
Yeah? I think I think you know, it's a good question because you know, when you ask the portfolio, there's a lot of surveys and what what is your weight in gold in your portfolios? You always get numbers between
four and five percent, sometimes three. This is kind of let's say, the average weight of gold in in institutional funds if you want, But also what in general if you look at the market as well, this is kind of, uh, the implied weight of gold in the total in the global if you want the market, right, we have actually close to ten percent in our fund, So in that sense, we have much more than the average portfolio manager has.
Again based on the fact that we expect the dollar to depreciate, to really interest rate to be weaken and these geobilitical risks will not go away. So I think I still believe the goal that's abside from here.
Okay, and you say that that coin fulfilled the same role, does that have a place in a retail investors portfolio?
Do you think, well, that's a tricky question. Mary. You know that I'm not a big fan of bitcoin.
Oh I didn't know that.
I respect the market. I respect the market. I still don't see an obvious economic logic beyond b coin, but the coin has proved to be incredibly resident with higher inflation fed acting rates and all these kind of things. Well, we know that. You know, in the US, roughly twenty five percent of investors on the Rector Director is some kind of cryptocurrency. So crypto has become more accepted. And what I'm saying is that we don't really invest in
bigcoin right now. We prefer gold. But obviously, especially if you're much younger than me, I can understand that you know, bigcoin could be an alternative, but I can see the logic of those that are willing to have a very small share of their wealth in bitcoin.
Very small. Okay. One of the things that you have on your list is sticking with it roughly in this topic. One of the things on your list of things that we will see happen in the Great Convergence to twenty twenty five onwards is asset tokenization. Will you just explain to us what does you mean by that and how that will affect us.
You know, when we look at the out over the next five years or ten, it's not just you know, equitis bond, but it's also important to understand what's going on in the industry. Right, we had you know, the ETFs, we had bigcoin, and so we're trying to see who would be the next thing. So I think asset organization is going to be probably the big thing for the
next five years. It's already happening now is early stages, but I can see this hell helping especially kind of investor to take positions in asset classes that are less liquid. So I can see the positive side of that. There is obviously a risk again of bubbles and things, but again we have to embrace innovation be scared about it. And I think this is probably the next big thing after basically ETFs, and if one blockchain and cryptocurrency, that's
for us. What will be the big thing for the next five to ten years.
When you say it, love us get exposed to less liquid assets or help ordinary investors get exposure to less liquid acids. Are you thinking about private markets?
Yeah, exactly, be private marketing. It's not only that, right, I mean, because now as the organization will affect pretty much everything. What I can see that this is probably the air which is most interesting, could be private market are everything, a lot of asset classes that for a number of reasons are very difficult to get exposed to. And this week again we increase significantly the investor base if you want, of a lot of these things make
also transaction much faster. As you know, again early stages, but things can go very quickly, and I'm pretty sure in five years time we will be here again Mary in talking about and what has the implication? Again early stages, but we are very confident this is the next big.
Thing interesting And would it make you would it make you uncomfortable to feel that ordinary private investors were ending up via somethings such as as a organization or all the other ways that are being discussed at the moment, long term, at the funds, et cetera, that ordinary investors were ending up with quite high levels of exposure to unlisted companies.
We have to strike a balance between the regulation and protection of the investor. Is very difficult because technology is going very fast, regulation is always falling behind. I think there is a risk, there is no question about it. As there is a risk for cryptocurrencies, and I also feel that there would be at some point some financial
accident that will make us question. You know, all this, but that's the so story of financial markets, you know, it's and I think it's very important also to alight Merin. Then if you're right to expect very low returns in the next five to ten years, all these kind of financial innovations will help potentially to increase the rate of return of what we can achieve in our savings. But that's really important. So every small thing matters in this sense.
Yeah, Although interestingly, if you can use tokenization trading tokens that represent parts of companies or assets or whatever, if you can use tokenization to make the ill liquid liquid, it might help us significantly with price discovery. For example, in private equity, where price discovery because of the very long term holdings and the illiquidity, can be quite difficult.
If you suddenly you can trade your your private equity stake with tokens, we may find that the returns to private equity are slightly different, possibly lower, then we might have felt previously.
Don't forget that. Yeah, we talked about this. Actually I mentioned myself but I think the ac organization is happening also on mutual funds, on bond so it's not just for the liquid acid. They say, one area where I think I can see the biggest potential, And yeah, we do believe that investors are probably still, at least individual
investors under invested in private assets, especially private debt. But again we have to be very careful because I think this is an asset, an area where you need the expertise, and I think investing, you know, even passively in a way doesn't make a lot of sense for us. So I think it's an area where we have to look at all.
Right, anything we've missed, do you think, Luca, anything that we must tell people that we haven't told them.
Yeah, something, it's interesting, right, we didn't talk about China, and this is something that when I need our clients, I'm always surprised by the fact China was for a long time. Maybe not the first question, but the second question, what's going on in China? A cheap And I'm wondering if this lack of interest in Chinese because investors, given what's going on, especially on the refront, they effectively treat China as pretty speculative, potentially and investable because simply they
don't see a lot of potential there. And it's a tricky one because if you look at the performance of Chinese tech companies this year has been fantastic. China is not booming. In fact, the latest data has been very, very weak. But I think after a few years off I think of political and policy mistakes, I think China is slowly going into the right directions try to recreate a more business friendly climate. I think in some areas China as well out of the US in a lot
of areas. So I started to think, and China trades thirteen times forward earnings, right, So I'm just wondering if this lack of interest is because of the uncertainty around targets or it's something more secular. And I do believe and that we believe that China being the second biggest economy in the world, you cannot just stay out of China, you know, obviously, and you can invest in possibly you need to look at which sectors get the support from
the government. You have to be more tactical in nature, you have to be there on the ground. But I do believe that emerging markets in China may have they may kind of become popular again, and hopefully this will happen, not because the US is doing very badly, but because they're doing the reforms, the things that I think they
should do. So I think it's there's something that to me, it's again surprising, this lack of interest, apparent lack of interest in China overall, not only in Chinese as but also in the Chinese economy. It seems like now with tarists is a completely different world. It doesn't really affect us, and it's wrong because it's such a big part of the global economy that you have to look at China as well.
It's interesting, is a conversation that comes up quite a lot on the podcast. But it's so you know, and I think such a binary conversation. For half the people it's as well, that's an investable there we won't be doing with that. And for the other half as well, it's very cheap, so you know, you're compensated, but it's not quite so cheap anymore after the performance of the tech sector of the last year, isn't.
Yeah, And to be honest with you, you know, when you look at the tarist thing, it's incredibly difficult, right, we don't know if the tar will be ten percent or one hundred percent. It's incredibly difficult. But again that's normally where the good money has been made. If you always wait to know everything, well, then obviously we'll be already in the price. The fact that the Chinese assets are doing very well, to me, is already a sign that probably the worst of the tarist is behind us.
The market is feeling that the Trump administration will kind of find a compromise that actually is not that I'm bad for China, and I think the market is already reacting to that.
So there is one last thing I want to ask you. What are you reading that's interesting you might recommend to our reader.
I'm reading a book on the Story of Ideas, which explore, you know, the philosophical aspect of equality, justice and democracy. And I think for me, you know, after a long day at work, you want to have something different. I struggled to read books on economics on the tube after you know, ten hours of work.
Yeah, no, fair enough. Can you remember the author of your book, History of Ideas?
Yes, someone called David ran Siman, and it's called the History of Ideas. So it's a very good book, very good.
Book, excellent. We'll all read that. Look.
Thank you, very muche, Thank you, thanks for.
Listening to this week's Marin Talok's Money. If you like our show, rate review, and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts, I keep telling your questions or comments The Merrin Money at Bloomberg dot net. You can also follow me and John on Twitter or x. I'm at Marinus w and John is John Underscore Step. This episode is hosted by Me Maren Sumset Web. It was produced by Samasadi and Moses and sound designed by Blake Naples and Kelly Gary. Special thanks to Luca Paulini.