January 23, 2025 • 19 mins
In this week's roundup, Merryn speaks with Money Distilled newsletter author John Stepek about what TrumpCoin signals for the US presidency and the crypto industry, where the investment trust showdown stands now that Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital failed to take control of Herald Investment Trust, and Chancellor Rachel Reeves' conversation with Bloomberg in Davos.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. Welcome to the Marin
Talks Money Weekly round up, our debrief of the biggest
oris in market and economics. I'm marrying something set, web
(00:25):
editor at Large for Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
UK Wealth, and I'm joined to the epics and your
reporter and author of the Money Distilled newsletter, John.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
We've been here before, you and I. Here we are
this time of year. We're not at Davos. No one's
invited us, not me, not you, and yet again we
have not launched our own meme coin.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
It's true, it's true, and I can't believe we've not
been invited to divorce now that it's not really relevant.
You know, I've been sing the battle by.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Now you don't have enough empty seats they could get
the likes of us in. But now I tell you what,
I am more disappointed about the meme coin, to be honest.
I mean, I wouldn't expect that you and I would
launch a launch a you know, a MTM coin and
suddenly be multi billionaires. But quite nice if we could
launch one, and okay, not in the top twenty five
riches people in the world, but you know, maybe in
(01:13):
the top couple of thousand. I could have done with that.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Mtm's got a ring to because it sounds about like MMT.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Ooh oh it is, and that will be kind of
the same thing, wouldn't it. It's in the same vibe, Yeah,
the same old money for nothing vibe.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
He certainly combines two of our fine bases MMT people
in cryptop people in one life.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
That would be so great. They could write their hate
mail in a single email too, not required. Okay, listen,
we're tangenting again. And then maybe some people out there
who don't know about trump coin, they won't know what
we're talking about. They might know abou Davos. We're not
going to dwell on that, as you know we are.
We're going to come back to that. But why are
we talking about meme coins? And why am I upset
(01:54):
that I haven't taken the opportunity to be one of
the twenty five riches people in the world.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
I guess this is all of Trump's mean coin. Of course,
this is something in an episode. If I get news
for you, it's yeah, Trump Trump misty launches on crypto
currency just before he got inaugurated, and it went up
a lot, and then it went down quite a bit
whenever his wife launched her own crypto currency and stole
(02:19):
some of the money from his. Basically, you've got.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
To stop right here because you're you're using that way.
You're calling it a cryptocurrency. It's not a currency. It's
not a thing, it's not anything. It's totally intangible. There's
no way to catch hold of this. It is a nothing.
It is a nothing.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
It's a it's a vibe, it's a token, it's a way.
I don't know. Actually, I mean, the mean coin element
is the stupidest bit of crypto currency. And I realize
a lot of people will think that that is really
saying something. But the meme coins are basically I mean,
the very first mean coin, or the most famous mean
coin at least, is dodge Coin. And dodge Coin was
(03:01):
literally set up as a joke. It was meant to
be poking fun at the whole coincept, the crypto currency
and of course the joke.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
John. I have to interrupt you here to say that
I'm conflicted here because I do own doge coin.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Oh yeah, okay, yes, conflict of interests.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
For a long time I called it doggy coin until
some young cousin corrected me.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Doggy coin's good as well, because it's got a picture
of a very cute shina EBox exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Anyway, sorry, doggie coin was the first one, as you said.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Yeah, And the point is the founder sort of said
this is a joke, and he basically said this is
a joke to point out what annoyanceance all of this
crypto stuff is. And the problem is the joke really
is on him because doggy coin or george Coin is
basically the top meme coin. And at one point everyone
was getting kind of excited because it looks as if
trump Coin might, you know, close the gap between it
(03:56):
and dodge coin. Let me try and explain the difference
between it and Bitcoin for people who buy into at
least some of this. So like that too, by the way, yes, yes,
but I know, well done again, none of these things.
I am so lazy. Sorry. Bitcoin is limited in supply
as long as you believe the mass et cetera, et cetera.
(04:17):
It's limited in supply. You need computers to do the
curvalent of mining in the cloud. To get out of
there by doing very hard sums, you actually need to
spend a lot of money these days to dig out
a new piece of bitcoin. And so the idea is
that it's kind of like digital gold in that it's
a limited supply and it's it's like a bearer asset,
(04:40):
so if you if you hold it, you can pass
it to someone else without going through any kind of
middle person or anything like that. So that's the idea.
Bitcoin's kind of like digital gold or digital cash or
something like that. It's not as used as a currency
because the price is very volatile, but if you were
in Venezuela and you want to get money out somewhere else,
then it's probably a better thing to you own for
(05:02):
that short period of time than something like gold, which
you would have to physically smuggle out. So I can
see that there's a there's a point to it. Those coins,
the main coins are just I mean, there's no there's
no limit to the nuther you can print, there's no
there's nothing. But there's literally nothing behind it except betting
that it will go up because someone else will pay
(05:23):
more for it. It's kind of like greater full theory.
In practice, no one's even pretending they've got a purpose.
It's just it's basically pure gambling. But not even gambling
with a kind of game behind it.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Yeah, but it is it also a live opinion poll.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
I mean you could, you could, although I suppose the
thing with that is you're kind of then that's like
trying to find a bolt on use after it's launched.
I mean, no one's getting an opinion on Sena a booze.
I mean, you know, do they? It could be quite good.
You're right if Trump had had a mean coin, and say,
(06:04):
but I didn't had the mean coin, or whoever takes
over his Democrat after him had the mean coin, that
could be quite interesting. You know, people are willing to
put their money behind the idea that someone's going to
become more popular enough so that their supporters are going
to back them, and then it becomes a guest like
football scarfs or memorabilia or something like that. But beyond that,
(06:27):
it is it's very it's pure belief based. And not
only that I don't I may be wrong about this,
but the issuer, I believe, can just issue as many
as they want, so then there is not much control
on what happens to you as a minority shareholder in
these things.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Yeah, So there we go mt M and MMT. The
connection is clear. Thanks John, And by the way, everybody,
this time next year, John and I we will have
our own meme coin. Right. Although I used to say
that about an ft IS. I used to say we
were going to launch our ound NFT and everyone we
give a lot of money for that. We didn't do
that either. We're just going to stay poor, aren't we. Yeah? Yeah,
(07:09):
definitely having fun. Right onwards to something real, something very real.
Yesterday or other earlier this week, should I say, was
the first vote in the Saba saga. Now, if you
don't know about the Saba saga, please go back and
listen to earlier podcast about this. But in a nutshell,
American actress investor Boas Weinstein, who is CIO and founder
of cyber Capital, has come into the UK investment trust market,
(07:32):
bought big stakes in seven Trust Miserable seven as he
calls them, and has called emergency general meetings to try
and ouse the bords and take over the assets to
run in his own way whatever that way. Maybe this
week was the first vote Herald Investment Trust and it
didn't go quite as planned for Weinstein. He lost the
(07:53):
vote very decisively and it was interesting. Actually one of
the things about this whole saga is will retail investors
will ordinary people turn out to vote either way? Either way?
And when we've been talking about it, John, we haven't
obviously been encouraging people to vote either way. What we
have been saying is get out there and vote. There's
a great test of shareholder democracy and if you want
(08:14):
this trust to continue to exist, get out there and
vote for that to happen. And that is exactly what
they did. So Sholder. Turn out was around double what
it normally is, and well over sixty percent of the
votes went to the Herald board and things will now
carry on as before. Is that a reasonable summary? Yep?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Is there reasonable? So many? And yeah, is this really
really good to see that people tundo? Because it does
you know, it would have been really depressed and if
such a consequential vote had seen the kind of usual
tun note for these things.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
And so the vote was actually it was sixty five
to thirty five. So that's it's quite a defeat if
you think that man design holds. I think I can't
remember it quite how much of that trust twenty nine percent? Yeah,
and I mean around there, so pretty much everybody who
wasn't with Saba who was part of Saba voted with
the vote.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Yeah, And I mean that made sense because I mean Saba,
I mean boys Weinstein himself is pointed out that no
vote as a vote for Saba. I mean we pointed
that out in the podcast, which I thought. I have
thought that Saba's tactics here are sort of interesting and
if I was relying on and shared hold a apathy
(09:29):
played when going to public quite as much as they have.
But then I guess if you're you know, haven't they
kind of retort to the things coming out the investment
trust themselves, then you can't really avoid it. But it's interesting,
it's not It's not the way to make apathy work
in your favor, I don't think.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Yeah, so I think he should be admired with that.
I mean, when I was muttering about it on social
media yesterday, I said that, you know, we should be
grateful to all parties here. You know, a lot of
people will be pleased that have been defeated. They see
them as you know, American and they etc. But I
think that we should be very pleased. And he's drawn
attention to a lot of the problems with the Investment
Trust made boards start having a new type of conversation,
(10:08):
but also crucially gone out there and drummed up the
retail vote. He hasn't won them over. He didn't make
a good enough case for Harold investors to want to
move over to him. But he got them going, he
got them out there and he got everyone voting, and
I think that's a triumph for him. It's a trump
for Harold, and it's a tryumph for the platforms who
facilitated the retail vote. So you know, I'm pretty happy
(10:30):
with this. It's interesting to look at what's going to
happen next. There's six votes to go, and Katie Pots
who runs Harold, obviously has a great support based lots
of fans. She's done really well for thousands and thousands
of people over many, many years, so she's got a
strong personal support base and it'll be interesting to see
if the other trusts have quite the same thing going
(10:52):
for them. So there's that to watch, and then of
course the other thing is to watch what happens now
to the SABA stake because they are still hold a
lot of distrust. What do they do next? So thanks
to watch all coming up in the next couple of weeks,
and John and I are completely obsessed with this story,
so you will be seeing us talking about it again
and again and again.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
There's just one thing I would add is that I
think it's also really good that people have tuned it
for HAIRLD because then if the vote does goes up,
as we with the other trusts, they can't just point
to leezy vtil she had hold us. What does that
If it goes against some of these trusts, then there's
a reason, and it's a more fundamental reason.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
No, that's very true, and that was one of the
one of the reasons I was so pleased there was
such a big turnout because nobody, as you say, no
one can stand back and go, well, that wasn't fair,
that wasn't fair. The turnout was so low, etcetera. You know,
like we did and things like well pretty much every
actual election that happens, everyone loses. Well, that doesn't count.
Turnout was so low. You know, if you don't vote,
it effectively a vote for blah blah blah. Everyone disagrees
(11:54):
with every result for everything because not enough people turned out.
Now you can't do that. Yeah, good job everyone, right
onto people who aren't doing a good job. Well, hello,
Rachel Reeves. Rachel sat down with our editor in chief
John michel Fod in Davos this week, and they're quite
an interesting conversation. Actually we both watched it, didn't we
because just to be clear, we are not in Davos.
(12:16):
We are not in Davas. Hey, John, next year, take
us with you, Take us with you. We like skiing,
don't we We like skiing. We like no, I like skiing.
We like private jets, we like hobb nobbing with important people.
Oh god, they're not there anymore. Most of the important
people are there. I think, you know, Donald Trump isn't there.
What's the point anyway? So John's there and I'm sure
he's having a lovely time and he's been in viewing
Rachel Reeves where we're sitting over here in the UK
(12:38):
waiting for the storm to come in tomorrow. What did
you find most interesting about their conversation.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
John, honestly, I think well there was two widen is
that Rachel Reeves came dangerously close to hinting that bregsit
might have some benefits. My favorite bit too, Yeah, that
was great halfway through the conversation too, So they said that,
or we can be more nimble or in artificial intelligence
and financial regulation.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
There are opportunities outside of the European Union, opportunities for
example in AI, where we have a very different regulatory
approach to AI compared to the European Union's approach. That
makes Britain a more attractive place for AI and tech
companies to invest than in other European countries. We could
take advantage of that. We just should shout about it
(13:25):
and we should get that investment in.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
And I thought, wow, that's that is the first thing
we've probably had ad like that from a mainstream politician
since those in sixteen. Well that's unfair because Nigel for
that is a mainstream politician.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Note yes he is, he is. I mean she was
talking about AI in that context, wasn't she? And that
was interesting because yesterday were not yesterday?
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Was it was? It was? The rules are in finance
riggs as well.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Yes, that's true too, that's true too. And this week
as well, the conversation has come up not not there
but actually a little bit there, but in other conversations
about the UK possibly rejoining some kind of customs union, etc.
And she's been relatively clear so found that that's not
going to happen. So maybe, finally, finally, finally, we have
a political class that is beginning to see that there
is a whopping great Brexit premium, and in particulation particular,
(14:15):
no regulation premium attached to Brexit. So yeah, I agree
with you. That was my favorite bit too.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Yeah, And I mean, other than that, I thought they
were all. I think the interesting kind of big picture
thing is the tone shift. It's pretty clear in me
the chul the US is going from sort of feeling
secure in her position and feeling really quite worried about
it and worried about it to the point where she's
willing to kick off some really difficult conversations with elements
(14:45):
are owned cabinet because also elements of deck cabinet, because
you know, runways versus net zero is going to be
a hell of an interesting conversation. It was actually a
Bloomberg scoop that they were looking the the runways. And
I suppose what it's interesting is that's quite obviously, that's
pretty political and quite controversial. But at the same time,
(15:07):
it's not like Rachel Reeves pushed back when that she
didn't say there's no way, we're going to approve a
third run at Heathrow instead. She was very much right,
we can't keep blocking this stuff, and actually cut stam
looking out this morning and said something very similar in
a slightly fast at away on Twitter. You know, we're
for the builders and not the blockers. So we'll say
(15:28):
how much of that translates any actual action, but it's
definitely a torn shift.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Yeah. Well, the phrase that's been reported all over the
places when she said the answer can't always be no.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
And that's been the problem in Britain for a long
time that when there was a choice between something that
would grow the economy and sort of anything else, anything
else always won.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Which is interesting given that, certainly in opposition, I felt
that from labor the answer always was now.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Well yeah, now twenty eighteen, they all voted again not
Rachel reeves to be for Yeah, she's probably one of
the more constant members of the cabinet, but down and
looked against it.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Yeah. Yeah, interesting, Okay, So the really interesting bit there
is going to be if a lot of these projects
come up against the net zero problem, and AI in particular,
and one of the things that ks Stammer has been
talking about and has talked about a third amount in
this interview again is AI. And we know how energy
intensive AI is, and we know that the UK teachers
and all sorts of difficult energy breaks at the moment.
(16:28):
So you add in that, and then you add in
talking about new runways and infrastructure projects and all these
kinds of things. They are all in direct conflict with
the idea that we can reach net zero by twenty thirty,
which of course we can't. But you know, there is
part of the political class that continue to pretend that
we can. So you look at all this and you
begin to think, at some point we are going to
(16:48):
have to dial back.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
On this net zero business. I think it depends on
how muge potation she's on that. I mean, I think
that she's no in fear for her job and she'll
see what it takes whether or not she'll get the back.
And but I mean, I think the other key point
to remember, because a lot of people kept talking about
who you know, she'll get kind of you know, she'll
get kicked out or reshuffled. The problem is if Kirstarmer
(17:10):
does that, then it's kind of on him and the
precedent for prime ministers getting rid of the chancellors is
not good for prime ministers, so she does have that
very strong safety net underneath her. So yeah, I mean,
I think that this is going to represent quite a
big fight as far as the net zero stuff goes.
(17:31):
The only question I've got in my mind is whether
we need to end up having some kind of energy event,
which is kind of a nice world for blackout before
the mood actually shifts and they can, you know, and
it gets to the appointment it's no longer tenable. But
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
I don't know either. I mean, I think you're right
an event of that type would do it, But also
the miserable grind of having the highest electricity industrial electricity
prices the developed world in the end, that has to
make if growth is what you want, If growth is
what you want, and growth is as she keeps saying,
on number one mission, it's all we want. I'd like
her to say growth per her head, by the way,
(18:10):
but maybe we'll go to that one day if that's
your overall mission. You know, she knows, she's not stupid.
She knows that is impossible with energy prices as high
as they are. So I think that's that's the thing
to watch. The interaction between Rachel Reef's insistence that growth
is her number one mission and these incredibly high industrial
(18:31):
electricity prices. They cannot work together. It's not possible. Thanks
for listening to this week's Marin Talks Money debrief. Do
get in touch. If you're launching a mean coin of
some kind you'd like us to help you promote it.
We are all over that. If you like us, show, rate, review,
and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure
(18:51):
to follow me and John on ex or Twitter. I'm
at marinas w and John underscore Steppeic. This episode was
produced by some Mesidi production and sound designed by and.
Questions and comments on this show and all our shows
are always welcome, as I say, particularly about your meme coins.
Our show email is Marimoney at Bloomberg dot net. Brandan
isn't in there. We're gonna get complaints. Put Brendan back
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. Welcome to the Marin
Talks Money Weekly round up, our debrief of the biggest
oris in market and economics. I'm marrying something set, web
(00:25):
editor at Large for Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
UK Wealth, and I'm joined to the epics and your
reporter and author of the Money Distilled newsletter, John.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
We've been here before, you and I. Here we are
this time of year. We're not at Davos. No one's
invited us, not me, not you, and yet again we
have not launched our own meme coin.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
It's true, it's true, and I can't believe we've not
been invited to divorce now that it's not really relevant.
You know, I've been sing the battle by.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Now you don't have enough empty seats they could get
the likes of us in. But now I tell you what,
I am more disappointed about the meme coin, to be honest.
I mean, I wouldn't expect that you and I would
launch a launch a you know, a MTM coin and
suddenly be multi billionaires. But quite nice if we could
launch one, and okay, not in the top twenty five
riches people in the world, but you know, maybe in
(01:13):
the top couple of thousand. I could have done with that.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Mtm's got a ring to because it sounds about like MMT.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Ooh oh it is, and that will be kind of
the same thing, wouldn't it. It's in the same vibe, Yeah,
the same old money for nothing vibe.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
He certainly combines two of our fine bases MMT people
in cryptop people in one life.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
That would be so great. They could write their hate
mail in a single email too, not required. Okay, listen,
we're tangenting again. And then maybe some people out there
who don't know about trump coin, they won't know what
we're talking about. They might know abou Davos. We're not
going to dwell on that, as you know we are.
We're going to come back to that. But why are
we talking about meme coins? And why am I upset
(01:54):
that I haven't taken the opportunity to be one of
the twenty five riches people in the world.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
I guess this is all of Trump's mean coin. Of course,
this is something in an episode. If I get news
for you, it's yeah, Trump Trump misty launches on crypto
currency just before he got inaugurated, and it went up
a lot, and then it went down quite a bit
whenever his wife launched her own crypto currency and stole
(02:19):
some of the money from his. Basically, you've got.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
To stop right here because you're you're using that way.
You're calling it a cryptocurrency. It's not a currency. It's
not a thing, it's not anything. It's totally intangible. There's
no way to catch hold of this. It is a nothing.
It is a nothing.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
It's a it's a vibe, it's a token, it's a way.
I don't know. Actually, I mean, the mean coin element
is the stupidest bit of crypto currency. And I realize
a lot of people will think that that is really
saying something. But the meme coins are basically I mean,
the very first mean coin, or the most famous mean
coin at least, is dodge Coin. And dodge Coin was
(03:01):
literally set up as a joke. It was meant to
be poking fun at the whole coincept, the crypto currency
and of course the joke.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
John. I have to interrupt you here to say that
I'm conflicted here because I do own doge coin.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Oh yeah, okay, yes, conflict of interests.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
For a long time I called it doggy coin until
some young cousin corrected me.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Doggy coin's good as well, because it's got a picture
of a very cute shina EBox exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Anyway, sorry, doggie coin was the first one, as you said.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Yeah, And the point is the founder sort of said
this is a joke, and he basically said this is
a joke to point out what annoyanceance all of this
crypto stuff is. And the problem is the joke really
is on him because doggy coin or george Coin is
basically the top meme coin. And at one point everyone
was getting kind of excited because it looks as if
trump Coin might, you know, close the gap between it
(03:56):
and dodge coin. Let me try and explain the difference
between it and Bitcoin for people who buy into at
least some of this. So like that too, by the way, yes, yes,
but I know, well done again, none of these things.
I am so lazy. Sorry. Bitcoin is limited in supply
as long as you believe the mass et cetera, et cetera.
(04:17):
It's limited in supply. You need computers to do the
curvalent of mining in the cloud. To get out of
there by doing very hard sums, you actually need to
spend a lot of money these days to dig out
a new piece of bitcoin. And so the idea is
that it's kind of like digital gold in that it's
a limited supply and it's it's like a bearer asset,
(04:40):
so if you if you hold it, you can pass
it to someone else without going through any kind of
middle person or anything like that. So that's the idea.
Bitcoin's kind of like digital gold or digital cash or
something like that. It's not as used as a currency
because the price is very volatile, but if you were
in Venezuela and you want to get money out somewhere else,
then it's probably a better thing to you own for
(05:02):
that short period of time than something like gold, which
you would have to physically smuggle out. So I can
see that there's a there's a point to it. Those coins,
the main coins are just I mean, there's no there's
no limit to the nuther you can print, there's no
there's nothing. But there's literally nothing behind it except betting
that it will go up because someone else will pay
(05:23):
more for it. It's kind of like greater full theory.
In practice, no one's even pretending they've got a purpose.
It's just it's basically pure gambling. But not even gambling
with a kind of game behind it.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Yeah, but it is it also a live opinion poll.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
I mean you could, you could, although I suppose the
thing with that is you're kind of then that's like
trying to find a bolt on use after it's launched.
I mean, no one's getting an opinion on Sena a booze.
I mean, you know, do they? It could be quite good.
You're right if Trump had had a mean coin, and say,
(06:04):
but I didn't had the mean coin, or whoever takes
over his Democrat after him had the mean coin, that
could be quite interesting. You know, people are willing to
put their money behind the idea that someone's going to
become more popular enough so that their supporters are going
to back them, and then it becomes a guest like
football scarfs or memorabilia or something like that. But beyond that,
(06:27):
it is it's very it's pure belief based. And not
only that I don't I may be wrong about this,
but the issuer, I believe, can just issue as many
as they want, so then there is not much control
on what happens to you as a minority shareholder in
these things.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Yeah, So there we go mt M and MMT. The
connection is clear. Thanks John, And by the way, everybody,
this time next year, John and I we will have
our own meme coin. Right. Although I used to say
that about an ft IS. I used to say we
were going to launch our ound NFT and everyone we
give a lot of money for that. We didn't do
that either. We're just going to stay poor, aren't we. Yeah? Yeah,
(07:09):
definitely having fun. Right onwards to something real, something very real.
Yesterday or other earlier this week, should I say, was
the first vote in the Saba saga. Now, if you
don't know about the Saba saga, please go back and
listen to earlier podcast about this. But in a nutshell,
American actress investor Boas Weinstein, who is CIO and founder
of cyber Capital, has come into the UK investment trust market,
(07:32):
bought big stakes in seven Trust Miserable seven as he
calls them, and has called emergency general meetings to try
and ouse the bords and take over the assets to
run in his own way whatever that way. Maybe this
week was the first vote Herald Investment Trust and it
didn't go quite as planned for Weinstein. He lost the
(07:53):
vote very decisively and it was interesting. Actually one of
the things about this whole saga is will retail investors
will ordinary people turn out to vote either way? Either way?
And when we've been talking about it, John, we haven't
obviously been encouraging people to vote either way. What we
have been saying is get out there and vote. There's
a great test of shareholder democracy and if you want
(08:14):
this trust to continue to exist, get out there and
vote for that to happen. And that is exactly what
they did. So Sholder. Turn out was around double what
it normally is, and well over sixty percent of the
votes went to the Herald board and things will now
carry on as before. Is that a reasonable summary? Yep?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Is there reasonable? So many? And yeah, is this really
really good to see that people tundo? Because it does
you know, it would have been really depressed and if
such a consequential vote had seen the kind of usual
tun note for these things.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
And so the vote was actually it was sixty five
to thirty five. So that's it's quite a defeat if
you think that man design holds. I think I can't
remember it quite how much of that trust twenty nine percent? Yeah,
and I mean around there, so pretty much everybody who
wasn't with Saba who was part of Saba voted with
the vote.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Yeah, And I mean that made sense because I mean Saba,
I mean boys Weinstein himself is pointed out that no
vote as a vote for Saba. I mean we pointed
that out in the podcast, which I thought. I have
thought that Saba's tactics here are sort of interesting and
if I was relying on and shared hold a apathy
(09:29):
played when going to public quite as much as they have.
But then I guess if you're you know, haven't they
kind of retort to the things coming out the investment
trust themselves, then you can't really avoid it. But it's interesting,
it's not It's not the way to make apathy work
in your favor, I don't think.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Yeah, so I think he should be admired with that.
I mean, when I was muttering about it on social
media yesterday, I said that, you know, we should be
grateful to all parties here. You know, a lot of
people will be pleased that have been defeated. They see
them as you know, American and they etc. But I
think that we should be very pleased. And he's drawn
attention to a lot of the problems with the Investment
Trust made boards start having a new type of conversation,
(10:08):
but also crucially gone out there and drummed up the
retail vote. He hasn't won them over. He didn't make
a good enough case for Harold investors to want to
move over to him. But he got them going, he
got them out there and he got everyone voting, and
I think that's a triumph for him. It's a trump
for Harold, and it's a tryumph for the platforms who
facilitated the retail vote. So you know, I'm pretty happy
(10:30):
with this. It's interesting to look at what's going to
happen next. There's six votes to go, and Katie Pots
who runs Harold, obviously has a great support based lots
of fans. She's done really well for thousands and thousands
of people over many, many years, so she's got a
strong personal support base and it'll be interesting to see
if the other trusts have quite the same thing going
(10:52):
for them. So there's that to watch, and then of
course the other thing is to watch what happens now
to the SABA stake because they are still hold a
lot of distrust. What do they do next? So thanks
to watch all coming up in the next couple of weeks,
and John and I are completely obsessed with this story,
so you will be seeing us talking about it again
and again and again.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
There's just one thing I would add is that I
think it's also really good that people have tuned it
for HAIRLD because then if the vote does goes up,
as we with the other trusts, they can't just point
to leezy vtil she had hold us. What does that
If it goes against some of these trusts, then there's
a reason, and it's a more fundamental reason.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
No, that's very true, and that was one of the
one of the reasons I was so pleased there was
such a big turnout because nobody, as you say, no
one can stand back and go, well, that wasn't fair,
that wasn't fair. The turnout was so low, etcetera. You know,
like we did and things like well pretty much every
actual election that happens, everyone loses. Well, that doesn't count.
Turnout was so low. You know, if you don't vote,
it effectively a vote for blah blah blah. Everyone disagrees
(11:54):
with every result for everything because not enough people turned out.
Now you can't do that. Yeah, good job everyone, right
onto people who aren't doing a good job. Well, hello,
Rachel Reeves. Rachel sat down with our editor in chief
John michel Fod in Davos this week, and they're quite
an interesting conversation. Actually we both watched it, didn't we
because just to be clear, we are not in Davos.
(12:16):
We are not in Davas. Hey, John, next year, take
us with you, Take us with you. We like skiing,
don't we We like skiing. We like no, I like skiing.
We like private jets, we like hobb nobbing with important people.
Oh god, they're not there anymore. Most of the important
people are there. I think, you know, Donald Trump isn't there.
What's the point anyway? So John's there and I'm sure
he's having a lovely time and he's been in viewing
Rachel Reeves where we're sitting over here in the UK
(12:38):
waiting for the storm to come in tomorrow. What did
you find most interesting about their conversation.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
John, honestly, I think well there was two widen is
that Rachel Reeves came dangerously close to hinting that bregsit
might have some benefits. My favorite bit too, Yeah, that
was great halfway through the conversation too, So they said that,
or we can be more nimble or in artificial intelligence
and financial regulation.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
There are opportunities outside of the European Union, opportunities for
example in AI, where we have a very different regulatory
approach to AI compared to the European Union's approach. That
makes Britain a more attractive place for AI and tech
companies to invest than in other European countries. We could
take advantage of that. We just should shout about it
(13:25):
and we should get that investment in.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
And I thought, wow, that's that is the first thing
we've probably had ad like that from a mainstream politician
since those in sixteen. Well that's unfair because Nigel for
that is a mainstream politician.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Note yes he is, he is. I mean she was
talking about AI in that context, wasn't she? And that
was interesting because yesterday were not yesterday?
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Was it was? It was? The rules are in finance
riggs as well.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Yes, that's true too, that's true too. And this week
as well, the conversation has come up not not there
but actually a little bit there, but in other conversations
about the UK possibly rejoining some kind of customs union, etc.
And she's been relatively clear so found that that's not
going to happen. So maybe, finally, finally, finally, we have
a political class that is beginning to see that there
is a whopping great Brexit premium, and in particulation particular,
(14:15):
no regulation premium attached to Brexit. So yeah, I agree
with you. That was my favorite bit too.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Yeah, And I mean, other than that, I thought they
were all. I think the interesting kind of big picture
thing is the tone shift. It's pretty clear in me
the chul the US is going from sort of feeling
secure in her position and feeling really quite worried about
it and worried about it to the point where she's
willing to kick off some really difficult conversations with elements
(14:45):
are owned cabinet because also elements of deck cabinet, because
you know, runways versus net zero is going to be
a hell of an interesting conversation. It was actually a
Bloomberg scoop that they were looking the the runways. And
I suppose what it's interesting is that's quite obviously, that's
pretty political and quite controversial. But at the same time,
(15:07):
it's not like Rachel Reeves pushed back when that she
didn't say there's no way, we're going to approve a
third run at Heathrow instead. She was very much right,
we can't keep blocking this stuff, and actually cut stam
looking out this morning and said something very similar in
a slightly fast at away on Twitter. You know, we're
for the builders and not the blockers. So we'll say
(15:28):
how much of that translates any actual action, but it's
definitely a torn shift.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Yeah. Well, the phrase that's been reported all over the
places when she said the answer can't always be no.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
And that's been the problem in Britain for a long
time that when there was a choice between something that
would grow the economy and sort of anything else, anything
else always won.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Which is interesting given that, certainly in opposition, I felt
that from labor the answer always was now.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Well yeah, now twenty eighteen, they all voted again not
Rachel reeves to be for Yeah, she's probably one of
the more constant members of the cabinet, but down and
looked against it.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Yeah. Yeah, interesting, Okay, So the really interesting bit there
is going to be if a lot of these projects
come up against the net zero problem, and AI in particular,
and one of the things that ks Stammer has been
talking about and has talked about a third amount in
this interview again is AI. And we know how energy
intensive AI is, and we know that the UK teachers
and all sorts of difficult energy breaks at the moment.
(16:28):
So you add in that, and then you add in
talking about new runways and infrastructure projects and all these
kinds of things. They are all in direct conflict with
the idea that we can reach net zero by twenty thirty,
which of course we can't. But you know, there is
part of the political class that continue to pretend that
we can. So you look at all this and you
begin to think, at some point we are going to
(16:48):
have to dial back.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
On this net zero business. I think it depends on
how muge potation she's on that. I mean, I think
that she's no in fear for her job and she'll
see what it takes whether or not she'll get the back.
And but I mean, I think the other key point
to remember, because a lot of people kept talking about
who you know, she'll get kind of you know, she'll
get kicked out or reshuffled. The problem is if Kirstarmer
(17:10):
does that, then it's kind of on him and the
precedent for prime ministers getting rid of the chancellors is
not good for prime ministers, so she does have that
very strong safety net underneath her. So yeah, I mean,
I think that this is going to represent quite a
big fight as far as the net zero stuff goes.
(17:31):
The only question I've got in my mind is whether
we need to end up having some kind of energy event,
which is kind of a nice world for blackout before
the mood actually shifts and they can, you know, and
it gets to the appointment it's no longer tenable. But
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
I don't know either. I mean, I think you're right
an event of that type would do it, But also
the miserable grind of having the highest electricity industrial electricity
prices the developed world in the end, that has to
make if growth is what you want, If growth is
what you want, and growth is as she keeps saying,
on number one mission, it's all we want. I'd like
her to say growth per her head, by the way,
(18:10):
but maybe we'll go to that one day if that's
your overall mission. You know, she knows, she's not stupid.
She knows that is impossible with energy prices as high
as they are. So I think that's that's the thing
to watch. The interaction between Rachel Reef's insistence that growth
is her number one mission and these incredibly high industrial
(18:31):
electricity prices. They cannot work together. It's not possible. Thanks
for listening to this week's Marin Talks Money debrief. Do
get in touch. If you're launching a mean coin of
some kind you'd like us to help you promote it.
We are all over that. If you like us, show, rate, review,
and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure
(18:51):
to follow me and John on ex or Twitter. I'm
at marinas w and John underscore Steppeic. This episode was
produced by some Mesidi production and sound designed by and.
Questions and comments on this show and all our shows
are always welcome, as I say, particularly about your meme coins.
Our show email is Marimoney at Bloomberg dot net. Brandan
isn't in there. We're gonna get complaints. Put Brendan back
Host
Merryn Somerset Webb
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.