so hi everybody and welcome to this live podcast with kinik a remarkable Swedish company.

and um this company was founded in 1936 so has a long tradition in driving growth and innovation in various Industries Telecom e-commerce and Healthcare.

and at mbim we own just under 4% of the company equivalent to just under $1 million.

so a warm welcome to the CEO Georgie ganv and the chair James Anderson so so um Georgie just before we start what is kinck.

Georgie just before we start what is kinck.

so as you said we are 290 years old or young I suppose uh we have a history of um backing amazing Founders and being part of building businesses across various sectors.

we have a history of um backing amazing Founders and being part of building businesses across various sectors.

um we are publicly listed meaning that we give public shareholders the exposure to fast growing um companies.

um and we have a long-term mindset because we also have our founding families still as lead shareholders providing you know shareholders of flesh and blood with long-term mindset looking for returns for Generations rather than quarters that I think in simple terms who we are.

that I think in simple terms who we are.

good and how has the portfolio changed over the years.

it has changed massively uh because the only constant within shinik is that we you know reinvent ourselves.

so we've had a number of transformation Transformations before and for the last six years or so we have again changed the portfolio into new sectors.

so healthc care is was some healthcare was something we built up actually starting you know six six seven years ago complete new sector so transformed the portfolio massively over the last years.

so when you come to work every day what's your goal what is your kind of long-term goal.

I mean I think our ultimate goal is that we want to be the best owners in these sectors for our companies and I mean.

a lot of investors say that they're long-term for me that's not just a holding period time it's basically what type of discussions we are driving in the boardroom.

so when I see especially at you know times like this with this quite difficult Market climate for for growth uh Ventures we see short-term discussions in the boardroom that we don't like.

we would like to challenge our Founders and discuss with them how to expand features expand products expand Footprints into new markets and have those strategic discussions.

so invest for returns for the future and becoming that owner I think um is something you you earn that right to have those strategic discussions.

so for us to uh be perceived or to be properly perceived as a long-term investor what kind of questions should we ask you.

basically the size of the opportunity to start with how large can something become because I think people tend to look at average returns M but forgetting I think that those returns are buil up typically by extreme outcomes so trying to understand the potential and how big something can become I think something that I would welcome us you know welcome um as a discussion.

because I think people tend to look at average returns M but forgetting I think that those returns are buil up typically by extreme outcomes so trying to understand the potential and how big something can become I think something that I would welcome us you know welcome um as a discussion.

now I saw um I saw some stats that um out of 1 million companies only 45 get to a 100 year old.

what what do you think is a key to in getting there.

firstly I think every successful company you know survives so you need to survive to start with that's a good starting point yep.

and then I think you just need to realize that if you're going for novel business models which I think is something that differentiates us as an investor all investor wants to find amazing Founders great you know visions and so forth.

all investor wants to find amazing Founders great you know visions and so forth.

but if you're backing novel business models lacking comparisons lacking peer groups it is very difficult.

it's a different type of risk you're taking and quite often it turns out that might not work because of wrong timing or wrong setup wrong structure and so forth.

but when it works it can actually create fantastic outcomes.

what is how would you define the investment strategy just now what what type of companies are you looking for.

I mean I think we're looking for companies that actually are um comfortable in articulating that great vision and how large something can really become um that there are bold and brave uh but at the same time of course understanding that creating a business takes time and they should have that grit to go through not only one period of challenges but I think all great companies speaking about envidia Amazon and so forth and of course James knows much more of these companies than I do they all gone through difficult periods so I think what I like to see in a Founder is that he or she is is ready to go through periods like that.

um that there are bold and brave uh but at the same time of course understanding that creating a business takes time and they should have that grit to go through not only one period of challenges but I think all great companies speaking about envidia Amazon and so forth and of course James knows much more of these companies than I do they all gone through difficult periods so I think what I like to see in a Founder is that he or she is is ready to go through periods like that.

I think all great companies speaking about envidia Amazon and so forth and of course James knows much more of these companies than I do they all gone through difficult periods.

so I think what I like to see in a Founder is that he or she is is ready to go through periods like that.

um now what um how do you find that in a Founder what are you what does an interview look like.

so now I'm a Founder how are you going to figure out whether I've got the you know this grit or resilience.

the first question I think is to really pan out because typically when you do your classical you know three-year plans you tend to extrapolate just what you're doing now which doesn't tell me anything about what can potentially you know happen and become.

so to kind of pan out and to ask questions regarding the 10 or 20 years outcome that forces I think the founder to think differently.

and certain Founders that we have met and and of course backed they have the understanding of how large this can become they can articulate that for the long term while of course being very disciplined and execution oriented result oriented here now because you also build typically great companies by delivering every day every week.

because you also build typically great companies by delivering every day every week.

so I think we have we have some kind of we are not patient by seeing for seeing results we want to see the results all the time but at the same time we have the patient Capital to actually wait for the large outcomes.

and if you can have that discussion with a founder and ask those questions uh I think that's a good starting point.

so that's about the people but what about the industry and the type of business you're looking at.

yeah I think when it comes to the industry we are we have always looked for you know business models that can change an entire sector.

going back to the 80s when shic was part of you know um creating um Challenger within telecommunications or the media sector for instance or in the early days of e-commerce again backing novel business models disrupting you know entire sectors by providing better choice for the consumer I think that's that's the starting point.

I think that's that's the starting point.

we always had that we would like to see how we can use technology in a way that would disrupt an entire sectors typically a sector that is you know where we see that consumers are badly treated or they have low experience or low customer experience because of of uh lace incumbent if I may use that word so I think that's that's something that attracts us uh to the Investments.

so I think that's that's something that attracts us uh to the Investments.

and we can look at companies in our portfolios today like recursion for instance where we as an investor would back the platform of drug Discovery whereas many investors today they would look at the actual candidates in a pipeline.

so how many potential drugs are passing phase one phase 2 etc those are the short-term proof points.

we would more look at the potential of the platform again and how that fundamentally could change the success of drug Discovery over a period.

but do you think it was easier to be I mean in a way you're a bit of a venture capitalist uh you know investor do you think that was easier in the old days when there were less Venture Capital companies competing for these ideas.

yes and no because I think at that time you were by default unique if you were taking those bets.

but today I think you shouldn't underestimate how much impact you can do by just being different.

and again what I said taking different types of risks business model risk is something that very few investors do actually.

they tend to look for comparisons for peers Etc.

taking the long-term bets by pushing the right discussions is also something that is different.

and although I think we have we have a team now that have been kind of spearheading a strategy of these different sectors when we meet Founders typically we are also selected as a partner because of those different different mindsets.

moving on to you James you are um one of the most successful investors Europe has ever seen and in particular in the technology sector you've been incredibly early.

and in particular in the technology sector you've been incredibly early.

um tell us about your investment philosophy because you say thatth the normal ways of looking at companies is not really valid and we need to look at 10 15 year upside downside scenarios do what's how do you go about this.

how do you go about this.

well firstly thank you for the the kind words.

I I think there is something very strange about our industry in the way it thinks about prediction.

um no experts on predictions who I've ever talked to or read would say that what you should be doing is providing a spot number often to three decimal points for a particular company at a particular date.

we live in a deeply complex society where you cannot tell what is going to happen.

but you can with all concerns about how precise you ought to be in your likelihoods have different scenarios.

and I don't know whether it's been the same for you but every single really successful company that I've been fortunate enough invest in has way exceeded anything that I could primarily envisage.

you know it's become a matter of trying to use imagination rather than anything else.

and I actually sort of increasingly become if I may say this more extreme about this and I was thinking this when you were asking Georgia just then about what to answer Founders for those very small number of companies that dominate returns you know in America since 1926 just 72 companies provided half the returns over bonds of companies.

in America since 1926 just 72 companies provided half the returns over bonds of companies.

I think these people Nikolai instantly shock you.

but if you go back now for instance you you've been one of the early very large and serious backers of Tesla right.

yeah so what did you think what what did you think at the time when you made your first investment how did you go about that analysis.

well the first thing to say is I think you need to have a long-term view point of it.

and you know to go back to what I was saying before I have a death draw full of to the second decimal point top price targets sent to me by kind hedge funds o over over the years.

but you know you also need don't you different sets of information and need different metrics and thinking about all this.

and in all honesty the most valuable help I had in it was talking to a set of professors particularly A lady called Jessica tranic who is both at MIT and Santa Fe Institute.

who was trying to think about how Energy Technologies progress over 50 20 year time periods.

and that gave us the confidence to say that actually your minimum Improvement rate is 15% per anom and it turned out to be rather higher than that.

and if you afford yourself time periods sufficiently long 15% is against a 2 to 3% improvements that even Toyota could give you gave you confidence that it was going to change.

so I think a lot of it was about the exponential change in the industry from academic sources.

I think you and I would agree that for good or ill Elon certainly falls into that category of being an extraordinary person in the way he was thinking about this the industry and possibly even more so at that juncture than in its present Incarnation.

and possibly even more so at that juncture than in its present Incarnation.

uh so I actually think that as long as your clients allowed you patience uh it was something that the odds of success were pretty high on.

give another example we talked briefly about Atlas Copco for instance who we had on on the podcast.

why why did you invest in at Atlas Copco.

well the first honest response would be that in 1986 if I go back and read my notes which STIs I don't have any longer but I think I would have found the answer was guys we're talking 1986 okay it's a long time.

it's a long time.

think about our holding period and how we you know plan on extended this is where we are this is where we're going to yeah.

I you know I think at that time the answer would probably have been reasonably superficial I need to be be honest about that.

it took me a long time to to tr try and think about this in a hopefully more profound way.

I I think in that very Swedish element of it having stable longterm owners was incredibly important.

you know what the wenberg Universe I know you talk to um have enabled there is so far different um you know.

I think you need in most great companies Founders or long run families.

I think there are very few companies that don't have those that become truly successful.

but it was also an absolute commitment and this goes back to George's point about constantly widening the market um so that it got big bigger and bigger rather than exhausting those tiny areas of dominance some companies have.

but what I most like to understand more is within those two conundrums how they've constantly managed to select CEOs mostly who've been there as you know for a very long period of time who absolutely themselves embody these principles.

and I think that is very unusual.

and you know I sometimes find the European companies that have really succeeded even more interesting than the American ones from this point of view because it is actually something wider isn't it than just the founder you know.

I'd say exactly the same of asml which is effect we never really had a Founder but yet has had truly astonishing people leading him for 40 years.

so when do you sell or do you sell.

well I think firstly one should think again and again of it you know as Charlie manga says interrupting compounding is not really a very senseful thing to do.

and you know my sins of commission on this front have been worse than my U my my sins vom mission on it um and you know both on the buying and the selling um.

and you know both on the buying and the selling um.

and I only have to admit that I sold Apple in n in 2016 um because I couldn't see how it was going to grow and I couldn't see post Steve how it was going to have the ethos.

has now in some ways that's been true but I don't really think it's it's been true in economic terms even if it's been absolutely wrong in stop stock market terms.

I I think you should only sell if you think you have actually got to the period where you've exhausted that growth and that growth has to be estimated via your imagination as well as any sort of sense of predictions about it and you know I I wish on the whole that i' kept to those cultural factors more behind all that you know.

and that growth has to be estimated via your imagination as well as any sort of sense of predictions about it and you know I I wish on the whole that i' kept to those cultural factors more behind all that you know.

I wish on the whole that i' kept to those cultural factors more behind all that you know.

I think once a company changes its nature uh then it's very difficult to get the longevity and the extremes that we've got.

so in some way expressing about the scale of the market but a lot of it is also have they got the culture still that will enable them to explore these extraordinary uh thesis that they have you know.

perhaps can't put it better than if you excuse me one more word it's a Jeff Bezos thing isn't it.

I mean l Lots is but once a company moves on to day two then it's effectively beginning to die and you've got to stay with that extraordinary level of ambition extraordinary iconic clasm about how you go about thinking about your own Industries.

the fact that um so few companies uh account for so much of the growth in the market what are the implications for how we should invest.

so in days of you my largest client and one which immensely helpful was Vanguard.

um and you imagine having interesting conversations with a very um own everything type approach.

and I think there are basically three approaches that you can have um and very quickly.

you can own everything but I'm not sure you can own everything because you can't own the unquoted companies that George is talking about but then you you don't miss out.

secondly you do and I think this is something which your organization is trying to do extremely well and can have a huge role on you try and make the companies better by how you are owning them.

it fits in with what George is saying.

the third one which is my own approach but I'm not remotely trying to say it's better is that you can believe that there are identifiable characteristics that truly great companies have.

and actually I think in many ways I've probably expanded that too much and had too many not truly great companies but I think they have identifiable characteristics.

and I think you can actually if you're prepared to use them for long term I think the job is possible it's in some ways simpler but that's not the game that most people believe they're doing.

I um I sometimes use this an analogy which goes down quite well with my Italian employes say that you know Scotland where I come from will never ever win a European or a World Soccer Championship.

why.

well mostly because we're not very good so we did beat Norway last time around um um.

but also you just need to have the scale to be able to have some something special about it.

but you know if we play a different game like darts or snooker mostly in Cloudy pubs we can be better than other people at it.

now most people in investment and I find this incredibly sad but most people in investment to my mind are engaged in the game and they are incentivized to this of trying to beat other people over short periods of time.

I think if I say that you're looking for the extremes they have identified extremes and you give your yourself or hopefully your clients give you at least 10 years to do it it becomes a feasible game.

which as much chance as winning you know could sound very arrogant otherwise could do Nikolai you know saying I can do this other people I just don't believe that's what most Mar participants are doing.

you know the figure in New York is that 60% of people are are paid on the basis of their daily p&l.

well that you're not you're not going to be interested in trying to find the Exp exponential companies for the long term if that's what you what you're going through.

would you be pleased to hear that we have a slightly longer term Horizon than daily um.

now um Georgie just moving on to uh the difference between uh Europe and and the US.

just how what's the difference between the startup scene we are seeing in Europe and the US.

and in a way why is why is US succeeding so much better than Europe.

I think if I kind of boil things down um the word I think of is ambition.

and for sure now when we have you know more than half of our portfolio in US businesses I see a clear difference it's an ambition level that is much higher in the US compared to Europe.

um I don't know really why but in Europe we tend to focus a lot you know around legislation boundaries um regulation Etc instead of actually thinking how to do the you know impossible kind of.

so that's that's the ambition level and that goes well beyond Founders I think also investors think in a different way in Europe.

um and we have of course fantastic European examples I mean companies like Spotify and others that have proven that you can truly become Global winners but still I think the ambition level is is a big difference.

what about Stockholm.

I think Stockholm has Sweden has the pleasure of of having having several factors that has you know helped you know this startup scene to move everything from you know PCs being you know rolled out during um number of years in the in the 90s sorry um very early on.

from you know PCs being you know rolled out during um number of years in the in the 90s sorry um very early on I was uh working with that you know myself with with kind of um fiber to the home kind of allow people to have fast access to to internet early in the early days has been kind of part of the of of of of the scene growing.

and I think also that successful startups uh typically you know feed other startups.

because you mentioned this home PC just explain briefly because in Sweden there was a situation where well people just got PCS right.

yes at home and very affordable at least yeah.

I know but I mean it's quite interesting that how how a government can actually accelerate technological yes progress by something like that.

it wasn't very expensive.

no it wasn't expensive.

and I think it again was a long-term bet understanding that if we would provide more people with this these tools and the infrastructure which basically is the broadband connection right good things will happen.

probably lots of good things as well.

we had you know a lot of debates around Pirate Bay and other stuff during this period of time but I think it actually created a lot of innovation.

so we can definitely do it in in Europe as well but it's sad to to say say that it's a clear difference today both within the investment community and and founder community that the ambition level is different.

then of course having said that us is a huge market and and you don't have to go abroad before scaling.

what we see in Europe is that it just takes a year or two after a company has started and then it needs to think about expansion and going into New Market new language new cultures Etc within Europe can be more difficult than for you as company to.

how do you see the difference between uh private and public uh companies.

I mean we say sometimes that we can actually save companies from going public it sounds a bit sad but but especially since we are a public company ourselves.

but we see sometimes that Founders in the private environment has the freedom to actually focus on building a great company for the long term.

and once they're public they are actually evaluated along the lines that James just described right so much shorter time periods different type of of you know work streams.

you seldom you know hear a private founder or founder in a private environment think too much about what to do today to improve the share price but that's quite common actually in the public environment.

and I think that is that's a big contradiction when you want the company to focus on Innovation and R&D.

and me and James just discussed the other day about you know Nvidia H when they had this massive uh setback in I think it was 2006 and then nearly they were nearly wiped out right exactly.

share price dropped more than 8%.

and and the sad thing here the funny thing I don't know the irony at least is that it was because they invested a lot in R&D Building the platform that then created a trillion dollar company right.

so the markets are not rewarding businesses typically in the public environment to invest for the future I think so.

now you look at so now you look at so James go back to you um now you look at where the R&D is being spent uh where the Innovation is.

now you look at where the R&D is being spent uh where the Innovation is.

where do you think we're going to make the most money in the next 5 to 10 years what type of Industries.

oh I think that there are three outstanding areas.

um one I'll just just mention because I don't think we need is I think that in clean technology there are much better business models than people believe and that that can be done at scale.

the second would be and George has touched on it at the moment where data meets genomics.

I think that we got a chance of moving our understanding of human biology up from I don't know 15% to 50% and I think that will lead to a complete transformation which hopefully will lead to Better Health Care at lower costs.

so of course there are many things cutting against that.

the third one would be that I do believe that AI has huge opportunities but in a very different way I think than people are going about at the moment.

if AI continues to compound its its power levels its understanding levels at something like 60% perom then trying to think about what problems we can solve in 10 years time becomes what's interesting from my point of view.

and what type of problems are they.

well I think it feeds back into the healthcare one at the first place.

and I think you know it's it's interesting I think there are you know you you'll recognize that it's early stages here but you were just beginning to get companies evolve into that which I think is a sign of real hope that we're going to break out into it.

and I think it's going to be critical to reforming Healthcare.

I think one much talked about for many years and again back to a company that we mentioned I think that you've get that rate of improvement than both autonomous driving and Robotics for general purposes become extremely compelling.

um and at prices levels where they can transform our world and George do you agree on this or are are you coordinated in where you want with the money kind of hopes.

so in away most of the time not always but most of the time.

and I think I mean I'm an engineer by training and I'm truly fascinating because we're now seeing something that is that hasn't happened before.

I think for the first time we can translate you know human biology chemistry into you know technology for the first time ever.

and this is not this does not mean that we move boundaries we actually completely remove them.

so I honestly think that we are looking at something that could you know change fundamental again how we look at Healthcare and Drug Discovery but also in other areas.

I mean we we backed a fantastic company where we are backing a fantastic company called Solen in the US that has reinvented chemical engineering.

they can actually produce materials um and the result is kind of carbon net negative and that wasn't able to do just you know five 10 years ago was impossible.

so now I think we have all this Innovation and yet the market seems to focus more on the daily trading and the next quarter's results.

and I think it's quite quite interesting that we're talking about things in in 10 or 15 years time what this technology can do.

I I do believe however that there will be also a lot of margin compressions around the AI field.

if you look at the what we call thin wrappers that might not have you know so much deep connection to businesses you know workflows or or anything like that very limited modes there.

uh we won't see the same kind of development earning wise over time.

okay good um changing t a bit here um.

James moving back to um governance what what what are your main priorities as the chair.

my number one priority at the moment is trying to make sure that Georgie and his team have the confidence to invest in a way that logically fits into the philosophy both of us I think is expressing.

you know I think that there was is a continuous danger when you are in a bad phase of markets or a bad phase in the company or both combined that you give up trying to be truly successful.

and I so how do you do that you call him and say come on Georgie Cher up.

well I you know as a matter of fact yes some.

I I I I I I think I actually think that the human aspect of that is important.

you know there's this great story about Bezos and Buffett you know at a far higher level than Georg you myself that you know in 2005 Buffett very publicly went and put his arms around Bezos and said Jeff you're getting it right don't listen to the market.

these things really matter.

and I think you know know it's as Jensen and Nidia says you know if he if he' known how hard this was going to be he wouldn't have done it um.

so you know you've got to keep that.

but I think that there is you know I think very often as George was implying a different way around I think what goes on at board meetings does matter from that point of view.

does it help to have a big family shareholder.

for sure I would say so.

I mean I think in what ways.

I mean I think shareholders of flesh and blood again thinking about generation rather than quarters matters.

and I think especially when you have founding families as in chinik that have they have been around for a long period of time they have seen you know changes before.

if there's some you know Legacy in culture and history we have it is that we have done many new things.

and one of our uh you know persons within the famous person persons within chinik John sbec he said I don't just want to see around the corner I want to live around that corner.

that and how is it and how is it to take over after somebody like that right.

I mean he was he was he was he was kind of a a Visionary genius.

I'm not saying that you are not but uh and of you know probably you are but but he for he for sure was right.

and what is it to take to take that.

I first of all I wouldn't say that I I wouldn't compare myself to to anyone uh like that.

but I think the most important thing to understand as a CEO of shinik is that you're actually taking the Baton m and you are carrying this forward because this is much more than one person or one team it's actually an institution.

because this is much more than one person or one team it's actually an institution.

and it's it's a unique you know vehicle because we have the combination of being an investor you know looking at fast grown tech companies but also in one way backed by you know a family office kind of of mentality with this long-term approach that is unique.

is it important that board members own shares in the company comp is where they on the board.

yes though I fully accept that the number they own is dependent on their own personal cyes is.

yes is kin very Swedish company in that we had um Arin mayor on um the podcast and uh she talks about the importance of consensus decisions in Sweden.

she talks about the importance of consensus decisions in Sweden.

now at the same time when you reach consensus is normally not a very good investment because it's so consensual right.

so how do you how do you balance this how do you how can you be contrarian in a in a in a country like Sweden where everybody has to agree for from that perspective.

from that perspective I think we're typically non-s Swedish.

and I think that's why shinik in the past has been very much of a role model I think to certain Sweden Founders that have been looked at at you know the stenbeck family and shinc as an example of being a contrarian and taking bold decisions.

I don't believe in always in Democratic decisions.

I do believe that you should listen and carefully consider every different perspectives so having a a open discussion a good decision-making process is one thing trying to agree on everything is a total different thing.

and I don't think we're there so from that perspective we're very nons Swedish.

how do you deal with failures.

I mean I think first of all you need to acknowledge failures um.

but I think I think it's but but do you guys really Ann acknowledge failures at kin.

you talk a lot about your successes you don't talk so much about the stuff that doesn't go so well H.

it hurts to talk about failures but actually we do we talk about things that have gone wrong.

we have you know taking some serious bets in in companies that have gone bust and we've lost a lot of money that we talk about.

but I think what's important is it that it doesn't create this culture of you know fear of doing mistakes because we we are in the business of risk-taking.

and I'm sure that every great company out there including shinik will do a lot of mistakes during that successful Journey right.

so if you if you're obsessed about failures in a negative way I think that can form a culture that is very negative when it comes to seeing the potential going forward.

somehow I think you should as an investor sometimes celebrate you know mistakes and and see that as something you know very natural in your evolution of becoming better.

and sometimes I also get annoyed by people saying that it's very good to extract learnings so we don't do the same mistake twice.

I do agree but there are so many new mistakes to be done so I don't I'm not sure you can protect yourselves from doing mistakes just because you learn your past mistakes.

you just have to live with them and make sure that when you hit that extreme outcome it hopefully will actually compensate for all the mistakes you've done for a long period of time.

I don't know James if I get fired now or or so.

we we're actually going to I just love to explore that a bit uh you know kind of the potential of being fired because um not not you of course but um.

um James you mentioned um a bit earlier that uh you know if your shareholders permit you you know if your investors permit you to be longterm right.

yeah now um how do you think about a draw down and how much money you can lose before your job is at stake right.

so one of the reasons in this fund that they have this um tracking error budget is that so there are limit for how bad we can do because this is a very important fund.

now have you got have you got any type of risk management put on you or Draw down limits or you know.

we have of course a lot of risk you know um parameters that we look at um.

but I think typically what we do we back a company because we have a thesis and we see that big picture but we don't deploy all the capital at once.

what we typically do is that we deploy the capital over time when we see the company develop.

and of course that can reach a certain number that it's a lot of money100 million or more but at a certain point we don't regret that we back that you know in the beginning.

and we admit that we made a mistake and the company will actually not be part of our portfolio either because it's written down or it goes bust that happens.

but but it's a limit of course how much Capital we can put in that company.

what do you think James.

how how badly can he do before you give him a different type of telephone call.

yeah I I I I think it should be about making an assessment of the caliber of the decision making more than the outcome um.

and I think we forget just how fragile success is.

so go back to another company that in mark rust to Atlas Copco which I held on to through this I earliest semesters when I was working as assistant in American depart was in Home Depot.

now Home Depot in I think late 1985 might have been early 1986 but around that time period again was within 3 weeks of going bankrupt.

and I believe there's a Harvard case study around this at the time.

now it is since then one of the 25 best investments you could have made if youve carried on loaning it.

um if they' gone under at that point would they have deed a prium.

I'm not really sure they would because the entire thesis was was out there and GRE and the upside was huge.

so you know I think a lot is about think thinking about the caliber of thought and the caliber of work that is done.

and on that score yeah I do think that there are plenty of people in the financial industry who don't deserve to have very highly remunerated jobs and to keep them.

but I think also I mean in times like this when we had a big Market reset it's more difficult to raise capital for growth in our companies for sure um.

I think we need also to be humble right.

because it's easy to say that now we separate the winners from the losers we separate the weat from the shaft and so forth.

but there are definitely a lot of companies out there that will go bust because they can't raise Capital that could have become something extraordinary.

and we are the one deciding whether they should have that chance.

might not be so that it's a bad company but we did not give them that chance.

what does it mean for us.

of course we can't we can't fund every company we have in the portfolio we can't fund every company out there.

but we should also remind ourselves that it's difficult to actually you know see that future potential Al in a company that's struggling.

otherwise investing would be easy you would only then allocate more Capital to the ones that are performing right now every day yeah.

but that's not the case investing is not easy.

James what advice would you have to us as a firm.

well firstly I I repeat that I genuinely have admiration for you're going on and I don't want to be remotely arrogant enough to say that I can better.

but I I think that you have such enormous opportunities to do good for the way the financial sector Works indeed so that it goes beyond niol made the financial sector.

because you know I've always had this belief that really would be better off if we thought about the job that we're doing as trying to help build great companies.

I think you have an unequal chance to try and help build great companies.

and the second part of that is that I think that building a really distinctive individualized investment culture with inside your organization would be a fascinating project for you.

because and what should it look like sorry and what should that culture look like.

I think the culture and I hope this is consistent with the many of the companies that we've been talking about should be all of you taking a look at what you think from the first principles your objectives are what you can contribute in the broadest possible sense.

and not to care at all if that and again I would have thought you were in a strong position in most ways from that point of view and not to care whether that cuts against the convention.

you know talking to your colleagues earlier about you know I personally believe that there is no evidence that the financial rewards prevalent in most markets of for for investment do anything to help get you to better investment.

so rethink it all rethink the metrics that you judge by companies by.

I was been incredibly influenced recently by kathen gico the um discover of many mRNA technologist as most of you all know autobiography which was relating the terrible terrible things she had to go through in Academia um because of what she put were the rituals of how you had to do things each year and gradually the amount of money she was allowed the research staff the size of the lab even the appointment of her was in question just because she was being measured by how much money she brought in each year then at the end of 20 years you suddenly win the Nobel Prize you don't know when these things are going to happen and they need to be given this their space.

her autobiography which was relating the terrible terrible things she had to go through in Academia um because of what she put were the rituals of how you had to do things each year and gradually the amount of money she was allowed the research staff the size of the lab even the appointment of her was in question just because she was being measured by how much money she brought in each year.

then at the end of 20 years you suddenly win the Nobel Prize.

you don't know when these things are going to happen and they need to be given this their space.

now we have a lot of uh young people listening uh to this podcast you know the room is full of them um.

what kind of advice would you give them Georgie we start with you.

I mean I think if I go back um some years it's it's really the question about planning.

I think it's very difficult to plan things because seldom it turns out as you plan them.

it's when it comes to your develop your personal development your career I think it's impossible right.

so you need to do what you're passionate about and what you're interested about and also coming back to what we discussed earlier the mistakes right.

allow yourself to do some mistakes.

it's not possible to learn by just doing the things that you're comfortable with.

and I think if you're able to do more mistakes earlier on you will become wiser.

and I think that is something I wish someone would have given me confidence to do early on in my career.

what about you JS.

I think you have to have the courage to think differently.

and at the same time I'm incredibly saddened by the number of people I've seen who continued in a financial services or investment industry because they were a wellp paid and B it was thought to be a relatively prestigious job and they didn't enjoy it at all.

so your advice is to leave the financial sector if you don't have real willingness to think differently or that you find just you know my own case just a sheer problem of investment to be sufficiently intriguing that you know provides you with the inherent motivation from from that point of view.

I think it's a great great piece of advice and a good place to end.

hey if you don't like it if you don't like to be different uh do something else.

big thanks to both of you and great and thanks for coming to Oso.

thank you very much.