On this weeks we're at home, we're talking to Sarah Loeweshi about what value for money means to her. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Hello everyone and welcome to the 77th episode of VFM Pensions. The nation's favorite, the nation's only, weekly, value for money, pensions podcast. And I'm Darren Philp and I'm... I'm Darren Philp and you still messed it up. I still messed up. Oh yeah, no, I'm not meant to say anything, am I Nikko? You just go like, "I'm Darren Philp" and I say I'm Nikko asp. Hello everyone. Hello. Hello, hello, hello. How's your August been so far Nikko? Yeah, I mean, wonderful. Mard by mine, you know, ongoing foot spray, which means hobbling around, hobbling around France. But France has been beautiful. We have 38, I think, on Saturday or Sunday. And then it's been a bit cooler this week. So I've just been out and about just tidying, doing sort of building work. But yesterday we had a dip in the river, which is... Nice, very nice. And the dog loves it. The dog is just like, can we go to the river? Yeah, it's amazing how much they can communicate without, you know, having any human words. But yeah, he's like, "Can we go to the river?" We're like, "Yeah, it's a good idea to fit." So yeah, he had a swim with me. And who we joined by today, Nikko? Who was that? By Sarah Lewashi. So welcome. Hi. And how many times did it take you to get Sarah's surname right in the intro? Well, it was her first name that I had copped up. Don't worry, I completely messed up my husband's name when we got married, because he's got so many of them. I had my Princess Diana moment. So, Sarah, you are currently, I think I'm quite insane, Deputy Director of the Fantastic Pensions Policy Institute. But I say currently for a reason, don't I? You do, because at the end of the month, I stepped down and if my replacement is already in place. So the press release went out yesterday, Dr. Susie Morrissey has joined us. As my successor, she comes with a wealth of experience from Australia in New Zealand, which is where she's been living for the last 20 years. And she has been heavily involved and leading the equivalent of the Pensions Commission out in New Zealand. So she has been Director of Policy and Research as part of the Commission. So from the normal amount of experience that she's bringing in. And it will be interesting to see how that takes the PPI forward. So it's been fun working with her for the last few days and introducing her to the Wacky World. It is the UK Pensions World. So you took a sort of long hand over there, do you? No, it's only, well, it's seven days, but two of them are lunches for me. You've got to enjoy it while you can. Yeah, you're right. So it's a packed agenda for her because part of the process I've gone through is filled a diary up with lots of meetings with people so that she can start to build a network and also get used to the PPI network that we have. And increase her visibility in the industry is coming from overseas. That's the bit that's probably not as apparent. So we've got David Harris on the podcast next week, Nikkei. So you'll be very, very happy that you've got an antipodian. Is that what you would call that? She isn't. She's a Brit. She's a Brit. Oh, okay. Okay. A fake antipodian. There is going to be leading there. Oh, supporting Chris in leading the Pensions World's Institute. That's absolutely fantastic. So what you're going to be up to? Me. Yeah. Apart from getting your London mail card and just surfing the tube and things like that. Oh, yeah. I'm going to just go around the circle line. I didn't know if that was important on the Elizabeth line, probably. The first priority is my husband and I were heading off on a proper holiday next month. The first two week one we've done for a number of years, which would be really nice. But we did end up with the first, I suppose, discussion, shall we call it, of retirement, which was where should we go? And he wanted to do one thing, which I didn't. And I wanted to do something, which he didn't. So we ended up doing a third option. Oh, oh. That's good. Thought you were going to say. I won. No. Exactly. Oh, just go somewhere different each, you know. We did. We found a third. We found a third rail. That's not the best idea, is it? Yeah. Then we're off to Slovenia, anyway, for a couple of weeks. So that's immediate. I'm still sitting on policy board. Still likely to be involved in pensions in some shape or form. So that's the peerless age. Yes, it is indeed. Yes. Until the end of the year. Likely to still have an involvement with the PPI in some shape or form. And I would very much like to see how we get on with, because things like the data project are coming to its combination for their private beta. Yeah. Okay, so we're not going to get rid of you that quickly then, Sarah. I'm not certain it's whether you're getting rid of me or I'm being able to escape. You've heard me say so many times, Darren, that the pensions world is like Hotel California. You can check out, but you can never ever leave. Indeed. Indeed. But why would you want to? Why would you want to? Well, it's such amazing people, you know, that we interview week in week out, don't we, Darren? We do. It's not on then, because I think so many people have heard say, well, we came in. We started doing this job. We were a temp or we only thought we'd do it for a couple of months or a year. And sort of 10, 15, 20 years. They're still here. Yeah, you're obviously. I've been listening with the podcast, Sarah, because that's what most of our guests say. And it's true for a number of the PPI team as well, you see. So it is a topic matter that resonates with so many people. I think a lot of people, their initial thoughts are, and we've got a couple of interns with us at the moment. And it was pensions, not certain, but at least I'm getting an internship. And after a little while, they actually go, actually, there's a lot more to this. And it's quite interesting. So pensions, I think, is a disservice in terms of the description to what we do. Yeah. Is there a name change for the pensions policy institute? I'm not going down that route, even as the departing BB. I wouldn't dare to say that. We know when you change names, it doesn't always make it for the better. Pensions is the heart of what we have always done in terms of it. It's about the financial aspect. Yeah. But whether it's the, I mean, years ago, we did an event where we discussed and debated where the pensions itself should be retired. You're going to come up with another name, and it basically just going to mean the same thing, really. We can call it the RPI, the retirement policy institute. But I wonder if that has the right cache. Later live, you know, yeah, it's difficult to find a word that encapsulates it. Excellent. So that you've already had your first news story, haven't you, Sarah? Yeah. Yes. In terms of Susie. Yeah. You snuck that in under the radar very, very clever. You know, I can get what we're having too, you see. It does. Well, it's gas privilege. Gas privilege. So, you know, let's, let's go back to the format of the podcast. So now we're going to the news, Sarah. So as guests, yeah. What have you got for us? Well, my news probably isn't new news because it's something that was well highlighted by the Labour Party in the run up to the general election and it's something which they have that started to action since being coming into power. And that's around the pensions review. And I know when I talk to people around the industry, there's a lot of people who are lobbying either the DWP or the minister or officials with their own particular pet topic that they would like to see included in the second part of the pensioners review. And mine is more. So just remind listeners what this review actually is. People have committed so they didn't want to say anything about pensions policy, but ahead of the election. So they committed to doing this review, as you said. They've already launched the first phase of the review, which is more around the investment side of things and building non-mansion house and various other initiatives that had already been put in place. The second part is, I suppose, where we have less visibility as to what they might do. And this is where people are lobbying for their own particular topics. Now, there are some very fundamental aspects that do need to be looked at. We are, what, 20 years in the pension commission. We have seen changes 20 years. We've had the new state pension come in. We have automatic enrollment rolled out. So my argument and my reason for raising this as a newsworthy item is, is this not the right time to be stepping back and taking a more holistic view of the pension system as it is and making it fit for purpose for the next 20, 30 years. Rather than just fiddling with the periphery, we can change the tax regime. We can change the contribution rates. But unless we've actually fundamentally got the right system, which is aiming to do the right thing for everybody, we are in the lovely old quote, just rearranging the debt shoes and the Titanic. Interesting. We talked, I can't remember if it was the last podcast or the podcast before, but about the government's means testing of winter fuel payments. And that was always on the top of the Treasury list, which is, if you want to save a quick buck, then this is where to go. It was back on the top of the list in my day. And I was there, as good as those how many years ago. I think that plays to your point, Sarah, in the sense of you mess about with core elements of the pension system at your peril and taking a step back and thinking about how this stuff all joins together is really, really important. I think the problem we've got with this pension review is that if you look at what was successful with the Turner Commission, it was a stakeholder consensus building. It was in Alice's. It was the evidence. It was there. And identifying trade offs and getting them a grieve before anything went close to input in writing. Exactly. And I think that, you know, lots of people call for stability in pensions. Lots of people call for change in pensions. Lots of people call for a pensions commissioner and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's a huge task. You've got to start with the analysis. You've got to start with the evidence. You've got to start with the trade offs. And I think that, I don't know, I might be wrong. But Darren, can I just, sorry to interrupt. I think you've actually got to start off with what is it the system is meant to be doing? But exactly define what the objectives are. And I don't think that we have an answer. We've done work in the past as the institute around state pension and tried to work out what the role of the state pension is. And we can't get a definitive answer. But it's changed over time as well. You know, and that's the thing. And so the question is, and this ties in with, I mean, some work that we're doing around artificial intelligence in the future world, whatever that may look like, how if the purpose is the system? So if we're not going to have to work at all, that's one potential scenario people like talking about. Is it another industrial revolution, whether type of work changes and the nature of work changes, but work itself is still prevalent? What system do we actually need to be able to sculpt that? And then you tie in with people living longer and having different careers within their work and people dipping in and out, that's not a linear life course, which is what our current system is predicated on. And it's about how do we make the system flexible to cope with what future life is going to look like, and that's my concern is we're just going to change the edges, but fundamentally, and it's another piece I have, I suppose. We have had so many consultations, we have had so many different initiatives, and a lot of the comment I hear is around, it would be really nice to know what the goal is to know how these actually help us get there, rather than feel like we've got 101 things being thrown at us, and we're not really certain whether there's a coordinated direction that we're heading in. So tell us what the goal is, and then we've probably got more ability to feed back around consultation and evidence to help make that journey a smoother one with less diversions. Well, I think you're preaching to the choir a little bit. Darren and I have with long-standing calling for a pensions commission, and essentially upping the scope of this thing, or even before it existed. Is that a permanent pensions commission, Nick? No, if you determine the... Yeah, no, absolutely. Because if you determine what you want from the system, then you have the pensions commission now, but you don't need a permanent body. Body to carry on doing that. So what I do think you need, though, is something like the OBR. Yeah, highlight the analysis and the trade-offs and the holding policy makers to account. When I say OBR, or somebody like the OBR... No, you need the pensions framework, Darren. Well, you just stole my funders, Sarah. Is there anything like that? Yeah, you need another free letter acronym that could sort of take on that rule. Sorry, Darren, I didn't need to steal your funds, but you know I'm going to promote the work that we've done. Absolutely. So we are long-standing proponents of a pensions commission. But I do wonder whether what we've seen of the pensions bill and this requirement for retirement income default. Sorry, option plus investment default doesn't clarify a little bit of that goal piece. Is it the option word that kind of undermines that? I'm not saying it's the option word. I think it's sort of the interplay between the different elements of people's retirement wealth. Because it's not just a private pension. It should be also an element of state pension. And most other people, sorry, that's perhaps wrong. Many other people have other forms of wealth beer to house if they're lucky for savings or assets. And so I think it is around how does the interplay between all of those work? And what's the right balance? And then looking at it through the lens of different segments of the market in terms of the low earners or the self-employed and how does it play into those particular groups as well? Well, in the meantime, if there is a vacancy on the pensions review, you're probably part of your modest, I think, to say it. You've got a bit more time on your hands. Yeah. You get my vote. That could be part of the grand plan, Nick. It's Chris Cowie being head of MI6 and infiltrating the pensions review by getting Sarah to retire. And then all of a sudden, you've got this pensions expert that pops up leading the pensions review. So basically, in a couple of years' time, we'll look back at all of these sort of disconnected news stories that we've been covering in episode 120. And it would be Kaiser Sosey has, like, arrived. OK. All right. Well, I look forward to that. But can you drop over? It could happen, Nick. Yeah. It could happen. Only election, I think. But there we go. Darren, what's your story? So, you know, it's August, isn't it? And it's sort of silly season. So, I think the, you know, there's not as much to sort of talk about and stuff. But one of the things that picked my eye in, there's no relation to silly season. There was just, I was just going off on one of this was Aegon launch's digital pension transfer comparison service. And looking at professional pensions here published yesterday, we recorded on Thursday. So, this is a pensions transfer comparison service in collaboration with the pensions lab. It will enable Aegon's workplace members to find and compare their old pension pots. A bit of a dashboard element to that. Provide members with information on their old pots. And will also include any feature of these pots, which may be valued to the member. It will classify. So, just Aegon are going to rate their competitors. Pensions lab. Pensions lab. I don't know. But maybe you know subsidiary or an offshoot of Aegon. No, I'm sure we did some work with them when we were smart actually as well. Okay. So, it's basically a transfer. So, it's a pension sort of fined service, that type of thing. Okay. So, I think, you know, the idea. Yeah. And just going off the Professional Pensions article is that there will be a rag-rating red amber-green. But not the rag-rating you would expect Nikko. Because basically, if the pot has valuable features like guaranteed annuity rates or something like that, then it will be classified as red. So, that probably means stop, you know, in traffic light parlance. Yeah. You know, if it's got some additional features, maybe not guarantees, but maybe, you know, additional benefits, it will be amber. So, you know, cross if it's safe to do so or whatever the traffic. You know, slow. For sure, for the only boss. But, you know, just reading through and reading through some of the quotes and stuff. Yeah. You know, the pension capital, chief executive Scott Phillips. You know, through our collaboration with Aegon, we've delivered another initiative first with the provision of our fully digital non-advised pensions transfer solution, which includes pensions fighting, detailed feature checking, and a bespoke charge comparison. So, when I first read this article, I thought, like you, you know, hold on a minute. You've got another provider, you know, assessing value for money of other providers pension pots, which is just a bit circular. It's a great system. But then I got to the point, which was like, okay, so this is just sort of, you know, using a flag system to highlight when there's valuable stuff. Yeah, so it's just like, stop and think, you know, you might not want to give up. Well, I mean, it's the non-advised bit, isn't it? So, presumably it's a red, you would need advice to transfer this. It doesn't say. It doesn't say. Probably consider advice to transfer that. Yeah. Yeah. It's that type of thing. Yeah. I think, you know, probably reading the quotes and going through the article a bit more, you know, does go into that. Okay. You know, if you're starting to assess costs and charges and stuff like that, then, you know, it's probably more into your initial reaction territory. Nick, which is, you know, should you transfer this pension to us? Yes or no? Are we cheaper? Are we better value? You know, who's marking that homework? Well, pensions lab. Maybe we should try and find pensions lab to come on. We could do, couldn't we? Yeah. It could be quite interesting. I just hope that it's a smoother transfer than I've just experienced, moving from a NAVEON platform to another platform, which took nine months. Oh, wow. Yeah. Do you have any of those amber or reds on your own? No, it was a, it was a sip to a sip. Okay. But I can only hope that they will be quicker to try and get money on their platform than taking it off. I remember, I remember when I transferred from, where was it? It was an APF pension scheme. Yeah. That was run by a well-known insurance company. But as a trust-based arrangement, I won't name the insurance company. It took me, you know, it took me months to transfer that pension. You know, most people would have given up. Yeah. It was like, I got letters saying you need to check your portal. It wouldn't let me into my portal. And then I got other letters saying, you know, as a deferred member of a trust, you've never had a portal. I said, well, I have got a portal because here's my username and the password that you sent me. And we just went round and round and round in circles. It was, it was absolutely. Unkers. And yeah, I got, I didn't even play there. Do you know who I am card? Well, you did that. Aaron, how about you? I didn't. You know, I didn't. But I managed to get. Well, the short answer is down. The 100 and 50 quid. Yeah, no, exactly. 150 quid in the end. I in the end did point out to them. Yeah, it's a conversation. Okay. I did point out to them after the event that leaving something like £2.46 in a pension account was a bit silly in cash. Especially when you need to pay levies on it and stuff. And I just said to them, look, I know I work in pensions. I've had to keep on top of this to remind you to keep on moving stuff and an ordinary man in the street would have lost the world to have lived by now. And if we've got other aspects of pensions where we need to smooth, then transfers like that shouldn't be that difficult. They should be regulated, shouldn't it? I mean, why on earth can't the FDA actually say you need to respond appropriately within next time? Well, the thing is, you've got, we've been the trenches, but the transfers landscape, you've got competing objectives. So one is to stop scams, and there's quite a lot of stuff around them, stopping scams and all that type of stuff. But then you've got the statutory right to transfer. And I don't think we've ever had a clear enough framework between what transfer systems should actually look like. So I think there's a policy or a regulatory architecture problem there. And you just saw that with the scam stuff, I think it was one of the amber flags was, is this invested in foreign assets or whatever? Well, pretty much every pension scheme in the land is, so everything was getting sort of amber flagged. So you have these unintended consequences that come through from this stuff. I also think that there's a technology issue in this, yeah. So you've got Oego, and there's others out there that do some of the plumbing in that, but not everyone's part of those systems. It takes time. Also, I think that there's just not enough resource and enough money that is put into pensions administration to ensure that sort of good level of custom service. And I've spoken to a lot of people about transfers and all of that. And everyone's got to transfer a whole story within the pension industry. People are used to work with it, the PLSA, like policy advice. It's just saying, well, after sort of flogging this horse, I'm sorry, I know you like your animals. Flogging this horse for four months, I'm just going to give up and leave it where it was. It's like a war for Tricia. And to be fair, we are pension wants. We know pensions. We know what we're allegedly talking about. Think about it for the man in the street. How do they interact with our system? A, they don't necessarily know exactly what it is they're asking for, or how to ask for it. And then we put in unintended barriers, time delays, paperwork. You can understand why there is not necessarily the level of engagement we would all like to think they should be. Because we just make it so tough. Yeah, yeah, we do. I'm waiting for Dashboard for a big clean up of my pensions. But I also would say I might keep a few of them because I just don't know what the retirement landscape is going to look like. And I don't want to be impossible to transfer into a master trust that I used to be a member of them. I'm no longer, which has no retirement options, I want. So until we, I mean, you know, I'm 43 years old. I've got a bit of time. But yeah, I am looking forward to that. That's all should be done by the time you retire then. So it's not a promise. I've got nothing to do with it. I don't need to do it now. So just back to this transfer story, because like, do you think stuff like this is useful? Or do you think obviously it's a marketing thing? And it's, you know, there's a reason that a provider and it's not just a gone have a providers do stuff like this in terms of charges, comparisons and all that. There's a reason they're doing this because, you know, they want to get more money. Well, hang on, surely they're wanting to have less regulatory funds, right? So if they're what they're actually doing is saying, Oh, you, you were looking to transfer this thing, but by the way, it's got guarantees that that's protecting them. That is very useful. It's very useful. And it certainly reduces the cost in, you know, I'm sure that trans that that guarantee would have been discovered. And so it just simplifies or reduces that cost to that. But, you know, but would you do it for that reason or is it a commercial reason? You surely do it. Is it a precursor to dashboards because dashboards would be able to tell you where your pensions are and we're all waiting or anticipating it will be a press the consolidate button. Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. And that's my point. Like, in a way, like, you know, I can see why, you know, I've done this. Yeah. We talked about, you know, includes pension fighting, detailed feature checking and bespoke charging comparison. Obviously, it will push people into advice if they need to go into advice and all that type of stuff. But, you know, what does world post dashboards actually look like on this? Well, providers will be doing their own thing on this, which, you know, there's lots of different ways. You know, there's lots of different ways of presenting features. There's lots of different ways of presenting impact of charges. And that, as we know, it's a system that can be can be quite game. You know, or do you think we'll have something that sits at that dashboard level or independent around the dashboard that can that can do this type of thing for consumers. Well, discuss, right. I mean, but, but ultimately, if I go on the egg on site and for all of my greens, it tells me that a gun is the best value for money. And then one of them is say, Ellen G. And I go on the LNG site and it tells me that it's better value for money than a gun. Then I'm only as a consumer, more or less confused. Right. I mean, you know, that, that some stage, at some stage, there has to be some objectivity around why things are ranked. So there has to be a third party that sits outside the system in some way. If this is to be a meaningful characteristic of why we're transferring it, because it used to be. Okay. You know, over here, I've got essentially a default, which I prefer over here. I've got a default, which I prefer. That's not, that's not focused too much on the costs. I'll just chuck it into the default. I prefer, assuming that I've got an engaged member and dot dot dot. I'll just leave it where it is. That's the default option. Right. So I don't know. I think it would be very, very difficult for the FCA to permit providers doing value for money comparisons with other providers, because we're all just going to say the best value for money. Or it will be green. In terms of the FCA, in terms of the new value for money. But then they'll go, look, look, between us, right? There's shades of green here, Lance, right? You know, and we're the greenest. And there's some grandpa out there, as we used to call it, in Project Management Land. Grandpa. Grandpa is like green turning to amber, which he needs to watch out for. Amber Green is like, Amber turning to green, which is good stuff. Amber, what about Purple? Purple. The LA, I discovered the word in French. Or that'd be Bertie LA. That was the colour of my foot. Anyway, right. Shall I do my news story? I was going to cover a couple of different august institutions who have released, you know, four pieces on this wonderful world of investable UK opportunity. So you said august. Is this stuff just being put? Because it's august. Well, you know, it's obviously got the same Latin roots. So, you know, the PLA has released pensions and growth, colon, creating a pipeline of investable UK opportunities. Policy exchange has released growing pensions capital lessons from Australia, a country that BFM listeners are increasingly familiar with. And yeah, I mean, I sort of, I've scanned them, it's fair to say, but the critical question to me is, do they add much? So the PLA has sort of done a bigger picture, you know, we need contributions to go up, we need to sort out TB, we need to consolidate. Okay, I think you've been saying that for the last 10 years, certainly five years. And then within that, you know, what is this pipeline of investable UK opportunities? That is, that was my critical question when I was looking at this. And it's basically green energy. Yep. Okay. We've been talking about that for quite a long time. Social housing, I just gives a never going to do that. We can come back to that infrastructure. Yeah, we should talk a lot more about infrastructure, a lot, lot more. But nowhere in there is like education and entrepreneurial realism, right? Which is, you know, what is actually going to give us the longest, the hardest sustainable growth or whatever, putting it in the G7. It's having a country which is eligible for VC and private equity investment, right? Having a country which creates these startups and we just don't have entrepreneurialism on the books. Nowhere on the radar seems to be entrepreneurialism. In terms of lessons from Australia, I mean, to be honest, from what I've scanned again, I think you've probably heard it on this podcast. So don't focus on value for money too much. Focus on performance. The Australian market, this report claims 0.7 performance difference to the UK. I don't know whether that isn't solely describable by the Australian bias and the difference in markets, because the Australian market has done a bit better over the last 20 years. But, you know, past performance is certainly no indicator of future performance in that case. You know, it just leaves me a bit cold really all of this stuff. Everyone wants to sort of like suck up to the new regime and, you know, tell the government that it's right. But it feels to me like we have these policy groups to stand up to the government and point out in the places where they're wearing no clothes that they're wearing new clothes. And instead, we're just like flapping along with the naked emperor walking down the street and going like, yeah, you know, what a lovely new suit you have. So there are definitely bits to applaud about the kind of intense of the regime, but I think they're a bit diluted in the way it stands up and nowhere in here is like, come on, guys. You have to change your understanding of what growth is instead of just trying to seek a sort of suffering high. But, you know, it's just, yeah, so interesting stuff published, you can go and read it, but I do wonder whether they're doing their big jobs. I mean, it's a slightly weird body anyway. Is it an august or august in terms of the... In terms of how to say august? No, I mean... You have to say august. Yes, I don't, you know. Oh, I don't know. July august is September. So it's, I don't know, like, it's a bit, it's a bit same old, same old, isn't it really? It's desperately same old, same old. Yeah. And it's quite... And I think this is why it's where you started some of your remarks, the top end of the podcast around the pensions review. Like, in a way, it's a bit disappointing that they've decided to do the investment stuff first. Yeah, because I think you do need that holistic approach around the whole thing. And I think with any review, whether it's on the investment side, whether it's on the contribution side, whether it's defaults versus engagement, as you said, you've got to start with what are you trying to achieve? What do we want this thing to look like? What are the goals of the system? Yeah. Because, you know, quite often we get tied up in knots. Well, I don't think we do, but the industry ties itself up in knots around fiduciary duty. And, you know, what you're actually trying to achieve or trustees are trying to achieve or IGCs are trying to achieve on behalf of the pensions member. Yeah. That surely, yeah, has an impact on obviously value for money and value for money assessments, but where and how companies invest over what timeframe on behalf of their members. And I think that just going straight for the investment side of things, I can see why, you know, they need a bit close. It is, you know, but actually we are missing a trick here in some of the big fundamental sort of pensions related questions. It's almost like, okay, you know, we need to do everything we can to sort of tilt pension funds to invest more productively. Yeah. And into the UK. Yeah. The first side of things to me is, you know, more of a demand side type thing, which is what are the barriers within our system to pension funds investing in less liquid assets or in more imaginative ways. Yeah. On one hand, you can get a fiduciary duty argument within that. But equally, there's, you know, liquidity, daily pricing. You know, the fact that, you know, we basically, the architecture of pensions is like a bank account for people who can't get their money for like 20 years or whatever. It's just crazy. On the other side, there's a supply side. Yeah. Which is, okay, once you remove some of these barriers to pensions funds into investing in slightly more interesting ways, let's put it like that. Then where should they invest? Yeah. And should they invest in the US, Europe, China, wherever. Yeah. Or should they invest in the UK? You know, and just because, you know, government thinks, okay, come on, support the UK, we need to get, you know, invest in UK. That doesn't cut the mustard. Yeah. You need a really good pipeline of projects. You need confidence. You need a strong economy. It's like you were saying, okay, you need, you need to create that wider environment that, you know, entrepreneurship and other stuff flourishes. Yeah. To create those investable opportunities in the UK. And, and, and, and that's where this joining up just, just, just needs to happen. You know. And I, I will also interject because we're just about to publish some work about assets, friends. Of course you are. Of course you are. We were going to do it before the general election, but the general election is sort of meant we didn't get the airspace. But we have been posing the question if we are meant to, if schemes are meant to be reporting as to how much they're investing in the UK. Can we please have a definition of what that means? Yeah. And so don't ask people to do things if you can't tell them how they're going to be measured on there. And, and I think we, so we, we get part stories or part, part policies that yes, I can understand why the government wants to do that and understand why they're trying to do it now. But then we need the rest of the jigsaw pieces in place. Yeah. To be able to make it feasible for companies to do it and report on the, there is no actual definition of what investing in the UK is. Yeah. And that's a spoiler for the publication on the 9th set. We've had a look forward to that. Yeah. So do you both know what cargo is of this? Cargo is a little bit. But we're about to find out, are we? Yeah, come on. So basically all of these untouched tribes. First off with the guys in massive ships would rock up and, you know, exchange these world changing goods, right? For some beads and they noticed that they put these jetties out for these ships. Right. And also in the Second World War, particularly in the, the, the Pacific, you know, the US Marines would turn up and they would create these landing strips. Right. And then when the West and, you know, those, that massive wealth disappeared, there's all sorts of evidence of these untouched tribes would build these jetties, believing that the jetty was the thing that made the ship come. Or they'd cut this landing strip into the forest, believing that it was the landing strip. There's these amazing photos of this tribe in, in, in the Amazonia somewhere who have created an aircraft out of grass, believing that this is the sort of thing that will encourage the Western gods to come and deposit this huge wealth. Right. So the government policy is cargoism. It just says, if we throw money at the UK, the UK will grow. It is totally the wrong way around. If the UK is growing pension schemes will throw money. Exactly. Right. And, and so rather than asking why the UK is not growing, it is blaming pension schemes for not growing the UK, and it is just so bizarre. It's tail-wacking dog, isn't it? And within this, there is the nature of public goods and private goods. Right. So I mentioned social housing. Pension schemes would be very ill advised to do social housing for one of two reasons either because the returns are not there because it is social housing. Or because if you want the returns, you are going to be essentially reputationally risking your actual social housing. You are going to be making social housing look like private housing, which it is not. Well, so the only way for you to get returns out of housing, after you to screw your tenants, right? This is unfortunately the nature of modern capitalist societies. You know, we still have relatively low interest rates. We still have very high house prices. How on earth do you let those houses in critical cities, inner cities, to social tenants, only the government can do that. Only the government can do that. And if it needs to borrow money at a market rate to do that, then it will have not got the capacity to do as much. Right. So you have all of these public goods, like the renewable infrastructure, right? Like the, you know, we've got to rebuild like HS2 or all of these things, where if your, if your only source of finance is the private sector pension schemes, then the country will over the long run get a raw deal and we will grow less as a result, right? So these things have to be considered. But yeah, the moment we just have this cargo is where they go like, oh, we need to turn on the taps and it will find homes. Yeah, we'll find homes in people's pockets, right? It won't, it won't change the growth dynamics. You know, it's a 20 year thing to get right educated youngsters being entrepreneurial. And, you know, starting the businesses that they need. So yeah, I scanned these pieces and I was like, no, I was just looking for the sensible discussion. And it's just not there. It's just sort of, you know, the Empress got lots of clothes on. Okay, how exciting. The thing I find frustrating with some of this is that in anything the PLSA ever says, yeah, it's you have to start with a contribution increase. You know, a short core membership body who represents pension industry is asking for more money to go to their members. Do you know what I mean? And I think that, you know, there is a, you know, there is a proper debate and discussion to be had, you know, about what their optimal level of contributions actually is. You ask different people. They'll come up with different levels. You know, there's the role of the state pension. There's the role of all to a moment. There's a role of private savings. You know, you can quite easily justify, you know, a statement that says 8% isn't enough, particularly more, saying 8% of bound of earnings isn't enough. It is enough for some people. And I think that's where, you know, coming into, you know, what are the objectives of the system and actually working out what the different elements actually are, which we did have in terms of the pensions commission, but the world has changed since then reaffirming that and then developing policy off the back of that is the way to go. Um, just randomly shouting at government saying, we need more money in to go to our members. I don't know. I think we need to be a bit more sophisticated to that. Yeah, it's dangerous, isn't it? Because if you say more contributions, then how sustainable is it for individuals and how it is for employers as well. And employees, but for the government, it might make it easier because they don't sort of take the pressure a little bit off the state pension and pension credit. So it is always a trade off somewhere in here. And it's around fairness and you've got to argue who, who are you trying to be fair to be able to determine what the balance is. And Sarah, is there an organization that's produced a framework that helped, you know, let me think I'm not certain about that, Darren. Yeah, we have. So what do you offer to pensions responsibility, the PPI? No, but just tell us quickly and we'll do some bio stuff after this. Tell us quickly about the pensions framework and the idea and the genesis behind it and, you know, and how it's actually being used at the moment. What we wanted to do, and we did it. Gosh, we're in full year and pick this piece of work. So the first year we tried to create a framework which would describe the whole of the pensions landscape and that isn't just private pensions, it's state. And it's also around associated elements that feed into or tangential to the pensions world. And we created a framework which has three main pillars, which is advocacy, sustainability, and the fulcrum that balances them is fairness. So what we were trying to do is create a picture where, if you look to the policy, you would be able to, and we've got indices that sit underneath it, which you can put metrics to if you choose to, but you could assess whether they were going to get better or more likely to achieve what the system wanted to or less. You could see the impact of a particular policy change. So year one was creating it year two was baselining the current system, and on the whole it's not doing too badly, there are certain areas could do better. And last year we did a report which looked at the role of housing in retirement say Nicko straight to your point, and the impact that the lack of social housing in the UK, or the less available social housing is having on people's retirement prospects. Because it's not just a case of what your expenditure is going to be on food and social or entertainment or travel. If you're going to go into retirement still having to pay rent, it puts a huge impact upon what are you now needing to contribute to be able to get to that point. And it's been a fascinating piece of work. I think I'm one of the reviews for that one. I'm afraid you are. So I'm expecting that to land in my inbox within the next couple of weeks, I think, so I'm looking forward to, and I promise not to give listeners a sneak peek for you either. Well you can. You can talk about the topic matter, not the conclusions, but the thing is that this provides anybody with a tool to be able to assess the system. It's not just at the PPI. It is, we are quite happy to talk to anybody about how it could be used. And it's a policy wheel, isn't it? The wheel. It's a policy wheel. Yes, we did try and think of PPI for it as well, but we are backed away from it. It's sort of the wheel of geekiness, isn't it? Oh God, yes, yes. 40,000,000 indicators, 60,000 beneath them. We love a wheel of geekiness. You've come to the right place. You've come to the right place. We should perhaps call it something like the pensions policy wonky wheel, or... Yeah, but that sounds like it's going to fall off. Yeah, we don't. It depends on policy, you put through it, Baron. Or which organisation you're talking about. I couldn't possibly comment. So, should we move on for the sake of our... You held us to a strict timekeeping, Baron. I'm trying not to do it. No, we're not going to succeed. But Sarah, Sarah, how did you get inspections? Oh, gosh. Yeah, I spent my working life in financial services. And you can split into three parts, and Nico, one, is where our paths cross with the same organisation. So, I spent my first third in a large composite insurer, having a wonderful time going around all the different parts of the business, really getting a lot of interesting experience from customer complaint handling through to corporate centre and strategy emerges and acquisitions. So, that was a fabulous, sort of eclectic career within one organisation. And I don't think you can really do that as much these days. I then became a consultant. So, what's and why it was my... So, yes, you and I were at the same organisation before it became powers, what's in there, will you tell us what's in there? Well, I joined just after. I joined just after. So, it merged just as I was joining. So, I was a consultant and it's a nice transferable skill for those entering the profession. And when my husband's job moved to Singapore, I was obviously going to go with him. But it was a transferable skill that I could use out there, and I did M&A work when I was in Singapore. And then we learned it back in the UK, so that was my middle third, and I tried to work out what do I want to do next. And this power of networks, the lovely Michelle Cracknell, saw this job effort and said, "I think that might be up your streets era." And as they say, the rest is history. I joined the PPI. I was very interested in third sector. So, moving into the charity world was of interest to me, because I felt it was... I had profited and had a really interesting career to that point. And it was time I felt that it's time to give back a bit. And working in the third sector was an opportunity to at least try and help educate and form or produce evidence for others. And I loved the PPI as soon as I saw what had been sent to me. And had a coffee with Chris said, "Would an application be appreciated?" And yeah, put in front of a panel, including the chair or various other members of the Ben Council. And yeah, joined January 2015, so it's nine and a half years. I won't make the decade. No, that was a part of the determinant, but as I get to zero birthday later on this month. You don't look 70, Sarah. Thank you, Darren. So, 60 was always the aim for my husband and I, and he hit it earlier this year. And so it's a chance for us to step back and Darren, you're a trustee of the PPI. So you know that we've been going through a strategy. It's an interesting time for Susie to be joining us. And it's an opportunity that bringing in different skills and different experience will help the PPI move forward. So I loved working at the PPI. It has been a really difficult decision in terms of handing in my resignation as Chris knows, but he also had advanced notice of it. But it was the right decision for my husband and I, and so I leave thinking that I've had the best time ever. I can't believe somebody has paid me to have so much fun. And I hope it has done some good over the moment in the years, but I'm leaving in terms of I'm not moving on to another job because I don't think any job could really top what I have been doing for the last period. And I've loved every second of working with the team. We've certainly made a huge difference. And I think you've got a really unique range of skills there. And I've seen you in action at board meetings and events and stuff. And trying not to run my eyes to that. And I think you've got a really nice combination of skills where it's like, you know, obviously you're very robust on the research side, but you've got some really good people within the team that can really sort of drive that forward. It's a sort of stakeholder relationships, a stakeholder management is balancing the research integrity of the PPI, which is really, really important. And, you know, you know, you've got a bunch of trustees that will hold you to account on that. My feet are firmly to the fire. Yeah, they are. But with the commercial, the commercial world and the commercial reality because, you know, as an institute, you need money. You need sponsored research to keep doing the good work and to keep driving things forward. But yeah, I've had the pleasure of working with you for a number of years. So, you know, happy retirement. I'm sure we'll see you around. I'm sure we'll see you around. Like, my money's on, you know, you're going to get a governorship of the PPI quite quickly is what I reckon. Not least because then you can keep coming back for the free glasses of wine at the events. I will be at the future book, 10th anniversary launch, you know, the bathroom slide in here at that point. Excellent. Excellent. Yeah. Excellent. What's going to say? I was going to say something, though. I can't remember if it was serious or funny, but anyway. Can I ask? So you did a lot of insurance stuff or, you know, bits and bobs of the insurance piece. And then were you consulting about insurance when you were at WWB? Yes. And then M&A. I mean, what a difference that must have been. Was that sort of segue like you would start in insurance consulting and then insurance M&A? And then it was kind of a clean break. When I was a, it was guardian role exchange I was working with before it was acquired by AXA and then Aegon. But in the corporate centre, my role was around the strategy side. Okay. Yeah. And as a global organisation, we were often interested in mergers or acquisitions. And so I've tried to read reports and accounts in German, Dutch. Dutch was easier because you could just pretend you were on the markets. What are you doing? [LAUGHTER] If you're listening, you'll love that. Yeah. We apologise, Yorick. We're big in Holland, but don't worry about that. So the, that was also part of my, I did a Masters whilst I was working at GRE in MBA. And so all of that tied nicely together. Moving to Singapore, consulting initially wasn't M&A, but there was elements of it during that. But when I went to Singapore, I was leading the mergers of acquisitions. Yeah. So at the time, AXA had bought part of the HSBC Book of Business. So I've always been associated with insurance, financial services, pensions, did start life out as an actuarial trainee, so I have an appreciation of that side of things. But realised there was far too much to life than mortality and morbidity to become one. You are speaking to the nation's favourite. I know, I know. Well, I'm not sure I'm either of those. If anybody has the commitment to go through it, I just realised it wasn't for me. I was just an exam masochist. You have to be. Yeah. I sort of left university and having not fully scratched that itch and then felt it was very much, very much scratched and so qualified. And that's why I did my Masters because I thought I would like a professional qualification and an MBA seemed to be a good thing and it did stand me in very good state. And it's where I met my husband. There you go. So what's Chris's like to work for? Just between us. Spill the beans. Oh, Darren, he's fabulous to work for. And you know, I'd say that whether it was confidential or not. Chris, is somebody I have learnt a considerable amount from? Sorry, he's a pensions encyclopedia, isn't he? I mean, yeah, I'm glad the PPI still have him part-time with Dashboard as his other half because the knowledge that he knows and the history he has of our organisation is incredible and would be so difficult for us to replicate. If you ever need to know something about whether the PPI is ever written about a particular topic, you go ask Chris. It's a crazy amount of historical knowledge there, isn't it? Yeah, it's been at the PPI 20-plus years. We're so incredibly lucky with the stability of the test, which is a pro amicon, as we know, but Chris, so we've got so many people who've got more than 10 years experience. Chris, Marifa, Daniella, Danielle, John Adams, and Tim will get to 10 next year. I would have got to 10 next year. So it's stable, which I think helps in terms of being able to tie our work together, because there's always interconnectedness within pensions. A topic is never a separate topic. Yeah. It does tie into so many other aspects and having that breadth of vision is helpful. And we had the pleasure of interviewing Chris, didn't we? What episode was it, Niko? I'll scan that. Episode 48. Yeah, it was. It was, yeah. He was sort of sandwiched in between Lord Willits of Haven't and Sastique Web. So you could see that he was in that gold medal position on the podium. I can imagine. I can imagine. We do keep on joking internally that he should be the new pensions minister. Yeah, I'm closing there because I don't see him as a politician. He's a diplomat. He's a very, yeah. Yeah. And I think that's the best way if I was asked to describe him and what word is a diplomat. Yeah. And that's, I think he's been his substantial role within the dashboards. Oh, yeah. Playing the role that we, you alluded to it earlier with the pensions commission of Gini, Adair and John, that the collaboration and the consensus that they built. And that is a core skill for Chris. Yeah. Yeah. Well, if there's a vacancy, you know, a vacancy for what? Okay. A pensions minister. Yeah. Not in the moment. Exactly. If there becomes a vacancy, we know that Kia Starman listens. So secure. Who is people who they don't do. I'm sorry. Chris was a appreciative of the team being some enthusiastic about him being ventures minister. So Sarah, what does value for money meant to you? I've been mulling upon this since I was invited to do this podcast and I have really. Struggled to be able to pin it down. And the reason why I've struggled is because I think it's subjective. And I think what is valued for money for one individual isn't necessarily for another. So I briefly alluded to the fact that I did work in the complaints department at GRE all those years ago. And we used to do customer satisfaction surveys. And what is satisfactory to one customer is different to somebody else because it depends upon the context of why they're engaged with you, what the outcome was, and how they were handled. And it could depend very much on their personal circumstances as well. Totally. So value for money, I think is a very personal. What were you expecting? What have you got? And how do you equate the two together? So I look at what we're doing with baby for money and I applaud it. But I suppose my concern is that it's very metric driven without necessarily understanding the impact that those metrics might have on the outcome. And then the outcome. And let me just elaborate. As you know, Darren, we did some work on engagement, which published earlier this year, and we identify people who were engaged and who were different segments. And the problem we had is that what somebody wants in terms of engagement isn't what everybody wants. So you can say to somebody, right, we've measured that we've got an engaged membership because we've never had a wonderful digital platform, and they spend lots of time on it, and the time that they're spending on is going up. But as we were doing that project, I was speaking to people in the industry. And one person who the organization is going to remain totally anonymous said, we were charged with increasing the amount of time people spent on our websites. We made it more difficult to navigate. So you have to be very careful with the metrics to make certain that you're not building in unintended consequences. So value for money, I think he is down to an individual, and then getting the outcome that they anticipated. And it feeling that it was the right outcome for them. And I don't know if that's that answers anything. I think your possibly the first person to raise that sort of expectation, lots of value for money. So do you feel like because we talked a bit about contribution rates, you know, we know that for some segments of the population, they're too low. Do you think that that population will ever feel the value of their contributions? I would be surprised if they do because I think what you're alluding to Nico is potentially the lower earners. And this is a debate that we have been having and will continue to have around what the right contribution rate is for them in the interplay between that and what state provision is. And we know that there is a proportion of them who, as they earn more, get less state support. And so actually they're no better off even though the money is now coming out of their salary to increase allegedly their retirement outcome. So I think. Yeah, don't get restarted on the tax system and marginal deduction rates and all of that type of stuff. It's just mad, isn't it? So I think expectations, I would actually come back to the work that we did on engagement because I think there are some people who just disengaged and never will be engaged. So it's about our responsibility to help inform them, educate them, and I am using that carefully because I don't think educational is a solution to everything about what role it plays in their overall future lifestyle. Yeah. Do you think that and taking your pensions policy institute hat off for a moment because I know you're ruthlessly neutral and impartial and independent, which is really important for you guys. But did you think we've got the balance between the state pension and private pension saving right? You know, if people, you know, given our wider tax system and benefit system, you know, is there a case and all the debates around tax relief and all of that type of stuff and auto, mobile, minimum contribution levels, et cetera, et cetera. And when to feel payments, you know, should we just use some of that tax relief money beef up the state pension? Yeah. Introduce a flat rate of tax and put more heavy lifting on the state pension to give to get us to that sort of initial level of adequacy. You've been reading the PLSAs output, haven't you, where they were arguing that the state pension should be the minimum level. Everybody should expect to get. Well, it got me thinking, but then if you give you, and there's some, there's a rationale behind that. But that means they're the heavy lifting of private pensions. You know, the money's got to come up somewhere. It has. And whether it comes from changing tax relief, which I don't think is a simple solution to be. No, it's not. No, no, no. It would be a basket case, which I'm glad I might be in the industry to try and deal with. Because it just adds additional complexity into the system when it's already massively complex system and it'll make it even more opaque for four people on the street to understand. But that's the type of stuff I'd like this to the review to get into. What is the level of the state versus the level of the semi compulsion or the compulsion we've got through all to a moment. The role for incentives is on top of that. Absolutely. And that's really because it was meant to be a, we're rewarding you for, for going income now, for having it later. So playing with that will be interesting. And yes, the people are done. So. Interesting. But for me, I would like to see the system thoroughly reviewed and defined. That would be my one wish if I could even magic on them things. Yeah. Yeah. It'd be good if we could start funding that state pension, though. I mean, I don't want to up it and then have whatever that's actually for, you know, increased tax. I mean, that ultimately you've got to increase taxes. It's a fun to hire for state pension, just being washed into current spending. Because that just stores up even worse trouble and in generational equity in the future. Absolutely. And of course, the government, if it did decide to start funding state pension, could then have its wish list of all sorts of public goods that it wants to funds, you know, without for lose your duty. But hey, you know, for another discussion, really. Yeah, I think so. We are coming to the end of the podcast now, but retirement living standards, you, I wasn't going to mention it, but you've raised that for given what I was saying. Do you think they're helpful? And do you think that, you know, that they're achievable for most people? Because, you know, you look at some of the numbers now and it's just like, oh, you know, it's getting a bit sort of squeaky bum time, isn't it, in terms of. Yeah, the comfortable one is now considerably higher. The moderate is seeing quite a massive increase. I think it comes back down to what they were originally intended for. And they were intended to be guides as to if this is your expectation for a retirement, then this is potentially what you're looking to need as your expenditure. What they were never, as I understand it, set to be is the actual answer for everybody. I think looking across the three that currently exist, you would pick and choose which elements you would perhaps be in the minimum or the moderate or the comfortable. And you would make your decision up as to what you expected your expenditure into retirement to be, and therefore what that meant for you as a contribution level. So for me, they've only ever been a starting point for a conversation to prompt somebody to think about what retirement looks like for them. And then you get into, so how are you doing against getting there. And what else you might, what else might you need to be doing to achieve it or moderate your expectation for retirement. And you alluded to this earlier, but the, you know, because the living standards don't include housing today. And the report that you did as part of the pension frameworks here is basically to conclude and if I was writing the headline. You know, if you're entering in retirement, you're screwed, you know, is basically what the conclusion from that report. And the likelihood that there are going to be increasing numbers of people entering retirement with mortgages. Over there. Yeah. Over the coming years and stuff. Yeah. And that will also put a pressure on A, when they can retire and be how affordable it is. Yeah. Well, on, you know, it's a rosy picture, isn't it? Yeah. What? That depends on. Yeah. You've left the industry in good state. Yeah, bye. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just, I'm just brought up for my own memory, the living standards for minimum for a single. I'll bring it out. When you say brought up for your memory, we can see you for my own memory. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I dragged it from the debts. Unfortunately, I woke up this morning and when I let my boys out of the corridor that they sleep in, they had been unwell overnight. So, brought up, just brought back memories of what I mentioned. Oh, no. I'm sorry. So, yeah. So, the minimum standard for a single person is 14,400 a year. Is that in London or outside? Oh, I've only got the headline one. I think that must be. Yeah. I think, I think the population gets confusing. Yeah. And then, but the comfortable is 43,100. 100. Oh, no, 100. Okay. 100 and 60, which is the way the page went and for a couple of 59,000. I mean, like what they're describing for comfortable doesn't sound desperately comfortable. So, there's an expectation gap potentially there as well. And that's the expenditure. So, what's the actual income versus what if they're at the 59,000, they're paying tax on something potentially. Yeah, absolutely. So, the actual income needed is higher. 50 pounds per birthday and Christmas present. Yeah. I don't know. 1500 quid for clothing and footwear each year. That seems excessive. Yeah. Can we tell them slippers do you need? Well, I mean, like I'm wearing clothes that I bought before COVID. I don't know. I don't know. I got to an age where I was like, actually, I've got enough clothes now to rest the rest of the life. You know, there's only because I'm going to put on and lose weight. It's the problem. Right. Sarah, I think your contribution to this industry has been absolutely immense. I'm going to say that we'll miss you and we will miss you in your current role. Obviously, great luck to Susie. Susie? Yeah. But I've got a feeling that you're not going to be away for long. You know, you're probably not going to be as active as an engaged. But I think you'll definitely be sort of hanging around and stuff. And that'll be great. And then I can take you for that lunch. I've been promising you. I think that was a quid program. It is. It is. It is. Come on. Big coffee. Big coffee. You know, I did say if you come on the podcast, I'll buy you a nice lunch. The things I have to do to get lunch, you see. I know. I know. But as you approach retirement, you know, like biggest company. I'm going to be a poor pensioner. I can imagine. So DC Future Book launch was the 9th of September. No, that's the asset strand work on the 9th. So that's the well, we started to do a convention with what's happening in the asset world. And what the total assets under management across all pensions. And Jackie Wells has done a phenomenal job on that. The future book is later on in September. I think it's the 26th from memory. It is. That's the 10th anniversary. So that has been running 10 years, believe it or not. It's amazing. We did try this way, Chris, to jump out of the cake, but he wasn't too enamoured of that idea as a highlight for the year. We can say jump out of a plane for a minute. I'm not sure it would be worse. And then the framework is November the 27th, I think. Well, so I'm sure if listeners want to come and congratulate you on your wonderful career. Those are all opportunities and good events to attend as well anyway. And, you know, the PPI relies on support for members and people sponsoring research and stuff. So if you go to what's the website? It's pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk and Danielle Baker, quite Danielle. We know you're an avid listener of the podcast, especially when you've got PPI on it. If people reach out to Danielle, then she can talk about membership and opportunities and all of that type of stuff. And research, go to Susie. Yeah. So we're a small organization. So all of our emails are at pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk. And you just got a first name. So it's Susie, S-U-Z-Y, or Danielle, or Danielle. So yeah, we did hit a buckle when we had two jobs. You would have a John 1 and John 2. Yeah. Yeah. That meant changing the first John's email as well. So we just put a surname in for the second John. And a quick shout out for the PPI pens. Oh, we love to see you. We've got some new ones. We've got some new ones. We've got green highlights as well. Oh, I've got a pink one. I've got a pink one in my hand. Have you? Oh, my gosh. That's got a full set. A full set. I've got the full set. Yeah. I will be. I think I can make the 9th of September. I can't make the 26th, unfortunately. I'll come down and collect a free pen. So all the best for your retirement. Thank you. You've been an absolute star for this industry. Have a wonderful holiday. Yeah. Thank you very much. And yeah, we'll definitely catch up with you soon. The only value from any decision inside you. And you'll be, what wine are we having? Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Speaking of witch nicos. Speaking of witch, that's a very good and unplanned segue. In two weeks time we've got Claire Lincoln from World Gold Council coming on the part. And Claire is a bit of a wine connoisseur. Yes. So, you know, I'm going to ask her a bit about. In a file? I think it's the... Is that a key in a file? I haven't got a clue. Are you happy to pronounce that? I know. Indeed. And next week, as we already mentioned, we've got David House. Mm. You know, who... I'll get one. I'll get one. I'll get one. That's company. Well, either. The thing about David is we will not get a word in each way, Snicko. No. We'll get hammered about the cricket. We'll get hammered about the Olympics, because I think the... I've already copied into some LinkedIn posts, which he was banging on about Australia, having more medals in the UK. I'm no doubt we're going to be talking about AV Tour and his air miles and his flying activity and stuff. And David, you've still put... You promised me that you'd take me for a flight and you haven't come good on it yet. Maybe we could do it off the back of the podcast. And then we're going to hear all about Australia and David's travels and what value for money means to him. So, really looking forward to that episode. Yeah. Yes. So, until next week, it's goodbye from me. It's goodbye from me. Thank you very much, Sarah, and all the best of the future. And it's... Thanks. Goodbye from me. [Music]
