Julia Hoggett, CEO @ LSEG plc: The Myths and the Reality of The London Stock Exchange

1. 0:00 – 0:49

   Intro

   1. JHJulia Hoggett0:00

      We've disconnected society from our capital markets. Stamp duty is a perversity in the UK, we charge people to invest in UK stocks, but we don't charge them to invest in US stocks or European stocks. We've basically, uh, created a world where cheap was good, you know, for financial services. In the last 10 years, only 20 UK companies have listed in the US that have raised over $100 million. Of those, nine have already de-listed, only four are trading up, and the rest are trading down by over 80%.

   2. HSHarry Stebbings0:27

      Ready to go? Julia, I'm very excited for this. Thank you so much for having us in the office today.

   3. JHJulia Hoggett0:43

      Oh, it's our pleasure. Welcome to a very sunny, very warm, very unusual London day. (laughs)

   4. HSHarry Stebbings0:48

      It is, and it's a beautiful view.

2. 0:49 – 1:54

   How to Become CEO of a National Stock Exchange

   1. HSHarry Stebbings0:49

      I would love to start with a little bit of context. So, how did you come to be CEO of the London Stock Exchange? And take me through the moment when you accepted and took on the role.

   2. JHJulia Hoggett0:57

      Oh, my word. Um, by accident is the, is the honest answer to the question. So I always describe my career as a series of answering exam questions. So I'm actually a sociologist who specialized in sub-Saharan East Africa by training. Went into the City to find out how Malawi operated in the global economy, and I've answered a series of exam questions ever since. And in the summer of 2020, Apple was worth more than the FTSE 100 for the first time. I was then at the FCA as Director of Market Oversight, and that evening, I literally wrote down everything I thought that I could try and influence to change it so that that didn't happen again. The next day, the phone rang, and it was a headhunter, and her first question was, "Why haven't you applied for the LSE job?" So I was like, "Well, I know the exam question I want to answer. Um, should I stay at the FCA where I've got a certain amount of influence over how our markets function, um, or should I explore coming to the LSE?" And the rest is history.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings1:48

      What did you write down as the exam answer?

   4. JHJulia Hoggett1:51

      I always jokingly say that the list was too short in hindsight.

3. 1:54 – 3:05

   Why The Domestic Economy is F***** Despite the Boom in Financial Services

   1. JHJulia Hoggett1:54

   2. HSHarry Stebbings1:54

      Can I ask, what you wanted to change when you came in-

   3. JHJulia Hoggett1:56

      Mm-hmm.

   4. HSHarry Stebbings1:57

      ... is that very different to what you see now as the core objectives you still need to change, or have they stayed the same?

   5. JHJulia Hoggett2:02

      The theme has stayed very similar. My theory was, the UK has all the raw ingredients, you know? So we have world-leading universities, we have some of remarkable entrepreneurship going on already and, and startup culture in this country. Um, we create more unicorns than anywhere outside the US and China, and we're a world-leading capital market by any measure. Um, we don't think of ourselves that way and we don't talk about ourselves that way as a nation, but actually we have all of those raw ingredients. The City has done a very good job over the last 30 years of driving the UK's place as a global financial center. It's done a less good job of driving the UK domestic economy.

   6. HSHarry Stebbings2:37

      Mm.

   7. JHJulia Hoggett2:38

      And so the key question was, those things don't need to be oppositional. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. You know, you can aim to do both.

   8. HSHarry Stebbings2:44

      Why has the City not done that for the domestic economy?

   9. JHJulia Hoggett2:47

      I think in part, um, because of the strength of our role as the locus of the E- EU single market. You know, when you're serving everybody everywhere across the EU, um, you can get a bit disconnected from your own domestic economy. And I think some of the regulatory changes

4. 3:05 – 5:50

   How Pension Fund Reform Dmaaged the UK Economy

   1. JHJulia Hoggett3:05

      serve to do that as well. We used to have behemothic pension funds that invested a huge amount of their assets in driving risk capital into our economy. And when we did, our growth rates were as high as anywhere else in the world, uh, and our capital markets were as vibrant as anywhere else in the world. Those two things alone we've unpacked over the last 20 or 30 years, and we've disconnected society from our capital markets.

   2. HSHarry Stebbings3:28

      How did that happen? Like, what were the core moments that that was the disconnection?

   3. JHJulia Hoggett3:32

      Well, I think in, in retail, I think it's been a combination of regulatory reform. Um, we've created a challenging environment for our regulators, where if something goes wrong, they wind up in front of parliament. Their natural instinct as a consequence is to make the things that they're responsible for harder and harder to do. They put higher and higher walls up. And so under the guise of protecting retail, we've arguably disenfranchised them a bit. We've made it harder to access advice, we've made it harder for them to access regulated markets, um, and yet our user journey in the cryptocurrency world is incredibly straightforward.

   4. HSHarry Stebbings4:02

      Mm-hmm.

   5. JHJulia Hoggett4:03

      You know? And actually, I want people to feel that they've got a stake in their economy, in the companies that are gonna create the jobs, the innovation, the growth, the productivity that pays for the NHS and pays for our defense. That's what we all, I think, care about as Brits. And yet we've sort of disconnected people from that. So that's sort of one leg. The other leg is what we did on pension reform many, many years ago. So after the Mirror pension scandal, um, we basically did two things. We brought a company-defined benefit pension schemes on balance sheet. You're probably not old enough to remember when we used to refer to British Airways as a small airline with a large pension fund attached.

   6. HSHarry Stebbings4:39

      (laughs)

   7. JHJulia Hoggett4:39

      But we did. Um, and we then put an accounting treatment that meant that the matching adjustment on the pension fund went through the P&L of the company every quarter. Now, no CEO wants to have their earnings and the volatility of their earnings entirely attributable to their pension fund-

   8. HSHarry Stebbings4:53

      Mm-hmm.

   9. JHJulia Hoggett4:53

      ... rather than to the underlying business. So what did we do? We shuttered those defined benefit pension schemes, and then we de-risked them so that they weren't too volatile, which meant we reduced our investment in, um, risk assets as a nation. And if you think about defined benefit pension schemes, most countries treat them as a way of mutualizing long-term risk-taking for the stake, both of the returns of the pensioners and, and for investment in, in the country. Um, and we sort of stopped doing both of those things. And I think you can trace some of the growth, uh, reduction that we've had post-GFC to that sort of trend over the previous 20, 30 years. The great benefit of having done that to ourselves is we can undo it to ourselves. Um, and that's one of the things I feel supremely confident about, which is as a nation, we have all of these raw ingredients. We have the second-largest pool of institutional capital in the world. We have great universities, all of these things. We just need to get back to mixing those ingredients in the right

5. 5:50 – 13:27

   Should the UK Copy the Canadian Pension Fund Structure

   1. JHJulia Hoggett5:50

      kind of cake and baking a bar.

   2. HSHarry Stebbings5:51

      So if, if we think about that then, number one, you said about the regulatory, um, enhancements or additions- (laughs)

   3. JHJulia Hoggett5:57

      Yeah.

   4. HSHarry Stebbings5:57

      ... which have made it harder to access different products.

   5. JHJulia Hoggett5:59

      Mm-hmm.

   6. HSHarry Stebbings5:59

      Um, do we need to deregulate then? And if so, what do we need to do to deregulate effectively?

   7. JHJulia Hoggett6:04

      Well, deregulation I think is the wrong word, 'cause I think that, that sends people sort of running for the hills as a sort of fear. Um, and this isn't a bonfire of regulation or any of the things that sort of people have accused it of. I think it is about getting back to, what do we regulate for?... you know, what are the outcomes we want to achieve? And, eh, I was saying this to someone the other day that, that very often when you write regulation, you've got a very well-intentioned thing that you want to achieve, and then your regulation creates a policy for how you achieve it, but then nobody checks, and then everybody fixates on following the policy and forgets to check whether the policy produced the outcome that they wanted in the first place. If we want financially literate, properly enfranchised retail investors who have a stake in society, have a good savings rate, and that we reinvest in our own economy, that should be the objective. You know, if, if when we had done our pension reforms in the, whenever we did, the '90s, we'd had, okay, 54% of all the investment in our s- capital market is, uh, UK pension funds and insurance, that's the investment in domestic risk capital that we want as a nation, let's monitor it and make sure that we don't have a deleterious effect on that investment when we make these changes, we'd have had a conversation about pension reform 20 years ago, not two years ago when the task force that I chair triggered that conversation. So, I think that's the difference. We, we now need to get back to what is the outcome we want to achieve, and are we really achieving it?

   8. HSHarry Stebbings7:31

      What is the outcome you wanna achieve?

   9. JHJulia Hoggett7:33

      We basically need to be able to use our own resources and our own capacity to invest to back ourselves as a nation. It's, it's very simple. But to do so in a way that means that we actually do it for the way companies are formed today. If you look at quite a lot of the large private companies today, the next ticket they need, their VCs and PEs aren't necessarily in a position to write, you know, because actually they're now so big that they need the public markets as a takeout 'cause that's where the true scale is in the capital. If you want to start having pension funds invest in you at an earlier stage as a private company, you need to be able to operate in the way that they can operate too as well, within the regulatory constraints that they operate in.

   10. HSHarry Stebbings8:11

       Why can we not just have our pension funds invest directly like CPPIB do or Ontario Teachers' Fund do?

   11. JHJulia Hoggett8:17

       Well, that's an awful lot of what the UK regulatory reform is looking at, so a lot of the things that are on the reform agenda for the UK. And shall I talk you through it?

   12. HSHarry Stebbings8:25

       Yeah, yeah, please do.

   13. JHJulia Hoggett8:26

       Because probably, probably rather than jumping backwards and forwards. So, we talk about the reform agenda in the UK as being five fingers on a glove, and the logic as well is, is it's nice to have a thumb, but if you don't have the other four fingers, it's not as useful as a hand. So you need to actually get everything done. What are the quality of your primary and secondary capital-raising rules? Are they actually... do they allow the broadest range of companies to come onto your market, and then do they give you, them, them the maximum sort of strategic flexibility once they get onto the market? We changed our rules last year. We are now on a par with anywhere else in the world in terms of the flexibility and, and usefulness of our listing rules. They hadn't actually been changed since the '80s in any material fashion.

   14. HSHarry Stebbings9:03

       Meaning it's just as easy to list here as anywhere else.

   15. JHJulia Hoggett9:05

       Just as easy to list here as it is anywhere else. Second one is, are we incentivizing the sell side, so the investment banks and the brokers, to write high-quality research on the next generation of companies that are coming through so that investors can genuinely understand how to value that next proposition? And that is something where in Europe we had created rules that basically said the banks could not charge in their trading commissions to subsidize their research provision. Um, that reduced the quality of research provision in Europe as a whole. The UK reversed those rules last year and said, "That didn't work. Let's go back to basics." To answer your question about pension funds, the UK had done several things. I talked about the, what we did in our defined benefit schemes. So, we took our defined benefit schemes and basically talked about them in the language of de-risking, so bought an awful lot of fixed income and debt products rather than equity products, but also our DC schemes, our defined contribution schemes that replaced them, were not supposed to be the 27-odd thousand that we have that were all very small and advised by lawyers and trustees. They were supposed to be relatively big, sophisticated, consolidated pots. That didn't happen. We also regulated them on cost, not on net return. So, unlike the CPPIB or the Ontario Teachers' or what they have in, in Canada, w- our current pension scheme is either de-risking or of insufficient scale and ha- wrapped with insufficiently sophisticated advice to be able to invest on a, in a portfolio of private companies. So, when the chancellor announced the pension review, and actually Labour put it in their manifesto, it's designed to do all of that, to consolidate our pension schemes into bigger individual funds that can then act exactly like the Canadians or the Australians. And I'd love any founder in the UK to be just as proud of having a UK pension fund on their cap table as on, they are of having Ontario Teachers' on their cap table.

   16. HSHarry Stebbings10:56

       Do you think we will be able to en- move the investor mindset within those pension funds to inves- invest in higher-risk growth assets in the UK?

   17. JHJulia Hoggett11:04

       Well, this is partly where Pisces, the crossover market, comes in, because the logic is that those pension funds at the moment, we have had a mindset of regulating our pension funds on cost, um, and therefore cheap is good, and private companies are not cheap to originate, you know? The ability to actually understand them and track and then you have to start with a small ticket, all that kind of stuff, is not straightforward to do. This is partly about connecting these dots. So if you, if you look at, in, in the third finger of the third finger on the glove, which is the pension and retail reform, um, then we've also had a thing called the Mansion House Compact, which is, and so our 11 largest defined, default defined contribution schemes have committed to committing 5% of their total assets to private companies by 2030. And they are now-

   18. HSHarry Stebbings11:48

       Is that private companies in the UK?

   19. JHJulia Hoggett11:49

       Private companies in the UK and around the world, but predominantly in the UK, we hope. Now, consequence of that actually is that they're having to work through how do they need to reorganize themselves, restructure themselves, to be able to participate in this market. You should start with the objective of the thing you're trying to achieve, okay? The UK, um, creates great scaling companies. It has a huge amount of institutional capital. It has not traditionally...... been in the valley of death, in terms of its financing. Um, but actually that's where a huge amount of value is created for an economy. So, we can either go, "No, we don't have it and we're not going to bother trying to build it," or we could take every single step we can to make sure that we're incentivizing and building it. And it isn't that we don't have great stock pickers in the UK. We've got VC funds and PE funds that are very good. There is a reason why the Canadians and the Australians and the US endowments all come and their s- the second office they ever set up is in London, you know? There's great assets to buy here. It is about bringing our institutional ecosystem together with that VC and PE ecosystem to be able to su- supercharge the scaling and, and capability development of that part of the ecosystem. But it is what we used to do in the City. I mean, for many, many years stock picking was a classic thing that the City did. We slightly regulated it out by saying you need to regulate on cost not on net return. And so what the government is now doing is consolidating our pension funds into bigger pools, um, trying to accelerate consolidation of DC, and getting them to look at fiduciary duty as value for money, which is net return, not cost. In other words, being able to buy as LPs, being able to co-invest.

   20. HSHarry Stebbings13:22

       You need great assets to invest in. (sighs) How to say this?

6. 13:27 – 22:06

   Will the Best Companies Like Revolut and Monzo List in London

   1. HSHarry Stebbings13:27

      Um, why are so many companies not choosing to list in the UK? When I interviewed Nick at Roundtable-

   2. JHJulia Hoggett13:33

      Yeah, yeah.

   3. HSHarry Stebbings13:33

      ... I think about the fastest growing technology companies.

   4. JHJulia Hoggett13:35

      Mm-hmm.

   5. HSHarry Stebbings13:36

      And I asked him, "Are you gonna list here?"

   6. JHJulia Hoggett13:37

      Yeah.

   7. HSHarry Stebbings13:37

      I want them to list here. I love London, I walk past here with my mom. And they go, "No, nah. America all day."

   8. JHJulia Hoggett13:43

      Yep. So, the honest answer is that the perception and the reality are not the same thing.

   9. HSHarry Stebbings13:49

      Okay.

   10. JHJulia Hoggett13:49

       So, in the last 10 years only 20 UK companies have listed in the US that have raised over 100 million. Okay? Of those, nine have already de-listed, only four are trading up and the rest are trading down by over 80%. That's the data as of today. Okay. So the idea that the grass is always greener in the US? Not true. The challenge for a company under a certain size in the US is the US market works incredibly well for the Mag 7. It doesn't work as well when you're smaller.

   11. HSHarry Stebbings14:17

       Yeah.

   12. JHJulia Hoggett14:17

       The investor base is predominantly domestic. Um, they will, if you're not in a major index, where 60% of the US market is now tracking a major index, then, uh, the risk is that you'll get forgotten. You'll get sold on a headline 'cause something happens in the UK or something happens in Europe or another one of your major markets, but you won't have that indexation drag back. Which is half why we've seen the performance that we have in terms of the companies that have gone to the US. Um, I understand why that's not the perception. I understand why the media narrative is different. I understand why there are some investment banks who want people to go to the US 'cause they make double the fees. I get it. The simple reality is that the narrative that we've pushed in the media, and the actual data as to what the experience of people listing in London versus the US is very different. I get there's a sexiness in the US. I get there's a noise there. Um, but I do think there are... Uh, look, I've, I've seen what Nick says. He, he made a point about stamp duty, uh, and he made a point about liquidity. If you actually look at the data on liquidity, the free-float adjusted turnover in London is higher than it is in the S&P and the NASDAQ. Okay? If you look at the, just the absolute volume of shares based on the fact that you've got companies that are worth over a trillion, yes, the absolute volume of shares that's traded in a day is higher. The percentage of the company's free float that is turning over in a given day is higher on the FTSE 100 than it is on the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ. So again, that sort of narrative is, is, is the wrong kind of thing. I, we also know though that there are places where the data's wrong. So if you go to Yahoo Finance and look at the liquidity in London versus the liquidity in the US, it's actually wrong, last time we checked it, by a factor of over three.

   13. HSHarry Stebbings15:58

       Cool.

   14. JHJulia Hoggett15:59

       Um, and, and there are things like that where we have to correct to make sure people are actually using the right stats and looking at the right data. Stamp duty is a perversity in the UK. We charge people to invest in UK stocks where we don't charge them to invest in US stocks or European stocks. It is weird. It brings in about three to 4 billion of money for the treasury every year. They need that money. Um, so we need to give them an alternative as to what to replace it by. But I have been very public, it's a perverse tax. We tax people that buy Aston Martin in this country, we don't tax them to buy a Tesla or Porsche. Last time I checked, Aston Martin hire and employ hundreds of people in this country and they actually build cars here. So we have done some strange things to ourselves as a nation.

   15. HSHarry Stebbings16:39

       Everyone says also the scale of the buy book here-

   16. JHJulia Hoggett16:42

       Yeah.

   17. HSHarry Stebbings16:42

       ... just is so immeasurably different compared to the US. Is that not true also?

   18. JHJulia Hoggett16:47

       Look, 60% of the investors in the UK are international investors. So same people who can buy you in New York can buy you in London. Um, the key issue is do you want, uh, index inclusion? You're not going to get index inclusion in the first year in the US, and you might not get it at all. You don't get into the S&P 500 unless you've either got substantively all your revenues in the US or you're a US based company. And even then, it's not a, a direct thing. If you come in in the top 75% of the FTSE 100 in terms of what valuation you'd be when you IPO, you can go in in five days. So all of that index money would follow you on day one 'cause they'd have to. You can also get access to all of the major institutions in the US. So, it- it, again, the, the narrative and the actual reality are very, very different. And certainly what I've heard from talking to companies in the last year or so is that increasingly if you are... Absolutely if you're a 10 to 20 billion company, don't go to the US 'cause you'll get lost. Um, there have actually been... Of, of... I talked, talked about the 20 companies that have raised over 100 million going from the UK to the US. There are six that have come the other way, actually from the US to the UK in that time as well. In addition, um, two of the most successful IPOs in, uh, on the AIM market, so our growth market last year were North American companies, or US companies who came to London 'cause they felt underserved by, um, uh, by the US. And they were up 32% all but the end of the year.

   19. HSHarry Stebbings18:14

       So while we're on the theme of myth-busting-

   20. JHJulia Hoggett18:16

       Mm-hmm.

   21. HSHarry Stebbings18:16

       There are apparently 45% valuation decrease being in the UK. Total bullshit?

   22. JHJulia Hoggett18:22

       Um, there's actually some very useful analysis that's looked at pairs of companies, um, side by side, so like-for-like companies adjusted for their growth rates, the actual underlying performance of the business, and you'll find as many companies trade up in the UK as trade up in the US. Um, and the rest are trading largely online. So, and, and I've seen some r- recent very interesting analysis that basically says if you're a company in the UK with exposure, for example, to the US market and you're growing well there, you'll get more rewards for it in the UK market than you will in the US market or the European market. Um, so quite a lot of the underlying analysis says it's to do with the fundamental growth rate of the company, not to do with the difference of valuation in the UK.

   23. HSHarry Stebbings19:04

       Do you not think if Deliveroo was in the US it would be valued differently?

   24. JHJulia Hoggett19:09

       Um...

   25. HSHarry Stebbings19:09

       That feels like a business that is hit hard by a UK mindset around the type of business it is, the low margin nature of it, and it's just too difficult for us to wrap our heads around.

   26. JHJulia Hoggett19:18

       Well, I th- I think that's a company that also had other challenges and other transactions that have, have ha- had an impact on the valuation. But, uh, so I, I... Look, I'll give you an example. When Arm listed here, traded at a high val- valuation multiple than any of its peers anywhere in the world. So, it's, again, the right company with the right story is gonna get access to exactly the same investors, they're gonna do it more cheaply and less cost- less costly than they would in the US. They're gonna get indexation immediately if they're a UK company. They're gonna get the same liquidity they would in the US. They're not gonna pay fees anything like the same amount, um, and they can do a, an ADR in the US and get e- exposure to the incremental investor base you might not buy in London, but that isn't all the major funds that would, would buy them in London.

   27. HSHarry Stebbings20:03

       Can I ask, if you have the same investor base that is gonna cross pool so there's people accessing the UK markets as well as the US, why not... Is it not just a dual listing future? Where we say, "Hey, can we do New York and London?"

   28. JHJulia Hoggett20:14

       Well, look, I think in some regards, some com- some of the biggest UK companies already do that. They do a, a primary listing here and then they do an ADR into the US. The GSKs, et cetera, of the world do all of that, um, and that is absolutely fine. But I think we also have to think about... A- Arm- Arm is a really good example. When Arm came back to the market, they, what, they IPO'd at about, what, 52 billion? Um, went up in the first year to 150 billion. Now, that was, that was an awful lot of the, um, AI trade, which I'm utterly convinced would have happened in London as much as it happened anywhere else. I don't think... I don't think it's a... You, you can't prove a negative but I think it's a falsity to say the London market wouldn't have valued that the same way. In the first period of time after they listed, only 1% of the investor base in Arm, which is a great British company based in Cambridge, coming out of our ecosystem, was owned by UK investors. Not one of our major pension funds had them as one of their major investments, and retail couldn't buy it because of the structure of the way it was done. Okay. So if we say we're indifferent to where a company lists, we're basically indifferent to the UK investor being exposed to the upside of the value that UK-based companies can generate. That can't be right. You know? We, we, we tend to think of these things as an asset on one side and as a liability on the other side or something like that, when actually it's a risk capital flywheel. It's how do we have the right volume of risk capital go into great companies that produce R&D, produce investment, produce jobs, produce growth, produce revenues, produce dividends, that create great asset people can invest in that give them more returns and more safety in their pension, um, and that ultimately pay tax revenue as well. And we've lost sight of s- thinking it- of it as a flywheel.

   29. HSHarry Stebbings21:54

       Thinking of the flywheel, I'm at the beginning of the flywheel, and what concerns me most is 10 years ago or 15 years ago, whatever it was, but when TransferWise and Monzo and Revolut all started, it was a great place to start a fintech business.

7. 22:06 – 27:32

   Why Are Revolut Wrong to Want to List in the US

   1. HSHarry Stebbings22:06

      The best developers don't want to build in London anymore, and that worries me.

   2. JHJulia Hoggett22:10

      And why would that be?

   3. HSHarry Stebbings22:11

      I think honestly they think it's incredibly regulatory, they think there's a high cost of living, uh, crime is pretty bad. Um, honestly, that's probably the call.

   4. JHJulia Hoggett22:23

      Would they want to live in San Francisco on that basis?

   5. HSHarry Stebbings22:25

      No, but they'll live in other parts of Europe.

   6. JHJulia Hoggett22:27

      Yeah.

   7. HSHarry Stebbings22:27

      They'll live in Dubai.

   8. JHJulia Hoggett22:28

      Yeah.

   9. HSHarry Stebbings22:28

      They'll live in much more friendly tax... I guess my question to you is, do you see that, that London's lost its competitiveness for the best developers, or, or not?

   10. JHJulia Hoggett22:37

       I think there's a broader point. The FCA made a very, very overt decision in the teensies or whatever we call it, to create a sandboxing environment for fintechs to be able to start up. The likes of the Revoluts, the Monzos, et cetera, started because the UK created the best possible regulatory environment for them to do so. Now, other people have followed it and copied that, absolutely, um, but that is something we should be really proud of and that was a conscious choice on the part of our country to do so. If you then say, okay, the comp- the country is now making a really conscious choice to make sure we've got the best possible funding continuum for people to get access to capital, to be able to start, grow, scale and stay here and make sure that we're incentivizing our institutional money to invest in that part of the ecosystem as well, and the conversation that is going on at the moment about regulation is about outcomes-based regulation that is less chat boxy and- and gets the balance right in terms of the right kind of protections but the right kind of enabling of innovation and growth, then we've got a pretty good track record of doing it already, um, and if we want to create UK-based companies then that's the right ecosystem to shift to. And I think that's the conversation that's happening right now.

   11. HSHarry Stebbings23:48

       In terms of, like, risk on mindset within pension funds, it... What, what is the thing that actually really enables that? It's just saying, "Hey, you have to have 5% in private companies in the UK and around the world." That is the rule that will enable that.

   12. JHJulia Hoggett24:01

       I think it's gonna be a combination of things. I think the, the fundamental thing is returns. So, if you look at, say, the performance of Canadian and Australian pension funds, they tend to pay higher fees than the fees that are being paid by UK pension funds but they make higher real returns. You know, their net return is higher, and the compounding value of higher real returns to the individual pensioner is huge, you know? 1% in real return increase every year, just think about it. I mean, it's, it's...... it's eye-watering that we weren't having this conversation-

   13. HSHarry Stebbings24:30

       Sure.

   14. JHJulia Hoggett24:31

       ... as a country. And some of the things that we had done were perverse. We basically, uh, created a world where, um, cheap was good, you know, for financial services, you know? It's, it's like... Oh, no. It's a, it's a bad way of thinking about it, but if I was ever charged with a crime I didn't commit, I wouldn't want a cheap lawyer defending me, you know?

   15. HSHarry Stebbings24:50

       (laughs)

   16. JHJulia Hoggett24:51

       It, it's sort of... We- we created this idea that for, for, for retail consumers of financial services, you, you wanted a cheap, cheap product. And, and that's not the right way to think about it. In a value-added industry, you want to incentivize people to continue to add value, and that, that produces the best possible product. And that's the model that's used around the world, you know? The Canadian pension funds or the Australian pension funds employ very good fund managers, do so on a big aggregated basis, and pay fees to originate complex alternative assets and, and private companies.

   17. HSHarry Stebbings25:22

       And so 5% plus movement away from cost to incentive-based profit.

   18. JHJulia Hoggett25:26

       And consolidation, so that you can do it in... Because you don't, you don't invest in one private company, you inve-... I mean, you've seen how it's done, you invest in a portfolio of companies. Some of them will pay off, some of them won't. It's got a, a different failure rate to, uh, what would happen in the public markets, and therefore you need a bigger consolidated way of, of looking at that.

   19. HSHarry Stebbings25:42

       Is scale important? Obviously.

   20. JHJulia Hoggett25:44

       Scale is important, yeah. Yeah. And so that's why, that's why the UK's doing what it's doing right now. It's consolidating its funds together, uh, changing the evaluation of cost benefit in terms of, of net return, um, and looking at how we also think about incentivizing investment in the UK. So, we used to have tax breaks to invest in the UK. We took them all away and then wondered why people didn't invest as much in the UK. Other countries do- don't do that.

   21. HSHarry Stebbings26:07

       You said about a movement away from, again, cost and being overly worried to pay bluntly for quality-

   22. JHJulia Hoggett26:12

       Yeah.

   23. HSHarry Stebbings26:12

       ... despite the fact that it does much better.

   24. JHJulia Hoggett26:14

       Mm-hmm.

   25. HSHarry Stebbings26:14

       You said before that, uh, UK CEOs are paid too little by international standards. I completely agree. I think it's a joke that we chastise CEOs for being paid what they're paid actually when they run hun- multi-hundred million dollar companies. Talk to me about your thinking around that, and do you think the UK gets it yet?

   26. JHJulia Hoggett26:30

       Uh, it's changing quite radically.

   27. HSHarry Stebbings26:31

       It is?

   28. JHJulia Hoggett26:32

       Yeah, yeah. It really is. And I think it's, I think it just needed... Again, I always talk about these things, that you go around the other side of the problem and just look at it from a different angle, you know, sometimes. So, we had, we had, f- for various cultural reasons as much as anything else, a lot of this was market practice, it wasn't actually the rules. Um, had this, this perception that we needed to constrain and really zero in on focusing on what... To be honest, usually two people get paid, which is the two executive directors on the board. So you can have 40 pages of disclosure about what two people get paid, which is... Okay. Um, but essentially, the, the way we've reframed it as the capital markets industry taskforce is, is let's just have a big tent conversation about what we mean here. If we're trying to constrain what the leaders and, and senior executives in our largest listed companies get paid, but actually what the UK has been doing for years is creating globally consequential companies from the UK. If in order to break into say that market in Asia or that market in the

8. 27:32 – 32:43

   Are Companies Priced Lower in the UK vs US

   1. JHJulia Hoggett27:32

      US for your product, the going rate for that person is more than the asset managers are allowing you to pay your CEO, by definition arguably the buy side is saying, "I don't want you to be globally consequential." Now, actually, I don't think that's what they're saying. I don't think that was what they ever intended to say. I think it is a little bit of saying, "Okay, we don't want to go down this sort of Elon Musk pay packet kind of route, but we do want to make sure we are creating a competitive environment for the best possible people to be leading our institutions." There's the right balance between incentivizing people to deliver that value and, and recognizing that things are very aligned and that actually, I mean, so many things in life, more things are aligned than oppositional than people realize, but if you're a long only investor in a company, you want its long-term value creation the same way that if you're the executive of the company you do. You know? If you think about a private company, you've got VCs and Ps sitting on your board, coaching CEOs as to how to succeed. Everybody's got the same liquidity risk profile, everybody's got the same, they're the same way around, they want the same thing, you know? Um, the idea that suddenly you get to the public markets and those interests aren't aligned is, is a bit of a perversity.

   2. HSHarry Stebbings28:41

      Do you think Wise have done better being in the UK than they would have done if they were in the US?

   3. JHJulia Hoggett28:45

      Look, the risk of a company of that size, given the profile of their business, is they'd have been lost. Um, they've got pretty healthy following here and are well-understood and well-recognized as a brand. And, um, I think their, their logic of saying, "Okay, we're, we're incredibly proud of what we've done, we're gonna stand on our own recognizance in terms of being able to market ourselves to our investors. We're gonna get the market to identify the price." They got an incredibly good price, um, when they did it.

   4. HSHarry Stebbings29:09

      Do you think it's a good marketing message to say to CEOs, "Hey, be a big fish in a small pond"?

   5. JHJulia Hoggett29:14

      I think it's a big fish in a big pond. Look, I mean, we are the second-largest equity capital market in the world, in a free market economy. Okay? And I, I think that's the thing that gets lost. Now, if you want to, um, essentially be able to only guarantee your indexation, and, and therefore your support from 60% of the investor base, if you decide to re-domicile or relocate to the US, then, and, and substantively all your operations are there, then the US market may be right for you. The UK allows you to have all the indexation, all the access to the investors, um, a higher liquidity actually turnover rate for your shares available. Um, and you can stay in the UK if that's where you come from. Or if you're an international company, you can get access to those things without having to re-domicile. The US market basically has, has some pretty strict demands on companies, and increasingly incentivizes them to, to move into the U- to become a US company if they want to get the true benefit of being in the US market.

   6. HSHarry Stebbings30:14

      Do you think there should be a unified EU market?

   7. JHJulia Hoggett30:17

      Look, we're the UK market, so... And it's not for us to judge or tell the EU what it should do. Um, I think the, what we're seeking to be is the largest, and we are, and we have been every year for the last-... decade, um, the largest equity capital market in Europe. And we are. And there may have been a certain amount of flow back to, uh, Europe on Brexit, in terms of activity. Um, increasingly what we're seeing, particularly now that our rules have changed, is people are, even European companies are looking at London and saying, "Actually, we're gonna use London as our base."

   8. HSHarry Stebbings30:51

      So Brexit didn't irreparably damage London, in terms of-

   9. JHJulia Hoggett30:54

      No. No. No, it had natural consequences, which I think you can't deny. Okay? If you, if, if, if London had built to be the hub it was because it was the largest kind of financial center in the single market, and we're not in the single market anymore, then stuff's gonna happen. Things are gonna waver.

   10. HSHarry Stebbings31:08

       Do you think Brexit hurt or helped the UK markets in the long term?

   11. JHJulia Hoggett31:13

       I think making sure that when you have to rely on your own recognizance, as it were, because the city got bigger every year because the single market got bigger, you know. Actually going, "Okay, what is our job? Both to drive our place as a global financial center and to drive the UK economy. And are we properly structured to do that?" I think it forced us to have that conversation in a way that we might not have had as thoroughly otherwise. Um, and we have always had a globally significant capital market, you know. And this is the thing that is sort of forgotten in, for most of the first few weeks of January, we were the largest equity capital market in the world by capital raised, ahead of NASDAQ. Um, we are the, I mean, as of today, if you take the 2024, '25 numbers, by total capital raised, the only equity capital market countries in the world that are bigger than us are the US and India. Everywhere else is behind us. We're the only European market in the top 10, and we raised more equity capital last year than the next three European venues combined. We forget that as a nation. We fixate constantly on the US. Um, yes, the US is huge capital market. Um, but if you want great companies to be able to start here, grow here, scale here, and stay here, if you want UK investors to have access to the best possible fast-growing assets that give them the right returns, that mean that they have good pension returns, but also invest in their economy so that their kids have got good jobs and their kids have got futures, then you need to have a vibrant

9. 32:43 – 34:50

   Why is Stamp Duty a Perversity We Have to Change

   1. JHJulia Hoggett32:43

      capital market.

   2. HSHarry Stebbings32:43

      How do we get rid of stamp duty?

   3. JHJulia Hoggett32:45

      (laughs) I'm working on it. I think you start tapering it. So, so one of the things that we've been looking at is, um, if, if the UK can encourage and provide incentives, and that's a lot of the discussion at the moment, to make sure that our, our pension funds are incentivized to invest in the UK, which is what we used to do when we had dividend tax credits. Um, we, we give people tax breaks to keep their money in cash in the UK, in the form of 100% cash ISAs. Now, cash ISAs are very, very important for people who need a safety net and to be encouraged to save. But it doesn't need to be 100% of everybody's total lifetime allowance. So, if you did those two things, you'd see a potentially pretty significant increase in the amount of flows already into UK equities, which would increase the government's revenue on stamp. That would then mean that you could start tapering it around, for example, retail tickets and under a certain size. To, to just re-incentivize retail participation in our market and get rid of the friction associated with it, and then start tapering it from there. You're not gonna be able to go, "Please can I just take four billion out of the exchequer?" You know? In, in a world where the chancellor has got the disciplines that she's got around the OBR, you can't do that. So you can't just say, "Get rid of it." You, you've got to come up with a mechanism whereby net-net it, it works over time. But I think there's a pretty compelling reason for how to do it, and I think everybody understands the pernicious nature of it now. Um, I think it's just, it, it's, it's not about the City saying, "Just get rid of it," and not thinking about the consequences for the politicians who have got to make those choices. It's about finding the best possible way for them to be able to do it in a way that operates within the constraints that they're operating to.

   4. HSHarry Stebbings34:27

      You said before, I can't remember where exactly it was, but we need to be young, scrappy, and-

   5. JHJulia Hoggett34:33

      And hungry.

   6. HSHarry Stebbings34:33

      ... hungry.

   7. JHJulia Hoggett34:33

      Yeah. It was a quote from Hamilton.

   8. HSHarry Stebbings34:35

      If you could do anything without fear of repercussion-

   9. JHJulia Hoggett34:38

      Yuh.

   10. HSHarry Stebbings34:39

       ... or structure, or decision-making from teams or anyone else, what would you do to enable progress, growth, innovation?

10. 34:50 – 40:38

    Why is the Way the UK Thinks About Financial Services So Wrong

    1. HSHarry Stebbings34:50

    2. JHJulia Hoggett34:50

       If I had a magic wand, I, (laughs) I always describe this as sort of the DeLorean package without, without the bankrupt Northern Irish car company. In other words, it's Back to the Future. Um, we used to back ourselves as a nation, you know? We used to have, um, structures and tax incentives to invest in the UK. At that point, we had some of the highest investment rates, highest growth rates, largest capital market in the world. We gradually took those incentives away, um, and then assumed everybody else would invest in us if we weren't investing in ourselves. So, to me, it's about a proper conversation as a country about how we take these enormous pools of capital that we actually have, and we are re-incentivized to invest in ourselves. Now, I think that becomes a virtuous circle very quickly, and once you start getting into the habit of it, it, it will be maintained. So I think that's one thing. It's basically making sure that we incentivize domestic flows of capital. But the other thing is the culture, and that's the glove in the five fingers and the glove. It's how we talk about it around here. It's how we celebrate entrepreneurship, how we recognize people like you and what you've done and what you've built, and that actually, um, there is something remarkable about a founder's journey that we should be really proud of how many of them we have in this country. I always jokingly say, um, that an awful lot of the founders I meet put their money, their mortgage, and often their marriage on the line to create great companies.

    3. HSHarry Stebbings36:11

       (laughs)

    4. JHJulia Hoggett36:12

       Um, and we should be celebrating that. The people who are prepared to create, work as hard as they do to create that value and be as driven and, and visionary for a version of the world that doesn't exist yet, which is what they're creating, is what we should celebrate. I mean, great scientific breakthroughs come because people sit in a lab and envisage a world that doesn't exist yet.... companies like Revolut exist because Nick sat there and envisaged a way of providing financial services that, at the time, didn't exist. That is the thing that changes society, creates efficiencies, improves people's lives, solves problems, creates value, pays taxes, pays for the NHS, pays for our defense. We just need to get better at celebrating it. We have this habit of talking ourselves down as a nation. And there was this great life sciences investor who I, I quoted recently in a speech I gave, who came to do something at the exchange, and he was American and moved over to the UK because of the fundamental science that was being done here that he wanted to back. And he basically said, "I realized the Americans are incred- perceived to be incredibly naive on the surface, but we're incredibly cynical underneath. You Brits are incredibly cynical on the surface," and you can finish it with me, but, uh, "Actually, I've realized you're quite naive underneath." And what I was saying in my speech was I think we, we can be cynically naive, you know, or even naively cynical, in that we, we forget the damage of talking ourselves down and not celebrating what we're good at as a nation. It wouldn't occur to an American founder not to be kind of singing from, from the, kind of, whatever, the balcony, that we need to find our inner kind of channeling of that, of that growth mindset and that optimism. And it isn't that we don't have it, it's that we have a sort of culture that doesn't allow us to recognize it. And, and I think that if I had a magic wand to say, yeah, we could, we could all, as a nation, just face the day with optimism and the belief that if we rub the right brain cells together, we're gonna come to the right answer. Um, then that's probably the magic wand I'd want to wave.

    5. HSHarry Stebbings38:15

       There's two elements before I do a quick fire. The first is, you mentioned Nick there. You may not... it might be a horrible one to ask. If you could say to Nick, like, "You should list in London because of this sentence," what would it be?

    6. JHJulia Hoggett38:27

       Uh, the, the honest answer is I think when you look at the side by side of what London offers versus the US, it's at least as compelling a case.

    7. HSHarry Stebbings38:34

       Do you not think they're at the scale where they do get into the top echelons of US markets?

    8. JHJulia Hoggett38:38

       Well, there's no guarantee they'd get indexation. They'd walk straight into the FTSE 100 here. You can still access US investors afterwards.

    9. HSHarry Stebbings38:47

       Do you think you'll get them?

    10. JHJulia Hoggett38:49

        Look, every company has to make a sovereign decision. The only thing I can do, and that's where the young, scrappy, and hungry comes from, is we will fight for every listing where we think we've got a compelling argument. And that's, that's where the young, scrappy, and hungry statement came from.

    11. HSHarry Stebbings39:02

        Uh, final one. You said about, like, the sexiness of the US. Is there anything that we can learn from the US in terms of how they present themselves and the product that they sell to be more sexy?

    12. JHJulia Hoggett39:12

        Yeah. It's, it's a, it's an interesting question. I, there are some... it's a, it's a really interesting tension. Some of the things that are special about the city are that we have been doing the same thing for hundreds and hundreds of years, actually. And it's part of our strength. And, and some of our, uh, our longevity at doing these great things as a, as a nation, as a city, are things that we should celebrate. But you can, you can... That's why I describe what I run as a 300-year-old fintech, you know? Both statements are true. You know? We've existed for 300 years. What we do in terms of purpose is the same today as it was 300 years ago. I describe our job as a convener, to bring together those who have capital with those who need capital in service of an objective. The way we do it technologically is transformed even from how we did it 10 years ago, let alone how we did it 30 years ago or did it 40 years ago. And so the technology that we use is some of the most cutting-edge technology in the world, and I run a tech company. Um, people don't think of me that way, because of what I do, um, and so some of it is just about how we kind of explain ourselves, talk about ourselves, and then add more celebration to the success of the companies that list on our market. Um, and make sure that they're more visible and make sure that people go, "Yeah, that's where I want to be." Um, and that's the thing that we're seeking to do. And we've done a lot over the course of the last few years to, to change that. But there's more that we can do.

11. 40:38 – 48:08

    Quick Fire Round: Insights and Reflections

    1. JHJulia Hoggett40:38

    2. HSHarry Stebbings40:38

       All right. I want to do a quick fire round, otherwise I'll talk to you all day.

    3. JHJulia Hoggett40:40

       Okay.

    4. HSHarry Stebbings40:41

       Um, what do you believe that most around you disbelieve?

    5. JHJulia Hoggett40:44

       I mean, I, I always believed that, um, any problem is fixable. Um, I guess the, the right way of thinking about it is my, my basic philosophy is if you don't like the system, change the system. And an awful lot of people in this city don't think they can change the system.

    6. HSHarry Stebbings41:00

       What do you know now that you wish you'd known when you accepted the role?

    7. JHJulia Hoggett41:04

       It isn't possible to operate on four hours sleep for very long. (laughs)

    8. HSHarry Stebbings41:10

       (laughs)

    9. JHJulia Hoggett41:10

       I, I wish I had a magic machine that would give me 48 hours in a day and, and, uh, still enough time to sleep, I think.

    10. HSHarry Stebbings41:15

        What do you not do now that you would do if you had more time?

    11. JHJulia Hoggett41:18

        Spend more time with my family.

    12. HSHarry Stebbings41:20

        Hmm. Yeah. (laughs) Mum, don't watch this.

    13. JHJulia Hoggett41:24

        Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

    14. HSHarry Stebbings41:25

        Uh, what have you changed your mind on in the last 12 months?

    15. JHJulia Hoggett41:27

        Uh, lots of things. I, I, it's not... I always have this phrase, "I don't need to be right, I need us to get to the right answer." So the question is how do you create that group of people around you where you, you know the objective you're trying to achieve and then you all co-curate how to get there, but you've got people in the room who are gonna poke you and prod you and go, "Ah, but have you thought about that and have you thought about that? And actually, Julia, no, I know you've been kind of hooked on this, but here's a problem with it. How about we think about it that way?" So I'll have my mind changed every day. That's what it should be. The most important thing is to understand how... is to make the best possible decision you can in the moment with the information that you've got, recognizing that as you get more information, you need to evolve kind of what you think. So the things that I thought probably in the reform agenda were the most important things to focus on actually have either become less important or they've been fixed and other things have become more important.

    16. HSHarry Stebbings42:25

        If you were to sit down with Rachel Reeves and advise her on one thing, what would you say?

    17. JHJulia Hoggett42:29

        Pension fund reform. Turn the taps on.

    18. HSHarry Stebbings42:32

        Do you think she's listening?

    19. JHJulia Hoggett42:34

        I think that the government have, um, very clearly, um, prioritized looking at pensions and looking at domestic flows of capital, and they're right.

    20. HSHarry Stebbings42:43

        Is ESG box ticking and-

    21. JHJulia Hoggett42:46

        It shouldn't be.

    22. HSHarry Stebbings42:46

        ... BSPR? (laughs)

    23. JHJulia Hoggett42:49

        Um-

    24. HSHarry Stebbings42:50

        I had, actually, a show with Grant Shapps-

    25. JHJulia Hoggett42:53

        Mm-hmm.

    26. HSHarry Stebbings42:53

        ... a former defense minister who said that it was immoral, um, because it prevented large amounts of capital to flow into certain assets.

    27. JHJulia Hoggett43:02

        So, here's the thing. A focus on the climate impact of companies is not wrong. If you think about an existential threat to multiple generations of what is happening to our planet, then actually, it is a wholly legitimate thing to take into account in the consideration of value. However, how you do that so that you actually take it into account for the right reasons and drive investment into the things that you need as an economy, both to continue to grow, to create the right living standards for people, and to finance the transition, is a different exercise. And there have been places where over-regulating these things has actually provo- produced perverse outcomes, where investors are incentivized to invest in big extractive industries, for example, rather than medium-sized scaling green economy companies, because one can produce the data and the other can't. Um, and so I don't think the fundamental regard for the impact of a company on climate change and how it is gonna mitigate its pathway through the changing climate for the benefit, um, of its long-term stakeholders is wrong at all. Having a prescriptive view as to how that should be done doesn't allow for innovation, doesn't allow for learning. And, and the way I would frame it is, um, if getting to net zero was easy, we'd have done it already. You know, we're gonna have to learn, and fail, and learn again, and fail, and hopefully do so as fast as we can in order to manage climate change. And therefore, we need to create space for that innovation to happen and incentives for that to happen. Um, and that sometimes the, the, the regulating it can, can run afoul of the de- the need to create that space to innovate.

    28. HSHarry Stebbings44:54

        What concerns you most in the world today?

    29. JHJulia Hoggett44:56

        This conversation alone illustrates that things aren't binary. Things are complicated. There's lots of shades of gray. We don't create much space to have those truly fundamental conversations about those shades of gray. We create a lot of space to say, "Well, I'm on this side of the argument, and you're on that side of the argument. I'm gonna shoot my metaphorical arrows at you." Um, how we find the space to actually have the nuanced understanding about how you balance, for example, um-

    30. HSHarry Stebbings45:28

        Algorithms.

Episode duration: 48:08