We've disconnected society from our capital markets.
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.
We basically created a world where cheap was good 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 delisted.
Only four are trading up and the rest are trading down by over 80%.
This is 20 VC with me, Harry Stebbings.
Now, there are a couple of core questions when it comes to the London Stock Exchange.
Will the biggest companies in the UK want to go public on the London Stock Exchange?
Will Monzo, will Revolut, once they trade, do they trade negatively? because of being placed there?
Your deliverers, your transfer-wises of the world do they trade negatively because of being placed on the London Stock Exchange?
Well, today we dive into this the myths, the truths and much more with London Stock Exchange's CEO, Julia Hoggart.
But before we dive into the show today, SecureFrame empowers businesses to build trust with customers by simplifying information security and compliance through AI and automation.
Thousands of fast-growing businesses, including NASDAQ AngelList, Doodle and Coda, trust SecureFrame to expedite their compliance journey for global security and privacy standards such as SOC 2 and ISO 27001 CMMC, NIST standards and more.
Backed by top-tier investors and corporations like Google and Kleiner Perkins.
The company is among Forbes' list of the top 100 startup employers for 2024, G2's best software awards for highest satisfaction products and a recipient of the 2024 Cybersecurity Excellence Awards something I definitely never got in school myself.
Learn more today at secureframe.com.
And speaking of speed, let's talk about something every founder, product leader and CEO is thinking about innovation.
We all know that innovation is the lifeblood of any company, yet more than 80 of innovation projects stall before they even make it to execution.
Why is that?
Because once teams move from discovery to development, outdated processes, endless context switching and misalignment slow everything down.
Don't you hate it when that happens?
Well, that's exactly why Miro built the Innovation Workspace.
God, that's a cool name.
A faster, smarter way to take ideas to execution.
Now, at 20VC, we've worked with countless startup founders who know that speed is everything.
And that's where AI powered tools like Miro's come in.
From AI sidekicks that act as a designer, analyst or engineer on demand to instant AI summaries that condense meeting notes, product briefs and retrospectives in seconds.
Miro is built for teams that want to move fast.
And one feature I love? the two-way sync with Jira and Azure.
So when something is updated in Miro, it's automatically reflected in your development tools, and vice versa.
No more duplication, no more miscommunication, just seamless execution.
So, whether you're in product UX engineering, agile or IT, Miro's innovation workspace helps teams go from idea to outcome faster.
Try it today at Miro.com.
That's M-I-R-O.com.
Now that your team is up and running worldwide, make sure your finances work just as hard.
With Brex, the ultimate financial stack for startups.
So when Brex was founded, it wasn't just about creating another financial product.
It was about solving the really gritty challenges that founders face daily.
Let's be honest building something from the ground up is hard enough without dealing with clunky, outdated banks that pile on fees and leave your cash idle.
Brex is different.
It's the financial stack that scales with you, no matter where you are in your journey, from corporate cards to maximizing your runway, to earning yield on your cash.
Brex was designed with founders in mind to make every dollar go further, so you can focus on building.
And here's what really stands out to me.
Brex combines the best of checking, treasury, and FDIC insurance in one powerhouse account.
You can send and receive money globally at lightning speed, earn yield from day one and still access your funds whenever you need.
Plus, with 20x the standard protection through program banks.
Your cash is not just working harder, it's working safer too.
It's no surprise that one in three venture-backed startups in the US, with companies like Anthropic, Coinbase and Robinhood I mean my God, these companies are incredible trust Brex to help them grow.
If you want to join the smartest startups on the planet, head over to brexcom.
Forward slash startups and see what they can do for you.
You have now arrived at your destination.
Julia, I'm very excited for this.
Thank you so much for having us in the office today.
It's a pleasure.
Welcome to a very sunny, very warm, very unusual London day.
It's a beautiful view.
I would love to start with a little bit of context.
So how did you come to be CEO of London Stock Exchange and take me to the moment when you accepted and took on the role?
Oh, my word.
By accident 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.
Should I stay at the FCA, where I've got a certain amount of influence over how our markets function, or should I explore coming to the LSE?
And the rest is history.
What did you write down as the exam answer?
I always jokingly say that the list was too short in hindsight.
What you wanted to change when you came in.
Is that very different to what you see now as the core objectives you still need to change, or have they stayed the same?
The theme has stayed very similar.
My theory was the UK has all the raw ingredients.
So we have world-leading universities.
We have some remarkable entrepreneurship going on already and startup culture in this country.
We create more unicorns than anywhere outside the US and China.
And we're a world-leading capital market by any measure.
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 centre.
It's done a less good job of driving the UK domestic economy.
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 can aim to do both.
Why has the city not done that for the domestic economy?
Very good question.
I think in part because of the strength of our role as the locus of the EU single market.
When you're serving everybody everywhere across the EU, you can get a bit disconnected from your own domestic economy.
And I think some of the regulatory changes served 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 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.
How did that happen?
What were the cool moments that that was the disconnection?
Well, I think in retail, I think it's been a combination of regulatory reform.
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.
And yet our user journey in the cryptocurrency world is incredibly straightforward.
And actually I want people to feel that they've got a stake in their economy, in the companies that are going to create the jobs, the innovation, the growth, the productivity that pays for the NHS and pays for our defence.
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, we basically did two things.
We brought a company to find 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 to it, that we did.
And we then put an accounting treatment that meant that the matching adjustment on the pension fund went through the PL 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 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 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 pensioners and for investment in the country.
And we sort of stopped doing both of those things.
And I think you can trace some of the growth 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.
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 kind of cake.
If we think about that, then number one you said about the regulatory enhancements or additions which have made it harder to access different products.
Do we need to deregulate then?
And if so, what do we need to do to deregulate effectively?
Deregulation, I think, is the wrong word because I think that sends people running for the hills as a sort of fear.
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?
What are the outcomes we want to achieve?
I was saying to someone the other day 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.
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 capital market is 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've had a conversation about pension reform 20 years ago, not two years ago, when the task force that I chair triggered that conversation.
We now need to get back to what is the outcome we want to achieve and are we really achieving it?
What is the outcome we want to achieve?
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 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 PAs aren't necessarily in a position to write, because actually they're now so big that they need the public markets as a takeout, because 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 a way that they can operate to as well within the regulatory constraints that they operate in.
Why can we not just have our pension funds invest directly, like CPPIB do or Ontario Teachers Fund do?
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?
Yeah, please do.
Rather than jumping back and forth.
So we talk about the reform agenda in the UK as being five fingers in a glove.
And the logic as well 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?
Do they allow the broadest range of companies to come onto your market?
And then do they give you 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 usefulness of our listing rules.
They hadn't actually been changed since the 80s in any material fashion.
Meaning it's just as easy to list here as it is anywhere else?
Just as easy to list here as it is anywhere else.
The second one is are we incentivising 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.
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 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 CPBIB or the Ontario Teachers or what they have in Canada, our current pension scheme is either de-risking or of insufficient scale and wrapped with insufficiently sophisticated advice to be able to invest 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.
I'd love any founder in the UK to be just as proud of having a UK pension fund on their cap table as they are of having Ontario teachers on the cap table.
Do you think we will be able to move the investor mindset within those pension funds to invest in higher risk growth assets in the UK?
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 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 the third finger of the third finger of the glove, which is the pension and retail reform, then we've also had a thing called the mansion house compact, which is So our 11 largest default defined contribution schemes have committed to committing 5 of their total assets to private companies by 2030.
And they are now… Is that private companies in the UK?
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, 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.
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 the second office they ever set up is in London.
There's great assets to buy here.
It is about bringing our institutional ecosystem together with that VCP ecosystem to be able to supercharge the scaling 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, 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.
You need great assets to invest in.
Why are so many companies not choosing to list in the UK?
When I interviewed Nick at Ravelry I think about the fastest-growing technology companies and I asked him are you going to list here?
I want them to list here.
I love London.
I walked past here with my mum, and they go, no, no, America, all day.
The honest answer is that the perception and the reality are not the same thing.
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 delisted.
Only four are trading up and the rest are trading down by over 80%.
That's data as of today.
So the idea that the grass is always greener in the U.S., not true.
The challenge for a company under a certain size in the US is the US market works incredibly well for the Mach 7.
It doesn't work as well when you're smaller.
The investor base is predominantly domestic.
If you're not in a major index where 60 of the US market is now tracking a major index then the risk is that you'll get forgotten.
You'll get sold on a headline because 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, why we've seen the performance that we have in terms of the companies that have gone to the US.
I understand why that's not the perception.
I understand why the media narrative is different.
I understand why there's some investment banks who want people to go to the US because 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 listening in London versus the US is very different.
I get there's a sexiness in the US.
I get there's a noise there.
I've seen what Nick said.
He made a point about stamp duty 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 SP and the NASDAQ.
If you look at 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 SP 500 or the NASDAQ.
Again, that sort of narrative is the wrong kind of thing.
We also know, though, that there are places where the data is wrong.
So if you go to Yahoo Finance and look at liquidity in London versus liquidity in the US, it's actually wrong.
Last time we checked it by a factor of over three.
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 four billion of money for the Treasury every year.
They need that money.
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 Tesla or Porsche.
Last time I checked, Aston Martin hire kind of 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.
Everyone says also, the scale of the buy book here just is so immeasurably different compared to the US.
Is that not true also?
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.
The key issue is, do you want 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 SP 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 direct thing.
If you come 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 because they'd have to.
You can also get access to all of the major institutions in the U.S.
Again, 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 because you'll get lost.
I talked about the 20 companies that have raised over $100 million going from the U.K. to the U.S.
There are six that have come the other way, actually from the U.S. to the U.K. in that time as well.
In addition, two of the most successful IPOs on the AIM market so our growth market last year were North American companies or US companies who came to London because they felt underserved by the US and they were up 32 or by the end of the year.
So while we're on the theme of myth busting, apparently 45% valuation decreased being in the U.K.?
?
There's actually some very useful analysis that's looked at pairs of companies 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 and the rest are trading largely in line.
And I've seen some 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.
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.
Do you not think if a delivery was in the US, it would be valued differently?
That feels like a business that is hit hard by a UK mindset around the type of business that it is, the low margin nature of it and it's just too difficult for us to wrap our heads around.
Well, I think that's a company that's also had other challenges and other transactions that have had an impact on the valuation.
I'll give you an example.
When I'm listed here, traded at a higher valuation multiple than any of its peers anywhere in the world.
Again, the right company with the right story is going to get access to exactly the same investors.
They're going to do it more cheaply and less costly than they would in the US.
They're going to get indexation immediately if they're a UK company.
They're going to get the same liquidity they would in the U.S.
They're not going to pay fees anything like the same amount.
And they can do an ADR in the US and get exposure to the incremental investor base.
You might not buy in London.
But that isn't all the major funds that would buy them in London.
If you have the same investor base, that is kind of cross-pooling, so to speak, or accessing the UK markets as well as the US.
Is it not just a dual listing future where we say hey, can we do New York and London?
Well, look, I think in some regards, some of the biggest UK companies already do that.
They do a primary listing here and then they do an ADR into the US.
The GSKs, et cetera, of the world do all of that.
And that is absolutely fine.
But I think we also have to think about Arm as a really good example.
When Arm came back to the market they IPO'd about 52 billion, went up in the first year to 150 billion.
Now that was an awful lot of the AI trade, which I'm utterly convinced would have happened in London as much as it happened anywhere else.
I 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.
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.
We tend to think of these things as an asset on one side and as 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 going to great companies that produce RD, produce investment, produce jobs, produce growth, produce revenues, produce dividends, that create a great asset people can invest in, that give them more returns and more safety in their pension and that ultimately pay tax revenue as well?
And we've lost sight of thinking of it as a flywheel.
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.
The best developers don't want to build in London anymore.
And that worries me.
They think it's incredibly regulatory.
They think there's a high cost of living.
Crime is pretty bad.
Would they want to live in San Francisco on that basis?
No, but they'll live in other parts of Europe.
They'll live in Dubai.
They'll live in much more friendly taxis.
I guess my question to you is do you see that that London's lost its competitiveness for the best developers, or not?
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 out.
The likes of the Revolutes, 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, 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 country is now making a really conscious choice to make sure that 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 checkboxy 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.
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.
In terms of risk on mindset within pension funds.
What is the thing that actually really enables that?
It's the 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.
I think it's going to be a combination of things.
I think 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.
Their net return is higher.
And the compounding value of high real returns to the individual pensioner is huge.
1% in real return increase every year.
Just think about it.
It's eye-watering that we weren't having this conversation as a country.
And some of the things that we had done were perverse.
We basically created a world where cheap was good for financial services.
It's a bad way of thinking about it.
But if I was ever challenged with a crime I didn't commit, I wouldn't want a cheap lawyer defending me.
It's sort of we created this idea that for retail consumers of financial services, you wanted a cheap product.
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.
That produces the best possible products.
And that's the model that's used around the world.
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 private companies.
And so 5% plus movement away from cost to incentive-based profit.
And consolidation so that you can do it.
Because you don't invest in one private company.
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 different failure rate to what would happen in the public markets.
And therefore, you need a bigger consolidated way of looking at it.
Is scale important?
Scale is important, yeah.
That's why the UK is doing what it's doing right now.
It's consolidating its funds together, changing the evaluation of cost benefit in terms of net return and looking at how we also think about incentivising 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.
You said about a movement away from cost and being overly worried to pay bluntly for quality despite the fact that it does much better.
You said before that 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 multi-hundred-million-dollar companies.
Talk to me about your thinking around that.
Do you think the UK gets it yet?
It's changing quite radically.
It is.
Yeah, yeah, it really is.
And I think it's I always talk about these things.
You go around the other side of the problem and just look at it from a different angle.
So we had, for various cultural reasons as much as anything else, a lot of this was market practice.
It wasn't actually the rules had 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 have 40 pages of disclosure about what two people get paid.
But essentially the way we've reframed it as the Capital Markets Industry Task Force is.
Let's just have a big tent conversation about what we mean here.
If we're trying to constrain what the leaders 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 US for your product, the going rate for that person is more than the asset managers 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.
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 recognizing that things are very aligned and that actually so many things in life, more things are aligned than oppositional, than people realize.
But If you're a long-ending 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.
If you think about a private company, you've got VCs and PEs 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.
The idea that suddenly you get to the public markets and those interests aren't aligned is a bit of a perversity.
Do you think Wise have done better being in the UK than they would have done if they were in the US?
?
Look, the risk of a company of that size, given the profile of their business, is that have been lost.
They've got pretty healthy following here and are well understood and well recognized as a brand.
And their logic of saying, OK, we're incredibly proud of what we've done.
We're going to stand on our own reconnaissance in terms of being able to market ourselves to our investors.
We're going to get the market, identify the price.
They got an incredibly good price.
Do you think it's a good marketing message to say to CEOs, hey, be a big fish in a small pond?
I think it's a big fish and a big pond.
Look, I mean, we are the second largest equity capital market in the world in a free market economy.
And I think that's the thing that gets lost.
If you want to essentially be able to only guarantee your indexation and therefore your support from 60 of the investor base.
If you decide to re-domicile or relocate to the US and substantially 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, a higher liquidity, actually turnover rate for your shares available.
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 some pretty strict demands on companies and increasingly incentivizes them to move into the US to become a US company if they want to get the true benefit being in the US market.
Do you think there should be a unified EU market?
Look, we're the UK market.
So it's not for us to judge or tell the EU what it should do.
I think what we're seeking to be is the largest and we are and we have been every year for the last decade the largest equity capital market in Europe.
And we are.
And there may have been a certain amount of flow back to Europe on Brexit in terms of activity.
Increasingly.
What we're seeing, particularly now that our rules have changed, is people, even European companies, are looking at London and saying actually, we're going to use London as our list.
Brexit didn't irreparably damage London in terms of activity.
No.
No, it had natural consequences, which I think you can't deny.
If London had built to be the hub, it was because it was the largest financial center in the single market and we're not in the single market anymore.
Then stuff's going to happen.
Do you think Brexit hurt or helped the UK markets in the long term?
We're 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.
And we have always had a globally significant capital market.
This is the thing that is sort of forgotten.
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.
We are the 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.
Yes, the us is a huge capital market, 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 capital market.
How do we get rid of stamp duty?
I'm working on it.
I think you start tapering it.
One of the things that we've been looking at is if the UK can encourage and provide incentives and there's a lot of discussion at the moment to make sure that our pension funds are incentivized to invest in the UK, which is what we used to do when we had dividend tax credits.
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.
It doesn't need to be 100% of everybody's total lifetime allowance.
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 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 going to be able to go, please, can I just take $4 billion out of the Exchequer?
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've got to come up with a mechanism whereby net-net 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.
It's not about the city saying just get rid of it, not thinking about the consequences for the politicians who've 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.
You said before, I can't remember where exactly it was, but we need to be young, scrappy and hungry.
Yeah, it was a quote from Hamilton.
If you could do anything without fear of repercussion or decision making from teams or anyone else, what would you do to enable progress growth, innovation?
Well, the honest answer to that question is if I had a magic wand, I would describe this as sort of the DeLorean package without the bankrupt Northern Irish car company.
In other words, it's back to the future.
We used to back ourselves as a nation.
We used to have 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 and then assumed everybody else would invest in us if we weren't investing in ourselves.
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.
Once you start getting into the habit of 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, how we celebrate entrepreneurship, how we recognize people like you and what you've done and what you've built, and that actually 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 that an awful lot of the founders I meet have put their money, their mortgage and often their marriage on the line to create great companies.
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 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.
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 defence.
We just need to get better at celebrating it.
We have this habit of talking ourselves down as a nation, was this great life sciences investor who I quoted recently in a speech I gave, who came to do something at the exchange and he's American, 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've realized the Americans are 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 actually I've realized you're quite naive underneath.
And what I was saying in my speech was I think we can be cynically naive.
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 singing from the balcony.
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.
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 going to come to the right answer.
That's probably the magic wand i'd want to wave.
There's two elements for audio a quick fire.
The first is you mentioned nick, that if you could say to nick like you should list in london because of this sentence, what would it be?
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.
Do you not think they're at the scale where they do get into the top echelons of US markets?
There's no guarantee they get indexation.
They'd walk straight into the FTSE 100 here.
You can still access US investors afterwards.
Do you think you'll get them?
Look, every company has to make a sovereign decision.
The only thing I can do and that's where the young, scrappy and angry comes from is we will fight for every listing where we think we've got a compelling argument.
That's where the young, scrappy and angry statement came from.
Final one, you said about 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?
Yeah, it's an interesting question.
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 some of our longevity at doing these great things as a nation, as a city, are things that we should celebrate.
That's why I describe what I run as a 300-year-old fintech.
Both statements are true.
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 and service and 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.
People don't think of me that way.
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 and make sure that they're more visible and make sure that people go.
Yeah, that's where I want to be.
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 change that.
But there's more that we can do.
I want to do a quick fire round, otherwise I'll talk to you all day.
Okay.
What do you believe that most around you disbelieve?
I mean, I always believe that any problem is fixable.
The right way of thinking about it is.
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.
What do you know now that you wish you'd known when you accepted the role?
It isn't possible to operate on for a sleep for very long.
I wish I had a magic machine that would give me 48 hours in a day and still enough time to sleep.
What do you not do now that you would do if you had more time?
Spend more time with my family.
What have you changed your mind on in the last 12 months?
I always have this phrase, I don't need to be right, I need us to get to the right answer.
The question is how do you create that group of people around you where 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 going to 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 hooked on this, but here's a problem with it.
How about we think about it that way?
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, recognising that as you get more information, you need to evolve 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.
If you were to sit down with Rachel Reeves and advise her on one thing, what would you say?
Pension fund reform.
Turn the taps on.
Do you think she's listening?
I think that the government have very clearly prioritized looking at pensions and looking at domestic flows of capital.
And they're right.
Is ESG box ticking and BSPR?
It shouldn't be.
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 consideration of value.
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 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.
And so I don't think the fundamental regard for the impact of a company on climate change and how it is going to mitigate its pathway through the changing climate for the benefit 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 the way I would frame it is, If getting to net zero was easy, we'd have done it already.
We're going to 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.
Sometimes the regulating it can run afoul of the need to create that space to innovate.
What concerns you most in the world today?
This conversation alone illustrates that things aren't binary.
Things are complicated.
There's lots of shades of grey.
We don't create much space to have those truly fundamental conversations about those shades of grey.
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 going to shoot my metaphorical arrows at you how we find the space to actually have the nuanced understanding about how you balance, for example, the cost of transition to net zero and the consequences of doing so and the demands it's going to place on people, recognizing that actually it's not all binary but it's been constructed as such.
And there are trade-offs and society needs to agree those.
We need to find spaces to have those conversations.
Algorithms that Algorithms drive content today.
They drive content.
They do.
They take people to the places they already are.
And they take places.
But also nuance doesn't drive hits.
No one cares about.
It depends.
Bad headlines drive clicks.
Totally.
Well, not even bad headlines.
Opinions drive clicks.
And so it depends.
And it's really nuanced.
Take it out.
Boring.
Yeah, I know.
Cut to the first bit.
Unfortunately, the world is not as binary as everybody constructs.
And the real value is in mapping your way through the nuance.
What thing did you think was black and white when you were younger?
That now, with wisdom and the experience, you're like no no, no.
Probably most things.
It's very easy to.
I don't know.
I think the older I've got, the more I've realized things aren't binary.
I always jokingly say I see very few things in life as binary, including football matches which, as a fan of Manchester United, has been quite convenient recently.
I can see the benefits of most things on both sides.
I also think that we treat things as oppositional. when they're not too much at the time.
We decided, well, there's one side or the other side.
And when I'm in meetings, very often my team will go well, there's this option or there's this option.
And then they'll wait.
And I go, well, how about the one in the middle?
And usually there's one in between the two because they've been constructed as either or.
And in fact there's actually something that can make most people happy and solve most of the problems.
And you might at the margin have a small number of things that you've not resolved.
Final one, LSE in 2035.
Where's the LSE then?
Well, I hope we've proven our point as the leading international exchange that is genuinely the default choice for great UK companies that have built to a really significant scale because they have had domestic capital driving their financing as they've started, as they've grown and as they've scaled.
That's the vision.
Julia, thank you so much for having us in the office.
Thank you so much for being so open, and I've really enjoyed it.
Pleasure.
Me too.
Thank you for having me.
Now I want to say a huge thank you to the London Stock Exchange for letting us come to their headquarters to record the show today.
If you want to watch the full episode, you can see that on YouTube by searching for 20VC.
That's 20VC on YouTube.
But before we leave you today, SecureFrame empowers businesses to build trust with customers by simplifying information security and compliance through AI and automation.
Thousands of fast-growing businesses, including Nasdaq AngelList, Doodle and Coda, trust SecureFrame to expedite their compliance journey for global security and privacy standards such as SOC 2 and ISO 27001 CMMC, NIST standards and more.
Backed by top-tier investors and corporations like Google and Kleiner Perkins.
The company is among Forbes' list of the top 100 startup employers for 2024, G2's best software awards for higher satisfaction products and a recipient of the 2024 Cybersecurity Excellence Awards something I definitely never got in school myself.
Learn more today at secureframe.com.
And speaking of speed, let's talk about something every founder, product leader and CEO is thinking about innovation.
We all know that innovation is the lifeblood of any company, yet more than 80 of innovation projects stall before they even make it to execution.
Why is that?
Because once teams move from discovery to development, outdated processes, endless context switching and misalignment slow everything down.
Don't you hate it when that happens?
Well, that's exactly why Miro built the Innovation Workspace.
God, that's a cool name.
A faster, smarter way to take ideas to execution.
Now at 20VC, we've worked with countless startup founders who know that speed is everything.
And that's where AI-powered tools like Miro's come in.
From AI sidekicks that act as a designer, analyst or engineer on demand to instant AI summaries that condense meeting notes, product briefs and retrospectives in seconds.
Miro is built for teams that want to move fast.
And one feature I love, the two-way sync with Jira and Azure.
So when something is updated in Miro, it's automatically reflected in your development tools, and vice versa.
No more duplication, no more miscommunication, just seamless execution.
So, whether you're in product UX engineering, agile or IT, Miro's innovation workspace helps teams go from idea to outcome faster.
Try it today at Miro.com.
That's M-I-R-O.com.
Now that your team is up and running worldwide, make sure your finances work just as hard.
With Brex, the ultimate financial stack for startups.
So when Brex was founded, it wasn't just about creating another financial product.
It was about solving the really gritty challenges that founders face daily.
Let's be honest building something from the ground up is hard enough without dealing with clunky, outdated banks that pile on fees and leave your cash idle.
Brex is different.
It's the financial stack that scales with you, no matter where you are in your journey, from corporate cards to maximizing your runway, to earning yield on your cash.
Brex was designed with founders in mind to make every dollar go further, so you can focus on building.
And here's what really stands out to me.
Brex combines the best of checking, treasury, and FDIC insurance in one powerhouse account.
You can send and receive money globally at lightning speed, earn yield from day one and still access your funds whenever you need.
Plus, with 20x the standard protection through program banks.
Your cash is not just working harder, it's working safer too.
I mean, my God, these companies are incredible.
Trust Brex to help them grow.
If you want to join the smartest startups on the planet, head over to brexcom.
Forward slash startups and see what they can do for you.
As always.
We so appreciate all your support and stay tuned for an episode on Monday with the CTO at Microsoft, Kevin Scott.
