Dr. James, 7s:

Fans of the Dentists who Invest podcast. If you feel like there was one particular episode in the back catalogue in the anthology of Dentists who Invest podcast episodes that really, really really was massively valuable to you, feel free to share that with a fellow dental colleague who's in a similar position, so their understanding of finance can be elevated and they can hit the next level of financial success in their life. Also, as well as that, if you could take two seconds to rate and review this podcast, it would mean the world. To me, what that would mean is that it drives this podcast further in terms of reach so that more dentists across the world can be able to benefit from the knowledge contained therein. Welcome, welcome to the Dentists who Invest podcast. Let's start with proceedings then. In that case, welcome everybody. This is Andrew and I's Q&A AMA. Ask Me Anything on biotech why Andrew believes in biotech as an investment sector. Why Andrew speaks about it in his little-known books how to Own the World and Live Less and Invest the Rest, which I read two months ago and I really, really, really like to own the world and live less and invest the rest, which I read two months ago and I really, really, really like. It's a different vibe from how to own the world, andrew, isn't it? Because it's a lot more specific and you talk about why and that there was the four that I always remember, the four kind of philosophical slaps on investing in gold and how you might do it, and it's like etf, physical gold, then owning gold that you have your physical goal but you also put you put it in a safe, and then there's another one. That's just slipped my mind, but that was something that I found super interesting. There's a lot of stuff in there and it kind of builds on how we describe it as a workbook.

Andrew, 1m 46s:

So it's quite. You know, it's ostensibly like the how to own the world period. It's the practice, which is why it's probably not as successful as how to own the world, because people it's the bit where people actually have to pull the finger out and do some work and it's much more boring. But you know what the hell? Gotcha okay, well I.

Dr. James, 2m 2s:

I really enjoyed it. So, yeah, definitely a good pickup for anybody who's listening. 110. So, as I say anyway, this is myself and Andrew's AMA on biotech. As we know, andrew is a huge proponent of biotech. We're going to delve into that in just a moment why we think biotech is going to change the world and also why it is a good investment Well, why we believe it's going to be a good investment sector going forward and how you might take advantage of that. But I've done a lot of talking, andrew. For those who are watching and who may not have heard you, maybe it'd be nice if you could do a short intro just to introduce yourself before we get going.

Andrew, 2m 38s:

Sure Well, james, before I do just quickly. I've got a really good internet connection this morning because I checked on Internet Speed Checker, but you are currently a blurry robot when I'm looking at you. So I don't know if everybody else is having the same experience, but I just wanted to make you aware.

Dr. James, 2m 57s:

Do you?

Andrew, 2m 58s:

know what.

Dr. James, 3m 2s:

That's a bizarre one, so usually my internet is pretty good. It's like 10 megs, so it could be Facebook itself. I just want to mention it.

Andrew, 3m 16s:

So, hmm, it could be facebook. It's not okay. Well, I just, I just if it's recording what I'm seeing, it's not great do you know what's?

Dr. James, 3m 20s:

curious, andrew, because on my screen, my screen is picture perfect and then yours is blurry, but it's just got better just now.

Andrew, 3m 27s:

So I think the bandwidth has picked up, yeah then then, sorry, with this, such a boring man I am, uh, but then that's. That's basically probably facebook's functionality, rather than us having rubbish internet anyway.

Dr. James, 3m 39s:

Well, I'm guessing, so yeah it's.

Andrew, 3m 43s:

It's brilliant to be here and I'm massively appreciated the invite me back on again. I got when, when we do the last one of these, six months ago or uh, it was may.

Dr. James, 3m 53s:

It was may time, I actually remember. So yeah, six months perfect.

Andrew, 3m 59s:

Well so, and yeah, I guess um, quite a lot of your audience know me. I lurk in in your facebook group and, uh, they very much enjoy all the stuff that goes on in there and comment from time to time. But, yeah, I guess um. So, basically, I started a city career 22 years ago with what was then sbc warburg, swiss bank, and I spent um just just over 20 years specializing in smaller company equities. Um so met, met over a thousand companies in my career, like ceos and cfos, from every sector imaginable. Um, and then, uh, about 10 years ago, I took a bit of time out to write a book, um, which is how, now called how to own the world, which, um, much to my surprise, um you know, was suddenly was selling lots of copies and um enjoying quite a few positive reviews. Um, that was the first edition 10 years ago. And then it's a bit of a long story, but we ended up publishing the third edition in march 19 with a big publisher. And then the final bit, I guess, is to say that so for the last six and a half years I was a specialist biotech investment banker or stockbroker, and I actually quit that job in May of this year, basically because of the success of the book and because we've got an investment fund and because we are aspiring to launch next year a biotech investment fund, and I am writing a book, literally this morning I've done 1500 words this morning the working title of which is the future is biotech, so, um, so that. So it's a bit of a well, I was gonna say it's a pivot. It's it's, if you like, our exist, everything we do, what we do in the existing kind of world that we live in with our business. Plain English Finance is sort of super. It's informed by, you know the nuts and bolts of what is finance. It's kind of, it's very educational and the only investment product we have, the investment fund we have is a very defensive kind of investment tortoise. And what's quite good about biotech is that I've spent seven years doing it as a professional and work for something like 70 companies specifically and obviously followed the industry as by virtue of being in the industry. Um, but biotech is about as perfect a um complementary product. So if we've got the most boring tortoise low risk fund is what our existing fund is. If people, as they do, come to me all the time, go, that's great, but you know, I want something much. I'm on sex and violence. I want rock and roll. I want something that's going to do much better returns, this boring tortoise fund, which I acknowledge will protect my money, and, and you know the second book I wrote, which you mentioned earlier, live on less invest. The rest was about this idea of 100 minus your age, so basically that you use your age and subtract from 100 and that tells you roughly what you should be investing in aggressive stuff and what you should be investing in defensive stuff, and so what we're doing in biotech really gives our audience something for the aggressive piece but if I, if I may. just the final thing I want to say right at the top of this call is um, so I have to say we are authorized and regulated by the fca, and so we have to say we are authorised and regulated by the FCA, and so we have to be extremely careful from a compliance perspective about being seen to give investment recommendations. So I'm very relaxed about talking about the biotech industry. Why I'm excited about it? I'm relaxed about answering questions about it, but I have to. I can't be seen to be giving personal investment advice. So if I talk, if I make a throwaway comment about, you know, the Worldwide Healthcare Fund or the NASDAQ Biotech Index or whatever else, I just have to telegraph by law, because those are the rules at the top of this call. That mustn't be seen as investment advice, and I think you have those disclaimers in your group anyway, right?

Dr. James, 7m 26s:

Yes, absolutely. Well, I think that's a helpful thing to say as well for the people who are asking questions, so they know where the line is, so that they might say to you, andrew, but which fund should I invest in? Which stock should I buy?

Andrew, 7m 37s:

Which company should I buy? That's what people often do. They go oh, I've heard about this company, renewal or Vactor or whatever, and they're like should I buy it?

Dr. James, 7m 44s:

And I'm like you know, I can give a view. Absolutely. I can give a view, but Absolutely. Best we clear that up at the start.

Andrew, 7m 52s:

Okay, brilliant.

Dr. James, 7m 53s:

Well, yeah, as I say, a privilege to have you once again, andrew, and, yes, looking forward to this one Cool. So let's cut to the chase then, shall we, andrew? Why do you believe biotech is such a pertinent investment sector for us would-be investors out there? Why do you think that it's going to grow and potentially offer us good returns in the years to come? I'm intrigued to hear.

Andrew, 8m 13s:

So look the way. So, as I said, I was really honoured. One of the reasons I left my full-time job was because it looked pretty clear I was going to get a book deal from my big publisher. Well, hodder are a really, really big publisher. Along with Penguin, they're basically the biggest publisher in the world sort of first equal and they gave me a book deal with a small advance. Don't worry, it's not like megabucks running out to the Ferrari garage, but you know enough to sort of keep the lights on and give me a bit of downside defence while I write. Actually, I got two book deal from them. One is working title, the Future is Biotech, which is the one I'm going to talk about now. The other, just for what it's worth, is we're doing a teen and young adult-focused version of my first book, how to Own the World. So those are the books I got and so, yeah. So that's yeah. Yeah, you've got to read my emails because I sent a very boring long email about this, but anyway, I'll send it on to you anyway later. Sorry, I'm rambling, but so the news from earlier this year, and so I've actually now the rubber's only really hitting the road now in terms of working on the biotech book after doing lots of reading and lots of research and everything else, but, um, the way I'm framing that book is nothing less than and this is what I genuinely, genuinely believe- this is like the introduction of the book, like why am I writing this book, right, um, and why is it super interesting? is that the basic tech 2.0. So you know the Internet, the FAANG stocks, facebook, apple, amazon, netflix, google and IBM and others have been the biggest creators of real economic value in the last 30 years. Let's say right, comfortably Right, you know. I mean we never. If you said to any investment banker or stockbroker or market professional 20 years ago that there would be a number of trillion dollar or in the case of apple, I think it's still north of two trillion but there'll be trillion dollar companies. When microsoft was the biggest company in the world, it was valued, I don't know, 100 billion, whatever it was. People would have just laughed at you, right, but? But? But, as human nature so often is that we consistently underestimate, like we overestimate what might happen in a year and we underestimate what happened in 10, 15 or 20 years. Right, and so, so. So tech has changed the world and it's and it's. It goes a lot deeper than just you know we've all got an iphone or an imac, or you know we're all using word and excel and stuff. I mean that that's the stuff we know about. But tech is embedded in so much more than that. I'm sure many people in the audience appreciate that. But you know, going through an airport, every touchpoint of the logistics, how the baggage is run, going into a shopping centre, I mean the tech that's embedded in the architecture for a new building. It's just everywhere. It's marrying up supply chains and that is why it's created several trillion dollars of real economic wealth, and that economic wealth is actually a reason, one of the key reasons why you know, a billion or even two billion more people in the world have a much better standard of living than they did, you know, 20 years ago in places like brazil or india or china, right, um, and and so the point I want to make is that if you're looking at really big picture themes, which economists call Kondratiev waves, basically 50-year themes, so we go back to steam power, electricity, automotive cars, trains and then aviation, airplanes from the 1920s, 1930s there's it's quite often you can relatively easily identify a 50-year kondratiev wave which is based on um, basically a new departure. Now tech is the kondratiev wave we've been in for the last 50 years, and biotech, to me, is the most unimpeachably, obviously the one that's going to be next. And and why is that? When it's basically and, by the way, that's that's absolutely related to tech? Because without that tech, what we've just had in the tech industry in the last 30 years, you wouldn't have the platform for what I think is now going to happen in the biotech industry. But basically, if you like, the one way of describing it is, tech is about physics and biotech is about biotechnology, right. So what is biotech? Biotech is using biotechnology, right. So what is biotech? Biotech is using living organisms to create valuable products, right. Whereas tech is about using physical physics, properties, electrons and metallurgy and mining and everything else to create products right. And the reason that that is so incredibly valuable and powerful is because, ultimately, real economic wealth is created by solving human problems, right, and the biggest human problems, and this is another thing I want to impress upon everyone when people think about biotech, they immediately think about drugs, therapeutics like curing cancer or curing dementia, or rolling back obesity or diabetes, and that is obviously a multi-trillion dollar pound euro, whatever opportunity. Because I genuinely believe and I can say this with a straight face that biotech companies are actually going to address and you know, you've always got to be very careful about that saying there'll be a cure for cancer in five years' time. But the direction of travel is incredibly encouraging, right, and we can perhaps talk a bit more about. You know, not many people know that Novartis, which is a huge Swiss drug company, basically launched a drug called Kimria in 2014. It was approved or no approved in 17. They started working in 2014, which has an an 88 response rate for kids with leukemia. Um, and so you know not many people know that that's that already exists, right, that all these sort of miracle cures already there. The problem at the moment is they're very, very expensive. They need to come down in price. But but just to just to go back to the core point I wanted to make is biotech is is about solving human problems that are much more than disease, and what I would contend, what I'm writing about at the moment is that they're not only going to cure cancer, dementia, disease of the central nervous system, post-traumatic diseases. There's an awful lot of work being done right now on post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, all sorts of diseases, sorts of diseases you know schizophrenia, what's the word I'm looking for? I should know that. I should know the answer to that. But basically, psychological, you know, mental illness, mental health problems. This is another frontier. There are millions and millions and millions of people who have serious mental health issues and this biotech companies work on that as well. So that's the human therapeutic setting. But what's really interesting is biotech as applied to, for example, energy generation and agricultural production, um, and transport, and you know, mimicking things like what's called biomimicry, like the fact that if, if, when you're building a ship, if you actually do a lot of work on how dolphins swim, as furious as it sounds, it improves the design you can embed into a ship. So I guess so sorry, it's a very long-winded way of saying that the biggest value in the world has created several trillion, many trillions of dollars of real wealth and lifted like a billion people out of poverty or more that I think the next, um, the sector that's going to do that. And so I mean to give you a really quick vignette. In agricultural production, india wastes more than 50 percent of its crops every year because of, basically, um, well, all sorts of reasons, but but um, poor, poor irrigation, bad storage, um, you know all sorts of. Now there are biotechnologies that can be applied to the Indian and African agricultural sector. That will make India more like Holland, where Holland has unbelievably efficient agricultural productivity and can produce enough food for 30 countries the size of Holland, right, which is why we buy all our chicken and eggs and everything else. So I guess that's the point. Why is biotech interesting? Because, at the most fundamental level, it's going to solve a whole bunch of human problems that are a great deal more than just healthcare problems, and that is going to create trillions and trillions of value because of the fundamentals of what biotech is, which is using live organisms to make products.

Dr. James, 16m 19s:

Real quick guys. I've put together a special report for dentists entitled the seven costly and potentially disastrous mistakes that dentists make whenever it comes to their finances. Most of the time, dentists are going through these issues and they don't even necessarily realize that they're happening until they have their eyes opened, and that is the purpose of this report. You can go ahead and receive your free report by heading on over to wwwdentistunvestcom forward slash podcast report or, alternatively, you can download it using the link in the description. This report details these seven most common issues, however most it also shows you how to fix them. I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I feel, as people and as a species, we're very good at solving these very mechanical problems. Ok, so it's like you have this issue issue. Therefore, you take this drug and you're better, but what we're yet to master is the really nuanced stuff, like the things that what you're saying, like psychological illnesses, like long-term chronic conditions, like diabetes. And we're actually, for me, now we're getting to that point where our understanding of the world has reached that level where we can understand the world to a sufficient level of nuance that this industry is maturing and all these exciting possibilities are just of the world has reached that level where we can understand the world to a sufficient level of nuance that this industry is maturing and all these exciting possibilities are just becoming real.

Andrew, 17m 38s:

That is the essence of what you're saying, if I'm correct yeah, I think also, what's really important here is is perhaps not to think of biotech as being that discrete from tech. It's about conversions, and you're right, and it's about a whole allied series of technologies, so something like. So one of the big criticisms of big pharma companies, which I think is a fair criticism, is, you know, they treat the symptoms, not the underlying cause, which is what you're saying right, and I think you and I have talked about. You know, diet and exercise and the, the ability, the quantified self, the ability of people to wear aura rings or have jaw bones or fitbits or apple watches and all of that stuff is is also. You know I've got a whole chapter and all of this, the quantified self, measurement using big data, using transmission, you know, advanced telecoms, collaboration across scientists all of those things will create value in a much more, as you say, holistic, big picture way than just like a company having a pill that cures cancer and and it's all related, but, but, but, but the you, if you're going to take the fruits of tech to be able to do the quantified self, to have better diagnosis, you know, if we get to a point where literally your, your, your blood, you know, all your nutrients, everything are monitored, where literally your blood, you know, all your nutrients and everything are monitored inexpensively with a ring you know that has an infrared or an optical technology that can read your pulse, and everything in a ring. The size of that ring. What that? Then? The dividends that pays for absolutely everything else. And again, and it's I mean I'm rambling slightly, but it's about injecting efficiency into what we do as human beings everywhere. And it's where big tech meets biotech.

Dr. James, 19m 18s:

And here's another thing that people are really bad at conceptualizing. Ok, you speak about Moore's law and anybody who's listening. Every 18 months, there is a law, an unwritten rule or a law that the fastest computers in the world double in speed. Okay, this law is held true ever since the 1950s. Okay, now the human brain.

Andrew, 19m 46s:

James is actually held since the steam age.

Dr. James, 19m 49s:

Oh right.

Andrew, 19m 50s:

Right, okay, so a guy called Steve Jervisonison, who's one of the board directors of tesla and is a big, very famous vc, uh, american venture capitalist actually and I this is in my article on biotech, um, from a from a year or so, a year and a half ago, and it basically he took the moore's law. And the other point is is Moore's law is the processing power per pound or dollar spent doubles every 18 months. So it's so you get. You get twice as much power for the same cost, right, which is obviously super important, because if it doubles but costs twice as much, yeah, yeah, you know and and he what he did, is he, it's wonderful work. He basically said, well, hang on, this was invented. This idea was invented in the late 50s, early 60s, by gordon moore, who was either at intel or ibm, I can't remember anyway one of the two and and gordon moore observed this and then, and then we said, well, that can never carry on. It's carried on from, you know, the 50s till to the present day and it's astonishing if you look at it. But but, um, so steve jervison had people go back and look at sort of steam power. You know all the previous human technologies, back to the agricultural revolution, and basically it's the human processing. However, that's being done before transistors with steam engines was also proceeding. So it's this weird. It's a bit like pi, it's like a law of nature. Right, it's an immutable law of nature. It's fascinating.

Dr. James, 21m 13s:

Pi or phi, the golden ratio. That is another crazy one, but we'll not get. Have you heard of that?

Andrew, 21m 21s:

Yeah, yeah, it's medical.

Dr. James, 21m 23s:

But anyway, I feel like we could probably talk about this forever, but let's not digress too much. But Moore's law. The reason we're bad at conceptualizing Moore's law is that every 18 months this processing power and cost it doubles. But here's the thing. That's exponential, of course, with time, yeah, apparently the point in which these transistors per unit area, whatever the processing power, becomes directly proportional or it becomes the same as the processing power of the human brain, is 2039. And then, after that 18 months, they're twice as powerful, then they're four times, then they're eight times, and that's when things get really crazy. Ok, that's when things get. But our brains, from where we're sat right now, we cannot imagine exponential things. And the reason I'm mentioning this is because this ties into the biotech sector, because progress occurs exponentially, and that's why it's really exciting. You were going to say something, so there are a couple of things.

Andrew, 22m 16s:

Yeah, there are a couple of things to say about that, which is exactly right. So there are, there are tech um experts who think that the basically you know how I said earlier about it. So tech is about physics and biotech is about biology, right, and one of the sort of frontier areas of computing which and I'm pleased you reminded me about this is there are. There are physicists and software engineers and hardware engineers in the tech sector that say that actually moore's law is going to not be possible anymore with existing transistor technology, with microchips, right, because at some point you just can't the dimensions of an electron mean it can't happen. So then that's when you, so then the answer potentially is a biotech based computer, which is really in the realms of mental science fiction. But because you? Because, if you're using proteins and cellular structures, you can actually, rather than just the zero, and one of binary-based computing, which is what we've used for the last ever since it was invented, the last six or seven decades or whatever. Yeah, since who did Benedict Cumberbatch play in the Illumination game? What was it called? Alan Turing.

Dr. James, 23m 22s:

Oh, the Imitation game. It was of course. Oh, my goodness, I'm going to pick myself up later.

Andrew, 23m 33s:

It's Alan Turing. He was the British genius that you could argue was pretty instrumental in kicking off computing, zeros and ones and logic and everything else. But basically, um, one of the theories about biotech is that biotech may be the, may be the vehicle or the vector by which computing power can sustain mozlauch. Because if the physicists are right and you basically haven't got enough space at the molecular level of electron and sub-molecular particles to for mozlauch to work because you know, ultimately a microchip is just millions and millions and millions of little things on a board when it's remarkable that we can lay substrate and we can lay that down on a chip to the tolerances we can, but at some point the theory is that runs out. Then you have to swap into a biotech-based thing and obviously, quantum computing. These are the two other things, so that's an important point to make. The other point I wanted to make, though, is when you're talking about Moore's law, is that pretty much the only thing that has significantly outperformed Moore's law, if you can believe such a thing in the last 15 years is the cost of sequencing a human genome. And actually, if you map I've got a graph where you map the development of Moore's law against the default in the cost of sequencing in a human genome and just for everyone's benefit there. So the first genome was sequenced in sort of the late 90s, early 90s and the fully freighted cost of doing that, which is basically to read the code of how many billion you know pieces of human genetic makeup which people remember, you know, know crick and watts and the double helix and dna and all that stuff, um was basically anywhere between three and five billion dollars to do that right, and it took about five years to read the x million pieces of code. I mean, we can come on to why that actually matters. It matters for our ability to cure disease potentially. But um and it was a huge you know it's nobel prize winning work, and clinton was deeply involved in funding it and so was the welcome trust in the uk, put millions into it as well, and so it's a sort of great western collaboration to do that. Five billion dollars, five years. Right now it costs as little as two hundred dollars and can take basically an hour. So that so've gone from $5 billion to $200 in 20 years or whatever it is, and that is outperforming even Moore's law. And so the point is, you know, biotech can be one of the few things that has the ability to outperform Moore's law, because it's not zeros and ones and because of all sorts of other the complexity embedded within the science.

Dr. James, 26m 2s:

Basically, that's awesome, that's so interesting. And just to quickly build on what you were saying about Moore's law continuing past the transistor age, biotech is one solution, but also possibly quantum computers. But anyway, we'll not get into that for the moment. Not go too far down that rabbit hole, but apparently to add to your biotech coming of age and maturing and culminating right at this very present moment. Apparently that threshold happens when the transistors, or when the little connections on the circuit board hit nine millimeters. No, sorry, nine nanometers is what I meant to say. Apparently, we've just hit that threshold in the last few years. So now we're ready to go, we're poised and if Moore's law is to continue, we need to rethink our conventional strategy for building computers. And that also leads into what you're saying about biotech. How interesting is that?

Andrew, 26m 50s:

Yeah, no, I mean, it remains to be seen. It remains to be seen whether somebody can solve it. But again, the other thing is this discussion is working with an existing paradigm, which is not which, you know. I'm trying to think of a solid analogy, but here's one that was slightly spurious. Somebody was making the point that in the film Blade Runner isn't it crazy that the way human brains think because when that was written in the early 80s, deckard, you know, the Harrison Ford character is in a flying car and then to telephone his girlfriend. He has to go to a pay phone in the street and like, yeah, in the human paradigm of the early 80s it wasn't obvious to people that you know, if you're gonna have flying cars, you probably have mobile telecoms right and and the analogy I'm trying to draw is working with the paradigm of Moore's law and conventional computing and everything else and actually what will come will be something completely from left field, which is sort of beyond our ability to conceptualize right now, that will come out of the skunk works of Google or Novartis or you know one of these people, and will materially change everything. And you know and I do go back to it and in my considered opinion it will do nothing less. Biotech is going to do nothing less than completely transform and revolutionize energy production, agricultural production, um, building the building industry, the transport industry, by extension of the clean energy and the energy production piece, um and uh, you know, material science and health care is, I mean, I think health care is the most obvious area. It's going to generate several trillion of value in the short term, but in the longer term, it's these biologically informed processes that will impact all of the above and you know it will be magnificent for humanity and a source of great optimism, you know totally.

Dr. James, 28m 43s:

Yeah, we're not talking small potatoes here in that case. So so, so, so, so, so, so what a brilliant description and a very passionate and invoking argument and debate and discussion about the reasons why biotech will change the world, and I was. I was enthralled listening to that. There were some real gems in there, and I'm sure everybody who is sat at home listening to this will say the same. Let's get on to the nuts, and I was. I was enthralled listening to that. There were some real gems in there, and I'm sure everybody who is sat at home listening to this will say the same. Let's get on to the nuts and bolts of how one may structure, obviously, as we said before, not straying into the realms of financial advice, because we would never do that, of course, but how? How might we consider getting some exposure to the biotech world? So here's an example active funds versus passive funds. Are there any passive funds out there that hold blue chip, blue chip biotech stocks, or do we have to go down the active route?

Andrew, 29m 35s:

so yeah, so the first thing to say is I mean, I'm on record as saying that most people should just have, they should cultivate an exposure. If you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of learning all sorts of complicated things about how to value shares and finance generally, you just want to sort of do something vaguely sensible and, crucially, if you do that every month, I'm always on record as saying it's kind of 90 admin, 10 asset selection. Because if you, if you're investing every month, whatever you're investing in, you're smoothing your in price and if you're doing it over 20, 30 or 40 years, you know, let's say, from the age of 30 to the age of 60 or 70, you've got a very, very high chance, based on big mega trends and growth in human technology and population and the economy, of doing really well and like you don't really need to overthink it. And the point of my saying that is, if you have exposure to, let's say, say, the S&P 500, or because we've had 30, I've written about this as well we've had 30 years of American exceptionalism, right where all the very biggest companies, but recently China's you know there are a few coming out of China and Europe and wherever else, like Baidu and Tencent and Alibaba or these sorts of things, right. But broadly, we've had 30 years of American exceptionalism, because, america has been a place where, you know, capital is well treated and the smartest, you know microsoft is full of people from india, right, because all the smartest kids who get their exams in india go to work for microsoft in seattle, and that has robbed india of amazing software companies and it's been greatly to the benefit of Microsoft. But that's because America sort of provided this environment where all the many of the greatest minds in the world would just choose to go and live there and work there because it was more peaceful and more affluent than anything else. Is that necessarily going to be experienced for the next 20, 30, 40 years? I don't know. When I look across the Atlantic right now, I think America is really, really challenged. Um, and so the only reason I mentioned that is, you know, the S&P 500's return just shy of 10% a year, going back to 1872 on average, right, um? And the S&P 500 is one option, um, and you? But you might, instead of the S&P 500, think about something called the MSCI world or the MSCI all world, because that's not 500 American companies, it's 1300 global companies, and so what I'm saying, there is and you will capture what I'm talking about just by owning those big indices, right? Because? if the next five multi-trillion dollar companies that follow in the wake of Amazon, alphabet, google, apple. You know the obvious, really amazing massive ones, right that have done what I said they've done in the last 30 years. They're all going to be in the S&P 500 and all the MSCI world. That if it's a company that comes because some genius Nobel Prize winner in Sao Paulo, brazil, builds a company you know in the 10 years from now and it creates, it becomes another trillion dollar company, um, that will be in the MSCI world and actually you know what it'll probably list in America and end up being the S&P 500 as well. So my, so my broad point is the very simple, if you like slightly cop out, uh, answer to your question is just make sure you're long equities and make sure you're long abroad based um equity index, because it now that is a relatively diluted way of benefiting from this theme, right. So what you're really asking, but nevertheless, I think for a lot of people you know, it's just further evidence that why on earth wouldn't you be invested in a big equities index? And it's such a shame that too few people are Right.

Dr. James, 33m 10s:

Can.

Andrew, 33m 10s:

I just say one more question.

Dr. James, 33m 13s:

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm listening. I'm really intrigued. This is brilliant. But can I just say one thing on that? Even though you said that that was, quote unquote, a cop out answer, I actually still think that was worth saying, because you know what, when I asked that question I actually hadn't considered that at all and it is a true. It is totally true that once these companies mature and come of age, that they will be part of those beta game indexes and people definitely need to hear that.

Andrew, 33m 37s:

That's why my book's called how to Own the World, right, because the insight is that basically, the world, you know the world in 2000 was roughly 32 trillion dollars the size of the world economy, and by last year it's more like one hundred and five trillion, right? So it's gone from 32 trillion to one hundred five. Now, a lot of that is monetary inflation, which is another topic, but a lot of it is real development. It's the fact that you know there are two billion more people in the world who have smartphones and fly around the world and air travel's gone pre-coronavirus. It's real economic progress, right, and there'll be lots more real economic progress in the future. And the easiest, if you like, the lowest burden in terms of complexity and thought and, oh God, how do I do something with my finances? The simplest thing is just to get exposure to the world and that technological development. And I think one of the simplest and most inexpensive and easiest ways of doing that is to buy the S&P 500, which I say has returned nearly 10% a year for like 150 years. To me, that's pretty good, because that will have a huge impact on your ability to get wealthy, rather than sitting in the cash ice at half a percent, which is you know well, I think a point I made on Facebook this morning to someone was the S&Ps returned more than 9% a year to 1872 on average. Most investors have only returned 5% because, basically because of human emotion, because even the people who decide to invest in the stock market get caught out by fear and greed. They don't have a system, they don't think holistically about it, but they don't invest every month. They buy. They're all everyone's buying the stock market let me get into it. Or, oh god, there's been a crash, let me get out of it which robs them of four percent a year of performance, which, over a 30-year investing career, is the difference between being a multi-millionaire and having a large six-figure sum, right. So that's really important the difference between the market and the market, once you've subtracted your human frailties and all your inherent cognitive biases that make you inherently a bad investor, because our brains are hardwired to be bad investors and you know the only way you can defeat that is by learning this stuff right and then. But even but in england, in britain, I should say it's appalling because 80 of the population doesn't even invest in the stock market. They don't knowingly invest in stock. So what are they doing when they finally get to a point in their life? I think, oh, I should probably do something about savings investment. They don't know what's in the pension and they save any short-term stuff in a cash ISA which is guaranteed to destroy real wealth. And then they think, oh, the stock market's too risky. It's absolutely. I mean, I'm on a man on a mission to change that reality, obviously, which is why we have a business, but I digress. But then to go back. So it is important because, like, I'm a big believer in the fastest route from A to B, in the 80-20 rule you know we talked about earlier like 80% of your outcomes comes from 20% of your efforts, right, and it's actually probably more like 90-10 nowadays days. And if, if you just do something as simple as making sure you have exposure every month to a large, diversified global index of great companies you know the s&p, why is the s&p 500? It's 4600. Why does it keep going up? Because there's a hell of a lot of money out there, but there are only 500 companies in the s&p 500, right, and if there's lots and lots of money, I mean, it's the same thesis with bitcoin, which I know you know very well, but, but, but, but if that's a bit anodyne to be like, oh you know, don't come on, tell me about it. Tell me the way to get exposed to it is to buy the S&P 500. And that's fine. There are. There are the most famous bellwether index for this is called the NBI, nasdaq biotech index, and you can buy an etf of the nbi. And the nbi has all the really big, you know, multi-billion, like amgen's the biggest stock, uh, the biggest specialist, but it was north of 100 billion dollar company, um, and there are others. And the nbi gives you biotech exposure a little bit but it gives you very therapeutic biotech exposure to companies trying to cure disease, not the bigger picture stuff I'm talking about. You can buy the NBI in your Hargreaves Lansdowne account. Invesco have got an ETF on it. There are various others, like any big, like the S&P, like you can buy a Vanguard S&P ETF, or you can buy an iShares or you can buy an Invesco one or whatever. Right, it's the same deal. You can buy the NBI in a variety of ways, but it is, you know it's, it's purely biotech and it's also large cap biotech. And so I guess another thing. So when you're questioning about so that's passive, I mean it's whenever you buy a sectoral ETF, there's a nature of active to that right. Because if you're deciding to buy the biotech, even if it's a passive index on biotech, you're still deciding to buy biotech right. So it's sort of semi, it's a hybrid of passive and active. But I think the other thing to say here is that I think active I've said this, I'm on record of saying this quite a lot Active fund management has merit. The smaller companies are and the more specialist something is right Over and above just passively. I mean I just said buy this and be 500. Because if you want to understand the biotech industry, you can't just be some sort of generalist stockbroker who you know, yesterday was talking about a telecoms company, tomorrow I'm going to talk about a restaurant company. You know, buy pizza express when it floats again or whatever, and then on next monday I'm going to suddenly decide that I'm an expert in immune oncology. It doesn't work like that, but that means you can. The other point I was literally writing about this morning is smaller companies versus large companies. I think it's very good to own large companies through a big index like the S&P 500 and the MSCI World. But actually, if you're trying to juxtapose the merits of active versus passive, let's say, analytically, one really big company like Apple, or let's say Pfizer or whatever, analytically trying to understand that company is probably the intellectual equivalent of trying to understand 100 smaller companies. Because Apple's got dozens of divisions, thousands of products, it functions in 160 countries, in 120 currencies, whatever, right, let's say so. Analytically trying to understand a mega-cap company is roughly as complicated as understanding 100 smaller companies. Right, that between them do a whole bunch of different things that are analogous to the different products and divisions in an Apple or a Microsoft. But here's the point. Does that not therefore imply that trying to work out what the share price of Apple may or may not do, based on that analytical complexity, is probably 100 times harder a call than trying to work out what the share price of Games Workshop might do? Right, does that make sense? Because the with, with with a small company that might have one product or a handful of products and it might only be focusing in the uk uk market or europe or whatever, next to a gargantuan leviathan like a, like an apple, once you've decided analytically, it's a hundredth of the burden of understanding apple in terms of time and complexity and currency risk and political risk, and and once you've decided oh, actually, I'm really confident that you know there are lots of geeky little boys, like I used to be, who love Citadel miniatures and want to play Warhammer right. So maybe games workshops are buying, which is something that lots of people did 10 years ago, and they've made 30 times their money right and you can then get exposure to just that thing. You know geeky little boys who want to play with dragons right, whereas in apple you can't get the pure exposure. So I'm rambling slightly. My broad point is when, if you want to choose active versus passive, I think active can really work where fund managers or even you as an individual, if you're an engaged and interested person, can, can get pure play, exposed to something where you formed a view in a way that you can't get with mega caps, if that makes sense to everyone, and that's true of healthcare and indeed every other sector of the economy.

Dr. James, 41m 36s:

No, true useful information, absolutely. And yeah, it was a nice distinction that you drew between big companies and you basically just highlighted the fact that these things become so complex that they're just totally beyond the point of our ability to process this information, beyond the capacity of the human brain. But it also raises another point which a lot of people I see. People make this mistake from time to time and they feel like they have to understand everything about a company before they invest in it. But you're also, as a caveat to that, you're highlighting the fact that you don't need to 110%, you don't need to totally understand the market to invest in it, and you've just highlighted that application.

Andrew, 42m 14s:

That well. The other point as a corollary to this, because it's related is what I've just been talking about is fundamental analysis, right, it's like trying to understand divisionally how how a product's growing, how's it rolling out internationally, what's the current? Obviously. Then there's technical analysis, which is very simply look at the chart and it's gone through 30 on the rsi heading north. That looks interesting, a buy which obviously you use in crypto a lot. Now I would contend that the bigger a company is, the more valuable probably on a relative basis technical analysis versus fundamental analysis, because fundamental analysis is bloody impossible to extrude a viable signal about a company that's got 500 products and functions in 150 countries in 100 currencies right, so what? So then, what you're left with is okay, but technical analysis is really can be really robust and it's really liquid. So you can. So you can get in and you can get out of using technical analysis, whereas technical analysis in a small cap which is really it functions in a really inefficient market and one shareholder who wakes up and in the morning decides I want 10 million quid to worth, this company can drive the stock up 30 over a period of two weeks. You can't capture that in technical analysis in a small cap. So so that's exactly right. You, the bigger a company is, the less granular fundamental information you need about in order to monetize it, but the more you need to understand technical analysis. Or again go back to my earlier point, you just express a view by just owning the whole market and throw away the key right, um, which is probably not very helpful, but um, but then you know in, but then in biotech for what it's worth, if I may. So what are we doing? Because I said our aspiration is to launch a biotech fund next year. Well, the reason we're doing that and this goes to the smaller company, do you have an edge? Kind of argument is, in 22 years of doing equities, doing smaller companies, I've never seen a situation like the one in biotech at the moment, which is the following which is that there's this incredible I've just said everything I said about the structural opportunity, the rising tide that could carry all ships right the value creation of curing cancer, the technology, the amazing technological advances, the diagnostics, the you know people will have heard of gene therapy and cell. You know, gene sequencing, the app that there's, this huge sort of any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, right, which is what um arthur c clark, the guy who wrote 2001, a space odyssey is a great quote of his and there's magic in biotech going on like an horizon size carrying ships, but but whilst that's going on and whilst it's really really clear to me that structurally the world is going to allocate more capital to this magic because it's you know, if a company is going to cure breast cancer, it's probably going to create a lot of value and that's going on but weirdly enough, that magic is not evenly distributed and it's not even as obvious, as obviously a villager in senegal doesn't have the same magic going on in their health care system as somebody in California. Obviously it's much closer to home and what I was going to say. So what has become clear to me in the last decade of doing this is a company with a couple of assets cancer assets listed in NASDAQ in America is valued at a multiple of what a company with almost identical assets is valued at in the UK, and they are valued on the AIM market in London or the stock market in London at a multiple of what the same assets are valued at in Australia on the ASX market. And that's really, really clear. To evidence, it's really easy, you can just look and go hang on. These guys are in phase two addressing really easy, you can just look and go hang on. These guys are in phase two addressing lung cancer. These guys have got a phase two asset addressing post-traumatic stress disorder. These guys are based in Chicago and listed on NASDAQ and they're valued at a billion dollars. These guys are based in Cambridge and listed in London and they're valued at 200 million quid. And these guys are based in Melbourne, which has got one of the best cancer centers in the whole world, and this list on the ASX is valued at $20 million. What the hell is going on? And I know what's going on right, which is why it's one of the most amazing. It took me sort of five or six years to figure it out, but it's very simple. Australia has no specialist VCs that focus on healthcare. There's basically just there's like three of them. They don't have a VC industry right? So if you're coming out of Melbourne or Monash University or Brisbane or what and you've got a Nobel Prize winning scientist with great science, there's no domestic market apart from a few mates. You might put a million dollars in to support the hundred million dollars you need to get through your clinical trials right. So what are you going to? do You've got to run cancer trials in america at dana farber, or you know it's any of the big, like md anderson, the big uh harvard, or you know mit or the medical school. Mit is not a medical school, but the medical schools in america. And then what is the problem? There are 600 american companies ahead of you in the queue right and also the people with the with this controlling the strings, that wellington healthcare fund in boston that has 20 billion dollars, right, or all the med tens of billions of dollars that are looking there. If you're a young analyst at wellington healthcare fund in boston and I come to you as andy craig and london, go look at this company in london that has the same two assets. This with the same probability of success with science that's come out of Cambridge universities just as good as science that comes out of Cambridge Massachusetts. You know Cambridge UK. It's valued at one tenth those three companies that you've just invested in. He goes, I hear you, but you know a, I've got 600 companies in my wheelhouse I'm going to look at, you know. And B, the other structural challenge is if you're running $20 billion and I come to you with a 50 million pound company, if you bought the number of hours of your time you will have to spend to figure out whether that company is a good investment or not. It's the same as the number of hours you're going you're gonna have to spend to work out if your billion dollar one that you're looking at at the moment because it's roughly the same complexity and science and assets and intellectual property and patents and whatever, and addressable market opportunity, whatever else and so you're going to look at, you're going to look at me and go look, if I'm right, in this billion dollar one, I can get 100 million dollars to work in that one and I only own 10% of the company, right? And if it doubles, I've made $100 million, if you're right, mr Craig, and I've got 10% of that company in absolute terms. I'm going to make a tiny fraction of millions of dollars of profit, as I'll make here, and this is all real. This is why I laugh when I hear people talk about the efficient market hypothesis. Oh, all, financial markets, pricing, total bollocks just drives me nuts. That anybody can think. I mean certainly if you've spent 10 minutes working the biotech sector and indeed smaller companies. But, but the but. The great thing about these, these huge structural differences is that eventually, like in the short term, the market is a is a voting mechanism. In the long, the market is a voting mechanism. In the long term, the market is a weighing mechanism, which is a Warren Buffett quote. The point being is that truth will out and so and you're beginning to see it so Bill, the Gates Foundation and George Soros' hedge fund made an investment in a company called MoLogic, which is a British COVID diagnostic company, a few months ago and that's like a, a really like canary, in the coal mine transaction. Um, this week, last week, on the 8th of november, the week before last, um a uh, blackstone, which is a massive, massive american private equity venture capital firm, one of the biggest in the world and very smart, made a 250 million dollar investment in a british company called autolus, which is addressing cancer care. This is beginning to happen because these guys looking across the landing, going hang on like what, what you know? They're finally, despite what I said about, they've got 600 companies to look at. Once you see a few companies start to go up 5, 10, x and then you realize there are others. It's kind of your job to look at that and whilst the guy wellington running 20 billion dollars, might not have the headroom or and have too much capital to monetize a british or an australian company. The guys are sort of the next level down. Maybe the hedge funds in new york that are running a billion dollars are beginning to take notice. So so so I've never seen such a confluence of, like you know, the aging population, increased obesity, cancer is a disease of age. Global growth China's health care markets can be the same size as the USF. There's all these huge, huge demand pull drivers. The technology is amazing. And then there's a structural opportunity to arbitrage how America values biotech and how the rest of the world values biotech. And when I say the rest of the world, you know I mean British biotech coming out of Nobel Prize winners in Cambridge and Oxford University and elsewhere. This is not like crap science that, you know, some punter in some. You know I don't want to be rude, but I don't want to name any countries because I don't want to be rude about it, you know, but this is not somebody coming out of a university in the third world. That's 200 or something like this universities. This is science coming out of the very best university in the world and it's fundamentally undervalued. God, sorry you can see I was writing about this this morning on all my high horse, but it's a really interesting situation for sure I love it.

Dr. James, 51m 20s:

I love the energy and you know what. I can tell that you feel really strongly about this, and I can also tell that you think those are all the reasons very eloquently explained why you think it's such a good potential opportunity for people to diversify, and I think that's tremendous and that's a brilliant description. And now I see it so much more through your eyes and I thought I understood it, and so much more through your eyes and I thought I understood it and I thought I understood why. But now I understand so much more and, as I said, there'll be a lot of people at home who feel that way too. So, thank you for that description and, andrew, what we are going to do is try to keep this Q&A to under an hour, just so that it's tangible for everybody and also that it's accessible. So what we're going to do for the final 10 minutes, we're going to throw the mic out to the floor and we've already had some questions flooding in on my phone just here, so I'm just going to be, I'm just going to look down at those and read them out to you, and they will take us up to an hour very comfortably, because we've had about four or five here, so I'll pick the best ones. Here's one of my favourites. One's come through from Anon and it said Andrew, where does biotech fit in in our investment portfolio in terms of our aggressive versus defensive investments? Do you think this is such a surefire thing that this could ever be a defensive investment?

Andrew, 52m 32s:

No no.

Dr. James, 52m 33s:

Nice and succinct.

Andrew, 52m 39s:

Well, because biotech is actually and this may change right, but ultimately, biotech is still volatile and for a long time will continue to be volatile. Because it's risky, because company, you know, if you've got a phase two asset, across all phase twos, you've got a 30% chance of that becoming a drug, right? So that's a 60, you know well, know well, 70, it's actually 33, 66, it's basically a third, two-thirds. So 65 ish percent chance that never comes a drug and you're gonna spend 100 million quid on it and then it doesn't become a drug. So it's risky, right. That's why, then and the crucial thing about when I talk about defensive versus aggressive, what's really important to remind everyone is the defensive. It has to be stuff that protects the downside so that if you're 60 and you and you, there's a 50 stop market crash, you don't lose 50 of your money at the age of 60. You've got to be the you know, and and so biotech I massively believe the thesis. I think it's going to create tens of trillions of dollars of real economic value, but if you own, it's gonna have times where it's down 50, which means you can't think about it as defensive because you don't want to be that person who's got, you know, 500 grand in all sorts of buy tests. I mean, isn't it brilliant Because you've taken 100 to 500, but then you happen to be 60 when there's a massive correction and you're down to 250 grand. So sorry, that's clear.

Dr. James, 53m 59s:

No, that's awesome, that's brilliant. Okay, and another question that's just come in, andrew for these smaller companies, is it practicable that us, as dentists, who are really busy with our nine to five jobs, might be able to research these, or is it probably more the more likely scenario that we'd be best off just investing through a fund?

Andrew, 54m 19s:

well, caveat, emptor, right buyer. Beware my obvious answer there, given I'm someone who's going to launch biotech fund next year is you should let somebody like me do it. You know, I mean uh, you know because I've got six and I'm actually my co-fund manager is a guy who's, you know, a published cancer research scientist. He's been, he's won awards with cancer research uk with um, you know, the american society of Clinical Oncologists. He's a proper PhD genius who's published research papers. I'm the sort of big picture economist who can go out and raise money and I am an economist. I don't have any medical pedigree, by the way. I've read lots of books on science. But it's not so much what I'm not saying is and that's why I sort of joked about Kevin Emtore it's not so much what I'm not saying is and that's why I sort of joked about kevin. It's not so much that I'm super smart, actually, it's just that it's going to be not far off. My full-time job and I think you know for any I I've spent a lot of the last few years not in, but I used to do smaller companies, uh, generally smaller companies, and I talked about games workshop earlier. I can talk about easyjet or pizza express or burberry or all these companies I worked with over the years and I used to invest quite a lot of myself in smaller companies and then I got too busy professionally, right, and so the broad point is it's just a, it's just an hours of your time bandwidth problem. I think to do a good job and to protect the downside in this space, you probably will want to own 20 companies, right, because they're that risky. You know, if you, I'm going to own 30 companies, that's my aspiration. I think one or two of them will go up 50 to 100 times. I genuinely believe that I think there are 300 million dollar companies that could be 30 billion dollar companies, right, truly, I think a handful of them will go up eight to ten times, three to five times, whatever, some of them are going to go bust, like quite a few of them are going to go bust, right, and some of them will just go sideways and disappoint not doing so. But I have, I am gonna, I'm gonna have the capital to invest in 30 companies, right, and I'm gonna have the time to to really consider what those 30 companies will be of the 300 that I could consider with my partner, dr luke joe, and and I would, I guess, everybody's welcome to go and try and buy a vac to us, but you know all the sorts of companies that that we're going to be looking at. But do you really want to have to go through the arse ache of owning 30 of them to guard again because you've got? You've got to do this on a portfolio basis, because if you just buy three that you're excited about, if all three of them go bust, you're not going to be very pleased, right, and that is that is possible. And so that you know. That's why I do think, in this area, it's the smaller company argument, it's the it's my full-time job versus not somebody else's full-time job, I mean, and it's like, actually, unless you're very wealthy, the other thing is, you know, even a wealthy dentist has been like this for years. If you're gonna buy 30 companies, I'd say you probably want to have at least 10 grand in each to make it worthwhile, right? So that's 300 grand, that's your entry ticket, you know. If you're gonna faff around with much less than that and it becomes just such a, the roi of your time versus your upside is just not there in my view, right, in my view I hear you awesome.

Dr. James, 57m 18s:

thank you for that, and we are just coming up to an hour, but I think we can squeeze another question in edgeways. One final question which has just come in Andrew which country do you feel has got the most exciting biotech sector and that you are most intrigued to invest in from the point of view of ROI?

Andrew, 57m 38s:

Right. So if it's purely, that's a brilliant question.

Dr. James, 57m 42s:

I like it. I like that one.

Andrew, 57m 46s:

Well, the question is, which country's got that and is most underpriced relative to the others? Right as an investor, right? So? So to me, it's absolutely clearly Australia, based on my, because Australia has world-leading universities, brilliant intellectual property, english language, huge, addressable market right on their doorstep in Asia. That you know. The cancer center in Melbourne is one of the very best cancers in the world, running perfect, brilliant clinical trials, and their companies are ludicrously undervalued. There's a company called Imogene that we worked for when it was valued at 15 15 million dollars in 2015. I looked at it yesterday. It's currently valued at 3.2 billion dollars. It's gone from 15 million dollars to 3.2 billion dollars now. There's been some fundraising there. There's been some dilution, but you know, I think there are a number of companies in australia that maybe won't quite do that, but they're going to get go in that direct shovel. That having been said, though just baldly, in terms of science, um, obviously america's brilliant at this. You can't take anything away from that, but it's very, very priced in in my view. But scandinavia, the uk, switzerland and in in uh diagnostics and medical devices. Benelux, belgium and holland are phenomenal at that stuff, right, and and the benelux, the, the brussels, um uranex dot market's got some really cracking companies that I'm going to be looking at once. I've got money burning a hole in my pocket, but I think on a, on a oh, and the other thing, by the way, is china. China are catching up, china are. China have got more gene sequences in the beijing geneticsetics Institute than America has got in the whole of America, which is nuts, and they've been registering more patents than America since 2014. Now people can ask questions about the quality of some of those patents, because some of them are a bit dodged. But I think you know, and that's why Dr Luke Zhou, my co-founder and manager, was originally a Chinese national, comes from China. He's got a British passport. He's been in England, for he did his PhD in England. He did his undergrad in England. Sorry, he did his PhD in Scotland, I should say in Heriot-Watt, but anyway, you get the point. But having Luke, that's like another. He's got an office in Shanghai and he's I mean, I did a two-week tour of um some of the big cities in in China in December 19 and went in and saw some of their um, their cutting edge labs and um clinical facilities and it's just amazing anyway, sorry I don't a lot, but yeah, scandinavia, australia, benelux, switzerland, uk and China. There you go.

Dr. James, 1h 20s:

I love that. Thank you so much. Okay, andrew, we are coming up to just shy of an hour and I think that's been a brilliant Q&A AMA on biotech the future and its power going forward, and. I can certainly feel the energy coming through the screen and I can tell you strongly about this, and everyone else will no doubt agree with me. So thank you for that. Ericrol Quinn, brilliant description.

Andrew, 1h 42s:

Can I just say, James, next time you invite me on, I will remember that actually, what you want to do is quite a lot of Q&A and I'll shut up and not give you 30-minute answers. I totally forgot about that. I'm really sorry.

Dr. James, 1h 54s:

It's fine. I think the ratio was perfect because we've got three brilliant questions in there at the end, so Brilliant questions in there at the end. So, for anybody who's listening to this and wants to get to know Andrew better, andrew has a deluge of media, including Andrew's books, which, of course, andrew will do a better job of describing them than me, of course, how to Own the World and Live Less and Invest the Rest. I'm looking over at my shelf just here. And then, andrew, there is, of course, your Facebook group as well.

Andrew, 1h 1m 18s:

Yeah, so, yeah, so I mean, basically, if anybody's interested in us and what we're up to, um, the easiest thing to do is go to plainenglishfinancecom or plainenglishfinancecouk, um, and it's all you know. It tells you what we do, um, you know what future plans are, and then if people sign up to our free email, which you could just, you just put your name and then your email address at the bottom of our landing page to scroll down. It usually annoyingly pops up for you. If you, if you, if it's your first visit to our website, um, but do sign up to that. I only send emails about every. I've been pretty bad in recent months, like every month or so, um, in the normal things, so every two to four weeks I've been very busy doing a bunch of this stuff, writing the books and stuff, but, um, and and then we basically share. We've got 12 and a half thousand email subscribers, growing at sort of 300 a month, and we've never advertised, and that that's from these sorts of calls and people signing up, and then people will just be aware of everything we're doing. So, if they want to know about our biotech fund next year, about all the other things we're up to, about my views on crypto, which is, as you know, james um, long overdue. I'm writing a piece called crypto, crypto, crypto, crypto. There's no limit. Which fans of late 90s house music will remember, is a is referencing a, a bad dance song from the 90s, but anyway, yeah, go to the website, sign up and everything's on there. All the information's on there and that's the best way to keep in touch with us, basically tremendous stuff awesome cool seems like a good time to draw a line under proceedings today.

Dr. James, 1h 2m 43s:

Andrew, thank you so much for giving up your time. I know you're very busy writing your new book as well, which you mentioned earlier, and so much knowledge dished out on this Q&A, which we will release as a podcast as well and will also be available on the group for everybody to catch up with.

Andrew, 1h 2m 57s:

Tremendous.

Dr. James, 1h 2m 58s:

Thank you so much for coming on, Andrew, Always good to chat my friend likewise, a real honor to be here.

Andrew, 1h 3m 4s:

Thank you very much, james, to speak to you very soon my absolute pleasure.

Dr. James, 1h 3m 7s:

We will catch up very soon, buddy. Hope you have a good day. See you there take care if you enjoyed this podcast, please hit, follow or subscribe so you can stay up to date with information on new podcasts which are released weekly. Please also feel free to leave a positive review so others can learn about this podcast and benefit from it. I would also encourage any fans of the podcast to sign up to the free Facebook community from which the podcast originated. Please search Dentists who Invest on Facebook and hit join to become part of a community of thousands of other dentists interested in improving their finances, well-being and investing knowledge. Looking forward to seeing you on there.