Paul Schroder

Because I'm not prepared to do that.

No, I'm not prepared to do that.

Yeah, they definitely should have a house.

Well, I have an obligation and a complete commitment to make sure that people are richer in retirement, that we make them the most risk adjusted post fees and post tax money that we possibly can for the longest duration.

I'm not going to do anything other than that, right?

Now, inside that, is there a possibility to unlock things to create opportunities?

I'm sure there are, right?

So for example, if we want exposure to treasuries or debt, it makes sense if we can be presented with a treasury or a debt proposition that makes risk adjusted sense for us to invest in.

That's a great way to get money to this challenge, for instance.

That's a really good development.

I personally think that we should be spending some more of our personal time advocating about better policy.

We already invest in the supply chain.

We also invest in housing, especially build to rent to own, because we need to help as many people as possible to inject into the supply chain.

But what I'm really, what I'm calling out

is this central truth that as a country, we spend way, way, way too much on housing and not anywhere near enough on productive investment.

And we all need to readjust how we think about that.

And we need to, we need, we've basically put for the last 25 years, all of our additional wealth has gone into inflated housing prices that you can't really do anything about because you've got to move from one house to another house.

It doesn't create any job, probably a 10% increase in housing construction leads to a 0.4 or 0.5% increase in GDP.

But we're basically operating under this myth.

We spend as a country way, way, way too much on housing and there's still not enough houses for the number of people who want to be housed.