Susannah de Jager: Welcome to Oxford+.
The podcast series for innovators and investors brought to you in
partnership with Mishcon de Reya.
Hi, I'm Susannah de Jager and I'm the host of Oxford Plus.
My guest today is Pete Davies.
Pete is Head of Developed Market Strategy at Lansdowne Partners,
a firm he joined in 2001.
Pete is that rare investor who has kept his approach consistent while
refusing to be defined by market terms.
A strength demonstrated in the hedge fund strategy that for many years was a sector
defining long short fund and the refocus of the firm to long only and venture
capital based upon the opportunities identified by Pete and the team.
In UK venture, he has been a pioneer creating and co-founding a number of
venture businesses, most notably for this podcast, Oxford Science Enterprises,
the investment company that develops and advises the commercialization of
the IP of the University of Oxford.
He has also been a governor of the Wellcome Trust and a leading voice
in the UK private public market conversations actioning the much
needed call for scale up capital.
Over the last four years, I've had the privilege to discuss the UK scale up
capital conundrum with Pete at various intervals, and I'm very much looking
forward to this latest update today.
He brings two perspectives.
First, as an asset manager launching a new strategy into the venture space, but
also as somebody passionate about the broader UK opportunity and Oxford itself.
Pete, thank you so much for joining today.
Pete Davies: My pleasure.
Very much looking forward to.
Susannah de Jager: You were a student at Oxford, and then you started your
career in listed asset management at Mercury Asset Management.
What made you turn back towards Oxford and think, I want to use my
investor lens at the university.
Pete Davies: I think it was fairly routine actually in that, subsequently thought
about it a bit more in with a strategy, but at the time I think it was more just
looking for investment opportunities.
I mean, my broad view had been for a while the UK is very unusual in having lots of
its most relevant, world-class assets, not necessarily being thought of or being
either companies or being thought of as economic ones and probably the first of
those was actually football clubs and that probably taught me the idea that one can
invest in these world class assets, and so from there I kind of looked at individual
companies within the Oxford ecosystem.
You know, obviously IP Group was a pioneer in this, that I was
partially involved with, and it just gradually grew from there.
There was very little of a plan, I'm afraid
Susannah de Jager: No, but that's often the way it really happens in
reality and you talked there about IP Group, and obviously they were one
of the first movers in this space.
You were obviously an early investor in that company.
How did it evolve from that to the germination of the plan
for Oxford Science Enterprises?
Pete Davies: Pretty linearly and I should give enormous credit here to
Graham Richards who sadly passed away recently, who frankly without whom the
IP Group relationship with the chemistry department wouldn't have happened,
which in turn enabled the OSE agreement.
I mean, it was pretty similar to a publishing deal of an advance from
IP Group to the chemistry department to build a facility in return
for a partnership around building companies out of that facility.
That deal was, as I say, led by Graham and Dave Norwood, and then OSE flowed
very linearly from that because at the point of time where that deal
was beginning to come towards its end the OSE deal was a replication of
the IP group deal with the chemistry department across a broader remit.
That deal was coming towards the end and lots of versions of how it could have
been structured, but the basic structure was pretty much in place already.
Susannah de Jager: You talked there about how it felt very natural in the
evolution in the space from football clubs looking at the IP Group and into OSE.
Is it equally apparent to you, therefore, when you look forward to the next five or
10 years, how you see that space evolving?
Or do you see that there are multiple ways that it might play out?
Pete Davies: That's a great question.
and I think I should stress that the evolution of structures is very
different from the evolution of process.
I think the structural evolution was fairly linear.
But equally, I think the process of actually converting that into individual
companies is always very individual.
I certainly wouldn't want to put a universal way of doing that as
being something that always works.
So let's separate out the structures from the process.
In terms of the structures, I mean, I think my hope would be that the
structures were there to accelerate to a point where you don't need the
structures, if you see what I mean.
I'm not sure exactly where we get to, but you know, I think the dream for all
of us would be an ecosystem with so many individual parts, all of whom are doing
interesting things and fresh approaches.
You know, there'll be lots of successful companies including OSE
I'm sure within that ecosystem.
But I think the idea of an external structure for that
hopefully will prove necessary.
I think the second aspect I'd say is more around how the companies originate.
One thing that I've always hoped would be, broadly speaking, the process of
originating companies has been academic X has done piece of work that they think
is commercially relevant and someone, be it the Tech Translation Office, or OSE
or anyone else, essentially is presented with that business model and decides
whether to invest and how to amplify that.
The goal which we're at a sort of halfway stage at, I think within OSE, within
the use of entrepreneurs in residence ought to be much more that there's an
expertise within the academic community and a problem that someone externally
is trying to solve and actually the process of, I wouldn't even call it
packaging, but the process of turning the expertise into a solution for the
problem is much more a questioning between investors and academics rather than
something just coming from the academics.
So I think that's the other thing I would say that will change over time
is I suspect more and more it'll be problem driven rather than IP
driven companies being sorted out.
And then the third thing I think would be also one shifts from just academic
IP to the broad expertise of Oxford.
I mean, including the undergraduate community.
View the ecosystem as creating companies across the watch.
Not just from very deep academic technology, but from all the
innovation and creativity that comes from the ecosystem.
So those three would be my main structural things.
Susannah de Jager: I think it's really interesting that you've identified there
that shift from push effectively from the academic to more of a pull from industry,
business, and that collaboration.
Obviously Oxford itself is a crucible of learning innovation.
But sometimes, and I think that this almost speaks to some of the differences
that are observed, it's not compared still that favorably with Silicon Valley.
Which is seen as more outward looking in this regard.
I'd love to know what these specific areas you are, where you think
actually that's a bit overplayed and Oxford really is excelling because
I certainly perceive those, but you are obviously investing in them.
Pete Davies: I think there's definitely a generational shift going
on amongst the academic community.
I think that was already happening and probably was a precondition
of setting up things like OSE, led by the likes of Graham, et cetera.
But now it's pretty universal, I think.
I think few people who go into academia think of themselves as solely
academics and I think maybe the UK's 5, 10 years behind America in that,
but it definitely doesn't feel it now.
And then I think the other thing is just time.
You know, you look back at the formation of Silicon Valley, it
took three or four generations of success and the reinvestment of both
the financial and the intellectual capital to get to where it is now.
Oxford is probably in generation one or two of that, and each generation does
things better than the prior generation and certainly, I'm sure the people who
look at what we were doing 10, 15 years ago in 20 years time will think that
we were terribly amateurish about it and will have thought of lots of ways
of doing it that we never thought of.
Susannah de Jager: Going into some specifics, you touched
there upon quantum computing.
I'd love to just touch on some of the specific opportunities both
that you've had recently, but also to give some color to what you
see is coming down the pipeline.
Pete Davies: Yeah, you described push a moment ago, and I
definitely agree with that.
I think, one learning from this that I think one could apply also to some
of the genomic expertise that we have and some of the healthcare data,
and I'm sure others is that, had the National Quantum Institute not been
funded in Oxford, I doubt we would have the opportunity we have today.
I think when one looks at where academic strengths are formed, I think those sort
of institutions have got a very high hit rate and probably represent the best
value for money and the Quantum Institute would be one great example of that.
I know for instance, Chris Ballance, the CEO of Oxford Ionics explicitly will
say that had it not been for that, he would've been working in Switzerland.
I think going to how academia becomes more problem driven, I think that
lesson that the really base academia in long-term areas gathered together can
create an expertise that then pans out in lots of ways is really important.
The quantum example is a very good one.
Given that, as you say, what we see is actually both individual companies that
are now being valued on a global basis, having come out of that ecosystem,
but importantly, I think what you're seeing in the quantum world is there are
different theologies almost about how to do quantum and actually what's really
interesting is the two leading quantum companies that we've invested in so
far from Oxford have had very different ideologies about how to do quantum.
And I think that's comes from the way in which they were formed, namely a
bunch of academics who don't work as a single team, but work in a single place.
Personally, I think it's very, very likely that we're less than five
years away from quantum computing being demonstrably superior in
some areas to classical computing.
That obviously ought to be exponential after it's happened and clearly the
value of compute is now much more obvious than it was when we first
invested in computing given what's going on in the classical space.
I think what's so interesting about quantum, aside from its processing power
is the way in which quantum computers will be used and the sort of operating
systems and applications that go alongside them is evolving very fast and perhaps
will vary with different industries.
So definitely if you ask me what am I on the lookout for, it's a question of
I still think there's a ton of progress to be made in terms of the hardware
and the systems proving themselves.
But long term, you've got to assume that if quantum computing is a platform, there
will be software layers and application layers that create huge investment
opportunities where the linkage between the hardware and the software could go in
a range of different ways and certainly that's where our work is going up there.
Susannah de Jager: Really interesting.
You spoke there obviously about the specifics of institutions that are set up
to harbor expertise, so quantum computing.
But you and I have also spoken about community in the wider sense and the
things that Oxford does have in spades like pubs and I say this somewhat
flippantly, but I don't really, cause you were talking about Graham there,
Dave Norwood, you know yourself, myself very proud member of the Inklings.
The group, which led by Dave Norwood during COVID, stepped into help save the
Lamb and Flag, and it's that kind of soft side of Oxford that I think people that
aren't part of it can feel so intangible.
It's hard to appreciate the value, and I'd love to hear it from your perspective
because it is so hard to grasp.
Pete Davies: Yeah, I probably shouldn't say this in a podcast, but
my parting shot to my last OSE board meeting was to remind them to retain
the magic as well as the structure.
For all of us, especially in the current world, magic is a really important thing.
And certainly for me and you and Dave and everyone else who got involved
with the Lamb and Flag, what was striking was the number of people who
just said it was obviously important.
They didn't really try to define why it was important.
They just said it's really obvious that it's important.
If I tried to sort of narrow it down a bit.
One is, the impact that time within the ecosystem has on people as individuals
is a real value, not always positive, I'm sure, and different for different people.
But I think the human impact on individuals and their lives is a very
rare thing that Oxford has and things that are very rare and very valuable, I
think do need to be cherished generally.
Frankly, I think also get more economically valuable as they
become rarer in a digital age.
And so, I think there's definitely a value that's growing there.
I think the second question then is okay, how do you preserve that?
I mean, my worry has always been with universities or nonprofit making
institutions is it's very hard for them to retain their unique assets
if they're not able to reinvest.
If you said basically what have we tried to do on the research side, it's ensure
that via the commercialization of some of these product projects enough capital goes
back into reinvesting in them to retain the long-term intellectual expertise.
I think the same is true of the magic and you know, it's great for instance
that, a different cohort, has seen the value within the Eagle and Child
and probably with different budgetary constraints and different plans.
The broad question I'd pose is if the magic is as valuable as we all think
at the moment, it's similar to perhaps where we were 20 years ago with IP Group.
It's only a few people who are choosing to invest in that and see that the
probability is that the investment in that magic should be thought of
a bit more consciously and aim to be proliferated in the same way that
hopefully what we're doing on the research side is proliferating things.
And then to the third thing, and I clearly am not involved with
running the university in any form.
But I would say that, the two, unique assets Oxford or any university does,
one is the research that we talk about a lot, but the other is the teaching.
Certainly for me, one of the frustrations of the way in which
tuition fees were imposed was in many ways it didn't allow the value of the
teaching to be adequately reflected.
The undergraduate experience within Oxford is one of the most
valuable things in the world.
And the tutorial system, I think certainly in my case, is formative in a
way that's just other universities are finding increasingly hard to replicate.
And again, critically is something where digital connections, almost
the very failure of digital connections makes it more valuable.
How to address it is politically much more difficult.
But there is the risk that if you don't value it properly, economically,
it becomes very difficult to sustain.
I think that's probably where I end up, albeit, I think magic is a nicer
term than teaching to think about it.
Susannah de Jager: I think that's exceptionally interesting and you've
strung together quite a few things there, but hearing you explain the logic
between them one does see these gaps.
I only last week was at the launch of Oxford North, which is this amazing
new science innovation center that's a JV between Ontario Teacher's Pension
Plan, St. John's Oxford, Thomas White, which is their development company.
What's amazing is the benefit of places like science parks have become
so evident and you are identifying this gap still where there are other,
as you say, magical elements that almost need to be priced correctly
in the ecosystem as we go forward.
Pete Davies: I'm pretty confident that the way in which ecosystems evolve
probably gets led by investment in science parks and labs initially.
But, you know, they create both wealth and investment and a set of businesses
around that and employment around that.
You are seeing, I think already, I was talking to someone the other day who
was thinking about a major property development within the center of Oxford.
That was very much saying, look, an ecosystem that's more dynamic,
there aren't sufficient hotels, et cetera, et cetera, restaurants, pubs.
So, one thing that's been really interesting to me has been watching
the multiplier effect in action has brought it alive a lot more clearly
than anything I did in economics and you know, you see that if you fund a lot of
companies, they need a lot of lab space.
The lab space needs new science parks, there are more meetings and
therefore more hotel rooms needed.
The multiplier effect of company formation to me you know, Oxford
is a great case study of that.
That is only in the very early stages of that.
Susannah de Jager: So you've obviously touched upon the Eagle of Child and
you've spoken about the investment.
The Ellison Institute of Technology, which is the new owner of the Eagle and
Child, is this huge new player in the Oxford ecosystem, and it's clearly going
to change some of the shape greatly.
I'd love to just get your perspective as an investor.
Pete Davies: I think it's wonderful.
I think scale, novelty, and ambition are all things that, you know,
should be encouraged wherever.
I think if you don't have scale, novelty and ambition, the danger of
the ecosystem becoming insular is quite high just given the natural trends.
I that they're doing it.
I think for this and for other reasons as far as I can tell, the academic
recruitment within Oxford has never been stronger and certainly from a
governmental perspective to my mind that basic question of are the world's best
academics wanting to work in the UK ought to be one of the highest priorities when
one's thinking about long-term growth.
Perhaps in the same way as OSE when it first started, I would imagine if
I were within Ellison, going back to my earlier point about structure and
practice, practices will undoubtedly iterate and evolve behind what
feels like the broad notion, which is to do something at a really high
level that hasn't been done before.
Converting that into individual targets and projects and working out how they
interrelate with the ecosystem, I'm sure will evolve over time and one of
the wonderful things about Oxford is, things are in constant oscillation a bit.
It is not something you either could or should put a structure on and say,
this is how it's gonna work for the next 50 years because the beauty of
both academia and commercial investing at this stage is it is unpredictable
and freedom is to be valued.
And so I'm super excited about what they're doing.
Very keen to see how they look at probably some similar
problems to ones we've looked at.
They'll definitely have a ton of insights and opportunities that go
way beyond what's been done before and that's exactly what should happen.
Susannah de Jager: I think you're spot on there that people often
feel that there should be an answer.
That they should have a plan that they're rolling out, whoever it
is, whatever business it is, and often the hardest but most honest
thing to say is, I'm not sure yet.
We are building the plane as we fly it, and that's as it should be because
there will be things we don't yet know.
Pete Davies: Yeah, the flip side of that, which I always, I think again
with an OSE we only learn afterwards was doing it better than it's been done
before, and doing it better than you were doing it the year before, seems
to me a much more reasonable target.
And often, as you say, people want to theorize towards perfection,
whereas actually, I certainly would tend towards empirically trying to
improve what's, what one's already done is the right way to achieve most.
In all forms of life but particularly with an Oxford I would say.
Susannah de Jager: Yeah, that's an important theme for anyone, whether
they're growing their own business or growing the investment business.
It leads us on to another point, which is that the UK itself as a broader ecosystem
is also in evolution, and I know that you've been very involved in some of
these conversations about capital reforms.
You obviously come from a listed equities background, and so therefore
the capital markets, which are often reported at the moment, the IPOs, that
perceived lack of depth of research.
I'd love to have your view on how you see those things evolving.
Because I think too often the news flow, and we can all be guilty of this
to a degree, can be quite negative.
But again, it's just one of those things from my perspective, that we are a
little bit more nascent than the US not that we're not on the right trajectory.
Pete Davies: When I think about this, there are two separate issues that
are related, but that are probably best dealt with individually.
One is the valuation of companies that are listed in the UK and the consequences
of that and two is the ability of capital to reach companies for them to invest in.
And the two are related, but I think certainly if I were the
government, I would focus on the latter rather than the former.
So my personal diagnosis, which may well be wrong, is that the reality that UK
companies are undervalued and reality that UK listed companies tend to have
both a lower valuation and probably a higher hurdle rate for investment is true
does have some negative consequences.
The global equity market is very concentrated even within the US I
suspect if I was talking to a US fund manager, they would say that if you
go outside a certain set of companies, other companies are lowly valued.
Certainly it's true of other parts of Europe and Japan and my
instinct, and maybe it's just my free markets thing, is personally I
just see that as an opportunity that ultimately markets will correct.
Clearly for it to correct, you're gonna need political stability
within the UK and you're gonna need the companies to perform well.
I don't think the impacts from it a massive at the moment on the economy, and
I can't really imagine what governments could do that would sort that out
quicker than markets will sort it out beyond just provide a stable ecosystem.
And to be fair, if you said what successive governments have failed
to do, I would say far more of their failure is to provide a broad stability
in economics or politics rather than necessarily an individual view
on particular parts of the market.
You said why is a discount there?
It's cause UK's been incredibly politically volatile for a decade
rather than because any particular strategy around listing markets.
I'm not sure in 20 years time we'll have local equity markets.
My own instinct is you know, most shares will be traded most of the time and
I personally think in the end, London will thrive as a financial center,
because of its history, competitive advantages of intellectual capital and
time zone and won't be doing it just be trading in companies that happen
to have historically been listed here.
So may maybe I'm a bit of a heretic on the listed side.
On the growth capital side, where I think there is a very clear issue.
I think the way I would characterize it today, and I think hopefully we've been
part of solving this, is I tend to think about growth capital in sort of log scale
of sort of one, 1 million, 10 million, a hundred million, billion, funding rounds.
For a lot of reasons, the UK now is very good at the one in the 10
million and actually I think now, especially in the current market
conditions, the billion dollar raise is a global phenomena where it doesn't
really matter where you're listed.
Once you get to there, it doesn't really matter where you are.
I think, Oxford's a great example of this, that the platform's being created,
like OSE have supported this, all the government tax policy has probably
supported the one to 10 million.
So I think that's pretty good.
I think that a hundred million is the big problem.
I think the UK just has a problem.
There are lots of examples I could see where companies that are based
in the UK are struggling to raise 20 million to grow themselves.
Where if they were based in the US they'd be a having access to sort of
multiples of that capital and I think that has a real impact on creation.
The absence of that scale up capital, is something that's genuinely imperiling
economic growth in the UK and is something that governments and the private sector
now are trying to address, which is great.
I think if they can successfully address that, one could radically
alter medium term growth prospects.
Susannah de Jager: And to the point you made earlier about increasingly
global stock markets, could you not make the same argument here for scale
up capital becoming increasingly global and therefore what's the implication
if you continue that thought process?
Pete Davies: I think most of what I would say about anything I think
in terms of companies or markets is the maximum I'm capable of is
shifting things by a couple of years.
unless something has a chance of happening anyway, capital
can't do that much to affect it.
OSE think.
has thrived because academics were already ready to do commercializations.
If you tried to do it 40 years ago, probably the ecosystem wouldn't
have responded to it and similarly with your point on scale up capital.
Undoubtedly, if the companies are as good as we think they are.
Even with an absence of capital over 5, 10, 15 years, their success and the
financial returns from that should be large enough to be globally relevant.
So I think you're probably right.
Though I would say that I think being early has some value.
In terms of where you ultimately end up even allowing for that,
just in terms of getting the next generation of entrepreneurs.
So I think we'll be in a materially better place if we do it quicker
and I genuinely think to accelerate it in the next two or three years,
requires some shift in behavior from financial participants in the UK to
towards investing more in that area that I think they actually want to do.
I think genuinely when I look at several of these companies, I mean, it goes
counter to what one would normally think in finance, but you know, if you said one
of the learnings of the last 15 years has been to pay a bit more respect to network
effects and scaling laws within companies.
IE, that if you are big, you're more likely to stay big.
I think definitely I could point to it is strange that normally you would
say use as little equity as possible to get to the point, but actually
quite often, and sometimes this is attitudinal rather than actual investment.
Just I do see examples of companies where if they raise 20 million, they'll
probably fail, whereas if they raise a hundred million, they'll probably succeed.
It's slightly counter to basic economic theory, but I think I've
seen enough empirical examples of that to say that, you know, more capital
today would have a distinct shift in where you ended up even allowing
for learning from markets over time.
Susannah de Jager: Yeah, very interesting.
So Pete, obviously you've been involved in the discussions at that top level.
You've also really taken the mantle forward yourself at Lansdowne
Partners in that you are launching a UK Growth Fund, and so you've
been both part of the conversation and subject to these discussions.
How has that experience been?
Pete Davies: Well, we think it's going very well.
We're hopefully very near the completion of that process.
I think what it's really struck me has been, and why we've stuck at it actually,
is that the range of people, and we've only really done it within the UK.
We've tried to build an a set of investors in the short term, which is mainly UK
oriented with a view that, if we can do that, then over time attracting more
global capital could come after that.
I think we've been really struck by the number of people who would like to do it,
both in the private and public sectors.
You know, actually would like to do it at a scale that certainly our fund
would only be a small drop in the ocean for, and if I even put one or two of
these investors together, the scale of their desire to invest would be
transformative for the whole ecosystem.
So I think the very good news is that the number of people who would like to
commit substantial capital to that and the range of backgrounds they come from.
In terms of how to do it, the reality is, especially within deep tech, the
opportunity that's there from an absence of capital has the downside that it
doesn't have a ton of track records of people who've done this successfully
and that makes it, there aren't the natural pathways for people to invest.
and hopefully my role in this with a degree of trust and expertise and patience
is to go through that process such that A, we can deploy some capital, but B, other
connections are made that mean capital's deployed in a range of different ways.
For instance, I know that OSE themselves now have a much wider range of people
they're talking to as potential co-investors than they did a year ago,
and similar to us, I suspect they would say that converting that desire to work
together, to practice of working together, It takes a bit longer than it one might
hope, but I think we're definitely a long way ahead of where we were a year ago.
Susannah de Jager: I think the point there corresponds with some that you've made
in different regards earlier, which is there's the sort of structural elements
and then there's the process elements, and what we're talking about here is a
group of investors, pension funds, notable among them, but also large investment,
insurance companies and government.
Yeah.
Pete Davies: I mean, I think one of the big positives of the last 12 months
is that actually the notion that scale up capital needs supporting is now
government orthodoxy and backed up with by significant shifts in allocation
of capital from the government at an entity level and again, bit like
we're describing, converting desire and entity funding into practical
investment now is a bit of a challenge.
But that's because it hasn't been done before, so we shouldn't be that surprised.
Susannah de Jager: Yeah, so the willingness is there, the vectors
are being designed by people such as yourself, and then I think the really
exciting bit, as you articulate, is that it's not just the quantum of
money that comes into a structure such as the one you are launching.
It's that education of co-investors who have even more firepower behind
them that will be the real kind of multiplier effect in this scenario.
Pete Davies: Yeah, definitely and actually at an ecosystem level you want
people to be experimenting and looking at this in different ways and attracting
talent into it such that we can all learn and some form of competition.
I think one thing that's perhaps missing in this debate is unless the returns
from this process are really good, it's gonna be a very unsustainable thing.
So, I think it's important that we're rigorous in terms
of the pricing of this capital.
There's every reason to believe the returns on this investment should be
amazing given how good the IP is and how little capital there is and those returns
being amazing, creates a multiplier.
The flip side is also true.
If people end up doing this in an ill disciplined fashion
will set everything back.
So I think it's really important that you get competition and also
that the financial returns are recognized as the enabler they
actually are over the long term.
Susannah de Jager: It's not an act of charity.
It needs to sit within those portfolios, and in fairness, the model is there
from the Canadian Pension Plans.
It's just making sure we pay the right amount for talent.
Pete Davies: Yeah, and also, you know, luck will be involved and these
things will be non-linear, that one or two big winners will probably
accrue rather than 20 small ones is probably the likelihood of this.
But the logic is that higher returns equals a ton more volume
of capital in generation two of this and that in turn breeds an
ambition amongst the entrepreneurs.
That in turn will create companies that don't currently exist as well.
Susannah de Jager: Pete, I wish you all the best with it, for all
the reasons we've just described.
It's so important that people like you get the opportunity to prove that
the results are there and they can be so beneficial to investors and in the
meantime, thank you for your time.
Pete Davies: My pleasure.
Thank you very much, and thank you.
Also, I should also take the opportunity to say thank you to
tons and tons of people within the Oxford ecosystem who've worked far
harder than me on these projects.
But also being instrumental in helping me learn to think and helping
me have such a wonderful life in terms of finding friends, et cetera.
So, probably too many to thank individually beyond.
I should just finish by thanking my tutor, Ralph Walker, who was an inspiration
for me and definitely someone without whom I wouldn't be anywhere close to
doing any of the things I'm doing now.
So that's probably where I should finish.
Susannah de Jager: Wonderful.
Thanks for listening to this episode of Oxford+, presented
by me, Susannah de Jager.
If you want to stay up to date with all things Oxford+, please visit our website,
oxfordplus.co.uk and sign up for our newsletter so you never miss an update.
Oxford+ was made in partnership with Mishcon de Reya and is produced
and edited by Story Ninety-Four.