Ask Us Anything: Should Women Pay LESS Tax!? + Albanese's 5% Home Deposit Scheme

0:28I'm Adam Schwab. like the 5 % house deposit scheme, are a good thing or a bad thing. Over to you. So just to clarify, it's actually the Albanese Labor government that's doing this, not the Victorian government. I think the Victorian government has its own scheme, potentially. And what happens is there's a 5 % deposit scheme. The federal government, which is everybody's taxpayers, it's not the government, taxpayers essentially are guaranteeing the portion of the first home buyer's loan so they can purchase with a lower deposit and not pay lenders' mortgage insurance. So basically, if someone buys a house for a million dollars and they put down 50K and they fail to be able to make their repayments because they lose their job or whatever, then the lender sells the house from underneath them.

1:09They only get 900K for it. The lender's out of pocket, right, at that point in time, about$50 ,000. Government pays it, it sounds like. So taxpayers then are on the hook for this. Right. So it's not a direct upfront payment from taxpayers. It's just the taxpayer taking on risk. Yeah, it's like they become the insurer of last resort. Yeah. So the taxpayer is effectively insuring that individual. Yeah, for no upside. So they don't get the premium. So I've got two very brief thoughts about this. Thought number one is that we have to find a way to let people buy houses because that's one of the most terrible things in Australia that young people, families, young families, they can't buy houses and I want them to be able to buy houses.

1:49So we have to solve that problem. So I think it's good that we're trying to solve that problem. I don't have to persuade government to solve that problem. It gets votes so they're going to try and figure out how to solve that problem. but then the flip side is this it's capitalism there's supply and demand if you don't change supply and you increase demand by letting people more people buy which is an increase in demand then that's going to put the prices up and so whatever the most common amount of money is that people have as a deposit that weren't able to buy before and can now buy the houses in that thing so just multiply that deposit by 20 and the houses in that price bracket will go up in price because there'll be more competition.

2:26And so all that will happen is, presumably the lower end of the property market will be driven up with some pricing inflation. That's my guess. I think it's up to a certain level of house price. This is, I mean, the very first time this happened, or the first time I can recall happening was Kevin Rudd in, I think it was 2008, brought in, remember the first Home Buyers Grant? Do you remember that? Mike, you were probably about three years old then. What was that,$12 ,000 or something? It was something like that. And it was different levels. and I remember when he first brought it out, there was pretty much widespread acclaim for it.

2:57I remember I wrote an article the day it was released saying this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. All it was bid up prices and literally all that happened and it's not just right, it's been happening since 2008. It's happened like 10 different times. This is the dumbest policy. It is... Do you think it's the dumbest policy? In terms of what it impacts. Like it probably gets them a couple of votes but this is literally all you're doing is inflating. it's the first home seller's grant. So all you're doing is causing, as you said, pure inflation. It just inflates up. People will spend as much as they can on a property, especially their first property.

3:29So if all you're doing is making it easy for people to buy, they're going to spend more on the house. It is, and it's so obviously stupid because everybody knows what you explained is just basic, not even economics, just basic common sense. If you give someone a hundred bucks, they'll spend a hundred bucks on something. If you give them a hundred and fifty, they'll have a hundred and fifty. Of course they're going to do that. Of course they're going to inflate. But you said that they don't. And who benefits from this? The seller's benefit. The buyers actually suffer from this, and the sellers are the ones.

3:53Again, it's another transfer of wealth from every taxpayer to older, richer people who own properties already. You're absolutely right about that. And you say there are caps, and there are caps. It's a million bucks, right? So New South Wales Capital and Regional Centres. That's how they do it, Capital and Regional Centres and other. So what do you think the cap is for New South Wales Capital and Regional Centres? I thought it's a million. 1.5. Okay, 1.5. And which state do you think has got the second highest cap? Queensland? Yes, it does. It's above Victoria. That's the lowest. I mean, that's how badly Victoria's been doing.

4:20Victoria's the lowest, right? It's the third. Oh, I thought it was the lowest. No, so Queensland Metro is a mil. Victoria Metro is 950. South Australia is 900. Western Australia is 850. And Tasmania is 700. And then they drop significantly outside those key areas. So basically, you have to think about it like this. A$1.5 million house in Sydney, probably a bit out of Sydney. Yeah, quite out of Sydney. So you pay your 5 % deposit. Or could be apartment as well. apartment 75k usually you'd have to pay 300k to not have insurance so the taxpayer is now on the hook for 225 000 effectively i mean the thing is it could be more like because it's they're not buying insurance they're basically saying that they'll cover a guarantee they'll guarantee right and so it could they could be on the hook for more it's way worse than the rud one the rud one is like 12 grand whatever that's fine this is like this is mind-numbingly stupid it takes real stupidity to come up with a policy like this well I think this if you had a$75 ,000 deposit so what house or apartment could you have bought before then well you possibly would have been prepared to pay mortgage insurance that's the other point like they might be solving a non-problem here I mean like I've got lots of issues with this now that I think about it so one problem is 5 % is not enough of a deposit But the thing is, you might still have serviceability issues if you've only got 5%.

5:53We hope banks aren't lending if that's not serviceable. I mean, 5 % is pretty close to no money down. Very close, right? And so if I had 75K, now I can buy a$1.5 million property, which I may or may not be able to service. I probably can service it at least for some period of time. It's like a margin loan in many ways. I mean, it's great. An extreme margin loan. But in the past, like$75 ,000, that's only going to buy me, let's say, a$350 ,000 property. And so now instead of buying a$350 ,000 apartment, which probably not many of those exist, but - No, a few exist. A few, but - And so instead of buying that, now I can buy a$1.5 million property.

6:30That's the issue with leverage. It just leverages up so - And even worse, because it's leveraged up so much and because it'll cause prices to increase, it also makes a greater risk of prices going down. So if you're a bank, can I ask you this question? If you're a bank and you know the government's guaranteeing, why do you care about serviceability? That's a good point. I wouldn't care about serviceability. Like, let's say you can't pay your loan. I think in a year you won't be able to pay your loan. What the hell do I care? I think the only thing inside of that is, I don't think the banks want property prices getting smashed.

6:58They don't want foreclosures, because that just damages the whole property market. I'll tell you what banks want. They are short-term greedy, but they're not also stupid. Banks want market share. Every bank in Australia, every major bank, is under pressure every quarter about their market share of residential home loans. That is what their bonuses are based on. And so surely there's going to be serviceability pressure when you know the government is covering it. So actually I think it's a good idea to help first home buyers. It's a bad idea to do it by increasing demand with no increased supply.

7:31They always do it the wrong way. The best way to do it is by actually restricting how much. So you can only earn 50%. That would reduce the price. Well, the worst idea of all of this is I think it's going to create some moral hazard problems with how much banks care about serviceability. It's worse. There's that, which is really bad. But the other thing is just it's a gift to rich people who already own the properties. That's the worst part of it. It's pretending to help younger, poorer people, but really smashing younger, poorer people and helping older, richer people. And yet again, this is like the 500th policy in Australia.

8:01So we can say that the primary motivation behind this is certainly votes at the next election. I think he went to the last election with his garbage. And this is bipartisan stupidity. This is Liberal Party, Labour Party. They're both so pathetic that they're willing to sell out the younger generation to get a few cheap votes and lie to them, essentially. Pretending this is a good policy for young people. There are so many ways to fix the housing crisis for young people. Every one of those ways involves upsetting existing property owners to some degree. And so they're all the good ways. And nobody wants to do that politically.

8:36so then we get deep into the bad ways of fixing the problem which actually makes the problem worse over time well two ways one would be increasing supply and just like effectively allowing people to build not whatever they want but really loosening you can build apartments in places where you can't that was one way and the other way is actually making it a lot harder to borrow money and that will reduce the price and the other way is tax changes yes which nobody wants to do and indexing and moving principal gains exemption maybe indexing lots of different ways to do it Great question from Jared.

9:07Thank you. Question number two, Michael. Okay. This question comes in from Leslie-Ann Schwab. Oh, God. I like this question. She doesn't have to be related to you, does she? It reads as follows. Love the pod. Looking forward to the title changing to the contrarians with Adam, Adir, and Mike. You put it up to this question, Mike. Yeah, you sure this is not your question, Mike? Given that women typically still... Also, if it was Mike, it would be the contrarians would change to Mike, Adam, and Adir. Given that women typically still earn lower salaries than men, accumulate less superannuation by retirement, bear a disproportionate share of unpaid caring responsibilities, often take extended breaks from the workforce to raise children and are subject to the pink tax, where personal items such as razors, feminine hygiene, deodorants and clothing marketed to women often cost more.

9:57Should women be entitled to pay less income tax to help offset these systemic financial disadvantages? I'm too scared to answer this question. Well, I thought this was, I say this very honestly, I thought this was a very interesting question. My first overarching remark to make about this, other than I think it raises some good points, is the whole tax system needs to be overhauled. And so what I don't think is we shouldn't just go and make more of these little changes. Like the whole system needs to be changed and everyone is too scared to do it. And I think we've started to realise the long-term problems of liberal democracy in voting people every three or four years.

10:39Like, it's problematic. Eventually, it falls in on itself. Every democracy does. Yeah, because nobody wants to make the hard decisions. You need some... Like, by the way, I think this would be the big advantage of term limits, and maybe even parliamentary term limits. Like, let's just let people not have to make this their profession and make decisions that they think are better for the country. What do I think about this? So on the last point about the items that women have to buy, I think there are lots of groups. Obviously, women are 50 % of the population. It's a big group. But there's lots of groups that have to buy particular items that are unique to them and that are expensive.

11:14And so I think that sucks. But I think you can single that out for one group over another. I do think there already is this type of stuff factored into income tax because it is a progressive income tax system. so when you earn less, you pay less tax. But more broadly, I think that the way to solve these problems

11:41is probably through trying to improve what's going on in the market as opposed to using taxpayer money to prop things up. And I think that the West has been increasingly successful. I know that we're not there yet, but female participation in the workforce continues to rise female participation in education especially in university courses at the top end actually exceeds male participation 25 years ago there was more females than males so that's why so i think that exceeds it and this argument that says you know women are dropping out of the workforce to raise kids like i think that is true but there are also lots of um there's lots of what middle class welfare that's being paid to women who are raising kids and not working and so i think a lot of that already is being paid at the moment it wasn't a question uh obviously if you're if you're not working you're not paying tax so it's more how do you get is it how do you get women to come back to work well i think the question was given that women drop out of the workforce they earn less they've got these other expenses like should they pay less income tax and my short answer is they shouldn't pay less income tax i think you just want a system for paying income tax and a much better system than the system we have today and like there's many arguments about like how this could be done but um but i don't think changing the tax system for 50 of the population overall i'm scared to say this because i might get an earful but 50 of the population based on a gender-wide i'm not going to say stereotype but gender-wide information i don't think that is the way to do it i think you want it to be much more individualized and i think that's what the progressive tax system does a whole pandora's box on there can be a gay gay couple one that one of males and one so like i think it's hard to point it's one well should you but because you know the cost of education is not deductible for example and so should you tax people more that don't have kids i mean that would be the others these are the like that's what i think it's great like i think i've talked about this on the pod before about paternity leave maternity leave yeah and and this is i think so our view at my view of luxury escapes is probably not every single person's view but my view is we want our mums and dads to come back to work as soon as possible yeah so we don't pay maternity the government there's a government scheme obviously but we pay a return to work bonus so we'll say you come back to work we'll give you x weeks back so it's almost the opposite we want to encourage people back to it so i think i think leslie-ann's sort of pushing a similar agenda in a different way like how do we reward people coming back to work and she's saying we should do it via a tax break which is one way to do it i was saying we should do it via a bonus another way to do it i think we all i think ultimately the reason for the gender wage gap and there was and there was a nobel prize given on this basis is because women take one two three years off to raise kids and there's that's a fantastic thing to do but obviously everybody else is getting promoted you're not you know so there's clear it's not you can't really blame business for that because i don't think business are trying to harm mums they're all dads they're just saying well you're not here we can't promote you and pay you more so i think you want to i think the way to solve it is getting people back as quickly as possible and and and not bribing people not to work which is what maternity leave is get people back as much as possible and bribe people to come back to work yeah i mean that i mean i just read right the tax system is like terrible like there's much bigger problems than this that are creating inequality in the tax system like i mean i'm all in favor of the use of trusts in the tax system but it is a bizarre feature of our tax system and like i think ultimately the whole tax system needs a complete overhaul it's much too dependent on income tax yeah it's much too dependent on income tax and um so so a woman that goes and becomes a lawyer god forbid and um and then takes time off and then doesn't get to partnership at the speed that men do so they do pay less tax because they earn less money yeah once they pass into the top tax bracket effectively they're paying the same incremental tax rate on that but i don't think many people are going to have sympathy for a woman that took maternity leave and is earning four hundred thousand dollars instead of a million dollars like no one's going to give them tax breaks that's a big issue yeah and like no one's going to want to give them nor should they get a tax break well that's right and so i think again like i don't want to solve this problem as isolated i just want to overhaul the entire tax system and say how do we make this fairer so that the tax system feels fairer because it feels very unfair now and probably you tie that into how do we stop giving lots of money away to people that probably shouldn't be getting welfare money because that's the other problem with the tax system.

16:10It's a complete debacle itself. I think there's different ways to solve this problem. I would solve it through not being... We talked about the last question was about first homeowners getting money and it really being bad for them. I think maternity and paternity leave is the same thing. We're giving people money. We're actually damaging their careers in the process. So all these advocates, the work 180s of this world who you should be giving more maternity leave if we want to help women, is actually harming women. So they're actually counterproductive. They're doing exactly what the federal government's doing with First Home Home.

16:36They're pretending to be nice to you, but actually shafting you. I know, but the counterargument to that is that if you want women to have kids, which we do in the West, like it's important. Actually, like that's one of the big problems in the Western world. Then what happens, let's say it's a family, like a couple, they look at their finances and they say, we can't afford to have you not working for a year and maintain our lifestyle. which I call the I want to have an all approach to life. So we want to maintain our lifestyle and also we want to have a kid. And so the way the government has decided to deal with that is to say, don't worry, we'll give you money so you won't have to sacrifice your lifestyle and be able to still be able to have a kid.

17:14My point is the government will give you money to come back to work, not not work. That's the point. What are you going to do for the year that you're not at work? We can use that money for childcare or whatever. But the point is you're giving the same amount of money but one person is coming back to work. What if I said to you, I mean it's a very unpopular view to have today, but what if I said to you I think it's really great when the mum takes a year off to be with the kid in the first year or the dad like it doesn't have to no I don't I don't feel like that I know like I mean you're going to say well it's a very traditional view I still think there's a special relationship between the mum and the baby in year one I mean obviously there's breastfeeding which the dad is not going to be doing but like I mean you can express and whatever but like but I I want to encourage women to feel like they can spend that first year with their baby you can still spend time with I've had I've got two fairly young kids still so it wasn't that long ago we went through this and Lesley and I went back to work in two weeks so it was sort of the high water mark of going back to work but that's very uncommon I'm as you know I'm anti work from home the exception one key exception being carers and carers so if you're a new mum and you say I want to work from home you can absolutely work from home five days work for your first court year because I'd much rather be working from home than not maternity leave because I think that can be better for you well I think that's a very interesting thought the problem with that idea is that it's got more than six words in it and so it's unlikely to be adopted by any government because it's too hard to explain.

18:31And it's much easier for a government. And it sounds bad. Hernie Leap sounds good about giving you money to do nothing. I'm going to actually give you money to go to work. It's the opposite. Well, you don't mean, like, I know you don't mean, I know you don't mean it's giving you money to do nothing. It's basically giving you money to be with your kid. And what you're saying is that I think that after the first few months, three months, a lot of women that I know do want to do some work. Sure. it's very hard for them to work at that point in time because the society is not set up to go back to work one day a week.

19:01No, but you can actually, like, kids are asleep. Kids are sleeping from 9 to 10, 9 to 3. That's what I'm saying. So I think it's very hard with a three-month-old kid to go back to work two days a week to an office. Yeah, very hard for an office. But working from home, I agree with you. I think that's actually a great idea, that this madness of, like, a mandatory right to work from home in Victoria, it would be very interesting to discuss a mandatory right for mothers in year one to work from home. That's more interesting. Even me, the most pro work from office guy probably in Australia. I'm a guy who comes in 60 Minutes as the anti-Scott Farquhar.

19:34Even I'm in favour of mums being able to work from home for the first year. So if the most anti-work from home guy is in favour of it, then everybody's pretty much in favour of it. I think that's a very interesting idea. You might have peace in your house as a result of this answer. Thank you, Leslie. I'm for a great question. We'll go to a quick break and be back with our third question.

19:56And we're back, Michael, question number three. Third question comes in as a voice message from James Murray. Have a listen. Hey guys, looking for some advice for people who are wanting to start a business. If you were to start a business today, would you ignore certain industries? Those industries that might be very working capital intensive or very low margin and just difficult to succeed in. Thanks. Really good question. I love this. Adir, you're the... You're the mentor to the stars. I wouldn't just ignore low margin industries today. I would always ignore low, like I do not like low margin industries.

20:33And rightfully so. It's so hard to make money. As someone who's in a low margin industry, I can totally concur with that view. Yeah, it's hard to make money. Capital intensive. Well, the interesting thing about capital intensive is if you've got a source of capital, it becomes a competitive moat to other people competing in it. but I think, listen, everyone in this world, what does everybody love? Capital light, high margin businesses. We all love those. I mean, that is why everybody loves SaaS. Hypothetically, it's that. The problem is you have to grow to$100 million of revenue or a billion dollars of revenue.

21:06You're still not making any profits, right? To get the real margins. Yeah, and so I think that it's a balance and the balance is like, what's it going to be like for the first mil of revenue and then what's it going to be like at 10 mil of revenue? my preference is businesses that at 10 million of revenue can make a 20 profit before tax margin yeah that would be that's the kind of business that's preferred maybe it only rises to 30 percent at a hundred million dollars of revenue i mean that's a pretty good margin extraordinary margin yeah but my but i don't like businesses that are going to be at zero at a hundred mil which is so that's not how i'd run a software business anymore and i don't like businesses but i also don't think on the first mill of revenue you should necessarily be striving to make profits because like you need to grow yeah and so i don't think it's you know what the businesses i wouldn't do today maybe i wouldn't start a courier business today that probably doesn't have a great future right with with autonomous cars but i think those rules of thumb like they're universal rules of thumb irrespective of what time it is well there's a few things to look out for clearly margin's probably the biggest one but it's the margin doesn't live in a vacuum there's margin margins related to capital there's a bunch of different stuff margins related to obviously you've got a super capital intensive business like uh tsmc then you can have a high margin so like there's a bit of correlation but even a capital intensive business like you know if you're a retailer like dtc yeah yeah you've got stock yep and so you say capital intensive but then yes it's true like you've got working capital tied up in stock but then you start getting into how do we negotiate payment terms with the supplier and maybe it doesn't become so capital intensive.

22:45For example, if I can negotiate so that I'm not paying the supplier until after I've sold the stock, it's not at all capital intensive. Yeah, it can for sure. I can always get there. Not on day one, but I can always get there. You look at Nike, the classic in Shoe Dog and how Phil Knight's biggest challenge was Nike kept growing and it kept having less and less cash because it was so cash intensive. So eventually he found the Japanese trading houses and it sold it that way. That's because he had to pay, like he was probably paying all of the money before he sold the shoes maybe half up front and half 30 days after landing or 30 days after so that's a problem like you and obviously the more up front you pay the better the margin you get so everything's kind of there's no there's very rarely a free lunch but there's so much money floating around the world nowadays that most businesses that are capital intensive can find some kind of debt structure or whatever it is to fund the working capital i think look at starting a business and this is really broad So you'll look at margin, which is a big one.

23:38Look at TAM. How big is the real, how big is the total addressable actual market? So let's say you're not trying to start a business to be worth a billion dollars. Let's say you want to start a business that will make two or three million dollars of profit a year. Still relevant. I know, but how big of a TAM? What's your minimum TAM if you want to start a business like that? I think I'll be more specific. I think just giving a broad brush, three million, like what percent? Are you getting one percent? Are you getting 10 % of the market? It depends on the market. How do you find the market? If I want to start a business that can get to 15 mil of revenue and keep three, then I don't need an, like, that could be an agency, right?

24:11And so, yeah, you're right. It depends what percentage of the market you want. But, like, let's say you think I'm not going to get more than 1 % of the market. Usually, I'd use 1 % as a rule of thumb. Yeah, just add two zeros to your revenue, right? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, okay. That makes sense. So a few billion dollars. And I think it's the other thing. So you've got TAM, you've got margin, you've got, is it a problem I'm capable and well positioned to solve? So when we started... That's a good point. When we started our first business, the backpacker apartments business, we were all positioned because we were 24-year-olds.

24:37We understood backpackers. We were on the ground. We were willing to put together furniture. We were willing to do dirty, hard stuff. We were in the perfect position. Am I positioned now to do that? No. That backpackers business was effectively an arbitrage business. Absolutely. Well, every business is an arbitrage business. Well, but you were leasing, you were leasing long-term leasing. So a legal arbitrage as well as a financial arbitrage is what you're saying. Yeah. So you were leasing an apartment. Yeah. long term? For a year at least. Okay. And then you were licensing it out. We were licensing it.

25:07You were licensing it out for a month at a time. Usually it was two to three months but in the middle of winter maybe you do a month but that was very rare we do a month. And so effectively you're just making like the differential margin. So we do the arbitrage based on a few things. It was based on certainly the fact that if you're a high-end backpacker in Melbourne you could have been in Sydney but we were in Melbourne and you wanted to stay for three months you're not going to stay in a hostel for 25 bucks a night. you can't afford a hotel and you can't get a lease so yes we arbitrage the fact that they legally couldn't get a lease but also financially it wouldn't make sense to buy furniture because what are you going to buy furniture for three months for it's going to cost you 10 grand we're effectively leasing the furniture or lending them the furniture we're letting them get an apartment they couldn't otherwise get and we're doing things like setting up internet and services they couldn't do how good was your gross margin on that business so like your revenue minus the cost of the lease that you're paying and the services the problem was COGS was massive.

26:01So COGS was the vast majority. It depends if you include COGS or don't include COGS in margin. And you mean COGS as the cost of the lease of the apartment. The cost of the lease. So if you include the cost of the lease, that was like 80%. So it was only a small margin. If you assume cost of the lease is kind of pay to play, a bit like us paying the hotels here, then it was a high margin business. But would you do that business again? No. No, no. You would never do it because the margins are too low. Yes. And margins are low. The risk is high. Because you're taking principal risk. Yeah. And we weren't getting the capital appreciation.

26:30Because you're paying for that apartment whether or not you can lease it out. Well, like a hotel. But the hotel owns the capital. So the hotel's benefiting capital appreciation. Do you think that that business would have been better if you would have put down your 20 % deposit and bought properties? Well, that's what we did in the end and that's how we made a million bucks. And that's how we started Luxury Sky. But for that, we would have been still piling, we still wouldn't put in the furniture, I suspect. Because there's a lot of people taking a clip of that business. Because ultimately, the first clip is taken and by the owner of the property, right?

27:00And they're getting the capital appreciation as well. That's right. So that's who you want to be in that business. Which we became eventually. That's why you want to be McDonald's and not the person that owns the McDonald's. Well, actually, McDonald's owners do it right as well because there's so much money in the business. I know, but that's why. McDonald's has got this massive capital appreciation they're getting on their properties. Yeah. Well, now they actually don't do the property thing as much as they used to in the Sonnenberg times. But that's incredible. What we should have done is Airbnb, who was the platform, the capital light, the marketplace.

27:26And we were around during that period. we used Airbnb. Well, I still don't think that's a good business though. Airbnb. Well, not Airbnb itself, but you know, the people that manage properties on Airbnb. Oh, the sub Airbnb. Yeah. Well, that's exactly what we were. That's the same. Oh, actually, they're different. They don't own the property. They don't take the risk, right? They're property managers. They're clipping a margin. Yeah. And like, if you pay$2 ,000 for an Airbnb, Airbnb takes their clip and then maybe the manager takes what, 10 %? They're a pure services provider. I think it's a fine business, but you're not going to be a billionaire doing that.

27:57Clearly. You're not going to be a hundred millionaire. We've had enough. Like if you can scale it, it's not unthinkable. Well, the business that sold a few months ago, which was - Oh no, that was the platform between. So there's multiple players in that market. I think there's the person who stays, the guest. They deal with the property manager, who you're talking about. They're like a real estate agent, essentially. Yes, that's right. They then deal with the platform, the made comfies or the home times, who then deal with Airbnb. Is that right? So there's like four different layers. What does a made comfy platform do?

28:27That's a SaaS tech platform. How do you optimize? How much should you charge for it? Oh, is it? I don't know. That's what it was. They're great businesses. They're really good businesses. And so in that stack that you just said, because I guess it's interesting for this conversation, it's actually very interesting. So you can be, so think about this. You're starting a new business. You can try and be Airbnb. Who do you be? That's the best bit. That's crazy capital intensive. And really hard. And you need billions of dollars to make that, to build that business. Well, now you do. Airbnb started with Cheerios and rebranding them.

28:58All right. But like to build Airbnb, you need to, even if you were trying to build the next Airbnb of a different industry, ultimately you're going to need an endless supply of capital and you're going to get diluted, diluted, diluted. And like, you're going to be guys kept up 30%, but yeah, but they're going to be working for someone else. Ultimately, they're the founders, but they're not in control of their own destiny at some point. Control. But yeah. And then let's not use Airbnb. You can be the software platform. Yep. So SAS platform. And Airbnb should have actually owned that. They stuffed up and didn't.