Voice-over: This is Leaders in Finance, a podcast where we find out more about the people behind successful careers. We speak with the leaders of today and tomorrow to discuss their motivations, their organizations, and their personal lives. Why? Because the financial sector could use a little more honest conversation. We’d like to thank our partners for their ongoing support. They are EY, Mogelijk Real Estate Finance, and Lepaya. Your host is Jeroen Broekema.
Jeroen: Welcome, listeners, to a new episode of the Leaders in Finance podcast. Thanks for tuning in. This week, I’m joined here at his table, actually, by Martijn Gribnau. Welcome, Martijn.
Martijn: Thank you very much. Just for the record, I work and live mostly in New York, and now I’m in Amsterdam and have to speak English. Just for the Dutch listeners: I still speak Dutch and not with an American accent. Just for the record, I want to set that straight.
Jeroen: Okay, very clear, very clear. And also, to be honest, you asked me to come to New York, and I said, well, what can we do in Amsterdam? So you’re totally right. And I’m very happy to speak to you again. This morning I looked it up—it’s been quite a while. Although it felt like only one or two years ago, it’s been almost five years since we recorded the CEO podcast for Leaders in Finance. I can hardly believe it. And before we start, I’d like to thank the partners of the podcast: EY, the global consulting and audit firm, Mogelijk Vastgoed Financieringen, and Lepaya. So, as I said…
Martijn: I want to thank EY as well. I just announced a strategic partnership with Ernst & Young, with Quant, the company I currently work for in New York.
Jeroen: All right, all right. Okay, sounds good. So EY is a bridge here. So, as I said, it’s been a while since we did the CEO interview, where we learned a lot about you being CEO of what is now called ASN Bank, but also about you privately. Today, I’d love to check in again and see how you’re doing, because it’s been almost two years since you left the CEO position at, as I said, ASN—at the time, de Volksbank. I’m really curious because on LinkedIn I see all these different things you’re doing. I’m curious to check in with you—what’s going on? Where do you spend most of your time? How do you reflect on that period with ASN Bank, etc.? I also see a lot about AI. I’m obviously interested in that. So many topics—let’s structure that a bit. First of all, as I said, two years ago you left ASN Bank. Does it feel like a long time ago?
Martijn: Yes. Yes, time flies. You probably have the same experience. I’ll never forget the last day—it was the last AGM. When I left, I wanted to go back by train. Everybody asked me, will you miss your chauffeur? I said no, but I will miss Mustafa. Anyway, I wanted to go back by train, but Jacqueline Thao drove Anita and me back to Amsterdam. Then I actually took three months to see a lot of friends and family. I realized that I had basically ignored everybody, which I’m not proud of. So it took a long time to reconnect. I really went all in on the job, 24/7. I’ll never forget my assistant saying in one of the last weeks, Martijn, you have a day off, but you have to come to work. Well, I listen to people, so I showed up. My brother and sister were in my office. Martijn, you said in the newspaper that you would spend more time with your family—here we are. So that was kind of a wake-up call. Anita—yes, that’s my wife, I met her at ING, one of the best things that ever happened to me—allowed me to go to Colorado, Denver. I did a quarter triathlon. I had promised that in an interview, and I did it. I became third in my age category. There were about 30 in my category and 300–400 overall, so it was not too bad. People asked me why Colorado. You have 53 peaks there above 3,000 meters, and when you walk there, you really see—you’re only second on earth. You better use your second well. That gave me time to reflect and ask myself, what the hell am I good at? Not that much. So I figured out what I wanted to do and reconnected with American friends I had also ignored for years. So I’m an equal ignorer, at least.
Jeroen: Before we move into all the thinking you did, let’s first look back at your roughly four years at ASN Bank. What’s your reflection now, two years later?
Martijn: I have no regrets at all about joining. You might recall I said at the time that it felt like an honor to be at what is now ASN Bank and before that de Volksbank. The Dutch state paid for my studies, those of my brothers and sisters, and supported my mother so she could raise three kids. So for me, it was about giving something back to the Netherlands in my own way. Also, when I said yes, my mother became very sick, so I was there for her as well. It was extremely intense, but as is publicly known, I also concluded it was time for me to leave and make space for a new team and different leadership to take the next step.
Jeroen: What made it so intense?
Martijn: There were issues with the CFO, and I had to take on multiple roles for about three years to recruit the right people, which took a toll. Being state-owned meant many stakeholders, which made it intense but also very rewarding.
Jeroen: Are you still following what they’re doing?
Martijn: Before I left, I tried to make a neutral analysis with my successor, so I’m not completely surprised by what’s happening. But I deliberately stay away. I’m quite intense, and I don’t want to distract people. If people reach out, I always make time and give advice, but I keep my distance.
Jeroen: You have a special relationship with the US, right? You mentioned Colorado and having a green card before. What is that relationship exactly?
Martijn: I finished my master’s thesis in the US in the 90s. I studied bedrijfskunde—management and organization—in Groningen. Much of the literature was American. America still stands, for me, for entrepreneurship, freedom, and space. Anita and I were among the first expats from ING to both get jobs in the US in the 90s, when mobile phones weren’t common yet. There’s also more tolerance to stand out. You can be more playful, which suits my character. I strongly believe in three metaphors: who thinks the sky is the limit has no imagination; a strategy without execution is a hallucination; and work hard, play hard, deliver. That “play hard” is important to me.
Jeroen: And the green card—is it a problem that you don’t have one now?
Martijn: I was fortunate to get an O1 visa within a few weeks, and I’m in the process of getting the green card again, which takes about four years. But in the end, it’s just a card. There are more important things in life. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have given it up in the first place.
Jeroen: So you’re in Colorado, reflecting. What were you thinking about regarding your future?
Martijn: Initially, it was just about relaxing. For me, exercise is relaxation. Then I asked myself what truly gives me energy. I realized it’s helping organizations move from A to B, building better teams than myself, and moving them to the next phase. I also learned I’m quite industry-agnostic and wanted to explore different sectors. Someone suggested private equity or VC—Frank Lamsing from Inkef. So I started advising a company called Haiilo, a Finnish-owned firm building intranet solutions. I had to ask Anita first because I promised to take a year off. It was fun—young team, helping the CEO. In that VC world, rules are less strict. I came in with an MBA, and they asked why. It was refreshing. Then I was asked by the board of Lepaya to help them grow. I also advised other companies informally, just to explore industries.
Jeroen: What do you mainly bring to the table?
Martijn: I’ll turn it around—what’s your superpower?
Jeroen: A network.
Martijn: Mine is energy. I bring energy, willingness to learn, and help companies analyze where they are and build a plan to move forward. I’m a lateral thinker. Anita would say I can move from strategy to detail quickly and intervene on the human side. The downside is I go too fast and lose people, so I need to slow down.
Jeroen: How do you slow down?
Martijn: Exercise helps. I also have a Sunday group called De Bende van de Lende—a multi-generational group where you can join if you have a physical or mental issue, which most people do. Exercise helps me calm down, but I also need to consciously slow down how I speak. I’m like a puppy—if I like something new, I go after it.
Jeroen: So what came after Happio and Lepaya?
Martijn: While at de Volksbank, I never did anything on the side, and I won’t do that again. I need variety to keep my brain active. I was asked by Chetan Dube to become a non-executive board member of Amelia. He’s a brilliant AI entrepreneur—founded IPsoft and later Amelia, one of the first conversational AI platforms. I helped bring it to market when few believed in it. Later, he asked me to join Quant as an executive to help grow the business. I said yes, but only after reflecting on past lessons. We structured the company differently, and it’s great to work there. I’m one of the oldest in a team of very young, brilliant AI experts. I learn a lot and try to help grow the business and increase its impact.
Jeroen: So, in just a few sentences, what are the key things this company focuses on?
Martijn: Truly agentic AI solutions. Let me quickly explain the difference between generative AI and true agentic AI. Generative AI is based on LLMs. We are LLM-agnostic, and we are also speech-to-text agnostic. LLMs are doing a great job, but they are not deterministic. They cannot really act on things, except maybe in very small ways. We use LLMs, but we also build a deterministic layer with calculations. We use calculations in companies as well, which gives the agent the ability, if you ask questions, to develop an autonomous action plan and act with precision, for example by doing bill payments or a bill transfer. I also told them: let’s go live with three customers first. I have the CEOs and CIOs of those companies saying: it works as advertised. What? And it does. I basically showed you a banking demo.
Jeroen: Yeah, just for people listening: before we started the podcast recording, Martijn showed me a demo where he just started asking questions. I don’t know whether they were random questions or not.
Martijn: No, they were.
Jeroen: So, just to try the system and see how you could maybe play it. During your conversation about your wealth, pretty much, you asked a question like: what do you think about Donald Trump? And it just refused to answer—or he or she, or the system.
Martijn: Yeah, that is actually in the Gartner rules.
Jeroen: Yeah. So this is what you are now piloting with different organizations. It doesn’t have to be in finance.
Martijn: It’s live. We’re going live; it’s now in pre-production at Saudia Airlines, and it can basically answer all your questions about flight booking, taxi booking, and hotel booking. It goes live with Pizza Pizza, a chain in Canada, where you can order 200,000 variations of pizza. I wouldn’t think of that, by the way. And they can deliver it to one of the thousand shops or to your home. And we’re going live with PPL, a very large energy company, also in production.
Jeroen: So, just for my information, what is the business model? Are they using a subscription model? Are they using you? Are you implementing it for them? How does it work?
Martijn: We deliver it as a service, preferably outcome-driven.
Jeroen: So if I don’t make 200,000 pizza sales?
Martijn: No, no. I want it to be outcome-driven. Most customers are not ready for that, by the way. We deliver it as a service, as an agentic operating layer. One of the things I see is that everybody goes use case by use case by use case. Then you don’t really get the benefits. Most AI projects have not been that beneficial up to now. So I always say: give me an opportunity, I’ll do it risk-based, and I’ll prove that it works as advertised.
Jeroen: What are the biggest learnings from one of these cases where you already work, like the airline company or the pizza company? What have you learned from implementing it there?
Martijn: A few things. We can develop the technology extremely fast. I’m talking days or hours. The long pole consists of three things. First, I need REST APIs, so connections to the existing systems. That always takes more time than you think. Second, you often have to deal with internal compliance, internal regulations, and external regulations. I would also add that sometimes these are exaggerated. I can talk more about that. And the third one is people. We are already live with PPL, and the agent is already outperforming human beings, and still they have more and more requirements. It is just a mindset shift to really think about what is possible.
Jeroen: In the end, that will be the most important thing, I guess. Also the willingness to try. That was actually my next question: is it easier to deploy these kinds of systems in less regulated industries than, for example, in financial services?
Martijn: Most industries are now regulated, by the way, in different ways. Yes, a pizza chain is easier, to be honest. However, PPL and energy companies are as regulated as banks. It is interesting because we use existing workflows and existing information, and still people are scared. I think, in the end, your risk will be lower because you have consistent answers, everything is regulated, and you are available 24/7. But it is still perceived as more risky.
Jeroen: Last week I spoke with a regulator, and he kept pointing out that he was quite willing to accept a lot of risks—as long as you are able to explain what you have done. Those are my words, to be clear.
Martijn: Again, we do not use LLMs for calculations. The answers are deterministic. We are not going live with an airline if it does not work. You cannot say, as an LLM might do: I want to book a flight from London to Riyadh, and in the end you end up close to Riyadh, in Abu Dhabi. Or: you need to pay more; well, it is roughly 3,000 bucks. You cannot do that. So it is really tested to the max. What I showed you is real, but it is beyond the comprehension of many people because they still compare it with a chatbot. That is one of the reasons why, in the US, we partner with IBM. IBM will use our solution in their BPO organization. So we are tested by IBM. They are quite technical, if you remember. And with Ernst & Young, we do the same. We need partners to help with the transformation and to help change the mindset. I personally talk with people I know, people I have worked with or for, who I know are open-minded. They do not have to buy anything, but at least they are open-minded.
Jeroen: In financial services, where do you think you are going to deploy the first business case? Where would you say that is the best place to start?
Martijn: We will see.
Jeroen: But what do you think? People always talk about customer contact centers and those kinds of things.
Martijn: You have tons of applications. You can put an agentic layer on top of your omnichannel, indeed, and have the technology take over. But you can also put it on a mortgage process. I cannot reveal what I am doing here with Dutch customers; that is not appropriate. But I was here on Thursday, and I was really proud of the comment we received. I was there with Ernst & Young, and the comment was: this was very stimulating and very confronting. Then I think we made a step.
Jeroen: Stimulating, I can see. Confronting because it is ultimately going to change their business model?
Martijn: It will change.
Jeroen: Or is it just the opportunity side of it? Or also scary in a way?
Martijn: This bank was open. Otherwise, they would not have said it was stimulating and confronting and that they needed to act faster. I think it was confronting because when I showed the agentic bank with real APIs, they were shocked by what is already really possible. It is much further than only the generative part. Maybe governance, or over-governance, has gone a bit too far in European banks. That is a huge difference with the US. The US moves faster. The other extreme is that there are no rules anymore in the US, and that is not good either. But the US moves faster. The Arab world moves faster.
Jeroen: The reason I asked the previous question is that if I listened to a presentation like this, on the one hand I would see massive opportunities. You have a lot of people doing things that can easily be done with these agentic AI solutions. But at the same time, I would think: this could also completely undermine my business model. Are they willing to talk about that as well? Or is it more a feeling of: we need to be really careful in the next few years because it can change everything?
Martijn: Jeroen, obviously you like it because you are a true entrepreneur. I am only working with big companies. I think both. It will change operating models. I compare it with the time when I was allowed to work at ING and helped set up ING Direct in the Netherlands, when mobile and internet came together. That was the breakthrough. It still took 30 years to get everyone digital. People still talk about digital. I think this time you have the same breakthrough, but it will not take 30 years. At the Future of Banking event at Ernst & Young, I said: develop your strategy, act now, and start experimenting. The worst thing that could happen is that you try, learn, and maybe—as they would say in the US—you piss away a few hundred thousand dollars. What I learned with innovation, I remember from the Internet Competence Center. We started by setting up a mobile channel on the WAP protocol. It did not work that well, but out of that came SMS banking, the mobile channel, etc. You never know exactly what will come out of it, but you will be ahead and new things will emerge. If you do not try, you will not have these things. There are 4,000 companies, and everybody says everything is AI, just as everything was blockchain and everything was digital. Just try, just try, just try.
Jeroen: One last question on the business model for financial institutions, because most listeners obviously work for financial institutions. There are so many places within a financial institution, for example a bank, insurance company, or asset manager, where I think AI could do pretty much the same thing for me as a retail customer, or as an institutional customer, that the bank is doing for me now. For example, creating a plan for how to manage my money for the next 10, 20, or 30 years. Even now, when I type into the LLMs you mentioned, I already get pretty good answers, let alone when it becomes agentic, talks with me, gets more information, and structures it. So there are thousands of people doing advisory work in this area, or many people doing AML checks—14,000-plus people in the Netherlands, I think. AI could do that. There are so many things where it will probably erode a lot of what banks currently do.
Martijn: Now I am wearing my banking suit again. I do not have it with me, by the way. LLMs do not give advisory positions, so I would be scared about that.
Jeroen: Sure, but just as an example of what they can already do—it is already amazing, let alone when you add the new layer.
Martijn: Yes. If you put the agentic part on top, and if I were to set up a new bank and had an investor, I would put an agentic layer on top of it for all customer interactions. Of course, you still have human beings. Then I would buy all core banking functions as a service, and you have a bank. You still need a balance sheet, money, and some other things. So do not underestimate the barriers.
Jeroen: So much money in the world.
Martijn: The barriers to entry are quite high. But you would set it up completely differently. It would be very lightweight. I also think customer adoption will not be the issue. That is already happening in Europe. It is a bit slower in other parts, but it will happen. It happened with online banking, and it happened with everything. I strongly believe that you should buy almost everything as a service, because everything will become commoditized. But your customer interaction is where you make the difference. That was always my belief, and I still believe that.
Jeroen: You already alluded to the US versus Europe. Wherever you open a newspaper, it is always about Europe being behind. Is it really that bad? Because you live partly here and partly in New York City, so you are well placed to compare the two. Are we Europeans really so far behind on AI and tech developments?
Martijn: It moves slower here. But I am very hopeful. The reasons why Europe needs to act as it does—I amnot completely supportive of all of them. But every time there has been a crisis, Europe has become stronger and better. In Canada, for example, internal roadblocks are being eliminated directly because of US policy. I hope this will remove internal barriers to trade in Europe as well. I also hope we will still have guardrails and strong regulation in place, but it should not stifle innovation. That is why America can innovate so fast at scale.
Jeroen: It is regulation, but also capital—putting capital to work.
Martijn: And mentality. Three things, actually. I see a lot of innovation happening in Amsterdam, by the way, as a tech hub. But Americans are just faster at scaling, putting in more money, and taking more risks.
Jeroen: So there are three reasons why it is going faster. Would you say that the current administration in the US could actually help Europe because it is causing a big crisis for us here?
Martijn: I think it already helps Europe, especially on defense, for the wrong reasons, to be fair, but it was needed. I also hope, and I also see, that it will help Europe on innovation and regulation, so we do not lose our competitiveness. China is moving extremely fast and experimenting with everything. You saw robots running almost a marathon. They experiment like hell, also with different forms of regulation. Then you have the US, and Europe risks being stuck behind if it does not act. I see a lot of momentum in Europe and a willingness to act. Now we have to push it through and not only say it on paper.
Jeroen: Looking at AI specifically, I just looked it up while you were talking. I read the book AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order by Kai-Fu Lee. That was in 2019, so quite a long time ago. The basic premise is that you need the right people, a lot of data, and a lot of money to become an AI superpower. Is that still your thinking as well? That once you are on this track and you have the data, the right people, and the money, you become bigger and bigger, and others are not able to catch up? Or will it be more like the current world, with different places where power is concentrated? In other words, will AI ultimately have a tendency to become a monopoly for certain parts of the world, or maybe two main superpowers, as the book indicates? Or can there be five, six, seven, eight, or twenty?
Martijn: I cannot predict the future, and I do not have the capabilities to do that. However, you do know that AI needs a lot of data, data centers, and energy. The US is massively investing in that. China is also investing massively in energy.
Jeroen: And the US has more energy than it needs as well.
Martijn: Yes, and they invest massively in policy as well. Secondly, the talent pool is very large, and they also invest in that. And they have the capital. So yes, there is a risk that, as the book says, it will be China and the US if we do not act. But there are a lot of big innovators in the Netherlands as well. I am happy we support ASML and others. They need all the support and freedom within boundaries to continue to innovate.
Jeroen: ASML is investing in Mistral AI, right? So who knows. For me, by the way, on an LLM level—not the agentic level—I am comparing ChatGPT with Le Chat. I do not see much difference as a relatively basic user, obviously.
Martijn: In the end, you will get standards. Monopolies will come and disappear, as they always have. That will happen here too. I cannot predict when and how exactly, but I am hopeful. I am European, so I am hopeful.
Jeroen: New York was called New Amsterdam at some point. So, if you work in Dutch financial services—it does not matter whether at a bank, insurance company, or maybe even a fintech—and you hear all these stories about AI and see certain places where your business is already using it a little, what would you recommend to people of all ages? What should they do? Read? Take courses?
Martijn: Read, practice, read, and practice.
Jeroen: But what does practice mean in practice?
Martijn: Build yourself an agent. Also see the strengths and weaknesses. Compare Claude with ChatGPT. Try to learn. The same way we learned to use an iPad or a mobile phone. We also had to learn that. Learn. Just use it. But do not use it as a single source of truth.
Jeroen: That is fair advice. And at board level, what do you tell people?
Martijn: In general, I think if you work at a bank, and this is my personal opinion, you need to understand technology in general: what is possible and what is not possible. For me, a bank has a balance sheet and a customer interface. The customer interface is a customer organization and a technology organization. So technology is crucial. And when something is moving this fast and is this disruptive, then as a board you should really understand what it is. You should be willing to understand, willing to learn, and understand the pros and cons, and how you facilitate change management. You should lead from the front.
Jeroen: Do you see big differences? You speak to a lot of CEOs, both in and outside financial services. Do you see big differences in their mentality and how they look at AI and progress?
Martijn: You should be willing to lead from the front and set the example. You need to rethink how you want to set up your business model, create an empowered organization, and stimulate sufficient risk-taking within boundaries. I can give you an example. New York Life, a very old-fashioned insurance company: their CEO said every leader needs to develop an agent themselves.
Jeroen: Top-down.
Martijn: Yes. Boom. That is New York Life, a more old-fashioned insurance company.
Jeroen: But that is something you would recommend, right?
Martijn: Yes, that is what I would recommend. Some companies are still stuck in governance and regulation. I am sorry to say that, but if you are stuck in regulations and governance, then you do not do anything. In the end, that is a higher risk. I think we are in a phase where not trying and not experimenting is the higher risk. The ability to set up very lightweight companies with agentic AI is really there, at a completely different cost level. And if customers get used to it and see those almost human-like customer interactions, then you are behind the game. That is the big risk.
Jeroen: Yeah. But you’ve been CEO of a major Dutch bank as well. So you know, from your own experience, that you’re busy with a lot of things. And then, on top of that, you want everyone to innovate on AI. It’s not easy to let everyone do it.
Martijn: Not everybody. You would say: okay, where do I focus? Where do I wait for companies to go at their own pace? For example, if you use Microsoft and others, you may just want to wait until they do it. And where do I invest separately or differently, where I really want to make a difference? So you start with strategy. But if you don’t do it… I’m still proud that ING set up ING Direct. And when I worked at Postbank, they said: Martijn, please set up ING Direct in the Netherlands. So there was a will. That means focus. Most of the change management and the budget were focused on that. You cannot focus AI on everything either, because then you do not do anything. So where do you use industry standards, and where do you use specific solutions like Quant or something else to really make a fast difference?
Jeroen: So back to your work week. Is it fair to say that most of your time goes to Quant?
Martijn: In hindsight, yes. I couldn’t control myself. I’m an executive again. However, I have time to spare, and I still try to look for opportunities to do things on the side. Because, in all fairness, for any company I work for, you don’t want to have me working there full-time, because I start interrupting and disrupting people too much. So I think it is good therapy for my current job, and for everybody, if I do something on the side.
Jeroen: So if you were asked to become a non-executive director of a major bank in the Netherlands, or anywhere in the world for that matter, would that be something you find interesting?
Martijn: I’m very honest here. I basically said: no freaking way do I want to be a member of a supervisory board. However, I was too quick to say that. That is a risk if you are spontaneous. I was invited by McKinsey and Egon Zehnder to participate in the Board Academy. Sometimes they invite a CEO or former CEO. And I had to adjust my opinion.
Jeroen: And you did?
Martijn: I did. But it should be in the right setting. In a supervisory board, you have three roles: employer, controller, and advisor. There should be enough space for the advisor role, and a team willing to be advised, and vice versa, because I like that too much.
Jeroen: But generally speaking, if you were to add something to your existing portfolio and the things you do, would it be more like a supervisory board, or more like startups that need a senior person?
Martijn: I always help startups. I do that and have always done that a little bit. But you know I’m an acquired taste. So we’ll see what happens. By the way, in all transparency, that is not the reason for this interview. Let me be very clear about that.
Jeroen: What was it? To say that you’re open for…
Martijn: You asked me.
Jeroen: I’m curious. Because you used to do a lot of things. At de Volksbank, you spent all your time there, but you still have a lot of time and energy to spend. It’s annoying.
Martijn: I irritate myself as well.
Jeroen: Well, it’s great as well, right? Those are two sides of the same coin.
Martijn: What I really like now is helping organizations, helping Quant grow, and helping organizations implement a truly disruptive solution. That is a lot of fun. And if I can help others with the few talents I have—only one or two—then I’m more than happy to do that. I’m too curious by nature.
Jeroen: That’s great. Before we wrap up, Martijn, I really enjoyed this conversation. We’ll speak about that a little bit in a moment. But is there something else we should have discussed that we haven’t discussed?
Martijn: That is a trick question. I need to check here. You could go anywhere. I have nobody from communications with me this time, so I’m completely alone. No, I’m very grateful that you came here, because your luggage is significantly heavy. And it’s fun that, even though I don’t work directly in finance anymore, you invited me for the podcast. So thank you for that. And it is truly amazing what kind of brand you have developed with a very small organization, because your brand delivers more impact than you may notice yourself.
Jeroen: Thank you so much. It’s really kind of you to mention that. I’m just saying that you’re the first CEO out of the 200 we have interviewed that we have ever interviewed again. We always said there is one interview, but here I was really triggered by what you were doing. Maybe I’m going to do it more often, because I like it. And as I said in the beginning, I was very surprised that it had been five years. A lot has happened in the meantime.
Martijn: I have a new title for you: Ex-Leaders in Finance. I like to be the frontrunner in things with you.
Jeroen: There you go. I knew it. And to be clear, listeners, this was not an AI bot I just chatted with. It was a person in flesh and blood in front of me. Thank you so much, Martijn, for taking the time. I’m really excited to have you back on the podcast. I’d love to check in again somewhere in the next few years.
Martijn: In the next five years.
Jeroen: Well, maybe a bit earlier, because there was too much to cover in a short podcast. Good luck with everything at Quant. I’m really interested to follow what is going on there and to see whether you get your first customers in financial services, especially if it is in the Netherlands. If you have a big one and both parties want to come out and talk about it, then please do. I’d love to hear more about that. For now, thank you so much for having me here in your home in Amsterdam. Maybe next time we’ll be in New York. Let’s see.
Martijn: Not maybe. Next time New York.
Jeroen: Next time New York. I promise. All right. Thank you so much.
Voice-over: You’ve been listening to Leaders in Finance. We hope you’ve enjoyed the episode and would love to hear from you. What’s on your mind? Who would you like to hear next? Let us know in a review, by email, or get in touch via our social channels. We’d greatly appreciate it. Finally, we’d like to thank our partners for their ongoing support: EY, Mogelijk Real Estate Finance, and Lapaya. Don’t forget to check out all the other things we do at leadersinfinance.nl. Thank you for listening.