S1 | Economics

The Future of Healthcare & Education | SALT Talks #249

“I really believe Abu Dhabi is going to give us a window into the future… Geographically, it’s so well situated.”

Welcome to the first episode of the Emerging From a Post-Pandemic World series, presented by ADGM. Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) is an international financial centre (IFC) located in the capital city of the United Arab Emirates. Established by UAE Federal Decree as a broad-based financial centre, ADGM augments Abu Dhabi’s position as a global hub for business and finance and serves as a strategic link between the growing economies of the Middle East, Africa and South Asia and the rest of the world.

Michael Moe and Jim Mellon discuss their companies’ efforts to improve education and health care, respectively. They describe the advancements in each industry and how they will transform society while solving some of the world’s biggest challenges. Moe sees education innovation as a huge economic driver, particularly in the Middle East where it will power the region’s knowledge economy. Mellon emphasizes the importance of first improving quality of life before extending lifespans and predicts the mass adoption of meat alternatives that will address persistent health issues and climate change.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Mellon, Jim - Cropped.jpeg

Jim Mellon

Chairman & Co-Founder

Juvenescence

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

7:55 - American education system

8:55 - Healthcare and education in the Middle East and beyond

11:29 - Longevity and anti-aging advancements

12:57 - AgTech and food chain transformation

20:43 - Education as an economic driver

24:45 - Economic incentives driving AgTech, BioTech and education

30:08 - Education as an equalizer

31:31 - Quality assurance in education

35:35 - Non-linear education timeline

37:00 - Juvenescence, metabolic switch and restructuring society around longer life

43:02 - Intermittent fasting and biological breakthroughs

45:42 - Making education and healthy living more engaging

52:00 - Democratizing and reimagining education and healthy living

56:27 - Abu Dhabi as a global center

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Anthony Scaramucci: (00:49)
Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is Anthony Scaramucci, I am the founder of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum encompassing finance, technology, and politics. SALT Talks is a digital interview series with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. Just as we do with our global SALT events, we aim to empower big, important ideas and provide a window into the minds of subject-matter experts. We are excited today to bring you the first episode in a new series of SALT Talks with our friends at Abu Dhabi Global Markets regarding new paradigms in a post-pandemic world. Co-hosting today's talk with me is my dear friend, Mark Cutis, the chief executive officer of ADGM, which obviously stands for Abu Dhabi Global Markets. ADGM is an award-winning international financial center located on the beautiful Al Maryah Island in Abu Dhabi.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:53)
We hosted our inaugural SALT Abu Dhabi Conference at Emirates Palace in 2019 and are excited to bring that event back to the UAE in the coming months. On today's SALT Talk, we will be hosting a conversation about new healthcare and education. This is very applicable and important for the post-pandemic world. These are two of the most successful investors and entrepreneurs, Jim Mellon and Michael Moe. Jim, Jim Mellon is a British entrepreneur, investor and philanthropist with a wide range of interests. Through his private investment company Burnbrae Group he has a substantial holdings in real estate as well as private and public companies. Jim's investment philosophy is underpinned by a careful analysis of new industries, or major shifts in markets. Most recently has focused on investments and businesses in healthcare, biotechnology and Ag tech. His recent book Juvenescence mark the beginning of a rush of capital into the nascent field of aging research, and also led to the formation of the company Juvenescence with his partners.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:06)
Juvenescence is a leading biopharma company in the commercialization of therapies to slow stop and reverse aging. More recently, Jim authored the book Moo's Law, focused on investment opportunities in the new agrarian revolution and fields of cellular agriculture. Jim co founded agronomics to invest in a portfolio of leading companies in the sector and is its largest investor. Jim sits on the board of trustees of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, and of the American Federation for Aging Research AFAR. He's a trustee of Biogerontology research... Excuse me, let me say that again, he is a trustee of Biogerontology Research Foundation, and an Honorary Fellow of Oriel College at the University of Oxford, where he established the Mellon Center for Longevity. And Jim also sits on the advisory board of the Milken Institute's Center for the Future of Aging. And I might add, Jim, you're going to be a really good friend of mine because I expect to keep this hair and my face unwrinkled. So I'm really looking forward to spending more time with you Jim.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:24)
Michael Moe is the founder of GSV, a modern merchant bank that invests advises and partners with the fastest growing most dynamic companies in the world, the stars of tomorrow. He's currently serves as the CEO of GSV asset management. Regarded as a preeminent authority on growth investing Michael's honors include institutional investors, all American research team and the Wall Street Journal's best on the street award. Michael is the author of several best selling books. Michael has increasingly focused recently on his greatest passion education. He is a visionary in the field of Ed Tech. He has a passion that he is pursuing for the last three decades. Today he sits on the board of directors of Coursera, Curious, GSVlabs, Course Hero, Class Dojo, Parchment, Storm Wind, OZY Media. Michael and his business partners, Deborah Quazzo created the GSV ASU summit, the world's greatest Thought Leadership Forum in the field of Ed Tech.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:33)
And my friend Mark Cutis, I'm looking over you and telling you, sir, that you and I are the underachievers here, sir. I don't know what we're doing with our careers after reading those two amazing bios. But I turn it over to you, sir, to start the questioning. And thank you guys so much for joining us on SALT Talks today.

Michael Moe: (05:50)
Thanks Antony.

Jim Mellon: (05:50)
Thanks Antony.

Mark Cutis: (05:52)
Thank you, Anthony. It's quite a pleasure to be involved with this group of the four of us here. And I do want to say both of you are covering two key areas education, and health care, that I think in so many ways will define the new post pandemic age. But if I could just step back for a moment and say, you have amazing credentials, you've achieved a lot. But when I think of the four of us, Anthony Scaramucci, has had many experiences that will be difficult to replicate. And if we do have a moment at the end, I would love to ask him some questions of his career, particularly in the Trump administration. But in any event, I won't delve into that I'll just go straight.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:41)
Well, first of all, Cutis it was a very long career.

Mark Cutis: (06:44)
Exactly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:44)
I just want to make sure everybody knows that, okay? And if you want to make me feel better, you can say it lasted 954,000 seconds. Keep going Mark.

Mark Cutis: (06:54)
Okay, but let me just put in my two cents here. You're the only person that I know, that has emerged from that administration, which hasn't really been battered. So I think at another time, we'll talk about your longevity, and your ability to essentially come out of this unscathed.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:12)
[crosstalk 00:07:12].

Mark Cutis: (07:12)
So I want to turn for a moment to Michael, on education. And the issue with education, particularly for the Middle East is seminal. Now, before we talk about the Middle East, I want to ask you about the states. America has the best and the worst, kind of like Charles Dickens, with the best of times the worst of times. We have the best schools. And we also have massively underperforming schools particularly in our high school systems that have left behind a large swath of America. And I know that's been something that you have had close to your heart. Can you tell us a little bit about America, what we need to do in the States? And then we'll turn to your big project in the Middle East?

Michael Moe: (07:54)
Yeah, well, fundamentally, one of the biggest problems in America and this also is a problem many places in the world, is that your future is determined by how well you select your parents. And that fundamentally, is just unfair. And so we believe, I believe strongly that talent is pretty equally distributed around the world, but opportunity is not. And so how do you change that equation? How do you give everybody an equal opportunity to participate in the future? And the foundation of that is access to quality education.

Mark Cutis: (08:28)
Great. So when we talk about the region, because I think this is going to be one area yours in healthcare, that will be defining for the modern age for this area and for the world. What sort of initiatives if you can just touch upon those are you thinking about and what are you trying to do? Before we talk about why you're in Abu Dhabi?

Michael Moe: (08:52)
Sure. To back up even GSV stands for Global Silicon Valley, which is basically what we felt was a trend 10 years ago was the mindset of innovation, entrepreneurship that's made Silicon Valley such a remarkable place was spreading throughout the world. And we wanted to connect Silicon Valley with the emerging Global Silicon Valley. As it relates to specifically the Middle East, and I'm going to broaden that scope. The Middle East is a fascinating place in terms of the oil powered the manufacturing economy, where education is going to power the knowledge economy, and this region gets that. And so how do you transform a society? It's getting access to quality education. And so both the acknowledgement, and the mindset that education needs to be at the top of list of priorities is very, very clear. And so we feel that support in every kind of level of conversations that we've had and that's why we are so excited about putting a flag in Abu Dhabi.

Mark Cutis: (09:56)
So one more last question before I turn to Jim. And it's kind of a banal suggestion, but there isn't a one size fits all for education. But are there common characteristics that you think would apply to the US, the Middle East and Europe for that matter?

Michael Moe: (10:14)
Well, I think there's a key philosophy. So if you think about, one idea is that the word elite means scarcity in most parts of the world, where elite really means to mean excellence, as well as cost and quality are directly associated. So what we need to be able to do is make high quality education as at lower cost as humanly possible, if not free. So we're invested in Coursera, they have over 80 million students on their platform, 97% of them don't pay a dime. And so there's many, many, many lessons to learn from different parts of the world in different areas of where there's both opportunity and excellence. But I would say it starts with a mindset.

Mark Cutis: (10:58)
That's great. That's excellent, thank you for that. I'm going to turn to Jim for a moment. Anthony talked about longevity. And you were a member, you're still a part of The Buck Institute, which I belonged to, at one point in time. Tell us a little bit about longevity, what it means because many people have confused longevity with people becoming gnarled and living to be 110 but without a quality of life. Because I know, that's not what you mean.

Jim Mellon: (11:28)
Yeah, our first mission, and what we do, is to try and improve the quality of life in the latter years. And about 15% of people's lives at the moment are characterized towards the end of their lives by one or more severe illness. And our mission to begin with, is to try and reduce that period, which can be as long as 13 years. So rather than trying to extend life, which is our secondary mission, which I think will happen by the way. And so we are looking at aging as a central disease from which the diseases of aging cascades, all the familiar ones that we know about, like cancer or heart disease or dementia. They proliferate as you get older, so they are diseases of aging. And what we're trying to do is to address aging as a central disease, which is now possible, which in turn will lessen the burden of these diseases of aging, which are really quite dreadful and their impact on older people.

Mark Cutis: (12:32)
Great. And part of your mission also, is to help mankind change their dietary input various proteins or various ways of eating. There's been a lot of work in this area, which has applicability here, from a food security standpoint, but more importantly, you're saying to make the planet sustainable, we need to do different things in the way we grow food.

Jim Mellon: (12:55)
Yeah, I agree with that Mark. So basically, after the Second World War and led by the United States, intensive farming became the norm, that is animals reared in very close proximity and the use of antibiotics and hormones and so forth to encourage growth and to stop disease became rife. That intensive farming is not a big threat to humanity, partly because it's the biggest source of global emissions. And if you're a believer in global warming, which I am, it's something that needs to be addressed. It's about 20% of all global emissions. Partly because 80% of antibiotics go into farmed animals. And if you think about it, this pandemic is pretty bad. But just imagine if we had a bacterial rather than a viral pandemic and the antibiotics didn't work anymore, we could have... and I'm not making this up, because none of us would have thought a year and a half ago, that this would be as bad as it is. But we could have a black death on our hands where a third of the world's population died, for instance.

Jim Mellon: (13:58)
So we need to do something about reducing antibiotic usage in animals otherwise, we become more and more resistant to antibiotics. On top of that, one of the great causes of disease in the world is, frankly speaking the food that people eat. And you may have seen that Nestle admitted, their board admitted that 80% of the food, they're one of the largest food companies in the world, was bad for human health. And this is across the world basically. Diabetes has gone up from 1% in China, in 1980, to 13% today. And it's as a result of the Western diet. The food that we eat needs to change. And one way that we can do it and the technology is here is to eat plant based foods which are better substitutes than the food from intensive farming. And perhaps more excitingly use cellular agriculture, which is growing food and labs and factories to create healthy alternatives without antibiotics, without emissions without great land, use without water use, on the scale that it's currently being used. So it's a very exciting time. And there are many companies out there now with viable products.

Mark Cutis: (15:07)
Maybe you can touch upon briefly on a few of these companies that you've backed and what they're doing, particularly when they're growing meat in a petri dish exactly, from cells. So tell us a little bit about that.

Jim Mellon: (15:18)
So if I just showed you my little fingernail, and we took a sample from a cow that was equivalent to the size of my little fingernail now, was about 2.5 milliliters. The idea is that in 40 days, that little fingernails worth of sample and the cow goes back, it doesn't get slaughtered, it goes back to its field will grow into the equivalent of seven or eight cows worth of beef, about 3,000 kilos. Whereas the conventional way of growing cows would take about 28 months. And the way it works is that from my little fingernails worth of sample, stem cells, which are the precursor cells for all of us, are extracted differentiated into the cell types that you want, which are typically muscle and fat, grown in large steel containers that are called bio reactors. And this is why it's so interesting to me, because my background is in biotech.

Jim Mellon: (16:11)
So this is a biotech process. There's no genetic modification. There's no Frankenstein element to this. But the cells are bathed in the media, which is the nutrients which are roughly equivalent to what cows would get from plants. And that growth hormones, which are roughly equivalent to what cows get in nature, are introduced as well. And then you get this glute gloop that is amalgamated and creates this beef. And that can be done across all species without the use of antibiotics, no bacterial contamination. And it can also be done in materials. So some of our companies are growing leather in laboratories, cotton, cocoa. And all of these things will substitute very effectively for the Frankly speaking, poor quality food that is being offered to most consumers at the moment. And this will happen within 10 years. So I just want to make up... I'll quickly finish three predictions.

Jim Mellon: (17:03)
In 10 years time, there will be no dairy industry as we know it on the planet. None. Already plant alternatives are a huge business. And you saw that only went public quite recently. But precision fermentation is coming down the pipe very quickly. And there will be no cows producing milk in the way that we see them at the moment, within 10 years. In 10 years, 50% of the meat market will be plant based, or cell Ag based, and over 50% of the fish market will be cell based fish. So this is happening extremely quickly and will be one of the world's most transformative industries.

Mark Cutis: (17:38)
Wow. That's amazing. And I think if we step back, and I'm going to turn it over in a moment to Anthony. From the prospect of educating the masses, you mentioned 97% take Coursera courses for free to being able to change the food chain, and to provide people with nutritious food that doesn't damage the planet is amazing, and it's brave new world. On that note, Anthony I'll turn it over to you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:08)
I appreciate [inaudible 00:18:09]. Fascinated by the discussion. I want to ask both gentlemen, the same question in their respective fields. And this is about political will, not just in our countries, the UAE or the United States, but global political will, on things like changing the food paradigm, changing the food supply chain, but then also discussing education. And as Michael knows, in the United States, education being a big issue, I'm the product of a public school. But we have a tremendous amount of special interests in education that prevent us from making innovation. Jim, is that the case in what you're discussing as well. And so let's start with Jim, where is the political will, where the potential political unity to get these things done that you're talking about in the future?

Jim Mellon: (19:02)
Well, it's a great question, Anthony. And we're in the UAE, which imports between 85 and 90% of its food. It's one of the most food insecure countries in the world. Other countries like this would be my own country, the UK which imports 50% of its food. And so countries such as the UAE or the UK, have a natural inclination to accelerate the process of substituting the current form of agriculture. And so you're seeing a lot of innovation here forward thinking, and frankly, capital going into this into this area. So where the government's have a vested interest in making it happen, you get a bigger propellant. But I wouldn't discount the United States or European countries which have net food export as either. The US has a quite a good regime for regulating novel foods and as does Europe. And we're very surprised at the speed at which some of this stuff is happening.

Jim Mellon: (19:55)
So for instance, I can confidently predict that by the end of this year, the fish coming out of laboratories will be on the market for US consumers. Chicken is already on the market in Singapore, it's already on the market in Israel. This is the dial up phase of the Internet of this industry. But if we can pick some of the winners out of that dial up phase, we're going to do very well. But overall, I think the public is beginning to embrace this very much. And you can see that and Beyond Meat, Impossible Burger, Oatly. The enthusiasm for those companies is reflective of general enthusiasm, particularly among younger people to save the planet by changing the food system.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:36)
Michael.

Michael Moe: (20:37)
Yeah, so just following up on that point. What's happened is it's completely well known that in the knowledge economy in a global marketplace, what you know, your education makes the difference, not only for an individual, but for a company, and for that matter, a country. You only need to look at Singapore, which has really been the model for investing in human capital for over the last 50 years, where they started their independence, the same year that Jamaica did both hit about $2,500 GDP per capita. And because of the prioritization of education in Singapore it was a big part of what fueled that success of that country, which GDP, per capita [inaudible 00:21:24] is in excess in the United States. One of the things about, back to the point about Abu Dhabi, I think that Abu Dhabi is creating what is going to be the next Singapore.

Michael Moe: (21:35)
All the pieces of fundamentals in place, including that understanding of investing in the knowledge economy, but you only need to look at places like China and India, how education is really what they view is their key strategic advantage to fit to fast forward into the future. You look at the United States, and I too went to public schools, both public elementary and high school as well as college. And the fact of the matter is, the system that's been created in the United States today doesn't work. It's rigged. You only need to look at our nation's capital, right across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, Thomas Jefferson High School is the number one high school United States, right across Washington Memorial is the worst High School in United States yet Washington Memorial spends twice as much as Thomas Jefferson. Effectively Washington Memorial gets 30,000 per kid and is a dropout factory where less than half the kids that enter that school finish at school. That's unacceptable in a country like the United States.

Michael Moe: (22:40)
And the fact that because of this whole idea of the American dream, and how education really was that opportunity to advance your cause, that doesn't exist today. 70% of the kids are born poor, or remain poor. That system isn't acceptable. I think there's great awareness, but to your point, there is a very significant entrenched status quo namely unions and other people that benefit from the old system, which frankly it doesn't work. You look at every single data point, and you look at how America is competing against the rest of the world. You got parents, you got businesses that say, we can't employ students coming out of our schools, they can't read they can't write. You got parents that see studies that show this generation of the children will be less educated themselves. You got politicians are actually seeing that it's pulling for the first time to change the dynamics. And against that you got the [inaudible 00:23:27] status quo.

Michael Moe: (23:27)
And the good news is, I think America is finally starting to see 200... The union says, give us more time, give us more money. And American people are saying 200 years is long enough, we need to change things today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:38)
I just want to have a follow up, then I'll turn it back to Mark. And this is a follow up again, for both of you. And I appreciate what you're saying because all of us are friends with Michael Milken. He once pointed out to me that the women's liberation movement caused people like Meg Whitman not to be school teachers, they went on to become billionaires of eBay and CEOs of Hewlett Packard. I guess what I'm wondering and this applies to both of you as it relates to incentives, human capital and human ingenuity. It seems like in Jim's business, we have that and all that Jim opined, and that whether or not that's true. But it seems like in the educational businesses, we don't have that for some reason. In terms of you look at salaries, and you look at where people are. What's your reaction to that Jim? Do we have enough incentives economically to get the world going to where you see it going? And then for Michael, how do we make those incentives better in education?

Jim Mellon: (24:44)
So I think the incentives are fairly well entrenched by the IP, the Intellectual Property system patents around the world. And that works very well in biotech and that biotech IP system has been transferred into the novel foods business. So there'll be a period of 10, 15 years of commercial exploitation, which will be the base of the price of innovation, which is a well established and US led system. The same applies on the science of longevity. The longevity science is not just for the elites, as Michael was... The elites, the wrong way of describing it, not the way you described it. But you know what I'm saying. It's for everyone, ultimately, because we live quite a long life. And so if there's 10 years of patent exploitation on some of the drugs and therapies, that biotech companies such as ours are developing. That's a relatively short space of time in human longevity. And so I think this will become available for everyone.

Jim Mellon: (25:45)
And there are already drugs and therapies out there that we can all take to make ourselves live longer. And we know that people are getting better educated about food. And they are as a result, changing their diets. And so sugar consumption is beginning to go down for the first time ever in the United States than in Europe, which is a great thing, because sugar is directly related to a lot of disease, not just diabetes, but also Alzheimers, and the proliferation of Alzheimers, as a result is going down, which is wonderful news. That is based partly on this IP system. And I'm not going to put any words into Michael's mouth. But education doesn't really have IP around it, it has passion and commitment and money and governmental will, which is a very different thing.

Michael Moe: (26:33)
So looking at, back to what incentives need to be aligned to create change, I think, frankly, a lot of change is taking place in front of our eyes, which was catalyzed in many respects by the pandemic. In fact, you basically had 1.6 billion students that were instantly put online last March, essentially, that's 20% of the world's population that was thrown in the deep end of the online learning pool and told to sink or swim, some sank, some got to the edge of the pool crawled out and will never go back in. Many flail around a little bit and all of a sudden this digital education, which should be growing at a nice rate, but only 2% of the overall $7 trillion education spend has massive acceleration. Which by the way and we all know, it wasn't perfect in terms of the quality and access and so forth.

Michael Moe: (27:22)
But I think people can start to see the future and how you can start to not have to fight this entrenched status quo. But I think also you look at the great education systems around the world where you seeing kids more effectively educated, Finland, China, Singapore, Korea. One of the big changes or big differences is just the prioritization of education, and the people going in that field are the top of their class, not near the bottom. So you look at the conversation that goes along with that. In Finland, for example it's double that, the United States, right? There's all sorts of different movements that represents the complex system like healthcare. But the good part of this is change is happening in terms of investment categories. We frankly, stay away from where the control is taken out of our hands. And so investing in, for example, charter school, physical charter schools in the United States there's better places where you can see more explosive opportunity, and frankly, where there's going to be more of a systemic impact.

Michael Moe: (28:28)
So I think, again ultimately, capitalism does work. We can talk about contemporary capitalism, which is going to be a modification of that. But the fact of the matter is, you're seeing a wave of entrepreneurs that are coming into space, you're seeing amazing ideas. And you're seeing venture capital that is coming into the education space that is about 20x, of what it was 10 years ago. And that's because the growth is happening. You now have 40 unicorns in Ed Tech. People couldn't have imagined that five years ago. And so there's a bunch of different pieces that all add up to a big piece. And I think this wave is happening in a major way. And when I say it's such a big change, we had before Corona BC, and now you have AD, after the disease, and effectively the future is accelerated to the present.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:18)
I think it's a good point. I just want to cap it off, because I worry about this, given the neighborhood I grew up in. I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood. My dad was a crane operator, so we had a hourly wage. But we felt very aspirational. There is stuff going on in the UK here in the United States, where blue collar families that were once aspirational, feel desperation. And the goal politically has to be from a policy perspective, to reach those people. Now they'll become less populistic, if you will, if that's even a word. I'm channeling my George W. Bush, Mark Cutis, less populistic. They'll become less nationalistic. And so hopefully we can figure out good policies to do that for these communities.

Michael Moe: (30:08)
Well, I think what you're seeing, again, there's all these different... there's all this anger out there, there's all these people that are creating different movements. And if you boil it down, they're angry. What they're angry about is they don't feel like they're participating in the future. And the system is rigged.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:26)
Exactly.

Michael Moe: (30:26)
And you know what? They're right. The system is rigged, and they aren't participant in the future. And this goes back to the foundation, how you fix that is through providing access to quality education, like you had through your public schools, like I had through my public schools. But far too few kids, I mean, fewer and fewer are getting that type of opportunity. And that doesn't work. That's not sustainable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:48)
We certainly agree. I'll turn it back to Mark. But I appreciate the insight that you provide.

Michael Moe: (30:55)
Thank you.

Mark Cutis: (30:56)
Michael, I want to turn to you one more time on education. And you mentioned, bringing the full bearing of the capitalist system to seek new solutions, to make a difference, and to democratize education. And I think everyone will agree and everyone will nod their head, but tell me, how should we address the potential for shysters, and people who come in to this space, and I won't refer to the last administration and the universities that they fomented. And that caused a lot of problems. But how do we address those issues? And I'm not suggesting more regulation. But I'm asking you, how do you think we should be thinking about that to protect people from being sold a bill of goods?

Michael Moe: (31:40)
So one of the biggest reasons that you're seeing change happen faster in education, which historically was very slow to change, is because the internet not only provides access, but it provides transparency. And so I think there are a number of education operators that I can think of that basically, were really good at selling things, but weren't that good at actually delivering the goods and delivering quality. Less mean exposed. The information travels so fast. And you can see what goes on with artificial intelligence, you're getting real time results in what's going on in school. So it's no longer kind of after the fact to say, "Oh, my God, nobody learned anything in this classroom." Where they had this tutor, and this tutor didn't help me at all. That's just the transparency I think is extraordinarily important. I think is a waste of the financial lens of what we're seeing because this industry is getting so much attention, right. And there are very sophisticated people involved. They're just much more scrutiny-

Mark Cutis: (32:41)
So greater transparency and scrutiny?

Michael Moe: (32:42)
And scrutiny. And because now everybody gets the fact, what's the purpose of education is to give people the knowledge and the education, the learning they need to be successful. Or whatever that's defined as. And now you can actually measure it, we call that return on education. And that we think the companies that actually are going to create the biggest investment returns are the ones that create the greatest education returns. And that type of alignment, I think creates huge acceleration for what is already happening very fast.

Mark Cutis: (33:13)
But we've seen what's happening now with technology, and the new administration is looking at ways of curtailing the power of these large technological giants. Do you think we're ever going to get to that point where it'll be a similar situation? Because if you're referring to an unfettered space where it's open, then you're expecting civil society to harness the bad players. And you're suggesting that with artificial intelligence and with transparency, those issues will be addressed? Is it possible that we'll create another large operator in the space?

Michael Moe: (33:49)
So, heretofore there is no... Despite the second largest industry in the world spending nearly 10% of GDP, there was no large education companies. You got to scratch your head and say, why? Well, there's a number of reasons we could talk about if of interest, but much of that has changed. And you're seeing [inaudible 00:34:07], BYJU in India has gone from nothing to valued at $16 billion today. You have companies like Coursera, which basically was a freemium model [inaudible 00:34:18] in the public market, six, seven billion. So I believe you're going to see many, many mega cap education technology company. And again, all that with success comes not only scrutiny, but same when you get network effects, which are happening in this business where you get a disproportionate gain to the leader in the category. More scrutiny or more regulations ultimately happening.

Michael Moe: (34:46)
You see which is now happening in China. Where in China some of the two largest education companies in the world were in China, and they've gotten destroyed over the last several months, because the Chinese government has said, what they're saying is that kids are studying too much. I don't really believe that's the real message. So now there's concern about what the future of these companies that are providing tutoring are, TAL and New Oriental.

Mark Cutis: (35:09)
Interesting. So you've also talked about kids going to university that perhaps they're better served, not going straight to university but experiencing different jobs and getting into the job sector, doing something different than the traditional out of high school into college into the workforce. How do you see that potentially developing?

Michael Moe: (35:33)
I think people need to reimagine education. There are certainly some people, they're not going to go through a traditional route. But there's many other people that are going to get knowledge and get skills from other ways, which could include jobs. And what we've got today is you no longer can go fill up your knowledge tank [inaudible 00:35:53] and drive off through life. You're going to continually need to be learning things on an ongoing basis. Some of that might come from your occupation, some of that's going to be coming from online learning, some of that's going to come from games. There's just a number of ways that you're going to be able to mix and match and really create what I call a knowledge portfolio that allows me the future opportunities. A small part of that is going to come from traditional education. I think there's going to continue to be brick and mortar schools that educate a bunch of people. But this ongoing learning, which is the huge market, is going to happen a variety of ways.

Mark Cutis: (36:25)
Thank you. If I may, Jim, I'd like to turn to you for a moment, you have a great company Juvenescence. And it has this breakthrough metabolic product, which is called Metabolic Switch, as you know, in this region, in the GCC 30 to 35% of the people have metabolic diseases. Tell us a little bit about that. And also, if you can weave in some takeaways as to what we should be doing after this program, because that's also I think, will be useful to our audience.

Jim Mellon: (36:57)
Okay. Well, so Metabolic Switch is part of the consumer division of Juvenescence. And it's a very different market to the one that we're traditionally in, which is pharmaceuticals and regenerative medicine. So we hired people from Weight Watchers as an example from Vitamin Shoppe in the US to head up the launch. And it'll be followed by several other products that will be good for, for instance, the next one is Spermidine, which is good for your metabolic health, sorry, your mitochondrial health. But what we're trying to do is to get products that are scientifically proven, and this one comes out of the Buck Institute, which you know very well. And not just some sort of quackery that sold in a health food shop. And so Metabolic Switch puts you into a state of ketosis straightaway and it keeps you there for 10 hours. And you don't have to go through the ketogenic diet, which most people can't tolerate, because it's too difficult to do. So it's a great substitute for willpower actually.

Mark Cutis: (38:01)
So you don't have to go through the ketogenic diet?

Jim Mellon: (38:03)
No, it does it for you.

Mark Cutis: (38:04)
Okay, maybe you can explain that to us.

Jim Mellon: (38:06)
Yeah. So it basically is, it induces ketosis through its mechanism. And in the same way, as if you went on a ketogenic diet, but without you having to watch what you're eating, basically. So it's fantastic for this region. And actually, we would love for it to be, once we're fully embedded in the US to be commercialized in this region as well, because it will have a very positive effect. One of the problems is that it tastes absolutely horrible. And so they're working on new flavors to try and make it palatable, because it's a breakfast drink that you drink in the early morning. But there are things that people can do today, the statement of the obvious, don't smoke, do some exercise, not too much exercise, eat healthfully. People know all about that. But that won't keep you alive, any way above your normal lifespan, which is around 85 for the developed world.

Jim Mellon: (39:06)
But I do think, Mark that in 20 years time, children will be born with a life expectancy of between 110 and 120. And then we have to rethink the world. And that will happen because about 20 years ago, the human genome was unveiled and the key pathways that cause us to age, they don't determine us to die, but they cause us to age can now be manipulated. So all of them have been proven in mammals and in some cases in human beings, to enable us to live a little bit healthier and a little bit longer. So one key thing that I'm not advocating this as a medical practitioner, but you can go into a pharmacy here and get Metformin. Metformin is a frontline diabetic drug, but it has been proven empirically and in very many studies, it's been around since 1957, to be safe and to be anti cancer, and to be anti Alzheimers and to keep you alive longer, and it's a generic drug. So it's available to everyone, it costs cents.

Mark Cutis: (40:07)
It's been around for a long time obviously.

Jim Mellon: (40:08)
It's been around for a long time. Many millions of people use it. So that's one thing that you could do today.

Michael Moe: (40:15)
[inaudible 00:40:15]

Jim Mellon: (40:16)
What you're doing, and you look great, by the way. The last thing I'll just say, as a little soundbite is I completely agree with what Michael is saying. The paradigm at the moment is we assume we're going to live to 85 or 90. And if we make it to 65, maybe a little bit longer. So that paradigm is you're born, you learn, you earn, you retire, and you expire. That paradigm needs to be ripped up, thrown away. And that's why what Michael is doing is so important, because as he said, education is a continuum, you won't be... You said fill up your tank of gas and 25 you're on the road. You have to continuously reinvent yourself. But you also have to think, first of all, how are we going to finance our lives? We're not going to be able to retire at 65 years old, governments will not be able to support that. And secondly, how you're going to occupy your life, it's like waking up in the morning, with 36 hours ahead of you, instead of 24 hours.

Jim Mellon: (41:13)
We need new structures, we need new ways of building relationships. And this is going to happen very, very quickly. So as I said, within 20 or so years, life expectancy at birth is 110 or 120. Will humanity be able to cope with it? I hope so I believe so.

Mark Cutis: (41:30)
That's quite the challenge. Please.

Michael Moe: (41:31)
I was going to say, reminding me, you talked about the treatment, the taste, the side effect it tasted bad. That's one of the issues which historically education, it tasted bad. And so you find the entrepreneurs that are really succeeding, some of them might advise you, if I would advise you, this was amazing. [inaudible 00:41:49] $16 billion market [inaudible 00:41:51], we serve you broccoli, but we put chocolate on it. And so they don't tell you put chocolate until learning. We have a concept called Hollywood meets Harvard, how do you make education entertaining and engaging? How do you create great professors to be stars, right? In all in a way that you're going to learn more, it's going to be more, it's going to make more of a difference.

Mark Cutis: (42:11)
But that will be different from... That will be an evolutionary process, because you mentioned, for instance, Korea, in Asia, where they subject the children to very long hours of studying. And the idea is rote education, right? And then you pass the test, and in many other countries too. That will have to evolve. And we'll have to, as humans will have to go to a higher level to begin to appreciate this.

Michael Moe: (42:34)
Absolutely.

Mark Cutis: (42:35)
This is the world of I guess that Peter Diamandis talked about, the world of abundance, where we're going to have infinite resources. And then we're going to have to spend time thinking through this is what you're referring to. I want to ask you, again, a very basic question. You mentioned Metformin, how about intermittent fasting for the people in the region who have these metabolic disorders? Do you think if they practice intermittent fasting, eating within these time, windows of six to eight hours, it can actually help them?

Jim Mellon: (43:03)
Absolutely. Absolutely. We have plenty people in the longevity industry, who do use intermittent fasting, including the guy who advocates Metformin, more than any other my friend Nir Barzilai from Einstein University in New York. He's also a practitioner of intermittent fasting. So absolutely. But these things will not keep you alive to the 110, or 120. It's the new therapies that are being developed now, that are based on biological change. Because all of the gains in life expectancy that we've had in the last century or so which is roughly double our life expectancy, have come from environmental gains, they haven't come from any fundamental biological change. If we took someone from 1900, and put them around us today, they'd live just as long as us, but in those days, they lived to 47 years on average.

Mark Cutis: (43:51)
Exactly.

Jim Mellon: (43:52)
So environmental change has been the key driver. The next stage of longevity increase is biological. And that's happening very quickly. The science of longevity is catching up with the aspiration of just about everyone to live a longer and importantly, healthier life.

Mark Cutis: (44:09)
Great. One more basic question. You also mentioned that not too much exercise. And in this region, there is this tendency for a cohort of young people to really work out hard and also to get pumped. How do you see that?

Jim Mellon: (44:26)
Well, all they have to do is to watch as I did last week, the match between Denmark I can't remember what the other team was. And the young guy collapsed with a heart attack on the field. That's the danger. Use drugs that are enhancing drugs, do too much exercise and you put tremendous strain on your organs. You certainly won't live longer as a result of doing that. So don't do it.

Mark Cutis: (44:54)
That's categorical. Thank you. On that note, I want to turn it back to Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:58)
Well, it's interesting the exercise category people don't realize that but particularly as you age, you got to have moderate exercise because otherwise you'll, you'll hurt your kidneys actually. But I want to ask you both something for the common person. So let's start with you, Michael. I want to educate my seven year old, he's tied up on his phone, and he's tied up on his Nintendo Switch, and he's got a PlayStation, and an Xbox. Just kidding, he doesn't have all those things, but you get the point that I'm making. So what do I do as a parent, to break that stronghold? And to get them to start thinking more about the entertainment aspects of education?

Michael Moe: (45:43)
Well, I think that's it. Find things, put chocolate on the broccoli. Games is going to be an important way that people learn things, especially young people going forward. You look at Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg both learned coding because of the games that they played. It's finding things that they want to do, as opposed to being forced to do. But also say, as a parent being engaged. One of the most important things for student's success is having an adult that has really taken an active role in their learning. And in fact, in I see some of the most successful schools, and that can be in very difficult situations. It's required to have at least a parent that's really on top of it, [inaudible 00:46:28]. And kids like a parent that's curious.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:32)
And so the same sort of question for you, Jim, what do we do to get these kids... Obviously, can't bring the Oreos into the house or the Coca Cola. We saw Cristiano Ronaldo do that with the Coke the other day, drop $4 billion in market cap of the company. But what are some of the simple things that parents can do for their children to get them thinking about longevity and health?

Jim Mellon: (46:59)
I was shocked to see that 70% of 18 year olds in America are obese. That is unbelievable. There were almost none in 1950. One of the key reasons for that is the corn sugar syrup, which was subsidized and remains subsidized by the federal government in the United States. And food companies have been living under an umbrella of price protection for far too long. So yes, there's a parental influence. But parents can't monitor everything in the supermarket, they haven't got the time to pick out the best foods necessarily. But what I would say and I think this is really important in the year of COP26 and talking about global warming, with Joe Biden at the helm there, is that carbon taxes should be levied on conventional food producers that do damage to people's health. That should be a universal phenomenon. And it's great for governments because they all need money at the moment. But at the same time, carbon credits should be used to promote alternative protein and food producers to make alternative foods more commercially palatable for people to buy.

Jim Mellon: (48:13)
And so it's the parents I can't really say anything about except that most parents want the best for their children. But when faced with a panoply of rubbish in the supermarket, isn't it best just to get rid of that rubbish and subsidy with good stuff?

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:31)
Well, listen, I think it's, it's spot on. I think one of the problems though, is if I took you to the local diner here, the plate size in 1950 was this and the plate size now is that. And people they've created habits for themselves, myself included. Trust me, I have many nights of self loathing when I know I've overindulged. But I guess it's also education, isn't it, Michael? Isn't it an educational thing as well, in terms of creating these habits? Isn't the health component that Jim's talking about part of your education story?

Michael Moe: (49:10)
Absolutely. Again it's knowledge economy, and it's how people obtain knowledge to give them an opportunity to participate in future and health is obviously fundamental to that. I think it's made a difference, or at least has made a difference with many people I know, when they put the calories of a food on the menu. All of a sudden you're aware of it, gives you some information, you say holy cow, that's not worth 1,200 calories to eat this sandwich. It's just being informed and again, that we're in a world of infobesity, there's so much Information. So how do you create signals amongst that noise? How do you create crisp ways for people to obtain that knowledge? Because there's so much information out there that it's hard to know what's good and what's not. I just listened to my friend Jim, he tells me, no.

Jim Mellon: (50:01)
No.

Mark Cutis: (50:01)
I can just jump in for a second. I think the challenge of the modern age is not that we follow the elites is that the common man has to take responsibility for himself and herself. And this concept of infobesity, everybody knows that you shouldn't be eating that way. Honestly, everyone knows, no one is shocked. But they have chosen to eat that way, just the way people have chosen not to take the vaccine. So ultimately, as we go into the next, the New World, we're all going to have to be much more responsible for ourselves. The state will have to help people who try, but it's very tricky because we don't want the state to be heavy handed. And I think this is going to be an evolving political problem.

Michael Moe: (50:45)
Yeah. And, by the way, going back to a previous question, I don't want to imply that I think it's also... The secret to getting kids to learn is to give them corn syrup, right? I'm saying that creating things, ways to learn things that they want to do. You look at Roblox, Roblox has a $65 billion market cap. Kids love doing that and they're learning stuff, right? It's a creator economy. And that's the type of thing to think how you integrate that with obtaining real knowledge that can help you be successful is how I think about that.

Mark Cutis: (51:22)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:22)
Mark, if you don't mind. I have one last question for both.

Mark Cutis: (51:26)
Please.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:26)
And then I'm going to let you conclude us here. We're talking about the democratization of your ideas. Both in education and in health and fitness and awareness and longevity to that common man. Mark is right, some people are making very bad decisions. But how do we make sure that everything that we're talking about today doesn't come across pedantic, doesn't come across elitist, and we can get it disseminated into those areas that they're so desperately needed?

Michael Moe: (52:00)
25 years ago, I wrote a white paper called The Dawn of the Age of Knowledge, and in that predicted or forecast the emergence of the knowledge economy and how the internet was going to change everything, and how education is going to be at the center, and how online learning was going to democratize education. Increase in access, lower the cost, and that ultimately improve the quality. The problem with that 25 years ago, not one part of the system was really ready to accomplish that, including me. John Chambers, 20 years ago, said, online education was going to be so big, it was going to make email look irrelevant. The problem with that 20 years ago, you didn't have the computer power, you didn't have video on the internet. Teachers weren't digital natives. They're digital immigrants. Every aspect it just wasn't ready, right? Today that's changed.

Michael Moe: (52:45)
And even poor kids, and again the ability. It used to be the dream to be able to provide cheap technology people [inaudible 00:52:52]. And there's some issues, but that's really not the issue. Cheap technology, whether a person's paying for... My daughter taught in most poor schools, basically in America, she said, every kid was, 100% minority. She said, every single kid had a smartphone. That shocked me, but that's what she said what the reality was.

Michael Moe: (53:14)
I don't think that's the issue. The issue really is about providing ways to not just put education, physical education online, but to reimagine how you can do this better, faster and fairer, more democratized. And by the way, that's what's so exciting, that's what gets me excited, when you see these... what I call weapons of mass instruction. So these rapidly scaling, easy to access, removing friction, from the ability to get the education or need to be successful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (53:48)
Jim, anything you want to add?

Jim Mellon: (53:52)
Yeah. I just say that an example of how we are living in better times is the fact that these vaccines would develop so quickly. This is the best example I can think of, in the olden days, it would take at least 10, 15 years to develop a vaccine. Within six months, US companies German company, a British company had developed a effective and now readily available vaccines, at least in the developed world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (54:16)
And safe vaccines.

Jim Mellon: (54:17)
Safe.

Anthony Scaramucci: (54:17)
It's important for us to [crosstalk 00:54:19].

Jim Mellon: (54:18)
Everyone should be having these vaccines. Everyone should be having these vaccines. They've done that really, really quickly. And that's an illustration of how first of all the collaborative power of the internet that Michael was talking about bring scientists around the world together very effectively. And secondly, our knowledge of biology, it's so much better than it was just 10 years ago, or 20 years ago. So I'm very optimistic that if in the last seven years we've been able to cure HIV, to cure Hepatitis C, to develop cancer immunotherapy and to develop CRISPR-Cas9, all of which are multi billion and very effective industries. What's the next seven years going to be like it's going to be even better. We should be very optimistic.

Jim Mellon: (55:02)
I feel that we're very lucky to be living in this age notwithstanding the pandemic, which will be gone quite quickly. All the good stuff that Michael's talking about, all the good stuff that you're doing Anthony. All good stuff that you're doing in Abu Dhabi. And the stuff that we're doing in our companies is just a small microcosm of all the great stuff that's being done by a collaborative humanity. Just don't listen to the noise and just let's be optimistic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:30)
Well, Jim, can you make me taller though? I'm just curious.

Jim Mellon: (55:35)
Yes, yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:35)
Throw that in there before we... Okay, good. I'll be-

Jim Mellon: (55:38)
You're pretty tall already.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:39)
I'll be talking to you after this SALT Talk to figure out how to do that. Again, and I expect it to be very easy. It's like a free stride-

Jim Mellon: (55:47)
It's hanging upside down for a couple of weeks. You look remarkably young, I have to say. You look the same age as your son. So that's a great tribute to you and your genetic makeup.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:56)
That's because I'm a television person, I know how to do lighting better than anyone. That's why. Well, thank you guys. Do you have any follow up questions Mark?

Mark Cutis: (56:09)
Yeah, just one basic question. You're both here in Abu Dhabi. Tell us a little bit about that. And because you're doing some extremely exciting things that are pathbreaking. And you've chosen to be here, how does that fit into your game plans?

Michael Moe: (56:27)
So after having the opportunity to be here, a number of times and other places, I really believe that Abu Dhabi is going to give us a window to the future. And for a variety of reasons. One, we talked about before just the prioritization of going from an oil economy to a knowledge economy. But also just the smart people doing important things, but also just geographically. As this world becomes more global and more connected, which it is every day, Abu Dhabi as we know, it's a two and a half hour flight to Mumbai, it's a three hour flight to Tel Aviv, it's a four hour flight to the west coast of Africa. It's just so well situated. When we look at the power, I call it the VCIIP, Vietnam, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, I mean, how could you be in a better place to reach these, where the world's going to be created for the future.

Michael Moe: (57:22)
And so the great leadership, of course, but the many, many smart people that increasingly are coming here. I think you're going to see the real network effects. And so we're going to plant a flag here as we said, we're going to be running money out of here. We'll be running innovation labs out of here. We're putting big conferences out of here. And we're going to be very active in helping. We hope to build this ecosystem, that I think in next 10 years, it's going to blow people away.

Mark Cutis: (57:48)
That's very exciting. Jim.

Jim Mellon: (57:50)
Well, I have not much to add to what Michael said, except I agree with it all. But I will just give you a little bit of historical flavor. When I started my career, I started in Hong Kong, where I have permanent residency as I do here as well. And I have to say, and I wrote an article about a couple of weeks ago. The minister of tourism, read somewhere that this is the new Hong Kong. This is the new Hong Kong, flat taxes easy to incorporate businesses, multicultural, very forward thinking. You just have to look around at the infrastructure as well. We are super, both Michael and myself super excited to be involved. An honor to be here actually.

Michael Moe: (58:34)
I have to ask you. What is your view of what is going on in Hong Kong right now? It's obviously quite troubling, since it will be in the new Hong Kong. Well, Hong Kong is going to be a bit replaced by [inaudible 00:58:45]. I think, again, and Singapore, which has been an interesting place. Again, I think there's so much opportunity, but what's your reaction to what's going on in Hong Kong?

Mark Cutis: (58:51)
What's happening in Hong Kong is very complex. But it certainly looks like, even to the untrained eye let alone to the professional. That there's a dramatic sea change that is underway. But for us, what we're looking at is that you have an ecosystem that we're building an ecosystem in ADGM, where the fact that you can now get golden visas, which was never the case before. The fact that you have very low taxes, the fact that the pandemic was handled very well. Because if you think about many Asian countries, they handled the pandemic very well. But then they shut down the country, so you couldn't come in and out. Whereas in the UAE, you were able to travel in and out most of the time. So if you combine that with the basic edifice of this country, which is low taxes, you have access to capital, because you have large sovereign wealth funds, you have the foundational pillars of ADGM which is common law, and a smart regulator. And you have expenses that are actually amongst the lowest in the world, particularly because of housing.

Mark Cutis: (59:54)
You're creating an environment where young motivated people who want to do things can come here. And that's the aspiration, is to create the future here. And to encourage innovation and to encourage people to come here.

Jim Mellon: (01:00:09)
And it's safe.

Mark Cutis: (01:00:10)
And it's safe. Exactly. Absolutely.

Jim Mellon: (01:00:13)
Which is a big consideration.

Michael Moe: (01:00:13)
And that's beautiful.

Mark Cutis: (01:00:15)
Excellent.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:00:17)
All of you forgot to mention the food. So since I'm Italian, I got to throw that in there. Some of the best restaurants in the world are in the UAE. But guys, thank you so much for joining SALT Talks with us in this new partnership that SALT has with ADGM. This will be the beginning, you guys are the inaugural part of this series that Mark and I will be doing. And so we're both very grateful to you. And I look forward to seeing you in Abu Dhabi soon. I can't wait to get over there. Mark's promised me easy entrance and easy exit. Isn't that right, Mark?

Mark Cutis: (01:00:51)
Absolutely. Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:00:53)
I can't wait to get over there. I'm going to have Jim pick the restaurant though. So that I know that it's plant friendly, and all that other good stuff. Thank you guys again for joining us.

Michael Moe: (01:01:03)
Thanks Anthony.

Jim Mellon: (01:01:04)
Thanks.

Mark Cutis: (01:01:04)
Thank you Anthony.

Jim Mellon: (01:01:04)
Thank you Anthony.

Dan Tapiero: A New Macro World for Bitcoin & Gold | SALT Talks #203

“At some point down the line, everything we have of value will be on the blockchain somewhere in this digital asset ecosystem.”

Dan Tapiero is the CEO and Managing Partner of 10T, a growth equity fund. He is also the co-founder of Gold Bullion International (GBI), a physical precious metals platform for the wealth management industry that also expanded into the cryptocurrency universe in 2014. 

With the expansion of the money supply, gold continues to act as an effective hedge for traditional institutions, but Bitcoin represents an even bigger opportunity. The digital asset class ecosystem will be bigger than gold and its invention is revolutionary in nature. Bitcoin’s invention is akin to the combustion engine and electricity. “The 8-page white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto solved a math problem that hadn’t been solved for hundreds of years, the Byzantine Generals’ Problem- the problem of distributed trust. How do two counter-parties trust each other without an intermediary?”

Blockchain technology as a whole represents the future of value storage. Ethereum has its own unique properties and offers the ability to facilitate smart contracts and more. “At some point down the line, everything we have of value will be on the blockchain somewhere in this digital asset ecosystem.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dan Tapiero.jpeg

Dan Tapiero

Chief Executive Officer & Managing Partner

10T

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:08)
Hello, and welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Saul talks are a digital interview series that we launched in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021 in New York. And you can find out more about that event@salt.org, and we hope today's guest will join us there. But our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And one of those ideas that we focused on heavily starting towards the middle of last year is the digital asset or crypto ecosystem.

John Darcie: (00:57)
So we're very excited today to bring you the latest installment of that series with the great Dan Tappy arrow. Uh, Dan tarot arrow is the chief executive officer and managing director of 10 T, which is his latest venture. He brings more than 30 years of experience in macro and commodity investing in trading research and economics into that venture as well as entrepreneurship in a number of different lanes, uh, before founding 10 T Dan was the managing partner at [inaudible] capital advisors, a global macro investment fund that he founded in 2003. He's the co-founder of the gold bullion international organization, which is a physical precious metals platform for the wealth management industry that has also expanded into the cryptocurrency universe in 2014, which is an interesting dichotomy that we're looking forward to diving into during this talk. He's a co-founder of the agricultural company of America, one of the largest farmland REITs in the U S at the time of its sale in 2013.

John Darcie: (01:54)
So as you can see by his bio, he has a wide array of different experiences within the asset management universe, but a global macro investor at heart, which perhaps is what led him to Bitcoin, uh, hosting today's talk is Brett messing, who is the president and chief operating officer at SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firms. SkyBridge has, uh, today, I guess maybe it's creeping over $600 million of exposure to Bitcoin through its flagship funds, as well as a dedicated product in the space. And with no further ado, I'll turn it over to Brett for the interview. And I might chime in here or there, uh, Dan would follow up well,

Brett Messing: (02:31)
Uh, I think Sean, Dan, thanks a lot for joining us. Um, I want to spend some time talking about gold and Bitcoin in your journey, but before we do, uh, in the pre-show, we were talking about Coinbase as IPO, some new highs being hit and you were looking at prices and seem pretty excited and said, there's a lot of stuff going on. So of all this stuff going on, like, you know, what do you want to talk about? What, you know, what, what do you think is most significant?

Dan Tapiero: (02:58)
Well, um, it's funny, I, I posed this question on Twitter a few months ago, early in the year saying, uh, asking what would be the most, uh, significant event of the year. And, um, you know, people had different comments and I, I forgot exactly the answers, but the Coinbase IPO I think was either first or, or, or very high up there, uh, in the ranking. And look, I think it's so important because look, it is the brand in the us. Um, it's a large company, as we saw profits are excellent. Um, you know, they're backed by some of the best VCs in the world. It's a real organization. It's very buttoned up. Um, and again, it'll be the first public company in the large public company in the crypto space. So it's definitely going to be a bellwether. Um, all that being said, I have to say that, you know, people forget that crypto blockchain, however you want to Bitcoin, however you want to describe it, uh, is a global business.

Dan Tapiero: (04:06)
And actually the, some of the most profitable businesses, larger much larger businesses than Coinbase are overseas. Um, so I would just say that, you know, there is a premium, I think on us companies just because there's scarcity right now. Uh, I suspect that over the next few years that'll change. Um, and also, you know, the degree to which U S companies are regulated and sort of ready for, let's say ready to be public, I think is greater than some of the foreign companies. Uh, yet I just think that as we watch this Coinbase IPO, we should be just cognizant of the fact that the U S really is still, you know, not, not a small percentage, but just not that larger percentage of the businesses, uh, that are in the digital asset ecosystem broadly speaking. Right. I mean, Coinbase is not even close to being the largest exchange. Right. You have Binance Hoby. Okay. Ex um, you know, now FTX, uh, all actually, uh, FTX growing faster, but you know, the, the first three certainly much larger. Um,

Brett Messing: (05:16)
Yeah, I hear that. I agree to have it tell you feel like in terms of, and we discovered spend most of our time staring a Bitcoin, you know, we haven't, uh, we haven't really evolved that far past it, it feels like us adoption is what's sort of driving Bitcoin. Do you do not at least today in 2021, would you not agree with that? Well,

Dan Tapiero: (05:38)
The U S always thinks it's us, that's driving everything. Um, I just, as an example, Hoby, so I should mention a little bit about 10 T so that I just, because, you know, I'll be saying things that maybe people think, well, where's he getting that from 10 T the private equity fund I run, we focus explicitly on mid to late stage companies in the da. So that's, that's all we do as far as I know, I think we're the first fund, um, first private equity fund to explicitly and only focus on these mid to late stage companies. Uh, those are companies that are, let's say over $400 billion in market valuation. They've established a revenue streams. They figured out how to make money. Um, there's a business, there's a mode around their business. In some cases, you know, they have hundreds, if not over a thousand employees, uh, and certainly tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

Dan Tapiero: (06:34)
And so most of the funds that we know, you know, that you've heard of, uh, entry, sin and poly chain and Pantera, they all focus mostly on early stage seed, you know, a B round, and we're sort of more BC focused and later, um, and I give you that background just to say, um, that, you know, yes, uh, you know, yes, Coinbase, uh, is important, but, you know, as, just as an example, you know, you talk about then Coinbase has been important in the, in the U S for adoption purposes, but I mean, for instance, uh, Hoby the, the, um, the, an exchange in Asia that has 40% of its business, uh, in China, they did $2.5 trillion in volume in Q1 alone, right. That business made 700 million EBITDA just in Q1 alone. So, you know, and Binance is numbers are, are, are tremendous as well.

Dan Tapiero: (07:32)
I mean, last year, I think they did over a billion in EBITDA. So again, there's a lot of volume that's being traded. There were a lot of interesting businesses growing up all around the country. And I think it's just, you know, the U S yes, the U S institutional, uh, world is now showing interest, not clear to me what percentage they are, let's say of, of volume. Um, and I think you can, you can really go down and dig down into the chain and look at the chain analytics and figure out broadly where things are coming from, but again, Coinbase, uh, and then, you know, crack in, which is the second largest us exchange, um, are still, you know, kind of small compared to those three that I mentioned, right? So I put this more in a global, a global context, you know, so again, I'm excited about Coinbase.

Dan Tapiero: (08:25)
I think it's wonderful. Uh, they're going to do seven or $8 billion in revenue. So a hundred billion dollar valuation, 12 times revenue is, seems relatively reasonable. Um, you know, I, I'm a little concerned in a way for my own business, because if things, you know, as John said before, if Coinbase is going to 300 billion, it's going to make it a little more difficult for me, uh, to build positions in our portfolio. Um, I don't think it's going there tomorrow. Uh, there's some world in the future where it could go there, but, um, you know, I think a hundred billion with, uh, the revenues that they should do this year, I think is, you know, is reasonable.

Brett Messing: (09:06)
Hey, Dan, I'm a golden alum. I'm still digesting the idea of Coinbase being bigger than Goldman Sachs. We'll hold off on the 300 billion for awhile. Like, you know, a hundred is just fine. So I want to take a step back. So we we've just got to know each other. The first time I heard you speak was in the fall. And what, what really struck me was you're a guy who would not just somebody who invested in gold, but build a gold business based brick race Bitcoin. And there are so many people in the gold business, right. Who have not. Um, and so you're sort of, open-mindedness, you know, um, I found really interesting. So you just share that journey with, you know, with others here. Yeah,

Dan Tapiero: (09:52)
Sure. Um, you know, it's interesting, uh, you know, investors who have a hard money bias, um, often, you know, believe in gold and there is an aspect of Bitcoin, uh, that, that, that, that, that is supported by a hard money view. And we know this because obviously Bitcoin, there are only 21 million units or 18 and a half billion already been vined. Uh, there's a finite number of Bitcoin gold. Isn't exactly finite, but it's very scarce. And the supply increases very slowly. So just on a very sort of basic level, it's, you know, if you're an investor and you have a portfolio, those two things are in super limited supply, versus let's just say Fiat currency as an example, uh, where the central banks in the last year even have been really exploding, the money supplies, uh, us, China, Europe, we see central bank balance sheets really exploding.

Dan Tapiero: (10:51)
And I think with, you know, with reason because, you know, post COVID, I think they did the right thing that liquidity needed to be there. We had probably the greatest single shock that I can recall, uh, in my life, uh, to the markets and to the economy. And so they did the right thing, that being said, they've increased the supply massively. And so it doesn't take a genius to say, okay, there's a lot more of this, and there's not more of this other thing. And so the thing that is not being debased or the supply increased can go up in value. And so that's very, very simple terms. Um, I came to it because my physical gold business GBI, um, we in 2014, we integrated with a company called bit reserve, which is today uphold to the uphold wallet. And we were the first place, uh, in the world where you could buy and sell physical gold to buy and sell Bitcoin and ripple.

Dan Tapiero: (11:46)
And we had some young guys on the team back then they were really into this world, you know, for me, it was a nice idea. Uh, Bitcoin at the time was sort of small. Uh, we spent a year integrating with this company. So, uh, you know, I was part of that journey. And so I was very aware of it, but I wasn't really that engaged or that interested because as a macro guy and having been in the macro hedge fund world for 25 years, I was used to investing in bigger things, right. You know, currency and bond markets, commodity markets, and Bitcoin at the time was still very small. Um, so that was my initial introduction to it. And then in, uh, at the end of 2018, after the Bitcoin price had dropped, uh, 85%, I started getting interested in it because as a, as a macro guy, I've traded many bubbles, uh, and blow offs before.

Dan Tapiero: (12:40)
And so it typical bubble up. And then when something drops 85%, usually it's either going to zero, uh, or it's a buying opportunity. And so I just started buying in my own entity [inaudible], uh, detached capital. Um, again, it took me a lot of work. Uh, I spent literally in Q4 18 Q1, 19, probably six months there, uh, reading, honestly, it was like 10 hours a day read, you know, at least 10 books, hundreds of articles listened to podcasts, uh, really threw myself into this world and sort of fell down the rabbit hole. And when I did that, I realized that Bitcoin and this entire digital asset ecosystem is something that is much bigger than actually just gold. So I think gold is a fantastic hedge for the legacy financial system. And let me tell what I mean by that is that with bonds being neutered as an asset class now, I think, you know, a traditional portfolio that was 60 40, um, you know, from 1981 until now has done fantastically.

Dan Tapiero: (13:50)
And every time you've had a little wobble in the economy or things fell down, your bond saved you. Um, now I think in the next five years or so if we have a slow down, uh, at some point, um, you know, the bonds will not be able to protect you the way that they have in the last 30 years. So they can't really go much below zero in my view, um, and they don't yield anything. And so in my worldview gold, uh, in that scenario, gold could still go up 30, 40%. And so I think, um, you know, some people in the Bitcoin space are saying, oh, gold is worthless. It's being replaced by Bitcoin. I don't see that at all. I think it's a fantastic hedge for the legacy portfolio for the hundreds of trillions of dollars that are in the, you know, traditional or legacy world.

Dan Tapiero: (14:41)
Um, gold will be a great hedge for the asset side of your portfolio. So, however, Bitcoin, while also maybe a hard money, uh, hedge is also something much bigger. And I really think that Bitcoin is an invention. Uh, I say akin to the invention of the combustion engine. I think it's a con akin to the discovery of electricity. And I sort of came to that conclusion, you know, after that six months of work, because what I didn't realize in 14 that I realized when I really dug in was that the eight page white paper by Satoshi was really something miraculous that it solved a math problem that had not been solved for literally hundreds of years, this Byzantine General's problem, you know, the problem of distributed trust and therefore, how do two counter parties trust each other without an intermediary. And, you know, that problem you would think was, was simple.

Dan Tapiero: (15:39)
Like, just how do I send you some value without an intermediary, but, you know, mathematicians, scientists, cryptographers, they were sitting around for years trying to figure out how to do it. And they couldn't until the mechanism of Bitcoin, the Bitcoin network, uh, was explained, and I don't want to say invented, but then also explained in that eight page white paper. And so when you see that as like the crowning moment of 30 years of scientific researcher, like holy cow, all of this work came before the publishing of the white paper. This is something ingenious, something new. Um, and I just, you know, it was at that moment that I just thought, wow, this is much bigger than, uh, a store of value. This is much bigger than a hedge. This is basically the money protocol for the entire internet, right? So the internet, we send information back.

Dan Tapiero: (16:39)
Do you remember in the nineties, we used to be afraid to put our credit cards on it because the internet was invented without a security apparatus on top of it, the Bitcoin network is this Bulletproof security apparatus. It's never been hacked. I don't think I can ever be hacked. Now, the proof of work algorithm is too strong. Um, and so I just think that at some point down the line, everything that we have of value, everything will be on a blockchain somewhere in this digital asset ecosystem. And you'll have central bank digital currencies. There you'll have a whole bunch of different blockchains that do different things. And Bitcoin will be, you know, what role pal calls the pristine collateral of the, of the new system, right? It's the, it's the on, um, it's the, uh, um, undebatable asset that underpins all the other assets in this new digital world.

Dan Tapiero: (17:36)
And importantly, all of it will be fungible with each other. So, you know, there's a world one day where maybe you're walking around on your phone and everything that you own personally, a value will be on that phone. And we'll be divisible into small amounts and fungible with each other and sitting on a blockchain. So that's sort of a little bit of my sort of big picture worldview. And I think gold has a place to play really as a hedge for all those legacy assets, because you know, the dollar isn't going away, the whole world isn't going away. It's just that there's a slow transition to something that's better, right? That's, what's, that's, what's going on. I mean, look, the swift system that we use today for, for wires was invented in the forties or fifties, there is absolutely zero chance that in the next 10 years, we're gonna 10 years from now, we're going to be using a pre-internet technology like the zero chance. So,

Brett Messing: (18:35)
No, I, uh, there's a lot to unpack there. So I want to start with gold. So is gold a hedge because let me ask you something over the last decade, gold is up 10% and we've had two global crises, massive fiscal and monetary stimulus with the fed balance sheets gone from 3 billion to 8 billion, and gold is up 10% in a decade. It feels like it's, it's failed. Is that, is that a fair criticism?

Dan Tapiero: (19:09)
Um, you know, yeah. Yes and no, because, um, you know, gold, I always say this, and I've said this before gold never does what you wanted to do when you think it should do what it should. It just never does. And so in over the short term, gold can be extremely frustrating, but over longer periods of time, uh, gold has really done, uh, you know, excellent. And it really just depends on what your starting period is. Uh, if you started looking at things from 2015, uh, you know, 14, 15, 16 gold was at 1200, I think, uh, or even less now it's at 1700. So it's up roughly 50% in the last, you know, five, six years if

Brett Messing: (19:54)
You have your well. Right. I know,

Dan Tapiero: (19:57)
But I mean, that's the thing is if you look at assets from 2000 gold is go, is up 600%. If you look at, from January, 2000 until today, uh, I think gold is up even more than the S and P 500. So it really, I think it is. So I think it really depends where you, you know, where you start your holding period. Um, look, I, I it's been disappointing the past nine months. There's no question. I would have thought it would have done better. Um, but it hasn't, but I still think it's going to go up and make new highs within the next year. Uh, I just think it's one of these things. Sentiment is terrible. You know, a lot of people are thinking that Bitcoin is replacing gold. Uh, as I said, I think Bitcoin is something much, much bigger than gold, like eventually, um, you know, as is the da. So I don't, I'm disappointed, but I, I think if you're, um, you're trying to manage, uh, uh, a broad portfolio, let's say if you're an institution, uh, I think you need to have about 5%, uh, in gold, you know, as a, as a hedge. So

Brett Messing: (21:05)
I think the goal narratives been super helpful for Bitcoin, but, but, but I agree that I think it's much bigger than gold. I also think if you, if you took the owners of gold as one circle and the holders of Bitcoin of another, those there's very little overlap. I mean, I've been doing this a long time, I've known gold, right? And if I hadn't bought Bitcoin, that money would be in stocks and real estate, I would not have bought gold with it. I really, there are people like yourselves, other macro guys, you know, tutor Jones who would be in gold, right. Cause that's just, you're used to moving across these asset classes, but I think the overlap is really small. Do you agree?

Dan Tapiero: (21:42)
Well, I do. But again, you know, you speak from a completely American perspective. And so understand that only 8% of total world physical bar demand comes out of the U S so the U S is an irrelevant player on the world stage, um, on the gold world stage, uh, China and India consume about 60% of the world's physical gold. And if you throw in the emerging markets as well, that's probably up to 80%. So again, we, we have a us centric way of thinking about things about the dollar and about NASDAQ, but I think that's, that's basically over, it's not that the U S isn't a great place, but look, you and I both remember, I remember 1980, very clearly, 1990, uh, you know, 2000. So 1990, you had the entire communist block. They just emerged from zero. Uh, China was barely a country as an economic entity in the year 2000.

Dan Tapiero: (22:39)
And so relative to the growth in other places in the last 20, 30 years, you know, the world has grown up in the U S is, has not grown as much. So we come from a background where there really was only the U S and maybe Europe, and maybe a little bit of Asia. Um, but now that's changed. And this is a fully global world, um, where there are other parts of the world, especially Asia that are growing much more quickly that have different habits, different regulations. Uh, I don't think the Chinese are going to stop buying gold. I don't think the Indians are gonna stop buying gold and Americans never really had a strong proclivity for it. Um, I actually think that might even change, you know, as currency, um, you know, as currency, I don't want to say becomes worthless, but continues to not yield anything and as bonds okay. Which reflect currency plus duration, I think bonds potentially could end up being worthless, like as an asset class. Like I haven't owned any bonds for many, many years, and I don't know why anyone would own any bonds. And so for me out of bonds, one of the natural moves out of bonds. I'm talking about treasuries, of course, is, uh, is into gold. So do you see what I'm saying?

Brett Messing: (23:58)
Yeah. I want to make one point, then I've hardly left my house in 13 months. So I think you have to excuse if I have a parochial and not a global things. Yeah. But it's not you specifically. I think it's everybody

Dan Tapiero: (24:11)
And tutor and guys like me, we lived our life so much as global macro people in terms of, you know, focusing on opportunities all around the world, that really didn't matter so much, you know, where the opportunity was. We were looking around the world. And so, uh, you know, maybe that meant we missed a Google's move or Amazon's a rally or whatever it is. But, um, I think that framework is very helpful and understanding why also Bitcoin and the digital asset ecosystem are so important that global. Yeah.

Brett Messing: (24:49)
So, you know, in, in a prior life, I actually was deputy mayor of LA and I served as the ex-officio member on lasers, which is the LA city pension plan. And I was involved. And this was a decade ago in reducing the target return for the pension fund, which, you know, requires making adjustments to the budget. Um, as you point out the 60, 40 portfolio is dead. Right. I don't know how they could be making fixed income allocations. Uh, w w where does that money go? Right. And, and how does that money find its way into Bitcoin or does it, I

Dan Tapiero: (25:25)
Think it has been finding its way into Bitcoin. I mean, look, I'll just tell you my personal experience. Uh, I run the investment committee for an endowment, you know, as part of my charitable, uh, you know, time and, uh, it's, it's a relatively large endowment for a school. Um, and we went to zero bonds about three years ago and Q1 19, thankfully, um, you know, I was able to, with some other people on the committee to convince the committee to put 1% of the entire endowment into Bitcoin and the digitalized ecosystem. So we followed the Wences Casares, uh, get off zero, you know, just put, you know, mark use, go and Pompe talking about, get off zero, just put 1% of your portfolio into Bitcoin. And so we did that. Um, and you know, it's been fantastic obviously from that period till now, but in a way that was sort of a little bit of our replacement of bonds.

Dan Tapiero: (26:25)
We also have between a five and 10% allocation to gold, whereas five years ago, we didn't. So I think balancing the Bitcoin, no, no, no, we're not gonna, I, you know, I've said, look, we'll look at it when it hits three, 400,000, which has been my target, you know, and I've said that publicly for, you know, at least two years, um, you know, if it gets there, we'll think about it. And then maybe in five years, uh, we'll think about it again, but it's allowed the endowment to outperform as well, because as you know, these very conservative, uh, endowments, uh, and we're maybe a little less conservative, but you know, they're not, um, uh, they're not used to actually making much alpha, right. You know, you stick to your benchmark and if you outperform it by a percent, that's a big deal. And all of a sudden we have this asset class that's outperforming, you know, that's driving that, uh, the performance like significantly more.

Dan Tapiero: (27:23)
So I think slowly the money does come out of bonds. Um, and some of it will go into equity. There's some defensive equities out there you can own, um, maybe a little bit moves into some corporate bonds. I don't really love that, but I do think gold could potentially have a Renaissance in the next five years. And I know no one's saying that, but that's largely because there are no advocates or very few advocates for gold out there because the average age of the owners is like 65. And many of them have just, you know, they've just sort of checked out of the day-to-day world. Whereas on Twitter, you have, you know, 10,000 people talking about how great Bitcoin is, uh, you know, every minute of the day and how it's going to replace gold, et cetera. And there's some, I don't want to say replace, but you know, it's certainly one alternative, but I think you should own both. And I think they have different functions in your portfolio. It's not so crazy. And to be ideological about investment should tell you that there's a problem there, right? Because you shouldn't be ideological about investments, you should make right investments that make sense for your portfolio. So then I

Brett Messing: (28:34)
Want to merge a couple of these things, your macro background, the big Bitcoin and the psycho, which is, it seems like many people I speak to in Bitcoin are expecting this cycle to be like past cycles, right. Where we had the having and May, 2020, what's the peak going to be? How far is the pull? Gack back going to be other share my own perspective. I know you won't, you'll give me your years, regardless is all I know is, is not going to be the same. You know what I mean? I'm not, I'm not, it could be shorter. We get of a bear market next week. It could be, there's no evidence to suggest that, but I just think it's very, very unlikely that the cycle is substantially similar to the prior ones. Um,

Dan Tapiero: (29:20)
You mean, in what sense that, you know, we've had five or six corrections of 80%, is that what you're

Brett Messing: (29:25)
Talking when people are saying, well, the peak usually comes between 14 months and 18 months after having right. Go up this amount. So there's a, there's a, there's a time aspect to it. There's a price and decline aspect to it. Um, and I think there's there, you know, it's, everyone's got the same trade on and whenever I see everyone at the same trade, it usually worked. Doesn't go that way. And, but what do you think?

Dan Tapiero: (29:50)
I, I completely agree. I mean, you know, I completely agree that, uh, there'll be some correction at some point, but, uh, I don't know that it's following any specific route or path. I mean, the surprise would be to be honest, the surprise would be if we got up to 100,000 and just stayed there for a few years, you know, more or less like give or take 20, 30%, uh, or whatever, 40, I mean, just up and down around that number, that would be the surprise. Um, so I sort of think a little bit the way you do, uh, but could we also go up to 300,000 and then correct back down to 50? Sure. I mean, there's no, you know, it's still, you know, I say an emerging asset class because only like one to 2% of the world have crypto wallets or accounts. Right.

Dan Tapiero: (30:43)
And so that sort of reminds me more of like the internet in its early stages, 19 96, 19 96, 1% of the world had access to the internet. Right. So, and by 2006, it was 15%. So that's a 15 X in 10 years. I think that this world, this digital asset ecosystem I think can grow certainly 15 times over the next 10 years. Like I, that's why I still think it's relatively early, it's an early asset class. And therefore you can't discount that it could do that 300 and come back down to 50. Right. I just don't know. Um, I just recommend people not to trade it. I think you have to allocate a percentage of your portfolio, have a target and come back to it. And even as a professional money manager, having traded, you know, global macro for all those years, I think, unless you're doing a 24 7 and you're professional, you should not be sort of moonlighting trading crypto. I mean, it's, it's very, I think it would be very difficult.

Brett Messing: (31:50)
It seems untradeable right. It seems like, I mean, you know, you also have event risk, right. You know, you, you have your position on, and then a line Musk comes in, right. Or name whatever event may or may not happen. It, you know, it just doesn't seem like, uh, like anyone who's winning, winning, you know, I think, you know, you just, just, just gotten lucky. Um, w what, what do you see driving us to your price target? W w what events are you looking forward to see, to know that we're on pace for that?

Dan Tapiero: (32:21)
Uh, I think there are so many, um, look, one of them, uh, uh, one of them, I think obviously will be central bank and government adoption, right. Um, corporate adoption, which is what sailor has been pushing, I think, uh, is sort of one level. Again, he's a very advanced, uh, tech focused guy and to have Elon mosque and, you know, Jack Dorsey and sailor putting some of their bounds sheet into Bitcoin, they're at the very cutting, cutting edge of it, right. Massachusetts Mutual's allocation. Um, last year, I think it was a huge sign that you could have the beginning of sight, very conservative people. You ask, what are these guys doing, you know, with all their bonds? Well, here, Massachusetts mutual is doing a toe dip. So I think that it's just the first ending for the institutions, the corporate end. I don't think it's even started, uh, in terms of central banks, um, you know, and government.

Dan Tapiero: (33:26)
So that could certainly very easily take us up to 200, you know, potentially 200, 300,000, um, you know, just that forget about even, you know, increasing global adoption and all these places forget about even, you know, um, you know, uh, banking the unbanked, right? That's the whole idea that, you know, in the emerging markets, they'll take up crypto more easily because, you know, they'll bypass the, you know, the first stage of, you know, the banking of being, you know, countries that don't have proper banking systems will, you know, jump through that and, and, and go straight to crypto. Um, there, there are a whole bunch of variables, but just those two alone could probably take you up there, uh, to 300, because I'll tell you where a $1 trillion valuation now. So it's just saying, going to 5 trillion, right? And if you look at total assets out there they're $500 trillion of value in total assets. I think they're $192 trillion of cash. Plus cash flows, fixed income in the world. So we're talking about going from 1 trillion to 5 trillion, not that big a deal, that would be a 3% exit as of a two and a half percent exit is from cash and from bonds, right. Just that right.

Brett Messing: (34:47)
So Dan, on the micro strategy corporate event, I thought Ross, Steven said something very interesting, which is, he said that where we are in Bitcoin is that the left tail has gone, right. We've taken zero out of the equation. I guess my question is a two-part one is, do you agree with that? Uh, and his view obviously was if you, if you cut the left tail off and Bitcoin is massively undervalued, um, and secondarily, if we're wrong, and this is like a video that we wish would never, you know, be seen again, because we're just so wrong. Um, why are we wrong?

Dan Tapiero: (35:23)
So I agree with him that it's impossible for it to go to zero. That was the reason that I sort of decided to focus on this or deciding that I was going to focus on this rule for the next 10 to 15 years. Because, um, you know, after doing my research, I just thought some intervention of this significance just can't go to zero. And that, that, you know, people are wrong really just because they haven't done the work and they haven't realized the significance of, you know, of what's been invented. So I completely agree. That was sort of one of the main reasons I really got stuck in, because I believe there's zero chance that go to zero now. Uh, so I don't think it can go to zero and you're saying, so what would be, what would be something, uh, that could happen that would, I would be wrong? We would be wrong about what about it going to zero?

Brett Messing: (36:17)
Oh, about, you know, not, not, not zero necessarily, but, you know, it's, you know, it becomes, it returns to being a niche asset trading between a couple of thousand and 10,000 in perpetuity like this, this, this, this turns out to be just a moment, right. You know, assets.

Dan Tapiero: (36:36)
Well, you know, I would have said in the first five or six years, that that was possible. Um, but I really, I, you know, the, the network effects have been too big. Um, I think the first five, six years it was vulnerable and it was still small. And, you know, maybe, you know, it could have been, uh, attacked and hacked potentially, but it really survived already. So it's really like, at what point do we actually stop saying, Hey, where are we wrong? We're going to go back to 10,000. At what point do we say, this is an invention akin to the invention of the combustion engine. And in fact, maybe this thing Bitcoin can go to 10 trillion in value or 20 trillion. And that the digital asset ecosystem is going to encompass $500 trillion of value. I think that's more rare. You know, when, when you said to me before, you know, it's not going to happen the way that it is before when everyone thinks something.

Dan Tapiero: (37:38)
I mean, I've done hundreds of calls and meetings for 10 T you know, my fun. And very often I get asked this, the, you know, the same questions can the government attack. It will, they will. They ban it. It uses a lot of energy, all these typical things that on Twitter, they call FID. Um, and these questions have been answered by guys a lot smarter than me in pieces, a lot longer than any of us are gonna reap. And so to me, all of that still is a sign that we're right about things, right? Like there's still so many doubters, there's such a wall of worry to climb. Um, I see zero chance of zero. And I think the more, you know, the, the other, the flip side question is how many people have you spoken to the talk about the DAA and Bitcoin in those terms as the money protocol for the entire internet one day.

Dan Tapiero: (38:31)
And I would say, you know, one out of a hundred, and then how many people say to me, can it go to zero? It's probably like 30 out of 130 to 40, 30% think that, you know, it still has this problem or that problem. Um, so I know that doesn't really answer the question, but I sorta think we're beyond that, uh, question. Like it's already with us, we have central bank, digital currencies. They're going to move around in this new digital world. Like the central banks have already validated it for you. So I don't know why it would go to zero, right. Although

Brett Messing: (39:12)
I have to tell you just, just, just today, you know, we were in contract with a pretty large wealth management firm. You know, we have a Bitcoin fund, that's conditional investors. And they were basically, NFW no crypto. We think Bitcoins go to zero. And I was like, really? I mean, this is a, this is, you know, I'm not going to out them because it would make them look really stupid. So I'm not going to say who it is, but you know, it's a pretty name brand place, so it, it's still out there. Um, but you know,

Dan Tapiero: (39:43)
Let me tell you what, when it's not out there anymore is when we have to work. Right. Well,

Brett Messing: (39:49)
The thing is interesting, you know, we were trying to, because we're mandated by regulators to provide quote balance, right? So I was looking for, you know, thoughtful anti-big coin pieces and they don't exist. In other words, if, if you do the kind of exhaustive research that you've done in iPod, you find ad hoc attacks, right. By folks on Bitcoin, you won't find a 20 page paper on why Bitcoin isn't, isn't a, you know, attractive investible asset. Or if you have, please send it to me. Cause I haven't found them.

Dan Tapiero: (40:23)
Yeah. I mean, look, I think in the first five or six years, there were some things out there. I mean, no, I know I, and I just think that, and maybe in the first five or six year, their fixers, there were some valid complaints. I mean, for a long time people said, no one uses Bitcoin. I can't buy coffee with Bitcoin. Right. It's not worth anything. Um, like it's not transactable, but that really wasn't, you know, that's not that w that's not really why it's important that that's not the sort of dominant narrative. Um, and I think it took going through many questionable use cases in narratives before getting to where we are now, right.

Brett Messing: (41:05)
In the early days you couldn't buy coffee, but John and I bought meth with our Bitcoin. So John, do you want to launch a few questions at Dan before we wrap it up?

John Darcie: (41:17)
I would love to. Um, so then you launched 10 T it's a, from what I understand, the $200 million fund to invest in crypto companies, you were talking about, you know, your concern that if, if Coinbase goes off at 150 or $200 billion valuation, which by the time this airs Coinbase will be trading live, uh, so we'll either look really smart or really dumb, uh, when that takes place. But you're, you've raised this fund to invest in the digital asset cryptocurrency ecosystem is that over-complicating things, should people just be investing in Bitcoin and Ethereum, and if there's any other blue chip products or protocols out there, why invest in the picks and shovels rather than just the pure play, you know, apex, predator, coins. Yeah,

Dan Tapiero: (42:03)
Look, I think, uh, and I tell this to all my perspectives, you know, uh, have 50% in Bitcoin, uh, and 50% in 10 T because it's a different, it's a different exposure with a very different risk reward profile. So like, as an example, in 2018, when Bitcoin went down, 85% of basket of these companies would have broadly maintain their value. So also, you know, a private equity fund invests over 12 to 24 months and we have a 5, 6, 7, 8 year holding period. And so, you know, a lot of people, uh, are not comfortable holding one thing. Um, you know, look, yes, Bitcoin is the thing. Bitcoin is fantastic. I would even say if you want, maybe do 85% Bitcoin, 15 or 80, 20, you know, 20 in, in Ethereum. Um, you know, I think the other cryptocurrencies are really more like early stage technology projects. And I think they're for VCs, uh, I don't know that they're for the average sort of retail guy out there who certainly doesn't have the capacity or capability to do the deep, the deep dive, and you don't know how to take apart, uh, you know, have the background in, uh, you know, programming.

Dan Tapiero: (43:20)
And I just, just, there are so many it's so discipline, interdisciplinary, this, this area that, um, there's more stuff that you don't know than what you know. And so the picks and shovels bet, um, I liked because it has just a very different risk profile. Uh, yeah, maybe we underperformed Bitcoin, maybe we outperformed Bitcoin. I don't know. Um, but for a guy from my sort of traditional, uh, background to really believe that I could make a five or 10 X on something, uh, is incredible and I'm happy with that. And I'll let the, you know, the young guys can play an Ave and uni swap and, you know, in graph and make 20 bucks

John Darcie: (44:05)
RP at 20 cents or, and

Dan Tapiero: (44:07)
Make, you know, 2500% return or 25000% return. I think that's wonderful. But again, you know, the VC model is more invest in 10 things, nine go to zero and one is Google. And my approach and my background is a macro investor. I want to make a broad sector bet because I want to, you know, I want to have exposure, uh, to this, to the value in the digital asset ecosystem going up. That's my, that's my bet. And I don't want to have any one thing I don't want to just don't exchange as we've divided the world up into three buckets for us, it's digital asset ecosystem gateways, uh, next generation financial services companies, and then blockchain infrastructure companies. And we're going to have a portfolio of three to five companies in each bucket. And my bed is, is that over the next five, six years, that that will appreciate, and that I'm not going to have to, you know, worry about the volatility or the businesses going under, as I said, they're already, I think mature, some of them are coming public soon. Um, so it's just, you know, different investors have different risk profiles, but if you were to say to me, Dan, you know, I'm just going to have everything in Bitcoin. I'd be like, oh, that's good too. Right. It just depends. You know what you're trying to do with your portfolio.

John Darcie: (45:30)
It's amazing. The way the conversation around Bitcoin has evolved. We're talking about it right now as sort of the equity sleeve of a traditional portfolio. Whereas the venture investments are almost like the, you know, the alternative sleeve and it's amazing how quickly Bitcoin has gone from this speculative asset to a that's the bellwether, you know, steady, you know, allocate most of your, your capital to that, um, to that asset. We'll talk about Ethereum for a second. So we spent a lot of time talking about Bitcoin. Ethereum is sort of the silver to Bitcoin's gold, you know, deputy here in the cryptocurrency world, but it's obviously performed incredibly well over the last year, uh, including in recent days, we're taping this, uh, on, on Tuesday, April 13th. But, um, what do you view a theory of in terms of it, the, the pluses and the minuses relative to Bitcoin, obviously Bitcoin's immutable supply of 21 million Bitcoins is a very attractive to people. Uh, but what about Ethereum? Do you like, and not like relative to Bitcoin?

Dan Tapiero: (46:29)
Yeah. Um, you know, I don't know so much that it's silver. Uh, I think it's its own thing. I think it's a phenomenal, uh, you know, I mean, I call it an invention as well, but I mean, it's unbelievably complex. I mean, it's programmable money. Uh, you know, you can embed smart contracts into money. That phrase there, uh, is probably not understood by 99% of the people out there. What does that even mean? Embedded smart contracts, uh, you know, in programmable money, it just, it's crazy. It's like, um, so I mean, I think it's quite a phenomenal thing. It has a different use case really then than Bitcoin, as I said, Bitcoin, I think is that pristine collateral of the new system. It, you know, as you mentioned, it is defined, the network effects are unbelievably powerful. It's the brand of what it is. Uh, but I think a theory, its own thing and is equally phenomenal in its own way.

Dan Tapiero: (47:33)
So I don't, and you know, you know what some of these things are, you know, programmers find it easier to, to build on. It has a lot of flexibility. Yes. Maybe there's a little more supply that's out there, but we'll see what happens with ease too. You know, there's talk about it becoming a deflationary currency. I don't know why they're doing that. I guess they want to try to outbid coin Bitcoin, which doesn't make any sense to me. Uh, you know, a theory should be what it is and, and stay with the integrity of that. Um, but that one is clearly, you know, it's where sort of Bitcoin was maybe four or five years ago in terms of its maturity. Um, I don't see that as a science project anymore. Look, even Vitalik said, uh, on one of the interviews I listened to a podcast a few months ago, he said, look, Bitcoin is 100% complete.

Dan Tapiero: (48:23)
It's done, it's mature. He said it theory is like 60% there. We still, you know, we still have things that we need to, you know, overcome et cetera. But, um, I mean, I think it's a super powerful thing. I mean, just look at what's happening with the NFTs. Those are all on mostly ERC 20 tokens. Right? So, um, the, the reason I just want one thing I didn't mention regarding your last question, I would, I would say is that the bet that I have on this da eat, you know, why I like it is because it's also a bet on all the things of value, uh, or all the things that will be moved into the digital asset ecosystem that we are not even aware of yet. So as an example, NFTs didn't exist really six months ago. Now you have NFTs going from a hundred to a thousand dollars to a hundred thousand dollars, you know, to millions, of course, people 69 million. So like no one could have predicted that a year ago. And so Bitcoin is wonderful. Bitcoin can go up a lot, but you know, having a bet on all the things that are going to develop in the future that we're not even aware of yet to me is a different type of bet. So anyway, I just bring that back in. Then

John Darcie: (49:43)
We could go on for probably hours with you talking about the global macro and geopolitical situation with Bitcoin, Peter teal had some recent, interesting comments on that front. We're going to wrap that up for today. We'd like to keep these around 45 to 50 minutes. So it's been a pleasure to have you on salt talks. We'll hopefully have you on again in the future. And we'd love to have you at our live salt conference in September. We're getting back to our live in person gatherings, assuming everything continues on the same trajectory it is with the pandemic. So thanks again for joining us. Brian, you have a final word for Dan before we let him go.

Brett Messing: (50:14)
No, it was feeling great. You know, I was looking forward to it and it, uh, it's been fantastic. Thanks Dan. Thanks.

John Darcie: (50:21)
So you guys are two, two brown guys, uh, you know, bonding here, so great to have you guys together, but thank you again, Dan, and thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt talk, uh, with Dan Tappy arrow. Um, just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, including we have an entire series of these conversations on cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, digital assets, uh, you can access those on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks and on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. And we have an entire playlist again, that's dedicated to these digital asset oriented talks, which I might add are generally our most viewed episodes. Even though we've talked to Titans across hedge funds and private equity and venture capital and public policy, these Bitcoin and digital asset oriented talks continue to be the most popular, which I guess gives you an idea about why we're seeing the price action that we're seeing in Bitcoin, Ethereum and other digital assets.

John Darcie: (51:15)
We're on Twitter as well. Please follow us at salt conference is where we're most active in the social media sphere, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook. Please spread the word about these salt talks. We love educating people about what's taking place in the digital asset ecosystem. And like Dana said akin to the invention of the combustion engine. We could be at the very early stages still of this revolution, but on behalf of Brett and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talk for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Joe Terranova & Liz Young: Global Investing Landscape & Market Analysis | SALT Talks #160

Joe Terranova is a series regular on CNBC's Fast Money and the Chief Market Strategist for Virtus Investment Partners, a $25 billion Hartford-based asset management firm. In his current role, Mr. Terranova is involved with Virtus' investment oversight function and represents Virtus as a client-facing thought leader, providing insight into the domestic and global investing landscape. Prior to joining Virtus, he spent 18 years at MBF Clearing Corp., where he was the director of trading and managed more than 300 traders.

Liz Young is Director of Market Strategy for BNY Mellon Investment Management. In this role, she works directly with the firm's Chief Economist to formulate and deliver economic and market views to external audiences. She focuses on educating investors on current macroeconomic themes and their effects on capital markets. Liz is a CNBC Contributor and is frequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Washington Post and other industry publications.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Joe Terranova.jpeg

Joe Terranova

Chief Market Strategist

Virtus Investment Partners

Liz Young.jpeg

Liz Young

Director of Market Strategy

BNY Mellon Investment Management

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darcy. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global Thought Leadership Forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers and our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:39)
We're very excited today to welcome two great market strategists to SALT Talks to talk you through where we are today in financial markets. Our two guests today are Joe Terranova and Liz Young and I'll read you a little bit about their bios before I turn it over to our host, Mr. Anthony Scaramucci for the interview. Joe Terranova is the chief market strategist at Virtus Investment Partners, a position he was elevated to in 2009, after having started with the firm as chief alternative strategist.

John Darsie: (01:07)
In his current role Mr. Terranova is involved with Virtus' investment oversight function, represents Virtus as a client facing thought leader providing insight into the domestic and global investing landscape. Mr. Terranova developed the Terranova US Quality Momentum Index, which launched and began publicly pricing in August, of 2020. Prior to joining Virtus, Terranova spent 18 years at MBF Clearing Corp, rising to the position of director of trading.

John Darsie: (01:34)
He's perhaps best known for his risk management skills, honed while overseeing MBF's proprietary trading operations during some of the most calamitous times for US markets, including the first Gulf War, the 1998 Asian crisis, 9/11, the collapse of Amaranth Advisors. He wasn't around for when Anthony traded through the Great Depression though. So he's a little bit younger than our host today.

John Darsie: (01:57)
During those times, there was never a loss at MBF due to market anomalies. Since 2008, you might know Mr. Terranova as being a CNBC ensemble member, appearing regularly on the Halftime Report, Squawk Box, contributing financial content throughout the CNBC media and digital platforms. Liz Young is the director of market strategy for BNY Mellon Investment Management.

John Darsie: (02:20)
In this role, she works directly with the firm's chief economist to formulate and deliver economic and market views to external audiences. Liz is a CNBC contributor and is frequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Washington Post and other industry publications. Prior to joining BNY Mellon in 2015, Liz was a portfolio analyst at Robert W. Baird, responsible for manager due diligence for the firm's recommended manager programs and discretionary model platform.

John Darsie: (02:48)
Prior to that, she served as a research analyst at BMO Global Asset Management. Liz earned her Bachelor of Business Administration in finance and marketing from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, as well as an MBA from Marquette University. So she's Wisconsin through and through. She holds a CFA designation and as a member of the CFA Institute and the CFA Society of New York.

John Darsie: (03:10)
So she's pretty smart, but we already knew that and hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony does not have a CFA designation. He's also the chairman of SALT Talks. So we'll give him credit for that, but with that, we'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:29)
He's really riding hard, Joe. So just so just so you know, you and I know each other a long time, Joe. It was a little hard to trade the depression. It wasn't that hard. It was a little hard, because there was a lot of momentum back in the day, but when John Darcy needs the Botox, just remember, Joe, I have it all in my garage. So he's not getting any Botox as he starts to age, but Liz, it's great to have you on. Joe, great to have you on. I want to start with you Liz, if it's okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:56)
The broad equity indexes have exploded upward. They're melting upward, at least that's my impression from watching the two of you on CNBC and looking at our portfolios. Have things gone too far, Liz? What's your opinion?

Liz Young: (04:12)
Well, depends if you want to talk about it broadly or in little pockets. There are certainly little pockets that are speculative, and Joe can cover the momentum piece of that much better, but those little pockets certainly are speculative and there are pieces that I would look at and say, "I don't know that this is the right entry point." But broadly speaking, the market I don't think has gotten ahead of itself.

Liz Young: (04:33)
If you just come back to fundamentals, which seems like a foreign language to us after all this policy support, but come back to the fundamentals, the earnings in 2021 are expected to be above the earnings in 2019. So if we're looking forward, and we've got this interest rate environment and this liquidity environment, I don't think we're far ahead of ourselves. Now, the interesting part is that what usually happens is you see this big run up in equity markets as we're starting to recover.

Liz Young: (05:00)
But then once the recovery is really underway, and it's getting to be squared away, then you see a pause in equity markets. So markets don't move at the same time as economies, they don't move at the same time as economic data they never have, they never will. So it's going to seem strange that we see a pause in markets later on when we feel like the economy is finally back on its two feet.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:22)
Joe, I'm an old fashioned guy and I'm looking at money production by the United States and I'm a little worried. So let's just go over that. 23.6% more dollars are in circulation over the last six months. If the $1.9 billion stimulus goes into effect, that number will be 40%. So we will have 40% more dollars in circulation in a 12 month period of time, more so than the last 244 years. I'm worried Joe. Should I be worried or not a big deal?

Joe Terranova: (05:57)
What would you like them to do? Not have a response, which is what happened in the Great Depression? See the Great Depression, everyone thinks it's caused by the dramatic equity declines, but it was the absence of a response. They took the monetary base, Anthony from October, of 1929, to October, of 1930 and they contracted it by 7%.

Joe Terranova: (06:14)
Democrats and Republicans were actually unified, but we had this tax, Smoot-Hawley Tariff that contracted exports and imports with Europe, our largest trading partner, by 60 something percent at the time. So the Federal Reserve is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing, but we're going to look back, we're going to look back on the period from 2010 to 2030.

Joe Terranova: (06:37)
We're going to realize at some point, it's going to be written about in history books, financial history books, that this was an investment Renaissance. It is an investment Renaissance, because we have recreated the American economy where we value the algorithm, the artificial intelligence and the software program, more than we value what we used to value which was the machinery, the automobile or the airplane.

Joe Terranova: (07:05)
In addition to that, we have a supply to demand imbalance as it relates to investable assets. It is the most dramatic imbalance in modern economic times. We've declined the supply of publicly traded companies over the last 15 years. We tried to introduce different types of asset classes, whether it be commodities, which disappointed in terms of price performance and depth and liquidity, but yet demand continues to rise.

Joe Terranova: (07:38)
Global investors continue to grow their numbers, Millennials are going to be such an incredibly important economic engine for us as a generation as we move forward, and Gen Z behind them. So collectively, Anthony, you've got these secular tailwinds that are in place, that are driving markets higher and the Federal Reserve is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing.

Joe Terranova: (08:01)
In a hyper deflationary environment, you're supposed to nourish risk assets by providing liquidity and I think that their policy has been the right one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:12)
So, Liz, Joe's making a lot of good points, but I'm looking at economic data that suggests that the Federal Reserve's policies, and I agree with Joe and I accept that they don't really have much of a choice. I'd love to see some more fiscal legs to this economic store, like infrastructure and job training and things like that but the potential outcome, the side effect of these policies is that assets, and let's say one to 3% of the population owns the assets are going up.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:43)
So that means all of our assets are going up. Good for the people that own the assets, but Joe's mentioned that we're in a deflationary environment. So wages don't seem to be going on for middle and lower income people. So there's a chasm widening. Are you concerned about that, Liz, or am I wrong about that? Push back on me,. Tell me what I'm wrong about so we-

Liz Young: (09:06)
You're inviting an argument. I'm excited.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:11)
The point I'm making is Joe's right. It's an effective policy response and it's good for the markets, it's good for the businesses, but is it hurting middle and lower income people? Not not on purpose, but is it one of the deleterious side effects of it?

Liz Young: (09:29)
I don't know that Federal Reserve policy is necessarily hurting lower and middle income people, but what is hurting them is the way that the labor market is set up right now. So here's where I agree with Joe and then a little bit where I disagree with Joe. I agree that the Fed didn't have a choice. The Fed certainly didn't have a choice last March and it was a huge benefit, what they did and how quickly they did it. I think all of us learned a really painful lesson in 2008 and 2009. We didn't act fast enough, we didn't act big enough and we underestimated the downside.

Liz Young: (10:00)
So this time everybody, Fed, government, private companies, everybody said, "We're not going to do that again." So they had to do that in spring of last year to prevent a complete financial market meltdown, and that was absolutely the right thing to do. Now, we're in a place though, where the Fed is focusing a lot on the labor market and I think that's actually a good thing.

Liz Young: (10:21)
It may force them to keep policy where it is, but the issue with the spread between wealth and the gap that keeps growing is that the jobs that were lost were, unfortunately, on that lower end of the wealth curve and a lot of those jobs that were last are not going to be where we left them. So when we reopen the economy, there's going to be people that were supposed to be temporarily unemployed, that turn into permanently unemployed persons.

Liz Young: (10:47)
That is going to affect that part of the labor market much more. Where the question lies is, whose responsibility is that? Is that a fiscal responsibility to create new jobs in that particular part of the economy? Is it a fiscal responsibility to create new jobs that have never been had before in our economy, and put people to work there, but then there's the skill mismatch that is actually one of the things that I'm worried about over the next, call it two to three years, that you've got unemployed people and a labor market that never got back to the size that was before, and a bunch of open positions but there's not a good match between the skill set that the unemployed people have and the open positions need.

Liz Young: (11:27)
So then you just kind of stay stuck in this spot and then you have to decide, is it the government's responsibility to train and educate those people? Or is it private company's responsibility to train and educate those people and meet somewhere in the middle? I don't know what the right answer to that is. I don't think it's the Federal Reserve's responsibility.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:50)
We'll agree that it's not the Federal Reserve's responsibility and I think Joe's making the point is they have a blunt instrument, they're using the instrument and if you go to the book, Firefighting, which was a great book written in 2018 by Geithner, Bernanke, and Paulson. They all say in that book that their policy response in 2008 into 2009 wasn't big enough and Jerome Powell took that to heart. So I'm giving them credit for all of that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:14)
I'm just worried about these deleterious, potential side effects, but let me just flip it to chill for a second because Joe, you're great at this. I remember this from your book about momentum and I remember this from your book about when things sometimes go parabolic. Are we in a technology 2000 style potential boom, and then correction, like in March, of 2000 or are we getting just started in the technology rush here? What's your opinion?

Joe Terranova: (12:49)
So there is no comparison, based on the evidence between the experience of 2000 and where we are today. If you go back-

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:00)
John Darcy wasn't born in 2000. Just explain to Darcy what happened in 2000 [crosstalk 00:13:05]-

Joe Terranova: (13:05)
If you go back to 2000, first of all, you had two conditions in place that I think were important in quickly advancing what what became a very negative environment. First of all, technology was highly indebted as a sector back in 2000. In addition to that, you had competition for the equity investor, if they wanted to move away from allocations towards a lot of these technology companies. Rates were significantly higher than where they are today.

Joe Terranova: (13:43)
You don't have that in place now. Technology, Anthony, and I always use this interesting example but I want you to think about Microsoft in 1999. Microsoft in 1999 was a $60 stock. One year later, Microsoft was a $20 stock. Guess what? Microsoft didn't get back above $40 until 2013. Took them 13 years. So what happened was, and this kind of speaks towards what what Liz was addressing and I think where your your question is going, Anthony, with whose responsibility is it to stimulate the labor market?

Joe Terranova: (14:28)
So technology from 2000 to 2010, they spent that decade repairing themselves. It was kind of like, I often use the analogy of a hurricane. If you think about a hurricane coming through your neighborhood, if your house is the house that gets knocked down, you rebuild your house, and it's going to be rebuilt hurricane proof. Well, technology did that. If the hurricane comes through and your neighbor's house gets knocked down, you don't rebuild your house because your neighbor's house got knocked down.

Joe Terranova: (14:58)
So technology recreated itself, positioned itself exactly where it was able to, in terms of prevalence and market share in the economy from 2000 to 2020, really take strong hold. I think that deflationary impact is the reason why we've had a case shaped recovery since the great financial crisis and fiscal policy makers whose responsibility, Anthony, it is to address that. They haven't done a good job in doing.

Joe Terranova: (15:30)
We talk about an infrastructure bill. We need an infrastructure bill that distributes technology throughout the country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:38)
Next week is infrastructure week, Joe. Just letting you know that. It's going to be infrastructure week, next week.

Joe Terranova: (15:44)
We need that-

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:44)
I'm not kidding by the way. The White House just announced that. I know you guys think I'm joking.

Joe Terranova: (15:50)
Well, hopefully it includes companies like Cisco and technology is a big part of that, but understand that since the great financial crisis, you had people that lost a particular income threshold, and never were able to attain it again, or maybe lost their jobs and their ability to invest and to Liz's point, they were never retrained. They were never provided with the skills that are currently needed in what now is an intangible asset economy.

Joe Terranova: (16:18)
They didn't have those skills. If you and I, you grew up in the 70s, right, Anthony? What's your tendency? What's your bias back to your childhood? You worry about inflation? You worry about the Russians, and you worry about high oil prices. Well, you had policymakers, fiscal policymakers, who had that mindset.

Joe Terranova: (16:39)
They didn't understand how they needed to re-educate the society towards having those intangible skills that are needed in the workplace. I think that's been one of the greatest challenges as to why you've had this case shape recovery since the great financial crisis.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:56)
Also the specter of deflation, because you have excess factory output, you've on boarded billions of people into western style capitalism. So those policymakers that were guarding against the last war, inflation, weren't anticipating the deflationary aspects of the globalization of our society. So, Liz, everybody manages and thinks about risk differently. How do you think about it and what are the pockets of risk right now that you would be worried about?

Liz Young: (17:29)
So, if you talk about clients, they define risk as losing money. Full stop. They don't ever want to lose money. They don't ever want to see anything below zero.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:39)
Everybody is a long term investor, Liz, until they have short term losses. We've long-

Liz Young: (17:43)
Exactly, exactly, exactly. We learn that painfully every single year. What I think risk actually is, is the blind spots that you weren't prepared for or you didn't prepare your portfolio for. It doesn't mean that you take risk exposure off the table, and you're suddenly protected against all risk. In an environment like this, that's just not the case. What you have to protect against is the biggest risk to you as an investor.

Liz Young: (18:10)
So let's say, for example, I'm 80 years old, and I'm not earning an income anymore. My biggest risk is to maintain my purchasing power, the biggest risk is inflation. So then I develop a portfolio that protects me against inflation, and you have to focus on it like that. It's a sniper bullet. It's not a shotgun blast.

Liz Young: (18:28)
One of the things that I think is hiding in the corners of risk that we talk about under the surface, but I don't know that people are really giving it enough attention is the idea that inflation will eventually come back to life and it should. It would be a healthy thing for inflation to come back to life. There's a reason the Fed has a 2% target, because 2% means that there's healthy demand in the economy.

Liz Young: (18:52)
So I would welcome a 2% inflation reading. Eventually, it'll happen. What I think might occur in the middle part of this year is as everybody comes back online, and there's this flurry of activity and that savings rate in the US goes from 14% down closer to the average, which is 5%, you have a lot of demand that floods back into the system, and the supply chains might not be able to keep up with it.

Liz Young: (19:17)
So you might see these little transient spikes in inflation and they're numbers that we haven't seen in a really, really long time and I think it could spook people and I think it could particularly spook the yield curve. I would expect the Fed to control the yield curve a little bit but not entirely. So I think the yield curve piece and the yield curve volatility is a risk out there that I want investors to be ready for, not necessarily to do much about right now but just be ready for mentally.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:45)
All right, and I hear you. Joseph, Bitcoin, cannabis, SPEX recent Reddit activity, GameStop et cetera. There's a lot of excitement out there, Joe. Let me ask you. Is this born from Federal Reserve policy? Do we have more of these squalls in the future?

Joe Terranova: (20:09)
This is part of the investment Renaissance. This is the absence of supply for new investable assets. You need more investable assets as you continue to have rising demand. You have 80 to 85 million millennials. Let's talk about this for one second. A couple of years back, you and I would walk into a room and Liz would walk into a room. The difference between you and I walking into the room and Liz walking into the room is that Liz is probably the youngest person in the room.

Joe Terranova: (20:46)
You and I, okay, like everyone else in the room is aging quickly. Now, we both know you and I are aging gracefully, but we're aging quickly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:56)
Joe, Joe, you're worse than Darcy, man. I was doing great [crosstalk 00:21:01]-

John Darsie: (21:01)
He's aging but it's not that graceful, Joe. That's where you got it wrong.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:05)
It's unbelievable. You're worse than Darcy. I just got my hair dyed, by the way and you're just unbelievable. You probably do need my colors at this point, just so you know. Liz is looking at that carrot top saying, "Yeah, Terranova does need a little bit of help," and there's some-

Liz Young: (21:23)
We all age.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:24)
And there's some great colors up here on the North Shore, just so you know. Go ahead Joe, after you just insulted me. I do run the SALT Conference. I know Darcy tries to say that he's doing it, but you're hurting my feelings, Joseph. Go ahead.

Joe Terranova: (21:39)
let's take the SALT Conference.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:41)
Unbelievable.

Joe Terranova: (21:42)
Look around the SALT Conference. What do you say to yourself in 2017 at that SALT Conference about the financial services industry? We're getting older. We need to introduce a younger generation to the financial services industry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:55)
I wasn't saying that to Joe Biden, when he was at the SALT Conference. I said, "Joe, you look great to me, Joe. You look young." That's what I was saying to the vice president at that moment.

Joe Terranova: (22:07)
You need to have a transition to a younger generation to take hold in the financial services industry. Now, a couple years back, because of what happened with 9/11, the experience of the great financial crisis, they rightfully did not trust Wall Street. They didn't want to engage in that conversation. Then you introduce Bitcoin and Bitcoin, a number of years back, became the way that you could actually engage in this conversation.

Joe Terranova: (22:37)
Now we're seeing an acceleration in their excitement, towards not only Bitcoin, but SPEX and cannabis, and what we're seeing with this Reddit revolution. If you are like myself, you are in that older generation of the financial services community that have been doing this for 30 years, here's your opportunity.

Joe Terranova: (23:02)
Here's your opportunity to speak with Millennials and Gen Z, about financial literacy, about long term investing, about portfolio and constructing, using multi asset allocation. This is a tremendous opportunity and Anthony, the last point I'll make on this is, I will tell you that we have characterized the Millennial generation totally incorrectly.

Joe Terranova: (23:30)
The Millennial generation will be the generation that provides this country the greatest opportunity to finally achieve organic economic growth. In 2010, the most common age in the United States was the age of 49. The second most common age was the age of 50. In 2019, the most common age in the United States was the age 29 and the second most common age was 30.

Joe Terranova: (23:52)
The top 10 ages were all below the age of 34. 11 years, forward in 2030, all you're going to see is that generation just slowly begin to age into their prime income generating years. This Millennial generation is so important. Behind them Gen Z, who are so financially literate and technologically savvy, they will also be contributing and I just think collectively, this is a moment where as I said, this investment Renaissance is taking hold, and we have to realize it and embrace it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:27)
So despite the fact that you're making me feel old, Joe, you're very bullish. So Liz, does he have it right or where do you think he has it wrong? Where does he have it right and wrong, in your opinion?

Liz Young: (24:39)
Well, first of all, you're both wrong because we all age at the same speed. So I'm getting older at the same pace that you're all getting older and I was not 29 in 2019. Anyway, I think he's right that we need to create more investable assets.

Liz Young: (25:00)
I think I would add on top of that, we need to, as an industry stay relevant to the next generation. How do we stay relevant? They care about different stuff than the baby boomer generation cared about. They care more about ESG, they care more about companies being socially conscious and that's not just to invest in them, that's to work at them.

Liz Young: (25:22)
So that gap that I talked about before between the skill set, and the unemployment rate is that in order to narrow that as we move forward, you also need companies to stay relevant to the workforce. So there's this huge movement towards clean energy, there's obviously the huge movement in social issues. I think that that only grows, and we as an industry need to embrace that.

Liz Young: (25:44)
Now, as far as, is the craze ... I think your original question was, all these new assets, is it kind of a craze? Is it maybe indicative somewhere of a bubble? Joe used a hurricane analogy, so I'm going to use a tornado analogy, because I'm from Wisconsin. We didn't have hurricanes there.

Liz Young: (26:02)
When you have a tornado watch, it means that the conditions are present for a tornado to form. When you have a tornado warning, it means that one's been spotted and here's what I would say about bubbles. Right now, I think we could be on bubble watch. The conditions are present for one to form, but it's not a warning. We haven't spotted one and the thing about bubbles is you don't know that there was one until after it popped.

Liz Young: (26:26)
So I don't think that there is one necessarily in those spaces at large. Now, will some of those spaces go through a boom and bust? Sure. Will there be survival of the fittest? Sure. Will every SPEX survive? No, but that's how this works and they're in the price discovery phase. They're in the discovery phase now and I think it does drive a lot of enthusiasm from younger investors, because it's interesting.

Liz Young: (26:52)
It's not the same stuff that their parents invested in, and they can understand it better, because it's the generation that they're growing up in. So I welcome it. I think it's great. I just think people need to make sure that they realize it doesn't always go up. Not everything is always going to be positive.

Joe Terranova: (27:07)
Anthony, if I could real quick, I love that. That is just a perfect assessment of the environment, but I also want to introduce one element that is so critically important, and it's happened within the last week. Elon Musk has finally introduced for investors, the needed correlation for Bitcoin. What was missing for Bitcoin in the last couple of years was a correlation.

Joe Terranova: (27:32)
Now by Elan Musk, using Tesla as the way to introduce that correlation, he has now provided for every investor that they have to have an understanding of Bitcoin. I'll tell you why. Liz, if you own an S&P fund, guess what? You now own Bitcoin, and that's the correlation that has been introduced this week that's so powerful.

Joe Terranova: (27:57)
Yesterday, Bitcoin was down 7%. I'm watching my screen and I'm saying, okay, Tesla is going to go down today, because Bitcoin's down 7%. Before we came on, I saw that Bitcoin was 7% higher. I don't know where Tesla is right now, but I'll tell you what, it's not lower right now. That correlation was what was missing and it's so powerful that it was finally introduced.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:20)
So where's where's Bitcoin going to go, Joe?

Joe Terranova: (28:24)
I have no clue. I'll leave that up to you. I don't have a Bitcoin fund. I'm just looking to an invest in a good Bitcoin fund. Do you know one?

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:32)
I do. Yes. I know one. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (28:38)
Liz-

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:38)
And he's dying to get in here. Go ahead, John. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (28:41)
Of course, we had-

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:42)
Try to outsmart everybody. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (28:44)
I want to stay on Bitcoin for a second and hear Liz's opinion. So Liz, obviously you work at BNY Mellon. You are not part of the decision for BNY Mellon to enter the Bitcoin custody space, which we saw recently that BNY Mellon is going to allow some custody of Bitcoin, but what's your view intellectually on Bitcoin? You don't have to give a price target to it, but do you think it has staying power or do you think this is some sort of fad?

Liz Young: (29:13)
I think crypto in general has staying power. Absolutely. I would call it an asset class, though, not something that is going to take over the dollar. I think originally the fear and all the hype around it was, okay, Bitcoin is going to take over the world and the US dollar goes away. Fiat currency in general goes away. I don't think that's the case, and I actually just recently did a podcast with Mike Novogratz, and we talked about Bitcoins that I could try to help my listeners understand it better and maybe even help myself understand it better.

Liz Young: (29:41)
One of the things that I think we figure out over time is that the dollar is already sort of going digital. How often do you really carry cash and you have to go out of your way to even get cash these days. Once the dollar goes completely digital, that's a digital currency.

Liz Young: (29:59)
So if we just put it in the basket of digital currencies in general, I do think currency goes digital, broadly across the globe. Now, Bitcoin is something that I think continues to go through a lot of boom and bust cycles and that's why I would call it an asset class. Where I get a little bit nervous as when people start calling it a store of value, because that makes investors think that it's the same as gold, or it's the same as the dollar and it's not.

Liz Young: (30:25)
It does not carry the same volatility profile, it's going to have a lot bouncier of a pattern, and it's going to make people get really scared sometimes. So I would be careful with calling it a store of value and that's the only reason you hold it. As far as institutions getting involved in it, BNY Mellon included in that, one of the points that Mike Novogratz made and I would agree with this is that once you saw insurance companies get involved and once you saw big institutions get involved, you had to get to critical mass, which was about three.

Liz Young: (30:56)
Then once there were three big ones that were involved, everybody else felt more comfortable. It's almost like it legitimatized the asset class, and I think we're just going to continue to see more and more institutions get on board, but I also think investors need to remember that an individual investor profile and risk profile and appetite for risk is much, much different than an institution.

Liz Young: (31:16)
Institutions have almost endless time horizons, and they can invest in stuff that booms and busts for a very long time and they can stomach it a lot easier than an individual can.

John Darsie: (31:27)
It's a great point, Liz and we were having a conversation around Bitcoin. You talked about insurance companies, and as Mike might have told you on your podcast, and he told us when he came on SALT Talks is that the public disclosures that we've seen in terms of insurance companies and institutions that have invested in Bitcoin is only about 10 to 15%, he thinks of the actual universe of institutions that have already invested in Bitcoin, but haven't disclosed it yet.

John Darsie: (31:50)
So it's almost getting to the point where people talk about the biggest risks of Bitcoin being regulation, and the idea that the US or other countries will ban Bitcoin, but if you have large insurance companies, you have big corporations like Tesla that are driving the market, you have endowments, pensions and other institutions that are heavily invested in the asset class, I would find it very difficult for the US government to create a systemic risk that would come along with potentially banning Bitcoin at this stage of its evolution.

John Darsie: (32:20)
Staying on the idea of speculative assets. So we've touched on this a little bit, Joe, but I want to dig into it further. Asset light businesses, so businesses who don't own underlying real estate or restaurants or accommodations. You have Airbnb, you have Uber, you have DoorDash. Companies that are asset light, that are performing extremely well. We had Jeff Ubben on SALT Talks recently. He's the founder and former CIO of ValueAct, talking about how he thinks that asset heavy businesses are extremely undervalued and that the value factor he thinks is going to come back into play.

John Darsie: (32:56)
He doesn't know when, but he thinks it's going to come back into play at some point. Do you agree with that? Not necessarily that tech stocks are going to crash, but that the value orientation is going to come back into the market, or you think, the horse is out of the barn and now it's time for investing in the new era of technology and distributed workforces, and all that type of stuff.

Joe Terranova: (33:16)
John, growth is 40% of the S&P and it's warranted, given the contribution from technology companies and the intangible asset economy that's represented in the United States. That being said, you have seen opportunities and value when people talk about the narrowing of the performance gap between growth and value at the end of 2020. Well, that gap was close to about 40% wide in the favor of growth at one point. It narrowed towards the end of the year to where it was only about 32% wide.

Joe Terranova: (33:54)
The opportunity really comes in two ways when I think about value. The two ways to think about it are, if you could introduce the word quality, and apply it to value, you can study, what are the fundamentals, what's the strength of a balance sheet for a company that's viewed as value? If you could identify that as qualitative, strength of a balance sheet, then there's an opportunity for the equity side of that value company.

Joe Terranova: (34:26)
But if you can't, the real opportunity, and the opportunity in Q2 of 2020, was on the debt side and historically, that's really where investors find the strongest performance is realizing that the debt market at a time where there's stress and strain on a particular industry that we identify as "value," that's where the real opportunity will be found and you saw that in Q2.

Joe Terranova: (34:57)
A high yield market provided some very favorable conditions for a lot of these value companies and it's similar, John to what you experienced in the wake of the great financial crisis. Think about the financial sector and how many would suggest coming out of the great financial crisis that owning the equity of financial institutions was a historic opportunity. Well, in certain circumstances, rather, reflecting back, they were correct that you were able to be rewarded with strength and performance, but in the subsequent four to five years after the great financial crisis, the out-performance was in the debt of financial institutions, not in the equity.

Joe Terranova: (35:39)
I think investors kind of forget that sometimes, but that's the two ways that I think you think about it. Looking at measuring the equity component, but utilizing and applying the quality factor to it and then understanding if you can't find that quality, I'm going to be in the debt market, particularly the high yield looking for the performance opportunity.

John Darsie: (36:02)
Liz, how are you looking at that push and pull between growth and value?

Liz Young: (36:07)
If I had a nickel for every time I got asked about growth and value, I could have retired in 2020. So the push and pull, first of all, you have to define them and I don't think we can define them the same way that we defined them 10 years ago. The reason that some of the value sectors started to show strength back in November and December is not because they were cheaper than growth sectors. It wasn't because people were going out and saying, "Oh, look at the PE of these value sectors. That's so much more attractive. Let me buy that because it's cheaper."

Liz Young: (36:38)
It's because there happens to be a pretty strong overlap between cyclical sectors and value sectors and back in November, as you remember, we had an election and then we had good vaccine news every single Monday for about four Monday's following it. People decided there's going to be this huge cyclical recovery, it's going to be global. So what benefits from that? It's things like small caps, it's even cyclical regions, like emerging markets, and Europe and then it's the cyclical sectors, which happened to be a lot of the value of sectors.

Liz Young: (37:08)
Now, one of the interesting things about growth is that I actually think there's parts of the growth universe that act more like value of your. So when you look at even just the big tech names, they're actually more correlated to a rise in the 10 year yield than they ever used to be and theoretically, that's not what should happen. You should see a rise in long term rates and pressure on growth stocks, but what's happening lately is that people are equating big tech with just blue chip related to the economy, going to participate in a recovery type names, and they feel safe about it.

Liz Young: (37:43)
So I don't think we can split the universe up like that anymore. I think you have to look forward and say, "What's going to participate in an economic expansion," and you can't take growth out of that equation. We need technology and to my point earlier, again, about the labor force, I feel like I keep going back to this, but I didn't know it was going to be my theme today. It is.

Liz Young: (38:04)
To go back to that point, when we do get back to prior levels of GDP, we're going to do it with a smaller labor force. So we need that smaller labor force to be more productive in order to create the new growth that Joe talked about earlier. How do you be more productive without telling people they need to work harder and longer? You need technology to make them more efficient. So no matter what, we still need technology, we're still going to need growth stocks and I would also throw healthcare into that spot, too. I think healthcare is going to be a huge driver and that's also a growth area, especially in small caps.

John Darsie: (38:38)
It's a fascinating point that sort of Apple, Google, Microsoft, those have become the new value stocks. They see part of the rotation with people looking to de risk from chip stocks or the other hat, cloud computing or data AI type companies. Joe, so we mentioned in the opening that you launched a US quality momentum index. Tell us about that. Talk a little bit about the momentum factor, and why that has been so successful, whether you think it's driving some of the big moves we've seen in the market and just tell us more about that product and why you decided to launch it last year.

Joe Terranova: (39:16)
Well, I have a obvious fundamental belief that we have an absence of supply for investable assets. In my attempt to introduce the index methodology, what I was trying to accomplish was to provide a modern day approach to thinking about the markets in a way that was properly incorporating what was so important to me over the last 30 years in my observation of where we would find success in investing. So there has been a lack of respect in my view, towards the word momentum.

Joe Terranova: (39:59)
Momentum, unfortunately, has been communicated to be something that equates with high or hyper volatility. I think the way in which we need to really look at momentum in this modern market is to understand it's where you find confidence in your observing the prior 12 or 24 or 36 months. The technical formation tells you some story and that story, I want to be one that is one of confidence.

Joe Terranova: (40:36)
I often use the analogy of an athlete, right, John? If you've got a basketball player, who he or she in the first quarter, takes five shots, and they miss all five shots, well, they're not playing with confidence. Second quarter, if she steps out and hits a deep three, well, that player is now playing with confidence and they want the ball.

Joe Terranova: (41:00)
I think the same thing needs to be said in investing and that's what momentum really is. Understanding technical confidence, but I wanted more than that and I wanted to introduce the quality factor, which is the study of a balance sheet. I think a balance sheet is so incredibly important. A balance sheet is similar to understanding how healthy an individual's heart might be.

Joe Terranova: (41:26)
So we look at return on equity, debt to equity, annualized sales growth over the prior 36 months, and so far year to date, it's interesting, weak balance sheets are actually outperforming strong balance sheets, but that's fine. That's not what my investment philosophy is. My investment philosophy is, where do I find technical confidence in a formation that I define as momentum and I combine that where I find fundamental strength of a balance sheet quality, I bring those together and John, I really believe we've introduced a strategy that will be viewed as a core equity strategy, and a modern day strategy that investors could utilize over the coming decades.

Joe Terranova: (42:11)
It's equally weighted, which removes the idiosyncratic single stock event risk. It avoids concentration and it's rebalanced, and reconstituted quarterly and it only holds 125 names. It basically calls the losers of a lot of the index that have, in the case of the S&P 500, 500 large cap names. We only want the true winners so we've got 125 equally weighted in the index.

John Darsie: (42:45)
Well, it sounds like a fantastic product. Last question before we let you guys go, Liz and it's back to public policy. So you study labor markets and policy a great deal. We joked in the opening that the Biden administration is now taking a stab at infrastructure week after I think the Trump administration was about O-7 in actually doing anything related to infrastructure week, but what would you like to see from the US government from the fiscal side of things?

John Darsie: (43:13)
We talked about Fed stimulus before? What specific things would you like to see from the Biden administration if we're going to create a healthier recovery and a healthier labor market?

Liz Young: (43:24)
So first and foremost, I'd like to see the government move faster than they did on the last package. We started talking about that package happening last July, and we didn't get it until December. So I think speed is the first and foremost thing that we need to have. Secondly, I do think infrastructure is hugely important to create that new growth that we've talked about throughout this entire thing, and that package likely comes maybe a little bit later in spring.

Liz Young: (43:50)
Anthony might disagree with me on that, but that package does need to be had. I think in the medium term though, or in the near term, we need a package that is targeted enough so that we don't misuse the funds and that we don't have to dig out of too big of a hole later, but we still need stimulus and we still need to support that bottom part of the K in the K shaped recovery.

Liz Young: (44:13)
So that's what I would like to see from the government. I realized that it's really difficult to target that, and it's difficult to make something as effective and keep the guardrails on as much as we can, but I do think that the right approach is to focus on getting this vaccine distributed, getting us as close as possible to herd immunity. I think that the estimate is that we're to 75% immunity by August. So keeping us on that track needs to be first priority and then we move on to infrastructure.

John Darsie: (44:42)
I saw your CNBC colleague, Jim Cramer gave a great pitch recently on his show about the need to invest in us manufacturing. In regard to the tech sector, we import most of our chips and our semiconductors from Taiwan and from South Korea and I think there's a lot of things the Biden administration could do to invest to accelerate the growth in our domestic technology sector. Thank you so much, Liz and Joe for joining us here on SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (45:10)
We hope to have you back soon and hopefully what you're saying about herd immunity, Liz, is right, because we're hoping to have our next SALT Conference actually in New York in September. We haven't publicly announced that, but that's our goal is to do something in our hometown before we hopefully go back to Vegas, but we hope to have both of you there in September in a safe manner.

Joe Terranova: (45:30)
I will be there. I don't know if I'll I'll have the vaccine by then, unlike Anthony. I know he qualified for the vaccine. I didn't qualify.

John Darsie: (45:37)
Exactly. He was in the first round, Joe-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:39)
Liz, that was another age shot at me. Did you see that?

Liz Young: (45:43)
It was, it was. If Joe doesn't have the vaccine by then, I definitely won't have it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:47)
The thing about Joe is ... When we get off this SALT Talk, I'm calling his agent and I'm going to complain about Joe. I had Joe on specifically so he could team up with me against Darcy. I knew you were going to be just fine, Liz, because you're Midwestern. You have all that charm and grace and niceness to you unlike these New Yorkers and southerners. So at any event, it was a brilliant conversation. Thank you so much for [crosstalk 00:46:14]. Hopefully we can have you guys back, maybe do a mid-year review if you guys would like to do that with us. Terrific for us. Thank you, again.

Joe Terranova: (46:22)
Absolutely. Thank you, Anthony.

John Darsie: (46:24)
Thank you everyone for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Joe Terranova of Virtus and Liz young of BNY Mellon. Just a reminder, if you missed any of this episode or any of our previous episodes, you can access our entire archive of SALT Talks as well as sign up for all future talks at salt.org\talks.

John Darsie: (46:42)
Please also subscribe to our YouTube channel. You'll get alerts when we go live and also when we post new content. Our YouTube following is growing very quickly. @SALTtube is the name of our YouTube channel. So please follow us there and please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, which is where we're most active. Live tweeting all the episodes of SALT Talks as well as posting clips of previous episodes.

John Darsie: (47:05)
We're also on LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram as well, and being more active there too. On behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darcy signing off for today from SALT Talks. We hope to see you back here soon.

Understanding the Municipal Markets | SALT Talks #116

“The municipal market funded the Erie Canal, the Golden Gate Bridge during the depression, the Hudson Dam and a host of other major infrastructure projects around the country.”

Hector Negroni is the Founder and CEO of Foundation Credit. Hector has been a pioneer in the municipal market over the last 3 decades, leading innovation in investing and proprietary trading, public/private financing, derivatives, securitized products and a broad range of structured solutions.

Gary Hall is a Partner with Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC (the nation's largest minority-owned investment bank) and a Partner with American Triple I Partners (an infrastructure private-equity firm). He formerly was an investment banker with JPMorgan, an attorney with

Municipal markets are at the center of how infrastructure and essential services are delivered, but it is very fragmented. The market is very local and decisions reflect the specific nature of the city/region, geographically and culturally. The need for infrastructure projects in the United States has been made even more urgent due to the pandemic. Municipal bonds have been responsible for many of the biggest and most iconic infrastructure projects in American history. “We have this sort of disparate view about government and its ability to operate and manage assets, but these are really important investments that we need to make in our country.”

In addition to the urgency of need, municipal markets have proven significantly less risky as an investment. There have been only 700 municipal bankruptcies in 100 years (90% from the notional value from four issuers). There were 119 corporate bankruptcies in 2019 alone. “In 2008, high yield corporate bonds lost 30% of its value, municipal bonds in that same market held steady.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Gary Hall.jpeg

Gary Hall

Partner

Siebert Williams Shank & Co.

Hector Negroni.jpeg

Hector Negroni

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Foundation Credit

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started during this work-from-home period with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And what we're trying to do on these SALT Talks is the same thing we try to do at our global SALT conferences, which has provided a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:42)
And we're very excited today to welcome Gary Hall and Hector Negroni to SALT Talks. Gary Hall is a partner with Siebert William Shank and Company, which is the nation's largest minority owned investment bank. And he's also a partner with American Triple I Partners, which is an infrastructure private equity firm. He formerly was an investment banker with JP Morgan and attorney with Gardner, Carton and Douglas, a White House fellow assigned to the US Department of Treasury. And he worked in Chicago, Mayor Richard M Daley's administration. Gary serves on the advisory board at the University of Chicago, Harris Public Policy School's Center for municipal finance and the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Council. He's a Chicago native, but currently lives in the Bay Area. He's a trustee with the National Recreation Foundation and Las Trampas, an organization that supports adults with developmental disabilities.

John Darsie: (01:36)
Hector Negroni is the co-founder and Co-Chief Executive Officer and a Chief Investment Officer of Fundamental Credit Opportunities or FCO. Hector has been a pioneer in proprietary trading in the municipal market for over 20 years, leading innovation and public private financing, military housing privatization, basis arbitrage, tender option bond securitization, municipal derivatives, and a host of other structured solutions. Prior to forming FCO, he was the head of municipal trading at Goldman Sachs overseeing all capital commitments, flow trading, money markets, collateralized lending, and issuer derivatives. Hector joined Goldman Sachs as a managing director in 2005 to build and lead the municipal proprietary trading and structured products businesses.

John Darsie: (02:24)
Just reminder, if you have a question for Gary or Hector during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q and A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. And hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the talk.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:42)
Well, John, thank you. It's great to be on with you guys. I was looking forward to this. I've got so many different things I want to talk to you guys about. I wanted to be free form. So, Hector, Gary, I'm not going to, Hector, Gary. Let's take it around the horn. And then of course, John's going to come on at the end. He's going to try to big photo us with his Southern charm and try to impress people, but our job right now is to just block him from the conversation.

Gary Hall: (03:13)
Anthony, it takes Hector 45 minutes to say hello. So, I hope you have electric shock around him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:18)
Okay. All right. Well, Darsie turned that on high voltage. Okay, I want to see Hector's hair stand straight up. All right. So, now, listen, let's go to the municipal markets, credit market, investment grade, high yield, structured credit. What the hell is going on? And where do you see things over the next three to six months? Let's start with Hector. And I got the buzzer on Hector. Let's go.

Hector Negroni: (03:45)
Thanks for having us, Anthony. We really appreciate it. We look forward to highlighting this marketplace. Listen, one of the things that's the hardest thing to understand about municipals is how fragmented it is. The world, isn't one broad brush here. What happening in steady California or New York City is far different than what might be having in Indianapolis or Santa Fe. And that's why this foot market matters so much. This market is the core center piece of how we deliver essential services and public infrastructure across the United States. But we do it in a very and uniform fashion.

Hector Negroni: (04:16)
The decisions are all very local. They all reflect preferences and differences, geographic and cultural. And so, as a result, it's a really, really unique and layered marketplace that has extraordinary opportunities around it. And importantly, at this time, and this juncture, especially with COVID, the pandemics had very different effects and has created different needs and different opportunities. So, we think it's a very exciting, but really nuanced place. And it takes subject matter experts like myself and Gary to be able to address it. I'm sure you're going to want to dig into a lot of the questions, but let me leave you with this.

Hector Negroni: (04:52)
For the most part, the municipal marketplace is sound, not over levered and not struggling with a wave of prospective defaults, but it's certainly challenged. The needs of infrastructure and the needs to provide essential services, both previous to the pandemic. And as a result of the pandemic are accelerated and attention to this marketplace is worth all of our time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:17)
Gary.

Gary Hall: (05:17)
The only thing I typically like to start off with the little cherry pie and patriotism. The municipal market funded, the Erie Canal, it funded the Golden Gate Bridge during the depression, I would say, the Hudson Dam and a host of other major infrastructure projects around the country. And all of these projects were built with taxpayers at the time paying back that debt that we all benefit from today. So, from time to time, I know we have this sort of disparate view about government and its ability to operate and manage assets, but these are really important investments that we need to make in our country. The other thing I would add is that, we had a 119 corporate bankruptcies in 2019.

Gary Hall: (06:00)
There have been 700 municipal bankruptcies in a 100 years and 90% of the notional value of all bankruptcy are with four issuers, Jefferson County, Washington Power, Puerto Rico and Detroit. And so, it's extremely safe and riskless market. And it's one that has weathered the storm. In 2008, high yield corporate bonds lost 30% of its value, municipal bonds in that same marker held steady. So, it's one of those things that, as we go through economic cycles and you're looking for some steady risk-weighted returns, it's the place to go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:36)
So, why though? Why is it safe?

Hector Negroni: (06:40)
Well, I... Go ahead, Gary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:42)
No, you go ahead. Go ahead.

Hector Negroni: (06:43)
So, for me, it's a little... Gary, and this is a great place to draw a distinction between the way Gary and I might look at the marketplace. I largely serve investors who aren't the traditional investors in the space, large pensions, endowments and foundations, people who don't even pay taxes in the United States. When you think about municipals, you largely think about the exemption. The reason is all this unusual fragmentation creates really different return profiles that aren't just along only taxes and marketplace, meaning we think that there's a lot of ways of playing credits against each other betting on credits to have a particular upside or downside.

Hector Negroni: (07:22)
And so, we would focus on the absolute return profile of the marketplace. So, it's less about it being safe and more about it being a really rich pool of opportunities for absolute return. That's our focus. I do think it's largely got good upside relative to downside from a credit perspective, but we're much more focused on absolute return. Gary, your perspective, probably.

Gary Hall: (07:43)
We've got to remind folks that it's a 72% retail oriented market with most of it being buy and hold. And that means that folks have a long view. And so, what we're starting to see now, Anthony, is that investors are really being inquisitive, about the broader context and operating metrics of governments. So, as opposed to just looking at the objective financial metrics, they're asking themselves the tough questions who has the political will to make the tough decisions as we go through COVID and as expenses go up and revenues go down? What are their decision powers with respect to opening up government? And how does that impact the triggers of the economic centers?

Gary Hall: (08:24)
All of these sort of subjective factors that quite frankly, we have not really examined in the way that the corporate market has. We're now treating our municipal issues to be a little bit more savvy about making forward looking statements that talk about where the pack is going. So, from that standpoint, there is a little bit more credit differentiation going on post COVID.

Hector Negroni: (08:42)
Think about it, Anthony, from your perspective, when's the last time you sat around and talked to a bunch of people about the municipal marketplace? It's what's happening in the world right now that is changing the dynamics that make it interesting. Whether it be because of policy or changes in credit, that's the real difference now. This marketplace has now very interesting and very compelling and should be compared to global large scale market, but it's like corporate IG in high yield.

Gary Hall: (09:06)
That's right. And we've got 150 billion mark of taxable bonds in our market. This market has never seen this sort of volume of taxable issuance. And as we have tenure immunity to tenure treasuries hovering at 100%, 200% and 300%, on a relative value basis, folks are failing and freaking out that it's a cost-effective market to be in and you can get some upside.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:30)
Are there any COVID-19 innovations? And what I mean by that is we have a lot of small businesses in the cities that are suffering, the restaurant industry in particular. Is it possible to have a war bond like strategy where you go out to the public and say, "We're going to raise it through the municipality and the municipality is going to feed the small businesses," or is this all infrastructure and bridges and roads tunnels and subways?

Gary Hall: (09:59)
No, no, you raise a very interesting point. I mean, one of the things we have to think about with these vaccines is going to take these really intricate refrigeration type of storage facilities in order to store this vaccines. And who's going to build these? Who's going to store these all over the country? Most of urban America 62%, are health deserts. And so, you're not going to have a pharmacy there where you can get your vaccine. You're going to have to build out infrastructure in order to get access to these vaccines. I think that's an opportunity, where a war bond type structure can really help some of these local state, local governments really get these vaccines out in the marketplace.

Hector Negroni: (10:41)
And in addition to our normal practices in municipal credit, both Gary and I have separate strategies focused on infrastructure alone. And when we think about that, we don't think about them in the traditional avenue of bridges and roads. So, he offered up an example around testing and vaccination, the logistics of that super interesting as a public safety matter. And frankly, as a confidence reinstatement matter to get people back to work and back to school. And on the point of getting back to school, think about it. I have two kids, teenagers, they school from home. I'm working from home on occasion. The infrastructure of broadband, the infrastructure of telecommunications access is now a new essential services that local government have to think about how they play a role in.

Hector Negroni: (11:23)
And that's a hard thing. Governments are good at a lot of things. They're really good at operations risk. They're not very comfortable with technology. And so, there's an excellent opportunity for the pandemic to have created new evolutions of how technology and governments can work together. And that kind of glue that brings together private capital and private expertise.

Gary Hall: (11:43)
I couldn't agree with you more Hector. And in fact, the cooperation between these pharmaceutical companies and government, it can set a predicate for how the private sector can work with governments to optimize, and bringing technology and innovation to some traditional services that we provide. Whether it's parking, whether it's airports, things of that sort. I mean, I think we are on the cutting edge, a real sort of gateway to a lot of innovation taking place in traditional public services.

Hector Negroni: (12:10)
And I wouldn't want to dismiss, I mean, Anthony, I know you're curious probably around the federal intersection, let's say roughly three quarters out of every dollar spent on some version of infrastructure is spent at the local level, procured by decisions made all locally, but the federal government will have a role here. Frankly, the new administration has already stood up a clear initiative with its co-chairs of infrastructure to think about how they're going to aid the development. It'll happen at the local level, but the federal government's likely add a nice tailwind. So, we're excited about that as another dimension of opportunity in our space.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:43)
You mentioned the Biden administration, and we know that many states, particularly the ones that were hit hardest with COVID, and municipalities, states and cities are underfunded right now. And there are shortfalls in New York State, I think it's close to $30 billion. So, do you expect the Biden administration in a potential stimulus to help those states or if they don't help those states, what happens to those states strategically? What do you think the permutation of outcomes may be?

Gary Hall: (13:16)
I think it largely depends on what happens in Georgia. If the Senate is controlled by the Democrats, I think you see probably a larger probability of a heavy stimulus package that is going to aid the local governments. If not, I think you even see a fight on your hands, as to where those resources go. I think they are badly needed. Going back to the Biden administration, I know there are some high aims to have zero emissions by 2050 and total clean energy by 2035. And so, there's a huge ambition in that administration, in order to really fund infrastructure projects, especially smart cities and things of that sort, but the cooperation in a bicameral way from Congress is going to be extremely important.

Hector Negroni: (14:01)
I think, I'm unfortunately a little skeptical about the likelihood of a meaningful stimulus bill from the federal government, largely for a lot of the reasons Gary has pointed out. Divided government is probably going to be a bit of a headwind to that, but it doesn't mean it's not needed. I mean, the shortfall of revenues for next year is estimated to be about a trillion dollars, a little bit less than half that states. And then the other half of that is cities and counties, and that's not even going into the shortfall for the public agencies. So, there's a lot of revenue shortfalls that are going to happen.

Hector Negroni: (14:34)
Now, importantly, that doesn't mean the car is racing into the wall at 80 miles an hour, it's very different in all jurisdictions. In some large states, you identified New York, New Jersey and Florida and Texas and California, they're all hovering in a 15% to 20% revenue decline. Those are big shocks, there'll be meaningful, but big states have a lot of resources to be able to address it. They can do a lot of different things. They have more diversified economies who'll be able to absorb those shocks. I'm worried further downstream. My bigger concern is the more marginal and smaller communities that were weak going into the pandemic are going to probably be worse off if there's not a meaningful distribution of federal support here.

Hector Negroni: (15:13)
Unfortunately, the federal government likes to think of it like a circulatory system. They push blood out, they push money out the door and it goes down to this furthest capillary down the system. It doesn't really work like that in the real world. And so, we really going to need a really dedicated effort that probably goes beyond just block grants to states. I think you're going to have to see something really detailed. And I'm just skeptical, the government really can pull that off. And so, I do think the downside of it is while I think that there's some really great opportunities in our space, I do think there's going to be a great dispersion in credit and probably a downward migration. Like I said, if you entered the pandemic in pretty good shape, you might be slightly worse off, but you'll be okay. If you entered weak shape, I'm a little more pessimistic on credit.

Gary Hall: (15:55)
I couldn't agree with you more, Hector. And the other thing I'm concerned about is a bait and switch. So, those states that are suffering for some systemic budgetary issues, driven by pension liability and post retirement medical liability, you can't use your stimulus to fix that problem. Ironically, the state with the least funded pension fund is Kentucky. And so, it's not just a blue state issue, it's bipartisan with those sort of systemic issues. But this whole notion of realigning benefits with the economic realities of the tax base that currently exists is something that government needs to address. And this whole notion of giving out these very, very generous benefit packages to really, really tie future taxpayers hands is something that definitely has to be ameliorated and cannot be addressed in my view, with a stimulus package.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:44)
If you could be the municipal bonds' czar or the infrastructure's czar and you're putting together a list of priorities, let's say that every mayor or every governor had to answer to both of you, what would the things that you would be thinking about?

Gary Hall: (17:05)
Number one, through the tax reform that Trump instituted, the elimination of advanced refundings for taxes and debt was taxes and debt was taken away. Say it differently, if you have a mortgage and you could not refinance, that's an extremely tool that's being taken away from you to stabilize your budgetary situation. So, I would get that back. Number two, the expansion of private activity bonds. So, allow innovation back into the marketplace like we've seen before that Hector was speaking up before we actually invite, ingenuity and innovation from private entities coming in and helping to optimize governments.

Gary Hall: (17:44)
Number three, which I think is really critically important, is this whole notion of making sure that we get some Build America Bond aspect back to it. In 2010 and 2011, we had about $180 billion of Build American Bonds, deepening investor base, making foreign sovereigns and others attracted to the municipal market, that allowed for a tremendous amount of efficiency at cost-effective bond during that time.

Hector Negroni: (18:08)
I'm pretty much really aligned with Gary on this, our specific list very simply kind of is organized around a common principle of creating scalable funding vehicles. One of the problems the federal government does, they practice a little bit of laboratory experimentation on the municipal marketplace occasionally. "Hey, let's come up with this random tax credit chatchki that can only be attracted as one little sliver of the world because I want to have some directed impact." And rather than create a uniformity, what they should do is create a single permanent taxable bond, direct dubs subsidy. Like Gary said, we call it the Build Back America Bonds, going back to Biden's notion.

Gary Hall: (18:48)
I love it.

Hector Negroni: (18:50)
Create a single universal tax credit. So, whether it be solar, wind or lower income, create the tax credit that's uniform and transferable. We need to create scalability for these funding tools that will draw the amounts of global capital that can make a big, meaningful difference. We keep resting our hopes on financing on the backs of a primary retail tax paying audience in the United States. It's incredibly limiting, the market's pretty under-capitalized relative to our needs. If we have a trillion dollar need or a multi-trillion dollar need, borrowing it all from the US taxpayer, probably isn't the deepest pool of capital, it's that the flexible pool of capital.

Hector Negroni: (19:25)
So, creating a uniform bond structure that can be broader, not necessarily to the detriment of tax exemption, but in competition with tax exemption to create efficiency, creating a single universal tax credit, streamlining the federal guarantee program. So, you also have at-risk capital and development capital. And so, with that, you have to have a spirit of encouraging participation with private capital. Somehow it'd be great if there was a central solutions desk at the federal government. I generally, never expected to happen, but that's aspirationally what you'd want to have.

Hector Negroni: (19:58)
You don't want to create a uniformity around how the subsidies of governments are delivered to local governments. They're going to make the decisions on where the projects are and how the project should be built and what the scope should be and the procurement. But the money could come in a uniform fashion from the federal government, if it followed those paths. The last thing I'd say is, I want to focus on encouraging the adoption of new technologies and new revenue streams. I go back to broadband, how are we going to create a comfort level for governments to get involved in the broadband business?

Hector Negroni: (20:31)
It's not straightforward, but it's important that they do. How do they get comfortable with embracing 5G technology and all the other issues that I'm not as fluent on so that they can partner with private capital to solve our problems?

Gary Hall: (20:44)
One thing that we did mention at the outset of Anthony is how heterogeneous the municipal market is. We've got 50,000 issuers, a million CUSIPs in the municipal market. I mean, that's extremely fragmented market. And you've got the issuers in a muni market of a hundred thousand dollars to multi-billions. And trying to serve an investor base, but that sort of fragmentation is very, very difficult. And so, being able to expand it, get access to foreign sovereigns and deepen that buyer base is going to be critical to be able to fund these infrastructure needs going forward.

Hector Negroni: (21:22)
It's funny, the municipal marketplace and infrastructure financing largely in United States, the way we do it, the market it's an accident. It's an accident born out of 150 years of history with 50 different jurisdictions and different projects and different tolerances for risk and different tolerances for credit quality. And so, we can't eliminate that with a wand. It's not like we're going to turn this into some national agency market with 50 infrastructure state banks. But the best thing we can do is when the dollars are going to come and when the support is going to come from the federal government have it as homogenized as possible, because as Gary said, it's a very heterogeneous universe you're applying it to. So, let them have as homogeneous a building block as possible. And that's how you really make the difference.

Hector Negroni: (22:05)
One of the things I left out is what I call leveling the playing field, which is, we always talk about wanting to have the best people operate assets. So, a common topic is an airport. Maybe it's good that we partner with private capital to do that, but private capital should be able to avail itself of the same tools that a municipal issuer has. For example, a pension fund should be able to acquire, a US pension fund should have an interest in facilitating the development of a local assets, but doesn't do so because they can't borrow against that asset as efficiently as a city or county can.

Gary Hall: (22:39)
That's right.

Hector Negroni: (22:39)
So, on tapping that, cracking that open so that US public pensions can be a bigger part of the engagement of public assets and stewardship of public assets is a really big focus of our fund.

Gary Hall: (22:52)
And not only that, I mean, one of the huge bottlenecks in projects getting done is the Byzantine procurement process that are involved in governments. So, first of all, in government contracting, they can go out and locked in the cost of construction, whether it be pricing of raw materials, unless they have dollars in hand, that limits them exponentially. Since 2010, the cost of construction on a PPI basis has gone up 20% to 30%. These projects are getting more and more expensive. And so, being able to escape the Byzantine process and taking the length of time to get these projects done from start to finish is going to be critically important in things getting done, not only cost-effectively, but actually be to serve the infrastructure needs of the country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:35)
You both know a lot about the SALT income tax deductions and the cap. You probably are going to be surprised by this, but I don't talk to President Trump that often anymore. I know you're both shocked by that. So, don't be overly alone, but one of the last times-

Gary Hall: (23:52)
Is it the language, Anthony?

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:55)
Well, listen, when I used to talk to him, he used to talk over me anyway. So, I'm not really sure. It doesn't matter. But when the SALT tax came up and he had a conversation with me and obviously I was already fired out of the government, I said, "Well, what do you think of it?" I said, "Well, listen, I'm not talking as a blue state. Or I think it's a mistake because what happens is these blue states, primarily these port cities in the Northeast, and obviously the West coast are the bridges for the immigrants and their bridges for great technological innovation." And these teaming cities, usually some of the best product ideas, the best economic innovations come out of these parts of the country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:38)
And it acts like an electrification or domino effect around the country. And if you're depleting their resources, of course, there's going to be poor people in those areas and they need a safety net. And so, if you're going to be depleting their resources, and we all know that New York is putting more into the federal government that is taking out as is California, and some of the other states you're going to harm the entire economic system. And so, he talked over me, I guess, he wasn't really paying attention. Am I right about that? Am I wrong about that? And what are your thoughts on SALT and will the Democrats, if they retake the Senate re-install SALT?

Gary Hall: (25:17)
I think they will. And I think it's a critical need. In 2020, just on income practice alone, we're going to see a reduction of about 32 billion in income taxes for state and local governments, in 2021 that rises up to about 41 billion, in 2022, 50 billion. So, somebody is going to have to, that funding gap has got to be thrown somewhere. And so, I think you're going to see a huge lobbying by these governors both blue and red states to get that reinstated.

Hector Negroni: (25:53)
I'm an old school states' rights guy. My view is, generally speaking, when the federal government forgets about how much is done at the local level and mandates downstream, whether it be through unfunded mandates or trying to take more of the tax dollars share by disallowing the SALT deductions, it's just federal tyranny. And really, I'm just generally against it as a policy matter. And so, I think it'd be nice if it came back. Truth be told, we have lots of problems, the SALT deduction isn't at the top of my list, but yeah, I don't think it's anything... It should be restored. It's a reasonable thing, if you're honest with yourself about how the trade-off of the equilibrium is between dollar flows and between the federal government and the local governments.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:41)
Well, I've got to turn it over to Mr. Darsie, who unfortunately is younger than the three of us. Thinks he's better.

Hector Negroni: (26:51)
Barely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:52)
He thinks he's better looking than the three of us and I'm talking to you and Negroni, pay attention. And so, I'm turning it over to him. He's got a ton of questions coming in. We've got great audience participation today. So, with that ladies and gentlemen, John Darsie.

John Darsie: (27:09)
Thank you, Anthony, for the kind introduction. ESG investing is a trend that's sweeping the asset management universe. And I'm curious whether that's an exception for the municipal market or how ESG is invading your work in terms of trying to drive good outcomes that fit with ESG mandates.

Gary Hall: (27:29)
This is a big issue for Hector. So, I'm going to give him a majority of time on this one, but I just gave you a couple of stats. We're up from 2017 to 2019, 200% in ESG issuance in the bond market and municipal bond market. We're hovering close to 18 billion or so we expect there are 20 billion this year, which is sizable. And we're seeing this is an investor base that is growing. I will tell you that we can't quantify a pricing difference in the market today, but from time to time, when deals need an anchor investor that can get in and enrich the amount of orders that they will provide on a particular deal, if it's ESG eligible, you'll find they'll do so. One failure I'll admit, because Anthony mentioned about being the czar of the municipal industry. I actually was at one point I was the chair of the MSRB.

Gary Hall: (28:19)
And one failure that I did not do on my watch was having a centralized platform to make sure that, especially for secondary trading, that investors can go in and see if projects are still compliant. So, there's no way after the original issue, there's some vetting going on to verify that it's ESG eligible. Once that's done, there's no way to check to see if that project is continually to be compliant with that. And so, if you've got debt outstanding for 30 years, you traded in a year 15, and you originally had an ESG project. You don't know when you're 15, whether or not it's still ESG eligible. And so, there has to be a way of having some centralized way to make governments stay on top of that and making sure that they keep in these projects within that round. And so, we don't have a large secondary trading market at ESG space today. And that's something that we have to improve upon. Hector, what are your thoughts?

Hector Negroni: (29:11)
Listen, I like to call us the original ESG market. I mean, if you think about it, virtually all of our issuers are in the primary purpose of doing something for the community, doing some social good, developing some public purpose. And so, their very essence is to do something that contributes to E S or G. And so, as a result, it's an incredibly target rich area to find that. And so, from the issuer standpoint, it's what they do. Municipal issuers are in the operations risk business, whether it be curtailing the demographic shifts as a result of managing their business fully. If you don't have clean water, if you're not insulating people from the risks of climate change, if you're worrying about demographics from social inequity, all those issues are going to contribute to long-term downside effects to your jurisdiction.

Hector Negroni: (29:56)
As an investor, it's about resilient returns. If I'm going to invest in water projects, the ones that do their job the best, not just cost-effectively, but actually produce long-term results and are pro-cyclical to good outcomes are going to be the best long-term investments. So, when it comes to infrastructure investing, especially resilient infrastructure is profoundly dependent upon the ESG metrics of sorts. And so, we think it's really important. We think it's integral to our marketplace, and frankly, it's pretty familiar to us and all of us it's within our DNA. The problem is, it's a really fragmented marketplace. And so, the data set is weak. The issuers really scratch their head around it. They don't understand this language. It's mostly coming from another country.

Gary Hall: (30:37)
That's right.

Hector Negroni: (30:38)
And so, I go to no shortage of meetings where someone from some other country tells us how well they do it there and why can't we do it in the US? And I have to lie to them, "Well, we have 60,000 to 90,000 unique caps." I mean, there's so many different jurisdictions. And unlike, a European country where it's a very top-down jurisdiction, these are the government letter or a regulator, every school district in Texas thinks they're a separate country. They're not looking to be dictated to. In hurting those caps to be able to put forth good metrics, common metrics can be put together uniformly to create some measurements is definitely an aspirational goal that we try and advocate for. Gary and I both work in a variety of different advocacy groups trying to try to make that happen.

Hector Negroni: (31:21)
But the other reason it's terribly important is because there's just huge walls of money that care. And what Gary says, and it's really important, this analysis, we haven't noticed a distinction in the price, it's almost less about the price and about the depth, the depth of capital that becomes available once you're able to make this a scalable, independently verifiable, credible pool for ESG factors is extraordinary.

Hector Negroni: (31:50)
I mean, it starts with a T not a B, trillions of dollars of care. And that means you're now able to really draw from large pools of capital to attend to very specific problems. And sometimes maybe with capital that's very flexible. That's where we come in. The difference is a lot of our investors who are very sophisticated investors care deeply about this, but if I can't evidence to them, the specific scoring or the specific metric, it's hard for them to really look at this as an ESG qualifying investment that might have a lot of capital available to it.

Hector Negroni: (32:21)
And then the last thing I'd say about that is from the issuer side, I always have to remind issuers, it's not about getting paid more because you do your job, it's your job. Your job is to produce good societal results. It's in my way right now, I think the investors are going to start penalizing those who do it poorly, those who are not addressing the issues well, whether it be from simple disclosure or actually what they do functionally, that's going to start costing them over time.

Gary Hall: (32:49)
I think that's a great point. The other point I would raise, Hector, is that the S and ESG is starting to get a little bit more resonance. And so, you see the Ford Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Rockefeller, Bush Foundation issuing huge large bond deals so that they can leverage their dollars to be able to have a multiplier effect of the good that they're doing. And so, to the extent that we can really open up this marketplace and deepen it as Hector said, to access these huge pockets of doe, is only going to not be a good thing for the marketplace, but also for society.

John Darsie: (33:22)
So, you talked earlier about the need to create a framework that attracts a larger demographic of investors. So, how was investor participation in the municipal market evolving i.e are there more foreign investors and other non US taxable investors that are growing more interested in this space? And is this just a new version of non traditional interlopers or a more seminal development in the space?

Gary Hall: (33:48)
My view right now, is that the foreign money that you see is basically using just their American money, as opposed to really get into deeper international dollars. And so, I think it's more interloping at this particular point. I think the Build America Bond program or something, Build Back America, it would allow for deep and access, but in candor there's more to do on the disclosure side or municipal issues. We still have a stale financial disclosure system whereby annual financial statements are sometimes years in delay. And so, there needs to be a little bit more transparency. There needs to be more investor-friendly websites to give folks real-time information about the financial metrics of these issuers. I am working very, very hard with my issuer clients to make sure they understand how to contextualize their credit hurdles and credit challenges and open themselves up to actively engage with investors.

Gary Hall: (34:48)
And this is important, not only when they're issuing deals, but when they're not in the market, because these bonds are being traded in PMC to know that they don't have any sort of risks, they wake up on in their portfolio and they see a huge pricing differential. So, I think there's more work to be done in the municipal market on disclosure. I know that the SEC chair is working hard to get that, the MSRB is trying to provide those repositories and portals to get investors information, but I think it's more of something to calm weather it is, today. What are your thoughts there, Hector?

Hector Negroni: (35:18)
I think a little bit of a different tact, although I generally agree a disclosure should, Gary is uniquely expertized given his experience at the MSRB on that matter. And what is the art of the possible, but what I think, I think we're starting to see a little more of a permanent residence in our marketplace. We're starting to see people come into our marketplace, now, there's a tailwind. There's a weak tail that makes it attractive from a hedging standpoint, but we've seen now a large amount of index eligible securities get into our marketplace. So, when Build America Bonds got into marketplace, one of the things they did is they fall into the Barclays agg. And so, now we have another universe of securities that are suddenly doing that, and it's cutting across more and more sectors of the space.

Hector Negroni: (36:04)
And so, I do think that it's starting to become attractive to the universal investors, but I also think that in a world where you're seeing investors who want more absolute return profiles, more asymmetric return profiles, more uncorrelated return profiles. As an alternative manager, we're starting to stick out. We're getting a lot more interesting calls from a large, large global investors who normally would have thought of discarded municipals. "It's too small. I don't pay taxes. The information's scratchy. Everything's going to... The Meredith Whitney, everything's going to default moment." And we've done a lot of education to really turn that around, to get people to realize it's a scalable opportunity set with a lot of a really rich uncorrelated and efficient opportunity set to capitalize on. And I think that we're starting to see a much broader participation.

Hector Negroni: (37:06)
My professional goal in life is to move the municipal marketplace from the children's table to the adult table of the capital markets. And I starting to see we're getting invited to the adult table. And I'm seeing... I saw the NASDAQ and life are setting up networks to be able to list their stuff also starting about listing bonds that are sustainable purposes, more and more people are trying to galvanize their thinking around how to create repeatable, successful, broader participation in this marketplace. I'm excited about that.

Gary Hall: (37:36)
We had an SFPUC bond, a San Francisco Public Utility Bond is actually listed on the London Stock Exchange. And so, you starting to get a little bit... Hector, I do have a question, how are you working with your investors to overcome some of the traditional sort of muni structuring issues to you in par calls, serial bonds, those sorts of things. How are you getting your folks comfortable?

Hector Negroni: (37:55)
Well, generally speaking, we see those as opportunities. They create an inefficiency of sorts. And so, generally speaking, if we see that negative convexity detracts people from a certain structure and attract people to something else, we capitalize on that relative cheapness. So, we'll buy the things that's a little off market because we figure we can manage that risk because we're not long only. And that's the big difference, the bias in most investors in this space... Gary, thank you for the commercial. The bias for most investors in the space is very simply that they are long only and collect tax exemption. And if you can be more than that, if you're unbiased with respect to the tax exemption, and if you can be focused on hedging and creating asymmetry and return profiles, we think it's a really, really attractive position to take advantage.

Hector Negroni: (38:39)
That said, Gary, it would be nice if issuers appealed more to the non-traditional audience, if they weren't so self interested in wanting just to call all the time and they're willing to be more open about different structures to drive broader participation. Again, beating the drum on that point, we need to be a little bit less parochial in our experience in the marketplace and kind of open ourselves up to what other markets and other asset classes are doing.

Gary Hall: (39:04)
So, if we're having a beer and we're talking about this, Hector, I would say to you, "My issuers are telling me, 'Yeah, that's great, but show me the pricing differential.'" And so, what's happening in our market now is price discovery is more art than science. And you don't know in today of where are you going to end up and whether or not pricing leverage is going to be swung your way. And so, it's very hard to move the needle in that way to do these new innovative ways of marketing yourself if we can't quantify it. And then, my issuer clients are not paid to take risks.

Hector Negroni: (39:32)
I grew up as a guy who's developed a lot of structure in our marketplace. And so, I've lived with that for a long time. You're right, it's difficult to create real transparency on that difference, but it's not helped by the legions of people who are uninterested in it. There's a lot of people-

Gary Hall: (39:52)
Factor nos.

Hector Negroni: (39:53)
I don't know, maybe some of the financial advisors who are really particularly uninterested in that being an outcome. They'd rather just lather, rinse, repeat.

Gary Hall: (40:05)
Yeah, I think that's absolutely the case.

Hector Negroni: (40:05)
But I want to play this a little balanced so it's also a little unfair to ask the issuers to take too much risk. I mean, municipal issuers aren't in the business of taking financial risks. That's not their job. Their job is to make sure the roads are paved and toilets flushed. They're an operations risk business, we don't hire and elect these people to kind of pick where rates are going and whether they should or shouldn't sell calls. So, I don't want to take away from the fact that it's a challenge for them, it's definitely hard. When I look at a room full of issuers, when I see me in a lot of your issuing clients, I listen, I'm pretty sympathetic. They have really hard jobs.

Gary Hall: (40:36)
But the pack is going in a different way and we're going to have more credit differentiation than we've had in our market. For the last five years, Hector, we had low supply, tremendous amount of demand and low interest rate environment. And so, getting my municipal issuers to understand that that is not the norm, is really difficult that you're not going to have 3% money forever. And that you're going to pay some pricing differential, when you have these sort of credit hiccups. I tell folks a story, State of Illinois had a big disclosure to that credit about having delays in their financials for some time. They did a competitive deal right after that and it was a tighter spread than years prior. And so, there's really no penalty for any sort of disclosure issues and credit differentiation has not been as penalized, as it's going to be in the future, I believe.

Hector Negroni: (41:21)
I think it's really important, Gary. We are at the precipice of a reversal in... Upgrades, downgrades have been two to one for the last couple of years. It's to be one to two, the ratio is going to go the other way. And then, we're going to have a downward migration in credit quality and this real increase diversion. For us, that's a tremendous opportunity. For the traditional, sleep well at night client, it's going to get a little bumpier. I'm not going to say it's a train wreck, it's just going to get a little less easy.

Gary Hall: (41:53)
And investors are not relying on credit ratings just to make binding pricing decisions. So, their key concerns are those into a lot of credit work themselves and it's not uniform. And that's going to require our issuer clients to be a little more nimble in marketing themselves.

John Darsie: (42:07)
I'll start with Hector on this, do you think the municipal lending facility could get extended past December 31st? And if so, do you think there's a possibility that President-elect Biden's administration may advocate for using that program as a financing source for municipalities in order to bypass a potentially Republican controlled Senate?

Hector Negroni: (42:28)
It's a thorny policy question. I mean, I think the fed did what they could do given some really big challenges. A, administering this really diverse universe means you can only do it to a number of people there. They just don't have, I mean, they brought over two experts that we both know John Bagley and then Ken [inaudible 00:42:46] over there. Guys with real experience, but it's a really hard thing to administer to this real diverse marketplace with a limited staff and frankly unlimited mandate. Two is, they're very uncomfortable about being at any credit risk. And so, they really, really just wanted to really narrow how they would focus on particular sectors in particular credit entities. But the other thing that was a challenge was they didn't want to be caught facilitating financing to bad political risks, and they didn't want to get in the middle of that political discussion.

Hector Negroni: (43:22)
So, the MLF was a reasonable... It was nice. It was nice to see them try to do something. I think there's been a little bit of misrepresentation about how impactful it was. The truth was low rates, staggering amounts of inflows and an enormous amount of issuance moved from the tax and marketplace to the taxable marketplace. Created an equilibrium, so that too much supply didn't overwhelm the increasing amount of cash that was coming in at the low rate environment. And that's why we sailed through okay.

Gary Hall: (43:51)
That's right.

Hector Negroni: (43:52)
But we're not done. I wish the government would acknowledge one problem is the real problem in the municipal marketplace is for that more run in the muni issuer or in times of crisis, the marketplace doesn't have a great liquidity profile to it. That's the bigger challenge, the challenge is most muni issuers don't need to borrow for a revenue shock overnight. It's not like they're going to sell a division tomorrow or issue some stock. They don't have the tools corporations have, they have to amortize losses. They have to grow their way from shocks. And so, there's generally a longer duration to the borrowing needs and in our marketplace, if there's not a bid and the long end as we saw in March, it can be very, very disruptive.

Hector Negroni: (44:30)
So, if the fed really, really wanted to cushion liquidity shocks to the marketplace and they really wanted to manage investor concern, they would be buying in the secondary, not unlike they did in the corporate marketplace. Of course, the corporate marketplace is a lot easier, they're familiar with it, they're ETFs. They could set up some index profile and it's all much shorter dated duration. In the municipal marketplace, they're just as familiar with it but the real solution for a federal government intervention profile is to deal with liquidity because our problem is much more acute around liquidity directions. It's like a herd of elephants, they all like they are all buying and, or they're all running a lot of times.

Hector Negroni: (45:11)
And so, that volatility and direction can be very, very noisy in our space. And so, I'd rather see them do that than pretend that they're going to be... a three-year loan to like a municipality. And by the way, if you're only lending the 250 of them, it's not filtering through the marketplace that effectively. Gary, your thoughts.

Gary Hall: (45:31)
I agree. I think, I mean, at the end of the day, Hector as you know municipal bonds trade the most frequently 90 days after the original issuance market. We hover around 12.5 billion dollars of trades, 35,000 trades a day. So, having some stability in our secondary market, as we saw with the exponential rise in bids and wants during the pandemic is where we need the most amount of help. The MMR program is primarily was the lender of last resort and what it afforded New York MTA, State of Illinois was more flexibility than actual true cost savings. And so, I think a little bit more have to end a secondary market and we do wonders for our market. Good point.

Hector Negroni: (46:14)
It's really important, also, you say this because it's happening at a time, here you've heard us talking about a couple of things. We've talked about the risks around credit dispersion. We're obviously in an era where the need for capital is only growing. The infrastructure shortfall is only yawning wider every day, and we're doing so in an environment where the secondary trading activity and the dealer capital is actually thinner than ever.

Gary Hall: (46:39)
Absolutely.

Hector Negroni: (46:41)
I've been doing this for a little over for about 30 years, the little over, I'm going to pretend it was less than so I'd look younger, but the truth is I've never seen the proportion of the market size relative to the liquidity providing capital more upside down. The liquidity capital that intervenes or intermediates risk in this marketplace has never been thinner relative to the size of the marketplace. And we're doing this when we're talking Gary and I both about the prospects of maybe a $100 billion or $200 billion of additional calendar next year. It's an issue still, we're not out of the woods around liquidity shocks and credit shocks.

Gary Hall: (47:14)
And [crosstalk 00:47:15], will be more comprised of new money issuance than in years past when we just doing traditional refundings. So, there is definitely a need for more capital positives.

Hector Negroni: (47:25)
I mean, we like it because of volatility creates opportunity for us, but if you want to deal with concerns around stability, like people should know, it's going to be more adult swim next year than it was in the last couple of years.

John Darsie: (47:38)
So, really quickly, how do you expect some of these major an unfunded liabilities like pensions and healthcare schemes in the places we're seeing in the headlines like Illinois, Chicago, the MTA? How do you expect those to play out?

Hector Negroni: (47:52)
I mean, listen, I think there's a much bigger salient political story around that topic than there is an imminent credit concern. The truth of it is while the balance sheets in many of these cases are off sides. And it's really concentrated on a handful of people, it's not imminent to fiscal matters next week. I mean, I can't say that uniformly, but you name the big three. There's 60,000 others that are perfectly fine. And so, I don't think that it is a uniform statement and you can make, but the ones that are big are out there are big and they're problems. And I'm not really sure what Chicago is going to do and what Illinois are going to do if they don't open themselves up to pension reform. I really don't know how they can just tax themselves out or worse yet this is one of the reasons we need to think about federal support is, if they have to reduce services, which means firing people and doing less, that's a headwind for growth.

Hector Negroni: (48:51)
There was a statistic the other day about the payroll numbers about how payroll numbers are over 50% return in the private, but from the lows of this year, they're only up 10% from the low. So, we're still down 90%. I mean, we're still down a staggering amount, it's still over payrolls. And we haven't even begun to incorporate the consequences of fiscal shortfalls. So, there's probably more negative job issues in that environment. So, we all that, there's certainly helps the needed, but there's a difference between deterioration in credit and some imminent, like shock born out of the balance sheets rolling over.

Hector Negroni: (49:25)
And I don't think that that's very likely broadly. I'm not going to ignore the Illinois and Chicago are more front and center around this. I feel bad for Mayor Lightfoot in a lot of ways. She's at really difficult position because she's so wedded to what the state does and the state didn't pass a progressive tax. They don't want to do a pension reform structure. And that leaves her with very few options and she's got a whole host of issues to contend with. So, listen, they have a particular set of issues. It's not my favorite credit to talk about because I think, I don't have a lot of the answers. And frankly, I think the answers would come out of some boundary restructuring, but I'm not interested in it effecting credit. It's really a balance sheet for their liability side.

Gary Hall: (50:07)
But to that point, you're absolutely right. I mean, but one of the things I do applaud Mayor Lightfoot and the administration is the transparency. They offer investors a tremendous amount of access to the information. And giving them forward thinking on what their plans are and whether it's a scoop and toss strategy on a deck or whether it is deferring some of the contributions they have to make into their pinch and liability. There is an open discussion with investors so they know where the pack is going and make an active decision when they're making buying and pricing determinations, which I appreciate.

Hector Negroni: (50:41)
You know what, that's a really good point, Gary, because as much as they're maligned for their conditions, Carol Brown and Jeannie who are the previous CFO and the current CFO have done a tremendous amount to be available, they put themselves front and center, they run into the fire and it's burning hot.

John Darsie: (50:59)
Well, we're going to leave it there. We need to give you guys a weekly municipal market show and just let you guys go because we can talk about stuff for days. And it's such an important market. People think about the municipal market is a boring market in a lot of ways, but there's so much good that could be done with pension reform, municipal market reform in a more energetic approach to municipal investing. So, thanks so much for joining us. I think Anthony hopped off, but thanks for beginning the conversation.

Hector Negroni: (51:28)
What is the price?

John Darsie: (51:29)
We'll have to have you guys back maybe once the President Biden is in office and we start to see some of the gears of reform taking place in terms of how we approach some of these problems related to both municipal investing and infrastructure as well. So, thank you, Gary and Hector so much for joining us.

Gary Hall: (51:44)
All right, John. Thanks so much.

Hector Negroni: (51:45)
Thank you for the time, appreciate it.

Gary Hall: (51:46)
All right, appreciate it.

Jason Cummins: Outlook on the Economy, Politics & Markets | SALT Talks #69

“In a crisis, when you need to do something, divided government is bad, because you're not able to come to an agreement on the various priorities for the country.”

Jason Cummins is the Head of Research and Chief US Economist. In his role, he develops the firm's outlook for the economy, politics and markets, advises the traders on portfolio management, and manages the global research team. Jason serves as a trustee on the boards of The Brookings Institution (executive committee) and The Peterson Institute for International Economics (executive committee), and is a member of the Investment Committee of Swarthmore College. He was Chairman of the US Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a government-appointed panel that advises on debt management, market structure, and financial developments. Formerly, Jason was a Senior Economist at the Federal Reserve Board, where he led the macro forecasting team.

Despite existing election laws, much of the process in the United States depends on candidates’ and campaigns’ willingness to abide by norms and customs. President Trump’s habit of challenging and/or breaking norms and customs was only heightened during an election that required implementing large scale vote-by-mail infrastructure. Experts knew this would cause a significant delay in results, offering Trump an opportunity to raise accusations of election fraud.

A Biden administration with unified Democratic control of congress will be highly beneficial in passing legislation to address the pandemic-born crisis. A Biden victory in 2020 has the chance to mark a major political pendulum swing that reverses the legislative priority away from financial capital and towards labor. The presidential elections of 1932 (pro-labor) and 1980 (pro-capital) represent the two previous political inflection points.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jason Cummins.jpeg

Jason Cummins

Head, Research & Chief U.S. Economist

Brevan Howard

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone, welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie, I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global fall leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. And it's great to be back in SkyBridge HQ today, here in midtown Manhattan. We're slowly starting to get back to normal. But SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we launched during this work from home period, and it's been sort of a blessing in disguise, because we've had a lot of fun doing this digital talks. And they're interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators, and thinkers.

John Darsie: (00:38)
And what we're really trying to do is replicate the experience that we provide at our global SALT Conference series, which unfortunately we had to cancel our Las Vegas conference in May. But what we're trying to do is both empower big important ideas that we think are shaping the future, as well as provide our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts.

John Darsie: (00:57)
And we're very excited today to welcome Jason Cummins to SALT Talks. Jason is the head of research and the chief US economist at Brevan Howard. In his role at the firm he develops their outlook for the economy, politics, and markets, and advises the traders on portfolio management and manages the global research team. He also serves as a trustee on the boards of the Brookings Institution, the executive committee. And the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He's also on the executive committee there. And he's a member of the investment committee of Swarthmore College.

John Darsie: (01:31)
He was previously the chairman of the US Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which is a government appointed panel that advises on debt management, market structure, and financial developments. Previous to that, Jason was a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Board, where he lead the macro forecasting team. He began his career as an assistant professor of economics at NYU, and he also taught at Harvard University.

John Darsie: (01:55)
Reminder, if you have any questions for Jason during today's talk you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. And hosting today's talk is SkyBridge co-chief investment officer, partner, and senior portfolio manager, Troy Gayeski. And Troy, I'll turn it over to you for the interview.

Troy Gayeski: (02:14)
Yeah, thanks so much John. And thanks everybody for joining us for another very enlightening SALT Talks. And Jason, it's such an honor to have you on today's episode here. You have such a rich history, not only in capital markets, but academia, and other areas. Could you take us through the progress in your career and how you got to where you are today, and how passionate you are still about the work you do day in and day out?

Jason Cummins: (02:41)
Thanks. I really appreciate it. And thank you for having me on. It's a pleasure. I'm broadcasting here from Phoenix. And actually, we ended up in Phoenix because we wanted to be able to send our kids to school in-person full time. So, we had to move around the country and make some adjustments just like a lot of people. But I grew up on the west coast, and I mention that because of my background that's related to one of the things that we're going to talk about today, which is, I grew up in a very political family.

Jason Cummins: (03:07)
My uncle was the congressional representative from the fourth district of Oregon, my dad was an anti-Vietnam war activist. And so from a very early age I was exposed to everything from kind of passive, by osmosis, politics of having pictures of Eugene McCarthy on the wall with campaign posters, to really crazy discussions when we were having our Sunday dinners about politics.

Jason Cummins: (03:32)
So we'll talk some about politics today, but my interest in it goes all the way back from when I was a young kid. I went to Swarthmore College, as you mentioned. I'm on the investment committee there. And one of the things that maybe doesn't come out so well in the bio is, two strains of our kind of investment and commitment are, one, at Brevan Howard we take public service very seriously. So I spend a lot of time on the boards of Brookings, and at Peterson Institute for International Economics, as well as giving back to Swarthmore, because we feel that's a really important role for the firm that comes all the way from the top, where Alan's engagement is really second to none in terms of founding a center at Imperial of excellence and finance to his excellent work with some Jewish charities.

Jason Cummins: (04:23)
And so we all try and invest in that. And I'd also say, a key thing that comes out there that you didn't mention about my background is that I really take, not an academic approach to markets, but we have a background in really, academic training, and studying economics and finance. So I got a PhD at Columbia under Glenn Hubbard and Kevin Hassett, both of them were chief economists for Republican presidents, W, and then this president.

Jason Cummins: (04:49)
And then I went down to NYU as a professor. And so I met a lot of the people who were involved in the public policy discussion now when I was just a junior faculty member. And I've continued on with them over time, and overlap with them in these various public service areas, and professionally as well. But the strain of my career has moved increasingly towards markets, as I started when I was a professor, then I went to the Central Bank, where I learned really the art of teamwork, as well as forecasting and what goes on in Central banks, and then going with Alan to build my own team here at Brevan.

Jason Cummins: (05:20)
And I like to joke, we're now in our 17th year of my leadership here. I was the first employee outside of London. First employee in the US. And we had a run where we've enjoyed the ups and downs of the industry, and had our own ups and downs as a firm, but we really feel like this is a good environment for macro, and it's a great time for our firm as well. We think about it as kind of Brevan Howard 2.0 as we've launched more initiatives under Aron Landy, who's our new CEO's leadership.

Troy Gayeski: (05:54)
Yeah, that's a great background on your success, and all the success that Brevan Howard's had. We all had a really tough time watching that debate last night. I mean, it was such a disaster. But that being said, obviously politics, the upcoming election is a huge driver of markets right now. And so, when you guys are trying to model out various scenarios, what do you think the most likely outcome is in terms of the way the government is split post-election?

Jason Cummins: (06:23)
So, if you analyze this race with your left brain, your analytical side of your brain, and there's a lot of that kind of content you see coming out of FiveThirtyEight and other kinds of election watchers, it's really never been a particularly close race. Biden has led from start to the middle, he has a lead right now that is bigger than any lead since Bill Clinton's two elections. And so if you're just looking at the numbers, we wouldn't even really be having this conversation. We'd be talking about what Biden's policy initiatives were.

Jason Cummins: (06:53)
But we're in anything but a normal environment. And I think the key thing to understand is, because the country... And the Electoral College favors the states that appeal that Trump voters, it's more likely that Trump has a possibility. So Biden has to get up there and win the popular by two, three, four percentage points to kind of be odds on in the Electoral College. And then if you're talking about a seven point lead that he has now, you'd say, "Well, you're just kind of one polling error away from the president being able to pull it back in."

Jason Cummins: (07:24)
So you can see a way in which this race becomes more interesting, even if you're being quiet left-brained about it. But I think that misses some important new features of this election. Really, actually, unique ones. And what's happened is, because of the pandemic, we're going to be suffering, and some people enjoying, new methods of voting, which are going to necessarily make it almost impossible to adjudicate this race on the timeline that people have grown used to.

Jason Cummins: (07:50)
And what I mean by that is, you take a state like Michigan. You're going to be allowed to do mail-in ballots, and mail in-ballots will be in transit, and have a safe harbor, all the way up to the 17th of November. And so you're talking about, if there's, well certainly any kind of dispute, but any kind of closeness in that race, it's going to be case that you won't be able to call in Michigan for weeks after the election. And Michigan's not unique. The same is true for in transit ballots in North Carolina, in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin, recently just over the last few days Ohio carved out a safe harbor this.

Jason Cummins: (08:26)
So it's a unique election in that regard, which makes it so that it's very hard to call. I think the thing that then combines with that is a couple other features. Which is that, there are going to be a huge number of legal challenges because of all this new methods of voting. It really is the case that the balloting methods are pretty complicated and prone to, I think mistakes, I don't see a lot of malfeasance out there. And then the president also is someone who, for good or for ill, is a breaker of norms and customs. And what people do not have a strong enough appreciation of, although they're beginning to understand it from a now, pretty well know, Atlantic article that was circulated last week about the potential of our disputed election.

Jason Cummins: (09:07)
What people really don't understand is that there's election law in the United States, and then a lot of elections are really governed by norms and customs. We do not have a good way to adjudicate contested elections. And I challenge anyone to go and read the governing law of this, which is called the Electoral Count Act from 1887, which followed the disputed 1876 election, which was one of the most contested in US history. You can't figure out how to deal a situation like this, and so we face a very real prospect of seeing things that we've never seen before.

Jason Cummins: (09:42)
And the prior kind of templates that a lot of investor use, I just don't think are particularly useful. I don't think this race is like 2016. I think the 2016 template does more to distort than inform this race. And I don't think the disputed elected in 2000 before Gore and W was a particularly good example of what could happen here either, except in one regard, it was the case that Florida's legislature under Jeb Bush's governorship was ready to send a slate of electors in favor of W in that election, in the event the Supreme Court stopped the [inaudible 00:10:16], which allowed Florida to certify Bush electors.

Jason Cummins: (10:21)
But the state of Florida was willing to send out electors without really the count being known. That is an important precedent to understand, because the state of Pennsylvania legislature is already talking about if they perceive that there's fraud, that they'll send out their own slate of electors, and in which case, it's very hard to figure out who has won the election, because again, we've governed this on norms and customs. Al Gore was gracious enough to concede. In other cases, Nixon in some ways was gracious enough to concede.

Jason Cummins: (10:51)
And so, as a consequence, we predict, as a baseline, a disputed election. I think it's more than a 50% chance that we won't know the winner of this election for a week, or potentially some weeks after. And you saw that alluded to. You started out your question with what happened in the debate last night. There are a number of markers that the president laid down in an otherwise quite uneven, and aggressive, and kind of self-indulging, but a performance where he explained what his thought pattern which is, dispute the election, try and draw it out, get it in to hopefully the Senate later on, and there's parts of the Electoral Count Act which suggest that Vice President Pence can decide among these electors.

Jason Cummins: (11:29)
It's a very, very complicated situation. But I think on election night you normally go into election night thinking there is 0% odds for dispute. And then as information accumulates you might raise those odds, like in the 2000 election. The way I'm thinking about going into this election is I start out at 100% chance that it's disputed, because that's the way this president is, and I'm going to winnow down those odds by watching, for example, Florida. Florida doesn't have the mail-in ballot problem, in the sense that they get all their mail-in ballots before November 3rd, they count them in advance, they come out really quick, and Florida is a mess in a lot of ways, but one thing they do well is, they get quick counts out.

Jason Cummins: (12:07)
And so the race could be over by 11:00 PM if Florida goes strongly in favor of Biden. But if it's the case that the president wins, you're going to then go to these other tipping point states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and so on, that are ripe for disruption. You won't even know the count. And just to give you future casting of this, the networks are not going to call an election unless they're absolutely sure that one side is winning. And so if the president wins Florida, and you go to Pennsylvania, and it's a complicated race, and you're worried about the blue shift, and the fact that there are ballots in transit, you haven't even counted yet, Fox News, for certain, is not going to call this election.

Jason Cummins: (12:47)
And then you get into this complicated dynamic of the president's surrogates, going out and saying it was an election where they threw the ballots in the creek, and Fox News says he can't decide this. We need to have different electors. And then you're going to end up in a potential constitutional crisis.

Troy Gayeski: (13:01)
Definitely don't want to upset Karl Rove. I don't know if you remember, the 2012 election where he got pretty worked up that they called it, in his mind, early for Obama, when really, Romney had no chance. Well obviously, you're calling for election chaos. But getting through that, let's assume that there is a resolution, and we all know that this is going to lead to market volatility, we can get into that in a second.

Troy Gayeski: (13:26)
But based on the information you have, would you be comfortable with putting a probability on a Biden victory versus a Trump victory? Or are you just not comfortable doing that?

Jason Cummins: (13:35)
So I'll throw out a few probabilities and then I'll pick up on something implicit in your question, which is, for a lot of your investors, they don't trade the way we do. We're going to monetize a lot of risk premium in this interregnum period, between January 20th and November 3rd. This is a great opportunity for us. But for a lot of your viewers, they have longer horizons. And they're not going to be concerned about this kind of 60 days of potential volatility. So I want to pick up on the idea of what's going to happen when you actually have the next president?

Jason Cummins: (14:03)
When it comes to the probabilities, I would give it about a two-thirds probability, maybe you could walk me down a little bit after last night's debate, because the president was so singularly unsuccessful in kind of attracting undecided voters. But I would say that there's probably around a two-thirds chance that our baseline is right, that there's disputed election. That doesn't mean that there's a one third chance that Biden wins. I think it's still the lion's share of odds are on a Biden win.

Jason Cummins: (14:30)
So it as high as FiveThirtyEight's, 80%? Is it as high as The Economist's estimate, which is over 80%? I think it's over two-thirds. And I'm willing to go that far. I think where I differ in the odds is, if you're over two-thirds on a Biden win on the presidency you really should be much more higher odds on the Senate flipping Democrat. Because the airs are correlated. It's not the... in a big Biden win that Daines's lead in Montana is going to be maintained. It's probably the case that he pulls Bullock over the line.

Jason Cummins: (15:02)
It's probably the case that even Lindsey Graham has a tough race. Tillis probably loses by a couple points if Biden's winning by seven. So I would say, the odds of Biden are above two-thirds. And then the Senate is much more likely if he does win. So then you jump to, there will be a new president on January 20th. And I think you got to keep a couple major themes in mind.

Jason Cummins: (15:25)
In the event of settled but still divided government, i.e. Trump with a Democratic house, or Biden with a Republican senate, in that situation I think you need to flip around Wall Street's normal aphorism of divided government is good. In a crisis, when you need to do something, divided government is bad, because you're not able to come to an agreement on the various priorities for the country. So you can argue about whether you're in favor of tax cuts, or tax increases, more spending, or less spending.

Jason Cummins: (15:54)
But in this kind of crisis we face now, we will have put off, at least until January 20th, any fiscal deal. We'll need to be doing more in terms of unemployment insurance, state and local support, liability reform, all these sorts of things. And if you're in gridlock, that's bad. So I think Wall Street's normal go to of, divided government is good because government is going to stay out of Wall Street's way, that is not right. You actually need... And something I think we'll talk about later on, just kind of market psychology, one of the main legs that this market stands on is fiscal policy activism.

Jason Cummins: (16:27)
And if that's drawn into question come January, whenever this new government is seated, I think that's enormously bad for markets. The other thing I'd say is just, on our odds on scenario, we have dispute, plus a Biden sweep as our odds on scenario. In that kind of situation, I also think you need to take a more kind of Cinemascope perspective about what the change to Biden is. In my view, this election could be as momentous as the 1932 election and the 1980 election. And I cite those two elections, not because they ushered in famous leaders, although I'll mention that in a moment.

Jason Cummins: (17:08)
But those elections were punctuated changes in American politics where you began to swing the pendulum from, in the first instance in '32, an incredibly favorable environment for capital in favor of labor. And that pendulum continued to swing even through the Nixon years, and it began to swing back under Reagan. The Reagan Revolution was essentially swinging that pendulum back from favoring labor, through the Great Society, and the New Deal, back to favoring capital.

Jason Cummins: (17:39)
And even though we've had two two-term Democratic presidents since 1980, it's the case that this kind of move in favor of capital, financial capital, physical capital, and tangible capital, has really been almost interrupted in this whole period. Clinton was basically Wall Street friendly. Obama had Obamacare, which is an important asterisk to my point. But for six years, he wasn't able to legislate his agenda. And for two of those years he was worried about getting the economy back on its feet.

Jason Cummins: (18:06)
So you've had an environment where what investors need to remind themselves of is a very, very special situation, capital broadly, sees in this current market environment. It's almost unique in American history, how favorable we are to financial, physical, and intangible capital. And if Biden's elected, the first and second derivative of that are going to change, in every dimension. Regulation, personnel, legislation. And so I think these kind of more narrow focus, you take a guy like Kostin at Goldman Sachs doing his earnings analysis for the SMP under a Biden.

Jason Cummins: (18:42)
I think it's oh so very narrow, and misses the big picture, that this is a time in history where you're going to be able to call the trough and the labor share of income on a Biden sweep, and that's going to go up. I don't know quite what the slope of this is going to be, but it's definitely going up. And he's guaranteed it. It's been in front of your face Troy. He went to Pennsylvania and said, the era of shareholder capitalism is over. Amazon shouldn't pay zero tax. It's right there for people to look at, but Wall Street, as it does oftentimes, as it tries to figure out a narrative which will rationalize them the risk taking that it's already doing.

Jason Cummins: (19:16)
And that's why Brevan Howard does well in punctuated times, because that kind of ends up in a Wile E. Coyote moment sometimes. And I'm not saying the Wile E. Coyote moment is as soon as we figure out that there's a Biden sweep, but people are eventually going to figure out some pretty simple arithmetic which is, you cannot grow the economy fast enough to make up for as a corporation, the corporate tax going from 21 to 28 percent. It's just simple arithmetic. You can write it out on a little sheet here.

Jason Cummins: (19:43)
You grow your business an extra two percent, or four percent, but your tax rate went up by seven percentage points. That's not bullish for earnings, right? It's bullish for the people who are enjoying the benefits of that fiscal expansion. And those people are going to be primarily served by these kind of broader, in some ways, soft focused, but broader goals of inclusion, and Green New Deal, and all kinds of things. But those may be valid for a lot of people in terms of their politics. But I don't see why they're going to tell me that it's going to be good for growth. That's where I diverge from the-

Troy Gayeski: (20:19)
Yeah, Jason, no, I mean, first of all, you make so many good points. And I wanted to let you talk, because you expanded upon them so well. The first, I mean, it also amazes how do people think Biden can win with the Republicans can hold the Senate. Because that makes no sense at all when you look at the electoral map, for reasons you highlighted, particular Tillis. But secondarily, along the lines, from what you're saying, we completely agree, a Biden Dem sweep is good for the real economy, in terms of more massive fiscal stimulus, but medium to longer term it's obviously less friendly to equity markets because of corporate tax rates going higher, capital gains, tax rates going higher, etc.

Troy Gayeski: (20:57)
So first of all, you clearly, sounds like you agree with that assessment, right? Good for the real economy, but less good for financial markets?

Jason Cummins: (21:05)
I agree with that. I would just emphasize Troy, a point in there that some people may miss which is, there are definitely different timescales here, I think that there's going to be a bullish response. I think it could end up with a blow off top where you test prior peaks, and equity and risk. But I think, over the medium term, as you say, and economists are a little fuzzy about what the medium term is. Sometimes it's a one year, sometimes it's five years. It needs to be elastic enough so that I don't have to admit that I'm wrong.

Troy Gayeski: (21:29)
So no one can hold you accountable for messing up.

Jason Cummins: (21:35)
Exactly. But I am making the point that, beyond these kinds of movements and sentiment, and the shifts that will be necessary to kind of change around some people's portfolios to take advantage and hedge against some of the risks, I do want to point out that it's just going to be a less friendly environment for capital.

Jason Cummins: (21:49)
I'll give you examples on each one of those. Just very quickly. On physical capital, this sweep would make it so that the taxation of physical capital, in terms of depreciation and incentives and so on, is higher. It will be less attractive to invest in machinery and software. On financial capital, Biden has a plan to tax capital gains at ordinary income. Not good. Ron Wyden who will be head of Senate finance has a plan to tax capital gains on accrual.

Jason Cummins: (22:18)
So all the internet bros will have to sell their Google stock at the end of the year to pay tax. And then finally, on intangible capital, which is primarily pharma and tech, Biden has a plan to regulate those. And so in each major sleeve of capital, he has specific plans to push the pendulum back. And so I just think it's naïve, it lacks an understanding of history and what these forces are doing.

Jason Cummins: (22:47)
And the Biden team, you need to remember, the Biden team, or the Biden regulars, but the Biden team are a core of movement Obama people who want to get stuff done, and are frustrated that Obama had six years where he couldn't get anything done. These are movement, not super-liberals, but these are movement people who want to get things done. And this idea that he is going to sit around and be Sleepy Joe.

Jason Cummins: (23:13)
I just think, remember, FDR was thought of as an amiable playboy. People didn't take him seriously. Ronald Reagan starred in movies with chimpanzees. There was always this picture in people's minds of this cardboard caricature of what they were. FDR was one of the most effective presidents in US history. Ronald Reagan, one of the most effective presidents in US history. This idea that you just have in your mind, like, "Oh, it's Sleepy Joe, he won't get stuff done." It misses the point that sometimes it's, the person rises to the occasion, and the administration, certainly, around him, I think will rise to the occasion as well.

Troy Gayeski: (23:49)
Gotcha. Gotcha. Well that's very informative. And clearly, we all expect volatility around the contested election that you think is a higher probability than most. Now, let me take it one step further. And again, we'll put the medium term out here, just to give us some wiggle room, right? But, one of the theories behind a Biden victory Dem sweep, clearly more deficit spending, more fiscal stimulus, not only in the short term, but larger deficits in the longer term.

Troy Gayeski: (24:17)
And many have said this could lead to a material decline in the dollar, which right as the time they were saying that, obviously the dollar strengthened a lot last week, just to give people a little bit of pain for their efforts, which we always get a kick out of. But in any event, is that one of the potential outcomes from a Biden victory? Because the much higher propensity of even more elevated long term deficit spending? Or is that still an overblown kind of macro trade of the day talking point?

Jason Cummins: (24:49)
So, I am naturally a contrarian, but in this case I strongly support the kind of consensus view that a Biden sweep is bad for the dollar. And let me just go through some of the mechanics of why, so at least I'll sound smart while I'm telling you that I agree with everyone else.

Jason Cummins: (25:05)
Normally, when you do a lot of fiscal spending it pushes up interest rates, it's good for the currency. Normally you might think, "Well, the government's doing a lot, it might be putting in investments into areas that'll promote productivity later on." Also good for the currency. So higher rates, higher productivity. This could be potentially good for a kind of strong dollar trade. I think it misses the moment, again, in this situation.

Jason Cummins: (25:29)
The Fed's going to guarantee that interest rates are low. I'm not going for this kind of more journalistic screaming headline of, the Fed's going to do MMT or quasi-MMT, I think that doesn't understand what the Fed is actually doing. But, they are going to keep rates low, in which case, the benefits that you would normally get, as an investor in the currency, from a fiscal expansion, aren't there. And in fact, you then think about what the fiscal expansion's going to do, I have no problem with the social justice goals, I can argue for it, I can argue against it, I don't want to get into that area.

Jason Cummins: (26:04)
But I think it is indubitable that what you're doing in this situation is, that Biden has a plan to tax higher productivity areas of the economy and redistribute it to lower productivity areas in the economy. So now I've just undone the two reasons why fiscal expansion would be good for the dollar. We're actually going to have lower rates. And the likelihood is they're probably not going to be productivity enhancing. We're taking money from the kind of most innovative businesses and giving it to things that are lower valued projects, almost by definition, because they aren't being done.

Jason Cummins: (26:37)
So I think, just in the kind of more advanced textbook understanding of exchange rates, you'd see that this is bad for the dollar, the dollar goes down. But I want to give a more kind of convincing balance sheet style example which is, we run a giant deficit. And it's actually getting bigger now, after we've gone through some of the pandemic dynamics. We run a giant deficit. And so you just have to ask yourself. If you were a foreign investor financing this deficit, what is the landscape you're facing going forward? It's a very much change macro landscape.

Jason Cummins: (27:10)
One, the Fed is guaranteeing you that on the risk side of your investments, you're going to have pretty low excess returns. I mean, everything is pretty rich, so it's not the case that investing in stocks has extraordinary expected returns going forward. And the Fed is kind of guaranteed that those returns are low going forward, but he's also guaranteed you that you don't make that much money. Maybe a bit on a relative basis, because there are so many negative rates around the world. But you don't make that much money on US fixed income either.

Jason Cummins: (27:37)
So the Fed has made it so international investors now are being invited to finance yawning, historically unprecedented outside of war, fiscal deficits, where on both sides of fixed income and risk, they're guaranteed low expected returns. This is not a very sexy proposition if you're thinking about financing the US. So what has to adjust? The relative price of US-ness against other countries. And that is the currency.

Jason Cummins: (28:04)
And so I think that the Fed wouldn't even really blink an eye on a 10% broad orderly decline in the dollar. I think they don't even really start paying attention to it if it declined 20%, because that's kind of still within the range that we've seen, certainly in this century, but even within the last ten years. And I think-

Troy Gayeski: (28:23)
I think it looks, so much of what they do Jason, is to encourage looser financial conditions, right? So they would actually be very happy with a 10% deprecation, right? In order to loosen financial conditions further, no?

Jason Cummins: (28:35)
They would be delighted. And let me also give you some texture, which is that, people got used to thinking about Trump being a mercantilist, and him wanting the dollar lower. Let me tell you, Elizabeth Warren, should she be Treasury Secretary, or just generally influential in the administration, has a much more aggressive plan for dollar depreciation than the president did. She actually has a plan. You can go look at it on the Peterson website, it's authored by Fred Bergsten and Joe Gagnon.

Jason Cummins: (29:00)
And they say all the right things about how they're going to negotiate, almost in a [inaudible 00:29:04] way, to make sure that the dollar isn't too strong. But they have specific taxes on foreign investors to make sure that the dollar goes down. And Elizabeth Warren's smart enough to have a plan, and two of the best in the business to develop it for her should they want to try and push the dollar down, they would.

Jason Cummins: (29:22)
I think that's a little outside of their policy comfort zone. But I think you have to remember, the economic side of the Biden team is relatively less developed. He does have Jared Bernstein and some people around him for a long time. But when it comes to the key leadership for Biden, it's really from the foreign policy side. Tony Blinken, Sherman, these folks who have been with him for a long time, really care more about the foreign policy aspect of things.

Jason Cummins: (29:49)
It could very well be the case that economic policy is driven by the next Treasury Secretary, whoever she is. And in that case, I think you really have to open up your mind for, the possibility at least, of active currency management. And certainly-

Troy Gayeski: (30:01)
And so Jason, along those lines-

Jason Cummins: (30:03)
[crosstalk 00:30:03] let it go down benignly.

Troy Gayeski: (30:05)
Yeah. Along those lines, one of the debates people always have when they want to be sure with the dollar is versus what, because kind of everything else is garbage. China's obviously, currency's been strengthening recently. But they'd prefer to keep it low, right? And will pull out many tools to do so. So is that logic lead one to gold and digital currencies as a better place to play the dollar short? Or are you not that dogmatic about it?

Jason Cummins: (30:29)
So I think these small markets are definitely going to enjoy a lot of renewed interest. You already saw that, some of our traders were quite involved in those trades. I think they are exciting, once you get the position... What's happened lately is, as people realize there are more risks, you've just had to mop of the consensus positions. I think that actually leaves it cleaner to get into some of those trades that you're talking about, Troy.

Jason Cummins: (30:53)
But the world cannot go into Bitcoin and gold. It has to ultimately go into other meaningful asset classes. And those are going to have to be the Euro and the OMR. We can't do all of our adjustment against Bitcoin, silver, and Canada. It just doesn't work, okay? It doesn't work. So these are small, proxied, uniques, idiosyncratic markets. The big moves are going to have to come against the big players. And so despite all of the problems that Europe has, it has a current account surplus, it's doing serviceably well, not withstanding the recent setbacks of the pandemic.

Jason Cummins: (31:29)
And the main one is China. China's interest rates are higher than Brazil as I'm sure you pointed out to some of your investors. And it's nice that they don't want to let their currency appreciate, but what choice do they have ultimately?

Troy Gayeski: (31:42)
Yeah, it's gravity, right? It's gravity.

Jason Cummins: (31:44)
Gravity.

Troy Gayeski: (31:44)
Has reached a high. Yep, yep, yep. Well, that's great colors. So you think they'll be broader weakness versus the major trading counter parties as well as some of the alternative currencies. At least over the medium term.

Jason Cummins: (31:56)
I think that some of the-

Troy Gayeski: (31:56)
We'll just stick with the medium term.

Jason Cummins: (31:59)
I think for some of the macro traders who are more prone to hyperbole, even than myself, they've gotten excited about the same things. And I can see exactly why, which is, you can see a 20% move in the dollar and no one really blink an eye. I mean, we already had one in 2014 into '15 that we could reverse. And that take you outside the boundary. So it's just that sometimes people have a failure of imagination. It's much like our outperformance around COVID. People thought it was going to slice two-tenths from global GDP as we were saying otherwise.

Jason Cummins: (32:34)
And in this situation, as well, you have something that is a pendulum shift election, and people are talking about, "Oh, it might slice 10% off the SMP, and nothing's really going to change." I just don't look at that.

Troy Gayeski: (32:46)
Yeah. It is amazing how few people can do math in that corporate tax adjustment. And you didn't even mention the fact that look, the deductions are gone, right? So that's going to be a really 28% effective tax rate, right? It's not going to be 30% plus with 21% effective.

Jason Cummins: (33:05)
[crosstalk 00:33:05].

Troy Gayeski: (33:05)
But anyway, moving on, you talked about the four-legged stool, supporting markets recently. And could you give a little bit of color on those and where you see the progress? Whether it's the potential for a vaccine, or whether it's the abundant monetary policy support we've had so far? And then, which one of those legs do you expect to break first?

Jason Cummins: (33:28)
So, in our view, markets stand on four legs, making a stool for the markets that's quite sturdy. Optimism about the vax, which I mentioned. Active and dovish monetary policy, really extraordinary, but now broken for a time, fiscal policy. And then finally, positive data surprise. The fact the economy's growing, and it's growing better than we thought. Like a stool, you can lose one of those legs. So periodically, you'll have a narrative where you lose one of the legs. So-

Troy Gayeski: (33:58)
Like fiscal recently.

Jason Cummins: (34:01)
Exactly. Like fiscal recently. People thought the Fed was going to do a ton in August, he kind of last some of that in September. The stool was a little wobbly. If you lose two of these things you got a real problem. So we're coming into a very dangerous time. If you don't have fiscal for a while, and one of these vaccines causes someone to have ADE, and anybody who's following vax should know what ADE is. It's essentially your body's rejection of the vax.

Jason Cummins: (34:28)
And it's not unprecedented either. They did a cat study in a corona vaccine once where all the cats kind of died. So it can happen. And you saw with the Jenner vax that this is a possibility, we can end up with setbacks. You have no fiscal and a vax setback, it's like a trapdoor for the market.

Jason Cummins: (34:44)
Similarly, if the data rolls over and you don't have monetary policy for whatever reason then that's a big problem. There are just some combinations of things that are well within the data generating process that can be pretty unpleasant. And the biggest one I'm worried about is, we'll know probably by the end of the day whether a fiscal deal could possibly come together, but should they vote and get out of town, you're in this period of time into Q1 where there's no fiscal, people are literally starving. I mean, I have great empathy for the kind of economic challenges that people are facing.

Jason Cummins: (35:16)
And then if the perception is that the economy's rolling over, or the vax is a late-2021 story, then I think your risk taking is definitely under some degree of siege.

Troy Gayeski: (35:32)
Well, not to mention the contested election, which you think is an above 50% probability outcome, right? So, perhaps Florida will go Biden, that'll go away. But clearly if it doesn't and it ends up in Pennsylvania it's going to be a complete mess. So we don't have that much time yet, and given your expertise on the Fed, we wanted to discuss that with you.

Troy Gayeski: (35:50)
And at least, we've historically seen substantially continuity in Fed policy from president to president. Is that your expectation this time? And could you see any curveballs come out of the Fed in the near term that markets are under appreciating?

Jason Cummins: (36:05)
So there are two things to understand about this Fed. And this'll sound a little glib, but it's important to understand. JPow likes to be liked. And so he's not an academic, he's not even a technocrat, he hearkens back to a Greenspanian tradition where the Fed is working within the government.

Jason Cummins: (36:24)
I worked for Greenspan and he always said, "We're one government." And that was something that was, not put on hold, obviously Ben and Janet were very involved in dealing with the rest of the government, especially through the crisis. But their perspective was always a very academic one.

Jason Cummins: (36:40)
Jay's perspective is a practical one. And so he wants to work with the government to do whatever. And so he's opened up the possibility for the Fed to intervene in all kinds of markets, a marker I'll come back to in just a moment.

Jason Cummins: (36:52)
But the other thing to understand is that people have a very kind of monochromatic view about the Fed. They just say, "Are they dovish or not?" They just look at things on the distribution of hawk and doves. And it misses the key feature of this Fed. Jay Powell is just as dovish or more dovish than Janet, and Ben, and even Greenspan would have been. But the point is, there's another axis, draw yourself a Y-axis where they're all dovish out here in the right on the X-axis.

Jason Cummins: (37:16)
He is a guy on the dimension of discretion versus rules, or kind of a more academic approach to policy, commitments and so on, he is a guy who believes that discretion is optimal. Again, his favorite Fed chair was Greenspan. Greenspan, I was with him all the time about this, he always knew where the exit doors were and he was never going to foreclose any of them.

Jason Cummins: (37:35)
The academic approach to monetary policy, some of which I contributed, is the opposite. It is Odysseus, tying himself to the mast to make sure that you know, and everybody else knows, that everybody else knows, that they're going to be dovish according to a rule for five years. Jay doesn't believe any of that. And I can't emphasize how important that is.

Jason Cummins: (37:54)
Because he believes discretion is optimal, he is always going to kind of keep this powder dry, react quickly. He'll do the dovish thing, but he's not going to do the kinds of things that the market does. And I'll give you a few specific examples of how you could've understood the last few months based on that. People thought, "Oh, he'll do negative rates." He doesn't believe in any of that. He thinks it's nuts.

Troy Gayeski: (38:16)
Yeah, well that's a political loser. I mean, that's never going to happen unless-

Jason Cummins: (38:23)
[crosstalk 00:38:23].

Troy Gayeski: (38:23)
... every other thing is [crosstalk 00:38:23].

Jason Cummins: (38:23)
It's a zero probability event.

Troy Gayeski: (38:23)
Yes.

Jason Cummins: (38:24)
Yield curve control, no way. Not unless things got crazy out of him, because it ties his hands. Now, economists think it's good to tie your hands, because of the credible commitment. Jay doesn't believe that. He thinks that tying your hands ties your hands. And that's objectively bad.

Jason Cummins: (38:41)
So you need to understand that he always thinks that discretion is optimal. And that's why the next disappointment for the market is going to be, people think that the next thing they do is, they're going to ramp up QoE. They're not going to ramp up QoE, because there's not support for it. Practically minded people don't see the need to QoE. Economists think you should do more QoE, but he doesn't.

Jason Cummins: (39:01)
And so, understanding this discretion versus rule dimensionality to him, I think is really important. The other thing you need to understand about this Fed, it's always the case that the Fed will open some possibility, and then the next Fed chair. Or some Fed chair subsequent, will walk the Fed through it authoritatively.

Jason Cummins: (39:19)
So it's certainly the case that Jay did intervene authoritatively in credit markets, and munis to a lesser extent, and main street, and so on. The thing you need to keep in mind, and this is truly is a medium term point, because it comes around to the next Fed chair, who will come in February 2021. The next Fed chair is going to see that Jay intervened in every market and broke every taboo, and say, "Oh, well I can do that too."

Jason Cummins: (39:46)
Jay committed the original sin in credit markets. He committed the original sin in munis, in buying Illinois and MTA. He committed the original sin in backstopping main street. And you can sort of all-

Troy Gayeski: (39:58)
Illinois's got good credits Jason? Come on man.

Jason Cummins: (40:02)
Full faith in credit. No, so but that's exactly the point, we're all laughing about this, but you have a Fed chair, the next Fed chair who cares more about social justice goals, Wall Street's going to get a big shock, because the Fed balance sheet... Ben Bernanke did some QoE, then he did some more QoE. Then Jay comes along and does the biggest QoE in history, just as that progression work, where you opened the possibility and then somebody else did it big, the same thing is going to happen in pursuit of social justice goals.

Jason Cummins: (40:30)
So Wall Street is used to the Fed balance sheet being Wall Street's backstop. What I'm telling you in clean English is, in the future, under the next Fed chair, that balance sheet will be in service of broader goals. It's already right there in the statement of principles, where they've expanded their notion of what full employment is, to be more inclusive.

Jason Cummins: (40:50)
So, as an example, LA Unified, a bankrupt school district, will have to issue bonds. The Fed's going to buy them in 2025. And this is another thing that I think is important for the dollar trade, which maybe other people don't talk about, so maybe I'll add one bit to a pretty standard macro narrative, which is that, the rest of the world is going to hate it. The Fed expanding its balance sheet to buy distressed public debt for social justice goals is not the placard you want to put on your reserve currency.

Troy Gayeski: (41:19)
The Germans won't approve of that? Is that what you're getting at, yeah?

Jason Cummins: (41:23)
The Chinese are not going to think it's very clever that they're buying US paper that's being used to bail out LA Unified.

Troy Gayeski: (41:31)
Well said Jason. It's really interesting, along those lines, some folks took it as a disappointment that the Fed wasn't more explicit in inflation targeting recently. But the recent meeting, they came out and said, "Hey, guys, we're not hiking until 2023 at the soonest." And basically we're not doing it until we get back to a labor market that's equal to or better than what we saw in '19.

Troy Gayeski: (41:58)
At the same time, they ratcheted up their growth forecasts substantially, because as you highlighted before, the economy never contracted as much as people feared. It's already arguably back to 96, 96.5 cents in the dollar. So wasn't that a very bullish statement on the real economy? Meaning that, we're going to have ample Fed support for a long, long time, even though things aren't really nearly as bad as people feared?

Troy Gayeski: (42:26)
Let's ignore the market, because then you get into evaluations and money supply. But focused directly on the real economy. Wasn't that an incredibly bullish announcement for the real economy?

Jason Cummins: (42:35)
So this is where I push back on you, and I'll try to use some casual-

Troy Gayeski: (42:38)
Oh feel free, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jason Cummins: (42:39)
I'll try to use some casual examples. Commitment matters. They made no commitments, they made cheap talk commitments which are subject to revision later on. So I [inaudible 00:42:51] invite the conversation. Many of us on this call are married. Suppose I went to my spouse and said, "We don't really need to be married, we don't need that commitment, because I just promise you in five years things are going to be fine, don't worry about it. Let's not be married."

Jason Cummins: (43:05)
Everyone on the call realized that's cuckoo. Nobody believes that, because you have to make the commitment. And you make the commitment in front of everybody else to know that it's credible. The Fed made no commitment. It's a soft focus commitment of intentions. So when people tried to nail down the Jell-O in the press conference of what Jay was saying he's like, "There's no formulaic rule. I'm not going to tell you how much we overshoot."

Jason Cummins: (43:32)
There's nothing of Bernanke in what he said. Bernanke spent much of his research time after he was chair developing systems, and rules, and commitments to make the Fed more credible and more dovish, more robustly dovish, to reset inflation expectations. He had this temporarily lookback rule on price level targeting.

Jason Cummins: (43:57)
Jay doesn't believe any of that. So that's not happening. So this commitment is about as good as my commitment that I'm going to go lose 20 pounds. You're like, "Yeah, you probably will." But unless I see the gym membership and you going every day I don't believe it.

Jason Cummins: (44:12)
So I believe that he's a good guy, he's an amazing public servant, he's probably one of the best Fed chairs ever, if not the best Fed chair in dealing with the politics of the place. But when it comes to the canon of what he believes in, what investors don't understand is, they think there's this uninterrupted arc from Bernanke, Yellen, to Powell. There's a huge discontinuity because he believes discretion is optimal, and Bernanke and Yellen, even though they're dovish, do not. They believe you have to commit to some rules in order to get better outcomes.

Jason Cummins: (44:43)
And he's not committing to anything. He's just saying, "Don't worry, rates will be zero for a while." And in that regard-

Troy Gayeski: (44:48)
So that goes back to your Y-axis argument, right? Where, okay, even though they said it and you and I can look at it and say, "Hey, maybe we'll be back to a similar labor market at the end of 2022." So since he didn't give a firm commitment, right? And he has the Y-axis of discretion, it could hike at 2022, right? It's a possibility. Whereas, if they firmly committed-

Jason Cummins: (45:12)
I'm actually more downbeat on the economy than, certainly the consensus, but they could. And the fact that I know that they could means that that commitment lacks as much credibility as if you tied yourself to the mast like Odysseus, and had the crew put in the earplugs. So I think it's a really important distinction.

Jason Cummins: (45:31)
It seems like a technical one, but a lot of the reason why you see so many frustrated Wall Street analysts, the Dave Zerboses, the [inaudible 00:45:39], etc, is that they've misjudged the man. They keep looking for him to behave like the economists that they love, who are going to Bernanke style stuff, or Japanese style commitments and so on. There's no there there when it comes to Jay. He doesn't believe in any of that, not-

Troy Gayeski: (45:56)
Jason, come on man, you love Zerbos, you love Zerbos, I know you do.

Jason Cummins: (46:00)
I love Dave, I love Dave. He has enormous [crosstalk 00:46:02]-

Troy Gayeski: (46:02)
[crosstalk 00:46:02].

Jason Cummins: (46:02)
... at the moment.

Troy Gayeski: (46:03)
Jason, it's been fascinating having this discussion with you today, and obviously your intellect shines through, as well as your ability to frame complex problems and articulate them incredibly concisely. But, we're going to turn it over to my colleague and partner John Darsie to wrap things up. We want to thank you everyone for being on the line and tuning in for latest SALT Talks, thank you so much.

Jason Cummins: (46:26)
Sure.

John Darsie: (46:26)
And I could let you guys go on for another two hours I think, and it would be rich and great content. And we're sort of in SALT overtime here, but I'm not going to cut this one short because I think it's fascinating. We have a couple audience questions, and a couple follow-ups from our agenda as well.

John Darsie: (46:40)
So I think what's unique about you, Jason, is that you have the academic side of monetary policy and economics down, but you're also a practitioner, you're on two investment committees at Swarthmore, and at the Brookings Institute. So I want you to distill everything that you're talking about, from an economic perspective. You talked a little bit about the dollar, and some relative value trades there, but what should investors be doing right now? Maybe talk about the average high net worth investor. How should they be positioning their portfolio based on some of the economic factors that you've talked about?

Jason Cummins: (47:13)
So I'm going to try and punctuate a couple of the points I've made into some simple investment advice for what it's worth. But at least this is the way I think about when I put on my public service hat and I'm sitting on those investment committees as Brookings and at Swarthmore. I'm really operating with two things in mind.

Jason Cummins: (47:30)
The first principle is, stay as far away from the Fed as possible. The Fed is going to destroy excess returns in those markets where they choose to intervene or they're likely to spill over and intervene further still on. So I want to avoid the Fed, because the Fed is the enemy of alpha.

Jason Cummins: (47:48)
An example of that, as an example, I saw a wonderful profile of Thoma Bravo in the Wall Street Journal the other day, which is a company that does software private equity, they have super low duration, because they get into the companies and get out within five years. That's a great business to be in. That is orthogonal to what the Fed's doing. That's as far away from the Fed as possible, it's in a specific industry, it's PE, and it has low duration.

Jason Cummins: (48:18)
So that's a specific example of staying far away from the Fed. If you are going into the standard kind of carry style investments, you're getting stepped on by the Fed. So those are not as attractive investments.

Jason Cummins: (48:28)
The second thing is that, I again, just think it's naïve to think that this macro landscape, because it's been relatively quiescent coming out of the pandemic part of the crisis is going to remain the same. There are all kinds of things that are changing in the policy sphere, and we're doing all kinds of things in order to try and... It's not a very sophisticated way to say it, but basically what we're doing is, we're mortgaging a lot of our policy credibility in fiscal and in monetary policy.

Jason Cummins: (48:54)
And eventually, like anything, we sometimes trade off these big discontinuities, but investors should be aware that we're moving into a very different environment when it comes to the macro, because we're living on borrowed time, when it comes to our policy credibility. And that centrally goes to the dollar.

Jason Cummins: (49:14)
I also saw, I don't know what your time constraint is, but I saw on the Q&A one thing that I could use to expand on a comment.

John Darsie: (49:20)
Yeah, that'd be great.

Jason Cummins: (49:21)
Okay. So I saw someone asked about consumer confidence. And I just want to expand on that point to explain why our perspective about the economy maybe is different from some perspectives that you're used to. Especially on Wall Street, and many of the prominent forecasting houses, they have a very financial conditions index-centric view of the economy. Basically, if stocks and housing go up in wealth, then the economy is going to do well.

Jason Cummins: (49:47)
So I'm an empiricist, ultimately, and I kind of... Not a hedgehog, more of a fox. I believe in the toolbox kit to thinking about economics, and finance, and markets. So I go into the toolbox, pick the right tool, and go ahead. One of the things we've observed over the last decade is that the linkage, the beta if you will, between wealth and those financial conditions indexes, and the real economy, is broken.

Jason Cummins: (50:10)
So if there's one reason to understand why we think that consumer confidence, which is levitated by the improvement in the stock market, in the housing market, and so on, is not so well translating, over time, into real growth. Is that that relationship broke, around about the middle of the last cycle. And you can appreciate that by noticing that consumer spending in the last cycle was slowing down as wealth was even kind of hitting a further gear up.

Jason Cummins: (50:37)
And we think the same thing's going to happen this time. There are lots of reasons why. Income inequality, different betas about spending for different kinds of households, is what I mean there. People don't believe that the wealth is real, they think that they could run into another crisis, so they're more conservative, they build up bigger buffer stocks of savings.

Jason Cummins: (50:54)
But I think it's just important to understand our background perspective of the economy is really pretty different from some others, because we think this kind of Wall Street to main street linkage, which did work before the 2008 period. Just hasn't been in the data for a long time.

John Darsie: (51:12)
Well Jason, we're going to leave it there. I think there's so much to talk about with you. I think, let's plan to have you on after the election, hopefully maybe two weeks after the election, once we know the outcome. Hence, your prediction that we're going to have some level of uncertainty after November 3rd. But we have a growing relationship with Brevan Howard, have a lot of respect for the firm and for you. So we look forward to hopefully having you on in the future. And hopefully back at one of our in-person SALT conferences in the future as well, once things get a little bit back to normal.

Jason Cummins: (51:39)
I'd be delighted. And hearkening back to my professorial experience, in advance of our meeting after the election, I encourage everyone, as homework, to read the Electoral Count Act. If they can figure it out.

Troy Gayeski: (51:52)
Jason, I'm going to get right on that as soon as I get off this call. But wanted to thank you again for all your intellect, it's been fascinating speaking with you.

Stephanie Kelton: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) | SALT Talks #8

“What I had been trained to understand was just not applicable with the monetary system that we have today.”

Stephanie Kelton is a Stony Brook University professor of economics and author of the NYT-Best-Selling book The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy. Professor Kelton was also former chief economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.

Professor Kelton discusses many of the misconceptions around the national debt vs. more normative thinking around financial management and fiscal responsibility. What does the national debt really signify and how can we rethink our approach to federal spending, especially as we work our way out of a pandemic-caused recession? “As I like to say, ‘every deficit is good for someone. The question is, for whom and for what are those deficits being run?’”

A leading voice in the Modern Monetary Theory movement, Professor Kelton offers a compelling case for a profound shift in our approach to the federal deficit and our ability to leverage it for good.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Kelton,+Stephanie+-+Cropped.jpeg

Stephanie Kelton

Author

The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:07):

Hi, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance technology and politics. What we're trying to do with these digital SALT Talks is provide interviews with leading investors, creators and thinkers. Just like we do at our global SALT conferences, we're trying to provide a platform for big ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts. And today we're very excited to welcome Stephanie Kelton to SALT Talks. It couldn't be more topical, her book couldn't be more topical. And we'll talk about that book in a second. But Stephanie is currently a professor at Stony Brook University. Earlier this month, she released a new book called The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy, which is already a New York Times bestseller. And congratulations to Stephanie on that.

John Darsie (00:59):

She is a leading authority on modern monetary theory, which is a new approach to economics that has gained increasing popularity in recent years. Her work is particularly relevant given the large deficits that have been run by the US government in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. So again, we're very excited to have her on given the timing. In addition to her many academic publications and the book that we mentioned, she has been a contributor at Bloomberg Opinion. She's written for the New York Times, she's written for the LA Times, US News and World Reports, contributed to CNN among many other outlets. She has worked both in academia and in politics. She served as the chief economist on the US Senate Budget Committee as a democratic staff in 2015, and as a senior advisor to the Bernie Sanders 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

John Darsie (01:45):

Politico called her one of the 50 most influential thinkers in 2016 and Bloomberg listed her as one of the 50 people who defined 2019. Barron's named her one of the 100 most influential women in finance in 2020. So her work is gaining increasing visibility. She was previously the chair of the Department of Economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas city. If you have any questions for Stephanie during today's talk, please enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. Conducting today's interview is going to be Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT, and I'm going to turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci (02:27):

John, thank you. Stephanie, congratulations on the book. I understand now it's a New York Times bestseller, and so fantastic on that. I read the book after I read Zack's book. So I think it's interesting. I would encourage everybody to go to the Politics and Prose Podcast where Zach Carter, who we had on last week, and Stephanie are together talking about John Maynard Keynes and deficits and why they do matter, but there are some myths related to deficits. But before we get in there, Stephanie, can you tell us a little bit more about your background? What got you so interested in this, and tell us a little bit about what you described to be a Copernican moment where you're having a Eureka about how economics is actually working?

Stephanie Kelton (03:13):

Sure. Well, first let me just start by saying thank you for the opportunity to come spend some time with you and your viewers today. I was studying economics, I did undergraduate degrees in both finance and economics. I picked up a couple of bachelor's degrees and then I really enjoy economics. So I went off to Cambridge University and started a graduate program there, and I was mostly learning the conventional approach to economics, just conventional macro stuff. I won a fellowship through Christ's College while I was at Cambridge. That sent me off to the Levy Economics Institute, which is a think tank in Upstate New York. That's where I first started to encounter really these ideas. They actually came to me through someone named Warren Mosler.

Stephanie Kelton (04:08):

Warren was a Wall Street guy, comes from the finance world. He had written a little book and he called it Soft Currency Economics. He called it that to distinguish it from hard currency, right from gold standard or fixed exchange rate frameworks, monetary systems. Warren wrote this little book and started circulating it. He really wanted to talk with economist at top universities. He was reaching out to people at Harvard and Stanford and Princeton and so forth. Nobody really wanted to engage with him. At some point, he stumbled on a group of economists in an online forum and started exchanging ideas. In 1997, I guess I got this little book and I read it and it flipped my worldview upside down. I couldn't wrap my head around it. It couldn't be right. I kept thinking it can't be right, it can't be right. Because it went so counter to everything that I had been trained to understand about government, finance and taxes and stuff.

Stephanie Kelton (05:13):

But here was this really smart guy and he had it all laid out. He had the accounting down, he had it all in balance sheet form. It's really hard to pull the wool over somebody's eyes when you're dotting the Is and crossing the Ts and writing it up the T accounts. So I kept looking at it and it just bothered me that I couldn't shake the idea. So I went searching to see if Warren might be right. I started reading treasury and fed manuals and talking to people at the debt management, trying to figure out all this stuff and whether it really worked the way Warren believed it did. I'm getting to the end of this story here. Basically, I convinced myself through a bunch of research that Warren's ideas were sound and that what I been trained to understand, some of the models about government budget constraints and that sort of stuff were just not applicable with the monetary system that we have today.

Anthony Scaramucci (06:10):

No, all right. I want you to keep going, Stephanie, where you feel you need to. This is an interview about you. You mentioned in the book, which I've also found fascinating, is that we see the government the way we see ourselves or our household or our business. But we're not originators of currency. We're actually users of currency, to use your words. So governments can effectively originate currency. Then you mentioned in the book, well, they give out our debt, it's 23 trillion. We could get rid of it with one electronic key stroke, but I don't think you 100% mean that either. So where should we be as it relates to deficits? You also write in the book that deficits do matter. So lay out for us what modern monetary theory is and put it into the context of people that got trained like me and people that got trained like you before you had this Eureka moment.

Stephanie Kelton (07:08):

Okay. So there's a lot there. Let me see if we can unpack it all in some bite sized pieces. The first bit you mentioned is really at the core of MMT, the idea that we have to recognize that the federal government's budget works differently from a household budget. The thing that distinguishes the federal government from everybody else is the fact that it's the issuer of our currency. In fact, it has the sole legal authority to create the US dollar. It's the issuer of our currency. I can't do it, you can't do it, private businesses can't do it, and state and local governments can't do it.

Anthony Scaramucci (07:44):

You're thinking, Stephanie, that some of my relatives have done that in the past, but I assure you that that's not true. Okay, keep going.

Stephanie Kelton (07:51):

Well, a lot of people try and you end up in an orange jumpsuit because it's illegal to counterfeit the currency. It would be nice if the rest of us could be currency issuers, you wouldn't have 50 governors running around imploring Congress to provide some aid right now. As their budgets are falling apart, if governors could take care of this themselves, because they could just issue the dollar, they'd be fine, but they can't. So we start with that recognition that the federal government is the issuer of the currency. Therefore, a number of things follow. One, it can never run out of money. President Obama, he comes into office, he's newly elected, and within a matter of months, he sits down for an interview. And you remember, the economy is falling apart, we're sliding into the great recession. He's asked, "At what point do we run out of money?" And his response was, "We're out of money now." Those were his words, "Were out of money now."

Stephanie Kelton (08:47):

Okay. The federal government can never run out of money. It can't have bills coming due that it can't afford to pay, unlike a household or a small business or a large business. It can't go broke. It can't be pushed into bankruptcy. What about the deficit? What are the implications for the deficit? Well, people get very anxious about the idea of the government running fiscal deficits. They believe that they're inherently irresponsible. It's evidence that you're mismanaging your finances. You should live within your means. Well, I hear that all the time. The deficit is just the difference between two numbers. One number is how many dollars the government spends into the economy. And the other number is how many dollars the government subtracts away from people in the economy. That's all it is.

Stephanie Kelton (09:36):

If the government is spending more dollars in than it is subtracting away, we label it a deficit. But what we forget, and this is something MMT helps to remind us, is that if they spend a hundred in and they only tax 90 away, somebody gets 10, that their deficits result in financial surpluses in some other part of the economy. That's a first and key point and it really comes from the work of Wynne Godley, who was a British economist who developed all this through sectorial balance framework and so forth. But their reading is our blacking. As I like to say, every deficit is good for someone. The question is, for whom and for what are those deficits being run?

Stephanie Kelton (10:21):

Then we get to the question of the debt because fiscal deficits result in the accumulation over time of what we call the national debt. And in the book, you just mentioned, I have a section where I say, "Look, we could pay it off overnight if we wanted to." We could talk about that section here in a minute. But I think it's really a misnomer. I don't think we should be calling it the national debt at all. I think of this thing as just a historical record of all of the past instances in our nation's history, where the government made a financial deposit to the economy. It ran a deficit, engaged in deficit spending, and it turned those dollars that it put in into treasuries. It turned them into interest bearing currency. And that's really all that is, it's an interest bearing for all of the US dollar.

Anthony Scaramucci (11:15):

Let me ask you this question, because I often get asked this question as an investor, if you go back to the gold standard, we unclipped ourselves on August 15th. Richard Nixon made that decision. He then quipped that we're all Keynesians now, meaning that he was going to allow the currency to float. It was going to become a Fiat currency. At that time, it was $35 an ounce. Today gold is trading at $1,700 an ounce. So strict monetarists would make the case while we devalued that currency by 98% in order to monetize and be able to pay our debt. One of the negative consequences potentially, and I'm interested in your opinion of this, is that it hurts middle-class people and lower middle-class people because assets are tied to the currency. The asset, if I'm in this home and it was worth a dollar in 1971, is now worth $10, but if I'm a wage earner with no assets, my wages, in fact, haven't caught up with that monetization, if you will. So what's your reaction to that?

Stephanie Kelton (12:21):

Well, I have a lot of concerns about the median income and average earnings and low wage earners and what has happened really to the pattern where wages used to keep pace more or less with productivity growth. Then something changed and productivity growth continued its upward trajectory and the real median wages just flattened out. I don't think that has to do with the fact that we untethered our currency from goal. I think it has to do with a lot of things, including overtime globalization, the decline of unionization rates and so forth. I don't see it as a by-product of abandoning the gold standard.

Anthony Scaramucci (13:12):

But we would make the case though, that there has been fairly dramatic inflationary periods in the United States. Some classical economic theory would suggest that that is related to things like Fiat currency. And it's related to things like not adhering to those classical principles that you and I both learned. And you would say, what about those periods of time?

Stephanie Kelton (13:39):

Well, we haven't actually had very many. It depends what kind of an arc of history you want to look at. When we were on the gold standard, what we confronted regularly was deflation. We had depression after depression, not recessions, but actual depressions. We had many of them, and those depressions occurred in an environment where prices would collapse. Deflation is a far more serious and was a regular threat under the gold standard. But we haven't had really periods of problematic inflation, post Bretton Woods, post Nixon [inaudible 00:14:17].

Anthony Scaramucci (14:17):

Let's go to the seventies for a second. We were running pretty high inflationary rates and we got the long-term bond up to 16% or 17%. So what would you say was the causality of that?

Stephanie Kelton (14:28):

Well, a lot of things. Oil price shocks, the Vietnam war, maybe [Volker 00:14:34]. Now, this might surprise you to hear me say this, but people assume that when the fed raises interest rates, that that is how you reduce inflationary pressures. MMT and I have a little bit about this in the book. I don't go into it in any detail, but I've written a paper on this as well. Raising interest rates raises borrowing costs. To the extent that firms are leveraged and they're able to pass on to end consumers, the increase in interest rates in the form of higher prices. It's possible that raising interest rates doesn't actually quell inflationary pressures, but it actually fuels an acceleration in prices. A lot of things could be happening there and some of them might be counterintuitive.

Anthony Scaramucci (15:25):

Let's fast forward right up to 2020, rates are low. We could argue they are at all time lows in some respects. Certainly measured by inflation and so forth. In some cases, the long bond is actually negative now even though Jerome Powell is saying he doesn't like negative rates. But is it even possible to raise rates at this point? And I'm talking about over the next five or 10 years, do you envision a scenario where we have rate hikes in the United States?

Stephanie Kelton (15:56):

My answer is I hope so. Because if we don't see interest rates go up, it's going to be because the economy is in such rotten condition for three or five years. That's the answer to the question. Could I see rates staying at zero or roughly zero for three to five years? Sure, I can. If we screw up the policy badly enough, that's exactly what the Central Bank's going to do.

Anthony Scaramucci (16:24):

So professor, let's say that you were economic czar and you could sit there and you could manage the budget, what would be the percentage that you would run of our GDP in a budget deficit? And then more importantly, how would you deploy that capital into the economy? What would you spend it on?

Stephanie Kelton (16:44):

Well, I think infrastructure has to be really high on the list. Now, that's a longer term. I would say recovery strategy, nearer term. I do believe Congress had the right idea with the small business association loans, the PPP, I think that was the right idea. Other countries do it and they execute well. We didn't have the infrastructure up to flip the switch and get that thing going and execute well immediately, but keeping workers on payroll and attached to their employers, I applaud that. I think it was the right move. I don't know how much more can be done now, clawing workers back or building on that program. I think getting money to state local governments immediately is absolutely critical. I would crank that up. I think the trillion that the house put in is a good number. I would do it.

Stephanie Kelton (17:37):

Looking longer term, yes, I think that a massive infrastructure project is the right way to go. We have deferred maintenance on our nation's infrastructure for probably a decade and the problem just grows bigger and bigger every year. There's so much work that needs to be done. That's usually a bipartisan thing. Both Republicans and Democrats understand that's a proper place for government to make investments. I would do lots of that. I can imagine a lot of other things. We've got now 30 million additional people who've lost health care. I think for me, I would tackle healthcare. Then you see what you're left with, and I think we're going to end up with situation where millions of people who have lost and have yet to lose jobs in this downturn are not going to find work again for years if ever. And for them, I think it makes sense to explore programs like FDR implemented in the new deal era. The Works Progress Administration, the CCC and National Youth. We can't have millions of young kids walking around unemployed in an environment where the tensions are high and people are desperate. You can't have that.

Anthony Scaramucci (18:52):

Well, I'm certainly in that camp. We certainly have to figure that out because just that inactivity, my grandmother would say that idle hands makes for the devil's work. Deficit spending, talking about percentages, so what would you spend? Would it be-

Stephanie Kelton (19:09):

I don't think anybody knows that because three years from now, it's just about the demand leakages, Anthony, for me. So how much space is opening up that needs to be closed off? And some of it will close itself as the government begins to spend through a multiplier effect, you'll get some bang for the buck, but then you just have to stand ready to keep in place enough fiscal support. Warren Mosler keeps talking with you. He'd probably say, you just count the bodies in the unemployment line, and then you'll know when to stop. When you get back to [inaudible 00:19:42].

Anthony Scaramucci (19:41):

Yeah, you do make that case, and I'm going to let you address that in a second. And John has some questions for you from the audience. So I'm going to let him interrupt, but I have one last question. I was on the phone with one of my clients who had worked in Brazil. And he said that he had experienced rapid inflation there as the government "printed money." We know that Argentina had rampant inflation and Greece has had rampant inflation. Do you think that your theories are tied to the US dollar because it's the reserve currency, or do you think your theory is applicable to any sovereign that can print currency? And if it is applicable to any sovereign, how do you explain those issues that places like Brazil and Argentina have had?

Stephanie Kelton (20:28):

Argentina and Brazil have a lot of external debt. They don't constrain their borrowing to their own currency. They borrow in foreign currency. You have countries that are very dependent upon a particular export, whether it's soybeans in Argentina, whether it's oil in Venezuela, you become really dependent upon revenues from one or two key export industries. Then all of a sudden, there's a collapse in the price of that thing and you're in real trouble because your budget is built around being able to finance spending based on that anticipated cashflow. When it starts to dry up, you're in trouble. You got countries like in Zimbabwe, for example, people often in Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany or something.

Stephanie Kelton (21:18):

Milton Friedman of course, famously quipped that inflation was always in everywhere a monetary phenomenon. People have said it's always because you got too much money chasing too few goods. But what usually happens in these hyper inflationary episodes is that you end up with a too few goods piece. Something happens on the supply side. There's a shock. In the case of Zimbabwe, Mugabe comes to power. He wants to reward the freedom fighters. He takes land away from white farmers, redistributes it to the blacks, the freedom fighters, and they don't know how to farm the land. So you end up initially with huge food shortages and an agricultural economy, and they're forced to import food to feed the population. Printing money to do that, and you get hyperinflation.

Stephanie Kelton (22:04):

So my answer is that, look to the supply side and look to countries that are borrowing in foreign currency. You don't have to look far to see Japan. Japan is not the US, Japan's got the largest debt to GDP ratio in the entire world. They still are battling deflationary pressures. They haven't been able to get inflation up to 2% in three decades or so.

Anthony Scaramucci (22:29):

Is that a demographic phenomenon exclusive to Japan or are there other factors there? Meaning that aging population and the upside down pyramid of that is causing that, or are there other things?

Stephanie Kelton (22:41):

Look, I think there are probably other things, but I think demographics matter a lot in terms of what's happening there. I think when you have an aging society, it makes sense that as people age and downsize, they consume less. So if you're trying to engineer rapid economic growth in a society where people are just trying to consume less as they age, it's not going to work out all that well. I also think that they may have the brake pedal and the gas pedal mixed up in terms of what they've done with interest rates and QE that a lot of what they think is monetary stimulus might actually be working the other way around. Then they get very anxious when the deficit increases. They keep hiking the consumption tax. So you get these fits and starts in Japan.

Anthony Scaramucci (23:30):

Okay, makes sense. John, do you have any questions?

John Darsie (23:33):

Yeah, we have several-

Anthony Scaramucci (23:35):

Before we end, I want to go to that employment thing, because I thought that was the more fascinating aspect of the book. I want to give professor Kelton an opportunity to talk about that, but go ahead. Fire her some questions from our audience.

John Darsie (23:45):

Yeah. We've talked a little about government spending, but we haven't talked about the other side of the ledger in terms of how to think about taxes within the MMT framework. In your book, you talk about if taxes are removed then demand for government currency will fall and people might stop working. Do we cut taxes in an MMT framework? Do we raise taxes on the wealthy? How do you think about how we should change tax policy in the United States?

Stephanie Kelton (24:11):

Well, it depends where we are in terms of the economic outlook. What would I do with taxes right now? I sure wouldn't be raising them. I think that certainly, I'm a Democrat, but I'm not allergic to tax cuts. I think tax cuts are perfectly reasonable fiscal policy provided that they are designed to aim that benefit on the other side, that the windfall goes to people who are going to turn around and spend that money back into the economy. So can you just eliminate all taxes and expect the economy to continue to function and government to be able to provision itself with resources? No. Yeah, you're right. In the book I talk about, if you want to start a currency from scratch historically, one of the ways that governments have done this is to impose a tax on a population of people. They say, you are now subject to this tax. What MMT points out is, the government can't collect the tax until it first spends that which is necessary to pay the taxes.

Stephanie Kelton (25:14):

You got to spend the currency first so that somebody can have it and turn around and use it to pay the tax. So taxes are important. They can help you start up a currency, maintain the value of the currency. They allow you to make adjustments to the tax code so you can impact distribution if you want to do that. They allow you to create incentives and disincentives. So lots of reasons, and they mitigate inflationary pressure, which is obviously an important one. If the government only spent its currency into existence, every time the government spends a dollar, it gives birth to a new dollar. And that dollar travels around the economy until it is removed by government. Only the government can take it back up. So you write your check to the IRS, that is the death sentence for the dollar. That is where the dollar goes to dot. It has a lifecycle and the government regulates inflationary pressure by avoiding spending too many of its dollars in and allowing them to travel around. So it subtracts some from our hands over time.

John Darsie (26:16):

Thank you. The next question, we have a couple of questions about universal basic income versus a federal jobs guarantee. You talk a lot about federal jobs guarantee as being a prescription for solving a lot of the ills that we have in our society. And you talk about how Warren Mosler believes that you should just continue to spend until you get that unemployment rate down to zero. In what scenarios do you think universal basic income is the most effective prescription? What scenarios do you think a federal jobs guarantee is effective? Right now, what would be your solution?

Stephanie Kelton (26:49):

Well, for me, it comes down to what problem are we trying to solve? I've engaged in a lot of conversations with people who are advocates of UBI. And very often they say the reason they like the UBI is because they want to fix poverty, they want to address poverty. I am an advocate of the job guarantee because I want to fix involuntary unemployment. I want to eliminate involuntary unemployment, but this is an environment where things have changed since 2019. Right now, we have millions and millions of people who need to pay their rent and eat some food and stay current on their bills, so they don't wreck their credit score and so forth. So what do we do for those people?

Stephanie Kelton (27:40):

There aren't jobs for them and we don't have a federal job guarantee in place. So am I supportive of providing disbursements, monthly income support? Absolutely, I am. But in more normal times, I think that some kind of a basic income, working alongside the job guarantee is the better way so that for people who want to work, but can't find a job anywhere else in the economy, let's create a job for them. There's plenty of work that needs to be done. For those who can't or shouldn't be working, let's provide the basic income support. That's how I look at it.

John Darsie (28:20):

Great. We have one more question then I'll kick it back over to Anthony. Can you envision a scenario in which inflation did become problematic? Let's say that we adopted a modern monetary theory framework and things went awry, what would that scenario look like?

Stephanie Kelton (28:36):

Well, let me tell you this, because I think it's so important for people to understand that. And I'm saying this as someone who worked as the chief economist on the United States Senate Budget Committee for a period of time. I listened to Republicans, I listened to Democrats. I saw a lot of legislation get introduced. I saw amendments proposed. Never once in my time in the Senate, did I hear a single staffer or a single member of the Senate raise concerns about inflation. Not once. It's not even an afterthought, it's just not a consideration at all. So what I'm saying is that MMT centers inflation risk. That is the relevant constraint. You have to identify and respect the economy's real productive capacity or you will run into a situation where you push things too far. What I'm proposing has to be an improvement on what we have today, because what we have today is nobody at all, connecting proposed new spending to concerns about inflation.

Stephanie Kelton (29:43):

The best way to fight inflation is before it happens. Not to start up an inflation problem. What I'd like to see is for Congress to change the federal budgeting process. Right now, somebody writes a bill and the legislation goes to the congressional budget office, and CBO scores that bill with one primary consideration. Does it add to the deficit? Yes or no? And if so, how much? That for me is the least important question we could ask CBO, the least important. Let's ask CBO and other agencies to help Congress figure out whether the proposed spending carries inflation risk. And if so, how can they mitigate that inflation risk? If they propose, let me give you one quick example, I know you probably have to wrap or somebody else wants in, but one quick example. Suppose that we were back in December of 2019, and we were looking at an economy that a lot of people would have said, this is basically a full employment economy.

Stephanie Kelton (30:43):

Unemployment's three and a half percent or so. Congress said, we want to do infrastructure. You remember that Trump met with Pelosi and Schumer. They went to the white house, sat down, they had a meeting of the minds on this two trillion dollars. Said, "Let's do two trillion dollars of infrastructure spending." Everybody said, "Great, let's do it." And then came to how are we going to pay for it stuff? But suppose, suppose that you ended up with Democrats in the house, in the Senate and in the white house, in the same economic environment. And somebody put an infrastructure built together for a couple of trillion dollars or more, and attached a wealth tax to it and said, this is our pay for, and it's going to raise all the revenue we need to cover the cost of the infrastructure. They send the bill to CBO, CBO looks at it. They say, it's beautiful, it's gorgeous bill. Doesn't add to the deficit. Wonderful, A plus. Send it back, now Congress can vote to pass that spending.

Stephanie Kelton (31:42):

What I'm saying is Kelton would go, Oh my God, are you crazy? Are you crazy? Because you've just authorized trillions of dollars of spending where your offset, your so-called pay for is a tax that falls exclusively on the tiniest sliver of people. What is it, like 78,000 people or whatever would be subject if it were Senator Warren's wealth tax? You're taking the dollars away from people, let's face it. They weren't going to spend them chasing real goods and services and the economy anyway. So you haven't mitigated the inflation risk with that particular offset. I think that we are more vulnerable to inflation risk under the current budgeting practice than we would be if we move to, as you say, an MMT model.

Anthony Scaramucci (32:37):

Talk a little bit more [crosstalk 00:32:39].

John Darsie (32:39):

[crosstalk 00:32:39] back over to you to continue your intellectual discussion.

Anthony Scaramucci (32:41):

I appreciate, John. I'm fascinated by this. Just talk a little bit more about the employment phenomenon. Let's go to the three and a half percent unemployment. Dr. Bernanke or chairman Powell would say that that's full employment. It felt like full employment to me. You would say what? That that's not quite full employment. We both are going to stipulate that there's going to be frictional activity in the economy that leads to some level of unemployment, but what's full for unemployment in your mind?

Stephanie Kelton (33:11):

Well, here's what I'll say. If we announced that the federal government was prepared to provide a job to anybody who wanted one but couldn't find one anywhere else in the economy, now frictional unemployment, somebody who's between jobs. They're not going to take that job. They know they're going to quickly find another private sector job. So they're not going to show up. But if you made the announcement, walk into your nearest American job center, the old unemployment offices, if you don't have a job and you want one, walk in, you can walk out with a job. If you make that announcement and nobody shows up, I will stipulate that we were at full employment. On the other hand, if 10 or 15 million people show up, then I think we have just revealed the true extent of the unemployment problem. In other words, you don't know unless you have an option in place.

Anthony Scaramucci (34:01):

But I think we also want... You're going to want to get a job that is paying you more than, say your unemployment benefits. Or you want to get a job that's paying you more than the worker's comp that you may be getting from some other job that you can no longer do. Would that be fair to say?

Stephanie Kelton (34:16):

Well, probably so. But your unemployment right now, unemployment insurance, I wouldn't eliminate that, by the way. Yeah, we let people who, you lose a job, you go on unemployment and you continue to look for work. Maybe you get lucky and you're reemployed in a short period of time. But when unemployment runs out and then people don't have another option, this would be an option for folks like that.

Anthony Scaramucci (34:42):

You brought up something that I think is brilliant. I want to reemphasize it because if I were essential banker, thank God I'm not, but if I were, that would be the number one thing I'm worried about is deflation. And I just want to remind everybody on the call, why are central bankers worried about deflation? They're worried because you can't pay the debt back with dollars that are worth more than the ones that you borrowed. You implode the society. That's clearly what happened in the 1930s. It wasn't until, and Liaquat Ahamed from the Lords of Finance book, I know you're familiar with, he points out. It was Franklin Roosevelt in his Common Sense in 1933 that unclipped us from that gold standard. And perhaps Benjamin Strong, if he didn't die, the first federal reserve chairman would have been able to figure that out.

Anthony Scaramucci (35:29):

Then the liquidity started entering the market and the unemployment numbers went down. Now it's 1933 to 2000s, or let's call that 87 years, we've had reasonably high to very high deficit spending. Since 1969, we've only had two surpluses. It was the 1969 surplus and the fiscal year 2000 surplus. And yet we've had unbelievable economic progress, professor Kelton. So I want you to tell the naysayers out there that are looking at this framework and saying, well, our grandchildren are going to pay for it, our great grandchildren are going to pay for it. It's all going to come home to roost, or it's a house of cards about the collapse on us. What would your response be to them?

Stephanie Kelton (36:18):

Well, my response is, just stop thinking of it as debt. That's the response. That's why I titled chapter three, the National Debt Parentheses That Isn't, because I think that's the problem. Once we start calling it debt and thinking of it in those terms, we personalize it. It's like corporate debt or it's like household debt or whatever. Eventually you have to pay it back. That's when things go awry. That's why I keep saying, just think of it as part of the net money supply of the US.

Anthony Scaramucci (36:51):

Not to interrupt, but let me just ask you this. We do the budget together, we come up with what we want to spend on, and we have infrastructure and we're taking in 3.7 to four trillion dollars of tax revenues, but we really need to spend six or seven trillion dollars hypothetically. Why wouldn't we just print that money and just pay it right there and then balance the budget every single year? What would be your economic policy answer to not doing that?

Stephanie Kelton (37:19):

There's only one way for the government to pay for anything already today. Every single payment that is made by government is carried out by the federal reserve changing numbers in the appropriate bank account. Congress authorizes the spending, and that effectively orders up new dollars from the federal reserve. And the fed fills the order by using the computer keyboard to make payments, to clear the payments on behalf of treasury. That's the way it works now. You're saying, I think, why do we bother messing around with the bond sale piece? Why not just let the fed mark the numbers up and be done with it? And then you could have deficit spending without an increase in the national debt. To which I say, good idea. Good question. The bond piece is optional. This is the thing people don't get. They don't understand-

Anthony Scaramucci (38:12):

Okay. But the people that are on this call that have to balance their checkbook every day and they're balancing their corporate checkbooks as well, you would say, well, because the federal government can issue the currency, they're able to do that. You don't issue currency, you use currency. So you're not able to do that. You don't think there would be inflationary consequences to us doing it?

Stephanie Kelton (38:31):

No. In fact, selling bonds is almost certainly more inflationary than not selling the bonds. Why? Because you're putting trillions of interest bearing dollars out there. Those are dollars that pay extra dollars on top of those dollars, versus just leaving the dollars in the system. We're multiplying them up by turning them into interest bearing dollars.

Anthony Scaramucci (38:57):

Okay. So you're basically saying that the national debt for a modern monetary theorist is a little bit of a Mirage, it does have that hangover effect of the interest bearing that you're suggesting. But if we just printed it and replaced it, sovereigns from around the world, people that invest in the US, they wouldn't lose confidence in us. They wouldn't lose confidence in the M1 or M2 production of our money supply. They'd be okay with that. They would say, okay, anytime the US government needs to spend money, they're just printing it. The rest of the world would be okay with that and still accept us as a reserve currency?

Stephanie Kelton (39:36):

Yeah, yeah. If they haven't figured out that that's how it works already, then they're being a little bit duped because we are already creating new digital dollars.

Anthony Scaramucci (39:46):

Well, that was the most fascinating part of your book. And that's the reason why I'm encouraging everybody on this call to read it, because we are in fact already doing that. It has worked and it's worked for the 87 years since Franklin Roosevelt began that more aggressive process of doing it. What do you say to the deficit Hawks out there? Which there are many on this call, trust me, because I'm getting text messages and all kinds of nonsense coming into my phone. So what do you say to those people?

Stephanie Kelton (40:17):

I just say, there is some iron clad logic behind this. And the iron clad logic is in the balance sheet entries. It is simply the case that on the other side of the government's deficit, lies somebody else's surplus. There are no two ways around that. We aren't going to debate that, or we can debate it, but whoever's taking the opposite position is going to lose because I'm right about this. Saying, I want the government to eliminate its deficit is exactly the same as saying, I want the government to eliminate the surplus in the non-government sector. They are identical statements. So you might believe that, you might be somebody who wants the government to siphon dollars out of the rest of the economy.

Stephanie Kelton (41:02):

A surplus works like a vacuum. It hoovers dollars off of balance sheets because the government's taxing more away from us than it's spending back in. If you believe that's a great idea, that's your prerogative. I would say the time in place for the government's budget to move to surplus is when the economy has reached its capacity constraint. You want to withdraw more than you spend back in. It's reasonable to see the government budget move into surplus at that point.

Anthony Scaramucci (41:31):

Stephanie, you have a couple of detractors. You know that and I know that. So Larry Summers, Paul Krugman, I don't even know what Calvin ball is by the way, but let me just describe it to you. It is changing your theory every time someone offers up tough questions, I guess that's Calvin ball. I've got to go look that up on my dictionary. But what do you say to your detractors that printing money isn't the answer, that it would cause some type of capital market destabilization? That we're in fact already doing it, so it's a duper. What is more a granular intellectual response to that?

Stephanie Kelton (42:07):

Look, again, I think that Larry understands this actually. The response is that MMT has nothing to do with printing money. It has never been about printing money. The way to hand wave or dismiss the work that we've done is to caricature it as something that it's not so that it looks and sounds silly so that you can wave it away and say, that's a silly proposal. We are not proposing that the federal government print money, we are explaining the monetary operations, which reveal how the government already spends today. And how the government already spends today is that, like I said, every piece of legislation, every spending bill orders up new dollars and the fed creates them when it carries out the payments.

Anthony Scaramucci (42:55):

Yeah. Assuming your theories are true, then there's great reason to be optimistic, I would think. We'll be able to solve the problem of the pandemic. We'll be able to figure out a way to produce infrastructure in the society, which will hopefully create more economic output and economic rent and potentially more fairness economically in the society. So there's great reasons to be optimistic basically. Right?

Stephanie Kelton (43:22):

I would hope so. Look, if we are facing problems, deep and serious problems in our economy and in our societies and we can't address them, then we're in real trouble. So I'm optimistic that we can address them. Sure. Look, if you say I got a bunch of idle resources lying around, I can see tens of millions of people who want to work but don't have any way to get a job. I can see businesses that have a lot of capacity. There's no construction boom going on. So I see all of these, it's heavy equipment. I see companies that can manufacture this stuff. I could do infrastructure. I could pay that company, and now they have some sales. So they have some revenue and some profit. I can hire these workers and they can go build infrastructure and fix things and I can pay them. The economy ends up with a bunch of people who are employed, who have income, who become spenders into the economy, who then support other jobs and we get a new bridge or better infrastructure or whatever. That sounds really [crosstalk 00:44:25].

Anthony Scaramucci (44:26):

That stuff makes sense. Let me ask you one more question and I'm going to kick it back to John because he's got just one or two more from our audience, and then hopefully you'll give me the chance to reconvene with you before the election, because I'm curious to see how this all lays itself out. But why not just have no taxes then? Why not just say, okay, listen, here's what we're going to do. This is what the government's going to spend in a year. We're going to put these entries computationally to a computer. The governor is going to go out and spend this money and we're just not going to have any taxes. By the way, I'll point out to everybody here because the government delayed the taxes in April, we haven't picked up that income for the government in the last three months.

Stephanie Kelton (45:09):

I don't think of taxes as income for the government. I don't think of it that way at all. Remember I said, when you send your check to the IRS, that's where the dollar goes to the graveyard. It's just done. It's subtracted away, it's gone. We put it to bed. New dollars are born when the government spends. The question is, how many times, how many dollars can the government safely spend in without killing off any of the dollars that it spends in, without taxing to take some of them away from us? The answer is, up to the point that the economy reaches full employment and then that's it. Right now, we watched Congress pass four bills. The biggest of course, is the CARE Act, 2.2 trillion, no offsets. That's pure spending, no paired with an increase in taxes. The house has passed a three trillion dollar bill.

Stephanie Kelton (45:57):

The HEROES Act, there are no offsets there. That's another three trillion that would enter, but over time, some of those dollars would come back because people earn a dollar, you pay tax. Some of that is going to get sent to the graveyard. The answer is that at some point, the economy, God-willing, recovers to the point that we are no longer able to spend without offsets. And at that point, Congress has to write bills and they have to pair that legislation, that proposed spending with some offset somewhere or we're going to get an inflation problem.

Anthony Scaramucci (46:32):

Okay. I think it's well said, Stephanie. You made your case brilliantly. I have to tell you, I loved your book. And I mentioned to you before this started that I grew up thinking more about [inaudible 00:46:43] economics and [inaudible 00:46:45] and obviously Milton Friedman. But the world around me was happening in a very Keynesian sort of way, which I find fascinating. Listen, you can't take away the economic progress that our society has had over the last 100 years, but we do have to figure out how to make that economic progress more fair, wider bandwidth for more and more people. John, do you have any more questions for professor before we sign off?

John Darsie (47:14):

Yeah, a couple more audience questions. I feel like we could go for another two hours, but I'll wrap it up just with a couple quick audience questions. What's your views on cryptocurrency and whether they have a place in modern society?

Stephanie Kelton (47:29):

Well, I think they have found a place in modern society. I don't spend a lot of time. I don't think I've ever written about crypto. I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over its existence or nonexistence or people want to invest in crypto. I have no problem. I don't see it as a threat to the existing monetary system. It's not going to replace the US dollar or anything like that.

John Darsie (47:58):

All right, last question. Do you think we could turn US States into quasi MMT sovereigns if we allow the fed to monetize the state issuance of US dollar denominated debt, which seems like what we're doing with the fed municipal lending facility?

Stephanie Kelton (48:14):

I think so in a sense. If I understand the question correctly, could we effectively free individual states from their limited capacity to spend by having the fed step up and effectively backstop them with currency issuing capacity? Yeah.

John Darsie (48:36):

All right. Well, that's all we have. Thanks for going a little overtime with us, Stephanie. Again, her book is The Deficit Myth. It's available at all major booksellers. As Anthony said, we would highly recommend that you buy it and read it. Even if you maybe have different preconceptions about economic theory, I think Stephanie's book, professor Kelton's book will open your mind to possibilities. As Anthony said, we hope that you're right and would allow us to spend more and solve a lot of problems in society. So professor Kelton, thanks so much for joining us and good luck. You're on the New York Times bestseller list now. We hope you continue to climb that list.

Stephanie Kelton (49:12):

Thank you both very much. Thanks for having me.

Anthony Scaramucci (49:14):

Congratulations, professor. We hope to see soon.

Stephanie Kelton (49:17):

Thanks, Anthony. Take care.