S1 | Hedge Funds

Jeff Ubben: A Look at Impact Investing Post COVID | SALT Talks #157

Jeffrey Ubben is an American businessman and Founder of Inclusive Capital Partners. He recently retired as CEO of ValueAct Capital, a hedge fund focused on environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) and impact investing. Ubben is an activist board member of Exxon Mobil.

Prior to founding ValueAct Capital in 2000, Mr. Ubben was a Managing Partner at Blum Capital Partners for more than five years. Mr. Ubben is a director of The AES Corporation, where he is a member of the Compensation and Financial Audit Committees, Enviva Partners, LP, where he is a member of the Compensation and Health, Safety, Sustainability and Environmental Committees, AppHarvest, and Nikola Corporation.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jeffrey W. Ubben.jpeg

Jeff Ubben

Founder & Managing Partner

Inclusive Capital Partners

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

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 and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal in our SALT Conference series, 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. And we're very excited today to welcome Jeffrey Ubben to SALT Talks, somebody who both is investing and making a lot of money for his clients over his long track record, as well as driving social impact and increasingly so in his latest ventures. But I'll read you a little bit more about Jeff's background, but he's a man who needs no introduction.

John Darsie: (00:58)
Jeffrey Ubben is the founder and managing partner of Inclusive Capital Partners. Mr. Ubben began his investing career at Fidelity Investments where he worked alongside legendary investor, Peter Lynch, and ran the Fidelity Value Fund. The Value Funds assets under management grew more than tenfold during Ubben's tenure as portfolio manager. In the year 2000 after five years at Blum Capital in San Francisco, Mr. Ubben founded ValueAct Capital and pioneered concentrated active value investing. During almost 17 years as the sole portfolio manager of the VAC flagship fund, assets under management grew from approximately 65 million to more than 15 billion. When portfolio manager at VAC, Mr. Ubben, served on more than 15 public company boards and generated net annual returns of 15%. And over that same time period, the S&P 500 annualized return was about 5%, so dramatic out-performance there.

John Darsie: (01:58)
At Inclusive Capital or In-Cap, Mr. Ubben seeks to make long-term equity investments in companies while working actively with managements and boards to responsibly and creatively address environmental and societal problems. Mr. Ubben serves on the boards of Duke University, the World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy's NatureVest, and the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation. He has a bachelor's degree from Duke University and as someone who grew up in Durham, but likes a lighter shade of blue, I won't hold that one against you, Jeff. He also has an MBA from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. And hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I will turn over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:48)
John, thank you. And Jeff, amazing career. It's interesting this week Fidelity Magellan converted to an ETF. Can you imagine that? I mean, we're sitting here and you and I grew up in this industry with the legendary Peter Lynch, and of course you were running the legendary value fund as a mutual fund, but we seem to have bifurcated now, right? We're going ETF or hedge fund. It's just interesting, we're going to get to it in a second, but before we get there, tell us where you grew up and what your family and your upbringing was like.

Jeffrey Ubben: (03:26)
Okay. That's a little bit too much to me. I'll do it fast. I grew up in Chicago. I grew up in the business. My dad started a money management company after leaving Allstate. I think it was in the late '60s or early '70s. He was a growth investor and the NIFTY 50 crashed. And I remember that it made an impression on me for sure. By the way, I interned for him during my high school years. And I started calling companies when I was 17. So I've been calling companies for 43 years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:05)
Any brothers and sisters, Jeff?

Jeffrey Ubben: (04:08)
One sister.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:11)
Okay. So you had a love affair then with your dad's business. You could have probably gone in any direction that you wanted. What attracted you to the money management business?

Jeffrey Ubben: (04:22)
You get paid to learn every day you come in and you fill yourself up with information from some new industry or some new executive, that is almost unfair, to get paid to learn. So I'm just... If you're intellectually curious, it's the best business in the world times 10.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:48)
See, you and I are in total agreement on that. I always tell kids that this is the business of understanding other businesses. So man, if you love business, you can learn about the insurance business, biotech. You pick the business, you can get steeped in it from Wall Street or from the investment management business. Tell us about your investment philosophy and your perspective and what are some of the lessons that you've learned along the way from your days at Fidelity to where you are now?

Jeffrey Ubben: (05:18)
When you're at Fidelity, I was dogging and chasing Peter Lynch down. You had mentors like Rich Fenton, and it was just call companies, call companies, call companies. Don't talk to, I don't know, don't talk to other managers even very much. It's all about independent thought and stay away from the herd. It's one of the reasons I went from Boston to San Francisco. The market opens up before I wake, so I get the last call. It's like you said, we're in the understanding business, not the information business. So much of the money management has moved to the information business to the point where algorithms are not trying to beat the next algorithm to some sort of data point that drives a short-term stock price. And that has commodified this world and it's shortened time horizons and there's no transaction costs and stocks, all of which creates an arbitrage, time arbitrage, that means the long-term guy can still win, I think, but it's confusing for sure relative to where it was 20, 30 years ago.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:32)
So you started Value, you gave a speech and subsequently wrote a letter to your limited partners about organizational culture. And so I'm a very big believer in that by the way, I think we have the same desk, same phone, same computer terminals, but what separates our businesses is the culture. Tell us about the culture at ValueAct and tell us about why you are so hell-bent on organizational culture.

Jeffrey Ubben: (07:02)
I'm a 100% build-your-talent guy. I think there's a marketing aspect to money management where you tend to see people buy resumes or plug holes. I've never done that. I've hired people. I started ValueAct when I was 39 and everybody I basically hired was late twenties, early thirties at the oldest. And so the idea for me is distribute the equity broadly and early, get no drama and no jump all around succession. I mean, we're telling companies about management succession and how they should pursue it. We should do it ourselves. Get buy-in on a succession plan and stick to it. And in the end, the pie grows, even though my share is shrinking, the pie grows and we get smarter as a team.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:06)
Well, I agree with it. It's akin to baseball or football. You know what I mean? You're drafting and building from the inside, you're using a firm system. You're not trying to bring in free agents. If you look at how these championship teams are made, it's all the same. So I give you a lot of credit on that. I'm going to go to the active investing and being an activist. And you're a value investor, obviously. So how was your active investing different from other hedge fund activists?

Jeffrey Ubben: (08:40)
In Fidelity, you would be frustrated with a company's management. You would say, "What if you sold this business and focused on your core business? What if you focused on return on capital versus pure growth?" Whatever the situation was they would say, "If you don't like what we're doing, you can sell the stock." I mean, I was told that to my face often enough. So we put Act in the name, Anthony, in 2000, and that was really not a thing, it's harder to remember because we've come so far. But the idea of an owner in the boardroom that understands how the shareholder thinks has a sense of urgency.

Jeffrey Ubben: (09:19)
And like I said, I'm paid to know this company. I mean, nobody else in the room really is paid to do their own work on the company and whose board they serve. So I bring new information to the room, all of which seemed to me to be a perfect way to make idiosyncratic return. You become your own catalyst, and it was pretty rich in 2000, there was still a lot of... The management primacy era of governance was ending and there was a lot of mismanagement as a result. So 2000, 2010 was very fun.

Jeffrey Ubben: (10:00)
We always focused on putting a principal on the board. We didn't outsource our board work and we really always have had a long-term time horizon, a three to five-year time horizon. I thought there was going to be more of that, more practitioners like us. And it turns out the hedge fund activists really shortened up the time horizon. They really shoot for one year quick wins in my opinion. And that's where the industry has gone too much. One of the reasons I left the industry, I left the neighborhood so to speak, and I started Inclusive.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:36)
2013, ValueAct takes a 1% stake, $2 billion, 1% stake in Microsoft. You turn that position into a board seat and you help to put the company back on a sustainable growth pattern. And you and I are old enough to remember Microsoft in the '90s, its initial public offering. It was a roaring stock that sort of flat-lined for a period of time, you saw something there. Now that stock is once again in the pantheon of a tech hall of fame. Tell us about that position. Tell us about your activism there and tell us where things are in Microsoft today.

Jeffrey Ubben: (11:19)
I mean, it was a culinary event for activist investing. We actually, to a certain extent, all we really did is rally the shareholders who were ridiculously frustrated with the flat line. And we made sure the directors picked up the phone when about 25% of the shareholders, maybe it was 10 different shareholders called them. I mean, there was this disconnect between what the directors thought they could do since there was a dominating founder in the boardroom and it was a kind of a traumatizing experience for them. And they felt, I think, without any power. And the shareholders were kind of walled off, not really knowing what they could do about this. And once you create this conversation and the shareholder finds their voice, it got really easy. I mean, once the directors knew what how frustrated the shareholders were, and they could essentially act on behalf of the shareholders, they did. So it was nothing more than that.

Jeffrey Ubben: (12:29)
Now, their company was run by a monopolist of sorts. And so he was not customer-friendly, it's like the first ESG I've ever seen. The CEO is customer-unfriendly, employee-unfriendly and planet-unfriendly. And with the flip of a switch, Sachi came in and he put customer first, employee first. And of course with his Net Zero program, put the planet right up there as well. And now with the flip of the switch, the company has prospered.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:06)
I know you can't talk about future positions, and I don't want you to talk about where the puck is going for ValueAct as much as I want you to talk about the components or the DNA of what you're looking for in a future sizable stake like the one you made in Microsoft. So what are the components that you think about?

Jeffrey Ubben: (13:30)
I mean, it went from financial engineering in the early to mid-2000s, because balance sheets were lazy, costs tracks were lazy, you hadn't consolidated industries as much. So I'm your classic profit maximizer during those years, and with a longer term focus, but that was the opportunity. By 2013, 2014, that stuff was less easy, hedge funds were all activists in their own right and people were self-actuating company or self-actuating on the cost structure and their balance sheet and interest rates were low. And so they made sure that they got debt on the balance sheet. The next, I would call, the next phase of my time at ValueAct 2013 to '17, we started to transition to business model change which is a little harder.

Jeffrey Ubben: (14:29)
Adobe was one where we really advocated for a move from a license upgrade business to a subscription business. And it was hard for them because it was going to hurt the earnings for two or three years, but it's a better business in terms of the way customers are onboarded and you can put it in the cloud and you can watch how they use the product. And you can grow your audience because it's $30 a month instead of 3000 for a license. And that's a kind of a different... In Microsoft was that too, we basically had to unhook the productivity suite from the Windows operating system, because operating systems over time will be free instead of keeping them attached. So you were taking down Excel and Outlook as you stuck to the Windows model. And that's really fun because you're changing industries and that's to a certain extent what we're doing at Inclusive Capital. We're trying to be leaders in industry change around business models.

John Darsie: (15:35)
So Jeff, jumping in, in 2017, you were at ValueAct for 17 years as a sole portfolio manager and walking the walk that you talked about in terms of company culture, you decided to turn the flagship fund over to your handpicked successor. You started the spring fund, which is now part of Inclusive Capital, which is your new firm. What prompted you to make that change and to form Inclusive Capital?

Jeffrey Ubben: (16:02)
To reverse the harm I had done as a profit maximizer? I didn't like the neighborhood that I was in. I think we did it differently. Our time horizon is three to five years. We get paid on three to five-year performance, not one-year performance, but the ability to get the long-term back for companies was really concerning for me. And the more I studied these new constraints, natural and social capital, we have a planet that's pushing back. We have no water in California, so how are we going to grow tomatoes? For instance. We have no middle class in our country, so how are we going to get fair wage jobs back? So for me, this idea of environmental and social investing, which is less share repurchase and more long-term investments to make your company sustainable and earn a premium, was the new value lever. I mean, that's the way I saw it. That's the way I do see it.

John Darsie: (17:13)
And so, we've had other impact investors on this show and at our conferences and for them, obviously the social and environmental component is very important, but a lot of them also make the distinction that investing with these factors in mind actually is going to help drive returns into the future. Could you tell us how thinking about the environment, thinking about societal impact, you think that, if you do think, this will help drive returns in the future.

Jeffrey Ubben: (17:39)
I mean, when you think about, Anthony will get this, when you think about value investing, whether it's with a shareholder activist hat or environmental social activists hat, the stock price is the catalyst. When the stock price is low, it's creates the pressure for change. It also creates the risk reward as a new investor in the company. I guess over the last three years, the higher the stock price, the higher it goes. So value investing has been more difficult, but generally speaking, since I have all my own money in the fund, I prefer to buy stocks that are lowly priced rather than high price. And so during the shareholder activists run, the financial metric is typically like the metric that people are watching to cause a low stock price. The mergers are half their industry competitors, they have a portfolio of it, doesn't make sense, whatever it may be, and you break it up or you steep the company sole or you fix the margin.

Jeffrey Ubben: (18:49)
In this new world where we have these new constraints, you're starting to see externalities separate apart from financial metrics, impact stock prices. When you look at Big Oil for instance, in 2019, their returns were pretty darn good. These were not bad years, but the stocks were already hitting 30-year lows. So you can see that the license to operate was starting to impact the stock price. And to me, that's the new lever, because if I can go in there and change their capital allocation process and use what I think will be probably pretty stable hydrocarbon cash flows for a number of years, just because of the demand supply situation we have today, where you're in disinvestment mode in an age of austerity, so to speak. There is a big opportunity to make a stock price it's had an all time low with a probably predictable cash flow over the next 10 or 15 years, a very different company. That's an easy credit return I want to go and get.

Jeffrey Ubben: (19:52)
At very high levels, I think the carbon is a liability today, but the carbon creates an opportunity, I think, to turn it into an asset, if you're a carbon emitting to reduce or avoid it. And because there's a price signal for carbon, I think there's a whole new investment opportunity for these mature businesses. And that's a whole different way of thinking about it. The ESG world screens carbon out. And I go find carbon because I think I can find a new investment opportunity around reducing it since carbon is going to get an explicit price over the next five or 10 years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:32)
Makes sense. Jeff, what are your most exciting investment themes right now? What do you think of market indices and their current levels?

Jeffrey Ubben: (20:46)
I mean, you have 3 million indices in 40,000 stocks, you have 60,000 ESG ETFs and 40,000 stocks. So you've grown passive, as you said to open this largely, and those that have big investments in ESG ETF. So even the S&P 500 got the honor of owning Tesla for 6% of their portfolio at a $650 billion market value. That's a lot of risk, man. So there's tremendous risk being taken with very little acknowledgement of it and the ESG passive flows are creating ESG darlings that are fraught with risk, but I don't mind it because if NextEra trades at 35 times earnings and I'm on the board of AES and we traded 12 times earnings, we look like them, we're a power producer and we own some utilities.

Jeffrey Ubben: (21:53)
When I'd like to make AES look like NextEra, I got 20 PE points to go grab and get it off the screen and into portfolios that are getting funds flow. So it is a disorienting time. I see my value guys retiring, just like they did in 2000. We saw a number of retirements in 2000, Julian Robertson and others who said, "I don't get it." And so you've got that same thing going on now. And that's typically a good sign for some sort of inflection.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:31)
I remember when Julian gave up the goose, you may not remember this, maybe you do. He was short USAir and it was coming up at his face and he says, "Okay, I'm done with this." And he bought all that great land in New Zealand. And then of course after he left, USAir crashed, it was sort of ominous that he had gotten the things right from a fundamental basis, but sometimes the markets go awry. Both you and your father had been very involved donors. You don't simply write checks, but you're actually active in these not-for-profit organizations. Was he an influence on you in that regard?

Jeffrey Ubben: (23:14)
You can't take it with you. And he put himself on a glide path to zero, I mean-

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:23)
By the way, I need to interrupt Jeff, because my kids keep telling me that I can take it with me because they don't want me to spend it, okay? Just so you know, okay? There's a lot of influence from these millennials. They put a lot of pressure on us, old men, but go ahead.

Jeffrey Ubben: (23:36)
Yeah. Maybe we screw that up if we [inaudible 00:23:40]. We should get it out of that state. But when I started getting a paycheck from Fidelity, he requires me to get 10% of my money away. And that's hard to do when you're just making your way, get into your first paycheck. And you're with, you have young kids with your wife making your way, but you do that. I remember he's like, "Where are you going to give it this year?" And I was like, "I'm going to give it to PBS, because the kids are watching Sesame Street." And he was like, "What? You better do some work on where you're going to have impact on certain non-profits and allocate your time as well as your money." So that stays with me.

Jeffrey Ubben: (24:29)
We have a foundation attached to Inclusive Capital and we're trying to try to marry philanthropy markets and policy because there's these things that fall through the cracks, and education, affordable housing. And so, to attach it to my business rather than it be the sideshow is also a new thing for me. For whatever reason, people invest aggressively and do harm without paying attention to what they own. And then they try to fix the harm they did with their donations, and it's a net zero sort of outcome. So everybody should think about what they own and are they investing in so that their donations don't offset their investment problems.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:20)
Well said.

John Darsie: (25:21)
Jeff, I want to jump back in here. Because I know you've been innovating, not just around investment strategy, but also around fund structure. Could you tell us how you're innovating around fund structure with Inclusive?

Jeffrey Ubben: (25:34)
We did go to three to five year lockups and three to five year payouts at ValueAct, so we don't get paid until the end of five years. Your money compounds, compounds, compounds, and at the mark to market at five years, we move the promote, if there is a profit from the LP to the GP, that I thought that was a good innovation because it aligns our LPs interests with our time horizon. The innovation at Inclusive is that we have this flex capital. So one of the problems with hedge funds is you sell Microsoft at a $4 billion profit, and then how do you recreate a $4 billion idea?

Jeffrey Ubben: (26:18)
So either return the capital and never get it back it seems, or you sit on cash and you get paid a management fee for that. So we designed this flex capital, it sits on the side and we can draw it and then we can return it. It's committed, but there's no fees on that piece of the... And it's half the asset base that we're trying to raise for the new firm. So it just seems much more... It's like private equity, but we're being on public companies and we don't want to carry all this cash, we don't want to charge for it. But we don't want to... The co-invest model is not interesting to me because you pass the hat and investors say yes or no. And they hired me for a reason. They liked my ideas. So I should be able to just drop when I want it, rather than ask them if I can use it. So that's the innovation, if that makes sense.

John Darsie: (27:13)
All right. It makes a lot of sense. I want to dive back into the question about investment themes. So I'm going to editorialize a little bit here. I think there's different types of ESG. There's the type of ESG that's going through the motions ESG, and there's the type of ESG that's really driving a lot of change. And I know you're focused on the latter as opposed to the optics around it. I don't think that you need the money. You really want to drive social change and environmental change here. So what are the themes that you think right now, are most exciting in terms of both their return profile and in terms of their potential societal and environmental benefit? And how are you deploying capital into those types of names?

Jeffrey Ubben: (27:56)
It turns out the valid value is kind of a moving thing. In the early 2000s, there was a lot of value in software because we came off this bubble, tech bubble and maybe people had bought all the software licenses they needed for a period of time. My first new investment was Gardner Group post the crash, and Gardner was selling kind of vendor ratings to companies that was like six bucks a share down from 40. So tech and software and free cashflow asset-light businesses were quite available and interesting, but now we are 20 years later and that whole asset-light world, that digital economy, especially with COVID and work from home, and low interest rates has revalued to, and it's very crowded to the 50 multiples and where we see the value is in the real economy. The people that are growing the food, people that are actually producing the energy that moves cars and trucks and heats homes.

Jeffrey Ubben: (29:09)
The materials that are required to get product to market, you can do your Jordache or a quarter, and Jordache can be valued at $60 billion, but somehow has got to get to you. And for whatever reason, asset-intensive, capital-intensive companies that are doing the real stuff are for sale. So the value and the value investor in me is looking at capital-intensive businesses, which I haven't really done that much of until recently. The cool thing is that those companies that need to attract capital are starting to do so. I mean, the stock PIPE world really is moving capital into balance sheet oriented businesses to address some of these big problems. Like, can we grow our food locally? We have a controlled environment agriculture company which just went public this week called AppHarvest.

Jeffrey Ubben: (30:13)
The hydrogen economy is being launched. The EV economy is being launched by [Spark Pipes 00:30:19]. So there's a lot of speculation, but these are largely companies that would not be otherwise venture capital funded. And that now we're accessing long-term money like Fidelity and Norges Bank to execute on this stuff. So the legacy companies that have the car parks, that have the workforce, they have the global footprint, they do project management well, and then these newer companies that are running to the goal as pure place, that's how we're building our portfolio to manage the risk. We're finding founders that need big balance sheets. We're getting the money and we're working with the big companies to access their capital to do some of the same stuff.

John Darsie: (31:06)
That's great. I want to elaborate on your carbon theme that you talked about, which I think is super interesting. So we did our most recent SALT conference in Abu Dhabi. We spend a lot of time in the region, in Saudi, in Kuwait, in the UAE. And I find it fascinating how aggressively those countries are investing in technologies that are disrupting their own sources of revenue. So in the UAE, for example, they're investing heavily in sustainable energy and they're trying to innovate around carbon in addition to diversifying their economies. I know that you travel around the world and talk to all types of investors, including investors in the Middle East. What's your experience in talking to them about how they're thinking about sustainability and innovating around their carbon-based businesses?

Jeffrey Ubben: (31:52)
I mean, I'm on the AES board and we have a big business in Chile, and we have a ton of free energy in the middle of the day in Chile, because there's been a bunch of solar energy build out. And what can you do with that? Green ammonia is a fascinating idea. If you take the traditional fertilizer company, like CF Industries in North America, it trades at eight times [inaudible 00:32:24] because they're making carbon heavy fertilizer and they don't have a growth opportunity because you don't want to do a greenfield and fertilizer grows slowly and you'll upset your local market. So what do you do? You buy shares back. So you're buying shares back in a no-growth business. It's always going to trade at eight times because you're not really creating value if you're buying shares back in a no-growth business. So what do you do?

Jeffrey Ubben: (32:50)
Well, it turns out that they admit 18 million tons of carbon. They sit in Louisiana with their biggest plant, which sits on aquifers that could be filled up with carbon. So to move a bunch of capital into carbon capture and watch carbon prices go to 40, 50, 60, $70, they could generate a billion dollars, that's $50 times 18. They could generate a billion dollars with new investment, which wasn't even available to them until carbon... So green ammonia trades at $700 a ton, gray ammonia, which is sourced from gas trades at $300 a ton. So there is a price signal. It's a very small market, but farmers are asking for carbon-free fertilizer, increasingly you can do something with maritime shipping which is what I think they're looking at in Chile to change geopolitics away from Singapore. Los Angeles and Rotterdam, it have new ports that can fill up boats with green ammonia as a transport fuel. I mean that, this is a whole new way of thinking about a fertilizer company.

John Darsie: (34:05)
All right. I don't know, Elon Musk, I don't know if you've studied this. It sounds like you have, because you're so involved around carbon, but he announced a prize for somebody who comes up with a new novel innovative carbon capture solution. Are there any emerging technologies in that space that you think could be really exciting?

Jeffrey Ubben: (34:24)
I mean, carbon is such a small part of the atmosphere. Direct air capture is... I'm rooting for him, believe me, I'm rooting for him, that changes everything. But if you think about the way everything's interconnected, I mean, to use forestry to capture carbon to put it in the ground, obviously within these aquifers that have been emptied out, that's a business. I think there's going to be a tremendous amount of innovation around carbon capture. We're involved in a biomass company that grows, that takes tree wastes in Southeastern United States and makes a wood pallet out of it and shifts it to coal plants all over the world to decarbonize coal.

Jeffrey Ubben: (35:15)
And to me, that looks like a kind of a transition business until we get hydrogen up and running to move renewables to longer ration storage, which is probably 2040, 2035. But what if we can put like [inaudible 00:35:32] our customer in the UK is putting the carbon from the plant that burn wood pallets into the ground. And all of a sudden we have a forest that's growing and it's capturing more carbon. And the carbon that we're burning when we make the energy goes into the ground work, we got a net sink business. That's a really cool idea. So there's a carbon pricing, explicit or implicit, voluntary or involuntary, is what we need to give us that signal to spend the money and that's happening.

John Darsie: (36:08)
So my last question is, from a public policy perspective, we have smart people in the private sector like yourself, who are driving capital and driving change in these areas that we desperately need it. From a public policy perspective, what can we do to incentivize investment in these areas and to drive change and accelerate change?

Jeffrey Ubben: (36:27)
You need to get these companies to put the money behind it. And Big Oil, for instance, they'd been obfuscating or fighting all of this stuff around carbon pricing because they thought it was an extra cost, but if they start to think the way I'm thinking, and they started to advocate for this stuff, then all of a sudden the fight turns into a back scratch because it generates returns. It becomes a competitive advantage if you're putting money behind these new solutions that are getting rewarded with subsidies, or in fact, they're going to be a penalty if you don't address and reduce. So the policy has been slow, but the companies have been fighting it. If we get the companies that put the money behind it, then policy will become easy which is where we started-

John Darsie: (37:23)
All right. So we're going to subdue the companies and really force their hand in terms of investing in these areas?

Jeffrey Ubben: (37:28)
Yeah. Which is exactly where we started, which is, if I can get companies to invest more not less, a normal company should never do a shared purchase from you. And they need to reallocate the hydrocarbons to these other capital-intensive carbon avoiding technologies, because there's a return attached to it. Then policy will just fall right into place. You can't... This idea that everybody should own an ED by 2035 in California, it makes Gavin Newsom look great, but the economics aren't there. So you got to give me some economics, you got to give the utility the ability to invest in a ED infrastructure, so I don't have range anxiety, or you got to get... You got to do something with... The vehicle is way too expensive for middle America. So Gavin is going to be long gone, just like a CEO is going to be long gone. If they're throwing out these fancy targets in 2035, we need economics to fall in place to create the incentives for it to happen. We can't just do it by EDA.

John Darsie: (38:33)
Yeah. That's something that we believe in very heavily, is trying to create incentives that drive capital and areas and not try to dictate outcomes from a top-down level. It's much more effective, but Jeff, thanks so much for joining us. Anthony, you have a final word for Jeff before we let him go? This has been a fascinating conversation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:49)
I just want to congratulate you on your career. And I'm looking forward to your exemplary investment results ahead. And John and I are very jealous of your sun tan. I just had to get that in there before-

Jeffrey Ubben: (39:03)
That's the sun, the sun rises in the East [inaudible 00:39:06].

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:06)
No, no, no. You're looking fit and tan, and I'm sitting here in 24 inches of melting snow. So I just have to let I'm a little bummed out about that.

Jeffrey Ubben: (39:15)
It is 62, you're right. You're right.

John Darsie: (39:18)
Jeff, he's jealous, because of COVID, he hasn't been able to get his normal spray tan. So he's feeling very-

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:25)
Well, it's not only that. I have like copper wire growing out of my ears now because I've been living in my basement. But other than that, I'm doing fine, Jeff. You continue to enjoy that California sunshine.

Jeffrey Ubben: (39:37)
All right, man. Nice to see you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:38)
And congratulations on everything.

Jeffrey Ubben: (39:40)
Thanks, Anthony. Thanks for having me.

John Darsie: (39:43)
Thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Jeff Ubben, formerly of ValueAct where he made his name as well as at Fidelity, and now at Inclusive Capital or In-Cap. It's great to see talented investors like Jeff, turning their attention almost exclusively to social environmental impacts and how you can drive capital to create better outcomes for our society and for our planet. And just to remind you, if you missed any of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access our entire archive as well as sign up for any future SALT Talks at salt.org\talks.

John Darsie: (40:16)
Please spread the word about these talks, especially ones like this. We love them. People spread the word about our environmental and social impact SALT Talks, because we think it's important to educate people and continue to drive capital into those types of solutions. So please spread the word, we're on social media, please follow us there and retweet us and share all of our material. Now we're on YouTube, our channel posts all these episodes. We're up to, I think more than 12,000 subscribers today. So it's been gratifying to see that growth as we pivoted to a digital model during the pandemic. We're also on Facebook. We're on Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn. And on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie, signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Angela Matheny: Diverse Asset Managers Initiative | SALT Talks #91

“Many black and brown asset managers, even women, have not been hiding…. you simply need to fish in a different pond.”

Angela Matheny joined Crewcial Partners in July 2016. She is the firm’s CIO and co-manages the investment. Angela also continues to drive the firm’s manager diversity initiative to attract and source diverse asset managers while monitoring protocol and the internal vetting process of women and diverse asset managers.

The private equity and venture capital space continues to see a dearth of black and brown asset managers. For too long, companies and its leaders operate within their existing networks, leading to less exposure of diverse candidates. Beyond the social good, diverse teams offer real financial benefits by bringing in different perspectives that ultimately lead to stronger investment portfolios. “One of the ways that we like to think that you can incorporate that downside protection is actually implementing diversity, which leads to diversity of thought, which then leads to diverse outcomes.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Angela Matheny.jpeg

Angela Matheny

Director, Investment Staff & Head, Diverse Manager Equity

Crewcial Partners

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. This is John Darsie here, the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. And it's great today to be back in SALT HQ. Got the great branding over my shoulder. It's my Wednesday pilgrimage into Manhattan. And it's good to at least start to get back to a little bit of normal. But we're excited to continue our SALT Talk series. What SALT Talks is, is a digital interview series that we launched during this work from home period with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And what we're trying to do during SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provide at our global conferences, the SALT Conference. And that's really to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as to provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:58)
And we're very excited today to welcome Angela Matheny to SALT Talks. Angela joined Crewcial partners in July 2016. She and the firm CIO co-manage the investment team, to ensure internal processes are efficient, while managing the firm's manager selection process and the systematic process that helps best ideas that are constructed into portfolios. Angela also continues to drive the firm's manager diversity initiative, to attract and source diverse asset managers, while monitoring protocol and internal vetting processes of women and diverse asset managers. Angela facilitates the constant communication between crucial partners and fund managers, as the firm continues to build a robust pipeline of what it believes are truly the most largely under followed segments of the asset manager community marketplace.

John Darsie: (01:50)
Angela also acts as a conduit in sourcing diverse managers, when recommendations and introductions are made by clients and/board members. She frequently attends emerging manager and diverse manager conferences, returning with best practices while networking and learning about industry wide issues and the inclusive approach many institutions may take to include more diverse managers in their search processes. Angela received a master's in Public Administration at the Metropolitan College of New York. She also earned a certificate in Human Resources Management from Villanova University, which included studies in diversity and inclusion. She received her Bachelor's Degree in Psychology from Bernard Baruch College in New York, and she also serves on York College's Foundation Board. A reminder if you have any questions for Angela during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom.

John Darsie: (02:44)
And we're very excited to welcome back Sarah Kunst as the moderator on today's SALT Talk. Sarah is a managing director of Cleo Capital, which is a venture capital firm that she founded. And with that, I'll turn it over to-

Sarah Kunst: (02:55)
No, no. Don't you think you should be wearing... I mean, look at you guys. Don't you think you should be wearing a suit and tie? What's wrong with you [inaudible 00:03:01]?

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:01)
[crosstalk 00:03:01].

John Darsie: (03:01)
Come on, it's millennial.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:02)
Jesus Christ I mean-

John Darsie: (03:02)
We like to be a little more comfortable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:02)
Enough with the millennial fashion. Enough with the millennial fashion.

Sarah Kunst: (03:09)
Anthony you look great.

John Darsie: (03:11)
Anthony got cargo shorts on underneath that suit. So let him not fool anybody.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:13)
That's not true, Sarah. Okay. This is 100% Briony. Don't be listening to that.

Sarah Kunst: (03:18)
I believe you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:20)
And with that... Sorry Sarah, for that rude interruption from our typical host, Anthony. But we'll turn it over you for the interview, and we're looking forward to hearing more from Angela.

Sarah Kunst: (03:30)
Awesome. Thank you. And thank you guys for joining us, and especially Angela. I am thrilled and excited to have you here today. So we can talk about all the things we always talk about around diversity and investing. And what in the world is going on in the world of those things right now. But before we do that, give us sort of what you do and how you got here. Because I have talked to a lot of funds and allocators in my time, and you have one of the most, I think unique roles in the industry.

Angela Matheny: (04:02)
Thank you, Sara. So good to finally be at the SALT conference. And I'm actually very excited that you guys have a focus on diversity and inclusion as it relates to a lot of emerging managers that I see. And so I've been wanting to attend SALT for many years. And I just told one of the representatives at SALT, John, that I just need a reason to come to Las Vegas and many of the other places that you guys hold conferences, at internationally or nationally. And this is a really, really good reason. I'm always excited to talk about diversity and our focus at Crewcial Partners. So first and foremost, the big elephant in the room is that we have rebranded. We are formerly known as the firm called Colonial Consulting. Colonial Consulting was a name that we inherited from the owner, the first owner of the firm. He retired. Four owners currently bought him out. And we probably should have changed our name then but really what the name meant was that the owner had a love for sailing and boats.

Angela Matheny: (05:13)
But Crewcial Partners really reflects who we are today as a crew, as everything we do is a team effort. All of our colleagues in different departments are deeply embedded in the success of the firm. And so we've gone from maybe this concept of a sailing boat to a rowboat where we are all rowing together. And you can see the diversity reflected across the firm. And many people didn't know that we were so diverse internally. But I'm excited to direct people to our new website so you can see exactly what our focus is and how many of our colleagues are engaging. And really, you can see the reflection of diversity across our firm, as it relates to what we want to see more in America. So I was brought on board about four years ago to source diverse asset managers across five asset classes. We are a traditional investment advisory firm. And we work primarily with endowments and foundations.

Angela Matheny: (06:17)
And it looks a bunch of community foundation's that engage in grant making. And what's nice about our capital is that we are focused, and that we tend to have a very, very focused group in the sense that we work with clients who have a long term focus, long term goals in terms of growing their portfolios. And we're all trying to really earn seven plus inflation for our clients. And it's nice to have a well oriented goal to weather crisis such as the one that we're currently in. But our primary goal entails preserving our clients purchasing power, is what our CIO was always trying to do and most of the team each day. So after grants and spending and inflation, the question is, can you really earn a return that exceeds that? Now, as it relates to our focus on diverse managers, it's deeply embedded in our investment philosophy.

Angela Matheny: (07:13)
And so again, four years ago, I hit the pavement nationally. Going to many, many cities, looking for diverse asset managers, partnering with trade organizations, exercising the many resources that they have. The educational component of many of these conferences such as NAIC, NASP, TOWEGO, SEO. There's so many of them now and so many new ones focusing on venture capital. I found that there is a talented group of individuals that include women and people of color across asset classes. I'm happy to engage with them, happy to bring back so many inquiries. And then we just drill down, take meetings, conduct overviews. I do what I call triage, to see what exactly a manager is building and to see basically if they're ready for a client's capital. Now, I don't make that decision alone. So I often bring many of my colleagues into meetings. I seem to have a lot of first time meetings myself, and then just running up the flagpole see if there's any particular interest, particularly when a strategy comes across as something maybe convoluted, structured products and hedge funds.

Angela Matheny: (08:31)
A lot of things that are complex that I haven't seen, we tend to not overall invest in... We don't invest in things that we don't understand. And so the team is very engaged, they're now sourcing their own diverse managers, although I was initially focused on this effort 100% of the time. I'm glad to see that everybody is building this pipeline of robust managers that are underserved and under source.

Sarah Kunst: (08:59)
I love it. I wish that every big allocator took a page from your book, because I think that it's obvious that they brought you on, and it was super helpful to help kind of grow what they want to do. And so that's great. So tell me-

John Darsie: (09:14)
And we look forward to collaborating on the SkyBridge side, with your pipeline of diverse managers, It's something that we've started to focus on in recent years. After this talk, we're looking forward to putting our heads together on that as well, Angela.

Angela Matheny: (09:27)
Perfect. That would be great. It's an ecosystem. So I love that you said that.

Sarah Kunst: (09:31)
Yes, yes. It takes all kinds and we are very excited to see people like SALT and SkyBridge lean in on that. That's literally how I met SALT. I cold emailed them and said, "Hey, can I come to your conference in Abu Dhabi? I want to speak. And they're like, "Okay." And then now we're here. So I love that spirit of collaboration. So tell us a little bit about, we know it's bad but it never hurts to hear specifically how bad it is. What is the landscape look for Black and Hispanic fund managers across kind of all the asset classes that you cover?

Angela Matheny: (10:04)
Well, I'm still having a challenge finding Black and Hispanic hedge fund managers. I can count on one hand how many there are in the US. There's a bit more in the UK. But it points to opportunity or lack of opportunity, on a corporate level to even have the opportunity to get hired by top tier firm or any firm. It doesn't even have to be top tier, but really, really good investors, where black and brown managers across various asset classes can cut their teeth and sort of learn the blueprint of the firm is what I always like to say. But that training and mentorship is huge. And if HR doesn't have the backbone to create a strategy to allow leadership to lean in, and listen to what they have to say, in terms of building a diverse workforce, that's where we see the dearth of talent across asset classes. So a challenge in the hedge fund area, a challenge maybe even in US equities, we are seeing a handful of white women and Asian asset managers.

Angela Matheny: (11:06)
And so turning to the black and brown community, there are huge opportunities currently, particularly in private equity and venture capital. Because everybody's paying attention to what I call the ratio pandemic. And particularly what our clients being nonprofit organization, you would think that they're well aligned in terms of their missions, their values, and who they serve in their community, but they have woefully and inadequately allocated to diverse managers traditionally, and to me that may point to the fact that maybe boards or committees are homogenous groups, and so they're just doing more of the same, trucking in the same network. It also points to what I hear a lot that consultants are the gatekeepers. So are they making the recommendations? But even going a step back, are they even building a pipeline of managers that look different from the managers that are typically on the roster?

Angela Matheny: (12:07)
And so the importance of me being appendage, initially an appendage to the team, and sourcing women and diverse asset managers has been a huge focus as you know Sarah, but it's really important in terms of portfolio diversification, because for us we feel it's sort of a downside protection kind of thing in order to build a diversified portfolio across age, gender, ethnicity, even geography. So there's many ways you can do portfolio construction. And one of the ways that we like to think that you can incorporate that downside protection is actually implementing diversity, which leads to diversity of thought, which then leads to diverse outcomes.

Sarah Kunst: (12:48)
And as we know, diverse teams tend to drive better results. Yes, I love that. So to what can allocators and investors do? You mentioned this, if it's a consultant or wherever these roadblocks are. What can allocators and investors do to be better at sort of attracting and funding diverse talent? Because we're out here I exist, but how do more people I guess, on that side get in front of me, just as I'm trying to get in front of more people?

Angela Matheny: (13:13)
I love how you said you're out there and you exist. And that's the thing, you haven't been hiding. Many black and brown asset managers, even women have not been hiding. And so you simply need to fish in a different pond, whether you want to initially hire someone to tap into those networks. I think that initially, maybe some people don't feel comfortable answering certain rooms. I remember a CIO told me years ago of a story of him actually being the minority in a room, when he attended consortium's conference led by the great Renae Griffin, who's now at Grosvenor. And he talked about that experience, and he didn't say that he was uncomfortable in any way. What he said was that it was different but he saw for himself firsthand, this diverse room, this great... he had a sense that they were a talented investors. Were they the right type of investors for us in terms of aligning with our investment philosophy, and a lot of the other things that we look for in our diligence process? Well, that remains to be seen.

Angela Matheny: (14:16)
But one of the jobs that he charged me with was just go out. And he didn't tell me how to do anything that was so fascinating about my role. The huge sense of autonomy, how I just went out and I checked in different places across the nation and I brought back all these inquiries. And we found that the talent was out there, I had no problem engaging with any group. And so now we're about four billion, north of four billion allocated to diverse asset managers of the... I want to say 35 billion plus assets that we manage for our community foundation, that number probably went up because we just got a couple of new clients on board. But it's approximately 35 billion. And there's no finish line to this effort, we're going to keep going until all of our clients portfolios reflect the diversity that we need to see. Again, not having to do anything with really ethnicity, race, or whatever you want to call it. But diversity of thought.

Sarah Kunst: (15:18)
Yeah, yeah. So for every allocator who's like, "We just can't find them. You have some four billion worth add." There you go. There's the proof. Anybody who can't find them needs to come talk to Angela. That's awesome. And then also everybody, feel free to drop questions in the Q&A. Angela is a wealth of knowledge, and one of my absolute favorite people to talk to about these topics. I'm a VC, so I to talk to her about venture capital, but she spends a lot of time looking at other strategies, including hedge funds which I know a lot of you are big fans of. So definitely drop questions, and we will go through them as they come in. So, Angela tell me, what does it look like? And you and I talked about this a lot. Because I have my first fund and getting started on my second. What does it look to be fundable by a large allocator? Right?

Sarah Kunst: (16:10)
It's not just going to your buddies and saying, "Hey, I'm smart. Give me some money." What does it look like? What are the things where you see people and you're just like, "No, you're messing it up. This is what you're supposed to do." What are the common mistakes? And what are the things where you're like, "Yes, this is what you need to do. Go do more of it."

Angela Matheny: (16:27)
Well, first of all, I don't want to take total credit for the four billion that we have allocated across all those asset classes, because I have a really, really great group of colleagues behind me, although we did focus on me doing 100% of the sourcing initially. But to answer your question. Oh, my God, I just drew a blank about your question.

Sarah Kunst: (16:50)
So my question was-

Angela Matheny: (16:52)
[crosstalk 00:16:52] about my team.

Sarah Kunst: (16:54)
... How do you be investible right by large allocators?

Angela Matheny: (16:57)
Oh yeah.

Sarah Kunst: (16:57)
Because a lot of people get started, you're raising money from friends or angels. And then leveling up and you and I have had this conversation, to get the money from the large allocators is a whole different ballgame. What should they do? What should people not do? What are common mistakes you see? Give us a playbook.

Angela Matheny: (17:13)
Okay. So I have some pet peeves, I'll get to that in a second. But the answer is kind of fluid because it depends on what allocator you're approaching. You really have to do your homework. So I've attended all sorts of conferences. I've attended emerging manager conferences, which is largely hosted by a lot of pension plans, defined pension plans. They usually have a lot of large mandates. And so they want you to manage large amounts of capital, and your strategy may not lean to that. I just started seeing before we all started working from home, more venture capitalist at the conferences that I attend. The really large ones with, again, a lot of mandates. So I thought, "Wow, I'm seeing some venture capitalists at these conferences. So that means that maybe Community Foundation clients are there or smaller LPs like us who appreciate smaller funds are there, and we can eat up a $20 million fund, right?" We like $100 million fund.

Angela Matheny: (18:15)
So, we tend to say that the small funds that we see that would traditionally be too small for a lot of large allocators, they actually perfect for us because we want to grow with them. And so some of my pet peeves is with the small funds, because they're just starting out. There are some rookie mistakes. There's like, no website, no contact on the website. I can't tell you how many times I've been up two in the morning on a Friday, or maybe on a Saturday, just bored not doing anything, or believing that this is a mission and it's something that keeps me awake at night. I comb website. And sometimes I'll look at someone's strategy and I'll think, "Wow, that looks kind of perfect for us. It was really interesting. I would like to reach out to this individual," and there's no contact information. Somebody will probably email me from their Gmail account and say that they're fundraising. "Well, why don't you have a website and a real email address that connects with your funding."

Angela Matheny: (19:11)
And then people are fundraising and they don't have all of their fund documents. So that means that on many levels, maybe you're not ready to go to market, you don't have a data room. You don't have something as simple as a DDQ, which you can download if you just Google it. There's so many rookie mistakes. But one of the largest things I want to say for this audience is just try not to be all things to all people. Really tell us what's your unique edge. What's the differentiator in your strategy? What inefficiencies are you finding in the market that you're capitalizing on? And why this fund now? And why this fund size? And if you come back to market and let's say your fund size is double, we want you to walk us through what opportunities are you seeing that warrants that larger fund size? Large funds, maybe I think of it as maybe if we wanted to invest in a BlackRock, or one of the larger asset managers, we would do that if a fund is too big you sort of become the market. And we saw how that looked back in 2008.

Angela Matheny: (20:20)
And so we sort of have a niche for small managers. But I'm always open to discussion, early building of relationships, to walk people through the do's and the don'ts. I even get them ready. Meeting ready for our team. And you know you and I have done that a lot. Don't present yourself as a networker. I think we have enough networking professionals in this industry. And so what we want to see is what your value proposition if we're talking about private equity or venture capital? What level of expertise do you bring to the fund, where your founders can really leverage that expertise? It has to be something beyond you writing a check, and just walking away. Can they call you? Can you take them through the different iterations of, how they're going to scale and grow their business and then survive? And are they right for venture capital? And so we want to hear about your sourcing, what questions do you ask? What's a non starter when you find a founder? Do they have to be a revenue generator? What's precede? Define that for us because we all know that the goalpost keeps moving.

Angela Matheny: (21:30)
And so yeah, there's just so many questions. But we really, largely just want you to be you, bring your authentic self to the meeting, pitch authentically, don't worry about what we're looking for, what we're going to say. I think that even if we don't end up writing a check, you'll get a wealth of feedback. And it's probably maybe a not right now instead of a no. And we see that over and over again.

Sarah Kunst: (21:55)
Yeah, yeah. That's also helpful. We have a couple questions. So we're going to start with Lisa Hinze, who asked, "Can you speak to the demand side? What are endowments and foundations asking for with respect to diversity? What's driving them?" Are you getting calls saying, "Hey, we need to allocate to diverse managers." Or are you more having to push that?

Angela Matheny: (22:18)
So, pre pandemic, it was slow moving. We have a handful of clients that actually love to look at diverse managers, and they're trying to solve either housing crisis, they're focused on impact. And we allow them to define what is impact for them. Some clients may want to put all diverse managers women into an impact pool or bucket. So again, we don't define it for them. But when we source a manager and we diligence them, put them through our process. And finally, we're at approval, and then we're pitching to our client base, we are thinking that this is a high conviction manager, we don't want to put them in a sleeve or carve out a section for them, they should be part of the general portfolio. So having said that, a lot of our clients don't have a mandate for diversity. But if you comb a lot of these websites, particularly for nonprofits or community foundations, you will see that their mission and value is geared towards that.

Angela Matheny: (23:14)
And a lot of them probably want to invest maybe in a local manager, or they want to invest in a black or brown manager, because they want to solve this racial equity problem. But we haven't seen any hard mandates, what we have seen and helped with was getting manager diversity language into their investment policy statement. I like that idea. And we've helped with that numerous times. Because I think that that has to be sustainable as boards turnover. I can't imagine a new board member coming on the scene and saying, "Why is this language here, we should take it out." And so it held it helps to hold the committee accountable for what they should be focused on, and so that's why it's important to have it there. And so now in the current environment, yes, we're seeing so much interest in black and brown managers and women. They want to see what they're building. I get inbounds all the time about diverse managers in the venture space, because many managers are picked up by the media in various ways, and everything looks good. And everybody's excited about what someone is building.

Angela Matheny: (24:23)
Some of it is promotional. When we look under the hood, we can tell how ready they are for our clients capital. And so that's where I come, trying to really have real down to earth conversations to walk them through our process and to see whether they're ready or not, again for our clients capital.

Sarah Kunst: (24:40)
Yeah, yeah. That's super helpful. And then Mark asked, "Are the comments you made about the VCPE industry germane for minority, private equity, real estate manager too?" And then he says, "Keep up the good work." Which I agree you're doing amazing work. But yeah, I mean, does this apply to all strategies? Do you see massive differences in writ versus hedge funds versus VCPE? Or what do you think about that?

Angela Matheny: (25:07)
I'm seeing if the question relates to, where am I seeing the most diverse managers? I'm seeing the most in the private equity space, particularly venture. Again, there's still a dearth of the managers that we haven't seen traditionally. Many investors and hedge funds, global equities, even US equities. I would love to see some Hispanics that I could vet in that space. But I think that private equity and venture is probably a more, what we call I hear this word a lot, sexy asset class. And what I'm also seeing is people with very nontraditional backgrounds enter the space in many ways. So that's interesting.

Sarah Kunst: (25:53)
Yeah, that's amazing. That's awesome. And then [Kai 00:25:57] ask, he says, "GMO that the large money manager has very low equity return expectations for the next seven years." Aka the recession might finally hit that feels we've been waiting for since mid March. "Do you have return expectations for hedge fund, venture funds and private equity for the same period?" So how are you guys thinking about, if the bottom finally comes for us. If the stock market here is about what's the pandemic. Well, what does that mean?

Angela Matheny: (26:29)
We've been having a lot of conversations around this. And I think people are basically, as you alluded to, we're waiting to see if the bottom is going to fall out. We see decreased valuations, if you look at private equity, particularly venture. And we're waiting for things to shake out. But we always have high expectations about many things, but everyone's listening to what's going to happen with the election. For instance, what return expectations are we expecting? Who knows? People have this maybe macro focus. They want to time the market, I don't know. It's going to be what is going to be, and then we'll try to see what are we going to do with the cards that we've been dealt. But we always, we're not going to change our sourcing metrics. We're not going to lower the bar in any way, in terms of what we would traditionally expect. But we'll see. I think that we're all looking from a high level, don't want to lower our expectations.

Angela Matheny: (27:36)
But we'll be where we're going to be, and we'll do the best of what we can and we'll continue to source all types of managers and look to see what's out there that we can capitalize upon. We just did a revisit of our asset allocations, as it relates to how much heavily weighted are we in global equities versus US equities. And so it's just a model, whether or not we follow the new model, or we go with the model that we created in January, I think we'll see. But a lot of our clients because they're nonprofits, they're looking for liquidity for a number of reasons. We have university clients and students are not in class, and they've lost their revenue generating engines. And so, when we look at global equities or any type of equity, sometimes we try to... The consultants, I hear them say a lot, they tried to talk them down in terms of selling. But the real truth is, is that, if something has done well in equities you want to sell so you can buy something else. You want to have that purchasing power for your client.

Angela Matheny: (28:51)
And so a lot of times it makes sense. But we're trying to see what we can do. And sometimes I kind of feel as an advisor, and I don't want to speak for my firm but this is how I see things. Are we in this sort of lame duck session where we're just sitting back and seeing what's going to shake out to see how we can really best advise our clients? And how can we continue to grow their capital on a long term basis? I don't know. We'll see what happens. But we're not veering away from our investment philosophy.

Sarah Kunst: (29:22)
Yeah, yeah. I love that. And then Wang asked, "Do you work with private debt managers?" He said, he doesn't see much diversity in that space.

Angela Matheny: (29:31)
Yeah, I don't see much diversity in that space either. Actually, we just talked this week with our investment team about two private debt managers. One was, we were looking at distress, we were looking at a lot of credit. And so one of our investment directors, actually yesterday two of them talked about a housing strategy. And we want to be really, really careful. And so looking at the hood and really, really, what is that strategy mean? We looked at non performing loans, we think about what are people actually doing out there? Again, our client base is not going to agree with a lot of things that are happening. But there are opportunities that we should capitalize on. But we want to be really, really careful to make sure that we're not doing more damage than good.

Sarah Kunst: (30:20)
Yeah, yeah. And so Kai asked again, "What are your approaches to evaluating emerging and new hedge fund managers and strategies?"

Angela Matheny: (30:30)
It's the same across all five asset classes. I mean, we ask different questions, obviously of different managers. But I'll tell you one thing, low AUM is not a deal breaker for us because as I said earlier, we want to be able to grow with that manager. So we are paying attention to AUM because we want the business to be strong and viable. We've been known to be anchors as well. And while we rather not be such a large portion of your business, we will be that first check to come in, to allocate to you if we have high conviction in you, the strategy, your investment acumen, your passion for investing. There's just so many boxes to check. But really, we need to see what sort of firm do you want to build? What sort of team are you bringing in? What sort of team do you want to build? And have you all invested together before? All of these things matter. We want relationships to be tested. We don't like risk adverse investors.

Angela Matheny: (31:30)
And so if there's a lot of volatility in the strategy, we tend to get our clients comfortable with volatility, if that's something that they want to see. But it doesn't scare us. So our CIO in particular, he's a real contrarian investor. So as long as we can understand what you're doing from an underwriting standpoint, and you're very transparent with us. Everyone is trying to get comfortable. But again, just be yourself, be unique. And I think that you'll have a successful meeting.

Sarah Kunst: (32:04)
I love it. That's super helpful. And we have 10 more minutes. So I'm going to go back to asking you some of my questions but if anybody else has last minute questions. Angela is a very hard woman to get time with so this is a great time to ask her-

John Darsie: (32:17)
I've got a question, Sarah. I'm raising my hand.

Sarah Kunst: (32:19)
Yeah.

John Darsie: (32:19)
I'm raising my hand. I've got a question.

Sarah Kunst: (32:20)
[crosstalk 00:32:20]. Yeah.

John Darsie: (32:21)
What type of, for the industry, the investment management industry as a whole. What type of changes would you to see the industry make, to give greater opportunity to minority asset managers? Both women, Hispanic Americans, African Americans. I give you one example, in the NFL years ago and it's, I wouldn't say it's controversial, but it has mixed success. They instituted a rule called the Rooney Rule. Where basically anytime there was a head coach opening on an NFL franchise, you had to interview a minority candidate before you finalize the hiring of a new candidate of any race or creed. And what that did is it basically gave minority candidates experience in the interview process. And it also exposes teams to candidates they might not have interviewed, if that mandate wasn't in place. I think about that when I think about the industry about, just the lack of opportunity and credibility that are given sometimes the minority managers, just because you don't see and hear from a lot of people that look and sound like them.

John Darsie: (33:20)
But what types of things from an industry perspective, could we do better to ensure that minority candidates get the confidence and the experience needed to eventually launch their own fund, get those senior jobs at investment management firms?

Angela Matheny: (33:33)
Oh, my God. John, thank you so much for that question. First of all, the Rooney Rule. That rule is helpful to some people who want to dip their toe in the water and who believe that they can't find them. But really, I believe we can do better than that. Crewcial has certainly done better than that. To me, that's like saying, "Oh, I have this one black friend. And that's who I'm going to bring to the interview." And then that's it. I checked the box, I hire that person. But there are so many institutions that are filled with black talent, such as all of the HBCUs. And there's also hiring and sourcing from nontraditional... from Ivy League, from schools that are not Ivy League institutions. So for instance, we source a lot from city and state universities, as well as Ivy League talent because again, we want that diversity of thought, diversity of backgrounds. But what, as an ecosystem what we can do, I pointed earlier to HR and Chief, also chief diversity officers. They really, really need to speak up and work to align themselves with leadership.

Angela Matheny: (34:38)
Because sometimes, certain firms engage in nepotism or they can slip a resume in and say, "Oh, here's a friend of a friend." However that goes and that's how we see these homogenous groups in many firms. And that's how we see the wealth gap completely continuously widening. HR needs to fire their recruiter who doesn't listen to them, the same way investors are probably going to start divesting from asset managers and consultants who say... when you say you want to see a more diverse set of asset managers, that's exactly what we want to see. And it's your job to bring these candidates forward. But we have a nice, nice, really robust internship program. And one of the things that I like about Crewcial is that the entire firm is engaged in this cohort of interns that we hire each year. It's usually about 10, or 12 candidates. We want to persuade them to come into this career. Consider this career in asset management.

Angela Matheny: (35:42)
So our CIO would say we like to brainwash them to stay, but they can go anywhere they want. They can stay on the investment team, which we prefer. Or there's other opportunities in client services, and even our information technology department. But for the most part, our CIO, he has lunch with not only every single person in the firm, so you get to engage with senior leadership such as himself, myself. I take all of our interns to industry conferences with me, when they're based in New York City. All of the opportunities in New York City. Some of our industry colleagues say, "Wow, Angela, I see you have your clan with you." That's right, because they cannot be what they cannot see. And so that's so important. And so there's many recruiters, there's many diversity resources and agencies that have a wealth of talent that every single asset management firm, whether you're an allocate or an LP, you can exercise and take advantage of this talent that's out there. Like Sarah said earlier, we are not hiding. We've always been here, we want the opportunities.

Angela Matheny: (36:48)
The strange thing is, is that if you are a firm and you're not hiring diverse talent, that's why we can't see enough black hedge fund managers, enough women in hedge funds. That training and that pedigree that comes out of a lot of these shops is really, really important. Not only is it a lucrative opportunity, but if you turn the venture we're looking for that 1% GP commitment. I don't have a rich uncle that I can call up, where am I supposed to get this? How do I get in the game? You can't even compete, because you've never had those corporate opportunities. You've never had a chance to maybe get a little capital to manage a portfolio, you've never had the opportunity to engage with an executive leadership team, to get a lot of other training. So that doesn't happen. We're just not going to see enough of us in those key positions.

John Darsie: (37:43)
Thank you for that, Angela. And I'll turn the microphone back to Sarah.

Sarah Kunst: (37:46)
Awesome. Thank you. Yeah, no. All of those things I heartily cosign from what I've observed in this industry. Julia has a question. And she ask, which is kind of a funny question but it's good. And you and I've talked about this a lot, Angela. "How do you define diversity? Is it a percentage of total workforce of management? Do you guys have your own definition? Does it differ client by client? Are there any best practices in the industry or benchmarks in place for asset owners to kind of compare their diversity mandates?"

Angela Matheny: (38:19)
So two things. First of all, we define diversity Crewcial does for our clients as more than 50% equity ownership at a firm. And we prefer that equity to lie on the investment team. The founders, the co-founders. Because we believe that that is the diversity reflected in the portfolio. Those are the decision makers. And those are the outcomes that we see in a best performing portfolio. And so that more than 50% is really, really key. You can't count the black receptionist, the Hispanic person in the mail room, the people who are non investment related professionals, or even your wife who probably is not even working at the firm, or maybe a relative is working in a different capacity. It really needs to lie on the investment team.

Sarah Kunst: (39:11)
Yeah, I love that. Great. Awesome. We're almost at time, so I'm going to kind of ask you the last question here. This has been obviously the craziest year of the, I don't know, like ever. It feels like, and starting with this summer and the George Floyd protest we've seen... feels a lot of talk right? We've seen a lot of black squares. Do you feel like things are changing, right? You're the money lady. You're the one who's sitting where the actual, kind of rubber hits the road. Are things changing?

Angela Matheny: (39:44)
I hope they're changing. I hope this is not just momentum. I think that it is a very pivotal moment and I do feel as though we are turning the corner. I do feel that this is the second wave of what you might call the civil rights movement as it relates to economic opportunity. It's about time. We are here, again we haven't been hiding. And what I'm seeing is that there's a lot of client interest as it relates to diverse managers and women. And people are becoming more and more educated as to why diversity makes so much sense, and how it is our fiduciary duty as consultants to make sure we're continuously building that pipeline, across the five asset classes in which we invest on behalf of our clients. And so I think there's so many institutions focused on racial equity. Certainly nonprofit clients, it make sense for them. Students are getting involved, some are even wondering at the universities, are you investing in diverse asset managers as it relates to the investment portfolio of the university?

Angela Matheny: (40:52)
So I think young people have a huge voice. And I think that for managers with nontraditional backgrounds, particularly in venture, there's many ways to actually get into venture now. People were probably looking at traditional backgrounds, historically, you would have to go to a venture capital firm, make its partnership or have some sort of pool of capital to manage. What I love that I'm seeing, with some of the top venture firms is that they have, what do they call? They have these sources that go out. What's the terminology, Sarah? You and I always talk about this.

Sarah Kunst: (41:29)
Yes. They're scouts. I was a scout at some-

Angela Matheny: (41:29)
Scout.

Sarah Kunst: (41:29)
Yes, yes.

Angela Matheny: (41:33)
Yes. So I love that opportunity because if you have a budget to be a scout, and you can just go out and source a number of things, ideas. Things that are important to you, that you would invest with your own capital. And I've seen scouts do that, and then spin out and create their own fund, and then those top funds that gave you that budget, they can sort of cherry pick in terms of what is interesting to them. But what I love is that, they're accessing a pipeline of talent that they normally wouldn't see in their network. And so they're hiring diverse women and individuals to tap into that talent base. I think it's a start.

Sarah Kunst: (42:10)
I love it. And I agree. Well, this has been amazing. And I so appreciate, as I know everybody in this call does. You giving us your time and wisdom. And thank you so much for doing the work you're doing. And I don't care what you say, I am personally attributing every single one of those $4 billion to you. And I'm excited to see more come down the pipeline. So with that, thank you so much. I'm going to hand it back to John.

Angela Matheny: (42:36)
Thank you.

Sarah Kunst: (42:38)
Angela, thanks so much for joining us. And Sarah, thank you again for introducing us to great people. That's why we brought you on here as a moderator for SALT Talks and a member of our community. So we're very grateful for that. And again, Angela, we look forward to collaborating from a SkyBridge level, on ways that we can allocate our capital to more diverse managers because we think it can help drive improve returns. That's ultimately the goal.

Investors Talk Digital Decolonization | SALT Talks #80

“I continue to see virtually every day more evidence that we're not going to have the huge concentration of wealth and power in just 5, 10 companies that it looked two to three years ago.”

David Halpert is the founder, portfolio manager, and chief investment officer of Prince Street Capital, a specialist emerging and frontier market asset management firm based in New York and Singapore. With 30 years of experience researching and investing in the developing world, David coined the term ‘Digital Decolonization’ – a new paradigm for assessing investments in emerging and frontier markets, unveiling the concept in a 2019 white paper.

Mark Matthews is Head of Research Asia Pacific for Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., an appointment he has held since June 2011. His research coverage comprises single stock, sector and select country analysis. In addition, he is a member of the bank’s investment committee, which determines asset allocation recommendations to clients.

It seemed possible we were headed towards a world where cross-border technology companies would reign supreme across the globe, instead we’re seeing a digital decolonization. Companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon seemed positioned to capture the global market. This trend now appears undercut by the emergence of regional technology companies that have quickly risen into massive institutions worth billions. “There is a sense really all over the world, including in the United States, that cross border technology companies playing such a big role in people's lives, whether their financial lives or their social and political lives, is problematic.”

Companies like Reliance Industries in India have attracted massive investment from the largest American corporations. In Poland, an Amazon-like e-commerce company Allegro is now worth $24 billion. Expect companies like these to continue to pop up and grow quickly in the era of digital decolonization.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

David Halpert.jpeg

David Halpert

Founder, Portfolio Manager & Chief Investment Officer

Prince Street Capital

Mark Matthews.jpeg

Mark Matthews

Head of Research, Asia Pacific

Julius Baer

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:12)
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 and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we launched during this work from home period with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And what we're trying to do during the SALT Talk series is replicate the type of experience that we provide at our global conference series, the SALT conference. And that is really to provide a window into the minds of subject matter experts, as well as to provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And none of our talks fully encompass our entire mission, as well as I think our talk today will encompass that mission.

John Darsie: (00:58)
We're very excited to welcome David Halpert and Mark Matthews to SALT Talks. And the focus of today's conversation is going to be on digital decolonization, which is a term and a concept that we'll get into more depth and during the talk. But it's a fascinating term that was coined by David, who is the founder of printery Capital Management. So, David Halpert, the founder, Portfolio Manager, and Chief Investment Officer for Prince Street, which is a specialist emerging and frontier market asset management firm, based in New York and Singapore. And I believe David is coming to us today from one of his homes in Bali. So we're very excited about that. With 30 years of experience researching investing in the developing world, David coined the term that I mentioned previously digital decolonization, which is a new paradigm for assessing investments in emerging and frontier markets.

John Darsie: (01:48)
He then build the concept in 2019 in a brilliant white paper that I encourage you to go check out, and we'll talk about it more on today's talk. Prior to founding printery in 2001, David managed a long only emerging markets portfolio at Zesiger Capital Group and worked in Indonesia as an equity research analyst. Mark Matthews our other guest today, is the head of research for Asia Pacific at Julius Baer, an appointment he's had since June of 2011. His research coverage comprises single stock sector, and select country analysis. In addition, he is a member of the banks Investment Committee, which determines asset allocation recommendations to all of its clients.

John Darsie: (02:29)
Mark has held senior positions managing the research and equity sales functions at financial institutions, including ING Baring Securities, Standard & Poor's, and Merrill Lynch in Asia. A reminder if you have any questions for David or Mark 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 interview is Anthony Scaramucci, the Founder and Managing Partner of skybridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:01)
Well, John, thank you. And it's a great honor to have you both on, I don't know if you've seen any of these before. But Mark and David, we'd like to start with the non Wikipedia question. So what can we learn about you guys that we wouldn't necessarily learn from Wikipedia? We're doing a Google search, why don't we start with you, Mark. Tell us, something about yourself that got you started and why you ended up doing what you're doing for career?

Mark Matthews: (03:31)
There's no Wikipedia for me anyway. So I'll just tell you, I guess the thing that you're looking for at least what pops in my head is most people come out to Asia, I've been in Asia for 31 years, to make money. And I didn't I came out here because my father was a professor of religious studies, and he specialized in Buddhism and Hinduism. And so from a very young age, I just had Asian bug. And I still do I think it's the most interesting place in the world. And there's actually no place I'd rather be.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:10)
Before I go to David, tell us why. Tell us for people that... I agree with you actually, I love coming to Asia, I love being a part of that culture. But for Americans that have not had that experience, Tell us why you feel that way.

Mark Matthews: (04:25)
Oh, that's a tough one. I think it's just so exotic. I think, that's what turns me on. It's just a very exotic place. And the other thing I would say that pops into my mind is vibrancy. There's just so much going on. I guess you can get that in Manhattan, but you get that big time in cities like Jakarta and Bangkok-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:50)
You can't get that in Manhattan anymore. I mean, I'm in my office today and it is a workday and you could blow a cannonball down that street not hurt anybody, unfortunately but, maybe it'll change again. Well, David good. I'm David, I'm loving the outfit By the way, you get the most exotically dress of the four of us on this SALT Talk. So tell us a little bit about your ventures and tell us where you are right now, tell us where you're located.

David Halpert: (05:23)
So I'm currently at the Bali Purnat Center of The Arts, which is the art center that my wife built here about 15 years ago. And which we use as a concert space and a conference space during normal times. At the moment, with COVID crisis, of course, there's essentially no tourism in Bali. So I'm here in part for morale in the island, because people have been worried about their jobs, unfortunately. But it's been a great time to be here, because there's obviously no traffic, and we're able to really enjoy Bali the way it used to be.

David Halpert: (06:16)
I came to Asia around the same time Mark did, essentially looking for a career opportunities, and it served me very well, continuously. And I've gotten to participate as an investor and as an analyst in some of the most dramatic wealth creation over the last 20, 30 years, this happened anywhere. Interestingly, of course, there's been a lot of questions about whether Asia is now done, either because of the breakdown in globalization from World Trade, or because of the US, China problems. And clearly Singapore, Indonesia they're having a recession this year. But I've been impressed as I look around Indonesia, by how much opportunity still there is for growth and improvement in people's lives and improvement in the efficiencies of things like transportation and manufacturing. So I'm really quite optimistic for the future here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:24)
So you've developed this new paradigm that you're calling, the markets are calling digital decolonization. So for those of us on this SALT talk, that don't really know what that means, and I actually think it's a fascinating perspective on what's happening in the world right now, what's happening, likely, in the post COVID world, tell us what digital decolonization is, and tell us what the investment opportunity is as a result of it.

David Halpert: (07:53)
So for Americans, the most dramatic example of digital decolonization would be the banning of TikTok. And India banned TikTok a few weeks before the US moved to ban TikTok. But, there is a sense really all over the world, including in the United States, that cross border technology companies playing such a big role in people's lives, whether their financial lives or their social and political lives, is problematic. And I don't know whether it's going to be as absolute as banning and blocking and all the stuff that's currently under discussion or it's going to be in more subtle mechanisms such as, preferential logistical support to the local e-commerce company against the foreign e-commerce company. But I continue to see virtually every day more evidence that we're not going to have the huge concentration of wealth and power in just 5, 10 companies that it looked two three years ago as if we might have.

David Halpert: (09:08)
And if you look at what's happened with Reliance Industries in India, where RGO has now attracted investments from Facebook, Google, and potentially soon the Amazon. I think that's a classic example of the digital decolonization movement where, financial investment is enabling the development of a local Indian, e-commerce, social networking, financial services powerhouse. And even more recently than that, three days ago, on the Warsaw stock exchange in Poland, you saw the IPO of Allegro which is an $11 billion company and in three days that stock has doubled. And Allegro is kind of Amazon of Poland. But that in Poland, which is not that big a country and not that big economy, you can already have a $24 billion e-commerce company. I mean, that tells me that we are going to see my 1.5 trillion target in terms of digital decolonization market cap over the next 5, 10 years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:25)
So basically, there are companies that are around the world that are similar to these five companies. But they are indigenous, if you will, to that local area that are going to be magnificent. So let me ask David, how do those companies create commerce? Will it be globalized, like the American companies? Or will it be local markets? David, how do you envision that?

David Halpert: (10:58)
So, I mean, I'm here in Indonesia, and I can speak most immediately to what I see on the street here. But I believe it's largely the same as what you would experience in Poland or experience in Argentina or experience in India. The big global multinationals, whether Chinese or American, don't really serve the local customer, as well as a local company can. They don't stock the same local range of products in their e-commerce offerings, they don't provide as deep a catalog of local language film, they don't teach the online learning program to the local education exam. And so it's a break down in this aggressive digital globalization that we saw really from around 2009 to around 2016. And, of course, there are going to be many things that are going to be completely globalized, whether it's 5G technology or GSM technology or Android or whatever, there will be many things that will be shared across markets. But I don't think it will be as concentrated in just a couple of companies as was previously expected.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:33)
So Mark, how would you invest that Julius Baer in what David is talking about? This future vision for world technological commerce.

Mark Matthews: (12:48)
Well, what I try to do is to get David's funds on our platform, because he's a very good fund manager. But the other thing, obviously, you can do is find these companies yourself. And David, basically was talking about a few like one recent IPO in Poland. The problem right now in the emerging markets, excluding China, is that if you're lucky, each country has one, or maybe two. India is a good case in point, I mean, India is by emerging market standards, a massive market. There's really only one new economy, stock, which is Reliance Industries. So, what you could do is build a basket of those local champions pick one in every country, you got one in Argentina, you got one in Poland, you got one in India and you can probably add about a dozen on top of that and other emerging markets.

Mark Matthews: (13:48)
But problem is that not all of them will be good so, I think really, this is a very special and want to say, this concept is just in its fruition. And actually, it's David's concept. And so apart from him, I don't really think there is any vehicle to go into this. Then you're left with building a basket by yourself and probably getting some rotten apples in there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:21)
So David, sometimes there's a push back in the US, and this is primarily probably born from federal reserve interest rate policy is that, the emerging markets have an appeal. They seem like they are going to be the arc of future growth, but yet they never get to the expectations that people set on them here in North America, and so what's different about this, this time?

David Halpert: (14:51)
Well, I can talk about that at some length, but for example, Argentina has been a big disappointment as you know, and lots of people have lost lots of money in stocks and even more so in bonds in Argentina. But if you bought Mercado Libre 10 years ago, and you sold it today, you made more than 10 times your money in US dollars. So the tech thing seems to be so powerful that it overwhelms the macro problems of the country and that's even borne out in the price action of the NASDAQ stocks in the US. The US economy is in deep trouble, yet NASDAQ's close to an all time high. So I think investors at the moment at least are willing to look through the short term, macro economic disappointment of emerging or developed markets toward this future. Now, maybe these investors are wrong. It's a different subject, but this thing so far has worked really well.

David Halpert: (15:56)
Now, I would also say to the fact that emerging markets continue to disappoint. I think emerging markets on average disappoint, but several emerging markets have actually exceeded people's expectations over the longer term. So China and Taiwan both have proven to be remarkably successful economies over the long term, and are now basically developed countries. And there have been others smaller examples around the world, Poland has done very well, where a long term investor has made a lot of money even in the old economy companies. So it's not that bad. But yes, on average lending money to the government, Argentina is a very risky decision.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:46)
Yeah, well, they've devalued seven times in the last 20 years. I think that's one of the issues that gets people worried. Mark, what's your take? Explain to our American listeners right now, the opportunity in India and China, how you see the world over there? And what are Americans missing that may not be traveling as much as the two of you?

Mark Matthews: (17:10)
So I think what I'd begin by saying is that, the emerging markets, and that includes Asia, have been a tremendous opportunity cost in aggregate over the last 10 years. So when you just look at the recent history of these markets, you would say, why would I bother because China for example, MSCI China, dollars, including dividends, has given you annual return of 7% over the last 10 years. S&P is twice that. And there I would say that just like in America, every decade is different in terms of the performance of sectors and you'll find that there's massive rotation and stocks that go to the top of the S&P 500. Every single decade they're different. I think in the emerging markets, the next 10 years will be that way, too. In fact, I know it will, because 10 years ago, 80% of the MSCI China index was what you'd call old economy companies. So banks, oil and gas, materials, petrochemicals, that kind of stuff.

Mark Matthews: (18:27)
And what happened was in 2018, New Economy companies like technology, telecommunications, healthcare, they surpassed the old economy stocks in their weighting in the index, and today they're about 70% and old economy are about 30%. So that intuitively means companies with much higher returns on equity and much higher earnings growth. And if you just look at the Shiller PE, which I'm sure you know, Anthony provides you a really long term, it's been quite a reliable indicator for long term performance 10 year performance, it's inferring about 9% per year for China over the coming 10 years. And by the way, it's inferring based on today's ratio for the US, 4% per year for the US.

Mark Matthews: (19:20)
So I think that's what I want to say and I also want to say that right now, there's only kind of one new economy stock in each of the emerging markets outside China. But that won't be the case, three, four or five years from now. And a lot of these countries their markets will mature into, I think, much more sophisticated, interesting markets as far as the major composites are concerned. Largely because in the old days, if you wanted to be Successful as a technology person, you basically had to go to Silicon Valley. And today you don't, you can stay in India, you can stay in Thailand, there's a lot to do on the ground in all of these countries.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:17)
It's a fascinating time because Americans feel like they're looking inward, at least the political leadership. And so David, let me ask you this, political saber rattling, ongoing trade tensions, whether it's a Trump second administration or a first Biden administration, what do you think the role of US geopolitics is, in terms of how it's going to affect the outside world? Or will it not have any impact on the outside world?

David Halpert: (20:52)
So, Anthony of course, this is a huge question and a still pretty unclear in either of the outcomes. But I would tell you, what I see in my companies is that they are preparing for the supply chain to split anyway. So Taiwan semiconductor recently announced a $12 billion investment into a state of the art manufacturing facility in Phoenix, Arizona, and I believe that will be the single largest foreign manufacturing investment in the United States announced during the Trump administration. That investment is being undertaken with a plan to begin production in 2025. So they are looking through this current era in history and saying, we still need to have a huge fat in the US. So that tells me that that company at least thinks the supply chain is splitting. And many of the other manufacturing companies that I talk to, are signaling to greater or lesser extent that this is their base case.

David Halpert: (22:07)
So, companies that depend on cross, transpacific shipment of complicated manufacturing chains, I think, have to adjust to this new reality.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:23)
In hindsight, and this is sort of a question for both of you, in hindsight, would America had been better off, ratifying and signing the TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership?

David Halpert: (22:37)
What do you think? Mark's Canadian.

Mark Matthews: (22:45)
I feel that one of Donald Trump's legacies, will be that he started a process that was long overdue of... It's such a tough thing to just say in a sentence, but I'm sure you know what I mean. There was a very lopsided relationship whereby China was charging far higher tariffs on imports from the US than in reverse. Those were tariffs that dated from when it entered the World Trade Organization in 2001. And it was up less than a $3 trillion economy and people were very poor. And it was in need of adjustment. And the TPP, I guess, is a sort of tangent for that. But, the idea, I think that the US let too much leave the country, my humble opinion, is correct. And therefore, some kind of rebalancing was overdue and it's happening. David, why don't you take over.

David Halpert: (23:59)
So the irony of it is that the TPP, was actually quite a sophisticated document. And it was a more sophisticated document than, for example, NAFTA, which was written before a lot of changes in the economy. I think TPP, in retrospect, would have served the interests of the United States quite well. I think the US Canada Mexico agreement that this administration, negotiated in which Canada seems on track to ratifying, is probably a better agreement than what NAFTA was. I like requiring that Mexican auto factories pay $16 an hour, I think that's a very reasonable request. But the TPP was... Very few people have actually read the TPP and I have. And it was a sophisticated, subtle, 21st century document. But politically, it just wasn't viable and that's... I listened to Condoleezza Rice, talking at a J.P. Morgan conference a couple of days ago. And she had an interesting term, she said, "The American people are tired." And whether she's right or not, and whether they should be tired or not, I think that is increasingly becoming consensus in Washington about globalization and about the military expansion around the world and the free trade culture.

David Halpert: (25:55)
So... You take a billion dollars, and you build a factory in Phoenix, Arizona, and you've solved that problem. If you're Samsung, you already have a factory, you just increase the size of the factory that you have. If you're Huawei, you probably are not building a factory in the United States, you're probably planning your distribution to focus on the markets where you're going to be welcome, which include Indonesia. I'm not encouraging Indonesian entrepreneurs to plan a big export push at this point, I think that we need to look again at the domestic market here, the domestic market in India, the domestic market in Asia, which is still ludicrously underdeveloped.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:49)
So when you when you lay out that macro backdrop, and again, this would be a question for both of you. How do you feel about the US dollar right now directionally? Where do you think the US dollar will go over the next five to 10 years?

Mark Matthews: (27:05)
Why don't I try that first. Now, the thing is that if we're just talking about the dollar index, two thirds of that is the euro. And on a five year view, I feel I'd much rather have my money in dollars than euros. Because I see Europe in bigger trouble. I see persistent malaise in their society, which percolates through into their economy, and an economy, which is so export oriented anyway, that it's sort of naturally structured to demand a weaker currency. And no really strong leadership coming up after Angela Merkel, unless Macron can somehow take over as the leader of Europe, and I know the Germans don't going to let them do that.

Mark Matthews: (27:50)
So anyway, if we're just talking about the dollar index, I would be perfectly happy owning the dollar index. But if we're talking about different crosses, then I guess the one I'll just mentioned, and then I'll pass it over to David would be the dollar renminbi. And I think the renminbi will appreciate. They just relaxed some reserve requirement ratios on onshore forex trading a couple days ago, because it had appreciated 7%, since May was a bit too fast for them. But I think that they're focusing internally, the new catchphrase is interloop or there's a variety of different ways you can translate it, but essentially means weaning ourselves off of imports from overseas, and developing our domestic economy more. And I think they will welcome over time a stronger renminbi.

Mark Matthews: (28:57)
They've done a lot to get into the footsie Russell global bond index, recently, for example, which will naturally cause a lot of money to go into China just to achieve benchmark status in that index. And I believe that a lot more people are going to be buying Chinese stocks over the next five years too, I think it's rising to core status in global portfolios. It was always sort of a tactical thing before. So that's what I think and David over to you.

David Halpert: (29:33)
I'm a big fan of haircuts as a way to measure currency competitiveness. And I would say one of the most expensive places in the world to get a haircut right now is Geneva. And Europe in general still feels quite expensive at one euro 20, I think. But getting a haircut in Shanghai or getting a haircut in Singapore, or getting a haircut in Indonesia is much, much cheaper. So on a long term basis, there still is a lot of structural undervaluation in the currencies in Asia in particular, to a lesser extent, in Latin America. And that suggests to me that while the Fed and all that can cause another round of evaluations if necessary, there is a long term value story for diversifying out of the US dollar. Europe would not necessarily be my first stop.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:39)
Well, guys, I'm going to turn it over to John, because we have a ton of questions coming up in the queue, which I think are fascinating. So John Darsie, take it away.

John Darsie: (30:50)
Yeah. We have several follow up questions about the digital decolonization theme. Going back to digdec, which is the shorthand for digital decolonization. Is that a strategy just for technology companies? How does it factor in the service sector? Or what's the investable universe in terms of innovation as part of that digital decolonization theme?

David Halpert: (31:15)
John, thank you for that question. I should have been clear at the beginning. Digital decolonization is not limited just to the technology sector. The data revolution, the digital revolution, is currently impacting almost every aspect of economic life. Whether from the wearables manufacturing sector, or the services like financial services, travel services, education services, the power sector, the infrastructure sector, all of these are sectors where data and more sophisticated use of technology and innovation are increasing productivity and providing better services to customers at better prices.

David Halpert: (32:10)
So we view this revolution as not limited to any one sector. And indeed too much in the NASDAQ, the NASDAQ stuff has done great this year, it did great last year. But too much of that may not be the ideal way to express this idea of going forward. I'm particularly interested right now with the energy transition, which I continue to see gaining momentum right around the world. And that is much less hype than the e-commerce space, for example and there's still a lot of opportunity. Do you know? For here in Southeast Asia, only 2% of the electricity grids are renewable?

John Darsie: (32:55)
Wow.

David Halpert: (32:57)
And just growing that out, is going to create a huge opportunity in distributed power and power tech related investments in this part of the world.

John Darsie: (33:13)
Mark, I have a different question for you from the audience. And it goes back to your comments about the trade relationship between the United States and Asia and I think some of this digital decolonization, and David, you can correct me if I'm wrong is driven by the fact that there's increasing nationalism from a commercial perspective. So, do you think a closed United States, which I think the horse is sort of out of the barn in terms of the United States and the popularity of policies that are trying to bring manufacturing home and restore working class jobs in the United States. Do you think a more closed United States is a catalyst for increasing performance of assets in emerging markets, especially around this digital decolonization theme?

Mark Matthews: (33:56)
I'm not sure there's a direct link, although intuitively, there should be. Simply because I don't know... I mean, I guess what you mean is if the United States closes itself off, and therefore you would expect it to be a much less appealing place to invest in relative terms, the rest of the world would be more attractive, I guess I see that. But what I would just say is, by the way, the trade war, and the digital economy are very separate things. Services are counted in these trade balances. And when you're talking about America, cutting itself off or turning inward, I still believe that there isn't should be a place for manufacturing in America.

Mark Matthews: (34:58)
I'm in Singapore, which is a country with I think of much greater per capita GDP than the United States. And it's very expensive place, but the government still make sure that manufacturing is around 20% of GDP. Because not everybody can be a barista at Starbucks or a computer programmer at Google, there have to be jobs for other people. And I think there's a balance that governments need to seek between providing those kind of jobs and still remaining an open economy, and every country will have a different line to walk. But just to summarize, I do think that America's right actually to develop an economic policy that focuses on its middle class instead of multinational companies profits. And I think, at the same time, it can remain open, particularly as its service sector companies are really the giants in the world. So that would be my answer to you.

John Darsie: (36:09)
I want to finish with a pretty broad question. And we had a speaker at SALT, our Abu Dhabi conference last December named Parag Khanna, who you might be familiar with. He's a prolific author on topics related mainly to Asia. His most recent-

David Halpert: (36:23)
He lives in Singapore, so we've both met him. But-

John Darsie: (36:27)
He'll definitely be near the top of our list for SALT Bali 2022, which will teach to the people on this call right now. But, he wrote a book called The Future Is Asian, I found both his book and his speech at SALT, extremely compelling talking about the demographic shifts, and the economic shifts that are taking place that make Asia so compelling as an investment destination. So, I want to talk about emerging markets with a focus on Asia. What are first of all risks to that thesis? What are the positives that are maybe, that exists in these emerging markets in Asia that aren't talked about or valued highly enough? And in general what's your outlook for those markets over the next five to 10 years?

John Darsie: (37:09)
We talked about how they've sort of underperformed if you paint with a broad brush over the last decade. But, what's your outlook over the 5, 10 year time horizon? We'll start with David, and then we'll go to Mark.

David Halpert: (37:22)
So China's riding high if you notice price action after the US presidential debate on September 29, the Chinese stock market went straight up. So it's pretty clear that in the short term, at least, China's going to be doing well out of the dysfunction in the United States. Medium term, however, I think China is getting a bit tired, it's already quite wealthy, their labor costs continues to move up. As the currency appreciates, they're losing competitiveness, again to other markets, like Vietnam, and Bangladesh, which are getting some of these low end labor intensive manufacturing jobs away from China.

David Halpert: (38:10)
So I think select opportunities in China are still going to be great for the next 10 and 20 years. But, China Inc, per se, I'm not that excited. India is a different story. Its much earlier stage and most things. It is proving somewhat competitive in manufacturing, I would argue Bangladesh and Vietnam are more competitive. But there's just a huge amount of inefficiency in the Indian system, whether the agricultural system, the manufacturing system, transportation system, etc. financial system. So, I rationalizing India alone is a great 10, 20 year project. And Indonesia, is doing somewhere in between the two countries, but also just rationalizing Indonesia probably keep people busy here for 10, 20 years, even if the US shuts up completely.

Mark Matthews: (39:11)
So my-

John Darsie: (39:12)
Answer the same question if you would.

Mark Matthews: (39:15)
Sure. First off, what I would say, John, as you said, the demographics are great. Well, for some countries, they are but not for China. In fact, by the end of this century, China's population will be half of India, and the US combined. And I think even right now, the average Chinese is about the same age as the average American. But 10 years from now, 20 years from now, the average Chinese will be about, I think, 45 to 50. And the average American will still be about 35, somewhere around there. So anyway, that's besides the point. I said to Anthony in the beginning that I love it here, I still do after 31 years. But one comment I would make is a cultural one. I think that the societies here, I guess I'm speaking more about East Asian societies. In other words, Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, but you could probably also throw in Thailand and a couple of others as well. They're very communitarian, is that a word? They don't really allow people to stand up and be wild and crazy and frankly, even where I'm from Canada, we can't be as wild and crazy as people in America either, we're much more communitarian, I hope that's the word.

Mark Matthews: (40:40)
And I think that really allows the geniuses to blossom when they do have the ability to come up with their crazy ideas and-

John Darsie: (40:51)
And express themselves.

Mark Matthews: (40:53)
Yeah, so I think that's something that's lacking here culturally. And it does put a break on innovation and creativity. And so that would be my comment, John.

John Darsie: (41:09)
Yeah, I mean, it's very interesting you say that. Anthony gave a talk to the US China Business Council. And he made that exact point, that free expression and the ability to use your creative muscles is a huge reason why the United States is such a home for entrepreneurship and innovation. We have one more audience question I want to ask to you, David, before we let you go. What are different types of digdec companies? Give us some examples across the spectrum of digital decolonization. And what does the IPO calendar look like in these emerging markets? And how does it reflect the growth of this digital decolonization theme?

David Halpert: (41:44)
So the IPO calendar looks great. Again, we just had Allegro in Poland on Monday. It already doubled and created $12 billion of input Mehta market cap in the last three days. We got a Kazakhstan deal coming up next week. We've got Ant Financial which is going to be a $30 billion transaction. So there's tons of things going on the IPO calendar. But, in terms of different kinds of companies technology, healthcare, power tech, edutech, FinTech are the five verticals we tend to be focused on right now. But I would expect all sorts of different applications of data science and etc, over the next 10 and 20 years. Or even less than five or 10 years. So I see a ton of opportunity in this. And as I said-

John Darsie: (42:42)
We're very excited from a SALT perspective, from a SkyBridge perspective to work with Prince Street, work with Julius Baer, and continue to dig into the opportunities that exist in emerging markets. It's not a monolith, there's different opportunities in different locations, for sure. And as you said, if you are able to pick the right companies, there's great opportunity, no matter how emerging markets as an asset class perform over the next five to 10 years. So thank you so much, David and Mark, for joining us on this SALT Talk. We look forward to revisiting these themes maybe in a few months, if there's a change in American presidential administration, as well, to see how that affects things. But, thank you so much for joining us, Anthony, you have a final word?

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:22)
Just so you guys know, John's trying to get out the Bali in the worst possible way so much so that he wants to do a SALT conference, David, right where you're sitting.

John Darsie: (43:33)
What's not to like? All these beautiful, there's a great burgeoning tech scene in Bali as well. And I think it fits in well with that theme.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:41)
We're super excited about your future, gentlemen and the future of the world. And we're looking forward to learning more about digital decolonization. Thank you so much for joining us today.

David Halpert: (43:53)
Thank you guys. Mark, sleep well, and I really appreciate your taking the time to do this first.

Mark Matthews: (44:00)
I'm just honored that I could be here. Thank you.

David Halpert: (44:03)
See you all in Bali in 2022. Bye.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:06)
Amen.

John Darsie: (44:07)
Hopefully sooner.

Nathan Gelber: Profiling Personalities in Investing | SALT Talks #79

“The focus of our effort is profiling the personalities of investment professionals and those who are involved in the investment process, to understand that decision-making process.”

Nathan Gelber is the founder and Chief Investment Officer of Stamford Associates Limited. Stamford was launched in 1984 with the vision to materially improve the traditional investment consulting model for UK pension schemes with a focus on providing superior investment solutions, generating superior risk adjusted returns and establishing effective governance structures. It has subsequently grown to become a leading international investment consultancy firm.

Behavioral psychology has only more recently entered the mainstream. At Stamford, though, behavioral psychology professionals have been used to better understand investment professionals and their decision-making process. Analytics are combined with in-person observations during the employee-hiring process as well as the day-to-day work environment. “Psychologists have 14 criteria which they are interested in; those include curiosity, independent thinking, and the willingness to go against the crowd and not be a follower.”

Transparency is key in the investment evaluation process. Bernie Madoff attempted to attract investment from Stamford, but his unwillingness to be transparent served as a non-starter for a company that uses a rigorous and holistic evaluation approach.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

David-Rubenstein.jpeg

Nathan Gelber

Founder & Chief Investment Officer

Stamford Associates

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:08)
Hi everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks, my name is Rachel Pether and I'm a senior advisor to SkyBridge Capital as well as being the MC for salt, a thought leadership forum and networking platform that encompasses business technology and politics. Now, SALT Talks is a series of digital interviews with some of the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers, and just as we do at our global SALT conference areas, we aim to empower really big, important ideas and give our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts.

Rachel Pether: (00:42)
Today I'm very excited to be speaking to Nathan Gelber. Nathan is the founder and chief investment officer of Stamford Associates, which he founded in 1995 with the vision to improve the traditional investment consulting model for UK pension schemes. Since then, it's grown to become a leading international investment consultancy firm, and the Telegraph in the UK actually noted that it was perhaps the world's most thorough system of fund research for the way that they incorporate behavioral psychology into the investment process. Prior to founding Stamford, Nathan worked for Orion Bank in London and Hill Samuel & Co. Nathan, welcome to SALT Talks.

Nathan Gelber: (01:24)
Rachel, thank you very much. A pleasure to be with you.

Rachel Pether: (01:27)
Now you have a wealth of experience that spans over 40 years, so maybe just start by telling me a bit about your personal background.

Nathan Gelber: (01:37)
I started working in the city in the long distant past, about 45 years ago, and cut my teeth at two investment banking firms, one called Orion Bank Ltd, the other one as you say, Hill Samuel & Co Ltd, where I worked predominantly in corporate finance, as well as in investment management. After 10 years, I started my own business with the idea to help institutional investors to improve their investment outcomes by assisting them devising efficient investment strategies and populate those with the best investment management talent we're able to find for them. And when we're looking at the firm now, you see we employ roughly 42 people, have a global reach when it comes to placing our clients assets with talented investment managers, and oversee assets in excess of £70 billion.

Rachel Pether: (02:51)
Within the 42 people that you have, how many behavioral psychologists do you employ?

Nathan Gelber: (02:57)
We have worked with behavioral psychologists for the better of 20 years. It started as an experiment and developed into a very significant part of our analytics. And as we sit here today, we employ full time three qualified psychologists under the leadership of Professor Adrian Furnham, who used to be a head of behavioral finance at UCL in London, a preeminent behavioral psychologist.

Rachel Pether: (03:30)
So behavioral psychology now is much more mainstream than it was 30, 20, even 10 years ago. What initially generated your interest in this area?

Nathan Gelber: (03:44)
As you well know, Rachel, the mainstream of behavioral psychology really looks predominantly at the behavior of groups and tries to identify the traits that group behaviors display. We have taken this one step further because we're more interested in the behavior of individuals and individual differences, so the focus of our effort is profiling the personalities of investment professionals and those who are involved in investment process, to understand that decision-making process.

Rachel Pether: (04:27)
And so what does this actually look like in practice when you go into investment teams and then assess individuals? How do you actually incorporate the behavioral psychology element?

Nathan Gelber: (04:41)
Our work is holistic in nature and comprises [inaudible 00:04:45] analytics, as you would imagine from a firm such as ours, and integrated with it are the psychologists, so they are integral parts of our investment team and participate in each of our engagements with external managers, whether it is doing the appraisal and assessment process, or whether it relates to ongoing managing and monitoring, we always have a psychologist sit next to us at the table to observe things which the untrained eye simply cannot see.

Rachel Pether: (05:20)
And so with that [crosstalk 00:05:25].

Nathan Gelber: (05:23)
And feed in... I'm sorry.

Rachel Pether: (05:29)
Continue.

Nathan Gelber: (05:30)
The qualities feed into our overall appraisals and to the extent that they raise concerns, we take those concerns very seriously, and there have been instances where the psychologists gave us strong advice to pursue a give mandate because they just, for example, didn't feel comfortable with the decision making made by a group of individuals.

Rachel Pether: (05:55)
I'd love to come back to specific case studies of the managers that you have, let's say rejected for want of a better word, but we've already had a question coming in from the audience on what are some of the key questions that you ask your potential fund managers? And how detailed is the questionnaire?

Nathan Gelber: (06:17)
Well, the questionnaire we send out is a standard form of questionnaire which basically tries to summarize the investment process and individuals involved in those processes. This is more of what we would describe as fundamental due diligence. The substance of our assessment and appraisal process takes place at face-to-face meetings with prospective managers, and as I mentioned earlier, those meetings are attended by the psychologist as well.

Nathan Gelber: (06:54)
Whilst we on the investment side are essentially looking for evidence of investment edge, exceptional talent, and consistency of application of a well designed investment process, the psychologists have 14 criteria which they are interested in; those include curiosity, independent thinking, the willingness to go against the crowd and not be a follower. So there's a whole slew of different aspects which they are considering and it all goes into the melting pot, psychology together with investment, and we think it's how it should be.

Nathan Gelber: (07:51)
The sad thing in our industry is that the great majority of participants rely on past as an indicator for the future. We all know that is a very unreliable indicator, however, human behavior is such that we have behavioral patterns which repeat and are therefore more reliable, and in the context of making the investment decisions, in the absence of complete information, those behavioral aspects become a key determinant of success and repeatability of that success.

Rachel Pether: (08:35)
I love that approach that past performance doesn't equal future performance, but past behaviors do. And just to dive a bit deeper into some of the managers that you haven't gone with because of this analysis, there have been a number of high profile downfalls of managers recently, did any of these come across your radar? And maybe tell me an example of a manager that you didn't go with because of incomplete information.

Nathan Gelber: (09:08)
Well, the easiest example is Bernie Madoff. As you know, Bernie Madoff attracted a lot of attention from investors and was able to accumulate good assets under management. He knocked at our door twice in an attempt to attract capital from our clients, and we stipulated certain disclosure and transparency requirements, none of which Madoff met, and so we didn't even get Madoff in front of our psychologist. We said, "No, no thank you".

Nathan Gelber: (09:53)
Transparency is key to our ability to analyze and assess managers, and we make this very clear at the outset of any contact when it comes to appraising managers, and we forewarn managers of the thoroughness and granular detail, both from an investment perspective as well as from the psychological angle, and forewarn them that an engagement with us may not only be very time consuming and labor intensive, but may also extend over a longer time period, and therefore a process before we engage in analysis.

Nathan Gelber: (10:32)
So [inaudible 00:10:35] fall by the wayside, because they're not able or willing to be transparent, and others because they just don't fill the criteria. We have very high standards and client's capital is important to all of us and we want to make sure that the stewardship of this capital goes into those hands that we deem to be the most capable investors we can find.

Rachel Pether: (11:03)
So given this then, and the emphasis on transparency, what are your views on quant managers, and I guess by extension of that, the increase that we're seeing in artificial intelligence and investment management?

Nathan Gelber: (11:19)
We've thought long and hard about both the use of artificial intelligence, as well as quant based managers on behalf of our clients, because in theory, strategies could be a very good diversifier relative to the other more fundamental strategies that we're embracing for our clients. The disappointing conclusion that we have reached relating to both of those is that we are unable to garner sufficient transparency and clarity about the underlying processes. We endorse those, so to this date we have not used any quant based or AI strategy, and unless managers are willing to share what we would deem to be the black box content with us, it's impossible for us to make a professional assessment, and we just can't endorse something which we don't really understand how it functions.

Rachel Pether: (12:27)
Yeah, that makes sense. And I do have a couple more questions on the behavioral side before moving on to some more audience questions. How have you seen the acceptance of behavioral psychology change over time, given that you've been working in this area for a number of decades now?

Nathan Gelber: (12:48)
Well, if you look at the wider marketplace, I'm actually not aware whether any consultancy firm such as ours has embraced behavioral psychology the same way we embraced it and apply it in practice. Is it a sign of things to come possibly? What we found is that our own track record has improved tremendously since embracing behavioral psychology as part and parcel of our [inaudible 00:13:21]. We've gone from a manager selection hit rate of roughly 51, 52%, to 82% over the last 20 years, which is a clear indication that psychology must be a helpful ingredient of our overall decision-making process and indeed is helpful picking the right managers.

Nathan Gelber: (13:44)
But it's not only picking the right managers, it's also sitting through them through periods of under performance without losing one's nerve, and indeed, using psychology to say goodbye to a manager when perhaps the underlying performance numbers don't suggest that it is time to do so. So, procyclical behavior is not something which we endorse or engage with, it could be coincidental to what we're doing, but we are much more driven by looking into the future based on our most recent behaviors than anything else.

Rachel Pether: (14:22)
So just a quick question, how do you actually define hit rate when you mentioned it's increased from just over 50% to 82, how do you define hit rate?

Nathan Gelber: (14:36)
What we are doing is we are looking at manager appointment and the benchmark relative to which a manager has been appointed, and we measure whether or not over a protracted time period, let's say five or ten years, the manager has built an investment return in excess of the benchmark net of fees. So if you take the 82%, roughly you will find that it means that four out of five managers that we recommended and appointed have exceeded those benchmarks based on the criteria I just explained. So one out of five, if you like, has been a dud, whilst four out of five have been successful. And of course the math works in such a way that when you take them together on an aggregate basis, they're delivering to our clients. We would like improve our hit rate, but it's tough, we think, and talent is not easy to find.

Rachel Pether: (15:44)
No, that's certainly true, and I guess that leads quite nicely into the next question. Obviously, during the current pandemic, a lot of... Well, everyone actually is seeing levels of stress that they're not used to, everyone is under high pressure situations; in this current environment, what are some of the most common biases that you're seeing within your managers?

Nathan Gelber: (16:10)
What we're hoping for are behaviors which are consistent with the investment process that our clients have bought into. So we are observing whether or not managers portfolio footprints are consistent with our expectations, we're not necessarily second guessing whether they buy Shell and sell BP and whether these were good or bad decisions, it's much more a question of following the process as we set out at the beginning of our arrangement with them.

Nathan Gelber: (16:48)
During crisis periods, it is particularly important that managers stick to the guns and are not being tossed around by noise in the market. And when I look at one common denominator, if you like, amongst all the 40 plus managers that we're currently using for our clients, it is that behavioral aspect of sticking to your guns through thick or thin. It doesn't mean that you don't take into account the investment environment and the news flow, but we don't expect a knee-jerk reactions.

Nathan Gelber: (17:26)
So the biases amongst those managers remain to be steadfast in the investment philosophy and application of the process. And that's what we've seen this time around and in many other crises as well, managers usually are long-term orientated, have high conviction, IE concentrated portfolios, and what we do see again in situations such as this, is that they average down on their most attractive holdings. And again, it's something that we would expect in a scenario like that.

Rachel Pether: (18:07)
Now, we've had a number of audience questions coming in and some are related to your specific approach and some to the market, so I'll ask some related to your specific approach first. Have you done performance attribution in terms of asset allocation versus manager selection? And if so, what have some of the results been?

Nathan Gelber: (18:30)
Yes, we have undertaken analysis of asset allocation versus manager selection and security selection in particular, and what we find is that the long term asset allocation is a key driver to overall return. It also speaks to the risk profile of any given investor, and from investor to investor this is a very individualistic assessment. Once the asset allocation has been determined, we encourage our clients not to apply short-term tactical asset allocation, but stick to the strategic goals and use market volatility for rebalancing purposes, because skepticism vis-a-vis people's ability to add value to tactical asset allocation. Rebalancing, we believe, is the second best solution to long-term asset allocation, and what it means in practice is that by rebalancing you sell high and you buy low, which to us is a very attractive value proposition.

Nathan Gelber: (19:48)
In terms of added value through manager selections, [inaudible 00:19:53] and again, over long time periods, it's not unreasonable to expect an added value of roughly 2% per annum net of fees in excess of a state market benchmark, which over long time periods adds considerable value, as you can can imagine. However, excess returns can be variable and these kind of active strategies are not necessarily for the faint hearted because of the deviation from both an upscale benchmark and a relative benchmark over shorter time periods.

Rachel Pether: (20:32)
Within Stamford then, Nathan, do you have your own style biases? And I guess this goes back to a question from the audience as to what's your recent view on the dominance of growth stocks versus value stocks.

Nathan Gelber: (20:49)
We, do have certain biases that must not necessarily be characterized as style biases, but if I may just summarize them for a moment or two, and we're trying to understand the implication of those biases, so we are really quite allergic to its capital impairment. So one of the areas we're paying a lot of attention to, is trying to understand how managers think about capital impairment or realize losses, and in our analysis of past behaviors we're particularly keen to understand how losses have been occurred and why. And repeatability of a fairly high loss rate in a given strategy is something that would concern us for time. So we have a bias towards capital preservation, which leads us more to value type managers, but not exclusively value type managers, because growth managers can also have a capital preservation mindset, which is perfectly acceptable, but the volatility around capital preservation and growth orientated strategy is so much greater and therefore so much riskier than it is in value type strategies.

Nathan Gelber: (22:17)
Other biases we have really to long time periods, where we and our clients are long-term investors, so managers who have high portfolio turnover are not necessarily the ones we would favor. Equally, we are not great friends of high leverage in companies, so we are looking towards managers that are not necessarily running highly leveraged types of portfolios through the underlying investments. They're looking for people who have integrity, both integrity of thought, as well as integrity of ethics and morals, and people have a mindset which is clients first. Duty of care and governance, good governance, is key to what we think we are delivering to our clients. So these are fairly material biases, which eliminate a fairly lump of market disciplines.

Rachel Pether: (23:26)
And so looking here we've also had a question coming in from the audience on emerging markets. What's your view on emerging markets and assessment there, and are you seeing demand from clients in the likes of India and Africa and other emerging markets?

Nathan Gelber: (23:44)
We've been engaged in emerging markets for the better part of the last 35 years. We've been always exposed to emerging markets and managers who operate in those markets, both sitting in developed markets and those who are resident in India or China or Hong Kong, or in any other markets that could be relevant. Our experience has been favorable over the years, although the governance aspect relating to the underlying investments is one which is not always compared to Western standards.

Nathan Gelber: (24:25)
So we have a particular level of caution when it comes to understanding how managers think about governance in particular and the oversight over the deployment of our client's capital. So it's an area which has been rewarding for us, it's an area that has displayed considerable volatility, and you are aware of the various crises in [inaudible 00:24:52], whether it was the Russia crisis or the ones relating to the Far East some time ago. With a preservation of capital mindset, we are particularly cautious, but exposed to those markets.

Rachel Pether: (25:09)
And you talk a lot about governance, which I guess is inherently embedded in your process. If you're looking at ESG, obviously another big theme at the moment, do you also focus on the other letters within that? Do you also look at environmental and social issues, or is it really more the governance piece that you're focused on?

Nathan Gelber: (25:31)
Our predominant interest from our client's perspective is in the investment oversight and investment governance. However, as we look at managers, we are keen that they look at the other aspects of ESG as well. So between the underlying managers and ourselves, we cover the entire spectrum of ESG to make sure that our client's capital is deployed in a responsible and transparent fashion. It's important, it's important.

Rachel Pether: (26:05)
I couldn't agree more. Just one final question, we've had someone ask for recommendation from you actually, which is, do you have some recommendations for small institutional investors as well as family offices in terms of effective manager selection, when perhaps they have less resources and depth to do a full assessment?

Nathan Gelber: (26:30)
That's a tricky and challenging question. Our view is that it's very difficult to identify talent ex-ante, if we all accept the past record is not a reliable indicator for the future, it is equally difficult to analyze both from a behavioral as well as from an investment perspective what the prospects of a game investment proposition are. Invest managers are excellent in making presentations and preparing pitches. Reality often looks very different, and the ability to differentiate between a marketing pitch and reality is not always that easy. So it needs resources and experience to avoid making mistakes and pick those that will do well over time, but also unpick those when the time has come perhaps that they're running out of steam for one reason or the other.

Nathan Gelber: (27:30)
And what we are saying to family offices and smaller institutions who do not have internal resources, to either work with a firm like ours, where we can be helpful in one way or the other, or go passive. Passive is a very attractive way of gaining exposure to various markets and capturing beta, and not try and capture alpha when the downside can be quite unattractive [crosstalk 00:28:04] somebody you're confident in or do it yourself on a passive basis.

Rachel Pether: (28:11)
Yeah, because I guess even going passive as an active decision, isn't it, and one that you have to decide for yourself.

Nathan Gelber: (28:17)
Yes, exactly.

Rachel Pether: (28:19)
Excellent. Well, thank you so much for your time today, Nathan, it's been a pleasure talking to you as always and I look forward to continuing this discussion on behavioral finance at a future date. Thank you so much.

Nathan Gelber: (28:33)
Thank you very much Rachel, pleasure to be with you.

Peter Gleysteen: The Future of CLOs | SALT Talks #74

“There's been a positive IRR to the equity on that junior layer, they got their capital back with some kind of return on over 98% of every CLO that's ever been issued. That's an astonishing statistic for people who don't think they're safe. They're not safe if you have to sell.”

Peter Gleysteen brings more than 40 years of bank loan experience. Before AGL he had two prior employers, JPMorgan Chase and CIFC, a loan asset manager he founded. At the bank this included lead banker on many of the largest LBO, M&A and re-structuring financings in the 1980’s and ‘90’s, running global loan syndications, responsibility for its global corporate loan portfolio, and serving as corporate chief credit officer. More recently he built CIFC Asset Management into a leading private debt manager with $13B in AUM, serving as founder and CEO from 2005-2014.

Syndicated bank loans are a non-traditional asset class in that they’re not securities, but loans, meaning they’re not sold on an exchange. Its appeal to long-term investors go up when interest rates are high and see most retail investors sell when rates drop. Because of the unstandardized nature of bank loans, each one is customized by the regional bank. “It's also one of the reasons why the returns are so high because of compared to almost anything else, there's a lot of excess return in bank loans.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Peter Gleysteen.jpeg

Peter Gleysteen

CEO & Chief Investment Officer

AGL Credit Management

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

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. And what we're really trying to do is replicate the experience that we provided at our global SALT conferences. And what we're trying to do at our conferences and on these SALT Talks is to provide a window in the minds of subject matter experts, which were primarily investors, entrepreneurs, and public policy thinkers.

John Darsie: (00:39)
We're also trying to provide a platform for what we think are big, important ideas that are shaping the future and bring you interesting investment opportunities as well. And we're very excited today to welcome Peter Gleysteen to SALT Talks. Peter is the founder of AGL Credit, and he brings more than 40 years of bank loan experience to SALT Talks today. Before AGL, he had two prior employers starting with J.P. Morgan Chase, and then more recently CIFC, a loan asset manager that he founded.

John Darsie: (01:07)
At the bank, this included being the lead banker on many of the largest LBO, M&A and restructuring financings in the 1980s and 1990s, running global loan syndications, responsibility for its global corporate loan portfolio and serving as the corporate chief credit officer. And more recently he built CIFC Asset Management into a leading private debt manager with 13 billion and assets under management. He served as its founder and CEO from 2005 to 2014. A reminder, if you have any questions for Peter during today's talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. And hosting today's talk is SkyBridge Capital Partner, a co-chief investment officer and senior portfolio manager, Troy Gayeski. Troy, I'll turn it over to you for the interview.

Troy Gayeski: (01:53)
Yeah. Thanks so much, John. Peter, it's such an honor to have you here. John went through your very impressive, resume way to briefly because we're typing strain. As we start the SALT Talks, we always like to focus on more, the human side of the investment manager or the guests. Could you give us a little input on your past, some of the decisions you made that led you to have this rich career, and if there were any several moments that were particularly important.

Peter Gleysteen: (02:18)
Yes. And thank you for that. A very fulsome introduction. I think the most important thing that drove my life and career has been the fact that I grew up internationally. My father was a us diplomat. So through my childhood, up through college, I moved every couple of years, went to schools in different societies, in different languages, living in countries like Indonesia, the Soviet union twice, but then Soviet union, France I'm half Swedish. My mother was Swedish. The reason I say that or why that's so important to me is I learned early that the same reality can be perceived and express completely differently by different people in different cultures, different languages.

Peter Gleysteen: (03:05)
So that was an early lesson made me very interested in fact it was kind of a survival requirement for me to understand, not just what I thought of something, but what was the underlying reality. So it made me really interested to understand how things work, below the surface. So when I was looking for a job graduating from college, I was trying to find something that would be stimulating interesting. And I decided I really would go somewhere where I could learn more about how the world got stitched together. And the only conclusion that I found appealing was through finance, where you can see how social and economic interactions occur, all be it through the lens of credit in a bank.

Peter Gleysteen: (03:50)
And by going to a bank, I didn't have to pay to go to business school because I was actively paid to go to learn. And that's how I started in the banking. I'll just add that was very fortunate to have joined what was then called chemical bank, because it was the bank, as many people know that acquired most of the other banks in New York and other places and kept changing its name. But I was always on the same place. That accounts for the long career continuity I've had, both organizationally and in terms of my expertise, which is bank credit. More, most critically I'll speed up and then stop.

Peter Gleysteen: (04:31)
In the mid 80s, I was the co-founder of what became the leveraged finance and syndications business. John mentioned that part of my background. But I've been personally directly. Let me just add. And when I say co founded, that was with the great banker, the late Jimmy Lee. So I actually knew him since I started because we were both in the same training program together in 1975. But in any event... I've been part of bank credits long before it became an asset class and part of its evolution and every step of the way into now being a very mature and well-tested institutional asset class.

Troy Gayeski: (05:11)
That's quite an impressive background. Peter, I'll tell you, I haven't heard the term chemical bank for quite since. I think the last time we used to abandon at about as a four John's RC was born. So let's go way back. So, hey, obviously you have tremendous expertise and the broadly syndicated loan market, and that's a very keen focus of your firm. Could you explain to the investors and those that aren't invested in the space, why you find it attractive and what are some of the key characteristics now, particularly relative to other asset classes out there in corporate credit?

Peter Gleysteen: (05:47)
Yes, that's a great question. And I'll just start by making the-

Troy Gayeski: (05:51)
Thank you very much, Peter, thank you very much.

Peter Gleysteen: (05:53)
Big statement that broadly syndicated loans are misunderstood. It's actually a superior asset class, but it's really widely misunderstood, but let me start. It started with the fact that I started in banking. So if a bank's making a corporate loan, let's go back to old fashioned banking. You put into deposit, you expect that to be a hundred percent safe and that if you want to take the money out, you take it out. What are the banks do? They invest and try to invest in very safe assets. So the assets are bank loans are senior, they're secured. They have priority over any other capital in the capital structure. But the key point when I say misunderstood, the asset class is not a loan it's hundreds or thousands of loans. It's the combination and the power of the earnings power of the net interest income of the entire portfolio that generates the stable, very steady Eddy cashflow.

Peter Gleysteen: (06:51)
And more importantly, that diverse universe of borrowers creates the safety. But let's say you have a 200 loans and two or four of them become a real problem. Well that's two or four loans. And if the loans on average are generating before live or before the reference rate say 5%, and if the loss given default or the loss that you would realize on alone is half of 1%, those losses are usually covered just by your net interest income. So the underlying capital that's invested, whether you're a bank making alone or an investor investing in this asset class, the principal invested the capital has never really at risk. If the portfolio is competently selected and managed and there's this steady cashflow stream. So then you're going to ask why do banks get in trouble? Why do people get in trouble? Why do people do stupid things?

Peter Gleysteen: (07:48)
Well, in the case of credit you can make a couple of mistakes. You can, first of all, have high concentrated risk. Meaning instead of having 200 or 300 loans having, let's say three or 30, and worse if you put them all in the same sector. And the other is the mispriced risk. And God help you if you do both. If you've concentrated risks, that's mispriced and that's historically how banks and investors get into trouble. But if you do the reverse, which is not hard to do, which is why still do it. Why would I... I'm still doing it because it's, why would I not? For me, it's the gift that keeps giving because it's safe. And it's really interesting by the way.

Troy Gayeski: (08:30)
Yeah. So Peter, could you touch upon the term senior as well? Because even today we find people don't understand how important is to be senior in the capital structure versus second wean, or what's commonly referred to as the high yield bond market.

Peter Gleysteen: (08:44)
Certainly. So it's analogous to a home mortgage. When it gets a mortgage buys a house, God forbid, if you don't make the payment fee, the bank and take the house from you. And whether the mortgage was 10% or 50% or 70% of the value of the home, they get the whole thing. And then they can, in the case of a home mortgage sell the property and then anything left over you, the owner will get the residual. It's the same with senior secured loans, which typically are between 40 and 50% of the total capital structure of a borrower.

Peter Gleysteen: (09:24)
So if there's a dire problem, we're actually from the bank and the lender and its associated investors like us to recoup their capital. There's typically a 50% value cushion underneath. And when this broadly syndicated bank loan to lose money, that means everything underneath is wiped out from that a huge cushion. You then amplify that by investing in not one loan, but say 250 loans. Just having this... For those who are statisticians, you can see how that distribution of hundreds of borrowers and just a few problems and mistakes are easily supported by the earnings power and the safety of the whole portfolio.

Troy Gayeski: (10:14)
So Peter, you're making a compelling case for the attractive risk reward of this asset class, which has been syndicated now for about 20 years, really going back to early two thousands. Could you talk about what type of investors are gravitating towards it and how they're using it to potentially replace traditional fixed income right now?

Peter Gleysteen: (10:33)
Yes. Not many. The asset class has grown. Broadly syndicated loans, it's about 2 trillion. That's roughly 1.2 trillion held by non-bank investors in the balanced, by the originating banks, usually in the form of revolving credits, but at the same borrowing framework. But the... It's because it's not a traditional asset class. In the following a couple of ways, first they're not securities they're loans. I'll come back to that. And, and they're originated by banks. So you can only access them by investing, if you're a long-term investor with a manager like us, who's investing in these loans. And they're also some managers who have retail funds. The appeal to retail historically has been because bank loans are floating rate. They have always been appealing when people were expecting interest rates to rise. And when interest rates are falling or low most retail investors actually kind of sell.

Peter Gleysteen: (11:45)
So it's not something that is an easy sales peach, for what I'll call an institutional Salesforce in the retail brokerage world, that's interacting with investors, and it's not something that you can buy on an exchange because they're not securities. Another thing about bank loans is they're highly unstandardized. Each one is different, it's customized by the regional bank originating bank, to that specific borrower and what they're using the money for. So it's highly customized. Well, it's also one of the reasons why the returns are so high because of compared to almost anything else, there's a lot of excess return in bank loans. But institutional investors like everybody, especially in this era of low interest rates and credits to traditionally viewed as a fixed income type of investment, institutional investors want safety, they want a meaningful, robust cash yield. Which increasingly you can't get in traditional fixed income products.

Peter Gleysteen: (12:56)
And people are noticing that if bank loans actually have that. And when I say they have that while rates now are near zero, including labor, which is the reference rate for medically syndicated loan, or at least syndicated bank loans. The actual cash distribution that you would get if you owned a portfolio of probably syndicated bank loans is the same or higher than it has been because credit spreads actually have widened and offset the decrease in [inaudible 00:13:25]. So here you have a product that's continuing to provide a thick robust, slightly higher cash coupon where everything else is kind of near zip. So it's affecting a lot more interest. I'll add one more thing, which is that most institutional investors have traditionally viewed, the five-ish percent that I mentioned that a bank loan portfolio throws off as not interesting enough.

Peter Gleysteen: (13:55)
But they like it when you apply leverage to it, which is why CLO's have emerged as such a large product. And there's like seven or 800 billion of CLO's outstanding holding all these syndicated bank loans. And the leverage, which can be as high as 10 times. You can have less leverage structures. And we specialize in that actually. Magnifies the great attributes of broadly syndicated bank loans, which are safety, strong cash distribution, or a coupon. And also liquidity.

Peter Gleysteen: (14:25)
I haven't mentioned that bank bonds are liquid. I'll come back to that if we have time in a second. But those three attributes, safety, cash, and liquidity can be magnified by applying leverage. The leverage that you want it to be non-market mark. You want it to be long-term leverage where that leverage that debt is repaid only by portfolio cashflow was not by price changes in the underlying assets. Just like a margin call. That's a bad thing. But CLO has had this terrific long-term structure and increasingly investors now for quite a while, have been investing in this. And I think given where interest rates are there, there's going to be a lot more interesting.

Troy Gayeski: (15:10)
So Peter, okay, along those lines, before we get into CLO's, which we will in a second. Can you lay out what the total return differential is right now versus a portfolio of syndicated bank loans like your own versus the 10 year treasury yield or [Lightboard 00:15:25] or even vanilla high yield bonds?

Peter Gleysteen: (15:29)
Sure. Without getting into the other asset classes. Because those are well-known levels starting with near zero for short-term treasuries. So at the asset class level, you just had an actively managed portfolio or the syndicated bank loans, including [Lightboard 00:15:48], which is 20, 30 basis points, as opposed to 3%. Really low. You can getting five to 6%. It depends on the manager and the portfolio strategy. It could be lower, could be higher. I call it five to 6%. If you add leverage to that, you go with CLO's level leverage. Hit the pause button, by doing that, the investor who wants the highest return is investing underneath the debt that's providing the leverage. So they're the junior capital. So there's one part junior capital and nine parts that on top of you.

Peter Gleysteen: (16:28)
But if you're in that junior capital investor, instead of getting the five to 6% return, you can get, in my experience 18 over 20% or more of a beta kind of a thing, I would say 12 to 15%. But definitely in the teens. So for people who're saying five is too low and I want teens, CLO's are really interesting. And by the way, there's some good research that indicated that every CLO that's ever been issued since the first one, I think this is Wells Fargo research. There's been a positive IRR to the equity that junior layer, they got their capital back with some kind of return on over 98% of every CLO that's ever been issued. That's an astonishing statistic for people who don't think they're safe. They're not safe if you have to sell. Let me just make the point that whether you're investing in bank loans straight up or with some degree of leverage, those great attributes of ongoing cashflow generation, consistent safety and liquidity to fine tune the portfolio, those are things that are advantages and create steady Eddy returns and safety over time.

Peter Gleysteen: (17:40)
If you suddenly have to sell need liquidity for redemption reasons or worse, have a market value paced debt and have to sell because prices change. That's a bad thing. So this is a product that I think very strongly is really only for long-term investors. And then you get all these great advantages, which leverage only magnifies. I'll add that we know global investors by type in individually quite well and kind of the sweet spot for most investors, is a seven to 8% return. Now to get that, they do a wide spectrum of investments, call it a mosaic or a tapestry, private equity, Timberland high yield bonds. Just every asset class you can imagine, hoping that the combination of them over time, it's that seven to 8%. For the safety reasons and the consistent cashflow reasons that I was describing.

Peter Gleysteen: (18:40)
You can get that using a CLO strategy by using a little leverage, not a lot. Say two times leverage. Will generate... Pre COVID it was generated kind of an 8% plus return. All in broadly syndicated loan returns have step shifted up since. So a new investor going and now it counterintuitive. This is actually a great time to invest in this asset class because there's more return for risk. So with around two turns of leverage, the return opportunities around 9%, which is a little bit of a push into that kind of magic 7% that most people want.

Troy Gayeski: (19:18)
Yeah, it's pretty impressive. And speaking of not selling, let's go back to March. Where many structured credit assets, including CLO's and level loans suffered substantial losses. Despite the fact that the fundamental credit quality was still sound. And the question of whether you would realize your cash flows was very much settled. So do you think it makes sense for markets to be focused too much on liquidation value in times like March or April or going back to Q4 of a laid after leaving failed. Or do you think it makes sense to look longer term with the power of the cash flows compounding over time?

Peter Gleysteen: (19:54)
That's a great question. And I think you just answered it at the end, because-

Troy Gayeski: (19:59)
Is that a lean on that one Peter a little bit?

Peter Gleysteen: (20:00)
That was excellent because the strength and the value of the product, again and as I said, it's really for long-term investors. It is that forward cash earnings, power that's safe. So it's the ability to hold something long-term that every quarter is going to generate cash. And if you hold that investment, you're going to just getting that cash and incidentally for an actively managed portfolio in our experience, and certainly our expectations going forward.

Peter Gleysteen: (20:32)
There's also an opportunity to generate realized capital gains. So it's both cash plus a little upside down the road. If you're panicked or if you're forced to sell for whatever reason, especially in like March when prices almost instantly collapsed along with everything else, as the markets went through a boo bionic plague type panic that quickly fortunately abated. If you were selling, that was terrible.

Peter Gleysteen: (21:05)
It's because there was no bid. So if you're selling when there's no one buying, of course prices vomit. But back to the core question of valuation, the liquidation value of something, even if you say, let's say the liquidation value for a loan is a hundred cents. And the principle is a hundred cents. The loan is $1 or 1 million or 100 million. If you can sell it for that amount, that's certainly fair value. But if you do that, you're foregoing the opportunity for that future earning stream that I was describing. Now, if the market, because it's frightened or by the way most markets certainly, the broadly syndicated loan markets driven by three interwoven factors that sometimes are one of them dominates. Those are fundamentals what's really going on in the economy in each borrower. Market technical is the balance of supply and demand of investors buying and selling and sentiment.

Peter Gleysteen: (22:06)
So in March we had sentiment via panic. So if the price of a loan that's eventually going to repay 100 cents is selling for 80 cents. Not only you foregoing giving up that forward earnings power of that asset, that's worth a hundred cents, but you're taking a 20 cent loss. So it's a terrible way to value probably any asset. But certainly that is forward earnings power, but certainly broadly syndicated ones.

Peter Gleysteen: (22:40)
That's not to say there isn't important value to market prices because there is, you do want to know what it's worth, especially if you did have to sell. And especially if you want to optimize the portfolio and buy something to improve the risk profile or return targets, especially if loans are cheap, which they are now by the way, and you want to be a buyer and lower prices are a good thing in that context. But there's a difference between performance valuation and liquidation.

Troy Gayeski: (23:15)
It's so segue back into CLO's and we were talking about this before we started the session. The broadly syndicated loans, roughly 95, 96 cents in a dollar right now, double re-CLO is roughly 83 cents in the dollar. Can you talk about why you think there's still that big price discrepancy, even though we don't know an analyst or a credit market participant now that would argue that double B's are not money good? People debated, hey, March, April, maybe you do get some bumblebees cracking. You have enough high enough chemo defaults. You have low enough recovery rates, but that was really settled by June and July. You still have this massive price disparity. What do you think drives that when it's clearly not fundamental value?

Peter Gleysteen: (23:57)
That's a really good question. I would say a couple of things and by the way-

Troy Gayeski: (24:02)
I'm on the roll Peter, I'm on a roll.

Peter Gleysteen: (24:04)
As everyone probably knows just listening to us that I'm not without opinions. So in CLO's, as I was describing before, above the junior capital so-called equity layer, there are various levels of debt, and all these layers or [tranches 00:24:22] are rated. And most of the debt is triple A, roughly two thirds of the capital structure of the CLO is triple A debt. That's really cheap, attractive debt. But there all these other slices, a single lay slice, triple B double B. And you're talking about the double B's.

Peter Gleysteen: (24:42)
The top end, the two thirds at the top, the triple A asset... By the way, so triple A, where do you get paid if... And this is a long-term debt with no market value triggers. And also with shorten on-call periods is very favorable optionality for the junior capital, the so-called equity. The triple A's mainly held by banks as long-term investors, insurance companies and some pension funds.

Peter Gleysteen: (25:07)
When you get to the triple and double B layer, so-called the mezzanine layer of CLO's. Those are mainly held by credit hedge funds. And it makes sense that if you go back to the math that I was describing, two thirds of all the debt is Triple A. There's not much debt left anymore. And if you take that and then if the bottom layer is 10%, that leaves like 23%, if you take that 23% and divided between AA, single A, triple B, double B, maybe single B, each of those tranches are really small. So of course it makes sense that credit hedge funds can invest it, because these are not big amounts. So they're traded they're held not in long-term hands.

Peter Gleysteen: (25:53)
So if a bank is investing in a triple A that has a 10 year final maturity, you're making an investment decision that could be there for 10 years. But the mezzanine investors are trading oriented and are looking for, because the capital structure is that it's needlessly complicated with 10 layers. And there's often between two and 400 loans in any given CLO, we're at the low end spectrum, by the way, closer to 220. That's a lot of complexity which changes the value, especially because people's assumptions on how to value those forward cashflow streams are changing. These are very sophisticated investors, so they use models. They're not looking at liquidation values. They're looking at that forward cashflow stream and the discount in it. So they're traded in a very thin market. So there's a lot of volatility. When you have something that's very complicated. It's trading from time to time, but very few buyers. And especially if some of them suddenly have to sell. So we know that in March, April, some people came under the gun because of the kind of financing arrangements that they had had to be sellers. But it's-

Troy Gayeski: (27:09)
Well Peter, as we sit here today, then you would generally agree with the statement that double B cash flows are money good and worth far yet they still traded 83. Plus you get a 550 to 650 coupon. So it looks like a pretty compelling investment right now, total return standpoint right now.

Peter Gleysteen: (27:24)
Totally. [crosstalk 00:27:26] I would say-

Troy Gayeski: (27:27)
[inaudible 00:27:27] you're participating in correct?

Peter Gleysteen: (27:29)
We do. There's opportunities there and we do have a secondary fund. It's a small piece of our AUM. But there's a very clear opportunity. I'll point out though. The devil's in the details. So it's who the manager is, what their strategy is. And for professional investors, the underlying portfolios are available. We can actually get it if we were considering someone else is... If someone wanted to look at one of our CLO's, you could based on our last quarterly payment date. You could see every single loan investment that we have in that fund or CLO. And incidentally, every BSL broadly syndicated loan is rated by both Moody's and S and P. There's a ton of information. There's research. There's a whole nother subject of private side information and public side investing. I won't go into that probably if we get time. But it's an area where homework really pays off and experience pays off even more.

Troy Gayeski: (28:30)
So that would be what we refer to as a classic alpha proposition. The credit research, looking at private versus public. That's one of the areas where you guys generate not only beta from the asset class, but also alpha to security selection, and perhaps having a bit more knowledge than the next manager that's not quite as experienced. Would that be an appropriate summary?

Peter Gleysteen: (28:51)
Yes. Thank you. And I'll just add that. So my background, as I said earlier, I come from the banking world. So I come from the world from making loans, not taking, I'm not taking something that someone else created it's offering you as an investor. So I would call myself more like the cook, the dishwasher, Maître d', the waiter. And most investors as the people going to the restaurant ordering Alec card. So I'm more familiar with where these come from, how they come to be made, what the issues are, what kinds of information is available.

Peter Gleysteen: (29:26)
And how to put the pieces. And I'll go back to when you asked about my background, I made the comment that I learned early, that things are often not what they appear. And that motivated me early to kind of understand what was going on, as opposed to just the way things appeared on the surface. Because I noticed in different countries that it was the same reality, but people expressed it and lived it differently. And for good reason, and that was great and I feel a great beneficiary of that. And when I found a career in an asset class that had a terrific continuity with great attributes of what I just been describing, safety, steady Eddie ongoing cash flow and liquidity. So you can change things. You can change your mind at the backstage. Changed the investment profile. That's why I'm in my fifth decade of doing this.

Troy Gayeski: (30:19)
Yeah, it is a rich history. So obviously the pandemic has affected pretty much everyone on the planet. It's affected some investors negatively, others positively. But in terms of your firm, how has it impacted your ability to put capital to work, particularly for new investments where you've raised quite a bit in the past six months?

Peter Gleysteen: (30:40)
Yeah. So we were really surprised. So in March it looked like the world possibly could end. So we immediately reevaluated every investment stress test. And said "Oh my God, the recession is not a year or two from now. It's happening now. And it might you the worst ever." In that process, we concluded that some positions we should have less of, or not have any at all and made the adjustments. It's a liquid asset class. But the main conclusion was, wow, most of these borrowers are gonna make it. And some of them are actually quite strong. So it was as if every person on the planet had a complete medical test. And you could know everything. Who's going to survive, who's going to thrive and who needs intensive care. So the asset class suddenly had credit risk much more visible.

Peter Gleysteen: (31:35)
And let me just add that there's two forms of credit risk. There's financial credit risk, how much leverage, what kind of loan agreement, are there covenants? Those types of risks are visible. In fact, they're hiding in plain sight. More important risk is basic credit risk. What kind of company, what's the industry, what drives customer demand, what's their competitive position. Those things change and are frankly mostly opaque. And that's where you need to do all the work. The COVID recession made basic credit risk suddenly really evident. So you can make much more, both risk management decision on an informed basis, but also... These are clearly survivors. These are better than survivors. And they've been hugely sold off. Now prices have retraced quite a bit, but they're still discounted. So we concluded really quickly that this was a great investing opportunity.

Peter Gleysteen: (32:32)
So the surprising, I said, we were surprised in March. By the way, AGL, slow at organizing new activities was legally formed in March of 2019. So not that long ago, although the firm was fully formed before that date. All the employees, partners, capital bank and all that stuff. But in March of this year, 2020, we had about over 2 billion of assets under management for our funds. But now we have like 4.3 going on 4.4 billion. So with more than doubled since COVID. Why? Because of these incredibly compelling opportunities and our investing partners, understand that. And when they want the money to put you put the work to get the benefit of more risk or... There's slightly elevated risk across the board because of the uncertainties of social distancing from COVID and how that's changing businesses and how our economy and societies will operate, but there's way more return. So-

Troy Gayeski: (33:40)
It's truly incredible. Your assets have doubled more than doubled under management in six short months. It's a real tribute to the inefficiency and the opportunity, the assets that you traffic in. Plus obviously the skill that you and your team have historically. Now let's approach this from a different angle. We typically run across a few efficient market theorists. There aren't many left. Because anyone that's studied markets the last 20 years now, not even longer. I know there's plenty of inefficiencies all the time. And they're particularly exacerbated in times of stress.

Troy Gayeski: (34:17)
Could you better explain to people or at least attempt to why, even with rates this low in the fed, haven't expanded their balance sheet by 3 trillion ECB, not far behind money supply growth exploded, we're 20.1% more money supply now than coming into March. How you could still realize such attractive returns and such high coupons in a backdrop where you just say, [inaudible 00:34:43] zero, 10 year treasuries, 50 or 60 basis points, IGE yields, one and a half to 1.7 [inaudible 00:34:52] around 1.2. Why do you think even in an environment like this, you could still continue to get such attractive yields?

Peter Gleysteen: (35:00)
That is a great question. And I don't have a complete answer but I can make a couple of points. The first and at the most simplistic level, the asset class has always been in capital markets. Usually if you go to the capital markets, you get the lower of whatever the execution is. It's whatever investors are willing to buy whatever you're offering the cheapest in terms of cost to the issuer. The broadly syndicated loan market is the opposite. While the new issue prices for loans change over time are driven by, as I was saying. Fundamentals, technicals and sentiment. It's the higher of what the banks who originated need require. And by the way, their cost structures keep going up for a whole bunch of reasons and what investors require. Now, when we talk about investors who invest in us, I said that that group's about 1.2 trillion.

Peter Gleysteen: (35:54)
It's like eight different kinds of investors. It's CLO's, it's retail funds, it's credit hedge funds, not only buy CLO's securities, they also buy loans directly. It's insurance companies, it's informed foreign banks. All these different investors have completely different motives, different time horizons, different ways of valuing things. Almost all of them are public side. And as I said before, each loan is different. They're rated. Most investors are first influenced well, okay. What, your most investors work in large organizations and have to explain things to the higher ups. So the higher ups are reading whatever they're reading or whatever terminal and it's saying, "Broadly syndicated loans are risky. Their private equity, CLO's are highly leveraged." They have a really negative... They should have a halo and instead have a stigma in terms of how they're portrayed.

Peter Gleysteen: (36:51)
So at a high level investors have to explain to the higher up, why they're doing this despite this kind of negative perception. When you have a recession, nevermind one, that's unprecedented because of these behavioral changes that are best made in some industries and we're just hitting the pause button. Since a year ago, triple C rated assets. I mentioned, all of these ones are rated. The triple C contingent, is more than double triple C is kind of a danger zone. We don't intentionally, we don't invest in anything that's triple C. We could have something that becomes triple C. We have very hard lineage that, but the point is, that's more than double. Why? Because we have a recession, there's a lot of risks. There's a lot of uncertainty. So in that environment, when I said that spreads step shifted up, ignoring interest rates, whatever the regular way spread levels were, investors require more returns.

Peter Gleysteen: (37:49)
So spreads have lifted because risk actually is higher. If you actually get into the innards of portfolios, you can either create new portfolios or discover an existing ones. That they're really safe, that they're managed in the way that the risk profile is actually improved. They're actually safer than they were, but actually have higher returns. One thing I didn't mention is... That's really helpful. There's over a thousand borrowers in the broadly syndicated loan market. And these are mostly private companies. It's the backbone. These are the mid to large companies that are the backbone of the U.S economy. These are not the multinational companies that you can buy a public equity in or an investment grade bond. These are private companies, they're not investment grade. Most of them are very healthy. So it's a terrifically inefficient space.

Peter Gleysteen: (38:50)
And I could talk probably for days about it, including how syndicated lending came about the transition from banks, to just making loans to the same borrowers, to becoming a capital markets activity. And then it became a capital markets activity that included investors in not just banks. And that was mainly because there weren't enough banks from risk management standpoint that to finance the growth of private companies that wanted to be financed. So it's actually quite inefficient. That has a very interesting total bank based history. And of course these are originated by banks structuring.

Troy Gayeski: (39:28)
That is a tremendous excavation. If I could sum it up before we turn it over to John to close things out. It's basically because the banks and the investors are always demanding a higher yield than they think the risks they're taking A and B, even though your view is that there isn't demonstrably more risks, given the increase let's call it a V-shape recovery in certain industries. Investors are demanding even more return now because of the uncertainties in the world. Would that be a fair summary of those two points?

Peter Gleysteen: (40:00)
Very, good summary. I'll add one more piece to that. And we should record this. At the long [crosstalk 00:40:09]

Troy Gayeski: (40:09)
I think we are I think John [inaudible 00:40:11]

John Darsie: (40:11)
Oh, we're recording in it.

Peter Gleysteen: (40:13)
At a lower level, I mentioned that the asset class is not a syndicated loan. It's all of them. That's what [inaudible 00:40:20] the safety.

Peter Gleysteen: (40:22)
Yes, if you take a loan and we're in a riskier environment, people are demanding that loan should have more return. So they all do. If you take... Then if you take a big, if you create a big portfolio of them, they are generating more cashflow that funds out any possible losses, you're actually getting more return, which is creating more safety. So counterintuitively, there's an increase there's a perception of increased risk or reality of increased risk. That's pushing spreads up. But there's much more pushup, as you said, in spreads and there is risk and you have to have that push in banks and investors have to be paid more from what they think the risk is.

Peter Gleysteen: (41:05)
And when you apply that X increment on every single loan at the portfolio level, it creates a higher return per unit of risk. So if you had the amount of risks that you were, that you wanted or were willing to take was X, and you stay at X, you rebalance portfolios to the risk. The risk is the same. You're getting paid much more for that same level of risk, which why [crosstalk 00:41:28] asset level.

Troy Gayeski: (41:29)
Peter. So we're going to end it there on my end. It's been a real pleasure to speak with you and learn about your background and hear you articulate the compelling case for the leverage loan CLO and broadly syndicated bank debt market. I'm going to turn it over to my partner, the managing director of SALT, to close things out with some questions from the audience. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (41:48)
Thank you, Troy. It's been a fantastic conversation. We have a couple of great questions from the audience. So I'm going to take two questions. I'm going to put them into one. So we don't take too much of people's time and Peter's time, and you've been very gracious to join us Peter, thank you very much. Given your experience in building these bank loans, have you seen any shift in the underwriting language of these loans, pre COVID versus now, has standards shifted from higher Cub light, has issuances ramped up? And also the returns we've discussed are historical when we had higher loan covenant standards. Do you have concerns on a go-forward basis that recoveries with respect to the current loan market environment, specifically the degradation of loan covenants and lender protections, especially in issuances from 2018 to 2019?

Peter Gleysteen: (42:38)
Those are great questions. So first of all, since COVID, credits... Like I said before, with credit risks, there's two kinds, there's financial risk and basic risk. With credit quality and underwriting standards. There there's two kinds, there's the quality of the documents and whether there's covenants or not, and separately, how rigorous and how high are the standards in terms of which borrowers, what companies get financing. So on the former, which is covenants or what people would call loose documentation, loose terms. There hasn't really been much change. It's the same. And the main reason for that is people who invest in this know that these loans are well structured. The borrowers are credit worthy, and the math of more return for risks that I was describing is present. So there hasn't been pressure from investors.

Peter Gleysteen: (43:40)
The investors would like to have better documentation, but that hasn't happened. That hasn't happened. I don't expect that to happen. And I think this time I couldn't say why. More importantly though. I think credit standards, real credit standards, like who gets the money have improved. And I'll make two comments. One is post COVID the average new issue or in the broadly syndicated loan market. That means a borrower comes to the market with a new loan banks, underwritten and presenting a new loan. The average borrower is a larger company with less leverage with better ratings and is paying more. So it's a higher quality borrower. Back to the first point, the documents have not improved, but a stronger borrower. The other comment that I'll make is if you look at this over a 10, 20, 30 year timeframe, the average borrowers over time have been improving.

Peter Gleysteen: (44:39)
If you were to look at the typical leveraged buyout of the 1980s, which is when I cut my teeth and really big leveraged finance, you'd be horrified with the capital structures. On how much leverage and some of those on some of those buyouts. If you were to compare the current cohort of borrowers with the ones in the O six O seven pre financial crisis year. What you would find is, borrowers today are air quality. So that trend over time has actually been through higher quality, not lower quality, even though the terms of the documents are clearly loose.

Peter Gleysteen: (45:21)
And I'll just add that, that's mainly a phenomenon. Most the growth of the broadly syndicated loan investor base has been driven by the determines that crossed over, the move of traditional high yield investors that continue investing high yield, but also to invest in loans. Because typically the borrower has the downstairs high yield bond and the upstairs, or the broadly syndicated loan. Now high yield doesn't have covenants, never seen private side information, so they never demanded it and don't need it. So that's one of the... It's a structural reason why, covenant has effectively gone away. And from that standpoint, loans and bonds have converged. One is still the security and one is still alone.

John Darsie: (46:08)
Peter, thanks so much again for taking the time to join us. And Troy, thanks so much for taking the time to moderate today's discussion. I think it was fascinating, Peter, as you mentioned, this was recorded. So anybody who joined late or wants to clarify some of what you said, they can always go to the SALT website within two or three days, we'll typically post these episodes on demand. But thanks everybody for tuning in, it was a real pleasure to have you on Peter.

Peter Gleysteen: (46:33)
Thank you for having me and thank you audience for listening and hopefully you're interested. Thank you.

Boaz Weinstein: How to Handle Market Volatility | SALT Talks #57

“The scale of the COVID selloff can only be compared to the Great Depression and, to some extent, 2008.“

Boaz Weinstein is the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of Saba Capital Management, a $3.2 billion credit hedge fund based in New York City. Saba was founded in 2009 as a liftout of the Deutsche Bank proprietary credit trading group he started in 1998. Boaz leads a team of 33 professionals, with the senior members having worked together for 15 years.

As a credit investor whose formative years were spent in volatile periods, Boaz was far more interested in finding ways to capture moments where you can own volatility. Prior to COVID, credit markets were ultra stable, even in equity markets. The team at Saba examined market volatility and found opportunities when credit spreads were overvalued, leading to gains in early and mid-2020.

Prior to 2020, the next selloff was forecast to be worse because market conditions had changed. “After 2008, banks took on a less significant role in providing liquidity and taking positions.” Who ended up filling the gaps? Retail investors. This shift had the potential to cause the significant problems we’re seeing play out today.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Boaz Weinstein.jpeg

Boaz Weinstein

Founder & Chief Investment Officer

Saba Capital Management

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, 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 public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we launched during this work from home period, with interviews featuring leading investors, creators and thinkers. What we're really trying to do during the SALT Talks interview series is replicate the experience that we provided our SALT conference series, which takes place annually in Las Vegas as well as internationally and most recently we did in Abu Dhabi. What we're really trying to do is provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future as well as very interesting investment ideas, and also provide a platform for subject matter experts.

John Darsie: (00:52)
Today, we're very excited to welcome Boaz Weinstein to SALT Talks. Boaz is the founder and chief investment officer of Saba Capital Management. Boaz founded Saba in 2009 as a lift out of Saba principles. Mr. Weinstein leads a team of 30 professionals with the senior investment team having worked together for 17 years. Prior to founding Saba, Boaz was the co-head of Global Credit Trading at Deutsche Bank. In that role, he was responsible for overseeing a group of approximately 650 professionals, and he was a member of the Global Markets Executive Committee at Deutsche Bank. Throughout his career at Deutsche Bank, Boaz had a dual responsibility for proprietary trading and market making. In proprietary trading, he founded Saba principle strategies to specialize in credit and capital structure investing. As a market maker he focused on credit default swaps, investment grade bonds and high yield bonds.

John Darsie: (01:46)
Boaz worked at Deutsche Bank for 11 years the last eight, in which he operated as a managing director, a title he received at the age of 27. Boaz graduated from the University of Michigan, he's a Michigan man with a bachelor in philosophy. He grew up in New York City, and attended Stuyvesant High School where he's currently on the board of directors. Boaz is also on the Leadership Council for Robin Hood, which is a well known New York charity that is the largest New York charity fighting poverty within the city. A reminder if you have any questions for Boaz during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. And conducting today's interview is going to be Troy Gayeski, who's a partner, Senior Portfolio Manager and the co-chief investment officer at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. And with that, I'll turn it over to Troy for the interview.

Troy Gayeski: (02:36)
Yeah, thanks, John. And thanks, everybody for dialing into SALT Talks. Boaz, it's an honor to have you on here today. And before we get into the meat and potatoes of your investment opportunities, and all the various complex securities you're focused on, let's take it back a little bit, growing up in New York, going to Michigan. How did you transition to Wall Street? And then we can spend specific time in your career at Deutsche Bank, which is so formative for your success.

Boaz Weinstein: (03:03)
Thank you Troy. It's really a pleasure to speak with you and everyone on today. So my start on Wall Street really required like many people's a good deal of luck. I was interviewing like a lot of people might, sending in the letters and you get the recruiting officer to do the good service of meeting with you for 15 minutes. But as I was leaving, and this was at Goldman Sachs, as I was leaving the interview, I went to use the restroom and lo and behold, in the sinks washing his hands was someone I'd met once before, who I hadn't even realized was the partner in charge of the high yield business for Goldman. So were it not for that moment, my start on Wall Street would have been quite a bit later. I had had a job after school with a very formidable mother, daughter duo at Merrill Lynch, who are stockbrokers. But my real start on a trading floor came at Goldman and so I did that each summer as an undergrad.

Troy Gayeski: (04:00)
Got you. Boaz, thanks for that brief color, but from there going to Deutsche Bank. I mean remember you back in the crisis stage, you were a legend, given the volume that you put on, and various complex trades. So you want to talk about how that experience helped segue you to today and what particular lessons you learned while at DB?

Boaz Weinstein: (04:23)
Sure. So all through my early career on Wall Street, I had been interested more in technicals and quantitative strategies than pure fundamentals. In the credit market when I started, Troy was really this is pre credit derivatives, it was really analysis of what's the likelihood a company will get downgraded or its cash flows will not be sufficient to pay back the debt. And it required a tremendous amount of knowledge about distressed and accounting and less about the math. Whereas in other parts of fixed income, there was a lot of math, different spline models for government bond pricing and options models. So I needed also the good luck of the credit market to mature enough to have a credit derivative market in time for me and to be at a good place to do that.

Boaz Weinstein: (05:18)
So all that coalesced around 1998, where the credit market was still in the real tremendous infancy of the beginning of the derivative space, even though for foreign exchange, for equities, for lots of other asset classes, derivatives had been around since the '70s or prior. So when I was starting out at Deutsche in 1998, there was no book on how to do things, most of the credit investors, most of the market makers and traders knew the old way. And when credit default swaps came about all of a sudden, going short was much easier than in the past, you didn't have to worry about a bond borrow. You could set up curve trades that you couldn't really do efficiently. You could look at all sorts of strategies that some of which were borrowed from other asset classes, and some of which were fairly new, like how do you really think about comparing a bond to equity options. And out of the money put on an equity is not all that different, when you think about it from a bond.

Boaz Weinstein: (06:20)
In that it will only pay off when a dramatic giant sell off has occurred and that put goes in the money. Similarly, in credit, even if a company goes from triple B to single B, if it doesn't default, you get your par back. So starting at the right time, starting at the right place, and then the third ingredient was also the volatility. So my vintage coming out of college and investing, had I started five years earlier, and markets had been really tranquil, or in some period, if I'd experienced a market with very little volatility, I'm sure that would have had its influence. Instead, the year that I really had risk taking capabilities in 1998 and onward, we have the Russian default, long term capital management blew up.

Boaz Weinstein: (07:08)
And very soon thereafter, there was plenty more, not just 911, trading through that day of 911 but of course the defaults later that year of Enron, and then the following year of Worldcom, and all of everything that came after. So I was someone as a credit investor, whose formative years were spent in volatile periods. And that really made me much more interested in trying to find ways to capture moments where you can own volatility, or you could have asymmetric position that will do well in a volatile environment. And that led to a lot of the things that we then developed.

Troy Gayeski: (07:45)
Got you. So obviously a combination of brilliant mind with luck. I'm glad you referenced that, because especially in the tough times, you're going into now people tend to forget just how lucky we are to be in this industry and to be in the seat that you are today. So how did those formative years compare and prepare you for today? And what were the differences or similarities between the March, late February, March, early April debacle, and some of the past historical market disasters you've managed through?

Boaz Weinstein: (08:17)
Right, so the scale of the sell off of COVID in February, March was so severe that people only are really comparing it to the Great Depression and to some extent 2008. I've thought a lot about this question, not only since COVID, markets have calm but in that moment, about what kind of market are we in? So maybe one of the first things to say is that prior to the COVID sell off, or the COVID crash, whatever you want to call it, credit markets had been ultra stable, even in the face of moments of equity market volatility. So if you go back to 2018, when tech stocks had a giant run up in January, a giant sell off in February, and the VIX blew out. And then later that year with China trade war stuff in Q4 18, there was again a giant blowout in equity markets, vol spiked, VIX went into the 40s and plus and credit markets really held.

Boaz Weinstein: (09:17)
I think some of that was based on the right reasons. That if you have a booming economy, a low default rate, low yields in the world, everyone needs to find yield somewhere that the credit market can be resilient, especially if it has been resilient. But the credit market to me is I look at it also as a space where when spreads are low. That spread we could call it [inaudible 00:09:42] yield, bond, interest. We can also look at it like premium, you're getting premium, and we can compare that to other other environments and to say that when the spreads are quite low that you're still never going to earn more than that spread. If you're an investor, lucky investor in Apple or pick a super thriving company, as a bond holder, you're never getting better than par and your coupons. So for you, volatility, uncertainty is just it's a four letter word because you're never benefiting from it, you never have the upside, you only have the asymmetry against you.

Boaz Weinstein: (10:16)
So I've tended over the years especially to look at volatility as a sign for when credit spreads are overvalued. So when credit spreads are too low, but volatility is high, and we'll get to that in a little bit. You can think about the credit investment, like you've sold an option at a spread that's just too low. So in going through COVID, what was in many ways it bore resemblance to past dramatic sell offs. And that credit did fall on a very heavy delta. So we did have credit markets, especially on the bond side, much less than derivatives falling precipitously, companies that pre COVID were extremely well regarded. Let's take an Occidental Petroleum or go into the heart of the storm, a Royal Caribbean, for example, who had both of them had very low credit spreads and they saw those credit spreads go, not just 100% wide or 500% wider, but go 1000 or 2,000% wider.

Boaz Weinstein: (11:18)
So in that world, credit fell for many companies very heavily compared to equity, sometimes even almost one for one. So quite different than '18 and quite different than in some other sell off. So in that sense, in more resembles '08 and I remember, prior to 2020, a lot of people talking about how in the next sell off, things would be worse, because of the market dynamics, how the market had changed. The main way the market had changed in my view, in terms of the underlying participants, is that after '08, the banks took on a much less significant role both in providing liquidity and in taking positions. So people have speculated, well who's filled in the gap. And if retail investors have filled in that gap and retail investors own all of these ETFs and mutual funds, and BDCs and closed-end funds.

Boaz Weinstein: (12:15)
If we are to have a big sell off, and now retail can get out on one day's notice from some of these products, and some of these products have leverage that causes them to have to sell in a downturn. But mutual funds and ETFs have to sell that day that the rise of retail and the drop off in banks, as a shock absorber would create a problem. So people talked about it for years. And we saw in 2020 I think the most meaningful thing was to see that in action.

Troy Gayeski: (12:42)
Got you. Yeah, clearly, not having the dealer desk step in to provide liquidity was a clear detriment to price action. But on the other side of that, obviously, the lack of participation from prop desk creates good opportunities for folks like yourself to trade, correct?

Boaz Weinstein: (12:59)
That's right. We saw things that people thought you ought not to see. So just a simple example, various ETFs not even little ones. I may name some giant ones like the BND, which is meant to replicate the bond index, or the AGG, the AGG were trading on the worst days of March at giant discounts to their net asset value even as much as four or 5%, which is huge when you think about [crosstalk 00:13:25].

Troy Gayeski: (13:25)
[crosstalk 00:13:25]. Yeah.

Boaz Weinstein: (13:26)
And then there were ETFs that were trading at 15, 20% discounts. So we saw opportunities for funds like ourself, where dislocations were enormous, discounts on closed-end funds, differences between skyrocketing equity vol and credit spreads. So it has been for us a historically good year. I think maybe the most interesting part is even as I talk with you today, and the markets in many ways have calmed although we have an enormous amount of uncertainty to follow for the reasons we all know and some that maybe we'll bring up. But even though markets have calmed the dislocations really remain. Normally you see dislocation in the heat of the moment, and then the market stabilizes and things go away [inaudible 00:14:11]. But even today, you have some things that I'm not used to seeing before. I'm really unaccustomed to certain relationships being so stretched in times when markets are near their highs.

Troy Gayeski: (14:24)
But again, part of that is back to lack of prop desk competition, in that you don't have these big balance sheets to step in and normalize the relationships, correct?

Boaz Weinstein: (14:33)
Absolutely.

Troy Gayeski: (14:35)
There are guys like you still on the street. Right? You can go after it.

Boaz Weinstein: (14:40)
Yeah, no, that's absolutely right. We have had that phenomenon for a decent amount of time. The banks did pull back more than a couple years ago. So it's more like that's absolutely right. It's just how dramatic it is. And we did see in February, March really the banks unwilling in many cases to provide liquidity and as a result things got especially stretched. So that's been great for a number of funds like ourselves.

Troy Gayeski: (15:07)
So Boaz, that's a great summary into your insight into markets as they were then as they are today. On the fundamental side, you know you don't focus on this with all your research, but could you walk us through the path of high yield defaults that you see? I mean, we remember in March, April, some of the forecasts were close to a trillion dollars between levered loans and high yield. Obviously, things aren't going to become that bad. But just walk us through what you see fundamentally in terms of default rates, recovery rates and high yield and levered loans.

Boaz Weinstein: (15:38)
Okay. So first, I'm glad you said recovery rates, because it's one thing to talk about how many companies are defaulting. But what's been noticeable in this environment is the severe drop off in recoveries. So there was just an auction last week for noble energy and the recovery on the bonds was literally one cent on the dollar. A few, maybe six, seven weeks earlier, JC Penney defaulted, the recovery on those bonds was not one cent on the dollar, it was one eighth of one cent. So we're getting rid defaults, where there almost counting one and a half or two for one. So the severity, so if you think about your expected loss being the frequency something occurs, times the severity, the recovery rate being very low is really important to mention since that's actually critical to how much a long investor will lose.

Boaz Weinstein: (16:32)
The other thing is, from a fundamental side, is that the default rate didn't start ballooning right after COVID began. We already had last year some warning signs, whether it was Sears, a retailer that finally was defaulting, but people wondered, is JC Penney not going to go down that path, or we had Dean Foods, that was kind of a surprise, if you look back a couple years earlier. So Parker Drillings, so energy space defaults. So we had a lot of defaults in 2019. In Europe, we had Thomas Cook, 200 and something year old company. So in normal environments where credit spreads are ultra low, as they were Troy, just seven months ago, you normally have in an ultra low credit spread environment, very little losses that you've recently felt. But if somebody gets punched in the face seven times, default after default, in 2019 what's kind of been interesting about the market is that the rest of the pool has not widened to compensate.

Boaz Weinstein: (17:34)
What's instead happened is that people get up on Bloomberg and CNBC and talk about how there is no alternative, yields are at zero and in so getting 3% spread in high yield isn't so bad. But what I think is really interesting from the fundamental credit side, is if you look at defaults and recovery rates, not only were they high in 19, not only they've been defaults that is, not only the [inaudible 00:17:59] super high in 2020, we've had 10 defaults this year in the index that the 100 names that best capture the high yield market on the derivative side, the 100 biggest companies, 10 of them defaulted this year, six last year. So not only have we had that happen, but if you look at the pool, and you look at it by quartile or however you like, by decile, what you find is actually out of that 3% that the pundits say ain't so bad, disproportionate high portion of it is coming from distressed fallen angels.

Boaz Weinstein: (18:32)
I don't think when a credit investor says I need yields, give me something that's three or four or 5% yield, I don't think they're counting on a bond trading at two cents on the dollar with a 500% yield to be part of that return. They all understand that the yield is stretched because of those wide names. So I think one of the hallmarks of the mispricing in 2020 in February, and it's coming back to again today is people ignoring the heavy amount of fallen angels that sit in the investment grade pool, and then are kicked out when they go to high yield like an Occidental Petroleum or Royal Caribbean. Or the high yield pool that despite 10 defaults is still sitting there with another 10 companies that are very much in trouble such as transition. The ticker for that is RIG to give you an example of even after those defaults, there's a lot more coming.

Boaz Weinstein: (19:26)
So I think that COVID fundamentally, it's not going to be a smooth recovery if we even get as big recovery as people expect. And what will be left behind are stressed companies that even in this bull market are exhibiting stress. Even American Airlines and then I'll pause, American Airlines which the president has been vociferously defending as, "We are going to protect American Airlines. They're going to get financing that they need." The equity market kind of believes it. If you look at the market cap of American Airlines, there's still a lot of equity value. The credit market is very skeptical of American Airlines, as evidenced by the enormous credit spread, the enormous probability of default that's being baked in. So high yield to me is really still a very interesting, vulnerable space where optically the spread is exaggerated because of fallen angels.

Troy Gayeski: (20:18)
Got you. So given that focus, could you walk our viewers through some of the exciting trade opportunities that you had on earlier this year? How they were monetized, and then some of the better opportunities today?

Boaz Weinstein: (20:32)
Sure. So when we do that unpacking of, "Okay, here's the index, but what's going on beneath the index." You can find that back in February and to a large extent even today, the best in the index, the best quartile [if you will, is trading at such tight levels. Let's take the high yield market for an example where it's not that we're saying, "Oh, the credit market has [inaudible 00:20:57] totally wrong, these are not good companies." It's just, this is the wrong price. So to go back to February, then I'll go to today, there were situations where pure market technicals, which I want to stress in this discussion we're having. I see this market as even though we can talk more about fundamentals and talk about the likelihood of the default rate staying high and so forth. I see the market driven very substantially compared to other times in my career by technicals, who's doing what to whom.

Boaz Weinstein: (21:29)
Even if the credit spread ought to be at X, sometimes you'll hear a market maker at a Goldman Sachs say, "Well, because it's included in this index and because this index is being heavily sold, or heavily bought, or there's an arbitrage on this index, and they're not enough guys like you to buy protection, credit spreads on certain companies that are technically offered or bid can trade a dramatically different levels than their fundamentals." So we've been focused less on fundamentals in these last few months, because we see the market being almost dominated other than for real workout distressed situations where of course, it's going to be about what actually happens. But in the meantime, technicals are driving a lot of the market. So for example, in February, the quartile, the best quartile of the high yield market was trading at a credit spread of 46 basis points.

Boaz Weinstein: (22:22)
46 basis points we all know is a very low number. It happens to be even lower than the average investment grade. So when we looked in that quartile, we saw some Double B companies that were not on their way to triple B, they were either going to stay at double B, they had double B leveraged metrics, others credit metrics, or they were maybe on their way to single B. So as an example, how could companies like a Saber, to take online travel company? How could Sabre simultaneously in February be trading at the same credit spread as McDonald's or IBM? McDonald's and IBM, we can wonder, are they going to retain their past glory? They're never going to default in any kind of reasonable world, but a double B company shouldn't really trade at where IBM is trading. So we bought protection on companies like Sabre, which also included United Airlines, and included lots of things unaffected by COVID. But we're just too darn tight and [inaudible 00:23:20] SALT protection on companies that we thought were safe like IBM.

Boaz Weinstein: (23:23)
Now, let me just say for three seconds, IBM was trading or is trading not on fundamentals, but because they had acquired Red Hat, the banks needed to offload that risk. And again, the banks didn't think IBM was a problem credit, but they just needed to buy the protection. So we have this world that I've never seen in my career where double B, single B companies are trading at the same spread as Verizon, IBM, Disney, AT&T. So we constructed a long short portfolio of what we would call valuable tail protection paid for by what we would view as very poor tail protection, i.e the McDonald's Disney example. So that worked exceptionally well in the sell off, and not just COVID type of names like Royal Caribbean. And even today, in this melt up that we've had in the last couple of months, we again have credits that it's either or. It's either they're trading super tight, or you have these exceptions that are dominating the spread.

Boaz Weinstein: (24:21)
So one way to finalize that and then I'll talk about a live opportunity is that if you compare credit spreads one year ago to today, you find that in the zero to 40 bucket. This was a chart I saw recently from Barclays. In the zero to 40 basis point bucket, what today there are far more credits 20% in the index more is now in that bucket in that ultra low bucket and every other bucket until the widest bucket has less constituent because they've all moved to the ultra low or they're the problem names like a Royal Caribbean or an Occidental. So you have this kind of all or none society where the average is a moderate credit spread, but you're either at zero degrees or you're a 200 degrees. So when we unpack that we find a lot of interesting trade ideas.

Boaz Weinstein: (25:10)
So today, we still see opportunities to short, double B rated companies at double digit spreads and go long, very safe single A companies like AT&T, [inaudible 00:25:20] which is triple B, but is not in danger of getting downgraded anytime soon. And if it did, it's almost a bigger deal for the high yield market than for AT&T, and pairing those together. So that's one type of idea and then I have a very brief idea to talk about with American Airlines if we have time for it.

Troy Gayeski: (25:39)
Boaz, we always have time for you and American Airlines. You referenced President Trump, we have an election coming up. Let's talk about that American Airlines opportunity.

Boaz Weinstein: (25:48)
So we found it through our screens but I've also had some friends in the industry, one in particular, who was less involved in credit, asking me what I thought. Because the thing about cost structure trades, American Airlines credit against equity, it can look good in a screen, it can look good at time zero, but [crosstalk 00:26:06].

Troy Gayeski: (26:06)
Boaz, you want to step back for one second and explain what a cap structure arbitrage looks like, not everyone is familiar with it as you.

Boaz Weinstein: (26:15)
Thank you, Troy. That's a good idea. So for many people cap structure would simply mean, I go long, one part of the capital structure, which in the continuum starts with equity, and then you have preferred and then you have subordinated and senior unsecured and senior secured, firstly, and secondly. So there's different levels of security in the debt. And so you might pick one safe thing or unsafe thing and trade one against the other. One of the nice things about that strategy is it's the same company. You don't have to worry, did you get like one company, long short, one company versus another company right. It's the same company. So that's interesting. And for many people, it's secured debt might be attractive compared to unsecured debt. In American Airlines, what we think is really interesting is that what even though a cap structure trade can be tricky, because the company can change its capital structure, a company of course, can issue debt to buy back stock or issue stock to buy back debt or something in between.

Boaz Weinstein: (27:23)
The way the uncertainty should work in this environment, if you look back to '08 with what happened with AIG or Fannie Mae or other kind of bailouts is that generally, the equity might be left for not. We had that of course with Bear Stearns, and a bunch of other situations where the equity either gets heavily diluted or bought for very little by the entity that's taking it over or providing the financing to it. So what we've noticed is interesting about American Airlines and I saw Seth Klarman wrote something similar in one of his letters about AMC Entertainment, the movie theater company, is that you've seen the debt fall really precipitously. And in some cases, the stock is as high as it was, or not an American Airlines case, but you see where the stock really hasn't fallen very much from pre COVID. So American Airlines today has an enormous market cap. Now, it was certainly higher beforehand, but it's obviously producing losses each and every day.

Boaz Weinstein: (28:24)
So you have all this equity value leftover for the stockholder. And what's at odds with that is that the debt you can find pretty short dated bonds trading like they're going to default. Whether it's a three or four year bond at 40 or 50 cents on the dollar, or it's a secured loan, first lien loan, where you have some of the best collateral in that loan. Whether it's the gates at Heathrow, or whatever it may be, and those loans have fallen very hard down from par down to 60 cents on the dollar, where even if the company were to default, those loans might still not be down from here. So when a trade like that, what we're doing lately is pairing those things, is buying that the cheapest part of the debt side and hedging it with puts on the equity.

Boaz Weinstein: (29:13)
So in that case, there are a number of hedge funds, I think that are willing to go along American Airlines debt, but they want a hedge, they want to out and for us, that's downside protection through the stock. So that's an example of one trade that is a household name, everyone's heard of American that stands out to us as really unusual.

Troy Gayeski: (29:36)
Wow, that's an interesting opportunity, takes you back to the 2003 days where you had tremendous cap structure arb opportunities right before again the dominance of distress hedge funds, because people forget, but that '08, '09 period, there weren't a lot of cap structure arb opportunity. Certainly not like the one you're describing today. So that brings us to a point of the disconnect that some see between certain pockets of credit markets and equity markets. You gave that very localized example. But is this a general trend you're seeing across companies that are at risk of bankruptcy, credit investors saying one thing and equity investor saying something else.

Boaz Weinstein: (30:14)
Actually, American stands out because there aren't a lot of opportunities like that. What does stand out and this will resonate, I think with a lot of people watching is that we've seen equity volatility, the cost of buying those puts or calls. Equity volatility is actually the thing that today remains very elevated. So if you just think about the VIX, which is the fear gauge, you can't go an hour or two without someone talking about it. In the financial press, the VIX, which had touched single digits, and was ultra low a mere three, four years ago, today is at a level that would suggest rough markets ahead, or at least lots of uncertainty. So the VIX, at one point last week was back in the 30s. Today, it's at 25. So I think the high level of equity vol is that extreme odds with the low level of credit spreads. Let's go back to my earliest point, that as a credit investor, you're not getting paid for the volatility, you're never going to do better than your yield minus the default rate and the loss that those defaults cause.

Boaz Weinstein: (31:24)
So you have a very capped return when credit spreads are low, it's a low number, and you're there for presumably for safety and for yield. The higher the volatility is, and you can look at the equity market as a reasonable, efficient market. The high the equity volatility is telling you there's a lot of uncertainty, and then you scratch your head and say, well, do I agree with that? Yes, Troy, you and I together could probably cite a dozen things, at least three or four that are highly uncertain. If there's a democratic sweep, will capital gains taxes go up? Will corporate taxes go up enough to cause some high yield companies to have problems who otherwise might have not?

Troy Gayeski: (32:06)
[crosstalk 00:32:06], how about when we get the fiscal stimulus that people thought would arrive by August 15 for [inaudible 00:32:10] the latest?

Boaz Weinstein: (32:12)
That's in my top five as well. I mean, and then there's this, people are confident there's going to be a COVID vaccine but that doesn't mean certain companies that are really suffering are going to really benefit and maybe not in time. If we could have this many defaults in the first half of the year, and the market is now pricing almost very few to come. So you make that list, you include things like China, the tension with China and you look at the level of vol, and you say, "Well, look, I can see why the next few months are going to be volatile." So when I look at the across cap structure, I have never seen so many cases where credit spreads are almost back to where they were pre February. And equity vol just remains 20, 30, 40 points higher than it was pre February.

Boaz Weinstein: (33:02)
And while we can rationalize it based on the scary uncertainty to come in markets, which by the way, as an equity investor is also something to think about, but at least in equities we've seen in the last few months, you have enormous upside. And certainly that's even without picking the right stocks. So equities offer somewhat of a symmetric investment in fact asymmetric because they can go up more than 100%, as any Tesla shareholder can tell you. So the asymmetry volatility is not a bad word for stocks, it is for credit, especially when credit spreads are low. So I think the kind of standout point about markets right now is the ultra high level of all which can be explained by vol funds having blown up in March, it can be explained by the macro factors you and I just talked about. But it is impossible, in my view, to rationalize the ultra high level of vol and the ultra low level of credit spreads, save again for the fallen angels.

Troy Gayeski: (34:01)
Yeah, it's amazing to look at the on the run high yield index back to 360 over. I mean, who thought we'd see that so soon after February, March, tribute to the Fed's balance sheet and massive money supply expansion. Right?

Boaz Weinstein: (34:15)
Yeah, that's right but there's this survivor bias in credit where it's 360 over and that pool is 360 with 10 names having been removed that caused investors seven point hit. And that 360 has Transocean trading at 9000. Pull out Transocean that 360 goes to 338 or so and then you pull out another one. So that's the interesting thing is that spreads. It's amazing what's happened. I totally agree. And it's even more amazing than that, because spreads are in this winner take all, it's either trading like gold, or it's trading like it's going to default, not to exaggerate the point. So I think, with a little bit of detective work, you can [crosstalk 00:34:58].

Troy Gayeski: (34:57)
With a very low recovery too. Don't forget the recovery as well.

Boaz Weinstein: (35:01)
With a very low recovery rate. So you're going to end up in a place where actually credit, you were really betting that the deeply distressed companies, were not going to default. And I don't think that's what investors are trying to do. Because let me say it this way, out of that 360, the top half of the index, the better half is only giving you about 130. So if I said to you, Troy, "Hey, would you like this high quality, high yield portfolio? You can get 1.3%." You might say, [inaudible 00:35:29] spread, you might say I think I'd better things to do with my money, but that gets lost a little bit. And again, when people talk about it as a big blob when it's so desperate.

Troy Gayeski: (35:40)
So Boaz, last question before we turn it over to the audience, but you're legendary poker player. I couldn't let you go without pointing that out. You just talked about how expensive equity vol is and how cheap credit vol is. Would you be brave enough now to sell equity vol and buy credit vol or is that just too dangerous of a trade question?

Boaz Weinstein: (36:01)
Also I enjoy poker, I'm actually quite a bit better at some other games.

Troy Gayeski: (36:06)
Is that right? Yeah.

Boaz Weinstein: (36:10)
I think there are no ways to really trade credit single name, as from a through options. It's interesting, there are no equity. Like in equities there puts in calls, you don't have that in IBM credit, you have it in IBM equity. So I look at credit like this asymmetric thing that if you're long credit, you're shortfall and if you're short, your long vol. And it's a question of price and that price, what we have found lately is that for companies, I'll give one example, Devon Energy, DVN, it went 500 wider into March and it went 450 tighter back. It went enormous 500 wider 500 basis points for five years is 25 points, 500 times five. You PV, that to today, it's about a 22-point move we had back in Q1 and a kind of a 20 point recovery. So the credit spread is very low. We recently saw that it could be very high. We saw that in 2016 as well. The equity vol is very high. So what we've been doing is buying CDS on companies like Devin and funding it by selling out of the money equity puts.

Boaz Weinstein: (37:19)
I've never done that in my career, because it was never interesting to do it. The great part about the trade is that for if you wanted to get rid of your negative carry for every 100 million, for example, that you would short of the credit, you only need to go long about four or 5 million through the equity. So it's an enormous ratio, and it will behave very well in a sell off. What we've been seeing lately with the declining price of oil, our energy stocks come under pressure again, and whether it's Occidental Petroleum or Devin. So we think especially in the energy space, some of his very low credit spread, high equity vol is an opportunity to set up a pair trade as you were alluding to Troy.

Troy Gayeski: (37:58)
Yeah. So that's interesting. First time in your career, it's been this inefficient. That's remarkable. So well Boaz, I'm going to turn it back over to my partner, John Darsie who's going to read off some of the questions from the audience. And if we don't get enough questions from the audience, you and I can keep talking for quite a bit longer, I'm sure.

Boaz Weinstein: (38:15)
Sure.

John Darsie: (38:16)
You guys could go on for a couple more hours, no problem. And blackjack is Boaz's game, come on Troy.

Troy Gayeski: (38:23)
My memories it's not what it used to be.

John Darsie: (38:29)
So I want to talk about closed-end funds for a moment, Boaz. They've received a lot of attention for activism and discounts in recent years, and you've been sort of in the middle of that mix pushing for some restructuring in the space. Are there still arbitrage opportunities in the closed-end fund space? Are those starting to go away?

Boaz Weinstein: (38:47)
Well, so the closed infinite space has plenty of arbitrage opportunities today. When I got into it, about seven years ago, I thought that all fixed income closed-end funds, or at least most of them would trade very similarly. In the end, a pool of 500 bonds and loans managed by BlackRock or PIMCO or Platinum, they're not going to behave that differently, so why should the funds? Why should they trade it at a different levels of discount? But starting in 2013, closed-end funds, after a few years where they were trading at their net asset value or at a premium, you could buy closed-end funds at a deep discount. And I like the idea of buying $1 of assets that I already wanted, like high yield in a world of low yield to be able to buy something, that it's not my valuation, that $1 is something I'm buying for 90 cents or 85 cents.

Boaz Weinstein: (39:39)
But that actually, the same valuation tool that's used for ETFs, used for mutual funds is same thing for closed-end funds, the same pricing source and so it was unambiguous that closed-end funds were trading at this true discount. So what was interesting to me was that some of them would trade at plus one and some of them would trade at minus 15. Jeff Gundlach would trade at minus 12, then he talked about it, or Barron's, write about it and go to plus one. So I liked that this wasn't a discount that was just structural. There are a lot of things where people say, "Hey, this is cheap." And the response back is, that's been cheap for the last 15 years, or that's been cheap for the last five years. Closed-end funds were something that were attractive that we felt we could do something about.

Boaz Weinstein: (40:24)
So in the last seven years, we've built a business out of trading them, analyzing them, and also finding situations where the rights of shareholders are such that if we accumulate a large enough stake, that we can have a positive outcome for all investors, where either they turn the closed-end fund into an open ended fund, as BlackRock did for us and other investors this year, we have to take them to court. But two of the funds that we sued them over, they ended up in our view, doing a great thing for shareholders by merging them these municipal funds with their open-ended funds, and all shareholders saw an immediate gain in a permanent gain as the discount went away.

Boaz Weinstein: (41:09)
So as I talk to you today, John, we're buying some closed-end funds at 16, or 17%, discounts to their fair value. More often, it's more like 13 or 14. And to me, that's an enormous discount. And again, a world of very low yields, where the discount gives you some extra yield. And hopefully Saba's activities will cause that discount, to converge to net asset value. Something we've done this year, particularly successfully and getting managers to in our view, not think about their [AUM 00:41:42] and their fees, but think about their suffering shareholders.

John Darsie: (41:46)
Switching gears a little bit, we certainly don't have a shortage of audience questions. And thank you, everybody who's who's tuned in for your engagement. Private equity firms have been shown to be more likely to overload their businesses with debt, with weak covenants. And we've seen several examples of that recently, with things like Chuck E. Cheese or [inaudible 00:42:04]. Do view sponsor bank capital structures is more likely to default? And are the weaker credit profiles of sponsor back companies priced into CDS markets effectively?

Boaz Weinstein: (42:15)
It's certainly the case that a number of the defaults that have occurred in the last couple years have been LBO related. But also some of them had the wherewithal because of their sophistication in capital markets in terming, out the debt, I think, back to Texas utilities, being a company, the KKR LBO where people thought Texas utilities ought to default, but it was able to continue on for years trying to do various different kinds of financial engineering, bond exchanges. So I don't have a view of any kind of negative view about private equity. And it's not even my expertise but it is true that when you add a lot of leverage to companies, and then you go through downturn, some of them are going to default. So for the question, if it means if highly levered companies is... I don't know if if you if it's too much.

Boaz Weinstein: (43:11)
I think that that private equity has certainly added great value in many examples, as well. I look at some of the defaults this year, whether it's Hertz, which was trading great, until a few months before COVID, or Chesapeake Energy, or JC Penney. These are not the result of private equity.

John Darsie: (43:31)
We'll leave you with one last question from the audience. How do you explain the difference in your recent success strategy buying CDS, versus some of the experiences that you had in 2008, prior leaving Deutsche Bank?

Boaz Weinstein: (43:45)
So I think that our portfolio is certainly different, it's been 12 years, and it also might have learned a thing or two. But every sell off is different. I think 2008 was its own thing, in that people were worried the financial system was was ending. I actually think back now to that to that September period, I was actually at the New York Fed representing Deutsche Bank, as being the co-head of the credit business. I was there that weekend when Lehman was unraveling, and really, relative value trades, which has been the hallmark of our business, were unraveling just like everything else, even if it was reasonable to own secured debt and be sure to unsecured everything was suffering, because people were worried that leave aside Lehman and Bear that Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, were not going to be there.

Boaz Weinstein: (44:40)
So a lot of relationships got out of whack. I think the Fed and other entities and government have done a great job to reduce that risk. So now when We trade in credit default swaps for example, there is a clearinghouse that trades all of the index product and a lot of single names available to mitigate counterparty risk. And so I'd say this crisis harkening back to Troy's question about how this is different, is also different in that the banks were not on people's radar for being the problem. People, think about the last six months, no one was talking about what's in the books at Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley. I think that that's one important difference. I also think our portfolio is well suited today, and for the last few years for volatile moments, even more so than in the past.

John Darsie: (45:33)
Well, Boaz, thanks so much for such a great wide ranging conversation. Troy, do you have any final words or thoughts for Boaz, before we let him go?

Troy Gayeski: (45:40)
No, Boaz, just a simple question for investors, if you think of the opportunity, maybe to be long protection, as of February 1, the benefit of hindsight, which is probably a 10, versus the relative value opportunities you're seeing today, would you rate them more of a five, meaning great return prospects, but not explosive? How would you think about that? Tough question to answer but...

Boaz Weinstein: (46:04)
Yeah, it's so tough, because if we talked in January, and I said it's incredible. You and any other reasonable person would say, but maybe it won't be three years before anyone cares. If the markets are just going to be a sea of tranquility, what does it matter that this was mispriced to that? So now the credit protection in many cases is back to pre COVID levels and we can explain it by the Fed and lots of other reasons. But the cat's kind of out of the bag that such giant sell offs, like we saw can occur and even though the Fed has dug deep into their toolkit to come up with a broad set of things that people didn't expect. I think that the high level of default that we're seeing in high yields, even if it's abating to some extent, we are in a much more trouble time today that I think everyone would agree than we were six, nine months ago.

Boaz Weinstein: (47:00)
So I think that that relative value trade of short, high yield and long safe investment grade, I think it's as good as it was before, even if the levels a little worse, the circumstances are a lot better. And the relative value remains, I'd say considerably better than it was a year ago. That doesn't mean our trades are going to work out eight out of 10. But just the entry points into via closed-end funds that John asked me about, buying stuff at 14 is a whole lot better than buying stuff at nine or 10 as we had in January. So RV is more attractive for sure and the kind of tail protection, you can argue it both ways that it's a little bit more expensive, but I would argue adjusted for the risk. It's probably as good or better.

Troy Gayeski: (47:44)
Great. Well, thank you so much. That was very concise.

Joshua Friedman: Out of the Box Investing Strategies | SALT Talks #50

“I was being pushed for education, education, education. My dad also really planted a seed in my head that I had to have my own business… it was just terrific guidance for me and my personality.”

Joshua S. Friedman is Co-Founder, Co-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Canyon Partners, LLC, a leading global alternative asset management firm. He received Institutional Investor’s “Lifetime Achievement” Award.

Growing up in a working-class household with parents who emphasized education and entrepreneurialism set Friedman on a path of academic achievement and professional success. Friedman takes us through his experience starting his own company and why he prefers the term “alternative-credit” firm to hedge fund in describing his company’s outside-of-box investing approach. “We like things where there's a lot of change and with change there's a lot of complexity, and with complexity there's an opportunity to create a dollar for fifty cents…”

Scaramucci and Friedman discuss solution-based strategies in times of distressed investment cycles, especially now as we see the financial effects of the pandemic.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Joshua S. Friedman.jpeg

Joshua Friedman

Co-Founder & Co-Chairman

Canyon Partners

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 thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. We've been doing these SALT Talks, which are a series of digital interviews, with leading investors, creators, and thinkers during the work from home period to replicate the experience that we bring at our global SALT Conferences, which of course are on hiatus during the pandemic. What we really try to do at these conferences is provide a platform for big, important ideas that we think are changing the world and also provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts, which is what we have today.

John Darsie: (00:46)
We're very excited to welcome Josh Friedman to SALT Talks. Josh is the co-founder, co-chairman, and co-CEO of Canyon Partners, which is a leading global alternative asset management firm specializing in value-oriented investments for endowments, foundations, pensions, sovereign wealth funds and other institutional investors. Josh sort of has the cream of the crop in terms of his educational background. He graduated from Harvard College. He got his bachelor's degree summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa in physics from Harvard College. He graduated with a master's degree from Oxford University with honors in politics and economics where he was a Marshall Scholar. He also graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, and Harvard Business School, where he was a Baker Scholar.

John Darsie: (01:32)
Prior to Canyon, Josh was a director of capital markets at Drexel Burnham, and prior to Drexel, he worked in mergers and acquisitions at Goldman Sachs. He serves on several boards, including the board of directors of Harvard Management Company. He's also a member of Harvard’s Committee on University Resources, the Harvard Business School Board of Dean's Advisors, and the Harvard University Task Force on Science and Engineering. Josh is a trustee for the Andrew W. Mellen Foundation, CalTech, the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. He serves on the investment committees for the Broad Foundation and the J. Paul Getty Trust and chairs the Caltech and LACMA Investment Committees. Josh also serves on the board of the UCLA Hospital Department of Neurosurgery and the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

John Darsie: (02:24)
So we're extremely excited to welcome Josh to SALT Talks today. Reminder, if you have any questions for Josh during the course of today's talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. Conducting today's interview, as we've done with most of these SALT Talks, is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of Skybridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. I'm going to turn it over to Anthony to begin the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:48)
John, thanks very much, and I'm happy that you're not wearing your star spangled suit for this SALT conference that you were wearing on the Fourth of July because Josh Friedman and I, we don't dress like that, okay? It's just not in our DNA as Jews and Italians to dress like that, but that's a separate topic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:05)
Josh, welcome to the program. I think I want to state this. We made an investment in your fund April 1. Congratulations on your performance since April 1. Obviously Skybridge and its investors are super happy about that. John went over your background, but I want you to take us back a little bit to where you grew up, what your parents were like, and why you decided to go in this direction career-wise and then obviously we can talk a little bit about the portfolio and what you're doing now.

Josh Friedman: (03:37)
Sure. Thank you, Anthony. Thanks very much. I should just mention that if that list of extracurricular activities looked a little long, it was because I've actually rotated off a couple of those positions and I apologize for not updating that for this discussion.

Josh Friedman: (03:52)
By way of background, I grew up outside of Boston. My dad was not college educated but managed and grew up in a very poor household. My mother was a school teacher. My dad ended up being a non-college graduate engineer, basically, because he was a smart guy. He really had dreams of me being an entrepreneur and I was pushed educationally, which is pretty typical for that era, particularly in our type of household. I was pushed from the time I was a little kid to go to Harvard and Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. Then I was told you have to have your own business, don't work for other people because that's the formula for success and for job satisfaction.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:33)
What town in Boston are you from, Josh? I didn't realize you were from-

Josh Friedman: (04:37)
I was born in Natick and then we moved to Wayland. It was where you moved if you were Jewish-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:42)
So you're the secondmost famous person from Natick, right? We know Doug Flutie's from Natick, right? You remember Doug?

Josh Friedman: (04:48)
There you go. Absolutely. There's a bunch of actually money managers from that area. Steve Pagliuca's from Framingham, which is the next town over. Jim Pryor's from Weston, which is the fancy town next to Wayland. It was your basic Boston suburb.

Josh Friedman: (05:04)
But from the time I was a kid, my dad ... I was being pushed for education, education, education. My dad also really planted a seed in my head that I had to have my own business. I think that was ... I pretty much did everything my dad said even though he didn't know the name of a single Wall Street firm and even though he didn't really have the background to give that guidance it was just terrific guidance for me and my personality.

Josh Friedman: (05:28)
I somehow thought I'd be a tech entrepreneur out on Route 128 where there are all these startups. I was a physics, electronics, gadget guy and then I somehow got lured into Wall Street at Goldman Sachs. The entrepreneurial bug gave me, I think, the confidence to leave Goldman after a couple of years and join Drexel, which was doing the most entrepreneurial things on Wall Street. Every client was someone who didn't really have the money but wanted to dream big and make the company better and create value and that's what we were doing, is facilitating those deals.

Josh Friedman: (06:00)
Then when the opportunity arose, I started Canyon. I didn't want to have a conventional job after Drexel vanished because I figured this was my chance. I partnered with my old law school and business school roommate who was also at Drexel, Mitch Julis. Mitch was a bankruptcy lawyer. We liked investing really complex, value oriented situations. That's what we were involved with at Drexel and so that's what we did. We didn't know what we were doing initially when we started the business. We had a choice, would you do a private equity fund, could you do mutual fund, or could you do hedge fund? We didn't really know anything about raising or how to do it, so we rounded up some money from friends and family and we started with about $17 million in the hedge fund format, because the mutual fund format was too liquid in terms of the liabilities for us to manage the types of strategies we wanted to do, and we really didn't know how to raise private equity money anyway, although some of those types of products came later in our career.

Josh Friedman: (07:03)
That was how-

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:04)
I've heard you say that you're an alternative credit investor, you're not really a hedge fund manager, so describe that to our viewers and listeners. What do you mean by that?

Josh Friedman: (07:13)
Well, it's a good question. I don't love the term hedge fund because it really refers to a fee structure more than it refers to a strategy and there are as many different types of hedge funds from global macro to equity long short to everything in between, to quantitative, et cetera. So I just think of what we do with the assets and the format happens to be one that's consistent in terms of liquidity profile and fee structure where I think we can justify our existence quite well to investors and also have less of a liquidity mismatch.

Josh Friedman: (07:43)
So you have to really look at what is that we do, what is alternative credit? What it means is that we really try to focus on things that are a little out of the box, that are unusual situations. Generally speaking, things that are less easily accessed by conventional investors who are, say, mutual fund or ETFs or other more siloed type of investors. So we like things where there's a lot of change and with change there's a lot of complexity, and with complexity there's an opportunity to create a dollar for fifty cents or forty cents or sixty cents or eighty cents but hopefully less than a dollar.

Josh Friedman: (08:19)
So we like bankruptcies where there's a complicated process of fixing the balance sheet. Sometimes there's litigation and there's challenging of rights and priorities within a capital structure, so we like bankruptcy. We like distressed. We like when things don't fit conventional buyers. For example, mutual funds might be only allowed to buy things that are in the high yield index. They might be an active manager, they might try to change the weightings, but when something falls out of the index because it's upgraded or something enters the index because it's downgraded from IG, all of a sudden there's a lot of buying and selling and that buying and selling doesn't necessarily have to do with deep analysis of the securities. It has to do with the mandate of the purchaser.

Josh Friedman: (09:06)
So we like when there's that kind of complexity, when things fall out of indices, when things get put in indices. We're looking for catalysts and we're looking for an alignment of incentives. We often work directly with sponsors to structure very complicated solutions to problems that they face that the general capital markets don't allow them to solve. We're operating in this world of what I would call complex credit and across a variety of asset classes from structured assets such as CLO tranches or RMBS or CMBS or other kind of ABS to more conventional, high yield to bank loans, to unfunded revolvers to all sorts of different types of securities.

Josh Friedman: (09:48)
Does that make us a hedge fund? Well, in format, we're a hedge fund, but I don't think of us as a traditional hedge fund. By the way, we do hedge also. We have significant short positions from time to time in different indices or in individual securities. I'm not ever really sure what the name hedge fund means so I'd rather call us an alternative credit firm or a value firm.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:09)
No, it makes sense. Josh, you made a recent investment. You sent me a press release. I think it's a great example of what you do and it fits our space because at Skybridge our fund, we have a nice sized position in your fund but we also own a lot of structured credit, you made an investment in a mortgage servicing company recently and I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about that, opportunistically, how you feel about structured credit and mortgages and why you made that investment.

Josh Friedman: (10:39)
We've always had a lot of deep expertise in that ABS area. We've invested double digit million in the infrastructure of the firm to service that area. It was a very opportunistic and great area when RMBS blew up in the middle part of the last decade, and particularly around ... actually around 2012 when Maiden Lane came along and the government was selling its securities and there was peak value. Also before that, we started our investing in that area really in 2007.

Josh Friedman: (11:12)
What we did recently is a good example. We had a changing capital market. We had COVID drive a hole in the markets, a liquidity hole as well as a value hole, and there were many, many players out there and I know we've talked about a number of them both with you and with some of the senior members of your team, where investors in their search for yield in an environment of shrinking yield have leveraged up mortgage securities and asset-backed securities and mortgage servicing rights and servicer advances and both agency and non-agency mortgage, but with big leverage and a lot of time it was a mismatch. So the mismatch meant that in order to produce a yield, they had used low cost repo financing from commercial banks, which can be pulled at any moment, to purchase securities that weren't all that liquid.

Josh Friedman: (12:01)
So when the value started to diminish, a lot of the repo lenders pulled their lines and we saw this in different types of entities and we looked at ... post-pandemic, there was just the initial crash of the wave where we saw a number of these opportunities. Some were just real estate loans that were leveraged up 80%. Some were combinations of mortgage servicing rights, et cetera, like the one that we discussed. We like that because the complexity means we have less competition. The challenge for that sponsor in that situation was how do I stop the banks from forcing me to sell my portfolio down at really bad prices at the worst possible time?

Josh Friedman: (12:39)
So that sponsor did some of that, and it cost them. Then the concept was if we can put in a senior secured loan that picks up the residual value in every one of those lines, maybe we can get the banks to stand still, they can term out that repo lending. Now all of a sudden the selling stops and there's so much more optionality on the equity, this is a public equity, that it's going to become a self-fulfilling, almost like a flywheel. You stop the selling, you can then originate new loans in a market where prices are cheaper and there can be big positive apprection to the value of the equity and that's more cushion under our loan.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:17)
I mean, there's basically an inflection point here, right, because the cascade of selling ... people like you and I are opportunistic. We see that as an opportunity to buy as opposed to an opportunity to panic out of the position. So you made a very nice size investment there and you have optionality into the equity as well as you're getting coupon. Is that fair to say?

Josh Friedman: (13:38)
Yeah, there are two ways to play these, as you rightly point out. One way is you just buy the things people are selling. We did some of that, too, in our funds although it was hard because it was quick and there wasn't as much liquidity as we liked to buy big pieces. The other way to invest is take a structure that is suffering from this and stabilize it. So we made a stabilizing loan. It was in the low teens at a little discount to par, senior secured, and we also got an awful lot of warrants struck on the common stock. Half of them were struck at the money at that time, and because we knew that once this deal was announced the market would say, "Ah, their balance sheet is now stable, they don't have to sell anything and in fact they have the firepower to buy things," that would sort of cause the stock to move up and we'd get to participate in those warrants in addition to getting to participate by having a very good debt security. So it's exactly what you said. We wanted to have the upside that our debt was creating and did sort of a creative custom solution.

Josh Friedman: (14:40)
The other point that's really important on this one, Anthony, that I would mention is that I think the nature of distressed investing this entire cycle will be a little bit different from what in the prior cycle. In prior cycles, there were ... well, other than the fact that in the last decade most of the distressed were kind of bad companies with bad balance sheets, but we can come to that later. I think a lot of the distressed investing, traditionally, was you buy debt. If it goes down, you buy more, you buy more, you buy more. You then face off and have a fight with the sponsor and it's sort of like a loan to own, we're going to have a big battle with whoever the old control player was because we own the debt, they own the equity and we're going to try to win and control the company.

Josh Friedman: (15:24)
I think there are going to be many, many more situations because the sponsors have so much capital themselves where the opportunity is to go in, to price a solution in partnership with the sponsor to fix the balance sheet and if they want to play along in that security once we've negotiated and priced it, that's perfect for them, because they have that capital, but they can't simply do it themselves.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:49)
And there are [crosstalk 00:15:49], but let me ask you a followup on that, though. These companies, many of them were performing very well in the 3.5% unemployment environment and U.S. economy growing at 2.4%, and so there wasn't necessarily a bad business, they just got stopped by the COVID-19 crisis. Are these companies getting enough help from the government? So it's an interesting distress cycle in the sense that even some of these companies that you're willing to work with, they could be getting some capital help from the government, too, so doesn't that provide a rocket boost in some ways?

Josh Friedman: (16:23)
It does, and there's a difference. Maybe if I could take one step back and maybe just talk about the environment going into COVID and then it'll make sense, because I think the government can't possibly solve some of the balance sheet problems. The government can solve liquidity problems in the market. That's what the Fed essentially does. They're buying securities, they're giving the market confidence, they're encouraging people to essentially front run them by getting in front of the wave of purchases of the Fed by purchasing new securities whether in the primary market or the secondary market. That's a useful function. The Fed can't fundamentally fix a balance sheet that's too leveraged.

Josh Friedman: (17:04)
Going into COVID, and this is what I want taking a step backwards, the pre-COVID environment was a really stretched environment for credit. We had had ten years of increasing employment, decreasing unemployment, ten years of economic expansion, ten years of declining interest rates. So there was this global hunt for yield and the U.S. was sort of the best market for that because yields were negative in other countries. So what happened as a result because of all the pensions and endowments and foundations and retirees and others who want yield and don't necessarily have a mission or mandate to be in the equity markets, the debt markets were getting really heated up and corporate debt as a percentage of GDP was at an all-time peak going into the pandemic. We had the highest debt to EBITDA ratios we hade ever seen, period. We had the highest percentage of deals that were using adjusted EBITDA. So we were getting prospectuses to look at that didn't even really have EBITDA, they had all sorts of adjustments to make EBITDA look higher than it actually was.

Josh Friedman: (18:13)
We had an explosion of triple-B debt within the investment grade universe. So the lowest grade of investment grade became the largest part of that universe. We also had a complete abandonment of covenants, both in bonds and in bank debt. 85% of bank debt, roughly, was covenant-light which really meant no covenants. So the market was ripe for an adjustment in the debt markets because people were ... if you're a passive fund and you get an inflow and you're trying to mimic the high yield index, you have to buy something. So it's not a question of you carefully assessing every credit. You have to look like the index and then you can figure out maybe I'll overweight this and underweight that.

Josh Friedman: (18:58)
So this drive of capital was kind of driving prices up, driving yields down, driving covenants down, and in parallel, the private equity universe was exploding. So the private equity issuers were taking advantage of this and leveraging up everything. So it was kind of poised for an adjustment.

Josh Friedman: (19:17)
When the pandemic hit, you immediately had revenues go to zero in so many businesses, and I just don't believe that the private equity partner who was doing a deal a year prior to the pandemic or two years prior was telling the associate, "Please run the pro forma with zero revenue for three months followed by an environment with double digit unemployment and a slow recovery." I think that there are a lot of balance sheets today that are really stressed and right now they're trying to get from here to there, get to the end of this pandemic, get to a point where they have better visibility and then try to revive themselves.

Josh Friedman: (19:58)
That sort of gets to your question, has the government fixed that? Well, there's a difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy. Yeah, the special loans that become forgiven and things of that sort are helpful, but really the Fed's activity, and most of the government's activity generally, was immediate, it was massive, it was significant, but it was all designed to restore liquidity in the capital markets to help those big employers, the ones who are [inaudible 00:20:32] in terms of investment grade or who are in businesses like the airline business or the cruise business or whatever but employ a lot of people. Let the capital markets heal by telling everybody, "Yeah, we're going to be in there buying." And they did that. But what they don't do is fix a balance sheet that is fundamentally overly levered in a world that's fundamentally a slower world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:56)
So therefore, there are tremendous opportunities in what you're doing. Some of that dislocation you're fund experienced, but then you are adept in being very opportunistic and running towards some of the fires that were going on in the markets, which is why you've had such great performance since April.

Josh Friedman: (21:13)
I think it's important to ... I think we probably got caught more off guard than we should have, in the first quarter particularly, because of the type of disruption that occurred and we had more, maybe, COVID-central business that were particularly hurt by that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:30)
Yeah, ourselves too.

Josh Friedman: (21:32)
But if you have the right kind of capital and the right kind of investors and you have a contrarian mindset, it lets you feel comfortable running toward the fire, if you will. There was really a series of fires as opposed to a single fire, and we talked about the first one was, "Okay, the Fed's coming to the rescue. Let's run in front of the Fed before they do their buying," and what did the Fed do? They stabilized the money market funds. They then came in with the second day market purchase programs and those programs were designed, really, to address the IG market and the recently downgraded IG companies. That allowed people like Boeing and Ford and so many other issuers to come to market because investors said, "Ah, even if the Fed hasn't really started buying yet, they're going to be there. They're telling you they're going to be there." The Fed wanted it that way because they prefer the secondary market do the work for them anyway.

Josh Friedman: (22:32)
So that worked in a really powerful and important way. The secondary market corporate credit facilities hit high yield indices, too, and ETFs. I think the Fed maybe the second largest holder of the Fidelity ETF now. They've become big purchasers. Today they had an announcement that if the market continues to be this robust, maybe they'll back off a little. So we'll see. But if it doesn't, they'll be right back there.

Josh Friedman: (22:57)
So the first wave was kind of front run the Fed, buy high yield, buy IG. That's more of a trade than investment, not really necessarily what we do a lot of. The second phase was absolutely in these balance sheets that were in trouble that were kind of pushed over the edge by COVID. There were two types. One was the ABS type things that had repo financing, because the banks all of a sudden pulled their horns in and again this was a small part of this year's cycle. It was a huge part of the cycle in 2008. The banks were much more leveraged, they pulled a lot in '08, in the global financial crisis. This time they weren't. They had better balance sheets, but they definitely got conservative on their repo financing and so we saw, and we still see, mortgage loans that are subject to leverage. We saw a lot of ABS. We saw some of these companies that focused on this structured credit but with a lot of leverage.

Josh Friedman: (23:53)
The other part of that phase were that, where I say companies were kind of the edge getting pushed over, were the companies that were already in trouble. The Neiman Marcus, J Crew, J C Penney, et cetera, Brooks Brothers, where there are DIP loan opportunities, et cetera. Not really necessarily the best opportunities, in my view. Those were more taking advantage of people who had already been hurt by being in those credits, so they were already in the credit and they say, "Ah, we'll do the DIP loan," and they're trying to take advantage of the fact that some of their partners in the old debt are not allowed to put up the DIP loans so if they make it really juicy, they can get a bigger percentage of it. A little bit of that going on.

Josh Friedman: (24:36)
The next thing, and the more interesting thing, is the credits that just traded badly or the ones that are now starting to show weakness because the environment still is quite weak. We've got double digit unemployment. The balance sheet doesn't have staying power. This requires more patience. So there was sort of a quick reflex, get right in there, and react to those first ones and now we're in a cycle that I think will take a material amount of time to play out because a lot of the sponsors, a lot of the PE firms are saying, "Let me just get through the summer and then I've got to figure out how I'm going to fix this."

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:14)
It makes great sense, Josh. You left out structured credit, so I'm just curious of what your opinion is there. Obviously the Fed bought triple-A tranches and new issues and things like that, but that seems to have lagged the other credits that you're mentioning. Do you have an opinion there?

Josh Friedman: (25:31)
Well, I think the structured credit was great at the very beginning, like instantly you saw tranches of aircraft securitizations and real estate securitizations and servicing rights and all those securitizations. They tend to be smaller tranches, less liquid, less of it actually traded. If you could fix the overall balance sheet, you stopped the selling, like in the case of the deal we did. They were initially selling way down. As soon as they stabilized the balance sheet termed out the repo, that was the end of that. We're still seeing leverage real estate loans in higher supply than we've ever seen, so that's good.

Josh Friedman: (26:07)
I think that cycle will continue, I absolutely expect. It's a large market, a lot of the tranches that trade, traded small size. It requires a lot of discipline and patience, but if you're willing to pick up pieces here and pieces there and you have the analytics to be able to quickly process a lot of names, I think it's still a very good market. I like that market a lot. It's not as cheap as it was before all the Fed activity, but that's true of all the markets right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:40)
Yeah, well, I mean some of that's true, but CRTs and some of the other stuff, basically the plain vanilla, mortgage backed securities are still lagging because of the threat of mortgage delinquencies. I think that's where the meteor strike was. People said, "Oh my God, we're going into our homes. We're going to have 25% unemployment and 25% mortgage delinquencies," and so what you described about repo lines being pulled happened to the mortgage rates, happened to some of our friends in the industry that went down 40% to 70% during the crisis.

Josh Friedman: (27:15)
Yeah, the leverage ... the guys who had leverage on those securities-

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:18)
Yeah, I know. Exactly.

Josh Friedman: (27:19)
... got destroyed. I think, also, to some extent while there's a lot of paper floating out there, some of it still being offered at prices that are too high because they don't have quite the urgency that they had before. The other thing, and some of it's low quality, and I also think that there's a certain amount of uncertainty in real estate valuation generally, where it's, at least from our point of view, a little bit unknowable. Mutli family is one thing, particularly in places where it's supply constrained. Commercial, do we really know what residential ... sorry, what office demand is going to be forward when everybody's working from home and there's the whole of you need more space per employee, but you need less space.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:10)
We agree. I mean, those trends that accelerated, that's one of the reasons why we sold out of some of our community banking exposure that was tied to commercial office buildings and retail strip centers, but I think we're very constructive and very positive on the tranches of mortgages in white collar communities, affluent communities, where they're the primary home of the resident and those residents, frankly, are able to work remotely and keep their job. So that's where we see still a tremendous opportunity.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:39)
I want to switch gears before I bring John into the equation and get some questions from the audience. You've seen a lot of different scenarios in your career on Wall Street, three decade plus career on Wall Street, ups and downs, '87 crash, the David Askin crisis of '94, the long term capital management crisis of '98, obviously a global financial crisis. How is this different, the COVID-19 crisis of 2020? How does it compare and how do you think it ends?

Josh Friedman: (29:12)
First of all, I think every crisis has certain things in common. We always think it's different, we always think it feels like the end of the world, and it always comes back and it always comes back strong. This one's compounded by political uncertainty, by social uncertainty. There are a lot of unique characteristics to this particular crisis and it hits hard and it hits deep and it's taken out of business a lot of small Main Street businesses, but people want to come back. I like to think of myself as an optimist generally, but part of our job as credit investors is to be a cynic also. So we're kind of in between.

Josh Friedman: (30:01)
Look, the COVID crisis will pass somehow. It'll either pass because there's excellent treatment, there's essentially ... it passes through the community and enough people have immunity that it doesn't spread and becomes a more permanent fixture but at a lower level like the flu, or because we've come up with a good vaccine. All these might take longer and there might be ups and downs in between, but if you see beyond that, it will pass. I don't think we really know the affect of staggering amount of fiscal and monetary policy that has just been undertaken, and I think we should be a little bit humble in our confidence about what it means when you have the Fed be this active and the Treasury be this active. Stan Druckenmiller had some interesting comments on those issues, as have others.

Josh Friedman: (30:55)
At the end of the day, the catalyst for this particular disruption will pass, but we still had certain things going on before that. We had over exuberance in the debt markets. We had private equity become the asset class of choice and therefore leverage applied across the universe. We had an enormous amount of capital raised by private equity firms for other activity like rescue financings and so forth, yet when you talk to private equity firm number one, the last person he wants to talk to about doing a rescue financing is private equity firm number two, which is good for us because we're sort of a neutral party in that equation. We're not threatening him, we're not in their competitive business. We're more of a partner.

Josh Friedman: (31:41)
So I think that what will happen is eventually we'll see the COVID part go away. We'll be left with a huge headache in the economy because we have a lot of unemployment. It will take some time to get the animal spirits back. As you know, markets are psychological animals and when people put their hands in their pockets and don't make capital expenditures and there's uncertainty, it has a self-reinforcing way-

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:05)
Question. It cycles, the panic cycles. People are ... you know, Josh. Lee Cooperman was my old boss and you've met Lee many times, obviously, and we've had dinner together at the SALT Conference. One of his best lines that I often repeat, "Everybody is a long term investor until they have short term losses and then they strike a match to their hair and they run around in a circle." So I applaud you for being a contrarian and having the wisdom to see through the current cycle to the other side.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:35)
I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie, who's not wearing his star spangled sports jacket. I mean, you would never wear ... Friedman, you would never be caught dead in the jacket that Darsie was wearing on the Fourth of July, but let's leave it at that and John, what are the questions from the outside?

John Darsie: (32:52)
The first question, Josh, is about how long is this particular market going to stay around where it's such a rich environment for the type of distressed credit investing that you do, and what are the different phases of that opportunity set?

Josh Friedman: (33:06)
Well, I think ... I went through this a little bit. There was the initial front run the Fed, buy high yield, buy IG, just buy anything. That's over. That's happened. Spreads are still, by the way, quite a bit wider than they were at the beginning, but maybe appropriately so. I think that, and the other phases, the ABS phase, the private equity deals that we realize suddenly don't work, I think that this last phase, this sort of good company/bad balance sheet phase ... now remember, pre-COVID most of the distress was energy, metals and mining, shipping, and of course retail and maybe tech companies from the old tech world that didn't transition to the Cloud. So they were basically companies that had fundamental problems with the value of their business and their competitive position.

Josh Friedman: (33:59)
Post-COVID, because of all the private equity activity and all the re-leveraging, there are now a lot more companies that have balance sheets that aren't appropriate to even a slightly slower economic environment. Remember, we hit 3.5% unemployment going into this, and now we've got double digit unemployment, and I think that takes a while to work through. I think it'll take three, four, five years and I think we'll see, in terms of the opportunity set, it won't be that super rich, every fish that goes by you looks like a good one to catch. It's going to be okay, here's a good company with a bad balance sheet that was interrupted by this. Here's another one, here's another one, here's another one. You're starting to see companies of that ilk, from Acorn to Travelport to Legato to others that have very good businesses, potentially. Not potentially. They have very good businesses, but COVID created a situation where the balance sheet didn't work. I think you'll see a lot more of those but they will show up a little slower, they'll show up intermittently, but there'll be some large and very good companies that just don't have the staying power.

Josh Friedman: (35:09)
So the phases, some of the phases were really quick as we described. The trading ones, some of those ABS structures, the repo driven things, some of the initial companies that were on the edge that just got pushed over, but now we're in the more "patience will be rewarded" market, and I think it'll go for a while. I also think you're in a market where a lot of capital's been gathered and that's in a way not a bad thing because it means that a lot of the PE firms that have gathered that capital will be looking for partners to help price a solution to their deal where they can co-invest in it. They can't price a solution to their own deal. They're conflicted.

John Darsie: (35:51)
So if you look at the March drawdown that took place in some of these structured credit markets and markets that are now in distress, what do you think the time frame is for recovering some of those technical losses that took place because of tightened repo requirements and things of that nature?

Josh Friedman: (36:06)
Most of those are ... well, a lot of those particular ones have recovered a lot already. Some of them will not recover because they were forced by the nature of their balance to sell at the bottom. That's the worst ones. A lot of those repo driven structures are really not in a good position to recover value because they had to shrink the balance sheet so significantly just to get the stability, and now with the Fed's supercharging of the markets, there's maybe less opportunity for them to grow back to where they were. They don't want to necessarily have the same tenuous balance sheet, but the big spread, additional originations they could do would be harder when the Fed has driven spreads so low. I think a lot of that is this year's business. A lot of it's happened already.

John Darsie: (36:52)
So Canyon is a global firm. As you look at the opportunity set, are you focused mainly in the United States, or what do you view the opportunity set and the risks, frankly, of places like China, Asia, and other emerging and then developed markets in Europe?

Josh Friedman: (37:09)
Sure. We do have an office in Hong Kong. We have an office in London and in Tokyo. When you're a credit investor, the most important thing that you need is rule of law so you have a predictability in the restructuring process. In China, you have two issues. One is history has not been your friend in terms of being a creditor, and that's true by the way in most non-U.S. jurisdictions except for maybe western Europe. However, there was a lot of progress and a lot of desire to create normalized capital markets, but now you've also got that being interrupted a bit with politics.

Josh Friedman: (37:48)
So I would say we are likely to feel like at our size, which is large but not overwhelming if you want to think of our firm that way, we have the scale to be sophisticated and participate in these complex and good sized, critical mass, stable types of vehicles and companies, but I don't think we're so large that we feel like, "Oh my God, we have to be everywhere." So I would expect that the non-U.S. activity would be a pretty small percentage of what we do going forward because there's more than enough here, and I think the U.S. probably was hit a little bit harder with COVID in some respects. There were two hits. One is COVID itself and two is the political response to COVID, and between the two of them, it's been very costly to a lot of businesses. So I think that presents a lot of opportunities here.

Josh Friedman: (38:46)
Europe actually has been ... western Europe and the U.K. in particular has been an area of a lot of activity for us in the stressed and distressed area recently. Our experience is that that's been more lumpy and it comes and goes.

Josh Friedman: (39:00)
What we won't do is access kind of smaller illiquid niches in the markets. A lot of people did leverage NPLs in Spain and Italy. I just think that you don't have to stretch for those kinds of things to earn a good yield in today's world.

John Darsie: (39:20)
The next question relates to sectors within the high yield market. Thematically as you look through high yield, are there certain sectors that you like that fit that good business/bad balance sheet due to the pandemic? Are there others that you view as bad business/bad balance sheet? Just go through within high yield what sectors you think are particularly attractive and which ones you're really steering clear of.

Josh Friedman: (39:44)
Retail, there's a lot of things going on. There are filings, and yes very lucky brands filed, but I don't think that's an area where we're likely to do a lot except occasionally at the very top of the capitalization, last in/first out type financing, but that'll be rare. It's just the reasons are so basic and fundamental in terms of the displacement of business we all know about. Energy is an area where I would say it's the one area, particularly ... well, there's upstream energy itself and there's more downstream, midstream energy services, et cetera. I think while we certainly made a good attempt to avoid oil price-driven securities or energy price-driven securities, even the services companies, drillers and others, they're almost all in restructuring today. I think that offers a lot of one-sided optionality at the prices they trade at because they trade for nothing. They trade for drill bits. It's a bad pun, but they sort of do. These are the best assets in the world and many of them are working, if you look at something like Transocean.

Josh Friedman: (40:56)
But, I'm just not sure that I would make a lot of new investments in that area today, just because I think it's very difficult to decouple it from commodity pricing. I think that the software area is a great area because there's lots of change, lots of transition, some companies growing, some not. The complexity and the technical knowledge required is a bit of an entry barrier against certain other players who participate in it, so we like that area a lot.

Josh Friedman: (41:30)
Travel and leisure is, I think, a really interesting area but one we have to be cautious because we don't know about the near terms effect of resurgence, et cetera, but it's an area we know well, and I think there may well be opportunities that are interesting there that are somewhat hedgeable as well. Then there are sort of the other broad categories which I think is just ... I think the stress levels will be spread across a variety of industries and I'd say on the other ones, we're pretty agnostic. We'll see what shows up.

John Darsie: (42:02)
All right. The last question, and it's a broad question, before I turn it back over to Anthony for a final word, is if you are a institutional investor or a family office or an RIA right now and you're looking out through the marketplace, obviously equities have largely rebounded from the March selloff, where do you see the best value in the marketplace today?

Josh Friedman: (42:23)
I think there's merit in going one step beyond. We do what we do so we can't opine on what others are doing, whether they're doing quant strategies or doing equity long short et cetera. There's no question the equity markets have rebounded very strongly, especially given the reality on the street, and a lot of that is driven by the Fed and in a zero interest environment where you can't just go and buy IG bonds and sleep at night and say, "Okay, I'm beating inflation," doesn't really work. You have to figure out something that's different, and I think ... our response to that is to look at these situations that are complex, they're in flux, and they don't fit into the general categories of broad high yield, broad investment grade, broad municipals, broad whatever, because I think those general categories are exactly what the Fed has driven the yield out of so there's not a lot of attractive risk/return in owning those types of index exposures and the equity markets have fully recovered, essentially.

Josh Friedman: (43:33)
So what do you do? So I think there are compromises where you don't give up all your liquidity, like being in a private equity type of structure where you're tied up for ten years, but you're in more intermediate liquidity structure where you can take advantage of the disruptions and disequilibrium, the bumps in the road and the shifts among asset classes and the downgrades and upgrades and things of that sort that provide you kind of debt-like surrogates for your money with, call it returns that have an expectation of being quite substantially higher than high yield, quite substantially higher than what is probably discounted in the IG high yield and even equity markets today.

Josh Friedman: (44:19)
So I think looking at alternatives today is a wise discipline.

John Darsie: (44:26)
Fantastic, Josh. Thanks so much for joining us today. I'm going to turn it back over to Anthony, if he has a final word.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:31)
Well, Josh, I want to thank you for being with us, but more importantly thank you for being our partner. Skybridge and our funds are hugely excited to take this journey with you over the next several years and we're all off to a great start. So I want to thank you for joining a SALT Talk here. You've been to the SALT Conference before, you've been to our wine party in Davos. I hope we can get you back to one of our live events, Josh, and I hope those live events happen pretty soon. Thank you again.

Josh Friedman: (45:03)
I hope so, too, and thank you. Thank you very much, Anthony, and thank you, John.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: Risk Mitigation, Portfolio Construction & Seeking Alpha | SALT Talks #44

“Hedge Funds are at the forefront of innovation and flexibility.“

Panayiotis Lambropoulos, CFA, CAIA, FRM is a Portfolio Manager at the Employees Retirement System of Texas, a $28 billion retirement plan located in Austin, Texas. His responsibilities include sourcing, analyzing and evaluating potential third party managers deploying all types of alternative investment strategies.

“There is a lot of diversification and dispersion going on beneath the surface of the S&P 500.” This should benefit active managers and active hedge funds. Although passive management is getting attention, the recent rebound in the S&P is due to 4-5 stocks, which account for a quarter of the rally. More than 50% of the S&P is trading below its all-time highs.

Panayiotis finds Hedge Funds attractive because they provide risk diversification and downside protection. They are able to generate different sources of returns as a result of their adaptability with low beta.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Panayiotis Lambropoulos, CFA, CAIA, FRM.png

Panayiotis Lambropoulos

Portfolio Manager

Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS)

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello 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 public policy. SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews that we launched during this work from home period that provide conversations with leading investors, creators and thinkers.

John Darsie: (00:28)
What we're really trying to do during these SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provide at our SALT Conference series. What we're doing there is really providing a window into the minds of subject matter experts and providing a platform to what we think are interesting and world changing ideas.

John Darsie: (00:43)
And today, we're very excited to welcome Panayiotis Lambropoulos to SALT Talks. Panayiotis is the Portfolio Manager for Hedge Funds at the Employees' Retirement System of Texas which is a $26 billion retirement plan located in Austin, Texas, the capital. His responsibilities including sourcing, analyzing and evaluating potential hedge fund managers, process and performance assessment, interviewing various fund employees and third party service providers and maintaining the due diligence efforts.

John Darsie: (01:12)
Panayiotis started in the alternative investment industry as a research analyst at Grosvenor Capital Management in Chicago. He later joined MCP Alternative Asset Management, a $6 billion Tokyo headquartered fund of funds and while he was working for that fund, he was actually still based in Chicago.

John Darsie: (01:29)
Panayiotis holds a BS in Business Administration with a concentration in finance and marketing from Boston College and an MBA in General Management from North Western University's Kellogg School of Management. So, as you can see, despite now living in Austin, Texas, he's very steeped in Chicago culture.

John Darsie: (01:46)
Panayiotis has earned his Chartered Alternate Investment Analyst designation, CAIA; Financial Risk Manager designation as well as the Chartered Financial Analyst Designation, the CFA.

John Darsie: (01:58)
And just a reminder for our audience during today's talk, if you have a question for Panayiotis, you can enter it in the Q and A box at the bottom of your video screen. And hosting today's interview is Anthony Scaramucci, the founding and Managing Partner of Skybridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. And Anthony is also the Chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:17)
John, thank you. And I'm sure, Panayiotis, you'll love the way he pronounces your name. He's been working on that for the last month. So congratulations to you Darsie. That was well done.

John Darsie: (02:28)
Thanks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:28)
But I want to go to your personal background. How did you, we all have our different odysseys, to use a Greek expression. How did you get to Texas ERS? What got you thinking that that was the direction you wanted to take the career in?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (02:49)
Well first of all, thank you for inviting me in being part of this talk series and, given the pandemic and the times that we live in, I hope everybody's well on your side. Yeah, my arrival here is part life, part luck, part choices as is anything else with life. My personal background actually starts, if you want to start at the beginning of the odyssey, starts in Greece. I was born and raised in Greece. I was there until I was 13 years old.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:18)
In Athens? Which area-

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (03:20)
In Athens.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:20)
In Athens, okay.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (03:21)
I was in Athens.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:22)
Beautiful city.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (03:23)
Yeah, five minutes outside of downtown. And life kind of came at me unexpectedly. I lost my father when I was 13 years old. A family decision was to move to America. My mother's family was in Massachusets, hence my connection to Massachusets and Boston College. But I've always wanted to be in finance and investments and-

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:45)
Where did you move to, if you don't mind me asking? What part-

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (03:47)
Central Massachusets, just north of Western Mass.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:51)
Okay. Sure.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (03:51)
60 miles west of Boston.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:53)
Yep.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (03:54)
Finished high school there as John alluded to. I did my undergrad at Boston College. Did a couple of years of accounting. Wasn't really my long term interest. Investments always was my real interest and passion and that interest actually was born from my grandmother who turned 100 last year-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:15)
Wow. Congratulations.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (04:16)
Still with us. And she obviously, as you can guess, based on her age, she has seen a few things in her life. And the first thing she taught me was the power of compounding and saving. And when I arrived in the States, it was the advent period of mutual funds and markets were changing, so that's when my curiosity for investment really began. And through a friend, I ended up in Chicago, Grosvenor Capital Management was my foray into the alternative investment world back in 2000. That's where I got my start in this nuanced and new vehicle called hedge funds. I had no idea what it was but sounded interesting and different.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (04:58)
And to date myself, prior to my first interview, I ran down to a Borders, picked up whatever few books were available back then about hedge funds, just to prep myself a little bit for the interview. Luckily, they believed that the lights were on and somebody was home upstairs and I could pick up stuff quickly.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (05:17)
From there, as they say, the rest is somewhat history. Stayed in Chicago for 15 years. The big change from my time in Chicago was the financial crisis and the tsunami in Japan actually affected my life. MCP's business model is that to cater only to Japanese financial institutions and, in combination with the financial crisis and exposure to the tsunami that happened in Japan, there was a retrenchment in the company, there was a retrenchment in the industry. But I wanted to stay in the industry. I love this industry. I'm very passionate about it. And I ran across this growth here in Austin and the growth in the public sector. And my idea was that I could take my experience, hit the ground running, contribute to small teams right away; at the same time to learn and build on my investment acumen, my personal growth. And that's what kind of brought me here to Austin as they were building a new program.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:19)
Your foray into hedge funds. Let me, because I'm face with this dilemma every single day. Why hedge funds? Active management, passive management, yea, why hedge funds Panayiotis?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (06:35)
The value-

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:37)
Make the case for me and then obviously John as he's making the case, please record it two times and so this way we can give it to our sales force. Go ahead, make the case.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (06:46)
Well, in terms of hedge funds themselves, the overall how we view hedge funds here at ERS, we believe that it can be utilized to protect and preserve investment capital, provide risk diversification and provide that downside protection that everybody talks about; downside protection that became valuable this past February and March. And hedge funds overall, we think of as businesses as investment conduits, not as strategies. And so we're talking about individuals that are able to take advantage of massive dislocations and the accompanied volatility and uncertainty that comes up with those massive dislocations.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (07:29)
The other thing I would say about hedge funds is that, and [inaudible 00:07:34] enough do about this, is they're always in the forefront of innovation and flexibility. Markets change, investment opportunities change and hedge funds offer that opportunity to generate a different source of returns by having that flexibility and innovation on their side.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (07:51)
At the end of the day, what we really focus on, for example, is a clear purpose, an expectation of what hedge funds are intended to do within our portfolio. That sends to the foundation of whether or not we are successful or not, how we measure success. If you enter into a hedge fund saying, well, I just want high returns or I want a hedge fund that always beats the S&P, more often than not, investors will be disappointed.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (08:19)
First of all, the word hedge is in hedge funds. Unless you're 100% at long, you're not going to keep up with those returns. So for us, we set a purpose and expectation of what is it we want this tool, in our overall toolbox, to do for us and do we succeed. For example, in our absolute return portfolio, one measure of success is whether or not it truly provides diversification to the rest of the trust. We have quantified that success by targeting a beta of 0.4 or less for our portfolio to the rest of the trust. Inception to date, which is almost eight years now, we have succeeded. Why? Because our data is less than 0.4. Are we targeting returns? Yes. Just like everybody else. And we have met those returns. But the primary purpose has been met. And that's how we measure success. And anecdotally, that success was met in March. So that's one way to measure success; what is the success, what is the purpose, what is it that you want to do.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (09:26)
In terms of active versus passive, obviously the last 10 years have been unusual and since the great financial crisis, I think that you have to figure out what is it that's been present in his worK or not for his active or passive [inaudible 00:09:43]. So, for example, since the financial crisis we have definitely seen managers being challenged by the fight that we've had a higher concentration of opportunities. Less number of opportunities, higher capital changing the same number of opportunities. At first glance, you may say that the recent rebound in the S&P from the March lows is probably the same issue. We are driven by five or six stocks, at most two sectors, and anecdotally we can see other data that lead us to believe that this is a very thinly traded breadth type of recovery.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (10:23)
But, there's a lot going on below the surface. The five or six stocks are only the tip of the iceberg. If you look below the surface and under the water. For example, we see that almost a fifth of the S&P companies are now trading more than 50% below their all time highs. The average stock in the S&P index is about 30% below its peak. Three out of the 11 sectors in S&P are in the green; the rest are in the red. And as I mentioned, about five of the largest stocks that are driving this recovery account for a quarter of the rally since the March lows. And those five stocks, in aggregate, have close to a $7 trillion market cap, which is larger than the Japanese TOPIX index. So there's a lot of diversification dispersion going below the surface which should benefit active management and active hedge funds. We saw high pairwise correlation since the financial crisis that seems to be reverting itself. Again, a lot going on below the surface if you're just looking at equities.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (11:31)
The same story could probably be said about the credit market as well. So, overall, and the last thing I'd probably mention is momentum. We've seen growth factor outperform value for the better part of the last 10 years. Now we've seen a reversal and whether you believe we're coming out of the current recession or eventually we're going to grow out of it, or perhaps fall in a double dip recession, value factor, which tends to be a contrarian play, should outperform growth.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (11:58)
So there's a lot going on here in terms of dispersion, in volatility and uncertainty that should benefit hedge fund strategies.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:07)
So, listen, that's music to my ears. And I totally agree with you, particularly with the concentration level. We've both been doing this a long time. What do you think happens to those five stocks, even if the fundamentals of something that's trading at 170 times earnings are strong, isn't it possible that you could see multiple compression and have a stock trade to 80 times earnings and still be growing at 15 to 30% but lose half your money?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (12:36)
Before I address that question, to tie the knot about the active versus passive argument. At alpha and beta, because that's what, at the end of the day, what we're really talking about, in my opinion, they're often spoken, or too often spoken in absolute terms. It's either one or the other. First, I think there's room for both and you can allocate to both types of factors, but more importantly I think, I think of alpha and beta as bookends. I don't think of them as absolute terms. And what I mean is, if you have beta on one end and alpha on the other, you have a spectrum of other strategies that could benefit. It's not easy to quantify alpha in main point.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (13:15)
So, given where we are right now in the cycle, for example, we might anticipate that distressed investing should do well a year or two or three years from now. Distressed investing, I think, is a form of alpha. You need a good team to source, a good team to work out these opportunities. It's not easy to generate the alpha. But it is a form of alpha that should be accounted for in your portfolio.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (13:41)
So that's another argument for active and alpha [crosstalk 00:13:44].

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:45)
It's well said. And we know, the passive for the cycle, we know that that trade is very, very crowded. It's the S&P five. And as you're pointing out, it's the S&P 495. And so what do you think happens there?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (14:02)
So I think at the moment, in conjunction with that, there's a lot of conversation about valuations and there is definitely bifurcation between the financial market and economic reality. Whether it's the stock market and the real economy. There's definitely a bifurcation between the two. And right now, what I would probably do is to separate first and foremost the market between technicals and fundamentals. At the time, I think at the moment, technicals are definitely outwinning fundamentals, in serving as heavy tailwinds for the current market. And part of the technicals I would allude to or point out to are first of all, M2. Money supply provided by the Fed. If you overlay the current Fed M2 Saint Louis Central and Bay graph with the S&P, it's a one for one relationship. The other favorite acronym, TINA. There's an alternative. We have lower rates and investors need yield, they need returns, by default, they're looking for a more return seeking assets, like stocks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:16)
Sure.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (15:16)
We have FOMO. Right now, we have at the lowest percentage of shares outstanding being short in the last 20 years. Even the most bearish of skeptical investors have to turn bullish so they're not being overrun in their short book.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (15:33)
And so, the technicals, I think are definitely overwhelming. On the fundamental side, price seems to definitely have run up ahead of earnings. The question is, at this moment in time, how much have been priced in, looking ahead, and what type of key assumptions are anybody on a fundamental case is making about COVID, about earnings growth, about unemployment rates, about GDP growth. It seems like a perfect storm of normalizations has to come in play in order for everything to work out and justify the current fundamentals and valuations.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (16:16)
What I would say though is, two things. One, the valuations that we're alluded to again is concentrated to one part of the market. It's close to $5 trillion of cash, sitting on the side. We could see a rotation once we get more validity of some type of recovery and stability in the market, so that cash could find its way in other parts of the market, again perhaps cheaper parts of the market, sectors that haven't participated in this recovery or rally.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (16:45)
The other point I want to make is, although we're making the argument that the market is perhaps frothy or expensive; we have been in` a new regime of rates in the last 10 years and we're most likely going to remain in the same regime for the next 10 years. Unless we have unexpected, unforeseen spike in inflation. So if we're looking at a valuation matrix of any choice, compared to a historical mean, I could argue that, given the new regime and lower discount rates, that mean eventually will have to come up. And so whatever absolute valuation you're looking at, to the new mean that should come up, the market is probably not as expensive as you may think. If participants think that the market is 15/20% overvalued based on a valuation matrix, I could argue it's probably far less, maybe five to 10 range. So it may be not be as extreme as we thought.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:41)
It all makes sense. John is chomping at the bit here to ask questions. We're getting a lot of audience participation and so I'm going to turn it over to John in a second. And everything you're saying makes great sense. But I want to go to an area of the market that was an epicenter of the March sell-off, which was the structured credit area of the market which has been a little bit of a recovery. Do you have an opinion on structured credit, one way or the other?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (18:10)
We have an internal team that focuses on structured credit, internal credit. We were quick to put some capital to work. As you alluded to, we saw the big sell-off in March. Within structured credit, we haven't seen a rebound but there has only been a rebound in the AA, AA. The lower credit rating hasn't recovered as fast, so there might be still opportunity there. The problem has been the Fed. The Fed has acted as a backstop to a lot of the credit migration that we thought we were going to see and the CCC buckets were most likely going to violate a lot of their interest coverage or OC coverage and that's what we were expecting. But for the time being, the Fed has acted as a backstop. The only thing the Fed had to do was announce its intention of getting involved in the market and we saw a rebound. It hasn't even put to use all of the capital it announced for various programs.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (19:08)
And so, I think there still needs to play out. We're keeping an eye on it. Other than the early buying opportunity that we saw in March, we haven't put yet additional capital to work. We've seen some rebound but we're in the wait and see mode.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:25)
And why do you think the Fed hasn't really, they obviously focused or at least directed attention to high yield and they did direct some attention to investment grade, but why do you think they've laid off of most of structured credit except for the new issue market that's AAA rated?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (19:43)
It's hard to say. I think, overall, the Fed's intention was to stabilize the market, provide liquidity, take advantage of the lessons learned from OA and make sure we didn't have a liquidity problem that turned into a solvency problem. And so I think they wanted to bookend the market to provide some comfort that at least the market would function, companies would have access to capital, and at the very least, again, not that I completely agree, but by that technical backstop, at least for investors not to start tricking out paper simply because they had to keep up with indices or they were violating any credit rating allocations that they had in their portfolio. And so, in a way, we migrated from you're too big to fail to nobody's allowed to fail. That's I think the big difference that we've seen in the last 10 years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:35)
Yeah, it'd make sense. We're in very different territory than the market that you and I grew up in where the Fed had a light touch and they did some monetary policy lightly and they did some currency intervention but now we seem to have a very big macro-trader in the market, known as the Federal Reserve, frankly the global central banking system.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:00)
But John, I know wants to ask some questions, so please interject John. I know you've got some-

John Darsie: (21:05)
Anthony, just because Panayiotis has a very distinguished beard during the work from home period doesn't mean he's as old as you. He just doesn't use the same type of hair dye.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:17)
First of all, it's not quite hair dye. It's shoe polish. And I can send you a case of it any time you want. And I would recommend when you get to be our age, you don't want to have a lot of snow on the roof, okay. And right now, you look like you've got a lot of snow in the basement there. We can talk [crosstalk 00:21:35] when this is over. See, he always comes in and tries to give me a karate chop to the Adams apple. See that?

John Darsie: (21:41)
Have to keep him honest. So we talked about structured credit Panayiotis, but I want to talk about more broadly the hedge fund space. Obviously there's a lot of technical dislocations in March in response to the pandemic and the economic fallout from the pandemic. What asset classes to you became most attractive during that period? What asset classes within the hedge fund space still look attractive? And what are others that you think'll be more challenging in the near term as we try to rebound from all the effects of the pandemic.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (22:12)
So, really quickly, on the liquid space, one area that we might begin looking at and it may sound a bit contrarian, might be the equity long short space. The one argument is the one I've just made in terms of increased dispersion despite the massive run up in the markets. The other argument is that whether you believe we're headed into a double dip recession or that we might eventually be part of the next economic cycle. Either way, again, we'll either see dispersion or we may see a rotation in the market. We may see value overtaking growth. There should be a lot of activity within the equity long short space.

John Darsie: (22:52)
The latest letter that they're describing the recovery with is a K shape recovery. So that sort of fits with your theme of dispersions. There's going to be winners and there's going to be losers. You just have to find talented managers that are able to pick those out?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (23:05)
Correct. And obviously there's a big challenge again on that side will be the short side. But we believe eventually that we may be able to find those managers that have that long history, sustainable history and persistent history. Given the anticipated choppiness of the market, I know it's been mono-directional essentially since the March lows, but we do anticipate choppiness and increased volatility. I think we're seeing signs of it now. We have seen the massive V shape bounds, albeit of extreme lows, you would expect that. But we're starting to see a sideways movement in the market as unemployment benefits are now on the wayside as more uncertainty continues with whether or not there'll be more hotspots, how long it's going to take for some type of medical solution for COVID.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (23:57)
Again, that should increase uncertainty and volatility so relative value strategies and global macro-strategies should benefit from that type of environment, especially our discretionary lower macro. But again, the Fed is the big elephant in the room. And our discretionary global macro has been fighting that headwind for 10 years and that will be, again, the big challenge.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (24:19)
On a less liquid side, we have an opportunistic credit portfolio and we are taking a look there within longer term, we're going to look at the stress. But we're also looking at some niche opportunities like bank risk sharing and bank regulatory capital sharing. Compared to OA, financials are not the epicenter of the problems that we have today. Conversely, banks will be expected to be liquidity providers and help in the economic recovery. The market itself, the BRS market has grown. The latest 2019 figures show that it's up to $100 billion or so.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (24:59)
And so we believe that that will be an interesting strategy. It's a strategy that we've had some exposure to. We're looking to perhaps increase that exposure in terms of a strategy. And we are looking, potentially at distress down the road. In the immediate future, the one area that I believe might offer an interesting opportunity is direct lending, but not in a good way. Following the financial crisis, we saw, partly because of the [inaudible 00:25:27] rule, partly because of the economy, a new market being created, a new vacuum coming in to provide that credit which was direct lending.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (25:34)
And we've seen unprecedented growth in the last 10 years for that market. The problem is, it's a market that hadn't been really tested. And one thing that we saw, there's obviously a lot of money being put to work, raised and put to work right away. And I think this type of a market environment is going to show the true underwriting skills, the true ability for our teams that should be in the direct lending market, those that shouldn't have been in the direct lending market. And one area of concern is that we're not seeing in docs right now, one area that a lot of our managers pointed out, is the lack of maintenance coverage within the underwriting standards.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (26:15)
And so it's a bit of reap or rhyme if you will with the subprime trade of 06/07. It maybe take a different turn this time around. But we may have a secondary distress to direct lending market to take a look at. And I thought that would always be something interesting to look at.

John Darsie: (26:36)
If you wait long enough, everything becomes an opportunity, right.

John Darsie: (26:40)
So you spent almost your entire career in the hedge fund space evaluating other managers in a multi-manager type of format. When you're evaluating potential investments in hedge funds or other alternative funds, what type of organizational characteristics do you look for and personal characteristics do you look for in the investment team?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (26:58)
First and foremost, it starts whether it's our absolute return program or merger manager program that we revamped a couple of years ago. It starts with the philosophy that we're looking at businesses and not funds. You always want to think of it that way, whether they're managing a portfolio or building a widget. Doesn't matter. You think of it as a business first. Given who we are, who we serve, the amount of capital we're putting to work. We need to partner with institutional caliber type firms.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (27:27)
Obviously from an investment or operational due diligence point of view, we look at qualitative and quantitative factors just like everybody else. On the quantitative side, we'll look at various sources of return, key periods of performance, both good or bad. It's not simply about the quantity of returns but we want to assess the quality of returns as well. And we overlay that performance with key investment or risk management decisions and opportunity sets.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (27:54)
On the quality side, obviously we want to look at the quality of experience of team members, honesty, that's obviously much more important post-Madoff. We want to get an inside look in a roadmap of the thought and the process. It's not always about the answers you get. But it's also about how somebody gets to those answers. And that's something I really pay attention to.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (28:17)
And obviously culture and opportunity. The goal of our process is to try and tie performance or statistics back to the stated strategy, the risk constraints and the opportunity set. At the end of the day, are they doing what they said they were going to do.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (28:35)
At a high level, that translates to probably two words that come to mind. Consistency and adaptability or flexibility. We want to see consistency in thought process, the investment decision making process, risk management and the team itself. We want to examine the throughput, not just the output. And in terms of flexibility, I'm not talking about strategy drift, but somebody that's able to adapt to new market conditions, opportunities, new tools that become available to them.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (29:06)
At the below level, at the PM or team level, some characteristics that I think make investment hedge fund managers or investors are rather simple. The desire to succeed or build something that matters to them and their team or their legacy. The ability to communicate, both internally and externally to key stakeholders. The drive to be better and do better every day, driven by strong analytical skills.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (29:32)
High emotional IQ. You need to have no fear in making decisions, making investment decisions, taking those risks. The ability to listen and put together a lot of information from various sources and come together with some type of outlook. And the self-awareness, to be aware of your strengths and exploit those strengths, but also mitigate your weaknesses or work on your blind spots.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (29:58)
At the end of the day, what is due diligence? We want to make sure that the foundations that made a successful hedge fund in the past are present today to give us and them the ability or higher probability than not, to be successful in the future.

John Darsie: (30:15)
Yeah. I think at Skybridge, that's something that we certainly concentrate on as well. I think the post-2008/9 period there were a lot of investment managers, to use a Greek word that were apotheosized, where people were assigned genius to them because of bets they made as a result of the crisis, but haven't necessarily performed in the 11 years after that. It's very important to continue to drill down on consistency of process and adaptability to different market conditions like you mentioned.

John Darsie: (30:42)
In your emerging manager program like you mentioned, why is it important to you guys to have an emerging manager program? What do you look for in emerging managers and what advice would you give to managers that are starting out that are looking to distinguish themselves and bring that institutional quality process to their investment team?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (31:02)
So the thesis to start or revamp our investment emerging manager program was actually twofold. One, as Anthony alluded to, we've been doing this for a while. We've seen a lot of names come and go. We know who the names are. But I thought that we were reaching an inflection point of what I call a generational gap. We start seeing a lot of the successful managers of yesterday either shutting down, retiring, turning their businesses into family offices. So there had to be a transition, a passing of the baton if you will of that next generation. I thought it was becoming increasing in terms of its infrequency. So we wanted to take advantage of the fact that we wanted to find the future manager that is going to be successful, earlier and today.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (31:51)
The second part of this thesis was, and this was pre-pandemic, capital raising environment was extremely challenging. And so if we were in a position to provide that capital and be that liquidity provider, we could come from a position of strength and leverage in terms of what type of terms and conditions we could ask for, what type of inside look we could get from the manager themselves.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (32:16)
Third, given the amount of capital we're going to put to work, we thought that if we could establish a relationship very early on, then we could get an inside look of what their strengths and weaknesses are, we can then, down the road, perhaps form or put together some type of solution based product that builds upon that strength to either take advantage of that to solve a problem for us, the trust, or offer them the market in general.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (32:45)
So that was kind of the general thesis about three or four years ago when we kind of started this process. And we announced the partnership with PAAMCO Prisma in June of '18. We also wanted to offer the market a unique structure that was a little bit different from other seeders. We believe we have achieved that in the form of the fact that ERS is willing to invest in the co-mingle structure in order to build a new or upon existing track record. By agreement and by definition of the business model, PAAMCO Prisma will invest side by side with ERS, will match minimum dollar for dollar what we're willing to put into work and it will do so through the SMA. We get the transparency of that account, because PAAMCO shares that transparency. We negotiate our own terms and conditions but we also offer and ask for operational and financially focused parachutes, if you will, to protect ourselves, which collapse to those of PAAMCO.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (33:46)
So in a way, for ERS, we've created, if you will, a synthetic SMA, without having to open SMA. We get the benefits of SMA without having to open and SMA. So that was the idea. That was the execution. And at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is create a farm system for ERS. We're looking at each individual strategy on a standalone basis; we're looking at each manager on a standalone basis. And the idea and the hope is that if this manager is successful, we will put them either in our absolute return portfolio or find a home for them somewhere else within the trust, as long as they're bringing some type of skillset, some type of exposure that we can't replicate in-house and that will be their value proposition to the trust.

John Darsie: (34:32)
That's fascinating. Again, I have some echos to the way we tried to build a farm system at Skybridge as well, because you never know when you're going to need to call on certain strategies or funds with certain profiles to exploit an opportunity set that presents itself in the case of a surprise pandemic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:47)
Let me interrupt for a second because I'm very curious as to how these guys think about the pandemic and the impact that it's having on their investment strategy and the long term prospects for the US economy. What are your thoughts there with your economic team?

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (35:02)
In terms of the pandemic?

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:03)
Yeah.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (35:05)
We don't have necessarily economists in house. Obviously each team has its own view. We talk, obviously to a lot of managers and [inaudible 00:35:17] to gauge what the general consensus is. Obviously there's still a lot of uncertainty. I think the markets, by the hour, by the day, sway between hope that a new vaccine is on the horizon, that a new vaccine was announced in terms of what stage it's in, or a new technique to deal with a lot of the symptoms. And then will we trace back to some type of uncertain despair if that hope turns to be untrue or misguided or misrepresented.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (35:47)
At the end of the day, the big unknown is when some type of medical safety net is going to be provided. That's what we're all waiting for. And assuming we get there within six, 12, 18 months from now, I think the bigger question is well, what paradigm shift have we all witnessed at once and which paradigm shift becomes temporary and which becomes permanent. And the big question is the consumer. How will they change their behavior? How will their spending change? Is it going to normalize? It is going to take some time to go back to normal? Airlines could open all they want, but if you and I don't feel safe getting on the plane, it doesn't matter.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (36:28)
And so, that's how we're taking it very cautiously that there is a lot of noise, the signal noise ratio is high and we're taking it very slowly. We're trying to adjust our due diligence process just like everybody else and thinking about the long term. But the economic uncertainty is still there. But at the end of the day, we are long term investors. That's why we have an IPS in place. We're sticking to it. We're not trying to panic. And we're taking it week by week, month to month, as the new information becomes available. But as long as we stick to the IPS, I think you should be fine.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:06)
Absolutely great advice.

John Darsie: (37:08)
And in terms of the pandemic, before we let you go, you haven't lived through quite as many financial crises as Anthony, but how do you think the aftermath of this crisis plays out over the next five to 10 years in the hedge fund industry. You've commented on that a little bit earlier in the context of your response regarding active and passive management, but if we look out five to 10 years, what do you think the landscape is in terms of the hedge fund industry is in the wake of this pandemic?

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:32)
Before you answer that, come on, that was an ageist shot at me from a Millennial. So, the two of you are going to take me in basketball when this is over. Okay, we'll see how that goes.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (37:44)
[crosstalk 00:37:44] his boss. Most unheard of.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:48)
Oh my God. All right. Go ahead. Answer the question.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (37:53)
If it had to vision about the industry, first of all, I think the AUM we're roughly $3 trillion and that's been stalling and has plateaued in the last couple of years. I think assets under management I think are actually going to increase. I think that alternatives in hedge funds are going to be able to offer a different source and a different type of return, again, most likely would be lower yielding environment and a lot of liability driven or liability based portfolios are going to struggle to meet those targeted returns that are still somewhere in the area of 6.5/7%. Unless, we either concentrate a portfolio or you lever up. The math is very simple.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (38:37)
And so I think alternatives will, again, prove their value and assets will increase. I think the number of hedge funds that are out there will shrink as I think they should. I don't think there're truly eight, nine, 10,000 hedge funds out there. I think if we were to take an honest look at what makes a hedge fund, we're probably in the area of 1,000. And if we really filter in terms of quality, we're probably far less than that.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (39:01)
And so I think the number of hedge funds will probably decrease as it should and we might see actually more consolidation in the industry of hedge funds and firms coming down within a greater umbrella, for greater economies of scale, greater opportunity to offer variety of solution based products. I think technology's going to play a bigger role in the hedge fund industry. Technology has pulled forward a number of theses that we thought it might play on the next five or 10 years, and fast forward them to today. Perfect example, look at how we're communicating between the three of us today with such ease. But I think technology will become a bigger part of hedge funds. And I'm not talking about AI and machine learning. I'm talking about greater efficiency in use of risk management, greater use in terms of operational efficiency, back office to front office.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (39:56)
I think technology will become a bigger part and should be embraced. It'd be used greater in due diligence. I can see more data rooms being opened. A lot of virtual visits becoming the norm and part of the due diligence process. I call it the humanizing of due diligence. I can see us binge watching a bunch of IDD videos as opposed to binge watching Netflix and we just hear what the manager's doing and saying, as opposed to reading the typical email DDQ.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (40:26)
In terms of strategies, I think ESG, impact investing is here to stay. And I think it will be a bigger part, of not just the general market, but I think portfolio investing and portfolio consideration.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (40:41)
And lastly, I think because alternatives are already a bigger part of portfolio construction, I think the modernization of risk of portfolio construction will probably improve. And what I mean by that, for example, right now we're still kind of stuck in your typical two moment portfolio mean variance optimization. Expect a return in standard deviation. We might have to add other moments in that portfolio construction, for example, a [inaudible 00:41:10] ratio, to consider a more optimal portfolio construction as we account for alternatives. So I think that's a few things that might change in the future.

John Darsie: (41:21)
Well Panayiotis, I think that's a great tour de force on the hedge fund industry. It's been a lot of fun getting to know you a little bit better over the last few months and comparing notes and hopefully we can get you to one of our live events once that becomes the norm. But for now, we'll settle with some fun Zoom conversations.

John Darsie: (41:37)
Anthony, you have the final word?

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:38)
No, that was a brilliant exposition of what is going on in the industry and I think you made a very compelling case to have that solid diversified asset allocation plan and what we're learning about markets, they're moving so fast, we're not going to have time to change our plan. And so I tried to tell the retail investors, some of which are on this Zoom call with us, everybody has a long term investment plan until they have short term losses. And then once they have short term losses, they start setting their hair on fire, running around in a circle.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:12)
You made an amazing case for people just to stay disciplined and then the different buckets and I really appreciate you doing that and let's get you back at one of our live events soon.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:23)
Thank you again.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (42:24)
Thank you and I appreciate the invite and hopefully the first event might be Dubai, I've never been.

John Darsie: (42:29)
Hey, [crosstalk 00:42:30].

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:30)
We're going to get you out there. We did a great even in Abu Dhabi last year, so, that's a deal. You're on.

Panayiotis Lambropoulos: (42:36)
Well, thank you again for the invite. Appreciate being part of the talk series.

Douglas Monticciolo: Financing a Post-Coronavirus ‘Reboot’ of the Economy | SALT Talks #33

“With an abundance of capital, you need to differentiate yourself by more than just money and a few relationships. “

Douglas Monticciolo is the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer & Co-Founder of Brevet Capital Management, a leader in helping government agencies to solve complex problems. Doug has now been leading Brevet for over 20 years.

“Our strategy isn’t the most aggressive, but it’s very constructive.” Brevet has a government-focused business model where they source deals on a government’s behalf. This ranges from rural community development to partnering with research arms of universities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a significant opportunity for Brevet’s finance-as-a-service model. As a result of the CARES Act, Doug is partnering with research and development companies to manufacture potentially game-changing point-of-care tests.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Douglas Monticciolo.jpeg

Douglas Monticciolo

Founder & CEO

Brevet Capital Management

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, 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 public policy. SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews we've been doing during the work-from-home period in leu of our global conference series, The SALT Conference, to provide our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts and provide a platform of what we think are big world changing ideas and tremendous investment opportunities as well.

John Darsie: (00:37)
We're very excited today to welcome Doug Monticciolio to SALT Talks. Doug is the co-founder, the co-CEO, and the co-chief investment officer of Brevet Capital Management. He's an entrepreneur and an investment manager with deep data analytics and technology experience developed over three decades while providing credit financing and advisory services. And I think if Doug didn't found Brevet Capital and go into financial services, he might have been helping Elon Musk with SpaceX. We'll get into that a little bit later.

John Darsie: (01:06)
Doug founded Brevet Capital Management in 1998 and has established the firm as a leader in helping government agencies solve complex problems and drive positive social impact by creating innovative financing products and services. And I know Brevet's been very busy during this time of really high government spending in response to the COVID pandemic. Another item that we'll touch on during today's talk. This finance as a service approach provides direct lending and other financing to private middle market companies that enables them to effectively serve the government sector as contractors, and it creates a very low credit risk strategy when you have the Department of Justice as your enforcer of payments in this type of business model, and it has a highly competitive barriers to entry that Brevet has been able to crack.

John Darsie: (01:53)
Doug's years of experience working in startup environments as a software entrepreneur and with an asset back securities fixed income in investment banking helped him identify a gap in the market where traditional lenders failed to provide the innovative financing and forward looking advisory services needed for private government contractors to rely on and deliver services. Doug has a passion for technology and approaches investing and credit financing with a problem solving mindset. He began his career at Goldman Sachs in the financial institution's industry resource group where he specialized in investment banking and principle finance trading, and he helped create numerous service marked products and services to address the unmet needs of clients. He later spent time at Lehman Brothers and Deutsche Bank where he was the head of the proprietary fixed income group in the merchant banking and principle finance group.

John Darsie: (02:45)
Doug's a turn from academics to finance when he was studying at Columbia University and working at Fischer Black, which was the creator of the Black Skulls model on complex mathematical formulas. He was encouraged to apply his skills to financial problem solving instead of academia, and he decided to put aside his pursuit of a PhD to join Goldman Sachs. But Doug did receive a masters of engineering sciences degree in applied mathematics from Colombia University, and he graduated from the state university of New York at Stony Brook with an MS in applied mathematics and a BS in applied mathematics in computer science.

John Darsie: (03:21)
Doug is also a level three certified member of the National Association of Rocketry, and a member of the Randonneurs USA, which is a long distance road biking organization. We were talking before we went live about how we're riding our bikes to stay in shape during the COVID pandemic, so that's another interesting thing Doug is involved in. He also coaches robotics and innovation and has led teams to numerous regional awards in that field. He led one of his teams to a worldwide second place finish in the FLL Global Innovation Award Season sponsored by Edison Nation and the XPRIZE Foundation, which was in cooperation with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He also currently serves on the board of directors of Hope for New York, and is a board member of the Young Presidents Organization, Gotham Chapter.

John Darsie: (04:07)
Reminder, if you have any questions for Doug during today's talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. And conducting today's interview is going to be Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm, as well as the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for today's interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:28)
Well, John, thank you. Doug, it is always an honor to be with you, and we go back a long ways. And I got to ask you questions I could only ask a fellow Italian. Have you been successful or were you ever successful at explaining what you do to your parents?

Doug Monticciolo: (04:47)
Good question. No. Fortunately, my dad was a butcher, my mom was an Avon lady. They did understand entrepreneurial business, but finance probably wasn't the core.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:59)
Yeah, so I'm still trying to figure that out, that I cannot explain to my parents what I do. But I just thought I would throw that in there. More than 20 years you've been at Brevet, amazing success story. Why did you name it Brevet? That's one of my questions. And then what was the idea for the business model, where did the spark come from?

Doug Monticciolo: (05:24)
Sure. Brevet, everybody notes that it's not Brevet, but it is Brevet because ... You heard John talk about Randonneurs, which is a very old French long distance cycling organization, it precedes the Tour De France, and in order to be a member of Randonneurs, you need to take these qualifying tests. They're self driven benchmarks that are challenges that you have to pass very long distance rides without any support, and they're called brevets. And so, Brevet as a business was exactly that, it's our challenge to self-achieve, to push ourselves further than you normally would, and given that some of these rides are 1,200 kilometers, I think that's a good reflection of Brevet.

Doug Monticciolo: (06:13)
And our business, we're an all credit fund, and everybody asks what does that mean? That means we're a credit fund, that means predominantly we are collateralized, not just generally but very specifically, and we're [inaudible 00:06:26] in almost all cases. And what drove me to do this was I had the opportunity, right, to be very young and was at a startup right out of high school doing well in the software industry, and I got to Goldman and learned these great skills. And I wanted to create a business that was, I felt at least, a little more responsible in its investing than just providing financial products or out of the box solutions. And I believed that by doing that I could generate higher returns.

Doug Monticciolo: (06:52)
And so, we as a firm are very well known for not being super aggressive, but more importantly, being very constructive. And so, we take all these skills that I've learned over my career and my team, and we bring valuated solutions to create a better outcome. I as at Deutsche and I basically had the benefit of the [inaudible 00:07:13] which is why JP Morgan created was we wanted to bring more than just the money to bear. And so, our finance as a service, as you heard John say, really is our benchmark, right? We're not just bringing money, we're bringing a solution and our skills, and we're government focused. And that's maybe a place where you need the most help could be brought. They're not very commercial, they're definitely not very efficient.

Doug Monticciolo: (07:36)
And so, if I was to sort of be true to my responsible investing ethos, the government's a great place to do it. The flip side of it is that fact that if you help the government do things, you're helping citizens, not just in the U.S., we do this around the world, and the outcomes are great. Good returns, good outcomes was a recipe I couldn't pass up. Harder work, but the outcomes are worth it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:00)
Let's dive into that, because I think it's important to give a specific example so that it totally crystallizes for people what your business exactly is. If I need money from you, what am I typically doing? I have a contract with the government, the government's going to pay me, but I go to you to get a lending facility in waiting for that payment? Is that more or less your business strategy?

Doug Monticciolo: (08:27)
Our business ... And that's the traditional credit approach, which is borrow goes to lender, we actually turn the model around. Our clients are the government, and so, we go to the government and say, "What's not working?" Obviously, we're a very trusted party and around 20 years been able to do this, but they tell us, "We're having problems getting this program that we hold this money for to create jobs saying we're all in America" or "We're having problems inducing certain types of research and development" or "We're trying to get money out to the right businesses in a pandemic."

Doug Monticciolo: (09:01)
And so, we sit with them and say, "Well, here's our capabilities. We got a lot of resources, we got a lot of skills, we got a lot of relationships, give us a feeling for where you want it to go." And we'll then work with them to say, "You just make sure that as this plays out, we're going to do the following, you the government pay us back or we'll go and make sure that the money gets to where it needs to go." And so, if you're a borrower and we knock on your door, it likely means you're going to get something that you didn't think that you're going to get, which is typically free or low cost government opportunity that you didn't really think was going to come your way, or you couldn't figure out exactly how to get it. And so, we do that finance as a service. Yeah, it's finance, but the service is both to government and to the company, and we get paid for that. And that's basically how we do what we do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:49)
How as the business changed, Doug, during the COVID-19 environment? Seems like there's a proliferation of governmental financing out there and funding. Has that helped you guys or hurt you guys or indifferent?

Doug Monticciolo: (10:01)
Well, that's a good question, right, because COVID, the pandemic, is not something we could have predicted. We don't chase crises, but in this case, it's a clear demonstration of why the model works, which is in what other industry in this economic environment is somebody trying to put out $2 trillion dollars, and where are major other sovereigns trying to do the same thing? Where we focus on this and what the opportunity for us is, we were called in March right at the pandemic was breaking, because they were calling entrusted parties to try to help solve problems.

Doug Monticciolo: (10:38)
In short, yes, it's been tremendously helpful to our business, not just in the big volume increase, which we see every time there's a new program, but more in the trusting of the relationship and the reiterating ... Regardless of the administration now, it's sort of proving out that they call us when they need help and we're there with our money and our ideas. And for just our ideas, it's free, but most of the time we're bringing a solution. Been quite a bit and we haven't slept much in the last couple of months, but it's been there trying to hopefully bridge some of the gaps, which is a lot of what we do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:15)
I just want to get a little more definition here, because I'm getting a couple of text messages that "Let Doug elaborate on an example of capital." Government come to you says, "We're trying to push this out," you go to somebody and say, "Okay, listen, I can lend you money, you'll get the money from the government," and a result of which you're getting a return off on that connection. Is that fair to say?

Doug Monticciolo: (11:39)
It's similar to that. Let's take one of the programs, economic development program, where particularly now they're trying to ... Governments are trying to get capital out to companies doing research and development in various areas that could potentially be additive to solving the COVID crisis, detection, early warning, other types of things. And so, governments are good, but they really don't know how to find those companies, and believe it or not, most of the times, they give that money through the IRS or through treasury, which is not necessarily a very friendly place.

Doug Monticciolo: (12:13)
What we do is we understand, work with the government to make sure we know exactly what they want, and then we turn around and say, "Okay, we'll go and find those companies for you." We'll actually help them apply, we'll work through the entire process, and we'll go give them money in two days knowing that we've already confirmed with the government that the process we're going to pursue is going to get the repayment or the government to pay for that, and in these cases they actually pay us. We'll help a company be able to get the government money, in this case ... In one case, actually, it's helping R&D on a product that can help early detection for COVID, and they needed the capital, were afraid to apply, we simplified it, made it easy for them, gave them the money backed by the fact that we knew the government was going to pay us. We turn the transaction around, we lend to the borrowers and get paid by governments. Not your traditional model, but great credit risk and great opportunity.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:08)
That's an excellent description of what you're doing, and it fits so nicely into the world of alternatives because it's a niche that can't be replicated in ETF, it can't be bought on an exchange, it can't be ... It's got to be esoterically designed by you guys in source, and that's where all the value that Brevet is adding to the clients.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:31)
If you step back over the 22 years of Brevet and your interaction with the government ... And I'm going to editorialize her a little bit, Doug, the government has a bad rap of just being totally candid, a lot of people are not in love with the government, the cumbersomeness of it, the bureaucracy, what do you say about the government? Do you still have faith in it, especially given this period of turbulence that we're all experiencing?

Doug Monticciolo: (13:56)
Well, it's a good question. Having faith. I think we all know the answer to that, right, everybody knows there's two things in certainty, death and taxes. If you believe that that's true, you just basically bought the business model of the federal government, which is you live there, you bought their product, you pay your taxes. The hard part and where the frustration comes from is two things, what your expectations are. If your expectation is, "I'm going to build a bridge building company, and I'm going to hope that the government gives me contracts," and you're going to potentially wind up in disappointment because government parties may change.

Doug Monticciolo: (14:30)
But if you're in a business like ours where you listen to where the government would like you to go and you basically sit on their side of the table, you don't get that disappointment. Matter of fact, the biggest challenge we face is we're disappointing them because they're ask sometimes is so great, solving problems that we're not exactly sure we can solve, but a lot of times ... Like those R&D companies, you really think some part of the government, commerce or somebody, in any country, by the way, to go out and find incubating companies backed by big companies or not, and figure out how to convince them that they should go take this government money, and that they should accelerate their research.

Doug Monticciolo: (15:06)
And so, I still have a lot of faith in the government. Obviously, there's going to be challenges, we don't rally go down to the municipal or state level. We'll do some things at state, normally backed by the federal government with the Cares Act, is putting in a tremendous amount of money, very specific. We always look to something simple here, which is we're looking at how we're going to get repaid, right? Going to the government and saying, "If you're good for this, then let's confirm that and I'll go get it for you. You just got to repay me."

Doug Monticciolo: (15:35)
I have faith in it, I expect volatility. I do expect a bunch of challenges, but I think right now, if anything, there's still taxes, maybe a little distorted, but prioritization has changed. And I think that's the advantage because it's much clearer as to where the government wants to put its money, and so, there's $2 trillion dollars sitting out there as an opportunity, and there's going to be more, being in front of that and helping them do it is a great opportunity.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:01)
Well, the other thing, when you hear the word government in the context of your business, there's an implied level of safety there, so let's talk to perspective investors of Brevet Capital. What are the risks of investing in Brevet Capital? What are the opportunities? Have you balanced that over the 22 years?

Doug Monticciolo: (16:21)
Sure. There's always risk investing even if it's government even if we were great, there's always things that happen and we're not immune to them in general. In investing, there's structure, product structure, risk, we have an open end fund with liquidity, we have closed end fund that's permanent and closed, there's always those structure risks. But when you think about where the challenges come from in governments is if you do just one thing. One of the things that Brevet has achieved, and this took a long time and a lot of money, was to be not focused on one thing.

Doug Monticciolo: (16:56)
We're in five different countries. Why are we in five different countries? People say, "Don't spread yourself too thin," The flip side of that is I know that if someone changes their mind in some agency in the federal government in the U.S., that same person doesn't change their mind in Canada or Ottawa. It's a completely different unrelated basis. It gives me diversity, it gives me protection. Is it perfect? No, there's things that can change always working with governments, you have to stay light on your feet, but our business is based on providing solutions, right?

Doug Monticciolo: (17:26)
Finance as a service means service is the way we get our returns, and service is the way we get our opportunities. As long as I build this suite of services, I could apply them to the opportunity du jour, you might say, but in reality, I'm applying them consistently across areas, education, infrastructure, healthcare, rural communities and rural community development. A lot of what we do is just jobs and job retention is a very big part of the programs that we're involved in, simply because there's so many of them I the federal government, largest part of the GDP. Yeah, there's pros and cons of the federal government, but I think you'd always find the pro as long as you're willing to look for it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:08)
Well, your shop is a little smaller relative to say an Apollo or a Carlisle, and the business depends on accessing a lot of this expertise and knowledge, so tell us about your methodology and how do you provide such a deep bench given your size and nimbleness.

Doug Monticciolo: (18:29)
That's a good question, because we're just 100 people, five countries. How do you we staff that and how do we manage it, and more importantly, how do we actually provide the solution, the service, when it's got to take a ton of people to just be operational in all these countries? And the answer is we started this way back in the beginning of the firm, 20-plus years ago, where we started venturing and partnering with universities, and we started working with research organizations. We work with AI and big data institutions, firms, not for profits, and the reason we do that is because we need to not just be on the leading edge, but we need to be aware of what the tools are to solve problems and to be better at getting some of this done.

Doug Monticciolo: (19:13)
While we may be just 100 people, I can pretty much assure you, we're the only credit group that actually has an R&D shop, our own research and development team that's purely creating and innovating, and always introspecting on our own transactions to make sure they're better. And that's part of the way that we actually provide ... We've had a 9% net long term return on our fund, and we're on levered through all these cycles, and a lot of it is the fact that we're constantly trying to stay ahead of what's going on and what is available to governments, because we're getting paid for bringing in value proposition.

Doug Monticciolo: (19:50)
This is like me being a child on the Long Island where I was told we need to make some money so we could have better family vacations. I had a paper route, I would cut wood with a bow saw and an ax and my brother and I would start these businesses and be very entrepreneurial. And we'd pour truckloads and sell them at church on Sundays. And the reason we did that is entrepreneurial skills is about value proposition, and so, with an abundance of capital, the things you have to do is differentiate yourself by something more than just money and maybe a few relationships.

Doug Monticciolo: (20:25)
We leverage our team by world renowned parties. I was on the phone this morning with the CEO of one of the leading AI firms, and the reason being is we're using it to solve a problem for a sovereign. And so, that's a lot of how we do it, long develop and actually ... As you can tell, I have a lot of energy, excitement about this because we're solving problems that people haven't solved before. It's quite exciting.

John Darsie: (20:47)
Doug, you talked a little bit in the open about how Brevet uses a lot of data, and I suspect that one of the answers to that question os how you replicate the expertise of these massive shops, like a Carlisle, with a smaller bench is that you do a lot of data analytics. And you talked about how you work with AI companies to solve problems with sovereigns, but you also do a lot of data analytics internally. Talk about that process and how your background helps Brevet use data analytics in a way that maybe some other alternative investment shops don't.

Doug Monticciolo: (21:19)
Sure. We do use data quite a bit. We use it in different ways, right, we use it to make sure that the basic premises of the solutions that we're providing make sense. And so, what does that mean? In order to get that transaction I mentioned, which is the government's going to make a payment for some research and development, they want to give them a grant, but the company is too challenged to try to figure out how to fill out this massive document that the government has asked them to fill out. It's like your taxes squared.

Doug Monticciolo: (21:52)
Well, the answers are pretty easy. What did H&R Block do? H&R Block partnered with IBM's Watson, right, AI, big data system. We essentially did the same thing. We used the data of our own information along with industry information, and put it into systems that help make that process of how do you fill that form out better? And we do it in a way where it's not just easier for the borrower, but we also now can report back to the government and say, "Hey, by the way, we're going to give you a perspective on this industry that's broader. It's our perspective of experience, but it's also all this research brought into a common platform, and we're going to be able to show you where we're looking, how we're doing it, and how the money you just put out relates to that." And that does two things. One is it gets them a lot of comfort that they can trust us and they know where it's going, but two is they turn to us at times and say, "What else should we be doing or how else should we be doing it?"

Doug Monticciolo: (22:48)
The big data which, by the way, these systems in AI, if you got your head around the numbers, we're working with a system which is read and translated every patent filed around the world, okay, just one of the datasets. Why is that important? Because it really helps with is that truly R&D or not? Those things are important for a government to know. And so, with our access to things like that, it helps us to fill our value proposition. On the one hand we've got a client, it's the government, which we have to be absolute integrity with, and the other hand we got a company who's counting on us to bring that money to them. And to investors, obviously, are benefiting from this whole process on the fact that we're putting out that money and knowing that we're getting repaid by the government.

Doug Monticciolo: (23:31)
And so, it's all intertwined. My background, getting my PhD at Colombia in applied math and, obviously, my systems backgrounds in databases and technology really helps quite a bit in being able to see this, but my team is also extremely happy in these areas.

John Darsie: (23:48)
One of the first things I asked you when we first spoke about your investment strategies, I said this sounds really attractive, it's almost completely uncorrelated, you almost have no losing trades in terms of the transactions that you make, maybe you can touch on that as well in this answer, but I said, "Why aren't more people doing this?" And you explained why there's a lot of barriers to entry into what you do. Could you talk about that a little bit and why what you do at Brevet is so unique?

Doug Monticciolo: (24:15)
Sure. First, I always give credit to Goldman Sachs on this, which coming right out of being a tech, math person, I thought that 22 cash on cash percent return annually was the natural benchmark, so I've always had that as the mantra of if I'm not doing 22, then I must not be doing well. Kudos to them and for showing me hoe to do it, right? And I think that is a big part of the value proposition. But what we are doing is we do approach investing not as a bunch of trades that we give investors to pick and choose from, but a strategy that is holistic. Like I said, I'm diversifying the portfolio.

Doug Monticciolo: (24:51)
I could easily just take one of these transaction, with Canada, per se, and offer a fund just for that, but my personal belief is I'm truly going to be a responsible manager, I think that's irresponsible to do that for an investor because I'm not giving them the ability to have a more diversified trade. I can show them that same trade across several sovereigns and I could give that same opportunity in a more risk reduced fashion. What do I give up? I give up the ability to deliver a 40% cash on cash return, right? Some of my stuff [inaudible 00:25:21] always been up in those ranges. Well, by diversifying, I'm spending a lot more time and money in developing each of these opportunities simultaneously.

Doug Monticciolo: (25:30)
And if anybody wonders what does it take? It costs a lot more money for the very first assets that we do in any of these spaces. We don't really rush into anything. You got to be willing to invest in your business ... And keep in mind, I didn't do this because I came from a trading desk and said, "I'm going to take my strategy and move it into a fund and just repeat it," I came from a business building perspective. Brevet is a long term win for sure, because its invested the money, the time, the resources into people, into infrastructure, technology costs are substantially higher than anybody else in the industry, and that's because they're built to do tens of billions not a couple hundred million, they're built to be global, they're built to have things like AI interfaces, and a lot of this in credit is if you don't put it in upfront and you don't make sure that you're actually tested to make sure that you did it right, then all you're doing is taking the risk that you were wrong.

Doug Monticciolo: (26:25)
And my view is I'm a money manager, and I got to keep the money in order to managing it, right? Our investors are public pensions, they're firemen, they're teachers, they're state employees, I think we take that responsibility very seriously, and I believe it is the right strategy to do. It's a big barrier to entry in terms of relationships, investment, and patience.

John Darsie: (26:46)
Anthony asked you earlier about whether you still have faith in government, and I want to ask you a little bit different question as it relates to government. Obviously, Brevet provides a very important resource for the government, you help the government operate more efficiently. How do we construct more public/private partnerships that helps us do more of that without growing the size of government in a tremendous way? How do we leverage the wherewithal and the efficiency of the private sector to help drive more efficient government and make improvements in society as a result?

Doug Monticciolo: (27:20)
It's a good question. The challenge is, actually, it has to come from the manager and it has to come from the manager's perspective, right? I have one advantage that I did extremely well right out of high school. My drive and motivation is not to ... With the biggest bank account, which is obviously a great thing to do because you can do great things with that, but it's to do the best things and actually have the best outcomes, and sometimes that means that the manager will make less. And that being said, you have to be willing to sit down with a governor or the head of an agency, and this is what we do, is show them everything.

Doug Monticciolo: (27:57)
We have opened up that we will have actually all the way down to my personal financial statements and tax returns to show that we can form a partnership where there's an integrity and an honesty, and I think that's important because ... And by the way, I think it's coming because of the challenges in the market, is that everybody's got to reprioritize, infrastructure needs to be fixed, pension funds need to be resolved and get better returns. And so, there's this balance that needs to be done that I think a challenge like the pandemic may actually bring people back to slightly different priorities of realizing that maybe their mission in life may change a little, we don't mind investing our money in what we believe, and maybe deferring some benefits or profits down the road if we're going to do the right thing.

Doug Monticciolo: (28:47)
And out of my business, one of the things we have to do is a large part of our business is pro bono, because we can't be sure whether or not when we're working with the government something we do is going to involve our capital. And so, we have to be willing to do that. That makes running the business a little more sophisticated, but I think in the end, public/private partnerships need to have the same basis where we got to get people sitting on the same side of the table together, right? Another thing I learned on the street, right, which was the most successful business opportunities are the ones where you sit on the same side as your client and help them solve their problems, right? And I think everybody's sort of moving in that direction, hopefully, we could be a little bit of an example of that. I think there is a bit of, now, pressure on everything, particularly economics, that maybe forces people to have to maybe compromise a little and sit on the same side of the table together.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:39)
Doug, can you talk a little bit about your macro view in the context of your business, but also your general life experience as a fixed income investor, and the psychology tied to money. We sit here today, and I'll make this stipulation, the world is probably not configured the way we thought it was going to be 25 years ago, and so, tell us a little bit about that. Tell us about your insight there and tell us what you say to investors.

Doug Monticciolo: (30:10)
Sure. Well, the first thing I would say is I'm a mathematician, not an economist, so sometimes I get in trouble for being predictive base don what we see. Remember, I was also trained by Fischer Black, which is can't forget the basics of options, which is the past is a very bad predictor of the future. But I am a big believer in behavior and sort of rational outcomes, and when I look forward and I look in this market, I see a couple things. I see it's going to put a lot more pressure on economics. Economics is a basic level of where do you spend your money, where do companies spend their money, it will ferret out weakness models from strong business models, it will create stronger business models or new models. I'm very optimistic long term from that perspective, because I am a big believer, I did study chaos theory, that you do need a reset every now and then to sort of strip things down and rebuild them. Like a forest fire, sometimes that's necessary to build it back stronger, so I think that is necessary.

Doug Monticciolo: (31:13)
I think we're in interesting times. The world and the world economies had challenges with each other, there are challenges with the pandemic and now they're challenged on top of that with trade and other issues. From my view, what I see is that as long as the next six months plays out and there's a vaccine, and maybe it takes 12 months, and we come to some point this time next year everybody figures out how to get back to work and figures out what those new models are, I'm actually pretty optimistic two or three years out, because it si going to change priorities.

Doug Monticciolo: (31:46)
I think governments will change priorities, and if they are, right, they're cutting some programs that maybe were a little fluff and focusing we need better hospitals, we need better roads, and maybe they're also changing some of their perspectives on what investing means and where they're putting their money, and maybe not concentrating it so much and just following the overall trend, but maybe putting money behind things that actually help them move their goals forward. And we're actually hearing that and seeing that from the sovereigns and say pensions, etc. I'm very optimistic. In the short term, unfortunately, very pessimistic because I don't think we're done. Hopefully, this is a relatively quick path out, just a vaccine, and we get through that, I think we're going to come out as a global economy stronger and better.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:32)
Do you worry about deficits, Doug?

Doug Monticciolo: (32:36)
You have to be right? If you look at states where you got pretty big holes in pensions, we already have pretty big needs in infrastructure, it's clear that moneys can be spent in better ways in just running some activities. And so, yeah, deficits are a problem. There's two solutions. One is getting more efficient with whatever you have, and you have to figure out what can you do to sort of offset that long term negative effect of maybe an out of control spending situation. Right now, it's always hard to say whether or not putting $2 or $3 trillion dollars on a pandemic is a good thing or a bad thing, but it's what you do afterwards.

Doug Monticciolo: (33:25)
We have a mantra at Brevet which is we never follow the rescue, we only follow the recovery. Which is the rescue is always where the uncertainty, right, so human behavior response of doing what you got to do to solve a problem. But where we believe the most important effort needs to be made is in the recovery of what do you do next? We're doing that with the government now. It's kind of exciting that they actually did call us and we're pretty heavily involved, because I do think the long term recovery is what we're focusing on, cutting those deficits and getting ourselves back in a strong place, but I think if we let a little bit of the knife fall where it's going to fall, it might actually bring us back stronger like it did in the late to mid-90s.

John Darsie: (34:09)
Doug, we have a few audience questions that I want to get into in our last sort of 8 to 10 minutes of the talk. How do you deal with sort of counterparty risk and the risk of government deciding not to pay you back? I know it seems like a low risk thing but we have a couple audience members who are curious about how you grapple with this.

Doug Monticciolo: (34:27)
Sure. In our history, there are two types of transactions you have to worry about with the government, those types of transactions where it's purely discretionary and those types of transactions where it is purely good or service provided for you. And as you mentioned, TOJ so you can check, there are press releases about Brevet partnering with the Department of Justice. That's true, we do do it, and the federal attorney general's office knows of our activities. And we are very clear that we have to be careful about the law. And so, there are places where the government is not going to pay you back, you're going to fight. We've had lawsuits to clarify things etc., but the cases where the government's just not going to pay you at will, they have to realize that in the places where that happens, it's something that wasn't a critical need. It's probably something that maybe the manager or the money behind it was maybe getting outside its returns.

Doug Monticciolo: (35:20)
I will say, we have never had it happen. We've had a situation where they disputed the payments to one of our counterparties, that type of transaction we actually don't do anymore, but we'll win that as well. And as a matter of fact, it will come out a win for the state and for us. Because one of the things about Brevet's that's interesting is we try to be constructive, not aggressive or destructive, and so, when those cases occur, we turn to remind them that whether we help them by some inner city clinic to help serve some homeless people, we provide the money for that 100% within their preapproval and their guidance, we remind them that we're not here just to do that one, we're here to do the other 50. We've been larger than some states, entire programs of the state, providing these type of services.

Doug Monticciolo: (36:07)
And normally what happens is if you truly are bringing your value proposition, our experience shows us it doesn't happen, it doesn't mean that you don't have paths that you didn't expect to follow, but it doesn't mean that you're actually wind up in a situation where they actually don't pay you. It is just a communication process that you have to do or it's expensive, but that's the process.

John Darsie: (36:22)
Yeah, it goes back to barriers to entry. The answer to my question about barriers to entry is building that trust and relationship with all your counterparties in government to be able to do these transactions in a repeatable way.

Doug Monticciolo: (36:39)
Yeah. And one of the things that we do is ... Remember, we start with the government, we don't start by saying ... We see this program then we go find a company that's doing it, because by then you're almost always an adversary of the government. We start by working with the government. And some people say, "Well, that may be crazy, because that could take three to five years," and we could say, "Absolutely. We've been involved in changing some laws, helping them find some programs, giving some language for things that we're planning to do."

Doug Monticciolo: (37:06)
And that's important because we're only doing it if our true intentions are to make the government's program better, and we have to be willing to open the kimono, you might say, and prove that you are. And sometimes I got to take Brevet's Capital's [inaudible 00:37:19] companies money and prove to them that we actually are doing something that's in their best interest. And when you do that, regardless of administration changes or not, you become the guys that get the phone call in March that says, "We need some help, and we're going to need you to step up," and we got each other's backs. And that's kind of how the conversation goes. But in that case, it was a matter of life or death, it was also a matter of necessity.

Doug Monticciolo: (37:44)
And so, you have to be in the right place, right time. One thing Brevet does not do is ever be a contractor or counterparty signer to the government, because if that ever has a dispute, we would never want to be seen as the adversary, so we're always on their side of the table. And that's by design and that is a conscious decision, which is almost the opposite of what most managed funds do, there's almost always on the receiving side.

John Darsie: (38:08)
That's a good segue to the next question from audiences. Do you have concerns about the current political climate, partially as it relates to how you run your business? I know we've had conversations in the past where I asked you about do you have concerns if someone like an Elizabeth Warren, who's viewed as an adversarial type of person to Wall Street, became the Secretary of Treasury, would that impact your ability to do business? I think I know the answer to that question, but the question from the audience is do you worry about the political climate and sort of the deaminization of Wall Street that exists out there?

Doug Monticciolo: (38:42)
The answer is yes. You have to be aware of the market that you're operating in, right? If you're in the tech space and suddenly everybody says they don't like Apple, you're going to have problems, right? One of the nice things is we're in five countries, we easily can do as much volume in these other countries as we can here. We're in there, we're established, we're domiciled in those places, so we're not just being a passport player on it. They are real, they're real businesses. And I do that just because I can't predict the future, and so, it's very hard for new administrations ... You'll see Brevet does very little business in the first six months of a new administration, because there's this trust transfer that takes quite a while. And so, there always has to be that time period for them to understand who can we trust and who can't, and you have to respect the fact that they have to be nervous, they have to be concerned as to who they're working with, because it is a pretty tumultuous environment in politics, particularly in the United States these days. You can't blame them. Whether it be a governor or it be someone in Washington, right, that always happens.

Doug Monticciolo: (39:49)
Our view is you just got to be wary, you got to keep your eyes open, and I think the one thing that we always do is we put our best foot forward, and we will take the step ... I will put my firm at a bit of risk to say, "I wouldn't do this if it wasn't for trust," right? And we will take that step. And that's what you have to do. People say, "Why aren't they in the space?" I'm not sure every manager really wants to go and do that. I think some do, but do they really do it? It's a hard step because it means that you'll make less, or you may make less, right? Or you're going to put yourself out there, but I believe it's the right thing to do. I got all these great skills, I got this great team, we've got great opportunities, we believe this is the way they should be used, and I think that penetrates. We just realize that it's not quite instantaneous. We've been doing this 20 years, right, no matte what it is, I can't expect a new governor or head of an agency or even elected official to turn around and say, "We love you just because someone else did."

John Darsie: (40:53)
Right.

Doug Monticciolo: (40:53)
And that's part of the business.

John Darsie: (40:55)
I got one more question, it's for both Anthony and Doug. And we have a question from our audience about ... There's a young man named Bob Castrignano, aka "The Coach," who has mentored thousands of young men and women who have come through the Goldman Sachs training program, he also post-9/11 helped revive Sandler O'Neill, was recently merged with Piper Jaffray and a great success story post-9/11. But what has the coach meant to you? We'll start with you, Doug, and then to Anthony, the fact that he mentored you both and the differences in your personality is sort of astounding to me, but I'll start with you, Doug, what has the coach meant to you as a mentor?

Doug Monticciolo: (41:36)
Coach is a living example of what we try to be, right? 9/11 happened, I was a fig person, Sandler O'Neills, in banking, I thought about should I stop what we were doing, and we were starting this business, should I walk in and help out Sandler? I knew the well, respected them tremendously, but should I drop everything and take a seat on that desk? And I hesitated and I sort of put my priorities first. Coach didn't, coach stepped up and went there and basically said, "I'm here to help."

Doug Monticciolo: (42:07)
That's a role model I think all of us should look to follow, which is to do the right thing. Plus, he said ... I think he's seen the Pope or met with the Pope several times, I can't even get one meeting, so I think he's got me there as well. But he follows a lot of what we like to follow at Brevet which is ... Our motto is "We do what we say we do." And being true and having integrity, it's the backbone of our business, right, and it's why we're able to do what we do, and so, I think coach has given us lots of support and guidance and confirmation that you got to do the right thing, because in the end, I do think you win.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:46)
First of all, Doug, Darsie was putting out a little bit of fake news, as you know, because Castrignano is old enough to be your grandfather and my great grandfather. Okay, so I just want everybody to know that he's not a young guy, we're talking about an ancient fossil, okay, who ... You're laughing because you know it's true. No, but in all seriousness-

Doug Monticciolo: (43:08)
I'll never admit it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:10)
In all seriousness about Bob, because now that we're bringing him up, I feel like Bob is the Kevin Bacon of all Goldman Sachs entrepreneurs, we are all one, two, three, four, in some cases six degrees separated from Bob, and Bob is also the decoder ring. To me, if someone's friends with Bob or knows Bob, it's like definitionally they're a good guy, whether it's you or [inaudible 00:43:38] or Dr. [inaudible 00:43:39], I could think of hundreds of people I've met along the way through Bobby, who I know happens to be a terrific guy. But he's a terrible dresser ... I mean, let's just get it all out on the table while we're here, okay? He's an absolutely terrible dresser, okay, he does not have a face for radio or television, but he has a face for morse code. That's how bad it is. And the last thing is I know he's tried to buy your hairpiece from you. Do not sell him your hairpiece, because I think my hairpiece is more valuable than your hairpiece and I'm looking for him to buy mine. I just want to leave it there, okay, but we all love Castrignano and he is one of the real saints in our business, he's a true legend in many different ways.

Doug Monticciolo: (44:25)
Yeah, I completely agree with you on that.

John Darsie: (44:27)
All right. Well, we'll leave it there with some great words on the coach.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:30)
See that, Darsie, I was picking on Bobby Cas, I didn't get a chance to throw a few shots at you and-

John Darsie: (44:34)
I know, that's why I did it. That's why I did it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:34)
-the fake George Washington portrait and the faux books and all this other stuff.

John Darsie: (44:41)
I like Bob because he's nice to me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:43)
Hey, Doug, if your mother or your Nana saw this set up from Darsie, I mean please, pass the barf bag, okay? She'd hit him with a wooden spoon, Dougie. Go ahead, Darsie.

John Darsie: (44:53)
All right. Well, I want to let everybody go. And thank you, Doug, for joining us, you have a fascinating investment strategy, and the constructive way that you work with the government, I think people maybe never heard of Brevet Capital or haven't heard of you, but you provide tremendous value to the U.S. government, U.S. society, and the American people in general with what you do, so thank you for that.

Afsaneh Beschloss: Renewable Energy & ESG Investing | SALT Talks #19

“If you invest in companies that are looking at long-term value, you’re going to be better off.”

Afsaneh Mashayekhi Beschloss is founder and CEO of RockCreek, a women-founded leading investment firm investing globally with a focus on sustainability. Previously, she was a partner at the Carlyle Group, Treasurer and Chief Investment Officer of the World Bank, and worked at Shell International and J.P. Morgan. Ms. Beschloss has advised governments, central banks, and regulatory agencies on global public policy, energy and financial policy.

Beschloss’ globe-trotting career started with a childhood in her native Iran pre-revolution that went on to include multiple stints at the World Bank. An early interest in ESG investing, that has become increasingly the focus of investment portfolios, saw Beschloss as a pioneer in industries like renewable energy. This shift will have far-reaching positive effects. “I think actually renewable energy is going to be really good for the geopolitical risks that we have been facing the last 30 some years, maybe more, since we started using oil.”

Younger generations will seek to align their investments with their values, ensuring a company creates a positive impact. Her work seeks to address some of the most pressing issues in the world from lack of housing to growing economic inequality.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Beschloss%2C+Afsaneh.jpeg

Afsaneh Mashayekhi Beschloss

Founder & CEO

RockCreek

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 thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance technology and geopolitics in lieu of our in person SALT conference, which many of you have attended, we've been hosting these SALT talks to provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts and also to provide a platform for big, important ideas that we think are shaping the future. We're very excited today to welcome Afsaneh Beschloss to SALT talks. Afsaneh was doing, I like to say, was doing ESG before ESG was cool. She's the founder and CEO of the RockCreek Group, which is a leading global investment firm that applies data-driven technology and innovation to sustainable investing. RockCreek has about 14 billion in assets, under management in multi-asset class portfolios, including public private and early stage markets.

John Darsie: (01:02)
RockCreek is one of the largest women founded investment firms in the world with more than 80% of its senior management team being diverse. RockCreek advisory board is a star study group of people. It includes former fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, Laura Tyson, who's also on the board of CBRE and AT&T. Jessica Einhorn, who's also on the board of BlackRock. DeAnne Julius, Caroline Atkinson, and Liaquat Ahmed. Previously, Afsaneh was a managing director and a partner at Carlyle group. She was the treasurer and the chief investment officer at the World Bank, and she also worked at Shell International and JP Morgan. Afsaneh has advised governments, Central Banks, regulatory agencies, Sovereign Wealth Funds, and public and private companies on global public policy, financial policy, energy policy, and sustainable investing. She spent around 14 years, I believe, at the World Bank.

John Darsie: (01:56)
She worked on energy investments and policy work in the sustainable investing space including in climate related, renewable energy, power and infrastructure projects. And she was the founder of the World Bank's natural gas group, and she pioneered work using natural gas as a transitional fuel in order to reduce carbon emissions. Afsaneh is also on the board of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. She's on the council for foreign relations. She's on the Gavi Vaccine Alliance, The World Resources Institute, and she's also the vice chair of PBS, public broadcasting. She's also the recipient of the Institutional [inaudible 00:02:35] Lifetime Achievement Award and the Robert F. Kennedy Ripple of Hope Award. She was recognized as one of American bankers, most powerful women in banking, and one of Barron's 100 Most Influential Women in Finance. She has a master's philosophy with honors in economics from the University of Oxford, where she taught international trade and economic development. She's the coauthor of the Economics of Natural Gas and the author of numerous journal articles on energy finance and sustainable investing.

John Darsie: (03:05)
If you have any questions for Afsaneh during the talk today, reminder type them into the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. And conducting the interview today will be Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. And he's also the chairman of SALT. So I'll turn it over to Anthony to conduct the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:23)
John, thank you. It's a real pleasure to be on. Afsaneh, great to see you. I wanted you to start out with your personal background because I think it's a fascinating background. Obviously John gave a lot of elements of your biography, but I think the early part of your story is fascinating for me, and I know other people would be interested as well.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (03:45)
Thank you, Anthony. And thank you, John, for the background introduction and congratulations, Anthony, on both what you're doing at SALT and also the great news at SkyBridge on all fronts.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:58)
Well, we're coming back, but just when we're coming back, some of our girlfriends are leaving, but that's fine. That does happen to you when you're having a bad moment, but no problem, you know what I mean? I'm playing this song for all of our investors, should I stay or should I go? And my attitude, unfortunately, is if you want to leave, go ahead, but you're going to miss some great performance, but we can go into that at another time. Let's talk about you and your personal background, which I think is so fascinating.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (04:29)
Sure. I was born in Iran. A very different Iran, which was very fast moving. It was developing very rapidly in terms of its economy, but also in terms of education, health, everything was sort of becoming very close to first world versus third world. I grew up in a family that really, really valued education. My father was president of the university, he always taught in some form all his life. My mother decided to stay home. I'm one of three daughters. I think the pressure she put on us in terms of not letting us learn to cook, for example, at an early stage has affected my relationship with my family now, but on the positive side she really, she and my father said, whatever you decide to do, you have to do your absolute best. It doesn't matter what it is, but you do have to do your best. So there was that sense and there was always a sense of sort of public service also in our household, given that a lot of my family was in education.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (05:35)
So that's where I grew up. I came to the States the first time when I was 16 and there was a program still exists called the American Field Service. And I came as an exchange student and lived in Concord, Mass. Which is not your typical US City, but for me, it was my first experience and really a hugely exciting one. And I lived with a family where the father taught at MIT and the kids were kind of around my age group, went to school. And then basically, decided to get into economics. The interesting thing is when I was at Concord, our neighbor across the street was Robert Solo, who at the time I didn't know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:17)
Sure. MIT.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (06:20)
[inaudible 00:06:20]. I went on eventually to Oxford and did my masters degree in economics with the idea that I might go teach and do sort of economic development, but then there was something called the Iranian revolution and my plans got derailed. So that's how I ended up at JP Morgan. They have the most incredible training program.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:45)
JP Morgan in London? Or where were you in?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (06:48)
So I was hired in JP Morgan London because that's where I was studying and teaching at Oxford working on my thesis. So that's where I got hired, but then I moved to New York and, literally, I think it might've been when the hostage crisis was also sort of going on. I couldn't have had a better experience at JP Morgan, at that time, it was very team oriented, the culture, the values, very different than banking today in general. I made some of my best friends then. Then it became evident that the plans of going back home to teach and to do economic development were not going to happen. I decided to go to the World Bank, which allows you to do economic development, help reduce poverty and use market tools to do those things. So that was that. And I had a great career first doing energy. And as John said, clean energy on the early side of the cycle and then moved to finance.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (08:00)
I was talking to a friend of mine at the World Bank and he said, "We have this great trading floor. You should come try it." And I said, I've never traded before. And he said, "Well, take it. Try it." So that's how I ended up to move to finance and the rest is history.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:18)
So talk about the starting of RockCreek and where is RockCreek today? And I'm assuming it's named after the Rock Creek in Washington, right?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (08:27)
Absolutely. It is the park in Washington. It's a beautiful park and it has become even more busy since post-COVID where it's almost like the [inaudible 00:08:36], you can't run or walk a bike. There's so many people on it. In terms of RockCreek, had a great experience at the World Bank and moved to go to Carlyle as the 12 partner at the Carlyle. And then decided start RockCreek. And we started like you with alternatives and then evolved the firm to be more multi-asset task. We have two businesses, really one is sort of developing our own storefronts. And the other side is doing multi-asset class portfolios in a very customized way for fairly sophisticated, large institutions.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:18)
But you're also involved in ESG investing. I mean, that's one of your big claims to fame. So tell us a little bit about that. Tell us what excited you about that and tell us where you think we are in that part of the cycle.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (09:32)
So I think ESG impact sustainable investing is sort of different terms and it's become very popular as we speak. I think what I learned when I was at the World Bank, the first thing I think I was a summer intern there once, and I did a paper on shadow pricing. And what I realized as an economist then, and very early on is that we do have prices for capital, for labor. We don't have prices for the environment. We don't have prices for the air we breathe, for the water we drink, for the agriculture land in the sense of the soil and the goodness versus the value of the land itself. So there was sort of interesting that we pulled those things externalities. So what we realized that the World Bank is that you have to somehow value this. And that was pretty early. That was really in the 1990s, early 2000, where you knew that you had to value this, that these were scarce commodities, that you could not just use them and not value them.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (10:35)
So that early shadow pricing, I think, study that I did, really, was very influential. Moving forward to RockCreek, what we see now is that if you actually invest in companies, if you invest to funds or directly in companies that are looking at longterm value, you're going to be better off. Just look at the last couple of months, post-COVID. The companies that have done well have often been at the intersection of technology, which is something new and innovation. Plus, let's say, telemedicine, let's say education, let's say affordable finance. So those are the things that actually have been growing because as we have realized in our society, you cannot just provide services to a small group, as you can provide these services to a bigger group, there will be more demand for it, and actually your company will do better.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (11:29)
Some of the ESG investments during this period have done so much better, Anthony. And it's not only because oil and gas were down. And so you see all these ESG funds that are even ETFs in Europe, in the US, doing better than the general market. So all you had to do was to invest in an ETF, you would've done better. But obviously, if you invest in ESG through direct companies, private or public, it has been some of the really most interesting times, I would say-

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:02)
It's going to continue though, in your opinion. So we're not peak cycle or anything like that or anything, we're just at the early stages of it, is that correct?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (12:11)
Absolutely. And I think if we look at your kids, if you look at my kids, if you look at the next generation, people in their twenties, people in their thirties, they're going to be looking more, if they decide to buy a car, it's going to be an electric car. They are not going to invest as they start investing their own money in companies that don't have their culture or their values. They're going to be much more Parkinson of that, I would say, than our generation has been. That trend is moving fast. We see it with renewable energy. If you look in the last part of this year, those are the only energy investments that have actually gone on as oil and gas investing has basically dried up the projects that got to slow down a little bit under renewable site have taken off again.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:06)
Just a broad question on energy, because I know you established the National Gas Group at the World Bank and you know a lot about energy and you've seen our demand has been crushed by the COVID-19 pandemic and you've seen this increase in supply. What does that mean geopolitically in your mind. We're moving towards ESG and sustainable things, is that going to set off another potential geopolitical crisis in your mind?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (13:37)
I think actually renewable energy is going to be really good for the geopolitical risks that we have been facing the last 30 some years, maybe more, since we started using oil. A lot of oil comes from a lot of countries that have gone through political stripes or cost political stripe in the Middle East, but other parts of the world. The less we need to import oil, the better off we are. I think I prefer to use the more sort of cleaner forms of renewable energy, but frankly, natural gas is much cleaner than oil, certainly much cleaner than coal. And batteries are not quite where we would like them to be. Hopefully, there will be there soon, but in the meantime, you can't just live off of renewable energy. You do need to have some kind of backup. So natural gas, which just happens to be something I spent a lot of time on is growing quite fast, both in the US and in emerging markets.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:40)
Let me say something contrary because I want to get your reaction to it. I totally understand that our less reliance. We can move our military, we can rethink our footprint. But what I'm wondering about is the stability of the region, meaning the oil consumption goes down, the economies of the region get depressed, or they have to change, will that cause more instability in that region of the world? What's your opinion of that?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (15:09)
What you're seeing is sort of what I started seeing during my childhood, growing up in Iran, where you saw Iran was trying to not be a one commodity economy. So if you look at the region, Russia is still very commodity-based. Most of its external revenues are from commodities. If you look in the Gulf countries, that's basically it. The majority, as you said, of their income and revenues come. And so all those social programs that they put in place, all the construction projects have been financed by this. What has been really interesting if you look at the investments they're making currently, two things. One is that they've been trying to diversify their economy, whether it's through tourism or whatever they can do, that's one area.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (15:59)
They've been also using this gigantic oil funds they have, to diversify, again, out of energy, into other areas. Last but not least, some of the biggest solar projects that are going on are in the middle East right now. So they're realizing that they themselves need to diversify. I have friends from the World Bank who are in Saudi all the time, right now, working on one of the biggest solar plants which just got [crosstalk 00:16:28].

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:28)
It's great news.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (16:29)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:29)
So it just means that a lot of their commodity based industries and countries are turning more towards their intellectual capital. You and I both know there's always been a paradox of the oil. It comes out of the ground, you overly rely on it, and then you don't build these other industries that could make the country more sustainable and longterm successful. I want to go into a topic I know that has a lot of interest to you, and that is affordable housing. We were under inventoried in affordable housing. And what do you think is holding us back from that? And where do you think the compelling investment opportunities are there and why did you get so focused and interested in that?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (17:12)
I think affordable housing, specifically, what was interesting is we started looking at it a few years ago at RockCreek. We realized, number one, it happens to be an under invested area. Number two, it had actually really good returns, especially when it was done by people who do good while they're doing well. And there are a few groups that have been not [inaudible 00:17:39] people investing in affordable housing, but actually very thoughtful, very experienced people. And we partnered up with a group called Rose Affordable. And what has been really interesting is to see that the gap they fill is not just the housing, but it's everything else that's goes with housing. It's the community programs, it's providing doctors and medical assistants, and this was pre-COVID. It is making sure that the buildings have internet access.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (18:10)
And so all of those things meant that their population, in the last few months, has obviously suffered less. It also means if your population is more healthy, they will continue to work. If you do have broadband access and internet access, your kids can continue with their education. As we saw that became the big issue in many areas. Plus of course they also benefit from government programs. I think what we're seeing with affordable housing is that it falls into lots of different categories, but there's a huge shortage where a very large part of our population and the data is different, but it's almost 10 to 12 million families that are basically not being able to afford housing very well. They're spending more than half of their income on housing. So there's very little left for everything else.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (19:04)
And one of the reasons, when we keep on saying, why is the economy growing so slowly? This is again pre-COVID. When you have to spend so much of your income on housing, you can not spend it on other things. The other trend in the US has been that profit margins are much higher for luxury housing. So when builders have the ability, they will go into those areas versus affordable housing. Last but not least, something which is really important because we've all been trying to support our communities, particularly people on the front lines, teachers, firefighters, those populations that are middle income families, middle to middle lower families, they actually are completely not taken care of when it comes to housing. They have very little access to affordable because they don't fit into either the low income affordable, neither the luxury housing. So there is a big shortage of housing in our country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:02)
Well, and it's a good segue too. You've traveled the world. You're an economist, you're a money manager and we both analyze the world. And I think you potentially share this worry that I have, that there's an income gap widening. There's a wealth gap widening. Lower and middle income people feel like they're struggling. And as you and I have talked in the past, I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood with blue collar parents, but they had this aspirational idea about their children. And that idea is shifting now. And so I'm wondering if you've done any research into that, studied it. And what do you think we could do to solve some of those problems can come into the housing situation?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (20:47)
I think housing is part of it, but also wages and incomes are another part of it. And the inequality that all the numbers are pointing to what I learned, as you said, both at school studying economics and economic development, but then also working in emerging markets. What is really sad is that a lot of the issues that existed in emerging markets started getting slowly a little better, although we can come back to that because a lot of the development, let's say in Latin America, over the last 20 years, might have got erased just in the last few months, which is huge. But when you come to the US, we developed a great banking sector, but that banking sector is really for people who can afford it, it's for bigger corporations. Even in the good days, before COVID, or before the 2008 crisis, what we had is that a lot of low income people had to go to the payday lenders.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (21:49)
If you wanted to get a mortgage, you couldn't. In fact, a lot of startups we've invested in would look at credit scores in a very different way than traditional credit scores and do better in terms of having people who are borrowing from them who had a much better record as it turned out, than the typical banks giving mortgages. I think this is a really great time to think in two ways. One is, for example, the World Bank was created to help Japan get out of the war and reconstruct and Europe the same thing. And then this job became how do you provide longterm development to poor countries? We need that kind of institution in our country, in the US today. Institution that will have the interest of providing services to low income.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:46)
It's fascinating. It's a good idea. It's almost like a USAID embedded in a World Bank for the United States.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (22:52)
Or separate. Separate from the World Bank. But a lot of those tools and for example in these countries, there are banking systems for low income.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:04)
Let's say when John Darsie runs for president, he's going to be the chairman of that bank. That's actually a very, very good idea. I have to turn it over to him in a second. And we're going to talk about his stuffed animals and so forth, but before we go over there, because there's a ton of questions coming in. People are fascinated by you, as am I. I have to ask this question. Some of us remember the very famous Alan Greenspan briefcase. And if you recall, he would run across the street. If the briefcase was thick, we were getting a rate cut. If it wasn't thick, we weren't getting one. And so does he still have the briefcase? And it's important for me to know this? I just thought I would throw it out there.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (23:46)
Oh, absolutely. He has his briefcase in his office. And let me tell you, Alan is 94.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:52)
That's awesome.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (23:52)
He, until COVID, he would come to the office every day and some nights on a Friday afternoon, if I'm trying to sneak out, Alan was still there. So I had to sneak around his office. And one of the sadness, for me, of COVID, has been that, whenever there was a problem, serious problem or issue or markets as we're going through some really, really high volatility I'd go to Allen and get his wise council. And his suitcase is there. And by the way, there's one other items you should be aware of that he keeps which is his G7 jacket. So it's a really nice piece that he wears when the room is too cold.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:38)
It was like swag from G7.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (24:39)
It's so cool.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:41)
John, you got to pay attention because we need better SALT swag once we get back out there.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (24:48)
I'll send you a picture.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:50)
All right. So I want to see that. I have one more questions. Again, these are personal curiosity questions, forgive me. Liaquat Ahmed, who is at the Brookings Institute, he's on your board. He wrote a brilliant book Lords of Finance discussing the 1929-33 crisis and the policy implications and some mistakes that were made, et cetera, that could have exacerbated that crisis. Dr. Greenspan obviously spoken about that. So has Dr. Bernanke actually. We had Dr. Bernanke at SALT a few times, and he encouraged me to read that book, which I did. What do you think Liaquat Ahmed thinks about this crisis and what is your personal opinion about all the deficit spending? Is it okay to do it? Are we all modern monetary theorists now, or will there be some implications long term to the amount of deficit spending that we are involved in?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (25:43)
So the Liaquat is really an exceptional person. He was working on Korea and Asia in sort of the early days of his career. He's got a PhD in economics. We sat next to each other on the World Bank trading floor. He was doing non-US bonds, believe it or not. And I had just started on the trading desk on the US side. And then he went on to Fisher Francis. So he has an unbelievable interesting background as an economist and as somebody who understands markets. Which is why this book is so incredibly interesting and I hope you do invite him to your SALT conference-

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:24)
We would love to do that, of course.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (26:27)
And he's always interviewing all the Fetchers and has really good insight. And his book showed us what happens in the crisis, which is why when it came out, it was so interesting, around 2008. I think what we have learned is that, both then and now, is that this is not business as usual. You'll have a health crisis and a financial crisis and inequality and-

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:56)
And he got energy too. So it's health, equality, energy. There's a price shock in energy.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (27:02)
And energy sector, by the way. Interestingly about energy, is that it's a very impactful area because we all use energy. But in terms of its total size of the US economy, it has got much smaller as relative to communications or technology or other areas. But it still employs a lot of people, obviously. If you put all of that together, there is no choice. So we do need to increase the deficit. What I'm concerned about as we're looking at the numbers, is that what happened the last few months, markets went up, a small sliver of people who can invest, who have the ability to invest, who have the cash to invest, invested so they got better off. Really the majority of people who are laid off are probably not going to find the jobs they wanted coming out of COVID. A lot more dislocation than the markets expected.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (27:56)
And the money that got pushed through PPP or through the federal reserve went to all the biggest organizations. If it's the federal reserve, it went through BlackRock, obviously, to help solve the bond problem. Why not have used some of that money through smaller firms? All the PPP went, initially, to bigger businesses than smaller businesses. A lot of small businesses wouldn't even know how to fill those forms. They didn't have banking relationships. Coming out, we have incurred this huge, huge deficit, but what good is going to come out of it? I think that's my big question. And that's what I'm worried about.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:43)
Makes sense. Well, I got to turn it over to John now because we have a whole bevy of questions for you from our viewers and listeners. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (28:52)
Yeah. We have great participation and engagement on the call. So thank you for everyone that's tuning in. I have a couple of questions about RockCreek that came in. You talk about how the firm focuses very heavily on leveraging data and technology to drive your investment decisions. You're also very focused on sustainable investing or ESG investing, which some people regard as a morphous still. People are trying to identify exactly what ESG investing is. How do you combine data and technology to drive investment decisions when you're investing in things that are sustainable and fit within the ESG framework?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (29:28)
So John, very early, when we started RockCreek, we invested a lot in technology. And what that allowed us to do is that with our data scientists and data researchers, we were able to get our data from whatever we invested in or whatever thousands of investment firms that we covered and companies. As we were looking through this huge amount of data, we realized that the same tools that we had developed for risk management, which allowed us to map different securities to different risks, could be used to, for example, look at different securities versus the SDGs that the UN has put out. So we started putting these things together and it was really interesting because what you start seeing is that, as you said, there are lots of different measures to look at ESG. If you look at our measure versus a Morgan Stanley measure, versus a Bloomberg measure versus others, you might end up in different places.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (30:30)
So what we decided to do with our technology was to create a tool where we can use our own ways of rating a company, but we also can use anybody else's so that we don't start becoming very rigid and depend on one set of ratings. You're absolutely right. There is no common way to rate things. I think what we do know, like we're talking about housing, is for example, more people of a certain income group now have housing that didn't have before. That is progress. And that is a positive thing. So just measuring those numbers is helpful. If you invest in this energy project versus this other one, this is the carbon impact, that is easier to measure. I think some of the things that are harder are more in the social area, but what we're trying to do is to the extent possible. And I wouldn't say it's perfect, as you said, there's a lot of issues with measurement, but still using the tools we have to come up with some sort of rating and measurement.

John Darsie: (31:41)
Yeah. It's fascinating. Another question about RockCreek. I said in the intro that RockCreek is one of the largest women founded investment firms. Your workforce is 80% diverse. So you guys live these governance principles that you look for in companies and funds that you invest in. Why do you think that's important and how does it help you as a firm to arrive at good investment decisions?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (32:05)
John, I think what is it allowed us to do is to cast a much wider net. So we invest in small companies, as well as large companies. We invest in large firms and smaller firms. So what happens is that you have, particularly at points of stress in the markets, less volatility in your total portfolio. We also find that smaller firms often are doing something which is relatively unique. So they have a higher possibility of generating alpha versus larger firms who might have more of an average return. So the idea for us also is that in terms of our own team, having people who come together from very, very different backgrounds it means that they come up with different themes. They come up with different ideas and we try to argue constructively sometimes. We disagree and sometimes we agree and we try to come together, but having that culture, which is respectful, but allows you to think differently has really helped us with our returns.

John Darsie: (33:17)
Great. The next question is about your time at the World Bank. You became an expert on the so called Global South, which is basically another term for developing our emerging economies or a less pejorative term than third world countries. So what is your view today on the Global South and investment opportunities in places like China, Asia, and other developing economies?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (33:41)
What has happened, John, over the last especially 15, 20 years, is that emerging markets went from a very different place when I started my career in development to a much better place in terms of education, in terms of health, in terms of job opportunities, productivity. And if you look at the growth rates in emerging markets or South versus developed economies, it has basically generally been about at least double the size. So if ours was two to 3%, emerging markets would be three to 6%. I think what has happened particularly in the last 15 years was China, as you said. So China has become a huge part of the market. China, when I first went to China, had zero market. There was no companies to invest in. And the World Bank had just started working with the Chinese and sort of sharing US and European and other emerging market ideas and ways of investing across their economy.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (34:49)
I worked a lot with CNO and their energy sector at an early age. And so early stage of when they opened and what happened is that China developed so much so that now today, if you look at MSEI, the largest share in MSEI is North Asia. And then if you throw in India, between China and North Asia and India, you have almost 80% of MSEI. So the emerging markets now mean something very different. As I was saying earlier to Anthony, my concern now is that China might be a big beneficiary coming out of COVID, as we can see. It might be the only country that might have a positive, just positive 1% plus or minus growth rate. Everybody else, in particular, if you look at Latin America, if look at Africa, huge loss of the last 20 years of development. And it's really, really important to see how we can do something and help to make sure that that does not go the way it seems to be going, particularly in Latin America.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (35:59)
So emerging markets has come to do to mean very different things. We are competing with the Chinese, as you well know on technology, on education, on telemedicine, they're developing so fast. In finance, they were able to push money, not just to people who had banking relationships, but to every individual. So they have been able to create financials infrastructure that is in some ways, much more flexible than ours.

John Darsie: (36:32)
Great. We'll get to a couple more questions and then we'll let you go. This has been fascinating. Thanks again for joining us. You do a lot of your investing at RockCreek through third party managers. So you have a direct business and you have fund to funds multi-manager type business. When you're evaluating managers, how do you evaluate talent and gain an edge through a multi manager approach? And why do you think a multi manager approach is often better than, if say, a family office or an institution were to try to go direct into certain products.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (37:04)
Doing multi-manager is we invest on behalf of some universities and pension funds and others where we put together a customized portfolio. And the advantage there is that there's so much talent out there. So many great firms. And what we do is to have these databases that we talked about a little earlier, but also database of new firms, new, what we call emerging managers. Emerging managers are firms that are starting their businesses, in fact, for example, when I was at the World Bank, the World Bank did the first 5 million investment in Bridgewater. So that was an emerging manager at the time, this was a while back. But we, at RockCreek, continue to invest in a lot of new managers. And that is because of this large database. And it allows you to create portfolios where you can generate very, very high alpha.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (38:03)
Secondly, you can change directions much faster. Thirdly, we were talking about emerging markets. We do a fair bit, let's say in Asia, in the rest of emerging markets, and it was really important to find talent on the ground. There's no way we can get a team here sitting in New York or Washington or London that is as good as a team that is sitting in the cities, in China, in India, in Brazil, in Mexico. They know much better about both the good and the bad. So we find that that way, you can generate much higher returns.

John Darsie: (38:40)
So my last question is about you, personally, as an entrepreneur. So you've repeatedly bet on yourself over the course of your career. You talked about how you started at Carlyle. You establish RockCreek through a management buyout of that business in 2003. Then you recently bought back the balance of the equity of the firm from Wells Fargo, and you're managing about $14 billion. What has made you successful as an entrepreneur?

Afsaneh Beschloss: (39:05)
John, I didn't really set up to become an entrepreneur. When I was at the bank, I was lucky to start leading groups and I was allowed to do that sort of within a very hierarchal structure, I created on hierarchical structure. So I really enjoyed being part of teams that were on hierarchical and people who are smarter than me coming together to create something good and fun to do. And that sort of started within a very big organization. And I think it was really, again, not my plan to start RockCreek or later on to do the last transaction. But as you know, my friends at Wells Fargo also agreed that they were in the news every day, it made sense that we part ways because while we had our separate management, we were the managing partner of that business. I think we realized that it was better at this point in history to separate or as we separated in 2018.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (40:07)
So in terms of sort of being entrepreneurial, I think what is fun for me, I actually have been very happy working within big organizations as I worked in Shell, JP Morgan, World Bank, smaller organizations like Carlyle that relative to the World Bank and then at RockCreek. And each has its own pros and cons. And what I find is that being an entrepreneur is heavily overrated is 24 by seven, just like all the other jobs that I have done. And at the same time, you can move faster. Let's say you can get your tech team and your investment team to work together to produce something much faster than in a big organization. That has been really much more fun and being able to proceed with speed is something that I do enjoy doing and definitely easier with a great team that I have been very fortunate to be part of at RockCreek.

John Darsie: (41:07)
Well, Afsaneh, we want to thank you again for joining us. You're a rock star. We always enjoy seeing you at different events. And we were looking forward to having you out at our SALT conference in Las Vegas in May, unfortunately, that had to be canceled, but we'll maybe look forward to having you and Liaquat Ahmed on a panel together at a future SALT conference. But in the meantime, the SALT talk we'll do this was fascinating. And thanks again for joining us. Anthony, you have any final words?

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:32)
No, it's just terrific to spend with you. I'm looking forward to getting it together soon. I usually, at this moment, Afsaneh, I start picking on John, but he went with a very plain background this time. He's had stuffed animals back there, he's monkeys. He is a very strange guy, John Darsie. But when he's president, I'm going to make sure that you're in charge of the World Bank of the United States for this kid. He's going to be of a lot of help, Afsaneh. I promise you that. God bless you and thank you and just stay safe. And hopefully, we'll see you soon.

Afsaneh Beschloss: (42:07)
Thank you for inviting me. And it was really fun to be with you and John, thank you.

Marc Lasry: Pandemic Investment Opportunities | SALT Talks #15

“The difference between this recession and 2008 is that it is a liqudity issue. If companies have the liquidity to last until people come back, they will be fine.”

Marc Lasry is the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer & Co-Founder of Avenue Capital Group, as well as the Co-Owner of the Milwaukee Bucks. Marc expressed confidence and optimism in the post-pandemic future. “Companies are talking about hiring back over 50% of employees. With two-thirds of GDP being consumer spending, it will be much more difficult for the economy to recover with high unemployment.”

Today’s biggest opportunities can be found in companies entering bankruptcy or those looking to restructure. Turning to Hertz as a prime example, “Four months ago they were investment grade. They then filed for bankruptcy due to liquidity issues. Once filed, their stock went from $1 to $5. They can now last for a year or two, which is the amount of time until demand comes back.”

On the NBA, Marc reiterated health and safety as paramount to the success of the season.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Lasry,+Marc+-+Cropped.jpeg

Marc Lasry

Co-Founder & CEO

Avenue Capital Group

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:08):

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 and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and geopolitics. What we're trying to do with these SALT Talks is the same way we do at our global conferences is provide a platform for big, important ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts across investing, business, entrepreneurship, and politics.

John Darsie (00:38):

Today, we're very excited to welcome Marc Lasry to SALT Talks. Marc has been to several of our in-person conferences, and we thank him for joining us today. Marc is the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Avenue Capital, which is a global alternative investment manager, focused on distressed and undervalued debt and equity opportunities across the U.S., Europe and Asia. In 1995, Marc formed Avenue with his sister, Sonia Gardner, with less than $10 million in capital from friends and family. And today Avenue is one of the largest distress debt investors globally, managing around $9.7 billion as of May 31st, with headquarters in New York City, three offices across Europe, five offices throughout Asia, and an office in Silicon Valley. Marc is known as a pioneer in distressed investing, which has been the focus of his professional career for 35 years and will be the focus of our conversation today.

John Darsie (01:33):

Marc is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on various boards as an advisor and director for both for-profit and non-for-profit enterprises. He's also a co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, which currently own the best record in the NBA, as the season gets ready to resume. They also have one of the best players in the NBA, the Greek Freak, Giannis Antetokounmpo. If you have any questions for Marc during our talk today, please enter them into the Q&A box at the bottom of your screen.

John Darsie (02:01):

Marc, thanks again for joining us. Conducting the interview today is going to be Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. Anthony, I'll kick it over to you for the interview.

Anthony S. (02:16):

All right, well, I'm going to give you a big shout out Darsie, for being able to pronounce that player's name. I know you practice it all evening and it was very well done. It was well executed. So Marc, first of all, congratulations on the season. And I just found out that your beautiful daughter is expecting twins shortly. So mazel tov is off on that. Wish you great success always, and you're a terrific friend. But a lot of people that are joining us, and they're joining from all over the world Marc, they don't totally know your background. I think you have one of the more fascinating backgrounds in the hedge fund industries. I just wondered if you could talk to us a little bit about your background first and then we'll get into the markets discussion.

Marc Lasry (02:55):

Sure. I was born in Morocco. We came to United States when I was seven, and I grew up in Hartford. Went to college on a scholarship, went to law school. Practiced law a little bit. Then I went to work for the Bass Brothers, then I ran money for them. Then I went off on my own, ended up doing that for awhile. And then we started Avenue in '95, mainly with my money and that of the Bass family. The firm grew pretty big. We got to be as big, I think in five years, we were a billion dollars. And five years later we were $22 billion.

Marc Lasry (03:45):

After the crisis hit, I think we were down $25 in '08. Then between '09 to '11, we doubled the money back. And then I gave back about half the capital, big chunk of the money that we run is mine right now. And really what we try to do is find special situations. Got lucky in that about five years ago, I was able to buy the Bucks. That's actually been a blast. We got very lucky and Giannis ended up blossoming into one of the best players in the NBA. And then starting in three weeks, no six weeks, we start up in three weeks in Orlando. And in six weeks to seven weeks, the season restarts. So hopefully we'll win an NBA championship.

Anthony S. (04:37):

Well, good for you. We're certainly rooting for you guys. And I have a lot of my friends are limited partners of yours in the Bucks and so-

Marc Lasry (04:44):

Yep.

Anthony S. (04:44):

... And you guys built a brand new, beautiful arena a few years ago. And so God bless you guys on that. Let's shift gears and talk about the markets. And let me take you back to 2008, you're down $25. The world's a different place 12 years ago, of course, but this was a financially-focused banking crisis that spilled over into the rest of the world. Take us through your thought process there, then I want to do a comparative analysis to where we are today.

Marc Lasry (05:18):

Sure. Look, you were there. The biggest worry in '08 was, were we going to be around? And what I mean by that is, was the financial system going to be there? And that, when you invested, you just didn't know. And that was the big fear was, were the banks going to be there? And if the banks were there, that was great, then you'd have issues, but it wouldn't be that big of issues. But if the banks weren't there, then you were going to go into a huge depression. So you just didn't know. That's the big difference between today, to be blunt. The biggest difference between today and then is that today, we all know everything will be fine in two years. People will be back out. There'll be a vaccine, so on and so forth. But, the question is how long does it take to get back to normal?

Anthony S. (06:14):

Is 2020 worse than 2008? Similar? Different? How so? What's your opinion?

Marc Lasry (06:23):

I feel more comfortable investing today than I did in '08. In '08, I was petrified as to whether or not we'd still be in business. Today, you know you will. It's just a question of timing. Today is really a liquidity issue. Does a company have enough capital to last until people come back? So, what you want to do is you want to invest in companies that have that liquidity, because if they don't, they're just going to have issues.

Anthony S. (06:53):

I know your principle focus is in the bond market, in distress debt, but usually the credit analysts, the best credit analysts, make very good equity analysts as well. What are your thoughts on the equity markets right now? Their recent run-up, the current valuation and your one to two-year time horizon on equities?

Marc Lasry (07:15):

Look, I think at the end of the day, the equity market is telling you that everything is going to be fine. And part of that is if you look at the Fortune, the companies that are in the market. They've got the liquidity to last. So they're actually gaining market share. And the reason they're doing that is they've cut costs by a huge amount. So, I get all that, but the problem is cutting costs means that you fired a ton of people. And so, I would ask you, you talk to people and I talk to people, how many people are getting rehired? Like there's 40 million Americans that are unemployed. How many do you think companies rehire? They rehire half of them? Three quarters? What I'm hearing is, they'll hire 50 to 75%. Well, if you think about that, 25% of Americans are unemployed. That's 10 million, two thirds of GDP is consumer spending. There's no way that in essence, people are going to be spending money the way they did when they're unemployed. So I think the market is ahead of itself. I understand it, because it's telling you everything's going to be fine in two years. But I think between now and the next two years, you're going to have a huge amount of issues.

Anthony S. (08:31):

So you worry about the markets then? The valuation of equities then is probably fully priced. Would that be fair to say?

Marc Lasry (08:39):

Yeah. Would you want to be an equity owner today? It's moved ... I wouldn't.

Anthony S. (08:44):

Me personally, like you, I spent my life in the bond market, but unfortunately we've been in structured credit, and so you know that was like the ground zero target [crosstalk 00:08:55] for pandemic.

Marc Lasry (08:56):

Yep.

Anthony S. (08:56):

So people will say to me, "Well, why can't I just own Tesla and the FANG stocks, why do I need to own structured credit? Obviously it's been a good part of my day explaining that, which I think is a great long-term, conservative investment. But, my worry about the equity markets, it's just very thin. You've got 12 to 15 stocks driving that market. You take those stocks out of equities, the equity market is down. Yes, there's been some rotation recently, but it's not clear how durable that is. But you look-

Marc Lasry (09:29):

[crosstalk 00:09:29] I agree with you. I don't think it's durable. It doesn't really make sense with all the issues, but I think it's all going to become clear in the next couple of months. In the next couple months, we're going to see this reopening of the country, and how much are people going to be spending. And that'll tell you how quickly we're going to get back to normal. I think it's just going to take time. And as soon as the market realizes that, I think you're going to see that the market's going to come back in.

Anthony S. (09:59):

... Well, and you've spent your life in the distress credit markets. Somebody said to me yesterday, and I'm curious to your reaction, that this is a great time for distress because you've got non-performing companies, but you have huge governmental stimulus going on. And where those companies are really a victim to the pandemic, more too then they're bad decision making. And so they're getting some available capital and access from the government for help. What are your thoughts on that? Where do you see this distress cycle versus other past distress cycles that you've trafficked in?

Marc Lasry (10:40):

I think there's a huge difference between today and the past. The biggest opportunity today is really investing in companies that are in bankruptcy, or that you're going to get involved in restructuring. I'll just give you the most recent example. Think of Hertz. Hertz, four months ago, was investment grade. The bonds traded 25 basis points above U.S. Treasuries. That was the premium you were getting for investing in Hertz. Hertz then ends up filing for bankruptcy because they couldn't get any liquidity. They didn't have excess collateral. So nobody was willing to lend them more money. All their collateral was in those bonds. So the banks and the bond holders were like, "Don't care. We've got our collateral. We don't care what's going to happen."

Marc Lasry (11:33):

Company filed. All right. Do you know where the stock ... because now that the company has liquidity and they can last, the stock has gone from a dollar to five. The unsecured bonds have gone from 5 cents to 25 cents. So for us, what we do is we get involved when the company files, because at that point they've got the liquidity to do what you just said, which is to last for another year or two until people started coming back. So today is a far, far better time, because I could invest every time today at a liquidation value. Normally you can't. And I'm getting paid a premium if things turn out, I'll do exceptionally well. I can make two, three times my money. If the company has to liquidate, that's okay, then we'll end up making our money on that liquidation.

Anthony S. (12:24):

Well, yeah, I think that's brilliant and specific to Hertz, but let's talk more broadly about opportunities you see. Are they mostly in the U.S., Marc? Or are you looking internationally as well?

Marc Lasry (12:37):

They're everywhere. I think for us it's, what you're finding is, you've got a huge opportunities in Europe. Same thing in Asia. The biggest difference is a ton of money is being raised here in the United States. So you don't have as much money being raised in Europe or in Asia for the same thing. So you're finding that the returns you can generate there are, Asia I would say it's sort of 25 to 30. Europe is 20 to 25. And U.S., I would tell you is 15 to 20. But U.S., just in the last couple of months, almost every retailer you know, JCPenney, J.Crew, Neiman Marcus has filed. You've got a telecommunications company Intelsat has filed. Frontier has filed. You've just got over and over again, anybody who's had issues ... people are actually taking advantage of this. They're saying, "Now's a great time for me to go into bankruptcy, clean up my balance sheet, and come out a lot stronger." So at least us, I think you're going to have anywhere between $500 billion to a trillion dollars of opportunities, worldwide.

Anthony S. (13:51):

So that in some ways then, it's better than the 2008 crisis, right?

Marc Lasry (13:56):

Yeah, [crosstalk 00:13:55].

Anthony S. (13:56):

Because the banks are firm. The Fed has already started the process way earlier. They're hitting it with way more capital, way more stimulus, coming from the Congress. So what's the worry then when you're sitting around saying to yourself, "Okay, I see the opportunity, but what are the risks associated with that opportunity?"

Marc Lasry (14:20):

Look, I think ultimately at the end of the day, what's actually been shocking, and I think for you as well, I was surprised at what the Fed did. I hadn't envisioned that they could do that. And you're seeing that there's bipartisan support to end up getting money to Americans through unemployment and through the [inaudible 00:14:41]. I think ultimately at the end of the day, the risk really to the system is that you've got these zero interest rates, and there's just so much capital that's being put in there. But, that's not a problem for today. It's going to be a problem five years from now. I think for us today, we could take advantage of that and we can do really well. So I'm not really worried about the risk today. I think you're going to have some fundamental problems five years from now.

Anthony S. (15:13):

Okay. So let's elaborate on that. What are those fundamental problems? And inflation is obviously a huge potential issue. What are some of the other issues?

Marc Lasry (15:22):

Look, I think what you're going to have is, the Fed's just going to have too big a balance sheet. And then as you try to unwind that, you're going to be in an area where you've got unemployment, you've got lower receipts. The biggest risk that we run is one simple thing. It's where are interest rates? Rates right now are at zero, and yet our deficit keeps growing and growing, I'm sorry ... where we're owing money. So when you think about that, if rates just moved up to 1, 2, 3%, the amount of money the United States is going to be spending on interest is going to be huge, so you're going to have less for social services and for everything else.

Marc Lasry (16:06):

So I think we're creating a problem 5, 10 years from now. But look for today, with rates at zero, I mean, I think people have no choice but to invest in the market. If you're going to go out and buy a corporate bond ... when you were talking about structured credit, on the structure credit side today, you could make 20% plus. So what's your choice? Are you going to make 20% plus, or you going to leave it in a U.S. Treasury to make a half a percent?

Anthony S. (16:37):

Let's focus on that for one second, as I want you to explain to our viewers and listeners how you make 20% plus in structured credit and what that real opportunity is. And then I want to ask you about our deficit. But, back to structured credit for a sec.

Marc Lasry (16:51):

Look-

Anthony S. (16:51):

Which is near and dear to my heart, Marc.

Marc Lasry (16:54):

... Look, a lot of it is, what's the price that you can buy that at today? So, the problem that you ended up having on the structured credit side is people were being forced to sell and you had leverage. So if you think about it, even if you were two times leveraged, or three times leveraged, and all of a sudden something drops by 10 points, that means you're down 20 or 30%. So, that's just taking a little bit longer to come back, but in an environment today where you can go buy that debt anywhere between 50 to 80 cents on the dollar, you've got your interest component that you're going to make. And then you're going to make your capital appreciation. I think on the structure credit side, I was being nice in saying you're going to 20. I think you're going to make substantially more than 20%.

Anthony S. (17:52):

We think so. We had a 60% move over three years, 2009, '10 and '11. Our portfolio right now, it's yielding over 11% if you took a snapshot of the whole asset. But, you're making an important point about five years from now. You and I see the same sort of thing. Fed is flooding money into the marketplace that cures the temporary ills of the market, dislocations of prices and so forth. I have stipulated, and I've gotten a reaction to this, that unfortunately, monetary policy being a blunt instrument, it helps people that own the assets.

Marc Lasry (18:32):

Yeah.

Anthony S. (18:32):

And so if we own assets, the assets go up. But the people that don't have the assets, if you really analyze their wages, they never really catch up. And so, it's a bit of an irony, but the Fed sort of created Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The rise of populism and that whole nationalist movement is coming from that separation. And so what I'm worried about is, we're doing it again, but we're doing it on steroids. This is like QE infinity. It'll certainly impact asset prices, help large-scale corporations, but there's been a transfer of wealth from small businesses to places like Amazon, frankly, that have the scale and the durability and their survivability in a crisis like this. What's your reaction to that?

Marc Lasry (19:19):

I totally agree with you. I don't see the benefit that is going down to the middle class or lower middle class. Because if you don't own a home. If you don't have these hard assets. If you didn't own stock, which people aren't owning, it's not. So, I think everybody sees that things are getting better, yet they're not participating in that. So I think you're dead right. I think that's what creates all these issues that we're ultimately having.

Anthony S. (19:55):

Let's address the deficit for a second, because I know you're politically-minded as am I. We're looking out. We're going to print the three plus trillion dollar deficit now. The CBO is talking about $3.7 trillion for this year. You're obviously going to be printing a deficit in the next couple of years to that magnitude, if not slightly smaller. Is this sustainable? There's a modern monetary theory, as we both know. Stephanie Kelton, we're going to be interviewing her next week on her new book, The Deficit Myth. We just had Zach Carter on yesterday talking about the Life of John Maynard Keynes. And the notion from those intellectuals are that you can get away with this, sort of forever. Do you think that that's the case? Or do you think it comes home to roost?

Marc Lasry (20:46):

Look, can you get away with it forever? Sure, if rates are at zero. It's not really that complicated. If you're paying 25 bips to go borrow money, it's actually pretty easy to keep on borrowing money.

Anthony S. (21:01):

Well what would cause rates to go up? Inflation would be one factor. Demand for the money would be another factor. Do you think demographically Marc, we're in the specter of deflation due to the upside down nature of the way the world is aging?

Marc Lasry (21:17):

I don't know. I'm not an economist, so I don't know. But when I look at it, what I find is that, there comes a moment in time when people believe you can't pay your bills. So if you think of what happened with Greece, and if you look at other countries, what always ends up happening is when you borrow money, nobody ever thinks you can default. The only reason somebody's lending you money is because they believe you're going to pay it back. It's only when that perception changes. So all of a sudden Greece went from borrowing money at 2-3%, to borrowing money at 20%, and you had European crisis. So today, the demand for safety is so great, that I think at the end of the day, this could last five or 10 years where you're able to borrow money at ... in Europe today, you're paying negative rates. Somebody's paying you. So, I think that in of itself, if that'll continue for five or 10 years, yeah, your deficit can keep on growing.

Marc Lasry (22:26):

So I could see it lasting for awhile, but I just don't understand intellectually, and maybe part of it is because you and I grew up with rates at 20%.

Anthony S. (22:37):

Sure. Yeah. Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Marc Lasry (22:39):

So, it's kind of hard for us to fathom that something can only go down, that it can't go back up. So, maybe we're wrong.

Anthony S. (22:48):

This is why you and I are in the same camp on a lot of things. But the MMT people, what they would say, "Well, Greece is a different situation because they ceded the drachma to the Euro and they ceded the control of that currency to that sort of central [inaudible 00:00:23:03].

Marc Lasry (23:05):

Yep.

Anthony S. (23:05):

The United States has its own currency. And I'll give you a quote from Stephanie Kelton, "One stroke of a computer key, we could create $23 trillion and wipe out our deficit." So we're going to get into that with her next week in terms of what that would mean to society and what that would mean to confidence in fiat currency. But, let's take it around the horn before I open it up to questions to our listeners and viewers. Equities, decidedly neutral, fully-priced there. What's your opinion, equities?

Marc Lasry (23:38):

Not a buyer.

Anthony S. (23:39):

Not a buyer. Distress debt, huge opportunity?

Marc Lasry (23:43):

Today, I think on the debt side, massive opportunities. Yep.

Anthony S. (23:47):

What about investment grade, Marc?

Marc Lasry (23:50):

I think it's fine. I don't know if you're getting paid enough of a premium for it, but, you're making what, 3 to 5%? 2 to 4%, whatever that number is? So I think that's okay, but I don't think there's a lot to do there.

Anthony S. (24:07):

High yield?

Marc Lasry (24:09):

High yield I think it's, you'll be doing okay. I think there's still a little bit of room to go on that, but I think in today's environment, trying to make 5 to 8% on that, I think makes sense.

Anthony S. (24:23):

All right. We've already discussed structured credit. You and I are both obviously very favorable and bullish on that. What about digital currencies? You ever look at those? Have an opinion there? Think anything of them?

Marc Lasry (24:36):

I did. I used to own a few. I think I made a little money on it and then I got out. I think today, look, I get it if people want to do it, I just, I think-

Anthony S. (24:54):

Well, why'd you get out? Tell our people why you got out. Why'd you get out?

Marc Lasry (24:57):

... Oh. I bought it mainly because I thought it would be good hedge for what I was doing, and I wanted to see if I could make some money on it. When it doubled, I realized I still didn't understand why it doubled. So that's the reason I got out. I try to only invest in things I understand. And I realized, look, I fully didn't comprehend everything that was happening on the digital side. So since I didn't, I was just going to sell.

Anthony S. (25:32):

Okay. So, let's give that one an incomplete or, you and I are still trying to figure that out. It could be a sign of our age, that we don't know what the hell is going on in that. Before I turn it over, a quick political question, because you've been involved in politics a very long period of time. This is going to be a very interesting theatrical event come November. Are you raising money for Joe Biden or are you involved there? What's going on?

Marc Lasry (26:03):

Yeah. Raising money for Joe. I've been pretty involved in it. We've done a bunch of fundraisers. So, so far so good. I think the election, and you get it, the election is going to be pretty simple. Are you happy with the way things are? If you are, you're voting for Donald Trump. If you're not, you're voting for Biden. I think Americans, when everything is going well, Americans they weren't [inaudible 00:26:38] to the noise in Washington, and they were focused on what was happening with them. So I think Trump had advantage there. Now that things aren't going well, the question is, do I think he is the person who's going to help me? I think most Americans are coming to the conclusion, I can't deal with all this noise. You've worked for him. You know what it is. He loves more noise. And the more noise there is, the better it is accepted. Seems like in this environment, that's just not working.

Anthony S. (27:10):

Well, he's losing, and I want to be objective on a call like this. He's got a very ardent base of support, sort of that hard to believe 35 to 39%. But the numbers, if I was still involved with him or involved in the campaign, the numbers on women over the age of 50, Marc, and I'm talking about the national numbers, the swing state numbers, he's put himself almost in an irreparable position there. Anything's possible with him. I was with him on the October 7th Access Hollywood debacle. And we did flash polling that weekend into the next week prior to the second debate, down 13-14%. And he came back and won the election. So anything's possible. I wouldn't rule anything out. But those are very big numbers [crosstalk 00:27:58].

Marc Lasry (27:59):

To come back from. Yeah.

Anthony S. (28:01):

Yeah. Very hard to come back from those numbers. But again, it's Donald Trump, so we'll have to see what happens. I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie. I know we have some questions from our audience out there. So go ahead, John, what do you have for Marc?

John Darsie (28:19):

Yeah, we're going to start with the NBA. Marc, you mentioned that you had a mini training camp that's starting in three weeks and the season's going to resume in six weeks. As an owner, what was the process like of figuring out how the NBA was going to come back and how do you think this pandemic is going to affect the league going forward?

Marc Lasry (28:39):

Well, I think the biggest question was the health and safety of the players. So, how could you do that? And the way we ended up doing it was to do everything in Orlando so that ultimately you could have this safe environment. We ended up deciding to have 22 teams to try and have about eight regular season games. And the reason for that was to get the players in shape for the playoffs. So that they would get into game shape by the time the playoffs started.

Marc Lasry (29:12):

The real question, is a little bit of what you said. What happens next season? You can't have a season without fans. You really can't. For most teams, they can't survive that way because a lot of their revenue comes from ticket sales. So, I think that's why the league has pushed back the start of next season. And we've pushed it back to December or January. And the hope is that by doing that, that people will be able to come into stadiums and, whether there's a vaccine or, there'll be more information regarding this. And maybe people just come into the stadiums now. You're seeing it in all the marches and the protests that are going around the country. Everybody's walking around with a mask. I think for the vast, vast majority of us, the idea of wearing a mask a year ago was unthinkable, and today you're seeing everybody wearing one. So that may be the way that people start coming into stadiums.

John Darsie (30:19):

Thanks Marc. The next question revolves around, you talked about how you've been very successful internationally, including in Asia. How do you see the current international climate, which is shaped by distrust, lack of international controls and cohesion, bringing the economy to a more nationalistic versus globalistic framework going forward? And how do you think it affects general investment opportunities in Asia given U.S.-China tensions in particular?

Marc Lasry (30:48):

Well, really what it's doing is it's creating more opportunities for you. And the simple reason for that is, when things are more global, there's just more capital coming in, so that everybody wants to invest in a region. When things are more nationalistic, all of a sudden, capital's moving out because people are nervous. So for us, that's actually why we try to invest in countries that follow English law. So you'll invest in Singapore, you'll invest in Hong Kong, you'll invest in Australia, you'll invest in India. You'll invest in regions, South Korea, where the capital, that if there's a problem, you've got a legal system that's going to help. So I think for us right now, I would say to you a year ago, there was a lot of capital, there was more competition that we were seeing in Asia and in Europe. Today, we're seeing much less competition.

John Darsie (31:49):

So within the distress space, obviously energy has gone through a major dislocation due to a variety of different factors. What do you see as the opportunity from a distress perspective within energy?

Marc Lasry (32:03):

Energy has been a bloodbath. I think you're absolutely correct. The opportunity today is you're coming into companies that have had huge issues, mainly because of where the price of oil is. And can you invest today based on, saying that oil is going to stay at $30? And if you can do that, you're going to make a fortune of money if oil moves back. Even if it stays where it is, you're going to have companies that are going to be able to survive. So you've got to pick those survivors. But it's gotten lot harder. I think on the energy side, you've got a lot of opportunities, but you could still have a huge amount of problems.

John Darsie (32:48):

Looking at the distressed space in particular, if you could pick one financial instrument or one sector or one specific trade that you think is the most compelling right now, what would it be?

Marc Lasry (32:57):

I think you want to be in the secure debt of a lot of these companies, because that's become the fulcrum security. So in the past, you were trying to figure out what was the fulcrum security. And today, because of what's happened with the virus, and companies needing capital, that senior secured debt has become that fulcrum security. And you're either going to get paid off, or you're going to create the equity of that company at a pretty cheap price. So, that's been the big fundamental difference today.

John Darsie (33:32):

You recently launched the Avenue Dislocation Fund. You talked about the size of the opportunity set that you see in distressed right now and moving forward over the next couple years. Just talk a little bit more about that. Do you think the Fed's actions to help support the junk bond market, for example, has trimmed that opportunity set, or do you think there's going to be a large volume of opportunities in distressed?

Marc Lasry (33:57):

I don't think the Fed, to be blunt, has really done much for the distressed market. It's done a lot to provide liquidity for investment grade companies. So when Anthony and I were talking about that earlier, that's why you're not seeing as much opportunity on the investment grade side. If you think, the same thing, structured credit if you think on the mortgage side. The Fed didn't come in and help those markets. So in those markets, you still have huge opportunities. That's the reason why we're raising a new fund, is that we're seeing that at least today, you're going to have anywhere close to half a trillion to a trillion dollars of opportunities over the course of the next year. So for us, we want to take advantage on the small cap, mid cap, and large cap. That's going to be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

John Darsie (34:48):

Going back to politics for just a moment, Barack Obama came out and said that if he were running on a platform based on today's societal conditions, economic conditions, that he would run on a different platform and he would govern in a different way than he did during his tenure in office. How do you think knowing the Biden camp, and knowing other people within the democratic party, what do you think a Biden administration would look like from a policy perspective?

Marc Lasry (35:15):

I think at the end of the day, what Biden's going to do, he's going to move a little left, and you'll see that. Because it seems like the country that I think was center, is moving a little bit further to the left. So I think you'll start seeing that. And I think that's what Obama meant. It seems like the country is moving, but you would've thought it was moving more into the middle. I think it's moving, if you think the middle is 50, the country seems to be closer to 40 than it was at 50 before. So I think that's what he's talking about.

John Darsie (35:56):

All right. And one final question about the NBA. We have a question about, what's your sales pitch going to be to keep the Greek Freak, Giannis? And I'll say his last name again for Anthony, Antetokounmpo, in Milwaukee? He's going to be a free agent. I don't know if it's next off-season, but-

Marc Lasry (36:12):

Next off-season.

John Darsie (36:12):

... what's your sales pitch to him?

Marc Lasry (36:16):

Well, it's actually pretty simple. I think one, he loves Milwaukee. I think he loves the team, loves the coach, loves his teammates. But at the end of the day, we're going to be able to offer him, I think it ends up being about $70 million more than any other team. So, $70 million is a lot of money, and especially for players. Because their lifespan, if you think about it, ends up being about, to play in the NBA, is about 10 years. 10 to 15 years. So, the goal is to try to make as much money as you can. So I think at the end of the day, in any tie, I think he's going to give it to us. And then when you add the financial aspect, I think it's kind of hard for him to turn it down.

John Darsie (37:11):

All right. Well Marc, thanks again for joining us today. Anthony, I don't know if you have any parting thoughts?

Anthony S. (37:16):

I want to go on a stretching machine so I can make $70 million from Marc Lasry. That's my parting thought.

Marc Lasry (37:22):

I know.

Anthony S. (37:23):

But Marc, thank you. You're brilliant investor. You're a great friend. And you're a patriotic American and I hope you'll come back to SALT Talks as we get geared up for the election season. You and I have always had some spirited discussions in that realm. So, we wish you the best at Avenue and the family, and God bless Sophie, and hopefully we'll see you soon.

Marc Lasry (37:47):

Take care my friend.

Anthony S. (37:48):

All right. God bless. [crosstalk 00:37:48].

Marc Lasry (37:49):

Bye. Bye.

Hedge Fund Managers on Structured Finance, Credit & Risk Management | SALT Talks #12

“This is an easy playbook in structured finance: buy mortgages. The Fed came in and said we are going to do whatever it takes to make sure we can transmit affordable financing to the largest borrowing base which is the residential market.”

SkyBridge co-Chief Investment Officer and Senior Portfolio Manager Troy Gayeski was joined by three leaders in the structured credit space, Clayton DeGiacinto of Axonic Capital, TJ Durkin of Angelo Gordon and Chris Hentemann of 400 Capital to discuss the state of structured credit following the COVID-19 pandemic.

After structured credit markets suffered a severe market dislocation as a result of the pandemic and its lockdown, the guests offer their view on how this current financial crisis compares to the last one and how that informs their investments. “This is an easy playbook in structured finance: buy mortgages. The Fed came in and said we are going to do whatever it takes to make sure we can transmit affordable financing to the largest borrowing base which is the residential market.”

Also discussed are broader philosophies around investing in structured credit markets. “Our ethos in our firm is let’s invest in cash flow and make sure we get the cash flows back and generate an agreeable return”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

DeGiacinto%2C+Clayton.jpeg

Clayton DeGiacinto

Founder & Managing Partner

Axonic Capital

H5D5A1.jpeg

Chris Hentemann

Managing Partner & Chief Investment Officer

400 Capital Management

Durkin%2C+TJ.jpeg

TJ Durkin

Co-Head, Structured Credit

Angelo Gordon

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:00:04):

Hi, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of Salt, the global [inaudible 00:00:13] at the intersection of finance, technology, and geopolitics.

John Darsie (00:00:17):

SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews that we've been hosting in lieu of our in-person conference, the SALT conference which takes place annually in Las Vegas and we've done several international conferences as well in Abu Dhabi, Tokyo, and Singapore. What we try to do at our conferences and what we're trying to do here with these SALT Talks is provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for big, important ideas and discussions on what we think are very compelling investment opportunities out there in the marketplace.

John Darsie (00:00:46):

Today we're very excited to host a talk about structured credit markets, which are near and dear to our heart. Structured credit markets suffered a severe dislocation in March as a result of the pandemic and the ensuing economic shutdown. But they've started to recover.

John Darsie (00:01:01):

For today's talk, we're welcoming on three experts in the structured credit space to talk with SkyBridge co-chief investment officer and senior portfolio manager Troy Gayeski. I want to provide a brief introduction to our three panelists.

John Darsie (00:01:15):

Which are Clayton DeGiacinto of Axonic Capital. TJ Durkin of Angelo Gordon. And Chris Hentemann of 400 Capital. I'll go through a bio for each panelist before I turn it over to Troy.

John Darsie (00:01:28):

Clay DeGiacinto is the founder and managing partner of Axonic Capital, an investment management firm focused on structured credit and systematic fixed income opportunities. He serves as the chief investment officer for the firm's investment funds and commercial lending business.

John Darsie (00:01:43):

Prior to founding Axonic in 2010, Clay was responsible for building out the mortgage investment platform at Tower Research Capital and was the senior portfolio manager for Split Level, LLC, which is the predecessor fund to the Axonic credit opportunities fund.

John Darsie (00:01:59):

From 2002-2008, Clay was a vice president in a fixed income, currency, and commodities group at Goldman Sachs. Previously Clay served as an Army Ranger and a captain in the US Army, in the 25th infantry division from 1995-2000.

John Darsie (00:02:16):

He joined the Army after attending West Point, he's a graduate of West Point. He also holds an MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He's on the board of directors for Team Rubicon, a great charity that we featured at the SALT conference before. We'd like to thank Clay for his service and for his ongoing philanthropy work supporting veterans and their families.

John Darsie (00:02:36):

TJ Durkin is the co-head of structured credit and the head of residential and consumer debt at Angelo Gordon, a privately held alternative investment firm founded in 1988, that manages approximately $35 billion across a broad range of credit and real estate strategies.

John Darsie (00:02:53):

TJ joined Angelo Gordon in 2008 and is a member of the firm's executive committee, as well as the co-head of the firm's structured credit platform. He's the co portfolio manager of the firm's residential mortgage and consumer debt securities portfolios, the CIO of Mitt, M-I-T-T, and Angelo Gordon, which is Angelo Gordon's publicly traded mortgagery. He serves as a board member of Arc Home, Angelo Gordon's affiliated mortgage originator, and GSE licensed servicer.

John Darsie (00:03:23):

TJ began his career at Bear Sterns where he was a managing director on the nonagency trading desk. He earned his bachelor's degree from Fordham University and currently serves as a member of the school's president council.

John Darsie (00:03:35):

He's also a board member of VE International, a not for profit focused on preparing high school students for college and careers through skills learned in an entrepreneurship based curriculum.

John Darsie (00:03:46):

Finally our third panelist today is Chris Hentemann, who is the founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of 400 Capital, which is a structured credit asset management firm offering qualified investors access to a broad range of investment solutions across the structured credit space.

John Darsie (00:04:03):

Chris founded 400 Capital in October of 2008 and heads the firm investment and operating committees. Prior to 400 Capital, Chris was the head of global structured products at Bank of America Securities. Before that he spent time trading and investing in structured credit markets at Solomon Brothers and Credit Suisse First Boston.

John Darsie (00:04:23):

Chris is a graduate of the Carroll School of Management at Boston College, with a bachelor of science degree in finance.

John Darsie (00:04:31):

Hosting today's SALT Talk, as I mentioned, is Troy Gayeski, who is a partner, senior portfolio manager, and co-chief investment officer at SkyBridge Capital. Which is a global alternative investment firm that's focused on multi manager hedge fund solutions. Troy is a graduate of MIT.

John Darsie (00:04:49):

Just a reminder to everyone. If you have any questions for any of the panelists during today's talk, you can type them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. And with that, I want to turn it over to Troy Gayeski, who's going to conduct the interview.

Troy Gayeski (00:05:01):

Yeah. Thanks so much, John. And thanks, everybody, for joining us today. Before we get into the meat and potatoes of structured credit markets, we wanted to give each of the panelists a chance to talk a little bit about their background and their firm in more depth.

Troy Gayeski (00:05:14):

Particularly on the human side, how they made the journey for they grew up to where they are today. Clay, if you don't mind leading off in that we'd love to hear that story.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:05:25):

Sure, Troy. Thanks for having me today. I guess I have a little bit of an irregular background. I graduated West Point, I came from the Midwest, southern Illinois. And post my mechanical engineering degree from West Point, I served as a military officer in the United States Army, as a field artillery officer stationed out in Hawaii.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:05:47):

That was in the late '90s, it was a different Army back then. It was certainly pre-9/11. I'd always wanted to go to Wall Street and try my risk appetite through trading financial instruments, and I thought the perfect conduit to that was through business school. So I went to Wharton. I started on a mortgage trading desk at Goldman Sachs back in 2002.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:06:12):

They gave associates fresh out of business school a fairly low risk job to perform, which at that point in time in the mortgage department was the adjustable rate mortgage desk. Because it was relatively low duration. It was hard to lose a significant amount of money in relatively low duration assets.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:06:33):

But as luck would have it, the curve steepened out quite a bit in 2003 and that was really the advent of all the affordability products. Adjustable rate mortgages, 31s, 51s, 71s, 101s, even the negatively amortizing mortgages that we can all sort of chuckle about today was quite heady back in the early to mid 2000s time environment.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:06:58):

But managed to position anywhere between two almost $10 billion of both loans and securities, all parts of the capital structure including cash and synthetics. And both on the agency as well as nonagency side of the business.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:07:16):

Most people that remember the last global financial crisis that were in the mortgage business know that it happened really in 2007, not 2008. So post-2007 I thought what a great time to become an entrepreneur and take advantage of some of the dislocation during the last financial crisis.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:07:36):

That's when I went out on my own. Left Goldman and started my business. As it was introduced, I started at a firm called Tower Research Capital and launched Split Level, LLC. Which frankly is the predecessor fund to what we're running today.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:07:54):

Firm is about 55 people. We're based in midtown Manhattan. We invest in all parts of structured credit. RNBS, CNBS, CLOs, multitude of asset backed securities. Even some equities if they're balance sheet heavy, like [Reets 00:08:13] or BDCs. We manage a little over $3 billion in assets through public and private vehicles.

Troy Gayeski (00:08:23):

Great, Clay. That's a great summary of your background. Are there any skills in particular in the military you learned that you think are applicable today to you as you're managing Axonic? Particularly in times of stress.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:08:35):

Well listen. I think these businesses, risk management is probably the number one function that everybody on this panel thinks is their highest priority. That's also critical in the military as well.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:08:52):

I think that a lot of my friends and former classmates from West Point served careers. And frankly, a lot of them are still in. They've succeeded going up the ranks in the military. Some today are even a general or even very senior colonel. They've been great risk managers throughout their career, including in operating in combat.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:09:19):

I never had that opportunity. I left the military before 9/11, before we'd been engaged in years worth of wars. But I do think risk management is a skill that can transfer across from the military to finance. That's really thinking about and receiving and considering imperfect information in everything that we invest, and trying to make mission critical decisions around that. Which is exactly what happens in the military.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:09:50):

But more importantly, if you're wrong or if there's some bit of information that comes that makes you want to change your mind, you can act on that decisively and accordingly.

Troy Gayeski (00:10:01):

Got you, got you. Thanks for that summary, Clay. Really appreciate it. Chris, do you want to give us a little background? A little info on your background, as well as the firm?

Chris Hentemann (00:10:11):

Yeah. You're going to get a lot of similar crossover themes to Clay, so I'll try to keep it somewhat brief because Clay hit on a number of things that probably will carry over for all of us.

Chris Hentemann (00:10:22):

But to make it a little personal, I did actually almost 30 years to the day, I started in the business. I got out of school in May of 1990 and I started what was First Boston Credit Suisse in June of 1990. For better or for worse, I think it's for better, this is pretty much all I've been doing.

Chris Hentemann (00:10:42):

I landed on the mortgage trading desk at First Boston in the early '90s, a very interesting time because it was really the front end of a lot of mortgage securitization. Particularly I was working on a desk that was focused on derivatives. So it gave me really interesting introduction to the mortgage and securitized product universe.

Chris Hentemann (00:11:04):

I spent four years there. And then got an offer to go to Solomon Brothers, which was a really exciting place to work. Particularly to be in the bond trading business at Solomon Brothers in mid '90s. So I traded for a few years at Solomon Brothers and then left to go to what was Nations Bank in the mid '90s with one of my colleagues.

Chris Hentemann (00:11:25):

I helped develop the securitized capital market improvement for what is today Bank of America. I spent almost 12 years there.

Chris Hentemann (00:11:33):

Fascinating experience. It was in the last '90s and early 2000s when the banks were pretty much given a license as class [inaudible 00:11:40] was effectively repealed, and to expand into more investment banking related functions. We developed a business around it where we could use all the strengths of a bank and all the basically the skills that we had structuring and trading and understanding how securitized finance fit into the capital market of the banks based on the broader financial universe.

Chris Hentemann (00:12:06):

And helped develop the origination, the structuring, the trading, and even some of the proprietary lines of business across all the residential mortgage spaces. Commercial real estate, all the different aspect groups. And structured credit and credit derivatives such as CLOs, both in the US and in Europe.

Chris Hentemann (00:12:25):

I consider that really actually one of the really important foundations for what we do because similar to Clay, I think we both basically like ... we knew we had a differentiated skill. We liked to manage risk and had a pretty good knack for it.

Chris Hentemann (00:12:43):

And also realized that there's a lot of value in actually being in these markets, particularly through cycles, credit cycles and straight cycles. But also the evolution of the product as it became more institutionalized, particularly through a cycle like 2007-08.

Chris Hentemann (00:12:59):

As Clay had referred to, you really see some of the strengths and weaknesses of how a market develops and evolves. It was almost the perfect inflection point for me to do what I really aspired to do, was basically leverage all that experience and start a firm similar to what Clay had done.

Chris Hentemann (00:13:15):

So I launched 400 Capital in October of 2010. Sorry, 2012. We did it on a very modest amount of capital. Most people don't realize it was really challenging. But I think it was for the better in the long run. We started with a few million dollars of forensic family capital and developed the hard way off of track record and basically the knowledge base that we could deliver to client in that post-GFC environment.

Chris Hentemann (00:13:45):

We developed a firm today that's just under $4 billion and has a range of different products. Again, similarly we really have basically interact with clients as a conduit to the structured finance space, offering based on the ability on total return or more patient capital, through more patient capital vehicles. The ability to get access to very unique returns that hopefully we'll be able to articulate over this next hour, across RNBS, CNBS, and asset based and crossover forms of credit markets.

Chris Hentemann (00:14:23):

That's how I got here.

Troy Gayeski (00:14:25):

Yeah, that's great. Great to hear that, Chris. TJ, please keep it brief because we're already running out of time.

TJ Durkin (00:14:32):

Sure, sure. Never fun to go last. But yeah, really briefly. I ended up going to college here in New York City. That gave me the opportunity to have an internship at Bear Sterns on the mortgage trading desk. So similar to Chris, this is all I've ever really been doing.

TJ Durkin (00:14:49):

Rose up the ranks there to managing director on the mortgage trading desk. Stayed all the way till the end, until JP Morgan merger and had the opportunity to continue my career on the sell side there if I so chose. Or thought at that point it would be a really interesting opportunity to go to the buy side, try something new, and come to an existing platform such as Angelo Gordon, but that really was not exposed or had exposure in the mortgage or structured credit space in any material way.

TJ Durkin (00:15:24):

Fast forward 12 years here, we have a team of 25 people here that I lead. I'm the mortgage ABS consumer space, up and down the capital structure, whole loans, securities, etc. That's where we are today.

Troy Gayeski (00:15:41):

TJ, succinct as always. I got to love it, man. I got to love it. No offense, Clay and Chris. No offense.

Troy Gayeski (00:15:48):

Guys, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and all the chaos in the markets that we've experienced here since the second and third week of March, can you guys take us back to January this year and explain to the audience why you were positioned the way you were? Long structured credit assets.

Troy Gayeski (00:16:06):

And I'm going to ask TJ to start out this time, since he went last time. If that's all right with you, TJ.

TJ Durkin (00:16:14):

Yeah, absolutely.

Troy Gayeski (00:16:15):

Talk about particularly consumer ABS and also RMBS of it as well, why you thought those assets were very attractive.

TJ Durkin (00:16:24):

Yeah. I think stating the obvious, obviously we came into March with historically low unemployment and we'd been grinding down towards that rate. What that had been doing in the background over the past probably 18-24 months had really helped support wages.

TJ Durkin (00:16:41):

As there was a need for more employees, employers had to effectively pay up to get them. We saw that trend really start I guess back in '17-'18 and continue through to where we got to, call it March 1st of this year. Really in particular we saw a lot of tailwinds in the lower and medium wage earners.

TJ Durkin (00:17:05):

Which is a large part of in particularly the consumer ABS market. The wealthies debts aren't really securitized. Their mortgages are held on bank balance sheets. American Express on the credit card is using their deposit. So that's really when you think about structured credit a lot of it is the middle class and working their way down.

TJ Durkin (00:17:26):

And so we saw quite healthy fundamentals there on the income side. On housing, just over the last 10-12 years we did not keep up with household formation. There's structurally a shortage of particularly affordable housing.

TJ Durkin (00:17:45):

When you think about the collateral supporting residential mortgage bonds, it's really what's the value of that house. It was very hard to construct a scenario where we thought there would be material downside in terms of that asset price over the coming two to five years.

TJ Durkin (00:18:02):

And so there was a lot of fairly obvious supports to owning this credit, coming into 2020.

Troy Gayeski (00:18:13):

Got you, TJ. Thanks for that summary. Chris, if you don't mind, could you talk more specifically about RMBS? Because that's obviously a very large sector exposure for your firm. And feel free to dive into LTVs, equity, FICO/Vantage scores, etc.

Chris Hentemann (00:18:32):

Yeah. It's going to connect well with what TJ just mentioned. I think a lot of the things that he had mentioned are really the foundation for how we have made the same decisions.

Chris Hentemann (00:18:42):

You had a very strong consumer, that's in jobs is actually very important to that, and actually it's even more critical today in terms of having a view. We'll talk about future. But this is a much different employment environment than we had at the beginning of the year.

Chris Hentemann (00:18:58):

A very strong foundation for employment, wages, etc. So obviously your credit to the consumer is strong. We picked up on a couple things. I will add to it that in the post-GFC environment, bank regulations, particularly around mortgage credit origination like qualified mortgage rules, really haven't retreated much. They had been well in place.

Chris Hentemann (00:19:23):

We have a good consumer with a good job base beginning of the year, relatively delivered or lightly, like on a historical basis, of very balanced balance sheet. We've been in a low interest rate environment for a long time, so consumers have access to great cost of funds. Debt service coverage actually also was very good at the consumer level.

Chris Hentemann (00:19:50):

You had very good features in the consumer. And then the origination of credit, particularly in the mortgage universe, around the way rules were constructed in the conventional market and the private label market. We had actually what we would consider well disciplined credit origination.

Chris Hentemann (00:20:07):

Actually in a lot of cases we thought it was too conservative and mispriced. The mispricing comes from not only basically looking at high FICO, low levered consumers in a great consumer friendly environment, you also had relatively low LTVs in appreciating housing environments with very good technicals. I'll add that too.

Chris Hentemann (00:20:32):

The US housing market still remains about 2 million units short in terms of housing supply versus demand. We think that's going to still exist and it's what's actuating a sustainable housing environment even through the COVID crisis.

Chris Hentemann (00:20:48):

Then you have rating agencies. You can't miss the rating agencies because they actually are an important function to credit origination. The rating agencies after the financial crisis nearly lost their license to rate structured finance deals, given basically since the poor performance in the financial crisis.

Chris Hentemann (00:21:03):

They have the classic sort of pendulum shift as well, like the banks did, in terms of conservative underwriting. And so we saw that a lot of the origination in terms of mortgage credit was very conservative from a ratings point of view.

Chris Hentemann (00:21:15):

You nest all that together and you actually have a really good, really attractive environment to invest in.

Troy Gayeski (00:21:25):

Got you, got you. Clay, one of the differences between you and Chris and TJ is you've had more of a focus on the agency CMBS multi family market. Can you talk about the fundamentals there coming into the year prior to COVID-19?

Clay DeGiacinto (00:21:42):

Yeah, sure. It seems like so long ago now. I would echo quickly what Chris and TJ mentioned.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:21:51):

Thematically, structured credit is currently and was, even before COVID, a structurally cheap asset class. Primarily due to the re-regulation of global banks and insurance companies. I think where we tend to invest and likely where others tend to invest that have private money, is at a part of the capital structure which is really punitive for most banks and insurance companies.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:22:20):

I call it the fulcrum part of the capital structure or the part of the capital structure that matters most to really being right about the credit. It's not the equity, but it's certainly a first loss of mezzanine part of the debt capital structure.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:22:35):

That is quite a yieldy asset class and we get to enjoy making decisions about risk relative to return. But generally global banks and insurance companies have to think about risk relative to return relative to regulatory capital. Frankly, nine out of ten times that regulatory capital tends to be the constraint.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:22:56):

I know we're going to talk about how cheap the market is now. Frankly, I think it's cheaper than it was post-COVID. But it was even a pretty interesting buying opportunity pre-COVID. We probably 50% of our investment are centered around CMBS and commercial real estate, with a significant bend to multi family.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:23:18):

We're experts in commercial real estate, equity, all the way through the debt tranches. We even have an origination business where we'll lend on the mezzanine part of the capital structure, often behind bank first lien mortgages. But what I think is interesting is, given the universe of CMBS, we've never invested in one conduit CMBS B piece. But we highly favor multi family B pieces.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:23:45):

In particular, agency multi family B pieces. We have a relationship with Freddie Mac on their small balance B piece program. This is a program that was originated back in 2014-2015. They originated about $8 billion a year.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:24:05):

In general, these are all of the loans are following the Freddie Mac guidelines, which are fairly stringent throughout the country. There's different underwriting guidelines depending on what pocket or specifically ... as we all know, real estate is hyper local, specifically what geography they're originating in. All cash flowing assets, no development, no brownfield, no greenfield. No transitional loans. With occupancies certainly greater than 90.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:24:35):

But what I think is most important, and really the reason why we were very attracted to this is the small balance multi family loans in particular, it's sort of the workforce housing. These are 20-50 unit garden style low rise apartments, geographically dispersed all throughout the country.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:24:53):

These loans are being made not from a lender that's really focused on driving profitability. This is a policy decision. Both Freddie and Fannie also have a regulator in the FHFA that has a dual report to Treasury and to Congress. Specifically housing affordability is their number one mandate.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:25:20):

That includes multi family lending. Let's make loans affordable so that housing becomes affordable for the multitude of renters. We specifically like the workforce because we thought it was pretty defensive from a macroeconomic viewpoint.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:25:40):

We've been in expansion now for 11 or 12 years. I would say that credit may feel a little bit toppy or heady. We think about the cashflow profile of the asset, we invest in discount dollar price assets that pay us back money over time. We want to make sure that every dollar we put out, we're going to get that money in an amortizing fashion over time and make sure that we get more back than a dollar.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:26:11):

Our ethos at our firm is [inaudible 00:26:13] invest in cash flows and make sure that we get the cash flows back and generate an agreeable return. It's not one where we're focused on spread. Meaning very few people at the firm, at least pre-COVID, would think about let's invest in an asset that we think can tighten because it's just cheap.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:26:31):

We really want to be comfortable with the cash flows. We know that we're going to buy the first loss piece on the debt in these multi family loans with Freddie origination standards. If you go back to the last crisis, and I think there's a lot of parallels from this crisis to the last one, we want to be safe around defaults and performing assets versus nonperforming assets.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:26:56):

Freddie originated multi family through the last crisis. [inaudible 00:27:03] defaults were less than 50 basis points. That's incredible when you think about conduit defaults, which were well north of 10% during the last crisis.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:27:13):

I think we're seeing the same thing this time. Just given the data over the past few months, which I'm sure you're going to ask me a little bit about later.

Troy Gayeski (00:27:21):

Perhaps we'll get into that. Succinctly, TJ, if you don't mind. Could you walk our viewers through some of the crazy price action that we saw? Particularly the last two weeks of March. And what you thought drove that. And then in turn, how much of that price action do you think as technically driven as opposed to fundamentally driven.

TJ Durkin (00:27:46):

Yeah sure. I mean I go back and forth with it now, 90 days later. But it felt like we hit the bottom March 23rd, March 24th, at least in our market. I can tell you I was sitting in the same seat, starting in 2008-2009, for the last version of this.

TJ Durkin (00:28:07):

It felt completely different in the sense of that was a slow moving train of deteriorating fundamentals. Chris brought up rating agencies were flawed, they were kind of playing catch up with downgrades. I would tell you most people were, I would say, on the buy side getting excited about buying assets during that time period.

TJ Durkin (00:28:31):

Versus this time around, you could tell it was ... I don't want to say completely technically driven, but 90% of the price volatility we saw was technically driven. It was mostly driven by the daily liquidity bond funds and mutual funds, the 40 Act funds, that were getting redemptions.

TJ Durkin (00:28:50):

I think it's pretty clear we've been living in a low interest rate environment. People don't really keep their assets in their savings account anymore. It's in these bond funds to get some more yield. The virus caused panic, it caused fear, and people wanted that liquidity. So they pulled assets from those bond funds.

TJ Durkin (00:29:13):

Those managers just needed to sell. It wasn't about making a decision of relative value. It was sell anything that you can get a bid on. We saw irrational prices being reported. Intraday, day over day. Obviously we're heading into a worse employment situation, economic situation.

TJ Durkin (00:29:37):

But where we saw what I call bomb proof bonds, AAA bonds, being for lack of a better term puked out, just because someone needed cash, really told you that it was way different than the last time around. And almost predominantly all technically driven.

Troy Gayeski (00:29:56):

So would it be fair to say we've basically got '08, an entire year of '08 price action, in two weeks?

TJ Durkin (00:30:03):

Yeah. Yeah. I think we got that in two to three weeks versus what probably took 15-18 months last time.

Troy Gayeski (00:30:10):

Mm-hmm (affirmative). Mm-hmm (affirmative). Got you. You think roughly 90% of that was technically driven?

TJ Durkin (00:30:16):

I go back and forth. If we were sitting there in March, 75%. The further we get away from it, it feels ore like 90, 95. I'll stick with my 90.

Troy Gayeski (00:30:26):

Got you, got you. Chris, since the dark days of late March, all of your portfolios have rebounded quite substantially. What do you think has driven the rebound? Is it principally technicals? Is it Fed policy? Is it the fundamentals haven't gotten as bad as people feared? Is it some of the fiscal stimulus in terms of the direct stimulus checks, as well as enhanced unemployment?

Troy Gayeski (00:30:54):

When you go through the factors that you evaluate a security with, what do you think's been the key driver of rebound so far?

Chris Hentemann (00:31:04):

If I had to give you one word it's information. What information comes into the market that allows you to basically invest prudently.

Chris Hentemann (00:31:13):

The first piece of information that came in in those, on March 23rd, was that the Fed was going to open up QE4. We've seen this before. This is an easy playbook in structured finance. Buy mortgages. Don't look back.

Chris Hentemann (00:31:30):

I mean mortgage bases moved three points. Three points in 48 hours. It's unprecedented. So the Fed came in and they said we are going to do whatever it takes, unlimited, to basically make sure that we actually can transmit affordable financing to the largest basically borrowing base. Which is residential market. Pretty significant.

Chris Hentemann (00:31:54):

It's kind of like the first driver of the rebound. Then things fall off of that. So then you have the policies that come off of that within probably a week or three weeks after that. Again, further information comes to the market.

Chris Hentemann (00:32:05):

Because the first piece of information we all pretty much didn't know was what TJ was just reflecting on, was how much is technical, how much is fundamental. We're all redialing all of our models to say how much impairment is really embedded in these markets.

Chris Hentemann (00:32:18):

And so while we're doing that, the Fed is feeding us new information. So within things that are very relevant, and there are very few of them that are relevant to the structured finance market unfortunately, were programs like [inaudible 00:32:31].

Chris Hentemann (00:32:32):

Even the CARES Act as it started to develop helped our market, because feeding cashflow into the consumer, or PPP, feeding cashflow into small businesses to put a floor under employment, ideally a few months down the road is helpful in a first or second order way for a lot of our credit decisions.

Chris Hentemann (00:32:54):

Corporates, high yield, municipals, had much more first order support form the Fed this time than the GFCs. Probably rightly so because industries are really really under duress, in a very very short period of time.

Chris Hentemann (00:33:08):

So all that came into the market, I would say, in the late March, early April. Again, feeding more information into the market and you can see basically, as TJ had mentioned, the higher part of the more liquid, the more bomb proof, using TJ's analogy, parts of our market recovered pretty quickly. The easier trades were after you got done buying government guaranteed mortgage-backed securities you go and buy the AAAs, you buy the AAs, you buy the As. And that's where you're going to get liquidity. It's where you're going to get your best trade, so to speak.

Chris Hentemann (00:33:40):

Thereafter then, ideally you're going to get enough information from the market in terms of what sense will we get. Will this be a V, will it be an L, will it be a V, will it be a U, will it be an L. What are the magnitude of employment, what's the magnitude of unemployment going to be. What is it going to do to housing and asset prices.

Chris Hentemann (00:34:02):

So I think we've got a lot of information in the last few months, and I think it's allowed a lot of us to actually really, with our expertise, dive into the mezzanine and lower parts of the capital structure and parse through what are exceptional opportunities. Because what's evolving is you're seeing that some of these things that we spoke about very early in terms of our beginning of the year forecasts, are still in place.

Chris Hentemann (00:34:28):

Like I mentioned, technicals and housing market, if anything they've probably tilted more in our favor. That's the cost of financing real estate assets has actually become very attractive. Cash flows are speaking through to the consumer that we're seeing that the actual data in terms of auto payments and other consumer receivable payments, even mortgage payments, are moderating.

Chris Hentemann (00:34:52):

So we're getting more information. Those are the drivers, to get really right to it, Troy, that are allowing us to basically start to feed capital in and make prudent decisions.

Chris Hentemann (00:35:04):

I think the hardest ones are going to be how our operating companies, or more operating related exposures, going to basically react. It's going to take a longer time to determine. So things like how is consumer behavior going to affect how hotels, people are going to travel, or retail. Those are the ... airlines.

Chris Hentemann (00:35:23):

Those are going to be the challenging, longer recovery cycle sub sectors, as I think most people [inaudible 00:35:32] would be able to figure out. But again, it's information as it's coming into the market. As soon as we can digest it, make a prudent decision, we can pick through things that are truly just technically repriced and make good investment decisions and take advantage of the rebounds.

Troy Gayeski (00:35:48):

Clay, you want to speak briefly about multi family? How much was technical versus fundamental? Obviously the level of rent payments has hung in there much better than people thought. You've had some spread tightening back from the wide. You want to give a little color around that?

Clay DeGiacinto (00:36:06):

Yeah, sure. You asked a very good question that I've been processing now for a few months. And that was the selloff technical or was it fundamental.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:36:18):

I think TJ did a great job of explaining to it, but the last two weeks in March was one of the strangest trading environments I've ever incurred in my career. If I were to-

Troy Gayeski (00:36:30):

One of? One of, Clay?

Clay DeGiacinto (00:36:31):

One of. One of.

Troy Gayeski (00:36:31):

Okay.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:36:33):

If I were really to try to set the stage, or frame what was happening, mid March the entire Wall Street was work from home. Nobody was prepared for that. Every single bank on Wall Street has massive disaster recovery centers with fancy computers and multiple screens. Nobody's used to work from home on their cell phone and on iPads, which they can't really ... the salespeople aren't interacting with the traders who aren't interacting with other salespeople, and really feeling the pulse of the trading environment.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:37:05):

You couple that with being at the end of the quarter, there's a stress for cash. Most banks that had credit lines outstanding, they were being called upon. So these contingent liabilities that were being called upon. Everybody was in cash preservation mode.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:37:21):

I think a lot of the price action, not only was there daily demand of mutual funds that were selling, in fact some of them sold on a Sunday bid list, which was also the first time.

Troy Gayeski (00:37:34):

First time ever. Right, Clay?

Clay DeGiacinto (00:37:34):

First time I've seen it in my career. But also it was a liability driven issue, where repo or margin lenders who also levered firm balance sheets to try to make a spread on what their cost of capital was versus where they could lend on assets, there was a real margin constraint.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:38:01):

I think when you look at returns today, or if you were to try to look at returns over the past few months, you'll see that I think the differentiated returns streams is really a function of how people were levered. Those that were most levered probably did the worst.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:38:18):

I think it's important to think about was the loss a function of mark to market, or was it a function of crystallized losses. Because people had to sell and raise cash to pay off margin lenders or redemptions if it's a mutual fund, etc.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:38:36):

I think that March performance, or the March prices, was 90% liquidity, probably 10% fundamental. I think we've flip flopped that today where liquidity is back in the market, repo lenders are back in the market. I think a lot of people have changed their borrowing book and either reduced it significantly or extended out from a term in maturity perspective. Paying up to lock in term repo.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:39:04):

But I also think that the environment that's presented in front of us is significantly different than the last global financial crisis. Where coming out of that crisis assets were priced yield to worst, that's quite true today. There's many assets priced yield to worst.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:39:22):

But what's different is last time I think you could almost buy anything, and you saw this recovery through both spread tightening as well as fundamentals improving. When I look at the landscape today, certainly on all parts of the structured credit market, although liquidity is back and you're going to see some spread tightening at the top part of the capital structure, I think there is and will continue to be real fundamental stress through the system.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:39:50):

Like Chris said, we effectively get new data once a month. That's data that tells us how people paid or what the transitional role rate matrix of defaults was during the last month. We can infer from that and try to have predictability around the future cashflow profile.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:40:08):

But there's you've probably seen people, there's been tens of billions of dollars raised for their sector right now. Which I think is quite interesting, but the investment philosophy cannot be one where it's just buy it because this is a replay of the last crisis.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:40:26):

I think it's really important to know and understand. I know the three of us on the panel, I feel comfortable saying this because I know that we all have systems. We've been in business 10 years, we have default and prepayment models that are pretty dialed in at this point in time. And that's going to help us make decisions for the future, for the future cashflow profile of some of these assets.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:40:50):

The buying opportunity is as good as we've ever seen it. Lots of assets are traded at 50 cents on the dollar. That's not traded at 50 cents on the dollar because there's a general consensus that the principal balance will lose 50%. I think it's trading at 50 cents on the dollar because people are really uncertain what's going to happen. You know?

Clay DeGiacinto (00:41:13):

Half can pay off at par and half are going to go to zero. That's a tremendous opportunity for folks with models, with analytics, that have invested in this asset class for a long time, certainly coming out of the last financial crisis.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:41:29):

You talked about multi family, if you give me a few more seconds. The idea that we can now buy assets at a yield to worst mentality, and that means that we can ramp up expected defaults, we can slow down expected prepayments, and still buy assets with a mid to high single digits yield, I think is pretty significant.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:41:52):

We haven't seen this buying opportunity for a long time. When you couple that, I always use this concept called yield to worst. So it means that in structured credit, spread or price is the last thing that we think about. We first have to be right about our forecasted defaults and recoveries and prepayments.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:42:12):

When you make all of your assumptions fairly onerous and you're still able to earn mid to high single digits unlevered return, the upside is quite significant. We're investing in these type of assets, multi family like I mentioned before, I think is relatively defensive.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:42:32):

Most of the assets that are backed by the loans that we own are trading below replacement value. Cap rates are in the 5, 6, 7 percents. The DSCR assets are well covered. I think that these forbearance programs are really working.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:42:53):

The CARES Act, which goes through the end of July, is interesting because specifically in workforce housing, where we think the average income is around $24,000 a year in that asset class, in class C multi family, the CARES Act is allowing these folks to earn about 170% of their prior weekly employed cashflow.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:43:21):

So there's a lot of excess dollars in the system and they're paying their rent. That then is leading the owners to be able to pay their mortgage. We're seeing that throughout.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:43:32):

So I think there's been some fiscal stimulus that's been good for the consumer, it's been good for a lot of the asset classes that we're investing in.

Troy Gayeski (00:43:42):

Yeah, that's great. I'm always going to TJ for succinct. He's my man, you know? But well said, well said.

Troy Gayeski (00:43:51):

Just give us a few data points, TJ, if you don't mind. Key word a few, on how fundamentals look today. Particularly the last two to three weeks versus where market assumptions were or expectations were as recently as four to six weeks ago.

TJ Durkin (00:44:09):

Yeah. I actually don't think that the market's expectations on fundamentals have been grossly wrong, or grossly conservative. As Chris pointed out, our business is driven off of data. So the more we get, I think the more comfortable we get with the tail scenario of what's the downside that Clay just walked through.

TJ Durkin (00:44:30):

There's been a lot of talk about mortgage forbearance so maybe I'll skip that. We've been investing with non-prime credit card companies. A non-bank, they're looking at lower FICO borrowers, mid 600s, smaller credit lines. They've been in business since 2003, so they lived through the last cycle, if you will.

TJ Durkin (00:44:53):

What we saw ties exactly out to what Clay just mentioned. In the months of April and May, and it's continuing on, the credit card companies getting their highest payment amounts in per month. So if someone has an outstanding balance, their borrowers are paying it down at a higher propensity than in their now 17 year history.

TJ Durkin (00:45:20):

And so it's a function of there's not a lot to do, everything's closed. So people are not spending money, per se, and people want the utility of having a credit card. So for what would be considered a non-prime borrower, we're seeing delinquency rates that do not tie out to a double digit unemployment rate.

TJ Durkin (00:45:46):

That is a function of the CARES Act and that's a function of people generally came into this with decent balance sheets, as I think Chris mentioned. So I'll leave it there. We can certainly talk about mortgage forbearance rates, etc., but that's certainly getting a lot more press than some of the other consumer products out there.

Troy Gayeski (00:46:04):

Yeah. I'll let Chris talk about forbearance requests really quick, because that is an important topic obviously for the housing market. Chris, could you briefly describe where markets expected forbearance a request to go and where they've actually hit a ceiling and have started to decline the last three weeks?

Chris Hentemann (00:46:22):

Yeah. It's an incredibly complex topic, quite frankly. I think everybody is in the spirit of giving the consumer firm ground to recover from such an unprecedented crisis.

Chris Hentemann (00:46:40):

The spirit of getting consumers back on their feet, I think we all have to unanimously support. So forbearance is really key to that, and so is giving people the room to manage their payments in the short term. Then how those plans reverse and how many people, what we always call roll rates, how many roll into a true delinquency and how many recover is really the inflection point of what we have to monitor and pay attention to.

Chris Hentemann (00:47:14):

You've seen, and as you alluded to, the data, it's still you got to look at a series. But in the short term, we've seen a slow recovery in terms of overall mortgage forbearance rates. They've peaked in the overall mortgage market in the mid eight. So about literally roughly about call it 8.5% of US mortgages were in some form of forbearance.

Chris Hentemann (00:47:41):

And then the stratification of that 8% falls into different buckets depending on what type of borrower you are. We've seen what we call the conventional or the typical Fannie Freddie borrower with roughly around a 7% forbearance rate. And then you get Ginnie borrowers which tend to have lower FICO scores, higher loan to values, less equity in the homes, may actually have less savings and these lower FICOs and they struggle to make payments. Those have been in the 12% range.

Chris Hentemann (00:48:22):

So you've seen different results in terms of forbearance uptake over the last couple months. And then in the non, what we call the GCS world of the private label mortgage world, you've seen a slightly better experience. Roughly around 6%, which you have prime borrowers that are roughly around 3%, which is still shockingly high for a very prime borrower. Then you have alternatives, which depending on the type of loan product, could be high single digits to high double digits.

Chris Hentemann (00:48:54):

So there's a lot of basically different results in terms of the uptake of forbearance plans. What we have seen is people that even take up forbearance plans have been paying to a certain degree. So I think some people are looking for the room, just like the corporates have been doing. The corporates have been hitting the primary market for liquidity because they realize they have to create reserves for their business models because they don't know how long it's going to take to get airplanes back up in the sky, to get hotels back online.

Chris Hentemann (00:49:21):

So just like what corporates are doing, the consumer's doing as well. And so they're looking for these plans to try to build some [inaudible 00:49:27] liquidity.

Chris Hentemann (00:49:28):

The last couple weeks we've seen some of that actually recede. We're seeing people get a little bit more confident about their situations and we're seeing some of that actually start to plateau. Which is a really good sign. We optimistically think that that actually could improve quite a bit.

Chris Hentemann (00:49:45):

I think we [inaudible 00:49:48] view that in this interest rate environment, particularly where you can get a mortgage, a conventional mortgage with a 2% handle to it, you'll see a lot of people basically want to keep their optionality to refinance mortgage debt. So you would likely see some of that start to recede as people take advantage of the refinancing environment as well.

Troy Gayeski (00:50:10):

Great, Chris. That's a great summary of the improvement, or at least the lack of deterioration in the data, followed by some improvements so far.

Troy Gayeski (00:50:18):

All right, guys. We've talked about how most of the sell off is technical. We talked about how fundamentals never got as bad as people feared. We've talked about, more briefly than I would've liked, about how fundamentals have improved from less bad levels.

Troy Gayeski (00:50:35):

Could we talk now briefly about the path to recovery? Again, it's hard to put numbers around it but I'm sure our viewers are very interested in hearing what do you think is a realistic return stream. What do you think the upsize surprise would be, what types of compounded returns and absolute returns can you guys put up over the next six, 12, 18 months.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:51:00):

Troy, we think we own the bonds in our main funds that you're invested in, right around a mid to low teens type yield. Something like 13 or 14%.

Troy Gayeski (00:51:15):

Was that higher than risk free, Clay? Is that higher than risk free?

Clay DeGiacinto (00:51:20):

A little bit. Right? I'm sort of myopic within structured credit and trying to think about the micro sectors that are interesting within structured credit. Listen, there's allocators all over the world that have a much tougher job, that have to think about structured credit relative to other assets.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:51:36):

When I think about an aircraft ABS or a legacy resibond or some of the stuff that we're seeing commercial right now, compared to equities. It's an equities market where Hertz can go from 75 cents to 5.50 or $6 in a matter of a few weeks. I sort of just scratch my head and I think structured credit is perhaps the most fundamentally cheap sector in the investible universe right now.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:52:05):

We own our book at mid teens type yield. That's not assuming spread tightening. That's just a function of cash flows that will come from the assets that we own. Both interest and principal. This is a great market. We get paid down every single month, right? We can do nothing.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:52:24):

In fact, tomorrow is remittance day, the 25th of every month is when we find out how the predictability, or what we assumed would've happened, what actually happened during the month of May. So we get excited about that. We call it pay day.

Troy Gayeski (00:52:39):

I want to [crosstalk 00:52:40].

Clay DeGiacinto (00:52:40):

But listen. With spread tightening, Troy, I think a very high teens or low 20s type number is completely achievable. I wouldn't say just over the next 12 months. I think that's sort of like a compounded 18 month or two year type opportunity.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:53:00):

The path to get there is a little bit more difficult. But I know that staying the course and receiving these cash flows month in, month out, is a pretty good way to get back our money.

Troy Gayeski (00:53:14):

Great. Great, Clay. TJ, my man.

TJ Durkin (00:53:17):

Yeah. We probably have a slightly different book than Clay. But we see our unlevered assets in the high single digit yields. We probably a little bit more higher in the capital structure and we do use some leverage in the book.

TJ Durkin (00:53:33):

And so if you go back to March, some of those assets were getting marked down, given that forced selling that we saw. Luckily we were not forced seller and we were able to hold on to almost all of our assets and we're now seeing that recovery back.

TJ Durkin (00:53:50):

We see a cash on cash yield over the next 12 months in the low double digits. We're running about a four and a half year spread duration. So if you look at corporates, just as [crosstalk 00:54:02].

Troy Gayeski (00:54:01):

Four and a half year unlevered, right, TJ?

TJ Durkin (00:54:03):

Unlevered. Unlevered. And so if you look at corporates, just as a natural competing product for yield buyers, if you impound a 100 base points of spread tightening, that's about nine points of total return to call it 12-13% cash yield.

TJ Durkin (00:54:20):

Again, you can pretty easily see a 20% gross return in a 12 month period. And you're not getting anywhere near the spread levels, a 100 tighter, that you saw coming in to Feb. So there's a lot of room in the middle between where we are today and saying that you have to get all the way back to February.

TJ Durkin (00:54:39):

We don't see that as a necessary event to generate those type of returns. There's a lot of room in the middle.

Troy Gayeski (00:54:47):

Chris, how about you?

Chris Hentemann (00:54:50):

I can only support what they said. I think this sector is as attractive as it's been since the last financial crisis. And largely driven from everything we just talked about, there's no better environment to invest in than when technicals overwhelm the market, overwhelm the fundamentals.

Chris Hentemann (00:55:06):

So obviously the desperate reach for liquidity in March forced prices so low they went below fundamental value. What we always see is that this sector's complicated and it takes expertise to invest in it. You just can't buy the ETF off the shelf and basically expect it to bounce back.

Chris Hentemann (00:55:29):

And so what's fantastic about it, it's frustrating for certain investors. You have to have some patience to it. Everybody asks oh, am I going to get the balance back in April. Well, the good thing is, is that if you have the patience, you're going to get ... the market got repriced due to heavy technicals, as we've all discussed.

Chris Hentemann (00:55:47):

The bounce back doesn't necessarily come back in April because, like I said, data and other information has to come out. But as it's coming out, you're starting to see this positive trajectory higher. And so we did make adjustments for what we think our new fundamental work has, we all did it.

Chris Hentemann (00:56:04):

I think I concur with the group here, is that even making provisions for what is going to be a more challenging recovery environment and the breadth of outcomes, because I don't think there's one clear, easy path to predict. I do think it's a mid to upper teen return.

Chris Hentemann (00:56:20):

What I might amplify is actually I think that those are unlevered. I think that's key, is that a lot of our strategies, as you've heard here, is I think we respect the fact that putting leverage on top of illiquid or relatively illiquid assets is kind of a dangerous combination.

Chris Hentemann (00:56:38):

I think what we're describing here is that there's ... this is an asset class trading below fundamental value. There's data coming out that supports basically the recovery trends. It will take some time. It's generally going to produce really attractive returns on an unlevered basis.

Troy Gayeski (00:56:58):

Great, Chris. Well, guys, I have to hop on a client meeting or a client call. Viewers, we appreciate you tuning in. And want to thank Clay, TJ, and Chris for joining us.

Troy Gayeski (00:57:09):

Now I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, John Darsie, who's going to give Q&A that came in from the audience during our session. Thank you so much, everyone. Have a great day.

John Darsie (00:57:19):

Yeah. We have several audience questions. I want to thank the audience for your participation. The first one is about mortgage rates and interest rates. Do you see interest rates going negative? And if so, what impact do you think that would have on the mortgage market and the real estate market?

Clay DeGiacinto (00:57:35):

That's a hard one. I don't see rates going negative. I think there's plenty of unintended consequences with negative rates. Frankly, I think that zero should be the floor.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:57:48):

What's interesting about mortgage rates, and they're at all time lows, I think certainly they're at all time lows in the agency mortgage market. They're at all time lows in the nonagency mortgage market. I think for your audience today, if you can come across or if you can take with you one thing that you should go forward after today, is to try to refinance. I think rates are exceptionally low right now.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:58:18):

But what's interesting about that refinance and the space that we invest in is the dollar price that we own our assets. And I just looked at this. Pre-COVID the average dollar price of our book was around 87 cents on the dollar. Still at a discount.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:58:35):

But post-COVID, the average price of our book right now is 70 cents on the dollar. So every refinance that comes through the system is quite beneficial for the forward cashflow profile of what we own. And so perversely, low rates is a really interesting contributor to positive P&L for discount pools of mortgage credit.

Clay DeGiacinto (00:59:01):

I think that the Fed will keep mortgage rates low, relative to the risk free rate. And frankly, I think a lot of banks and insurance companies that are trying to match their assets to their liabilities, love the mortgage asset because it can still have lot of duration even at these levels.

John Darsie (00:59:22):

All right, I'll hop to a different question that I'll direct at Chris. There's a few questions about the CMBS market that I'll sort of aggregate into one.

John Darsie (00:59:30):

What do you think ... CMBS last month had a record default rate of around 8%. What are the implications of that? And then longterm as people look at how they operate their businesses, do you think there'll be any longterm disruptions to [inaudible 00:59:46] within office buildings?

Chris Hentemann (00:59:50):

I think the answer's simply yes. I think you're seeing it play out as we speak. People are going to think about how office is used, and it's going to be used differently in the short term.

Chris Hentemann (01:00:04):

Right now it's not getting used at all, for the most part, in a lot of the major MSAs. How people reenter the office environment is going to be to be determined. Right now in New York City, you can only occupy 50%.

Chris Hentemann (01:00:20):

And then everybody's gotten so good at using basically the work from home environment. This panel actually speaks to it. I mean used to have this huge production out in Las Vegas and look at you're putting us all into the same environment very comfortably, from our own homes. It's fantastic. We've all learned to adapt.

Chris Hentemann (01:00:42):

So it's going to direct how office is used. I think the WeWork model, I don't want to call it long gone, but it's pretty much out of sight for a while. So that form of it's going to be gone, and there's probably going to be excess capacity. That's what's going to drive some of these default rates, particularly in office.

Chris Hentemann (01:01:02):

I mentioned hotel. Hotels kind of a soft spot. How people travel, how people use hotels is going to be really challenging. It's going to be another part where you can see default rates rather high.

Chris Hentemann (01:01:13):

Retail, again, the same thing. There's going to be retail has been under duress for a long time. Likely to continue to basically support the default rates.

Chris Hentemann (01:01:24):

I was mentioning the shorting of housing, and household formation is positive. People basically are going to need places to live. If the unemployment environment remains high, people are going to look for affordability products like what Clay was speaking. We have the same view. Multi family is going to be probably one of the oases in the real estate market.

Chris Hentemann (01:01:48):

It's probably one of the most mixed pictures in terms of how different forms of real estate are going to be used going forward. It's going to drive all of our decisions in terms of what we decide to invest in.

Chris Hentemann (01:02:00):

I think hopefully I gave you some leading indications in terms of where we're going to be biased.

John Darsie (01:02:07):

Yeah, that's great. We're going to wrap it up with one more question here for TJ, before we let you guys go. And thanks for doing a little overtime with us.

John Darsie (01:02:14):

I know distressed credit is not necessarily exactly where you fit in, TJ. But we have a question about the distressed credit cycle and traded credit and whether the speed of the selloff that was liquidity driven, as we've talked about, and the subsequent recovery. Has the opportunities in the distressed credit space disappeared? Or do private distressed opportunities make a little bit more sense in this environment?

TJ Durkin (01:02:39):

No. We have a very large distressed business here and I can tell that's why you asked me that question. But if you go back to before COVID, the fundamental building blocks of how I think we were investing was the consumer's in good shape, housing's in good shape.

TJ Durkin (01:02:57):

And everyone was focused on the quality of leveraged loans, the lack of covenants, the leverage going into the corporate space, and it was blinking yellow to say the least. And so this is only, I think, pulled forward a lot of the balance sheet issues.

TJ Durkin (01:03:17):

Just like Chris talked about retail, retail was a problem before COVID. Obviously it's been exasperated by it. So I think you're seeing the sound investment grade companies that had those sharp technical selloffs, those opportunities are gone for March.

TJ Durkin (01:03:33):

But you're going to continue, I think, to see a very healthy pipeline of restructurings that I think, again, we're in the model for maybe 2020, maybe 2021. But people were setting up for it, it just got pulled forward a lot.

TJ Durkin (01:03:50):

The Fed isn't looking to take credit risk. They've made that very clear. They're looking to support the markets. I think there'll be plenty to do in distressed.

John Darsie (01:04:00):

All right. Thank you for that, TJ. Again, Clay, Chris, TJ, thank you for joining us.

Alex Denner: Biotech Billionaire | SALT Talks #9

“Economic recovery is all about confidence.”

Alex Denner, Ph.D., is the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of Sarissa Capital Management, an activist firm investing in opportunities crated by the unique dynamics of the healthcare sector. Alex has a background in biomedical engineering.

“Vaccines are a hard business.” At the time of this interview, there were 160 companies working on vaccines, the most promising of which was a mRNA vaccine produced by Moderna. The production timeline is unprecedented and, while results are showing signs of early efficacy, there isn’t enough data to ward off concerns of side effects.

As it relates to the economy, the recovery will be less about the technical virus protection and more about confidence in not suffering from severe level of COVID-19 disease. One question is put to bed: COVID-19 is worse than the seasonal flu.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Denner%2C+Alexander.jpeg

Alex Denner

Chief Investment Officer

Sarissa Capital Management

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

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 geopolitics. SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews we've been doing in lieu our in-person conference that do deep dives in the topics that we think are relevant to the investment management community and our global community.

John Darsie (00:31):

Today we're very excited to dive into a topic that's especially relevant given what's going on with the global pandemic with Alex Denner who is the ... that focuses, I'll read a little bit more about Alex's bio. He is a PhD, as well as the founder and CEO of Sarissa as I mentioned. He's been investing in healthcare companies for the past two decades. In 2013, he founded Sarissa to capitalize on the compelling opportunities for positive shareholder activism created by the unique dynamics of the healthcare sector.

John Darsie (01:05):

Dr. Denner has led Sarissa's involvement some of biopharma's most successful strategic transactions and activist campaigns. Prior to founding Sarissa, he was the healthcare portfolio manager for Icahn Capital and at Icahn he developed Icahn's activist strategy in the healthcare sector and was responsible for some of the firm's most successful investments. Prior to joining Icahn, he was a health care portfolio manager at Morgan Stanley, as well as at Viking Global. Today, Alex serves on the board of Biogen as a director, and he's the chairman of the Medicines Company. He received his bachelor's degree from MIT and his master's and PhD degrees from Yale University.

John Darsie (01:46):

If you have any questions for Dr. Denner on today's chat, please use the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen, and I'm going to turn it over to host the interview to Anthony Scaramucci who is the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge Capital, as well as the chairman of SALT. So Anthony, you go ahead and take it away.

Anthony Scaramucci (02:04):

I appreciate it John. Alex, it's great to be with you. You got a fascinating story. John's bio of you was great, but I want to hear more. Tell us more about your background, tell us how you got to where you are because I want people to understand the significance of your credentials before I start asking these questions.

Alex Denner (02:25):

Thank you Anthony. Thank you for having me speak with you. So yeah, my background basically I have a ... My academic background is in essentially biomedical engineering. And from there I went to Morgan Stanley, had always been interested in investing, and basically became also interested in activism. The idea that for many companies, they're not well managed. There are a lot of principal-agent issues and the companies are often run more for the management teams than the companies themselves. And it's a very interesting intersection there between healthcare and activism.

Alex Denner (03:07):

So having a background in biomedical engineering, I did a thesis on identifying people susceptible to certain types of ventricular arrhythmias, certain types of heart attacks. Basically we approached the situation with the philosophy that in healthcare companies are very ... because they have very high margins and very high barriers to entry, the opportunity for a company to sort of be under managed and still kind of get away with it, if you will, is higher.

Alex Denner (03:51):

I actually approached Carl Icahn with this kind of philosophy and sort of started doing investing in that. And I've been involved in a whole bunch of transactions and investments in the healthcare industry over time. And really what we do is we get in and we try to fix companies. So we've been involved in, as Jonathan said, Biogen, Medicines Company, ARIAD, ImClone, Genzyme, MedImmune. There's a whole bunch of companies that we've been involved with, and really try to make better and often through that process end up in an M&A situation.

Anthony Scaramucci (04:32):

But you know a lot about science and you know a lot about research into vaccines and you know a lot about this disease that the entire world is now struggling with. So I want to go right there, and tell us a little bit about your opinion of the various organizations that are working on a vaccine and working on therapies to help people that have COVID-19.

Alex Denner (04:59):

Yeah, sure. I think there are approximately 160 people out there working on vaccines, and countless, more than a thousand efforts that are on therapies. I think that at this point vaccines are a very hard business, and I think we should sort of take a step back in terms of thinking about it from a societal point of view. It's very hard to develop vaccines, and there are viruses for which we haven't, HIV being a classic example, that people have been working on for decades and we don't have vaccines that work. And there are also viruses, Dengue Fever being probably the most highest profile example where vaccines have been developed that can actually make an infection, a subsequent infection from the disease worse. So a person can be vaccinated, in certain circumstances get worse because they had been vaccinated when they get an infection of Dengue.

Alex Denner (06:09):

So the development is very complicated, and we have to sort of look at things in that light. I am optimistic that we're going to have a vaccine relatively soon. In fact, I think we'll have a number of them. There's a bunch of different technologies that people are working on. The ones that are sort of the highest profile and certainly in the US probably the mRNA vaccines where Moderna is kind of the leader there, Pfizer is also, has a bunch candidates, there's no ... That particular technology has never been successfully implemented in an approved vaccine.

Alex Denner (06:50):

On the other hand, the data that has come out so far has been very promising. And one of the most exciting parts about that approach is that it's relatively quick. You can design the molecule that could produce the immune response and test it quickly and also scale it quickly. So if one of these RNA or DNA vaccines works, it's pretty easy to make, relatively easy to make, hundreds of millions and billions of doses.

Alex Denner (07:25):

The sort of more traditional technologies of using vaccines where the virus has been, like the actual virus it's a killed version of the virus or a more sophisticated technology called live attenuated vaccine, we basically take the virus and don't kill it but damage it in a way that it can't cause a serious infection. Those types of vaccines generally have very good immune responses, like our bodies react well to them and create robust responses, but the timelines to develop them are much longer. So it's-

Anthony Scaramucci (08:07):

So Alex, what timeframe are we talking about though when you say relatively early? When do you think we'll see the vaccine?

Alex Denner (08:18):

A lot of people work on them, and I think that given the day that's come out heretofore, I think it is possible that we'll have multiple vaccines that are showing efficacy this year. Now, that doesn't mean that they're going ... I don't think there'll be a widely available vaccine this year. I think that it'll take some time to scale it up. Moderna has been highlighting that they think at the beginning of the year they may be able to scale to a large number of doses to treat a significant percentage of the US population, but they might be able to treat so high-risk people earlier than that.

Alex Denner (09:01):

There are many risks to that though, and I think that it's not ... I'm more hopeful than I was two or three months ago in terms of a vaccine being developed in the next few months. But I think it's important to note that we may not have a vaccine at all for the next couple of years. It is possible. We have to think about kind of how society will adapt if that is the case.

Anthony Scaramucci (09:27):

But you're optimistic. And just one more question on this because I think our audience is actually interested in this stuff. What can we learn from the prior pandemics? The Spanish flu pandemic is an example, no vaccine, yet the society did go on to progress and we created the roaring '20s shortly after that pandemic ended. So what can we learn from that?

Alex Denner (09:50):

Exactly. No, that's a very interesting area. Look, there have been many pandemics in history as you know Anthony. In the Bible, they mention the plagues and smallpox and cholera and the Black Death in Europe. And these things that have occurred many, many times. And there are many kind of historical lessons that we can learn. They generally, without mitigation kind of most viral pandemics last a few months and they have a few waves. So think of a few months long wave and there's usually maybe three waves. In this case we have ... This is the first time the whole world is really coordinated to do social distancing to slow down the vaccine. So it'll change the dynamics somewhat, but I think we can sort of look to history and say, "Well, this has happened many times before. We've got through that."

Alex Denner (10:53):

Almost all respiratory viruses have a seasonal component. So I think that's an important part here that although we're seeing like in Texas and Florida an increase in the number of cases, and that's very troubling. I think that's something that we should all be focused on, I do expect, I think the sort of the best guess is that there'll be a re-acceleration of viral infections in the fall that just most respiratory viruses behave that way. And that occurred with the Spanish influenza. That occurred with lots of influenza pandemics.

Alex Denner (11:33):

From a societal point of view, in the US, we're learning a lot about how to manage the disease medically. We just saw the recent news on dexamethasone being used and basically kind of in the later stages of the disease it helps, which is very important to know.

Anthony Scaramucci (11:49):

But let's explain how it helps. So what's happening is you're getting an overreaction from your immune system, right, and it's flooding your cells in a way that's causing a breakdown. So it's an immunosuppressant drug to knock that down. Is that a fair characterization?

Alex Denner (12:08):

That's exactly correct. This virus has an acute phase that typically kind of lasts say a week or two, and most people clear the virus. Some people don't, the ones who get more severe disease, and they tend to have an overreaction of their immune system. And steroids can be used to dampen that down also. Tocilizumab is also used in that regard.

Alex Denner (12:40):

It's important that we understand that steroids can actually reduce our body's ability to fight an infection. So you generally don't want to give them early in this stage of an infection. But when someone's in that state where their body is overreacting to the infection, the steroid is going to be very useful. And that's an example, is one of the things that we're learning kind of as the world gets experienced with this in terms of medical management, managing people who have severe disease. And I think even in the absence of a vaccine and in the absence of any new therapies, and I do think we'll have things beyond Remdesivir, in the absence of those, doctors will better understand how to manage patients and improve outcomes.

Alex Denner (13:32):

One of the things that's interesting is that the disease appears to be a disease of endothelial dysfunction. So it's a disease related to clotting of the blood. It's not just a lung infection. It's doing other things systemically. And I think that, the recognition of that is becoming sort of ... Most people would say that generally that's probably what the virus is, and that medical management of that, like reducing oxidative stress, that type of thing can help improve outcomes.

Anthony Scaramucci (14:09):

So I'm going to ask you three questions in rapid-fire succession and so you can give me a yes or no, your opinion of course. COVID-19, is it worse than the flu?

Alex Denner (14:22):

Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci (14:24):

The mortality rate is worse than the flu?

Alex Denner (14:26):

Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci (14:28):

At this stage in the pandemic, would you take your kids out to a restaurant?

Alex Denner (14:38):

I think probably a qualified yes to that, but I think you have to do that very carefully. I actually went to a restaurant today. It's the first time I've done that. It was a restaurant by the sea. We were 10 feet away from everyone else-

Anthony Scaramucci (14:56):

Alex, did you have a martini or something? Hopefully yeah. What did you drink at the restaurant? Don't tell me iced tea. I'm going to cut the internet.

Alex Denner (15:03):

Unfortunately that is what we had, is iced tea.

Anthony Scaramucci (15:03):

Yeah, iced tea, all right.

Alex Denner (15:07):

I think that during the daytime, when there's kind of a breeze, if you will, when people are not close together, I think it's very important who you're having, choosing to have a meal with, if you go to a restaurant, it's a very important thing if you're [crosstalk 00:15:25]

Anthony Scaramucci (15:26):

You were out. Let me just stipulate for everybody. You were outdoors. You were eating at fresco.

Alex Denner (15:31):

I was outdoors and 12 to ... It's 10 to 15 feet away from anyone else. Look, I think that was a calculated risk doing that. I don't think we should be doing that a lot. I do think that in ... Like I live in Connecticut. In this area, the virus was very bad a few months ago. It was horrible. It was really, really bad, and it's come down a lot. So I think it depends a lot of where you are geographically too. But during the summer I think it's important to kind of get out a little bit, not to ...

Anthony Scaramucci (16:10):

What about flying in an airplane Alex? Would you fly in an airplane?

Alex Denner (16:14):

No.

Anthony Scaramucci (16:15):

Okay. Tell us why not.

Alex Denner (16:17):

I think that the ... Look, obviously there's always a risk benefit analysis with that, and sometimes is you need to fly for some important reason I would do it I guess, but the whole process of commercial airline flight is very ... it has lots of opportunities for introducing infection. So the actual being on the plane, you're in an enclosed can, sitting next to people who you don't have any idea of sort of their viral status for an extended period of time. You're touching lots of things. You're interfacing with lots of people. You got to go through an airport to get to the plane. You got to go through security. You got to go to the gate. And when you get out of the plane, you got to go through an airport. You have to think about transportation to wherever you're going. Those types of things are, for me, I don't plan on going on a commercial flight for a vacation kind of purpose in the near term.

Anthony Scaramucci (17:21):

There are people that think if you've gotten the disease and you have the antibodies, you can still get the disease. So can you still get the disease after you've gotten the disease? And what's the difference between synthetic and natural antibodies?

Alex Denner (17:35):

So once the person has had the disease, it's very unlikely that they can get it again. I mean, almost, almost impossible. I don't want to say impossible because there can be ... It'll be very, very hard, for a period of time. I think the question that we don't really know is how long does immunity last for this particular infection.

Alex Denner (17:59):

When somebody gets the chickenpox, they get essentially lifelong immunity to that virus. In the case of corona viruses, the immunity that most people get lasts kind of months or a short number of years. So I think that, again, we don't know, but based on sort of an educated guess on similar viruses it's probably the case that a person can get reinfected in a year and a half but not two months later.

Alex Denner (18:33):

With respect to antibodies. Our bodies when a person gets infected, our immune system kind of kicks in and there's a whole bunch of things that happen. And one of the things that happen is that there's a part of the body that makes antibodies which are substances that go and find things that look like the virus and latch on to it and essentially kill it. Once we've had the infection and our body has created the antibodies, the virus usually goes away or almost all that goes away very quickly. You can take ...

Alex Denner (19:16):

So somebody that's had the virus and then recovered will have antibodies in their blood. So you can do so-called convalescent plasma where you take the blood out of a person who has recovered from the infection, isolate the antibodies, the plasma in the blood, and then inject that into a person who's suffering from an acute infection. That usually helps people. It's not 100% clear that that's efficacious, but it's very, very likely to be efficacious.

Alex Denner (19:50):

Then the next step is let's make those antibodies synthetically. So what I just described is taking an antibody from somebody that has an infection. It's obviously kind of hard to scale and it's a lot of complication with that. It'd be great if you can design the antibody and manufacture it at scale and give it to people so they would have ... It's kind of like a mini vaccine in a way.

Alex Denner (20:13):

That is a very exciting approach. I think the technical probably of that working is quite high. There's a bunch of companies working on that. I'm involved with a company that has a role in that. Probably the leader is Regeneron. They've been working really hard and have some very exciting ideas and they're pursuing that very quickly. That's not something that can be ...

Alex Denner (20:38):

Making the antibodies is a complex process. So it's not something that can be scaled to sort of giving them to everybody in the world. But when we have data that those, that synthetically created antibodies work, they probably would work prophylactically and therapeutically. So in other words, they would probably work to prevent an infection if you gave it to a person who is at high risk for an infection, as well as if you gave it to a person in the early stage of infection and it probably would make the disease go away more quickly.

Anthony Scaramucci (21:15):

In listening to you speak about this, and obviously we know a lot about you and your firm, you're cautiously, can I frame it this way, you're cautiously optimistic about a therapy and a vaccine, and let's call it over the next year, that those things will unfold.

Alex Denner (21:33):

Yes. Even more than ... Hopefully sooner than that even.

Anthony Scaramucci (21:38):

Okay. In your mind you've been an investor for your whole career. So what does that mean for the US economy? What does that mean for the stock market? And what does that mean for the industries and the sectors that you're involved?

Alex Denner (21:51):

Okay. In terms of the societal and the investing impacts, I mean I think, first of all, we have to think of all the different possibilities. So it is possible that we have no vaccine for five years. It's important for as an investor have that in the frame of possible outcomes.

Anthony Scaramucci (22:13):

If that happens Alex, I'm going to stick half of my SkyBridge employees in that beautiful office of yours, okay? We're going to be living rent-free in your house, okay?

Alex Denner (22:21):

There you go. [inaudible 00:22:24]

Anthony Scaramucci (22:24):

Keep going.

Alex Denner (22:29):

That said, I do think it's very likely we'll kind of have some therapies. Economic recovery is all about confidence. So I think it's less about the sort of the technical level of virus protection in the population and whether it's 69% or 73%, but it's people feeling confident that if they go out, they have a low chance of getting a serious disease from doing that. And that can come from a vaccine, that can come from sort of better treatment so that the disease much more rarely become serious.

Alex Denner (23:11):

I do think that that will occur sort of a relatively soon, certainly not this year but kind of probably the beginning of next year. And I think that that will allow us to get back to sort of a something quasi normal. There are industries like that are very ...restaurants and things will probably take longer to kind of get back to full normal, and there are industries that where work from home is working well that are unaffected now or relatively affected there.

Anthony Scaramucci (23:56):

You don't have to give specific stocks but just give us generically the sectors that you're the most bullish on. And if you want to give specific stocks or even are allowed to, I don't know what the regulations are around your firm, but where are you, what do you long, what do you like, what don't you like?

Alex Denner (24:15):

So invest in healthcare stocks. I think one of the most ... So one of the things that's going on here is that in healthcare appropriately everyone is focused on the coronavirus. The companies that are working on that are sort of at the highlight of everybody's thinking. In fact, when you look at the healthcare index performance, it's been largely driven by a few names that have benefited, that the stocks have gone up a lot because they offer promise to sort of have a vaccine or treatment for the coronavirus.

Alex Denner (25:00):

As a healthcare investor, I think that there are promising investments there and we're pursuing them, but I think the bigger opportunity is actually in the sort of non-coronavirus related healthcare therapeutic side. Those companies are being not ignored but they're getting less attention than they normally would. Cancer is still unfortunately just as serious of disease as it was six months ago. Heart disease is still unfortunately just as serious. There have been changes in the industry like the FDA has had to adapt very rapidly to the coronavirus and regulations that were well intentioned but were really kind of slowing the industry down have been bulldozed away.

Alex Denner (25:52):

Kind of one of the best examples of that is in the telehealth area where before, six months ago very few people talked to their physicians over the internet. It was done but it was a very small part of the healthcare ecosystem and the government didn't pay for it by and large and it was very difficult. That has changed completely now as everyone knows, and I think that that frankly is good for everyone, that society will be better off having that trend having accelerated.

Alex Denner (26:31):

There are many, many regulations in healthcare that have been disintermediated by this coronavirus, and basically that whether it's CMS or HHS or the FDA have issued emergency guidance, there's a technical matter is limited to the time during the coronavirus emergency, but I think would permanently changed how we do drug development and deliver healthcare-

Anthony Scaramucci (26:59):

But permanently changed but in your mind better, right? I mean, a little bit less [crosstalk 00:27:02]. We both know the thalidomide story from the '50s which really stunted the FDA. And for those, people that are so young that they don't know that story, they blocked that drug. It was a morning sickness drug. They blocked it in the US. They allowed it in Europe. The side effects of it was it caused limb deformities and so the FDA celebrated that, that they slowed it down, and that made it a lot harder to get drugs through as a result of things like thalidomide.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:31):

So you're saying they've opened this up a little bit. But we also know that they have more scientific data now than they did in the 1950s, and they're able to do broader testing. So that whole process makes those drugs safer. Would that be safe to say?

Alex Denner (27:48):

Yes. I think that ... Look, thalidomide is a great example to bring up. I mean, the FDA has a very important role to play in evaluating drugs, and they're going to demand and rightfully they're going to continue to demand safety data, especially in the tragedy of thalidomide where a drug, a morning sickness drug actually caused birth defects, right? That kind of thing will still be done and should be done. But allowing some ... Like using technology in clinical trials. Not all things have to be done in person. Just many of those sort of bureaucratic rules that have existed because there was no other way to do them when they were implemented have been swept away. And I think frankly it's going to accelerate drug development, it's going to accelerate the value that the healthcare system delivers.

Alex Denner (28:48):

We all know the healthcare system, I think the drug development system in the US is fantastic and works really. The healthcare delivery system doesn't. I don't think anyone thinks that that's kind of extremely well functioning. And I think we're going to come out of this with a better healthcare system. I think that many of the over-regulation and the Balkanization of the healthcare system, people have been forced to work together because the coronavirus, and it works better and we're going to end ... When we get past this, the healthcare delivery I think will be better for it.

Alex Denner (29:31):

I mean, the whole experience of going to a hospital will be easier for patients, will be better for the healthcare providers. Doctors will be better able to treat patients. I think it's really going to be ... There's a silver lining in all of this.

Anthony Scaramucci (29:46):

And I think that's an important segue Alex because in the crisis, a lot of opportunity gets born. In the 2008 crisis, we actually started the SALT conference as a response to that crisis. So I'm very optimistic as you are that things will change for the better. I want to turn it over to our viewers and listeners. John Darsie is going to ask you some questions that are coming in over the transom here, and we've got a ton of audience participation. So go ahead John.

John Darsie (30:18):

Yeah, the first question relates to your process as an activist in the healthcare space. When you're identifying potential targets for an activist campaign, how do you dive into that business and differentiate in terms of measuring why their performance suffered? How do you differentiate between a company that was mismanaged that actually has good drugs but was just fundamentally mismanaged and between companies that either have drugs that are flawed and aren't performing well because the quality of the drug?

Alex Denner (30:49):

Okay, so that's a good question. We do a lot of work on that. Basically it's just, it's gumshoe research. I think that we have a very ... We have a great team, MDs, PhDs, people that are really expert in healthcare. And we dig deep into the pipelines in the currently marketed products of each of the investments that we make.

Alex Denner (31:21):

What we look for, we basically, our process is basically, we look at companies and we sort of look at, we say, "Okay, we know the products, the pipeline, the technologies that they have," and then we ... Because we have a lot of experience in the space, we know the space very well, we can sort of put a cost structure around that. So we can sort of say, "Okay, if the company has three drugs in certain therapeutic areas, we know how much it will take to sell those drugs."

Alex Denner (31:50):

And to first order, we don't take account of what the company is, whether they have ... what their cost structure looks like. We just sort of build what it should be in our model, and we DCF that. And we look at that, that DCF compared to the market price. Was a huge difference like 2x, we sort of get interested, and then we say, "If there's a way that we can put a leverage on the company, can we push the company to change their strategy such that it's better run for investors, the owners, then we'll get involved." And we typically will take a position and typically seek to join the board and kind of often that involves a management change, although not always.

Alex Denner (32:36):

In doing that analysis, we really look for products because it's a long term strategy that we get involved in the company, we're investing, we plan to be investors for years that we look for things that are innovative, that truly add, that benefit patients, that ameliorate a disease in a real way. And those are the types of companies we get involved with. But less interested in a company that has a me-too thing, that's just sort of maybe slightly better than somebody else, because we need to have a very big difference between the value when the company's run properly and the current market price.

Alex Denner (33:28):

The other thing to note is that people ... In the sector we interface with a lot of investors and we get a lot of feedback. So a lot of institutional shareholders will call us and we may hear from five or six institutional shareholders over the course of whatever, some year or whatever, that they're unhappy with the way a particular company is being run. And that's usually not something that it's news to us, but it helps us understand the psychology, the shareholder base that they're ready to implement changes, they're ready to push the company to be run better.

John Darsie (34:12):

Thanks for that Alex. The next question is about the telehealth space. What's your general view on telehealth and do you have any favorite names in the space?

Alex Denner (34:24):

I like telehealth a lot as I mentioned earlier. I think that it's going to become a bigger part of healthcare. I don't have any particular favorite names. I think that one should think about telehealth as the specific part that, is the visible part where the patient interacts with the physician. But also there's a lot of things that can be done with even clinical trial work where you can do remote monitoring of patients, the types of things like we were talking earlier. The FDA's been very forward-thinking in many things, but it's been taking some time to get to kind of incorporate some of these technologies. And I think by necessity, if a company is developing a drug where they can't ... It's not easy to have a patient come in every month to the doctor. The solution maybe a tele solution. So I think it's very important for our healthcare now. It's going to become more important over time and it's going to make the system more efficient.

John Darsie (35:47):

Thank you for that Alex. The next question is you talked a little about a timeline for a vaccine. What would you put in terms of your degree of confidence in percentage terms of a vaccine coming out before the end of 2020?

Alex Denner (36:01):

First of all, let's define what this means. I think to have data that shows that one or more vaccines have some level of efficacy, let's say they reduce severity of the disease in a large fraction of patients or maybe they provide sterilizing immunity in 50% or 70% of patients. I would say that the probability of that occurring by the end of the year is more than 50%. I would have said less than ... I would have been a much lower number three months ago or two months ago, but I think we've seen some data that's been published that has been very exciting from a number of different groups.

Alex Denner (36:47):

Now, there's a different question though which is when is a vaccine going to be broadly available say to Americans or globally around the world? And I think that's something that's unlikely to occur for a broad availability of vaccines, unlikely to occur this calendar year. And if everything goes right, in the US we may have access to that, say, in the first quarter of next year. But that sort of requires everything kind of going right. So I would say there's, maybe to have a vaccine widely available, a 50% chance of it widely available probably would be by the first quarter of next year, at 50%. And I would say 75% by the end of next year.

John Darsie (37:42):

Thank you. In terms of geographically, do you focus on US-based companies or what do you view as the opportunity within healthcare in emerging markets like India and China?

Alex Denner (37:53):

We look at all companies around the world. We do everything in healthcare. That said, we sort of focus on therapeutics. And a lot of the innovation in therapeutics is happening in the US. So we tend to be sort of US focused. There's a lot of opportunity in the US for what we do. Healthcare companies, it's really hard to develop drugs, but when they do it, it's a very high barrier to entry, very high margin business generally, and it's easy for companies to sort of get lackadaisical with respect to capital allocations. So there's an opportunity for us to get involved. So if it's a US company, just most of the companies end up being US. But we look globally.

Alex Denner (38:41):

In China and India, look, I think one of the things that's coming from the coronavirus is India for instance has a fantastically sophisticated generic drug business. There's a bunch of companies that have brought a lot of innovation and brought pills, generic pills available at very low costs to a lot of the world.

Alex Denner (39:07):

But what I think a lot of people come to realize it's having to domestic capabilities, especially as a matter of national security for the US is very important. So I think that you're going to see grow, an increase in the amount of basic provider generic manufacturing, if you will, in the US, so-called API manufacturing, active pharmaceutical. I don't think that will come into the detriment of India and China, but it probably will reduce their growth rates compared to what was projected before the pandemic.

John Darsie (39:43):

Thank you. We have one final question, another one about your investment process as an activist in the healthcare space. A lot of times activism within healthcare is focused on going into mature companies and trying to identify ways to improve their financial performance. How do you look at activism in the therapeutic space for companies with pre-approval drugs or that are earlier on in the drug development process?

Alex Denner (40:09):

First of all, our type of activism is a little bit different than sort of the classical activism in that we look to fix the businesses. And that's a very hands-on thing where we get involved with the companies in terms of the way the operations are being run and sort of make capital allocation more efficient. We hopefully do allocate R&D better, that type of thing. And that can be done in the late stage and early stage the same way.

Alex Denner (40:52):

That said, we tend to be focused on later stage companies because we like companies where there's multiple drivers of cash flow. But there are many early stage companies that have frankly because the index, the market's been up a lot recently, there have been a lot of companies perceive their cost of capital to be essentially zero and they've been spending less judiciously than they should be. So that I think there's an opportunity for activism there. But that is not the sort of classic activism of the financial type thing which we tend not to do anyway.

John Darsie (41:37):

All right. Well, we want to thank Alex Denner for joining us today on SALT Talks. Anthony, I don't know if you have any additional final thoughts?

Anthony Scaramucci (41:44):

No, I mean, I think he wins Room Reader so far. I mean, I'm impressed with all the paneling behind you there Alex. God bless you. Wish you health and safety, and hopefully we'll get some real medical progress on this. But I think it was really terrific today Alex. You put it in historical context what we're all going through and how we're all going to come out of it and hopefully be just fine.

Anthony Scaramucci (42:11):

But in the meantime, I wish everybody great personal safety, health and happiness, and Alex, we'll hopefully see you soon. And I promise you, I'll be buying you martinis. You won't be drinking iced tea with me Alex, okay? That's my promise.

Alex Denner (42:23):

That sounds great Anthony. Thank you very much and thank you John and health and happiness to both you guys and stay safe and appreciate that you're there.