SALT NY: CAIS Alts Track

Private Market Value Creation & the Road to Exit | #SALTNY

Private Market Value Creation & the Road to Exit with Sanjay Patel, Chairman International & Senior Partner of Private Equity, Apollo. David Lebovitz, Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Asset Management.

Moderated by Bailey Mccann, Senior News Editor, Opalesque.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Patel, Sanjay - Cropped.jpeg

Sanjay Patel

Chairman International & Senior Partner of Private Equity

Apollo Management

Headshot - Lebovitz, David - Cropped.jpeg

David Lebovitz

Executive Director

J.P. Morgan Asset Management

 

MODERATOR

Bailey Mccann.jpeg

Bailey McCann

Senior News Editor

Opalesque

 

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Bailey McCann: (00:07)
Okay. I think we can get started. My name's Bailey McCann. I'm the senior editor at Opalesque, and we are here to talk about private market value creation, and the road to exit. We've got Sanjay and David here, and you guys can introduce yourselves, and then we'll get into the questions.

Sanjay Patel: (00:24)
Sure. Thanks, Bailey. Great to be here. So I'm Sanjay Patel. I'm a senior partner and chairman of our international business at Apollo Management, thirty-fourth here in the private equity credit old space of my career in London, half my career, and probably in New York, pretty much invested across every asset class in the industry. So, excited to be here.

David Lebovitz: (00:47)
David Lebovitz. I don't have 34, 35 years of experience, clearly. But I work at JP Morgan, within the asset management business, and I do macroeconomic and asset allocation research. So very much focused on the way the world looks from 20,000 feet, and increasingly, alternatives are becoming part of the solution set that our clients are embracing, to try to realize their portfolio outcomes. Glad to be here, and looking forward to the conversation.

Bailey McCann: (01:13)
Great. Thanks, guys. Let's just get started with kind of a broad question, in terms of how you're thinking around value creation right now. What are the interesting themes or opportunities that you're seeing out there?

Sanjay Patel: (01:27)
Maybe I'll kick it off? Obviously, it's a broad, broad question, maybe addressed ... Obviously at Apollo, we do private equity, credit, and real assets, but on the private equity side, some observations.

Sanjay Patel: (01:41)
I mean, you think about when we think about value creation in our business, you talk about, can you create value on the buy? How do you create value when you own an asset, and how do you create value on the exit?

Sanjay Patel: (01:54)
That's the life cycle of private equity. It's interesting, I would say, having lived in the industry for decades. Valuation's at an all time high.

Sanjay Patel: (02:06)
However, I think we still, at Apollo, from our vantage point, there are lots of ways, roads to success, in private equity. We still think creating value at the buy is an incredibly important component of private equity investing. We're not a traditional growth capital investor.

Sanjay Patel: (02:26)
Today, there's tons of companies that you can still do that. We just announced a very big deal with Yahoo, buying from Verizon. So here was, what, a classic Apollo deal, a corporate carveout. Verizon wanted to get rid of assets, a complex set of assets.

Sanjay Patel: (02:45)
We were the buyer for the whole package. There's some good assets and there's some complicated assets, and assets that lose money, assets that make money, but it's figuring it all out, and creating a holistic solution. So we think that can be a very interesting opportunity.

Sanjay Patel: (02:59)
On the creation during the life cycle, I would say, just listening to Dan Loeb this morning, he mentioned this concept of, 30 years ago, we were creating value in a certain way.

Sanjay Patel: (03:10)
30 years into the industry's development, I'd say the institutionalization of value creation has become phenomenal, so our ability to take a company, and drive value in every aspect of it. We have at Apollo, a team now called the Apollo Portfolio Performance Solutions Group, which is a group ... We have data scientists, HR, ESG, purchasing, everything to drive costs down, ride revenue up, think about technology.

Sanjay Patel: (03:46)
Getting the data from our portfolio companies, which we own a lot of throughout the world, every week, is enormously valuable to us as an investor, for both those companies and all the companies. So there's a constant life cycle, and everyone has done it. All the other big firms do it.

Sanjay Patel: (04:04)
I think we have institutionalized it much more in the last five years than in the last 15 years before that. I think that will continue. So we're, I think, better owners of companies as an industry than we were 20 or 30 years ago, and you create value.

Sanjay Patel: (04:18)
Then finally, on the exit, and I think we'll talk a little bit more about this, you have to be, even, you're a micro investor in private equity, you're buying companies, but you have to be very cognizant today on the macro. What I mean by that is, you're managing a fund.

Sanjay Patel: (04:36)
You've got to think about exits constantly, the public markets and the private markets, and we're constantly thinking about that, because the life cycle of the public markets and the macro influences that enormously, more so than it did 20 or 30 years ago. We've become, I think, better sellers over the last decade that I've been in Apollo.

David Lebovitz: (05:01)
I would agree with a lot of that. I think the one thing you said that really struck me, and I would agree with, is the data side of things. There's so much more insight into what's happening in the day to day. You can see things with a higher frequency, you can reach out and talk, to not just clients and consumers, but also experts within the industry in which you're investing.

David Lebovitz: (05:21)
So we see it from a macro research perspective, we see it from more of a micro perspective, when we look at the portfolio companies in the funds. The ability to get a better reading of the pulse is how I would think about it. I think it is a real source of alpha, and will continue to be a source of alpha, going forward.

David Lebovitz: (05:40)
I think, something else that's very interesting, you mentioned the macro, and this is really a function of what happened during the pandemic. But in the United States, you saw applications for small businesses just shoot through the roof, right? So you saw a huge opportunity set be created.

David Lebovitz: (05:55)
What we're finding now is that those companies are getting to a point where they need funding. So I think what's also really interesting is that the pandemic, to your point, again, on the macro, created this sea change within the economy broadly, very much moving away from large corporate, the things that have worked well for the better part of the past decades, and really seeing tremendous growth in those new stage companies.

David Lebovitz: (06:19)
It's about looking at that opportunity set, understanding what you can do with data to create that operational leverage. Then, to your point on the exit, there's a chart in a publication that we produce, called The Guide to Alternatives, that overlays the share of PE deals in the software sector, with investment in software, as represented by the national accounts, right?

David Lebovitz: (06:38)
Companies are investing more in technology, and that has played a key role in one's ability to exit at a reasonable price. So I would agree with a lot of what you said on the private equity side.

David Lebovitz: (06:48)
I think the private credit side becomes a little bit ... When I think about value creation in private credit, I tend to move more towards the distressed area, and providing interesting financing solutions to businesses that have fallen on tough times.

David Lebovitz: (07:02)
I struggle to see how there's tremendous value creation in something like direct lending. But regardless of which lever you're pulling, whether it's the equity lever or the credit lever, again, I think that the data is really what's differentiating that marketplace today, relative to even where we were during the prior cycle, is very much are very much our view.

Sanjay Patel: (07:22)
Can I just comment maybe on the private credit side? I don't disagree with David.

Sanjay Patel: (07:26)
I think, obviously, there's, well, we can talk more about this. Credit, we certainly are from today, at 460 billion, we have 300-plus billion, 330 billion of yield credit on 30 billion of hybrid capital, that we call hybrid capital, and 90 billion of opportunities to capital.

Sanjay Patel: (07:48)
Mark Rowan, our new CEO, would say that our yield business is going to grow significantly, because the demand for yield, and Dave and I were talking about it, it's all about the demand for yield. So private equity is an opportunity business.

Sanjay Patel: (08:02)
There are not that many 25% return opportunities, but if you look at the five to 12% yield business, that is an engine that is going to drive ahead with the demand on the investor side. And then, the creation on the origination, for us, becomes a very, very important question, because we have to originate a lot of private credit.

Sanjay Patel: (08:24)
I think the alpha there is, for us, certainly, I think you'll see us, as the banks' interest in really underwriting risk has gone down over the last decades, we are becoming originators of that risk globally. You're going to see us originate significant scale, private credit throughout the world, and we've done it.

Sanjay Patel: (08:52)
That means some landmark transactions over the last ... It's over COVID actually, for Hertz, for ADNOC, for big, big corporate institutions, that weren't the purview of alternative players, but you're going to see us.

Sanjay Patel: (09:07)
What we do, and I think the idea is the creation of 300 to 500 basis points of alpha, over public credit risk, the way to do it is get, be able to deliver in scale, create structures that are, there may be complexity. It's a structural question, it's a capital solution question. So I think you're going to see all platforms over the next decade.

Sanjay Patel: (09:33)
It's just pretty exciting, actually, as I think about it, 30 years into my career. I think the growth for us as an industry is fantastic for the next decades, with rates being very low, but a big chunk of that will come in the form of the creation of these very large credit solutions to companies all over the world.

Sanjay Patel: (09:54)
It's not just the US. I think you're going to see some very interesting things in Europe and in Asia executive, so that's one other thing, I think. And on there, look, there's demand, and there's a lot of competition and I'm sure we'll find competition, but at all points, as we always add. But I think being creative and providing a capital solution is critical.

David Lebovitz: (10:14)
Exactly, right.

Bailey McCann: (10:16)
To your point about the growth origination, and you talked about institutionalization, as well, in your portfolio performance group, are those areas where you feel like are opportunities for innovation, in terms of the capital solutions that you're offering to clients, and working with maybe more complex deals, like the Yahoo deal? Or how do you see that, going forward?

Sanjay Patel: (10:37)
I think, I think it's all about, I do think innovation is a big chunk of it. So we have upped the ante on product innovation, generally.

Sanjay Patel: (10:48)
I think we have focused on really how we can create these large scale credit opportunities, and we're going to continue to think about it. We have been purchases as a firm of origination platforms.

Sanjay Patel: (11:03)
What I mean by that is, our credit franchise has now expanded dramatically. So we have all aircraft, trade, equipment, finance. Our balance sheet for credit is backed by insurance assets on insurance companies. And the demand for those companies is typically a yield.

Sanjay Patel: (11:25)
A lot of it's investment grade, actually, so it's not just private credit to private credit. But I think the way to create that is to actually own origination. So you're going to see us focused on buying, building origination, but also buying it.

Sanjay Patel: (11:43)
So buying it, buying companies that may not have scale that need balance sheet. And we can provide that balance sheet pretty effectively.

David Lebovitz: (11:51)
I mean, I would agree with a lot of that. I also think, what's interesting, taking a slightly different view of the question in terms of creating these solutions, is rethinking what the end investor in these products is actually going to look like.

David Lebovitz: (12:04)
You mentioned insurance companies. I think we all spend a lot of time with big institutional investors, which, if you show them anything that has yield and lack of equity correlation, they want to gobble it up like Thanksgiving dinner. I mean, that's the Holy Grail in the current environment.

David Lebovitz: (12:19)
What's so interesting to me is that as you build platforms like that, and as you do more and more of the origination in-house, you can then go in and tap into another client base. You think about the retail investor, who very much has the same needs as the institutional investor. The bond market offers you one of two things. It either offers you protection without income, or income without protection.

David Lebovitz: (12:39)
When you have that scale, right, the ability to deliver solutions to a client segment that has historically not been able to access these types of investment strategies, arguably create somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, where then, folks like yourselves and ourselves can continue to do what we do. We can do it at an increasingly large scale, because we're able to tap into areas of the marketplace that historically have been, I don't want to say off limits, but far harder to reach.

David Lebovitz: (13:04)
This is one of the instances where yes, over time, the institutionalization of the private credit space will put downward pressure on the yields that a lot of the yields that these instruments provide. But arguably, the broadening of the access I would argue, is a good thing from an investment solution perspective.

Sanjay Patel: (13:21)
Agreed.

Bailey McCann: (13:23)
You mentioned, I mean, there's some issues in this new environment, investors are looking for yield, they're looking for return anywhere they can find it. They're not getting it in the fixed income market broadly, probably not going to get it for awhile.

Bailey McCann: (13:36)
But you've also said you have some questions about value creation, and direct lending, and some other aspects of private credit. I mean, maybe we can just talk about where you see some of the risks right now, and maybe some of the bigger opportunistic themes for investors that are trying to thread that needle, and find opportunities.

David Lebovitz: (13:55)
Absolutely. My point wasn't that it's impossible to create value in private credit, but rather, the private equity lever is an easier one to an easier one to pull. But you mentioned transportation. I think about core real assets in general, real estate, infrastructure, shipping, aircraft, so on and so forth.

David Lebovitz: (14:12)
I mean, these are things that people are very comfortable with, because you can reach out and touch it. They provide creditlike streams of income, right on par with the high yield market, and they offer it with low to no correlation to equities.

David Lebovitz: (14:26)
Again, the vehicles that are becoming available, the closed end REITs, and various things like that, are allowing us to broaden our investor base in a way that historically has not been the case. Not only does it feel good to help people realize their investment goals by providing these types of solutions, but I actually think that there's more to it.

David Lebovitz: (14:47)
And I'll say the word that I think is on everybody's mind, I mean, inflation. We, like everybody else, think inflation's going to be transitory. We, like everybody else, are a little bit gun shy of assigning a time horizon to what transitory exactly means.

David Lebovitz: (15:02)
But if you're sitting in investment grade, if you're sitting in high yield, you're not going to have inflation protection. And arguably, if you're buying tips, you're buying a negative yielding instrument with a very long duration. To the extent that we're able to continue to access these opportunities, we think that it not only provides that income, it not only provides that diversification, but it provides that inflation protection as well.

David Lebovitz: (15:25)
The last point I'll make, because I think that this comes back to the issue of value creation, a market like commercial real estate, the old adage, "Retail is dead, retail is dead." Retail's not dead.

David Lebovitz: (15:37)
Retail has just changed, right? It's all about tenant mix. When we think about the office space, which feels like the next frontier for value creation within commercial real estate, I've been of the view for a very long time that, I mean, look, the United States, 80% of the jobs in this country are in services. And if you're a services business, the most valuable capital you have is your human capital.

David Lebovitz: (15:58)
So we need to rethink the office from a place where I go to tap away in Excel for 60 hours a week, to a place where I go to collaborate with my colleagues to generate better ideas and better outcomes for our clients. I think that again, the pandemic has affected certain parts of the economy more significantly than others.

David Lebovitz: (16:18)
Structurally, I still think this is a 2% growth story. I think that inflation is going to remain subdued over the longer term, and I'll be surprised if the Fed ever gets rates up to, to a meaningful level, but that doesn't mean that there's not opportunity. It's more about understanding where to look, and I think that that is what is so interesting about where we are today.

David Lebovitz: (16:39)
We know what worked in 2020. We had a glimpse of what could work in 2021, before things started going sideways over the summer, during the spread of Delta. So I think it's about looking through those more sickly exposed industries and sectors, and figuring out the difference between companies and assets that have seen temporary disruption, versus permanent demand destruction.

David Lebovitz: (17:03)
Obviously, we prefer the former to the latter. But it's very much an exercise of combing through the rubble in the aftermath of what's happened over the past 18 months, and trying to identify those opportunities where again, back to your first question, where we're able to create significant value.

Sanjay Patel: (17:18)
Yeah, I would say it's interesting. I mean, fixed income, it just hard to imagine, why you want to own fixed income at this point in the cycle, any institutional investor. But the opportunities in yield, I mean, real estate, to David's point, I think is very interesting.

Sanjay Patel: (17:38)
Blackstone, one of our biggest competitors, the BREIT that they've created, it's a pretty, pretty unbelievable product. It's got scale. Their underwriting is very good. They're careful, et cetera. That's a yield product return of capital.

Sanjay Patel: (17:55)
So you can kind of look at the landscape and say, "There's plenty of ways to create alpha." [inaudible 00:18:00], I think, in particular is a very, very interesting one, but I hop back.

Sanjay Patel: (18:08)
We bought an equipment financing business in the UK a couple of years ago in our insurance business, because it was a very interesting. It was a niche-y business that needed, he just ran out of capital, the seller, and we bought his origination platform. And that's a nice, low, double-digit yield business, et cetera.

Sanjay Patel: (18:28)
I think there's plenty of opportunities at the coalface to create really interesting yield throughout the world. I think you have to find it. I think it's not obvious, in some cases, and in other cases, I think you've got to create it. To me, it's about investing with folks who you think are creative in these areas, and finding the best managers.

Bailey McCann: (18:54)
Lot's talk about another issue that seems to come up around the value creation question a lot, which is ESG. There's questions now around climate issues that we've seen spring up, sustainability, people are focused on different issues around governance and diversity. Maybe you can talk us through how you incorporate those factors into your strategy, and in a way that obviously creates value for the theme, but is meaningful for investors, too.

Sanjay Patel: (19:22)
Maybe I'll start off. ESG is obviously the topic de jure, and the way we think about it is, and we have been thinking about it, probably for the last decade, and probably how, I think, our twelfth DSG report that we did.

Sanjay Patel: (19:40)
But since we control companies, our view is that it starts at the portfolio company level for us as an investor. Because the themes that ESG reflects, whether it be the environmental footprint of your businesses, your social impact, your governance, your DEI focus, your board focus, so what we've done is incorporate that at the portfolio company level, the day we own the company. Every portfolio company, we have metrics.

Sanjay Patel: (20:16)
The teams that are doing the deals, we're thinking about ... Previously, you think about EBITDA and KPIs. So it becomes part of your KPI landscape, as an owner of the business. Because ultimately, the reason it's all important, A, it's important to do.

Sanjay Patel: (20:36)
Every company should be an impact company. So people are raising impact funds and the like, but I think the truth is, shouldn't every company have a vision of how they are impacting or changing society? So I think you're going to do it, because ultimately, on the exit, if you're exiting the public markets, and David, comment on this, people are going to focus on that as a metric.

Sanjay Patel: (20:58)
What have you done? The ones that have done better will get, command on better premium prices and valuations over time. It's self-fulfilling if you don't do it.

Sanjay Patel: (21:08)
For us, it's very much quarter, kind of at the opco level, because we can control these companies, and drive change at the front end. Some companies we buy are very good at it, and have already done some, and some companies have not done anything. So it's incumbent upon us as managers and owners of these businesses to do it.

David Lebovitz: (21:26)
I think that's the beauty of private investments and alternatives more broadly, when it comes to the ESG conversation.

Sanjay Patel: (21:33)
Yup.

David Lebovitz: (21:33)
Because for years, I would sit in rooms, and people would say "ESG," and I'd say, "What do you mean by that?" And they'd get this look on their face, like "Ooh, am I going to give them the MSEI definition? Am I going to give them the internal definition," right?

David Lebovitz: (21:44)
I think what's interesting is, and a lot of this is coming from Europe, we're finally beginning to understand a framework for thinking about ESG investing, in both a qualitative and a quantitative way. And a lot of this is a policy response to the fact that people just care more about the environment.

David Lebovitz: (22:04)
Whether it's looking at renewable energy assets, whether it's making real estate properties more environmentally friendly, I completely agree with your point, that it's so much easier to pull the lever at the portfolio company level or the individual asset level, as opposed to what we saw in 2020, when everybody wanted to go in and buy the clean energy ETF, because they felt like they were doing the right thing. Then it got way overextended, and since has come back in.

David Lebovitz: (22:29)
I think what's going to be interesting to me about ESG, going forward, is the way that the S and the G make their way into the conversation. I think that there's still an overwhelming focus on the environmental aspect of all of this, because again, it's very easy to walk outside and say, "Hey this is, the Hudson River looks pretty nice from up here. I don't really want to mess that up."

David Lebovitz: (22:53)
I go back to my days, right out of undergrad, where I did manage your research and portfolio construction. To us, the G was the most important thing.

Sanjay Patel: (23:02)
Yup.

David Lebovitz: (23:02)
I mean, if you got the governance angle right, you felt a lot more comfortable with the investment, than if you were a little bit wishy-washy on them. So I think governance is really going to become increasingly important. That's where we're spending a lot of time focusing.

David Lebovitz: (23:17)
And it spans the gambit, right? It's everything from internal audit, better risk control, independent boards, things of that nature, to other things, having the right policies in place. This is where it starts to bleed into the S a little bit, but having the right policies in place.

David Lebovitz: (23:32)
I mean, something that's struck me as somebody who's worked at a big bank for more than a decade is, the renewed focus on the mental health of individuals. I think that that is going to be a tremendous theme going forward. Because what the pandemic showed us was that taking care of your people with free snacks isn't always enough, right? Some people need more help.

David Lebovitz: (23:53)
So it's about breaking down those barriers, and being comfortable having these conversations, that I think is really going to drive the evolution of how ESG is implemented at the portfolio level. Not just over the course of the next few years, but over the course of a longer term. So it's not going away, is the bottom line, as we've seen out of, out of the Eurozone.

Bailey McCann: (24:12)
Well, and to your point about the Eurozone, and they're doing a lot of different things in terms of governance, the taxonomy and different policies. There are some discussions in the US about enhanced disclosures for companies. Does that create best practices?

Bailey McCann: (24:24)
Does that help the process, in terms of at least getting everybody to start collecting the same types of data? Or what else can we be thinking about, to carry that forward?

David Lebovitz: (24:34)
I mean, my thought there is that regulation doesn't usually create best practices. I think that those tend to be more organically driven. But again, it gives us rules of the road. It gives us a more concrete framework for thinking about this than we've had historically.

David Lebovitz: (24:52)
You and I were chatting about crypto before we came up here, and the potential for regulation. And I would go as far as to say that regulation in that space could arguably be a good, a good thing, right?

David Lebovitz: (25:02)
We have a lot of institutional investors that continue to sit on the sidelines, with respect to all of these things broadly, because they just want to understand the way the game is going to be played. As soon as you can give a clear explanation of, "These are the rules of the road," I think you'll see engagement at a level that we've only really scratched the surface of, up until

Sanjay Patel: (25:22)
Yeah. Having lived in Europe for 15 years. I mean, it's interesting, because having invested there for a long time, the regulatory overlays in Europe have always been very different, and much more stringent, and you have healthy debates about it.

Sanjay Patel: (25:36)
As we all know, the capital markets never developed to the same extent as it did in the US. The Europe is a much heavier bank market. They've had regulations around private equity, et cetera, et cetera. It's a less liquid environment. That's fundamentally true. Europe is more inefficient.

Sanjay Patel: (25:58)
But I think on things like ESG, and I think, increasingly on technology, I think they're ahead of the US and there are some aspects to what they're doing, that I think the US ... I mean, so the pension funds in Europe were always ... They asked the questions earlier, and I think certainly, our institutional investors now are asking those questions at every meeting. but that was already done in Europe.

Sanjay Patel: (26:24)
So I'm not a big fan of regulation in many respects, maybe yes for crypto, but I'd say there's an element, that you have to force it to some extent. But you can debate it heavily.

Bailey McCann: (26:42)
For sure. So as we get near the interior, let's talk about the exit environment. There have been a variety of exit strategies that people have been using lately, and are more focused on SPACs, direct listings, different things around the IPO market, different things around sponsor to sponsor deals.

Bailey McCann: (26:58)
We've already seen this bag market kind of started to fade into the background. Going forward, what is the exit environment look like to you? What are some of the things that you're watching out for right now?

Sanjay Patel: (27:09)
Maybe I'll start off. I'm the global head of SPACw at Apollo. Actually, it's interesting, that was one of my new roles.

Sanjay Patel: (27:21)
We had sold a number of our portfolio companies over the years as SPACs, and gotten comfortable with it. Obviously, they've been around. A good friend of mine, Martin Franklin's, [inaudible 00:27:32] SPACs 20 years ago, and been successful.

Sanjay Patel: (27:35)
So we observed it, as an owner of assets, and exiting into that market. A couple of years ago, we said, "Actually, it could be a great way for us, certainly for us as a firm, to look at the growth and disruption that's going on."

Sanjay Patel: (27:52)
We haven't talked about growth, the risks of the positive aspects of disruption, and the risks of all of the valuation, but the SPAC product was an interesting way for us to drive the business further into looking at higher growth companies. That's why we're doing it, and we have six SPACs.

Sanjay Patel: (28:12)
We always knew when we entered the market, like other markets, the BDC market, the REIT market, too many people go in. There's a period of dislocation, there's a shakeout, and then it kind of ends up in it.

Sanjay Patel: (28:25)
Unfortunately, like everything else shows how much capital there is in the world, and demand for equity risk, as well. It literally went, skyrocketed up, obviously, through to 2020, which has created this big issue. We all knew it was going to happen, and it's happened. So where do we go from here?

Sanjay Patel: (28:43)
We still think it's a product that she had to stay. We think it's going to institutionalize. When valuations are sensible, and you got real money investors at the front end, a number of the players that have been stuck, got stuck because their capital is stock in the deals.

Sanjay Patel: (29:02)
Once that all cycles through, there will be a landscape that evolves out of this where the product, I think, stays, because I think it's an interesting product. You can debate, yes, democratization of equities, and people barely own high growth companies in an earlier stage, and the pluses and minuses of that, but it will stay.

Sanjay Patel: (29:20)
We're using it as a tool. So I think on the exit, to your point is, I think the exit environment is as good as it gets. You've got low rates, strategics looking for acquisitions, cost of capital very low.

Sanjay Patel: (29:36)
You got the IPO markets, so IPO is SPAC, strategic. Look, it's a phenomenal time to sell, and that's, every day we wake up, coming back to the comment I made on MACRA. We say, "Look, we want to, obviously, we'll continue to invest our funds, but we're selling as much as we can." It's a great environment.

David Lebovitz: (29:54)
No, I mean, I would agree with you that this is arguably as good as it gets, when you find yourself in a Goldilocks environment, where the Fed still seems kind of spooked at their own shadow.

David Lebovitz: (30:03)
The amount that they've done, I mean, I certainly was caught by surprise during the back half of last year, at the ability of both deal flow and exit activity to just come roaring back. The speed with which things moved last year is really what struck me.

David Lebovitz: (30:17)
I remember sitting there back in March and April, and saying, "Eh, equity market high by the end of the year? Ooh, probably not, and where were we in the fall?"

David Lebovitz: (30:26)
So the SPAC thing has been interesting. I think it's arguably good, to your point, that some of the retail wind has come out of those sails when it was trading above. When you had SPACs trading above trust, that was a little bit of a yellow flashing light, from where we sit.

David Lebovitz: (30:40)
Obviously, the IPO market, given what the Fed did to the equity market more broadly, in terms of providing support and elevating valuations, has been the primary exit for a lot of investors. But I do think that you're seeing more on the corporate acquisition side, and you're seeing more and more add on activity, carve-out activity, which I think is a good and interesting indicator of where we are in the cycle, people moving away from true, organic CapEx-driven opportunities to, "Hey, that's a proven business model, and we think that that could be additive to our bottom line. So let's bolt it on here."

David Lebovitz: (31:16)
The interesting space to watch for me, going forward, is going to be the sponsor-to-sponsor market. I do wonder, in my heart of hearts ... You're having a market where everybody's always looking for a deal.

David Lebovitz: (31:29)
That definitely caused some problems in 2020, and into the beginning of 2021, where the buyers didn't like the price that the seller was quoting, and the seller didn't like the price that the buyer was quoting. As a share of overall exits, you saw that move well below its long run average.

David Lebovitz: (31:44)
But I would come back to something that you said earlier, which is, "This is a world of washing capital. And this is a world where people are comfortable with what the monetary authorities are doing."

David Lebovitz: (31:57)
Fiscal, I think, is what's going to define this coming cycle. When you have monetary and fiscal working in concert, I do think that it's going to create a very robust environment, from a macro economic perspective, which, by my lights, could breathe life back into that sponsor-to-sponsor market. Because again, the capital isn't the issue, right?

Sanjay Patel: (32:19)
Yeah.

David Lebovitz: (32:19)
It's valuation. As we move further away from the pandemic, and as we see things more reflective of their long term value, that to me is when that part of the exit space will really end up coming back into Vogue.

Sanjay Patel: (32:32)
Yeah, I think, the other themes ... I mean, I think the sponsor-to-sponsor business, and in Europe, it's actually a much bigger than it is in the US, and always has been, because the number of primary deals is much fewer.

Sanjay Patel: (32:42)
But we've looked at it, and obviously, we don't sponsor deals, and we made money. I think it's very focused on the individual company. So multiple owners can create value out of those companies.

Sanjay Patel: (32:59)
So, to the question of, how do you do it? The continuation market is a very interesting development, which is, we own a company. We've known it for seven, eight, nine, five to 10 years, and we still think there's value.

Sanjay Patel: (33:14)
Will LPs have kind of exceeded to say, "Yeah, maybe moving these companies on from fund to fund, or vehicle to vehicle is okay." Because ultimately, they've seen value creation at every cycle.

Sanjay Patel: (33:28)
That's a whole new theme coming back, which was, shopping will be a big theme going forward, as well. But it's all of which to say is, I think, the demand and the competition for assets continues, and will do.

Bailey McCann: (33:45)
Okay, well, we have one minute left. So I think we will leave it there, then try to ask another question in one minute, but are there any closing thoughts that you guys want to touch on, about value creation?

Sanjay Patel: (33:55)
I mean, on value creation, though, I think we've covered a lot. I think the biggest question, to me, when I think about the environment today, is not that they want opportunities. I think the question is, how do you originate credit, equity, real estate opportunities?

Sanjay Patel: (34:10)
I think there's ways to do it. To me, I think the market environment is such that there is in the growth world, there's a bubble going on, we can see it, and how that translates into, there's a lot of disruption, there's a lot of interesting stuff going on.

Sanjay Patel: (34:26)
But ultimately there, that will scale back. I mean, it won't affect the private equity world that much, the traditional core private equity world. To me, that's a big thing to watch.

David Lebovitz: (34:36)
No, I completely agree. I think that the growth in general, right, again, because of the macro environment we've been in, has begun to command a premium.

David Lebovitz: (34:45)
But I think what's interesting is that if you put yourself on the other side of the coin, and you think about the investor, right? I mean, effectively alternatives have gone from optional to essential.

David Lebovitz: (34:55)
You're not going to be able to hit your return targets unless you're investing in private credit, investing in private equity, investing in real assets, because public markets, particularly given the returns we've seen over the past 12 to 15 months, a lot of that return has been pulled forward.

David Lebovitz: (35:10)
Taking it one step further, I mean, what would you rather do, own equity passively? Or own equity where you can actually drive a better outcome at the end of the day? So I think that the combination of longer fund lives, coupled with that stickier capital, and the ability to drive operational improvement, is going to help a lot of investors realize their goals, and very much create a tailwind for the alternative investment space that hasn't really been there, up until this point.

Sanjay Patel: (35:36)
Good pitch.

David Lebovitz: (35:37)
Thank you.

Sanjay Patel: (35:38)
Okay, thanks.

Bailey McCann: (35:39)
Great. Well, I think we'll leave it there. Thanks, everyone.

Sanjay Patel: (35:41)
Thank you, thank you.

David Lebovitz: (35:43)
Thanks so much, everybody.

Impact Is Everything & Everything Is Impact | #SALTNY

Impact Is Everything & Everything Is Impact with Megan Starr, Global Head of Impact, The Carlyle Group. Joanna Reiss, Co-Lead of Impact, Apollo. Erika Karp, Chief Impact Officer, Pathstone.

Moderated by James Ledbetter, Chief Content Officer, Clarim Media.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Starr, Megan - Cropped.png

Megan Starr

Global Head of Impact

The Carlyle Group

Headshot - Reiss, Joanna - Cropped.jpeg

Joanna Reiss

Partner and Co-Lead of Impact

Apollo Global Management

 
erika-karp.jpeg

Erika Karp

Chief Impact Officer

Pathstone

MODERATOR

james-ledbetter.jpeg

James Ledbetter

Chief Content Officer

Clarim Media

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

James Ledbetter: (00:07)
Good afternoon. I don't know about you, but that's the first time I've ever walked on stage to Maroon 5. Might be the last time. Welcome everyone. Let me introduce this all star panel. I'm going to do it from left to right as you see it. First, we have Meg Starr who's global head of impact at the Carlyle Group. To her left, Joanna Rees, the co-lead of impact that Apollo. And finally Ericka Karp, chief impact officer at Pathstone. It's a high impact panel. Welcome all of you.

James Ledbetter: (00:42)
I thought it might make sense to start by trying to define terms a little bit. There are people and I might be one of them who will use ESG investing and impact investing more or less interchangeably. There aren't really fixed definitions of any of these things. I wonder as all of you have impact in your title, what does impact mean to you? And we can go alphabetical, so Erika, you can go first.

Erika Karp: (01:10)
Well impact means that it matters. Something happens when you do something, you move something. By the way, I would argue that ESG it's not an asset class, it's not a style, it's not a strategy. It is not ESG investing. ESG is an analytical lens. It is simply a starting point. It's a discipline. That's how we see it. Once you do ESG analysis, you can do any kind of investing you want.

Joanna Reiss: (01:43)
How we think about it is ESG is ownership practices. Making sure that we are mindful for any specific business of the ESG risk factors, opportunities, managing them carefully the same we would manage factors associated with any part of an investment. We're going to watch the company's debt covenants. We should also be watching its governance policies. Impact we think of as the next iteration and separate. For impact, we look at companies that are actually through their products or services, doing something good in the world, whether it be socially or environmentally. And so you could have pretty much any company with good ESG or we certainly try but not every business can be an impact business in our definition.

James Ledbetter: (02:24)
One handy way of remembering it, it came up on our call on Friday, somebody was talking about investing in the Venetian. The Venetian can have the best ESG policies in the world but it's really hard to make the case that they're doing good in the world.

Joanna Reiss: (02:40)
Well, they might be bringing joy. But at least in our definition it's not quite there.

Megan Starr: (02:46)
But I also think we're entering a next phase of this space, where I agree with Joanna of ESG is typically about how a company operates, an impact is what it does to make a profit. And those have been separate tools but I think we're seeing a lot of convergence because the market is starting to price in companies that are helping to solve environmental and social challenges. And so you can take a company that might not look impactful at face value. Carlyle bought a company called Weiman a couple of years ago, cleaning supply company. Our thesis was around changing consumer preferences for green, safe cleaning supplies. And so our investment was all about how do we transform that company into a clean producer? And so I do think in some instances, there's this intersection of you need both of those as we think about what's being valued into the market.

Erika Karp: (03:35)
James, I just have to say that ESG analysis gives us an opportunity to get away from good and bad. We don't have to say good and bad. In fact, our investors, our clients are the ones that say good and bad, even though we might not agree with them. But ESG analysis allows you to align your values with your investments but it is about value, not values when it comes to doing this kind of analysis. We don't have to say good and bad.

Megan Starr: (04:07)
I love that because I feel like so frequently that topic comes up, but people saying, "Well, is Amazon a good ESG company?" Or arguing that someone has an S&P 500 type equivalent that's lower carbon and they're picking out individual names saying, "How could you call that name?" And the whole point is it's not labels and it's not binary. It's how are they doing vis-a-vis peers on material, environmental and social dimensions for their business.

James Ledbetter: (04:32)
Meg, you touched on something that, that I want to go into a little deeper. And that is this idea of the categories merging a little bit or perhaps both being necessary. Just stepping back a little bit, I'm curious to hear from all of you too, how do you think about, how do you describe what has happened to this sector over the last, say three to five years? And what is making that happen?

Megan Starr: (04:58)
Well, I think Erika.

Erika Karp: (05:00)
It's not a sector.

Megan Starr: (05:01)
I'm just going to thesis that we're in the second wave of this being a contrarian thesis. And in its early days, when people thought about ESG or whatever they termed it, they were like, that's feel good investing or fuzzy math. How can you possibly make money when you're busy thinking about carbon emissions for people. The world has flipped where we realize that companies are thinking about engaged, safe, productive workforces, that companies that are in the forefront of the energy transition, they're outperforming. And so a lot of capital has flowed towards those ESG leaders. And I think what we're seeing now is that the kind of next phase of saying, "Actually, how can you invest in companies that maybe don't have great environmental or social dimensions, improve those and that's actually the kind of activism thesis of improving those companies into the higher multiples."

James Ledbetter: (05:47)
Interesting. Joanna.

Joanna Reiss: (05:49)
Fundamentally for any business we own or lend to or otherwise engage with, you have a certain level of responsibility in the same way you are responsible for helping them figure out their procurement strategy, you're also responsible for making sure that the appropriate employment policies are in place. What have you. And I think that importantly, that is become table stakes. Our investors expect it. They're shocked if you're not focused on it and it's a major area of investment and we think opportunity to make our companies better. Which is fundamentally what we try to do, buy a company, make it better, make some money for our investors along the way. But the impact side of it I think is quite interesting because impact investing is not new. If you were to go back, we're talking decades of people focused on whether it be micro-finance in emerging markets.

Joanna Reiss: (06:38)
That is the quintessential impact investing. What we think is new is the focus on at least what we're doing here at Apollo is impact at scale and trying to think through how do you take that mindset? How do you take all of those approaches, practices that have been built up over the call it decade or two and apply that to more businesses and accomplish what Meg described? Which is find businesses that have potential for impact, that are in that marketplace and where you see an opportunity to take a company that's doing something that's fine and turn into a company that's doing something really good in the world. And that's what I think is new.

Joanna Reiss: (07:15)
And the other part of it that is clear is just the level of attention has grown exponentially. And I think that's frankly, one of the good things to come out of the pandemic is a greater mindfulness of the externalities of everything we do. Whether it's business B to B consumption patterns, B to C, people are more mindful. And of course the government overlay is that we should be thinking through how do we help underserved communities? How do we help the environment? All of that is just the secular tailwind behind what we're trying to do.

James Ledbetter: (07:48)
Erika.

Erika Karp: (07:49)
What I would add is there's a bunch of new things going on. One thing that's new is that we have every kind of piece of the capital markets lined up like we never did. You have the asset managers and the asset owners and the investment banks, the exchanges, the accountants, the lawyers, the students. We have everybody lined up to think about this in a really transparent way. And on top of that, we now have standards for disclosure that are coming along, the SASB, the GRI and what's going on there. The standards for disclosure transparency is really transformational. That's critical. And another thing that's new is that we have data that is turning noise into signal. We have social media making everything, everybody knows everything all at the same time. We have an intergenerational transfer of wealth of trillions like we haven't seen before.

Erika Karp: (08:46)
All of this stuff happening at the same time, that's new. And then further, we are moving away from myths, stupid myths that there's some breach of fiduciary duty when you do ESG analysis. It's quite the opposite. And then a myth that there has to be under performance from the investment standpoint. Stupid and it's being put aside. There's a lot new that's going on. The risk though, is as the movement, if you call it that, I call it a discipline. As the discipline shows asset flows, we're getting everybody coming in to try to do this type of analysis and that's problematic. We have to be careful that we don't kind of undermine the whole economic and impact proposition because of new players that are basically marketing. We got to be careful about that.

Megan Starr: (09:40)
And do you think it's problematic in some ways but I also, we're applying a ton of scrutiny right now to anyone that purports to do ESG, which I think is a great thing. I also want to see people apply that level of scrutiny to the people that don't claim to be thinking about environmental or social dimension. And so on one hand, I do think this market rush to focusing on this, there will be a wide dispersion of what that actually looks like, but I think the market will sort through that. We sorted through that before when venture capital became a thing and everyone raised a vendor, hedge funds. We've been through this before. And so I think we're in the early innings of it's been recognized as a major discipline and now we'll sort through who's actually doing it well versus who's putting in a pitch deck because they think people want to see that.

James Ledbetter: (10:24)
Erika, I just want to touch on something you said there to capture the moment. It's I think at this point in the discussion that someone usually brings up the Milton Friedman article from 50 years ago, that the only social purpose of businesses to maximize profits. You're saying if I'm understanding you correctly, that is dead. As a philosophy that is dead.

Erika Karp: (10:44)
No, I love profits. It's not dead. Unfortunately he just left out two words, had he put in long term, we'd be good. We really would be good. And so in Friedman, if you read the work, he wasn't totally tone deaf to society. Not at all. With those two words, just like with Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations. Go back further than that and think about The Theory of Moral Sentiments. He cared about human beings but in The Wealth of Nations, he didn't talk about these negative externalities that could happen. And so there's a miss. But now we're at a place where we're at least conscious about what's going on and we can start accounting for profits while taking into mind, not just financial capital but human capital and natural capital so we have an opportunity. But I love profits as much as the next person.

Joanna Reiss: (11:51)
And yet what I think is critical here is finding the right businesses. Finding business where profit and purpose are not intention every day and then owning them with a focus on both is how we get to the outcomes our investors want, that we want, that's good for impact investing. If you just pick a business where you do have that fundamental, if we're going to improve profit margins, we're going to be hurting this environmental issue, this underserved constituency, what have you, then you find yourself in the opposite condition where you by necessity are putting one to the side. That's the tricky part in my mind is finding those businesses that where you move in the same direction.

Megan Starr: (12:30)
And I think to that point about if the purpose of business is around generating profit, what we're finding is that you generate more profit in today's day and age if you're conscious of your environmental and social footprint. And Erika was talking about if we can actually have data, you can sort the signal from the noise. And at Carlyle, we have really granular ESG data because we asked for it for our companies. We have 250 portfolio companies give or take and we have really granular financial data because we're investors in them. And so when you combine those together, you can actually start seeing where those levers are. And one quick example, we hear a lot about diversity, equity and inclusion, our portfolio companies that have at least two diverse board directors have 12% faster annualized earnings growth than our companies without diverse directors. And so this whole point about the purpose is profit, the data's there.

James Ledbetter: (13:17)
If you do it right.

Megan Starr: (13:18)
And not all ESG things matter for any company or for a specific company but there are specific levers and being smart about finding those, that is maximizing profit in a changing world.

James Ledbetter: (13:31)
Joanna, you said something that I wanted to frame slightly differently. The title of this panel is Impact is Everything, Everything is Impact. I think what you just say is that's not actually true. Within maybe a sector there are businesses where it's true or in individual businesses. What did you mean when you said you have to find the right business where those goals where they're not in conflict?

Joanna Reiss: (13:59)
Fundamentally my take and our take at Apollo is that not every business can be an impact business because not every business that is still investible, that does still have good ESG where we think we can drive the type of returns we look to accomplish across our various strategies, demonstrates what we're looking for from an impact business, which would be Fidelity with the IMP five dimensions of impact, in fundamentally doing good things for either people or the planet at its heart. There are plenty of things that we like that are investible that don't help underserved communities. How does cosmetics become an impact business? I struggle but I think we're going to continue to have cosmetics into the future and that's something that's not even.

Megan Starr: (14:43)
I have a differing argument.

Erika Karp: (14:45)
Totally different, sorry.

Megan Starr: (14:46)
We just bought, at Carlyle we just invested in a company called Beautycounter, sorry. Invested about $500 million, billion dollar valuation company, unbelievable founder, Gregg Renfrew. And she is focused on how do you become a differentiated consumer brand by leading the market in green safe ingredients? And in the US we don't have this thing called a precautionary principle, which most European countries have, which means that we have to prove chemicals are safe before we put them in our products. Beautycounter has taken that upon themselves. They have 1,800 ingredients they won't put in their products. They've gone to the mat on issues like mica or palm oil and sourcing sustainable palm oil. And they're focused on this idea of how do you take makeups or cosmetics from just being a consumer product to actually saying, "How can we be at the forefront of sustainability?" Because that's actually driving consumer behavior now. And so that's our differentiated angle.

Megan Starr: (15:38)
And so I agree with you about this. The idea about, I know we're talking about casinos is not every business is an impact business. I think every business has an opportunity to improve on sustainability dimensions that will increase their value. And that doesn't mean if it will be a pure play impact business but I think there's some really interesting things there.

Joanna Reiss: (15:55)
That's where we fall back into what's ESG versus what's impact at least but everyone I've ever met has their own definitions. It's part of the problem.

James Ledbetter: (16:03)
Erika.

Erika Karp: (16:05)
Sustainable investing, it is the systematic analysis of the material, environmental, social and governance issues that go into an investment discussion. That's what sustainable investing is. Impact investing adds two things, the idea of intentionality and then measurability. Those are definitions that we have found very helpful. But I have to tell you, what's so interesting again. I get away from good and bad. I get to investing. The history of sustainable investing was very kind of ideological, sometimes politicized, divisive. The future of sustainability, of impact and sustainable investing is in pragmatism and enhanced analytics. And then it's about the values of asset owners. At Pathstone, we manage about $30 billion for families and foundations and endowments. I can tell you that there's interest in sustainable investing and impact investing ranging from zero, to ranging to all in impact. But it differs for everyone.

Erika Karp: (17:19)
Again, we're talking about these families and foundations. We have clients who are sustainable and impact investors who are invested in tobacco. We have clients that believe that that's a product that if used as designed, it will kill you. We have the clients that have the tobacco and point out that the tobacco plant is a unique manufacturing facility for very interesting drugs and compounds. It's all over the map, just like with Amazon. And by the way, at this conference, we're talking about cryptos and Bitcoin. Arguably Bitcoin is the tobacco of currencies. Think about the carbon emissions and environmental impact of the blockchain system when you mine these Bitcoins. It's going to kill us potentially. Another thing we try to talk about, again, not to be ideological, we talk about the idea of again, pragmatism. As a sustainable investor, do I care more about the negative environmental impact of Bitcoin? Or do I care more about the potentially really positive impact on society access to finance?

Erika Karp: (18:33)
The reason I use these examples is because there is not one definition. It is the wealth owners that we need to be able to have intelligent and non-divisive, nonpolitical conversations when it comes to everything. And also as it relates to sectors or industries where you can or cannot find impact, every investment, every investment whether it's corporate or wealth owners has impact, whether it's good or bad we don't necessarily know but everything has impact. It really is the way to really have impact at scale is to bring in everybody, trillions. That's impacted scale. We need to inform and be transparent and be honest about what we know and what we don't know.

James Ledbetter: (19:25)
Your example about tobacco is so interesting to me. At Worth Magazine, which is owned by Clarim, we recently published an article that went through a little bit of the history of what used to be called socially responsible investing or sin stocks and the filters used to remove them from portfolios like tobacco, alcohol, military contractors, et cetera. What you're suggesting though is that because there is no single definition of either of these terms, ESG or impact, is it the advisor's role to come up with a definition of those things that fit the investment desires of the client? Is that what you're saying? No, you're not saying that.

Erika Karp: (20:12)
No, I'm not saying that. ESG analysis is a discipline. It's the starting point for recommending or not an investment and then aligning it with what the investor wants. That's what I'm supposed to do as an advisor. Transparency, risk analysis, all of this stuff and opportunity. All that's the stuff that we do as advisors.

James Ledbetter: (20:37)
I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

Erika Karp: (20:38)
No, I like it anyway.

James Ledbetter: (20:40)
Would you then endorse the view that a company that sells cigarettes passes the ESG test because of these pharmaceutical links?

Erika Karp: (20:51)
There is no ESG test. And there is no such thing as a good or bad ESG company. It doesn't exist. There is an analytical process. Can we decide if let's use tobacco again, can you invest in a tobacco company that is absolutely committed to transforming itself? Are you comfortable with the magnitude and the pace of transformation? My job is to talk to my clients and find out what are they comfortable with? What are their timeframe? What is their risk appetite? And again, show them and I'm going to give them my opinion. They're going to ask and I will share the opinion but it comes down to objectivity and honesty and transparency.

James Ledbetter: (21:40)
Yep. On the question of data and transparency, one of the trends in impact investing over the last say 10, certainly 20 years has been a big shift from private to public. The overwhelming majority of companies that got ESG or impact investing 15 years ago were private. Now it's something like 15 to 20% are public. It may even be more and the debt component associated with these investments has also become increasingly public. And I have to assume that that trend will continue. This is a question for all of you, how does that affect your job? How does that change your strategy, your returns, your relationship to the investors, the limited partners, or does it? Is it really just the same thing with different tools?

Joanna Reiss: (22:46)
I don't really see an impact to what we're trying to do from the public company side of it. Frankly, as I look to the massive inflows, the renaming of mutual funds to put impact in their name with no real change in strategy, what have you, it just seems like a bit of a completely separate. What is interesting though, is to the extent we as private owners who can actually make the hard decisions, who can actually have that intentionality around impact, transform business models, drive towards positive environmental or social outcomes, what's kind of exciting is if they're big enough, it's clear that there's a great deal of appetite in the public markets for those businesses. But on a day to day basis, it certainly doesn't influence the kind of companies that we're looking for. Just given the same way private markets, public markets there's some overlap but it's not every day.

Megan Starr: (23:39)
I would say it's an increasingly big part of how we think about managing companies under our ownership period because of the exit implications. And so we actually have a massive body of work that is already called ESG for IPO readiness because our companies are exiting through IPOs. We need to be locked up tight across how they think about the material issues for their business, what the story is they're telling to investors around sustainability themes, how they're measuring that.

Megan Starr: (24:07)
We sold a company recently called Liberty Tire and Liberty Tire is fundamentally a recycling company. They're part of the circular economy. Had never identified as being a sustainability company before started dealing in the tire sector. And they recycle about a third of the tires in the US every year. Turn them into really interesting usable materials like the pavement that goes underneath the playgrounds, that actually has a lot of safety characteristics and reduces injuries and pavement for roads, which actually has higher frictions or reduces car accidents. And so there are all these things that were actually core to how they made profit. And so my team at Carlyle actually spend a ton of time with them understanding those impact pathways, understanding the science behind them, helping them measure that. That was a big part of our data room. I was a big part of the kind of sale process and the meetings with equity sponsors because that's an important part of how companies are sourcing deals for their portfolios now.

Megan Starr: (24:58)
I think we've seen it in terms of exit demand, exit multiples and then increasingly cost of capital as we raise financing alongside of those deals.

James Ledbetter: (25:06)
Erika, do you see any difference with the move toward public equity, public debt in transparency and the tools for evaluating these investments?

Erika Karp: (25:15)
Yeah, for us, it's wonderful because we start with our clients creating an investment policy and then we go and do our asset allocation work based on the markets. And then we go and across asset classes, we think about ESG integration. For us, it's it's as it should be. And then given that we think that ESG analysis is such a critical tool to every asset class, this makes all kinds of sense.

James Ledbetter: (25:46)
A couple of you have mentioned employment and the movement toward greater diversity, inclusion and equity as somehow related to the growth in impact investing. I'd like to flesh it out a little more and again, not to put anybody on the spot but the finance industry is not usually the highest rated industry in the DIE world. And frankly, neither is media at my own business. Neither comes out particularly good. But how are your companies tackling this issue both internally and how you evaluate companies that's different than it was just a few years ago?

Joanna Reiss: (26:33)
Well, I think there's clearly an increased mindfulness that is important. Frankly, how ESG integration started was LPs started asking questions and the best way to get a GP to do something is to have an LP ask about it. And so there's some similarities there and frankly, that's a great driver to action and to an appreciation that having a diverse set of viewpoints in the room leads to better outcomes and that there is talent that doesn't look and sound exactly like everyone else. At Apollo, we're very focused on just creating opportunity is how we think about it. And then opportunity comes in a lot of different ways. But as our CEO said, each of us had some lucky break in our career so let's find ways both at our company and through our portfolio companies to create those lucky breaks for other people. And recognizing that some people have more lucky breaks in a given life because of where they start than others and to be mindful of that and to create opportunity.

Erika Karp: (27:28)
I didn't have any lucky breaks. I've been working my ass off for 30 years. You got the interview, the guy thought you were funny.

Megan Starr: (27:40)
I would say, I think the S of ESG etiquette is the next frontier of our work. And I think in the early days we were focused on environmental issues and just realize that companies that can produce a widget using less water, waste, electricity, it's a more efficient business. That's just where we want to be orienting towards. And I think we were in the early innings of realizing that human beings are not just salaries that are reflected in an income statement, they're people. And when you think about productivity and efficiency and engagement and loyalty, those things are massive drivers of business value.

Megan Starr: (28:11)
We have a tech company based in Amsterdam called Dept. It's a digital agency and they're becoming a B corporation, which means they're kind of embedding purpose in their corporate girder. And then when you ask them why, they're a tech company, they don't have a big footprint, they're not manufacturing, they're not worried about health and safety. The answer is their people and talent. And so it's important for them to demonstrate to the market, measure and quantify that they are at the bleeding edge of environmental and social practices because they can attract and retain the highest talent, which is their competitive mode. And so I think there's a bunch of different ways that the S is playing out across different industries from health and safety and more traditional industrial manufacturing. But I think people are starting to realize that the human element has been undervalued, which means it's a source of great potential alpha.

James Ledbetter: (28:58)
Yeah. Certainly one hears it said that gen Z, gen Y plus gen Z is much more likely to want to work for some company with a stronger sense of mission and purpose. I don't know that that's ever really been put to the test but maybe if what you're describing is true, well it won't have to be. I'm curious at the mention of B corporations, just because it's something that I've paid a little bit of attention to lately. How do you think about B corporations? Do you have a bias toward investing in them? Do you follow who is B Corp and who isn't a B Corp? Are there enough companies out there that are kind of close enough the way that some companies don't label themselves organic but kind of play up all the sustainable things that they do? How significant a force are our B Corps in your world?

Megan Starr: (29:58)
I would say B Corps are one of many different frameworks that are driving towards what Erika was talking about. How do we get better quantitative performance data about ESG topics? And so some frameworks are better for other companies. B Corp is a really kind of crisp way to demonstrate to the market that you care about these things, that you're performing well on these dimensions. We have a lot of companies that the most material thing for them is just climate change full stop. And so the TCFD framework might be the right framework for them. But I think what we focused on at Carlyle is that it's not this binary of your B Corp or you're renewable or not. It's that change over time. And so you need data to demonstrate that progress.

Megan Starr: (30:40)
I'd say climate change is one of the most fascinating places, because the story is not just the renewables. The energy transition is a transition across every sector of our economy. And so we've been really focused about traditional energy businesses. They need capital, they need expertise and they need a longterm time horizon so that they can transition into new age energy companies because that's the exit trajectory. And so I think this idea of it's a less about are you this, are you that? And it's more about what are you demonstrating over time that the market is really responding to?

Erika Karp: (31:11)
I should add that remember B corporation is it's a framework. It is not a corporate form. It's not the same thing as being a benefit corporation. That fundamentally is different. And a lot of corporate law has not been established, it's not been written yet. I would argue that some of the most sustainable companies and by the way, some of the most arguably sustainable asset managers that we know don't use ostensibly the frameworks, the labels, nothing. They just do their work and they do it really well in a really conscious way. I've known wonderful hedge fund managers that systematically integrate ESG factors. They don't even know they're sustainable investors but they are. I think B Corp again, it's a great framework and it's needed as we make progress but it's not the end all be all. There's no silver bullet.

Joanna Reiss: (32:10)
What I think you're touching on is kind of one of the fundamental challenges ahead of us, which is that there's no gap or IFRS for ESG for impact. And so if you are, I sympathize with an LP. They invest in this fund, this fund and this fund. They've got three apples, four oranges and a banana and they don't know what to make. And they don't know what to make of any of this. That is kind of one of the ways to try to tackle it. What's the BIA score? What's your TCFD, what have you? But we haven't had the emergence of a single gap like measure.

James Ledbetter: (32:46)
Should there be? Would it be a more efficient system if such industry standards existed?

Joanna Reiss: (33:00)
I don't think so.

Erika Karp: (33:00)
But we're getting there. The SEC is actively thinking about what do we do with regard to disclosure of material factors. And by the way, this isn't semantics. When we think about climate change and the systemic financial risk of climate change, that's real. That is something that we need disclosure on. It's going to affect outcomes. And so again, this is not ideological.

Joanna Reiss: (33:18)
But at the same token, if you imagine two public companies, one a services business, one a manufacturing business, their P and L's look very different but they have basically the same items on them. How would their ESG statement, what is relevant? How do you compare? And how do you know what to make of the fact that the carbon intensity of the accounting consultancy is so much lower? Does that mean the industrial business is doing bad? Well, worse than it could or that the consultancy is doing better than it should? We don't really know which goes back to the challenge of compensability and also figuring out for any given business what actually matters and whether they control them.

Megan Starr: (34:11)
I actually disagree. I think we're going to see it pretty soon. And your point is well taken of there's a barbell to data. There are some data points that matter across all industries, all sectors for diversity, board level oversight of ESG issues, carbon emissions, you have to compare it by industry but we need to know kind of climate positioning. And there's some metrics that matter to specific industries and SASB, one of the frameworks has done a great job of drilling down. Total recordable injury rate for heavy manufacturing. And I really think the market, the investing world has to solve that from within of converging on some data points that we will track in the same way, using the same normalization metrics because we need that. You need head count, you need enterprise value, you need revenue, you need industry and some metrics by industry because we need that data otherwise, we're going to keep splintering in different directions.

Megan Starr: (34:59)
And I've used this data point before but my team in one week this summer, I got 37 ESG DDQs from investors. They were all different. And so the amount of data we're actually able to provide back to those in a meaningful way, that's just a silly use of energy and resourcing. And so I think solving the problem collectively within the investment industry will lead to performance based, quantitative, comparable and frankly, useful data. But it's going to take us actually bringing down the kind of competitive walls and doing that together.

Erika Karp: (35:30)
That's dead on. And I should say, we haven't gotten an RFP for advisory service that doesn't have something about ESG in it for ages. And we're getting questions about our own firm. And when we vet asset managers, we consistently ask about ESG and diversity data. We have to understand what their thought process is, how do they kind of systematically integrate? And this is a big change and it's good change.

James Ledbetter: (36:03)
Not to make it too complicated but because we're talking about climate change, shouldn't there be international standards for company reporting?

Erika Karp: (36:10)
Yeah, there will be but we've still got a lot of work to do.

Joanna Reiss: (36:14)
Well, even on the employment side, there is a very US centric context under which we're talking about this. If you ask the same question in even in countries in Europe, what constitutes that diverse? Is very different. And so are we going to address that? How do we have enough specificity that we get information that leads to better outcomes? What is our actual goal here? I think our actual goal needs to be driving towards better outcomes, not be another 300 page SEC rule that leaves us with the information that's not terribly useful.

Erika Karp: (36:52)
This is about transparency ultimately.

Joanna Reiss: (36:53)
Absolutely.

James Ledbetter: (36:55)
With only about three minutes left, I'd like to look a little bit toward the future. Tell me what trends you see now that you think are going to accelerate over the next two to three years in this space? Meg, why don't you go first?

Megan Starr: (37:09)
I think one of my favorite trends in the ESG and impact world is dynamic materiality. What is relevant today is not going to be necessarily what's relevant two years from now. Think MeToo was a really interesting moment of prior to that, I'm not sure people were going through legal documents with a spine to the comb about what happens if there's an issue and how you do background checks. These issues emerge and have moments and then they become priced in and become part of how we do business. And so I think there is always something that is emerging and so this idea of how do you look around corners see what's coming next? I think we've been really focused on mental health across our portfolio. We have almost a million portfolio company employees and how do you start thinking about some of these other drivers of wellness and productivity?

Megan Starr: (37:56)
We're really focused on human rights and supply chains, which have been really coming to the surface recently and then really focused on climate change and not just in the energy sector but that is kind of spilling across all layers of the economy. And we call it the net zero virus where more than half of global AUM has promised to have net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner. Half of global emissions are covered by regulatory regimes that are mandating net zero. It's not just about the individual companies, they're pushing it up their supply chain, down their supply chain. And so it doesn't really matter what industry you're in, you're going to start feeling the pricing pressure and getting in front of that will be a major driver of financial return.

James Ledbetter: (38:37)
Joanna.

Joanna Reiss: (38:38)
I think we are, as we see specifically the interaction between the institutional investor and asset managers, we definitely see a lot of people who are relatively new to the party, who are building out their practice, who are defining for themselves what it is that they're looking to accomplish and starting to dip their toe in it with a subset of our PE allocation, we're focused on impact what have you. I think as we hopefully prove out the viability that it's non-concessionary, and prove this out in a way to many investors who have a bit of skepticism, they will see a continued inflow of focus onto this, especially because of all the dynamics Meg just so ably described, all those are secular tailwinds to a company that's going to be owned in an impact fund. I think we're going to see strong performance from this entire vintage, knock on wood, and a continued focus on the part of allocators.

James Ledbetter: (39:38)
Erika, you get the last word in the last 30 seconds.

Erika Karp: (39:41)
I actually think the trends in sustainable and impact investing are the same as the broad trends in the capital markets. Impact measurement is one I can see with the themes on climate, on diversity, on food systems, on healthy oceans. Those are the same. What I would also add is that not many people these days yet are talking about quantum computing. And so even if we're talking five or 10 years from now, the applications of quantum computing and ultimately achieving the sustainable development goals are huge. And so I think we need to be talking about that as it relates to access to all those sustainable development goals.

James Ledbetter: (40:24)
That'll be our panel for next year. I would like the audience to join me in thanking this fabulous panel.

Megan Starr: (40:30)
Thank you.

The Future of Alts: Access for All | #SALTNY

The Future of Alts: Access for All with Kelly Rodriques, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Forge. Milind Mehere, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, YieldStreet. Asiff Hirji, President, Figure.

Moderated by Matt Brown, Founder, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman, CAIS.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Rodriques, Kelly - Cropped.jpeg

Kelly Rodriques

Chief Executive Officer

Forge

Headshot - Mehere, Milind - Cropped.jpeg

Milind Mehere

Chief Executive Officer

Yieldstreet

 
asiff-hirji.jpeg

Asiff Hirji

President

Figure

MODERATOR

Headshot - Brown, Matt - Cropped.jpeg

Matt Brown

Founder, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman

CAIS

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Matt Brown: (00:07)
Why don't we just kick off with just some brief introductions. Kelly, why don't we start with you?

Kelly Rodriques: (00:11)
Right. I'm-

Matt Brown: (00:13)
Yeah, please.

Kelly Rodriques: (00:14)
I'm Kelly Rodriguez, CEO of Forge. Forge is a marketplace for buying and selling private stocks. We have some big news that we announced today. But we are building access and solving the problems around transparency, data, and access to the private markets.

Matt Brown: (00:37)
Great, Kelly. Thank you. Milind?

Milind Mehere: (00:40)
Yeah. Hi, everybody. My name is Milind Mehere. I'm the founder and CEO of YieldStreet. YieldStreet is the alternative digital platform, really transforming access and fractionalization of alternatives for all. And what you can do on our platform, it's a direct to consumer platform, really get access to alternatives and modernize your portfolio from the 60/40 trap.

Asiff Hirji: (01:06)
Hi, I'm Asiff Hirji. I'm the president of Figure. I've been an investor, operator, founder of fintechs for a long time, did a robo-advisor in [inaudible 00:01:14], was partner at Andreessen and TPG, ran Ameritrade for a number of years, ran Coinbase for a couple of years through its high growth period. What we're doing at Figure is we're basically trying to transform financial services, or at least prove you can transform financial services, through blockchain. So, we've built a series of businesses on blockchain, including lending, cap table management, primaries, et cetera. And our whole goal is to get the industry to adopt

Matt Brown: (01:36)
Great, guys. Let's get into it. I really want this to be a dialogue. I want this to be a conversation. Really thinking about anticipating what your questions are. Access to alternative investments, hedge funds, private equity, real estate, pre-IPO, Kelly, has been historically reserved for large institutional investors. In recent years, though, democratization of those products and asset classes I've really taken off. What is driving the momentum? Where's this coming from? What are the implications of it? Kelly, maybe I'll kick off with you on that one.

Kelly Rodriques: (02:13)
Great. Thank you. Well, I think there's been a convergence of events in the last five to 10 years. In our space, it started with companies really extending their private life, so a private company now in the world where there's 800 unicorns worth 2.6 trillion, these companies are now staying private for between 12 and a half and 13 years before they go public. So, there's tremendous value creation happening before a company ever becomes accessible to the public investor. That coupled with the fact that the CEOs and the boards that are running these companies need to retain their employees, they need to be on it for the long haul, and so liquidity and technology to enable liquidity and data to inform liquidity is a massive problem. And it hasn't crept up on us. This is a trend that's been going on for 10 years, at least.

Kelly Rodriques: (03:06)
And so, what we're seeing and what we're doing is trying to open the access to the market up to participants all around the world. And historically, for those of you in the crowd that are in the private equity or venture space, it's a fairly close knit and tight and hard to get into club. And so, we just believe that there's a lot of factors at work here and we've been focused on building the tech and providing the data. And so, the news today of our announced SPAC going public was all about raising the capital to make this a scale platform for for the world. And so, it's a very exciting time.

Matt Brown: (03:44)
Very exciting. You beat me to it on the SPAC. I was going to ask you that. So, can you just walk us briefly through that and the motivation again? So, you guys are now going public through a SPAC?

Kelly Rodriques: (03:55)
Yeah. We have partnered with Motive Capital Corp, [Like Masters 00:04:01], and a group of fintech specialists to build the business and really to make the private markets accessible through a public investment. We have a belief given what the phenomenal growth has been over the last three years, that to do this at scale needs a highly capitalized leader, and we believe being the first to market in the public space really is an advantage for us competitively.

Matt Brown: (04:32)
Yeah. Well, congratulations again. That's a huge milestone not only for Forge, but the industry to see the investor reception on the platform business and a great job well done. Milind, let me, in order go, same question to you. Huge tailwinds, whether it's technology tailwinds, regulatory. You run Yieldstreet, very successful B2C platform in the alternative space. You recently also did a very impressive transaction. What are you seeing out there? What's happening, and what's driving this growth.

Milind Mehere: (05:04)
Yeah. So, I think Matt, for us, it was really access to and distribution of ALTs is fundamentally broken. So, if you think about institutions, they have 10 times more exposure to ALTs than retail, and the reason it is broken is that the ticket sizes are too large and the hold periods are too long. And I think as you alluded to, in the last decade, A, the consumer behavior has dramatically changed. People need access, they want to get educated, and then they can transact. And number two, changes to regulation really enabled Yieldstreet-type companies to really access a consumer that was not accessible earlier. And I think so those are really the big tailwinds of how do you really modernize your portfolio from the traditional stock market investing that all of us had access to and invest the top 1% or invest [inaudible 00:05:55] institutions? And now technology and data is enabling that. And I think that's really where people come to platforms like Yieldstreet.

Milind Mehere: (06:03)
I think one real important trend, Matt, to think about is that ours is a self-service platform. Right? So, we don't have sales people that will call you and say, "Hey, come invest on the platform." It's all about you engaging with the platform, engaging with the content, and I think that really is super fascinating in terms of consumer behavior and how and why they want access to ALTs.

Matt Brown: (06:25)
Milind, when you say the kind of the individual investor, obviously we all know the do it yourself investor now is rising. Information has been democratized at a rapid clip. Can you give us an insight into where a financial advisor may sit in five or 10 years if now you are empowering the individual investor?

Milind Mehere: (06:48)
So, listen, I think there is, in our opinion, I think an informed investor, whether it is going through a channel or directly to the platform is a very important component, especially thinking about investment options that are away from a traditional stock market. And so, I think education in general is a very important component of how consumers are going to access various financial products and how consumers become comfortable. So, Matt, one stat that we always quote is that people spend 10X more time planning a vacation, just a single vacation, than they do on financial planning every year, and the reason for that is the consumer is very afraid. And that's why, by the way, the other big trend is we are all sitting on more than $10 trillion of cash. The savings rate has been the highest. Right?

Milind Mehere: (07:39)
And so, I think the whole idea about education and how education can really be a stepping stone for consumers to get access to a wider set of products is very important. Direct to consumer is a small channel that [inaudible 00:07:56] ecosystem that are 300,000 advisors in the country that have access to millions of consumer. So, they have a role to play definitely in terms of how do you bring that education? And I know you guys are doing a lot of stuff around that area. I think both of them is such a large market. Just in the US, there are 50 million consumers that can get access to all so with all the regulatory changes that have happened. So, it's a huge market.

Matt Brown: (08:19)
Asiff, you are spending a lot of your time in the blockchain world. I think it's probably known to many of us, but not as well understood, on really the impact that the distributed ledger technology can have and smart contracts can have on the finance industry. Maybe just a thought on, one, this massive growth that we're seeing and then, two, how are you seeing it from your lens at Figure?

Asiff Hirji: (08:51)
Look, I think to me the answer on why all ALTs, it's because of the performance. Right? Public markets, they're beta. Right? They're the beta part of our portfolio now. And so, if you want to stretch for alpha, you're going to ALTs. And so, in some weird way, ALTs are no longer ALTs, they're like a core part of your portfolio. And if that's happening, that means, unfortunately, given the structure and the regulatory environments, the poor retail investor is actually disenfranchised from that, and so companies like Forge and Milind's company are doing a great job of trying to make that more accessible. Right? I think from our point of view, we see all that happening, but we see it going to blockchain in the end. Right?

Asiff Hirji: (09:30)
Let me take a step back. If you view crypto and blockchain as an asset class, you've misunderstood it. Right? That's like sitting there and saying circa 1999 or '98, that the internet is a class of stock. It isn't. It's just a way to build an application. Blockchain is simply a way to build an application. And the best things about blockchain are, one, it gets rid of intermediaries because you can do bilateral real-time settlement, peer to peer, and two is it acts as a registry. So, if you think about, "Oh, it's going to blow away all sorts of cases where I need an intermediary or I need an escrow agent or something else," guess what? Financial services is right in the crosshairs of that. The financial services industry is going to get transformed more than any other industry because of blockchain. And we're going to go to bilateral real-time settlement, we're going to release a ton of liquidity, we're going to release a ton of capital, we're going to drop costs. Financial transactions are going to be as cheap as sending an email. That's the thesis.

Asiff Hirji: (10:22)
One of my big frustrations when I was running, Coinbase was almost every single project that came to us was basically token speculation in disguise. And it wasn't really getting at how do I refinance my house cheaper? How do I just do my banking cheaper? And so, we built a blockchain to do exactly that. Had the speed, scalability, performance, and security you need in financial services, let it out in the wild. And then because our industry is loath to adopt anything without proof, we created Figure as an operating entity, and just use case by use case, we prove it's working. Right?

Asiff Hirji: (10:52)
So, we've gone from nothing to about a half a billion in loans now that we do in real-time settlement. We've taken a 90 day process and made it basically capital in advance to the point where we now have third-parties adopting it. So, we've done that for lending, we're doing it for marketplace businesses, and we're now we're doing it for banking. Again, if you think of blockchain or crypto as an asset class, you've got it wrong. It's a way to build an application. And if you haven't figured out how it's going to upset your world, you're about five years behind.

Matt Brown: (11:21)
So, I read something today at an announcement around stablecoin.

Asiff Hirji: (11:25)
That's right.

Matt Brown: (11:27)
Can you just enlighten us on exactly the impact of that and why that's such a big deal?

Asiff Hirji: (11:31)
Yeah. So, today, for the first time a US bank minted a Stablecoin backed by US currency. Now-

Matt Brown: (11:42)
And a Stablecoin is?

Asiff Hirji: (11:43)
Is simply a crypto token that represents that fiat. Right? It could be anything. It could be GBP. It could be... It doesn't matter. But in this case it was USD. Okay? The regulator has never allowed that to happen up until today, and it happened today on Provenance Blockchain. Okay? And the second thing that happened is we used it to settle real-time bilateral, no capital tied up in liquidity, et cetera, a secondary transaction of a private company. Okay? And so, these are two enormous milestones in the industry, and you will see things that Milind's company does or things that Forge does moving to a blockchain based settlement system, because it will be faster, it'll be cheaper, less capital required, and therefore higher access for everybody. That's where we're going.

Matt Brown: (12:27)
Kelly, just on that government being our friend for, at least, for now and regulation, it does seem like they are helping the process of democratization. They recently modified the accreditation rules to include certificates in education, so they're opening up. That's great. They'll continue to do more. Are they doing enough? Are they doing it fast enough? And then, are they pushing the liability to the platform in any way? Do you feel that pressure now that you're delivering access, it's very efficient, and the government is now allowing it in a more fluid way? Do you at Forge feel the pressure to be able to regulate a bit yourself?

Kelly Rodriques: (13:13)
I mean, we really took the compliance and regulatory requirements to trade in the asset class seriously 10 years ago when this company was formed, so I think the idea that now you're seeing pressure for governments to allow more participation in the asset class is a great thing. But like everything with government, it's probably five years behind where it needs to be. So, we see that as a benefit. Anything that provides greater access is positive. I think we believe that the rules are really clear, though, for what we do, and we're going to continue to build systems. And as a platform business, we've been highly focused on building the network of participants on the platform and we've been watching the emergence of blockchain technology, and we could see that at some point we could consolidate potentially what a custodial service does with a settlement platform and really bring efficiency to the market.

Kelly Rodriques: (14:12)
But I think depending on where you're coming from, if you're building the technology and the infrastructure to facilitate blockchain securities, eventually big networks, big platforms are going to have to adopt that. And along the way there, I think we've got to watch what's going on, not just in the US regulatory environment, but globally. Right? Today, our business has investors from 70 different countries, so we really need to be mindful about what it takes and be adhering to the rules within those geographies. Now, I think with Asiff's representing in the technology that will enable us to really do this at scale is super exciting, and for us, it's just a matter of, are we at the scale now where we'll benefit from that? And do we see the adoption of it in a manner that the business model serves what we're doing?

Kelly Rodriques: (15:02)
So, we're excited, but I do think you are seeing governments move... In fact, if you go back about 10 years ago, they were starting to talk about this around alternative assets in the 2012, 2013 timeframe, and so it's good that it's finally come along. If you think about it, if you work for one of the 800 unicorns and you work in a SaaS software business, why shouldn't you be qualified to invest in a SaaS software business? Especially if you work there for eight years and you developed an expertise that probably most financial advisors don't have, if you think about it. So, yeah, I see it moving in the right direction.

Matt Brown: (15:40)
Milind, the narrative around alternative investments, hedge funds, private equity, all the things on your platform, was always a bit as, as you look at the investor, the SEC would say, "Well, if you're wealthy enough, you can afford to lose money," and that was that mantra that they kept saying. So, they had these net worth requirements. Those are being modified, and as Kelly just said, now we're adding education because they finally realized if you're not wealthy, you can also be smart, so it's coming along. But are you feeling as a platform provider, an enabler of access, any need for education or for responsibility of the products on your platform to the end investor as the barriers are going down?

Milind Mehere: (16:23)
Yeah. I think, listen, I'm going to make a couple of provocative comments here. Right? So, one aspect is that, of course, education is very important, as I said earlier, and I think today we have mechanisms to deliver education that has never been available to us five, 10, 20 years ago. Right? And the consumer pool and their behavior is very different. So, we want to keep that context in mind. But at the end of the day, we are also building a platform that provides you with diverse access to variety of investment options. And outside of your FDIC insured account, really performance is all dependent on the right of different factors, and you need to educate the consumer on that. And so, I think that context is very important for us to keep in mind.

Milind Mehere: (17:09)
And if you think about, let's just take GameStop as an example. Okay? Or AMC. Right? The stock had its ups and downs. You don't call Fidelity and say, "Hey, what is happening here?" because consumers are making those trades and driving up the price. And leave those two aside, because those are obviously very speculative cases, but a simple company like an Apple or a Facebook, you don't call Fidelity or Charles Schwab saying, "Hey, the investment went down." So, I think alternate is have to have that level of acceptance, and one of the biggest factors that alternatives don't have that type of acceptance is because they are not widely available. And number two, liquidity. And what is the role of secondary market? Because if secondary market liquidity was there, then that price discovery, price action aspect, which is so powerful in the public markets, would be really valuable to the consumer.

Milind Mehere: (18:01)
And I think, Asiff, that's obviously, we all know and speak about it. Right? It's one of the biggest use cases for blockchain, where you could do those types of settlement. And Kelly, to your point, with all that capital locked up, now you can build on use cases for the consumer to say, "Hey, I can take my private company stock, maybe get a loan against that. Or I want to de-risk it, so maybe I can take it from the private company and put it on a platform like Yieldstreet." And so, I think those are the types of use cases, in my opinion, over the next five years that are going to really be adopted. And I think regulation has to really understand those changes in technology and data and access that exists today that didn't exist 10 years ago.

Matt Brown: (18:46)
Are you seeing-

Asiff Hirji: (18:47)
Let me [crosstalk 00:18:48].

Matt Brown: (18:47)
Yeah. Asiff, yeah, jump in.

Asiff Hirji: (18:48)
Yeah, let me slightly disagree because I think the world is becoming more decentralized, not centralized. And so, the mindset of there's a regulator that's going to protect you and there's a platform that's going to vouch for you, that's a dated mindset. Right? There's more money being made in NFTs today than just about any place else. I'm not suggesting anyone getting NFTs, by the way. I'm just saying there's more money being made in NFTs faster than just about anywhere else. That is a completely unregulated, not considered a security marketplace, yet it trades and acts just like any other marketplace any of us are familiar with. Right? And that's where the future's going. The future's going to decentralized platforms where anybody can create an asset, put it up there, and anybody can buy it and anybody can trade it.

Asiff Hirji: (19:31)
And so, then, well, who do you hold responsible if it blows up? Or how do you protect the investor from the greater fool theory. Right? So, there will probably be entities that go out and produce some sort of pseudo advisory function and say, "I will curate these things for you. I will try and do some risk assessment for you," et cetera. Maybe we get there. But the world is getting less and less centralized, more and more decentralized, and so I think this... It's an archaic view to say that there's going to be a central body regulator and a central body standard that you're going to meet. I don't think that's true.

Matt Brown: (20:05)
Kelly, what do you think about that?

Kelly Rodriques: (20:08)
Well, I think in the private share class, there's tremendous pressure to get access to it, and so I think it's a path of least resistance. We exist with a view that as a platform, we want to integrate with anybody that wants to participate in the asset class. So, I think the definitions that have shifted is the idea that you're going to create some centralized platform and no one else is going to be able to compete or integrate. And I think what you have to do is accept the fact that in the future, we're going to all need to have some connectivity to each other and to the extent that we want to use blockchain technology, and we want to allow people to freely move from forge to Yieldstreet to whatever else is offered on Provenance, I think that that's just something that you have to build into your model and you shouldn't try and consider your platform as something that you're going to protect and build walls around.

Kelly Rodriques: (21:09)
I think the regulatory environment is going to be really interesting to see how that unfolds because I'm just not sure how that translates into velocity in different geographies in the world. The second most traded geography in the world for us is Asia, and depending on where you are in Asia, it's really about that's where unicorns are and that's where investors who don't have access to US unicorns want to trade from. And so, we're there because that's where we've got velocity. I think we'll have to wait and see how quickly we can trade in Eastern Europe or in Europe in general or South America. But right now, I think we're trying to follow where the volume is.

Milind Mehere: (21:53)
[inaudible 00:21:53].

Matt Brown: (21:53)
Yeah, please.

Milind Mehere: (21:54)
I think just so, Asiff, I think I'm agreeing with you, I think broadly speaking, just if you think about the power of consumer change and need, I think that is a very important aspect of how financial services are going to evolve over the next decade. So, think about highly regulated or fairly regulated industries like taxi cab and hotels. Right? You now have Uber and Airbnb that have become [inaudible 00:22:21], and the reason why they become [inaudible 00:22:23] is because consumer wanted. And I think what Asiff was saying is that consumers want to create interest. Right? And so, the idea really is going to be how our platform is going to deliver that product over the next decade.

Milind Mehere: (22:35)
And I think that is a very important aspect that all of us need to consider and appreciate because, at the end of the day, it is all about us. And the consumer is going to inherit $70 trillion over the next two decades from Baby Boomers to Generation X, Y, Z. We may not follow the same traditional ways that our parents followed. Right? And so, the question really is going to be, how do you deliver that financial infrastructure in wealth management, in alternative assets to the consumer? And what would be the rails on which it can be built?

Matt Brown: (23:11)
Yeah. Well, just on that, Milind, if you look at the mutual fund industry, the ETF industry, they're not regulated in the investor, they're regulating in the product provider. And right now, in this gray area where a lot of the private funds or private securities don't fall underneath the regulatory environment, so maybe that ultimately becomes the direction which is the unleashing of the consumer, as you're suggesting, which Asiff I completely agree with you, it's going to become completely decentralized. But maybe the onus of the quality control will ultimately fall back on the product provider if they do, in fact, want access to [crosstalk 00:23:43].

Kelly Rodriques: (23:42)
Look. I think certainly from a data and disclosure standpoint, I think one of the things that we believed and been talking about out in the world is that the asset class is interesting. It is a consumer capable, do they have access to the proper information, data, and disclosures to make an investment decision? I think that's the one area that is probably the next phase of expansion for us.

Asiff Hirji: (24:06)
Right. I know this is the ALTs panel, but let's just pick up on that point. Why should mutual funds and ETFs even exist today. Given that trading is free and you can buy slices of stocks and you have robo-advisors, you don't need any of those things. Because every one of us as an individual should be able to go through a risk analyzer, within two minutes, we should be able to get a packaged portfolio, which is slices of various stocks, push a button, and it happens. We don't need ETFs. We don't need ETFs, we don't need mutual funds. Again, it's a dated mindset. And so, we're going to this environment where you will be able to, on the fly, create all these things, using ALTs, using non-ALTs, et cetera. That's the world we're going to. It's like whole life, thank God, finally died because of [term 00:24:48]. Right? Mutual funds are, thank God, finally dying because of ETFs, but ETFs are going to die because in this world of free trades and stock slices, you don't need them. So, again, I know this is the ALTs panels so we shouldn't [crosstalk 00:25:01] but it's a real-world [crosstalk 00:25:04].

Matt Brown: (25:04)
No, no. Look, these are very intertwined. We can't pull them apart.

Asiff Hirji: (25:05)
It's a real-world example of that's where we're going, and that's what's happening with ALTs. ALTs are becoming more liquid, more data-driven, more platform-enabled on blockchain with real-time settlement.

Kelly Rodriques: (25:16)
And that's the next phase of what we're seeing now with data on our platform. With that you, you can go in and you can buy a basket and design your own portfolio without having to know whether I need to buy Uber or Lyft.

Asiff Hirji: (25:27)
Exactly. And so, what you need is somebody like a Forge that sits there and says, "I've done the work I've. I've collected the data on this asset. Okay? This is what they perform like." Or Yieldstreet saying, "I've done the work. I've created..." Okay? What is that? That sounds a lot like what an investment bank used to do.

Matt Brown: (25:42)
So, I think the demand story on the consumer side, the individual investor, or the financial advisor on behalf of the individual investor, I think we get that. They've been disappointed, active management has failed, alternatives are the new active. You gave, Kelly, a variety of your reasons on the private pre-IPO side. But let's look at the demand from the product perspective. Asiff, you just did an announcement on Apollo-

Asiff Hirji: (26:06)
That's right.

Matt Brown: (26:06)
... doing something. Let's get into the mind of the asset manager or the corporation on what motivates them to want to be on a platform. Why do they care at all about small investors? What's going on on that side?

Asiff Hirji: (26:19)
Can I start with that? Okay. So, I was a partner at TPG, I was a partner at Andreessen. We've had this discussion with Apollo One of the biggest things is if you think of the infrastructure you're required to run a fund, because of the cost of that infrastructure, that's why the ticket size is so high. That's why you want fewer investors rather than more investors. It's a pain in the butt to have to manage thousands of investors when you have that kind of an inflexible platform. Well, go to the kind of platforms we're talking about, whether the investor is writing a million dollar check or a $10,000 check, it doesn't matter. You can manage them both the same way for the same amount of cost.

Asiff Hirji: (26:52)
And so, for leaning companies like Apollo are looking at and saying, "We want to put a fund on chain. We want to be able to have secondary liquidity on that chain because that'll be good for the investors, and by the way, I don't have to deal with LPs coming to me saying, 'I want liquidity.'" And so, that's what they're doing. So, the first fund Apollo is going to put on our blockchain... Sorry, not our blockchain, on the Provenance Blockchain, is going to be a new fund of which some portion of that fund is going to be exchange tradable to create liquidity. And that's just the first of many that they're going to put on. And they're not the only asset manager. And this is great because it's not the LPs saying, "Please find a way for me to get liquidity." It's the fund manager saying, "This is a better way to create the fund." And again, this is the path that these fund managers are on, apollo being at the start.

Kelly Rodriques: (27:38)
If you take a look at companies, though, if a company is going to stay private for 13 years, I think SpaceX is 18 years-

Asiff Hirji: (27:46)
What was it 10 years ago? What was it 20 years ago?

Kelly Rodriques: (27:49)
20 years ago it was five and a half years, so a company was going public at five and a half with a valuation of 550 million. Now, it's 13 years at a valuation of five billion. Okay? And so, these are capital raising machines. When you have five, six, seven rounds of capital and you start having employees who stock options of vested in four years, and they've gone through three full vesting cycles, the company's got to use technology and has got to use a more market-based pricing mechanism for primary and secondary capital.

Kelly Rodriques: (28:25)
So, the idea that you're going to go out and raise money every year from the same 12 VCs that you know just doesn't make any sense. And particularly if you're starting to offer secondary trading to venture [inaudible 00:28:37] institutional investors or your own employees, they want to know that they're not selling their stock at a discount. And we've all seen the public private discounts that are going on in these tender offers that started five years ago. Those are going to go away. Why would you discount your stock by 30% for your employees when there's an investor halfway across the world that's willing to pay you full preferred market price for it? So, I think for a company it's about, "Hey, I need to plug into a capital machine so I'm not spending 40% of my time running my company and capital raising mode."

Milind Mehere: (29:13)
Yeah. And I think to add to this whole comment around why supply side will want to work with platforms like us, I think it's really two aspects to it. One is it's not about today. So, today, we might be able to read only portion of that fund, but in two years [inaudible 00:29:31] $20 million check, you'd get $150 million LP. Three years it would be the entire billion dollar fund. That's one aspect of it in terms of the value that retail has given the dynamics that we've been discussing [inaudible 00:29:43].

Milind Mehere: (29:44)
The second aspect, in my mind, which is much more powerful, is what's the role of capital formation, and how's that changing? Kelly, to your point. So, for me, it is a completely different way to look at it. Historically, Wall Street has operated by saying, "Hey, I'm raising a $2 billion fund for XYZ strategy. Now, let me go find LPs." The LPs can be institutional, retail, international, domestic, small, big, whatever may be the case. Can you flip that model and say, "I'm actually now going to go to retail and say, 'Hey, what is the type of product do you want? Is it 8% yield, three year duration and some asset type?'" And then you can aggregate that demand on a platform and say, "Okay, great, KKR, Apollo, whatever may be the case, I have $5 million allocated to this type of a yield risk spectrum, can you deploy that capital?"

Milind Mehere: (30:38)
So, instead of you getting stuck in a strategy because your macro economic factors change many times and the fund are multi-year, can you flip that and say, "Hey, the consumer wants this"? Because the consumer is living life very differently. We no longer work for 30 years in one company, and we need liquidity at different points in time. And so, out of the $100 of allocation, yeah, sure, you should have something that a big portion should be allocated for your long-term goals, but there are short-term and medium-term liquidity goals that we have and the desire to own income can change that capital formation story. So, I think that's really where technology can pay an unbelievable role.

Matt Brown: (31:16)
So, institutional investors, family offices, endowments, pensions typically have 30 to 50% weighted in alternative investments broadly, including pre-IPO? Wealth management can range wildly, but as low as nothing to up to 10 or 15%. Total US wealth management, north of 20 trillion. That's just money professionally managed by a financial advisor. So, it's a multi-trillion dollar jump ball right now and there's big firms like Apollo and like Blackstone and like Carlisle and many, many others that are seeing this as, as Kelly you to said, a very important capital source and capital formation source coming forward.

Matt Brown: (32:00)
At the same time, you have the SEC and other regulatory bodies seemingly making it easier, pushing the responsibility away from a net worth requirement to product providers, platforms playing a neutral facilitation role. I mean, that's a pretty powerful dynamic. You can see a complete industry change. Then, you overlay blockchain. That could completely transform the entire industry on how we even think about doing business, maybe us if we don't even need fund structures anymore. Possibly.

Asiff Hirji: (32:34)
Possibly.

Matt Brown: (32:34)
Possibly. Let's play the game five years out, 10 years out. Okay? We're sitting here in SALT, Anthony Scaramucci is still here doing his thing. What does that world look like? And I want to start with you, Asiff, because I think that from the blockchain perspective, what's this conversation around democratization sounding like in 10 years from now?

Asiff Hirji: (32:57)
I would posit that in in 10 years, the big structural changes that will happen is you will move settlement to be bilateral real-time.

Matt Brown: (33:07)
Just, can you just explain that a little deeper?

Asiff Hirji: (33:09)
Yeah. So, why did GameStop happen? Right? GameStop happened because we have a circuit in 1970s architecture underpinning our securities marketplace. Right? So, if you go back, in the 1960s, literally when you traded stock, a broker would send a paper security from one broker test to the other to settle the security. That's what happened. And the stock market would shut down Wednesday afternoons and Fridays because of the volume. That's where we were in the 1960s. And so, they created the DTCC, which is a centralized body that they said, "This is stupid. We'll put all the paper certificates in one place, and we'll have an agency just have a tabular format, figure out how it works on computers." Awesome suggestion for 1970.

Asiff Hirji: (33:53)
We're still on that technology, which is why it takes us three days to settle a trade. That means if you've got trillions of dollars trading every day, guess what? You have trillions upon trillions of dollars of liquidity that's margined across all these houses. And the DTCC is the ultimate carrier of that margin, and so the DTCC went to Robinhood... Sorry, it went to the houses that Robinhood used and said, "Hey, you're asking me to take leverage on GameStop. I don't like it anymore. I'm going to increase my margin requirements 3X overnight." Right? That's what happened. That is the antithesis of a bilateral real-time settlement system. It's a three day, lots of capital tied up, really complex system which leads to things like Archigos happening because no one can figure out how much liquidity was actually lent to Archigos. Right?

Asiff Hirji: (34:40)
A bilateral real-time system works really simply. I have a wallet on crypto, Milind has a wallet on crypto. I want to trade with Milind, I don't even know who Milind is, I just know that I have a security, I put it on a marketplace, I put out a bid... Sorry. I put out an ask, he hits it, the blockchain will settle that transaction in real-time, it'll move Stablecoin from his wallet into mine, and it'll move the security from my wallet into his. We're done. There is no settlement risk there. It doesn't match the trade. If it can't do it. Now, everyone sits there and says, "Oh, you just pre-funded every trade. You can't do that." No, because Milind could have gone to Kelly and said, "My business is trading. I want to borrow some money to do that." Kelly lends him the money, that's the money that's sitting in his wallet, that's what settled.

Asiff Hirji: (35:24)
We built on Provenance a completely automated bilateral real-time settlement trading system which we'd showed the DTCC, which handles today's volumes and more of the New York Stock Exchange with zero requirement for margin. Zero. Because it works so fast. Right? So, it would take trillions of dollars literally out of the system in terms of capital required. It would drop costs even more. The current system, the entrenched incumbents don't want to change. Right? So, until we convinced the banks, the traders to move to the system, that's what it'll take to get there, but that's where we're going.

Matt Brown: (36:02)
Is that the roadblock, is that the challenge is to getting the community [crosstalk 00:36:05]?

Asiff Hirji: (36:04)
Yeah. Why was the DTCC adopted? Right? Then what's the role for the DTCC? So, I think what's going to happen eventually, because everything takes longer, but in a 10 year horizon, you will move to bilateral real-time settlement globally for almost every asset class, because almost every asset class will be tokenized and it will be exchange traded. That doesn't mean the exchange traded 24/7. A lot of these things don't have 24/7 liquidity, but they will have liquidity over certain periods of time whenever the asset manager decides to turn a liquidity on. That's the world we're going in, and you will construct on the fly, whether it's what we consider today public securities, or whether they're private securities or ALTs or whatever, that distinction is blurring.

Matt Brown: (36:43)
Milind, same question. Let's project out, Yieldstreet or other platforms, where are we in five and 10 years with your platform?

Milind Mehere: (36:51)
Yeah. I think that, listen, I agree with several points that Asiff made, I think for us, or just generally from a wealth management perspective, it needs to be much more of a dynamic system for the consumer depending upon where they are in their life needs and what type of liquidity do they want? So, can you create portfolios that take advantage of that type of a consumer construct. At the same time, how can you really, if you think about the top 1% and the family offices, the way they invest, what type of liquidity do you provide them against their liquid assets? What type of margin lending products do you have for them? So, how does all of these various aspects come together in a real-time system, I think, is where wealth management is going, in our opinion. And ALTs, as Asiff eloquently said, is the primary driver of alpha. We are strong believers in that over the next decade. So, we feel that it's a golden age of fintech, and I think that's really where that real-time platforms are going to be really very valuable.

Matt Brown: (37:56)
You described Yieldstreet as a digital bank in a press release or something I've read recently, but you're also a platform where individual investors get access to alternative investments. Are those the same thing? Just pulling that thread a bit.

Milind Mehere: (38:11)
Yeah. So, listen, I think for us, it's mostly, we are the next generation investment and wealth management platform. I think the idea of a digital private bank is how do you provide the same type of product and access that a traditional private bank provides, but do it using an automated platform? So, that's really the very simple way to think about what Yieldstreet is really aspiring to be.

Kelly Rodriques: (38:38)
Look, I think in 10 years, businesses that make money by settling trades or by matching trades will give way to businesses that make money by providing data and insights. I think, yes, in a world where Asiff's vision comes true, we would want to be and would accelerate being a fully global business that can provide real-time liquidity on our asset class anytime you want it or need it, whether you're raising primary capital or your secondary capital. But you also need someone who's a data provider that can tell you what came before, what's out there in the world that looks like this, how do I make a purchase decision in discover pricing? I think that's the kind of business that these platform companies turn into in five to 10 years.

Matt Brown: (39:28)
Do companies ever need to go public again with Forge?

Kelly Rodriques: (39:30)
I mean, theoretically, no. In fact, there are companies that we talk to now, if you take a look at the amount of liquidity, secondary liquidity, that has been done on SpaceX in the last three years, I think it's something like eight billion. I mean, they've essentially turned over and provided unlimited secondary liquidity to anybody that's bought into them in the last 10 years. So, I think it just depends on whether or not the rules change or whether or not you can have 4,000 people on your cap table. I think there's some regulatory reasons why you'd need to go. But from the standpoint of access to capital and liquidity [inaudible 00:40:10].

Milind Mehere: (40:09)
Yeah. I think you're absolutely right. I 100% actually agree with you. In the sense that I feel that permanent capital should exist at an asset level and there should be liquidity at the user level. And if you can bring out that equilibrium, it's unstoppable. Right? And there are elements of [crosstalk 00:40:29].

Kelly Rodriques: (40:28)
Yeah. I think that's totally right. I think the distinction between a public company and private company is blurring.

Matt Brown: (40:33)
Well, there's a lot of firms out there or platforms or companies that are very interested to make sure that there's IPOs and publicly listed company. What is the announcement that the New York Stock Exchange is acquiring for [crosstalk 00:40:47]?

Kelly Rodriques: (40:46)
Well, Deutsche Börse invested heavily [crosstalk 00:40:50].

Matt Brown: (40:49)
All powered by blockchain. When is that convergence going to happen? Milind, that's actually a real question. When are you going to see a private investment fund, alternative investment funds offered on a stock exchange?

Milind Mehere: (41:04)
Yeah. I think if I were placing bets, I would be more favorable of what Kelly was saying, which is, do you really need to offer them even on private exchanges? Right? We are launching one of the most prominent secondary VC funds on our platform later this month. And frankly speaking, do you really need to go public? And can you just [inaudible 00:41:26] whether it's on Yieldstreet, whether it's on Forge, whether it's on Carta, you could actually have a very active trading market. So, my answer is that I don't know whether you would want them to be on public exchanges.

Matt Brown: (41:42)
So, all three of you have general competitors. We all have competitors. I have competitors. I think we all probably agree that total addressable market is massive, so it's less about competition and more about market share for ourselves. But let's talk winners and losers for a second. So, maybe Kelly, you're shaking your head, what are the companies that you think, and of course you're going to put Forge in that category-

Kelly Rodriques: (42:06)
Top of the list.

Matt Brown: (42:06)
... top of the list of winners, but what are the losers ultimately not doing today that... What are they not seeing that you see?

Kelly Rodriques: (42:14)
I think the one thing that jumps out is anybody that thinks they're going to disrupt everyone in the ecosystem and own it all will be a loser. I think you have to be able to integrate, collaborate, and allow participation by the constituents who are interested in your market. And any attempt to build a sort of walled gardens structure where you try and own everything, I think, is a losing proposition.

Matt Brown: (42:46)
Yeah. We see that all the time. Milind?

Milind Mehere: (42:49)
I think for me it's distribution pipes and how can you efficiently build distribution pipes is very important. And how do you make accessibility much more favorable to the consumer and not to to the street? And I think those companies that really embrace that, which is put the consumer first design a product that's right for them, and have the right pipes into those consumers are ultimately going to be winners. And those that don't embrace that change whether what's embedded finance and defi is doing, what has happening with consumer behavior, and they still think that they could control those pipes to the consumers may not do well.

Matt Brown: (43:29)
Asiff, many blockchain companies or many companies at least put that label on themselves, whether that's totally true or not.

Asiff Hirji: (43:35)
Yeah. I think the business models that are in trouble, anything that's escrow based, if your business model is, "I provide escrow services-

Matt Brown: (43:43)
Escrow based?

Asiff Hirji: (43:44)
Yeah. If your business model is, "I provide escrow services, you park capital with me, I charge you for that to do something," that model's [crosstalk 00:43:50].

Matt Brown: (43:50)
So, Schwab, Fidelity, and [crosstalk 00:43:52].

Asiff Hirji: (43:52)
No. I wouldn't put [inaudible 00:43:53] title insurers.

Matt Brown: (43:54)
Title insurance. Okay.

Asiff Hirji: (43:55)
Or an escrow agent where if I'm buying a house, I need to deposit funds at an escrow agent because they won't release them until the title appears and everything else. Those models are all dead because, again, we're going to bilateral real-time settlement, and so that model displaces the escrow based business models. I think that's one thing. And Kelly alluded to that, too, in the settlement arena. I think the second arena is there are a lot of fund managers who, frankly, are simply, they're closet indexers. Right? And the performance will come through that. And if you're a closet indexer, you have a short life in this new world because people are going to see through that and they'll get the alpha cheaper somewhere else. Right? So, I think those are the two trends that I would look for.

Matt Brown: (44:42)
Right. Believe it or not, we are out of time, but I want to ask each of you one question. You're all leaders in business, you've mentored people, you manage people, you're growing firms, so my lightning round final question, what's one life lesson you wish you knew a lot earlier in life? We can have an entire new session just on that question, if you'd like.

Asiff Hirji: (45:08)
Who do you want to go first?

Matt Brown: (45:10)
Milind?

Milind Mehere: (45:11)
All right. So, I think for me, take bigger risks, massive risks earlier in your career. That's the only time, or that's one of the most favorable times to do that. And if I knew that-

Matt Brown: (45:22)
I'm sorry, knew what?

Milind Mehere: (45:26)
Take bigger risks.

Matt Brown: (45:27)
Oh, take risks. Yeah.

Milind Mehere: (45:27)
Yeah. And I think all of us are super conservative and most of us are... Looking at my background, you would not think that I'm a conservative. I've taken a bunch of risks, but I think that's one lesson just... I came to this country as an immigrant student. Right? And so, you kind of follow that corporate route, and I did that for a few years. And I think today with access to data and technology, I think if I knew that earlier or in my 20s, I think it would be amazing.

Matt Brown: (45:55)
Kelly?

Kelly Rodriques: (45:57)
I'd say working in software and fintech businesses most of my career, I've come to believe that no matter how many engineers you hire, how much money you raise, your competitive advantage comes from building a tremendous culture in an organization where people want a piece of changing the world and they want to work with other like-minded people who care about each other. And I guess I've just come to believe that leadership and culture trumps who's got more engineers.

Asiff Hirji: (46:33)
So, I have a high schooler who's about to apply to college and one of the things I'm telling him is it's all about your network. In the end, it's all about your network. The best opportunities always come from your network. And it's like, build your network, do random favors for people in your network not expecting anything in return, because at some point it's going to pay back tenfold.

Matt Brown: (46:51)
Great. Gentlemen, thank you so much. Really enjoyed this conversation.

Asiff Hirji: (46:56)
Thanks for having us.

Milind Mehere: (46:56)
Thank you.

Alternative Income in a Zero Interest Rate World | #SALTNY

Alternative Income in a Zero Interest Rate World with Clayton Degiacinto, Managing Partner & Chief Investment Officer, Axonic Capital. TJ Durkin, Co-Head, Structured Credit & Head of Residential & Consumer Debt, Angelo Gordon. Aaron Peck, Partner, Portfolio Manager & Co-Head of Opportunistic Private Credit, Monroe Capital.

Moderated by Daniel Barile, Partner & Senior Portfolio Manager, SkyBridge.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - DeGiacinto, Clayton - Cropped.jpeg

Clayton Degiacinto

Founder & Managing Partner

Axonic Capital

Headshot - Durkin, TJ - Cropped.jpeg

T.J. Durkin

Co-Head, Structured Credit & Head of Residential and Consumer Debt

Angelo Gordon

 
Headshot - Peck, Aaron - Cropped.jpeg

Aaron Peck

Partner, Portfolio Manager & Co-Head of Opportunistic Private Credit

Monroe Capital

MODERATOR

Headshot - Barile, Daniel - Cropped.jpeg

Daniel Barile

Partner & Senior Portfolio Manager

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Daniel Barile: (00:07)
Hi everybody. Thanks so much for joining us and on behalf of SkyBridge, thanks so much for being here at this very special SALT in New York. I have a great panel today. We're talking about... The title is Alternative Income in a Zero Interest Rate World, but it's going to be a little bit broader than that. We're going to talk about some interesting segments of the credit market generally and yields, but also just opportunity sets. I would like to introduce my fellow panelists Clay from Axonic, TJ from Angelo Gordon and Aaron from Monroe Capital. I'm going to pass it on to them, to just give a bit of background on their firms and themselves and what they invest in. And then from there, we'll talk a bit about markets. Clay.

Clayton Degiacinto: (01:02)
Great, Clay DeGiacinto, Axonic Capital. We've been around since 2009 and manage about $4.5 billion solely in structured credit. We do this through a couple of LP products. Some funds of one and single asset funds and also two registered products, a mutual fund, and an interval fund.

T. J. Durkin: (01:24)
T. J. Durkin, Angelo Gordon's a $45 billion global alternative asset manager, been around since 1988. I've been with the firm 13 years. We focus exclusively on credit and real estate. And I oversee our structured credit business, which is about a six and a half billion [inaudible 00:01:41].

Aaron Peck: (01:43)
Great. Hi, my name is Aaron Peck. I'm a partner at Monroe Capital. Monroe manages just a shade under $11 billion. We're headquartered in Chicago, we're best known as a lower middle market lender. So we're a direct lender, lending money to small companies typically generating between three and $30 million of EBITDA. We offer products everywhere from large institutional products down to funds that can be invested by accredited investors.

Daniel Barile: (02:07)
Great. All right, thanks. Thank you guys. So to kick it off... So obviously we're in an incredibly low yield environment you're basically at all time low yields for on the run. You get a high yield credit and you're close to all time tight spreads, not at all time tight spreads. And there's just very little places for folks to, to generate yield without some trade, right?

Daniel Barile: (02:38)
Complexity or less liquidity. But I think there are exceptions to that kind of generic statement that we're in a low rate world. There are definitely pockets of the market that are really, really interesting, offer higher yields without utilizing leverage to get there, but they require specialization. And when I think about your respective firms, you do a really, really good job at that. And you're involved in segments of the market where there are opportunities, right? So maybe we'll start with you, Aaron. Just talk about... Develop a bit. So when you say middle market direct lending, what that means for the audience here, but then talk a bit about what the unlevered yield and total return profile of a typical portfolio you could put together today, what that looks like.

Aaron Peck: (03:29)
Sure. So direct lending is just what it sounds like. It's a pretty simple business. At the end of the day, we loan money to small companies. We're typically senior secured first lien lenders. So we're doing what banks used to do. It used to be that you go down, you run a small business in your town, you meet with the local banker, then you play around a golf. You tell them you need to build a factory or you want to buy your competitor and they'll lend you some money against your cashflow. That market completely went away after the great financial crisis and the Dodd-Frank rules. All the direct lenders sort of grew up in that market and expanded their offerings and banks really aren't in that market. Banks are mostly asset-based lenders today. And so for us, we're providing cashflow lending. We're lending against business' enterprise value.

Aaron Peck: (04:11)
If a business is worth $100 million dollars, we're usually going to lend about $50 million. So we're typically attaching at around a 50% loan to value. It's senior secured. So unlike most high yield bonds, which tend to be subordinated and unsecured, we're top of the capital structure secured by all the assets of the business. And we're typically four, four and a half times leverage and most important is in the lower middle market where we spend most of our time, that market still has a lot of protections. It has a lot of covenants. And so what that means is when a borrower has its risk position change, they'll trip a covenant and we have a repricing opportunity and the opportunity to change what we get paid for the risk, which is very different from the high yield bond market. It's really the reason I got into direct lending in the first place is I grew up in the high-yield bond market.

Aaron Peck: (04:58)
What I hated about it is you buy a 5% bond. That's the most you're going to make on that bond if the risk of that bond changes and suddenly the company's a lot more risky, you may not get your money back, but you're never going to be able to increase your rate. Your 5% coupon is your coupon. In the direct money business, when there's a change in the risk in the underlying credit, there's a covenant violation, particularly in the lower part of the market where we trade and you'll have the opportunity to adjust your risk. So that's something we really like.

Aaron Peck: (05:25)
And so to the question, Dan, about yields, our loans typically are anywhere from LIBOR 575, 600. So we usually have about a 1% LIBOR floor. So we're generally earning six or 7% on the low end, up to low double digits on the high end. And our portfolios typically on an unlevered basis are going to generate kind of a mid to high single digit return. Everything we do is a current pay vehicle. We usually put some leverage because we're such senior secured. It's pretty low risk assets, pretty secure.

Aaron Peck: (05:57)
So our typical fund, we have an accredited investor fund, for example, that is paying around an 8% dividend yield current and uses about one-to-one leverage.

Daniel Barile: (06:06)
That's great. Thank you, Aaron. Clay? You want to talk a bit about what you can construct given your mandate at Axonic from a yield and total return perspective and what are some of the different exposures there?

Clayton Degiacinto: (06:24)
Yeah, sure. If it were a zero rate world, which you point out, I would want to invest in a market that has a systematic tailwind, something like a shortage of housing in this country that we've had for the past 30 years. I'd want the market to be over the counter, not exchange traded, and ability to execute in a bilateral fashion. I'd want it to be liquid. I'd want it to be dislocated. I'd want there to be numerous players that all have different regulatory constraints via banks or insurance companies, or even the GSEs that sort of dominate the mortgage market in this country. I would want the players to have different and asymmetry of information, asymmetry of systems and asymmetry of the way that they differentiate themselves from a fundamental perspective. I'd want the market to organically delever, meaning every month that cash flows out and turns risk into cash.

Clayton Degiacinto: (07:29)
I'd love for the markets traded at discount. And that's what I'd want to invest in. That effectively is structured credit. And that's what we do. And we do it through RMBS, CMBS, commercial real estate loans, asset backed securities, et cetera. Did I mention dislocated? At times the market has dislocated. We look for those pockets. People say when will the market be dislocated? I say it's always dislocated. You just have to find the sector that's dislocated. And so that's what we invest in, and bonds, loans, et cetera, through our vehicles. And I think our sort of expectation is a cashflow in the mid to high single digits and the total return sort of centered around 10, given the opportunity today.

Daniel Barile: (08:18)
Great.Great. TJ?

T. J. Durkin: (08:20)
Yeah, I'd say Clay and I probably swim in the same pool but maybe different lanes. And so I think his background for what we look at is applicable to us. And I think just getting into probably what we're looking at today is I'll point out three things. And there's two themes that are consistent with the three. One is we believe there are large tangible, addressable markets, typically trillion plus. And two, we think that the credit quality is still tight, especially when you compare it to some kind of more public corporate lending.

T. J. Durkin: (08:51)
So first within residential mortgage finance, everything that doesn't qualify for Fannie or Freddie, we think it's probably commonly referred to as non QM. We think that's very interesting. We're active in purchasing the raw receivables and effectuating securitization. Secondly, student loans in particular private student loans.

T. J. Durkin: (09:12)
And so when you think about that, that notional, that's a trillion and a half, and the headline numbers that you'll see in the Wall Street Journal, et cetera, about the delinquencies and the forbearances, that's generally what is sitting on the government's balance sheet. And when you dive into what the private market is, probably the most popular companies are so fire selling that we think there's really good risk adjusted returns there, and the performance is much, much better. And then I would say, third is credit card lending from the non-bank institutions. So if you think about B of A or Chase or Wells, that's a super private customer, easy access for those people that qualify. There's a whole ecosystem of people in that demographic that wants a flexible way to pay for gas, pay for groceries. And there's a lot of specialty finance companies out there that are serving them. And so we're very active in providing those companies capital, whether it be in debt or buying the receivables, et cetera.

T. J. Durkin: (10:09)
And probably on a return perspective, probably similar to cashflow is being generated in the mid high single digits. And then there's kind of upside on the exit, whether it's a securitization or sale on that will probably get us into the low double digits.

Daniel Barile: (10:24)
Great. Okay. So we'll start with Aaron, but same kind of question to the panel, the other panelists as well. So for the audience here, help reconcile... So you can buy HYG right now and get a high yield, popular high yield ETF, and get a 4% yield. And I think you don't have to be a specialist, you just look at the financial press. And I think the press does a good job of kind of conveying just about any corporate... You put your hand up and say, "Hey I need to raise money," and you can raise money pretty easily in the environment that we're in. So very wide open kind of capital markets. And so reconcile that to why would a good company that's been around for a long time be willing to, or be forced to, I guess, as the market kind of forces them to pay that higher yield.

Daniel Barile: (11:16)
So along with Merome and a handful of other really good middle market direct lenders that have been doing an excellent job generating exceptional risk adjusted returns in the current environment. But it doesn't always tie, I think, unless you're deep in the credit markets, you don't necessarily appreciate why that exists. Why does that inefficiency exist where you can pick up three or four points in yield?

Daniel Barile: (11:38)
So maybe talk through that for the group and also what the trade is there. So in some cases it's going to be liquidity. So you have to have a different kind of duration of capital.

Aaron Peck: (11:48)
Yeah. That's a good question. And I think what's important to understand is that it depends on where you are in the market. So it's specifically to middle market finance, which is the business that we're active in. When you get into the high side of middle market finance, the larger middle market companies, which are typically going to be 75 million of EBITDA and up. There are more alternatives for companies of that size. They can look to selective high yield issuance and in some cases, even [inaudible 00:12:15]. When you get down into the space where Monroe traffics, the three to 30 million of EBITDA kind of borrower, there is no bond market for those borrowers. There is no alternative source of capital other than maybe going to the bank for a first lien sort of asset-based finance and maybe a hedge fund or a mezzanine lender for that mez piece.

Aaron Peck: (12:35)
What we provide them as a one-stop shop. Most of what we're doing today is working with a middle market, private equity firm who's buying the company. And it's really the only way that they can create their levered investment in a borrower is through a firm like ours. And so what does an investor taking on when they take on an investment in a Monroe fund versus a high yield index or even an investment grade index?

Aaron Peck: (12:59)
Well, obviously we're paying a higher yield and there is nothing that's free. So we must be taking on some risk that you aren't taking on if you are in a high grade bond. And so I think what you're taking on is a couple things. One is there's clearly less liquidity in what we do than there is in the both high grade market and even the high yield market.

Aaron Peck: (13:19)
Right? So when we originate a loan, it's a hundred and $150 million loan, it's going into all the Monroe funds. I can't sell that loan easily for the price that I originated that. When things are good, I can certainly syndicate a piece of it at the time, but if I close that loan and we get a year out and I want to sell that loan, there's probably no one who's going to show up and bid me par. Maybe there is, but it's not going to be so easy. It's going to be negotiated. There's no market. And so there's definitely a liquidity premium in what we do.

Aaron Peck: (13:47)
And so...

Daniel Barile: (13:48)
They can still see us.

Aaron Peck: (13:49)
I don't think they like the answer. There's a liquidity premium there, for sure. And then at the end of the day, there's also a bit of a timing issue, right? So a lot of times we're called upon to do a loan where we need to move quickly because there's a transaction that needs to close. And the bond market may take longer to underwrite. There's a registration process. Everything's privately negotiated. And so a lot of our borrowers are willing to pay a little bit more for certainty of execution, timing of execution, particularly in our opportunistic credit business, which is a subset of what we do. More asset focused lending. It overlaps a little bit more with what these guys do. We do some specialty finance lending. Those tend to be things that need to move quickly, close quickly. And the price that we're charging is not usually the determinant of why we're selective. It's more about the flexibility and the capital we provide.

Aaron Peck: (14:33)
And the last piece I'll just mention is it's not untrue that we're going to push out on the leverage side a lot more than a bank would do. So our typical loan is four and a half times EBITDA. You're not going to see a lot of banks hold on their balance sheet for four and a half times EBITDA kind of leverage. That's a little bit more leveraged. So it comes down to a really fundamental, good credit underwriting. And our track record is that we go out and try to make sure we don't lose a lot of money. The lending business is easy. The way you make money is you don't lose money. It sounds dumb, but that's the bottom line. You don't get paid enough to take a lot of risks. So you've got to really underwrite well, and I think that's really what we're trying to do every day.

Daniel Barile: (15:06)
No, that great Aaron. Yeah, I think that the key point is that it's not that you appear in the current market to be getting paid well for those risks. Right? So if you're generating double or close to double the yield of vanilla, unsecured, high yield and you're secured, I think that trade-off from a liquidity perspective makes sense all day long, assuming it matches the duration of your capital. But it seems like one segment of the market where there's still a lot of income and a lot of value in a tough environment. And so maybe TJ talk a bit about the difference. Obviously structured credit is... We can cover a lot of kind of sub sections of the market.

Daniel Barile: (15:58)
But maybe pick one or two to kind of highlight. Drive home this point that there's a lot of inefficiencies in these markets. And you could be a lazy, fixed income investor. You could be mandate constrained as well. So it's not just lazy investors are only investing in on the run IGE and high yield. They may know that there's not a lot of value there, but they may be mandate constrained.

Daniel Barile: (16:23)
But imagine an investor who's not mandate constrained who still overweighed those kind of very vanilla segments in the market right now what's the simple pitch for a couple of segments of your book, just from a relative value perspective.

T. J. Durkin: (16:39)
Yeah. I think just, just even from 10,000 feet, if you think about what corporations and CFOs are doing. They're doing what they're supposed to do right now. Credit's easy. Rates are low. They're extending durations. And so I think if you fast forward to five, whatever amount of years and rates do eventually go up and there are some fundamental concerns, that's a lot of volatility in the price of the corporate security that's got a 10, 15 year maturity.

T. J. Durkin: (17:07)
When you think about a lot of the products, just big picture that we're investing in. If you think about residential real estate, it's a great inflation hedge, right? And so if you're worried about sort of the inevitable rising rates, who knows when it's going to happen, that's a good place effectively to be secure and be hiding. If you look at a lot of the other consumer asset classes that we're investing in, like I mentioned, credit cards as an example, generally shorter duration floating rate. And so I think what this space in particular can do right now, more so than other parts of the market, whether it be corporates or immunities, is offer you yields without a lot of duration risk. And I think that really should have a home in a lot of people's portfolio, given sort of the uncertainty of what's in the Fed's going to do, and sort of where we are just big picture mid 2021.

Daniel Barile: (18:00)
That's great. Clay, maybe a couple of segments of your book you want to highlight? I know that the Freddie SPL portion of the book is fascinating. I think might be worth taking five minutes to kind of unpack for the group here as a segment of the market that I'm sure a lot of folks won't be familiar with. Axonic has really has developed a relationship with Freddie and a real specialization here. So maybe worth highlighting from an opportunity perspective, something that's really unique.

Clayton Degiacinto: (18:29)
Sure. Thank you. And I agree with TJ, I think you said yield without duration, and effectively that's just cash flows. And everybody at my shop, when we look at certain assets or respective investments, we first look at the pool of assets, be it residential mortgage loans, or commercial mortgage loans, or aviation loans, et cetera, and really have a good feeling or a forecast of the pre-payment variability, the default variability, the recovery variability. And then we look at the structure and it's really that function of structure that allows us to insulate and mitigate a lot of risk. I think inflation's here. I don't think it's a debate.

Clayton Degiacinto: (19:17)
I remain surprised when the Fed tries to convince us that it's transitory, but hard assets are a great position to be in. And specifically our firm, we're not always at the top part of the capital structure. So we're at sort of the part of the capital structure I dib to be that fulcrum part where losses and prepayments matter, and inflation is only going to support these assets on a go forward basis. So if we can run a lower severity than we had originally sort of forecasted the bang for your buck or the additional yield enhancements is quite substantial, especially when it's a discount asset or a discount bond.

Clayton Degiacinto: (20:00)
Our relationship with Freddie is really interesting. We've had a relationship for almost 10 years now. I mentioned in the beginning that we love a market and we enjoy our market where there's regulatory constraint for other people. Banks have to think about their tier one capital. Insurance companies have to think about their NAIC rating. Oh, unless you're in Europe. And then you have to think about Solvency or Basel, and those don't always link up.

Clayton Degiacinto: (20:26)
So they're looking at different bonds through different lenses. The GFC also have the regulatory constraint and President Obama put them into a conservatorship. I believe it was Christmas Eve, 2010. And what that effectively meant is that they're supposed to protect taxpayer dollar at all costs. And so you saw the advent of their risk share programs on the residential side, which is generally a reference pool, and it's a synthetic asset, and you may have heard of [ Kazer Stacker 00:20:57] a liquid. It's a tradable market. Almost every dealer will make two way markets on it. The way that I think about it, it's much more about spread than it is about cashflow or yield.

Clayton Degiacinto: (21:10)
So it's certainly not a core component of our portfolio, but on the multifamily side, Freddie approached us in 2013 and 14, because they wanted a risk share partner from day one when the loan originally gets made. That's evolved through several iterations, but now we're maybe a third to 40% of their flows in the small balance lending program. This is for Freddie and $8 billion a year program. I mentioned small balance because Freddie has a, from my perspective, sort of a dual report to both Congress and the Treasury, and they're there to support. I mean, it's not purely financially driven. There's a bit of a social component.

Clayton Degiacinto: (21:58)
And the small balance program, in general, is workforce housing. It's Class B multi-family garden style, low-rise two to $10 million apartment buildings. And we're their risk share partner on that. So with that-

Daniel Barile: (22:13)
To be clear, this is where the country is short enough supply of this housing. You need more middle income housing.

Clayton Degiacinto: (22:19)
We had this view that it was a defensive sector going all the way back to 2015 to 2020. COVID tested that. We saw rental demand and rent prices decrease in the Class A. It actually went up in class B, which is sort of what we would expect. If you're in trouble, if you're a Class a renter, and that's the stainless steel refrigerator, granite countertops that it comes with a yoga mat and cost $2,200 a month. You can always downsize to something that's $1,100 a month. It doesn't come with a yoga mat, but it's housing and it's a two bed, one bathroom or three bed, two bath.

Clayton Degiacinto: (23:00)
And that's the asset that we like. Call it workforce housing. It works for us. If you were to invest in these, and I know there's a lot of managers of money out here, and there's probably room for a multifamily equity, that cap rate, I mean, I guess it depends on where you are, but in New York City probably starts with a three. If you're in a tier three or tertiary market, maybe you're lucky to get something that starts with a five. We're getting 9%. How are we doing that? Well, I'll tell you.

Clayton Degiacinto: (23:31)
The loan is, I don't know, call it a three to 4% to the consumer. And that's for approximately a 70 LTV mortgage. So there's 30% sponsor equity below you. In our partnership, we come in at a layered slice. So we're sort of with a zero to 10 on the loan. So when I think about it in terms of the capital structure and an apartment building, we're effectively that 30 to 37% part of the capital structure in the apartment building. If the loan is three to 4%, the reason why we get 9% is because our partner is Freddie Mac. Freddie has the lowest cost of capital in the world.

Clayton Degiacinto: (24:13)
They're guaranteeing the top 90% of this loan and that trades with a one handle. So when you look at a loan that's zero to 70 and 63% of that trades with a one handle that allows us to... We can make something like 9%. So let's say it's a cherished relationship. If you're in the structured credit world or the RMBS or CMBS world, you go down to Washington, DC, at least once a quarter. I've been doing that since I was on the south side at Goldman starting in 2002. And that's just the way it is. But it's a great partnership. The loan de-risks. It doesn't extend.

Clayton Degiacinto: (24:54)
You mentioned sort of high yield and IG. To me, that's terrifying because you're only subject to spread and the loan doesn't organically de-risk. So when it comes time to try to sell the loan, you're subject to somebody else telling you what price they want to pay for it and something that's prorata in the capital structure, it amortizes down every month. And I'd much rather take reinvestment risk than the longer duration non cash flow risk.

Aaron Peck: (25:23)
No, that great Clay. Really, really interesting stuff. And I think drives home, as everybody in this room knows, or as most know, SkyBridge is an alternative asset manager. And we believe deep down that markets are an efficiency and alternatives that are persistently inefficient and alternative strategies make sense and hedge funds add a lot of value. And I think that an example like that from Clay, I think if you're, if you're a professional hedge fund investor, what Clay just sketched out there with Freddie in that relationship and the ability to source that paper, the terminology you would use is that's a key part of their alpha proposition. Something very, very unique that they're able to do to deliver a unique return stream to investors in a world, or again, going back to the name of the panel, that it seems like there's not that much to do. There's a ton to do. But it's hard. It's hard work. That's why specialist managers like this exist. They have the resources and the ability to focus and extract value.

Aaron Peck: (26:34)
Why don't we go to you, Aaron? And then we'll come back to you TJ and talk a bit in your market. Again, it goes back to the same idea of you need to source those loans. And so for a direct lender, that's no easy feat. A lot of the audience probably doesn't appreciate that you're doing this from A to Z. And so talk a bit about what Monroe's team looks like from a loan origination perspective, what the process looks like. The two minute version.

Aaron Peck: (27:06)
Yeah, for sure. So if you talk to any direct lender, every one of them will talk about proprietary origination. Big buzzword. Most of them don't really know what it means because their proprietary origination is just calling one of the Wall Street banks and asking for a big allocation on a deal. That's not very proprietary because I can find the same deal. Maybe I don't have the relationship, and maybe I can't get 75 million of it. Maybe I can only get 20, but-

Daniel Barile: (27:27)
Here's a big loan and they're going to take a little piece of it versus doing it from scratch.

Aaron Peck: (27:32)
Exactly. So what do we do that's different? We have close to 20 full time loan originators. All they do is go out and look for loan opportunities for Monroe to agent and own. So we'll typically be the only lender or the agent lender where we'll structure the loan. And then we'll bring in a partner who maybe will get a small piece of it. And so that's a very expensive proposition for a firm like ours to hire 20 full-time people. And at the end of the day, as investors when you're looking at, what am I paying for when I'm investing in funds like ours, you ought to be paying for some sort of alpha, right? And so much of the direct lending business has become beta because it's what I first described, buying things off the street. That's that's beta business. I mean, maybe you can generate an alpha by being better than the next guy in underwriting, but at the end of the day, you better be providing something that's unique.

Aaron Peck: (28:18)
And so when you're into a Monroe product, for example, you're going to have a bunch of loans that you're not going to be able to get anywhere else because we've gone out and sourced them. We've invested in the people over our 17 year history to go out and find these opportunities and source them. And it's through relationships. It's through lawyers and bankers and accountants and boutique investment bankers and private equity firms. And it's not to say that we don't compete on rate and that there isn't competition. There certainly is, but relationship matters. And the reason relationship matters is because we don't just give them the money and then they never talk to us again. We've got covenants. And so they want to have a relationship so that if something happens, they know who they're talking to and they can try to work out something. And we don't just take the keys and run with their businesses.

Aaron Peck: (29:00)
And so relationship matters and you can source based on our relationship. And that's what Monroe does. That's what differentiates us from most people in the lower middle market, particularly, is the size and breadth of our origination.

Daniel Barile: (29:11)
TJ, maybe. And I guess, TJ, you can answer the question from a couple of perspectives. So you have the larger Angelo Gordon, which I think is maybe important to touch on very briefly, but then also your world structured credit as well. So a lot of value from kind of sourcing.

T. J. Durkin: (29:26)
Sure. I mean listen, we have a huge corporate business where we can JV on things within the special finance world. And we've done that over time from shorting Hertz into COVID, into looking at some of the mortgage originators coming out of COVID and their high yield bonds. But I mean, I think Clay walked you through how you can partner with the government. And then I think there's the other way of looking at it in that a lot of consumer finance is subsidized by the government. So if you think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you think about most of the student loan origination going on today for undergrads is the direct program, which goes right onto Treasury's balance sheet. And so you can either work with them like Clay walked you through an example where you go to where they're not.

T. J. Durkin: (30:07)
And so I talked about non QM. And so that's where you have to have infrastructure, you talked about a team. We have 35 investment professionals to sort of build that mousetrap to go basically capture that excess return to where the government isn't making it easy and cheap. Same concepts with student loan. And so I think that's how we really think about things in the sense of, there's obviously a lot of money out there. And so we're trying to focus on areas that have just large tangible adjustable markets. And that there's enough to go around.

T. J. Durkin: (30:40)
We shouldn't be drastically seeing price changes quarter over quarter or even year over year. And so we can kind of really understand the product, understand the credit we're generally kind of in a similar place in the capital structure that Clay walked you through. And so getting a credit is crucial to your ultimate return. And that's really how we like to play things. And looking where either the government or the large banks are sort of not playing. And just based on the size of the economy, even just thinking about U.S., there's plenty of no [inaudible 00:31:12].

Daniel Barile: (31:13)
Very cool. So we only have a few minutes left, but the high level question, I think the answers may be different given the different market kind of focuses here. So with the COVID shock to markets last year, I think that Clay and TJ, you tell me. I think that there are less well-capitalized competitors in your space, right? So you've probably seen a little less competition than you were a couple of years ago and both of your firms emerge very strongly from the shock that was last year. Where Monroe, I don't think that's going to be the case. I think that direct lending held up very well throughout the COVID shock early last year. And so maybe just put a final point on that. Would you say that it's, from a competition perspective, even better than it was several years ago or about the same? What would you say, Clay?

Clayton Degiacinto: (32:14)
I mean, sure. COVID killed several of our competitors.

Aaron Peck: (32:18)
There you go. Well stated plainly, there you go.

Clayton Degiacinto: (32:22)
By the way, it also wasn't a function of asset selection. It was a function of liability structure. There was a massive run on liquidity and something that I saw play out faster and deeper and more severe than the financial crisis between 2007 and 2009. But it's when you don't over lever. And you think really carefully about asset selection.

Clayton Degiacinto: (32:49)
I love what Aaron said, because I think about it. It's true in our own business. Buying cheap bonds is really cool and fun, but not buying bad bonds is actually sort of the key to our business. And I think the key to success. We went into COVID with 14 repo counterparties, diversified the days of role, meaning different days of the month, the term and the amount. And now we have eight counterparties and it wasn't a function of them not wanting to work with us. We don't want to work with them.

Clayton Degiacinto: (33:29)
So we really saw who good partners were during COVID, and we're trying to do more with those key relationships on our side. But listen, I mean, this remains an inefficient market that we enjoy. And I sort of pinch myself every day being able to come into work and find good bonds or good positions that cashflow organically out. And having less competitors, I would say in our sort of specialized field, I mean even TJ talks about a total adjustable market. Yeah, you're right. It's giant. And it's also taken by global insurance companies and global banks that have regulatory constraints on their capital. So what's left over, tends to always be the cheapest. Maybe it's because it's part of the fulcrum and the securitization, but that's what we like. We want to be paid and we think that we earn our keep, earn our money by being right about those credits.

T. J. Durkin: (34:29)
Yeah, I think this is also like the second calling of our competitor. There was kind of a small wash out, I would say after like Q four, 15 Q1, 16 high yield, mini blow up. And then this was kind of the round two. And so I think there's less of us that I think are actually dedicated to the space to sort of pursue those opportunities in earnest on a full-time basis, not being tourists.

Clayton Degiacinto: (34:54)
Yep.

Daniel Barile: (34:55)
Aaron, last word?

Aaron Peck: (34:56)
Well Clay said it right. There's really three things that carries out funds. It's credit selection or investment selection problems. It's sources of leverage funding and its sources of equity funding. And a lot of hedge funds saw all three problems during COVID. They pick the wrong assets that blew out and spreads, their leverage went away, the repo counterparties polled, and in some cases, their equity investors, also their hedge fund investors pulled and redeemed. And so that's the perfect storm. It's terrible.

Aaron Peck: (35:23)
And so at the end of the day, I think it's important to think about that when you're investing in funds. What are the sources of risk to you that are beyond just the manager? The manager is [inaudible 00:35:31]. It's how do they manage their business? And so just for us, we're focused a lot on that. So most of our capital's long-term and locked up and most of our credit is long-term and locked up. So then we isolated really at the end of the day to credit selection. And that's something that we do great.

Daniel Barile: (35:43)
All right. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Aaron, TJ, Clay, always a pleasure. Thanks so much. Thanks everybody for joining us.

Aaron Peck: (35:49)
Thank you.

Clayton Degiacinto: (35:49)
Thanks.

From Boom to Bust: The Rapid Acceleration of Dislocation | #SALTNY

From Boom to Bust: The Rapid Acceleration of Dislocation with Marc Lasry, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer & Co-Founder, Avenue Capital. Pat Dyson, Partner, GoldenTree.

Moderated by Nicholas Millikan, Managing Director, CAIS IQ, CAIS.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Lasry, Marc - Cropped.jpeg

Marc Lasry

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer & Co-Founder

Avenue Capital

patrick-dyson.jpeg

Patrick Dyson

Partner & Global Head of Telecom

GoldenTree Asset Management

 

MODERATOR

Headshot - Millikan, Nicholas - Cropped.jpeg

Nicholas Millikan

Managing Director, CAIS IQ

CAIS

 

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Nicholas Millikan: (00:08)
Day two, everybody. It's good to see everyone here. Thanks for coming back so early. So today, we're going to be discussing The Boom to Bust: The Rapid Acceleration of Dislocation Within Markets. My name is Nicholas Millikan. I'm managing director of investment strategy at CAIS, an alternative investment platform that brings alternate investment solutions to the independent wealth management channel. So if you want to hear more about what we do, we're right at the front of the door here. So today I'm joined by Pat Dyson, partner and global head of Telecom and member of the distress committee at Golden Tree. And then Marc Lasry, the Chairman, CEO, and co-founder of Avenue Capital. So, gentlemen, thanks for joining me this morning. How are things?

Pat Dyson: (00:51)
Good to be here. Lots to do in distressed.

Nicholas Millikan: (00:55)
Absolutely. So Mark, back to office plans, how are things going so far?

Marc Lasry: (01:01)
I think it's actually going pretty well, I think. We've told people they should be back. I'd say the vast majority of our firm is. Some folks still, people who have kids, but our view is you should be in the office. If you've got issues, we're happy to deal with them and help you deal with them. But to get investment ideas, to do the things we're doing, I think you got to be in the office. And so, so far so good. I think everything's been pretty good. I would say everybody in our office is vaccinated, so it hasn't really been an issue for us.

Nicholas Millikan: (01:37)
What about globally? Because you have global offices, is that the same?

Marc Lasry: (01:40)
It's harder. It's harder because, I would tell you in Asia, in Hong Kong, I can't even go there. I used to go there at least twice a year, now to go, you've got a quarantine for 14 days, so you're not going to go. So there's less travel, much more Zoom. So here, at least you're traveling within the United States, that's fine. But I would say globally, it's gotten a lot harder people are going into the office, but I think the travel between regions. Europe is different, you can do that. I would just tell you Asia as much harder.

Nicholas Millikan: (02:14)
What about you Pat, what's the deal over at Golden Tree?

Pat Dyson: (02:17)
I would say pretty similar to what Mark said. We were, if I think back to when we went fully back into the office would be around Labor Day of last year. And we've been largely back since that point in time, I guess with certain exceptions. But we certainly value the collaboration that occurs by being in the office. We also have an office down in Palm Beach where we were able to have that collaboration during the height of the COVID pandemic, which certainly helped us. And then as I think about London, London's been slower, but now we're largely fully back to office in London as well. So from our perspective, we really think that being in the office is of paramount importance to promote the collaboration and just the daily interaction. And then ultimately when you think about fostering a culture, you could probably get away with the work from home stuff for a shorter period of time. But as you think about bringing people up into the culture, it's really challenging if you're not in the office and seeing them face to face.

Nicholas Millikan: (03:32)
We were about that earlier, especially with the pace of hiring in financial services has been pretty resilient through the pandemic. So today we're going to discuss the pandemic impact on distress. It was obviously a big focus of last year and then relate that back to the global financial crisis and then look at the opportunities going forward. So if we were sitting here this time last year, people were talking about estimating the peak default rates 10% to 15%, I think it was September, they peaked at 5% in 2020. So what happened, Mark, maybe we start with you, last year, what did you see?

Marc Lasry: (04:05)
The Fed screwed us, it was horrible. They decided to come in and save the country. But it literally was the... I think for us, really what we focus on is when there's a lack of liquidity. You're providing liquidity, you're coming in and you're able to do things because there's issues, people have problems. The Fed came in and provided massive liquidity, and that massive amount of liquidity ended up being great for the country and great for companies so that you were just going to have lower default rates. And I think what it's done is, at least for firms like ours, the opportunity to buy bonds maybe a 20 cents is gone, but the opportunity to lend money between 10 and 15 or to do structure deals, that's turned out to be great. So you've got a ton of those opportunities. But I think ultimately the end day, everywhere around the world, it's just this huge amount of liquidity that's come in. So that's good. The bad part is for companies that can't access that liquidity, they've got to come to us and that's when we can come in and dictate terms.

Nicholas Millikan: (05:29)
So Pat, did you see the same things?

Pat Dyson: (05:31)
Yeah. If you think about comparing '08, '09 to last year's crisis, so the widest the market got in '08, '09 was north of 2,000 on a spread to worse basis. Last year, we got just above 1,000. Then if you think about the period of time at which the market was north of 100 basis points spread to worst in '08, '09, it was around 11 or 12 weeks, last year it was three weeks. And to Mark's point, that was the Fed. And if you rewind to '08, '09, it was a bit unprecedented. You didn't know what the Fed was going to do, you didn't know what the moves they were going to make. I think this time around there was some expectation that you would see the Fed step in, and then they stepped in obviously very swiftly. And to Mark's point, that took the opportunity set or the broader opportunity set away.

Pat Dyson: (06:26)
Our takeaway from that is that you really have to be in the market because you don't know how long that dislocation is going to exist. And if you think about some of the elements of post the '08, '09 crisis is that the dislocations are shorter, whether it's in 2011 or '15, '16, or certainly last year. So trying to time the market and waiting for this big bang and distressed is super tricky. So you have to be around the market and be able to move very quickly across the opportunities when they present themselves because you don't know how fleeting it's going to be.

Nicholas Millikan: (07:05)
Well, on that point, exactly right. The financial crisis in the markets anyway it took about 12 months for them to go from top to bottom, it was 12 days during the pandemic. And he was talking about the distress cycle, have you seen that accelerate as well?

Pat Dyson: (07:18)
The distress cycle?

Nicholas Millikan: (07:19)
Yeah, with the restructurings and the activity around distress deals has that accelerated as well?

Pat Dyson: (07:24)
Meaning the actual time that a deal-

Nicholas Millikan: (07:25)
Yeah.

Pat Dyson: (07:26)
No, not really. I think that if you think about from the genesis of an investment through the process, has that process necessarily sped up? Short answer is no. you still have to go through the courts, to go through the process of that, if that is in fact what you're asking. So from a process perspective, no haven't seen it speed up necessarily. And if we think about distress for control investments, these are investments that are going to be in the one to three year type of period that matches up with the capital that we have deployed to distressed.

Marc Lasry: (08:04)
I think it's taking longer actually.

Nicholas Millikan: (08:06)
No, go ahead.

Marc Lasry: (08:06)
No, I think it's taking longer because what's happened is there's more fighting. In these processes today, you're going to court but you'd have to have Zoom court meeting everything just took a little bit longer. And that was good and bad because the good part for companies is maybe they were able to access capital, the bad part is maybe things, just because it took longer, they didn't have that capital. So it was very different. I think the biggest point is the fact that you've got to be in the market. I wish I can tell you when it started and things started going down we started buying, but we know how long it was going to last. And you get nervous. And literally you had that three week, four week period before the Fed stepped in. You didn't know the Fed was going to come in as strongly as they did. So you're trying to be careful and you're trying to invest. What we should have done was just put all our money to work in those three weeks. I wish somebody had called and told me, but I'm good.

Nicholas Millikan: (09:19)
So on that, putting money to work, we saw a lot of people come out with pretty big target fundraisers. Can you talk a little bit about the sizing opportunity of last year and maybe the frequency with which you need to access these opportunities?

Pat Dyson: (09:34)
Look, as those funds that were looking to raise capital to take advantage of the COVID dislocation probably weren't able to deploy the capital, as Mark is alluding to. From our perspective, we viewed distressed as an evergreen opportunity set. And as we think about that opportunity set, the size of the overall leverage finance market has exploded in size to over $3 trillion today. And we think that that's a very broad opportunity set to be able to deploy capital against. As we think about it, Golden Tree, the sizing of our funds, we purposely size our funds at a level that allows us to certainly play large cap names, but maybe most importantly allows us to get into the mid cap and small account names.

Pat Dyson: (10:20)
And then those names can really drive performance. So the size of the fund I think is important because, as we talked about earlier, the swiftness of these dislocations. And then also even today there continues to be disruptions within the market even though the overall health of the market is very strong. But to be able to get into some of these mid cap names and have those mid cap names really drive performance is important. So that's how we think about it from a sizing of our funds perspective.

Nicholas Millikan: (10:51)
And so what about you mark, do you think about it in a similar way?

Marc Lasry: (10:53)
No, we do. I think what has changed though, if you think back to different cycles, there was more large cap opportunities, you just had bigger companies, so you'd want to have a larger fund. I think today what you have is you have small cap, mid cap, large cap, but to take advantage of the small and mid cap size, you can't be that large because otherwise you're not going to have a small and mid cap opportunity is not really going to have an effect.

Marc Lasry: (11:27)
So I think for anybody who wants to do really well, you want to try to have a fund that's somewhere between $500 million to $2 billion because then you can take advantage of everything. I think that's where the market has changed. I think trying to do... Folks who raised a lot of money, I'd be surprised if they were able to put it to work. I think what everybody is doing now is doing much more on the private lending side. We'll find our deals and Golden Tree will find their deals, everybody will find different deals. But it's what can you charge today? And then the real opportunities to create real value are going to be in the small and mid cap.

Nicholas Millikan: (12:08)
Interesting. So when we talk to financial advisors in our business, a lot of them just say, "Well, have I missed the opportunity?" And Pat, you touched on this, that there's always distress. Can you tease that out a little bit and talk about what drives distress irrespective of what's happening in the broader markets?

Pat Dyson: (12:25)
So the theme would be that there's always things to do in the market. And going back to my earlier point about the size of the market. So it's a huge market. Today, the percentage of the market that is distressed is not that significant, but there's still things to do out there. And if you think about... First, if we live in a world, so it's $3 trillion in size, leverage has been creeping up, firstly lien leverage is at all time highs, and we don't always exist in a world of the most stellar management teams as well. So that in and of itself can breed opportunities. And then when you think about particular sectors, there's sectors that are continuing to experience ongoing disruptions, whether it's telecom, from a competitive perspective and the CAPEX intensity or media, as you think about it, how all of us digest media today and how different that is to several years ago, energy, obviously retail, amongst others.

Pat Dyson: (13:23)
So there's a number of industries that continue to be disrupted, to Mark's point and my earlier comment, being able to get to these mid cap names is important. And then even when you think about thinking about say telecom, for example, two of the top 10 largest defaults in the history of high yield happened within the last 18 months, Frontier and Intelsat, and they had nothing to do with COVID. So those types of opportunities sets can arise. And as we think about it, from a geographical perspective, we're deploying capital in North America and Europe and selectively in the EM. So we feel really good about the ability to deploy capital in benign environments. And then final point I'll make, if you just go back, and proof's in the pudding, if you go back and look at the history of our deployment of capital over the last 10, 11 years, it's been super steady. And if you think about what we did in '16, '17, '18, '19 in reasonably benign environments, we're always finding things to do. Obviously last year, it spiked up. But we're confident we're going to get our shots.

Nicholas Millikan: (14:30)
So Mark, we spoke a lot last year and you kept our clients very well-informed what was going on. We talked about Intelsat, we talked about Hertz, and Avis. Can you talk about that example where they've got similar businesses in Hertz and Avis but one survived one didn't? Can you talk about what drives that?

Marc Lasry: (14:45)
I think part of it, it's hard for a satellite company to get COVID.

Nicholas Millikan: (14:52)
Definitely difficult.

Marc Lasry: (14:53)
You never know. They'll come out and say, satellites are now COVID free. But I think when you look at this, why did a company file? The real reason companies filed is it was really how much liquidity they had. So Hertz at the time was fully drawn on their credit facility. So all of a sudden COVID comes, nobody's renting a car, you've got huge losses, and you're already borrowed as much as you can so you can't really do anything. Whereas Avis had a line that they could draw.

Marc Lasry: (15:32)
So the whole key in the beginning of this was how much liquidity did you have? So a simple industry was really, if you take a look at the shipping industry, Carnival Cruise, are people going on cruises? How many people went on a cruise last year? You can all take your time, raise your hand. So just think of that, how many people went on a cruise and yet that industry because they had all this asset value on these cruise ships was able to borrow money and could borrow. And in the beginning they were borrowing, what was the first deal? I think around like 12%. And now they're borrowing around five or six and you guys still haven't gone on a cruise. But the market is saying it's all coming back and they are the access to that liquidity. And that's really what's changed. If you have access to liquidity, you're going to survive, you're going to do well, if you didn't have access to liquidity, you're filing.

Marc Lasry: (16:42)
And that's why Hertz and a number of other companies went under. But today, I would tell you the vast majority of companies have access to liquidity and also the rates are so low. We're charging, I would say 8% to 12%, I assume you guys are doing the same. Don't tell me you're charging five then you're going to undercut and now I got to go charge the less. But if you think about it, we're all charging roughly the same. And that's because look, if you can borrow at 1%, you're not coming to us to do a deal. So the only people we're talking to are the folks where there's issues and we'll structure a deal to make sure that we're fine. It's a need for liquidity.

Nicholas Millikan: (17:29)
I think a SALT 2022 should be in a cruise line. I think it's certainly an opportunity.

Marc Lasry: (17:33)
We should tell Anthony.

Nicholas Millikan: (17:34)
I'll tell him backstage after this.

Marc Lasry: (17:35)
Oh yeah.

Nicholas Millikan: (17:36)
So have we essentially just kicked the can down the road then, with the Fed coming in as aggressively as they had? Are we bowling up a massive distressed event in the next few years here?

Marc Lasry: (17:47)
I think you are. But the reason think you are is just, how much longer can you keep lending money at zero? So our deficit keeps going up, the amount of money the government is paying on rates just on interest alone is pretty low. If that starts moving up, we're going to have real issues. But again I can't print money. So when you can print money and you can keep borrowing, it's great and people still want to have treasuries. But whether the day of reckoning is five years from now or next year, five years, 20 years, I have no idea, but it will.

Marc Lasry: (18:25)
Sooner or later you just can't keep borrowing as much as we're borrowing. But for right now, I think the Fed and the government have done the right thing, which is you had to restart the economy, you had to provide that liquidity. But there is a real cost to that. I mean the amount of money that's been borrowed in the last... You've got a $3.5 trillion deal today, you've had trillions of dollars have already gone out. It is huge dollars that are being spent and hopefully the economy will be able to repay that.

Nicholas Millikan: (18:55)
Pat, you have you thoughts there?

Pat Dyson: (18:57)
Yeah. I would agree, if you just... Again, the timing is very difficult to discern, but there's stuff that's going on in the market today. And we see it at Golden Tree because we're not just focusing on distress, but we have a broader credit platform. So we're looking at all the new issuance that's coming today, both from loans and bonds, and there's some very aggressive things that are happening. And statistically, again, if you look at the market, leverage is at near all time highs in the market, first lien leverage is at all time highs, what does that mean on the back end? That means that recovery rates for loans is going to be lower, which means potential technical selling around CLOs.

Pat Dyson: (19:38)
The magnitude of low quality issuance defined as B or CCC, if you were to annualize the year to date so far, we would end up having the largest aggregated low quality issuance year ever this year. So all these things are telltale signs that, we're doing some things that you probably shouldn't be doing. And at Golden Tree, we're spending time on a lot of these new issuances, not necessarily playing them, but we're building a database of the names, when some of them inevitably do run into stress or distress.

Pat Dyson: (20:13)
And then final point, which I thought was a bit of an interesting nugget. When you think about obviously the market is talking about default rates being really low, which they are, they're going to be this year. But the lowest default rate year ever was 2007. And then you then had '08 and '09, which was the largest distress cycle ever. So the answer is yes, it's coming. The question is when, and I don't know. But that goes back to my earlier point, you got to be in the market because you don't know when it's necessarily going to happen. But it will happen certainly within the next several years, what would be our view?

Nicholas Millikan: (20:52)
So if we're looking 12 to 24 months out, if we stay in a low default rate and a high growth rate, a high growth in the economy, what happens? What is the opportunity set?

Pat Dyson: (21:03)
I'll echo. And I'll go first, Mark can follow up. And I'll echo just some of the points you're saying. Again, there's, going back and thinking about particular industries or dislocations that may occur in some of these more complex situations. We were very active in Puerto Rico, for example, which is very complex, 20 different issuers, we've been very active in a company called Digicell, which is the EM company with eight different bond issuing boxes. Complexity can breed opportunity. Having these complex situations, once you're in them, they can be a real barrier to entry from others being involved because you can't just open up a page and understand, it takes a lot of time. And the technical dislocations from a trading perspective can be very attractive. But again, when you look underneath the hood at a number of these sectors, energy, retail, telecom, media, healthcare, I would throw in there even financials to some degree, there's dislocation and disruption that is occurring that we think is going to provide opportunities, again, regardless of what happens broadly in the market.

Nicholas Millikan: (22:16)
Mark, any thoughts?

Marc Lasry: (22:18)
Look, everybody always goes, "Well, how are you able to make money when everything is going so great?" It's actually really simple. There's a lot of knuckleheads out there, there are, these companies. I wish every company was great, I wish everything was always perfect, I wish things weren't so complicated, but they are. And the more complicated it is, the better it is for us. Your ease of capital means that people are borrowing money that shouldn't, and they're doing things and they're getting money for things they shouldn't. All I can tell you is there's hundreds of deals that we pass on. I'm sure there's hundreds of deals that Pat is passing on. All I do when I look at those deals that go, "Oh, great." Whether that's a year or two or three years, I know that company is going to have a problem.

Marc Lasry: (23:19)
Look, if you can borrow at 50 bips today or 1% or 2% you should. How many people have bought houses and the reason is you're able to borrow money? So that's why that market is going through what... I think people just assume when everything is great it's going to be great for a while. It's funny, when things are going well, nobody thinks it's going end, but when things are bad, nobody thinks it's ever going to turn. I had an investor who I would say, "Well, look what we try to do is buy things at 60 cents." And he goes, "Why not 50?" I was like, "Okay, that's a good idea, sure." And then if I said 50 why not 40?. It's, that's the market. It's not like I make stuff up.

Marc Lasry: (24:16)
So I think for all of us, we know there's going to be issues and there are issues today, and we're all investing in that. Now, is there a 10% default rate? No. So I would assume the same thing for Golden Tree and for Pat. It's are we working harder today? Yes. Because you're trying to find different deals, you're looking at different companies. Whereas when there's a 10% default rate, you're just overwhelmed by the amount of paper and there you're picking and choosing. So I think there are always problems, and ultimately our goal is to invest while there's those problems and wait for there to be a lot. And it will always come, it's a question of when. And whether that's a year from now or five years from now, I can't tell you. What I do have is I do have faith that there are a lot of people who are making huge mistakes.

Nicholas Millikan: (25:20)
So if we look at the current crisis of the dislocation of last year, it was really driven by a health crisis. But we look back to the global financial crisis, that was a financial crisis. So is there a difference in the type of distress that you have seen in the last 18 months compared to 10 years ago?

Pat Dyson: (25:38)
Short answer would be no. As I think about it, obviously the characteristics of this time around was there was more fleeting in a lot of ways. But if you think about the impact to the economy was more pronounced this time around as compared to '08, '09, whether it's unemployment or hit the GDP within that particular period. The market dislocation was less. Was everything sold in March last year? Yeah. Which is consistent with what happened in '08, '09. You didn't have the first lien sell off that occurred in '08, '09, you didn't have the leverage more broadly across the system that you had in '08, '09. But you did have situations where there were leveraged issues, notably in the RMBS market.

Pat Dyson: (26:35)
And then there were certainly, as Mark alluded to, more COVID impacted industries, whether it's Hertz or cruise lines, where, yeah, there was a bit more of a specific issue there. But broadly, and that's frankly where some of the opportunities arose, everything was sold. I alluded to Frontier earlier, Frontier was sold, but actually it was going to be a beneficiary because of the work from home environment and the need for broadband. All of retail was sold. And we invested in Jo-Ann Stores, which is a fabrics and crafts company that was actually going to be a net beneficiary and was allowed to remain open because they sell fabrics to make masks and there was also the desire to stay home and do crafts. So you had to winnow through all of that in a quick period of time, but there were certainly some winners and losers as there always is in these distress cycles. But I would say the biggest characteristic of it was the fleeting nature of the crisis as compared to '08, '09.

Nicholas Millikan: (27:45)
Any observations there Mark?

Marc Lasry: (27:45)
No, I feel it was the same. The big difference was I think in '08, '09 you were worried your financial institutions were going to go under. So that gave you more of a worry. So I would have told you in '08, '09 I was worried that this was the system of state around. Today, I wasn't worried about the system, I knew the system was fine. I just didn't know how long it would last. I was totally wrong, I thought COVID, after a couple of weeks when we all shut down I thought everything will be fine, I was so wrong. Thought that summer's coming, it'll be fabulous everybody will be ready. So I think for us, we got to invest in we did well. But I wasn't worried about survival, whereas in '08, '09 I was worried about, would we be around?

Nicholas Millikan: (28:43)
So there were a couple of things happening, so we just touched on the distress cycle. Have we seen a structural shift in the distress cycle? Has it become accelerated? Are we going to have more of these short bursts of distress rather than a more prolonged environment?

Marc Lasry: (28:57)
If you tell me what the Fed's going to do, I'll give you an answer. That's really it. I think part of it is I think the Fed is more willing today to act and really what it's about is liquidity. So if the Fed's willing to provide liquidity, it's only willing to provide liquidity when they're worried about systemic risk, and I think that's what it was. I don't think the Fed's going to get involved if you start seeing a slow down because that's fine, that's not a systemic risk to the system. So I think the one thing we really haven't had is a recession. If you think about it, a recession is two negative quarters. So a real recession, I don't think the Fed's going to come in that hard. It's not like they can lower rates much lower. So I think you need shocks to the system where people can't access capital, then the Fed will come in

Nicholas Millikan: (29:54)
At any thoughts there?

Pat Dyson: (29:56)
No, I would agree on the Fed comment. I think if you think about, again, the characteristics of the crises that have happened post '08, '09, they've been more fleeting. And I think that is because the Fed was in there where you knew you had this access to liquidity. And so if you think about the Eurozone crisis, well, that was... Ultimately, it ended with some move by the ECB. When you think about '15, '16, which was the energy led crisis that became contagion in the broader market, that was when spreads got north of 1,000 and the market stepped in. And then last year certainly was quick with the Fed also stepping in very, very rapidly.

Pat Dyson: (30:41)
So I agree with Mark, it's going to be if the Fed is not there, then you're going to see a more prolonged distress cycle, whether it's '08, '09 or '02, '03. I think that that's, also to Mark's point, what else can the Fed do is the issue. If you think about what's going on in the market, whether it's inflation, rates, taxes, more regulatory driven environment, there's some issues that... Particular when you think about, what's growth going to look like in '23? I don't know, maybe not so great. So it can certainly lead to a broader opportunity set.

Nicholas Millikan: (31:20)
So talk a little about the Fed the Fed's involvement coming in to save the day or ruin the opportunity for you Mark. So is it their role to keep stepping in? After the financial crisis, remember there was $800 billion bailout back then and now we're talking in the trillions. How much further can the Fed intervene without completely breaking the system? Is it their mandate now to provide liquidity?

Marc Lasry: (31:39)
I think it's becoming their mandate, I think is becoming a societal issue. You don't want people out of work, you don't want companies falling for... If you're a government or if you're president of the United States or if you're the head of the Fed, do you want people going into bankruptcy? Do you want people being hurt? I think the answer is no. And I think what's changed is originally the Fed was there to worry about inflation, to worry about rates getting too high. I think now the Fed is making sure that the system keeps working and that people have access to liquidity and that you keep unemployment where it is. I think it has changed, I think it's very much different than it was when I started in the business. I think the Fed now has a much bigger mandate.

Nicholas Millikan: (32:38)
Pat, any thoughts on...

Pat Dyson: (32:39)
I think it's the willingness of our society today to allow for this extended pain to occur is I think much more limited than it has been in the past. I think it's just because what the Fed has done over the last 11, 12 years, if things get to better, it was like, "Okay, you guys got to go do something." Whereas that necessarily wasn't the case before because they were in a bit more of a narrower lane. So if the size of the government and all of those things we've certainly shifted from a societal perspective. And I think that impacts how they react to the market.

Nicholas Millikan: (33:14)
It's interesting. The role has certainly changed for sure and you can see that. So if we look at, we've touched a little bit on sectors, what about geography? There's uneven.... And economic recovery is going on around the world, we've got resurgence. I'm Australian, my family has been locked down for 250 days. So what are opportunities there geographically?

Marc Lasry: (33:33)
They need to get out more.

Nicholas Millikan: (33:35)
They do need to get out more.

Marc Lasry: (33:35)
Your family.

Nicholas Millikan: (33:35)
They can't get out.

Pat Dyson: (33:41)
I'll go first. From our perspective, we're a bit agnostic to the jurisdiction. We focus on North America and Europe and then selectively in certain emerging market countries. As they think about the opportunity set, I would envision it being probably not too dissimilar from what we've seen over the last several years, where we're going to be more overweight North America, which is not surprising, it's a larger market. But even in proportion, if we think back to what we were doing in '10, '11, '12, where we had more than typical exposure to Europe because the opportunity set was there. If I was to think about moving forward, I think the opportunity is going to be broader in North America, size of the market. And I don't think that there's going to be massive dislocations between North America and Europe as it relates to the credit opportunity.

Pat Dyson: (34:42)
And then finally, emerging markets is going to be very opportunistic for us. We have an in-house emerging markets team that focus focuses on sovereigns and then we overlay them to help out from a corporate credit perspective as well. And we've selectively found opportunities in various jurisdictions. But we also know what we don't know in certain of these jurisdictions. So we're going to tread somewhat cautiously given the different bankruptcy regimes that may exist. So when we think about our overall exposure from emerging markets, it's always going to be in that 10% to 15% and max out there as we think about it.

Nicholas Millikan: (35:24)
Mark, you guys are very active geographic, it's one of your competitive advantages.

Marc Lasry: (35:27)
Look, we think there's... We have huge teams out in Europe and in Asia. It's a bit of an oxymoron we say we invest in Europe, we do, but really we invest in Northern Europe not Southern Europe because the legal system isn't that great. And if you think of Asia you want to invest in India, absolutely Australia, you want to do Singapore, you want to do Hong Kong. You want to do jurisdictions where the legal system works. So Asia, you've got a huge amount of different countries, but I think for us we're seeing quite a bit of opportunities out there. So I would tell you, there's a lack of private capital. So here in the US there's just there's a lot of competition, there's more competition in Asia and Europe. There's less for what we do, what Pat and I do. So I think it's gone pretty well.

Nicholas Millikan: (36:24)
What about China tightening regulation around technology, et cetera, do you see that as a risk or creating opportunities?

Marc Lasry: (36:29)
No, no, it's a risk. I think it's hard to invest in China. It is the things we've done where we've bought that. But I think right now with everything that's going on out there, it's much harder. I think there is a lack of capital because the Chinese government is clamping down. But I think from what we do, we want to have a certainty on legal side. So right now I don't know if you have that in China. So I think we'll just be a little bit more careful, whereas maybe we would have a year ago invested more. I think today will just be a little bit more careful for China specific.

Nicholas Millikan: (37:12)
So we've talked a little bit about the different types of catalysts there could be, but are there common catalysts for distress that people should be looking out for that maybe indicate something coming down the pike?

Marc Lasry: (37:22)
The bonds are trading really low.

Nicholas Millikan: (37:24)
Oh, that's a good answer.

Pat Dyson: (37:27)
[crosstalk 00:37:27] you first Mark, go ahead.

Marc Lasry: (37:29)
The bank that's really low. When you think of the travel sector, last year, that's where all the opportunities were because that was the sector that was going to take longer, the restaurant industry. So there's always sectors that have that are going through ups and downs. And I would tell you, I'm sure Golden Tree is the same thing, we start looking at a company once the bonds are trading 1,000 over treasuries. Because you got to get paid for that risk. So maybe they're doing 800 or maybe we're doing 1,000, they're doing 1,000 we're doing 800 over treasuries. Everybody's got a number and that's when you start really focusing on that company. But you've got to have the opportunity so that the price has to be down, so that's how we look at it.

Pat Dyson: (38:29)
I think it's tough to necessarily predict what's going to cause the dislocation. I don't think that we would've sat here in December of '19 or January of '20 and said, "Okay, COVID's going to cost us this massive dislocation." Now, I talked earlier about some of the fundamental pressures that are showing in the market from just a core credit metrics perspective. But as we, and I would echo what Mark said, when we think about looking at particular credits, A, we're looking at them all the time given that we're a broad credit platform.

Pat Dyson: (39:06)
And then as they go stressed or distressed, oftentimes our first purchase is not our best purchase. But we get deeper into a situation and there's nothing better than when you're deep into a situation and you've got growing conviction that your thesis is playing out. And even if it's going up, you keep buying, that's when you make the excess returns that we're all looking for. So tough again. We can all sit here and highlight things that we're focusing on and thinking about and concerned about. But what ends up causing the dislocation is always tough to discern. But again, you got to be in the market when it happens because just look back at history, things happen and you just got to be there and you got to be positioned to move quickly.

Nicholas Millikan: (39:49)
So we've talked a lot about corporate credit situations, is there any opportunities that exist in distress outside of that?

Pat Dyson: (39:58)
I alluded to it a little bit earlier, we've been active historically and structured. That can be opportunistic as well, again, going back to 2010 to 2012 or '13, there was a lot of dislocations in structure, whether it's European CLS or otherwise. And that was a decent allocation within our distress funds. From '14 to '19 or '20, not really. But then last year, there was real dislocations in certain elements of the RMBS market and we had some big allocations and were able to A, move really quickly and B, deploy a lot of capital in a situation that was a very good situation and also is something that we're able to monetize as the market returned.

Pat Dyson: (40:46)
So structured is probably even more than an accent for us, it is opportunistic. We've got a real strong structured team that does work outside of distressed. And then otherwise, I alluded to EM, we've been active historically in certain of the larger restructurings in an EM if I call Puerto Rico EM. So Puerto Rico, which has been a very strong investment for us over the last several years. And also we've been involved in Argentina. So we'll selectively go to these different jurisdictions when we see the opportunity set. And frankly, it's building on some of the stuff we've done in Puerto Rico, which has been a really strong, as I allude to, a really strong investment for us.

Nicholas Millikan: (41:28)
Anything to add there, Mark?

Marc Lasry: (41:30)
No, I think it's really been on the real estate or on the structured side, so it's the same thing. The thing I found I was smiling a little when Pat said our first purchase is never our best one, ours has been fabulous. But there's been a few where you bought something at 60 and you keep buying it at 50, 40, 30 and you keep looking at the analyst going, "Are you positive that we should still keep buying?" But the problem is in these markets, you've got to buy when people are selling and you've got to believe in your thesis. And Pat's absolutely right, I wish I could tell you the first purchase was the best one. It tends to be you start buying and then you keep buying. And part of what you want to do is, the only way you get people nervous is as the price keeps going down, then more and more people sell because they're like, "Whoa." So I think the hard part in what we do is you're constantly buying at lower prices until it's-

Nicholas Millikan: (42:40)
Do you have any example, Mark? Maybe one-

Marc Lasry: (42:43)
Pretty much everything we've done. [crosstalk 00:42:45] one example, I'll just give you every name. I'll give you a great example, I've told this story before. But we were involved in Ford in 2008 and we started buying Ford bank debt it was 90, 80, 70, 60, 50. And when you got to 50 cents, we literally had half a billion of it, we just kept buying. And our trader says, I'm sitting there and he goes, "Hey, I got another 100 million of Ford bank debt, do you want to buy it?" I'm like, "No, I hate the name. I can't stand it anymore." And he goes, "Well, we're locked, we got to give a bid." I'm like, "I don't want a bid" And he goes, "Well, we have to." I look at the analyst and the PM and I'm like, "What do you guys want to do?" They go, "Well, we think it's good." So I'm like, "I hate it. Let's just buy it. Let's bid 30 cents."

Marc Lasry: (43:42)
He goes, "He's never going to say yes. You can't bid down 20 points." I'm like, "That's the point. I don't want to own it." And then you hear the trader go, "Okay, thank you." I'm like "What happened?" "Because we own 100 million at 30" And I'm like, "Shit, that's not good. First of all you got to write down 520 points." So literally you buy 100 but you just lost 100 million on your mark. And I looked at the analyst and I'm like, "I'm going to kill you." Because I wanted to. And he goes, "I'll be right back." I go, "Where are you going?" He goes, "I'm sick to my stomach, there was no way they could do this." I'm like, "Hurry up, I need to fire you. This isn't enjoyable." And we got out at par. But you went through, that's why I was laughing when you said it, you literally went through hell.

Marc Lasry: (44:35)
Imagine every day writing down your portfolio and that's that's what March was during COVID. We'd buy something we were like, "Yeah, we bought it a good price." And a day later it's down five points or down 10, you just keep marking things down and everybody calls you up, you guys call up and go, "Hey, are you okay? Do you know what you're doing? Your portfolio is down." Because everybody wants daily. It not like you used to give people a yearly how we did for the year, now it's daily. And they go, "Are you guys still smart over there?" And like, "No everybody lost their intelligence." It is funny when you go through this but it happened. I would tell you it's eight out of 10, I don't know it's not like two out of 10, it's eight out of... Because that's the only way you're able to buy.

Nicholas Millikan: (45:29)
That's a great story. So we're up on time here. I just want to thank you. But I have one last question, this is just for you Mark because you're probably the only person in the room that has experienced in this. We're in New York City, right?

Marc Lasry: (45:40)
Yeah.

Nicholas Millikan: (45:41)
There's a distressed opportunity, it's a couple of blocks down the path, it's the New York Knicks, you're ready to take them over and turn around.

Marc Lasry: (45:48)
They got issues. Non you know what? It's fabulous. Winning a championship in Milwaukee it was so cool. I tried to explain to the players it was because of my leadership, but they seem to think it's because of what they were doing on the court. But we had a great time. It's going to be hard for the Knicks. You need certain players and this league has turned into a superstar league and you need a couple of those. But yeah, I'd be happy to if they wanted to try.

Nicholas Millikan: (46:23)
Excellent. As a fan, I'd love you to.

Marc Lasry: (46:26)
We'll try.

Nicholas Millikan: (46:27)
So thank you, Pat, Mark.

Marc Lasry: (46:28)
Pleasure.

Nicholas Millikan: (46:28)
It's been a pleasure talking to you.

How the Pandemic Changed Real Estate & Entrepreneurship | #SALTNY

How the Pandemic Changed Real Estate & Entrepreneurship with Steve Glickman, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Develop. Anna Mason, Managing Partner, Revolution’s Rise of the Rest Seed Fund. Garett Bjorkman, Managing Director, Portfolio Oversight, CIM Group.

Moderated by Nicholas Millikan, Managing Director, CAIS IQ, CAIS.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Glickman+Headshot.jpeg

Steve Glickman

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Develop

Headshot - Mason, Anna - Cropped.jpeg

Anna Mason

Partner, Rise of the Rest Seed Fund

Revolution

 
Headshot - Bjorkman, Garett - Cropped.jpeg

Garett Bjorkman

Managing Director, Portfolio Oversight

CIM

MODERATOR

Headshot - Millikan, Nicholas - Cropped.jpeg

Nicholas Millikan

Managing Director, CAIS IQ

CAIS

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Nicholas Millikan: (00:07)
... Everybody. Well, how cool is this? Right? We're all back in person. First conference for me, I don't know about my fellow panelists here, but it's good to see you guys, for sure.

Anna Mason: (00:16)
It's good to see you.

Nicholas Millikan: (00:17)
So everybody, welcome to the City Versus Suburbs: How the Pandemic Changed Real Estate and Entrepreneurship. Today, we're going to be joined by Anna Mason. She is the partner of Rise of the Rest Seed Fund at Revolution. We have Garrett Bjorkman down at the end, Managing Director of Portfolio Oversight at CIM Group. And Steve Glickman here to my left, founder and CEO of Develop.

Nicholas Millikan: (00:43)
Let's jump straight into the questioning today. Obviously the pandemic saw massive outward migration from cities, not only from suburbs, but to rural, less densely populated areas. Maybe Steve, I'll start with you. Can you briefly highlight what you saw and what areas were most impacted by the inflow-outflow of people?

Steve Glickman: (01:04)
Thanks, Nick. I'm sure I can take a piece of that. Anna and Garrett, I think, can probably give their perspective on it as well. But one of the programs I was very involved with for a long time was the Opportunity Zone program, which was based on this conceit that if people have an opportunity to move to more places than they're concentrated in now, and you gave them either an excuse or a reason not to be in the places they were, they would move. And I think one of the interesting things about COVID and the pandemic is that it's sort of proven out at least a part of that thesis. When people could take a step back and see that their cities were the downside of the lifestyle of the places they were in, they would maybe start to naturally gravitate towards places where they grew up, where the standard of living was cheaper, where they were closer to family, where they had access to more green space and housing that was more affordable.

Steve Glickman: (02:06)
And I think you've seen that, not just in the way people have moved not just to suburbs, but really to less happening cities all over the country; but also in terms of the way they've looked at their jobs and job market and what kind of life they want for themselves. And so I think what the moment we're in is so interesting because the question is, will it stick? Will people eventually go back to cities and resume that same quality of life from before the pandemic? Or will this move be permanent? Will this lead to talent permanently relocating? Will it lead to businesses starting up in those places? And some ways, everyone on this stage has made big bets that that was going to happen either through incentives or in this case, because we've radically changed the equation of what it is to live in a big concentrated city post-COVID.

Nicholas Millikan: (03:00)
Yeah. So Anna, you come from a venture capital background, more of an entrepreneurial focus. Have you seen the same types of trends here, especially around talent?

Anna Mason: (03:11)
Yeah, absolutely. And I've taken to somewhat affectionately referring to this movement that's unfolding as "the great unbundling of place". And so the way I've been thinking about this is very much so informed by the work that we do at Rise of the Rest for higher-volume, early-stage venture capital investors. And by mandate, we focus on investing in opportunities everywhere in the country, as long as those companies are not headquartered in Silicon Valley, New York City, or Boston.

Anna Mason: (03:44)
And so as the conversation has unfolded, as reality has unfolded through these last now nearly 20 months of COVID and you were looking at everyone moving out of New York, everyone moving out of San Francisco, and there was this clamor in this sense that, "Oh my goodness, so much is changing so quickly. There's this great acceleration." Obviously we think it's great for our strategy and our fund thesis, and I'll talk about this more later. I think both by anecdote and by data, we did see quite a meaningful increase in volume in terms of deal flow and investment in cities, all across the country.

Anna Mason: (04:20)
But what's so interesting when you actually peel back the layers of the onion on this data, is that the shifts in migration between cities actually hasn't... This was fascinating to me... Functionally hasn't moved that much post-COVID versus pre-COVID. I think some of the data I saw actually said that there were, according to the US Postal Service, there were about 30 million address changes registered in 2020, as things were really moving around during COVID. And there were people moving out of the Valley, there were people moving out of New York and they were going to Austin and going to Denver and going to Miami. And so there was an acceleration, but functionally, the shifts, the data that you were seeing was very similar in 2020 to what you were seeing in 2019.

Anna Mason: (05:11)
There was this great quote where someone said, the data shows that the next Austin is probably Austin. And so what's interesting about that, and I'm looking forward to talking about this more later, is, I think the biggest shift was in the intentionality and the focus that people now have on these opportunities. And this for me comes back to this idea of "the great unbundling of place". People were moving before. Some people were just moving from city to suburbs. Some people were moving to more rural areas or smaller MSA cities, but now what you have happening, I actually think this is functionally really what I would call an infrastructure opportunity and solution set, is that the package deal of a place, where you had to think about where you live and where you work and the fact that you would just expect that those would fit together, functionally is no longer the case. Now you can think about where you want to live, and separately you can think about where you want to work.

Anna Mason: (06:16)
And the intentionality that I think now is being placed around that, both in terms of technology communities all across the country, and increasingly cities all across the country where they say, "Oh, now we can really market our city with intention. We can market the value prop of our startup with intention." That's where I really think you're starting to see, some cities have functionally have been building for many years, really start to break out from the pack. So everyone in this room is going to obviously know Miami is going to be an example; they've done a great job in branding. But other unexpected places like Tampa, just across the state, or Tulsa, an unexpected place like Oklahoma, more. So we'll talk more about that as we go on.

Nicholas Millikan: (07:00)
Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you for that insight. So Garrett, you guys at CIM obviously have deep expertise, long-term expertise in this. So you saw trends very well-established pre-COVID or pre-pandemic, and were focused on secondary markets anyway and developing them to be attractive locations. Can you talk a little bit about what you've seen pre- and post- pandemic?

Garrett Bjorkman: (07:20)
Yeah, sure. So at CIM we manage approximately $30 billion of real estate infrastructure, primarily in the US, and I would say over the past five to seven years, we very intentionally were investing in a lot of the secondary cities that we really believe have been having an urban Renaissance. Austin, Phoenix, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta. We saw demographic trends in those areas, that they really had the long-term fundamentals based on employment and demographic trends, that we believe would have carried those cities forward and outperform most of the major other sub-markets within the country.

Garrett Bjorkman: (08:13)
And what we noticed from a lot of the demographic trends is, and this was pre-COVID, there was really only two areas where we saw out migration, and that was from primarily San Francisco and New York. And when we looked further into that and said, "What is really the cause of why are people making this decision?", a lot of it came down to housing affordability. So it's just an interesting thing to note, because I think as you look at what's happening in a lot of the major cities, there's still a lot to be desired to live and work in a city, right? People love the density of talent; that density of talent brings about, in certain cases, high incomes, it brings about certain amenities that come along with those types of incomes; and it affords people a certain lifestyle that you can't have outside of a city where you have that density.

Garrett Bjorkman: (09:26)
And so, of course there's been real trends with people who have moved to many of these secondary cities. But when you actually look at where people moving, when they go to the secondary cities, they're not moving to the suburbs; they're going to Austin and they want to be downtown. If you're in Phoenix, you want to be downtown or close to downtown. So those have been the trends that we saw pre-COVID, and they were really just accelerated during COVID and today, although if you are in the real estate market in New York, for example, you're starting to see rents come back very quickly. There's no more concessions. That market is very much robust. Condo sales have picked up again. So you are seeing a lot of domestic activity happening again. We haven't really seen the international capital come back, which I think is the one dynamic that once that happens, it will really bring activity back to New York. But for San Francisco, I think it's going to be a much longer trend, partially just because of the nature of the businesses that are in San Francisco. That's been our observations.

Nicholas Millikan: (10:45)
Yeah. So the one thing I'm getting from what you've all said is there's a real acceleration of trends that were established or in place beforehand through the pandemic. And we've seen that in different industries like technology and all that kind of stuff.

Nicholas Millikan: (10:55)
So Steve, turning back to you, you were instrumental in developing the Qualified Opportunity Zone program that sought to direct capital and help those areas of the country that fell behind after the uneven recovery out of the global financial crisis. Can you talk a little bit about what the program details are, just to make sure everyone's on the same page here, and discuss whether the pandemic sort of has helped accelerate interest and focus on those areas?

Steve Glickman: (11:22)
For sure. So the Opportunity Zone program really simply is a program that incentivize long-term investment, usually 10 years or longer, in communities that are considered low-income and have been selected by governors and mayors all around the country to be focal points for investment in economic activity.

Steve Glickman: (11:43)
And the program is really tied to capital gains. So it takes unrealized capital gains of which there's about $6 trillion in the economy, and the idea is to funnel some amount of that every year when those gains are realized into opportunities in these communities and into a lot of cities that have been off the radar screen. This program has been controversial, and I think it's useful to talk about the controversy, but maybe not right now, but before we finish up today. But I'd say one of the things that the program set out to do was to drive a lot of capital to create a big capital market.

Steve Glickman: (12:19)
And we have pretty good tax data now. 2019, the first real year of the program, and that tax data has shown that there was about $25 billion invested into Opportunity Zone funds around the country. One of the interesting things about that capital, and I think this surprised a lot of people, was it was invested through 2,500 funds and it was invested in 1500 communities. So there's a bit of a stereotype of Opportunity Zones that it's just going to a couple cities, and we know that's not true. We know it's pretty geographically diverse. We know it's not controlled by the largest fund managers, although a lot of them like CIM and others have funds that are active and large. And we know it's changing the mindset of not just investors, but more importantly, people who live in communities who are organizing around this idea that there's equity capital coming, and then there's follow-on capital coming because of that, whether it's philanthropic dollars or it's debt financing or it's businesses or other things. So something about that is working.

Steve Glickman: (13:22)
And I think one of the interesting things, at least, and this is my kind of core view of what's happening in the country: the current makeup, the current hardening of where people who and businesses go is a really bad outcome for the country. Not just for cities that are depressed, but for cities that are prosperous. And as Garrett pointed out, extremely expensive to live in. Normal people who with normal jobs can't live in Manhattan, they can't live in San Francisco, it costs a million dollars to buy a one bedroom condo... That's not a good outcome for people who live in those cities. Also not a good outcome for people who live in other communities where the businesses have fled to follow that capital.

Steve Glickman: (14:02)
So we need some kind of rejiggering. Whether it happens as a result of tax measures or it happens as a result of cyclical or structural changes, that's really important for the country. And that kind of driving of ensuring that there's a larger amount of places in the country that can support pretty robust, dynamic economies is a complicated question; but a lot of it is a mindset. There's no reason why places like Detroit and places like Birmingham, Alabama, and places like Philadelphia, all places that have done really well in both the Opportunity Zone program in terms of capturing capital, can't be robust, big economies. In fact, many of those places were really robust, really competitive economies in the fifties and sixties and seventies when the manufacturing revolution was towards its peak or just before the tech revolution next.

Steve Glickman: (14:56)
So a lot of this is man-made. Whether people are fleeing California because it's expensive or because the tax code there is wildly out of step with the rest of the country is a man-made problem. Whether people are looking to diversify their economy so it's not just about one sector, but it's a diverse amount of sectors and it's technologically enabled and there's access to broadband, is a choice we make. And so a lot of these are about our choices. And the question is that we wanted to make different ones as a society, as a government, and as individuals where we choose where to live and where to invest.

Nicholas Millikan: (15:24)
So you talk about a really interesting point there, which is the infrastructure to support this and the economies. And Garrett, I'm going to come to you eventually. But Ana, just before we do that, you look at the equitable distribution of capital when it comes to venture dollars. And you've noted that 75% of venture dollars ended up in Northern California, New York or Massachusetts. So you guys are focused on everything else. Have you seen a change in where those capital dollars are going to? And now that we have the technology infrastructure to support the reimagination of different industries in the venture space, especially?

Anna Mason: (15:56)
The short answer is yes, but since I'm up here, I will give a longer answer. So for the past probably seven, eight years, even as more capital has been distributed and allocated and invested in venture as an asset class, about a dozen years ago when there was maybe $10 to 20 billion. Oh, hi guys. When there's-

Steve Glickman: (16:21)
Everyone has to leave the club now.

Anna Mason: (16:21)
Right. When there was between $10 and 20 billion going into ventures and asset class; two years ago, you had $100 to 125 billion flowing into the class; and this past year, 2020, you had close to $160 billion flow in. So there's been tremendous growth in the asset class as a whole, which I think is incredibly exciting when you think about the opportunity and the possibility on the other side of investing in entrepreneurs.

Anna Mason: (16:51)
But what's happened is that there's been a very disproportionate allocation to that capital that has been very unevenly distributed to the tune of about 75% in California, in New York and Massachusetts. When you look at the flip side of that, and you think about the public markets and what happens on the other end of tech, it's about that same percentage, about 75 plus percent of the Fortune 500, isn't located in California, New York and Massachusetts. It's actually pretty evenly distributed all across the country, everywhere else, or in what we would think of as "the rest".

Anna Mason: (17:24)
So for us, this mandate and this investment focus, really, frankly, an arbitrage opportunity to find those next future Fortune 500 companies means you have to be looking where most people aren't necessarily looking. And so that's why for so long, we've been focused and banging the drum on the opportunity for early stage investment all across the country.

Anna Mason: (17:47)
And so what does the data tell us? What's been pretty exciting is that over the last 10 years or so, at the early stage of venture capital, what we would call seed and Series A, really company formation and starting to get out of the gate and show some progress, there's actually been a 15% decline in the percentage of investment capital that's gone to the Bay Area. And what's most exciting to us as we think about how the landscape has shifted and accelerated over the last 15 to 20 months is that half of that decline has actually come in the last year and a half.

Anna Mason: (18:25)
So you're really starting to see this acceleration and this momentum at early stage. It hasn't fully played out. You're still going to look at the headline data and you're still going to see 75% go to those three places, but there there's a trickle-down effect. And so it's happening at the early stages. And anecdotally, I think why it's happening is because the working environment and the fully-remote work environment in the veteran tech community over the last 15 to 20 months has afforded so many investors the opportunity to just have some self-reflection and to realize that you don't actually have to be quote, unquote, down the street from the companies that you're investing in, and that you can look elsewhere, you can broaden your horizons. And at the early stages, I think venture investing sits at the nexus of access and context and any value investor, any New York investor can get access to any of these places. But importantly, these last 15 to 20 months have given people the opportunity to seek out that context.

Anna Mason: (19:29)
So just to close with this quick anecdote, which has always amused me, we had a great value investor looking to lead a subsequent round of a company we're invested in. And he's like, "So, tell me more about it. I love the technology, I love the founders, but I don't know Cincinnati. What's the tech scene like there? Is there really a startup community? I'm not trying to get comfortable with the ecosystem risks." And I was like, "Well, the company's based in Columbus, not Cincinnati, but let me tell you about that and how great it is." And at the end of the day, it actually doesn't matter if it's Cincinnati or Columbus, because less than 1% of venture capital goes to Ohio. So the fact that now this investor, and he did end up leading the deal, is investing in Ohio. The anecdote, I think, matches and marries the data of the acceleration that we're seeing in early stage.

Nicholas Millikan: (20:16)
Interesting. So Garrett, over to you. There's obviously been a big change in the focus of the types of property being developed, and you guys go in and you're going to revitalize areas, and then bring in not just multi-family property, but think about the ecosystem you're building around it. Has there been a shift in focus of property types? We've all heard about the death of the brick-and-mortar store? Are you seeing that in the types of demand for property or the properties that you guys are looking to develop?

Garrett Bjorkman: (20:42)
Yeah. Yes. Right. I would say retail, the story there has been the same story for a very long time. I think one of the underlying questions that we're all circling around is, really, what is the impact of work from home. This whole city-versus-suburbs question is how does work from home actually impact commerce and how we interact with each other from a work perspective in our daily life? So office, how has office changed?

Garrett Bjorkman: (21:19)
And I think when you talk to most senior management, when you talk to leasing brokers throughout the country, there is a very strong desire in corporate America to bring people back to the office and to bring them back quickly. Now that's for a certain segment of the market. I think more, that sentiment is much stronger in people on the front office and people in industries where innovation and creativity and collaboration are really the centerpiece of what makes their job successful. But we're seeing it even in accounting and things like that; there has been studies done where productivity is substantially less in a work from home environment that work. And so you've seen the big banks...There has been major shifts to bring people back to the office.

Garrett Bjorkman: (22:19)
But I think the question is, how does the relationship in the office change? What we've seen is that companies are investing tremendous amounts of dollars into social space and redefining the way that the office interaction works. The amount of dollars that tenants are requesting for TIs to build out kitchens, they want to keep people there and make it more attractive for them to be at the office than to be at their house. So there's this massive competition taking place among employers to make their office the best, because it's a way to attract the talent, and at the same time to keep productivity high.

Garrett Bjorkman: (23:07)
But our view in long-term is that office remains a substantial asset class, and that is critically important for business to continue, in that the innovation and mentoring and all of those types of things that really make a business successful, you can't do remotely. And we've tried it.

Garrett Bjorkman: (23:31)
And so while there is this shift to secondary cities, the real question will be, is there going to be enough talent in those secondary cities? And are employers big enough to drive people to those cities? Uber recently announced they were going to move a substantial amount of employees to Dallas that recently pulled out. And that's not to say there's plenty of other tenants looking for space in Dallas; but there is a lot of political dynamics, there were people who they had moved to Dallas who just weren't happy in that environment.

Garrett Bjorkman: (24:13)
So I think that there's a lot of... We are looking at different asset classes, multi-family continues to be robust, but from an office perspective, I think that's really the biggest question. But it's about how people are going to use this space, if they're going to use it at all.

Nicholas Millikan: (24:31)
Well, I want to delve into the local level part of the conversation, and Anna, you had mentioned last week when we were chatting that cities are startups. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Anna Mason: (24:40)
Yeah. I first started thinking about cities as startups when I considered how many tech communities across the country were branding themselves. And so I would find Silicon Harbor and Silicon Holler and Silicon Slopes and Silicon Prairie. And for the work that we do, we have a parallel track where we're investing in a high volume of early stage startups, and we're also, from an economic development standpoint, engaged with these startup communities all across the country to parallel track some of the pattern matching between how the cities and communities were acting and how the startups were acting.

Anna Mason: (25:24)
And I was thinking, "Oh, all these cities who are saying..." I call it Silicon X Syndrome. It's very similar to an early stage startup that hasn't necessarily found its footing, perhaps it's product-market fit. So they say, "I'm the Uber for X" or "I'm the Facebook for Y" because it becomes a shorthand. So having the Silicon X moniker, I think, for many somewhat still-nascent startup communities across the country, it was a shorthand to say, "Hey, look at us, there's technology and innovation happening here."

Anna Mason: (25:55)
And I think part of what we're seeing now, we were absolutely seeing this for the last number of years in communities all across the country from Minneapolis to Indianapolis, Columbus and beyond, is that you started having, like startups where you have some that break out, you started to really have some communities that would break out, too. And you see this most acutely, I think, in how certain cities and communities are responding to COVID, because it's very much so rapid paced three-dimensional chess.

Anna Mason: (26:31)
And to this point, it was interesting, Garrett, how you're thinking about this talent question. Is there actually talent in these communities? If you go back to this framework that a city is like a startup, and we talked a little bit about brand and moving away from, "Hey, Silicon X" to now, "We're going to brand and define ourselves in a very specific and unique way that ties to, really, the core DNA of our city and why we're different, not why we're a copycat of Silicon Valley."

Anna Mason: (27:03)
But then I think there's this really exciting moment for what I think of as community infrastructure, and why it's not just going to be... I hope and I think for many cities, this fleeting moment of people moving, everybody ran to Miami, but eh, now the weather's nice, they're going to come back to New York. I think you see cities, and frankly, I would absolutely count Miami among them, who are investing infrastructure. They've done the branding thing; frankly I think they've taken a really fascinating page out of a startup playbook to say, "We're not a B2B business anymore in terms of how we acquire customers." Every city, every mayor should be thinking about their citizens as customers. And I think you're starting to see that that's a big change that's accelerated because of COVID. But now that you can say, "Oh, we can directly acquire our consumers, so to speak, because people can live anywhere, they can work anywhere, let's go after the people, themselves, the employees, themselves, instead of the companies from an economic development play."

Anna Mason: (27:59)
And now infrastructure is really going to be critical. Everything from affordable housing, you don't want to price local people out of the existing market. You want the rising tide of a startup community to really lift all boats, including those who've been doing the hard work and investing for many years. So that's what I mean when I say cities are like startups; I think it's just a framework to think about development infrastructure and functional growth, because every city is going after what every startup is going after. They want to make more money, they want to be better than the competition, and they want to have lasting success.

Nicholas Millikan: (28:33)
So let's talk about the citizens themselves, Stephen. This is near and dear to your heart, specifically. What impact has the shift had on the intercity issues such as inequality, homelessness, no regular jobs for regular people? Can you talk a little bit about the impact there?

Anna Mason: (28:49)
Well, first let's just say the intercity question of why people live or want to be in San Francisco or New York compared to Detroit or elsewhere, are different. Although there are some overlap between the intracity issues where frankly, if you look at inequality, the biggest inequality, the most shocking figures are actually neighborhoods within cities, where you have a five-year for example, life expectancy gap between the lowest-income neighborhoods that could be right next door to higher-income neighborhoods.

Anna Mason: (29:18)
And what's most shocking about the intercity question is that it's really solvable. And everybody knows what the solution is. The intercity question is complex. It involves attracting talent and businesses and tax codes and industry and infrastructure. It requires a lot, and it's almost easy to throw up your hands and say, "There's nothing we can do about it. It just sort of is what it is," which is also not true, but closer to being true than the intracity question. Which if you heard one theme, I think, from everything we've talked about, boils down to housing. If you want housing to be cheaper, there's one answer that I think everyone knows. What do you do? You build more housing. Period. The answer is really easy. It's supply and demand. Housing will be really expensive if there's not a lot of it; it will be much cheaper if there's more of it. And that means building housing, not just in poor communities, but building housing in wealthier communities.

Anna Mason: (30:09)
I consider myself a political progressive, I think. Hard to tell these days, distance from my time in a Democratic administration. But the cities that we're talking about that have the biggest inequality are, I think, self-described politically progressive. And it's the problem that drivers are just as much in the wealthy part of those cities, if not more so, than the poorer parts of those cities. You need to build housing everywhere. We have a huge housing crisis in the country. It's not because there's not money there for investment. The biggest asset class growth in the real estate space is by far multifamily. That is what's been burning all the way through COVID and the pandemic; it's the vast majority, if not almost all, of the investment, that's going into Opportunity Zones, which are this $25 billion subset of distressed community investing.

Anna Mason: (30:59)
Investors want to invest in multifamily because they know there is a consistent demand for it. People who live in cities don't want to build it. There's a theme around gentrification, which is mostly not true. Almost all research around gentrification shows that the people that gentrification most helps are younger people, children, in communities that have access to better schools, both in terms of primary schooling, better access to college education, less crime in their communities. It's what every parent wants for their kids in every community and every country. And the only way you get there is by investing and building more, creating more housing, more housing options across the spread. Same thing in wealthy communities: you have to build multi-family in wealthy communities. It can't just be single- family. Otherwise, there's not enough housing for people. People are priced out of the market, people have to leave, only wealthy people can live there and it perpetuates inequality.

Anna Mason: (31:49)
So we have the answer; we just have to want to enable it in our own communities. That's where it starts. It's not something some politician, some unnamed NGO or philanthropy has to solve. We can solve it if we want to fix this problem. So I'm very much in the spirit, what my theme here, if nothing else, is agency. We have agency to fix this very sticky problem in our own communities by just building more housing.

Nicholas Millikan: (32:14)
Yep. Okay. Excellent, then. So, Garrett, at the local level, you guys work specifically... And I know we're running up on time here, but yeah, can you talk a little bit about how you work with local governments and organizations to develop out property?

Garrett Bjorkman: (32:28)
Yeah, sure. So I would say one very successful effort that we've had has been in the city of Atlanta with a project that used to be known as The Gulch, but we acquired over years about 55 acres in downtown Atlanta and worked very closely with the city and the state to get different tax incentives that would effectively not just allow us to be incentivized to develop in that area, but also other developers to be incentivized to develop in that area.

Garrett Bjorkman: (33:07)
And it's been a part of Atlanta that people have been trying to activate for 20-plus years with no success. But we really built a coalition and thought about, "How do we master plan this whole city in a way to provide for a very active, vibrant lifestyle while at the same time addressing many of the issues that Steve just brought up?" So getting incentives that allow us to develop affordable, making sure that we have enough housing and the right types of housing. But working with the state and local governments to get those incentives were absolutely critical in order to make that happen.

Nicholas Millikan: (33:59)
Excellent. And we're just on one minute left here, so I want each of you to put a very fine point on what you've talked about already today. Steve, I'll start with you. So have we seen the Great Talent Redistribution as a result of the pandemic?

Steve Glickman: (34:13)
No, we haven't. We haven't seen the Great Redistribution, but we have this moment now where people, I think, can make a different decision, being separated from life and business-as-usual pre-pandemic. And that's, what do they want? What is their power to convince their companies not to go back to the office, to enable them to work for home, to live in more places to be near their family, to be near green spaces? I think this is going to be a very telling moment for American society, but I don't think we've seen it yet.

Nicholas Millikan: (34:40)
Okay. Anna?

Anna Mason: (34:42)
From a tech and entrepreneurship perspective, I think the fundamental change that COVID has induced is less about talent redistribution, though I think I would say yes, and that's incredibly exciting. But I actually think it's more about the boost and the shot in the arm that entrepreneurship has gotten overall.

Anna Mason: (34:59)
And I think the final point I would leave everyone with is that in 2020 we saw a historic high in the country of new business creation, of new business starts, up about 15% from what we've been seeing over the last couple of years and very different than what we saw in the Great Recession. So as we sit here and we look 10 years from now, where do we think we're going to be? I think the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship, that is perhaps more alive and well now than it was in the past decade, is really going to be what pays dividends. And hopefully we see that more evenly distributed all across the country.

Nicholas Millikan: (35:36)
Brilliant. Garrett, take us home.

Garrett Bjorkman: (35:37)
So not to steal a word from our Fed chairman, but it appears that the talent shift is maybe transitory in the short term. Over the long-term, unless cities really invest in their local economies and safety and transportation and housing, there's going to be a lot more change.

Nicholas Millikan: (35:57)
Brilliant. Well, on behalf of everyone who joined, Steve Anna, Garrett. Thanks for taking time out today.

Steve Glickman: (36:02)
Thank you.

Anna Mason: (36:02)
Thank you.

Digital Assets & the Future of Financial Innovation with Michael Novogratz | #SALTNY

Digital Assets & the Future of Financial Innovation with Michael Novogratz, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Galaxy Digital. Moderated by Andrew Smith Lewis, Chief Innovation Officer, CAIS.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Novogratz, Mike - Cropped.jpeg

Michael Novogratz

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Galaxy Digital

Headshot - Smith Lewis, Andrew - Cropped.jpeg

Andrew Smith Lewis

Chief Innovation Officer

CAIS

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Michael Novogratz: (00:07)
All right. Let's do it.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (00:09)
Thanks for joining me. Let's do it. Digital assets and the future of financial innovation.

Michael Novogratz: (00:13)
Small topic.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (00:14)
Small topic for 40 minutes. Why don't we start with where we're at now. What's happened in the last couple months? How are you feeling about things? And then we can talk about what it all means and where it's going.

Michael Novogratz: (00:27)
So I'm feeling great, hence the purple jacket and the cool shoes. I think the last two months have been really special if you've been in the crypto business as long as I have. The thing about Bitcoin, really started in 2009. So we're what? 12 years, 13 years into this. And up until recently, when people talk about crypto, they mostly thought about Bitcoin, even though there were all these other ecosystems and currencies.

Michael Novogratz: (01:00)
And they mostly thought about crypto as a hedge versus the debasement of the dollar. We're buying Bitcoin because central banks and Ministry of Finances around the world, and including the one here in the US are being really irresponsible. And we were printing money. You said, what? 20% of total money?

Andrew Smith Lewis: (01:20)
Last year.

Michael Novogratz: (01:21)
Printed in the history of the country in the last year. And so that was the story. And people said, "Well, what's Bitcoin backed by? Is it a real currency?" And you'd go up this explanation over and over that, no, it's this digital gold. And you're not going to buy your shoes in Bitcoin, unless really all hell breaks loose. But there was a much bigger story that was happening. And it wasn't really being well explained and people weren't picking up on it.

Michael Novogratz: (01:48)
And I think what's happened in the last two months is a real realization that Web 3.0 is coming. The Internet of Value exchange is coming. So the Ethereum network and the potential Ethereum killers or collaborators, this base layer of trust that we're building to program on top of, is actually a real thing. And it's happening. And there have been some symbolic things. Visa buying an NFT. So people think, "Oh, is that marketing?"

Michael Novogratz: (02:28)
Visa bought an NFT because they think digital goods will be the future. That's why they bought it an NFT. They bought an NFT because they think today, when you look at their whole user base, this is a $500 billion company, the average person swipes a Visa 0.9 times a day. They think in the future, because we'll be buying so many digital goods, their average customer will swipe a Visa 10 times a day. So they're making a huge bet on Web 3.0.

Michael Novogratz: (02:57)
This isn't Bitcoin going to the moon with a bunch of YOLO-ing going on. This is a serious, serious company saying the future of the financial markets are going to be built on this new infrastructure. Walmart and Amazon, interestingly in the same week, put up help wanted signs for crypto. Two of the biggest retailers in the world. Every time I meet a CEO, I get a follow-on email. "Hey, could you come talk to me about, how would we think about our company in this new ecosystem?"

Michael Novogratz: (03:31)
And so I think what you've seen, and you saw the price of Ethereum and Solana and LUNA and Polkadot, all of these level ones skyrocketing. What triggered it was the NFT craze. And you've got, what's an NFT? If you think about it, let's break it down and make it really simple. The genius of Bitcoin, and in some ways I always thought it took my simple mind to try to make it simple for me because I wouldn't understand it when I talk to all the computer science guys, the genus of Satoshi's white paper was it was the first digital signature you couldn't counterfeit.

Michael Novogratz: (04:09)
That was it. Before then, we could control, paste, copy, and have lots of things online, digitally. And Satoshi made it possible for us to have uniqueness. When we have uniqueness, we can have scarcity. When we have scarcity, all kinds of things, we can have value transfer. And so we saw it in art now. We're seeing it in collectibles, with NBA Top Shot exploding, gamifying, collecting video clips. We've seen it in art. Things like generative art, art blocks has exploded. Ringers.

Michael Novogratz: (04:41)
I had Alex [Cherniak 00:04:44] at my house and he was showing me his ringers. And I said, "Those are pretty cool." And I was going to buy one, it was like $3,000. And three months later, it's 2.3 million. And I was like, "My damn phone was dead." And so this explosion of NFTs triggered this mindset that shit, that's happening on Web 3.0. And I think now, every investor I talk to, if it's a hedge fund investor, a retail investor, family offices or institutions realize they're short the next internet.

Michael Novogratz: (05:18)
And so why we're seeing every venture fund who says, "I'm going to raise ..." They're closed in a week. There's this FOMO going on because people realize, "Hey, this is the next chapter." And again, I don't know if that means prices are going to go up straight, in a straight line. They never do. There's always volatility around, lots of risks, but it's a very different conversation that I'm having today with users, with investors than I was four months ago, even.

Michael Novogratz: (05:47)
And so there's a shift that's gone on. And I really think if people now see this as a technology play, it's not just a speculative play.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (05:54)
Let's talk about that a little bit. Let's unpack that a little bit. So I spend most of my time speaking with people in wealth management, financial advisors, about crypto, about Bitcoin, and other asset classes in our work.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (06:06)
And one of the things I find is that there is ... You talked about FOMO. There's a feeling that maybe they're too late, that they've missed out on Bitcoin. What do you say to somebody who thinks that?

Michael Novogratz: (06:18)
Listen, every year you look back, you're like, "Gosh, I should've bought that thing." You could've done the same thing with Amazon stock. Amazon stock had one of its best years this year. Ever since 2000, every year it looked like you missed out. And so I think big monster trends that really do change the way we behave, go for long periods of time.

Michael Novogratz: (06:41)
Total crypto wealth, roughly two-and-a-half trillion dollars, which is maybe a half a percent of total global wealth. So if you see all the trends I'm seeing, or you can see just by reading the newspaper, something really bad has to happen for total crypto wealth not to go from a half a percent to something like two or three, or four or 10 over time.

Michael Novogratz: (07:08)
And so while we might not see the ecosystem expand as fast as it did in the last year, we went from 350 billion to two-and-a-half trillion in say 17 months, it's really hard for me to not see it expand. And so when I look at Bitcoin specifically, Bitcoin as digital gold is being adopted. And the story is being bought into.

Michael Novogratz: (07:32)
I don't think the Treasury Department and the central banks around the world are going to do a good enough job in this really difficult period they have, to get people to believe that they're not going to debase currencies. In some ways, the only way out for the US dollar is in what we're hoping, for praying for, is a slow depreciation of the dollar as opposed to a fast one. And so Bitcoin adoption is continuing to happen.

Michael Novogratz: (08:04)
Bitcoin right now, what? It's like so we're at $900 billion. Gold is 10 trillion, so we're 9% of gold. We're going to get to a 100% of gold. We're not going to get there next year, but we'll go from 9% to 16%. Then 16% of 25%. And then 25% we'll be like, "Why isn't it 50%?" And so four or five, six years, Bitcoin will be 500,000. Assuming gold price stays where it is, I actually think it'll all go higher.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (08:31)
And so you talked about Internet 3.0. So if this is Internet 3.0, and if we think about Internet 1.0 and if we draw the analogy, what year are we in, in terms of this? Are we in the late '90s?

Michael Novogratz: (08:45)
If you've ever been to a NASCAR race, the cars go around for a while and they have a green flag. And then all of a sudden, the checker flag comes out and they all go for real. The checker flag just fell. We literally just started the race. People didn't believe in Web 3.0. And quite frankly, a lot of the ecosystems in what you're seeing now, aren't built to scale yet.

Michael Novogratz: (09:07)
So, why is Solana so exciting all of a sudden? It's because Ethereum is on this path to scale, speed, and complexity over time. But it's not fast enough right now, to process as much crap as the world wants to process. The idea of a decentralized Internet of Value, exchanging value across people is so exciting. Everyone wants to do it now.

Michael Novogratz: (09:36)
But the computer scientists haven't figured out with Ethereum, how to do it fast enough today, on a decentralized form. So there's thousands of nodes in Ethereum. So, what do you do? You say, "Hey, I'm going to create another system that's less decentralized, less secure in that respect, more easily manipulated, but probably not going to be manipulated." That's much faster. And so all of the other block chains, Solana, LUNA, they're much faster, and you're seeing adoption.

Michael Novogratz: (10:06)
Now, the market will tell over time, how much we care about decentralization. Regulators will make the OAM when they really understand it. Do we want the future of finance, the future of commerce built on a platform that might be manipulated? Probably not. And so I think even a protocol like Solana, if it's going to survive longterm, it's going to have to find a way to be much more decentralized than it is.

Michael Novogratz: (10:32)
Again, I start getting out of my league as a computer science guy because I'm not, but that's the simple way to think of these different L1 protocols. There's a trade off between speed and security, speed and decentralization. But what I'm telling you is why they're all working is because everyone wants to build on them right now.

Michael Novogratz: (10:49)
Every conversation I have is, how do I build on Web 3.0? There's so much that you can do. We're monetizing community for the first time ever, monetizing social prestige for the first time ever. And so-

Andrew Smith Lewis: (11:00)
And that's all based on the blockchain. And the first principle of this is understanding the blockchain and what that allows, correct?

Michael Novogratz: (11:05)
Yep.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (11:07)
And if you think about it, you mentioned NFT. So if you think about we're hearing a lot about CryptoPunks and digital assets, and digital artwork and generative artwork, but isn't there also a big connection to the analog world, right? So if I'm an art collector or I'm an art gallery, what are the implications of this trend in NFTs, in terms of vindication?

Michael Novogratz: (11:30)
I'll tell you a fun story. One of the legends of art was having a party to talk about NFTs with all his old collecting friends. And I crashed the party. I had to have a few too many cocktails. And I brought this woman, Emily Chang, who is known as people pleaser to the party. And I interrupted. I said, "If you guys want to talk about NFTs, why don't you talk to a young NFT artist who's just crushing it?"

Michael Novogratz: (11:55)
And as she was talking, it made so much sense. We'd love to have you in our community. We don't need you. Who's supporting NFTs, this crypto community who's made lots of money recently? And they're supporting their artists, their movement. It's fascinating to them. And so, who bought the Beeple for $69 million? A crypto guy. Who's buying most of the ringers or the Denzas? Which are really cool art.

Michael Novogratz: (12:24)
Ringers and Denzas are an extension of [Solueth 00:12:28]. It's algorithmic art done by these genius artists that will get collected by traditional art people in the future. But right now, it's crypto people supporting crypto art. And in some ways, it was so interesting, they don't need that. What the crypto has done is it allowed a community to form much faster than we ever formed it before.

Michael Novogratz: (12:52)
If you're Pace Gallery or Larry Gagosian and you worked tirelessly to cultivate your buyers, and you tell the story of an artist, the gallerist deserves a lot because he's creating value by telling the story of why Jeff Koons is important. Why is Balloon Dog a $30 million sculpture? Because people say it is. That's it. How many people say it is? Well, who can afford a Balloon Dog? A very small subset of the global population.

Michael Novogratz: (13:22)
They're all connected by the Larry Gagosians and the Pace Galleries of the world. We are doing that at a much faster scale in crypto and in NFTs. And so it's exact same thing happening. Why is the Denza ... It's beautiful. It's cool. It's limited. There's only so many of them, and we're connecting to communities that are passionate much faster than in the past.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (13:46)
Yeah. I think about, though. Have you seen the movie on Netflix, Made You Look?

Michael Novogratz: (13:51)
No.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (13:52)
It's a great film. It's about the oldest art gallery in America, 165 years old. And over the last 10 years, they sold $80 million plus of fraudulent artwork, unknowingly. Big deal. Does that happen in the future where we've got this sort of ability to prove visually for provenance?

Michael Novogratz: (14:09)
No. And one of the nice things is you're going to have provenance. It's going to be there. Listen, it doesn't mean that the crypto community is all a bunch of white hatted good guys. You saw yesterday, some jackasses posted a fake press release from Walmart that they were buying Litecoin. And Litecoin jumped 15%, and all the crypto jumped. And I scratched my head. I was like, "Who would buy Litecoin? Why?"

Michael Novogratz: (14:35)
And it made no sense to me, but I wasn't quick enough to short it. And then of course, it turned out to be fraud. They had bought a website, walmartsomething.com a month earlier, sent a very formal looking press release out. And so hopefully, they end up getting arrested. We're going to continue to see in any hot industry, fraud, scamsters, fly-by-night excitement. We don't want to lose the forest through the trees.

Michael Novogratz: (15:08)
And I mention that because a lot of the ... In crypto, they call it FUD, fear, uncertainty, or doubt, a lot of the backlash from politicians and the regulators that aren't educated is, "Oh, this stuff's all used for bad shit." You couldn't be further from the truth. I was part of a group that hired the ex head of the CIA to do a study on crypto.

Michael Novogratz: (15:33)
And he spent eight weeks or seven weeks doing a deep dive with all the agencies, with players, with all the security companies in crypto, like Chainalysis and CipherTrace. And he determined that in Bitcoin, a tiny amount was used for illicit actions. And most of that was scams. It wasn't terrorist financing or kiddie porn. And quite frankly, it was a lot less than the traditional finance world, and a lot less than cash.

Michael Novogratz: (16:02)
And so I mentioned it because people say, "What could go wrong with crypto?" Well, what could go wrong is we could have some really crappy regulation which will slow things back. If the US and Europe doesn't get regulation, it will slow the growth of Web 3.0 immensely. And there are vested interests that don't want it to happen. At its core, the blockchain allows to cut out rent takers.

Michael Novogratz: (16:28)
And so if you're banks, or if you're the NASDAQ, you're really worried about Uniswap or SushiSwap. You really should be. Smart companies are quickly pivoting and figuring out. If you look at Visa, they're pivoting, how do they work within this new ecosystem? But there's going to be winners and losers like in any technology transfer. And so ...

Andrew Smith Lewis: (16:51)
Mike, talk a little bit about applications outside of finance, where you see companies getting on the bandwagon, because this is not limited. The implications here are not just limited to finance, right, in terms of what this Internet 3.0 is going to do to business at large?

Michael Novogratz: (17:07)
Yeah. Listen, there's a couple of really cool ideas that showed up that have surprised me. One is in the last five years, we've created this idea that identity is worth something. GameStop, there's not one equity analyst on the planet that would tell you that GameStop has a discounted cash flow value that's worth anything. But the stock is resilient as heck, because the people that buy it, have identity. They're GameStop guys. They're Reddit warriors.

Michael Novogratz: (17:44)
Cardano, it's a big crypto protocol with over 80 billion the last time. I think it might be a $100 billion. I can't find people in our community that are building on it. It doesn't have a lot of activity on it. But man, oh man, when I say something bad about it on Twitter, I get attacked by a wave of hornets. At times, death threats. They have their identity in Cardano. Very similar quite frankly to anti-vaxxers.

Michael Novogratz: (18:11)
Texas, there are seven vaccines you need before you can send your kid to school, but God forbid this COVID vaccine. The anti-vaccine is an identity. It's not even intellectual. It's the same way GameStop isn't an equity buy. It's an identity. And so this idea of identity is real. And it might be much more resilient than all of us think. Because our first instinct, especially as old investors is, "Oh, this all is going to get the shit kicked out of it. It's all going right down."

Michael Novogratz: (18:41)
Well, it hasn't been because we now have this idea that value can show up in all kinds of places. One of the unintended consequences of zero interest rates forever is this idea that, who are you to tell me what's valuable? And we have a balkanization of the world. So one of the downsides of decentralization is balkanization. Hey, this is my stuff, leave it alone.

Michael Novogratz: (19:07)
I get that so often when I make not even a critical, when I make a semi-critical comment of a crypto ecosystem. I either get, "You're an F-tard," or, "I want to kill you." Or the more intelligent comments are, "Dude, just leave us alone." And so I think, thinking about how identity plays in our evaluation frameworks, it never was part of evaluation framework, but that shows up in other ways.

Michael Novogratz: (19:34)
You're going to see a deluge of fan tokens. Remember when you were a young kid, you joined the Bobby Sherman Fan Club or whoever, you're the Farrah Fawcett Fan Club. You'd pay a dollar, you joined their fan club and you get nothing. You're going to see fan tokens where people are going to pay and they're going to get meet-and-greets. Or if you get 25 tokens, Paris Hilton will give you a kiss on the cheek.

Michael Novogratz: (20:04)
They're going to be non-equity dilutive, but they're going to be identity tokens in some ways. People will never use the goods they're used for, just like very few people use the Binance BNB token for discounts on their commissions. But they buy it. And so I think this idea of identity and actually having it have value, is a new idea. It's a radical idea. And it shouldn't be dismissed.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (20:34)
There are a lot of people who look at blockchain as maybe a cure-all for what's going on in society. So you look at issues with education and with healthcare. Are you bullish on the implications of with the blockchain? You've seen it [crosstalk 00:20:47].

Michael Novogratz: (20:48)
Think about supply chains, right?

Andrew Smith Lewis: (20:49)
Yeah.

Michael Novogratz: (20:51)
We go to Starbucks and it would be nice to know that the coffee's not being picked by slaves in some part of South America. And so you're going to have a lot of, and you're seeing this already, a lot of supply chains done on a blockchain. So you can prove provenance. And at one point, maybe it'll change the way we think. If we knew each time we bought a 4.50 mocha latte, that the guy that picked the bean was only getting two cents of that 4.50. And the barista was getting 80 cents.

Michael Novogratz: (21:23)
If you could actually see the breakdown, you might change your spending habits to something that felt more just. You might not, but the blockchain will allow that. And so we're seeing lots of different companies, private companies, and some public ideas of, how do we use blockchain for supply chain as one idea? It's impossible to think that in some period of time, and it's probably longer than we all want, that all our healthcare records will be NFTs.

Michael Novogratz: (21:56)
It's crazy right now. If I got hit by a car and I went to some hospital, they said, "What medicine are you on," and I don't even know what medicine I'm on, but I'm on a lot, and my healthcare records are all over the place. It should all be an NFT.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (22:11)
Diplomas, the same thing, right?

Michael Novogratz: (22:13)
Yeah. That's happening already, right?

Andrew Smith Lewis: (22:14)
Yeah.

Michael Novogratz: (22:14)
University of Arkansas put all their diplomas on the blockchain.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (22:17)
MIT as well, block certs. Yeah.

Michael Novogratz: (22:20)
And so what? You're hiring a kid, you can really check if he actually went to MIT or if he just told you he did.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (22:25)
Yeah. I think it's good for MIT. I think it's also really interesting when you look at the refugee problem. So classic story of Syrian refugees who come over and their records are washed away, and their schools are no longer there.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (22:39)
How do you prove that you are a doctor or you are a pharmacist. Putting that on the blockchain is going to really change things significantly for those populations, which is pretty key moving forward.

Michael Novogratz: (22:50)
And so the takeaway is we talked a lot about this stuff in 2017. We're hanging out with Joe Lubin at ConsenSys, and he would give me the map of what was going to happen in the future. But it was a lot of talk. And what I'm telling you loud and clear is something shifted in the last few months. And now, there is an energy going into these projects and energy going into this space that I haven't seen since I've been in it.

Michael Novogratz: (23:14)
And I tell the people that work for me, I say, "Two years ago, you were taking a lot of career risk. This whole thing might not work out. I think it's going to, but it might not." Now, I tell my employees, "We have execution risk. The competition is coming. We got to work our butts off. Everyone's getting into this space." Do we have a lead or not? I don't even know, but we better keep working because it's all about execution.

Michael Novogratz: (23:40)
And so I think, listen, the roadmap is not completely clear because this stuff's complicated, but the idea that we're not going to live in a world where block chains are a big part of it, I think is limit down.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (23:54)
And it's speeding up, because you look at convergent technologies. What really happens when AI and blockchain intersect at scale?

Michael Novogratz: (24:03)
Well, you're seeing it with generative art. What is generative art? It's using AI to create art. And it's the hottest part of NFTs. And if you were telling me right now, "I have a million dollars, I'm not going to look at it for 10 years and I need to buy NFTs, that's all I could buy," a 100% I would tell you to buy generative art, as opposed to CryptoPunks or Apes, or any of the other avatar-like, cool identity things.

Michael Novogratz: (24:32)
What's a CryptoPunk? It's an identity. Matter of fact, I was on stage at Christmas. Sometimes you can be smart and an idiot at the same time. And Jay-Z had just bought a CryptoPunk as his avatar. And I was like, "Guys, Jay-Z is the king of culture. If he's buying one, we all should." And then I went and I started looking, and I couldn't find the one I liked. And then I forgot about it. And now, they're all up 15X.

Michael Novogratz: (24:57)
CryptoPunks were selling at $6 million. There are 10,000 of them. They're pretty cool. There are different scarcities, but it's identity, again. Again, I'm less confident that the value of CryptoPunks will hold up versus say generative art, because I think generative art will be looked at as real, an extension of art, as opposed to a collectible, but I could be wrong. They're not that many CryptoPunks, and there are a whole lot of rich people.

Michael Novogratz: (25:28)
And if you think about when I said earlier three, 350 billion to two-and-a-half trillion, so let's call it $2.15 trillion of crypto wealth created in the last 18 months, owned by some traditional people that had wealth. I started, I was a pretty wealthy guy. Lots of people that didn't, lots of young people. So this is a generational shift. The baby boomers are the ones that have kind of screwed the world up. They've been in charge for 30 years.

Michael Novogratz: (25:57)
We've gotten 30 pounds heavier on average in America. Our deficits have blown out to levels that we don't think we'll be able to pay back. The planet is not in such great shape when it comes to global warming. And so the stores of our country for the last 30 years, from Bill Clinton here to Joe Biden, haven't done a great job. And Gen Z and millennials know that, they're angry, and they're doing their own thing.

Michael Novogratz: (26:24)
And so the crypto revolution is a young person's revolution. It's started. Satoshi wrote the white paper because he just lost trust. My friend, Joe Lubin got involved in Ethereum because he literally was at his wit's end after the financial crisis. And he wanted a different way to look at the world. And so don't miss out on that this is a generational thing.

Michael Novogratz: (26:45)
And so things that seem strange, talk to your young kids, talk to the kids in your office or your own children or 18-year-olds, and you'll get a whole different perspective on crypto art, a whole different perspective on why this is important to them.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (27:00)
You've talked a lot about education being important in this space. So you've got the young generation who get it, and maybe the older generation who's being left behind. And that gap's widening, because it seems like there's just a daily dose of information about crypto, about Bitcoin. And it's never ending.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (27:22)
What's your advice in terms of educating financial professionals, for example? I know you've done a lot of work in that space, working with wire houses and independence. How do you bridge that gap, so that a financial advisor is actually able to convey something that's accurate, with confidence and clarity to their clients?

Michael Novogratz: (27:39)
Yeah, it's a great question. And I think part of this revolution going on, Robinhood, crypto is the democratization of finance. Well, that's got its downside. And generally, I'm for it. But I'm like, "Dude, I got a lot of knuckleheads out there gambling their money and thinking it's easy." Being a prudent and good investor has never been an easy job. It takes lots of work. It takes lots of discipline. And if you don't have hard work and discipline, you're going to lose most of your money.

Michael Novogratz: (28:10)
And so I think the financial services industry will change. But I think it serves a huge, huge role on a go-forward basis, in educating and actually giving advice to people who don't want to spend their time thinking about making money. You might be a doctor or a lawyer, or a housewife or an artist that doesn't really care about what's happening in the market on a day-to-day basis. And so A, I think the group that needs to get educated are your guys.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (28:47)
Yeah.

Michael Novogratz: (28:48)
Right, the financial advisors. I don't think they're going away, and I don't think they should go away. I don't want the whole world focused on the price of Ethereum day-to-day. You have all these young kids that think they're working just by looking at their crypto prices 24 hours a day. I was like, "Dude, that's not work. That's like dopamine."

Michael Novogratz: (29:06)
And so it's imperative for the FAs to actually dig in. And the only way they're going to learn is to work, is to get on Twitter. There was a guy walking around here, John Cheeseman, who was an old FX sales guy. And now, he's one of the best crypto sales guys. How? Because two years ago, he just dove in. He got on the right Twitter groups. He got on the ... I'm sorry, Telegram groups, got on Twitter.

Michael Novogratz: (29:33)
And so there's no easy road. There's lots of information. The good news is crypto lives on Twitter. And it'll take you two weeks to figure out, who are the right people to follow? There are spectacular explanations of everything on YouTube, anything Vitalik Buterin did. He's articulate, he's bright, and you can kind of understand it. Some of it gets too detailed and you got to figure out what you need.

Michael Novogratz: (30:03)
And you also have to understand that you're not going to catch everything. Right now, if people ask me, I don't want to spend my whole life doing crypto, but I want to be invested. I'd say buy some Bitcoin, buy some Ethereum, buy a basket of other level ones, and buy Galaxy stock, because we kind of do a lot of everything.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (30:23)
Of course. Well, let's talk about that for a second, because I think you're talking about a generation of people who are not used to learning through social media, not used to learning, looking at Twitter as the source of truth. And you have a very high signal-to-noise ratio with all of this. So also, I find that we work with a lot of financial advisors and we look at the challenges of learning about digital assets. And it's really interesting because we see a great increase in demand.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (30:52)
They want to learn about it. But compared to traditional asset classes, hedge funds, private equity, it takes three times longer for these advisors to reach a level of mastery equivalent. And we've been thinking a lot about that. And what's occurred to me, and I'm curious what you think is, that there's a gap because it's not just about being a finance expert or a wealth expert. You have to understand the technology to a certain extent. There's an underlying story to this that's not just the way you learn about a hedge fund.

Michael Novogratz: (31:26)
Yeah, and I think it's important. But in some ways it's not as important as people think. I always thought about-

Andrew Smith Lewis: (31:32)
What's not important?

Michael Novogratz: (31:33)
Well, how a blockchain works.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (31:35)
Okay.

Michael Novogratz: (31:36)
What's the consensus mechanism for the different block chains? For our industry to be successful, that's the back of the TV. When my mom turns on the TV, she's just really excited that her show's on. She doesn't understand how the TV works, nor do I.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (31:51)
Right.

Michael Novogratz: (31:51)
And I think in the long run, even knowing something's peer to peer versus going through a clearinghouse, is you're a little indifferent as a consumer user, unless you've got a real political side to you. And so part of this is going to be made easier because with all the capital coming into our space, and the fact that these block chains are coming up to scale, finally, that the ecosystem is big enough for people to invest in, finally.

Michael Novogratz: (32:20)
You're going to see wild innovation in the UX/UI and the user experience. User experience, pull the MetaMask wallet to try to buy an NFT, and it's not a pleasant experience. Or even trying to buy an NBA Top Shot was absolutely not a pleasant experience. You have to remember, two years ago, our industry was a lot smaller. We had gone through the crypto winter, people were building, and it wasn't built for scale.

Michael Novogratz: (32:46)
And so when lots of big institutions say they missed it, I was like, "You didn't miss anything. You're so big you couldn't have participated in our market before." It didn't have the liquidity or the size. And so we're only now getting to the liquidity and the size where a CalPERS or a Texas Teachers could actually make a meaningful investment in Bitcoin, or in Web 3.0. They couldn't have two years ago.

Michael Novogratz: (33:12)
It would have been almost comical. And so you're seeing a natural evolution as this industry grows up. And I keep coming back to this. And this, two years from now, you might think that guy was a cracker, but I literally think I have this intuition that something important happened in the last three to four months, two months, that we crossed this threshold, that Web 3.0 is a thing. And I see it. And so I think all this capital coming in is only going to grow itself.

Michael Novogratz: (33:44)
The success is going to beget success. And you are going to see this year, the first big pension funds come in and say, "Hey, for our pensioners in the state of X, we're putting half a percent into Bitcoin." How much risk is that? I've told them all, "Dude, it's the greatest marketing you could do." You want to attract young people? Tell them you're crypto-forward. They'll come your way. The mayor of Miami got that really right.

Michael Novogratz: (34:13)
Lots of corporates are now figuring that out. Hey, let's at least accept Bitcoin. We're speaking the language of Gen Z and millennials. Why do you think Major League Baseball, we partnered up with Major League Baseball and a company called Candy, to sell digital sports memorabilia, digital goods in baseball? All sports are having a hard time getting younger kids interested in their sports. Let's use the thing those young kids love to bring them into our community.

Michael Novogratz: (34:45)
All sports are perfect places for crypto. They already have tribes. And so you're just using a new technology to pull more people into your tribe. And so I think you're going to see more and more companies think, how do I connect both with young people, but all people via this new technology?

Andrew Smith Lewis: (35:03)
Oh, I certainly agree. But when you come back to advisors, you've got independent advisors who run plus or minus $8 trillion of high net worth wealth. You want to see that money I presume, start moving in this direction. And I think that it's hard to tackle crypto without thinking about tackling the education system, without tackling the way we learn about this stuff.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (35:25)
And I think a modern new system like this, requires a refresh in terms of learning. It's like the system hasn't changed in so long. And how can we keep pace with this innovation, get the right content the right way? What do you think?

Michael Novogratz: (35:41)
It's a great question, because I literally, and this is not to pat myself on the back, because I'm getting sick of it, I get asked to speak four times a day. I could literally just do nothing but speak because there's this wealth of information, and there are not a lot of macro guys. There's a few other really good macro speakers that talk about this.

Michael Novogratz: (35:56)
Raoul Pal understands the intersection of this, and Dan Morehead, but not a lot that came from macro that understand this. And I'm hoping over time, at Morgan Stanley, when they started selling Galaxy's fund, we did all these sessions to 4,000 or 15 to 2,500 RAs. You're hoping that they become the salesman and it's not just me. That's why I think this is going to go viral.

Michael Novogratz: (36:23)
I think it just takes time. I don't think there's an easy fix. If there is, I will literally carry you on my shoulders. And if you crack the code, you'll be my favorite guy. I think learning takes time for people. [crosstalk 00:36:37] I need to hear things seven times before that really clicks with me, because it is complicated. If you want to simplify it, a blockchain is a database. And if it was just our blockchain, it'd be really fast and really easy to manipulate.

Michael Novogratz: (36:52)
We'd be like, "Let's screw those guys." And so the more nodes that have to look at that database and verify it every five minutes, every 10 minutes, every one minute, whatever the protocol is, the slower it is, and the more complicated it is, and the more expensive it is to upkeep.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (37:13)
Yeah.

Michael Novogratz: (37:14)
And so even that decision, should I build up? I had one of the great Web 2.0 innovators. I ran into him in Big Surf three days ago. And he was asking me, "Should I build on Solana or Ethereum?" And I was like, "Oh God, you're asking the wrong guy. I'm not a computer science guy." I can frame it for you, but that's a real technical question.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (37:37)
Yes.

Michael Novogratz: (37:38)
And so for an investor, I think the best they're going to do is understand what the board is.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (37:43)
Yes, I would agree with that. And I would also agree that learning takes time. And if it takes seven impressions for you to learn, I think the key is though, is it seven times, you hear it seven times in a row, or seven times spaced out over time? And what's interesting is there's a lot of good research about how you help people learn that doesn't get applied here.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (38:01)
And I think we have to make this switch. You talked a lot about how the internet has chased the price of things down to zero. And you think about knowledge, knowledge used to be incredibly valuable. A kid in Africa versus a kid who had access to information at Harvard, there's a great disparity there.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (38:16)
But now it's equalized. And so anybody has access, equal access to information, so that's not enough anymore. And this deluge of information doesn't afford us the ability to really learn and absorb those things.

Michael Novogratz: (38:30)
Well, if you think about what really works in NFTs and what really works in lots of things, it's the gamification.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (38:38)
Yes.

Michael Novogratz: (38:38)
So if you can gamify learning for your FAs, you'll probably win. All the best projects are gamified right now.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (38:50)
Yep.

Michael Novogratz: (38:52)
There's an age-old DNA in all humans. They love to gamble and play games. And that's part of, I think, how you accelerate getting the older guys.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (39:02)
And it's kind of crazy. The education system hasn't really adopted those principles at scale. And I think there's an opportunity to do it here. And I think you've got a generation of people that would appreciate that and participate in that ecosystem. So if you were to gamify crypto-

Michael Novogratz: (39:16)
Andrew, I see a future for you. You're going to leave CAIS and you're going to start, how are we going to gamify teaching FAs how to learn crypto?

Andrew Smith Lewis: (39:24)
You're going to back that?

Michael Novogratz: (39:25)
Sure.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (39:25)
Okay. Never, I'm not leaving. But we're going to do it at CAIS anyway. So I think that's the way to go. It's interesting.

Michael Novogratz: (39:34)
Awesome.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (39:34)
Good. Thank you.

Michael Novogratz: (39:37)
Very good.

Andrew Smith Lewis: (39:38)
Great talk.

Sustainable Infrastructure Investing | #SALTNY

Sustainable Infrastructure Investing with Petya Nikolova, Head of Infrastructure Investments, New York City Retirement System, Office of the Comptroller. Maureen O’toole, Head of the Americas Investor Development Group, Actis. Pieter Houlleberghs, Director, Investment (Energy & Environment), Temasek.

Moderated by Caroline Abramo, Founder & Chief Investment Officer, Panal LCE.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Nikolova, Petya - Cropped.png

Petya Nikolova

Head of Infrastructure Investments

New York City Retirement System

maureen-otoole.jpeg

Maureen O'Toole

Managing Director & Head of the Americas Investor Development Group

Actis Advisers

 
pieter-houlleberghs.jpeg

Pieter Houlleberghs

Director, Investment (Energy & Environment)

Temasek

MODERATOR

Headshot - Abramo, Caroline - Cropped.jpeg

Caroline Abramo

Founder & Chief Investment Officer

Pana LCE

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Caroline Abramo: (00:08)
Hello, everyone, it's great to be here. And what an act that we have to follow. I obviously wore the wrong jacket today. But hopefully you'll forgive me. I'm Caroline Abramo. I'm the CEO and founder of Pana (Low Carbon Economy) Investments based here in New York City. So thrilled that we get to have this event in New York City. And I really thank the whole SALT team for giving us this opportunity to talk about what we think is the best investment opportunity of our lifetime, besides Bitcoin, of course. And so I would love to bring you in and meet the panel, we're going to talk about a lot of what I call macro ideas about the space. Pana, our firm, is dedicated to what we call growth equity. So we're really bridging some of the breakthrough technologies that have been developed to reduce carbon in all our major supply chains. So all of our real assets supply chains, getting them to the stage where they could be deployed into large scale infrastructure. And that's really the topic is really, infrastructure.

Caroline Abramo: (01:13)
And my esteemed colleagues will talk about how from their perspective as both asset managers and investors, they're actually doing it. They're actually making investing, they're making investing decisions, and really bridging sometimes what the gaps are between the way government supports some of these technologies and these infrastructure, investments, the role of corporations and the private sector. So we'll talk a lot about all of those. And so without further ado, I want to introduce my panel. So each of them is going to tell you a little bit about their role and something fun about them. So Petra, if you can start.

Petya Nikolova: (01:52)
Thank you, Caroline. It's a pleasure to be here, good afternoon. I'm Petya Nikolova. And I lead the infrastructure asset class with New York City Retirement Systems. New York City Retirement Systems are the fourth largest pension plan in the US. Currently, we totally went over 260 billion. We invest across a variety of private markets but for the purposes of this panel, the infrastructure would be the most relevant one. Infrastructure, we started around nine years ago and we continue to invest very actively across different sectors. And as we'll discuss later on, a lot is going on in the sustainability space.

Caroline Abramo: (02:39)
Thanks, Petya. Maureen.

Maureen O'Toole: (02:41)
Hi, I am Maureen O'Toole and pleased to be here and not in Las Vegas, I will admit. This is always a great conference. I started attending years ago on the hedge fund side, I spent all of my career in the alternative investment world. Two years ago, I joined Actis. We are an impact and private capital manager based in London. What I'm excited about is to tell you more about what we do at Actis and to raise the level of awareness around what is achievable, both in terms of getting really good market rates of return. And in terms of taking a look at what the leave behind effect of your investments are on the ground. I was thrilled to get to Actis because I had been hearing about impact investing. We hear all these terms, ESG, sustainable investing, and Actis has a 70 year plus history in this area because they were originating within a development finance institution in the UK actually. They started a private capital investment arm within a DFI, to show that market rates of return can be made, exits can be made in developing markets.

Maureen O'Toole: (03:56)
And so I think that will be the angle that I will take today. We did not start as a carbon neutral or a carbon type of an investment arm, we started to bring power to people who don't have power. When we started there were nearly 2 billion people in the world that didn't have access to electricity. Today, there's approximately 1 billion. Great tailwinds, great supply, demand and efficiency and a great way to make market returns for our clients.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (04:25)
Great. So hi, everyone. I'm Pieter Houlleberghs. I'm with Temasek, the Singapore based investment firm. In the New York office, I lead our energy and environment practice for the Americas. So that includes clean energy, water, waste, really, energy transition and circular economy focus thematics, both private and public sector investments. And I've been with the firm for eight years, spent eight years prior to that also in the energy sector. And I have been thrilled to be part of a firm that's been transitioning and helping to also help industry transition as we Look at decarbonization as a massive investment opportunity, which simply makes sense. And I think as Maureen said and I quote, "We're also very much driven by that huge opportunity and excited to share a little bit more about it today."

Caroline Abramo: (05:15)
Thanks. So it's great. Well, didn't hear any fun facts. So we're going to get back to that, because you're not eluding me. So Petya, just started with you. Just wondering how the firm got comfortable with this specific investment area and the transition to a low carbon economy, and how your investments look versus what was currently in your portfolio, and maybe what's still in your portfolio and how you're thinking, potentially of transitioning all of it to a low carbon economy.

Petya Nikolova: (05:43)
Yeah, absolutely. And I'll start with a little bit of a bigger picture above infrastructure. So what do we do as an organization at the plan level? What we have done is we have divested a few of our boards from fossil fuels. But we also started investing and that is, the more interesting piece. We have tripled our investments in sustainability over the last three years. Again, at the plan level, for infrastructure, specifically, the dynamics has been extremely interesting. And that's to the point that both Maureen and Pieter made, which is that without necessarily focusing from the very beginning on sustainability, and the infrastructure portfolio as we as an investor could invest across a variety of asset classes, more traditional ones, like transportation, or the newer ones, like digital infrastructure. And yet, we invest primarily to funds. So where the opportunity has been, it has been renewables and sustainability. So our portfolio has very organically grown in renewables, and they represent currently the largest portion of our investments.

Petya Nikolova: (07:14)
And if we add other sustainability themes, like energy efficiency, or battery storage, it would be one larger portion of the pie. And I think the key here, Caroline, to your point about how did you get comfortable is based on returns, they are money to be made there. And we go through a very thorough process of due diligence to understand exactly the risk and return profile of this investment. And so far, it has been a great opportunity.

Caroline Abramo: (07:57)
Yeah, that's really helpful, Petya, and to know that with solar and wind that we're on a trajectory of spin started that 20 years in the making. In terms of achieving the right level on the technologies and derisking them, so that now that they're considered a basic infrastructure. Maureen, in terms of Actis, and how you taken advantage of, let's say, the renewable sector, maybe you can talk about your focus, and where it is. And we'll go back to you, Petya in terms of just geographies, like being in New York City, are you focused only on the US or is it a global mandate? But Maureen, if you could talk about your portfolio.

Maureen O'Toole: (08:43)
Right. So as I said, we're a power generation company are the area I'm going to talk about, we do other things, we do digital and data center, but for the sake of today, we'll talk about the power generation. As I said, we didn't start doing renewables because they weren't affordable. So what's so important, and I think so exciting for investing right now is we just we're raising a fund right now it's done. And this vintage year of ours is going to, I think be one of the most transformative when we started our first fund 15 years ago, we were doing thermal. We were studying wind and solar the minute they got affordable, the minute that their cost per kilowatt hour dipped below that of coal, which is just sort of the base case, we were able to pivot very quickly. What's so exciting today and we'll touch on it, I hope, is the new work that's being done in the renewables that will propel us for tomorrow. And that's going to be primarily in battery and storage and perhaps hydrogen as storage.

Maureen O'Toole: (09:40)
What we do right now, as I said is wind and solar because the minute that that price became affordable when you have input that costs zero, sun cost zero, wind cost zero. That is the most affordable way for an emerging market to bring power to its people. So today we build large scale solar and wind plants. We have our offices in 17 markets around the world we invest broadly throughout Latin America, Africa, India and Southeast Asia. We do nothing in the developed markets because of our history of being part of that DFI that focus primarily on the emerging markets. And in so doing, we keep track of how much carbon are we reducing out of the atmosphere. Many of the places that we... In fact, does anybody know how much of the world's power is still generated by coal, 30%. Go to a country like India, almost 90% of electricity in India comes from coal generation.

Maureen O'Toole: (10:41)
So I go back to when you're an investor, you should be looking at where that supply demand imbalance. And how can I take advantage of this huge transition and transformation that is going to occur? Yes, we will have infrastructure investment in the United States. And yes, we will continue to build renewable power, but the biggest opportunity from a global carbon impact. And from a life impact is bringing electricity for the first time to people or bringing industrial electricity so that you can actually have urbanization and improvement of lives. And taking that carbon out of the world's atmosphere because it is a world measuring problem. I'll give you one more stat as we measure it, and metrics are important. Greenwashing, impact washing, all of those things are very real. So we keep track and we compare, if this hadn't happened, if we hadn't opened a move from coal to natural gas, what would the carbon emission have been. And we have, since our inception, taken 15.7 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere.

Maureen O'Toole: (11:43)
That's just us, we're only a $16 billion firm. So it just shows you the power of what can be done in renewables where 1 trillion has been invested over the+ last 10 years in renewables. And the estimate is we need 20 trillion to meet that demand in need, especially in the demographically driven emerging markets over the next few years.

Caroline Abramo: (12:06)
And continuing with that one, thanks, Maureen. At Pieter, since Temasek, is based in Singapore, however, global reach, and to some of Maureen's comments about the amount of carbon that just Actis has been able to reduce over their time in wind and solar, maybe you could talk about some of the other areas that you're looking at. And maybe the entire, let's say, carbon balance that we are trying to reduce. So how much carbon are we really talking about. And maybe aligning with a lot of folks have heard about the Paris accord goals of 2050. And aligning with those goals, which are, the subsequent result would be to not raise surface temperatures by 1.5 degrees. So we'll get into that later. But Pieter, maybe talk about some areas of focus.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (12:52)
Yep, sure. And that's hugely in focus for us, I think. I would start by saying that as well, that the cheap clean power is certainly the fundamental building block, which everything else has to ask the stem from. But as we look beyond that, we look at really industry, transportation and materials, it's kind of the main other areas where I spend my time. And in industry, it's really the non-electric emissions. So heat or process emissions that do present fairly low hanging fruit opportunity as well to decarbonize and also increasingly an economic one. I think you've got a sort of trifecta of policy, as well as the actual technologies are starting to mature to a point where they make sense and they've derisk. And as well as in the fundamental building block that I started with, which is the Clean Power. So I think that those three together are unleashing business models that are ready to scale. And in many cases, in our view, the challenge is largely a business model and execution challenge.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (14:01)
So really pursuing that and supporting the management teams that are looking to seize that opportunity as what we feel passionate about and also working together with other investors. And really kind of trying to get to the right answer, which is, as Caroline mentioned, sort of really the overall climate objective that is at this point relatively well known and understood, but it's extremely challenging to achieve. So we'll take a concerted effort and a coordinated effort to be successful around. So, the industrial fees is an area that I spent a lot of time. Transportation and materials are also duty of interest. I think that the risk profiles change in each of these areas. Materials is a space where, I think it's intriguing that there's much less need for policy than we're seeing in perhaps, the energy or industrial decarbonization space. There's huge pull from corporates that are willing to co-develop with technology companies, and really provide that line of sight to fairly long dated offtake at scale for some of these facilities that are again built out, which then gives investors the comfort to underwrite and really get these breakthrough technologies off the ground.

Caroline Abramo: (15:23)
Yeah. Thank you for bringing that up. So in terms of, in light of not having incentives, so... Because a lot of people will get nervous about this space by saying, "Well, if there are government incentives like we started with wind and solar, I'm not comfortable with that. Government's could change those. That's not an investment risk that I'm willing to take." However, when we look at some of these other areas that we're looking to decarbonize, that are sort of the kind of the big ones that are the most carbon emitting. We see that companies that have good operating margins, and that they can exist incentive free so they can have 20, 30, 40%, 50% operating margins outside of an incentive scheme. So and that's, I think what Pieter is referring to. And maybe I'll get him to, he can talk a little bit more specifically about a few of those or at least one of those examples. Like some of the industries that we're trying to decarbonize. Like cement, steel, glass manufacturing.

Caroline Abramo: (16:18)
These are the big areas where there is big carbon emissions. So I don't know if you can speak a little bit more about maybe a technology or a group that you've seen and how that's playing out.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (16:31)
That question sort of touches on the aspect that I think is important to highlight in this panel, which is really the stock and flow example, right? So we have this huge capital stock that's out there. And is really, in order to move the needle quickly enough, I think, looking at the flow of new solar and new EVs and all that, is hugely important and will be an attractive investment opportunity. I think there's a second piece, which is really looking at the existing stock and finding the technologies that can be retrofitted or cleverly integrated into those, whether it's factories or other types of infrastructure really smartening things up, doing carbon capture. So I think what Caroline was encouraging me to speak about is the carbon capture piece which is, clearly can be done directly from air or from point source at industrial sources of emission, which is the latter part is an area that I spend quite a lot of time on and excited to really be digging into that space because it's very multifaceted, I think, capturing the carbon is one part of it.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (17:37)
So going up to being able to offer a cement company or an industrial gases business that's got a hydrogen manufacturing facility, offering them as a service the ability to, without messing with the process that's there, the industrial process that's clearly very delicate to retrofit onto that carbon capture technology that is in and of itself a viable economic proposition for the investors putting up the capital, we are very close to that really breaking through. And I think we're working hard to really make that into reality, because I think at that point you'll unleash a ton of capital that's ready to be deployed into that space.

Caroline Abramo: (18:23)
Yeah. And for I guess, just to scale things when we talk about early days solar and wind being relatively expensive. Maureen's talking about how we've derisked it, similarly with this carbon capture technology most of it from direct air capture, which literally is taking carbon out of the air. We're talking about 200, $250 a tonne that would make that economic. However, one of the opportunities that Pieter's working on, I'm working on too in the terms of point source capture can actually be feasible and profitable at $50 or $70 a ton. And that's actually directly relates to in the US some of the the legislation that's underway. Not just under Biden, but in terms of what's been happening with some tax credits, with the 45Q tax credit, which currently gives $50 a ton credit to people that develop some of this technology. So, just for an example and a level setting, and in terms of how these things are becoming very economic and profitable.

Caroline Abramo: (19:23)
So there's definitely now a derisking piece that's happening. Petya, how would it be, so for you and the plan how would it be to start thinking about some of these new technologies? Kind of what's the process? When you put them all against each other in terms of risk return, how will you start to think about some of these newer areas?

Petya Nikolova: (19:51)
Yeah. It's an interesting question because on the infrastructure side, we like a lot of the technology risk being taken out of the deals. The role of infrastructure in our portfolio is capital preservation, stable and predictable cash flow. So it's an interesting balance. And at the end of the day, it's a question of how it is derisked? So if there is another party that takes this risk that possibly make the deal more appealing from our perspective on infrastructure. We also collaborate with our private equity team so that we understand their themes and growth equity, we don't do venture. But we collaborate with them just to get an understanding of how the space looks like today and where it's going tomorrow, what the impact might be on our infrastructure deals going forward. So that's how we're thinking about it. It's not a very well defined process, it is just something that we try to look through and think about as we see new technologies emerging.

Caroline Abramo: (21:20)
Yeah. I think, another part of that and that's great that you mentioned just in terms of that derisking piece of the kind of in these opportunities the offtake agreements. So when you have wind power, if you can sell your power forward for 20 years, 30 years, it's becomes a stability of cash flows, which for that an investment makes it much more palatable, where... And if government's not there, then who's going to step into that? And what we've seen, and I think the whole panel seen corporations are stepping into that now, because there's a real desire from corporations as they put out their carbon reduction goals for 2040, 2050. To actually now, they turn around and say, "Well, how am I going to actually do this? How am I going to look through my supply chains, look to my head of sustainability, and carbon do this?" And so there's basically a lot of investments that's going to happen. And then if they will then purchase whatever materials that would be sustainable or carbon reducing, in a longer term fashion, and even at a premium to the existing products that are out there.

Caroline Abramo: (22:24)
So we call it green premium, that can stabilize these transactions. And that's, by and large, what we're seeing with lot of this. And where can get around some of this technology risks that Petya is talking about. And I would say, and Maureen I don't know what your experience is. I mean, you have tons over the years. Just this concept of technology risk. I mean, and how in infrastructure, this is not something you'll go to seven, eight, nine, 50 managers and they'll say, "In infrastructure, we don't do technology risk. If we want to invest in this company, they have to have the force for projects done and they have to be EBIDTA positive and all that kind of stuff." And maybe you can address some of that a little bit more. But that's just me, please. Take it from me.

Maureen O'Toole: (23:10)
Yeah. Okay, so a couple of things there. And I had a couple of thoughts while Petya was talking too. And let me pull a few things together. You mentioned power purchase agreements. So I think the important thing for those of you who may not know in the audience is that you can get 20, 30 year agreements, primarily from governments as to what they're going to pay you for electricity. There are publicly run auctions, these are all very transparent. They're online. I mean, one of the things that we get of course is, "Oh, all emerging market is corrupt." Well, okay, I live very close to New Jersey. Sorry, to anybody who does. But, yes, there's ways of doing business around the world. These are publicly available auctions. You see exactly to the penny who want a PPA. You have that long term cash flow, which enables you then to run your investment models and know exactly how you're going to build something and have this profitable cash flow stream. My firm is run by a bunch of engineers. I'm one of the few finance people so it's a bunch of engineers.

Maureen O'Toole: (24:12)
So they build stuff in complex markets, and they know how to do that. The new technology, and I think the thing that becomes very important, and again, I'm only speaking for emerging markets. We are profitable without government subsidies. Now what we do have in our markets though, is the very critical partnership of the world development money. So think of the World Bank, think of the Commonwealth Development Corp, CDC out of London. Think of the world that is trying to channel low cost loans to emerging markets, to improve the quality of life writ large. And power generation is one of those. So you have as a carrot and a stick approach. And we mentioned government, we mentioned corporate and the importance of aligning all of these to get it right. And again, I go back to we are at a glorious moment in time where I think there's going to be so much dynamic happening. We don't invent things in emerging markets, we need them to be invented and tested out here and then we take them there.

Maureen O'Toole: (25:11)
But we right now are very excited about the nudge that certainly the Paris Accord and the upcoming COP26, which you're all familiar with, is going to be happening in the first week of November. And these are all regulations that will push and continue to push towards the technologies and the broad implementation, that will help the profit seeking money to go afterwards. So I point to India, their renewables goal has gone up, I think it's like 440 gigawatts or something by 2030. So you have all these countries now putting 2050, 2030 goals out there. And the amount of wind turbines, the amount of solar panels, the amount of cobalt lithium that's needed to get there is almost insatiable. There is a supply demand problem even with that. But the opportunity set is there. And what we are very strongly looking at is, we do solar and wind. Fine, we're there. Two things to let you know. Wind blows harder, sun shines brighter, south of the equator. So you put a wind turbine in Germany, and you put one in Brazil, it is going to be three times more efficient and effective in Brazil.

Maureen O'Toole: (26:32)
So it's a slam dunk that renewables in certain areas, and that's what we're specializing in, right? You're not going to go put solar in someplace that rains a lot. You have to put it in the right place in our markets. But it can be so much more productive, and with that carrot out there of low cost loans to a government, to go ahead and build out their green infrastructure because of that zero cost input. To work on battery, need 24/7. You can't have a hospital running just when the sun is out or the wind is blowing. So we do you use natural gas as a transition fuel, which I think is a very fascinating topic as well coming up to COP. And you have that ability to really do both. So I guess the carrot and the stick thing in our markets is working exceptionally well. And the minute that any of that other technology gets affordable, the opportunity to implement on a broad scale is phenomenal.

Caroline Abramo: (27:29)
That's terrific. And that makes, Petya you know where I'm going. So that, in terms of some other areas for baseload power generation that are carbon reducing, and maybe don't have the regulatory support that wind and solar already have. So things like geothermal, kind of how is that progressing as one topic and then the second topic I want to bring up with you is some of the other big carbon emitting sectors like plastics. And then the insatiable, as Maureen said about insatiable demand for certain things. Insatiable demand from consumers for sustainable packaged goods, for alternate proteins. So just to to tie into some of the themes that even we've heard at the conference yesterday, who was a great panel on alternative proteins which is really cool. But Pieter, what do you what do you think?

Pieter Houlleberghs: (28:23)
Yeah. And then cueing off the comments that were just made, I think there's sort of three driving factors that I believe are going to generate or generating huge investment opportunities. It's really this decarbonization and then the resource efficiency, as well as the resilience of some of these solutions. I think, we look for things that tick all those three boxes, and I think those are applicable across emerging markets as well as develop markets. And being able to really look on a global basis, I think, help spot the right solutions and then also getting them to the right applications. And one of those solutions where I think there's a lot of good lateral thought that's been applied, and is being applied currently is geothermal. So it's really taking a lot of the innovation that was seen in the shale industry over the past 10, 15 years and translating that across to a sector which had seen less innovation, then perhaps or certainly less of well known innovation that then we seen in solar or wind.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (29:26)
So, really taking horizontal drilling and the cost declines in the oil and gas industry, basically brought into the money, a lot of applications in geothermal that that were previously just not economic. So again, that's just things are entering this interesting window. And if you can get geothermal to work, it is baseload, clean power, which is ultimately then obviates or complements the obvious need for a battery or it complements solar and wind which is intermittent. And really gets us to the last 20, 30% of the grid that has to be decarbonize, that's most challenging. So we believe that that is a fascinating area that's complimentary to the whole suite of solutions that's out there, and spending a lot of time on that space. And in terms of the other industries around, whether it's plastics or more of the kind of agri-food domain, that's an area we spend a lot of time as well. I'll speak specifically to the plastic space where there are effectively bio plastics, whether they're bio based or biodegradable. If we look at the lifecycle of those products, there's huge optionality and opportunities that's embedded in some of the attributes there.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (30:52)
We can think of an ecosystem where, from a food court let's say, all the cutlery and the plates and things are made of biodegradable materials, so then things all get directed into the organic stream. And really thinking about the ecosystem that sort of, how do we solve this as a society really? And that takes a lot of convening power, a lot of different actors that need to come together. And we're proud to play a small part in bringing those together and supporting the companies that are looking to really move the needle.

Caroline Abramo: (31:27)
Yea. That's thank you. It's super helpful. We're talking a lot about carbon reduction, but it's really about environmental sustainability, and like the E of the ESG, which we've talked quite a bit about at this conference. And we won't even get a chance to talk too much about the S and the G. But that's all something that isn't part of our investment processes, which is just kind of interesting to note. Talking about just this, well getting back to the whole geography and the nature of the, where these investments are. Petya, in terms of your portfolio, where do you look? Will you invest, is it only in US, North America, or is it outside?

Petya Nikolova: (32:07)
So we invest globally. And we don't have any restrictions on how much we need to invest in certain geography. Naturally, we try to have a balanced portfolio, which talking about risks also exposes us to different risks and different opportunities set as well. And historically, the city of New York or New York City retirement systems have not invested in emerging markets on the private side. But with infrastructure, given the opportunity set there and Maureen, very well described that opportunity set. And we actually were able to invest in emerging markets in a strategy that is primarily focused on energy transition and renewables. So, very happy to share that we are a global investor, and we were able to invest in emerging markets as well.

Caroline Abramo: (33:12)
And just, I don't know if you personally have an opinion, maybe and Maureen and Peter, of how we're doing around the globe. Where are the most opportunities? And when I say the most it's really... There's tons of options everywhere but how quickly are certain parts of the world, let's say Europe versus Asia versus US moving along with transition, and that can be many things. It could be the legislative part, the regulatory part, it could be where corporates are located manufacturing is. It could just be the consumer sentiment, but what are your thoughts on that, how it's going?

Petya Nikolova: (33:52)
Yeah. It's a very nuanced question, because there are opportunities but also that different returns. And in certain geographies, we see the returns being pushed down. So as we think about Europe and the US, a lot of the areas in straightforward renewables are generating relatively at least for us, low returns. And then you need to go up to the risk spectrum with taking more either construction risk and or development risk to be able to reach some of the benchmark targets. And then when you look globally, more towards emerging markets. Markets in Asia or Latin America, even Africa. There is much more growth, and to Maureen's point, just the radiation is better. I was smiling when you mentioned Germany because 15, 20 years ago in a prior life on the direct side of things, we worked on a deal with Germany, a portfolio of German wind farms. And guess what, there wasn't going to blow so the deal didn't go that well. Yeah. So we see also that contracting structure being different in different geographies, and again, in some of the emerging markets, much longer term contracts with great worthy counterparties.

Caroline Abramo: (35:31)
Now I don't have to ask you about what your worst trade was, but we covered that. Because Petra probably can't say but I can, just in terms of the return she's talking about. So let's say large scale wind and solar in North America, talking about six, 7% type of returns. Obviously, derisked in many ways, but that's... And for many plans, many investors, that's a great bogey. That's terrific. But when we kind of look now, as Petya is saying, and Maureen. Just in terms of emerging markets, in different places, different risks but increasing returns. And this is all kind of absent technology risks. So, Maureen, what are your thoughts?

Maureen O'Toole: (36:17)
So you can still get good returns in the emerging markets, but there's so much money sloshing around. Now, we've got some very dumb money that is coming into our markets, which is always dangerous for two reasons. These are complex markets within which to operate. So we've been doing it as I said, with a 70 year heritage, with a 20 year real track record of doing it. When this silly money comes in, it distorts everything on the ground. The pricing, and the silly money inevitably leaves because they don't do it quite right. So that's a danger that we are seeing right now in operating assets. And we do have two lines of business. We do have operating assets, whereas I think if you were to buy an operating solar or wind farm here, you mentioned six, seven. I think on the pure operation, it's even down to a cap rate of three to four. In our markets, you can still get eight to 10% of a dividend flow on operating. But how we really go ahead and make the money in the 20 plus range for our clients is to take that development risk.

Maureen O'Toole: (37:11)
But like I said, it's not totally greenfield because we've won the PPA before we even do shovel in ground. And then we're a bunch of engineers, so we know how to build stuff. But that still is the type of return profile you should be expecting if you take development risks. The other thing that I'll mention because I'm sure all of you are wondering like, "What about FX risk? What about corruption? What about a coup? What about all these things that happen?" Because that's what the newspaper tells you happens in emerging markets. The World Bank and numerous others has an insurance policy that you can almost ensure, and we do. We are the largest purchaser of these insurance policies in fact. Where you can assure and insure against multiple types of risk. FX is still one that's out there and that yes is something to consider. You get a blend of dollar PPAs, local currency PPAs. There's a way to help with the portfolio construction. Other risks can be mitigated and that's that partnership with the DFIs that matters so much. One more thing I just want to say because we are not-

Caroline Abramo: (38:11)
And define DFI for-

Maureen O'Toole: (38:12)
Sorry. Development Finance Institution. As I said, it's the World Bank's, it's the International Finance Corporation, it's USAID, and every country has these. It would be remiss if I didn't mention the SMG very briefly. It is very possible to go in the ground in these emerging markets, and leave behind not just a great wind farm and good returns for our clients, but a very positive impact on the community. And if you go in with that lens of leaving something positive behind on day one, the added cost to implement is nil. So we build schools, we build libraries, we build water filtration plant, so we de fluoridate the water so the kids don't have bowed bones. And that from day one is part of every project that we do. And that's that element that I think also has applicability as we go to other developing markets, and developed markets. And I think this responsibility and this idea that money can do both, is an unstoppable wave that people now really understand. And it's that having that lens on day one, and building into your model on day one.

Caroline Abramo: (39:18)
Well, I love that. Where a lot of, I think our best known climate advocates like Bill Gates started it was really on a health journey. Which thinking about how these things tie together and thinking about the technologies, about the feedstocks we're using to create sustainable products around the world. A lot of them are bio based. There's a huge interconnection which that's a whole nother topic to discuss. Pieter, any thoughts from your perspective just on geographies? Who's getting it right, who's not? What's happening?

Pieter Houlleberghs: (39:49)
I mean, the thing that came to mind just listening to Maureen's answer was also just the fact that one of the investments that taught me the most was an African gas to power investment, this was eight years ago now. Where just the sort of the, it shows all the good and the bad of the D. This sort of very centralized power grid and the chain of payments that you rely on, and the guarantees that you need to be able to get comfort as an underwriter. And really sort of taking that and then looking at the renewable space, and how can we create a decentralized grid that doesn't have some of these dependencies and therefore can also hopefully scale quicker and grow quicker, I think is hugely applicable in emerging markets, as well as here as we look at resiliency of our own grid and some of the wildfires and other things that are causing us to rethink a lot of that. So, these are all just changes and opportunities which we're trying to try to do our best to capture and and treatise still winds.

Caroline Abramo: (40:49)
So just, we only have about four and a half minutes left, and I want to make sure we... Is there any questions? Which I can't see any of you. But if there's any questions you'd like throw something at me. But maybe kind of last ideas about just cutting edge stuff. And again, many more topics that we can have about hot money, silly money, like SPACs and all kinds of stuff, money chasing tech. But in the next, I guess what's happen, to the panel. What's happening now and maybe what will happen in five years from now. What are your thoughts on some of these technologies that probably we hear about, like nuclear and fusion and hydrogen? Just your thoughts, and maybe how you and your institutions are thinking about things like this, that could be disruptive to some of the things that we're investing in today, or maybe not.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (41:40)
Yeah. I could start, I mean, it's sort of the... I think, disruptive, yes, but also discomplimentary. The energy sector is so big that just one breakthrough isn't sort of going to obviate all the rest, by the way. So we're certainly watching the fusion space and having making early bets, making sure we're sort of on top of those developments. And that's an area which I think we'll be talking about five, 10 years from now and continue to get closer to make another commercial reality.

Maureen O'Toole: (42:11)
I would say don't yet count out natural gas, it's the transition to the wild stuff in 10 years. And there are some places in the world that can't do renewables. I mean, I often find I'm in a geography class where I remind people, "Look at a map, here's Bangladesh. It is swamps and islands. There's 163 million people there. You cannot put solar panels up and generate enough power. So we have to use natural gas." So what we're going to do with this current vintage product, that I think is exciting is we will integrate hydrogen into some of the natural gas pipelines as possible, which will help in the reduction of the overall emissions. I think our thinking in the five, 10 year plus is we do believe someday this concept of the peaker power or the baseline, whatever you want to call it, when it's not renewable. We're very excited about battery. Now that could be traditional batteries as we're looking at them now, lithium, ion. Or it could be hydrogen as a storage as well.

Maureen O'Toole: (43:12)
Hydrogen is not going to be used in our cars. We might use it in cement manufacturing and steel manufacturing. But hydrogen as a battery, I think has great possibilities. We're less excited about fusion, it's a little too far out for us to even envision. And nuclear will remain what it is. Right? And just like good decommissioning of nuclear plants. It's the most clean energy out there.

Petya Nikolova: (43:40)
Hydrogen is interesting. I was reflecting as we were talking about these technologies. And hydrogen was so much more marginal just two years ago. Not talked about in the infrastructure space anyway. And all of a sudden, now everything is about hydrogen. So I think what's fascinating is how quickly some of these technologies become more downstream to your point about more private equity, technology growth equity. And then going downstream to infrastructure. So that's what we are monitoring. And I think there are going to be some investible opportunities relatively soon. Definitely, more quickly than I expected.

Maureen O'Toole: (44:28)
Cost is definitely coming down. I mean, we monitor the cost as well. And you guys might not know but solar wind, the cost is down like 90% from 10 years ago. Hydrogen is on that same trajectory, and it will flip at some point.

Caroline Abramo: (44:41)
Yeah. We're seeing, I mean, and we are a growth equity. We get tend to get involved earlier than in this traditional infrastructure, and it's an adjacency to natural gas and the infrastructure we have in the United States. It is a tremendous growth area. It's a tremendous focus. So when I think about my contribution of this geographic discussion is that, that will be one that I think will get pushed and there'll be initiative from a regulatory perspective. And just really what's in people's current portfolios. So we have 14 seconds left, any questions? [inaudible 00:45:14] I can see you.

Speaker 5: (45:14)
I have a question over here.

Caroline Abramo: (45:17)
Hi.

Speaker 5: (45:18)
Thanks. [inaudible 00:45:20]. Just the presence of activists in the space is that putting a little bit of pressure on sort of time duration and sort of the project expectations here?

Maureen O'Toole: (45:30)
Yeah. Yeah. I'll take that one real quickly.

Caroline Abramo: (45:35)
Yeah. Sure. Yeah.

Maureen O'Toole: (45:36)
Yeah. Activism in the space. Look, we love activists in general. They're good and they're bad. Right? They are no question, a large part of this impetus that we will not see going back on in terms of you name it. Carbon, DNI, all of this stuff. The activists and I would say social media very, very important to keep the thing going. Where I would say, sometimes activists run afoul is let's go to natural gas, okay? It is an important. We cannot just go renewable no matter how much we want to, there is simply a path to get there. And so sometimes I find that activists in their zeal can derail a conversation and prevent... At the end of the day, this is about people and the planet. And how do we go to people in India and say, "You cannot have air conditioning which will improve your quality and your health of life. Because we don't think you should have it." So that's I think, where I think activists, good, and activists can be bad. But a critical element to the conversation.

Caroline Abramo: (46:44)
Go with that. Thank you very much for your attention and looking forward to speaking to you again about this.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (46:50)
Thank you.