Bob Diamond: Investment Management & Private Equity | SALT Talks #6

“Regardless of who is elected on November 3, we are going to be very focused on stimuli to get the economy back. The difference will be how we pay for it.”

Merchant Capital, investing primarily in the Financial Services sector. Previously, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Bank.

Bob oversaw the acquisition of Lehman Brothers during the 2008 financial crisis. After buying the business for $1.5bn and removing all problem assets, they returned ~$10bn in revenue the first year alone. How does the current crisis compare to 2008? “This is not about Financial Services. It is about what is the impact of closing down the economy.”

In terms of public policy, the COVID-19 pandemic has not fundamentally changed anything between Europe and the United States, as well as the trade war between the United States and China. However, it has accelerated and sometimes galvanized trends that were already underway.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Diamond%2C+Bob.jpeg

Bob Diamond

Founding Partner & CEO

Atlas Merchant Capital

MODERATOR

Headshot+-+Scaramucci%2C+Anthony.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:08):

Welcome everyone back to Salt Talk, my name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of Salt. We've been doing these since the work-from-home period started, we've been having a lot of fun with them. So, thanks for jumping on and joining the ride with us. Salt Talks are a series of digital interviews that we're doing with leading investors, innovators, and thinkers across finance, technology, and geopolitics, and just as we do it at our global conferences, we try to provide a window into the minds of subject matter experts, and also provide a platform for big important ideas that we think are changing the world.

John Darsie (00:41):

Today, we are very excited to welcome Bob Diamond to Salt Talks. Bob is the founder and CEO of Atlas Merchant Capital, which is a international financial services firm with offices in New York and London, that invest primarily in the financial service's sector. As many of you may know, Bob was also the former CEO of Barclays Bank. Today, conducting the interview will be Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investments firm. He's also the chairmen of Salt. And I'll kick it over to Anthony and Bob for the interview. If you have any questions for Bob during the course of the interview, enter them at the Q&A box at the bottom of your screen on the Zoom link. So Anthony, go ahead.

Anthony Scaramucci (01:22):

Thanks John. And, Bob, great to be with you. For people that are not super familiar with your background, I was wondering if you could just share with us a little bit of your upbringing, and how you got to be the Barclays CEO, and then we'll talk a little bit about Atlas Merchant.

Bob Diamond (01:39):

Happy too. Although it's a funny kind of a ride, but, like you, I came from a large family, in my case, an Irish-Catholic family in Massachusetts. I was one of nine children. I think, as my mom and dad were both school teachers, I always enjoyed school. I went to Colby College in Waterville, Maine, and I've come to be a huge supporter of Colby, and have committed to their board for many years, in appreciation of the education I got there, but I will tell you the truth, Anthony, I went there because it was a small school, and I thought I could play four more years of sports in a small school as opposed to a large university, and then I learned what an advantage it was to be in a small school and small classes. I received my master's degree at the University of Connecticut and began my teaching career there, and only when I took a few years to earn enough money to get a PHD, that I find myself in financial services.

Bob Diamond (02:46):

I got a very lucky start at Morgan Stanley, when it was still a small private firm. I started there in the IT department, helping to build the technology that would allow Morgan Stanley to evolve the way those firms did at the time, from the advisory non-capital intensive firms, to sales and trading. At the time, Morgan Stanley was chasing the Goldman Sachs, Salomon Brothers entrée into sales and trading in addition to the advisory businesses. And I just must say very simply that, once I got into financial services and moved from the IT area into the financial markets, I just loved being a part of the financial services. My background was in the fixed income markets as a trader. I think the single best thing that happened to me career-wise was when Morgan Stanley asked me to move to London in the late '80s.

Bob Diamond (03:41):

Jennifer and I, one child, and the rest of our other two children were born in London, and we spent over 20 years in London and in Japan, because I worked for Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse before we came back to the UK and I took the role at Barclays. So, love financial services, love the fact that people like you and I were there in the period of great developments, and, really, a 20, 25 year bull market for financial services.

Anthony Scaramucci (04:11):

The job offer, lets go to that, because I think it's fascinating for people as they're thinking about their own careers. You were at Credit Suisse at the time where you were offered the Barclays CEO, or ...

Bob Diamond (04:23):

Yes. Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci (04:24):

Take us through that if you don't want a little bit of a tick-tock. You're at Credit Suisse, you're in London, and you get called by a search firm, or what happens, Bob?

Bob Diamond (04:33):

A little bit prior to that. I think the first move was the decision to leave Morgan Stanley and join Credit Suisse, and I was with Morgan Stanley in London 13 years, incredible firm, it still is today, and then, just a great culture. The opportunity with Credit Suisse was just one of those opportunities that I needed to respond to, which was to become a member of the executive committee of CSFB, Credit Suisse First Boston, and to move to Asia and run the Asian region. And as you may recall, CSFB in those days was organized more regionally than global products where most of the US bulge bracket firms, Goldman Sachs, Salomon Brothers, Morgan Stanley were more organized around global products. Our family lived in Japan for a number of years running the Asian business. I was able to be a part of the first ever Chinese IPO on the New York Stock Exchange. It was a very fascinating time in the development of Asia as a financial center.

Bob Diamond (05:41):

So, the decision to leave there and join Barclays was really, if you put it at its most basic, it was an opportunity to join a fantastic institution in Barclays' triple A credit rating, who had not had success outside of their core UK business and retail and commercial banking business, and their efforts to build their investment bank and their asset management businesses had not been successful. So, it's an incredible platform with a very engaging CEO in Martin Taylor, and an opportunity to build the investment bank and the asset management businesses, which became, over the years, from Barclays de Zoete Wedd, which was a very UK based equity broker dealer, into Barclays Capital which was one of the top three investment banks in the world, and Barclays' global investors from the original acquisition of Wells Fargo Nikko in 1996.

Anthony Scaramucci (06:42):

You had a couple of interesting things go on at Barclays, so I want to talk about those for a second. The first one was during the 2008 crisis, at least the one I'm aware of, you had the opportunity to purchase Lehman Brothers after the September debacle. I'd love to have you address that, but didn't Barclays also sell a very large ETF business to BlackRock?

Bob Diamond (07:08):

Yes. So, in taking you through those steps, as we had talked about, the growth of Barclays Capital from 1997 and 1998, through to the financial crisis had been quite substantive. It was the leading profit generator within the Barclays frankly, as we were very focused and very selective on areas where we could be successful. So, with risk management, financing, capital markets, but we did not enter the M&A business, or the cash equities business, because quite frankly, as a UK based investment bank, with our core market, the UK and Euro market, we did not see a chance where we could compete successfully with the US bulge bracket firms who really dominated both of those spaces. We did have the opportunity in the financial crisis to acquire a franchise that had those businesses, the advisory business, and the cash equities business in Lehman Brothers, and as you can imagine, that opportunity, first, looked like a possibility, probably six months to a year prior to the crisis, and in September of 2008, when Bear Stearns first had their challenges in their asset management business, and then Bear Stearns was rescued by JP Morgan.

Bob Diamond (08:27):

And it was quite clear at that time that there could be another shoe to fall down the road. It could be other standalone investment banks which could potentially run into some of those challenges. So, one of the things that we did at Barclays is, we spent a fair amount of time, and I had had a call from the US Treasury after the Bear Stearns rescue, basically asking me if there was another shoe to fall, would Barclays be interested in a role similar to the role that JP Morgan had played in Bear Stearns situation? So, we began thinking it through with our executive committee. We took it to our board on two or three occasions, and the conclusion was pretty clear, which is that the combination of Lehman Brothers with Barclays Capital, was almost too good to be true, but the question was, would you pay a big price at the risk of employees leaving, in other words, have to pay twice, once to buy the business, and once to keep the people?

Bob Diamond (09:29):

And what we recognized is that there was a transformational opportunity for Barclays to combine the strength of Barclays Capital, Europe, UK, Asia, much more around debt capital markets, derivatives, financing, with Lehman Brothers, which was one of the top two or three franchises from a client point of view in the US, and one of the top firms in M&A, and in cash in new issue in derivative equities. So the conclusion we made was the combination would be perfect, but it would have to be at a distressed price. And of course, at that time, as you will recall as well, between the Bear Stearns' rescue by JP Morgan around Easter of 2008, and our acquisition of the US broker dealer of Lehman in September of 2008, the financial markets were actually, for a number of times, rallying quite strongly, and there was no opportunity to actually acquire Lehman or do a combination, until the near collapse of the financial system in September.

Anthony Scaramucci (10:33):

It was disclosed, basically, what did you end up paying for it in its descent prior to its dissolution?

Bob Diamond (10:40):

So, the price paid ... I haven't got all the exact, but it was about one and a half billion for the US broker dealer, and all of the problem assets were taken out of the business, because they weren't in the US broker dealer, so the balance sheet was quite clean. It was basically US Mortgages, US Treasuries, some investment grade debt. One of the things that we recognized at the time was that the value of the headquarters building in New York was probably worth one and a half to two billion at the time. So, from a Barclays point of view, it was both a good price, in that we're getting the headquarters, but it was also a good opportunity to get just the US broker dealer where, if we had acquired the full firm, we would have had a lot of overlap in Europe and Asia.

Anthony Scaramucci (11:37):

And it worked out. So, pursuant to what your original plan was, the synthesis of the two businesses has gone remarkably well, when you say it's a decade plus later, but it's gone remarkably well done. Right?

Bob Diamond (11:50):

It's been phenomenally successful. I think the revenue in the first year from the acquisition of the Lehman's business was somewhere on the order of $10 billion.

Anthony Scaramucci (11:59):

So, I mean, it's a good segue to where we are now, in that crisis, there was a tremendous opportunity, you as a CEO of Barclays, to see the opportunity to shed some assets, buy some others, put Barclays in a premier position here in the United States, as well as around the world. So, how does that compare and contrast now to the global pandemic that we're facing, both ... Bob, I want you to analyze it from a economic perspective, and then from an opportunistic perspective.

Bob Diamond (12:31):

Going back just a second to that. That was a financial crisis, which was very different than today, and it was as treacherous at the moment to spend one and a half billion dollars, even if the building was worth more. And, as I go back, one of the lessons that I learned from that is, it was the early preparation and talk with the board that, we recognized that the only way that that transaction would work is if Lehman were in distress. And that if Lehman were in distress, it would likely mean that there's bigger issues surrounding it in terms the economy, so that, we had already thought through the fact that, no matter how bad the situation looks, this would be good at a certain price. And I think that helped us during the most difficult couple of weeks, because, as you will recall, within days, we had the Merrill Lynch, B of A merger, and within days, we had the AIG rescue.

Bob Diamond (13:32):

I think looking today, this is not about financial services, this is really about, what is the impact of closing down an economy, for what's turned out to be four months now, for all the right medical reasons, but what are the things that we can do to make sure that that has as little impact for us over time as possible? And I think, the first thing I would say about today, is that, while the actions of the Fed during the 2008 crisis, as we look back, were very positive and very strong, and the fiscal actions taken by the Treasury for the TARP program, gave the US financial services industry and the US economy, a big advantage versus Europe, who didn't take that kind of action. Notwithstanding all of that, what the Fed and the Treasury have done in 2020, during the pandemic, I think is just phenomenal.

Bob Diamond (14:40):

I think the speed with which they acted was much faster than they had acted in 2008. I think the scale which they have acted, which is basically is as soon as late March, made a commitment that size was not an issue, that they'll be there for as much as they need to be there for. And then lastly, the breadth of the activities, not just treasuries and agency mortgages, but investment grade corporates, unis, exchange traded funds, it's been an incredible program.

Anthony Scaramucci (15:17):

One of the detractors, or one of the criticisms of the program ... And I agree with you, by the way, I think they literally took the 2008 playbook, Bob, and it was almost like a dress rehearsal for the 2020 pandemic, but one of the deleterious side effects, or at least the critics would say, is that, it's going to further widen the income gap in the United States, and by accident, because we only have one leg of the stool, we don't have a infrastructure leg, or a fiscal reinvestment leg of the stool, that it's helping people that have assets. And so, if you own the assets, and you're injecting this amount of liquidity, the assets are going up, but the people that don't have assets, the middle class workers, the wage earners, lower middle class workers, are suffering, and critics have suggested that the Federal Reserve is by accident created populist movements like President Trump's movement, or Bernie Sanders's movement. What's your reaction to that?

Bob Diamond (16:21):

I think in the fullness of time, we can grade the Fed and the Treasury with actions down the road as well. In other words, how does this play out over a number of years, in terms of the economic recovery, in terms of how we get back to more normalized level of interest rates, income inequality, all the things that you talked about? But if we're going to grade the Fed and the Treasury today, I think it has to be a quite impressive, at least, an A minus, based on the actions that they took. And why do I say that? If we look at 20 million people in the US States who were employed in March, are not employed in April, that's not going to turn around quickly, and I think the actions that the Fed and the Treasury have taken, have been very positive, in terms of almost every metric we can look at.

Bob Diamond (17:18):

Everyone would have their issues around specifics, and I do believe that the focus has to be on jobs, and will be on jobs going forward, but 20 million fewer people working, is a lot of people. It was up to 22 million, came back down to 20, but if we think for a second, all of those people are going to be back in good jobs in 2020, that's just unrealistic. So we have a long road to hoe ahead of us, and I think the actions that they have taken have been very positive in that regard.

Anthony Scaramucci (17:49):

I agree. I just wondering if there could be other actions that could potentially help away from the monetary policy. Let's talk about Atlas Merchant for a second. So, you leave Barclays, and you set up this fund, tell people about the fund, tell us what you're doing and where the opportunities are.

Bob Diamond (18:10):

So Atlas Merchant capital, we think of as a merchant bank, and our focus is primarily US, UK, Europe. So, if you can invest in the dollar, Sterling, or Euros, we're interested in those areas. We're focused on financial services. We think that the impact of 2008, from a regulatory point of view, created a bit of an oligopoly around the larger interconnected banks, and we believe that, that three decades of financial services organizations, particularly in insurance, in banking, in asset management, of becoming more global, and more universal, is really stabilized and somewhat reversed. And the opportunities we're seeing in financial services below the level of the oligopoly of the large interconnected banks, which have much higher buffer upon buffer of capital, far more restrictions in terms of the regulators of their growth, is creating opportunities for models that are more around one country or one region, and models that are much more around focus and selectivity, meaning, maybe it's one product, maybe it's like Panmure Gordon, one of our investments in the UK, which is focused on UK, middle market businesses.

Bob Diamond (19:39):

Or maybe it's like Kepler Cheuvreux, a business we invested in, which is a Paris based equity sales, trading research, that's all they focus on, is just that product. And I think the business models have changed from global, global, global, universal, universal, universal, so much more national and regional, and oftentimes, much more around a single product or a single technology. And that competition has been interesting. We've had quite ... We've done four investments in the UK and Europe, four in the US, two in insurance, three in broker dealers, one in asset management, one a technology driven bank, and we see significant opportunity in these kinds of areas for investors.

Anthony Scaramucci (20:26):

So, you're buying out the whole stake, you're taking a small stake in a business, becoming a board seat member, what's the plan?

Bob Diamond (20:37):

Not always a majority, and often it's a minority, but always some modicum of control. So, we'll always have multiple board positions, and I think the way we talk about it, Anthony, is, we like to be thought of as not just great investors, we like to be thought of as great operators, and we're being invited more and more to take part in investing in companies such as Kepler Cheuvreux, which was quite competitive, and there were a number of higher prices, but our ability to work with them to truly impact growth, and impact the business going forward, in many of our businesses, in all of our businesses, we're very active, but we're always active and supportive management. And I think in a highly regulated business like financial services, you're either supporting management, or it's not worth being an investor.

Bob Diamond (21:30):

So, in some cases, we are a majority; Panmure Gordon in the UK, we are a majority with a partner from the Middle East, and in many cases, South Street Securities in the US, or Ascensus, the asset management platform, we're a minority, but very active participant on the board.

Anthony Scaramucci (21:50):

And your business has changed, or not changed, or become better or worse as a result of the pandemic.

Bob Diamond (21:57):

So, two things have happened; my partner, David Schamis, and I began thinking about two years ago of, as it was going ... Our investing and financial services was going well. We still had about half of our first fund to invest, what would be the next great opportunity for Atlas Merchant Capital? And we decided at that time that the credit markets, 10 years after the 2008 crisis, zero interest rates, QE1, QE2, QE3, there was a proliferation of credit, covenants were becoming very light, and we thought that there'd be a great opportunity in the below investment grade corporate sector, both, again, US UK, Europe. We didn't know what would trigger that, but we felt it was better to put the team together, and to raise the capital ahead of that opportunity. We hired Ty Wallach, who is with Oak Hill, and then Paulson for many, many years, about nine months ago. Ty has built a team, we have the anchor investors in, and we launched this strategy three or four weeks ago, and I must say, to have completely dry powder, and a whole new team with great success in the past together, the timing turned out to be perfect, but we would not have known that this disruption in the markets would have triggered this.

Bob Diamond (23:23):

Now, the Fed activity is certainly slowed some of the price adjustments that we expect to see in the fullness of time in the US, and the below investment grade market, but we are seeing those kinds of opportunities already in Europe and the UK.

Anthony Scaramucci (23:41):

You manage Barclays, you've been in the financial services for multiple decades. The structured credit markets have been hammered by this crisis. Is that an opportunity, Bob?

Bob Diamond (23:58):

The simplistic way to say it, Anthony, is that, since the financial crisis in 2008, because of the behavior of the Fed here, but also in Europe, to some extent ... And keep in mind, in Europe, it got a tough start, most people forget this, but president Trichet, president of the ECB, raised rates during the crisis in 2008, which really put the European financial institutions on razor's edge. I mean, we would wake up from day to day and wonder who would be insolvent today. When Draghi came in, I think he was truly a hero and a savior, and we all remember in 2011 when he said, "I'll do what I need to do," or words similar to that, "I'll be here until I don't need to be here anymore," insolvency was taken off the table. And so, Europe went through a similar period of zero to negative interest rates, QE, after QE, after QE, and it's natural that that bull market of 10, 11, 12 years in credit is going to create some bad habits.

Bob Diamond (25:05):

And so, I would agree with you that we think patient capital, looking for opportunities in the distressed end of credit, is going to be one of the best investing opportunities over the next two, three, four, or five years, and it will end up in a place where you can potentially be the owner of some good businesses that have gotten into some real problems around the capital structure.

Anthony Scaramucci (25:32):

I want to address this with you, because I think it's tied into everything, because there's a political climate now that is sensitized to things like pay. You experienced that in the United Kingdom. I can remember vividly, and I think I told you this, I was on a JetBlue flight back from the Bahamas on the fourth of July in 2012, and I saw you on CNBC, I guess you were testifying somewhere in Westminster, maybe it was one of the houses, or something, about issues related to pay, and issues related to the financial services industry, and people were putting pressure, the PPP is an example, many people [inaudible 00:26:17]say you didn't take it, of course, we didn't take it, others did not take it. Do you think any of that stuff that happened in Europe, five or 10 years ago, is spilling over into the United States?

Bob Diamond (26:31):

Yes, I think it's spilled over somewhat at the time, but I think the approach, Anthony, that the US took versus the approach that Europe and the UK took, are very, very instructive. So, secretary of the Treasury, Paulson, if we recall, failed in his first attempt to get a TARP, and that first TARP was more around guaranteeing some of the assets. The TARP that was eventually approved forced equity into the biggest US banks, and it was 25 to 50 million of equity put into the banks with no stigma, and Paulson and Congress were very clear, "Strong banks will take it, weak banks will take it, we want every bank to take the equity." Now, in order to pay that back to the government, and not have the government as one of your shareholders, you first have to pass the Fed stress test. So, what the treasurer was able to do, is to force equity into the troubled financial services industry, without stigma, and until they paid that money back, there were no dividends and no bonuses, which solved some of the public furor, and it was fair enough, and they could not pay it back until they cleaned up the balance sheet, in other words, pass the Fed stress test.

Bob Diamond (27:52):

And what secretary Paulson did is, he fixed the system, and today, where you would have seen, in 2008, Citi and B of A, close to insolvency, they're both strong, confident banks here in the US, and in operations around the world. And I think most people outside of the US would say that the US banks dominate businesses such as the investment banking business, whether it's in Europe and Asia, or in the US, relative to the European and UK banks. In fact, I say with great pride, the only non-Us bank competing is Barclays Capital, and that was really down to Lehman Brothers acquisition, which gave them a strong business in the US, stronger than any other non-US firm. But most of the Europeans faced, I would say, almost biblical justice, which is the approach of the regulators and the politicians in Europe, was, "The bank's caused this problem," which was true, "and rather than fix the system, let's penalize the banks, and penalize the bankers." And so, no equity was put into the system, and even today ... I mean, how many capital calls have we seen Deutsche have over the years, six, seven, eight?

Bob Diamond (29:06):

We see Royal Bank of Scotland still majority owned by the UK Government, still with a lot of the challenges on the balance sheet that they had 10, 11, 12 years ago. No development of the capital market. So, since the Coronavirus, the capital markets in the US have flourished. Notwithstanding the government interventions, we've seen a huge amount of private capital go into companies in the US, we have not seen that kind of reaction in Europe. So I think the benefit to the US system of fixing the system, was positive. Now, do I expect to see more of these issues around income inequality in financial services industry as well as others? Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci (29:47):

Well, I mean, I didn't mean to interrupt, but I just ... Talking about there being a villain last time, slowed down some of the economic opportunity, and so, secretary Paulson's take in trying to not make any one individual or one bank a villain was a very smart idea. The fact that there's no villain here, Bob, the fact that it's a pandemic, and it's a healthcare scare, and these businesses are not doing well as a result of forced closure, do you think that will help them from a governmental assistance perspective? Do you think that that's a net positive?

Bob Diamond (30:26):

Yes, without question. I think the fact that everyone wants the economy to be coming back, and I don't think you can find anyone that doesn't believe that small businesses really need more help than maybe some of the big businesses. My personal view is, if I could tweak something that would be a bit more around the main street lending and getting that out there ... I think, you know this better than I, Anthony, this is your business, but over 50% of the employment in the US is in small businesses, and I think like 60% of the expected growth in employment would come from small businesses. And, one of the unintended consequences of leaving many of the large scale retailers open is essential during Coronavirus, and closing down many of the small businesses has given size and scale, a further competitive edge, versus the small businesses. And I think, as a public policy issue in the United States, we need to take care of small businesses. And as a public policy issue, we need to take care of jobs. And yet there will be sectors of the economy that are very different.

Bob Diamond (31:36):

I mean, we don't have to do a lot for technology, they're doing just fine, but what are we going to do for restaurants where most people think, maybe 25% of them will never open again. What are we doing in the travel industry? What are we doing the hotel and leisure industry? So, I think we have a multi-year recovery ahead of us based on this coronavirus, and to your point, Anthony, I think people's willingness to recognize that the government needs to help small businesses is a positive.

Anthony Scaramucci (32:10):

I'm going to flip it over to John Darsie now. Bob, we've got questions from our audience, and we always want to have some participation as we get towards the end of this. So, John, fire away. And, by the way, Bob, your first question back to John can't be about the fake duck that he has behind him, because we've already called him out on that.

John Darsie (32:29):

Every show.

Anthony Scaramucci (32:30):

So, still trying to figure out what that is, but go ahead, Darsie.

John Darsie (32:35):

Bob, we have a question about, what impact do you think the pandemic is going to have on globalization, the distribution of commerce and trade around the world? You could talk a little bit about how you think it'll affect financial services as well, whether you think places like New York and London might become slightly diminished in terms of their importance to the global financial system, and you might see other regional financial services hubs emerge, and just generally talk about globalization, nationalism, how you think the pandemic and the aftermath of it will affect all of that.

Bob Diamond (33:09):

So, I think, one of the things I find interesting, John, is I think, from a public policy point of view, I don't think Coronavirus has changed anything in terms of Europe versus US, China trade war. What it's done is its accelerated, and in some cases, galvanized trends that were already in place before 2020, and before Coronavirus. One of those trends was the trade tensions between the US and China, and I think the rest of the world is now recognizing that the China of 10, 20, 30 years ago, which was an emerging economy, which is investing throughout places like Africa and the Middle East, China is no longer an emerging company, it's now an economic power, and increasingly, a political power. And so, the relationship between nations and China is not just the US/China around trade, it's also coming from Asia, it's coming from the Middle East, it's coming from Europe, and it's coming from Africa. So I do think we're going to see that have a diminishing impact on some of the trade flows that we've seen.

Bob Diamond (34:25):

And I don't mean for a second that globalization is over, and I don't mean for a second that trade channels are going to be destroyed, but I think the momentum has certainly slowed down. And I think within Europe, we've seen an acceleration of the frustrations of 21 years ago, the single currency was a great success, and it was going to create a capital market and an ability for companies to raise money in the single currency, in a way similar to the way US companies were able to do it in the dollar. And only now are we seeing a move toward more fiscal integration with the potential recovery plan across Europe as a result of coronavirus, but we do see some of the same North/South divide debates around whether or not programs like that will be supported by Euro wide bonds, or by individual nations. And I actually think the most recent decision to have a recovery bond funded by Euro wide bonds is extremely positive for Europe.

John Darsie (35:34):

Thanks for that, Bob. The next question is about banks, big banks in particular, about whether you think they're increasingly going to become utilities or agents of government policy, and what effect that has on the sector.

Bob Diamond (35:48):

So, it is interesting that the larger interconnected banks and insurance companies in the US, whether we think it's good or bad, doesn't matter. It's just a fact. The big banks in the US have become more interconnected, and more intertwined with our government in the US, than I think anytime before. Whether it's the ability of the regulator, the Fed, to raise capital requirements when times are good, reduce capital requirements to foster lending when they need it from a public policy point of view, whether it's implementing PPP programs, or implementing so many of the programs, we're seeing large asset management firms and large banks working with the Fed around the implementation of so many of their programs around QE. And, the larger banks are becoming ... It's ironic, John, that in 2008/2009, politicians and regulators were determined that we would never again see "too big to fail".

Bob Diamond (36:52):

Well, if anything, the banks are too bigger and unlikely to fail even more than ever before, and that's why maybe a word like utility makes some sense, is that they're extremely safe, extremely steady, but are they the places that are nimble and agile in terms of innovation that they were in the past? And it's a little bit more like the model we've seen over the years in Europe, where the largest financial institutions become more and more connected with the national governments.

John Darsie (37:28):

Last question from me, we've had several questions about, you've been a big investor in Africa, what do you think the challenges and opportunities are in Africa moving forward, specifically in South Africa, we've had several questions?

Bob Diamond (37:40):

So, I'm more positive on South Africa. They have been through an incredible, incredible period. And when I was at Barclays, we acquired Absa, which was, I believe, the number one retail banking franchise in South Africa. And we had an opportunity to integrate that with Barclays businesses throughout Africa, and I think it was positive for South Africa, and positive for the connection with the rest of Africa> Because of some of the political issues, and now the economic issue, South Africa has been through just a very, very challenging couple of years. I definitely see them coming out of it now. I'm very positive on that.

Anthony Scaramucci (38:26):

Bob, before we let you go, let's talk a little bit about UK politics, and one of my favorite subjects, presidential politics. Well, let's start with the UK. What do you think is going on the there? How do you think Prime Minister Johnson is doing?

Bob Diamond (38:40):

So, I'm a big fan of prime minister Johnson. I, as you know, Anthony, we've talked about this before, I thought he was a amazing mayor of London, and did a tremendous job. I was part of his mayor's fund for London, and his initiative, which he never publicized, but was very focused on making sure that immigrant kids in London were able to get meals before school, and he was very focused on the youngest ages, knowing that if some of the kids coming into London, living in some of the poor hamlets, didn't get a good start, they were falling behind forever. And I think his leadership through this unbelievably challenging time of, no one had a good solution on Brexit, and he led the UK to a good position, I think, over the last months, and now running head into Coronavirus, just as the UK was coming out of it. I do know, when I talk to my colleagues in Panmure Gordon, that's a UK investment bank that serves just UK middle market companies, the private capital in the UK is mobilizing very quickly, and we're doing a lot of equity raising for the small and middle sized businesses.

Bob Diamond (40:03):

That wasn't happening in 2019, that wasn't happening in 2018. So, I think, below the surface of ... It's hard to read all the negatives around Coronavirus, and listen, it's very, very serious, I don't mean to minimize it, but below that, and not getting the headlines, the small businesses and small companies in the UK are becoming better capitalized and more competitive. So, I'm pretty positive on the UK going forward.

Anthony Scaramucci (40:34):

I'm not going to put you on the spot in presidential politics, but I'm going to ask the question in the following way; do you think it matters, from an economic perspective, who the next president is, or do you think that the overarching moves of the Fed are going to be the deciding factor directionally on the economy?

Bob Diamond (40:53):

I think it matters a lot, and I think there's an argument that starts with a dozen, which I understand, Anthony, because, I think, no matter who is elected, the Democrats, Republican, we're going to have very low interest rates. We're going to be very focused on stimulus to get the economy back. So, a lot of the actions that have taken place already are not going to be reversed. Whether it's Democrats or Republicans, are going to be very, very focused on making sure this economy recovers. I think the difference will be significant in down the road of how we pay for it. And, as we know, I mean, simplistically, the Democrats would typically be more prone to look at taxes, and the Republicans would be more prone to look at spending. This is not a normal Republican presidency right now, so I don't know how that would exactly play out, but I think to say that there's no difference in terms of who's elected, is looking way too much at the short term, and not enough at the medium to long term.

Anthony Scaramucci (41:55):

Okay. So what do you think happens?

Bob Diamond (41:58):

If I look at the polls, I would tell you two things; from past history, we're only in June, so we've seen a lot of things change between June and election day in November, so I'll give that caveat, but it's quite clear that the trend in the last few weeks has been for Biden's lead to increase significantly.

Anthony Scaramucci (42:23):

Well, I mean, I think, one of the problems the president is having is, if you look at the demographics, women over the age of 50, he has the widest gap there of any president in 50 years. But it is 150 days out, and what I know, based on my life experience, Bob, 150 days is like 500 years in Trump world, so I'm not going to make a prediction, but ...

Bob Diamond (42:46):

We both know that.

Anthony Scaramucci (42:47):

...the data is underwhelming and has to be concerning to the Trump campaign. I have one last question for you, and then we're going to turn it back over to John to sign off, but I will Want you to address the younger people that are in financial services right now, that maybe they missed the 2008 crisis, maybe they caught that, if they're in their early 30s, but talk to the guys on this webinar with us that are in their early 20s, and they're going through the pandemic, they're working remotely, what's your advice for them?

Bob Diamond (43:25):

Oh, Anthony, that is a great question. One of the things I've been doing ... Atlas Merchant Capital is not a big firm, we have an office in New York, and an office in London, but one of the things I've been doing during this period is trying to have Zooms, or we use Google Hangout, but in our case, Google Hangouts, with as many of the young professionals as possible, just to have a one on one and connect. And as challenging as it's been for you, you've been with your family, as challenging as it's been for me, I've been with my family, a lot of these young professionals are maybe in a studio apartment in New York without a lot of places to go, and I think it's been incredibly challenging. So, my advice is, hang in, and you just don't know this today, but everyone's going to be looking back at this period and how it plays out over the next year, as so instrumental in terms of the future of our economy, and the experience that you're going to get over the next year or two is going to be extraordinary.

Bob Diamond (44:33):

I also think that in terms of financial services, looking only at the big platforms, the big banks, the big insurance companies, the big asset management firms, miss the phenomenal opportunity at some of the smaller firms, and I think financial services is still a great place to be for young professionals.

Anthony Scaramucci (44:50):

I greatly appreciate your time today, Mr. Diamond, thank you. I hope we can get you back on as things start to unfold in the economy. And to turn it back over to John Darsie, but we really appreciate you being on today, Bob, and I look forward to hopefully seeing you face to face at some point.

Bob Diamond (45:08):

I hope we catch up, and Anthony, thank you for doing this for all of us. It's great to have this program going during the Coronavirus. Thank you, man.

Anthony Scaramucci (45:14):

Appreciate it.

Investment Advisors Explain Active vs. Passive Investing | SALT Talks #5

“Companies are now being restructured for the safety of our employees and the safety of our customers… we’re not going to get to 100% demand anytime soon.”

Karen Firestone of Aureus Asset Management, Keith Cardoza of Brownson, Rehmus & Foxworth, and Shannon Saccocia of Boston Private joined SALT founder Anthony Scaramucci to discuss their strategies as three of the top independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in the country.

The guests discuss their reaction to the pandemic-driven stock volatility and how they advise their clients in times like these. “It's very hard, sometimes, to convince a client to buy into a falling market and to sell into a rising market, but it is very important to continue to rebalance.”

The Federal Reserve and monetary policy will play a major role in driving investment strategy through this pandemic and the periods that follow, with particular interest in the extension of low interest rates. The current economic climate poses the question around the effectiveness of active vs. passive investing. “I believe in active management. I think that the passive investing approach has a problem right now.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Headshot+-+Firestone,+Kari+-+Cropped.jpeg

KARI FIRESTONE

CEO

Aureus Asset Management

Shannon+Saccocia+2019.jpeg

SHANNON SACCOCIA

Chief Investment Officer

Boston Private Wealth

Headshot+-+Cardoza,+Keith+-+Cropped.jpeg

KEITH CARDOZA, CFA

Chief Investment Officer

Brownson

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:08):

Welcome everyone, back to SALT Talks. It's great to have you here. I don't know if you tuned in last Friday, but we had a great SALT Talk with General Kelley that made a little bit of news and we've been enjoying all the conversations we've been having, so thanks again for joining us today.

John Darsie (00:21):

My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which as many of you know, is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and geopolitics. With these SALT Talks, we try to replicate the environment that we create at our conferences, which is both providing a platform for big ideas and providing a window into the minds of subject matter experts, which today we have three of the leading independent RIAs in the country. Kari Firestone, Shannon Saccocia, and Keith Cardoza. I'll read out bios for each one of the panelists that are joining us today.

John Darsie (00:57):

Kari Firestone is the co-founder and chairman and CEO of Aureus Asset Management. Previously, she spent 22 years at Fidelity Investments, where she was most recently the Diversified Fund manager in the growth group with oversight of the Large Cap fund, advisor Large Cap fund, Destiny 1 fund and several institutional nonprofit and pension funds. Kari's Fidelity career began in 1983, as she was an assistant fund manager under the legendary Peter Lynch on the Magellan Fund, and we're going to ask her some questions about that experience today. Kari received a Bachelor and Master's in Business Administration from Harvard, and she's a regular contributor to CNBC as well as other financial media.

John Darsie (01:44):

Keith Cardoza is the Chief Investment Officer of Brownson, Rehmus & Foxworth. He co-chairs the firm's investment strategy and impact investment committers and serves on BRF's Private Equity, Credit, Public Markets, Real Estate, and Knowledge Management committees. He also leads the firm's asset allocation and manger selection efforts. Prior to joining BFR, Keith served as a managing director of Merit Ventures, an investment firm focused on technology investment, and previous to that, Keith chaired Boeing's investment strategy and asset allocation committee, where he was responsible for the investment strategy for their $41 billion in retirement assets. Prior to Boeing, Keith managed the $6 billion equity portfolio for the Illinois State Board of Investment's pension fund. Keith received a B.A. in economics from The University of Chicago and is CFA charter holder.

John Darsie (02:36):

Our third panelist today is Shannon Saccocia, who's the chief investment officer at Boston Private, which is a leading provider of fully integrated wealth management, trusts, and private and commercial banking services. She's responsibility for setting the overall investment strategy for the firm, overseeing asset allocation research, portfolio management, external manager search and selection, as well as creating an investment risk management. She also worked closely with both the business development team and the wealth advisor team to help construct and deliver customized wealth management solutions to meet client-specific needs. Previous to Boston Private, Miss Saccocia, Shannon, was the director of manager search and selection for Silver Bridge, which was acquired by Banyan Partners which was then acquired by Boston Private, which is where she is today. She got a B.A. in economics and history from Brandeis University and is also a CFA charter holder, and like Kari, Shannon is a frequent contributor to CNBC and other financial media.

John Darsie (03:37):

We're really excited to have these three panelists on today. Like I said, three of the leading independent RIAs in the country that provide whole suite of services to their clients. Anthony Scaramucci is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, is going to be conducting the interview today. I'll kick it over to Anthony to conduct the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci (04:00):

Well, first off, John, thank you very much. It's great to be with you guys. What I thought I would do is go round robin the beginning here and then I'll give some individuals questions, but let start with Kari and then take commentary from each of you.

Anthony Scaramucci (04:13):

S&P 500 down 30% in March, a little more than that actually, and then has now rallied back to flat. Are we ahead of ourselves? Was this a near term blip? Fed induction? Tell us what you think, Kari.

Karen Firestone (04:32):

Well, I think it's very interesting, Anthony, and thank you very much for having me. The market is back to even, and you wonder what the market would have done if there was no coronavirus this year. So at the time, on March 23 when the market hit the bottom, the S&P was 2236 or so, and we thought that the market was very cheap at the time and that it was over-sold. We expected it to rally. It has rallied 44% now. That's not trivial. That, I believe, is the most that any market at any time has gone up in a short period.

Karen Firestone (05:16):

So do we think that the market is over-priced? I think that's what you asked, or do we think that there might be more to go? What we're seeing in the market today and for the last five trading days is that it has brought it and what drove the market higher for the first 35% of this rally was technology and the kinds of digital platform companies that have driven the market higher for the last two or three years. What has moved in the last week of trading has been financials, energy, industrial. Just a broader range of sectors, and if that can continue and we see the reopening as a success, then I think that the market can at least hold this ground and could go higher at the end of the year.

Karen Firestone (06:05):

It's not a cheap market, by any means. It just isn't cheap anymore. It was cheap. It's gotten pretty full, and it would be great if we can stabilize and show that we've got some revenue generation over the next few months to support this kind of valuation.

Anthony Scaramucci (06:21):

What do you think, Shannon? Cheap? Overvalued? Undervalued?

Shannon Saccocia (06:25):

I think it's impossible to tell whether it's cheap or not. I mean, the earnings, which is the denominator of PE, is completely unknown. There's zero transparency right now as it relates to earnings over the next couple of quarters. I think there's also a contingency that's being built into this market that you feel like you're in a situation where there are things that need to occur over the course of the next eight weeks or so to support this. So we talked a lot about an additional coronavirus package and that would include the extension of unemployment benefits through the end of the year. That is required right now for what we're expecting and I think the market is a little bit ahead of where we are from a support perspective. If you look at things like personal income, the savings rate, all of that cash that flowed into the market over the course ... or the economy over the course of the last eight weeks or so has all been artificial stimulus so if that rolls off in the middle of summer and we don't yet have the expansion of consumer spending back to reasonable levels, then I think that we're going to see a second wave, potentially, of unemployment.

Anthony Scaramucci (07:37):

Mr. Cardoza, Keith, what do you think?

Keith Cardoza (07:40):

I can't tell you what's going to happen in the short term. We are very strategic at Brownson, Rehmus. We do tell our clients to rebalance back to their strategic targets, as we did at the bottom on March 23 and as we would now. It's very hard, sometimes, to convince a client to buy into a falling market and to sell into a rising market, but it is very important to continue to rebalance.

Keith Cardoza (08:04):

On one hand, things are looking really good. U.S. financial markets are very liquid, they're functioning well. Of course, a lot of that has had to do with the Fed intervention. Spreads continue to tighten. They think the high yield is now yielding 550, which is the lowest since the beginning of March. The yield curve is steeper now. I think as of close as of at least Friday, I didn't see what it did today, but the yield curve between the ten year and the two year was 70 basis points. Just as an inverted yield curve can predict a recession, a steeper yield curve can predict growth.

Keith Cardoza (08:37):

Equity volatility has subsided. The VIX is back down to 25 or so. We've been under 30 since May 19. That's the longest we've had that stretch since February. Companies have not had problems issuing bonds and continuing to borrow more money. We've had probably a trillion dollars of issuance so far this year. March and April were record months for issuance. May fell just short of a new record. So there's a lot of positive things, but of course the challenges going forward is just as companies are taking on a lot of debt, that's being coupled with probably lower productivity going forward into the future. Companies are maximized for just-in-time delivery for just-in-sales and now all of our companies are being restructured for the safety of our employees, the safety of our customers. We are reshoring a lot of our supply chain, particularly from China, but as deglobalization continues to occur, that's going to hurt productivity.

Keith Cardoza (09:45):

As much as demand comes back, we're not going to get to 100% demand any time soon, so companies are now taking on debt with lower productivity and lower demand going forward.

Karen Firestone (09:56):

Keith, I have a question. How many of the people who you suggested on March 23 that they should re-allocate upward on equities said, "Hey, great idea. I'm dying to have you do that for us."

Keith Cardoza (10:09):

It's a challenge. Our clients are very strategic, and they have been through time periods like this before. Many of our clients were through the '07, '08, '09 liquidity crisis and our firm has been in business for 50 years, so even going through things like the dot com bubble bust. So they have been in time periods where frankly the markets were down more than 50%, let alone 35%.

Anthony Scaramucci (10:35):

What asset class is, given where we are right now, Shannon, what asset classes do you see the most opportunity?

Shannon Saccocia (10:43):

I think there's still some opportunity in credit. If you look at whether ... I mean, I think there's a little less opportunity in loans than there is high yield bonds right now, but there's still some opportunity there. I think that from our perspective, if you look at emerging markets in particular, they haven't participated in this rally that we've experienced, certainly in the month of May, that we've seen in the United States.

Shannon Saccocia (11:05):

I think that for us, we're looking at in terms of, to Kari's point, there are sectors within the U.S. equity market that are more or less attractive based on valuation, and then are a large swaths of assets outside of the United States that are pretty attractive regardless of where you're looking. So I think that there has been this sensitivity over the last decade about the underperformance of international and emerging market equities, and debt for that matter. I think that that shift, potentially, to a weaker dollar scenario, or even a stable dollar scenario, could create opportunities for investments outside of the United States.

Shannon Saccocia (11:40):

If you truly believe that the global economy is going to re-accelerate, which was our expectation coming in to 2020 and perhaps that's been kicked to 2021, you should be looking outside of the United States for potential opportunities in the equity and credit markets.

Anthony Scaramucci (11:54):

All right. So more diversity, basically. Kari, do you think that there's ... you worked at Fidelity, you've got this experience. Tech and momentum, up until today, seemed to be driving the markets, Kari. You think that's a smart trade? Do you think that's the nifty fifty of 2020, or do you think there's still room to go there?

Karen Firestone (12:17):

Well, yes. So that's the simple answer. Yes, I think that tech ... momentum, if we mean by that the people who brought us here, meaning the type of companies that have led on the upside through this whole rally, those are the companies that both have been able to maintain their leadership and been able to persevere and succeed throughout this pandemic. They're highly valued because they ought to be. We did a study, actually, I wrote a piece on this a while ago and I did a chart for CNBC that showed that the contribution of earnings within the S&P 500 from technology stocks and communication services was less than ... I'm sorry. Their share of net income as about 40% for this quarter and their share of valuation was 35%.

Karen Firestone (13:22):

Now, that number can be different today, but certainly they are not overly valued, if we look at their contribution to total earnings, and that can expand, in fact, not contract and it's because if you look at companies that are almost made for an environment that is difficult, that require remote working, requires connectivity of a different type, service providers that have to deal with a new world, it's Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, PayPal, the different types of companies that we know they're not all in the same sector, but they're ones that have been able to prosper in this environment.

Karen Firestone (14:06):

So of course, that's where money has gone. Do I think that they need to take a break and rest? Well, perhaps, and that's been going on right now, but I think that for the market to go higher, they have to be the leaders again because they are the drivers of this economy. It's what makes the United States a preferential place to invest, rather than other global economies. Even though they might be cheaper, they deserve a lower multiple than the U.S.

Karen Firestone (14:35):

I agree, by the way, with Shannon, that I think emerging markets are cheap but to the question about what leads in the U.S., this could be another week or two of this kind of rotation, but I don't think it'll last unless the market falls and then everything will fall. But if it's going higher, I think that we have to go back to who's leading on earnings and revenues over the next six months.

Anthony Scaramucci (15:01):

So Keith, my old boss, Lee Cooperman, tepid on the markets three or four weeks ago. Dave Tepper, Appaloosa, tepid on the markets. Stan Druckenmiller, a little more bullish this morning but very tepid on the markets for four to six weeks ago. What did they get wrong?

Keith Cardoza (15:22):

Well, I think there's a few things. One, people have been conditioned to buy the dip and it has worked over and over and over again. I think second, the massive intervention by both the Federal Reserve and frankly Congress to keep the economy going in any way they could and to keep asset prices high. And I think three, there was just a look-through. It's this reminder that only 10% of a stock's value is based upon earnings of the next 12 months. 90% of a stock's value is based upon earnings that they'll gain after that and I think there was quite a bit of look-through this event.

Keith Cardoza (16:06):

So I think by being conditioned to buy the dip, with the Fed support and congressional support with both fiscal and monetary stimulus, as well as just looking through this current COVID crisis, I think that's probably what a lot of us missed.

Anthony Scaramucci (16:22):

Let me play devil's advocate and go to Shannon for a second because you mentioned the uncertainty of earnings. My old boss Lee Cooperman would say, "Well, I can't value this market. Is it 24 times earnings? 22 times earnings? What are the earnings for 2021?" So Shannon, what would you say to somebody like Steve Cooperman?

Shannon Saccocia (16:44):

I think you see-

Anthony Scaramucci (16:44):

Lee Cooperman.

Shannon Saccocia (16:45):

I wasn't going to correct you.

Anthony Scaramucci (16:46):

I mixed a couple of geniuses together. I'm sorry. But I meant to say Lee Cooperman.

Shannon Saccocia (16:52):

You know, I think the challenge here is that I don't know that right now that anybody's focused on that. I think that this look-through has two [inaudible 00:16:59], and I agree with Keith. I think the other thing that's happening is that we came into 2020, and this is not a typical recession. Generally we have some sort of economic excess that brings us to the brink and we have an overheating something, asset bubble, area of the economy. We didn't have that here, and so I think the look-through is really once it was determined that this wasn't going to be catastrophic from an economic perspective and that we would be coming out the other side, I think that expectations just sort of reset to where we were at the end of 2019, which we're not ... stocks weren't that cheap then, either, let's be honest, coming in to this year.

Shannon Saccocia (17:37):

So I think inasmuch as you'd like to trade on the fundamentals, the Fed has essentially told you that this bursting of the credit bubble that we've all been waiting for, this retribution for all of these companies over-leveraging their balance sheet, it's not coming. It's not coming today and it's not coming tomorrow. So now this pushes all of that out a few more years. We're in a zero interest rate policy. I hate to use the term, because it's overused, but there is no alternative. So whatever that E is at the bottom of that PE on the S&P 500, where else are you going to, maybe not in the next two months to three months because I think there will be additional volatility and uncertainty especially with China and the election on the horizon, but out into 2021. If you look at the back half of next year, where are you earning return for your clients? Are you earning it someplace else in the equity market? I'm not so sure.

Anthony Scaramucci (18:29):

Well, no, and look, you make a good point. Let's go to the zero interest rates for a second. Professor Stephanie Kelton just wrote a book called The Deficit Myth. It's coming out tomorrow. I had the opportunity to read it over the weekend. So let me flip this over to ... I'll take it back to Kari for a second. I'm talking about the modern money. I'm talking about what Shannon is basically saying. Interest rates are at zero, there's no other place to go. Put it into revenue-generating tech stocks. Otherwise there's no other market, if you will, and so there's a thinness to that. But let's talk about modern monetary theory for a second. Totally okay?

Karen Firestone (19:09):

Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci (19:09):

There's a new book coming out called The Deficit Myth. We can rack up another $30 trillion in deficit, it's good for mankind. Professor Stephanie Kelton is saying that in her book. What do you say?

Karen Firestone (19:21):

Well, I think she's got a very good point. Monetary policy has changed over the last 30 years. It used to be where there would be inflation if the Fed printed a lot of money, and that has now changed. We observed that in 2008.

Anthony Scaramucci (19:36):

Why? Why has that changed? Why don't we have inflation?

Karen Firestone (19:39):

Well, first of all, we didn't have inflation over the last twelve years because there was excess of supply so even though demand grew over the last decade, there was so much supply going into 2007 and 2008 that we never achieved a point of equilibrium or demand exceeding supply. Now we're at a level where that hasn't been inflation for years, interest rates are low, you can print money and it does not cause excess demand into the marketplace and the global nature of the way people buy and sell has also continued to push prices down for-

Anthony Scaramucci (20:19):

I accept that. Keith, is that a temporary phenomenon for our time or is that something where the paradigm has shifted as a result of technology and that's now something permanent, that we can have an unlimited amount of credit printing without having any inflation?

Keith Cardoza (20:37):

I don't think that's necessarily true, but I would add to the comments of where can we go now. I actually think there's actually a few different places we can go now, and especially you're raising issues that are very complex. What is say is that one of the things that investors need to look at now are those complex assets. So assets that are typically avoided by a traditional bond manager or a traditional stock manager. As we were going through the end of March, one of our hedge fund managers said, "Hey, the way this market is priced is stocks are being priced for a three month shutdown, bonds are being priced for a three quarter shutdown, and structured credit is being priced for a three year shutdown."

Keith Cardoza (21:19):

Now that was a little bit of an exaggeration if not a bit of an exaggeration, but to his point, stocks have come back pretty quickly. Many areas on the credit side have come back, but things like structured credit is still very dislocated. Now that's not something you can get through an index fund or through an ETF or even a traditional mutual fund, but it is something that you can get through an alternative manager. Even assets like, for instance, that you can gain through a mutual fund manager, something like municipal high yield which is something that most traditional bond managers and us stock managers will avoid, even if it's a good value.

Anthony Scaramucci (21:58):

So why hasn't it come back, Keith?

Keith Cardoza (22:00):

I think because of illiquidity. There has been a big challenge in this marketplace of being able to make assessments about liquidity in the marketplace and when you think of things like municipal bonds, even particular high yield municipal bonds, pension funds aren't there, endowments aren't there, foundations aren't there, non-U.S. investors aren't there. And even for U.S. investors, it's a very particular segment of the market. It's people who are making high income.

Keith Cardoza (22:27):

On an intermediate duration high yield municipal bond portfolio, you can earn about 5.5% tax free. Even on a shorter duration high yield municipal portfolio, you can earn about 4%. It's nothing something you can do on your own. It's something that you need to hire a manager who has expertise in that area.

Anthony Scaramucci (22:46):

So Shannon, has the structure of credit come back or is it in a three year freeze? As I'm saying this to you, my heart rate is going up because I'm long on a tremendous amount of structured credit, but go ahead.

Shannon Saccocia (22:58):

I know. I have to remember who asked-

Anthony Scaramucci (23:00):

Lie to me, Shannon.

Shannon Saccocia (23:00):

I have to remember who asked me here.

Anthony Scaramucci (23:00):

Lie to me, Shannon. Lie to me. Tell me it's coming back, like, tomorrow. No, I'm kidding. Give us your critical analysis of it.

Shannon Saccocia (23:09):

There absolutely are ... there's opportunities in structured credit, but I think what March drove home for people is that you really need to understand how you feel about illiquidity, even if it's short term in nature. There were huge opportunities in the high quality municipal bond market in the middle of March as long as you didn't need to be liquid today. I think that structured credit, I think as long as you have the expectation that there could be pockets of opportunity there that some of that is going to dislocate ... there could be continued dislocation in that as we morph into this new phase of economic recovery and you have the wherewithal and the liquidity timeframe to be able to sit there and wait for those trades to pay off.

Shannon Saccocia (23:56):

I think that that's the challenge right now, is that the structures that are created for you to be in structured credit vary widely from interval funds to seven to ten year lock up funds. I think you really want to think about the underlying assets, make sure that you're giving the manager, to Keith's point, the opportunity to maximize the return on those assets without another run on liquidity and then I do think that you'll have opportunities. There's a premium for liquidity in this market that I'm not sure is going to go away, ever, and so I think that it's going to create the haves and have nots as it relates to relative opportunity.

Anthony Scaramucci (24:33):

So are you a buyer selectively in structured credit, or are you a seller of the whole thing?

Shannon Saccocia (24:38):

No, I think ... I absolutely think that it belongs in portfolios, particularly for clients, again, that can commit to a portion of their portfolio being illiquid and seeing it that way and positioning their overall portfolio for a portion of that to remain in structured credit.

Shannon Saccocia (24:55):

I think that the Fed has basically taken off the table the opportunities in traditional bonds to a large extent, and so I do think you need to get more complex in the credit space in order to make those returns.

Karen Firestone (25:08):

And just one other point I wanted to make with regard to a question you asked earlier about why is that Lee Cooperman or Howard Marks, et cetera, or Stanley Druckenmiller have been so negative and what was perhaps different about this time versus other markets such as in 2008 when the market collapsed and they might have been much more positive? We sometimes call this, or I call this, a blasphemous bull run in that it has felt like blasphemy to say that it's fine to buy the market because this market was not about evil doing of certain banks and the rest of us felt, "Gosh, there's so much undervalued stock out there. We have to support these companies, all of these people, institutions," you're just buying stock because it's out there and there's nothing about it that felt evil.

Karen Firestone (26:05):

Buying the market at the time where things looked very grim about a pandemic felt to many people almost sacrilegious and it was very hard to separate your feelings about what was happening around the world as an enormous healthcare crisis and then feeling like we've got to make money on this? It just felt ... I mean, I really think that it was a struggle that many people had-

Anthony Scaramucci (26:30):

I think it makes sense.

Karen Firestone (26:31):

... great investors.

Anthony Scaramucci (26:32):

I just think that when I-

Karen Firestone (26:35):

They were wrong, of course.

Anthony Scaramucci (26:35):

When Scott Wopner invited me on six weeks ago to talk about this, you got $4 trillion coming in from the Fed. As I said, it's a waterwall of money. It's not a bazooka. It's a green tsunami washing over the United States-

Karen Firestone (26:49):

Correct.

Anthony Scaramucci (26:49):

It's impossible for it not to show up in asset prices. We can do gymnastics, mentally, about the fundamentals, but it's just crazy.

Karen Firestone (26:57):

Correct. That's correct.

Anthony Scaramucci (26:58):

All right. We're going to do a quick round robin if you guys don't mind and then I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie, where we have audience participation and some questions. So quick round robin, so making this a short yes or no, don't like, a sentence or so. The hedge fund space is underperformed. Let's start with you, Kari. You're on my screen. The hedge fund space is underperformed. Is that a good place to be for your clients going forward, yes or no?

Karen Firestone (27:26):

Not necessarily. They haven't played it well for the last few years. Why should they start playing it better now?

Anthony Scaramucci (27:31):

Okay, so you would be underweighted in hedge funds?

Karen Firestone (27:33):

Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:35):

Okay. We're not inviting you back. Can we go to Shannon, now?

Karen Firestone (27:38):

Except yours. Except yours, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:39):

No, I'm kidding.

Karen Firestone (27:39):

Except yours.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:40):

I'm kidding. I love the objectivity. That's why we do this. Shannon, go ahead.

Karen Firestone (27:46):

We manage our own money.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:47):

Shannon, go ahead. We're recording this for posterity, Shannon, I might add that, okay? No, I'm kidding.

Shannon Saccocia (27:54):

I think there are the opportunities in place as there haven't been historically. There's probably some more opportunities in long short equity as we move forward. I think there's opportunities in structured credit. I'm shying away from relative credit. The Fed's essentially taken those trades out. I'd say uncorrelated asset classes that are available in the hedge fund structure remain pretty attractive here.

Anthony Scaramucci (28:14):

And what about you, Keith?

Keith Cardoza (28:15):

Yes. High complexity structured credit, distressed credit, multi strategy funds, macro funds. With macro, you're liquid.

Anthony Scaramucci (28:24):

Okay. Let's go to active versus passive management, so that could be in hedge fund format, it could be non-ETFs versus ETFs. Let's flip it around. Let's take it around the horn. Let's go, Kari. What do you think?

Karen Firestone (28:38):

Yeah, so if we're talking about active versus ... we are active managers here for our ... I believe in active management. I think that passive investing approach has a problem right now because passive includes an awful lot of equities that have not participated over the last five plus years in the economy and I'm not sure how they participate. So they're pulling down, I'd say-

Anthony Scaramucci (29:04):

Right. So you have to buy the bathwater with the baby, is basically what you're saying.

Karen Firestone (29:08):

Correct.

Anthony Scaramucci (29:08):

What about you, Shannon.

Shannon Saccocia (29:10):

We use both, depending on the asset class. I mean, if you're trying to capture beta you go cheap, and if you're trying to get active management, I think active management's probably a bit more in vogue now for the next 12 to 18 months given that the dislocation, but there's always opportunities to use both in your portfolio.

Anthony Scaramucci (29:25):

Okay. And what about you, Keith?

Keith Cardoza (29:27):

On the U.S. equity side, we're passive, and we have been passive for decades. On the international, it's a mix, and we are certainly are active on fixed income. I think particularly in this environment, the fixed income, you need active management.

Anthony Scaramucci (29:41):

If you were looking back at the world, it's 2025, so it's five years from now, equity markets are higher, the economy's booming. Where do you see the world ... let's go in reverse. I'll start with you, Keith. You're on my screen. It's five years from now. This was a great ... you're talking to your client today, but you have the foresight of five years from now, so you're encouraging them to do what?

Keith Cardoza (30:12):

Five years is not that far away. In the long run, we really do feel confident that stocks will outperform bonds and bonds will outperform cash, but as you tighten that timeframe, even within five years now for 2025, it becomes more difficult to predict.

Keith Cardoza (30:27):

That said, with the equity markets, we are priced for a U-shaped recovery assuming that COVID goes into a ... we have a summer respite from COVID, that things somewhat get back to normal by the end of August, that kids return to school, that we have a vaccine by ... call it the third quarter of 2021, and the economy has returned fully by fourth quarter of 2022, so 30 months from. Equities can be a good place to be over the next five years.

Anthony Scaramucci (30:57):

Okay. So bullish on equities. How about you, Kari?

Karen Firestone (31:00):

Well, I think it's hard to bet against equities because if you look over the past 50 years, they've consistently returned in excess of inflation and excess nicely of the risk rate and so yeah, I would say that you have to have, particularly if you're of a certain age and risk tolerance, a high portion of your assets in equity. I also think that we might get, over the next year or so, some real dislocation in assets like real estate. It's just totally unclear right now whether urban real estate is going to be attractive or not, what's going to happen with the suburbs. They were giving away everything. I don't live in Connecticut, I live in Boston, but it seemed to me people were giving away big estates in Greenwich for very little and now suddenly the prices are gone up 300%. I'd like to see what happens with real estate as a possible investment over the next few ... commercial real estate also can have some kind of dislocation and that can be true overseas.

Karen Firestone (32:01):

I think that we'll have these opportunities in the next twelve months. It's not clear right now how they'll shake out, but equities has to be an important factor, and I think interest rates will be higher, too, so I think that we'll have more opportunity in the fixed income side and so we can ... yes, we'll be buying your-

Anthony Scaramucci (32:20):

All right. Well, I got that on tape, okay? We're going to end. Thank you, guys, for participating. We're going to end it right there on that one statement. No, I'm just kidding. Let's keep going. Let's keep going, Shannon. What do you think? It's five years out. What are you projecting for clients?

Shannon Saccocia (32:37):

I think we continue to be in a low growth environment, Anthony, so I think that the one thing that we are projecting for clients is more subdued returns across both the equity and fixed income space and so I think things like fees, taxes, income opportunities outside of your traditional fixed income basket, those become increasingly important because client's expectations can only be changed so much. I mean, they need cash flow from their portfolio in order to support their needs, and so I think that that's where we're focused, is on this lower growth, lower return environment that we're going to continue to see over the course of the next five years, but even in that case, you want to see your allocations and equities because they at least provide some capital appreciation opportunity.

Anthony Scaramucci (33:23):

Okay. I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie. He's got some questions from our audience. I appreciate you guys participating on our game show. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie (33:33):

Yeah, we have a lot of great questions to get to. Investment advisory, asset allocation manager selection is only one of the piece of the puzzle when you're an investment advisor. What was it like communicating, psychologically, with your clients during the coronavirus-induced selloff that happened in markets and long term, how is this pandemic and the volatility that we've seen changed the way you'll look at risk management within asset allocation for your clients?

Karen Firestone (34:02):

Can I take that?

John Darsie (34:04):

Yeah, Kari. You go first.

Karen Firestone (34:05):

So we wrote to clients four times from February, started I guess February 25 was the first time we wrote and then we wrote twice in March and once the beginning of April. In 2008, beginning of 2009, we wrote to them twice. So this was a scarier period of time and we felt that the whole healthcare and very strange elements of this crisis required more reaching out by Aureus to our clients.

Karen Firestone (34:41):

So we tried to be thoughtful and calming. In March, we gave them a chart of what has happened the last six times the market fell 28% or more since 1961 and the subsequent 3, 6, 12, and 18 month periods and it turns out that in every one of those periods the market is higher following that drop 3, 6, 12, and 18 months afterwards. That spreads, that gap spreads as you go further out from the trough. So it was our way of helping to convince our clients, as well as ourselves, that it was a good time to buy stocks, but we could do it in a kind of graphical depiction and I thought that was a valuable piece of illustration for them.

Karen Firestone (35:35):

On the risk front, there are two things that I think are important. One is that the U.S. government, the Treasury and the Fed, showed us that they would reduce the risk of this environment by the amount that they were able to push out towards businesses, to citizen on the Fed side of borrowing and that definitely alleviated a big question mark and reduced the risk to investors and I thought that was very important. We saw that happen, to some extent, in 2008, but this was much bigger.

Karen Firestone (36:12):

Number two, when you start to experience this kind of meltdown in the market, you definitely, as an advisor, see the tolerance that your clients have to risk. They may have tell you how they feel about it going in to a relationship, but not until this sort of thing happens do you either hear them say, "I'm really scared. Maybe we should sell 25%," or they say, "Hey, this looks like a great opportunity. We should be buying." So it gives us more information that it could take 15 years to accumulate otherwise.

Keith Cardoza (36:48):

I want to add to-

John Darsie (36:49):

Shannon, how about ... Keith, go ahead.

Keith Cardoza (36:50):

... the second part of that question around risk and in fact, Shannon brought this up as well in terms of liquidity. I think part of the challenge that we have in our industry as a whole is when we look at risk systems, they deal with complicated problems but not complex problems. What do I mean by that? Complicated is like a jet engine. Once you figure out a jet engine works, it works the same way over and over and over again. Well, complex are things like the weather and market movements. It's always ever-changing. There's a lot of variables and once they're figured out, they continue to change.

Keith Cardoza (37:24):

So a lot of risk systems are based upon things like expected return, standard deviation and correlation, and then you can output some sort of number. The challenge is, is as Shannon mentioned before, would be things like liquidity. A lot of risk systems, it's complex. We can't measure illiquidity. It becomes very difficult. So for instance, even in terms of communicating things like with clients on something like investment-grade municipal bonds, which a lot of clients consider to be the safe part of their portfolio, during a good chunk of March and going into April and even now, it's difficult to sell, even investment-grade municipal bond.

Keith Cardoza (38:07):

So how do you communicate to a client that, "Hey, this is the safety part of your portfolio, but yet there are time periods where it's not advantageous to get out, and in fact if you do, you're really going to be hurting yourself," and I think we just need to do a much better job as an industry of being able to asses that liquidity across the entire portfolio.

John Darsie (38:27):

Shannon, do you have anything to add to that?

Shannon Saccocia (38:31):

Not really. I feel like everybody's really covered it. I would say the one big difference between, for instance 2008, 2009 to Kari's point and this time around is that our firm was more of an investment management firm back in 2008, 2009 and we're much more of a holistic wealth management firm with a significant planning component and I would say that that really helped us because reminding clients about their plan, what we had already set up for them, even when they started to get perhaps a little squirelly when we could just revisit the plan and remind them that we had really factored in through things like Monte Carlo simulations all of these potential events and that they were still coming out the other side where they needed to be from an outcome perspective, I think that really helped. So I think this particular crisis has probably driven home the importance of holistic wealth management and financial advisory as opposed to asset management, which I think 20 years ago is what we probably all were trafficking in.

Keith Cardoza (39:23):

Yeah, I will admit, Brownson Rehmus, we've been there for 50 years, so we are first and foremost a financial planning firm, and in addition to that we do investment strategy and asset allocation and manager selection. So this is something we've been doing now for five decades.

John Darsie (39:38):

Thank you all for that. We have several questions related to potential inflation, so obviously it's debatable about whether we're entering a potentially inflationary environment. Anthony touched on modern monetary theory and rising deficits and things like that, but we have a couple questions that I'll combine into one. One, if we do get some level of inflation, what impact do you expect that to have on earnings and do you expect companies to be able to pass that through to consumers, and second, given the possibility of inflation, do you think that things like gold, Bitcoin, or other inflation hedges, where do they belong in a portfolio right now, maybe increasingly so relative to a few months ago?

Shannon Saccocia (40:21):

I just want to start with that the misconception that there hasn't been inflation. There hasn't been inflation the way that we measure inflation according to the CPI. Services are certainly more expensive. Housing is more expensive depending on where you are and particularly rent. So I think when we start to think about inflation is what is the next level of inflation that could potentially feed into corporate profitability, because that's really what we're trying to discount here, is how much of this will impact corporate profitability going forward.

Shannon Saccocia (40:56):

So if you think about the costs, and I think Anthony may have mentioned this before, labor productivity and the cost of inputs, that continues to get cheaper and cheaper as technology gets cheaper as we shift away from very heavy, fixed asset businesses, to Kari's point about where growth is and that's really an intellectual capital going forward. So I think that that is where we really have to shift our framework to what do we mean by inflation, because services inflation is certainly there. Look at healthcare. Look at college costs. I mean, there is inflation in the economy, just not at the CPI level and so I think we need to think about when you're looking at it at a company level, what are the inputs that that company is going to increasingly be paying for and do we expect there to be macro economic rationale for those inputs to get more costly and that's really how you should be looking at inflation. I think the CPI measure is dated, and I wouldn't be surprised to see changes to that over the next five to ten years.

Karen Firestone (41:54):

You know, also we have to think about the near term and the long term. Over the near term, there are many inflationary pressures because of how companies that are reopening have to deal with the cost of a COVID open business. So whether that's ... if you're a restaurant and you can only serve a third of your capacity but you have the same amount of space, you have to charge more for your food. If you're in the retail business and you can only have so many customers in at a time, but again, you're paying the rent, keeping the lights on, have your inventory but have to have filters and have to have all kinds of measurements for your employees, that's inflationary. There are many ways in which people are going to deal with the coronavirus over the next six months that are going to be inflationary. Now whether that changes after there's a vaccine, we don't know, but in the short term, it's inflationary and if municipalities, state governments and eventually perhaps the federal government needs to raise taxes because everything is taking so much of the budget to manage the healthcare expenses of this pandemic, that's going to be inflationary. If companies want to keep their profit margins but their tax rates go up, I think they're certainly going to have to try to pass some of that on to consumers.

John Darsie (43:21):

Keith, do you have anything to add to the inflation question, and specifically about whether things like gold, cryptocurrencies belong as a small sliver in portfolios given the potential specter of inflation?

Keith Cardoza (43:32):

We do not have gold or cryptocurrencies as part of portfolios. Things like gold I think are just much too volatile for any type of expected return and so that is not something that we contemplate.

John Darsie (43:50):

Okay. On to the next question. We have a few that relate to China about whether, I know Shannon touched briefly on emerging markets earlier, but you guys look at China, obviously a fast growing economy that's been able to reopen a little bit more quickly than other global economies. Do you think that China has some attractiveness as an investment destination right now?

Karen Firestone (44:12):

Yeah, we do. I mean, we have of our equity assets a certain percent are in international funds. We manage the equities, U.S. equities, directly because many of us have done this as analysts and fund managers for decades and we like to do that. When it comes to international investing, we don't use index funds or ETFs or we use managers who we have a lot of faith in. We have a manager that's a China direct manager. I think that you can't be a global investor without having some representation from China. It's the second largest economy, it's become a larger factor in every index you want to look at that's non-U.S., and it's interesting. They're trading at about the same level of a year to date basis as the U.S., meaning about flat. It's about flat.

Karen Firestone (45:11):

So we own Ali Baba, that's the one name that's in our portfolio. We own 32 names, Baba's one of them. It's up, year to date, a few percent and we continue to think that's a great stock to hold. There are many good companies. It's not easy to understand that as thoroughly as people who are on the ground there and so we have allocated that mostly to external managers.

Karen Firestone (45:38):

But yeah, I think that China's very important in a global framework.

Keith Cardoza (45:43):

Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. We allocate to China through both our emerging market managers as well as our international equity managers. Anthony talked about before looking out to 2025. It's undeniable that China's economy is going to continue grow, being the second largest economy and whether we are economic allies, economic rivals, economic opponents or economic enemies, the U.S. economy and the Chinese economy are going to continue to be at the forefront around the globe. I'd like us to think about us being rivals, where we could continue to make each other better, but frankly even if we become economic enemies where we almost start having bifurcated internet system, where there are two internet systems and two global supply chains and it becomes a sphere of U.S. versus China, I think it is important to be allocated to a country and economy that's going to continue to grow.

Anthony Scaramucci (46:52):

But before Shannon talks, I want to go ... are you worried about political risk in China? And then secondarily, are you worried about political risk in the U.S.? If you were Chinese, looking at our televisions, you'd probably think that too. What do you think?

Keith Cardoza (47:07):

Yeah, political risk is certainly ... is always a factor. I mean, it's one of the reasons why when we allocate money to areas like China, well and even in the United States, we want to work with money managers who are experts, who are know the politics, they know the economics, they know the liquidity and know the systems and know the accounting and the balance sheets much better than most. So it's identifying the portfolio managers that have the uncommon knowledge of the politics and the economics and the demographics and the technology and being willing to trust them.

John Darsie (47:44):

How would the market react, in your opinion, and we'll start with Shannon on this one, if we did get a large second wave of the virus, we have more rolling shutdowns and quarantines? Is this a situation where you can't lose because if we do get another shutdown we'll get another wave of Fed liquidity and fiscal stimulus, or how do you think markets would react in that scenario?

Shannon Saccocia (48:07):

I think the markets will react negatively to a resurgence, however I think that there is little political appetite for a return to a lockdown scenario that we experienced in April. I don't mean to be crass, but I just think that from a political perspective, you're going to have pockets of progression that are going to see the benefit of going back into these lockdown scenarios and then you're going to see most places really react, I think, very differently than what we saw in April and May. I hate to say that, and I think it's going to be a challenge as we go through and see this re-acceleration of cases and so while I'm hopeful that we will not have a resurgence of the virus, I also am not expecting ... you're seeing a lot of anecdotal evidence and also several very notable economists coming out and saying that the way that we handled this was a mistake from an economic standpoint, that we should have taken a different tact. I think that's very easy to say in hindsight, since we managed to flatten the curve clearly, but I don't think that there is appetite for that in the August/September time frame.

Shannon Saccocia (49:19):

I am more concerned about how that will affect the elections in November, because I think that there will be a very ... I think that there's going to be an emphatic vote on how this crisis was handled in the elections in November, and if we get a resurgence in April and Septe ... or in August and September, excuse me, I think that's going to be even more impactful to those elections. So that's sort of how I view that potential.

Anthony Scaramucci (49:45):

So a resurgence is bad for the Trump administration, Shannon?

Shannon Saccocia (49:52):

I think it depends on how it's handled. I do. I think it depends on how it's handled in that August and September time frame. I think it depends on what's happening economically up until that point, and I do think that ... again, I think that if we end now, Anthony, to your question, and everybody can take the last couple of months and say, "Okay, how did we handle this politically? Who are the political winners and losers?" If you have a resurgence in August and September, you just get so much more fodder for that potentially contentious election that I don't know what the outcome will be of that, but I know that it will be more than about the progressive platform versus the incumbent platform than we could expect right now.

Anthony Scaramucci (50:35):

All right. If Trump wins, the next time I have you on, Shannon, I'll be wearing an orange wig, okay?

Keith Cardoza (50:42):

I'll add to the resurgence-

Anthony Scaramucci (50:44):

What's that, Keith?

Keith Cardoza (50:44):

You know, I'll add to the second wave. A lot of scientists and experts do believe we are going to have a second wave in the fall, but we're not going to have a national shutdown again. The national shutdown was probably a very prudent step to take because we didn't know where the hot spots were going to be, we didn't know what was going to be the exponential rate of the virus, we didn't know how it was primarily transmitted. There were so many unknowns about this very deadly and dangerous virus, and a national shutdown probably was prudent.

Karen Firestone (51:16):

We didn't have a national shutdown. We had a state by state shutdown. It was never a national ... I mean, it wasn't, to be clear.

Keith Cardoza (51:26):

Understood. So going to that further, I think in the fall, to your point, it'll become even more hyper localized. You will see, perhaps, specific cities, specific areas. It will be more hyper local in terms of being able to identify where hot spots are, where we will have to perhaps mitigate the virus. And also hopefully over the summer, we will have more therapeutics on the marketplace. There's not going to be an vaccine by the fall, but there's a good chance there'll be some therapeutics on the marketplace that will help alleviate the symptoms.

Anthony Scaramucci (52:01):

All right. Well, we're going to wrap up here in a second, so of course I have to talk about politics, if you guys don't mind. So let's start with you, Kari. What are you telling your clients about the election?

Karen Firestone (52:13):

I'd say that we're telling our clients right now that the market would be happy with either candidate. I'm assuming the candidates are Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I don't think that the Biden agenda is one that's going to make most investors wildly concerned about their holdings. It's probably true that there would be an interest in raising taxes, but the tax rate is so low relative to any time in history in the United States that even if taxes were to go up some, they would be far lower than they were under the Reagan administration, as an example.

Karen Firestone (52:51):

So I think that it's not as much of an issue about who wins. I think the bigger issue is what's subsequent to the election? You wonder whether there's going to be some national outcry, and I mean protests, demonstrations, or worse in either case if President Trump wins or President Trump doesn't win, and I think unrest is very concerning to the market. It hasn't been. I mean, just notice what's happened over the last week or so when we've had demonstrations, rioting, looting, et cetera. The market, I think, has gone up almost every one of those days so the market is living a slightly different state of mind but at the time of the election, and post election, it could have an affect. What happens subsequently could affect the market and how the country reacts, so that worries me somewhat. But not which candidate.

Anthony Scaramucci (53:55):

I hear you. Shannon, what do you think?

Shannon Saccocia (53:59):

I think that typically markets like to see the incumbent win. It creates greater certainty, normally. We certainly have lived in an uncertain environment and I think the China situation is the area where people are concerned about what a re-election of President Trump would mean for continued China tensions and that relationship.

Shannon Saccocia (54:20):

I also think it's important to see who Biden chooses for his running mate because we could see a more progressive platform after what's been happening from the social unrest perspective come aboard with a potential vice presidential nominee. So I'm interested to see how he positions his running mate and potentially modifies his initial platform to be more progressive in response to what's happened over the last few days.

Anthony Scaramucci (54:47):

Well, he's definitely tacking to the middle right now, because he was against the whole defunding of the police today. All right, we'll end it with you, Keith. Where do you see things election wise? See, notice I didn't pin any of you and ask you who you were voting for or who you thought would win. I want to invite you guys back, and I wanted you to accept my invitation, so I didn't push too hard there. But go ahead, Keith. What do you think's going to happen, or what do you think ... market wise?

Keith Cardoza (55:15):

You talked about 2025 and from a market perspective, I think the election is still way far out. For the market right now, no one's talking about the election. We're still interested in the reopening of the economy and what's going on with COVID, what's the advancement of therapeutics, what's the advancement of vaccines, what's the advancement of testing? Are more people going to be sitting in restaurants? Are more people going to be flying on airplanes? Are local businesses going to be open? That is what the market cares about at this moment and will be for the next few months.

Anthony Scaramucci (55:49):

All right. John, you got any other final thoughts or final question before we kick it off, kick it out?

John Darsie (55:55):

No, I just want to thank Shannon, Keith, and Kari for joining us. As we talked about in the open, these are three of the top independent RIAs in the country, beyond just asset management, as they touched on financial planning, advisory work. Really great fiduciaries for their clients that we've built relationships with and we really appreciate you offering your insights.

John Darsie (56:17):

Anthony, do you have any final words?

Anthony Scaramucci (56:18):

I don't. I just want to say thank you guys. I appreciate you coming on and the rigorous debate. I'm a little sore about the opinion on the hedge fund thing but that's okay. I can get over that. I can see through that. But listen, we obviously think there's a huge opportunity in structured credit and the stuff is fundamentally cheap and so ... but that'll be for us to convince you of that further.

Anthony Scaramucci (56:40):

So with that, guys, thank you very much. I look forward to our next SALT Talk, and you guys were great and hope you all come back.

Karen Firestone (56:47):

Thank you.

Keith Cardoza (56:47):

Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci (56:48):

Thank you again.

Shannon Saccocia (56:48):

Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci (56:48):

Bye bye.

Steve Case: How Tech is Reshaping the Economy | SALT Talks #4

“In this environment, many companies will continue to operate in a hybrid state, where some employees will come to the office while others stay home. COVID-19 accelerated a trend that was already underway.”

There have been three important waves in history: the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and, now, the Technology Revolution. Key to the latter is partnership and policy. Remember: it used to be illegal for some consumers and institutions to event connect to the internet!

Steve Case is the Chief Executive Officer of Revolution, a Washington D.C.-based investment firm. He’s notably the Founder of AOL, where he focused mainly on marketing aspects for the company.

What does a post-COVID economy look like? Broadly, Steve says companies will need to reimagine themselves to not only compete, but survive.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Steve+headshot+FINAL.jpeg

Steve Case

CEO

Revolution

MODERATOR

Headshot+-+Scaramucci%2C+Anthony.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:08):

Welcome, everyone to the latest edition of SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT. In lieu of our global conferences, which have obviously been put on hold by the pandemic, we're hosting these SALT Talks, which are a series of digital interviews with what we think are the leading thinkers, creators and innovators in the world across finance, technology and public policy.

John Darsie (00:33):

Today, we are very pleased to welcome Steve Case to SALT talks. Steve, as many of you know, was a co-founder and the Chief Executive Officer of AOL. And today, he is the Chairman and CEO of Revolution, a Washington DC based venture capital firm that is invested across a variety of sectors. And Steve has talked about a lot of interesting themes, including the third wave of the internet, the rise of the rest, themes that are being accelerated by what we're seeing today with the pandemic, so we're very excited to have Steve here today.

John Darsie (01:04):

He came to our SALT Conference last year and had a riveting panel with Mark Cuban that was moderated by Kara Swisher that you can find on our YouTube channel as well. But I'd like to kick it over to Anthony Scaramucci, the Chairman and CEO of SALT, as well as the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge to host the interview with Steve Case. Take it away, guys.

Anthony Scaramucci (01:25):

Steve, thanks for coming on. Welcome to SALT Talks. This would have been the evening, Tuesday evening cocktail party at SALT. So unfortunately, we're not there now. But hopefully we'll get back there next year. But I would love to have you start out with your personal backstory. I think a lot of people, frankly the newer generation, they could benefit from sort of the curves that came about in your career, how you got AOL started, how you transitioned eventually into Revolution where you are now.

Steve Case (01:57):

Well, first of all, it's great to be with you. I've watched some of the SALT Talks and you're doing a great job and a great service bringing out people to talk about topics. In terms of my own backstory, born and raised in Hawaii. It was a little unusual. Both my parents were born and raised there. Actually, when I was born, it wasn't even a state. It became a state on my first birthday, and grew up there and actually went to high school with then Barry Obama, who became President Obama, which is kind of an interesting, it's a small world kind of story.

Steve Case (02:21):

I went to college in Massachusetts and graduated there, ended up working for some big companies for a little while, Procter and Gamble in Cincinnati, a division of PepsiCo, Pizza Hut, in Wichita, Kansas, and then moved to the Washington DC area to join a startup that was doing some early online things. And that was a failure. But luckily, two of the people I met there and I ended up starting AOL in 1985. Back then, it's amazing thinking about how we're all working from home, Zoom calls and living in a more connected world. When we started, only 3% of people were online, and they're only online an average of one hour a week. Now, of course everybody's connected and connected ubiquitously. So we've come a long way from those early days of just trying to sell the idea of a connected world, the idea of the internet and now basically, because of this crisis, we're now living a much more online life.

Anthony Scaramucci (03:17):

So tell me about AOL. Who were the founders? Jim Kimsey was one of the founders, right? I remember Jim.

Steve Case (03:23):

Jim Kimsey brought the finance kind of perspective. Marc Seriff brought the technology perspective, and I brought more of the marketing perspective. So we were the three co-founders. It was actually a struggle to get started because back then, and as I said 1985, most people didn't really believe that people wanted to get connected. They thought it was kind of a nerdy hobbyist market, never going to be a mass market. We really struggled. We raised about $1 million to get going. And our first seven years before we went public, we raised a total over those seven years of $10 million. And then we went public in 1992. It was the first internet company to go public. We raised $10 million in our IPO and the value of the company that day was $70 million. Nobody really cared about this idea. Of course seven, eight years later, everybody got online. And our market value went from $70 million to $160 billion. It was actually the best performing stock of the 90s.

Steve Case (04:15):

So the first decade was slow and kind of a slog. It was really hard to get going, really hard to get people to believe. But then finally, things really started accelerating in the late 90s.

Anthony Scaramucci (04:27):

But Steve, talk to me, because really for our generation, I still have an AOL account and for our generation, that was the real sign of the future for all of us, when I got that floppy disk or that CD and I put it into my computer and got myself online. What was your marketing idea to make it mainstream because you had competitors. You had Prodigy, which was started by Sears Roebuck. You had others. IBM was in there with Sears. What caused that breakout? How were you able to chip into the market and make people realize that they needed and wanted that product?

Steve Case (05:03):

A mix of things. I think our team was really passionate about trying to create a service for everyday people, consumers. Some of our competitors, like you mentioned Prodigy was more focused on shopping because of Sears and IBM were partners. CompuServe, a division of H&R Block, was more focused on information. Some of the big banks, Citibank was focused on banking and everybody had a particular view of the future kind of based on the rearview mirror of the business they're already in.

Steve Case (05:28):

We looked at it with fresh eyes that we really were going to make this a mass market. We were going to make it easy to use, useful, fun, affordable, and our bet from the very earliest days was on what we call the electronic community, what now we think of as social media. It was really for us the killer app was people, connecting people. And always over half our usage was instant messaging, chat rooms, message boards, ways to connect people. Of course, that's what we're now all doing in this crisis. We're connecting online through a variety of technologies, this one being Zoom, but there are obviously many others. That was always our belief that we'll really be able to kind of break through if we had the easier to use, more useful, more fun, more affordable service, and we really focused on connecting people. And that really drove our success. And by the late 90s, about half of all the internet traffic in the United States went through AOL. So it really was the way most people got online.

Anthony Scaramucci (06:24):

Your bandwidth back then, do you remember the bandwidth? You remember at which you're operating?

Steve Case (06:29):

Well, we're pretty small. We started with 300 byte, the 12 hour, 24 hour, nobody knows that technology. But the bottom line is even 10 years into it, it would take an hour to download a single song so it's pretty and you certainly couldn't do video like we're doing now. So it was pretty rudimentary, but even then you could see there was a certain magic to the idea. Some of you may remember also the screeching modem sound when you actually got connected, but once you did get connected, you're exposed to people and ideas and connected to content, commerce in ways that you had never experienced before. And there was something magical about it even those early days when it's relatively slow and also still relatively expensive.

Anthony Scaramucci (07:10):

Well, if you remember that screeching sound, Steven, it means you have an AARP card. So let's go easy on [crosstalk 00:07:21]

Steve Case (07:21):

Sometimes the screeching sound was annoying for me. It was cha ching, cha ching, I love that dial up modem.

Anthony Scaramucci (07:26):

So let's talk about where we are now, though. And by the way, I'm a room raider. I'm looking at your room, it looks fantastic. You've got all the right motif in the room. You can tell I'm up in the attic. My wife stuffed me up here because you can see the eaves here. Hopefully she'll let me out of this thing when the crisis is over. But behind you is The Third Wave. And the book is exceptional. And so I recommend to people who haven't read the book to pick it up and read it. Because yeah, you wrote it a couple years ago now, but you're really on point in terms of where we're going, and how we're getting there. And so for people who haven't read the book, give us a quick synopsis if you will, and tell us about what you're thinking now.

Steve Case (08:05):

Well, first of all, it goes back to your first question. When I was in college, I remember reading a book. It was the late 1970s by Alvin Toffler called The Third Wave, and I was mesmerized by it. He was talking about the first wave being the agricultural revolution, then the second wave the Industrial Revolution. He was predicting, this was four decades ago, the technology revolution, the digital revolution, the internet revolution.

Steve Case (08:28):

But that's actually one of the things that inspired me to kind of pursue that path in my earliest days right out of college. So I decided to write a book a few years ago. I deliberately called it Third Wave. I had the chance to chat with him over the years and pay homage to him because he really was inspirational for me.

Steve Case (08:45):

The way I was framing it was the three waves of the internet. So the first wave was getting America Online. It goes back to what we said before when we started. Essentially, nobody was connected. By the year 2000, essentially everybody was connected. There's a lot of things around building that early days of the internet and really getting everybody online. Once everybody was online, all the infrastructure is built, all the modems were built, all the servers were built, all the on ramps were there.

Steve Case (09:11):

Then the focus became apps on top of the internet, so Facebook, Google, et cetera. The second wave has really been about software writing on top of the internet. And obviously, there are huge successes that have come out of that. The third wave, which is now just starting to take off and I think this crisis will accelerate it is when the internet really meets everyday life and starts disrupting some of the most significant aspects of our lives and most significant sectors of our economy, healthcare, education, food and agriculture, smart cities, things like that.

Steve Case (09:42):

That's really going to be the focus of this next 20 years or so. And what led me to write the book is I realized that the playbook for entrepreneurs in the first wave was quite different than the playbook in the second wave. And the third wave is going to be more like the first wave and there's a couple things in particular, I'll just touch on briefly. The first wave was only possible because of partnerships. We couldn't have done it alone. We had 300 partners that together helped create the success of AOL.

Steve Case (10:11):

Partnerships weren't really very important in the second wave, Facebook, Google didn't really need partners. They just needed a cool app that spread virally, and suddenly they were in business. In the third wave, if you really want to disrupt healthcare, you're going to have to partner with healthcare institutions. So that's one aspect.

Steve Case (10:26):

Policy's also another aspect. When we got started, hard to believe, particularly for some of your younger viewers, but it was actually illegal in 1985 for consumers or businesses to connect to the internet. It was still restricted to government agencies-

Anthony Scaramucci (10:41):

Because of DARPA.

Steve Case (10:42):

And educational institutions. DARPA had funded it and was still restricted. So we had to do a lot of things around policy to commercialize the internet, figure out what the right policy should be for e-commerce. A whole slew of things around policy and regulatory issues were front and center, breaking up the phone company which unleashed competition, a ton of things had to happen.

Steve Case (11:01):

In the second wave, policy wasn't that important. These companies again could start up relatively quickly and scale relatively quickly, didn't really have to deal with policy. In the third wave, again, healthcare, food, a lot of things we're talking about, policy, regulations are going to become important again. There's a reason why we have regulations about drug safety and things like that. And the final one of what I call the Ps, partnership, policy. The third is perseverance.

Steve Case (11:27):

As I mentioned, that first wave was a slog. It took us a decade before finally we had some some traction. You did see in the second wave and a lot of overnight successes, truly overnight successes, dorm room startups that a year or two later were global phenomenons. That's not going to happen in the third wave. It's going to be back to perseverance. Some of the most successful companies in the third wave will be built in these third wave sectors, but it's going to require the partnerships which take time to form, that's going to require engaging on policy which can be frustrating, but it's going to be very important to be successful in this third wave.

Anthony Scaramucci (12:00):

So you're touching on these broad trends so that the investments that you think are going to be offering the greatest upside are where in this third wave? That would be healthcare?

Steve Case (12:13):

Healthcare is one in particular, yeah. We've made a number of investments in healthcare. I started about 15 years ago an investment firm called Revolution. We have three parts, Revolution Growth, the later stage growth investments. Revolution Venture is more of a Series A kind of investment focus, and also a seed fund called Rise of the Rest, focused on investing at early stages and cities all around the country.

Steve Case (12:36):

But in a Revolution Growth case, we've invested in a couple of healthcare companies that are really showing great promise. One is called Tempus, based in Chicago, that's using big data and machine learning basically to do a better job of diagnosing things like cancer. Right now, if you go to MD Anderson, one of the top cancer hospitals in the country, 25% of the time, they reverse the first opinion. 25% of time, your first doctor was wrong. That's a data analysis problem. And so Tempus is trying to basically use data to create much more customized, personalized therapies based on a much more thoughtful and precise scientific diagnosis of what you're dealing with. They're now extending that into other areas.

Steve Case (13:20):

Another company we back called Talkspace is really seeing enormous growth in the last few months because they're focused on mental health delivered digitally. Instead of having to go to somebody's office to deal with a mental health professional, they're able to do that online and through texting and video chats and things like that. So obviously, it's a sad part of this crisis a lot of people are struggling with mental health issues, but we have a broad mental health problem in this country. It's only getting worse and we do not have enough people to satisfy that. We need to use digital technologies to innovate in sectors like that.

Steve Case (13:55):

So healthcare is an example. We also think there's a lot opportunity in the food space. How do you create healthier options? So we back a company called Revolution Foods, providing healthier school lunches. We back a company called Sweetgreen, focused on fast casual and they've done some amazing things during this crisis in terms of redeploying some of their resources to first frontline hospital workers, and also figuring out ways to accelerate some of the plans they had around delivery and expanding their menu to include dinner and other kinds of things.

Steve Case (14:24):

So we've invested in lots of different companies in lots of different sectors, but they tend to have this third wave dynamic where policy does usually matter. Partnerships do really matter. And place usually matters. This goes back to this Rise of the Rest. We recognize Silicon Valley as an awesome place, will continue to be an awesome place. New York City and Boston are also great beacons of innovation where there's a lot more entrepreneurial activity happening. There's also great entrepreneurs all across the country doing great things, but there's not as much attention paid to them. There's not as much capital focused on them.

Steve Case (14:57):

Believe it or not, last year, 75% of venture capital in this country went to three states, California, New York and Massachusetts, 75% while the other 47 states fight over 25%, some states like Virginia where I am or Michigan or Ohio, Pennsylvania each got less than 1% last year. California alone got 50%. Silicon Valley is great, but not that great. And so how do you make sure the entrepreneurs in these other cities have access to the venture capital they need to start and scale their businesses and that also ties in more broadly in terms of society, because these startups are the big job creators. It's not the big companies, it's the small companies, some of which will end up being the big companies. So if we're not backing startups everywhere, we're not creating jobs everywhere. We're going to have an even greater divide in our in our country. So for us, it's both an investment thesis. There's an arbitrage here. Valuations are lower, elastic kind of supply and demand. There's also a broader impact aspect of this in terms of trying to level the playing field, so everybody everywhere really does have a shot at the American Dream and every community has the opportunity to grow jobs as opposed to just watch jobs disappear.

Anthony Scaramucci (16:06):

Well, and you've done an amazing job. We were talking before we opened up the line to our viewers and delegates about DraftKings. Where was DraftKings located? Was that in California?

Steve Case (16:18):

That actually was in Boston. So there are sometimese in Boston, New York and other cities where we'll invest in. Most of our investments are in other parts of the country but there are some exceptions. DraftKings is an amazing story. A great entrepreneur, Jason Robins started initially focused on fantasy, has expanded the vision of the company to include betting now that a number of states have legalized that. And the most amazing thing over the last month that I've seen is this company DraftKings basically went public with a complicated three way merger and a SPAC and now it's trading I think at three times their market valuation, $10 million.

Anthony Scaramucci (16:52):

Well, FanDuel is part of DraftKings now, right?

Steve Case (16:53):

What's that?

Anthony Scaramucci (16:54):

FanDuel.

Steve Case (16:55):

No. FanDuel is a competitor. They were acquired by another company. But DraftKings has really emerged as the leader in that space and the fact that anybody's going public right now given the situation of the market and a company focused on sports goes public even though most sports, football, basketball, et cetera are not being played really is an amazing testament to the great entrepreneur that Jason Robins is.

Anthony Scaramucci (17:20):

You're also invested in something called Convene. Now tell us a little bit about that. What is Convene?

Steve Case (17:26):

Super interesting company that focuses on the future of work and particularly how you design workspaces. WeWork was focused on basically shared co-working space and obviously got a lot of attention, raised a lot of capital. SoftBank reported yesterday that they marked down the valuation by 90 something percent so they obviously have a challenge. The strategy of Convene is not to compete with the landlords, but to partner with them and figure out new ways to help them think about space and that's accelerating, obviously in this world where we're now working from home. At some point, we'll start returning to work, but even when we're back in the office, there'll be more of a hybrid where some people are in the office, some people will be remote. There might also be some kind of third places that people decide to congregate for special meetings and things like that.

Steve Case (18:13):

So Convene is really trying to imagine how work gets done in the future, how offices get configured in the future, and they partner with the major landlords and also major companies or major tenants to really imagine what that should look like and help build out and then manage it. They think of running off as more like hotel companies, think of managing hospitality. It's not just something to rent and then have somebody who may not have the expertise to operate, try to operate it on the side. They really believe, and we obviously believe as well, which is why we invested. It's a specialized skill. And over time, more and more people are going to rely on companies like Convene to reconceive their office space and manage it for them.

Anthony Scaramucci (18:55):

Well, and obviously COVID-19, this crisis is accelerating those situations. And so, you've been one of the great trend predictors and prognosticators, so lay out for us what your vision is sort of in the post-COVID economy, the return to normalization, but the recognition that something has changed in our culture, a lot like the way 9/11 changed the way we go through airport security. This is going to change us, not saying we're not going to go back to normal and have a good economy. But talk to us a little bit about where you see those trends going now. Are they accelerated? Are they different and how so?

Steve Case (19:36):

I think most of them are accelerating. Some of the things we talked earlier about healthcare. We've always believed that healthcare needed to be reimagined and needed to be better outcomes with greater convenience to lower costs, and we're starting to see an acceleration, particularly in areas like telehealth, where we're showing good momentum over the last 10 years but just in the last 10 weeks more has happened than happened in the previous 10 years and now telehealth has become more mainstream. That's an example of something that's been bubbling for a while. It's one sixth of our economy, it's obviously hugely important, just wasn't working the way it should.

Steve Case (20:09):

We've now seen that tipping point, if you will, and a great acceleration of that. We also think we're seeing that tipping point in the Rise of the Rest. So as people have decided to at least temporarily work from some other place, some of those people are realizing maybe they can get their work done. And maybe over time, there'll be more of a distributed workforce. There are some companies like WordPress, over 1,000 employees entirely remote. They don't have a headquarters. That's probably an extreme case. I think most people will see the value in having that shared space, a headquarters, if you will. But surely, there'll be more kind of remote operations.

Steve Case (20:44):

That will lead to more opportunity for people to decide they could live anywhere they want to live. They might choose to live in San Francisco, they might choose to live in New York City, but if they want to live somewhere else, perhaps in the middle of the country, they're going to be more able to do that now because of this kind of shake the snow globe moment we're having right now.

Steve Case (21:04):

So when it all settles out, a number of these third wave industries I think are going to be restructured. There's a huge opportunity for entrepreneurs not just to focus on reopening and rebuilding, but really reimagining what their sector should look like five, 10, 15 years from now, what their company should pivot to do, and because of what's happening here and some of the consumer trends that are going to accelerate as a result of this, some of the technology trends that are going to accelerate because of this, and also some of the trends around things like Rise of the Rest, where I think there'll be a boomerang of talent, something like 95% of people in Silicon Valley are from some other place.

Steve Case (21:42):

They went there because that was the land of opportunity. That's where the money is, like Billy Sutton, the bank robber said he went to the banks, because that's where the money is. People go to Silicon Valley because that's where the money is. Over time, if we can get more venture capital back and more entrepreneurs in more places, we will see a leveling of that opportunity gap that currently exists. That will give people more flexibility. So next time they're graduating from these great universities in the middle of the country instead of feeling like they have to go to another coast, maybe they stay where they are and some of the people that did decide to go to coast, maybe now's the time they decide to come home and have a different kind of approach.

Steve Case (22:16):

I think that has the opportunity to really create a new, more geographically dispersed, more inclusive innovation economy that could help knit the country together. So it's not just a few people in a few places doing really well and a lot of people feeling more and more left behind. We need to make sure we're creating opportunity for everybody, jobs ready. Entrepreneurs do that I mentioned earlier.

Steve Case (22:39):

And this was news to me until about 10 years ago, I was asked to work on some policy initiatives, including by then President Obama that essentially all the jobs created in this country are from new businesses, startups, small businesses in aggregate are hugely important. We're seeing that right now. We're trying to make sure restaurants and other small businesses can stay alive through this crisis. Big business, Fortune 500 companies, of course, they're hugely important. But those don't account for net job growth. There are some companies growing like Amazon, but some companies like GE declining. As a sector, those big companies do not add net new jobs. Net new jobs are from the startup. So if we're only backing via venture capital entrepreneurs in a few places, not everywhere, we shouldn't be surprised that there are a lot of people, a lot of communities that are feeling kind of left out, left behind and worry about the future instead of being optimistic about the future. So this is a great moment, I think for our country to create a more inclusive innovation economy, back entrepreneurs everywhere.

Anthony Scaramucci (23:37):

No question. And you've also been a strong proponent of immigration reform. And so could you just tell us a little bit how that weaves into these trends? Because if you get that boomerang effect, you're certainly going to need talent to be drawn upon from the rest of the world to come into this economy to help lift more and more people.

Steve Case (23:58):

Yeah, I see immigration as complicated and emotional. Peoople have strong views on it. But I just look at the data. And right now, it's pretty compelling that 40% of our Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or children of immigrants, including some of the most successful companies, Apple, Google, et cetera. So part of the reason we are such an innovative entrepreneurial country is we've been a magnet for talent all around the world since our inception. It is worth remembering, kind of take a step back and remembering that 250 years ago, America itself was a startup. It was just an idea.

Steve Case (24:33):

And we led the way in that agricultural revolution and led the way in the Industrial Revolution. More recently obviously, led the way in technology revolution and it was entrepreneurs leading the way as entrepreneurs are coming from all around the world, so we want the United States to remain the most innovative entrepreneurial nation. We need to continue to be a magnet for talent and not just look at immigration as a problem to solve, but as an opportunity to see and that's why kind of figuring out the right approach around immigration to make sure we are continuing to be that magnet is going to be hugely important in the next third wave.

Anthony Scaramucci (25:08):

Well, I mean corollary to that, Sal Khan from Khan Academy was on yesterday with us. And we were talking about inverting the skills pyramid. And so what are your thoughts on that? And what kind of policy initiatives or have you thought about policy initiatives that could help us expand that footprint of skills, which obviously would help us with the income inequality in the country as well?

Steve Case (25:33):

There's a number of things that need to happen. Sal has been obviously a huge pioneer over the last decade in using digital technologies, using the internet to level the playing field in terms of education. So his work is incredibly important. And I did listen to his talk yesterday you did with him and was delighted to hear that three times more traffic now on the Khan Academy site than there was before the crisis.

Steve Case (25:53):

That's an example. Obviously, there's terrible aspects of this crisis. A lot of people die, a lot of people are really suffering, including having this massive unemployment rate, but there are some glimmers of hope that we should kind of focus on and try to build on as we come out.

Steve Case (26:08):

In terms of education, I'm not an expert in it. But I do know we need to make sure we're teaching our kids the things that machines can do. And a lot of that seals around creativity, communication, things like that are going to become increasingly important as we move into this next sector. And we also need to do a much better job of reskilling. A couple of companies we backed through our Rise of the Rest fund, one in Baltimore called Catalyte, another one in Indianapolis called Kenzie Academy are doing a great job of reimagining how you tap and unleash human potential. What Catalyte's doing with AI is basically identifying people who nobody ever sat them down and said, "You know, you seem like you would be pretty good at coding."

Steve Case (26:49):

Instead, they were on some other career track, but they go through this initial test and basically get an aptitude around us and if they pass that test, they've been put in this training program where they ended up often getting double, or sometimes even triple the salary they were getting before. Sometimes it's like truck drivers who are suddenly moving into the coding world. So that's just one of many examples, not just about coding. There are many aspects of this third wave that need skills and we need to make sure we're building the skills for tomorrow for the industries of the future. And we're not just looking at the rearview mirror and doing kind of more of what we've done in the past.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:24):

Totally. John, we have some questions from our viewers out there. So I'm going to kick it over to John, who's been compiling some of those questions. Go ahead, John Darsie.

John Darsie (27:36):

Yes. Steve, you mentioned your role as an advisor to the Obama Administration. You were on his Council for Jobs and Competitiveness. You're based in Washington, DC, so you're in and around the political ecosystem. What from a government perspective can the government do to incentivize entrepreneurship around the country and help to incubate your concept of the Rise of the Rest and create the right incentives for that rise to take place?

Steve Case (28:04):

A number of things. I think there were some things the Obama Administration did that were helpful, including passing The JOBS Act, which was done in a very bipartisan way, called The Jumpstarting our Business Startups Act that updated laws that hadn't changed since 1933, so the Securities Act of 1933, to make it easier for young companies to raise capital, make it easier for companies to go public, confidential filings, things like that. So that was a success.

Steve Case (28:28):

The Trump Administration had success with the opportunity zone, which also had broad bipartisan support, identifying parts of the community where the poverty levels are the highest and creating incentives for more capital to flow into those, into companies as well as reimagining neighborhoods, real estate projects and things like that. It's still early there, but I think that holds great promise.

Steve Case (28:49):

There are a number of other things that have been proposed. Senator Klobuchar just a few weeks ago, introduced legislation that would incent more capital to go to these rising cities, what we call these Rise of the Rest cities. I think that would be constructive. And even today, the White House hosted a session on this reskilling going back to the earlier question.

Steve Case (29:09):

So how do you make sure you are moving forward trying to do it in a bipartisan way, and trying to do things that really do unleash capital, which I do think is a critical ingredient. This idea I mentioned before, 75% of venture capital going to those three states makes no sense at all. So how do you create at a local level, perhaps at a state level incentives around angel investments and other, how do you stand up more regional venture firms? What are the incentives to do that?

Steve Case (29:35):

We need to get more capital backing more of these people in more of these places, and there is role for policy. Ultimately it comes down to investors taking the risk, entrepreneurs kind of having a better idea and deciding to run with it, put everything on the line. Obviously, that's critically important. But the politics, policy does matter. It does set the table. It does set the ground rules and more focus on startups is critically important.

Steve Case (29:59):

I encourage in particular the governors who often spend a lot of time when they think about economic development, trying to get big companies to move their headquarters or to open a factory. Obviously, there's a huge focus on Amazon's second headquarters, for example. It would be way better for them to spend the same amount of time and the same amount of money, not focusing and getting the big companies to move but the little companies to start, some of which will be the big companies of tomorrow. Amazon 25 years ago, we had like four employees. It was a crazy idea of selling books online. So how do you back the Amazons of tomorrow, not try to just lure Amazon to open up an office?

Anthony Scaramucci (30:39):

When you think about the world today, and let's take the Stephen Case at 24, 25. We got a lot of young people viewing us today. Where would you go directionally? Essentially, you went to Procter and Gamble, I went to Goldman. That was our years. If you wanted finance, Goldman. If you wanted marketing, it was Procter and Gamble. But the 25 year old today is probably moving into a smaller company than the ones that you and I chose leaving school. And so what would your advice be to those people?

Steve Case (31:11):

Well, everybody's a little different. We have five kids, and they all have different interests and passions and skills and desires, and so forth. So there's not like a simplistic answer. But I do think people need to recognize the world is changing, and not focus on what exists today but imagine what might be happening tomorrow.

Steve Case (31:28):

Like Wayne Gretzky, the great hockey player, people said he was great, because he didn't focus on where the puck was. He focused on where the puck was going. He just got there just a split second before other people got there. So if somebody is spending the time to think about where things are going, again it depends on whether you're interested in medicine or in teaching or startup or what have you, how is it going to change and have a mental model in terms of at least a shot.

Steve Case (31:53):

Well, of course you won't get it all right, but at least you'll have a sense of what's possible. That's what was helpful to me in those early days. And interesting, I went to Procter and Gamble not actually because I wanted to, even though it's a great company. I wanted to start a company that helped create the internet. But when I was graduating in 1980 at the age of 21, the startup economy didn't exist. Venture capitalists were not backing 21 year olds, and nobody believes in the idea of the internet.

Steve Case (32:20):

So the reason I went to Procter and Gamble was to get some skills around marketing and it was a terrific company and then eventually figured out a way to get into starting my own company when I was 25, 26, something like that. So I think you really have to figure out what part of the world you want to have it put a little dent in and then figure out you have the right skill set to do that, not how can you develop that skill set and also recognize that it's a team sport. You can't do these things on your own. I've learned the hard way the things I've been successful, I'm involved in had a great team. The things that were unsuccessful did not have a great team. So how do you assemble the right team, get them focused in the right way. And going back to one of the principles I talked about in The Third Wave. It's now a principle, I think in this next third wave, perseverance, you got to stick with it. Often, revolutions happen in evolutionary ways. And you really need to take the long view and play the long game.

Anthony Scaramucci (33:19):

When you think about formal education today, in private universities and the competition in terms of the proliferation of universities and the rising prices, Stephen, I mean, they're going up 3%, 4% a year in tuition. And now a lot of them can't finish the semester, this semester, or they've done the semester online. They may have to do online semester next year. What's your thought on that? Have you thought anything about how that's going to change as a result of COVID-19 or just generationally change from the more traditional settings that you and I experienced as kids?

Steve Case (33:59):

Well, that's going to change a lot. And there are some folks who've been on the lead on this. Arizona State University is an example. They really started investing 10 years ago as a really inclusive approach to try to get people who had untapped potential, give them an opportunity to do it at a more affordable cost, and that often is the case to a lot of things online.

Steve Case (34:18):

Online is not perfect. We're all finding that out. But for a lot of people, the ability to do things online is a way to do it more conveniently and more affordably than if you're on campus. But I think the campus is going to change a lot this fall. I've heard different things about different colleges and universities and in graduate school. I thought that Harvard Medical School is not going to even open physically in the fall. There's other like Stanford Business School that are not going to open it all online or offline. I'm not sure that's true, but that's what I heard.

Steve Case (34:47):

I've also heard that about 25%, maybe 30% of freshmen in college that had been admitted likely are going to defer it a year and take a gap year because they don't want to miss out on what is one of the great things about that on campus immersive experience, which is the interaction with other people is not just what you learn, is also who you get to spend time with. So I think overall that sector is really going to be challenged.

Steve Case (35:12):

I think that's healthy because they needed to be challenged. They need to figure out ways to deliver better learning outcomes with more convenience and lower costs. And that's going to be a big tribe. I'm involved in all this. I now chair the Smithsonian Institution, which is known for its museum, 90 museums, but it does research operation, National Zoo, things like that. But there's a real effort underway led by Lonnie Bunch, the new head of the Smithsonian, to create a virtual Smithsonian.

Steve Case (35:40):

Not everybody can get on a plane and fly to Washington DC, spend time on the National Mall, to visit Air and Space and Natural History and some of these other terrific museums. How do you create an immersive virtual experience and allow people to access some of that idea, some of that intellectual property if you will, from any home in any classroom.

Steve Case (35:57):

So the fact that the museums now are shut down is terrible. But the Smithsonian is using that time to reimagine what the Smithsonian should be in the future. And the digital component is going to be much more important. So everybody needs to understand that the world has changed, that we saw in the last 10, 20 years a slow evolution, whether it be technology around distance learning or technology around telehealth, some of the things we've we've talked about. This is a kind of a shake the snow globe moment. When it all settles back, it's going to be different than it was and some of these trends which we're slowly building are going to really start accelerating.

Steve Case (36:35):

I'm optimistic that will result in a better healthcare system, a better educational system, a better food system, some of the things that we've talked about and some of the things we're investing in it at the Revolution.

Anthony Scaramucci (36:48):

Well, I mean, it's also a good segue. You're talking about the Smithsonian, you're doing a lot of work with your wife, Jean. You've given the Giving Pledge. You're going to give away half of your net worth to society, which is a wonderful thing that you guys are doing. And just talk to us a little bit about your charitable giving, how you're thinking about it because I know you're a great investor, that's also a form of investment. It's sort of social investing. So what are your thoughts there?

Steve Case (37:16):

Well, we started the Case Foundation over 20 years ago and my wife has run it that entire time, and over those 20 years, we've invested a number of things. Early days, we had a very significant Digital Divide initiative. We're quite concerned as technology, the internet was starting to take hold, taht a lot of kids were being left behind. So that was a significant initiative. We did things around clean water, cancer research, a variety of different areas.

Steve Case (37:39):

Right now our focus is on things like the Smithsonian for me. Jean, my wife is the chair of the National Geographic Society. She's doing amazing work, the number one brand in terms of social media, Instagram, things like that, has an amazing partnership with Disney for the National Geographic Channel and some of their other digital businesses. For me, it's Smithsonian. For Jane, the National Geographic are our two priorities.

Steve Case (38:01):

But we still with the Case Foundation also, we call the Case Impact Network are looking at how do we level the playing field in terms of opportunity. A lot of things we've talked about on this call, how do we do that from an entrepreneurship standpoint? How do we do that from an opportunity standpoint? How do we work with the groups like Business Roundtable and others that are trying to shift business from just focusing on profit, that sort of Milton Friedman view of a half century ago to recognizing profit really creates a sustainability for businesses, allows them to invest and grow and hire people. These companies also need to have more impact and more purpose. And that's going to be a big trend in the next 10 or 20 years. And that's one of the areas that we're focused on helping to catalyze any way we can.

Anthony Scaramucci (38:43):

Yeah, hopefully, there will be that cultural shift where it is certainly about profit. But also if you think about the social well being of your employees and things like that, it could actually enhance and increase profit. But John has another question for you from the audience. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie (38:59):

Yeah, we had a SALT Talk last Friday with Chamath Palihapitiya, who has been very critical even though he's based in California, he's been very critical not just of the culture in Silicon Valley, but of the system of capital formation about how it sets a lot of entrepreneurs up to fail and doesn't serve the entrepreneurial community very well. How do you feel about capital formation, how it could be improved from a venture capital perspective?

Steve Case (39:25):

I've known Chamath a long time. He actually worked at AOL out here in the DC area before he moved to California, ended up being a key executive at Facebook and obviously quite successfully pivoted into the investment world. I celebrate Silicon Valley. There are amazing things about Silicon Valley in terms of this sense of possibility. People hear an idea and imagine how big it can be. A lot of people in a lot of parts of the country hear an idea and focus on risk factors, why it might fail as opposed to why it might succeed.

Steve Case (39:52):

There's this network density of collision of people and ideas. There's a lot of capital, so there's a lot to celebrate, but I do think sometimes Silicon Valley gets a little ahead of itself. I do think in the sector, these third wave sectors, knowing something about healthcare, for example, I think is going to be important. Domain expertise is going to be important. For a lot of people still in Silicon Valley, think that if you know nothing about an industry, you can bring fresh insights. And there are many examples where that has been the case.

Steve Case (40:20):

But in this third wave, I think you need to marry those fresh insights with some perspective, knowledge and credibility if you're going to form partnerships in these third wave sector. So recognizing that it's not just about the software, it's not just about the apps, these are system level changes. And ultimately, system changes happen as people change, and you have to bring a lot of people along. That's something that I think we can make a lot of progress on and getting more of the Silicon Valley venture capitalists to not just invest in Silicon Valley, but invest in these rising cities, these Rise of the Rest cities, I think, would be hugely important as well.

Steve Case (40:54):

We're starting to see some momentum on that front. Hopefully, this crisis won't slow that momentum. Hopefully, it will accelerate that momentum. But I think Silicon Valley at least should not just focus on itself, but focus more on the country at large and engage more with policy makers because there are a lot of complicated policy issues in this third wave. And it is frustrating as Anthony knows, dealing with government kind of issues. Sometimes the bureaucrats can slow you down and that can be a source of frustration. I get that.

Steve Case (41:22):

But if we're really going to lead as a country in this third wave, we're going to need to have constructive engagement between the innovators, the disruptors, interest groups and the policymakers and figure out as we did in those early days of the internet, commercialize the internet, creating the rules of the road around e-commerce, things like that. You need to do the same in healthcare, smart cities, food and agriculture, these system level changes that are going to be essential in this third wave.

Steve Case (41:47):

So I celebrate Silicon Valley. I just want to create more opportunity for more people in more places, get more of that venture capital backing more entrepreneurs in more places, create more of that fearlessness, anything is possible mentality in the middle of the country, not just in a few places on the coast. I think that will result in a stronger innovation economy, more inclusive innovation economy and also create more opportunity, more jobs for people everywhere.

Anthony Scaramucci (42:12):

Steve, you mentioned Alvin Toffler. You remember John Naisbitt spoke Megatrends? Do you remember that work as well?

Steve Case (42:19):

Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci (42:20):

So before we let you go, because we promised a hard out in 45 minutes, I want you to be John. I want you to channel your john Naisbitt for a second, and give us a few of the mega trends that you see over the next three, five to 10 years.

Steve Case (42:37):

Well, I think it ties in exactly what the themes that we talked about. I think a lot of sectors of the economy, a lot of arguably the most important aspect of our lives, how we stay healthy, how our kids learn, what we eat, how we move around, how we work are going to be rethought, reimagined, and that's going to create enormous opportunity for entrepreneurs who are willing to play offense when a lot of big companies are shifted into playing defense. The revolution we saw in the early days of the internet, that first wave was around communications, technology, the second wave around media, technology obviously did a lot of disruption there. I think the third wave is going to really impact critical aspects of our lives, some of the most important sectors of the economy.

Steve Case (43:20):

So it's not about any one technology. It's about systems level change in these sectors. And I also really do believe that the playing field will level but the rest will rise and we will indeed have a more inclusive innovation economy. So if I was going to pick two, I'd say watch the third wave as that wave accelerates, and watch the rise of the rest as a lot of these cities that a lot of people have given up on start rising and surprising us all in the next 10 or 20 years, when some of the most iconic breakthrough companies in these important third wave sectors are going to be from places in the middle of the country.

Anthony Scaramucci (43:55):

Well, listen, it was a fabulous conversation. We really appreciate. We covered all the bases today. We're looking forward to seeing your success as it unfolds, and just move your head a little Steve because I want to show the book here one more time. There you go. See that Third Wave right there?

Steve Case (44:13):

[inaudible 00:44:13]

Anthony Scaramucci (44:12):

The Third Wave. I very, very strongly recommend everybody that you get out and buy that book, read that book, listen to it on Audible or an audio tape. I think you'll really enjoy that. And with that, Steve, thank you. Great talk. Have a great evening. Stay safe and healthy out there, everybody, and we'll be back with SALT Talks again later in the week and next week. Thank you, Steve.

Steve Case (44:36):

Thank you. It was fun.

Anthony Scaramucci (44:36):

I appreciate it.

Steve Case (44:38):

Thank you, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci (44:38):

Thank you.

Sal Khan: The Era of Online Learning | SALT Talks #3

“The issue of the digital divide in households is still prevalent. New York City has given out over 200,000 devices since the pandemic, a sign that it’s feasible for us to provide access to those without devices over a short period of time.”

Khan Academy is a non-profit educational organization that provides free online classes by way of video, as well as supplementary educational tools. Founder Sal Khan piloted the idea tutoring his cousin who was struggling with math and was soon after tutoring 10-15 of his cousins around the country. He then began uploading recordings of these lessons to YouTube, quitting his job as a hedge fund analyst to fully focus on the endeavor.

The good news: the digital divide at schools has greatly been reduced. The bad news: 70% of kids who, when they go to community college, have to be remediated in some way, usually at the middle school level.

Learning should not be bound by time or space. In a potentially unpopular opinion, Sal believes summer break should be eliminated in favor of shorter, 2-3 week long breaks throughout the year.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

SalKhanPhoto+%282%29.jpeg

Sal Khan

Founder

Khan Academy

MODERATOR

Headshot+-+Scaramucci%2C+Anthony.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:08):

Welcome, everyone, to SALT Talks. I'm John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT. SALT Talks, in lieu of our global gatherings, the SALT conferences, we try to bring you leading voices from finance, technology, and geopolitics digitally in your homes the same we do at our SALT conferences.

John Darsie (00:28):

Today, we're very excited to have Sal Khan joining us for a SALT talk. Sal is sort of the man of the hour. With everyone quarantined at homes with their families, the Khan Academy, which he started, has served as a really prolific learning platform for people that are homeschooling their children, and it's obviously been very important for families that are educating their children at home right now. So, Sal, thank you for joining us. I'm going to flip over to Anthony Scaramucci, the founder of SkyBridge and of SALT, to conduct the interview with Sal. Thank you, again, for joining us, Sal, and we look forward to the conversation.

Sal Khan (01:03):

Thanks, John.

Anthony Scaramucci (01:05):

Hey, Sal, thank you so much for being here. Unfortunately, this was the week of our SALT conference this year. You did an amazing job last year at our conference, Sal, so we're very grateful to you.

Anthony Scaramucci (01:16):

Everybody knows who you are, but we'd like to know how you became who you are, and we're just wondering if you could spend a few minutes talking about your personal background and your journey to doing what you're doing right now.

Sal Khan (01:31):

Yeah, and I can start arbitrarily far back, and let me know if you want to double click on any of it. I grew up in Louisiana; fairly humble background; ended up being a financial aide kid, going to MIT, having an engineering background. After business school, I ended up working as an analyst at a hedge fund, and it was around that time that I just found out... it was right after my wedding, actually, back in 2004... that my cousin, Nadia, who was 12 years old at time, was having trouble in math.

Sal Khan (02:06):

When she told me that, I said, "Hey, I'm 100 percent sure that you can be good at that. How about when you go back to New Orleans, I tutor you?" I guess it's very relevant now, it was distance learning, but it was back in 2004. Long story short, it was unit conversion she was having trouble with; she learned the unit conversion and she got caught up with her class. She even got a little ahead of her class. At that point, I became what I call a tiger cousin, and I convinced her school to let her retake her placement exam, and she got from a remedial track into an advanced track. Then, word spread around my family that free tutoring was going on, and before I knew it, I had about 10 or 15 cousins around the country that I was tutoring every day after work.

Sal Khan (02:47):

With a tech background, I started writing software for them. I saw a lot of them... the reason why they were struggling is that they had gaps from fifth grade or sixth grade, and that's why they were having trouble in seventh grade or eighth grade... so, just a way for them to practice, for me, as their teacher or their tutor to understand what they're working on, how long it's taking them, what they might need extra help in.

Sal Khan (03:05):

That was the first Khan Academy. It had nothing to do with videos. A friend of mine... I was showing this off at a dinner party, and all my friends knew I had this crazy project with my family on the side, and the host of the party said, "Well, this is all cool, Sal, but how are you scaling your lessons?" I told him, "Yeah, it's hard to do with 15 cousins what I was originally doing with one or two," and he said, "Why don't you record some of them as lessons, put them onto YouTube for your family?"

Sal Khan (03:33):

I immediately thought it was a horrible idea. I said, "YouTube is for cats playing piano. It's not for serious math." But I gate it a shot, regardless, and that kind of took on a life of its own.

Sal Khan (03:46):

So, you fast forward, 2009; set it up as a not-for-profit. I had trouble focusing on my day job at that point, so I quit. We were living off of savings for a little bit, trying to convince someone to realize that the social return on investment even then seemed astronomical. It was a hard year, but by early 2010, some foundations started to see that this was a really valuable thing. So, that's where we got our start as a real organization.

Sal Khan (04:13):

When I quit my job, it was about 50 or 100,000 people. Actually, when we got our first funding, it was about 100,000 folks were using Khan Academy; now, we have about 100 million registered users.

Anthony Scaramucci (04:25):

Has that gone up? I'm assuming it has gone up as a result of COVID-19. How has your footprint changed as a result of the COVID-19 crisis?

Sal Khan (04:39):

It seems like a lifetime ago now. About three months ago, we started seeing our traffic pick up in Asia, especially South Korea, where we have one of our... there's 45 translation projects around the world of Khan Academy... and some teachers started emailing us from South Korea saying, "Hey, there are school closures, and that's why we're leaning heavily on Khan Academy." That's where it first dawned on us that this was even a thing.

Sal Khan (04:59):

Then, we started saying, "Maybe this is going to happen to other places." We started stress-testing our servers, saying, "Maybe we'll get 2X to load, who knows," thinking that's the most we would see, and we said, "Maybe we should start preparing if that happened to give structure for parents so that they can know how to homeschool or quarantine-school their kids," resources for teachers, started running webinars.

Sal Khan (05:23):

Then, I think it was the first week of March, when California was one of the first states that had murmurs of maybe the schools would be closed the next week, that we said, "We have to go into full gear," and so we just ramped up all of those efforts. That Monday, It was California and several states in the West, and then by the end of that week, it was pretty much the entire country, and then much of the world was closed. We saw our traffic, by the end of that week, be about 3X of what it typically is, and that's kept up. Parent registrations are 20 times what we typically see, and student and teacher registrations are five to ten times what we would typically see in that time period.

Sal Khan (06:03):

So, before, we had about 30 million learning minutes per day on Khan Academy; now, we're approaching 90 million learning minutes per day.

Anthony Scaramucci (06:12):

I don't know if you would know this answer, but I'm curious... the ballpark number of public school systems on a percentage basis that are using Khan Academy. I know the local town I live in, Manhasset, is using you guys K-12. Do you find that you have high density saturation throughout the entire U.S., or is it just certain areas, or what's the footprint in the U.S. look like?

Sal Khan (06:37):

Yeah, some of that we're still trying to figure out. Before COVID, about half of our usage was what we call teacher-directed. A teacher has a Khan Academy account, and he or she will have at least 10 students on Khan Academy, and they can look at their data, so they had a connection on the platform. That was half of our what we call learning time on Khan Academy before the crisis, and it seems to continue to be about half of our learning time after the crisis. So, it seems like everything has gone up 2X to 3X after the crisis.

Sal Khan (07:11):

There's some districts that we have very formal partnerships with: places like Clark County, which is Las Vegas, and those counties or those school districts were very easily able to transition to Khan Academy, and we can pinpoint, we can say, "Oh, that's Clark County. That's what they're doing now." But we've heard a lot of other places, a lot of other cities, counties, school districts... you can imagine they had to close with two, three days notice; they would just list us on a list, like, "Go use Khan Academy for this many minutes every day," or their teachers would say, "Hey, use Khan Academy, where it's a teacher-by-teacher thing."

Sal Khan (07:44):

So, that's a little bit less formal, so it's harder for us to track some of this, because it wasn't a formal district partnership, but we're hearing a lot of anecdotal stories and that seems to play out in the data.

Anthony Scaramucci (07:55):

When you think about our educational system and the unevenness of it at K-12, and you were talking about gaps that even your family members were experiencing, and you had to give a broad overview... let's say you were testifying in front of Congress, and said, "Okay, this is what the K-12 educational system looks like in America. Here are the K-12 strengths. Here are the K-12 weaknesses, and here's a policy initiative that we could put in place to help even out the playing field"... what would your assessment be of all that?

Sal Khan (08:30):

That's a big, big, big, big question.

Sal Khan (08:33):

A couple of things: I'll start in fairly simple ones, which is, this crisis has put in start contrast the digital divide. People have been talking about the digital divide for a very, very long time. The country has done a great job, actually, in closing the digital divide when it comes to schools. It's still not perfect, but with things like the E-Rate program... 10 years ago, when I was getting into this journey full-time, we'd go to a lot of schools, and they would say, "Well, we have one laptop cart, but we don't really have good internet connection." Now, we don't have as many of those conversations; even in fairly under-resourced areas, we're seeing that they have some type of devices and a decent internet connectivity, but obviously at home, now we have a major, major issue.

Sal Khan (09:15):

New York City... I was talking to Chancellor Richard Carranza a couple of days ago... they were able to distribute 300,000 laptops in record time to the students of New York City, and get them internet access. The negative of this crisis, it's show the inequity, and having internet access and a device now at home, it isn't just about accessing Khan Academy; it's frankly just to stay sane, to be able to stay connected with friends and family right now. Obviously, it has economic opportunities. New York has just shown that, almost overnight, they've been able to largely close the digital divide. It is doable, so I'm hoping the silver lining... or one policy recommendation, to your original question... is we should close that as soon as possible. It can be done fast.

Sal Khan (10:02):

It's not free; it's very expensive, but when you compare it to some of the other programs, some of the federal stimulus dollars over the last couple of months... it's a trillion here, a trillion there... the cost of getting every family in the country who doesn't already have internet access some baseline level of access with a reasonable device... we're talking about 10 or 20 billion dollars, which is a fraction, it's one percent of those stimulus packages. That would have, I believe, not just academic consequences; it would have economic consequences. It would allow people to participate in their work remotely and things like that. So, that's one very simple thing, and that needs to be there for Khan Academy to be able to do its work to level the playing field.

Sal Khan (10:45):

I would say the other thing is... an unfortunate statistic that I quote a lot is, 70 percent of American kids, when they go to community college, have to be remediated in some way. That remediation isn't at the 11th grade level or the 12th grade level; it's usually at the middle school level. So, what's happening... and this is most pronounced in math, and in some degree, to reading comprehension, but most pronounced in math... you're in fifth grade, there's a unit on decimals, you got an 80 percent; you get labeled a C student; the whole class moves on to the next concept, probably a concept that's going to build on that gap, and so you're not going to be able to get 100 percent on that.

Sal Khan (11:25):

The process keeps continuing, you get a gap there, a gap there, and then all of a sudden, you get to an algebra class and nothing makes sense, because there's an equation that has a decimal in it, has a negative number in it, has a fraction in it, and you're shaky in all of those things. The students get disengaged, and oftentimes the system has to water down the curriculum to just hopefully promote those students, but then you know when they get to college, or community college, the system is like, "You're not even ready to learn algebra because your gaps are so bad."

Sal Khan (11:50):

Every teacher knows this. Every teachers knows that when they have 30 kids show up, they all have different gaps, they're all in different places. In fact, the test scores show it. We take the trouble of doing the standardized testing the year before. You know, especially in a lot of high-need areas, 30 percent of the kids might be behind grade level, 40 percent. We're working with a teacher in Hesperia, California; 90 percent of his students are two or three grade levels behind. But a lot of teachers feel pressure, and they say, "Well, let me at least go through the motions of my grade level, and at least that will be something, people would be exposed."

Sal Khan (12:22):

But we're seeing that if teachers and schools and systems allow students to work at their own time and pace on Khan Academy, they can fill in all those gaps, and then they can accelerate. This teacher, Tim Vandenberg... people can do a web search, Tim Vandenberg and Khan Academy, to learn about him... but he has all of his sixth graders in Hesperia start at the basics on Khan Academy, start at one plus one, and then parallel, they do their sixth grade work at their own time and pace on our platform, and by the end of the year, he has most of his students above grade level. These are kids that were two, three grade levels behind.

Sal Khan (12:54):

So, that would be second part. Get the digital divide would be the first one, close that; it's expensive, but a lot cheaper than a lot of other things we're doing. The second thing is, use personalized learning tools, and these are free tools, to allow students to learn continuously, all the time, including over the summer, and as you go back to school, it's always a problem that kids are all over the place; huge variance in preparedness. That variance is going to be even worse this coming back to school because of COVID, so heavily leverage these tools.

Sal Khan (13:23):

These tools always had a value, even before COVID, where it's about personalization, allowing students to fill in their gaps, engage in mastery learning. But then, if you do have to close, and it looks like this next school year is going to be pretty weird in terms of a lot of uncertainty, you can then lean pretty heavily on it.

Sal Khan (13:40):

Then, the last piece, I would say, is movement towards more competency-based learning. There's these two camps: one is, you can kind of call it the seat time-based learning, like, sit in this chair, kind of do what you're told, and by the end of the year, we'll kind of pass you on to the next level. The other model is, well, however you learn it, as long as you learn it, we'll give you credit for it.

Sal Khan (14:04):

We've always advocated that learning should not be bound by time or space, and the outcome of the learning, the proof of the learning, should matter more than the path on how you got there. The COVID crisis shows... it's blown up the path. We don't know when and how kids are learning, and by definition, it can't be bound by time or space. So, hopefully, a way that people... let's say someone masters a concept on Khan Academy, and they're able to take what we have, a course challenge on it, and a teacher proctors it... maybe they can get college algebra credit, which would resolve a huge problem at the community college system. Maybe they could get high school credit for it, regardless of how they learned it.

Sal Khan (14:40):

So, those would be my three: digital divide, a personalized mastery learning for continuous learning all the time, and then get to a competency model where people can start to get credits for doing some of this work.

Anthony Scaramucci (14:52):

I think it's a brilliant exposition of where we need to go. Do you think that common core has, by and large, been a benefit to our society from a public school perspective, or has it been a detriment, or neutral? I'm speaking as a parent who can't teach my kids math anymore, because they look at the way I do my math and they think I'm crazy.

Sal Khan (15:13):

Yeah, I know common core is a hot button issue. I mean, I'll tell you my honest appraisal of it. For those who don't know the history, it was a bunch of states getting together and saying... it was really governors' initiatives, and it was bipartisan at the time, where they were saying, "Hey, right now, the textbook publishers only pay attention to Texas, Florida, New York and California. It's kind of silly that we have these very specific curricula for each of these different states. Why don't the states get together and see if we can come up with a common core?"

Sal Khan (15:51):

That seems to me like it makes a lot of sense. You don't have all of this fragmentation of all these different curricula, and it makes it very hard for people to develop materials. You can imagine our issue at Khan Academy. We're trying to make something that's not just for the nation, for the world, but even at a national level, it is nice to have some things that you can anchor on, so I think that is a good idea.

Sal Khan (16:13):

Now when they did the common core, there were some principles that I actually think made a lot of sense... this principle of, go deep on fewer things versus try to go broad on a lot of things, and they did look at curricula from places like Singapore and Norway and Finland, and places that seemed to be doing well on that front as a model.

Sal Khan (16:33):

So, I think all of that was good input. Then, you start the standards creation process, which I'm friends with some of the people who are directly involved in it, and that is a sausage-making process, and it's like passing a bill in Congress; there's a lot of horse trading, everyone has their pet projects, and I think through that process, sometimes these things get a little bit bloated. Even though common core was very much intentional about, "Hey, we want to focus on just the absolute core and fewer but deeper skills," there probably is more in there than there might need to be.

Sal Khan (17:08):

Then, I think the biggest thing that I feel is that standards, by themselves, are standards, and what matters much more are the implementation of the standards. Some of the stuff that I think common core might have caused a little bit of friction is, a lot of teachers were already feeling really overwhelmed, a lot of districts were already feeling overwhelmed, and then when the standards changed, and if the textbooks weren't ready to support them... and to your point, there was some fairly different things in the common core, in terms of how they even approached the procedures you and I learned on how to multiply decimals, just to use that example again.

Anthony Scaramucci (17:43):

Sure.

Sal Khan (17:43):

I know, for teachers, that was a shock, so I think that created a little bit of upheaval, and then obviously, it got politicized above and beyond that.

Sal Khan (17:52):

In terms of standards, there's a lot of good in them. There's some stuff that if I were emperor of the standards, I might do a little bit differently, but I think the most important thing is how you implement. There's a lot of states that are not common core, but especially in math, their functionally very, very, very close to it.

Anthony Scaramucci (18:13):

If you had to go back, though, do you like common core or dislike it? What's your opinion? Or are you just practically living it with, one way or the other?

Sal Khan (18:22):

I'm the latter. If we didn't have a common core, Khan Academy... we have mapping projects to other states, to the Florida standards, we're working on the Texas standards, so we're still having to do that. Obviously, we're doing that for the Brazilian national standards and the standards in the various states in India, so it's a lot of complexity that we're trying to deal with.

Sal Khan (18:46):

Especially in math, which is where we're strongest now, though we're going into other subjects like English, language arts, and the sciences... I would say if you're good in math in anywhere, you'll be good anywhere else. A student who is good at math in California... if their family moves to Texas, they'll do just fine on the Texas standards, and vice versa. So, I feel like sometimes people... it's like religious denominations; there might not be as much difference as people like to make of it, especially on the math side. There's a very, very high correlation between students being able to do effectively in one versus the other.

Sal Khan (19:27):

So, if I had my druthers, I think getting some uniformity... I think it's great that it was kind of a state-driven effort, at least, initially, and that had a lot of good energy around it. I think, unfortunately, it got a little bit too political. If I could wave a magic wand, I wish it didn't get politicized in that way, but I think the notion of having more commonality across states does help a lot of folks, including Khan Academy, be able to serve more people.

Anthony Scaramucci (19:53):

Obviously, I've been using it for a very long time. You've met one of my children who just recently graduated from business school. If you were... and you are... a parent is here at home, trying to help the kid; you get called all the time. "Sal, what's your best advice? I'm a parent struggling here at home. I've got the phone, the distractions; I'm trying to get the kids' schoolwork done." What do you tell the parents to do?

Sal Khan (20:26):

I'll put my disclaimer first, but whenever I get a question like that, I immediately have images of my kids, and I'm like, "Wow, I hope people don't see that moment in my household, because it doesn't look that perfect!"

Sal Khan (20:38):

I have an 11-year-old, an eight-year-old, and a five-year-old, and I have to say, my children's school has done a great job. The teachers have done an amazing job, and especially for the older student... the school always focused on the students having agency and autonomy, and then having-

Anthony Scaramucci (20:54):

That's good, Sal, because the superintendent of that school is on this call right now. We're going to invite him in to question you in a second, but keep going.

Sal Khan (21:03):

So, my older kids have actually done quite... they've been able to transition quite seamlessly; as you can imagine, the five-year-old, it's been a little bit more difficult, but even he is getting into his rhythm. What I remind myself, what I remind my wife, what I remind families everywhere is... if you think that you need to replicate the entire school experience, you're setting yourself up for disappointment and failure, probably.

Sal Khan (21:28):

The important thing to realize is this is different. First of all, take care of yourself first. If you're getting anxious, if you're getting stressed, that's the worst thing. Your kids are going to feel it, and then that's going to manifest in random ways and unhelpful ways. It will probably just cycle onto each other, and you'll just all get more anxious and stressed.

Sal Khan (21:47):

The other thing is if you try to do too much, you're going to get than anxiety and stress. It's different for age groups, but if students are able to get 30 minutes to an hour of math a day... actually, even 30 minutes to 40 minutes a day of math, 30 to 40 minutes a day of reading of some sort, maybe reading comprehension, and 30 to 40 minutes a day of some form of writing, that's great, and especially if they're able to do that not only through the end of the school year, but they're able to continue through the summer, they're going to be well-prepared.

Sal Khan (22:20):

When I tell parents that, including myself, it feels a little lighter. It's like, "Okay, actually, my child is getting an hour and a half a day, two hours a day," but that felt like they're not getting enough. I would say, once you're able to do that, if you're able to fall into a pattern there, then you can start to think about adding more, but there's a huge value... as a parent working at home, and there's been some teachers doing amazing stuff to support the parents working at home, and obviously, the teachers are doing video conferences and check-ins with the kids, and running tutoring sessions and things like that. But the one advantage that the parent has is that you have a lower student-to-teacher ratio than most teachers have to deal with.

Sal Khan (22:58):

So, what I recommend is, get that, let's say, one and a half to three hours a day of that core learning, leverage Khan Academy, read books, have the kids do journaling; hopefully, the school is also giving them some work to do; and then over lunch, if there's some young person who leaves this crisis not understanding DNA, RNA, viruses, epidemiology, even the economy and things like that... this is a huge opportunity to just have really interesting conversations with your kids. Watch TED Talks. Watch... I don't know how many of the SALT Talks, but watch those and discuss them.

Sal Khan (23:37):

For folks... I've been doing things like that with my kids, and they're learning a lot of intangibles that they might not have had if we weren't in this crisis. So, yeah, I would say don't beat up on yourself, focus on the core, and then from that, build on top of it. Obviously for high school students, it's more on the student than the parent, but then you could layer on the sciences and the social sciences, and things like SAT preparation.

Anthony Scaramucci (24:01):

There are a couple of questions. We promised people about 45 minutes in and out, so I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie, my colleague. You have some questions from the audience, right, John?

John Darsie (24:10):

Yeah, you touched on it briefly earlier, Sal, about the challenges of socialization in a digital learning-from-home environment. What are ways that you can apply digital tools for socializing children? I know we're all sort of sitting at home. Some people are getting a little bit stir crazy as we all work from home for the last 50 or 60 days. What are tools from the educational side of things that you can use to develop those socialization skills in children?

Sal Khan (24:38):

Yeah, that's a really big question, and there's no perfect answers to that right now. What we've seen work well is... I know a lot of schools have sent home packets, or you're leveraging tools like Khan Academy, and so kids can do that type of work at their own time and pace, maybe sitting down next to a parent or an older sibling who can help them along, help them stay engaged.

Sal Khan (25:03):

But what I've seen work really well is when the teachers are able to do check-ins with students in a smaller group setting. This is actually something we've always advocated for, let all the kids learn at their own time and pace, and then the teacher has all of the data to understand who is stuck and who is not, and then they do those one-on-one or those... a group of four students, small group interaction. I think that's one super powerful form of socialization.

Sal Khan (25:28):

I think we all remember being in a classroom of 30, 35 students, and if you weren't the teacher's pet or if you weren't the problem kid, sometimes you could get lost in the middle. I remember those moments where a teacher did say, "Hey, Sal, let me talk to you about that," and even that five minute conversation? I remember those. Those are the moments where I am like, "Oh, wow, this teacher really took the trouble for me, directly." And so, I think there's something very powerful about teachers using this crisis to kind of break open their traditional model.

Sal Khan (26:00):

The traditional model, I have that 55 minutes with 30, 35 kids; I do what I can; you're spread thin. You might be able to talk to a few of them individually. Now, there might be more leaning on the asynchronous, but now the teacher's time can spend also on, "Hey, the four of you? Why don't you come on to Zoom or Google Meet or Skype, and we're going to talk about study skills or ways that I can help unblock you as a teacher." I think those small sessions are really, really, really powerful.

Sal Khan (26:28):

Another thing: obviously, we're all trying to be very cognizant of screen time, but just to stay sane these days, we have to get on Zoom with friends and family. I've seen my kids; they're doing puzzles with their friends online. There are sites where you can actually do jigsaw puzzles digitally with your friends. I just saw that yesterday; I thought that was pretty cool. They're playing board games on either side. We have a family friend, he was the dungeon master for us and we played those games over Zoom.

Sal Khan (26:59):

So, people are getting really creative. I think there are ways, with things like Zoom and all these video conferencing tools. It's not the best. Obviously, it can't be a replacement for being in the same room, but you can get pretty far, and there's some benefits. You can invite your grandparents from 2000 miles away to participate, or your cousins, and we've definitely been doing a lot of that in the family, which has been a silver lining.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:20):

Sal, you mentioned the screen time. A lot of parents are very concerned about it; we are here in our own house. Do you think that this sort of accelerates or exacerbates future screen time, where the kids now are... there's productive screen time and there's non-productive screen time, but there's lots of screen time. Do you think that this is going to be a problem for us once things normalize?

Sal Khan (27:45):

It's a brave new world right now. We don't know. I think, if anything... I tend to run optimistic... this might be an exercise in, finally, screen time becoming more productive. We know a lot of folks have talked about anxiety, depression in college age kids these days is through the roof; a lot of people are able to tie that pretty closely to, that's the generation that got on social media pretty early, and the cyber-bullying, and just comparing themselves to others. That is very negative screen time. Not always... there's good stuff on social media, too, but some of the stuff that can happen to young people on social media and some of their mental images they form of themselves and others can be very negative. You need to be conscientious of that, of how do you help them navigate that. You won't just shut it down, because they're going to go there, and there's some good things, but how do you navigate that?

Sal Khan (28:40):

Now, people are doing, hopefully, more learning. They're doing even some productive socialization in the ways we just talked about, and to your point, it's all about productive versus not productive, and it's all about, what are you doing outside of the screen time? The productive, as we said, it's learning; it's having a Socratic dialogue with your friends; it can even be doing a puzzle or playing a constructive game with your friends, some form of socialization.

Sal Khan (29:06):

My oldest kid is doing all sorts of video editing now. He's trying to make these... I think they call them these Vines, these short videos where he's doing all these magic tricks. I was like, "That's pretty cool." He has time now. That screen time is very creative. My daughter, she's eight, she's doing all this stop-motion animation. I love it. That's really great creative time for them.

Sal Khan (29:27):

And so, as a parent, if they're relatively constructive in that, and they're having time to go run outside, be out in nature, play, at least with each other, that's a great thing. If someone has an only child at home... I have three kids at home, so they've kind of been able to be a little bit of a thing by themselves, but I've imagined that if there's only one child, maybe you can socially distance with another family so that at least your child gets some interaction with other peers or kids their age. It's more about making sure you're getting time out running, playing, et cetera, and that the screen time is as productive as possible.

Sal Khan (30:06):

I'll throw out another thing, to earlier, which is... I remind this to myself, I tell this to my wife. We can get so caught up as parents, saying, "Oh, my kid is beyond the 30 minute screen time allocation. Am I a bad parent? Look, they're eating M&Ms at the same time. I'm a really bad parent." You start to really get in your head of like, "My kids, their future is ruined." That stress that we put on ourselves as parents? That's just going to make us more testy. It's just going to make the house harder for everyone, and that's far worse for the kids than anything else. If the kids-

Anthony Scaramucci (30:44):

Hey, my six-year-old eating Pepperidge Farm Extra Sharp Cheddar crackers in bed at 11:35 PM? I'm okay, Sal? You're not going to turn me in?

Sal Khan (30:56):

You're a worse parent than I am, but yeah, if it would cause you anxiety or stress if you didn't allow that to happen, then yeah... I think that, with a happy, loving Anthony Scaramucci dad? Far better than eating broccoli properly at the dinner table and Dad is yelling randomly.

Anthony Scaramucci (31:16):

All right, I'm going to tell my wife that when she's complaining to me, when I'm sitting there munching on the Goldfish with my six-year-old at 11:35.

Anthony Scaramucci (31:24):

Sal, you wrote an amazing book, by the way, a couple of years ago, The One World Schoolhouse. It's probably six or seven years ago. I read it, then I heard you speak at Mitt Romney's event at E2 and SALT; I guess it was in Park City a few years back. Something really struck me about you; you were saying about artificial intelligence and the future of education, and the notion that we may be able to create an intellectual capital uplift in every single nation school. I was wondering if you could just articulate that vision to people before we let you go.

Sal Khan (32:02):

Even pre-COVID, the writing's on the wall. We made a big bet as a society about 200 years ago for free mass public education; that was as we were getting into the thick of the Industrial Revolution, and it paid off. I know there's a lot of imperfect things about the public school system, but there's a lot of amazing things about it. Pre-public school system, you had 20, 30, 40, 50 percent, depending on the country, illiteracy rates, and now in places like the U.S., it's sub-one percent illiteracy rates, and that's, to a large degree, I believe why so many people were able to participate in the Industrial Revolution, and we have a fairly broad-based middle class. So, it's no coincidence that the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Japan... the first countries that had mass public education were also the industrial powers and had a fairly large middle class in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Sal Khan (32:53):

This next revolution we're getting into? That Industrial Revolution labor permit, it's getting altered. At the bottom, the need for labor, especially relatively low-skill labor, that's where a lot of that automation, and to some degree, globalization, collapses that. The middle layer, which... some of these white collar, but it's really information processing jobs; that's what computers are good at. And so, where do all those people go? Either all this productivity, from all the technology, artificial intelligence, whatever else... all of that value goes to the top of that pyramid, and in order to have a stable society, you'd have to have some mass redistribution or something; otherwise, you'll probably have a revolution on your hands because the inequality would get out of hand... or, you figure out a way for as many of these people to participate in the top of that pyramid, to essentially invert the pyramid. I call it the Star Trek reality.

Sal Khan (33:45):

A lot of folks don't watch it from an economic point of view, but in Star Trek, everyone is an artist, a researcher, an engineer, an explorer. It sounds utopian, but I think it's our only option. I mean, we could default to the more dystopian reality, where a lot of people are just not going to be able to participate, but why not try for the more utopian one?

Sal Khan (34:05):

I always give the example: a thousand years ago, if you were a member of a clergy, someone who knew how to read, and I say, "The kid on the corner who is begging? Should we teach him how to read?" That member of the clergy said, "Well, he's not even capable of reading." Maybe with a great education system, maybe 30 or 40 percent of the population could read; back then, maybe 20 percent actually were reading. And so, if I ask folks now, what percentage of the population do you think could work at Google or start the next tech company or write a great novel, or find the cure for the next pandemic, today you would say that's sub-five percent, probably sub-one percent, and you'd say, with a great education system, maybe 10, 20, 30 percent.

Sal Khan (34:46):

Well, we're seeing over and over again all the themes we just talked about. You let kids learn at their own time and pace, let them not be bound by time or space, have ways for them to get credit at any point in their life... I think that number will be much higher, and all of these laid-off truck drivers and other folks that we might see... and this is all pre-COVID, because of automation... they will have a chance to re-tool themselves and be able to participate at the top of that.

Sal Khan (35:10):

Then, COVID has just made all of this even more stark. Obviously, we're going into some type of a major economic situation right now. The unemployment rate is off the charts. The knowledge work, remote work; this stuff is only going to become more and more valuable, but hopefully we'll have the tools for people to re-tool themselves also virtually.

Anthony Scaramucci (35:29):

I want to kick it over to what John... he's got one or two more questions from the audience, but thanks, Sal, I think it's a brilliant exposition of what's happening.

John Darsie (35:37):

Yeah, Sal, in terms of the general framework of how we think about education in this country and, largely, around the world, the idea that we take summers off is sort of a relic of the agricultural era when children needed to come home and help plow the fields. The idea that we sit in front of a teacher who lectures you, and then you go home and you do your homework... that's another concept you've talked about.

John Darsie (36:00):

Some people call it flipping the classroom in terms of making school more interactive during the day and allowing children to learn at their own pace when they're at home. You've called it the blended classroom. Just talk about what you think would be the ideal vision for how school would be structured. In inner cities, especially, there's a lot of difficulty with children when they come out of school for the summer; in Chicago, for example, Chance the Rapper has spent a lot of time and money trying to help inner-city kids have something to do during the summer. So, talk about what the ideal framework would be for education in this country.

Sal Khan (36:33):

Thanks. You touched on two very important... to Anthony's previous question, about if I could wave a magic wand... the other thing is the schedule. There's actually two: there's summer and after school. School, most places, ends at 2:00, 3:00 in the afternoon. It was really designed for a model where you have one income earner, and your mom is at home baking apple pie, and we know that that is not the norm any more. I mean, when I grew up, I grew up in a single mother household. I was one of those, they called them in the '80s latchkey kids. I would watch TV for a couple of hours until my mom came home.

Sal Khan (37:08):

That's a major source of inequity, because the summers, that's not only a time for not learning, it's well documented that's a time for forgetting, and middle class, upper-middle class, affluent families... they get their kids enriching programs, not just in the summer, they get them after school time; while kids who don't have the resources, they atrophy at those times. So, that leads to some of that inequity. Even the well-resourced kids are also forgetting over the summer, so for everyone, it makes no sense.

Sal Khan (37:40):

I think one thing to do is either eliminate summer, or just spread... even spread the school year through summer, so that instead of having one three month break and then a two week winter break, you have a couple of three week breaks through the year. I would go that way. I would actually try to go as close to full year, full day as possible, and I would try to get a school day closer to 5:00 or 6:00 ending time.

Sal Khan (38:03):

I know a lot of people immediately say, "Hold on a second. That sounds horrible. Some of my best memories were in the summer where I had all this time, or after school with extracurricular," and what I say is, "I agree with you." If school is able to have more time and space like that, then you can have some of what you remember as the really enriching parts of summer actually happen during school. We started a school, our Khan Lab school, where we do exactly that. So, those are the two.

Sal Khan (38:29):

Then, to your point about what you do, people always talk about technology, should technology be used, et cetera, et cetera. I always say, put technology aside. You should always say, "What is your goal," and then, "What are your resources at the disposal to solve that goal?" So, if your goal is, kids need to be engaged and they need to learn, and they want socialization, the answer is, well, get as much as you can get down when they're not in the room, so that when the human beings get together in the room, there's as much connection, as much conversation, as much activity as possible.

Sal Khan (38:59):

Our historic system... in some humanities classes, they've always done that. You come, you do your reading ahead of time, and then you're ready to have a conversation. But especially in a lot of math and science classes, while you're doing homework, you have no feedback of whether you're getting right or wrong. You have no support at home. A lot of kids have no support at home to get through it, and then they come to class and they have to sit quietly, even though they want to interact. They want to even talk about the math, but they have to sit passively and listen, which is very hard for any of us to do. Most of us as adults don't have to sit passively that long as often.

Sal Khan (39:31):

And so, there's an opportunity, even putting technology aside... when you get together, that's when you should do the problem solving, because that's where the teacher can walk around, understand where the kids are, help unblock them; students can help each other. When you see students and teachers in that type of environment, they all feel energized. They don't feel depleted. They don't feel bored in the same way. Then, on their own time and pace, if they can watch a lecture, a YouTube video, if they can work on their own time and pace on Khan Academy, that's great.

Sal Khan (40:01):

When you talk about blended learning, flipped classroom kind of got attached to us even though it's not my idea. It's actually teachers brought that up to me, as like, "Hey, we're kind of flipped things around," but as you soon as you do that, you get a guy saying, "Well, you don't have to be dogmatic about, this has to happen at home and this has to happen at school." You can say, "Either home or school, do whatever is most appropriate for the child."

Sal Khan (40:21):

So, you can imagine at school, some kids are working at their own time and pace on Khan Academy, but the teacher says, "I'm going to take five aside and do a more focused conversation, or unblock them, or motivate them in some way." As soon as you do that, it also opens up other things.

Sal Khan (40:36):

If I'm the lecturer, and I just lecture, that, by definition, has to be one case fits all, but as soon as you release that assumption that we come to class to work, and work on something that's appropriate for us, and if you have tools like Khan Academy, now all of a sudden every kid can learn at their own speed. You don't have to separate the "honors kids" from the non-honors kids or the remedial kids. You can have them all in the same room, and they can even help each other. You could have mixed age environments. You could have two teachers with twice as many students, and they're co-teaching. So, that's kind of the blended vision.

Anthony Scaramucci (41:09):

Sal, before we finish, give us a public service advertisement for Khan Academy. There's many people who would like to donate some money to you. Where do they go? How do they do it?

Sal Khan (41:20):

Thanks for asking that, Anthony. Khan Academy, for those are aren't aware, we're not for profit. We're mission-free world class education for anyone, anywhere. I don't own Khan Academy. Everyone listening owns as much of Khan Academy as I do. The only reason we're able to do this, and if you go to... and people are weirded out by us sometimes, because you go, there's no ads; it's all completely free. People think there's going to be a bait and switch at some point, and the reason why we can do that is because of philanthropic donations.

Sal Khan (41:49):

There's many amazing philanthropists. We actually have over 100,000 people who donate as little as three dollars, and then we have major foundations, major corporations, who have donates as well. We were running at a deficit even pre-COVID, because we've been wanting to make some of this investments for teachers and schools and add more content areas, and then you can imagine post-COVID with our usage being 3X of what it normally is, and us wanting to accelerate all sorts of things. We want to build out English and language arts. We want to add more grade levels.

Sal Khan (42:16):

We have an early-learning app called Khan Academy Kids, which just recently has shown incredible efficacy, where they showed high-need kids whose families made $25,000 a year... they were at about the 30th percentile on kindergarten readiness, compared to the 50th percentile, which is your average kid in the country... just 20 minutes a day for 40 days on Khan Academy Kids, which is our early-learning app for younger kids up to first grade, starting in Pre-K... those kids completely closed the gap, and it was as effective or more effective than some very, very, very expensive interventions, and this is obviously something that could be downloaded on anyone's smartphone.

Sal Khan (42:52):

So, the only way we're able to do all of this work is through donations. So, yeah, we would love to talk to anyone who wants to help [crosstalk 00:43:03].

Anthony Scaramucci (43:02):

Where do they go, Sal, to make those donations?

Sal Khan (43:03):

You can go to KhanAcademy.org/donate, and if someone is representing a corporation who would like to participate... a lot of big corporations, folks like Bank of America, Google, Novartis, Imgen, AT&T, Fastly... they've been helping up, but we need more help. I think there's an opportunity for them where, not only can you help us give free education, but we want to recognize those corporations, too. The Khan Academy Kids... I've been trying to find a corporation. It seems like a no-brainer. We would be happy to say, made possible by so-and-so every time. We had a million downloads just in the last few weeks. A large chunk of all young families that are in kind of household formation are using this app right now, and we create a lot of pixie dust, so we're always looking for people who would be open to supporting things like that, and we would love to help spread the pixie dust for them, too.

Anthony Scaramucci (43:53):

Well, that would be awesome, Sal. We're certainly here to help you out. We really appreciate your time today. Thank you so much, and we'll be in touch. I've got to get you back to the SALT conference. We have to figure out where it's going to be next year, but I want you to be there. You're an amazing guy, and congratulations on everything you're doing for the country and for the world.

Sal Khan (44:13):

Oh, thank you so much. I'm honored to be here.

Chamath Palihapitiya: The State of Venture Capital | SALT Talks #2

“There needs to be a reimagining of how the infrastructure of the world should look and should work.”

Chamath Palihapitiya, Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Social Capital, believes there is a dispersion occurring in both the public and private markets between the “have’s” and the “have-nots.” The cycle of building a company and profiting from it is broken, as it now takes too long to see a profit.

Politically, he believes there will be a changing of the guard come 2024. “Politically, this is the last gasp for Boomers.” There will be new alternatives on both sides but in general, there will be a shift to the left. Things like higher education cannot become akin to luxury goods.

How do we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic successfully? Chamath gives us the metaphor of a patient brought to the ER with a gunshot wound. Stop the bleeding (put money in the hands of the people), conduct the surgery (incentivize good behavior by companies) and rehabilitate to 100% health (attack structural issues).

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

chamath-portrait.jpeg

Chamath Palihapitiya

CEO

Social Capital

MODERATOR

Headshot+-+Scaramucci%2C+Anthony.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:09):

Welcome to SALT Talks, a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost thinkers, creators and entrepreneurs. Today, we are very thrilled to be welcoming Chamath Palihapitiya to Salt Talks, but just as we do at our global conferences, we try to provide a platform, both for big ideas and to provide our audience a window into the minds of leading a business executives, entrepreneurs, and innovators. Chamath as you may know, is the founder of Social Capital. He is also a part owner of the Golden State Warriors, and now the chairman of Virgin Galactic, which he took public by a special purpose acquisition vehicle, which Anthony and Chamath will likely talk about today. But I want to turn it over to Anthony Scaramucci who's going to be doing the interview. Anthony, as most of is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a leading alternative investment firm, as well as the chairman of SALT. Anthony, I'll let you take it away.

Anthony Scaramucci (01:06):

Okay, well, John, I appreciate it. Chamath, I'm going to dig right into it with you. We're going to make this a Chris 45 minutes if that's okay. And you've got a lot of philosophical thoughts about inequality, your personal journey to where you are now. And I was just wondering if you could give us a good two or three minute explanation of how you've gotten to where you are and where are you exactly on the whole idea of inequality where we need to go?

Chamath Palihapitiya (01:36):

Sure. I'm a Sri Lankan by birth. I'm 43 years old. I was born in '76 in Columbus, Sri Lanka. My parents immigrated to Canada when I was six. My dad worked in the embassy there, and at the time there was a civil war between the Singhalese and the Tamils. We were Singhalese, and it was not safe for my father and our family to go back. So then we stayed in Canada. This will give you a sense of where I'm coming from, but we claimed refugee status because my father's life was threatened. We got refugee status, grew up on social assistance, on welfare and in Canada, parents tried hard to work off and on. My mom was a housekeeper. I went to college in Canada, again, relatively cheaply, did an engineering degree at University of Waterloo. And after a year working at an investment bank, after an engineering degree, I traded interest rate derivatives at Bank of Montreal. I moved to California, I worked at a series of startups, and I ended up working at AOL Rose through the ranks of AOL.

Chamath Palihapitiya (02:53):

In my mid twenties was running a division there then came back to the West Coast, joined Facebook early on, helped them scale their business, was one of the principal executives in its seminal growth phase, led the growth of the business. And then in 2011, I started investing full-time at Social Capital. And in 2017, really unwound a lot of the typical LPGP relationships and then transformed the business to be more of a technology holding company with this idea that we would use a permanent capital base to buy and hold long duration assets, and then take them public and eventually take social capital public. That's my life in a nutshell.

Chamath Palihapitiya (03:43):

My political philosophy is, I would say, ideologically promiscuous. There are some very firm beliefs that I have about a social safety net because I directly benefited from it. And then there are some very strong beliefs I have about open markets and capitalism, because I've been a direct beneficiary of those. And it would be a lie to basically say that I've come to these conclusions more from an academic perspective, these are very much lived experiences. And so I think that I'm probably a centrist who believes in extremely free open markets, thoughtful longterm allocation of capital, but a strict code of ethics around the social safety infrastructure we provide to our fellow citizens so that the rest of us who want to compete in the open markets can do so without the fear of revolution.

Anthony Scaramucci (04:40):

Are you a UBI Fan like Andrew Yang or?

Chamath Palihapitiya (04:44):

It's interesting. I would not have claimed myself to be a UBI fan until this pandemic. I think that those are tools that are really important in exigent circumstances and I would put the pandemic as the most obvious case for where UBI makes sense. It comes in part from a social safety net perspective, but the much larger motivation from my belief in UBI is one around how to ... and what I think we are in right now, which is a deflationary supercycle quite honestly. And we are in for decades of Japanese style malaise unless we jumpstart the economy. And I think the most obvious way which people refuse to admit is that, we're consumer driven, led GDP growth country and we need to get enough money into the hands of people where they aren't psychologically incentivized to save, but to spend.

Anthony Scaramucci (05:45):

Talk about the deflation supercycle for a second, because you think some of that is being induced by the fed and some people actually, there's a lot of people listening in that are in the financial services industry. They think the fed's creation is creating inflation. I personally don't. I do see the deflationary cycle in terms of the excess factory, labor, all that stuff, but define that supercycle for people. And why do you think that is perhaps intractable?

Chamath Palihapitiya (06:13):

I think this is a ... by the way you're framing is actually excellent. It's exactly that. We're on the track to something that I think is intractable because the accelerant of deflation is the fed and the printing of money, but the inception of this deflationary cycle is actually in tech businesses. So let's just take a step back and look at the five best tech businesses in the world, and think about the incentives that they create in the consumer's mind and have done, especially in the last decade. If you wanted social connection, you can go to Facebook and get an enormity of that for free. If you want information and access to content that basically crushes any asymmetry that anybody else would have over you, you can get that from Google for free. If you wanted to entertain yourself with video content and not pay $130 to your MSO cable provider, you can get that from Netflix or YouTube, essentially close to free.

Chamath Palihapitiya (07:16):

If you want to communicate across channels and not have to pay a telecom provider, you can get that from Microsoft and Facebook and Google, essentially for free. If you want things that are cheap and available in instantaneous seconds and minutes, if you wait long enough for Amazon, they'll give you that also essentially for free. So what has been happening slowly is that these enormous companies have created tons of value, but by doing it in ways that have ingrained in the consumer, that cheaper, faster, and better is always on the horizon. And so for you to wait, you get rewarded. And so what that does is an incentive to save money. And so when you look at what happened in the savings rate after the great financial crisis, I think a lot of what happened was if you even assume that the quantitative easing had some trickle down effect and that money got into the hands of consumers, they didn't see the need to spend it, Anthony.

Chamath Palihapitiya (08:14):

They were like, I'm just going to save this because you know what? I have exactly what I want and incremental things I want will just be cheaper tomorrow. And so why spend this money today? And it gave them some amount of psychological safety. So we've been reinforcing that mechanic for a decade coming into this crisis. And then on top of that, you add trillions and trillions of dollars. What happens then is people now look at that money and they say, "Well, I never needed the money before, as much as I, I'm going to need it today versus tomorrow. So I'm just going to save." And so what people think is, "Well, I need to put this to work in a place where I can actually save and compound." So then you see this asset bubble inflate.

Chamath Palihapitiya (08:53):

So I think that this duality working together. Technology on the one hand drives the entire world to believe in deflation, to want deflation because you're getting value. And then the monetary supply basically reinforces that that money, which becomes a less and less useful commodity should go back into the asset markets, because it's not something that is a useful instrument today, and it will become increasingly less useful tomorrow. So when you put those two factors together, that's what's creating this supercycle.

Anthony Scaramucci (09:23):

Yeah. I see all of that and I think it's a brilliant analysis of it, but the one fear if your essential bank or that you're having deflation is debt repayment and the economic term that emerged in the 1930s called debt destruction. So let me just give you the math. I'm a person that has a $50,000 income or $60,000 income. I've got $200,000 of debt. In that deflationary supercycle, wages are also going down Chamath. And so let's give you this example. I'm going from 60 to $30,000. Look at what just happened to my debt. Moreover, let's say I'm a government, I'm sitting on $24 trillion of debt, but I'm in a deflationary supercycle. I'm now forced to pay the debt back with dollars that are worth more than the dollars that I borrowed. And that makes it almost impossible. So what do you say about the collision between deflation and the debt cycle that we're in?

Chamath Palihapitiya (10:21):

Well, that's exactly what is going to happen. I've spent a lot of time playing poker, I played blackjack. I've been in Vegas a lot. And I remember one time I was playing blackjack and the person beside me was clapping and the dealer said to him, "Hope is not a strategy." And I would say that central bankers wanting inflation because they realize that this is happening also is not a strategy. This is why I think going back to UBI to close the loop is really quite an interesting idea in a moment like this, because I think what it has the ability to do is to get enough money into the hands of consumers that exceeds the nominal marginal value of that saved dollar. And that's when you will actually start to see more spending. And in that more spending, because you've gone through a few years or in this case decades now of deflation, demand can very quickly outstrip supply and then you restart the inflationary cycle.

Chamath Palihapitiya (11:23):

And I think that that would be wonderful. We've all read Paul Tudor Jones's letter net by now. I think even central bankers would say the best way to manage all these debts is through an inflationary cycle. Everybody wants it. I think the question is, how do you start it? And I think that knowing that there's so much money supply there, the only way to drive the velocity of money in my opinion, is to get money in the hands of consumers and let them spend our way out of this where the incremental saved dollar is not worth it.

Anthony Scaramucci (11:57):

Yeah. No, I agree. And so the secondary question of this is, you've got a lot of opinions on artificial intelligence and the ramping of artificial intelligence, which will also lower the cost of goods and services. 3D printing lowers the cost of goods and services. And so at some point, don't you think, and I'll ask it rhetorically, but I'm interested in really to get your reaction the political landscape has to change. Right now we're in a baby boomer political landscape where these guys, as David Rubinstein had said on Monday, they won't leave the stage. You've got 75 plus year old people running for office, and they're killing each other in that sort of self-righteous way. So we're getting left strategies and right strategies opposed to right and wrong strategies. And so how do you intersect that line into the diagram that you and I are discussing? What do you think happens politically?

Chamath Palihapitiya (12:55):

I think politically, this is the last gasp for boomers, and I think that in 2024, you're going to start to see a slate of young emerging alternatives on both sides. And what's interesting is I think at some point between now and 2024, the alt left and the alt right will realize that political ideology is not aligned, but it's a circle and they'll meet somewhere. And then all of a sudden realize, "Oh my gosh, we may be the exact same person." So then everything will reflexively come back to a more neutral kind of positioning.

Chamath Palihapitiya (13:30):

I think the standard bearers of this new movement, the ones on the left are a little bit easier to identify than the ones on the right, but I think that you're going to see a generally progressive shift to the left, and that to be a winning Republican candidate in eight to 10 years will mean you're a Democrat, some version of a Democrat or a free market Democrat. That's I think going to happen for sure. And I think that that force has left the stable. So we just have to buy our time between now and then, and minimize the damage.

Chamath Palihapitiya (14:10):

The one thing that you said, which is true is that we have to keep a pace of all these technologies that are going to be increasingly deflationary by design. One of the things that I think we also have to do is have to have a government regime that's willing to spend money. Now, the good news is both the Democrats and the Republicans have torn this bandaid off of this modern monetary theory approach of like, let's just spend, spend, spend and print print print. And I think that that's reasonable if you direct that capital into really meaningful sinks that slow the deflationary supercycle down.

Chamath Palihapitiya (14:46):

So for example, on the one hand where you're going to see the advent of AI that could theoretically reduce the earnings power of people, on the other side, I think we need to make it a national priority to fly to Mars. Not because we should, but because we could. And you can sink trillions and trillions of dollars of capital there. We may decide that we want hypersonic aircraft, not because we need it, but because we want it and you can sink hundreds of billions of capital into that.

Chamath Palihapitiya (15:18):

And so there needs to be this re-imagining of how the infrastructure of the world should look and should work. And re-imagining ourselves, not just as people that live on the earth, but also in other planets. And while it seems crazy, the reason is because it can consume all of this capital in a way that's productive, in a way that doesn't necessarily just create a downstream asset bubble because that has to deflate and then it will eventually reinflate. And all of that destruction will further segment society in ways that make political disruption more likely. And I think that we don't want that or we shouldn't want that.

Anthony Scaramucci (16:01):

I get it. You don't want a society where people are going to take a Tiki torches and pitchforks and March on the people that are holding the assets. So therefore you've got to flatten it out. You've got to even out the K through 12 education system. And I think you and I are in a general agreement that, I don't want equal outcomes, but I do want people to have a broader likelihood of equal opportunity. Meaning, if you grow up like me or the way you grew up, my grandmother was a maid. She turned beds. My father was a crane operator. And so I got very lucky getting into a good public school, which allowed me to hone my academic skills. I just worry about that generation. Now they have such an uneven educational footprint. You don't know if they can get to the arc of the American dream or [crosstalk 00:16:52].

Chamath Palihapitiya (16:53):

To your point, I completely agree with you. Public education for me was my salvation and an amazing school in Canada that costs $10,000 a year. That was it. And what Canada and the rest of the world have refused to have happen is to allow higher education to become this luxury good that's like an LV bag of sorts where you want to be seen carrying around this $5,000 purse. It's kind of insane. And in that bag, you carry the same garbage that you would carry around in a $10 bag. And so what is the point?

Anthony Scaramucci (17:30):

I get it. I tell people that all the time, you can eat the pizza off of China or you eat it off a plastic plate. We're both eating pizza, but I want to ask you about the consumer orientation to space exploration, which I find absolutely fascinating. And I mentioned this to you. I've built a very nice relationship with Sir Richard Branson. He has been to the SALT Conferences and he like you is a great visionary. And so if you don't mind, could you spend a few minutes for our viewers of what the vision is for Virgin Galactic, where you see it in three or four years. But before you answer that question, I want to know my friend Matt, go to run zero gravity, have you been on the Vomit Comet? Have you ever flown up there and done the zero gravity turns and twists or not yet?

Chamath Palihapitiya (18:21):

I haven't. I haven't done it. But to-

Anthony Scaramucci (18:24):

Well, if you're up for it, I'm going to take you up there as my guest, but tell us where the future is for Virgin Galactic. What do you see?

Chamath Palihapitiya (18:33):

I'll tell you the Virgin story maybe in the context of the Apollo project because I think it's important. When we sent people to the moon in 1969, that became this incredible Thunderclap in the world, and it completely captured people's imagination. From a global hope perspective, it was an incredible validation of human ingenuity and capability. But underneath Anthony, there was something that very practical happened, which was, we invented an unbelievable number of industries. And the reason why space is such a compelling tip of the spear or a canary in a coal mine, whatever phrase you want to use is that it stresses every single law of physics that we know and understand. And that's why space has captured the imagination of so many people.

Chamath Palihapitiya (19:30):

It requires you to think of all of the basic things that we have today in a completely different light. From computers to clocks, to materials, to how you manage heat, all of these things that are understood today have to be completely re-imagined. When you do that, the second and third order markets for these innovations are so vast. So for example, you may care about climate change. Well, in order to really push climate change to the forefront, we are going to have to massively increase our battery density and the efficaciousness of our motors, electric motors. Well, underneath that is massive kinds of material science. Those innovations may never get funded in electrification. They will very likely get funded in space because you have to solve them to achieve these missions, and then it can trickle down to electrification as an example. And so you have to think about space as a way of it being a guinea pig for many of the things that we can use to improve the landscape of the world.

Chamath Palihapitiya (20:37):

So now you think about Virgin, what have they done? Well, what they've done is they've spent the last 15 years building a very safe, repeatable way of sending people into space and back, so into lower earth orbit and back so that they can experience gravity, see the edges of the earth surface, right. Be up there, float around, and then come back down. Now, what are they building in order to do it? They're building all kinds of really interesting materials. They're building a very novel way of managing the stability of a plane because remember at the end of the day, this is not a rocket that goes up and down. This is a plane that takes off and lands. It could literally take off and land from a LaGuardia or JFK. You don't need to go to Cape Canaveral.

Chamath Palihapitiya (21:21):

So how do you design wings that behave in useful ways at 350,000 feet, as well as 50,000 feet? It's building engines that can, with a reasonable carbon footprint, generate enormous amounts of thrust and energy. How do you do that? So they figured all of these things out. So in phase one, 600 odd people have already signed up to fly, hundred million dollars of booked business that we have to deliver. 9,000 people have been waiting in line to give us a deposit. Another 500 or so people I think have given us a small deposit in order to make the bigger deposit. So there's tens of billions of dollars of revenue at very, very high margin, to give people a once in a lifetime experience. But in doing it, our ambition, which we've talked about is taking those technologies and building a plane that can fly hypersonically.

Chamath Palihapitiya (22:22):

So you would go to JFK or LaGuardia, you would get on a plane, it would fly Mach 55. So imagine you need to go to Japan, Tokyo, that would be a sub two hour flight.

Anthony Scaramucci (22:34):

Amazing.

Chamath Palihapitiya (22:34):

You land in Tokyo, you do your meetings, you'd get back on the plane. You'd be back in LaGuardia, JFK at home with your family for dinner, and you would have spent the entire day in Tokyo.

Anthony Scaramucci (22:43):

Well, listen, it's amazing. And just for more context for our viewers, in Douglas Brinkley's book, Moonshot, the Apollo program, $25,000,001,969, which is basically about $400 billion today, and they estimated to your point over a trillion and a half dollars of positive externalities, it wasn't just Tang and posted notes and aluminum foil. It was everything. GPS, all the systems, telecommunication systems, the internet, the entire footprint that grid that information highway, the Apollo program in many ways paved the way for Facebook.

Chamath Palihapitiya (23:25):

You're extremely right.

Anthony Scaramucci (23:27):

It's nice to see that you've tied those two things back together. My colleague, John Dorsey has a question. He's sitting out there with all the dead animals on the wall that he's hiding from everybody at the ranch in Colorado. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie (23:42):

Chamath, you did a fascinating podcast a couple of years ago with Kara Swisher, and you've had a lot of interesting conversations with her. And you talk a lot about Silicon Valley and about how the culture is broken and the system of capital formation is broken. I would love for you to talk a little bit about your explanation of that theory, as well as how you think the pandemic might even exacerbate that the shift that we're seeing out of Silicon Valley or some of the disillusionment that people in the tech industry are seeing with Silicon Valley.

Chamath Palihapitiya (24:11):

I think that there's a dispersion happening and that dispersion is not dissimilar to what's happening in the public markets. If I had to characterize the public market dispersion, it's essentially that we are separating the haves and the have nots. And the haves are companies that traffic in bits. So Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google above all others, but then underneath them, largely founder led technology businesses, that have the 80 to 90% gross margins, even if they're unprofitable. So those are the haves, they traffic in bits.

Chamath Palihapitiya (24:44):

The have nots or the companies that traffic in atoms. If you're a hotel company, an airline and auto business, those businesses are incredibly impaired and there's been an dispersion in the spread where you could basically essentially, if you bought the weighted S&P Index, which essentially is a way of getting synthetically long, these handful of tech businesses and shorted the unweighted index, which is, basically getting an equal weighting of everything else, you can see this massive dispersion spread by.

Chamath Palihapitiya (25:14):

That's happening in private markets as well. Except what we're looking at are companies that either are benefiting from the pandemic. So tailwinds that are driving positive growth and profitability. So companies like Coinbase, or Instacart, or Palo Alto Networks, which is public or Netskope, which is private, internet security businesses, or Slack which is a collaboration business. So there are these companies, a mixture of private and public, and then businesses that were second and third tier also rants are again, just getting crushed and they're being forced to fire and lay people off.

Chamath Palihapitiya (25:52):

Underneath that dynamic is something that's been broken in the valley for a while, which is that the cycle of building and profiting from companies has taken too long. It used to be the case that we would build a company for four to six years and then take it public. And then the public markets would participate in the last two or three years of evolving the business. Now, what happens is there's so much private money that these companies stagnate in the private markets for eight, nine and 10 years. The problem is that for LPs, it doesn't work because you have these 10 year fund lives. And if you're a growth fund, maybe a seven year fund life with a couple of one year renewals, the timing mismatch now that it's creating is this massive overhang where you have these paper values in IRRs that can't be monetized.

Chamath Palihapitiya (26:40):

And so that's feeding a cycle where even faster than normal, LPs are looking at secondary firms and saying, let me sell some of these things. Let me rebalanced my portfolio, because my publics are getting crushed. If you look at private equity, it's very challenged because they predominantly trafficking atoms. They're buying industrials companies, they're buying things that are real, tangible things that you buy with current free cashflow, that stuff is very trial to challenge. And so as a result, the IRRs that these pension funds and other LPs will see are going to be challenged. They then look at their venture exposure and say, "Wow, I have way too much exposure." And so then they're selling then the venture funds themselves are thinking to themselves, "Wow, I'm having a lot of trouble raising a new fund."

Chamath Palihapitiya (27:24):

So it's a very complicated cycle, John, but that's what we're engaged in right now is this essentially a massive multi-year long portfolio rebalancing. And the publics are leading the way so that dispersion is creating a dislocation. Private equity is the next domino to fall because when they really reset their portfolios and revalue them two, three, four quarters now into the full scale breadth of the consumer demand shock that we're dealing with, and then venture folks will have to take the backseat, but it's going to make valuations very challenging in the public markets. And you're going to be rewarded for having money to put to work.

Anthony Scaramucci (28:10):

Chamath, when you think about the future, it's 15 years from today. We have all of this complexity. What you're basically describing is another big transition. It's a little bit like the industrial revolution back in the 1830s, where all of a sudden people got scared they were losing their jobs and then there was massive productivity uplink, if you will. And so I guess what I'm asking is, you and I know there's going to be an abundance. We know that there's going to be nanotechnology, biotechnology, immunotherapy. There's going to be an abundance. And I know you're worried about this because I listened to your interviews. You're worried that that's going to go to two or 3% of the people, and we're going to live in this ether of plutocrats, where the rest of the society is struggling.

Anthony Scaramucci (28:58):

And so you're a capitalist, obviously I'm a capitalist. And so how do we shatter the totems of political ideology to explain that to people so that they understand that if you give somebody some universal income or some base education, that's actually right in the Western Canon of liberalism. That's the way to allow them to experience their life to their true form, the way you were going to that $10,000 school, or I've been able to. So how do we shatter those totals? How do we get there?

Chamath Palihapitiya (29:31):

I think that the way that I look at it is that right now, we have very uneven starting lines and we can use money and we can use incentives to make sure that as much as possible and as often as possible, we have a very even starting line. And I think universal basic income is a very interesting tool to make sure that the uneven starting lines of today are not meaningfully exacerbated because the reality is looking today, middle of May, 2020, people that are relatively wealthy and had asset exposure, I don't think are very much feeling anything from this pandemic. But people who had normal blue collar jobs, have been affected meaningfully. 30 odd million, we're trending to 30 odd million people, and that's enormous. That's like saying, if you walk outside the United States, every fifth working man or woman that you see doesn't have a job that's in my mind, extremely scary.

Chamath Palihapitiya (30:37):

So the way that you destroy these totems, at least from my perspective is right now, when we're in a crisis, it's the equivalent of being gunned into the ER with a gunshot wound, you have to stop the bleeding. So tourniquet yourself and make sure that we can stabilize the patient. And I think money in the hands of people do that. Then it's about being able to successfully conduct the surgery and remove the gunshot wound. And I think how you do that is to make sure that the companies themselves who are employing you have some reasonably good behaviors coming out of this crisis better than the incentives they had coming into the crisis. And then the way you rehabilitate. So even after the gunshot wound, how do you get back to 90 or a 100% physical capability is that you have to go after some of these huge, big elephants that have been hanging around for a while.

Chamath Palihapitiya (31:35):

Number one at the top, top, top, I think Anthony is education. We have to figure out what to do on the student loan sign side and what to do about the quality of public school education and the compensation we pay teachers. It's kind of a joke. I have four kids, three of them are in school age, and I have to be honest with you, it is impossible for me to do a good job. And I think that those teachers should be paid 10 times more than they are. But then at the same time, I'm a little angry at them because I think between them and the administration, the administrators of our schools, they're so woefully unequipped, and I think this is 2020. And then my school is in the heart of Silicon Valley. How is this possible? So I think that there's a lot of stuff that you can do to make sure that the best teachers are teaching all the kids and that's a technological problem.

Anthony Scaramucci (32:32):

We're going to have Sal Kahanan later on, and that Sal has always preached that to me. It's like, we're trying to make a movie instead of getting George Lucas and Steve Spielberg together to make the movie, we're getting the local drama club to make the movie. And we have to figure out a way to push that expertise down and make it more broad. I know we're running out of time, but I'm very curious about this question and I hope you don't mind me answering it because it's a question about our polarity and politicization. And there was a new Yorker cartoon that I read about two weeks ago and I literally laughed out loud. It was a news anchor and he was sitting at a news desk and he said, "We just heard from our democratic weather person. Now let's get the weather from our Republican weather person." And that the point being that we're so politicized.

Anthony Scaramucci (33:25):

And so do you think Facebook is doing a good job? Do you think we can do a good ... is there a way to dial down some of the misinformation out there and dial up more of the objectivity because I think one of our biggest problems Chamath, is we can't even agree on the facts anymore, depending on where I'm watching or what channel I'm on, I'm getting a different set of facts than the guy next to me. And so we're arguing over the facts now, do you think we could do anything to change that?

Chamath Palihapitiya (34:03):

There's a great philosopher. His name is Rene Girard and he pioneered the school of thought, which essentially says that, people aren't really born with desires. They mimic and model desires from other people. And then they copy and they imitate. And then eventually though they imitate too much and it leads to conflict, and then you have to scapegoat somebody and there needs to be a grand sacrifice before you can reset and everything will be fine again. Right now we're in a cycle where it is very easy to confuse truth and popularity, and so people can do it because it appeases their mind. It makes it easier for them to be part of a tribe and take something as fact versus have to be in the uncomfortable process of re-underwriting, everything they hear.

Chamath Palihapitiya (34:55):

And Facebook in many ways is an impossible situation because they have to do a dance between what is really fact and what is a person's opinion and how do you allow free speech? And so I don't even think it's their problem. I think it's a decision that we, as a society, have chosen to undergo. So I think it will come to a head in the next four or five years. And I think that how it gets resolved, Anthony, like what is the scapegoating that happens? I think that probably there needs to be something like a new deal. and I don't want to say it's the green new deal, but I think it's a re-evaluation and rewrite of the compact we have as US citizens. And I think that that's coming.

Chamath Palihapitiya (35:45):

I don't think that that's necessarily a hundred percent of the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders, but I also think it's not a hundred percent of the rhetoric of Donald Trump. And it's going to be a total rewrite. And this is why I think that the United States in many ways is like a startup that's never failed because we always iterate and we'll recreate ourselves. And so I have a lot of trust and faith that eventually people will emerge on both sides, and they'll just say, "All right, screw the past. I'm tired of our parents bickering. Let's just sit down and shake hands and figure it out."

Anthony Scaramucci (36:21):

Well, listen, but generationally, if you really studied cycles of generations, you're now in the 80th year of the start of World War II. And so when you sit there and look at that, it's a lifetime ago, what starts to happen is another cycle starts. There was a book in 1996 called The Fourth Turning, which was an explanation of these cycles. And so we're there now, and it's going to require really good leadership to set that framing.

Anthony Scaramucci (36:49):

Just one other point on that, I find this fascinating as well, 27 constitutional amendments. The last one was a procedural one in 1993, but the biggest one, the most magnitude in terms of the body politic was the Civil Rights Amendment in '65. So we've really gone ... think about the country. It's 244 years old. We've gone 55 years without a real constitutional amendment to reset things and to re-graph things directionally. So I agree with that. I know we're running out of time, but I'd like you to end on a note if you don't mind, because I think you're an amazing person in terms of being able to see around the corner of where we're heading. It's five to 10 years out, build me the case for America, and where would you like to see America?

Chamath Palihapitiya (37:40):

I think in 10 years from now, I think what will have happen, I'm just going to paint my bright rose colored glasses view. We will have come out of the deflationary cycle. We will have seen some modest, reasonably good inflation, and we will have reinvigorated the US economy. We will have become a standard bearer for basically, Western Europe, South America, and parts of Africa. I think that the two super powers that exist will be us and China. And it will be one where it's mutually assured destruction. And so we choose to cooperate wherever possible and power share. That there will be a lot of high earning jobs because we will nationalize things that should be nationalized for national security purposes. And that we have reinvented education almost back as sort of a very much one to many model to your point that isn't cut across county or state lines anymore, but says, the best teachers teach the entire nation in a completely different way. And we have a body politic that, that is meeting in the middle and is much more like the 1980s Republicans versus Democrats versus the 2020s Republicans and Democrats.

Chamath Palihapitiya (39:04):

So I'm very hopeful. But we are going to go through three or four years of difficult treading to get there. And so we're in the middle of the grind. So this is not where things get easy, but by 2024, things will get much clearer.

Anthony Scaramucci (39:20):

Well, listen, we appreciate your time today. You've been amazing. I'm not a room raider, but I love your room. I love the sunlight coming in. You're doing fantastic. I've got the old fashioned HTTV screen. But I hope you'll take me up on the Vomit Comet. That's what the astronauts used to call that thing. My friend Matt Goad runs zero gravity and would love to go up there with you. I think you'd find it fascinating because you get to a certain level, they move the plane in a certain way. You're up in the air and you can experience some of that space flight that you yourself will look forward to.

Chamath Palihapitiya (39:54):

I would love to. I would love to.

Anthony Scaramucci (39:55):

Well, God bless you. Have a great weekend. Stay safe. That's it for SALT Talks this week. Have a great weekend everybody. And Chamath, I'll be in touch. I really look forward to our next event together.

Chamath Palihapitiya (40:07):

Thanks Anthony. Thanks John. Thanks everybody. Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci (40:08):

All right, bye.

David Rubenstein: Personal Finance, Private Equity & the Economy | SALT Talks #1

“No one knows what’s going to happen because we’ve never been through anything like this. There’s never been a giant recession with a healthcare crisis. All that people can do is guess.”

Our inaugural SALT Talk featured the Founder & Co-Executive Chairman of The Carlyle Group, David Rubenstein, who took us through his thoughts on the economy, private equity landscape and Carlyle’s positioning in the context of the current crisis.

In many cases, people are not willing to go back to work unless there is a proven vaccine readily available. Corporations are realizing that they may not need as many employees because of how efficiently they’re working from home. They also may never need to fully return to the office.

His advice to young people today: no one ever succeeds in doing something that they do not love doing. “Take advantage of the change that COVID-19 is forcing onto the world.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Rubenstein%2C+David.jpeg

David Rubenstein

Co-Founder

The Carlyle Group

MODERATOR

Headshot+-+Scaramucci%2C+Anthony.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie (00:08):

Welcome to SALT talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform that encompasses finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews that we're doing in lieu of our in-person conferences, which unfortunately were canceled this year due to the coronavirus pandemic. And what we try to do in these SALT Talks, is provide our audience a window into the minds of leading thinkers, as well as give a platform to the powerful ideas that these speakers are covering.

John Darsie (00:44):

Today we're very pleased for the first edition of SALT Talks to welcome David Rubenstein. David has been a frequent speaker at our SALT conferences, both in Las Vegas, and most recently at our SALT conference in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. He is the co founder and now the co-executive chairman of the Carlyle Group, which is one of the world's largest investment firms focused on private equity and venture capital as well, more recently.

John Darsie (01:11):

David, thanks so much for joining us. We're going to turn the interview now over to Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, as well as the chairman of SALT, to conduct the interview with David. Take it away guys.

Anthony Scaramucci (01:22):

David welcome. But I wanted to really just get right into it with you, because we've got over a thousand people listening in, and wanted to thank you for joining us. And so, I'm going to start with some basic questions, because I think people are curious to hear your thoughts on the economy. But just saw you on a CNBC. Several billionaire investors have grown very negative on the economy. Think the markets ahead of itself, obviously think that we're heading into a potentially prolonged recession to use chairman Powell, Jerome Powell's' words this morning. And so what are your thoughts?

David Rubenstein (01:59):

I thank you very much for inviting me, Anthony. I'm pleased to be here, and I've spoken at many SALT events around the world, and congratulations on what you've built with SALT. Let me quote two people at the beginning, to agree with one, and disagree with another.

David Rubenstein (02:14):

There was a man named Bob Goldman, who is the script writer for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. And he wrote a book about Hollywood, and it was called nobody here knows anything. Which is to say, nobody in Hollywood really knows when a movie is going to make it or not. Nobody really knows. Well the truth is, everybody on TV, including me, really doesn't know what's going to happen, because we've never been through anything like this. There has never been a combined gigantic recession with a health care crisis of the likes we have now. So nobody really knows. You can make guesses. And if you don't say when something is going to happen, at some point you can say your guesses turned out to be accurate. But nobody really knows. And I don't really know.

David Rubenstein (02:53):

My guess is, that right now the economy is in a recession. It may go into something between a recession and a depression, but we are not likely to get out of it anytime soon. And when we get out of it, it'll be, take quite a while. Now, the other person I would quote is Sir John Templeton, a famous investor. You're probably familiar with him of course, and one of the greatest investors of the 20th century. He famously said, the most dangerous words in the English language for investors to use is, this time is different. Which means to say, that when somebody says, oh, this has never happened before this time is different. Ignore that, because things always revert to the mean. But this time is different, and he's wrong. Because this time you've got the healthcare crisis, and you've got the financial crisis combined, is an unbelievable problem.

David Rubenstein (03:42):

And let me make one final comment about this before we get on to other things. This has really hit home to me personally. I am now 70 years old. I'm a baby boomer. I'm a fair bit older than you. And baby boomers, I call them a... Well, let's put it this way. Tom Brokaw used to say, and he always said, that the people that fought World War II, they were the greatest generation. I called my generation, that we're not getting off the main stage generation, because we never want to get off the main stage. We're running for president, we're running this. We're still not giving up our jobs and so forth. But now, we are seen not as aging baby boomers, but as senior citizens, and people are worried about our health. And I'm worried about my health, because I realized that this crisis, your life could go very quickly. Normally when you get to be 60, 70, you've got reasonably good chance of getting to be 70 or 80, or maybe 90. And your parents are... One is in their eighties? They're both in their eighties now?

Anthony Scaramucci (04:38):

Yeah. Both my parents are in their eighties. Yeah.

David Rubenstein (04:40):

When you get to be 70 or 80 in the modern world, you feel, if you're going to... Something's going to go wrong at some point, you will die from something. But you generally have a chance to have some doctors treat you well. It might take you five years or 10 years before it really got at you. And you have a chance to say goodbye to your family, your loved ones. In this crisis, you have a chance of dying within a week, and you have no chance in some cases of saying goodbye to your loved ones. So it scared the hell out of a lot of baby boomers, including me, that maybe I catch this, and all of a sudden I'm gone. So I am doing everything I can to stay reasonably healthy, and trying to get other people to stay healthy as well, because this is a virus of the likes of which we've never seen. At least not for a hundred years, anything like this.

David Rubenstein (05:23):

So, the economy is not in great shape. It'll come back in time. I don't know if it's one year or two years. But when it comes back, it's a different economy. People are going to do different things. They're going to save differently. They're going to spend differently. They're going to do things they didn't do before. And so it's a different world we're going to come back in. This has scared people like me and others, that life could go away very quickly. And therefore we have to recognize, the economy is important, but it's not the most important thing. It's our health. And it's a very sad commentary that we have a situation today that people in this country have to sit in food lines for hours, and hours, and hours, to get basic necessities. Who would've ever thought this would happen in our country. I realize there are food banks and then there are homeless people. But people in the middle class, or so, have never had experienced anything like this. And this will scar them forever.

Anthony Scaramucci (06:17):

Well, I... Listen, I not only agree with that. I think the very sad fact of the country right now, is that we are getting the reckoning of people living paycheck to paycheck. Or small businesses living cash flow month to cashflow month. And of course we all know now that our hospital system is probably not what it needs to be to handle a crisis like this. But I saw your interview with John Barry, who wrote The Great Influenza. You did an interview for the Library of Congress a few months back. And I'm just interested, because I know you read his book, and we came out of that crisis pretty well in the sense that we had the roaring twenties. Do you think we're setting ourselves up for some pent up demand, and the combination of the stimulus, plus the pent up demand, like what happened after the Spanish flu pandemic will happen? Or do you think this thing will rollover?

David Rubenstein (07:12):

Well, for those who haven't read that book, it's called The Great Influenza. It came out around, I think 2004 by John Barry. And he really went through the so-called Spanish flu, which never really originated in Spain. And it turned out that 50 to a hundred million people around the world were killed. And almost, I'd say 700,000 in the United States. One of the interesting things about that was, President Wilson never mentioned it publicly because nobody wanted to do anything that would damage the World War I efforts. So it was never mentioned publicly. Public officials weren't honest. And his main message is, be honest and upfront about the damage that is coming about.

David Rubenstein (07:48):

Now, what I should also point out, that he has said in his book, we still do not have a vaccine for that influenza, or that virus. Otherwise, here we are 100 years later and we never developed a vaccine for that. We still don't have a vaccine for HIV. We have some things. If you get HIV, you can be, have therapeutics. We don't have a vaccine. So, I think we will get a vaccine, but I don't know that it's a layup, because it's not easy to get these things.

David Rubenstein (08:16):

In terms of the economy and the roaring twenties, economies will come back. We have in our country 330 million people, they want to be economic analysts. It'll come back. But the question is, will we be damaged psychologically? Because it's going to take a while for people to really feel comfortable, traveling, socializing, and so forth. And will people be doing the same things? We don't know.

David Rubenstein (08:36):

One of the sad things is this. I have a program where I interview people, CEOs from their homes, and saying, how are you managing your company from your home? And what I'm finding when I ask them, is that they're saying it's working out okay. And in fact, a lot of their employees actually would rather stay at home, and they don't want to rush back to work. Certainly if it's not, there's no vaccine. So you're going to see a lot of people not coming back to work in the traditional ways. And the result is I think, fewer people are going to use much office space as before. People are going to train, commute less than before. It's going to change the way we live. And I think for many years it will do so.

Anthony Scaramucci (09:11):

So, that's a good transition then into private equity. You've mentioned on CNBC about an hour ago, that you have dry powder. And so when you see these accelerated changes in commutation, work from home, retail expenditures really going direct to the consumer, what do you, where do you want to go with your private equity business data?

David Rubenstein (09:33):

The lesson of the Great Recession, was that people in the private equity world made a lot of money by buying their own debt back at a discount. Putting more equity in the deals that were not doing so well. And the deal that made the most profit was the Blackstone deal for Hilton. And they had to restructure it one or two times. But they ultimately made a $14 billion profit on it. So, a lot of private equity firms are spending their time making sure that their existing companies are doing okay. That's what they know best, the companies they already have. Once they're past that, they are looking for new deals. But nobody has ever gotten into the Forbes 400 by quickly buying a company in a recession, in an area they didn't know much about. So you really have to make sure you do a lot of due diligence, and wait for the market to kind of come near the bottom.

David Rubenstein (10:17):

Nobody can ever time the bottom or the top of market as perfectly, but I don't think we're at the bottom of the market. I think the stock market has been ahead of the economy for quite some time. And I think we're increasingly seeing that more and more people are saying that. The economy is... You've got 30 million people unemployed or underemployed. And you can't just say the economy is so wonderful, and the stock market deserves to go up. I hope the stock market keeps going up, because I own some stock in lots of companies. But I just don't think it will continue to do that way. And I think it will have the middle vacillate a lot. And I think it's going to take a while for the real economy to kind of grow into where the stock market currently hasn't.

Anthony Scaramucci (10:54):

Well, you mentioned the real estate stuff. And so I'm curious your reaction to that. James Gorman was on CNBC last week, and he said that he can more or less do off of his Zoom application and VPN at home, and his telephone, and his email, almost everything that he's doing in the office. And so, when you think about commercial real estate, and suburban commercial real estate, as well as these urban centers, what's your opinion of that? Is that overblown to think it's going down or there'll be excess capacity? Or do you think that we're really in for a accelerated trend?

David Rubenstein (11:31):

As an owner of real estate office buildings and other things, I hope that everybody comes back quickly. But to be realistic about it, I think that people are not willing to go back to work until there's a vaccine in many cases. People don't want to go through public transit in many cases. So I think it's going to take a while. And I think employers, what they're not really saying to people is this, we don't need as many employees as we thought we did. And probably we are not going to bring everybody back. Most of the CEOs I talked to do not commit to say everybody that's working today, when we come back full time, I'm going to hire them all back. They're not saying that, they're more vague. They're just saying, well, we won't have furloughs forever. We'll have to deal with it. But basically nobody's making commitments. They know they probably don't need as many people, because you can work very efficiently from home.

David Rubenstein (12:16):

I'm a perfect example of this. I am a last adopter of technology. I usually, when something is about to go out of business, that's when I get involved with it. So, I'm probably the last person that got an iPhone in the United States. I was using Blackberry until they didn't service it anymore. So now I have an iPhone. I've been using an iPhone for a couple of years. Now, I am... I have a technology team that has gotten me set up at home. So I now have a portable computer. I have an iPad. I have a bigger computer. And I've got all kinds of telecommunication stuff. I have half of an army teaching me how to use these things, but I'm not probably that different than a lot of other people. And I actually, it's pretty comfortable working at home. So I don't have to go to the office every day. Or I can be in more pleasant places than where I am now. So I think it will change, yes.

Anthony Scaramucci (13:01):

Well, can we switch more to the macro side? Because I'm curious of your reaction, and your historical perspective for that matter on the deficit spending. So we're massively ramping up deficit spending. We're going to probably get deficit spending up to that World War II percentages in terms of our GDP. And what's your reaction to that? Are you worried about it, or you think it's a non event? There's a gradation from the apocalypse doom and gloom people, to the modern monetary theorists. Where are you on that spectrum? And what's your thoughts on it?

David Rubenstein (13:35):

Well, when I worked in the White House for Jimmy Carter, our last budget was sent up to Congress, and it had I think a $59 billion proposed deficit. That was seen as so big, we had to pull it back and pretend we had a balanced budget we sent up to Congress. Today, a $59 billion deficit would be wonderful. We're going to run about a three and a half trillion dollar annual deficit. I would, I'm as stunned that the markets are accepting this, but apparently the markets don't seem as worried about it as I think they should be. I don't know how much longer you can run up $26 trillion of debt, and have nobody worried about it and not have inflation.

David Rubenstein (14:10):

So I guess I'm old school in thinking that this is not a wonderful thing. I recognize we have problems now, we have to deal with it. But I do worry that when interest rates eventually go up, it'll be very expensive to pay for this. So I'm worried about it, but I think it's my children and grandchildren that are going to have to pay it off. Because I'm not going to be around to pay off these large amounts of debt in my view.

Anthony Scaramucci (14:30):

Well there's a lot of saber-rattling going on between the American government and the Chinese government related to trade, and now the virus. And so... And I know you're a student of history and you understand the Thucydides Trap, related to rising super powers causing a threat to the existing power structure. So where do you think that goes? And what's your advice to people in terms of thinking about that?

David Rubenstein (14:56):

Under the Thucydides Trap that Graham Allison wrote about, out of let's say 20 examples he studied, maybe 15 or 16 led to military confrontation. We're not going to have a military confrontation. But we'll have a different kinds of confrontation, diplomatic, geopolitical, cyber, and so forth. The relationship is going to get worse before it gets better in my view, because during the presidential election, there is no penalty for being negative on China. Nobody ever lost their congressional seats or Senate seat, or the presidency by being negative on China. So people are going to blast China. And as a general rule of thumb throughout history, people don't like to blame themselves for problems. They like to blame somebody else. So who is a good person to blame that doesn't vote a lot, China.

David Rubenstein (15:39):

So I think between now and November, China's going to get blamed for everything. If it rains, China will get blamed. If it snows China will get blamed, everything. And I just hope that people recognize after the election's over, we need to come back, because the two largest economic powers in the world can't be at each other's throats all the time. We need them to buy our treasury bills, and produce products that we want. And they need us to get products that they want as well, but also for investment technology and other kinds of things. So, I think it's not going to be good for awhile, and it's going to be a geopolitical problem between now and the time of the election, in my view.

Anthony Scaramucci (16:14):

There are people sending me texts here, wanting me to ask you certain questions. So I'm going to have an abrupt segue here. And I'd like you to talk a little bit about your upbringing. There's one question I think is very interesting. You grew up in the housing projects in Baltimore. I saw that 60 minutes interview that you did. And your father was a postal clerk. David you're the living example of the American dream. So can you take us back and tell us a little bit about your journey, where your origin was, and how you got to where you are now?

David Rubenstein (16:46):

I don't want to make it sound like I was poverty stricken. I was in a lower blue collar kind of family. My father made $10,000 a year or so working as a postman. I was an only child. We had an 800 square foot house, very modest. But, as everybody who's listening knows, that you accept as a child, the situation you find yourself in. So I wasn't bemoaning the situation. I said, this is what my situation is, and I just did the best I could to deal with it. And in the end, I got lucky in life and worked hard, but a lot of luck. And it produced some financial success. But financial success is not what I was interested in. I had no interest in making money, because I grew up not having any money. There were no hedge funds. There were no project [inaudible 00:17:31]. There were no billionaires.

David Rubenstein (17:31):

And I didn't aspire to that. I just aspired to go into government and help the country that way. And obviously I didn't, it didn't work out that well. I worked in the Carter White House. We got inflation to 19%, and we didn't get reelected. So I went back and practiced law. I wasn't that good at it. And so I went into private equity and it worked out for me. But I felt very loyal the country because I got lucky with modest circumstances I had growing up, and a last name that's very ethnic. I'm not sure in other countries, I could have done what I've done. So I've decided to give away all my money. I'm in the process of giving it away largely to things that benefit the country, but what I call patriotic philanthropy.

David Rubenstein (18:06):

So I'm doing that, and I think my upbringing may have helped a bit. I have a book that I guess I'll plug right now, it's called How to Lead. It's a TV show I have that talks about leadership, that I ask people how they became leaders. And very often people became leaders like you, by coming up... You've had modest circumstances as well. You've come up by failing, taking risks, not being willing to just take no for an answer. And basically keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing. And a lot of luck helps as well, and having good partners being willing to share the credit. So there's no secret formula, but I... Luck helps a lot.

Anthony Scaramucci (18:45):

If you were back at age 21, and you were in the financial circumstances that you were at 21 thrusted forward into the 2020 pandemic, what are some thoughts and some suggestions that you would leave for people in terms of what to think about opportunistically? And what would your mindset be like using your historical perspective?

David Rubenstein (19:11):

Well what... If I were 21 today, I would say to my... And I have a son that's graduating from law school and business school. He's in your son's class at, in law school. That, try something that is something you would like. Other words, you should, never... Nobody ever succeeds in doing anything in the world unless they love what they're doing. Nobody ever won a Noble prize hating what they do. You have to find something you love, experiment, find something.

David Rubenstein (19:37):

But today, I was not in that age interested in making money. Today, if I came out, I'd say, okay, I don't want to go into government, I want to make some money. I would probably find things that, post COVID-19 are likely to do well. A lot of things are going to do well post COVID-19. It's not that difficult to figure them out and get into that industry, or get into those companies, and start those companies. Because the world will change over the next couple of years because of COVID-19.

David Rubenstein (20:03):

And for your viewers, I also, I've mentioned a couple of books. Let me mention one other that might scare them. It's a book by David Quammen, and the book is called Spillover. And essentially he says, this book was written in 2012. He says that we've got seven and a half billion people on the face of the earth. And we are increasingly encroaching on the land that animals occupy. We're mining, we're deforesting, were killing more animals. We have all kinds of livestock kinds of things, where people work closely together with animals, and they kill them. Or you have wet markets as they have in China.

David Rubenstein (20:34):

More and more viruses that live in these animals, that don't kill the animals. They're jumping from animals to humans, and that it going to increasingly happen. And so people that can figure out how to take advantage of that, and prevent that I think will do well. But also, people are going to figure out how to take advantage of the fact that, people are going to change their lifestyles. They're going to buy things differently. They're not going to buy the things they bought before. So those are things that I would probably do if I was a young entrepreneur, trying to figure out how to take advantage of the situation in an appropriate way.

Anthony Scaramucci (21:04):

You mentioned the book Spillover. And one of the things in that book I found so interesting is the immune system that we have, which is very strong, obviously, because it got us to where we are evolutionary. From an evolutionary perspective, the immune system of a bat, or some of these other mammals is like 20 times stronger than our immune system. And so, we obviously need to do more research on that. And so I'm wondering if you, what's your thought on this, the Department of Homeland Security was created after 9/11. A cabinet level position in the executive branch. Do you think we will have something like what was recommended in the book Spillover, like a department of pandemic defense, or a cabinet level position going forward? And agency that sort of protects the American public the way Homeland Security did after 9/11?

David Rubenstein (22:00):

I think something like that would be a good idea, because clearly we weren't prepared for this. Even the department of Homeland Security really wasn't appropriately ready for this. And HHS wasn't either. So I think something like that probably will get done, whether it's a full cabinet department, or it's an agency, I don't know. But something should be done. One of the lessons we have to deal with is our supply chain. We're completely dependent on China for medical equipment. We've got to change that. And other things that could happen in the future. We're too dependent on China for their supply chain.

David Rubenstein (22:31):

But also, vaccine preparation. Vaccine manufacturing. All those kinds of things. Very, very strange in terms of the way it's gone together. And take testing, we haven't really tested that many people yet. And a lot of people are not comfortable going back to work until they have a test. So I think we've got to deal with all these kinds of things. And it's sad that it's going to take us a couple of years to even deal with it. And I hope we can get through this crisis, and then solve it with the testing and the vaccines before the next wave comes. If you now remember from the Spanish flu, the second wave killed a lot more people than the first wave.

Anthony Scaramucci (23:06):

I want to go to a question Bob [Rondano 00:23:09], one of my friends is asking, just sent me a text about global macro capital flows. And if you're sitting in an investment meeting at Carlyle, and you're thinking about, okay, what's going to happen in a post COVID-19 world, in terms of where's the capital going to flow? What nations are going to benefit versus others? What industries are going to benefit versus others? What do you think?

David Rubenstein (23:34):

Well, in the early 1980s, the phrase emerging markets was invented. And before we called those countries third world countries, or undeveloped world country. And people thought because they... Young populations, prices are cheaper, less competition, invest there, you'll do well and so forth. That may be worked, maybe didn't. It wasn't spectacular. But now people are nervous about the emerging markets, and they're going to pull money out of it, I'm afraid. So they're going to pull money back into the developed markets. You'll see more money coming into the United States. Look at all the money we're borrowing, and the dollar is strengthening. Why is that? Because people want more dollars. The foreign currencies are going to weaken against the dollar. So I'm afraid the emerging markets are going to have problems.

David Rubenstein (24:11):

I don't regard China as an emerging market anymore, or India as an emerging market. But I think, you're going to see more money flowing into the United States. You're going to see more money flowing into developed markets. In terms of specific industries, I do think technology is an industry that's going to continue to grow. Now we, right before this COVID crisis, we said maybe the big companies, the Fang so-called are too powerful. Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but they're going to continue to aggregate power and money because we need them. They've done incredible jobs during this crisis. Take a look at Amazon. Amazon has done a lot of wonderful things during this crisis. You can criticize them in some respects, but they saved a lot of people's lives by providing products that people needed.

David Rubenstein (24:51):

So I don't think that American technology companies are going to be weakened, I think are going to be strengthened. And new technology companies who take advantage of this are going to be strengthened as well. What is, I think is going to be hurt, is things that depend on travel. Things that depend on people congregating in large amounts, numbers of people. Sporting events, music events, all those things going to be hurting for a while. They'll come back in time I hope.

Anthony Scaramucci (25:14):

David, it's a little... Another abrupt segue. People want to know what's behind you. Now you're going to get a very high rating on room rater, David. I mean probably like a 10 out of 10. So what is that mural representing behind you, and who did that for you?

David Rubenstein (25:32):

Well, my late mother-in-law was a painter. And when we moved into this house, some 30 years ago, she painted murals here. And this is a mural of the White House. And my family is interposed in there, as well. But it's a mural of the White House. And so I thought it'd be appropriate. Both of us have worked in the White House, so I thought it'd be nice to talk to you with this setting.

Anthony Scaramucci (25:56):

Well, I think you lasted more mooches than me though. I don't know how long your tenure was, but I'm willing to imagine that you were there a little longer than I was David.

David Rubenstein (26:04):

I was there for the entire four years, but I didn't get as much visibility as you did.

Anthony Scaramucci (26:10):

Well, you're doing a good job of visibility now. So, I'm not too worried about your visibility. Let's talk about leadership. You've got this great new book coming out. Hold the book up again so people can see it.

David Rubenstein (26:23):

Called How to Lead. Thank you for letting me promote it. It comes out in September.

Anthony Scaramucci (26:27):

Can you tell our audience more about it? What the content is, the background, et cetera?

David Rubenstein (26:33):

Essentially, I've had a TV show on Bloomberg for about four or five years, where I interviewed CEOs, or leaders like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Oprah Winfrey, David Petraeus, people like that in all walks of life. And I always ask them, what did it take to be successful? How did you become a leader? And they all have their secrets. Warren Buffett, or Lauren Michaels, or Yo-Yo Ma. They all have different secrets, but in the end it gets down to a number of things. In the end, in my view, it is being persistent, sharing the credit, being willing to take a chance, not taking no for an answer, recognizing that failure can be helpful to you. And in the end, I think there are many common traits that great leaders have. And I think it's very important that we produce more leaders, because society needs really good leaders in all areas. And that's what the book is about. It gives some insights of how great leaders have thought they became leaders.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:27):

David, before we turn this live, you were talking about Erik Larson's new book about Winston Churchill.

David Rubenstein (27:34):

Right. I have it right here, [crosstalk 00:27:37] and I'm promoting it. But here it is.

Anthony Scaramucci (27:39):

Yeah. Well it's quite an interesting book. I'm about halfway through it. But there are some similarities, as we both know between President Trump, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Can you tell us what you think some of those are?

David Rubenstein (27:52):

Well, President Trump became president when no one thought he would become president. Winston Churchill was somebody that no one thought would become prime minister. Remember he did not become prime minister until he was 65 years old. So people thought at that time, his day had passed by. He also, he had a lot of challenges. He had a lot of political problems. He couldn't get Roosevelt to go into the war. He made it, it was difficult for him to get control of the government. So, I'm not going to say that Winston Churchill and Donald Trump are the same, but they both faced challenges. Nobody took them seriously when they were first saying they wanted to be prime minister, or wanted to be president. And they up and became those leaders.

Anthony Scaramucci (28:34):

We've had many of our people ask us about Carlyle, the investment strategy related to Carlyle, and some of the things you're doing and thinking about strategically. And also in the context of the crisis. Could you elaborate a little bit on that for us now?

David Rubenstein (28:51):

Well, we've been through recessions before. So you have to know when you're in recessions, you can... The most important thing to do is to shore up what you own. So great fortunes have been made by people in recessions by just buying their own debt back at a discount. If it's available at a discount, or putting more equity in. And that is very often what is necessary. In our case, we have spent a lot of time making certain that our companies are fully capitalized, making certain they can take advantage of all the opportunities that are available to them, and all of our resources. But there's always going to be some things that don't work out perfectly. In Carlyle's case, because we've been through downturns and up cycles before, we have a fair amount of experience in doing this. But there's no easy answer. And again, we're not magicians. We can't do the impossible, but generally the larger private equity firms have a reservoir of talent that probably can work their through these kinds of challenges as well as anybody probably can.

Anthony Scaramucci (29:44):

So, I wanted to get your opinion on the upcoming election. As we both know over the last 100 years, incumbent presidents typically don't get reelected, if they've had a recession in the year of the election. This time it may be a little bit different, because this recession is really related to the pandemic and COVID-19. I don't think anybody is going to blame the president for the pandemic. There might be a debate about his response to it. But this time it's a little bit vexing. What are your thoughts? Where do you think things stand on the presidential election?

David Rubenstein (30:21):

A couple thoughts. Number one, presidents who run for reelection in a recession generally don't win. The last three that did it were Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Herbert Walker Bush, they all lost. And the last president who got reelected in a recession was William McKinley in 1900. So it takes a, it's tough to do. Secondly, you don't know where the economy will be in November. It's almost certainly not going to be as good as it was six months ago. But if you have a rising perception that it's coming back, then I think the president can benefit from that. There's no doubt about it. And I just think... I have predicted the last six presidential elections, I think wrong. I thought Carter would get reelected. I thought Al Gore would get elected. I thought Hillary Clinton would get elected. So I'm wrong almost all the time.

David Rubenstein (31:09):

So whatever I think is probably not the right thing. Joe Biden has a complicated situation he has to face. He doesn't have a way to command the airwaves in quite the way the president of the United States does. And there's not going to be a big convention, almost certainly, a live convention. So he won't be able to do the kind of thing that you get, the so-called bounce out of the convention. So it's going to be challenging. I suspect, as you probably know, most presidential reelections are referendums on the current president. So it almost doesn't make a difference who he is running against. If he is popular at above 51%, he'll win. If not, it's tough.

Anthony Scaramucci (31:44):

So David, Jerome Powell worked for you at Carlyle. So take us into the inner sanctum at Carlyle, and your employment review of chairman Powell. What are you, what do you think of him as a guy?

David Rubenstein (31:57):

He was leaving the George W. Bush administration, George Herbert Walker Bush administration, where he had been secretary of international affairs, and we hired him. And he was from, native of Washington. He lived back in Washington. He was, he had been an investment banker and wanted to come back to Washington. I thought that he's a very smart guy, very cerebral. Low ego. Didn't seek a lot of attention. Hardworking. And, he was in better shape than me. And at lunchtimes, he liked to go and ride his bike. I wish I had done that. I'd be in better shape, but he was in pretty good shape. He'd come back after lunch refreshed.

David Rubenstein (32:33):

And I think he... My own view is, he's done as good a job as you can do. Imagine the situation he's inherited with the COVID-19 crisis. So, I don't know that Ben Bernanke, or Janet Yellen, or Paul Volcker would've done a better job than he's done right now. It's a difficult situation. Never been anything like this. I think he's doing okay. He's even handed, he's not an economist. That's an advantage. You can understand what he's actually saying sometimes. Whereas economist sometimes, it's hard to understand what they say. But, so I'm pretty high on J. Powell. And I think he hasn't let this position go to his head. And I admire what he's done.

Anthony Scaramucci (33:10):

How would you fix the American education system?

David Rubenstein (33:14):

Okay. So the American higher education system, I think is the best in the world. So the question really I'm sure deals with K to 12. If I really knew how to fix the K to 12 system, I would have been in Iowa many months ago, running for president. I don't really know. Bill Gates would say, that his foundation is focused on two things, K to 12 education in the United States, and healthcare in the poorest countries in the world. But I think he was just saying, that the progress they've made in education I'd say has been modest, because it's a very, very intractable problem. I don't really have a simple answer for it.

David Rubenstein (33:47):

But I do know that my own success in life, the extent that it's considered success, is due to the fact that I got a good public school education, and I was educated. And I learned early on the importance of reading. Right now in this country, we have 1.7 million people dropping out of high school every year. And many of them cannot really read. It turns out that 14% of adults in this country are functionally illiterate. If you can't read you're functionally illiterate, you have no chance of getting anywhere in this country.

David Rubenstein (34:17):

So we've got to let people know how to, make sure they learn how to read. I would try to get, discourage people from dropping out of high school, and do other kinds of things. But I recognize families have different situations, and it may not be intact, it may be hard. But right now we're never going to solve income inequality, never deal with lack of social mobility problems, unless you get people to learn how to read, and you let them get high school education. At least a high school education. So, I don't really have a solution for it. It's an intractable problem. And I wish I had an answer, but I just don't. I don't think anybody really has a simple answer for it.

Anthony Scaramucci (34:53):

David, you are a prolific fundraiser. You've raised money for Carlyle, religious groups, charity groups. You've traveled all over the world doing that. I was just wondering if you could give us some ideas about how you have been such a successful fundraiser. What tips do you have for our viewers? And could you elaborate a little bit on that?

David Rubenstein (35:18):

Well, there are different types of fundraising. There's political fundraising, there's philanthropic fundraising, and there's business fundraising. They're all different, different kinds of things that you have to talk to people about. But in all of them, I think in person presentations work better than calling people. Now in the era of Zoom, it may be the case that you can raise a lot more money than before, with just showing up in front of a video presentation. I think that might be possible, but I don't know whether it will continue that way for the future. I think is, the way to do it is you've got to be honest with somebody and explain it. You have to explain what you're, what the product is relatively in simple terms. You'll have to be, I think, an investor alongside them. I think it's very helpful to do that. You have to answer questions frankly. You have to give them bad news as soon as possible. You have to make sure that they understand what they are investing in. And you have to make sure that you are there for them when they need you.

David Rubenstein (36:15):

And sometimes, they may have financial situations themselves that might make it difficult for the fund or other kinds of problems. But I think in the end, what it gets down to is having a reasonably good product, explaining it well, showing up in person has historically been very important. Now, whether you can raise a lot of money by Zoom, I don't know. It seems like some people are raising large funds now by Zoom. Historically, if I wanted to raise money in Abu Dhabi, even though I knew the people in Abu Dhabi very well, I still have to go to Abu Dhabi to show I cared. Whether that needs to be the case in the future, I don't know. But in the end, I think business fundraising is very challenging in this environment because people have less money to invest. So they're very careful about what they're going to decide to invest with.

Anthony Scaramucci (36:59):

You're a one man show in your own rights. You certainly don't need me. So I get to ask the last question. And this is... I want you to distill all that knowledge, all that financial knowledge, private equity, leadership, knowledge, historical knowledge. It's America, 2025, what does the country look like, sir? What are your hopes for the country?

David Rubenstein (37:21):

Well, at that time, I believe we will still be the biggest economy in the world. Our per capita net income will be still far higher than China's. But we have to recognize we're not going to be the most powerful country, and the most financially wealthy country in the world forever. But I do think the country will come back from this crisis. And I do think that the future is reasonably optimistic, because the entrepreneurial spirit we have, the constitution allows a pretty good system of government. We have a reasonably good higher education system, probably the best in the world. And I think the commitment to a stable form of government, commitment to capitalism, and the commitment to letting people try to rise up to their abilities is what makes this country great. I think we'll still have it in 2025.

Anthony Scaramucci (38:03):

Do you think that the partisan divide that we're experiencing right now will be better or worse by 2025?

David Rubenstein (38:10):

It's hard for me to see how it could be worse, though it was worse during the Civil War. Hopefully it will come back, and hopefully this pandemic will enable us to come together after the presidential election. I don't think before the presidential election, we're to come together. But I do think that it's pretty bad now. I haven't seen anything as bad as this in the last 25 years. Hopefully it'll get better. I don't think it'd get much worse, unless we go into a Civil War of some type.

David Rubenstein (38:34):

So, I appreciate your having me Anthony, and I welcome everybody's paying attention to the things I had to say. I hope some of you found it interesting. And I appreciate being invited to the SALT Talks.

Anthony Scaramucci (38:47):

David hold the book back up before we let you go.

David Rubenstein (38:49):

Okay. How to Lead. Thank you very much.