Jeb Bush: The Current Discord in American Society | SALT Talks #66

“Policy has taken a back seat. Now you're rewarded for how angry you are or how you can understand people's legitimate angst, rather than saying, here are a set of policies that if we fix this, your anger will subside because your life will be better.”

Jeb Bush is the 43rd governor of the State of Florida, serving from 1999 through 2007. He was the third Republican elected to the state’s highest office and the first Republican in the state’s history to be reelected. He was most recently a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Governor Bush offers his views on the current discord in American society and where he sees paths forward.

With Baby Boomers aging, younger generations have taken the reins of American culture. There is an erosion of shared identity that has led to more conflict and antagonism among people and their politics. "It's bigger than the current occupant of the White House. I think it is a cultural phenomenon." Gen Z and millennials will likely spark a change akin to other major American movements like the civil rights movement and the 19th century's Second Great Awakening.

Governor Bush also laid out policy initiatives designed to address key drivers of inequality in the United States where we see the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ widening. Some of the biggest items include education policies focused on universal pre-K and equitably-funded schools, as well as universal broadband Internet, made only more important during the work-from-home period.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Governor Jeb Bush.jpeg

Jeb Bush

43rd Governor of the State of Florida

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started during this work from home period with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. Really what we're trying to do during these SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provided our global salt conference series, which our guest today has attended in the past, I believe in 2017. Welcome Governor Jeb Bush to salt talks. Governor Bush was the 43rd governor of the state of Florida serving from 1999 to 2007. He was the third Republican elected to the state's highest office and the first Republican in the state's history to be reelected, and he was also most recently a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. During his two terms as governor, Governor Bush champion major reform of government in areas ranging from healthcare and environmental protection to civil service and tax reform.

John Darsie: (01:05)
Under Governor Bush's leadership, Florida established a bold accountability system in public schools and created the most ambitious school choice program in the nation. Governor Bush really presided over the economic boom that now defines the state of Florida. He's also known for his leadership during two unprecedented back-to-back hurricane seasons, which brought eight hurricanes and four tropical storms to the state of Florida in less than two years. Governor Bush previously served as a presidential professor of practice at the University of Pennsylvania. He also served as a visiting professor and fellow at Harvard University and executive professor at Texas A & M university. Has been awarded several honorary doctorates from collegiate institutions across the country. Governor Bush currently serves as the chairman of Finback Investment Partners LLC, as well as of Dock Square Capital, both merchant banks, which are headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida.

John Darsie: (02:00)
If you have any questions for Governor Bush during today's talk, a reminder that you can enter them in the Q and A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. Hosting today's interview is Anthony Scaramucci, you might've heard of him. He's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital. He's the chairman of SALT. He also helps support Governor Bush's nomination for president in 2016 before eventually joining the Trump campaign. Anthony, I'll turn it over to you for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:29)
Jeb, I don't know if you caught that, "You might've heard of him." Okay. That was the first shot at me to get the SALT off started. Okay. Just want to make sure you know that Jeb. You're in the middle of a crossfire. Okay.

John Darsie: (02:40)
I don't know if it's famous or infamous Governor, but people have heard of him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:43)
Here he goes. Jeb, I miss you, man. I miss you. Those were good days back in 2016. So I want to go back, way back and we always ask this question about something we couldn't really find about you on Wikipedia or something that's been written about you, but just something about your life that you would like to share with us that we just wouldn't know. You have one of the more well covered families in the world for that matter. As an example, why did you go to the University of Texas? Many of your family members, went to... Your dad went to Yale after Phillips Andover Academy. Why did you decide to settle in South Florida versus staying in Texas? Tell us some of those things before we get started on some of the core policies stuff.

Governor Jeb Bush: (03:27)
Anthony is great being with you, and John. I look forward to the dialogue between you guys, but first of all, the Wikipedia thing is interesting. When I was running, I was at a rotary club in Manchester and this guy gets up and I went on Wikipedia to see if I had anything in common with our guest speaker. It turns out we do have two things in common. Like me, he's an avid rock climber and he just wanted to be a Hollywood movie star with his crew. So it turns out there's a game unemployed kids that have Cheetos stains on their t-shirts in the basement of their parents' home, play the game of how long you can keep something that's not a fact on someone's Wikipedia page and they play this game constantly and so that was somehow deleted later on. What my Wikipedia page probably doesn't say is that I fell in love with my wife now married for 47 years.

Governor Jeb Bush: (04:22)
I fell in love with her at first sight when I was 17 years old. I went down to Mexico as part of an exchange program when I was in high school and it changed my life. My life is BC before Columba, and AC after Columba. I didn't want to go to... I wanted to go back home, so I went to University of Texas because-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:42)
Was she a Florida resident Jeb, or no?

Governor Jeb Bush: (04:45)
Mexico.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:45)
You met her in Mexico, right?

Governor Jeb Bush: (04:46)
I met her in Mexico.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:47)
So why did you guys settle in Florida?

Governor Jeb Bush: (04:49)
Well, first we got married in Austin, Texas, and we went to Venezuela. I worked for a bank. I was the youngest bank rep in Caracas, Venezuela. I was 25 at the time or 24, and when I came back home, I worked in my dad's campaign in 1980 and now Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the world, but back then it wasn't. My children did not speak English as their first language. They spoke Spanish and I felt more comfortable. I wanted to be out from my dad's shadow, which was a stupid idea. My dad's shadow didn't stop at the Houston city limits. I wanted to do my own, be my own man, of course, but I also wanted a place that was more welcoming for my multi cultural, bilingual family and so I picked Miami and I had a great partner and off I went.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:47)
Miami for that matter is blessed to have you, so was the state of Florida. As John mentioned, I think these are just important stats. You reduced taxes by $19 billion in the state of Florida. You veto $2 billion in spending and then while you were doing that, you simultaneously increase the reserves from $1.3 billion to $9.8 billion. You were known as the education governor, while you were doing all of that. So lay the groundwork for us about that time in your life, where you were executing policy that was actually enhancing the quality of life of people and take us to where we are today in terms of the body politic and how do we get back to that time?

Governor Jeb Bush: (06:28)
You know, there were a lot of governors doing bigger things back then in the 90s and the early 2000s, for sure. Politicians were rewarded for advocating bigger ideas and then executing on them. When I campaigned in 1998, I laid out what I wanted to do in vivid detail. It was very controversial at the time, but it gave me a mandate to do it and as part of it, I went to visit 250 schools as a candidate. I was all in, I mean and now, policy has taken a way back seat. It's the total back of the bus. Now you're rewarded for how angry you are or how you can understand people's legitimate angst and anger in this country today, rather than saying, here are a set of policies that if we fix this, your anger will subside because your life will be better. That change, is a cultural change. It was a very different when I was governor and we need to get back to it. Our democracy doesn't work, if it's all about yelling and screaming at each other.

Governor Jeb Bush: (07:31)
The debate was a good example of it, maybe... I mean, I don't know. It was heartbreaking. I couldn't watch the thing. It's so sad that we've gone so far away from the advocacy of ideas that can make a difference in people's lives.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:46)
Jeb, just more of a philosophical question for me, because I'm really trying to figure it out myself and I'm curious about your opinion. Is it a top down thing or a bottom up thing or a combination of the two? Would better leadership make the difference or would better policy or what's your sense of all that?

Governor Jeb Bush: (08:05)
I think a lot about this because I do think it's bigger than the current occupant of the White House. I think it is a cultural phenomenon. Two things are happening, our culture has changed, the baby boomer generation, which I'm a part of is kind of run its course. There is a new culture that is more vulgar, more hateful, I think. More antagonistic, less caring about our fellow man and then there's a lack of a shared identity that is... The shared identity that really is the glue that keeps America going, has eroded. The combination of those two things I think, create the political environment, not the other way around. Politics is a reflection of our culture, but it isn't a leading indicator of our culture. I think there's a cultural shift that's going to happen and it's going to happen now we're in the midst of it.

Governor Jeb Bush: (08:59)
Hopefully it'll be more unifying, more caring, more loving. I think gen Z and millennials will lead the way. They're much maligned, particularly by people my age. I don't think we got a whole lot to be bragging about, to be honest with you, I don't know why we're out there saying how bad the next generations are, we've we screwed it up and now we have the politics we have. The good news Anthony is, in my mind at least, culture isn't linear it doesn't... We're not going to march off a cliff. There'll be a spark as there has been in the 60s, and there was in the 19th century with the second grade awakening that created the beginnings of the prohibition movement, the abolition movement, the women's suffrage movement, the progressive era of the early 20th century all started in the 1830s.

Governor Jeb Bush: (09:49)
It was a religious revival that did that and it was a unifying thing for the country. We'll have something and well it may not be a religious revival, but we'll have something that I think will alter our course for the better.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:00)
I just want to ask another question on this topic, because I think you very insightful. Your dad's generation, Bob Dole's generation, they all went to war. There was 40-ish percent of the country that was either tied to a serviceman. They were either, the service men and women, they were either in the war or they were tied to it. I mean, my grandparents had two children in the war. My uncle Anthony, who I'm named after was on Normandy beach. He survived it, thank God, but they then come home and they feel that connectivity, whether they're in North Dakota, Florida, Texas, or New York, they were tied to each other and there was espirit de corps there. There was a to use an old word, a forgotten word, noblesse oblige.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:47)
Growing up where I did, I don't even know how to pronounce the goddamn word, but you get the point that I'm making. Do you think that we've lost that national community? Do you think there's a way to get people to do that again, it doesn't necessarily have to be, go into the military, but is there some kind of unifying thing that we should be thinking about that helps us re-establish that national identity again?

Governor Jeb Bush: (11:09)
Yeah. It's a great question. The greatest generation certainly had that and that has eroded. The shared identity that defines what it is to be an American has eroded. I don't think there's one thing that we can do. I think there's a multitude of things we have to do. One is to restore civics education in our schools. You don't know your past, it's kind of hard to know the present or what the future looks like. Two, in the political world, I think we need to support the candidates that are trying to find a common ground to solve problems rather than make a point. They have to be rewarded. You can't just punish, you can't defeat people that are focused on the shared identity. Three, I think it's really important to recognize that there are two Americas and it's based on, not based on race as much as it's based on class.

Governor Jeb Bush: (12:08)
If you look at the book, the Charles Murray's book Coming Apart, it's just breathtaking the changes that have taken place in the last 30 years. The halves, those that have intact families, those that are college educated, those that have higher incomes are living the best life ever in American history, but there are a whole lot of people that are being left behind right now and the acceleration of technology into our lives is creating massive disruption. Not all of it wonderful. Not all of it at all. We have to focus on that as well. The people that are doing well need to recognize and get to know the people that aren't.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:47)
Well, I mean, this is something that it was one of the key hallmarks of your success as governor was re-engineering the educational system in the state of Florida and obviously we both agree on this, that we need to even the playing field, K through 12, because if you grow up in a certain zip code or a certain neighborhood, you're getting a better public school education than others. Is there a chance we can do that Jeb? Is there a chance to have that national movement or is that has to be done at a local level? What's your opinion of where education is K through 12 right now? What would be some suggestions if a governor called you or a president or somebody said, okay, we got to fix this. What would you do?

Governor Jeb Bush: (13:29)
I'm the chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, and that's what we do. We work in 40 States. It is a state policy drives education. It's executed at a local level, but it should be a national priority. Doesn't have to be a federal government priority, just a national priority to recognize that if we're concerned about these big gaps that exist in America today that are creating all sorts of friction, cultural, and political and economic friction, then we better make sure every child has the capacity to achieve earned success and not perpetuate this two Americas that is now becoming evident for everybody. The things that we should do is to have, I think, a command focus on pre-K to three, so that every child is functionally literate by the end of third grade, because that's when you start reading to learn in fourth grade, you're learning how to read until third grade.

Governor Jeb Bush: (14:33)
Ending social promotion, putting a real emphasis, particularly on low income families, being able to access a universal pre-K with a command focus on reading is really important. That would be step number one. Step number two is there should be equity and funding. Some States have it, many States don't. There should be access to high quality schools and they should be funded equitably. Then third, I think there needs to be a recognition that college should not be necessarily the aspiration for everybody. The focus ought to be on college and or career readiness for high school. We did those things and made it a real commitment and parents would be given more choices, particularly low income families. I think we can resolve this.

Governor Jeb Bush: (15:21)
The idea that somehow we are systemically incapable of allowing people to rise up that the challenges are just impossible, it's so self-defeating, it's so dangerous. I think we have to kick that out of our discussions. The left seems to be obsessed with this, that life's not fair, therefore we can't do anything about it and that is dangerously pessimistic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:53)
Oh, and I agree. I think that the... You and I are obviously Republicans, I guess I'm not really even sure what that means anymore. We'd have to have that, that would be a five-hour conversation with us, not a SALT Talk, what it means to be a Republican at this point, but we have to have a platform of equal opportunity for people. I'm all for unequal outcomes, pursuant to people's dreams and ability to risk take and invest in capital allocate, but we got to help people get to the starting gate, roughly in the same lane, if you will, or the same starting block. You were obviously amazing at doing that in Florida. Let's turn it now to the pandemic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:33)
Now we have this pandemic Jeb, that is exacerbating this issue. Some of the richer people are getting even richer. Some of the poor people are getting poorer. A lot of economists are calling this a K-shaped recovery, where some are going this way and the other part of the country is going that way. Do you think we're in a K-shape recovery? If we are, how is that going to affect your ability to invest? How is it going to affect your ability to think about public policy?

Governor Jeb Bush: (17:02)
I don't know where we're going to end up, the letter is work in progress. So it's part of the alphabet for sure, but I don't know how we... It could be a W, it could be a K, who knows. I think what we do know is that whatever the trends were prior to the pandemic, this massive disruption has only accelerated them. So the trends of unequal... Just the fact that high-income people have been doing better because of federal reserve policies and many other things, and low-income people while they were doing better prior to the pandemic, the gaps were growing. So yes, I think there's going to be post pandemic, there's going to be serious issues about who we are as a society.

Governor Jeb Bush: (17:48)
I think there's solutions to this, if we recognize this to start with, but it's a serious problem. From an investment point of view, I see the trends, I see a couple of things happening that are important. We've been investing in how do you deal with frail elders in the proper way? The pandemic made it clear that institutional care, while it may be appropriate for some, isn't inappropriate for a whole lot of families. We need to find a way to provide support, particularly for low income frail elders in their home or in their community. I think there's going to be a big trend towards supporting companies that are doing just that and do it at a lower cost with better outcomes than the nursing homes. I think there's going to be a focus on the home in general.

Governor Jeb Bush: (18:41)
People are going to work at home. People are going to learn at home. People are going to use health technologies to prevent illness at home. That's another trend I think, in our society where there's good investing opportunities. Then finally I'd say that digital infrastructure, which is becoming the new interstate highway system, there needs to be massive investment there because with 5G coming, there's just all sorts of billions and billions of dollars will be invested in the digital infrastructure space and right now, if you want to look at inequities, if you live in the rural areas, very few people have access to broadband. If you are poor, you don't have access to devices and so if there's going to be another stimulus cares package, I think there should be a massive commitment to building out the digital highway, the digital infrastructure so that we can create a quality of opportunity in that regard as well, because the home is going to be a place where people do business.

Governor Jeb Bush: (19:47)
When Google says they're not going to reopen their campus for another year and a half, and these kids maybe they go back home, maybe they go back to Nebraska or maybe they go back to Indiana and they can't access broadband from their homes, even if they would want to live back there with a higher quality of life, that's wrong. There's ways to solve this with philanthropy, with government, with business, making strategic investments to deal with it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:15)
Before I turn it over to John, because we've got a ton of questions coming in from the audience, I just have two more questions. I want to take you to your current business, where you're now the founding managing partner of Dock Square Capital, middle market private equity investment. You just mentioned the stuff that you're doing in elderly care. Tell us a little bit about your business. Tell us what excites you in the morning in terms of what you're doing and where do you see the future of your business?

Governor Jeb Bush: (20:41)
We're a merchant bank. We do two things, we have partnership arrangements where we earn up into people's businesses by helping them grow. For example, Ag America is the largest non-bank lender in the Ag space. They'll do $1 billion worth of loans this year. We're significant partners in that, we're partners in a credit fund. That's part of our business. We're working with Investcorp to do a GP staking business. To invest in private equity firms, which is very exciting. The second part of our business is we co-invest alongside private equity firms where we open up our network to help accelerate the growth of the businesses. We've done eight of those in the last four years, we've invested roughly $240 million in separate SPVs.

Governor Jeb Bush: (21:33)
We use our relationships to help accelerate the sales and market opportunities of these businesses. Thank goodness, all of them in the pandemic year, have done well and that's just pure luck because we weren't in retail or other things that have just been devastated. They're thriving in this business and what I've learned is, if you're investing, leadership really matters in business and in public life. We're blessed to have CEOs of these businesses that are phenomenal and rose to the challenge. A lot of people cower in the corner, in the fetal position when a crisis like the pandemic hit and the real leaders step up.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:11)
Stop talking about my colleague, John Dorsey, Governor. You can't can't do that. I mean, there's just too many people on the call. You're embarrassing the poor kid when you talk about the fetal position.

Governor Jeb Bush: (22:22)
I'm glad he stopped sucking his thumb and came out from the corner. So yeah, I mean, this is a great time to be in business in many ways because people rise to the challenge. What I'm finding is that our investors seem to be more focused on social impact now too. Whereas that trend may have accelerated in the COVID era as well. People want to make money, they want to make a difference too. They're seeing the challenges our country is facing and they want their investment to be purposeful as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:59)
Jeb, my last question then John, I'm going to turn it over to John. I want you to, because you're a very thoughtful guy, your policy walk, you're an entrepreneur, obviously a professor. I want you to imagine the best of America and where America could be in 10 years. If we start thinking about the better angels of our personalities and the better angels of our experience as Americans and the greatness of our natural resources and et cetera. Tell us a vision of America that you think we could have, if we start to go in that more unifying direction?

Governor Jeb Bush: (23:34)
You know, during this really depressing time where our politics... We're in a serious economic hardships for millions of Americans. We have a pandemic that's scaring everybody. Our public leaders, haven't been able to rise to the occasion like you would want in a crisis like this. All of this is going around and it's depressing, but I think it was in April. I don't remember exactly when it was, my vision of what America is and can be, is watching SpaceX go to the space station.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:09)
Sure. Over Memorial Day weekend, right?

Governor Jeb Bush: (24:12)
Unbelievable. Really cool outfits, very 21st century space suits. Elegant design, flawless execution, done at a low cost with massive innovation. To me, Elon Musk is what the inspiring future for our country and we need more of them. We need to embrace entrepreneurial capitalism and risk-taking and focus on the positive aspects of how that creates more opportunity for more people than any government program ever created. We've got to get back to our roots and then we need to make sure that everybody has the capacity to rise up and not say the life circumstances make it impossible. If there are problems, fix them for crying out loud. Stop all of this, them and us, and start focusing on we. Look, I'm confident that, that's going to happen.

Governor Jeb Bush: (25:06)
I hope it accelerates after the 2020 election. I'm not smart enough to know what form this will take. It may not even be political. It might just be all of us kind of saying enough of this, we're going to begin to solve this at the local level. America's a bottom-up country. Maybe we start solving these problems and coming together community by community, and then the world... Washington changes because we've changed. That's my hope and I think there's enough goodness in America and there's certainly enough entrepreneurship in America to imagine a really bright future.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:40)
Well, I appreciate all that. I appreciate that sentiment and I pray for that outcome Governor. I'm going to turn it over to John. We got a ton of people here that want to ask you questions.

Governor Jeb Bush: (25:51)
Okay.

John Darsie: (25:51)
Yeah. It's interesting that you brought up SpaceX because it was one of my follow-up questions I was going to ask is that not only is SpaceX taking people to the International Space Station and going into space, they're also launching thousands of satellites into space to build and basically blanket the earth in broadband. Lockheed Martin had a similar program that they shut down in 2001 because they didn't see a viable financial future for it, but what types of things can we do and what type of things are you doing in your business to create that digital highway infrastructure that you mentioned? Starlink from SpaceX as one example, first responders in Washington have been using it to get broadband in remote areas as they try to fight these fires, but what are initiatives that you're either investing in or that you've seen or observed that you think are particularly promising that we should put resources into?

Governor Jeb Bush: (26:41)
We've invested in the largest privately owned cell tower company in the United States called Vertical Bridge, that's expanding dramatically. A very efficient business. The amount of infrastructure necessary for 5G is exponentially more than what we have now and so small sales sites, as well as the traditional towers are going to be in high demand, irrespective of what SpaceX is doing with satellites, there's a need for all of that. I think there's a role for the federal government to, as Eisenhower did with the interstate highway system, to deal with the places where it is not economic. Particularly the rural areas where there's a need for major investment. This can be done in partnership. This can be done with private investing. It could be done in all sorts of ways with the government support.

Governor Jeb Bush: (27:37)
There's lots of philanthropy that's interested in this as well because of the education challenges. It is shameful that we have something like 20 million kids that can't access learning because they don't have either a device or they can't afford access to broadband. Hopefully, when we get to the point where there a consensus on how to provide support for people when they're hurting that this will be an integral part of it. I've been talking to lots of people around the country about this, and there seems to be a consensus that it's important to do it and accelerate it.

John Darsie: (28:12)
We're presenting this Q and A in partnership with strategic worldviews, Jeb, you might've met our partner, Robert Wolf at a recent SALT conference. Robert was an economic advisor under President Obama. He's a contributor to the Fox Business Network and he's hopped on, he's going to ask a couple questions. Robert, you want to introduce yourself to the audience [crosstalk 00:28:29]

Governor Jeb Bush: (28:28)
Hey, Robert. How you doing buddy?

Robert Wolf: (28:30)
Jeb, good to see you.

Governor Jeb Bush: (28:31)
Good to see you too.

Robert Wolf: (28:32)
God, even this Dem will say, boy, do we miss you?

Governor Jeb Bush: (28:38)
I like it. Your Room Rater, you got about a 9.2.

Robert Wolf: (28:42)
You know, because I'm on Fox, they don't even root rate us.

Governor Jeb Bush: (28:48)
You've noticed that there's bias even on Room Rater.

Robert Wolf: (28:51)
I'm telling you. It's unbelievable. [crosstalk 00:28:54]

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:54)
I'm very happy to tell everybody I got a nine out of 10. For some reason I was at a one over a Scaramucci, which was like 111, but then something magical happened and I'm now nine out of 10.

John Darsie: (29:05)
You've repented, that's why.

Governor Jeb Bush: (29:06)
That's because of your opinion on Donald Trump.

Robert Wolf: (29:09)
It's amazing, we always bring it right back to Anthony. I have two questions, one political and one putting your governor hat on. On the political one, it's just more of a question that I think a lot of us Dems, this Lincoln project has exploded where former Republican advisors are getting together and forming their own, we need to take our party back. The first way to do it is literally help Joe Biden win. I mean, theoretically, that's their first move and then that is, I guess, the transitional phase to go back to what would be deemed a conservative party again. That seems to be sane. One question is why aren't people like yourself and other former politicians, not like Lincoln project where it's more on the public relations advertising side, but why aren't some of the more sane, smart, intelligent ones coming together like military has or economists have to kind of say, hey, listen, this is not the right direction, how do we take it back? So that's one question I'm just curious why people and thought leaders like you and the GOP aren't kind of taking our party back. [crosstalk 00:30:31]

Governor Jeb Bush: (30:32)
There are a lot of people doing that. I'm at the stage of my life where I've taken a step back from politics. I'm disgusted by what's going on in Washington. It's heartbreaking to see, but I've got a business. In fact, a lot of our investors ask, are you going to get back in the fray because they don't want me to... I'm running a business that requires my attention and I have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that our investors do well. I call out the ugliness when I see it. I don't have to do it... I mean, I haven't been drawn into the thing like Anthony is doing. It's just because it's not helpful to get into that situation. Now, the question about the Lincoln Project, it' interesting.

Governor Jeb Bush: (31:26)
I think their ads are great. I don't like the fact that they feel compelled to take out all Republican senators along the way. I think we could be in a very dangerous situation if in the fact that vice-president Biden is not capable of saying, I can't tell you what I'm going to do as it relates to stacking the court. I mean, the simple answer would have been no. We're not going to do that, but he hasn't been able to give a yes or no answer on that. That's kind of disturbing. Eliminating the filibuster rule across the board could create some real problems. I'm a conservative, I believe in limited government. My party has abandoned those principles temporarily, but I can't embrace the idea of just massive power being shifted to Washington D.C. so I'm conflicted.

Robert Wolf: (32:19)
I would respond, but you're the VIP and people don't really care to hear me, so I'm going to. My second question is more I'm asking-

Governor Jeb Bush: (32:25)
I hope, whatever you were going to say, I hope you're right. I hope that you were going to say that Biden's not that kind of person, that he'd be able to withstand the pressures of the progressive wing of your party and he'll be back to trying to find consensus. That's my prayer.

Robert Wolf: (32:39)
I think he'd be the best unifier for our country without question. The difference is going to be more sad.

Governor Jeb Bush: (32:46)
From your lips to God's ears, brother.

Robert Wolf: (32:48)
Now Florida, so Anthony and I and John and [inaudible 00:32:52] we've recently had on both Ron Klain and Tom Bossert to really... We've actually had them on three times collectively to talk about COVID and everything that they said away from the PPE and the masks, I'm not talking to the healthcare side, but on the economic side, this is where I think Joe Biden's been right to get a real recovery it's predicated on reopening and getting our arms around COVID and the pandemic. We all are seeing every day what's happening in Florida. Where the current governor is reopening the state completely with many of us look at without any real protocol and actually we see a lot of the mayors just really disagree. We know that the numbers are going, the cases are going up and up and Florida. How do you see the right balance between the pandemic and reopen and getting the economy back, which is really the $1 million question that we all need to know and no one has solved for.

Governor Jeb Bush: (34:00)
It's been disappointing that this has become part of the hyper partisan, hyper political kind of environment. The president hasn't been able to do what you want a president to do in a crisis, which is to lay out the facts, show some empathy for the plight of a whole lot of people that are stuck in their homes and lost their jobs. Give people a sense that helps on the way, give people hope and constantly communicate where we are. In the absence of that, there's a lot of confusion. For example, Florida's infection rates are actually per a hundred thousand are now in, they're like at 11, which is nearing where New York. New York's bumped up to about five. The States with the biggest problems right now are in North Dakota, Iowa, they're all in the upper Midwest for whatever reason.

Governor Jeb Bush: (34:55)
I think the bias ought to be to take action, to open, to have schools open, but have a policy that you're constantly adjusting based on the conditions on the ground. If there's an acceleration of an outbreak, you... I mean, Florida's a big state, so Miami is very different than Jacksonville and if there's nothing going on in Jacksonville, we need to open up the economy. Think of all the people that can't get a job because they're stuck at home. Think of the amount of drug abuse, child abuse, domestic violence has increased during the pandemic. Now for some, in my life, I'm the healthiest I've ever been. I get to spend the night with the love of my life. I haven't traveled. Haven't left 33134 zip code and for a lot of people like me, this is the most productive time that we've been in, but there are tremendous number of people that have to get back to work.

Governor Jeb Bush: (35:51)
So taking all the social cost into consideration and explaining why it's important to open up and de-politicizing it, I think is important. Ultimately the answer to this is that we need a vaccine. I mean, this isn't going to go away. I think up North, there's going to be bigger outbreaks as people have to stay at home, right? Stay inside because of weather. We need a vaccine. Once again, there needs to be clarity about its effectiveness and how it's going to be distributed. There should be discussions about that constantly so that people have confidence that a vaccine is going to work. How's your business?

John Darsie: (36:39)
Robert, I think you're muted.

Robert Wolf: (36:44)
Jeb, business is going well.

John Darsie: (36:44)
There you go.

Robert Wolf: (36:44)
We'll take that off at another time, but we're kind of doing what you are doing, but it seems like you're doing that or bigger scale, but we're hanging in there. Thank you.

John Darsie: (36:53)
Governor, I want to talk about agriculture. You mentioned that Ag America, which you're involved in is one of the biggest non-bank lenders to the agriculture space. Obviously a lot of farmers have suffered as a result of the trade wars that we've found ourselves in and other factors as well, but what's the future of American agriculture and how do we get it back on track?

Governor Jeb Bush: (37:12)
Well, the future of American agriculture is full of technology, full of innovation, full of increased productivity. We've led the world consistently, and I think we'll continue to do so. I also think that the rural parts of the United States are going to be... Are going to have a renaissance. People are beginning to realize that densely populated urban areas with all sorts of challenges, crumbling infrastructure, increases in crime that have taken place may not be the best place to raise a family and so I think what will support agriculture is that there'll be in this vast country, you'll start seeing people moving to smaller towns and smaller cities and that'll support agriculture as well. The Trump administration has provided massive support, direct support to agriculture, which I don't even know if the money has been appropriate or it's just by executive order it's going out.

Governor Jeb Bush: (38:17)
That can't be sustained over the long haul. I mean, there has to be markets around the world that we regain. The Chinese, if they fulfill their commitment, that in and of itself will sustain major parts of Florida, the US agriculture. The protein increase in Asia by itself will create longterm stability. I'm pretty optimistic, but what we found is that land prices and in the agriculture areas across the country, haven't gone down. Farm income has, but it's been supplanted by government support.

John Darsie: (38:59)
We have a question that came in from a great friend of SALT, Steve Case who's the former founder and CEO of AOL. He now has a fund called Rise of the Rest that hits on some of the themes that you just mentioned. They're investing in secondary US cities outside of Silicon Valley, outside of New York. They're investing a lot in places like Florida. As governor of Florida, you help diversify that economy and you help turn into a startup state that's still perpetuated today as well. What were the key lessons that other States should consider, so the country as a whole can create more jobs and create more entrepreneurship and those sort of forgotten places where quality of life isn't rising quite as fast as in other primary US cities?

Governor Jeb Bush: (39:41)
Well, Steve could answer that question better than I for sure, because he's investing exactly in the kind of communities that have the potential to rise up and I admire him greatly for doing it and I hope he's making money along the way so it's sustainable. I think he will. Look, the first objective for any state or any community is to make sure that every person has the building blocks to be able to pursue their dreams. Not everybody's going to be an entrepreneur, but if you at an early age, you'd learn how to read, and then there's rigorous learning along the way, you have options that otherwise you won't have. First and foremost, in every corner of our country, there should be a command focus on raising the bar as it relates to education outcomes.

Governor Jeb Bush: (40:33)
Those are the places where you're going to find the talent to be able to create the startup economy. Secondly, I think it's going to become clearer and clearer that along with talent, you can't make it impossible for people to get the first rung of the ladder. Silicon Valley is a phenomenal place for the creation of businesses, but if you're a 25 year old kid, you may not ever be able to buy a home. The costs are so extraordinary and so I think business climate issues are really important as well and making life affordable for the next generation is hugely important. Florida's done a pretty good job on that. We have work to do as it relates to our K-12 education system.

Governor Jeb Bush: (41:24)
Our colleges, I think, are doing a very good job of affordability. There's room to go. Everybody can do better for sure, but I'm proud of the fact that our business climate is as good as any in the country.

John Darsie: (41:39)
I know you're focused largely on investing in the United States, but we have a question from, I think one of our members who's outside of the United States. Your brother certainly didn't believe when he was president in isolationism. He believed in going and helping solve issues related to disease in places like Africa, he believed in trying to spread American values around the world. As a country, how should we be looking at our neighbors in Latin America? Your wife, you met her in Mexico, she's Mexican American. You studied Latin American studies in college. How should we be thinking about Mexico and Latin America in general, how we can either from a public, government perspective, invest capital in those places to improve outcomes, to help address some immigration issues and asylum issues, how should we be thinking about that?

Governor Jeb Bush: (42:27)
Well, living in Miami where 60% of the three plus million residents were born outside the United States, most of whom were from Latin America or the Caribbean. In effect, we live in Latin America in many ways. I think the first step is to say Latin America is not the backyard, it's the front yard. That it's not a place exclusively, where there are problems and that we build a wall to keep them out, it's a place where there's huge opportunities economically for our businesses and opportunities for us. If you think about how the world is changing, one of the biggest change could be the de-linking of China and the United States, not just technology, but supply chain issues. Certainly politically that de-linking is happening. There's a broad consensus left and right, that we need to change our relationship with China.

Governor Jeb Bush: (43:26)
China is not waiting for us to figure that out, they're doing the exact same thing on their side. So re-shoring a lot of manufacturing will be a huge opportunity, and Mexico is poised to take full advantage of that. The United States should embrace that. We should have a North American strategy as it relates to energy, as it relates to all sorts of industries in our front yard, but administration after administration has kind of... Basically it's been benign neglect and it's too bad because it's South of our border and to the East of us is 600 million people with big opportunities to grow where the United States could play a constructive role in dealing with some of the social challenges, but also view it as a huge economic opportunity.

John Darsie: (44:21)
Governor Bush, thanks so much for joining us. I'm going to leave the last word to Robert and Anthony, if they have any parting words or thoughts for you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:29)
Jeb, in your honor, look what I got. I got the Key West mile, zero cup. I'm drinking my coffee from this morning. God bless you and the state of Florida. You're an amazing guy. I miss you Jeb. I hope I get a chance to see you soon.

Governor Jeb Bush: (44:42)
Yeah, let's go have a dinner somewhere where they allow us to do it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:47)
Yep. Well, I mean, we're going to go back to Rao's because I know you love that place. Jeb. I know you love the stories that are told up in Rao's. So I'm going to bring you back there, Jeb. I promise.

Governor Jeb Bush: (45:00)
All right.

Robert Wolf: (45:01)
We've chatted about it, but for the people who don't know this, and it's one of my most famous pieces of memorabilia, but your dad, when he handed Babe Ruth the book at Yale of his autobiography. 1947 or 48, when your dad, Papi was the captain of the Yale team, I have that signed by your dad and I think that is one of the best, maybe the best ever intersection of politics and sports. I remember you and I have talked about it. I think it's over your dad's fireplace at the museum. It's one of the great pictures and whoever has not seen that, it's worth looking up, but Jeb maybe end on, everyone loves the Babe and everyone loves your dad.

Governor Jeb Bush: (45:54)
Yeah, exactly. This was after he served in the military, went back to Yale, they had little George W. he was born in New Haven. The most Texan of my siblings was Connecticut Yankee. Babe Ruth was very frail, kind of on his last years. It was an amazing picture, who would've known. You're right, my dad was captain of the baseball team, by the way, they got to the finals, the NCAA finals two years running when he was captain. They lost to USC one year and I think University of Oregon or something, another West Coast school. Yale was a baseball powerhouse under the leadership of George H. W. Bush.

John Darsie: (46:40)
Fantastic.

Robert Wolf: (46:41)
As always, thank you.

Governor Jeb Bush: (46:42)
You bet. Thanks, Robert.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:43)
God bless you Jeb, Okay. We'll see you soon.

Governor Jeb Bush: (46:45)
Yeah. Thanks guys.

Stuart Leckie: Investments & Pensions in the Far East | SALT Talks #65

“Chinese population is just coming up to 1.4 billion and it will peak actually very soon within the next decade and then have a long slow decline.”

Stuart Leckie advises on investments and pensions in the Far East. He is the author of books titled "Investment Funds in China" and "Pension Funds in China". He is the Founding Chairman of the Hong Kong Retirement Schemes Association and was Chairman of the CFA Institute Advisory Council on Standards and Financial Market Integrity.

Hong Kong adopted the Mandatory Provident Fund in the 1990s that required residents to put money away monthly towards a retirement savings account. The Hong Kong Retirement Schemes Association was created to address many of the questions surrounding the new program and offer guidance and expertise.

Hong Kong’s retirement plan stands in contrast to a much more complicated Chinese pension fund. China has two separate plans: one for urban residents and one for rural. Glaring problems exist in its current construction and face problems with its growing population in urban areas. “what's going to happen is that the cash requirements to pay out the pension benefits in future, is going to increase and become a very serious burden once the numbers of employed people in China greatly expand.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Stuart Leckie, O.B.E..jpeg

Stuart Leckie

Founding Chairman

Hong Kong Retirement Schemes Association

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:07)
Hi, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. I'm Rachel Pether. I'm a senior advisor to SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investments firm, as well as being the emcee for SAlT, which is a thought leadership platform and networking forum that encompasses, finance, technology and politics. SALT Talks is a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. And what we're really trying to do with the SALT talks is aim to empower big, important ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts just as we do at our SALT event series. Today we're very excited to welcome Stuart Leckie to SALT talks. Stewart is the founding chairman of the Hong Kong retirement schemes association and was chairman of the CFA Institute advisory council on standards and financial markets integrity.

Rachel Pether: (01:00)
He now advises on investments and pensions in the far East and has advised the Chinese government on pension reforms. He was the director of the exchange fund investment limited, which created the Hong Kong governments tracker fund, which was the first ETF in Asia. Stuart is the author of two books, Investment Funds and China and Pension Funds and China. If that's not enough, he was appointed justice of the peace by the Hong Kong government and has been awarded an order of the British empire by the British government. Stuart, you're the first OBE that I've ever interviewed so welcome to today's show.

Stuart Leckie: (01:36)
Thank you very much for, Rachel.

Rachel Pether: (01:38)
I had the pleasure of meeting you in Singapore a few years ago now, and your knowledge of Hong Kong and the wider Asia region was certainly impressive, but maybe before we dive deeper into Hong Kong, tell me a bit about the journey that took you there in the first place.

Stuart Leckie: (01:54)
Yes. I was born and brought up in Scotland and my degree was mathematics, pure mathematics. I decided to train as an actuary. So I did that. Qualified as a fellow of the Institute of actuaries and then worked in insurance in the UK for a number of years, I got something called a Churchill fellowship, and that enabled me to go to US and Canada and I saw a little bit of the international dimension. After that, I was asked to go to Hong Kong to establish an office, a pension consulting office. And the expectation was that I'd be in Hong Kong for two years. Well, the first two years, it was very tough because I was a new boy in town. But gradually it got a little bit better. So after two years, I said, I'll do one more year. And after three years, I said, I'll do maximum one more year. In fact, I'm 40 years past since I first arrived in Hong Kong, but I don't regret it. I think I've been very lucky to see things, transformation of Hong Kong and even more transformation of China.

Rachel Pether: (03:00)
I Think that's the typical expert story, isn't it? You go somewhere for two years and you end up staying for a lifetime in many cases. As the founding chairman of the Hong Kong retirement schemes association, what led you to establish that in the first place?

Stuart Leckie: (03:15)
Well, what was happening was that Hong Kong had a very poor record for social security or things like unemployment, healthcare and so on. The government actually decided to establish this Mandatory Provident Fund. Which is not really a pension scheme. It doesn't give a monthly income after retirement. It's really a sort of compulsory savings scheme. But when this was being discussed in the 1990s, there was a great deal of mystery and lack of understanding. It seemed to me that we should have some organization where we could approach the government and say, this is okay, but something else is not good enough and you must explain and so on and so forth. We were meeting a need at the time to form a proper professional organization that people would be able to turn to. We were lucky to get a good speakers and to get some good rapport with the other countries, particularly UK and Australia. Things just developed from there.

Rachel Pether: (04:18)
And how's it working then with the handover of Hong Kong to China and the integration with the pension schemes?

Stuart Leckie: (04:26)
Well, when Hong Kong set up the Mandatory Provident Fund, that was purely for Hong Kong and China in fact has its own quite complex pension system. In fact, more than one system. In the long run after the 50 year period has passed, one presumes that the Hong Kong retirement system will be folded into the Chinese pension system, but that's not really been confirmed yet until we got quite a bit closer to the year 2047, which is when the ultimate handover will take place.

Rachel Pether: (05:08)
I guess the Chinese economy is so much more complex than the Hong Kong one. What are some of the considerations within the Chinese pension system given that there's such a bifurcation, I guess, between the rural population and the urban population?

Stuart Leckie: (05:26)
Yes. Well, that's right. China has two totally different pension systems for the urban population in towns and cities and the rural population in the countryside. Every pension system has two sides to it. First of all, there's the design of the system. And secondly, it is the funding or the financing of the system. So the Chinese pension system for the urban population is actually quite a sensible design, but there's a huge shortage of cash to finance it. So what's going to happen is that the cash requirements to pay out the pension benefits in future, is going to increase and increase and become a very serious burden once the numbers of employed people in China are greatly expand.

Stuart Leckie: (06:15)
In the meantime, the rural population is just a very small amount because the farmers, even though they're encouraged to save for retirement, if they need a new tractor or if they fail a harvest, they can't even think about retirement. They've got to solve the urgent problem now. So many considerations. Salary's of course vary tremendously between the rich cities of Shanghai, Beijing, and the poor towns and cities in the countryside. You have this big disparity in wages and that inevitably means a big disparity in pensions. Which in one way, doesn't seem fair, but there's probably reality for many years, if not decades to come.

Rachel Pether: (07:06)
I remember that reminds me of a comment that you actually made in Singapore which really stuck with me. You said that China will grow old before it becomes rich. So how does the demographics play into that split as well?

Stuart Leckie: (07:20)
Yes. Well, Chinese population is just coming up to 1.4 billion and it will peak actually very soon within the next decade and then have a long slow decline. The United Nations produces very good population projections. By the end of this century, we would expect China's population to be down just probably a little over 1 billion. In the meantime, India, the Indian population is growing pretty rapidly. First of all, India is going to overtake China, and at the end of the century, we expect India's population to be somewhere between 1.4 and 1.5 billion. These are huge numbers with huge implications as far as finances and for getting the demographic projections correct.

Rachel Pether: (08:12)
Do you think in terms of the pension system, there's any resistance or the pushback to the one child policy in terms of how it's affected demographics and how that might affect people in terms of getting their pensions when they do eventually retire? How does that factor into the equation?

Stuart Leckie: (08:33)
Well, absolutely. Basically until quite recently, all the projections were done in the basis of one child. Now in fact, China's realized that there is a cost and there is a downside to the one child policy. About five years ago, they amended the one child policy to a two child policy. Now, in fact, the government have been quite surprised, quite disappointed that not more people are having more than one child. What's actually happening in major cities in China is that, and this, of course it's happening in many other cities worldwide, if a couple of one child then that's fine.

Stuart Leckie: (09:16)
But if they have two children, then they need a three bedroom flat. And so that's not so easy. And the environment where both husband and wife basically have to work in order to compete for income and pensions and education and housing and so on. It's really been a very interesting phenomenon to watch conditions in the major cities in China become closer and closer to Hong Kong. Interestingly enough, the fertility rate in Hong Kong is just about the lowest in the world. A rich society, lots of freedom, but people are very leery about having more than one child.

Rachel Pether: (10:01)
And has that always been the case or you think that's associated with the increase in costs of living and expenses?

Stuart Leckie: (10:10)
Yeah. Well, if we go all the way back to the foundation of people's Republic of China in 1949, at that stage, and of course virtually the whole population was rural, but at that stage, the average family had between five and six children. This in fact has benefited China in the last few decades with them. Lots of those people, five and six children now in the workforce, or having been in the workforce. But it is not going to help them going forward. Whereas, the proportion of people over retirement age is increasing pretty rapidly now.

Rachel Pether: (10:50)
Do you think it's also leading people to work longer or start earlier? We heard those stories of child labor and China and people starting work or being forced to work from quite young. Do you think that this pressure or this tension is impacting that as well?

Stuart Leckie: (11:12)
Absolutely. We have this phenomenon of migrant workers in China where something like maybe 80 million people from the countryside actually work in towns and cities. Usually the male will work on a building site, the women will work in a restaurant or a factory. And so they've got two incomes to send money back home where maybe they've got one child, maybe a got two children. Hopefully from the age of maybe seven, the youngsters can feed the chicken and feed the ducks, but they can't really do farm work. And so the parents try to get back to whatever village they come from at Chinese new year. And which of course is just awfully important to Chinese people. This migrant workers phenomenon, it's really one way of factories having access to cheap labor, but it's probably not very good for the young kids to be left alone or maybe left with a grandparent for 11 and a half months of a year.

Rachel Pether: (12:22)
No, certainly. That does seem like quite a lot of responsibility to place on young shoulders. I do want to dive into some of the other risks that you see facing China, but we've actually already had quite a few questions coming in from the audience that relate to Hong Kong so I'll address those as well. Someone has also just asked for clarification on what the Hong Kong retirement system looks like and does it have multiple pillars?

Stuart Leckie: (12:52)
Well, the Hong Kong retirement system, called the Mandatory Provident Fund, it's mandatory, compulsory. It's provident fund in that it's a lump sum scheme. Individuals pay 5% of salary up to a ceiling and the companies pay 5% of salary also. This is accumulated. There is a choice of fund, there's a very wide choice of funds now. You can be equities, you can be bonds, you can be a cash bond, different currency's and so on. There's no shortage of fund.

Stuart Leckie: (13:26)
People are not encouraged her switch funds too often, but it is very possible if you want to try to do that. The weakness of the system is that when you get to retirement age 60, or maybe 65, then you're going to get a lump sum. But the question is, what do you do then? What people need is an income. They got to have an income to live on, not a lump sum that they may be able to invest wisely that very often they may not be able to invest very wisely. This is the biggest single flaw in the system of how are individuals going to convert a lump sum to a pension because the government isn't going to do it for them.

Rachel Pether: (14:12)
That seems quite a lot of responsibility to place on the individual as well that might have no investing knowledge, as you say. Someone has also asked about your personal views. I guess this ties in to people looking at various funds, so fixed income and equities, what's your outlook on emerging markets, fixed income and equities. Specifically, if you could talk about Asia.

Stuart Leckie: (14:40)
Wow. How much time do I have? These are big questions. Personally, I'm a bit of an equity man. I tend to have more in equities than anything else on the basis that, I know it'll be volatile but I'm not planning to sell up anytime soon. So quite happy to have predominantly equities. I think part of the question related to fixed income or emerging market fixed income, sure, why not a five or 10% in that, but I certainly wouldn't put everything into emerging markets, fixed income. We've got problems in places like Argentina. Once again are on the verge of defaulting. I would just say to people, by all means have a quite a bit in equities, by all means have a balanced fund, very good thing. There are a number of sort of ETF type of funds like index funds. And then you should just mimic the index no better and no worse. Probably don't switch too often. That's just a sign of impatience.

Rachel Pether: (15:59)
And so with the Hong Kong, we've had another question from the audience come in about the way the Hong Kong pension retirement schemes association actually invest, given that it has this lump sum payment at the end. Does that encourage it to take on more risks than say another pension fund might because it doesn't have defined annual ongoing liability streams or how does it actually invest?

Stuart Leckie: (16:28)
Well, the way it works, retirement scheme association is really a trade body. It's not actually doing the investments themselves. But it will from time to time have speakers from different fund managers or different parts of the world coming to talk about how they see things. That's the nature of the organization. Also, if there's something that the government are doing and maybe somebody that government are not doing, and retirement scheme association together with others, of course, can approach the government and say, look, this is not good. We need to change this. We need to amend. The situation is you cannot get your money out to the system until you retire or get to at least age 60. And then you have to think Very, Very carefully about how long you may have a happy and productive retirement life so that you don't run out of cash.

Rachel Pether: (17:26)
Yeah. I guess that's something that we're all concerned about. We've also had a number of questions come in relating to the mainland China pension scheme as well. More about, I guess, the specifics of it. In terms of the Chinese pension systems then, that typically works as a typical pension does it? In terms of, monthly payouts upon retirement and standardized retirement age at 60 or 65?

Stuart Leckie: (17:58)
That's correct. First of all, it is a pension system. The retirement age is used to be 60 and used to be 55 or even 50 for women. That's being pushed up now. And of course, what they should be doing is having a retirement age probably more like 65 to tie in with the life expectancy now and not just stop at 60. The second part of the question was?

Rachel Pether: (18:30)
That was more about if it was just a typical pension scheme in terms of receiving monthly payouts once you retire.

Stuart Leckie: (18:37)
Well, it is except when the current system started off based on something called document 26 of 1997, as it happens. This was ideally to give the average person, average urban worker to give him somewhere maybe round about between 50 and 60% of final salary. So if you've got 50 to 60% are final salary, and as long as your salary is not totally inadequate, you should be able to live quite well. One of the concerns is that knowledge in China of how the pension system works is very, very scarce.

Stuart Leckie: (19:19)
It's now almost given up and having a funded system, so they're basically having to rely and pay as you go. In other words, contributions collected this month are just paid out next month by way of benefits. That's okay so long as the population is stable. But we know that the aging increase is going to be very severe. I think if my numbers are correct in about 20 years time, the number of people aged over 60 in China will be about 28% of the total population. This is going to be a huge burden on the workers let's say 20 years from now, having to pay these relatively generous pensions to many, many retired people.

Rachel Pether: (20:09)
Now we've discussed in depth on the demographics side of the equation. What are some of the other key risks that you see facing China? I appreciate that, that's another question that could be spoken about for a whole day. But maybe you could highlight where you see some of the other key risks at the moment.

Stuart Leckie: (20:29)
Well, you could get out of your Atlas and look around in China and many places could be potential risks., Starting off with the South China seas and maybe with North Korea, then how about Mongolia and then special problem with Xinjiang and what's happening with the Muslim population of China being, what is the phrase reeducated, is the phrase. And you've got tension in Tibet and you've got barges between China and India. As we saw quite recently. So there's many geographical issues. Then there's demographic issues that we've talked about already. And then there's also other things like corruption, like pandemics.

Stuart Leckie: (21:18)
This is not the first and it's not going to be the last pandemic we have at the moment. Things like bonds and debt. Sometimes in China, it seems a bit of a miracle that they don't have more problems with banks or other institutions that are getting into default. If you add up all these potential problems, you probably come to at least 15, maybe closer to 20 problems. in a way, it's not that China can avoid these problems, it's just that you should know that you're going to have very big problems from time to time and get ready, or if possible to prepare for it so that you get out of the huge difficulty, whatever it relates to.

Rachel Pether: (22:06)
A couple of questions on the debt piece. Why is it that you think we haven't seen as many defaults from Chinese banks given the high debt possessions?

Stuart Leckie: (22:15)
Well, see, I think the banking commission and the insurance commission have now been integrated into one very big Chinese banking and insurance regulatory commission. I think they do have a kind of early warning system that tries to prevent any big problems happening. But problems do happen. For example, buying insurance company, it was basically mostly a fraudulent company and that was a very seriously large institution. Didn't get too much publicity out here because it wasn't affecting Hong Kong and other countries really internal. But undoubtedly there are probably more problems than we might care to see from the outside.

Rachel Pether: (23:04)
You also mentioned debt as it relates to this sovereign wealth fund world as well. I believe that CIC actually borrowed from it. So they essentially issued bonds to create the farm. They borrowed from the future. Is this a typical structure that Chinese do? It's very unusual for a sovereign wealth fund to actually establishes itself in this way, rather than taking commodity revenues as they have them in middle East with oil.

Stuart Leckie: (23:39)
Yes, I would agree. It's pretty unusual. If we just think about sovereign wealth fund for a moment, there's two types. There's the genuine sovereign wealth fund, which is pretty well independent from government and they do the right thing, investment wise. Independent audit and independent management and so on. And the second type of sovereign wealth fund is what are called a quasi sovereign wealth fund. Whereas a lot of influence or control by government or by the ministry of finance. Basically they have to do what they're told. The example of a genuine one would be, for example, they Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. An example of a sovereign wealth fund that is only a quasi fund would be CIC in China. There's no way that the government will permit CIC to do too many independent things.

Rachel Pether: (24:36)
You've been in Hong Kong now for what, over 20 years, what's it been like on the ground with the tension that you've seen playing out with China? I appreciate you're not there at the moment, which we'll also dive into shortly, but maybe you could give your firsthand account of how it's been actually living in Hong Kong.

Stuart Leckie: (25:02)
I've been there two times, 20 years, nearly 40 years, in fact. I think the first 20, probably first 30 years, everything was good. Everything was positive. The economy was expanding. Hong Kong was doing exceedingly well. But in the last year or so, we've had [inaudible 00:25:27] problems being the riots in favor of democracy and then with the pandemic, and then with this introduction of the new national security law, which is very unpopular in China, as a Chinese law that has been forced upon Hong Kong. It seems to me that what the Chinese government is trying to do, they're trying to convert Hong Kong into being a Chinese city just as rapidly as they can. I guess many people thought this would happen maybe just at, or just before the year 2047. But it's happening now when we're only sort of halfway between 1997 and 2047.

Stuart Leckie: (26:22)
Hong Kong will, it doesn't become a very major city because population at the moment, seven and a half million, it might go to 9 million. But when you compare it with Shanghai's 22 million, Beijing's 23 million and so on. Hong Kong is not going to be anything like the biggest city or the most important city in China. So as long as we realize that, and I mean, Hong Kong is a wonderful place in many ways. The weather can be very attractive and a lot of other good things in Hong Kong, but it is going to change in a way that maybe some of the expatriates don't care for.

Rachel Pether: (27:06)
I guess this is probably only been highlighted by the current pandemic. I think we'd be remiss not to talk about that, given that your now sitting in Scotland unable to travel freely back to Hong Kong. How do you think that the current pandemic has maybe accelerated some of the issues that you've discussed? I guess you were out there during SARS as well. So maybe you could talk about maybe how that's prepared Hong Kong or how the impact of previous things have played out.

Stuart Leckie: (27:41)
Yes. Well, since you mentioned SARS, I mean SARS in many ways is much more serious than the pandemic so far because about 300 people in Hong Kong died as a result of SARS, nothing we're like that in Hong Kong with COVID. I think in some ways the challenge of COVID is that people don't quite understand it. It's very hard to predict what's going to happen with its application to individuals or the second wave or even third waves. There's so much more that we need to learn about the pandemic. If we look over the history, then of course there's been pandemics in Europe, there's been pandemics in Asia from time to time, but this one is perhaps a little bit more frightening to people because I guess many people thought that this sort of thing just couldn't happen in modern day society, but it absolutely can happen.

Stuart Leckie: (28:49)
My situation is that I came back to UK just before Christmas, last December, but at the time I was coming back to visit Hong Kong. In fact, things deteriorated quite a bit and I could have actually got into Hong Kong after two weeks quarantined by Hong Kong and then two weeks quarantined by the UK. That was really just to high a price. But I actually do my Hong Kong work in the mornings. I've got a home office set up and that's quite efficient in email and phone and so on, in speaking to all the people in Hong Kong, I have to work with.

Rachel Pether: (29:32)
Remote working has, I mean, I think everyone's just appreciating how easy it is to do and how you can do it from anywhere. We have a lot of audience questions still coming through. We only do have five minutes left, so I'll end on a couple of serious questions and then a more lighthearted one to finish. Just a more specific question about China and the pension scheme. Is it committing towards overseas infrastructure projects, such as China's state development investment corporation? I appreciate, we actually, haven't spoken about one belt, one road admits actually on purpose. I know that could be another entire discussion, but are you seeing China commit much to infrastructure projects?

Stuart Leckie: (30:24)
Yes. We've got the whole road belt and system, system. That's of course trying to do good and to help a lot of smaller countries. But of course, it's also serving China's aims of getting more influence and more involvement in many, many countries. I think China and the amount that it's happy to invest outside of China. That is a key question. We've got things like the new Asian infrastructure bank, which is perhaps competing with Asian development bank. I think it'd be very interesting just to see how this develops. There have been quite a lot of criticisms in some countries as to the attitude or the way that the Chinese have been acting almost like a colonial power. There's certainly issues there to be solved. But I think China's smart enough to implement the one belt system and so on without causing too much angst on the other side.

Rachel Pether: (31:42)
That's interesting. Now we actually have time for one final question. There have been quite a lot of discussions about China issuing a digital currency as well. What are your thoughts on a future role for cryptocurrencies in China, particularly if it's a Chinese government issued currency, do you have any view on that?

Stuart Leckie: (32:08)
I don't own any digital currencies and I don't plan to and I wouldn't advise anyone else to. [inaudible 00:32:18] This extent.

Rachel Pether: (32:20)
Do you think that the Chinese government is likely to go ahead and issue their own digital currency? I know there's been some talk of that for quite some time.

Stuart Leckie: (32:32)
I think if China was to do that, it would be with the sole purpose of them disturbing and disrupting and other countries' currencies.

Rachel Pether: (32:45)
Wonderful. Well, we only have a couple of minutes left, Stuart, so I just wanted to thank you so much for your time today. You've answered a lot of difficult questions and given a really great overview onto both the Hong Kong and Chinese market. Thanks so much for joining us today and hopefully you'll come back on and we can do a deep dive into one of the topics further.

Stuart Leckie: (33:06)
Thank you very much indeed, Rachel.

Stuart Stevens: “It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump" | SALT Talks #64

“You can really trace in the post-World war II [Republican] party into two factions, it was sort of an Eisenhower governing boring, but sane faction, and then Joe McCarthy.”

Stuart Stevens is the author of seven previous books, and his work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Esquire, and Outside, among other publications. He has written extensively for television shows, including Northern Exposure, Commander in Chief, and K Street. For twenty-five years, he was the lead strategist and media consultant for some of the nation's toughest political campaigns. He attended Colorado College; Pembroke College, Oxford; Middlebury College; and UCLA film school. He is a former fellow of the American Film Institute.

Donald Trump’s political rise seemed like an impossibility. After his improbable primary and general election wins, surely Trump was not a true Republican. That illusion quickly vanished as the party fell in line and offered their unwavering loyalty. “The Republican Party is the party that endorsed Roy Moore and attacks John Bolton. So I started asking myself like, ‘How did this happen?’"

After decades of winning on the major issues that defined the Republican party platform, George W. Bush was tasked with defining what it meant to be a Republican in the modern era. Bush introduced the idea of compassionate conservatism. Speeches like the one given at the 2000 Republican National Covention are unrecognizable compared to today’s Republican messaging. “One of the conclusions I came to, which seems sort of obvious is that leaders really matter.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Stuart Stevens.jpeg

Stuart Stevens

Author

It Was All a Lie

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started during the work from home period to replicate the experience that we provide at our global conference series, the SALT Conference. And really what we're trying to do is to provide a window into the minds of subject matter experts for our audience, as well as provide a platform for leading investors, creators, and thinkers, to talk about some ideas that we think are really shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:41)
And our guest today is someone who has had a big part in shaping the future of the Republican Party for the last 30 years, and the picture that he now paints or the party is a fairly dire picture. And That guest today is Stuart Stevens. Stuart is the author of Seven Books, and his work has appeared in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Esquire and Outside among many other publications. He has written extensively for several television shows, including Northern exposure, commander and chief in K Street. For 25 years, he was the lead strategist and media consultant for some of the nation's toughest political campaigns. He attended Colorado College, Pembroke College in Oxford, Middlebury College and UCLA Film School. And he's a former fellow of the American Film Institute. He's also a member of the Lincoln Project, a group of Republicans who have been involved in the party for many years, who have decided to work to elect Joe Biden in this election as a result of what they view as some flaws within our current president, president Trump. Just a reminder, if you have any questions for Stuart during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen.

John Darsie: (01:52)
And in addition, Stuart is out with a recent book called It Was All a Lie that recapped some of what I just spoke about, some of his concerns about the future of the Republican Party. So we're very excited to talk about that book as well. And I think Anthony has it in front of him. And conducting today's interview is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. He's also had a few stints in politics as well. He's also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:22)
Stuart looking at, I'm holding up the book, see that Stuart? I've got the pages dog-eared, it is great to have you on.

Stuart Stevens: (02:30)
You'll get a note from my mom, thanks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:32)
And you're beaming in from where I actually met you. I don't know if you would remember this, but you're in Park City, and I met you in 2012 at that big Romney Conclave. And then ultimately we continued on with governor Romney doing that every year. And that was an interesting time, obviously, because that was June of 2012, as we were heading into the Republican convention. And eight years has made a big difference in Republican Party politics stewards. Before we go to the book, I want you to tell us a little bit about what it was like to grow up in Jackson, Mississippi, and how you got your career arc headed towards politics?

Stuart Stevens: (03:11)
Yeah. You know Anthony, I grew up in the bad old days in Mississippi, kind of the Mississippi Burning Days. The big question that people would ask is, "Are you good on race or bad on race?" And my parents were kind of classic political moderates, but they were good on race. And they were involved in trying to support civil rights efforts. There was a guy named William Winter, who ran for governor in 1967 and he had gone to Holmes with my parents, actually dated my mom for a while, which is still a source of some amusement. And he was running against the last avowed segregationist then John Bell Williams. And my parents were involved in that campaign. And I got involved in the way you do when you're like out of a 13 years old, I walked precincts, I did those things.

Stuart Stevens: (04:04)
And it was a very dramatic campaign, Winter was getting a lot of death threats because he was against segregation. And I just found it incredibly compelling. And I thought, "If this is politics, what else could be more interesting?" At the time, pretty much everybody in Mississippi were Democrats. And the dominant political figures were Jim Eastland, Big Jim Eastland as he was called the Senator and John Stennis, both for segregationist. John Stennis was more genteel version of segregationist, but he was a segregationist. I got involved, I was a young sort of classic Rotarian type do good Republican lawyer who ran for Congress in his early thirties named Ted Cochran. And he ran as an alternative to that segregationist establishment. And I worked in his campaign. So I was actually a page in his office when I was in high school. And that's really how I ended up being a Republican. At the time we didn't really know what Republicans were, but we didn't want to be like Stennis and Eastland, unless you wanted to be a judge in like Yalobusha County or something. So that's the path I started on and I just continued it until recently.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:25)
So this book is extraordinary. I'm a lifelong Republican. I became a Republican in 1982. My dad was in the union, actually David Axelrod got this right. He said to me, "Well your dad was a laborer Nassau County." I said, "Yes." So Joe Margiotta controlled that union. I don't know if you remember Joe Margiotta.

Stuart Stevens: (05:45)
I remember Joe Margiotta very well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:48)
And so when I went to the post office, I turned to my pops, I said, "Am I Democrat or Republican?" He says, "Oh no, you're a Republican." So there I was a Republican, I filled out the voter card. And then I learned about Ronald Reagan and obviously fell in love with him and I've been a lifelong Republican. But you write a book about the Republican Party, and it's not really about Donald Trump, which I found interesting about the book. It is more about the system that percolated to create Donald Trump. And I was wondering if you could take us through that, that synthesize that for us, if you don't mind.

Stuart Stevens: (06:22)
Yeah. Anthony, in 2016, a lot of people were wrong about Donald Trump, but it's hard to find anybody who was more wrong than me. I didn't think he'd win the primary. I famously said he wouldn't win a primary. I kind of said that to be provocative but I did think he wouldn't win the nomination. And I didn't think he'd win the general election. Ad after he won, I went through a period, like a lot of my friends, and kind of the side of the party I was on, saying Donald Trump's not really a Republican. And I don't really know how to sustain that. I mean, he's head of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the party that endorsed Roy Moore and attacks John Bolton. So I started asking myself like, "How did this happen?" And really this book began is just a personal exploration of that, and that old high school English teacher way that if you can't write something, you don't understand it.

Stuart Stevens: (07:11)
So that's why I started on this path that led to the book. It really didn't begin as a book project. It began more sort of a personal reflection. And it was fascinating because when you look at the history of the Republican Party, and one of the great things about writing this book was getting a chance to sort of have a good excuse to read a lot of books about the Republican Party. And it's not an obscure subject and this tremendous work that's been done. But you can really trace in the post-World war II party to two factions, it was sort of an Eisenhower governing boring, but same faction, and then Joe McCarthy. And those trends really continued. And I was very involved in Governor Bush's campaign for president, I moved down to Austin in April of '99.

Stuart Stevens: (07:57)
And at the time, you could say that conservatism and Republicans are sort of a victim of our own success. The Cold War was over and I guess we won it. Welfare had been a big issue with Republicans, but then bill Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it. Crime was a big issue, but crime was going down as it's continued to. Taxes are no longer 70%. So I think governor Bush asked himself sort of what is it to be a conservative in this modern era. And out of that grew compassionate conservatism. And I was very drawn to that. And I think that most of us involved in that felt that we were own as it were the right side of history, that there was an inevitability if only because of the changing country that we were the ones of a more inclusive party, we used to talk about a Big tent party a lot.

Stuart Stevens: (08:47)
So I saw our side as the dominant gene and the other side, I'd call it the dark side, the regressive gene. But I have to say, I think I was wrong. I think we were the regressive gene. I tell you, if you go back and you read George Bush's acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican Convention in your hometown, New York. I mean, it reads like something like a lost document from a civilization, like the Mayans or something. I mean it's all about compassion and service and humility. That message couldn't win 20% in the Republican primary now. So it's extaordinary-

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:27)
So Why is that? What is it? And obviously you write in your book, I just want to point out that the Democrats started out as the segregationist, as you were referencing in the book. And then all of a sudden we're gravitating towards Republican racial division and seeing a phobia. And so now we're here where we are now. So why is that? Because it doesn't make sense for the expansion of the big tent of that party to me, but I'm not in the vein of the party where the leadership is, so why is that?

Stuart Stevens: (10:03)
It's a profound question. And honestly, even been after writing this book, I can't say that I've nailed an answer. One of the conclusions I came to, which seems sort of obvious is that leaders really matter. I think that the country and people can be led in different directions. If you go back to the thirties, there was a huge fascist movement in America. But we didn't become fascist like a lot of countries in Europe, Why? Probably because Roosevelt was president and not say Lindbergh, who was part of the American First Movement. Had Lindbergh been president, we would have been the same country, but we would have gone in a different direction. I mean, why was the civil rights movement largely non-violent? Probably because Martin Luther King, and it's Stokely Carmichael had been head of that, it would have been a much more confrontational, probably violent movement.

Stuart Stevens: (10:56)
So I think that Donald Trump, you know him far better than I Anthony, I think he analyzed Republican Party and said that, "If I give them power, they will not fight me on these values that they've always said that they stood for." Very transactional. And I think that a lot of it ... I look at the people I helped elect, a lot of them. In this book, I didn't want it to be one where I settled scores or name names. I just really wanted to kind of accept personal responsibility and blame myself, but I just don't get it. Because I know these people, and they're good people. I mean if you live next door to them, they'd be great neighbors. If they saw you on the road stranded, they'd stop in a heartbeat. And yet they support Donald Trump. It's really something that baffles me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:54)
Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Let me play devil's advocate. Let me say that the country's in a great culture war, my culture, my conservativism, my right to bear arms, my individualism, whatever I've been taught in the Bible, I want to preserve. I only have two people standing for election at any one time. And even though the president has some personality [inaudible 00:12:23] and personality issues, I believe that he is the savior of our civilization relative to the other person. And by the way, that came from a wickedly smart guy into my text and into my phone last night, that exact verbiage, this is a guy that I went to Harvard Law School with, who's a staunch 'Trump supporter', and your response to that is?

Stuart Stevens: (12:49)
My response is that we used to say, "If you only stand for reelection, you don't stand for anything." I think that when we said back in the Clinton era, that culture is the soul of the country, that it is greater than any single issue. I think we were right. I mean, when you read the beautiful stuff that William Bennett wrote. And I think that what's happened now is the conservatism is being destroyed. What was conservatism? And to my view, 90% of us would have agreed on a set of principles, personal responsibility, character counts, free trade, strong on Russia, the deficit matters, very pro legal immigration. I mean, Ronald Reagan announced it in front of the statue of Liberty, signed a bill that made everyone for 1983 legal. And it's not just that we're drifted away from those were actively against those parties.

Stuart Stevens: (13:43)
So to me there is a role to play. You have to stand for your principles. And if it means you lose a race, you lose a race, but you don't lose your soul, and you don't lose the definition of what you believe in. And I think the long-term damage to conservatism by this sort of Faustian bargain that was struck with Trump, it's devastating. And you can see it in numbers, how many young people are being attracted to what we would call conservatism. They're really not. And it's sort of an ankle here in political philosophy now, which I think is going to probably push us toward a center left period of government for a while. Say what you will about Elizabeth Warren, she can articulate a theory of government. You can like it, you can hate it, but she can argue with you. I really don't know what the Republican Party stands for now except beating Democrats.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:35)
Well I mean listen, there's no Republican Party platform post convention, so that's more evidence of it. You discuss in the book the hypocrisy of family values. You basically are saying that it was the bedrock of the Republican GOP culture war, but they're quite hypocritical. How are they hypocritical?

Stuart Stevens: (14:56)
Look, I think that ... First, you always get into dangerous ground when you start generalizing about large groups of people. And I think there are a lot of people who are genuine. But in a larger sense, this idea that the party would stand for these certain values, I think has just been proven to be false. I don't know how you can reconcile supporting someone like Donald Trump with pretending that role models matter, pretending that character counts. I mean, everything that we're taught from our parents, our coaches, our teachers, our scout leaders, our people we work with, our bosses, that all of these things matter. I don't think you can reconcile that.

Stuart Stevens: (15:46)
And there's always been this strange history, particularly in the Evangelical White Movement of these sort of larger than life, fraudulent figures like Jimmy Schweikert. And I see Donald Trump is one of those, but even weirdly sort of look alike, they all have these kind of larger than life presences. And they're all kind of like manufactured and they look phony. And I think if the heart of family values to me is being a good neighbor, sort of fundamental what we would call Christian values, though they're not only held in the Christian religion, of [inaudible 00:16:22], of compassion, of helping others. And I think what Trump does is, we all have a sod within us that feels aggrieved, that feels like, "Well, I didn't get a good shot here." An angry side. And Trump validates that. I mean, he tells us that's our best side, that that little spurt of adrenaline you feel like when someone cuts you off in traffic, that little moment of road rage, that's your best self. And if you let that person cut you off, you're a sucker, you're a loser, not just to say, "Okay, it doesn't matter?" And I think that's very toxic to a culture. And the long-term effects of that are very dangerous. And I think you see it with racial [inaudible 00:17:05], it's not that Trump made people racist, I just think he made it more socially acceptable to acknowledge this and to embrace it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:15)
So all of this stuff you write in this brilliant book, I just want to hold the book up again for everybody to see it, It Was All a Lie, you're saying something in the book that I think is fascinating and I'll give an editorial tip here, I believe it's true. You and I are in agreement on this. One of the central points of your book is that Trump is an outcome of a multiple decades of behavior that led to Trump. And so resulted with, if Trump is removed on November 3rd, there's still a systemic problem with the Republican Party. And so can you elaborate little bit on that? What is that problem and how could you fix that problem? Let's say you were the tsar of the Republican Party, or the tsar of that 35% that continues to vote for Mr. Trump, how would you fix it?

Stuart Stevens: (18:02)
Well I really think this all goes back to race. I mean in 1956, Dwight Eisenhower got almost 40% of the African-American vote, which is extraordinary to think about now. And '64 with Goldwater, when he opposed the Civil Rights Act, it dropped to 7%. Now you could have made a case, I probably would have made a case in '64, that after the Civil Rights Act passed, that a large number of African-Americans would be drawn back to the Republican Party because of shared interest, faith in the public square, basic family values, patriotism, entrepreneurship, but it didn't happen. I mean Goldwater got 7%, Donald Trump got somewhere between seven and 8%. At that rate, we'll be doing better with African-Americans about 30, 50. And I think that like any business, when you realized that 90 plus percent of your market is one share, you get very good at talking to that share and not very good at talking to the other.

Stuart Stevens: (18:58)
And we used to acknowledge the failure of the Republican Party to attract African-Americans and other non-white vote. We talked about a Big tent party, and we tried to address that. Now, we weren't very successful, though with Hispanics in the Bush Campaign, we were more successful. But I think it matters that we acknowledged that it was a failure because I think the first step to change anything is to acknowledge it's a failure. I mean, Ken Mehlman in 2005 went before the chairman of the Republican Party, went before the NAACP and apologized for the Nixon Southern Strategy, which tried to divide African-Americans from the Democratic Party. I just think that that's an important step. And the country is changing so rapidly. I'll tell you a stat that I saw that just blew my mind Anthony, of Americans 15 years and under, the majority are non-white. I mean, odds are really good, they're going to be 18 and still a non-white.

Stuart Stevens: (19:55)
And what does that mean for the Republican Party that is increasingly a white party? I think it's just a death sentence unless the party changes. And right now the party shows no desire to change. On this Trump, there is this kind of other Republican party, governors. Look at Phil Scott and Vermont, Hogan and Maryland, Charlie Baker in Massachusetts, I work for all these guys. I love them. And they're wildly successful in very tough markets for Republicans. And yet even as successful and popular as they are, they can't choose their own state party chairman. They're Trump people. For those of us who work in policy, that's like a [inaudible 00:20:37] they won't. I mean it just shows how deep Trumpism has become embedded in the party. And I don't think it's going to change until it's seen as a political necessity to change. I've really given up to being something that blind that Trump would cross the Republicans would rise up and oppose him on principle.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:04)
Do you think there is a potential rise up of a center right movement, center right party to challenge republicanism or Trumpism, as you're describing?

Stuart Stevens: (21:17)
When I look at this, I really see that there are three parties in America. There's the Republican party. And then there's really two parties inside the Democratic Party. I mean, there's the Joe Biden wing as call it. And then there's the AOC, Bernie Sanders wing. And I think you're seeing a lot of people who 20 years ago, would have run as moderate Republicans running as moderate Democrats now. Look at Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania, he was a classic guy. I mean, I worked for Tom Ridge who just came out for Biden. He's the last Republican governor reelected in Pennsylvania. Those are people that would have been comfortable in the party then, but now they're not. And to me, when you look at the future of the country in a public policy sense, it's really going to be largely determined by that battle within the democratic party, which side is going to emerge dominant?

Stuart Stevens: (22:07)
If you take national health insurance, in 20 years, even 10 years, are we really going to be the only Western Country that doesn't have national health insurance? Hard to imagine. And what that's going to be I think will be determined by that fight inside the Democratic Party. And Republicans, I'm afraid what's going to happen nationally, is what happened to the Republican Party in California. I mean, it wasn't long ago. California was the beating heart of the Republican Party, the electoral citadel, and now it's in third place. Third. It's hard to find a big public policy issue that Republicans in California have much say in. And I just find that tragic. I think it's bad for California. I think it's bad for conservatism. I think we need two strong parties. But we're not going to get there with a culture war.

Stuart Stevens: (23:01)
My home state of Mississippi, we finally took down the Mississippi state flag, which basically the Confederate battle flag, a few months ago. It's very moving to a lot of us. And that same week, Donald Trump got in a fight with NASCAR because NASCAR was banning the Confederate flag from events. I mean, really? We're on the wrong side of a cultural issue with NASCAR. How is that even imaginable? We're in a war with Walmart, a cultural war over mask, because Walmart insist you to use masks. So somehow in 2020, Republicans have ended up on the wrong side of a cultural war with Walmart and NASCAR. And man, I just don't think that bodes well for the future.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:42)
I'm going to ask you one more question and we're going to turn it over John, for some questions that I'm going to wrap up at the end. I want to take you back to 2012, the Republican Party commission to study, you're well familiar with it, you contributed to that study. You also referenced a lot of these elements in the book about opening the tent and making the party more demographically acceptable, income strata and making the party frankly more competitive. Now obviously, president Trump went in the other direction, he's selling the party to people that are buying my pillows and catheters on Fox News during commercial breaks. That's what he's decided to do with the party. But you wanted to go in a different direction with the party, tell us a little bit about that direction. And then also is that even possible today, or have we reached the point of impossibility? And then I'll turn it over to John.

Stuart Stevens: (24:35)
I think what's really striking about that So-called autopsy, and Reince Priebus I think deserves a lot of credit for commissioning that because it's always hard for any organization to be self-critical. The conclusions were pretty obvious. We needed to appeal to more non-whites, we needed to appeal to younger voters, we needed to appeal to more women, particularly single women. And they were presented not just as a political necessity, but as a moral mandate, that if we were going to earn the right to govern this big, confusing, changing, loud country, that we needed to represent it more, be more like it. And then Trump came along and it was like, "Okay great, we can just win white people. Terrific. We don't have to pretend that we care about all this stuff." And I think it's just tragic.

Stuart Stevens: (25:20)
And to me, the turning point is when Trump came out in December of 2015 for a Muslim ban, it's unconstitutional, it's really just test. And if Republicans stand for anything, it's constitutionality, and a belief in the constitution. And I just think the party then missed an opportunity to come forward and say, "Look, we don't support Donald Trump. Now we can't tell them not to run. We can tell you not to vote for him. But this isn't who the Republican Party is. And if Donald Trump's a nominee and supports the Muslim ban, we can't support him because it's against the constitution." Now what would have happened? I have no idea. But I think the Republican Party would be in a lot better place now. For years, we criticized Democrats for being-

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:07)
But Stuart not to interrupt, is that the leadership of one man, or is that the whole system that you're describing here in the book?

Stuart Stevens: (26:14)
I think it's both. In 2012, when a Republican Missouri nominee for the Senate, Todd Akin said horrible things about women and rape, Reince Priebus came out and said, "Look, we're not going to support this. No one Republican party that I'm involved in is going to give this guy money or work for him." It probably cost us a Senate seat, but we want something more valuable. I think Chairman Priebus should've done that then. Now at the time, nobody thought Donald Trump was going to win. Trump was also out there trying to leverage the fact that he might run as a third party, and they didn't want to alienate Trump. So I understand the reasons, I just think it's a classic example of how when you negotiate with your basic values, you always end up losing, it's that fast. And when people forget about fast, it's not only Mephistopheles take your soul, but he doesn't deliver. And I think that's what's happened with Trump. We have the worst deficit in history. It's gone up faster under Trump. We're kind of to the left of Bernie Sanders on trade, as far as I can tell. I mean, Sanders went to Russia, but he didn't marry Putin. I just don't get it. And I think that all of that is going to come back to haunt us for a long time to come.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:40)
All right, let me turn it over to John. John is from North Carolina, so he had the snicker going over the whole NASCAR thing. I don't know if you caught that facial expression from John Darsie, but go ahead John.

John Darsie: (27:53)
Nah, I've said the same thing, growing up in the heart of NASCAR country, the idea that you're going to get into a battle with NASCAR and you're going to label NASCAR as too liberal. It just defies all sense of imagination.

Stuart Stevens: (28:08)
Yeah. I don't think Donald Trump is where the country is, that's a perfect example. Another is we he talks about trying to frighten suburban housewives. Now first of all, I don't know about you, but I know a lot of women that live in the suburbs. I don't know any of them refer to themselves as suburban housewife. I mean, most of them are working three or four jobs and have very complicated, busy lives. And I don't know anybody that wouldn't want their children to look at them as someone who would welcome a neighbor, if they were of a different ethnicity or different religion, they don't want to be that person. And there's nothing in our culture that encourages that except the septic pools on the internet. There's nothing in our music culture, our popular culture that supports racism.

Stuart Stevens: (28:53)
I mean, look at the whole kneeling thing, Donald Trump out there when he was campaigning for Roy Moore saying, "Those that kneel," which were primarily African-Americans, "Get those sons of bitches off the field." How'd that work out? Right now we have entire baseball teams not playing. Before the Holmes Florida game, all the players kneeled. I mean not since Stalingrad has anybody lost a battle like that? And I think it just shows how out of touch Trump is with where the country's going. One of my favorite clients and dear friends is Haley Barbour from Mississippi. And Haley had this saying goes, "You know man, be for the future, it's going to happen anyway." And I just think that's a lesson Republicans seem to have forgotten.

John Darsie: (29:51)
I liked that a lot.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:52)
It's a great one.

John Darsie: (29:55)
You've worked with so many high profile Republican candidates, both people like Bob Dole, George Bush, Mitt Romney, but you've also worked with some people who are in power right now. You talked about some of the governors you've worked with who have spoken out somewhat against Trump, but you've also worked for people who are part of this coalition within the GOP that has enabled him if you will, and has not stood up to the values that they, in private, talk about how they don't like some of the rhetoric, they don't like some of the policy. And I've sat at dinners with Anthony and I'm not going to name names here, because I don't think it's appropriate, but at dinners with very high profile Republicans who say something very different than what they say in public, because they think it's politically expedient to say that other thing in public. Why do you think there is such a large cohort of Republicans who are allowing this to happen? It's not just policy issues, it's an erosion of some democratic institutions. We're talking about de-legitimizing our electoral process without any evidence of it. Why do you think they're not standing up to Trumpism and some of the things that he stands for?

Stuart Stevens: (31:02)
Brother, I ask myself this question about 50 times a day, and I still don't have the answer. What really, really offends me about it is these politicians are heir to the greatest generation. I mean people like my dad spent three years in the South Pacific, 28 island landings, came back, never really talked about it. My uncle, his brother, who was machine gun deep in Europe and never really recovered. That's the legacy they have. Courage isn't standing up to Donald Trump, courage is getting out of the boat when the guy in front of you got shot, and that's the legacy they have. So I just don't understand it, on multiple levels. I mean, I get it if you're working on the hill, you've got a family and jobs are hard to come by and the person supports Trump, okay. Aid the Queen's bread, fight the Queen's war.

Stuart Stevens: (31:48)
But these senators, particularly, they're all going to be fine financially. They're not under any pressure. And what really baffles me is I mean, most politicians have pretty big egos, which doesn't bother me in the least. So do great musicians, athletes, god those writers too. But why don't they see like how they're going to be remembered? I use the example of George Wallace. George Wallace actually did some good stuff as governor. He passed free textbooks, at least for white students, but nobody's remembered as the free textbook George Wallace guy, you are the George Wallace guy. And I think that's how it's going to be for Trump. No one's going to be remembered as I want to lower marginal tax rates for corporations Trump guy, you're going to be the Trump guy. And I don't see it. I don't understand it. I don't understand why even by sheer ego, they would not understand how much more they would be respected and admired with their kids and grandkids would think of them, if they stood up to Trump. It's absolutely baffling to me.

John Darsie: (32:54)
What about the devil's advocate? What about the devil's advocate who says, "Well, we elected Trump on the supreme court issue. We thought there was a possibility of openings coming into the supreme court, that came to pass. And now we flip the balance of the court into a more conservative position, and that was worth all the other noise, all of this erosion of democratic institutions that will pass. All the bad stuff will go away when we have another candidate leading the party. But now we have a conservative court for 40 years." Is it worth it?

Stuart Stevens: (33:29)
I don't buy that. I don't buy the idea that we have to attack democratic norms to preserve democratic norms. I mean to me, it's burning the village to save it, which only ends in ashes. I don't see that. And look, a perfect example is 1964, how'd that work out? We opposed the Civil Rights Bill, and what's happened? We lost a huge part of the country and lost something of our soul. So I don't think that you can undo these things. I think that this is a moment of testing. I mean, most of us certainly, I don't go through life looking for moral crisis. I go through lifetime to avoid moral crisis, just live my life. But this was a moral test, and the Republican Party for the most part failed. And I don't think that that goes away.

Stuart Stevens: (34:20)
And I think the idea that you have to fundamentally go against these institutions of democracy. I mean, there's not one pillar of our democratic institutions Trump hasn't attacked, justice department, the FBI, he supports supreme court justices that are more conservative, but he attacks jurors, he calls a judge from Indiana, a Mexican. I think that's a deeper degradation of the whole system because all of this is held together by trust and faith. I mean, why do we stop at midnight on a lonely road at a red light? Because we're a civic society, not because you're going to get punished. And once we start running through those red lights, where does it stop? And to me, that's what leaders are for. The leaders are-

John Darsie: (35:18)
Anthony gets asked this question all the time, and I'm sure you get asked that as well. And you talked about how you started this book as an exercise in self-reflection about how did we get here and what role did I play in allowing the party to get here? How do you answer that question? How do you rationalize your own role as a Republican strategist and maybe missing resurgence-

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:38)
I am way more culpable than Stuart Because him and I were on a panel in Greenwich, he was yelling at me and I was flying to meet governor Christie to work on the transition. So I'm way more culpable.

John Darsie: (35:49)
I want both of you guys to answer that question, relatively briefly. But if you look at Anthony's Twitter mentions, it's full of people saying, "You have no authority to tell me why Donald Trump is bad because you served on his campaign and briefly in his administration." So to both of you, how do you rationalize your own role in creating the modern GOP or missing this sort of far right element of the party that was maybe louder than you expected?

Stuart Stevens: (36:13)
I mean look, my book opens [inaudible 00:36:16] because there's a certain genre of books in Washington that say, "If only they had listened to me." Well, I can't say that because they did listen to me. And I think that we were naive. I was naive. I can only speak for myself, but we saw this dark side. And we never confronted it enough, and we never sort of asked ourselves, "What does it mean enough?" I was always glad that people [inaudible 00:36:40] work for one. And I was on the side of the party that was mostly fighting those people, but at the same time, I was part of this larger thing. And I think we should have spoken up more. I should have spoken up more and raised more red flags. Would it have mattered? Probably not. But I think all you can do is what you can do. And I think if more of us had done that, it would've mattered. I look at it and I just was naive. I chose to believe, but it was convenient for me to believe that. I mean, I was at the top of a profession, I was doing well in every sense, to go to war with that would have been personally costly. And I probably just chose to look the other way, because it was easier.

John Darsie: (37:31)
How about you Anthony?

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:34)
I'm probably more flawed than Stuart even. I was critical of Mr. Trump, when I was working for a Jet Bush who we're going to have on SALT Talk on Wednesday by the way Stuart, governor Bush. And then I did what a lot of people do, which I wrote about, you critical of him, and you're trying to learn to accept him. And then you're cognitively dissonant about what he's doing. And then you end up where John Bolton is, or myself, or General Kelly, or Jim Mattis, or you can name the litany of people where you're like, "Okay I made a huge mistake." So for me, it was naivety and the flaw and the temptation of wanting to be associated with power. And so I have to always be honest about that and be accountable with that.

John Darsie: (38:23)
So we have a question from the audience about the electoral system in general. And President Obama has expressed his opinion on the Senate, for example being an undemocratic institution because it provides-

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:33)
Before we let Stuart go though, we got to get his opinion on the tax story.

John Darsie: (38:37)
That's an audience question as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:39)
Let's do that right now. And then when you can ask that question, because I know we're running out of time, we need your opinion on the tax story that's come out. A lot of people are asking.

Stuart Stevens: (38:47)
I think the tax story is going to really matter because everybody pays taxes. And in my experience, negative information about a candidate, it reinforces a preexisting notion about that candidate is much more effective. So I think this is pushing on an open door, people think that Trump games the system. And I think it really goes to the core for support, which is, I'm on your side, I'm one of you, which has always been a fraud. But I think it's going to hurt him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:21)
Well let me push back for a second because you and I were involved with governor Romney's Campaign and everybody set their hair on fire over a 14%, millions of dollars of taxes that governor Romney was paying. But he seems to have anesthetized his base or his group of people where he's right. Maybe he can shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and it doesn't matter. So if he pays $750 in taxes or no taxes, they don't care. And your response to that is?

Stuart Stevens: (39:50)
My response in electoral senses, right now if the election were held, Donald Trump would lose. So how does he win? He has to have some of these people who are against him now drift back toward him. And there's reason to believe could happen. So I look at something like taxes is like a speed bump, it makes it that much harder for someone who that isn't for Trump today, to go back in the end, like what happened when Trump did very well those last four days of the campaign in 2016 in part because of the Comey letter. But it's just stay where they are now, and that's all Biden needs. He doesn't need new customers. He just needs to keep the customers he has now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:27)
Can Mr. Trump, President Trump threaten this system, meaning can he go to the state legislatures and flip the electors, even if he loses the general election and The Electoral College vote?

Stuart Stevens: (40:42)
Well, I was part of the glorious landslide in 2000 of George Bush. And there was a lot of talk about electorates and all that. We're in a different environment now. I think that that ultimately ... The answer is probably not. But you run the 2016 race a hundred times, Trump loses 90. So things unexpected can happen. To me, the real test is the Republican Party. Parties in our system have to form a circuit breaker function. And really the party has to come forward and stop this. It is a destruction of democracy to do that. You just can't allow it to happen. And I think in a larger sense, the best way to avoid it is to crush Trump. I mean, if it's 1964, nobody's going to be sitting up there at midnight saying, "Let's go to the lawyers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:33)
We agree.

Stuart Stevens: (41:35)
So that's what we're doing in the Lincoln Project. Our goal is to do what we can to make sure-

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:41)
I got my mug. I got my hat. I just want you to know I donated money. I've raised money.

Stuart Stevens: (41:46)
You are a great supporter.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:48)
And I'll be on a Lincoln project 8:00 PM live stream, I think later in the week. John Darsie, I'll turn it back to you. I know we're tight on time.

John Darsie: (41:59)
We are going into overtime here, but we'll squeeze in a couple more questions. The Electoral College system, and even the Senate has been labeled as undemocratic because of excessive representation that provides to rural voters who are sort of the bedrock of Trump's base. Are those systems, should they be abolished? Are they fair? What is your opinion on that?

Stuart Stevens: (42:18)
I would abolish The Electoral College tomorrow. And I think it would be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party, because it would force the Republican Party to change. I think minority rule is toxic. And I say that as someone who benefited from it in 2000, when I worked for Bush. I mean in Bush Campaign, we sort of joked like anybody can get elected president when you get more votes, it takes professionals when you lose by half a million. It seemed kind of funny then, it doesn't seem very funny. So I just think it's toxic, it's toxic not to have majority rule. And we don't do it in any other aspects of our lives. And you can take a big state like California and you could make the same case for Electoral College in California as you do nationally. It's dominated by these larger urban areas. The rural areas are disproportionately not represented.

Stuart Stevens: (43:10)
But nobody's saying that. They're saying like, "The more people, you get more votes, you ought to win." I mean when you're on for Cub Scout leader, you get more votes, you win. I think that's just something where ... And the whole system of electoral, if you go back to the history of it, it basically was, "We're going to elect a bunch of smart people and they're going to pick the president." And that's just not where we are now. That's not where the country's evolved. So I would abolish The Electoral College. I would leave the Senate alone. That's just such a profound sort of tinkering, it's way over my head.

John Darsie: (43:41)
So you talked about how you don't know if the party is going to change until it becomes an electoral necessity for the party to change. And I know you're more of a strategist than a forecaster, but if we looked out in five or 10 years, what do you think is sort of the fallout from Trumpism will be for the Republican Party? What do you think the Republican Party will look like, both from a policy and a demographic perspective?

Stuart Stevens: (44:05)
I think it's sort of like the subprime mortgage crisis. It's easier to predict how it ends and how long it takes. Eventually, the Republican Party is going to have to change, just by survival. It's going to have to. How long that'll take? I don't know. I don't think that just nominating someone who's different will make much of a difference. I mean, if you look at African-American republican candidates, they don't tend to do much better with African-Americans and white Republican candidates, same with Hispanic Republican candidates. So there's not an easy fix here. If I had to predict, I think that we're going to have a period of center left government, it's going to go too far. And there will be a rational alternative to it that will emerge. But that's going to be one that's not fighting cultural wars.

Stuart Stevens: (44:56)
I mean, look at gay marriage, 2008, every candidate, Democrat Republicans were against it. Now we don't even talk about it anymore. It's just like over. And I think that that's going to happen with these other cultural issues. Where people love immigrants, is where they live with immigrants. It's where they don't live with immigrants that they're seen as some sort of mysterious negative force. And I think that's a very positive indicator for the country because we're going to change like that. So eventually there'll be a strong center right party, because there's a demand for it in America. I just don't know how long that's going to take.

John Darsie: (45:32)
Well Stuart, thanks so much for joining us. It's been a fascinating conversation. You're somebody who's been in the middle of a lot of these battles within the party for many years. You have unique insights into how we got here and how we move forward. So thanks so much for joining us. Anthony, you have any final words?

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:46)
Just holding up the book, It Was All a Lie. Stuart, great, great book. And a New York Times bestseller. I encourage everybody to read it. And I hope to see you on the other side of this Stuart. And I hope we're part of the future together like the great governor Haley Barbour said. Wish you the best.

John Darsie: (46:04)
Love that brother. All of us.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:05)
God bless.

John Darsie: (46:06)
Thanks for inviting me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:06)
Bye.

John Darsie: (46:07)
Bye.

Lawrence Rocks: The Green Revolution & Robotics | SALT Talks #63

“The Green Revolution will not happen without robotics.“

Dr. Lawrence Rocks received his Master of Science in Chemistry from Purdue University, and his Doctor of Science from Technische Hochschule Vienna, where he wrote his doctoral thesis in German in the field of analytical chemistry. He authored two books, The Energy Crisis (1972) and Developing Your Chemistry Fundamentals and Fuels for Tomorrow, with the former proving influential in creating the United States Department of Energy.

In the immediate future, our dependency on oil will remain constant. Technology needs to advance around extraction and storage before we can look at dialing down our consumption. However, oil and natural gas will likely never fully go away. Instead, we’ll learn how to use both more efficiently and only for industries that truly require the resource.

As for solar and wind power, these two potential resources are being approached the wrong way. Wind farms need large areas to operate, as well as a reliable source of energy. A collaborative between the United States, Canada and Mexico to install turbines offshore along the length of our collective boarders could solve for unpredictable winds and high real estate costs.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dr. Lawrence Rocks.jpg

Lawrence Rocks

President

Lawrence Rocks Associates

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks is a digital interview series that we started during this work from home period, with the world's leading and the foremost investors, creators and thinkers and what we're trying to do with these SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provide at our global SALT conference series, which is to empower big important ideas that are shaping the future, as well as provide our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts and we're very excited today to welcome a legend in the field of chemistry to SALT Talks and that is Dr. Lawrence Rocks and conducting today's interview is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, as well as the chairman of SALT and with that, I'll turn it over to you, Anthony, for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (00:57)
John, thank you. Dr. Rocks, I'm beaming in today from beautiful Venice Beach, California, so I'm trying to dress like a millennial. I'm competing with John Darsie for likes so, hope you'll forgive me for my attire. You look great by the way. Let's get into your background sir. Why did you decide to become a chemist? Where did you grow up and what motivated you to take this arc to your career?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (01:24)
I grew up in New York City and at the age of 12, our class in elementary school had a science project, so I elected to try to make a telescope from available lenses, a long focal plane lens and a very small microscope piece and I put together a telescope that actually could see a moon of Jupiter, so I was very excited to see Jupiter as a disk and a little tiny spot, which was a moon and I couldn't wait to tell the class about it, which I don't know how it went over, but I enjoyed it very much and that sort of started me on a path of interest in astronomy and science and chemistry. They come together, especially my interest in latter years with health and the environment. The environment is a tremendous area, encompassing so many different things that you can go a million different directions in it, chemical, astronomy, climate and so forth. So, I'm focused on matters dealing with health and the environment.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:36)
Oh. You published in 1973, a paper called The Energy Crisis and it influenced the creation of The Department of Energy under the Carter Administration. What was the book about, sir? Why did you feel it was so important at that time to have a unified national energy policy?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (02:56)
Well, at that time there was a looming shortage of gasoline and oil, exacerbated by an embargo on this country and I thought that energy would be a very critical issue. It was very difficult to get the book published. The publisher sent the manuscript to various universities and professors in a variety of very big named schools said, "Energy will never be a story. Don't bother with it." But I persisted with my partner, Richard Runyon, he's now deceased and we did manage to get it published at Crown and sure enough, energy became quite a story and is still a story. It's just lingering. It pops up here and there with wind power, solar, nuclear and so forth, but that was my basic motivation that this is a story that's good for a lifetime or more.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:00)
You think that oil, sir, is still a national security issue for our reliance on it?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (04:07)
Yes, I do. I think that oil of course, the technology of drilling hasn't improved, so that the old method of measuring reserves, oil recovered before the drilling is slightly old-fashioned, but it's still an important measure, but we've got wean ourselves a little bit off oil, which brings up a very tricky question. Many people are saying, "We've got to end the fossil fuel era." Which I don't think is at all practical or meaningful, but we've got to simply reduce and use oil more wisely and our natural gas. So, I have thought of strategies over the last almost 50 years now since the book. I can't believe it's that long, but the strategies that seem to be most appealing are so encompassed in so called green revolution, but how to harness the wind and sunshine, that's the problem and I think they're being harnessed all wrong now.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (05:21)
What we need to harness the wind is a North American Offshore Wind Alliance with Canada and Mexico. Why, because the stretch offshore Canada through America through Mexico, the wind is always strong somewhere. So, you wouldn't need much backup, East Coast, West Coast. It's a regional issue. If you pick one area, the wind is erratic. The wind is erratic all over the world, but when you add them all up, a stretcher like that of six, 7,000 miles, the wind is reliable because it's always blowing strongly somewhere and another reason is that wind on land, the real estate is against you. I mean, T. Boone Pickens had a company called Mesa Energy, building windmills up the central part of the US and the company went bankrupt. The wind power for a 1,000 megawatts of wind, which is typical power plant, that's installed capacity.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (06:25)
It's stacked up and the wind doesn't blow, but for a 1,000 megawatts installed capacity, you might need 20 or 30 square miles and 500 windmills. The real estate is against you, but offshore the real estate is not against you, but to compensate for that big area you need, I think robotics. So, one of my themes I believe in passionately is that the green revolution will not happen without robotic assistance to monitor the security and minor repair thousands of windmills stretching from Alaska, all the way to Southern Mexico. The potential wind power would give us all the electric energy we need, but then that's a power grid problem between nations and we need cooperation I think.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:22)
So, let's talk about that for a second. So you're saying, at least for the immediate future, we're going to always have some reliance on oil and you'd like to bring it down. So, let me ask you about the green new deal, which has been proposed by some people on the left. What's your opinion of the green new deal.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (07:48)
I'm not familiar with the details, but if we're to say oil and natural gas, we've got to also harness sunshine, but I believe it's being harnessed the wrong way. Solar electricity has not worked in 40 years and I don't think it's going to work in the next 40 years except on an extremely local basis, highly subsidized and my reasons are that the solar panels convert sunlight into electricity in a PN junction, which wears out with time, because of atomic migration. So, the solar cell is not eternal. It may lose 50% of its power in 20 or 30 years. It's got to be replaced. You need a large area. So, how to harness sunshine, solar architecture. If homes and buildings were designed to absorb sunlight in the winter and shield them from sunlight in the summer, the energy saved would be very important, by oil, gas and electric power. We've got a harness sunshine first as solar architecture, second as electricity if possible.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:03)
What is your view of what's going on now with the climate? Are you a believer in climate change sir, based on the science or what's your view?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (09:15)
Oh yes. So, I think climate change is way beyond theoretical idea. Global warming and with [crosstalk 00:09:24].

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:25)
It's manmade, man and woman made. It's being created by the emission of all the CO2?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (09:31)
Well, it does. That is a very complicated story. Nature has its own cycle. Drilling into Arctic ice and measuring the isotopes of oxygen 16 to 18 shows that in the last 400,000 years we've had about five ice ages. The way the earth has behaved, apparently from oxygen isotope per measurements, 50,000 or 60,000 years of very cold weather compared to what we know and then, 10 or 20,000 years of a warm spell, which we're in now. So, we've had five such cycles long before people were here, long before industrial revolution, but some unknown reasons there was that pattern revealed by isotopic chemistry in the polar caps.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (10:27)
Now, where are we now? According to that rhythm, we're about 1,000 years overdue for an ice age. However, right now there's a problem of global warming, because we're in a relatively one period may be coming out of it. Where does mankind come in? Well, we're contributing to carbon dioxide and methane, but there is a very big disconnect here, which is why I propose Weather Station Moon and here is the disconnect, in the last 50 years, carbon dioxide has risen in the atmosphere at least 50%, but temperature on the Kelvin scale has not. It's gone up maybe 1%. We are experiencing more carbon dioxide and more methane in the atmosphere and more unstable weather, stronger wind and stronger hurricanes, very unstable weather patterns and yet the global temperature doesn't seem to have risen. Maybe it's hard to measure.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (11:36)
So, my concept is weather Station Moon, an unmanned telescopic station on the moon to take a look at the earth in the infrared to get its true overall temperature and you could also pinpoint areas telescopically. So you could get pinpoint temperature and global temperature and secondly, to look at the cloud cover not just visibly, to see if it's increasing or not, but in the ultra violent to see if there's more silicates up there. The silicates would reflect sunlight and cause the earth to get cloudier and colder, the so-called albedo effect. So, a cloudy earth would be a colder earth. How do we measure it? Well, Albany satellites gets some idea, but we need a total global picture of the earth and the only way to get it, I think is from the moon.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:39)
So are we doomed at our current projection? Some people are saying that they were in an average retrievable position or do you think it is retrievable?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (12:52)
Well, I think it's very erratic. It's almost like the stock market up and down. There was a little miniature ice age in Northern Europe, 1590 to 1640, well-documented in literature and paintings known as the Little Ice Age. So, that could be a forerunner of the fact that we're on a slope toward another ice age, but that might be a 100 or a 1,000 years from now. The isotopic record indicates we're overdue for an ice age for whatever the reasons are, but for the moment it looks like global warming, it looks like polar caps are melting, seas may be rising and people will be moving inland and Northward in the Northern hemisphere, inland and Southward in the Southern hemisphere, but who knows at what rate? Now, along comes the COVID virus and that's accelerating everything.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (13:53)
So, there's a gradual trend, hard to detect inward and northward in the Northern hemisphere, but COVID has now accelerated everything. We can see satellite cities, more telecommunications. I think the trend is not going to end. It's just going to be erratic and it may extend way past our lifetime, children, grandchildren and so forth, but I think the future is this inland and upward Northward movement. More satellite states, more telecommunications as we're doing right now and more short trip airline travel and I also think that if we do the North America wind lines properly and have sufficient electricity, more electric vehicles, I think the electric vehicle future is very, very bright with the movement going on now, if we take care of the power grid, which we're not doing.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (14:59)
The electric power grid in this country is not being properly monitored, it's got to be expanded for remote sources and it's got to be monitored. For example, in California, had we had in place drones take a careful look at the power grid, we'd see that in certain places there was tree overgrowth. Now, that's not anyone administration's fault, that's just a fact of nature. So, with robotic surveillance of drones, we would see that and maybe be able to correct some of it, but the high temperatures in California are quite a mystery.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:46)
But you would say that the wildfires and the hurricanes are coming from the climate change and the global warming, or you think there's just a natural phenomenon? How would you assess that?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (15:57)
There is global warming and it's triggering off something that's very unstable. For example, a few weeks ago, we had a dust storm from the Sahara desert traveling all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Now, with a weather station moon, you could monitor that very clearly and it would really look like something on a nightly TV and it's happened before and right now, the fire is in California, the dust has reach Europe. You can detect it, you can almost see it. During the dust bowl of the 1930s in this country, dust was picked up in New York city from the far West. Now, had we had a weather station moon way back then you could really follow that. So, what I'm saying is that the immediate trend is global warming and maybe in the future, I don't know, a 100 years, a 1,000 years from now a freezing trend, because we've had these cycles for the last 400,000 years.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (17:08)
Well, we've got to monitor the situation now in terms of the total earth and parts of the earth, see from the moon you can get from infrared light, the total temperature of the earth. If you try to piecemeal it together, it's very hot and it leads to a lot of controversy and we can get the total cloud cover, the percent, the reflectivity of the earth. So, we need the earth's total temperature as well as pinpoint area temperature, total cloud cover, as well as pinpoint cloud cover, wind speed and it relates to weather forecasting and the famous problem of North hemisphere, Southern hemisphere air exchange, which now has come to light with the COVID virus. The experts are saying well, in South America when they're having their winter, the virus seems to spread and when we get all winter we're probably in for a spread of the virus up here. So, predicting weather pattern, sees the weather patterns would help. I don't know how much, but I think it would help in predicting virus outbreak.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:26)
Doc, John Darsie, we're getting a lot of questions piling up from the audience so, I'm going to let John Darsie cut in here and ask you a few questions from people that are thinking about these big issues.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (18:39)
Sure.

John Darsie: (18:40)
So, I'm going to start on a more lighthearted issue and then we'll get back into the deeper issues, but you're a renowned chemist and you've applied your knowledge and chemistry across a variety of different subject matters, starting with energy in the 70s, as we talked about, including public health, but you've also done work in sports and I think it's really interesting, the work you've done with St. Louis Cardinals Shortstop, Paul DeJong, regarding different experiments about optimizing bat speed and launch angles and thing in baseball. Talk about the research you've done in the baseball world. You were honored by Topps and given your own baseball card, which was a first for a chemist, but talk a little bit about the work you've done and what you've learned about how to optimize performance in baseball.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (19:25)
Well, what Paul and I did was, we hit a baseball and looked at its bounce and cooled it and looked at its bounce and sort of studied the elasticity of the surface of a baseball with respect to temperature. Elastic materials tend to get brittle at low temperature. They lose their bounce and at very high temperature, they tend to get so off. They lose their bounce. So, if a typical elastane and this is in optimal temperature of a day of elasticity, like an automobile tyre, it's got its own range, a baseball has its own range, seems to be most flexible around 70 degrees. Different materials will have their own ideal flexibility temperature range and that was done in a hope of encouraging school children to do their own experiments and that's what the program with Topps is all about, helping school children realize that you can do experiments. You don't need sophisticated scientific equipment, economic status is not that big a hindrance, that children can play around and do something of a scientific nature.

John Darsie: (20:44)
So, we have another question again, switching gears back to the solar energy piece, and we have a couple of questions that I'm going to combine into one and that's about, what are the best storage systems that we need to meet peak energy demand as we transition to more erratic sources of energy and do we have the infrastructure in place to build a better smart grid on top of existing infrastructure? Or do we need to completely overhaul our energy grid to prepare ourselves for the future?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (21:15)
I think energy storage is a tremendous problem and there isn't any simple answer to it. So, what I'm taking is that what we need, is to somehow harness the internal source of power, sunshine and wind and then have a backup, but battery backup has never proved economic on a bare scale for nation's power grid. So, for my concept of North American Offshore Wind Alliance, I envision a small nuclear backup, small nuclear power plants. The old nuclear power plants, 1000 megawatts, they have too many problems, heat loss, it's been going on for years, but the smaller power plants as you'd find on a submarine or an aircraft carrier, don't have the heat loss problems because they're smaller. So, we need small nuclear power as a backup and for decades I've been saying, "Go small, go, small."

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (22:18)
Utilities have been saying, "Not economical, not economical." The Gates foundation has funded research in what's called a Traveling Wave Nuclear Reactor. If fuel rods are moved about so that the plant doesn't have to be refueled more than once every 20 years, they think, theoretically speaking, it's being built right now in China. Why is something funded by the Gates Foundation being built in China? Because of the red tape in this country. Maybe red tape is a bad expression. People are leery of nuclear power and rightly so, because the power plants are too big. They're melting down. They're not cooling off. I mean, if you boil a potato in water and take it out of the water, it stays hot a long time, but a piece of potato cools right off. So, my answer to nuclear power is go small and the nuclear waste has to be buried in nickel steel containers, offshore in the ocean by robotic submarine. People are aghast at that.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (23:31)
Burying nuclear waste on land is never going to work, because the radioactivity dies off, it takes at least a thousand years. You can't have multi-generations of people adhering to safety protocols for a 1,000 years. That's not going to happen. There's no societal mechanism for that. It's almost as if in the days of Julius Caesar, there were rules about burying nuclear waste and we're adhering to them today. The waste material has to be buried in a place where it's inaccessible and perfectly harmless and that's nickel steel containers, they don't rust in salty water, buried deep in the ocean floor by robotic submarines, there will be no problem.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (24:23)
Now, we can opt not to have nuclear backup and the question is, what is the backup, since the wind will always be somewhat erratic? And the only answer I can think of is extend the wind system. In other words, they're filled with some way to tap the entire earth. It's always windy somewhere, but then we'd have to be sharing electricity around the world. So I foresee regionalism. Where we are, the region would be Canada and the United States and Mexico go offshore and you don't have a real estate problem, hook up all the windmills in one giant power grid, three nations are involved and work out the rules of sharing power, that they see as the only way to avoid the fact that people are leery of nuclear power and secondly, battery systems don't work.

John Darsie: (25:24)
In terms of burying nuclear waste at sea, would that have any adverse effect on the marine ecosystem?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (25:30)
None. None whatsoever. The nickel steel propellers of the Titanic in all these years haven't rusted. The steel cylinders won't rust at the ocean floor, they're inaccessible even if anyone were to try and dig them up, there's nothing you could do with them. The radioactivity will decay significantly in 1,000 years, completely in 2000. If you put it on land, there'll always be a problem with security of that land site, always and for example, the Yucca mountain project failed. Why, because there could be an earthquake and the canisters could fracture and material could make its way through the fractured earth, but in the deep ocean basin who's in the ocean floor, that's impossible.

John Darsie: (26:27)
So I'm going to call you after the SALT Talk about starting a business to create these robot submarines that we can bury the nuclear waste with Dr. Rocks. So, just look out on your phone. I'm going to give you a call. Another question we have people following up about wind energy. So, a couple of the common criticisms of wind energy are, the effect they have on birds and animals in those ecosystems, as well as disposing of the wind turbine blades. So, the blades are massive in size, obviously after they complete their useful life. They're buried in landfills, but they're so large that they obviously create a ton of waste. Are those concerns that you think make wind energy less attractive, or do you think those are just hurdles that we have to overcome?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (27:15)
I think those concerns are real, but I think they're small compared to the real estate problem. A typical power plant, whether it be nuclear, gas, or oil or coal is about 1,000 megawatts. 1,000 megawatts on land, you need about 20 to 30 square miles and maybe 500 windmills. That's a lot of land area. Think of the real estate. Just think of how impossible that would be in New York City. That would be ridiculous. One power plant replaced by 30 square miles of windmills? It's a real estate problem as what happened with the T. Boone Pickens and his company Mesa Energy. It didn't work. It's not an engineering problem, it's real estate, it's economic. The best place for wind is the offshore. Now we need a big area, so, we'll have to go to a big area. So, I think the biggest stumbling block to harnessing wind is almost political. Canada, the United States and Mexico must cooperate.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (28:32)
Now, years ago when I was doing work on the book, The Energy Crisis, I had an idea that the gas being flared off in the Gulf of Mexico flagged as being wasted, could be harnessed and piped, that the United States and Mexico should join up and tap that natural gas and pipe it and it was an idea. It never saw the light of day. The economics, the politics involved, what happened was the countries at the Middle East, ExxonMobil, lowered the price of oil. That killed that project. You see, there's a lot of competitiveness going on. One industry will lower prices to put another one out of business. I know that the windmills, they have a hypnotic effect. It's an interesting phenomenon, 60 cycles a second seems to induce ecolepsy in a very small percentage of people. So, that's a problem. Bird migration, that's another problem.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (29:49)
I don't want to trivialize them. I just think that they're way behind the biggest problem, which is economic, the land area. It's just too large to put on land, got to get it offshore. Down now that way you've harnessed wind, by harnessing sunshine, all the projects being funded are solar electricity. That's the hardest way to go. The easiest, the best is solar architecture, because the solar architecture will last forever. I mean, as long as the home of the building, whereas solar panels will definitely wear out. Atomic migration happens at the PN junction. It's a natural phenomenon like water evaporating. So, whatever solar cell you invent, atomic migration will blur it and make it useless in whatever 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years, it will go down in efficiency. Solar electricity is economically disadvantaged. It sounds beautiful, I love it, but it's economically disadvantaged. Solar architecture is the way to go.

John Darsie: (31:04)
And we have another question about nuclear energy and nuclear fusion is sort of the holy grail of nuclear energy and there's been people that have tried over the years to create a nuclear fusion reaction for the sake of producing energy. Do you think we'll ever get to the point of creating a fusion reaction to create energy, because if we do, obviously it would solve a lot of problems if you can do it safely, but what are your thoughts on that?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (31:30)
It would. Theoretically it would solve a lot of problems. The Russians pioneered a design called Tokamak. It's a tunnel, a magnetic tunnel to confine plasma and in this country, we've pioneered Laser fusion. Pallets of deuterium, little glass pallets are hit by laser light from all directions. The problem with thermonuclear energy is that once you get ignition, it's so hot, it is just tried temperature. It seems to destroy the very container it's in. So, I don't know about thermonuclear fusion, I think it's very theoretical at the moment. It's way off in the distance, I don't see any thermonuclear electric power plants in my lifetime, or I don't know how it's ever going to be done if at all.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (32:32)
I think the way to go is standard nuclear, the way the Navy did it. Small nuclear power plants. Now, the utilities will say, "Well, that's not very economical." And my answer is, "You're right." It's less economical than one big plant, but what if one big plant melts down, how economical is that? Like three mile Island or [GMA 00:32:56] in Japan or the Russian power plant, that's not economical at all. That's what stopped nuclear power, the danger of a large plant overheating. If you have a small plant, it won't overheat.

John Darsie: (33:11)
What about geothermal energy? We have a question from our audience. They mentioned Yellowstone as somewhere that's somewhat central that could be potentially used as a source of clean energy. Do you think geothermal energy has a larger future in the United States and around the world?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (33:28)
I'm not sure about it. The power plants that I read about seem to admit to sulfur deposits, wherever there's geothermal energy. It seems to be gases off gases from the hot lava down below and they're usually associated with the air pollution, a lot of off gases and there also could be a problem with earthquake production and I just think it's too limited.

John Darsie: (33:58)
Well, Dr. Rocks, thanks so much for joining us today. I want to kick it back to Anthony if he has a final word for you, but we appreciate you coming on in and you're a legend.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (34:06)
Oh. Thank you. I appreciate. Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:07)
Before we leave, I want to talk about your legendary baseball status Doc. The shortstop on the St. Louis Cardinals, Paul DeJong, attributes a lot of your insights to his prowess on the field. Tell us a little bit about that. You said to me something a few months ago about ligaments, which I've never forgotten. I'd like you to share that with our audience and tell us how you ended up getting your own baseball card.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (34:38)
Well, the story is muscle versus ligament. Muscles produce energy, ligaments produce power. Power is energy per unit time. It's the snap. It's like a bow and arrow. That you just stretch the wood and release it and release the string and it snaps back. So, the muscles are providing energy to the tendons, the tendons stretch then they snap back and as we age, tendons get more crystalline, less amorphous. They get more brittle, they could get strong.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:14)
Are you listening to that Darsie? Your time's going to come. Okay? Are you listening to that?

John Darsie: (35:18)
It's already come and[crosstalk 00:35:19].

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:19)
Dr. Rocks and I are already dealing with that Darsie. Pay attention.

John Darsie: (35:22)
I already had a knee replacement.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:24)
So go back to the crystalline. Go ahead. What happens Doc?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (35:27)
The best gymnasts are teenagers and then in your twenties, you'll lose that and certainly in your thirties, but it's a well-known phenomenon with tendons and ligaments, that as we age they become more crystalline and less amorphous, almost like the automobile tyre industry has this problem, that the rubber has got to be amorphous enough to be flexible and crystalline enough to be strong. So, the weightlifter is developing strong tendons, more crystalline nature in the proteins, less amorphous, less flexibility, so they're strong, but they're less flexible. So, the discussions I had with Paul is that there's got to be a balance and I have no idea what it is for any one individual, it's an aging process, but there is a balance between being very strong and not being flexible enough to hit a baseball or being very flexible and not being very strong. So, it's got to be a balance. So, I think the way the athletes tell it to me, too much weightlifting is not good. You get strong lifting weights but you don't get better at hitting a ball.

John Darsie: (36:50)
I mean that's Tom Brady. You're preaching Tom Brady's philosophy there. At his age and he's the oldest quarterback in the NFL and one of the oldest that has ever played at a high level in the NFL and he talks a lot about flexibility and pliability versus trying to get stronger and it's helped him extend his career.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:07)
He uses a lot of band work, right? He doesn't really use weights, right? He just uses bands mostly. Right?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (37:14)
That's one of the things that Paul and I have discussed and the other thing I've discussed is, what level of air pollution. This COVID virus, they're cleaning facilities, right? You can over-clean. I mean, you can have so much cleaning around that it affects the lungs and some of the chemicals interact with each other, which is a subject that goes, I think unnoticed. For example, cleaning fluids that have fluoride and cleaning fluids that have acetic acid, if you mix them, you get trace amounts of fluoroacetic acid, which can cause scarring of lung tissue. So, one of the phenomena I'd like to study, like to get into it more deeply is low level air pollution.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (38:04)
How it can take the edge off an athlete, a little bit of carbon monoxide, or a little bit of cleaning fluid, or a little bit of ozone. Let us say that it's reducing oxygen transfer in the lungs by 2% hypothetically speaking. So, you've got 2% less energy, hypothetically speaking. So you hit a baseball 400 feet. What's 2% of 400 feet, eight feet. That could be the difference between a home run or a ball court and the running track. See for a non-athlete like me, you wouldn't even see the difference, but for an athlete where the edge counts, I think one or 2% loss of power, loss of breathing, loss of oxygen transfer makes a big difference.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:57)
So Doc, what would you recommend instead of the cleaners? Get these air filtration systems?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (39:04)
Yes. Filtration and also air it out.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:07)
Like open the window?

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (39:09)
Right. Ventilation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:10)
Right.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (39:12)
The cleaning fluids do their job in minutes, but the excess can linger for hours.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:18)
Right. So open-

John Darsie: (39:19)
If I'm in the car with Anthony I'll make sure to follow that advice.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:23)
I would never let him in the car Doc given his habits, his hygiene habits, that's fake news. He's never been in the car with me. Okay? God only knows what he does in his own house. There's a reason why the bookshelves are green behind him, Doc, just so you know. Okay? All right, before we let you go, tell us about the Topps baseball card. We all want to hear about this.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (39:47)
Well, I feel very honored that Topps made a baseball card for me and for Paul, for our work with the projects that might interest children in science. I think it should work to interest children to do things of a scientific nature. It's quite an honor. I hope I can live up to it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:18)
All right. You look great in the card. I love it. Well, we appreciate having you on and I want to turn it back to John, where he's going to talk about some upcoming SALT conferences and hopefully we get you back soon after the election and talk about the direction of the environment, the economy, and all things related to chemistry, but thank you so much for coming on today, Doc.

Dr. Lawrence Rocks: (40:39)
Anthony, I can't thank you enough. Just for me, this is a great opportunity. I appreciate it so much.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:44)
Well, I want your message out there. I just think it's super important. Let's turn it back to John. I think we got the best of him, particularly when I said that the bookcase was green for a reason, Doc. I think we really nailed him. Go ahead Darsie.

John Darsie: (40:57)
Anthony's jokes always hit hard, but thanks everybody for joining us today on the SALT talks with Dr. Rocks.

Morgan Housel: "The Psychology of Money" | SALT Talks #62

“Writing is the best way to crystallize the vague thoughts you have in your head.“

Morgan Housel is a partner at The Collaborative Fund, a venture capital firm focused on providing seed and early stage funding to technology companies, and a former columnist at The Motley Fool and The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of the new book, The Psychology of Money: Timeless Lessons on Wealth, Greed, and Happiness.

Investors should be writing out their ideas more frequently. When you’re writing, ideas that may have seemed logical and fantastical in your mind may actually turn out to be disjointed and nonsensical. Only through the logic-inducing process of writing can investors make more sound financial decisions.

There is also no one-size-fits-all description of a successful investor. However, two principles govern their potential for success: patience and the ability to put up with uncertainty. In finance, soft skills like these often get swept under the rug because they’re immediately measurable in charts or returns.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Morgan Housel.jpeg

Morgan Housel

Partner

The Collaborative Fund

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. And today we're intersecting all that with psychology as well and we're very excited for today's SALT talk. SALT Talks is a series of digital interviews that we launched during the work from home period, with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. And what we're trying to do during these SALT Talks is replicate the type of experience that we provide at our SALT conference series. And that's really to provide a platform for what we think are big, important ideas that are shaping the future, as well as provide our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts. And we're very excited today to welcome Morgan Housel to SALT Talks. Morgan, today is a partner at the Collaborative Fund, which is a venture capital fund, and he's a long time former columnist at The Motley Fool, as well as the Wall Street Journal.

John Darsie: (01:00)
And I personally, I know Anthony has been reading his work for years in those outlets, and it's great that he finally wrote a fantastic book to bring his work to an even larger audience. And he's the two time winner of the best in business award from the Society of American Business Writers and winner of the New York Times Sidney award, and a two-time finalist for the Gerald Loeb award for distinguished business and financial journalism. His new book, as I mentioned, is called The Psychology of Money. It came out September 8th and he's on a variety of different bestseller lists. And we were talking before we went live, we're hoping that once all the votes are counted, that his book will be on the New York Times bestseller list in short order. But it's a fantastic book, very easy to read and he distills a lot of great anecdotes down into key lessons that you can teach your children or teach yourself, whether you're an amateur investor or a professional investor, frankly, about how to be a better investor and how to put the right priorities around creating wealth.

John Darsie: (01:57)
Just a reminder, if you have any questions for Morgan during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q and A box at the bottom of your video screen. And conducting today's interview is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm, as well as the chairman of SALT. And with that, we'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview. Anthony today is in the lovely Beverly Hills Hotel and not in his normal environment and so we're going to give them a very low room rating, but Anthony, go ahead and take it away.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:25)
And my head, all of a sudden didn't become 400 times the size of yours and Morgan's, but that's fine. Morgan, welcome to SALT Talks. I have to tell you that I do a lot of reading, obviously in finance and read a ton of books on finance, but your book, The Psychology of Money is by far the best one I have read about literally the psychology of money. So I've been handing it out to people, you should be very proud of your work, by the way, we think it's a phenomenal book. And so I want to get into the book in a second, but I want to talk a bit about you and how you got to where you are. So go ahead, tell our delegation about your career arc.

Morgan Housel: (03:07)
Well first, yeah, thank you for having me, Anthony, thank you for those kind thoughts about the book. How did I get here? I think like a lot of careers, it wasn't planned. I never had a plan to become a financial writer in the slightest. If you go back to my time in college, around the mid 2000's, I wanted to go into investment banking, that was all I wanted to do. My plan was A, B and C was to become an investment banker. A lot of young people in the mid 2000's wanted to do that, investment banking was the peak of financial prestige. From my view in my early '20's, that was where the money and the power was, that's what I wanted to do. I got an investment banking internship my junior year and day one and not only day one, I would say the first hour of walking in there, it was clear to me that this is not for me.

Morgan Housel: (03:48)
The culture of investment banking was such a turnoff to me. And I'm 100% for hard work, but it was not hard work, it was just a hazing atmosphere where it wasn't about your productivity or what kind of value can you add, it was just let me beat the crap out of you because someone beat the crap out of me during my career. It was so unappealing to me. So then I got a job in private equity. This was still, I was a junior in college. I got an internship and I love private equity. I thought it was great, great mix between business and finance. The culture was so much more aligned with what I wanted. And this was the summer of 2007 and then the whole global economy hit the fan.

Morgan Housel: (04:25)
And my plan was to stick around in private equity, but the firm basically said, they relied on borrowing a ton of money to make the deals work, everything froze solid, so it was, "Hey, we're not going to have a full time position for you after college." So I needed to do something else. And I had a friend who was a writer for The Motley Fool at the time and he said, "Hey, you should apply to become a Motley Fool writer, you are interested in finances. Let's do it." I had no writing background whatsoever, I'd never written anything about investing before, even though I was interested in it. And so I thought I would do that for three months or six months before I found another private equity job. And I ended up staying for 10 years and just fell in love with the process of writing.

Morgan Housel: (04:59)
I think no matter what field you're in, writing is really important because writing is not just about getting your thoughts across to other people, it's not just about communicating. Writing is the best way to crystallize the vague thoughts you have in your head. These vague ideas that you have about whatever your field is, whether it's finance or politics or anything else, you have these gut feelings, until you are forced to write them on paper, those gut feelings just float around, they're not making a lot of sense. But once you're forced to put them on the paper, you really realize that either A, your thoughts suddenly make a lot more sense than they did when they were gut feelings or B, when you put them onto paper, you realize that your thoughts look ridiculous. When they were gut feelings in your head, you could run with them and say, "This is okay." But sometimes you put them into words you say, "Ah, that makes no sense whatsoever."

Morgan Housel: (05:44)
So I fell in love with the process of writing. It was not part of the plan, I just stumbled across it haphazardly, but we're now 14 years into this. So I joined Collaborative Fund four and a half years ago. It's a venture capital private equity firm, but my sole job there is to write and speak about the intersection of investing history and behavioral finance. I like to learn about the history of how people think about risk and opportunity and greed and fear in finance and what we can learn about that for ourselves to become better investors and better with dealing with money in general.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:15)
Well, in reading your fantastic book, and it's a great introduction to everything that we're talking about, but in reading your book, it struck me that there were two things going on. You were trying to explain to people how to become a successful investor, but then also how to develop a healthy relationship with money, which is something I'm still trying to do, frankly. I think a lot of us have that difficulty. And so let's break it up for our listeners, how do you become a successful investor Morgan?

Morgan Housel: (06:47)
Well, to me, it's different for everyone and how I invest is very different from how I know you invest, which is going to be different for everyone. So there's no one size fits all prescription. But to me, the foundation of good investing, the most common denominator across all investing strategies is two things. You need to be patient and you need to put up with uncertainty. That's it. Very simple, very basic, it's not blowing anyone's minds, but that's the common denominator. There's always a cost of admission in investing. You can do very well in markets, no matter what your strategy is, but nothing is free. Of course, nothing good in the world is free, nothing worthwhile is free, everything has a cost. And the cost of admission in investing is a combination of patience, which is where you get compounding and dealing with uncertainty and volatility, which is what markets make you put up with.

Morgan Housel: (07:29)
I think that those two things are easy to overlook and it's easy to not view them as a cost because most costs have a dollar figure on it. [inaudible 00:07:37], if you get a hotel in Los Angeles, there's a dollar figure on it. But the cost of volatility is much more nuanced. And it's very easy and intuitive, I think, in investing to view volatility and patience as a fee or pardon me, as a fine for doing something wrong, your portfolio declined 10% and you screwed up, you did something wrong. And look, for some strategies, that might be the case. But very often, if you are dealing with volatility and your portfolio declines 10%, let's just say, that's not a fine, that is a fee. It's the cost of admission for what you need to put forth, enable to do well over time.

Morgan Housel: (08:11)
So I think that's how people become good investors. It's difficult to do that because it's not necessarily analytical. We can't just summarize patience in a chart or in a formula. So people who are very analytically smart and you got your PhD from MIT, does not have any correlation with whether you're actually going to be patient. So these soft skills in finance often get swept under the rug because they're so different from how we are usually taught finance in terms of an academic field where it's something closer to physics that is governed by clean formulas and charts and data, we can measure things with precision. The softer side of investing is not necessarily there. So I think that's the common denominator of how people can become good investors. I know it's not blowing anyone's mind, but that's the point. The simplicity of these things makes easy to ignore. So I actually think when I explain these things, it is the most sophisticated and educated investors who need to be reminded of these things, that the most important things are the things that are easiest for the educated people to ignore and overlook.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:09)
Well, I mean, you bring this up in the book and I want you to address it. There's emotion involved. The rational actors seem to do best, but it turns out that we're really not that rational, particularly when it comes to money. And if I take $10,000 of my money and I put it into a stock and it drops 25%, that may be the best time to buy it, but now I'm in a panic. And it's not like women's apparel that goes on sale at a department store or chopped meat in the supermarket. When stuff goes on sale, Morgan, people panic, and they have a tendency to sell bottoms and buy tops. So you write about it in the book, explain why people do that and explain what your recommendations are to prevent them from doing that.

Morgan Housel: (09:55)
I think it's very easy to personalize what's going on in markets, even if markets are a giant thing where tens or hundreds of millions of people are participating. It's so easy to say, "Look, if I buy it and it goes up, that's because I'm smart. And if I buy stock, it goes down, that's because I'm stupid. I made a mistake." They personalize what's going on in the market, even if the market does not know who you are, doesn't care who you are, has no correlation with the decisions that you made by and large. So I think that's largely why we do it. In a way that if we're talking about math, long division is not emotional, it's just a formula, you do it, sometimes you're wrong, but you don't get emotional about it. Whereas our personal net worth, this is not just our ability to retire and send our kids to school, this is the scorecard for how we're doing in life by and large, particularly for some people.

Morgan Housel: (10:41)
It's not necessarily going to affect your day to day wellbeing, but it's a scorecard for how you're doing and you take it personally. If your portfolio's down 20%, that means that my worth to the world, my intelligence is down 20%, is how it's typically viewed. I think to the greatest extent, back to what I was saying earlier, if you can view volatility as the cost of admission, this is the price that you are paying, if you're going to go out and buy a fancy car, there's a price to that and you know it, and you know the price is worth it because you get a nice car in return. If you can view volatility as more of a fee that is worth paying, rather than a fine, a signal that you screwed up, that to me, is the biggest way that you could move the needle towards a healthier relationship with the investing side with money.

Morgan Housel: (11:20)
And we also have to address this thing too, where money is emotional, it's not just the investing returns, it's people's relationship with money. And it doesn't matter how wealthy you are, this is true for the deca-billionaires of the world. That how satisfied you are with your money, how well you think you're doing with your money, it's just the gap between what you have and what your expectations are. And if people's expectations grow in lockstep with their net worth over time, or if their expectations grow faster than their net worth over time, it doesn't matter how wealthy you become, you're always going to feel like you're running on a treadmill. That too, I don't think will blow anyone's mind, but it's the most pervasive issue with money that we have over time.

Morgan Housel: (11:57)
Look, if you were to look at the average median American, the median American's income adjusted for inflation has roughly doubled since the 1950s, just for inflation, median income. But we view the 1950's as the golden era of middle class prosperity, even though we are twice as rich, adjusted for inflation at the median level than we were then. I think a lot of the reason that is, is because expectations in the United States have grown faster than people's incomes. And look, there's been a lot of stagnation across middle incomes in the last 20 or 30 years, of course, but so much of the expectations in terms of what a middle class family should have and how they should live, have grown faster than incomes over time. Just one way to summarize that is that the median square footage of a new American house, has increased from about 900 square feet to 2,500 square feet. So that's just expectations rising faster than income and that's true at every single income level, no matter how wealthy you are, successful you are.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:54)
Well, unfortunately the plate at the diner, Morgan, has also expanded, so we've got that issue going on as well. You got a lot of great anecdotes in the book and some of them are related to common mistakes that people make with their money. I was wondering if you could, I don't want to steal the thunder of the book, but just share one or two of them that you think are compelling to explain what the commonalities are in terms of how people miscue money.

Morgan Housel: (13:24)
Sure. I mean, here's one from the book that's always stuck with me and the story has nothing to do with investing, but this will all come back around to a good investing lesson, I hope. Back before antibiotics, if you got syphilis, the main treatment for treating syphilis was to actually-

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:40)
John, are you paying attention to this, John? Let me just make sure-

Morgan Housel: (13:44)
I knew this is going to go somewhere like that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:45)
All right. John pay attention, he's speaking directly to you, John. Okay, just go ahead, let me go back to active speaker. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Morgan Housel: (13:54)
The main treatment for syphilis was to inject you with a low end strain of malaria. That was how you were treated for it. And the reason was because injecting yourself with malaria and intentionally giving yourself malaria, would trigger a very high fever. You get a fever of 104 that would last for a week, and the fever would kill the syphilis. Which is just to say that we have known for a long time, that fevers play a very key role in fighting infection. That used to be how we actually treated illness, was to trigger fevers in you. And look, we don't do that anymore because now we have antibiotics, thank God. But there's this interesting thing where we know that fevers are beneficial. Fever is a good thing. Fever is a sign that your body is fighting a thing you're trying to get rid of.

Morgan Housel: (14:32)
But what's interesting in the modern world, is that no one, including doctors, views a fever as anything other than a nuisance. And if you get a fever, you should take Tylenol right away, get rid of that damn thing, get it out of here, even if it's a beneficial thing that is helping you get better. Why is that? Why do we try to get rid of something that is beneficial? To me, the best explanation is just because fevers suck. They hurt. They're miserable. Let's just sit under the covers shivering. So even if it is helpful, even if it's rational to want a fever, it's not reasonable. And if there's a pill that can help me get rid of it right away, give me that pill, I'm going to take it 10 times out of 10.

Morgan Housel: (15:05)
Which is just this explanation that there are things in life that are rational, that makes sense on paper, that makes sense in a spreadsheet, but they're not reasonable. They're not reasonable because no one wants to be uncomfortable in the world. And I think that is also true for investing. There are a lot of things in investing that makes sense on paper, that are rational, all the numbers line up, but they're not reasonable for people to have. And aiming to be just reasonable with your money instead of coldly rational, is, I think, a better guideposts for most people, regardless of how wealthy you are in terms of making decisions with your money. Let me give you one example. There's a well known home bias in investing, where people in the United States, only own American companies, people in Germany, only own German companies, et cetera. You own the company, you own the stocks based off of where you live, based off your own local state, your local neighborhood.

Morgan Housel: (15:51)
There's no reason to think that that is a rational thing to do with your money. The idea that the best companies to own happen to be the ones located nearest to your house, it's ridiculous. There's no ration to that. But it's actually a pretty reasonable thing to do. If taking the leap of faith of investing your net worth into companies that you are more familiar with, if that helps you to take the leap of faith that you need to be a longterm patient investor, to feel comfortable with your investments, then it's a very reasonable thing to do, even if it's not rational.

Morgan Housel: (16:18)
There are other things like paying your mortgage off, which is the most ridiculous thing you could do with your money right now, because you can get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage for 2.9%. But it's a pretty reasonable thing to do if it gives you an added sense of safety, security, it helps you sleep at night. It actually makes you happier with your money, helps you tuck your kids in bed and say, "Hey, we're going to be okay. No one can take this away from us." Even if you can't justify it on paper, in a spreadsheet, there are things like that that I think are actually wonderful things to do with your money, because they're the most reasonable things you can do, even if they're not rational.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:49)
Talk about the hamster trail. And what do I mean by that? You're up on that hamster, circulating, you're always trying to catch the person ahead of you and you have that wanting for more, that expectation that you're talking about. When I was a kid, I grew up with no money, now by the grace of God and some hard work, I've lived a good part of the American dream, but you always have that pressure on you. And then conversely, and I know a lot of people that grew up the way I did, you always are staring at your bank account and you're wondering ... Chris Rock had like this great line, Morgan. He was like, "I'm in this beautiful house in Alpine, New Jersey, but I have a bag packed by the front door because I'm waiting for somebody to knock on the door and say that the house really isn't mine and I have to leave." It was something I really related to as a blue collar kid.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:36)
So explain that because I think you do a great job of that in the book. How do you get off the hamster trail? How do you accept your wealth and social status? How do you immobilize your ego, if you will?

Morgan Housel: (17:48)
I think there's two of this. One, we have to recognize that the hamster wheel is actually what makes the economy work. The fact that virtually none of us, no matter how much we have, the fact that it doesn't feel like enough is what gets us waking up in the morning and going out and trying to make the world better, build new businesses and keep going. So in one sense, it's phenomenal. If everyone wants their net worth to hit a million dollars, if everyone quit working, the economy would go nowhere of course, we wouldn't have anything. So in one sense, it's good, we shouldn't fight against it. At the individual level, I think if you're trying to manage your expectations, managing your ego, to me, the biggest revelation for me is realizing how little people actually care or think about the stuff that you have.

Morgan Housel: (18:25)
No one is thinking about you, no one is thinking about your image, no one is talking about the cars you have or the house you have, more than you are. I use this example in the book, when I was in college, I was a valet at a really nice hotel in Los Angeles. And I realized that, look, if someone drove into the hotel, driving a Ferrari, I would never look at the driver and think, "Wow, I want to be you. You're cool." What I would think is, "Wow, if I was sitting in the car, people would think I'm cool." I never thought about the driver, I thought of myself in the drivers seat.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:54)
That's because they weren't in a Rolls Royce though, Morgan. What if they were in a Rolls Royce?

Morgan Housel: (18:58)
Well, then that's a different story.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:59)
I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

Morgan Housel: (19:00)
Look, I never, and this is true to today, I never think about the person driving the car, I think what people would think about me if I was driving the car. And that fundamental irony is just driving home the point that no one thinks about you more than you. And once you could really grasp that, it's a difficult thing to do, but once you grasp that, then I think it goes a long way in keeping your ego in check. And for me, it's also been, well, okay, if the Ferrari is not what I want and look, for me, it actually is, I love cars, this is not a plea to live like a monk. But if that's not what I wanted, what am I going to do with my money? To me, it's always been using money to control my time, control my schedule, doing what I want, when I want, with whom I want, for as long as I want to, that is going to give me a lasting level of happiness and joy with my money, more than almost anything material will. So that's what I want to use my money for.

Morgan Housel: (19:53)
Once you realize that people don't care about you as much as you do, but being able to control your calendar, being able to wake up every morning and say, "I can do whatever the hell I want to do today." That is going to give you way more happiness than driving the Ferrari will. Then that, to me, has been how I've personally tried to keep my ego in check, but it's the hardest thing in the world. It's so natural to think that if you just have X dollars more, then your happiness is going to rise by the same amount, or if you have X dollars more, then you'll finally feel satisfied, that's the most common, natural feeling in the world to the level of wealth that you have.

Morgan Housel: (20:22)
That's so difficult to fight against, even if we know it's important, because again, your only ability to be happy with money is just a gap between what you have and what you expect. So we always talk about how can we grow our wealth? How can we grow our income? And of course that's important, but we also need to focus on how can we maintain our expectations because if we don't, then it's never going to feel like enough.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:41)
So I have one last question for you before I turn it over to John Darsie because we have a lot of questions from the audience filling the queue. And this is related again to something in the book. Is there an evolutionary perspective on why people are easily swayed by pessimism, pessimistic views of the world, when history is actually showing the very opposite, that we've had steady progress, yes, bumps and scrapes along the way, but if you look at a stock chart or evolution or medical technology, it seems like there's a steady progress upward. Why are we so pessimistic?

Morgan Housel: (21:16)
I think there's two reasons why that is, why pessimism is so seductive, even if we know historically that optimism is a better bet. Why does that pessimism usually sound like someone trying to help you? If you read a pessimistic book, a pessimistic headline, it's warning you, "Hey, there's a danger in your life and I'm trying to help you so you don't get hurt." It sounds like someone trying to help you, so you're much more willing to say, "Oh, I should listen to this person." Whereas, optimism often sounds like a sales pitch, "Hey, you can make a lot of money on the stock. There's this big reward down the street." It makes it sound like someone's trying to pull your leg. So I think we are naturally inclined to just be more skeptical of the optimistic views and pay more attention to the pessimism, the pessimistic views.

Morgan Housel: (21:53)
The other reason is that there are lots of overnight tragedies. Things can fall apart in an instant. Things break overnight. COVID-19 September, 11th, for example. But there's almost never overnight miracles. Progress, even though it's more powerful than the setbacks that we've had, much more powerful, we've had so much growth over time, the progress happens slowly. It happens incrementally, 2% per year, which if you compound that over time, is extraordinary, but the setbacks happen overnight. So since setbacks happen so quickly, we can't ignore them. They're in our face, they're in the headlines blaring, what happened today, what happened yesterday. Whereas, the progress is much slower burn over time, even if it's more powerful. So I think that's why, if you have any sense of history, you should be an optimist over time, over a long period of time, but it's so common to get pulled into the allure of pessimism.

Morgan Housel: (22:43)
To me, this has always been from just a practical standpoint of how to deal with this, has always been save like a pessimist and invest like an optimist. I want to save like a pessimist because I know that things are going to hit the fan every month, every year, the world is going to break once a decade because that's always what's happened over the course of history. But I'm an optimist in the long run because I know that people are going to solve problems, figure things out, companies will be profitable and it will accrue to me as an investor. So it's just that Barbara Bell approach to thinking about the future of the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:10)
Very good, Morgan. Let's turn it over to John. He's got lots of questions from our audience.

John Darsie: (23:15)
Including the audience of me. I have questions for you, Morgan. As I mentioned, I've read you over the years and you did a great job in the book of taking a lot of your writings and distilling it down. And you talk a lot about compounding in your regular writings and in the book and about how time is really your most important weapon as an investor and you use the example of Jim Simons versus Warren Buffett. Could you go into more depth about that anecdote in your book, it crystallized in my mind and I think it crystallizes in other people's minds about the value time and compounding and investing.

Morgan Housel: (23:48)
So here's what's really interesting about Buffett. So he's 90 years old, he's worth about $90 billion today. If you look at the trajectory of his life, 95% of Buffett's net worth came after his 55th birthday, the majority of his money has come in his elderly years. And even if you were to say, after age 70, way more than half of his net worth came after age 70, which is just how compounding works. Compounding is always a thing where the gains in early years look minuscule and then a medium years they get big and then in the later years they just explode to something extraordinary.

Morgan Housel: (24:19)
So I use this hypothetical example in the book, Buffett started investing when he was 11 and now he's 90. Let's say hypothetically, he was like a normal person and he started investing at age 25 and he retired at age 65, like a normal person. And let's assume that he earned the same average annual returns, 22% per year, during that period. What would his net worth be if that were the case hypothetically? It's not 90 billion, it's 12 million, that his net worth would be. If Buffett retired at age 65 like a normal person, you would have never heard of him. He would never have become a household name, he would have been a successful investor. But the reason that he is so successful in dollar terms is specifically tied to the amount of time he has been investing for.

Morgan Housel: (24:57)
And I use the example of Jim Simons of Renaissance Technology, whose average annual returns are triple what Buffett's are. The average annual returns of the medallion fund are over 60% per year. So he is, on an annualized basis, way more successful than Buffett, but Buffett is much richer than Jim Simons just because he's been doing it for so much longer. And I use this ridiculous example and I'm warning you that it's a ridiculous example to say, let's say if Jim Simons had earned his 60% annual returns for as long as Buffett had been investing for, let's say Jim Simons started investing at age 11 and continues through age 90 and earned a 60% returns. What would his net worth be hypothetically? And the ridiculous answer is something like 60 quintillion dollars, it's something absurd that's hard to even wrap your head around.

Morgan Housel: (25:46)
So I think compounding, even if you are a smart, mathematically minded person, it's just not intuitive. It's not intuitive to think that 95% of Warren Buffett's net worth would come in his elderly years. Even if you understand compounding, you can explain it to a five year old, it's never intuitive how it works. And so I think someone like Buffett, is he a great investor? Of course, period. But his skill is investing, but his secret is just time. The secret that explains his net worth is just the amount of time he has been investing for. And that's true for all of us as well. It's not comfortable to hear that if you're already 70 or 80 years old, but we have to realize where the gains come from, is less about what we're doing in any given year, even our average returns over our life and more of just how long we've been doing it for. That's true for people, it's true for investing, it's true for companies, it's true for nations, it's true for careers, that time is really where you get the big leaps in outcome.

John Darsie: (26:38)
I think it was Bill Gates that said, you'd be hard pressed to accomplish much a year, but over 10 years, you'd be surprised at what you can accomplish. That's been attributed to multiple people, but I think the same thing applies in investing.

Morgan Housel: (26:50)
And Buffett would say, you'd be surprised what you can do in 70 years. That's where the ridiculous gains come from. And there's so many people who, like I mentioned, there are 2000 books on Amazon that are devoted to how did Warren Buffett do this. And they go into grand detail about moats and business models and how he thinks about markets and economies. And to me, it's always been, you can explain Buffett's success and I'm generalizing here, but I think this is generally true, you can explain the majority of his success pretty simply. He's a pretty good private equity fund investor, who doesn't charge fees and he's been doing it for 70 years. That's how you explain Buffett. That's where it comes from. If you were to compare his returns against another fund that charges two and 20 and has been doing it for five years, of course, Buffett's going to blow them out of the water, just because of those simple things. But those explanations, they're too simple for people to take seriously and they're often not intuitive.

John Darsie: (27:39)
And he and Charlie Munger, had a third partner early in their business career, that you don't hear anything about. Why is it that you don't hear anything about that third partner?

Morgan Housel: (27:48)
So everyone knows about Buffett and Munger, they've become household names. But if you go back to the 1970's, there was a third guy in that group named Rick Guerin. And Rick Guerin was just as involved with Warren and Charlie in terms of doing deals for Berkshire Hathaway, he was part of the crew. They talk about when they bought See's Candy, Rick Guerin was the one interviewing the CEO of See's Candy, he was part of the Berkshire crew and you don't hear about him anymore. And what happened, from what I understand, speaking with different people who had heard the story from Buffett, is that in the 1970's, Rick Guerin used a lot of margin and when the stock market collapsed in the 1970's, he got wiped out.

Morgan Housel: (28:29)
And the way that Buffett explained this to a hedge fund manager named [inaudible 00:28:33], who told me this story, was that Warren and Charlie always knew they were going to be rich. They knew it was going to happen, so they weren't in a hurry. They were not in a hurry to get rich. They saw it as inevitable, so why rush it. Whereas he said Rick Guerin was a little bit more in a hurry, he wanted to get rich fast, so he used a lot of leverage to get there. And that was his undoing, so to speak. So he's still around, he's still investing, just not with the success that Warren and Charlie had, he didn't become a multi-billionaire like they did. Which to me, it just gets back to investing, how it really works, it's just a matter of time. And if you're trying to speed that time up, if you're trying to cheat the system and say, "Well, look, I don't want to wait 30 years. I want to get those returns in the next two or three years." That's the opening line of a lot of horror stories in finance.

John Darsie: (29:21)
You're also a big advocate, both in your personal investing and explaining things through data, of dollar cost averaging, both from a long-term returns perspective, as well as a psychological perspective. Anthony was talking about the relationship between fear and greed and there's always, and we've all experienced it if you've ever invested capital in markets, there's that twinge of regret you get when you don't pick a bottom and when you sell something before it tops. You say, "Man, if I had just waited a couple more weeks to get in." I think probably people felt this in March as well, either buying the dip early and with that big drawdown we saw as a result of the pandemic and then as the markets run away in the subsequent months. But why is dollar cost averaging so important from a psychological perspective, to keep you invested in markets and how does it help determine returns over time?

Morgan Housel: (30:08)
I think there's two parts of it. One is just having humility in our ability to forecast and 2020 is probably the best example of that. If you go back to January, no one of course was saying, "We're going to have a pandemic that's going to shut down the global economy and crash the stock market by March." And if you go back to March, no one was saying, "Stocks are going to surge to new all time highs by August." If 2020 has not made you humble about our ability to figure out what's going to happen next in markets, I don't think anything will. So there's that element to it. There's also just a sense of, if you understand the emotional side of investing, that we are likely to make the worst decisions at the worst possible time, then any way that you can systematize your investments and rather than saying, "Okay, I'm going to invest when the stock market does this, when I think the economy is going to do this next."

Morgan Housel: (30:50)
If you're going to say, "Look, I'm going to invest the same amount of money on the same day of every month, regardless of what's happening in the economy or in the stock market," and just systematize it like that. Then you have fewer knobs to fiddle with, fewer levers to pull, fewer just booby traps to screw you up over time, you're going a long way to take the emotion out of the equation. Not 100% because even if you have a dollar cost averaging strategy, you can break it at any time. So it's not a fail safe, but I think anything you can do in investing for professionals or individuals, anything you can do to try to remove the emotions from it, to the extent that you can, is going to pay off over long periods of time.

Morgan Housel: (31:27)
There's this other element to me too, that I write in the book and I'm pretty open about this, I'm mostly a passive investor. And look, does that mean that I don't think that people can outperform the market? No. Does that mean that I don't think people can pick the best stocks or that there are talented hedge fund managers? No, not whatsoever. But if you look at the statistics for, let's say, actively managed mutual funds, over a period of time, 90% will underperform. And that statistic has usually been used as an indictment against the industry, that 90% trail their benchmarks, that means the industry is failing. I've never viewed it that way at all, I view it as that's how it should be. What world do you live in, in which you would expect the majority of people trying to become stupendously rich in the stock market are able to do it?

Morgan Housel: (32:12)
There's no other area in life where that's the case. Think about what percentage of college athletes make it to the pros? I don't know the figure, but it's probably like 2%. Let's say it's something like that. No one would say college athletics are a scam, college athletics are failing because only 2% make it to the pros. People just know, making it to the pros should be extremely hard and if you get there, it's because you're the tippity top of your class. I view actively managed investing as the same way, it should hard, the majority of people should fail at it. So that's why I think to me, dollar cost averaging in a more passive approach, is often viewed as a very conservative form of investing. But if I have a high degree of certainty that over a period of time, I'm going to end up in the top decile of all investors, it doesn't look that conservative to me. So that's where the hands off, taking the emotions out of it, is actually a way that I think you can make yourself an above average investor.

John Darsie: (33:05)
So your advice based on the data, would be that people are better off as passive investors, as opposed to trying to be stock pickers. I remember there was a study that was done by a brokerage house, I can't remember which one it was, about which accounts perform best over the long term. And what they found was they found a group of accounts that were performing above average relative to the rest of their audience and the people, once they distilled it down, it was actually people that had died that hadn't serviced their accounts and their accounts had been invested passively for a long period of time, without anybody making emotional decisions. I thought it just crystallized in my mind, the themes that you're talking about.

Morgan Housel: (33:45)
And one tweak I would make on your comments is that it's not necessarily my advice, it is what works for me, given my goals, given my risk tolerance. I know if I can do that strategy and hold it for the next 50 years, I'll be able to achieve every financial goal that I have and then some. But look, it's completely different if you are a pension, a foundation, if you are a hedge fund manager, you have different goals, different risk tolerance. This is different for everyone. So that to me, is one of the biggest pieces of advice that I have in the book, is that people do different things with their money and it's not because we disagree with each other, most of the time that's not the case. It's because we all have a different view of the world, we've seen a different side of the world, we have different goals, different risk tolerances and just the idea that rational, educated people can and do disagree in investing.

Morgan Housel: (34:29)
So I would say that's what works for me, but I also know there are people for whom they can not look themselves in the mirror in the morning, if that's how they invested, or they would not achieve their goals and their risk tolerance is if that's how they invested. So it's different for everyone.

John Darsie: (34:40)
Yeah. Ultimately you have to marry the two themes that Anthony mentioned earlier, developing a healthy relationship with money, with how do I, within that framework, develop strong returns as an investor. And you can't de-link those two items, they're inexorably linked, and you have to marry them together for your own personal happiness and psychology.

Morgan Housel: (35:02)
Right. And that changes over the course of people's lives as well. I'm 36, so writing this book today, are there going to be things that I disagree about in 20 years if I go back and read it? Probably. There are going to be things that I've learned in life, I'm going to have different goals, my kids will be moved out, everything is going to change. So the idea of being a long term thinker and being committed to an idea, but also being open minded to the idea that not only the world changes, but people change, people's own goals and values, what they want out of life, changes too. It means we're all going to keep making different decisions with our money, not just rebalancing into different assets, but just a completely different view of how we think the world works over time.

Morgan Housel: (35:39)
Almost no one has a fully formed view of how the economy and the stock market works when they graduate college, that they're going to stick with for the rest of their career. We're all just learning how this works. And as 2020 showed us, big fundamental assumptions that we have about the world, can be completely thrown out the window on a moment's notice, like happened this year. So of course we just have to be flexible with our views over time and it makes the, pound the table, this is how the world works, this is how we should always do it, we just have to be a little bit more flexible than that, I think.

John Darsie: (36:10)
Switching gears a little bit and talk about your writing process. So you talked earlier in the talk about how important it is for people to get their ideas down on paper and it might take ideas that are bouncing around in your brain and allowing you to crystallize them in a productive way by writing. How did you start writing? How did you develop such a passion for writing? What's your process for writing? I think there's a lot of people, I do some writing as well, so a lot of people experience writer's block or they sit down and they have a hard time getting started, but if they regularly wrote things down, it would help them achieve some clarity in their thoughts. What's your process? How would you recommend to people starting a process of writing for their own benefit?

Morgan Housel: (36:50)
Here's two things, it took me a long time to learn these, but these have been the most important realizations I've had as a writer. One is that writer's block, which happens to everyone, is usually a reflection of your ideas, it doesn't reflect your ability to write. If you get writer's block it's because your idea is bad, 99% of the time that's true. Good ideas are very easy to write for everyone, bad ideas are very hard to write for everyone. So if you find yourself stuck in the writing process, I would not examine your writing ability, I would examine your core thesis of whatever you're writing about. That's almost always the case for me. And whenever I'm writing and I get stuck on something, I try as hard to be as honest with myself as I can and say, "Do I just need to abandon this idea?" If I can't figure out a way to say it, that's probably because what I'm trying to say, doesn't make sense.

Morgan Housel: (37:36)
The second thing that's been helpful for me, is for me, when I write I'm writing for an audience of one, I'm writing for myself. I call it selfish writing, this idea that I only want to write things that I myself am personally interested in. I'm not trying to say, who's the audience, what are they going to be interested in? I only want to write stuff, almost like a diary sense of, this is for me. And I take that as a leap of faith, that if I'm interested in something, other people will as well.

Morgan Housel: (38:01)
Because if you do that, there's two things that come from it. One is you're always going to do your best work when you're actually genuinely passionate and interested in what you're writing and I'm not being forced to write this idea or because I think someone else might think it's cool, but I think this topic is cool, so I love researching it, I love writing it. That's when you do your best work. The other thing is when you're writing it, since I'm writing it for myself, I'm always asking myself, "Does this sentence add anything? Do I personally get anything out of that sentence or this paragraph?" And a lot of the time the answer is no, so take it out. If I'm writing for myself, then I'm only going write things that are benefiting me as a reader. So I think just viewing it through that lens has been very helpful for me.

John Darsie: (38:42)
Fantastic. Morgan, thanks so much for joining us. We'd recommend everybody who's on the talk, if you haven't already, go out and buy his book, Psychology of Money. I know Anthony ordered it for our entire office, we're investment professionals, but I think both he and I are attracted to the simplicity of your writing, the simplicity of your ideas. Again, not as advice, but for people to understand, based on history, what has helped people succeed in driving investment returns and what's helped people succeed in terms of developing a healthy relationship with their money. Anthony, do you have any final words for Morgan?

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:13)
Just Morgan, thanks for joining us. And I'm just encouraging the young people, we get a tremendous amount of young people on these SALT Talks, please go out and get Morgan's book. Read it, take notes, and it'll be infinitely beneficial to you in your investing career. Morgan, thank you very much for coming on with us.

Morgan Housel: (39:35)
Thank you so much for having me. This has been fun. Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:38)
What else have we got coming up John?

John Darsie: (39:38)
Thanks for putting up with all of Anthony's immature antics as well Morgan, we appreciate that.

Morgan Housel: (39:44)
That's part of the package.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:47)
We only talked about syphilis, we didn't talk about the White House and what Sarah Huckabee said about me, we just talked about syphilis, not a big deal.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: The Crisis of Loneliness | SALT Talks #61

“One of the greatest gifts that you can give your children is the confidence that they can show up as who they are.“

Dr. Vivek H. Murthy served as the 19th Surgeon General of the United States from December 2014 to April 2017. As America’s Doctor, he called the nation’s attention to critical public health issues including the opioid epidemic, e-cigaretes and emotional health and wellbeing. Prior to serving in government, he conducted research on vaccine development and clinical trial participation and founded several organizations focused on HIV/AIDS education, rural health, physician advocacy and clinical trial optimization.

He is the author of Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World. After being sworn in, Dr. Murthy embarked on a listening tour to see what was affecting communities across the United States. He found that, regardless of occupation, location or economic status, there was an crisis of loneliness that was not being formally addressed. Anywhere from 22-50% of people suffer from loneliness, far more than the number of people currently living with diabetes.

Loneliness is more than just a “bad feeling.” It affects performance and puts people at higher risk for heart disease, depression and anxiety. It affects our ability to have healthy dialogue with one another. If you take this sense of inadequacy to your interactions with other people, the feeling compounds, as you’re preventing real, honest interaction.

On top of this, society isn’t set up to prevent disease. Proper nutrition, good rest, physical activity and social connection are the deciding factors in good long-term health, but our current system addresses problems after the fact.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dr. Vivek Murthy.jpg

Dr. Vivek Murthy

19th Surgeon General of the United States

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Joe Eletto: (00:07)
Hello everyone, welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is Joe Eletto and I'm the production manager of SALT, a global thought leadership forum and networking platform encompassing finance, technology, and politics. SALT Talks is a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. Just as we do at our global SALT events, we aim to both empower big, important, ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts. We are excited today to welcome Dr. Vivek Murthy to SALT Talks.

Joe Eletto: (00:39)
Dr. Murthy served as the 19th surgeon general of the United States from December 2014 to April 2017. As America's doctor, he called the nation's attention to critical public health issues including the opioid epidemic, e-cigarettes and emotional health and wellbeing. As the vice admiral of the United States' Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, he oversaw a uniformed service of 6600 offices dedicated to safeguarding the health of the nation. Prior to serving in government, he conducted research on vaccine development and clinical trial participation and founded several organizations focused on HIV/AIDS education, rural health, physician advocacy and clinical trial optimization.

Joe Eletto: (01:27)
He received his bachelors degree from Harvard and his MDE and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, where he later joined the faculty. If you have any questions for Dr. Murthy during today's talk, please enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your Zoom screen, and now I'll turn it over to Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, as well as the chairman of SALT, to conduct today's interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:57)
Doctor, it's great to have you on, it's a big honor for us. I sort of start these interviews the same way, my traditional question, there's something about you that we cannot learn on Wikipedia or from your professional service, public service, et cetera, so tell us something about yourself that led you to where you are today that we cannot learn on Wikipedia.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (02:24)
Well, there are a couple of things I'd mention. The first and foremost thing that led me here that isn't on my resume in any way, shape, or form, are my parents and my sister. I was brought up in an immigrant family, my parents traveled to the United States from India many years ago, and I was raised in Miami, Florida. We didn't have a whole lot in the way of resources or connections when we came here. There were a long time, things were pretty tight, had to be careful how much we spent in the grocery store, had to be mindful of how we lived our life. And I tell you, as a kid it was scary at times, I'll tell you that, but what I gained from my parents over those years were a core set of values that really have stuck with me throughout my life.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (03:10)
A value for hard work, a value for people and community and investing in others, and a value for service, giving back to those who have helped you and even those who haven't, recognizing you could be in tough circumstances one day yourself. My parents did that not by giving me a book and telling me, "Memorize these three lessons and live by them", but they taught those lessons to me by living their life that way, and so they are the most important reason that I'm here today, and that's what I want to share with you today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:42)
Well, that's an amazing tribute to your parents doctor, are they still alive?

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (03:46)
Yeah, I'm grateful they're still with me. In fact, they're probably about 20 feet away from me right now, because during this quarantine my wife and my two small kids and I have been in Miami, which is where I grew up and my parents still are, so we've been living the extended family life and it's been chaotic but wonderful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:03)
Good for you. All right, so make sure you tell your mom that I live two miles from my mom and I've been doing her grocery shopping for the last six months, okay, I just want to make sure your mom knows that, I want to win some points with her before we continue the interview.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (04:19)
She'll say you're a good son.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:21)
Well, I hope so, I'm trying. I haven't been perfect but I've certainly tried. Earlier in the summer I purchased a book titled Together: The Healing Power of the Human Condition in a Sometimes Lonely World, and I got to tell you it's an amazing book. Very, very thoughtful book and I think you are making the connection which all of us need to make about the body and the mind, and how we handle stress and connect with each other, and how it helps us physiologically as well as our mental health. And so kudos to you, and obviously the book was very well timed, given the fact that all of us are in some level of home confinement. And I'm just wondering about, when you decided to write that book, why you decided to pick that genre, which I think is a fascinating genre, and what could we tell somebody here on this SALT Talk if that could tease them to get them go out and buy the book? Which I'm strongly recommending that they do.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (05:27)
Well, thank you, Anthony. This is anything the book I thought I would write, to be honest with you. It's not the topic I thought I would focus on before I was surgeon general, but what happened to me, Anthony, is I began my time as surgeon general on a listening tour, traveling around the country asking people how I could help, and trying to understand a bit about what was going on in their lives. And what I heard were some stories that wouldn't surprise you.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (05:51)
Stories of opioid addiction, of alcohol use disorders, I heard stories about violence in communities, about parents who were worried about their kids being depressed and anxious. I heard a lot of stories like that, but I also heard these stories I didn't expect, which were throughout so many of these tales of chronic disease, were these threads of loneliness where people would often say to me, not, "Hi, I'm Vivek, I'm lonely" or, "Hi, I'm Anthony, I'm lonely". They would say things like this, they would say, "I feel like I have to deal with all these difficulties and burdens on my own" or, "I feel if I disappear tomorrow, nobody would even care" or, "I feel invisible".

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (06:30)
And hearing that again and again, anything just from people who were old or living alone, but also from college students on college campuses, from members of congress, from CDOs, from people across the country, I realized there was something deeper happening here. And as I delved more into the subject, I realized that there was a lot of research on loneliness that told us it was more than just a bad feeling, but that it increased our risk for heart disease, for premature death, as well as for depression and anxiety. But it also affects our performance in school and in the workplace, and our ability to dialogue with each other.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (07:05)
So if you're looking at the world today, if you pick up a newspaper, or if you go online to any news site and you scan through the topics that are being reported on, I guarantee you that you will find subjects that ultimately are driven in some way by loneliness and disconnection, whether that's political polarization, or challenges that our kids facing in school, or the litany of chronic illnesses that we're struggling with. So I know it's not a typical subject for a surgeon general to talk about, it's not tobacco, it's not physical activity, it's not the opioid crisis, all of which I've worked on, but it is, I think, a root cause issue that we have to address if we want to build stronger, healthier lives and a stronger, healthier society.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:49)
So in addition doc, to the loneliness factor, what are some of the other things that you're worried about in terms of the public health. We'll get to the pandemic in a second, I'm more talking about the ethereal aspects of our health and our mental wellbeing, and what did you learn on that listening tour that you went on?

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (08:10)
Well, what I learned is that a lot of people are worried about their health and they're worried about the health of their families, and it's coming from a few different perspectives. One is, people are worried that if they get sick, they won't be able to get good care, either because they can't afford it, because they don't have insurance, or because the health care system itself is not built for them. And I would hear this particularly from minority groups who felt like we had real trust issues with the system, but I also heard from many people who were worried that the fundamental building blocks of health itself were often missing.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (08:44)
When I think now about what is it that contributes to so much of the illness that I saw as a doctor over those years, it's a few fundamental building blocks. It's the food we eat, it's whether or not we get good rest, it's physical activity, do we get it or not? And it's social connection in our life as well. And if you think about it, as a doctor who went to medical school and residency and then worked for many years, I didn't learn a whole lot at all about how to optimize those building blocks in people's lives. I learned how to treat illness once it came about, but I think there are many people in this country who recognize that they'd much rather prevent a case of diabetes than get it and then deal with it.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (09:24)
The challenge is, society doesn't seem to be set up to really do that for us, so if we want to truly build, Anthony, a healthier, stronger society, what we've got to do is focus on these four building blocks and ask ourselves, "How do we not only inform people about how to live a healthy life, but how do we actually enable them to do that? How do we make healthy food actually cheaper and more accessible? How do we make physical activity more part of our lives at work and school and in our neighborhoods? And how do we facilitate and strengthen social connection at a time where work and other priorities have overtaken our relationships?" And even though we all value people, we often find that our relationships and those we love are pushed increasingly to the side as second, third, and fourth order priorities.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:10)
You mentioned something that you call the social recession. Tell us what that means, the social recession.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (10:19)
Well, I was thinking about that in the context of what's happening right now, because in the context of... even before COVID 19 arrived on the scene, we were struggling with very high levels of loneliness. If you look at the United States and data from 2018, this is actually the more conservative data, I don't mean that politically, I mean that methodologically; those numbers put loneliness at about 22% of adults in the population who are struggling with loneliness. The real numbers are undoubtedly higher, but there are many surveys that have actually put that number closer to 50%, and some surveys, including a survey from Cigna, which have shown that the numbers are actually trending the wrong way, that they're increasing. To just put this in context, even if you take the lower number, 22% of adults struggle with loneliness, that's more than the number of adults who have diabetes, it's more than the number of adults who smoke.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (11:09)
So we were struggling with a lot of loneliness before, and then comes COVID 19, and all of a sudden, at a time of extraordinary stress and uncertainty, a time by the way, when we typically reach out to people to help them deal with that stress, we find ourselves having to physically separate from one another and we can't connect the way we were used to. And that I think, for many people, has deepened their loneliness, so when I think about a social recession, I think about a period of time marked by deepening disconnection and loneliness. And if you understand the health, economic and political consequences of loneliness and you recognize the consequences of social recession, the price that we will pay, is just as important and comparable, I believe, to the economic headwinds that we're facing as a result of this pandemic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:55)
One last question before we get into the pandemic, because I think we would both agree to this, that loneliness, people are afraid to admit that they're lonely. They have a self-consciousness about it, makes them feel like it's something that reflects poorly on them if they're not surrounded by people, and we also get that from social media, there's pressure on us from social media, we see people... trust me, my kids are always taking the picture stuff with the best lighting and they're trying to frame it out. In the immortal words of my daughter Amelia, "It's either real life or social media, I choose social media". Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of truth in that. So what ends up happening is, if we feel lonely, we can't admit to it, and so therefore there's a bit of a stigma. So how do we break that down? What do you suggest people do?

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (12:49)
Well, that stigma's real, and I'll tell you that. Not only did I hear that in the people's stories around the country, but I've felt it myself, because I am someone who's also struggled with loneliness a lot over my life, particularly when I was a child in elementary school where the scariest part of the day for me was lunchtime, going into that cafeteria wondering if I was going to be alone. And at that time, I thought I was the only one who was experiencing that, and that's the real challenge with loneliness, is we look around us and we think, "I'm the only one who's struggling here, everyone else seems to have wonderful lives, especially if you look at their social media feeds". But the reality is actually quite different, we know now, based on real data, that people are in fact, all around us, struggling with loneliness.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (13:29)
But there's another reason actually that we don't admit it, because in our society, we tend to live in an extroverted society where engaging and socializing, especially in large gatherings, has a premium to it. It says that we're popular, we're desirable, we're attractive, we're interesting. So I think the real challenge here, is how to admit to being alone in a society that always values being surrounded by others. And so when I think about what's driving loneliness today, whether it's for young people like Amelia, or whether it's for people of our generation or people older than us, I think there are a few key factors you have to recognize. One is, we're more mobile than we ever used to be, which is great, but it often means that we move away from communities that we've grown up with and come to know.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (14:17)
The second factor is our technology. Technology I think is an extraordinary tool, I say that as somebody who built a technology company, who is a big fan of what tech can do for us, but I think how we use it is what makes the difference between whether we deepen our connections or dilute our connections. And I think the way in which we use social media now is predominantly geared toward ultimately hurting our social connection, because we spend so much time in front of screens we crowd out our time with people in person, and we also bring technology into our interactions, such that it distracts us when we're talking to other people.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (14:52)
But for young people in particular, and I think about my kids a lot in this context and worry about their future, I think that social media also undermines their self esteem, because it's constantly telling them that they're not enough. You're looking at other people's perfect lives thinking you're not good enough, you're not popular enough, you're not thin enough, you're not buff enough, you're not whatever it is. And so when you constantly feel like you're not enough, you approach...

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:17)
Just so you know doc, Joe Eletto met every one of those criteria, he's thin enough, he's buff enough. I just want to make sure, there's three of us on this call, but Joe has made the criteria. But keep going document, I just wanted to make sure you knew that.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (15:32)
Well sadly, not all of us can be Joe, but as we continue to work toward that, I think many people in society now, young people in particular, just walk around feeling like they're inadequate. And if you take that sense of inadequacy to your interactions with other people, what you find yourself doing instead of focusing on being yourself and just truly being present and listening to them, you're constantly thinking about how you're coming across, you're constantly trying to orchestrate and work the conversation and say the rights things so the other person thinks of you in a positive way, and when we're not ourself, we don't connect as deeply and as strongly.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (16:07)
So if we think about all this together, we realize that loneliness didn't come about yesterday, it didn't start with this pandemic, it's been brewing for a long time. And if we want to address it, we've got to start with recognizing that all of us at some point in our lives have struggled with it and there's nothing to be ashamed of. And this is the last point I'll make about this thing, Anthony, in terms of why people shouldn't be ashamed of it, because let me ask you this; are you ashamed of being hungry, or thirsty? None of us are, we know that everybody feels hungry or thirsty at some point. We should think about loneliness as the same type of thing. It's a signal that our body sends us when we're lacking something we need for survival. It's something we've evolved to do, because when we were hunter gatherers thousands of years ago, our survival depended on being in trusted relationships, and when we were separated from our tribe it increased our vigilance, it pushed our focus inward because we were worried about safety, and it increased our overall stress level.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (17:02)
If you transport that to 2020, Anthony, to the modern day, what you find is that our circumstances are different but our nervous systems are the same. And so we can think about loneliness not only as a signal that tells us we need more connection, but also as a source of stress, which in the short term can be beneficial, it can motivate us to pick up the phone or call a friend or get in the car and go and visit a relative, but in the long term, that stress has powerful and negative effects on our body, leading to physical and mental illness.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:32)
Well I think it's very well said and I think we have to continue to have this conversation, because a lot of our illnesses of the mind are just that, they're illnesses. If I told you I had clogged arteries, god forbid, you'd put me on some medicine or exercise or whatever. Something wrong with my knee, we would take care of it. But when we have issues related to our mind, we are trapped somehow, we feel like there's a social stigma there which really doesn't need to be, so I really do appreciate all you're doing to make a difference in that area, because hopefully it'll lead people just to relax a little and be themselves and enjoy the authenticity of who they are. There were some in the White House, when I was there doc, that wanted me to care a little more about what other people thought of me, but what can I say? We did our time training at the Scaramucci house, just let me to be who I am. What can I tell you?

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (18:28)
Well listen, I'll just say, last thing on that, you said something really important there, which is being ourselves is not always easy in the modern world. And one of the greatest gifts that you can give your children, is to give them the confidence that they can show up as who they are, and that what matters most is not the approval of other people, but it's whether or not they're living up to their highest version of who they can be. Are they living up to their values? Look, I wrote this book, not because I wanted people to be depressed about how common loneliness was, but I wanted two things to happen; one is for people to recognize that they weren't alone, if they were lonely. But the second thing is, I wanted them to recognize that our social connections, our relationships with one another, are one of the most powerful resources we have for healing, for strengthening ourselves, for enhancing how we show up in the world, whether it's at school or work.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (19:18)
And if I told you, Anthony, that I had a pill that could dramatically reduce your risk of heart disease and mental illness and that could boost your performance and could even enable you to dialogue better with people on the other side of the aisle and everything, I'd do really well if I sold that drug. People would be snapping it right up. The truth is, we have that power within us in the form of relationships, and what I want, and my fervent hope for not just the United States but for the entire world, is that we can recognize once again, that if we put people at the center of our lives, if we truly prioritize people in terms of where we spend our time, attention and energy, if we design our curricula in schools and our workplaces in ways that strengthen human connection, then we can not only come out healthier and stronger, but we can help people and or children will be much more fulfilled and happy than many of them are right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:12)
Well, I think it's very well said, I'm glad that you took another moment to re-emphasize that for everybody. We get a lot of young people on this call, doc, and so I hope you guys are listening out there. Let me switch gears and talk a little about the pandemic, and then I'm going to turn it over to Joe because we've got a ton of questions piling up in the queue. I want to talk specifically about the disease for a second, about COVID 19. There's a lot of misconceptions about this disease; we were treating it differently in March and April than we're treating it today, so tell our listeners a little about that if you don't mind, and then tell us a little about these long haulers. What's your opinion there? And what is the long term prospects for them, frankly, in terms of their quality of life?

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (21:03)
It's a great question Anthony, this has been such a journey of discovery, a painful journey of discovery as we learn more about COVID 19 and have understood not just how it's affecting us here in the US, but have seen what's happening in other countries, and my hope is that we continue to learn from what's happening outside of our borders. But where we are right now is that we have, unfortunately in the United States, reached a very difficult point where we've lost over 200,000 lives, we have nearly 7 million people who are infected with COVID 19, and those are almost certainly dramatic underestimates in terms of the real numbers. We know what hurst the most though, Anthony, is that it didn't have to be this way, is that we had opportunities and still do have opportunities to curb the spread of COVID 19. Is there a scenario where we could have prevented anyone from getting sick or dying? I don't think so. I think this was inevitably going to effect some people's lives. But what has happened is it has spread on such a scale that I think it has caused so much more damage and fear and anxiety, and has led to economic pain in terms of prolonged shutdowns, and educational, terrible impacts in terms of school closures that didn't necessarily have to be as prolonged as they were. It is not too late though, to change that.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (22:23)
I do think we know enough about how this virus spreads to put in place measures that can reduce spread, for example, we know now that masks are actually quite effective. Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation out there about masks, unfortunately we're not hearing consistent messages from our leaders in the country as well, which is unfortunate. But we do know that masks work, we know that distancing works, and the fact that we still have a lot of COVID does not mean that we can never resume our way of life. We can. There are safe ways for us to educate our kids and to resume certain types of work, we just have to have that coordination and the courage to have a clear plan and actually implement it. So all this to say that COVID is still an unfolding story, and my hope, despite the challenges we've had, is that we will muster a more science driven and effective approach, and that we'll communicate honestly and openly with people along the way.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (23:20)
One of the things we have learned though, about COVID, which is really interesting and unfortunate, is that there are some people who have symptoms for a prolonged period of time. These are colloquially sometimes referred to as long haulers, so people whose symptoms don't go away in the first couple of weeks, but actually may last for many, many months. And those could be symptoms of fatigue, they could be general aches and pains, it could be a mental fog that some of them have described that they experience. We don't know enough to really know how commonly this occurs, or if it ultimately will peter out at some point, or if it will be something that will be with people for years. It's still something we have to understand.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (23:59)
And that's why as we go through pandemics like this, investing in science and discovery and collaboration is so important. If we had learned from what was happening in Europe and Asia and actually implemented those lessons when COVID got to the US, we actually would have been much better off in terms of protecting our schools, in terms of protecting workplaces and ultimately, protecting people's lives.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:23)
So you mentioned this brain fog, I just want to take one more question on this, there was an article this week, I think it was in the Wall Street Journal, talking about the blood vessels and the heart, and that there's some issues there. Is that permanent damage do you think, doc? Or is it something that we don't know.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (24:44)
Unfortunately, we don't know, and there are two cardiovascular complications I think, that we have seen. One is myocarditis, which is an inflammation of the heart muscle itself. Interestingly, and somewhat disturbingly, that's something we've seen in young people as well, including in young athletes. There was an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association of Cardiology recently, which it was a small study looking at a population of student athletes and found that both symptomatic and asymptomatic people who didn't have any symptoms, people who had COVID 19, that they both seemed to have evidence of inflammation of their heart. Now, is this consequential? Is it going to cause long term problems? We don't exactly know.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (25:26)
But the other challenge that we found on a cardiovascular level is that many people with COVID 19 seem to develop blood clots in the hospital. These are people who tend to be severely ill, those clots have been noticed even when they've been on blood thinners. So what is it about COVID 19, the inflammation it creates, it seems to generate what's called a prothrombotic state, a state where we're prone to developing clots, again, is also unclear. But one thing is clear, the more we learn about COVID, the more we learn about how many organ systems are actually affected.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (25:58)
In the beginning, we thought this was just about the lungs and then we realized that actually it can hit the nervous system, it can hit the cardiovascular system and it can affect your kidneys. And one by one, we started to realize, this virus is a lot more complicated. That's why it's important to be cautious, it's why we don't want to just say, "Okay, let's just let this virus run like wildfire through the population". Because not only will we lose many lives, and we've already seen that, but we will have many people who survive the virus but may have complications that they may live with for months and possibly for years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:32)
Well, I think it's a brilliant exposition of what is going on. We've got a ton of questions and we'd like to keep this thing tight, so I've got to turn it over to the very buff and in shape Joe Eletto. Go ahead Joseph.

Joe Eletto: (26:45)
Only because the gyms opened three weeks ago, but I had my mask on the entire time, I promise.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:50)
By the way Joe, as an aside, I have to start complementing John Darsie otherwise we could have a [crosstalk 00:26:58]. Yeah I got to tell you, I got to boost, after what... this is our other co-host doc, after what you said about loneliness and stuff like that, I got to go pick this guy up. When I leave this call I'm going to FaceTime him and send him love, but go ahead Joe.

Joe Eletto: (27:13)
Good for you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:14)
Yeah, I got to do that now. I feel guilty about all my tweaking of him.

Joe Eletto: (27:20)
So turning back to social media just briefly, I want to ask; social media companies are under intense scrutiny for misinformation, and I went back through your tweets and you wrote out, "If social media companies can't police misinformation, they should shut down their platforms". I thought that's fantastic and I wanted you to elaborate on that, and considering the amount of people who makes important decisions based on what they read, potentially in an echo chamber, on their social media feeds, why aren't we approaching social media regulation as a public health issue?

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (27:59)
Yeah, well Joe, the reason that I believe this is so important is because so much of that misinformation people are getting is coming through social media, and it has real consequences. This is not a laughing matter, this is the kind of thing that makes people decide not to take vaccines that could save their lives and protect their children. This is the kind of misinformation that sends people to take medications that are unproven and they actually cause harm, but they're misled to think somehow they would be helpful, and we've seen that with COVID 19. And so the real question is, whose responsibility is it? And what I think is problematic is when social media companies say, "My job is just to create the platform, it's up to people to use it the way they do". That sounds good and fine, and that might even be in accordance with the letter of the law, but there's a higher responsibility that we all have to each other to create and build products and services that ultimately advance humanity and don't cause harm.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (29:01)
And I think that in the vein of taking responsibility, I think that social media technology companies have a responsibility to police themselves, and if they can't police the harmful effects and mitigate the harmful effects that they are having on the population at large, then we have to seriously ask, "Is it okay for them to continue to function in the way that they're functioning?" We wouldn't do this, you wouldn't, for example, put a drug out onto the market and say, "It seems to help people, it's killing a whole lot of people, but it seems to help a few people so maybe we should just keep it up there and it's up to everyone to make up their own minds about whether they want to use it or not, and figure out whether the data's real or not". We wouldn't do that, because that doesn't make sense. Because we know it's actually exceedingly difficult to figure out whether a medication is safe or effective on their own. They need trusted sources to look at the data, to parse the science et cetera.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (29:55)
Similarly, it's very hard these days for people to figure out on social media what's true and what's not. Things are so often not labeled, if they are labeled as false it's well after the fact, and the bar that many of these organizations have for taking action is often way, way too high. So that's where my concern comes from, I'm not thinking about anything other than, first and foremost, what is going to help protect the health and wellbeing of people around the country? And right now, social media has not made a good case that it's on the side of helping reduce pain, suffering and improve health.

Joe Eletto: (30:29)
Yeah, and continuing on from there, I mean talking about the forthcoming vaccine which hopefully we'll have some information on the efficacy of it by the end of the year, maybe next year, and do widespread distribution by the summer at best, is what Dr. Fauci is advising us. But relating to social media so we don't have to dive into any rhetoric coming from the White House, what are people going to do? We're reading things online that vaccines aren't safe, or maybe COVID will be not as rigorous, the vaccine for COVID won't be as rigorous. Governor Cuomo just came out today saying that New York state is going to have its own review process for a vaccine, so all of these conflicting messages don't really instill confidence in someone who might even be looking at a vaccine for the first time in their life. So I'm curious to see what your take is on how you would solve for that.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (31:23)
It's the right question Joe, because it's on everyone's minds and especially as these clinical trials for the vaccines advance I think we're all hoping that we'll get a good vaccine trial result soon, and one that can hopefully deliver a safe and effective vaccine into our hands so we can start saving lives. That's the hope and everyone should be in favor of that. The challenge, and this is a bit of an unprecedented challenge that we're dealing with, Joe, is not that there are some people who don't believe in vaccines, that's been true for many years, but it's always been a very small percentage of the population. It seems a lot bigger than it is, but it's actually quite small.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (31:59)
The part of the challenge that's unprecedented is, we've never been in a situation where there was so much distrust of what was coming out of the FDA and the administration, because in Republican and Democratic administrations in the past, when we had major outbreaks or pandemics, both Republican and Democratic presidents often came together around the science and they spoke with one voice, in terms of scientists and political leaders all speaking to what people needed to do, and they had a process that had integrity when it came to evaluating a vaccine. And that's really essential and I think they did that because they knew what was at stake. It wasn't just a current vaccine and illness, but they knew that if you compromised faith in a vaccine, that it would impact you for years to come, for future vaccines as well.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (32:45)
And what we've unfortunately run into is a situation where because of, I think, a division, if you will, between what scientists are saying and what political leadership is saying, on a variety of things, not just vaccines but on masks, on hydroxychloroquine, on a range of other issues related to COVID, people are starting to wonder who's really telling the truth. And if the administration says the scientists are telling us that we should trust this vaccine, is that actually what the scientists are saying? I think that unfortunately for all those reasons you see what the Kaiser Family Foundation demonstrated a few weeks ago in its full, which is that 54% of Americans say that if a vaccine was available today for COVID 19, they would not take it. I mean, that is staggering, if you think about it. Because this is a pandemic that's turned all our lives upside down, we should all want a vaccine, but that speaks to how deep the mistrust is.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (33:35)
So if we want to correct that, if we want to instill faith, we've got to do a couple of things; number one, the FDA has to lay out clear standards for what constitutes effectiveness and safety, and the second thing they have to do is ensure that we will hear from independent scientists on the advisory board as well as from the staff scientists at FDA, hear directly from them about what their take on the data is. And third, they've got to make the data actually available to the public so that scientists and the community can look at it, can assess it, can opine on it. Without those bars being met, it's going to be very hard for people to trust an administration that has repeatedly, unfortunately, shown a callous disregard for science.

Joe Eletto: (34:18)
And I want to, just as we're winding down, talk about the next three months going into 2021, what a potential post COVID world is going to look like. We've just hit a staggering milestone of 200,000 people who have passed as a result of COVID 19 and complications thereof, there are some projections that will take us now up to 400,000; what does the rest of the year look like? What does the [inaudible 00:34:45] start of the new year look like? And what sort of mitigation efforts would a Biden presidency bring in to restore faith in the FDA, restore faith in the NIH, the CDC, and how do we reeducate the American population about what the facts are behind COVID 19 and the science below it?

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (35:07)
This is a difficult time and the projections show that unless we take a different tack here to get this virus under control, we may lose up to another 178,000 lives by January 1st. This is according to the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Those are staggering numbers, but I do think that we can do things differently, and overall, as sobering as the numbers are, I actually am optimistic that we can overcome COVID 19, because we actually know what to do. We have extraordinary scientists. We have learned a tremendous amount. We have amazing civil servants who are standing at the ready. What we just need is coordinated, clear leadership to help execute and to make the plans that are necessary. So I think what a Biden administration would hopefully do is, to number one recognize that you've got to step in here with strong leadership. And what does strong leadership do? Well, strong leaders lead by example. Ultimately they step up and fill gaps, they take a responsibility and they deliver results, and that's going to be more important now than ever.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (36:13)
I think the second thing that a new administration would have to do is to rebuild trust, and the way that you rebuild trust is to ensure that you are letting science guide your decisions, but that you're also communicating openly and honestly with the public about where we are, where we need to go, and how we're going to get there. Part of that is allowing scientists to speak directly to the public, and you don't avoid letting scientists talk to the public unless you're worried about what they're going to say or not planning to follow their guidance. But again, we've got to speak with one voice.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (36:46)
And I'd say the third thing that a new administration would need to do, which I know vice president Biden has spoken extensively about, is to lay out clear plans on our priority issues. Those being; how do we distribute a vaccine fairly and quickly? How do we ensure that we close the gap on testing where we still have shortages? How do we put forward, not just a plan, but the resources to open our schools? How do we provide the economic support for people who are hurting so they won't have to find ways to go back to work while putting themselves at risk, and they can in fact prioritize their health? And ultimately, how do we put forward clear guidance for families, for workplaces, for states and for schools, so people know what to do to keep themselves and their community safe?

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (37:28)
All of this is going to require good, strong partnerships. It's going to require federal government that's willing to step up and work closely with states and communities and organizations. It doesn't mean the federal government has to do everything, but what it means is that the federal government needs to have the courage to lead and not step back and allow others to take responsibility when things fall through. Because that is the definition of a leader, you step up to fill the gaps. Look, ultimately I think we can do this. The reason I think we can do this is because we have overcome great challenges in the past, we have dealt with major outbreaks, we have distributed vaccines to millions and millions in the population, we have done extraordinary things in public health. Have we done something at this scale and addressed a situation that was this urgent in the last century? No. So this will take actually America coming together in an extraordinary way.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (38:19)
I lastly want to say this, which is as important as everything I've mentioned is, in terms of what government should do and what states should do; there is no way that we will overcome COVID 19 if as individuals we also don't step up to not only do the right thing in terms of safety, but to support one another. One thing that's giving me heart and hope during this time has been to see how many people have been stepping up in communities to support their neighbors, to look out for their family and friends and loved ones, to support strangers; I walk around my neighborhood in Miami and I see these signs that neighbors have put out thanking nurses and doctors and grocery store workers for putting themselves on the line so that others can be safe and taken care of.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (39:01)
And there's something deep within each of us, a spirit of common concern and decency and compassion that I saw when I was surgeon general, as I had the privilege to visit communities across the country. That is ultimately what will sustain us during these difficult times, and I want us to recognize that, because it can be easy to feel like you're powerless during a time like this because you can't create a vaccine, you can't make the medicine, but I want us to know that the compassion, kindness and love that we wield, that we have inside of us as part of our birthright, that that is one of the most powerful medicines we have. I say that as somebody who has written many prescriptions for medicines over the years, but there's nothing more powerful than what love and compassion can do to help us heal and to make us strong during difficult times.

Joe Eletto: (39:47)
That's fantastic. It almost feels like the problem that we're living through, however terrible, could actually be a solution to the discord we're having between political parties, between people now, and coming out of this, we could see something of a coming together and a solving of that. But I want to thank you so much for coming on SALT Talks, Anthony, do you have any final words?

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:08)
Oh, doc, I appreciate it. I brought my mask for everybody, you see that, so I'm wearing it in your honor sir, okay. And I just hope that people will listen because this will save people's lives, and if you love your parents and they have comorbidities, you want to wear the mask. Now of course, you guys can't hear me through the mask, but I'm making the point visually, so let's keep it together and I really appreciate your time today...

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (40:35)
Of course, great to be with you Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:37)
And hope to see you live at one of our events once when we can get back up and running.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (40:42)
Thanks Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:43)
Thank you.

Dr. Vivek Murthy: (40:43)
It's good to be with you and Joe, great to be with you and the team as well.

Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: Investing Interest in Foodtech | SALT Talks #60

“We are very keen on engaging the world’s best thinkers and innovators to be based in Abu Dhabi.“

His Excellency Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi is the Director General of the Abu Dhabi Investment Office (ADIO), the central government hub supporting investment in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. Prior to joining ADIO, His Excellency held leadership roles at Emirates NBD, Mubadala and Citibank.

“Our leadership values international experience and international exposure.” While the COVID-19 may have thwarted growth plans in other industries and countries, it was a boon for ADIO and attracting new business. The robust response of the Abu Dhabi government to the pandemic was a key factor in international companies’ continued activity and expansion in the Emirate.

AgTech has long been a focus of the Abu Dhabi government. With the pandemic requiring countries to refocus on basics like food and pharmaceuticals, the Emirate has leaned even further into the burgeoning industry, attracting companies like US-based AeroFarms to set up local operations. “If anything, in core sectors that are fundamental to the stability of an economy, we’ve been very active.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

His Excellency Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi.jpeg

Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi

Director General

Abu Dhabi Investment Office (ADIO)

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:08)
Hi everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is Rachel Pether. I'm a senior advisor to SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investments firm, as well as being the MC for SALT, a thought leadership forum and networking platform, encompassing business, finance and politics. For those of you that aren't regular viewers, SALT Talks is a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. And just as we do at our global SALT Conference series, we aim to empower really big ideas and give our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts.

Rachel Pether: (00:44)
We're very excited today to welcome His Excellency Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi to SALT Talks. Dr. Tariq is the director general of the Abu Dhabi Investment Office, and he has more than 18 years experience in asset management, private equity and investment banking. Prior to his current position, Tariq held various roles at Emirates NBD, Commercial Bank of Dubai, Mubadala, Citigroup, Dubai Holding, Delta Airlines and UPS. He currently sits on multiple boards, including [EnBD Reach 00:00:01:13], DGCX, AXA GCIC and Emirates Post. Tariq holds a PhD in economics from Imperial College London, as well as graduate degrees from Columbia and London Business School, and an undergraduate degree from Clayton State in the USA.

Rachel Pether: (01:31)
Hosting today's talk will be Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, and also the chairman of SALT. Just a reminder, if you have any questions during today's session, please just enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your screen. And with that, I'll turn it over to you, Anthony, for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:49)
Well, Rachel, thank you. Tariq, it's great to see you again. Unfortunately, we're seeing each other virtually. I'm sorry my head is coming in the size of a jack-o-lantern, but it is fall, so you have to forgive me for that. But let's get started with your career. You and I have met several times, but I want people in the United States who are Zooming into this, to hear a little bit about your background, how you got started, how you ended up where you are today, and it's great to have you on by the way.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (02:22)
And it's great to see you as well, Anthony, it's been a while, and I'm looking forward to actually hosting you guys here in Abu Dhabi again, and then hopefully seeing you guys in the States when we do get a chance to come stateside.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (02:33)
So my background, I suppose the key driver in my background was my mom, right? My mom was always pushing us to keep getting that education, keep getting that experience and make sure that you don't stop. So it wasn't good enough to get a bachelor's degree, I needed a graduate degree, I needed a PhD. And so I think what that did was it allowed me to build a bridge with that East and West, in terms of my exposure in the US, my exposure in the UK and how it is that I was able to translate that into a proper business acumen here in the UAE. So I really take a lot of pride from the fact that I was pushed to excel, but that our leadership here really does value that international experience, they value the fact that we have international exposure and they value the fact that we're trying to change things. I think that's helped me quite a bit in terms of how does have gotten to where I am today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:31)
So if I had to describe in a nutshell your current job, what are the components of your current job?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (03:41)
So in 2019, the Abu Dhabi government decided that they needed a central hub to kind of direct FDI, as well as some of the domestic development activities that we are looking to launch here. And that includes public private partnerships, and land leases for agriculture and education. And so the core drivers of what it is that we do today really come down to promoting, facilitating and attracting companies to Abu Dhabi. So we have financial and nonfinancial instruments that we use, but it's all grounded in this core drive to expand innovation, to try to put all the right components in place so that we can create ecosystems. I don't think you can invest into creating an ecosystem without putting the right components in place.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (04:22)
And so ADIO was set up to help drive some of those components and help really sort of launch a lot of these various sectors and clusters that we're looking to grow.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:33)
And so I know you've had a lot of success, so give us an example of something that you've done that you guys are very proud of.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (04:42)
So actually, it's interesting. As we started to go into the lockdown mode on a global level, starting in February, March and April this year, we were actually concluding a lot of transactions with some international parties. One of those being AeroFarms, for example, in the US, a big ag-tech startup, that was looking at launching here in the UAE and how it is that we could get that over the line. And not just get it over the line in terms of contractual agreement, but actually get people out here, get them set up, get them to start actually building and moving forward with their plans.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (05:11)
And we've started to see that a lot of entities, especially over the last few months, continue to engage with us to drive things forward. And I did want to emphasize this point, Anthony, because it's important. One of the things that we take a lot of pride from is the fact that the Abu Dhabi government moved really quick to secure the health and safety of every citizen in this country, whether they be national or non-national. And what that did was that triggered a lot of people who were looking at, "Okay, how do we expand? How do we move our distribution away from just one geography and have it diversified across geographies?" And this was one of the key drivers for them. When we started talking to folks, they were like, "Well, yeah, we saw what Abu Dhabi was doing. We saw how it is that they really kind of were willing to put in a lot of effort to help the economy stay afloat, but also protect people." And so that's been something that's been driving a lot of the activity. And I have to say, I have not been as busy in the last six months... I mean, this is the busiest period I've ever had in my career, the last six months.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:10)
And so let's talk about the pandemic for a second. So the pandemic has made you more busy? Or is that just a coincidence? Or if the pandemic has made you more busy, how has the pandemic made you more busy, Tariq?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (06:26)
So I think the important part there is that we've started to focus on the basics, Anthony. And I was talking about this last night at another conference that I was attending, was when was the last time that people focused on nurses, doctors, educators, farmers, so on and so forth? So we've gone back to basics. And what that means is we've had to really focus on national security [inaudible 00:00:06:51]. Whether that be food pharmaceuticals, the overall health industry. And so why it's gotten busy, is that one, we've been able to pivot our programs to be able to cater to that food security, health security requirement that we have. But also a lot of the international partners that we work with have been looking at this going, "Hey, by the way, these guys are serious, they haven't slowed down, they haven't stopped. They're looking at how it is that they can expand."

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (07:15)
I mean we deployed a hundred million dollars in terms of contracts in April, and hopefully in the next couple of months we'll be able to announce another quite sizable investment in ag-tech. So nothing's slowed us down, if anything, in core sectors that are key, fundamental to the sustainability and growth of an economy, we've been very active.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:34)
I want to step back for a second because I asked Nabyl at Al Maskari this question yesterday, I'd be interested to hear your take on this. We have a lot of Americans on the line, some of which have never been to Abu Dhabi. And so let's step back for a second. And I want you to describe your country to someone that's never been there before.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (08:00)
The easiest word that I can use to describe the country is simple. It's actually really simple to get things done here. And we've tried to make it even more simple than it already was. Now, that's not to say that every single process was easy. But what has happened over the past six to nine months is from a policy setting perspective, as well as from an economic contribution perspective, leadership has said, "We've got to make changes." I can tell you, the last six months have seen more changes to the way that it is that we operate, not only as a government, but also as an investment platform, as an economy, than you've probably seen over the last few years. And this has been really telling to how agile and how quick to respond the government is.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (08:43)
So I suppose the easiest answer to that is that it's a flat system here in terms of, if you have ideas, if you've got criticism, if you've got any kind of contribution that you want to offer us that we can take up leadership, it's pretty quick to execute. The other thing that I will say is that this is probably one of the most diverse countries in the world in terms of nationalities. We have over 200 nationalities, people from everywhere. You cannot go a day without interacting with at least five or six people from different places around the world, and that's quite unique. So we take a lot of pride from how welcoming we are. We take a lot of pride from how it is that we're trying to grow. And we are very, very keen on engaging the world's best thinkers, the best innovators, to come and be based in Abu Dhabi, so we can help really drive that narrative forward.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:33)
Well, listen, I not only agree with everything you said, first time I got to Abu Dhabi was in 2005. I landed at the old airport, and I was just in wonder, because it had that whole Arabian feel to it. And then I visited Dubai, and obviously Dubai was growing in 2005, but it's six times larger perhaps today. And the thing I would say about your country is not only is it forward thinking and having an amazing vision, but it also is looking to be embracing to the rest of the world. So I love the Abraham Initiative, normalizing relationships. I love the commercial activity there. But something I brought up yesterday that I want to emphasize is the legal system. I think your legal system is second to none in the region. And in fact, it's a place where people can go and actually have a platform for commercial opportunity. And then all of a sudden, when you look at the entire world, you guys have reach into the MESA space, if you will, but all the way out to Australia, if necessary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:41)
But talk to me a little bit more about the ag-tech space. A lot of people are not that familiar with it, and so give us a primer on ag-tech and tell us what you guys are doing in that space.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (10:55)
So I'll give you an interesting stat. When we were looking at farms, all the farms in the UAE. There are 24,000 farms in Abu Dhabi, there are about 35,000 farms in the UAE. When you look at a country like Australia, they've got about 35,000 farms as well. Now, there's a difference in scale and size. But all of this comes down to efficiency. So what we've been trying to do as it relates to agriculture, and this has been a core pillar of our growth and development over the last almost 50 years now, because we're celebrating our 50th national day next December, has really been this focus on agriculture. So ag-tech has not been a response to the last nine months. This has been a steady strategy of how it is that you can turn the desert green.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (11:38)
And so what we've done is we've looked at, okay, we've got traditional farmers, how is it in an arid climate that we can reduce our reliance on water and make it more efficient? So what we've done is we've partnered with these great international institutions, RNZ, RDI, AeroFarms, Madar Farms, and there's a few more in the pipeline that we've just signed with, that I can't announce just yet. But what we're trying to do is we're trying to address every part of that food supply stream that we need to take care of. So we have our sister companies in Abu Dhabi, that are looking at how it is they can build a logistics component out. But we're looking at how it is that we can test new genetic coding in plants. How it is that we can improve water efficiency? How it is that we can utilize humidity to water agriculture? How it is that we can use sunlight to be able to power different things on a farm?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (12:27)
So what we want to do is be able to produce locally, we want to be able to produce more efficiently, and we want to work with partners around the world. And I'll say this, Anthony, and this is related to ag-tech and beyond. We look at this as it relates to the medical industry now as well. We will not, and no one will be able to function properly in any of these spaces without having this collaborative approach to getting things done. I look at what it is we're doing in agriculture now, we've got companies from around the world, and now with the Abraham Accords, we've got companies from Israel that are looking at how it is they can show us the best of what they've created, and how it is that we can transfer that knowledge to and from each other, so I think it's been really important.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (13:09)
If anything, this lockdown over the last... Various types of lockdowns, over the last seven to nine months has just proven that globalization is a necessity. We're only going to get out of these problems if we work together. And I think that's an important pillar of what it is that Abu Dhabi does. We are not going to be able to create this on our own, but we will be able to enable this through the resources that we have and bring in all these countries and companies to help us do this.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:33)
And I think it's fascinating because you're literally doing something that we would have considered to be impossible two decades ago. You're now making the impossible possible. And we're all obviously concerned about the environment, so tell us a little bit about initiatives there in terms of where the UAE is going and where you're going with your investment initiatives, related to the ecosystem, if you will.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (14:02)
Yeah. So we take ESG very seriously. We're also looking at these sustainable development goals that were set five years ago. It's the five-year anniversary of when those global class SDGs were set. And so it makes it really easy for firms that are focused on ESG to come slot into what it is that we're trying to do. What I mean by that is, we're looking at the ocean, we're looking at the desert, we're looking at the air, we're looking at pollution. We're looking at how it is that we can make sure that we're able to help the average consumer at home be able to be more environmentally-friendly, from waste management to water utilization, to how it is that we transport people around the city, and how it is that we are looking at greener ways of traveling, like cross-country traveling.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (14:46)
Etihad Airways recently flew a very environmentally-friendly Boeing aircraft, and we're looking at... Again, this is just one example of the many things that we're doing, but to us, the Environment Agency in Abu Dhabi is a core pillar and a core partner in everything that it is that we are doing. When we go out and we're looking at how it is that we can expand certain sectors and industries, they're involved in the conversation. We need to get their okay on things that we're doing. So Abu Dhabi has really built that into the foundation of how it is that we function. A lot of our programs today are built around eco tourism, we're looking at, again, ag-tech, we're looking at health-tech. And all of this stuff is about efficiency, how you utilize your resources effectively and how it is that you're then able to export this so other countries can benefit from what it is that we've been able to generate.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:36)
So I love your vision. So let's talk to all the pessimists out there, okay? And so let me give you the pessimist narrative, ready? The Earth is overheating as a result of the environmental destruction. There's a lack of water in the MESA area. Obviously in the Arabian Peninsula, there's a lack of water. There's a political strife, and there could be, potentially, at some point, food shortages. So I'm trying to give you the apocalypse, and I want you to paint the picture to get us out of there, because obviously you and I are both great optimists and I want people to hear that narrative.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (16:18)
So personally, I refuse to get bogged down in the fact that things can go really wrong, and I think that there are potentials for one or two of those scenarios to go wrong. I think if they all go wrong, it's only going to re-emphasize the fact that we have to work together to get out of this. I think if we look at things like water, and I can take that as an example. If there's one thing we have a lot of here, it's humidity, but we have very little fresh drinking water. So we want to invest in technologies, and we've started this already, we're working with partners that are sticking these massive machines out in the desert, and they're converting humidity into water, drinkable water, potable water, that we can use for agriculture.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (16:55)
So I do agree that there are a lot of things that we need to face together. And this was a point that I made recently as well, is that on a national level, on a policy and investment program I think we can accomplish a lot of things. But if we're not working together on a global stage and working together hand-in-hand in wealthy countries, supporting those that are not as wealthy to come out of where it is that they might be struggling, then this just isn't going to work. And I think that's why if I bring it back to what it is that we're doing in Abu Dhabi, we want to test every type of technology. We want to make sure that we're able to innovate and de-risk people's exposure and experiences here, so that when they come try out a technology, if it doesn't work, that's okay, just pivot and we'll support you with that pivot. We want to make sure that we're testing that.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (17:43)
Because today I think if you look at solar technology and Abu Dhabi has done a phenomenal job on this, we have the second largest or the largest solar park in the world in Abu Dhabi. We've got a lot of these areas that we're working on, from water, from desalination programs, so on and so forth. So I could go on and on about the different things that we're doing, but it's only when we start working together in partnerships, which is what we are really keen on doing, is where we're going to be successful and we take that really seriously. And a final point on that, Anthony, is that if you look at what Abu Dhabi's done over the past seven months, the UAE has exported thousands of tons of support, whether it be medical, nonmedical, to countries, both advanced, and those that are advancing, to be able to help them during this COVID epidemic. And that is a testament to the fact that not only do we want them to develop our economy, we want to export everything that we do well elsewhere, sometimes very generously, for nothing. We just want to make sure that this works for everybody. So sorry. I'm not sure I actually address the pessimistic side there, Anthony, but I'm just-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:49)
No, no. I actually think you did, because what you're basically saying to people, and this is what Thomas Malthus ultimately got wrong in his dissertation about us having population explosion and running out of food. He left out irrigation, he left out ag-tech. I don't think he was thinking about ag-tech. And so I think the point that you're making, which I want to reemphasize, is that we're in a constant search for technological innovation. And whether you're spiritual, like perhaps you or I, and believe in God, I accept that the Earth is this wonderful creation, and there's enough natural resources here on this planet to feed and take care of everybody, we just have to build the right political system and the right innovation, right technology, to make it work. And I think that's what you're saying and I love the message.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:38)
So I have to turn it over to Rachel because we've got a ton of audience questions coming in. And so Rachel, will fire in some of these audience questions. Now, you're very lucky because John Dorsey's not on the call. Because him and I are sparring. Rachel and I actually get along with each other. And so I'm always afraid to tease Rachel, because she's a lot smarter than me, Tariq. So go ahead, Rachel.

Rachel Pether: (20:09)
I am smarter and stronger than you, Anthony. Don't forget about that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:11)
Yeah. Well, we know that. You're a Kiwi. He knows. He knows, and I know, and all the other people know. Go ahead, Rachel.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (20:17)
I used to work with Rachel, so me and Rachel go way back.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:20)
Yeah. Exactly. If Dorsey was on the call, I would be teasing away. But with Rachel on the call, I'm in a defensive position, managing my jack-o-lantern head, I'm getting a very bad room rater on this Zoom, but that's fine. Go ahead, Rachel.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (20:36)
To your point that you were asking earlier, I'm sorry, Rachel, I'm going to jump in here, but Rachel is a long-term Abu Dhabi resident. She's been here for years, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:44)
Yep.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (20:45)
There's a reason why people move here. They want figure out what this place is about. And people like Rachel stay. They stay, they contribute, they help us grow, they help everything become more successful for everyone. And that's what we want to continue to grow on, and I think it's important.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:58)
Well listen, I'm a huge fan, I love the place and I want more Americans... And I'm actually surprised always by this in America, that our travel schedules take us to Europe, and they take us to parts of North America, and perhaps Mexico, to some of the great resorts, but they don't take us to places like Abu Dhabi. And so one of my missions over the next 10 years is to have a continuation of our live conferences there, and bring more people from North America, so they can understand what's going on in your part of the world, which will give them great reasons to be optimistic. But go ahead, Rachel, I'm sorry that we jumped in.

Rachel Pether: (21:37)
No, not at all. And thank you so much for that really interesting discussion. And Tariq, without stroking your ego too much, working with people like you is one of the reasons that I've stayed here so long. So thank you for the great memories that we have from our time at Mubadala as well. We have had a lot of audience questions come in and broadly across policy, investment and personal. So I'll start with some of the policy related questions first. In the opening remarks, you spoke about how you're trying to build foreign direct investment and also local innovation simultaneously. Do you see one more as a catalyst for the other?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (22:16)
So it's an interesting question, I think it depends on the sector. So we have sectors that are very developed in Abu Dhabi. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to work with partners and see how it is that we can export that. A good example of that is recently ADNOC, which is the national oil company here, signed a $20 billion transaction, with $10.1 billion of that being direct FDI into Abu Dhabi, into infrastructure that exists and that is going to be developed. Now, that's important because that is very solid, hard assets, long-term experience, long-term knowledge that's been created, that everyone will benefit from.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (22:52)
And then we've got sectors like ag-tech. And again, I know I'm talking about ag-tech a lot, but it's only because we've seen the momentum in that space. So we've identified multiple sectors, and then we're trying to focus on the ones where we're seeing a lot of demand for them for different reasons. So ag-tech's been one of those. Another one is on health-tech and biotech, and they're not as developed here. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to use financial instruments and non-financial instruments, such as how it is that we can connect you to the wider Abu Dhabi ecosystem and the state-owned enterprises, and try to get those technologies, those companies to come over to Abu Dhabi, be based here. We help facilitate that through, again, these financial instruments that we have. But really it's a partnership.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (23:32)
Every discussion that we have with an entity or an investor that wants to come to Abu Dhabi starts with, we want to build a long-term partnership. If you're coming here just for the capital, I don't think that the relationship is going to build out in manner that you want it to build out. So for us, Rachel, it's actually really important that we focus on that relationship building, that long-term partnership model, and how it is that we can then help those entities that set up in Abu Dhabi export to the wider region.

Rachel Pether: (23:59)
Great. And I'd love to talk a bit more about some of those other sectors, but you also mentioned that you're working closely with the Environment Agency here. How do you actually work with the other Abu Dhabi entities? Is it all quite a collaborative approach?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (24:16)
It is. I think if you look at how it is that the government's been set up, where you have these nine departments, and I won't go into too much detail there, but effectively what happened is you go from the Department of Energy, all the way to the Department of Health, and every department in between. And what we've done is we've created these very, very close knit committees where we sit together, we talk about the interest of companies that are looking to come in and set up in Abu Dhabi, and how it is that we can facilitate everything for them on an end-to-end basis.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (24:43)
So licensing, to visas for the people that they want to move over here, to financing, to investment, to land plots. And so I'll go back to the Environment Agency. When we're looking at building out any type of physical infrastructure, they are involved with us from start to finish. From materials that we're using, from the location, from what kind of habitat might be in that area. They're very, very core to the success of building a sustainable long-term hard infrastructure. What we're trying to do now across the departments in Abu Dhabi, is really build that soft infrastructure, that knowledge, innovation, R&D.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (25:21)
It's interesting for people to come build the sales and distribution here in Abu Dhabi, but it's really interesting if you come and test your technology and start working with our universities and some of our major entities. These are massive entities in Abu Dhabi, to try to help solve for some of the problems that we face and that other countries face. And so that's really how it is that we work together. It's really by committee. It's all very quick. It's very, very fast approvals from leadership here. And the key point is everyone coming in now has a seat at the table to not only help with the development of our economy, but to help shape policy. And to Anthony's point, law. We know that we have a good legal system, we want to make it better. There are always ways that we can improve that. And we're only going to do that through support from the private sector.

Rachel Pether: (26:10)
And it's interesting, you touched on universities as well, and there was a question coming in from the audience on that. Do you have plans in education and STEM subjects within universities and schools, or is that something that you're looking to also progress with?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (26:28)
So at a base level we've got every curriculum covered here at an education level in Abu Dhabi. You want IB, you want the American system, the British system, the Indian system, French, German, we've got it, it's all covered. I think when you start looking at graduate schools and postgraduate, what we're trying to do now is we're trying to make sure that we build that innovative culture into education. And the way that we want to do that is through exposure. Now, what I mean by that is we can try to fund as many programs as we want, but if we're doing it, again, in isolation of major Fortune 500 entities, other universities around the world that can partner with us, then we're going to be starting from the bottom. And we want to make sure that we start with each other on the research that's already been developed and how it is that we grow.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (27:16)
We're not going to be able to create an entrepreneurial ecosystem if students are not exposed to that work ethic, to that type of thought process and to the people that are very successful in that space. We want to make sure they have that exposure, so they keep growing. So our universities are going to be core to this. And recently we launched Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, the first in the world. And we've been recruiting professors, some of the preeminent professors in that space to come in and help educate our youth, but also youth from around the world that want to participate in that, which is what we've done with NYU, with Paris-Sorbonne, and with other universities that we've built in Abu Dhabi.

Rachel Pether: (27:56)
Yeah. I think that sort of learn by doing aspect is really important. And I know this topic comes up again and again, but because you're so close to the ecosystem, have you seen a change within the sort of fear of failure within the entrepreneurs in the region? Because I know that has been kind of a hindrance in the past for people that might've wanted to go out and try and start up their own company.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (28:20)
Yeah. So there's always the perception versus reality issue, Rachel, that we have to address. And I think that there's been a fear component to people wanting to set up. But then you look at the success stories here, but people don't talk about the failures. And what we're trying to do as the Abu Dhabi Investment Office, and what Abu Dhabi leadership is trying to do in general here, is take the most serious components of where it is an entrepreneur may fail and de-risk that for them. So whether it's financial, whether it's licensing, whether it's the legal component, whether it's access to contracts, revenue streams, developers, talent, so on and so forth. We're trying to de-risk that, so that if they do fail, the entrepreneur can start all over again really quickly.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (29:04)
And so that's the ecosystem... And this was my point earlier. You can't create an ecosystem without having the right components in place. You have capital, you have willingness, you have a very agile and forward-thinking leadership structure in Abu Dhabi. And I have to say, a lot of this is top down. So our leadership, His Highness, and all the other leaders that we have in Abu Dhabi are really driving this narrative down and putting pressure on people to deliver. And if the government is operating under that type of pressure, you know that we're trying to feed that into the private sector so they can benefit from what it is that we're trying to do.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (29:39)
So I have to say, this has been probably one of the most fascinating roles that I have ever held, just to be able to witness the transformation that has happened from a policy-making perspective, and how quickly that is mandated to feed into the private sector. Does that mean that everything we're doing is going to translate into instant success? No, but we understand that some things are quick and other things require long-term building blocks and foundations to be set, we're trying to build both of those at the same time.

Rachel Pether: (30:12)
That's definitely one thing that's impressed me during my tenure here as well, is just how fast things move when a decision is made to do so. We have a couple of more sector specific questions. You have mentioned ag-tech and also the health care space. How do you decide which sectors you want to focus on? Is it more of a top down approach? You've sort of mentioned that. Or is it bottom up as well? So if you have a company coming to you, that's in a certain sector, you then can go to the leadership and say, "Oh, this looks interesting. Should we build an ecosystem around this?"

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (30:48)
So I can actually give you a really short answer to that, or a very long answer to that. So I'm going to try and do something in the middle. Recently, the Abu Dhabi government launched the Economic Collaboration Committee. What that was, was that was an initiative to bring in four members of the government, which is the chairman of the department of economic development, myself, and two other chairpeople from very [inaudible 00:31:09] DMT and DCT, which are the municipalities and transport, and culture and tourism.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (31:14)
To sit with a very large group of prominent private sector individuals, as well as entrepreneurs, people that have been successful here that are looking at growing. What we've done is, we've built this really nice platform to be able to receive that feedback and look at each and every sector and what it requires. As I mentioned earlier, some sectors are already very developed in Abu Dhabi. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to figure out how do we constructively disrupt those sectors by making them more efficient?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (31:45)
There are other sectors, again, biotech in the ICT space, we're looking at how it is that we grow there. I won't mention the same ones that I've mentioned already. But we're looking at some of the other sectors that are very core and critical to what we're doing. But anything where there's an innovation component, the financial services side, where there is a chance to look at existing infrastructure and make it better, we're willing to participate and willing to support those initiatives and those ideas. So we look at this across sectors, but really what it is that we're focused on is bringing it back to basics. What is core to a happy lifestyle and a solid resilient economy? And build around that. And that's the way that we're looking at this, and it changes. It changes with time. It changes as certain sectors ebb and flow. But the support for growth and the support for actually driving that growth is constantly there.

Rachel Pether: (32:41)
I really like that phrase, you said constructively destruct. And that was a good length, medium answer, so thank you for that as well. A couple of questions coming in on the Israel relationship as well. You mentioned that you have been looking at companies there already. What fields of economic and business cooperation with Israel do you see as most beneficial or most strategic for the UAE going forward?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (33:07)
So we welcomed an Israeli delegation to the UAE recently. And the one word that kept coming up was curiosity. And then the phrase that kept coming up was, "Wow, we didn't know you did that," and that was on both sides. So we sat across from the table, we were talking to each other. And again, I bring up the table example, I know I mentioned it earlier, but when you're sitting at the table, you can get things done, but you've got to be sitting at the same table. And this is a bold step that the leadership of both countries, with support from the US, have taken in terms of making sure we're sitting at that table.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (33:43)
Now, to answer the question, we are looking at the sectors that we have very advanced knowledge in and looking at how is it that we can work with them on that. Oil and gas, petrochemicals, downstream, oil and gas again, and infrastructure, transportation, aviation, and how it is that we can help support them. And then they're looking at sectors that we have, that we want to develop. Again, agriculture, healthcare, AI, ICT and some of those other... Education, financial services, so on and so forth. And we're looking at how it is that we can build a very collaborative approach with one another, so that we can help trade and transfer information. And that's the name of the game at the end of the day.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (34:24)
We want to transfer information between nations. We want to make sure that we're working with the right partners there, they have the right access to the right people here and vice versa, and that we help grow this. So right now we're in that exploration phase, we're very excited. We're talking to everyone across every sector and we're looking at... Let me answer it this way, Rachel. There are known unknowns, and then there are unknown unknowns. And right now, we've been working in those two spaces, and we're finding out a lot about each other and how it is that there's so many similarities in terms of ambitions and what we're trying to create, that right now we're focused on just learning as much as we can, and then building the right type of system to benefit each other.

Rachel Pether: (35:09)
Great. Thanks Tariq. We're almost out of time and we have so many unanswered questions from the audience. So I apologize to all of you that have submitted questions. I do just want to read out a comment though from [inaudible 00:35:22], from Innovation Without Borders. He said, "I've been working with a lot of governmental entities around the world, and I have to emphasize that I've never experienced such an amazing, responsive and practical work ethic like I had with the team of ADIO and His Excellency Tariq Bin Hendi. They work as if they are lean, small startup." So I just thought I would pass on that compliment from Innovation Without Borders.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (35:46)
Very kind. Thank you.

Rachel Pether: (35:46)
And then a slightly softer question to finish on. We've actually had a couple of people ask what inspires you every day?

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (36:00)
I think what inspires me every day is that I want to leave a better planet than what I found, than what I've been able to enjoy. I look at both of my boys, I think about what kind of economy, ecosystem, environment, are we going to leave for them? And for me every day, waking up and talking to all these people with fantastic ideas, and how it is that we can help support those ideas is as invigorating as anything else I've ever experienced. And so for me, that's what drives me. It drives me to make sure that I create enough opportunities for the next generation and the generation after that, to be able to not just have a steady job, but to be able to be creative, to be able to think outside the box and have policies and an economy that's supportive of that.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (36:51)
So for me, that's absolutely critical to what it is I do and what it is that drives me. And I'm not trying to be cliche there, I genuinely mean that. This is a really tough ask that we have, how it is that you can pivot an economy to be focused on innovation and knowledge, and watch everyone in the government sector, come in and try to drive that narrative, and we're just a small part of that. And we want to make sure that we're pushing that forward, but we want you to come help us be able to deliver on that. Any of your ideas. And when I say ideas, I mean, criticisms, comment, feedback, whatever it is, please share it with us. Let us help change things. Let us help make things better. And let us welcome you to Abu Dhabi. Please come visit us. When the time's right, please come visit us. We want to make sure that we host you all here. Like we've done with Anthony before. And like we do with Rachel, and we hope she stays here another 10 or 20 years. So thank you.

Rachel Pether: (37:48)
Thanks so much, Tariq. I think that's a very optimistic note to end on. And from my side, I just wanted to thank you so much for your time today. It's been a pleasure talking to you as always, and great to see you again. Hope that we can meet up in person again soon.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (38:04)
Thank you very much.

Rachel Pether: (38:05)
Anthony, I'll-

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:06)
Tariq, be well. Be well. Unfortunately, we won't be able to do the live SALT Conference this year in December, but as soon as we get the government's approval, we'll be back and we're super excited about it, Tariq. So thank you, and we'll see you soon I hope. Inshallah.

H.E. Dr. Tariq Bin Hendi: (38:21)
Thank you, sir. Thank you. Inshallah, and God bless everyone on this call. Thank you.

William Cohan: Author "Why Wall Street Matters" | SALT Talks #59

“President Trump has introduced a tremendous amount of risk into our capital markets and economy.“

William D. Cohan, a former senior Wall Street M&A investment banker at Lazard Frères & Co., Merrill Lynch and JPMorganChase, is the New York Times bestselling author of three non-fiction narratives about Wall Street. He is a special correspondent at Vanity Fair and is hard at work on his new book about the rise and fall of GE. Bill led an unforgettable interview at SALT Las Vegas with Magic Johnson in 2014.

“People love to bask Wall Street,” frequently without fully recognizing what it is Wall Street does and how it keeps the economy going as we know it. Without Wall Street providing capital to businesses around the world, opportunities to create new companies and industries wouldn’t be possible. On the flip side, more needs to be done to support companies like mom-and-pop shops that cannot gain access to this capital, especially during economically distressing times.

Turning to the 2020 election, the relationship has soured between Wall Street and President Trump, who is now viewed as “extremely detrimental at this point.” Follow the money: Vice President Biden has significantly outpaced President Trump in fundraising from Wall Street.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

William D. Cohan.jpeg

William Cohan

Special Correspondent

Vanity Fair

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. And today's guest, marries the intersection of those three pillars more effectively than any author maybe out there in journalism today. SALT Talks is a digital interview series that we started during this work from home period. And that we're going to continue even after we hopefully all return to our offices here before long. And it's an interview series with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. And what we're really trying to do with SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provide at our global conference series, the SALT Conference. And that's to empower what we think are big, important ideas that are shaping the future, as well as provide our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts.

John Darsie: (00:58)
And we're very excited today to welcome Bill Cohan to SALT Talks. Bill is a former senior Wall Street M&A investment banker of 17 years, where he was at Lazard, Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase. But today he's has long since transitioned into the world of journalism. He's a New York Times bestselling author of three nonfiction books about Wall Street. His newest book Four Friends, talks about what happened to four friends from his high school. And it was published in July of 2019. Bill is a special correspondent at Vanity Fair, but he also writes for ProPublica, the Financial Times, the New York Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, the Atlantic, the Nation, Fortune and Politico. He previously wrote a biweekly opinion column for the New York Times and an opinion column for Bloomberg View, as well as for the DealBook section of the New York times. He also regularly appears in financial television media, including CNN, MSNBC and BBC TV.

John Darsie: (01:56)
He's also appeared three times as a guest on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the NewsHour, the Charlie Rose show, the Travis Smiley show and CBS This Morning, as well as numerous times on NPR, BBC and Bloomberg radio programs. He's a graduate of Phillips Academy, Duke university, Columbia University School of Journalism and the Columbia University School of Business. A reminder if you have any questions for Bill during today's SALT Talk, please enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen in your Zoom window. And with that I'll turn it over to Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. As well as the chairman of SALT, to conduct today's interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:37)
Bill, great to have you on. John, thank you. I would also point people to Bill's article over the weekend in Barron's. Which I thought was a brilliant article on Bill Ackman. And Bill, I don't know if you remember this, way to segue in the question. Do you remember that Magic Johnson interview that you did at the SALT Conference?

Bill Cohan: (02:58)
Anthony, I'll never forget that. I... Go ahead.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:01)
Before I go into your background, tell us why you'll never forget. I'll never forget that either, but you were on stage, Magic Johnson, 2,300 people live in the ballroom at the Bellagio. Why would you never forget that Bill?

Bill Cohan: (03:15)
First of all, Magic Johnson, as Anthony knew and as all of us surmised, is like one of the most charismatic people I've ever met. Between Magic Johnson and Barack Obama, I'm not really sure which one was more charismatic. But about halfway into the interview, it's me and Magic up on the stage. And as Anthony said, there's 2,300 people in the audience having lunch. And all of a sudden, Magic Johnson says, "Bill, this is great. You're asking me these questions, but do you mind if I just sort of change this up a little bit. I want to go down into the audience and just start talking and start being with the people and being with everybody." And so he just got up off the stage, went down into the audience. I asked him a few more questions, but then he was literally off to the races talking about what Magic Johnson had done here and there in basketball and business. It was incredible moment. I've never seen 2,300 banker hedge fund types, totally captivated by another human being for more than an hour.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:19)
There was a woman Bill, who asked him a question. It was a very difficult question. He gave the answer. You could tell she was a little disappointed. You remember what Magic Johnson did in that moment?

Bill Cohan: (04:32)
I hope he hugged her. I don't know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:33)
Yeah. That's what he did. He crossed the entire ballroom to go over to her and said, "I know you're feeling bad about what I said, let me give you a hug." I don't know if we're allowed to do that anymore, but he gave her a hug.

Bill Cohan: (04:43)
Probably not. No.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:43)
Yeah. He gave her a hug to a standing ovation. But anyway, that's one of my fondest memories of the many different people that you've interviewed at SALT for us, including Michael Lewis and others. But let's go back a little bit. Tell us something about your career as an M&A banker before becoming a journalist. What attracted you to M&A Bill? And then why did you leave to become a journalist?

Bill Cohan: (05:08)
Oh well. First of all Anthony, you have to know that before I, because in the bio that John described which is of course accurate. I had been a journalist and I went to Columbia journalism school and left there and was a journalist on a daily paper in Raleigh, North Carolina, covering public schools for two years. Which was of course ironic, because I'd never been to a public school in my life. But I did do that for two years and then I went back to business school. And I kept wanting to go to business, I kept thinking if I went to business school, I could get a job with The Wall Street Journal. And I kept trying and trying to get a job at The Wall Street Journal and they never would hire me. And even to this day, they've never published anything I've written in my long bio that John was reading, there's no mention of The Wall Street Journal. I've never been able to appear in their pages.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:03)
I don't want to interrupt you, but they've written four negative stories about SkyBridge since COVID-19 started. So maybe we could do a swap. Right? They don't like you Bill, but trust me, they don't like us either. But God, I keep going.

Bill Cohan: (06:14)
And I think they've written six negative reviews of all of my books. So I'm right up there with you, Anthony. So I said, "Either I'm going to go to The Wall Street Journal or I'm going to go to Wall Street." I went instead to Wall Street I think when I graduated from Columbia in May of 1987. All you had to do was breathe to get a job on Wall Street. And so I put the mirror up to my face I was still breathing, and off I went. And at the time, there were no, there were very few hedge funds, there was very few private equity firms. If you wanted to sort of have the most sort of intellectual content on Wall Street, the place to be, I always thought was an M&A banker. And so whereas I, first of all, I couldn't get a job doing that initially. I started my career at GE capital actually, financing leverage buyouts of all things. I had no idea what I was doing, of course.

Bill Cohan: (07:13)
And then two years after that I got to Lazard, which was a place for some reason I always wanted to work. Because it was so mysterious and quirky and kind of clastic and private and French, all those things that I liked. And that's when I started learning how to be an M&A banker, working for the Felix Rohatyns of the world. And it was an incredible experience. Obviously, I wrote my first book about Lazard. And just kept doing that as long as I could, Anthony. And that gig lasted 17 years between Lazard, Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase. And then like any good 44-year-old Wall Street guy, I got zoxed. And after getting zoxed at JP Morgan Chase by some of my favorite people, I decided that one thing that I could still do and be productive was to go back to journalism.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:14)
So how did the banker career, did it helped you with the journalism, hurt you or? How did that-

Bill Cohan: (08:22)
Well-

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:22)
Feather into the new-

Bill Cohan: (08:23)
It was incredibly-

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:24)
[crosstalk 00:08:24]?

Bill Cohan: (08:24)
Incredibly helpful to me. Obviously, because I was a subject matter expert. Say what you will, 17 years, I did understand what M&A was all about. I understood investment banking, I understood how banks worked. And I didn't just leave Wall Street and suddenly become a journalist again. Actually I thought, well, I will try to write a book about Lazard. And I wrote a proposal, I got an agent, I sold the book. I wrote the book. I had total beginners luck. It was not only a New York Times Best Seller, but it was named the best business book of the year by the FT and Goldman Sachs. And I'll never forget going to London to receive that award. And by the way, I went to London with my wife and the ceremony was at this beautiful library in London. And none of us, none of the five finalists knew who had won. And I was up against Nassim Taleb, who wrote Black Swan. And Alan Greenspan, for his book on being Fed chairman.

Bill Cohan: (09:40)
And I'd heard the story that somehow the word got out that Alan Greenspan had found out as he was crossing the Atlantic in a private jet, that he didn't get it. And they turned the jet around and back he went, he did not come to the ceremony. But I had no idea. I was like in the Oscar ceremony, you're way in the back Anthony, because no one expects you to win. I was way in the back, it took me 10 minutes to get up to the front. And who's standing there, but Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs giving me my check for winning. And it was an incredible moment. And as a result of that, it was total beginners luck. Then I started, then Graydon Carter called me and said, "Would you write for Vanity Fair? Would you write for the New York Times? Would you write for the FT?" And sort of, I was off to the races.

Bill Cohan: (10:28)
So to answer your question, had I not been a banker, I could never have written that book about Lazard. Even though I never thought I would be writing a book about Lazard when I was working there, I didn't take a single note or anything about that experience. I had to recreate it all from talking to everybody. But having been a banker, it sort of paved the way for my first three books about Wall Street.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:51)
And yeah. I want to talk about the Bear Stearns book a little later. But I want to ask you about the recent book, Why Wall Street Matters? Because it's an interesting time for Wall Street. Once again, the economy's in the [inaudible 00:11:07] room, the stock market is rallying. Although it's off today, it's really been rallying since the COVID crisis bottom, March 23rd. Why does Wall Street matter? Why is there such a pull, a gravitational force towards Wall Street, the stock market, et cetera, Bill?

Bill Cohan: (11:25)
Well, when I wrote that book and it came out in February of 2017, when the last thing anybody wanted to focus on was why Wall Street mattered. People were so overwhelmed with the fact that our friend Donald Trump had become president. I had really decided I wanted to write that book because in the years leading up to that, there'd been so much Wall Street bashing. And people were using it as a political football without really understanding all the good things that Wall Street does and can do and does every day. So as you know Anthony, people love to bash Wall Street. It's an easy target. And so they love to bash it and use it as a political football. The Elizabeth Warren's of the world, it's like sport for them. Without really and fully recognizing or being forthright about their knowledge about what Wall Street does that keeps our economy going, which of course is provide capital 24 hours a day, seven days a week to companies all around the world that need it and can afford to pay for it.

Bill Cohan: (12:45)
And so whether it's M&A advice, whether it's capital raising, whether it's incredibly important trading and liquidity and in stocks and bonds, what Wall Street does is obviously invaluable. We can't even imagine what our world would it be like, if there were no Wall Street. The things that we completely take for granted. So I was careful to point out the things that Wall Street does wrong and needed to be fixed. None of which of course, have happened. But I also wanted to make sure that people understood what Wall Street did right and does right. And that's why I wrote that book. Of course, nobody cared. But occasionally, people read it. It's a thin book. It's a primer. It's not like my usual doorstop books. So it's a little easier to read and I think makes an important point about Wall Street.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:34)
Well, you say it in the book which I think is important for people on this Zoom call. You talk about it being the central artery system for capitalism. And you talk about the nexus between Wall Street and Main Street. And ultimately just to remind people, if we discover a technology like for hacking, it's controversial from an environmental perspective. But lo and behold, without Wall Street and liquid capital markets sending money to that innovation, you don't create that industry, you don't create those jobs. And so that would be the same thing for Zoom for that matter or Facebook or Google. And so it's a very compelling case for Wall Street. I recommend the book to people and I recommend all your books. Price of Silence by the way, was an unbelievable book about the lacrosse scandal at Duke.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:24)
A little bit off genre for you, but that was a terrific book that people liked reading about factual situation and how it got misinterpreted and politicized. Which is apropos frankly, what's going on today in a lot of ways. It was a precursor Bill. Your book was a precursor for what's going on now in the political world in 2020. But back to Wall Street, US is the financial capital of the world. I think we could both stipulate that. It still seems to be.

Bill Cohan: (14:55)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:55)
How has that benefited the US economy in your words?

Bill Cohan: (15:00)
Well, I think it's benefited those companies that can access the capital markets, Anthony. And unfortunately, that's not most companies. That's not most of the working American population who works for those companies. The biggest, most profitable, international and large domestic companies that can access the capital markets, it's a huge competitive advantage. They get capital and especially nowadays, extremely low cost. They get access to equity debt. They can finance their business, they can build new businesses. They can take risks with that capital. They can hire more people, they can build new plant and equipment. It's why in many ways our economy is the most dynamic, the most innovative economy in the world. Why any number of the largest corporations in the world are in America.

Bill Cohan: (16:06)
Why the world's entrepreneurs beat a path to our doors. Because through thick and through thin when people count out, Wall Street, it's really at the end of the day the Wall Street banks, which are the biggest and most powerful in the world. It's really frankly, a lot of politicians would disagree, but it's really a national treasure. It's an unbelievable machine that has been built here, that is clearly the envy of the world. And it benefits people who can make tremendous in many cases too much wealth, but nevertheless it's a free market system. Most of the time, not always. And you can benefit tremendously by creating a great idea and bring it to this country. Or starting it in this country and getting it financed. Companies that can access the capital markets, which is mom and pops and lots and hundreds of thousands of companies where hundreds of millions of people work. That's tough. That's a lot tougher. And that's why you see so many of these businesses really having a tough time right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:22)
It's an interesting restatement of where things are. And sometimes politicians don't understand your life experience, my life experience on Wall Street. We understand that nexus between Main Street, but some politicians probably make it too much of a scapegoat. Let's talk about judgment which I've had my series of flawed judgments in my life. So let's talk about the 2016 challenge for some of our Wall Street friends. Many of them despite president Trump's personal flaws, held their nose proverbially and voted for him because they thought he was a guardian of the free market system. What do you think happens this time in 2020? Do you think they still see it that way? Or do you think that the president's actions over the last three and a half years have changed that?

Bill Cohan: (18:12)
No. I think the bloom is completely off the rose now. I don't... I'm sure they're out there Anthony, just like there are a lot of people who will probably vote for Trump, don't want to tell anybody they're voting for Trump. So there are probably people like that on Wall Street. But I would say, with the exception of somebody like our favorite Ken Langone, most people on Wall Street have completely lost the thread of Trump and view him as extremely detrimental at this point to... If he were a CEO of a company with a board of directors like most Wall Street guys can relate to, he would have been fired long ago. And so I think Wall Street would absolutely wants to fire this guy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:09)
And by the way, I will point out that the fundraising on Wall Street for Donald Trump way down, and he's been outpaced by Vice President Biden. So what you're saying, if you follow Wall Street and the money action Bill, speaks louder than words. And so there's evidence of that. So do you think Joe Biden is better for the economy? Is that what the Wall Streeters are thinking? Or what do you think's going on there?

Bill Cohan: (19:41)
Yes, I think. But again, everything's relative. If Trump were a different kind of leader and manager and hadn't exploded the national debt and hadn't exploded the annual budget deficits, or hadn't artificially kept interest rates, bullied the Fed into artificially keeping interest rates near zero and making our economy incredibly risky. Yes. They've made a lot of money during this period because of everybody who can refinance and finance and go public. All of that, yes. It's been true. But they've, Trump has introduced just a tremendous amount of risk into our capital markets and our economy, just like he did in his own businesses when he ran casinos and real estate. So I think that they think somebody like Biden, who's basically a centrist who cares about things like budget deficits, and trying to reduce the national debt and actually putting in an infrastructure proposal that will make sense and trying to resolve the COVID epidemic and unemployment, doing all the things that a normal human being who cared about people does.

Bill Cohan: (21:09)
I think that's why they think... And even if they have to pay more in taxes or even if the corporate tax rate goes up, I think the time has come to... Even on Wall Street, they recognize that Trump is completely out of control and anything is going to be better than Trump right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:30)
Well, we're going to open it up to, we've got tons of audience participation, but we're going to open it up in a second. But I want to ask you about your 2008 crisis book House of Cards, which the subtitle was A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall street. And this was about Bear Stearns. So this was, correct me about the chronology of the books. Lazard was first.

Bill Cohan: (21:50)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:50)
Bear Stearns was second. In your trilogy on investment banks, Goldman was third.

Bill Cohan: (21:55)
Correct.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:56)
Okay. So the, and you probably don't remember how we met. But-

Bill Cohan: (22:00)
Oh, I do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:01)
Okay. How did we meet? Do you remember?

Bill Cohan: (22:03)
Well, I do remember because you wrote your book about working at Goldman Sachs.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:09)
Right.

Bill Cohan: (22:10)
And it came out. And I was coming to the end of writing my book about Goldman Sachs. And you told this incredible story in your book that I tell all the time Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:23)
All right.

Bill Cohan: (22:23)
About how at Goldman, it was the Friday before Memorial Day weekend.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:28)
Yup.

Bill Cohan: (22:28)
And all you new associates were gathered together in a conference room at Goldman Sachs, and just told to wait until you got your next orders. And-

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:37)
Nothing.

Bill Cohan: (22:37)
The hours went by, nothing happened. And four of the associates said-

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:44)
Three.

Bill Cohan: (22:44)
The hell with-

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:44)
Three.

Bill Cohan: (22:45)
Three of them said, "The hell with this. I'm out of here. It's the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, I'm not going to the Hamptons." And the rest of you stuck around until 10:00 PM at night. The partner comes in and says, "All right everybody's signed. Here's a yellow piece of paper, sign your name on it and then you can go." And he took it and he saw that the three of them weren't there. And he said that they were fired immediately. And the message was, "This is a client service business. If the client wants you to be around until 10 o'clock on Friday night before Memorial Day weekend, you do it. And if you can't do that, you don't belong here."

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:20)
Yeah.

Bill Cohan: (23:20)
So I read that, I loved that. I wanted to use that, and I called you up and said-

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:25)
Yeah.

Bill Cohan: (23:25)
"Can I do that?"

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:26)
And he, the gentleman that did that, we won't give out his name. Because he sometimes doesn't like that story now. He loved that story 25 years ago, but he's got a little older and a little bit more gentler, but he was the former mayor of Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania, God bless them. And a terrific guy, still going strong. But he taught me a lot of lessons back then. And that was a hard core moment for a lot of people. And that was a hardcore thing to do or a little bit more sensitive in these workplaces today than back then. But that's how we met. That's a good memory. But I was reading your House of Cards book at the time, which I thought was a sensational book.

Bill Cohan: (24:04)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:05)
And I would rank your books I'm not going to do it on a SALT Talk, but I'll tell you about it personally, but that was up there. All your books are great, but I'll just say it. That book and Price of Silence, I thought were sensationally gripping because you really got into the personalities of people and what human nature is like. The other books were very good, but they were a little bit less of that for me. I thought that this book was unbelievable. The story that you told about Jimmy Kane and his urinary tract infection. I'm just going to go right there, was one of the more legendary stories. So what was going on at Bear Stearns in 2008 that led to their demise Bill? Because it's a cautionary tale for young people that are listening in.

Bill Cohan: (24:58)
Well, I think what has happened throughout the history of Wall Street and of course, Bear Stearns got caught up in it as did Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers. And by the way, banks throughout the history of our country. And that is this pension for borrowing short-term money and lending it long-term. Borrowing short and lending long as it's said in the vernacular. And basically what Bear Stearns did, what Merrill did, what Lehman did, what banks through time immemorial do. What banking is all about is that they borrow in the short-term markets, and how does like JP Morgan borrow? They borrow in a lot of ways but basically they've got one and a half trillion dollars worth of customer deposits, which can be taken away any second of any day, right? You just go to your ATM machine, you pull that money out and it's gone. So they pay nothing for that. They get that raw material for free and then they lend it out for five years, seven years, 10 years, 12 years, whatever it is. For loans, they use it to make markets.

Bill Cohan: (26:14)
So Bear Stearns didn't have deposits but it borrowed over time through the course of 2017 after its two hedge funds went barely up. Basically, their capital markets options became greatly diminished and they were forced into the overnight repo market. They were forced into the short-term overnight secured lending market. And they were using as collateral for those overnight loans, the mortgage backed securities that they couldn't sell that were sticking around on their balance sheet. And we're talking billions and billions and billions of dollars that they were using as collateral. And in March of 2008, what happened was those overnight lenders, which were the fidelities of the world, the federated investors in the world, that provide that financing in that market said, "We don't like this collateral anymore. We won't take this anymore for overnight loans." And so basically Bear Stearns literally, could not finance its business. It had something like $18 billion of cash on its balance sheet, but it needed $75 billion a day to run its business.

Bill Cohan: (27:19)
Covering margin loans, whatever it was making loans, making sure everything was running and it just couldn't do that anymore. And so the classic example of borrowing short and lending long and banks do that forever. And as long as there's no run on the bank, it works. Because that's what fractional banking is all about. If there weren't fractional banking, IE meaning that you can only have a small fraction of the deposits. Actually there, you can lend out the rest. If it weren't like that banks couldn't make money, because they make money on the spread among other things. And it's fine as long as there's no run on the bank. In the 20s, 29, 30 31, there was a run on the bank from individual depositors. In 2008, Bear didn't have any individual depositors. They had some hedge fund money that they were custodians for, but basically it was an institutional run on the bank. Anybody who had more than $250,000 at Bear Stearns took their money out or thought about taking their money out because that was not insured.

Bill Cohan: (28:32)
And so they just said, "Forget it. I'm going to take my money out and ask questions later." And in some cases, these hedge fund guys took their money out and then shorted Bear Stearns. So it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, which we've never really gotten to the bottom of. But again this is in time in memoriam, this is why Anthony, banks get into trouble. They borrow short and lend long and Bear Stearns was no different, Lehman was no different, Merrill was no different, even Morgan Stanley and Goldman had this problem, although not to the same extent. And of course. they were bailed out.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:10)
Oh, it's just, it also speaks to the self-confidence that sometimes people have at the top. It's a combination of greed and self-confidence. And then-

Bill Cohan: (29:18)
Hubris.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:19)
Sort of a certainty that they're not, nothing's going to go wrong for them. And of course-

Bill Cohan: (29:22)
Well Bear Stearns, hadn't had a losing quarter in 85 years until the fourth quarter of 2007-

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:31)
Seven.

Bill Cohan: (29:32)
And then boom. March 2008-

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:35)
[crosstalk 00:29:35].

Bill Cohan: (29:35)
They were gone.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:35)
It's a cautionary tale about when there's no doubt there's usually a trap door in the next room Bill. So let's turn it over to the very lovable John Darsie, who's switched up his room a little bit. He's got some audience questions.

John Darsie: (29:51)
Yeah. This is a follow-up to the question about 2008 you were a student of that time period. What about 2020? Do you think, what did we learn from 2008 that we applied before or during this crisis that allowed us to avert maybe a more long-term and painful type of depression and financial meltdown?

Bill Cohan: (30:12)
You mean what right now of we're trying to avert yeah.

John Darsie: (30:15)
Right now. Yeah.

Bill Cohan: (30:16)
It's not clear that we've averted it yet but-

John Darsie: (30:17)
The world economy is obviously under strain. The banking system is under strain, but it seems like we were a little bit more prepared from a bank balance sheet and a household balance sheet perspective coming into this crisis. And perhaps the Fed was a little bit more confident in its actions in helping us recover from the crisis. I just didn't know your observations if you've studied this time period relative to 2008.

Bill Cohan: (30:39)
Yeah. The banks are obviously much better capitalized now coming into this crisis than they were in 2007. They have a lot more tier one capital. They have more capital. Generally, there also have been severe restrictions on the kinds of assets that they can actually keep on their balance sheet whereas in 2007 it was the Wild West. Now banks talk about being in the storage business and in the moving business, banks are basically in the moving business now. Everything that they can get off their balance sheets, they do as quickly as they can to try to, they're in the fee business. And so the banks are much better capitalized, many fewer riskier assets on their balance sheets now. There are still problems. There are huge loan delinquencies. There've been huge billions and billions of loan loss reserves taken in the first half and probably three quarters of this year.

Bill Cohan: (31:46)
There's probably problems in the credit card portfolios for those banks that have them. And I'm sure there's probably problems in the mortgage portfolio, whether it's commercial mortgages or residential mortgages, they're probably a lot of problems hiding out in all of that. But generally speaking, the banks are much better shape. As far as the Fed, the Fed just went bonkers on March 23rd of this year. And then again on April 7th, just transcending anything that they had done in the years after 2008. When they are already breaking every rule that we knew about. And the Fed just has flooded the capital markets with capital they've backed up, they're buying, they've expanded their balance sheet. It was down to like three and a half trillion now it's up to seven trillion. They've just been buying every piece of paper or implying that they're going to buy every piece of paper that's ever been out there that nobody wants.

Bill Cohan: (32:50)
Which of course is once again, inflated bond prices, lowered bond yields, which I think is going to is injected a huge amount of risk into the capital markets just like it did after 2008, which was why the markets imploded in March of this year. There's linkages to all this, but I think the Fed probably says, "Look, we'll deal with that later. Right now, we've got to reopen the capital markets." And they did that in a huge way, and completely unprecedented way. And so as we talked about before with Anthony, those companies that can tap into the capital markets have been able to do that in a big way. It's benefited Wall Street tremendously in terms of fees, but those companies that can't access the capital markets are struggling immensely right now.

John Darsie: (33:44)
So we have a question about deficits and I think it's in response to a recent piece you wrote in Vanity Fair about some members of the Republican party who are more fiscal purists, have sounded the alarm about the current budget deficit for this year and our rising national debt. Why do you think the reaction hasn't been as loud to that rising deficit within the Republican Party and elsewhere, are we all becoming accidental modern monetary theorists? Or why do you think Wall Street isn't more concerned about this unprecedented deficit in 2020 and rising debt in general?

Bill Cohan: (34:20)
Well, I think there's a Maslow's needs hierarchy thing going on here. And so the national debt, which is whatever $26 trillion and rising and the budget deficits which seem like they're hitting around $4 trillion. Those are big issues, but they're sort of big amorphous issues that are probably of tertiary importance now to curbing the pandemic, making sure people are healthy, getting business back to normal, getting unemployment down, getting the recessionary pressures relieved, getting rid of Donald Trump. There are needs that just outpace that. And part of the reason for that is because there's really no consequences at the moment to $26 trillion of debt and $4 trillion deficits. Interest rates are very low, so the cost of servicing that debt is relatively low and investors all over the world, in an environment where there's a lot of negative interest rates around the world, we have positive interest rates on US government securities which are supposedly the most liquid and secure in the world. Although that probably could be changing with this fiscal irresponsibility that we're involved with.

Bill Cohan: (35:46)
But basically speaking, there's been no consequences. And I think there's a view that, as I think Anthony has said, that we're in... This is a war posture. It's really kind of no different than the deficit spending that had to occur during World War II to win a war. We're trying to win a war against this pandemic, against high unemployment, against struggling economy. We're not doing a very good job of it, but we're trying to do it. And so I think people say, "All right. Well, under these unusual circumstances, we will live with these huge budget deficits and a growing national debt." Which I remind people that when Trump was a candidate, he said he would eliminate. And of course, he's added more to it than almost any other president.

John Darsie: (36:32)
So shifting gears back to 2008 for a moment, we have an audience question about why you think there was a dearth of prosecutions, criminal prosecutions following the 2008 collapse? And what type of moral hazard that creates going forward on Wall Street?

Bill Cohan: (36:50)
Yeah. I've written a lot about this. This is extremely a disturbing topic. Part of it is Eric Holder, who was the attorney general. And before he became attorney general, sort of published a paper and a doctrine if you will, that basically urged prosecutors not to prosecute firms for their wrongdoing because of what happened with Arthur Andersen. The accounting firm, which went out of business and lots of people lost their jobs. So I think that the general sentiment with Holder as the attorney general was to try to find other solutions excide from criminal prosecution. And so what there was instead were these huge civil penalties that were agreed to from the Justice Department and these banks for all of their mistakes they made in the mortgage-backed security business, that they were all huge participants in. And I think it was just decided that slapping these firms with, or their shareholders frankly, with these large huge $10, $15 billion fines would preserve, would make the point without costing these firms to potentially... Because a criminal indictment could, like it did with other firms like Drexel and Enron and others, put them out of business.

Bill Cohan: (38:24)
They decided not to go that route. And I think that was number one and number two. When everybody is a part of a system that is creating these mortgage-backed securities and packaging up mortgages and making them into mortgage-backed securities and selling them all around the world in AAA investments. The whole system people are caught up in, it's very hard to blame it on one or two or three individuals. Even though, if they had done any investigation, if Preet Bharara and the Southern District of New York, instead of investigating insider trading at all these hedge funds, which he was rightly very proud of, he didn't spend any of his political capital investigating wrongdoing at the big Wall Street banks related to the mortgage-backed securities.

Bill Cohan: (39:17)
And there's plenty of memoranda. There's plenty of incidents where this could have been proven if people could have been prosecuted. But I think there between what Holder was saying and Preet Bharara not doing it and losing the Bear Stearns hedge fund case in the Eastern District of New York, I just don't think... And the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, I just think there was no appetite. And it's frankly, that is the crime right there, that none of these people were prosecuted.

John Darsie: (39:48)
So we'll leave you with one last question from the audience before we let you go Bill, and it's about SPACs. So you've written recently about the SPAC craze that's taking over Wall Street. For those on the call who are unfamiliar, it's a special-purpose acquisition vehicle or a company that basically provides a company a backdoor into a public listing. We had Chamath Palihapitiya on a previous SALT Talk and he's become one of the poster boys for SPACs. He did Virgin Galactic. He recently did Opendoor. And then when he did Opendoor, he simultaneously filed for I think, four more SPACs. You see other copycats across Wall Street that are doing it. Why have SPACs become so popular? And what do you think it says about the current environment we're in from a financial markets perspective?

Bill Cohan: (40:31)
One of the points that I made in one of in the articles, it's sort of like where old investment bankers go to die now. They go to the SPAC wonderland. They take their skills as M&A guys or capital markets guys. They can't stay at their Wall Street firms anymore because they're whatever, too old or they're retired or whatever. So they convince people to give them hundreds of millions of dollars, for two years to try to find a company to buy. I don't really know what it says about the capital markets. They really, I guess, because certainly until they buy a company these things don't really do anything. So I guess it's, there's some downside protection. If they don't find a company to buy they get their money back, if they do find a company to buy and it's a decent deal like Virgin Galactic and some of these others, the stock runs up and everybody makes money. So I guess it means, it's just sort of another one of those ways that at the beginning anyway, it's now it's like $35 billion has been raised this year in SPACs.

Bill Cohan: (41:50)
At the beginning it looks like a gravy train and everybody's going to make money because nobody's really lost big on these things. It's only in retrospect when these things don't work out, when people merge with a company that does not do well and the stock goes to zero and people lose their money, that we begin to reassess these things. It's just another one of the great ways Wall Street figures out to alleviate investors from their money.

John Darsie: (42:20)
Well Bill, it was great having you on and your articles are always immediately bookmarked when they come out from my perspective. Anthony, do you have any final words for Bill before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:29)
Bill, I don't know if you're allowed to talk about it, but what are you working on now in terms of a book? Anything coming out that we should let everybody know about?

Bill Cohan: (42:37)
Well I've been, Anthony, working my butt off all the time, writing my new book about GE. The Rise and Fall of GE. And how the company that was once the most valuable company in the world, once worth $600 billion in August of 2000 Anthony, is now worth 10% of that today. Apple's net worth, Apple's market cap goes up and down $60 billion in a day. At one point, GE was by far the most valuable company in the world. How did it become that valuable under Jack Welch and how did it all come apart under Jeff Immelt? And so that's what I'm working on. Fortunately, I spent many hours interviewing Jack and others before he died. And so it'll be I think, back to my roots Anthony, of writing about big financial companies. And it's really the story of America in the 20th and early 21st century.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:44)
Somehow is hubris going to get into the subtitle there, Bill? Somehow, right?

Bill Cohan: (43:50)
From your lips to God's ears, Anthony. We'll make it happen.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:53)
All right. Well, listen, as always fantastic discussion available on Vanity Fair. You're writing for Bloomberg Businessweek. We saw you in Barron's over the weekend. And thank you so much for keeping it real, Bill.

Bill Cohan: (44:08)
Thank you, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:09)
Thanks again, Bill.

Voice of Cannabis Series - Episode 2 | SALT Talks #58

Episode 2

Jason Wilson is Principal at Fourth Wall Advisory, a strategic marketing advisory firm, and a Cannabis Banking Expert. He led the first installment of the Voice of Cannabis Series, presented in partnership with ETFMG | MJ and Fourth Wall Advisory.

Joining Jason is David Culver, Vice President of US Government and Stakeholder Relations for Canopy Growth Corporation, Patrick Martin, Principal & Director of Midwest Public Strategies for Cozen O’Connor and Erik Huey, President of Platinum Advisors.

Episode 2 includes an overview on the the MORE Act, social justice reform and the possible results of the 2020 Presidential Election.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Patrick Martin.jpeg

Patrick Martin

Principal & Director, Midwest Public Strategies

Cozen O’Connor

Erik Huey.jpeg

Erik Huey

President

Platinum Advisors

David Culver.jpeg

David Culver

Vice President, US Government & Stakeholder Relations

Canopy Growth Corporation

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:11)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. Again, I'm excited to be back in SALT HQ today in Manhattan as we start to get back to normal a little bit. It's great to be here with the SALT logo behind me in our little SALT conference room, so I hope everyone out there is safe and healthy as well.

John Darsie: (00:37)
SALT Talks are a digital interview series we've been doing during this work from home period with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. What we're really trying to do during the SALT Talks series is replicate the experience that we provide at our SALT Conference series, which is to provide a platform for what we think are big important trends and ideas that are shaping the future, as well to provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts.

John Darsie: (01:01)
We're very excited today to welcome our audience to the second episode of the Voice of Cannabis series, where we bring together leaders and innovators from the front lines of the fast-growing cannabis industry to talk about cannabis politics, cannabis regulation, and the business of cannabis. Today's episode is titled Congress and Cannabis, and it's in partnership with Fourth Wall Advisory, a strategic marketing advisory firm focused on the cannabis industry, as well as Canopy Growth Corporation, a leading international cannabis company.

John Darsie: (01:31)
Hosting today's talk is Jason Wilson, who's a Principal at Fourth Wall, as well as being a cannabis banking expert. With more than 15 years of experience in the asset management, finance, and structured products base, Jason has a track record of bringing hard to access asset classes to market. He's been working in connection with the legal cannabis industry for the past decade and continues to be one of the leading experts in the space.

John Darsie: (01:55)
If you have any questions during today's talk, just a reminder, you can post them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jason to host today's interview.

Jason Wilson: (02:06)
Thanks, John. Pleasure to be on with you guys again and glad you're back in the office and hopefully have some semblance of normality down there. Today's episode is in many ways a continuation of the topics and issues we discussed on our Essential Cannabis Panel we did back in June. Hard to believe that's almost three months ago. A lot's happened since then. But given the similarity of topics, we've actually decided to bring back the same expert panelists with us today.

Jason Wilson: (02:32)
So joining us is David Culver, who is Vice President of US Government and Stakeholder Relations at Canopy Growth Corp. We also have Patrick Martin, Principal of Cozen O'Connor, back with us. And, as well, Eric Huey who's the President of Platinum Advisors, is joining us. So thank you all, gentlemen, in advance for joining us today. Great to have you back.

Jason Wilson: (02:56)
David, why don't we kick things off with you? Looking at the landscape, a lot has happened in the last three months, but particularly with, I guess, the MORE Act? What is happening there? I understand we have another vote coming up. What's happening with co-sponsorships? What kind of momentum have you seen happening with respect to the MORE Act?

David Culver: (03:15)
Yeah, thanks, Jason. First of all, thanks to the folks at SALT for hosting this again. It's great to be back with all of you. And, Jason, thanks to you for moderating today. Good to see you, Mr. Martin and Mr. Huey. I know we get to see each other on a fairly regular basis, but nice to be on the panel with you both as well.

David Culver: (03:35)
Jason, the MORE Act is indeed the question of the day. I'm here in Washington, D.C., and it's what the media is completely focused on in the cannabis space and probably will be for the next week plus. But let me back up just a little bit. It's been three months since we've spoken to you and to the audience, and probably the most important thing to make note of is that the MORE Act now has 111 co-sponsors as of this morning. This is over 30 more than where we were three months ago. So all of the cannabis advocacy groups that have been up on the Hill talking to members about this have done a really good job in terms of building that co-sponsor number.

David Culver: (04:15)
The other thing that's happened is that you saw in late August notification from House leaderships, two notifications, actually, one stating that the MORE Act was going to come to the floor in September, and then that notification was immediately followed by another one that said that it was going to come to the floor on the week of September 21st, which is next week, which is why this is such a timely question that you're asking.

David Culver: (04:42)
Now, having said all of that, there have been some rumblings, and this is me speculating, I don't have anything concrete, but there have been rumblings both inside the media and from my contacts on Capitol Hill regarding some levels of discomfort inside the Democratic Caucus about bringing this bill to the floor for a vote prior to the election. There's a number of groups out there that we've heard could be concerned. The most prominent, of course, is the front-line members, and these are members of the House of Representatives that are the targeted races for this 2020 election cycle. I think that those members are already going to have a difficult race and are concerned about the electability of cannabis. I, of course, don't agree with that particular assessment at all. I've talked many, many times openly about how important I see cannabis as an election issue for anybody that wants to run on it. But, that aside, there is some levels of discomfort.

David Culver: (05:41)
We've also got some more conservative members, like the Blue Dogs, and also some freshman members that we've heard may be having some concern as well, primarily because they've just never dealt with cannabis as an issue before. So I understand all that. There also was a comment yesterday that Representative Hoyer made to the Washington Post that was tweeted out. He's the number two in leadership in the House of Representatives, and, basically, he said that the House needs to stay focused on the continuing resolution and also on COVID relief and maybe not so much on cannabis. But they backtracked that a bit this morning, and their office made the statement very clear that this bill is still on the schedule for next week. So we are still very hopeful, as all of our advocacy friends are, that we do see this voted on next week.

David Culver: (06:32)
I wanted to touch just very quickly, if I could on two more quick things related to this bill. One is that we spent a lot of time last time talking about the regulations within the MORE Act and just general ideas around federal regulations in cannabis. The MORE Act has a structure in its original form that would basically yield to the tobacco model, which tobacco and cannabis are very, very different products and cannabis is going to need its own regulatory structure. And since we last spoke, there has been a great deal of appetite on the Hill with the Committees of Jurisdiction to talk about that regulatory structure. I don't know what we're going to see in the MORE Act if it comes to the floor next week in terms of some new regulatory structure, but those conversations have begun. If the bill is to stall this Congress and we have to address it next year, we're going to spend a lot of time talking to the House and Senate leaders about this.

David Culver: (07:23)
And then the final thing I'll say is that because we are so close to this bill potentially coming to the floor, if you are interested in cannabis and you are at home, please pick up the phone and call your member of Congress. Let them know that this is a bill that's important to you, you want to see Congress vote on it, and you want to see it passed. Your voice is much more important than mine as a constituent, and I encourage everybody that's watching to go ahead and do that.

Jason Wilson: (07:51)
It's not surprising at all, I guess, given what's at stake. We have competing viewpoints, competing interests, and it's not going to be an easy road to legalization, no question. But, Patrick, turn to you for a little bit. What's your perspective on how recent events will affect the chance of success for the MORE Act passing and getting through, specifically with respect to COVID-19 and what that could mean?

Patrick Martin: (08:18)
Sure, absolutely, and thank you so much to SALT for having us back to talk about this very exciting topic. I think David hit the nail right on the head when he said that there is just some concern within the Democratic Caucus, not so much around the substance of the legislation but around the timing of it. Leadership is hearing from front-line members who are running in moderate to conservative districts that they're worried about the perception that if Congress and the White House don't reach a larger agreement on a COVID-19 relief bill that the House Democrats will look distracted and off-base passing a cannabis legalization bill without addressing what they consider to be the larger concerns first.

Patrick Martin: (09:01)
What David and Eric and others and I who work on this every day have been saying is that just isn't true at all. When you look at states and localities that are suffering because of COVID-19 and are desperately looking to Washington for economic relief, a cannabis legalization bill provides a tool to get economic dollars to the states. Look at the tremendous success that states that have legalized cannabis are having just from a pure economic standpoint. The numbers in my home state, in Illinois, in medical, have been staggering, particularly throughout COVID-19. Everything that the national conversation has centered around with race and policing reform and inequality, this bill addresses that, too, in a very serious way.

Patrick Martin: (09:48)
So I would say to anyone on Capitol Hill, any member of Congress, anyone who doesn't think that the timing is right for this bill, the timing is exactly right for this bill. This is us meeting the moment and addressing a true injustice and, quite frankly, taking a bold and important stand on behalf of this industry and on behalf of consumers who want to see this pass.

Jason Wilson: (10:13)
So it may be a great time to actually have the political will to be able to get this, through.

Patrick Martin: (10:18)
Absolutely. And I would add, to answer your question as well ... The thing I would add is that this legislation will provide a tremendous amount of energy to core Democratic voters that we need to come out in November. So to those members who are nervous about this not being a net positive, I've never seen a poll in the history of cannabis that doesn't show that it isn't popular. And it's incredibly popular among young people and people of color, two voting blocks the Democrats aren't going to win anything in November if we are not motivated and excited in those communities to go out and vote.

Jason Wilson: (10:51)
Eric, touching on voters quickly, what are we seeing demographically? We know millennials are big supporters, for sure, but what are we seeing across other demographics?

Eric Huey: (11:02)
What's amazing about this issue is it transcends party. It has almost as much support on the Republican side as the Democrat side, not quite as much but almost as much, across socioeconomic lines, across agenda lines, and across age lines. You've seen 66% of Americans think that recreational cannabis should be legal right now across America, and when you break that down by various strata and you look at the cohort of 65 and older, these folks have doubled their amount of cannabis intake and purchasing in the last five years. So people over 65 have purchased twice the amount of cannabis in the last five years as they had prior to that because nobody remembers, or people should remember, that this is the Woodstock generation. These are people who grew up, who came of age, with cannabis when it was illegal, and now that it's legal again, they're rediscovering it, and they may be rediscovering it in flower form, but they also may be rediscovering it through beverages or sublinguals or edibles or a whole range of different intake methods.

Eric Huey: (12:17)
So this is something that transcends all age groups, and people up and down the socioeconomic scale. I think policymakers would be remiss if they don't catch onto this. America's already there, right? This train has left the station. We are past the tipping point. The only people who aren't there are a lot of state and federal policymakers who still, for some reason, can't quite get behind cannabis. But this is something that it's to their political disadvantage if they don't do it, particularly as you look at some of the key battleground states. You look at Ohio, 62%. Arizona, 62%. Even some states like Missouri, it's 52%. So these are places you wouldn't ordinarily expect, but America's there, so it's time for the policymakers to meet the people where they are.

Jason Wilson: (13:17)
America's there, apparently. That's an incredible statistic you have with respect to those 65 years old and older. I guess that explains-

Patrick Martin: (13:25)
Jason, can I-

Jason Wilson: (13:25)
... Martha Stewart coming out with Canopy.

Patrick Martin: (13:27)
Jason, I want to add something [inaudible 00:13:29] said because I think it's an incredibly important point. The conversation around is it a political disadvantage to do this before the election, I think punting on it could be a real political disadvantage, and Eric, for the reasons he just laid out, is exactly right. If you show the voters that we need to come out, that this isn't a priority or that we think it's too politically difficult, that really could hurt us, and I think that needs to get talked about just as much as what certain front-line members are saying about their fears about it.

Jason Wilson: (13:59)
Well, and the other thing, obviously, we're hearing loud and clear is social justice reform, right? So that's curious that you had another opportunity. And, again, I guess to your point, the MORE Act presents a great way to address some of those injustices. So, again, passing on it would seem to be a massive disservice. What's happening on the Hill with respect to social justice reforms? Is Congress actually doing enough? Can you get us up to speed a bit?

Patrick Martin: (14:30)
Sure. It was a busy summer in terms of the legislative process looking at some of these issues. The House of Representatives passed a policing reform bill that was written by the Congressional Black Caucus. It got some Republican votes as well. The Senate had their own process in coordination with the White House that was not able to produce a bill that passed. But the conversation has continued to be top of mind for lawmakers and the general public. We see news stories every week about policing issues that are causing great anxiety in communities all across this country, and I think there's a recognition, both on this issue of cannabis and legalization and on policing reform, that Congress needs to act and needs to do something to address the injustices that we all see. Unfortunately, just like we're seeing with the COVID relief bill, the politicians are not able to get on the same page and do this. It's unfortunate because it needs to happen now.

Eric Huey: (15:28)
And, Jason-

Jason Wilson: (15:28)
Eric, yeah, you had a lot to say on the matter before. What's your view?

Eric Huey: (15:32)
Building on Patrick's point, this is a critical issue in communities of color, right, where Black men are arrested at four times the rate of white men, despite only being 12% of the population. So if probable cause is the color of your skin and if the allegation of a police officer smelling marijuana is the pretense for that interaction with the police, if we could decriminalize that, we are going to stop disinvesting in an entire strata of people. We spend 3.5 billion dollars annually on marijuana enforcement. We arrest 600,000 people a year, disproportionately Black and brown, in this country in cannabis. Can you think of a bigger waste of resources than that? We've got real issues that we need to be tackling, and taking key members of our society out of public circulation over something that is legal in 33 states for medical and 11 states plus the District of Columbia for recreational, it's almost unthinkable. But it's morally unjustified, it's morally wrong, and I would posit that for politicians looking at this, there is a moral imperative for them to act.

Jason Wilson: (17:06)
David, from a business perspective, an industry perspective, how is the industry responding? You guys are a leader in the space. What are you seeing in this arena? How's the social justice reform enacting any kind of change?

David Culver: (17:19)
Yeah, well, first of all, I think that the comments that Eric and Patrick both made on this are so critically important. It's really easy for me, from a corporate perspective, to talk about what this could mean in terms of jobs, post-pandemic most likely, but post-pandemic and post-legalization, what those nationwide job numbers could look like, how this could help fill budget deficits in state capitols all across the country because we all know that they're growing exponentially, and just be a general new engine as we begin to restart this economy as we come out of the pandemic. But the harder thing for me to talk about is social justice. The harder thing for my company to talk about is social justice. But it's something that we do talk about every day. These two gentlemen that are with me, we are up on the Hill and in state capitols talking about this because you cannot have legalization without tackling that social justice piece of the puzzle. And the MORE Act does a very good job of that.

David Culver: (18:20)
Let me just share a personal story with you. I've got a little video series that I do every two weeks that's called Under the Canopy, and we primarily focus on Capitol Hill and on state regulators. And I'll give you a sneak peek into who's coming up next week. It's a woman that I spoke to that she was imprisoned for a nonviolent cannabis offense about four years after she graduated from college. She had a minor role in a distribution operation, again, no criminal record, and she was sentenced to 87 months in prison. Let me just pause for a minute, and you soak that in. 87 months, no criminal record, nonviolent cannabis offense. It's just alarming for me to listen to it. She had good behavior, she served five years of the sentence and was released. She had all sorts of issues related to reentry both personally and professionally. She is a person that experienced firsthand why the war on drugs does not work.

David Culver: (19:27)
And this type of story has got to end. We can't have this again, can't have these any more. I think that that's part of the reason why the MORE Act is so important, and I want her message, when we put it out there next week, to be the thing that the legislators hear first and foremost. Because it's easy, again, to talk about the jobs and the economic benefit, that's a no-brainer, but this part is hard. That's really what elected officials need to hear, and they need to have the courage to move this type of legislation to deal with this problem, and it's not easy, but it's what they need to do.

Eric Huey: (20:03)
And, Jason, every 30 seconds in America, somebody is arrested for a cannabis offense. We've been talking for about 20 minutes, so that means since we've started, 40 people across our country have been arrested for cannabis. And those people, they're going to have records that are not going to be expunged unless things like the MORE Act passes. So, again, this is a moral imperative.

Patrick Martin: (20:23)
And to put a finer point on what Eric just said, to address the issue we talked about on the last series we did, the people that Eric just referenced don't look like Eric and David and I. We don't know what that's like to be a person of color and to know that you're going to get unfairly targeted. Growing up in the Chicago suburbs, I have a lot of friends who would have broken taillights and cannabis in their car, and none of them ever got pulled over. This is unfairly policed, and we cannot have a conversation about criminal justice reform and policing reform in this country without addressing the issue of cannabis.

Jason Wilson: (20:59)
No, it's a continuation of massive repression. You mentioned 40 people since we've been speaking. That's 40 people times five, eight, 10 years. I mean, it's complete destruction of not just an individual's life but their family, sons, daughters, parents. It's unfathomable, actually. How can this not be a major part of the federal election? Looking at the Democratic Republicans, what are they saying? How big is this going to be with respect to the presidential race?

Patrick Martin: (21:35)
Well, I think the key thing to note about this particular presidential election, and we talked about it a little on our last series, you have two nominees for the major parties who are white 70-something [inaudible 00:21:49] who came of age at a time when this was viewed a lot differently. So you have to contend with that at the presidential level for how much coverage this issue is going to get among the two major candidates. But with the momentum of something like the MORE Act passing in the House of Representatives, with Vice President Biden's selection of Kamala Harris as his running mate, who has been a leader on this issue in Congress, and with the general public in the states that this has passed through ballot initiatives, state legislatures continuing to say, "We want to see change," this is truly going to be a grassroots movement issue, and the people are going to force the politicians to pay attention to this.

Patrick Martin: (22:32)
So I think it will continue to be an issue. You saw it in the primaries. This became a major issue for the Vice President because his position at the time was just not consistent with the other candidates, and I think that if he's fortunate enough to win in November, you're going to see that play out as he begins to govern.

Jason Wilson: (22:50)
So much momentum, so much at stake. David, does it really matter who's president? Is it really more about the Senate? Is that the roadblock here? There's all those magnanimous ... Whoever is in power are going to say, if it makes it all the way through to the president, are they just going to go, "Yes," or what's happening there?

David Culver: (23:09)
Well, I think that the momentum in the cannabis space is going to continue next year no matter who is president of the United States. My eyes are primarily on the US Senate, and you asked in your question there about if the Senate flips. I think that the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer from New York, has made it very clear that cannabis is going to be a priority for him, and if he's the leader next year and Nancy Pelosi stays speaker of the House, which all indicators point to the fact that she will, then I do think we're going to see some sort of full legalization package come out in the first six months and sent to the president's desk. I don't think it's unrealistic to say that at all.

David Culver: (23:55)
This is assuming, of course, that things stall this year. So action in the Senate related to the MORE Act, if it is to pass in September, is still unknown, and I'm not sure what kind of appetite they'll have. But I do think that if the political winds keep blowing as they are now and the Senate does flip, then we'll see something in the first six months. The big unknown, of course, is if it does arrive on Biden's desk or Trump's desk, do either one of them sign it? And to Patrick's point earlier, Biden's going to already have to start to think about his left flank when he gets on day one of being elected, both for the 2022 election and for his own reelect if he chooses to go that route. So he's going to need to protect himself from that left flank, and there's no better way to do it than with cannabis. We've already seen it, as referenced earlier in this chat, during the primaries because countless members were primaried from the left, and so many of them led with the cannabis issue.

David Culver: (24:53)
But we don't know exactly. My gut says that either one of these men that are president would go ahead and just stand out of the way and let it happen, if Congress chooses to act. Also, I should point out that at this point, in January of next year, let's say it takes Congress three or four months to act. We could legitimately be coming out of the pandemic, and either man would be looking for jobs and for tax revenue for state capitols, so cannabis is going to be a brand new industry and will generate a lot of both. So those are really the main things that are on my mind related to the Senate. Good question.

Jason Wilson: (25:31)
So regardless of the outcome and when it happens, obviously, it doesn't stop momentum at the state level, and notwithstanding what happens at the federal level, presumably it'd still be up to the states to legalize or not. Eric, what's happening on the ballot with respect to the state level?

Eric Huey: (25:47)
Well, you've got ballot initiatives in five states, and what's interesting is four of them are red and rural states. You've got Arizona, South Dakota, Montana, and Mississippi that all have ballot initiatives, and they're joined by New Jersey. Mississippi would legalize medical cannabis use. Montana, Arizona, and New Jersey already have legalized medical, and they would transition or add recreational use. And South Dakota would do them both at the same time. Particularly over the last 10 years in an era that is often marked by congressional intransigence if not inaction and gridlock, the states put themselves at the forefront, and you saw California lead on this issue very, very early and other states begin to follow. You also saw that on the gay marriage issue. As we said, 33 states have already enacted medical marijuana as legal, and 11 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis.

Eric Huey: (26:55)
So when you look at the degree to which this has turned, you have to look no farther than Montana. Montana is hardly known as a blue coastal state. Nevertheless, four years ago, 60% of Montanans opposed legalizing cannabis in any form. Now, 54% of Montanans agree with the proposition that it should be available for recreational use in their state. That's in the span of four years. You've heard me joke, Jason, that Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot. This does cross party lines, and it crosses geographic lines as well. So I think in at least three of those states, Montana, Arizona, and New Jersey, the numbers are in the 50s and 60s, it's going to pass, right? Measure 65 in Mississippi, it's unclear. It's still Mississippi. And then ballot measure 26 and Amendment A in South Dakota, which are the medical and the recreational ballot measures, those are likely to pass in South Dakota. Then you're at a point where the overwhelming majority of the American people live in states where this is legal and the overwhelming majority of states have now legalized. So then, again, what is the federal government waiting for?

David Culver: (28:22)
Yeah. Jason, if I can add to that, just to reiterate the point that we've made previously. Eric just rattled off three red states, very red states, and the whole idea here is that if we can get states that are red to legalize, whether medical or recreationally, then it puts a lot of pressure on their federally-elected officials to follow suit. And you need to look no further than Senator Cory Gardner from Colorado, who has become a champion in the cannabis space but wasn't at the beginning of the process. So as more and more states tackle this, more and more red states, it's going to be more and more of a bipartisan issue and give those legislators more freedom to vote in favor of cannabis because their constituencies already want it.

Eric Huey: (29:07)
Yeah. And I would add, to build on David's point earlier about this being a win for the state coffers, these coffers have been decimated for tax revenues by the Coronavirus. When you look at the numbers involved, the projections for New Jersey alone are close to a billion dollars in sales by 2024, 800 million dollars in Arizona, even in South Dakota, you're looking at 200 million dollars. So the numbers are there, and in addition to tax revenues based off those sales, you're also, as David said, you're creating an industry and you're creating jobs. So there's a fiscal component to it, but there's also an investment component to this. And these jobs are not just going to take place in the large cities of the states, it's going to be throughout these smaller towns.

Patrick Martin: (29:57)
Yeah, look at what David's company accomplished in Smiths Falls, Ontario, which could be so similar to many industrialized cities in the US and the economic ecosystem that they've built. In the wake of COVID-19 and the continued changes that our economy has gone through from manufacturing to consumer and to technology, there is a crying out for some type of investment. This is going to be a real opportunity for them, and I think everyone is going to be open to ideas because we're at a time of tremendous economic change and recovery.

Jason Wilson: (30:31)
You hit it right on the head. Not just Smiths Falls in Ontario, what Canopy's done in upstate New York as well, honestly, very well.

Patrick Martin: (30:38)
Yeah.

Jason Wilson: (30:39)
One more question for you guys and we'll pass it over to John for Q&A. And it kind of touches on what we had with episode one, just shortly. The legislation that actually comes through, how it's shaped, what are we seeing for industry ... Call it industry unity, if you will. How are we making sure that whatever is passed as law is effective? Obviously, if you look at hemp in the Farm Bill, there's a lot of confusion there with respect to USDA, FDA, DA, what have you. What are we learning from that in the industry to prevent the same issues with respect to marijuana legalization?

David Culver: (31:27)
Yeah, Jason, that's a good question to conclude on. It's something that I harp on all day, every day, so I appreciate the question. I think that, first of all, we've seen a lot of really good collaboration within the industry and the advocacies related to the MORE Act. The addition of the 30-plus co-sponsors in the last three months was a big lift. I didn't know that we were going to be able to get over 100, and we're at 111, and I bet we get a bunch more before, hopefully, the vote next week. So that took a lot of unity to do that. But we still have multiple voices that are here in D.C. and also in state capitols. It would be better if we had a singular voice for the industry so that we can advocate with one voice related to the regulatory structure, all the pieces of that.

David Culver: (32:19)
There's so many parallels, but I see this as almost like the highway before they wrote the Highway Bill. You had the two trucking associations that were competing, and they came together as one, and they decided to merge because they knew they needed one singular voice to be effective. We could be in the position next year that the full legalization package goes through, if the political wins are right and you have the right leadership there. If that's the case, the industry must have a singular voice in order for us to get this right. Because if we don't get the regulatory structure right, if we don't get the social justice right, if we don't get the tax rate right, there's all sorts of things we're going to spend the next umpteen decades cleaning up the mess. So it's something I'm working on right now and I will continue to work on in preparation for next year.

Eric Huey: (33:11)
That's a critical question, and David's leadership on this at Canopy and Canopy's leadership has been incredible. The level of sophistication that they have brought to this entire industry has lifted the entire industry. But what we're seeing across the industry is a growing level of involvement and integration into the political process at the state and federal level. I think, five years ago, if you asked most policymakers what the cannabis industry looked like, they would say it looks like the parking lot at a Phish concern. Now, when they see it's more suits than ponytails, they say, "Wait a second, this is going to be a 56 billion dollar industry, it now employs a quarter million people, four times as many people as the coal industry? Wow, how do I get this in our state?" So there is a transformation both within the industry but also how the industry is perceived on Capitol Hill.

Jason Wilson: (34:02)
Excellent. Gentlemen, thank you a ton for your time, your views, your perspectives. As always, great to have you on. Just want to thank you before we go over to Q&A because we probably won't get a chance to sign off. But, John, I'll turn it over to you, answer any questions.

John Darsie: (34:18)
All right. So we have some great audience engagement so far. Reminder to anybody watching, if you have additional questions, you can post them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen within the Zoom window. Our first question is obviously from an enthusiastic supporter of cannabis legalization. They say the polling, the success you've seen in certain states, as well as citizen demand seems to be off the charts and it feels like the dam, from a public opinion perspective, is either getting ready to break or has already broken. How, as an individual in the country, can somebody become an activist and push for the type of change that they'd like to see within cannabis regulation? Are there specific steps that someone can take to push their local legislators or become part of this movement?

Patrick Martin: (35:02)
Absolutely. And that's a fantastic question and love the enthusiasm behind it. As advocates every day, David and Eric and I love to remind folks in what we do every day that we're exercising our First Amendment right. My wife was a high school government teacher for a long time, and we always talk about how high school students know many parts of the First Amendment, particularly the right to free speech. But at the very end of that amendment is the right to petition your government, and it is a constitutional obligation that all of us have. Some of us do it for a living. But as a citizen who is passionate about an issue, considering it not only your responsibility and your obligation, I think, is the first step.

Patrick Martin: (35:46)
So get involved with advocacy organizations that are promoting cannabis in your state and at the federal level. Write letters to your elected representatives. Make phone calls on behalf of politicians who are leading on this issue. And find as many possible ways, both in your public and private life, to get involved on behalf of the things you care about because it makes a huge difference. Eric brought up gay marriage earlier as just a nice example of an issue that sped up so quickly in terms of how the public viewed it and how policymakers viewed it, and that was years and years of work that ultimately came from ordinary citizens advocating on its behalf. That's what we're seeing in the cannabis industry. All of us are working very hard to do things like make sure that the MORE Act gets considered in Congress, but we would not be here if it weren't for the millions of Americans who have invested their time and energy into making this an important part of their lives.

David Culver: (36:44)
Go to house.gov, tell your congressman that you want he or she to co-sponsor the MORE Act, you want to see the House vote on it, you want to see the body pass this important bit of legislation. I agree with everything Patrick said, but in terms of this week and next, go to your website, go to house.gov, figure out who your member is if you don't know, contact them directly, and tell them this is important to you because your voice will resonate very loudly with them and their staff.

John Darsie: (37:13)
Eric, you have anything to add, or should we move onto the next question?

Eric Huey: (37:16)
Don't agonize, organize.

John Darsie: (37:18)
There you go. So we have a question from an audience member who seems to be a little bit less familiar with the space, and they're asking what percentage of the states that currently have legalized cannabis ... What is the breakdown of red versus blue states? And you alluded to this earlier, David, but do you think the shortfalls that we're seeing in state budgets is going to be the tipping point where we see a lot more Republican leadership in Congress and at the state level start supporting cannabis legalization frameworks?

David Culver: (37:48)
Yeah, I'll start with that question, and I can punt the rest of it back to Eric. I think he probably has the red to blue split better than I do. But the bottom line is that every single state, doesn't matter whether they're red, blue, or purple, is facing right now massive budget deficits because of the pandemic, and they're going to continue to grow, and they're going to have to do something about it. Just yesterday, actually, I was watching on CNN the governor from New Mexico talking about how cannabis could plug a massive hole in her state's budget deficit. So they're going to be looking under every single rock for money to fill that hole without raising taxes on those that are still suffering and struggling as a result of this pandemic, and I really think that it's something that every single governor is going to be looking at, and it doesn't matter what their politics are. Eric, you-

John Darsie: (38:39)
Governor Lujan Grisham, who you mentioned, from New Mexico, she's a close advisor of President Biden or Prospective President Biden, Vice President Biden, I should say. I don't want to get ahead of myself.

David Culver: (38:50)
Yeah, yeah.

John Darsie: (38:51)
She has his ear as well, so that could be another bullish data point for cannabis regulation.

David Culver: (38:56)
Yeah, for sure. I mean, listen, we'll let Eric comment on the red to blue split, but that's an important point because there are lots and lots of people that are around Vice President Biden right now that have been publicly supportive of full legislation and the social justice associated with it. And, again, Patrick made the parallels to marriage equality from 2008. They really do resonate again right now. And with that many people around him and so many in the party that are comfortable with cannabis as an issue, I don't see how the party doesn't embrace it further as time goes on. But, Eric, let me yield to you on the question on the red and the blue.

Eric Huey: (39:39)
Yeah. In New Mexico, the governor of New Mexico said the biggest mistake of her governorship so far is not legalizing cannabis last year so they could've gotten ahead of this Coronavirus epidemic, and just from a sheer revenue standpoint. In terms of where cannabis is legal for recreational use, it skews blue states. It's the northeast, it's the west, it's Michigan, it's Illinois, Colorado, and Washington, D.C. But when you look for medical use, it's very red state intensive. When you think about the opioid epidemic and the impact that that has had on my home state of West Virginia and other states like it, this is a way for people to deal with pain management and PTSD and a whole range of medical conditions without resorting to opioids.

Eric Huey: (40:38)
I think in those red states where we have seen movement by policymakers, that's come from a recognition that there's a medical component to this that's very real, that's been researched, and that's critical to their constituents. And, also, frankly, from a revenue and jobs perspective, they see this as a revenue, so the morality begins to fall away. And in my observation of the recent history of the Republican party, where money meets morality, money always wins. So I suspect that more red states will continue in the direction, the inexorable march of cannabis legalization.

Patrick Martin: (41:18)
And I would add where states implement medical programs, that ultimately leads to a conversation around adult use. The blue states that Eric named that have adult use programs, all of them have medical programs. This is just sort of human nature. Once people start to see something, they know a veteran in their community who uses the medical program, they know that it's helping a senior in their family deal with managing chronic pain, and they become more comfortable with it, a conversation around adult use doesn't seem as scary anymore. That's why we're so excited to see all of these red states consider medical programs because we know that that forward progress on cannabis, whether it's a medical program or adult use, is all positive movement forward for the movement.

John Darsie: (42:08)
I'll insert a personal anecdote into this. So my wife's family, let's just say they're not exactly Bernie Sanders supporters. There's a member of her family that has cerebral palsy, and they were very hesitant to start using cannabis-based products to start treating some of the brain hyperactivity and other issues that he had. But once they started doing it and they listened to a couple doctors that prescribed some cannabis-oriented products, it's done wonders for his quality of life, and they are full believers in cannabis-oriented products for medical use. It's been a fantastic benefit to him and their family.

David Culver: (42:44)
Yeah. I appreciate you sharing that story because I think it's such an important one. As we begin to normalize this product across the country, this is not a partisan issue. Forget about what your politics are. If it's helping people physically with an ailment that they have, then it's something that it doesn't matter what your politics are, whether you vote for Biden or whether you want to vote for Trump. So I think that one of the most important things that Congress can also do, and they took the first step earlier this month by passing a research bill that was slightly amended that would allow for states that have legalized to let researchers use that plant material versus just the material coming out of Mississippi, which is problematic in a number of ways, as you've read about in the newspapers for many, many years. So we're excited about that, and we hope Congress gets that through. That then opens the door even further for more and more research into areas that can help people all across the country.

John Darsie: (43:47)
So I'm going to ask you guys a tough question here. We have a cannabis skeptic on the call who's asking whether there have been studies and what current studies show in terms of health problems that could grow out of recreational cannabis use and possible declines in productivity. What's the latest data, and what are the costs of more widespread cannabis use, and would legalization even lead to more widespread recreational use, for example?

Patrick Martin: (44:13)
Yeah, I think all of us recognize the importance of making sure that health and wellbeing is a central part of the discussion with legalization. You've heard the Vice President continue saying his position. He wants it to be studied more, and David talked about Congress acting on the research bill. I think all of us are of the belief that legalizing and regulating a product that we already know Americans are using is the most important thing we can do to ensure the consumers are abiding by the rules that will make sure that health is a part of the consideration. You don't want a world in which people are just using products and they aren't regulated in the way that they should be.

Patrick Martin: (44:58)
So what David in particular at Canopy spends so much time doing is working with policymakers to say, "We want to do this in the right way, in a safe way." We're learning more every day about the product and the benefits that it has, but you can't do that when it's not legal. So I think that's a really important part to all of us. And it's a great question.

David Culver: (45:22)
John, I can just add to that, too, that there are a number of products, and I'll pick on our beverages, that are coming to market that these have no impact on the liver whatsoever, they have no hangover, they have no calories. So there's a lot of innovation that's coming onto the market that is very much in contrast to beverage alcohol and tobacco, just to add that quick point to what Patrick said earlier.

Eric Huey: (45:50)
There's an aggressive testing regime in all the states where cannabis is legal, and the only food entity or anything else that hits these standards is baby food, right? So this is rigorously tested across seven or eight different data points, from microbials to fungus to pesticides, and they have very, very rigorous standards, standards that are so tough, sometimes, the reason that a product like a beverage may fail is because of the other ingredients, the chocolate or the barley in the foodstuff itself. So this is an industry that's highly, highly regulated, and the states have gotten this right. Any fears of any adverse health effects are not borne out by any studies or the regulatory regime.

Patrick Martin: (46:44)
That's such an important point. All of the companies we work with recognize the need for a federal regulatory structure for it to be safe, for the products to be safe, for them not to get into the hands of kids. But we have products, food, beverages, things that are legal in this country, that provide absolutely no benefit other than enjoyment. Cannabis has real benefits for patients and for users. That is what makes it so different than a lot of the other products that it gets lumped in with, is the way that it helps some of the people that I named, seniors that are managing pain, veterans who are dealing with anxiety. John, the story you told about the person in your family with cerebral palsy, I can't think of a lot of other products that we're talking about in the regulatory space that help people in that way.

John Darsie: (47:31)
All right, well, we'll leave it there. It's a fascinating conversation. We look forward to continuing this series and hopefully continuing on the road to, as I mentioned before, the dam breaking, if it hasn't already broken, in terms of everyone getting on board with the myriad benefits of cannabis legalization. So we hope to have you guys on in a year's time talking about the landscape now that things have been legalized. But in the meantime, we'll continue to inform our audience about what the implications could be if we can get that legalization taken care of here, hopefully in the next six to 12 months. But thanks, everybody, for joining. Thank you, Jason, for hosting. You have any final word for any of our participants, Jason?

Jason Wilson: (48:10)
No. Just again, thanks for joining me, and hopefully your messaging, everyone is supportive, gets out to their appropriate representative, and we start enacting change. We need it right now.

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

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

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

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

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

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Boaz Weinstein.jpeg

Boaz Weinstein

Founder & Chief Investment Officer

Saba Capital Management

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boaz Weinstein: (14:33)
Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boaz Weinstein: (38:15)
Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Badr Al Olama: What's Next for Aerospace? | SALT Talks #56

“It doesn’t matter how industrialized your country is: when it comes to Mother Nature, the impact is holistic.“

Badr Al Olama is the Executive Director of Aerospace for Mubadala Investment Company, a global investment company with a mandate to create sustainable financial returns for Abu Dhabi. He oversees key portfolio assets including Strata Manufacturing, where he served as Chief Executive Officer at the age of 32, and Nibras Al Ain Aerospace Park, a development supporting the establishment of a sustainable aerospace industry in the Emirate.

“It took an act of God, a real force majeure event, to make us all want to stay at home.” Prior to COVID-19, scientists warned that the world was past the point of no return with climate change. The pandemic showed us what was possible through a coordinated, concentrated effort to change the way we live our lives. GMIS, the Global Manufacturing and Industrialization Summit established in 2015, is now relevant as ever in its pursuit to harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s transformation of manufacturing to the regeneration of the global economy.

The Mohammed Bin Rashid Initiative for Global Prosperity, a GMIS initiative, is pushing its parent organization’s goals even further. TruTrade, a winner of the Global Prosperity’s Cohort I, sources markets, sets prices and pays rural small-scale farmers in Africa using mobile money. Runners up included StixFresh, a company developing technology to reduce food waste via all-natural and safe methods.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Badr Al Olama.jpeg

Badr Al Olama

Executive Director of Aerospace

Mubadala Investment Company

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:08)
Hi, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is Rachel Pether. I'm a senior advisor to SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm, as well as the MC for SALT, a global thought leadership forum and networking platform encompaning finance, technology and politics. SALT Talks is a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost thinkers, creators and investors. Just as we do at our global SALT events, we aim to empower big, important ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts. We are very excited today to welcome Badr Al-Olama to SALT Talks. Badr is the head of Mubadala Aerospace, where he oversees key portfolio assets including Strata Manufacturing and Nibras Al Ain Aerospace Park. Nominated as a young global leader for the Middle East and North Africa by the World Economic Forum, Badr heads the organizing committee for the world's first Global Manufacturing and Industrialization Summit, GMIS, a joint initiative between the UAE government and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Badr is the chairman of Sanad Group, Sanad Aerotech, Sanad Capital, Sanad Powertech and Strata, and is a board member of the UAE Space Agency as well as a member of the UAE Ministerial Council, focused on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. If you have any questions for Badr during today's talk, please just enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. And with that, Badr, welcome to SALT Talks.

Badr Al Olama: (01:43)
Thank you for having me, Rachel.

Rachel Pether: (01:46)
We have a lot to discuss today. But before we get to that, I'd like you to tell me a bit more about your personal journey. I know that you started your career as a lawyer, but have you always been interested in aerospace and technology?

Badr Al Olama: (02:00)
No. I mean, I started off as a lawyer and I practiced for two years before I went to Harvard Law School. By the time, Harvard was an incredible experience. I met incredible people, listened to great professors that were sort of subject matter experts in everything that I did. Just before I graduated, I got an opportunity to actually join Mubadala in Abu Dhabi. By the time I joined, this was sort of a career shift, right? I met, at the time, with one of our senior leadership members who told me very simply, he said, "Look Badr, you're going to come here. We don't want you as a lawyer. We want you to start thinking about project development and business development and finance." So I just started from scratch, right?

Badr Al Olama: (02:42)
I did my CFA Level One. They mapped up my career pretty sort of profile, that I would start working on a project, I would run the project, and then eventually I would come back and work on another project. And if you look at sort of my career trajectory, that's exactly what happened. I worked on Strata, which is an aircraft parts component manufacturer in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. I became the CEO at age 32. I run that business for about six years before coming back and managing the portfolio for aerospace. So I didn't really pick that I wanted to do aerospace, but one thing was for sure that I would enjoy innovation, I enjoyed manufacturing, I enjoyed new things. The experience that I had between being a lawyer and joining Mubadala, actually gave me that opportunity.

Rachel Pether: (03:30)
I mean, you don't look a day over 35, so that's also impressive. I do want to speak a little bit more about Mubadala, but also focus on innovation in the aerospace and manufacturing sectors. I know that you hosted GMIS earlier this month, and you launched something called the Green Chain Initiative, which I thought was really interesting crowdsourcing platform using blockchain technologies. Can you tell me a bit more about that and maybe about the rationale behind it?

Badr Al Olama: (03:58)
Sure. Let me start off by just giving a background about what GMIS is. I mean, GMIS was established in 2015. It was established really to be a platform that can actually bridge between governments, private sector, civil society, to shape the future of manufacturing. And this is during the time that we all hear a lot about the fourth industrial revolution. Our first summit happened in Abu Dhabi in 2017. The next one happened in Russia in 2019 and the third one, which was supposed to happen in Hanover, Germany, because of COVID, we had the choice to make. Either we postpone, or we decide to go virtual, right? You can't really be preaching the power of 4IR, and not go virtual. So we decided to go virtual on this one. What I wanted to say about sort of GMIS as a platform, we didn't want to make it a sort of a talking shop. It was great that people were coming together, talking about the future of manufacturing. You listen to heads of state, you listen to CEOs. We wanted to make sure that we could leave a legacy.

Badr Al Olama: (05:00)
So in 2017, we launched the Making Prosperity Initiative, which was named after the UAE vice-president, prime minister and ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. In 2019, obviously listening to President Putin speak about nature inspired technologies that will be less resource intensive and more eco-friendly, we launched the President's Challenge, which was about crowdsourcing research papers on nature's biotechnology. And taking things on the same sort of track, that's where we came up with the Green Chain Initiative. The Green Chain Initiative is about developing green supply chains that would basically crowdsource renewable energy projects, that would power manufacturing facilities and potentially mine cryptocurrencies. So it's very inclusive, it's very sustainable. And I say inclusive because it doesn't matter if you are from a fossil rich country or a renewable energy rich country, it's about the entire world. It's about decarbonizing industry. It's about using 4IR for global good. It's about clean energy, something that's super important to our world today. And it's about social responsibility, something that both Germany and the UAE have demonstrated in action, not just by words.

Rachel Pether: (06:14)
So tell me more about the mining for cryptocurrencies. That's part of the initiative as well.

Badr Al Olama: (06:22)
I got a lot of questions about that, and a lot of people got excited about that. But think about it in simple format, right? Companies that are going to be investing in either greening their facilities or greening their products, need to be rewarded somehow. So our thought process behind it was, when we develop or crowdsource these renewable energy projects in different parts of the world, any excess energy, potentially can be used to mine cryptos. Those cryptos can eventually either upgrade infrastructure for stuff like hydrogen. They could convert fossil-based facilities to actually adopt more environmentally friendly technologies, and they could actually be used to purchase products. But in essence, I'm very optimistic about it because I really think that the Green Chain Initiative has a genuine opportunity to tackle climate change. It's disruptive, and it's transformative. It's exactly what you need in terms of actually tackling climate change, something disruptive and something transformative.

Rachel Pether: (07:20)
And I love the way it was launched. Manufacturing some of this, as you say, a sustainability summit or something like that, it just shows that the integration between the two. You actually briefly touched on the Prosperity Initiative or the Prosperity Challenge. Can you tell me a bit more about that initiative? Because I think you've announced some of the winners for that recently as well.

Badr Al Olama: (07:45)
Well, let me tell you a story. I mean, back in 2018 when we first launched our first cohort on it, one of the four challenges that we launched and basically... Let me start off. The Making Prosperity Initiative is about developing an open innovation platform, where we're trying to create a maker community that will solve problems that are related to the sustainable development goals of the United Nations. So back in 2018, two years ago, we launched our first cohort. And one of the challenges of the first cohort, was to do with sustainable cities. The challenge was specifically finding solutions that can stop or prevent the spread of an infectious disease or a pandemic. Talk about foresight, right? Fast forward to 2020 today, some of the solutions that actually came out of the submission of the 2018 challenges, are actually on the ground today. They're trying to figure out ways to map out where the spread of the disease is happening, in which community. They've come up with rapid tests. So that was all on our first cohort.

Badr Al Olama: (08:47)
The second cohort, we said, "We need to take it a step further." What we did is we launched four different challenges. One had to do with healthy and sustainable food, peace and justice, inclusive trade, and of course, climate change. So what ended up happening when we posted those four challenges based on the track record that we got on the first cohort, we got over 3,400 solutions, from almost 150 different countries. And the interesting part was, that one out of five solutions, came from the developing world. In the developing world, where you see a lot of these problems, actually a lot of the solutions exist, but you don't have the communication going on between them. What was exciting was that we worked with MIT Solve and we worked with 47 different subject matter expert judges to not just identify the four winners, and the winners were based on scalability, on impact, on feasibility, but this time, we wanted to take four disruptive runner-ups and link them up with global organizations for mentorship and guidance. And we're developing another program with the University of Cambridge. So you see that not only as, let's say, GMIS is bringing the world together and acting as a bridge and trying to communicate about the future of manufacturing, we want to leave an impact that's on the ground, that's real and that makes a considerable difference to people's lives.

Rachel Pether: (10:11)
And can you talk me through some of the examples from that? So one of the solutions that you're planning to take further through this network and the mentorship program.

Badr Al Olama: (10:22)
I mean, let me give you one of that. One of the winners was a startup called ColdHubs in Nigeria. And what ColdHubs does, it's a solar-powered cold storage solution, which stores the produce that is obviously created by the farmers in the rural world, so in pretty much in Nigeria. The concept behind it which was so interesting is that one fridge can support an entire neighborhood, without the use of electricity, just by using solar power. But the disruptive one that I'd like to talk about, is a company called Stixfresh. And this is basically a sticker that is put around produce, maybe an apple, whatever kind of fruit, and it slows down the spoilage process. So it keeps fruit fresh longer. I mean, these are kind of the disruptive things that we're... It's not something that we created, it exists. We're putting the spotlight on it so that the world knows that there are innovative ideas that can actually provide solutions to some of our biggest problems.

Rachel Pether: (11:24)
And I also want to talk a bit more about how the pandemic has impacted your role in Mubadala Aerospace too. How have you seen the activities over the past few months, sort of highlight the need for such an agenda or such an urgency?

Badr Al Olama: (11:41)
That's a very good question. Look, just before the pandemic sort of disrupted everybody's lives, we were causing so much damage to the environment that we were even being told that this damage is irreversible. We are on a crash course towards destroying the entire world. Even if the entire forces of our world came together, let's talk about all the governments agreeing and saying, "We need to put people at home to make them stop traveling by cars or by planes," it's not going to be possible, right? I said this before and I keep repeating it, it took an act of God, a real force measure type of event, to make us all want to stay at home. And what did you see out of that? Clear skies, cleaner air, even wildlife coming back.

Badr Al Olama: (12:28)
And you start thinking about the sync. At one point in time, eventually, this pandemic is going to end. And we're going to ask ourselves, what did we learn about this? And I want to say that, one thing we learned for sure, it doesn't matter how rich or poor your country is. It doesn't matter how industrialized or underdeveloped your country is. When it comes to mother nature, the impact is holistic, right, and it's very forceful and it's pretty much unpredictable. So again, I go back to the sort of my upbeat and my optimism about the Green Chain Initiative. I'm so optimistic about it because I really feel that this could be that one step forward where the youth of this generation can actually start working on the Green Chain Initiative, because they are the ones that are going to remember always that this pandemic almost stole away their future. We cannot put ourselves in the situation ever again.

Rachel Pether: (13:26)
I guess now the honours is on us to make sure we maintain the, I guess, environmental advancements that have happened over this short pandemic period, and not revert so quickly to, I guess, the old life that we used to live in terms of-

Badr Al Olama: (13:42)
100% technology, Rachel. We should be embracing technology as a means to saying, if technology can do so many great things for us, why can't we use technology in our sort of, let's say, our mission to tackle climate change?

Rachel Pether: (13:57)
Absolutely. Another area that was obviously quite impacted through the pandemic was aerospace, where you're the head for Mubadala. How have your portfolio companies responded to COVID-19? Have you been able to adapt your business models accordingly?

Badr Al Olama: (14:15)
Well, mixed feelings there. I'm heartbroken for what's going on with aerospace at the moment. It's a very sort of sad story, but one thing we should never forget is that unless our world finds a better way for me to travel, let's say, to where you are at the moment in Switzerland, or to New York, there is no other way except by going through air or by through going through an airplane, right? You're not going to go by boat, you're not going to go by road. You're going to go by airplane. The fact is, airplanes are here to stay. Now, what I did when this whole thing started unfolding, and I was reading in the newspapers, it was going from bad to worse, I got sort of the three CEOs, the three main CEOs that I have. The CEO of Strata, which makes aircraft parts, the CEO of Sanad Aerotech, which actually maintains engines for the airlines, and the CEO of Sanad Capital, which actually leases spare engines and spare components to the airlines.

Badr Al Olama: (15:10)
And I told them upfront, "Guys, we need to hope for the best, but we need to plan for the worst. And I do see the worst coming." This is probably in around the February-March timeline. One thing that I'm very proud of, is that all three CEOs have managed their businesses through this crisis in a super professional way. They've managed to sort of rework their business model. They've managed to stay close to their customers and their suppliers. And more importantly, they've managed their liquidity in a way that sustains this business over the longterm. One of our businesses, Strata Manufacturing that makes aircraft parts, actually repurposed the workforce to start producing essential N95 masks. Now, think about this. Countries were banning the export of N95 masks. Countries were banning the export of the equipment that could make N95 masks. Even the material that was going in that N95 mask, countries were saying, "No, sorry. We're going to keep everything in-house. You go figure yourself out, right?"

Badr Al Olama: (16:11)
And as sad as the situation that the world couldn't work together to help each other, because... The UAE is not that far off, but think about cases like Africa that were probably suffering as a result of this pandemic spread. True partnership always prevails. What happened here is we stepped in with Honeywell, with the Chinese government who also supported us in getting the equipment, in getting the material, in getting the capabilities, so that we could produce the N95 masks in the UAE. And guess what? The UAE started exporting these N95 masks to other countries as well, because we're not going to ban it on other countries. And we exported to Japan and the United Kingdom. Think about that, right? The UAE is now a net exporter, as opposed to just consuming those N95 masks, off something that was so critical and so essential during the pandemic

Rachel Pether: (17:00)
And in such a short turnaround time too. I mean, I imagine it was quite difficult to change the whole manufacturing and production line.

Badr Al Olama: (17:09)
We actually added the production line and it was in 30 days. It took 30 days of, I'll tell you, sleepless nights, a lot of pressure from the leadership. But like I said, Honeywell, and the support of the Chinese government, truly prevailed in a situation where we were vulnerable and they stepped in and they supported us in actually making this happen for our economy and for our people, to make them feel safe.

Rachel Pether: (17:33)
That's fabulous. I really liked that story. And just sticking with aerospace as well, you could argue that the holy grail for aerospace, well, at this point in time, anyway I know it's ever evolving, is the race for Mars. The UAE had its historic first mission to Mars, a successful liftoff in Japan a couple of months ago. Why is it so important for the UAE?

Badr Al Olama: (18:00)
Let me start off by saying, maybe the holy grail for space is the Mars Mission. The holy grail for aerospace is probably flying green and cutting those CO2 emissions and hopefully one day, all of us can fly in an airplane that is either fueled by batteries or by fuel cells. I mean, that's pretty much the future. But going back to the Mars Mission, I mean, think about it, the UAE is a very young country, very large ambitions, one of three countries that launched the Mars Mission, the US and China being the other two, during the worst year ever that is plagued with just a disruption that's going on with the pandemic. And to be able to actually get that Mars Mission successfully launched, was a feat in itself, right? And that just proves the point. Where there is a will, there is a way. I think that was the first learning that we got out of it. The second learning that came out of it was, when we started letting the whole aspect of what this Mars Mission was about, settling, going and trying to understand the environment around Mars, trying to understand the weather patterns, trying to figure out why is it losing hydrogen or oxygen, and then sharing all those findings with the space community, that is truly a reflection of the UAE DNA. We are willing and ready to work with anyone for the greater good of humanity.

Rachel Pether: (19:20)
And as a UAE citizen, how did you feel when the Hope Probe was launched?

Badr Al Olama: (19:26)
Personally, I mean, I felt very proud. I felt very proud. I felt more determined to do hopefully better things for my own country. But it also kind of reminded me about some of the big milestones that the company I work for, Mubadala, established for both Abu Dhabi and the UAE. It reminded me about when we first established the aircraft parts component manufacturer. The first in the region, in Abu Dhabi. It reminded me about the three satellites that we launched through YahSat. It reminded me about the world class hospital that we established in Abu Dhabi with Cleveland clinic. I mean, these game changing initiatives that Mubadala established for Abu Dhabi, are just examples of how impactful we have been over the past at least 15 years since I've been with the company. And you know what's interesting, Rachel? In my personal belief, this is just the beginning. Why do I say this is just the beginning? Because we are planning today for the next 50 years of achievements.

Rachel Pether: (20:24)
Yeah, certainly one thing that's always impressed me about Mubadala has been, they've always managed to maintain this entrepreneurial spirit regardless of the actual size of the company. And as you mentioned, you've had so many milestones in your 15 career already. And actually I'd like to tie that back into something you mentioned that the holy grail for the aerospace would actually be to fly green. Is that something that you're working on? I guess, does that kind of form part of the Green Chain Initiative as well?

Badr Al Olama: (20:54)
I mean, from an investment perspective, we're always looking at new opportunities. And I do think that the new opportunity in aerospace is going to be the disruption that could be caused as a result of actually going green on inches. Now, do I really think that we're going to find a solution on flying electric very soon on commercial platforms? Maybe not, but there is a middle step here. Biofuels, and you see what Etihad is doing with Boeing and what else have been developed through biofuels and it's flying at least cleaner fuels in its planes. And I think that is sort of a stepping stone towards going electric. Electric will come. I do believe it will come in the form of fuel cells through potentially harnessing the power of hydrogen, but it's a few years away. We need to make it again, commercially viable before we start rolling it out in a big way. But it may find its way on smaller aircrafts.

Rachel Pether: (21:42)
So do you think that something with regards to the manufacturing of aircraft parts, do you think one day there might be an area that you're looking to invest in or develop would be the battery storage and the battery capabilities?

Badr Al Olama: (21:58)
I mean, the whole concept of battery manufacturing and assembling the pack, is going to become a regionalized business. You cannot depend on one country to provide a solution for the rest of the world. And at this moment in time, China is the biggest supplier in the entire world for batteries. So I do think it will be regionalized and I do sincerely hope that Abu Dhabi and the UAE will take a first mover advantage in terms of batteries. It is the future. It's a given fact. It's going on cars, it will eventually go on trains, it will eventually go on planes, and it's a fact that we all have to accept and it's better for the world, right? Like I said, clean energy, a green world, is good for all of us and makes sure that whatever great life that we all had in this age, is going to continue for the future generations. And that's what we need as a responsibility to sustain for our children and their children.

Rachel Pether: (22:56)
We've just had a question coming from the audience that relates to that, so I do want to pick that up. With regards to the changes that you've had with Strata and converting or adding the manufacturing of the N95 masks, do you think this is something that's here to stay or is this just a temporary kind of fix throughout this pandemic period?

Badr Al Olama: (23:21)
No, absolutely not. I mean, one thing that I do think that the UAE did very well and especially Mubadala, when we started incubating these projects in country, the first thing we focused on was investing in people. Today, Strata has the capability to manufacture very complex, very strategically important components on aircrafts, being parts on the wing and parts on the tail, so where the flag is, right? That same capability can be repurposed 10 times round to do other things. Things that are important to our economy, things that are important to society, things that are important to the world. And I think that more and more, we are going to go towards the Fourth Industrial Revolution where 3D printing is going to start playing a bigger role in aircraft component manufacturing. We did 3D printed component that went on Etihad, on one of the Boeing 777s. We did this in partnership with Siemens. And I do think that capability will be further developed over time because you just can't continue manufacturing things the same way going forward. It has to be smarter, and it has to be quicker, and it has to be cheaper.

Rachel Pether: (24:29)
And is 3D printing something that you've seen an uptick in use of within aerospace industry?

Badr Al Olama: (24:39)
Actually, the aerospace industry as we were saying before, is one of the most conservative industries that you'll ever deal with unfortunately. It's as sophisticated as those planes look like. The people that work on those planes, and this is something that's very good because you can ensure safety on those aircrafts, they tend to be very conservative. But from that perspective, 3D printing is a force that you cannot prevent or you cannot stop. The question is, how fast can you integrate it into your supply chain? I think the UAE has a fair chance to make that move. I think the UAE is better positioned than a lot of other countries to be a key player in 3D printing components than a lot of other countries around the world. So I'm hoping that we will be working closer with Boeing and Airbus, to actually start evolving our capabilities into 3D printing.

Rachel Pether: (25:27)
Yeah, there's definitely some advantages that come with being a younger country or a younger company, and maybe not having so many legacy issues to deal with in that regard. I know that as part of Mubadala's mandate and ethos, that knowledge transfer is really important to you. On the sort of gender balance or gender diversity side, how have you seen sort of the rise or the incorporation of female engineers and technicians within aerospace, given that it's a really highly technical area?

Badr Al Olama: (26:05)
Going back to about 2008-2009 when we first started on Strata, and we said that we're going to be establishing the first and the only, let's say, manufacturer of aircraft components in the region, I was skeptical to think, first of all, that we would be lucky enough to get a large population of UAE nationals to join. And then obviously my skepticism would have said, maybe not so many women, but probably quite a few men. When I look at Strata today, we have more than half of the workforce are UAE nationals. So they're UAE citizens. Out of those UAE citizens, nine out of 10 are women. Actually, the workforce in Strata is led, driven, delivered, challenged by women. And I can bet with anyone in the industry that there is no other manufacturer of aircraft components that has such a high concentration of women that are driving the manufacturing facility.

Badr Al Olama: (27:05)
And you know what, Rachel? I used to joke around about this. Every time the senior leadership of men that were out of the factory, may be in an air show or traveling around the world on business trips, there were no problems in that workforce. There was no problems in the facility. It was running smooth seamlessly. Every time we came back, we created the issues. "No, this is not right, or that's not working perfectly well." But whenever we were not there, it was working perfectly well. And to give you a testimony that we are doing something right, that is being appreciated globally, Airbus and Boeing have given us more work to do since we established that facility in 2008-2009. We've actually grown in terms of commitment from both Airbus and Boeing, as a result to show that we're delivering high quality components, on time, no issues and we do it without headache, without creating problems or issues to the supply chain.

Rachel Pether: (28:03)
You know better, that's because women are excellent multitaskers. So you're very lucky that most of the people on your team are female. We're now getting quite a lot of questions coming in from the audience. So I do just want to ask one of them now, because it relates to some of the new sectors or new areas that you're looking in. We've got one air firefighting is now critical in the world and the old CL-415 is really outdated. Is this another sector that Mubadala is looking into?

Badr Al Olama: (28:33)
From our perspective, again, we look at things from an investment perspective. So as long as there is, number one, let's say a decent and acceptable rate of return that's coming from an opportunity, that's our first sort of criteria. Then we will start looking into it seriously to actually consider whether or not we should invest abroad or invest in the UAE. Investing in the UAE, as important as it is to us, as important as it is to our Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030, might not necessarily be conducive for investment opportunity. Now, going to the point about that specific platform, I do think that the future of aircraft, or let's say aircraft manufacturing, probably is going to go down the UAV side. By finding cargo drone solutions, by finding these sort of merging innovation or technology with traditional forms of what the aircraft was supposed to do in terms of cargo or in terms of passenger transportation.

Badr Al Olama: (29:32)
I struggle to see sort of a business plan or a business case that could actually work in the lines of actually firefighting. In reality, we should actually try to solve what we say is, solve the cause of the problem, as opposed to trying to solve it after the problem happens. The issues that you have on forests and different parts of the world, there is another problem that's happening and that's global warming. So if we were to put our time and effort into doing something, not that I'm saying that we shouldn't do firefighting platforms or aircrafts, we should really try to tackle the issue of climate change. That's the root cause of the problem that we're facing with respect to forest fires in the Amazon, or let's say, in the West Coast in the US or even Australia.

Rachel Pether: (30:16)
Well, I guess that's one thing that you're looking to tackle with the Green Chain Initiative, isn't it?

Badr Al Olama: (30:21)
Absolutely.

Rachel Pether: (30:21)
How we can sort of counteract some of these issues around global warming.

Badr Al Olama: (30:25)
And that's not the only mirror, Rachel, to be fair. The UAE took the steps in terms of sustainability and the degree in economy, way back when Masdar was created, right? I even remember when people were saying, "Why is a country that produces fossil fuel, petroleum or oil, going into an area that is actually promoting, let's say, something that would cannibalize your own business, into renewables and solar power?" I mean, why not, right? It's the same question that came up when they were asking, "Why is the UAE doing a global initiative on manufacturing when you're such a young country?" Why not? "Why is the UAE making aircraft component parts when you don't even manufacture aircraft?" Why not? I think taking that aspect of why not, is really what has shown the world that we have been successful every and each single time that we've made those investment decisions.

Rachel Pether: (31:18)
It's funny that you bring up Masdar. I actually went there for the first time in about five years, just a couple of months ago and I was really impressed at how far that's grown. As you say, 10, 15 years ago, everyone was asking, "Well, why would the UAE be looking into this?" So, yeah, it's a great achievement for the UAE and for Mubadala. Another question which also relates to potential future capabilities or capacities in Mubadala, as lightweight parts are in demand and many other transport areas, do you think you can expand and use your capacities and capabilities in those areas, well, for the global market?

Badr Al Olama: (32:00)
Absolutely. I mean, the capabilities is not just on the aspect of manufacturing that we've invested in. Mubadala, across the entire portfolio, like I said, the number one thing that they did was invest in people. They've invested in me, right? I would have never been able to imagine at 32, that I'll be running an aircraft component factory that would be competing against the rest of the world. And the fact is, there are many other people within our organization that Mubadala has taken active steps and investing in building up their capability. Because each one you invest in, can create 10 other people like themselves. And I do think that there is no restriction whatsoever. If the UAE is heart-set, as we have seen on the Mars Mission, if we have a clear vision, we put up a clear mission, and we are very determined as a country to achieve on all our ambitions, we go all the way. And time and again, whether it was Mubadala, whether it was the Mars Hope Probe Mission, whether it was anything else, we have seen this happen time and again.

Rachel Pether: (33:01)
Now, you have answered a lot of sort of difficult and technical questions, Olama. We have 10 minutes left. So I'd actually like to ask you two softer questions that have come in from the audience. One is, you have achieved so much in your life already. What are the skills that you advise people in their 20s to be equipped with going forward?

Badr Al Olama: (33:23)
Honestly, it's having empathy. Having an emotional appreciation for people that you will be working with, that eventually one day you will be leading. It's not individuals like myself that actually create the successful results. It's the team around me. And I always tell people this, when they tell me that, "Wow, GMIS has achieved so much," or "Strata has achieved so much." I just say that I've been very fortunate in my life. That I've had a good group of people around me, that are really delivering some great results and it's reflecting on me. But the reality, it's not me. It's this group of people around me. So having this empathy and having an understanding of how to get the best out of your relationships with people and how to manage a group of people towards achieving a certain vision, that sort of understanding and empathy and emotional intelligence, is really the determining factor between being a manager and being a leader, if you know what I mean. We all want to become leaders, but not everyone is going to be successful if they don't have the emotional intelligence of actually knowing how to lead a group of people.

Rachel Pether: (34:31)
And I guess further to that point, who or what inspires you in terms of leadership?

Badr Al Olama: (34:39)
That's a difficult question to ask, but I'll share a story. And it's a very interesting story because it doesn't point the finger at one individual, but to a system. In 2015, as I said, when we started GMIS, and this was something that came up from our Global Agenda Council on the Future of Manufacturing, which was being organized by the World Economic Forum. Sort of the idea was coming together and it was talking about, we need to create a platform, bring the world together, talk about the future of manufacturing. And I really saw an opportunity here for the UAE. So I took this to my direct manager who was heading aerospace at the time, Homaid Al Shimmari. And I told him, "Boss, this is something that could change the world. And I do think that the UAE has a fair chance in making this move." He took me to our group CEO, Khaldoon Al Mubarak. He put me in front of Khaldoon. I took Khaldoon through the story saying, "This is what it is. It's about the Fourth Industrial Revolution." Back in 2015, before people started talking about the Fourth Industrial Revolution in a big way.

Badr Al Olama: (35:46)
And you know what? Khaldoon said after I finished the pitch, he said, "Badr, what can I do more to make you successful in driving this forward?" Look, anyone else, both bosses, right? My direct manager and the group CEO, could have said, "You're getting distracted. You're doing something different from aerospace. You're going on a completely different area. Focus on your business. Focus on what we're paying you to do." And both of them actually gave me the opportunity. And not only the opportunity, but offered their support in giving me the chance to actually make something successful. So whatever GMIS is, besides the fact that I give credit to my team, it's the fact that I had very good leadership from the very beginning that made GMIS a success today.

Rachel Pether: (36:34)
That's an excellent story and I can definitely resonate with that. And I know it wasn't just a political answer. I know it really did come from the heart. Just closing question then, can you tell me, within the ministry that you work for or on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, what most excites you in that space at the moment? And also a very broad topic, but maybe pick sort of one or two key things.

Badr Al Olama: (37:01)
Honestly, I'm really, super excited with the whole concept of co-creation using open innovation as a platform. I'm very excited about 3D printing and I'm just as excited about when it comes to artificial intelligence. Using artificial intelligence for predictive maintenance, for different applications. I mean, that ministerial council, which was... I'm no longer a member. I was a member when it was first created in 2017. The whole intention was to be able to, let me say, stimulate the knowledge about all these different technologies within our economy, within our businesses, within our government framework. And I can say from 2017 until today, look around you, we have a minister for artificial intelligence. The same minister is actually looking into the digital economy. We have a minister just appointed to look into sciences and advanced technology. We have a university, the Mohammed bin Zayed University for Artificial Intelligence. I mean, things have just progressed as a result of creating that ministerial committee. And honestly, like I said, the next 50 years are going to be much more exciting than the previous 50 years, that I at least spent 40 of them working on.

Rachel Pether: (38:17)
Badr, thank you so much. We have a couple of minutes left and I think it's great to end on such a positive note. So thank you so much for your time and your empathy and your humility and sharing your time with us today. It's been a pleasure talking to you as in our old day.

Badr Al Olama: (38:33)
Thank you for having me, Rachel. I appreciate it.

Nabyl Al Maskari: Betting Big on Clean Energy | SALT Talks #55

“We are a young country with a history structured around families.“

Nabyl Al Maskari is the Executive Chairman of Al Maskari Holding (AMH), a privately-owned holding company of the Al Maskari portfolio and controls the family's operating subsidiaries, joint venture companies, strategic partnerships, and private equity. AMH traces its foundation to 1968 with the establishment of the Al Maskaria Group in Abu Dhabi to engage in petroleum trading and oil field services.

Founded in 1971, the United Arab Emirates is the youngest country in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). For comparison, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, celebrated its 90th Saudi National Day on the day of filming. The region has been characterized by its relationship with oil, but families like the Al Maskari are showing that it’s far more than a source of capital.

The two best-known emirates compliment each other with their diversity. Dubai is primarily focused on hospitality, while Abu Dhabi showcases the country’s heritage and culture. Abu Dhabi now serves as an epicenter of capital flow into MEASA and the developing world.

Nabyl guides AMH by a simple principle from his grandmother: “Don’t profit from people - look to serve them.” Her Excellency Dr. Shaikha Al Maskari, Nabyl’s mother, was a trailblazer unto herself: among the first women in a leadership position in the private sector, first female petroleum engineer in the GCC region. He looks to continue his family’s contrarian history by transitioning the company’s focus from oil to clean energy.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Nabyl Al Maskari.jpeg

Nabyl Al Maskari

Executive Chairman

Al Maskari Holding (AMH)

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:07)
Hi everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. I'm Rachel Pether. I'm a senior advisor at SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investments firm, as well as the MC for SALT, a global thought leadership forum and networking platform [encompassing 00:00:23] finance, business, and politics. SALT Talks as a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers, just as we do at our global SALT events, we aim to empower big important ideas and provide our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts. Today we're very excited to welcome Nabyl Al Maskari to SALT talks. Nabyl is not only someone I consider a true friend. He's also the CEO of Al Maskari Holding, which is the privately owned holding company for the Al Maskari family portfolio.

Rachel Pether: (00:57)
He's the third generation of leadership in what is a truly remarkable family, which I'm sure him and Anthony will be discussing shortly. Prior to joining his family conglomerate Nabyl was a management consultant for McKinsey. He sponsors philanthropic initiatives in Africa and Asia through his family's nonprofit foundation, and he actively supports high impact entrepreneurs as a board member of Endeavor UAE. Nabyl received his MBA with distinction from Yale. Hosting today's talk will be Anthony Scaramucci, the founder, and managing partner of SkyBridge, and also the chairman of SALT. Just a reminder, if you have any questions for Nabyl just into them in the Q&A section on your zoom screen. And with that, I'll hand over to Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:43)
Rachel, thank you. And we're going to give a shout out in memoriam to John Dorsey because he had his last SALT talk yesterday. You're now the new host, so, welcome aboard. No, I'm just kidding, John. Okay. Take it easy. I know you're watching. I'm just kidding. Nabyl How are you?

Nabyl Al Maskari: (02:02)
Doing very well, thank you very much.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:04)
So, Nabyl for those of us in the United States that are not super familiar with the UAE. Tell us a little bit about the UAE and also your family, your family's history there, and a little bit about your business and yourself. How's that? That's a big question Nabyl.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (02:22)
Sure. We're going to fit it all into the first question. Okay. I'll start where I think the history does.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (02:29)
So we're a young country and we were formed December 2nd in 1971, so we're less than 50 years old, but the history of the region obviously goes back much further and it's one very much structured around families. And I think that's a poignant way to connect the two, because ultimately, even though we have a constitution and we have a lot of federal structures, ultimately these are indigenous people that have grown up and really over the course of history, come to adopt a lot of the norms of government.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (03:00)
But ultimately the [familial 00:03:02] relationships, the way that we've interacted one another, respect, trust, loyalty, those things are just sort of in a new format of sort of the UAE. So for us as a family, although we of course look at the UAE as the most important recognition point, if it is a family business, we're actually older than the union, right? So in many cases, you're going to interact with people who have a long sense of historical perspective.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (03:27)
I think just a moment here, and it would be a nice reflection, today actually to talk about how young we are. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is celebrating its 90th anniversary today. And actually if we had really timed this better Anthony, about 15 minutes ago, you've been to my office here in Capital Gate. The jets had done a fly by if you remember my office is the hard deck and I would love it. And they were screaming the Saudi green colors in honor of that. So I think it's one of the fact that the region itself has a lot of age to it, but the countries are still young, not like the United States who itself is considered a young democracy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:04)
Sure. But you know, it's an amazing country. We had our SALT Conference there in December, obviously you and your family attended, Rachel was a phenomenal host. But the facilities there were amazing. Your country is a state-of-the-art country. So, tell us a little bit about the vision for the UAE, and then I obviously want to get into your family. So, tell us about the vision there.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (04:31)
Sure. Like many, we set out these goals and in many cases we've been very aspirational. I do think that it's important when you talk about the vision of the UAE to put it in the context that we are in a region that oftentimes is characterized by our relationship to oil. And I say that because the family foundation story is one of oil and gas. And even though many people from around the world may first think about the UAE in the context of being an oil producer, or for institutional investors being a location as a source of capital, it's much more than that. And it is used its natural resources as a way to transform, not only the infrastructure, but really the economy of the UAE to make it both vibrant, sustainable, but extremely competitive in a very new landscape.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (05:17)
So, today when you come to visit our country, depending if you land in either Dubai or Abu Dhabi, it's a very different experience, and I think they're complimentary [funds 00:05:26] . You've been to both cities, many who have come to Dubai, talk about the experience around hospitality, some of the glamor. And when they come to Abu Dhabi, it's a counterpoint around heritage and culture. And I think these two have a symbiosis in terms of how they're structured and really how we want to present ourselves to the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:43)
It's an amazing place and God bless you guys. And I wish you continued success and shout out to our Saudi friends on their anniversary as well. And so let's go to the family for a second. Tell us a little bit about your family. Imagine I'm an American, visiting Abu Dhabi for the first time, and I'm walking into your office, and your family has quite a legacy in your country. So tell us a little bit about that.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (06:14)
Well, I think if you were to enter our offices, that the first thing you would see is kind of a trophy wall, and it's dedicated really to my mother. And then I think that's the first thing to know about us is that we are a matriarchal family. That's somewhat contrarian. And I think that the fact that my mother is largely known on sort of two [inaudible 00:06:31]. The first being, among the first real women in the leadership position, in the private sector, but also for her work in humanitarian causes around the world.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (06:41)
But for her and for our family, I think it goes back to a point of service. We look at ourselves as an [emirati 00:06:47] family, largely trying to find the mechanisms in which we can both empower the country and the citizens. And it really comes down to saying if in the past decades we were not able to identify our source, the kind of support internally, we as a family would often go overseas to identify the best partners, whether they be private companies or governments, and try to attract them into the region to help develop that maturity curve of our infrastructure.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (07:18)
So we went from oil and gas. We shifted into a lot of different verticals. It's healthcare, ICT, we do security work, but always with a focus towards the government or public sector, because we look at ourselves primarily as one that tries to support their aspirations. We don't feel that we're particularly suited to serving on the consumer side. So we're not a family that you will see on billboards. It's probably why many who are watching may not know our family name, but when you come into the government and the country, we're a family well associated with those specific areas, right. So we don't sell any products or services to individuals. And it goes back to a tenant said from my grandmother that said, don't profit from the people we look to serve them. And we do that by the way of our portfolio.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:02)
It's an amazing story. I want you to know, I'm not giving up on trying to get into the will. I've talked to your mom about it. And so far the answer is no, but I'm just letting you know, I'm not giving up. I'm a persistent person Nabyl so..

Nabyl Al Maskari: (08:16)
I think AJ wants you to do that more than probably [crosstalk 00:08:18] .

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:18)
Right, exactly. My son AJ was blown away by her presence and charisma as am I by yours. I'm going to shift gears slightly here though. I want to talk a little bit about your legacy and how you're thinking about your family's portfolio and taking over from a very prominent matriarch. So tell us about the future vision of Al Maskari Holdings.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (08:44)
So I do think that when my mother was first involved in, in these sort of industry here, and she was the first woman PhD, first woman engineer, she's a PhD geophysicist that naturally meant that we were focused on oil and gas, right. It was literally in the blood and my father was a PhD geologist. So the focus by way of industry had always tilted them. But I like to think of ourselves as evolving into a clean energy family rather than an oil and gas family. And that means that we serve and we look to find ways that we continue to challenge kind of the precepts around what we do as a family. And that's really why we started getting involved with sort of my tenure of leadership, to do the international capital markets, because we started to really recognize that the traditional foundations, as a [inaudible 00:09:33] , a family, in order to continue to sustain the economy and diversify away from oil and gas, you needed to find mechanisms for both foreign investment as well as private sector investment.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (09:43)
And we could lead that in the way that we had led in generations past in oil and gas. So today, when I talk about my vision, it's really one, that's a reflection of this evolution of thinking and challenging ourselves, how do we remain relevant? How do we continue to best support and serve our governments and our countries? And I think ultimately that comes down to today, a dialogue around Abu Dhabi, which is my hometown as kind of a gateway to a much broader region. And I know you've had conversations in the past and you've heard us talk about the MEASA or Middle East, Africa, South Asia. But I do very much think that Abu Dhabi will always remain relevant because it's an epicenter, not only of resources, but it's an epicenter of capital flow to the growing part of the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:27)
Well, and I'll add something to that. I think you're the country has a very well thought out infrastructure and a very well thought out long-term vision. And also from a regulatory perspective, it has this very interesting entrepreneurial platform where many people from many areas of the world can come into the country and establish a stronghold if you will, to reach the other areas of MEASA. So, but before we go into MEASA, let's talk about you have three beautiful daughters. God bless you. Tell me a little bit about how you view their future and how do you see gender diversity Nabyl?

Nabyl Al Maskari: (11:10)
Look, I look at my role very much as one a stewardship. We are a matriarchal family. I'm blessed as you say to have three daughters, we will be matriarchal for I hope long years to come. When I have this reflection on the time that I've been spending in family business is one very much of recognizing that the role of gender inclusion has really changed from when my mother's time was, which is going back to the 1970s and 80's, and really where we are today to give you a sense. And I think it's additionally sort of bookmark around the social experiment. And my mother, as we talked about was a first among service, first woman engineer, first woman PhD. And in some ways a generation later, my wife was a first in other areas.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (12:01)
So she was the first woman executive of a regional media entity. She was the CEO of Dubai Media. She was the first woman among the batch pointed to the Federal National Council, which is sort of our, I'm going to give you the sense that it's our parliament or it's our consultated body. And she was able to do these first because we are all on a trajectory that has an increasing arc of inclusion. And I think that when I look forward to my daughters, I hope that the dialogue is not qualified by being, they are the first woman, but rather they are just the first, because I don't think that the peaks that we have yet to discover or yet to ascend are going to be qualified by the fact that it is a woman to have reached thereafter, man, but rather it will be a woman to have reached irrespective of their gender.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (12:45)
So I have a strong aspiration to do that. I'm very blessed that my wife has had a strong leadership role in raising our children and in [inaudible 00:12:53] , we say here, I will be alive when I can see some of these first for them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:00)
I love it. It's a phenomenal message. So, last week, Russell Read, who's a partner of yours spoke passionately about the MEASA region and the high population growth and the rising consumption and the middle class. And I want to get your views. And for those that don't know, Russell Read, tell us a little bit about his background, which of course is amazing.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (13:26)
Sure. So look, Russell, I think first came onto our radar when he was serving in the GIC, which is the Gulf Investment Corporation. It's a Sovereign wealth fund owned by the GCC member States and it's based in Kuwait, but he had a long history prior to that at CIO of Calpers had moved after GIC into the Alaska Permanent Fund. And it was within that role that he had first approached us to talk about building this MEASA construct. And he's been a good partner to us, both in [inaudible 00:13:56], and of course in developing the strategy, we have chosen to take that, which now started as a public equity strategy. And we have continued to sort of apply that within the illiquid space and saying, how can we do this in private equity? So when you think about the region and I can give you a lot more color to when we think about MEASA and how do we characterize it, we see it one very much colored in, sort of opportunity.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (14:20)
I know that when I traveled to the Nordics and, you know well we've had a lot of experience up there. Many times the region is viewed with a perspective of risk, right? And, and I think that the reason we see opportunity is that in many instances, especially when you apply sort of fundamentals around ESG, you will see some of the leading opportunities actually occurring within the MEASA region. So to give some context to that, if we just look at the E-portion, right, and some of the work that's being done in the region around solar, we continue to send lower and lower benchmarks for the actual fit rate, right? So how cheaply can we produce sustainable clean energy? And from a PV perspective, we're down to extremely low lows at 1.35 cents a kilowatt hour. I mean, that is remarkable number.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (15:09)
When you talk about an energy mix that starts fundamentally with natural gas and our electricity, and it continues to evolve, right? So we're looking at setting new benchmarks for concentrated solar in having almost carbon neutral desalinated water. That would be again on a cubic meter basis, be amongst some of the lowest in the world being produced. So it's a competitive environment that [is 00:15:31] little bit structured around the natural geography. We are in a obviously sunny region, but it's the technology adoption that the leadership puts in place by way of investment policies attracting the right companies that as you said, it's a participation mechanism, right? We invite whether they be from far Asia or the United States, the leading entities to come in to set up, we partner with them locally, and we can actually set benchmarks that the rest of the world will then soon follow.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:57)
Well, I think it's a long-term brilliant strategy, I do speak specifically about SkyBridge. We want to have a presence in the region and ultimately a presence in Abu Dhabi, which we've already begun. And so, unfortunately we're heading back to the region in December, but it's been delayed because of the pandemic, but we're hopeful and optimistic. We can be back in 2021. I want to shift gears a little bit to ESG Nabyl. Talk to us a little bit about the ESG investing that you're doing and ESG and the context of the region and the recognition that ultimately we'll be transferring the economies of the world, frankly, away from fossil fuels. Tell us your thoughts there.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (16:43)
Well, we primarily engaged with institutional investors. My father was one of the old guard of adia and so I've always had that sort of breakfast table mentality of how do you look at investing at scale, but in a way in which you can do so with prudence towards your investor base or your capital base. And, and largely when we talk with pensions institution investors, they obviously have integrated ESG into their investment thesis, not only from a standpoint of risk mitigation, but I also think that there is, there is some data depending on which markets you look at that ESG over time will outperform their relative benchmarks. And I think that we completely agree with that thesis. We see that in public equities, the challenge, I think Anthony is that when you start quantifying it and of the few rating agencies that are out there, so we look at like an MSCI or Sustainalytics .

Nabyl Al Maskari: (17:38)
In many instances, when you're talking about Western markets public equities, you find that there will be low correlation or even a negative correlation around some of their perspectives of an ESG rating composite given a specific equity. So I think that there isn't sort of conformity around the perspective of what ESG means. And I think that's the fundamental challenge we have when we adopt ESG. What we try to do is we try to norm that to the expectations of not only the LPs that we represent. More importantly, we're trying to develop that in tandem with institutional investors. So what we had an opportunity to do here locally is engaged in a dialogue with academia, ourselves as a private actor, engaging with our Sovereigns as well. And we hope to embark on an ESG lab, which we hope will be announced very shortly here in Abu Dhabi.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (18:27)
And it will be around creating the right research opportunities to say, can we develop framework for ESG in illiquid or private equity type opportunities in the MEASA region? Why? Because, ultimately that's where the capital flows will go. Whether it's an Africa, because it's a consumption and growth story, whether it's in South Asia, because there's going to be the belt road initiatives, you know that the capital will flow there. The question is, how will you deploy it at scale? And how will you adopt from a framework standpoint, the right not only strategy, but reporting mechanisms to allow those pensions that are sitting up in Stockholm or in York to be able to be comfortable with their strategies.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:06)
So it's 2035, it's 15 years from now Nabyl. Tell us about Abu Dhabi, tell us about MEASA, tell us about Al Maskari Holdings. Where are we?

Nabyl Al Maskari: (19:21)
Look, I think a 15 year lens is an incredibly aspirational viewpoint. You know, when I grew up in, I think we've talked about this before, and I looked in the landscape of my office in just one short generation, it's completely changed. So the world in which I grew up in, in Abu Dhabi, which was beachfront very few high rises. Now, when you come here it's a complete different experience. What I think we can recognize is that if we

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:43)
Not to interrupt you, but I would say in the last 15 years, it's been an unbelievable explosion of that sort of urbanization and activity. So exponential growth..

Nabyl Al Maskari: (19:53)
There are islands that are being developed today that we would never go to when we were younger. In many cases, and I feel that there are so few [emirati 00:20:03] , and obviously I represent an [emirati 00:20:04] family that when we traveled around the world, I'd almost give them the euphemism that you're all ambassadors of your country. What I hope. And it's the vision, not only for our family, because we're people, but we're from a populace that is looking and seeking peace. So I would just touch on and say 15 years from now the greatest aspiration. And I think the reflection of what the leadership's vision would be is one of a sustainable and prosperous Abu Dhabi and UAE that is the beacon to make sure that regional conflicts are deescalating. We're looking for greater opportunities of integration, cooperation, and fundamentally that'll be built around these Peace accords.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (20:44)
Obviously the Abraham Accord is something that happened very recently, last week in the United States, but that has been a building momentum towards tolerance. So I look at this and say 15 years from now, I hope that the region and in certainly our country is recognized for its leadership in areas that are around governance and around respect towards peoples. And we can do that as a private journey. I think the governments have to lead and they have to show us by example, but we have an obligation to also engage in that dialogue and actually take the acts ourselves cause policies, absent participation of the people they're just non they're non-functional right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:24)
I agree. One of the things I would add, which is one of the real strengths of the UAE is the legal system and the legal precedents and the foundation of creating that certainty, frankly for foreigners, that legal system is rock solid. There's no capricious activity in that legal system. And that's usually the hallmark of great commercial success for a country. So, there's so many things I'm impressed with before I turn it over to Rachel, where we have a ton of audience questions. I want to ask you one last question about the Belt and Road Initiative. What are your thoughts there and how do you think that's going to affect MEASA?

Nabyl Al Maskari: (22:08)
So look, ultimately, I look at the initiative is one in which you have to play kind of by derivatives. It's not an opportunity to directly invest into the strategy. It's one largely geopolitical. I think that that connectivity is a historical bond between these regions and, and whether you call it, the silk road, whether you call it MEASA, I think ultimately we have very different perspectives and it's very ethnocentric and how we choose to have the nomenclature and identify, but ultimately it's around the fact that there is a natural flow by way of both resource centers and consumption that there's opportunities to create wealth. And that's been there since the time of [inaudible 00:22:47] , at the times of Marco Polo. It doesn't matter. We all have our explorers that have sort of gone and forged ahead for us, I think is going to be by capital flow.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (22:56)
It's not going to be by discovering those new frontiers in geography. Let me just say one quick thing before we turned some other points. Because it's something that was on my mind and I wanted to kind of raise with you. You know, we talked a lot about the role of women and we talked a lot about how things are changing and then the political discourse here. I would be remissed if I didn't have an opportunity, you know that I studied the United States just to extend my condolences to the United States around the loss of Justice Ginsburg, an amazing icon. When you're a student of history, irrespective of politics, I think that you could recognize the role that she played. And she, I hope as history will show is an inspiration point for many. So just wanted to extend those condolences to obviously your side as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:43)
Well, it's very sweet of to do that. And one of my most brilliant memories, frankly, is you, me, my son AJ and your mom talking about the love affair that you guys have with the United States and our new love affair with the UAE. So I do appreciate that also it goes without saying, but I am going to mention it. We've had over 200,000 deaths in the country. And so at some point we're going to have to figure that out as well, which obviously gives us both great sadness, but I want to switch to something optimistic and joyful. We've got Rachel, our new host of the SALT talk look at her. She just karate chopped John Dorsey and the Adam's apple Nabyl. So, you know, I obviously enjoyed that. So Rachel, I'm turning it over to you and the questions we have from the audience,

Rachel Pether: (24:36)
Thanks so much, Anthony, for stirring up that competitive spirit and also to Nabyl for that great discussion. One thing that we're seeing a lot of in the institutional investor community, and this was touched on by Russell last week as well, is innovation partnerships, whether that's at a co-investment level or in joint ventures. And I think when we're looking at the MEASA region, one concern that institutional investors sometimes have with a justified or otherwise issues around transparency. So could you talk a bit more about your partnership approach and how that might resolve some of these issues or perceptions

Nabyl Al Maskari: (25:16)
Fair point and I think it's the right way to ask the question because transparency, which sort of is the governance [quotion 00:25:24] has always been this point of reticence in terms of engaging to the region, because whether it be just purely opaque and you didn't understand what was going on, or whether you believe that you had an obscured view. I think that had always been one of the constraints around capital. As a private family we've had the privilege to partner both with government. So we've worked directly with Temasek Company portfolios in generations past, we partnered with US listed companies and can continue to do so.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (25:50)
So I have a little bit of sense of the spectrum of how one needs to position themselves to be able to kind of partner. And ultimately, I think this goes to the idea that we will continue to see a constraint around the performance of our companies if we don't adopt the proper principles of transparency and governance, both at the board and at that executive level. so I think irrespective capital will flow to those most deserving of it. I think what we need to do in the peer group. Working with institution investors and others is create the opportunity to showcase those success stories because unfortunately many of them have not evolved significantly to the maturity curve to be in a public market opportunity.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (26:34)
Most of them are earlier phase. And when you talk about the opening around technology and integration, I think that's really the touch point of sort of that tangency. You get to come into the market. Typically these are high growth. They are not homogeneous. It's, it's a very difficult region. MEASA over 90 countries is how we define it. But ultimately there is some consistency around the approach and that requires localization. Ultimately the only way one can be successful across such a diverse geography is to be able to have a strong ground game. And I know this is the same, whether you're a US investor and you're talking about, New England or sort of the Southwest, it also requires a very localized approach. And I think that's where we will have to look at manager selection. We will have to look at engaging with the right forums to be able to bring those leaders to the forefront and get them the right support.

Rachel Pether: (27:27)
So we've actually had some audience questions come in related to two separate points that you just spoke about the capsule piece and the technology piece, someone asked, what can investors from other countries bring to help the UAE and the Al Maskari family achieve their goals. Money is less of the issue, but what about other strategic purposes? So there's specific things that you're looking at and the country

Nabyl Al Maskari: (27:53)
Look as I said at the outset, we take our scripts from where we think the government has need. We very much look to the public sector, whether it be from an off-take perspective or a support perspective. And I think the signaling is clear there when you're having a fast growing economy, but one in a COVID environment, what you begin to realize is that in generations past you became probably overly reliant on international supply. So today domestic production, whether it be in food or other sort of key verticals is almost a strategic imperative. It's not something that you look at from a standpoint of sort of protectionism, this isn't the sort of policy effect around creating sort of protected jobs. This is an idea around saying, how can we ensure that we're able to support our region's growth and do it from within the region?

Nabyl Al Maskari: (28:46)
So thematically, clearly food security, which goes across agri into water. You have to look at some sort of light manufacturing, because as I say, we are in a very actual, low energy cost environment. We're able to produce at scale, whether you see this in our steel or aluminum industries. So there will be ways that we can become a net exporter of certain ones in which we have sort of, again, I like the new [inaudible 00:29:10] term of geo arbitrage, right? But we have some endowments that we should be leveraging to our advantage. And I think that when we, as a family look at that, we try to figure out where can we both support the economy and be the right sort of access point for those who want to come in, I would just draw attention, happy to get Anthony to weigh back in on this. I think one of the concerns we have when we're as a family, looking at this, I remember being a student in the United States when the first sort of [CFIUS 00:29:40] ruling came around DPW.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (29:42)
Remember back in 06, we were sort of looking at the port acquisition and I was coming out of business school prior to being a management consultant. And this was literally like the perfect case point of saying, how do you look at foreign direct investment, technology, and protectionism. In terms of how that policy went forward. There were a lot of learnings from that, but I think we as a global community now, when we look at the evolution of [CFIUS 00:30:08] and now the new [FIRRMA 00:30:09] , which most people didn't even see that legislation come into effect in 2018 under the current administration. And now seeing the implications around China and technology into the United States, that's clearly where we as investors in technology partners need to realize that you have almost a geopolitical viewpoint on your partnerships.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (30:28)
It's, it's almost economic diplomacy that's happening. And if you don't recognize that, and if you don't calibrate for it, I think you're on the downside of [inaudible 00:30:37] return. And I think you have a lot more risk that you're not actually calibrating in.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:41)
So, I mean, just 30 seconds, I would say that there's a trade isolationism, which is somewhat similar to the isolationist view in the late 20's and the early 30's for the United States with Franklin Roosevelt gave a very famous speech about and caution people on moreover, we remember Roosevelt for many things, but the relationship that he built with Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia really cemented the US Alliance if you will, with Saudi Arabia and eventually the UAE. And so I just cautioned my fellow Americans to recognize that America first may feel like America alone. It may not be in the best long-term interest of the United States.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:30)
Sometimes we clutch to our tribalism and our nativism. Where the natural forces we're better off combining and conjoining because of what David Ricardo said. And I'll just remind everybody, David Ricardo said that no nation can get what they want or need in terms of goods and services at the lowest cost without trading with other nations. So it's just a cautionary reminder of where I think we all need to go in terms of reducing our tribal feelings and reducing our perceived differences and recognizing that we have way more in common. And so anyway, I'm off my soap box and I'll turn it back to Rachel, but I definitely love what you're saying Nabyl. And I think we all have to go that way directionally.

Rachel Pether: (32:21)
Yeah, no, those are really interesting points. And from the Sovereign wealth fund perspective, as Nabyl mentioned, when the DP world sort of investment broke down, it was then when the Sovereign wealth funds came in after the financial crisis, they were sort of seen as the White Knights. And that's when we started to see a bit of a shift from the institutional investor community then, just a couple more questions from me Nabyl. How has Al Maskari Holdings been affected by COVID? And have you seen it creating any shifts in the UAE economy more broadly?

Nabyl Al Maskari: (32:55)
So I'll answer on two, I mean certainly for our portfolio, we're fortunate that we have a strong bias towards ICT. I think we pivoted to that in the last 18 to 24 months and extended, we have a lot of multinationals that provide those ITC services, but these are large listed companies that are actually supporting the TELCO's are doing digital transformation. So from that standpoint, I think we were well poised as a family to provide those services, as you looked at remote working, and obviously the ability for us as a country to be able to create the right safe environment, to continue to kind of engage. And I think that's, what's important. Economies can not shut down. They need to adapt, evolve, and ultimately I think they can become more efficient as a throughput of the exercise. So from an ICT perspective, we've done and we're [foreign language 00:33:43] , we're blessed to have those companies in our portfolio.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (33:46)
I think that the UAE, because we had done so much work towards digital government. Now you're seeing policy evolutions around ones only, which are kind of, again, these are ideas where they're adopted in Europe. If you give the documents, let's say one time to a European government, they can't ask a second time. So it requires a work-share within it. So you're seeing a lot of these efficiency gains that will come from this digital transformation. I think the interesting point and the opportunity for us all is that when you look at the potential role redundancies, that occur because of either shift towards shared services or towards this outsourcing model, as you become more lean and you digitize operations, I think that's where there's a real opportunity for a family like ours structured around empowerment, Emiratisation to come in and say, how do we make sure that the individuals are retrained, repurposed, and ultimately redeployed into meaningful roles?

Nabyl Al Maskari: (34:41)
Those that can't, either not suited or skilled, that's where the government has announced a lot of policies to find ways to invest into their people. And that's ultimately a question that goes back to when you ask "what can you describe about the UAE? Who is the UAE? What is it?" It's a country that's really focused on the citizens and the residents, not just one exclusively to the other. So they're trying to find the right balance of a stable economy. You see that now with announcements where in the past the government would have maybe direct companies engaging in services, they become a little bit more reluctant to perform those where they're letting competition now actually occur organically. So I think that you need to recognize that the landscape is a quick moving one it's dynamic, but it will ultimately require us to kind of look to our international partners that have gone through these exercises in much larger economies and actually bring those best practices here to the UAE and to the region.

Rachel Pether: (35:40)
Fabulous. Thanks so much Nabyl. And we've just got time for one more question, and you have answered quite a lot of difficult questions today. So I'm going to give you a nice, easy one. That's coming from Sebastian. He's asked, how can we learn more about the UAE and its history? Is there a book or some films that you could recommend?

Nabyl Al Maskari: (35:59)
So films they're just beginning, there's a fantastic documentary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:05)
Don't say Sex and the City, Nabyl, [crosstalk 00:36:06] Sex and the City.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (36:10)
I was going to say, I had, again with disclosure to my wife was the CEO of Dubai Media. So, I've heard the stories from the [Cannes 00:36:19] perspective, right. And the kind of, I'm going to try to norm that a bit. Look, I think many people first experienced the UAE again, as we talked about earlier, probably from Dubai, because a lot of the film industries have come in and we've attracted that, you've seen our landscape. You probably don't recognize it. So from franchise films, you've probably seen the backdrops, but that's really, to me, one aspect it's of a multifaceted and really multicultural experience. There are a lot of books about it.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (36:50)
I'm happy to kind of offline after this, we'll provide back to the team at SALT, a list of recommended readings. But as I was saying, when we got a bit distracted, there was a great documentary that was shot a little while ago, actually. And National Geographic had put it out that shows some of the history of the UAE and the evolution from an Archeological perspective. So I highly recommend it's shot in the highest definition. You can imagine it takes you across the region, but most importantly, let me end with this. It's an open invitation when COVID subsides to have those that are watching on behalf of the country, even though I'm a private and I don't have the role to play in the government, what I can say from all of us who live here, we welcome you to come experience our country firsthand either before, or certainly during the Expo.

Nabyl Al Maskari: (37:40)
I know we couldn't hold it this year because of COVID. We intend to hold it next year, but there's no better way to just sort of look at the Expo, which will be held in Dubai as an opportunity to really engage, learn, and hopefully come to love our country. Because those that leave from here, oftentimes we're always talking about when they want to come back. And I know Anthony is chief among those. So we hope to see you soon back here and we'll welcome you. I know my mother is sort of inquiring. So we're looking forward to not only meet with the SkyBridge team as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:09)
We're very excited about the future relationship with your family. You personally, the country. And I have to tell you that our reception at SALT in December, I thought was really magnificent. I mean, and there's so much to do. And frankly, one of the things I'm very proud of on behalf of SkyBridge Nabyl, is bringing more Americans to the region, that have less familiarity with the region to see all the amazing possibilities they. So thank you so much for joining us on SALT Talks, Rachel, you did an amazing job, but I'm getting mean texts like from the movie mean girls from John Dorsey that I have to stop being so complimentary of you, but you did a great job. And Nabyl, I want to see you soon. So we're looking forward to it.

Fintech Is Growing & Here's Why | SALT Talks #54

“Leveraging data and technology to create access can change the future.“

Michael Weisz is the Founder & President of Yieldstreet, an alternative investment platform focused on generating passive income streams for investors. Gil Mandelzis is the Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Capitolis, the leading SaaS platform driving financial resource optimization for capital markets.

“What is the power of capital and how can you use it to change the world?” Correcting income disparity has the potential to improve countless life and create new opportunity. But what true innovation has happened in financial services over the past decade? “Not a whole lot: payments and distribution.”

Post-financial crisis, we are seeing fewer, larger banks with more constraints on their capital, meaning there is abundant independent capital seeking out returns. With this comes the need for regulation, something that separates FinTech from other industries like ride sharing.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Michael Weisz.jpeg

Michael Weisz

Founder & President

Yieldstreet

Gil Mandelzis.jpeg

Gil Mandelzis

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Capitolis

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. And this is a landmark SALT Talk today. I'm broadcasting live for the first time in 2020 from SkyBridge HQ here in Manhattan, contrary to popular belief. Manhattan is still here. It's not the wasteland that many people conveyed to me that it is. And it's great to be back in the office. We're going to start slowly getting back to normal here at SkyBridge and SALT. So it's great to be here. And obviously I have a new background here for those who have been recurring listeners.

John Darsie: (00:48)
But SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews we've been doing during this work from home period. That was some of the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. What we're really trying to do is replicate the experience that we provide at our global SALT conference series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome two FinTech entrepreneurs, who are definitely shaping the future of the financial industry, as well as the technology world.

John Darsie: (01:19)
That's Michael Weisz and Gil Mandelzis to SALT Talks. Michael is the founder and the president of Yieldstreet. He's responsible for Yieldstreet's investment strategy and originator network, and has overseen more than 900 million in transactions over the course of his career. He began his career at a $1.2 billion, New York based credit fund, working his way up to vice president before co-founding his own fund in 2013. During his 10 years on the institutional side of the business, he grew frustrated that access to superior wealth creation opportunities, it wasn't quite as accessible to the individual investor.

John Darsie: (01:57)
In 2015, with that in mind, he teamed up with Milind Mehere to create Yieldstreet, which democratizes access to the alternative investment world. Gil is the founder and CEO of Capitolis, which is a leading software as a service platform, driving financial resource optimization for capital markets. He's an award winning serial entrepreneur and industry executive in the FinTech space with a successful record of creating disruptive products and companies and leading them through global scaling. Prior to Capitolis, Gil was the CEO of EBS BrokerTec, which is NEX Group, formerly ICAP, it's the foreign exchange and fixed income electronic markets business.

John Darsie: (02:40)
He served as a member of ICAP'S global executive management group, and before EBS BrokerTec, he was the CEO of Traiana, which was a post-trade processing company he founded in 2000. Traiana was featured in a Kellogg Business School business case study that was written about Gil. He was also a member of the New York Federal Reserves Foreign Exchange Committee, the Bank of England's Joint Standing Committee and the Bank of Canada's Foreign Exchange Committee. Just a reminder, if you have any questions for Gil or Michael during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen within the Zoom window. And hosting today's interview will be Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, as well as the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony.

Antony Scaramucci: (03:28)
Okay, well, I just want to thank the Academy for giving me the room Raider award on this particular SALT Congress. Your three room Raiders look terrible. I think mine looks great. This is the first time that I actually beat John Darsie. So I just would like to thank my mom and dad and other members of the room Raider Academy. But Gil, let's go to you first. Okay, Gil well, you have this amazing career and how did you get it started? Tell us a little bit about the family you grew up in and how you took this trajectory with your life?

Gil Mandelzis: (04:02)
Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for having me. I grew up in Israel and I grew up to a very, I would say, culturally minded and socialist family. And my calling was actually to be a professor of sociology. I started thinking very early on about society structures and what is the right structure. And I started making myself all the way from Max, from Max all the way to capitalism, which is where ultimately I landed as a society structure that is very compelling. And therefore was very attracted to the capital of capitalism, which is the US. And came here and became a FinTech entrepreneur. That was way before FinTech was hot.

Gil Mandelzis: (05:00)
Actually FinTech in 2000 was, it wasn't a term, but financial technology was actually a really bad word. If you wanted to raise money from venture capital, especially in the Silicon Valley back then, financial technology was the last thing you wanted to say. But my focus was, and still is on, if capitalism is important, capital markets make capitalism available or possible. And the structure and the infrastructure for this market is something that is very near and dear to my heart. So I think a lot about global market infrastructure, global market structure, and how to make it more robust and how to introduce innovation that is going to push the agenda further.

Antony Scaramucci: (05:39)
Well, before I get to Michael and just a quick answer, give me a short answer to this. Our capitalist model is under siege. There's a lot of income disparity, and it seems like people that I grew up with, Michael, aren't doing as well as they used to. I grew up in this aspirational blue collar family. Most of those families now are economically desperational. Is that a byproduct of capitalism? Or is that something we can fix?

Gil Mandelzis: (06:06)
Well, I think it's both. I don't think capitalism is perfect by any means. And I think there are a lot of things that are broken and should be fixed, but I would also say that working from within capitalism on improving it, is probably a better solution than just throwing the baby.

Antony Scaramucci: (06:27)
[inaudible 00:06:27] you, and I agree on that. Michael let's turn over to you and the famous Yieldstreet. So what happened there? How'd you get this thing going? What did your parents think you were going to be when you were growing up and how did you end up here?

Michael Weisz: (06:43)
All right. I'm a native New Yorker, grew up on Long Island to a nice, quiet, nice area.

Antony Scaramucci: (06:52)
What town? We're going to do Italian, Jewish geography for people that don't live on Long Island. So good. What town?

Michael Weisz: (06:57)
Here we go. I grew up in a town called Lawrence, which is in the Five Towns.

Antony Scaramucci: (07:01)
You grew in the Five Towns? Okay. Sure. I used to hang out in oceanside at that Nathan's when I was a kid. My uncle owned that motorcycle shop in port Washington. We used to go down to Nathan's for those Tuesday night events.

Michael Weisz: (07:14)
That's like our backyard.

Antony Scaramucci: (07:16)
Which always brought the cops, but that's a whole other topic. Okay. Go ahead. So you're growing up in Lawrence, your parents think you're going to be what?

Michael Weisz: (07:24)
My parents think I'm going to probably be like a doctor or a lawyer, good Jewish family.

Antony Scaramucci: (07:29)
[crosstalk 00:07:29] good, of course.

Michael Weisz: (07:31)
Thank you. I appreciate it. The truth is-

Antony Scaramucci: (07:33)
Darsie's parents thought he was going to be a banker, trust me, they thought he was going to look like the guy in the Monopoly board, but you two were [crosstalk 00:07:42]-

Michael Weisz: (07:42)
We were both terrible disappointment.

Antony Scaramucci: (07:43)
The other one was a doctor. I was supposed to be landscaping your yards, just so everybody's clear. And look at us now, we're all here on this SALT Talk. All right. Go ahead, so what happened?

Michael Weisz: (07:55)
I got enamored by the financial markets, like trying to understand what risk means even as a young kid, and how investor appetite works and where people put their money and how markets change. I'll be honest and say that when I thought I was enamored by it, I had no idea what it actually meant, but it was interesting to me. And growing up as a kid that would spend some time in the city and cut school to jump on the LIRR and go hang out, the energy that was in New York City and seeing all these huge buildings in Wall Street, really had me very interested.

Michael Weisz: (08:28)
As I started my career, I started to think about, what really is the power of capital? How can you use capital to change the world? Is it by investing and helping create jobs? By supporting entrepreneurs to get ahead, you talk about wealth disparity, income disparity, those are topics that are always been incredibly interesting to me. And we should jump into that. And then on the other side of that is how do you help people achieve those financial ambitions? And how do you use your skillset, your ability, and the broader capital in the investment market to make a bigger difference? And that's really what got me into being excited about financial markets and investing overall.

Michael Weisz: (09:07)
Yieldstreet was the next generation. I started out doing some regular, I would say, run of the mill asset based lending, nothing too exciting, supply chain financing, receivable financing, et cetera. And what I quickly learned was that inefficiency in certain subsets of the market can often lead you to have more attractive yield. And what ultimately became front and center to me was that, the income disparity that's really going on is as a result of education, jobs and that lack of access. And leveraging data and technology to create access can really change the future and help people get to their financial ambitions. And that's really how YieldStreet got started. That's what I've gotten incredibly excited about. And that's what led me here today.

Antony Scaramucci: (09:59)
Well, first of all, congratulations, amazing career for both of you guys. But on Michael, I want to ask a little bit about the role of technology in the pre-COVID environment, and how does it look now in the post-COVID environment based on your commercial experience?

Michael Weisz: (10:18)
The front half of that question is pretty broad. I'm going to dig into it a little bit. I think that we could all agree that technology has brought our lives to a whole different place. And we see it evolving year over year. If you think about basic interactions with your financial wellbeing, whether it's your trading stock or your interactions with your retirement accounts, with your credit card, how you go about getting a mortgage, et cetera. We've seen a tremendous amount of advancements in technology. I think the question really is like, what real innovation have we seen? And as people talk about FinTech. So as I think about FinTech, it's really the partnership between traditional financial services and technology to enable something even better, a better experience, better access, better outcome.

Michael Weisz: (11:10)
When you really take the time to think about where has true innovation happened in financial services, it's not a whole lot. It's happened in the payments space and it's happened in the distribution space, but finding more websites to identify investors, to borrow money more, or to find a better credit card or a better mortgage supplier is not true innovation. I think that what you're seeing over the last number of years pre-COVID is this buildup and acceptance of technology, and how it's enabled banks and other financial companies to advance and to make progress and to streamline things, to make the business more efficient.

Michael Weisz: (11:51)
What you're seeing now, and what we'll talk about over the next couple of years is having real true innovation. And I think that COVID has systematically changed a lot of our behavior and it's impacted the financial services market as well. And I'm happy to comment on that whenever you're ready.

Antony Scaramucci: (12:11)
Yeah. Well, let me just fire Gil in here because we're creating a technological asset management salad. So let me just ask Gil to dovetail off of that. So the banks have obviously turned to technology to improve their relationship with the asset management community. Tell us how they've done that, and tell us where you think that trend's going? And then I have a question for both of you that will synthesize where you both are.

Gil Mandelzis: (12:36)
Yeah. If I just take a step back for a second, just to where we're coming from, basically, we're trying to bring and borrow a lot of the sharing economy, network economies, Allah, Uber, Airbnb, and otherwise into the capital markets world, with the basic premise that says that on the back of the financial crisis, A, we have fewer banks. B, these banks, they used to have basically unlimited amounts of capital, and that was the lowest cost of capital that is out there. The regulator is on the back of the financial crisis, changed the game. And to a certain extent rewrote the industrial logic of what is a bank. And very wisely have done that. Not through a hard and fast Volcker rule, but actually through the economics such actually the bigger you get, the more expensive your capital is you could do less things off balance sheet, et cetera, et cetera.

Gil Mandelzis: (13:36)
What happens is 10 years later, and it's only going to grow over time. We have fewer banks, global banks with massive infrastructures and capabilities, with more and more constraints on their capital and their cost of capital. And you have actually much more money out there looking for returns, many more asset managers that are managing significantly more capital and are looking for those services. And there you have a basic tension in the market. So the asset managers can no longer just come to the banks and say, "I want you to do this for me." And the banks are just going to say yes, because the equation has changed. So it has to become a much more collaborative model of understanding the supply and demand, the cost of capital. What does it cost for the bank to service me, et cetera?

Gil Mandelzis: (14:30)
Banks can no longer, obviously if you're a Blackstone or obviously if you're SkyBridge or if you're a PIMCO or BlackRock, you could get any service you want from the large banks. But when you're talking about asset manager number 10,000, without technology, and without scale. Without technology that would allow the scale, it's impossible to service those clients and to provide them what they need. It's a much more collaborative effort between them. Sometimes the banks are suppliers. Sometimes, actually the banks are going to be consumers of the asset managers, and you have to provide those platforms that are going to allow them to collaborate.

Antony Scaramucci: (15:08)
Makes total sense. It's obviously the intersection where everything's happening. So this is a question I have for both of you. I want you to envision where we are five years from now, in terms of technological efficiencies, and then in terms of product design. Let's start with you, Michael. You guys have laid out where we were and where we are now, but I guess the question is where are we going?

Michael Weisz: (15:37)
Sure. I think, let's zoom out for a second and just focus from a very practical perspective, what is the business? What do we do? And then what's happening around us in the industry? So very simply put Yieldstreet's mission is to help millions of people get a road to financial independence. And we do that by providing them access to what we believe are best in class institutional grade, alternative investments. Our customers are two sides. On one hand, you have the investors. So you have 200 plus 1,000 individual investors, high net worth, et cetera. On the other side, you have institutions, banks, hedge fund managers, lenders, et cetera, that are looking for a strategic capital partner.

Michael Weisz: (16:20)
What Yieldstreet essentially provides the supply side. So the deal side, the investment opportunity side is what I like to refer to as distribution infrastructure. And in what we will talk about that in what we provide to the retail side is a new wealth management tools, wealth creation tool. So very simply put, my partners and my team at Yieldstreet, are we just a special breed of genius? No, not at all, not even close, is we were able to recognize how it changed in a regulatory environment and a change in the capabilities of technology can create incredible efficiency, ease of use the digitally native solution. And you can leverage the masses to create financial equality.

Michael Weisz: (17:09)
When Yieldstreet takes on $100 million deal and makes that available fractionally to investors of all different sizes, it is now participating in the same type of deals that your founder, or your capital would, or banks or hedge funds or et cetera. So what we've been able to do is leverage-

Antony Scaramucci: (17:27)
Are you be worried about the risks though? I want you to keep going, but so I'm a retail investor. I may not understand the things that the institutional guys are. Are you worried about that democratization?

Michael Weisz: (17:40)
Yes and no. So currently our current user base is exclusively accredited investors with the exception of 140 act fund. That is a heavily diversified product. I think that, if you take a comparative analysis, Anthony, people who don't have access to the types of investments that you make or that we make are investing their money often in far more risky products. So think about penny stocks, biotech companies, whatever ticker they hear in a bar or on the train, as opposed to the types of investments that we're doing are secure debt. There's real estate backing it. There are other assets. Are there risks? Of course there are. Are there going to be challenges? Of course, there will be.

Michael Weisz: (18:24)
We all experience them as we get to a certain scale, but in the last six years, even less, Yieldstreet has funded a billion foreign loans paid out over 600 million bucks. We've had our fair share of setbacks like every other manager, but that's what we're here for. And that's what we get paid for, so you get paid for. So I think the key is, for YieldStreet to continue to deliver quality education, really trying to explain to people in our content, what are the risks, how to understand them and to explain to them what that process looks like. Will everybody always completely understand it? I don't know. I think they do. I think they're accredited. I think they're sophisticated people. They read it. Will people be upset when something doesn't go the way they want it to? They always are, but that's not going to be any different than your institutional investors or our investors.

Antony Scaramucci: (19:13)
What do you think, Gil? What's the future look like to you?

Gil Mandelzis: (19:17)
I think first of all, I totally buy into Michael's vision and mission and the great work that Yieldstreet's doing. From our perspective, we're doing very similar things, but only at the institutional level. So if you think about democratizing access to opportunities that did not exist before, at the core of our vision sits what we call the lean bank. So you think about the JP Morgan, Citi, a State Street, Bank of America, they will have to, they already have to, and will continue to have to be much leaner from a use of capital, efficiency of capital and financial resources, for their day-to-day operations.

Gil Mandelzis: (19:56)
What we're doing is two things. The first thing is we're identifying all kinds of unnecessary positions, offsetting positions that they have on their books, and we're helping to eliminate them. And that happens now in trillions of dollars every month. And the world is huge. Like every segment we're looking at is trillions of dollars of opportunities, basically almost like free money that can be eliminated and has huge impact on the capital efficiency of the trading relationship.

Gil Mandelzis: (20:25)
The next thing we do is where you cannot compress it, can you now outsource it or partner with participants just like at YieldStreet they will go to the accredited investor, we would go with a Citibank position and offer an asset manager. And it could be any asset manager, we're just dealing with institutional investors to now be the financing partner of the large bank. And obviously we're looking here, like in the first month that we've done the last issuance, we're getting close to a billion dollars and the numbers are ginormous in this space, but basically allowing the balance sheet of banks, and allowing the financing of banks in a large part to now be democratized to the asset managers on the planet that have plenty of cash, but are looking for yield. And will never have the infrastructure and the capabilities that at JP Morgan, Citi or others have.

Gil Mandelzis: (21:26)
The investment that exists in for an equity prime broker or for a foreign exchange platform, this is billions, if not tens of billions of dollars that was invested by the banks, you cannot replicate that. Their distribution, you cannot replicate that. By the way, from a compliance and regulatory perspective, you cannot replicate the capabilities that they have. What they're missing is capital or the cheapest source of capital that exists elsewhere in the world and is abundant. Bring those together and everybody wins. It's good for the banks. It's good for people with capital. It's good for the clients. And from a regulatory perspective and market structure perspective, this is exactly what the regulators want. Because it's a safe market, but also we're bringing more capital that is diversified into the market.

Antony Scaramucci: (22:14)
So Michael, you listening, this is a former socialist that speaks about capitalism with the appropriate zealotry of a converted person. So mazel talk on that.

Michael Weisz: (22:26)
[crosstalk 00:22:26] tastes, but Anthony, if you don't mind, I was thinking about as Gil was talking about two things that you were saying. So one, we start off earlier, you made a passionate commentary about the wealth disconnect in America. And that is a real issue. And then talk all about-

Antony Scaramucci: (22:47)
It's fueling all of this anger, and nationalism, and tribalism and everything, but yes, go ahead.

Michael Weisz: (22:52)
There's obviously different levels of that. Poverty is a separate story. And then there's the blue collar, which is where you started. And I know that story all too well. And the problem is that if people don't have the ability to get ahead and to make more money and have their money work for them, then they're all going to end up at that same place. And that's really, what's causing this disparity. People who can afford to get above their expenses and to have their money work for them, have way more opportunities that's ahead of them. And everyone else falls below the line. And so when you take that and you take the question about the risk to retail. I was thinking about two things.

Michael Weisz: (23:29)
Number one, if you look at... and I was looking for it if I had my slide, but I think it's just going to be too cumbersome to find it and projected. But we used to talk about this slide in the earlier days of YieldStreet, where if you look at the general population of Americans with the ages of 1880, and you look at their financial path, their journey over that, over that period of years, what you find is in the first set of years, call it 18 to late 20s, most people have a ton of debt. They have a lot of student debt, all that other stuff. In their 30s, they start to make a little money. They hit some stability, they have less debt. They have more appropriate debt, whether it's a mortgage, et cetera. And then as they get older and older, they start to invest be it their IRA stocks, bonds, et cetera.

Michael Weisz: (24:13)
The average entrance for an individual into alternatives was 65 years old. 65 years old. That doesn't give you a tremendous amount of time to build that up. Because of the technology and our capabilities Yieldstreet's average customer age is 42. That's a huge, huge number of years to get people to have that earnings working for them. The second thing I would say is, I think it's important that we ask ourselves like, hey, why hasn't alternatives been appropriately distributed to retail in the right way at the right field level? And the answer isn't that it's not, of course it is. All these banks, all these guys are packaging up and distributing it through FAAs, the Edward Jones of the world, the Charles Schwabs of the world. They're getting the same paper. They're just getting a three to 500 basis points, three to 600 basis, point less because of every partner in the middle who has to be paid a fee for that distribution. So there's the wrap fee, the distribution fee, the banker's fee, et cetera.

Michael Weisz: (25:09)
What we're able to see now, is disintermediating some of those costs, some of that process is delivering that value net to the investor. I think the question is over time, how will product design, so the actual investment product design evolve to make it better, safer, less risky, et cetera, for investors? Or at least give them the choice to select different risk barometers. So are they going to pick binary investments? Are they going to pick fund level investments? Are they going to pick something with liquidity? Are they going to pick something without liquidity? I think that's really what we have to think about more and less so about, hey, if it's a $500 million deal and you're getting $100 million allocation and delivering that same trade to retail, isn't that potentially a better risk reward opportunity than some of the other alternatives where they have?

Gil Mandelzis: (26:02)
Yeah. If I may, I just follow up on structure. First of all, I'm a glass 95% full kind of a guy. I just want a couple of optimistic points here that I'd like to highlight. First of all, 12 years ago, the entire global financial system almost collapsed, like we're on the verge of a collapse. And I do think that all the regulators that were part of and governments that were part of saving the system, they should all get medals for the work that they've done. And in truly saving the system, and by the way, all of the taxpayers, all the world had to, in many places in the world, had to bail out the banks.

Gil Mandelzis: (26:47)
And I think that 10 to 12 years later, first of all, we need to acknowledge that we're in a completely different place, and look at what just happened in COVID with all of this horrific, totally unexpected, not just human suffering, but everything was happening to the economy. We are not talking about any bank or any meaningful financial institution that's anywhere near a problem. And the system was operating in full throttle. And I think that that is an amazing achievement that we should all feel good about. And we should make sure that we're continuously, every improvement, YieldStreet and Capitolis and others, we're basically all standing on the shoulders of giants. And those giants are providing this infrastructure that operates, it works. And I think that we're in much better place and we need to make sure that that system continues to operate.

Gil Mandelzis: (27:46)
So that's the first thing. I think there's a lot to celebrate, but obviously on the back of those changes, structural changes will have to happen. If you think about the big changes that have occurred in the past, deregulation of the telecom industry, if you think about the invention of the internet, if you think about the invention of the iPhone or GPS for that matter, those things led to massive changes and those massive changes will come in the financial system as well, especially in the capital markets in the B2B world in the years to come.

Gil Mandelzis: (28:17)
The last thing I just want to say is, I'm a very proud citizen of Israel. I'm also very proud citizen of the US, and that has been very good to me. And I just want to caution us that while the system is not perfect here, I have to say as an immigrant and as somebody who lives here all day long, but I travel abroad, I think there's still a lot to be proud of. And there's a lot of good things in the system, and what you're doing, Michael is amazing and there's a lot of work to do to improve. But I think our starting point is fantastic. And this is still the place where, most nations will be looking up to and will want to come here. With all the criticism and everything that we have to improve, I'd still rather have this conversation out of my office in New York city than elsewhere.

Antony Scaramucci: (29:09)
Well, you and I totally agree with that. I think there's an amazing future for the country, but if we can calm down some of the emotional unrest and some of the racial tension by creating a fair system-

Gil Mandelzis: (29:23)
100%.

Antony Scaramucci: (29:24)
For me, I'm all about uneven outcomes. I loved seeing the wealth that you guys have created and the value that it's in society, but I am really for equal opportunity because we didn't control our parents or location of our birth or anything about our lives until we got here. And if we could just create a better platform of equal opportunity, it'll dial down some of this tension, but you don't need to hear all my politics. We have to turn it over to John Darsie, John moneybags Dorsil, who's got a ton of questions for you from the audience and has a very terrible background in the SkyBridge offices, getting a zero out of 10-

John Darsie: (30:05)
It's your company, Anthony.

Antony Scaramucci: (30:08)
The room Raider judges are piping in, zero out of 10. Why don't you put a printer behind you or something like that, just to spruce things up a little bit.

John Darsie: (30:16)
I'll bring a stapler in next time. I think it'll add a little ambience.

Antony Scaramucci: (30:19)
Go ahead, John. I know you got questions, your audience.

John Darsie: (30:22)
Yeah. The first question we have is around regulation and about... and we'll start with Gil, the sociologist. This is how the question was framed. Do you think financial institutional regulators have in tandem kept up with FinTech's growth in terms of understanding its risks, its applications, its benefits, and how has that impacted the growth of the industry and how will it continue to impact the growth of the industry?

Gil Mandelzis: (30:49)
Yeah, I think it's tricky. Look, when you're innovating is a very easy thing. I come up with an idea and I just going to do it. But if you're a regulator, there is much more to think about, and I had the honor and the pleasure of dealing with many of the regulators globally, they're thoughtful, they're trying to stay up to speed, but they're just, the regulators there's so much that's happening and until it reaches their radar screen and they really understand, and they understand all the implications, et cetera. So the short answer is, for the important things, I think that the answer is absolutely. Yes. If you were to talk about and if you look at the reaction of regulators over time, for instance, to cryptocurrencies, they definitely have had a very thoughtful and have a very thoughtful approach and they're keeping a close eye on it.

Gil Mandelzis: (31:43)
And at the time when there was a lot of noise around high frequency trading and flash boys and all of that. And so big movements and big things that are happening from a FinTech perspective, the regulators are definitely getting educated. They're thinking about these things and I have not observed them stifling innovation by any means. But in the end of the day, FinTech is very important and it's very different not to minimize other industries, but it's very different to hailing a cab or staying in somebody's hotel. We're talking about the trust in the system. We're talking about sovereignty of nations, this is what we're talking about. You could talk about fairness and society, but for this, one of the things that you absolutely have to have is a trustworthy financial system.

Gil Mandelzis: (32:41)
So we want the regulators to be thoughtful. We want to work in tandem and responsibly with them. And I think that for the big thing so far, they have not been stifling innovation, but they have been thoughtful and where necessary, they have been also proactive in their approach. So overall, I think that they've been very good in the various branches of the regulators.

John Darsie: (33:10)
Michael, I want to go to you with a different question. Another audience question. Obviously the pandemic has put a strain on a lot of different financial assets. Do you think that there is any sort of private capital bubble that exists? And how do you build products within the YieldStreet ecosystem to factor in your views on financial markets and areas that might be overheated?

Michael Weisz: (33:35)
Great question. I think that in many ways, even more applicable pre-COVID, so leading into COVID, there's just a tremendous amount of money available in the system and yields were being compressed across the board. You see it in the leverage loan market, you see it in the private capital markets, you see it venture, you're seeing it now in the SPAC market. There's definitely a lot of money out there to be invested. I would say a few things. One is, we talk about investments and the investment ecosystem as like, a specific area it's not, it's enormous. So you've got to think about an asset class level at an industry level and a sizing level. So for example, when you look at, let's look at the public markets for a second, just because they can give us a better analysis with leverage loan market.

Michael Weisz: (34:27)
The top 100 names have all rebounded significantly from where they were in March, but the SMEs in the leveraged loan market, because there's less efficiency of capital, there's far more opportunity there with technically dislocated pricing. You have the same thing in the capital markets. You have a significant number of players that are licking their wounds to some extent, and working through their portfolios and understanding what's going on and how COVID it's impacting. I was on a call this morning with our investment heads and the guy who runs a real estate business, Mitch Rosen was telling me about some of the feedback he had from some of the real estate bridge lenders out in the market.

Michael Weisz: (35:04)
He quoted five names that haven't written a deal since February. They have a tremendous amount of dry powder. They have other areas to focus on whether it's faults or other credits in their book. So there is always going to be opportunity. I actually think contrary to the notion of a bubble that right now, non-bank lenders are really in an amazing seat. There is still concern around the market as to how much credit to extend to small and medium sized businesses to your 200, $501 billion shop. And that means that non-bank lenders and platforms like Yieldstreet can access better quality risks at better pricing.

Michael Weisz: (35:43)
I see daily now that when you think back to early March and late February, where we were pricing transactions, you're 100, close to even sometimes 150 or 200 basis points above that. We just launched a deal as part of roughly $100 million syndicate to a two plus billion dollar revenue business. It's a six month trade with a 10% annualized yield investors. B minus B3 company. Candidly, we wouldn't have seen that deal six months ago or eight months ago. There would have been way too many players doing that same deal at 6%. So do I think there's a bubble in certain asset classes? Yes. Do I think that it's affecting opportunity? No, I think there's better opportunity now.

Michael Weisz: (36:25)
The risks are going to be different across the board, depending on what asset class you're looking to invest in and where you sit in the capital structure and what the underlying collateral is. But I think the time to invest in debt and technically dislocated distress, meaning in areas where there's a lack of efficiency in capital is now, is what we saw in 2009 and 10, I think it's going to be fantastic timing.

Gil Mandelzis: (36:48)
I would say John, on same questions just on the institutional side from our perspective, definitely. I don't know that there's a bubble, but there is basically infinite amounts of capital in the world just looking desperately for yield. And you're looking at, issuances in Europe, in negative yield. We've issued and we've seen our clients issue it unbelievably low rates historically, and even through COVID and where it moved a little bit. It basically bounced back and plus some over a very short period of time. So that's why we're so excited because we know that the origination capacity of the large banks to such investors, is basically infinite. We're talking about trillions of dollars of new investment opportunities.

Gil Mandelzis: (37:43)
We know that the capital is there looking for returns and ideally we'll be able to make those meet. So, hence we don't think it's a bubble because there are true destinations. You don't need something to artificially inflate in value because there is real value there. And there's effectively infinite supply if you're able to structure it right. And to present the right opportunities. But there is, we see it everywhere. We see it in venture capital. We see in every institutional asset class, there is just tons of capital looking for you.

John Darsie: (38:16)
I want to leave you guys both with a question about just the future of the financial industry. You talked Michael about the value of disintermediation and how that cost savings is passed along to the end investor. And that's obviously a positive thing for the investor themselves, but it's also going to lead probably to job losses on Wall Street, and the wealth management industry potentially shrinking as technology enables investors to have more direct access to these products that have typically lived in a more opaque environment, behind a wall of a bank or a wealth management shop, what do you think ultimately happens to the wealth management industry, the financial industry from a banking perspective? Gil, you can comment on that.

John Darsie: (38:59)
Where do we ultimately end up? It feels like now you have these FinTech companies that are disrupting. You also have banks that are trying to use technology to make themselves more efficient. What's the ultimate destination for the banking industry?, for the wealth management industry, and the financial industry as a whole when Fintech becomes mature? We'll start with Michael on that one.

Michael Weisz: (39:21)
A loaded question, I'm just trying to synthesize it a bit. So I think, a lot of people talk about job loss as a result of innovation technology. I challenge that, I think you look back in history, especially right before COVID we were at our lowest unemployment rate in decades, if not ever. And we have more innovation and more technology than we've had before. So I think that jobs shift, profession shifts, things change, society adapts, people do different things. So I wouldn't go right away and say that, hey, just because Tesla's out there, Ford's no longer can exist. All of a sudden Tesla's got enormous employee base. So people still need human output and human productivity to help us move forward.

Michael Weisz: (40:07)
Yieldstreet is growing rapidly. We have over 100 people now and we're going to keep growing. I would argue with that respectfully for a moment, more broadly, I think the notion that FinTech companies are going to pound their chest and Goldman Sachs and Citibank and JP Morgan are going to disappear is ridiculous. Frankly. I think the bigger question is to understand what is the consumer journey today and where does it have to go? And what I mean by that is, if I was in my office now I would pull out of my drawer. I always keep, two cell phones in my office. And I ask people, 15, 20 years ago, what was your favorite phone? And it's either a Nokia or StarTec. And when you look back then, I remember like what we were striving for every time a new Nokia came out was a smaller phone, as long as my fingers could play snake.

Michael Weisz: (41:00)
We went from a Startec to a V-phone tab, even smaller, and now our iPhones are getting bigger and bigger. So there's something more behind that. What is that? I think as a consumer, we were seeking task based efficiency. We wanted each thing in our life to perform as efficiently as possible. So my phone is just going to make phone calls and have text messages. My Palm pilot is going to have my contact thing and whatever else I had in there, my Blackberry is going to handle my emails and my BBM messenger. And today we don't seek task-based efficiency. We seek utility as consumers. We want to do as many things as possible with as few things as possible. And so when you think about the way you experience other areas in your life, shopping, Amazon, et cetera, we look to do as much as we can in one place.

Michael Weisz: (41:47)
If I asked most of the people on this call, how do you track your PA? It would be, "I have one to three banks. I trade in this many places. I have this many managers, I do this, this, that, and the other." That is not an efficient way than 2020 and 2021, we should be managing your money. So the consumer journey has to become much more inclusive, much more efficient, digitally native. And I, as a consumer, have to feel that I'm getting the best options available to me at my fingertips. So if I want to invest in bonds, I want to be able to get them direct and cheap or the best way possible. If I want to invest in alts, in venture and PE, why can't I just, because I don't have $10 million. I can't come into your fund? That doesn't make sense anymore because technology is an equalizer.

Michael Weisz: (42:32)
So what I think ultimately happens is like any other industry, you're going to go through a phase and that phase is going to be now. Okay. When we started at the top of the call, I said, there wasn't a tremendous amount of innovation in FinTech. So if you look at 2000, so our 2010 to 2020, and you look at the number of IPOs, unicorn IPOs for tech companies. There are only two in the financial services world. Two, none are in wealth management. They're both in like debt creation. So when you think about where our world is going, for those of you who track our industry, CB Insights has this list of the top two 50 FinTechs. There are many companies there that are now coming to the cost of a unicorn status are real scale. So I believe that 2020 to 2030 is a golden age of FinTech in 2010 to 2020 was the golden age of tech.

Michael Weisz: (43:26)
But we're going to see a tremendous amount of change now, you're going to have the survival of the fittest, especially as it relates to COVID, a lot of people are going to have run out of cash and not going to be able to keep growing and building. And so what you'll see here are a couple of guys who can come out and really build incredible businesses that are going to be your equivalent of your Facebooks and your Teslas and your Uber's. You're going to see a lot of acquisitions where banks are really going to partner with different players and start to utilize that technology and partner with and appreciate distribution infrastructure.

Michael Weisz: (43:53)
In my world, that's going to be appreciating a new investor dynamic that they've been chasing for a long time, getting closer to retail, getting more diversification, cheaper cost of capital, longer duration capital, and Gil's world, it's going to be, how do we connect deposit wealthy and deposit poor banks? How do we make capital markets more efficient? How do players at all levels able to get access much more efficiently? That's what I think the future holds, sorry, if it was a little long, but it was pretty loaded question.

John Darsie: (44:20)
That's great. The future is long. Gil, how about you?

Gil Mandelzis: (44:24)
Yeah. Look, I think the one thing that existed pre COVID and was accelerated on the back of COVID is software indeed is eating the world. And you will have more technology, you'll have more automation and that technology will enable further democraticization and collaboration and so on and so forth. Which means not the banks are going to disappear. They won't disappear. And I would never bet against JP Morgan, Citi or State Street or Morgan Stanley or others, but I do think that in their current form, they will have to, and they have been evolving. And look at Morgan Stanley's acquisition of E-Trade and look at State Street acquisition of Charles River development and so on and so forth, banks are becoming technology themselves. And by the way, we talk a lot about the disruptive nature of FinTech plaid, obviously amazing innovation. Where is it now? It's part of visa.

Gil Mandelzis: (45:24)
I think that if we think long term, what's happening is further digitization and transformation of the market to a much more open, connected, collaborative technology driven markets all over the world, it's a good thing that ultimately is going to make the markets better, it's going to create jobs, but certain jobs definitely will go away and others are going to grow. I think that overall, that's the big thing. Banks are going to be a huge part of it. There's going to be room for many other companies that will collaborate with the banks that are going to be acquired by the banks. But in the B2B space, I think you're going to find less that are going to compete with the banks because servicing the large asset managers, the largest corporates in the world, the level of regulation, technology, connectivity, global presence that you need to have, membership in exchanges and so on and so forth. That is too complex, I think and too expensive for FinTech to buy.

Gil Mandelzis: (46:25)
This is where you do need the global banks. They have a huge and very important role to play, they'll be there forever, but they're going to be different. And I think that they themselves are basically going to become more and more technology companies. They will become FinTechs themselves more and more than have been already, but we're going to see that more and more. Together with a much broader and collaborative ecosystem of FinTechs and independent companies that work with them, work in collaboration with them, et cetera. So the banks themselves are becoming platforms and FinTechs themselves.

John Darsie: (47:01)
Well, fantastic. Thank you both so much for joining us. We hope to have you in person at one of our future SALT conferences. I know Michael was in Las Vegas last year. We were talking about [crosstalk 00:47:11] maybe we'll have you in Abu Dhabi. You guys are both, you are from Israel and I know Michael visits Israel. Maybe it's a great time to get you guys to Abu Dhabi given the recent Israel UAP [crosstalk 00:47:24] fosters some great innovation cross border.

Michael Weisz: (47:27)
I was there not too long ago. It's a beautiful place. I'll tell you this. You won't have to twist my arm.

John Darsie: (47:31)
All right. I agree with you. Anthony, you got a final word.

Antony Scaramucci: (47:35)
Just, it was a great conversation, guys. Thank you. And we'll definitely get out there and hopefully back to Vegas and we'll see you guys soon. And since you're both in the city, we'll give you a tour of our office, to our better parts of our office. Not necessarily the spot where John's sitting, but I'll show you the good stuff.

John Darsie: (47:54)
Anthony didn't want me to infect his beautiful corner office. So he put me in the broom closet [crosstalk 00:47:59] SALT Talk.

Antony Scaramucci: (47:59)
Stay out of my office. I'm going to spray you with mace. You're going to look like Joe Pesci at Home Alone, if you open the door to my office. Okay. Stay out of my office. Guys thank you again.

Michael Weisz: (48:11)
Thank you. Take care.

Brian Stelter: “Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News & the Dangerous Distortion of Truth” | SALT Talks #53

“What is written, what is perceived, what is covered on the air is not always reflective of what’s going on in society.“

Brian Stelter is the anchor of “Reliable Sources,” which examines the week’s top media stories every Sunday at 11:00am ET on CNN. He’s also the network’s Chief Media Correspondent. His new book, Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth, tells the twisted story of the relationship between Donald Trump and Fox News.

“Fox News is now the beating heart of the pro-Trump media world.” Leadership at Fox initially didn’t align with Trump: Rupert Murdoch was deeply critical of the President, and Roger Ailes was backing Jeb Bush. The network’s transition was largely fueled by a vacuum of leadership post-Ailes and the commercial incentives of being the President’s network of choice.

The internet changed how we interacted with the news. “It made us all our own publishers.” There’s an obvious benefit to a diverse ecosystem of thought, and bad-faith actors playing to extremes take advantage of it. Trump and his media outlets are then able to go out and tell a powerful, compelling story about the “deep state” and white victimhood, but in the end, “it doesn’t add up.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Brian Stelter.jpeg

Brian Stelter

Anchor, Reliable Sources

CNN

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Joe Eletto: (00:07)
Hello everyone, welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is Joe Eletto and I am the production manager of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform encompassing finance, technology, and geopolitics. SALT Talks is a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators, and thinkers. Just as we do at our global SALT events, we aim to empower big, important ideas as well as provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts.

Joe Eletto: (00:35)
We are really excited today to welcome Brian Stelter, to SALT Talks. Brian is the anchor of Reliable Sources, which examines the week's top media stories every Sunday at 11:00AM Eastern on CNN, as well as the chief media correspondent for CNN Worldwide. Prior to joining CNN in November of 2013, Stelter was a media reporter at the New York Times where he covered television and digital media for the business day and art section of the newspaper. He was also a lead contributor to the Media Decoder blog. Stelter published the New York Times best selling book, Top of the Morning, inside the cutthroat world of morning TV, about the competitive world of morning news shows. He is a consultant on Apple's drama, The Morning Show, which is inspired by this book. He was featured in the 2011 documentary, Page One: Inside the New York Times, directed by Andrew Rossi. He was also named the Forbes magazine's 30 Under 30: Media, for three consecutive years.

Joe Eletto: (01:31)
If you have any questions for Brian during today's talk, please enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. And now I'll turn it over to Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, as well as the chairman of SALT, to conduct today's interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:46)
So Brian, that's one of the things I didn't know about your resume, the 30 Under 30. I had been submitting an application for 30 Under 30 for the last 30 years to no avail. So we can talk about that at another time, but I have to tell you, because I've lived a portion of this book and obviously I was in and out of the Trump administration, spent nine months on the campaign. Full disclosure, was a paid presenter on the Fox News channel where I was the host of [crosstalk 00:02:14] week.

Brian Stelter: (02:13)
It's in the book. That's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:16)
And I've got to tell you, I loved reading the book. It was very clarifying to me. We're going to get into the book in a second. But for those of us that are getting to know Brian Stelter away from the television, away from Reliable Sources, and your reporting on CNN, tell us something about yourself that we couldn't find on a Wikipedia page. How did you grow up? Why did you get into this? Why did you take this arc in terms of a career?

Brian Stelter: (02:46)
Well I've always been a news junkie, and that's probably on Wikipedia. So I'm thinking of something that's not on Wikipedia. I'm also a big weather junkie, a big weather nerd. I was just talking about this with my wife Jamie the other day, because when Hurricane Sally was coming ashore, there was a part of me that wants to go out and be that correspondent that's getting blown around in the wind and the rain. And I did do it once before. I was on the weather channel once doing this and I was re-watching the video recently and showing it to my daughter and saying, "Daddy wants to go do that someday." which just speaks to my obsession with news and my love for news. I want to be wherever that story is.

Brian Stelter: (03:24)
And when it comes to Fox News, they've got great hurricane correspondents. They've got great people who go out and stand in the storm and tell you what's going on, just like CNN does. But one of the problems, one of the differences with Fox, is that they don't value and respect the news division the way that CNN does. So that's one of the many reasons I think that I was interested in writing about Fox is how the place has changed. But look, whether it's Fox or CNN or another channel, I think it'd be fun to go out and do that some day. I guess that's something people don't know about me. I'm a big weather junkie, big weather nerd, and in general, just obsessed with how the news works and doesn't work. I mean you probably know better than I that what is written, what is perceived, what is covered on air, it's not always reflective of what's really going on and that's a challenge for us in the media to try and get it right, be more careful, more right, and get to the truth every day.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:20)
So I mean I'm going to hold the book up for everybody. The book is called Hoax, it's a international bestseller, and it is a riveting account of what is going on at Fox, but also an account of what's going on in the age of mass information. So I want to ask you something intellectually first, then we're going to talk a little about the book. I would have thought with the proliferation of blogging, social media, the proliferation of media itself, we would have had more accuracy in the facts. Man, did I get that wrong. We have way more distortion of the facts, way more real fake videos, way more, I don't like calling it fake news but you get the point, that there's a distortion happening. There's almost a prism that depending on where you're coming from and what segment of the population you're coming from, you're seeing the news through that distorted prism. Can you explain sociologically or from a commercial perspective why you think that evolved in this era?

Brian Stelter: (05:25)
Well certainly the internet changed everything. The internet enabled all of us to be our own publishers, it allowed me to create a blog, and then get hired by the New York Times, and then get hired by CNN. So there's these incredible benefits from having this healthier, more diverse media ecosystem. However, the algorithms and the other tools that we use to navigate and get through this internet universe, are primed to encourage sensational, crazy, outrageous content. And we see more and more bad faith actors playing to those extremes, especially on the right, especially in this narrative that Trump is always right and everything else is fake, all the news is fake, or it could be a hoax. So I say it's partly gained by algorithms, but it's partly about human desires to hear a simple, consistent narrative or story.

Brian Stelter: (06:20)
I think what Trump and his media allies do is they tell a pretty powerful story over and over again, although it has a lot of holes in it and doesn't really add up. It's a story about the deep state, it's a story about White victim-hood, about grievance politics, about the world all against Trump. And this is a story that Fox tells every day, and it's a really compelling story although it doesn't really add up. And by telling that story they are excusing so many of the President's errors and mistakes and misrepresentations, and they are defending the indefensible when the President re-tweets someone saying that Joe Biden is a pedophile. That should be called out by all good people, and it's not because we're in these alternative universes and so tribal. And I do think the internet has a lot to do with that increased polarization.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:08)
So the subtitle of your book is The Dangerous Distortion of the Truth. And you write in the book, and I don't want to give the book away, the book is such a powerful read and I don't need to demonstrate to you that I've read the book, we can have that conversation after SALT Talk.

Brian Stelter: (07:24)
You already did, actually.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:25)
But I just have to tell you that it's a phenomenal book, and I don't want to give it away because I want people to read it. But we both know that the Fox News organization, President Trump himself was a fan of it, he was showing up frequently on the morning show Fox & Friends. But it's not necessary that the suits, the executives of Fox were fans of Donald Trump in the beginning. So tell us a little bit about that part of the story.

Brian Stelter: (07:53)
Yeah, I do think you have to go back five years. And in order to understand what Fox is today and what the pro Trump media universe is today, you have to understand five years ago. Fox is now the beating heart of the pro-Trump media world. Fox is it pumps out blood that goes all throughout the body and influences the Breitbarts and the Daily Callers, and it influences the president. It's the beating heart. But it was not always that way. In 2015, Rupert Murdoch was deeply critical of Donald Trump. He said, "When is he going to stop embarrassing his friends and the entire world?" Roger Ailes was skeptical of Trump. He saw Trump as a great television performer but Ales kind of wanted Jeb Bush. He was a Bush guy in the beginning.

Brian Stelter: (08:33)
So there was this dissent or this skepticism about Trump, but there was also this sense early on that the Fox audience was pulling for Trump, that the Fox base was Trump's base, that there was this alliance of sorts or this overlap of sorts. And there was this fear of taking off the Trump Fox base and having those viewers start to go elsewhere. So there has been this kind of Trump takeover of Fox that didn't happen overnight, didn't happen right away, didn't happen all in one fell swoop, but it happened. And it happened because it's what the audience wanted, it's because there was a lack of clear leadership after Ailes was force out, it's because that's what the commercial incentives were, the commercial imperatives were. It's incredibly profitable to be the nation's pro-Trump network. It is also incredibly misleading sometimes. And it was dangerous when the pandemic started when the channel was downplaying the virus. So I think those commercial incentives are really critical to the story about why the network gradually came under Trump's spell.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:36)
Well [crosstalk 00:09:37]

Brian Stelter: (09:36)
But you were there at the time. Am I getting that right? I mean you were there in 2016.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:43)
No, well I think you're getting it right, but I'm going to make an admission now which doesn't reflect well on me. I think what happens is you're in that echo chamber and you're in the ecosystem and you're not fully picking up the reality distortion until you leave the echo chamber and the ecosystem. And that's why I said to you and I'm going to give it away now, of all the sentences in this book, page 121, the sentence which is quintessential and it really resonated with me Brian, it says here on the bottom of the page, it says, "Call Cameron. Just couldn't take it anymore." And I think that that is a resonance of what's going on as it relates to President Trump and what's going on, as it relates to Fox News and what's going on in the society right now. It's not clear to me that the society wants to be this divided. And since you talk about it, I'll address is here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:38)
Roger Ailes had this unstinting message. He grew up in Warren, Ohio. He has this hey-geography of America. This is the Happy Days America of Arthur Fonzarelli and Richie Cunningham. And it's a mid-Western America. And he wanted to sort of reclaim that for America. And there's a tribal perspective in that because the great irony is you're shooting the light through that prism and you're shooting it on the wall, and you're presenting an America frankly that never existed that Richie Cunningham, Arthur Fonzarelli America. You were just getting African Americans on the sports field in the 1950s. Jackie Robinson was 1947. And you still had people separated in school systems and being discriminated in lunch counters. So America is always a nation in progress with tremendous flaws, but there's Roger Ailes in an effort white-washing if you will, I think that's a appropriate term, pun intended, white-washing the society. And so let's go back to the Iraq war. Fox News had a big role in the Iraq war, did it not Brian?

Brian Stelter: (11:47)
Yes. I think it did. I think post 9/11 Fox became the number one cable news channel. Ailes was secretly sending advice to the Bush White House, and provided cover from the right flank, especially the post invasion as the occupation came into obviously serious trouble. The cheerleaders like Sean Hannity were critical to maintaining some support for the Bush presidency and for explaining away the lies and misinformation about the Iraq war. But compared to today, that version of Fox is so much more moderate. I think every turn Fox takes is a right winged turn over the years, over the 24 years it has been on the air. And I try to document that in the book.

Brian Stelter: (12:36)
Take it for example during the Obama years, Roger Ailes was a birther. He believed Obama was born in Africa. But he didn't let his talent go off and go full birther. He did let Trump call in and say those things. But he didn't want Bill O'Reilly out there pushing the birther smear. He wanted his talent to be seen as fair and balanced, to at least be seen as someone moderate and not be compared to QAnon or Alex Jones. And so I think that's what's missing now. The channel is more extreme now in terms of the content than it was in the Ailes years for a variety of reasons. But that's one of the reasons, because Ailes was trying to keep some level or some measure of control. And I think that's important in the context of Trump because Trump was able to kind of take power, not literally of Fox, but metaphorically of Fox.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:34)
But here we are today, President Trump is now starting to turn a little bit on Fox. He refuses to bend to its polling data. Every time they throw up a polling data that he doesn't like the narrative of, he goes bazonkazoid on Twitter. And so my question to you is, is he turning on Fox? Is it just a few pundits now? Has Fox turned on President Trump? Some of the punditry there?

Brian Stelter: (14:02)
I think it's a tug of war between news and propaganda. And the propaganda side usually wins. There's more of an audience for the talk shows. There's more electricity around the shows. But occasionally Trump will see the newscasts, he'll see the news anchors, and he'll get ticked off. And he lashes out about the news coverage because he doesn't want news on Fox. He only wants propaganda. So I think when we see him tweeting anti-Fox things, he's working the refs, same way he did in 2016, trying to have less news, more propaganda, and trying to downplay the Fox polling unit which is really well respected, and promote the talk shows instead. I think it's that tactic that is kind of tired, but it still kind of registers with some of his fans. Then the news anchors get hate mail.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:50)
Has it co-opted the editorial content of Fox, his tirades? Has Trump's Twitter tirades...

Brian Stelter: (14:57)
I think people are very aware of it at Fox. I mean the real reason I wrote Hoax is because I was hearing from so many sources at Fox who were frustrated by the network and what has happened and how Trump feels like he's in charge, or how he has hijacked the network in some ways. And what a lot of those staff first said was the incentive structures are all wrong. So if you're a news anchor or a correspondent at Fox and you just want to report the news and oftentimes the news is about Trump's chaos and scandals and controversies, you feel you can't do that. You feel pressure. You feel powerless is really the word. You feel powerless to do that. The news feels suffocated at Fox and the propaganda feels promoted.

Brian Stelter: (15:35)
And there's some really specific examples of that. Carl Cameron who's on the record in the book talking about how the news cast didn't really want packages, they didn't really want reports. They'd rather just have conversations with panels. And by the way, I mean Fox is not the only network where that's true sometimes, but it's very true at Fox according to Cameron. I have other correspondents in the book who said they all had their, "I can take it anymore." moments where they don't want to be on there defending child separations, they don't want to be on there defending Trump's comments about Charlottesville. So these different people at Fox had these breaking points, and the ones who stayed, either they agree with everything that's happening or they fear they can't find a job elsewhere, or they want to make the place better from the inside. So there's all these incentives for staying as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:23)
So have you ever thought about working at Fox in your illustrious career? Has that ever come up?

Brian Stelter: (16:29)
I don't think they would be interested in me. But let me put it this way. I think anybody at Fox who if you could have an hour that's devoted to fact checking and debunking a lot of the nonsense that's in prime time... I turn on Fox & Friends and most mornings, the narrative is like this. "The cities, there's violence in the cities." And of course that's true. Crime is up in some areas including in New York City. But the way it's presented it makes it sound like New York City is a hell hole. It makes it sound like all of Portland is on fire. It makes it sound like all of Seattle is a disaster area. And that narrative, that's damaging. That hurts New York City, it hurts Portland, it hurts the people in these cities. And if I had an hour where I could push back on all that, it would be hard to turn that down. But I don't think they're calling offering that. I don't think there's interest in that. Shep Smith was trying to do it and Shep left.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:27)
Yeah. No, no. And I got that. Shep is over at CNBC, and I think it's a good home for him. But I guess the reason I'm asking you that is because... Again, this is just my opinion. I think there's a civil war going on inside of Fox. You definitely talk about it in the... there's a civil war between the facts, the fact checkers, responsible journalism, and full on political punditry that literally they're mental gymnastics at night trying to explain what President Trump is doing. I've told people, "I'm watching them 8:00 to 11:00 at night. They're telling me that Trump is playing four dimensional chess, he's sitting at the table eating the chess pieces. So I don't understand how they can get away with that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:12)
And since you mentioned Sean Hannity, I want to bring him up, and full disclosure, I'm friends with Sean, I've known Sean a long time, although we haven't talked recently because I'm one side of the ideas objectively in my opinion about Donald Trump, and he's on another side of the ideas in his mind objectively about Donald Trump. So we chose to agree to keep our friendship and not get into political jousting. But you have a fascinating relationship with Sean Hannity. Nd you talk about it in the book which I find fascinating. So describe your relationship for our SALT Talk listeners.

Brian Stelter: (18:48)
Yeah, yeah. I felt like I needed to disclose it a little bit.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:49)
Yeah. So describe it to people.

Brian Stelter: (18:49)
I felt like I needed to explain in the book that I had been covering Fox for 16 years, and I know these players. Hannity was really friendly to me as I was growing up in this business, when I was at the New York Times. He gave me great advice when I joined CNN. I would say that was a friendly relationship until the Trump presidency, until 2017. As I'm sure everybody on this Zoom session has an example of a friendship or a relationship that has been strained or ruined by the Trump presidency. And that's true for me with folks at Fox. Tucker Carlson is another example. He was a big supporter of my blog, he put me on TV when he had a show on MSNBC, we had a relationship over the years. Now he's on TV calling me a eunuch. And it's, "What happened Tucker? I don't think I've changed. I think you changed. I think you changed based on your audiences demands. You're trying to feed this increasingly radicalized audience."

Brian Stelter: (19:48)
And that's the uncomfortable part about a lot of this. I'm not saying every Fox viewer is radical. They clearly are not. Fox has a big audience and has lots of different kinds of people that watch. But there's a base that doesn't want to hear the reality of what's happening in the Trump Whit House. And these hosts feel pressure to serve that base, and I think maybe it's not possible to still have a friendly relationship with these guys when they feel those pressures.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:12)
Well I mean one of the problems is, and I'm going to editorialize, get myself into trouble with probably half of our SALT Talk participants. But if you're into full blown demagoguery you've got to go 13 for 10 for the demagogue. If you go seven for eight for the demagogue you're called an unstable nut job on Twitter. I mean you've been called some tough names. I got called an unstable nut job by the President of the United States. I mean I wear it like a badge of honor, but I'm just saying my point being is that they're literally being watching by him. They're playing to an audience of one. Bill Barr is playing to an audience of one, he's comparing slavery to the closures and lockdowns during a pandemic. I don't know. I don't think that's appropriate but I'm sure the president liked it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:55)
And so that's the cycle, that's the dilemma that we're in. You do a great job of describing that as well.

Brian Stelter: (21:02)
Thanks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:02)
You say something interesting about the president. I want you to react to this. You say that he's not going to be confused as a great orator but his simplified style of communication is resonating. So what do you think makes him effective as a communicator and a politician? Describe for our listeners the essence of how he became this successful.

Brian Stelter: (21:25)
Well I think we have to appreciate what does work and learn from it. And I'm surprised that more candidates haven't learned from some of Trump's techniques. His ability to tell stories. Usually it's a version of the same story at every rally but it's a storytelling mechanism. It's an attempt to bring people to his side by involving them in his stories. It's obviously the repetition of certain simple slogans over and over again. We all know that with, "Build a Wall." That's obvious.

Brian Stelter: (22:01)
Where I sometime think I've fallen down on the job is not try to meet people where they are and say, "I see what's appealing. I see some of the reasons why either Trump is appealing or a democratic candidate is appealing. I see it. Let me meet you half way and then talk about it." Same with Fox. I see what's appealing about Fox and the way it's produced and the topic selection, the choice of narrative. As a viewer I get it, I watch a lot of it. I understand why it's appealing. Let me met you half way and then let's talk about why it's discouraging that they misinform Trump and then he misinforms the country, and why that's a bad thing. But then I can see the appeal of the show.

Brian Stelter: (22:39)
It's almost Trump leads a hate movement against the media. And I'm not saying we need a love movement but we might. We might need something like that that gets us a little more connected to our common humanity. That's way to fantastical, isn't it Anthony?

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:55)
Unless something crazy happens to the institutions of our democracy, the Trump era is going to end in 100 days, or it's going to end in four years plus 100 days. And so what happens to the Trump acolytes and what happens to the future of Fox News in a post-Trump world?

Brian Stelter: (23:16)
It's a big question and it's being debated inside Fox. Will he launch his own network? Will he try to rival Fox? I think the answer is no. I think that's a lot harder to do than people appreciate. But I wonder if he'll be on the radio. I wonder if he'll want a radio show if he loses the election. I wonder if he'll want a show on Fox. I wonder how much audience there would be for someone who is branded a loser after having a winning brand for decades. I think Fox will be just fine in any of those scenarios because the channel is more anti-democrat than it is pro-Trump. It's more anti-Biden than it is pro-Trump. But I saw Leon in the Q&A said, "Is Fox afraid if he loses he'll start aa competing network?" I don't know if people are afraid but there's definitely some concern about it, people talk about it as a possibility, they wonder if it would happen, and certainly folks close to the Murdochs have talked about this and gamed our those scenarios too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:17)
So why don't we do that? Let's go to some of the Q&A Joe. I mean we've got a lot of questions populating. Some of these are quite interesting.

Joe Eletto: (24:25)
Absolutely do. This is a very active Q&A which is what we had expected. So this is great.

Brian Stelter: (24:31)
I was just peeking over there. That's why I brought it up. [crosstalk 00:24:33]

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:33)
Yeah. No, I love it. That keeps bringing them back Brian, okay? The fact that we answer all their questions when they come on.

Joe Eletto: (24:42)
Something to start with, I want to go back to social media is fake news, alternative facts, and what that social media is now checking some of Trump's tweets, his branding things as distorted media. What role in propagating fake news and stories such like Joe Biden playing Despacito but them putting on a different song, and people not really checking. What role does that have in creating and forwarding this narrative that let's say, a regular viewer of Fox News or maybe OAN has about the president and what he's doing?

Brian Stelter: (25:18)
Yeah. OAN makes Fox look like ABC. OAN is much further to the right, but also much, much, much lower rated. Fox has an incredible monopoly on the right wing audience. Newsmax, OAN, they try but they just can't come close. I think Twitter and Facebook are taking these baby steps, and maybe it looks like they're taking big, gigantic steps, but they're really just baby steps in terms of how much misinformation and bull is out there. But by taking these baby steps they can be held accountable because we can point to their actions and say, "You did this for X, why haven't you don't that for Y?" So it's useful I think when we see these companies taking action because it gives us a baseline to compare it with and to judge in the future.

Brian Stelter: (26:00)
I personally think these labels they're putting on Trump's tweets are kind of a joke. Trump will tweet, "Mail in ballot is a fraud. Don't believe it. Blah, blah, blah." And then the label will say something like, "Get the facts about mail in ballots." And you can't fight fire with that kind of ice. I don't think that works. But again, they are taking steps. That's a lot more than they were doing in 2016. I remember saying fake news on TV for the first time in October, 2016 because there were these actually fake stories. That's the term before Trump used, it was a term for actually fake stories that were all over Facebook making up smears about Clinton. And, God, I kind of wish I hadn't said the term because by December of that year, Trump hijacked it.

Joe Eletto: (26:41)
Absolutely. So going off of that, I mean do you think once Trump leaves office, whether it's in 100 days or four years and 100 days as Anthony said, how do you restore the standard of truth in American society, or at least the news media? Or is the horse out of the barn, and we're just in a place where people are going to accept multiple different routes of getting to the same fact?

Brian Stelter: (27:03)
Yeah. Look, I think a diverse media ecosystem is a good thing. So having lots of sites and lots of sources and lots of options is good. It's when some of those sites are total rubbish, they are garbage, they are disinformation trying to hurt the American people, that's where we have a problem. And QAnon gets thrown around as an example of this. But there are lower level examples of this as well where there's just a lot of low quality information out there, and on your Facebook feed it looks like it's the same quality as CNN or the New York Times. And that's a fundamental problem. I wish Fox would strengthen its news operation so there was more high quality information coming from a trusted right wing source, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards right now.

Brian Stelter: (27:46)
I think to answer the question more directly, most Americans see through the fog. Most Americans see through the distortions. There is though this minority of the country that's so distrusting of institutions, and distrusting of news outlets and all that. They seem to only put their trust in Trump and Trump's allied media outlets, and that doesn't go away when Trump leaves office in January or in January of 2025. That doesn't go away. And I don't have great answers for what that audience looks to next, or what that audience does or what they gravitate toward.

Brian Stelter: (28:17)
But I think all of us individually have a little bit of a role to play. The people in our lives who think Joe Biden is a pedophile or feel good saying that on their social media pages, the people in our lives who align with crazy concepts like that, and not really crazy, hateful. It's really about hate. Saying that about Joe Biden is really about hate. It's about fear and hate of the other side. I think we have to figure out how to talk to those individuals in our lives who feel that way and figure out how to pull them toward higher quality sources. It's not about pulling them toward left wing sources. It's about pulling them toward higher quality sources of news that come from the right or the left or anywhere else.

Joe Eletto: (29:03)
Absolutely. So another question about sort of in the anchor's role or the reporter's role, how are you able, a book you're able to be subjective, you're able to put in your own thoughts about the current occupant of the White House. But when you get onto CNN you need to be impartial. You need to be presenting facts. And there can be somewhat of an editorial nature. But it's mostly, "Here are the facts. You do with them what you will." How do you balance that? I mean I guess we were talking about other anchors that we don't need to refer to again, but how do you balance that desire to show people what you see as the truth, and presenting facts and wondering what people are going to do with those facts after they turn off the television?

Brian Stelter: (29:43)
Yeah. I think what I do on CNN, there's different labels for it. What I would say is trying to tell the truth sometimes with a point of view, and that point of view is, "What's reliable? What's believable? What's factual? And how can we cut through all the noise and get to the news?" And that sometimes comes in the form of these monologues that lots of CNN anchors are doing where you try to say, "Hey, here's what the president said, here's the reality, here's the contradiction, here's the clip." and string it along in the form of an essay or a monologue.

Brian Stelter: (30:17)
We're doing a lot of those on TV and sometimes I hear from viewers who say, "It's opinion." And I say, "It's not opinion. It's not based on feelings. And we're not pushing to endorse a policy. This isn't about the earned income tax credit or about abortion rights. We're not lobbying for policy positions. We're just talking about decency and truth. And democracy." And that I think is privily fair for news outlets to speak about and push for. Push for truth and honesty in politics. That's not partisan. So I think that's what we should be doing and we will keep doing is pushing for that.

Joe Eletto: (30:55)
Absolutely. So we actually had a question come in from someone who was a previous SALT Talk guest. Piggybacking off of this, so if you launched your own Brian Stelter news organization, whatever we're going to call it, how would you combat the current dangers of information, lies, propaganda? Would you have a segment like that where you start off with a monologue? Or what would that look like for you?

Brian Stelter: (31:16)
Right. It depends on the medium I suppose if it's online or on TV or elsewhere. I think we should root this in what the audience wants. The question you'd ask is, "What does the audience want and need?" I don't know about you all, but most of the people in my life don't know what the heck to believe. They see all sorts of smears and crazy things on the internet, and they want to be guided toward reliable sources, aha, of information. So I think in that scenario, calling it like it is, is essential. When the president has a great victory we should call that what it is. But when he lies about Joe Biden, we should call that what it is. Maybe Call It What It Is, is a good brand name for a news outlet. I don't know.

Brian Stelter: (31:59)
But I think that kind of personal connection where you can call it out what it is, I think that's appealing, I think that's what the audience wants. And then the only thing I would say is provide primary source material. Provide the evidence so people can see it for themselves so that they're not believing me or believing anybody else, they're believing their own eyes. One of the worst things Trump has done is he has tried to get people not to believe their own eyes. He has told people that everything could be a hoax. And that has done damage it's going to take time to repair, but we can repair it by bringing people to the own original data, and see the proof for themselves.

Joe Eletto: (32:34)
Yeah. I remember. That was very 1984 when that quote came out.

Brian Stelter: (32:38)
Right.

Joe Eletto: (32:39)
So concerning to COVID quickly, I know we're bumping up against time. But, so Fox followed largely the president's script in downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 I guess until the Woodward tapes came out. But pre-Woodward, were pretty much in lockstep with the president and what he was saying about the pandemic. What are other examples of situations where the inability of the American people to trust the president and the most watched news outlet in the country could lead to major problems? So there are past examples of this or things that you see potentially in the future?

Brian Stelter: (33:14)
Yeah. The pandemic is the strongest and in some cases the worst example because it's the most painful example. It's a life and death example. There's a lot of blame to go around for what went wrong in February and March, and I say that very clearly in the beginning of Hoax. A lot of blame to go around with [inaudible 00:33:27] Now there are media outlets even. But Fox had the biggest cable platform and Trump had the biggest presidential platform. And so by downplaying the pandemic, by making it seem political, not medical, that did real damage. I think there are other examples in the book from earlier in the Trump presidency of times when he gets misled by Fox, and then he misleads the country and that hurts everybody.

Brian Stelter: (33:48)
One example is when we end up having a government shutdown driven largely by right wing media demanding Trump take a firmer stance on the border wall. There's even, if you look back in 2017, the seeds of the Ukraine scandal which led Trump to be impeached, are sown on Fox. They are kind of laid out on Fox, and then farmed years later. So there has been a bunch of these example of times when Fox is trying to help Trump, but they're actually hurting Trump. Or by following his script, and downplaying the pandemic, hurting their own viewers. And by the way, that's not coming from me. That's coming from staff inside Fox who said things like, "What we did was hazardous to our viewers. What we did was dangerous. These were kind of whistle blowers inside who were saying, "This went really wrong." And that's why the book is called Hoax. We were going to call this Wingmen because Trump has lots of wingmen at Fox, and but when Trump and Hannity use the word Hoax by decrying the democrats' politicization of the virus, we named the book Hoax for that reason.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:46)
You were dying to call it Wingnuts but your editor told you you couldn't call it a wing nut [crosstalk 00:34:50]

Brian Stelter: (34:50)
Actually John Avlon wrote a book called Wingnuts, and I couldn't do wingnuts. Wingmen is what I think he has-

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:57)
I remember John's book.

Brian Stelter: (34:59)
And by the way, if those wingmen were giving him the highest quality information, challenging him with new perspectives, challenging his priors, there wouldn't be a book to write. But because what happens is Fox & Friends puts up a banner that's full of crap, and the president reads it and then tweets it, and then spreads it across the country, that's really the heart of the problem I think.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:23)
So some of the questions that have come in, I'm trying to distill them because we are running out of time, but there's a few questions about CNN and obviously the right is critical of CNN and the president of CNN. What do you say to the critics of CNN?

Brian Stelter: (35:42)
I say that CNN has its flaws, and I like being called out for them, and I like when people email me. I'm at bstelter@gmail.com because I think it's good to hear from viewers and hear their feedback, and hear what we can do better. But I just think there's something fundamentally different between what Fox does and what all other networks do. And the differences include childish name calling, deflections and distortions from the biggest story of the day, those sorts of tactics that I think, what about-ism on a grand scale. Those sorts of tactics that they weren't always in play at Fox. They've become more obvious these days and they distract from what's really important.

Brian Stelter: (36:22)
I'll give you an example. I think CNN has done a great job of putting up on screen the COVID data, making sure COVID is front and center in the news. Fox covers the story a lot less. And you have to wonder if that's for political reasons or not. But we certainly have our flaws, and I like when we're held accountable for it. Somebody said, "Isn't there a sense of the same is true in reverse for the left on CNN?" That CNN and Fox are equal. They're mirrors of each other. That's what I just think doesn't hold up to scrutiny because when you look at what Chris Cuomo is doing in prime time, it is clearly not the same that Hannity is doing in terms of how reality based it is. That's the way I see it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:04)
Yeah. And listen, I'm going to defend Chris a little bit because I do his show. He has a ton of Trump acolytes on the show defending the president and offering up the case for the president including people from the Trump campaign. So if you haven't noticed Brian, not that you would notice this, I can very rarely get an invite on Fox News now. Those guys don't want to have me one there. I got on with Steve Hilton.

Brian Stelter: (37:29)
They don't want to engage.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:30)
Yeah, I got on there with Steve Hilton a few weeks back, we had a sparring match, the president didn't like it, he's tweeting about me, and that's the Michael Cohen axiom. What's that axiom? If you're saying something crystal clear, clarity in truth and you're breaking down the president's reality distortion field, he's going to viciously ad hominem attack you on Twitter. That's one of the postulates of the Trump era if you will.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:58)
But let's talk about, before we let you go, let's talk about you being the new czar. Okay? So now we've appointed you to a new position. It's a supra governmental position, it's a supra media position. You are the new czar, and you're trying to make the news more, let's use a Fox News term, fair and balanced. Really fair and balanced. What would you do? And I'm going to take you back to Ronald Reagan. You remember when he signed that legislation to offer some equality on the radio air wave which led to the advent of conservative talk radio. What would you do if you were the new czar and you wanted to figure out a way to strain out some of the inaccuracies, the misinformation, and stuff that's hurting the country right now.

Brian Stelter: (38:48)
First we would invest enormously in the local news, and we would rebuild local newspapers and rebuild local sources of news because they are more trusted, they are more important in the lives of everyday Americans than anything else. Rebuild local news because that rebuilds people's trust with media. And when you know your local reporter like I did growing up in Damascus, I knew Susan, she was the towns reporter. It makes you more trustworthy in media in general because you see how the person works and you see how they care about the community. And when they make mistakes they clean up their act.

Brian Stelter: (39:23)
I would say number two, you want the healthiest, most diverse media ecosystem possible, but tethered to reality. Info Wars for example not tethered to reality. Alex Jones is on there in the past saying I drink children and I run the banks. That kind of insanity just confuses people and hurts people. And the tech companies did take action against info Wars. That was the beginning of what we've seen now, these tech platforms trying to take action in really extreme cases of disinformation. But I think a new czar would try to figure out a more cohesive way to have the media world be as diverse as humanly possible, make is as diverse as possible, but healthy, meaning tethered to reality in some way so that if I were on CNN and I said something that was wholly inaccurate, you almost want a red light to fire off or you want a bell to chime. You want to figure out ways to signal to the audience-

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:24)
Or a laugh track maybe.

Brian Stelter: (40:27)
Or a laugh track. Yeah, there has got to be some way to have that kind of checking. I don't know how you would do it, but if I'm the new czar, maybe I had magical powers. So maybe I can make it happen. And that would be a form of accountability. What I got frustrated by reporting in my book about Fox is [inaudible 00:40:45] a lot of the accountability of Fox where mistakes are made. I know that there is at CNN. Maybe [inaudible 00:40:50] is not enough but I had a screw up over the summer in my newsletter, and I had a call from my boss, and we had one of those awkward but really important conversations where I talked about how I had this screw up, and I talked about why and how I'm going to avoid it in the future. And that makes me a better journalist. And if I was the new czar, I would try to make sure there were lots of those conversations happening all the time so that people are held accountable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:16)
Well listen you were very generous with your time. You wrote an amazing book. I also want to recommend Top of the Morning and The Morning Show because I thought those were intriguing about that high paced competition in morning television. Before we let you go let you go, what is your next project Brian? Are you able to talk about it? Or you don't have a project yet?

Brian Stelter: (41:38)
I'm brainstorming what to do because I don't know how to top this book about Trump and Fox. If Biden wins, and he makes America boring again, there's not going to be any books to write. Think about there's all this interest in Trump, the pro-Trump [crosstalk 00:41:52] anti-Trump [crosstalk 00:41:53] everything in the middle.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:53)
And now you sound like President Trump. He says, "When I go, you guys are going to miss me." Right? I'm not going to miss him. I'm going to be honest with you. But...

Brian Stelter: (41:59)
I think the book publishing business is going to miss him. I'll say that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:03)
But I wish you great success. You-

Brian Stelter: (42:05)
In terms of my next project, I just want to make my Sunday show better. That's always my top priority, is, "How do I make my show [crosstalk 00:42:10]

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:10)
All right. So make the Sunday show better, I'm certain that that's going to happen. I watch it every Sunday. It's on my DVR. That's Reliable Sources at 11:00AM on CNN, and CNN International. Ladies and gentlemen, Brian Stelter. But Brian, thank you so much for joining us, and we'll have this up on our website and so forth, and I really enjoyed your book. Fantastic work.

Brian Stelter: (42:36)
Awesome.

Ed Roman: Enterprise Software in a Remote World | SALT Talks #52

“Founders are essentially trying to change the world and build products that create innovation in society.“

Ed Roman is the Managing Director of Hack VC, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, with the mission of democratizing access to top start-ups for investors. He is also the Founder of hack.summit(), the world’s largest blockchain event, which aims to support technology non-profits.

Silicon Valley is headed in the direction of creating information technology companies, and companies with technical founders are where the best investments may be found. More broadly, B2B software companies have the highest degree of predictability: individual consumers have relatively small budgets, whereas businesses may be drawing from large annual budgets with fewer restrictions.

Hiring and investing during the COVID-19 pandemic may seem counter-intuitive, but tech unicorns like Slack, Square and GitHub we use today were borne out of crises. “The greatest challenge start-ups face is finding the right people.” Hire at a time when top-tier talent is most readily available.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Ed Roman.jpeg

Ed Roman

Managing Director

Hack VC

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT TALKS. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. The SALT TALKS are a digital interview series that we started during this work from home period with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And what we're really trying to do during the SALT TALK series is replicate the experience that we provided at our SALT conference global series, which is to provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future, and also provide a window in the mind of subject matter experts for our community. And we're very excited to welcome Ed Roman to SALT TALKS to give a presentation and have a conversation about the state of venture capital investing in a post Covid world. And I think it will be a fascinating and very educational talk for everybody participating today.

John Darsie: (00:56)
Ed is the Managing Director of Hack VC, which is a Silicon Valley based venture capital firm. His mission is to democratize access to top Silicon Valley startups for investors. He has a decade of venture capital experience and as a shareholder and for startups worth over 1,000,000,000 and 17 startups worth over $100 million. Ed is also a bestselling author. And he's been the Chief Executive Officer of three companies with two exits. So he's a founder as well prior to going into the venture capital world. A reminder, if you have any questions for Ed during today's talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on zoom. And hosting today's talk before Ed launches into a presentation about the future of venture capital investing in the post Covid world is going to be Anthony Scaramucci. Anthony is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony to kick off the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:54)
Thank you. Ed it's great to be on with you and congratulations on an amazing career. John and I are super excited to expose our delegates if you will, to your presentation, because I think you are right at the intersection of where today's present means to our future. And it's such a great optimistic story as well, Ed. So I'm super excited about all of that. But before we get into that, I think it's important for everyone to just lay out a framework of you, tell us something about you that we couldn't find on your Wikipedia page.

Ed Roman: (02:29)
Sure. And by the way, it's great to meet all of you and thanks everyone for attending today. Anthony, it's a privilege to be in your company and to have this conversation with you. I'm a big fan of SkyBridge and all your work in the past. So thanks for the opportunity.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:40)
Always I appreciate it. Thanks Ed.

Ed Roman: (02:43)
So, yeah. So maybe one thing that you might not read up on Wikipedia about me is that when I first started investing, which is probably about 10 years ago now, in the initial stages basically I didn't have access to a lot of the best investments. And I started off in Austin, Texas as an entrepreneur basically just advising start ups. Just trying to help them out because it is very natural as a CEO to start advising other companies. And when you start advising companies, they ask you to invest in them.

Ed Roman: (03:09)
So I became an angel investor, like a lot of other CEOs do. And like a lot of other CEOs, my very first few investments were losing investments. So I lost money as an investor when I first started out as an investor. And what I didn't realize at the time was that a lot of the best startups were being cherry picked by some of the top Silicon Valley VCs. So that's how I got my start as an investor and went on a 10 year journey to help address that problem and taught other investors to solve that problem, basically. So that's the Genesis for how I for sure started off on this.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:41)
And it's an amazing story, but you had a game that you developed called Ghostfire Games.

Ed Roman: (03:47)
That's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:47)
So you were in the gaming business and you were in the software programming business for games. How did you make the transition from that into venture capital?

Ed Roman: (03:57)
It was very organic. So basically my mission originally when I was creating this video game company was to help overweight gamers around the world to lose weight playing video games, by tricking them into playing video games and having them exercise as a byproduct of playing that game. So you might remember Nintendo Wii system that came out a decade or so ago. So that system has a motion sensing controllers, you can actually lose weight playing video games on those controllers.

Ed Roman: (04:24)
So my mission was if I can show these gamers a fun game to play, what if they could lose weight as a byproduct of playing that? So we created that game. We created some great games that got great reviews. And I started off as an engineer. I was a programmer and I learned business over time. So I was fortunate to have started three companies that have had a couple of exits and that organically led to me becoming an investor over time. Startups just asked me to help advise them. And then that led to me then becoming an investor in them. And then that's what started my path to become a venture capitalist eventually.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:57)
What do you like about startups? We know that there's an exciting element to that and you're sifting for unicorns. We know there's a lot of failure in startups as well. And so what attracted you to startups and what's your competitive edge in identifying a winner?

Ed Roman: (05:13)
It's a great question. What's attractive about startups is that the founders of these companies are essentially trying to change the world and are building products that create innovation in society. And we benefit from that by being around people like that, it actually up-levels who we are as human beings. Because think about the character traits of being an entrepreneur, you have to be driven, motivated, hardworking, hopefully you're honest, passionate about what you're doing. That's the kind of people that I want in my life.

Ed Roman: (05:42)
I have a theory that if I can surround myself with people like that, that up-levels who I am as a human being. Because I learned from that, you are a product of who you surround yourself with. The five closest people that you surround yourself with. So I have the privilege of being on a monthly phone call with dozens of startups that we've invested in. And I learn from them, they learn from me and if I can give back and help them to avoid some of the mistakes that I made when I was an entrepreneur, that's a win for me in my life. That means I could be helping a startup to avoid creating waste and maybe shaving months off their progress timeline. That could be substantial in terms of the impact that start ups can makes to society.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:20)
I actually think that is a perfect segue Ed into your presentation. But before you go there, John, do you have any quick follow up questions before we turn over to Ed's presentation?

John Darsie: (06:32)
I have a question about the Hack summit, which we've talked a little bit about Ed prior to coming on the talk, it's a programming event that attracts tens of thousands of attendees providing free technical education on blockchain and coding nonprofits and things of that nature. What is the future of programming? We hear a lot about programming boot camps and the need to retrain our workforce. How have you found success in combining your philanthropic and business endeavors in that field of coding and getting more people into coding?

Ed Roman: (07:03)
That's a great question. So actually it's something that we'll talk about in a little bit, but the quick preview here is that there's a shortage in America right now of one million software developers. And yet there's some substantial layoffs that have been happening in this country, and there's a lot of folks who are out of work and yet there still is that shortage of software developers. And so this is one of the problems we're trying to address here with our online educational event, basically. So we are essentially helping startups to find great programmers. And that essentially is what's allowing us to get allocations in these over contested and financing rounds.

Ed Roman: (07:36)
So we think the future of where Silicon Valley is headed is in a software categories and information technology, technology companies like Zoom that we're using today for this event. And that's basically what we're investing in. Is the next generation of companies like Zoom and that's built by programmers. So we think that technical founders are really where you want to be from an early stage investment perspective. You look at companies like Dropbox, for example. Dropbox was started by Drew Houston, which is a solo founder, who's an MIT engineer who built a company worth billions of dollars. And we think there's going to be many more companies like Dropbox in the future that become large and valuable that come out of all parts of the country and all parts of the world.

John Darsie: (08:18)
Well, it's fascinating Ed, we're going to turn it over to you to give us a presentation on the present and the future of venture capital in this post Covid environment. And we're looking forward to the presentation. And then following your presentation, we'll get to audience questions. We already have a few that have been emailed in. So we're looking forward to that portion as well, but we'll kick it over to you to share your screen and give us the presentation.

Ed Roman: (08:38)
Great. So here's a little about me and my bio. So I've been investing now for about 10 years. Learned the hard way and made a lot of mistakes when I was early in my career, have gotten better over time. And now we've been fortunate enough to be investor in four companies worth over a billion dollars and 17 of them worth over a million dollars. I've written a book on programming and that gives me a technical background to help evaluate some of these startups. And we also manage to syndicate of family offices that we help invest in startups. So we're helping families get access to some of the best startups in Silicon Valley. And I started in Cornell. That's what my background, I have a computer science degree from Cornell.

Ed Roman: (09:17)
So let's talk a little bit about how technology companies are fairing in this post Covid environment. We're going to start with the public markets. I'm going to show you some data about how public market companies are doing, then we're going to transition to private market companies. So as you probably noticed, we're having quite a bit of a run on the stock market recently. The NASDAQ is at all time highs and there's been a little bit of bouncing in the last few days, but it still has recovered quite nicely from it's Covid debt.

Ed Roman: (09:43)
And if you look at the Dow Jones, the New York Stock Exchange, those indices haven't quite fared as well as the NASDAQ. And one of the reasons behind this is because of software companies. Because of IT software companies. So you've look at companies like Okta and Zoom and Amazon Web Services, which is the cloud hosting, and Microsoft, which is also very cloud-based and Apple. These are some of the companies that are leading the charge in terms of the stock market recovery. Which surprised a lot of investors. A lot of investors didn't think that we'd have a recovery this quickly and it's being led by tech and software.

Ed Roman: (10:16)
So what's interesting here is that a lot folks are wondering, "Is this sustainable?" Like, "Can we actually continue to see the tech companies continue to thrive?" And, "Or is this another .com bubble burst like we saw 20 years ago, which I lived through." So we pulled some data here from William Blair. And this is data as of 2017. And this data shows which sectors were performing relative to other sectors back in 2017. And what's interesting to hear is that IT was actually the number one performing asset class against any asset class that includes materials, and gold, and crude oil. And this is all pre Covid. So there is historical evidence here that even before Covid that IT was an interesting category. And why is that? Why is IT software such an interesting investment category. I personally like it, and there's a reason why I like it. It's because first of all, you're selling software.

Ed Roman: (11:07)
So software is one of those products where it's a 100% margin. Where there's no cost of goods sold. You don't need to actually build a product. There's no product recalls. It's not a onetime purchase. You're subscribing to a service, like Netflix or Dropbox or Slack. You're actually getting a recurring subscription, which means there's predictability to the business. Which means, let's say your sales force is ineffective at selling software next year, you can still probably make around the same revenue next year that you earned this year. Because of the recurring nature of the software.

Ed Roman: (11:40)
And the fact that the software is fairly sticky. So we actually like B-to-B software. We think B-to-B software, business-to-business software is the category that has that most predictability. And the reason is because businesses are wasteful. They tend to spend a lot of money on things that come from large budgets that they have. And you compare that to consumers, consumers have much smaller budgets. They tend to be a bit more flaky than businesses.

Ed Roman: (12:04)
So Zoom, for example, which we're using today will be a good example of a B2B software company, and that has thrived in the pandemic. So that's how we look at public markets and why we think IT is interesting. Now let's transition to Silicon Valley and private markets and look at how things are changing here. So the first question we have to ask ourselves is, is Silicon Valley even an interesting category to be looking at from an investment perspective post pandemic.

Ed Roman: (12:29)
And what we did was we looked at it back in time and we looked at, what did it look like in the previous crisis? So we had a crisis back in 2008, 2009 in the financial crisis. And if you look at all these companies here, Slack, Nutanix, SendGrid, Square, Yammer, PagerDuty, Stripe, Twilio, CLOUDFLARE, and GitHub, what do they all have in common? The interesting thing that they all have in common is that they're all IT software companies and they're all unicorns. They're all worth over a billion dollars. And they were all started during the 2008 to 2009 financial crisis.

Ed Roman: (13:02)
So if investors were not investing during that time, they would have lost out on those opportunities. So we actually think that a crisis is actually a pretty good time to start a company. And there's a few reasons for this. One of the reasons is that it's easier for companies to hire great talent. So there's been a lot of layoffs recently in this country. And a lot of folks are looking for work, which means it's easier to build a team and assemble a team during a crisis because talent is more available. One of the biggest challenges that our startups have is finding qualified team members to help them build their companies. And as soon as the crisis hit, that actually became the opposite.

Ed Roman: (13:38)
Our startups had many more job applications than they had had in the past because of the crisis. So that makes it easier. And there's also less competition when acquiring customers. So a lot of businesses are not doing advertising right now. You look at traditional businesses like gyms and spas and hotels. A lot of them are not really advertising much because of the pandemic. So that opens up the opportunity for you to acquire customers more cheaply. You can even buy competitors more cheaply in case some of your competitors are struggling.

Ed Roman: (14:07)
So when we talk to entrepreneurs and they're thinking about starting a company, we're generally encouraging them to take that risk and to do it now, because we think that in the midst of chaos, there's always opportunity. There's always ways to make money and to build something that changes the world. But the caveat here is you have to be in the right sector. So you can't just start a company in any sector because a lot of these sectors are going to be challenging.

Ed Roman: (14:29)
And this is the quick snapshot of how we think the sectors compare between the challenging sectors and the sectors that are seeing a Covid tailwind. Meaning, the sectors that are actually benefiting from the pandemics. On the left hand side of the challenging segments here, and a lot of them are obvious like transportation, hotels, sports, fitness facilities, spas. Those are the obvious ones. Those are businesses that are physically closed, or people are not traveling, et cetera.

Ed Roman: (14:54)
Then there are some that are less obvious like apparel and luxury goods. You might not necessarily want to invest in buying that fancy watch or that diamond necklace, if you're not really going out as much. There's not a lot of opportunity to show that off. So that's a challenging segment right now. Online dating is also challenging because how do you get to go out with other people and go on a date in the pandemic? So some of these are less obvious than others, but then in the tailwind category, you've got companies that are doing online education.

Ed Roman: (15:21)
So teaching you to learn from home, video conferencing and virtual event technologies, as well as some things that are a little bit less obvious, like video games in virtual reality. People have more time on their hands right now, and they can't really go out as much. So they have to entertain themselves from home. And so those are the types of companies that we're seeing in Silicon Valley that are now, what a lot of VCs are looking at as interesting categories to invest in. Some of the companies that are doing really well right now in Silicon Valley are the next generations of companies that you see in publicly traded markets, but they're now being invested privately by these VCs. And we'll talk about those in just a second here.

Ed Roman: (15:59)
So here's some data that also backs this up. So what you're seeing here in this chart is layoffs in Silicon Valley in spring of 2020, this is a layoff's chart. This is how many jobs are being lost among the startups in Silicon Valley. And at the top of this chart, you'll see retail, travel, fitness, real estate, those categories are having more layoffs. And then at the very bottom of this chart, you're seeing IT having the fewest layoffs. So this again, supports what we talked about earlier about IT, software being like a Covid resistant category that a lot of VCs are excited about right now.

Ed Roman: (16:33)
And a lot of those companies are being highly contested by VCs because they're in that category of digital transformation, which a lot of businesses are going through right now because of the pandemic. So let's go through a few examples of what are some of the trendy startups in Silicon Valley that are thriving post pandemic. The first one is called Standard.ai. And Standard.ai is AI powered autonomous checkout. So what this means is, it is a service that retrofits a grocery store, like a Walmart, for example, or Kroger's and gives them the ability to have consumers buy groceries by just walking into the store, picking a grocery off of the shelf, and then literally walking out of the store without ever interacting with a human being.

Ed Roman: (17:20)
So the idea here is that it's using cameras in the sky to detect what items you're actually picking off the shelf. There's cameras that are built in the ceiling of these businesses. And they use artificial intelligence and computer vision to detect what items you are picking off the shelf. And then on a mobile application on your phone, that's when you get charged for this. So the idea here, the vision for this company is, "Let's actually reduce the cost of food in this country." Because by having a store that runs more efficiently with fewer cashiers, you actually can drive the prices of food down for consumers and really help consumers get access to food at cheaper prices.

Ed Roman: (17:56)
So it's one of those businesses that is helping the consumer to get access to food more cheaply, but it's also a fantastic business because you're helping the bottom lines of these grocery stores. You can even do things like detecting security. So what if someone pulls a knife out of their bag? What if someone tries to steal from the store? Well, you can actually detect that with the cameras in the sky. So there's a lot of potential for this technologies going... This has been kind of a 50X multiple in just two years as one of the hotter Silicon Valley startups right now.

Ed Roman: (18:26)
Here's another example, this is one that's directly benefiting from what's happened in the last few months, is Medina's health. So Medinas Health is a marketplace for hospitals to find much needed medical equipment. So let's say you're a hospital and you're trying to get access to very important surgery equipment and medical supplies, things like that. Medinas Health helps you find that equipment. And then once the pandemic hit, all these hospitals became very desperate to find masks and ventilators and gloves, because those were in very high demand once the pandemic hit.

Ed Roman: (19:05)
And then Medinas Health serviced that demand. So they helped these hospitals locate those ventilators, those masks. And you could see their revenue has pretty much been on a tear since the pandemic hit as a result of that. So this is a great example of a company that's doing good for the world. They're helping people, they're helping hospitals to source ventilators and masks. And they're also a great investment. They're also a profitable company. So that's why we're pretty bullish on these guys. And they grew five X just during Covid in terms of their revenue. So it's been a pretty substantial run for them.

Ed Roman: (19:37)
Here's another example of a company that's doing well in Silicon Valley called Crowdcast. So Crowdcast is like the next generation of Zoom. That's one way to think about it. It's a technology that allows you to host virtual events. So Zoom is more for these little, very informal sessions that we're doing here. We're just a few people chatting. Crowdcast takes that to the next level, they said, "What if we wanted to have 50,000 people together at a virtual event all at once? And let's make a next generation experience around them."

Ed Roman: (20:05)
So Crowdcast has done no marketing at all, and you can see here their run rate has grown again, 3.7 X in about three months, just as a function of the pandemic. Because a lot of folks are not able to attend conferences anymore. And conference organizers are now reinventing their conferences as virtual conferences. So Crowdcast is servicing that demand. There's one last example I'll give you. So as many of you may know traditional education that's in-person education is challenging right now. A lot of colleges and trade schools are closing their doors and they're turning students away. They're turning to online education, and this is also happening at the consumer level.

Ed Roman: (20:48)
A lot of consumers who learned skills at traditional businesses can't do that anymore. So for example, learning to dance is something that a lot of folks cannot do anymore because you can't take dance lessons from an instructor because it's not safe. Because you have to get very close to that dance instructor. And so a lot of the dance studios are closed now. So this company Steezy is a Silicon Valley company that's disrupting that. And they have online dance lessons where you can learn to dance from home. And this is street dancing. This is dancing where you can do it by yourself. There is no partner in this, so it doesn't require that you get near anybody else.

Ed Roman: (21:22)
And again, this company is on a tear due to the pandemic. So they've grown five X in the last year or so. Just as a function of Covid being a tailwind for their business. So these are some examples of companies that are benefiting right now and that are in that attractive category. Now, the other thing to think about is that there's some Silicon Valley companies that are not doing so well right now. That are in some of the challenging sectors and Airbnb and Lime bike are two examples of that.

Ed Roman: (21:48)
So Airbnb unfortunately had to slash their evaluation from 35 billion to 18 billion. So it's about a 50% reduction in their evaluation. And Lime bike, which is the e-scooter company, they had to reduce their evaluation from 2.4 billion to only 400 million. So that was an 80% reduction for Lime bike when they pulled their scooters off the street. And unfortunately this is having an impact on Silicon Valley. The impact this is having is that lead stage venture firms may have invested at too high evaluations into these companies.

Ed Roman: (22:19)
And they're needing to pour more money into these companies to keep them alive during the pandemic, which means they have less capital available to make new investments. So what that means for the other VCs, for the rest of us is that there's less competition. There's fewer VCs making new investments because a lot of capital is being allocated to save these "struggling Covid companies". Which means that if you are investing in new companies right now, if you are a VC that is writing checks, you're able to negotiate pretty well on price. You're able to actually negotiate on valuation because there's fewer options that startups have to raise from.

Ed Roman: (22:53)
So we think that investing in a pandemic is actually pretty good timing from a venture perspective. And this is some data that supports this. So this data comes from my friend, Tomasz Tunguz at Redpoint. And you can see here that the number of rounds of funding have been steadily decreasing. And this data is relevant as of July of 2020. So you can see here, the number of seed rounds, series A rounds, series B and series C rounds have all dropped precipitously especially in the last six months or so due to the pandemic. What's interesting here though is, this next chart shows you that the number of the sizes of those rounds have actually increased.

Ed Roman: (23:31)
So we're actually seeing bigger rounds, but we're seeing fewer of those rounds. And the reason why this is happening is that a few companies are doing really well right now, like the ones we saw earlier. And investors are dog piling on those deals. And they're putting more money into those companies because they're winning companies in the pandemic. And so that's why the round sizes are going up, even though the number of rounds are going down.

Ed Roman: (23:54)
So let's talk a little bit about social responsibility of venture capital. Something that I admire about SALT and about Anthony is that you guys have a very big focus on social responsibility and charity parody, and we do as well. So this is an interesting fact here. So if you look back in 1978, the most common job in America back in 1978, who would have guessed it's actually a secretary. Is the most common job in America back in 1978. This is about 40 years ago now. Number two, being a farmer back in 1978. And what's interesting here is if you fast forward about 40 years, this is what it looked like in 2014.

Ed Roman: (24:29)
So this is about six years old, but still relevant. And look what happened. Secretary is barely on the map anymore. And now truck driver is the number one most common job in America. It's truck driver actually. And the thing that I worry about is that these truck drivers may in the future have their jobs threatened by VCs in Silicon Valley because of self driving trucks. Autonomous trucks could be threatening to this workforce down the road. And what are we going to do about that? I think we have a social responsibility to think about this. It's not just about making money. It's also about addressing the societal change that's being caused here.

Ed Roman: (25:06)
So right now, unfortunately, this according to CNBC, that 47.2% of Americans are currently out of work because of Covid-19 and many of those jobs are not coming back right now. And this is because the companies are filing for bankruptcy. We've had a lot of local businesses in San Francisco shutter their doors permanently. Because of the pandemic. And yet, and this addresses your question earlier John, is that there's a shortage of one million programmers in this country right now. And unfortunately, most Americans are not skilled to fill those roles.

Ed Roman: (25:36)
So a lot of the people who are losing their jobs cannot fill those roles? So the small way that we're trying to address this is we aim to educate the world on the craft of software development to re-skill a lot of these workers, that way they can take some of these jobs. And we do this through our basic a global virtual event that educates folks on the craft of software development. And then what we do is we then place those programmers at our startups. So we have a service called Hack jobs that all of you can check out, which connects startups with programmers. And that also benefits us as a venture firm because we're able to credibly tell the startups that we have access to these programmers and that solves their biggest problem. And that earns us allocations in their rounds.

Ed Roman: (26:18)
That's one of the ways that we're able to fight our way into some of the better deals in Silicon Valley. So it's a good example of how you can marry social responsibility with economic upside and have the two together. Why do you have to pick one or the other? Can't you build a business that has both economic upside, but also social responsibility? And so we're big fans of that model. In fact, at our events we make no money on the events. All the proceeds go to charity, raise money for organizations like Code for America, women who code, girls who code, those are the folks who benefit from our events. We're not lining our pockets with them.

Ed Roman: (26:49)
So that's how we think about the world. So the last section here, before we go back to our fireside chat is what are some tips and advice for, "How do you earn returns in early stage venture capital while reducing risk?" So let's just get real here and talk about the positives and the trade-offs with venture capital. So one of the positives of venture capital is that it's a very patient way to earn strong returns. So if you're patient about it, if you can wait 10 years or so then the rewards can be substantial, but it's a long-term buy and hold strategy. This is not the type of asset where you'll get immediate liquidity. It's for people who are able to be patient and earn those returns, and are accessing equities that are unavailable to most investors.

Ed Roman: (27:31)
So a lot of these Silicon Valley deals are behind closed doors. You have to know the right people in Silicon Valley, you have to be a Silicon Valley insider to get access to them. And if you can get into them, it's usually quite lucrative. And the reason for this is because you're accessing an asset class that most people don't have access to. So on public markets, everyone has access to those equities. And for me, I like to play the game of accessing equities that other people don't have access to. So that's where I think it gets interesting with venture capital. And there are potential for out-sized returns in venture capital. So this is again, a very rare situation.

Ed Roman: (28:08)
But with Uber, if you were able to invest in Uber's very first fundraising round, you would have made 3,100 extra money on that investment. You have turned $10,000 into $31 million had you invested in an Uber's very first round. Now, again, that's very rare. You have to be very lucky to get into an Uber, but it is possible. And it also offers diversification against other asset classes. So if you're building a portfolio of real estate and public stocks, this is a way to hedge against those a little bit. And they're also helping to change the world. You're helping entrepreneurs to do good things.

Ed Roman: (28:42)
Those are just some of the positive venture capital. But then there's some challenges. One of the challenges is that, it's very volatile and it can be risky. So if you're investing in venture capital, there is a high variance, the asset class. And it's less predictable than other asset classes. And you need to be in the right funds. And a lot of the right funds are oversubscribed, unfortunately. So you look at funds like Sequoia capital and Floodgate, and Andreessen Horowitz. A lot of these funds are not accepting additional capital right now because there's so much demand to invest in those funds. Those are some of the challenges. So the way that we think about this is, "Let's look at how these different venture funds compare."

Ed Roman: (29:19)
So on average, a smaller venture fund will outperform a larger venture fund. This data comes from Preqin and you can see here that, as a fund size of around a hundred million, that's where you're getting the best returns as an investor. On average of course, there's always exceptions here. But then as the fund size gets larger, the returns on average start to drop. And the reason for this is because the investors have to invest bigger and bigger checks at later and later stages. And that can hurt the returns a little bit for the fund.

Ed Roman: (29:50)
Here's another interesting graph for you. So it turns out that most of the unicorns are only held by only 36% of the VC. So basically just about a third of the VC hold most of the unicorns. So again, illustrating why you need to be in the right funds. It's one of those asset classes where if you can get into the right funds and you have that access, then you can do very well for yourself. But if you can't, then you probably shouldn't be playing the game at all because it's a very easy way to lose a lot of money if you're not careful about it. And this is some data that shows that. So this data shows different venture funds based on top quartile versus bottom quartile.

Ed Roman: (30:26)
So on average, over the last decade or so the best venture funds, the top quartile have performed at a 19.45% return. Whereas the bottom quartile funds have only had a 4% return. So this is not true in other asset classes. So if you look at real estate and other asset classes, you don't see this huge disparity between the top quartile and the bottom quartile. And we're not even talking top decile or bottom decile here. We're just talking quartiles here. So again, illustrating why you need to be in the right fund.

Ed Roman: (30:57)
So in summary, these are some of the challenges. Venture capital is volatile, any VC could underperform in any given year, and you can invest in a large number of VCs and that can help reduce the volatility. But then picking a VC firm is tricky. You have to be able to due diligence them. The top VC partners can change firms all the time and funds have gone larger. That hurts returns. And access is hard, the best venture firms can be oversubscribed.

Ed Roman: (31:21)
So in summary, what I'll just tell you is what we're doing to help address this problem, because this is something that I'm passionate about is how do we solve this problem? And so what I've been on a mission for the last decade or so is essentially to transform the asset class of venture capital. And so basically what is a better asset class? So what we're basically doing is creating a new asset class out of venture capital through a diversified Silicon Valley fund.

Ed Roman: (31:44)
And what we basically do is we write small checks in to startups and then we build ownership over time, over multiple checks, and that reduces some of the risk. And to this diversified fund, it's not as concentrated. So it's more predictable. We're basically turning venture capital into a more predictable asset class through a larger portfolio. And our goal is to basically aim to access the top 10% or so of these early stage startups. And we invest alongside some of the top VCs at early stages before they get access to them and they mark it up at higher valuation.

Ed Roman: (32:17)
So we're trying to get an early at these low stages and we're investing in Covid-19 tailwind companies like the next Zoom, et cetera. We're focused on IT software. So we've been doing this now for about a decade now, and we have four companies worth over a billion dollars and 17 of them worth over a hundred million. So that's what we're up to and there's other solutions to this as well. So if you're a family office out there and you're looking to invest directly into startups, you can also apply some of these principles to a direct investment strategy.

Ed Roman: (32:47)
So for example, if you were to be investing in companies yourselves, I would encourage you to maybe write small checks into these companies to seek diversification. Maybe have a portfolio of 30 or 40 companies. Don't bet it all on just one company, and that should help you to shield from isolation. So you can emulate a little bit of what we're doing on your own as well. So that's it. If you have any questions you can email me. My email address here is ed@hack-vc.com. And I'd love to take audience questions [inaudible 00:33:15] the fireside chat. So thanks for listening to me today.

John Darsie: (33:18)
Absolutely. Thanks so much, Ed. That was a great presentation. I have some questions and I know we have some audience questions that have both been emailed in, and then we have some that have been posted in the Q&A box. Reminder, anyone watching, if you want to ask Ed a question, you can enter it into the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on the Zoom window. And we will answer it as long as it's appropriate and relevant. But I have a question to start things off. So I think it was a very interesting slide you had up. You had Airbnb and Lime bike talking about how you've had some short term disruptions in companies that have really compelling long-term stories.

John Darsie: (33:52)
And I saw some data a couple of days ago about Airbnb is having a massive resurgence in its revenue and bookings. Whereas hotel chains like Marriott are still suffering in the Covid environment. What you're seeing is a phenomenon where people are looking to get out of some major metropolitan areas and rent potentially rural cabins or other properties. How do you go about identifying what is the baby and what is the bath water? And are there other examples that you have of companies that are suffering in the short term, but it just provides a great entry long-term. Is that a quantitative process or a qualitative process that you go through? And what are some other examples that you're seeing about separating long-term opportunity from short-term pain?

Ed Roman: (34:36)
That's a great question, John. So, in general, we have seen that there's a trend right now towards essentially migrating away from the cities. So, in Silicon Valley in San Francisco, right now, the rents here have dropped by about 10% because a lot of workers have realized we can work remotely. You don't necessarily have to go to an office anymore. Even you John were telling me before our talk today that it's about an hour and 15 minute commute each way for you in New York city to get to and from work. And that may not make a lot of sense for a lot of workers. So what a lot of employers like Facebook and Google and other companies like that are doing and Twitter for example, is they are actually allowing permanently their workers to work remotely where they don't actually have to be in the city anymore. And that's opening up the opportunity for workers to do what I call maximizing the virtual office, which means if you work at a company like that, you could theoretically work anywhere in the world.

Ed Roman: (35:29)
Now, some places are more realistic than others. Like if you work somewhere in some Island in the Atlantic ocean, you might have a time zone issue collaborating with your employer because maybe there's very different time zones between the two of you. So I think staying within the same hemisphere makes a lot of sense. Now I do believe that that is going to be a somewhat temporary phenomenon. So what we're predicting will happen is that once the pandemic starts to wane and once the vaccines are ready and once they're distributed and manufactured, which by the way will take a while to do all that. It's not going to be a V-shape recovery, but once that all happens, then there's going to be a resurgence of cities, where people start to return to cities.

Ed Roman: (36:08)
But it's not going to be 100%. So what's happening here is that people are finally opening up their eyes to the idea of a virtual office and how that could be beneficial to workers. In fact, for all three companies that I've run as CEO for the last 20 years, all three of them have been virtual offices. So I've learned a lot about how to run a virtual office myself and learned a lot of lessons about how to do it the wrong way and how to do it the right way. And a lot of companies are going to have to learn those lessons over the next few years. So I think it's going to be a hybrid. You're going to have some companies that allow virtual offices and some that don't and some will be open to a mix of both. And so we do believe that the cities will still have a permanent function and that companies will be returning here. So that's a great question, John.

John Darsie: (36:49)
Yeah. From a SkyBridge, just to editorialize on my end briefly. From a SkyBridge standpoint, I went into the city yesterday for the first time. I live on long Island, like you said, it's about an hour and 15 each way for me. So two and a half hours of commuting every day. I went into the city yesterday. It was nice to be back in the office, but by the end of the day, I said... Given the time that I spent commuting I was on calls and things while I was commuting. I said, "This isn't necessarily the best use of my time. It's definitely valuable to be there at least a couple of days a week, but I envisioned myself working remotely and maximizing my time in a remote environment.

John Darsie: (37:21)
And also from an event perspective, you talked about Crowdcast. We actually have an audience question about this that we can segue into. But from an event perspective, we always had our SALT conference was virtually 100% an in person event. People gathered in Las Vegas about 2000 people every year, fantastic networking in a very insulated environment. We view those events going forward as being hybrid, even in a post Covid two, three, four, five years down the line of having a digital element built into the in person gathering. So Crowdcast, we have an audience question about Crowdcast and Steezy. Do you see those businesses continuing to grow after the Covid environment that we're in? Or do you think growth might slow or what's your forecast for those types of companies after we get clear of this pandemic?

Ed Roman: (38:05)
That's a great question. So, we do believe that these companies that are doing really well based on the pandemic, they're not going to see the organic growth levels that they are seeing today just because of the pandemic. So Crowdcast has done no marketing. They have grown five X just because of the pandemic, off no marketing. Now we don't think they're going to get all that free growth without investing in marketing going forward. So we think that in the future, they're going to need to invest more to cause their own growth on their own without the pandemic.

Ed Roman: (38:38)
But we do believe that there is going to be a permanent need and value for having virtual events. For the reasons that you and I talked about, which is that a lot of folks are now open minded to the idea of a virtual event. The idea of a virtual conference a year ago would have been unthinkable for a lot of conference organizers. And a lot of folks like virtual events, "Do those even work and do I even get value out of that?" And now since it's the only way we can do business, now folks are open minded to it and they're seeing, "Wow, I actually can get value out of a virtual event."

Ed Roman: (39:06)
So we've been doing these now for six years. We run the largest program or event in history, which is virtual. And we've been believers in this for a while. So we've been hopeful that folks would embrace virtual events now for six years. And now they finally are out of necessity. So we think it's going to be a component but not the only answer going forward. We think it's going to be a mix of both. And so for companies like Crowdcast and Steezy that are having this huge tailwind, and we think that the tailwind will eventually subside and they're going to have to cause their own growth.

Ed Roman: (39:35)
But this does a lot of benefit for them anyway. It de-risks their next fundraising round, their traction goes up quite a bit, they're less dependent on investors. They need to raise less capital from VCs because they can get profitable very quickly. And by the way, both those companies are profitable, which is very rare. You look at all these publicly traded companies, they are.... How many IPOs do we see these days for profitable companies? There aren't that many of them.

John Darsie: (40:00)
[crosstalk 00:40:00] is a great example of that. They lose what? Over $500 million a year.

Ed Roman: (40:04)
That's right. So there is a hand full, but most of them are not. And Silicon Valley has this reputation of turning out these publicly traded companies that are unprofitable. And here we have companies that have even raised their series A, that are profitable, coming out of Silicon Valley. So this is a new generation of companies that we think are self sustainable and the pandemic has been helping them in that regard.

John Darsie: (40:25)
So the next question, Steve Case is somebody who was at our SALT conference in 2019 in Las Vegas. He did a SALT TALK a few months ago. He's a big proponent of this concept of the Rise of the Rest, which is that there's going to be... Even pre Covid, He was preaching this. That there's going to be a wave of entrepreneurship and capital that flows to second tier cities in the US basically non Silicon Valley and to a certain extent non New York. So he's helping to invest in a lot of those companies. He has a bus tour that goes around and does a startup competition, pitch competition.

John Darsie: (40:58)
When you look geographically at startups, do you have a bias towards different places? We have an audience member who's asking whether you look at startups in, for example, the Atlanta or Southeast Georgia area. You talked about the Hack summit that you do that helps companies identify and hire coding talent, and you have the hack jobs platform as well. How do you think about companies geographically? And do you agree with cases, narrative that there's going to be a wave of entrepreneurship outside of these hubs, like San Francisco?

Ed Roman: (41:28)
And that's a great question, John. And thanks for asking that, David. So over the last five years or so, I have been trying to help startups fundraise from other VCs. In addition to ourselves who we believe have merit that are not based in the US and not based in Silicon Valley. And as you get further and further away from Silicon Valley, it can get more challenging. So to be realistic, the reason why this is challenging is because most of the VCs are in Silicon Valley and they preferred to not have to travel for their board meetings, because they have families and they're trying to manage their time and they don't want to be on flights their entire lives.

Ed Roman: (42:04)
They'd rather just have a good family life. So that bias causes other VCs to essentially deprioritize startups that are not based in Silicon Valley. Now that rhetoric has been changing over the last five years or so. So what I'm seeing now is that because of additional competition in the VC industry, because there's a lot more VC firms now than there used to be, the VCs are having to get more creative around, "How do I actually win the best deals?"

Ed Roman: (42:32)
And a lot of the best deals are not in Silicon Valley right now. So you look at Salt Lake City, Utah, for example. There was a largest SAS exit in history, in Salt Lake City, Utah, which was $8 billion that came out of there. Where SAP made an acquisition out of that area. And then Pluralsight, which I was a board observer on also based in Salt Lake City, that IPO-ed for 4.5 billion. So Salt Lake City is an up and coming center now. And most VCs have some strategy or presence now in Salt Lake City. New York City is another good example of that. Los Angeles is another good example of that. So there are certain hubs that are now popular from a VC perspective, and it's easier to raise the next round of funding if you invest in a company that's in those sectors. Because other VCs want to invest in those geographies.

Ed Roman: (43:20)
So it's almost like, by having empathy and by investing in the geographies that other VCs want to invest in, you're actually de-risking in the next round of funding for the startup. And that helps de-risk the investments. So now with the pandemic though, a lot of that is changing. So VCs are now taking their meetings over Zoom, and they're a lot more open to where the startups are located. So we think there's going to be a lot more optionality in terms of where your company is based. And now we're seeing fully virtual distributed teams raising their rounds of funding. So it's going to be interesting to see what happens?

John Darsie: (43:50)
You talked in the opening with Anthony about early in your career, you were frustrated by a lack of access. You felt like you were missing out on a lot of great investment opportunities because you couldn't get access to those. A ton of competition in Silicon Valley. Especially when you talk about those big firms that you mentioned earlier, that get access to all the top deals and crowd out potentially some other investors. How were you able to get into the top startups, given all the competition in the market? And we have a question from an audience member, Chris, what are other ways to solve that access problem other than getting invested at the very early seed stage?

Ed Roman: (44:22)
That's a great question. So, basically here's our strategy. So what we do is we partner with other venture firms. So we partner with firms like Sequoia, like Bain Capital Ventures, like Floodgate, these oversubscribed funds. We have alliances with them. And our business model is that we invest very small checks into those companies at very early stages. And by investing a small check, it doesn't threaten these other VCs business models that are happy to allow us to join for a small check because their whole goal is to write a very large check into these companies and we're enabling them to do that. So what we do is we help them find the best deals. We are literally giving away all of our best deals to our friends who are other VC firms to allow them to lead these rounds. And we're co-investing for small checks. And the reason why we're doing this is because we are transforming the asset class of venture capital into a more predictable asset class through diversification.

Ed Roman: (45:15)
So by having a larger portfolio of these small chunks, that's what creates consistency in the returns. That's what allows us to take the volatility out of venture capital. So we actually don't desire to write these giant checks. We're happy to write a modest check. And then if the company is performing well, then we reinvest in future rounds. We build this position over several checks. So it's almost like we're dollar cost averaging our way into this investment. And by taking this position, it allows other venture firms to essentially be open kimono with us about getting us access to some of their best deals.

Ed Roman: (45:47)
So we're able to invest in companies that the general public generally can't access because those other venture funds are oversubscribed and we're able to access them for that reason. And then the last part of this is that the CEOs themselves are demanding that we invest in their companies. Because we have access to all these engineers because we run this large program or conference. You have to have empathy for the CEO also, they're the ultimate decision maker about whether you get into these companies. And by solving their biggest problem of hiring engineers, they're generally pitching us to take their money. No matter how many term sheets they have, no matter how hot the deal is. We're almost always able to get a small allocation for ourselves because that value add is so important for the CEOs.

John Darsie: (46:29)
We have another audience question, you mentioned the idea of investing in startups outside of Silicon Valley and also even outside the United States. And we have a specific question about India. And India I know it's a hot place for technology entrepreneurship right now. There's several companies, Google just invested a significant amount of money in the Jio platforms based in India. But do you have a specific view on startups that operate in India and are there any other international markets that are of keen interest to you?

Ed Roman: (47:00)
So we do invest in India as well as South America. LATAM is a big focus for us as well. We think that there's opportunities to essentially clone Silicon Valley companies in those geographies. One of the biggest risks you take as an investor is how do you risk what's called product market fit? Meaning how do you prove or disprove the hypothesis around your business model? And that's one of the biggest risks that an investor takes. So if you have a business model that you know works, where you know it's a good business model and it's been proven in the US and if you clone that business model in other geography, then you're taking away that product market fit risk. You know the business model will work. It's just a question of execution at that point, "Is this a good team? Can they execute?" And you can diligence that as part of the investment process, by doing reference checks on the founders and by looking at their past work. People who tend to do well in life tend to repeat that success and do well multiple times.

Ed Roman: (47:53)
So we tend to look for what is the history of success that these folks have? Are they winners in life in general. And that predicts whether they will be successful with these companies. So that is one thing that can make it more straightforward to invest in international markets. And we believe that valuations are also more attractive there, because if you look at the publicly traded markets in places like Latin America or other parts of the world, the public markets are not as healthy as the US. So the US publicly traded markets are very healthy compared to like Latin America, for example.

Ed Roman: (48:26)
And the valuation multiples that you see in Latin America are much lower than the US for the same company. If you were to IPO a company in the US versus Latin, you're going to see a much lower multiple on revenue on that publicly traded company in LATAM because the markets aren't as hot there as here. So what that means, you've got to be careful from a valuation perspective. You have to come in at a low valuation and give a little bit of a discount to the valuation, because they're in Latin America. And as long as you bake that into your Math, it can be very lucrative.

John Darsie: (48:57)
We have another audience question. This was actually one of my questions as well. So at SkyBridge, we deal with a lot of families. Family offices are pretty much our largest constituency of clients. And a lot of times when we bring whether it's hedge funds or venture capital funds to these families, some of them have a preference to invest deal by deal, as opposed to in funds, what are the advantages and disadvantages of investing in a venture capital fund versus trying to invest in deal by deal? And what are some common mistakes you see investors make when they're trying to invent themselves deal by deal in terms of due diligence and company's selection?

Ed Roman: (49:33)
That's a great question. So let me answer the second part of your question first. So we actually have a PDF file that we made that gives a bunch of tips for how to avoid making mistakes when you're doing your own investments, deal by deal. And I'm happy to email that to anyone in the audience that wants to hear about this. I'll just type out my email address here. It's ed@hack-vc.com. If you send me an email, I will send you this PDF file. It's called Angel Investing Tips, and it contains a plethora of best practices that I've learned, the mistakes I've made as an investor over the years, crystallized into a PDF document for you to review.

Ed Roman: (50:09)
Then the other part of your question was, how do you judge the difference between deal by deal versus funds and how do I know which is best and what are the trade offs between the two of them? So we offer both at our venture firms. We do both deal by deal and fund investments through our venture fund, to our LPs. And we do find that investors like to choose their own deal. There's something sexy about being able to pick a company and to have some intuition about whether that company is going to succeed. Because everyone comes from different walks of life.

Ed Roman: (50:42)
Everyone has different life experiences, and you personally may have some intuition about a company that other investors don't have. So why can't you pick your own deals? And so there is a trend right now towards doing that, where families are getting more and more comfortable picking their own deals. The caution that I'll give you is that most family offices suffer from what's called adverse selection. Adverse selection means the deals they're seeing are the ones that have already been picked over by the top VCs. And this is the problem that we're actually trying to solve at our venture firm. Because this is a problem that I experienced because I have my own family office. I had an exit 20 years ago, and I started a family office and lo and behold, I got access to a bunch of deals that other VCs didn't want. And that was problematic for me.

Ed Roman: (51:23)
And that's why I went on this journey to help solve for that. So the way you can avoid that, one way you can avoid that is to partner up with a VC firm. And there's many of them we're one of them, but there's plenty of others too, that you can partner with. Where maybe they can be a second set of eyes for you to help you vet a deal. That way you have a professional that's looking at the deal with you to maybe assist you a little bit on due diligence and to maybe help you out with deal flow. Now, the one caution I'll give you is that, and this is something that VCs are pretty famous for and a lot of families don't realize this is that, sometimes what a VC will do is they'll invest in a company.

Ed Roman: (51:54)
And then if the company under-performs they'll then offer that deal to their family offices, to essentially give the company more runaway to help them have more dry powder to turn it into a good company. And guess what? Those are some of the bottom performing companies in their portfolio. The best ones, are able to raise on their own. They don't even need family offices to raise from them. I would look at your own deal flow from a perspective of what is called a jaded eye. Meaning I'll be cautious about your own deal flow, make sure that you have good counsel, a good venture firm you can work with to be a neutral second set of eyes on this deal. And that can help you avoid some of the losses. Investing in funds gives you what's called a fund level protection. Meaning if you invest in a fund you're investing in a basket of companies and the winners and losers offset each other. So the [inaudible 00:52:40] doesn't make any profits, any carried interest unless the whole fund performs.

Ed Roman: (52:46)
So that means that there's accountability for performance. You don't enjoy that if you invest deal by deal. So if you're doing your own deals, the winners and losers, don't offset each other from a profits perspective. If someone is sourcing a deal in there, they're taking a profits interest on that. They're getting a deal by deal profits interest, which is a very good deal for them. So that's why I would be a little bit cautious. It is sexy to invest in your own deals. And we think it's a good thing, but you've just got to be very careful about it. And email me, I'll give you my Angel Investing Tips to help you navigate that.

John Darsie: (53:15)
Fantastic. I think you might get the sexier returns, as you mentioned sometime, and maybe it has an element of excitement to it trying to pick over deals. But you might settle for a slightly lower return, but with significantly less risk in a fund structure. We have another question from Chris talking about SPAC. So we had Chamath Palihapitiya from Social Capital on he's become the face of this surge in SPAC, Special Purpose Acquisition Companies that provide basically a back door for companies to go public versus a traditional IPO. Do you think SPAC will become a more widely used tool? And what is your general opinion of SPAC? Is it a byproduct of the overheating potentially of the private capital world or what's your general opinion of SPAC? And do you think they'll continue to be a popular substitute for traditional IPOs?

Ed Roman: (54:06)
That's a great question. So I will caution the audience that I am not an expert in SPAC. I'm more of an expert on venture capital, but I will do my best to answer. So my understanding is that there's about 110 SPACs right now that are competing to essentially acquire a company and effectively IPO with them. And the value of that SPAC is that you're not just getting access to IPO and giving yourself liquidity, but you're also saving on the fees that the brokerages will charge you. And that's a lot of savings right there. That buffer that you're saving from not having to go through a wall street broker, that's money that you're leaving on the table as an investor, if you go through a traditional IPO. And the other value of a SPAC is that you're actually able to do a primary fundraise for your company as part of the liquidity, which is also attractive because IPO company is basically a fundraising event. You're raising money for your company, so SPACs have that value.

Ed Roman: (54:58)
So those are some of the benefits of SPAC. But then there's also some trade offs and some downsides as well. So we think that there's going to be a mix. We think that the future is going to be a mix of both SPACs and IPOs. I think one thing that hasn't been discussed too much is that there is this emotional benefit that an entrepreneur gets from ringing the bell on wall street. There's something that's very proud about actually going through an IPO that people just want to experience in their lives. So I think that the demand from IPO is going to go away just because of the ego factor of doing that process. Of saying, "IPO-ed a company." A lot of entrepreneurs just want to say that regardless of the process. And a lot of people just aren't up to speed on SPACs. They're not as familiar with it, and they may not be comfortable doing the SPAC because it's a newer instrument and the IPO is the more traditional instrument. So we think it's going to be a mix going forward. And we think there's room for both of them.

John Darsie: (55:49)
I think we could talk for two more hours easily given all the audience questions and questions that I have for you, but we'll wrap it up just with one more quick follow up on that. And it's a meta question about public markets versus private markets. So obviously you see public tech companies are performing very well prior to that, private technology companies were extremely hot, private equity and venture capital were very much the hot dot and you're talking about different ways to go public. Is there really a strong need for a lot of these private companies to go public or private markets developing with such maturity that you're going to just continue to see some large companies remain private for long periods of time and potentially never go public.

Ed Roman: (56:29)
That's a great question. Yeah. So, the trend that we're seeing is companies are taking longer and longer to go public. And a lot of folks are realizing like, "Why would I even want to go public? What is the benefit of going public?" And the most common answer is, "It's a way to reward the employees who are breaking their backs building your company." Because you're offering them liquidity, you're offering the opportunity to sell their shares to other parties. And there are other ways you can achieve that. You can do a secondary offering on private markets. You can have some of the employees cash out that way, but that's harder to orchestrate for a large number of employees.

Ed Roman: (57:02)
So an IPO is a more elegant way to do that. There's a lot of trade offs, so there's a lot of negativity to going public. Like for example, you may have activist shareholders that try to take over your company and you may have lawsuits that happen from class action lawsuits. Because let's say, Elon Musk puts out a tweet that says that there's a good chance he'll get some financing and doesn't happen. That happened in the last year or so.

Ed Roman: (57:27)
And there was a bunch of class action lawsuits that result from things like that, which you have to deal with. So it's all this nonsense you have to deal with as a company because you're under public scrutiny. So it takes about a year or so to just prepare to go public in terms of getting your books in order and all that stuff. I've been through this process before when I was a board observer at Pluralsight and it's nontrivial to go through that process. So a lot of folks just want to avoid that pain and the potential fear of the public scrutiny. So they'll remain private for a while. But then there's this pressure from the employees to cash out. And the VCs also want to cash out. The VCs want to... A venture fund is only intended to last for 10 to 12 years.

Ed Roman: (58:06)
So once that timer expires, at that point you're obligated to produce a return for your investors. You can do that through a secondary sale. You don't need to go IPO, but an IPO is a nice way to do that as well. So there's some of the trade offs. So we think that people are wising up to the fact that you can now have what's called a second class of shares. Like Mark Zuckerberg has this for Facebook, where he can't be removed as CEO because his voting shares have more votes than other shares. So things like that, if you're a really, really hot company, you can do that. Only the best companies can do that, that can elude some of the fears around going public for some of these companies. So it's going to be a mix and every entrepreneur is going to make their own decision. And we think is going to be interesting to see what happens going forward.

John Darsie: (58:49)
Well, thanks so much for joining us. It was really educational, both for people that are in the industry, who might've learned something more from your presentation and also for people who are less knowledgeable about the venture capital world. I think your presentation was fantastic. And again, I think we could do another hour without blinking, but we'll have to have you back on and definitely have you back at one of our future in person, SALT conferences. And maybe we'll use Crowdcast to make it a hybrid event. Congratulations on all your success with some of those investments that you mentioned.

Ed Roman: (59:18)
Thanks, John. And the audience, thanks for tuning in. Again, if you have questions, just email me ed@hack-vc.com take care.

Mark Stoleson: Principles Before Profit | SALT Talks #51

“Life is not about what you get, life is about who you become.“

Mark Stoleson is the Chief Executive Officer & Partner of Legatum, a global investment firm based in Dubai with the mission to generate and allocate the capital and ideas that help people prosper. Prior to Legatum, Mark was a corporate finance and M&A attorney with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

“Hard work, a focus on service and looking after your neighbors” are guiding principles of both Mark’s personal life and Legatum. The firm manages only their own capital, which means they can have a longer-term perspective in their investments. Mark focuses on simple, big ideas: Where is the growth? What simple idea can they express with a really big company? Points of focus for Legatum include the expansion of China’s middle class by 300 million people over the next 10 years, as well as the 450 million unbanked people in India.

Philanthropy is a pillar of Legatum’s investment prospectus. “If we generate excess capital, how can we use it to help others prosper?” The firm has worked to eradicate neglected tropical diseases, like worms, that are prevalent due to a supply chain issue, not a shortage of capital or resources.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Mark Stoleson.jpeg

Mark Stoleson

CEO & Partner

Legatum

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:08)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is Rachel Pether, and I'm a senior advisor to SkyBridge, typically based in Abu Dhabi. I'm also the emcee for SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews that we launched during the work-from-home period. And what we're really endeavoring to do with the SALT Talks series is replicate the type of experience from our SALT conferences, where we provide a window into the mind of leading investors, creators, and thinkers, as well as providing a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We obviously want to hear from you, our audience, so if you have any questions, please do just enter in the Q &A section of the Zoom screen.

Rachel Pether: (00:59)
And today's guest. We are very excited to welcome Mark Stoleson to SALT Talks. Mark is the chief executive officer and a partner of Legatum, a global investment firm based in Dubai with a mission to generate and allocate capital to help people prosper. Over the last 16 years, Mark and his partners have worked together to build a world-class investment fund while pioneering a number of high impact philanthropic endeavors, which I'm sure we'll hear more about later today. These include the END Fund, the Freedom Fund, Luminos, the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship at MIT, and the Legatum Institute Foundation in London.

Rachel Pether: (01:43)
Prior to Legatum, Mark was a corporate finance and M & A attorney with Akin Gump in Dallas, Texas, and also Moscow, Russia. He earned a BA in international relations from Occidental College and a master's in law from Duke University. Mark, it is a real pleasure having you with us today.

Mark Stoleson: (02:02)
Rachel, great to be with you. Thanks for having me on.

Rachel Pether: (02:06)
So I completely paraphrased your bio there, and I apologize for that. So maybe before we talk about Legatum, tell me a bit about you and your personal background.

Mark Stoleson: (02:16)
Well, I actually thought you did a great job. That's just about it. But just my personal background, so I grew up in just a great, but fairly normal American middle-class family in Phoenix, Arizona. And my both my parents were first-generation college graduates. My dad served in the military, and my mom was a pioneering young CPA in the 1960s. And I think from the two of them, I got a lot of who I am today. So hard work, a focus on service, taking care of looking after your neighbors, and just the values that I have. And I think some of the values that Legatum has just came from where most of us get our values, from our family. One of my partners has a great phrase that we've really adopted as kind of the firm motto, which is that life is not about what you get, life is about who you become. I really think my parents infused that spirit and those values in me, and you can really see them expressed in what Legatum is all about today.

Rachel Pether: (03:22)
I love that. And I guess that's a nice segue to Legatum itself. It's obviously quite a lofty name. What does the name actually stand for? Tell me a bit about that.

Mark Stoleson: (03:32)
Yeah. Legatum is Latin and it means legacy. But the Latin word for legacy is actually a legal term, and it means a gift or a bequest to the next generation. So if you were writing up a will, a legatum would be the gift. It would be, "I legatum Rachel my car." The car would be the legatum, you would be the legatee, that would be the legator. So it means gift. And the idea that we seized on was we've got a limited amount of time on this planet, we want to do our best to make it better for the next generation. We feel like we stand on the shoulders of giants that came before us. We inherited a bunch of wonderful things. What can we do to make it better for others? So that's what legatum means, and it really drives a lot of who we are and what we try to do.

Rachel Pether: (04:17)
And I know that you were previously in Moscow before, when was it that you made the move to Dubai? How did you come about moving to the UAE?

Mark Stoleson: (04:33)
Well, it's a bit of a funny story, but I was sitting in my office. I was a young lawyer working in an American firm in Moscow doing corporate finance work, and a recruiter just called me out of the blue. I was sitting in my office. I don't know, it was probably a Saturday. And she said, "Look, I have this very off-the-wall opportunity, but it's in Dubai. So just stop me right now if that's completely off the table and if you have no interest moving to Dubai." This was 2004, maybe 2003, 2004. And I was interested. I was just immediately keen to know more, but I had no idea where Dubai was.

Mark Stoleson: (05:10)
So I remember holding the phone to my ear saying "Absolutely, no problem with Dubai. Tell me more." And I was Googling Dubai. Where exactly is Dubai? So that's how it all started. And that was 16 years ago. And it has been an incredible adventure. One that I didn't expect. I came for a job, but I really wound up teaming up with some incredible partners and an amazing team that has a purpose and a sense of mission to not only build a world-class investment organization but to use the capital that we generate, like you said, to express our mission, which is to help others prosper.

Rachel Pether: (05:47)
I love that. And I remember doing the same when I first had the opportunity to move to Abu Dhabi. I mean, I couldn't even spell it at first. So when you were ... you were active in emerging markets as Legatum before many people were even venturing there. What drew you to the emerging markets initially?

Mark Stoleson: (06:07)
Yeah, I think some people, when they look at our history, they instinctively think that we're an emerging markets fund or that's a focus of our business. And it is, but it really isn't. Something that makes Legatum quite distinctive is that we only manage our own capital. So it's all proprietary capital. And that gives us a huge competitive advantage in that we can take a very long-term perspective, and we can invest in any sector in any country and really are the masters of our own destiny. So that's the core of what makes Legatum different. And because of that, we do ... because we have long-term capital, we have a longterm perspective, and we're looking for companies that can create long-term value. That's just a good fit for our capital.

Mark Stoleson: (06:50)
So historically, we've been looking for, great secular growth stories in companies or companies that are innovating and disrupting, creating long-term value. It just so happened that for several decades, you could find those types of opportunities in the emerging markets, but we're not wedded to that. And today, we would be looking for a more nuanced view of emerging markets within global markets today. So you might find an emerging technology or maybe in a subset of some country that's really emerging and really beginning to innovate and create value. So we don't think of ourselves as emerging markets investors, but we are looking for emerging trends and emerging opportunities.

Rachel Pether: (07:31)
So what would be some examples of those that you mentioned within emerging opportunities? What are some areas that you're currently looking at now?

Mark Stoleson: (07:43)
Currently, for us, the way that we look at opportunities is through a very big lens, a very simple lens, actually that we call a simple, big idea. We say that we stand on the moon and look back at planet earth and say, "Where are the opportunities today?" And so just try to make it really simple. Where is there growth, and what kind of simple, big idea can we express with a really great company, and just looking at a country like China, for example. Lots of people have different opinions and perspectives on China, but the reality is that it's expected that China's middle class will grow by another 300 million people over the next 10 years. It's expected that they'll add about $5 trillion worth of consumption over the next 10 years.

Mark Stoleson: (08:29)
So if you think about that for a second, that's like almost the entire population of the United States moving into the middle class in China. So we sit around thinking, "Well, what's that going to do? What are those middle-class people going to want to do?" Well, they're going to want to do what all middle class people want to do around the world. They're going to want to buy things, and they're going to want to improve their lives. And so when we ponder that and think, "Well, how can we express that in a company that's well-run and that really has amazing opportunity to grow and create value over the long-term?" It would look like a company like Alibaba. So that's a very well-known story, but in our opinion, it may not be known as well as it could be or should be. We just feel like it's got a very long runway and has a lot more value that it can create.

Mark Stoleson: (09:14)
For example, when you look at Alibaba, people think of it, I think, in shorthand as sort of an amazon.com of China. And that's not totally unfair. Like Amazon, it has an AWS cloud-based service. Amazon's is worth, recently when I checked, $750 billion, and that's the whole market cap of Alibaba. So that gives you just a sense of the growth potential of Alibaba as both an online consumer platform and AWS and FinTech. It's just a great way to express this simple, big idea that the Chinese consumer is rising and will do so for a long time.

Rachel Pether: (09:54)
I mean, 300 million people coming into the middle-class. As someone from New Zealand, that number just blows my mind. I mean, that's a hundred times our entire population.

Mark Stoleson: (10:04)
It's hard to wrap your head around it. I'll give you one other example real quick. And that is when we look at a country like India, it's expected that by 2030, India maybe, or should be, the third largest economy in the world. So what happens as an economy of that size grows and expands? Well, you're going to see changes in the capital markets and how businesses are financed. So one of our other investments today is in a company called the National Stock Exchange of India. It's the number one stock exchange in India. And as you see bank financing beginning to morph into capital markets financing for growing businesses, this company should be well positioned to be a leader. And it's got EBITDA margins of 78%. It's highly profitable, well-run, number one in its space, and in a growing country. When we have long-term capital, we're looking for long-term value creation, it's those types of companies.

Rachel Pether: (10:59)
And is that related to micro-financing or is that more like SME corporate lending?

Mark Stoleson: (11:09)
National Stock Exchange of India would be like the New York Stock Exchange of India. It's everything. It's equity, it's credit, it's derivatives, and they are either number one or number two in all of those spaces. So it's just well positioned to capture that entire market in India. But you mentioned microfinance, that's another great story. So that's a great example of the type of thing that Legatum invests in. And many years ago, we were captured by this simple, big idea that there are 450 million unbanked people in India, so people that have no access at all to any banking services. Well, that's a problem, but that's also a huge opportunity. And you saw the emergence of private sector, microfinance companies getting out there into rural areas of India and offering basic financial services.

Mark Stoleson: (12:00)
So we wanted to support that development both from a philanthropic perspective but also just because this has all the hallmarks of potentially a great business. And our first major foray into microfinance was a disaster. It wound up being a complete zero. It was us trying our hand at a private company. We were new to India as well. We got several things wrong, and it was a total write-off. But I think part of the way that Legatum is put together is we invest on the basis of our beliefs. We invest with the posture of hope, and we learn. And we try to apply what we learn, whether it's good or bad.

Mark Stoleson: (12:43)
And so in that case, we took that institutional knowledge that we had built up from what looked like a failure and applied it later. And several years later, we wound up helping recapitalize the company called SKS, which was the number one, and a publicly listed, microfinance company. And that stock went up 4X from our investment, and we wound up making back all of our money and more. And it was a great end of the story, but the key pivot point was a commitment to the space, but also a commitment just to applying what we've learned.

Rachel Pether: (13:16)
That's fabulous. And I think I've heard you ... we've discussed before about how you invest on the basis of your beliefs, not your fears, which is obviously an excellent investment thesis, but I want to go a bit further into what you were talking about, these big ideas made simple. And I know that philanthropy is an area of importance for you personally and for the firm. Can you tell me more about some of the work that you've done here?

Mark Stoleson: (13:44)
Yeah. Sure. So just going back to our mission statement, and you said it very well, it is to generate and allocate the capital and ideas that can help others prosper. So to express that mission, we've got to do two things really well. First, we've got to generate capital. We've got to run a world-class investment organization, and we're super blessed to have a world-class team and a group of people that's been together for a long time. And when we stick to our knitting and operate within our core competencies, we can do that well. If we generate excess capital, how can we use it to help others prosper? And over the last 15 years, we've done that in a lot of different ways. And just like in our investment activities, we've learned a lot of things the hard way, but some things have really fired and have done really well.

Mark Stoleson: (14:29)
And an example of a simple, big idea is our work in global de-worming. So one of my partners, Alan McCormick ... it's a story that's become lore at Legatum. He was reading an article in the FT. It said that 1.5 billion people have intestinal worms and that the medicine is free or almost free, and you just basically have a logistical sort of supply chain management problem, but that this is a solvable problem. It cost 50 cents per person to treat them. So doing some quick math, we thought that's a solvable problem. That's the problem that could be solved in our lifetimes. Let's go for it. And that started us off on a ten-year plus odyssey that started with Burundi and Rwanda. We allocated about $10 million, did a seven-year project and saw the disease prevalence in those two countries come down radically.

Mark Stoleson: (15:23)
So these worms, they're not just small things. These are major neglected tropical diseases. They can kill you. They can make you lame. They can make you blind. And they're only in the poorest communities on the planet. And so we felt like we can make an outsized difference, an outsized return on investment in that space. They're called neglected tropical diseases because they're neglected. People don't think about them because in Western economies, worms are not an issue anymore. You just don't find them in New Zealand or in Switzerland or in the U.S. So we tackled that problem. And what I love about this story is not only did we see amazing success in that first 7 to 10 years in Rwanda and Burundi, but once we had the case study and the data that showed that it worked, we thought, "Well, we need to scale this. So how can we bring in more partners?"

Mark Stoleson: (16:13)
And we took our name off of it and worked with just a small group of other co-founders. And we launched what's called the END Fund, ending neglected diseases, and it started small. But as of today, it's issued more than a billion dollars worth of medicine. It's treated over 900 million people. And this year is amazing. In 2020, with all of the restrictions and lockdowns and challenges, we're on track to treat a hundred million people in 2020.

Rachel Pether: (16:45)
Wow. That's an incredibly impressive statistic. And I know that when we were speaking just earlier, we did notice that you do in fact have a sample of some of them behind you in the bookshelf that have been very, very well-traveled.

Mark Stoleson: (17:04)
And I assured you that that wasn't put there as a prop. It actually does reside here in our library here at work. So we're a hundred percent back in the office here in Dubai and that jar of worms, it's obviously not pretty, but it's very effective at helping people understand these things exist. And this is what it can look like inside of a child's belly. And it can do a lot of damage. And so the CEO of the END Fund, Ellen Agler, was invited to be one of the only outside speakers at a Gates Foundation all staff meeting, and she brought that jar of worms. And so for us, it's very meaningful, it's well-traveled, but it reminds us that we're not just working on statistics or big numbers, but every life is supremely valuable, and we want to tackle these types of problems.

Rachel Pether: (17:54)
And so when you ... a lot of people ... it's almost like CSR and ESG are almost becoming catchphrases nowadays. And many companies have CSR manuals that sit gathering dust. When you look at companies to invest in, is the impact piece or the CSR piece, is that important to you as an investor as well?

Mark Stoleson: (18:20)
So it's not important to us, and I'll tell you why. It may be important to that company. And we don't be grudged what those companies are trying to do or their motives, but from a Legatum perspective, given that our mission is to generate capital, and then for us to use that capital to express our mission to help others prosper, we want as much capital as possible returned to us so that we can control how that money is used to express our mission. We feel like if the company keeps some of the shareholder returns that should be returned to us and they use it, then they're expressing a totally different mission. We would rather have the money and use it for things that we verified, that we trust, and that we have confidence in, and that that's a better use of capital.

Mark Stoleson: (19:06)
And maybe we have a little differentiated view, but when we look at someone like Bill Gates, for example, or Microsoft, I'm grateful to Bill Gates, we use his operating system. In my opinion, he's changed the world for the better. We all use this to communicate and connect, to do business and work from home. And so we should be grateful to Bill Gates for Microsoft and these operating systems, if that's all he did, that would be super noble and just super admirable. But the fact that he then did that, and then started the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and takes capital and does more good, to me, is not giving back.

Mark Stoleson: (19:47)
You shouldn't operate out of guilt or out of a sense of duty. That's like giving again. He's already given the world something great, and he's giving the world something great again. And I like that paradigm and Legatum likes that paradigm too where giving should be cheerful, giving should be joyful, not out of a sense of guilt or some heavy sort of duty. And that's kind of the spirit that we have at Legatum that we try to express with all of our partners in the field.

Rachel Pether: (20:12)
That's fabulous. And I guess that sort of leads to another question then. When you're looking at your philanthropic vehicles, and I know you have a number of them, so I would like to talk about some of the others as well, how do you measure success then? You don't use these quantitative metrics because that is separate from the investment side of the business. How do you look at that in terms of success with the philanthropic vehicles?

Mark Stoleson: (20:41)
Yeah. Well, it's difficult. I mean, it's a real challenge, but it's a challenge that we all ... if you're going to give away money well and do no harm is your first obligation, you have to be serious about measuring what it is that you're doing. I mean, Aristotle said that it's harder to give money away than make it. And we think that that's actually true because you're in the business of intervening in people's lives and that should be handled with great care. And so I would answer in that we do are very, very best and we give it a lot of attention. With something like the END Fund, and really across the board in all of our philanthropic activities, we're not asking the question of how much money is required or how much money have we given. That's a metric that the world ... it's a crude metric, and it's a metric that the world uses.

Mark Stoleson: (21:29)
Our question is much more of an investment mindset. What's the return on investment. Running Legatum as an investment organization, if I sat here and told you, "This is how much money we invested," you would say, "Well, that's great, but what were your returns like?" It should be the same question in the philanthropic space. And so that's the mindset with which we approach everything that we do philanthropically. So at the END Fund or the Freedom Fund or the other things that you mentioned, where we infuse into the organizations and work with the leadership and the board just to make sure that we establish baselines right at the very beginning of any project and understand where we're starting from, and then do our best to track the progress so that we've got great numbers that have integrity and that can give us good feedback mechanisms so we can make adjustments to get the highest return on investment.

Rachel Pether: (22:17)
You mentioned the Freedom Fund again. We've actually already had quite a few questions coming in from the audience, which I do want to address, but before I move on to those questions, tell me a bit more about the Freedom Fund and how that's one of the big ideas made simple.

Mark Stoleson: (22:33)
Okay. So the Freedom Fund from a Legatum perspective was doing two things at the outset. One was Legatum had a long history, and really that predated even my arrival here, in fighting modern day slavery, human trafficking, modern day slavery all over the world, including in South America and Eastern Europe, Western Africa. And so we looked at this issue and felt like the latest data coming out of the U.S. and government agencies is that you've got 30 to 40 million slaves in the world. And given the ethos of Legatum and the primacy that we placed just on freedom, just on the sanctity of the individual and freedom, we felt like that's just a scourge and an evil that has got to be addressed.

Mark Stoleson: (23:24)
And the manner in which we're going to address it is to be targeted and focused and take that long-term approach. So what we did with the Freedom Fund was took a page out of our playbook from the END Fund and said, "How can we collaborate with other philanthropists and pool our capital and pool our resources and our experience, and really a serious push here?" So we joined forces with an organization called Walk Free and another one called Humanity United, and together with Legatum, the three of us launched the Freedom Fund. And the goal of the Freedom Fund is to work with front line organizations.

Mark Stoleson: (24:02)
So instead of top down approach of saying, "We know how to deal with issues of slavery," we're coming alongside in partnership and supporting those who are already doing it on the front lines, in their communities, who speak the language, who understand the culture, and who have a passion for this work. And instead of scatter-gunning around the world in lots of small projects, we focused all of our efforts really in sort of the South Asian corridor, where you see a high prevalence of slavery and trafficking. It felt like, "Let's make a big dent there."

Mark Stoleson: (24:35)
And so that's what we've done. And the Freedom Fund has been directly involved in liberating nearly 30,000 people from slavery. And their education programs and rehabilitation and awareness programs have touched over nearly 700,000 people. And we feel like we're just getting going. That's something that we won't stop doing until we're gone or until that ends. And so we have amazing partners in Humanity United and Walk Free that are in it for the long-term as well.

Rachel Pether: (25:07)
And so how do you define slavery, modern day slavery?

Mark Stoleson: (25:13)
Yeah, I mean, I think there are probably different definitions out there, but our definition is people who have lost their freedom and are being exploited for profits. So, again, there are different opinions, but when we look at it on a very fundamental basis, on a simple basis, anyone who's been deprived of their freedom of movement and their ability to express their individual life as they see fit, can fall into that category. But very specifically, when you see people in forced labor or child labor or the issue of brothels in some countries, these are ... you don't need a definition, and you don't need a PhD, you know it's slavery, you know it's bondage, you know it's wrong. And so that's what we're going after.

Rachel Pether: (26:03)
Thank you so much. We have a question. Well, we've had a number of questions coming in from the audience. And I would just like to address some of them. We've had one from David Wagner. And thank you for your question, David. He said, "Mark, Legatum does fantastic work. The Prosperity Index as always a must read each year. What criteria do you use to decide how to allocate capital?"

Mark Stoleson: (26:30)
Okay, great question. Well, if I can, I'd love to, first of all, say thank you, David, for the question. And the Prosperity Index has turned out to be a very, very powerful tool. The story there is if Legatum's mission is to promote prosperity and to help others prosper, we want to understand what that even means. And so many years ago, we worked with some amazing minds at Oxford University to deconstruct the meaning of prosperity. A lot of people think that means money or just material wealth. And the meaning of that word is just much more complex and nuanced. It means your health, and it means the quality of your relationships and your feeling of opportunity. It's just a very multifaceted term.

Mark Stoleson: (27:17)
And so part of what we wanted to do is help people understand prosperity is good because certainly it means wealth, it means growth, but it means a holistic sense of wellbeing as well. It means all the reasons that life is worth living. So that's prosperity. So then we thought, "Well, if we can define it, how can we measure it?" And the Prosperity Index is now run by a team in London at the Legatum Institute who are super brainy. And they use regression analysis and super technical stuff that's way over my head, but they have 82 different variables. They run this slide rule over every country on the planet, and they are beginning to help policy makers understand what drives prosperity and what restrains prosperity. And this to us is a gift. It's a tool, hopefully, to policy makers and decision makers. If they're interested in creating more prosperity in their countries, this would be a tool that serves those interests.

Mark Stoleson: (28:09)
Now, that's the Prosperity Index. The other part of David's question was what's our investment criteria. And our investment criteria just coming back to the beginning of this conversation is just really simple. We look for those simple, big ideas. We look for secular growth stories. When we find things that match up, and we find a great opportunity, we then allocate a significant amount of capital behind our high conviction ideas. So we go narrow and deep. We felt like the way to multiply our capital is not being right 100% of the time, it's being right a few times, but really backing those high conviction ideas with everything we've got. So as a consequence, we tend to run a very concentrated portfolio. Sometimes as few as a handful of names, three names, five names, usually never more than 10.

Mark Stoleson: (28:59)
And to us, that's the way that we manage risk is rather than diversifying with 50 or a hundred names, we just want to have a handful of names that we know extremely well and have high conviction behind. And that's how we invest. And that's all great. We have the ability with long-term proprietary capital to hold through volatility, but our team is amazing. And they've also got the courage and boldness to pull the trigger when opportunities present themselves like we've seen even in March of this year.

Rachel Pether: (29:28)
Definitely. And I think that we've actually had another question come in, which relates almost follows on from what you've just said about these concentrated and contrarian bets. So it's ex alum, and he said the Chandlers, founders of Legatum, are well-known for taking these super concentrated and contrarian bets that sometimes took a long time to play out and had to volatility along the way. The question is would Legatum be able to run a strategy the same way if the firm managed outside capital?

Mark Stoleson: (30:01)
That's a great question. Well, in terms of our history, so Legatum was really launched independently in 2006 with four partners. We have Christopher Chandler, Alan McCormick, Phillip Vassiliou, and myself. And today, it's a partnership of equals. It's a partnership that's tied together. We're not related by blood. We've just worked together for 15, 16 years, but what unites us and actually what unites everyone at Legatum is this sense of mission and the purpose for why we're here. And so we feel extremely lucky to have this job because we get to work in a great investment firm, but we get to use the capital for things that matter.

Mark Stoleson: (30:43)
It's a great question about whether or not we'd be able to execute on Legatum strategy, which is long-term, un-levered, and just looking for really high quality names and letting them compound value over time. It would be really difficult to do this with outside capital. If we had limited partners calling and wanting their money back every time the market has a hiccup that would hugely complicate our investment approach. And so in March of this year, for example, we were carrying a very significant amount of cash coming into this year, had absolutely no idea what was on the horizon like the rest of the world. And with a concentrated portfolio, we saw names in which we have huge conviction, we know very, very well, really take a hit just from sentiments and the market reacting.

Mark Stoleson: (31:35)
And so in those moments of time, we can definitely hold or we can back our beliefs and invest on the basis of our beliefs and not our fears. And that's what we did. And so I'm extremely proud of our team because we basically went fully invested in March and that's worked out well so far. But our time horizon is not just trying to get to the end of this year, we're looking at 3 years and 5 years and 10 years and building a legacy of Legatum for the next generation.

Rachel Pether: (32:03)
What's always impressed me about the story of the founding partners at Legatum as well, you have a very similar ... or you share the same investment thesis. You also share very much the same values. I don't think you'd be able to do all the work that you do on the philanthropic side, if you didn't really, truly believe in the mission statement. So how do you ... and sorry, I shouldn't say statement ... in your mission, how did it work with all of you coming together, and was it always so aligned at the very outset?

Mark Stoleson: (32:37)
It was aligned at the very outset. And how does that happen? I'm not sure, but when it does it, don't miss it would be my advice, grab a hold of it with both hands. And I have two grown sons who are just in university. And part of my advice to them is a lot of ways life is less about what you do, it's more about who you do it with. And that's definitely been my experience. And so I look around today and feel like the things that mean the most to me are my relationships. And within the Legatum context, that really starts with my partners. And we started as colleagues, but we became friends and we became partners and more, and so we're connected within our families as godparents. And we've been to funerals and weddings and graduations and everything else.

Mark Stoleson: (33:32)
We're doing life together, but it's not limited to just these four partners and owners of the firm, it's open and available and we wanted for everyone that works at Legatum, that comes in contact with Legatum because to us, relationships are a core part of a prosperous life. And so I think we recognize that in each other. I talked about my parents at the beginning and that sense that life is about who you become, it's not about what you get. I don't know how they got that programmed into me, but I just knew it. And when I came into contact with other people, with whom that resonated, we were like, "We can do something great." And we did. We sat down with a blank sheet of paper.

Mark Stoleson: (34:12)
We were blessed with ... we had capital, but we said, "What kind of business do we want to create?" And it generated one of those deathbed conversations with yourself where you're like, "Hey, when I'm on my death bed and I look back, what do I want my life to have been about?" It's pretty short. You should stay awake for it. And we all were of the same mind that let's do something special. Let's try to make the best use of our time and this capitol and be excellent at what we do. And so the Legatum story so far is an attempt to fulfill that belief or that mission. And it's had a lots of fits and starts. It's had lots of failures and challenges along the way. We've had a few successes, and we're all still together, which to me is probably the number one success.

Rachel Pether: (35:00)
That's definitely a very good sign. It was interesting when you were talking about the Prosperity Index and the sort of things you look for with regards to prosperity. I feel that in this modern world, we're so hungry to chase down success that actually we become miserable people or people with bad values. And so it's really about how you define prosperity to you rather than just, as you say, financial success or monetary gain.

Mark Stoleson: (35:30)
Yeah. Well, I think that's right. I mean, when I look back over the Legatum experience, I feel like the main takeaway is that no one here came from money, so this is a bootstrap, first-generation environment here. And so it's kind of like "if it's going to be, it's up to me" atmosphere. And yet looking at what we've done together, I feel like therefore, there's nothing special, we're not PhDs in development economics. We're just normal people that came together around an idea, agreed that we were going to try to execute on this together, and then we just never gave up. Maybe we're just very stubborn, but I feel like that formula is available to everyone. Find something that you believe in, find people you want to do it with, don't give up, and you might be surprised what happens in 10, 15, 20 years.

Rachel Pether: (36:26)
I would like to give you the final word, Mark. What is one thing that is exciting about the next 12 months in terms of investing with Legatum?

Mark Stoleson: (36:40)
Well, I mean, one of the things that we try to focus on is, again, like I said, that concentrated portfolio with high conviction ideas. So ideally, we'll be doing very little over the next year in terms of our investing. Now, that's a bit of a joke because we're constantly working. We're constantly scanning the globe looking for new opportunities. We're keen and eager learners. So we're constantly trying to learn about new disruptive technologies. You would find us sort of investing in companies that fit with our profile and our strategy, whether it's in financial services or in tech or in consumer, but you would probably find us trying to learn about crypto and about FinTech and about DeFi, and what are emerging markets within the broader market of global finance.

Mark Stoleson: (37:27)
And so those are some of the themes that we would be excited about and looking at over the next year. But really, Legatum doesn't really even think in terms of the next year. We think in terms of the next 10 years. And what I'm excited about is working with my incredible colleagues here at Legatum to see Legatum multiply our capital, multiply our impact, and multiply our influence, and do it together over the next 10 years.

Rachel Pether: (37:54)
Thank you so much, Mark. It's been a joy to speak with you as it always is. And I think you really do make this amazing case or great example of values based investing and the true impact that you're having. So thank you so much for giving up your precious time today to speak with us. And I hope that we can continue the conversation at some point in the future as well.

Mark Stoleson: (38:16)
Rachel, a real pleasure. Thanks so much.

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

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

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

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

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

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Joshua S. Friedman.jpeg

Joshua Friedman

Co-Founder & Co-Chairman

Canyon Partners

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. We've been doing these SALT Talks, which are a series of digital interviews, with leading investors, creators, and thinkers during the work from home period to replicate the experience that we bring at our global SALT Conferences, which of course are on hiatus during the pandemic. What we really try to do at these conferences is provide a platform for big, important ideas that we think are changing the world and also provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts, which is what we have today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voice of Cannabis Series - Episode 1 | SALT Talks #49

Episode 1

Jason Wilson is the Cannabis Banking & Research Expert for ETFMG | MJ, a firm developing innovative thematic ETFs that provide investors unique exposure to new markets. He led the first installment of the Voice of Cannabis Series, presented by ETFMG | MJ and Fourth Wall Advisory.

Joining Jason is Axel Bernabe, Assistant Counsel for Health to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, and Kelly D. Fair, Director of Legal, USA for Canopy Growth Corporation.

Episode 1 includes an overview on the federal government’s approach to cannabis legalization, how specific states are developing their own regulatory standards and processes, and the science behind CBD.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Axel Bernabe.jpeg

Axel Bernabe

Assistant Counsel for Health to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

Kelly D. Fair.jpeg

Kelly D. Fair

Director of Legal, USA
Canopy Growth Corporation

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Joe Eletto: (00:11)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is Joe Eletto. I'm the Production Manager of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform encompassing finance, technology, and geopolitics.

Joe Eletto: (00:25)
SALT Talks is a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators, and thinkers, and just as we do at our global SALT conferences, we aim to both empower big important ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts and we are thrilled to kick off our new Voice of Cannabis Series today, brought to the SALT platform in partnership with strategic marketing firm Fourth Wall Advisory, leading international cannabis company, Canopy Growth Corporation, an issuer to MJ, the world's largest cannabis ETFMG.

Joe Eletto: (01:01)
Hosting today's panel is ETFMG's MJ Research and Banking expert, Jason Wilson. With over 15 years of experience in the asset management, finance, and structured product space, Jason has a track record of bringing hard to access client classes to market. Jason has held leadership and senior positions at several leading financial institutions. Most recently Jason was Senior Vice President at INFOR Financial Inc. INFOR is a leading boutique investment bank based in Toronto, Canada that has worked in connection with a number of companies in the legal cannabis industry, including acting as an adviser to Canopy Growth Corporation, in connection with entering into a strategic relationship with Constellation Brands.

Joe Eletto: (01:48)
Jason has also worked at investment banking division of Societe Generale, France's third largest bank at FCIBC one of the five largest banks in Canada. While at Societe Generale and CIBC, Jason provided asset managers and financial institutions with various capital raising, financing, and risk mitigation solutions and strategies. Jason has an LLB from the University of Western Ontario. Prior to completing his university studies, Jason was a member of the Canadian Forces and is a recipient of the Gulf of Kuwait medal, awarded for his engagement in direct combat during the Gulf War in 1991.

Joe Eletto: (02:27)
If you have any questions during today's talk, please enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen, and now we'll turn it over to Jason to conduct today's SALT Talk.

Jason Wilson: (02:37)
Great, thanks, Joe, and thanks very much for the intro, very much appreciate it. Everyone, pleasure to have you all here. Obviously, it's our first episode of the Voice of Cannabis series and today we're going to specifically talk about the CBD market. Pleasure to have two expert panelists with us. On the business side, we have Kelly Fair. Kelly is from Canopy Growth Corporation and it's an understatement to say that she's deep in the weeds ... No pun intended ... in the cannabis, US cannabis space. She acts currently as a US General Counsel and she's also been Officer of the California Courts since 2004, so she brings a lot of business acumen and legal experience to the cannabis space with us. Also joining us on from the regulatory side is Axel Bernabe and Axel is Assistant Counsel to New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo. So in that role, he's got a number of things going on pertaining to health but specific to today's conversation, Axel oversees all of the hemp medical and adult use cannabis framework in the State of New York. So thank you both for joining us today.

Axel Bernabe: (03:52)
Glad to be here.

Jason Wilson: (03:53)
I guess kind of to kick things off, start kind of the higher level and talk about the ... Maybe, Kelly, we'll start with you and talk about the federal landscape. If you think about, it's been almost two years since the Agriculture Improvement Act was passed which removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act. Initially, I think there's a lot of euphoria in the industry, thinking, "This is it. It's green light, go on everything." Any kind of hemp related product, including CBD based edibles and drinkables was open for business, and the contrary seems to be somewhat true. I mean, honestly, we have federal legalization, but there's a lot of ambiguity from the FDA and the DEA and what have you. So can you kind of speak to the FDA framework and where it stands with CBD based or hemp based products in the United States right now?

Kelly Fair: (04:45)
Sure, Jason. So you're right, when the Farm Bill pass in December of 2018, there was a lot of euphoria getting just the legalization of the commodity and the derivatives of the commodity. And the Farm Bill did give jurisdiction to the USDA and the FDA to then regulate. I think the USDA came out, out of the gate with guidance just to make it clear that hemp and the derivatives are both legal and interstate commerce couldn't be interfered and so the farmers were really excited about getting that commodity as part of their portfolio. The FDA came out in a different posture about May of 2019 and it updated its website and did a public statement saying that because CBD had been investigated as a new drug in relation to the approval of the Epidiolex Pharmaceutical, it would not recognize CBD and dietary ingredients and conventional food additives at that time and then in the same breath said, "But we're evaluating systemic impacts on human consumption at these levels," and just really signaling to the industry that it's not intending to close the swim lanes for dietary supplements in foods.

Kelly Fair: (05:59)
So it was kind of a double edged not real sure what's going to happen. Since then, it's no secret that the FDA has not yet regulated the CBD and dietary supplements in foods. It is open for public comment. It is partnered with stakeholders like Canopy Growth to evaluate a whole host of concerns it has around toxicity, liver, reproductive toxicity, and just really stating it needs to understand the impacts of humans consuming much lower doses of hemp derived CBD. We have been in partnership with the FDA. I believe that the evidence that they have, the science that they have is sufficient to prove out the safety profile of this substance. We've made it no secret that we disagree with their position on IND Preclusion, but have answered their call for data and we've asked our other stakeholders to also be forthcoming with data.

Kelly Fair: (06:59)
Currently pending is the FDA has issued enforcement discretion guidance. It's sitting with OMB now. We have not seen what the guidance says but stakeholders, including Canopy testified at OMB about what it should say and we're continuing to have discussions with FDA and just put a new study in the docket two weeks ago, are planning on putting a third study in the docket in a couple of weeks once it's published. So that's broad brush strokes where the FDA is. I will say with incoming new Commissioner Han, his first public statement gave some optimism to the industry. I think it's a direct quote, he said, "It would be a fool's errand to try to stand in the way of hemp derived CBD end products at this point," and it doesn't seem to be the FDA's intention to do so, but then again, it just wants to do so in a way that protects public safety.

Jason Wilson: (08:02)
And that makes sense but it's obviously just adding this level of ambiguity that's kind of hard to manage around. Is there any movement on Capitol Hill to try to force the FDA along or anything happening there at all?

Kelly Fair: (08:18)
Yes, and you make the great point that it does ambiguity and it hurts all the way up and down the supply chain. So those farmers that I discussed at the beginning that did make the investment into the hemp crop initially, Canopy being one of them, we were growing hemp over seven states in that first growing season. They are not seeing the benefit of that investment because the products cannot be sold without that ambiguity, and the margins on high yielding hemp crops versus fibrous crops for industrial application is quite significant. And so those farming constituents have gotten the attention of congress and we're seeing congressional leadership on the issue from both sides of the aisle in states that have strong farming constituents, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, representing Kentucky. He's been a huge advocate of hemp and hemp derived CBD.

Kelly Fair: (09:16)
There's been consistent pressure from the Hill on the FDA to either regulate or have a legislative fix to just amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That's the most recent activity we've seen. We saw it coming in a bill form from the Chair of the House Agricultural Committee Collin Peterson last year, proposing to amend the FDCA and we understand that Majority Leader McConnell is also considering some language. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some pressure around the appropriations process, that happened last year. More of a carrot scenario where the FDA could get $2 million in funding, if they were to regulate or say anything. They felt a bit short of regulating and I don't know if they said much in what they gave to Congress this summer, but ... so I'm expecting a lot more activity on the issue, yes.

Jason Wilson: (10:13)
So, Axel, maybe you can pipe in a little bit, obviously, at the state level, but the thing that strikes me as a little bit interesting is the DEA's recent interim ruling and in some ways, it just seems clumsy. Others are suggesting that there's more to it, that they're trying to run a little bit of interference. Can you speak a little bit about that interim rule and what that means to the industry?

Axel Bernabe: (10:40)
Yeah, I'm happy to talk about that. Just to frame the issue, because I think Kelly did a really great job of explaining some of the complexities for regulators. So the states have been picking up a lot of the absence of regulation at a federal level and implementing that at a state level. So we've had to step in in the form of regulating dietary supplements or food and beverages in a way that normally would really be left to the USDA and the FDA. And so I think it's important to understand that playing field because that's the only way you can really appreciate the difficulty that the DEA and the FDA are having in determining whose jurisdiction starts where and where it ends. But in addition to the complexities that Kelly mentioned on food and dietary supplements specifically, what we also see with cannabis or cannabinoid hemp products that are derived from legally hemp plants and have low THC is the sale of flour which is akin to a sort of tobacco product and vapes which are also traditionally regulated by the FDA but haven't been because of the complexity of regulating vape devices.

Axel Bernabe: (12:00)
So again, if you see the full spectrum of products that you're dealing with, that are downstream from cannabis sativa, you really understand the complexity of the regulatory environment. So we're focused on trying to promote consumer protection in that space and pick up where the USDA and the FDA aren't really actively regulating and that's a big challenge for the states because we're not accustomed to doing that ... But I could talk more about that, but going back to your specific DEA question ... So understanding that dynamic the Farm Bill kicked jurisdiction over hemp to the USDA and the FDA, clear, and that was supposed to be broken up with the USDA taking care of growing and once it was harvested and once you started to convert those products into dietary supplements or any other kind of extract, that was supposed to be the purview of the FDA. But you still have this question of what happens to THC that's derived from a legally compliant hemp plant?

Axel Bernabe: (12:55)
There is always THC on a CO2 extract or on an ethanol extract. You're always going to have slightly hot product that's coming out from you extract, and so really that is an issue that we're struggling with and I can tell you what the State of New York is doing, but that's something that the FDA will need to struggle with, and the Farm Bill, clearly kicked that to the FDA. What the DEA did with its regulations, which I agree with you, Jason, was a little bit ... I'm trying to pick my words carefully ... but it was a little surprising, was twofold. First it said that the intent of its regulation was really just to make conforming changes. The Farm Bill changed the definition of hemp and excluded it from the Controlled Substances Act. Well, it was going to change its regulations to make sure that that was reflected in its regulations, and it changed a couple of things on the exporting of Epidiolex and so forth, but really it stated that its intent was not to really change the law.

Axel Bernabe: (13:50)
And yet in the preamble or in the introductory part of the statement, it said that intermediary products, so these extracts that come out of your extract facilities that are hot, that run above 0.3% THC are going to be considered Schedule One THC substances. And that's really problematic for pretty much anybody who's making any food ... Well, extract that's going to be added to food or any dietary supplement, because almost any form of extraction is going to result in a slightly hot intermediary product. So it was problematic because one, I don't think that they had right jurisdiction to actually make that statement and regulate that definition that was really kicked to the FDA. And two, the way they did it they didn't actually step into the breach and say, "All right, let's regulate intermediary products." They said, "We're not actually doing anything controversial, but by the way, in passing, here's what we consider to be legal for intermediary products." So it sent everybody into a tailspin and I just don't think it was very sophisticated or good regulatory practice, to be honest with you.

Jason Wilson: (14:50)
Well, and Kelly, maybe you can speak a little bit to the intermediary concept. If we look at the alcohol industry and ROC Constellation being an investor in Canopy, clearly there's a different framework there.

Kelly Fair: (15:01)
There is and it's because it's regulated. If the FDA were to step in and actually regulate or any regulatory body, and regulate intermediary product, we could see something very analogous to beverage alcohol. If you look at how bourbon is manufactured, bourbon can only be above or under a certain proof, but in the manufacturing process, the liquid is well above that proof, before it gets diluted with water and that intermediary product moves from facility to facility. Bonded facilities, as per regulation, so it's controlled, and that you know that that intermediary product is not going to commercial sale and that's the key and without that regulatory framework, it creates this ambiguity and it creates ... and really for no reason, because the intermediary product that Axel is describing is not for commercial sale. It is to go and then be further processed into isolate or further processed to delete or dilute the THC so that you can have a product that you can bring to market outside of the dispensary network.

Kelly Fair: (16:14)
So adding that regulatory framework is going to be really vital to clean it up and the DEA doesn't have the resources, I wouldn't think, or the ... shouldn't have the desire to enforce against what they've just done. To be looking for intermediary product, moving, to be testing it to see if like an extract is hot or a distillate or an isolate, it just seems like they're biting off more than they want there.

Axel Bernabe: (16:42)
And actually, just if I can, Jason, just to follow up on that thought, so that's, Kelly, what we've heard through a couple of different channels. The DEA isn't interested in getting in this space. They understand that right now, they would have to enforce against pretty much every processor in the country. They're not going to do that, which is all the more reason why, well, why put that language in there? I think they were trying to plant a flag and say, "Look, we still have to deal with this issue."

Axel Bernabe: (17:08)
So in New York, actually we considered this issue even prior to the DEA issuing its regulations and what we're thinking of doing in our regulations, which should be coming out soon, is allowing processors to possess up to 3% THC product in its intermediary form, and that's usually a distillate or crude oil and so that would provide them with a legal protection to have that, just in the same way that, Kelly, you were describing, would be happening on alcohol front. So there are ways around it, but what's really fascinating is that if the FDA goes the way of enforcement discretion, which it looks like they may go ... and because it would be a fool's errand to put this genie back in the bottle, you're going to have piecemeal, state by state approach to all these issues, right? Including the important issue of THC.

Axel Bernabe: (17:54)
So while I think I understand the ... I truly empathize with the FDA's sort of deer in headlight stands here because there is so much coming at them on the cannabinoid front. Like I said, vapes and dietary supplements and foods and THC and they're just not accustomed to this. The idea of not regulating it just makes things more complicated down the road. So we're trying to work with other states, we're coordinating with Florida. It's unfortunate that California didn't get its bill passed at the last minute there, but that's ... You have to step into that breach. If not, you just, you leave the market ripe for diversion and an untoward conduct.

Jason Wilson: (18:36)
So federal framework is working through some issues, but at the end of the day, state by state any hemp related product has to be approved as well, so, and Axel, I mean obviously like you, I mean you're right in the center of it. I mean you're there, you're responsible for basically you're overseeing all this regulatory framework in New York State. Can you kind of describe your framework? How it works from edibles to drinkables, to you name it, how's it work in New York? Is it different from other states? Give us a kind of run through.

Axel Bernabe: (19:12)
Yeah, I'll keep it really high level, because obviously we could do an entire panel on that, but I want to keep it interesting for a sort of industry and not to get too wonky on this, but it was a very interesting process, because we had to think through ... Of course, you have your basic licensing and your basic ... Even the testing is borrowed heavily from the adult user markets where you're testing for contaminants and you're testing for pesticides and whatnot. So that was fairly simple. What was more complicated was deciding, okay, if we're going to allow food and be sensible about it, do we put some kind of cap on the daily amount or on the serving amount that you're per serving, that you're going to allow CBD or other cannabinoids?

Axel Bernabe: (19:53)
And so there isn't a lot of guidance. The UK's put out a 60 milligram daily dose limit proposal. Australia has 70, I think. So one of the things we're thinking of doing is ... and we're going to get comments on these so they're not going to ... They're going to be put out for comment and then we'll get to tweak them, but we're thinking of putting a 25 milligram per serving limit on CBD food products. So if you're doing a seltzer, a CBD seltzer, you're not going to dose it up with a couple of hundred milligrams. We're going to try to keep it proportional to the product. So stuff like that, we're taking some steps into regulating vapes by limiting some of the excipients you can us, by doing some protective measures around the heating elements on some of your vape hardware. So that's also new for us. We're creating effectively a mini-FDA. We're running a lot of this through our Medical Marijuana Program, because they have experience in that.

Axel Bernabe: (20:48)
But at its core, it's a consumer protection statute that builds on the federal rule. So we really cite to the Federal Dietary Supplement, the Federal Food Rules, and say, "You have to build your product compliant with those standards," so that hopefully when the FDA does this, to Kelly's point, right, once they really start to understand that there is no IND preclusion, that this isn't a drug, then they'll implement their dietary supplement protocols and they can just fill in that and we can stand back a little bit and step back. But as far as relative to other states, I think New York is going a little further, because of the things I'm saying, dosage on food, vapes, and in that regard, I think we're a little bit more aggressive. Florida has a really good program up and running. Oregon is fairly sophisticated, so is Colorado.

Axel Bernabe: (21:36)
So a number of states have gone forward and we're working with them. We have a round table where we meet regularly to discuss the issues, but some other states are a lot more reluctant. They're more conservative. They don't know how to deal with the THC issue. They don't know if they want pre-rolls or smoke the bowls. Is this a new cigarette like product? So a lot of regulatory issues, but we're being fairly bullish on the industry. We think it's a promising industry if it's regulated properly. That's the premise.

Jason Wilson: (22:07)
So, Kelly, you're in California. I mean, you've been there for a long time, what's happening over there? I mean it's an important economy, obviously, one of the largest in the world, what's the status? I know we have Bill 228? You give us an update?

Kelly Fair: (22:22)
Yeah, so I just want to echo something that Axel said that New York is, it is bullish and it has been the most progressive and has made my job as an advocate for regulation easy from the beginning, because I've been able to state to the FDA, "Look at New York. Look at how New York's ... Even the initial regulations are tying to the FDCA, see how it's keyed together. You have the right regulations in place to regulate these products, you just need to turn it on." So I just want to give a hat tip to the State of New York as one that is progressive, because I think ultimately, you regulate, then you protect your public. If you don't regulate, you're not protecting your public from diversion and bad actors, so I'll just start there.

Kelly Fair: (23:11)
And then move to my great state, on hemp, just very similar to at the federal level, that California's Department of Agriculture has come out strong with regulations, allowed its farmers to get off and running, even from the state level, all the way to the county level. The testing went off without a hitch. That first growing season, we're a part of it, and the Department of Health, on the other hand, much like the FDA has added more than a fair amount of ambiguity and just a cooling to what actually can happen in California. The Department of Health has issued an FAQ response saying that until the FDA regulates, it does not allow hemp derived CBD in any human ingestible or animal food products.

Kelly Fair: (24:04)
So the FAQ response is very vaguely written. It leaves open the issue of smokables, it leaves open the issue of manufacturing without sale in California, and so 228, AB228 was to clean that up, and to say specifically that inclusion of hemp derivatives to dietary supplements or food would not adulterate the product and allow the products to enter the market and open the possibility for actual regulation. This is the second legislative session where the bill has not passed for a host of reasons. This last round was due to maybe some late industry input and then just a very unfortunate round of technicalities as far as how the session ended, just generally with the senators having to be quarantined and remote voting and it was just ... You couldn't have made it up, truly, at the end.

Kelly Fair: (25:09)
But we along the way have been working with the governor's staff and office and have had very productive movement on the issue to make sure that the bill is drafted correctly, that the regulations roll out appropriately. This is on the governor's radar as something that he thinks California wants and needs and he's been nothing but supportive of companies like Canopy in their investments in California. So we remain optimistic for the future of AB228 and just regulation generally.

Jason Wilson: (25:44)
And I have to believe the will, as you said, the will is there. There's a lot of technical, a lot of difficulties right now and I think one of the industries poised for growth post-COVID is going to be the cannabis industry in general, just because of the job growth, the opportunities, so it's obviously hard to get a lot of alignment. But it must be incredibly difficult, I think of Canopy Growth, that is the largest cannabis, global cannabis company operating in over a dozen countries globally. You're trying to build this platform across 50 states. You and your team must be ridiculously off the hook busy trying to get your handles on this. How are you coping? How are you managing? I know you just launched your shop, Canopy.com website. How do you manage all this?

Kelly Fair: (26:32)
Yeah, so what we've done as a regulatory platform and that, I am responsible for that, is just to look at states like New York, look at how they're regulating, look at how all 50 states are regulating and create basically omnibus policies for every point along the supply chain, for how we grow, how we extract, how we produce. We produce at GMP standards, we label in accordance with the FDCA and all of the states in which we sell, and trying to go to the highest common denominator for regulatory standards so that we are then selling a product that consumers can trust and that are going to be compliant with the federal FDCA at the end of the day and any state that's got more stringent regulations, so we don't have to pivot the opposite way.

Kelly Fair: (27:30)
We have so much at stake with our reputation and our relationship with our consumers to make sure that our products, like BioSteel, Martha Stewart's products are coming to market, First and Free, This Works, we want all of those products just to be best in class no matter what, and for the consumers to trust them. And I've said again and again, I think we've got regulations on the books that will ensure that is the case and so our official position is just to manufacture and sell at those high standards.

Jason Wilson: (28:03)
So I find cannabis fascinating. It's a drug, as we know, with Epidiolex as we spoke to, its potential for wellness product. There's all these different layers it touches. How are you working on the science side? I know in Canada a lot of it is educating physicians, to make sure that they better understand how to use this. What is Canopy doing on the science side? What are you seeing out there to help get motion behind the whole cannabis industry?

Kelly Fair: (28:36)
What we're doing is very focused on what the FDA is asking. I presented to the FDA last October and started the conversation by saying, "I'm not here to tell you our legal position. I'm not here to tell you how much pressure you're under by congress. I am here and I brought a team of scientists to talk about the questions that you're asking again and again." And so those are all around toxicity, just generally, liver toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and then longevity came up in that conversation. And so basically our science mandate has been to give the FDA what they need, so we've got grass studies on going that are looking at liver toxicity and reproductive toxicity. We've given the FDA interim data as it comes out, so that we're feeding them real time. We've done a study around cosmetics and whether the CBD in cosmetics breaks the blood barrier, whether that should be part of the FDA's analysis on systemic impacts. It should not is the answer and that just got put in the public docket.

Kelly Fair: (29:43)
And in October, one of the leaders on the CBD working group, asked if we'd done a longevity study. We hadn't and we hatched a plan to do one in the car ride back to DC and it's just finished and we'll be giving that to the FDA shortly. So to answer your question, what are we doing? We're doing whatever the FDA is asking and I implore all of the rest of the hemp stakeholders to do the same.

Jason Wilson: (30:15)
So a lot of collaboration and, Axel, you must be getting a lot of this. Like sitting there on your side of the fence, how do you look at this space? I mean, there's obviously, there's a lot of product in the gray market, in the listed market, if you will, that's being sold, maybe without approval, obviously you want to work with companies like Canopy Growth to get the proper products out. What are you looking at to help manage that process?

Axel Bernabe: (30:42)
So that's a really good question, so I always come back to this and I think it's important for industry to understand how the regulators are viewing the market, right? We're struggling with a lot of these questions and the frameworks we apply and the rules we make and what we rely on to make those rules. And if as industry you don't understand that, then you maybe jeopardizing your entire business, because you're just going to run a foul of what the regulators are looking to do.

Axel Bernabe: (31:07)
So I think Kelly nailed it when she said that she appeared in front of the FDA and started answering their questions, because that's obviously how they're focused about it. But going back to your kind of writ large question, what's fascinating is there are examples of drugs that are both prescription drugs and over the counter drugs and health and wellness and that's a question of dosage and you have to find where to set that dial. Less common is a notion that you would have a potentially pharmaceutical product, an over the counter product, a dietary supplement product, and that it's a compound that's used recreationally. So it's the fact that it crosses so many spaces that makes it really difficult to regulate.

Axel Bernabe: (31:48)
So I'll give you just one example. As we're contemplating rolling out adult use in New York, we have to figure out what to do with our medical program and when we say medical program, it's also almost ... it's not a misnomer, but it's a hybrid. It's not an FDA clinical science randomized trial driven program. It's a program that's dictated by some science, by anecdotal evidence, by clear history of use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and so there's even an interaction there. What happens to the medical program, where do you set the tax rates, what kind of products do you allow and one program and not the other. So even with CBD, that's why I think you have to understand the DEA being so sort of, having such a hard time understanding where to position itself.

Axel Bernabe: (32:34)
As CBD, you look at something like a ... examples are always sort of the easiest way to drive this point across, but look at something like a tincture, a 1200 milligram tincture of CBD that you'll find in a dietary supplement. That's a fairly common product that's out there. That tincture itself will contain about 30 milligrams of THC and 30 milligrams of THC is sufficiently high to be intoxicated, but nobody's going to go out and buy a CBD tincture for a $100 in order to down 1200 milligrams of CBD in order to get that 30 milligrams of THC, when they could go buy a gram either at an adult store or on the illicit market. But as a regulator, you still have to think about that, so you know, so that, yeah, it has been fascinating, Jason.

Axel Bernabe: (33:17)
It's been really, really interesting but to bring it full circle to what Kelly said about what Canopy does right, shooting for best in class, shooting for meeting those GMP requirements, the labeling, the proper testing, that makes our life a lot easier. So that's what's great about working with Canopy and getting feedback from them is they know that that's what'll put them ahead of the pack and for us, we know, that they're looking to be compliant actors in the space and so we can get from them feedback on what's reasonable, what's doable. Because we're all kind of feeling our way around here, trying to understand what the road sign should be on this miraculous compound, frankly.

Jason Wilson: (33:56)
And then I'm guessing, at the end of the day, that that higher standard, if you will, will also ... It should make enforcement a lot easier. I mean, at the end of the day, regulations are one thing, but enforcing them is another, right? So trying to get this market, make sure that, again, protecting the consumer. I think that should be a large part of it as well.

Axel Bernabe: (34:14)
It really is. On that note, really quickly, I mean dietary supplements, the FDA doesn't love dietary supplements. It's a framework that's difficult. It's third party certified, so they don't control those audits. They don't go in and inspect and people are developing their own hazard plans to make sure there are no contaminants. It's not the level of hands on regulatory oversight that the FDA would want, but it's a compromise with the supplements industry that dates back to the [inaudible 00:34:40] of the '80s. But now you have a CBD product that has the properties you've just described, Jason, and they're being asked to put it in a regulatory framework that they don't, already don't feel comfortable with. So it's a challenging process but companies like Canopy and others that are doing the science, are really going to help this along, because if we could start to knock out some of the real concerns, we can start to fit it into existing regulatory frames.

Jason Wilson: (35:11)
So last question, I know we need to turn it back over to Joe for some Q&A and maybe we'll end this you, Kelly. Next generation products, what do we expect to see coming to the market next year 2021? What's it going to look like?

Kelly Fair: (35:26)
So from Canopy's perspective, we're really excited about all the form factors. It is a miraculous compound and it helps consumers in lots of ways, so we explore every way that a consumer might like the product, in ways that they don't even know that they might like the product. We have our First and Free, our This Works products. I expect the topical platform to expand even more. There's a lot of cosmetic applications for CBD that I think are just great. The vapes and the pre-rolls are also coming to market. Just more broadly, I think consumers are starting to recognize the pre-roll as something they enjoy. It's doesn't give you the same euphoric as smoking a THC pre-roll, it's just a very quick way to get your body to relax very quickly. I mean I'm talking anecdotally at this point, as a sampler of our own test products.

Kelly Fair: (36:26)
So I think that it's really the sky's the limit for what kind of form factors we're going to see on the market. Canopy does focus on what kind of form factors are going to have the best effects for the consumer. So I don't think that we're ever going to have like a CBD shampoo and going to claim that it does anything for your body. There has to be a line in the sand and we need to distinguish the snake oil from actual effective products that will deliver CBD in an effective way. So we will continue to evaluate and, yeah, I think as the regulations roll out, we'll be able to see less and less of the snake oil on the market.

Jason Wilson: (37:12)
That'd be great and, I think, welcome for the industry in total. So Joe, what do you have ... We should probably move it over to Q&A. I think we've run over a little bit but what do you have that we can get in front of the appropriate people.

Joe Eletto: (37:28)
I was going to say, that's fine for me, I was learning a ton as well. So we had ETFMG, obviously, at SALT 2019 curating some of our conversation so just having these on going sessions is really informative involvement for the industry. So we had a question from a viewer from California. So he was talking about farming and how farms might negatively affect the neighborhood without the appropriate regulations. How is, in building and industry, in building these regulations in its piecemeal nature right now, how is that being enacted? How are those sorts of businesses or that part of the supply chain being regulated?

Jason Wilson: (38:07)
I think, Kelly and Axel, you probably both speak to that. Kelly, maybe you're in California, maybe you should kick off.

Kelly Fair: (38:14)
Yeah, I'll say that, I'll echo what I said earlier, that the California Department of Agriculture did a great job ... I mean California's just a great ag state anyway, and so the way that California is zones is that you shouldn't be next to any sort of a hemp grow, if you didn't know that you are next to a very agricultural area. Like we have our state zoned so that most of the hemp cultivation is happening in areas that are predominantly ag. They're either industrially zoned or agriculturally zoned and so we didn't see as a company that grew, I think we had 1500 acres in California that first growing season, much in the way of nuisance complaints or we were never close to actual neighborhoods.

Kelly Fair: (39:01)
I think that changes county by county. Ventura County was certainly a beautiful place to grow hemp because it's warm. We had great crops there. That was closer to cities than I had otherwise seen. I can speak for our cannabis facilities in Canada, the nuisance around smell is a huge issue in Canada and there's a lot of technologies that we put in place to mitigate just smell, just generally. And so if we continue to cultivate in the US, we would apply those same technologies, but I think the regulators have done a great job in keeping the ag areas separate from the cities.

Axel Bernabe: (39:49)
Yeah, I mean, for the most part, that's right. It is a long history of the intersectionality of agriculturally zoned districts and urban centers and there are other types of farms that emit smells and noises that folks don't want to be around. So for the most part, our legislation just categorized hemp as another crop and so long as you're in an ag district then the town can't prohibit you from growing hemp. It's like any other crop.

Axel Bernabe: (40:16)
We have had a number of complaints on smell, but that might not be the biggest challenge. The biggest challenge is probably cross pollination and the fear that folks that growing field crops or even adult use indoor grows, and that's more challenging. Creating a heat map and trying to tell people you can grow in this area but not in this area is something we're just going to need to take a day at a time, but, yeah, the smell issue, we borrowed from prior crops and if you're an ag district you're good to go.

Joe Eletto: (40:50)
So we've got two, I guess, larger questions that we'll try to cram in real quick. So people always compare or most of the time compare cannabis with alcohol and say, "I should be able to just go to a store, take if off the shelf, take it with me." Is that a fair comparison on the consumer end with ... as we spoke about today cannabis touching so many possible end points, where alcohol is really, it has a finite number of uses?

Axel Bernabe: (41:18)
There's, I think, the retailer angle that Kelly can speak to, the industry angle for sure, which she'll know a lot more about but from a regulatory standpoint, there's some overlap. It's a substance that can be used as an intoxicant and there are all sorts of regulatory questions like driving under the influence, taking it while you're pregnant, age, all these considerations are very similar to alcohol, the licensing, all that's very, very similar. But I think as we've been saying, what's unique is that people are taking it as a medicine. Four out of five Americans are saying they're taking cannabinoids generally as for medicinal reasons. Be it anti-stress and ... you could say the same thing about alcohol. Somebody has a drink at the end of the day to de-stress.

Axel Bernabe: (42:00)
But I think there are definitely overlaps. There's a lot to learn from the alcohol system and framework, but then you're just going to have to innovate with a lot of other regulatory onion peels to fully capture all the complexities of the plant.

Kelly Fair: (42:18)
Yeah, that's a great point on the regulation side. Canopy as a company have been advocating for a regulatory model for federal legalization that does model very much after alcohol, because there are so many similarities. What's dissimilar though is that alcohol came out of prohibition federally, and at the state level at the same time, so it was really a blank slate. Where here, we're going to come out of prohibition, where we have 32 plus states already with robust regulatory frameworks. And so when you're navigating that as a company and you're thinking all the way down the supply chain where a customer wants to walk into a liquor store and also get cannabis, there are a lot of complexities there.

Kelly Fair: (43:05)
I mean cannabis is regulated at the state level, I will always say that is appropriate, because only those states know what their communities need and they know what their constituents voted for if it was on the ballot and how they wanted it controlled and regulated, and so I think we're a long way off from this scenario where cannabis is just like any other medicine or vice, depending on which side of the fence you're on and where your use is. But I also don't think that there's a huge barrier, even from a commercial side to the dispensary model if it's done well.

Kelly Fair: (43:46)
I'm sitting in San Francisco and me walking into a dispensary to get any product, any beautiful product that I want is just as easy as going to a beautiful wine shop but with more controls. I couldn't go into a dispensary and shoplift, for example, because everything is behind a counter. I have to go through a bud-tender. I mean and I don't find that that experience takes away from the consumer experience and there are ways to enhance it and so we'll just have to let our communities decide how cannabis could be maybe put more into mainstream retail, when it's appropriate.

Joe Eletto: (44:28)
Got you. I like the term bud-tender. That's awesome. So last question. Obviously an easy question is the election. I'll posit this to whomever can answer and we're going to have more conversation around the election and with the possible results are later in the Talks. We don't need to dive too deep, but we're now two months out from election day. What are the next, I guess, 10-ish weeks going to mean for cannabis on the federal level? Are people looking at both candidates in different ways or I someone going to come out more in favor, more anti, just that sort of 40,000 foot overview of the next two months.

Kelly Fair: (45:09)
I think that's me, right, Axel? I don't think you could say anything.

Jason Wilson: (45:15)
It's also a great into, Joe, to tune in back in for episode two in two weeks.

Joe Eletto: (45:18)
Exactly.

Kelly Fair: (45:19)
That's right.

Jason Wilson: (45:20)
Congress in cannabis episode. Yeah, Kelly, why don't you handle that one?

Kelly Fair: (45:24)
Okay, well, it's no secret, it is public that the house intends to move the Moore Act in September, the week of the 21st, and so that is quite significant as an election issue because Kamala Harris is co-sponsor of the Moore Act. And so that will create great momentum going into the election cycle, I think just for cannabis generally. I would anticipate that the house passes that bill. What happens in the senate is TBD, not expecting great things, but will give the industry real momentum going into 2021, especially if the senate changes and the White House changes so very exciting time for the cannabis industry. It will be history vote. It's history that the bill is going to move at all, so it's very exciting.

Joe Eletto: (46:20)
Fantastic. Well, with that, thank you for the extra time, everyone, Jason, Kelly, and Axel. Want to thank also ETFMG, Fourth Wall Advisory and Canopy for the support of this series. We're really looking forward to seeing what is going to be spoken about over the next four episodes. All the episodes are now available to be registered for on SALT.org/Talks/VOC for Voice of Cannabis, and we'll be releasing who is going to be speaking on each of those in the coming days and weeks. But we have some that are going to be timed with the presidential debates and such it'll have more of a political angle to them as well as financial services angles.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: The Global Response to COVID-19 & Lessons Learned | SALT Talks #48

“Science, of course, does not give you the instant satisfaction answers the public wants.“

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding a Senior Fellow at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington DC, an American nonprofit global policy think tank with the stated intent of using science and scientific analysis to attempt to make the world more secure. In January 2020, he was recognized in the media as one of the first to alert the public on the pandemic risk of COVID-19.

“Holy mother of God, the new coronavirus is a 3.8!” Not only did the United States fail to act aggressively to combat the spread of COVID-19, it failed to act at all. With the last global pandemic a century ago, the public had no institutional memory of what to expect. People needed to see the consequences to believe it, but panic scares the market.

On mitigation, “It’s not about how much you test. It’s about how early you test and how well you contact trace.” COVID-19 carries an infection fatality rate (not case fatality rate) 10-20 times higher than that of the seasonal flu. Plus, most people have some degree of immunity to the flu, whereas very few have active immunity to the novel coronavirus.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding.jpg

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding

Senior Fellow

Federation of American Scientists

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. At SALK Talks, are a series of digital interviews we've been hosting with leading investors, creators and thinkers.

John Darsie: (00:25)
What we're really trying to do with the SALT Talk series, is replicate the type of experience that we provide at our SALT conference series, where we try to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as to provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:39)
We're very excited today, to bring a very topical and relevant SALT Talk to you with Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding. Dr. Feigl-Ding is an Epidemiologist, who was one of the earliest forecasters of trends that we saw explode relating to COVID-19.

John Darsie: (00:53)
He's also a Health Economist and a Senior Fellow at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC, and is the Chief Health Economist for Microclinic International. In January of 2020, Dr. Feigl-Ding was recognized in the media, as one of the first to alert the public on the pandemic risk of COVID-19.

John Darsie: (01:12)
He's part of a FAS' work to stop COVID misinformation and communication, lead communication with the lay public regarding the virus. He was previously a faculty member and a Researcher at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Medical School, between 2004 and 2020.

John Darsie: (01:31)
Dr. Feigl-Ding's work focuses on the intersection of public health and public policy. He also currently works on behavioral interventions for prevention, medicare costs, quality improvements, drug safety, diabetes, and obesity prevention and public health programs in the United States.

John Darsie: (01:47)
He has further expertise in designing and conducting randomized trials, systematic reviews, public health programs, public policy implementation and leveraging big data for improving health systems.

John Darsie: (01:59)
He was noted in his role as a whistleblower, and a leader of a key two-year long investigation into the controversial drug safety and risk data of Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra, that drew FDA and national attention.

John Darsie: (02:12)
Highlighted and expressed, published in JAMA, as corresponding joint first author, he was also recognized for his role in the New York Times and in the book, Poison Pills, The Untold Story of the Vioxx Drug Scandal.

John Darsie: (02:25)
A reminder, if you have any talks or any questions for Dr. Feigl-Ding during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. I imagine today will be one where people have a lot of questions about what the future holds for COVID-19, as well as sort of an examination on the original outbreak.

John Darsie: (02:42)
Hosting today's interview, is going to be Anthony Scaramucci, who is the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the Chairman of SALT. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:55)
See doc, we have so much respect for you, that we dressed up like billionaires. See, I'm wearing my Mark Zuckerberg hoodie, but it's a source of frustration for me. My only suit out here, my wife has it in the dry cleaner, so I apologize for the way I'm dressed.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (03:13)
No worries.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:13)
Thank you for coming on. I think it's always an important and central question, particularly for the younger people that are listening to our SALT Talks. How did you go in this direction with your career? What was the driving factor? Was it an Asian tiger mom who was like, "My son is his own internal tiger mom."

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (03:34)
Thanks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:34)
"He just graduated from Stanford Business School. He's like a self-cleaning tiger mom?"

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (03:38)
Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:38)
What was it about you and your family that turned you into this illustrious direction?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (03:43)
Well, I was a normal video game playing kid, who in high school, played way too much video games until I was 18. I had this big tumor when I was 17, the size of a tennis ball, baseball. They said, "You have a five-year diagnosis with this kind of tumor right here." I thought I was going to die.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (04:10)
They luckily took out the tumor, and it wasn't that kind of cancer. It kind of woke me up, jolted me up. Life is short, it's about what you do in life, not the number of video games you can master on Legendary. That kind of took me off the-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:28)
Hold on, I got to get my six-year-old kid in here. Who's was playing Fortnite right now, somewhere in the house. I got to get him down here to hear that. See, this is why I love asking this question. You had a traumatic event, a health scare. How old were you, 18?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (04:44)
I was 17. They took out the tumor when I was 17, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:47)
Okay, and how long did it take you to heal from all of that?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (04:50)
Well, it was like an open chest... they cut your rib cage apart kind of thing. It took a while, but I could still run. I started running a month after the surgery. My mom was like scared pretty, living [inaudible 00:05:05] that I was going to fall and crack my rib cage apart again.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (05:10)
No, it was good. I recovered, but couldn't be an astronaut or anything like that, that I wanted to originally be. Then it sent me in a different direction. I was really keen on risk and prevention of things, and that took me to Hopkins.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (05:29)
I wanted to be a doctor, but then I realized... I think epidemiology, predicting risk... because I became obsessed with it, when I went to college after my health scare. From there on, epidemiology was where fell in love with. I went to medical school too, but then I dropped out.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (05:47)
I did a doctorate in epidemiology and another doctorate in nutrition. I like, "You know what? Life's about what you need to do, not collecting a third doctorate or something behind your name or anything like that." That's why I became an epidemiologist.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:02)
Okay, so I love the philosophy. I'm going to take you back to January 20th, 2020, which feels like it's 7 to 10 years ago now. You posted a thread on Twitter, which I think got a lot of fanfare.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:18)
At that time, people still really didn't know what was going on, myself included. It was a pre-publication of a paper on the novel coronavirus, where you said, "Holy mother of God, the new coronavirus is a 3.8." What did that mean? Was that the [crosstalk 00:06:36]?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (06:36)
Yeah, that was the R-naught.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:37)
R-naught.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (06:37)
That was the R-naught.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:38)
The R-naught, okay.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (06:40)
At first, [crosstalk 00:06:40].

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:40)
Let's tell people what the R-naught is. Some of our viewers may not know.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (06:44)
Yeah, the R-naught is basically the R-naught, that means the raw part. Means for every infected person, that person infects 3.8 additional people in an exponential manner.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:56)
Per day.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (06:58)
Per transmission.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:59)
Per transmission.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (07:00)
Not per day, per transmission. That person gives-

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:02)
Okay.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (07:02)
... another 3.8, gives another 3.8. You can see how this thing just cascades out of control exponentially. Whether it's two-

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:09)
Something like the Ebola virus, what was the R-naught on the Ebola virus?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (07:13)
Ebola, it's slightly lower. The thing is, it's not just the R-Naught. It's also for example, Ebola fizzles out. Ebola's R-naught is a little lower and it fizzles out, because it kills 50%, case mortality. A virus that grows... you have to spread fast, but not kill everyone along the way too quickly.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (07:35)
If you do that, then it fizzles out. This is why this coronavirus or COVID-19 is such a weird in between. It kills those who are susceptible, especially if you're obese and a heart disease, or underlying factors with very high rate, what hospitalizes them.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (07:55)
Then for some young people, it just passes asymptomatically. They don't even know they're sick, but they're making everyone around them sick. This is why it's so pernicious. It's like a double-edged... really light and spreads really fast.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (08:11)
Contagious silently, but then it kills and maims those elderly and have risk factors. It's spread, and attends to super spread. It either spreads... oftentimes just one or two people, and then other times 60 people at a wedding for example.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (08:30)
We know this kind of stuff happens. In January, when I saw it, with the R-naught, I knew this was bad, because it wasn't just the paper. I have relatives in China who've been sharing info with me.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (08:43)
They basically piece up together like, "This is bad." Most scientists... I don't work in academia anymore. Most scientists are too shy, too gun-shy to say, "Call it out in a manner that everyone can hear." I had nothing to lose. I was leaving Harvard anyways.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (09:05)
I just said, "You know what? I'm going to go all out and say, "It's thermonuclear level bad. It's going to be really, really bad." Back then, you might as well tell people about aliens, to be honest. People don't know what the hell it is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:21)
Well, you called it out. Some people listened. A lot of people, frankly, they didn't listen. As an example, the next day, South Korea got its first infection.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:33)
It seemed like they listened, had the right culture to respond to the virus. The United States got its first infection on the same day, January 21st. What do you think went wrong in the United States?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (09:48)
Yeah, there's a whole boatload of things. Someday we're going to have a reckoning of everything, but I think it's a culmination of-

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:52)
Okay, almost like a 9/11 Commission, a Coronavirus-

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (09:58)
Yeah, I think there will be. There definitely will be.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:00)
Yeah, sure. I believe that.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (10:02)
Not under the Trump administration, but someday.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:03)
A responsible officer of government will need to do that at some point, so that we can learn from it and figure out what-

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (10:11)
Yeah. I think what went wrong is a series of... we didn't react. There's like, people have this tendency to, "Oh, don't overreact. Don't be alarmist." There is a pro-alarmism and anti-alarmism. This climate change, people have been sounding alarm for a long time, but people don't see it.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (10:29)
People need to see it to believe it. I think people don't want to cause panic, because again, they scare the markets. At the same time, people have a limit of imagination. We haven't seen a pandemic like this in over 100 years, and we don't have a good memory of history.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (10:49)
Again, people can't believe something that they haven't seen themselves. They don't take it seriously. When it comes to taking precautions, people basically, "No, we don't have to go that extreme. No, we don't have to. That's too much." It's just that gut reaction. That's just the first line kind of thing.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (11:10)
Also, obviously testing. We should have tested aggressively. It's not just about how much you test, but how early and you do it. You contact trace. America is just... we have some lab testing issues, but we also didn't contact trace.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (11:27)
We didn't do lockdowns fast enough. We didn't do mask wearing early enough. There're so many things that we went wrong at. At the very minimum, we did not soak in the reality fast enough.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:44)
Actually, they seem to have done that in Europe. They seem to have done that in parts of Asia, and their economies seem to be more open than our economy. Is that fair to say?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (11:54)
They are now, but their lockdowns were a lot harsher. Italy lockdowns, you weren't even allowed to go the park or go outside. In China, Wuhan, the lockdowns were so harsh. You were not even allowed to go outside, to go grocery shopping.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (12:08)
They would bring the food to your neighborhood, little community cluster. They were like, tie the food to a pulley to pull it up to your third, fourth, sixth floor apartment. It was just that intense and no one was allowed out.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:24)
[crosstalk 00:12:24].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (12:24)
They scanned their cell phone SIM cards, to make sure you weren't in the hotspot-

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:29)
Sure.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (12:29)
... because, "We don't believe if you haven't been to Wuhan. You show us your SIM card, has it touched a Wuhan SIM card tower?" We can't do that here. There is a degree of individuality and freedom. It's really difficult. Listening to big government, half the country is anti-big government.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (12:49)
This is what government's for. In times of crisis, coordinating all these kind of things. I think our society was just not prepared. We're just way too [inaudible 00:13:02]. If you actually look at some of your lockdown rules, it's half pages lockdowns, three pages of exemptions.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:08)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (13:10)
It's completely different, what we did.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:13)
Let's talk about the disease for a second, because we got a lot of information on this disease, some disinformation. I have friends of mine like Chris Cuomo that are long haulers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:24)
They're having a hard time coming back from the disease 100%. What is the disease actually doing to the body? Is it a respiratory virus, or is it attacking other organs in the body? Contemporaneous to the respiratory area of our body.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (13:39)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:39)
Tell us about the disease and your observation, and what we're learning from the epidemiologists and from the autopsies frankly?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (13:47)
Yeah, I think it's already showing that it's clearly more than just respiratory. It has neurological effects. Actually for example, the classic symptom of you losing your smell, it's actually not because your sensors are dulled. It's actually neurological.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (14:09)
It's because of affecting your nervous system. That's actually why you lose your sense of smell. Not because your receptors are malfunctioning. Similarly, you have brain fog. There's a lot of people with brain fog, long-term. The most-

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:25)
What is brain fog? These words are-

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (14:31)
Brain fog is just cognitive memory problems. Not [crosstalk 00:14:31].

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:31)
Hard time doing math.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (14:32)
Short term recall-

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:35)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (14:35)
These kind of verbal [crosstalk 00:14:37].

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:36)
I can't remember the name or the place that I was at or something like that.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (14:40)
Yeah, exactly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:41)
Yeah.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (14:41)
Exactly. It's just that memory fog, which people generically call it but-

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:44)
Is this stuff reversible, doc?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (14:48)
I don't know, this is the stuff that we're finding out. We're in a fog of war, literally. Here's the other thing, the frustration is, normally science is behind the walls. We figured out, "Oh shit, okay. This is true. This is not true. Okay, here's the story. All right, now let's go tell the public."

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (15:06)
Now people were so hungry, that we don't know... there's a lot of conflicting stuff. There's a lot crazy people peddling dangerous theories too at hydroxychloroquine. Being one of them, this other bleach thing and I can go on.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (15:27)
I think reversibility, we'll figure it out. I think there's other things like heart... we already know heart disease, myocarditis and other inflammations, also clearly well known.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (15:41)
There's actually some new evidence. I hate to tell it, but it actually affects sperm quality for a short period of time at least. In fact, if anything, if you actually want to tell people to wear masks and obey social distancing.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (15:59)
Tell the fragile, ego sensitive men who don't want to wear a mask, they will actually hurt their sperm quality. Honestly, that would actually get people to wear masks and social distance, way more than telling them, "Oh, you'll help other people. Protect them."

John Darsie: (16:19)
I thought college football would be the motivator for people in the South, but that didn't work either. Now a lot of places in the country have no college football.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:26)
Well, and just to let you know, doc, that worked for me. I'm masked up for the rest of the [crosstalk 00:16:31].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (16:30)
Masking up right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:31)
Okay, even though I don't have anybody near me, I just don't want anything to happen to my sperm.

John Darsie: (16:36)
You're still going, Anthony, huh? You still want more.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:39)
Yeah, [crosstalk 00:16:39].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (16:40)
Want more kids [crosstalk 00:16:41].

John Darsie: (16:41)
[crosstalk 00:16:41].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (16:41)
That's good. I only have-

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:42)
Yeah, I got a lot of kids. I may have a lot of kids coming. We'll just stick with the mask, I think until the end of this interview. Let's go to another question related to misinformation. The virus is just going to disappear. The virus is just like the flu.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (17:02)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:03)
I am going to take the mask off.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (17:04)
Yeah, that is-

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:05)
I thought that was very dramatic. I thought I was having a dramatic moment there.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (17:08)
No, dramatic is necessary to get people... I tell people, literally, you have to shout in a way people can understand and emotionally connect with. If you're just using scientific talk-

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:20)
You got me with the sperm.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (17:20)
I know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:21)
I'll be wearing a hazmat suit next time I'm in the local supermarket. Let's go to this information, the flu and the disappearing. I mean-

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (17:32)
First of all, the flu is... people don't get the flu test normally. We impute it from some statistical algorithm. For this, there's also, people are confused. There's two statistics. One, there's case fatality rate, with death among those diagnosed. Then there's infection fatality rate.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (17:55)
Infection fatality rate, is anywhere from 10 to 20 times the mortality of the flu, if you actually compare it. It is so much higher. Some people say it's five times, but even if it's five times more than the flu, it's a serious problem. The other thing is, many of us have some background immunity to the flu.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (18:24)
Very few people have any background immunity to this. There is some argument that if you have the other common cold coronavirus, you have some small immunity, but that is nothing close to herd community.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (18:37)
I think the herd immunity misinformation right now, is one of the largest. They say, "Oh, we don't need to infect 50%, 60%. We just need to infect 20%." Still, 20% is... other than Manhattan, downtown Manhattan, most other places aren't even close to 20%. They're not even close to 10%.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (19:01)
Actually, the number of people being harmed and maimed is so dangerous. I think that is part of this... right now, Scott Atlas keeps saying "Herd immunity, herd immunity." It is so dangerous. Fauci is calling it out.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (19:15)
Sweden, that tried herd immunity, all their leading scientists basically say, "Don't do what we did. Doing herd is an example of how not to fight a deadly infectious disease." That misinformation... but it's being misused by those who want to reopen businesses and pretend everything is normal.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (19:38)
Look, we've had flares. If you look at Israel, Israel had a big peak and then smashed it down. They thought everything's okay. They reopen everything, and then everything went out of control. There was no herd immunity there, and it is just so, so dangerous. I think there's misinformation.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (19:57)
People just want to grasp anything. Now, you remind me of the movie, The American President, in which, Michael J. Fox says to President Shepherd, played by Michael Douglas, "People are so thirsty for leadership, that they will crawl to a Mirage. When they discover it's not there, they'll drink the sand."

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (20:21)
Michael Douglas, President Shepard replies, "No, people don't drink the sand, because they're thirsty. They drink the sand, because they don't know the difference." Right now, in the middle of the fog of war, there's so much information. People want to drink something, to know that they're going to be okay.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (20:44)
Oftentimes, there's quacks and snake oil salesmen just trying to peddle things that's a mirage, that's like sand. Science of course, doesn't give you the instant satisfaction answers. Long story short, people are just misled so easily, so easily right now about this coronavirus.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:10)
You have a family. I have a family. John has a family. Kids are going back to school, Eric. What do you do there? Be our guru, be our therapist, be our epidemiologist, be our scientist.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (21:24)
Yeah. First of all, WHO says, "You should not reopen anything, schools included, until you have less than 5% positivity in your area for 14 consecutive days, consecutive days." I think that's even very kind of like generous. To be honest, we sure need to go for zero COVID.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (21:47)
In absence of that being a reality, I think A, there definitely should be a mandatory mask wearing. Yeah, the indoor distancing does not... it's not that important I think, in the grand scheme. We know there's aerosol transmission. Aerosol transmission, compared to droplets.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (22:09)
There's three kinds of transmission. There's fomite, which means surface contact, touch a dirty doorknob, touch your face. There is droplets, as in when you spit, the ballistic droplet falls down by gravity within six feet. That's where the six feet rule comes from.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (22:26)
Aerosols float in the air. They float literally throughout the whole room, however big the room is. There's evidence in Netherlands, it's gone through some air conditioning ducts that recycle the air. It can be there for 20 minutes or four hours. I think ventilation is so key, masking, ventilation.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (22:48)
If you can't ventilate, at least six exchanges per hour, which is once every 10 minutes. Not many places have that kind of ventilation. Then you need to use filtration. If you can't use filtration, you should also add UV and the HVAC system too. To kill the germs whenever you recycle the air.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (23:11)
A lot of our schools are outdated. They can't open the windows. Actually they can't open their windows and doors, because just schools' anti-shooting security system prevents it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:23)
Sure.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (23:24)
Which is a very double sad, with all the gun violence. Some classrooms are interspersed. The thing is, most schools are poorly ventilated. It's one of those things where you have to demand as a PTA, buy HEPA and MERV 13 air filters, if you can't ventilate your classrooms.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (23:50)
Kids should definitely wear masks and maybe face shields too, to be extra conservative. It's all about your degree of risk acceptance. What's not acceptable, is just sending your kid without a mask. It's really frustrating. It's all depending on how much is the community spread?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (24:10)
Are the schools taking safeguards? Are they ventilating? If you don't ventilate, are you filtering the air or just sanitizing it in some way? To be honest, not many schools have that. Or funding from parents groups, who can fund all this kind of stuff.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:28)
Are the planes safe? A little bit smaller than a school.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (24:31)
Planes have good air turnover. They do. I will say that. They have exchanges once every six minutes, eight minutes. The problem is you're super packed in there. You're like elbow to elbow. I'm like six foot. I've really wide shoulders. You're [crosstalk 00:24:50].

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:50)
Don't rub it in, Eric [inaudible 00:24:53].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (24:54)
All right. Sorry. Anyways, I [crosstalk 00:24:56].

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:58)
We're all the same height when we're sitting down. Everybody take it easy. [inaudible 00:25:01].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (25:01)
Yeah. Hey, Fauci is-

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:06)
Fauci is my man.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (25:07)
He's the man. He's not tall. Height is not the ultimate measure in this day and age. I'm just saying like, if you're packed in there, the... and people eat and drink. To Ted Cruz who has taken off his mask... many people do take off their masks, to eat and drink on airplanes.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (25:27)
There's actually an airplane... a documented case in a medical journal. Someone was wearing a mask, but he took his mask off to eat and got infected during that time, by people around him who were positive. He wasn't positive and didn't travel to any other places, but he took his mask off next to them. Boom, he got infected.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (25:51)
I think the airplanes... certain airlines actually blocked the middle seat. I really respect Southwest, and Delta and JetBlue, who actually blocked their middle seats. Or Southwest is selling only two thirds of total seats, which is the same. United American, they're not blocking the middle seat.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (26:10)
When you're jammed in there and you're snacking, you're going to spread. This virus, it spreads more if you shout. This virus will spread when you even breathe. That's the honest, scary thing. Just the act of breathing, gives out aerosols. Again, the mask, cloth masks are good for catching yours.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (26:34)
If other people are breathing out while eating, then you're going to get it, even if you're wearing a cloth mask. That's why you should also wear a premium mask. This is why also airplanes are... it's why the airlines are not booking the middle seats.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:48)
All right, this has been terrific. I'm going to ask you one more question, and I'm going to turn it over to John for outside questions or audience participation. Let's talk about the vaccine for a second. The stories about a vaccine coming in the fall, is that realistic or is that hype?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (27:10)
The vaccine, so we will get trial results of some phase threes that are finishing. What I'm worried is that, they're going to get an interim peak at the trial, halfway through, before they finish. You have to enroll enough people and follow them enough, in enough amount of time. They're going to get an interim peak, I bet.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (27:35)
My fear is they're going to emergency use authorize it way too early. If you want to truly know whether it's safe and effective, you need to have enough people studied, for long enough follow-up time.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (27:51)
My worry is that before the election, they're going to do this interim peak. Then they're going to approve it, based on some early data. You have to first of all, just aside from the safety efficacy, it needs to be at least 50% effective. You have to be sure enough, because every stat has a confidence interval.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (28:16)
You have to be 95% sure enough that it's not unaffected, and not like 30%, which is crap for a vaccine. You have to be sure enough, but I bet there's going to be a push to approve it. Just like hydroxychloroquine was approved. Convalescent plasma was approved.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (28:35)
Remdesivir was approved for wide use, even though their trial wasn't for a world wide-use. They're going to push it through. I think that's careless and callous. If anything, vaccines, you want to convince people to take it.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (28:51)
If you push it through it, you're going to actually scare more people and scare them off of using it, even when eventually you have all the data to say it's good. Communication's really important. If you do something too early, people get too scared. Even when you do it properly later, they don't trust you anymore.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (29:15)
That is my worry. We will get a vaccine, I'm sure. Hopefully in due time, after the phase three trials are done. My worry is, we're going to get it pre-approved, emergency approved before it's over and it's going to create a shit show.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:31)
All right. Well, we really appreciate the clarity and the factual basis of all the information, Eric. Doctor, thank you. Let me it over to John Darsie.

John Darsie: (29:43)
I got a bunch of questions here, from emails and people posting in the chat. I think we'll pack our last 15 minutes here. Dr. Feigl-Ding, thanks again for joining us.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (29:52)
Sure.

John Darsie: (29:52)
This is very timely and our audience is enjoying it a lot. The first question is about the World Health Organization. Obviously, Donald Trump is not the first person to criticize the WHO.

John Darsie: (30:06)
Well, they got a few things wrong in the early part of the pandemic. There is a lot of people that have criticized their early response to the pandemic, but is pulling out of the WHO the answer.

John Darsie: (30:16)
In a post-WHO world, let's say Donald Trump wins again and serves another four years. Or we're trying to rebuild another super national organization, to help us combat global pandemics and other public health issues.

John Darsie: (30:31)
Were they right to question the WHO and pull out of the WHO? I think I know the answer to that question. What can we do globally to sort of create a cohesive plan for preventing this type of calamity again, that's had so much economic and social negative impact?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (30:45)
Yeah. First of all, I feel WHO is an organization that is completely built around trying to help global health. What people forget is, these viruses, they come from... Ebola comes from Africa, MERS came from the middle East. There's many viruses that could emerge from anywhere.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (31:09)
It's WHO that makes sure that they extinguish it, in the far nether reaches of where often times these outbreaks start. 9 to 10 times, you haven't heard of Guinea worms or many or polio... and they crop up every once in a while. WHO keeps them in check.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (31:33)
If they didn't keep it in check, they would be on your neighborhood door honestly. People don't see that. It's kind of like, if you build a crosswalk at this dangerous intersection and instead of 10 people dying a year, of being run over, no one dies. No one's grateful for the crosswalk being there. WHO is like that.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (31:55)
Of course, when they make them blunder, it's very visible. The 99% of time in which they actually make sure that Ebola doesn't reach your shores, and TB is not... you're not coughing up TB, is because they kept it in check, in the far nether reaches of Africa or India or South America.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (32:16)
That's why we don't have Zika brain damaged babies here in the US, when we could have easily had it a few years ago. I think WHO serves a great purpose. Their comms can definitely be improved. There is a working group to actually reform WHO. There's definitely going to be a reckoning.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (32:33)
Pulling out from it is so dumb, because if you want to change it... and this is a UN organization that is definitely staying around, it's not going to die out. You need a seat at the table.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (32:44)
This is why I'm saying, oftentimes even with people you disagree with, if you want to change them, you need to engage with them and have a seat at that table, with someone you disagree with. I think you US pulling out is stupid. Also, just yesterday, they pull out from WHO's COVAX, vaccine consortium.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (33:04)
WHO's working on a whole slew of another dozen or two vaccines. While the US is only committed to a couple, like half a dozen in Warp Speed. It's kind of like an insurance project. If you don't want to join the vaccine group organized by WHO, you're putting all our eggs on a limited number of vaccines.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (33:26)
It's a risk. During a pandemic, you want to actually get insurance. I think A, pulling out of WHO. B, refusing to join the WHO vaccine consortium, to share other resources of working vaccines is just stupid in the long run.

John Darsie: (33:43)
You alluded to this earlier, when you were talking about using the sperm example as a way to clearly communicate something visceral to an audience, that might not take the virus as seriously, as they would otherwise, if they heard an example like it reduces your sperm count or the quality of your sperm.

John Darsie: (33:58)
There seems to be a rise in misinformation, and anti-vax movements and things like that. I think there was a poll that I saw a couple of months ago, that nearly 30% of the population is at least vaccine skeptical, if not, anti-vax.

John Darsie: (34:13)
Why do you think that is creeping up as part of sort of American culture, where we're rejecting science at? How do we come up with an information campaign, to combat the misinformation that's causing public health issues frankly? You're seeing increase in diseases that were dormant for many years, because of anti-vax movements.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (34:32)
Yeah, the anti-vax movement is very tricky. It's a confluence of different things, like a study over the years. It's partly a distrust to big pharma, because pharma has jacked up the price of insulin.

John Darsie: (34:46)
You're familiar with that, of course. It's [crosstalk 00:34:48].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (34:48)
Yeah, of peddling dangerous drugs. Opioid epidemic, jacking up the price of EpiPens for kids with allergies. That either feeds into all this. They're all tied, because it's this distrust of big pharma. Secondly, the anti-vaxxer movement, it also feeds on this globalists, anti-globalist conspiracy.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (35:13)
AQ [inaudible 00:35:13] for example, there is a poll that came out, only 13% of Republicans don't believe in AQ [inaudible 00:35:20]. That's crazy. The fact that there's... 87% of Republicans believe in the AQ [inaudible 00:35:26] conspiracies, is just mind blowing.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (35:29)
It's just part of that same distrust of the machine, whatever they... even though science does not care. The virus does not care about your political beliefs or religious beliefs, but there is this movement to be anti-science, because for some reason, science is part of the establishment. I think that's very hurtful.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (35:52)
I think this vaccine will actually show us, if we do not get vaccination... because herd immunity does work if you vaccinate. Vaccine is the only safe way to get to herd immunity. Say the vaccine is only 60% or 70% effective, and then only two thirds of people take it, then you're going to drop below 50% potentially.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (36:17)
That's going to be really bad, because if many people don't take it, then this epidemic will just keep raging onwards and we're going to pay a way, way higher price. We need to extinguish it, before we can actually truly get back to normal.

John Darsie: (36:32)
What would you deaths in the United States have looked like, if we said, "You know what? We're going to take a full herd immunity approach. We're going to actively infect members of the population, so that we can reopen the economy." What would the death count have looked like in your estimation?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (36:44)
It would potentially be in the millions, honestly. In the millions, because here's the thing, elderly is a risk factor. I think another major risk factor is obesity. Especially among the severe morbidly obese. There's almost no one who gets hospitalized with morbidly obesity, and doesn't go on a ventilator.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (37:06)
That's just that scary. Tons of diabetes is a risk factor, a heart disease is a risk factor. Many kidney diseases are also risk factors, in addition to being immunocompromised. Then that's just deaths and hospitalization.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (37:26)
Then there's people, there's long COVID... or being maimed with long-term mental... the brain fog, mental scarring, as well as other diseases. It's not just mortality, but also long-term morbidity that's actually causing... that herd immunity, would be a extremely, extremely dangerous act.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (37:50)
This is why when Joni Ernst yesterday, she peddled two conspiracy theories in a row. One, about herd and then the 6% thing. The other thing about, doctors are over-billing just to make money from it. It's insane. By the way, the 6% thing is basically saying, "Only 6% of people who died, did not have any risk factors."

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (38:09)
That's kind of like saying, "Look, hey, there is a meteor that's going to drop on this town. 94% of this town has some sort of risk factors, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, et cetera." When the meteor crashes down, it wasn't the meteor that killed them. It was the risk factors. Only-

John Darsie: (38:31)
Right, only like 40% of Americans have two or more chronic diseases.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (38:34)
Oh, yeah.

John Darsie: (38:35)
Isn't that right?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (38:36)
Exactly, two thirds of Americans have major risk factors and that's excluding age. If you include age, you're getting close to 80, 90%. This is why it's so, so dangerous. Again, most cancer patients, 95% of cancer patients who are near death, have risk factors.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (38:59)
Does that mean that 95% of cancer deaths are fake, because they have other risk factors? No, it was the cancer. I think all the conspiracy theory is incredibly, incredibly dangerous. That we have sitting members of Congress like Iowa Senator, Joni Ernst peddling it, is just... it's ludicrous.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (39:16)
Iowa right now, by the way, is having one of the worst epidemics. Their mortality is soaring. Their cases per capita is one of the highest in the country. I think it's top three right now. This is why these conspiracy theories are dangerous, because it tells people to be complacent.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (39:35)
They're going to keep spreading it. Maybe a young person catches it at the beginning, or a kid at school. You know what? They're going to spread it to mommy and daddy, or grandparents. Again, 8 or 9 out of 10 people actually have risk factors. You can't quarantine a kid from the rest of the family. That just doesn't work.

John Darsie: (39:54)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (39:55)
That's why it's incredibly dangerous.

John Darsie: (39:57)
What about reinfection? It's still sort of a under dispute, about the idea of reinfection. There was a patient in Hong Kong, who showed asymptomatic reinfection. There was a Nevada who ended up in the hospital.

John Darsie: (40:11)
His first infection was far more mild. Are people getting reinfected? What's the early data on that? How does that impact what the long-term benefits of the vaccine will be?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (40:21)
Yeah, so these are good, two separate questions. First of all, about the reinfection, we've known about, it's possible for a while, but from anecdotal reports. To prove it, you needed to actually have this Hong Kong and Reno, Nevada example, in which they had a sample of the original virus and a sample of the new virus.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (40:40)
They compared the genome, the RNA of the virus. The viruses are completely different, so that we know that for example, that it's a different virus. As opposed to the virus just being [inaudible 00:40:52] in your body.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (40:54)
As you pointed out, in Hong Kong one was... the second infection was asymptomatic. This Reno one, the second time the guy got infected, he got hospitalized for quite a while. We don't know how common it is, because it's really hard to do this double virus, genome RNA test.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (41:15)
It's definitely possible, but I think it's probably not the case most of the time. Most of the time, most of the people do have some sort of immunity or crossover immunity. If you were previously infected by a common cold coronavirus type, you have partial immunity to this. It shows that it's not guaranteed.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (41:37)
I think for the vaccine though, it's not a likely worry, because the vaccine targets... there's different versions. This is why we need a pool of vaccines, because there's not just one single vaccine.

John Darsie: (41:52)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (41:52)
There's some that's attenuated or actually inactivated. Some, they put it into... the RNA, put it into another virus particle to carry it. Then basically, they want you to learn. It's a virus training program. That's what a vaccine is.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (42:11)
There's different training programs to train your body. I think this is why we need... even if one vaccine is less than perfect, say it's... the measles vaccine's great, 98%. Most vaccines oftentimes are less than 98%. Even if it's not perfect, we need to put our eggs in more baskets.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (42:31)
This reinfection thing just teaches us, this vaccine could be better short term. This vaccine could be better long term. This is why we... not WHO vaccine consortium, which has way more vaccines in their consortium than our Warp Speed program is kind of stupid.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (42:50)
We need to actually consider and try all the different vaccines, to see which one is the best long term. Hopefully, this virus is not a fast mutator. It's not like the flu.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (43:01)
The flu has this fast recombination system. This one has... it's a slow mutator. We're hopeful that it will have lasting effects, but we need to put our eggs in more baskets, as any investor would know.

John Darsie: (43:15)
I want to talk about Sweden for a minute, before we wrap up. We've had a few questions about that. There's been a lot of hand wringing over the Sweden approach, which is, to allow more free movement in the economy, keep the economy relatively open.

John Darsie: (43:28)
As you alluded to earlier, Sweden has suffered similar health problems, if not worse than neighboring countries and other countries around the world. They also have not been immune to the economic impacts of the virus, which sort of goes to show that the slump in the economy is not a matter of the economy being closed.

John Darsie: (43:45)
It's a matter of people not wanting to go out, and they could be potentially infected by a deadly disease. Could you talk more about the... exactly what the results are of that experiment... were in Sweden, and what we learned from that?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (43:58)
Yeah. Well, the Swedish experiment is not a scientific experiment. It's more like a social-

John Darsie: (44:03)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (44:03)
Hey, laissez-faire policy. Sweden, if you look at the curves, have enormous infection. Sweden used to be the same country as Norway, by the way, they split decades ago.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (44:16)
If you look at Swedish versus Finland to the East, Norway to the West, Denmark to the direct South on a bridge, all this Nordic Scandinavian neighbors did exponentially better, in terms of cases or mortality. Swedish mortality is finally going down a little bit.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (44:31)
It's been really, really bad and cumulative, much worse. Their economy is actually no better. Again, you're right, it's the demand. It's not the business closing per se, it's that people are scared. This is why the best analogy is Jurassic Park.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (44:52)
If you reopen Jurassic Park with the velociraptors still roaming around, people are not wanting to come back to Jurassic Park. Even if you say, "The park is open, we have tasers." No, just because you have tasers and we have distancing masks and shields, the people are not going to come to your park.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (45:11)
That's the underlying thing, until we get this under control, the demand is not going to come back. Demand is not just cash demand, in terms of cash on hand and the marginal propensity to consume on a macro scale.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (45:27)
It's the micro demand, because there's just... people are scared go out in here. In terms of Sweden, in terms of like herd immunity, I don't think it's truly reached herd immunity. You also can't compare Sweden to US. Sweden has universal healthcare.

John Darsie: (45:47)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (45:47)
You have any illness, you do not have to pay a cent basically. Yes, they have taxes, but in terms of on an everyday out-of-pocket cost, you pay almost nothing. They have perfect contact tracing, or they've a medical record system that's all linked. It's a complete [crosstalk 00:46:06].

John Darsie: (46:07)
Their ability to socialize the costs, the healthcare costs [crosstalk 00:46:11].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (46:11)
Here people are dying, because they can't afford a test. People-

John Darsie: (46:16)
It's been said that, Trump tries to say and others try to say that we're over counting the number of deaths from COVID. There is a lot of suggestion that we're actually severely under counting, because of home deaths. [crosstalk 00:46:28].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (46:27)
We're under counting by 10X.

John Darsie: (46:28)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (46:29)
All the studies show, the true infection is actually 10X higher than what our case count right now is. We just passed 6 million, just a couple of days ago. We're going to definitely pass 7 million this month.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (46:42)
We're definitely going to pass 8 million in October. By Election Day, we're going to have at least 8 million. I'm pretty sure about that. 8 million [crosstalk 00:46:49]

John Darsie: (46:49)
[crosstalk 00:46:49] US population.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (46:51)
Not just 8 million multiply by 10.

John Darsie: (46:53)
Yeah, if looking at the US population, you're thinking a quarter of the US population has probably been infected with the virus.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (47:03)
By end of the year, yes.

John Darsie: (47:04)
Yes.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (47:06)
Still, that's not quite herd immunity levels.

John Darsie: (47:11)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (47:12)
Again, it doesn't truly kick in, until you're way higher. Look, this there is no easy way out. People are trying to dream up danceable ways like Sweden, as a fancy of a way to get out of this. There is no magic bullet. It's the velociraptor Jurassic Park example.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (47:31)
Demand is not going to truly come back until all this is solved. Conferences, businesses are not going to hold these global in-person massive business conferences, where everyone's rubbing elbows and shaking hands, because the risk is too high.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (47:49)
That is what's the underlying problem. Until actually we feel the risk is low enough, all the normal businesses and exchanges, and business meetings are not going to happen. I think that is the ultimate lesson. This is why chasing zero COVID is the best way.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (48:09)
There's ways to do that without lockdowns now, by ventilation, mask wearing and premium mask. Cloth masks are good for catching your droplets, but the premium mask, like surgical, N95, KN95s are way better actually filtering out these.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (48:27)
Especially if a lot of people don't wear a mask. See, the less people wear masks, the more you need to wear premium masks. If you're surrounded by people who don't wear masks, because-

John Darsie: (48:35)
Put on your mask and things like that.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (48:37)
Yeah, only the premium mask protects you from them, if a lot of people around you don't wear a mask. We shouldn't have like a Defense Production Act for that months ago, but here we are, we don't.

John Darsie: (48:47)
Right. It just came out in the last, I think couple hours, that the CDC is asking states to speed approvals of their vaccine sites, so they're ready by November 1st. You think that's a politically driven decision, that it's not a coincidence that-?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (49:00)
It's not a coincidence.

John Darsie: (49:00)
.... it's two days before the election?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (49:02)
Look, we know the October surprise, is the least surprising of any Octobers. The surprise everyone talks about, is that basically Trump will force his FDA to emergency approve the... probably the [inaudible 00:49:22], or maybe one of the other ones.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (49:24)
They're going to force approve whichever one they have the most data for. They're going to hail its success, but no one's going to actually get an actual vaccine shot by then, because their productions on a ketchup.

John Darsie: (49:36)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (49:36)
They'll only go to healthcare workers at the beginning anyways. I don't think we're getting an actual vaccine, until spring of next year at the earliest. At the very beginning, there's going to be shortages.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (49:48)
This October surprise, it's coming and they're going to force the vaccine through. At's going to A, it's going to empower the anti-vaxxers, right?

John Darsie: (50:00)
Right, [crosstalk 00:50:00].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (50:00)
They're going to say, "Oh, we don't have all the data. We don't know if it's safe." The scientists will actually say, "We don't actually have all the data or that we need to fully evaluate it." It's going to empower anti-vaxxers. In the long run, we're actually going to hurt ourselves.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (50:17)
We're going to lose credibility. By we, I mean, as a country. CDC, FDA is going to lose credibility, whenever they ... or FDA emergency approves this. It's going to be a shit show.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (50:29)
This is what I'm really concerned, because this vaccine rollout, I guarantee you, we're not going to be talking about herd immunity or hydroxychloroquine when October, November comes. It's going to be this rushed vaccine. Again, it's only going to empower the conspiracy theorists.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (50:51)
I hate to say it, but unless we can stop it, we're... and can actually roll out the vaccine in a safe way, once all the data comes in... basically, until Fauci says, "It's okay," we're going to lose our credibility if we rush it ahead of Fauci.

John Darsie: (51:08)
What would Fauci do? I'm going to get the wristband printed up and sent out, or what would Dr. Feigl-Ding?

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (51:12)
What would Fauci do?

John Darsie: (51:14)
Yeah, [crosstalk 00:51:14].

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (51:15)
Yeah, we should have those shirts. Well, Fauci would wait for the phase three trial to run its course. Every trial's like posted on clinicaltrials.gov. Run its course, of however many people enroll. Do it for the entire amount of time that you're required, and make sure that we have enough confidence.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (51:34)
That the efficacy is high enough. That it's not just like, "Oh, we're 50%, but with 20 or 80% uncertainty." That were certain about the efficacy. We're certain that the safety signals clearly show that there's no increased risk. Then the Fauci would approve it. That data is not going to [inaudible 00:51:59] December or January.

John Darsie: (52:01)
Right.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding: (52:01)
The proper way, so that's-

John Darsie: (52:04)
All right. Well, fascinating stuff. Thanks for taking sort of an extra 10 minutes. We went over time, but we had a lot of important things to talk about. Thanks so much for taking time out of your busy schedule. I know you've been one of the leaders in combating the misinformation, it's been out there.

John Darsie: (52:17)
Your Twitter feed is an amazing resource in and of itself, for following the information on the pandemics. Thanks so much for everything you're doing. Anthony, do you have a final word for Dr. Feigl-Ding?

Anthony Scaramucci: (52:28)
No, just for our general population. In all seriousness, wear the mask, keep your family safe. Listen to the scientists and listen to the facts, and we'll all be safer and healthier.

Anthony Scaramucci: (52:40)
Doc, thanks so much. Hopefully, we can have you back at the end of the year, and talk a little more about where you think things are going to set up for 2021.

John Darsie: (52:50)
Sure, absolutely. Stay safe everyone

Anthony Scaramucci: (52:52)
Wish you all the best.

Robert Draper: "To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America Into Iraq" | SALT Talks #47

“Damage done to our intelligence agencies isn’t systemic and permanent, but it isn’t a matter of replacing one President with another.“

Robert Draper is a Writer-at-Large at The New York Times Magazine, as well as a contributing writer to National Geographic. He is the author of several books, including the recently published To Start a War: How The Bush Administration Took America Into Iraq. Robert first became acquainted with the then-Governor of Texas, George W. Bush, when he was writing for the Texas Monthly. He then moved to Washington, D.C. to write a biography on President Bush after seeing existing ones fall short of capturing his full story.

“Before 9/11, President Bush intended to be a domestic President.” There was a focus on tax cuts and jobs creation, and a passive approach to potential international conflict. President Bush didn’t lean into the intelligence about 9/11 and, as a result, retaliated stronger than he needed to compensate for this shortcoming.

“One uncomfortable truth that this President has been unwilling or unable to abide is that Russia interfered with the 2016 election.” In 2016, the Russians assumed that Clinton was going to win and sought to delegitimize her Presidency and demoralize her electorate. However, once they saw that then-candidate Trump had the potential to win, they stepped up their disinformation campaign.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Robert Draper.jpeg

Robert Draper

Writer-at-Large

The New York Times Magazine

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we launched during this work from home period in which we try to really replicate the experience that we provide at our SALT conference series.

John Darsie: (00:29)
And what we're really trying to do is provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are important ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Robert Draper to SALT Talks. Robert is a writer at large for the New York Times Magazine and a contributing writer to National Geographic. He is the author of several acclaimed books. And one of which we'll talk about today, his most recent book, which is, To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America Into Iraq.

John Darsie: (00:57)
And Robert is really one of the preeminent writers talking about the Bush administration period. He wrote a previous book about the Bush administration as well, closer to the time that they were an office. Robert lives in Washington, D.C today. And a reminder, if you have any questions for Robert during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen.

John Darsie: (01:16)
And conducting today's interview again will be Anthony Scaramucci, the founder, and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:29)
John, thank you. Robert, great to have you on. I've read several of your books and obviously I always try to read your articles in New York Times Magazine. Before we get into that though, tell us a little bit about your professional and personal background. How did you find this career arc and what was driving you as a kid to get you to where you are today?

Robert Draper: (01:50)
Sure. Anthony, thanks for having me on. And I'm kind of the black sheep of my family. I come from a family of lawyers, but I found at a very early age that I was basically incapable of doing anything other than writing. And so thank God. I mean, it's to figure out how to do it for a living. I'm from Houston, Texas originally. I became a staff writer in Texas Monthly. And while I was a staff writer there in the 1990s and became acquainted with the new governor of Texas George W. Bush, and got to know him. And so at around the time that he moved to Washington and became president, I sort of sat back and waited to see how his presidency would unwind. I had no aspirations of making in cottage industry out of Bush, like the way a lot of Texas journalists had.

Robert Draper: (02:38)
But then by the end of his first term I had frankly decided that none of the other biographies about Bush really captured the character of Bush as I knew it. And so I sought to make myself his biographer as it were. And I moved to Washington, D.C. I've been here ever since.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:56)
And so one of the Bush books was Dead Certain, you sort of wrote that during the mid, not the middle, but the second term of the administration. And this is sort of the second book, is that correct? Would be the second one?

Robert Draper: (03:11)
Exactly, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:12)
Right. And so I may just hold the book up. I love promoting fellow authors. Robert, in case you didn't know, I've written four New York Times internationally recognized bestsellers. And if you don't believe me, come into my basement, I'll show you every copy that I had to buy to make that happen.

Robert Draper: (03:27)
Outstanding.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:28)
But you on the other hand, actually sell books, which is very impressive. And this is a fantastic read and we're going to get into it in a second. But I want to talk to you first about a New York Times Magazine article that you wrote recently called Unwanted Truths: Inside President Trump's battle with the U.S. intelligence agencies. Tell our viewers and listeners, what are the unwanted truths that were in that article and how is the president trying to subvert them?

Robert Draper: (03:55)
Sure. Anthony, the story is basically about the collision course between a president who his counselor Kellyanne Conway, memorably described as embracing alternative facts. The collision between that kind of person and a community of government officials, whose job it is to actually lay out the facts to present the uncomfortable truth. And the one uncomfortable truth in particular that this president has been unwilling or unable to abide has been the manner that Russia interfered with the 2016 election to swing the election towards Trump. And it tends to do so yet again for the same purpose in 2020.

Robert Draper: (04:38)
To this president, and I think it's understandable why he would feel this way to suggest that Russia tried to make him president is to call into question the legitimacy of his presidency. But rather than recognize that reality for what it is and to own it and to say, "Therefore, we're going to make sure that this doesn't happen again." He has time and again, refused to acknowledge that, that's true. In fact, said the opposite that it's not true. And more to the point, and this is what my story really deals with Anthony, has punished those people in the intelligence community who have said what the intelligence community has plainly assessed, namely that Russia tried to swing the election in his favor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:20)
Okay. So there are many of our fellow Americans that did not believe that Russia tried to sway the election in his favor. So for the benefit of some of the people on this call, tell us what you learned from the intelligence agencies in terms of what Russia was doing in 2016, and then secondarily, what do you think they will be doing in 2020? What are they already doing in 2020?

Robert Draper: (05:44)
Sure. In 2016, the Russians assumed as did everyone, including I think candidate Donald Trump, that Hillary Clinton was going to win. And so their chief aim was to delegitimize her, to demoralize her electorate, to make her presidency a hobbled one at the outset. Sometime in the fall of 2016 it became apparent to the Russians that the Republican nominee could actually win. And so they began to step up their disinformation. They began to try unsuccessfully to hack into infrastructure, to use various trolls and bots on Facebook and elsewhere to amplifying negative messages relating to Hillary and to promote candidate Trump. And it's impossible to know Anthony, to what degree, if at all, that was determinative. It may well be that Trump would have won anyway, we'll never know. But what is clear is that, and the intelligence community assessed this, was that, that was what Russia did. And that's why Russia did it.

Robert Draper: (06:49)
They have sought again to do so in 2020. And what I write about in this story is a national intelligence estimate, which is this assessment that is made by the entire intelligence community on any particular subject. This one had to do with Russia attempting yet again to interfere this upcoming November. And once again, it assessed that Russia favored the current president. That Russia probably believed that under a new president there would be increased sanctions and it would just basically be much more of a slog for the Russians.

Robert Draper: (07:20)
And again, using I think I'll be at in a more sophisticated manner on trolls and bots through the Russian internet agency, through other means. They are also still trying to hack into our infrastructure. And the Department of Homeland Security has spearheaded what we hope will be a successful counter to them. But what is already clear, Anthony, is that if DHS and the rest of the government succeeds, it will not be because President Trump has encouraged them to succeed, really it will be the opposite since the president has now pushed out this message that no, no, it's not really Russia that's trying to interfere, it's China. And China's trying to interfere in Biden's behalf, not mine. So it's China, we should be concerned about.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:05)
Yeah, no say, listen, and I appreciate that this information is out there. One last question on this, the damage done to our intelligence agencies, Robert, is it repairable? Is it something we can recover from? Or has he done systemic and permanent damage?

Robert Draper: (08:22)
I don't think it's systemic and permanent, Anthony, but it's also not simply a matter of replacing one president with another. I think that we have lost some credibility within the intelligence community among potential human assets who now aren't sure just whether we're on the level. There has been concern that information given that finds its way to this president could then be leaked to the Russians. And frankly, even if President Trump is defeated, Anthony, as you well know that does not mean that Trumpism will be. And it does not mean that there will suddenly be a wholehearted embrace of the intelligence community's findings of faith in government institutions far from it. And I suspect that we're in for a long haul here. And the intelligence community is going to be caught in the crossfire, just like a lot of other government institutions.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:15)
Not a lot to say, I think it's well said. Do you think there's any Russian involvement in these protests that are being organized around the country? Particularly the one in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Robert Draper: (09:26)
I don't know about Kenosha, Anthony, but the New York Times did report on, about a week ago that the intelligence community believed that there was evidence of Russian activity in the protest in Portland, and that they were doing what they could, Russians were actual live bodies on the ground to sort of fan the flames of that sense disorder. Basically, helps stoke the argument that what we need is law and order, and thus what we need is the president. For Kenosha, I'm not aware of any intelligence that indicates that. But it is not a very far leap of the imagination from Portland to Kenosha, to figure that at minimum, they are feeding disinformation that relates to the riots and that maximum were actually participants on it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:12)
Well, I mean, it's just curious, Kenosha, Wisconsin itself, if you look at the electoral map, it's going be very difficult for the president to win without Wisconsin.

Robert Draper: (10:21)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:21)
If you just look at the way the map is shaping itself up. So it's something that is worrisome that you see the activity in Kenosha, certainly the tragedy that took place there and the exacerbation of that tragedy. So we'll have to see what happens. But this is Seminole book, how to start a war. It's a Seminole book. You say something in the introduction, which I loved, the elusive goal of trying to have peace by starting a war. And then you talk a lot about linkages or non-linkages to Saddam Hussein as it related to the trade center. But yet there seemed to be a determined discipline inside the administration that they were going to use 9/11 as a leveraging point to go to war with Iraq. And so tell us about your observations of that administration, what they were doing right, what they were doing wrong and what your conclusions were.

Robert Draper: (11:18)
Sure. I mean, start with this, Anthony, that before 9/11, I really do believe that George W. Bush intended to be a domestic-focused president. He didn't know much about foreign policy. He'd been a governor of a state that bordered Mexico. So he knew a bit about Mexico. And he knew from personal animists, from a family history, a bit about Saddam Hussein. But the evidence to me was pretty clear that Bush didn't want to spend his presidency hugging war widows.

Robert Draper: (11:44)
He wanted to pass tax cuts, education reform, immigration reform. And I mean, that's how he was as governor. He believed in executive should do three or four things, do them right and then let the government take away on its own. 9/11 happened. He wasn't prepared for it. He should have been, there were ample warnings that Al Qaeda was intending to attack the Homeland. And he just simply did not lean into that the way he should have.

Robert Draper: (12:09)
I think you can argue that he overcompensated as a result of that. That he began to look for the next way that he was certain would take place and began to imagine the next wave as being even worse than 9/11, because perhaps an Al Qaeda kind of group would use weapons of mass destruction. But where would they get those WMD from? He began then to imagine that they would perhaps come from this rogue foe of the United States, Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad, as it were.

Robert Draper: (12:38)
You've noticed that he used the word imagine two or three times. And I think that's the real problem and the thing that I uncovered in this saga. That where 9/11 arguably was a failure of the imagination. You could say the Iraq war was a failure of too much imagination, of imagination we're on a mock of. There were intelligence failures to be sure. But the real failure was that the president departed from intelligence altogether and began to think of what could happen.

Robert Draper: (13:04)
And part of what could happen and this goes to what you mentioned about the very beginning of my book, Anthony, is that there was a belief that all sorts of dire things could happen if we didn't go to war. And then alongside that I very sunny belief in all the wonderful things that would happen once we did go to war. That Iraq would erupt in this joyous display of democracy where something like that had never existed before. And this too was a feat of the imagination. And I think a tragic one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:35)
Well, I mean, you mentioned a Harvard professor's name that I haven't heard in a while, names are Laurie Mylroie.

Robert Draper: (13:42)
Laurie Mylroie.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:43)
I think I pronounced right.

Robert Draper: (13:44)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:44)
And she was a big believer that Saddam was part of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. And therefore it had to be linked to the 2001 tragedy. But you didn't find any real intelligence or any real evidence of that, is that correct?

Robert Draper: (14:02)
That's correct. I mean, not only did I not even find any indication whatsoever that Saddam had any linkage to 9/11. But it's also a fallacious as to pursue as Laurie Mylroie did, this notion that he was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attempted bombing. The FBI for a time was pursuing any and all leads of, if the perpetrator were Iraqi or Afghan or from Mars, they didn't care. They just wanted to get who did it.

Robert Draper: (14:30)
But all the leads died, that headed towards Iraq. They thought that, that was a foolish notion. And further, I should mention that Laurie Mylroie also thought that Saddam was behind the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as well. So basically everything that was bad that had happened to the world, she believes Saddam was responsible for it. And we're talking about her, of course, because she's not just some character on the margins. She's someone that people at the Bush administration actually lent credence to most, especially the Deputy Secretary-

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:57)
Paul Wolfowitz.

Robert Draper: (14:57)
... of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who in so many ways was the straw that stirs the drink on the whole Iraq saga.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:04)
See that Reggie Jackson, that you brought up the Reggie Jackson metaphor.

Robert Draper: (15:08)
Yeah, exactly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:08)
Good for you. Yeah. I'm a met fan, Robert. Just take it easy therefore, was the worst loss in met history yesterday, okay? I'm still crying about.

Robert Draper: (15:17)
Oh, come on.

John Darsie: (15:17)
Help is coming Anthony. Help is coming.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:19)
And then I told my brother, I'm not watching the doubleheader. By the third ending, I turned on the TV. When you're a met fan, you live in pain your whole life. But okay, you hurt my feelings about bringing up Reggie Jackson, but let me get back to the show here. The thing I guess I want to ask you about, there was a couple of failures, right? Obviously the weapons of mass destruction. You go into it in the book. Why was that such an epic fail? And then secondarily, there was an opportunity there to have the Republican Guard with Paul Bremer and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, to help contain the insurrection that was taking place or what ultimately became the Iraqi resistance and ISIS, talk about those two failures of ours. What did we miss in that process?

Robert Draper: (16:04)
Sure. One of them was an intelligence failure. The other was an ideological failure. The intelligence failure had to do with a supposition, the intelligence community. And by that, I mean, not just the CIA, but I mean, pretty much every intelligence agency in the world had that Saddam, Iraq, which once had weapons of mass destruction. And, which had used them in fact on the Iranians and on Saddam's own people, that they surely had them again owing largely to the fact that, well, I mean, he certainly behaving like a guy who has them, he hasn't denied, he's had them. And he's pushing around the weapons. The specters are on the ground there.

Robert Draper: (16:46)
And then the intelligence community from there began themselves to take imaginative leaps. They would see literally see trucks coming in and out of known chemical plants and assume that those were decontamination trucks spraying the floors of a chemical weapons facility. They were just water trucks, hosing things down. But this was, again, the manner that if you start with a dark conclusion then you find facts here and there that will conform to that, that's confirmation bias. And unfortunately, the CIA was very much in concert with government officials who also believed the same thing.

Robert Draper: (17:22)
Now, the second part that you mentioned had to do with the failure of the U.S. government to keep the peace in Iraq once we did invade by keeping the Iraq army intact. That actually had been the policy of the Bush administration. It was reversed on the ground by Paul Bremer, the head of our Coalition Provisional Authority. And he did so in concert with the under secretary of Defense for Policy, Doug Feith and an outside advisor named Walt Slocombe. They had this ideological notion that the Iraqi army was filled with bad dudes, with Baathist and that they needed to be basically torched. And rebuilt a new with true believers.

Robert Draper: (18:06)
And this was a kind of idiotic notion, frankly. I mean, to be anybody in the Iraqi regime, you had to be a member of the Ba'ath Party. If you want it to be an electrical engineer, if you wanted it to be a school teacher. And so, yes, you had to pledge fealty to the Ba'ath Party if you wanted to join the army. So the very notion that you could find an altogether different army, an altogether different group of government employees and disband the army as well as the Ba'ath Party in the meantime only meant that you were going to piss off a bunch of Iraqi men who are now unemployed and had guns. And that was really the makings of the insurgency.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:52)
Well, no question. So when I visited Baghdad on a troop support mission in January, 2011, we've met with Lloyd Austin in one of Saddam's old palaces, I guess that was our NATO Headquarters. And he was lamenting that decision. And lamenting how the insurgency developed. But he also, that time we were in the Obama administration, he did not want troop force deployment to drop below 20,000. He said there would be a rise of ISIS. No, I'd never heard of that word or the IS before. And of course that happened. And so some of these decisions are made for political purposes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:30)
You do write in the book that Rove was sort of thinking we've got to get the war started before Labor Day, or at least get the rumblings going so that we could get the election cycle turned on. And wartime presidents don't get usually sent home, they usually get reelected. How much of these mistakes that we made in To Start a War, your book, were born from politics as opposed to policy?

Robert Draper: (19:57)
Yeah, well, I mean, that's a well phrased question, Anthony, because I do think that you have to kind of parse this and, or dis-aggregate it. And Bush's case again, for all of his many flaws I do not think that he went to war for political reasons. I don't think he went to war to get oil. I don't think he went to war to appease Israel. I think he truly went to war because he felt the need to protect America after he had failed to do so on September the 11th. And I do not think the political considerations factored into that.

Robert Draper: (20:27)
I do think though that for those people who gave a glide path to war that I should say people on Capitol Hill, it was rife with political considerations. Therefore, all these Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, including Joe Biden and certainly Hillary Clinton, who gave the president authorization to use military force. They were very aware of the fact, Anthony, that in 1991, when a vote for military force for a war last came up in the first Gulf War, all these Democrats voted against it because their memory of war was this intractable forever war of Vietnam. And they didn't want to be attached to that in any way.

Robert Draper: (21:05)
They voted against the first Gulf War. The first Gulf war ended up lasting all of 100 hours. It was a roaring success. And the presidential ambitions of Sam Nunn, one of the Democrats who voted against it were immediately squashed. And so there were a lot of Democrats who thought on that going that way again. And we hope war will be as tidy this time as it was last time. And so I do think that, you see among Democrats and certainly among Republicans who felt the need to stay with their wartime president, a number of considerations that don't look entirely fact-based, they do have the ring of politics to them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:45)
If you had a member of the policy establishment, Republican or Democrat read this book. And some of it reminded me actually, of Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman in terms of like the different scenarios that were coming up, what would you want a policy person to take away as a teachable moment from your book?

Robert Draper: (22:04)
Yeah, I think it's that, I mean, because war is so messy, because war invariably entails second and third order consequences that you don't foresee that tend not to be good, then you need to follow the truth. You need to have an earnest pursuit of precisely whether war is merited and precisely what will happen when you do go to war.

Robert Draper: (22:32)
And I think that the infuriating thing, and that's the word that I've heard most often ascribe to my narrative in this book is that there's so much of that any half serious inquisition of the truth would lead you to that Iraqis had no experience in self-governing. They had no experience in democracy, that there were these sectarian tensions. That there was in fact, no hard cold evidence of weapons of mass destruction, that there was no evidence whatsoever that Saddam, even if he did have weapons intended to use them against America.

Robert Draper: (23:11)
And if we had gotten out from under our biases and simply pursued where the truth had led, we would have been left with a conclusion that war was not only unnecessary, but undesirable. And it seems like so basic that just follow the facts would be the advice that this book offers policymakers, but it is a reminder of just what kinds of disasters can ensue if you don't follow the facts.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:40)
And it's interesting. So then I would say in summary, To Start a War is basically the lesson here is how to not start a war, that's ultimately what it is. Because by not starting a war, you don't get all of these unintended consequences that take place. So I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie, who's in his new venue there in North Carolina. He's trying to pretend that he's a Southern now, instead of the rank wash that I know him to be. And he's got some questions from the audience. So go ahead, John.

Robert Draper: (24:11)
Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:12)
John is really-

John Darsie: (24:12)
Yeah, definitely, I've been trying to tell everybody-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:14)
... this is just an image improvement for him. Draper-

John Darsie: (24:15)
... I'm just an [inaudible 00:24:16].

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:16)
... just so you know, this is an image improvement. Go ahead, John.

Robert Draper: (24:17)
Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:17)
But for myself I'm you John.

John Darsie: (24:18)
I'm just [inaudible 00:24:18] trying to convince everybody that I'm a Northeastern WASP by having those paintings and everything in the background, but I'm back to my roots now. So I can talk in my Southern accent and feel comfortable. I don't know, Robert's a Houston guy. So he sympathizes with me a little bit.

Robert Draper: (24:33)
I can understand what you're saying, yeah.

John Darsie: (24:34)
There you go. You wrote another great book in 2012 called Do Not Ask What Good We Do. It was later republished under the title When the Tea Party Came to Town. And this is switching gears a little bit. The book was about the actions of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress during President Obama's first term. And in basically the gist of a lot of what you talk about is how Republicans got together after Obama was elected and vowed to do everything they could to fight his agenda at all costs. Was that different and more hyper-partisan than other periods in history? And what do you think now if Biden is to win the election and he sets out his agenda in his first term, what do you think politicians in the Democratic Party have learned from that period of time? And how do you think it's affected governance and the periods since President Obama's first term?

Robert Draper: (25:25)
Yeah, sure, John. I mean, I do think that the period that my book begins with, so right after Obama's election or right after his inauguration is not dissimilar to what happened when Newt Gingrich's revolution led the Republicans to take over the house in January of 1995. At least the intention was to grind Democratic Party policies to a screeching hall and to overrun a conservative revolution. But in practice, what you'll recall is that Gingrich actually worked with then President Clinton quite successfully on a number of measures. And this really teed off a lot of Republican house members who thought that he was being a little too acquiescent of Clinton, maybe falling prey to the president's a silver tongue. But the fact is that it was not a time of nonstop gridlock.

Robert Draper: (26:28)
What you described as the prologue to my book, Do Not Ask What Good We Do, is that hours after Obama's inauguration all these Republicans are gathered in a steakhouse kind of licking their wounds. And by the end of the evening, they've come up with a battle plan to thwart anything, and everything that this new president does. So rather than it being, let's figure out a way to work together, but to move things towards our side, it's basically, we're going to find this president on everything.

Robert Draper: (26:56)
That's a kind of fight club mentality that I think we have come to see all the way till now. I mean, it's kind of reached its apotheosis right now where the president of the United States, has basically said, I'm going to have as little to do with Capitol Hill as possible. I'm going to bend that institution as well as practically any other institution to my will. And it does kind of beg a question, will we ever get back to a moment where there are not only checks and balances between the legislative and executive branch, but also a kind of inter-party commonality between the two parties on Capitol Hill such that there won't be this constant kneecapping or thwarting of any objectives, but instead a working together? I honestly don't see any evidence that we will easily come back to that.

Robert Draper: (27:53)
I mean, John, I think that the axiom had always been that while in times of crisis Americans come together. Coronavirus constitutes a crisis where anything but a come together nation at this point.

John Darsie: (28:08)
So you think Donald Trump is more of a symptom of greater division than necessarily the disease and something that we can overcome with someone like Joe Biden, who actually been criticized in democratic circles for talking about his history of working across the aisle.

Robert Draper: (28:23)
Yeah. Well, I think you're right.

John Darsie: (28:24)
So, I-

Robert Draper: (28:26)
Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, no, I'm just going to say that. Yeah, I do think that, that's the case, yeah.

John Darsie: (28:30)
Yeah. You can elaborate on it, and then I'm going to switch gears to another audience question.

Robert Draper: (28:33)
No problem. Yeah. So I do think that Trump is symptomatic, but he's also an accelerant of it. I mean, he exacerbated something that already existed.

John Darsie: (28:47)
So as I was researching this SALT Talk, I found interesting the juxtaposition between your article about Trump's battles with the U.S. intelligence community and your book about how members of the Bush administration, which is, you could call an established administration sort of gain the intelligence system to reach an outcome that they wanted. Is Trump right in some ways to question intelligence at face value and take a more skeptical view of the intelligence community? Or is this something that's very dangerous and leads us into sort of a post truth world that you think is going to be hard to get the horses back in the barn?

Robert Draper: (29:19)
Well, he would be right to question the intelligence at face value, or rather not to accept it at face value, to be a skeptic. I think one should always be. So one should always ask the next question. Well, who's your sourcing on this? Are you sure about this? Could it be XYZ? That's unfortunately not what the president's doing. Instead, the president is first of all using the WMD fiasco, something that I think that the intelligence community has learned a great deal from as an excuse to say, "We don't ever need to trust these guys because look how badly they bungled it before."

Robert Draper: (29:54)
And then situationally to take the intelligence that he likes while any intelligence that happens to be politically inconvenient to him, for example, the notion that Russia interfered in the election to sway the election to his favor as something that is baloney. I mean, he didn't decide and locate Soleimani himself. I mean, he did that with the help of the intel community. Now he's taking credit for it. Fine. That's what presidents do.

Robert Draper: (30:23)
But Al-Baghdadi's assassination, Soleimani's assassination came because the intelligence community means to pinpoint their locations. He approved it, signed off on it, and those are clear intelligence triumphs. So you cannot say even if you're Donald Trump, that we should never listen to these guys. The question is, do you only listen to them when they succeeded at something and then you blame them when something doesn't succeed? And I'm afraid, that's what we've been seeing most recently.

John Darsie: (30:54)
Right. I had to play devil's advocate a little bit just to get the answer out of you, but I think we all know the answer to that question. So I want to switch gears again a little bit back to the Middle East. So we recently had our SALT Conference in Abu Dhabi in the UAE. We've also had a lot of Israeli entrepreneurs at our SALT Conferences, including actually at SALT Abu Dhabi. So I'm not going to say we take credit for the Abraham Accord between the UAE and Israel. But it's definitely a step in the right direction in terms of fostering economic cooperation, which leads to geopolitical cooperation in the region. Do you think that's a template and sort of a precursor to a greater stability and understanding within the region? Do you think it's an outlier? Or what do you think the future of the region is? And do we have hope to empower some of these countries economically and hopefully lead to a dialing down of some of the extremism and hate that exists between different countries in the region?

Robert Draper: (31:48)
Sure. I mean, I don't want to short sell that achievement. Anything that leads to more cooperation between Israel and the Arab countries is something to be applauded. And I'll also caveat that I'm by no means an expert on this. It does seem to me, however, to be an accord that kind of amounts to low hanging fruit. It's not exactly one that benefits say the Palestinians or brings them to the table. It's one that has a lot of economic and actual arms implications to it. Again, I think it's an important first step as long as you recognize that, that's what it is. That it is an area that both sides are likely as to agree on. And then from there you get to the harder part. But I would not assume as the Trump administration has been kind of advertising this as anything that is greater and more encompassing a victory than it is. It's a start, is what it is.

John Darsie: (32:55)
So again switching gears back to U.S. politics a little bit. So, there's this idea that, Trump has the anti-establishment candidate, right? After years that we had one Bush, we had a Clinton, we had another Bush, and then we had president Obama as the only non-Bush or Clinton president, or then candidate against Donald Trump in 2016. How much do you think people like George W. Bush and the so-called establishment is to blame for the rise of someone like Donald Trump, who again, he's an avatar for people's hate of sort of the upper classes of America in some ways as Anthony has written and spoken about in the past. How much do you assign, blame or do you owe the rise of a figure like him to failures of the Bush administration and others like him in the American establishment?

Robert Draper: (33:46)
Yeah, I think I'll pass on the word blame and go with your amended version of the question, which is-

John Darsie: (33:52)
There you go.

Robert Draper: (33:55)
... how much is can be traced back to, because I do think that the whole generation of Americans has grown up now with a view that the U.S. government is not on the level. And that goes back to Iraq. That goes back to Bush, a man in a White House, in the Oval Office telling us we need to go to war against this guy, because he's going to kill us. And it turns out not to be the case at all. And it's for the case that anti-establishment had been building up for quite a while. I think on both sides we had seen establishment presidencies not deliver, but of course it's always much more complicated than that.

Robert Draper: (34:35)
It's not as if that Barack Obama was himself the ultimate insider when he came to Washington and he did however, have a kind of insight or a view that we should work with both parties. And if there's one major failure, at least according to Obama, as he's saying it these days, that one can lay at the doorstep of this presidency is that he was willing to trust the establishment, trust the institutions too much. So you can argue, I guess that Donald Trump came in basically saying it's time to blow everything up.

Robert Draper: (35:07)
But I lend less credence to that given the fact that so many members of his cabinet have essentially used Washington as their personal piggy bank that the swamp far from being drained, it's hardly a populous swamp. It's more like a swamp that he has bent to his will. But one in which there is every bit as much lavish profiteering as there was before. So what he has framed as kind of anti-establishment presidency is really only anti-establishment and so far as the establishment has shrunk to the size of a bathtub. And the person in the bathtub is Donald Trump.

John Darsie: (35:49)
Right. We have a question from our audience, sort of a followup, I think from a UK based participant about given the United Kingdom and its experiences in the past in the Middle East, negative experiences, and even in Iraq, how do you think George W. Bush despite having sort of flimsy intelligence that drove the decision to invade Iraq, how was he able to get Tony Blair and another massive country like the United Kingdom to join the Iraq War?

Robert Draper: (36:16)
Well, partly because Blair was in a sense already there. Had been giving major speeches about Saddam being a threat to the Middle East and someone who ought to be deposed. So part of it's that. And all of that precedes Bush's presidency. Part of it also was that Blair really did believe in the importance of the UK as the indispensable ally to the U.S. and he did not want to forfeit that. He believed in particular after September 11th, that global coalitions were going to form and UK needed to be by the U.S. side.

Robert Draper: (36:58)
He also believed, Blair, that he could curb Bush's potentially reckless appetite and make sure that he was staying within the guardrails and being mindful and respectful of international institutions, such as the United Nations. And so that he would not go it alone. But what is clear is that, Blair was going to stick with him no matter what. And indeed there is a memo that has since been declassified of Tony Blair in the summer of 2002, or maybe even spring of 2002, writing to Bush saying, "George, I will be with you, whatever." So, it didn't take much. Blair saw the stakes and figured he'd better be by Bush aside.

John Darsie: (37:39)
Right. This is a last question that I'll leave our audience with. You've been analyzing U.S. politics for over many eras, you wrote about the Tea Party movement, and you've even seen some Tea Party insurgents in Congress now become the establishment. So this whole thing runs in cycles. You wrote about the Bush administration. You've written at length about the Trump administration. And most recently in that great article in New York Times Magazine about his battles with the intelligence community. If you look out in 10 years from now in your expert opinion, where do you see the state of U.S. politics? Is it going to continue to remain in such turmoil in a way that anytime we have a shift in power that the other side just employs dirty tricks that trying to prevent that side's agenda from being prosecuted? Or do you think there is some path to bipartisanship and a little bit more patriotism in terms of trying to address issues that are facing the country?

Robert Draper: (38:34)
Well, I guess, what I'd say is that the next really couple of years will tell the tale on that and how we manage. I mean, we're now at 180,000 casualties as a result of the coronavirus. And if within a year's time, this continues unabated then I really do think we will see a kind of civil war. I don't mean that necessarily literally, but certainly, a country that has essentially been cloven into and a country that, because it has been cloven to diminishes in stature both economically and geopolitically. And it will experience a real and perhaps permanent decline. That's if we don't get our arms around this. Getting our arms around the coronavirus will entail I think working together. And the working together may not take place immediately. And whether this is under a suddenly enlightened Trump administration or under a Biden and Harris administration it will require strong leadership one way or another.

Robert Draper: (39:40)
And one hopes that, that kind of success will be in elixir, the begets more success than it actually awakens an appetite for bipartisanship. But even as I say this, it's hard not to kind of descend into gloominess and wonder just how that will happen if it hasn't happened already. And in particular, how it will happen. The second term of a president who now realizes that there are absolutely no checks on his behavior. I guess, theoretically, that could make him more unlined, this could make him think now I have nothing to prove anymore, and I'm willing to actually make Infrastructure Week happen. But I wouldn't place all my money on that.

John Darsie: (40:28)
Right. Well, thanks so much for joining us, Robert. You've written on a very diverse set of very interesting topics. We look forward to your next feature article in New York Times Magazine, as well as your next book. I'll let Anthony have a final word.

Robert Draper: (40:40)
Alright, thanks, John.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:42)
Well, listen, we don't say this lightly. This was an amazing book, Robert. I really enjoyed it. I think it'll be a Seminole study. People will look at this 25 years from now in terms of understanding the era and the direction that we went in. And hopefully it'll teach people to avoid some of the mistakes that were made. But in any event I want to personally thank you for coming on. I hope we get a chance to get you back after the election so that we can talk a little bit about where the future is. Not only for the intelligence community, but for the United States. So thank you, Robert. Appreciate you being here.

Robert Draper: (41:13)
Thanks so much for having me, Anthony, and I'd be delighted to come back.