Juliet Scott-Croxford: How to Create Wealth in the Founder Community | SALT Talks #146

"USA is a country of a lot of opportunity, but it requires a lot of unity and mobilization.”

Juliet Scott-Croxford currently serves as CEO for the media brand Worth, responsible for leading its transformation from a print magazine to a content platform that focuses on ‘Worth beyond Wealth.’

Building around a mission that a person’s worth is more than a person’s financial wealth offered a compelling approach for a media company. All media has been in the process of handling the rapid shift from print to digital. This digital advertising space poses a whole new set of challenges. All of the challenges were made even more complicated by the pandemic that eliminated an important live event revenue vertical. “We flipped into more of a mindset of experimentation rather than being paralyzed by it.”

The pandemic necessitated outside-of-the-box thinking that has benefitted the company. This includes building out the Women in Worth audience with a subscription model and finding new ways to connect.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Juliet Scott-Croxford.jpeg

Juliet Scott-Croxford

Chief Executive Officer

Worth Media

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie, I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conference Series which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts as well as provide a platform for big ideas that we think are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Juliet Scott-Croxford to SALT Talks. Juliet currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer for media brand, Worth, responsible for leading its transformation from print magazine to a content platform that focuses on worth beyond wealth and inspires and informs an affluent, influential and successful community of individuals to be their best selves.

John Darsie: (01:05)
Juliet began her career as a management consultant, learning to code at IBM Consulting Services, before focusing on business strategy and organizational change, working with clients to solve complex business problems across a variety of sectors through the use of technology. Her experience in this area took her to a role at Boxwood, which is now part of KPMG, where she worked as a senior consultant in strategy and business change with a focus on the media and technology sector. After working as a consultant with Guardian News & Media on its print to digital strategy, in 2012 she was confirmed in a permanent role to lead strategy and operations for the Guardian Media Group’s commercial division based in London. Juliet joined the Guardian’s executive committee in 2015 and, as Chief Delivery Officer, was responsible for the strategic implementation of the global three year turnaround plan and subsequent transformation and growth for the Guardian’s US operation, relocating to New York in 2016.

John Darsie: (02:08)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the Founder and Managing Partner of Sky Bridge 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: (02:21)
Well, thank you John, and Juliet, what an introduction that was, right? That was pretty good. Did your mom write that? Did John read it the way your mom wrote it, because I thought it was a fabulous introduction.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (02:32)
I know. It's a bit long isn't it? Thank you John for doing that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:35)
No, I like it. I want people to know...

John Darsie: (02:37)
She's done a lot of stuff, Anthony. She's very decorated.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:39)
I want people to know how accomplished she is and what a visionary she is, it's a good backdrop for the foundational aspects of the interview. But before we get into the where you are now at Worth and what you're doing what your vision is I want you to talk a little bit more about your past. What can we learn about you Juliet that we wouldn't find on a Wikipedia page or something that John didn't describe to our listeners?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (03:07)
Well, I guess professionally, I had the nickname Velvet Hammer. That was that was one that hasn't been out there before but that was one of my nicknames in my previous company.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:22)
And this is because you have a wonderful way of smacking people around? Or what is it?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (03:28)
I think it was a good way of graceful change.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:33)
Graceful change. Yes. It's an elegant way that you...

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (03:37)
Or put it this way. Get shit done but do it in a way that brings people along with you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:43)
So you're better at firing people than George Clooney was in that movie where he traveled around the earth firing people. Is that what you're saying?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (03:49)
It wasn't just firing people, it's bringing people along on the journey that you need to take them on.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:57)
Okay, so I've been fired more than once in my life. Well, one time I got fired from the White House. You may not have known that, I mean, that was sort of a private firing, it wasn't really that substantially publicized. And then I got fired 30 years ago, February 1, 1991, so it'll be my 30th anniversary being fired from Goldman Sachs. I was 27 years old, it was brutal firing. Then ridiculously, I got rehired in the Goldman Sachs, separate story. So go ahead, I want you to fire me, go ahead. Give me the Velvet Hammer, go ahead, I'm sitting here. Let's see if you can do it, let's see if you can do it in a more nice way than John Kelly did when I was in the White House, so go ahead, Hi Juliet.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (04:38)
Hi Anthony, I'm not firing you on on our live broadcast.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:43)
You're not firing, okay so that's why you're the Velvet Hammer. See that? You're going to for the more subtle approach is that correct?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (04:49)
Yeah exactly. But it's more in reference to I think being able to set a goal and bring people along on that journey and take a business on that journey I think, that that was more the reference to it. But yeah, it's not necessarily firing people. And then another thing that I should mention is in like eight to nine weeks, I'm having a baby, which not many people know about because we're suddenly in this virtual world and unless you say something, you don't know. And we haven't got a name yet so maybe you can help me with that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:25)
Well, I mean I guessed appropriately and correctly that you're having a boy so I'm hoping that Anthony is at the top of the list but I mean we could work on that.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (05:36)
Maybe The Mooch.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:36)
Could you imagine calling The Mooch Scott-Croxford, I know that would really go over.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (05:40)
Bit of a mouthful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:40)
Well, exactly that would go over well in the Scott-Crochett. Okay, so let's switch gears abruptly to Worth magazine and congratulations on baby number two, god bless you, and obviously we're here at Sky we're huge fans of yours and your family, we're wishing you nothing but great health and success.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (05:59)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:00)
But let's talk about Worth because you have this storied career, you have an eye for things, everything that you've touched frankly has been transformed. You joined Worth because you saw something, you've gotten this thing that you've seen in your vision has been interrupted by the pandemic, so you're an entrepreneur. No whining, you're adapting and pivoting. So tell us that narrative, tell us why you joined Worth, what you saw, what you see now, and where are things going?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (06:28)
Yeah, and I think that there was a few things that I saw and the first one obviously being our Chairman and Investor Jim McCann, who you know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:37)
Yes.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (06:37)
He is a visionary and has an incredible story, and I know he's been on these talks prior to that so I mean for me, that was clearly an attraction in that you work for people that you think you can learn and develop from. And so Jim was one of those people. Coupled with I think the brand name Worth, that really intrigued me just in terms of what's the meaning and what's the meaning of Worth beyond your financial worth, which I thought was quite relevant in the society that we live in today, just thinking about your social and human and political capital as well as your human capital, as well as your financial capital. And then the other thing is I like a challenge so I think I saw a brand that had potential. I quite like a turnaround project or something that I can kind of see, "Okay, here are the challenges, I've got some kind of understanding of where the media industry is heading and [crosstalk 00:07:45].

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:44)
Not to interrupt but let's discuss the challenges openly because I think many people in media have similar challenges so here are the challenges, what are the challenges, Juliet?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (07:54)
I mean challenge number one was consumers changing their habits when it comes to consumption of media and consumption of reading. So you probably, well, maybe you're a bad example, but a lot of people stopped reading newspapers on a daily basis and they were using their iPhones or their iPads or their mobile devices to consume content. So that was one kind of change that that media industries had to get to grips with. The other was the impact on the advertising industry. So the value of advertising in print was much higher than in digital. Then when you shift to digital there was then a massive introduction of the tech platforms, Google, Facebook, they started hoovering up all the ad dollars so 99 cents in every dollar goes to the big tech platform, so the other media entities are sort of scrambling around for the rest.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (08:52)
And then a lot of media industries particularly legacy ones had a massively high cost base so they were sort of under challenge around their products, they were under challenge around how they were making their revenue and they were also challenged by the size of their cost space which is obviously kind of built up. So anyone going through a transformation had to kind of think about all of those three things I think.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:14)
Okay, so to some people, some of that stuff frankly is insurmountable. You correctly assess me for being the dinosaur that I actually am so I read everything in hard print and I like to see where the editors put things in the newspapers, I'm always buying the Fred Flintstone newspaper as opposed to looking at it on the tablet. So an insurmountable challenge. I'm sorry, you're going to say something.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (09:38)
I didn't put you in that category because you're a dinosaur, you're a media junkie I think. And so you love consuming content right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:48)
Look at the velvetness of this, that's very good. That's like a way of velvetizing something, right?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (09:49)
Yes, exactly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:54)
Yeah, that's very well said. And I'll take it as a compliment even though I know that I'm a dinosaur, and I'm also male, pale, and stale which I want to talk to you about in a second but let's go to these challenges. So how do you overcome these challenges? And again, some may see them as insurmountable in the media industry. You don't. Why not?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (10:23)
I think... Look, I love change and I thrive on that. I think a big part of them not being insurmountable is the way you lead and the way you set your culture and approach to change. So I think the media companies that have adapted really well are the ones that have stayed nimble. A lot of them have shrunk, which unfortunately has had impacts. But I think a lot of people have recognized, you could no longer set a three or five or five year financial plan. It's like, "Okay, let's be clear on where we want to get to in the next three years but actually let's break that down and think about what we're going to do quarter by quarter and then the outcomes that we're seeing helping us get to our overarching goal."

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (11:08)
So a lot of it I think was about mindset and mentality and culture and approach to some of these things, which isn't too dissimilar to how an entrepreneur or a startup would approach something where you need to have that mindset of being a bit more scrappy, a bit more bootstrapped, but also the clarity and I think probably the conviction to say ,and the ambition of, "Right, this is what we're going to achieve and this is where we're going to go." But also be prepared to make difficult decisions along the way, which unfortunately is attacking yout cost base as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:41)
Okay, and so you're doing that successfully, you got off to a strong start, then you got hit with the pandemic. And so how have you adapted and pivoted during the time of COVID-19.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (11:56)
Yeah. I mean, it's been really, really tough. Like a lot of businesses, we transitioned from magazine to multi-channel platform, one of our highest growing channels was the live event space. And obviously sort of come February, March last year we had to flip everything we were doing to our digital platform. Thankfully, we had invested and built up a digital platform and we'd seen strong growth in our digital platform, so we like over 130,000 monthly unique visitors which has grown significantly. And we knew that through this time, we still wanted to deepen the engagement and the relationship that we had with our community and grow it. So we were like, "Okay. Well, let's move all of our programming online and then let's really rethink the content that we're publishing so that it connects with the community that we are engaging," and that's what we did.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (12:55)
Some things worked, some things didn't. We're definitely going into this year being a bit more pointed and focused on the things that we want to continue. But we essentially just picked up our live event program and flipped that to our online channel. And then at the same time, launched a couple of new revenue streams so our women and work membership was one, we also done this books deal with a book publisher recognizing that a lot of our community want to publish their work. So we just sort of kind of I would say flipped into more of a mindset of experimentation, rather than be paralyzed by it, and I think that was probably one of the the sort of benefits of navigating through it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:41)
And I think the point of everything, and correct me if I'm wrong though, is that the challenges have also presented opportunities for you because you probably are now thinking way more outside your comfort zone and the box, so to speak, than you were prior, right?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (13:58)
Totally.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:58)
So give us one example where you say. "Okay. Well, I wouldn't have thought of that but for COVID-19 and it is leading me into a very positive revenue area."

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (14:09)
Yeah. I mean, I think the Women in Worth initiative and platform is a great example of that. We had quite an established engaged community already. We were thinking about subscription but it flipped us into a membership model much quicker than we would have done otherwise. It's also afforded us to, I think, connect and build a network with people we wouldn't have necessarily reached before. And you may find the same, I think a lot of people are at home and are available, so being able to reach out to certain speakers and writers has been great. The book piece was interesting because we basically started a book club online which was like, there's a load of people publishing their work but they're not being able to do the touring that they would have been able to do when you launch a book. So we we were like, "Well, we'll create something for you," and out of that came this strategic partnership that we've done with forefront books who distribute through Simon Schuster, to enable people that want to be an author and publish their work to do it on our platform so we can market it for them and they can also get all of the distribution and all of that at the same time. So there's some stuff like that which is like, that wouldn't have come had we been continuing the way we were.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:26)
Okay. Well, I have a great book that I'm going to be writing and publishing, How to Beat Up on Blonde Millennial Co-hosts, and so I'm going to publish that through you guys, okay? I've been working on the manuscript every day.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (15:38)
I'm going to follow you up with you after this [inaudible 00:15:41].

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:40)
I'll follow up because it's going to be a good revenue source for you and I. I want to go to this statement that you made on a business leaders podcast and you made a point about transitioning Worth from pale, male, and stale. Now there's one thing I can say about Jim McCann, who I've known for 30 years, okay, he is pale, male, and stale, I'm just going to be honest with you, okay? But so am I, okay, so it's like a black pot calling a black kettle, black. So what did you mean by that and how are you increasing diversity engagement in addition to the power forward conference?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (16:17)
So I meant by that the magazine because essentially, the core product was a magazine. And the diversity of our writers and our content and sort of what we stood for, it was quite stale. It didn't necessarily appeal to a cross-section of what I would term a successful influential audience. So one of the sort of early things that I recognized was actually the importance of expanding the breadth of what we cover, but also diversifying our audience. And in order to do that, we established the Women and Worth community, so that was all around how do we activate and accelerate progress for women and minorities, whether it's access to the board, access to capital, access to investment, equity, and pay, equal opportunities. And men are important in that conversation, so that that's the other thing I want to say was this isn't like a men aren't... We need advocates and we need more than allies in this conversation and this is more than it's not just the right thing to do.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (17:40)
We know that it's better for the bottom line, we know diversity greater diversity of thought, greater diversity at the board level drives to better outcomes. So really that is the intention, and then unfortunately the impact on women over the past 12 months and the number of women leaving the workforce has been devastating. So it was really a recognition of, here is a print product, we need to diversify how we're reaching our audience but we also need to diversify our audience at the same time, and the way to do that is through, who is in our team, who is writing our content, and who is speaking on our platform.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:21)
And that's been successful. I mean, I think it has. I mean, I get your email traffic, I get the availability of your presentations but also the content that you're producing. And so now, let me just fast forward, a little bit of a hypothetical question. We're out of the pandemic and it's a year or two from now and you're setting your goals, where is Worth and what is Worth doing?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (18:49)
I'd like to think... The other thing I just want to add to that male, pale, stale comment is the need for brands, including ourselves, to emulate your target audience. And if we're trying to connect with a successful, socially conscious, affluent audience, actually if you look at the demographic in the US, that's changing significantly. So really, it's a, if you're trying to reach this audience, then you need to emulate that yourself so that's kind of the key thing. Fast forward a few years from now, I mean I think, really we're striving to be a global media, an event and content platform that has an incredibly engaged audience focused on the key topics that we speak to around Worth beyond wealth. And I think there's a lot of opportunity to diversify and build out new franchises. I think the entrepreneur and founder space is very interesting and and really sort of thinking about the wealth transition in this country over the next three, five, 10 years. So that, for me, is exciting.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (20:02)
I think we should explore e-commerce opportunities, I think we should explore physical products as well as content and events. And I also think just kind of thinking about where does the event industry go from here is also another interesting one I think it will move to a hybrid model, I'm not convinced it will go back to where we were. So I think the use of technology with physical and how does that mesh together I think is a very interesting space to be in.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:37)
You are from the United Kingdom.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (20:41)
Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:42)
And how long have you lived in the United States?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (20:46)
It will be five years in August.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:49)
Okay. And so the first... I mean you visited the United States, I'm making assumptions now forgive me. I'm assuming you visited the United States prior to that but that was the first time you became a resident of the US. Is that fair to say?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (21:02)
Yeah. My grandfather was American so I visited a lot as a kid. And then my role at the Guardian I had a global role so I came over to New York a lot on business and then I came over an assignment in August of 2016 and then have lived here ever since.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:21)
Okay. So I want to ask a question about your observation of the United States over the last five years is what?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (21:36)
It's interesting because I've just lived through the last four years of the Trump Administration. I think it's a it's a country of opportunity but I think it's also a country that requires a lot of unity and I think now is the time to mobilize as a nation and not as separate parties around some real systemic issues. I think that there's a slight identity crisis that the nation has gone through, but I also think it's an incredible country that offers a lot of opportunity, which is one of the reasons why I'm here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:24)
Tell me about this identity crisis, if you don't mind. So what is the identity crisis?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (22:31)
I think the interesting thing that we've seen over the past year, take the first week of this year for example and what happened in the Capitol. There was a lot of people that said, "This is not the America we know." And then there's a lot of conversations I was having in the background which is like actually it is, this is the America we know and we have to acknowledge that, and we have to recognize that, and we have to see that in order to get to some of the core systemic issues that still manifest and have built themselves up over many years here, and the racial inequities included, in order to move forward. And I think there are... I mean COVID has obviously demonstrated the wealth disparities in this country. The leadership obviously has been incredibly challenged and so I think there's just like a number of things that have come together in one go that I think for a lot of people are sort of doing quite a lot of soul searching and looking at, "Okay, who are we, what do we stand for, and what should we be going forward?" That's a jumbled response but I just think there's so many things.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:55)
I think it's well said because I obviously lived here for 57 years, less my half a year in London. I would say that my identity crisis that I see is this is America that's transforming and there's a group of White Americans, if I'm going to be very candid, that don't really like the transformation and have decided that they are going to have this expiation of their discontent with that transformation to be expressed in the ways that they're expressing it. That could either be in social media, that could be in protest movements, that could be in, frankly, an insurrection in the nation's capital. But, by and large, the country is moving towards trying to fix racial inequities that started several hundred years ago, and what you find in a country like this is that, any time that black and brown people are advancing, there's some type of explosion in White America, and so that's just the fact. So I don't know how we're going to put that down over long periods of time but we sort of need to if we're all going to go forward together and see each other as equals.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:06)
We'll have to see if we can we can do that Juliet, but I'm super thrilled to have you here in the country and uh doing all these great entrepreneurial things that you're doing. And I was just kidding about beating up on blonde millennials because I actually need the blonde millennial for ratings, you know what I mean, so we're not going to write that book that I was just teasing about.

John Darsie: (25:25)
I already already submitted the hr complaint Anthony so you're not going wiggle out of that one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
Well Juliet, I'm sure you'll be amused by this and horrified by this but I'll just let you know in front of our SALT Cast viewers that I am the Head of HR at Sky Bridge, okay? I am the head of union capital.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (25:43)
That doesn't surprise me, Anthony. [inaudible 00:25:44] scary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:44)
Of course. So if there's a complaint or there's an issue or there's a slight born from political incorrectness, the complaints have to come to me, so look at that already in my inbox from the blonde millennial as a complaint that he was harassed here on the SALT Talk, it's horrifying. But with that, I want to transition over to John Darsie because in order to keep our ratings going, we have to have these young fresh faces and so John you have the floor, okay? I'm sure I missed important things that need to be talked about so I'm going to pass it over to you now.

John Darsie: (26:21)
All right, fantastic, I appreciate it. I'm contractually obligated to get at least one third of the air time on every episode so thank you for meeting my contract Anthony, I appreciate that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:30)
He was asking he was asking for two-thirds Juliet, you know how these millennials are, okay? But I pushed back hard. Go ahead Darsie.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (26:39)
And you got the mic.

John Darsie: (26:40)
Absolutely. Well, we love working with you guys at Worth and I know we collaborated a lot on the 2019 SALT Conference and look forward to collaborating on future events once those become possible again, hopefully in the latter part of 2021, we have some announcements coming out on hopefully our event schedule for the second half of the year. Just wanted to start off on that note, and as a thought leadership brand that's in some ways similar to Worth, we've wrestled with the same issues and one question I have for you is, how are you planning... I know you've made a transition you helped with the Guardian's transition to a more digital first operation and you're helping Worth with that transition as well. But how do you continue to stay sort of at the forefront of innovation with platforms like TikTok and other ultra short form content? What we think of as short form now, which might have been Facebook and Instagram, a few years ago, now is condensed into 30 seconds. We had two of the top TikTok personalities on SALT Talks a couple days ago, Josh Richards and Griffin Johnson. How do you continue to stay at the forefront of that and communicate with a younger audience in a way that's native to them?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (27:47)
Yeah, it's a really good question. I think there's a sort of higher order question which is, our partners and brands, how do you create experiences for brands that are valuable in an online world? And then coupled with, where is your community or where is your target audience and how are you going to reach them? We're not currently on TikTok but I would say I think it's a misnomer that it's all Gen Z's actually there's a lot of... I actually think it's an incredibly influential platform and I have a good friend that works there. We are on other social channels and we do really look at the analytics of where our community comes from, how do they find our content, and what do they read, and what do they then click through to?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (28:41)
And it's all of those insights that help inform for us, "Okay, what content do we produce next? Where should we find more of our audience and how do we reach and engage them in a bigger way?" So I think it's difficult if your business model is solely reliant on those platforms. But if they are helping you find your audience then I think you should totally go with it. I mean, I'm just generally interested in tech platforms anyway so I would just sort of be on them and thinking about them in that way.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (29:20)
I think the other interesting thing John is the... What's the notion of social interactions in a digital format? So not just kind of Zoom, but how do you really do business development, how do you really network and build relationships? And there's some interesting new platforms that we've sort of played around with. One is Sophya, which is, the founders have developed this through Harvard innovation Lab. And it's a really interesting platform to go in and it's based on proximity so you walk up to someone in a room or in a virtual bar and then you come on and you start talking to each other and then you move away and they go away and you meet someone else. So I just think that whole 3D world of not only... I think we're all missing face-to-face connections but how do you create those in an online world is quite interesting.

John Darsie: (30:12)
Yeah. I want to continue to talk about that because I'm interested in a lot of the same things, and as event organizers, I think we think about these things on a professional level as well. There's a platform Clubhouse for example that just got another big round of funding from Andreessen Horowitz, which again, they're trying to reimagine social interaction in a digital world, and media in a world where people are craving some level of social interaction without being able to physically meet. Have you studied Clubhouse and what do you make of that model of sort of drop in podcasts and conversations in a topical format?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (30:46)
Yeah. I'm on it and I know a couple of the investors fairly well. I think it's really interesting, I think it's an interesting model. I mean, right now it's audio only, right? So I think it'd be interesting to see where they go on the video side of things. It's very much community driven but it's also kind of I think very much born out of Silicon Valley as well so you kind of get a certain group of people in a certain conversation. But I think it's an interesting innovation and I think the growth of that community is impressive in the last 12 months. I think it's just understanding, I mean, I'm not sure what the revenue model is yet for them because there's no advertising, there's no subscription. I imagine, they'll go down a subscription route I think. But yeah, I mean, I've been on a couple of the conversations. I think for me, it's like that all of these platforms are vying for your time and we're all quite time poor, and I think also there's a huge fatigue as well, right? I mean if you're on Zoom all day and then you're going on Clubhouse in the evening, I mean, I don't necessarily have the time or the energy to do that all day, every day.

John Darsie: (32:06)
Yeah. We felt that. As we explored our sort of virtual event calendar for 2020, we started just thinking about if we were in the shoes of members of our community, what do they have time for and what do they really want? There's so many webinars and virtual events that are out there. So we tried to come up with a list of SALT Talks that really cut to the heart of certain issues and weren't just a a time suck on people. I think it's hard in a digital format to get people to tune into a three-day conference from nine to five, the way they would engage at SALT Conference in the traditional sense in a way. But how do you foster those social connections and interactions? Jim McCann, your chairman, who's spoken on SALT Talks and been to our assault conferences, he talked about how there's just this innate human need for those social interactions and connections and so how do you think, you talked about the hybrid event format sort of taking over post COVID where you have in-person gatherings that are also informed by the digital piece, what do you think those hybrid events will look like in a way that'll be able to engage people that aren't there in person?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (33:18)
I think there'll be a lot more intimacy. I personally can see you know when physical events come back, I can't quite see the massive large conferences in the way that we've had them before, so I think the hybrid is a combination of more internet connections with your sort of most loyal community and people and then overlay that with some of the stuff that we've been doing virtually but also build on it. I think what's interesting is how you swap business cards and really that that bit when you go to a conference and you come back with a stack of business cards and it's like what's the equivalent of that? But I mean, I think people are going to be really hungry for personal connection but I think it's going to take a while to kind of bounce back to the way that it was. And I don't necessarily think it's going to be at the scale that we saw. And I also just think on things like travel, I think we're going to see personal travel and family travel come back much quicker than business travel, personally. I just think we've sort of demonstrated to an extent that we can be productive and do a lot of things at home.

John Darsie: (34:35)
Yeah and you took a whole generation of people... I mean, at Sky Bridge, we did some teleconferencing and video conferencing but it wasn't a core part of our business operations and now you have an entire workforce that's extremely literate on teleconferencing and being able to foster those connections without having to jump on a plane. But we definitely agree that there's huge pent-up demand for that in-person interaction. I think almost there was too many conferences pre-COVID, we started the SALT Conference, Anthony did, I wasn't at Sky Bridge at the time, in 2009, and there was at that time post-crisis there was a dearth of conferences but you've seen just an explosion in events and I think this COVID period sort of cleansed that overpopulation of events and people are going to be sort of wanting to get back in the groove now that we haven't had those interpersonal interactions.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:22)
If John was around, Juliet, he would have started the Pepper Conference. You see that? Maybe we need to have some SALT and Pepper to make it more diverse.

John Darsie: (35:30)
We need a little spice, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:31)
We're working, maybe we'll have the Cayenne Pepper Conference, you never know. Okay, keep going John. You're doing a good job John, keep going.

John Darsie: (35:37)
Thank you I appreciate it, HR Director. So in terms of the audience for Worth, you guys serve a very affluent audience. I know that traditionally, your core demographic at Worth. What have you noticed about what that demographic of people is looking for today whether it be in terms of lifestyle, whether it be in terms of solutions to meet their financial needs, what has the COVID-19 pandemic done for general preferences and values among ultra high net worth individuals?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (36:08)
Yeah. I think even pre-COVID, we recognized that our audience had a hunger for not only sort of nice things to buy and how to spend their wealth, but it was about the higher order impact they could have on the community and on the world around them and their values. So we'd already... and that sort of reflected in our mission of Worth beyond wealth. So even pre-COVID, we recognize actually we're not trying to just reach a wealthy audience but a wealthy audience that's in tune with how to lead and live a life with purpose and how to use their wealth and success in positive ways and for the greater good. So that was kind of our thesis and then within that, we know that things like health and innovation and well-being and mental health are really important for this audience. Certainly over the last 12 months, we saw a very clear shift around giving strategies and the way that donors and philanthropists thought about giving during this time and I think we saw many philanthropists come together to help their community directly and that realized that sort of expertise resided in their own communities.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (37:47)
And some of the previous things as a foundation or as a philanthropist that they've sort of set their sights on very quickly shifted to meeting the immediate needs and services that arise through the pandemic. So I think there was a definite shift in terms of things like giving and the sort of philanthropic strategies that they would they were taking and also seeing a mindset shift in that in terms of well, is it going to the places that really need it. But then that said, on the flip side, we know luxury and nice things are still important so we also recognize things like how you travel now, it might be how you travel sustainably, and what you buy and things that you have in your home are all still really relevant. So I think we sort of tried to sort of really sort of broaden their content strategy to cover obviously things like wealth creation and business innovation but then impact philanthropy, health and some of these higher order questions as well as well, how do you live your best life and how do you enjoy your best life?

John Darsie: (39:00)
Yeah. It's very well said. The World Economic Forum is calling it the great reset and that's not just in terms of the way we think about investing but also the way we think about our lives in general, so I think it's very well said. Juliet, thanks so much for joining us.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (39:13)
And they're so intertwined, John.

John Darsie: (39:15)
Say it again?

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (39:15)
Sorry, I was just going to say, they're so intertwined as well. There was a day when we used to talk about your business and your personal life and it's just like well that's one thing.

John Darsie: (39:25)
Well, that's definitely out the window now as we try to find a room in our house. I have young kids as well trying to find a room in our house where they're not going to break in during our Zoom sessions. So definitely no separating the two at this point. Anthony had an infamous appearance on, what was it, MSNBC Anthony...

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (39:40)
I saw.

John Darsie: (39:40)
... where his his uh handsome son, James, came in and bashed over the Santa Claus. Anthony, you're muted by the way. He came in and bashed over his Santa Claus.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:50)
He did that, he muted me. He karate chopped everything.

John Darsie: (39:53)
I saw it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:55)
Then he told me I shouldn't be working on a Saturday. He told me to stop working as he was pulling me out of the seat. So what are you going to do? It happens but here's the thing, you have a brilliant vision for your business and you don't need to hear compliments from us but I'm going to just say something to you that I enjoy about your personality is you're willing to embrace change and also the itinerant risks that come with change, and I think that is super important for the young people that listen in on these SALT Talks that if you really want to advance, you've got to take the risk, the rocket has to misfire or explode as it's leaving the launch pad and then you got to go back to the drawing bed and make it better. And I think you've demonstrated that throughout your whole career so I'm really looking forward to the next iteration of Worth and I'm also looking forward to Worth's involvement in SALT.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:53)
And I'm going to make a suggestion, okay, and I would love to have you host a few of these things and you'll probably have to bring along the sidekick John Darsie but we would love to have you host a few SALT talks and we can come up with a guest curation list that suits you. And perhaps it could be some of these power forward people. Just throwing that out there.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (41:16)
I'd love to. I think it's a great idea. I love working with you guys it's always an absolute pleasure to chat to you both. So I've got a couple of follow-ups now, I've got that and the book.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:28)
Yeah. I think the book could sell though but by the way, you know what I mean, because there's a lot of hostility for middle-aged men towards Millennials, and I think-

John Darsie: (41:37)
Juliet, we could also use an HR Director if you guys have outsourced HR or anything like that at Worth, we could use that as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:45)
Something to think about, Juliet. See that, these are brand new business lines for Worth Magazine. Thank you so much again for being such a great partner and thank you for joining us on SALT.

Juliet Scott-Croxford: (41:59)
Thank you. Likewise thanks guys, see you soon.

John Darsie: (41:59)
And thank you everyone for joining today's SALT Talk with Juliet Scott-Croxford of Worth. Just a reminder if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes that you want to watch, you can access our entire archive of SALT Talks at SALT.org/talks/archive and you can sign up to watch all of our upcoming talks live at SALT.org/talks. Please follow us on social media. We're on LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook and we stream some of these episodes on those social media outlets so if you forget to tune in to our Youtube channel when each episode goes live, you can potentially watch them on those outlets so please follow us there.

John Darsie: (42:38)
Please tell your friends about SALT Talks, we love growing our community. The pandemic has given us a chance to reach an entirely new audience by having a digital series like SALT Talks as we've been gratified by that and look forward to continuing to build our community. And on behalf of the entire SALT team this is John Darsie signing off for today. We'll see you back here again tomorrow on SALT Talks

Griffin Johnson & Josh Richards: TikTok Careers & Investing Interests | SALT Talks #145

“I remember trying to buy Bitcoin in 9th grade… and my parents didn’t let me.”

Josh Richards and Griffin Johnson are two of the biggest influencers on TikTok, a social media network where users share short-form videos, where they have a combined 34+ million followers. Their media and business ventures extend across multiple channels.

Business-minded from a young age, early media success born out of TikTok has opened doors across media and finance. Social media content houses, like the Sway House, are becoming popular and major content hubs for Gen Z. This is launching many careers of young people and showing new ways people can pursue professions outside traditional frameworks. “There are so many other routes than just going to college, 9-to-5 and mortgages… to achieve your dreams.”

Success on social media has opened doors to many other opportunities in business. This led to ventures in angel investing that involves networking and learning lessons from entrepreneurs, founders and executives.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Griffin Johnson.png

Griffin Johnson

TikTok Star

Josh Richards.jpeg

Josh Richards

TikTok Star

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Mike Novogratz & Ari Paul: The Future of Crypto | SALT Talks #144

“People were not just in it for money, but were in it for change… There are a lot of Bitcoin tattoos… It’s cool to be part of a revolution to do good.”

Mike Novogratz is CEO of Galaxy Investment Partners, a cryptocurrency investment firm. Ari Paul is the co-founder and chief investment officer of BlockTower Capital, an investment firm that manages a portfolio of crypto assets

In the early stages around 2013, Bitcoin was a speculative asset that appealed mainly to libertarians and those with frustrations surrounding recent economic crises. The passion behind the decentralized finance community was unmatched and served as an early indicator to its eventual rise. Before recognizing Bitcoin as the answer, it was clear that the rapid expansion of money supply would call for a response. With concerns around inflation, Bitcoin serves as the guard against that. “The bet of a lifetime is going to be betting on currency depreciation… it didn’t click for me that Bitcoin could be that asset until 2014.”

Until recently, the majority of Bitcoin purchases happened at the retail level. That is partly responsible for its initial volatility. As major financial institutions become more involved and put it on their balance sheets, expect Bitcoin to stabilize and grow in value.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Michael Novogratz.jpeg

Mike Novogratz

Founder & CEO

Galaxy Digital

Ari Paul.jpeg

Ari Paul

Co-Founder & Chief Investment Officer

BlockTower Capital

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

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

John Darsie: (00:38)
We're very excited to bring you the next edition in our digital assets series of SALT Talks with Michael Novogratz and Ari Paul. First I'll introduce Mr. Novogratz. Michael Novogratz is the founder and CEO of Galaxy Digital. He was formerly a partner and President of Fortress Investment Group. But prior to Fortress, Mr. Novogratz spent 11 years at Goldman Sachs, where he was elected partner in 1998. Michael served on the New York Federal Reserve's Investment Advisory Committee on Financial Markets from 2012 to 2015, and he serves as the Chairman of the Bail Project and has made criminal justice reform a focus of his family's foundation. He also serves as the chairman of Hudson River Park Friends, and sits on the boards of NYU Langone Medical Center, the Princeton Varsity Club, Jazz Foundation of America and Artists for Peace and Justice.

John Darsie: (01:29)
Just some editorialization from my perspective, Mike was one of the first major players from what I guess you could turn the legacy alternative investment universe to really dive headfirst into bitcoin and digital assets. We have to give him a lot of credit for that.

John Darsie: (01:44)
Ari Paul co-founded BlockTower Capital in 2017, and began his career in the financial services industry in 2006. Between 2006 and 2010, Ari was a trader and derivatives market maker at SUSquehanna International Group, and then a proprietary derivatives trader until 2013. Between 2013 and 2017, Ari served as the portfolio manager and risk manager for the University of Chicago's $8 billion endowment, where he managed a tail hedging strategy via long volatility investments.

John Darsie: (02:14)
In his role, Ari also worked with the Chief Risk Officer in risk management and analytics and performed research on the characteristics of endowment investments and asset classes, including researching cryptocurrency. Ari began his investment in cryptocurrency in 2014, and he's previously invested in exchange, traded crypto assets, initial coin offerings, initial coin offerings and other parts of the crypto and blockchain ecosystem.

John Darsie: (02:39)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the Founder and Managing Partner of Skybridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm that recently invested several hundred million dollars into Bitcoin and launched a Bitcoin fund to allow other clients to access the market in a pure play format. Anthony is also the Chairman of SALT. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:01)
Also trade through Galaxy, right?

John Darsie: (03:04)
Yeah. Is that you, Galaxy Digital, Michael Novogratz?

Michael Novogratz: (03:08)
That sure is, me. Thank you for that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:10)
I'm going to start with you Novo, because Ari and I are just getting to know each other, but you and I are long lost friends, probably related somewhere, just given the level of flamboyance and fashion and all the other stuff that goes on. You are a legendary macro trader, you're a brilliant investor. You had a great celebrated career at Goldman, and then you went on to Fortress, but you had this aha eureka moment on Bitcoin. When did that happen, Michael? Why did it happen, and when did the light go on for you, where you became where you are in Bitcoin?

Michael Novogratz: (03:48)
Well, listen, I started investing in Bitcoin, call it 2013. Originally, it was a speculative move. Someone called me up and said, "Hey, what do you think about this?" I didn't think anything about it. So, I looked into it, and realized it was a perfect asset for speculative frenzy, for people to get excited about. It was a new technology back then. It played right into the heart of people being frustrated with the government. We had the great financial crisis in '08, the European financial crisis in 2012. We were in the middle of QE, and people didn't trust banks, they didn't trust central banks, they didn't trust authority.

Michael Novogratz: (04:27)
That was this ethos of the Bitcoin community of Satoshis first white paper let's do a currency at that point, store of value now that lives beyond the borders of government. I was like, there are enough libertarians, hyperinflation people, people that want to live off the grid, the cypherpunks, all of these many communities were buying into this and the Chinese were buying. I thought it's a pretty easy thing, it's going to go higher.

Michael Novogratz: (04:57)
I bought a bunch when it was about $100, but really not with a religious zeal, thinking this would be a great speculative trading. Quite frankly, wanted to sell it at $1,000. One of my partners at the time, really didn't want to, and convinced me not to, through coercion. Went back down to $200, I thought, I told you so. I'm happy now at $36,000, $37,000 that I didn't sell. Partly, because when you sell your whole position, it's hard to ever buy the same amount back.

Michael Novogratz: (05:31)
I really got my religion though, when I walked into the offices of a company called Consensus in Brooklyn, in Bushwick, Brooklyn, run by a guy named Joe Lubin who happened to be a college roommate. This was right after I left Fortress, late 2015, and they were just launching Ethereum. Ethereum, the token was trading at about 97 cents, maybe it had been in existence for four or five months. But he was starting this company, Consensus, and I walked in, and I saw this group of people, young and old, plotting out this financial revolution, plotting out, not just the finance revolution, a worldwide revolution.

Michael Novogratz: (06:10)
I realized that there was a religion to this stuff, that people were in it not just for the money, they run it for change, to rebuild the financial system in a more egalitarian way, in a more transparent way, in a fairer way. What we're seeing now called DeFi, they were talking about back then, but they were also talking about it for the music industry, for publishing, for almost every industry you can think about.

Michael Novogratz: (06:33)
That got me really thinking that there's a passion behind these communities that doesn't exist in very normal... Maybe it exists in the Tesla maniacs, but in general, you don't see people with four tattoos, while there are a lot of Bitcoin tattoos. They're purpose driven movements. That got me really excited because it aligned up with my social consciousness, the way I saw the world, and I was like, this is cool to be part of a revolution that wants to do good.

Michael Novogratz: (07:07)
That's when I really plunged in. I bought a ton of Ethereum, it went up that year. 2017 became this amazing speculative bubble, and at that point, I was like, okay, we're going to start a company. We started Galaxy, really in early 2018, right as the bubble was popping. I knew it was a bubble, I talked about it being a bubble, I sold a lot of stuff. But I decided to start a company anyway, because I figured, this won't be a long burst. That the underlying people in this space aren't going to give up, and the underlying technology is real.

Michael Novogratz: (07:42)
Lo and behold, three years later, we're back to what feels like another frenzy. I would say, it's not the same as 2017 at all, just given the breadth of the players coming in and the amount of capital being put into the system and building new architecture. I think this is early innings of the real revolution, with 17 being the first tempest in a teapot, we'll look back on. But that's it. That's a long winded answer. Sorry about that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:11)
No, it's cool. That's why I got you on. Ari, I want to ask you the same question, what got you passionate about crypto? Where did the brain click? I can tell you my moment in a second, but where did the brain click... By the way, Novo, I owe you a lot for that moment because you came to the SALT Conference, we're talking about it. I said, okay, if Mike's doing it, I have to do more research on this. But, Ari, go ahead.

Ari Paul: (08:36)
When the financial crisis hit, I was a novice trader at the Susquehanna International Group and very interested in macro, certainly not with Mike's professional experience, but I was reading a lot of... I write people all the time, people like Nouriel Roubini I discovered in 2007. It was clear that the Fed's money printing wouldn't cause inflation right away. We were in such a deflationary world, but I literally thought at the time, in five to 10 years, the tradable lifetime is going to be betting on currency depreciation. That started me searching.

Ari Paul: (09:12)
I'm not the fastest learner in the world, even though I came across Bitcoin in 2011, it didn't click for me that Bitcoin could be that asset. It wasn't until 2014 that things clicked on like okay, insofar as people whether or not we get inflation, whether or not we get extreme currency depreciation, fears of that will increase.

Ari Paul: (09:32)
As an options trader, you can think of it almost like an option where if volatility increases, the option's more valuable, whether or not we end up finishing in the money. What we're seeing today is exactly that. Whether or not we end up getting inflation, people are much more concerned about it today. The idea of us having high single digit inflation in five, six years doesn't sound crazy anymore. I would say the first thing that had me looking... Obviously, I was looking for Bitcoin, I was looking for what is the play when central banks around the world quadrupled the money supply? I recognized it might take five years for that to start trickling in, given the velocity of money fell.

Ari Paul: (10:08)
Bitcoin is so clearly that asset, having a fixed supply, total radical transparency. Well, one thing I'd say is that I don't think Bitcoin is competing as a technology, it really is an analogy, it's closer to something like a Lloyd's of London or JP Morgan in the sense that no one thinks JP Morgan's going to go away because of new competitors says we can undercut them on fees by 10%. It's competing on longevity, on adoption, on network effects. I'll stop there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:41)
Novo, the volatility of Bitcoin is a major concern for skeptics. Why is Bitcoin so volatile, when you think about all the convergence of buying right now, and as it's making this transcending moment into the institutional class of investors? Why is it so-

Michael Novogratz: (11:02)
Listen, in 2017, I would have told you that 99% of buying was retail. That number's coming down, but it didn't start coming down really till this year. Crypto was set up as an alternative to institution. It was set up to live outside of institutions. It played into this retail. But more importantly, the real big exchanges where there was great innovation over in Asia. You're talking about places like Binance and Bitfinex and BitMEX and WOBI. If you think about it, they played right into the Asian love of gambling, and set up what I'll call Macau 2.0.

Michael Novogratz: (11:51)
These are really big exchanges that offer up to 100 times leverage. Think about that, Anthony, I'm a rich guy, and when I go to Goldman Sachs or UBS and I want to borrow money to buy equities, maybe they give me two times leverage, and if I want to short something, I get no leverage. That's with a giant balance sheet. We have all these rules about how much leverage we let people take in the equity market, or even in the currency market. But in the crypto market, in all these exchanges, you get 100 to one leverage. That's near insanity.

Michael Novogratz: (12:22)
What you have still is the remnants of this giant gambling class, mostly from Asia, but not all from Asia, this giant gambling class that has used this as an alternative to Macau. We're seeing now this transition from retail, into much deeper institutional hands, that over time, will mute volatility. You can see it, there's a great chart, Ari probably has it, of how fast coins are coming off exchanges.

Michael Novogratz: (12:55)
They're going somewhere, they're going into cold storage, institutional custody places. They're going into lending businesses, but they're moving off exchanges at a rapid pace. That tells me the shift is happening. Right now, Ethereum is trading at 190 vol. I was trying to buy some options last night, I was like, at 190 vol, that's a lot. Bitcoin's at 140, 150 vol. That's unsustainable. We are not going to be in this frenzy forever. There will be a blow off top at one point. You'll consolidate and things will calm down, people will lose some money, people will make some money.

Michael Novogratz: (13:37)
I've never seen markets literally trading in this kind of frenzy. I was going to buy some Ethereum last night, and I got a phone call. I was pricing up some options, the vol was too expensive. I got a phone call, it was a 30 minute phone call, I came back and it was up 7%. I go, "That's great." It's up another 7% since then. When you see price action like this, you know something special is happening, but you also have to be very careful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:02)
Ari, you get to look at most of this landscape. Explain to our viewers the supply demand dynamics for Bitcoin today.

Ari Paul: (14:14)
Sure. One thought on volatility, you can't go from being $1 to $30,000 without volatility, almost tautological. When Bitcoin first... An unusual thing, we're used to assets becoming liquid and tradable at a billion dollar market cap or at least 100 million. Bitcoin started trading when it hit a market cap of something like less than $5 million. You can't get from a $5 million market cap to a 300 billion, half trillion dollar market cap without incredible volatility over 11 years.

Ari Paul: (14:47)
As we're in price discovery mode, and that's really what it is. One other angle to think about this, I was at the endowment world where we're constantly saying, man, it's so hard to get out. The world's best fund managers are really happy if they got a few percent points on $10 billion a year. We want to look at asset classes that are inefficient for various reasons. What we've seen, my basic thesis for crypto as a whole being a secular bull run, is it's not a set of market participants that are repricing the asset, it's a growing set of market participants every couple of years, where as the regulatory ambiguity fail falls away, as the operational burdens fall away as you get legitimate and name brand custodians like Fidelity. Basically, as new institution types, as pensions are able to buy the asset, suddenly, the number of market participants increases exponentially.

Ari Paul: (15:39)
We're in this price discovery mode with ripples of new types of market participants gaining access to the asset. It's not going to be a steady 1% every day, because when you're in a bull run, speculators see the 1% daily gains, they start adding leverage, it feels like free money, so then you get over, extended, then you correct.

Ari Paul: (15:57)
The supply demand dynamic today, as Mike noted, we've seen tons of Bitcoin moving off exchange. Every data point we have on this is massive institutional buying. US and quantitative data, things like inflows into Grayscale, which are inflows into the closed end vehicle. That was, I believe, $3.8 billion, in Q4, which was close to everything that had ever flown into Grayscale prior to that.

Ari Paul: (16:26)
Anecdotally, a really interesting data point is we've been talking to a lot of billionaires in the financial world who are... It's such an interesting shift of mindset, they're now thinking defensively. They're thinking enough of their billionaire buddies have 10% of their net worth in Bitcoin, that if they don't, they're thinking, man, if Bitcoin does another 20X, I'm not invited to the parties anymore. I'm not in that rich club. Wherever they are in the hierarchy.

Ari Paul: (16:50)
Now they're thinking, I need a passive allocation, I need to have 10% of my net worth in this just to keep up, just in case. It's not about getting rich, it's now about staying rich. Those are very strong hand buyers, these are people who are looking to buy more on dips. These are people, they're not going to sell with a change in trend. The volatility is not going away. You can't have raging bull runs that take you 10X higher without volatility, the volatility will gradually fall. as it's institutionalized, broader market dissipation, we are seeing volatility gradually fall. But it's going to remain a volatile asset until it reaches maturity. That's still probably pretty far away.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:34)
I want to ask you guys a few rapid fire. These are yes or no questions. Then I got to turn it over to the millennial. It sucks for me, but it's part of his contract, this agent puts pressure on me, where Darsie has to ask some of these questions. Let's go over a couple of rapid fire questions, and there's short answers. Michael, where's Bitcoin on 12-31-21?

Michael Novogratz: (18:00)
$65,000.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:02)
Ari, where's Bitcoin on 12-31?

Ari Paul: (18:04)
At $85,000.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:06)
$85,000, okay.

Michael Novogratz: (18:07)
Like the Price is Right here. All right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:09)
Okay. We're going to keep going. Okay, Michael, yes or no, Goldman Sachs will have a Bitcoin fund in the next two years, yes or no?

Michael Novogratz: (18:19)
Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:20)
Ari?

Ari Paul: (18:21)
Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:22)
Okay. BlackRock, will BlackRock have a Bitcoin fund?

Michael Novogratz: (18:26)
Yep.

Ari Paul: (18:26)
Yep.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:28)
Okay. Gary Gensler, somebody we both know, Michael, maybe Ari knows him as well. We had the opportunity to work with him at Goldman, great guy. He's going to be the SEC chairman, is he going to be pro-Bitcoin, medium Bitcoin? Is he going to be the mama bear, baby bear, or papa bear of Bitcoin?

Michael Novogratz: (18:45)
He is very knowledgeable on crypto. So, I think he's going to be a real positive for the space. He's going to be tough on banks. He's progressive. He's in my camp, not your camp. But he'll be very fair and very-

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:01)
I might be in your camp now, no regrets. I know, this guy-

Michael Novogratz: (19:05)
We're moving you over.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:06)
Yeah, he destroyed one of the major political parties, the Party of Lincoln, the guy took it out, put it in a paper shredder. But this is about Bitcoin, we're going to keep it on Bitcoin, not my political theories. Go ahead, Ari, what do you think of Gary?

Ari Paul: (19:21)
The concern I think for the industry is that Gary views most tokens as likely securities. You have Bitcoin but then you have 300 other meaningful assets, real market cap, real value. The concern is that a lot of those had offerings that may have been unregistered security offerings. Ethereum is a great example of this where the SEC has said, not as an official statement, but they've had representatives say at conferences that they view it as grandfathered in, that they don't intend to go after Ethereum even though the initial offering may have been technically an unregistered security offering.

Ari Paul: (19:53)
Concerned with Gensler, is that he may be much more aggressive on that front with other assets. Probably very pro-Bitcoin. As Mike said, he was a professor of blockchain, I believe at MIT. Very, very knowledgeable, but aggressive on the regulatory side. What the whole crypto world is paying attention to is how... We just had Mnuchin proposed rule out of the Treasury Department, governments are not going to ignore crypto. That's always been true. Satoshi Nakamoto wrote about this about how we want to grow quietly until we're ready to have government attention.

Ari Paul: (20:29)
Cryptocurrency is now a stage where every government around the world is developing policies, every regulator is thinking about how this falls under the purview. The hope is that it's relatively light, sensible regulation. Gensler may be on the aggressive side.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:43)
Okay, Michael, the date that a crypto, let's say Bitcoin, the date that a Bitcoin ETF is approved?

Michael Novogratz: (20:52)
Within 12 months.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:53)
Okay, Ari?

Ari Paul: (20:55)
I don't know, but I'm optimistic. I hope Mike's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:59)
Okay. All right.

Ari Paul: (21:01)
I'll say yes if I have to give-

Michael Novogratz: (21:03)
Anthony, let me elaborate a little bit. The SEC's job is to protect the little guy, right? That's the SEC's job, protect the retail investor. They have allowed the Grayscale Trust, which is an amazing piece of business for Barry Silbert, and his team to grow to $25, $30 billion, where investors are paying high fees, they're being arbitraged everyday by hedge funds. Hedge funds put in Bitcoin, retail investors buy it 20%, 25% premium, 18% premium, it changes day to day.

Michael Novogratz: (21:34)
You got retail paying high fees and buying at bad prices, but that was okay, the SEC let that go. But they wouldn't let an ETF go. They were just asked backwards on this whole thing. Chairman Clayton didn't really get it. I think Gary Gensler is far far more attuned to what his role is, and understanding the intricacies of crypto.

Michael Novogratz: (21:57)
We're going to have an ETF. It's going to make the Grayscale premium go from where it is, to probably negative. It's a giant closed end funnel. I wish I owned that closed end funnel. It's going to be there for a long, long time. But most closed end funds trade at a discount to NAV, and I think in time, Grayscale will, too. It will, once there's an ETF. I think that will be the big transition this year.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:22)
Okay. I got to tell you something, Ari, you got a really cool camera going, it's like you're coming in, you're coming out. I feel like Scorsese is directing the SALT Talk, but at any moment, just don't go into a whole Scarface mode or something like that, God forbid. Okay, go ahead, Darsie, I know you're dying to ask questions [crosstalk 00:22:42] it's been long Bitcoin since before it was invented. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (22:48)
Michael, I want to start with you. You mentioned earlier that the 2017 rally was driven a lot by retail investors. You said, I think 99%, you felt, was retail speculation, and now that percentage is shifting towards institutions. In your view, what is that percentage today, and what type of interests are you fielding from institutions? Whether it be pension endowments, large investment firms, insurance companies? What type of ventures are you fielding in Bitcoin today?

Michael Novogratz: (23:18)
I think if you add high net worth into that bucket, which are many institutions themselves these days, listen, that's all our business because we were set up as an institutional business. I will tell you, Galaxy's mantra was we're going to be the bridge between crypto and institutions. Man, it was kind of lonely for a couple of years. Our business wasn't great until really it all shifted with COVID, and post COVID, we've had these two tailwinds. We've had this macro story because of the money printing, that is a beautiful tailwind for Bitcoin, the story that Ari was telling eloquently earlier.

Michael Novogratz: (23:55)
You've also had the digitalization of everything, that from us doing this on Zoom, to the hyper acceleration of that, and that's really played into the Ethereum community, it's played into stable coins. All of us saying, shit, I wish they could have done the COVID checks directly as opposed to getting them in the mail, we should all have wallets, government should be able to direct payments through a payment system that's wallet based.

Michael Novogratz: (24:25)
We're going to have central bank issued digital currencies. They're coming in every single major country. What form they take, it'll be interesting, but they're coming in every major country. That whole process, I think has shifted the institutional mindset. First, it was all Bitcoin. Next, why I think Ethereum is going to double and I literally didn't think this till yesterday. I was walking, I was like, shit, all the smart hedge funds are going, "What's next? We're going to now look at Ethereum." Then the same thing with the other institutions.

Michael Novogratz: (24:57)
Then it's going to be decentralized finance, which really is the cool stuff. We're in this process now, of more and more smart people with real capital looking, understanding it. Ari and I aren't crazy, but we're not that much smarter than anybody else, we just got in early, and the same conclusions we make most likely are gonna be made by other people looking at it.

Michael Novogratz: (25:17)
I always thought in mercantile thinks 10 smart guys looking at a set of problems usually come up with the same answers. As we get more and more eyeballs on these solutions for things that don't work, you're going to have more people getting interested in investing.

John Darsie: (25:32)
Right. Ari, just to build on that point from Michael, in terms of the interest you're seeing in the crypto world, is it focused on Bitcoin? Is it now include Ethereum, obviously, which has rallied a lot, even in the last week or so, or do you think people are going to continue to go further down the risk curve and look at alt coins, and other sort of venture opportunities in the digital asset space?

Ari Paul: (25:55)
They're definitely going to move along the curve. What we've seen... Most of the money coming into the ecosystem comes into Bitcoin first, and that's always been true. I think we're in the sixth inning of a fairly classic bull cycle, and for the rest of this bull cycle, my prediction is alt coins in general outperform Bitcoin, and it's very similar across any asset class, where after you've had major wealth creation, people move along the risk curve, they want to find that next 10X.

Ari Paul: (26:20)
Bitcoin is up more than 10X since March of last year, nine months up, more than 10X. People see a price tag of $36,000, $37,000, and they say, "Well, it's going to be hard to get another 10X out of that." They look at something like Ethereum, that just in the last 24 hours, actually made an all time high, and they say, "Well, okay, that's a much smaller asset, a few billion dollars going into that and the thing is going to triple." Then they keep moving down the risk curve.

Ari Paul: (26:46)
Basically, new money first goes to Bitcoin. Bitcoin's the safest, the most stable, the easiest to understand. And then as people get into the ecosystem, they learn a little more, they get more comfortable, they look out along the risk curve, and they look also for where they can add active alpha, that alpha for asset selection, alpha through just having other assets to market time.

Ari Paul: (27:05)
I'm in a slightly different seat than Mike, in that we're active managers. We're not pitching gen passive allocation. We're not Grayscale, we're not trying to get people to just put money into Bitcoin. The people we're talking to naturally are interested in the full spectrum of opportunities.

Michael Novogratz: (27:22)
Yeah. Let me clarify, I would say 85% of the new institutional money, 90% of the institutional money that comes into the space this year, is going to come into bitcoin. Be very clear about that. Bitcoin's got a $700 billion market cap. That'll move the market. I actually think Bitcoin, like I said, could close to double from here, it would have been double on the year, from where we started the year. That's a lot of market cap to move, is adding another $700 billion or more. It doesn't take nearly as much money to move Luna Coin, or SushiSwap or YFI, or even Ethereum. Those coins, I think, potentially have more volatility, more upside, also more downside. Bitcoin's been de-risked in a lot of ways.

John Darsie: (28:09)
Yeah, and that's our thesis at Skybridge, Bitcoin is our gateway drug, and for now, it's our exclusive focus, but it's something that, like you said, big institutions are going to look at the bellwether first. I just want to... Ari, if you could elaborate on-

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:23)
You got to say gateway drug, or you're going to get Novogratz all excited when you say that. Gateway drug? That's the best metaphor you can come up with? Keep going.

Michael Novogratz: (28:34)
I'm drinking water out of a sake cup.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:37)
I know that's vodka hidden in an aquaponic, man. Don't start.

John Darsie: (28:44)
Ari, I want to talk about the thesis behind why Bitcoin has been so strong. There's this macro argument that people are buying into bitcoin, because of money printing and inflation and things like that. But then there's also purely a supply, demand dynamic that exists where there's so much more buying of Bitcoin taking place, and it's a chicken and egg type situation. What do you think is the real biggest [inaudible 00:29:06] behind this massive rally that we've seen over the last several months?

Ari Paul: (29:12)
I would call it billionaire FOMO. The virus, in Q4 in particular, something you could see, it was actually, it's an amazing pattern. If you bought Bitcoin during US business hours, and you sold it during Asia hours, you actually doubled Bitcoin's performance, even though it did a 3X in the quarter. You could see it in the market. It's TWAP, it was time weighted average price scaling in orders largely on Coinbase and other US exchanges.

Ari Paul: (29:39)
These were US institutions and US billionaires establishing large positions through OTC desks. We talked to some of these people, we know it anecdotally, you see sometimes public reports from for example, micro sale or micro strategy. That's what it's been, that was what was driving it, and the psychology was very much these ripples of word of mouth adoption.

Ari Paul: (30:02)
One billionaire is talking to four of his financial buddies, people like Novogratz, and it's yeah, I've now got 10%, 20% of my net worth in it, and I'm super convinced. I think it's going to double this year, it's the best risk adjusted place to have your money. As with all marketing, it's a number of touches. Once you hear that from three of your smartest billionaire friends who you respect, maybe you get converted. We've been seeing that.

Ari Paul: (30:24)
Then what's happened just very recently is finally Asia is getting in the game. That pattern of sell offs during Asia hours, finally stopped about a week ago, there's now a small kimchi premium, which is Bitcoin is trading at a premium in South Korea. This has been the pattern in every crypto bull cycle, by the way, it's basically usually starts off as US more savvy money, smarter money, and then you get US retail and Asia chasing the momentum. We're just now getting into that stage of more retail and Asia driving the rally.

Michael Novogratz: (31:00)
Let me jump in, and chime in here for a second, because I think Ari hit on something that's important, but maybe didn't hit on it as hard as I want to. When you think about what's unique about Bitcoin, it's the first global speculative asset, really, period. We never had an asset as distributed as Bitcoin. But Bitcoin is owned by over 120 million people now. In every village, there's Bitcoiner trying to convince their friends that this is the cool thing.

Michael Novogratz: (31:33)
If you're running Apple, or Tesla, you've got usually one guy out there as the salesman, who's selling this company, and who's telling the story of this company. In Bitcoin, I'm one of 15 people that seem to show up on CNBC, weekly, telling the Bitcoin story. There's podcasts galore, but there's people in every village in the damn world, who are bitcoiners, who feel like it's their job to proselytize, about why.

Michael Novogratz: (32:07)
We have never had an asset that has a retail base in Iran, or retail base in India, retail base in Africa, retail base in Korea, passionate retail basis, all over the world. What we're seeing is this viral effect, this networking effect that's accelerating.

Michael Novogratz: (32:29)
Ari told you about a really important network, The good old billionaire boys club. I was on an early call that a friend of mine set up and we looked around, and I was like, Jesus, there's like 30 of the richest guys I've ever seen on this call. From that call, a lot of them ended up getting involved in the crypto space. Some with us, many not with us.

Michael Novogratz: (32:52)
You have these mini ecosystems, but they're developing everywhere. That's the power of this community and asset, is the power of decentralization. There's not a CEO of Bitcoin. I like to think I am sometimes, but I am absolutely not CEO of Bitcoin. I used to call myself the Forrest Gump of Bitcoin. There isn't a CEO, and there are different people. Michael Saylor has had an amazing effect this year, he's popped up, it's his moment. There's different people at different times that are having influence in different communities.

Michael Novogratz: (33:25)
Michael is doing, I think it's next week, we're participating, a conference for literally 2,000 CFOs and CEOs of companies, to try to convince them to put some of their corporate cash in Bitcoin. Now, he's not going to give it to the majority of them, but he's going to convince some of them. Here's another guy building community. That's happening everywhere in this asset, which is pretty cool.

John Darsie: (33:46)
Are there a lot of still, to use a bad metaphor, again, closeted Bitcoin bulls that haven't come out yet? You have people like Paul Tudor Jones and Stan Druckenmiller and Bill Miller. There was a lot of names that people would say wow, when they realize how invested people are in Bitcoin.

Michael Novogratz: (34:02)
Less than 10% of the people that would be notable names, who have bought it, have bought it publicly, which doesn't make a lot of sense, they should all be public, because it will help drive adoption. But a lot of people revere their privacy. I don't happen to be one of those people. But lots of people. Even in the insurance company, there's one insurance company that's come out and said they bought Bitcoin, but I know of three insurance companies that have.

Michael Novogratz: (34:33)
Listen, one person is a crazy man. He might wear dragon sweatshirts and a funny hat. But by the time you have three or four, it's a movement. We already have a movement in the insurance business, but we just don't know it yet.

John Darsie: (34:47)
Right. Ari, I'm going to play devil's advocate now for a couple of questions here on our video segment, but there's an accusation out there, and I think it's one of the more common and credible accusations, at least at one point it was, that people have dug into the reality of it and there's some skepticism around the accusation. But that Bitcoin has manipulated using Tether and using other stable coins, and really this is a bunch of Bitcoin whales that are trading with each other and helping to manipulate the price higher. What do you say to people who argue that the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is manipulated? I'll let you answer it too, Michael.

Ari Paul: (35:24)
Yes, two years ago, most Bitcoin volume was on offshore unregulated exchanges that did play a lot of games that the reported volumes were probably 10X the real volumes. What's happened recently is a couple of these [inaudible 00:35:38] things. The US... Which department was it? BitMEX, which was one of the largest exchanges, the principals were indicted by the US government, and that caused a lot of volume to flow away from BitMEX. Also, BitMEX in Black Thursday, when Bitcoin crashed, they mishandled it, so a lot of money flew to regulated US space, very reputable exchanges. CME futures are now... Mike, what's the daily volume on that now? Do you know on CME?

Michael Novogratz: (36:07)
It's a ton.

Ari Paul: (36:08)
I would say it's $4 billion a day on CME futures now, massive. OKX had some principles arrested in China, and that led similarly to a lot of volume flowing into places like Coinbase. We have price discovery happening to the many billions of dollars a day in Bitcoin on regulated exchanges that are CME futures. I think we trust that those are not manipulated any differently than any other CME future, for example. As for the stable coins, for Tether, Tether is a pool right now of about $26 billion, it's relatively opaque, and it historically was the on ramp for Asia to buy bitcoin.

Ari Paul: (36:45)
A lot of these exchanges to avoid really... Basically, if you're an exchange that touches Fiat, you have massive regulatory hurdles. If you don't touch Fiat, you fall under a much lighter regulatory regime. A lot of the highest volume exchanges chose not to touch Fiat. Well, how do you buy bitcoin on those exchanges then? You need a stable coin.

Ari Paul: (37:03)
Tether was the original stable coin. That was how the highest volume exchanges, if you wanted to get money on, you would first buy Tether. Tether's opaque, because basically, the banks that serve Tether don't really want to be public. One is Deltec, but there's a few that don't, because they're afraid it will just put them in regulatory crosshairs, even if they're not doing anything illegal.

Ari Paul: (37:24)
For example, I had a bank account shut down because I transferred money from that bank to Coinbase. Totally legal transaction. Coinbase is a regulated US entity, the bank shut down my account because they just don't want to deal with compliance around crypto. It's easy to see why a lot of banks would not be public, but they're holding $5 billion of Tether's money.

Ari Paul: (37:43)
I think it is a legitimate concern, in the sense that I can't prove that nothing funny is going on, it's too opaque. With that said, all the criticisms that have been circulated are very weak. Most of it is very easy to explain. For example, people point out that Tether transactions happen in round numbers. They batch, like many entities, they just batch transactions daily. People have pointed out a correlation between Tether printing and Bitcoin rising. Well, of course, it's the on ramp. People give $100 million to Tether, they convert the Tether, they send the Tether to other machines and buy Bitcoin. Of course, you would expect there to be a high correlation. Tether printing is generally bullish, because it's an on ramp that people use to buy Bitcoin.

Ari Paul: (38:24)
My best guess at the moment is that Tether is legitimate. I don't think it's manipulating anything. With that said, it is a systemic risk.

John Darsie: (38:33)
Michael, do you have any reaction to that? Or what are other risks in your mind that are real, and maybe-

Michael Novogratz: (38:39)
I think Ari nailed it, and it would be nice if there was an audit on Tether, there really isn't. We looked at it, to be fair, years ago, they had a partner who wanted to get rid of it at one point because it was dragging down Bitfinex. Bitfinex was a very profitable exchange for them. The thought was, sell it to someone in the US who could then bring the regulators in and make sure it was legit and clean. I was very excited about it, I thought it was a cool business. I wish I'd gotten into the stable coin business. I'm jealous.

Michael Novogratz: (39:15)
Of course, he ended up being pushed out of their ownership group and they kept it. Listen, the guys that own Bitfinex, the guys that own Tether are really crafty, aggressive, cowboy businessmen, who have lived outside the grid in some ways. That doesn't give you great confidence. That said, they have so much to lose by screwing this thing up, that you hope that... Listen, there's been quasi audits done. I remember a guy who was an ex head of the FBI, came in and they hired him to do a quasi audit, and he believed that they had the right backing.

Michael Novogratz: (39:56)
But right now, in some ways, it doesn't matter till it matters. People see tether as a legitimate store of value. What would be really fascinating is if you can create something that then drifts away from being backed, that people just trust anyway, then all of a sudden you've got [inaudible 00:40:14] and then you've made a money printing machine. That's the fear, because no one believes that's the case right now. If they're doing that, man, they're good.

Michael Novogratz: (40:25)
It is the one systemic risk in the system, if there was something that blew up. Look, it's only $25 million, but right now, it still provides a lot of the grace for how all these exchanges work. It would be a real win for places like Coinbase and Kraken, and the more established, the regulated places or US places, it would hit bitcoin price temporarily. But things would then I think, just regroup.

John Darsie: (40:52)
Right. Michael, what are you worried about? You talk about Tether being one of the systemic risks with Bitcoin and crypto, what other risks are you worried about, related to that asset class?

Michael Novogratz: (41:02)
Listen, whenever you're trading at 170 vol... Ethereum options are 190 vol offered last night. Whenever things are moving this fast, people make mistakes, mistakes get really costly. There's a lot of leverage in this Grayscale arbitrage, where people borrow coins, put them on Grayscale, wait six months and then sell them to the retail buyer. There's a tremendous amount of leverage in that space. If there was an ETF announced tomorrow, ETF announced tomorrow, which is not going to happen, but if it was, theoretically, that premium collapses, there are hedge funds and other businesses, that would be shit out of luck.

Michael Novogratz: (41:47)
Again, that's bad for the overall system when somebody notable blows up, it always scares people, what else could happen? Some of that's going to happen, because we're trading at 190 vol, that's just the way the world works. You keep your fingers close to the keyboard, and you keep your radar on. We're in a hyper bull market right now, and it's always hard to ride the bull.

John Darsie: (42:16)
Yep. How about you, Ari, what are you concerned about?

Ari Paul: (42:25)
I have a risk manager background. I always have a long, long list of concerns. I'd say at the moment though, I think Mike and I are in the same page of our analysis of you have money flowing in that is strong hands that are buying for the long term that are looking at dips as opportunities. I agree, I think if Tether were to collapse tomorrow, basically in any hyper vol bull runs, you get big pullbacks, you get 30% pullbacks on the way, and those are always terrifying. Those always happen because of a headline and the headline's usually real, it's usually something actually happens that's scary, you fall 30%, and then everyone remembers, wait, we think this thing's higher in two years, so why wouldn't we be buying the step?

Ari Paul: (43:06)
I would say, Tether is up there. You have a lot of smaller scale risks. In DeFi, for example, there's constant hacks and exploits of the smart contracts. If you're in DeFi, if you own assets, that could be systemically dangerous to Ethereum, if you've had a much larger scale, if you have billion dollars taken out of DeFi, for example.

Ari Paul: (43:27)
Other than that, I don't think there's anything imminent on the regulatory front. But I am a little bit concerned that now we have Democrats controlling Congress. We have seen some legislation that's pretty adverse coming from the AOC crowd. So far, it's fringe, it doesn't look like it has congressional support. But as this bull market plays out, under a Democratic administration, Democratic Congress, I think we're likely to face some onerous regulation that may prove challenging, may create some of those dips that are then a good trading opportunities for people like Mike and I.

Ari Paul: (44:00)
I don't really have existential concerns, currently. I'll say this though, every time crypto has gone up 10X, it becomes much scarier to a new level of sovereign entity. 2013 was, well, Bitcoin is being used on Silk Road, the FBI cares about it being used to buy drugs. Then 2017, it was wow, ICOs are bigger than seatstay financing and traditional finance. Now, the SEC cares. Well, this bull market, we're getting to a scale that central banks care, that saw the Treasury Department's care. I think at least in some parts of the world, we will see more meaningful pushback, and it's hard to predict how that will play out, and I think that's probably at least six months away, it's probably another 100% rally in Bitcoin, first. But at some point, that'll be a risk.

John Darsie: (44:43)
I'm going to ask-

Michael Novogratz: (44:43)
Let me ask one thing. One thing that's driven me crazy is and I wouldn't call myself a progressive or certainly center left, is that the progressive, you have this legislation that Rashida Tlaib put out. Bitcoin and crypto at its core, the reason I got in it is that it's progressive. The banking system has not been progressive, the banking system charges huge fees to people with no money and smaller fees and gives great access to people with money. The way the whole IPO game is played is, the richer you are, the more you make free on the IPO game.

Michael Novogratz: (45:23)
In some ways, that group of politicians have it backwards. I've made it my mission this year, at one point to sit down with AOC and, and some of the other dams and try to help them understand that, we're on their side. I got into this, basically for that reason. It's some way bizarre.

Michael Novogratz: (45:44)
Now, listen, part of it is, it would help if there was more diversity in crypto, both gender diversity and racial diversity, and I'm gonna try to do my own side of it there. Crypto felt like it's a bros club. If you looked at my Twitter, it was 85% male. That needs to change the setting, to win over some of the progressives, but also just it needs to change because if you really want to rebuild things in a more equitable way, you can't just have white males as the only guys participating, at least within the US context.

John Darsie: (46:20)
Yeah. It's interesting, you're starting to see some athletes become aware of crypto and there's a couple, Russell Okung, who is a left tackle for the Carolina Panthers getting paid in Bitcoin. Spencer Dinwiddie is trying to tokenize himself, he's a guard for the Brooklyn Nets. It is exciting to see a broader coalition of people getting into the space.

John Darsie: (46:39)
The final question I want to ask you both about is central bank digital currency. We had Marty Chavez, former Goldman CTO and Chief Information Officer on here, talking very expansively about the potential benefits of central bank digital currencies. Could you explain that to our audience, who's less familiar? Mike, I'll go with you first, and what does that mean, if we do get central bank digital currencies, what does it mean for Bitcoin, which is a truly distributed, globalist digital currency?

Michael Novogratz: (47:07)
A central bank digital currency basically is just a digital rendition of the dollar, or the Euro, or what's coming first is the Chinese Renminbi. How those systems are set up, can vary immensely. If you're in China, it's going to be completely centralized, the Chinese are going to control the blockchain, which means they're going to control and understand every bit of data. It helps them with understanding the macro, real time data in their country, but it also is an unbelievable invasion of privacy, how every penny is spent.

Michael Novogratz: (47:45)
If you want to control your population, a good way to control them is understanding where their money goes. There are other systems. What's unique about blockchain is it's distributed, no one owns the database, but everybody shares it. A lot of the ones that in the West are being built on the Ethereum blockchain, which is decentralized. You can have, in a perfect world, just a much more efficient payment system without giving up all your privacy.

Michael Novogratz: (48:17)
Right now, for me to send you money, I have Venmo, I can Venmo you money up to 1,500 bucks, I think it's the limit. That's kind of like a crypto, but it's a centralized, closed system, I can't send Venmo overseas, I can't send you $100,000 on Venmo or $10,000, on Venmo. Venmo will be replaced, most likely by a system and it might be on the Facebook system, setting their version of a dollar stable coin back and forth to people. But it's crazy that I can send you a photo of me, dressed in a wig with high heels on, and I can set up on one of 19 different apps, with privacy, with anything I want, but I can't send you $10 if you're living in Europe. That's all going to change.

John Darsie: (49:06)
Ari, can you talk about your views on the DeFi movement and where that's going?

Ari Paul: (49:11)
Yeah. central bank digital currencies are going to conquer the world by storm, because they're attracted to basically everyone and everything. The IRS loves it because you get perfect tax compliance, Treasury Department loves it because you get real time economic information. FBI loves it, for obvious reasons. I think it very clearly dramatically increases demand for decentralized alternatives. Because if I tell you that everything that you do with Fiat is now going to be completely transparent to your government, as well as we now know foreign governments. We know that the SolarWinds hack, basically anything you give to the US government, you have to assume is public, is going to be on the dark net for anyone to buy.

Ari Paul: (49:48)
If I tell you that, all of your financial transactions you do with Fiat are going to be completely transparent to basically anyone who wants it. Isn't your next step to say, oh, man, what else can I do? What's the alternative to that?

Ari Paul: (50:02)
We're going to see central bank digital currencies rolled out worldwide, and I think it's going to largely replace the current system, and simultaneously, we're going to see a huge growth in demand for decentralized alternatives. I think that will be both Bitcoin, possibly privacy coins, coins that are optimized around maintaining privacy, as well as on the more complex financial transaction side. That's where DeFi comes in.

Ari Paul: (50:26)
Just like people want financial privacy on their monetary moves, they also want that on their stock trades, they also want that on the real estate transactions, and DeFi is more efficient, removes a lot of middlemen. As Mike said, it's much more egalitarian. You don't have the gatekeepers. You don't have the punitive fees to get paid that the crazy bank overdraft games banks play with their low income customers. All of that gets removed. You have total transparency and you have privacy.

Ari Paul: (50:57)
The rollout of central bank digital currencies is, I think, the catalyst that makes cryptocurrency mainstream as currency.

Michael Novogratz: (51:03)
Yep. I agree with Ari.

John Darsie: (51:06)
China had that aha moment where they went from thinking about banning cryptocurrency, thinking, wow, this could actually be a really powerful tool for us to achieve our goals, as you mentioned, Mike, in authoritarian ways.

Michael Novogratz: (51:19)
[crosstalk 00:51:19] This is where the big debate has to happen, because crypto in a centralized fashion is a dystopian nightmare. Think about it, everyone's expanding data, which China already has. Everything that's spent on; Alipay, or [inaudible 00:51:39] goes to a central clearing house. I know you're pregnant before you know you're pregnant by what you're shopping for. I know, you're gay, I know whatever I want to know, I can know, by your shopping patterns.

Michael Novogratz: (51:52)
If I decide I don't like gay people like the president of Brazil, who's been very vocal about his anti-gay stance. In a centralized digital cryptocurrency, you can hit a button and just make the money go away, it's programmable money. It's a really dangerous line on where that privacy, where that data gets held, who holds it, how long it lasts.

Michael Novogratz: (52:19)
Literally, the data collected from the central bank digital currencies, that's really where the smart regulation and thought process has to come on how these things get set up, or we're headed to a world that I don't want to be a part of.

Ari Paul: (52:31)
That's so key, I want to emphasize it, that it's not just transparency, but it's control. China, with a... Currently, if basically any government wants to financially censor citizens, they have to do it manually. It's like, let's create a list, let's give that list to different banks [inaudible 00:52:47] But imagine if an algorithm could say, you posted something unpatriotic to social media, all of your assets are frozen, and it's done algorithmically, and you have no recourse and it was effortless for some bureaucrat in China to save 10 million people, all of their assets are frozen.

Ari Paul: (53:04)
That's the world we're headed to, in at least many parts of the world, and I think very clear how that's going to increase demand for alternatives.

John Darsie: (53:11)
Right. I think it's one reason why Bitcoin continues to be the big winner, Bitcoin and other truly distributed global digital currencies continue to be the big winner in this movement. Thank you so much, Michael Novogratz from Galaxy Digital, and Ari Paul from BlockTower, two of the leading players in the space. Thank you so much for joining us on SALT Talks. We look to have you both with us at future SALT conferences in person, which I know Mike has been to many times and a great contributor to SALT, and we hope to have you, Ari, as well.

Michael Novogratz: (53:41)
Ari, good seeing you.

Ari Paul: (53:41)
Thanks for the invitation.

Michael Novogratz: (53:43)
Be well. Thanks, guys.

John Darsie: (53:44)
Thanks, Mike, and thank you to everybody who tuned in to today's SALT Talk, the latest in our series on digital assets and cryptocurrency. We look forward to having very regular conversations about these topics, which I think are on the vanguard of the type of innovation that we'd like to cover here on SALT Talks. But just a reminder, if you missed any of this talk, or you want to watch any of our previous talks with people like Michael Saylor who was referenced earlier, in this SALT Talk, you can go to salt.org\talks\archive, and view our entire archive of previous episodes of SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (54:15)
You can sign up for all of our future webinars at salt.org\talks. Please spread the word about SALT Talks. We love growing our community and we've gotten a great chance to do it digitally. During the pandemic, we had to cancel our conferences, but these SALT Talks have allowed us to build a global audience. We've been very excited about that. So, please spread the word, and please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

John Darsie: (54:39)
On behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie, signing off for today from SALT Talks. We'll see you back here again tomorrow.

A New Era for Psychedelic Medicine | SALT Talks #143

“11% of Americans contemplated suicide in the month of June. We need novel solutions and treatment paradigms.”

Sa’ad Shah is the co-founder and managing partner of Noetic, a venture capital firm that seeks to invest in emerging and early-stage psychedelic-based wellness, therapeutic and pharmaceutical companies. JR Rahn is the co-founder and co-CEO of MindMed, a leading psychedelic medicine biotech company that discovers, develops and deploys psychedelic-inspired medicines and therapies to address addiction and mental illness.

Psychedelics in medicine represent an entirely new biotech asset class. Psychedelics still carry with it the stigma of its recreational use in the 60s and 70s, but its application as a therapy is intended help people with mental health and addiction issues. Psychedelic-assisted therapy involves a trained therapist who guides the patient through the experience. “The science has been incredibly compelling. The efficacy rates cannot be ignored.”

The current approach to treating mental illness and addiction continues to fall short. The opioid crisis is going to cost the US $2.5B over the next four years with 300 people per day dying of overdoses. Mental health is likely to decline even further because of the pandemic. “With the lingering effects of COVID-19… the pandemic is going to turn into a mental health epidemic.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Sa'ad Shah.jpeg

Sa’ad Shah

Co-Founder & Managing Partner

Noetic

JR Rahn.jpeg

JR Rahn

Chief Economist

Exelon Corporation

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:11)
Hello, everyone and welcome back to the SALT Talks. My name is John Darcy. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global Thought Leadership Forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal and our SALT Conference Series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to bring you a talk focusing on the future of medicine within the psychedelic space with two fantastic guests.

John Darsie: (00:53)
Our first guest today is JR Rahn, who's the Co-founder and Co-CEO of MindMed, a leading Psychedelic Medicine Biotech Company that discovers, develops, and deploys psychedelic inspired medicines and therapies to address addiction and mental illness. JR, is a former Silicon Valley Tech Executive, who was previously at Uber and attended the prestigious tech accelerator Y Combinator. After his own struggles with mental health and addiction in Silicon Valley, he began looking for a new treatment paradigm with the potential to solve mental health and addiction related issues. JR began personally investing in psychedelic medicine projects and research through his family office run capital, and then went on to found the biotech company MindMed to focus on developing psychedelic medicines, under the federally compliant FDA pathway. MindMed was the first psychedelic medicine biotech to publicly list on a stock exchange, and the company now garners a one billion plus market cap.

John Darsie: (01:51)
The company has filed an up listing application for a potential listing of its shares on the NASDAQ. And our second guest today is Sa'ad Shah, whose firm Noetic is actually an investor in MindMed. But Sa'ad is the Co-founder and managing partner of Noetic, a venture capital firm that seeks to invest in emerging and early stage psychedelic based wellness, therapeutic and pharmaceutical companies around the world. Sa'ad has spent the last 22 years in capital markets and the asset management industry, with a focus on alternative investment strategies. Prior to founding Noetic, Sa'ad was a Managing Director at the Carlyle Group. He's also the Co-founder and managing partner at Grey House Partners, a venture capital, at Alpha Partners, and an affiliate partner at Lindsay Goldberg, and adventure advisor to Learn Capital, LLC. He's also a filmmaker, a scriptwriter, and producer, and a board member of the Necessary Angel Theater in Toronto, and the Council of Advisors for The Windy Museum in Los Angeles.

John Darsie: (02:52)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:05)
Well, guys, thanks so much for coming on. I'm going to start with JR if that's okay. I would like you JR to give our audience a broad overview of the thesis behind psychedelics for medical use, but also take us through your personal journey to how you got to MindMed.

JR Rahn: (03:23)
Oh! Thank you, Mr. Scaramucci. Look, I think psychedelic-

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:27)
You got JR. You got to call me Anthony. Okay, because in a few minutes, John Darcy and I are going to be beating the hell out of each other. Okay. And I have to feel young for that experience, because you got to call me Anthony.

JR Rahn: (03:39)
All right. You got it Anthony. Look, I think, if we take a step back here and look at this space, we're really have created and founded a new asset class. This is a new biotech asset class that is focused on mental health. And while it might be based on substances from the 1960s that have associations, like LSD and psilocybin, really what we're focused on is mental health and how do we heal people. And that's really where the journey for MindMed began, which is the first publicly listed psychedelic biotech company. I was at the height of my career in Silicon Valley, I was working at Uber and then went through the Y Combinator program and was faced with some severe addiction and mental health issues. And to the outside world everything was going fine. I was struggling with my addictions but, working well and getting things accomplished in Silicon Valley, until a friend really told me-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:47)
If you don't mind me asking because I'm from a family of addictive disorders. So what was your addiction of choice or what was not choice, but what was the thing that you were drawn to right? And I want to stipulate for the purposes of SALT Talk, coming from an addictive families that have addictive disorders, I recognize that it is an illness. It is not a choice. I didn't mean to say it that way. But what was drawing you in JR?

JR Rahn: (05:17)
Well, I think you do have the choice to do something about it right? I think, definitely isn't an illness, but it takes-

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:23)
Definitely we have a choice to do something about it. But I do think that once you're caught up in it, it's a hard cycle to break because of the biochemistry in your body. Would that be fair to say?

JR Rahn: (05:35)
Totally. So, my drugs of choice were cocaine and alcohol. And I really struggled with this, basically from the beginning of college, right? And even in high school, I think that goes back to your struggles with ADHD and mental health being put on stimulant based medicines from the age of 13, you really start to develop patterns. And you're right, it is a brain illness, and it is a mental illness. And those patterns start early as a kid. And so they know that really culminated in Silicon Valley, for me. And I had a friend turn to me at one point and say, "Look, you're going to put yourself into a grave. I had other friends die. These are folks that were working, at large tech companies die of overdoses, die of these are really serious diseases." And so I decided that I wanted to make a change, right? It was I was either going to die, or I was going to solve the problem. And so I didn't really see the traditional routes of addiction treatment and how we treat mental health in America as really effective ways of dealing with these problems.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:58)
Okay, so let me interrupt again, if you don't mind, just talk a little bit of that for our viewers. So the traditional treatments are a 12 Step Program. And you see Alcohol Anonymous Manual is going to a rehab center, perhaps for 28 days. There's some psychotherapeutic treatment to that. And then there's also the conditioning process of attending meetings, either a Nar-Anon meeting, or an Alcohol Anonymous meeting, where you're laying out your story, and you're sharing. And so one of the things that we have found with these diseases, by making it communal, and bridging a gap and having people help each other creating that matrix, it sustains people's ability to stay off of the, addiction. And so your therapeutic idea is what JR?

JR Rahn: (07:49)
Well, look, I just want to call out that I think that Alcoholics Anonymous and NNA are important pieces to solving addiction.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:58)
Yes.

JR Rahn: (07:59)
I think there are, actually, what people forget, is that the 13th Step of the AA was actually supposed to be an LSD trip. But that was what it was originally thought up to be by the founder. That never happened because of the 1960s. But I think it's important to point that out. Our paradigm really is looking at how do we create catalysts for change in your behavior, that when you're dealing with addiction, and ruminating thoughts about anxiety or depression, you really need that catalyst. And some people can do it without a psychedelic. But what I found was that psychedelic medicine is not going to be a panacea to solve all our problems in society. However, they can be catalysts for us to change our behavior, and there's still a lot of work that needs to go in and after-

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:50)
Before we get to Sa'ad, and we are going to get to him in a second, I want to push you a little bit on psychedelics. So because there's a stigma of psychedelics, right? We had that the mushroom, the LSD, and the hippie. It's gets created this 50 year stigma of psychedelics, but yet, there are people that attributed psychedelics to giving them major breakthroughs in life, and major transformation in the way they think about Planet Earth. So step back for people that don't know a lot about psychedelics. Tell us a little bit about the origin and side, forgive me for one sec, we're going to get to you in a moment. But I want you to give this introduction to people that are not familiar with psychedelics and don't need to be afraid of psychedelics, they need to be informed about them. So go ahead JR.

JR Rahn: (09:37)
Yeah, so I mean, modern psychedelics, the things that we talked about, like LSD were really invented inside pharmaceutical companies. They were invented at Sandoz Laboratories, which is now part of the pharmaceutical group Novartis. Many folks might have heard of something called Bicycle Day, which is the infamous day that LSD was actually discovered by Dr. Albert Hoffman, who's a chemist at Sandoz. He was riding home and he liked to test the molecules that he was working on. And after getting home, he realized that there was something very powerful in the experience that he had with LSD. And I think the reason that they've been stigmatized is simply due to headlines that happened in the 1960s, it probably wasn't a, great idea to give everybody a bunch of LSD and ask them to go off and fight a war in Vietnam at the time.

JR Rahn: (10:30)
And so, I think what we're still dealing with as an industry is psychedelics do have this stigma, but in many ways, they can be deeply therapeutic. And we talk about psychedelics. But really what it is, is psychedelic assisted therapy, there's a therapy component to it, you will take a psychedelic, you will sit with a therapist or psychiatrist, and they're guiding you through an experience to realize why you're having some of these underlying causes, to your addiction, to your anxiety, to your depression, to your PTSD. And ultimately, this is the new paradigm to use a drug in combination with therapy, ultimately, is what we are pushing forward as an industry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:19)
So, Sa'ad you have this prolific career in institutional investing, you've been at some of the more premier places. Why do you? Why are you excited about the psychedelic space as it relates to an investment outlook in psychedelics?

Sa'ad Shah: (11:40)
Sure. So first of all, Anthony and John, thank you for having me here. Quite frankly, I really missed the old SALT conferences, the live conferences that were incredibly informative, insightful, and-

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:52)
We're going to be doing LSD trips at the next one, so I may or may not be two hours away, oh! LSD boutique over there. But go ahead Sa'ad. Tell us why.

Sa'ad Shah: (12:01)
So it's a mix, really. It's a mix of a personal journey for me. And an investment sector that makes a hell of a lot of sense for many reasons. So from an investment perspective, Anthony, in a previous life, we ran a fund of funds that focused a great deal on Esoteric Strategies. They were very new in their life cycles, we actually sought them out. And in many cases, we seeded many of them. Strategies like reinsurance and whether derivatives in commercial litigation, finance and music, royalty, business, pharmaceutical royalty business, that's one that dovetails very well with what's going on here. But a key aspect of that was that these strategies were quite new in their lifecycle, and a lot of the capital initially stayed away, because they found it complex. So what we did was, we put these strategies together in a portfolio for investors, predominantly institutional investors, and said, "We will manage the complexity for you."

Sa'ad Shah: (13:03)
But there's definite and distinct Alpha, it may be fleeting, but the Alpha is there, the ability to generate returns greater than what the markets are delivering. But the best part of it was that these strategies were very uncorrelated to the market. So in years 2008 2011 they did well. When we've been following what's happening in psychedelics for a long time, and what's been driving us to the psychedelics apart from the personal, journey, which I'll get into, is the fact that the science has been incredibly compelling, the efficacy rates here just cannot be ignored. And ultimately, we bet on the fact that everything will follow the science, the money will follow the science, capital will follow the science, institutional investors will follow the science.

Sa'ad Shah: (13:48)
And it's utterly compelling, right? There have been on three occasions now that the FDA has designated psychedelics as breakthrough designation BTD, you can go onto the FDA website and take a look at every instance, they've designated anything as BTD. So it's a big deal, which really means that they're saying that, okay, well, this has over 70 75% efficacy rate, to treat that particular ailment, give it the green light, let it go to phase one, let it get, let the process start. And, there was 2017, 2018 and 2019, twice with psilocybin or magic mushrooms, and once for MDMA. So, but the complexity comes in, and when you've got the DEA at the same time saying,"Well hold on a sec, this is a schedule and abuse list." And these are harmful, so they need to stay on that list.

Sa'ad Shah: (14:42)
But as these things get through their, clinical trials, which are fast approaching, they're going to get off the DEA list. So for us, this is a prime example of a strategy that early this life cycle complex, it's mispriced as a result it's under priced, right? And, the efficacy rates will start to be quite readily apparent to, the public to the markets. And these things are going to be priced accordingly. So for us, this is, it's also disruptive, massively disruptive. It makes sense. And, it there's a seven year history behind it that people tend to forget that thing. It's just something new. This has been going on for a long time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:26)
So you have but you have this interesting intersection of activity, right? So let me read you some of these statistics, a 40 million Americans suffering from anxiety annually, only 37% are seeking treatment. You've got 11% of the American adults reported seriously considering suicide in June, at the height of the pandemic, you have the potential reality of 800 million people being out of work as a result of automation coming. And you've got addictive disorders, the opioid crisis costs two and a half trillion dollars to America, at least that's the projection over the next four years. How can this help? Tell me let me ask you, I'm a person has anxiety, I've contemplated suicide, what would be the therapy JR? What am I doing? I come to MindMed and then what happens?

JR Rahn: (16:25)
So MindMed still developing drugs, right? We're going through an FDA federally regulated process, and I hope that we can eventually help folks that have considered suicide and also have anxiety. So we're our project, Lucy, which is LSD assisted therapy, went to the FDA in December for a Pre-IND meeting. And we sat down with them and said, "Look, we think that our LSD assisted therapy can be used with folks that are having generalized anxiety disorder or anxiety. And we want to conduct some clinical trials around that." And so they gave us a very, it was a very successful meeting, we had a very open dialogue, we didn't originally anticipate that it was going to be so open because LSD has a stigma. But I think what's interesting at the FDA, is they're very open to conducting these clinical trials, because the FDA focuses on two things.

JR Rahn: (17:26)
It doesn't focus on politics. Focuses on is something safe and is something effective. And that's really important because the mental health dilemma and situation of America right now is far worse than the political divide we currently have. I mean, 11% of Americans considered suicide in the month of June, that's up double from what it was a year ago, before COVID started. This is, we need novel solutions and treatment paradigms. And so eventually, what we want is for you to come to a clinic or in the comfort of your own home, and be having a psychedelic experience using LSD assisted therapy, with either a transit psychiatrist or therapist that will, guide you through this experience.

JR Rahn: (18:14)
We also are working on some interesting tech that if the experience, one of the major things Anthony that people ask me is, well, what if the trip is too much for me? I have anxiety and I have considered suicide. But what is this experience that you're suggesting to me as a medicine, it's just too much? How do you stop the trip? So one of the things that we're working on is an LSD trip stopper. And it will effectively allow a therapist or psychiatrist, if the experience is getting out of hand, if you as a patient aren't feeling comfortable, we can actually stop it. It's not our preference to, but we feel that in order to get mass adoption by both psychiatrists and potentially-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:57)
You're giving somebody a kill switch if they need it. But so, and I was mentioning this to Sa'ad before we started our SALT Talk. There's a fabulous new biography on Cary Grant. Scott Ehrman just wrote it, new information. He was using LSD, he was suffering from anxiety, suffering from depression. And he was using LSD with the help of a psychotherapist back in the 30s, and 40s. And it was revelatory for him, and it helped him break the cycle of anxiety and depression. And so, how does it do that? For either of you? How does it break that cycle? What happens to the mind with a psychedelic that would cause that breakage?

JR Rahn: (19:44)
So I think there's two things and I'll let Sa'ad also answer but I think that the two main components that one should really look at here is around neural plasticity of the brain, actually breaking the patterns that have rumination. For example, on anxiety or depression, those things that are making you anxious, actually looking at it and talking through the underlying causes of why they are creating anxiety for me. I discovered an LSD experience that the reason I was consuming lots of cocaine and alcohol was really to numb myself from the death of my mother when I was an eight year old child. And those are things that you think about every day. And it certainly wasn't something that I thought about. And so what we talked about is another term called ego dissolution, which we find, we just did a phase one study in Switzerland, with our collaboration with University Hospital Basel, that really looked at what is the ideal dose of LSD, to actually achieve something called ego dissolution? Which is, allows you really to self reflect and think outside of, your day to day ego.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:50)
And I'm going to stop you JR if you are okay. So when you say ego dissolution, means that we have this ego, which is this fortified layer, it's a husk around our brains, personality that protects us from the outside world, they know it's our self talk, it's our self confidence, it's our layer of protection. When you create ego dissolution now, you're able to observe yourself in your most natural state, in terms of the way you came in to the world through nature, as opposed to these environmental behavioral protections that you've developed. Is that fair to say?

JR Rahn: (21:30)
Yeah, I think it helps break down that Kevlar. I mean, I think what I realized my experiences, was that we're just all children wrapped in Kevlar, we get more and more expensive Kevlar as life goes on. But really what that experience is doing is exactly what you say breaking down that husk and I think that's something that people rarely ever do the self reflection.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:53)
I mean, that was one of the more scary revelations for me that when you become an adult, you're just an overgrown child. Okay. And so then you think, Oh, God! Some of these overgrown children have the nuclear codes and then you start really well.

JR Rahn: (22:06)
So you started it not me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:08)
But Sa'ad, have you ever done LSD?

Sa'ad Shah: (22:11)
I have. Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:13)
So what was your experience with it?

Sa'ad Shah: (22:16)
Was very much as JR suggested it was, a melting into the entire cosmos or with the entire cosmos and an overwhelming feeling of oneness. So, my journey Anthony started in college, but not in the way that you think. I did my undergrad in economics and finance and political science, but I spent all my life studying esoteric philosophy. So I was passionate about the Kabbalah as it pertained to Judaism, and Sufism, and pertain to Islam and Gnosticism and Rosicrucianism, Hermeticism, Good Gurdjieff, Blavatsky, so on. And then that somehow led me to want to learn the whole science behind energy, frequency and vibration. So I studied quantum physics. And what I found particularly interesting in quantum physics, is that you need to have an observer consciousness present, in order to determine whether the electron is going to behave as a particle or a wave, or both. So my question was, what if you altered that state of consciousness? And that's exactly what psychedelics do. They alter the state of consciousness. But if you alter the state of consciousness, theoretically, should your entire reality change? And according to the math, there's a strong case for that, of course, that reality actually changes. So-

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:32)
Well does it always change for the better? Or could your reality change?

Sa'ad Shah: (23:36)
No, I think what psychedelics do really, is that they amplify the unconscious. That's what really happens, right? You, it shuts off the default mode network, right? In our brain. So that's where ego is, that's where memories are. That's where our sense of who we are and our role.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:58)
But Sa'ad, does meditation also do that. Is meditation a way to get there as well?

Sa'ad Shah: (24:01)
Yes. Think of it like a pyramid. So meditation can get you there, you can start anywhere at the bottom of the pyramid. But when you get to the top, you're all getting to the same point. So meditation can do that. Beating getting beaten almost to death can do that. Some major, massive stress can do that, spending 40 days and 40 nights in the desert can do that, right? You see where I'm going with this. So there's, a lot of other factors that can play that can get you into an altered state of consciousness. Psychedelics do that as well. But the key thing with psychedelics is that they really amplify the unconscious. I'm going to go back to something that JR mentioned earlier on, which is this whole notion that psychedelics are not dependency, they're not the, it's not the Holy Grail. They are simply a catalyst.

Sa'ad Shah: (24:49)
They are the key that opened the door, but you still got to open the door and walk through it. But if you're walking through the door, and you're in a room with an 800 pound gorilla, that's pretty scary. So what psychedelics do is that they reduce the size of that problem down to a bite size, which is much more manageable. And it allows you to deal with that issue, whatever that issue may be your own personal traumas, it could be ancestral trauma, it could be whatever. And now you're in a position to deal with it. And that's what has been profound. And that's where the research has really come in to show that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:23)
When was the last time you did cocaine JR?

JR Rahn: (25:27)
Last time I did cocaine would have been two years ago, after I really embarked on being going through a few different psychedelic experiences, and realizing that I had a beautiful daughter, had a great life. And there's absolutely no reason to put this stuff up my nose.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:47)
And so the psychedelic experience of, so you, said, "Okay, I've got to get off of cocaine, this is ruining my life." And so the psychedelic experience, I'm going to tie both of you in here in a second. So what Sa'ad is saying is this ego dissolution, you're in that state where your subconscious is, raised up, and you're starting to recognize all the great things that you have in your life. And so is that enough to overcome the biochemical or the mental addiction to the cocaine?

JR Rahn: (26:21)
Well, I think there's two, I think you're dealing with two things, right? I think there's a need for an experiential therapy like, LSD, which gets you to the point or a few that gets to the point of understanding what is the underlying cause of my addiction? For me, it was the death of my mother, right? I need to go through that experience. Now, there is a lot of science, if you look at Nora Volkow's work at the National Institute on Drug Abuse that looks at dopamine, and how dopamine is a huge driver of addiction. And so another thing that we're working on is called 18-MC. It's derived from a psychedelic called Ibogaine. And what we're trying to do is create the antibiotic of addiction. As an addict, when you do a line of cocaine, you get that great sense of euphoria, that's actually a spike in dopamine in your brain. And over time, if you do that too many times, you're depleting the amount of overall available dopamine in your brain. And so your baseline dopamine level that makes you feel good and normal, actually goes down. And so as an addict, you are no longer doing a line of cocaine in my case, to get high. I could do an eight ball of cocaine and feel just normal. I wasn't I didn't feel high. And-

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:42)
So for people on here, that eight ball is eight grams of cocaine, that's a very large amount of cocaine. And, somebody new to cocaine wouldn't be able to do that right away, they wouldn't have enough resistance to your point, their dopamine levels wouldn't be lower enough even right?

JR Rahn: (28:00)
Correct. Yeah. I mean, it wasn't doing that in one sitting. But I think it makes a point that you're really depleting that dopamine in your brain. And somehow we need to bring that level back up and an addict. And eventually, we want to get a person to a point where, they can have a glass of wine, maybe one glass of wine, if you are an addict and still have a normal life. I think that's-

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:27)
Right, because that one glass of wine can trigger you. So the Alcoholic Anonymous people talk about abstinence, because they're afraid you're going to get triggered the glass of wine lowers your inhibition, you're like, okay, let me go to the code.

JR Rahn: (28:40)
Yeah, but there's no solution right now for cocaine on the market zero. For opioids, you have methadone, which is just a little bit less harmful narcotic. We're not moving the needle, no pun intended there. To get people better, you're just putting them on something that is a little bit less addictive, or sorry, more addictive, but less harmful to their bodies. And so I think this is a, huge issue we got to deal with as a country as well, the opioid crisis is going to cost this country two and a half trillion dollars over the next four years. I mean, these are not small problems.

Sa'ad Shah: (29:17)
If I can just add to that, Anthony, obviously, the opioid crisis and mental health is the real epidemic here. And that's the biggest problem and it's getting worse and worse. There are 300 people in the US dying a day now of just drug overdose. And it's never been this bad ever. Suicide rates among men between the age of 45 and 55 is going up. Teenage suicide rates are going up and everything that's out there in the market that we just talked about SSRIs, SNRIs. They're all trying to treat the symptoms but nothing out there is going after the root cause there's been very little innovation in any of these, other SSRIs SNRIs since it came out In the 80s, with Prozac. So no innovation, these drugs are off their patent cliff, there's not much of an interest from Big Pharma as a result to take a look at these, they're focused more on oncology.

Sa'ad Shah: (30:11)
And that's why there's this vacuum created. But quite frankly, because of the political initiatives that underwent in the 70s, that really derailed this process, we're finally coming back with a hell of a lot of information, and a lot of actual cases of individuals that have overcome their addiction. Gabor Mate was a doctor up in Vancouver, who has been helping heroin addicts his entire career. Talks about, he says, "What does it really mean, for a heroin addict to be on heroin?" And as the first time ever heard, something that really put it in perspective, he said, "For heroin addicts, it's like, when the heroin, when they're on heroin," sorry, "Their mother's given them a warm blanket. And, really nurturing them, giving them a hot bowl of chicken corn soup, or chicken noodle soup, and just, being there with them." That's what they feel.

Sa'ad Shah: (31:10)
So what's happening in the brain is if you can substitute heroin, for something that makes you feel just as satiated, and just as nurtured and loved, that the promise there has been what psychedelics and particular plant medicine have been able to offer.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:26)
So-

Sa'ad Shah: (31:27)
What? Yeah, sorry, go ahead.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:29)
No, I mean, I was going to thread both of you together. I'm going to turn it over to John in a second, because I know he has a series of questions from our audience. But what you're basically saying is we have in front of us something that could help our addiction disorders? It got derailed due to politics and the sociology around psychedelics in the 60s. But had we just progressed, the scientific research, we could have gotten to the point where we are now where this could be a therapeutic, that could solve a lot of these problems abate some of the two and a half trillion dollars that you're suggesting, on the opioid crisis and things like that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:13)
And there's a market opportunity for this side, right? Fair enough this would be a very profitable line of pharmacology, if you will, because it's obviously solving great societal problems. And you guys are at the forefront of this. Okay, so with that, I'm going to turn it over to John, because we got to get ratings. Okay, so for some reason, the two of you are all fogies, apparently now, I'm an old fogy, which, I find revolting, and he's a millennial, okay? So for some reason, he gets ratings and so forth. So we have to bring them into the conversation at this point. Otherwise, we probably won't get the ratings that we want. So go ahead, Darcy. You I know you have questions for these guys.

John Darsie: (32:52)
Yes, Sa'ad. I want to build on what Anthony was just talking about in terms of the social stigma attached to psychedelics today. And we had a long conversation when we were first planning out this SALT Talks about your personal experiences with psychedelics and how it transformed your state of consciousness. But in general, in terms of how society looks at psychedelics, you made it very clear and JR made it very clear that you're not looking to be cannabis 2.0. This is not a movement about legalizing LSD or other psychedelics for recreational use. This is specifically about the medical use and supervised use of clinical psychedelic treatments. Can you talk about where we are in the regulatory and social acceptance of psychedelics, and how you strive to be different from the cannabis movement?

Sa'ad Shah: (33:40)
Sure, so first and foremost, when folks talk about cannabis and psychedelics, I quite frankly, don't really get it. And, they're completely two different paradigms altogether. Cannabis is all about a recreation play. It's been a movement that's been going on for a while. There, it's linked to so many other political issues, recidivism, the incarceration rates, and so on. But, it's a recreational play, right? That's where the real revenue is. What's happening in psychedelics is a form of play. This is about biotechnology, it's about creating an entirely new ecosystem, as well around it, because it's not just a take this pill and it will solve your problem.

Sa'ad Shah: (34:28)
It's about creating the therapy around it. It's about the set and the setting the intentions, and it's about post session, integrative science, which is what now I've had my psychedelic experience, how do I make sense of everything that I've just, experienced, and I've seen and I've just sensed and, how do I now take that and live my day to day life with, this, issue that I'm carrying and, they need help with that. So, that's what wonderful about this about what's happening in this Renaissance movement.

Sa'ad Shah: (35:03)
Because it's there's a whole infrastructure that's going to be born out of it. There's a therapist, there's a supply chain, there's the upstream, the midstream and the downstream side of the equation is the whole supply chain endeavor. So that's, this is going to be a multi-billion dollar industry, which is going to go into trillions of dollars, I have no doubt about it in due course, over the next, 7-10 years, for sure. Now, the one we-

John Darsie: (35:31)
[inaudible 00:35:31] experience Sa'ad, before we go any further, what really, resonated with me when we began when we were planning this, SALT Talk about your personal experience we heard from JR, about how in his personal life, how psychedelics have been able to heal some of these issues that were latent in his consciousness, but tell us about your experience with Ayahuasca.

Sa'ad Shah: (35:51)
Right, so my first experience with psychedelics is at the age of 38. I was one of those just nerdy, geeky guys, I was reading a whole lot about altered states of consciousness, because that's where that, esoteric strength studies and quantum physics led me to. And I read one of the authors, his name is Graham Hancock, who wrote a profound book called Supernatural and all he was trying to do was trying to explain why is it that cave art, which is 50,000 years old, found in South America, found in Australia and in Europe, vast distances from each other, resemble and have the same features? And his conclusion was, through great research was that these were done by individuals that had had some form of a psychedelic experience. And then they drew this.

Sa'ad Shah: (36:35)
And so there were distinct patterns that were recognizable throughout, regardless of your ethnic background, your upbringing, ethnicity, so that was fascinating. I contacted Graham, and we became good friends. And he invited me down to Brazil. So I went down to Brazil in 2009. Like I said, I was 38 years of age, never had any psychedelics before. And spend two weeks down there trying to understand the Shipibo traditions and their ways. And there were a bunch of other professors and anthropologists there, and a few individuals that were suffering from stage four cancer, stage three cancer and other mental health issues. What I saw there was profound not only in terms of the journey that I went through, and what I saw on, through Ayahuasca, but in particular, the stage four cancer, ovarian cancer patient is still living, the stage three cancer, pancreatic cancer patient is still in remission. And, there was a suicidal ideation case there, that individual is still living.

Sa'ad Shah: (37:32)
So I knew that there was something to do here. But I didn't know as an investment management professional, what the hell I could do, there wasn't an industry, then there was not much to do in terms of investing in this space. Until we saw what happened in 2017 2018. With what, Compass and MindMed. MindMed, just for the record was our first ever investment we've made 19 investments in this space, seen over 250 different opportunities been very selective. And, now, this is an industry that you've got, well over 30 publicly traded companies in this space. There are 400 private companies that are in this space working on various molecules or aspects of this industry. So it's, now become an industry that can invite a lot of capital. And that's what we've seen. So that's the personal journey that got me to the point where I just didn't know what to do about that experience. But I knew that it was profound at so many different levels. For me, personally, I can just say, and obviously, this is very subjective.

Sa'ad Shah: (38:43)
My tolerance levels went up, I became a better father, I became a better husband, I became a better son, a better co-worker, my fears went away. My fear of death, my whole relationship with death and understanding of death went away, a lot of my inhibitions went away. So it made me a lot more grounded. It made me a lot more in touch with everything, and just a healthier individual, what I call a, much wealthier individuals. So that's my personal journey there.

John Darsie: (39:17)
Thanks for sharing that Sa'ad. JR I want to move to you. Sa'ad talked about the size of this psychedelics movement. And, MindMed is not the only player in the space, you're one of the larger players, but could you talk about just the growth of the psychedelics market institutions that have started to come on board and exciting growth prospects that you're seeing within the psychedelics industry?

JR Rahn: (39:40)
Well, look, I think, really 2020 was the start of, the publicly listed component of the space and you saw, both ourselves and Compass go public that the in 2020. All both achieving unicorn status in terms of evaluation along with a tie. So there's really a clear pack in front when it comes to ourselves and, other more upstarts in the space. But what I think, when we talk about psychedelic medicines as a new asset class in biotech. It's also in many ways a new paradigm for how we're treating mental health. And we're doing a really bad job of treating mental health in America.

JR Rahn: (40:31)
It's the bastard child of the American healthcare system. 60% of US counties don't have a psychiatrist. 80% of our SSRI or anti depression medications that are prescribed, which aren't really, helping people in many instances are prescribed by doctors, just normal GPs, that or your family doctor, they have no specialization in psychiatry. And so what I think the overall Blue Sky opportunity here in psychedelics is not just the drug trials that are undergoing here, I think it is that they will be catalysts for building out further infrastructure to retool how we treat mental health in America. And, I think we, spend just under $300 billion a year on behavioral health in America, we're going to need far more than that spending wise, to treat some of the issues that are coming out of here.

JR Rahn: (41:31)
40% of Americans, have some form of a mental health issue or an addiction during COVID. These problems aren't going away. If you look just even at Rat Park models, which are, where they took two sets of rats, and they put one set in isolation the other to lay around to run around in a little city, the consumption of addictive substances went up 18 fold we just had the largest Rat Park model in human history just happened to us with all these lockdowns. The lingering effects of COVID-19 on our mental health, as a society and globally. To me, the pandemic is going to turn into a mental health epidemic. And it's good that companies like us exist, and that we're rethinking how we treat mental health in this country and globally.

John Darsie: (42:25)
So Sa'ad building on what JR just said, why did you go out and start Noetic to tackle these issues that you're seeing in society as well?

Sa'ad Shah: (42:34)
Thanks, John. Sure. So Noetic was a very organic endeavor, really, it was three partners coming together. Realizing that this is a space that we wanted to get involved in, we saw what was happening with Compass, with ATI Live, SAGE Therapeutics, Perception, Life Sciences, and we wanted to invest. So we pooled our own capital together. Of course, investment, as I mentioned, was MindMed. And we just started to grow the portfolio. And slowly we started to attract family members and friends. And they said, "Well, what are you doing?" And we're like, "Well, we're very excited about this space, but not for everybody. But, but we think it's going to be huge." And, that just, it really just grew from there.

Sa'ad Shah: (43:16)
We've got a fund now that has assets under management about 40 million, we've made 19 investments, we've had a few realizations as well as generated 189% return profile. So it's an exciting area for sure, but it's really moving at breakneck speed. There are five companies in our portfolio that are public, we only invest in private, right? That have gone public there about four or five more that are slated to go public. So this market is moving fast. Obviously, the public markets are responding very favorably to psychedelics as well, because it's actually getting to the root cause of the issues and solving the problem, as opposed to just treating the symptoms. And everybody following up on the science.

Sa'ad Shah: (43:58)
Now, what's particularly pertinent, is that when you get CNN, 60 Minutes, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg all start to report on psychedelics in a very favorable light, that this is beyond just a fad or a trend or movement. This has really, taken off and so, ours was an organic endeavor, which, we've closed our first fund, we're going to be launching a second fund, which is more for institutional investors. And that's why I feel that platforms such as this are very, important. We need to this industry needs to get the institutional investors involved here. And they are taking note, there's a first ETF that just went up horizons ETF on psychedelics, they're going to be more that are going to follow. So certainly institutions are working up to this, but institutions really need to pay attention to what's going on, pay attention to the science and play a meaningful role going forward. And that's what we want to try and help and support.

John Darsie: (45:01)
JR we have a couple minutes left. I want to finish with you talking about the regulatory side. So where are we? Are you more optimistic now with a new administration coming in that might be a little more open mind to these treatments and in specific states? What type of measures and progress have we seen adopted, that gives you hope about the future regulatory environment for psychedelic treatments?

JR Rahn: (45:23)
Well, I think, with the incoming Biden administration, and, let's see how that goes. But, the Blue Wave that, could be undergoing here, I think, is positive for the psychedelic space. I think there's going to be more spending on behavioral health and mental health. I think the opioid crisis was attacked by the Trump administration right? They came out and they declared war on it. We have more opioid deaths this year than we did when the outgoing administration started. So still very big problems to solve. But what I think is interesting is that the space is becoming far more institutional. When I first started fundraising for MindMed, nobody really took me seriously in Silicon Valley, they just didn't think that this space was going to be possible. There were early folks like Sa'ad's Noetic Fund and, others that took some big bets on us and were rewarded handsomely as we went public this year. We're starting to see, lots of the Hedge Fund Community from New York come into this space in a very, big way.

JR Rahn: (46:39)
Their characters that are in the in billions, the series that are, going on Ayahuasca sessions, all the real life, folks that, are the basis for those characters are investing in companies like ourselves. And, I think that's just an overall destigmatization, but also a wake up from Wall Street, that mental health and addiction can be a very big industry. And unfortunately, it's probably going to be a boom industry because of what's transpired here in lockdown and COVID. But coming back to your question around on the regulatory framework that we work under and what's ongoing in the United States, currently, everything that we do needs to be federally compliant, our institutional investors require it. We have taken investments from some very big institutions that manage academic institutions money. And so, anything that we do needs to be federally compliant as a promise I made to one of our first seed investors, Kevin O'Leary, he had no involvement in the cannabis space, because they weren't going and approaching their space in a federally compliant manner. So everything we do is at the through an FDA pathway.

JR Rahn: (47:54)
Or if we do a drug trial overseas, it's through a nationally registered health regulator. But there is movements, there are movements. For example, in Oregon, you saw Measure 109 pass, I think the reason that this Measure pass and just to clarify what that is, and it basically, we got, legalized the use of psilocybin therapy in the state of Oregon, it has a two year hiatus before it can come into effect. We think there's a positive step in the right direction. But our ambition as a company is to make medicines for all Americans that are scalable, and institutional grade business. And so we need everything to be federally compliant. And we find that the FDA pathway is going to be the most efficient pathway to achieve that for both our shareholders and our patients. We don't want a scenario where it's legal in one state, but it's not legal, in the other.

JR Rahn: (48:55)
And, that doesn't really build a big business or help a lot of people. Our objective is to heal people. So I think those are positive movements. But I think what people and investors should really be looking at are not the political process that are behind psychedelics, they should be looking at the data and the science, the safety and the efficacy, because that's what the FDA cares about. And we think that's the most efficient pathway and the FDA is very receptive to what we are working on here. And they should be because these are, very large problems in society that we need to solve over the next few years. After, this pandemic closes up.

John Darsie: (49:36)
And another piece that resonated with me when we were talking before we did this session was SSRIs, which are a common prescription for people that are suffering from a variety of different ailments, whether it be addiction, anxiety, depression, the efficacy rates of those drugs are, very low, I think somewhere between 10 and 30%. So this provides another alternative that really gets to the root causes, as opposed to the type of experimentation you see with SSRIs?

JR Rahn: (50:03)
Yeah, thanks so much.

John Darsie: (50:04)
Yeah. Go ahead, JR. Just comment on that briefly.

JR Rahn: (50:07)
Yeah, SSRIs are also highly addictive. They're not easy things to get off of. And so it's something to consider, these are the substances that we're working on if you look at the toxicity, and we still have a lot of preclinical work that we need to do across different psychedelic molecules, but these are relatively non-toxic substances that we're dealing with, and relatively easy to get drug trials up and running in the phase one and phase two.

Sa'ad Shah: (50:40)
Yeah. And just too important note without any physiologically addictive properties. That's a very important feature. Right, that-

John Darsie: (50:49)
Right.

Sa'ad Shah: (50:49)
So...

John Darsie: (50:51)
Well, JR Rahn, and Sa'ad Shah, thank you so much for joining us today on SALT Talks. These are type of topics we'd love to dive into. It's an emerging asset class from an investment perspective. And it's something with huge potential returns not just on investment capital, but of human capital and the ability for us to finally start addressing this epidemic as JR referred to mental health issues that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. So thank you so much for joining us. We look forward to reprising this conversation, either in the future on SALT Talks, or like you mentioned Sa'ad earlier one of our in person conferences, potentially later this year. So looking forward to that, and thank you so much for joining us.

Sa'ad Shah: (51:27)
Thank you, John. Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, JR.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:31)
Nice.

John Darsie: (51:32)
Thank you, everybody who tuned in to today's SALT Talk on psychedelics. It's definitely an interesting topic that we're looking forward to exposing more people on. If you missed any of this episode, you can always access our archive of SALT Talks on our YouTube channel, or on our website@salt.org\talks\archive. And you can also sign up for all of our future talks@salt.org\talks. Please tell your friends about SALT Talks. We love growing our community. If you found this conversation interesting. Please refer people to our website salt.org where they can participate both in our conferences and in the SALT Talks. And please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram. On behalf of the entire SALT team. This is John Darcy signing off for today. We'll see you back here again tomorrow on SALT Talks.

Lyn Alden: Bitcoin vs. Inflation | SALT Talks #142

“2020 was the perfect storm for Bitcoin… The macro environment couldn’t be more attractive. We saw broad money supply increase 25% year-over-year.”

Lyn Alden is founder of Lyn Alden Investment Strategy where she provides investors with research, information, and tools to help them build wealth.

Initially, there were concerns around Bitcoin that made it too risky to feel confident in. Over a few years, concerns over potential competitors and vulnerabilities were addressed, greatly de-risking the asset. To cap a strong 2-3 year run, 2020 presented an ideal environment for Bitcoin to make a big jump. “2020 was the perfect storm for Bitcoin… The macro environment couldn’t be more attractive. We saw broad money supply increase 25% year-over-year.”

Bitcoin follows Metcalfe’s Law which means that as the number of users increase, the cryptocurrency’s value grows exponentially- this is often known as the network effect. In addition, due to the verification process, Bitcoin becomes more secure as the price goes up.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Lyn Alden.jpeg

Lyn Alden

Founder

Lyn Alden Investment Strategy

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darcy. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers.

John Darcy: (00:26)
What we're trying to do on these SALT Talks like we try to do at our SALT conferences, which we're going to hopefully resume the second half of 2021, is 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. In our view, there are few bigger ideas out there today than the digital assets and Bitcoin space.

John Darcy: (00:47)
We're thrilled today to welcome Lyn Alden, one of the leading commentators and experts on the digital assets and Bitcoin space to SALT Talks. Lyn Alden's background lies at the intersection of engineering and finance. She has a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and a master's degree in engineering management, with the focus on engineering economics and financial modeling. She oversees the finances and the day-to-day operations of an engineering facility.

John Darcy: (01:13)
Lyn has been performing investment research for over 15 years in various public and private capacities. Her work has been editorially featured or cited on Business Insider, MarketWatch Times Money Magazine, The Daily Telegraph, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Street, CNBC, U.S. News & World Report, Kiplinger and The Huffington Post. In addition, she's appeared on Kitco, Real Vision, The Investor's Podcast Network, the Rebel Capitalist Show, Macro Voices, the Macro Huddle, What Bitcoin Did and many other podcasts and we're now proud to say today, she has appeared on SALTs. Hopefully that will make it in her bio as well. She's also a regular contributor to seeking Alpha Fed Week and Elliot Wave Trader.

John Darcy: (01:56)
Hosting today's talk is Brett Messing, the President and Chief Operating Officer of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm that recently at the beginning of this year, launched a Bitcoin fund, and SkyBridge also made a substantial investment into Bitcoin via our flagship funds. With that, no further ado, I'll turn it over to Brett to conduct the interview.

Brett Messing: (02:19)
Well, Lyn welcome. Glad you could join us.

Lyn Alden: (02:22)
Thanks for having me.

Brett Messing: (02:24)
As I told you, before we went on the air. I'm a Lyn Alden fan and you actually helped me by extension us on our journey to investing in Bitcoin in our fund. We presently have, I think about $400 million invested in Bitcoin. We're not messing around. We even have hats that say Bitcoin.

Lyn Alden: (02:41)
Congratulations on your fund by the way.

Brett Messing: (02:44)
Thank you. We're super excited about it. You start off, can you just talk about your journey to going from Bitcoin is interesting too, this is a legitimate investible asset. Then next one, I want to talk about your report to take on it right now, which of course we share. But I'd like to understand that preliminary step.

Lyn Alden: (03:07)
Absolutely. I first heard of Bitcoin back in 2010, 2011. But I thought it was neat, I understood the basics of the technology, but I didn't really have a way to price it or a way to think that it would get very big, and so I didn't really go into that space. I didn't really keep to close tabs on it.

Lyn Alden: (03:23)
But then of course, when he had that giant run-up in 2017, I started getting more and more emails from my investment clients. Asked me what my thoughts are on it. Do I think it's a good opportunity. Of course, there's nothing like price to change public sentiment on it. For example, whatever is doing well at a time, I tend to get emails from clients about that particular thing because we had the pot stock bubble, we had the gold stock spike, we had Bitcoin go up into...

Lyn Alden: (03:46)
All these different years have a different theme. Right now a lot of interest in electrical vehicles stocks, for example. But during that 2017 run-up I said, okay, I need to do a deeper dive on this. I need to have a price model here. I need to understand some of the risks and opportunities. I did a long form research piece on it.

Lyn Alden: (04:04)
My conclusion at the time was that it is really interesting. It is really useful technology and that I'm not exactly bearish on it but that I can't bring myself to be bullish on it either. I had that neutral to slightly bear's outlook on and I took no position. I had a couple of key concerns at the time.

Lyn Alden: (04:22)
One was that sure, that Bitcoin is scarce but then now that Satoshi Nakamoto published how to do it, all these other cryptocurrencies can come in its wake, and so my concern was that potentially that the market would become very diluted. For example, even if a trillion dollars of capital pours in, what if it just goes into all these different alt coins and there's no one dominant network effect.

Lyn Alden: (04:45)
The second concern I had was that Bitcoin had recently split. I had the Bitcoin cash hard fork because there was a difference of opinion among the developer committee about whether to maximize the ease of running a full node versus try to increase transaction throughput on the base layer so that you had that kind of disagreement, and they went in two different directions.

Lyn Alden: (05:06)
My concern at the time was okay, we just had a massive price run up. I see some of these dilution risks, and so I sat out. That was around 7,000 a coin. Then of course we had the blow off top a couple months later, then we had the massive correction. We had this multi-year consolidation, and so it did actually underperform any other assets for awhile.

Lyn Alden: (05:24)
But then I started to pay attention to it again in late 2019 because by then, a lot of my initial concerns were addressed. Bitcoin won out over its hard fork in terms of hash rate and price, so it retained a very dominant market share. One of their hard forks had another hard fork into Bitcoin's Toshi vision, and those are less than one to 2% of Bitcoin's market capitalization and hash rate. They never really became sizeable competitors from a store value perspective.

Brett Messing: (05:56)
You can call them shit coins. We're fine with that. We're not on the broadcast networks here.

Lyn Alden: (06:01)
Because they never took off, they never took Bitcoin's market share, Bitcoin regained some degree of Bitcoin dominance, meaning a percentage of market cap of the total digital asset space, and so I started paying attention to it. Then of course in early 2020, when we had that big liquidation event in March, pretty much every asset class across the board was going down in price rapidly because we had liquidity issues and the global banking system.

Lyn Alden: (06:28)
I saw that Bitcoin behaved a lot like gold and silver did, and so when it was starting to come back up in April, I bought into Bitcoin. Ironically it was roughly the same price. It was just under seven 7,000 that I analyze it back in 2017. However, I viewed as significantly de-risked. And forced its scarcity by making sure that some of these hard forks couldn't take market share from it. Basically, it retained a lot of its key principles.

Lyn Alden: (06:56)
Then when you look forward about where it is in it's four-year having cycle, it's in a much more favorable place relative to the cycle that it goes through. I had a high conviction on it that I wasn't sure it would take off. But I figured that that the risk to award ratio was some of the best I've seen in any asset class, so I had to have a position.

Brett Messing: (07:16)
Can you just take a moment and explain the halving? I think for some of our audience that would be helpful.

Lyn Alden: (07:23)
Absolutely. The way Bitcoin is programmed, roughly every 10 minutes there's a new block added to the blockchain. It does an automatic network difficulty adjustment to ensure that that rate stays that about every 10 minutes. After, I believe it's 210,000 blocks, which is roughly four years, there's a halving. Basically, every time there's a new block generated, the minor that creates that block gets to create a number of Bitcoins for themselves.

Lyn Alden: (07:51)
In the first four years, that was 50 Bitcoin generated per block. Then after four years, the algorithm is pre-programmed to cut that in half, and so that went down to 25 new Bitcoins per block. Then four years later, it's 12 and a half Bitcoins per block. And so every four years, the new supply of Bitcoin generated per unit of time it gets cut in half.

Lyn Alden: (08:15)
The pattern we tend to see is that if you look at what Bitcoin did in the launch cycle for the first year, so it didn't even have a price history, and then it went up pretty dramatically. Then it had this blow off top and then it reaches consolidation, and it finally had this balance between supply and demand.

Lyn Alden: (08:31)
When it got that balance, we had a supply shock. The amount of supply got cut in half, demand was still pretty persistent and that drove the price up again. Then of course, you get momentum traders, jump on board. You bring it up to a new high, you have another blow off top and it crashed a correction. Then it finds another equilibrium base at a higher price level. Right when it does that, there's another halving. The supply gets cut in half again, and it has another four-year run. That's the cycle we've seen play out about three times.

Brett Messing: (08:59)
Okay, that's great. You had a terrific piece of summary which I sent to a lot of people. The three reasons that you're bullish on Bitcoin. You mentioned the halving cycle, the network effect which I think everyone's familiar with. That's all the value that's been created in Google information network. Amazon or retail network has come from just this collection of people all on the same system. Then the third obviously is the macro environment. You're an economist. Can you just speak to that a little bit?

Lyn Alden: (09:29)
Basically, this know 2020 was the perfect storm for Bitcoin. Because in addition to being in a good place in its own halving cycle and in addition to having one over some of those four competitors, the macro environment couldn't be more attractive. The narrative for why you'd want to buy Bitcoin is some of the best around.

Lyn Alden: (09:47)
For example, we saw broad money supply in the United States increased by about 25% year over year over the past 12 months. That's of course because we had very large fiscal deficits. Then we had a significant degree of monetization where the central bank was basically forced to buy a significant percentage of the treasuries issue to do all this fiscal deficits.

Lyn Alden: (10:09)
We see that in countries around the world to different degrees, so in many countries you see money supply growth growing over 10% year over year. The United States was actually one of the largest with over 25% year over year money supply increase. When you have that massive increase in money supply, if it doesn't show up in say price inflation, it can show up more easily in asset price inflation. You've seen a reflation and anything that's scare. Real estate, commodities, most equities, things like that.

Brett Messing: (10:40)
That's perfect. I'll talk a little bit the value, how to value Bitcoin. Bill Miller was on CNBC last week and he said that as Bitcoin goes up in value, it actually becomes more valuable and less risky as it shucks more money into it. I'm going to put a pin on that for a second. There are two other ways that I think are common way to value Bitcoin.

Brett Messing: (11:05)
One is Metcalf's law, which is by looking at the number of users on the network. I've seen some research where if you track the price against the number of people that are believed to own Bitcoin, attracts at about a 96% correlation. Then the third methodology is the stock to flow model. Which looks at the amount of outstanding Bitcoin as the numerator, and the amount is being mined as the denominator.

Brett Messing: (11:31)
As you discussed earlier with the halving cycle, as that fraction becomes more favorable, it drives the price. I'd like your thoughts on just generally how you value Bitcoin. Probably starting first with Bill Miller's comment and then how these three in your mind work together or don't.

Lyn Alden: (11:52)
Absolutely. Basically what Bill Miller points out is correct. As Bitcoin's price goes up, what we generally see is that the hash rate goes up. That's the amount of computing power that goes into verifying the network. If you look at some of the alt coins, they have very low hash rate.

Lyn Alden: (12:09)
Meaning that if you were to try 51% attack on the network, meaning if you were to somehow get enough mining capacity or processing power to be able to be a majority miner in that network, then you can change the blockchain in your favor. You can basically cheat the system and give yourself more coins. You basically can break the network.

Lyn Alden: (12:28)
With some of those, very cheap coins, low market capitalization, low hash rate, it's not that expensive to either either buy hardware or rent computing power or whatever their algorithm needs, and go ahead and attack that network and basically profit from that.

Lyn Alden: (12:44)
Bitcoin is unique in the sense that it has by far the most hash rate of any digital asset out there. Because it was the first, it's been this 12-year history of ever increasing hash rate. As the price goes up, it enables more and more mining capacity to come online and verify the network. Because most of their money comes from mining Bitcoin, generating block.

Lyn Alden: (13:09)
They also generate fees for verifying transactions, and so the higher overall market capitalization of the system, the more fees go into mining and the more expensive it would be to try to do a 51% attack. Basically as it gets more expensive, it also gets more secure in that sense.

Lyn Alden: (13:25)
Then you look at other ways of modeling it. I do think Metcalf's law is a key way to look at it. You've seen Bitcoin, and then we've also seen the theory, for example, play along those kinds of network effects. Whereas more and more people jump on, you generally have the price go up. But of course as you have these four-year halving cycles, you can undershoot or overshoot that trendline.

Lyn Alden: (13:48)
For example, if you look at the stock to flow ratio, which is a supply only model, it doesn't take into account demand. You generally see that they have pretty steady levels of where they expect the price to be at any given time based on the four year halving cycle we talked about. But you generally see that during the end of that bull run, you'll massively overshoot the model, and then you'll fall back below the model, and then you'll come to an equilibrium, and that's because demand is a variable that can fluctuate over time.

Lyn Alden: (14:15)
When you bring in another class of investors, that can push briefly way above the model until momentum phase and it dies back down. Then use it to the next halving cycled that triggers another bull run.

Brett Messing: (14:28)
I don't want to touch on the network effect for a second. Because again, I think people make this analogy which has work right between social networks and Bitcoin is a monetary network. But it seems to me that on Facebook, almost everyone is created equal. In the context of a monetary network, I don't think that's the case.

Brett Messing: (14:50)
Michael Saylor is way more than my daughter who joined the network. But for the purpose of calculating the way the model works, it doesn't account for the fact that you have players that have vastly different value to the overall network. How would you think about that? Is that just Metcalfe's law plus or does that make Metcalfe's law less relevant here?

Lyn Alden: (15:17)
Each type of network has different characteristics. For example, if you look at a phone system, every note on the phone system is pretty much equal. Whereas if you look at something like E-bay, you have two different types of nodes. You have buyers and sellers, and you need to attract a bunch of both in order to make it work. You don't have this equal distribution. You have more buyers than sellers.

Lyn Alden: (15:37)
With Bitcoin, there's a couple of different ways to measure the network. One is just hash rate, for example. The sheer amount of hash rate and security that the system has. Another way to look at it is the number of nodes, which are separate from miners. Whereas mining is a very expensive capital intensive operation, a full node can be run by anybody with a basic laptop.

Lyn Alden: (15:59)
Bitcoin has far more full nodes verifying the network from enthusiasts and all people around the world. And as far more globally distributed, whereas mining tends to be concentrated in China. Bitcoin does verification in the network. Then of course, because it's the leading brand and it has the most security, and it has a ton of liquidity, that's the one that people go to when they want to get into the space.

Lyn Alden: (16:26)
For example, SkyBridge didn't buy into light coin, as far as I know. It's Bitcoin. You basically buy the one, the blue chip of the space. As it has that large and larger network effect, that's the one that people go into when they want that security, the one that they know is going to have really useful value, and it pretty much can be in some ways accepted around the world.

Lyn Alden: (16:47)
We see in addition, once a network effect takes off, then the surrounding ecosystem gets stronger. For example, now there are Bitcoin-only hardware wallets. In the beginning, we had these hardware wallets that you could hold a bunch of digital assets. But then as the Bitcoin community diverge a little bit from the other crypto assets, we see things like Bitcoin-only hardware wallets that dedicate to Bitcoin.

Lyn Alden: (17:12)
Same thing with security companies like Casa that focus on multisignature solutions. It started to get more and more development in the surrounding ecosystem or apps that run on Bitcoin. Or you see rewards cards that pay you in Bitcoin. Whereas you see a lot less of that in some of the smaller coins because they haven't hit the critical mass to have that better and better ecosystem.

Lyn Alden: (17:35)
Then of course, once one of the protocols reaches that high level and get that better ecosystem, that gives more access points for people to invest in it, more money pours into it and then that can make the surrounding ecosystem even better.

Brett Messing: (17:49)
Thank you. That's helpful and interesting. Let's talk about volatility. Because Bitcoin went up 100% in three weeks and down about 28% in two days. JPMorgan has issued a note over the last couple of weeks. We're really thrilled that JPMorgan is writing about Bitcoin. Although I have to say, I don't agree with much of what they write.

Brett Messing: (18:10)
For example, they wrote last week that a Bitcoin ETF would be bad for Bitcoin, which I violently disagree with. But they also wrote the week before interestingly, that if you look at Bitcoin on a volatility adjusted basis, that essentially it's fairly valued. Particularly in comparison to gold. If you look at market cap in comparison to volatility. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Lyn Alden: (18:36)
Yeah. I view, there's often that narrative of Bitcoin as a store of value, and of course you have to push back to say, how can you call it a store of value if you can literally wake up and the next day your Bitcoin's down by like a third. That's because I'd classify it as an emergent store value. It's basically a whole new asset class and it's currently in the price discovery phase whereas the whole world kind of discovers what is this thing worth?

Lyn Alden: (18:59)
It's first decade of its existence, it was mostly retail investors. The past couple of years, especially 2020, we've seen it at more institutional interest. If you look at that classic, S-curve of adoption, where you have that initial early adopters and then you have that mass adoption phase and then the maturity phase. Where something like gold is of course. It's a fully mature store of value. It's been around for thousands of years and so we have a lot less volatility.

Lyn Alden: (19:23)
Whereas Bitcoin is still in that earlier phase of its of its adoption cycle. It has more risk, it has more volatility, but then people that are investing in it are basically expecting that it over time, it'll become more widely distributed, more broadly owned, and that its volatility will go down over time. There are a couple of different ways to measure volatility.

Lyn Alden: (19:42)
One of the simplest ways just to look at, say, draw downs from all time highs. The problem there is that because Bitcoin has these illiquidity events. For example, if look back in late 2017, we hit that really high level, but there's actually very little volume at that super high level. Whereas I think one of the best ways to measure volatility is to look at the market capitalization compared to the realized capitalization. Which is basically, the realized cap is basically, it's like a cost basis for Bitcoin, is basically looking at the price.

Lyn Alden: (20:17)
The weighted average of looking at the blockchain is seeing when coins last moved and looking at the price at which they moved, and you can come with a cost basis of when the system last moved. Then compare that to market cap and of course those are both rolling numbers. If you look at it like that, Bitcoin volatility has reduced in every four-year cycle.

Lyn Alden: (20:38)
That's basically that that the actual cost basis where people bought their coins has generally become a little bit more stable each time, although it still is significantly volatile because if you were to listen to the Bitcoin bowls, it's still fairly early on in its adoption cycle, and that it could become several, several times larger before the volatility would go down and perhaps resemble more like gold or silver.

Brett Messing: (21:03)
Speaking of the Bitcoin bowls, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss wrote a piece earlier in the year, $500,000 target for Bitcoin, basically that it will equal the price target, which means the market cap of gold? What's your reaction to that?

Lyn Alden: (21:18)
I think it's possible. I try to avoid specific price targets especially within a given cycle because I can have a high conviction that it's going to do well in the cycle. But then the question is how high. For example, my base case early this summer is if you look at the price performance of Bitcoin each four-year halving cycle, each one was obviously explosive, but each one was a smaller gain percentage-wise in the cycle before it.

Lyn Alden: (21:45)
That makes sense because as you go from a micro cap to a small cap to a medium cap to a large cap, you should expect smaller percent gains. Now this cycle so far was surprising me to the upside because it's actually tried to do better so far compared to where we are from the halving compared to the previous four-year cycle. Maybe that's because we've had institutional interest, so we've had an extra kick of big money coming in.

Lyn Alden: (22:08)
There could be a variety of maybe it's the macro environment. There could be a variety of reasons. My price target was significantly know if there was but without trying to give it a firm conviction. I said, I would expect at least a trillion dollar market capitalization in this cycle. I think four to equal gold, I think that's a real possibility. I would actually break it down a little bit though into the different types of gold.

Lyn Alden: (22:31)
For example if you look at gold as something like a $10 trillion market capitalization. But that of course consists of central banks owning it, that consists of a very large stock pile of jewelry around the world, and also consists of outright investment demand in the form of ETFs or gold bars and things like that.

Lyn Alden: (22:50)
I think the first step is to overtake or match gold investment demand. Which would be a subset that might be... I don't have the numbers on me but it might be something like two trillion, maybe three trillion, and then from there we'll see where it goes to overtake say the jewelry amount, the Central Bank amount. That's a whole separate use case. But over time, I do think that that Bitcoin could potentially rival gold if it continues to be seen and have this four-year halving cycle keep playing out in the way that it has.

Brett Messing: (23:21)
Do you think Bitcoin could de-monetize other asset classes? For example, art is a store of value. Most art doesn't sit on people's walls. It sits in these big storage facilities where people aren't owning it to enjoy it. There are three out in Manhattan right now. Lots of foreign people own apartments here that they never visit. They're treating New York real estate is just a store of value. Could you see a scenario where Bitcoin takes a big chunk of those other alternative asset class? Are we which are we thinking too narrowly by focusing on gold?

Lyn Alden: (23:56)
Yeah, that's the most bullish case overall, and so I think it's helpful to actually think of it in terms of layers. You can basically say, what if Bitcoin overtakes the investment case for gold? Then it's what if Bitcoin overtakes all of gold? Then it's, what if Bitcoin becomes such a broad store of value that it begins demonetizing, those other stores of value?

Lyn Alden: (24:15)
In that case, you can get the tens of trillions of dollars in market capitalization because you're taking away from all those different areas. I think that's a possibility. I think my focus is to emphasize one four-year halving cycle at a time, and let's see where we get in this cycle, then from there we'll have more information to judge what the next four-year cycle might look like.

Lyn Alden: (24:37)
Whereas I try not to speculate too far in advance, but I do think that those situations are possible. I agree with you. Basically the world has a store of value problem. That's actually, I think one of the reasons why the core Bitcoin software took off and not some of these other derivatives of it that tried to emphasize higher throughput. Because the world has all sorts of payment technologies. It's pretty easy for most people to pay.

Lyn Alden: (25:01)
Now, there are some edge cases and for example, a lot of people sending small international money. It's actually a lot of people that have that issue, and so for them, they have a particular issue. But if you look at where big pools of capital are, they primarily have a store of value problem. Because banks are paying a level of interest that doesn't keep up with inflation. Same thing for most sovereign bonds around the world. All these investors have this store value problem.

Lyn Alden: (25:27)
We see things being bid up like fine wine, fine art, beachfront property, all these different things. A lot of them, obviously they don't generate cash flow. For example, you point out that apartments in New York are empty. I like to go to beaches where they just have these $30 million homes and no one's there. They only go there maybe two weeks out of the year, and then the whole beach is yours. Because they're primarily just using that at beach front property as stores of value. I do think that over time, Bitcoin can chip away at some of those. I don't know if it will displace them, but it certainly gives an alternative that is more fungible, more liquid.

Brett Messing: (26:04)
I would add Malibu to your list of beaches with beautiful houses to go visit where there aren't many people there. Where do we go wrong, Lyn? What do you worry about? If we're all wrong... Of course the thing I worry about the most is, Dick Cheney's unknown unknowns. I'm less worried about the things in front of me, but of the things that we have the imagination to contemplate, what are the one or two or three things that you worry about and we should be worrying about?

Lyn Alden: (26:34)
One would be obviously a big bug in the software. Some of these protocols had bugs in their early days. For example, Bitcoin had an inflation bug back in 2010. It was fixed within hours. Ethereum had a big bug in its early period. But now, Bitcoin's an open source software. There's tons of people scrutinizing every line of code. It's in the phase where to finish product now. It undergos security updates, privacy updates, but it's not radically changing.

Lyn Alden: (27:04)
But that is a tail risk if something were to go wrong, technically. Besides that, I think we still have a big regulation hurdle to get through. For example, a lot of people are concerned that a Bitcoin gets too big, it faces more regulatory scrutiny and it risks being banned. Whereas I've argued somewhat the opposite that the bigger it gets, the harder it is to outright ban. Then instead, the key risk is regulation.

Lyn Alden: (27:30)
They want to know who's buying it, they want to build a track it for tax purposes. They want to do all sorts of things like that. They want to have know-your-customer regulations at the gateways. But the probability of it being banned by major capital markets goes down pretty significantly once it becomes a multi-hundred billion dollar or trillion dollar market capitalization. And once you have a lot of institutional investors in it. I think that that's being de-risked but you still have to take into account any headlines that could come out, things like that.

Lyn Alden: (27:59)
I think the last point is that so far, Bitcoin has done very well on every halving cycle. I think it'd be pretty bearish if you were to see a halving cycle where Bitcoin does not reach new all time highs. Because that kills the long-term structural momentum and its adoption cycle. I think that's a key thing to monitor for the health of how Bitcoin is adopting.

Lyn Alden: (28:21)
You can also monitor things like how many new addresses are being used. You can also look at things like development of the lightning network, that potentially make Bitcoin better as a medium of exchange. Because right now the base layer is optimized as store value. You can monitor the ecosystem around it. Some of these other apps, some of these hardware solutions, some of these increased throughput solutions. You can see basically, what is the health of that system? Is it deteriorating or does it continue to do pretty well?

Brett Messing: (28:49)
I absolutely agree with you particularly on the regulation point. I think what Bill Miller was talking about, I've actually had the privilege to speak to him, is yes the network is getting stronger, but also it gets de-risked from a regulatory standpoint, the bigger it gets. So that we want more people, particularly institutions to own it. The government then again, has to build a regulatory infrastructure around, but it just becomes something that exists.

Brett Messing: (29:19)
Just a quick one or two, I'm going to throw it over to John. Yesterday Anchorage Digital Bank was made the first nationally chartered digital bank in the country. We have two state charter banks and digital banks in Wyoming. What do you think the significance of that is, if any?

Lyn Alden: (29:39)
Well, I think it's good. Over the past several months seen increasing news like this. For example, we've seen that they approve the fact that banks can custody digital assets. A while ago that was a broader statement. We've seen also statements about banks being able to use stable coins or other blockchain technology, and of course now we have this nuisance.

Lyn Alden: (30:01)
I think this is just a further compounding of the adoption curve of the network effect of regulatory de-risking. I think that that all continues to support the story of Bitcoin. We've also seen, for example Singapore's largest bank, DBS is getting into custody and trading for credit and institutional investors.

Lyn Alden: (30:24)
Around the world, you see these other entities popping up. They want to be like Fidelity, they want to be like Gemini, they want to have these exposure to that industry. You're seeing it in all of these different markets around the world, and I think it's a good thing.

Brett Messing: (30:40)
Gary Gensler, buy, sell, hold.

Lyn Alden: (30:45)
I think overall, it's fine for Bitcoin. I'd be more worried if I was in some of those coin spaces, some of the scammier things. But I don't see it as a key issue for Bitcoin.

Brett Messing: (31:00)
Right. There are some people that believe it will probably accelerate in ETF. Vanek filed one in December. I think we'll see but he seemed too... he was teaching a class on blockchain at MIT. I guess if we're chilly reading, that's pretty good.

Lyn Alden: (31:19)
I think so.

Brett Messing: (31:21)
John, I'm going to throw it over to you.

John Darcy: (31:23)
All right. Well, I'm going to sneak in a few questions here before we let you go, Lyn. For everybody watching this, I would encourage you to go to Lyn's website, which is lynalden.com. It's a tremendous resource for very thoughtful analysis on the Bitcoin space. A lot of times you speak to people who are in this space who are somewhat one-sided. They're big time believers in Bitcoin and they don't take a balanced look necessarily at the issues.

John Darcy: (31:45)
I think when you do a tremendous job, both on this SALT Talk here today and in general about having a sober analysis of all the different factors that go into Bitcoin and have a few questions based on reading that I've done on your website. The first one is, you've done a thoughtful analysis of different ways to buy Bitcoin and the pluses and minuses to using each one.

John Darcy: (32:06)
Whether that be buying direct and owning on your own flashdrive or buying through an exchange or buying using a fund structure. Could you talk through the pluses and minuses in your mind as the people potentially that are watching this SALT Talk are evaluating, okay, I'm bought into the story, but how do I gain exposure in a way that's comfortable and safe for me?

Lyn Alden: (32:24)
It really depends on-

Brett Messing: (32:26)
Remember, we have a fund. I'm just kidding. Please speak freely.

Lyn Alden: (32:32)
I was going to say, it depends on the use case of the institution or the person, as well as how much money they want to put in. For a lot of people, the first step is to go on an exchange or to go... Now there's even places that do dollar cost averaging, for example, like Swan Bitcoin. But whatever the case may be, there's these retail portals that people can go through, and they can just get exposure to it directly. It's one of the more cost-effective ways to do it.

Lyn Alden: (32:58)
Then from there, if they want to increase their security, they can self custody of the coins. You can transfer coins from most of those platforms to yourself custody. But of course there's learning curve there. So if you don't know what you're doing, you actually have lower security because you have a higher chance of doing something wrong and losing your coins. But if you learn how to do it, that is actually one of the safest ways to hold it, is to have self custody or multisignature self custody.

Lyn Alden: (33:23)
Then from there we have a lot of vehicles around for. Of course we have the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust that people can use if they want a proxy. The thing I point out there is that for retail investors or institutions who just want to hold it on the market, it does often trade at a premium to nav. You're buying into a Bitcoin fund but you're not getting your dollar per dollar worth of Bitcoin usually.

Lyn Alden: (33:48)
I would just monitor that premium to make sure that you're not buying in at a level that is too high. Some degree of premium is fine because there's no Bitcoin ETF yet, and people can also hold that, and things like their retirement account so that those tax advantages can chip away at the premium, but it's something to watch. I think your fund does actually, that gives another access point.

Lyn Alden: (34:13)
I saw that the fees quite reasonable it's pretty low. That actually I think for funds. Because they can have regulatory issues around self custody. I've talked to some firms. They say that their regulators did not let them self custody. Of course they're reliant on these custody solutions like fidelity, like your fund, things like that that they can put a pretty big money into and have a cost effective way to hold it without worrying about a lot of the technical details.

John Darcy: (34:40)
Going more into depth on GBTC, there is that premium that you mentioned and really they're a victim of their own success. I think last week they bought two and a half times the number of Bitcoin that were even mined, and Grayscale has obviously done a ton to help institutionalize and broaden the adoption of Bitcoin. How concerned are you about that premium long-term if we do see a Bitcoin ETF, that potential of that premium could evaporate or even the fund could trade at a discount.

Lyn Alden: (35:07)
I would expect to see the premium go down to near zero, if you were to get an ETF, just because the reason for that would be not much less. Now you have a pretty good arbitrage opportunity with GBTC because people can accredit investors can buy into it at nav. Then later you have a lock up period and then of course the whole dynamics of it normally trading at a premium.

Lyn Alden: (35:30)
But if you were to have a Bitcoin ETF, that limits that arbitrage opportunity. I do think that over time, investors will have more access points and that those funds will probably be less critical. It also presents somewhat of a central allocation risk. For example, that's a lot of Bitcoins held in one custody area. That's something to monitor as well, is that you have to make sure that your custody solution's rock solid if you're using one big custody solution for your Bitcoin holding.

John Darcy: (36:06)
Switching gears a little bit, we've had Michael Saylor on SALT Talks and he talks about how he believes that a Bitcoin is really a thermodynamic wave that's revolutionizing the monetary system, and that inherently, the technology has some level of intrinsic value. But the common criticism that you hear from older people, baby boomers, Brett is an enlightened a boomer.

John Darcy: (36:28)
But you hear a lot of criticism from older people who say, well, Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It's just a piece of code that was invented out of thin air. How do you respond to people who say that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value? How do you help them conceptualize what you believe to be some level of intrinsic value?

Lyn Alden: (36:46)
We talked before about some of these stores of value have been monetized. Things like beach front property or fine art, fine wine, they do have utility in the course of what they do, but they're also valued for their scarcity and their kind of monetary premium. Bitcoin is so far the same thing. It has real-world utility, in the sense that you can perform permissionless payments internationally, and that there's no third party that can just stop you from doing it. That has a massive amount of utility.

Lyn Alden: (37:16)
It's also extremely mobile. Imagine, for example, trying to transport gold if you were to want to move from say, one country to another country, imagine trying to get gold across borders, or trying to navigate through the banking system. Especially if there's some crisis or some issue. Because tons of different countries in the world there are going through different things at different times.

Lyn Alden: (37:43)
Whereas Bitcoin, you can literally transport your funds across borders just by remembering a 12-word zip phrase. That level of self custody or self sovereignty gives that a higher mobility of funds than most other stores value or transfers of value. We're also starting to see some payment networks that are beginning to use it. For example, you have Bitcoin which is the base layer.

Lyn Alden: (38:05)
Then you have lightening which is a secondary layer that can increase transaction throughput and decrease fees per transaction. We're starting to see apps that make use of that for fee to fee payments. It'll basically take your money, convert it to Bitcoin. A split second later, converts it from Bitcoin to another currency in another part of the world. And you basically do an international payment for almost free using that inherent liquidity on the lightning network.

Lyn Alden: (38:32)
I think over time, you'll see more and more utility like that, and when you combine that with the fact that there's a really wide network effect, there's a very high level of security backing up Bitcoin's network compared to other alt coins, that overall gives it a similar store value property. We have that utility combined with a monetary premium.

John Darcy: (38:52)
We had somebody recently ask us about Bitcoin cash and how these forks work, and you've had a great write-up again on lynalden.com, your website about this issue. Why do these forks happen? Specifically, you can talk about Bitcoin cash and why part of the Bitcoin movement decided to fork it. Are those forks in any way, a threat to the future of Bitcoin?

Lyn Alden: (39:13)
I would say no. We've seen that play out in terms of the market. They've decreased substantially in terms of hash rate and price relative to Bitcoin so that they're a small fraction of what Bitcoin is. But basically going back to the fork wars and why they happened if you look at Satoshi Nakamoto's original white paper, people often try to divine, what was his intention? Based on the white paper, based on his forum posts, what did he want to accomplish?

Lyn Alden: (39:38)
He called it E-cash. He envisioned basically being able to use Bitcoins as this permission-less cash. He also talked about how to keep the node really small so that you can compress the size of the blockchain so that the blockchain doesn't get very big and you need high storage capacity to hold it, so that you basically keep it, so that a normal computer can run it.

Lyn Alden: (40:00)
Over time we've seen some of a trade-off occur. If you want to keep the blockchain easy for say, a typical computer to be able to run, have that full node, you have to have transaction throughput in terms of the number of transactions per second to be pretty low. That doesn't limit how much value can be transacted because there's no limit to the size of those transactions. But there's a limit to the number of transactions that can occur.

Lyn Alden: (40:27)
On the other hand, if you want to increase the number of transactions on that base layer, you need to increase the block size, you need to make basically nodes much harder to run, which means that the average user can't necessarily run a full node and verify and audit the monetary supply of the network. Which is one of the key things that that Bitcoin can do is that you don't trust, you verify. You can monitor the entire money supply with your laptop.

Lyn Alden: (40:52)
We've had that trade-off, that big argument among developers happened in 2017. It's split and Bitcoin cash, they increase the block size. It's hard to run a full node but you can do more transactions per second on the base layer. Core Bitcoin, their solution instead is to say, okay, the base layer is like a settlement layer. You can settle any amount of value even though you're limited to the number of transactions.

Lyn Alden: (41:16)
However, we can build secondary layers like the lightning network that can increase the amount of transactions per unit time and settle them in a batch on the network. Actually for example, if you look at something like credit card companies and all these, or PayPal, things that do high volume payments, they're settling in batches later.

Lyn Alden: (41:38)
Bitcoin would basically operate the same way, where these other layers can handle high transaction throughput. Whereas the base layer can handle large key settlements. That's been the design trade-off. So far, the market has vastly appreciated, that high hash rate, the widely distributed node network that settlement aspect of Bitcoin.

John Darcy: (42:03)
Well Lyn, it's been a pleasure to have you on SALT Talks. Again, I would encourage everybody who's watching this talk, if you want to learn more and get more of Lyn's thoughtful analysis on the space, lynalden.com. She has a great newsletter and great investment research. But it's a pleasure to have you on. Brett, do you have any final words for Lyn before we let her go?

Brett Messing: (42:19)
I just wanted to Lyn to know that we run a full-noded SkyBridge. We are doing all we can, we want to be part of the community. We figured it's good karma.

Lyn Alden: (42:27)
Nice. You're helping to verify the network.

John Darcy: (42:32)
All right. Well, thank you again, Lyn, and thank you for everybody who joined us on today's SALT talk. Just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or you want to access our SALT Talks with Michael Saylor, other people in the crypto space or across finance tech and public policy, our three main verticals, you can see our entire archive at salt.org\talks\archive. And you can sign up for all of our upcoming talks at salt.org\talks.

John Darcy: (42:56)
Please follow us on YouTube as well. We broadcast a lot of these talks on YouTube. We have a fast growing audience there and are continuing to build out our digital assets vertical there, so please follow us on YouTube. Please follow us on all social media outlets. We're on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn. But on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darcy signing off for today. We'll see you back here again tomorrow on SALT Talks.

Michael Saylor: The Importance of Bitcoin | SALT Talks #141

“If God designed gold with no imperfections, he would’ve created Bitcoin.”

Michael Saylor is a technologist, entrepreneur, business executive, philanthropist, and best-selling author. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Office of MicroStrategy, Inc.

Companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple represent the big winners in the technology space. The last ten years were marked by investments in these giants. Now, it is harder to see such high returns through retail investing. With a massive expansion of the money supply, the biggest opportunity now lies with Bitcoin. Bitcoin acts as a digital gold guarding against inflation caused by government stimulus. “If you’re going to make money the 21st century way, you’ve got to do it virtually… Bitcoin has the potential to be digital gold… thermodynamically perfect.”

Bitcoin is now moving mainstream and major financial institutions are getting on board. These companies are putting Bitcoin on their balance sheet as an institutional safe-haven asset. This growth in adoption will drive an exponential increase in value. “Bitcoin is the one asset that as the price goes up, it becomes more attractive to an investor.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Michael Saylor

Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer

MicroStrategy

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello Everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talk's. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. SALT Talk's are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on SALT Talk's is the same as our goal at our global conference series. The SALT Conference, 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 there's no bigger idea in our view right now at SkyBridge, that's shaping the future, than the digital asset space, the decentralized finance movement, and in particular Bitcoin. So we're thrilled to welcome the great Michael Saylor back for his second appearance on SALT Talk. He's a man who needs no introduction, especially to those who have been following the Bitcoin movement over the last year or so, but I'll read you a little bit of his background anyway.

John Darsie: (01:07)
Michael Saylor is a technologist, an entrepreneur, a business executive, a philanthropist as well as being a bestselling author. He currently serves as the chairman of the board of directors and the chief executive officer at MicroStrategy. Since co-founding the company at the age of 24, Michael has built MicroStrategy into a global leader in business intelligence, mobile software and cloud-based services. In 2012, he authored a great book called The Mobile Wave, how mobile intelligence will change everything, which earned a spot on the New York times bestsellers list. Michael attended MIT receiving an SB in aeronautics and astronautics and an SB in science technology and society. And again, as you may know, he has recently become a whale in the crypto space. He initially allocated a $425 million, I believe was his initial investment into Bitcoin from the corporate treasury balance sheet of MicroStrategy.

John Darsie: (02:05)
He subsequently issued more convertible bonds and bought more Bitcoin. And I believe his stack now numbers in the multiple billions in terms of his Bitcoin ownership. Hosting today's Talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm, SkyBridge, as you may have seen as well recently invested several hundred million dollars into Bitcoin, as well as launching a Bitcoin fund to provide a direct play for investors to gain pure access to Bitcoin. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT and with no further ado, I'll turn it over to Anthony for round two with Michael Saylor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:41)
Michael, thanks again for joining us. It's been quite a journey for us, as I know it's been for you. And you go from Bitcoin skeptic to Bitcoin believer and then there's this seismic Eureka moment where all of a sudden, you to yourself, "Wait a minute. I understand what this is now. I understand why I need to be invested and why I'm at the front of a early stage project. I'm at the frontier of something." Can you take us through that Odyssey that you went through from Bitcoin skeptic to Bitcoin believer, but then also putting your money where your mouth is?

Michael Saylor: (03:23)
Well, I think over the last decade we had progressive monetary expansion and the level of 5% a year which was significant to people that were sensitive to it. But for people in the tech industry or people that were busy with some other part of their life, we could live with 5% monetary expansion and still go about our jobs. And so I was a big tech enthusiasts and I was really, really occupied by my business until we got to 2020. And that context, everything I knew about Bitcoin for the first decade was like noise. Like I know it's something interesting and there's some people that care a lot about it, but it's noise. And I'm really more concerned about what the next iPhone is going to be or what Facebook is going to do, or the implications of Amazon rolling over 15,000 retail companies.

Michael Saylor: (04:22)
And those were all very exciting stories for a decade. And then I think we got the 2020, we got the K-Shaped recovery main street locked down wall street had a V-shaped recovery. The monetary expansion jumped from 5% to 20 or 25%. Now you couldn't ignore the fact that the money supply was expanding. Now, all of the interesting stories of the last decade, the Amazon story is over. We know how that ends, right? They win the Google story, the Apple story, the Facebook story, they're all over. We know how they end, right? It's pretty clear. They're going to go on to another stage, but it's not a technology play. Now it becomes about politics and society. And so now we all have a problem in 2020, the problem is the money supplies expanding. And then you realize if you're trying to make money doing it the 20th century way, it's just really hard.

Michael Saylor: (05:23)
And if you're trying to make money, the 21st century way, you got to do it virtually the virtual wave hit us. And so I would say, I became really interested in Bitcoin the second quarter of this year. And I realized that this had the potential to be digital gold. It felt like digital gold that no institutions had quite embraced, but a lot of early adopters had embraced. And everybody wants in a expansionary economy where the money supply is expanding. You all want sound money. And previous sound money for 5,000 years was gold, mostly sound expanding to 3% a year. Bitcoin is digital gold thermodynamically, perfectly sound money in theory, on a sheet of paper of God designed gold with no imperfections, he would've designed Bitcoin. So it's like, well, this is too good to be true. You just got to figure out, is going to be hacked? Is it going to be banned? Is anybody else going to buy into it?

Michael Saylor: (06:23)
What's the problem because it looks perfect. And we got involved not because it was elective. If I had a 5% problem each year, I could have ignored it. But when it became a 20% problem, I couldn't ignore it. We were forced, after March of 2020 to embrace the issue. So we got into it and we embraced it, not because we thought Bitcoin was risk-free. Bitcoin was nine, $10,000 a coin. There's a lot of controversy in April, May, June, even July, August, but we figured the certainty of losing half your purchasing power over four years was enough compensation to justify taking the risk of doing something new, right? A guarantee, and that's why we got into it the next six months.

Michael Saylor: (07:19)
You're going to see this story, which is maybe it's digital gold. Maybe the institutions need this thing to, well, I guess some needed to more of them need it. And then it goes to 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000. And I think as we enter 2021, people's perception is rotated to, I guess it is digital gold, and it's the newest institutional Safe-haven asset. And by the way, it looks to me like monetary expansion is continuing. Everybody's got an asset inflation problem. It's top of mind for every investor, what are we going to do about it? And so that's how we kick off the year as I speak to you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:05)
I was with a group of people, we've obviously launched our fund in good part, thanks to your help and your intellectual gravitas and helping us get around to this. My Eureka moment alongside of yours was understanding something you said last time we were together about it being a digital network, a digital platform for money, similar to an Amazon for retail, or say a Google for search and advertising or Facebook for social networking. But I was with what I would call the rat poison crew. It was a group of men and women, but mostly men in their seventies and eighties that were buying into the Warren Buffet idea that Bitcoin is rat poison.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:50)
Now, Bill Miller said, "Well, it may be rat poison, but the rat might Fiat currency." So Bill is a believer like you and I but one thing that keeps coming up repetitively, Michael, I have my take, but I really want to hear yours is what the hell is it? It's just encrypted code, there's 21 million of them. Okay. So I get the scarcity, but why would that be worth anything? If all it is a code in the ether, and this is from the rat poison crew. And so your response to that would be, how did you get over that hurdle?

Michael Saylor: (09:29)
It's digital gold. Anybody could design code for digital gold, but is digital gold on the dominant monetary network in the world. So if I had an idea for Twitter and I thought I was going to launch a speech network, anybody could copy it. But at the point that everybody in our joined Twitter and they all looked at Twitter for half an hour, an hour a day, you got 400 million people pouring 400 million hours of bandwidth per day into Twitter. Then it's not the software anymore. Then it's a digital speech network. It's the dominant digital speech network for public speech. I think in the last decade you saw dominant networks form for speech on Twitter. You saw dominant video network on YouTube. You saw dominant mobile network for Apple. You saw dominant social network. You saw dominant retail network in Amazon. Each of these things gathered the commitment of a billion people and Warren buffet talks about brand, Warren Buffett would understand Coke.

Michael Saylor: (10:41)
The power of the brand of Coca Cola is. If I obliterated every Coca-Cola plant and every bottle of Coke everywhere on earth, I couldn't get it out of the minds of seven billion people, seven billion people know that what a Coca-Cola is. And so the brand of having that idea stuck in the minds of billions of people is very powerful. So Bitcoin is the brand of digital gold stuck in the minds of a billion people, but more importantly, it's gathered hundreds of billions and now getting close to what is it? $700 billion worth of monetary energy. As that energy flows on that network, that's an incredible dominant network effect. And on the other side of the network with the minors, you have billions and billions of dollars invested in special purpose hardware, mining rigs, decentralized everywhere in the world that has no purpose other than to run the digital gold network that is Bitcoin.

Michael Saylor: (11:51)
And so you have massive hundreds of billions, of dollars of monetary energy sunk onto a monetary network that is the brand. And so in that regard, it has the same dominant inertial effect that the Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or Google have in order to replace it with a copy of the code, you have to displace the $700 billion of monetary energy. But then again, what would be the motive for the $700 billion to move to Bitcoin version 2? I mean, there really isn't one, so it takes on a life of its own. And as the price goes up, this is not just driven by Metcalfe's laws. Metcalfe's law says that the power of the network is the square of the number of people, the number of nodes on the network. That would be true if everybody on earth had the same amount of money, if everybody had $10, then Metcalfe's law would be the rule.

Michael Saylor: (13:01)
But this is driven by Newtonian laws of physics that is some people have a billion dollars, some people have $10 billion. So if people weighed 10 billion pounds or a trillion pounds, they'd have a gravitational pull that is more than the person that weighs a hundred pounds. And so the laws of gravity are flowing on this network. And as the price goes up, it's kind of like all the mass is collapsing into a planetary body. The gravitational attraction is increasing therefore everything that comes in the orbit of the planetary body is being sucked into the planet and it's getting stronger and stronger as that price goes up. Bitcoin is the one asset that as its price goes up, it is more attractive to investors, which is the opposite of a stock price. Whereas the price goes up, it looks more risky and less attractive to an investor. And it's a very subtle impact of a monetary network that's worth understanding and dwelling on.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:10)
Well, it's interesting because it'd people talking to me about it. I'm more comfortable with Bitcoin at 35000, 40,000 a coin than it was in 2014 at $400 a coin because it didn't hit that escape velocity point that you're describing. It didn't get the full embrace, a bed network and the capitalization. And then of course, we've got places to store this now beyond the USB, whether it's a place like a fidelity digital assets or other homes for Bitcoin. So you know, it's now, in my opinion, gotten to that escape velocity akin to Twitter and Google, but you said something that has never left me, I'm going to repeat or hopefully paraphrase what you've said. You said the first Bitcoin is the hardest one to buy. Once you own it, you realize that you don't own enough. Do you remember saying that I want you to take us through that thought pattern?

Michael Saylor: (15:11)
Well, I mean, first you have to a problem. If you embrace the idea, you have a store of value problem because of a macro economic sensitivity that leads you on a quest for what's your store of value. Then you realize that the theoretical best answer is a crypto asset network. That's decentralized that duplicates gold that is deflationary, and that is Bitcoin. Then you have to get over all of your concerns about forking and hacking and banning. And is it legal? And what's the tax treatment and the like, once you get past all those and you decide, "Yeah, Bitcoin is digital gold. It is the best safe Haven assets for the 21st century." Then the issue is, "Well, how do I buy it?" You can't buy it from traditional banks and wirehouses. You can pick up the phone and buy a hundred million dollars worth of gold ETF in 10 seconds, 30 seconds, but buying a hundred million dollars worth of a Bitcoin ETF while there is none.

Michael Saylor: (16:20)
I hear rumors people say, well, there are a lot of banks wherever you try to buy, like GBTC or something. They either make you sign a disclaimer, they make you sign a form, or they tell you they won't sell it to you. So there's a lot of people, I guess what? 90, as we enter the year 2021, you might know better than me, but I'm guessing 95% to 99% of investors. They don't have an easy on-ramp to buy this, it's a struggle for them. So you have to actually go through a search and look for an institutional grade brokerage and you either got to find a fund you trust, and you either buy into it as a fund, or you got to decide, you're going to find an exchange you trust, and you bind the underlying asset. And there are pros and cons to either of those.

Michael Saylor: (17:17)
Once you find that if you're going to buy the underlying asset, you've got to work through the issue of custody and who do I trust and will I self custody? And will I Multisig self custody with the 24 phrase seed key or will I use an institutional grade custodian. And of course that is to a certain extent, the beauty of Bitcoin is the crypto and our kids could literally buy a hundred million dollars, a Bitcoin, put it on a hardware wallet or memorize it in their head and walk around with it. That's one extreme. And that keeps everybody honest because knowing that you could take custody of this stuff means that if you're a bank or a custodian, you can't abuse your customer. No one's going to take delivery of a hundred million dollars of gold and carry that around in their head.

Michael Saylor: (18:10)
So it's a nice theoretical benefit. But as a practical matter, 99% of the people don't want to self custody, a hundred million dollars worth of this stuff. They don't trust themselves as much as they trusted institution. So that means they have to go through this exercise of, do I buy it and custody it with an institution, or do I buy a fund, right? And a fund kind of solves the problem because I don't have to trade it. I don't have to buy it. I don't have to custody it. I don't have to worry about all these headaches. I just wire my money to a fund. They buy it for me, and then I get the economic interest in it. One way or the other, I think it probably took me four weeks of screaming and begging and pleading to get through the AML KYC paperwork process with my first custodian and broker. And it took me another four weeks, so it took me eight weeks for the next one. And I won't talk about who it is because it doesn't really matter, it's a four to eight week journey.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:16)
Right.

Michael Saylor: (19:17)
And it's getting easier now, but my thought throughout the entire process was, "Wow, God designed gold in cyberspace. And that's exactly what I need. I need digital perfect gold in cyberspace." And then I thought, "Gee, it's really hard to buy this stuff." And I was all right, and then I thought, this is great because it's so hard to buy this stuff. It must be undervalued because everybody else that comes behind me is going to pay more for this. So I'm just going to go ahead and rush through, go through, jump through the hoops, get the accounts and I'm going to buy this stuff.

Michael Saylor: (19:57)
And I remember I was buying it when it was like $9,400 a coin. And was thinking, "Oh, I got to finish buying everything. I'm going to buy because when I wake up tomorrow morning, maybe other intelligent investors are going to realize that this is God's gift to the investor in the year 2020, and they're all going to buy it. They're going to double the price." And I really literally, I went to bed with anxiety, worried that when I woke up the price was going to shoot through the roof because people were going to realize that this is the perfect safe haven engineered store of value. And when they did, they were all going to buy it. And luckily I had a bit of time, but you know, the truth is once people started to realize it happened pretty fast, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:47)
Yeah.

Michael Saylor: (20:48)
They started figuring it out.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:49)
Yeah, it's happening. And obviously we both think we're at the exponential front of a frontiers clearly, if it gets to be the market capitalization of gold, the opportunities here, despite the volatility everyone will look quite precious if we're correct in our assessment of that. The regulators and particularly the bank of the ECB, the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde about a day ago, made some comments. Uh, she basically said that quote unquote, "Funny business and some interesting and totally reprehensible money laundering activity has taken place with Bitcoin."

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:33)
The federal reserve, the treasury department, Fiat currency producers for many obvious reasons. Michael do not like Bitcoin. And so obviously Mike Novogratz responded and said, "Well, the banks have paid more in fines, a hundred plus billion dollars of fines in the last decade than anything that's happened on the Bitcoin network." But what's your reaction to regulators resistance, the speed bumps that could be ahead of Bitcoin related to the old guard, if you will, or the old monetary system and its regulators rejecting what would you and I would think of as a more perfect monetary system?

Michael Saylor: (22:12)
I think everybody should calm down and not overreact to this. I think that in the crypto community there's a lot of ideologues, I lovably refer this crypto anarchist. There are libertarians and they're sure they don't like inflation, but they don't really like taxation much either. And the idea that they don't like regulation and they're ready for, if all banks disappeared and all governments disappeared, they're ready for that too and they'd be fine with that. I actually think, and I've seen him sift through you know, the media overreacts to this. I think some of the critics over reacted this, I've seen him sift through like the writings of one politician and say, like eight years ago for like one minute and in a hearing, they said three sentences that looked kind of negative toward Bitcoin and we hate them.

Michael Saylor: (23:26)
Well, my reaction to this is like everybody's buying Bitcoin on regulated exchanges, you know what it's like to get a New York regulated license to sell Bitcoin. They all have to comply with KYC. They all have to comply with AML, anti-money laundering regulations, Know Your Customer regulations. And when she says, well, we're concerned about it from a money laundering point of view, the implication is you're going to see large banks and brokerages that are already complying with AML and KYC regulations that will continue to comply with those things. And all of the money that's currently sitting in Apple stock and Amazon and sovereign debt and cash accounts and real estate indexes that is subject to AML and KYC regulations will continue to be subject to it. And it's going to float into some digital gold and should the central regulators decide that banks have to comply with AML and KYC regulations with regard to a crypto asset in the same way that they would comply with those with regard to a stock asset, a real estate asset, a bond asset, or a commodity asset?

Michael Saylor: (24:48)
I don't think it's earth shattering. I don't think it's going to be negative for the industry. In fact, I think it's the opposite, which is for example, until we saw exchanges like Fidelity, like Coinbase get proper licenses from US regulators, neither you nor I would be buying Bitcoin. None of the institutions are buying Bitcoin through unregulated exchanges when a regulator says we should make sure it's properly regulated, I think that people can overreact to that. I think that every bank in the world holding all the money well, all the money in the United States is in regulated brokerages and exchanges. And it's just fine. And I don't think Bitcoin needs to be unregulated to be successful.

Michael Saylor: (25:47)
I think Bitcoin just needs to be better than gold to be successful, right? If you pick up the phone and called your bank and said, I want you to ship a hundred million dollars worth of gold on a pallet to a dark private wallet in Sub-Saharan Africa. And I want you to do it in the next 30 minutes and they'll report it to the government. I don't think that would be happening either, right? So I think people are very sensitive and they don't need to be, I think it's all going to work itself out just fine. And to the extent that we have regulated entities that are dealing in Bitcoin, I think it's just going to accelerate the stampede of institutional money into Bitcoin.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:34)
Well, I think you make a brilliant case of Anchorage Digital Bank was recently approved as the first federally regulated digital asset bank. Michael, what do you think the impact of that news is?

Michael Saylor: (26:48)
I think it's going to be catalytic to other banks. I think what's going on right now is every bank, all of the major banks that don't handle Bitcoin they're, they won't let you buy it. They don't have a fund. They don't have an on-ramp. They don't have a custody relationship. I think they're all looking at this saying, "We're falling behind." They're going to be massive outflows of capital from traditional banks into crypto banks and Bitcoin friendly banks. It's already happening. It's going to accelerate. It's going to get to the CEO level of all the major banks on wall street. They probably got committees looking at this right now. They'll move at a institutional speed and some will move faster than others, but the writing is on the wall. And these are kind of more warning shots and sparks that tell you the world is changing. And people that want to keep up they're going to have to change with it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:59)
Well, I know Gary Gensler pretty well. It's being reported that he's the new SEC chairman. He taught a course on the blockchain at MIT, your Alma mater. Do you know Gary whether you do or you don't, but what is your regulatory outlook in the United States coming from the SEC? Do you have a view there one way or the other?

Michael Saylor: (28:25)
I don't know him. So I suppose his appointment is auspicious for Bitcoin in general. I'm a big fan of MIT professors. I did my thesis at the MIT School of Management so we have that relationship. I'm a big supporter of MITs DCI, Digital Currency Initiative and their security initiatives and they think highly of him so those are all good. My view on regulation, the most important thing could be boiled down to one sentence. Bitcoin is deemed as property by the SEC period, that's the single most important understanding. Bitcoin is property by the SEC, the IRS deems it as property. If you understand how it's going to be taxed, long-term, short-term capital gains. If you understand how it's going to be regulated in this particular case, being property versus security is a very bright line.

Michael Saylor: (29:36)
And it means that it is not regulated right per the securities laws. I think those two things are critical and by the designation of property by the IRS means Bitcoin is not going to be a day-to-day currency in a medium of exchange. It makes no sense to do a million transactions a day with something that generates a million capital gains tax bills. You know, it'd break every accounting system. It would break every taxes system. So, that decision by the IRS was critical. And the decision by the SEC to make it property means that it is appropriate to serve as a thermodynamically sound money or thermodynamically sound monetary index, an asset class. If it was a security, it would not be an asset class, it couldn't be.

Michael Saylor: (30:32)
But with Bitcoin as property, there's no reason why it shouldn't take its place next to the Dow, the S&P 500, the NASDAQ and other monetary indexes as an asset class. It transcends the limitations of a company or corporate security and that is the single most important thing that we could have on our mind, right? It's the thing that allows a senator to educate Congress on Bitcoin. That's the thing that allows you to have a congressional caucus that supports Bitcoin. It's the thing that allows someone in media to have an opinion on it. You can't imagine a Senator good at getting elected and saying, "I really think that XX stock is a better store value than the dollar." And I'm going to explain to Congress why the stock is a better store value than the dollar, right?

Michael Saylor: (31:30)
You could never say that because that's a security and it's a thousand times less powerful. And ultimately, by the way, the designation of Bitcoin as property while they're silent on the next 6,000 cryptos is incredibly important, right? One of the reasons Bitcoin has a network effect is because for you to actually have a digital, safe haven asset, it needs to be global property. It can't be a global security. There's no way that any company or any publicly traded company, no matter how big and powerful will ever have the same gravitas and the same prospects as Bitcoin as digital property. And it's always going to be a question looming over every other crypto, right? Like you can see the challenges of Ripple, right? If another crypto is deemed as a security, it completely is devastating to its prospects as the base layer of a monitoring network. And that's really important for investors.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:39)
I think that is the genius of the design. Are you worried that the Satoshi Nakamoto or the group that created Bitcoin, or if there is this, a Satoshi is sitting on a tremendous amount of coins that could potentially flood the market? Is that something that you worry about that comes up in a lot of question and answer sessions with me?

Michael Saylor: (33:02)
No, I'm not worried. I think that Bitcoin is an ideally designed monetary network with a lot of rational incentives, right? And first of all, I don't think Satoshi is coming back ever. I don't think we're going to hear anything from a Satoshi for the rest of our lifetime. But second, there's a lot of FID and the crypto industry. And a lot of times it comes from other crypto assets, other digital assets where people are just throwing this out maybe Satoshi will dump, people will actually post on Twitter that maybe I'm going to dump all of my crypto and tank the market. And I read, I think, who are these people? Like you think Jeff Bezos is going to dump all of his Amazon to destroy the Amazon stock and whoever did an irrational thing just to like spite someone.

Michael Saylor: (34:07)
I think there's a lot of that, that goes around and you see your fair share of Satoshi will come back and destroy the market. You know, Dr. Evil will get a quantum computer and destroy the market. Someone's going to print a trillion dollars of Tether and destroy the market. And none of these things make any sense to me, but one of the dynamics is, in an unregulated environment, people seem to think they can get away with injecting those rumors. And so you get a lot more of those rumors get injected. I just think it's irrelevant, barbaric. Let me make one more point. You could sell a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin over the course of a week without moving the market.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:54)
Yeah. It's deeply liquid. So yeah, we've got a few more moments with you. I'm going to turn it over to the millennial who thinks he has better hair than me, Michael, which he obviously doesn't just take a look. You can see that he doesn't have better hair than me. of what we're going to turn it over to John Dorsey to take some of these outside questions that we've got coming in. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (35:15)
All right. The big difference between your and my hair is that I didn't put shoe polish in mine this morning, so.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:21)
Well, someday you will. Okay. So don't be, so self-righteous about it.

John Darsie: (35:24)
Ouch!

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:26)
We'll see what you look like when you're 150 years old, like me. Yeah. So it'd be, but go ahead, fire away.

John Darsie: (35:32)
And Michael, it's great to have you back on SALT Talk's. So we get a lot of questions about your decision and strategy to invest your corporate balance sheet into Bitcoin, Square did the same thing. Have you talked, without naming the companies, have you talked to other corporate treasurers who have looked at what you've done and said, "Wow, could you show me the playbook to how you got that done?"

Michael Saylor: (35:52)
I think entrance from companies, ever since we came out publicly and started talking in like September, I've had nonstop set of conversations with corporations and executives and large investors on this subject. And I think interest keeps building. And I've noticed that it built in September and October for a bit, and then it ramped up in December and now it's ramped up much more in January. I say tongue-in-cheek to Anthony, and honestly, as the price goes up, the asset becomes more attractive and the risk goes away. I think I'll say one more point on that, John. I think it's becoming increasingly clear to people that if you're a company carrying cash on your balance sheet, it's a liability. And if Bitcoin is an asset and to be clear by that, I mean, cash instruments, sovereign debt, anything that's cash or cash like it's not going to appreciate in purchasing power by 15% per year.

Michael Saylor: (37:05)
So if you expect a 15% asset inflation rate, then none of these cash like instruments will keep up. And you got to assume that over 10 years, you're going to lose 75% of your purchasing power. So a hundred billion dollars in cash is going to be $75 billion of shareholder value destroyed with a conventional Fiat based treasury strategy. On the other hand, if you convert that cash into Bitcoin, Bitcoin is, we debate, is it going up 15% a year or 100%? You know, when we had the three-day crash of this week and everybody declared Bitcoin dead, I pointed out facetiously, well, all that proves is that Bitcoin is not going to go up and an annualized rate of 1500% per year for more than one month at a time, right?

Michael Saylor: (38:01)
It was going up at 15X per year for that month. So it's clear, it's appreciating versus cash and whether it's appreciating a 10%, 20%, 50%, 100, 200, 300 it doesn't really matter because the number is positive and the number is likely going to beat the cost of capital. So I think the trend you're going to see this year is you're going to see more and more corporate cash rotate into Bitcoin. And that's...

John Darsie: (38:37)
An interesting comment that I see some from some crypto influencers on social media, is that, you think about Bitcoin, not as a currency. You can think about it sort of as an asset, but really it's a savings account. It's a way for you to park your cash in an asset or a commodity that has a little bit more long-term bullish prospects than something like the US dollar, which macro policies are pushing down upon. I want to talk about this virtual conference you have coming up February 3rd and 4th, you're hosting a virtual conference called Bitcoin for corporations to build on what you were talking about before. Why did you decide to host this event and what type of interest are you seeing in people that are looking to learn more?

Michael Saylor: (39:20)
You know, we have thousands of corporate customers and ever since we announced our Bitcoin strategy, we've had unsolicited people asking us, how do you do this? And they've got issues. Tell us about the legal issues. Tell us about the accounting issues. Tell us how we buy this stuff. How do we store it safely? And after getting so many requests, we decided we should as host a conference, which will be an accelerated two day crash course. And how corporations can plug their balance sheet or their P&L into Bitcoin. You know, Bitcoin's a monitoring network, so you can grow your company with it like Square and PayPal are obviously doing that. But I mean, so as SkyBridge, right? You can offer funds, you can offer mobile apps. You can offer insurance policies, you can build indexes. So one thing you can do is grow your company and improve your products and services.

Michael Saylor: (40:16)
The other thing you can do is plug your treasury into it and rotate cash which is a liability into Bitcoin as an asset. And that's a way to either create or preserve shareholder value. I don't think it was on the top of people's minds in February of 2020 and March of 2020, the world changed then we all sorted through this issue. Now, as we look at February, 2021, every corporation on earth is starting to be sensitive to this store of value problem. Their cash is a shareholder liability, not a shareholder asset. They've got a fiduciary challenge, but it's a scary new thing. So we need to get some education. And Bitcoin for corporations is a quick, easy way for people to get educated. You know, we've curated a bunch of content. We're going to put all of our proprietary content into the public domain and give it away to people that show up to the conference and that's million dollars plus millions of dollars of legal accounting, due diligence, jumping through hoops, took us two months to do it all.

Michael Saylor: (41:30)
And we figured it's stack thousands of pages. You ever see a 82 page board memo to explain the store of value due diligence, search and breakdown, silver versus gold versus real estate versus bond and exit versus stock indexes versus every crypto versus Bitcoin. And in such a fashion that everyone could get comfortable they considered the risks. That's the kind of memo that maybe you don't want to have your lawyer rate at $500 an hour or a thousand dollars an hour. So we figured we'd just give it away to the world as a public service. And I'm very impressed at the surge of interest, I think it's going to be a pretty big conference and hopefully we'll help a thousand companies or more come up to speed on this and figure out what to do next.

John Darsie: (42:20)
Well as a dedicated cyber hornet and in the spirit of Bitcoin's open source origins, that's great that you're sharing all that information in an open source way, really valuable information. We're going to leave it there. Michael, we're going to do more of these talks with you, hopefully in the future. We would encourage if you are an executive at a corporation, and you're watching this SALT's Talk, which we have a lot of corporate executives do watch, we would encourage you to participate in that conference with Michael on February 3rd and 4th, Bitcoin for corporations.

John Darsie: (42:48)
You know, the way we see it, the retail market got involved in Bitcoin years ago, and now you're seeing people like yourself, corporate treasuries, you're seeing hedge funds like SkyBridge and other entities starting to get involved in the space. I think you could start to see sovereigns start to get more involved in the space and you're seeing insurance companies. So it's just a wave of bigger and bigger players that are getting involved in the space that are, that are helping with that to accelerate Metcalfe's law, as you talked about earlier, but Michael, thanks so much for joining us. Anthony, do you have a final word for Michael before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:19)
Well, of course, we want to get you back, Michael. As you know, we're building our Bitcoin position. We're closing in, as I said, on $400 million, our fund is off to a very strong start. Just to remind our people, it's 75 basis points. We think that's a very attractive price as Michael was mentioning about the storage and the ease of use and having Ursa Young audit or positions and so forth. We just think it's an interesting delivery mechanism for high net worth individuals. So you can go to the skybridgebitcoin.com website for more details there, and we'll certainly be helping you any way that we can, Michael, to evangelize the story to other CEOs, corporate CEOs, corporate CFOs, et cetera. And thank you so much again for joining SALT. And I look forward to seeing you soon.

Michael Saylor: (44:11)
Thanks for having me always a pleasure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:13)
Well if you need any hair dye, Michael, I have a stash in my house according to the John Darcy. So just keep that in mind.

Michael Saylor: (44:21)
You got it.

John Darsie: (44:21)
You just have to get my digs in, but thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talks. It's been great to grow our community to include more people that are interested in digital assets, whether they're invested in Bitcoin today, or crypto curious as we like to say. We've enjoyed diving into that community and obviously our Bitcoin investments came at a very interesting time, we'll say, in the market. So thank you for joining us. Just a reminder. We're going to have a whole series of crypto and digital asset and Bitcoin SALT Talk's in 2021. It'll be a regular feature within the broader SALT Talk's brand. So you can sign up for all of those future SALT Talk's at salt.org/talks, and you can sign up for our entire archive of SALT Talk's at salt.org/talks/archive. Including our first conversation with the great Michael Saylor.

John Darsie: (45:11)
Please follow our YouTube channel. We're up to almost 10,000 subscribers. It's something we started during the pandemic. You know, we are known for our in-person conferences, but the opportunity during the pandemic to do these digital webinar type of events has been extremely gratifying for us. And we're starting to build up our digital presence. So we have great resources there on our YouTube channel, and you can watch all the episodes there. Please follow us on social media as well. We broadcast a lot of these talks on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn. So please follow us there and please tell your friends about SALT Talk's, we love growing our community, and we hope to see many of you at our in-person conferences, which we'll have an announcement on that in the next couple of weeks about our next in-person conference, which should be very exciting. I think everybody is chomping at the bit to get some in-person interaction after what we've all gone through with the pandemic. But on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darcy signing off for today. We'll see you back here again. Next week on SALT Talk's.

Michael Oren: Foreign Policy & US-Israel Relationship | SALT Talks #140

“The new Abraham Accords have totally changed the paradigm. It’s normalization first, peace will come later.”

Michael Oren was a former member of the Knesset, a former deputy minister in the Israel prime minister’s office and was Israel’s ambassador to the United States (2009-2013).

The US-Israel relationship is the most special among all of the United States’ allies. This is due to three pillars: democratic values, defense, and the spiritual connection. The recent Abraham Accords represent a major breakthrough in the Middle East peace process and overturned the conventional wisdom. It was thought peace between Israel and Palestine needed to occur before any normalization with the broader Arab world took place. Now, Israel has agreements with countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. “These Arab countries remain committed to a resolution of the Palestinian problem, but they weren’t going to wait anymore.”

Formal normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest goals in the peace process. Saudi Arabia holds significant influence in the Arab world as custodians of Mecca and Medina. Israel and Saudi Arabia share strategic interests in their desire to act as checks against Iran.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Ambassador Michael Oren.jpeg

Michael Oren

Israeli Ambassador to the United States

(2009-2013)

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

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

John Darsie: (00:39)
And we're very excited today to welcome ambassador Michael Oren to SALT Talks. Ambassador Michael Oren has devoted his life to serving Israel and the Jewish people around the world. As a member of Knesset and deputy minister and the prime minister's office, he has interacted with foreign leaders and defendant Israel in the media. He spearheaded efforts to strengthen the Israel diaspora relations to develop the Golan Heights and to fight BDS. As chairman of a classified sub-committee, he dealt with some of Israel's most sensitive security issues.

John Darsie: (01:11)
Prior to that for nearly five years, ambassador Oren served as Israel's ambassador to the United States. He was instrumental in obtaining US defense aid, especially for the iron dome system and American loan guarantees for Israel's economy, which is absolutely booming. A graduate of Princeton and Columbia, Dr. Oren was a visiting professor at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown. He holds four honorary doctorates and was awarded the statesman of the year metal by the Washington Institute for near East policy and the Dr. Martin Luther King legacy prize for international service.

John Darsie: (01:46)
His last three books, Six Days of War, Power, Faith, and Fantasy, and Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide, where all New York times bestsellers. He received the LA Times history book of the year award and national humanities prize and the Jewish book award. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. He's also the chairman of SALT. And without further ado, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:18)
Well ambassador thank you so much for joining us today on SALT Talks. I start these things the same way, I ask people, what is it about you that we can't find on your Wikipedia page? And I know you grew up in the United States, tell us something about your upbringing that led you to this career org.

Michael Oren: (02:39)
I started off as a writer, Anthony. First of all, it's great to be with you. Thank you, John, for that very warm introduction. I started off as a poet and a playwright and a screenwriter. When I was 17 years old, I won the National PBS Young Filmmakers festival, first prize. And with the short film, I went off to Hollywood and I became Orson Welles production assistants. Those of you who are watching the film, [inaudible 00:03:05], it hits home. [inaudible 00:03:08] is my third work of fiction. It's a collection of short stories called the Knight Archer and other stories. And I have a novel, To All Who Call In Truth, is coming out in May.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:20)
Congratulations. How did you shift from that to the world of diplomacy and international relations and geopolitics?

Michael Oren: (03:29)
Well, it's never really shifted. It's always been there, but I must say that being a writer is a great tool for diplomacy. It enables you to understand people, to understand situations and it makes you hopefully more articulate and putting together your ideas and getting across sometimes very difficult interviews or difficult audiences. The audiences, as you know, Anthony have gotten more difficult over the years. And so the writing part of it is a great tool.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:58)
Well, listen, the audiences have gotten more difficult for me, but John Dorsey for some reason gets fan mail as a result of these SALT Talks, ambassador. So it's a point of contention between me and my therapist. I just wanted to point that out to you. Let me jump right into it though, the US-Israel relationship, if you had to characterize the state of that relationship today, how would you make that characterization.

Michael Oren: (04:25)
Depends on which field. The US-Israel relation is a very special relationship. It is actually more special even than the US-France, US-Italian. Perhaps even the US-British relationship, because it has three pillars. One is obviously the shared Democrat value. For all the challenges of these values are going through right now with the different interpretations.

Michael Oren: (04:46)
The fact of the matter is, we've never known in Israel, [inaudible 00:04:48] second of non democratic governance, is one of the few countries in the world like that, maybe five in the whole entire planet. And we have elections, we have too many elections as you know. And an independent judiciary and an independent press and all the basic rights of assembly and free speech. And that's in the middle East, but even generally in the world, that's become a rarity. So that's a very strong pillar.

Michael Oren: (05:11)
The other pillar is the defense pillar. And here I say on equivocally that the US-Israel strategic Alliance is the deepest and most multi-facets that the United States has had with any other foreign power in the post-World War II period, because it encompasses so many different areas. It's intelligence sharing at the highest possible level, its weapons development. You mentioned iron dome jobs. I brought the funding from iron dome, but that is one of a triple tier missile defense system, which the United States uses.

Michael Oren: (05:42)
Israel is developing, America's future battle tank Israel is developing, every gun on every destroyer in the US Navy carries, every restorative gun, every American fighter pilots get this one. Whether it's a fixed win or helicopter pilot, every American fighter pilot [inaudible 00:05:58] is rarely made helmet. So it's special forces training, all of that is in the defense relationship. But there's another aspect of it, which I think is missing from say the US-Italian or the US-French relationship is the spiritual connection.

Michael Oren: (06:12)
Because America was and remains a religious country. And more people go to church in the United States still than any country is certainly in the West. People read their Bible and God promises the Jewish people, this land. And a lot of Americans say that very, very seriously. And so the spiritual tie, is very, very deep. And I encountered that all the time in Washington, both on the democratic and Republican side. And so it makes for a very strong bond. It doesn't mean we don't have differences. We've had some rather large differences in recent years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:47)
When you characterize iron dome, I just want to just relay it to people that have not been to Israel and just want to see what iron dome is effectively. Israel has being assaulted by projectiles from the North and from the South, from the Gaza strip. And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's something like, 10,000 a year. Is that wrong? What's the number of projectiles that are entering Israel?

Michael Oren: (07:12)
Well, it's gone down. There has been days. During one war, I was in military for about 35 years. And then a couple of wars when we were hit by thousands of rockets. The iron dome again, is this triple tiered system. The iron dome takes out projectiles that go up in the air and come down. It's not a standoff rockets. And, the US army buys them for the Korean border, for example. Because the North Koreans use mortars and short range rockets that can be taken out by iron dome. And it's the only anti-ballistic system of that nature that has been proven effective in combat in history. It's very difficult.

Michael Oren: (07:46)
For many years, it took the West to figure out how to take down like a V1 or V2, rocket, very difficult, getting two bullets to meet in the air. The second is David's Sling. And David's Sling is a US-Israel project that can intercept a cruise missile, not a missile that goes up and down, but a missile that can be guided by a joystick, very sophisticated. And the third level is the arrow system, which is a missile that takes out an intercontinental ballistic missile. An ICBM that exits the US, the atmosphere and comes down through the atmosphere. Our [inaudible 00:08:21] rocket takes out that missile in the outer space.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:26)
And the reason why this is so important is that you've protected the land of Israel, by knocking out 90 plus percent of these projectiles. I was in a beautiful town in the South of Israel. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it, you'll remember, but they took the case and rockets, and they turned it into a menorah on top of the [crosstalk 00:08:49]. And I met with the mayor [inaudible 00:08:54] as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:55)
And I was very impressed with the way they were living their lives under that threat, but also recognizing that they were going to live a very wholesome and full life despite the threat of terrorism. And it was enormously impressive to me. And the reason I'm bringing all this up is it speaks to the Israeli culture. And so country's doing very well right now. Tell us what some of the elements are of the Israeli culture that's allowing for this type of success.

Michael Oren: (09:26)
Well are a highly diverse culture. People look at Israel [inaudible 00:09:31] people who more or less look like me, maybe they have a little bit darker hair. But the fact of the matter is Israel is, Israel is majority non Western country. A majority of Jews here are from the East, from Arab countries, from North Africa, from Iran and Iraq. There are Ethiopian Jews, Africans, several hundred thousand African Jews. 21% of the population is Arab, mostly Muslim, but also Christians, [inaudible 00:10:00].

Michael Oren: (10:02)
It is racially, religiously, culturally diverse country. What all holds it together. A couple of things. The democracy is very important here. Democracy is, is not necessarily an end in itself here. It's also a means to social cohesion. It's a way in which all of these disparate ideologies and backgrounds can get together and scream at each other. And I've been in Knesset, it reaches some very loud decibels there. And blow off steam. And we can reach [inaudible 00:10:33] polarization here. So the greed that has plagued the United States.

Michael Oren: (10:39)
It is a traditional society. It's a society that manages to balance majernity, technology innovation with tradition. Over 80% of population is traditional, which is very high and going up, not going down in contrast to United States and elsewhere in the West. And it's a family country. And I think the family values here are very strong. And with the United States and the West, it's also important part of our relationship with the East. When you ever have Eastern visitors, and I did a lot of work at the prime minister's office with Korea, South Korea, with Japan and other Eastern countries. They always point to the fact that what we share is our family values. And it really holds it together. Great premium on innovation. We're regularly listed the most innovative country in the world, with per capita, more startups [inaudible 00:11:34] about 250 international high-tech companies have at least one in our R&D center here. A company like Microsoft, or Intel has four R&D centers here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:49)
I should shift gears abruptly to talking about the Abraham accords. And again, for our viewers, the Israelis are normalizing relationships with countries like the UAE, Bahrain, I believe Morocco. Tell me what other countries you've signed these normalization treaties. With Michael.

Michael Oren: (12:10)
Well, Abraham accords are the [inaudible 00:12:14] name for the recent peace agreement between Israel, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates. Now the Sudan is signed on and a huge breakthrough in the peace treaty between Israel and Morocco, the largest and most influential North African country. These accords have totally overturned and appended all of our assumptions about peace process. The assumption that was running in the United States and Europe was that first, you had to have peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and only then you'd have peace between Israel and the Arab world.

Michael Oren: (12:45)
And to get peace with the Palestinians you had to create a Palestinian [inaudible 00:12:47] state, you had a re divide Jerusalem. You had to uproot a lot of Israelis who live in what we call the Judea and Sumeria, the West bank. None of that proves to be true. We have these treaties. These Arab countries remain committed to a resolution of the Palestinian problem that they weren't going to wait anymore. We're going to [inaudible 00:13:07]. And, these accords also overturn the notion that first you make a peace agreement between an Israeli leader and an Arab leader, and then later on normalization seeps in.

Michael Oren: (13:21)
So that was the paradigm of the peace accord between Egypt and Israel. The peace accord between Israel and Jordan. These are now over 40 years old, these agreements. And we have peace between Egypt and Israel, and we have peace with Jordan, but we don't really have peace with the Egyptian people. I think we have peace with their leaders. The new Abraham Accords have created a completely different paradigm. It's normalization first, peace will come later. And we have peace with the Bahrain people, but with the Amarati people, with the Moroccan people. We have dozens of flights now flying to them per week. And I think that any future, a peace arrangement between Israel and Arab States will resemble the Abraham Accords and not the Camp David Accords that were signed by Jimmy Carter and Anwar Sadat [inaudible 00:14:09].

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:10)
It's an obvious question, but I'd like to get your longterm view of this. So, close on Saudi, are you allowed to talk about it, closer than some of the other Arab nations? Where do you think you are?

Michael Oren: (14:26)
I think that the next in line would be a country like Oman. I wouldn't rule out the Kuwaitis at this point. But the size of course is the Juul and the crown, because the Saudis have such a such influence throughout the entire world and part of the entire Muslim world because they are the custodians of the two holiest cities, Islam, Mecca Medina. And that also puts a check on some of their decision-making vis-a-vis Israel and we understand that. But there are many steps that the Saudis can do, and I believe they will do in the coming years, particularly if the Abraham Accords, proved to be both strategically and financially valuable.

Michael Oren: (15:04)
And there's change magically, Anthony is that these very countries that used to look at Israel as an enemy now understand that Israel is an ally that we share the same strategic interest in standing up to Iran. We also serve as a bulwark against Turkey. These Sunni Arab countries are afraid of Sunni Turkey because Turkey backs Islamic extremists like Hamas. So they're literally between a rock and a hard place we're here. And this the more sensitive part of my answer is, we're looking at a period of withdrawal of isolationism.

Michael Oren: (15:38)
It began under Obama. It's certainly continued under Trump. I don't think it's going to change much under Biden. The American people are looking inward not outward. They're trying to figure out how to best police themselves rather than try to have a best would be the policeman of the world. And as America pulls out, geopolitics takes a vacuum like nature. That's going to show up.

Michael Oren: (15:59)
It's going to fill up with Russians. It's going to fill up with Turks. It's going to fill up with Iranians, the Saudis, the Bahrains, the Arab world. [inaudible 00:16:06] They are the power that's going to stand up for this region. And I guess radicalism and Iranian hegemony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:17)
I travel throughout the region. It blows me away, ambassador, how much everybody in the region has in common with each other. And of course, I love the name Abraham Accords, because it's about the father Abraham and the seven tribes. And basically everybody's all brothers. And so, it's a warm way to provide the connectability, but what are the risks. When you step back and say, okay, there's been possibly 60, 70 years, let's call it from the founding of Israel. 72, 73 years ago. There's been this stress intention in the area. What are the risks that you're worried about?

Michael Oren: (16:59)
Well, specifically, it'd be the outbreak of another round of fighting between Israel and Hamas, which is the Palestinian radical organization that controls Gaza. And we've had several boards [inaudible 00:17:10], an outbreak of war between Israel and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah being a puppet terrorist organization, in the PEI control of Iran. [inaudible 00:17:23] these wars, both of these terrorist groups will be fighting in densely populated civilian areas. And there'll be a high degree of collateral damage.

Michael Oren: (17:31)
I'll give you an example. You mentioned that the rockets early Anthony, Hezbollah has planted 130,000 rockets, all aimed right here, right at our neighborhoods, right at our schools and under 200 Southern Lebanese villages. And in order to get at those rocket launches, our armies are going to have to go into those villages, going to have to go into those homes. And Hezbollah is going to keep the civilians in there cause they want us to kill the civilians cause it will de-legitimize us and it will complicate our relationships with the Arab countries. So those could be very disruptive.

Michael Oren: (18:04)
Frankly, Israel should exercise restraint in undertaking unilateral moves in [inaudible 00:18:11], whether the next government will the next part of Judah and Samaria. I'm not in government currently, but I would advise against it. I think our interest right now is innate. Is it allowing the Abraham Accords to sprout roots, to settle in and become a permanent reality. And at least, we shouldn't rock that situation too much. The last great threat would be Iran. And here, it's complex. There's a big question whether the United States will rejoin that the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015, the so-called JCPOA. If that's true, Iran will receive once again, not tens of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Michael Oren: (18:46)
They won't spend that money on schools and hospitals believe me, it's on more missiles, it's more terror, more conquests. And that could put tremendous strains on this alliance. We don't know the degree to which the next administration will back these new alliances. Remember they quite naturally, any administration doesn't want to give too much credit to the previous administration, especially given the political atmosphere in the United States right now. But we hope that the United States will continue to encourage Abraham Accords. And I hope that this next administration will think not once, but three times before rejoining the Iranian nuclear deal.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:19)
Okay. But we both know because we're both realists and president elect Biden has signaled that he wants to re-engage Iran. And so we're both realists about that. And so if that were to happen, you just mentioned several of the things that are risks on the table for Israel and the Saudi Peninsula and the countries they're in. What do you recommend, let's say that you were the czar, let's say when you got put in charge of the peace for the entire area, and you had five minutes with the vice-president elect, what would your message be to him?

Michael Oren: (19:57)
I've had a lot of five minutes with the president elect. He's great. And that is this, in 2015 and during the period of that accord, those negotiations began in 2012 and they were negotiated behind our back. In fact, we were [inaudible 00:20:13] to on a daily basis negotiations. And this is about an agreement which impacts every man, woman, and child in this country and every man, one child in the middle East. And the fact that the very people who are most impacted and most to lose from this agreement were never even consulted about, it's quite astonishing. There's been much talk about how America betrayed allies in the recent years, this was actually a bonified betrayal and was quite, quite dangerous.

Michael Oren: (20:37)
So I would urge the president elect not to, to try to rectify that historic era and justice and try to restore trust, very important. And to understand that the JCPOA does not block the path of bomb, it actually paves Iran's paths of the bomb. That is the opinion not just in these Israelis, it's the opinion of all our Arab neighbors. Listen to us, listen to what we are saying. And we will have an idea of what a good deal would look like. A very specific idea what would look like. Just listen to us.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:12)
Last year, John and I hosted an event in Abu Dhabi. We made history at that event, actually. We had the first Israeli venture capitalists come to Abu Dhabi and speak on a stage publicly at an event in Abu Dhabi. General Jim Jones, somebody I know that you know, the former national security advisor for president Obama came to the event with us. And he said something that I'd like to get your reaction to. He said that he felt that the Iranian regime was going to not exist inside of five years. Do you think that that is true? How stable is that regime?

Michael Oren: (21:53)
It broke up, you said it won't be in existence in [crosstalk 00:21:56].

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:57)
General Jones was saying that the Iranian regime will not be an existence inside of five years. And, I was wondering what your reaction is to that and how stable is that regime?

Michael Oren: (22:09)
Well, the first reaction is I've heard the same predictions since 1979, and it hasn't happened.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:15)
Fair enough.

Michael Oren: (22:16)
It hasn't happened. And now it's even less likely than four because Iran regime had a dry run for the Arab spring. It was the green revolution of June, 2009. And the Iranians learned how to put down a revolution. And they not only develop the technological means, you put something untoward on your Facebook and you're going to get a knock on the door within a minute and you're going to disappear.

Michael Oren: (22:41)
But they've developed a million man force. It's called the besiege. These are thugs. And they will go out as a demonstration. They're going to go out and beat your head in, or if they have to use firearms. And this recent roundup of protest, peaceful protest in Iran, hundreds of civilians, unarmed civilians were shot down. They're not fooling around. So this is a regime that right now internally, there's no power that can overthrow it, zero.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:11)
Well, I have one last question then I have to turn it over to the millennial, Michael, which pains me. Because, the guy's got just [crosstalk 00:23:19] coming in and, I think he's going to start getting those portraits of himself that he signs and sends out the people, which is even more revolting. But, I want to talk about the Six Days of War, June of 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, which is a book that I read. I also read Power, Faith, and Fantasy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:41)
And that's why I was so delighted to get the opportunity to meet you in the King David Hotel, when I was in Jerusalem a few years ago. But in the book, you talk about how that war and the victory effectively for the Israelis in that war has set up what we're living with today, 50 plus years later. I'm just wondering if you were writing a book about the Six Days of War today, the things that you wrote in that book, are they still true? Have some things changed? How would you characterize Israel in terms of its development? If you were writing a history of Israel right now, obviously David Ben-Gurion the origination of Israel, the help from Harry Truman, et cetera, the Six Day of War, the Yom Kippur war and where we are today. How would you weave the whole history for us today?

Michael Oren: (24:38)
The Six Day of War was instrumental in setting the map of the middle East. It represented the high watermark of secular Arab nationalism and ushered in the era of Islamic extremism, which has proved to be so profound in shaping the [inaudible 00:24:56] in recent years, the ISIS is a direct result of that. It bent the slow decay, the slow decline of Egypt as the ultimate regional power. And we've seen how that's played out. And the six day of war brought the Russians into the middle East very deeply. And we've seen that the Russians aren't leading so fast. The question is how long America is going to stay around now`. Six war gave birth to the US Israel strategic relationship, which I talked about earlier. It did not exist.

Michael Oren: (25:26)
Israel fought that war without a single American bullet. We had French arms then, no Americans. Amazing. And the [inaudible 00:25:33] brought to the fore, I think the ability to make peace because Israel had what to trade for peace, the territory for peace. It proved to the Arab world that even with all the Arab armies masked on our borders, they weren't going to destroy us. They're going to have to somehow come to grips with the reality, and that has happened.

Michael Oren: (25:51)
And interestingly enough, the six day war provided the opportunity for peace with the Palestinians. And these are the counter intuitive interpretation of the war, because you have to go back to [inaudible 00:26:05] was Anthony, no one talked about Palestinian statehood, no one talked about the Palestinian people back then. It was the Arabs versus Israel, not the Palestinians. And the fact that the Palestinians now have an in Kuwait government, in the West bank, Palestinian authority exercises a certain degree of autonomy. It has elections if they ever wanted to hold them, provides the possibility, the possibility I stress, for the realization of some type of Palestinian autonomy. And still after all we've been [inaudible 00:26:37].

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:39)
John, I'm going to turn it over to you. I'm going to let you ask some of these questions that have come in from our audience. Ambassador, this has been incredibly enjoyable for me. It's now going to get painful for me. It's now going to get painful for me as Darsie out shines me, but it's okay. Go ahead, John. I'm ready. I'm ready.

John Darsie: (26:55)
Everyone loves your shtick.

Michael Oren: (26:57)
Hi John.

John Darsie: (26:58)
Ambassador Oren, I want to talk about what you alluded to earlier is that the United States is turning inward and we're having to focus more on policing ourselves. And we are policing the rest of the world. You're an American and you were an American citizen, but as someone who lives outside of the United States and view things through that lens, how does the rest of the world view the current unrest and divisions that exist in the United States?

Michael Oren: (27:24)
With growing sadness and concern. And [inaudible 00:27:30] world, we used to be called the free world. Remember that term, does it sound antiquated today to your generation? That was predicated on America's willingness and ability to project power. When I was a young paratrooper participating in the battle for Beirut in 1982, we in the Israeli army, we knew if we got into a scrap that the president Reagan would sending the marines and get us out. And that's just what he did. They sent the battleship New Jersey. When it was battleships back then. The president Bush in 2003, back in 1991 earlier, in the first Iraq war United States sent armies of 500,000 men to the middle East. That's not going to happen now.

Michael Oren: (28:15)
And so for those of us, for whom we view our security is very much attached to that possibility, that ability, that willingness of the United States to project power, this was a sea change for us. And we've had to do some scrambling. We mentioned the Abraham [inaudible 00:28:32] on one level by a common recognition that we cannot rely on the United States the way we used to rely on the United States. America is still our ultimate ally, still shares our values, still has a strategic Alliance with us. But again, the Marines aren't coming that fast, true?

John Darsie: (28:47)
Right.

Michael Oren: (28:47)
And that's a big difference, especially since we got the Russians. I did a lot of missions abroad during my term in office. I went to a mission to the Baltic countries, and they would complain that they had the Russian army two kilometers away from them. I said, "Guys, I got, I got the Russian army 20 meters away. What are you talking about? You think you've got problems." So that's our reality here.

John Darsie: (29:13)
In general, are you a believer in this idea of peace through strength? There's a lot of people who believe that appeasement in areas like the middle East and around the world, if you pull back and you create that vacuum of power, your ability to be the hedge Amman that dictates global peace receives, are you a believer in that philosophy?

Michael Oren: (29:32)
Apparently it's true. I read an article recently in national interest that actually is told us that the end of engagement and talked about how engagement has become the sacred notion almost engagement at every cost. But if you look historically and I'm going back to ancient history, engagement almost never works. Unless it's backed up by significant force, then it works. And we have to be extremely cautious about this. Every country, by the way. And it's the right and the last Republicans and Democrats, everyone's falling into this. We engaged with Yasser Arafat thinking that by engaging with him. He was going to become a peacemaker.

Michael Oren: (30:10)
And he remained to this dying day, a terrorist that died in the world, terrorist. It wasn't going to happen. And we paid very big prices for this. Now that doesn't mean, I don't believe in diplomacy. Diplomacy is a great tool but it's got to be backed up by more than just goodwill.

John Darsie: (30:27)
Anthony asked you the question earlier about what advice you would give to president elect Biden on restoring trust with Israel and in the region after what you believe was the mist up of the Iran deal. What are your expectations for what the, Biden administration is going to look like in terms of its approach to middle East peace and relations throughout the middle East secretary of state, Anthony Blinken is very influential and Biden administration's foreign policy. So what do you expect from the Biden administration in that regard?

Michael Oren: (31:00)
Well, I've been privileged to know all the people now that he has appointed. Bill Burns now is the head of the CIA. The deputy secretary of state, as well as the secretary of state, the deputy national security advisor, as well as security [inaudible 00:31:11]. And I will tell you that every single one of them to the person is deeply committed to the US Israel Alliance and committed to Israel security. Now, again, I'll say that doesn't mean we have disagreements. We're going to have disagreements about the Iran deal, particularly the Iran deal. We will have disagreements about the Palestinian issue, which is not going to be that pressing as it was during the Obama years. I think that the president elect Biden is less ideologically than Obama was on that issue, but we will have disagreements about it.

Michael Oren: (31:40)
And a lot of it depends on what the Palestinians decided to do. If the Palestinian decides to rejoin negotiations, then we'll be put in a possibly more combustible relationship with this administration. But generally speaking, I don't see any major policy changes in terms of projecting power. There'll be a tremendous aversion to getting embroiled again in any middle Eastern fight, any overseas, engagement militarily. And I think this administration is going to have its hands more than full, with what's going on in the United States.

Michael Oren: (32:17)
Beginning with the COVID crisis, the economic crisis, political polarization, and potentially even outbreaks of violence in the United States. People aren't going to be thinking about the middle East first and foremost, and maybe not even in a tertiary fashion.

John Darsie: (32:30)
So let's talk about Israel's response to the pandemic, which you alluded to, which I think generally has been very good. And especially the vaccine rollout you mentioned, I think before we went live that you're getting your second vaccination in the coming days, maybe even tomorrow. What's been the key to Israel's response to the pandemic that we can learn from here in the United States, as well as the, efficient rollout of the vaccine.

Michael Oren: (32:55)
So now here's the bad news and the good ones. Let me start with the bad news. Today we, we passed the 10,000 positive rate on the testing is very, very high by any international standards. We have three populations here who are resistant to suggestions that they should wear mask and [crosstalk 00:33:16] Jewish population. They're not giving up on their weddings and their funerals and their tourist study during the day. And our population is not giving up on his weddings, these huge weddings.

Michael Oren: (33:29)
And [inaudible 00:33:30] and if you were here on the beach, you'd be out there with thousands of young people on the beach. In America wearing a mask is kind of a political statement. It says whether you're liberal or conservative. Here, it's a social statement. If you're wearing a mask, if you're not cool, you're an old guy like me. Young guy like you'd be out there without a mask because it's uncool. That's been difficult. And we've had to now go into our third and a half lockdown, which is very difficult. We are a country that is, again, a family country is. Israel has the highest natural birth rate of any country in the modernized world.

Michael Oren: (34:06)
Something between three and five kids per family. And if you're a working couple, couples work here with three to five kids at home eat is really difficult, very difficult. Our economy is taking a huge hit, the highest [inaudible 00:34:18] in our history. A $50 billion deficit was very high for us. That's all the bad news. The good news is that we are a small country. We are all on a computerized health system. We all carry a card that tells every doctor, every hospital, exactly all the medications we've received. So we're a closed laboratory.

Michael Oren: (34:38)
And the makers of these vaccines, Pfizer's Madonna understand that if they want to see the impact of the vaccines on a closed environment, this is the place [inaudible 00:34:48]. So we moved very fast, credibly done to the prime minister and now we moved very fast on the front, every night to the CEOs of these countries. And he believes that by the middle of March, we will be completely vaccinated. We will be the first country on earth to be completely vaccinated. Again, I'm going from my vaccination tomorrow, my second one. It's done so well, John, I can't tell you go in there. It's clean, it's respectful. It's all computerized. You get updates on your text messages all the time.

Michael Oren: (35:15)
They want to know how you're do it. They're reminding you well. It's pretty amazing in that way. We also have one advantage is that the United States doesn't have, and this gets into somewhat sensitive area. And that is, our personal privacy laws are less rigorous than yours. Now, the founding fathers, God blessed them, they dispersed power. There's president, there's federal power, state power, local power, municipal power. And it's very difficult to get a united policy around that, but the other thing also were very fearful of threats to American Liberty. So they put in all these checks against people might threaten liberty, but we didn't go through that process.

Michael Oren: (35:56)
So we have our equivalent to the FBI has a tracing system, which wouldn't be acceptable in the United States. But if I pass somebody in a grocery store was tested positive for COVID, I'm going to get a message that's going to put me in isolation for nine days right there. And by the way, I was in isolation when I flew back from my father's illness. Israeli [inaudible 00:36:19] every day, twice a day, the Israeli police called me. "Hi, Israeli police here, are you in isolation? Just checking up on you." Like that, literally. So if I walked out of my room, believe me, someone's going to know it. And I pay a very big, fine.

John Darsie: (36:39)
It's a double-edged sword for sure. We obviously love our freedoms that we have in this country, but, in the middle of a pandemic, it becomes a little bit difficult. when people use mask wearing and social distancing as a political statement, as you mentioned. I want to leave you with one more question and your immense wisdom. You understand how to diffuse, extremism and live in an area of the world that it's always precarious. And in the United States, as we talked about earlier, we are seeing a rise in extremism. We saw the disgusting events that took place at the Capitol.

John Darsie: (37:12)
A few days ago, you have people with really extreme ideologies. I think a lot of people saw the image of a man with a camp Auschwitz shirt, which was obviously disgusting. How do you think if you were giving advice to domestic leaders in the United States, how do we diffuse this rise in extremism and these extreme divisions that we're seeing in the country without, talking down to people. You had 74 million people who voted for president Trump and many of which still believe he's doing the right things. So how do we solve some of these divisions that we're seeing in the County?

Michael Oren: (37:47)
But to me, there's only one way. And we do it here. We ourselves don't do it enough john. And that has to be for the dialogue. I'm also a writer, I write for American publications. And what all of us in our community of writers realizes is that what has died in the United States has been discourse is the ability to talk to one another. There used to be even publications where if you had a good idea, it didn't matter if it was right or left, you could publish in that magazine, you were judged on the quality of the idea and not on its political orientation. That has been lost. And what there has to be a national reconciling and introspection and effort map provide forums for people from different perspectives to meet on a mutually respectful basis. And I think of any other way to do this.

Michael Oren: (38:37)
And have we watched that polarization deepen literally in front of my eyes in Congress during the years in which I was Washington. Once upon time congressmen from both sides of the aisle, they'd played cards, they go drinking together, they played basketball, they lived in the same boarding houses. It doesn't exist anymore. It doesn't exist anymore. It's so sad to me, that was the strength of America. That ability. It might distinguish colleagues from across the aisle on [crosstalk 00:39:01]. You don't see that anymore. You have to restore the civility. What people didn't understand in Israel, and I don't know if they understand it in America that much anymore, is that the civility wasn't just being polite.

Michael Oren: (39:16)
Civility was a foundational idea for our society for a civilization, was the way that people from different walks of life and different outlets could coexist. And that was part of America's great strength. And part of America's weakness that we're witnessing in the world is because [inaudible 00:39:34]. And so I think speaking as Israeli, we have a profound national interest in the restoration of American stability. Please start talking [inaudible 00:39:42].

John Darsie: (39:43)
Yeah. And it's a beautiful part of Israel that a lot of people, I think misunderstand is that you do have a lot of cultures, like you mentioned that do co-exist in harmony that have different viewpoints on religion and social issues. And you guys live together in harmony and in a beautiful culture. We have a lot to learn from you guys over there. Ambassador Michael Oren, thank you so much for joining us here on SALT Talks. Anthony, do you have a final word for the ambassador before we let him go?

Michael Oren: (40:08)
Thank you, John. Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:09)
Well, I would say next year in Jerusalem to ambassador because that's where I want to be hopefully next year. Maybe even sooner than that. We have our SALT conference coming up, hopefully in the middle East and as a result of the Abraham Accords, I'm hoping that you will be present there. We can meet with you live on stage, discuss all these great things that are happening.

Michael Oren: (40:31)
Great [inaudible 00:40:32]. Thank you so much guys, for hosting me. Be well, be healthy. And get vaccinated.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:39)
Wish you the best. If I could get it, I would, I just have to wait on line right now. But as soon as they allow me to have it here. [crosstalk 00:40:46] I'm taking it.

Michael Oren: (40:47)
We'll [inaudible 00:40:47] on here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:49)
All right. Thanks, sir.

Michael Oren: (40:51)
Take care everybody. Be well. Thanks for having me. Bye.

John Darsie: (40:54)
And thank you everybody who tuned into today's SALT Talk with ambassador Michael Oren. Just a reminder, you can sign up for all of our future SALT Talks at salt.org/talks. And you can access our entire archive of SALT Talks at salt.org/talks/archive. Please follow us on YouTube. We're broadcasting all of these episodes of SALT Talks on our YouTube channel. Our followership is growing quickly on YouTube. We're very excited about that.

John Darsie: (41:20)
So please follow us on YouTube and please follow us on social media. We air these on Twitter via Periscope as well. So please follow us there and please also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. If you're on those channels. Please tell your friends about SALT Talks. We love growing our community. We've been able to grow awareness of SALTs in all these discussions that we have during the pandemic and the lockdown as we've had to postpone our conferences.

John Darsie: (41:42)
So that's been extremely gratifying. So please continue to spread the word if you find these interviews interesting. On behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off for today. We'll see you back here again tomorrow on SALT Talks.

Christopher Hahn: The Aggressive Progressive | SALT Talks #139

“I want to see economic growth that benefits everyone. I do believe the government can step in and help people level that playing field. I don’t think people should go broke because they broke their arm or have a serious illness.”

Christopher Hahn is a progressive pundit and host of the Aggressive Progressive podcast. Hahn served for five years as a senior aide to US Senator Chuck Schumer.

As a regular guest on Fox News for ten years, providing a progressive perspective, Hahn has seen the network’s dramatic shift to the right, particularly from its opinion hosts. The conservative movement more broadly reflects this shift where fringe conspiracies and white supremacist ideology have come to the fore. This is born out of the sense that a shifting demographic represents an existential threat to white-centric culture. This culminated in a terrorist attack of the Capitol by Trump supporters in order to disrupt the election certification. “This was not a protest; this was a terrorist attack by forces that wanted to overthrow the government of the United States of America. They were coming to kill Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Mike Pence.”

Since Ronald Reagan, the center of politics in the US has moved right. The most liberal members of the Democratic party like AOC, Bernie Sander and Elizabeth are trying to move that conversation left and create more progressive compromise.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Christopher Hahn.jpeg

Christopher Hahn

Host

The Aggressive Progressive Podcast

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. Our goal with SALT Talks, like our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we host twice a year, once in the United States and once internationally, 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. We're very excited today to welcome Christopher Hahn to SALT Talks for a very timely conversation about the state of our nation's political rhetoric in our entire societal situation that we're in right now.

John Darsie: (00:57)
Christopher Hahn is a highly sought-after progressive pundit and the host of the Aggressive Progressive podcast. He hosts a national syndicated radio show and has made over 2500 national television appearances on a variety of political, pop culture, and public policy topics. Christopher's skill in dealing with public policy issues was honed during five years where he served as a senior aide to US Senator Chuck Schumer, who's a Democrat from New York, as most of you know. During that time, his responsibilities included dealing with the post-9/11 homeland security activities, domestic policy, federal environmental matters, and economic development.

John Darsie: (01:37)
As Chief Deputy County Executive for Nassau County, Chris was the senior appointed official under County Executive Tom Suozzi. Chris was primarily responsible for directing and managing the daily administration, communications, and operations of county government. Appointed at the age of 33, Christopher was the youngest person in the history of Nassau County to hold the position of Chief Deputy County Executive. Chris serves on the boards of Stony Brook University, the Regional Plan Association of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and the New York League of Conservation Voters. Chris earned his BA at the University of Albany and his JD from St. John's University School of Law.

John Darsie: (02:20)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony's also the chairman of SALT, also had a brief stint in politics, not quite as long as Chris's. But, with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:37)
You see how he starts it? It's a-

John Darsie: (02:39)
I always have to get it in.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:40)
... karate chop right in the Adam's apple trying to remind people that I was in Washington for 11 days. But you want to know something, Darsie? Donald Trump right now is less than a Scaramucci away from leaving the White House, unless, of course, he blows up the White House between now and his departure. So, Chris, thanks so much for joining us. You're known as an aggressive progressive. So, first of all, what does that mean to you? What should it mean to others? Then tell us something about yourself that we couldn't find on your Wikipedia page that he just carefully read for 25-

Christopher Hahn: (03:16)
Yes, geez. You read the whole thing off the Wikipedia page.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:20)
It was very impressive, Darsie. It was impressive.

Christopher Hahn: (03:24)
So aggressive progressive is really ... It's something that bookers would call me. You've got two types of progressives over at Fox News, and that's where I've done the 2500 television appearances. All but maybe 200 of them were at Fox News, and bookers would say there are two types of progressives. There are the kind of wishy-washy progressives that'll just go along to get along. They want to try to be liked by everybody who watches them. Then there are aggressive-

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:56)
So those are sort of like passive progressives, something like that?

Christopher Hahn: (03:57)
Yeah, guys who kind of have Stockholm Syndrome. They're over at Fox News, and they've adopted a more conservative tone. Then there are people like me who aggressively defend the progressive position. So I have been called the most aggressive progressive that has consistently been on Fox. I've been on Fox News since 2010. It's gotten very different over the years. It used to be a lot more fun interacting with the audience members, up until really the last two, three years. I'd always have the same conversation when I'd meet people, "Oh, we love seeing you on TV at Fox. You're so articulate. We don't agree with anything you say, but we love seeing you."

Christopher Hahn: (04:46)
Now, I get a lot of stare-downs. A lot of these conservations think that, oh, he's a progressive. He's a liberal. He's probably weak. Then they see me in public and I'm a little bit more put-together than they might've thought I might be. I did play college football, and I'm an avid runner and a triathlete, and fitness is really the one consistent thing in my life probably my entire life. So it's a big deal. I try to make my points, and I'm passionate about my points that I make, and I don't allow conservatives to lie when I'm sitting next to them, sitting next to them or, more likely lately, in a box on a screen with them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:38)
You say that Fox is different from 2010. It's now 2021, and you're saying that the audience may be a little more hostile towards viewpoints. How's Fox itself different?

Christopher Hahn: (05:53)
Well, I think that the opinion hosts are far more extreme in some of the things that they are saying these years, particularly people like Tucker Carlson. I haven't been on Tucker Carlson's show in two years. I used to do Tucker Carlson's show every Friday night for years. From the onset of the show, I did it almost every Friday night. I think that Donald Trump doesn't like me. That's pretty clear. He's tweeted about me. He's talked about me on radio interviews and says I'm one of the reasons why Fox has gone downhill. Tucker took that on and didn't do it, hasn't had me on in a long time. Sean Hannity hasn't had me on since Trump has become president. Sean Hannity was the first show I ever did at Fox. I had done the Internet show at Fox once, and then the Hannity bookers called me to do Hannity the next day, and I was off to the races over at Fox News.

Christopher Hahn: (06:58)
I had a friend who was running for State Senate who wanted me to run her State Senate campaign, and I had settled into a job at a law firm, and I wasn't interested in doing campaigns anymore. She had been doing some Fox News, and I said to her, "I'd love to do some TV." I had done a TV show in the '90s out here called Youth and Politics, and then when I actually went to work for Chuck Schumer and then later Tom Suozzi, I had given all that up, and I wanted to get back in. She said, "Well, you know what? They've got an Internet show at Fox News, and if you do that for a couple of months, the producers will see you, and they'll put you on the regular show." I literally got a phone call while I was on the Internet show the first time because I guess I have a good acting background and I think that's probably-

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:48)
Well, you grew up on Long ... I mean, you got a good acting, right? You grew up in Long Island. We've all got good acting backgrounds.

Christopher Hahn: (07:52)
Yes. Well-

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:53)
That's Hannity, that's O'Reilly, that's me, that's you. We're all [inaudible 00:07:59]. John Darsie is a Long Island transplant now from North Carolina, so he's all uppity about everything, you know?

Christopher Hahn: (08:05)
Yep.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:06)
So let me ask you this, though. Again, I have a lot of friends at Fox. You know I hosted a show for the Fox Business channel for two years. I was a Fox News contributor and Fox Business contributor, knew Roger Ailes, and I have a lot of respect for many, many people at Fox. But it does seem like they've shifted the bell curve of conservatism where now it's bordering on extremism. Am I wrong in saying that, and if I am, push me back a little and help me.

Christopher Hahn: (08:41)
I think that's all conservatism. The entire conservative movement, Republican movement, has shifted to this wacko, conspiracy theory, base-driven method here. I'm looking for words.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:59)
Okay. Let me test something on you and you react to it. When you look at the rage that took place at the Capitol last Wednesday, it was mostly white people. I didn't see a lot of brown and Black people in that, but maybe there were. I just didn't see them from the pictures, so who knows? My worry is that that conservative movement is an aging white demographic that is buying catheters and MyPillows from Fox News. Am I wrong about that? What say you?

Christopher Hahn: (09:31)
No, I think that the conservative movement is not just an aging white movement. I think it's a borderline white supremacist movement, frankly, that sees any change or shift in their power as an existential threat. A lot of that's laziness, right? A lot of these people don't want to compete with a broader market of people. They like to say that I'm a socialist, but they want to hold onto to their easy lifestyle and they don't want to see more Black and brown and gay and other people competing in their market and have a level playing field. That is unacceptable to them, and you see ... Oh, and Charles Blow-

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:09)
So this is a last gasp of white-

Christopher Hahn: (10:14)
What'd you say?

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:15)
I'm just saying this is a last gasp of white people. Their demographic is shrinking, and they're getting angry about it. So they figure that they can't really run it as much as they used to, and they don't want to cede power, so they're becoming anarchists.

Christopher Hahn: (10:30)
I think that this is very much similar. Charles Blow can say it a lot better than I did. I don't know if you read his column yesterday, and then he did a video on this. He compared the red hats to the red shirts of the Post-Reconstruction Era in Mississippi. Mississippi was a majority Black state, and the only way whites were going to maintain control was through violence. People are comparing what happened on Wednesday of last week to a protest over the summer that might've gotten violent. No, this was not a protest. This was a terrorist attack by forces that wanted to overthrow the government of the United States of America. In that building-

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:15)
Well, they were coming to kill Nancy Pelosi. They had zip ties, pipe bombs.

Christopher Hahn: (11:19)
They were going to kill Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Mike Pence. There's no doubt. There were people with zip ties. There were people in body armor. The only people they've arrested are the jokers who were taking pictures of themselves that think this is all a joke, but there were people in full military fatigues who looked to be moving as a unit in that crowd. I'm sorry. These nine days cannot go fast enough for me. I am not going to go back to playing this game. I am shocked that even after that, seven United States senators, six United States senators, still objected to the electoral vote, and 140 members of the House of Representatives. I'm sorry. The members from the states that objected to their own states' votes, they should be expelled immediately. It's nonsense.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:17)
Steve Schmidt, who you and I both know, others from The Lincoln Project, others that are sort of center-right people that are not Trump extremists, are calling for a very aggressive approach to these extremists and saying that we need to snuff this out, that it's sort of 1924, and that they'll double down on this sort of stuff if we don't do that. What's your reaction to that?

Christopher Hahn: (12:46)
I agree. I think we need to charge these people with sedition. I think that the president of the United States should not be immune from charges. If I'm Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey, I'd go to Mitch McConnell tomorrow and say, "You expel Hawley and Cruz and the others that joined them from our conference or I'm walking across the aisle." This should not be the time ... The Republicans brought this on by placating Donald Trump for the past four years, really, for the past five years. A lot of people, myself sometimes included, said, "Oh, he's a clown." You know what? They said the same thing about Adolf Hitler, and I don't like comparing people to Adolf Hitler, and right now the comparison is not there. But you know what? In 1924, the comparison wasn't there yet either. If this movement is not stopped, if that would've been successful last week, there is no doubt in my mind that I would not be living in this country today. I would be on my way out of here. I have been named.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:52)
So let's talk about ... Success would've been the-

Christopher Hahn: (13:52)
I've been named by that president, and I've got-

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:55)
Success would've been the assassination of Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Vice President Pence.

Christopher Hahn: (14:01)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:02)
How do you think the vice president feels today? It's a week after the insurrection. He's got to go back and work for his boss, who basically was inciting that situation.

Christopher Hahn: (14:14)
Yeah. The fact that the president has not called Mike Pence since the insurrection that the president inspired speaks all ... It's all you need to hear. The president on Wednesday had crowds chanting, "Kill Mike Pence," or, "Hang Mike Pence," outside of the Capitol where Mike Pence was. Mike Pence should've gone back to his office, and he should've written a letter to the rest of the cabinet and invoked the 25th Amendment that day. I don't understand why [crosstalk 00:14:46]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:46)
So why do you think he didn't do that? Let me push back for a second. Mike Pence's staff would say that there's a week or so to go, let's see if we can run the clock out with causing further mania. They would say if they invoke 25th Amendment and remove him prior to the inauguration, it could cause more violence. Again, I'm in your camp. I want the president arrested. I've said that publicly on Twitter. I think his acts of sedition and traitorism are-

Christopher Hahn: (15:19)
And by the way, thanks for the retweets, Anthony, because my following is a lot of crazies, and whenever you retweet, I get some additional people.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:26)
You get some additional crazies? Well, I lost some crazies. Twitter took a lot of crazies off of my following, and thank God that they did.

John Darsie: (15:36)
You actually didn't lose that many, Anthony, and it's a sign that the crazies unfollowed you a long time ago because you were [crosstalk 00:15:42]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:41)
Yeah. Well, I lost three or 4000. I didn't lose 40,000 like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, but I lost three or 4000. I'm not worried about my Twitter following. I'm worried about the health of the country.

Christopher Hahn: (15:55)
Me, too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:56)
I'm worried about police officers that are dying in the face of an insurrection. I'm worried about the collaboration that these insurrectionists could've had from inside the government or inside the Capitol Police. I'm worried about Josh Hawley and Senator Cruz, who are smart guys, Chris. They know better than to be doing what they're doing. I'm worried about all of this political expediency. The reason why I wanted to bring you on SALT Talks is that you've been at the center of our political system for several decades. You've been in a trench. You're a trench warrior. You've seen differences. You've seen people reconcile differences. You've seen people create compromise that actually sort of hate each other. What would you do here? Let's say that you were the czar and you could wave a wand that could help heal the nation. What are some of the steps that you would want to see happen?

Christopher Hahn: (16:53)
Well, you got to start with justice, Anthony. I saw that there was a letter written to Joe Biden by some of the people who objected to his election saying, "Oh, let's call for unity. Let's let bygones be bygones." No, we're past that. We need justice. There needs to be accountability and justice and a full airing of what actually happened and all those who were involved. There should be resignations from people who spurred it on, and that includes Cruz and Hawley, who definitely, as you suggested, knew better.

Christopher Hahn: (17:32)
Josh Hawley likes to pretend he's this man of the people. He went to Stanford and Yale and then taught at St. Paul's in London. He is one of the brightest minds in the Senate, and he absolutely knows better. Frankly, that he knows better and allowed this to happen holds him more responsible. I mean, I want to see Marsha Blackburn and Rick Scott and the others who objected after the violence expelled from the Senate. I know that people say, "Well, that's going to cause more divisions." I don't know how much more divided we could be in this country than we are right now. We've got people literally willing to commit violence, and I don't believe that this was the end of anything. This could've been the beginning of something.

Christopher Hahn: (18:18)
So the government has to be a government of people who are willing to face reality and people who know reality, like Cruz and Hawley, I could almost let some of them go. I don't think Tommy Tuberville lives in reality, right? But Tommy Tuberville was a football coach at Alabama. He didn't teach at St. Paul's in London. Maybe I could give him a little bit of a pass. But when guys that are Harvard and Yale and St. Paul's are edging people like that on, they got to go. They have got to go. The good Republicans, and I believe there are some good Republicans still, need to call on the bad Republicans to go or they need to cross the aisle and then allow for a more stricter, a more comprehensive policy to be placed into effect because this can't stand anymore.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:14)
Well, and, again, we're in agreement. It seems like I've lost my party. I don't know where to go with my center-right positions on business and regulation and the promotion of economic growth and agnosticism to the social liberties in our society. I feel like our society, people should be able to live and do as they want with their own bodies and they should certainly have any choice that they want related to their sexual preferences. But I'm a sort of center-right person on business and growth, and I would like to see a restoration of capitalism but, obviously, fairness for people as well.

Christopher Hahn: (19:53)
I think I'm a center-right on business issues. I want to see economic growth that benefits everyone, and I want to see everyone have the opportunity for that growth. I do believe that government can step in and should step in and help people level that playing field. I think in the richest country in the world we shouldn't be allowing people to starve, we shouldn't be allowing people to go bankrupt because they break their arm or have a serious illness. But I do want to see opportunities for growth and economic success in this country. So I think there's a perfect place for you in the Democratic Party, Anthony. It's a big tent, and there are a lot of pro-growth Democrats. They used to call them Clinton Democrats or T-L-C Democrats.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:44)
It's just one of these things where you're hoping that you can provide some restorative help to the Republican Party and it doesn't go completely off the rails because if it does, it'll lead to further psychosis or-

Christopher Hahn: (20:59)
I think that they're off the rails.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:01)
... further trauma for the world. But it is [crosstalk 00:21:03]-

Christopher Hahn: (21:03)
I don't think they're coming back. I talked to a bunch of people from The Lincoln Project, some of them with your help and your introduction, which I really appreciated. A lot of them are never going back, right? Rick Wilson told me in no uncertain times, "I'm never going back."

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:19)
No, Steve Schmidt, Rick, yeah, all those-

Christopher Hahn: (21:21)
Steve Schmidt.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:22)
... guys have left, no question.

Christopher Hahn: (21:23)
Yeah, they're not going back because there's nothing to go back-

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:27)
Steve's registered as a Democrat.

Christopher Hahn: (21:29)
There's nothing to go back to. It is the new Know Nothing Party. It is not a party that wants to believe in facts. When I first started working in the US Senate in 1999 or 2000 with Chuck Schumer, we had differences with Republicans, but it was differences on how to govern and how government should be involved in solving different problems, and we would work it out. We didn't disagree on reality. We all believed, "Here's the problem," and we had different ways of solving the problem. By the way, that was a healthy debate, which is what the founders wanted. The founders did not want to have a government that moved too fast. That's why it created the system that it did. That's why it's been so stable and economically successful for the past 240 years. But what we have right now is we have one party that lives in reality, the Democratic Party, and we have one party that does not, the Republican Party. That's not sustainable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:24)
Let me push back again a little bit because there is a fringe to the Democratic Party that is I'm not going to say the radical left, but it's definitely way lefter-leaning than I would think mainstream America is. So when I'm getting lit up and I'm getting my hate mail and I'm getting people telling me they're going to come kill me and all the stupid stuff that's happened to me over the last year, one of the thing's that's laced in there is, "Well, you're now a socialist. You're running with the socialists." So what do you say about the configuration of the Democratic Party today, and is there anything about your party that you're worried about?

Christopher Hahn: (23:04)
I mean, even the furthest left person in the Democratic Party lives in reality, right? I always like to say I get called a socialist 10 or 15 times a day by people who I am much better at capitalism than, right? People who have jobs in the government or who are living on a pension, who are receiving Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare are calling me a socialist. Look, when I was 29 years old, I had all sorts of ideas of how to change the world. People like AOC, who's just turned 30 and hasn't been beaten down by Washington yet, she should be pushing for everything she can because, quite frankly, the center in this country since Reagan has moved right. It has not moved left, and the only way to get it to move back left is to start further left so that when you make your compromise, which is what these people are all willing to do, by the way ... They're all willing to compromise. Just because they start on the far left doesn't mean they're not willing to compromise somewhere in the middle. The problem is the middle is to the right right now.

Christopher Hahn: (24:19)
So AOC and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and others, they are trying to start the conversation further to the left. As somebody's who's negotiated a lot of things in my lifetime, I can see where that is helpful. You would never start your negotiation with where you want to finish it, and, unfortunately, right-wing media says, "Oh, look where they are, they're insisting on this or that or the other thing," and then it gets echoed, and then that's the Republican Party position. The Democrats, for all the talk of the liberal media, do not have a single media personality that can drive the entire public opinion of the entire party, including elected officials, like Republicans have. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, they get on a drumbeat of a certain issue, and the entire Republican Party, the entire conservative movement, is right there with them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:13)
So I've got to introduce John Darsie to the conversation because we have to get our ratings up. Apparently, he's getting a lot of fan mail that he's a new budding television and all those sorts of-

Christopher Hahn: (25:24)
You've got great hair.

John Darsie: (25:25)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:25)
Yeah, so I'm going to introduce him in a second, but I want to ask you one last question before-

Christopher Hahn: (25:29)
Go ahead.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
... John comes in and tries to outshine me in all that Millennial sharp elbows and everything that he's capable of.

Christopher Hahn: (25:37)
True Gen X'ers, man. We're fading.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:40)
Yeah, it's hard on me, to be candid, Chris. But Donald Trump has been permanently suspended from Twitter, his Facebook. Apple, Google have removed Parler from their app stores. I think a company called Stripe has taken the payment protocol away from his electioneering at this time. What is your reaction to all that, and is that an appropriate thing to do, an inappropriate thing to do? I was on a show with Piers Morgan in London. He said, "Well, what about the Ayatollah? The Ayatollah still has his Twitter account up." By the way, and I'm going to editorialize here for a second, I think it was totally appropriate because they are mounting another potential insurrection.

Christopher Hahn: (26:29)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:30)
But I'm interested in your reaction and where do you think we'll be post Donald Trump and what will Donald Trump be doing?

Christopher Hahn: (26:36)
Well, he's going to have a lot harder time doing it without Twitter, right? Parler is no Twitter, and it never will be. Now that they're taking it off the app store, it's going to be very hard for people to get on Parler. You're going to have to really be dedicated. The First Amendment does not apply to private actors. A lot of people are saying, "Oh, he's violating" ... No. He can go to the White House press room. You know that place. You worked there for 11 days. He could go down there and make a statement to the entire world right now if he wanted to. The problem is that media people will scrutinize it and it won't go out unedited.

Christopher Hahn: (27:11)
So I think it's very appropriate. He's been lying to people. That has incited violence. There is a police officer dead because of what the president has been saying for the last nine weeks, okay, more than that. Prior to election, he said it was going to be rigged, and then after the election, he's been saying it was rigged. Even in his statement conceding the election, he said it was rigged. This man is beyond-

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:36)
Well, yeah, it's his lies that have led to this level of violence. There's no question.

Christopher Hahn: (27:39)
Absolutely. He is directly responsible and should be held accountable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:43)
What did the Fox News pundits say about that? They agree with him that the election was rigged? Even though Fox is putting these intercessional infomercials, lacing them into their punditry, that there was no fraud, the pundits think that or are they doing that to make money or what are they doing it for?

Christopher Hahn: (28:03)
I don't know. The main conservative I still go on is Laura Ingram. She has said that the election's over. I don't watch the show too much. I think their main grievance is the institution of vote by mail and how that is maybe a violation of their state laws and it should've been tried, along those lines, whatever. It all needs to stop. People need to say, "Congratulations, Joe Biden, you're president of the United States on January 20th at 12:01 PM." This constant whining, grievance culture, I don't know how anybody lives in it. I don't know how anybody lives in it. They always about Democrats and liberals being snowflakes and whiny, but Donald Trump's entire campaign was, "Look what they're doing to me," even as president. I get it when you're running for president. You can be a grievance candidate. But he was the government for the last four years. He was responsible for everything, and he lost 13 million jobs. It's crazy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:17)
Okay, I'm turning it over to John Darsie. Go easy on Chris, okay? He's a nice guy. He's a fellow Long Islander.

Christopher Hahn: (29:26)
I don't like scaring Millennials either, John. I know I tend to do that.

John Darsie: (29:31)
I know. We can be a little bit aggressive and progressive the way you are, so fighting fire with fire here. But I'm going to press you a little bit on the censorship issue, and I'm not going to editorialize. I just want to ask you the question, frankly, because I think it's a very complex issue, the idea of de-platforming people, de-platforming apps, and big tech working with government to basically arbitrate on what's allowed to be said and what's not. Glenn Greenwald, who's controversial in some quarters but he's definitely a contrarian commentator, he's among the leading voices that say that this event at the capital is basically going to be liberals' 9/11, where they're going to use it as pretense to continue to strip civil liberties away from people under the guise of public safety. Are you worried at all about the creep of authoritarianism when you have big tech and big government working together to determine who has a voice and who doesn't?

Christopher Hahn: (30:28)
No, and Glenn Greenwald's an idiot, okay? He's an idiot. I'm not going to mince words. He's an idiot. What authoritarianism was what happened on Wednesday. They were trying to install Donald Trump as an unelected king in this country. Glenn Greenwald is a monarchist, and I am not worried. First of all, if the government was telling Twitter and Facebook what to do, that would be a problem. I would have a problem with that because that would be a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Twitter and Facebook did it on their own because Donald Trump, for the past five years, has been violating Twitter and Facebook's user policies, and he's gotten away with it because he's newsworthy. Because he's the president of the United States, they give him a newsworthy exception.

Christopher Hahn: (31:21)
Now that that newsworthy exception has actually caused somebody to die, they are concerned about future liability of continuing to platform Donald Trump, so they don't want to be associated with Donald Trump anymore. You can make an argument that the vending platform Stripe, which processes the president's campaign contributions, de-platforming him could have some First Amendment impact because Buckley v. Valeo has equated spending of money with speech in the Supreme Court and that's a very long-term precedent of the United States Supreme Court. But Glenn Greenwald should probably read those things again. Maybe he's forgotten them. But he is not right. He's incorrect, and quite frankly-

John Darsie: (32:14)
What are you-

Christopher Hahn: (32:15)
... I am a civil libertarian in a lot of ways, and I would never ... The government should never be allowed to infringe on people's free speech, no matter how disgusting it may be. What's going on right now is not the government infringing on speech. It is platforms who have rules saying, "You're going to follow our rules or you're off," and they are also concerned about their long-term financial liability for what's being said on those platforms now that they know what they've caused.

John Darsie: (32:49)
Related to that, do you have a strong view on Section 230? I find it kind of funny that a lot of conservatives seem to think that by repealing Section 230, it would actually create more freedom of speech on social media outlets, whereas the provision actually prevents these outlets from being held liable for speech that's made on that platforms. So if you actually stripped it, it would force these social media outlets to censor a lot more speech. But do you have a strong view on that issue?

Christopher Hahn: (33:19)
I think that the president sees a little mark next to his name so he pushes for Section 230 to be repealed. I don't have a strong view on it. But I also think that one of the reasons why they're pulling people off their platform is liability because, even though they have some protection for it, once you knowingly allow this stuff going on, it becomes a reckless standard here, I think. It's been a while since I've actually practiced law, so forgive me. But I did go to St. John's, where they actually teach you the law, not Harvard, where they teach you the theory of the law. So it's a-

John Darsie: (33:56)
I don't know. Anthony passed the bar on his third attempt.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:59)
Yeah, he's taking a shot at me because [crosstalk 00:34:00]-

John Darsie: (34:00)
Anthony passed the bar on his third attempt.

Christopher Hahn: (34:01)
It's one of the very few things St. John's grads can have.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:05)
A Long Island St. John's is taking a shot at me. John's going to mention the fact that I blew up on the bar exam a few times. I was out water skiing in Manhasset Bay. I didn't realize you had all these arcane things. But I did pass it. I eventually passed it. Keep going, Darsie. Go ahead.

Christopher Hahn: (34:21)
I passed it, and I'll tell you-

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:22)
Are you going to mention I got fired again?

Christopher Hahn: (34:23)
... a quick bar story. I was so worried about failing the bar. I buried myself in studying for the bar. Two weeks before the bar exam, two things happened. I had a girlfriend that I stopped seeing as I was just studying the bar, and I told my mother, "If anybody dies, just don't call me until after the bar." So the bar ends, I finish the bar, I'm in the city. My girlfriend lived in Manhattan. She was a ballet dancer. I call her up, I go, "I'm going to come over. I'm going to come over. I just finished taking the bar exam." She's like, "Christopher, we broke up three weeks ago. You were on a phone call. I told you you're too intense with the studying, I've got to go, and you just said, 'Uh-huh (affirmative), uh-huh (affirmative).'" So I didn't even realize I'd broken up with her. Sorry.

John Darsie: (35:18)
At least you were buried in your studies. I'll give you credit for that.

Christopher Hahn: (35:20)
I think she was originally from Manhasset, too, by the way, either Manhasset or Roslyn, something like that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:25)
It just means she had good judgment if she was from Manhasset, okay? [crosstalk 00:35:28]-

Christopher Hahn: (35:28)
One of those North Shore wealthy communities.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:31)
Yeah, we're very smug.

Christopher Hahn: (35:32)
Lived on 33rd and Third.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:33)
We're very smug and very self-important up here on the North Shore.

Christopher Hahn: (35:37)
Yes.

John Darsie: (35:37)
I want to switch gears a little bit with my line of questioning here. In Georgia today, we have two Democratic senators after the run-offs. We have a Black pastor and a 33-year-old Jewish progressive Democrat. It just goes to show you how much the electoral map and the makeup of each of these parties in the electorate has shifted in the last five to 10 years. It's been a slow trend in Georgia, but you're seeing other places really evolve, some becoming more blue, some becoming more red. How do you think the electoral balance of power is going to continue to evolve and shift around the country?

Christopher Hahn: (36:15)
Well, I'm very concerned about gerrymandering now that the Democrats failed to take back state houses in this past cycle. I think that that's the biggest problem is this country because you wind up having ... You want to talk about extremism on both sides, you wind up having people who are only concerned about winning their primaries and never have to really face a broad section of voters because they're going to win their seat based on their party affiliation if they survive a primary. So that's my main concern. I do think that presidentially Georgia now being firmly in play, first of all, congratulations, Stacey Abrams, because it was her work that made that all possible. The reason why Texas didn't similarly turn is because they didn't have a Stacey Abrams. I think Beto O'Rourke is a great candidate, but he's not the organizer that Stacey is, and I think that we've got to find that Stacey Abrams in Texas and in North Carolina and Florida to turn those states at least purple.

John Darsie: (37:27)
You also saw Hispanic voters in Texas and in Florida and elsewhere turn toward the Republican party more than they had in 2016.

Christopher Hahn: (37:36)
They sure did.

John Darsie: (37:37)
The Republicans got a much larger share of the vote.

Christopher Hahn: (37:38)
They sure did. You only need to look at Miami-Dade County to understand the story of Florida. Hillary Clinton won it with 68% of the vote and Joe Biden won it with 54. That's a huge shift in one of the largest counties in the state.

John Darsie: (37:52)
Why did that happen? Is it sloganeering? Is it defund the police?

Christopher Hahn: (37:55)
I think that there was a lot of lies being said about socialism and communism, particularly in Spanish language media, that was not countered by the Biden campaign well enough. You can't allow a lie to linger. You got to get on it immediately because it'll travel fast and it'll set in and it'll become gospel. They lied about them. How could anybody think ... I've known Joe Biden since I worked in the Senate. I started working in the Senate in 2000. I met him then. He is as middle of the road as they come. How can anybody think that Joe Biden is a socialist, a communist? It's ridiculous.

John Darsie: (38:45)
Yeah. In a lot of ways, he's the perfect president for the moment. He obviously has his issues. He's older, he's maybe a little slowing down from what he used to be when he was in his 40s or 50s. The fact that he is a consensus builder might be a godsend for us as we enter this precarious period of our history.

Christopher Hahn: (39:04)
Absolutely. Absolutely.

John Darsie: (39:04)
One more question for you. You're a New Yorker. New York and California in particular, I think, have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic because I think they, first of all, have the largest economies, but you've also seen New York City and San Francisco undergo sort of a decay over the last several years economically and socially, as you see increasing homelessness and the livability of those cities has gone downhill. You see a big movement or a lot of noise at least being made about people moving to Texas and Florida. What do you think locally Democratic leaders in heavily Democratic states and localities need to do to make sure that they reverse these trends and remain competitive from a business perspective, so these cities remain livable and exciting places to be?

Christopher Hahn: (39:52)
Well, actually, I think that this current crisis in New York City is going to lead to a renaissance in New York City. Hopefully, we get a mayor that has some vision and can lead. But housing has gotten out of reach in New York City for Millennials like you and artists and other people that led to the boom of New York City in the '90s and into the 2000s and up until, really, a year ago when it crashed because of COVID. I think that now that we have an opportunity to see housing costs come down and maybe even more stock be made available because there's going to be less need for all of this commercial office space, I think you're going to see more young people moving into Manhattan and Brooklyn and you're going to see that artist community come back and that creative class really take back over New York City.

Christopher Hahn: (40:48)
Cities are the future in this country. I know that COVID has people thinking, "Well, that's not going to be the case." I don't believe that at all. I believe that what was making cities slow down was the fact that Anthony could afford to live there but I can't. It's one of those things that now it's going to be more affordable, more easy. I actually-

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:11)
We're looking at his Architectural Digest living room, but that's fine. Okay. He's one of these limousine-

Christopher Hahn: (41:17)
I'm doing okay. I probably could afford to live there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:20)
I mean, he's one of these limousine liberals, okay? But I want to let you shoot it out with Darsie.

Christopher Hahn: (41:23)
I actually said ... My wife-

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:24)
Okay, I can see the Architectural Digest photography behind you-

Christopher Hahn: (41:29)
My wife and I were having-

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:29)
... but you can't afford living in New York.

Christopher Hahn: (41:32)
My wife and I were having this conversation. I actually really wanted to move to Manhattan before COVID. I was really like, "Let's move to Manhattan. It's good for my career." I love Manhattan. I love being in Manhattan. It's a good thing we didn't.

John Darsie: (41:50)
Well, if you're still interested, you might get a better price on that apartment that you were looking for.

Christopher Hahn: (41:55)
I think so. There's going to be a lot of opportunity in Manhattan the next couple of years, and I think it's going to lead to a lot more creativity in Manhattan, and creativity breeds industry. It's not just going to be artists. It's going to be engineers. It's going to be people who want to design things and build things and create things. You're going to see new uses for these buildings that used to host ... I don't think you're going to need 300,000 square feet for a law firm anymore. You're going to need less because people are working remote and they like it.

John Darsie: (42:23)
Absolutely. Well, Christopher Hahn, thank you so much for joining us on SALT Talks. It's the Aggressive Progressive podcast. Please, everybody go out there, subscribe, listen to Chris's podcast. It's a fantastic podcast. I listened to a lot of episodes as soon as you came on my radar via Anthony, and it's a great show. Anthony, you have any final words for Chris before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:42)
No. Chris, I wish there were more people like you and Robert Wolf and others where we could just bring the country together, calm down the outside tension, but, unfortunately, what I'm learning and what's something I don't like, and I know you don't like it as well, is the idea that there are people who are using movements and radicalization for their own personal ambition and for their own personal political attempt at power. I'm talking to you, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, specifically.

Christopher Hahn: (43:20)
And some of these groups, like CPAC and others. It's just a grift.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:25)
Really dangerous stuff. I appreciate you coming on. We're going to have you back. We're going to need some of your insight on what the Biden administration looks like in six to 12 months.

Christopher Hahn: (43:34)
It's going to be a great thing, and I really appreciate it. Anthony, you know-

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:38)
If you're nice to me, before I put my hair up on eBay, I may let you borrow it one night [crosstalk 00:43:43]-

Christopher Hahn: (43:43)
I want to borrow it, man. If I had your hair, I'd rule the world, man.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:44)
But you can't bring it into Manhattan. You can only use it out here on Long Island.

Christopher Hahn: (43:47)
But I want to say one nice thing about you because I saw that you were mixing it up with somebody on Twitter over the weekend and he was calling it out for the role you played in Trump's rise, which you owned it. You owned the mistake, and you've done everything you can the past couple of years now to take that back and inform people who don't want to listen to me that this was a bad thing. This is a bad guy. There's got to be a point in time where people, they've made their amends, they've admitted wrong. You never tried to say, "Oh, no, I wasn't wrong." You said, "I was wrong for supporting this guy."

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:34)
No, I owned it, but this is the problem with liberalism, let me just tell you straight up. You have a lot of self-righteous, very sanctimonious people, holier than thou, and they don't want to hear it, so they have a litmus test.

Christopher Hahn: (44:47)
I don't think it's that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:48)
I'm telling those people, you've got 74 million people that just voted for Donald Trump, we have to get them back into the fold of the United States of America.

Christopher Hahn: (44:58)
I wish I could blame it on ideology, but I think it comes back to everybody wants to go viral all the time, everybody wants to be relevant, and as people start to fade from relevance, they pick fights, they get more radicalized, they do whatever they got to do to maintain that relevance. I know at some point nobody's [crosstalk 00:45:21]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:21)
Darsie's thinking of Rudy as you're saying that. See, that's why Darsie's smiling. Darsie's thinking of Rudy.

Christopher Hahn: (45:24)
Yeah. I had that battle with Rudy Guiliani, and it made me sad more than anything else because the guy used to be great, and he's not anymore. He's a laughing stock. He's pathetic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:41)
Makes me sad. I had a very good close, long-term personal relationship with him, and as Anthony Carbonetti, who you know and others, we would all say the same thing, John Avlon. We want to remember Rudy the way he was '93 to '97 as opposed to the way he is here in 2021.

Christopher Hahn: (46:02)
Yeah, you want to remember him on 9/11.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:04)
On 9/11 as well. Yeah, those were [crosstalk 00:46:06]-

Christopher Hahn: (46:05)
I know. I used to see him at the Yankee games, and I would talk to him and have great conversations with him. Then the last five years, he started bringing up insanity at the Yankee games, not even on TV.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:22)
Well, I'm going to mic drop you because this is my show, okay? This is a Met city now. Cut his mic, Darsie, cut his mic.

Christopher Hahn: (46:31)
There's no Mets city. I know you're an owner of the Mets, and I hope to one day go to a game with you because my wife-

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:37)
Oh, yeah.

Christopher Hahn: (46:37)
I'm in a mixed marriage.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:37)
No, I sold my estate to Steve Cohen. But, yes, you'll be in my-

Christopher Hahn: (46:42)
I'm in a mixed marriage because my wife's-

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:43)
You'll be in my suite as soon as we can get the stadium open, as soon as we get [inaudible 00:46:46].

Christopher Hahn: (46:47)
I got to bring my wife because she's the Met fan here. I'm in a mixed marriage.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:50)
All right. Hey, man, we may leave you in the car now that I know that.

Christopher Hahn: (46:53)
There you go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:54)
All right. Well, god bless, Chris. Thanks to you for coming on.

Christopher Hahn: (46:56)
God bless you, too, and thanks for having me, and I look forward to seeing it. You guys are great. Keep up the good work.

John Darsie: (47:02)
Thanks again to Christopher Hahn for joining us on SALT Talks, and thank you for tuning into SALT Talks. Just a reminder, you can sign up for all of our future talks at salt.org/talks and access our entire archive of SALT Talks at salt.org/talks/archive. Please follow us on social media. SALT is on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Please tell your friends about SALT Talk because we love growing our community. We were able to use technology and the Internet in 2020 at a time when we had to cancel our conferences to grow our community digitally, and it's been a lot of fun to have these virtual conversations with people like Christopher Hahn and guests across finance, tech, and public policy. On behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off for today from SALT Talks. We'll see you back here again tomorrow.

The Future of Renewable Energy | SALT Talks #138

“Storage is the Holy Grail of the energy business… you figure out the storage problem, you win the trillion dollar prize.”

Louis Evans is the president and CEO of Commonwealth Energy Group. Ed Fortunato is the chief economist at Exelon Corporation.

For many years, renewable energy could be seen simply as a subsidized inferior product compared to fossil fuels. As the technology has improved, renewable energy is now not only independently viable, but superior in many ways. Energy storage represents the most important next step in the evolution of renewables. The proliferation of personal renewable energy like home solar panels can go a long way in avoiding that challenge because energy does not have to travel far or be stored as long. “About 60% of energy is used to transport energy from the power plant to your home.”

The growth of renewable energy will have major effects on the geo-political stage. By establishing energy independence through renewables, the United States will be less and less dependent on the Middle East and Russia for oil.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Lou Evans.jpeg

Louis Evans

President & Chief Executive Officer

Commonwealth Energy Group

Edward J. Fortunato.jpeg

Ed Fortunato

Chief Economist

Exelon Corporation

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 and look forward to continuing indefinitely because we've really enjoyed these conversations with a variety of different guests and we've loved the engagement from our community as well. But SALT Talks are a series of digital interviews with leading investors, creators, and thinkers, and what we're trying to do on these talks is the same thing we try to do at our conferences, which is 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 Lou Evans and Ed Fortunato to SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (00:59)
Lou Evans is the president and CEO of Commonwealth Energy Group, a graduate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Pennsylvania Apprenticeship and Training Council, Louis is a highly skilled and licensed master electrician. In 2008, Louis founded CEG in an effort to assist companies in lowering their operating costs by lowering their energy consumption and carbon footprint. Louis is also an active member of the United States Green Building Council, Green Business Certification, Inc., and the Lead Green Associate. Lou serves on the committee for a local U.S. Congressman's military candidate selection board as well.

John Darsie: (01:40)
Ed Fortunato is the chief economist of Exelon Corporation, where he tracks global and domestic economic forces, forecasts future economic trends, and analyzes how these patterns and events impact the company. Over the last 17 years at Exelon, Ed has managed the proprietary trading book and the short-term analytics group, led the implementation of trading strategies in both the proprietary and hedging books, and has run the fundamental analysis group as well. Prior to working at Exelon, Ed served as the vice-president of natural gas trading at Merrill Lynch Global Commodities, and was a senior energy trader at Edison Mission Energy. He also serves on the board of directors for Partners in Excellent Scholarship Program and Marian House, and is the chair of the Loyola University of Maryland's Data Science and Science Board of Directors.

John Darsie: (02:35)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT, and without further ado, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:50)
Okay, guys, I just want you to know, I'm going to start this interview with great disgust. Okay, I learned that John Darsie is getting fan mail for these SALT Talks. I haven't gotten one lick of fan mail yet, and it's just infuriating me, so I just wanted to mention that to you because you're both cheaper than my therapist, but let's get into the discussion about the two of you before we go into your business. And so Lou, Ed, tell us something about yourselves we couldn't find on the internet, Wikipedia. How did you get started? Why don't we start with you, Ed, and then we'll go to Lou.

Ed Fortunato: (03:23)
Well, it's funny. I was listening to your discussion with Andrew Cuomo a couple of weeks ago, and it seemed like you had a lot of similarities. You talking about wooden spoons, I couldn't stop laughing. I spent my life, my younger part of my life avoiding wooden spoons and laughing at my mom when she'd break them on us.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:41)
Okay, so for the non-Italians listening in to the SALT Talks, what Ed's referring to is the grandmother, the nona, would come at you with a wooden spoon. She was stirring a pot of sauce. She cleaned it off with a dish towel and she started whacking you with it. And I like to tell people, some people say they got one strike in their family. Yet other people say they got three strikes. I got no strikes. I mean, she was starting to whack it before the pitch was thrown. You couldn't call it a ball or strike.

Ed Fortunato: (04:09)
We got a little bit bigger and you know, we break the wooden spoon and she threatened our father when he got home. And it was a disaster, but more than that, it was the faith, the family, the discipline that you guys talked about. And it just kind of struck a bell to me. It was really interesting. I just think we have a lot of similarities as far as that background goes. We were a little bit more working-class. I grew up in a Trump apartment, so I have a natural anti-Trump bias from a young age. So no offense to anybody on that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:37)
So that was in Jamaica? That was in Queens, Brooklyn?

Ed Fortunato: (04:41)
In Brooklyn.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:42)
In Brooklyn. Yeah.

Ed Fortunato: (04:43)
Yeah. In fact, I cut out of seventh grade to go watch some film, Saturday Night Fever. And you know, I went to studio 54 for my high school prom. I got a scholarship to Brew College. I figured I'd give that a shot. My father would always say, "Go to college, go push a pencil when you get older." And I took a lot of odd manual labor jobs to motivate me to go push a pencil. So I graduated, I started on Wall Street after college. I studied finance. I fell in love with commodities and trading and a few companies later and 18 years at Exelon, and here I am.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:12)
Well, Louis, go ahead. It's an amazing story. And this is one of the things that always gives me hope for our amazing country. Each of us have had these sort of backgrounds and upbringings, and we've got to keep that going, Ed. We've got to keep it going. Lou, tell us a little bit about yourself.

Lou Evans: (05:32)
I too have fell victim to the wooden spoon. I have a grandfather right off the boat from Perugia. So you know how my upbringing was. Graduated high school and I'm in the Northeastern Pennsylvania area. And in that summer, post high school, we had a terrible flood. And I got a part-time job which turned into a 60, 80 hour a week job.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:12)
So let me interrupt you. That's Northeast Pennsylvania, is that Wilksberry, Scranton? Where was it exactly?

Lou Evans: (06:16)
It is. Yes, Scranton area.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:18)
On the Susquehanna River, right?

Lou Evans: (06:18)
Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:19)
So my dad grew up in Plains, PA. And so his family immigrated there from Italy. They were obviously in those coal mines. Then as my grandfather got older, he started a small butcher shop. So I know the area very well, and you're referencing the Susquehanna river floods, which there were some very big ones in the mid seventies.

Lou Evans: (06:42)
'72, Agnes was worst on record up this way. I was 85 and it was interesting. My first paycheck was in the thousand plus dollar range. And I thought, at 18 years old, I fell in love.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:03)
Amen.

Lou Evans: (07:03)
So I pursued a career. I got into an apprenticeship, went to school at night. Worked all day. And I was voted the most likely to not pursue a career, and very much so go in business. And everyone would kind of joke with me and say, "You're here to learn the business. We all know that you're going to go in business." And quite frankly, that's what I did a few years later around 22, 23 years old. Started out small and have started my own company, back then. And we did some commercial industrial work. And then I became a senior VP of another company doing major commercial industrial work. And then prior to the real estate bust in '08, the commercial markets for construction, they had dried up long before the bust and we couldn't buy a job. We couldn't buy a project back then. And I kept getting these magazines into my office on my desk, and they all had green covers. And you know, it was basically despair. And I opened up one of the magazines one day and started reading about green life, whatever you want to call it, the sustainability.

Lou Evans: (08:52)
And I took a chance with it, Pennsylvania had just deregulated, which means that you could now buy your electricity, kind of like the old mob bell deregulation. You could buy your electricity on the open market. And there were so many lawsuits that there were a lot of grant programs in play.

Lou Evans: (09:16)
So I put together a grant program. Used one of my close friends who still today owns a major call center, used him as my first customer. Once his grant money came through, he at that point set up a meeting for me with 11 investors. It was the day before Thanksgiving, 15 years ago. And I had hoped that one of the guys would write a check and I walked out of that room with 11 checks.

Lou Evans: (09:51)
So over the past 15 years through buy sell agreements, about four years ago, I've been able to take the company over 100%. And sustainability is a very broad word. Energy efficiency is more what we do, and we do it on a commercial, industrial, and municipal scale. I don't know if I can get into talking about my business model at this point, or save it for later.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:29)
No, we want to talk about the business model. Let's talk about the business model, where you see it today in COVID. Where you see it post COVID. Tell people that don't know about Commonwealth Energy Group, what you guys do.

Lou Evans: (10:44)
So back in '08, we were a startup, and we had a great run for a good three, four years there because the incentives coming back from the utilities because of the lawsuits that I spoke of, they were very, very lucrative. A typical office light above your head would have a rebate in the same dollar amount that we would charge to put it in. So there was certainly no such thing as free, but we were getting a $50 rebate to put in a $50 fixture, labor and material.

Lou Evans: (11:26)
And that was a great run for a good five years. And as the incentive programs dried up, we dried up as well. And we knew that we had to make a pivot because we could show amazing return on investments. We could get projects to a two year return or less, and back in '08-'09, people would say, that's a beautiful thing, but we're not going to stroke a check.

Lou Evans: (12:03)
So we came up with a self-funding model because it was our biggest obstacle. At that point, we started very small, and we started to fund people and finance people. And we've grown with that model. So as of today, every project that we do, whether it's a sustainability plan or a retrofit as beautifully our new administration is talking about retrofitting many, many buildings throughout the country. We actually fund that project ourselves. So we put up the capital, we do the work, and we also guarantee the savings. It's pretty well a win-win win. It would be very hard for you to say no with us, giving you the capital, putting a guarantee on it, and doing the work for you. So it's very much a good model.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:13)
So how do you guys connect? How do you guys partner up, Ed?

Ed Fortunato: (13:19)
So we have a little bit of everything in our company. We have a big umbrella. We have five utilities that serve parts of Chicago, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Maryland, the Eastern shore of Maryland, New Jersey, Atlantic City electric, Washington, DC. And then we have a generation company. We're biggest carbon-free generator in the country. And we have a big retail arm. It's the biggest in the country. We sell more electric, more natural gas that anyone in the country.

Ed Fortunato: (13:46)
And Lou's company really just kind of comes in, and it's just another aspect of our retail business. It's not just, but it's a big part of our retail business. So we can use that as a marketing tool to get in the door and say, "Hey, we can come save you money." We can kind of make it more efficient. We can make your business run better. And not only can we do that, we'll sell you gas and power. And it's worked really, really well. I think it's been very lucrative for both Lou's company and our company too. So we continue that.

Ed Fortunato: (14:15)
And just to quantify how efficient lighting has gotten, and just using the lighting as an example, there's a measurement of BTUs per lumen. Lumen is the amount of light out there. And if you're burning a candle, you're burning some wood, it's like 0.2 lumens per BTU. A conventional light bulbs about 15 lumens per BTU. An LED bulb is in the tens of thousands of lumens per BTU. So it's gotten so much more efficient.

Ed Fortunato: (14:41)
And when I started in this business, you were talking about lighting demand would be about 20% of total demand overall. And you're down to 10 now, or eight or 10% now, and it's heading lower. So a lot of the low-hanging fruits been extracted, but there's still way more to go as far as just lighting alone goes as far as efficiency.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:01)
When you look at the new administration and obviously Louis knows this, Joe Biden is from that area, Scranton, PA. He's thinking about things like the green new deal. He's thinking about things like addressing fracking and potentially curbing fracking. The Paris Accords, the reintroduction of the Paris Accords. Tell us about the impact that this would have on your business, if any, and how are you prepared and set up for the future? Given these things that are out there.

Ed Fortunato: (15:37)
Lou, me? Who are we talking?

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:38)
It doesn't matter. It's a free flowing conversation.

Ed Fortunato: (15:42)
Okay, good. I just didn't want to cut anybody off. The future is bright for energy. And I think there's a lot of reasons for it. I think one of the things that I was reading about over the course of the holidays, which is kind of new energy and renewables. And for the longest time, I always viewed them where they always seemed to be kind of subsidized inferior products compared to the fossil fuel business we have. And you look at GE, which is a major corporation. They're having trouble now, but they're a major corporation. The major acts as the capital. They're developing wind turbines with 13 megawatts. The average wind turbine in this country is about two megawatts. So you can drastically increase the amount of electricity coming from the wind.

Ed Fortunato: (16:23)
We have 60,000 wind turbines in this country. And if you start retrofitting some of those things, it'd be a vast difference. Hydrogen has been the darling of this whole pandemic, as far as energy goes. They've done a lot of work on that. And they're using that for energy storage purposes. You can take the wind, use it as electricity in off-peak hours, which is when wind blows, nighttime and spring and fall. And save it for a more peak day. And you can use hydrogen as that vehicle. And it's starting to make sense as far as pricing and as far as technology goes.

Ed Fortunato: (16:55)
And then you get a company like Quantum Scape, which went public back in November. That had a $5 billion market cap, went up to 40 billion and is somewhere around 20 billion now. But that's dues and solid state batteries in automobile applications. And that can kind of really change the game and challenge the Tesla and give an opportunity to places like Volkswagen and GM, to really kind of mass produce electric vehicles. And if they charge as quickly as they state they can, and they give you a range as large as they can, that would really kind of challenge the energy business. And I think that's important going forward.

Ed Fortunato: (17:27)
As far as Biden's work, we have a very balanced Senate right now. We have a really tight House of Representatives, and it is going to be hard for some of his more aggressive plans to get through. A guy like Joe Mansion or a senator like Murowski in Alaska can really kind of have an impact. Just moving one to the other because the Senate is so tight. And so it's going to keep very aggressive ideas more neutralized.

Ed Fortunato: (17:54)
Fracking on public lands is probably the most vulnerable, it's only 8% of our total output. And there's tons and tons of natural gas out there. In private lanes too. So it's not going to be a problem. Guess is going to be a transition fuel to the future. And yeah, I'll stop there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:12)
No, listen, it's fascinating. It's the reason why I wanted to have you guys on. Let's talk about the next 20 years in your business with everything that you just said, and I'll turn this over to Louis. What is the backdrop? How are you adjusting? How are you adapting to the landscape and the macro factors that Ed is laying out?

Lou Evans: (18:40)
That's a very interesting question because where we sit in the energy sector, whether it be commercial, industrial, or municipal, we will always always be the second largest expense next to people in an organization. So hydrogen is definitely the key to the future. Long-term battery and inexpensive battery is definitely just as good. If you look at the demographics on who's driving electric vehicles, it's mid thirties, over a hundred thousand dollar income, and that demographic has never changed. So something has to change, and lower price batteries, and maybe cars with a lot less bells and whistles that people will be able to afford them.

Lou Evans: (19:46)
You can look at a saturation point, whether it be new air conditioning, LED lighting, whatever that may be, but there's always something more. We're running, looking in our marketing, we came up with a bit of a plan where through COVID, I would drive weekly through Philadelphia and I would very much see all of these buildings lit up a 100% at dusk or at nighttime, but yet I knew there was no one in there.

Lou Evans: (20:27)
So if you take an LED and you've saved 70%, there is nothing cheaper than off. So lighting control now becomes the next thing. Why do you want to have a light on, even if it is 70 per cent cheaper, why do you want to have a light on if no one's there?

Lou Evans: (20:48)
Conditioning air, it is going to be massive. It's going to come out of this administration just because of COVID. There is going to be a great run on HVAC equipment. Everybody wants their air conditioned to be able to take COVID out of the air. They want that warm and comfortable feeling. So what we do, until there becomes a replacement for electricity, lighting and gas, we just need to get more efficient every day.

Lou Evans: (21:27)
And when it comes to sustainability, we do not approach sustainability the same way that let's say a Greenpeace tree hugger would. We look at it for the actual definition. We're here to help you sustain your company. And if it's financial, we'll bring in a financial person for you. We can certainly help you get your energy bills down, but we want that company to sustain themselves for many, many years to come.

Lou Evans: (22:02)
So I believe that the energy sector is in a great position because it is changing every day. We've got Steve Wozniak playing in the energy efficiency game now. So that's a great punch in the arm, a shot in the arm for the energy efficiency game. And we're what's called an energy services company, and now Woz is calling out ESCOs as the great new companies of the future. Everybody needs to be using ESCOs. So I believe that energy savings will never go away because HR looking to slash their costs will never go away. So we're number two.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:59)
Mm-hmm (affirmative). Let me Ed, because you've done a lot of work on this over the years. The relationship with China that the US is going to have, and the energy draw that China has on the world in terms of its fossil fuel consumption, et cetera. Where do you think things are going to go in the Biden administration with that relationship? And [crosstalk 00:23:24].

Ed Fortunato: (23:25)
I'll give Trump credit for one thing, he's made our relationship with China a bipartisan issue. And he's brought it to the forefront and they seem to be a threat. And as long as that's the case, it's going to be fairly contentious and a little more than competitive. Before the tariffs were imposed, there was a lot of talk and a lot of work on LNG exports to China directly. And that's kind of gone by the wayside. That stopped right now.

Ed Fortunato: (23:51)
But even without us exporting gas to China, it's still an energy hungry world. And it's still a very energy hungry country. And energy globally is a logistics problem. So if China was going to buy LNG from us and they're not buying it from us, we'll sell it to Europe and Europe will ricochet it over to China. So there's still demand for it.

Ed Fortunato: (24:16)
I think the Biden administration is going to take some of the rhetoric out of the equation as far as China goes. It's going to be a little bit less in the headlines and possibly a little bit more kind of clandestine or behind the scenes. I think Biden's going to work hard with Europe and other allies to kind of formulate a strategy to kind of isolate China. Whether that's a reenactment of the transpacific partnership, whether that's an alliance for trade with Europe, whatever it is. I think that they're going to kind of try and counteract China's influence in the world that way.

Ed Fortunato: (24:54)
The Paris Accords, as you mentioned before, we're going to rejoin those. It's more of a ceremonial type of a pattern. The cheap gas that we have in this country has done more than hurt coal and carbon emissions than anything else. So the combination of things is going to hopefully our alliances, hopefully our growing LNG exports around the world will kind of offset China. And also Russia's kind of influence with China as far as gas sales with them go to.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:22)
But it's interesting. And I think it dovetails from what Lewis is saying about energy conservation and timing of the lighting, timing of the energy, making it more efficient. It puts America in a power seat geopolitically, right? Because ultimately we're going to be able to have some level of energy independence going forward, which will help the countries footprint from a foreign policy perspective.

Ed Fortunato: (25:47)
It sure seems that way. For the last 10 years, everyone's expecting the US dollar to collapse as far as world currencies. And one of the biggest supports of that is we're not shipping a trillion or a trillion and a half dollars out every year to countries for oil anymore. It's a balance of trade and the energy is fairly flat now. And that combined with the rich resource now, has kind of taken us from going to countries who are basically our enemies on our knees to begging for energy to kind of be an independent.

Ed Fortunato: (26:15)
And it's really kind of changed the politics of the middle East. It's changed our relationship with Russia. And one of my fears initially was, with lithium ion, China controls most of the cobalt in the world, they control most of the lithium in the world. And as a result, we're kind of going from dealing with the Russians and Iranians for energy, to dealing with Chinese.

Ed Fortunato: (26:36)
And now if we do develop solid state batteries, they are much more just common materials like zinc and nickel and things like that, which China doesn't control. So we'll have more control of our independence energy-wise and go from there. I'll throw out a quick trivia stat for you. About 60% of the electricity produced in this country is produced to move the electricity from the power plant to your home. And just a change in that would just completely make things infinitely more efficient.

Ed Fortunato: (27:08)
And if we can get kind of scale on solar, scale on wind, where you can use it in your house or put it on your roof, that transportation fee goes away. And it makes the whole system, demand would plunge for that. So there's just a lot of opportunities out there. Financing, it has been there for about five or 10 years now, and we need to kind of push forward and kind of have these new developments kind of take hold, which is what we're starting to see.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:34)
Well, I'm going to turn it over to the earth's wild millennial who's getting the fan mail, because this is the way we get our ratings up. Louis, what can I tell you? It's embarrassing to me, but go ahead, Darsie. I know you've got a ton of questions for these guys, so fire away.

John Darsie: (27:52)
I don't have a million Twitter followers like you showering praise on me every day. So I got to latch on to just the single piece of fan mail that I get to try to boost my ego and boost my confidence.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:02)
Well, you didn't have to bring it up though. You didn't have to bring it up and hurt my feelings in front of my friends, but go ahead.

John Darsie: (28:09)
So I'm going to start with Lou on this one. So the vaccine is getting rolled out. We're starting to see travel pickup a little bit, and we're starting to see sort of light at the end of the tunnel. Dr. Fauci said that by April, he thinks at least within April, he thinks the majority of Americans who want the vaccine will be able to get the vaccine. So when in your view, are we going to see energy demand pick up back to normal levels? And what will be sort of the path to getting back to the normal levels?

Lou Evans: (28:41)
You say energy demand. I would say that you're talking about commercial industrial. I would say 12 to 18 months. It seems like a lot of large companies are going to stay with this work at home model for quite some time. So that is going to be, it's almost a real estate question at this point for a REIT. That seems to change every day. Are you going to work from home for the next two years? Are you going to get back in the office?

Lou Evans: (29:28)
I was actually, Ed hosted a call yesterday and the downfalls of not being in the office. So from our standpoint, it almost doesn't matter because we're poised to help whether you're in the building or not. So energy demand kicking back up in the commercial, industrial space. I would say gradually over the next 12 to 18 months.

John Darsie: (30:04)
What are the biggest drivers in commodities markets in general as we head sort of into 2021? And into a more normalized environment. Ed, you want to take that one?

Ed Fortunato: (30:14)
Yeah, let me just pile one for the energy demand question for a second. Lou did the commercial industrial, but you look at the transportation side and until air travel improves, jet fuel is going to be depressed. And you're going to have a lot of people driving around. You've seen gasoline demand rebound.

Ed Fortunato: (30:33)
We average about nine to 10 million barrels a day of demand. We went down to 3 million barrels in April, we're back to seven or eight now. That'll increase as things get better, but jet fuel is a couple million barrels a day. And we're a fraction of that. And so until we get back to that travel, and whether it's leisure or business, and business is going to take a while. Zoom calls are pretty efficient. You don't need to stay for two nights for a two hour meeting anymore.

John Darsie: (30:57)
Right.

Ed Fortunato: (30:57)
I think that's going to change a lot and take a while to rebound.

Ed Fortunato: (31:03)
But as far as commodity markets, liquidity in the markets and fed stimulus and things like that have had a big help. You can see money flowing into different commodities pretty aggressively. You take a look at gold. Gold's price has been very strong, as money's kind of flowed there.

Ed Fortunato: (31:21)
You've seen commodities like oil be depressed because of lack of demand, but lumber demand has been through the roof just based on all the building demand for people. People in the houses are tired of being in their small cramped house. They're going to expand it. They want to do a little bit of work in their house to improve it.

Ed Fortunato: (31:35)
Businesses have been very ingenious in kind of expanding outdoor restaurant space and seating. So you'll see an increase in demand for that.

Ed Fortunato: (31:48)
As far as commodity prices going forward, I think it's more lack of capital going to the market than anything else. If you look at oil, or capital spending in oil has been cut 30% in 2020 and 2021 also. And as a result, you just know, when this demand does come in '22 or '23, you won't have as many projects online to kind of have capacity. And without that capacity, you're going to see prices surge and that'll be the market signal to go out and kind of go drill for more.

John Darsie: (32:17)
Right. Who do you think will be the biggest winners and losers in the energy space this year? And Lou, we'll start with you on that one.

Lou Evans: (32:26)
In the energy space, as far as customer goes?

John Darsie: (32:31)
Yeah, broadly.

Lou Evans: (32:34)
I'm seeing a very big jump in data centers. Data centers are expanding hand over foot. And they are huge energy users, which obviously comes with our time, right? We're in Zoom, we're in Netflix. We need more cloud storage. So data centers are expanding. They will definitely be winners.

Lou Evans: (33:02)
I think the at homes will definitely be winners. And I think strong REITs will be winners. They're adjusting and they're being proactive and they're taking this COVID time, with half empty or empty buildings to make the modifications to make everyone comfortable. So that when the day comes, people will feel comfortable coming back.

John Darsie: (33:37)
Ed, what do you think?

Ed Fortunato: (33:38)
You know, as far as winners, we've seen hydrogen be the biggest winner. Any equity that's invested in hydrogen or is doing research in hydrogen, has kind of jumped up. We've seen some realizations on hydrogen limitations. We've seen some progress on it. We've seen a big progress, renewables. Like I mentioned with the wind turbines. We've seen solar panels improve, we've seen storage technology just really kind of improve at different levels. Whether that's batteries or that's wheels, things like that.

Ed Fortunato: (34:09)
I'll just diverge for a second. Storage is the holy grail of the energy business. And whether that's a battery to kind of threaten Exxon Mobil or the house of Saud on the gasoline side, or flatten out prices on power. You figure out the storage problem, you win the trillion dollar prize.

Ed Fortunato: (34:30)
And there's a lot of work being done on that. There's been some progress and I think there's going to continue to be more progress going forward. And that's going to be the most exciting part of the whole business. And we've seen trends accelerate, and this is all really kind of come to the forefront over the last year or so. And like I said, you can almost imagine a world now with renewables. Where a year ago, you just weren't seeing it.

John Darsie: (34:51)
Right. Well, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much, Ed and Lou for joining us on SALT talks today. We have a lot of members of our community who are investors in the energy space. Obviously it was a challenging year in 2020 with the pandemic and other factors that help drive energy costs, energy prices down. So it'll be a fascinating thing to watch. And hopefully we'll have you back either back on SALT talks later in the year or at one of our in-person conferences. We're bringing the SALT conference back in 2021. We'll have an announcement on that in the next couple of weeks, but we look forward to keeping up with you guys and hopefully talking to you soon.

John Darsie: (35:27)
Anthony, do you have any final words before we let Lou and Ed go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:31)
Well Dorsey, you may be getting fan mail, but now that I know where Lou is from, him and I, we know where the best pizza is in the world. It happens to be in that area. Am I wrong Lou?

John Darsie: (35:42)
Brooklyn.

Lou Evans: (35:43)
Old Forge, Pennsylvania, pizza capital of the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:46)
[inaudible 00:35:46] talking about Brooklyn, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Ed Fortunato: (35:47)
We can take you guys for a pizza tour [inaudible 00:35:50].

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:50)
You remember Brutacos in Old Forge, Louis?

Lou Evans: (35:53)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:54)
See these guys don't know.

Lou Evans: (35:56)
Best [inaudible 00:35:56] in the world, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:57)
These guys don't know white pizza, Louis. They don't know white pizza again. They don't even know what they're missing. Look at how naive and uneducated they are on where the best pizza is.

Ed Fortunato: (36:05)
You need [inaudible 00:36:05] gardens in your life. We'll get you there after this pandemic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:10)
All right.

Lou Evans: (36:11)
Anthony, tripe and safrita.

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:13)
Amen. Amen, Lou. All right, well guys, thank you for coming on. And we'd love to get you at one of our live events and we'll see you guys soon right after the pandemic.

Ed Fortunato: (36:24)
Okay, happy new year.

Lou Evans: (36:25)
Thanks very much.

John Darsie: (36:26)
Thank you to everybody who tuned into today's SALT talk with Ed Fortunato and Lou Evans to discuss the energy markets and the future of the energy space heading into 2021. Just a reminder, you can access all of our talks on demand on our website at salt.org/talks/archive, and you can sign up for all of our future talks at salt.org/talks.

John Darsie: (36:49)
Please follow us on social media. SALT is on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. And please tell your friends about SALT talks and about SALT. We love growing our community. We grew it tremendously in 2020 using these digital tools that we were sort of forced to use, with doing SALT talks rather than doing our conference series, but it turned out to be a blessing. And we're very excited to have all these new members of our community who are aware of SALT and everything that we're trying to do here. So very gratified by that. And please spread the word about SALT. This is John Darsie, on behalf of everyone at SALT, signing off for today. We'll see you back here again tomorrow on SALT talks.

Benn Steil: “The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War” | SALT Talks #137

“When we get to 1947 and the Marshall plan, the Truman Administration is already in a major corrective mode. The State Department is already talking openly about a two-world vision for the post-war order.”

Benn Steil is senior fellow and director of international economics, as well as the official historian in residence, at the Council on Foreign Relations. His most recent book, The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War, was named the winner of the New-York Historical Society's Barbara and David Zalaznick Book Prize, awarded each year to the best work in the field of American history or biography.

Before his death, FDR developed four pillars of a post-WWII foreign policy: peaceably dismantle the British Empire; build permanent peace between the United States and the Soviet Union; profitably dismember and deindustrialize Germany; and integrate the global economy with short-term IMF loans. This represented the hope for a one-world architecture where the US and Soviet Union got along. Circumstances quickly forced then President Harry Truman to pivot and begin dividing the world between Marshall states- countries that asserted liberal democracy and free markets- and Soviet states under communist rule. This marked the dawn of the Cold War. “When we get to 1947 and the Marshall plan, the Truman Administration is already in a major corrective mode. The State Department is already talking openly about a two-world vision for the post-war order.”

The multilateral alliances that came out of WWII, like NATO, represent some the period’s most important and enduring legacies. The world depends on these institutions even more today as the need to build alliances only grows. A rising China presents a global threat that can only be managed with new partnerships that meet these challenges collectively.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Benn Steil.jpeg

Benn Steil

Senior Fellow, Director of International Economics & Historian-in-Residence, Council on Foreign Relations

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone and welcome back to Salt Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of Salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. Salt Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers.

John Darsie: (00:29)
While we started Salt Talks as a response to the pandemic, due to the fact that we had to cancel our global Salt conferences, which we host twice a year, one in the United States and one internationally, we're going to continue to do these Salt Talks because they've been so fun, so engaging with our community. We've been able to expose our community to so many interesting speakers and ideas and the interaction as well with members of the Salt community has been so much fun.

John Darsie: (00:54)
So we're going to continue these even around our conference circuit that we do. So we're very excited to continue these Salt Talks into 2021 with several talks per week on a variety of topics. What we're trying to do with Salt Talks is replicate the experience that we provide at our global conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (01:21)
We're very excited today to welcome Benn Steil to Salt Talks. Benn Steil is the senior fellow and director of international economics, as well as the official historian in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. He's also the founding editor of International Finance, a scholarly economics journal. He's the lead writer of the Council on Foreign Relations Geographics Economics blog and the creator of five web based interactive tracking global growth, global monetary policy, global imbalances, sovereign risk, central bank currency swaps, and China's Belt and Road initiative.

John Darsie: (02:01)
Prior to joining the Council on Foreign Relations in 1999, Benn was the director of the International Economics program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. He came to the institute in 1992 from a Lloyd's of London Tercentenary Research Fellowship at Nuffield College at Oxford, where he received his MPhil and DPhil in economics. He also holds a bachelor's degree of science in economics, summa cum laude from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

John Darsie: (02:34)
Dr. Steil has written and spoken widely on international finance, monetary policy, financial markets, and economic and diplomatic history. He's testified before the US House of Representatives as well as the Senate and the CFTC. He's a regular op ed writer and commentator on CNBC. His most recent book, The Marshall Plan, Dawn of the Cold War, won the New York Historical Society's 2019 Barbara and David Zalaznick prize for best work on American history. It won the American Academy of diplomacy 2018 Douglas Dillon prize. It won the honorable mention runner up of the 2019 ASEEES Marshall D. Shulman prize and was shortlisted for the Duff Cooper prize and is ranked number three among book authorities best diplomacy books of all time.

John Darsie: (03:27)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who actually is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Anthony 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: (03:44)
Well, Dr. Steil I have to tell you, I read your book, it feels like 100 years ago now sir. I read it back in July of 2019. I was thinking to myself, what a splendid book and what a splendid moment to write a book like this because it was a time when America was thinking very big on the world stage in terms of how to be inclusive and engaged and how to make the world more peaceful through global shared prosperity.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:12)
Congratulations on the book, it's written very well to bestseller, The Marshall Plan, Dawn of The Cold War. Benn, if you know anything about me, I'm not really that promotional. If you probably... So that's why I'm waiving the book like it's a windshield wiper in front of me. But I want people to go out and read this book because it's very timely for what's going on in the world today. You talk about in the book, monetary nationalism and globalization as being a dangerous combination. I would hope that you could explain to people who haven't yet read the book what that means Dr. Steil.

Benn Steil: (04:50)
I think I actually made that particular comment in my previous book, which was called The Battle of Bretton Woods. That was an historical narrative on the Bretton Woods international monetary conference of 1944. That's where the IMF and the World Bank were created and the dollar based international monetary system, and actually got the idea of doing the Marshall Plan book while I was writing Bretton Woods. I was working on an aftermath chapter and it really hit me how very different the view of the post war world was under President Truman in 1947 when the Marshall Plan was launched, and what it had been under FDR in 1944 when the Bretton Woods Conference had been held.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:44)
Explain that to people because a lot of people don't realize this but in the mid 40s, 43, 44, FDR was building the post World War Two architecture, as you point out in the book. But Truman had a totally different vision for where he wanted to go relative to FDR. I was wondering if you could contrast those two visions.

Benn Steil: (06:05)
Right. In 1944, the US is very near the zenith of its power historically. We account for more than half the world's manufacturing output. One year later, we would have sole possession of atomic weapons. This is a period in which we had enormous leeway to improvise with the architecture of both the global economy and the global political system.

Benn Steil: (06:38)
Now, in 1944, FDR was still proceeding under the expectation, or one might say the hope that we could have what he called a one world architecture. This is a world in which the United States and the Soviet Union would somehow find a means of cooperating with each other to promote peace and stability and economic prosperity throughout the world. Now, that sounds naive now but in April of 1945, when FDR died and Truman took over, he had no intention of overthrowing this foreign policy architecture that had been handed down to him by FDR. It was really circumstances that dictated that we needed to go in a very different direction.

Benn Steil: (07:34)
Now there were four pillars of foreign policy thought that underlay FDR's one World Vision. Those were the following [inaudible 00:07:45], first of all, that the British Empire could somehow be peaceably dismantled. That didn't work out. The British Empire collapsed very violently and chaotically in early 1947. Second, that the Soviets could be co-opted into a peacetime, a permanent peacetime alliance with the United States to promote political and economic stability through institutions like the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank.

Benn Steil: (08:18)
That didn't work out obviously. The third was that Germany could somehow be profitably dismembered and de-industrialized. This was the so called Morgenthau plan for Germany developed by FDR's treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau. Truman administration was forced to reverse this because Germany was sinking into chaos and disorder and it was redounding to the benefit of the Soviet Union.

Benn Steil: (08:48)
Finally, and this goes back to Bretton Woods, there was a fourth pillar and that was the idea that somehow a globally integrated economy could be rebuilt on the basis of just short term loans from an international institution, the IMF, that would help countries who were in temporary balance of payments difficulty get back on the right track. That didn't work at all. When I referred to this idea of monetary nationalism. That was the idea of Bretton Woods that the United States could have it all. That we could have the US dollar as the foundation of an international monetary system, but it would be indelibly backed by gold. We could meet this promise without in any sense tying ourselves down.

Benn Steil: (09:42)
As I pointed out in that book, it didn't turn out to be anything of the sort. When we get to 1947 and the Marshall Plan, the Truman administration is already in a major corrective mode. Now the State Department is talking openly about a two World Vision for the post war order. Very different from the one that FDR had developed. In this world, there would be martial states that would effectively be led by the United States. These would value above all things democracy, a liberal political order and free markets.

Benn Steil: (10:28)
There would be what the State Department called the slay world or the communist world, which would be led by necessity of the Soviet Union. And obviously, the Truman administration wanted to keep that as small as possible concentrated in Eastern Europe, the immediate periphery of the Soviet Union.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:46)
It's a fascinating time because you also pointed out in the book, that improvisation that we're really trying... It's not... Sometimes people look back on the past and say, okay, they had this grand blueprint and they masterfully created this architecture, but it was a work in progress. Of course, we had the situation in Turkey in Greece which led to the introduction of the Truman Doctrine and the rejection of communism around the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:15)
But before I go deeper into the book, I want to touch on Bretton Woods, if you don't mind, because I found that book also fascinating which is perhaps why I conflated the two. Tell us about the idea behind Bretton Woods, how well it worked and why it failed and obviously with the August of 1971 pulling of the pin of gold tied to the US dollar by Richard Nixon. Give us some of your sense for that.

Benn Steil: (11:43)
Well, Bretton Woods was a rather eclectic amalgamation of views about what the post world would be. On the one hand, it was an extremely nationalist view led by treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau's assistant, Harry Dexter white. He was going to build this architecture around the US dollar which he said would be tied to gold but in no way did he want the United States to be constrained in how it operated its economy by gold.

Benn Steil: (12:22)
So we wouldn't obey any sort of rules dictated by the movement of gold ownership across borders. We would just have so much gold that people would be obliged to use the US dollar simply because after World War Two, it was the only credible voucher for gold. It's hard to put ourselves back in that mindset now. But back in 1944, people really viewed gold as being the foundation of money and national currency is just being either more credible or less credible vouchers for gold.

Benn Steil: (13:02)
By the time we get to 1944, Britain being almost bankrupt, the pound sterling is no longer a credible voucher for gold so you're left with the United States. But on top of that view, Harry Dexter white remarkably, as I explained in the Battle of Bretton Woods, was a progressive romantic who had very positive views about the role of the Russian Revolution and the history of mankind. He viewed it as a great liberating event. He was quite convinced that the world was going to be moving more towards a Soviet state managed economy style of operation after the war.

Benn Steil: (14:02)
He viewed Republicans in Congress as being against US interest by trying to counter or contain the Soviet Union. He himself was, in fact, an agent of the Soviet Union. He passed classified documents to them. He pursued major foreign policy initiatives that redounded to their interest. It's hard to imagine those things being spliced together. But it was really central to the American vision at Bretton Woods that the Soviets would somehow be willing to sign on to an American architecture for the post war world.

Benn Steil: (14:55)
By the time we get to 1947, it's clear that's not going to happen. None of the assumptions that Harry Dexter White took into Bretton Woods turned out to be true. For example, the monetary system at Bretton Woods assumed that all the major European currencies would be completely convertible into US dollars. It wasn't in fact until 1961, that that took place. So what we call the Bretton Woods system that supposedly lasted from 1945 until Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, really didn't even start operating until 1961.

Benn Steil: (15:42)
By the time we get to that period, the system is already coming under enormous strain as the US is losing gold reserves, the French and others are losing confidence in the system and are no longer willing to accumulate dollars. The Marshall Plan was in many senses a major corrective both from an economic perspective. That is, the United States now realized that we needed much more than short term loans from a new international institution to revive a global economy. We were going to have to reconstruct the economies of Western Europe on the fly and it was going to be enormously expensive.

Benn Steil: (16:28)
Second, that we were not going to be able to do this in conjunction with the Soviet Union. In fact, we had to expect that the Soviet Union was going to resist this initiative as they did. As you know, I explained in the book, that the Marshall Plan is really at the center of the Cold War. That is the Soviet Union, Stalin in particular, think of the Marshall Plan as a major threat to their control of their satellite states in Eastern Europe. Even more importantly, he saw it as a threat to the ability of the Soviet Union to constrain Germany, whom they consider to be obviously the mortal enemy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:19)
I've heard you say this stuff before, Dr. Steil, but I'd like you to repeat it to all our Salt viewers and guests about the size and scale of the Marshall Plan. Yes, the 14 or so billion dollars at that time but what did it mean in today's dollars and as a percentage of GDP today. Because I think those numbers are actually monumental.

Benn Steil: (17:42)
Over a four year period, it amounted to $13.2 billion which may not sound like terribly much but in current dollars, that's about 140 billion. This was 2.6% of the recipient country output. There were 16 European countries that ultimately participated in the Marshall Plan. We can also talk about how those countries came to be selected or self select, which is itself a really interesting story. It was 1.1% of US GDP.

Benn Steil: (18:20)
Now to put that in context, if we were to launch a Marshall Plan today, of equivalent size in terms of the percentage of our economy, we would be talking about a plan greater in size than $800 billion. When you add in the military aid that started pouring into Europe, particularly after the creation of NATO, in 1949, which was really... Which became the military escort for the Marshall Plan. And then in particular, the aid we provided during the Korean War began in 1950. Now we're talking about sums that would be equivalent today to over a trillion dollars. So extremely significant.

Benn Steil: (19:11)
To put this in the context of the economic performance of the US economy at the time, in 1946, this is the year after the war ends, we had a GDP growth rate of negative 11.6%. This was a massive economic contraction brought about by the collapse in government spending with the end of the war and the withdrawal of our troops. So it was a very, very difficult period of economic adjustment in the United States. As you can imagine, few in Congress, particularly on the Republican side, were in any mood for a major new foreign aid program. They wanted their peace dividend, they wanted tax cuts. Selling this idea to the American public was itself a very major initiative. There was, as Marshall like to put it, a Marshall Plan to sell the Marshall Plan.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:21)
That's another fascinating part of the book, because it's not Marshall's idea. Sort of Germany [inaudible 00:20:27] him and Truman says, well, there's no way it can be the Truman plan because I'm not that popular up on the hill. Atkinson isn't popular either for that matter. And so they turn to the five star general, the Chief of Staff of the Army. He unveils this plan at Harvard University, he gives it the very famous commencement address, talking about the rebuilding of our allies, but also our adversaries.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:53)
It's a fascinating part of human history because this could be the only time where a vanquishing power is replenishing and rebuilding the vanquished, which is in very stark contrast to what happened after Versailles and the Treaty of Versailles, which call for war time reparations and loans. So my question, Dr. Steil, is did it work?

Benn Steil: (21:20)
The short answer is yes. But as you pointed out earlier, this was very much a grand improvisation. Mind you, there was a lot of planning that went into it, a lot of serious planning. But there were major adjustments that were made on the fly. If you look at the original vision of the Marshall Plan, where did it come from? Now you and I both know, Anthony, that the best policy ideas almost always come from economists. But in this particular case, in this rare particular case, it didn't come from economists.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:58)
Let's not go into that story then. Let me go to another question. It didn't come from an economist, Dr. Steil, I don't want to hear about it.

Benn Steil: (22:10)
Where did the ideas come from? Very surprisingly, they came from the military establishment. Why is that? Consider the situation that we were in May of 1945 when the fighting stops in Europe. We have over 3 million troops in Europe. The American public wants them home immediately. President Roosevelt had promised at Tehran in 1943 openly to withdraw all American troops from Europe within two years of the end of the fight. As I pointed out earlier, Truman at this point, is not looking to reinvent the world. He's actually searching for FDRs blueprint so that he can execute it.

Benn Steil: (22:54)
He starts withdrawing the troops. By the time we get to 1946, the American military and diplomatic establishment knows that they have a huge problem on their hands because FDR had believed or wanted to believe that the Soviets would effectively contain themselves after the war. That is that they would be satisfied with their newly expanded borders and security zone. A buffer that they had created in Eastern Europe.

Benn Steil: (23:23)
But by 1946, it's clear, they're not satisfied. They're threatening Iran, they're threatening Turkey to take over territory. They refuse to withdraw troops from Iran. They only back down when Truman sends a large military flotilla into the region. The American military establishment knows that's not going to do. That's not going to be sufficient for Europe. So how are we going to protect our most vital interests in the world, which we consider at the time to be in Western Europe, without relying on the military?

Benn Steil: (23:57)
And so they looked to instigate a new form of asymmetric warfare that we would wage against the Soviets to counter their conventional force dominance in Europe. We would rely around our economic power. We would leverage our economic dominance in the world to rebuild and reconstruct the West European economies as quickly as possible so that they would be able to defend themselves, both their external borders and the internal integrity of their political systems.

Benn Steil: (24:39)
What we didn't wager, however at the time, was that the Europeans wanted no part of an integrated Western European economic and political structure. The French and the British in particular said this is a mortal threat to our security. If we're no longer going to be self sustaining, if we're going to be dependent on one another, how do we defend our borders? The French, for example, said you're withdrawing your troops from Europe. In five years time, what do we do if the Germans cut off our coal supply or more likely, since you're going home, the Soviets will have taken over Germany and they will cut off our coal supply.

Benn Steil: (25:23)
If we're going to go forward with your economic and political integration vision. That is the vision behind the EU, which actually came from the United States. Contra Donald Trump, who has said that the EU was created to screw the US on trade. It was in many ways created by the State Department. If we go forward, we Europeans with your vision, we won't be able to protect ourselves. So we need security guarantees from the United States.

Benn Steil: (25:53)
So in 1949, a year and a day after passage of the martial aid legislation, we passed the NATO Founding Act legislation. If you go back to the first part of my explanation here, the American military establishment was looking for a way to protect Western Europe without using the military. Yet the Europeans made it clear to us that that was a dream that could never be fulfilled. That the US would have to make firm security commitments to Western Europe in order to get them to go along with the American integration idea.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:33)
This is a brilliant exposition of what's in the book. It begs the question, did this work for the United States and has worked for the West in terms of setting up the architecture? Although it wasn't a one world architecture, set up the architecture for the free world to have a semblance of long term peace and long term prosperity. If so, what are the lessons that can be learned from that?

Benn Steil: (27:00)
When we ask the question did it work? If you look at the early studies that had been done on the Marshall Plan going back to the late 1940s and 1950s, they really just simply looked at the amazing recovery of the West European economies and said, yeah, well all this aid must have worked. Look at the performance of these economies between 1948 and 1942. Output in the Marshall country is increased by over 60%.

Benn Steil: (27:39)
To put that in context, if we take the four and a half year period running up to 2008 and the great financial crisis, the EU's total growth rate over that period was 15%. This is a really remarkable regeneration of the European economies. But only later did economist start questioning how much of this came from the Marshall aid? As economists were wanting to do, they ran regressions looking for the secret sauce. What was it that revive the economies?

Benn Steil: (28:19)
They asked, was it for example, that this aid money allowed them to import vital commodities, industrial machinery, et cetera that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to bring in? Did that revive the European economies? The answer is yes, but it would only explain about half a percent of growth whereas you're seeing many multiples of that. Up to seven percentage points of additional growth coming from the Marshall Plan. Was it the fact that government spending was increased?

Benn Steil: (28:56)
No, government spending as a percentage of GDP over those four Marshall years actually fell in Europe so it wasn't that. What was the answer? What was it in the Marshall Plan that really regenerated the European economies? I go back to George Kennan's point, the famous American diplomat, George Kennan is one of the architects of the plan, he's no economist but he recognizes that the primary benefit of the Marshall Plan is going to be psychological in Europe. To convince the Europeans that unlike after World War One, we are not going home.

Benn Steil: (29:33)
That's why the Marshall Plan is a four year scheme rather than a one day scheme in which we write them a giant check and wish them well. We wanted to convince the Europeans that we were going to be with them year after year. Did that work? Yes, but only with the security guarantees. I can't emphasize how important those security guarantees were. Without the security guarantees, you wouldn't have gotten the private investment necessary to regenerate these economy.

Benn Steil: (30:00)
To put that in context, look at the money we've spent on reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well over $200 billion. Just reconstruction aid alone, that is more than 50% greater than the totality of Marshall aid in current dollars. So it's not as if we haven't tried a Marshall approach to economic reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan but we were not able to provide those countries with the internal security and external security necessary to produce economic growth. Whereas in the case of the Marshall Plan, because of NATO and the security commitments of the United States, we were able to provide those guarantees.

Benn Steil: (30:52)
The second thing I would just emphasize briefly is the 180 degree change we made in occupation policy in Germany. That is shifting from the Morgenthau plan, which was to de-industrialized Germany, essentially to impoverish it. The Marshall Plan, which would aim to make Western Germany, the part we controlled, into the industrial engine of a new integrated Europe. A totally different vision that was enormously successful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:23)
Well, I mean, it's an unbelievably powerful story in the book. It is a story about improvisation but it's also a story about really good long term strategic planning, with the intention of collaboration. Ultimately, the lessons from this book that I took away, is that we needed America engaged. Certainly, we needed an America to help its own and to rebuild our infrastructure and to rebuild our lives here. But we do needed America engage with the rest of the world to give that peace, to give that confidence and to give that ultimate prosperity that we want. Back here in our homeland.

Benn Steil: (32:00)
Alliances, I can't emphasize this enough, are at the centerpiece of the Marshall Plan.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:06)
No question.

Benn Steil: (32:07)
Building alliances around the world. That is we weren't going to rely on our own muscle. We were going to rely on others who shared a common vision, a common attachment to liberal democracy and open democracy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:26)
[inaudible 00:32:26].

Benn Steil: (32:28)
We eventually extended that strategy to Asia as well, and rehabilitating Japan and providing security for South Korea. It was the same sort of thinking that underlie the Marshall Plan.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:44)
Well, this is a brilliant book Dr and I enjoyed it a great deal. I got to turn it over to the homegrown millennial now. He's going to ask you some questions. He'll try to steal the show from me. So if you have to cut him at the knees, please go ahead and do that. You have my license and proxy to do that. But go ahead, John Dorsie.

John Darsie: (33:06)
Thank you very much Anthony for that warm introduction. As a millennial, obviously, I'm a student of history but I'm also very concerned about the future as well. I'm going to ask you a few questions that we got from our audience that pertain to topics that you're an expert on and relate to your books as well. We're talking about the Marshall Plan and all the benefits that it had for the United States and for the world.

John Darsie: (33:31)
The idea of a new Marshall Plan is sort of a buzz word or a buzz phrase these days. If we were to engage in a new Marshall Plan, where would that be best targeted, regionally or country specific? What type of aid and what type of funding would we provide to those regions or to those countries that would not only serve America's interests abroad but also aggregate to the global economy as well?

Benn Steil: (33:59)
In recent years, there have been all sorts of proposals for new Marshall plans all over the world. In Ukraine, in Greece, in southern Europe and North Africa. The Arab Middle East, Syria, et cetera. If you take the blueprint of the Marshall Plan and try to transplant it to these particular circumstances, you're not going to get success. Why do I say that?

Benn Steil: (34:27)
Take Syria, for example. Without creating an environment of internal and external security in Syria, you will never get the sort of economic growth and stability that the Marshall Plan was able to bring in Western Europe. Remember, in the case of the Marshall country, we weren't trying to reinvent the world, right? We were taking countries that had been democracies with market based economic systems before the war, and rehabilitate and reconstruct them. Bring them back to what they were before the war and reintegrate them on a Western European level.

Benn Steil: (35:19)
So you already had functioning, relatively impartial bureaucracies that were capable of implementing these plans. You had public support for democratic cooperative political structures. These are not situations that exist, for example, in Ukraine or Syria today. So it's very difficult to transplant that Marshall idea. That's not to say that using significant amounts of financial aid cannot help in many circumstances. The Marshall Plan analogy has been used, for example, to discuss how we should approach climate change.

Benn Steil: (36:06)
There's no doubt that it's going to take significant investment in order to address the issues of climate change but I don't believe that spending enormous sums of money as a cure for problems around the world is the message that we should take away from the Marshall Plan. The primary message that we should take is that it is vitally important for the United States to build and support alliances around the world, even more important than it was in 1945.

Benn Steil: (36:40)
In 1945, again, we were at the apex of our power. We account for more than half the world's manufacturing output. We have sold possession of atomic weapons, we were never in a stronger position to pursue a policy of America first. Yet we didn't. Why? Because we had a long term view of what the Marshall Plan was about. Let me quote from a remarkable letter. I didn't get to emphasize this before, but it's very important, this was a bipartisan initiative. It's hard to imagine something like this happening today.

Benn Steil: (37:18)
But this was a bipartisan initiative, Harry Truman, a Democrat, faced with a republican congress still managed to push through this remarkable agenda. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. In October of 1947 writes to Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a republican senator from Michigan, head of the senate foreign relations committee. Let me read you what he said. I think it's just so remarkable and spot on. He says, and I'm quoting, "The recovery of Western Europe it's a 25 to 50 year proposition. The aid which we extend now and in the next three years will in the long future result in our having strong friends abroad."

Benn Steil: (38:01)
So fast forward from the Marshall Plan to 1989. This is 42 years after the Marshall Plan. The Berlin Wall collapses. What do we notice immediately? That the alliances that America built as offshoots of the Marshall Plan, NATO and the embryo of the European Union are now more popular than ever. The newly liberated countries of Central and Eastern Europe are clamoring to get in.

Benn Steil: (38:33)
Whereas the Alliance's such as they were that the Soviets created like the Warsaw Pact, collapse overnight. Now, these alliances are far more valuable to us today, now that we only represent a quarter of the global economy than they were in 1945, when we were half the global economy. We are reaping the dividends today of the investments we made then. To give you other examples of what I consider successful examples of Marshall thinking, think of the creation of NAFTA.

Benn Steil: (39:09)
NAFTA was not just about integrating the economies of North America. It was about putting the political relationship between the United States and Mexico on a very different path. Demonstrating to the Mexicans that we respected their sovereignty and that we were treating them as equal partners in an important initiative and security cooperation between the United States and Mexico improved dramatically after the implementation of NAFTA. My bottom line is if you're looking for areas in which to apply martial thinking, remember that the creation of alliances for the United States was the central innovation behind it.

John Darsie: (40:01)
I want to switch gears a little bit. Again, talking a little bit more about things that are happening in the modern day because you wrote a fantastic op ed in Business Insider that cites our good friend, Jeff Sonnenfeld. Anthony is a member of the Yale CEO Summit community as I know you are. I've had the privilege of accompanying him to a couple of events. It's a unique privilege to be able to see all those great leaders in one room talking about the issues of the day.

John Darsie: (40:28)
He did a study recently where he surveyed his community. Found that 84% of executives said that the failed pandemic response by the Trump administration hurt their business and that generally, the view coming out of those meetings is that a vacuum of leadership has harmed corporate interests in business and the economy in the United States. Trump always viewed the stock market as a barometer of his success. The stock market performed very well during his tenure as it did under President Obama.

John Darsie: (40:54)
He often said that the market would crash if Vice President Biden, now President Elect Biden, were to win the election and take office. But instead markets rallied after the presidential election and the results became clear and they've rallied in the aftermath of the Georgia senate run offs where the democrats want to give them a majority in the Senate. Why, in your view, are markets rallying on the back of a presidency that... The markets did well under Trump but why today are they rallying on news of Biden winning and democrats getting control of Congress?

Benn Steil: (41:28)
There's no doubt in my mind that there were elements of the Trump economic architecture that the markets liked very much. For example, my co-author, Ben Della Rocca and I, we looked at the rise in what's called implied earnings growth in stock prices after the successful implementation of President Trump's tax cuts, particularly the corporate tax cuts in 2017. We found a significant Trump bump there. We also just examined in our Business Insider piece, what happened to implied earnings growth after the election.

Benn Steil: (42:18)
That is after you strip out extraneous factors like interest rates and so on. We found a very significant Biden bump. It was in fact, interestingly enough, almost identical in size to what was called the Trump bump back after the election in 2016 and what underlay it. You refer to Professor Sonnenfeldt. Well we think, first and foremost, if you look at his survey work and the survey work that others have done, business wants to see the pandemic addressed effectively and with far more vigor than it's been addressed by the Trump administration.

Benn Steil: (43:10)
Professor Sonnenfeld surveys really made clear the degree to which executives were not only deeply concerned about the pandemic but believe that President Trump's response to the pandemic was holding them back. Wasn't just gosh, this pandemic is awful, but our response to the pandemic is grossly insufficient. This is one reason. Another reason is that the markets are very positive about the prospects for more fiscal stimulus.

Benn Steil: (43:53)
I think that's primarily what you're seeing now in terms of the reaction to the Georgia vote. That if the democrats come to control the Senate, the prospects for another very significant stimulus package are very good. Perhaps even more, perhaps we'll finally get a significant infrastructure initiative which the markets would also applaud.

Benn Steil: (44:22)
Finally, what you see in this survey data is great concern among executives about the enormous economic and political instability that we've seen over the past four years with trade wars which have gone nowhere, in terms of changing China's behavior, for example, in a positive direction. Beating up our allies in North America, and Europe and Asia. South Korea and Japan. The markets don't like that at all and they view the prospect of our finally re-engaging positively with our allies and having a coherent approach to the China challenge, the market seemed to view that very positively.

John Darsie: (45:17)
So speaking of China, I want to close with a couple questions on China that I'll weave into one. You're a great student of China. You study the Belton Road initiative, the Asian infrastructure bank. While Trump has been pulling America out of these multilateral agreements and stepping back from the rest of the world, China has been stepping into that void, even coming into areas of South America. What was the strategic thinking behind China with the Belton Road initiatives? How have they been successful or not been successful and what direction do you expect US China relations to take over the next four years, at least of the Biden administration?

Benn Steil: (46:00)
That's a lot to bite off in [inaudible 00:46:02]. Where do we start? Belton Road. Belton Road, you will never find on a Chinese government website here is what Belton Road is all about. This is what we wanted to accomplish and this is how we're doing it. Here, by the way, are all the details of our lending contracts under Belton Road. You will never find anything like that.

Benn Steil: (46:26)
When I built my Belton Road tracker at the Council with Benjamin Della Rocca, how did we find out what China was actually doing and these countries that it was lending to for major infrastructure project? How did we find out about it? It was extremely difficult to get details of these contracts. We had to use... In some cases, estimates based on indirect sources or some things that were published by the recipient governments but never anything that we could get out of China.

Benn Steil: (47:03)
So China's been very opaque. It wants a few things are out of Belton Road. First of all, it wants to start getting better returns on its reserves. It's not investing it's central bank reserves directly in Belton Road. But if you think of the funds as being fungible, China is looking for a way to diversify away from US investments, in particular, US Treasuries. Get a better return infrastructure seems to be one way of doing it.

Benn Steil: (47:40)
Of course, you have massive overbuilding in China, massive overcapacity. They're looking for some way to create the demand for this. They're lending to these developing countries, these countries will then hire Chinese firms to build the infrastructure. Although China itself is a major borrower from the World Bank, which is quite perverse because China is now one of... Is the major competitor to the World Bank as a development lender.

Benn Steil: (48:24)
China is making these loans at a very significantly higher interest rate. Now, when these loans fail, in many cases, if you do get details of the contract, like for example, the port facility that China built in Sri Lanka which failed. Sri Lanka couldn't pay back. China takes over these facilities. So even if China did not set out with Belton Road to become a colonial power, they will in effect, become a colonial power and perhaps a hated one by taking over these facilities which they supported with this massive expansion of debt in the developing world.

Benn Steil: (49:07)
Now, how should we react to it? In my view, it's pretty much a no brainer. Let's go back to what the US did after World War Two. Take the World Bank and the IMF. Consider what we managed to create in terms of the architecture there. There is only one country that has veto power within the IMF and the World Bank and that is the United States. Can you imagine us building an institution like the World Bank today and telling the world we want veto power within this organization, sole veto power, no one else will have it. The world would laugh at us.

Benn Steil: (49:47)
But this is our inheritance from our victory in World War Two. We should be exploiting it. Nothing can happen within the World Bank without our agreement to it. We should be putting more capital behind the World Bank. Again why? We can use it to promote our values, our way of doing things, our dedication to non corruption, our dedication to environmental protection, our dedication to not creating debt traps.

Benn Steil: (50:23)
Guess what? We get to leverage it with other people's money because most of the money actually comes from the other countries who participate in the World Bank. It's an absolute no brainer for the United States in its own interest to be pursuing these initiatives through the multilateral institutions that it itself created. Again, coming back to the point, alliances, we built institutions and alliances after World War Two. We should be today, reaping the benefits of those institutions because our allies have been so significantly enriched by this architecture that we created.

Benn Steil: (51:10)
The fact that they're still willing to work with us and indeed are enthusiastic about working with us is the greatest advantage that we bring in terms of countering China's rise to dominance in the global economy. We should be showing a united face to China. We should be showing the world our positive values. Our dedication to liberal democracy and open markets. If we do this together with our allies and within the multilateral institutions that we created after World War Two, we will have far more moral capital than we would by going it alone.

John Darsie: (51:56)
The direction of US China relations. What path do you expect us to take? I think most people expect US China relations to improve. But who's going to give more? Is China going to relax some of its economic conditions open up their economy a little bit, allow more private enterprise and less human rights types of restrictions in the country and expect the United States to be, to acquiesce more to demands that China's making on our side?

Benn Steil: (52:26)
Unfortunately, I think the road that China's is headed down right now, it's pretty clear. It's a road towards more state economic control, more authoritarian political control, more regional belligerence toward other nations in the area. We have to be concerned about it. But the question is, how do we address it? Again, I can't harp on this more strongly enough. We need to do it together with our allies.

Benn Steil: (53:00)
I wrote a chapter to a size volume recently in which I advocated a return to the two world thinking that we implemented in the Marshall Plan with respect to China. That is, we need to build a massive coalition around the world of like minded countries with which we will develop things like 5G and 6G infrastructure. Things of that nature, so that we will not be reliant on China.

Benn Steil: (53:39)
I do think we should always hold out an olive branch to China and make it clear that if China pursues political and economic reforms that will bring them back towards the vision that we had when China entered the WTO nearly two decades ago, that we would welcome China, but we are not afraid, together with our allies to stand up for our values and our interests. If we need to construct a new liberal, democratic, open market, international infrastructure from which China is excluded, we should be willing to take those bold steps.

John Darsie: (54:32)
Thanks so much for joining us. It's a pleasure to have you on and you're rich expertise. Two great books you wrote on the battle at Bretton Woods as well as the Marshall Plan. We would recommend that all of our viewers go out and read those books. They provide a rich history as well as lessons that can be applied today as we enter a new era in Washington. Thank you so much, Benn, for joining us. Anthony, You have any final words?

Anthony Scaramucci: (54:55)
Benn anything you're writing currently that you could talk about?

Benn Steil: (54:59)
Yeah. I am writing a political biography of Henry Wallace, who was FDRs vice president from 1940 to 1944.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:11)
Another progressive romantic by the way.

Benn Steil: (55:13)
There you are, exactly. Wallace is perhaps the most interesting, almost president whoever was. He lost out to Harry Truman in a very strange open convention for vice president in 1944. Had he won that nomination, he would have become president on FDRs death instead of Harry Truman and he would have tried to take the nation in a very different direction. I'm writing this book on the basis of fascinating new Russian and FBI archival material that's never been brought to bear, just sort of to tell the story of the vision that he had. And to really tell a counterfactual history of what might have happened had Henry Wallace rather than Harry Truman, become president in 1945.

Anthony Scaramucci: (56:11)
Well, we really appreciate you being on. Thank you. I hope to get you back on for that book once it's published Benn.

Benn Steil: (56:18)
My pleasure, thank you Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (56:20)
We really appreciate it Dr. Steil. Thank you for joining Salt Talks.

Benn Steil: (56:24)
My pleasure.

John Darsie: (56:25)
Thank you everybody who tuned in to today's Salt Talk with Dr. Benn Steil from the Council on Foreign Relations out with a new book about the Marshall Plan. Just a reminder, if you missed any of today's talk or any of our previous talks, you can access the entire archive of Salt Talks on our website salt.org/talks/archive. You can sign up for all of our future talks at salt.org/talks. We have several talks a week throughout 2021. We'll take a couple breaks for some conferences that we're doing. But for the most part, we're going to continue this salt talk series indefinitely throughout the year.

John Darsie: (57:01)
Please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and please tell your friends about Salt Talks. We love growing our community and exposing more people to the educational expertise that our speakers provide. On behalf of the entire Salt team. This is John Dorsie signing off for today. We'll see you tomorrow again on Salt Talks.

Heidi Heitkamp: Issues With Identity Politics | SALT Talks #136

“We used to use the Tip O'Neill line ‘All politics is local.’ That's not true anymore. All politics today are national, and the party identification is awfully hard to crack.”

Heidi Heitkamp is the first woman ever elected to be a U.S. Senator from North Dakota (2013-19). Senator Heitkamp also served two terms as North Dakota State Tax Commissioner and two terms as North Dakota Attorney General as a member of the North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party.

A political career that started at 28 years of age, and has spanned over 35 years, has seen a massive shift in North Dakota’s electoral makeup. The Democratic party’s base once consisted of the elderly, the working class and small family farmers. That group has shifted almost completely over to the Republican party, replaced by working professionals as the party’s base. Democrats must now reckon with the loss of rural America as a reliable segment of their voter base. Growing up in a small North Dakota town where everyone knew their neighbor offered a glimpse in how to connect with rural voters and cut across party lines. “I think showing up, listening, and then doing something about it will help us slowly erode this partisanship that we see in rural America.”

The partisan polarization seen from Republican voters is due, in part, to ideas around identity. Swaths of the country feel judged by a more multicultural, multiethnic coalition more likely to admonish politically incorrect behavior. This has created a defensive posture and accelerated an urban-rural divide in American politics that has quickly turned states like North Dakota red.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Senator Heidi Heitkamp.jpeg

Heidi Heitkamp

Senator of the State of North Dakota

(2013-2019)

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darcy. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT talks are a digital interview series that we started during the pandemic with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And what we're trying to do on these SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provide at our global conferences, the SALT conference, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:45)
And we're very excited today to welcome Senator Heidi Heitkamp to SALT Talks. Senator Heitkamp is the first woman to be a US Senator from the state of North Dakota, and I believe during her time in office she was the only Democrat elected to a statewide office in North Dakota. She grew up in a large family in the small town of Mantador, North Dakota. Alongside her six brothers and sisters she learned the value of hard work and responsibility leading her to choose a life of public service. She worked as an attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency before serving two terms as North Dakota state tax commissioner, and two terms as North Dakota attorney general as a member of the North Dakota Democratic Non-Partisan League Party.

John Darsie: (01:30)
As attorney general, she was a leader in the national suit against the nation's four largest tobacco companies culminating in the landmark Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement which required the companies to pay restitution to the states and transform their marketing practices. Senator Heitkamp saw firsthand the slow erosion of rural support for Democrats in rural states, which lead to a landslide victory for President Donald Trump in the 2016 election. After leaving Congress she founded the One Country Project to reopen the rural dialog between voters and Democrats, and help remind Democrats that rural voters have traditionally been part of that Democratic coalition.

John Darsie: (02:09)
Just a reminder, if you have any questions for Senator Heitkamp during today's SALT Talk you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. And hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony's also the chairman of SALT, and I know Anthony and Senator Heitkamp I believe on the set of The Bill Maher Show where they appeared together recently, so looking forward a great conversation, and with that I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:39)
First of all, John, the biographical information is fantastic, but then you get to the landslide victory for President Trump. What are you talking about? There wasn't a landslide. He lost the popular vote. What are you talking about?

John Darsie: (02:52)
Among rural voters I believe was the insinuation, that in 2016 he took what was-

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:57)
We're doing a little bit of fact checking early on here, senator.

John Darsie: (03:00)
I know you're sensitive about things related to [crosstalk 00:03:01].

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:01)
I've got to watch with this guy, because he's good looking, and he's blonde, and so we've got to push him back a little bit senator. Senator, thank you so much for joining us, and congratulations on your life of public service, but I'm more interested is how did you work your way to Washington? What was your path to becoming a senator?

Heidi Heitkamp: (03:23)
It's interesting because I never wanted to go to Washington. I always thought that the best government is the local government. I served a term and a half actually as tax commissioner. I was appointed right after Kent Conrad was elected to the Senate, which is always where Kent was headed, but for me, number one, I'm not a big city girl. I love living in North Dakota, so where you live makes a whole lot of difference in your life.

Heidi Heitkamp: (03:53)
I was able to do some things when I was tax commissioner that were fairly significant, and headed up a couple of national groups. In fact, you might find this interesting, the original Quill decision, which was a state and local tax decision, I litigated the Quill decision. We got half a loaf, and it was interesting as life hands you some opportunities we were able to help get the Supreme Court to reverse the Quill decision when I was in the Senate, and I was a leader on that issue as well.

Heidi Heitkamp: (04:27)
When I moved over to the attorney general's office, North Dakota's attorney general's office is incredibly complex, from running the largest law enforcement agency called The Bureau of Criminal Investigation, to the fire marshall's office, to running the state lottery. I also in that role served on the board of director's of our state-owned bank. I really enjoyed state government, ran in 2000 for governor and lost ironically to my seat mate John Hoeven who I had hired to run the Bank of North Dakota, all politics is very personal in North Dakota, and never thought I would go to Washington DC. I thought if I would reenter it would be another run for governor.

Heidi Heitkamp: (05:12)
Looking at what was happening in Washington, the failure of people to come together, to actually form coalitions to get things done, I just said, look, somebody's got to try and change that culture, and I ran in what no one thought was a doable race, and ended up squeaking out a victory in 2012 and was able to go really as a centrist, really go as somebody whose main goal was to bring people together to solve problems.

Heidi Heitkamp: (05:41)
I had six great years, wasn't able to repeat that effort. In the time, this is something politically, and not to just ahead Anthony, but when I first started in politics I was 28 years old. I ran my first statewide race, and my base were elderly, and working class people, and small family farmers. Those are the people who always routinely voted for the Dem-NPL in North Dakota. That completely changed. By the time I was done those people were the Republican base, and the more professional folks were the Democratic base, and you see that all across the board in the United States.

Heidi Heitkamp: (06:24)
I think when we look at the opportunity that we have to have an impact if you go with a real vision of what you want to get done, and with an idea that you aren't the only person with a good idea, you're not the only person who really cares about this country, and you go with respect you can get a lot done, and I think I was able to accomplish a lot in six years. What I wasn't able to accomplish is reelection.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:49)
But you're in a red state.

Heidi Heitkamp: (06:51)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:51)
Isn't that fair to say? How did you connect with all these traditional Republican voters, and then what would be the playbook recommendation for what I would say is a blue collar base that voted for President Trump that was more traditional to the likes of a Franklin Roosevelt, a John Kennedy, a Linden Johnson, but now are voting away from Democrats? It's a two part question. How did you relate to Republicans, and how can you get that base open to the idea of returning to the Democratic Party?

Heidi Heitkamp: (07:29)
I would tell you that probably since 2006 you really saw the change happening, and that's when people like Tom Daschle and even Tom Harkin. I don't know that Tom Harkin can get reelected in Iowa today, and those kind of traditional, more populous Democrats who represented the center part of our country saw this huge realignment, and what I will say is we used to use the Tip O'Neill line "All politics is local." That's not true anymore. All politics today are national, and the party identification is awfully hard to crack.

Heidi Heitkamp: (08:14)
When Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, two Democratic senators ahead of me, when they won about 20% of Republicans were willing to vote for a Democrat. Now, if you look at polling it's about only four, and so what happened to those 16%? What happened to the possibility that they would in fact vote? In my case, I outperformed Hillary Clinton by 22 points, so I did better. I did get Trump voters to vote for me. The only problem is Trump won North Dakota by 36 points, so it was a pretty big headwind.

Heidi Heitkamp: (08:55)
And I think the major piece of advice that I give people is show up, but don't show up empty-handed. And one of the reasons why I was successful, and you heard in the bio, I grew up in a town of 90 people. My family was 1/10th the population. We knew that we had to work with our neighbors in order to get along, and in order to get things happening, and I think it's that kind of cooperative "I don't know all the answers Maybe you've got an answer that I haven't heard before. Let's talk about it."

Heidi Heitkamp: (09:26)
I think showing up, listening, and then doing something about it will help us slowly erode this partisanship that we see in rural America.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:36)
I'm going to make a stipulation, senator. You can agree with me, or disagree with me, but if I'm right then I'm going to ask you to think about what we can do to improve the situation. It feels like from my vantage point, and maybe I'm wrong, that there's anger in the system. There's some populism. There's some nationalistic rage. I think it's born from economics more than anything else meaning that people feel economically desperate, and so a result of which they're in a little bit of a rebel position, or a revolt position.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:10)
President Trump capitalized on that. He became the avatar of their anger. I'm wondering if you think I'm right about that, or wrong, and if I am right about it what can we do to put down that anger, and make those people feel more plugged into the system again?

Heidi Heitkamp: (10:30)
You and I have had this conversation. I don't think it's driven as much by economics about it is about indemnity, who am I as a person, and are you talking to me. Claire McCaskill tells a great story, and it's about a guy who was in a gas station, and he looked at Claire when she was running again, and I'm paraphrasing, and he said, "You know, Senator McCaskill I voted for you. I voted for you, and I voted for you when you were running for statewide office." He said, "But I don't know I'm going to do it again because I know that your party's for African-Americans, and your party's for the homosexuals, and your parties for this. I don't know that your party's for me."

Heidi Heitkamp: (11:11)
And I think there is this kind of sense of you judge us in a way that's not fair. We're not racist. We're just trying to make a living, and simply because we may say something that's politically incorrect and you jump all over it that just makes me feel disrespected because that's not what I intended. And so, it's a complication that involves their identity and whether they identify, and I think that's the remarkable thing about Donald Trump is you take a multimillionaire, and we could argue about that Anthony, at least you take somebody who professes to be a millionaire from New York City, and somehow he was able to get people to identify with him and have people believe he was on their side.

Heidi Heitkamp: (12:06)
And so, what was that dynamic? And there's a really interesting article in the last couple days in a political magazine about the grievance, the sense that I'm not respected, I have a gripe. And I'm not saying that it's not, Anthony, that it's not driven by some economics, but if we simply look at economics I think we miss a bigger picture which is about reflection of your values, reflection of who you are as a person, and whether that's respected.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:40)
How do we get these different identity groups to think of themselves then senator as Americans? As opposed to an America first policy, how about all of us as Americans first whether we're from North Dakota, we're from New York City, or you pick the spot, and whatever our sexual preferences are, or the color of our skin, we identify as Americans. How do we do that?

Heidi Heitkamp: (13:06)
We do it by electing a president who reflects those values and brings people together, and that was what was so dangerous in my opinion about Donald Trump is as he pursued power through grievance he could only do that by division, and so I think that the first thing we have to do is lead by example. I've been talking to a lot of groups about one idea that I had is wouldn't it be fun to see Ben Sasse and Elizabeth Warren do a joint town hall in Nebraska and Massachusets, to actually see people as people, to see Elizabeth as a person, to see AOC as a person, but also to have people in Massachusets see Ben Sasse and maybe Tom Cotton, although I'd doubt you'd get Tom to do it, as people with ideas.

Heidi Heitkamp: (13:57)
And I think it's going to take a big national dialog, but it's going to take people doing this outside of government, and I think that's where your world comes in, so let's talk about venture capital. Let's talk about where venture capital goes. The vast, vast majority of it goes to three states. How about bringing venture capital to North Dakota and listening to entrepreneurship, and people getting to know you, or somebody allegedly from liberal New York talk about how they want to help invest and grow the country?

Heidi Heitkamp: (14:32)
And so, I think we can do it from an economic standpoint, but we've got to start seeing each other as people, not as here you are, a redhead from Mantador small town North Dakota. I may be more complicated than that, and you're more complicated than the guy from Long Island, which is where I think you're from.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:52)
I'm definitely from Long Island.

Heidi Heitkamp: (14:55)
Long Island.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:58)
Yeah.

Heidi Heitkamp: (14:58)
You can try my accent, Anthony. You can try.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:03)
Let me tell you something senator, I would've gone a lot farther in life if I had that accent. Okay?

Heidi Heitkamp: (15:09)
But I think it's about seeing each other as Americans. I did a stint at Harvard with Gary Cohn, and then I did a seminar for a year at Brown, and my first introduction to my seminar was what is it to be an American, and it was fascinating what these kids would come up with. And so, I think it is if we're going to do what we need to do you're asking exactly the right question, because if you think about World War II we were defined as the greatest generation. It was the external threats, always the external threats, that we were able to coalesce behind and put aside our differences.

Heidi Heitkamp: (15:58)
My dad's best friend in the Army during World War II was an Italian-American from New York. He would never had had that experience, and we don't have those kinds of experience that unite the country to common cause, and the threats now tend to be more internal, and it's a whole different challenge that we haven't had since The Civil War.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:24)
It's fascinating you say that, because in the Woodward and Bernstein book, the second book, Final Days, they interviewed some of the senators. It turned out that one of the senators they were interviewing was Bob Dole talking about the resignation of Richard Nixon, and the very famous scenes of Howard Baker, and other senatorial leadership, Republicans, going to President Nixon and saying, "Hey, it's over. You're going to have to resign, or we're going to pull the plug on you with an impeachment."

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:53)
What Dole said in the interview, Senator Dole, is that it was impossible for him to see his friends die in Italy while he was wounded in Italy fighting for the freedom associated with the document the US Constitution, and even though he was a stride in partisan he was an American first, and the violations of the Constitution required him in honor of his dead veterans that he served with to say that to Mr. Nixon, and we don't have that right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:25)
We have people that have served in the American military that maybe have physical courage, but there are Republican veterans in that Senate that decided that they were going to just strictly stick with partisan lines. My question to you, and this goes back to our pre-Bill Maher walking onstage discussion, which is-

Heidi Heitkamp: (17:47)
About how young you look, and how I look so old? Is that the discussion for now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:52)
Listen. Listen. I've cornered the market on North American boat docks, so if you're nice to me when you come to my house we can go into my garage, and I can show you where all my stash is. When we were walking out onstage, prior to I said to you, "We've got some issues here in the Republican Party." We have Trumpism, and you could have smarter, or different, and perhaps even more malevolent people pick up the baton of Trumpism. How would you react to that? Do you think that that's something that could happen? Do you think Trumpism is gone? Do you think Trumpism is with us, and with us permanently? What are your thoughts there?

Heidi Heitkamp: (18:35)
I absolutely do not think that this is simply a movement, or an attitude, that's going to evaporate if the leader leaves, and I told you I think Trump is a master at communication, and so he knew that there was this ability to motivate people who hadn't voted before, or to motivate people who felt like they had been left behind, or didn't see their image in government anymore.

Heidi Heitkamp: (19:06)
I always said the most interesting thing about the rallies is they're the largest focus group ever done in American politics. He would go out, and most of his lines fell like a thud, but how did he get to build the wall? People responded to it. Lock her up. People responded to it And so, he just built on this sense of dis-affectiveness, being disaffected from government, just built on that, and wasn't very good at pivoting or at least not irritating the other side to the point where he could win reelection.

Heidi Heitkamp: (19:49)
And so, now you've got the ability to take that grievance that he has ignited, and if it's not brought down, if the temperature in this country's not brought down in terms of partisanship it's right for someone like, and I'll just name names, someone like Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, who probably don't have the communication skills but they certainly are very, very bright individuals to step into that void. And it's interesting because as we're talking about this Josh Hawley has signed on with Bernie Sanders on a populist item, which is the direct stimulus payment.

Heidi Heitkamp: (20:31)
So clearly, not run to that fiscal conservatism that you'll see Ted Cruz grab, or perhaps Mike Lee, but going to fight for that Trump case. As Trump said, "We need a big stimulus plan. We need money being sent out." These are people who had the religion of debt and deficit before Trump ever came along, and that's fallen by the wayside. I think if you want to follow the threat of who's trying to be the next Donald Trump look to their populist rhetoric.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:08)
It's interesting, and I'll share this with you, and you know this intuitively, but I'll confirm it. On many campaign rides on the Donald Trump candidate plain, the then candidates made an observation that his base is actually social conservatives, and fiscal-

Heidi Heitkamp: (21:27)
Liberals.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:28)
Liberals. Exactly right. And so, the opposite of say a Wall Streeter who probably considers themselves fiscal conservatives, but social liberals, and so it's interesting that Senator Hawley is taking that position. I just want to ask a quick follow up question, and then shortly we have to turn it over to this millennial that's sitting there with those big white teeth waiting to steal the show from me, senator. He's waiting to steal the show.

Heidi Heitkamp: (21:54)
Don't let him do it. Don't let him do it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:54)
I'm not going to. I'm going to karate chop him in the Adam's apple when we're in the office again. Don't worry.

John Darsie: (22:00)
The show's not the only thing we're going to steal from you baby boomers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:05)
Oh my god.

John Darsie: (22:06)
You guys have driven the country into madness. Come on.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:06)
Look at this. Heidi, he's going one on two.

Heidi Heitkamp: (22:10)
I have to tell you the line that I use all the time is I say my generation, a.k.a. us, the baby boomers, will be the first generation is American history that inherited from our parents and borrowed from our kids, so I don't disagree with you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:27)
Yeah. I think it's a shortcoming. There's no question the political establishment mishandled a very golden opportunity, but we've got to make it right, and so I want to go to that topic with you about universal base income, and livable income, livable wages. What are your thoughts there? What are the tools that we can put in place to make sure that most Americans, and let's say all Americans frankly, have decent living standards in the United States?

Heidi Heitkamp: (22:57)
Let me tell you this by story, and you'll get an idea of my attitude. When I was a senator a guy came in who had just bought a bunch of franchise restaurants in North Dakota, and we had at the time a huge problem with workforce, and I thought he wants to come in and talk about what we can to do to recruit workers, probably having a hard time [inaudible 00:23:19].

Heidi Heitkamp: (23:18)
And so, I asked him, I said, "So, what's your biggest problem?" And this guy says, "Well, it's the government." "Okay." I said, "What about the government? Is it food standards?" And he just kept saying the government, and finally he turned to me and he said, "You know what? Don't you agree with me?" And I said, "Well, let me ask you this, what do you pay your workers?" He said, "$10 an hour." I said, "Do you know what that is a year?" And I happened to know what it is, a little over $20,000.

Heidi Heitkamp: (23:50)
And I said, "Do you think they can live on that if they work 40 hours a week in their restaurant?" And he said, "That's not the kind of job it is." And I said, "But there are people working 40 hours who are putting in a full week's worth of week?" And I said, "And they qualify for food stamps, and they qualify for housing benefits, and they qualify for healthcare, so isn't true that the government's subsidizing you?"

Heidi Heitkamp: (24:19)
And we always look at what that person who is working their ass off in these kinds of jobs, and working two or three jobs, probably working 60 hours a week begging grandma to take care of the kids so the kids actually have some stability in their lives, and then we turn it on the struggling worker, and say "You need to work harder," or "You need to get retrained," or "You need to fix this." And I'm like maybe people ought to worry about how we're paying people in this country. That would be the first thing, is that we can't have wages that put people in poverty. We've got to figure that out.

Heidi Heitkamp: (24:57)
And I have a very prominent good friend who told me, "Look, you're never going to get that to happen, so you need to have the earned income tax credit." I asked Andrew Yang when I had a chance during the primaries, I asked him, I said, "Why are you doing this universal income thing when the earned income tax credit is how we've actually managed this?" And he just said it's a different way to talk about the issue because the earned income tax, which has been refundable, and been around a long time is not something people really understand very well.

Heidi Heitkamp: (25:35)
I think that we need to make a commitment to equalizing economic opportunity in this country, and it can't always fall back on the worker. We need CNAs in nursing homes, some of whom are paid $7 an hour. We need construction workers who do not need a PhD to shingle a roof, but they ought to be making a living, and they ought to have healthcare in their job. And so, I think that the first thing I would say when you said what about this I would say let's have a conversation with business America, and with employers, and talk about how we can help them pay higher wages so that people can earn their way, and it's not seen as a welfare program, because when you work 40 hours a week you shouldn't be on welfare of any kind.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:24)
Listen, I think it's very well-said. I've got one last question, and then we're going to turn it over to our audience, and we've got a tremendous amount of audience participation. You voted somewhere between 50 and 65% alongside of President Trump, and some actually considered you further to the right then say a Susan Collins, a Senator Susan Collins from Maine, based on your voting record of course.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:49)
How difficult is it to break from your caucus and vote based on the interest of your constituents, and is that something we'll see more of from the future Senates, or less of?

Heidi Heitkamp: (27:03)
I went there with the idea that I was going to vote my conscience, and with the exception of a couple votes I feel like I did exactly what I meant to do, so you can't always vote your constituency, and people from North Dakota would say, "What about Kavanaugh?" What I would tell people on those kinds of appointments, I said, "Yeah, you may have an opinion today, but I'm making this decision for 30 years, and so I have to use my judgment."

Heidi Heitkamp: (27:33)
And so, in most of the cases, and a lot of that voting with the president, those are all about nominations on tough votes. Let's take a look at Kavanaugh and the tax vote. I didn't vote for that tax bill, and I can defend it. My favorite quote on the tax bill was Michael Bennet who said, "Not only am I not voting for it, I wish I could vote against it twice." I thought that the tax bill was ill-conceived. I thought that we could've taken those dollars and redistributed them in a different way. I thought that it was heavy-handed by the president.

Heidi Heitkamp: (28:09)
I think his people, people like Gary would've come to some kind of compromise that would've created a stability in the tax code. What I would say is I voted my conscience, and people may say, "Well, and you got voted out by the people of North Dakota," and I said, "But at the end of the day ..." I always give the Robert Kennedy quote when he was talking to some graduates. He was talking about how privileged we are to be Americans, and educated Americans with all the benefits of this Constitution and the freedom that we have. And he said, "But remember this, you can use all of your benefit, and all of your opportunity, strictly for personal gain." He said that's what you can do in America. He said, "But remember this, history will judge you, and more importantly you will judge yourself as time goes on."

Heidi Heitkamp: (29:05)
And I think that idea of being a citizen, of caring about something bigger than yourself, you can say what you want about the Trump movement. I think they think they do care about something bigger than themselves, but I think we've got to get to that part of unifying America around the ideals that we have, and that have made this country the greatest country on the Earth since the signing of the American Constitution. I'm a big optimist, but I also think it doesn't happen without individual citizen commitment.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:47)
Senator, it is always a pleasure to be with you, and thank you so much for doing this with us. I've got to turn it over to John now, because otherwise his agent's going to start complaining to me, and it is the end of the year. I have to resign him for next year, so go ahead Darcy.

John Darsie: (30:01)
It's in my contract. I get at least 10 minutes at the end of the interview, or I'm out, so thank you Anthony. Senator, you talked about how you don't think that it was completely an economic decision that voters made, and continue to make, when they vote for President Trump. One example is the effect that Trump's trade policies had on farmers and other rural voters in terms of direct economic impact. You maintained, or you tried to maintain, a working relationship with Trump in my view because you thought you could have an impact on him when it comes to trade policy, and you urged him to take a softer view on trade.

John Darsie: (30:38)
What was the ultimate impact of his trade policies on your constituents, and other farmers, and rural voters, and why do you think that they chose to overlook some of that potentially to continue to support the president?

Heidi Heitkamp: (30:50)
A couple things. First off, I don't think we will know that impact of this kind of bilateral take them all on at the same time, alienate our trading partners, our allies, who are both military allies and trading allies. We won't know what the impact is. I'm fairly certain it would be very dire had this president been reelected, and I maintain a different position than a lot of people in my political party. I don't think that we will be successful unless we embrace globalization.

Heidi Heitkamp: (31:23)
It doesn't mean that we get taken for a ride, or that we're suckers, it just means that we need to understand that the growing market that's out there, especially in Indochina is one that we need to have access to, and we can't walk away from it, and the only way we get access is by guaranteeing that there is enough trading partners to push back against the excesses and the wrongdoing of China, and I will put India, especially as it goes to agricultural products in that basket.

Heidi Heitkamp: (31:54)
There's a story, and I don't know how true it is, that when they were talking about trade policy they were very concerned in the administration about what would happen with farmers to which Wilbur Ross said we'll just buy them off. Billions of dollars. In fact, today about 40% of net farm income this year will come from the federal government. Farmers know that's not sustainable. We walked away from direct payments in the last farm bill, now we're right back in that soup.

Heidi Heitkamp: (32:22)
And so, to me the biggest casualty will be that we have allowed our competitors, whether it's Brazil and Argentina on soybeans and corn, whether it is looking at wheat from Australia, we have allowed our competitors to access these markets and making the markets that much more difficult to reestablish for American agriculture, and American agriculture is one of those few places in American trade that we actually run a trade surplus, so we in many ways have killed the goose that laid the golden egg, and we've got to get back to in my opinion multilateral trade discussions where we are pulling people together in a trading relationship that helps us get the best deal for in my opinion liberal democracies who want a free enterprise system, and if we don't do that we are going to continue to fall further and further behind.

John Darsie: (33:19)
Yeah. I think your views on trade are really strong, and I want to continue on that theme, especially as it relates to Anthony as well. President Trump reportedly early in his administration considered shuddering the US Export-Import Bank, and Anthony actually spent some time at the EXIM Bank prior to becoming communications director briefly, and he was also like yourself a big advocate in the president's year that we shouldn't just keep the EXIM Bank open, we should be much more aggressive in utilizing it because there're other countries, and competitors of ours, who use that type of bank very successfully to grow domestic business.

John Darsie: (33:55)
For people who don't understand what the EXIM Bank does ... Go ahead, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:58)
He likes bringing up my short stay in The White House because he just wants to remind all the viewers that I got fired from The White House. Well done, John. Well done.

John Darsie: (34:05)
I had to slip it in somehow. This one was actually one of the nicer references I could-

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:08)
Go ahead, senator. I just wanted to point that out to you how cruel he is. Go ahead, senator.

John Darsie: (34:14)
For people who don't know what the EXIM Bank does, and why you think we should use it more aggressively, can you just explain to our viewers everything related to your views on the EXIM Bank?

Heidi Heitkamp: (34:24)
It basically provides financing in terms of exports to guarantee that people in this country will get paid, and will basically be competitive. They do that with a lot of different mechanisms, but the one thing I want to talk about, because everybody says it's the bank of Boeing. Boeing is a big user of the EXIM Bank. It's the bank of Caterpillar, and all of these large organizations.

Heidi Heitkamp: (34:47)
The first thing I tell people is Boeing doesn't manufacturer all those parts. The largest supplier of Boeing parts for their airplanes is in Texas, and the worst trouble I had was with Ted Cruz on the EXIM Bank. I was the Democratic leader trying to get the EXIM Bank reauthorized. We actually shuddered it. Now, I don't blame Donald Trump for that. The first time I met him he asked me to come up and talk about a potential cabinet position before he was even sworn in, and you have your 10 minutes to pitch something, and I pitched of course American agriculture, and energy independence, but I pivoted pretty quickly to the EXIM Bank because I think that maintaining that infrastructure is absolutely critical.

Heidi Heitkamp: (35:33)
And it's interesting because Steve Bannon's on one side saying, "You're right. You're right," and [inaudible 00:35:38] is on the other side saying, "Paul Ryan won't like that." You could see that the battle was mainly within the Republican Party. There was some people, like Bernie Sanders is not a fan. He sees it as corporate cronyism. I see it as essential to American Jobs.

Heidi Heitkamp: (36:00)
We saw during the time that the bank was shuddered we saw GE lose jobs. We saw major companies shut down because they did not have access to an export-import financing agency in this country. It's unilateral disarmament. The bank needs to be back up, and we need to vigorously pursue economic opportunity. And if I can add one more ting, we have small manufacturers in North Dakota who would never have found an international market that they could take the risk in if it weren't for the EXIM Bank.

Heidi Heitkamp: (36:34)
Either the currency risk, or the risk that they weren't going to get paid for what they exported, and so this isn't just the bank of Boeing. This has the potential of giving access to markets for small American businesses that would never have access to market without an export-import agency.

John Darsie: (36:55)
North Dakota in particular it has another unique aspect to it in the state investment board. It's a unique institution among American states. We had Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey on a couple weeks ago saying in New Jersey we would like to copy this basically state investment bank that exists in North Dakota here in New Jersey, but it's challenging to get it up and running.

John Darsie: (37:19)
It's something that North Dakota uses to direct strategic investments, and to help incubate businesses in the state. Do you think other states should copy this model, and how do you guys use it in North Dakota?

Heidi Heitkamp: (37:34)
The state treasurers has a tremendous responsibility in other states, not so much in North Dakota, because all of the deposits of the state of North Dakota actually go to the Bank of North Dakota, which is our state development bank. I like to call it development rather than investment, our state development bank, that is by Constitution charged with helping farmers, helping small business people, helping our organizations, and it's interesting how that has in fact morphed over time.

Heidi Heitkamp: (38:05)
Just to give people an idea, they may say "Don't the banks hate you?" No, because let's take a small community bank that has a loan limit. They're up against their loan limit, but yet this is a good credit for them. They might have to go to a competitor like Wells Fargo, or US Bank, in order to share that credit thinking I'm going to lose that customer eventually because of my partnership. They can go to the state development bank, the Bank of North Dakota, and partner.

Heidi Heitkamp: (38:36)
The Bank of North Dakota does not make direct loans unless it's authorized, and so that gives the regular financial institutions, especially the smaller community banks the kind of protection that they think is needed. We do things like when I was on the board of directors for the bank we had a pace program, which was look you can charge ... At the time I think the interest rates are probably 5%, but the Bank of North Dakota will write that down and subsidize it to keep that business in your community, or to keep that business in North Dakota.

Heidi Heitkamp: (39:07)
And so, it's been am incredible model. I think it was born out of the Populist Movement in the early 1900s. We have a Norwegian heritage which tends to be ironically more socialist, so we also own a mail-in elevator. We also own the state mail that has been very successful in recent years after we got back on good footing, and so these are institutions that are well-regarded and well-accepted, and I think give you the investment and the development tool that you need like the Export-Import Bank in a state where you can leverage these deposits of state revenue along with good banking practices to basically reinvest in your state.

John Darsie: (40:02)
To build on something you said earlier about the idea of restoring dignity to different types of jobs in America there's obviously a very bifurcated experience now that Americans are feeling, people in these coastal cities that have a wealth of venture capital investment, and financial jobs are doing pretty well overall. Financial markets are doing well. The investor class is doing well. But as you said, people viewed Donald Trump almost like an avatar for their anger at how ell everyone else is going, and how happy everybody else is with the dignity that their job brings. How do we restore that dignity?

John Darsie: (40:38)
I saw the review of your appearance at Jeff Sonnenfeld's Yale CEO Summit about how you talked about the need to restore dignity into working class jobs. How do we do that at a practical level?

Heidi Heitkamp: (40:54)
This will get me in trouble. As we're talking about what we're going to do for student loans, so it's like I'm going to pay taxes on my $80,000 a year job where I have to work overtime to earn that. I'm going to pay those taxes, and I've been saving, and maybe I put my kids through college so I can pay for somebody else's college education. I'm not saying anything about the policy. What I'm saying is sit in that chair. Sit in that chair and look at that idea from that perspective.

Heidi Heitkamp: (41:31)
It's like because you went and got a music education degree I'm going to pay for that when I worked my way up through as a journey apprentice plumber, and now I'm going to pay for your education, and it doesn't sit well, and I think there are ways that we can talk about getting equity, and getting student debt forgiveness, that don't make people feel like they're being judged, or they're being asked to subsidize something that they never took advantage of. And so, I think that-

John Darsie: (42:06)
Anthony made a similar point on Twitter, the decision-

Heidi Heitkamp: (42:09)
Who did?

John Darsie: (42:10)
... to forgive student debt, and it would only accrue benefit to a certain class of Americans.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:17)
John, you blotched out there on the internet for a second. He was saying that I made a point about student loan forgiveness, and go ahead John. I won't interrupt.

John Darsie: (42:25)
Basically, that it only accrues to a certain segment of the population, and people who might not of pursued higher eduction did it for maybe practical reasons, so we agree with you wholeheartedly.

Heidi Heitkamp: (42:36)
Let me give you an alternative. Here's the real rub. There are people who have repaid their student loans over and over again, but because our interest rates are way too high for student debt they can't ever get it paid off. So, instead of forgiving student debt refinance at a lower interest rate, do it retroactive so people aren't being taken advantage on student debt. If in face the department of education has given student debt to a fly-by-night for-profit college took advantage of our veterans mainly, took advantage of minority populations, then look at how you're going to provide relief there when people didn't get a product and you actually put the good housekeeping seal of approval on it when you gave them the ability to do student loans, and let's take a look at forgiving for people who in fact are doing things that other people don't want to do.

Heidi Heitkamp: (43:34)
Teachers, and firefighters, and people who are engaged in ... There are so many ways to justify student debt forgiveness, but wiping it out across the board makes it looks like we're picking winners and losers in this society, and people intuitively think who's going to pay for that. I guess I'm going to pay for it when I write out my check in April. And so, I just think we need to be really ... It's true for everything in life. If you want to figure out where you can bring cohesion to society and to our politics sit for a while in someone else's chair. Sit for a while and see the world through their lens, and quit assuming you know what motivates them, and to me that's a critical part of reuniting the country.

John Darsie: (44:30)
And so, let's talk about reuniting the country very quickly because we're going overtime here, and we're so grateful for your time, senator. You wrote an op-ed recently with Cindy McCain that was published on cnn.com talking about the need to come together across bipartisan lines. President elect now Joe Biden has talked a lot about wanting to do this. He thinks that people will be surprised by how much compromise there will be in this new Senate, and in this new administration. Are you optimistic about a return to some level of bipartisan deal making, or are you cynical and you think polarization could get worse before it gets better?

Heidi Heitkamp: (45:08)
If you try and do this from Washington DC you will spin your tires, and you'll be further in the ditch, and I've said this over and over again. If you want to reunite this country get out into the country, because if y'all scurry into a room and have these discussions behind closed doors, and then everybody's mad at everybody, and they come out and they have their talking points, and "You don't care about poor people." "Well, you only care about rich people," blah, blah, blah, back and forth, you'll get nothing done.

Heidi Heitkamp: (45:41)
From my bio, you know that I'm a product of state government. I was a Democrat in a very Republican state even when I held state office, and I was able to get these things done. Sometimes they weren't always the most popular with my Republican colleagues, but we got stuff done. I always tell this story. I say in every small town in America, and probably big towns, I don't know those as well, there's a coffee table, and it's usually filled up with people from the community, mainly old guys. And I said "There's people sitting around that table, they're Democrats, and they're Republicans, and our diversity here in North Dakota they're Lutherans and Catholics, they're Green Bay fans and Viking fans," and I said, "And they'll argue the issues of the day," but that group of people will figure out how to get the Christmas lights up in the town square.

Heidi Heitkamp: (46:29)
They'll figure out how to put a roof on the church together, and it's that local we have to get it done attitude that we need to reignite, and if we don't reignite it at the local level I have no hope that it's going to happen at the national level.

John Darsie: (46:45)
Hopefully, they hear your voice in this administration and we can fix some of these problems before they spiral too far out of control. Senator Heitkamp, we're very grateful again for your time. Anthony, do you have a final word for the senator before we let her go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:59)
Next time we're on Bill Maher don't outshine me like that, senator, okay?

Heidi Heitkamp: (47:04)
I don't know that that happened. I don't know that that happened.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:07)
You were like a blinding sun of wisdom and humor at a time when I needed you sedated. I just want you to know that. Merry Christmas.

Heidi Heitkamp: (47:17)
It was fun.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:18)
It was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed it actually, and thank you so much for doing this with us.

Heidi Heitkamp: (47:23)
And the thing is, Anthony, if you from Long Island, traditionally a Republican, coming from the finance world, I come from rural America, if you and I can sit down and have a conversation and try and understand there's hope in the world, and so thank you for inviting me. It was fun to do, and I really, really enjoyed getting to know you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:45)
We appreciate you being on. Merry Christmas, happy holidays, to you and your family, and hopefully we'll see you in the New Year once this pandemic ebbs.

John Darsie: (47:55)
We know you're not a big city girl, but we're having a conference potentially in New York next year, and we'd love to see you there. We can show you some of the big city lights.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:06)
She's been there more than once. You make it like she's never been there. You really lack today.

Heidi Heitkamp: (48:13)
No, it's all good. Thank you so much, John, and thank you Anthony for including me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:16)
Thanks, senator.

Oliver Stone: Surviving Hollywood | SALT Talks #135

“I’m old enough to have seen 70 years of mismanagement since WWII. I’ve seen the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies lie us into every war we’ve been in.”

Oliver Stone is an Academy Award-winning writer and director known for iconic films such as Scarface, Platoon and Wall Street. Stone recently released his memoir, Chasing the Light, detailing his life and career through the release of Platoon in 1987.

While attending Yale, Stone became disillusioned by the elitism on display from his classmates that included future President George W. Bush. That disillusionment and frustration permeated his understanding of the US government’s deceptive tendencies. Stone served a particularly violent and destructive deployment in Vietnam where he was confronted with the atrocities of war perpetuated by a dishonest US government. These experiences influenced the many iconic movies he’s made over his career. “Something was wrong with our system. I just didn’t know what it was; I didn’t know what to do; I just wanted to get out of it.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Oliver Stone.jpeg

Oliver Stone

Screenwriter

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

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

John Darsie: (00:47)
And we're very excited today to welcome Oliver Stone to SALT Talks, Academy Award winning Oliver Stone has written and directed over 20 full length feature films, among them some of the most influential and iconic films of the last several decades. Some have been at deep odds with conventional myth, films such as Platoon, the first of three Vietnam films, Born on the Fourth of July, JFK, Natural Born Killers, and Nixon. Oliver Stone's films have reached far and wide, international audiences, and have had significant cultural impact. These include Salvador, a deeply critical view of the US government's involvement in Central America. Wall Street, an expose of America's new capitalism. World Trade Center, a story of two of only 20 9/11 survivors. The Doors, a poetic look at the 1960's and Jim Morrison's ecstatic music. And finally, Snowden, a story about the international acclaim of the recent American whistleblower who is now potentially going to get a pardon from President Trump in his remaining days in office.

John Darsie: (01:57)
Stone's other films include Any Given Sunday, an unconventional view of the world of American sports. An epic historical drama, Alexander, as well as Alexander: The Ultimate Cut. W, a satirical view of former US president George W. Bush. And finally, Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps, a realistic sequel about the 2008 financial crash and Gordon Gekko's fate after prison. And that movie actually features our cohost today on SALT Talks, Anthony Scaramucci.

John Darsie: (02:26)
Stone was born September 15th, 1946 in New York City. He served in the US Army infantry in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968, and was decorated with the Bronze Star for valor. After returning from Vietnam, he completed his undergraduate studies at New York University's Film School in 1971. His path to success as a writer was not a direct path, as we talk about a lot here on SALT Talks. He worked as a taxi driver, a Merchant Marine, an advertising salesman, and a production assistant before becoming synonymous with everything we think about the movie game, as he calls it.

John Darsie: (03:04)
And hosting today's interview is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT, and as I mentioned, had his acting debut, I believe, in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. But with that I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:20)
So yeah, Darsie, you keep rubbing it in, okay? Because you needed Krazy Glue for your eyelid to see me in the movie. And of course, I obviously didn't do that well, because Oliver never invited me back for another rendition of one of his great movies. But-

Oliver Stone: (03:36)
Oh he wasn't... I'm sorry Anthony, you were terrific, and I had reluctantly to leave some of it on the editing room floor because the picture was long. I had to cut Donald Trump in order to save your spot.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:49)
Oh, well I appreciate you doing that. I remember Trump in the barber shop and you didn't like the thing, and you blue lit the movie.

Oliver Stone: (03:56)
I liked it. No, that's not true.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:56)
Oh.

Oliver Stone: (03:58)
Don't start a myth here. I liked him in the picture, it worked, the scene worked, but it was not at the right time, I should've done it earlier in the film. In fact, I'd like to recut it and put him back in, I think he's good.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:11)
All right, well there you go. All right, so you wrote a great book, you know I'm not that self promotional Oliver, right? You know he wouldn't consider me self promotional, look at that. I'm holding up the book. Look how handsome you were back in the day. How old were you in this picture Oliver?

Oliver Stone: (04:28)
I was 21 going on... No, I was 22. I was on my last mission in Vietnam, it was right before I left in November of '68, it was about sometime in October. It was the very end. Came out of 11 days in the rain, we were stuck on a mountain, and it was pretty hairy for a while. And I was very relieved to get out of there. Very relieved.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:51)
You wrote beautifully in this book, I'm recommending this book as a great holiday gift. My son, who's an aspiring director and a videographer in the music industry, I just wrapped this book for him and made it a Christmas present. But you start the book in such a beautiful way, you tell such a touching story about your parents. It's very, very real. It's typical of your movies, it's raw, it's emotional, and it's honest. And so bring our listeners and viewers into the early part of your life and describe your parents for us and a little bit about how you started your career arc.

Oliver Stone: (05:30)
Well my parents were crucial to my life, like everybody's parents are, but they were not destined, really, to be a couple. My father was just a military man, a lieutenant colonel in Paris, and in Berlin after the liberation of Paris. And he was on Eisenhower's financial staff. And a Wall Street man all his life. My mother was a French... Her parents were hotel people in Paris, but she came from Savoie, and she was a very healthy, French, vigorous, young 19 year old girl. And she fell for this man... She had a fiancee, but she fell for this man with his uniform and his medals, and all that, and the Americans were pretty powerful then, and had a lot of money. France was broke and in trouble.

Oliver Stone: (06:24)
She broke off her engagement with a Frenchman, and she married him very, kind of abruptly. And I was... She was made pregnant in France and she came back to America on a GI ship, I don't know how much detail you want, but there was 20,000 GI guys on the boat, she was the only female on the boat, and it was a rough voyage. I was there too, and I remember being rocked incessantly by the North Atlantic in that January winter, it was terrible. And I was born in New York City in September of '46, right after the war had ended and the whole Frenchman was picking up again, and it was quite an interesting time. I lived through a lot of that in the '50s, '60s, and they finally broke apart in the '60s, and it was rather climactic, and I describe it in detail in the book, because I was away in boarding school, but I was the only child. And of course, it impacted me greatly because I didn't know it was coming.

Oliver Stone: (07:23)
And they didn't tell me anything. There was no forewarning, you see. And that's what makes it, I think, very dramatic. To find out all these things about your parents afterward, in hindsight, and it's quite shocking, some of the details.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:35)
Well, it's very tender. And you also write about the fact that other divorced children go through similar things. It's a breakup, and a destruction of the family, and you describe the three of you as becoming three separate entities as opposed to a glued together family, which has its own level of trauma. But you speak very lovingly about both of your parents, and you've got accepted to your dad's alma mater, Yale. But you have other things in mind, and you're thinking about going to war. And tell us the thought process back there, to the young Oliver Stone making those decisions.

Oliver Stone: (08:15)
Well, I grew up, like most American children in the '50s, with a healthy dose of violence on television and in movies, especially movies. I loved them, I watched TV shows, cowboys, westerns, detective shows, all kinds of violence were evident. And in a way it was sort of a healthy violence. It was sold to us as a redemptive violence that everybody had the right to get back at their enemy. And I grew up with that idea, that we had the, almost a Christian right to violence. Which is a strange idea when you think about it, but that was the American way.

Oliver Stone: (08:55)
So when I grew up and as I was coming of age, the Vietnam war was beginning to happen. And the concept of going to war was romantic to me, I have to say. So school was not working out, I was deeply troubled by the divorce, many things were troubling me, and I guess in present day terms, you'd say I had some form of... I should've seen a psychiatrist, but that was not very popular back then in the '60s, early '60s. I ended up dropping out of Yale and teaching in Vietnam for two semesters. I ended up in Saigon alone, and it was quite an experience. And then I ended up going to the Merchant Marine, I joined the Merchant Marine as a wiper, and sailed around Asia, and I also came back to the United States on a ship. Quite a story.

Oliver Stone: (09:50)
But I didn't go into it here. The point was that when I got home I went back to the school, Yale, couldn't make it, I couldn't... See, it was a different... I think you know something about this Anthony, you went to Tufts. No that's... Well, Tufts is a good school. But I'm saying there was a sort of an elitism at Yale that I just could not stand. There was a certain class of people. George Bush was in my class, just to give you an example. That was a C student, a C student and proud of it, and generally ignorant, and fraternity bound. He ended up, as you know, avoiding Vietnam with his father's influence he got appointed to the National Guard, and I think it was in Alabama, and whatever the story is. It's a pretty dirty one, he never really served, and he didn't care about it. He did a lousy job at avoiding the draft.

Oliver Stone: (10:46)
And it came out in the press, and a lot of people got into trouble, [Dan Radley 00:10:49] got fired. But that's another story. But that's the kind of people that I did not like to be around, and they were running the country. They became the ruling class of this country, whether it's Bill Clinton or Obama. They all went to Ivy League colleges. Something was wrong with our system, I just didn't know what it was, I didn't know what to do, I just wanted to get out of it. I wrote a book too, but the book was turned down. The book became... later was published as A Child's Night Dream in 1997 by St. Martin's, and it's quite a sensitive book. Written by a 19 year old boy.

Oliver Stone: (11:25)
Anyway, I ended up in Vietnam, and I thought it was the best thing for me because I just wanted to get away from any kind of privilege, any kind of elitism. And I wanted to go at the bottom level, and I started out as a private, and I went to... I asked for infantry and I got it. I asked for Vietnam, I didn't want to be sent to Korea or Germany. And I ended up in the field after six months of training in September of '67. I was 21 years old, my birthday, when I flew over on an airplane, on the 21st birthday. As you know, the international time zone, you drop a day. And that was my 21st birthday, that day. I was shot twice, I was wounded twice. Shrapnel and shot. And both times... That was early in my tour, the first three, four months. And I got better as a soldier, but it was a very rough beginning, and they put me out on point right away.

Oliver Stone: (12:25)
A lot of that is in Platoon, I hope you get to see it again, it's a powerful vision of what it was like to be in Vietnam. I think it's the most realistic ground version of that war. [crosstalk 00:12:39].

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:38)
Yeah, no listen, I've seen the movie three or four times, I love the movie. I actually also watched the movie a few years ago with your over the top narration of the movie, which I found very compelling, that was part of the bonus features of a CD back in the day.

Oliver Stone: (12:53)
Oh the... Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:55)
And-

Oliver Stone: (12:55)
With the commentary you do it, yeah. I don't remember that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:58)
Yeah, you were on a microphone explaining the different scenes and shots that you took. There's one scene in that movie I was always dying to ask you about, I'm going to ask you now. There's a scene with Willem Dafoe and Charlie Sheen, and he's a fresh guy, he's a newbie in the Platoon, and he grabs them, and he takes his backpack, and he starts taking out of his backpack things that he thinks are irrelevant to him. And it's this sort of veteran trying to help out the younger guy. And I've always wanted to ask this, was that true to your life? Did someone do that for you with your backpack when you got to Vietnam?

Oliver Stone: (13:30)
Oh, very much so, yeah. I was over packed. Although we were trained, and we went over there, when you get actually get there in the jungle, you still have a lot to learn. A lot. And I was obviously over packed, and it's so hard, when you're cutting point for eight, nine hours a day, or six hours a day with a machete, you can't carry that kind of weight.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:57)
What would you say, now, reflecting, what impact did the experience of the Vietnam have on your world view?

Oliver Stone: (14:06)
Aw, gee, you're talking about a huge impact. I would say Vietnam was... I didn't realize it then Anthony. I went to a... I was trying to survive and trying to integrate and be a good soldier, which I did become. And I eventually, as you know, I got a Bronze Star because I was able to take care of myself and take care of other people too. I was about 13 months, I was most in the field for about 11 of those months. The three things I wrote about... I didn't realize it until later, this is... I'm writing it from the hindsight of an older man now, looking back. There are three big lies about Vietnam that bothered me. Big lies.

Oliver Stone: (14:46)
One was the amount of people killed by friendly fire. That's always glossed over and unreported by the Pentagon. It's not something they're... it's attractive idea because the Pentagon doesn't want parents to believe their child was killed by friendly fire. But that happens a lot, especially in a jungle, asymmetrical war situation where you don't see the enemy easily, and you don't see your own men, because you're firing across lines, you're firing over your own men sometimes, throwing grenades. And then there's artillery coming in, sometimes misdirected. Airplanes dropping bombs, sometimes misdirected. Napalm too. I estimate, and I honestly did, in the book, I say 20% of the people killed and wounded there were friendly fire. That's a pretty big number when you add it up. A lot of people would be really upset. That has never come out. Never come out.

Oliver Stone: (15:45)
Then I talk about the lie of killing civilians, villagers. A lot of our operations were crossing into villages. Sometimes we were in a jungle, sometimes we were on the coast. And this was when I was in the first calvary division up north. We went into a lot of villages, trashed them looking for supplies, looking for weapons. And sometimes we'd find them, sometimes not. But it was just chaos, and there was a lot of abuse that went on. I'm not saying it was consistent, I'm not saying it was a Mỹ Lai situation, but it was bordering on it. There was a lot of antagonism against the Vietnamese. It was a lot of racism in a lot of the troops. Not all. A lot of the... And I dealt with that in the scenes in platoon where you see some of the people very racist. And of course, you see a lot of people who are not.

Oliver Stone: (16:40)
But there was a distrust of the Vietnamese skin, the race, as well as... See, we never knew who the enemy were, we were not sure. Sometimes they wouldn't show up for a while, they'd just be booby traps, ambushes, people would get hurt. And frustration, and you take it out on the villagers whom sometimes acted dumb, sometimes looked like collaborators. Mỹ Lai was very much that situation. They had not seen a lot of the enemy for months, and a lot of them had been hurt, and when they got there that day they really took a vengeance on them, they killed 500 people. And you know what, I mean, I almost made a movie on it, it was almost happened, but it was canceled at the last second. It was more than 500 civilians killed in that particular village. More in the other villages.

Oliver Stone: (17:30)
But, not one bullet, not one enemy bullet was fired at the US. That was established by the Army itself in a commission that they investigated the massacre. Not one enemy ability. Okay, that's my second lie. The third lie is the biggest lie of all, that we're winning this war. This was a lie that was there from the beginning, this was the origins of the war. They lied about that in Washington. Pentagon Papers prove that. Consistently lied about the enemy, the number of enemy dead, how well we were doing, that we were winning the war. This constant refrain in the newspapers, in the military, in the brass, in the Pentagon. Went around and around for years until one day it just was clear after the Tet Offensive, after three years of war, January '68, that it wasn't true. That there was more North Vietnamese than we ever dreamed, and that they were succeeding. And they continued to succeed despite taking a heavy casualty count, because they were fighting for their independence of their land. That means all of Vietnam, not North, South Vietnam, Vietnam.

Oliver Stone: (18:39)
And they were a formidable enemy, they were very smart, very smart. Used very little... They took everything they could get from us that they stole or they had various networks through our... We sold a lot of weapons to them by accident too. We gave weapons to the South Vietnamese and a lot of times the South Vietnamese soldiers would give weapons to the North Vietnamese. It was a mess. But that lie was that we're winning, that was never true. And it backfired. And we retreated, as you know, we pulled out. Peace with honor. Nixon sold us the peace with honor. This was a new president, came in after four more years of conflict, and more people dying.

Oliver Stone: (19:24)
Several... We don't know... Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, estimated up to three to four million Vietnamese were killed in that war. And that means mostly civilians.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:36)
Well, and it also created an arc of further catastrophe in the American government, the onslaught of Watergate. The precursor to that war, however, was the... Not the precursor, because we were already active in Vietnam, but perhaps an accelerant to that war was the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November on 1963. One night at dinner, you and I had dinner together, you told me that you felt that JFK, the movie, was your opus. I don't know if you still feel that way, or if you do, why do you feel that way? Why was that your opus? And tell us a little bit about your experience making that movie.

Oliver Stone: (20:18)
These are tough stuff you're asking me. JFK was my most ambitious movie ever, I knew it when I was making it, I knew that I was going into a new arena. And I pissed off a lot of people. A lot. I, in some ways you could say my career was never the same afterward. The film was well done, I thought. It was impactful, it was taking a three and a half hour movie and making it exciting. I mean, it was about tension. It was a murder story, a thriller, who did it? And there's no clear answer, but it's pretty clear to me that it was significant people who had power behind the scenes, power to make things happen in Dealey Plaza that day.

Oliver Stone: (21:00)
And we went into a lot of the reasons for it, Kennedy was changing things, this is a historical point of importance. Kennedy was a big change from Eisenhower and Truman, a new policy for the United States. He understood the third world. Kennedy was against the Algerian War, he was in Indochina in the '50s. He really... His speeches, everything indicates a strong anticolonial mentality, because he was Irish, he understood what the English had done to Ireland. So there was a lot of rebellion in Kennedy. But he was a smart man, and young man, and he was going up against an older, at the time, the '60s, the older people controlled everything. They were the establishment.

Oliver Stone: (21:46)
And you had to be pretty smart to change things, as you know from government, it's very hard to get anything done. And he was biding his time. He said, "Look, they want to go into Vietnam, but I am not going to send combat troops." And he never did. He never broke that. His desire was clearly stated before he died, right up to the last year of his life. We are pulling out of Vietnam, we are not going to go on with this, we're going to maybe give them money, but we're not going to fight their war for them, this is not for us.

Oliver Stone: (22:16)
That directive, the beginning of that was the withdrawal of the first advisors, 1,000 advisors were coming out. And then he knew he couldn't sell it then, but if he got reelected in '64, which he most assuredly would have, because he was very popular, if he had been reelected that's when he would've made the big move and the bigger changes would've come. And believe me, his enemies knew that. They knew what he was up to in Cuba, they knew what he was up to in Africa, what he was up to in Indonesia and Vietnam. And they would never allow him to do that because not only was he a danger to their whole system of doing things since WWII, his brother, Robert, attorney general, was a powerful young man. He was a likely successor in '68 to Kennedy. And of course, there was the younger brother Teddy Kennedy.

Oliver Stone: (23:06)
But what they feared was this change in the world. America would become a more cooperative member of the world, would not seek to impose a colonial policy that was inherited from France and from England. And that's, I believe, those are the reasons he was killed in November of '63.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:31)
Listen, I've also seen that movie several times, and of course we have a lot of Wall Streeters that watch the SALT Talks, you've been to the SALT Conference a few years back and-

Oliver Stone: (23:42)
Oh, yeah, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:43)
... you came to the SALT Conference. Tell us about your two Wall Street movies. My first question is, will there be a third? Will there be a trilogy of Wall Street movies? And tell us about the two that you did, and tell us about the impact that they've had on your life. And how do you think that they reflect what goes on in financial services?

Oliver Stone: (24:03)
No, the Wall Street movies, I think this is it, because in 1987 my father had just died, and I wanted, because of the success of Platoon and Salvador, I wanted to do a movie honoring what he said about business to me, which was something like what you said in your book. He said, "Look, people always make business movies, they make fun of businessmen, they're not positive figures. But actually, Wall Street is the engine," he said, "the engine of the American economy." At that point in time, in the '50s, '30s, '40s, Wall Street was very much the leader in the sense of a source for funding for these companies to do research and development and capitalize for bigger and bigger jobs, whether it be GE type electronics or...

Oliver Stone: (24:54)
Father was a big believer in American business, and he said, "The only way to defeat despair is through work and prosperity." And it was a good message, and I believe in that message. He was totally against, obviously, Roosevelt. He made a... Boy, boy, did he take off on Roosevelt. But that came with the time, and I understand why he did that. But I since them have come more to the Roosevelt point of view. Gordon Gekko was the type of Wall Street operator that my father would've hated. He was slick, younger, financial, looking for money, looking for the financial side of things but not caring about what the company really did and how productive it could be.

Oliver Stone: (25:41)
When he takes over the airline in Wall Street, because of Charlie Sheen's inside knowledge, Charlie is the son of the union head of the airlines company employees, Martin Sheen plays his father. When the son takes that information, betrays his father, gives the information to Douglas, it sets up a clever chain of events where Douglas, among other many deeds buys the company, buys more and more stock in the company until he has a controlling position, at which point he cannibalizes the company. You know more about that, but he breaks off the assets, he sells the divisions, and [crosstalk 00:26:20]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:20)
Mm-hmm (affirmative). Very '80s thing to do. Yep.

Oliver Stone: (26:21)
It's very what?

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:22)
It was a very '80s thing to do, actually. And so you captured it beautifully.

Oliver Stone: (26:26)
And it was done by [Cravis 00:26:28] and these people in the '80s. It was quite a bunch of them that came by. And their argument was, "We're good. We're good for business because business has to evolve. These companies are archaic, they're old fashioned, they have boards of directors that do nothing, and here we can do... we have to make them modern." Well, that's true, but you have to run the company first, and you have to administer it, which is what Gekko didn't do, he was more interested in if he could make a quick buck by selling assets of the company, which has been done 100 times now.

Oliver Stone: (27:00)
The economy of the United States has changed so... And the result of that has been, in 2008, I think, the crash. What they call the Big Bang, I don't know what you call it these days. What I saw in 2008, this is... I thought when I did Wall Street, which was very successful against all the odds, nobody expected that to be successful, it was one of the first business movies that really did well and got an Academy Award for Michael Douglas. I thought the Wall Street phenomenon would flatten out, that it was over. But I didn't count on all the young people like you coming into the business who admired Gordon Gekko. They [crosstalk 00:27:40]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:40)
Oh my, be fair to me. I wrote a book that said Goodbye Gordon Gekko. You read the book.

Oliver Stone: (27:45)
Yeah, oh you got it, I think you understood it. I'm saying a lot of young people told me that that was their movie they saw when they were 17 or 18 and it really made their day, and they wanted to go to Wall Street. They changed their majors from engineering or from science and they said, "Well, I'm going to go into Wall Street."

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:05)
Okay, so I have one last question for you-

Oliver Stone: (28:08)
Oh, wait, that doesn't get me to the end of what I'm going to say.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:10)
No, no, go ahead. Please, go ahead. No, I want you to finish, yeah.

Oliver Stone: (28:12)
Briefly, the reason I went back, I had been offered sequels to do Wall Street through the '90s and the 2000s. I turned them all down. But in 2008, 2010, I'm sorry, I made the sequel with Michael Douglas because Fox owned the property and they wanted to make the movie. They wanted Douglas, they didn't care about me. Douglas insisted that I direct it, which I think was a good idea. I saw it as a chance to address the 2008 burn down. Was it 2008, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:44)
Yes, 2008 crisis, yes.

Oliver Stone: (28:46)
Yeah, because that crisis was completely different. No one saw that coming except those on the inside. It was about Wall Street being a new kind of instrument for banks to operate. The banks in the second Wall Street or the owners of the economy. That was not true in 1987. The banks, because of Glass–Steagall repeal, of that law in 1999 by Clinton and that group, that horrible... You know who he is, I forgot his name, the biggest... the guy from Citibank, ring a bell?

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:22)
Well, yeah, yeah. You're thinking of-

Oliver Stone: (29:24)
Rubin.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:24)
... Sandy Weill and Bob Rubin.

Oliver Stone: (29:27)
Bob Rubin, yeah. Those guys pushed... And also Sandy Weill, Sandy Weill was my father's last employer. Now, how'd that happen? Because he took over the firm that my father worked for. Among other firms. He combined travel companies, insurance companies, Wall Street companies, it was a new business. Everything got bigger, far bigger than I ever dreamed. Money started to inflate. Young people on the street in 1987 who are making 20 million dollars a year was stunning to me, I couldn't believe it. I was knowing kids from school, "Hey I made 20 million, I'll make 30 million next year." Blah, blah, blah. I was shocked. It was a lot of money.

Oliver Stone: (30:07)
But in 2008 people were making billions, and the banks had gotten into this game in a big way. And they were, obviously with collateralized debt, whatever they called them, they made up all these new financial instruments and were making a fortune, a real fortune. And it was kind of disgusting because it really had gotten to... You know more about it. But it was crazy, it was too crazy. The whole thing was going to blow up, I thought. And they did. They got bailed out, they got bailed out big time, the banks, all the banks. They were all guilty. All of them. They got bailed out big time by Obama.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:50)
Yeah. Well it was actually, Bush started the bailout, Obama finished it off. But-

Oliver Stone: (30:54)
Is that true?

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:54)
Yeah, yeah. Bush basically put the TAR program together with [Hank Carlson 00:30:58]. But listen, I mean, we could debate it, but it was... if they didn't get bailed out it was probably going to be even a further catastrophe. I've got one last question, and then John has a few questions. We have to get our millennial in here so we get good ratings Oliver. He's like... Look at how bright and young he looks. But my last question is that, you're a phenomenal reader, you're an even better writer, for that matter. I mean, the book, Chasing the Light, incredibly well written, and people should run out and buy the book. And I look at all the books behind you. What books do you recommend to people that have been influential on you intellectually and that's helped to shape your worldview?

Oliver Stone: (31:41)
Oh gosh, no Anthony, that's not fair. You should've asked me that in advance, I would've prepared a list. I read everything, I read from everywhere. It's just a [crosstalk 00:31:51]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:51)
Well how about just a few. How about just a few that come to mind. You don't have to be that well prepared. One that you [crosstalk 00:31:57]-

Oliver Stone: (31:58)
Well I just want to say, with Peter Kuznick, I wrote and directed a documentary called Untold History of the United States, which came out in 2014.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:08)
Showtime did the series, right?

Oliver Stone: (32:10)
Yeah. And it's played all around the world practically, and it continues to do well. It was on Netflix and all that, now it's on streamer services. And I'm very proud of it. It was a lot of work, it took five years. But I went back to school in a sense with... Peter's a professor of history at American University, a liberal, American history. I don't always agree with him on everything, but he really put me through a school in the sense of understanding a lot of the things that I had not understood.

Oliver Stone: (32:40)
The history goes from 1898, the beginning of the Philippine War, and our involvement in Cuba and the Philippines, and carries through to Obama and his whistleblower program between 2014. It's before Trump. But it's a powerful series. And I read so much about history in conjunction with that. But I still... And I enjoy... And I shifted my thinking about everything, about WWII, about what the reasons of it were, what the consequences of it were, how America changed in that war. We became from being an isolationist kind of country where we became a heavily involved imperial colonial power acting as if we were the continuation of Britain's empire and French empire.

Oliver Stone: (33:34)
And this was a huge mistake. Huge mistake. And it became the basis of our involvement overseas. We have so many military, 800 plus military bases overseas, ringing the world. We are seeking to control everything in the world and it's just not going to be possible and sets up a whole bunch of major problems. And we are not going to emerge from this until we look back to 70 years ago when this WWII ended and see what we did. We committed to a program which I think we're going to regret. Basically world hegemony, world domination.

Oliver Stone: (34:14)
Books, books. God, I've read thousands of books. I don't know what to say first. I think Untold History is a powerful book.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:24)
All right, well we'll go with that. Well I'll post that up on our website. I thought your book was very powerful, it was poetic. It was heartwarming, it was honest, it was authentic, it had every element of your personality was imbued in this book.

Oliver Stone: (34:43)
Yeah. Just wanted to show you in case.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:52)
There you go.

Oliver Stone: (34:53)
Can you see it?

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:54)
Yep, yeah, it's very prominently displayed. And we'll make sure that we get those out there. And I will tell you, I watched every segment on Showtime when it came out. And I [crosstalk 00:35:04]-

Oliver Stone: (35:04)
[crosstalk 00:35:04].

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:04)
I learned a lot.

Oliver Stone: (35:07)
And aside from JFK, that is my opus.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:09)
Yeah. I learned a lot about Henry Wallace in that book. And I learned about the decision... I mean, and not the book, but the series, where he was taken off of the ballot for some of his views and replaced by Harry Truman, which probably also impacted the way the war ended with the atomic bombs that were unleashed in Japan. So it is certainly a serious documentary worth watching and worth reading the book. We got a couple more questions for you Oliver, we're going to invite my millennial cohost in, John Darsie. Fire away John. What did I leave out, okay? For the professor here to talk about.

John Darsie: (35:48)
Well Oliver, it's a pleasure to have you on. One thing we like to talk about on this show is, we try to break down the myth that success or self actualization is a straight line for people who have achieved the type of success that you have in your given industry. And as I mentioned in the open, you went from basically a 30 year old cab driver big breaks, and breaking into the movie game as you like to call it. What was sort of the ingredients to your rise from being somebody who was struggling to making it in the industry, to somebody who now is one of the most famous filmmakers of all time?

Oliver Stone: (36:25)
Well it's a struggle, and I outline it in the book, Chasing the Light. All those years of shaping my writing skills. I mean, I never gave up writing. I wrote the book at 19 when I went to film school, finally, after Vietnam. It took me about six months, almost a year, to get my life together. But when I went to film school I kept writing screenplays, although they were not popular back then because the nouvelle vague was in power and screenwriting was not considered important.

Oliver Stone: (36:59)
But I'd always kept at it. And I used to write about two scripts a year, or at least one treatment and one script, and kept submitting them and getting rejections. And they're very important to learn, for me, to learn the art of writing screenplays. And a lot of directors don't have to. I mean, a lot of young people can become commercial directors, or they find other ways, documentary, to work their way into directing and producing. But for me it was always through writing. So that slows you down a bit, because it takes longer to write. And it took me a while to break through.

Oliver Stone: (37:32)
Robert Bolt was significant. He wrote... Was one of the great screenwriters of his time. He became a mentor at one point. But I talk about the break I finally had with a man that... I wrote Platoon in '76, 1976, it did not get produced until '86. That's a big... It was rejected numerous times as being negative and all the reasons why it was real. It was about what I saw and it was important, but it was not Rambo, and it was not a Chuck Norris film. For that matter, it was not Apocalypse Now, which is mythic, a beautiful movie, but not realistic to me as a soldier on the ground, nor was Deer Hunter. But they were both powerful... those two movies were very powerful.

Oliver Stone: (38:18)
But that kicked off a kind of Vietnam wave, but they wouldn't make Platoon. For seven more years I had to... I was very frustrated. And finally I got a break with Midnight Express, which was a low budget film at Columbia in '78, '77, eight, and it did very well, and made big money. And it was made for very little money but it was tremendous. He went around the world. And I talk about that and my rise in the system, but then I talk about my fall, and I talk about all those things that can get in the way. Happen to success, and how success can be very elusive and it can be disfiguring.

Oliver Stone: (39:02)
I came back with Salvador and Platoon, and I talk about that in depth. The Salvador movie is a... How do you make a movie with no money? How do you go down to a foreign country and try to stage a revolution? Try to stage a helicopter war? It was really quite a significant undertaking, and I'm amazed we survived and succeeded. After Salvador I made Platoon. All this with British money, not with American money. It was financed out of an independent British producer.

John Darsie: (39:33)
How important was your relationship with Martin Scorsese, sort of as a mentor early in your break into the movie game?

Oliver Stone: (39:43)
Marty was a teacher at NYU, he was young, very vibrant. Were many good teachers at NYU. He was one of them, and I think he inspired many of us. He loved movies, you can see that. And he treated it like a theological seminar. To him it was crucial, movies were the essence of life, they were... it was like finding God. And I talk about the development. And how he encouraged, at least with me, he very much liked one of the films I did, short films. And he told the class one time that, "Here is a filmmaker." Which was sort of for me like a diploma.

Oliver Stone: (40:20)
You have to understand that that's very important in a young man's life, a young filmmaker's life. Afterward he became, as you know, a big success in Hollywood. But I really didn't intersect with him much. That was my major intersection with him.

John Darsie: (40:37)
So you produced a fascinating movie about Edward Snowden. It's called Snowden. Obviously it was met with some level of controversy. He is vilified by US intelligence agencies and much of the Western world for blowing the whistle on government secrets, corporate secrets, but there's also a large contingent of people that think that he opened the light on some very serious malpractice, or issues related to government actions. So, in your opinion, and I think I know the answer to this question, but do you think Edward Snowden, as well as Julian Assange should be pardoned? If yes, why?

Oliver Stone: (41:17)
Yes. I think you know my position on that. Posted it on my Facebook page. I think that it would be shocking if Trump, who is not known for his sense of mercy, were to grant mercy to both Assange and Snowden. It would be quite surprising. And it would look good in history for him. It would alert some of the, perhaps, mistaken perception of him as a ruthless self promoter and egoist.

Oliver Stone: (41:48)
But we'll see what happens in the next few weeks. He's preoccupied with his own thought of his election and so forth. I'm old enough now, and I guess you're of a different age, but I'm old enough to have seen, as I said before, 70 years of mismanagement since WWII. 70 years. I've seen the intelligence agencies lie, and the Pentagon, lie us into every war we've been in. Whether it was Vietnam, whether it was Iran, Iraq rather, or Afghanistan, and so forth and so on. And not only the wars, but these missions in foreign countries, like in libya and in Syria, and all over the Middle East. None of which have worked, none of which have succeeded. They've only succeeded in killing more people and destroying more infrastructure.

Oliver Stone: (42:46)
It's a tremendous disservice to the world. So I'm not an admiring of intelligent... I don't think of the CIA and the FBI as all knowing, must less the NSA, which they're not supposed to be a... they're just supposed to be a gatherer, they gather information. But again, all these powers, all these agencies use their power to enhance their power. They grow in time like fungus. They get bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and they can't check themselves. CIA was supposed to be an intelligence gathering organization in 1947. Truman intended it... Truman always said, at the end of his life, said that it was a huge mistake.

Oliver Stone: (43:28)
You gave these... These are supernational, these are outside the democratic process. These are agencies that have way too much power, and they've gotten us into a lot of hot water. So I would tell you as a young person, disbelieve everything they say, everything. You have to. You have to demand proof. You have to say, "Where's the evidence of this?" And don't buy their bullshit lying about, "Well, we can't tell you our source because it will compromise our source." Don't go with that. That's the problem. They've been... And I can't believe what happened with Trump on this whole thing. He's come into office and all of a sudden all the liberals in America, they love the FBI, and they love the CIA.

Oliver Stone: (44:09)
Many of us were disgusted by this, because we know the truth. We know that intelligence agencies promote themselves.

John Darsie: (44:17)
So, I want to ask you one more question before we let you go Oliver. Chasing the Light ends in 1987, after Platoon comes out and you're going through the awards ceremony for that. So you're always good for a great sequel. Are we going to see Chasing the Light 2? Or another iteration of the second half of your career? Or what should we expect going forward [crosstalk 00:44:40]?

Oliver Stone: (44:40)
I hope so. I do hope so. I hope I sell enough books to justify it and people are interested. But frankly, yes, I would love to. I think I have to do it anyway, just to set my own soul in order before the end. It's a great story, from 1986 on. The reason I ended it '86 was because it was big story already. I realized a huge dream, the writing and directing a movie. Not only writing and directing a movie, but the movie achieves an international success beyond any expectation I had. I can't tell you, Platoon went around the world, had huge impact, every country had made an impact, every country had made money.

Oliver Stone: (45:20)
It got, on top of that, reviews and it got Oscar nominations. And I had Elizabeth Taylor giving me an Oscar for best director and giving me a big kiss. What the hell? I mean, Elizabeth Taylor was the star of my youth. She was an attractive young actress of her time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:39)
Oliver, I'm going to hold up your book one more time here, Chasing the Light. A Merry Christmas to you and your family, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, whatever you're celebrating. But more importantly, this is great Christmas gift. And this is a gift that every young person should get actually, because it is a rite of passage story, it's raw, it's authentic, it's honest. And it's revelatory about the human condition in a way that moved me, Oliver. So thank you for writing it.

Oliver Stone: (46:07)
Oh, thank you Anthony, I'm glad you read it. And I hope we get together soon.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:13)
All right, amen.

Oliver Stone: (46:13)
When this is over.

John Darsie: (46:15)
And thank you to everyone who tuned in to today's SALT Talk with Oliver Stone. Just a reminder, you can sign up for all of our future SALT Talks at salt.org/talks, and you can access our entire archive of SALT Talks at salt.org/talks/archive. Please follow us on social media. We're on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn. If you're on those channels, please follow us, and follow our pages, and interact with our content there. We post a lot of the content live and on demand on all of our social channels. So please follow us there.

John Darsie: (46:48)
Tell your friends about SALT Talks, if you come across an interesting interview, pass it along to your friends, your family. I know a lot of my family tunes into these talks and they still don't understand bitcoin, but it's a work in progress. But please, pass along the message. We love growing our community and growing the audience of people that we're able to educate on a variety of different topics.

John Darsie: (47:09)
And on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off for 2021 from SALT... or signing off for 2020 from SALT Talks rather. Good riddance to 2020, it's been a long year, but we've been fortunate to make the most of it here on SALT with these SALT Talks, despite our conferences being canceled. But I will see you back here in 2021, and thank you for being part of the SALT community.

Pandemic Venture Investment Series - Episode 7 | SALT Talks #134

“Because you've got a large audience [with the pandemic], it provides a large opportunity for nefarious actors to use it as a hook to either push new types of disinformation narratives or to connect longstanding disinformation narratives to exploit this new opportunity.”

Dan Brahmy is Co-Founder & CEO of Cyabra, software company designed to identify disinformation. Vincent O’Brien is a State Department Foreign Service Officer & Former US Army Special Operations Officer and recently worked at the Global Engagement Centers to identify Russian disinformation.

Misinformation and disinformation have been around long before the Internet and it’s existed on whatever medium corresponds to the time period. Social media represents the latest iteration in communication and has served as a uniquely effective medium for misinformation and disinformation. The global pandemic has only exacerbated the volume and effects of disinformation because so many people are paying attention. “Because you've got a large audience [with the pandemic], it provides a large opportunity for nefarious actors to use it as a hook to either push new types of disinformation narratives or to connect longstanding disinformation narratives to exploit this new opportunity.”

Russia, China and Iran represent the three major state actors engaged in disinformation intended to hurt the United States. Russia and Iran are more focused on simply creating chaos among other nations and exploiting any domestic political divisions. Beijing has the more explicit goal of shaping a new world order that sees China at the top.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Dan Brahmy.jpeg

Dan Brahmy

Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Cyabra

Dan Brahmy.jpeg

Vincent O'Brien

State Department Foreign Service Officer & Former US Army Special Operations Officer

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, everyone. Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. What we try to do on these SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provide in our global conferences, the SALT Conference, which we hold twice a year, once in the United States and once internationally.

John Darsie: (00:40)
What we try to do at those conferences and what we're trying to do on these talks is 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. We are thrilled today to welcome you to the seventh and final installment of our pandemic venture investment series, where top entrepreneurs, investors, and business leaders dive deep into the challenges and opportunities arriving from the pandemic crisis and discuss breakthrough technologies that address issues from coronavirus prevention and cure to social distancing and food supply.

John Darsie: (01:17)
A reminder, this series is presented in partnership with our friends at OurCrowd, which is a leading global venture investment platform. Today's episode is called the tech cure for fake news and deepfakes. It features Dan Brahmy, who's the co-founder and chief executive officer of Cyabra, and Vincent O'Brien, the State Department Foreign Service Officer and a former US Army Special Operations Officer. Today's episode will be moderated by OurCrowd president and CIO, Andy Kaye. Just reminder, if you have any questions for any of today's panelists, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. And with that, I'll turn it over to Andy for the interview.

Andy Kaye: (01:57)
Thank you very much, John. As mentioned, I'm the president and CIO of OurCrowd. And joining us today are Dan Brahmy from Cyabra. Dan was born and raised in Paris, moved to Israel at the age of 14 and graduated from the IDC International Business School. During his career, he spent time at internship at Google and founded a startup called B2G and then went on to become a senior strategy consultant at Deloitte before founding in 2018 Cyabra. Cyabra is a platform that uses AI lens to detect disinformation and filter the real from the fake.

Andy Kaye: (02:39)
We're also joined by Vincent O'Brien from the US State Department. Vincent is a State Department Foreign Service Officer, a former US Special Army Operations Officer, and has spent a recent role as the Global Engagement Centers to identify counter-Russian disinformation. He served in many places around the globe, including Russia, China, Sweden, Germany, Estonia, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central Asia. Vincent got an MBA from Northwestern University – Kellogg School of Management. Today, will be representing in himself with his personal views and in no way is representing the views and opinions of the State Department. With that, thank you very much for joining us gentlemen. What I'd like to ask as the first question, Vince, and if you could lay out the guidelines and definition of misinformation and disinformation and provide some guidelines or examples for the audience.

Vincent O'Brian: (03:41)
Sure, and he can do. Thank you. Greetings from Washington D.C. as by the way. Let's just talk about misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and its history. Certain state actors have been weaponizing information for decades. Even today, there are new technologies that are being employed that make it easier and faster to do so. In the past, they used newspapers and television and word of mouth and the like, but social media has become, at this stage of its development, a really very useful medium for those who seek to achieve their goal through deception. Most of what we talk about now will be in the context of digital, media, social media, and basically the internet.

Vincent O'Brian: (04:27)
Let's make sure we're clear on terms. Misinformation is sometimes used when the speaker actually means disinformation. That's probably because this is a new field. But misinformation is actually when someone mistakenly passes on information that they think is true, but it's actually false, kind of like when a friend or a relative forward you an email that contains an urban legend that they think is real, or there are no alternative cure for the flu or even COVID and that information is wrong and it's actually harmful. The content actually can be a lie, but the intention of the center was not to lie or to harm.

Vincent O'Brian: (05:05)
Disinformation is different. That is when a group or a person deliberately creates and spreads a lie or a manipulated information in order to harm another person or group or to deflect attention away from an issue they believe to be detrimental to their own interests. Misinformation, I like to remember it as misinformation is a mistake, disinformation is deliberate. An example of disinformation, a recent one would be the US military created COVID-19 as a bio weapon, they brought it to Wuhan, China, and they released it. That's disinformation. Misinformation might be it's a bio weapon that was released from a lab. We're not sure about that. There you have it now.

Vincent O'Brian: (05:44)
Propaganda is something different. That's the act of arranging or organizing information in such a way as to bring about the perception or a perception that would not normally be held if the facts were presented in a straightforward way. I'll give you an example. It's an old example, but it's one that we've been dealing with in my lifetime of the US government because most of the time I've spent... much of it I spent really dealing with Russia.

Vincent O'Brian: (06:11)
Here's an old propaganda example. During the Soviet times, the Russian and the US national crew teams decided to engage in a race. There were no other competitors, just those two crew teams. The US team won. The headlines in the Russian state media outlets read this, "Russian rowing team takes second place in international contest. US team finished next to last." Now, that's propaganda. It's true in some ways, but if you look to the facts in a straightforward way, you know that the facts are totally different than what the impression was that you were left with. That's basically the definitions of the three areas of what we will say deception in social media.

Andy Kaye: (06:54)
Thank you very much. Dan, can you explain the difference between fake and deepfake?

Dan Brahmy: (06:59)
Thanks again for this opportunity. The way that we look at disinformation from our perspective and our own experience is the fact that it's sort of a triangle. And then when we look at the triangle, we see that the problem is divided within identity fraud, visual content fraud, and written content fraud. A lot of the people when they speak of fake news, for example, they may not necessarily understand that they relate to the written content aspect, meaning anyone can write anything and then go figure out if it's the truth or not. That's one aspect of disinformation.

Dan Brahmy: (07:36)
But the other two which are really interesting and are really big part of what it is, is the fact that you can... You spoke about deepfake. It's a broader topic around the ability to generate highly realistic visual pieces of content, pictures, and videos that may be generated from scratch. Absolutely nothing. You press a button on a publicly available website, and then you can create a picture of someone who never existed before, meaning the consequences for this are, of course, you can have a really great application for this, for the entertainment world, high net worth individuals, celebrities, that's wonderful. But there's a really bad side around this because that means that you can create identities and there's no backtrace around it. You can literally create people from the ground up.

Dan Brahmy: (08:27)
The other problem around deepfake is the video aspect of it, meaning I can make myself reenact someone else's facial expression, even words. I can do what we call face swaps or facial reconstructions of things and make me say things into Vincent's mouth. And that would be a catastrophe if this is something really negative in terms of a brand imagery, in terms of even other governmental agency or country as a whole. And so that's why we look at the problem of visual manipulation as a really uprising problem and threat under that larger umbrella called disinformation. Those are the two real distinction from our perspective.

Andy Kaye: (09:15)
Thank you. Now that we've explained these basic definitions, why is COVID or the pandemic exacerbated those effects? Maybe you want to take that, Vincent, initially.

Vincent O'Brian: (09:28)
Sure. Just unmuting myself. Well, it's a global interest, first of all. It provides an opportunity for anyone to comment on it and you'll have governments are commenting on it, you have pharmaceutical companies, you have political pundits. Like I said, because it's a global interest, everyone worldwide is tuning into it. Because you've got a large audience, it provides a large opportunity for nefarious actors to use it as a hook to either push new types of disinformation narratives or to connect longstanding disinformation narratives to exploit this new opportunity. I think I should have said in the beginning, I deal mostly with state-sponsored disinformation. So, many of my examples will be about state-sponsored disinformation.

Vincent O'Brian: (10:24)
For the longest time, Russia has spread disinformation about US assistance to countries in their near abroad, the Central and Eastern Europe, in developing biolabs, but Biolabs for health purposes to be able to detect cholera and other diseases, not for weapons or the like. And so because we have this global pandemic, now Russia is using it as a platform to push their narrative that these labs are actually a danger to the people in those countries and are an offensive weapon to be used against Russia, which is not true. That's one reason.

Andy Kaye: (11:11)
Do you want to add anything to that?

Dan Brahmy: (11:14)
Sure. On my end, obviously, it's a less elaborated and clever answer than what Vincent would say. But I think on the simpler side, I'd say that the fact that these actors that Vincent mentioned earlier they see an opportunity where people are staying at home, the fact that people are staying at home and they don't have to go to their work offices and they don't have activities outside or at least much less than pre-COVID 19, that represents an ocean of opportunity for good and for bad from a disinformation standpoint because people are what they called wired. They are wired constantly, they are much more consuming content and news and pieces of information much more broadly than they were previously. That's the simple explanation of the more people wired in, the more eyeballs I can draw to a certain snowball effect. And the larger the amount of eyeballs, then the higher the impact that can be created around things that I would like to create or things that I would like to promote actively.

Andy Kaye: (12:30)
Thank you. Who are the players in this world of deepfake and disinformation and what are they really out to gain?

Vincent O'Brian: (12:38)
Andy, actually, if I could just step back from it, something I'd like to add there, one of the other reasons why COVID is exacerbating these effects is because it's new, it's a new phenomenon and the actual information on it isn't clear. That's why it's a great space for disinformation because even the experts who are trying their very best to define it and to explain it and to help public don't have all the information. It's exacerbated by the fact that the point of origin of the virus, the country, that it came from, China has not been completely transparent about it. The learning curve has been a lot steeper than it should have been about this. I think that's just one more reason why COVID has exacerbated the effects of disinformation.

Vincent O'Brian: (13:22)
But then I'll go back to who are the players in the world of deepfakes and disinformation. From the US side, on the government side, the US and our allies have identified three major state players. And that would be Russia, China, and Iran. Jihadist extremists organizations also play a role, but theirs is mostly around recruiting through websites and they put out disinformation for that reason, but it's different. Russia and China generally have different goals in mind as well. I'll say the Kremlin often. When I say Russia, the Kremlin is interchangeable.

Vincent O'Brian: (13:55)
The Kremlin seeks to create chaos in order to just disrupt the current world order. Chaos is their goal. They want to weaken countries that they see as threats by manipulating their information environments to polarize domestic political conversations, to destroy the public faith in good governance and democratic principles, destroy the public faith in independent media and in science and in this case COVID. That's their general goal. In other words, more like if we can't have it, we want to make sure that you can't have it either.

Vincent O'Brian: (14:33)
Beijing's got another goal. They seek to deliberately reshape the current world order to their advantage because of their overall goals of expanding and getting access to resources and setting things in such a way that they would have uncongested global leadership. They deploy comprehensive, coordinated, kind of whole of government influence campaigns. They have the resources to do so and that's the way they do things. 1.4 billion people in China, so they do things big. The point of these global information campaigns is to promote and maintain the Chinese Communist Party's narratives domestically and globally. They use not just disinformation, but censorship, coercion, intimidation sometimes of dissidence and others to counter in silence criticism and portray the PRC, the People's Republic of China as a benign and positive and non-interventionist power when exactly the opposite is probably the direction they're heading.

Vincent O'Brian: (15:33)
Iran's goals are just similar to Russia's. But on a regional scale, they attempt to sow discord and mistrust in Iraq, especially between Kurds and other groups and in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East in an effort to advance their goal of becoming a dominant regional power.

Andy Kaye: (15:49)
Understood. Thank you very much. Dan, anything, anyone from the private sector playing here or individuals?

Dan Brahmy: (15:55)
There is. I'd like to pick it up where Vincent left it and say Vincent was able to give an extremely detailed answer from a public sector, governmental sector perspective. I think that there are additional players. If we're trying to look at this from a different angle, there are companies like ours or private sector companies that are for-profit or sometimes even NGOs that are here to do some good and bring some transparency to the world. You also have what we would like to believe... There's a very thin line between the regulatory space, governmental space, academia space, and private companies. From our perspective as an early stage startup, it feels like there's a problem that is trying to be solved as we speak. Everyone has a play around this, but there seems to need a certain level of cooperation.

Dan Brahmy: (17:02)
Vincent was right again. Because of the fact that the problem is very new... Disinformation has probably existed for much longer than we're thinking of. But the methodologies that it's being applied today as we speak nowadays, thanks to the advance of social media platforms, of blogs and forums and so on and so forth, it makes everything more accessible. That's the problem. And so that's why we need probably deep technological companies like ours that are trying to build those technological solutions that can be used by the private sector, whether it's consumer brands, CPG, food and beverage and so on and so forth, but also sometimes be used by the public sector itself. Because as much as we would like to believe, sometimes the public sector also might turn to NGOs, academia, and private companies for the sake of strengthening their own internal capabilities up to a certain point. My point of view is there must be some sort of cooperation between the four. That's how we look at this.

Vincent O'Brian: (18:18)
If I can echo that real quickly, Dan brings up a great point. At the Global Engagement Center and with Department of State and Department of Defense and others, we do actually work with the private sector very closely and with NGOs and those in civil society who have over the course of the last five or six years have become real experts in identifying disinformation, kind of keeping track of it, keeping a database of it, and developing ways to counter it and to educate society. But we really couldn't do what we do without the private sector. I like to say there's the speed of government and there's the speed of relevance. And the private sector and companies like Dan's and others that are like it move at the speed of relevance. This is a partnership that's not going to go away. It's just going to make things better and we're going to work more and more closely in the future. I can see it coming.

Andy Kaye: (19:12)
Really, that is our way of protecting ourselves or are there any other technologies or methodologies out there which can help us?

Dan Brahmy: (19:22)
I think the more we move forward, from 2016 and forward, I'd like to say that people are starting to understand what is the meaning of that threat, slowly but surely. It might not be the role of a private company like ours, who's solely focusing on technology, but I think that someone should take the responsibility. The government is starting to do that really well, by the way, to educate people, to make them understand and teach them. I don't want to say what he's right from wrong because that's a subjective point of view. I would like to correct myself and say what is real from fake and how can you educate yourself really quickly to distinguish much better, because today the technology is out there, whether it's for the visual manipulation, where we spoke about deepfakes and such, or whether it's simply encountering a group of 50 bots and sock puppets that are aggressively promoting an agenda.

Dan Brahmy: (20:35)
I think that people need to understand that before you are engaging and before you are doing something, you ought to be able to be cautious, to read between the lines. It only takes a few seconds to be much, much more clever and more accurate, even as an individual. That's the one thing that is really important besides the technological advancements and all the AI that Cyabra or any other Cyabra could develop. I think there's a five seconds gap that people need to put into their minds and just implement that and say, "Wait a second, before I do something, should I?" That's a really good point, I think.

Andy Kaye: (21:20)
Okay. It sounds certainly we picked up on government companies and others. How would you best describe the ecosystem here and how should we really visualize that?

Vincent O'Brian: (21:36)
Yeah. That's interesting. From our perspective, from the Global Engagement Center, when I was with them, we put together a document and you can find it, it's out there in the public space. It's called Russia's Pillars of Propaganda and Disinformation. There are basically five pillars. We say that these five pillars make up an ecosystem because they work in concert with each other. Just from our analysis of the Russian disinformation system, we look at it and say these five pillars are on the one hand of the spectrum official government communication, which is open and out there, but may contain disinformation. And then on the other end of the spectrum, it's cyber-enabled disinformation.

Vincent O'Brian: (22:25)
I think the greatest example of that would be the 2016 US Democratic National Committee cyber hack were hacking release of emails from John Podesta that revealed a few things in the lead up to our election. That was cyber-enabled disinformation. Another recent example was the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website was hacked and a false press release was put on there that stated that the US government was moving assets from Incirlik Turkey up to Lithuania. It was completely made up and it was actually happened when our secretary of state was actually in Europe talking about similar issues.

Vincent O'Brian: (23:12)
That's kind of on the other end, cyber-enabled disinformation. Complete hack. The Lithuanian government was able to immediately identify that as disinformation. But that's something that takes a lot of assets. It's very deliberate. It takes more than one arm of government to do that. And really, only governments can accomplish that. No one else in the spectrum has the power. In the middle of that, you've got the federal government communications and cyber-enabled disinformation. On the other end, you've got state-funded global messaging like RT and Sputnik, which are outward-facing funded organizations by news organizations by Russia. And then you've got also proxy sources.

Vincent O'Brian: (23:52)
This is the hardest, murkiest area where you got websites that are consistently telling a narrative or policy line by a government, but they're not directly connected to the government. But their source of funding is murky. And oftentimes, they get it from advertising and they exist because they make money off of advertising. But they're always pushing a government line, whether it's a longstanding narrative issue or one that's very, very topical like, for example, COVID. And then finally, there's weaponization of social media. That's also in the center, also very difficult to find, where false personas on social media, perhaps they make two different false personas and they'll take opposite ends of an issue only to exacerbate the differences within the actual organic conversations in that particular platform.

Vincent O'Brian: (24:46)
That's kind of the ecosystem. All of this is fitting for creating chaos because it doesn't require any type of harmonization among the different pillars. Sometimes the story can start by government press release, or sometimes it could just start in the middle in a proxy site. And then because it goes viral, then you have a state-sponsored media organization talking about it. And then it could jump the traction to the mainstream media worldwide. This is why we call it an ecosystem. It doesn't require a memorandum or a secret, a dead drop to pick up and read and say, "Okay, let's all go do this." The system understands itself and just reacts at various times to whatever they know to be a direction that the state wants to take a narrative.

Andy Kaye: (25:39)
To understand the five pillars, is it directed toward the governments or is the private sector also a prime target for these attacks?

Vincent O'Brian: (25:53)
Dan, do you want to take that one?

Dan Brahmy: (25:55)
Yeah, absolutely. I can only speak, I assume, from the private sector. I don't know what's happening within the governmental sector once, but this is not an assumption. This is what we see on a weekly basis. We've been working with Fortune 500 companies in the news and media world which are the gatekeepers. They are the gatekeepers of information moving from the ones that are gathering them to the ones that are tuning in and listening to. Sometimes they are having a hard time filtering and vetting out what is going through that pipe.

Dan Brahmy: (26:36)
We're seeing consumer brands in the field of film production and celebrities and even high net worth individuals. None of them are government affiliated and a lot of them are suffering from... You would not imagine. Suddenly, you see a rumor around a football player and it's a rumor being propagated by tens of thousands of non-existing completely inauthentic profiles on social and traditional media that have the power to change and have an outcome that could be hurting tremendously from a financial standpoint, from a brand image as a sport athlete. That's something that we've been seeing.

Dan Brahmy: (27:28)
We've even seen e-commerce websites that have seen what we call decrease in their sales volume throughout the Black Friday period of time. It's absolutely insane. It's becoming more and more accessible, meaning that anyone can go in to that system of ours that has been created a few years ago and can skew with the public opinion for better or for worse. So, absolutely, the private companies are being targeted and are being skewed by bad and fake actors. No doubt in my mind. We're seeing this on a weekly basis.

Vincent O'Brian: (28:07)
[crosstalk 00:28:07]. Sorry, Andy, just to quickly... it's private sector... The question, is it directed at private sector or government? Obviously, it's directed at both. It's also directed at national strategic industries which are obviously run by private sector but have a great interest to governments as well. For example, you'll see lots of disinformation around, say, when... let's just say a Japanese and American and a Russian nuclear power plant development company up for a contract in South America. You're going to see lots of disinformation around that. But of course, it's of interest to... national interest, so many players there who gets that contract to develop that commercial nuclear power plant.

Vincent O'Brian: (28:59)
It'll also affect in the areas of oil and gas and other energies, Nord Stream 2, once again, it's a public private consortium to bring gas from Russia straight to Germany. But there's a lot of private sector business around that. There are very, very strong differing opinions in Europe about how gas should be coming to Western Europe and from what sources. It's something that really affects both sides. And so you'll see a lot of that in that area as well.

Andy Kaye: (29:35)
Thank you very much. Dan, starting with the private sector, what are the challenges and how can technology be used to solve this and what are the challenges? Is it the good versus the bad? Who's leading that race?

Dan Brahmy: (29:54)
That's a tricky question. I'll answer as humbly as I can. But I would say the following, I'd say that first and foremost, as much as technology can do a great work at raising the flag really fast and analyzing the authenticity of everything that's happening out there, I think that for the time being, and I hope Vincent agrees with me, for the time being, there will always need to be as the last mile of that trail to have some sort of context. And so while technology can do a lot of things, creating context around a vast amount of data is something that is, again, very difficult for technology to be able to do.

Dan Brahmy: (30:46)
I would say that currently technologies have the ability to gather around relevant pieces of information, create everything into one big pile of snowballs and start deep diving into just gigantic amount of data. And that is something that is within the technological boundaries that exist today and saves a lot of time for that one last mile, which is crucial and almost indispensable, which is now that the technology found what's the exposure, what's the level of impact and what's the level of realness, authenticity of a certain disinformation threat, the last mile will always be what are we going to do about it?

Dan Brahmy: (31:36)
The countermeasure is something that at least from my angle, we haven't seen companies that are doing the detection. You mentioned the good and the bad and I'm always joking about the subjectivity of it, but the good and the bad. We believe that Cyabra is doing the good side of it because we're not part of the system. We're trying to find a cure for it. We will never be cut and tangled with the countermeasuring aspect. I think there are other people, other players, other organizations that should be taking that aspect and there's a very clear line in the sand around this. That's how I look at this. I think the ability to go deep into vast amount of data and reach a certain high level of accuracy, 75%, 80%, 90% of accuracy and above, filtering between the real bad and fake is something that can tremendously help for the last mile and indispensable one.

Andy Kaye: (32:39)
Vincent, is this government relying on private sector or solving this on their own?

Vincent O'Brian: (32:45)
Well, we work in concert with private sector. I think I mentioned it before the private sector can move much more quickly. They're developing AI products and machine learning products and big data analysis products that government just simply by its very nature cannot go out and design themselves just like we don't go out and design the office furniture and the computers that we use. It's good that there is a private sector use for this. We work with certain private sector companies to go out to do this for us, but in a certain special kind of way.

Vincent O'Brian: (33:26)
A normal process would be if you're a company that sells shoes or you make movies and you have stars that you want to promote, you would go out and you would find a digital marketing company that has an ability to not so much manipulate social media but use social media to promote that product. Well, we have to do the opposite. When that product gets promoted, a cluster of conversation around that, the release of those basketball sneakers or around the release of a film in a certain country, all of that concentrates in a certain period of time, we see it differently.

Vincent O'Brian: (34:10)
What happens when we see disinformation is say there's a concentration of false personas around an election in a place like Chile, or in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or the like. We have to start at that point, look at it and say, "Okay, which of these are false personas that are attempting to direct the conversation and why?" These technology companies like Cyabra and like others that we use can help us identify that and then reverse engineer it and bring it back to the source. Whereas in the opposite and the totally legitimate world of capitalism, the world of commerce, you know the source. You're the company, you want to sell shoes. You purchase the services of a digital marketing company, and you go about and do what I just described.

Vincent O'Brian: (34:50)
It's very, very murky going in the other direction. And so we need the help of companies that have designed these systems to help reverse engineer them and get us back to the source. One of the things I also want to agree very strongly, Dan, and I go back a long way, in many ways, we've developed our views on these together as the situations develop. By all means, it comes down to the last mile. The data that the technology companies can put together and bring to you and hopefully describe in a way that your C-suite can make decisions on, it really just comes down to a decision from leadership, one way or the other, what to do about this.

Vincent O'Brian: (35:35)
It is a cost in many ways, it's a threat, but it's a cost to your company in many ways, like anything else is a cost. And so it comes down to an executive decision. The technology companies, what they can do is they can bring to you an interpretation of this data. But in the end, you got to be able to make a decision on it. I think the best technology companies are the ones that explain it to the leadership in a way that they can make the very best decision with the information that they have at the time. If it gets to it, I can talk about what I believe is a good protection plan for a company, a good way to go about that. If there's interest in that, I can talk in some detail on it.

Andy Kaye: (36:16)
That was very careful to say there is a handover. Do you see the governments as the body that will come back and deal with that threat once they've interpreted or would it be a different type of company that potentially jam or react to what's been described as being fake and dangering the corporation or the government?

Dan Brahmy: (36:40)
I assume that question was pointed at me this time.

Andy Kaye: (36:42)
Well, it's both. I think, yeah. But please start off and then [crosstalk 00:36:48].

Dan Brahmy: (36:47)
Sure, sure. I assume that there are things that the governmental sector is without any doubt able to do that a private sector company will never be able to do so. We've been working with a few public sector agencies and we've been working with a few private sector agencies and we see the difference in the remediation, the way that they would like to solve the problem. We understand that yes, of course, the governmental sector has the will and the power to solve the issue, and they are much, much more educated nowadays than the private sector is. They represent an excellent way in a sense to complete the equation. I absolutely believe that. I think that they are a major part of this equation in order to solve disinformation. Am I saying that the government has figured it out and count to 365, and puff, no disinformation? That that's not what I'm saying. Vincent knows I appreciate everything that is being done.

Dan Brahmy: (38:04)
I'm saying it's a tough problem. And it's so recent and so new that while we are figuring it out and researching it from a tech perspective, academic perspective and regulatory perspective, you need to remember that we all are on the same side of the boat. There's the other side of the boat, which is those bad and fake actors, which are getting better and better every time. While we learn from our mistakes, so while we learn from the gaps, these gaps are still out there for the reason that sometimes it is simply a cat and mouse play. We'll get better at something, but they will too. I hope it answers the question.

Andy Kaye: (38:54)
It does. Fascinating. Vincent, do you want to add anything to that?

Vincent O'Brian: (38:59)
Yeah. It is obviously the responsibility of government to respond to national threats and threats that are persistent and directed at... that are actually crimes. We run into... and this is kind of nefarious actors using our system of openness against us because we do run into an issue with... In the United States, we call it the First Amendment, but it's just freedom of speech and it exists in all democracies. And so it becomes difficult to say how do you go after this? Do you zap somebody and burn their IP address? They'll just start another one. And also, you have to look at it and say, "These are lies. But when in the course of human history, have we ever been able to stop people from lying?" They're just lying better, and they're lying on a medium that has a global reach and moves faster. But it still lies.

Vincent O'Brian: (40:00)
When you talk about trying to limit that, you also get into the area of trying to limit free speech, a limiting free speech. And that's a very, very slippery slope. I think the Supreme Court in the United States has had a lot of opinions on this. They've long-held the First Amendment, which is the freedom of speech in the United States to be sacred and it extends to political advocacy. But I think one Supreme Court's issue that I think sums it up perfectly is the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. And this is the ordinary course in a free society.

Vincent O'Brian: (40:43)
Now, that's hard to accept when you know someone is lying about you on the internet, in the chat room or on a website, and they're doing it deliberately to harm you. But in a society where we enjoy the great democratizer, the internet, it's advanced citizenship and it comes with advanced problems so we have to learn to accept. Now, getting around that, I think while there are certain legal recourses and there are certain things or the responsibility of government to do, the most important thing is to build resilience against it.

Vincent O'Brian: (41:21)
Dan touched on that earlier, where educating people... I think the real solution lies in education, critical thinking skills, critical analysis and a recognition on the part of individuals and on societies that someone out there in the digital space is trying to manipulate your decisions and your viewpoints through lies and through manipulated information, deepfakes, and the like. They appear to be plausible, but you have to recognize that indulging some type of natural reflex to only view information that confirms your existing bias or to believe what you see because it's easy and you feel as good to believe, it is intellectually lazy.

Vincent O'Brian: (42:03)
It is the individuals and societies responsibility really to develop the critical thinking skills, or at least the ones that we have and start applying them to what's happening in the digital space. And that will be able to help counter this much greater than laws or than decisive, kinetic countermeasures, the like, because the greatest way to defeat a lie is for everyone to know that it is a lie and for people to understand the truth and demand the truth.

Andy Kaye: (42:38)
One, it's extremely frustrating. Sure. How should we review this? What's a crime? What's not a crime? Where's the line? I certainly know from the world of finance we come from the... It's very well-defined where the red lines are and what the potential punishments are. Do you think the same should exist here or does it exist here?

Vincent O'Brian: (43:01)
Well, libel and slander is a crime in many countries and it's hard to find that. It's also hard to find the source in social media. I described that through the proxy sites are a great way to mask where it's coming from. It is really hard to get to who actually committed the crime. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a body of laws in countries and an agreed upon body of laws that are agreed upon internationally, just like there are in many other fields and human rights and the Geneva Convention and the conduct of warfare. There's maritime laws that we all agree upon. There can be laws or rules and regulations that we agree upon internationally about how information should be conducted in the internet.

Vincent O'Brian: (43:58)
But that's going to take some time to get to some consensus on that. I highly doubt that everyone will agree with it. I think in the end, it becomes what are you doing to build your resistance and resilience to it versus what are you doing to actually prosecute the purveyors of it? I don't think we should try to do that, but I think realistically, it will be a very, very hard to be able to get consensus on what is a crime in terms of disinformation and also what should the punishment be?

Andy Kaye: (44:32)
Dan, do you want to add anything to that?

Dan Brahmy: (44:36)
I think Vincent touched on the crucial points, really nothing to that.

Andy Kaye: (44:42)
Just from a country perspective and continuing on this line which I think is really fascinating, do you see the West at least reaching a consensus and is there a global acceptance that it really is Russia, China, and Iran against the rest of us, or are there other gray areas and gray countries and gray organizations as part of this too?

Vincent O'Brian: (45:06)
I think the latter. It's not just those three that they're the ones we focus on. I take the opportunity to put that out there because it's where most of it's coming from at the time. But if it proves to be an effective medium, others will have already gotten into the game. But it may not be as publicly available information or may be boring to actually read about it in the news, but the truth is that governments are actually working together really closely. We are working to have common playbook on how to deal with disinformation so that it works broadly across regions. I know in South and Central America countries are working together on this from a common approach. The Europeans, the Baltic states, the Nordic states, other Northern European countries have come together and worked informally to come from a common playbook on how to recognize, how to be resilient, how to respond to disinformation.

Vincent O'Brian: (46:13)
It's going to get harder when it comes from more than the sources that I've mentioned and also if those sources are murky and hidden inside proxy sites and inside false personas on social media. But there is a general consensus on how to go about this. I think it really comes down to... When organizations ask us, "What do we do about this?" I always say the three R's, recognition, resilience, and response. I think governments and other organizations and civil society organizations are getting really good at helping groups recognize what is disinformation and how to be resilient against it. That's where that's going and I think you'll see countries and groups across countries, especially civil society are working from a common playbook right now. Whether it's global or not, let's talk about that in a few years.

Andy Kaye: (47:16)
It really sounds as if you've teed up per Cyabra in many ways.

Vincent O'Brian: (47:21)
I didn't mean to, but it just comes so naturally because they really are right there. That's interesting point too. The private sector should probably be in the business of analyzing the data and getting it to the place where the decisions can be made. Anything past that is something that governments should do. But Cyabra is actually one of the organizations that have really done a good job at doing that, kind of identifying the information and just presenting it to you in a way that you can best make a decision about it. Dan, that was just a boldfaced plug for your company. I hope that's okay with you.

Dan Brahmy: (48:05)
Absolutely. Thank you.

Andy Kaye: (48:07)
Dan, anything you want to add?

Dan Brahmy: (48:12)
After the flooding words, why would I?

Andy Kaye: (48:15)
How big is the market though, from a private company perspective [inaudible 00:48:19], we're investors in your company too, how big is this market and how fast do you think it's growing from the private sector at least?

Dan Brahmy: (48:27)
Well, we've never had a doubt on the potential of the outreach of... what we call the TAM, the total addressable market that there is simply because the more we move forward, the easier it becomes to see the nefarious impact and outreach that is being created over largely super well-known brands, when we speak of CPG companies, when we speak of food and beverage companies, when we speak of automotive companies, and when we speak even of the financial sector, because imagine what would happen if there's a publicly traded stock that is being hurt by a very well-orchestrated snowball effect around a certain propaganda or a certain piece of information that is flying fast enough and deep enough and then you suddenly see the stock price dropping and then the valuation goes down by half a billion dollars.

Dan Brahmy: (49:36)
It happened in the past and it will continue to happen as long as we don't have a good filtering mechanism. The addressable market for a company like Cyabra or any other similar company like Cyabra is I'd like to say almost endless. As Cyabra, we're not currently targeting actively small and medium businesses, but anything that is mid-market and above that has the potential to be positively or negatively impacted by disinformation, so those bad and fake actors in question could be a potential customer of ours. Absolutely. We've started working with them back then.

Andy Kaye: (50:22)
That's highlighting the issue, but do you see the company evolving that you will take that next step which you're so careful not to go into and say, "We will develop an active tool in order to respond and maybe turn off the switch, such as the global sort of the Chinese Great Firewall or to react accordingly"?

Dan Brahmy: (50:45)
You're asking me as Cyabra or-

Andy Kaye: (50:46)
Yeah, definitely.

Dan Brahmy: (50:50)
If my co-founder was on the call, he would be dying from the inside of that question. Now, let me answer, let me answer. I do not see Cyabra getting into the remediation. Let me be clear on that. And everyone in that talk understands that we are living an enormous amount of money on the table by saying no to the countermeasure and to the active part of the remediation, but we are sleeping extremely well at nights because we've started the company with a moral compass that helps us understand and draw that line in the sand pretty easily. That was the longer version of the explanation.

Andy Kaye: (51:39)
No, we really appreciate that obviously and I think the audience will too. Vincent, do you want to add anything to that?

Vincent O'Brian: (51:45)
Yeah. I think from a government perspective, Cyabra is on the right track there as part of the reason why we are associates with them. I think on the government side, once you cross the tracks over to doing something like that, then it becomes difficult as a government to actually work with a private sector company because we're not sure who they took those active measures against in the past. But also, we have our own red lines as well. And so we appreciate companies that have those red lines, those moral and ethical red lines. We will never ever use disinformation as a tool against disinformers because when you do that, you're really no better than them and then your argument goes away completely.

Vincent O'Brian: (52:37)
Number two, the truth really is the best tool. Go to any US Embassy around the world at 9:00 AM and go to the consular section near the door where people line up to get visas and count the number of people that are waiting in line to come to the United States. We don't have to lie to push what we have to offer. The truth is so much stronger than that. And so we'll never ever step into that side of the business because then we are no better than the people that are our adversaries and we believe that we are. Once you get into that field, once you get into that world, once you start targeting people, you become a target. It's Murphy's Law of Combat. If the enemy is within the range of your weapons, then you're in the range of theirs. It's not a really good route to go down. We appreciate companies that don't do that kind of thing.

Andy Kaye: (53:39)
Thank you. As we sort of coming towards the end of our hour, I think your last statement certainly was very positive. But do you think we're on our way to having a good outcome here?

Vincent O'Brian: (53:52)
I do. I think we're in a lot better place than we were. I don't want to talk about elections. I certainly won't talk about current elections, but we'll go back to 2016. In the United States, the elections, it didn't come out to the public in a major way that states were attempting to alter the outcome of our election. There's no evidence they did, but they were attempting to until after the election. And so you had this entire electorate saying, "Wait, wait, was my vote manipulated? Did I vote based on false information?" Well, since then, a thriving counter-disinformation community has come up and Cyabra is a perfect example for me in 2018. So many other companies formed since then.

Vincent O'Brian: (54:36)
But this huge counter-disinformation community is comprised of governments that are cooperating, civil society organizations that have either come up out of this or completely repivoted and they're now 50% involved in how to recognize disinformation and how to promote critical thinking in the information space. Academia has moved in this direction, the press, the private sector, citizens around the world are refusing to tolerate these tactics and they're pushing back.

Vincent O'Brian: (55:07)
I think the evidence of that is going into our latest election and there's been many other elections around the world that we monitor through the State Department and through other... others monitor where everyone that goes into the vote knows now that they're being manipulated, someone's attempting to manipulate them. So they go in and they make their best choice. I think we're in a much better place than we were. Will we ever defeat it? Like I said, what's the chance of stopping people from lying? It's never been done before. I don't think we will, but we'll get a lot better at recognizing the lies and pushing back and preserving the integrity of the information space. I think we're on the right track.

Andy Kaye: (55:46)
Thank you. Dan, your closing thoughts?

Dan Brahmy: (55:50)
Look, Andy, I was born and raised in France. I'm a romantic by nature. I'm optimistic. No, jokes aside. I'm optimistic. I think that I agree with Vincent. There's actually an expression in France that says that we're seeing companies pop up like mushrooms under the rain in our field. It's a good thing. I don't see competition as being a bad thing because it only increases the exposure and the education side that Vincent so elegantly explained earlier that that's it. The more companies we have trying to solve that huge problem for the private and the public sector, the better we are at understanding it and the better we are at moving towards a more mature and getting to the last pieces of the puzzle to solve it through technology.

Dan Brahmy: (56:51)
I'm optimistic. I think we're on the right path. There's always that 1% in my heart because I'm always thinking as my co-founders taught me coming from this information warfare like cybersecurity background saying, "You're never sure. You're never sure, they always get better what they do. You always see small improvements." But we are optimistic and we can see that even from a Cyabra standpoint. We see that we're moving along the line really well. We've got wonderful investors to support us. We've got customers that are giving us the right proof. I am optimistic.

Andy Kaye: (57:33)
Thank you very much, gentlemen. It's been a pleasure. Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Vincent. I think we've really discussed some very interesting nuance points today and throughout the last seven episodes. Thank you to the speakers and thank you to our partners at SALT. If you want more information on OurCrowd, please go to www.ourcrowd.com. Thank you, John.

Stephen A. Smith: Becoming a Difference-Maker | SALT Talks #133

“For better or worse, there's only one me. I just say what I feel based on the facts and the information that I have before me.”

Stephen A. Smith is co-host of ESPN2’s First Take and is ESPN’s most recognizable personality and studio analyst. Before ESPN, Smith was a newspaper beat writer and columnist for 18 years.

Authenticity is critical in connecting with an audience. Combining hard work with that authenticity ultimately drives success. This means falling in the love with the process and committing yourself to the less glamorous behind-the-scenes work that viewers don’t see. Using fear can be a great motivator in driving that commitment to process. “Get caught up in the process… If you’re not enjoying that, you’re not going to enjoy your job.”

The social influence of athletes is greater than ever. Colin Kaepernick represents a major shift in the approach athletes are taking by speaking out on societal issues, particularly racial, that plague the United States. The influence and power that athletes wield will inevitably force corporate America to lean in and serve as allies in the push for change.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Stephen A. Smith.jpg

Stephen A. Smith

ESPN’s First Take & SportsCenter

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, public policy, and sometimes sports and entertainment which is the direction that we're going in today. We're very excited for today's SALT Talk. The SALT Talks is a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And what we're trying to do on SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provided our global conferences, the SALT conference, which we host twice a year, once in the United States and once internationally. And what we're trying to do on these SALT Talks and at our conferences is provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big and interesting ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:55)
And we're very excited today to welcome Stephen A. Smith to SALT Talks. Stephen A. is a former newspaper beat writer and columnist for 18 years, and he's become unquestionably ESPN's most recognizable personality and most visible studio analyst. Since joining ESPN in 2003, Stephen A. has been a fixture on sports center, primarily as the worldwide leaders premier NBA analyst, which included NBA shootaround and NBA fast break. And he also hosts sports center with Stephen A. Smith.

John Darsie: (01:26)
In 2005, he was given his own national television show, Quite Frankly, on ESPN2 with Stephen A. Smith, which was a one hour weeknight show featuring sports, news, opinions, issues, headlines, and interviews, which lasted for 327 shows from August of 2005 to January of 2007. Stephen A. has been the co-host of ESPN2's First Take since May of 2012, which moved to the main network ESPN in 2016. From a clerk and a writer at the Winston-Salem Journal in my home state of North Carolina from 1991 to 1992, to an editorial assistance position at the Greensboro News and Record in 1992 and 1993. From a high school writers position at the New York Daily News from 1993 to '94 to a career at the Philadelphia Inquirer from '94 to 2010.

John Darsie: (02:19)
He started as a college beat writer to now becoming the foremost NBA analyst. And one of only 21 African-Americans in American history elevated to the position of general sports columnists in 2003 in March at that time. Smith considering his success in all three mediums by all accounts is one of the most successful journalists and commentators of the modern era. And again, we're very excited to have Stephen A. with us on SALT Talks today. If you have any questions for Stephen, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. And hosting today's interview is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:07)
John, you left out one thing, he's probably been voted best dressed by GQ at some point in his career. I'm old enough to remember Lindsey Nelson who used to wear those flamboyant sports jacket. Stephen A. welcome to SALT Talks. It's an honor to have you on. How did we go from sports journalism to ESPN? What was the trigger?

Stephen A. Smith: (03:30)
For me, I was breaking stories a lot. I was a newspaper writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer. I started my career as a high school scores reporter for the New York Daily News from '93 to '94. And then I went to the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1994. And in 1998, there was an NBA lockout. The owners had locked the players out in pursuit of a new collective bargaining deal. And at that particular moment in time, everybody was trying to figure out what was going on as negotiations stalled, halted, progressed, et cetera, all different types of things that were going on as you well know that's what happens in that world. And during that particular moment in time, I was breaking a lot of stories. I had sources that were on the executive committee that was on the negotiating committee for both respective sides. I was lucky and fortunate enough to get access to a lot of information that a lot of people didn't have.

Stephen A. Smith: (04:21)
And so when the television networks needed somebody to talk about these things, Comcast locally, mainly in Philadelphia, Bruce Beck, who works at NBC in New York City now at the time was working for the NBC in Philadelphia. And he would have me on, and others would have me on Comcast and they couldn't afford to pay me. I told them, you don't have to, just make a copy of my appearances and give me a copy of it. I used that and I used those appearances and turned it to a portfolio. And then I showed it to CNN/SI, that was CNN Sports Illustrated which was an existing sports network at the time. And CNN had partnered with Sports Illustrated. And I started off. They hired me on the spot and then that developed into a deal with Fox sports Net two years later in 2001. And then in 2003, ESPN came calling. So that's really how the television portion of my career in terms of sports broadcasting actually started.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:25)
You and I both know, television is not easy, 17 years on television, and you have this very unique style. You reek of authenticity, Stephen Thoreau, budding television presenters, sports journalists, broadcasters, et cetera, are watching today. What would you say to them about the travails of television? What's your experience there? What do you recommend to them and how did you develop your style?

Stephen A. Smith: (05:55)
Well, the last part of that question is always the most difficult for me to answer because I didn't have any kind of broadcasting training whatsoever. My attitude, when I looked at broadcast was that you needed to smile and know how to read a prompter. The latter part was very easy for me, the former, not so much because I'm not a smiler, I'm not the George Foreman type as they say. I don't just cheese for the cameras. You make me laugh, I laugh. You make me smile, I smile. But I'm not going to fake it just to show to give a pleasant view or a pleasure to meet you, that's just not my MO.

Stephen A. Smith: (06:25)
And so for me, when I had the newspaper background, I knew that there was substance attached to me because I was a reporter and I was digging for information. I was in constant pursuit of the truth, not just looking for the license to editorialize and opine. And as a result, because I knew that I had that content, okay, when you get in front of the camera and the lights come on, there really is just all I had was for me to be me. So the manner in which I speak, the way I articulate myself, the way I disseminate information, et cetera, that has always been my way.

Stephen A. Smith: (06:55)
And as a result, it just stuck. So when people ask me, "How can I do this? How can I be like you or whatever?" I'm like, "Well, for better or worse, there's only one me. I just say what I feel based on the facts and the information that I have before me. This is where I stand. This is how I feel in the moment. I'm not afraid to correct myself. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong on a rare occasion that I believe that I am." And that's just my mentality.

Stephen A. Smith: (07:22)
And as long as you're coming from that perspective, there's a level of humanity that's attached to your willingness to admit that you're wrong or willingness to be real and authentic because what I'm trying to convey to the audience, I want them to know they can trust me. And what I mean by that is not just trust my information, but trust that I believe what I'm telling you. If I need to be corrected, I need to be corrected, but I'm not faking anything. I'm coming at you from that perspective. And because of that, that I believe is what has been able to propel me.

Stephen A. Smith: (07:51)
So when I look at people in this industry, I would tell them all that glitters isn't gold. Be ready to put your head down and go about the business of doing the work. Don't get caught up in the sizzle, get caught up in the work. Don't get caught up in the culminating point, the end result. Get caught up in the process because there's usually a long and lengthy process that comes before the actual accomplishment. And if you're not married to that, if you're not enjoying that, then you're not going to enjoy your job.

Stephen A. Smith: (08:22)
And the difference between most people's job and my job is when I'm speaking to people, hundreds of thousands if not millions, actually at this point in time of my career, it's tens of millions of people per day. The bottom line is, is that if I don't enjoy it and I'm not passionate about it, and I don't feel what I'm talking about, the first people that are going to notice is that audience. And before long, they'll be gone, looking to find someone else that inspires them or that ingratiates themselves with them to a point where they're willing to gravitate towards them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:57)
All right. But you've got this unique thing going, you know and I know it, and God bless you for it. For me, I was getting hit in the head with a wooden spoon by my Italian nana. I had to fight it out at the dinner table on Sundays with my cousins, and that was my media training. Where did you get the media training from? Was it from your family?

Stephen A. Smith: (09:19)
Well, if you put it that way, I mean, that's easy. I'm the youngest of six. I have four older sisters that were living with-

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:25)
I'm surprised that you have a 32 inch waist, if you're the youngest of six [crosstalk 00:09:30].

Stephen A. Smith: (09:30)
It's actually 36 and counting is going down. But the point is, is that I've got four older sisters that beat me up figuratively. Literally at times, they were my litmus test per se. A few of them, no sports, my dad-

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:46)
You've taken all of that out on the Dallas Cowboys, right? All of that like pop.

Stephen A. Smith: (09:50)
For me with the Dallas Cowboys, it's really not about them, it's about their fans. I think Dallas Cowboys' fans are the most disgusting nauseated fan base in American history. They make me sick and there's nothing in life that makes me more happy when it comes to sports than to see them miserable. I think Dallas Cowboys' fans are the worst human beings a lot. It doesn't matter if they go one in 15 and the season ends on a January 5th at 7:00 PM. By 7:10, 7:15, they'll be telling you, "You know we're going to win the super bowl next year?" They don't take any time to smell themselves at how stink they are. And that's what I can't stand about Dallas Cowboys' fans, which is why I like rubbing their nose into it.

Stephen A. Smith: (10:29)
And I must be thankful to the Dallas Cowboys, because I like Jerry Jones. I really do. I like Jerry Jones a lot. And the Cowboys allure the $5 billion franchise brand that they are. Major props to him. But because of their fan base, nothing pleases me more than to watch the Dallas Cowboys lose, especially during the holidays. I don't like it when they win. They lose in September, October, but they'll win in January, February. No, I want them to lose around Thanksgiving and I want that to flow right through Christmas so the whole holiday season is ruined. I don't wish anything like that upon anyone on this planet, but the Cowboys' fans.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:09)
I'm going to take mayor of Dallas off of your second act career. No problem. You still-

Stephen A. Smith: (11:16)
He might not be a Cowboys fan. He might not be a Cowboys fan for all we know. You never know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:22)
I don't know, but you might be governor of Texas. I mean, because some of the Texas is antidotal suit. Well, let me ask you this because this is something I absolutely love about you. Of course I've been watching it like everybody else for the 17 years. You take absolutely no bullshit ever from anybody. You call people out on it on the air, you interrupt them when you know that they're giving you malarkey. And so how did you get that detector going? Is that from your sisters too? Where did that sound detector come from?

Stephen A. Smith: (11:54)
That's the streets. Born in the Bronx, raised in Hollis Queens. Walking the streets like thank God I had the most wonderful mother on the planet I didn't got arrested. That kept me off the streets in terms of me engaging in any illegal activity. But I certainly was surrounded by, in terms of the people that I knew. I grew up with drug dealers. I grew up with drug runners. I grew up with guys that were relatively violent or what have you. When you from the streets and you have to survive in that stratosphere, particularly when you're operating on the right side of the tracks, instead of the wrong side of the tracks, you've got to have your sense and you've got to be alert at all times. And you got to be able to decipher what's real from the BS. People trying to set you up, trying to put you in compromising positions and things of that nature. You got to be alerted to all of that.

Stephen A. Smith: (12:45)
And so growing up at a very young age, I knew that if I needed to survive in the streets, Ronald Reagan once said it best if I remember correctly, trust but verify. If I remember, I think that came from him and that's been my mentality a lot. I'm fortunate and blessed to have great friends and family members in my inner circle who are tremendously loved by me. They're very knowledgeable. They're very smart and what have you. But even with them, I'll double check what they have to say. I'll triple check what they have to say. That's just my MO and it comes from Ronald Reagan.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:23)
In my neighborhood, out on Long Island, there was a prolific drug culture. My uncle owned a motorcycle shop. I worked in that motorcycle shop. I've learned how to shoot craps at age 11. I learned how to drive a three speed Dodge van at age three. So everybody who I'm running money for right now is redeeming on my phone, which is fine. But I knew despite that rough crowd, that I was going to try to go straight and I was going to try to do the right things and stay away from that stuff. You did too. So there was a moment, there was a seminal moment where that popped into your head. That little bubble popped into your head, Stephen, you said, this is the where I'm going. And so offer some guidance and perspective to some of the young people that are listening to us right now. What happened? Why did that bubble pop into your head and catalyze you in the direction that you're in?

Stephen A. Smith: (14:15)
Well, a couple of things. Number one is love. The love of your loved ones closest to you who have your best interests at heart. That definitely goes a long way because even those who are operating on the wrong side of the tracks, they'll tell you, you don't need to be there. I have literally had drug dealers that would sit around and say, okay, this guy is trying to get a basketball scholarship. He's going somewhere. Do not bother him. And would instruct the people working for them do not bother him. Let him shoot his hoops at 192 park and Hollis, Queens, New York on 204th street. Let him shoot his 200, 300 jumps shot. Do not bother him. And then when it was time for them to do their business, they would say it's time for you to get on out of here. So that was love right there.

Stephen A. Smith: (14:56)
Number two violence. Because I saw somebody get gunned down right in front of my face. He got his head blown off right in front of me when I was 10 years old. So that definitely went a long way and we sort of knew his background and what he was doing. And so it crystallized in your mind that if you're doing these kinds of things in all likelihood, that's how your life would probably end. And you have to ask yourself whether or not you wanted that. And then for me personally, again, I keep bringing up my mother because she worked so hard and she made so many sacrifices. When you have someone that you love as dearly as I loved my mom, you want to make them proud, you don't want to disappoint them. And so you got to think about those things as you're striving to be something and to make something of yourself.

Stephen A. Smith: (15:42)
And a lot of times when we see youngsters out there, they've got this, what coach the John Chaney, the legendary coach John Chaney, who used to coach at Temple University, their basketball squad. He called it the microwave society. He despised the mentality that youngsters have wanting everything now and wanting everything to leapfrog the process without really working and maneuvering your way through it. And what I would encourage young people to do is not only should you go through the process, you should enjoy it because it elevates your level of knowledge. When you have to go through a certain terrain, a minefield, in order to get to where you want to go, then guess what? Once you get there, first of all, no one can question you because you've got there the right way. And number two, nobody can question your knowledge because you have experiences that most people didn't have. Look at you, Anthony, and all the things that you've been able to accomplish in your career and in your life.

Stephen A. Smith: (16:36)
The number one reason people should recognize that you're on TV a lot of times talking, when I see you on CNN and other places, is because of your knowledge and experience. It's not just your ability. Yeah, you have the ability, but you have a knowledge and a level of experience that comes along with it. So when you're talking, I see people listening to you and want to debate you. But then there are other times you're talking and people instinctually know to shut the hell up because you've been places they haven't been. That experience really buffers and augments you to another level that will ultimately enable you to speak with a level of authority that could ultimately make you successful at whatever you do. And that's my philosophy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:19)
Let me tell you something, Stephen, I'm going to be clipping that and playing it for my wife who happens to be the most expensive makeup artists in the world. She thinks it's all about her makeup is the reason why I'm on television. I want to make sure-

Stephen A. Smith: (17:31)
No, no, wait a minute. I got to give you a piece of advice, let her believe that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:35)
Okay. All right. I take it back. [crosstalk 00:17:39] because she loves Stephen. You cut this piece out.

Stephen A. Smith: (17:45)
This is the way.

John Darsie: (17:46)
We'll cut that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:48)
Of course we're not cutting anything, we're doing this live. The thing I want to say to you that is so admirable of you is the grounding. I can feel the grounding wire and you have soared my friend and congratulations to you for that. And I hope you continue to soar to ever higher and higher Heights, but there is a grounding wire. You can see it on the air. I can see it right now in this interview. Is that coming from your mom? Is that coming from your spirituality? Is that coming from your grace in terms of your gratitude at the way life has unfolded for you? Tell us about your grounding wire and how you've been able to maintain.

Stephen A. Smith: (18:29)
Well, it's all of the above, but it starts with mama. Because mama was the one that worked hard. Mama was the one that worked 16 hours a day, seven days a week, had one week vacation a year, just to feed us. Even though she was married to my dad for many years. Let's just say he wasn't as responsible as he should have been. And that put a lot of the onus on my mother's shoulders. And so to witness that, and to witness her struggle, first, it was an aspiration not to disappoint her. Then ultimately it became an aspiration to make her proud. And then in the process of doing that, then you run into other people along the way who gravitate to you because of the character she helped instill in me.

Stephen A. Smith: (19:11)
And so then, from a spiritual perspective, I go to Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, New York. My pastor is A.R. Bernard. He's a phenomenal, phenomenal, man. I love him dearly. He's always been there for me. And he's somebody that I trust implicitly. And so to have that kind of guidance, definitely helps. Then you think about the family members that you have, that my mother influenced, the people in the neighborhood that I grew up with, that I know that I could trust. Because it's not always about people being the way you want them to be, it's about them being their unapologetic selves. They don't disguise it from you, you know who they are. And as a result, you can trust them to be exactly who you know them to be. And there's a benefit to that as well.

Stephen A. Smith: (19:56)
And so all of those things come together and it helps develop you into the adult that you aspire to be because the challenges that inevitably are going to come your way, you know that you're prepared to deal with whatever, because you've seen so much of it, because you've been so thoroughly prepared by the people you love and the people that love you that are a part of your inner circle. They buffer your knowledge. They buffer your conscience. They buffer a lot of different things that help make you better at what you do.

Stephen A. Smith: (20:25)
So when I'm grounded, I'm grounded because of them as well. Because just the same way I feel about them, they feel about me. Because there's a trust there, they can tell me anything. They could tell me when they think I'm wrong. They can tell me when they think that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. They can tell me when they say, excuse me, you need to do this, you need to do that. They might lecture you. They might pester you. Sometimes you even want to listen to them. You don't want to hear it. But in the end, when you know they have both knowledge, and two, a spirit and a heart about them when it comes to you that makes trustworthy, you end up wanting to listen to them because you value them.

Stephen A. Smith: (20:59)
The people I surrounded myself with are what keep me grounded right now. Because even though I'm Stephen A. to them, I'm Steve or I'm Stephen. I'm not Stephen A. I'm the same dude that grew up in Hollis. Yeah, I might be a little bit more successful and certainly more recognizable. But the bottom line is, they will not tolerate chillings from me, because they love me just the way that I was.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:24)
Well, I mean, listen, I totally identify with that. I live two miles from where I grew up. I'm one of the few people that went to college in my family. Everybody's named Anthony because we're Italian. That's my great grandfather-

Stephen A. Smith: (21:37)
You know my middle name is Anthony, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:38)
Right, right. I know that. Of course I know that. Come on, man. Stephen A. But let me just say this, we got Anthony Auto Glass, we have Anthony Clamor, we have Anthony Pizzeria. I'm just having to be Anthony hedge fund on Christmas Eve.

Stephen A. Smith: (21:52)
I'm quite sure they would grab the hand of the hedge fund.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:56)
Trust me, they treat me like, Anthony, you know what? Low on the bottom of the shoe, which is all good by me. Before we get back to sports though, I got to ask you this, I'm really identifying with this conversation. And it's a Tyson thing. Everybody's got a plan until they get smacked up in the face, had setbacks. There's no way you're getting to be Stephen A. from Stephen, Hollis, Queens to where you are right now without setbacks. So describe your resiliency. Describe the methodology behind your resiliency and describe all of that positivity that has gotten you to where you are.

Stephen A. Smith: (22:35)
You call it positivity, I wouldn't. Matter of fact, fear is a great, great motivation for me. Fear of failure, fear of disappointment, fear of having to live with myself knowing that you may have failed because you didn't give it you all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:55)
Fear of poverty, Stephen. I've had the fear of poverty thing going my whole life.

Stephen A. Smith: (22:59)
And fear of poverty is a big thing. And I'll tell you something right now. The latest, I mean, obviously I grew up or what have you, but the latest was in 2009 ESPN elects not to renew my contract. We had a contract dispute. They elected not to renew my contract. And for a full year, I was unemployed living off of my savings. More importantly, even though I thought I had established myself in the business, clearly I hadn't because no one was knocking on my door, willing to hire me to be in television. And when you got to taste a bit, I made my first million dollars in 2005, thinking that I had arrived and what have you.

Stephen A. Smith: (23:38)
And then all of a sudden, just four years later, everything, and I do mean everything, falls apart at the time that I was expecting to be a daddy. It was incredibly scary because I grew up poor and I did not want my children ever grow up poor and struggling and starving and things of that nature. And I was literally, literally scared to death. And so that level of fear. For some reason, I put my head down, I do what I always do. I put my head down, I went to work. I pounded the pavement. I was tenacious. I persevered. And then I got back. And when I got back two years later at ESPN, because after one year I got hired by Fox Sports Radio to do their morning drive show for a year. And then after that, ESPN can call me again.

Stephen A. Smith: (24:25)
And I remember that my boss, was my boss to this very day, my immediate supervisor, his name is Dave Roberts. Phenomenal boss. I told him I'm taking over. I said the fall from grace, if you thought I couldn't be more motivated than I was before, watch out now. And so he always laughs and reminds me of my work ethic, my dedication. I remember that one of the big bosses, his name was John Wildhack. He was an executive VP over production for ESPN. He's now the athletic director at Syracuse University. And he introduced me to talk to the football team one time. And he said, I've been in the business for 35 years. I'm about to introduce our next speaker, talking about me. He said, he's the first man in my 35 years that I had to make, take vacation. The dude doesn't stop. And that is a reputation I love to have. When am I off? When the job is done. When am I finished? When the job is done.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
I love it. I love it. And I'm going to tell you something funny about Dave Roberts. I'm on CNN on the morning show and I'm doing it from my home studio, of course, because of COVID. My wife comes down with the cordless phone and she says, "Do you know a Dave Roberts?" And I said, "No." And she said, "Well, there's a guy by the name of Dave Roberts on the phone. He wants to talk to you." I'd just gotten off the air. I pick up the phone. I said, "Hello. "He says, "I'm Dave Roberts from ESPN. I got your phone number by looking it up on Google," there's my phone number. He's cold calling me, "Because I just want to tell you man, you're awesome on television and keep up the good work." And that's Dave Roberts, am I wrong about that? Or no?

Stephen A. Smith: (26:13)
That's him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:14)
And now him and I probably talk once or twice a month about what's going on in the world and sports and life and everything else.

Stephen A. Smith: (26:22)
He's a winner. He's a winner. Whatever he touches, turns to gold, as far as I'm concerned.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:27)
He absolutely loves you. I have to turn it over to John Darsie in a second because if we don't get these millennials in, we don't get the ratings that I want. I got to let Darsie in in a second. But I just got to ask you two more quick questions. I want your favorites for the Super Bowl, you've been thinking about it. Who are your favorites?

Stephen A. Smith: (26:51)
Well, I had Tampa Bay at the beginning of the season, but right now I'm thinking the Kansas City Chiefs versus the Green Bay Packers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:58)
All right, that'd be an exciting game. Second question, of the leagues, COVID-19 who handled it the best, of the pro leagues?

Stephen A. Smith: (27:08)
Without a question the NBA, that's an easy one right there. When you consider the sacrifices that the players made combined with the team and the league itself, how organized they were. They went like the last couple of months or so, I'm talking about that whole time in the bubble. They didn't have one single positive test. It was unbelievable. You have players holding other players accountable. One player snuck some woman in there, and he didn't even get a chance to test positive. They sent them home. They didn't play. The NBA was on their game. The players were on their game. And I can't say enough for two people. I can't say enough. Of course, Adam Silver, the commissioner, did a phenomenal job. Of course, Michele Roberts and the Players Association, she's the executive director. They did a phenomenal job.

Stephen A. Smith: (27:53)
But two people really, really stand out. Chris Paul, who is the president of the Players Association and perennial all-star future Hall of Famer. This guy in terms of his willingness to play and play to the level that he played while at the same time, negotiating deals and stipulations on behalf of the players to make sure play could resume. You just can't say enough about the phenomenal job that he did and the level of credit that he deserves.

Stephen A. Smith: (28:20)
And more importantly, just as important is LeBron James. We can slice it any way we want to. This is the greatest play in the world right now. He ended up winning a fourth championship, but to be stuck in a bubble for 96 days, to be away from family loved ones and friends, to play the way that he played and keep his team as motivated and as focused as they needed to be in order to capture a championship and still carry that Baton while bringing attention to the George Floyds of the world, the Breonna Taylors of the world and others when we were talking about African-Americans and law enforcement officials, you just can't say enough about all the stuff that was on LeBron James' shoulders and the way that he handled himself and his team, enabling the Los Angeles Lakers to walk away with the 17th title in franchise history. You just can't say enough about it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:14)
Well, I'm going to turn it over, but I just let if you ever come to my office and visit me in New York, I've got a huge picture of Jackie Robinson in my office. And on the other side of the office, I got Muhammad Ali. Who are two of my heroes because they were originals and you know how much Jackie Robinson took to be in the Major Leagues. And a lot of the peace and social justice that we have found in our society has been moved by men and women of sports who had that level of courage and had that level of tenacity. Of course the champ, when I think about the GOAT, Muhammad Ali, what he was like in the sixties and what he stood for which everyone is still fighting for today. I got to turn it over to Darsie here, Stephen A., but if we get close, I'm going to start calling you Anthony, after your middle name. You'd be known as Steven Ant. All right?

Stephen A. Smith: (30:08)
No problem.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:10)
Go ahead, Darsie. I know you've got some audience participation questions.

John Darsie: (30:12)
Yeah, I couldn't let Stephen A. out of here without talking a little shop with the GOAT, when it comes to TV personality. I grew up watching SportsCenter. It was appointment television for me when I was younger. Sports media has evolved with the advent of the iPhone and on-demand clips. Stephen A., in my opinion, has become the appointment television for ESPN in 2020, and even prior to this.

John Darsie: (30:39)
I want to build on that conversation about social justice issues a little bit and LeBron James. I always find that amusing that sometimes the hate that's directed at him for certain things that he does and people accuse him of being inauthentic. But I think as much as anyone, he's given other athletes the courage. You had people like Colin Kaepernick who stepped forward as well, but given players the courage to really make social justice a big part of their identity. Do you think that we're at a tipping point in our society today? And do you think athletes have led us to that tipping point where we're really going to see some of these social justice and racial justice issues start to turn and reach a more equitable society?

Stephen A. Smith: (31:19)
Well, my direct answer to that question is that we better be making the turn. We better be moving in that direction. Because if not, athletes today are more empowered than ever before. And as a result, there's going to be a hefty price paid by corporate America and beyond, make no mistake about it. What a lot of folks don't realize is that they keep forgetting the communities these guys come from. You might become rich and famous. You might become wealthy, but to a modern day athlete in particular, you never forget home. Because if you do, they may not forget about you, but you'll be a pariah. And nobody wants to feel like a pariah from their own hometown. You just don't want that. And when I say hometown, I'm talking about the streets that you come from, it could be inner city streets across the United States of America.

Stephen A. Smith: (32:07)
On many occasions, I've often told white bosses this, white folks come to work with a job to do every day. Black folks come with a responsibility. When Trayvon Martin got hot by George Zimmerman, the black community looked at me and said, "Stephen A., you got to talk about this. Stephen A., you got to say this. You got to say that." Now, I never feel compelled to say what anyone wants me to say. I say what the hell I want to say, what I feel, but I do feel compelled to make sure their voices are heard. I do feel compelled to make sure that whatever message the collective whole of our community has that they want disseminated. That I make sure that I express that and disseminate that to the masses. So the masses will know.

Stephen A. Smith: (32:51)
I feel no obligation to agree with it or disagree with it, but I do feel an obligation to make sure that people from our community are heard. And I think if I feel that way, imagine how some of these athletes feel. Now they're not on national TV every day, and I get that, but they do have social media accounts, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook in the millions, in some cases, the tens of millions, in some cases, over a hundred million. And so their reach is incredibly extensive. When you combine that with the wealth that they have at their disposal or rather, I like to say rich, because to me, wealth and riches is two different things, but these guys are rich. And so they've got enough cache, enough muscle in the public eye to really, really make some noise and resonate in a very, very profound fashion.

Stephen A. Smith: (33:38)
I would caution corporate America to make sure they hear that loud and clear and they operate accordingly. Because one thing is absolutely positively true, the days of these dudes being timid and shy and apprehensive have rapidly come to an end, at least for some of them. Too much influence in social media and beyond, too much influence with the younger generation is what they have to sit idly by and ignore some of the transgressions that have taken place in our society. That's what they were doing this summer. That's what they were doing since COVID took place. That's what they were doing since George Floyd got killed and what have you. And I don't anticipate that that's going to stop. If they're able to look at America and say, you haven't changed one bit, you're the same damn way you've always been. If America elects to be that way, there's going to be a problem.

John Darsie: (34:32)
Yeah, we've had really successful prominent African-American business people on this program. And we've heard them talk about how they don't always love having to speak up about these types of issues. Throughout their career, they attribute some of their success to just blending in and not having to consider themselves different than everybody else, but today they have no choice. They feel like, you know what? I have to lift up my brothers and sisters and I have to speak out and I have to be active on these issues because I have no choice.

Stephen A. Smith: (35:03)
It's important that everybody also understands why. It's not just because of that, it's because the choice of being quiet no longer exist. That's the real issue here. So because you are now compelled to speak up, that means you have to take a side. Now, you can take the side [inaudible 00:35:25], or you could take the side of your community and speak up and speak out about issues relevant to your community. These athletes find themselves in that untenable position and they have no choice, but to embrace it, some love it because they love having a voice. And they finally get an opportunity to express themselves knowing millions are going to hear them. Some are very reluctant to do it because they know how they feel is going to cost them in some capacity, either in corporate America or it's going to cost them a price with their own community.

John Darsie: (35:57)
Right. I want to shift gears a little bit to talk about sort of the business of sports and the business of sports media. Disney just announced they're giving you another show on their ESPN+ streaming service. We're seeing this massive movement towards streaming. You have Netflix that's disrupted the entire entertainment industry. Warner Media announced they're going to start simulcasting their movies on HBO Max. Disney+ has obviously been a great success at your parent company. How do you think we're going to continue to see sports media evolve in a world where media rights are so valuable and expensive and so entertaining people in different ways on different platforms is going to be so important.

Stephen A. Smith: (36:36)
Well, I think you're going to see cable suffer to a degree because outside of live events, why not go direct to streaming? Why not go direct to consumer? It's a more feasible and profitable way it appears to go about doing your business. When you have to pay cable operators and things of that nature, that's going to compromise your bottom line to some degree, which is why I think you've seen layoffs across the board everywhere.

Stephen A. Smith: (36:57)
As it pertains to me, my show is going to be called Stephen A's World. It's going to be the lighter version. I'm going to be looking to have fun and make people laugh and enjoy themselves and have a good time because we all know I'll bring the heat on ESPN, whether it's on SportsCenter, whether it's on First Take, whether it's when I'm hosting my own NBA show that Stephen A. is going to always be there. But there is a lighter, more fun side to me, sort of that late night feel because my ultimate aspiration is to actually own the late night show. The way Arsenio Hall and Jay Leno and David Letterman and guys like that ones did.

Stephen A. Smith: (37:29)
My ultimate aspiration is to actually do that one day. So that's an aspiration that I have. And I think that this is going to go in the direction of showing my willingness and hopefully my ability to do such a thing. But again, to answer the question directly, when you see these athletes getting involved, athletes are exploring the business side of things. They understand content a little bit better than they've been given credit for because they bend the content providers, not just because of their plate on the court or field of play, but the interviews that they've done, the statements that they've made, the way that they've resonated in social media and beyond. The means that they've seen put out there in social media and what have you.

Stephen A. Smith: (38:10)
It gives you the impression that you might have an elevated level of knowledge when it comes to content providing. And as a result, it makes you gung ho about sticking your fingers into that bowl to sort of see where that will take you, because we all know that no matter what people make in front of the camera, there's always people making a lot more that are behind the camera. And so these guys see those kinds of things transpire. You also have to take into account, the individuals that they run into. Go to a Lakers game, you'll see folks from Disney, you'll see folks from Fox and other networks. You'll see directors, producers in Hollywood and beyond. When these folks go about the business of ingratiating themselves with you and allowing you to do the same and you make those kind of connections. And then you see the kind of things that they want to do in the world of television streaming and beyond.

Stephen A. Smith: (39:03)
As it pertains to content, it gets you excited about the possibilities of what you might be able to do if you were so lucky to be afforded such an opportunity. So those kinds of things, these players are thinking about because they want a stream of revenue. Remember, our careers going on. I'm 53. And as far as I'm concerned, I'm literally barely in my prime. I got about 15, 20 years left in this business as far as I'm concerned. You guys, the same thing. These players, most guys careers are over by 30. They're lucky enough, some at 35, some football players, the Tom Bradys of the world, Drew Brees of the world are very fortunate to be in their forties.

Stephen A. Smith: (39:45)
Well, what the hell are you going to do with the rest of your life? You start thinking about those things. And that's why they venture into this business realm to the degree that they're doing so. Because they're looking for an outlet, they don't have to step away. From the cheers, the adulation and all of these other things to being obsolete. They want to play different roles. They don't mind stepping away from the cheer, the crowd, but they don't want to step from stardom to be an obsolete. That's a bit too extreme for them in the stomach. And as a result, that's why they are hungry to do things in this business. And I don't blame them.

John Darsie: (40:19)
All right. Switching gears again, I want to talk about leadership a little bit. I'm a native North Carolinian, but you're a New Yorker. Anthony's a New Yorker. You guys have suffered through many decades of subpar performance from your professional sports franchises. I'll leave it there. It brings me to a question. We have a lot of corporate executives that tune into SALT Talks and so relating business leadership and sports leadership and sports business leadership, what in your observation, viewing up close the dysfunction of some of the New York franchises and also having relationships with the very successful franchise owners and leadership and those organizations, what are the characteristics of a good and bad franchise in sports?

Stephen A. Smith: (41:03)
Well, first of all, the bad characteristics are people that hate working for you, for a multitude of reasons. You cut corners. You take shortcuts. Winning is not your top priority. Mediocrity is not something that you appear to have a problem with. Those kinds of things definitely give you a sour taste in your mouth if you're a professional sports team, a professional athlete, or what have you. You really don't want to have much to do with that. Those that have winning situations, yeah, it's associated with excellence, but it involves the excellence of the culture as opposed to the bottom line.

Stephen A. Smith: (41:42)
If you're a performer, what you want to do is look at your superiors and say, "I have everything I need to win. It's on me." You're not running from the challenge of it being placed on your shoulders. You're despondent in fact, when you're in an environment that you don't deem to be conducive to winning. It's an incredibly, incredibly tough situation to be in when you know that you could be doing better and your product could be doing better, but the decisions by the higher ups is what's holding you back. Because when you see something like that happen, you don't want to hear them talk to you about winning because you know that they could snap their fingers and make decisions that are conducive to winning, and they just refuse to do it. And so as a result of that, that's certainly not a winning formula. That's something to take into consideration.

Stephen A. Smith: (42:31)
But what a winning formula is, particularly as it pertains to bosses, inspiring people to want to work for you, to want to work with you. Being committed to excellence, showing them that it's not just about your excellence, it's about theirs as well, and how we all rise together. Magic Johnson was famous by telling his teammates, man, we all should. "You could see me on the commercial doing something for Converse or McDonald's or something like that, but trust me, endorsement deals are going to come your way. Popularity is going to come your way, the perks and the cache that comes associated with success and winning they're going to come your way."

Stephen A. Smith: (43:09)
And he was unapologetic about it. And he was very sincere and projecting that kind of imagery and it came to fruition. They saw that he was right and then inspired them to perform with him and for him even more. When you look at Pat Riley and South Beach with the Miami Heat, well, he's got rings. LeBron James wants to depart from Cleveland and he comes to Miami. And even though he had already talked with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh about joining forces, when he sat down with the Miami Heat and everybody had presentation and films and all of these other things to appeal to LeBron James, Pat Riley, sat in front of him and put down five rings and said, "Do you want one of these? Yes or no?" And that's what it took.

Stephen A. Smith: (43:54)
We taught that to the business world. Larry Bird's got a group of 13 other people, and they're trying to buy the Charlotte Basketball franchise at the time. The asking price is $300 million. And Larry Bird's group has about 250, 260, they're about 40 million short, but he's Larry Bird. And they want to give them time to get the assets necessary in order to buy the franchise, et cetera, et cetera. All of this stuff is being talked about. But Bob Johnson, former owner for BET knows Jerry Colangelo. Both of them went to the University of Illinois. There was a connection there. What happens, Jerry Colangelo, owner for the Phoenix Suns at the time, he's got an in with the NBA owners because he's been associated with the NBA since the sixties. So he gets Bob Johnson to the negotiating table.

Stephen A. Smith: (44:46)
And Bob Johnson sits at the negotiating table and tells these board of governors, which consist of each owner for the team or the chief executive they choose to appear as their board of governor. And he shows up and he said, "I appreciate the greatness of Larry Bird. He's done a lot for the NBA. Very, very special. But last time I checked, this was a business deal. And here is my financial portfolio." And his financial portfolio was worth $1.7 billion. And the next words out of his mouth was, "Who do I cut the check to?"

Stephen A. Smith: (45:20)
We have to understand, it's networking. It's connections. It's all of that stuff too. But at the end of the day, what's the rule of the game that you're playing. He knew the rules and it was finances. Pat Riley knew the rules, it was rings. Magic Johnson knew the rules, it was competing for and putting yourself in a position to win championships. And they made sure to articulate and aluminate that agenda for all to see. Showing that it wasn't just a benefit to them, but to the very people they were trying to appeal to. And as a result, everybody bought in because of it. And that's why they are who they are, and most of us aspire to be who they are.

John Darsie: (46:05)
And Bob Johnson proceeded to name the team after himself, the Bobcat's and then we [crosstalk 00:46:14]. And then we flipped it to our good friend, Michael Jordan, who I still think Michael is going to turn it around. He's a North Carolina guy like me.

Stephen A. Smith: (46:18)
I hope so. He's a friend.

John Darsie: (46:21)
So last question, we can't let the preeminent NBA analyst in the world leave without giving some predictions for the season that starting next week. Who do you think wins the NBA championship this year? Lakers are going to repeat? [crosstalk 00:46:35].

Stephen A. Smith: (46:35)
You had a champion and you had the best off season. And that off season, Dennis Schröder and Marc Gasol and Montrezl Harrell. I mean, my goodness, they had the best off season.

John Darsie: (46:50)
Horton-Tucker looks like a player.

Stephen A. Smith: (46:52)
Yeah, he does.

John Darsie: (46:53)
So what are some teams and players that may be not on the mainstream radar or people that follow the NBA less closely that you think are going to take a big step forward this season?

Stephen A. Smith: (47:03)
Listen, in the Western Conference, the elite teams are the Lakers, the Clippers, the Dallas Mavericks. They definitely stand out. There's no question about that. Houston is taking a step back because Russell Westbrook is gone. James Harden doesn't want to be there. A trade seems eminent at some point. So they're not going to be the same, but in terms of an up and coming team, look out for the Phoenix Suns, Devin Booker is a star. You've got Deandre Ayton and others that can play on this squad. There's something special. Don't ignore them. Chris Paul is there now as well. So we can't ignore that.

Stephen A. Smith: (47:39)
You got to pay attention to the Warriors. I know Klay Thompson is out for the year, but Steph Curry has returned. They drafted this kid, James Wiseman and number two out of Memphis, even though he only played about three games. They still have some of the pieces. They picked up Kelly Oubre. They've got Andrew Wiggins. This kid Paschall that was on a bench and averaging 14 a game last year. He's going to play an integral role as well. When you consider that, they should be a playoff team. And when you consider once that Klay Thompson gets back, not this upcoming season, but next year, they might be right back in the championship picture.

Stephen A. Smith: (48:14)
When you look at Portland, they picked up Robert Covington to pair with CJ McCollum and Damian Lillard and those boys. You can't ignore them either. As the Western Conference, I would say Phoenix to answer your question directly. In the East, you've got Philly, Boston, Toronto, Miami and Milwaukee, especially with the Greek Freak agreeing up for the five years, $228 million for the-

John Darsie: (48:33)
Were you surprised about that? Were you surprised about him re-upping?

Stephen A. Smith: (48:34)
I was a little surprised because I thought that he would weigh his options. I thought that Pat Riley in South Beach would have a chance, but if you saw the documentary on him and his family, how poor he was, how much they struggled and starved and what have you, to be embraced by the Milwaukee community the way that he was, for the organization to do things for his family, like his brother is on the roster for crying out loud, no disrespect for his brother, but there's no way in hell his brother would be on an NBA roster if it were not for him, but that's the case. They took care of him in every way. And so they appealed to him in a way that said, hey, you know what? He's like, I'm in a great, great situation. They love me. So I'm going to stick with that.

Stephen A. Smith: (49:20)
I look at those teams and Milwaukee, anybody can come out from those teams, Milwaukee, Boston, Miami, affiliate of four. We'll see about Boston even though I love Jason Tatum and Jaylen Brown, I question their depth. But the team that I'm looking at right now is Atlanta in terms of what could end up happening to them. I mean, this was a horrible team last year, but Trey Young could really, really play. They've got some other pieces. They just added Rondo to their squad as well, who's a guy that knows how to run a basketball team. And so you got to keep your eyes on one of those up and coming teams. Not that they're going to win the championship or anything like that, but that they could make things interesting than it once was.

Anthony Scaramucci: (50:01)
We knew the kid was going to get signed because we had Mark Lasry, the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks on a SALT Talk. And you could tell from the way he answered that question, he wasn't letting that kid out of Milwaukee.

Stephen A. Smith: (50:13)
Right. Well listen, all you can do is offer them all the money in the world, but it's up to them to take it or not. In the case of Kevin Durant, he turned it down. In the case of LeBron James, he turned it down. In the case of Anthony Davis, he turned it down. So it wasn't a matter of the money because you knew that they were going to offer him the max. It was just about what he wanted to do, but he said it best. He said, they embraced me when no one else would. They were looking at me, they saw this kid out of Greece. You got to remember the Greek Freak, he's gained 57 pounds of muscle since he arrived in the NBA. He's a freak of nature that ... No one saw that coming. No one saw that coming.

Anthony Scaramucci: (50:53)
Stephen, see if you can get me introduced to his trainer, can you help me with that? Because I need 57 pounds of muscle.

Stephen A. Smith: (51:00)
I don't think any of us need 57 pounds of muscle at this age, but I will tell you this, I can use some of those muscles. Ain't no doubt about that. I can still use a stamina. I can tell you that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:09)
Tough kid. Well, you've been absolutely terrific. Thank you so much for joining us on SALT Talks. I wish you and your family an amazing Christmas holiday and great New Year's. Hopefully we'll get you back. We got a lot to talk about. We could have 20 SALT Talks with you, Stephen A.

Stephen A. Smith: (51:27)
Well, thank you so much. I appreciate it. And if you don't mind me giving myself a plug, remember Stephen A's World debuts on ESPN+ January 11th, Monday, January 11th. I'll be on every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, because I'll still be doing my NBA show on Wednesday.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:45)
Twitter handle? What's your Twitter handle?

Stephen A. Smith: (51:47)
Oh, @stephenasmith.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:47)
All right.

Stephen A. Smith: (51:47)
All right.

John Darsie: (51:47)
Stephen A's World, go out and get that Disney bundle. I have three young kids, Disney+ is a hit in my household. I got my ESPN+ for when they go to bed and I can consume some sports content and you also get Hulu is the best deal in the world. And now let's make Steven's parent company happy. Go and get that Disney bundle and watch Steven A's World on ESPN+ starting January 11th.

Stephen A. Smith: (52:13)
Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Oh, by the way, I want to say this to y'all too. Not only am I hosting it, I'm the executive producer of it. And my production company is co-producing it, Mr. SAS Productions. So I'm the executive producer, the host and co-producing it as a company. I'm stepping into your world, Anthony, I'm trying to learn from you now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (52:33)
Now, I know it's going to be super successful. I knew it before that, but now I triple know it.

Stephen A. Smith: (52:36)
I'm glad, man.

Anthony Scaramucci: (52:38)
Well, you be well. God blessed you, mam. Hopefully we can get you to one of our live events before too long.

Stephen A. Smith: (52:42)
Absolutely. Looking forward to it. God bless and happy holidays to y'all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (52:45)
You too, brother. Thank you.

Ida Beerhalter: Helping Women Find Their Voice in Business | SALT Talks #132

“When it comes to financials in the family offices, I see a lot of the daughters taking charge and a lot of the fathers actually proud letting them take charge.”

Ida Beerhalter is co-head of IOME, a private investment partnership of women principals from the Gulf with its head office in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Beerhalter currently serves as Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Astia, USA.

It is important for a member of an educational family office to first understand who they are. This involves recognizing both strengths and weakness in order to then set up an effective structure and team. More women in family businesses are getting involved and taking control of their financial destiny which offers a new form of empowerment. It is important for women to learn about themselves in the work place and ultimately use their skills to thrive. This often involves helping women find their voice, literally. “We had training for [women’s] voices, for them to speak up. As an example, we did it by screaming through a park.. I have them read something, different sentences, and I need to hear it even 50 meters away.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Ida Beerhalter.jpeg

Ida Beerhalter

Co-Head

IOME Private Investment Office

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, and I'm a senior advisor at Skybridge Capital based in Abu Dhabi, as well as being the emcee for SALT, a thought leadership forum and networking platform that encompasses business, technology, and politics.

Rachel Pether: (00:26)
Now, SALT Talks, as many of you know, is a series of digital interviews with some of the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers, and just as we do at our global SALT conference series, we aim to empower really big, important ideas and provide our audience the window into the mind of subject matter experts.

Rachel Pether: (00:45)
Today we'll be focusing on wealth and why it can be both suffocating and liberating. I'm very excited to be joined by someone I consider a dear friend, Ida Beerhalter, the co-head of IOME Private Investment office. An investment partnership of women principals in Saudi Arabia.

Rachel Pether: (01:03)
Now, Ida has a number of strategic advisory and board positions, a not for profit organization focused on propelling women's participation as entrepreneurs and leaders. Ida also acts as senior advisor to Women Empowerment Global Forum, and the Female Board Pool, a European organization that focuses on a [inaudible 00:01:23] woman to board of director positions.

Rachel Pether: (01:26)
Now as always, if you have any questions for Ida during today's talk, just enter them in the Q and A section of your screen. Ida, thank you so much for joining us today.

Ida Beerhalter: (01:36)
Thank you for having me.

Rachel Pether: (01:40)
Now, firstly, maybe you could start. We were having a conversation just before. I've known you for some time and I've never actually known what IOME stands for. So maybe before we begin, you could actually outline what IOME, I-O-M-E, stands for.

Ida Beerhalter: (01:58)
So there are three meanings. When we named the child, we had different ideas and at the end everybody was happy, actually IOME is a word play. Like saying I Own Me. Then the one like me who wanted a very rational name is Investment Office Middle East. Then also what we are doing is the I is for Invest, the O is for Observe, the M is for Mentor, and the E is for Educate. So we were quite happy with the outcome, so that everybody got the meaning they wanted.

Rachel Pether: (02:30)
I love that. I also love the fact that you take your nice German structure to the name. To maybe we start there, your German by origin. Tell me what took you to Saudi Arabia a decade ago.

Ida Beerhalter: (02:47)
So what made me brought there. I was involved with this woman leadership, like Astia, and I was a trustee there. Then, I did a talk in London about woman leadership and at the time I worked for a Swiss family office. The talk brought me to the attention of some people who actually wanted to control their wealth themself. We ended up that I went to Saudi, we had a conversation. We actually had no idea except that there was the desire to be in control of wealth and their financial destiny and what to do. In the end, we founded an educational family office. For example, my husband asked me when I came back from Saudi after my first strip what an educational family office is, I actually had to reply, "I'm not sure yet, we will figure it out in the way."

Ida Beerhalter: (03:41)
It was also for me a journey because it combined what I did. A family office, but the empowerment part, especially the empowerment part of women. Over the years, we then found out that taking charge of your financial destiny means a lot. It also means that you have to take on responsibility, you have to take charge of not just financial but social destiny and your educational destiny, and that you have to... it's not just being rich. Being rich is hard work if you want to do it the right way.

Rachel Pether: (04:21)
So, this was 10 years ago that your husband said to you, "What is an educational family office?" If I was to say that to you now, what would your response be?

Ida Beerhalter: (04:30)
It's a holistic thing. First, you have to find out who you are, what you are, and what your ecosystem is. That's the most important thing. Especially when you are... are you to owner of the wealth? Are you just the beneficiary of the wealth? Are you the nominal owner of the wealth, that other people control your destiny because you have no clue what's going on with your investments? Do you want to know what's going on with your investments, or are you rather the ignorant type? For me, it's important that you are honest with yourself and found out who are, what your capabilities are, what your talents are, and then you have to structure everything around it what you want to be or what you can be. Sometimes you have to accept that it's not possible.

Ida Beerhalter: (05:13)
We have, for example, the situation that we had a woman in the network who was, let me say, intellectually not very gifted. So actually it was quite dangerous for her to assume that she could control her wealth in a way, but it was more likely that other people who are much more intelligent than her would take advantage of her. So we build up a system for her that she was surrounded by people she could trust and people who would not take advantage of her. Her talent is actually in the artistic field. So she could go and pursue her artistic talent, we have different talents. So for example, there are people who can't cook and people who are fantastic at cook. Then it comes to intellectual capabilities. We judge people more harsh and I really don't understand it, why that is the case.

Ida Beerhalter: (06:01)
But if you are wealthy, you are very vulnerable because wealth attracts per se a lot of the wrong people for the wrong reasons. This was my nicest journey because she was always embarrassed because she knew that she was not, let me say quite colloquial, the brightest bulb in the lamp, and she tried to hide it all the time. It took a lot of energy for her to do that. By using the time for hiding this, she lost the opportunity to look after her artistic talent. Now, she is in a situation where her wealth is controlled, she understands what's going on because there are people who are trustworthy and explain it to her, people who respect her for who she is, and know that she needs more time to understand financial things, and she can use her money to support artists and pursue her artist destiny. For me that was one of the most beautiful things that at the end, we found something which works perfectly for her without barking up the wrong tree.

Rachel Pether: (07:06)
Yeah, that's a really great story. Thank you for sharing that. You mentioned vulnerability, Ida, so maybe we can dive a bit more into some of the issues that come with wealth. It can be both liberating and suffocating at the same time. So maybe talk me through some more of those issues, and also how you're dealing within the Private Office.

Ida Beerhalter: (07:32)
So, you are as vulnerable as your ecosystem, then you're very wealthy. Not a lot of people choose really the ecosystem or think about the ecosystem. You're born in a family, that's your first ecosystem. Then your other ecosystem develops out of that. A lot of people don't really sit back and ask themself, so what would I choose for myself if I could choose? You know, sometimes your parents give you advice for your professional destiny and they're maybe not the best people to ask because they live in their own ecosystem, they have their own kind of piece of knowledge. This is the same for financial destinies. So your vulnerable because people creep up to you with intentions because they want to sell you something or they want to participate in your wealth. The only question that you have to ask, that's fine if people want to participate, but is it justified that they participate. So is it somebody who works for you in a capacity which is beneficial for you? Or is it just somebody who takes advantage of you, drags you into the wrong things? Does not really let you grow but rather keeps you back.

Ida Beerhalter: (08:51)
There are family offices who by design keep the moment of wealth owners stupid and distant from their wealth. Trust funds is a special example. You make a trust fund to keep the money from your children or the control from your children, and you trust that the people administer the trust fund are the better people. That might be the case but it also might not be the case. You know, a lot of the trust fund kids where a lot of people are paid as trustees, and they are not paid meager money, to take care of the money and they do it sometimes better, sometimes worse.

Ida Beerhalter: (09:31)
If you want to read about Hershey chocolate. There is a book about the Hershey family and about how the foundation and everything went wrong because it obviously went in the hands of the wrong people. In the end, the intention of the people who created the wealth and what happened to that is one of the most irritating examples I know of. There are many more. [crosstalk 00:09:58]

Ida Beerhalter: (10:00)
Excuse me, when the [inaudible 00:10:02] is that you are afraid of that it becomes public knowledge. Especially in the Middle East I found a lot of people who said, "Oh you know, I was taken advantage of. Sometimes people stole my money," and I say, "Why don't you go after them?" They don't because they don't want to lose face. The crooks build on your fear of losing your face and they'd rather lose their money. This frustrates me sometimes a lot.

Rachel Pether: (10:34)
What's that saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, I think that comes into play a bit here as well. I want to go a bit deeper into the ecosystem piece, especially because I know you focus a lot of the female principals. So tell me a bit about how the gender biases play out in this relationship in terms of trusting someone of being taken advantage of. What are some of the biases you see there?

Ida Beerhalter: (11:06)
I think first one of the positive biases is that women have a very good gut feeling, much more than men. If they learn to trust it. Sometimes they don't trust the gut feeling because they are limited by their culture. For example, you have to respect an elder man. Or you respect an elder woman. It's the same. There are some biases or some things which keep you from thinking clearly. It's like a fog in your brain.

Ida Beerhalter: (11:38)
A lot of cultures, men with a lot of children are respected people of a society, and I always ask myself why. Why is the ability to see a lot of children say something about a person, the character of a person? There are other things and if you start thinking about that... this is what we do a lot, to think about what triggers the emotion positively, negatively. So why do people trigger your fear to lose a good business opportunity, to make you sign a piece of paper and sign off your investments. So there are some simple things where you can learn to start saying no also to yourself. You don't sign what you don't understand and you're not afraid to tell people, "I don't understand because it's not my problem that I don't understand. If you want to sell me something, it's your problem to make me understand. It's not my problem. If you can't, I don't buy." So being a little bit more harsher.

Ida Beerhalter: (12:40)
Then, especially in the Middle East culture, you tell a good woman is kind of shy, she rather doesn't look people in the eye, there are a lot of things where you virtually train habits, so socially habits, which when it comes to your wealth are really harming yourself. You have to split your personality. It's not difficult because I have also split personality. I am different when I'm with my children, as a mother, than I am with my parents or when I fight with my husband. So you just need to consciously split your personality with more that you say, in a social context, as a wealthy woman, I behave that way. But then it comes to my money and I talk with a banker, I actually look him in the eye and I'm not afraid to even use the F word at one point if I deem it fit.

Ida Beerhalter: (13:39)
So you have to add a layer to your personality where you can act in this environment, in this ecosystem, in a reasonable way that you can make your point. So it doesn't mean that you do the same in your social system, except you want to change your social acceptance. If you want to be heard by your father that you might want to be a candidate to take over the company, or to manage the wealth of the family, then he must see you and he might be very uncomfortable because if he only is used to women in a different context, then you have to give him time to get used to you. To this new you. You cannot go in like with a machine gun and tell people now I'm this person, I want this. Because you live in a ecosystem, you live in a family, you have to give people time to adjust and sometimes you have to leave a certain ecosystem because you cannot grow. But this is an even harder decision, especially when it comes to family.

Ida Beerhalter: (14:45)
We had this situation as well, where the lady made a conscious decision to stay in the family because she said, "My money, or the control of my money, is not worth leaving my family behind and this would be the only option. I have to tell my father I'm leaving you, and my brothers, because they don't trust me to handle the money." She made a conscious decision, and a conscious decision is much more better to live with, to accept, than a decision which is forced on you and you always regret the circumstances and you feel like a victim. If you take on to make a conscious decision you are no longer a victim.

Ida Beerhalter: (15:26)
I think women need to think consciously in what situation they have to be who, and add just this other layer. This is what we did with the financial thing. We say, "You know what, if it's your money, you look people in the eye, you have a very harsh handshake because it's good to set the scene, and you make your point." You even speak loud, you speak in a voice you would never think about speaking to your parents. So we had training for the voices, for them to speak up.

Ida Beerhalter: (16:02)
As an example, we did it my screaming through a park. Where I stand in front of them and then we made more and more distance, and they had to say a sentence to me and I need to understand the sentence. I have them something to read, different sentences, and I need to hear it even 50 meters away and they really had to shout at me for me to understand what they are doing. It was one of our most embarrassing exercises in the middle of London, where I think a lot of people are thinking about calling the guys with the white suits with the long arms. But it was part of the game. We enjoyed it.

Rachel Pether: (16:41)
That's an excellent story. I'm happy you're doing that in a London park rather than in Saudi or in Abu Dhabi. That might have saved you [inaudible 00:16:50].

Rachel Pether: (16:50)
What I think is most interesting, you talk about tourism [inaudible 00:16:55] and I think it's quite easy for people like yourself and myself having grown up in the western background, we appreciate it. We can make [inaudible 00:17:07] choices, we've always had that freedom. It's quite a cultural shift when you've never really had choice. An audience question has actually come in: given you've been in Saudi for 10 years, have you noticed a shift in recent years [inaudible 00:17:26] MBS coming into power and relaxing some of the other [inaudible 00:17:30] Saudi, like giving women the power to drive, etc. have you seen that accelerating cultural shift?

Ida Beerhalter: (17:37)
Actually, I would say, and I'm not sure if this is offensive, but I would actually say that MBS is a female role model because he is a role model for some men to change the system in the way where they know they have power and they say, "I use my power for the good of others." So he opened the country a lot. I really think he forced some men out of their comfort zone and tell them, "You know what, your comfort zone was this totally covered up, not very empowered women, and now we accept that our female population is part of our essence. So we don't ignore the essence any longer because we want the talent, we want the education we invest in them. So why would you educate the women and then don't let them use the education you give them?" I really see this, and an outer, let me say, signal, the clothing restriction had loosened up a lot. I think that it's also important that it's not just in the mind of the people but also visible to the people. The men who are more afraid to leave the comfort zone, because they believe that when woman is taking charge that there's a danger, they get more comfortable. Of course there are aggressions, because the people who fear the change, they fear and they're only option is to become aggressive. You still have them also.

Ida Beerhalter: (19:32)
So the country has changed a lot and I really hope that this road to direction, which whatever the pace the country is able to go, is going because as I said, for me you can't ignore half of your essence, your human essence, by making the other half comfortable and actually telling them you harm your essence to be more comfortable. It's like a bit you have a fantastic piece of land or garden, whatever, and you don't plow it, you just shut it off, let it lying bare and not develop it.

Ida Beerhalter: (20:12)
I really like the energy in the country. What you feel the [inaudible 00:20:21] of people want to do something and I'm not sure if it's just my feeling, but I see a lot of entrepreneurs. I hear from a lot of people that they want to create businesses. A lot of ideas and sometimes crazy ideas, but the crazy ideas are the really creative ones. You see the arts coming up, you see the sports coming up. So there's a lot of development, mental development, the mental societal development which is amazing. The pace they are going is breathtaking.

Ida Beerhalter: (20:55)
I think a lot of the men over there who support the women should not be offended by me saying they are female role models. The same like some women out there, I know some women there who are actually male role models, who let men be in awe of them. If you, for example, see Reema bint Bandar, who is the U.S. Ambassador, or the ambassador of Saudi to the U.S., she is for me a male role model because she shows that what women can do and makes men more not comfortable, they're much more comfortable. Sometimes she might even force the issue by being who she is. So people can't ignore her, they can't put her back in the box.

Ida Beerhalter: (21:40)
So for me it's an amazing development. I just don't see it only in Saudi Arabia, so it's not just the kingdom, I see it in a lot of other countries in the Middle East, but this is what I always try to point out. It's not that we are investing time so far ahead. My mother, when she had a working contract, wanted to open a bank account, my father had to sign. That was '75. 1975. It's not so long ago. I was 10 years old. Where my mom had my father to sign her opening of a bank account. So, we try to ignore that, but just look a little bit in history. See the women rights for women in Switzerland. It's not that long ago. So I think they should not be too arrogant when we talk about Saudi now making the choice to empower their other 50 half of the population. It doesn't look good on us if we are too arrogant because they can read as well. If they look in our history, they might say to us, "You know what, it's not too long ago since you had the same situation."

Rachel Pether: (22:59)
Right. Absolutely. Although, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I would like to add that New Zealand was the first country in the world to give women the vote. We do have [inaudible 00:23:08] so just like to drop that in.

Rachel Pether: (23:12)
We had a number of audience questions come in and they're actually related to my questions. I'll ask them now. Thanks as always for your question Ken. He said, "Such an impressive effort. What other kind of advocacy in Saudi Arabia in general is either seeing for better educating women on financial management or addressing institutional norms in financial management." So maybe having a little bit more on the financial and investment [inaudible 00:23:42].

Ida Beerhalter: (23:45)
As I'm focused on the family offices, so I don't really can say a lot of the financial institutions. I see a lot of women in all the KPMG, EY, I see a lot of lawyers. So I see coming them virtually... It's like they are coming out of the hiding. So you see them everywhere. You see them in the banks. So when it comes to financial in the family offices, I see a lot of the daughters taking really charge and a lot of the fathers actually proud, letting them take charge.

Ida Beerhalter: (24:20)
I actually a situation when I was in Jeddah in March, I met a family which has... they have daughters and sons, and I was totally amazed that actually the principal, the wealth owner, said, "You know what, my middle daughter will be the one because she's the most gifted." He really made the choice based on different things, he didn't choose the eldest son, he didn't choose the eldest daughter. He really looked at his children and not as a father, but as somebody who has a company and choosed the middle daughter to be the best candidate. Also the one who wants to do this, because it's the important thing. What he said, "I need somebody who wants to do this, not who can do this." So you see, also the mindset's changed a lot.

Rachel Pether: (25:09)
So when you go and sit with the female principals, I know you mentioned that overall let's call it a competency test, for lack of a better description, do you also train them in financial literacy, for example, so they can make better decisions for themselves? If that is, A, something they want to do, and B, something they [inaudible 00:25:33] to do.

Ida Beerhalter: (25:34)
So the principle I follow is that I think if you are an investor you need an ecosystem, you need trusted people around you. So what I do, I teach them about each and every geography, each and every asset class and every sector. But in a very high level because I want to see what I catch higher. If you want to do something right you have to do an interest in that. For example, if you have someone who's interested in tech, then I pursue that. Then I introduce to this principal people in tech who are either fantastic tech investors, fantastic tech entrepreneurs, and then let her build up her own ecosystem. She needs to have an ecosystem, she can't obviously go into mine, but she needs to surround herself with people which are her people, not my people.

Ida Beerhalter: (26:26)
Then when she has this network, I always tell them, "If you want to start investing, don't invest money, invest time." Invest time in relationship, building up relationship, because you need to have a little black book of people to ask. To call and say, "You know what, I want to invest in this, could you have a look?" Or, "I want to invest in this, would you be a co-investor?" Or people who call you said say, "You know what, I have a fantastic investment, come in as a co-investor and I accept you as a co-investor with 100,000 or 50,000 bucks." This is the other rule I tell them.

Ida Beerhalter: (26:58)
When they start investing, when they start investing on their own, the rule is no more than $100,000 U.S. dollars. Which sounds ridiculous in comparison to the wealth they have, but this is learning more than putting money in. Learning how to read the contracts, learning how to have the discussions, getting the board seat, having influence, reading reports, getting deeper in the sector or geography or asset class you like. What I also do I connect them with families who are in this special asset class.

Ida Beerhalter: (27:33)
For example, I had an example when it comes to [forests 00:27:35]. We have in Germany an aristocratic family who do [foresting 00:27:40] 850 years. If you do [foresting 00:27:43] 850 years, there's not much for people can teach you. If one of them would be interested in [forests 00:27:49], I would step aside, would make the introduction to this family, and then she could go there, she could live with them, she could get to know them. Actually, this was the first mentor set up IOME, this gentleman, his name is Prince Michael zu Salm-Salm, he told me, "If anybody wants to know something about [forests 00:28:10], I invite them to stay at my house, which is actually a castle, and I teach them everything." He said, "if they're really good and talented, I might even pay them a salary."

Ida Beerhalter: (28:22)
So this was an interesting conversation we had. This is when we connect the ecosystem. I think the most important thing if you want to invest, you have to have an ecosystem of people who are good investors, decent investors, and doesn't include people who are rich and talk about their Ferraris, Maserati, their yachts, their jewelry, whatever. This is not the mindset you need.

Rachel Pether: (28:50)
Definitely. That investment and education and experience is something you're always going to get a good return on that, so definitely worth putting in the time and effort.

Rachel Pether: (29:00)
We had a question coming in from [inaudible 00:29:03], this is a very challenging one actually. He's asked, "How can men improve their connection [inaudible 00:29:09]?"

Ida Beerhalter: (29:10)
I didn't get the question because it was cut off. What is the question? How can men-

Rachel Pether: (29:16)
He has asked, "How can men improve their connection with their gut instinct?"

Ida Beerhalter: (29:23)
Their connection with their-

Rachel Pether: (29:24)
With their instinct.

Ida Beerhalter: (29:26)
With their instinct.

Rachel Pether: (29:26)
Their gut feeling. Their instinct.

Ida Beerhalter: (29:30)
I think it's really going back to yourself. First you have to understand and learn about yourself. I mean, not just the bright side but also the dark side. Then if you see it within yourself, then you see it also in others. It's a little bit like, it might be a very real example, but if you are, for example, a lot of women experience it. The second somebody tells you are pregnant, you are suddenly surrounded by pregnant women you haven't seen before. It's the same when I got glasses, the first time I got glasses I realized how many shops selling glasses are around me, which I never ... So you [inaudible 00:30:10] gets bigger.

Ida Beerhalter: (30:10)
The thing is, when you want to learn about you it's really pushing your boundaries. You have to get out of your comfort zone. This is actually what we do in the office every year because I let the ladies make a list in the first time I sit with them, I let them make a list of things they don't like and things they are afraid of. One, for example, at the top of list she didn't like to swim. Guess what I made her do? She got 40 swimming lessons. The one who was shy, she said she doesn't speak in front of audiences, she got singing lessons. I made her, in just for 40 hours, you don't do it for life. Because something changes. If you have a very timid voice and then somebody "forces" you to have 40 singing lessons. You learn to breathe, you have a different stature, you know to modulate your voice, you come out of it with a new skill set which you never would have chosen because you feel uncomfortable. So actually they call it my list of threats because I pick every year something from this list where they do the stuff.

Ida Beerhalter: (31:19)
If you have this 40 hours, it's the same, you don't like hiking, you do this 40 hours. After that you can decide if you don't like it. But if you have never done it, why do you know you don't like it. So you get your instinct for it, you develop as a person and you face your fears. But that, you see other people's fears. You learn to read body language, which is important, because the unspoken language is the thing where people really communicate. It's a very old thing that I think 70% of the communication is non-verbal. I think 15 is paraverbal, like the loudness of the voice. The rest is the verbal one.

Ida Beerhalter: (32:04)
So a lot of us have not learned to have the paraverbal and the non-verbal language any longer, and you have to go back to that. With your own language, because you have to also show what you signal to people, and the good thing is to start with your instincts. If somebody doesn't like you... you meet somebody, somebody doesn't like you. Think about why. Why this person doesn't like you. Maybe you threatened the person, they feel uncomfortable, maybe you look weird, or you are having a [crisis 00:32:41] posture. Try to think about it. Sometimes you meet people you don't like. The same question. Why? Why do you see somebody and say, "Oh god. What a jerk." Why do we have this? Without knowing somebody. What is going on? Then you get much more in touch with yourself and your surroundings and then the rest is just... it just takes over from there.

Rachel Pether: (33:02)
Yeah. I like the fact that you really encourage the female principals that you work with to just get out there and do something. They may realize it's not going to be perfect, but that's okay and they can still enjoy, it can still be great. The main thing is just trying.

Rachel Pether: (33:25)
One other interesting thing Ida, when you move out to Saudi, how did you find it from a cultural perspective in terms of being integrated into this environment which is quite closed to outsiders. Was it easy for them to trust you? Tell me a bit about that process.

Ida Beerhalter: (33:48)
At the beginning, because we were all thrown at the deep end, there as a lot of trust involved. I think it was also that we had a natural connection because we gave up something. I gave up my job in the Swiss family office, which a lot of people still say to me, "Why would you ever do this?" They gave me their trust because they had to tell me over time... Trust was developing. There's also the example when trust builds who have to accept that people don't tell you everything at the beginning. So I had the situation where I knew that the lady was married. So that was my first information. After, I think, three, four months the information extended that she was not the only wife. Then at one point she was the youngest wife. So I got more and more information. So at the beginning it was just a blissful, I'm-happily-married-with-my-husband story. Then over time, trust is a relationship and it's like you have a first date and then you get to know the person and obviously, not many people at the first date spill all the beans. You try a very good impression at the first date. It's a little bit like that.

Ida Beerhalter: (35:16)
So it developed over time and it was also at a certain pace. I think you have to give people space to come to you and also tell you things they want to tell you. I always told them, me as a family office, I need to know your dirty laundry because the dirty laundry is where the risk is. So for example, if you are the third wife of somebody, that's a totally different situation than if you are in the relationship with just one wife and one husband. It's a totally different setting. Then I adjust my way to that.

Ida Beerhalter: (35:54)
Culturally, we learn from each other. I'm typical German, I want time. Obviously, I was the only one on time at the beginning. Now it changed in a very interesting way that I'm mostly the one who was late, which is ridiculous, but it becomes worse and worse. Another thing when it comes to cultural thing is that the Saudi politeness, when they cancel a meeting they had always this sick aunt or sick child or sick somebody, that made me sick because I know they were really lying to me by being polite. So I told them at one point that, "In Germany we are superstitious, if you tell somebody you're sick, this person will be sick." Actually, since that time, no more sickness when we cancel meetings.

Ida Beerhalter: (36:49)
So we learned from each other. So they straight said to me now, "I don't have the time, I'm too tired." Tell me what really is the case. This is also a sign of trust that they really tell me, "You know what, I canceled this meeting because I'm tired. I don't have the mood for that today, to go over the finances." This is fine, I like it more than somebody telling me, "My aunt is sick." We add a lot of honesty with the trust. Actually our honesty is quite brutal meanwhile. Really tell us the truth, which is interesting and sometimes uncomfortable. So you can say our comfort zone is expanded. We feel much more comfortable in being brutally honest with each other, and this took time. A lot of time.

Rachel Pether: (37:40)
Yeah. There's definitely something to be said for being brutally honest with people and knowing that their trust is there and you have that environment where you can say what do you believe. I'm very said, Ida, that the one cultural trait you picked up was being late. That is extremely un-German, but never mind.

Rachel Pether: (38:02)
I just wanted to read out a comment and we have time for one more question. We do have someone from the audience saying that she loves your inspiration [inaudible 00:38:12] to believe in yourselves and what's get women to willing to pull out their stories and flex what stands in their way of [inaudible 00:38:20] life they really want. So thank you Brenda for your comment there.

Rachel Pether: (38:24)
Closing question Ida, I know you have been out, you haven't had the opportunity to go in Saudi for a while now. When you do eventually get back there, what are you most looking forward to?

Ida Beerhalter: (38:38)
I didn't get that, you cut out again. When I get there, what?

Rachel Pether: (38:45)
You haven't had the opportunity to go back to Saudi for a while now. When you do eventually get back there from this pandemic, what are you most looking forward to?

Ida Beerhalter: (38:56)
Actually just sit down and have dinner. I want a [capsa 00:39:01], I want grapefruit juice. There are a lot of things. I just want to sit down and see the people. Seriously. We can do a lot of things remote, but I miss the personal connection. I miss really the food. I'm the biggest date smuggler. Even, I'm still over the years not sure if I'm supposed to bring dates. But I'm too German, so if I ask and they tell me I'm not supposed to, obviously I won't do it. So I never ask. So I actually miss my dates because the stuff you get over here is not what you get in Saudi. Definitely not. So there are some things I'm missing a lot.

Rachel Pether: (39:44)
It's been a year, I'll make sure you get an early Christmas present.

Rachel Pether: (39:48)
But anyway, that's all we have time for, but I just wanted to thank you so much Ida, I know [inaudible 00:39:53] conversation. Thanks so much for giving up your time to join us, it's been a real pleasure.

Ida Beerhalter: (40:02)
Thank you so much. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk with you. Thank you.

Lorenzo Thione: Elevating LGBTQ+ Leaders in Venture Capital | SALT Talks #131

“The moment you [come out]… you're also creating an opportunity for so many others to see themselves reflected into roles that they had not seen or imagined possible before.”

Lorenzo Thione is the Managing Director of Gaingels and a co-founding chairman of StartOut, two of the leading groups dedicated to supporting and elevating LGBTQ+ leaders in the venture startup ecosystem.

There is a negative business impact when a gay person is uncomfortable being open about their orientation. The time and attention dedicated to that issue takes away from time building out an idea or company without fear. Gaingels and StartOut help support that movement by increasing awareness and highlighting members of the LGBTQ+ community who hold top tech positions. As Apple CEO, Tim Cook famously came out publicly, after some hesitation, in support of this mission. “He came to the realization that the value of representation is the power of giving people an idea of what's possible for them and seeing themselves reflected as a source of strength and diversity as opposed to just a reason to be called other.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Lorenzo Thione.jpeg

Lorenzo Thione

Managing Director

Gaingels

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Joe Eletto: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and 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. 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 today, we are quite excited to welcome Lorenzo Thione to SALT Talks.

Joe Eletto: (00:41)
Lorenzo is a serial entrepreneur with a passion for the intersection of technology, art, design, communication, and social value; a true Renaissance man. Lorenzo is the managing director of Gaingels and a cofounding chairman of StartOut, two of the leading groups dedicated to supporting and elevating LGBTQ+ leaders in the venture startup ecosystem. As the managing producer at Sing Out, Louise! Productions, Lorenzo is also a Tony Award and Drama Desk winning Broadway producer, Hadestown and The Inheritance, and the cocreator and lead producer of Allegiance, the Broadway musical starring George Takei and Lea Salonga, of which he also directed and produced the 2016 film.

Joe Eletto: (01:26)
In developing Allegiance, he spearheaded social media viral strategies that led to astounding growth and unprecedented awareness and audience engagement for George Takei, and to the founding of The Social Edge, for which he currently serves as chief executive officer. He previously cofounded startups Powerset and Artify.it. He is an investor, board member and advisor for startups such as Figure Eight, Weights & Biases, CrowdMed, Gobble, Just, and Lucid, and many more. He is an outspoken LGBT advocate and was named one of the most influential LGBT people in tech in 2014 and 2018 by Business Insider. He was born and raised in Milan and completed studies at the University of Texas at Austin, from which he holds an M.S. in computer engineering. If you have any questions for Lorenzo during today's talk, please enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. And now, I'm thrilled to turn over to Sarah Kunst, managing director of Cleo Capital, to conduct today's interview.

Sarah Kunst: (02:29)
Hi, thank you. Thanks, Joe. And Lorenzo, we're so excited to have you here today. So, let's jump in. That was a-

Lorenzo Thione: (02:38)
Sure.

Sarah Kunst: (02:38)
[crosstalk 00:02:38] background that Joe gave, but I always love to hear it from the horse's mouth, such as it were. So would love to just have you tell how we got here.

Lorenzo Thione: (02:51)
Sure. It's kind of a complicated story. I moved from Italy to Texas to study engineering, and then found myself sort of in the path of startups. I ended up starting my first company right in 2003, which was an artificial intelligence search engine, semantic search engine. And from there, we exited the company in 2008. I ended up really focusing on a number of different things, from venture investment to advocacy, and ended up cofounding StartOut, which was the first entrepreneurial network dedicated to helping LGBTQ entrepreneurs.

Lorenzo Thione: (03:44)
It's kind of like a crazy journey that took me from there to Broadway, and then back into venture. So I'm happy to go into any part of it that is interesting or talk about-

Sarah Kunst: (03:58)
Yeah. So, we're going to spend a lot of time on Broadway because I, despite being tone deaf, am a massive musical theater geek. Some of you might have missed my revival of Rent in my apartment the other night. It was accompanied by tequila, and it was fabulous. So, it's in previews now. So yeah, let's just jump in there, and then we'll work our way back. I have questions about how you think about the tech exodus to Austin and what AI looked like in 2003.

Lorenzo Thione: (04:27)
Amazing.

Sarah Kunst: (04:28)
But mainly, I just want to talk about Broadway. So, how did you get to be, in the immortal musical of Nathan Lane, a producer?

Lorenzo Thione: (04:37)
So, it's really interesting. I think the last year has given me a lot of opportunities to chart a path or sort of figure out what the thread was that led me to a lot of different decisions and a lot of different things that I've done. And it really is interesting that I think I can actually go back to the fact that I arrived in Texas sort of without knowing anybody and as a little bit of an adventure. But I arrived just a handful of months before September 11th happened. And it's really interesting, because even as a white dude from Europe with all that privilege, you look at being an immigrant as being something that is very much identify-forming. And all of a sudden, the rhetoric and the way in which people talked about immigration and immigrants had shifted.

Lorenzo Thione: (05:38)
And there's so much precariousness in the life of anybody that tries to establish a life and a job and a family and relationships in a different country, when you don't know exactly what is going to happen, and are you going to be able to say? And it took a long time. And the reason why I'm mentioning this, because it really had two major impact on things that had both personal and professional repercussions. One is, in a way that might sound pretty trite and sort of trope of a movie, it led me to come out. And it had a lot of an impact, of course, in not just personally, but on things that I ended up feeling like I wanted to do just in light of that experience and of understanding my identity better.

Lorenzo Thione: (06:29)
Which for example was after the exit of my first company, deciding that one of the things that I really had enjoyed was the mentorship I had received from people I had worked with, and the advice, and sort of had enjoyed the entrepreneurial journey so much. And had been talking to friends who were starting companies and running companies and still were feeling like they had to be in the closet with their investors and their board members and their employees. And really, StartOut was born out of that feeling like you wanted to give someone a reason for being sort of proudly and loudly part of their own community while at the same time building whichever vision for a better world all of these entrepreneurs were actually doing. It's really interesting because you realize how much of your mental energy is spent on this set of problems and layers that you otherwise would be dedicating to being a better founder.

Lorenzo Thione: (07:33)
And then the second thing that happened is completely unexpected and completely not something that was ever part of a grand plan, so to speak. One evening, I was in New York City in a theater, and I just happened to meet George Takei, who I and a friend of mine recognized as being the actor who had played Sulu on the original Star Trek series. And a little starstruck or whatever, we kind of struck up conversation. What I didn't expect was out of that conversation and out of the particular show we were seeing that evening came the recounting of his own personal experience and his own childhood, when he and his family, along with 120,000 other Japanese Americans, many of which were American citizens, were imprisoned; lost their jobs, their property, their freedom, and imprisoned in internment camps for no crime other than the fact that they looked like the people who had bombed Pearl Harbor.

Lorenzo Thione: (08:43)
And this was 2008. There were definitely a lot of echoes that still were fresh from September 11 in terms of how Arab Americans had been treated, and the Japanese Americans who had stood up at that time to denounce the risk of falling into the mistakes that the country had made already. But something really struck me. My own experience and having felt that sense of precariousness, and really, the kinship to the experience of people who had come here, building a better life for themselves and their families, and all of a sudden had lost everything. I just found, and my friend, who happens to be a very talented composer, found just this idea or this notion that this was a story that needed to be told.

Lorenzo Thione: (09:36)
And as crazy as anyone who's ever founding a company or starting a new enterprise, we had never worked in the theater before. And we're like, "We're going to write a show, and we're going to put you in it, and we're going to take this to Broadway." And it absolutely sounds nuts, but it took about seven and a half years. And on the path, added an incredible group of talented performers, including Tony Award winner Lea Salonga; gave their Tony debut to a number of other incredible performers and creatives. And took that idea, reading after reading, workshop after workshop, to its opening in San Diego in 2012, and then from there to Broadway in 2015, and then again onto sort of the screen of movie theaters around the world.

Lorenzo Thione: (10:37)
And the show continues its life, and it's one of the things that I'm the most proud of. A new production is going to actually be in Japan very soon in March, which I'm hoping the world will have resumed operations enough to allow me to actually be in person and see it in person as opposed to having to see it through some kind of screen component. But that is the story of how I got really started and connected to the world of Broadway. The connections to my own interests and passions I think can be drawn back to the power of storytelling, which is really critical for anybody, be it an entrepreneur or a salesperson or someone who's raising money for a living, or someone who's investing money, and of course someone who is telling stories for the purpose of telling stories on a stage or on a screen.

Lorenzo Thione: (11:37)
It's that really incredible arcane and from time immemorial, part of our own identity as human beings, as social beings, that really focuses in stories, the power to not just recount and pass information, but to allow others to inhabit empathetically the world of someone or somewhere that doesn't yet or doesn't exist, and allows them to imagine what life would be in those circumstances. That's how hearts and minds are changed, and that's also how great movement forward is made into humanity and society. That's because people have the vision of imagining the world that isn't yet and are able to tell the story of how much better the world would be if that came to pass.

Sarah Kunst: (12:35)
I love it. So, that is incredible. I also love that you're just so good at things. You move to America, start a company, sell it. You go to a play, see George Takei, and then seven years later have a Tony. You plus five to seven years equals success, it seems like.

Lorenzo Thione: (12:52)
I don't know. I actually have spent a lot of time in my life sort of thinking about what success is. There's all sorts of ways in which I could look at the facets of things that I've done and say, "I've been successful." And there are ways in which I can look at the things that I've done and say, "I have not been successful." And it's really interesting because Powerset was an amazing company that we had built some really awesome technology. More than anything else, we had brought together an incredible group of people, of which I'm really, really proud. And I continue to invest and follow in the companies that our Powerset family sort of went on and found.

Lorenzo Thione: (13:40)
But in a lot of other ways, it was not the success we had hoped it to be, or did not realize upon its vision or its mission of competing sort of in the market with the big search engines. It became a fortunate exit, with value for all involved. But it became also a reflection of its circumstance, right? It was 2008, we had a really great partnership with Microsoft. The Microsoft acquisition of Yahoo initially did not go through. That meant pressure for the company to look at other ways in which it could compete in search. We also ended up closing our deal a couple of months, not even, before the 2008 market crashed.

Lorenzo Thione: (14:26)
So just a few things off on which I hadn't necessarily not a lot of input, and the story could have been very different. And Allegiance is the same thing, too. Ultimately, it just showed that ... was seen by hundreds of thousands of people, changed tons of hearts and minds, and I'm so proud of it. But hey, we opened just a few weeks after Hamilton opened on Broadway. And it was a difficult season to compete in the market. Broadway, it's a wonderful business, but it's also a ruthless one. And you have to sell 10,000 tickets every week. 10,000 people have to come to the theater every week to actually make it financially valuable and success, from that point of view.

Lorenzo Thione: (15:18)
So, we have to close after six months because the business wasn't there. But that doesn't mean that the accomplishment of having taken it there and having been able to create something that remains and has an impact for years forward in other forms and other countries, isn't there to be appreciated, either. So, I don't know. I've spent a lot of time, especially in the aftermath of Allegiance, thinking about what's success and what's not success. And closing the show was heartbreaking, but at the same time, it just allowed for a new perspective on whose metrics one should use to evaluate your own success.

Sarah Kunst: (15:59)
Yeah. No, that is very true. Every success only looks that way in retrospect when you squint. So, I would love to hear about AI, right? 2003 is not necessarily a time I think of as being the heyday of artificial intelligence. Tell us a little bit about how you got into that space so early, and your thoughts on how it's evolved to the point where now it feels like Elon Musk is spending lots of money to figure out whether or not we live in an AI simulation. For the record [crosstalk 00:16:41]

Lorenzo Thione: (16:41)
Yeah. For the record, you think we do or we don't?

Sarah Kunst: (16:42)
I don't [crosstalk 00:16:42]

Lorenzo Thione: (16:42)
We don't, okay. Yeah. I mean, especially because if we lived in a simulation, 2020 would really have to have been someone spilling the coffee on their keyboard. But so, yeah, there's a lot of things that have happened in the last 20 years that create what we are seeing now, as we can call it a golden age of AI, but really is just the beginning of an exponential acceleration. And ultimately, people have been talking about the singularity and what that means for a very long time. And it's just realizing some very sort of intrinsic tendencies of computation power growing, data growing exponentially or over-exponentially. And sort of all of those things happening together at the same time lead us to where we are.

Lorenzo Thione: (17:37)
I also joke often that I've looked at the 2010, 2015 time as the time where I literally saw projects I worked on in school or in research; I was for a few years a researcher at Xerox PARC. I saw those things become reality in people's lives, so Siri and everything that dialogue systems we are doing in 2000 and ... I don't know, what is it, it was 2010 maybe, something along those lines, where literally, the sort of productization of things that we had been doing in the late '90s and early 2000s in schools and research laboratories.

Lorenzo Thione: (18:23)
But what really drove me to the work I did was primarily a combination of two passions, one in computer science, but the other one in linguistics. And actually, the fact that having grown up in the country with a different language, and always having had a passion for learning languages and analyzing them, led me to stumble on computational linguistics and natural language understanding as the field I then later decided to take on, initially for what I just felt like was a master's degree, and then became a research project. And it was just the right moment. And Xerox PARC and Fuji Xerox at that time were just centers of excellence for research that had been going on for decades, and that felt, along with computational power becoming cheaper, became the right thing to explore at the time.

Lorenzo Thione: (19:28)
Funny anecdote, Powerset was the absolute first pre-launch customer of Amazon EC2. So, it was like the perfect use case. Up until that moment, every single startup, every single company that was trying to do something that was computationally intensive, had to build their own data centers, right? They had to effectively buy their own metal and install it and manage it and all of that. And once you did, your computational power stayed inflexible until you decided to put more money into buying more machines and connecting them and all of that. And that was just a moment in which we started hearing and having this conversation from this super secret project that was going on. Amazon was building this cloud computing thing, and we were ultimately the very first users of EC2 ever, before they even launched the product.

Sarah Kunst: (20:29)
Wow. And so, that's amazing. I would love to understand sort of the connection ... At what point, with StartOut and Gaingels, was that you were already angel investing, you were already building these communities? How did you sort of decide, and walk us through what some of those organizations looked like, and how you work with them, because you do a ton to give back, and that's how we first connected. And it's so inspiring, so I'd just love to understand more about how you got involved with these organizations, and what you do with them.

Lorenzo Thione: (21:04)
Yeah. So, I think a lot of it goes back to some of the things I mentioned before, which is a lot of the things that I've done ended up not being big plans or sort of things that I had been thinking about for a long time, but rather the reaction to a circumstance and an opportunity, and something that was just right there in front of me at that moment. So for example, after the acquisition and after the exit, I basically just met a few other people who had been talking about similar things in terms of, "Hey, there's no network or group or connection for LGBT entrepreneurs." And everybody was coming from a different angle. Someone was coming from the angle, "Hey, this would have been a resource I would have liked to use," and some others were coming from ... I remember the point of view I really resonated with or I came from, which was, I mentioned it earlier, I had a couple of friends who kept on ... We had these debates or these conversations around the fact that they weren't out with their boards and their companies, and I was trying to understand why. What was so scary or what was so in the way of that process?

Lorenzo Thione: (22:23)
And obviously, you just never know how people are going to react. But at the fundamental core of it was a new balance between the perceived risks and the perceived opportunities. So what I felt was like, "Okay, if we assume that there is a value in getting these great entrepreneurs focused on building their businesses instead of constantly worried about not disclosing that they are gay or that they have a partner or whatever it is, then how do we create that opportunity? How do we create that upside for people to now rebalance that idea of risk and benefit?"

Lorenzo Thione: (23:03)
And it's not very different also to the fact of saying, "The moment you do, not only you're doing a favor to them, you're also creating an opportunity for so many others to see themselves reflected into roles that they had not seen or imagined possible before." And I think we started StartOut in 2008, and it was a few years from there to when, for example, Apple's CEO Tim Cook actually came out publicly. It wasn't that people didn't necessarily already know privately, but he had always held that there was no value, there was no bearing on his job as CEO from what his sexual orientation was. And that is true, on one face of it. But what he came to the realization is the value of representation, is the power of giving people an idea of what's possible for them and seeing themselves reflected as a source of strength and diversity as opposed to just a reason to be called other.

Lorenzo Thione: (24:17)
And that realization was really core both for StartOut and how I continued to see the impact I could have in ways that I was interested in in my own community, and in general in society. So one way is to really think about the venture capital ecosystem in a more broader sense than just who the entrepreneurs are. And that was actually from the StartOut community, that the two cofounders of Gaingels, I actually connected them. One of them was on the board of StartOut with me. And they came to me with the realization that there was all this other impact that we could have if we didn't only focus on the entrepreneur, but also focused on who's making the decisions about investing, who is negotiating deals and terms, who is ultimately writing the checks, that ... Whose value multiplied thousands of time in the venture world. And up until that moment, all of that wealth had only flowed down to the same people in the same educational, socioeconomic background, and largely ethnic and racial backgrounds, as well.

Lorenzo Thione: (25:33)
And so, Gaingels is one of many other groups of investors who focus on bringing more diversity at various strata and various layers in the venture capital ecosystem. We are a large venture syndicate. We are able to invest in LGBT-founded companies but also companies that promote and embrace and make visible their LGBT leadership. And all of that reflects also into, who are the check writers, who are the people who are writing the investment? And I'll just add one thing, which is how that also reflects into the work I have been interested in doing in the theater world, because almost everything that I've worked with or I've worked on or that we've worked on has always been about some form of increasing representation and inclusion in different ways. Allegiance was the first show on Broadway that not only featured a largely Asian American cast in an Asian American story, but also had lots of Asian American creatives, an Asian American director, an Asian American writer. So, that was one.

Lorenzo Thione: (26:50)
I'm working on a new show that is about a story of a young woman with autism. And really, we're so excited that we've cast an incredible actress who identifies on the spectrum for the role. And it's just realizing how visibility and representation matters in so many second, third, multiple order ways that you don't even imagine, initially.

Sarah Kunst: (27:17)
Yeah. No, I couldn't agree more, and love that you're doing that. And everyone, feel free to drop questions into the chat. But to totally switch topics, I would love to hear your thoughts on two very different tech ecosystems. One, you went to school in Austin at UT, and now it seems that half the tech world has decamped for Texas and their zero state income tax life. Little do they know their sales tax is incredible high, so you have to shop elsewhere.

Sarah Kunst: (27:56)
But would love to understand what your thoughts are on that tech ecosystem and what you saw there? And then on a totally different side, what does the European tech ecosystem look like? Do you still spend a lot of time in Italy? Have you gotten involved in tech there? I've spent a little bit of time in Eastern Europe in that tech ecosystem, and it feels like there's so many brilliant people, but we don't think of it as being as much of a place to go to look for investments or to start companies. So, everything outside of New York where you're based, Austin to Italy, what do you think?

Lorenzo Thione: (28:38)
Yeah. I mean, I think honestly, having lived in Silicon Valley from 2002 all the way until 2010, with starting to living a little bit of a bicoastal life across the last few years of that, I really remember the difference in how it felt coming from Italy and sort of having been in the sort of ... if not entrepreneurial, still the educational academic networks in the computer science engineering world in Italy, to coming to Silicon Valley. And I remember this thing that people called the network effect, of everybody being there. And everybody being there really meant so many things. It meant that you could interact with companies, you could interact with investors. You had these serendipitous moments of encounters where you would meet and people would come together across very different stages in their lives, in their careers, and all of that. And all of that happened right here.

Lorenzo Thione: (29:53)
And I believe really ... I mean, it's really clear that that was a big reason of why. And if you add to that the fact that Stanford and Berkeley are also there, so they become these basins and these feeders of talent in there. It's really why it emerged the way it did. New York, certainly in the last 10 years, really has come on strong as another center for tech excellence. And a lot of the same reasons apply. Once enough people started believing that that was a possibility, the physical presence of all of those different parties started to create these network effects.

Lorenzo Thione: (30:38)
So I don't think that the shift ... the shift to Austin, we've seen it in some parts for a number of years. It really has accelerated, the shift to Austin and the shift to Florida, really accelerated this year. And it would be silly to not point to the pandemic as a massive catalyst for the change and for the shift. And the biggest realization is that there is a lot of business that can be done without physically being present in a certain given place, which removes some of the necessity for some of those network components to all be locally there.

Lorenzo Thione: (31:23)
And so what I really do think it will do is it starts to level the playing field between places where people may move, as you mentioned, for tax reasons, but also for other regulatory reasons. There's all sorts of people, "Why would you start a company in places other than California?" There's all sorts of reasons for that that go beyond just taxes. And one of the reasons why this has kept, for example, Europe behind has been ... I remember how difficult friends that were trying to start companies in Italy, how just simply difficult it was to incorporate a business, which is literally something that you can do off of a website in the United States, right?

Lorenzo Thione: (32:08)
And so, you start to really chip away at all of those pieces and really allow people to cooperate effectively from a distance. And you start to see a leveling of the playing field. So the short answer is, I think Austin and Florida are going to be maybe a little bit ahead of the curve, but we're going to actually see acceleration in a lot of other places where talent is and where there might be the sort of regulatory and infrastructural conditions for innovation to happen. I love the ecosystem in Berlin, in Germany. I think London and the U.K. has an advanced ecosystem as well. One of the things that Gaingels does, and we actually had started doing before the pandemic had hit was to actually do twice a year ecosystem tours. We would take a group of investors to other cities and other countries and sort of interact with both the local sort of regulatory infrastructure, but also with the local entrepreneurs, investors, LGBT ecosystem. And we were planning several more for this year that we'll have to now shift off by at least a few months.

Sarah Kunst: (33:38)
Yeah, yeah. No, that is awesome. From Austin to Italy and Miami and everything in between, I think we're definitely seeing a shift that it's possible to start a company anywhere. And certainly, lots of places are slightly more tax-friendly and have nicer valleys than Silicon Valley. So, we have a great question from Peter. And he was asking back to my favorite topic, theater. He said, "With Allegiance, did you ever think about the geopolitical significance or history lesson of the Japanese internment, particularly during the start of the Trump presidency?"

Lorenzo Thione: (34:18)
Yeah. So, I mentioned how the work on Allegiance was not a work of months or weeks. It was a work of years, right? And so, we started the work on Allegiance and the inspiration for it came at a time when Trump just was not even something that people could have imagined. What felt relevant and what felt emotionally important was the memory of September 11, which was only seven or eight years old, and the fact that the country had almost gotten close to repeating the same type of mistakes in the name of fear and a fear of others that we had done in the '40s.

Lorenzo Thione: (35:04)
And we never, ever would have imagined that, fast-forward to when we're actually opening on Broadway, the world feels like this is exactly the reason why this story needs to be told. And I do think that, I mentioned it before, life is timing, and you can't ever get too upset about it. But we opened at the same time as another important historic musical about the sort of relevance of the time. And with Hamilton being the success it was, I think that the story and the message got lost a little. But it certainly resonated enough.

Lorenzo Thione: (35:50)
Funny thing that happened, I think we were in previews or we had already opened. And a couple of people in the Trump camp made some really remarkable sort of remarkably bad statements. One was Trump himself, who actually said at some point that he didn't know if the internment of Japanese Americans had, after all, been such a bad thing at the time. He would have needed to be there to know whether or not that was the right choice or the right thing to do, which is absolutely insane. And we took it as an opportunity to basically say, "Well, you don't actually have to have been there. You just have to learn about what happened. So why don't you come and see for yourself what it was like for real people, for families, and what kind of impact it had on real lives?" And we made it into a little bit of a marketing gimmick, and actually kept a seat in the orchestra open with Trump's name, with a Trump sign, "Reserved for Trump," on it for a number of different performances. And people would take pictures and tweet the pictures, too, with the Trump seat.

Lorenzo Thione: (37:08)
But also, the other thing that happened is the mayor of Roanoke, Virginia. I can't remember exactly what he said, but to the same extent of sort of having said that it was justified at the time what had been done. And a better story or a better resolution there, we facilitated a call between the mayor and George Takei. And I think that that at least led to an eye-opening conversation and at least a change of heart on the topic from him.

Lorenzo Thione: (37:48)
We had just closed, we had already close when the child separation policy was put in place, and literally had children in cages at the border. We fortunately were able to continue to tell the story through a movie. We shot a really wonderful live capture of Allegiance and released it in movie theaters all around the country and then around the world. And so that was at least able ... another way for more people to actually get a chance to see it.

Sarah Kunst: (38:23)
Yeah, yeah. I mean, history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes. And you're living through that in real time, across all sectors of your professional life. That's amazing. So, what's next? 2020's been a crazy year, and what are you most excited about, particularly on the tech side? When it comes to investing, what do you think 2021 is going to bring for startups? And maybe we'll end with your tech predictions for the year ahead.

Lorenzo Thione: (38:58)
I mean, I think that there's going to be some really massive innovation happening in AI as it applies to more things that we have not really seen it applied to, just because the amount of data that we are producing and that we're able to train new models on is just astounding. I think the work that OpenAI has been doing and GPT-3 just gives us a little bit of a glimpse on the kind of exponential change and really revolution from the point of view of what's possible. We are going to see ... Things that excite me are autonomous vehicle, autonomous flying. There's lots of AI application to detection of disease. We're now seeing things that can be applied to anything from radiology to vision [inaudible 00:40:05] vision systems, applied to medicine. I'm personally a big fan of data science applied to health and wellness, and so lots and lots of health tech and wellness tech, more exciting things to basically improve and prolong people's lives, which I think is a big scientific next milestone or next frontier.

Lorenzo Thione: (40:31)
And I'm excited about other things happening. I'm excited about changes in medicine that are, for example, looking at the science of psychedelic and how those can really have a change and impact on people's lives. We're seeing the impact of gene therapy and CRISPR as being the very beginning of an absolute revolution. And actually, a lot of the investments we've made and we're making reflect a lot of those trends, so I'm expecting to see more ... Oh, and one other big trend is absolutely innovation, hardcore technical innovation to solve climate challenges. And so, we've been talking and there absolutely should be regulatory impact and legislative impact to how we deal with the question of climate change. But I think that what we are going to see in the next five to 10 years is an onslaught of new technology that really changes the ball game when it comes to how we deal with climate change.

Sarah Kunst: (41:46)
Couldn't agree more. I love it. Broadway, climate change, AI, you truly are a Renaissance man. And this has been so fun. Thank you so much for joining us. And Joe and the SALT team, thanks so much, as always, for having us.

Joe Eletto: (42:03)
Absolutely. I just want to say from my and Lorenzo, it's great that you're able to address this issue of diversity by being in the room and by also bringing the companies and having this two-sided focus on it. When we had Steve Case at SALT and on SALT Talks, he was talking about rise of the rest and how investment is now being distributed across the country. We had [Allyn 00:42:28] Shaw, who is chairing diversity at Bank of America, and he said people are prioritizing these things because diversity is good for business, at the end of the day.

Lorenzo Thione: (42:37)
Absolutely, absolutely.

Joe Eletto: (42:40)
So, just want to thank you for that. And to sort of also make this go into a little bit of overtime, you can give us a quick little thing if you want about how we evangelize those people who are already in those positions, too, at Andreessen Horowitz, at a Briar Capital, at these places that probably are emphasizing diversity, but how do we get those people to further emphasize what we're looking to do here?

Lorenzo Thione: (43:08)
This is a fantastic question, and it's one where I and my partners at Gaingels really think about all the time. The way that we've found and that we've found have really started to resonate is what you mentioned a moment ago, is just by simply being in the room and being a partner to those organizations that may have not in the past moved as quickly and as swiftly, you start presenting yourself and everything you would present and carry with you as a valuable partner, as a valuable piece of the conversation. And little by little, there are changes that happen.

Lorenzo Thione: (43:48)
For example, we ask all of the companies that we invest in to basically publicly state and sign a declaration of value, effectively. It's a letter, it's on our website. And it basically talks about all the things that we care about and that we expect our portfolio companies to care about too, from diversity in [inaudible 00:44:09] recruitment to diversity in board recruitment, to being good social citizens and looking at things like the 1% pledge of your profits and your equity to charitable causes that you and your stakeholders really care about. And one that is probably one of my favorite, it's an initiative that we didn't start, and we were so happy to be able to join as amongst founding members, and has so many of the VC organizations that may in the past have not seen this as an issue or a problem, also join as cofounding members. And we hope more will come onboard, too.

Lorenzo Thione: (44:49)
It's called the Diversity Term Sheet Rider for diverse investors or diverse check writers. And it's basically language that VCs and companies who are negotiating a term sheet can agree to include in their documents that basically commits them as investors, major investors and company, to make room in all future rounds for at least some portion that they can decide, an amount or an amount in percentage, for diversity-based check writers and investors. And that means creating access for people who traditionally have been left out of what ultimately are the most valuable and the most value-creating rounds, investment opportunities that exist ... We used to say in the Valley, and now hopefully it'll be everywhere.

Sarah Kunst: (45:42)
I love that. That's awesome.

Joe Eletto: (45:42)
That's fabulous.

Arjun Sethi: Venture Capital, Bitcoin & China | SALT Talks #130

“Instead of thinking about what's forward, it's about how do you see the present more clearly.”

Arjun Sethi is a co-founder of Tribe Capital, a venture capital firm built by engineers and scientists. Arjun sits on the board of Carta, Relativity, and Bolt. As a founder and operator, he has also been an active angel investor in over 100 companies, including Lyft, Opendoor, Gusto, and Front.

Success is never a straight line and involves failure and unsuccessful attempts. Achieving success requires exposure to the people and community where you’re involved. Ultimately, it’s then about the arrival of an inflection point where you decide whether to push forward or stagnate. Silicon Valley offers exposure because of the vast community of like-minded individuals in close proximity. Lessons learned from previous unsuccessful start-ups can help create an even stronger team, where each member brings distilled ideas. “There was a set of folks that I would say, had shared DNA around thinking about iterating innovation and what could you build that's different around looking at technology companies.”

When considering whether to invest in start-up companies, it is important to recognizes one’s own thought patterns and biases. Focusing on what is known about a company instead of a person’s background or network is important in avoid those pitfalls. “We have a motto internally, which is, ‘how do we focus on what versus who you know?’”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Arjun Sethi.jpeg

Arjun Sethi

Co-Founder & Partner

Tribe Capital

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started during this work from home period with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And what we're trying to do on these SALT Talks is replicate the experience that we provide in our global conferences, the SALT conference, which we host twice a year, one in the United States and one internationally. And at those conferences and on these talks, 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 big ideas that are shaping the future. And today we're very excited to welcome Arjun Sethi to SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (00:57)
Arjun is a serial entrepreneur, investor and executive with deep roots in Silicon Valley. And more than a decade of experience building, sourcing and investing in high growth technology companies. Most notably, independently investing in companies, such as Opendoor, Gusto, Lyft, Postmates and True Color. Arjun also co-founded Tribe Capital, which is a venture capital firm with about $500 million in AUM built by engineers and data scientists, which have invested in fast growing and notable companies, such as Carta, Relativity, Applied Intuition, Instabase, Momentus and Bolt. Prior to founding Tribe, Arjun was a partner at Social Capital where he led the team that established a successful track record of backing high growth companies, such as Slack, CloudKitchens and Box. He also served on the executive team at Yahoo, where he grew product usage over one billion to over one billion monthly active users. He joined Yahoo as part of the acquisition of MessageMe a messaging app that he founded in 2012.

John Darsie: (02:05)
Prior to that Arjun co-founded LOL apps, a mobile gaming and applications company that he scaled to 100 million monthly users before he sold it to Six Waves, a subsidiary of Nexon. Just a reminder for anybody tuning into today's SALT Talk, if you have a question for Arjun, you can enter that in the Q and A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. And hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And with that, we'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:40)
Well, first of all, congratulations on your career, and I'm going to out you a little bit. You said that you were in the lower quartile of the people in your five mile radius. Isn't that how we all think about life, but in all seriousness you're doing amazing Arjun. And I always ask these cliche questions in the beginning, like, what can I learn about you that you didn't know on the Wikipedia, but I'm not going to ask you that one. I got a different question for you, okay? What are the base ingredients for success, the distillation of your life that has allowed you to identify these companies and see where they could be years before they become what they have become?

Arjun Sethi: (03:30)
So first off, John Anthony and team, thanks for having me on board. Two, if I take a step back and try to think through your question, which is a hard one to answer, I think it comes down to a couple pieces. One is raw exposure. What do you see, what is the tribe of things that you see around you? Two, then what's the inflection point at which you decide to push forward or stay stagnant? People think about local, state and federal, but when I think about local, it's also just family. And so your exposure is what are you trying to get done? So I grew up in an immigrant family. My dad came from India with a couple of bucks in his pocket, and his whole goal in life was to survive first.

Arjun Sethi: (04:23)
And then from survival it's to push to the next phase. So I kind of grew up with that perspective, which is if we didn't try as hard as possible, we could be out in the streets. And while that might seem extreme, given where we are today, it didn't feel like it was that extreme as we were growing up. And so the exposure of the folks that were around you was around education, was around science, was around what could the world look like if you had replicators? Similar to what you see in Star Trek? So I think what happens is that when you have exposure to that type of community, we have a very large community here in Silicon Valley that thinks that way. And then we have our sub pockets. What does that allow you to do?

Arjun Sethi: (05:07)
And then how do you start thinking from there? And then the last piece I'd say from a pedestal is what's the speed at which you want to learn? So that the word university is supposed to be, a meaning of like an institution of learning. So if I think about the institution of learning here in the Silicon Valley, where we are based, that just gives you the ability if you want it, the toolkits to keep pushing. And I think that's like one of the privileges of why I liked staying here, being around the folks that are here, the universities that are here, the companies that keep pushing that mantra forward.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:44)
My life experience has gone up and down. Obviously if you're having a bad day ever Arjun, I want you to imagine me getting fired from the White House in July of 2017, it will make you feel better about whatever kind of day you're having. But you seem to have a pretty amazing career. Tell me about a setback. Tell me about a shot that you've got hit with and then how did you recover from it and what lessons did you learn from it?

Arjun Sethi: (06:14)
I think what people read on biographies, LinkedIn, they'll look at that as a progressive success. What they won't see is, I grew up with a pretty hard family. My dad had lost his job twice, and he had gotten a job in like the semiconductor industry and he had to take a pay cut. In some cases, when we moved from Northern California to central California, to Southern California, we had experienced different forms of racism, and when I was younger I didn't know what that meant. And so as you grow older, you start kind of instilling that into your livelihood. But I got fired from almost every job. I wasn't a good employee. I got fired from Macy's. I got fired from Pfizer Electronics. I got fired from Radio Shack when it existed, all of these companies. And then I think just keep moving up the stack-

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:10)
So was there a common theme, Arjun, of the firing? I mean, my firing is usually I'm doing something really stupid and I'm saying something I'm not supposed to be saying and the next thing I'm in Pennsylvania Avenue. Was there a common theme to your firing?

Arjun Sethi: (07:25)
I think it was, and we can get to it at some point, but there was probably a lack of care, where there just wasn't an inflection point that it really mattered, that you need to start pushing forward and learning and being productive in some way. And that's a different philosophical tilt, but, and I also got kicked out of school. So this thing just keeps progressing, which is, I actually just had a progressive of failure routes, that at a certain point, I think it finally clicked, which is I can't continue to do this. And I think you can get stuck in that, but if I didn't have like a family support, if I didn't have folks around the table that had kept helping to propel me back up and saying that it's okay if you fail. These are not failures. These are unsuccessful attempts, you can figure it out.

Arjun Sethi: (08:13)
But then I wouldn't have had the 15, 16, 17 chances. And so what I took from that was how do you iterate test and design towards what you want to forge moving forward? And so, I appreciate the description of myself, but previous to those companies that I started, 10 failure companies with, founding teams that didn't work, because we weren't iterating towards something that could work. And it doesn't really happen if you don't have a North star. And so luckily I had like a vision of where we wanted to move forward with my co-founders and myself. And that's actually been sort of the emphasis. If you look at my career, doing what I do at Tribe is actually the same thing I was at Lolapps, MessageMe, at Yahoo. That's the exact same thing, it's just, now we're just building a technology company that's deploying capital into venture capital as an ecosystem. And so the mindset is different and the way in which we build is different the way in which we iterate is different.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:12)
So you left Social Capital after working with the Chamath Palihapitiya and right now, John Darsie cannot believe I-

Arjun Sethi: (09:21)
Palihapitiya, Anthony. It's not that hard.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:23)
All right, it's close enough.

Arjun Sethi: (09:24)
Chamath Palihapitiya.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:25)
Chamath doesn't care, he knows I love him. And he knows I don't know how to pronounce his name. It was almost close enough. So you left after a couple of years, what did you learn there? What shaped you from that experience?

Arjun Sethi: (09:40)
Look, the first step, I'd say that, as I mentioned, instead of the five mile radius, go 50 miles. There's a set of folks that have worked with each other for a very long time. I actually met Chamath when he was at Facebook and I was at, Lolapps. He had tried to acquire my company and the apps that we were building on the platform. So there was a set of folks that I would say, had shared DNA around thinking about, iterating innovation. And what could you build that's different around looking at technology companies, right? Instead of thinking about what's forward, it's how do you see the present more clearly, what is there now? And then how do you forge your path forward? And that's the world we live in. And so, a lot of what I think we admire, with Chamath and other folks in the ecosystem and why we all work together in the first place and admired each other was that we were all forging a path towards the same direction, came from the same cohort, same clubs, same schools, in some case.

Arjun Sethi: (10:41)
And, what Social Capital was able to deliver was a collection of a lot of these individuals. You could say the Social Capital mafia. If you look at the folks that came out of the firm, and we all took what we distilled as the most important, and then forged ahead with that. So I took our data science and product approach towards what I think venture capital looks like in innovation. A couple of other folks took different pieces of that, Chamath himself took different pieces of that to the public markets. And then I think you just see a lot of us move in that direction because we had a collection of ideas that were really well-regarded in the firms. I think that's really special. You've seen that with companies like PayPal, you seen that with companies like Twitter, we have a very special collection of individuals and they go out to go do their new thing.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:30)
It makes total sense. And obviously we had him on SALT and he was very impressive, and as are you. Let me go in this direction. You're an entrepreneur, you're in Silicon Valley, you're trying, start something, you have a vision for something, they come to see you. How do you know? You're the sort of like the Simon Cowell, you're at the desk, you're looking for the X factor. How do you know that they have the X factor?

Arjun Sethi: (12:11)
We don't. The whole point is that we don't, if you think about, what people do and what they build, I think what happens is, for example, you and I are chatting now and so you get, some sort of pattern recognition of your past 20 years of history of saying, "I think this person has it, or they don't." But you're, pattern matching to your biases may that be right or wrong. And so that happens a lot, right? Like you can just see that with the way in which people get funded, the capital they're deploying, that they're being infused. And our approach is, "Hey, I think we may not know, the collection of experiences where this person comes from." We have a motto internally, which is, how do we focus on what, versus who you know.

Arjun Sethi: (12:55)
And so let's forget where, what school they went to. Let's forget where they grew up. Let's forget all those pieces for just a second. Let's look at their team, let's look at the focus of what they've built. And especially in a world that's software and tech enabled, what can you measure, right? What can you measure from a ground truth perspective? It's kind of akin to financial accounting. When you look at the public markets and you look at a company, you look at their guts through financial accounting, balance sheets, [inaudible 00:13:19] income, et cetera, can you do that with software? And that's what we have been working on for our whole careers. And so it was a way of how do you articulate that for the next set of, Zuckerbergs or Dorseys that show up and say, I have this product, but there are outliers, there are extreme.

Arjun Sethi: (13:36)
You might not like the way in which they, articulate their vision. But the whole point is that, that's not the point. The point is what is it that they've built so far? What's their foundation? Let's forget where they come from. You just a second and see if there's any demand from customers, integrations. Is there anything that you can measure that will give you now insights into what the future could look like if could forecast? And that's the fine tuning that I think is really important to think, that's the approach that we take. So the answer is we don't know, but we start building conviction and starting off from a foundation of what they have built, and we morph around them rather than having them morph around us.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:17)
You're in a very interesting high altitude ether, Reid Hoffman once said to me that if you're waiting for the website to be perfect, you're waiting too long. Let's launch the website and start figuring out as it goes. Do you share that philosophy? And if you do, how would you describe when is the right time to start a business or to try to scale a business?

Arjun Sethi: (14:46)
Yeah. So, I'll try to paraphrase here, but I think it was, if you're not embarrassed about your product, you're doing it wrong. And so while I think that's a good approach or certain types of companies, it's not the approach for every company. So if you kind of split the world into bits and atoms on the bit side, if you're building a mobile app, if you're building mobile infrastructure, you have fast iteration time and feedback. Yes, you can experiment at a faster pace and you shouldn't be embarrassed about what you're building, because you can do it cheaper, faster, better. And that's what that technology stack is all about. And when you move to the world of atoms, you can do that in some cases where if you're trying to build a spaceship or a rocket, if you're trying to help with climate change, if you're focused on drones that go out there, you can't iterate a drone that's gonna like drop in the middle of the sky.

Arjun Sethi: (15:38)
It's not the point. And so I think you kinda have to bifurcate between the two worlds and then say, okay, now, based off of these frameworks, what's the right way to approach the market, the product that you're building, and frankly, how much capital do you need, in order to hit the first iteration that might be embarrassing in that vertical that you're thinking through. So while I agree with that, that works when you're thinking in small terms of the internet, although the market obviously is quite, quite large for the internet in the world of bits.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:15)
I'm late to the VC space. And I know that there are-

Arjun Sethi: (16:20)
Never late, never late.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:22)
Never late, okay. So that's a good line, right? That's what people tell me about Bitcoin. We had planned B on yesterday, he said he felt that he was late, but now he realizes he's never late. So that's a good line, but let's say that I'm an old timer. I'm late to the VC space. I see the specs, I see these VC funds. I see these special partnerships, these SPVs, what would you recommend to me as someone that's a traditional stock and bond buyer, I own cash, stock, bonds and gold. What am I missing and how would you recommend that I enter the space?

Arjun Sethi: (17:04)
I think you're smarter than I am on this. And I've watched your talks before, so you take a macro perspective. Right? And say you think about, Hey, what are the financial policies that are being, projected worldwide? Not just here in the United States, but with ECP, the Japanese Central Bank here in the United States, just printing and then rates going down, and then you just continue to do that. Someone hiccups, you do the same thing over and over again. And so you take that traditional approach. It's okay, great. The traditional portfolio approach, traditionally, where you kept your capital may no longer have the same yields and you got to keep up with some aspects of inflation. And not aspects of inflation that are average, but aspects that are cumulative towards certain parts, California and places where you are and vice versa.

Arjun Sethi: (17:53)
If you go to African emerging markets and so, that's the high level macro, and then you go into micro and say, "Okay, well, what are the emerging classes of where you want to spend your time?" There's a power law in equities, there's a power law in alternatives, then there's a power law in certain human innovations. And part of it is, what does Bitcoin mean? As programmable money is what a lot of people call it. What does gold 2.0 mean? There's a lot of ways in which people kind of describe it. And then you keep going into, down the train. What does public equities mean and what is private equities that haven't gone public for so long with a lot of latent demand mean? And then what are the financial instruments to invest into this innovation?

Arjun Sethi: (18:36)
So I think it really comes down everything. I think, to not bury the lede, just comes down to growth. Where's growth going to happen? Is that innovation oriented? Is that incrementalization oriented? Is that stock buybacks oriented? And how do you kind of perceive your way around how you want to deploy our capital? So when you say you're late, I don't think you're late at all, because we've just starting to see, you can call it the ramifications, or sort of a new economy thought process, post 2008.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:07)
I mean, you're making excellent points. And I do study the Dow and the S&P 500 and the rotation, and if you look at the top 50 names from 20 years ago, they are very different from the top 50 names today. If you look at the top 10 names, and of course you and I know that Tesla just got added to the S&P 500. And so my question to you is what are going to be those leaders, in five or 10 years? Are there private companies right now that you're looking at, you'll say, "Wow, in five or 10 years, they are going to be the Ford Motor Company of 1920, but they're the XYZ company of 2025 or 2030."

Arjun Sethi: (19:51)
Yeah. So, I think this is why I love technology. There's a concept that we talk about a lot. Peter Thiel talks about it, what our perfect monopolies versus innovation monopolies. Internally, we call that one of N versus N of one companies, which is, what's a special company that is just so special it's hard to compete with? And then what are the sectors that are all similar to each other, again, one of N, one of many companies.

Arjun Sethi: (20:17)
And so I think if you take a look of just, this is a good point, just going from atoms to bits and what are the industries that are moving and shaping the world forward. Payments, e-commerce, the retail to digital transformation. This is not just the United States, this is worldwide. Where are you going to be placing your bets? So if you just look at the power law of the public markets, now you can call it the FAANG, MF stocks, where there's different acronyms today. But it's really concentrated towards the future, right? Where those are the companies that are winning now, and that there's going to be a larger majority of them that are going to continue to win given that consumer demand is going that way, B2B demand is going that way and worldwide demand is going that way.

Arjun Sethi: (21:01)
So you just kind of trace route that and say, "Okay, well, where else is that going to happen? What are the ecosystems that need to be there to support them? And then what are the ecosystems that are going to actually just die over the next, let's call it five, 10, 20 years from now?" And I think you've seen that, where private equity went really hard. I don't know if you remember 2008 to 2014 into retail. Retail is coming back. We know that ship has sailed, it's not coming back. COVID has accelerated that, not just here in the United States, but worldwide. And so you kind of, again, trace route that down, say, "Okay, well, what are the next industries that need to be A reshaped, and then B supported?" And that's kind of how we think about it, within the Silicon Valley realm of what we think is going to happen in the future.

Arjun Sethi: (21:49)
And I think it really just comes down to the private companies that are being built today. What are they doing and how are they supporting that ecosystem? And are they special? Or are they just one of many companies that are going to be a part of that transformation? I would argue anything that's D2C or consumer demand related are just one of many companies, right? What's the next brand that you're going to buy from when you go on Shopify or Amazon? But then the next set is who's supporting those brands? Who's someone that monopolize that? Who owns the roads and the railroads of the future. And that's I think what we spend a lot of time thinking through. One, we don't know, two we've seen some of them, and then three, we got to figure out a way to identify them without us having a certain biases that we've had in the past.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:34)
Tell me one sector. You don't have to give me a name of a company, just say, "Look, this is an unstoppable force that's going to be with us in 10 years.

Arjun Sethi: (22:48)
Financial services, I think is completely and utterly being not only disruptive, but revolutionizing all over the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:56)
So something like neo banking as an example, the revolutionizing the banking industry?

Arjun Sethi: (23:03)
Yeah. So if I walked down the street at 20 years ago, I would go to a retail branch and I would say, "I need these five things." And then depending on my purchasing power or status of, lower income, middle and above, those pieces would be fragmented, right? I'm privileged enough to have, the likes of Morgan Stanley to say, "Here's everything I'll do for you." But you don't have that for folks at a lower tier, and that's starting to change, right? Like I can send an email saying, "I want these five things." You can't do that if you're at the lower income or bracket and you can't do that if you're sitting in Mexico and if you can't and you can't do that if you're in India, driving an auto workshop. But that's starting to change where now they get the ability where the future was already there, but it wasn't evenly distributed and that's what technology allows us to do. And I think people use the word neo banking, but it's much more than that, right?

Arjun Sethi: (23:53)
Where that auto workshop individual wants a USD denominated account. He thinks about preserving his wealth in dollars. And I'll get to Bitcoin in a second and the same thing's happening in Latin American countries, the same thing's happening in Nigerian companies and you have this global influx of people moving back and forth. And so what does settlement look like? What do payments look like? What does banking look like? What does insurance look like? What does real estate look like when these products get bifurcated? And then a lot of people try to think and say, "Okay, Bitcoin is that piece, or crypto markets are going to be that piece." It's possible, but I think you have to think about it from an application perspective. What does the technology, the database, the settlement and the distribution allow you to build? And I think it's more people want trust security laws and you take those all together. Like we have here in the United States. And what are the products that get built off of that?

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:48)
All of a sudden I'm 100% with you and now I'm watching the neobanks take over. They've got no bricks and mortar. So they're offering the services at little to no cost and they're paying higher interest rates. And it becomes almost impossible longterm to compete with that. So I agree with you there. Let's talk about-

Arjun Sethi: (25:12)
Yeah. I think it's more than that. It's, we are willing to pay for a certain amount of experiences and products that they're able to say, in the world of negative and zero interest rates. Forget that for a second. Do you trust my experience to deliver you an outcome? Do you trust my experience to deliver you capital, lending and democratize that? Do you trust my product where you're willing to pay like a subscription fee for all these services that other people got? And then at scale, what people got at the higher tier you're now able to get at the lower tier as well. And I think that's actually the change, which is you can flip the pyramid and say at scale I can offer these services worldwide.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:54)
Yeah. It's pretty fascinating before I turn it over to, John Darsie and our audience participation. I want to talk a little bit about SPACs. What is your feeling about the SPAC market, it relative to the IPO market? And do you think it's a viable long term solution SPACs or is it a by-product of the regulatory environment that we're in?

Arjun Sethi: (26:19)
It's a good question. If you take a step back and say in the '90s, what did we have? We had roughly eight, 10,000 companies going public, or sorry that were public, on the NYSE and NASDAQ, you had the ability for people to participate in the upside of these companies where they're at and certain valuations let's call it, 500 EV and up, and then what the regulatory regime in the 2000s, and then, again, the regime in 2008, while it may have been, protectionist is also created this mechanism where the regulatory regime just made companies go public later. And so I think you look at any entrepreneur to say, "Do you want to go public or private?" There's a set will say, "I want to stay private forever because I want to control it."

Arjun Sethi: (27:08)
But there's a large set that say, "Yeah, I want access to capital markets, but I can't because it's too expensive." Or you've actually just do the math. If you have 50 million in revenue and for you to go public, it's going to be five or 10% just to start, that just doesn't make any sense from a unit economics perspective. So you just, wait, wait and wait. And now you have, I'm on the board of a company called Carta. And the number one thing all of these companies are asking by the way, there's about 14,000 companies in their platform. It's about a trillion dollars of private equity just in the private markets that don't move. It means that it's just a stake of private investors like myself that are waiting for liquidity or dumping more capital into these companies because they're growing and we're participating in the upside, but the regular markets and an irregular individual is not, regardless of being accredited.

Arjun Sethi: (27:58)
So I think what you've seen now is that there's just a ton of latent demand for those enterprise value companies and not just companies that are in the United States, but worldwide, because worldwide liquidity also doesn't exist. If you're thinking about a growth perspective, if you're sitting in Taiwan or Indonesia or Southeast Asia, you don't really have any options. You're going to look at the US markets NYSE and NASDAQ because their growth mentality and frankly, an American mentality, where you can't go public and these other markets that want like four to five years of profitability. So there's this massive regulatory, I'd say down pressure of private companies where they can't go public, and SPAC I think it's become a mechanism where you can do that. And it's not just the SPACs. You have secondary liquidity. These exchanges have started popping up, we've invested in one, Carter being the one, at certain EV.

Arjun Sethi: (28:49)
And then you start thinking about, okay, well, these companies are still at their inflection point where they need help. They want other folks that are along with them. The world of activist investors in the public markets are gone. And so the SPACs allow people to partner with folks with a cash injection like they have in the private markets to think longterm. Now, while I don't think it's perfect, it's a mechanism, direct listing is another mechanism, and the traditional IPO is another mechanism. And as you know, these are all forms of raising capital or, getting access to the capital markets, for other forms of capital that they might need to grow. And so is it here to stay? I think so. Is it going to be at the peak of what we've had over the last two years? I'm not sure. But we're keenly watching it. A lot of our companies are now in their board decks saying here are my options. Raise capital, go public. And SPAC is a mechanism for that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:49)
All right. Well, listen, congratulations on all your success. I've got to turn it over to Darsie who's the millennial in charge, that's going to now try to outshine the two of us, so don't let him do that, Arjun. Okay? You and I have now bonded. Don't let them get the best of us. Go ahead, Darsie.

John Darsie: (30:07)
So Arjun, just following up on the SPAC question, you had a portfolio company recently that went public via SPAC. Was that a positive experience, and has led you to be more receptive to the idea that, SPACs are a long-term solution?

Arjun Sethi: (30:21)
Yeah. So while we were at Social Capital, Chamath and team, and the rest of us had thought of what are all the toolkits that we could provide on behalf of our companies. And one of them was SPAC and at the time it was a pretty dirty word, right? Like you just think of it as companies that aren't good enough should not go public. And that was a mechanism used, or the reverse merger and what we had seen over time, very accelerated by them. And I think COVID accelerated this even more, is that there were certain types of companies that need more capital. So as a private investor, investing into space, climate change, drones, heavy CapEx industries, these companies need 50, 100, 250, $500 million in order to hit their next milestones.

Arjun Sethi: (31:08)
They already have product market fit. We already know technologically their products work. They just need the capital to build it. So if you want to build a farm, right. A vertically integrated farm that deploys, food at a cheaper rate, how do you do that? Where are you going to get that capital from? It's harder to do it in the private markets. And I think I go back to the first question of, how do you know if these entrepreneurs have it or not? Well beyond that? What if they already have it? They don't have access to capital in the private markets. What do you do? And a lot of it is they just get fully diluted. It's really hard for them to get that capital in it and something that should have taken a year or two to accelerate will take five or 10 years.

Arjun Sethi: (31:47)
And so I think that SPAC became a mechanism for that, which is, are people willing to take the risk for certain types of these companies that are definable, there's a narrative to it, there's a team behind it. And someone has done the work that you either trust, or you don't to say, here are the types of companies and here's how much capital injection do you need. And so those are the companies in our portfolio that have been looking at that approach. And so Momentus, which is a first mile and mile delivery mechanisms. So that they've literally attached themselves like a parasite onto a star ship or a rocket. And then they go from point A to point B to point C for you. So it's kind of like a hub and spoke model. They need capital to build their satellites and their propulsion systems.

Arjun Sethi: (32:28)
The first one already works. They've already launched it. So, the technology works and the second one, the launch, with payload for their customers, and we'll be out in the next three to six months. Those are really well-defined companies that you can say, "Okay, great. Let's give them the capital. They already have product market fit. Now it's about how fast can they accelerate and where do you go from here?" The private markets value those companies lower as high risk where we don't think it is, the public markets think of it as a little bit less risk, and they're willing to give them the capital to make it happen. So I think it's been a good experience for those types of companies. It's still TBD for international companies and it's still TBD for generic software companies that are growing and they do have access to private and public capital.

John Darsie: (33:14)
Right. And you saw Chamath first, SPAC was Virgin Galactic, and you've seen it on a nice run lately. And it seems to be a really good solution that they've found, for that company. So, I mentioned in the open about how Tribe Capital was founded by yourself and a team of engineers and data scientists, and you guys are very data-driven, in terms of how you invest. And so you can take a lot of raw transaction data from companies and you synthesize it to create sort of a bottom up approach for private investing, the same way a Dodd Graham type of investor would take a bottom up approach in terms of analyzing a public company's financials. Why is a data driven approach important? And how do you combine that data with your own judgment intuition, from sort of a top down perspective on trends?

Arjun Sethi: (34:02)
Yeah. So there's a lot of questions in there. So I'll try to break those into pieces. Over the last 20 years, if you look at Facebook, Google, Yahoo, like the new order of technology companies, and you just go down the stack like Airbnb, we, we grew up in those companies, we helped those companies. We help them scale. We either through investment or starting them in some cases. So that's the team's DNA. And so you take that team's DNA and you take them to a traditional venture capital firm and you ask them to invest in companies. The first thing we think of, or when I entered venture capital, I'm why are we still using Excel? Why are we still using paper and pencil to make investment decisions? It doesn't make any sense to us.

Arjun Sethi: (34:48)
Because we've built all of these family of frameworks to invest our time, our capital, our products with the fast feedback loop, why can't we bring what we've done for the last 20 years and bring it to the investment side as a way for us to augment our decision-making? That's how it started. I'll call it seven to 10 years ago. It was just so archaic for us that we, when you get into venture, it becomes less team oriented and it becomes more solo oriented. So we flipped it. We flipped the script and we basically said, "Okay, great. Let's take that. As a bottoms up approach to understand a company the same way, we take a bottoms up approach to build products at least in the consumer and enterprise ecosystem."

Arjun Sethi: (35:34)
And I'd say that we have this motto internally. And if you take the dollar bill and you turn it around, I forgot what the exact symbol is, but I think it says like Novus ordo Cyclorama or something like that. It's like a new order of the ages. That's the exact way we think about where we are in venture, and capital allocation, which is you've had this tradition, where you looked at balance sheet, and accounting frameworks. Can you build those frameworks? And can you build systems and software to help you make better decisions? And can you flip the script in the way in which you can help these companies, partner with them. And so when we go to a company and I know this is a long-winded answer-

John Darsie: (36:17)
[crosstalk 00:36:17] like the long-winded answer.

Arjun Sethi: (36:18)
... the pitch literally is if you want the folks that helped scale Uber, Facebook, Yahoo, that the folks that built these companies from zero to billions of customers, that's us with capital. So we are a technology company that think about venture, and we build products, we build distribution products, we build analysis, we build data and analytics that we can serve you in that way, because that's the language you speak. That's how you're thinking about building your company. And those are the types of folks that you want around the table versus, talking to your grandfather. Your grandfather might be really smart, but they're taking a solo approach to helping you. And that's very, it's hard to scale that.

John Darsie: (37:01)
Yeah. One of the aha moments for me lately, and we don't have any financial interest in Stripe, but when Stripe basically started Stripe Capital and the idea that they're analyzing all the transaction data on the fundamentals of companies that are using their APIs and actually investing in businesses, that they noticed really positive trends related to revenues and profits and everything that's going on, on the underlying level at a company, about, the value of data, the exponential value of data in a technology first world. I want to go back to Anthony's question about, founders. So a founder comes to you, and they say, "Hey, I have this idea. I have some money. I could bootstrap it. I could take venture capital money and dilute myself." There's other sources of capital, first of all, how do you know for that founder, whether it's the right time for them to launch the startup and how do that they're ready to scale and how do you give them advice on the best source of capital, as well as the best partners to help them scale the business?

Arjun Sethi: (38:05)
This really comes down to underwriting risk. So if you and Anthony decided to start a company tomorrow, you have access to capital, proliferation of it at the pre-seed and seed stage. So it's called idea and concept. So there's a set of investors that focus on people and markets, tech, experience, et cetera. That's all over the world. That's awesome. Right? Like if you kind of think about it, there's a ecosystem that's being built that kind of mimics or romanticizes what you see here in the Silicon Valley. And so that we're going to adopt that in certain other sectors. That's a different type of risk that you're underwriting and that's become more and more proliferated with more people, right? So it's syndicated out, whereas before it was just in the hands of a couple of folks. And that's called pre-product market fit.

Arjun Sethi: (38:50)
Post-product market fit, that's a new set of investors in a different set of investors. So it's really about the gradients where you are in that life cycle of building. And so to answer your question is we don't know. I think we have to be more bold about investing into harder things and newer things, because it is cheaper, faster, and easier to build that. And so there's a set of investors that do that. We're not good at that. That's okay. We explicitly say that, but we do invest in certain ideas that we like, but we underwrite risk kind of appropriately, which is, we're not giving $20 million to someone that has an idea in concept. We might be giving them a couple of hundred thousand dollars to start, but there's a whole set of us, that you can say times 10, that are going to do the same thing.

Arjun Sethi: (39:34)
And then they have enough capital to start an experiment with. I think that's something that's been lost over time. Where you used to actually have that in the '20s, '50s, World War I, World War II. You had that from the '50s to '70s and it kind of stopped. And it might've not been this public and private partnership, but it was there for things that we wanted to do moving forward. That's not really measurable. And I think the important part here is that you need to invest, to try and have unsuccessful attempts. After that you have frameworks, right? You have people like us that come in and say, I now am able to quantify that you have something that works and it has product market fit. It may not have the same velocity that we might all think, but that's a different risk profile.

Arjun Sethi: (40:14)
I'm not underwriting risk in the same way. And so now it's all about value. What's the value of your enterprise? What's the value of your product? What's the value of your revenue? And that's not any different than financial accounting, the lagging indicators, but you can still do that with software. So again, long winded, but there's a lot of things that you can do. And what's the type of capital that needs to go into trying things and iterating and scientific things that you want to try that are hard. And then what's the capital that goes into it once it finally works, it's a two different states of mind, right?

John Darsie: (40:49)
So I want to end on a macro question that's pretty timely based on IPOs we've seen just this week. So you had DoorDash go public and pretty much doubled immediately before it even started trading. Airbnb is now a North of a hundred billion dollar company that back in March, we were talking about or not, the company was going to survive because the pandemic was supposedly gonna destroy any tourism type of business. But they obviously have rebounded from that spectacularly. Do you think, from a valuation perspective, when you look at these companies that are going public and the valuations we're seeing in a stock like Tesla, that technology is getting into that, B word territory that some people that are less familiar with the technology industry, they come to me and they say, "Oh, John, I know you work in finance. Are we in a bubble again? Is this another tech bubble?" And I sort of guide them to an answer, but I don't want to ask a leading question to you, but do you think things are getting a little bit frothy in the technology space or do you think we're just scratching the surface in terms of what the economy is going to look like in the future? And so these technology companies are still undervalued and you're not late.

Arjun Sethi: (42:00)
I'll preface my answer with, I don't know, but then I'll answer with frameworks that I think are important. So take a step back 20 years, you guys have experienced this, where we had talked about, irrationality and valuations. In the 2000s when we had the technology bubble, before the technology bubble, there were other things happening in the world, right? You had the issue with, Russia, you had longterm capital, I'm forgetting the name of the situation exactly. You had a multitude of things happening all over the world that were negative, not neutral to positive, just negative. And so everyone was rushing towards the next growth story, and that was .com. Anything .com, even if it had nothing to do with technology, you just put .com in your disclosures and you just skyrocketed, that was a different era of companies that had no revenue, no customers, and no substance, right?

Arjun Sethi: (42:58)
And that's the narrative. And then technology continued on its path. And you can argue that it was devalued and it took a longer time for, like the likes of Google to be sort of recognized the likes of Amazon to be recognized during that transition period. Same thing kind of happened in 2008, which is, it's a different bubble. It's a real estate bubble. And now we're entering a world where, again, macro you have negative, to low interest rates, depending on the area. You have a printing of cash and you don't have the yields that you used to have if you wanted to take your capital out of the tech where you could, get, six or seven percent back, in the 2000s up to the 2008 timeframe, you don't have that today. And so the question you kind of have to ask yourself is the value of these companies, the value of their growth, the speed at which they're growing exponentially, right?

Arjun Sethi: (43:48)
It's a super linear, right? It's not stagnant, it's not sub linear. What is the value of those companies that are retaining their customers, expanding with them revenue and engagement wise. And so from a software perspective, those are the questions you kind of have to ask. Do I think some of these companies are overvalued, of course. There's a power law to some of these companies where everyone's piling into what they believe is safe and the equities market, and the same thing happens in the private market. It's just about where do you enter and where do you exit. The great thing about what we do is we enter early and we just leave it up to you guys on the smart side, on the public markets to think about what's overvalued and what's not. But it's a hard one to answer because there's not a lot of downward pressure.

Arjun Sethi: (44:28)
Like where's that coming from? A company like Nikola, which is extremely fraudulent, is still valued at $7 billion. You know that there's something frothy there. And there's not a lot of downward pressure on that company, it's still, I think that's an issue. And then I could probably talk about 10, 11, 15 companies like that. Where that mechanism of downward pressure doesn't exist. So is the market frothy? There's some of it, but I think you're seeing it in pockets. And it's still yet to be determined where, 30% of our GDP was just printed. And what does that look like over the next three, five, 10 years? I'm not sure. It's hard to answer.

John Darsie: (45:06)
Yeah. I mean, I think about Bitcoin in the same way. I came at it for the last several years as a skeptic, but I'm thinking in my head now, look at all the new buyers that we have of Bitcoin, who are the sellers? I don't really see a lot of people that are eager to sell at these levels. And you have all types of companies from mass mutual, to other large investment institutions, Paul Tudor Jones coming out and buying this and buying 1% of their portfolios in Bitcoin. But those are massive astronomical sums of money. But Arjun, thanks so much for joining us. We'll leave it there. Anthony, do you have a final word for origin before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:40)
No, I think, look, it's a fascinating conversation, you're my crystal ball now, Arjun. So I'm going to be calling you from time to time. Like I need to look in there so you can tell me what the hell is going on with the world, okay? I'm counting on you.

Arjun Sethi: (45:54)
We call it the magic eight ball, I'll shake something and I'll give you an answer.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:00)
Something tells me you're a little bit more precise than that, but I love that line. Well, you be well and thank you so much for joining us on SALT Talks, and congratulations. And I'm looking forward to the future successes for you and your firm.

Arjun Sethi: (46:12)
John, Anthony. Thanks for having me on board.

John Darsie: (46:15)
Thank you, Arjun. And thank you everybody who tuned in to today's SALT Talk.

Ric Edelman: Is Bitcoin a Mainstream Institutional Investment? | SALT Talks #129

“[Independent RIA’s] are the future… the brokerage environment is a dinosaur and it's not going to exist in the future.”

Ric Edelman is the founder of the nation’s largest independent RIA, with 350 advisors in 170 offices nationwide, managing $230 billion for 1.2 million individuals and households. The firm is also the nation’s largest independent provider of advice to 401(k) plans, serving thousands of companies, including 150 of the Fortune 500.

Independent RIA’s always appeared superior to the more traditional models like a wirehouse or big-box brokerage firm. These traditional models are beset with bad incentives where, in some cases, firms limit the products its brokers can sell in order to maximize the firm’s profit, at the client’s expense. Independent RIA’s release advisors from any pressures that might disincentivize the best financial decisions. “The autonomy allows you to serve your client's best interest, it allows the clients to do better, and oh, by the way, it's financially better for the advisor as well because you've cut out the middle-man.”

Advisors are obligated to look into the future for opportunities and challenges. This now includes the emergence of digital asset classes, including Bitcoin. Bitcoin has been the top performing asset class of the last 1-, 5- and 10-year period, but due to its newness, skepticism is understandable. RIA Digital Assets was set up to help advisors and consumers become more comfortable about this revolutionary technology. Ultimately, a 1% asset allocation of Bitcoin is recommended.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Ric Edelman.jpeg

Ric Edelman

Founder

RIA Digital Assets Council

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 and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers, and our goal with these SALT Talks is really to replicate the experience that we provide in our global conferences, the SALT Conference, which we hold twice a year, once in the United States and once internationally. At our conferences and on these SALT Talks, our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:49)
We're very excited today to welcome Ric Edelman to SALT Talks. Ric is the founder of the nation's largest independent RIA, now Edelman Financial Engines with 350 advisors in 170 offices nationwide managing $230 billion for 1.2 million individuals and households. Ric was on this independent RIA trend before being an independent RIA was cool, so we congratulate him on being early on this megatrend. The firm is also the nation's largest independent provider of advice to 401(k) plans, serving thousands of companies, including 150 of the Fortune 500. Ric serves on its board and remains actively engaged in the firm's investment management and financial planning strategies. Ric also founded the Funding Our Future Coalition with the Bipartisan Policy Center, now the largest coalition ever formed that focuses on attaining financial security for all Americans. Ric was behind the creation of the first Exponential Technologies ETF and has been awarded two patents for inventing a product that allows newborns to save for retirement.

John Darsie: (01:57)
Ric is a leading financial educator and champion of improving financial literacy for all Americans. He's produced award-winning specials for public television and he's a number one New York Times bestselling author of 10 books on personal finance, including a best-selling children's book on money as well. Ric taught personal finance for nine years at Georgetown University and currently is a distinguished lecturer at his alma mater, Rowan University, which awarded Ric an honorary doctorate in 1999. Just a reminder, if you have any questions for Ric during today's SALT Talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. I'm going to be hosting at least the beginning of today's talk with Ric, so we'll get right into it.

John Darsie: (02:41)
As well, Ric, in addition to becoming the largest independent RIA in the country also recently founded an organization called the RIA Digital Asset Coalition, and so he's doing a lot of different things to educate people on traditional finance as well as a new wave in finance, if you will, with digital assets and cryptocurrencies. But before we get into the Digital Asset Council, Ric, could you talk about the independent RIA megatrend that I mentioned? You were an early pioneer in that space and we've seen an explosion in both individual advisors moving to an independent model as well as the aggregation of independent RIAs. Why are advisors and clients gravitating so heavily towards that independent model?

Ric Edelman: (03:23)
It's a better model. John, great to be with you. Thanks for having me. It's a better model. When I first started in the business back in 1986, when my wife and I decided that we were going to enter this business, it never occurred to us to go join a wirehouse, to go sign up with any of the big-box brokerage firms, because we didn't want to engage in the sales process, which is essentially what those folks do. Many of these firms have quotas that they impose on their brokers. They limit the product that they want you to sell. They tell you to sell the product that their management team feels that they want you to provide to clients often because the firm makes more money selling certain products than others and the story goes on and on and on.

Ric Edelman: (04:12)
That's not why we became financial advisors. We did this because we were wronged as consumers. We went to a financial advisor. We were looking for advice on how to buy a house and we needed advice on mortgages and this guy actually told us to lie on our mortgage application, told us to commit a felony, and we were aghast. That shock and anger was what propelled us to say, "We're going to learn how to do this ourselves and we're going to teach others how to do it, too, and show them what we've learned." We could only do that as an independent advisor where we didn't have a boss, we didn't have some corporate titan telling us what we would do, how we would do it, who we would do it for, and so on, so the independent route was all that there ever was for us. This was back in the 1980s. You're right, John. That was uncommon, unheard of, especially for someone brand new in the business who didn't have a book of business, didn't have a bunch of clients, wasn't managing any assets at the time.

Ric Edelman: (05:10)
How did I at age 28 persuade people to hire me when I had no track record personally? The early days were a bit of a challenge for us, but as we look back on it, 35 years later, we now see that you're right, what we were doing was the future, and pretty much now everybody gets it, and so the movement toward independence away from the brokerage firms and the big-box BDs, yeah, it's really where it's at. The autonomy allows you to serve your client's best interest, it allows the clients to do better, and oh, by the way, it's financially better for the advisor as well because you've cut out the middleman. It's just between you and your client. You're not sharing any of that revenue, so we could charge our clients less while still earning more. Ain't America great?

John Darsie: (06:01)
Right. It aligns everyone's incentives, for sure. As we were talking about in the open, I spent a year working at Hightower analyzing these trends. Where do you think the industry will look like in, say, 10 years? We're still maybe in the early days of this move into independence, but what do you think the financial advice industry looks like in a decade?

Ric Edelman: (06:20)
Oh, it is the future. I've been saying this for quite some time now, that the old traditional model, which is still dominant, the brokerage environment, is a dinosaur and it's not going to exist in the future. It's simply because there's a new better way and that is the independent model, a fee-based environment, as opposed to a commission-based sales process. The reason that we haven't seen even greater adoption of it yet is simply because the commission-based business is so profitable for the brokerage environment and because of inertia, because the average advisor in this country is over 60 years old. They've been doing this for over 30 years, so there's not a lot of motivation. Their clients aren't clamoring for it yet to a big enough degree. They're making a good amount of money. It's painless, it's easy, it's traditional, and why upset the cart when there's no need?

Ric Edelman: (07:14)
As those folks age out and they retire, their successors are not going to operate their business the way that they did. As their clients age out, meaning die, those clients' children and grandchildren are not going to manage the money the way that their parents and grandparents did, and so we'll continue to see this metamorphosis going from a commission model to a fee-based model, away from a corporate environment to an independence model, and it'll get to the point where the independence are going to be massive. We will see a trillion-dollar RIA before too long.

John Darsie: (07:51)
We might be looking at him right now, just saying. I know you guys are, I think, bigger than the next nine largest independent RIAs combined, if I have that correct.

Ric Edelman: (08:01)
We're a fifth of the way there already at Edelman Financial Engines.

John Darsie: (08:03)
There you go. You guys will be there before you know it. As you know very well, being a financial advisor is much more than just shooting out an allocation of ETFs or stocks into somebody's portfolio. You're also have an important psychological relationship with your clients. We'd like to talk about, we've talked to a lot of independent RIAs and financial advisors on SALT Talks since March, but what did you learn or what was reinforced to you about the importance of a good, rock-solid asset allocation, and as well as having really important conversations and a strong communication relationship with your clients during times of distress?

Ric Edelman: (08:41)
Yeah, you've said the two keywords, John, relationship and communication. It is not about the product sale. That's what a lot of Wall Street still doesn't get. They think that if they sell a nifty, whizzbang product, that that's the key to success and that's not true. Well, it may be in the short term and maybe for them, but it's not the key to the client. What really matters is to focus on what the client cares about and what the client cares about is attaining their personal financial goals.

Ric Edelman: (09:14)
Most investors in this country are what I would refer to as "reluctant investors." They're not buying stocks and bonds because they want to, they're not buying mutual funds or ETFs or non-traded REITs or annuities, or you pick the fund or investment you want, they're not buying this stuff out of joy. They're buying it out of desperation. They're buying it because they don't have a choice. They realize that they've got to save for their future and that it's really up to them. They can't rely on the government. They can't rely on their employer and they certainly can't rely on rich grandparents, so it's really up to them for their financial security, and so we become, grudgingly, participants in the financial services sector, and so we need someone who will do two things for us. One is to explain all this. The world of personal finance has gotten extraordinarily complicated, 15,000 mutual funds alone from which to pick from, and that's just mutual funds. Forget about ETFs and forget about all the other stuff that's out there. 7,000 stocks, hundreds of thousands of bonds, of all flavors, sorts, issuers, maturities, on and-

John Darsie: (10:22)
There's more ETFs than there are stocks now, it almost feels like.

Ric Edelman: (10:25)
... Absolutely right, and that's just the US. What about the foreign markets and so on? Then there's the technological elements that have changed dramatically. The regulatory ones, the competitive ones, and of course, the treacherous nature of scams and frauds from Bernie Madoff on down, so it's a dicey environment. Explain this, communicate effectively to me, help me understand. These clients, these investors, they're smart, intelligent, educated people. They just need to understand because we don't get education on money in America, K through 12, not a single class on money. Most college grads never took a class on money. Employers don't do much and parents generally do nothing, so we're financially illiterate. That's not the same as dumb. It's not the same as stupid. It just means we're not educated, so communicate. Explain to me how this stuff works. That's number one.

Ric Edelman: (11:17)
Number two: The relationship. Don't do this one and done. I want to be in this for the long-term. I'm dealing with this from now through the rest of my life and I want you to be with me for the rest of my life. It's the relationship we want with our physicians and our attorneys and our accountants, heck, with our barbers and hairstylists. We want a long-term relationship, not a simple transaction. The firms that get that, that recognize that the advice I'm giving you today, I am going to be accountable for I'm going to have to answer for it in the future and I'm going to have to help you deal with the changes in life, changes in the economy, changes in the law, changes in the marketplace. We will get there together. It's not about today's product sale, which is all too often what still happens in the insurance industry and the brokerage industry and the credit card industry and the banking industry. They still treat it like a one-and-done product sale and that's not what consumers want. That's not how you maintain long-term lifetime value of a client.

John Darsie: (12:22)
Speaking of education, you recently started the RIA Digital Assets Council. You're one of the more forward-thinking independent wealth advisors, financial advisors, whatever you want to call it, both in terms of your move to independence and now also in the digital asset space. It's an area that viewers on SALT Talks know that we've become very interested in this space from both a SALT and a SkyBridge perspective, but before we get into asset allocation and things like that, why did you start the RIA Digital Assets Council? What is it and what has your journey been like in terms of understanding digital assets?

Ric Edelman: (12:57)
Well, my view is that as a financial advisor, my obligation to my clients is to constantly look ahead. We are planners, after all, so where is the world going? What are the investment opportunities? What are the pitfalls and challenges that we might encounter so that we can protect and guide our clients in that journey? I've always been looking forward: What's coming next? Back in 2012, I had the opportunity to meet Ray Kurzweil, who many people consider the Thomas Edison of our age, one of the smartest men on the planet.

John Darsie: (13:30)
Yep. He's brilliant.

Ric Edelman: (13:30)
He's the director of engineering at Google, is on the Harvard faculty, and holder of hundreds and hundreds of patents. Co-founder at Singularity University. I interviewed Ray on my TV show on public television and Ray encouraged me to attend Singularity University's executive program, and with his encouragement, I did so in 2012. That's where I was introduced to exponential technologies broadly and Bitcoin specifically. I'm talking about big data, robotics, AI, nanotech, biotech, bioinformatics, 3D printing, all these incredible technologies.

Ric Edelman: (14:04)
As a result of all of this, I began to get an awareness and understanding of what is coming next and I asked all these scientists, technologists, physicists, physicians, astronauts, "What is it that all of this means for personal finance?" While they could tell me what it meant from a tech perspective, they couldn't tell me what it meant for the average investor or the average American homeowner and that set me on my path for due diligence and I spent a lot of time researching it. It culminated in my book over my shoulder, The Truth About Your Future, The New York Times bestseller that explains what all these technologies mean for every aspect of our lives.

Ric Edelman: (14:42)
I began to look closely at Bitcoin, so I began investing in Bitcoin in 2014, and I be quickly began to realize two things. Number one: Bitcoin is revolutionary. The underlying technology of blockchain and digital ledger technology and DeFi, decentralized finance, are the most revolutionary technological innovation since the Internet itself and they are going to revolutionize commerce on a global scale in incredible ways. That's the first thing I realized.

Ric Edelman: (15:15)
Number two: The second thing I realized is that most financial advisors don't know this. They don't understand it. They don't get it. If you look at Bitcoin superficially, it looks like tulip bulbs or Beanie Babies. It looks like if it's not a fad, it's a fraud, and it seems to violate all the stuff we're taught from an investment management perspective, and in fact, the more education, the more background, the more college degrees you have in this field, the more that Bitcoin makes no sense because it violates everything we've all been taught, everything we've all experienced over the last 40 years.

Ric Edelman: (15:54)
I created the Digital Assets Council to create a bridge from the crypto community that's developing all this nifty whizzbang cool stuff and the RIA community, which needs to understand it so that they can effectively give their clients the advice the clients need, and so we provide a certification program for financial advisors where you can get a certificate in blockchain and digital assets, so that we teach you how this all works, how to explain it to clients, how to figure out whether or not you should recommend it. If so, how much you should be putting clients into. How do you build a portfolio using Bitcoin and digital assets? How do you deal with the taxes and regulatory environment? How do you communicate to clients about it and so on? There's no organization like it because we're not selling anything. We're not manufacturing products, we're not selling services. We're just an educational resource to help financial advisors understand this brand new asset class.

John Darsie: (16:51)
Why should financial advisors specifically be taking a look at making an allocation of Bitcoin or other digital assets as part of their asset allocation mix? How do you arrive at the correct waiting for such a nascent early technology that a lot of people don't understand?

Ric Edelman: (17:09)
Due to the nature of its newness, it's now over 10 years old, but still incredibly new in the scheme of things, the upside potential remains very, very big for Bitcoin. It is the outsized potential of returns. The stock market makes 10% in a year. Bitcoin routinely moves up or down 10% in a day, and so it is the potential for outsized returns. It is the number one performing asset class in the last one, three, five, and 10-year periods and since inception and many people believe it's still in its infancy, so there's a tremendous opportunity for that.

Ric Edelman: (17:44)
The more important issue, though, and the number one reason that advisors say they are interested in this is the fact that Bitcoin is uncorrelated. It's price movements have nothing to do with anything else, not the stock market, the bond market, interest rates, inflation rates, economic policy, fed action, nothing, and if you truly believe in diversification, you want uncorrelated and even better non-correlated assets in your portfolio. You can help reduce client volatility overall while improving returns by adding digital assets to the portfolio.

Ric Edelman: (18:19)
The big question, as you said, John, becomes, "Well, how much do I do?" My personal view, I'm the guy who introduced the concept a few years ago of a 1% asset allocation. That's it. That is because a lot of advisors are scared to put five or 10 or 20% of a client's assets into Bitcoin and I don't blame them. This is so new, it's so uncertain. Anything can happen. This could be a Betamax and go blow up. It could be Lotus 1-2-3, wiped out by Excel. It could be regulated away by governments fearful that their fiat currencies are at risk. I mean, who knows what's going to happen? A 1% allocation won't hurt you if you're wrong. It'll be annoying, but not devastating. But if you're right, that 1% allocation can have a material impact on the improvement of your client's returns, so it is something very much worthwhile learning about to determine if what I've just said is valid. That's all I'm asking. I'm not saying you have to like it. I'm saying as an advisor, you have an obligation to learn about it.

Ric Edelman: (19:28)
Look, I'll give you an illustration, John. Everybody knows how I feel about annuities. I'm not a fan. In several of my books, I talk about why annuities are really bad for consumers. In fact, the title of one of my books is called The Lies About Money and annuities play a big role there, so I'm not a fan of annuities. But you know what? I'm an expert in annuities. I know all about them and I can tell you in great detail why I don't like them, so that's my challenge to you as a financial advisor: If you don't like Bitcoin, explain to me why. Don't just dismiss it as a fad or a fraud, don't just dismiss it as too volatile, because that means you don't know what you're talking about. Now, I challenge you to learn about Bitcoin and then conclude whether or not you like it or not and you'll be right either way for the benefit of your clients.

John Darsie: (20:16)
Do you consider Bitcoin from an asset class perspective the digital gold? That's a lot of the, you know, marketing and the talking points that are provided by Bitcoin fanatics who have been early advocates for the digital asset community. Do you think that it serves the same purpose in your portfolio in terms of just having a potential inflation hedge and a hedge against things going wrong in the world?

Ric Edelman: (20:39)
No, I don't. I think it's a misguided argument and it's creating a lot of noise that is interfering in the effort for advisors to understand Bitcoin. I don't know where this argument of Bitcoin is the new digital gold came from, but it's silly. Let me tell you why. Yes, we all know that digital... Strike that. We all know that gold is a hedge against inflation, except that that's not true. If you look at the long-term history of gold, it doesn't always go up with interest rates and inflation rates, it sometimes goes down, so even if that was true, it's irrelevant.

Ric Edelman: (21:12)
This isn't an argument of whether Bitcoin is better than gold. That's a wrong argument. If you believe in diversification, you should have gold in your portfolio and you should have Bitcoin in your portfolio. It's not a question of which one. You should have both. The two are uncorrelated. One has nothing to do with the other, so yes, you should have Bitcoin because of its potential for increase in value because of its lack of correlation, because it is a new and different asset that aids in the portfolio construction and you could say very many of the same things about gold.

John Darsie: (21:51)
We were talking a little bit in the open about this story is really one about supply and demand and what you see now is you've seen a lot of big names in the investment world come out in support of Bitcoin, Paul Tudor Jones, Stan Druckenmiller, Bill Miller, who's a classic value investor. You had Mass Mutual last week come out and invested a hundred million dollars into Bitcoin. You see other large investment institutions from JP Morgan to Morgan Stanley writing favorably about Bitcoin in the financial media or investment letters that they're sending out. Do you think the career risk in the last, say, three years, we saw Bitcoin surge to almost $20,000, about three years ago, and then it fell all the way down into the three thousands, but now the rally feels a little bit different and I'm going to editorialize a little bit and say that the career risk of investing in Bitcoin and the stigma around Bitcoin seems to have gone away a little bit. Do you agree with that? How do you think that'll affect price and volatility moving forward?

Ric Edelman: (22:50)
Yes, I do agree with it and I think we're going to see much more to come. The conversation is shifting from you're conspicuous if you own it to your conspicuous if you don't and I think that that trend is going to continue even further. Now that you can buy Bitcoin at PayPal and you have MicroStrategy, for example, investing almost over half a billion, and they've just announced they're going to double it over the next several months.

John Darsie: (23:14)
It's now a Bitcoin ETF, yeah.

Ric Edelman: (23:18)
We are clearly in an environment where Bitcoin is now mainstream and this legitimizes the asset, and there's going to be a continued snowball effect of this where people will begin to realize it's routine, just as a gold ETF made gold a routine asset for a portfolio diversification. The first two weeks of that ETF, it raised a billion dollars, so yes, I do believe we will continue to see broad diversification and greater mainstreaming by institutions, endowments, pension funds, insurance companies, and so on.

Ric Edelman: (23:52)
Here's the thing: We know that there are only 21 million Bitcoins that will ever be produced. That's a technological fact and that 18 million have already been produced with some, maybe four million lost forever, we're not totally sure, so it's a mere question of supply and demand. As the demand grows, the supply is going to have to respond by virtue of increased prices. You also have a technological element known as "the halving," which has occurred four times so far. It occurs roughly every four years, which effectively cuts the price of Bitcoin in half, meaning you've got to work twice as hard to mine a single Bitcoin. Every time the halving comes about, it causes a doubling in the value of Bitcoin because you only get half as many for each one you mine.

Ric Edelman: (24:42)
Technological jargon I just threw at you, but the bottom line is these two technological facts conspire to increase the price of Bitcoin, so this is one reason why you see so much bullishness from very serious Wall Streeters who are now paying attention for the first time. Now that they realize Bitcoin is not likely to go away, they're now beginning to recognize that it does have significant potential as an investment opportunity. Now, having said that, there still remain massive risks, technological risks, regulatory risks. Governments could get very upset with all of this. We don't know where it's going to go, so we want to keep our heads about us, not overinvest, not subject ourselves to portfolio risks that would harm our personal finances, but having said all the above, you do need to recognize that, yeah, there's a there there. You're right, John, that it will become more and more conspicuous that you are not investing as opposed to the fact that you are.

John Darsie: (25:39)
Ric, I'll say we've had so many people on SALT Talks who were such enthusiastic supporters of Bitcoin. It's great to have someone like you on who thinks about things from a risk management perspective. You're eager to talk about the risk before you even talk about the potential upside, which I think is important for people to get comfortable about it. We have people now like yourself that are talking about this that are not just fringe people in the technology industry. We have people that are really thinking about it from an asset allocation and a risk perspective. When you talk about volatility, this goes back to my earlier question about the importance of communication and a relationship with advisors, communicating through volatility. We've seen heavy volatility over the last 15 years at multiple instances in the equities industry. We've seen the stock market fluctuate and we obviously see high volatility in the digital asset space. How do you get both underlying clients and advisors comfortable with the fact that you're going to have to pay for some volatility with Bitcoin, but the ultimate upside is worth that volatility?

Ric Edelman: (26:43)
Yeah. Well, again, we have to apply a totally different lens to Bitcoin. We cannot use our typical approach of investment management with diversification and so on because Bitcoin is just a different beast. We are talking about Bitcoin here, but that's an easy shortcut for all of the digital assets. There's many other coins that are worth talking about, such as Ethereum, but the bottom line is that the volatility, I believe, works to your advantage. If you're the kind of an advisor who provides diversification and rebalancing, you love volatility because volatility is your friend when you rebalance a portfolio. If you're the kind of person who encourages clients to dollar cost average, you got to love Bitcoin because the volatility works to your advantage. Instead of fearing it, you ought to embrace it from those notions.

Ric Edelman: (27:34)
We need to recognize that volatility is simply an inherent nature of this asset, and oh, by the way, if you look at the early years of Microsoft, of Amazon, of any tech stock, you'll see similar levels of volatility. You'll see similar, massive increases followed by huge crashes. This is nothing new. In fact, in 2020, 145 of the S&P 500 were more volatile than Bitcoin this year, so don't talk to me about volatility as a reason not to invest in Bitcoin. It's just an inherent part of what it is.

Ric Edelman: (28:10)
What we tell our clients at Edelman Financial Engines, because we're not advising that they buy Bitcoin, because in our firm, we like to use ETFs and mutual funds, so that's what we're waiting for. We tell them, "If you're going to invest, 1% of assets. Expect massive volatility and don't be surprised if you lose the whole thing." It's all about risk management. People don't want to get rich quick. They're not trying to win the lottery. They're trying to secure their financial future, so let's talk about it in that way. While I can appreciate that there are some pundits who are thoroughly immersed and they love this and they think it's going to go to $500,000 in value, let's keep our heads about us, because I think that can scare people as equally as it can entice them.

John Darsie: (28:51)
Yeah, I totally agree. Again, going back to my prior point, it's made me a lot more comfortable with it to have sober people like yourself who think about things in terms of risk management talking about it in language that makes sense to me. In terms of asset allocation, now I want to talk about on a macro level, the 60/40 portfolio, I think, seems to be challenged right now with where interest rates are in traditional fixed income. You have emerging asset classes like digital assets. Let's take a hypothetical client, say, somebody who's worth $50 million who's looking to create a diversified portfolio made up of stocks, traditional fixed income, alternative investments, whether that be hedge fund, real estate, private equity, and then some allocation to hedges like gold and Bitcoin. What do you think in broad terms that type of portfolio should look like today for a client, obviously keeping in mind that every individual client's situation is different?

Ric Edelman: (29:46)
For sure. You can certainly argue that that individual with 50 million in assets should have all of their money in 30-day T-bills, call it a day. I mean, why take any investment risk at all, right? If you've got the lifestyle you want and you're able to secure your family intergenerational financial planning and estate planning in place, why do anything other than a 30-day T-bill? Even if it doesn't grow in value and it's eroded by inflation, so what? You'll be dead before you're broke.

Ric Edelman: (30:09)
But assuming that you do want to grow the portfolio and you want to continue to earn market-based returns, for that kind of an individual, I would, again, say, "A 1% allocation is plenty." Due to your net worth, in your case, at 50 million, you can afford to go to 5% of a diversified digital assets and blockchain portfolio, a combination of coins, a combination of VC, hedge funds, and private investment opportunities that you can diversify the investing strategies, long/short funds, timing funds, trading funds, as well as passive index funds, like the Bitwise top 10 crypto index, the BITW, et cetera, so you can do a variety of things at 50 million that you wouldn't be able to do at 5 million, let alone 500,000. Any or all the above would be perfectly fine in my view.

John Darsie: (31:01)
You talked about how at Edelman Financial Engines, you like to invest through ETFs and mutual funds because of the diversification and security it offers both from an asset perspective and from a structure perspective. When do you expect in your view regulation to catch up to all the progress we're seeing in the digital asset space and for us to see some type of ETF-type product that the average mainstream investor can feel comfortable from a security, custody, and structure perspective?

Ric Edelman: (31:28)
Well, I believe, John, that we're going to see a Bitcoin ETF within the next 18 months and I've been saying that for five years, so I have no idea. We do know that the SEC has at this point two major objections to a Bitcoin ETF: custody and volatility mixed with price transparency and validity. The custody issue, I think, is a done deal. We have solved the custody problem in the crypto industry. There are now very major players dealing with custody the exact way I believe the SEC would want to see it, so I'm not sure that's really an issue anymore. As for price volatility, well, the SEC can't control the price of gold or the price of oil. If they're willing to allow a 3x inverse ETF, I don't know why they won't allow a Bitcoin ETF, but that's just me. We'll eventually see one.

Ric Edelman: (32:17)
But I'll take it a step further: At this point, I'm not so sure it really matters so much. You've got Grayscale with their Bitcoin and Ethereum products, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust and the Ethereum Trust, and now you have the Bitwise Top 10 Crypto Trust, BITW. Between GBTH and ETHE and BITW, I'm not so sure that it really matters all that much that we don't have any ETF. It'd be better because it'd be a lot cheaper than those products and you wouldn't have the premiums that those products have, so it would be in the client's best interest, the consumer's best interest, and having the SEC as a regulator of oversight would provide a much better level of safety, security, and confidence in the marketplace, helping to reduce the risk of scam and fraud and abuse. All of that is why we should have one. But in terms of investor ability to participate anymore, I'm not so sure it's as big a deal as it was three years ago.

John Darsie: (33:17)
We have a question from a member of our audience. Sharon asks, "You mentioned that you think custody has been solved and those questions have been answered from a regulatory perspective." We've done a lot of work on this, and I agree with you, but could you share with her and the rest of our audience the progress that has been made on custody and why you think those issues have been solved?

Ric Edelman: (33:37)
Well, you've got major players engaged here. Fidelity, first and foremost, Fidelity Digital Assets, they're providing these services for the institutional marketplace. They will eventually roll it out for the retail marketplace. You've got companies like Kingdom Trust, which manages $19 billion in assets that's a qualified custodian. You can actually use them to buy Bitcoin in your IRA, so you have a number of players that are providing custody services, including major firms like Coinbase, which has five times as many accounts as Schwab, Gemini, founded by the Winklevoss twins, and a variety of other firms, significant companies, massive funding and financials underlying their businesses, serious people running serious companies, not the fly-by-night folks that you had eight and 10 years ago, so I think that the technological environment and the competitive landscape are getting real serious players on Wall Street to pay attention. If Fidelity is getting involved, you know that the rest of them are not going to be able to stay away for long, if only due to market competition.

John Darsie: (34:44)
Right. We have another comment from another viewer who mentions that the SEC is actually taking up in the first quarter questions about the custody model for crypto, so certainly, based on public comments and rulings that are on the horizon, it feels like they're getting more comfortable with the idea of digital assets and we're moving in the right direction. You talked about the Bitwise Trust. Grayscale, as you mentioned, has an Ethereum Trust, they have, excuse me, a Bitcoin Trust, and Bitwise, they take an approach. They have a product that's features the top 10, I believe, digital assets in a trust format. Do you think that diversification across digital assets is the best approach, or if an investor is dipping their toe in the space, they should focus on Bitcoin?

Ric Edelman: (35:31)
Well, I'm a big fan of diversification. That's what we build our practice on at Edelman Financial Engines, so yeah. Especially given the uncertainties of this space, yeah, I think it does make sense. Let's remember that there's a reason that these different coins exist. We're not talking about Coke versus Pepsi. What we're talking about here are fundamental technological differences. We're talking about the fact that you have lots of different pairs of shoes in your closet. You have shoes for going to the opera and shoes for going to the gym. Different vehicles for different purposes. That's the difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example. This is why Litecoin exists and others.

Ric Edelman: (36:12)
We do have to recognize that there are different purposes behind the technology that solve different needs in the marketplace. Currencies, assets, trends, middle functions, fiat functions, and so on, and they are all designed to accomplish different things, so yeah, I believe if you're just starting out, you might as well start with Bitcoin. It's the simplest and easiest, best-known route. It's about 75% of the total digital asset marketplace. You can do it as easily as you want on PayPal, for goodness sakes, let alone at any of the major exchanges.

Ric Edelman: (36:48)
If you want to then go further through your education and experimentation, you certainly can do that. If you like the idea of diversification, the Bitwise Top 10 Crypto Index is the only real play that there is. It's as you mentioned, the top 10 coins on a cap-weighted basis, so instead of owning just Bitcoin, about 75% is in Bitcoin. Ethereum is number two and so on. They rebalance it monthly. It's passively managed, so that is an excellent way to go. Disclosure: I'm not only someone who owns that fund, my wife and I invest in it, we're also investors in Bitwise itself, so we are in the equity play because we're really big fans of Hunter Horsley and Matt Hogan at Bitwise.

John Darsie: (37:32)
Right. Before we let you go, the RIA Digital Assets Council, how can people engage with that organization? Do you have any events coming up? How can they further their education on this space? I know every time we do a digital assets SALT Talk, my parents watch these SALT Talks and they FaceTime me, shaking their heads, saying they still don't understand what's going on. How can they engage with the RIA Digital Assets Council to understand it? Do you have any events coming up that you would recommend?

Ric Edelman: (37:58)
We do. You can go to R-I-A-D-A-C, riadac.com, and get all of our info there. You can sign up for our certification program, which is a 10-module online course. Take it at your own pace so that you can get the knowledge you need, not only about Bitcoin, but also how to incorporate it into your practice management as an advisor. We have a variety of webinars coming up. There's one on Tuesday, December 15, an hour-long webinar talking about the very basics of Bitcoin, what it is, how it works, how to incorporate it into your practice, and so on. We have other events coming up in January and February and a major summit coming up March 4th. You can get all the details about these events and register online at riadac.com.

John Darsie: (38:47)
Well, there you have it, riadac.com, R-I-A-D-A-C dot com. Thank you so much, Ric, for creating this movement and spearheading this movement into the independent RIA model, as well as educating people about asset allocation, about risk management, diversification, and true diversification now in the age of digital assets. It's been a pleasure to have you on.

Ric Edelman: (39:08)
Thank you so much, John. It's been a treat for me.

Pandemic Venture Investment Series - Episode 6 | SALT Talks #128

“The world has seen a global transformation in our food supply where consumers are seeking more sustainable solutions in their diets.”

The latest installment of SALT Talks: Pandemic Venture Investment Series, presented in partnership with OurCrowd, looks at how Agri-FoodTech start-ups are not just reimagining the future of agriculture and food, but also the sustainability of our planet. 2019 saw the sector grow to a $20 billion venture capital sector. Technology has proven to be crucial during this global pandemic and highlighted our dependence on a global functioning food chain. The CEOs of Tevel, BlueNalu and Ripple Food reveal how they are innovating in this crucial space. Moderated by Laly David, Partner, OurCrowd.

With a growing base of environmentally-conscious consumers, we see greater calls for alternative dairy products like Ripple that requires less water to make, resulting in over 200 million gallons of water saved so far. Cell-based meat is one of the latest in the line of alternatives to animal-based products. BlueNalu is a leader in the cell-based seafood market, offering a solution to a traditional seafood industry that has put its ecosystem in peril. “Our global supply chain of seafood is the most vulnerable supply chain on the planet.”

Picking fruit requires a large source of manual labor, often requiring immigrant populations working for low wages. Employing these populations has become even more difficult during the pandemic due to travel restrictions. Tevel has developed drones equipped with AI that can identify ripe fruit and ultimately pick the fruit autonomously. The eliminated overhead produces 30-40% in cost saving for farmers.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Laura Flanagan.jpeg

Laura Flanagan

Co-Chief Executive Officer

Ripple Foods

Yaniv Maor.jpeg

Yaniv Maor

Chief Executive Officer

Tevel

Lou Cooperhouse.jpeg

Lou Cooperhouse

President & Chief Executive Officer

BlueNalu

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:12)
Hello everyone, and welcome back to SALT talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of financial, technology, and public policy.

John Darsie: (00:26)
SALT talks are a digital interview series that we launched during the work from home period, with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And what we're trying to do on these SALT talks is replicate the experience that we provide at our global SALT conferences, which we host twice a year, once in the United States and once internationally, most recently in Abu Dhabi in 2019.

John Darsie: (00:48)
On these SALT talks and at our conferences, what we're trying to do is provide our audience 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 thrilled today to welcome you to the sixth installment of our pandemic venture investment series, where top entrepreneurs, investors, and business leaders dive deep into the challenges and opportunities arising from the pandemic crisis, and discuss breakthrough technologies that address issues, ranging from coronavirus prevention and cure, to social distancing and food supply.

John Darsie: (01:22)
A reminder, this series is presented in partnership with OurCrowd, a leading global venture investment platform based in Israel. Today's episode is the Agri-FoodTech explosion in an era of disruption. And it features Laura Flanagan, the co-chief executive officer of Ripple Foods, and before I went on I was telling Laura how I drink Ripple every morning and I put it every morning in my oatmeal. Has eight grams of plant based protein per serving, one cup, and also is a great source of calcium, 50% more calcium than dairy milk. I'm an unpaid promoter of Ripple and I'm sorry to the rest of our guests, so I don't use your products but I figured I had to show for Ripple because I've tried all kinds of different milk alternatives and Ripple is my go-to for my oatmeal every morning and my drinking during the day. So welcome, Laura.

John Darsie: (02:12)
Our other guests are Lou Cooperhouse, the president and CEO of BlueNalu, and Freddy Raitan, the chief commercial officer of Tevel. In today's talk we're moderated by OurCrowd vice-president of business development, Dan Fishel. Just a reminder, if you have any questions for any of our panelist during today's talk, you can enter... the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on zoom, and with that I'll turn it over to Dan for the interview.

Dan Fishel: (02:39)
Thanks John, and I have to start with my own confession, I'm also a big fan of Ripple, especially the chocolate milk one. But anyway, we're here to talk today about Agri-FoodTech. Now, up until about a couple of years ago this used to be two separate terms, Agri-Tech and FoodTech, but what the pandemic has showed us is how interconnected is the food we eat, the environment we live in, and our health. It doesn't show us just how interconnected it is but also how fragile and vulnerable it is. I assume that you would all agree with me that if humanity were to take better measures in terms of food safety and sustainability, better look after the environment, we wouldn't have been facing today the devastating consequences of COVID-19.

Dan Fishel: (03:30)
So after this grand statement, again, my name is Dan Fishel, I'm vice-president of business development at OurCrowd. OurCrowd, we're a global investment platform. We invest in startups and we invite accredited investors from around the world to invest alongside us on the exact same terms. We've been privileged to invest in over 200 portfolio companies, three of which are again here with us.

Dan Fishel: (03:54)
So once again, we have three companies that are on both ends on the Agri-FoodTech equation. On the agri side we have Tevel, they developed a fleet of autonomous drones that pick fruit, and basically address the global problem, the global challenge of hiring workers to pick fruit in the fields. We have BlueNalu, a company that has developed lab-grown seafood, and of course the company that is already commercial out there, Ripple that develops pea-based dairy alternatives.

Dan Fishel: (04:31)
So let's start with you, Laura. You already have a commercial product that's very, very successful in the stores. And I have to tell you, my wife about a year ago she started, every week we have a completely different brand of a meal alternative in the fridge. We started with soy and then she went to almond, and now it's the oat season. But we had the rice and oat, and almond, and cashews. There's so much selection out there, what makes Ripple unique in this very crowded market?

Laura Flanagan: (05:07)
Thank you, Dan. Thanks for having us and I want to thank both you and John for the wonderful endorsements of Ripple products. We're so glad to have you as part of the Ripple family. To answer your question, what makes Ripple unique? So Ripple is a portfolio, of those who aren't familiar with us. Ripple is a portfolio of foods and beverages that are plant-based dairy alternatives. So our largest product line today is the milk which you're both familiar with, and what makes Ripple so unique and special is that, yes today we use yellow peas as our source of protein. And our two co-founders, Neil Renninger and Adam Lowry, both former chemical engineers, developed a unique and proprietary process that is, we have filed patents for. That allows us to create a cleaner tasting plant protein.

Laura Flanagan: (05:58)
So that process and that protein we call Ripptein. It stands for Ripple, protein, put it together, called Ripptein. And we're able to create a cleaner tasting plant protein, which enables us to deliver better tasting products that deliver very high protein levels. So as John mentioned at the beginning, we have eight grams of protein per serving, which is just as much as dairy milk. We have 50% more calcium, and half the sugar of dairy milk. So we're able to deliver this very unique and wonderful combination of delicious tasting products, without any sacrifices. You get the nutrition of dairy milk, you get the taste and texture of dairy milk. And so you're able to get the best of both world in a very sustainable product.

Laura Flanagan: (06:44)
By using yellow peas, we're able to save a significant amount of water, versus dairy alternatives, and even versus other plant-based alternatives like almond milks that you mentioned that you had tried and experimented with. So on our website, ripplefoods.com, one of the first things that a consumer will see is what we call the ripple effect. And it's based on the truth that each of us can take very small actions that have a ripple effect on the world, and have a much bigger impact. So we have a count on our website that shows, every time a consumer purchases one of our products, how much water they've saved for the planet, how much plastic they've saved because we use recyclable plastic, how much carbon we've saved, and all the good things they've done for themselves on how much more protein is in their diet, how much less sugar. So it's a wonderful combination of a proprietary technology, great tasting products, and little decisions every consumer can make to do good for the planet.

Dan Fishel: (07:44)
Can you share some of this data? It's very interesting. So, how much plastic has the world saved? How much carbon emissions?

Laura Flanagan: (07:53)
It's in the millions and hundreds of millions, depending on the statistics. So there's over, I think we're now 200 million gallons of water saved. It's a very large number, so you'll see that on our counter on the ripple effect, and it's in real-time. And so you'll see that the numbers are changing based on how many consumers are becoming part of the Ripple family.

Dan Fishel: (08:14)
So what type of products you already have in stores?

Laura Flanagan: (08:19)
So we have our milk products, refrigerated milk products and those come in several flavors, unsweetened original, original vanilla, chocolate as you mentioned. We also have protein shakes, which have 20 grams of protein and tastes delicious. This past year we launched ice cream, which is a fan favorite, and so we have five different flavors of ice cream. And then we also have some coffee products, like half-and-half and coffee creamers as well.

Dan Fishel: (08:49)
Can you talk about the technology? Because I'm telling you, I've tried many, many milk alternatives, I've been forced by my wife, and Ripple by far is the best tasting milk I had in terms of again, the texture what makes the difference. Can you talk about the technology? How do you make this magic work?

Laura Flanagan: (09:07)
Yes. So as I mentioned, our protein is called Ripptein. So, a protein molecule by itself is tasteless. It's all of the impurities that surround the protein that are on the protein molecule that can give it a planty or beany taste. And what Adam and Neil developed was a proprietary process that's able to remove those impurities off the protein molecule better than anything else commercially available. And so with that process we're able to remove the impurities up to 99%, depending on which specific molecules you're looking at.

Laura Flanagan: (09:44)
We're able to create a much cleaner tasting protein, and that allows us to put it in products like milk. Where there's not much else that you can camouflage a planty or beany taste, which is why if you try some of the other plant-based alternatives, they don't taste the same as milk. And that was part of the inspiration for Adam and Neil in starting and founding the company, is they felt like no one was doing plant-based milks well at the time. And with this technology we were able to launch a milk into the market place that taste great, matches or exceeds the nutritional value of traditional milk, and still has a great creamy texture that everyone has come to know and expect from a milk product.

Dan Fishel: (10:27)
So you've been around for about four years.

Laura Flanagan: (10:30)
Ripple has been around for about four years, mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Fishel: (10:34)
Four years. And now in how many points of sale are you being, offering your products around the U.S.?

Laura Flanagan: (10:41)
So we're in about 17,000 traditional grocery stores here in the United States, and we're growing distribution every day. So we were able to get into Walmart this year and doing well there. We've been able to get into a major convenient store here in the United States. We tested it first, it was successful, and so we expanded that. We did a test in a major club chain, that's now being expanded. We just got distribution into Kroger stores in the Midwest here in the United States. So every day we're growing distribution. We actually just got some of our products into certain school systems here in the United States, given the importance of having highly nutritious plant-based alternatives for children that are very accessible and available. So every day we are increasing our [inaudible 00:11:30].

Dan Fishel: (11:32)
So, the sales of plant-based milk is growing. Can you share some data about traditional dairy milk versus plant-based milk?

Laura Flanagan: (11:43)
So the plant-based dairy alternatives category is on track to become over a $2 billion category. And we are continuing to grow every day. And Ripple continues to exceed the growth of the broader plant-based category. So we are growing and gaining share every day. And we expect those trends to continue. In fact, since COVID really hit the United States in March, we've seen an acceleration in the growth of the dairy alternative category, and Ripple has benefited from that as well.

Dan Fishel: (12:17)
Okay, great. So, a quick note to our audience. We have a little icon on the bottom of the screen, it says Q&A, we want to keep this conversation interactive, so please ask questions. We're going to leave enough time to take some questions from the audience, but please I already see two questions here. Please add some more and we're going to address them very, very shortly. So now we'd like to transition from plant-based protein to cell-based proteins, and I'd like to welcome Lou Cooperhouse from BlueNalu. How are you, Lou?

Lou Cooperhouse: (12:58)
No, great. Thank you very much for having us.

Dan Fishel: (13:01)
So, last week in Singapore the regulators for the first time in the world they have allowed the consumption of lab-grown chicken nuggets, and that's a world's first. But you are staying away from the classic chicken or beef scheme and are focusing on seafood, lab-grown seafood, why is that?

Lou Cooperhouse: (13:24)
A great question, Dan. I think maybe just even pick up on a term that Laura mentioned, the ripple effect. What the world has seen is obviously a beginning of global transformation in our food supply. Where consumers are seeking more sustainable solutions in their diets. That began with plant-based milks, and now we're seeing plant-based beef, life beyond an impossible and so many other categories, it's just on fire, Dan.

Lou Cooperhouse: (13:52)
And what happened in 2013 was another technology was really launched as proof of concept the first time. Another alternatives to manufacturing animal products without animals. That being cell-based. So proof of concept in actually beef was first demonstrated. And frankly Dan, I was so excited by this as a total game-changer for the global supply chain. Proteins to actually manufacture real products in vitro if you will, that's the same flavor, texture, mouthfeel, same experience as conventional food products.

Lou Cooperhouse: (14:27)
But frankly, Dan, I was really... I said to myself, the real opportunity of the greatest of them all is seafood. And you used the word in your introduction, you used the word vulnerability. Our global supply chain of seafood is in my opinion the most vulnerable supply chain on our planet. It's a $200 billion sector, where global demand is only increasing every year, it's the highest every, being really eclipsed by what's occurring in Asia as GDP increases. And around the world as consumers are shifting from read meat towards seafood, the problem of course is we have a global supply chain gap as our seafood supply is increasingly diminishing, and some cases disappearing. Due to warming oceans, acidification, and that's a human health side, micro plastics, environmental pollutants, toxins, and mercury. And there's as you know, warnings on fish by the EPA and FDA here in America about for pregnant nursing women to have zero or limited amounts of seafood in their diets.

Lou Cooperhouse: (15:34)
So, we could do something much better. We can actually manufacture a real seafood product a third way, wild farm raise, now cell-based. So what we're doing is really totally disrupting this whole supply chain by manufacturing the same product. It begins in the lab as all products do, whether it be oatmeal or almond milk, or pea-based milk, but it's made in a factory. So this looks a lot like a micro brewery, making a large-scale production of cell-based seafood products. And we're just about one year away from launching our products in commerce. Here in the United States we're under FDA regulatory environment, and we're very excited by what happened by the Singapore Food Agency approving this for cell-based chicken products.

Lou Cooperhouse: (16:21)
We're focused, Dan, on the filet, the higher value fin fish species, like mahi-mahi, red snapper, bluefin tuna, and even in the future Chilean sea bass. So these products will soon be on our plates in just a few years.

Dan Fishel: (16:38)
So I just want to understand the product. Because I think we need to visualize how it actually looks. It is just a filet, does it look like a filet? Does it smell like a filet? Does it taste like a real filet fish?

Lou Cooperhouse: (16:51)
It sure does. We actually have done a demonstration of that internally and for our investors last year. We're the first company globally to actually demonstrate the product perform the same. I think just like Laura was describing how important the sensory attributes are of making a product that replicates what people are used to conventionally. We similarly, when you think about seafood, how do you prepare it? In really three broad ways. I'm a food centric, culinary centric person coming from the food industry. And how do people prepare seafood? Well, either they cook it. What does that mean? They grill, they fry it, they saute it, they might deep fry it, they might steam it, microwave it. You get the idea. It needs to get caramelized, it needs to have all the same reactions as conventional seafood. Or they might put it in a, if you will, an acidified marinade, like in kimchi, or ceviche, or poke, or they might prepare it raw.

Lou Cooperhouse: (17:49)
We demonstrated every possible way, it performed the same, smelled the same, tasted the same, it is the same. The same nutritional composition, the same functional characteristics, and even genetically it is the same species. It actually comes from the same cells that are used in conventional seafood product. And that's what the FDA is looking for. They want us to demonstrate that our product really is the same as conventional products, and we're doing all those comparison works right now.

Dan Fishel: (18:21)
So Lou, I have to admit, the first time guttered you didn't invite me to that tasting last year.

Lou Cooperhouse: (18:26)
Next time. Next time.

Dan Fishel: (18:27)
There's always a second chance. But let's talk about the technology, because this to me or too many sounds like an act of witchery, how do you take... how do you create fish that is not naturally born in the sea in the water? How does it work? How does the technology work here?

Lou Cooperhouse: (18:45)
The food technology is used in every industry. People don't think about it that much, but whether it's candy, sausage, cheese, or plant-based milk, there's all kinds of technology that are used every day in the food industry. No witchery at all, it's just normal procedures that are used to manufacture products.

Lou Cooperhouse: (19:04)
As I described it, it's like a micro brewery. So if you think about that concept, what we're doing is we're... there's a two-step process. First we are doing something which is very critical, we're making what's called a stable cell line. So we're taking from a real fish, mahi-mahi for example, or bluefin tuna, you're isolating the cell types that are found naturally in a seafood that you might have for dinner. So in that seafood you have for dinner, if you think about it, has three... the flavor comes from three types of cell types. There's muscle, fat, and then there's connective tissue.

Lou Cooperhouse: (19:39)
So we have actually literally isolated those three cell types from fish, then we're propagating them and having them double numerous times. They double, and double, and double. So we are feeding them the same nutrients. Picture that micro brewery again, they're in a bath, the bath that these cells are in are nutrients. The nutrients are the same kind of nutrients that you might find in agriculture feed, like salt, sugars, amino acids, lipids, vitamins, minerals, supplemented by other ingredients that we add to really propagate growth and have them to continue double to get these larger, larger volumes. And then these muscle, fat, and connective tissue are then formed into the actually filet of product. It could be a cubed used in poke or it could be a filet.

Lou Cooperhouse: (20:26)
So we are using some again, food industry principles like extrusion to actually have the products layered in the same, or more homogeneous in structure, so we can replicate all the same sensory experiences that you would want. And what's really beautiful about what we're doing Dan, is our product is a 100% yield. We've talked about sustainability footprint. Today's seafood might be shipped from say, Southeast Asia to say, New York City, that's almost 10,000 miles.

Lou Cooperhouse: (20:56)
Along the way that fish that was caught, it might have been accompanied by 30 to 50% by catch, that's typically fish that's caught in nets that's thrown back typically dead. It's a lot of animal suffering, and certainly a lit of inefficiency, and then shipped long distances with huge transportation costs it involves. To then experience maybe a 50 or 60% yield, my food service operator because you have head, tale, bones, and skin. Our product is a fully yielded, just the filet. So we are displacing all that transportation, all that loss of life, all that loss of yield, with a 100% filet, totally sustainable solution with all the wonderful taste of seafood but without any of the negatives, mercury, micro plastics, et cetera.

Dan Fishel: (21:51)
Yeah, so it's safe for pregnant women basically?

Lou Cooperhouse: (21:54)
Absolutely. So as much as [crosstalk 00:21:57].

Dan Fishel: (21:57)
Sushi is now allowed, basically?

Lou Cooperhouse: (21:59)
Yes, and for children too, and older people that might be immunocompromised.

Dan Fishel: (22:04)
So, a quick question for you about market perception, we're looking right now there's finally the COVID vaccine received the FDA approval, but there's so many people that are still saying, I'm not going to get this vaccine, it's going to change my DNA, et cetera, et cetera. Aren't you concerned about what people would think about fish that has been grown in a lab and not in the sea? Would they consume it?

Lou Cooperhouse: (22:32)
Positively. With any new food product there's always early adopters. There was an early adopter to the first person who said, I don't want to go on a... I'm used to a horse drawing carriage, but no, here's a car. So here's a computer, here's an iPhone. So technology always has early adopters who really see the value. In our case human health, animal suffering, global sustainability are your reasons to make a difference and purchase this product.

Lou Cooperhouse: (23:04)
So again, we have no downsides to purchasing our product. Yes it's made differently, but if you really know more about how food is produced, you'll say no, it's actually made the same as a lot of other things that are produced in the food industry, you just don't know that.

Lou Cooperhouse: (23:19)
So yes, there's always early adopters. And we've actually done some consumer research that have already demonstrated at the restaurant level huge interest in our products, because right now their experience with seafood, tremendous losses in yields, inconsistent variables, supply chain. With us they get consistency which is a real game-changer. And for consumers they really have shown that the human health benefits are clearly motivating them to make the purchase. So we are not concerned at all.

Dan Fishel: (23:49)
Okay, thanks Lou. And now I'd like to transition from surf to turf. And welcome Freddy from Tevel Aerobotics. How are you, Freddy?

Freddy Raitan: (23:57)
I'm okay, thank you. Good morning. Thank you for having me.

Dan Fishel: (24:01)
So Freddy, you've developed a fleet of autonomous drones that pick fruit in the fields. So what type of problems are you trying to solve?

Freddy Raitan: (24:11)
Okay. So let me start by saying that food consumption around the world has grown to about 70 million tons, which is double what it used to be 20 years ago. But on the other side unfortunately what we see is that on the agricultural sector we are losing a lot of the workers that do the picking for these goods. Mainly because it's very hard work, it's done under harsh conditions. And the new generation is migrating to the urban jobs which are high paying and not seasonal.

Freddy Raitan: (24:45)
So what is happening is it's exactly the opposite. You have less people picking where you need more fruits to be picked. And then you have a serious shortage around the world. So we came up with this brilliant idea of having drones which are robots in a sense that identify the fruit on the trees. They approach it, pick it, and place it on bins that they don't damage obviously the fruit. And that is done completely autonomously.

Freddy Raitan: (25:19)
So I mean, obviously in the agricultural sector there's a lack of automation. We haven't seen much in the last 50 to 70 years. But because of these shortages that we're going to experience even more dramatically going forward, there's a clear necessity for inventions like ours to take a hold and for farmers to start using. And we're very excited about it, I think that the feedback we're getting from the farmers they cannot wait for us to be in the... I mean, helping them with this problem and looking forward to do so.

Dan Fishel: (25:59)
So there is a video on your website of Tevel Aerobotics, so how the product works. But for those who are... that would try to imagine how it looks. Can you describe how does the product look? What exactly happens in the field?

Freddy Raitan: (26:12)
Sure. What we have done is we have developed a drone. It's different than the drone that you see from DJI. It has four propellors and it has an arm. It's a robotic arm, and on top of that you have a lot of vision equipment. So you're combining three different technologies. Obviously the drone technology which is aerodynamics has a lot to do with flying. That's one technology that is very much done or developed for working inside the farm environment, with a lot of dust, inside leaves, so it has its serious challenges.

Freddy Raitan: (26:54)
The second portion of it is the artificial intelligence which needs to identify the fruit. It has to differentiate from leaves and fruit. And then it has to understand the best angle of attack to come to approach the fruit at the right angle to grab it in a very soft way. And that's where the third portion of it, which is a robotic arm comes into play. So you don't damage the fruit, you grab it, you bring it, you take it. And then the next portion of it is the land base which is also autonomous where you put the fruit in such a... you place the fruit in such a soft way so it's not damaged at all. And obviously this is done, like I said, in an autonomous way where the farm doesn't have to be supervising or watching as all this is done in parallel ways.

Dan Fishel: (27:55)
So how does the drone know whether a fruit is ripe or not?

Freddy Raitan: (28:00)
We have sensor. That's a very good question, because one of the things that the farmers are asking us is to differentiate between precisely when the fruit is ripe to be picked and not. Part of the problem right now is that when you have pickers and they are paid by the weight of the fruit, they just pick everything they have in front of them because that's more efficient. Regardless of whether the fruit is already ripe or not.

Freddy Raitan: (28:28)
In our case, we can determine the... we have sensors around the grippers of the robot that understands the size of the fruit and also the color of the fruit. And depending on the programming that was placed on each particular robot, you can decide to pick it if it's up to that level of size and color, and not pick it if it's not.

Freddy Raitan: (28:55)
The important thing is that if the robot decided not to pick it because it is not ripe yet, he knows exactly the location where all these unripe fruit were not picked, so then it can come back exactly to those locations and pick them at a later time. Which is extremely efficient, because obviously a ripe fruit or the right level of bricks for the farmer has a very different price at the market than one that it's not that will probably most likely end up going to concentrate or juices which pays probably a fraction of the fresh market. So that's a very important distinction that we can help the farmers with.

Dan Fishel: (29:41)
So can you talk a little bit about the expected business model? I assume you are developing a product that still has to make sense in terms of cost to the farmers.

Freddy Raitan: (29:51)
Sure. Sure. If I take for example, right now the base case let's say in apples, around the world on average would be $400 a ton, the cost. We anticipate that given our cost of operation which are significantly lower than the farmers, we could probably save the farmers around 30 to 40% of that cost. And the main reason for that is that there's a lot of overhead cost that farmers have to pay for bringing these pickers. You have to pay them traveling expenses, you have to hold them in hotels or houses that they built for them, you have to transport them, you have to feed them, you have to pay insurance. You have health insurance, you have sickness. All these kind of things are not relevant to us.

Freddy Raitan: (30:54)
As robots obviously you don't have to deal with any of this. And the second part of it is the flexibility to be able to pick. I mean, this is a season business. For example, apples are picked three months out of the year. Then you have citruses, you have stone fruits and so forth. Our drones offer us the flexibility to move. Instead of the farmers buying this equipment and using this as a capital expenditure. What we're going to the market was a model of renting this equipment. That you will lease it as many as you want for as long as you want, and then just you will use it for let's say the three months of the season, we will take them back and then we will move them to the citrus locations where they will be used for another three or four months, and then for stone fruits.

Freddy Raitan: (31:46)
So we have a year-round business where we take care of the usage of the drones, and not the farmer which only uses it for three or four months. So I think it's a win-win from their point of view and ours as well.

Dan Fishel: (31:59)
Great. Thanks, Freddy. So now I'd like to open a question for all three of you. We are in the midst of a global pandemic and I'm just wondering how it's been the implications on your business? We can start with you-

Freddy Raitan: (32:15)
Okay, I can start.

Dan Fishel: (32:17)
... yeah, start with you Freddy.

Freddy Raitan: (32:19)
It was pretty dramatic for our business because I think that what the world learned is that most of the pickers come from different regions of different countries. I'll give you an example, when France and Germany closed their boarders, they realized that there were no pickers for their fruits. So their whole supply of fruits in those two countries and many others was absolutely disrupted to such an extent that they thought that they would bring local employees or local people to, I mean, to pick the fruit. And they realized that either the money wasn't good enough for them to do it, or the conditions were too tough, and there was expertise to know how to do it. So they had no choice but to make the exception and allow having flights, charter flights in these two countries for flying from Eastern Europe these pickers to do the picking as they normally do.

Freddy Raitan: (33:16)
And that happens in the U.S. as well, because a lot of these pickers came from Mexico which has been disrupted by the COVID. In many other countries that we saw is that all this migration that was coming in and out for these jobs disappeared. So it's exacerbating the problem for his fruit farmers, because this supply has vanished in a lot of ways and prices have gone higher. Experts they're trying to teach locals to do it but they're finding it extremely difficult. So COVID has-

Dan Fishel: (33:54)
So I also understand that during COVID times you had a POC, a proof of concept ,in South Africa that has been canceled.

Freddy Raitan: (34:03)
Correct.

Dan Fishel: (34:03)
And you took this time to train the algorithm on additional types of fruits, so now we can pick actually pick not just apple but also peaches.

Freddy Raitan: (34:12)
Peaches. Yeah, peaches, we train on peaches and citrus fruit.

Dan Fishel: (34:15)
Favorite fruit, yeah.

Freddy Raitan: (34:16)
Correct.

Dan Fishel: (34:18)
Okay. Lou or Laura, the impact of COVID.

Laura Flanagan: (34:22)
Well, COVID for the Ripple business has been both headwind but to be honest more of a tail wind for the business. So back in the middle of March is where here in the United States the lockdowns and other more extreme measures started to happen. And we were getting panicked phone calls from our consumers, because Ripple was selling out in grocery stores all across America, and our consumers are very passionate and very loyal to our products and they couldn't find them because we were sold out.

Laura Flanagan: (34:51)
And so, knowing that the next several months were probably going to be a period of volatility, in both consumer demand and supply chain, and a more retailer supply chain. We very quickly and very adaptly developed and launched our own e-commerce direct to consumer website, and I'm so proud of the team effort who developed this. In less than two to three weeks we had our site up and running, so that a consumer no matter where they were and where they lived, they would have access to Ripple products. And so today we sell on our website our refrigerated, our frozen, and all of our shelf-stable products. And it opened up an entirely new channel for us that we really didn't have on our radar screen at the beginning of the year.

Laura Flanagan: (35:35)
So that's been the good news, is that it opened up a whole new channel for us. Our performance in stores has increased. As I've mentioned, COVID actually was a tailwind for he plant-based diary alternative category. So we've seen an increase of momentum there.

Laura Flanagan: (35:51)
The one headwind that we had was that as a growing company with launching new product... we were expecting to get distribution of many of our new products back in the second quarter of this year, and there was no grocery retailer who wanted to reset their shelves in the middle of that pandemic and in the middle of all the panic buying. So it delayed us getting distribution. Some of new distribution and new account, it's a one major retailer we were supposed to get in April, we ended up shipping in September and October. So it's performing really well now and for the long-term health of the business we'll be fine, but we did have some delays in getting some new distribution.

Dan Fishel: (36:33)
Okay. Lou?

Lou Cooperhouse: (36:36)
Hey Dan, I would just add. Maybe as Freddy and Laura mentioned. I think the whole world woke up to just how fragile our supply chain is in all categories through the pandemic. And I think we are very fortunate to continue working as in our company here in Southern California. But we were also frankly saw so much more excitement and enthusiasm from the investor community due to just an increased realization about this fragile vulnerable supply chain. And food security really became even a word that we hear more and more along with sustainability. The world needs to feed itself in the coming decades, and this fragile nature of our supply chain can only possible, God forbid, get worse.

Lou Cooperhouse: (37:30)
But should that happen, we need new solutions as you and I have talked before, Dan. We don't have a choice, we must create a new supply chain solution, particularly for seafood. So we're excited to be part of that equation.

Dan Fishel: (37:44)
Great. So unfortunately we're running out of time. We're into the last five minutes of the session. And I'm just wondering if you can quickly, one or two minutes, tell us about your view about the future of your sector. Where would we be in five years? Again, plant-based proteins, cell-based proteins, INFORM technologies.

Freddy Raitan: (38:11)
I'll give it a shot to start. There's no question that because of the issues I described before, the problems are going to be exacerbated in the next five years. So there's going to be no option but for automation to come into the farms and to help the farmers with all this dramatic shortages that they will be facing, which is only going to get worse.

Freddy Raitan: (38:34)
So we expect that if we do our job from our end in developing this to make it easy enough and autonomous enough for the farmers to use, then the challenge will be to deploy it for... I mean, obviously farmers are very traditional in the way of doing their businesses. So we have to have a simple enough solution so we can really expand it and grow it as fast as they need it, in as many countries as possible.

Dan Fishel: (39:05)
I fully agree with you, by the way. What we see and history suggests that after, that we will see a spike in automation following this crisis. It happened before in 2008, it happened in 2000, it happened in 1991. And what we see is that automation comes in spikes and it's centered around economic crises when the... and employees that are losing their job are simply replaced with a mix of technology and then highly skilled workers. But now of course we have AI which we didn't have in previous recessions. So we're definitely going to expect to see a spike in AI technology in the next five years. Lou or Laura?

Laura Flanagan: (39:49)
Yes. Dan, I think there will absolutely be a continued migration to plant-based or in Lou's case, cellular products. There's heightened awareness now of the climate change issues and with a new administration coming in in January here in the United States, I think there'll be more focus on climate change and sustainability issues. I serve on two boards of public companies, and not question that boards and investors, retailers and consumers are now far more interested and engaged in finding solutions, sustainable solutions for the products that they choose.

Laura Flanagan: (40:27)
So there will be a continued migration. And I think the pace of that will depend on how quickly Lou's company and companies like Ripple close the gap to animal-based products. So how quickly we close the taste gap, how quickly we close availability gaps, how quickly we close cost gaps to animal type products. And every day we are making strives in that area. So I think as we close those gaps and as consumers don't have to make sacrifices, either taste sacrifices, nutrition sacrifices, or financial sacrifices to choose sustainable products, we're going to see an acceleration in plant-based products.

Dan Fishel: (41:09)
Okay. Thanks. And Lou?

Lou Cooperhouse: (41:13)
Hey, Dan. In fact, they're having some projections. The one I'm thinking about is from the [inaudible 00:41:18] Consulting Group that actually has projected that by the year 2040, 60% of our global supply chain of protein will be either plant-based or cell-based, and that conventional meat products will go from roughly a 100% today down to 40, and become unconventional in just two decades. So to answer your question, we will start to see the first large-scale factories within five years. Again, we plan to launch in commerce in a limited capacity late next year, to be followed by factory one, two, and three.

Lou Cooperhouse: (41:50)
So just as plant-based has seen level of excitement in category, cell-based is right behind it with a second solution, giving consumers what they always want, options. And different products will find, or different categories, we'll have different optimal solutions. So we're just seeing again just tremendous choices coming and new sustainable solutions, and again, I think for all three of us, our panelist, we are really the front-end of just a global transformation. So the future is bright.

Dan Fishel: (42:26)
I assume as far as your concern although the cost would go down significantly, because now it's probably quite expensive to eat some lab-grown meat and fish.

Lou Cooperhouse: (42:36)
That's correct, Dan. Right. Now it's all very bench top scale. But what we will see clearly is, economies of scale will enter this space and make an enormous difference. This industry is looking from farmer graze, supply chain, cost modeling, to food grade. Very different, bizarrely different to [inaudible 00:42:58] structure involved. When you go down to food grade, all body of concept of scale. So yeah, as these large factories come into play we will be a price parody, or I believe better at... In the meantime, conventional seafood is only increasing in availability and cost, and our cost will continually decrease. So we actually believe we could be profitable in factory number one. So that's where we think this industry is going.

Dan Fishel: (43:28)
Great. Unfortunately our time is up. Lou, Laura, and Freddy, thank you very, very much for your time. I'm sure we could have continued this conversation for many long hours. But for more information about Ripple, BlueNalu, and Tevel Aerobotics, please go to the SALT website. Thank you very much Laura, Lou, and Freddy. And we look forward to seeing you in additional upcoming webinars. Thank you very much.

Freddy Raitan: (43:58)
Thank you.

Laura Flanagan: (43:59)
Thank you, Dan.

Dan Fishel: (44:00)
Bye-bye.

Saifedean Ammous: “The Bitcoin Standard” | SALT Talks #127

“Bitcoin is the hardest money that we have ever discovered or invented.”

Dr. Saifedean Ammous is the author of The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking, the best-selling groundbreaking study of the economics of bitcoin. The book was a pioneer in explaining bitcoin's value proposition, and the implications of its unique properties.

As a peer-to-peer software for operating payment network, Bitcoin acts as the native currency. Bitcoin is totally protected from inflation because Bitcoin’s source code makes it mathematically impossible to exceed 21 million Bitcoins- a fixed monetary supply. The entire world was effectively on the gold standard, because it was the hardest money at the time, but more gold can continually be introduced into the supply. “Anything that gets held as a form of money, the value of it rises, and because the value rises, it gives people an incentive to make more of it.”

Bitcoin offers a way to remove the third-party intermediaries in the financial transaction. The decentralized nature of the blockchain, on which Bitcoin exists, creates security via transparency. There is no one single point of failure in the way that a third-party financial institution, entrusted with money, must secure itself from hackers or thieves.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dr. Saifedean Ammous.jpeg

Saifedean Ammous

Author

The Bitcoin Standard

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series where we talk to leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is really to replicate the experience that we provide at our global conferences, the SALT Conference, which we host twice a year. One in the United States, one internationally. Obviously this year we were unable to host our conferences, but we look forward to hopefully resuming our in-person events starting again in 2021.

John Darsie: (00:47)
What we're trying to do at our conferences and on these SALT Talks is 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 bring you the latest installment of our digital asset series with our guest today Dr. Saifedean Ammous. Dr. Ammous is the author of The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking, which is a bestselling, ground breaking study of the economics of Bitcoin. And for people who are looking to get introduced to the space, we thought this was a great place to start.

John Darsie: (01:22)
When I was going through my personal Bitcoin education one of the first books that was recommended to me was The Bitcoin Standard. So we're very excited to have Saif with us today on SALT Talks. The book was a pioneer in explaining bitcoin's value proposition and the implications of its unique properties. Bitcoin's supply is completely irresponsive to demand, making it the hardest money ever discovered, and making hard money available to everyone worldwide.

John Darsie: (01:48)
Saif has been at the forefront of the study of the economic implications of this new technology. And he teaches and researches the economics of Bitcoin on his online learning platform Saifedean.com. Dr. Ammous holds a PhD in sustainable development from Columbia University, where his doctoral thesis studied the economics of biofuels and alternative energy sources. He also holds a Master's in development management from the London School of Economics, and a Bachelor of Engineering from the American University of Beirut.

John Darsie: (02:20)
Just a reminder, if you have any questions for Dr. Ammous. During today's talk, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen on Zoom. And in terms of today's format, we're going to do something a little bit different with Dr. Ammous. He's a fantastic presenter and has fantastic materials that sort of take you even if you're a Bitcoin novice, you can start to understand some of the economics and the value proposition of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. So we're going to have Dr. Ammous, give a presentation and share his screen for the first 25 to 30 minutes of today's talk. And then I'm going to come in and moderate audience Q&A and ask some follow up questions from my end as well. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Ammous to give his presentation.

Saifedean Ammous: (03:01)
Thank you very much, John, thank you for having me. And for your very kind introduction. It's a pleasure to be here. Can everybody see my slides?

John Darsie: (03:11)
I think so. I can see them.

Saifedean Ammous: (03:13)
Okay, cool. So, in today's talk, I'm going to go over some of the main concepts in my book, The Bitcoin Standard. And I'm going to begin with explaining what is Bitcoin, the definition that I came up with for Bitcoin. And then we bitcoins monetary uniqueness? What is it about Bitcoin that makes us so unique? What is Bitcoin good for? And what are some of the implications of the use of Bitcoin? So my definition of Bitcoin is that Bitcoin is a peer to peer software for operating a payment network with its own native currency that is protected from unexpected inflation, without having to rely on any trusted third parties.

Saifedean Ammous: (03:53)
I think this really captures the essence of what we have here. It's a form of software that is peer to peer in that it's distributed over the Internet, and anybody can download it and use it and any member of the network is a peer with other members. So it's perfectly voluntary. And what that software does is that it operates a payment network between participants on the network. And that payment network runs with its own native currency, which is digital, and whose supply is protected from unexpected inflation, there's no way for anybody to make more of that money, which I think is the most important economic property of Bitcoin.

Saifedean Ammous: (04:32)
And all of that is done without having to rely on any single trusted third party, there aren't intermediaries that you need to rely on in the transactions that take place on the Bitcoin network. The significance of Bitcoin, in my mind, lies in two main properties. The first one is that it is the hardest money that we have ever discovered or invented. And I'm going to discuss this in a little bit more detail now. And second is that it is the only working alternative to central banks for international payments settlement.

Saifedean Ammous: (05:02)
So first of all, when we think about the hardness, if you think about it, anything can be used as money, there's no reason why anything can't be used as money, anybody who decides to hold something, not for the sake of consuming it, but for the sake of exchanging it for something else later on, is choosing to hold that thing as a form of money.

Saifedean Ammous: (05:26)
But anything that gets held as a form of money, the value of it rises, and because the value rises, that it gives people an incentive to make more of it. So anything that is easy to make ends up being a lousy money, because people can make more of it and the value of it will drop. And so if you look historically, you find that the things that have been used as money, historically, are usually things that are hard to make. And in fact, you find that whatever is used as money is whatever is the hardest to make at any particular point in time. And so, there are these examples, which I discuss in more detail in my book. But if you look at the beginning of the 20th century, you see the entire world effectively was on a gold standard, or the vast majority of the world was on a gold standard. Because at that time, gold was the hardest money that we had ever had.

Saifedean Ammous: (06:19)
And for a very long time we know that gold supply is only increasing at around one or 2%. This has been the case for about a century, we look at global gold production, we see that every year it goes up at around 1.5%. And that is, in my mind, what makes gold the most likely monetary asset, the most popular monetary asset in the market all over the world at the beginning of the 20th century, because it is the hardest money. And even the supply continues to grow at a very low rate. So there's no way for anybody to make increasingly large quantities of gold and to bring them onto the market.

Saifedean Ammous: (07:00)
Now, why is this important? Because if you look, today, you see that Bitcoin is basically the hardest money ever. Bitcoin's supply grows, but flattens out, it stops growing at around 21 million Bitcoin. There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoin. And that's it, there'll never be more and so the supply growth rate starts off quick starts off high, but then begins to drop as the already existing supply increases, and the new supply becomes less and less significant.

Saifedean Ammous: (07:36)
So the current annual growth rate is around 2% to 3% for Bitcoin, and over the next two, three years, it's going to be a little less than 2%. And then in 2025, it'll drop again to under 1%. And then it'll continue to drop under 1% until effectively it reaches zero sometime in the next century. So, this is quite unique. And this I think makes Bitcoin quite interesting as a monetary technology, because it is the first money that we have whose supply is completely irresponsive to demand.

Saifedean Ammous: (08:12)
In other words, with everything else, if they get if something gets chosen as money, more people will be trying to produce more of it, and so the supply will increase. But with Bitcoin, there is no way of producing more of it because of something called the difficulty adjustment. When you try and make more Bitcoin, you don't make more Bitcoin, you just end up expanding more processing power and electricity on making Bitcoin more secure.

Saifedean Ammous: (08:39)
And so the way that I like to present this, is if you look at it with every other form of money that we've ever known, if people use it as a store of value, the price will rise, there will be more profit to be made from mining it. And that leads to an increase in the supply, which then leads to a drop in the price. But with Bitcoin, on the other hand, this process is a cycle. And the reason for that is that we have the first same three steps, the store of value demand increases, it causes the price to rise, it causes mining to become more profitable. But in the case of Bitcoin, if you start mining more Bitcoin, you're not able to increase the supply, there's no way of increasing the supply of Bitcoin.

Saifedean Ammous: (09:26)
So instead, what ends up happening is that more hashing power goes to mining, so more people are spending more resources on mining, and mining becomes harder, and the supply of coins stays the same. That's how the difficulty adjustment works. Instead of the reward for mining rising, the reward stays the same, but mining becomes harder. And so no matter how many people are using Bitcoin and how many people are trying to mine Bitcoin, we're only going to get a certain number of Bitcoin produced every day, around these days, it's around 900 coins, and for the next three and a half years, it's going to be 900 coins a day, regardless of how many people are trying to mine Bitcoin.

Saifedean Ammous: (10:09)
The 900 coins a day is a set reward, and the difficulty of mining adjusts in order to make sure that we continue to average around 900 coins a day. And that's how this has been working. So in other words, when mining becomes more profitable, more hashing power is going toward mining, but the supply does not increase, instead more hashing power is effectively protecting the network. So the network becomes harder to attack, it becomes more expensive to attack the Bitcoin network becomes more expensive to make the Bitcoin network unusable. And that gives Bitcoin the ability to survive longer, which makes it more attractive as a store of value which attracts more store of value demand.

Saifedean Ammous: (10:55)
And this in my mind is the only way that we can explain and understand the incredible rise in the price of bitcoin that we've seen over the last 10 years. Bitcoin has basically gone up... Well 11 years now. Bitcoin has gone up about one and a half to two billion percent in 11 years, and nothing has ever gone up like that. Ever. And I think this is really the only way to understand it, because bitcoin's supply is completely irresponsive to demand with anything else. If there's more supply, if there's more demand, we can always make more. We're always able to make more of anything else. But with Bitcoin, there's a strict fixed limit on how much we can make from it.

Saifedean Ammous: (11:38)
Because of this thing that we call difficulty adjustment, so the difficulty adjustment really is the most amazing technology in Bitcoin in my mind, it's the magic sauce that makes Bitcoin work. Because it protects the network from inflation. And it ensures the supply is auditable, and verifiable by all network members. And it converts people's inevitable incentive to increase bitcoins supply into network security. So it makes the network more secure. And it does that by using the incentive of people to increase the supply of the currency.

Saifedean Ammous: (12:11)
So it's the reason why I like to call Bitcoin and all conquering juggernaut of economic incentives. Whereas everybody competes to inflate all other monies. Whereas everybody's competing to increase the supply of every other currency that is out there, people compete to secure Bitcoin, not to inflate it. So people compete to make Bitcoin more secure, which ends up making it more attractive. So Bitcoin really solved the inflation problem in the most neat way imaginable, because instead of providing people with an incentive to increase the supply, it provides them with an incentive to make the network more secure.

Saifedean Ammous: (12:49)
And how secure is Bitcoin? Bitcoin has no single point of failure, it has no single piece of critical hardware or infrastructure, no single critical individual or organization, it basically can't be stopped. It's a protocol that is always open to anyone who wants it at any point in time, around every 10 minutes, a new block of transactions is released. And this has basically never failed in the 10 or 11 years that has been going on. And it's never confirmed a fraudulent transaction. So far, nobody has managed to spend money they don't have on the Bitcoin network.

Saifedean Ammous: (13:22)
So the hardest money that's ever been invented is basically available worldwide for anyone who can receive two megabytes of data every 10 minutes. You don't even need a computer or an internet connection. There are ways to get around that to use Bitcoin. It's purely voluntary. It does not read regulation enforcement or the police. And it's chosen and valued freely on the market. It's sound money. It's money that gets its value, because the market gives it value, not because anybody forces its value. So what is Bitcoin good for then?

Saifedean Ammous: (13:53)
Well, for me, I think the most important use case of Bitcoin is that it is a store of value. And it's an obvious use case, because it's the first strictly scarce liquid asset that we've ever had. And in fact, if you think about it, one of my favorite books is a book called The Ultimate Resource, written by economist Julian Simon. And in this book, Julian Simon explains that the ultimate resource in the world really is human time, because with human time we're able to make more of any other resource. The limit on how much we have of oil, or silver, or gold, or copper, or nickel or zinc. The limit on how much we have of all of these metals is simply how much time we dedicate toward mining and producing them. The amount of them that exists in the crust of the earth is far beyond our capability to process and consume.

Saifedean Ammous: (14:54)
And the limiting factor really is just the time that we are able to dedicate to producing those goods versus other goods, we could always make more of anything. And that's why we never run out of these metals. No matter how much we find, no matter how much we consume, we keep digging and we keep finding more. Because the limit is not how much exists on Earth, because that's so far larger than we can even ever imagine or calculate, the earth is enormous. The limit is how much time we have for other things. The limit is the opportunity cost in terms of our time, in terms of other things.

Saifedean Ammous: (15:29)
And so, before Bitcoin, anything that we chose, as a store of value in this world, had the imperfection that its supply will increase in response to it being chosen as money. But Bitcoin doesn't have that. So naturally it ends up working out really well as a store of value. And so ultimately, the only thing that is scarce is time. And Bitcoin is the second thing that is truly scarce. And so, for me that's a natural match between the two, if you want to store the value of your time in money, you would want to store it in the money that is scarce like your time.

Saifedean Ammous: (16:02)
So this is why I like to call Bitcoin the most advanced technology for transferring the value of time into the future. The second thing that Bitcoin I think is good for is that it is the decentralized free market alternative to central banking. Until the year 2009 if you wanted to send money from one country to the other, the only way that you could do it was you had to go through financial institutions that are operated by central banks. So central banks have a national monopoly on this process in every country. And they're able to monopolize the market for sending money in and out of the country. And it's had terrible consequences in many places for many people. And in many of those places, and many of those times people didn't have an alternative, because where do you go? How do you trade with people outside your country, if you can't have a bank? You can send physical gold in reliable ways that are cheap and economical.

Saifedean Ammous: (17:08)
And there was no alternative. So you have to have your savings always with the local banking system, which was also lending to the government and likely to witness significant devaluation. Bitcoin offers us the first alternative to that. It really is the first working alternative to international payment settlement. It's digital and yet it does not require the supervision and the control of national central banks.

Saifedean Ammous: (17:41)
And one important aspect that I get into detail in my book, is the issue of how Bitcoin grows and how Bitcoin scales. There is, I think, a common misconception that Bitcoin is a payment network that you can think of Bitcoin and compare it to PayPal. But in my mind I try and explain the idea that Bitcoin is actually more... Is better understood as being a settlement network, it's a network for a small number of high value transactions. And this is the way in which the network has been evolving over the past few years, it's growing in this direction, where the number of transactions conducted on Bitcoin every day has been roughly constant for maybe five, six years now at around 300,000 to 500,000 transactions a day. But the value of that is transacted continues to increase significantly. More and more value is being sent on the Bitcoin network, even though the number of transactions is the same.

Saifedean Ammous: (18:37)
So in that sense, Bitcoin is growing as a settlement network. And I think, in this regard, we're going to see it grow more in this capacity. And I think you see more and more of the businesses that are being built around Bitcoin, at this point, are focusing on this kind of use case. And an important part to this is the fact that we see it with corporations now looking into using Bitcoin as a cash settlement... As a part of their cash reserve assets, rather than thinking of using Bitcoin for payments.

Saifedean Ammous: (19:24)
So a few years ago, a lot of people used to think that when is Starbucks going to adopt Bitcoin? When is McDonald's going to adopt Bitcoin? In their mind ideals, you would be able to pay for your coffee or your burger with Bitcoin. But I think what we're seeing is that we're going to be witnessing Bitcoin transactions being performed... Bitcoin coming into those companies from the balance sheet, not from the... They're going to hold it as cash rather than accepted for small payments. And I think eventually, we will see small payments being built on Bitcoin eventually, but for now, I think that the compelling use case is to hold it and use it for large amounts of settlement rather than for daily small transactions.

Saifedean Ammous: (20:12)
So this is why in my book, I analogize Bitcoin to gold because similarly with gold, the trade was happening with a gold certificate. So we'll see second layer solutions built on Bitcoin, similar to second layer solutions built on gold, I think, and the interesting security question then for Bitcoin is whether it can resist being centralized, like gold was in central banks.

Saifedean Ammous: (20:41)
Some implications for Bitcoin I discuss in the book. One that I find extremely important is the issue of time preference. I think a problem of easy money is that it loses value and so it makes the future less certain for people. And because it makes the future less certain, it raises the cost of providing for the future. And therefore it makes it less likely for people to save for the future. And that reflects on all manner of decisions and outlooks on life which gives people more of a present focused orientation rather than a future focused orientation. I think we see the same... We see the opposite happen under hard money.

Saifedean Ammous: (21:25)
So if you think of the 19th century to today, people used to save much more in the 19th century. And if you look at what has happened as western economies went off the gold standard, you see that savings rates declined, continues to decline. The one country that continues to have higher savings rates was the last country to go off the gold standard, and that is Switzerland. So I think there's something there that suggests if we do move to a Bitcoin standard, effectively, the world would have far less debt and far more saving is the way that I would see it if you move to a hard assets.

Saifedean Ammous: (22:00)
Don't have much time to explain this in detail. But if you're familiar with the Austrian School theory of the business cycle, from that perspective, effectively easy money and the ability of governments to manipulate and central banks to extend credit, unbacked by real savings, effectively manipulating interest rate downward and increasing the money supply, that is effectively the cause of the business cycle, and inflation and recessions. And for me, this is my favorite chart to illustrate this again, look at Switzerland, up until the 1970s when they went on the gold standard, they basically had no unemployment, there were no recessions, there was really no unemployment. And then that started happening as they went off gold and started having a more conventional 20th century monetary policy.

Saifedean Ammous: (22:52)
One other important application in my mind is that it will end the... Having Bitcoin could offer us the way out of the Tower of Babel, that is the foreign exchange market. Which is trading something roughly in the sea of the size of 25 multiples of GDP, in terms of volume. All of it essentially, because we've unsolved the problem of money in the 20th century by going off gold, which was one universal international apolitical money and going to many different political monies, which effectively create the system of international partial barter around the world.

Saifedean Ammous: (23:34)
So in conclusion, I think Bitcoin, if I were to summarize what Bitcoin is, I would say Bitcoin is a technological and apolitical solution to two problems. The first is international value transfer. And the second is saving, or transferring value to the future. Bitcoin offers us essentially a technological solution for those things, it makes those things, the use of them similar to using a computer, you're able to store your value in computer in a way that is much more reliable and predictable and auditable than the traditional solutions that we have.

Saifedean Ammous: (24:12)
And I think the intriguing possibility of Bitcoin is that it offers us the prospect of a real free market in money savings, capital, and investments. That is all for the presentation. Thank you very much for inviting me. My website to saifedean.com. The Bitcoin Standard, my book is available in 24 languages now. You can find them all listed on my website. And you can also sign up to receive chapters from my two forthcoming books that I'm working on right now the Fiat Standard, which is the sequel to The Bitcoin Standard, and also a textbook in economics, Principles of Economics. Thank you very much.

John Darsie: (24:50)
Well, Saif. Thank you so much for that presentation. We already have a few questions in the queue. But I want to remind anybody who's watching, if you have any questions for the remaining 15 to 20 minutes of today's SALT Talk, if you're on Zoom with us, you can enter them in the Q&A box at the bottom of your video screen. If you're watching on Periscope on LinkedIn, or on our YouTube channel, you can email any questions you have to info@salt.org and we will try to get those in before we let Saif leave us.

John Darsie: (25:19)
The first question that's being asked and one of the reasons why we did this with you Saif is that we had some people in our community who are crypto curious but have yet to really dive in educate themselves completely about what Bitcoin is and the long term implications of cryptocurrency. So we have just a very basic follow up question from Victoria, who asks, "How is Bitcoin mined? And what's the process going to be for mining the rest of Bitcoin over the next decade and into infinity?" As we know, Bitcoin, halving works. But could you just explain what the process for mining Bitcoin is?

Saifedean Ammous: (25:53)
Yeah, the way you think of mining Bitcoin is it's almost Bitcoins are handed out, kind of like medals or trophies in a sports competition, in that they're handed out at a specific period of time. So let's say every four years, there's going to be a gold medal for the 100 meter dash. And it doesn't matter how many people compete for it all over the world. There are only going to be one metal, no matter how many people try and get it. So you can't control the supply through mining more or less. And the way that works is that the reward for mining is pre-programmed and constant. And then if more people try and compete for the reward, then all the people that are competing end up getting less and less out of the reward.

Saifedean Ammous: (26:41)
So the way that it works is that you use a computing power, you get a machine, initially you could do it on your own computer with any basic personal computer, but now it's become more sophisticated and complex, and it needs its own computer to be done economically. So you'll get this machine, which will try and solve mathematical problems to effectively win that reward.

Saifedean Ammous: (27:12)
So all these machines all over the world are mining Bitcoin by trying to find the solution to a mathematical problem. And then whoever provides the correct solution ends up winning a reward. So those rewards are handed out at a rate of six and a quarter, plus a little bit for transaction fees every 10 minutes. So there's six bitcoins being handed out every 10 minutes, roughly six to seven bitcoins more or less every 10 minutes. And that adds up to around 900 bitcoins a day, today.

Saifedean Ammous: (27:44)
So these will be handed out to people who use their computing power and their electricity to solve these mathematical problems. And the more computing power you direct towards the problem, the more likely you are to find those solutions, the more likely you are to have a profit, to make a profit. So what this leads to is that mining ends up being just a very competitive market were only the people who are the most efficient, who have the lowest cost of power, and who can secure the best hardware are able to continue to mine profitably, because it's competitive.

Saifedean Ammous: (28:22)
So the people who have the lowest electricity prices are the only ones who are going to be able to turn out profit because everybody else, they won't be making that award because it won't be economical for them. If your electricity is expensive, then that award that you make will not be worthwhile. So the point behind it is to make it so that the supply of Bitcoin is regulated by the mining process, so that it doesn't increase beyond what it is meant to be increasing at.

Saifedean Ammous: (28:53)
So the schedule right now, the schedule brings us to 21 million in around 100 years from now. We're already at 18.5 million roughly today. So we already have 18.5 million bitcoins that have already been mined. So there's only two and a half million bitcoins to be mined over the next 100 years. And the growth rate is just going to continue to decline over time.

John Darsie: (29:18)
All right, fantastic. What do you say to critics who talk about energy efficiency as it relates to mining and computing power to run the Bitcoin network? That's one criticism that's leveled at Bitcoin is that it's very energy inefficient.

Saifedean Ammous: (29:32)
I think Bitcoin is extremely energy efficient in that it is constantly punishing anybody who has expensive energy. So if you're trying to mine Bitcoin with grid power, you're not going to mine Bitcoin profitably. There are no grids that are basically competitive with a Bitcoin network, because the people that are able to be turning a profit in Bitcoin mining are those who have power that is essentially stranded, that is oversupply at places where it's not easy to move in.

Saifedean Ammous: (30:04)
And power is not easy to transport the capital power a lot. So Bitcoin is essentially a buyer of last resort of power from people who have excess power that don't know what to do with it. And that's why it's mainly mined in hydroelectric dams where they have a lot of spare capacity. And in methane fields, I think is another one where it's going to start growing, it's not now, but I think the potential for that one is enormous, because methane fields, they flare a lot... Sorry, in oil fields, they flare a lot of methane that is not economical to ship, because methane isn't very energy dense, and so it's not really economical.

Saifedean Ammous: (30:40)
And so usually they just burn it, but if you use it to mine Bitcoin, you can recover a lot of your costs. So I think Bitcoin is efficient, is highly energy efficient, uses extremely cheap energy, and it encourages innovations in finding cheaper and cheaper electricity. However, there's no denying that Bitcoin does consume a lot of energy. But I think here I find this question strange.

Saifedean Ammous: (31:04)
It's very common for people to think that consuming a lot of energy is a bad thing. But if you think that consuming a lot of energy is a bad thing, then why would you buy a washing machine? Why wouldn't you wash your clothes with your own hand? Why would you get into a car? A car consumes more energy than a bicycle and an airplane consumes more energy than both.

Saifedean Ammous: (31:23)
And we use those things precisely because they use more energy because burning energy is an extremely cost efficient way to get things done, much more cost efficient than using human input. And so for the same reason, I think that we got rid of telephone operators and we use automated telephones, Bitcoin essentially automates monetary policy and gets rid of discretionary monetary policy and automates international settlement clearance. And I can't think of a better use of electricity.

John Darsie: (32:04)
So we have a few questions around this theme of Bitcoin being digital gold, or an alternative store of value. And some people enjoyed your last slide comparing the total value of the FX market. What do you think the ultimate market cap for Bitcoin could climb to? Is it capped at basically, taking some market cap from gold, and those two assets being your two main alternative stores of value? Or how large of a market cap Do you think Bitcoin could eventually have? And what's the path to getting there?

Saifedean Ammous: (32:39)
Really, it's a scary question to consider, because you try and draw the line on where demand can stop and you keep struggling. So you could say gold, I think de-monetizing gold is a realistic goal and turning golden into an industrial metal, that can happen. So Bitcoin can eat that market. It won't mean gold will go to zero, obviously, it'll become just a expensive industrial metal.

Saifedean Ammous: (33:06)
But you have to also remember that a lot more of global markets are essentially just looking for a store of value, or they're not looking for investment that yields returns. There's a lot of money that is just looking for a store of value. And so a lot of real estate, a lot of people buy homes that they don't really need, because that beats inflation. And a lot of people invest in all kinds of things like bonds, for instance.

Saifedean Ammous: (33:38)
So Bitcoin could eat into the market for real estate, could eat into market for bonds. And so these things could lose a significant amount of the demand that comes to them. Because people don't have a solid store of value that can just offer them... That can be the base of your portfolio that you don't take risks with. And Bitcoin, if it grows into this kind of digital gold, it can offer people that. And so you can imagine, then it would reduce the demand for other markets. And then really, the sky's the limit, I guess.

John Darsie: (34:18)
So we have a few questions about Satoshi Nakamoto, who is the anonymous figure that basically created Bitcoin, there's been speculation about it being an individual or a group of people. But to this day, the identity of the people who started Bitcoin remains a question mark. And we've had a few questions like this on other digital assets, SALT Talks we've done about whether you think ultimately we'll find out who created Bitcoin, and whether you think that would enhance confidence in the system. And who you think, Satoshi Nakamoto is.

Saifedean Ammous: (34:55)
I don't know who it is. And a lot of people have spent a lot of time digging into it. And I don't think there's any satisfactory answer. I think it's hard to explain who he is or what happened. But what we know... In my mind, I think, the disappearance and there's the fact that the person who created this left is probably an essential part of what makes Bitcoin work. I think, if Bitcoin had continued... And I don't know if he did it deliberately, because he didn't indicate whether he wanted to do that. Maybe he did it deliberately, or maybe something happened.

Saifedean Ammous: (35:32)
But I think the fact that there was nobody in charge, and the project continued to survive, is what makes it extremely tough, because it's what makes the monetary policy set in stone. It's what gives it digital value. Because this is a network that is out of control of anybody. There's nobody out there who can take over this network and change the money supply.

Saifedean Ammous: (35:55)
And potentially, I think, if the owner of the guy who started it was still around, they might have had this power and they have this power, they'd set the precedent of doing something like this at an early stage. The whole thing would have become much more political. And in my mind, it would not have this value proposition. It would be far more of like an interesting startup. More than this neutral protocol, which is what Bitcoin is right now. So I think the disappearance of the creator was an enormously important factor in the growth of Bitcoin in a way in which it had become neutral and controlled by nobody.

John Darsie: (36:42)
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that Satoshi whether that's a person or a group of people still owns a substantial part of the Bitcoin float that exists out in the marketplace. And in general, Bitcoin ownership is very concentrated among a small group of people who are early evangelists of the cryptocurrency. What do you say to people who level the accusation that those groups of people are simply talking their own book and trying to hype up Bitcoin as a way to enrich themselves, and maybe staying anonymous as a way to avoid accusations of conflict of interest as they try to drive Bitcoin higher?

Saifedean Ammous: (37:21)
Well, I mean, part of the mystery is that we don't know who the person is, and they haven't touched their coins. So while we don't really know whether they are his coins to begin with. But given the current value is probably something in the range of, I think, $10, $20 billion, or something like that. It's a lot of money for somebody to be sitting on. I think they probably would have wanted to cash on it earlier. So it's-

John Darsie: (37:51)
They've had a pretty nice return.

Saifedean Ammous: (37:53)
Yes, but they haven't cashed out. So that is quite mystifying but I think in terms of the early adopters, in a sense, yes. But you have to remember that as the thing goes up, as the price goes up, as demand increases, the early adopters sell, because the prices go up in ways that become life changing, and so they sell significant chunks of their assets.

Saifedean Ammous: (38:23)
Now the fact that it's insiders that are promoting it. I guess you could say that about anything but the key difference with Bitcoin. And the reason why I think it's completely meaningless to call it a Ponzi scheme, is that none of the insiders have the way of creating more liabilities to draw on the wealth, or backed by the wealth that is parked in the network.

Saifedean Ammous: (38:49)
So in a Ponzi scheme, people would bring in money into it, and then you're getting new money from new people, and you're using that to pay off the old people. So the same money is being given as liabilities out to several people, and then the whole thing comes crashing down, but nobody can do that in Bitcoin. You are the only one who can own your own keys, and nobody can generate more liabilities, nobody can make more Bitcoins.

Saifedean Ammous: (39:15)
So the rules of the game are open and transparent for everybody. And in a sense, this sounds little more than just sour grapes, like yes, some people took a risk early when you were mocking it and laughing at it and saying it was stupid. And the market found out that maybe it wasn't very stupid. So it seems to me that it is a little bit unfair to be turning around now and saying that it's unfair that the people who took the risk that you derided it and didn't take, took the reward for it.

John Darsie: (39:48)
So your book is called The Bitcoin Standard. Obviously, you're very enthusiastic about Bitcoin. Are you a Bitcoin maximalist? Meaning you think it's going to be a winner take all type scenario in the digital asset space where Bitcoin is going to be the overwhelming winner, and you're going to have maybe a few other coins out there that lag well behind Bitcoin? Do you think this is a space that's going to develop as a mature asset class, and you're going to have other coins and cryptocurrencies and digital assets that have tremendous value as well?

Saifedean Ammous: (40:17)
No, I think it's really it's Bitcoin or bust. There's really only one protocol, one neutral protocol here, and there's only neutral protocols. But I think the use case, ultimately, of the tokens that underlie value transfer, it has to be one protocol. And the only one that can make a claim for being a neutral protocol that is controlled by nobody, that isn't controlled by anybody, is Bitcoin. And that's really ultimately... It's what I see as the value proposition that... It's the guarantee that this thing should have value. The reason these digital bits of data are able to have economic value is because there's a guarantee that nobody can go and change the supply, which is trivial in my mind with all the other digital assets.

Saifedean Ammous: (41:05)
So none of them can demonstrate to me that they have anything like the resilience that Bitcoin has. Because we saw with Bitcoin in 2017, some of the most influential Bitcoin companies and some of the most influential Bitcoin developers and some of the bigger investors in Bitcoin all I tried to change one simple metric and parameter in the Bitcoin network and failed. But you don't see that happening with any of the other currencies, which are to be frank, after Bitcoin, if any of these has made a name where people have heard about it, it only made that name because it had a group of people behind it, working in a concerted effort.

Saifedean Ammous: (41:43)
And for those people, changing the supply and controlling the supply is more or less a bit of a trivial problem. And we've seen with some of the bigger ones that they've... That they don't even know what their supply is going to be like. So for me, I think the value proposition is just not there, in having any of these digital tokens attain the scarcity that is necessary for them to have reliable market value in the long run. And that's why you see that a lot of these copycat coins come into the Bitcoin space. There's a lot of hype initially, but then eventually, they crash. And essentially, they all flatline and head towards zero next to Bitcoin.

Saifedean Ammous: (42:28)
It's happened with thousands of them. And I think we're still at a point where in terms of market cap, which is a very flawed measure, Bitcoin is about 70% of the market. But in terms of real world liquidity, the real world liquidity for the other currencies, it's more likely than Bitcoin is about 90% of the total real liquidity, not just the kind of market cap, which can be easily spoofed.

Saifedean Ammous: (42:58)
So if we're talking about a world in which the market has for 11 years, after 11 years of all these thousands of competitors coming in, and they still can't get to more than 10% of the liquidity of Bitcoin, I think it's time to consider this is not Pepsi and Coca Cola. This is not different providers of different software packages. This is a neutral protocol versus really proprietary currencies. And it's more like there's the internet. And then there are other people trying to sell their own local work network as being the other internet. But there's only really one protocol for the web itself.

John Darsie: (43:44)
So you're a believer in the Austrian School of Economics. And you think that our current Keynesian, fiat monetary system is inevitably flawed and eventually going to implode as we try to inflate our way out of our problems. What do you think the ultimate path for Bitcoin is? Do you think it's something that the United States government and other global governments are going to eventually acquiesce and come up with regulation that allows it to coexist with something like the US dollar? Do you think if the system starts to collapse a little bit that they'll start to crack down on cryptocurrency with capital controls and try to prosecute people that use cryptocurrencies? What do you think the ultimate path to acceptance and mainstream use for Bitcoin is over the coming decades?

Saifedean Ammous: (44:30)
I have to say, I don't really necessarily think that this current system has to crash, it's been going around 50 years and for all I know, it could go for another 50, maybe even more. And in my mind, I don't really have much of the idea that Bitcoin is... It could be that Bitcoin is the savior from hyperinflation and it certainly was my savior from hyperinflation in Lebanon, where I used to live until recently and the currency collapsed. So I think if hyperinflation does happen, Bitcoin is a great thing to have.

Saifedean Ammous: (45:05)
However, I don't think that Bitcoin needs a hyperinflation scenario, in order for it to rise. I think this is a point that I keep trying to communicate, which is that we need to stop thinking about it, in terms of this system is going to collapse in Bitcoin is the only answer. I think we need to just think this is just a better technology, this is just a more advanced system. And it's likely to take over just because apolitical settlement that is accessible and verifiable, for anybody, anywhere around the world, at a very low cost is just a much more powerful proposition than having to go through political institutions every time you want to send and receive money. And having to go through political institutions that have a monopoly that can devalue the currency.

Saifedean Ammous: (45:53)
So I think, by being harder money and by offering international clearance independently, Bitcoin is just a new ecosystem. And in my mind, I don't see that it is necessary for the Fiat system to collapse for Bitcoin to grow. I think the two can continue to coexist for a long period of time, while Bitcoin grows. And it's not implausible in my mind that just Bitcoin continues to grow peacefully next to a relatively shrinking Fiat economy, and then effectively we upgrade to a scenario where we're using more Bitcoin.

Saifedean Ammous: (46:30)
And I think the use case, ultimately, in my mind, I like to compare it to dynamite. When dynamite comes up it changes... Or gunpowder, it changes the dynamics of power. And if you have an army of soldiers who have swords, you don't like gunpowder. So what do you do? Do you ban gunpowder? Banning gunpowder is not going to be effective, because the people who are going to fight your soldiers are not going to-

John Darsie: (46:58)
Good luck with that.

Saifedean Ammous: (47:00)
Exactly. You're just bending your own soldiers from having gunpowder. So for me, I think individuals, corporations, and governments will start just understanding the massive potential for Bitcoin as effectively digital dynamite gold. And see that their own interest is better served by using Bitcoin rather than fighting Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (47:25)
So in your view, what are the biggest risks to Bitcoin becoming this major store of value that we're talking about as a digital gold, and an alternative to other stores of value that you've described?

Saifedean Ammous: (47:37)
I think the main risk to keep an eye on is the decentralization of the network. If the number of nodes, and that's really the key metric to keep an eye on, if the number of nodes in the Bitcoin network declined significantly, then there's... Or if the cost of running a node rises significantly, then you expect that the number of nodes would decline. And as a result, you would have a smaller number of nodes. And then that becomes more concerning because it becomes more plausible that they could collude with one another, to change the supply.

Saifedean Ammous: (48:10)
So if you have a situation where there develops an asymmetry between the people using Bitcoin and the people who are able to validate the blocks, and are able to validate the consensus rules of the network, if that split becomes too big, and the number of the nodes becomes too small and concentrated, then in my mind that really compromises the value proposition, because it makes it likely that you could get some kind of collusion or it's more likely at least that you could get some kind of collusion that could alter the monetary policy. So this for me is the main risk, the decentralization.

John Darsie: (48:50)
For people who are interested in owning Bitcoin what do you think is the optimal path to buying Bitcoin that's currently available in the marketplace today? So you have some over the counter investment products that have started to emerge, but you have yet to have a SEC approved and registered ETF. For example, you have exchanges like Coinbase, Gemini, and others that you can buy and sell Bitcoin, in your view what's the most secure, safest method for buying Bitcoin today?

Saifedean Ammous: (49:20)
I mean, it's not an easy question, because it depends on who's asking it and how they want to do it. Obviously, there are many commercial options for individuals and for institutions. For my personal, I work with a company called the NYDIG, the New York digital Investment Group, and they offer a full suite of solutions, institutional grade solutions fully regulated, and they have the BitLicense.

Saifedean Ammous: (49:49)
So that would be the kind of solution that I would recommend for institutions. With individuals, I recommend, the most important thing is that you hold your own keys of Bitcoin. If you don't hold your own private keys of Bitcoin, for your Bitcoin, then these are not your bitcoins. And I recommend personally, individually holding your own Bitcoin for yourself. But obviously, that might not be feasible with institutional money, which might require more elaborate custody arrangements. And for that there's NYDIG. But yeah, I think that it's difficult to recommend something too specific, just because there are too many options. And it depends on what the person prefers. And for their own security, the best solution is the one that makes sense for you, that you're likely to stick to safely.

John Darsie: (50:45)
There you go. That's responsible advice. Dr. Ammous, Saif, it's been a pleasure to have you on, we look forward to hopefully having you at one of our in person SALT conferences here in the future, as we talked about before we started and as you can see, by all the episodes of SALT Talks that have covered digital assets, we have a growing enthusiasm and interest in the space. So we look forward to continuing our journey, both academically and potentially in practice in the future. But thanks so much for joining us, and we'll look forward to seeing you soon.

Saifedean Ammous: (51:15)
Thank you very much for having me. This was a lot of fun.