Jalak Jobanputra: The Rise of Venture Capital in Crypto | SALT Talks #166

“When I went to my first Bitcoin conference, I got goosebumps the way I did when I first logged onto the Internet.”

Jalak Jobanputra is the founding partner of Future Perfect Ventures, an early-stage venture capital fund focused on decentralized technology with an emphasis on blockchain tech and crypto assets.

Bitcoin, crypto assets and decentralized technology mark a revolution akin to the Internet. The use of computer networks on the blockchain created greater financial access for communities around the world. Unbanked or under-banked communities like many Kenya can now store and exchange money, through Bitcoin or other crypto assets, across the globe instantaneously without a central intermediary. The restrictions inherent in centrally-controlled fiat currency leave millions without access to financial systems. “In Africa, we have so many unbanked or under-banked people. Just like they never had landline phones, they’re never going to have a banking relationship like we do.”

Bitcoin and other crypto assets have recently seen a surge in adoption from hedge funds and corporation mangers who see this revolutionary decentralized technology as a hedge against inflation. Stimulus and money-printing brought on by the pandemic has accelerated this adoption and seen Bitcoin’s value skyrocket. The Internet-native generation will ensure Bitcoin and crypto assets’ inevitable mainstream integration as these digitally fluent groups discover greater financial independence.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jalak Jobanputra.jpeg

Jalak Jobanputra

Founding Partner

Future\Perfect Ventures

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 launched in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. Our goal on these SALT Talks, the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which our guest, we had the pleasure of hosting at our SALT Abu Dhabi conference in 2019, but 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: (00:47)
We're very excited today to welcome to the latest episode of our digital asset series with someone who is a pioneer in the space before, quote, it was cool. Her name is Jalak Jobanputra, and I'm going to read a little bit more about her bio before we welcome her onto the camera. Jalak is the founding partner of Future Perfect Ventures, which is an early stage venture capital fund focused on decentralized technology with a focus on blockchain, tech, and crypto assets. FPV was the first venture fund worldwide formed with a thesis on decentralization, and the portfolio includes companies like Abra, Blockstream, BitPesa, The Graph, Everledger, and Blockchain.

John Darsie: (01:30)
In 2017, Jalak was cited as a top five investor powering the blockchain boom, and Crunchbase noted that FPV was one of the top VC funds in blockchain, as I mentioned before, quote, before it was cool. In May of 2018, Jalak was awarded Microsoft's VC Trailblazer Award for her early and bold investments into the sector. She has also been awarded among institutional investor's most powerful fintech deal-makers for the past three years with prior exits, including Ariba which was sold to SAP; Yodlee, which IPO'd; TxVia, which was sold to Google; Viacore, which was sold to IBM; and Schoolnet, which was sold to Pearson.

John Darsie: (02:17)
Previously Jalak was the director of emerging market mobile investments at the Omidyar Network, which was a fund launched by Pierre Omidyar, the co-founder of eBay. Previous to that, she served in a number of different roles related to software and fintech. She graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's in economics with a concentration in finance from the Wharton School of Business and a BA in communications from the Annenberg School at UPenn. She also received her MBA from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University outside of Chicago.

John Darsie: (02:52)
Jalak, welcome to SALT Talks [inaudible 00:02:54] we're able to get to know you. You've obviously been very early to the digital asset space, so congratulations on that. But where we like to start every one of these talks is a little bit in your own words about your personal background. Obviously I read a lot of your bio there, but something that wasn't in your bio about your personal background and how you got to where you are today. And also, what was your a-ha or eureka moment as it relates to digital assets and Bitcoin? That's something we like to ask everybody. Everybody goes on a journey from skeptic to believer. So, as part of a brief introduction about your personal background, can you describe how you found digital assets and how you became such a ardent believer in the space?

Jalak Jobanputra: (03:33)
Yes. Well, it's great to be here. Thanks for having me. My personal background is very much related to why I got into Bitcoin and crypto back in 2013. I was born in Nairobi and came to the US when I was young and grew up going back to Africa and India. I'm of Indian origin. And this was in the 1980s when these countries were not as developed as they are now. There was really no connectivity. You actually had to wait for a phone line outside to be able to call outside of the village or even the city.

Jalak Jobanputra: (04:15)
So, that was really very much on my mind as I started my career and I started off on Wall Street doing tech telecom on media investment banking in the mid '90s. Was very fascinated by this new thing called the internet in 1995 when I saw the Netscape IPO happen. And I started thinking back to those childhood memories of that connectivity that the internet could enable and since then has certainly enabled, and we now have six billion mobile phones around the world. A lot of these countries all around Africa, India, Asia, Southeast Asia, Latina America have leapfrogged. They never went to the telephone lines; they went straight to mobile. And then Kenya, where I was born, was kind of ground zero for mobile money and E-Mpesa.

Jalak Jobanputra: (05:11)
So, when I decided to start my venture fund in 2013, as part of my exploration, I was thinking about what was next. Yes, we saw the internet. We saw mobile, cloud computing, all of these kind of infrastructure investments and connectivity. And I felt like we were primed for a next wave of technology evolution and revolution that was going to take advantage of that connectivity but create new business models. I was thinking of artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, these sensors that now cost cents and microprocessors that now enable our smartphones to have more processing power than NASA had when we put a man on the moon. I was at Intel Capital in the late '90s out in Silicon Valley. So, very familiar with Moore's law and semiconductor industry and how we were going to be able to do a lot of things that were not previously possible when we didn't have these vast processors.

Jalak Jobanputra: (06:18)
So, Bitcoin was on my list of exploration, and when I went to my first Bitcoin conference I just got goosebumps the way I did when I first logged into the internet in 1994. I really became fascinated by this idea of being able to use this network of computers, this connectivity that I just described, to enable transactions instantaneously across boarders and with no intermediaries. So, just thinking about going back to Africa where we have so many unbanked, under-banked people. Just like they never had landline phones, they're never going to have a banking relationship the way we do in the United States or people do in Europe.

Jalak Jobanputra: (07:13)
And I felt like Bitcoin was the first real technology that I had seen that enabled people to transact with each other with no central intermediary that was taking out fees. It's really those fees and the cost of infrastructure build-out that has kept a lot of companies and banks from actually serving these populations. So, I was instantly sold. I was instantly sold on Bitcoin. I instantly bought some Bitcoin and-

John Darsie: (07:53)
Why didn't you call me?

Jalak Jobanputra: (07:53)
... made the underlying blockchain technology the underlying thesis of Future Perfect Ventures when I launched it the next year.

John Darsie: (08:03)
Right. No, that's fascinating. And I want to keep going down the Bitcoin rabbit hole before we talk about this broader decentralization movement. So, you wrote a piece. It was published in Recode. It was first published on your blog in 2017. It's pinned to the top of your Twitter profile. Bitcoin at that time was at $10,000 per coin. You talked about how it was going to revolutionize money. You talked a little bit about the outline of that thesis, but could you go through that thesis again, about why you think it's revolutionizing money? And did you expect the story in terms of price appreciation of Bitcoin to play out this quickly, or how has the last three years played out relative to your expectations?

Jalak Jobanputra: (08:45)
Yeah. It has happened very quickly, and I think the excitement and the fact that this is opensource code where anybody, anywhere in the world can build upon this underlying technology is what's helped make it move so quickly, in terms of the underlying technology. Then certainly from a financial perspective and a store of value narrative, we've seen so many macro events that have led to some of the recent price appreciation we've seen where it's now over $50,000.

Jalak Jobanputra: (09:21)
So, in some ways, it has happened very quickly. In other ways, a lot of people who haven't been in this sector for a while don't realize that back in 2014 to 2016 it didn't really do much. And then we had the big run up in 2017 and a big crash right after that. The sector was pretty much forgotten by I'd say folks who were looking at it from a macro standpoint or some of the retail investors, but slowly the building continued to happen by the entrepreneurs and the technologists, the people who were sold on this idea of this borderless system of transactions.

Jalak Jobanputra: (10:08)
Now, this goes back to that thesis of revolutionizing money. If you look at money, it's a transaction mechanism, and the history of money goes through barter and objects and gold, and just fiat as we know it hasn't really existed that long. If you take a step back and think about money that way and you think about the fact that we're still transacting with these pieces of paper that cost more to produce or these coins that cost more to produce than their actual face value, and they're getting devalued by monetary policy and government controls and politics, the idea that computers and a network of computers can provide the next generation of money to us or that ability to transact is really kind of a no-brainer in my mind.

John Darsie: (11:12)
Right.

Jalak Jobanputra: (11:13)
And that's why I think its appealed to internet natives, the generation that doesn't understand why we can't go to a bank 24/7, why we can't transact over the weekends through our banks. I mean, it's silly how we have so much stuff on-demand, but our monetary system is not. And they certainly lived through 2008 and saw how much the banks actually control the money that we work really hard for.

Jalak Jobanputra: (11:49)
And those in emerging markets and where I'm from, it's also I'd say been a no-brainer for longer than a lot of folks in the United States have come along with this concept, because they are used to governments that will put controls on how much money they can move out of the country. We saw that with China. That's why China was an early adopter of the technology. India, demonetization a few years ago, where the government basically said certain bank notes were deemed illegal tender, and the price of Bitcoin at that time went much higher in India than it was in the rest of the world, and we're seeing that happen in Nigeria today when the government of Nigeria recently reiterated that they did not support cryptocurrency.

John Darsie: (12:43)
Right.

Jalak Jobanputra: (12:45)
So, what we've seen around the world is ... And going back to the connectivity I mentioned, now that the world is connected, people can see what's happening in the rest of the world. The genie can't go back in the bottle. And that's why we're seeing exponential growth in the sector. So, we're seeing it now from the institutional level, which is fairly new. So, I'd say the developed world institutions have really kind of caught onto this concept only in the last 6 to 12 months. But we've slowly seen this grassroots support of Bitcoin for many years, and that's been building over time.

John Darsie: (13:29)
Right. So, you referenced that 2017 rally that took Bitcoin up to almost $20,000 per coin, but then we saw it fall back to around 3,000 and change. I think obviously there was a lot of public interest in Bitcoin at the time that receded, and people sort of wrote it off as a pump-and-dump scheme or some type of Ponzi scheme, given that extreme volatility that we saw.

John Darsie: (13:54)
We're now seeing Bitcoin ramp in an even more extreme, rapid way in 2020 and 2021. Why is this rally potentially different than the rally then we saw in 2017? Do you think realized volatility will continue to fall, which it has been lower actually during this rally that it has been over previous cycles in its history? So, do you expect volatility to fall? Do you expect people to have to just weather that volatility? Or, why is it different this time around?

Jalak Jobanputra: (14:24)
Yeah, I think it's night and day, the 2017 rally and what we've seen in 2020 and 2021. And I view it very similar to what we saw in 1999 with the internet. I was out in the Valley, as I said, investing for Intel Capital, and I was in the belly of the beast when we were seeing companies going public on very little, just frenzy around any company that had a dot com next to it. And we saw that in 2017 with the initial coin offerings. Ethereum went public that year. They issued their token, and there was a huge run-up. So, everybody was looking for the next Ethereum.

Jalak Jobanputra: (15:14)
Companies, teams, existent or not, were putting up websites and collecting money from investors that were hoping to get into the next Ethereum or Bitcoin. So, that was very similar to companies just adding dot com. There were a number of companies that just added blockchain to their name, and they had the same experience. History does rhyme, and we saw that in 2017. Then there's the inevitable crash, because most of these companies really had no there there. There wasn't really anything behind what they were doing.

Jalak Jobanputra: (15:56)
And any company like Ethereum, it takes time to build technology that's going to scale, that's going to be adopted. So, with Bitcoin, we've seen increasing scalability, number of transactions. As more people come onto the network, it becomes more stable, more decentralized. So, we've seen that progression, but there was still a lot of questions back then on not only the underlying technology but then all this confusion around these kind of new companies that didn't really have any technology.

Jalak Jobanputra: (16:38)
Then the inevitable crash happened. Some speculators made a lot of money and they disappeared, and then the real builders stayed. What I've seen as an early stage investor, a lot of entrepreneurs that I invested in 10, 20 years ago started becoming really fascinated by the concept of decentralization and what it could mean, and they started getting into this space. And to me, that is the biggest leading indicator of whether any new technology has staying power too, can that technology attract beyond just the early adopters. So, we've seen that happen in a big way over the last three years.

Jalak Jobanputra: (17:22)
Then what's happened on a macro level, we've seen all the stimulus in the era of COVID, concerns about future inflation, government policies, kind of all the reasons that Bitcoin appealed to so many in those emerging markets. We've now seen a lot of hedge fund managers, corporations really looking for a hedge against inflation as well as a search for yield. So, we're going to continue to see that, because I don't see that macro environment really changing.

John Darsie: (18:02)
How much of your bull case right now for Bitcoin is just that the technology is so compelling that its rise was inevitable, and how much of it is based on that macro backdrop that you talked about? Is the macro backdrop with all the money-printing and the growth of the money supply just accelerating what was an inevitable rise of decentralized technology and blockchains, or how do you look at that puzzle?

Jalak Jobanputra: (18:28)
Yeah. I feel like a lot has been turbocharged as far as looking at technology and our thesis. If you look at Bitcoin from a store of value, as an investible asset, that narrative has certainly been given a boost by what we've seen on the macro environment. Bitcoin was really created as an exchange of value or to be an exchange of value. That has morphed into more of a store of value. Now that doesn't mean that it can't eventually be used as an exchange of value or that there's certain regions in the world or certain populations around the world that won't use it that way. We're certainly investing in solutions that can enable that.

Jalak Jobanputra: (19:20)
But I think, if you just look at it as it's come into its own, as the store of value this year ... Now, I was holding it well before this happened, because I believe that it was going to have value in some form or another. The problem with a lot of entrepreneurs sometimes is they have a vision of the world, and, I mean, that's not necessarily a problem. That's what helps them create the technology. But then they become these maximalists who believe that is the only way that technology can be used. And my belief as an investor is that you have to put the technology out there, and then you have to take feedback and see how people use it.

Jalak Jobanputra: (20:10)
I first encountered that when I spent time in Africa amongst women. I spent a summer before I joined Intel after business school training women entrepreneurs in rural areas all over Tanzania. I lived in Dar es Salaam. And this is pre-internet. They had mobile phones, but they didn't have internet connectivity through their mobile phones. It was fascinating what they would use those phones for, and I can guarantee no one in the US was thinking of the usage the same way, and we've seen that with WhatsApp and a number of other applications that took hold in some of these markets. So, I just believe that-

John Darsie: (20:56)
Yeah, what a perfect storm.

Jalak Jobanputra: (21:00)
... you can't create a technology and then dictate how people use it. So, this year has been fascinating to see what Bitcoin has become to most of the world. But I believe that the technology was strong, and the whole idea of crypto economics, which is to me just part of the genius behind the Bitcoin blockchain or blockchain technology and crypto assets in general, and that's what really allows verification of transactions without intermediaries, is the fact that the system is incentivized to stay honest and to keep creating value. It's in some ways so simple, but it's technically very complex. But I felt like this was going to be used in some form or another, and so I've been a holder since 2013 and believe it going to continue to [crosstalk 00:21:58]

John Darsie: (21:58)
HODL-er, HODL-er.

Jalak Jobanputra: (21:59)
Yes. I didn't want to go too into stuff like that.

John Darsie: (22:02)
Didn't get into the [inaudible 00:22:02] But you talked about how the genie is sort of out of the bottle. You still see some countries make noise about potentially Bitcoin. Like you mentioned, people that grew up in countries that have hyperinflation, whether it be Argentina or countries in Africa that experienced these bouts of hyperinflation, the story resonates with them in a very real way. But how likely do you think it is that someone like India, who is talking about it now, the potential for banning Bitcoin, how likely do you think it is that they do ban Bitcoin?

John Darsie: (22:35)
Is Bitcoin bannable? Let's say the United States and India and China and Germany decide that, you know what, we're printing all this money, we're creating this hyperinflationary environment. We can't allow something like Bitcoin to be out there. We're going to ban Bitcoin from existing. We're going to prevent at least people in our country from owning Bitcoin, make it illegal. Is Bitcoin bannable? What would that look like if countries went out there and tried to ban it, or is it past the point of no return now where it's going to find a place to live?

Jalak Jobanputra: (23:07)
Well, we've seen this happen over the years. China did this in 2017, I believe. I don't remember the exact year. People continued to access these networks through VPNs. If you actually were in China, you realized that there was a lot of mining happening. So, the reality on the ground was very different than the narrative.

Jalak Jobanputra: (23:30)
India effectively did that. We are an investor in a company called Unocoin, which was the first crypto exchange in India. We invested in the company in early 2017, and later that year India basically banned any banks from banking crypto-related companies. People became really concerned, the average population, the retail investors, and effectively almost shut down the crypto market in India. But what happens behind the scenes is the entrepreneurs, the people who care deeply about the ethos of monetary sovereignty and see that happen, they continue to build. Unocoin led a Supreme Court challenge, which overturned that ban last ... Or, it was actually earlier, early 2020. I've lost track of time.

John Darsie: (24:35)
Yeah, time is like a flat circle at this point.

Jalak Jobanputra: (24:38)
And the market's grown significantly since then. Now India is once again saying that they're going to or threatening to ban. Now my theory on all of this is a lot of these countries want to figure out what their central bank digital currencies are going to look like, because they are threatened by an alternative to their central bank currency, and they want to figure out a system where they can offer digital versions of their currency and then figure out how something like Bitcoin or independent cryptos would fit into that system.

John Darsie: (25:17)
How would they fit into that system? We ask that frequently on these talks about, in a world where there's US dollar built on the blockchain, there's a yuan, there's a ... Currencies around the world have their own central bank digital currencies. How does Bitcoin fit into that? Is it a threat? Is it accretive to Bitcoin? How does it live in that world?

Jalak Jobanputra: (25:38)
Well, I personally believe it's accretive to Bitcoin. I have this investment thesis that I've always had, is that no income bank is safe. So, you look at Blockbuster back in the day who said that no one was going to actually watch movies through the internet. It just wasn't going to happen. Either from a technical or a user perspective, they wouldn't do that. So, central banks I believe haven't thought that there was any threat to their power, and Bitcoin and then companies like Facebook saying that they're going to issue their own digital currency kind of changed the central bank perspective on that.

Jalak Jobanputra: (26:28)
So, again, going back to once people feel like they've had exposure to something and it's taken away from them, they are hyper-aware of that. If they never had exposure, then they don't know what they're missing. But we've now gotten to the point where most populations around the world have had some exposure, have heard about this, and have also seen their own governments, how they're acting versus other ... We've seen it here in the US in the last few months. So, I believe that central banks are going to have to have policies that take into account that there are competitors to their fiat currencies and offer value back.

Jalak Jobanputra: (27:13)
Now, there's always a threat that they can try to shut off access. I think one of the biggest threats is taxation and how they tax cryptos. So, those are very real threats, but I think we also, and governments, need to also be aware that people have power. And we look at GameStop and what just happened, and it may all seem unrelated, but I think that shows that the grassroots movement, retail investors, people in the ground that now have access to more information than ever will rise up if they feel threatened, and especially if they feel that their hard-earned money and livelihood is at stake.

John Darsie: (28:01)
All right. So, I want you to pretend like you're the PR representative for Satoshi Nakamoto, and you're going to talk to the Indian government. You live in Miami. You actually [inaudible 00:28:11] investors and entrepreneurs that have moved to Miami. But the mayor of Miami, Francis Suarez, has been very proactive in pulling people from Silicon Valley by being very pro-business, pro-tech, and most recently pro-Bitcoin and trying to create a regulatory framework and an environment that's conducive to iterating in terms of blockchain and Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (28:34)
So, if you were to talk to the government of India and you said, "You know what? Rather than banning Bitcoin, how about you embrace Bitcoin and you create an ecosystem that's conducive to innovation within the block chain space?" Why would that be such a powerful thing for a country to go all in on Bitcoin? There's been some prominent voices in the VC community who have written about this, but I think it's an interesting topic and would love your perspective on it.

Jalak Jobanputra: (28:58)
Well, I think it's a proxy for innovation in general, and if you look at countries like India, Kenya ... And let me just tell a little story about Kenya and my interaction with the central bank governor of Kenya. I'm an investor in a company called Bitpesa. I was one of their founding investors in 2014. They're now called Aza. They're the first company to look at using the Bitcoin blockchain as a back end for financial transactions, both at the institutional and retail level, both within the continent of Africa and then across continents.

Jalak Jobanputra: (29:42)
And the idea there was right now the banking system, the correspondent banking system, requires many, many different banks to get involved, which add fees and layers of fees where a transaction from Kenya to the Ivory Coast can cost up to 20% of the transaction, which even for institutions is something that they don't want to do. So, being able to just reduce that to one transaction in and out of a Bitcoin or any other crypto and provide that liquidity and do it in an instantaneous way with lower fees, they've seen tremendous growth over especially the last year.

Jalak Jobanputra: (30:24)
I once asked the central bank governor out there, "Why are you so threatened by Bitpesa?" Because they were. They tried to shut it down initially. Now they're working with the company, as are many other countries within Africa, but they ... He had a point, where he said, "We're just being accepted into the global monetary system, and we can't afford any missteps. We're being watched by everybody." And it provided perspective. For all of these emerging markets, they need to make sure that their monetary policy is sound, but I think this is an opportunity for especially India to take the lead and also, along those lines, not only take the lead but leapfrog. I've been-

John Darsie: (31:25)
You've been banging that drum?

Jalak Jobanputra: (31:27)
I'm sorry?

John Darsie: (31:29)
You've been banging that drum?

Jalak Jobanputra: (31:30)
Yes. Yes. I've been a big India bull for ... I mean, I started investing in India in 1999 when I was at Intel. One of my companies there IPO'd. India's certainly been through many challenges. It can be very bureaucratic. Some of the policies just don't make sense. But I think, given what we're seeing right now with China and COVID and some of the supply chain disruptions we saw by reliance on just one country and one region, India's really had an opportunity and stepped up to that opportunity on the supply chain side. A lot more businesses, including Apple is now doing more manufacturing there.

Jalak Jobanputra: (32:17)
And I think we can move that to then looking at money and then looking at fintech and taking a leadership role, and India has an opportunity to do that. Now that doesn't mean they don't issue their digital rupee, but they could be a model of how the rupee can interact with a currency that is independent of any other controls or reliance on the dollar. And I'm a US citizen. I'm an immigrant. I'm a big fan of the US. It's been great to me. But I also think that dependence on any one country, and we've seen this, is not a good thing. That's why we're investing in decentralization.

Jalak Jobanputra: (33:07)
The whole concept of Bitcoin and blockchain tech is no single point of failure. So, India has an opportunity to not only further their own goals of being a major player, and I believe they already are, but maybe the foremost player on the world's stage by really looking at the intersection of a digital currency as well as decentralized currency, and there's an incredible amount of talent there. It's a very entrepreneurial country. So, I think it has all the makings and ability to do this.

Jalak Jobanputra: (33:46)
Another point is that they were the first country to have a digital identity system. When I was at Omidyar, I worked on this project with the Indian government. And a lot of people thought there is no way that you're going to be able to get people in rural areas, farmers, people who weren't literate to actually buy into this system of this digital identity. But once these people saw that they were able to get their government subsidies, payments through this digital system, they all signed up, and it actually ended up being very efficient. Almost the whole country is now on this digital identity system. So, that's another infrastructure layer that can underpin a blended monetary system.

John Darsie: (34:46)
Let's talk more about that. It was actually my next question, because I think it's a fascinating topic, especially in the midst of a global pandemic, especially in the midst of a vaccine rollout where we're trying to track who's vaccinated, who's not vaccinated, who is at risk, who's eligible for the vaccine. A digital identity network would obviously solve a lot of those issues and make it much more organized. Where are we in the United States around that idea of digital identity? We had an Israeli entrepreneur and doctor on SALT Talks recently talking about how they have a digital identity system in Israel and it's been very helpful for vaccine rollout, and they've rolled out the vaccine very effectively.

John Darsie: (35:26)
But let's think very futuristically here. If the United States did roll out a digital identity system, every child that's born gets cataloged in this system, they're tracking different elements of your life, your finances, what could the world look like if we had a truly robust digital identity system?

Jalak Jobanputra: (35:45)
I think there's tremendous potential obviously if that were to happen. The challenge is the privacy implications around that. And the United States is a place where you can't track people the same way you can in a place like Singapore or Israel.

John Darsie: (36:04)
Right.

Jalak Jobanputra: (36:05)
If you look at COVID response, Taiwan, basically your phone could be tracked and, if you didn't answer your phone or if they thought you left your home, you would have the police come to your place. So, I think there are certainly privacy implications around identity systems, and in some ways we're beyond that point, but in other ways, if you start pushing it too much, people are [crosstalk 00:36:37]

John Darsie: (36:36)
Right. Yeah. People think they're not being tracked in the United States when they probably are and they just realize it yet.

Jalak Jobanputra: (36:43)
They are. I mean, they are, but they aren't in the same overt way. Otherwise, our response in COVID would have been very, very different.

Jalak Jobanputra: (36:53)
Now where I think blockchain technology and technology in general really could play a role here is the concept of things like homomorphic encryption of zero-knowledge proofs. To kind of put it in layman's terms, these are technologies that allow you to create identifiers without revealing the underlying information.

John Darsie: (37:17)
It's encrypted in some way.

Jalak Jobanputra: (37:18)
Yeah. Yeah. And we're investors in a number of early stage companies working on these technologies, and that's where you can still preserve some of the procedure, or you can decide you want to give up some of that privacy maybe in return for certain services, that "if I was able to get the vaccine sooner, I may be willing to give up my date of birth and my address, which otherwise I wouldn't have to give up." So, I think there are ways, and I've been really fascinated by this topic of data and data availability and data privacy, and the technology is now allowing for more granularity here in how we divide up data. There's been no pressure for companies like Google and Facebook to adopt any of these, but we are now seeing a big pushback around the business models, around data collection.

Jalak Jobanputra: (38:20)
One of the reasons I got really interested in decentralization was this whole idea of I could actually own my data, hold it in a wallet, and then permission it out whichever way I want to, and it's not that different, say, than Bitcoin where I hold a private key to my Bitcoin, I can release it when it gets matched with a public key. And you can do that. You can look at a Bitcoin as just any piece of data, and you can do it with your health care data, you can do it with your credentialing. So, it's kind of mind-blowing all the business models that can emerge from this underlying technology, and I think identity is a big piece of it. The challenge is, when you start to cross borders, there are different policies around data, and how do you reconcile that, and I do believe technology will allow us to do that soon.

John Darsie: (39:19)
Yeah. In some ways, you could view the aggregation of data as being sort of Big Brother, but in a lot of ways it empowers the individual to own their own data. So, Facebook or Google, their product is built on top of our data. The market cap of those companies is based on the fact that our data is extremely valuable. So, why should we not be empowered to decide how that data is used and be able to monetize it? It's a fascinating topic. Maybe the company you're invested in ... I have a friend who started a similar company. I don't know if it's the same one or not, but we can sync up offline about that.

John Darsie: (39:52)
But I want to talk about non-fungible tokens for a second. So, my brother is a big sports card collector, which has been good for him, because we're in the middle of a boom in terms of the prices of sports cards and trading cards and other scarce assets. But non-fungible tokens, one application for them has been NBA Top Shots, for example. So, basically you can collect digital highlights from NBA games. Could you talk about, for people who are less familiar with what's happening in the space, what they are and why they're interesting from a blockchain, decentralization perspective?

Jalak Jobanputra: (40:28)
Yeah. And this is one of the areas we've been most interested in also. I'm very into art. I actually did collect baseball cards, believe or not, when I was younger.

John Darsie: (40:41)
There you go.

Jalak Jobanputra: (40:41)
I was a big baseball fan. But it seems like basketball is really where a lot of the value creation as been.

Jalak Jobanputra: (40:50)
So, there's this concept of assigning value to an asset that then it could be a physical asset or it could be a digital asset, but then could be tracked, and the provenance of that particular asset can be tracked. So, you can start looking at ... Say you take a baseball card, and it's verified that that I own this baseball card, and how many editions of it are out there are part of the dataset, what condition it is in, how many times it's changed hands. All of that is part of the dataset, and then that can be valued in a marketplace, say, a digital marketplace, and traded.

Jalak Jobanputra: (41:45)
Now the whole thing can be traded, or we can just trade an interest in that particular asset. So, I could say, "I want to sell off 10% of it," and then people who are interested in or if they think it's going to appreciate, just like anything, they would invest their capital in it or crypto in it. If I decide to sell the entire asset, it gets distributed accordingly. So, it enables a lot of micro marketplaces to take hold.

Jalak Jobanputra: (42:27)
Also an investor in a company called Everledger. They put diamond provenance information on the blockchain starting in 2015. They've started working with brands and retailers who want to issue digital versions of clothes that people then can collect. They can potentially use it on gaming sites or they can just collect it with the idea that it's going to be worth something down the road. There also may be a physical asset that is linked to that digital asset. So, there are so many potential opportunities around these digitized tokens that can be tied to real-world, physical assets, or they can just reside in the digital world.

Jalak Jobanputra: (43:16)
And any creator who thinks that their work is worth something ... So, digital art. They can create 10 versions of an art piece, issue it, and right now any artist has to go through galleries. There's a huge supply chain, value chain that exists in the art world. And this is, again, very similar to Bitcoin. It's a currency that can exchange hands directly between people without banks, and this is the idea around any assets, and it's happening a lot around sports memorabilia, whether it's physical or purely digital. It's happening a lot around the art world. So, it's kind of wide open. We're in very, very early days, but I do think the sports world has been leaders in taking advantage of or thinking about the opportunity.

Jalak Jobanputra: (44:24)
You can also potentially tie an experience to a token. So, if a sports athlete wants to issue a card of himself, he can also say, "Well, the first 10 people who purchase this, or if you purchase it above a certain price, you get access to an experience." That experience could then become tradable. So, again, this idea of granularity around assets and programming assets and then price discovery and value discovery, I don't think we've seen the beginnings of [crosstalk 00:45:04]

John Darsie: (45:04)
Right. You just came up with a great idea for the next iteration of Cameo. I don't know if you're familiar with that platform, but you could create scarcity for the ability to get a unique experience or a unique message from a celebrity. It's a fascinating concept. And just intellectually, some people say, "Well, digital art. That doesn't make any sense to me. It lives on the internet. It's not like a painting you can hang on your wall." And I just say, somebody could forge a physical painting the same way that there could be illegal replication of digital art or digital trading cards or whatever it may be.

John Darsie: (45:41)
And money is the same thing. Money is only as valuable as a society and as a globe that we decide it as. So, I don't see any reason why digital art, digital money, or digital collectibles is really any different in a digital native world than physical items. You could argue as well that it's significantly more valuable. Some people say gold and Bitcoin are going to reach parity in terms of being a store of value, but then other people say, "Well, why stop there? There's no reason why Bitcoin can't dramatically exceed gold's market cap."

John Darsie: (46:15)
So, Jalak, it's been fascinating talking to you. Hopefully we can have another appearance from you at one of our SALT conferences in the future in person, once that becomes safe again. But I'm jealous of you being down in Miami. As I mentioned before we started, I was down in South Florida for a good part of the beginning of this year, but as I look outside my window, it's snow. I'm jealous. But congratulations on all your success and being so early to the space

Jalak Jobanputra: (46:41)
Thanks for having me. It's exciting times in Miami too with what the mayor is doing and a lot of crypto folks and tech folks down here.

John Darsie: (46:51)
Yep, absolutely. I'll definitely be down before long to soak up some of that sunshine. And thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk as well to learn more about this digital asset space. We think that's very important that you have an open mind about what's happening in the world, or else you're going to get left behind. You still see derision from some of the old guard around what's happening with Bitcoin and decentralization. So, it's good to open your mind and learn about these topics.

John Darsie: (47:17)
Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, including episodes with a variety of thought leaders in the blockchain/crypto universe, you can access them all on our website at SALT.org/talks. Also, we're on social media. Please follow us on Twitter: @SALTConference. You can follow Jalak on Twitter as well where she's a fantastic follow. But we're also active on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook as well.

John Darsie: (47:43)
And please spread the word. We love spreading these message. These educational segments that we do on SALT Talks, we love broadening our community and broadening their message. But on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Saleh Romeih: Venture Capital Investing During COVID-19 | SALT Talks #165

“This crisis is probably the biggest crisis we’ve faced since WWII. If we didn’t have all the technological advancements we had today, the impact of this crisis would’ve been far worse.”

Saleh Romeih serves as the managing partner at SoftBank Investment Advisors and is a member of its investment committee.

The pandemic represents the biggest crisis the world has faced since WWII. The advances in technology have proven critical in navigating the landscape as people and businesses work remotely. The $100 billion SoftBank Vision Fund has seen the importance of its investments play out even more rapidly as demand for technological solutions soars. “We’re at the confluence of all the technological changes taking place and that allows us to play a big role in this revolution.”

Vision Fund 2 will see more smaller investments in earlier stage companies. This will facilitate participation in relatively under-supported regions like East Africa and in fast growing areas like the Middle East. Education technology and health industries represent two investment verticals where rapid growth is set to occur.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Saleh Romeih.jpeg

Saleh Romeih

Managing Partner

SoftBank Investment Advisers

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 these SALT Talks the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which are two guests today, one the moderator, and also our interviewee attended our most recent SALT Conference in Abu Dhabi in 2019, and we had a great pleasure getting to know them there. But our goal there and our goal in these SALT Talks 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, as I mentioned, to welcome Saleh Romeih to SALT Talks moderated by our great friend Noor Sweid.

John Darsie: (01:01)
They're both in Dubai right now, but Saleh serves as the managing partner at SoftBank Investment Advisers as a member of its investment committee. Prior to joining SoftBank Saleh was a managing director at Goldman Sachs as head of securities for the Middle East and North Africa region. Previously he spent 17 years at Deutsche Bank, notably as head of corporate coverage for Asia and head of Central Europe, Middle East and Africa regions for the CIB divisions. He began his banking career in 1989 at BNP Paribas. Saleh serves on the boards of SoftBank Investment Advisers, and Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. He previously served on the boards of Auto One and Abraaj Capital and Deutsche Bank, Saudi Arabia. We're very grateful. Saleh has accomplished so much in his decorated career that he was able to condense his bio into a nice brief introduction for us. But the hosting today's talk, as I mentioned, is Noor Sweid.

John Darsie: (01:57)
She's a partner at Global Ventures, which is a venture capital firm based in Dubai. And like I mentioned, we had the pleasure of getting to know Noor at our SALT Abu Dhabi Conference in 2019. She appeared on a panel a few months ago regarding health tech that she's investing heavily in the MENA region and beyond. So we're very excited to have her as a moderator here today. But without any further ado, I'm going to turn it over to Noor to conduct the interview.

Noor Sweid: (02:22)
Thank you, John, for the kind intros and welcome, Saleh. It's good to have you here.

Saleh Romeih: (02:28)
Yeah. Thank you for having me. Good to see you too. How time flies.

Noor Sweid: (02:33)
It does, it does. It's been over a year since we were on that panel together in Abu Dhabi, and a year of such significant change around the world. I don't think the world has ever gone through such fluctuation all at the same time. So maybe we start there. Over the last year and what seems so obvious at the beginning of 2020 and what seems so uncertain at beginning of 2020, what kind of impact has this last year had on your business, and how have you seen that really affect the bottom line of some of the companies or the strategy of the firm?

John Darsie: (03:11)
Yeah, well first, Noor, I think it's worth just talking about this crisis, and I think it's fair to say that this crisis is probably the biggest crisis that we've all faced since World War II. And what's interesting about it is, had we not had all the technological advances that we have today, I think the impact of this crisis would have been far worse, right? On multiple facets. If you think of the speed with which we've come up with a vaccine, it's only through the advents in computational biology and genomics that we've been able to develop those. In fact that we're communicating together like this I think is huge as well. And we wouldn't have been able to do this as recently as three, four, five years ago. So I think the first thing to say is that this is a huge crisis, but tech has actually helped us overcome this crisis.

Noor Sweid: (04:09)
And so as you think through that, and I would agree completely, and I think even the ability to work from home is something that 10 years ago would not have presented itself as an opportunity to continue being productive in the workforce, the technology. As you think through kind of the lessons learned or the impact of this crisis, how has that impacted the way that you think about your business and the way that SoftBank either operates or thinks about different areas to invest in, or ways of investing?

John Darsie: (04:39)
Well, the first lesson I think in all of this is that you can never predict crises, right? You can never, that's one thing I've learned throughout my career, having been through a few myself, but you can't predict crisis, but you can certainly prepare for them. And in that regard, Noor, I think in division fund we were inherently prepared because our focus had been on day one on tech. And we were always looking for cutting edge companies. And in general, the dominant player in each of the sectors that we invested in. So inherently we were prepared for this crisis, but certainly when this hit us, it did surprise us. But again, a couple of the principles that we built our business on, for example, and sharing that we were a long-term partner to our portfolio companies and sharing that we had deep pockets to be able to support the companies that deserve it.

John Darsie: (05:35)
We also had an operating group that was 30, 40 strong that helped our companies quickly adapt and weather the first phase of the crisis. So, and as in any crisis, Noor one of the first line of defense is to kind of preserve cash, to kind of batten down the hatches. Our investing teams obviously help steer the boards of our companies. We don't take a majority stakes. We influence through the boards, we influence through our relationship with the CEO and the founder. So that's something we were able to do quite quickly. And what we focused on was obviously to the extent that many of these were consumer facing companies, improving the interface, the consumer experience, the customer user experience by enhancing the front end of a lot of these companies, being able to reach out to the people, and then improving the backend, right?

John Darsie: (06:33)
So, ensuring better cashflow management, managing CapEx, and helping them manage their supply chain, which got disrupted in the first phase of the crisis. All of that was made possible by teams of people that we already had in place. So, had the crisis hit kind of two years earlier, would have been a very different story. But for the most part we were able to, I don't want to use the word benefit, but almost kind of work with the crisis and work with our companies to help survive the first phase. And I think to a large extent our central thesis, Noor, our central thesis that tech is the great enabler has been kind of proven throughout this crisis.

Noor Sweid: (07:19)
And I was about to say that it's almost that your thesis has come to fruition even faster than you anticipated when investing out of Fund One. And so that's really on the portfolio in Fund One and what you've done to support that portfolio and how that's gone. What about Fund Two? So now as you look at Fund Two and I recognize you're raising that and you're in the market with that. What's different> What are you seeing today, and what does that look like? Is it more of the same, or is there an inherent shift towards certain industries and verticals?

John Darsie: (07:53)
Yeah, before we talk about Fund Two, I think it's important to kind of maybe look back on kind of the evolution of Fund One, right? And, we have a four year kind of life. We were set up four years ago, and from the outset, Noor we had our fair share of doubters and naysayers, right? I was involved from the get-go. And I remember at the beginning of our fund, there were people that saying that, "There's no way that you could even put together a 100 billion dollar fund. And then once we had it put together, there were people that said, "Well, you'll never be able to deploy a 100 billion." And then once we deployed that people said, "You'll never be able to generate a return on your capital." And I think each step of the way I think we've kind of proven that this is possible, and this is possible just because we're at the advent or the confluence of all the technological changes that are taking place, which really allows us to play a big role in this evolution.

John Darsie: (08:57)
NASA likes to call it the AI revolution. It kind of encapsulates all of the changes and all of the exciting things that are happening in the tech space, across all the different disciplines and sectors, but essentially, that was our central thesis. And if you take Fund One, and I'll talk about Fund Two, in a second, but if you take Fund One, we've deployed close to 90 billion. And from that 90 billion, we have gains of over 22 billion, we've distributed 15 billion already to our LPs. And we have a portfolio of roughly 90 odd companies. And from that portfolio that we've invested in, we've already generated roughly 13, 14 IPOs.

John Darsie: (09:45)
So, I think, and even in Vision fund One we've seen some validation of our core thesis and our core modus operandi. And that's why when we finished deploying the capital in Vision fund One, we decided to switch to Vision fund Two. The difference being that Vision fund Two for now has only SoftBank Group [inaudible 00:10:08]. And to come back to your question, the key differences is that we're being much more granular in the types of investments that we're making, right? Vision Fund One made some very large investments in some sectors. So for example, in ride sharing, and others we made some very big investments. In the case of Vision Fund Two we're making smaller investments into companies, which allows us to also participate in earlier stage companies as well. So Vision Fund One was almost exclusively focused on 100 to $200 million investments as a minimum into kind of late stage growth companies. Vision Fund Two is in significantly smaller companies. And case in point, we've made 40 investments, 40 investments already in Vision Fund Two.

Noor Sweid: (11:04)
And what's the average size of those investments? And why have you gone earlier?

John Darsie: (11:08)
There are average size we ... Look we've deployed close to like five, $6 billion, right? So you can do your math there. And we have some out sized investments, but we've made investments to the tune of 20, 30, even $50 million. I think that's a reflection of the fact that clearly there's a lot more capital at work now, right? In the past we would lead the rounds. Now we're participating on the cap table alongside our partners. And we're not looking to lead rounds as much as we were before. So I think that's a reflection of the fact that there's a lot more capital out there, but there's no shortage of opportunities. We're certainly seeing plenty.

Noor Sweid: (11:53)
And where are you seeing those, which industries? I mean, we can talk a little bit about digital health, which I think is one that most people are excited about, is that one that you're focused on? Is that one that you like, and what others have kind of become more focused areas of focus for you at this point in time?

John Darsie: (12:11)
Yeah, we focus, Noor on specific sectors that are particularly relevant to the crisis that we're currently going through. So if you look at things like Edtech, E-commerce, entertainment, I think people's behavior has changed fundamentally in this crisis. If you look at the rate at which, for example, people adopted E-commerce. Shifted from offline to online. In the last six months we've made up so much ground that would have otherwise taken us years, I think. So the key theme is around companies that are doing particularly well in this period right now, and certainly, health tech. And as I mentioned, Edtech, E-commerce and others are areas of focus for us.

Noor Sweid: (13:11)
So when you think about those areas, I mean, let's talk maybe a little bit about digital health. So when we think about digital health, and we are very much investors across Middle East and Africa, we recognize that there, per 1,000 people we have 1.3 doctors, whereas Europe potentially has 4.8, right? And so we think of this as an area where we could leapfrog and there could be innovation, and really think about healthcare inclusion the same way people thought about financial inclusion 10 years ago. And even in Edtech, the region across Middle East Africa has 115 million children out of school pre-COVID. So 50% of the world out of school children actually reside in Middle East and Africa. And so these are sectors that I think speak very loudly in the region and that not as an incremental change, it's exponential change, if technologies could be built and scaled here.

Noor Sweid: (14:01)
Do you think about that at all? So do you, when you take a look at the Middle East and Africa, do you think that these are sectors that potentially could have opportunities arising in the region? Or do you think that this region is simply for the adoption of technologies coming in? Where is your head on? Where can innovation arise? Is it really global? Does the region perhaps have an advantage in sectors that are more dire, or not really?

John Darsie: (14:26)
Yeah, I think the way I looked at tech in a very simplistic manner is to view it as the ability to democratize products and services to a broader population. So, you're absolutely right, Noor, when it comes to being able to deliver content or product or whatever it is, doing it online is much more effective than doing it offline. And we are all aware. For example, if you take Africa for example, of the problems that Africa has in terms of logistics, the geographic distances, et cetera, as well as the income levels. But I think if you have an ability to deliver products and services online the way you've described it, through whether it's education, whether it's healthcare, certainly there's a lot to be done in the region. And we've started to see that. I think for Vision Fund, we haven't been as active in the region.

John Darsie: (15:27)
Well, certainly for Vision Fund One, because as I mentioned, our ticket size, our investment size was much bigger than what the region could absorb, but increasingly for Vision Fund Two, we think that the region will present itself with opportunities for us. But certainly, we've seen incredible entrepreneurs and founders in the region trying to address some fundamental problem that the region has. And we're keeping a close eye on those. But the bulk of our activities in the region, and then least to be specific, Noor has been more focused on helping our portfolio companies grow their business into the region.

Noor Sweid: (16:18)
So could you give some examples of that? So which portfolio companies, or which industries, and why is the region important to them? I think occasionally within the region we have question on, is it even an interesting market to founders, and why could it be an interesting market to founders?

John Darsie: (16:36)
Yeah. Well, for one, you've got a very young segment of the population that's digitally connected. We all know that. So, I think the market is definitely there to be able to connect with consumers for different types of products and services. What excites me is the fact that the region has got some very well-established champions, some very large well established, regional, even global companies that are based in the region with very significant activities. You take companies like ADNOC, like Etisalat. You take Aramco, SABIC, just to name a few. These are all companies that are effectively global map multinationals. They're not regional companies, they're not domestic companies. And in the last 10, 20 years, we've seen them kind of evolve into very large companies. And all of those companies are trying to digitize and adopt technology to improve the way they operate.

John Darsie: (17:42)
So a lot of our companies become relevant for them. So we have robotics companies, we have automation companies, we have industry data companies like OSIsoft, for example. Now that that's done really well in the region, helping companies like Aramco, the Telcos in the region improve the way they can process information and their productivity. We have another company called Automation Anywhere, and that's working with the public sector companies, the private sector companies to drive efficiencies and lower costs via automation. Automating kind of the mid-office and the back office functions. That's a big theme. And we have other companies such as SenceTime that's based on facial recognition, working with local companies as well. We have other companies in FinTech that's working to improve supply chain finance, right? So all of these companies I mentioned are multinationals with receivables, with supply chains. There's some very efficient ways to fund those, rather than going through the commercial bank routes. So these are all examples of situations where we're helping the region kind of adapt and change and improve with technology.

Noor Sweid: (19:11)
And so you then are leveraging your partnerships and your presence in the region to bring these companies in? That's a great win-win because it means that the region really accelerates their technology adoption and these companies get access to new markets. So what new partnerships are you forming here?

John Darsie: (19:29)
Yeah, so our aim is to create partnerships and kind of help the local tech ecosystem. And we work with institutions like, of course, the PIF and Mubadala, those are primary institutions we work with, but we also work with ADIO, Hub71. We work with different ministries in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to help set up our companies to create an ecosystem of sorts by bringing our companies to the region. So one thing we do for example is, we facilitate the entry into the region, and because of our network and because of all these institutions that I have set up to help absorb these companies and help them get set up, cut red tape, that's made it much easier. So one is kind of the facilitation role that we play. The second thing we do is we help them network.

John Darsie: (20:27)
We have offices in Riyadh and in Abu Dhabi. And those offices' primary function is to kind of network with the local ecosystem, and introduce them and to kind of almost match make them with partners in the region. So, not only helping them draw up a business plan, but we help them acquire licenses. We find advisors, we help them find people in many cases. So we play that networking role. And then the other thing we do in the region is, together with the management of the companies we obviously monitor the progress of these initiatives and we help preempt them and manage any issues that arise. So all of that is really to deliver on one of the key tenants that we set out at the beginning of the Vision Fund's life, which was, look, the vision fund is the primary means by which PIF and Mubadala can access global cutting-edge tech companies. But at the same time as a by-product of that, we're able to bring some of that technology back into the region.

John Darsie: (21:36)
So it's early days, Noor, but I'm optimistic, given how many companies have started to work with us and the excitement that they've generated. And more importantly, the reception that they've gotten from, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi that will make a lot of ground and kind of a lot of success there.

Noor Sweid: (21:58)
Well, it's very exciting. And as I think through as well, the knowledge transfer that happens as these companies start to come into the region and then regional founders start to learn from them, or there's a lot of talent that gets swapped over time. So it really enables the entire ecosystem. It's a rising tide, kind of lifts all boats along with it. So that's very exciting for the region, the regional founders, the regional entrepreneurs as well, what specific verticals are exciting, regional or global? So as you look forward, what are you really excited about? Where do you think there are changes that are happening today that will affect the way that we live 10 years from now, or just two to five years from now? So, what are those industries and verticals that you think are game-changers today?

John Darsie: (22:46)
Well, there's a lot, I mean, in the Vision Fund we focus on multiple sectors, Noor. And I think what this crisis has shown is that it's emphasized some particular sectors, right? Clearly there's some sectors that have suffered as a result of this crisis, but the key ones that have kind of really been highlighted in this crisis, it's for example health tech, as you mentioned. And what's really exciting is, if you look at the advances in computational biology and genomics, that is going to be huge, because that's going to ... I mean, just in terms of the crisis itself, the speed at which we've managed to find these vaccines and to deploy them is largely because of computational biology and genomics, right? Being able to understand the human immune response and being able to model it relies on a huge amount of computation in relies on machine learning.

John Darsie: (23:47)
And that's only been possible right now. So I think we're at the advent right now where we're going to make huge strides in drug discovery and treating encountering pathogens. And that's going to be a huge area. If you look at companies we have in our portfolio, like Garden Health, where we lay therapeutics. All of those are geared towards understanding genomic sequencing and being able to model and use computational biology to be able to speed up either diagnosis, or speed up treatments and therapy. So, I think that's an area that's going to be tremendous. And we're just at the advent of those companies doing really well. So that we're very excited about, but equally we have companies like in Edtech, I have teenage kids, unfortunately they've had to kind of rely on online learning, which is obviously not ideal. But what we're discovering is that Edtech with the technologies in being able to kind of connect and supply and the ability to kind of process what works, what doesn't work, that's uncovering an entirely new area of learning.

John Darsie: (25:15)
So, I don't think it will kind of replace the way people learn necessarily, but certainly it can supplant and enhance the way people learn. So if you look at tutoring, for example, or after-school lessons or whatever it is, if you can do it online it saves time on commuting. It reduces the cost. So again, it democratizes the way people can access these. So I think there's going to be a lot of advance made in areas that were just starting to see opening up because of this crisis, and because so many people have kind of shifted from offline to online.

Noor Sweid: (25:57)
Right. So, let me ask you one question on each of those industries and maybe Saleh's view, not the house view, if you like. So on digital health, do we use that data, like do clinics become the new data aggregators and the new data centers? And do we use that genomics data to move towards a world where prevention is much more doable and really can we take that data and harness it, so that based on your genomic sequencing, you can be given certain preventative measures until the healthier life? That's one. And what are you doing at SoftBank or, Saleh, to enable that? And then on the Edtech side, do we move from a knowledge-based education system to a skill based education system?

John Darsie: (26:46)
Okay, well, let's start with Edtech, it's hard to say which way education is going to go. I think people are really ... Let's first of all, let's hope that this crisis doesn't last too long. But when people do go back to the classrooms, I think there are going to be some fundamental question that's going to be asked about, how and what education should be delivered? And my view is that it's going to be a combination of in-class kind of learning and out of class online learning. A little bit about a little bit the way I think the future works now, Noor. I think when it comes to work, historically everybody commuted into work, and that was obviously a very inefficient way of people trying to get together. Now we can digitize that people can get over Zoom and other ways.

John Darsie: (27:47)
I think so as a result, I think at work people are going to use a combination of being in-person in the office, and being able to communicate the way you and I are communicating, Noor. I myself, I used to have to fly across continents for one or two meetings. Not only is that bad for the environment, but it's also very inefficient use of one's time. So I think we're going to probably find a combination of kind of online and offline when it comes to things like education as well. And with regards to your question whether it's going to be knowledge-based or people focusing more on vocations or technology, that remains to be seen. But certainly we're seeing a number of our portfolio companies focusing on the ladder and focusing on allowing people to improve their skillset or to be able to kind of upscale their skills through online classes. We're seeing that as well.

Noor Sweid: (28:56)
So, SPAC seemed to be massively trending. They are not something new they've been around for a long time, but it seemed to have the heat turned up under them. What are your thoughts on SPAC? Is it a fad? Is it something that will continue on this accelerated curve, positive, negative? You know, what are your views?

John Darsie: (29:17)
Well, first I think, Noor, SPACs or the proliferation of SPACs is I think just the reflection of the amount of liquidity that's out there, right? So it's just another form of another pool of liquidity that's out there. You know, I won't delve into the reasons as to why we have that much liquidity, but clearly the government policies have all been towards easing the lowering of interest rates move. There's a lot of money seeking a home, that is natural. For us however, SPACs is a means to expand our reach, right? If you look at kind of the different stages of companies we invest in, there is a segment of companies that are prone or appropriate for SPACs. And those are ones that kind of sit in between kind of late stage and IPO, right? So, that around the pre-IPO stage of companies.

John Darsie: (30:15)
So for us, our involvement in SPACs is simply to be able to broaden and to be able to target companies that specifically seek to IPO via SPAC. And I think we're well positioned for that, just because of the network we've created in our ability to source deals, right? The fact that we're able to deploy so much capital in so many companies is a reflection of our network that we're able to see a lot of opportunities. So it's not that we rely on the liquidity coming in to SPACs for us to invest. We have sufficient capital, right? Capital is not the issue for us. It's really our ability to target companies that are kind of prone or appropriate for SPACs. That's been kind of the philosophy behind that.

Noor Sweid: (31:12)
Right, thank you.

John Darsie: (31:15)
So it's really if you like a bridge between a private and public investment, simply put.

Noor Sweid: (31:21)
It is I, and I think that's exactly what it is. It's a bridge, right? And I think as one market boomed then the other kind of stalled for a little while. The question was, how do we bridge this? So before we wrap up, I have one final question for you. So if you were not doing what you are doing now, if you weren't in this current role and position, what company might you start? What challenge might you address? What problem might you try to solve in this world?

John Darsie: (31:46)
Yeah, I haven't worked in the Vision Fund for the last four years, Noor. I'd like to be able to continue to make an impact. And in so far as making an impact, right now, obviously the world is grappling with this crisis, and hopefully the world comes together to solve it. Certainly the initial phases of vaccines seems to be kind of tempering the spread of this disease. And hopefully we get to a place where we can manage this crisis, and that's not too far out in the distant future. But once that is contained and managed, I think the world is also facing another looming problem, which is the environment and the way we've been damaging the environment through greenhouse gases and pollution. So one area which excites me a lot is the advents in clean tech. We're at a conference right now where solar panel, technology, battery technology, other forms of storage, that's all coming together. We have the conference of that.

John Darsie: (33:03)
A lot of countries are now forcing people to give up combustion engines for their cars, switching to EVs. I think that's a very exciting area, because ultimately we have to change something to be able to manage this before it becomes a crisis that becomes much more difficult to control. The world is only going up in terms of population, in terms of spending power. So consumption generally is going to keep rising. So unless we find more efficient needs to fuel that consumption, I don't think the world is headed to a good place. So clean tech is a very exciting area right now, and that's probably an area that I would like to get involved in. And certainly that would be very impactful.

Noor Sweid: (34:06)
Thank you. Thank you, Saleh, for those insights. And thank you so much for your time and for answering all these questions. John, thank you for having us.

John Darsie: (34:14)
Thank you so much for doing this. We enjoy, like I said, getting to know you guys as part of the SALT's Abu Dhabi Conference and wish we could have been back in Dubai and in Abu Dhabi recently, but obviously the COVID pandemic has prevented us from traveling. But we look forward to hosting conferences again in the region, in the UAE, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other places that Saleh and Noor you guys are both very active. So we look forward to seeing you in-person soon. But until then we'll have to make do over Zoom and it's been a pleasure to catch up with you guys here today.

Noor Sweid: (34:48)
Thank you.

Saleh Romeih: (34:48)
Thanks so much for having me. Thank you, Noor. Thank you, John.

Noor Sweid: (34:51)
Thank you.

John Darsie: (34:52)
Thank you. And thank you everybody who tuned into today's SALT Talk with Saleh Romeih of SoftBank hosted by Noor Sweid of Global Ventures.

John Darsie: (35:00)
Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access our entire archive of SALT Talks, as well as sign up for future talks in order to attend them live. On our website it's salt.org/talks. You can also access all of our episodes on our YouTube channel, which is titled SALT Tube with a fast growing subscribership. Please also follow us on social media. We're most active on Twitter @SALTConference, but we're also on Facebook. We're on Instagram and we're on LinkedIn as well, and growing our activity on all of those channels. Please spread the word about SALT Talks. We love growing our community, which we've been able to do during the COVID pandemic through the use of things like teleconferencing, which we use for these SALT Talks. But please tell your friends, if you find these talks interesting, please tell them about SALT Talks and share our YouTube channel or our website with them. But on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. See you back here again soon.

Mark Mobius: Private Equity & Emerging Markets | SALT Talks #164

“Most American [investors] are not aware of what’s happening beyond the borders of the US. In many ways, the American investor is isolated.”

Dr. Mark Mobius is seen by many as the founder of the emerging markets asset class and as one of the most successful and influential managers in capital markets. Dr. Mobius, with Sir John Templeton, created the first ever emerging markets fund. After 30+ years at Franklin Templeton, Dr. Mobius stepped down as executive chairman of Templeton Emerging Markets Group. Most recently, he launched Mobius Capital Partners, an investment firm with an emphasis on improving governance standards in emerging and frontier market companies.

An eclectic academic career that started in art moved to psychology before eventually landing at MIT to study economics. In 1987, after 15 years in Asia, in partnership with the legendary Sir John Templeton, the first ever emerging markets fund was created. A Templeton hallmark was his open-mindedness driven by curiosity, central to the pioneering nature of investments in emerging markets. That willingness to change was anchored by a strict adherence to an investing criteria. “Templeton said, ‘To buy when others are despondently selling, and to sell when others are greedily buying, pays the highest rewards.’”

Emerging markets face an unfair comparison to US stock market indices because many of the stocks, such as Unilever, are really emerging market stocks- over 50% of Unilever’s earnings come from those emerging markets. Increasingly, China and India are serving as gauges for Asian investors where the US market was once dominant. The Biden administration faces an ever-strengthening China, and in contrast to Trump, will bring less emotionality as it navigates an evolving trade relationship.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Mark Mobius.jpeg

Mark Mobius

Founder

Mobius Capital Partners

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone and welcome back to Salt Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of Salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. Salt Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these Salt Talks is the same as our goal at our Salt Conferences which our esteemed guest today has been to many Salt Conferences over the years. Our goal at both the Salt Talks and our conferences 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 the man we're welcoming on Salt Talks today, is no stranger to big ideas, he even basically launched an entire asset class. I'm talking about Dr. Mark Mobius, who we're very excited today to welcome to Salt Talks.

John Darsie: (00:57)
Dr. Mobius as I mentioned, is seen by many as the founder of the emerging markets asset class. He has a reputation as one of the most successful and influential managers over the last 30 years in capital markets. In May of 2018, with two ex colleagues, he launched Mobius Capital Partners. The firm utilizes a highly specialized active investment approach, with an emphasis on improving governance standards in emerging and frontier markets companies. Prior to this, Dr. Mobius was employed at Franklin Templeton Investments for more than 30 years. Most recently, he's the executive chairman of Templeton Emerging Markets Group. During his tenure, the group expanded its AUM from 100 million US dollars to over 40 billion US dollars and launched a number of emerging market and frontier funds focused on Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

John Darsie: (01:47)
He's the author of several fantastic books, all of which you should read as soon as they come out. His career and influence has earned him numerous industry awards, if I went and listed every award that Dr. Mobius has received, we'd be here for about 20 minutes before we're going to start the episode. So thankfully, he left those off his bio. He received his PhD at MIT and studied at Boston University, the University of Wisconsin, Syracuse University, Kyoto University, and the University of New Mexico. Dr. Mobius is truly a citizen of the world and he's coming to us today from Dubai, a country in the UAE that we're very fond of, and hosted our Salt Conference there in 2019. But 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 Salts. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:38)
Well, Mark, I get to be a little bit of a fanboy here. And first of all, thank you, John, we'll get into John's millennial status in a second. But I want to talk about Mark Mobius for a second. I'm a little bit of a fanboy. You wouldn't remember this, but the first time you and I met, was actually in the gym on the eighth floor of the Shangri-La Hotel. So, you were in there working out, I came over and introduced myself. And at that time, I think you were at Franklin Templeton, you were working for Sir John Templeton, who was still alive at that time. And so here we are 20 plus years later, and what a career you've had. But I think it would be important for people... We have a lot of young people Mark, that listen to our podcast, thankfully. And I would love you to tell people about your upbringing, where you grew up, how you got raised and how you made this transformation into this global, international investment superstar.

Mark Mobius: (03:36)
Thank you very much for that really nice introduction. And it's great to see you again. And I know by the looks of you, you're still working out and so am I. So, let's keep it up.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:46)
Well, not according to John Darsie. He basically said that my BMI was like a 35 or something like that. He's so lucky that we're in quarantine right now, because he'd have ring marks around his neck.

John Darsie: (03:59)
If you have a comorbidity like obesity, you can get the vaccine earlier-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:03)
My BMI is not in the obese range Mobius, don't listen to this idiot. Okay, keep going sir. Sorry.

Mark Mobius: (04:10)
I got to do my BMI. But anyway, looking at my background, I grew up not too far from you in Long Island, in Bellmore, on the south side of Long Island, not too far from Jones Beach, which I really enjoyed so much as a kid. My brother by the way, still lives in Shelter Island. And I went to school there and in high school, [inaudible 00:04:31] High School, then ended up studying of all things art. I studied fine arts at Boston University. Then I started learning about mass communications, I looked at social psychology, then that graduated into all kinds of other psychological work. In fact, in New Mexico, I did a lot of work in experimental psychology. And that finally ended me up at MIT studying political science and economics. And it's really amazing because at the time I was there, economic growth was the big, big question that economists were asking. They were asking, why are these so called poor countries not growing? And my professors were all struggling with that question.

Mark Mobius: (05:20)
And of course the answer, which finally, thank God, the World Bank and the IMF, and all these organizations, realized that the way you grow is by having capital markets. In other words, you grow on the backs of private enterprise. So, that's where we ended up. And in 1987, after having worked and lived in Asia for 15 years or so, I ended up with John Templeton, running the very first emerging markets fund listed in New York. And in 1993, Franklin Resources, or Templeton, and of course, that meant like he was attaching two high powered rockets to this engine. And the sales force in Franklin really went to town and started selling emerging markets. And so we grew very rapidly after that. So it's been quite an adventure investing in all these countries.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:18)
So, the legendary Sir John Templeton passed away over a decade ago now, a brilliant person, obviously, somebody that I looked up to, and what could you say about him, Mark, and some of his great aphorisms to younger people who are saying, "Who the hell is John Templeton?" But you and I know what a legend he is, and how big of an impact he had on all of us, as we were growing up in the industry.

Mark Mobius: (06:47)
Well, I think the characteristic I remember of him the most, is his open mindedness. He was always learning. You'd see him... He was living a life of key, and every noon he would walk in the water. In fact, we treated him like a god with some people saying, always walking on the water reading his research notes. So he was very, very intensely studying everything full time. And also, he kept a very open mind. He was willing to change his mind at a drop of hat, but he adhered to very strict value criteria when he was investing. And probably the most thing that stands out as an investor is his aphorism, when he said, "To buy when others are despondently selling and sell when others are greedily buying requires the greatest fortitude and pays the greatest reward." And that is really the key to investing at view, you have to buy when others are moving in the other direction. So, it was really an incredible experience to work with him and to learn from him. He had a lot of great ideas.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:04)
Let me ask you this question, because this is obviously an observation that we're all making. The Amazon stock came public in May of 1997. If you put $10,000 in Amazon, and you were able to ride the curve, which was seven NAV drops of 50%, you $10,000 is now we're $21 million. And so I guess my question is, is it sometimes okay to buy with the momentum as well, or is that something that you've tried to avoid? We're going to switch to emerging markets in a second. But I'm just wondering in a zero interest rate environment, or close to zero interest rate environment, tremendous amounts of money printing globally by central banks, has that changed any of your investment philosophy over the years? Have you made any adaptations?

Mark Mobius: (08:58)
Yes, it's made a big, big difference. And we have made big, big changes. For example, at the time when we worked with Franklin Templeton, and with Templeton, the big number was the PE ratio, what's the PE ratio? What's the price to book ratio? Now with interest rates at zero or one, the PE ratio loses a lot of meaning, because if you take the reciprocal of one, that's 100. In other words, you could justify 100 times PE. And of course, if interest rates are zero, it could be anything. So, what I'm looking at now, is more on return on capital employed.

Mark Mobius: (09:38)
So in other words, a company could be losing money now, but its return on capital, return on equity, return on assets employed, is over 20% and rising. Then, in my view this could be a very good stock. And I think that's the case of these companies like Amazon and others like that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:02)
So, let's switch gears to emerging markets. And so you had been the father literally of the introduction in my mind to emerging markets in the United States, you and sir John Templeton. The great financial crisis of 2008, more or less opened a chapter of what I would call the loss decade in EM. Am I wrong about that? And if I'm not wrong about that, tell me where we are going in EM from here.

Mark Mobius: (10:34)
There's no question that we had incredible volatility in emerging markets. And one of the reasons why these days, whenever you talk to anybody who's just beginning to look at emerging markets, the first thing they talk about is currency. And as you know, during the age of financial crisis, that was really a currency crisis, because these countries were borrowing in dollars, and they didn't realize that their local currency was going to go down against the US dollar. And of course, that's the way they got caught. But right now we're in a very, very strange situation, because it's not good, or not relevant in my view, although we talked about indices. You say, "Okay, MSCI, EM, S&P 500," whatever.

Mark Mobius: (11:20)
The problem is, that many of the stocks listed in New York, are actually emerging market stocks, because over 50% of their earnings, or profits are coming from emerging markets. You take a company like Unilever for example, that's really in my view, a very much an emerging market stock. So it's becoming very, very difficult to compare these indices to do a fair comparison. Let's put it that way. And therefore, you see in the last 10 years before the beginning of last year, emerging markets really underperformed the US market. But we fail to recognize that many of those US stocks were really emerging market stocks. So, we're beginning to change our view of how we look at emerging markets and how we invest in emerging markets.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:17)
You look at the world from an American perspective, but also a global perspective, and even an East Asian perspective because of where you've spent most of your time. So I want you to tell us in those three sleeves, an American perspective on what's happening as an investor, a global perspective, and an East Asian perspective.

Mark Mobius: (12:44)
That's a great, great question. Because if you look from an American perspective, most Americans are not aware of what's happening beyond the borders of the US, even in their stock market investments, they tend. And by the way, is very difficult for them to look beyond because with the exception of ADRs, it's not easy to get access to these markets around the world. Of course, many Chinese stocks are in the US market, but many are not. In fact, most by far, most are not. The same thing with India, the same thing as these other areas. So in many ways, the American investor is kind of isolated, and is missing out on a lot of opportunities. And because that was the big message of John Templeton, he said, "If you want to find the best opportunities, you've got to look globally, not just in the US."

Mark Mobius: (13:37)
Now, looking from an East Asian or Asian perspective, the situation is changing very, very rapidly, because of the growth of the Chinese market, and the growth of the Indian markets. In the past, many of these investors looked at the US market to figure out what was happening in terms of stock market behavior. Now, they're looking more and more at their own markets, and using that as a gauge as to what they should be doing. And you can see a lot of divergence between what's happening in India, what's happening in China and these other countries. And that's very important to remember, because if you want to be diversified, you want to be involved in these other markets to get that diversification, because the behavior of the markets are going to be different.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:31)
Go a little more deeply into East Asia, what are you seeing in East Asia, China, Vietnam, places around the world that frankly, Americans still are not 100% aware of as you're pointing out from their perspective?

Mark Mobius: (14:49)
Well, one of the trends that we're seeing is a much, much closer relationship between China and these other countries in East Asia. So for example, you take Korea, when we invest in a Korean company, we look very carefully at what the company is doing in China. Because more often than not, maybe 20, 30% of their earnings are in China. Taiwan is another good example. There you have TSMC, the largest producer of semiconductors in the world, supplying not only the US, not only Apple, and all these other companies, but China as well. So some degree, they're dependent up China. And by the way, the whole issue of trade with China and a change of technology with China, is something that we have to look at very carefully, because with the Trump administration, the Chinese now have been driven into creating much more of their own hardware and software in the technology space. Then you get to the Philippines. Philippines used to be like an American colony. Now, they've very much like a Chinese colony, much more dependent upon China.

Mark Mobius: (16:04)
Vietnam the same, although Vietnam is doing a lot of independent behavior. But the fact remains that a lot of the Chinese manufacturing is being done there. But interestingly enough, the largest manufacturer in Vietnam today is Samsung, from Korea. So you see a lot of this kind of manufacturing trade going on. Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, all are part of the ASEAN, and they are doing a lot more trade with China as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:40)
What is your feeling about the current Chinese-US relationship? Where do you think it is going? Is the Biden administration going to warm things up, or are we going to stay in this sort of... I want to call it a staleness, if you will. I don't want to say it's a cold war yet, but there's definitely a stale air in the relationship between China and the United States. Where do you think things are going?

Mark Mobius: (17:07)
Well, I think with the Biden administration, the situation will be less heated. There'll be less emotionality, let's put it that way, between the US and China. But you must remember, the administration that we're talking about, the bureaucracy in Washington, is well aware of the threat that China faces to the hegemony of the US. And the US has got to get used to the idea that China is going to be more and more important going forward. And the best path of course, is some kind of cooperation. But with a firm hand of course. So, I think things with China would be a lot better under Biden. We must remember, this so called Trump trade war, resulted in China exporting more last year than the year before. So, obviously, it didn't harm China that much.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:01)
The political situation in China, one party systems typically have a life expectancy, or at least if we look at them historically, they last about 70 or so years. You could look to the Mexican one party system, the Japanese one party system, you could look at Russia, 1917 to 1989. Although there's been a reemergence of a one party system now in Russia. How do you feel about the one party system in China, its longevity, and the future of China politically?

Mark Mobius: (18:38)
I think the one party system in China can last for a lot longer than we expect. And the reason why I say that, is that Chinese smartly have adopted a capitalist system. This is quite remarkable when you think about it, because if you look at all these other socialist experiences, whether it be Venezuela, Russia, whatever, they all failed because they didn't have an economy that was vibrant and growing. And the reason why they didn't have the economy vibrant growing, was because they rejected the capitalist system. The Chinese have accepted that, they realized that America is the biggest country in the world in terms of the economy, at least up to now, because of the capitalist system, the enterprise system. So I think the party can probably last for a lot longer because they're producing the results. In other words, the standard of living in China is getting better as a result of the system that they're using.

Mark Mobius: (19:40)
The interesting thing about China is that they are actually copying America. They admire America, they would like to be like America, but they want to have a one party system. But otherwise, everything else they want to copy from America because they know it works.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:00)
Do you think that we are in a... I mean, we are in this period of uncertainty as a result of the pandemic. But do you think we're about to enter this age of abundance, technological abundance, material abundance, and that it could be a golden age, if you will, or the advent of the roaring 20s?

Mark Mobius: (20:28)
We are in a golden age, there's no question about it. We are... I always tell young people you are so lucky to be in this age, because technology is making things much more accessible, much cheaper, and higher quality. And the technological push is accelerating. It's just amazing what's happening. And in my book, I just did another book called The Inflation Myth, where basically I say, "Look, there is no inflation, there's currency devaluation, but in fact, we are in a deflationary period. And the reason is because of technology." In my lifetime, I can see the incredible strides that have made in technology and how it's reduced the cost of goods and services, and improve the quality of goods and services. And it's continuing every day. It's quite remarkable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:22)
I think it's just important for people to recognize that we get a lot of bad news thrown at us during the day Mark, but there's a lot of great things happening globally. There's a gentleman at Prince Street, his name is David Halper, I think you know him well.

Mark Mobius: (21:37)
Oh, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:37)
He talks about digital decolonization, that effectively describes the rise of domestic technology companies, within emerging markets to compete with things like the Amazons and the Googles of the world. What is the state of play around innovation and tech in emerging markets and their potential fear of these American behemoths?

Mark Mobius: (22:01)
Well, that's really a great, great development in emerging countries, because what's happening, if they are, what I call leapfrogging over the old technologies, just think about it. When I was growing up, it was old Ma Bell, remember that?

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:16)
Yes.

Mark Mobius: (22:16)
AT&T.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:16)
Yes.

Mark Mobius: (22:17)
The only way you could make a call was through a landline, no wireless. Now, these countries don't even have to think about putting in a line, they can do wireless. And what's happening is that they're creating things that are really innovative. Probably the best example as you know, in Kenya, the system of transferring money using cell phones wirelessly that was innovated by the Safaricom, which is the Vodacom subsidiary, Mpesa, it's called. Now, that's something that didn't exist anywhere else in the world. And here you have in Africa, a credible innovation. So, I think you're going to see more and more of that going forward, as these countries develop the technology and have the access to the internet and all the rest of it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:09)
So, I got to turn over some of the questions now to the millennial and chief at SkyBridge, Mark. He's been Googling who will Sir John Templeton for the last 20 minutes to try to get himself up to speed. But go ahead. I know you're dying to ask the legendary Mark Mobius some questions. So, go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (23:30)
Of course, it's a rare opportunity to have an audience with Dr. Mobius. So, Dr. Mobius, you've written a ton of great books, your most recent book is called The Inflation Myth. You talked about what you mentioned earlier that we're actually in an era of deflation and the measures that we use to measure inflation today are sort of foolhardy, and tools of government. How are those metrics broken, and what's the right way to think about inflation?

Mark Mobius: (23:56)
Well, first of all, the CPI, which is the most widely used inflation index, is faulty because the basket of goods and services they use is changing from time to time. So it's crazy for us to say, inflation in 2001 is the same measure as inflation in 1995, or whatever. So, that's number one. Number two, the basket that they use is not including a lot of illicit material. Drug use, sex, you name it, all these things that people don't want to talk about, they're not going to tell the researchers that they're spending money on. The third thing is that it's a very, I would say a socialist measure, because how can they say inflation for me is the same as inflation for you? It's crazy. We have different styles of living and different ways of living. So I would say we should throw out this inflation measure and most of all, do not make policy based on inflation numbers.

Mark Mobius: (25:03)
I just was listening to an interview by Christine Lagarde, and she said, "Oh, we have to get to the 2% inflation number." How did they come up with this number? There is actually... There may be some information which indicates 2% inflation will generate economic growth, but the numbers are very, very scarce. So, that's number one. Number two is, yes, prices are going up. That's true. But that is a reflection of currency devaluation, not inflation. Currencies, as I point out in the book, devalue without exception, every currency devalues. And interesting enough, I was talking to the young man about Bitcoin. And he said, Bitcoin should not devalue because there's a limited supply. It's a very interesting point. So intuitively, there's a whole generation of people who realize that currencies are really... The normal currencies and not a good way to have your money, but it's better to be in a more scarce currency.

Mark Mobius: (26:14)
But the other thing that I point out in the book, is that, okay, let's assume that you accept the inflation numbers, then you've also got to accept the measures of income and salaries. And if you look at a number of countries which I quote in the book, you'll see that incomes and salaries have kept pace with the so called inflation, and in fact, have actually exceeded the inflation numbers.

John Darsie: (26:42)
Right.

Mark Mobius: (26:42)
So, we really shouldn't be worried about inflation. That's the conclusion.

John Darsie: (26:47)
Yeah. So, you sort of took the next question out of my mouth. But what is the long term impact of this sort of historic monetary easing and liquidity that's flooded into the market? Do you have a view on things like Bitcoin and how these alternative currencies are springing up? What do you think the ultimate outcome is if you look decades down the road of this just historic liquidity pump that we've seen?

Mark Mobius: (27:13)
Well, one of the things that we've found, and it's clearly evident when you look at Japan, the Japanese have been pumping yen into the Japanese market with no tomorrow. They've just been pumping and pumping. And what's happened to inflation? Nothing. Nothing's happened to a patient. So clearly, the theory that more money results in inflation, does not hold true. So we have to forget about worrying about the quantity of money in the system, but more importantly, where the money is being spent. Because it is being spent by governments, it's probably being spent very inefficiently. If it's being spent by private enterprise, it's probably being spent very efficiently, which will result in higher productivity. So if you read about modern monetary theory, I agree with a lot of points of that theory. And that is they say, "Look, if a government has a debt in the currency that they print, there is no debt." They don't have to worry about debt, they just keep on printing.

John Darsie: (28:19)
Right.

Mark Mobius: (28:20)
But what's missing in that theory of course, is where that money is going to be spent. Because if it's going to be spent by government, then productivity will not be enhanced. And you may see a decline in the price and the quality and the quality of goods and services.

John Darsie: (28:39)
So, what should government do? Should they be basically zapping money into the pockets of consumers and triggering a consumer cycle? Should they be dramatically slashing taxes and corporate taxes to allow companies to be redeploying capital? If we want to avoid the Japanese deflation trap in the United States, how do we do that from a public policy perspective?

Mark Mobius: (28:59)
The latter. In other words, cutting all of the bureaucracy number one, cutting taxes. By the way, Dubai here is booming, there are no corporate taxes and no personal taxes here. So you can see the results. If you reduce taxes to let's say, 10% of incomes, a flat tax, you would see America go through the roof, there will be an incredible boom in the country. Now, I'm not saying that the government should not coordinate things like infrastructure, there's things like that, the infrastructure, law enforcement, military, these are the areas that the government should be involved in. But other than that, everything else should be privatized.

John Darsie: (29:45)
Yep. So I want to pivot a little bit to ESG. So, we run the Salt Conference, which you've been to many times, and we have sponsors and speakers and participants at those conferences, and we run surveys about trends that are happening in the industry, and that phrase, or acronym ESG comes up in almost every conversation. There's different names for impact investing, sustainable investing, ESG. But it pervades so many investment mandates that are coming from major investment institutions, even family offices and high net worth individuals. How are you incorporating ESG into your investment process, and how do you sort of put into application what is sort of an amorphous idea around improving governance and social and environmental factors?

Mark Mobius: (30:30)
Well, it's really interesting because from the very beginning, when we started investing, of course, we always had to think about risk. And if you look at risk, you have to look at the environment. For example, we owned a mining company in Brazil, we had to make sure that this company was not going to pollute the environment where they were living, because they'd get in trouble with the government and with the people around them. Number one. Social, how are the workers being paid? Are they unhappy? Are they going to strike? Another risk factor. And then you look at governance, how are they treating us as shareholders? Are we being properly informed of what the company is doing, et cetera? So in other words, we did look at these factors in the past, but the beautiful thing now, in this new age, it has been codified.

Mark Mobius: (31:20)
In other words, social, environmental, corporate factors are now very much in the fore and being measured. So when we invest, we definitely sit down with the company and ask them, "Are you willing to engage with us on governance?" Because we believe that governance is the number one priority. Because if you don't have good governance, you're not going to be able to do anything about the social environmental factors. But we also added one other factor, and that is culture, corporate culture. Because we've found and a number of studies have shown that if the corporate culture is poor, in other words, let's say if the workers in the company are not happy, don't feel engaged, then the performance of the company will not be good. So we have in all the companies in which we invest, we're looking at ESG+C, culture.

John Darsie: (32:18)
Right. Yeah. Now, it's fascinating. And the interesting part is that it's not just an altruistic thing, it's actually helping to drive returns, which is something that ESG oriented investors that we speak to is that, it's not just because we want to help the planet, or help people on the planet, it's actually materially driving better returns. I want to go back to the point you made about inflation, deflation, the future of the global workforce. You wrote a fascinating piece on your website, Markmobius.com, about the rise of artificial intelligence and robotics. And the narrative around AI and robotics is that it's going to drive people out of jobs, it's going to reduce wages, it's going to create sort of this existential crisis for the global worker, because robots and machines are going to take their jobs. You have a different view on that. What do you see as the future? We're going to have a lot more AI and a lot more robotics status for certain, but what impact is that going to have on people on the planet, especially workers?

Mark Mobius: (33:16)
There's no question that robotics and information technology, artificial intelligence is going to have a big impact on many, many employed people. And it's already happening. So the trick now is how do these people get transferred into another area of activity, mostly, it will be service, there'll be incredible demand for services, and also for creative work. In fact, right there in Long Island, I have a little scholarship from my former high school. And it's for art and for entrepreneurship, two scholarships. And what I'm telling people today is that the young kids should be studying art and creativity, something that a machine cannot do. And certainly, the young generation is got to think about how to be an entrepreneur for themselves. In other words, how to start something on their own without having to rely on a big organization. So these two factors are going to be more and more important going forward. And you can see a lot of individual creativity and individual enterprise coming to the fore.

John Darsie: (34:35)
Yeah. And in a lot of ways AI and robotics are going to tackle a lot of the jobs that people don't want to do and free people up to engage in more productive jobs. I think it's very well said, and I would recommend people not just read that article on your website, but great writing that you guys do on a variety of different subjects on your website, Markmobius.com.

Mark Mobius: (34:54)
Thank you.

John Darsie: (34:54)
I want to talk about sectors a little bit. So, you obviously deal a lot in emerging markets, but you look global trends, we have the vaccine now that's taking hold in a lot of countries. If you look at the chart of COVID cases in the United States, it's in free fall, as it is across a lot of the world. We've seen this boom in technology companies, especially ones that cater to sort of a work from home environment. You've seen just a massive boom in those types of stocks, eCommerce, teleconferencing, things like that. But as you look around corners, which is what you're so talented at doing, do you see a shift in terms of sector rotation, in terms of value orientation, versus technology and growth? Do you think those trends are just going to continue to run and we're going to adapt to a more hybrid, work from home, work from the office type of environment? Or do you think we're going to see a little bit of rotation into a value factor and into more capital intensive sectors as we go out in the next year or so?

Mark Mobius: (35:51)
Well, I think one thing is very clear, technology is hitting everybody, you just can't get away from it. Any company, I don't care what their business they're in, whether it be mining, whether it be retail, medical, whatever, has to deal with technology. And if they're not doing that, they're going to be in trouble. So, that's number one. Number two, what we have seen is that, yes, COVID has resulted in a change of behavior. In other words, people are now willing to communicate the way we're communicating. And that's going to be pretty permanent, but face to face, can never go away, you will never be able to replace face to face communication. Because there's a lot of body language, there's a lot of environmental factors that you have to have.

Mark Mobius: (36:36)
I myself, I'm itching to get out and visit the companies in which we invest. Because that's the only way we're going to really understand the company fully, although we're doing a lot of conference calls.

John Darsie: (36:45)
Yeah. We've been through the same thing. We're a fund to funds Mark and, and we do so much due diligence that involves in person evaluation of personnel, processes, and we've had to adapt to that environment. We've done it well, I think, but it's still challenging and different.

Mark Mobius: (37:01)
Exactly. So, that's the other thing. But I think one of the more interesting factors is how certain industries are changing. And what we're doing is focusing on the origins of this technology. So for example, you have the largest manufacturer of semiconductors in the world, TSMC in Taiwan, where we're investing in the so called fabulous companies that supply TSMC and their clients with the software within the chips that they're producing. So, that's one of the things that we're looking at investing in. The other area in healthcare. Of course, healthcare is going to be continuing to grow as we go forward because of this COVID. But what we're looking at now, is that remote healthcare, in other words, let's say one of the companies we invest in is a company that is testing. So they have records of the tests of all these people.

Mark Mobius: (38:04)
Well, they can now move to the next step in giving these people advice on how to keep healthy, or how to solve various medical problems they have. So, this medical remote kind of system, I think is going to be growing at a very rapid rate. So, that's another area that we are very interested in working with.

John Darsie: (38:23)
The last question I have for you is regarding emerging markets, obviously, that's a very broad category. It ranges anywhere from Latin America to East Asia. Are there any particular markets within that EM bucket that you're most excited about?

Mark Mobius: (38:38)
Right now, India. India is amazing, what's happening. And I would say India, you might say is maybe where China was 10 years ago. And they're accelerating their growth, they're changing their policies, they're privatizing a lot of [inaudible 00:38:56] enterprises. And it's a very much free enterprise environment in India. If you've ever been to India, you can understand that. So, I'm very excited about India.

John Darsie: (39:07)
All right, fantastic. Well, Anthony, do you have any final words for Dr. Mobius? It's such a treat for us to have you on.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:13)
It's a pleasure to have you on. I'm glad that you're still dressing for success, Dr. Mobius. I love the look at your signature profile. And we're very grateful and we got to get you back to Salt. And since I'm not as smart as you, I have to bring baby Yoda with me on most of these Salt appearances. Every once in a while the baby will whisper a good question. But we're very grateful to you and hopefully we'll see you live soon. And John and I would love to get out to Dubai again as we start the planning for our Salt Abu Dhabi event.

Mark Mobius: (39:47)
Great, I'd love to be with you there, and hopefully in Las Vegas and maybe Macau, if you think of Macau. [crosstalk 00:39:54].

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:55)
We've looked at the sites of Macau as well, that will be another amazing place to do this. We're just-

John Darsie: (40:00)
We'll be back in Asia.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:01)
Yeah. One step at a time. We got to get ourselves out of the pandemic and we definitely want to be I Asia somewhere so. Thank you again for joining us.

Mark Mobius: (40:12)
Thank you very much. Bye, bye. Bye.

John Darsie: (40:15)
Thank you, everybody for tuning in to today's Salt Talk with Dr. Mark, Mobius. Again, he's been at our conference several times over the years and it's always just a fantastic treat to be able to pick his brain on what's happening, not just in emerging markets but around the world. And just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode, or any of our previous episodes, that you want to watch of Salt Talks, they're all available on our website at salt.org\talks, also on our YouTube channel, which is called Salt Tube, we host all of our episodes for free on demand on our YouTube channel. Please follow us on social media. We are most active on Twitter @SaltConference is our handle, we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please, spread the word about Salt Talks.

John Darsie: (40:56)
We love exposing new people to sort of the educational resources that we provide here at Salt, in extension of our conference which is a little bit smaller and more exclusive but we love sort of spreading the message to our broader audience. But on behalf of the entire Salt team, Anthony Scaramucci and our producer who's here, this is John Darsie signing off from Salt Talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Secretaries of State Brad Raffensperger & Jocelyn Benson on Election Operations | SALT Talks #163

Brad Raffensperger is the CEO and owner of Tendon Systems, LLC. Tendon is a specialty contracting and engineering design firm with nearly 150 employees. The firm has operated in 35 different states. Raffensperger also owns and operates a specialty steel manufacturing plant based in Forsyth County. Additionally, he served two terms in the Georgia General Assembly from 2015-2019.

Jocelyn Benson is Michigan's 43rd Secretary of State. In this role, she is focused on ensuring elections are secure and accessible, and dramatically improving customer experiences for all who interact with our offices. Benson is the author of State Secretaries of State: Guardians of the Democratic Process, the first major book on the role of the secretary of state in enforcing election and campaign finance laws. She is also the Chair of Michigan's Task Force on Women in Sports, created by Governor Whitmer in 2019 to advance opportunities for women in Michigan as athletes and sports leaders.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Brad Raffensperger.jpeg

Brad Raffensperger

29th Secretary of State of Georgia

Jocelyn Benson.jpeg

Jocelyn Benson

43rd Secretary of State of Michigan

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 our SALT Conference Series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome you to the latest episode of our election series. There was the brainchild of one of our hosts today, Elliot Berke.

John Darsie: (00:48)
Really our goal with this series is to just set the record straight and get the facts out into the sunlight about what happened not just in the 2020 election, but to teach people about the facts surrounding election operations, election security, and lessons that we learned from this go around that can continue to help us improve the elections process. And we're very excited today that it's a bipartisan conversation as well. So we have the Secretaries of State of both Georgia, Secretary Brad Raffensperger, who's a republican. We have the Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, Mrs. Jocelyn Benson. We're very grateful for both of them for joining us. I'm going to read a little bit more about their bios before I turn it over to Anthony and Elliot for the interview.

John Darsie: (01:27)
The Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is the CEO and owner of Tendon Systems in addition to his role there in the State of Georgia. Tendon is a specialty contracting and engineering design firm with nearly 200 employees. And the firm is operated in 35 different states. Secretary Raffensperger also owns and operates a specialty steel manufacturing plant or multiple plants based in Forsyth County, Georgia. Additionally, he served two terms in the Georgia General Assembly from 2015 to 2019. Secretary Raffensperger earned his bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from Western University, and was awarded his MBA from Georgia State University there in Atlanta. He's a licensed professional engineer over 30 states. He and his wife have been married for 42 years and live in Johns Creek. He's a member of the North Point Community Church.

John Darsie: (02:17)
Secretary Jocelyn Benson is the 43rd Secretary of State of Michigan. She is the author of State Secretaries of State: Guardians of the Democratic Process, the first major book on the role of Secretary of State in enforcing election and campaign finance laws. She's also the chair of Michigan's Task Force on Women in Sports, which was created by Governor Whitmer in 2019 to advance opportunities for women in Michigan, and athletes and sports leaders. She's a graduate of Harvard Law School, like Mr. Anthony Scaramucci, who is also hosting today's talk. An expert on civil rights law, education law and election law. Secretary Benson served as Dean of Wayne State University Law School in Detroit. Previously, she was an associate and professor and Associate Director of Wayne law schools Damon J. Keith Center for civil rights.

John Darsie: (03:10)
Prior to her election to the position of secretary of state, she served as a CEO of the Ross Initiative in Sports for Equality, aka RISE, which is a national nonprofit organization using the unifying power of sports to improve race relations. Benson is the co-founder and former president of Military Spouses of Michigan, a network dedicated to providing support and services to military spouses and their children. In 2015, she became one of the youngest women in history to be inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame.

John Darsie: (03:43)
Hosting today's talk, as I mentioned before is Elliot Berke, who is a managing partner, founder of Berke Farah, a law firm based in the Washington D.C. area. As well as Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And once upon a time he spent just under two weeks in politics as well. So he might have a little bit to say about his experience, but obviously-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:08)
Madam Secretary and Mr. Secretary, he never lets up on these SALT Talks. He reminds people every day about my 11-day PhD in Washington chicanery. Okay, so now listen. I have to read this as well. The SALT Talk Election Series was created as a record of what actually happened in the 2020 election. It is designed to rise above the noise and hyperbole and focus on the facts and law, and to educate our views about the election process from a holistic perspective. The SALT Talk, this particular one is the third in an Election Series. The first one was an election security talk with former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The second was an election administration and lessons learned from 2020 with the election assistance commissioners Hovland and Palmer. I'm going to turn it over to my good friend and my longtime lawyer, who knows everything about election law, Elliot Berke.

Elliot Berke: (05:07)
Thank you, Anthony. And Madam Secretary and Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for joining us. Anthony said this is our third talk in the series. And our first you really focused on the federal perspective. But it's always important to remind our viewers that our national election system really is a federal state local partnership. That being said, beyond the constitutional requirements regarding our elections, they're largely run by the states. And that's the way our framers designed it. So notwithstanding the litigation that has followed the election, we'll get to that. This election was largely a great success story. Let's back up and go back to around this time last year when you started realizing that this pandemic was going to have a significant effect on what it is you do. I'll turn it over to Secretary Benson first for comments.

Jocelyn Benson: (06:00)
Well, thanks, Elliot and thanks, Anthony. Thank you, everyone at SALT, John for inviting us today. And really taking seriously the importance of creating a truthful record of history. And exactly how democracy survived really this extraordinary year that we all just went through. So I'm very grateful to you all for doing this work. And I think it'll be an important foundation through which people can learn about this cycle in the years to come. With that, on March 10 in 2020 is the date of our presidential primary, it was also the date of our first ... my first statewide election as Secretary of State. And it was the first election in which citizens had a right to vote by mail, as well as a right to vote absentee, a right to register to vote on election day itself and vote.

Jocelyn Benson: (06:49)
And those rights were cultivated by citizens themselves, who voted them into our state constitution in 2018. And the same year in which I was elected to serve as the state's chief election officer. And at that time on March 10, we were anticipating high turnout. We were anticipating more citizens choosing to vote absentee than ever before. And we had a very successful election day that we spent a year preparing for, that was intended to guide us as we prepared for two other statewide elections following that. One, of course, was in November. At 8:00 PM the polls closed, and we actually celebrated a great success. We saw minimal problems. We saw identifiable ways in which we can improve for the future. Did a press conference at 9:00, talking about the winners and all of that.

Jocelyn Benson: (07:34)
And then 10 o'clock, I got a call from the governor letting us know that the first two cases of Coronavirus had come to Michigan. At that moment, everything changed. At that moment, we had three elections remaining. A local election in May, an August and November statewide election. And we immediately began pivoting, adapting and adjusting. Following the data that we already had about what citizen behaviors were going to be, voting behavior. We already knew more people were going to vote absentee this year than ever before. We were already preparing an infrastructure for that. But we realized the important, and this was probably the most important pivot that we embraced right away. The need to educate every single citizen about how exactly to vote absentee in order to be able to vote from home, regardless of how long the pandemic went on.

Jocelyn Benson: (08:20)
And then secondly, making sure that [inaudible 00:08:22] knew about that, had faith in it, but that our infrastructure was ready for more people voting absentee than ever before. So our work quickly shifted to that, to planning out that and really educating citizens about how to vote in this new era. And this is the last thing I'll say, because this was very important. We did not want to set any ... we immediately knew there would be an effort potentially to postpone elections. And we had our next election in May. And so for me, it was very important to demonstrate that we could successfully manage a local election in May, an election in August and ultimately November in a pandemic, where delaying or postponing an election was off the table. And instead, it was about adapting and adjusting to ensure every citizen knew how to still participate, exercise their vote even in the midst of a pandemic.

Elliot Berke: (09:10)
Brad, how about you from your perspective? How did you first start preparing for the pandemic? And how did you prepare for what turned out to be an unprecedented volume of mail and balance?

Brad Raffensperger: (09:21)
For us, in Georgia we have 15 days plus a Saturday of early voting. So we had 16 days for the presidential primary. We were in the second week, and that's when we had to postpone the presidential primary because it just had reached the pandemic portion. The General Assembly suspended operations. And daily, we were having fewer and fewer poll workers show up just because of the pandemic. So we had to postpone that, and immediately then push out the balance of the presidential primary to the June primary, our general primary for all of the other State House and State Senate seats. So we began a very robust program, what does that look like to vote in a pandemic? And number one, we send out absentee ballot applications to the active voters so that they could decide if they wanted to vote from the convenience of their home.

Brad Raffensperger: (10:09)
At the same time, we had to find all sorts of PPE, so that we make sure that we could vote safely. It was very challenging for the counties, the county election officials. We have 159 county. The second largest number of counties after Texas, we have a lot of counties. That's a lot of moving parts. And so many of their employees were not coming into the office. So how do you vote and get ready for the June primary? We had the general primary in June and in that the ballot, if you had not voted in the presidential primary you could vote at that time for the presidential primary. Out of the 159 counties, I would say 154 did a good job. We had five counties that struggled. And one of those was Fulton County. And coming out that we got a consent decree with them so we could put a monitor in there to make sure they really worked on improving for the November election.

Brad Raffensperger: (10:58)
We had the November election, and we have several focus points. And one of those was to make sure that we could shorten the lines. We had very long lines in the June primary when people decided they wanted to come out and vote in-person. And so on election day in November, our average wait time was about two minutes or less in the afternoon. We had record turnout, believe it or not in the June primary. We also had record turnout in the November race. We had record absentee ballot applications and balloting. We had record in-person voting, and then we ended up with nearly five million voters vote. That's up from about a million what we had during the 2016 race. So with the interest that we had from both sides of the aisle. Obviously for us, that's really I guess you could say when the excitement started, because Georgia has been reliably red for about 20 years on the presidential races.

Brad Raffensperger: (11:57)
And many of us are really on both sides. I think the democrats were surprised that they ended up having more votes for President Biden than President Trump. And that's when really the big disinformation campaign started. But then in Georgia, we have run offs. And then we had two Senate races at and run off in January. So we've actually had a lot of races over the last year, five races all under a pandemic. So it was a very challenging situation. Our counties really did a excellent job faced with all the obstacles that they had.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:34)
Elliott, if it's okay I want to jump in. And I want to ask both secretaries the same question if it's okay. And this is a, it's almost a metaphysical question in a weird way. So you're coming out of law school, you're coming out starting your career and you're going to be the secretary of state of your respective states. What did you think about the continuum of the United States and it's democracy when you were a kid? And what are you thinking about it right now in terms of its preservation? Let's start with Madam Secretary.

Jocelyn Benson: (13:11)
I think that's such an important question because for me, and this is why I got into this work, I realized that it's the people who occupy the positions in a democracy, both as administrators and as elected officials, and the voters themselves that ultimately will ensure democracy survives. And I was really struck by that because I started my career in Montgomery, Alabama investigating hate groups and hate crimes all around the country. And being in Montgomery, being so close to Selma, spending a lot of time in Selma, talking with people who'd been actively involved in the creation of the Voting Rights Act and the march that preceded it really instilled upon me a sense that democracy is a living, breathing, organic thing that we must and every generation must embrace our responsibility to keep alive.

Jocelyn Benson: (13:54)
And so for me, I became a lawyer because I wanted to do voting rights work. And I wanted to continue the work of those in Selma to protect every person's constitutional right of one person one vote on election day. It's the one day which we have a constitutional protection that we're all equal. And seeing how far particularly after the 2000 election we really had to go to make that a reality, I wanted to make my career one piece of an effort. I just wanted to be another foot soldier in the movement to protect everyone's right to vote. And for me, that meant being a lawyer originally. And then after the 2000 election, I began to see that secretaries of state, particularly after 2004 with Ken Blackwell in Ohio played a pivotal role in making decisions every day to ensure that the right to vote really is realized for everyone.

Jocelyn Benson: (14:41)
So I wanted to occupy this position to be a secretary of state in furtherance of all who've come before us to protect our democracy. And then of course, we certainly saw the cycle how election administrators at every level, and everyone with a place of authority have that really critical responsibility to protect the republic, to protect our democracy from those who would seek to damage it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:06)
Secretary Raffensperger.

Brad Raffensperger: (15:09)
I think our form of government is very difficult to protect if it doesn't have the most basic of things and that's integrity. And I think that we always need to be looking at what is the character of the person that I'm supporting. And then we can look at the cause, because both sides of the aisle we have our causes, but it's really the person that is carrying the banner and really at all elected offices. So it's begins at City Council, and I've been on City Council, the state rep state senator, but really need to look at basic integrity. And I think we also have to look at basic common decency. One of the advantages I have of serving in the General Assembly that it was like a big mosh pit.

Brad Raffensperger: (15:50)
We had Democrats and Republicans, we all sit amongst each other instead of being on one side of the other sway conversations. I think we need to have more of those conversations about policy that are respectful with each other. It doesn't mean that we change our viewpoints, but maybe we take a little bit of what someone says and we can have conversations to move things forward. At the end of the day, people want government to work for them. I think it has to start with personal integrity. And that's one thing I did say to everyone that had concerns about the election. We have 159 counties that run the election. If you look at your county election directors, what guides them is their personal integrity. As long as they walk that line of personal integrity, then you don't have much to worry about. The political parties need to turn out their people. But we have personal integrity of the people running elections. It's all going to work out at the end of the day.

Elliot Berke: (16:43)
I think that's exactly right, and it's somebody that's practiced in this area for 25 years. The challenges to the integrity of our system is something that I really spend a tremendous amount of focus on. And this Congress that we have about voter fraud and how widespread is it, does it exist in voter suppression. It really is a conversation that doesn't focus on the realities of our system. And what I know is that fraud occurs just as oppression occurs, and no amount of it should be tolerated, because any challenge to it is going to affect the public's confidence in our system. And the last time we were really here as a nation having this conversation was 20 years ago. And [inaudible 00:17:26] through the passage of the Help America Vote Acts and the creation of the election systems commission.

Elliot Berke: (17:31)
I'm curious as to your thoughts on how effective the EAC has been. I'm on the board of advisors of it, so full disclosure there. But it wasn't an attempt to federalize election, it was really designed to come up with best practices and assist the states. And so that conversation obviously is going on right now within the EAC, but I'd be curious as to how effective you think it's been. And I know one of the main areas we're going to look at moving forward is the timeliness of our voter rolls, and how to keep them up to date. So moving forward, I'd love to hear your thoughts on those two questions.

Jocelyn Benson: (18:11)
Brad, you-

Brad Raffensperger: (18:12)
I'll take that one. I am grateful that the EAC is a commission of two Republicans and two Democrats, because I certainly wouldn't want it to be three, two. And I know that the democrats would want it to be the other way. But what that really means is, then you have to come together and really hammer out good policy that both sides can support, because we have very close elections at the end of the day. So you really have to get by, and when you do that I think it helps make our society more stable. From the standpoint of being able to update the voter rolls, that's a conversation that is well past time to have. In Georgia, we have about eight million registered voters. Studies show that on average, the average American 11% of voters move every year. And you just run the numbers.

Brad Raffensperger: (18:57)
That means we have 800,000 people in Georgia moving every year. And if we can't update the voter rolls 90 days outside the election, that's 200,000 voters that have moved someplace. Have they moved out of state? Have they moved within the state? Are they outer precincts, different county? Things like that. And so we need to have something that is very objective based, not subjective. I'm an engineer. And when you deal with objectivity, you can't argue with the facts. You get into subjectivity that's why you need lawyers. And so I really like objective measures, and that's why we also joined ERIC, the Electronic Registration Information Center, which I know Michigan did as well. It's an objective measure of keeping up accurate voter rolls. It's very important.

Jocelyn Benson: (19:39)
I couldn't agree more, and I think it all gets back to the basic foundation of facts and truth and data. That has to guide election policy. That has to guide election administration. And when it does, voters win. And so the EAC has a great role to play. And as someone who one of the first things I did after the 2000 election was work on the Help America Vote Act, and do research to actually collect the data from the 2000 election. Where did spoiled ballots occur? What could have gone better? To inform what ultimately became the creation of the EAC, which was really designed in part as a repository of those facts and that data to help us as we're making quick decisions in election administration, to make them from a place of best practices and truth and data.

Jocelyn Benson: (20:23)
And we saw this year and as Secretary Raffensperger just pointed out how critical it is that whether it's making sure we have accurate rolls, or making sure we're delivering an election system that will ensure voters voices are heard you have to and you should follow what the data tells you. And if you do that and you make policy, not out of partisan agendas, but out of just simply following the data driven solution and best practices, you actually can have a successful election. And that's really what informed our success in Michigan, and I know in other states this year.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:58)
I guess these are short answer questions. But I'm curious to your reaction to these. First one is, in light of what happened in 2020, are we moving towards a safer, freer and fairer electoral process, or are the two of you worried that we could be making a turn towards a destruction of our democracy?

Jocelyn Benson: (21:22)
I think that question is going to be answered by the people of our country, and our leaders moving forward. Every decision that will be made. The people voters choose to serve as secretaries of state, there's elections coming up in '22 on both sides of the aisle. It doesn't matter, as Brad and I have shown whether you're a Democrat or Republican. If you're just committed to integrity and administering elections, but really it's in the hands of all of us. We've seen how close we can come, and I'm sure those challenges will continue. I'm confident that they will, those challenges to the safety of our democracy, those challenges to people's votes, they will continue. The question is what will the majority of America do in response? Will we dig down and protect our democracy as we did successfully in 2020? And I think what I know right now is if we don't, then indeed we could move away from the republic that I know we all cherish.

Brad Raffensperger: (22:20)
Our General Assembly is meeting right now, and there are several bills under consideration. I think at the end of the day, you'll see bills that really have the appropriate level of accessibility balance with security. And when you do that, that is really the balancing point. We need to have accessibility, we need to have security. I think that's when you have those honest conversations. I'm also very grateful that many states like ours, we've moved to a verifiable paper ballot. And so therefore, if you need to have a recount, we actually have something that we can recount. We had electronic voting, you just press the button and get the same answer. But we'd have the verifiable paper ballot, we verified the initial count. And then we could actually count that twice, which we did in Georgia. So we have three counts on that. And each one of them verified the results. And it's tough to argue with a piece of paper when it has a name on it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:10)
Yeah. Well, my friend Chris Krebs says it's very hard to hack paper. I know you've heard him say that on more than one occasion. So I guess what I'm asking is about awareness. The fact that more people are aware, at least I'm hopeful that that will lead to even further integrity. I want to switch to another quick question. Jill Lepore, who wrote a book called These Truths, who's former alumnus of Tufts University and a greatest story. And she more or less says in the book that voter suppression is as old as any American tradition. And she more or less says that voter suppression is like apple pie in America, meaning it's happened for ever. And she has a lot of facts to support that. I guess I'm going to start with you, Madam Secretary. Do you think we're getting better at not having voter suppression? Do you think we're getting more open, or do you think we're heading towards even more voter suppression in the future?

Jocelyn Benson: (24:06)
Well, I think we're dealing with a democracy that ultimately is about the distribution of power in our country at the state and federal level. You're always going to have efforts by bad actors to use the political system for other partisan agendas in a way that enables them to have power. And manipulating that sometimes comes through the act of making it more difficult for certain communities to vote, particularly historically disenfranchised communities. And indeed, the whole history of our democracy has been a story of that. And it would be naive of us to think that the efforts that led to the disenfranchisement of historically underrepresented communities in particular and voter suppression over time.

Jocelyn Benson: (24:47)
There's no evidence to suggest that that has gone away, or that anything has diminished. Perhaps the ways in which that evolves. And the way in which suppression manifests itself in our democracy has evolved. But every generation, as Congressman Lewis says, has the responsibility on you to fight those efforts. Knowing that they are almost endemic to the political system that we are in. And only when good people on both sides of the aisle demand, ensure every voice is heard and every vote is counted that we can truly ensure we overcome that endemic effort to suppress people's voices. But make no mistake, it's always been a part of our system. And it would be naive of us, I think, just to think it's gone away.

Jocelyn Benson: (25:33)
And again, that's why voters need to choose elected officials and election administrators who are going to stand with them, and making sure their votes are counted and voices are heard regardless of who wins, who loses and any political affiliation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:47)
And how do we stop it Secretary Raffensperger? How do we make it more available to people, the right to vote?

Brad Raffensperger: (25:54)
When I was running for office for secretary of state, at some point it hit me that this is the birthplace of Martin Luther King, Jr. And this is a tremendous responsibility really based on the history that we have had in Georgia. And therefore, we have done everything. I know that when Stacey Abrams lost, she talked about voter suppression. But if you really look at the facts, I know it made great narrative what she said, but if you looked at her facts, we have 16 days of early voting. We have record registrations, we have record turnout. We also have opt out when you will be registered to vote when you get your driver's licenses. It's real ID compliance, we have security with accessibility. And I really believe that Georgia has made tremendous strides.

Brad Raffensperger: (26:36)
In fact, we've made such great strides that's why today we have businesses flocking to Georgia. That's why we have six million people that live in the metropolitan area. That's why George has expanded. And some of the others southern states never got that message. And so we've already really led, and we have come together as an organization. And I feel that we've done a great job in Georgia, and I believe that our general assembly will continue to lead. Basically, we have a motto in Georgia, it's our official motto. It's wisdom, moderation, and justice. And those are three great chords of a strand. And we continue to build on that, Georgia will continue to move forward.

Elliot Berke: (27:22)
Secretary Benson, another major issue that came up this election was with ballot harvesting, another chain of custody issues. Moving forward, what do you see in terms of steps that can be taken to bolster integrity of the process by taking this the eyeing that process and eliminating ballot harvesting?

Jocelyn Benson: (27:44)
I think it's a couple of things. One, in Michigan and in many other states, we don't have that ballot harvesting. It's not permitted. You actually have a clear chain of custody under our law for what ballots can be voted, and then delivered and counted. And it's all validated by the voter's signature. No voter can get a ballot. It's mailed to them or given to them without signing an application, that signature must then match the signature file. And then that only gets them a ballot. The ballot actually isn't counted unless the voter actually signs the outside of the envelope, and then returns it on time. And then that signature is then match.

Jocelyn Benson: (28:19)
So there are several protocols in place that many states have developed like that to ensure that you have provisions in place that protect the integrity of the process, without making it more difficult for someone to cast their vote. And I think that's the heart of, to get back to the previous question as well, is how do we basically protect the integrity of the process while also ensuring that every voter's voice is heard. And it comes down to and this is what the EAC and data can really inform, how you ensure you're making data driven decisions that ensure that you meet voters where they are, give them options to cast their ballot.

Jocelyn Benson: (28:54)
And then make sure every option, whether it's a paper ballot in-person, whether it's voting through the mail, with the signature protocols in place is covered with various integrity mechanisms to protect the integrity of the vote. And actually, the thing I found this year both with ballot harvesting and just all the other things is that it's two sides of the same coin. Number one, we build the infrastructure that's secure, that's accessible, that's fair. And that can stand up to amend scrutiny, as we did, as Brad did in Georgia. But then the other side of it is that you have to educate people about how to use that system, how to play by the rules and ensure their votes are counted.

Jocelyn Benson: (29:29)
How to be accessible, but also again, educate them on the role they must play. And then in doing so, you can also empower voters to push back against misinformation that isn't based on data. But is furthering a partisan agenda, but is instead lies fed to voters about false words on the election integrity. And then through educating voters about the truth, they can be empowered to recognize a lie before it hits the airwaves when they get it, and resist it. And we saw a lot of that happen in Michigan, a lot of that work in Michigan. So it's multifaceted, but voter education is a key component.

Elliot Berke: (30:08)
Secretary Raffensperger.

Brad Raffensperger: (30:10)
One of the first bills that I worked on when I got in Secretary State's Office was House Bill 316. And what that did was outlaw ballot harvesting. So we understood that, and we've been working on that. But it's interesting because of the disinformation campaign that we've just been under. We have many voters that are writing to us, pass a lot of outlawed ballot harvesting, because it had been told to them it was going on in Georgia. It's been outlawed, and we do investigate it. And when it comes before the state election board, we will prosecute.

Elliot Berke: (30:40)
Yeah, I think that's also something we've learned in this process too, is that the disinformation campaign is so vast that even amongst lawyers arguing these cases at least publicly, not so much in court at times, which we saw was vacuous. But they would talk about things that there were concepts, but they weren't necessarily occurring in the jurisdiction or in some cases, the over voting or under voting issue as if it was a smoking gun on something. And it was just a demonstrable ignorance of the process. And I think that's a big takeaway is that we just have to do more, and continue to educate the public as to how our election system actually operates and what is normal.

Elliot Berke: (31:25)
Mistakes happen all the time, but they don't necessarily mean that they're systemic. And in some cases, a concept, it's like watching on CNN or Fox about a high speed car chase. It doesn't mean it's happening in your neighborhood just because they show it. So moving forward, I think that's something that we're all going to be responsible for helping out with.

Jocelyn Benson: (31:48)
Yeah, and I hope that can be an outcome of this past year, where we've seen exactly what happens when you see a diminishment of civics education and historical education over time. And then you have an electorate or parts of an electorate that can be susceptible to lies about the integrity of the process. And it's heartbreaking, because you know people are lying to them to further their own political agendas. And as a result, you have citizens who have every right to believe that the process is secure, and that their votes were counted even if they're unhappy with the outcome. There's every reason to believe that all the data shows they should, yet they'll believe lies that are furthering a political agenda. And we need to better equip our citizens, and empower our citizens to push back and recognize lies when they're told to them so that we can protect them and the furtherance of our democracy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:42)
So let's let's dispel some of those lies, which is reason why we're calling it election integrity and truth series. Walk us through the chain of custody for mailing votes in your respective states. Why don't we start with you Secretary Raffensperger?

Brad Raffensperger: (33:04)
During the pandemic, we stood up an online portal for people that wanted to request an absentee ballot. First of all, it took the human element out of it because the counties were short staffed. But they would put in their driver's license number and then their birthdate day, month and year. So that way, we could make sure it truly was the person wanting that ballot, requested that ballot. So for the first time, we in effect had voter photo ID because it connects you to Department of Drivers Services. Once that was done, then it was processed and then an absentee ballot was sent out to the voter. When it showed up on your doorstep, then you'd open it up, make all your selections, close it up and sign the envelope.

Brad Raffensperger: (33:45)
Then when it came in, the signatures were matched. We actually did a signature match audit study for Cobb County since we had actual complaint at that county. And we found out of 15,000 sample size, we had two ballots that did not match up. And it was actually the spouses that voted for their husbands. The husbands knew that they were voting for them. But the point is that that signature match was being used. But then so we have chain of custody throughout the entire process through there. But it's the one area because it's not under the control of an election official with all eyes on it, that does raise the greatest amount of concern of voters. And we understand that, and that's why we want to make sure that there is a strong chain of custody, and strong voter identification. So that you know that it's truly the voter that requested the ballot.

Jocelyn Benson: (34:37)
Yeah, and here in Michigan it's very similar. And again, these are best practices that are in place in states all across the country, where you have in Michigan two signature checks as I mentioned earlier. One on the application when a ballot is requested. And then when the ballot is returned, the voter signature is again verified. And we actually implemented also in Michigan standards for signature evaluation working with clerks. And we're going to continue to make improvements where we can in ensuring our 1,600 clerks have all the tools and resources they need to have that double signature check process continue to be one that is following the best practices in matching signatures, and ensuring a verification of the voters identity.

Jocelyn Benson: (35:22)
And then after that, we also have a requirement that ballots be received by election day, either in the clerk's office or at a local drop box. And we put in more than 1,000 drop boxes all across the state of Michigan to ensure citizens could meet that requirement. And then after that, after the clerk verifies the signature and records the receipt of the ballot, they also then bring it to the counting board. And there's a bipartisan counting board that actually counts the ballots with plenty of observers as well. We had hundreds of people all across the state including in Detroit and Southeast Michigan observing the actual tabulation of the ballots once brought to the counting board.

Jocelyn Benson: (36:03)
So it's a multi-factored multi-step process with security checks in every step of the way to ensure that only valid ballots are being counted. And it's one that we're really proud of. And I think in Georgia as well, you saw that the actual process worked very well this year. And I was so grateful that you all started by mentioning the success of this year's elections, because that's really the true story here. Is extraordinary successful election. And it was so successful that it was able to stand up to a historic effort to undermine that truth among our citizens. And so moving forward, we have much more to learn than anything else from this election cycle, including how to ensure the integrity and security of the process. And that's great scrutiny.

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:45)
But I want you to state that definitively Madam Secretary, because people get all of this disinformation. From your observation at your state and in overall the election was ... I don't want to put words in your mouth. But tell us what the election was in terms of its freedom and fairness.

Jocelyn Benson: (37:08)
I think this was the most successful election Michigan has had in recent history. We had more people vote than ever before. We had secured elements of the process from top to bottom. And in the midst of extraordinary amount of scrutiny, which had there been any significant wrongdoing or problems, it certainly would have been found and revealed. And instead, we were able to meet every element of misinformation every rumor with the truth and the facts and the data. And the hard work that our election administrators put into ensuring the election worked, and was extraordinarily successful. And that to me, is ultimately the story of the 2020 election.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:45)
No, look, it's an amazing story. You're a great patriot. Secretary Raffensperger, who won the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia?

Brad Raffensperger: (37:56)
President Biden did, about 12,000 votes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:02)
Elliot. You see any issue with that Elliot, or?

Elliot Berke: (38:05)
I don't. I mean I actually obviously follow these things closely. I'm very familiar with [inaudible 00:38:13] office. I've represented them before the Congress with respect to allegations made on the last election. And so we know what to look for, and I know who to speak with including members of Election Assistance Commission. There was no daylight between anybody in this space that actually works on this stuff in terms of what happened. One of the things that was interesting to me was I've run war rooms at the national and state level. And you run war rooms, typically what you start to see is things happen. So you say in this county, this is going on. In this county, this is going on. That doesn't mean that there's an attempt to steal the election. It means that something is going on.

Elliot Berke: (38:56)
A lot of times you work with your election day officials, and you fix it. And I just didn't hear that much going on with respect to at least the [inaudible 00:39:07] in terms of concerns they were raising election day. Everything came out of post election. And a lot of what we heard, a lot of it was allegations. Some was made in court, some was made outside the courtroom were things that could have been addressed. And when more appropriate if they had been addressed election day, and there could have been confidence on their side that they were being handled in a way that made them feel comfortable. But then it took its own direction, it became something else.

Elliot Berke: (39:44)
And one of the things I think also is a big story of this election that we haven't touched on, but it was something that Mike Chertoff brought up. He when we did our talk earlier this month, he said he [inaudible 00:39:56] concerns going into the election. One was cyber attacks taking out polling stations. The other two were violent actors attempting to intimidate voters. We talked about that to some extent. And then of course, question every election and it's something we've all talked about many times. We'll get to that in a few moments too. But with respect to the cyber attacks, it is also a great success story. We don't know yet about attempts that weren't successful.

Elliot Berke: (40:25)
But we do know, I think with a high degree of confidence, and I think this is what Chris Krebs was really speaking to. And by the way, when he was speaking in that statement that ultimately got him fired by the President. It was a joint statement by again, every federal state and local official that has a stake in this process in terms of Secretary Benson and Secretary Raffenperger said the confidence that they had in the election outcome. But what you think that it is that we have been relatively successful in wording cyber attacks by foreign entities where elements of our critical infrastructure have not?

Jocelyn Benson: (41:04)
Well, it's interesting. I can't speak to elements of infrastructure, but I can say back to what you were saying earlier about how everything went very smoothly. There were a lot of eyes on the process leading into the election. One of the first meetings I had in February, I was sworn in in January 2019. A month in, I was in D.C. with my colleagues and Secretary Raffensperger was there too. Meeting with the federal authorities about how to force cyber attacks in our elections. It was something we had identified early on as the probably biggest security threat, real security threat to our elections. And so every step of the way, we methodically did everything we were supposed to do. Shared information, coordinated with local and federal officials. Identified funding needs and filled them when they existed. Put in great experts at the state level to help with the federal.

Jocelyn Benson: (41:54)
There is information sharing. Everything you're supposed to do, we did. And I think that's in part why we did see the system prove to be impervious to any potential attempted cyber attack. And again, that's a great success story. And then again, to underscore your point earlier, election day we were planning it for years, for two years for a bunch of all these things. Violence at the polling stations, all these things we had planned for. And coming out of the voter protection world, that's what you do. You anticipate and you plan for it. And it was amazing that things went as smoothly as they did. And then it wasn't for us and for about 4:30 on Wednesday, 24 hours or so after the polls closed when word started to trickle out that Biden ... I think CNN shortly ran that time poll by Michigan for Biden that the fire hit our state and the attacks began.

Jocelyn Benson: (42:46)
The perception of the misinformation, all of that really escalated at that point, which was really telling. Gave me a lot of pride, because we did it. We successfully managed an election. Now we just had to fight the misinformation and the narrative battle. We actually did the work well. And again, that was because we've been working on it for as long as possible since I took office.

Brad Raffensperger: (43:09)
Well, we're concerned to Secretary Benson's point, whenever we meet with the National Association Secretary of State, I would think that we talked about cybersecurity probably 30 to 40% of the time. So we understand it's all of our radar. And so we had some potential threats that nothing ever penetrated our wallet defenses, but it doesn't mean we can never let up. And that's the thing is coming in the next cycle in 2022, we have to remain vigilant. There's hackers out there. There's actors from all over the world, and also national actors that would love to disrupt elections. We understand how critical it is. If you can create distrust in elections and somehow enter the database, do something on election day it is highly damaging to our society.

Elliot Berke: (43:56)
Yeah, I couldn't agree more on that. So getting into the questioning the integrity of the election. Our time is short, and I'm not going to go through every allegation, every court filing. I'm sure you don't want to either. But-

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:13)
I want to Elliot. I want to. It's important to me.

Elliot Berke: (44:16)
We'll schedule another time for that. But can you talk a little bit just in terms of the underlying litigation strategy when you get ... this was the volume again was nothing that we'd seen before. So how do you prepare for that? Brad, we'll start with you.

Brad Raffensperger: (44:35)
I guess we had good preparation. Stacey Abrams led that back in 2018. When I got here in 2019 we I think had 11 lawsuits on my first day, and we ramped it up to 14. And so we continue to beat those down. And then we had, obviously the Congress asking questions too. So we were ready and prepared. And then the Trump campaign started making a lot of allegations, and then we bit by bit knocked out every one of them. And none of them prevailed in a court of law.

Jocelyn Benson: (45:05)
Yeah. I think to Brad's point, it wasn't a legal strategy. It was a PR strategy designed to erode the public's confidence in our democracy. And so calling it what it was early on was critical. Allowing cases to be filed at first that I mean, look, if people have actual evidence of wrongdoing, then let's have that process work out. And then it turned out there was no evidence of wrongdoing, and yet the legal cases continued. And that's when it became even more apparent I think to more people that it truly was just a PR strategy. And my work as well as the work of others involve became twofold. One, telling the truth, affirming people's faith in the process, allowing the data and the facts to carry the day.

Jocelyn Benson: (45:48)
And then calling out the bad actors for what it was, which was a partisan agenda to again erode the public's confidence in the process. And to consistently do that was critical. And I had great gratitude that the judges, the members of our state board of canvassers, the members of our local board. Every person in the process who had a critical role to play in upholding the truth, followed the oath of office that they took and did just that. And that's really why we're able to stop a political agenda partisan PR campaign designed to undermine the democracy from ultimately being successful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:28)
Brad, can you walk us through the calls that you had with President Trump, and how you and your team prepared for them?

Brad Raffensperger: (46:36)
Well, the call ahead was in the Sunday or Saturday before the runoff election. Didn't have a lot of time to prepare, but we had been well versed in all of the facts on our side. Had a conversation and really became obvious very early on that was really he was repeating all of the disinformation that we've been facing for two months. It was very unfortunate, but Rudy Giuliani came down to speak before a state Senate committee meeting. And he made all sorts of allegations about what happened at State Farm, and they sliced and diced the video. The video is a 24/7 video and they took out portions of it, that it appeared to show that there was ballot stuffing. Unfortunately, we were not asked to come to that committee hearing.

Brad Raffensperger: (47:27)
We were not allowed to put rigidity on it and cross, and really slice and dice until I show them what they actually were doing. But we did get a hold of WSP the next day, showed them the whole run of the video and said this is exactly what happened. And we got brought in other news media sources. And so that was totally debunked. But President Trump, virtually a month and a half later, was still holding on to that debunked theory. And so it really is the entire list. He talked about that there was 5,000 or 10,000 dead people that voted. To this day, we found two dead people. Obviously, they didn't vote, but somewhat falsified it and we're looking for those people. And we're having an ongoing investigation, and we'll prosecute those folks.

Brad Raffensperger: (48:11)
But those are the types of misrepresentations that were given to him. At the end of day, I don't know if he believed it and we just wanted to believe it. And what did come through is that he had large rallies of people. And that can really give a candidate a false sense of security when everyone is showing up to hear you. And a lot of times you have people that came to multiple events, and really were traveling around the regions to come to these events because they are entertaining if you like conservative rhetoric. I happen to like conservative rhetoric. And so I can see why people went to those.

Brad Raffensperger: (48:47)
They were entertaining, but I think it gave the president a false sense of support that he had. And he didn't understand that in the metro regions, that there was a huge erosion of votes there. And that showed up, and that's why Senator Perdue got about 20,000 more votes than he did in the metro regions.

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:08)
Listen they had to be tough calls for you, and we obviously appreciate what you went through work. We're going to close out in a second, but I think it's important for our listeners and viewers and for the record, I'd like to start with you Secretary Benson. What do you want the American people to know about their electoral process, and the guardians of their democracy and where things are going?

Jocelyn Benson: (49:36)
It's up to them if we're going to have a healthy democracy. It's up to all of us to protect it with every election every day, every month. That there are forces at play as there has been since the founding of our country that would seek to minimize people's voices and their power in a democracy. And by electing secretaries of state on both sides of the aisle with a commitment to integrity and protecting their voices in vote, we can ensure that the infrastructure is secure, because the work that we've done demonstrates that. But that they also have a role, that we all have a role to play in voting and staying engaged and holding accountable those who would seek to lie or manipulate to further their own political agenda and harm our democracy as a result.

Jocelyn Benson: (50:18)
And by doing so, by truly all of us being engaged, regardless of how we feel about a particular issue or what our party affiliation is, but committed to democracy. Our democracy can flourish and thrive and grow, and continue to be that beacon on the hill that the founding fathers wanted it to be, and that we all hope it can be. But it's going to be up to all of us to make sure that it is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (50:39)
What did we leave out, Brad? That was very well said, by the way, Secretary Benson. What did we leave out Secretary Raffensperger?

Brad Raffensperger: (50:46)
Well, a year ago I said that 50% of the people would be happy with results, 50% would be hurt. I understand that they've been polarized times. I wanted voters to have 100% confidence in the results. And they can have confidence in the results, because 159 of our election directors have personal integrity. This office runs on integrity, we're going to make sure that we have fair and honest elections in State of Georgia, with the appropriate accessibility and also security of our systems.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:16)
Well, I got to tell you as an American I so respect the two of you. And as somebody that loves the country, I would always put our democracy and its constitution and the integrity election over policy, which the two of you guys have done. So just my heart goes out to you. Great, thanks. My colleague, Elliot Berke, thank you for helping me get out of Washington unscathed. It was a brutal experience for me, and I appreciate you doing that. Now let me turn it over to the millennial, who's the only reason why he's on this is because he helps us with our ratings with his shockingly good blonde hair. Did we miss anything, John Darsie?

John Darsie: (51:57)
I would just like to point out that technically it was General John Kelly, who got you out of Washington, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (52:04)
Yes, it was. He did. He pressed the eject button like we were in a James Bond car. Okay, but I landed nicely because of Elliot. I'm setting the record straight on election integrity and my firing. How's that, John? Is there anything else you want to bring out?

John Darsie: (52:20)
No, I just want to thank like Anthony said, Secretary Benson and Secretary Raffensperger. Also, the personal toll that it's taken on you guys. We didn't get to that topic, but I know you guys your lives have changed and you became household names. And maybe in a way that affected your life in ways you never expected before the 2020 election. But you guys have not shrunk from that challenge. And you've embraced the fact that you're going to have to be out front fighting the misinformation and everything that comes along with it. So thank you for that on a personal level as well. And just thank you, again, so much for joining us here. We hope to do this again in the future.

John Darsie: (52:55)
I think continuing to reinforce the integrity of our elections, and the confidence in our elections is not going to be solved through one webinar series with SALT or anybody else. It's going to be an ongoing process of maintaining and reinforcing that confidence. So hopefully, when we can do live events in the future as we were talking before we went live. We hope maybe we can reprise this conversation in the near future in person. So thank you.

Brad Raffensperger: (53:20)
Thank you.

Jocelyn Benson: (53:23)
Look forward to it. Thanks, guys. Honored to be part of the conversation.

Elliot Berke: (53:25)
Thank you again.

Anthony Scaramucci: (53:26)
Appreciate it.

John Darsie: (53:28)
And thank you everyone who tuned into today's SALT talk, the third and final episode for now of our election series focused on elections operations and elections integrity. Again, our goal with this series is just to expose people to the truth. To put the truth into the sunlight about what happened in the 2020 election so they can have confidence in the process as Secretary Benson and Secretary Raffensperger said in the face of a historic global pandemic, and intense pressure coming from the federal government these states were able to execute what was one of the fairest and freest elections that we have on record. So very grateful for all the work they've done. And all the pressure they've withstood, that could potentially have led to an erosion of our democracy.

John Darsie: (54:11)
So thank you to them. And thank you for tuning in and learning about the process. That's important as well that people come into these things with an open mind. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk, any of our other election series talks, one was with former Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff. The other was with two members of the Election Assistance Commission that Elliot Berke was speaking about, that was Don Palmer and Benjamin Hovland of the Election Assistance Commission. So if you missed either of those episodes, please go to our YouTube channel. It's SALT tube.

John Darsie: (54:48)
You can watch them there, and you can watch all the episodes of SALT Talks that we started doing in May as the pandemic clearly became a long term issue that was going to force us to have to postpone or cancel our conferences. So please spread the word about those talks and about these elections SALT Talks in particular, because we think it's extremely important that people learn the facts of the situation. Please follow us on social media as well. We're most active on Twitter @SALTConference where we live tweet these episodes and air a lot of the episodes that we broadcast live on our Twitter feed. We're also on LinkedIn, we're on Instagram and we're on Facebook. And on behalf of the entire SALT team, that wraps it up for today. Thank you for joining us again. We hope to see you back here again soon on SALT Talks.

Dante Disparte: The Rise of Stablecoins in Crypto | SALT Talks #162

Dante Disparte is the Executive Vice President of the Diem Association. Dante serves as a member of the executive committee leading public policy, social impact, membership and communications. The Diem payment system is built on blockchain technology to enable the open, instant, and low-cost movement of money. People will be able to send, receive, and spend their money, enabling universal access to financial services.

Diem, previously known as Libra, is a permissioned blockchain-based payment system proposed by the American social media company Facebook, Inc. The plan also includes a private currency implemented as a cryptocurrency.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dante Disparte.jpeg

Dante Disparte

Executive Vice President

Diem Association

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Michael Dyson: “Long Time Coming: Reckoning with Race in America” | SALT Talks #161

Michael Dyson is an academic, author, ordained minister, and radio host. Dyson has authored or edited more than twenty books dealing with subjects such as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Marvin Gaye, Barack Obama, Illmatic (Nas's debut album), Bill Cosby, Tupac Shakur and Hurricane Katrina.

Long Time Coming grapples with the cultural and social forces that have shaped our nation in the brutal crucible of race. In five beautifully argued chapters―each addressed to a black martyr from Breonna Taylor to Rev. Clementa Pinckney―Dyson traces the genealogy of anti-blackness from the slave ship to the street corner where Floyd lost his life―and where America gained its will to confront the ugly truth of systemic racism. Ending with a poignant plea for hope, Dyson's exciting new book points the way to social redemption.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Michael Eric Dyson.jpeg

Michael Eric Dyson

Author

Long Time Coming: Reckoning with Race in America

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 a managing director at 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 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)
We're very excited today to welcome Michael Eric Dyson to SALT Talks. He's a well known author as well as a contributor to a lot of major publications and media outlets. But I'll read you his full bio now, and hopefully he doesn't blush, because he's accomplished a lot in his career already.

John Darsie: (00:57)
Michael Eric Dyson is a professor of sociology at Georgetown University. His 2019 New York Times bestselling nonfiction book, Jay-Z, Made In America, is the recipient of two starred reviews from Publisher's Weekly and the Library Journal. He speaks on Jay-Z's career and his role on making this nation what it is today. He's an author, a contributing opinion writer at the New York Times, an MSNBC political analyst, a contributing editor at New Republic, the host of the Michael Eric Dyson Podcast, featuring Dr. Dan Ratner, an ordained Baptist minister for over 30 years, and received his PhD from Princeton University in 1993.

John Darsie: (01:37)
Dr. Dyson has authored nearly 20 books on subjects such as the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., in April 4th, 1968, Malcolm X, Nas's debut album, Illmatic, Tupac, Marvin Gaye, and Hurricane Katrina's devastating and long lasting effects. He won two NAACP Image Awards for Outstanding Literary Work in Nonfiction, and the American Book Award in 2007 for Come Hell or High Water, Hurricane Katrina and the Color Of Disaster.

John Darsie: (02:08)
Essence named Michael Eric Dyson one of the 40 most inspiring African Americans, and Ebony listed him among the 100 most influential black Americans. He often speaks at universities and political conventions, and he's also known for speaking engagements at union halls, prisons, classrooms, and churches, and now on SALT Talks. Throughout his career, Dr. Dyson has had a profound impact on American culture and thinking. His book, What Truth Sounds Like, continues the conversation started in his 2017 bestseller, Tears We Cannot Stop, and was the winner of the 2018 Southern Books Prize for Nonfiction.

John Darsie: (02:44)
If you don't already, he's a fantastic follow on Twitter and Facebook as well, where he weighs in on current events in a very informed and insightful way. His most recent book I would recommend everybody pick up, especially given the times that we're living in today, is called A Long Time Coming. So we look forward to telling you a little bit more about that book today, and again we highly recommend you go out and read it. Very hard to read because of the raw nature of how he describes some of these really horrific incidents in American history as it relates to race relations and police brutality, but also very important book that you read if you're not exposed to these issues.

John Darsie: (03:24)
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. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:37)
Michael, he's still letting me host this thing, so I just want to thank John Darsie for allowing me to still be the host on this thing.

John Darsie: (03:47)
My slowly nudging you boomers out of the picture. [crosstalk 00:03:50]

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:50)
Slowly? It's not even slowly, Michael, it's like a shoving. It's not [crosstalk 00:03:53] But I want to hold up the book for a second for the audience. It is a brilliant book, and I will say this to you, that I was introduced to you in 2008, I purchased your book at a Barnes and Noble April 4th, 1968, 40th anniversary of course of Dr. King's assassination. I thought that was also a brilliant book. It's in my, on my bookshelf in my office, actually, at SkyBridge. But I want to get right into it related to this book. You're writing in the book brilliantly about a reckoning with race in America, 300, some can say 400 years of racism, racial tension. We're having a reckoning. Why is this time different, Professor Dyson?

Michael Eric Dyson: (04:47)
Well thank you, first of all, it's been a great Scaramucci for me over the last week or so. So I've had-

John Darsie: (04:55)
Now we're talking, now we're talking.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:57)
Hold on, professor, it's 11 days a Scaramucci, okay?

Michael Eric Dyson: (04:59)
That's what I said, almost two weeks, almost two weeks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:03)
All right, so it's not just a week.

Michael Eric Dyson: (05:03)
Almost a fortnight, almost a fortnight.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:04)
I told you, it's not a week. It's my only regret about my White House experience, I needed three more days. But that's all right.

Michael Eric Dyson: (05:12)
But you wouldn't have been able ... Then I would have said a fortnight. Now it's a Scaramucci because [crosstalk 00:05:17]

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:19)
Slightly less than a carton of milk lasting in your refrigerator, Mike. [crosstalk 00:05:24]

Michael Eric Dyson: (05:23)
It ain't buttermilk, son. It ain't buttermilk. So, I'm at Vanderbilt now. I just want to announce that to y'all. I'm a distinguished professor there hanging out at Vanderbilt. So look, thank you so much for even engaging me and having me on this incredible platform, needless to say I'm a huge fan, and appreciate your interventions in a conscientious fashion that have really provided an opportunity to see how people who are conservative can be self critical, people who have values and traditions nonetheless are willing to subject them to a serious scrutiny, and that I celebrate you for, my man. Look. I think that it's extremely important to talk about the suffering of these martyrs, why it is that these particular black people that died have occupied such an important place in the society and have catalyzed a reckoning.

Michael Eric Dyson: (06:19)
I think a reckoning is going on. People say, "Well what's different about this?" Well I'll tell you what I think is different about this, implicit in your question, is the fact that a lot of us were at home on our screens, like we are now. The pandemic forced us to have a remote intimacy. We were kvetching about it two weeks before the pandemic. "Oh my god, put those darn screens down," you tell your kids, "Put those phones down." Have more intimate connection with each other. Oh, now this is what we depend on for intimacy. Unfortunately, and even tragically, some people have to depend upon these surfaces and screens to say goodbye to their loved ones.

Michael Eric Dyson: (07:03)
The technology we were dissing a week before the pandemic, we have now come to rely on and depend on in a serious fashion. So a lot of people were at home, in their places of abode when they saw come across their screens, whether it's a computer, or an iPad, or a phone, or an Android, they saw George Floyd's death. And it was astonishing. Like, what? And we were watching far more acutely and attentively because we were forced to these screens. I think that made a huge difference.

Michael Eric Dyson: (07:40)
Secondly, I think all of the asterisks were removed. Usually some white brothers and sisters and others could say, "Well you must have been talking nasty to the cops. Oh, he's going, 'Hey, officer.'" On the ground while he's dying, he's being nice. He must have been running from the cops. No, he's lying prostrated on the ground. He must have been a dangerous black man. Kind of not, because you got three cops on him.

Michael Eric Dyson: (08:05)
In other words, every excuse that people go, "Well you must have, or you must have," removed. White people saw that. I'm generalizing, and went, "Oh hell no. No. That's nuts. We see with our own eyes what's going on here." And I think thousands upon thousands of white brothers and sisters said, "Enough is enough, we're in the streets with black people and brown people and other people who are protesting, this is not right." And I think it offers an opportunity to not only open up the portals of possible protest, but also to grapple with the systemic issues, and let's admit it, on television, where your second home there, Brother Scaramucci, the point is is that a lot of people were talking about systemic racism who hadn't spoken about it before, the language changed, the awareness developed, the meter of consciousness spiked. And people began to really talk about it.

Michael Eric Dyson: (09:05)
Now, it's died down seven months later, eight months later. But that's the natural give and flow. The ebb and take of social change. It's not going to last forever. People's awarenesses spiked. People's awarenesses fueled. But then it dies down. But I liken it to this. When you fall in love in the first time, you're what, you're in love, you got candies and chocolates and violin music and all that stuff. Then when you get married, what are you doing? Oy vey, what's going on? "Did you leave the toilet seat up again? I almost fell in and drowned. Did you squeeze the toothpaste from the top and not the bottom?"

Michael Eric Dyson: (09:45)
But, you get down to the unsexy everyday part, "Who's taking the kids? Who's going to deal with the food preparation? Are you going to share in the household chores?" That's where love is translated into stuff I do that's not big time, that's not sexy, but that makes a difference. And that's where we are racially speaking right now. How do we deal with the systemic issues that are the unsexy part of making a real change in America today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:13)
It's so well said, I got so many followup questions. I'm going to hit you with a few rapid fire.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:19)
All right, [crosstalk 00:10:20]

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:19)
Yes or no questions, because I just want to get where you see things in terms of your pulse on America.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:26)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:26)
Most Americans are good people, yes or no.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:30)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:32)
The black community, this is a very big over-generalization, but we are generalizing for this.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:37)
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:38)
The black community loves America.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:40)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:42)
I got to ask this followup question, because I've read this book, I've read the very painful book about the assassination of Dr. King.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:48)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:49)
I took a course at Tufts University in 1984 called Race Awareness. It was taught by a guy named James Vance who was in the American military, and he was a race awareness instructor in the United States Army, to break down the barriers and to explain literal institutional racism. I'm going to talk to you very honestly, professor. I grew up in a parochial family, patriarchal, Italian American family. We bordered on a black community and an Irish community. We were beating the living crap out of each others. Italians, blacks, and Irish. But for whatever reason we all got along because I guess we were comfortable with each other. It wasn't until I got to college and James Vance explained to me institutional racism. I'm 21 years old, I said he's right, we have institutional racism in the society. And yet, do we have a lot of people in denial about that in our country? Yes or no.

Michael Eric Dyson: (11:52)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:53)
Okay. So sir, tell me why we have denial, because you're a plain spoken person, you're an amazing writer. Why do we have so much denial? I can look you straight in the face and say there is institutional racism, and there are levels of white privilege. Now having said that, okay, that's not to say that whites have necessarily had the greatest deal ever either too. There's a lot of underprivileged white people in our society. So I'm not really trying to do that over-generalization. But why can't we acknowledge, and we can get black and white politicians on the right as an example, to acknowledge what you and I both know about our society?

Michael Eric Dyson: (12:34)
Yeah. No, it's well stated, and it's well put. And thank you for the compliments as well. Look. Gore Vidal, the late great writer, said we lived in the United States of Amnesia. And I would add very quickly that the theme song is sung by Barbra Streisand. Now we know Brother Darsie has no idea who Streisand is, so we're going to have to help him to who Barbra Streisand is. [crosstalk 00:12:58] It ain't Taylor Swift. It ain't Taylor Swift. But she was a great, great singer, and still is.

Michael Eric Dyson: (13:03)
Barbra Streisand sang a song by Marilyn and Alan Bergman, Memories. What's too painful to remember, we simply choose to forget. We're in denial. As the late Joseph Lowery said, we live in the 51st state, the state of denial. We keep denying. What we don't like, we just pretend it doesn't exist.

Michael Eric Dyson: (13:23)
So it's hard to deal with the issue of race, because it implicates us in a way that other issues don't. Because now it's more like, "Oh, are you calling me a racist? You calling my family a racist? Is it the tradition that nurtured me a racist?" And then it gets personal, and then it gets heated, and then it gets venomous, and then you figure what the hell are we doing?

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:41)
Yeah, professor, I get called a white supremacist on Twitter. I'm a white supremacist. I mean, look, we're throwing labels around at each other in a way that I think is absolutely ridiculous. I mean it's fine, people can call me whatever they want. I learned long ago from my grandmother, whatever you think of me is none of my business. But the institutional idea, am I wrong about this? If you have a problem, the first thing you have to do is recognize the problem. Let's say we were drug addicts. [crosstalk 00:14:08] Okay, we're drug addicts. We have to recover from drugs. The first step is admitting the problem.

Michael Eric Dyson: (14:15)
No doubt.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:16)
And you're saying it's just too painful to admit the problem. So then how do we get people to feel less pain, or how do we get people to ignore the pain, or override the pain to admit the problem, and have it be more of a universal understanding?

Michael Eric Dyson: (14:35)
Yeah, it's a great point. You usually do that through analogy. How do we learn? We learn through ... You know, it's like this. One thing is like the other thing. So the stuff that you experience on this side, check it out on the other. For instance, and I know we're going to talk about this, but think about January 6th. When people go, "Look, if that had been a bunch of black people, it would have been a different outcome." And I have no doubt that that's true that's not just individual beliefs, that's what you're talking about in terms of institutional racism. That means ... And systemic racism.

Michael Eric Dyson: (15:05)
What does that mean? Everything that has institution or a system connected to it has the potential to perpetuate inequality. Health education, health system, education system, prison industrial complex, prison system. So on and so forth. And the institutions of American society bear the imprint of our beliefs.

Michael Eric Dyson: (15:24)
Now, let's take on what you're talking about in terms of white privilege, what it is and what it ain't. White privilege doesn't mean every white person is going to do well. White privilege doesn't mean that ever white person is going to be rich. Because think about it. Before black people could get into Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, or any major American institution of higher education, when it was only white, we know that there were gradations. Irish need not apply. Italians not seen as part of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant umbrella. The paddy wagon was called that because the Irish were being thought of as getting drunk on the weekends, so we're going to rename the wagon that takes you to the police station after an epithet for Irish people. So we know, Irish, Italian.

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:06)
But then we read the book, how the Irish became white. How Italian American identity got transformed in the crucible of race into whiteness. Even though we know that there are tremendous differences.

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:18)
My point is-

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:19)
And by the way, if you're southern Italian, if you want to talk about denial, most of us have African American-

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:24)
Come on, bruh. Come on, bruh.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:25)
Descendants. [crosstalk 00:16:25]

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:25)
That's why there's bees, because there's such similarity. There's such-

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:32)
Now Darsie's smiling, because he's whiter than Wonder Bread. We'll talk about that in a second, okay. This guy has got ... He's so white that he's got like 12 essential vitamins. You know what I'm saying?

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:43)
Hey, hey, but white folk, but black folk eating barbecue love Wonder Bread, brother, so hang in there.

John Darsie: (16:49)
I'm with Dr. Dyson.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:52)
He's actually way more aware, grew up in North Carolina.

John Darsie: (16:56)
I actually grew up in Durham, North Carolina, Dr. Dyson, with a proud history.

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:59)
I've lived there. And I've lived there. And I've lived there. But let me finish this point about white privilege. Here's the point though. The point of white privilege doesn't mean all white people will X, Y, and Z. It meant not all white people will be rich, but the people who will be rich tend to be white. It doesn't mean that all white people will go to Harvard, it meant that all the people going to Harvard were white.

Michael Eric Dyson: (17:19)
That kind of privilege means, or if you meet a cop, and you live to tell about it, you have a likelihood, regardless of your class status, that you have the possibility of engaging in conversation and interaction with the police forces of the nation and law enforcement in a way that might not hurt you, though we know that law enforcement has had horrible consequences on all peoples including white folks. So when we talk about white privilege, we don't mean some pie in the sky idealism that white people enjoy nirvana. It means that when we look at the distribution of resources here in America that race plays a significant part.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:55)
Okay, so obviously, you can have an objective standard of this or you can be biased and sheltered in your own tribe, and you can pretend that it doesn't exist. But I have a question, and it's really based on reading your book. I want you to explain it to other people. I think you do a great job in the book. How has racism shaped our society in a way that may be invisible to white Americans?

Michael Eric Dyson: (18:20)
Right. No, that's a great point. Look. Great philosopher Beyonce Giselle Knowles said that, look, it has been said that racism is so American that if you challenge racism, it looks like you're challenging America. She's on to something there. Because a lot of white brothers and sisters have not been taught the language of race, not introduced to the notion, hey, even though you're white, that that whiteness is one among many racial identifiers. And that when many white people go, "Why don't you stop talking about race? Why don't you just talk about being an American." That's because you got the privilege of having your whiteness as the default position of America. That when you say the America, you're really talking about your own particular take on it.

Michael Eric Dyson: (19:06)
As a result of that, it's rendered invisible in the beautiful phrase you used. It's rendered like unintelligible to many white people. Because then they say, "Let's just be American, can't we?" What they mean, of course, is that they want to have an overcoming of difference, and an overcoming of barrier, institutional or personal, to become one, E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one. But what they don't often understand is their particular perception of what America is has been interestingly colored by a kind of whiteness that has been rendered invisible. It doesn't seem to be anything that comes into play.

Michael Eric Dyson: (19:45)
That's why, often, when we have conversations about race, it's like what about men? Men go, "Well let's have a conversation about gender." Dude, do you know as a man you have a gender too? It's not just women, it ain't just feminism, it's what you do as a man as well.

Michael Eric Dyson: (19:59)
When we talk to white people, brothers and sisters, we say, "Look. When we talk about race, we ain't just talking about black and brown and red. We're talking about white as well." And if we have that kind of advance in the conversation, I think we'd have a more fruitful discussion about the consequences of race in America, and how we talk about it in a way that is not defensive, but is helpful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:19)
And that's the reason why I wanted to invite you on. I wanted to make this as least offensive as possible, and just an open intellectual discussion.

Michael Eric Dyson: (20:27)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:28)
I'm probably not going to pronounce his name right, so forgive me because I'm a Long Island Italian, and I could barely speak English as a result of that. But I believe his name is Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Michael Eric Dyson: (20:38)
Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ta-Nehisi Coates, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:41)
I've read several of his books. There was one quote, and I'm paraphrasing the quote, but it was a remarkable quote in terms of how honest it was in the denial category. What he said in one of his books is that in 1860, the largest market capitalization of property in the United States was black people. And it was three billion US dollars. So if you thought of all the capital equipment, the trains, the railroads, the buildings in the United States, it was eclipsed by the property value, again, forgive me for saying it that way, but I'm making his point.

Michael Eric Dyson: (21:24)
No, that's what it was, that's what it was, you're saying what it was.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:26)
The property value of black people in the United States. So how on god's earth, professor, do we reconcile that? Now Italians will say to you, "Well, I wasn't there at the time, so you can't blame me." Okay, but yet we're all in the mosaic of the puzzle. We're all sitting in pieces of the puzzle, and we're living in the remnants and the aftermath of that. And you and I both know that the aftermath of that was mishandled very poorly. It took 100 years to get the vote. We spent the last 55 years basically taking the vote away. Just recently in 2020, people like Stacey Abrams are bringing the vote back. Tell me how we reconcile that, sir, that notion that, say his name Ta ...

Michael Eric Dyson: (22:21)
Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
Ta-Nehisi Coates brought up in his books.

Michael Eric Dyson: (22:25)
Yeah, and by the way, a lot of black people, because they see the H-I-S, they think, isn't that hee-see, not ha-see. So anyway, you ain't by yourself, sir. No, poetically phrased as you always do. Look. That reality that black people were property, and Coates talks about it as the plundering of the property, the plundering of black life. In his book on reparations, speaking about how the market capitalization of $3 billion and what black people counted, because they were three fifths human, counting in terms of the Constitution and the like. That when you have people as property, to see them as human beings is a hell of a leap for a lot of people.

Michael Eric Dyson: (23:05)
For a long time in this country, black people were seen as things. Look. Look at, what is it, 1857, Roger B. Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, said that black people had no rights that white people were bound to respect. That's written into the law. That's not like some idea.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:25)
It's interesting you're bringing that up, because I read your book, and I highlighted several theses of it, and I'm on page 103, where the chief justice who wrote the decision in the Dred Scott case, 1857, and this is a quote right out of your book. "It is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration." That declaration he's citing is of course the Declaration of Independence. He then goes on to say that the Constitution, there were no rights in the Constitution for black folk.

Michael Eric Dyson: (24:05)
Right, exactly. That's a fundamental look. That principle, just think about it, that's not just somebody's opinion, that's not some random dude's opinion. That's the chief justice of the Supreme Court laying out the law, laying down the law of the land, that set legal precedence in this country until 1954, with Brown v. Board of Education, where separate but equal was done away with.

Michael Eric Dyson: (24:31)
Here's my point though. That when you look at the legal infrastructure-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:36)
But you're running over that, sir, and I got to stop you for a second because I want it to sink in to people. 1857, you're three fifths human being, you have no rights. 1863, we're going to emancipate the slaves. We're doing that for political purposes more than we're really doing that for constitutional purposes. We both know that. As much as we both admire Abraham Lincoln, we understand a lot of the decisions that he made were fraught with political expediency.

Michael Eric Dyson: (25:05)
No doubt about it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:05)
And now you fast forward, it's 97 years from the case to, the Dred Scott case to Brown v. Board of Education. The president of the United States does not want that decision to come down the way it is, Dwight Eisenhower. We both know that.

Michael Eric Dyson: (25:29)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
Okay, so we're here, and while this cauldron of activity is happening, every time that there's black advancement, the two of us can prove empirically, that there is, to quote Van Jones, a "whitelash" to black advancement.

Michael Eric Dyson: (25:45)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:45)
I'm interrupting you, but I really want to frame it for people.

Michael Eric Dyson: (25:47)
No, you laid it out, I'm glad you did, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:49)
You got to frame it for people, because we are in denial about this stuff, and we've got to get out of denial so that we can do anything that we can to heal it. I guess that's my question sir. Is it healable?

Michael Eric Dyson: (26:02)
Yes it is. But thank you so much for interrupting me to make that point clearly. And let me say this before I answer your healable part. When people say, "Hey, I wasn't here." I get it. You weren't even here when you were born. You just, oh, somebody created me. We weren't here when the Constitution was written. But we take advantage of it. We weren't here-

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:20)
By the way, Darsie does a lot of creating, by the way. He's breeding like rabbits in his ... Let you know that, okay? Keep going, professor.

Michael Eric Dyson: (26:27)
He's upholding the Biblical injunction to populate the earth.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:30)
It's literally unbelievable. [crosstalk 00:26:32] Go ahead.

Michael Eric Dyson: (26:33)
Good man. The thing is a lot of us weren't here when stuff was initially put forth, but when you come here as a potentially white person, if you weren't white when you got here you were white when you came here. James Baldwin, 1963, talks about race as a political fiction. It ain't in your genes. It's in how we as a society assign worth and value.

Michael Eric Dyson: (26:56)
The point simply is, that along with what you said, and the fact is that even if you weren't here when the stuff went down initially, you got in on the gravy train, or you took advantage of opportunities that you didn't even decide were yours but that were given to you. Is it healable? Yes. But not without conscious intent and the design to make sure that things are different.

Michael Eric Dyson: (27:20)
If we could have folk like you, Brother Darsie, out here trying to say, "Look, we might have differences of ideological and political position, but we're trying to come to grips with a wretched history of racial oppression, that if we could be honest about, and we could talk about invading our institutions, we have a better chance of overcoming many of the barriers that prevent us from recognizing our common humanity."

Michael Eric Dyson: (27:48)
Let me give you one that a lot of people overlook. Now, I happen to be a progressive, and in terms of black culture, I'm on the margins in terms of my politics. The majority of black people are pretty much in the center. The majority of black people are far more conservative than what I would be. And that if Republicans could find a way not to insult black people, and not to hold fast to institutional matrices of white supremacy, there would be a bunch more black people who would be Republican in this culture, in this society, than are presently on the roles. That's just a fact.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:28)
But that's 100%, because if you're not ... It's the same reason why I have to now disavow the Republican Party, because the higher order principle for me is the preservation of our democracy and the Constitution. So if the Republicans would shut up, what they're doing is they're clinging to white power, they're going to become a group of aging white people that buy catheters and My Pillows from Fox News commercial interruptions. But if they would just shut up and open up the tent and make the party look like the more beautiful mosaic of the American people and acknowledge the history in America that's happened, as opposed to clinging to this nonsense and this abject ignorance, we would have a more competitive system. That party's in the process of splintering.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:19)
John Darsie is, I can tell by his facial expressions and his facial tics, he's dying to ask some questions. I've got one question for you, and it's more of a reaction. And again this is on page 179 of your book, and I want to hold it up again. It's a fantastic read, Long Time Coming. Great read, very powerful writing. You're quoting Tracee Ellis Ross on this page. And the quote is, "Our freedom keeps being dismantled and limited because of white comfort."

Michael Eric Dyson: (29:55)
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:56)
I want you to react to that and tell us why you put that in the book, and what it means.

Michael Eric Dyson: (30:02)
Yeah. Yeah, that, and Tracee Ellis Ross, of course an incredible actress, also the daughter of Diana Ross. We remember Diana Ross, a major American figure, and then of course with the Supremes, and we say rest in peace to Mary Wilson, a friend of mine, and an incredible artist. Tracee Ellis Ross is saying that the preservation of white comfort, the comfort of not having to know about black culture, the comfort of not having to engage in a serious, introspective look at what America does, the rituals, the habits, the folk ways, all the stuff that makes us who we are. Without being uncomfortable, without being rendered uncomfortable, without being challenged in our ignorance or in our refusal to say, "Hey, let me learn something about some stuff that doesn't simply complement the nation, but begins to challenge my perspective," from people who are, say people of color, who've had a different experience.

Michael Eric Dyson: (31:05)
So the comfort of ignorance, the comfort of being disassociated from those traditions that I'm unfamiliar with and won't be challenged by, what she's saying, the maintenance and preservation of that comfort has led to a lot of hurt and pain, not only for black people in this country, but really for the country getting off of its basic pathway toward better democracy and more humane interactions between people. That's what she has in mind there, and that's why I put that there to try to talk about what we can do to overcome the obstacles, the impediments, and the barriers that prevent that kind of interaction from occurring.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:47)
Okay, absolutely fantastic book, Michael, Professor Dyson. I'm going to turn it over to John for some questions that have built up in our email traffic, and from our audience.

Michael Eric Dyson: (31:59)
All right, beautiful.

John Darsie: (32:00)
Yeah, yeah. It's actually in my contract, Dr. Dyson, that I get at least one third of the air time, or else I can sue for an HR violation. So thank you Anthony for giving me my-

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:11)
But by the way, professor, you'll appreciate this. The head of HR at SkyBridge, that would be me. I just want to let everybody know that, okay, so there are some unanswered anonymous complaints in that complaint box.

John Darsie: (32:24)
That's why it's so dysfunctional, Dr. Dyson.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:26)
All right, it's dysfunction, but it's my denial, okay? It's my denial about the dysfunction. Go ahead Darsie, go ahead.

John Darsie: (32:33)
Yeah. I want to talk a little bit about symbolism. I grew up in Durham, North Carolina, as I mentioned earlier. We actually just removed the ability for someone at the DMV to get the Confederate flag put on their license plate, which was shocking to me that that was still even a thing. In Mississippi they just replaced their state flag that had a Confederate flag taking up part of the flag, which was again not spending a lot of time in Mississippi shocking to me that their state flag still had the Confederate flag in it. In 2015, it took a domestic terrorist massacre at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, Clem Pinckney, who you write about in the book, for the Confederate flag to come off of the statehouse in South Carolina.

John Darsie: (33:18)
We've also had this battle being waged about statues that were basically placed across the country at various points throughout history to intimidate black people from thinking that they can become equal parts of society in certain parts of the country.

John Darsie: (33:32)
Other people on the other side of the ledger come out and say, "We shouldn't try to erase history or sanitize history by taking down these monuments or removing these flags, we should embrace our history and move forward." But why, just to communicate to people, in your view is it important that we start to remove some of these symbols and some of these artifacts of intimidation that existed as part of our stained history?

Michael Eric Dyson: (33:57)
Well, I can see why the eloquent Brother Scaramucci has the equally eloquent Brother Darsie, because you just laid it out there, even in your question. There is an intimidating factor. Look, I rarely pass by these statues where I see people standing around, "Let me tell you about history, young people, and let me tell you about the conflagration and consternation of American division that led ..." They ain't doing that. Those statues that dot the landscape of American society are the translated into concrete principles upon which this society rests. So who you honor is who you tell yourself you are.

Michael Eric Dyson: (34:43)
By having these statues out there, they're not ... Look, take them to a museum. Take them to someplace where people can actually talk about what Johnny Rebel was about, to talk about what Robert E. Lee was about. I think we should do that. I don't think we should erase it. I don't think we should evaporate it. I don't think we should destroy it. But we should put it in its proper context. And when you have it on public land, that means all of America is supporting this idea.

Michael Eric Dyson: (35:10)
The South may have lost the war, but they darn sure won the battle of interpretation. The ingenuity of the South was that they understood it was an interpretive warfare, and boy, they put their stakes into interpreting what they lost.

Michael Eric Dyson: (35:26)
For me, why it's important, and look, speaking of Durham, I spoke at Duke University in the chapel a couple of years ago, and when walking in, they were just about to remove the Robert E. Lee bust into the Duke chapel. I'm going like I didn't realize he wrote the Bible. Oh my god, I didn't realize this dude was involved in the papyrus upon which was inscribed Paulinian letters. Come on. Why do we have Robert E. Lee going up into the chapel? Why? Because they were being honest about the fact that this variety of whiteness was more important than, or at least as equally powerful as, their Christian identity.

Michael Eric Dyson: (36:11)
Often when you had white evangelical, white was more powerful than evangelical. So the reason to remove these statues is not to deny history, because we just spent a lot of time talking about the importance of engaging it, but to put it in its proper perspective, and let's be honest. A lot of these statues weren't erected back in the day. They were erected after the Civil Rights movement began to challenge white supremacy in the South, and this stuff is built in the '50s and '60s, and in some cases the early '70s. So when we do the real history about when this stuff came about, it was a conscious attempt to intimidate those people who were black in this culture, who were challenging the dominant perspective.

Michael Eric Dyson: (36:56)
Let me end by saying this. Look, I can deal with the fact, a lot of white people who are Confederate supporters say, "Look, this is about heritage, not hate." What about if your heritage is hate? What about if some of your heritage is some stuff you don't like, that you don't want to deal with? And it's not that we're trying to demonize human beings. I understand people who say, "My grandfathers and grandmothers, my great great grand people were involved in this war, they felt that it was about states' rights and not about enslavement." And then you go, "States' rights to do what? Oh. To own slaves, oh, okay." So we're getting back to the same point there, but let's study the history.

Michael Eric Dyson: (37:36)
So I'm down for studying history, I'm down for having history lessons. But let's not pretend that the things that grow out of the sacred space of American civic culture are not embodiments of the noble ideals that we nurture, and as a result of that, we have to take them seriously. Those flags, like you said, darn. Mississippi, what's going on in Durham, and I lived in Durham for like three years. The reality is, you got to not allow that to be perpetuated in the state symbols of a particular area where some people who are citizens are going to be intimidated by that stuff. Let's just be honest.

John Darsie: (38:11)
Right. Yeah, and sticking in North Carolina, we have our military bases are named after Confederate generals, which I wasn't fully aware of until this explosion of increased awareness about racial issues. I mean, take the racial side out of it, these are people that supported the perpetuation of slavery. But in the end they're losers. They lost a war, and somehow we've named our military bases after these men. It's shocking to me. And I'm happy that at least something's being done about it now.

Michael Eric Dyson: (38:39)
And let me add something very briefly. Not only losers, but here's the point. They were secessionists. They weren't even part of your nation.

John Darsie: (38:47)
They were completely un-American.

Michael Eric Dyson: (38:48)
I mean, dude. When you're taking-

John Darsie: (38:50)
When you put on that uniform, you're fighting for the country, and these people fought against the country.

Michael Eric Dyson: (38:53)
Come on, man. And when you take the Confederate flag through the Capitol, do you literally realize what you're doing there? You're celebrating the people who separated from the nation who said, "Nope, I'm going to fight against it," and now you're celebrating them as prototypical expressions of Americana. Come on. It's just ...

John Darsie: (39:11)
Yeah, the type of hypocrisy that you get during the insurrection in Washington where you had people holding up a Blue Lives Matter, Back The Blue poster, while at the same time stomping out members of the DC Capitol Police.

Michael Eric Dyson: (39:24)
Absolutely.

John Darsie: (39:25)
Because they didn't agree with the type of laws that they were breaking. They thought they should be entitled to break the law.

Michael Eric Dyson: (39:31)
Great point.

John Darsie: (39:33)
It's amazing the hypocrisy that exists.

Michael Eric Dyson: (39:34)
No no, that's absolutely right. Blue Lives Matter until my interpretation [crosstalk 00:39:39]

John Darsie: (39:39)
The blue lives come for you.

Michael Eric Dyson: (39:40)
Right, exactly.

John Darsie: (39:41)
Yeah, I want to talk about the cycle of poverty and this cycle of systemic racism that exists, and I want to start with police brutality. That's a big focus of your book, but it's only one element I think of systemic racism. And again, going back to my North Carolina roots, Vince Carter, who played basketball at the University of North Carolina, had a legendary NBA career. He said when his kids were young, he sat them down, and like a white parent, or any parent would have a conversation with their kids about the birds and the bees, he had a conversation with them about what it's like to be black and dealing with law enforcement. When you go out to your driveway to get your mail, don't look or act a certain way. When you get pulled over, don't look or act a certain way, keep your hands down.

John Darsie: (40:24)
What do we have to do within our policing system to just change the way things are done? Defunding the police is obviously a misunderstood buzzword that President Obama weighed in and thought we should characterize it in a different way. But how do we root that racism out of our police force to prevent black people from having to fear the people that are supposed to be protecting them?

Michael Eric Dyson: (40:49)
Yeah, it's a great point. And so true, that it's a small part of what we mean by systemic racism, but here's the problem. If you're not alive and not well, you don't have to worry about a system because you're dead. And so many of us fear death at the hands of the police. So that's the entry level form of brutal, institutional oppression we got to deal with because if you ain't here, you ain't got to worry about much else. And so many people of color, especially black people, again, the irony is, nobody calls the police more than black people. Stop. You go on some of these ride-alongs I've been on, like bruh, every other call. "Mama, you didn't cook them ... I'm calling the police on you." I'm being facetious, but you know what I'm saying.

Michael Eric Dyson: (41:38)
The black people just want the police when they show up to distinguish me as the citizen who called the police and the crime that I want to report, or the issue I want to highlight. And so often, America and its institutional expression of law enforcement have done a poor job of trying to respect the integrity and identity of black people and their humanity. And look, a large part of this is to look how you talk to people. Like wait a minute, do you work for the American public? Do you work for taxpayers? Then you're coming to me as if I'm a scourge to American society, and I'm telling you from my personal experience, I ain't talking about what somebody told me. This is not an anthropological investigation. I'm telling you what I've had personal encounters with the police. The condescension, the nastiness, the refusal to look me in the eye as a human being. Having had several guns pulled on my by the cops for, quote, "Stealing" my own car. And when I went into my wallet to show them my license and registration, called me the N word and said, "I will put a bullet in your head."

Michael Eric Dyson: (42:48)
I'm telling you, this is what I've experienced personally. So it is sad that we still have unconscious racism, unconscious bias, and a conscious disavowal of the humanity of the people we're dealing with. So I think part of what we got to do, and you're right, what people meant by defunding the police, they ain't trying to get rid of the police, they're trying to say police are not the only people who are concerned with public safety. There are other departments that are concerned with public safety. Can we fund some of those so that when people are having a psychotic break, we don't need Officer McGillicuddy over here coming in on the scene, beating somebody down. We need somebody with some mental health awareness to say, "This person is overreacting, but we got it under control."

Michael Eric Dyson: (43:37)
On the other hand, I was at a, maybe about five years ago, I was doing some anthropological research at 4:30 in the morning in clubs to determine the bacchanalia and the impulse toward partying of young people. Let me clean it up that way. So I'm out at 4:30 at Ben's Chili Bowl, and a white kid is giving the cops the what for. "You mother ... You son of a ..." I mean, cussing them out like you wouldn't believe. And I said to myself, oh my god. They're going to shoot this kid. And then I went, but no they're not, he's a young white kid.

Michael Eric Dyson: (44:09)
You know what I literally saw happen? And it should happen to everybody. The cop says, "Son, you're clearly inebriated." He called ... This is before all of the big time Ubers and stuff. He called a cab for the kid, put him in the cab, and sent him home. Thank god. I'm not mad at that.

John Darsie: (44:29)
Yeah, I mean it goes back to the insurrection. People say it, and there's a lot of whataboutism, but it's like what if those people that were invading the Capitol on the 6th were Muslim, what if they were black? That would have been a very different picture.

Michael Eric Dyson: (44:43)
Brother Darsie, that's exactly what I'm .... I looked at that and I said man, can we get some of that? So we don't hate law enforcement. In fact my friend is the chief of police in Durham right now. A black woman who is the chief of police there, who is now head of NOBLE, National Organization of Blacks In Law Enforcement. And Chief Davis, an extraordinary woman. So it is not that we are against law enforcement, we are against the mistreatment that brutally happens to us.

Michael Eric Dyson: (45:16)
I'll tell you, I'll end by saying this. We are afraid. What did Lebron James say? Lebron James is almost going to be a billionaire, almost as rich as Scaramucci. He is about to become a billionaire, and this guy says [crosstalk 00:45:28]

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:28)
I'm a billionaire in Zimbabwe, professor, okay. That's the only place that I'm a billionaire. But keep going.

Michael Eric Dyson: (45:35)
You're the man. You the man. So look.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:35)
Keep going.

Michael Eric Dyson: (45:36)
Lebron is saying we are terrified. We are afraid for our lives when we come into contact with police because we don't know what's going to happen that day. We don't know if it's going to be Officer Friendly, or we don't know if, because of a left turn signal, like Walter Scott down in South Carolina, and then I think that, oh my god, I owe some money on my child support, and I run away, and you fill my back with seven pieces of lead.

Michael Eric Dyson: (45:59)
The point is that what we've got to do is not only have training and not only have racial awareness, we need all that stuff, but we got to have a change of law. The stand your ground laws that end up benefiting many white brothers and sisters, and the reason I say that, when black people do stand your ground laws, oh, they're not given the benefit of the doubt. They are thrown into jail. There have been some black people who have shot white people on their property or coming up to them. Mostly all of them have been arrested. Whereas white brothers and sisters, it might take two or three months, and a lot of outrage from the community in order for that to occur.

Michael Eric Dyson: (46:35)
Again, as you said, it's an index of the larger institutional inequality that prevails, but it's an important one, and until we grapple with that ... What did Obama, at least under Obama, the Justice Department had these consent decrees that tried to hold police departments to account. We know that Donald Trump got rid of all of them, and Bill Barr and all the other attorneys general before him, Jeff Sessions, did away with them immediately. If we had some of those interventions, we could at least begin to rethink what policing means in America today.

John Darsie: (47:10)
Right. Dr. Dyson, thanks so much for joining us. Anthony, I want to leave you the final word before we let Dr. Dyson go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:16)
well I want to hold up the book again. I think the book was phenomenal. Long Time Coming. And you've written many phenomenal books, but this really captured what is going on in this society right now. And let's do our best, doctor. I would love to have you at our SALT conferences live, and let's do our best to do everything we can to advance this discussion and open it up, end the denialism, and see if we can promote some more healing and a interactive, more peaceful society. So with all that, I thank you for your contributions, sir.

Michael Eric Dyson: (47:51)
Thank you my friends, thank y'all for having me. Lovely and wonderful conversation.

John Darsie: (47:54)
And people often ask us, "Where do we start in terms of educating ourselves?" If you picked up every book that Dr. Dyson has written, including A Long Time Coming, pick up every book that Ta-Nehisi Coates has written, and the two books by Isabel Wilkerson, most recently of which is Caste, which I think Anthony might have on his bookshelf back there, that's a great place to start to understand the systemic racism.

John Darsie: (48:18)
And thank you everybody for joining today's SALT Talk with Dr. Michael Eric Dyson. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access our entire archive of SALT Talk episodes, as well as sign up for all future SALT Talks, at salt.org/talks. Please also follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, which is where we're most active. But we're also on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook as well. And please subscribe to our YouTube channel. We post all of our content for free on YouTube, @salttube is the name of our YouTube channel. So please subscribe to us there as well. And please spread the word about SALT Talks. This pandemic obviously has been a disheartening time for our country, but it's also given us an opportunity at SALT to pivot and to grow our audience by tapping into the digital media side of our operation that we have here in addition to our conferences. So please spread the word.

John Darsie: (49:10)
This is John Darsie, on behalf of the entire SALT team, signing off for today with Dr. Michael Eric Dyson. We hope to see you back here soon on SALT Talks.

Joe Terranova & Liz Young: Global Investing Landscape & Market Analysis | SALT Talks #160

Joe Terranova is a series regular on CNBC's Fast Money and the Chief Market Strategist for Virtus Investment Partners, a $25 billion Hartford-based asset management firm. In his current role, Mr. Terranova is involved with Virtus' investment oversight function and represents Virtus as a client-facing thought leader, providing insight into the domestic and global investing landscape. Prior to joining Virtus, he spent 18 years at MBF Clearing Corp., where he was the director of trading and managed more than 300 traders.

Liz Young is Director of Market Strategy for BNY Mellon Investment Management. In this role, she works directly with the firm's Chief Economist to formulate and deliver economic and market views to external audiences. She focuses on educating investors on current macroeconomic themes and their effects on capital markets. Liz is a CNBC Contributor and is frequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Washington Post and other industry publications.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Joe Terranova.jpeg

Joe Terranova

Chief Market Strategist

Virtus Investment Partners

Liz Young.jpeg

Liz Young

Director of Market Strategy

BNY Mellon Investment Management

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 and our goal on these 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)
We're very excited today to welcome two great market strategists to SALT Talks to talk you through where we are today in financial markets. Our two guests today are Joe Terranova and Liz Young and I'll read you a little bit about their bios before I turn it over to our host, Mr. Anthony Scaramucci for the interview. Joe Terranova is the chief market strategist at Virtus Investment Partners, a position he was elevated to in 2009, after having started with the firm as chief alternative strategist.

John Darsie: (01:07)
In his current role Mr. Terranova is involved with Virtus' investment oversight function, represents Virtus as a client facing thought leader providing insight into the domestic and global investing landscape. Mr. Terranova developed the Terranova US Quality Momentum Index, which launched and began publicly pricing in August, of 2020. Prior to joining Virtus, Terranova spent 18 years at MBF Clearing Corp, rising to the position of director of trading.

John Darsie: (01:34)
He's perhaps best known for his risk management skills, honed while overseeing MBF's proprietary trading operations during some of the most calamitous times for US markets, including the first Gulf War, the 1998 Asian crisis, 9/11, the collapse of Amaranth Advisors. He wasn't around for when Anthony traded through the Great Depression though. So he's a little bit younger than our host today.

John Darsie: (01:57)
During those times, there was never a loss at MBF due to market anomalies. Since 2008, you might know Mr. Terranova as being a CNBC ensemble member, appearing regularly on the Halftime Report, Squawk Box, contributing financial content throughout the CNBC media and digital platforms. Liz Young is the director of market strategy for BNY Mellon Investment Management.

John Darsie: (02:20)
In this role, she works directly with the firm's chief economist to formulate and deliver economic and market views to external audiences. Liz is a CNBC contributor and is frequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Washington Post and other industry publications. Prior to joining BNY Mellon in 2015, Liz was a portfolio analyst at Robert W. Baird, responsible for manager due diligence for the firm's recommended manager programs and discretionary model platform.

John Darsie: (02:48)
Prior to that, she served as a research analyst at BMO Global Asset Management. Liz earned her Bachelor of Business Administration in finance and marketing from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, as well as an MBA from Marquette University. So she's Wisconsin through and through. She holds a CFA designation and as a member of the CFA Institute and the CFA Society of New York.

John Darsie: (03:10)
So she's pretty smart, but we already knew that and hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony does not have a CFA designation. He's also the chairman of SALT Talks. So we'll give him credit for that, but with that, we'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:29)
He's really riding hard, Joe. So just so just so you know, you and I know each other a long time, Joe. It was a little hard to trade the depression. It wasn't that hard. It was a little hard, because there was a lot of momentum back in the day, but when John Darcy needs the Botox, just remember, Joe, I have it all in my garage. So he's not getting any Botox as he starts to age, but Liz, it's great to have you on. Joe, great to have you on. I want to start with you Liz, if it's okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:56)
The broad equity indexes have exploded upward. They're melting upward, at least that's my impression from watching the two of you on CNBC and looking at our portfolios. Have things gone too far, Liz? What's your opinion?

Liz Young: (04:12)
Well, depends if you want to talk about it broadly or in little pockets. There are certainly little pockets that are speculative, and Joe can cover the momentum piece of that much better, but those little pockets certainly are speculative and there are pieces that I would look at and say, "I don't know that this is the right entry point." But broadly speaking, the market I don't think has gotten ahead of itself.

Liz Young: (04:33)
If you just come back to fundamentals, which seems like a foreign language to us after all this policy support, but come back to the fundamentals, the earnings in 2021 are expected to be above the earnings in 2019. So if we're looking forward, and we've got this interest rate environment and this liquidity environment, I don't think we're far ahead of ourselves. Now, the interesting part is that what usually happens is you see this big run up in equity markets as we're starting to recover.

Liz Young: (05:00)
But then once the recovery is really underway, and it's getting to be squared away, then you see a pause in equity markets. So markets don't move at the same time as economies, they don't move at the same time as economic data they never have, they never will. So it's going to seem strange that we see a pause in markets later on when we feel like the economy is finally back on its two feet.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:22)
Joe, I'm an old fashioned guy and I'm looking at money production by the United States and I'm a little worried. So let's just go over that. 23.6% more dollars are in circulation over the last six months. If the $1.9 billion stimulus goes into effect, that number will be 40%. So we will have 40% more dollars in circulation in a 12 month period of time, more so than the last 244 years. I'm worried Joe. Should I be worried or not a big deal?

Joe Terranova: (05:57)
What would you like them to do? Not have a response, which is what happened in the Great Depression? See the Great Depression, everyone thinks it's caused by the dramatic equity declines, but it was the absence of a response. They took the monetary base, Anthony from October, of 1929, to October, of 1930 and they contracted it by 7%.

Joe Terranova: (06:14)
Democrats and Republicans were actually unified, but we had this tax, Smoot-Hawley Tariff that contracted exports and imports with Europe, our largest trading partner, by 60 something percent at the time. So the Federal Reserve is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing, but we're going to look back, we're going to look back on the period from 2010 to 2030.

Joe Terranova: (06:37)
We're going to realize at some point, it's going to be written about in history books, financial history books, that this was an investment Renaissance. It is an investment Renaissance, because we have recreated the American economy where we value the algorithm, the artificial intelligence and the software program, more than we value what we used to value which was the machinery, the automobile or the airplane.

Joe Terranova: (07:05)
In addition to that, we have a supply to demand imbalance as it relates to investable assets. It is the most dramatic imbalance in modern economic times. We've declined the supply of publicly traded companies over the last 15 years. We tried to introduce different types of asset classes, whether it be commodities, which disappointed in terms of price performance and depth and liquidity, but yet demand continues to rise.

Joe Terranova: (07:38)
Global investors continue to grow their numbers, Millennials are going to be such an incredibly important economic engine for us as a generation as we move forward, and Gen Z behind them. So collectively, Anthony, you've got these secular tailwinds that are in place, that are driving markets higher and the Federal Reserve is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing.

Joe Terranova: (08:01)
In a hyper deflationary environment, you're supposed to nourish risk assets by providing liquidity and I think that their policy has been the right one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:12)
So, Liz, Joe's making a lot of good points, but I'm looking at economic data that suggests that the Federal Reserve's policies, and I agree with Joe and I accept that they don't really have much of a choice. I'd love to see some more fiscal legs to this economic store, like infrastructure and job training and things like that but the potential outcome, the side effect of these policies is that assets, and let's say one to 3% of the population owns the assets are going up.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:43)
So that means all of our assets are going up. Good for the people that own the assets, but Joe's mentioned that we're in a deflationary environment. So wages don't seem to be going on for middle and lower income people. So there's a chasm widening. Are you concerned about that, Liz, or am I wrong about that? Push back on me,. Tell me what I'm wrong about so we-

Liz Young: (09:06)
You're inviting an argument. I'm excited.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:11)
The point I'm making is Joe's right. It's an effective policy response and it's good for the markets, it's good for the businesses, but is it hurting middle and lower income people? Not not on purpose, but is it one of the deleterious side effects of it?

Liz Young: (09:29)
I don't know that Federal Reserve policy is necessarily hurting lower and middle income people, but what is hurting them is the way that the labor market is set up right now. So here's where I agree with Joe and then a little bit where I disagree with Joe. I agree that the Fed didn't have a choice. The Fed certainly didn't have a choice last March and it was a huge benefit, what they did and how quickly they did it. I think all of us learned a really painful lesson in 2008 and 2009. We didn't act fast enough, we didn't act big enough and we underestimated the downside.

Liz Young: (10:00)
So this time everybody, Fed, government, private companies, everybody said, "We're not going to do that again." So they had to do that in spring of last year to prevent a complete financial market meltdown, and that was absolutely the right thing to do. Now, we're in a place though, where the Fed is focusing a lot on the labor market and I think that's actually a good thing.

Liz Young: (10:21)
It may force them to keep policy where it is, but the issue with the spread between wealth and the gap that keeps growing is that the jobs that were lost were, unfortunately, on that lower end of the wealth curve and a lot of those jobs that were last are not going to be where we left them. So when we reopen the economy, there's going to be people that were supposed to be temporarily unemployed, that turn into permanently unemployed persons.

Liz Young: (10:47)
That is going to affect that part of the labor market much more. Where the question lies is, whose responsibility is that? Is that a fiscal responsibility to create new jobs in that particular part of the economy? Is it a fiscal responsibility to create new jobs that have never been had before in our economy, and put people to work there, but then there's the skill mismatch that is actually one of the things that I'm worried about over the next, call it two to three years, that you've got unemployed people and a labor market that never got back to the size that was before, and a bunch of open positions but there's not a good match between the skill set that the unemployed people have and the open positions need.

Liz Young: (11:27)
So then you just kind of stay stuck in this spot and then you have to decide, is it the government's responsibility to train and educate those people? Or is it private company's responsibility to train and educate those people and meet somewhere in the middle? I don't know what the right answer to that is. I don't think it's the Federal Reserve's responsibility.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:50)
We'll agree that it's not the Federal Reserve's responsibility and I think Joe's making the point is they have a blunt instrument, they're using the instrument and if you go to the book, Firefighting, which was a great book written in 2018 by Geithner, Bernanke, and Paulson. They all say in that book that their policy response in 2008 into 2009 wasn't big enough and Jerome Powell took that to heart. So I'm giving them credit for all of that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:14)
I'm just worried about these deleterious, potential side effects, but let me just flip it to chill for a second because Joe, you're great at this. I remember this from your book about momentum and I remember this from your book about when things sometimes go parabolic. Are we in a technology 2000 style potential boom, and then correction, like in March, of 2000 or are we getting just started in the technology rush here? What's your opinion?

Joe Terranova: (12:49)
So there is no comparison, based on the evidence between the experience of 2000 and where we are today. If you go back-

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:00)
John Darcy wasn't born in 2000. Just explain to Darcy what happened in 2000 [crosstalk 00:13:05]-

Joe Terranova: (13:05)
If you go back to 2000, first of all, you had two conditions in place that I think were important in quickly advancing what what became a very negative environment. First of all, technology was highly indebted as a sector back in 2000. In addition to that, you had competition for the equity investor, if they wanted to move away from allocations towards a lot of these technology companies. Rates were significantly higher than where they are today.

Joe Terranova: (13:43)
You don't have that in place now. Technology, Anthony, and I always use this interesting example but I want you to think about Microsoft in 1999. Microsoft in 1999 was a $60 stock. One year later, Microsoft was a $20 stock. Guess what? Microsoft didn't get back above $40 until 2013. Took them 13 years. So what happened was, and this kind of speaks towards what what Liz was addressing and I think where your your question is going, Anthony, with whose responsibility is it to stimulate the labor market?

Joe Terranova: (14:28)
So technology from 2000 to 2010, they spent that decade repairing themselves. It was kind of like, I often use the analogy of a hurricane. If you think about a hurricane coming through your neighborhood, if your house is the house that gets knocked down, you rebuild your house, and it's going to be rebuilt hurricane proof. Well, technology did that. If the hurricane comes through and your neighbor's house gets knocked down, you don't rebuild your house because your neighbor's house got knocked down.

Joe Terranova: (14:58)
So technology recreated itself, positioned itself exactly where it was able to, in terms of prevalence and market share in the economy from 2000 to 2020, really take strong hold. I think that deflationary impact is the reason why we've had a case shaped recovery since the great financial crisis and fiscal policy makers whose responsibility, Anthony, it is to address that. They haven't done a good job in doing.

Joe Terranova: (15:30)
We talk about an infrastructure bill. We need an infrastructure bill that distributes technology throughout the country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:38)
Next week is infrastructure week, Joe. Just letting you know that. It's going to be infrastructure week, next week.

Joe Terranova: (15:44)
We need that-

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:44)
I'm not kidding by the way. The White House just announced that. I know you guys think I'm joking.

Joe Terranova: (15:50)
Well, hopefully it includes companies like Cisco and technology is a big part of that, but understand that since the great financial crisis, you had people that lost a particular income threshold, and never were able to attain it again, or maybe lost their jobs and their ability to invest and to Liz's point, they were never retrained. They were never provided with the skills that are currently needed in what now is an intangible asset economy.

Joe Terranova: (16:18)
They didn't have those skills. If you and I, you grew up in the 70s, right, Anthony? What's your tendency? What's your bias back to your childhood? You worry about inflation? You worry about the Russians, and you worry about high oil prices. Well, you had policymakers, fiscal policymakers, who had that mindset.

Joe Terranova: (16:39)
They didn't understand how they needed to re-educate the society towards having those intangible skills that are needed in the workplace. I think that's been one of the greatest challenges as to why you've had this case shape recovery since the great financial crisis.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:56)
Also the specter of deflation, because you have excess factory output, you've on boarded billions of people into western style capitalism. So those policymakers that were guarding against the last war, inflation, weren't anticipating the deflationary aspects of the globalization of our society. So, Liz, everybody manages and thinks about risk differently. How do you think about it and what are the pockets of risk right now that you would be worried about?

Liz Young: (17:29)
So, if you talk about clients, they define risk as losing money. Full stop. They don't ever want to lose money. They don't ever want to see anything below zero.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:39)
Everybody is a long term investor, Liz, until they have short term losses. We've long-

Liz Young: (17:43)
Exactly, exactly, exactly. We learn that painfully every single year. What I think risk actually is, is the blind spots that you weren't prepared for or you didn't prepare your portfolio for. It doesn't mean that you take risk exposure off the table, and you're suddenly protected against all risk. In an environment like this, that's just not the case. What you have to protect against is the biggest risk to you as an investor.

Liz Young: (18:10)
So let's say, for example, I'm 80 years old, and I'm not earning an income anymore. My biggest risk is to maintain my purchasing power, the biggest risk is inflation. So then I develop a portfolio that protects me against inflation, and you have to focus on it like that. It's a sniper bullet. It's not a shotgun blast.

Liz Young: (18:28)
One of the things that I think is hiding in the corners of risk that we talk about under the surface, but I don't know that people are really giving it enough attention is the idea that inflation will eventually come back to life and it should. It would be a healthy thing for inflation to come back to life. There's a reason the Fed has a 2% target, because 2% means that there's healthy demand in the economy.

Liz Young: (18:52)
So I would welcome a 2% inflation reading. Eventually, it'll happen. What I think might occur in the middle part of this year is as everybody comes back online, and there's this flurry of activity and that savings rate in the US goes from 14% down closer to the average, which is 5%, you have a lot of demand that floods back into the system, and the supply chains might not be able to keep up with it.

Liz Young: (19:17)
So you might see these little transient spikes in inflation and they're numbers that we haven't seen in a really, really long time and I think it could spook people and I think it could particularly spook the yield curve. I would expect the Fed to control the yield curve a little bit but not entirely. So I think the yield curve piece and the yield curve volatility is a risk out there that I want investors to be ready for, not necessarily to do much about right now but just be ready for mentally.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:45)
All right, and I hear you. Joseph, Bitcoin, cannabis, SPEX recent Reddit activity, GameStop et cetera. There's a lot of excitement out there, Joe. Let me ask you. Is this born from Federal Reserve policy? Do we have more of these squalls in the future?

Joe Terranova: (20:09)
This is part of the investment Renaissance. This is the absence of supply for new investable assets. You need more investable assets as you continue to have rising demand. You have 80 to 85 million millennials. Let's talk about this for one second. A couple of years back, you and I would walk into a room and Liz would walk into a room. The difference between you and I walking into the room and Liz walking into the room is that Liz is probably the youngest person in the room.

Joe Terranova: (20:46)
You and I, okay, like everyone else in the room is aging quickly. Now, we both know you and I are aging gracefully, but we're aging quickly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:56)
Joe, Joe, you're worse than Darcy, man. I was doing great [crosstalk 00:21:01]-

John Darsie: (21:01)
He's aging but it's not that graceful, Joe. That's where you got it wrong.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:05)
It's unbelievable. You're worse than Darcy. I just got my hair dyed, by the way and you're just unbelievable. You probably do need my colors at this point, just so you know. Liz is looking at that carrot top saying, "Yeah, Terranova does need a little bit of help," and there's some-

Liz Young: (21:23)
We all age.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:24)
And there's some great colors up here on the North Shore, just so you know. Go ahead Joe, after you just insulted me. I do run the SALT Conference. I know Darcy tries to say that he's doing it, but you're hurting my feelings, Joseph. Go ahead.

Joe Terranova: (21:39)
let's take the SALT Conference.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:41)
Unbelievable.

Joe Terranova: (21:42)
Look around the SALT Conference. What do you say to yourself in 2017 at that SALT Conference about the financial services industry? We're getting older. We need to introduce a younger generation to the financial services industry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:55)
I wasn't saying that to Joe Biden, when he was at the SALT Conference. I said, "Joe, you look great to me, Joe. You look young." That's what I was saying to the vice president at that moment.

Joe Terranova: (22:07)
You need to have a transition to a younger generation to take hold in the financial services industry. Now, a couple years back, because of what happened with 9/11, the experience of the great financial crisis, they rightfully did not trust Wall Street. They didn't want to engage in that conversation. Then you introduce Bitcoin and Bitcoin, a number of years back, became the way that you could actually engage in this conversation.

Joe Terranova: (22:37)
Now we're seeing an acceleration in their excitement, towards not only Bitcoin, but SPEX and cannabis, and what we're seeing with this Reddit revolution. If you are like myself, you are in that older generation of the financial services community that have been doing this for 30 years, here's your opportunity.

Joe Terranova: (23:02)
Here's your opportunity to speak with Millennials and Gen Z, about financial literacy, about long term investing, about portfolio and constructing, using multi asset allocation. This is a tremendous opportunity and Anthony, the last point I'll make on this is, I will tell you that we have characterized the Millennial generation totally incorrectly.

Joe Terranova: (23:30)
The Millennial generation will be the generation that provides this country the greatest opportunity to finally achieve organic economic growth. In 2010, the most common age in the United States was the age of 49. The second most common age was the age of 50. In 2019, the most common age in the United States was the age 29 and the second most common age was 30.

Joe Terranova: (23:52)
The top 10 ages were all below the age of 34. 11 years, forward in 2030, all you're going to see is that generation just slowly begin to age into their prime income generating years. This Millennial generation is so important. Behind them Gen Z, who are so financially literate and technologically savvy, they will also be contributing and I just think collectively, this is a moment where as I said, this investment Renaissance is taking hold, and we have to realize it and embrace it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:27)
So despite the fact that you're making me feel old, Joe, you're very bullish. So Liz, does he have it right or where do you think he has it wrong? Where does he have it right and wrong, in your opinion?

Liz Young: (24:39)
Well, first of all, you're both wrong because we all age at the same speed. So I'm getting older at the same pace that you're all getting older and I was not 29 in 2019. Anyway, I think he's right that we need to create more investable assets.

Liz Young: (25:00)
I think I would add on top of that, we need to, as an industry stay relevant to the next generation. How do we stay relevant? They care about different stuff than the baby boomer generation cared about. They care more about ESG, they care more about companies being socially conscious and that's not just to invest in them, that's to work at them.

Liz Young: (25:22)
So that gap that I talked about before between the skill set, and the unemployment rate is that in order to narrow that as we move forward, you also need companies to stay relevant to the workforce. So there's this huge movement towards clean energy, there's obviously the huge movement in social issues. I think that that only grows, and we as an industry need to embrace that.

Liz Young: (25:44)
Now, as far as, is the craze ... I think your original question was, all these new assets, is it kind of a craze? Is it maybe indicative somewhere of a bubble? Joe used a hurricane analogy, so I'm going to use a tornado analogy, because I'm from Wisconsin. We didn't have hurricanes there.

Liz Young: (26:02)
When you have a tornado watch, it means that the conditions are present for a tornado to form. When you have a tornado warning, it means that one's been spotted and here's what I would say about bubbles. Right now, I think we could be on bubble watch. The conditions are present for one to form, but it's not a warning. We haven't spotted one and the thing about bubbles is you don't know that there was one until after it popped.

Liz Young: (26:26)
So I don't think that there is one necessarily in those spaces at large. Now, will some of those spaces go through a boom and bust? Sure. Will there be survival of the fittest? Sure. Will every SPEX survive? No, but that's how this works and they're in the price discovery phase. They're in the discovery phase now and I think it does drive a lot of enthusiasm from younger investors, because it's interesting.

Liz Young: (26:52)
It's not the same stuff that their parents invested in, and they can understand it better, because it's the generation that they're growing up in. So I welcome it. I think it's great. I just think people need to make sure that they realize it doesn't always go up. Not everything is always going to be positive.

Joe Terranova: (27:07)
Anthony, if I could real quick, I love that. That is just a perfect assessment of the environment, but I also want to introduce one element that is so critically important, and it's happened within the last week. Elon Musk has finally introduced for investors, the needed correlation for Bitcoin. What was missing for Bitcoin in the last couple of years was a correlation.

Joe Terranova: (27:32)
Now by Elan Musk, using Tesla as the way to introduce that correlation, he has now provided for every investor that they have to have an understanding of Bitcoin. I'll tell you why. Liz, if you own an S&P fund, guess what? You now own Bitcoin, and that's the correlation that has been introduced this week that's so powerful.

Joe Terranova: (27:57)
Yesterday, Bitcoin was down 7%. I'm watching my screen and I'm saying, okay, Tesla is going to go down today, because Bitcoin's down 7%. Before we came on, I saw that Bitcoin was 7% higher. I don't know where Tesla is right now, but I'll tell you what, it's not lower right now. That correlation was what was missing and it's so powerful that it was finally introduced.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:20)
So where's where's Bitcoin going to go, Joe?

Joe Terranova: (28:24)
I have no clue. I'll leave that up to you. I don't have a Bitcoin fund. I'm just looking to an invest in a good Bitcoin fund. Do you know one?

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:32)
I do. Yes. I know one. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (28:38)
Liz-

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:38)
And he's dying to get in here. Go ahead, John. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (28:41)
Of course, we had-

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:42)
Try to outsmart everybody. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (28:44)
I want to stay on Bitcoin for a second and hear Liz's opinion. So Liz, obviously you work at BNY Mellon. You are not part of the decision for BNY Mellon to enter the Bitcoin custody space, which we saw recently that BNY Mellon is going to allow some custody of Bitcoin, but what's your view intellectually on Bitcoin? You don't have to give a price target to it, but do you think it has staying power or do you think this is some sort of fad?

Liz Young: (29:13)
I think crypto in general has staying power. Absolutely. I would call it an asset class, though, not something that is going to take over the dollar. I think originally the fear and all the hype around it was, okay, Bitcoin is going to take over the world and the US dollar goes away. Fiat currency in general goes away. I don't think that's the case, and I actually just recently did a podcast with Mike Novogratz, and we talked about Bitcoins that I could try to help my listeners understand it better and maybe even help myself understand it better.

Liz Young: (29:41)
One of the things that I think we figure out over time is that the dollar is already sort of going digital. How often do you really carry cash and you have to go out of your way to even get cash these days. Once the dollar goes completely digital, that's a digital currency.

Liz Young: (29:59)
So if we just put it in the basket of digital currencies in general, I do think currency goes digital, broadly across the globe. Now, Bitcoin is something that I think continues to go through a lot of boom and bust cycles and that's why I would call it an asset class. Where I get a little bit nervous as when people start calling it a store of value, because that makes investors think that it's the same as gold, or it's the same as the dollar and it's not.

Liz Young: (30:25)
It does not carry the same volatility profile, it's going to have a lot bouncier of a pattern, and it's going to make people get really scared sometimes. So I would be careful with calling it a store of value and that's the only reason you hold it. As far as institutions getting involved in it, BNY Mellon included in that, one of the points that Mike Novogratz made and I would agree with this is that once you saw insurance companies get involved and once you saw big institutions get involved, you had to get to critical mass, which was about three.

Liz Young: (30:56)
Then once there were three big ones that were involved, everybody else felt more comfortable. It's almost like it legitimatized the asset class, and I think we're just going to continue to see more and more institutions get on board, but I also think investors need to remember that an individual investor profile and risk profile and appetite for risk is much, much different than an institution.

Liz Young: (31:16)
Institutions have almost endless time horizons, and they can invest in stuff that booms and busts for a very long time and they can stomach it a lot easier than an individual can.

John Darsie: (31:27)
It's a great point, Liz and we were having a conversation around Bitcoin. You talked about insurance companies, and as Mike might have told you on your podcast, and he told us when he came on SALT Talks is that the public disclosures that we've seen in terms of insurance companies and institutions that have invested in Bitcoin is only about 10 to 15%, he thinks of the actual universe of institutions that have already invested in Bitcoin, but haven't disclosed it yet.

John Darsie: (31:50)
So it's almost getting to the point where people talk about the biggest risks of Bitcoin being regulation, and the idea that the US or other countries will ban Bitcoin, but if you have large insurance companies, you have big corporations like Tesla that are driving the market, you have endowments, pensions and other institutions that are heavily invested in the asset class, I would find it very difficult for the US government to create a systemic risk that would come along with potentially banning Bitcoin at this stage of its evolution.

John Darsie: (32:20)
Staying on the idea of speculative assets. So we've touched on this a little bit, Joe, but I want to dig into it further. Asset light businesses, so businesses who don't own underlying real estate or restaurants or accommodations. You have Airbnb, you have Uber, you have DoorDash. Companies that are asset light, that are performing extremely well. We had Jeff Ubben on SALT Talks recently. He's the founder and former CIO of ValueAct, talking about how he thinks that asset heavy businesses are extremely undervalued and that the value factor he thinks is going to come back into play.

John Darsie: (32:56)
He doesn't know when, but he thinks it's going to come back into play at some point. Do you agree with that? Not necessarily that tech stocks are going to crash, but that the value orientation is going to come back into the market, or you think, the horse is out of the barn and now it's time for investing in the new era of technology and distributed workforces, and all that type of stuff.

Joe Terranova: (33:16)
John, growth is 40% of the S&P and it's warranted, given the contribution from technology companies and the intangible asset economy that's represented in the United States. That being said, you have seen opportunities and value when people talk about the narrowing of the performance gap between growth and value at the end of 2020. Well, that gap was close to about 40% wide in the favor of growth at one point. It narrowed towards the end of the year to where it was only about 32% wide.

Joe Terranova: (33:54)
The opportunity really comes in two ways when I think about value. The two ways to think about it are, if you could introduce the word quality, and apply it to value, you can study, what are the fundamentals, what's the strength of a balance sheet for a company that's viewed as value? If you could identify that as qualitative, strength of a balance sheet, then there's an opportunity for the equity side of that value company.

Joe Terranova: (34:26)
But if you can't, the real opportunity, and the opportunity in Q2 of 2020, was on the debt side and historically, that's really where investors find the strongest performance is realizing that the debt market at a time where there's stress and strain on a particular industry that we identify as "value," that's where the real opportunity will be found and you saw that in Q2.

Joe Terranova: (34:57)
A high yield market provided some very favorable conditions for a lot of these value companies and it's similar, John to what you experienced in the wake of the great financial crisis. Think about the financial sector and how many would suggest coming out of the great financial crisis that owning the equity of financial institutions was a historic opportunity. Well, in certain circumstances, rather, reflecting back, they were correct that you were able to be rewarded with strength and performance, but in the subsequent four to five years after the great financial crisis, the out-performance was in the debt of financial institutions, not in the equity.

Joe Terranova: (35:39)
I think investors kind of forget that sometimes, but that's the two ways that I think you think about it. Looking at measuring the equity component, but utilizing and applying the quality factor to it and then understanding if you can't find that quality, I'm going to be in the debt market, particularly the high yield looking for the performance opportunity.

John Darsie: (36:02)
Liz, how are you looking at that push and pull between growth and value?

Liz Young: (36:07)
If I had a nickel for every time I got asked about growth and value, I could have retired in 2020. So the push and pull, first of all, you have to define them and I don't think we can define them the same way that we defined them 10 years ago. The reason that some of the value sectors started to show strength back in November and December is not because they were cheaper than growth sectors. It wasn't because people were going out and saying, "Oh, look at the PE of these value sectors. That's so much more attractive. Let me buy that because it's cheaper."

Liz Young: (36:38)
It's because there happens to be a pretty strong overlap between cyclical sectors and value sectors and back in November, as you remember, we had an election and then we had good vaccine news every single Monday for about four Monday's following it. People decided there's going to be this huge cyclical recovery, it's going to be global. So what benefits from that? It's things like small caps, it's even cyclical regions, like emerging markets, and Europe and then it's the cyclical sectors, which happened to be a lot of the value of sectors.

Liz Young: (37:08)
Now, one of the interesting things about growth is that I actually think there's parts of the growth universe that act more like value of your. So when you look at even just the big tech names, they're actually more correlated to a rise in the 10 year yield than they ever used to be and theoretically, that's not what should happen. You should see a rise in long term rates and pressure on growth stocks, but what's happening lately is that people are equating big tech with just blue chip related to the economy, going to participate in a recovery type names, and they feel safe about it.

Liz Young: (37:43)
So I don't think we can split the universe up like that anymore. I think you have to look forward and say, "What's going to participate in an economic expansion," and you can't take growth out of that equation. We need technology and to my point earlier, again, about the labor force, I feel like I keep going back to this, but I didn't know it was going to be my theme today. It is.

Liz Young: (38:04)
To go back to that point, when we do get back to prior levels of GDP, we're going to do it with a smaller labor force. So we need that smaller labor force to be more productive in order to create the new growth that Joe talked about earlier. How do you be more productive without telling people they need to work harder and longer? You need technology to make them more efficient. So no matter what, we still need technology, we're still going to need growth stocks and I would also throw healthcare into that spot, too. I think healthcare is going to be a huge driver and that's also a growth area, especially in small caps.

John Darsie: (38:38)
It's a fascinating point that sort of Apple, Google, Microsoft, those have become the new value stocks. They see part of the rotation with people looking to de risk from chip stocks or the other hat, cloud computing or data AI type companies. Joe, so we mentioned in the opening that you launched a US quality momentum index. Tell us about that. Talk a little bit about the momentum factor, and why that has been so successful, whether you think it's driving some of the big moves we've seen in the market and just tell us more about that product and why you decided to launch it last year.

Joe Terranova: (39:16)
Well, I have a obvious fundamental belief that we have an absence of supply for investable assets. In my attempt to introduce the index methodology, what I was trying to accomplish was to provide a modern day approach to thinking about the markets in a way that was properly incorporating what was so important to me over the last 30 years in my observation of where we would find success in investing. So there has been a lack of respect in my view, towards the word momentum.

Joe Terranova: (39:59)
Momentum, unfortunately, has been communicated to be something that equates with high or hyper volatility. I think the way in which we need to really look at momentum in this modern market is to understand it's where you find confidence in your observing the prior 12 or 24 or 36 months. The technical formation tells you some story and that story, I want to be one that is one of confidence.

Joe Terranova: (40:36)
I often use the analogy of an athlete, right, John? If you've got a basketball player, who he or she in the first quarter, takes five shots, and they miss all five shots, well, they're not playing with confidence. Second quarter, if she steps out and hits a deep three, well, that player is now playing with confidence and they want the ball.

Joe Terranova: (41:00)
I think the same thing needs to be said in investing and that's what momentum really is. Understanding technical confidence, but I wanted more than that and I wanted to introduce the quality factor, which is the study of a balance sheet. I think a balance sheet is so incredibly important. A balance sheet is similar to understanding how healthy an individual's heart might be.

Joe Terranova: (41:26)
So we look at return on equity, debt to equity, annualized sales growth over the prior 36 months, and so far year to date, it's interesting, weak balance sheets are actually outperforming strong balance sheets, but that's fine. That's not what my investment philosophy is. My investment philosophy is, where do I find technical confidence in a formation that I define as momentum and I combine that where I find fundamental strength of a balance sheet quality, I bring those together and John, I really believe we've introduced a strategy that will be viewed as a core equity strategy, and a modern day strategy that investors could utilize over the coming decades.

Joe Terranova: (42:11)
It's equally weighted, which removes the idiosyncratic single stock event risk. It avoids concentration and it's rebalanced, and reconstituted quarterly and it only holds 125 names. It basically calls the losers of a lot of the index that have, in the case of the S&P 500, 500 large cap names. We only want the true winners so we've got 125 equally weighted in the index.

John Darsie: (42:45)
Well, it sounds like a fantastic product. Last question before we let you guys go, Liz and it's back to public policy. So you study labor markets and policy a great deal. We joked in the opening that the Biden administration is now taking a stab at infrastructure week after I think the Trump administration was about O-7 in actually doing anything related to infrastructure week, but what would you like to see from the US government from the fiscal side of things?

John Darsie: (43:13)
We talked about Fed stimulus before? What specific things would you like to see from the Biden administration if we're going to create a healthier recovery and a healthier labor market?

Liz Young: (43:24)
So first and foremost, I'd like to see the government move faster than they did on the last package. We started talking about that package happening last July, and we didn't get it until December. So I think speed is the first and foremost thing that we need to have. Secondly, I do think infrastructure is hugely important to create that new growth that we've talked about throughout this entire thing, and that package likely comes maybe a little bit later in spring.

Liz Young: (43:50)
Anthony might disagree with me on that, but that package does need to be had. I think in the medium term though, or in the near term, we need a package that is targeted enough so that we don't misuse the funds and that we don't have to dig out of too big of a hole later, but we still need stimulus and we still need to support that bottom part of the K in the K shaped recovery.

Liz Young: (44:13)
So that's what I would like to see from the government. I realized that it's really difficult to target that, and it's difficult to make something as effective and keep the guardrails on as much as we can, but I do think that the right approach is to focus on getting this vaccine distributed, getting us as close as possible to herd immunity. I think that the estimate is that we're to 75% immunity by August. So keeping us on that track needs to be first priority and then we move on to infrastructure.

John Darsie: (44:42)
I saw your CNBC colleague, Jim Cramer gave a great pitch recently on his show about the need to invest in us manufacturing. In regard to the tech sector, we import most of our chips and our semiconductors from Taiwan and from South Korea and I think there's a lot of things the Biden administration could do to invest to accelerate the growth in our domestic technology sector. Thank you so much, Liz and Joe for joining us here on SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (45:10)
We hope to have you back soon and hopefully what you're saying about herd immunity, Liz, is right, because we're hoping to have our next SALT Conference actually in New York in September. We haven't publicly announced that, but that's our goal is to do something in our hometown before we hopefully go back to Vegas, but we hope to have both of you there in September in a safe manner.

Joe Terranova: (45:30)
I will be there. I don't know if I'll I'll have the vaccine by then, unlike Anthony. I know he qualified for the vaccine. I didn't qualify.

John Darsie: (45:37)
Exactly. He was in the first round, Joe-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:39)
Liz, that was another age shot at me. Did you see that?

Liz Young: (45:43)
It was, it was. If Joe doesn't have the vaccine by then, I definitely won't have it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:47)
The thing about Joe is ... When we get off this SALT Talk, I'm calling his agent and I'm going to complain about Joe. I had Joe on specifically so he could team up with me against Darcy. I knew you were going to be just fine, Liz, because you're Midwestern. You have all that charm and grace and niceness to you unlike these New Yorkers and southerners. So at any event, it was a brilliant conversation. Thank you so much for [crosstalk 00:46:14]. Hopefully we can have you guys back, maybe do a mid-year review if you guys would like to do that with us. Terrific for us. Thank you, again.

Joe Terranova: (46:22)
Absolutely. Thank you, Anthony.

John Darsie: (46:24)
Thank you everyone for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Joe Terranova of Virtus and Liz young of BNY Mellon. Just a reminder, if you missed any of this episode or any of our previous episodes, you can access our entire archive of SALT Talks as well as sign up for all future talks at salt.org\talks.

John Darsie: (46:42)
Please also subscribe to our YouTube channel. You'll get alerts when we go live and also when we post new content. Our YouTube following is growing very quickly. @SALTtube is the name of our YouTube channel. So please follow us there and please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, which is where we're most active. Live tweeting all the episodes of SALT Talks as well as posting clips of previous episodes.

John Darsie: (47:05)
We're also on LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram as well, and being more active there too. On behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darcy signing off for today from SALT Talks. We hope to see you back here soon.

Anthony “Pomp” Pompliano: The Investment Case for Bitcoin | SALT Talks #159

Anthony "Pomp" Pompliano is the co-founder of Morgan Creek Digital. He is the host of The Pomp Podcast, where he talks to investors about business, finance, Bitcoin, and crypto.

Morgan Creek Digital is a hedge fund that specializes in blockchain technology and digital assets and is backed by investment management firm Morgan Creek Capital. The firm was founded by Mark Yusko, Jason Williams and Anthony Pompliano in 2018.

He has built and sold numerous companies, ran Product & Growth teams at Facebook and Snapchat, and invested over $100 million in early-stage technology companies.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Anthony Pompliano.jpeg

Anthony Pompliano

Founder

Pomp Investments

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 these 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 platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:38)
And we're very excited today to welcome you back to our latest episode in our digital asset series, but really our guest today, while he's known largely for his investments into digital assets and Bitcoin and crypto, he is much more than that. He's also an early stage investor in a lot of tech companies as well. So we're very excited today to welcome Anthony Pompliano aka Pomp to SALT Talks. Pomp has invested over $100 million in early stage technology companies, including multiple unicorns.

John Darsie: (01:08)
He's the host of The Pomp podcast, one of the top 10 most popular investing podcasts in the world. And he writes a daily letter focused on digital assets to over 100,000 investors each morning. I know that subscriber base is quickly growing. So by the time you're watching this, it'll probably be over 150, 200,000. Pomp previously co-founded Morgan Creek Digital and ran numerous product and growth teams at Facebook. He started his career serving as an infantry sergeant in the US army during Operation Iraqi Freedom. And as a North Carolina native, it's always a proud moment for me to welcome another North Carolina native here to SALT Talks. So, Pomp welcome.

John Darsie: (01:47)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital. A global alternative investment firm, which as you may know recently invested what at the time was about $180 million into Bitcoin starting in November through December of 2020, that's quickly more than doubled our value of Bitcoin holdings is somewhere around 400 million at this point. We also launched a SkyBridge Bitcoin fund as a private vehicle for accredited investors to invest into Bitcoin. So Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. That's enough for me though. I'll turn it over now to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:21)
Darsie, I just took a picture of you, me and Pomp. Pomp caught that, so he was smiling. You were rambling on and I was wavering whether or not to cut you out of the picture just to have the two handsome Italians in the picture, but since your name ends in a vowel, I think I-

John Darsie: (02:37)
It ends in a vowel so I'm like an honorary Italian at this point.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:39)
I think I included half your face, just so you know. I just want to make sure that you're aware of that, okay? Anthony, first of all, it's a pleasure to have you on. We got so much to discuss, but I want to go back to the podcast that you were kind enough to invite me on. And I would say it's almost two years ago now, right? Probably 18 months ago. And were you getting vibe from me during that podcast that I was moving towards Bitcoin? Yes or no?

Anthony Pompliano: (03:04)
I think that my big takeaway was, this guy's really smart and he's eventually going to get there. And I couldn't really put my finger on where you were at the moment, but you understood enough about the macro economy and what digital asset promise was. So I figured you'd get there pretty quickly, and you obviously did.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:24)
You describe an aha moment. Some people say it's a Eureka moment. Michael Saylor says he had a Eureka moment over the summer. And then he said, "My God, please let me buy this stuff ahead of the other people that are going to get to their Eureka moment." When was your aha moment with Bitcoin and other digital assets Anthony?

Anthony Pompliano: (03:44)
I first heard about it in 2014 when I was working at Facebook. I did absolutely nothing, didn't even Google it. In 2016, I had a young guy who was a freshman in college pitch me on mining. And that was really when it kind of hit me. My father has been in the data center business for 40 years. And so when I saw mining, it basically was data centers on steroids, right? There was a better unit economics, there was persistent demand for the computing power, there was no sales force, et cetera. And so that's really what started the journey for me. I went and I bought some mining equipment, I set it up and cashflow started coming in from there. It was just, how far down the rabbit hole could you go till today?

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:29)
I want to be Bitcoin skeptic, okay? I'm going to put my sky... This is my SkyBridge Bitcoin hat on. And since I have a full head of hair, I don't like wearing hats. So I'm going to reverse it. Oh, wait a minute. There's a Bitcoin sign on the side there. I'm going to sideways the hat, okay? Now I'm going to be a Bitcoin skeptic and it's worthless Pomp, all it is, is a crypto graphic encryption on the internet. What is the big deal for that? Goldman Sachs just said that it's irresponsible to put it into clients' accounts. What I find ironic is Coinbase is going to have a larger market cap than the 151-year old Goldman Sachs when it goes public. But I want you to explain to the fear, uncertainty and doubt crowd, the FUD crowd, what they're missing.

Anthony Pompliano: (05:23)
Look, I think that the first thing to understand about Bitcoin is it's simply just an open, decentralized digital protocol. And all that means is that anyone with an internet connection can essentially use this open protocol. And so what it's used for is to send value back and forth. And so we use all kinds of different payment systems in the traditional world, whether it's Visa, MasterCard, you can use all sorts of banking, ACH, SWIFT, all these different things.

Anthony Pompliano: (05:51)
And what we find with something like Bitcoin is that, there's two key, I think improvements on those legacy systems. One is that it is decentralized, meaning that it is not controlled or owned by anyone individual or organization and also two is, it is artificially capped, deflationary, hyper secure asset. Meaning that no one can create more of it. And so I think in today's macro environment what you're finding is, there's two types of people who are basically finding this valuable. There are people who are using it as a store of value. They're saying the dollar is guaranteed to lose value. And based on Bitcoin's market structure of a fixed supply asset, if demand continues to rise, then you are guaranteed to have your purchasing power growth over time, have the US dollar price appreciation.

Anthony Pompliano: (06:43)
And then there's a second group of people who are using it as a medium of exchange. And that medium of exchange essentially allows people to send money or value anywhere in the world at any time, near instantaneously, for very low cost, without asking for permission from anyone. So if you want to send it to any other person with an internet connection in the world, you can do that. And so I think that those two key use cases are really driving the growth of an asset that 12 years ago didn't exist, today is a 700 plus billion dollar asset and continuing to grow at a pretty aggressive rate.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:18)
Anthony, I took my hat on because... I mean, I took the hat off because I was really starting to believe you, I was getting excited, but I got to put the hat back on now. I'm putting the hat back on, okay? And I got to ask another skeptical question because there are a lot of fuddy-duddies out there. There are 70, 89-year old people. There are people my age that act like they're 150 and they think SkyBridge Capital is crazy, you're crazy, Michael Saylor is crazy and we're selling nothing. And we're making a greater fool bet that there's a greater fool out there that will buy what's in our portfolios from us at a higher price than the price that we bought it at. Why are they wrong? What is the fundamental mechanism that you're looking at from a metric point of view to measure value in Bitcoin?

Anthony Pompliano: (08:13)
Well, the first reason why they're wrong is because my Bitcoin is not for sale, right? And so it doesn't matter what price somebody offers me, I'm not selling the Bitcoin. And so the greater fool theory would be that I bought it at a low price and somebody's going to pay me at a higher price and I'm going to give it to them, but that's just not the case. And it's not the case for many Bitcoiners.

Anthony Pompliano: (08:30)
What they've done is they've fundamentally shifted from a dollar denominated world to a Bitcoin denominated world. And I think that's a really key piece. And you see this in the data in terms of 60 plus percent of Bitcoin hasn't moved in the last 12 months, even though there's been hundreds of percent of upside, there's been 50% drawdowns in a single 24-hour period, through all of that volatility, 60 plus percent hasn't moved.

Anthony Pompliano: (08:52)
And so these people have a very deep seeded belief that this is an asset they're going to hold for the long period of time regardless of what happens to the US dollar exchange value of it. And I think that when you start to really look at how do you value something like this? Prices simply determinative of supply and demand, right? And the beauty of this asset compared to most markets is that if we look at other assets, we essentially have to do work and our best estimate as to what the supply will be, and also what the demand will be, right? There's two inputs into the equation to determine the price today, and then what the price will be in the future.

Anthony Pompliano: (09:27)
When it comes to Bitcoin, one side of that equation is not a variable, right? We know with 100% certainty, because we can verify in the code exactly what the total supply of Bitcoin is, what the circulating supply is and what the daily incoming supply is. And so that verifiability of the actual supply side of the equation means that we have a 100% certainty, and we can know what that input is.

Anthony Pompliano: (09:52)
What that then leads to is an analysis on the demand side of the equation. And what people then want to speculate about or debate about is, why is demand increasing? Why will demand continue to increase? And I think that that's where you get this spectrum of arguments, everything from store value to medium of exchange. I personally believe that Bitcoin is at least a 10X better improvement in the technology from a store value standpoint than gold. Many people probably think it's even higher than that. It could be a 100X or better.

Anthony Pompliano: (10:20)
And so when you see that very significant improvement from a technology standpoint and a store value, what you're going to find is more and more capital will flow into the asset. And as demand increases for a fixed supply asset with a known supply schedule, the price will continue to appreciate. Five, six years ago, you could have made the argument, "Hey, there's not a lot of trading volume. This is kind of a speculative asset. The market may be manipulated." All of these detractions that I think a lot of people did make.

Anthony Pompliano: (10:50)
Today, when you fast forward, what you find is you've got an asset that has tens of billions of dollars in daily volume, it's on regulated exchanges, it's held by many of the most well-respected financial institutions in the United States. And the price has pretty healthy, pretty high volume price discovery. And so what I think Bitcoin is worth is obviously what the market is determined. Today that's sitting around 36, $37,000. And then the big question is just, how deep is your conviction that demand will continue to increase in the future and price will be a proxy or a result of that increase in demand?

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:27)
But Anthony, this was a penny, then it went to a dollar, then it went to $400. Now it's at, let's just call it for the sake of where we are today, 36, $37,000. Haven't I missed the run in Bitcoin.? Isn't it fully priced at these levels given where it started?

Anthony Pompliano: (11:52)
I mean, look any asset starts out at a low price and then has volatility. It can go up, it can go down. If you look at something like Amazon, I think Amazon stock, when they IPO'd in the late '90s was $18. Today Amazon's price is over $3,300 per share. And that's not a straight line, right? There's all kinds of splits and everything along the way. Lots of volatility. Amazon's stock at one point dropped over 90%. There's also double digit drawdowns on an annual basis. The average intra-year drawdown of Amazon stock is over 30%. And so when you have a highly volatile asset, the reason why that's happening is because there's innovation, there's a repricing of the asset, right? The world is trying to figure out what is this worth?

Anthony Pompliano: (12:39)
And so if you had looked at Amazon's stock at $18, you could have looked backwards and said, "Oh, I could have invested in the seed round or in the series A, I missed it. Now it's a publicly traded company and there's going to be no returns." You would have been wrong. If you had then waited till it was a 100 or 250 or 500 or a 1,000, or even $2,000, you still along the way would have thought, "Oh, I missed it." But what you ended up finding is for the small few assets that actually are disruptive, that are highly innovative, and that do benefit from true market price discovery, you aren't late. Actually what ends up happening is you're probably underestimating the future price performance or the future appreciation. You're underestimating how addressable the market is.

Anthony Pompliano: (13:18)
And so I think an asset like Bitcoin is a perfect example where what you're talking about, it's about a 100 million people globally out of seven and a half billion people in the world. Only a 100 million people have any sort of relationship, ownership or interaction with this asset. And so what you're essentially saying is that a 100 million people would be the total adjustable market. That it's captured everything that it's going to capture, and there's going to be no one else who's going to want this.

Anthony Pompliano: (13:45)
In fact, what we know though from history is that money is a very, very viral product, right? You have to send it to somebody. And so you're constantly bringing more and more people into a monetary network or a monetary system. And so I think that the belief that it's too late really just refutes or ignores history, and then also is a pessimistic view of the future. It's to say that all of the innovation is done, all of the people who need this have found it and therefore there's no future value to capture or create. And I just don't agree with that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:18)
I'm going to give some stats for people actually. Amazon went public in May of 1997. It was May 15th, 1997. If you put $10,000 Anthony into Amazon, it's worth 21 million, $140,000 as of yesterday's close. And so if you accept, which I have accepted that Bitcoin is actually a monetary network akin to what Amazon is, is a retail network, which Google happens to be an ad and search network. Then Bitcoin has a lot of room to go given that adoption number that you just presented.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:03)
I'm going to turn it over to John in a second because he's a millennial and he thinks he'll ask smarter questions than me, Anthony Pompliano. But I'm going to try to ask one last [inaudible 00:15:13].

John Darsie: (15:13)
Anthony knows it's true. The young Anthony Pomp knows it's true but continue.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:18)
I'm going to try to ask one more, which I happen to think is a smart question, but I want to get your arms around it. And this is about banning Bitcoin. It's about banning Bitcoin in China. It's about banning Bitcoin in India and regulations out there and fuddy-duddies out there. They're in regulatory agencies that want to knock out Bitcoin. I want you to answer that question. What do you say in response to that? And then secondarily, the Chinese are repairing a digital Yuan, and how does a digital Yuan big foot or not big foot something like Bitcoin?

Anthony Pompliano: (16:00)
When we talk about banning something, what you essentially are doing is you're essentially creating a law that's highly unenforceable but a law that would say if you are within a geographic boundary, if you're a citizen of a specific country, you are not allowed to interface with this open decentralized protocol. And so the way that I usually talk about this is the internet is an open decentralized protocol. And so there are countries who have banned the internet, right? North Korea is a great example. If you are a citizen in North Korea, you can not use the internet. That hasn't worked out so well for that country.

Anthony Pompliano: (16:33)
And so regardless of any one country's viewpoint on banning or not banning, the open digital decentralized protocol is going to be used by people, right? It's out there, you can't shut it down. And so it is going to be adopted. And so countries have a choice. They can either choose to be pessimistic and they can choose to ban the participation of their citizens, or they can be innovative and optimistic. And they can say, "Actually, if anyone's going to benefit from this, we should be the ones that benefit the most and therefore we should go and we should embrace this."

Anthony Pompliano: (17:03)
And so when you go around a geographic map, if you look at something like China, China has essentially taken the stance that we're not huge fans of this Bitcoin thing, we're going to create our own digital currency, we're going to take some of the principles of it but we want control. We want to be able to surveil it, we want to be able to control it. And so we'll see how that plays out, but I tend to think that that won't be a great outcome, but you can see that there is a theme here of countries like China or North Korea who are banning their citizens from participating in that open de-centralized protocol.

Anthony Pompliano: (17:35)
If you look at something like India, there's a legislation that's recently been proposed that would outlaw the participation in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The legislation is actually misinformed in that they call them private currencies. But there's nothing private about it. It's an open, publicly available. Anyone with an internet connection can interface with this. And so you can't actually enforce a ban but what you can do is you can threaten people and all of that.

Anthony Pompliano: (18:01)
What we know is that when a country does ban their participation, you can look at somewhere like Pakistan who banned the participation in Bitcoin, but a key thing happened. Adoption went up and not down. And so, even though they per posed and eventually passed legislation that banned their citizens from participating, it actually drove more adoption, not less. And this came from not only mining it, right? From a cashflow perspective, but also people who wanted to participate in the digital economy, who wanted to freelance, who wanted to do work and get paid.

Anthony Pompliano: (18:32)
Well, in Pakistan, they can't get paid in some other currencies. And so Bitcoin became this censorship resistant way to ensure that they got paid for their goods and services. So I think that that is a word of caution for people in the United States. And there's folks, everyone from some politicians to other people in the regulatory world, all the way to Wall Street asset managers who believe that America should ban Bitcoin. And what I continue to say is that couldn't be more of an anti-American view of the world, right?

Anthony Pompliano: (19:04)
The view that, hey, there's a piece of technology, that piece of technology is going to be used by people all around the world, regardless of if they are our enemy or our friend. But we, as in the United States are going to select, to opt out, to prevent our citizens from embracing this new piece of innovative technology because we deem that some other country may benefit from it as well.

Anthony Pompliano: (19:26)
And so people who are advocating for the banning of Bitcoin are no different than people who would be advocating for the banning of the internet in the United States. They essentially are asking the US government to sanction US citizens, to cut us off from this new digital global financial system. And not only do I think it's, un-American, I think it's a dangerous point of view, right? It's a misinformed point of view.

Anthony Pompliano: (19:45)
I think that what we're going to end up with is, we've now got Bitcoiners in Congress, we've got Bitcoiners on the Senate banking committee, we've got Bitcoiners inside, many of the largest financial institutions in the United States. We even have Bitcoiners who are running some of these regulatory bodies and where I think we're going to end up is exactly where we should. We're going to embrace it, we're going to realize this is a disruptive piece of innovation technology and it's an open decentralized protocol that everyone in the world's going to have access to. And so if America wants to retain their position of leadership on a global stage, we should take every step possible to make sure that we use it to further that position, rather than try to somehow inhibit our growth and our future innovation potential by banning it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:26)
And just address the sovereigns who now have fiat currency digitizing their currency, what's the implication there?

Anthony Pompliano: (20:34)
Historically, we've lived in a single currency world. So any one of us gets paid in a single currency, we store all of our wealth in that currency and then we eventually pay our taxes and pay for goods and services in that currency. And the reason why that happens is because there's a high switching costs when it comes to different currencies. And so if I want to go from, let's say dollars to euros, I have to go to the bank, or I have to go to a currency exchange, or at an airport or somewhere else. And so it's a high friction activity to switch currencies if I'm not a Wall Street currency trader.

Anthony Pompliano: (21:05)
And so what we're going to see here is, every currency is going to get digitized, whether it's Bitcoin and other decentralized currencies, whether it's private currencies, things like Facebook's Libra or Diem I guess it's now called. Or, other fiat currency. So there's going to be a digital dollar, a digital Euro, digital Yuan, digital RMB. And when you have digital currencies, now you've gotten to feature parody on a technology landscape. So every currency is digitized. There is no competition or any switching costs by going from one currency to another, it's literally the click of a button. And by reducing that friction, what it does is it now brings the competition from the technology layer, it brings it up to the monetary policy layer.

Anthony Pompliano: (21:42)
And so what you're going to see is regardless of what currency you get paid in, regardless of where you live in the world, with a click of a button, you can switch from your native currency that you get paid in to any other currency in the world. And when you look at the monetary policy structure of all of these assets, Bitcoin's monetary policy is superior in every way when it comes to protecting purchasing power.

Anthony Pompliano: (22:03)
Now, what we're actually going to do is we're going to digitize these fiat currencies. We're going to onboard billions of people with digital wallets, and then we are going to drastically reduce the switching costs. And so what people are likely to do is they're going to get paid in their native currency, they're going to switch into something like Bitcoin to protect their purchasing power as part of their savings or investing strategy. And then if they then have to pay for taxes or goods and services in their native currency, with a click of a button, they'll switch back and they'll actually pay for those expenses.

Anthony Pompliano: (22:28)
And so I think that the fiat currencies are going to get digitized. They're not going to necessarily be competitive from a zero sum game with something like Bitcoin. In fact, they're actually going to be very additive. They're going to drive adoption of digital wallets, and they're going to drive down the friction of the switching costs between currencies. And I think that in that environment, Bitcoin ends up being the greatest beneficiary, because what it has is it has the digital application of sound money principles that if anything we've been taught over time is that capital will flow to the soundest, hardest money. And that's what Bitcoin is. And so I think that we want the governments to go and digitize their currencies because it will ultimately really benefit those who are working in this digital de-centralized world.

John Darsie: (23:14)
I'm going to jump in now Anthony, your time is up. It's my turn to talk. So Pomp, Michael Saylor has become a great friend of ours as we've done our journey into Bitcoin. We've hosted him on two SALT Talks. He hosted his own conference recently that was focused on Bitcoin for corporations. So he was a pioneer in that space. He owns, I don't know, a billion odd, maybe billion and a half dollars worth of Bitcoin today.

Anthony Pompliano: (23:39)
Two billion now.

John Darsie: (23:39)
He had a great session during that conference with Ross Stevens from NYDIG, or from Stone Ridge, which is the parent of NYDIG who's a really impressive player in the space that's bringing the institutional world into crypto in a really effective way. And Ross gave a tour de force on the macro economic backdrop for why he had his Eureka or aha moment on crypto, and on Bitcoin specifically.

John Darsie: (24:04)
How much in your view was Bitcoin as Elon Musk tweeted, inevitable that people were going to learn about this one hell of an invention as Ray Dalio called it? And how much of it's driven by the macro economic backdrop, this massive expansion of the money supply, money printing by central banks. Did it just accelerate a trend that was already happening? Or what's your view of the macro economics and how that's driving the adoption of Bitcoin?

Anthony Pompliano: (24:30)
Look, I think that what's really interesting about Bitcoin is, I have yet to meet somebody who spends the time, is open-minded, intellectually curious, does the work, learns about Bitcoin, can explain it back in very simple terms, right? Showcasing their understanding and does not believe that it will have a place in the world. There may be disagreement in terms of how important it will be or how large it will be or who will hold it. But I have a very hard time finding anyone who says it will be worthless, right? If they've done the work and become educated on it. So I think that's a key piece. And so what that tells you is that, as more and more people learn about it, the inevitability of understanding this will be a thing, was always there.

Anthony Pompliano: (25:11)
Now, what I do think has happened is in the macro environment, in terms of monetary policy intervention and frankly just a lack of discipline across economies and central banks is that we essentially had a $3 trillion marketing campaign or this $4 trillion marketing campaign running the United States last year for Bitcoin. And really what it started out as was, "Hey, there's a public health crisis that is going to lead to an economic crisis. When that economic crisis happens, we are going to have elected officials and the federal reserve that's going to step in, they're going to intervene, they're going to manipulate the market to try to mitigate short-term pain." When they did that, anyone who was paying attention said, "Wait a second, they're going to print a lot of money." There is a fear of inflation, whether it comes or not, we fear that the inflation is coming. And therefore there is a potential issue at hand.

Anthony Pompliano: (26:00)
And they went on a global scavenger hunt looking for the best market or asset in which they could move their wealth so that they could protect the purchasing power and benefit from the activities of the central bank. And so what ended up happening is many, many intelligent, very intellectually rigorous people all arrived at the same conclusion, which was that the inflation hedge bucket of assets is going to do very well in this environment. And inside of that bucket, Bitcoin will be the big winner. Bitcoin will outperform all of the other assets, whether you look at real estate, precious metals, even stocks, to some example, et cetera.

Anthony Pompliano: (26:34)
So far, and we're not out of the woods yet, but so far, what we have seen is that if you came to that conclusion, you were right. And so I think that in March of 2020, Bitcoin was trading somewhere between eight to $10,000. And I think it was March 12th, it literally fell below $4,000, right? I mean, just absolute fell off a cliff. At that time, there was a lot of people who said it's going to zero.

Anthony Pompliano: (26:58)
But what I continued to tell people and I think what's really important to understand was, we were in a liquidity crisis. And during a liquidity crisis, investors sell off any asset that has a liquid market so that they can raise dollars, right? The dollar strengthens, asset prices sell off, you get correlations going towards one. And that's what happened to Bitcoin, it happened to gold, happened to stocks, across the board. But now all of a sudden, as there was this liquidity injected into the market, and you literally just had a system that was flush with cash. Everyone ran for protection and Bitcoin ended up being a great beneficiary of that.

Anthony Pompliano: (27:30)
What I think has happened is not only an acceleration of just the adoption in terms of individuals and some financial institutions buying it. But I think actually psychologically people were reminded. We live in a system that is guaranteed for the dollar lose value. And it is a system in which if you can find a capped supply asset, where demand will continue to increase over time and has utility, as both a store value and a medium of exchange, it is likely to do much, much better because of the programmatic monetary policy and the decentralized security that it brings.

Anthony Pompliano: (28:02)
And so that's where you see people going from, "I know nothing about Bitcoin, I don't want to spend the time on it, I've got a pretty good life." To now rotating and saying, "Wait a minute, this is the most important invention." Right? Or, "This is something I'm going to go take literally 90 plus percent of my balance sheet. I'm going to go convert it from dollars into Bitcoin." And I think that when you get that level of interest, something is happening and the big message to people is always, in my opinion, if you have zero exposure, that's the wrong answer.

Anthony Pompliano: (28:33)
I don't know if the right exposure for you is 25 basis points or 25%, but you got to go do the work. You got to get educated. And if you, for some reason, think that you are smarter than the market, both in terms of the individuals and the organizations that are participating here, or you think that you are going to identify some trend reversal across all of these different market data points from transactions to users to market volumes, et cetera, then you were gambling, right? You were essentially defining what the market is telling you and maybe you're right. But what I do know is that the cost of being wrong here is getting to the point where there's a high risk to being wrong.

Anthony Pompliano: (29:16)
So instead what you should do is, you should figure out what the allocation is to the asset, you should put into your portfolio, you should forget about it and come back and look at it in 10 years. And you'll either have lost a small percentage of your portfolio or it will have appreciated so aggressively that you'll be really, really happy and really thankful that you actually put it in the portfolio.

John Darsie: (29:34)
One thing I've read, you do a lot of writing and you do a lot of a podcasts as well is you talk a lot about investing in things with asymmetric outcomes. And so I think everybody goes on an intellectual journey with Bitcoin. And for me, it was just the notion that you mentioned that it's just asymmetric, right? I mean, the likelihood of it going to zero seems very low at this stage. It feels like the horse is out of the barn, crossed the Rubicon, whatever metaphor you want to use. But the asymmetry that's there seems so compelling.

John Darsie: (30:02)
And it feels like one of the reasons why corporations now are listening to Michael Saylor, there was several thousand people on that call he did, the virtual conference that he did basically where he's opening up the playbook in an open source type of way and explaining to people, "Okay, this is how I did it, this is why I did it." And the interest level from not just CFOs and executives from small companies, these are major companies saying, "It might be a risk for me to hold dollars. So what would it hurt for me to put a small portion of my balance sheet into Bitcoin?" Is that your analysis on why corporations are looking at this?

Anthony Pompliano: (30:35)
Yeah. Look, it's very rare that you've got any sort of treasury management strategy that would allow you to one, protect against inflation or other degradation of your purchasing power. Two, to do it in a asymmetric way, right? Meaning that you can actually put less of your treasury in. So reduce the risk from a percentage of exposure but still gain the same upside potential. And so an easy way to look at that is if you had an asset that you thought could double in value and you took 1%, that would eventually end up being 2% of the portfolio, everything else staying the same.

Anthony Pompliano: (31:12)
Well, if instead that 1% allocation went into an asset that you actually thought could have 10X upside, right? It just ends up being much more beneficial. So if you go back, this data's a little bit outdated but probably about 18 months ago, this was true. If you go back in the five prior years and you took a 60/40 global portfolio, and you took half a percent of your stock portfolio and half a percent of your bond portfolio and put that total of 1% into Bitcoin, you would have taken a global 60/40 portfolio that annualized at 7.2% and you would have taken it up to 9.2%. So you would've got that 200 basis point upside.

Anthony Pompliano: (31:48)
If you had taken that same 1% and it had gone to zero, you lost all of your money, you would have gotten from 7.2% to 7%. So a 20 basis point downside. And so when you have assymetry that is 10 to one upside the downside based on a very small allocation, it ends up again being more risky to not have the exposure than to actually have the exposure. And I think that's the message that corporations are starting to understand is they're saying, "Wait a second, is it worth betting the company?" Right? Is it worth making this big, in some cases multi-billion dollar bet that this thing is not going to end up actually having value in the future. And I think that the opportunity cost is too high at this point.

Anthony Pompliano: (32:27)
And so you're going to see some people are going to do 1% and then some people are going to go do big double digit percentages, right? But I think that's the beauty of it is the work that Michael Saylor and Macro Strategy is doing is, they don't care where you end up. They just want to make sure you have the information. They're saying, "These people are intelligent, they're experienced, they can make decisions for their own shareholders. But if we give them the information, we think that that's the best scenario." And I tend to agree with them.

John Darsie: (32:49)
One thing I admire about you as well is that you're not afraid to debate people, right? You debate people all day on Twitter. You recently did a debate on Real Vision with Mike Green, who's a very smart guy and a skeptic on Bitcoin to say the least. And I would say a detractor probably would be a better term.

John Darsie: (33:09)
But one of the accusations that he made and that people make frequently is about Tether and its ability to manipulate Bitcoin or manipulation in general around the price of Bitcoin given the opaque nature of, we don't know who the founder is, Satoshi Nakamoto and there's all kinds of things that people come up with in terms of the manipulation on the price of Bitcoin. How do you respond to that accusation? And if you don't think that's a credible risk that exists for Bitcoin, what are the most credible risks in your eyes?

Anthony Pompliano: (33:39)
If you just look at, let's compare two systems, legacy system, and this new digital decentralized system. In the legacy system, you can't tell me how many dollars are in circulation, you can't tell me what any future monetary policy decisions are, you can't show me any of the transactions and you can't tell me how many dollars are printed or taken out of circulation on a day-to-day basis, right? Talk about opaqueness, there's just no transparency whatsoever to the point where people literally can't tell you how many dollars are actually in circulation. They can't prove it. So it's a narrative based system, right? And that's actually served us pretty well for the last number of centuries, where we just understood generally, or how to best guess estimate. And that was kind of the best we had. And so we ran with it and it was fantastic.

Anthony Pompliano: (34:24)
When you look at Bitcoin, everything is provable, right? So there's an auditability to the actual monetary policy. And what I mean by that is I can show you exactly what the total supply is, 21 million Bitcoin. I can show you exactly how many are in the circulating supply, which is 18.6 million. I can show you exactly how many Bitcoin are coming into circulation on a daily basis, 900 Bitcoin per day. And then I can actually tell you almost to the day exactly what the future monetary policy decisions are going to be for the next 100 years. I can actually prove it to you and you can audit it in the code.

Anthony Pompliano: (34:57)
And so when it comes to manipulation, right? Just on the surface, which one of those systems do you think is going to be easier to manipulate? Do you think it's going to be the system where there's complete opaqueness and literally no transparency and no provability or auditability? Or the system that has 100% transparency, complete validation and auditability? Of course, it's going to be the former, not the latter.

Anthony Pompliano: (35:18)
Now, when it comes to actual manipulation, right? We have in the legacy system stated manipulation, right? When the federal reserve and elected officials step in and they manipulate interest rates, when they manipulate the quantitative easing, right? They are actively taking actions and they're announcing to the world, "We are trying to take an action today that will lead to a future outcome that we think is positive." Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not. Frankly, there is no final conclusion, right? It's up for debate.

Anthony Pompliano: (35:46)
And so what they have is they have a very short-term pain mitigation strategy that interventionism is the default and manipulation is the standard. When you then move to the Bitcoin system, there's a whole bunch of theories. It's not just Tether, right? I mean, there's a whole bunch of theories of price manipulation and all these different things. But the beauty is that it's all on chain.

Anthony Pompliano: (36:07)
And so without getting into the details of who owns what corporations, what nation states are there, all these things that I frankly just push to the side and say, "It's all my new details." Is, let's give the detractors all the credit and say, "Every single thing that they're saying is right." Which I don't believe. Let's just say that they're right. Bitcoin still is not going to go away. Bitcoin's adoption is not going to stop and I do not believe that it would change the argument for why people should have access and exposure to Bitcoin.

Anthony Pompliano: (36:39)
When you take that into account, what ends up happening is it ends up highlighting the fact that most of these detractors are basically upset or, with no pun intended, salty for a couple of different reasons. They either one, missed it, meaning that they didn't buy any, it went up a lot and to Anthony's point, they feel like I can't possibly buy it at this high price. Two is, they stake their reputation on it being a failure. And so they need to double and triple down rather than change their mind in public. Or three is that, this asset and this network, and what has happened over the last 12 years violates their worldview. With Mike specifically, and for those that want to go watch the debate they'll see it is, I think that Mike is actually in the third bucket, which is that he has a worldview, this asset violates that worldview and therefore he does not believe that it will be successful in the future.

Anthony Pompliano: (37:29)
As I closed out the debate though, I said, "The beauty of this is, it doesn't matter what his opinion is, it doesn't matter what my opinion is. The market will determine what happens. And if you're an investor, if you're an operator, if you're an individual sitting at home, all you have to do is just watch the market. If the market adopt something, then the market is the ultimate referee and it levees this decisive victory in the hands of the holders or those that are long. If the market rejects something and the price goes down and an adoption dissipates, and the market has levied to decisive victory in the hands of those who are short, or those who are the detractors."

Anthony Pompliano: (38:00)
So far, the bulls are winning and the bears are losing. That could change, sure. But I think that's ultimately what it comes down to is this system is the best we have, it's better than a legacy system and the market will be the referee. And I like the odds for for three of us on being on the right side of history.

John Darsie: (38:17)
And it's something Bill Miller, the legendary, people call him a value investor. But to your point, he's a guy who adapts with the times. And when he sees the environment change, his mindset changes. He's not crystallized in the way he thinks. He's got more pliability in his brain, still as a guy who's been in markets for many decades. But he says that Bitcoin is the only asset that he can think of that, the higher the price goes, the less risky it gets because of the adoption curve that's taking place. And I feel that as well.

John Darsie: (38:46)
When I see Bitcoin go back to 30,000, as we've seen it bounce around in the 30s over the last few weeks and months. At 30 I'm saying, "Wow, I don't know that I really want to buy this." When it gets back to 40 I'm saying, "Okay, I got to double down on my position here. And I got to do like your friend Jason Williams and ape into some Bitcoin." But it's fascinating in that regard, just the pure psychology that goes into buying Bitcoin. So I want to move where Bitcoin maximal is at SkyBridge from a-

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:17)
Sorry. Before you go there Darsie, I got to chime in for a second. So you're never selling your Bitcoin, but let's say you become very wealthy as a result of your Bitcoin. Then what do you do? You just don't sell it? You live in your hoodie for the rest of your life? What's the game plan?

Anthony Pompliano: (39:33)
Well, if you think of-

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:34)
Sorry Darsie. I had to get in and just ask this question because Pomp has thought this whole thing out.

John Darsie: (39:37)
No, that's what it's all about.

Anthony Pompliano: (39:38)
If you think of, let's say, go to Indian culture, right? In India, what families do is they go to work, they make a living, they take that, they convert it into a store value asset, usually gold jewelry, et cetera. And then they pass it down from generation to generation. And so there's no reason to come out of that store of value. That is the family's wealth, right? And if you think of it in terms, if you had an Indian American today, right? And I've got many friends I've talked to about this. The idea that they would sell their families gold, right? In terms of go into something that is not that store of value would be blasphemous.

Anthony Pompliano: (40:12)
Now, if you look at Bitcoin as digital gold versus analog gold, that's one thing. But if you were to go sell it into dollars and then go spend it, people would be pretty upset. And so I think it's a similar thing here, which is, I view Bitcoin as something that I will hand to my kids one day, right? And so what I do is I basically keep a small amount of money that I need for living expenses, et cetera. As Anthony so poetically pointed out, I have not a very high threshold for the amount of money that I spend on a monthly basis. And I basically take all of my dollars and I convert them to Bitcoin. I'm super happy, I don't trade, I don't do anything crazy. And I live a pretty relatively simple life.

Anthony Pompliano: (40:54)
But the reason why that's so valuable is because the more patience I have, the longer time horizon that I have, the more that I've benefited. And so what it's actually done is it's helped me go back to some timeless investing principles which is, you should buy assets that you want to hold for a long time, and then you should sit on your hands and not try to be too smart. That's exactly what I've done. And I've done pretty well on that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:15)
What could go wrong Anthony? What could go wrong?

Anthony Pompliano: (41:18)
I think the number one threat to Bitcoin is actually, what I call it a self-inflicted wound, right? Meaning that there's still active code that's being written and being contributed. And so if a bug was to be introduced or some kind of major critical flaw, that would be a pretty bad situation and is definitely a threat.

Anthony Pompliano: (41:37)
Now, there's obviously things that are done to mitigate that, there's a very extensive process in terms of the review of the code, how it gets contributed and there are some repercussions if something bad was introduced that could mitigate or avoid actual catastrophe. But that to me is the number one thing. The second thing I think is, the narrative, right? Is if you can psychologically convince people that Bitcoin is only used by criminals, which the data vehemently rejects. Less than 0.4% of all transactions were used for illicit purposes based on the recent studies. But if you can convince people of that, you can drastically reduce the speed of adoption, right? You can convince people that only bad people hold this asset, it's much less likely to actually happen.

Anthony Pompliano: (42:21)
So I think that those are the two major threats. One is a technical threat. The other is a psychological or societal threat. There's other threats that exist. There's people who think that, all of the global superpowers will get together and they will ban ownership. There's people who believe that there's the possibility of a 51% attack, all of these things. And without spending hours and hours, sitting and debating the merits of those concerns or what's being done to mitigate them. I tend to think that most of those have very low probability of being successful. And really the two highest probability is one, you can have a technical flaw that's introduced, or two, is you can basically psychologically convince people that this is not going to be a thing. But even that, it seems to be mitigated at this point in terms of the narrative really switching.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:10)
You worried about a bug Anthony?

Anthony Pompliano: (43:13)
I am not. Listen, I've had the great pleasure of meeting a number of the Bitcoin developers. These are some of the most intellectually sharp people that you could meet. They're obviously human. And so they're not perfect. But the beauty is that Bitcoin optimizes for security, stability, and sustainability. And so the development process, one of the big knocks against Bitcoin from other people in the crypto community is that the development process is slow, right? Or that it's not highly iterative. And what people don't realize is that's by design, right? You now have an asset that has over $700 billion of value that is at stake.

Anthony Pompliano: (43:51)
And so you want to make sure that you're very careful. You want to make sure that you're always double and triple checking things and really ensuring that the process at which you develop the code and commit the code is minimizing any error. And so far that's been a successful endeavor. And I think that the people who are responsible for that have done a great job. And so I don't worry about that on a day-to-day basis.

John Darsie: (44:15)
This metaphor just came to me, but I feel like Bitcoin is like the US constitution, right? It's like the core values of the system are hard-coded and you're never going to be able to change them and that's why our country is able to sustain itself. But it's something that the founders allowed you to build on top of it as was necessary as time change. And so it's an interesting analogy to me. And the explanation you just gave made me think about it in that way. But, I want to talk about-

Anthony Pompliano: (44:40)
Yeah, I think-

John Darsie: (44:40)
Yeah, go ahead.

Anthony Pompliano: (44:41)
...one thing John that I think is really unique about that, right? Is we could change the constitution if we want, if enough people got together and said, "Hey, we should take away an amendment or add an amendment." Or, whatever. We can change it right? I think you and I probably both agree that it's very, very unlikely, right? Just given how serious of a situation and how much you would have to build consensus in order to do that. Well, the same thing is true of Bitcoin as well. In terms of, if you can get more than 51% of people to agree to a change, it could happen. But now that we're talking about tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of people, a fully diversified decentralized system, the odds of that happening are near zero, right?

Anthony Pompliano: (45:22)
So I think it's actually a great analogy to consider the constitution, both in terms of the hard-coded ethos and rules. But also there is flexibility that there could be change if absolutely necessary, and you could build the social consensus but very, very unlikely for it to happen.

John Darsie: (45:38)
Well, my last question I want to ask you is, outside of Bitcoin. So we, as a firm at SkyBridge, we're very much focused on Bitcoin. We think it's going to be the big winner in the space. We are curious about other things that are going on, but I would say unlikely in the near term to invest in other areas of the market, but we don't necessarily think there won't be growth there.

John Darsie: (45:56)
So you launched a website, a jobs board called pompcryptojobs.com, which I think is a testament to the growth that's taking place in the industry that you could build such a robust database of jobs in the industry. What are the most exciting things that you're seeing from a corporate perspective? Companies that are innovating in the space, other protocols that are being built that you're most excited about and what is the fact that you launched that job board say about what you view the future of the industry being?

Anthony Pompliano: (46:24)
Look, at the end of the day while people may know me for all the tweeting and all the content stuff, or they may know me from the investing side. I like to build things, right? And I'm probably one of the most opportunistic, capitalistic people you'll meet in the sense of, if I see something that can be built and no one else is building it, then I have no problem waiting into the arena and competing. And so when it came to the job board, I kept talking to a lot of people who didn't work in the industry and they would say, "Hey, I want to transition, do you know of any open jobs?"

Anthony Pompliano: (46:55)
And then I've got the fortunate day-to-day activity of talking to a lot of the founders of these businesses. Some of them just starting out and very small, some of them very large corporations at this point. And they kept saying, "We can't find great candidates. It's the hardest thing, it's finding the right people." And so it was easy to identify, hey, there's a market opportunity to create a marketplace where you bring together job candidates and job roles.

Anthony Pompliano: (47:17)
I reached out to three companies that I felt were industry leaders in Blackfin, Gemini and Coinbase. They all immediately said, "Yes, we'd love to be a part of this." We put it together and in just the first week, we've had over a 1,000 people upload their resumes. We've had almost a 100 companies. There's hundreds of open roles. And there's been, I think over a 100,000 views of those open roles. And so it's very obvious that there's a need for this. I think it'll continue to grow.

Anthony Pompliano: (47:44)
But what it ultimately shows is, when you look through that job board, there's all types of different roles, right? Whether you're technical or non-technical, whether you're a finance executive, or you're a marketing executive, you're operations, you're security, you're PR, pretty much go down the line of any traditional industry, all the different roles that are there, those roles are open in this industry. And so I think that if you want to transition to work in Bitcoin and crypto, the opportunities are there. And what really excites me I think is, the advice I always give to young people who are just coming out of college is, don't start a company and don't go work at IBM, right?

Anthony Pompliano: (48:23)
What you want to do is you want to go find a series A or a series B company that's a rocket ship. You want to jump on, you want to do a great job that can give you more and more responsibility as that business grows. And you, over the next couple of years will have your first stamp of approval and your career will be associated with the success of this business, even if you had nothing to do with the success, right?

Anthony Pompliano: (48:43)
And so I think that that's one of the enticing parts about this industry is there are so many companies that are going from creation to multiple billions of dollars in value that there's just tons of open roles, there's tons of things for people to do. And so if you're a self-starter, you've got some sort of skill set, you're intelligent and you're excited about the future, just go there, find an open role and let's get to work.

John Darsie: (49:05)
And going back to Anthony Scaramucci's earlier point about Goldman Sachs coming out as another detractor of Bitcoin, you could easily see Coinbase when it IPO's here likely in 2021 have a higher market value, market cap than Goldman Sachs, which I think says it all. But Pomp, thanks so much for joining us. This was a lot of fun. Anthony, you have any final words for Pomp before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:29)
No. Pomp, you don't need to hear this from me, but I'm proud of what you're doing as an American entrepreneur and stick to your vision and keep it up. Hopefully we can be helpful to you. And hopefully we get you to a live SALT event at some point. It's hard for me to imagine that you've missed some of these events, but I think you would add something. So I'm looking forward to that as well.

John Darsie: (49:50)
I appreciate you guys having me.

Anthony Pompliano: (49:52)
Yeah. We missed loading the boat in 2014 when the Winklevoss Twins came to the SALT conference in Las Vegas and said, "Guys, you got to jump on this Bitcoin thing." Everyone was like, "All right, Winklevoss. What are you talking about?" But I wish they had pulled me aside and said, "You got to do this." But anyways-

Anthony Scaramucci: (50:10)
I've always pushed back on John for that because we're institutionalists and you have to, to your point about sticking to your knitting and sticking to your investment thesis, I'm more comfortable with Bitcoin at 30,000, believe it or not, than I was at 400. You have the network in place now. You have that scalability, you have a metrical ability to make an analysis of what the value is. And that's where I think Sharmin from Goldman Sachs is just making a mistake. She's not looking at it carefully enough.

Anthony Scaramucci: (50:41)
And like you say, there's a lot of market participants that are betting against her. We'll have to what happens. It makes it fun, but we also caution cautious clients that you just have to have a small amount of this. I do believe Anthony and John, this is going to be part of the index matrix that people are going to be judged by on a going forward basis. And so, when you look at an asset allocation model that includes hedge funds and private equity and gold and stocks and bonds, well, guess what? It's going to have a sliver of Bitcoin in there and maybe other digital assets. And so IF you're going to be benchmarked against it, You really have to think about it very carefully.

John Darsie: (51:21)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk and continuing. For those of you who are less familiar with the digital assets, Bitcoin space, for continuing to learn with us. And for those who are familiar, thank you for continuing to engage with us and being our partners if you're invested in our SkyBridge Bitcoin fund.

John Darsie: (51:39)
Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks or you want to sign up and watch our talks live in the future, you can go to our website, salt.org\talks and sign up for all upcoming talks and view our entire archive. Our YouTube channel also has every episode of these SALT Talks. Please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook, and please spread the word about SALT Talks. We love growing our community, which we've done a great job of during the pandemic. So we're excited to continue growing the digital side of SALT. But on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off for today. We'll see you back here again soon on SALT Talks.

Venture Capitalists Explain How They Evaluate Startups | SALT Talks #158

Lauren Kolodny and Theresia Gouw are the Founders of Acrew Capital. Acrew DCF is a new growth stage investment fund from Acrew Capital, that aims to diversify the ownership and leadership of leading growth-stage companies through value-added capital.

Prior to co-founding Acrew, Lauren was a partner at Aspect Ventures. She joined at the founding of the firm and helped to build out the team. Previously, Lauren worked in product marketing at Google, where she led a number of launches for GSuite, including Google Drive. Lauren began her career building tech and finance partnerships for the Clinton Foundation in India.

Previously, Theresia was a co-founder at Aspect Ventures and a Managing General Partner at Accel. Theresia has been fortunate to work with many successful companies through IPOs or acquisitions including Forescout (FSCT), Imperva (IMPV), Trulia (TRLA), Hotel Tonight (ABNB), Astro (Slack; WORK), LearnVest (Northwestern Mutual), Jasper Design (CDNS) and Kosmix (WMT).

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Lauren Kolodny.jpeg

Lauren Kolodny

Founding Partner

Acrew Capital

Theresia Gouw.jpeg

Theresia Gouw

Founding Partner

Acrew 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 at SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy.

John Darsie: (00:20)
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 at our SALT conference series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as to provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:39)
And we're very excited today to welcome two investors from the same firm who have invested and not only made a lot of money but made a lot of impact in the world, investing in these big ideas that we like to empower at SALT. And our guests today are Lauren Kolodny and Theresia Gouw of Acrew Capital.

John Darsie: (00:57)
Lauren Kolodny's a Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Acrew where she leads investments in Fintech and Future of Work. Prior to founding Acrew, Lauren was a partner at Aspect Ventures. Her investments include Chime, Divvy, Evident ID, Gusto, LaHouse, Papaya Payments, Pie Insurance, Tara.ai, among many others. Previously, Lauren worked in product marketing at Google where she led a number of launches for GSuite, including Google Drive.

John Darsie: (01:25)
Lauren began her career building tech and finance partnerships for the Clinton Foundation in India. Lauren is a Trustee Emerita at Brown University where she served as the University's youngest board member. She's currently a member of the President's Leadership Council. She's been recognized in publications as Wall Street Journal's Ten Women to Watch list, Business Insider's Rising Stars of Venture Capital, and she was named one of Forbes 30 Under 30 for Venture Capital in 2016. And I think we're probably around the same age and I'm feeling not very accomplished right now after reading Lauren's bio.

John Darsie: (01:58)
But Theresia Gouw is our second panelist today. Theresia's a Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Acrew Capital as well and was a Co-Founder and Partner at Aspect Ventures. Prior to Aspect, Theresia was a Managing General Partner at Accel. As an entrepreneur, Theresia was the founding VP of Business Development and Sales at Release Software, a venture backed company that provided software as a service to enable digital rights management and payment technologies for the software industry.

John Darsie: (02:27)
Earlier, she worked at Bain & Company, and as a Product Manager at Silicon Graphics. Theresia led early investments in Cato Networks, Deserve, Exabeam, The Muse, Crew, ShieldX, Observable, PredictHQ, and Solve Health.

John Darsie: (02:44)
She's a first generation immigrant, a passionate supporter of educational causes and increasing diversity in the tech industry. Theresia was named to Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women list and has been recognized nine times on the Forbes Midas list, including in 2020, and was named one of the 40 Most Influential Minds in Tech by Time Magazine, as well as being named to the Carnegie Corporations annual Distinguished Immigrant's list.

John Darsie: (03:09)
Hosting today's talk is our good friend, Sarah Kunst. She's a founder and Managing Director at Cleo Capital, a venture capital firm. Sarah's been gracious enough to bring us a lot of wonderful guests on SALT talk to moderate some great conversations, and we're looking forward to another one today. Thank you again, Sarah, for doing that. But with no further ado, you've heard enough from me, Sarah. Go ahead and take it away.

Sarah Kunst: (03:31)
Thank you, John. And I am so excited to have these amazing women here today. They are both my friends and we get to partner together on investments. Theresia is an investor in my fund and it's just wonderful to all be here today. So, with that, those were great bios but I always love to hear it direct so, Lauren, I'd love to have you jump in and tell us how you got here. And then we'll let Theresia do the same.

Lauren Kolodny: (04:03)
Absolutely. Thanks, Sarah, and thanks, John, for having us. I'm excited to chat with you all today. So I'll tell you a little bit about my path and how I ended up in venture. A bit circuitous but that tends to be the case in this industry, I would say.

Lauren Kolodny: (04:18)
So I grew up in San Diego. I studied undergrad at Brown University where I focused on Economic Development and, specifically, technology as a driver of economic development. I then went on, right out of school, to work for the Clinton Foundation on Technology Partnerships and, in that context, I was based in India and in the really early days, prior to the last recession, really early days of mobile money and started to see kind of how technology was driving financial inclusion in meaningful ways. And I think that really inspired me on some of the work that I've done since.

Lauren Kolodny: (04:58)
And then, after wrapping up with the Clinton Foundation, I went and worked at Google in Product Marketing on the Google apps team, before it became Gsuite, as you heard. I led the Google Drive launch and a bunch of others. But in that context I think I got really excited about consumerization of enterprise and bottoms up business models, which also segue ways into where I now spend time.

Lauren Kolodny: (05:20)
And meanwhile, actually while I had been living in India with the Clinton Foundation, I had been asked to join the Board of Trustees at Brown University. They had done a governance review and determined that they needed some more representative perspective around the board. And I was fortunate and joined. In that context, I actually got to know Theresia. So we worked really closely together on projects related to digital strategy for the University and a bunch of others. And she became kind of a friend and mentor.

Lauren Kolodny: (05:52)
And so then when I moved to Silicon Valley to work at Google we ended up spending more time together. I then went to Business School at Stanford and, as I was gearing up to graduate, Theresia let me know that she was going to be leaving Accel to start Aspect and I was very eager to join her in that endeavor. So first investor on the team there, built out our Fintech Investing practice, as well as some of our future work investing. And then, happily, co-founded Acrew Capital with her in 2019. So happy to tell you more about that part of the journey, as I'm sure we will, but that's kind of the summary of how I got here.

Sarah Kunst: (06:33)
Awesome. Theresia?

Theresia Gouw: (06:36)
Thanks, Sarah. Thanks for having us. So I'll try to be brief because I think John covered a lot of it. So thank you both for having us. So, I came to the U.S. I was born in Jakarta, Indonesia. We came to the U.S. when I was quite young. Actually lived... I know we have some shared roots. Lived in Michigan at first, for a little while, Sarah. Ended up growing up in a small town outside of Buffalo, New York. Went to Brown undergrad. Studied engineering there. Quickly realized that while I loved technology, which is why I did engineering, I really thought that being more on the product management side seemed more interesting than sitting behind a computer doing CAD drawings all day.

Theresia Gouw: (07:17)
I worked at General Motors and I worked at British Petroleum and the only people who move from engineering to product management all had these things called MBA's. I didn't necessarily know what that was. I looked it up, studied for my GRE and decided that was what I needed to do if I was going to become a product manager.

Theresia Gouw: (07:36)
And so was fortunate to get into Stanford Business School. Lauren and I both went there. Came out here to the Valley, I thought for a few years, have never left. Fell in love with the Valley and learned that there were these things called startups and not just big giant companies, like Silicon Graphics or Hewlett-Packard or others.

Theresia Gouw: (07:56)
And went back to consulting for a little bit to pay for my business school loans and my undergrad loans. But as soon as that was done joined a couple of classmates from Stanford Business School who had just raised a seed round of funding. This was the late '90s so forever ago in the last decade, doing this company that was trying to do digital rights management, encryption payment for software downloads over the internet, when the internet was mostly dial-up internet. So it had to be really, really small software, or software that you could download at work, like Adobe or Netscape servers.

Theresia Gouw: (08:34)
Anyway, that was how I got to know what venture capital was. I helped raise a bunch of venture capital, decided that I wanted to leave that startup when we had our third CEO in 12 months. I didn't know a whole lot but I was like, hmm, probably not really great for my stock options. So maybe I'll go to my VC board members and see if they have other startups that are looking for somebody with my background. And that was how I ended up in venture.

Theresia Gouw: (09:01)
One of my board members introduced me to three super early stage pre-A companies and also introduced me to three venture funds. That's how I ended up at Accel, joined in '99, was there for 15 years doing a mix of early and late stage investing. I spent a lot of time in cybersecurity and infrastructure. I also do some Future of Work investing, along with Lauren, and actually also do some community activated and consumer net investments in things like Trulia, Early Days, as well as Hotel Tonight which is now part of Airbnb. Anyway, it's a range of different things. You do something long enough all the sectors start to make sense.

Sarah Kunst: (09:48)
I love it. Theresia, do you know that I spent more out-of-pocket on Hotel Tonight than I did on college?

Theresia Gouw: (09:54)
You did not.

Sarah Kunst: (09:55)
It's the only thing I've used for travel, personal and for work. And you know how much work travel there is. So literally, I have spent, I think I'm at level, I don't know, 30 something. So yes, yes.

Theresia Gouw: (10:12)
Well you're crushing me. I'll let Sam know. He'll be very happy. So we did a later stage, what we called proprietary investment, in Hotel Tonight and out of our first funds, Lauren and I working together and Vishal. Which Sam was like, he groomed the company and he had turned it profitable and he was like, "Theresia, this is going to be like my last round before we get bought or go public." And we were like, "We're all in." And then 12 months later then they got bought by Airbnb and then, obviously, they've had a really successful IP last time.

Theresia Gouw: (10:46)
But I first met them when it was a seed investment and I remember exactly when it was because I think he was one of my first meetings after my second maternity leave. So my youngest was born in July of 2009 so I must have met him in August of 2009 because I was back after two to three weeks.

Theresia Gouw: (11:05)
Anyway, he was only in two cities and it was only on IOS. They didn't even have Android and they literally didn't even have a website. But, he saw that the move to mobile was real and just shrinking down. Your Bookings.com or Expedia website onto your mobile phone was not going to do it and just completely remade the user experience. And he'd done a great job.

Sarah Kunst: (11:31)
I just checked. I've stayed 140 nights using Hotel Tonight, which also means that I'm a little bit ungrounded but happy to be helpful to the portfolio. So, I would love to talk about Acrew. Tell us about the team. Well, tell us all the things, all right? The founding, the team, the AUM, the stage, the sectors.

Sarah Kunst: (11:55)
But the thing that I find so fascinating and really inspiring is sort of your approach to having a cross-generational team and kind of what that means around decision making and all of that. So Theresia, I'd love for you to talk about the founding and that piece of that. And then we'll throw it to Lauren to talk a little bit about the size, stage, and sectors.

Theresia Gouw: (12:15)
Actually, let me suggest, if it's okay with you Sarah, can we do it in the reverse way? Lauren, why don't you talk about the founding, because it'll lead into some of the new things we're doing in terms of stage.

Lauren Kolodny: (12:25)
Sure. Happy to do that. So, as I said, our team has been investing together now through three funds. Initially at Aspect and now at Acrew. And so the bulk of the team that we worked with together at Aspect is part of the Acrew team. When we launched Acrew in 2019, we spent a lot of time. We actually spent three days at an off-site, all of the five founders, thinking about our values and who we really wanted to be, what learnings we wanted to take from our past experience, what we wanted to leave behind, and what we wanted to be.

Lauren Kolodny: (13:01)
And one of the things that I think is just super core to us, it's in our name, is our team orientation. So the name Acrew has the emphasis on Crew by design. Of course, we also like the finance double entendre and certainly attempt to accrue meaning full value for all of our investors. But, I think that we really wanted to put a stake in the ground around this notion that venture can really be played as a team sport. And that, in doing so, you can take advantage of the diversity of perspective that exists on your team. And Theresia, I'm sure, will talk about this more but we've been really thoughtful there too in terms of really trying to design a team that.

Lauren Kolodny: (13:46)
Work represents a lot of different perspectives, both in terms of background and lived experience, gender, race, and ethnicity. And so, that means that, as you mentioned Sarah, we have actually three generations on the founding team itself. We think that is pretty unique. A lot of our peer firms get founded by age peers and then add more people to the team later. In a clear hierarchy, where we really wanted to make sure that we were building something to kind of stand the test of time, and we figured one of the ways to do that was to make sure we had multiple generations on the founding team.

Lauren Kolodny: (14:27)
And the way that we take advantage of all of the diverse perspectives, both among those founders and in terms of the newer team members that we've brought on, is that we give everyone on the investing team, regardless of seniority level, an equal voice in investing decision making. So everyone is allowed to veto a deal. It doesn't happen often but occasionally it does. And to varying degrees, everyone is enabled and empowered to actually lead a deal. For the more junior investors it's seed investments but we really try to give everyone a meaningful seat at the table when it comes to the vast majority of what we do, which is making investments. So that's kind of the philosophy of the firm and we're really proud of what we're building and the team that we're building it with.

Theresia Gouw: (15:21)
So just adding onto that and then getting into our stage and sectors. So adding onto that, I think the other part of the team orientation on the investments is that every investment has two deal team sponsors. Obviously, that doesn't mean, well we really take two board [inaudible 00:15:37], I try to think almost never. But there's got to be two people on the investment team who are equally excited and pounding the table about it. So we think that using the team elements actually strengthens our decision making because we need to have at least two people on the team that are really excited about a potential new investment. And that's a good sort of counter-balance.

Theresia Gouw: (15:56)
In affect, any one person could say no to a deal, as Lauren was saying. Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often because it's a much more collaborative process. If Lauren and I are championing a deal and someone else on the deal team has some strong concerns they'll bring it up in the group meeting but they'll probably also call me aside if I'm the lead or Lauren if she's the lead and sort of be like, "Hey Sarah, I want to make sure you really heard what I was asking you. Please look into this. I've got some serious concerns." So it works out really well from that perspective.

Theresia Gouw: (16:30)
It also works because we're very thesis driven in our investing. So you could be at Acrew for five or six years, like Lauren and myself. Or you could be at Acrew for five or six weeks. But if you are part of the Fintech practice that Lauren and Vishal, right, you've been spending time, you're very aware what's in our portfolio, the things that we've been looking at. And so you can quickly get up to speed and know an awful lot about consumer financial services or Fintech infrastructure because you've been looking at our portfolio and things like everything from Chime, and FNEX, and Pie, and Divvy. And so you get up to speed much more quickly, even if you're a new investor.

Theresia Gouw: (17:13)
So being thematically driven. So in addition to Fintech our other big sectors, I would say, are cybersecurity and infrastructure, Future of Work or Work Reimagined that Lauren's led and we've got investments like Gusto, for example, in that sector. Also community activated, as we were talking about with Hotel Tonight or The RealReal as some examples. And then a fifth sector which is a little bit more cross sector, what we call data interconnected, like data API's and data platforms. So there's a lot of cross sectors there.

Theresia Gouw: (17:48)
So, that's how we think about our investments, Sarah, is we're very thematic. And I know we've got some co-investments with you and, I think, that certainly would be financial services reimagined but it might also be in part of our data platform. So we have a lot that kind of fit into two.

Theresia Gouw: (18:05)
And then, historically, we've been mostly early stage focused, which is why we're excited to partner with you on some of these early stage things. So seed and A but, as you can see, even with the Hotel Tonight example, these companies over three, four, five years, some of them, we hope many of them but, some of them grow to be market leaders in their space and they become what would traditionally be thought of as growth stage or late stage investments.

Theresia Gouw: (18:30)
So just this week we announced that we were adding onto the Acrew Capital platform, double entendre on purpose, as Lauren said. In addition to raising our fourth early stage fund, we've announced that we're doing our growth stage fund, our spin on the growth stage, late stage fund, is an entity called Acrew Diversified Capital Fund. So it's Acrew DCF. All the existing Acrew founders and investors are core members of it and we're excited that we've added a couple of new folks onto the team, both as formal team members, like Sukhinder Singh Cassidy as a venture partner onto that platform. And then also some great advisors and partners like Sarah and Charles from Free Cursor and others. That's where we are. We're deepening our sector focus and now we can invest both at the early stage and the late stage.

Sarah Kunst: (19:22)
That's awesome. And huge, huge congrats on the announcement of the new fund, or the opportunity fund, and super far past time. And I think the work that you do there, that we get to do there, will be really, really impactful, which is very exciting. That's great.

Sarah Kunst: (19:38)
Lauren, we'll also have you kind of dive into some of the areas like Work Reimagined and Financial Resources Rebuilt, that you spend time thinking about too.

Lauren Kolodny: (19:51)
Sure, I'm happy to. You got kind of the overview of the categories from Theresia. Maybe I'll spend a little bit of time talking about what we're focused on in Financial Services Rebuilt. And yes, clearly that is a fancy name for Fintech. But it's not just marketing language. There actually is an intentional thesis behind it which is that we think that if you look at all the activity that's happened in Fintech over the last decade it's really catalyzed a new opportunity.

Lauren Kolodny: (20:23)
So if I think about this last sort of era in Fintech development, we saw a lot of companies that built amazing digital faces to existing financial products. They democratized access, they came up with much more creative distribution strategies, and they really leveraged technology to sort of deliver a better consumer experience.

Lauren Kolodny: (20:46)
But, changing legacy financial infrastructure is very hard. And so, that was less possible in what I would characterize as this first kind of major wave in Fintech. As a result of the success of so many companies like Chime where we're very proud to be investors but also clearly Plaid and many others, I think we are starting to see some real sort of dynamic changes in the industry where legacy financial institutions are really coming to the table to engage more deeply in this reinvention. And a lot of money is being put into really rebuilding the sort of financial software stack from the ground up.

Lauren Kolodny: (21:32)
So, as a result of that, we're seeing a lot of opportunity in financial infrastructure itself. Clearly there is a lot of momentum there to kind of rebuild things like the legacy banking core that was built in the 1970's and hasn't changed since then. But we're also seeing, and we believe there will be kind of a new wave of consumer Fintech and user level Fintech as a result of this, where in leveraging financial infrastructure that's being built, entrepreneurs will actually be able to create fundamentally new financial products that have never been offered before. And that's what we're really excited about and that's where we're looking for new opportunities.

Lauren Kolodny: (22:14)
And, by the way, what's interesting is that you couple that with the fact that, as a result of COVID and this remote world that we're all living in, new populations are actually much more, I think, addressable for Fintech than they had been before. So clearly Gen Z, up and coming, not a lot of assets yet but we'll be entering the workforce. That one, we all could have anticipated. What I think is interesting we might not have otherwise anticipated is that the retired repopulation as an example has been forced to live their lives online and are now more comfortable adopting digital first products. And I think that'll extend to Fintech so we're looking for opportunities there as well.

Sarah Kunst: (22:55)
Are you on WallStreetBets?

Lauren Kolodny: (22:56)
Yes, I am. I feel like I have to be, right?

Sarah Kunst: (23:01)
It's the only way to keep up with the market.

Lauren Kolodny: (23:03)
Exactly. I wouldn't be a prudent Fintech investor if I wasn't at least following what's going on.

Sarah Kunst: (23:09)
Exactly, exactly. Awesome. No, that's super. That's awesome and at my fund we look at a lot of the same areas and totally agree. I was just having this conversation with a friend earlier that... I think, Lauren, we're the same age. I don't remember, even as smart undergrads right out of college, we were super focused on getting a good job and putting money into your 401K. I don't really remember sitting around trading stock tips. And this was when I lived in New York and my office building was in the same office building as a hedge fund, right? It just wasn't really something that people were talking about.

Sarah Kunst: (23:48)
And now you go on Tik-Tok and obviously it's oh how are my For You pages curated? But there's so many kids and they're not coming out of major universities with finance degrees or econ degrees. They're just sort of talking about stocks the way that maybe an earlier generation you would have talked about sports teams. And so it's really, really fascinating.

Sarah Kunst: (24:10)
I don't know, when you look at things like the whole GameStop debacle, I don't know if you call it necessarily financial literacy but it's certainly financial exploration in a way that I truly do think, for this generation. But we'll see if it lasts. But it has kind of become a part of their culture in a way that I don't think we saw even 10-12 years ago.

Lauren Kolodny: (24:33)
I totally agree. And I think the other thing on that too, Sarah, is you and I have talked about this before. I think there's a massive opportunity for collaborative personal finance and it's really coming to light as a result of this, right? It's showing how this generation really cares about... maybe GameStop is not the best example for a prudent collaborative investment. But I think the idea that people want to learn from each other and understand what their friends are investing in and make decisions informed by their peers, I think is very real. And I think that's going to extend across financial services on a go forward basis. I don't think this generation is as closed off about personal finance as others that have come before.

Sarah Kunst: (25:24)
I agree. I also think there's a lot more transparency and people aren't refusing to talk about how much money they make or where they're making it from, which I think is great.

Lauren Kolodny: (25:35)
Exactly.

John Darsie: (25:38)
I think something that's interesting, Sarah, talking about GameStop... and sorry to jump in here but a fascinating conversation. You know, there's two things that happened with GameStop. One of them was the collaboration that took place over the last year on WallStreetBets, where there actually was an interesting thesis. They're going to pivot to E-commerce, there's all kinds of other elements. I don't want to get into the full story of it but I had a front row seat to it because a friend of mine who works in biotech life sciences approached me a few months ago and said, "GameStop. I'm on this Reddit channel. There's this amazing story that they've put together about why GameStop is going to transition to be a dominant E-commerce platform for video games and they're going to get out of the bricks and mortar business."

John Darsie: (26:16)
I said, "Actually it's kind of compelling but I have certain restrictions, as a regulated financial services professional, around buying individual stocks." I didn't participate in that with him. But he made a substantial amount of money, sold a little bit early, didn't ride it all the way to the top but also wasn't left holding the bag like some people.

John Darsie: (26:33)
I think the mania of it happened in the aftermath of the construction of that thesis is separate and distinct from what was a really collaborative process of people that are smarter than I think the media is giving them credit for now, that built this thesis around GameStop.

Sarah Kunst: (26:48)
I remember once in 8th grade advanced math. My teacher, we had to pick our predictions for the stock market. And I picked, it was right before the Super Bowl, so I picked Frito-Lay. And I was like, I think it's going to go up because it's an exciting Super Bowl this year so people are going to buy more snacks. And she's like, "That's not how earnings work. That's not how the stock market works." But it's exactly how the stock market works.

Sarah Kunst: (27:11)
And so it's interesting, I think, to see some of that. You know, it took me what, 20 years? But I was right and I just want my math teacher to know, if she's watching, I was right. But I think that people are slowly realizing that their everyday instincts, what they're interested in, we are the market and as that happens I do think especially Gen Z is getting a lot more involved in trading it for better or for worse.

Sarah Kunst: (27:38)
That's awesome. So for a totally different topic, Theresia, I would love to have you dive into cybersecurity infrastructure, the work that you're doing there. What are you seeing there right now that's exciting?

Theresia Gouw: (27:54)
Thanks, Sarah. So I think that, and maybe a way to sort of tie it together is at the end of this I think there are some intersections between cybersecurity and particularly cryptocurrencies that we're invested in. And maybe that's a lead in to you and Lauren can talk about our joint investment in that space.

Theresia Gouw: (28:13)
But in general, so look, I think the good and the bad news is cybersecurity is sort of like the gift that keeps on giving, right? So when I started doing cybersecurity investments in the early 2000's it was really because, actually because of my lived experience when I was an entrepreneur. We were doing encryption and payments and it was still really, really hard to get an export license to do 1024 with encryption, to do payments outside of the United States. That was all stuff that I had to do as the Product and Business Development lead.

Theresia Gouw: (28:51)
So, in 2000, when there were no more consumer opportunities to be done and the music had stopped, it's like, "Okay, what am I going to do? I've got to find something that's going to be interesting and still investable." And so it started out as sort of more of a backwater but it was like, look, this isn't going to go away. People are eventually going to start buying things on the internet again. Crazy, right?

Theresia Gouw: (29:10)
And so we've got to figure out the security part of the payments piece, right? At that point, unlike the things that you guys were just talking about and you're investing in now, there weren't really alternatives, right? You had to figure out how to connect into the old legacy cobalt [inaudible 00:29:25] systems so that you could take credit card payments and all that kind of stuff.

Theresia Gouw: (29:29)
But there was a whole new layer of security that needed to be built on it. So that was kind of like the first wave. The interesting thing about security is the bad guys from the early days, for those of you who remember. You might remember from watching it as retro, right? It used to start out, if you remember, Matthew Broderick in War Games? We used to call those hackers script kittys because they were a lot like these uber smart, uber precocious high school kids who just wanted to prove that they could hack into stuff, to show how cool they were or how smart they were.

Theresia Gouw: (30:01)
And then, as time went on, in '99 when the internet happened, like in '99-2000, it was a lot of organized bad dudes trying to make money, right? Fishing scams, stealing people's credit cards, all of those things. Obviously with what happened last year with the Solar Winds hack and even before that we think about the Sony hack. The Sony hack was probably the first provable nation state attack.

Theresia Gouw: (30:30)
I bring up all this stuff to say that what started out as hey, I've got to find some stuff to invest in in 2000, and was like really a small part of the venture investment ecosystem, has become not quite as large as Fintech but probably usually it's in the top three, second or third in terms of sectors. So it's a big deal now. Everybody needs to worry about it, even small companies, even individuals.

Theresia Gouw: (30:57)
So I think the biggest trend... there's the bad guys trend and then there's sort of on the bottoms up infrastructure. Every time there's a conversion. And last year the biggest positive thing in tech was the pull forward of people's adoption and moving to the cloud, especially to the public cloud or hybrid cloud, was accelerated by 5 or 10 years. And people see that in terms of a bunch of the infrastructure stocks that were super hot last year, like Snowflake for example. But also security companies like CrowdStrike just had a crazy year last year. And we see it with our private security companies too.

Theresia Gouw: (31:31)
Because what happens is, whenever there's an infrastructure change all the big, traditional financial service institutions, governments, they have to buy a whole new set of security solutions because the last set that they're using was for the wrong... they're protecting the wrong infrastructure, the wrong stuff underneath. So that creates an opportunity.

Theresia Gouw: (31:49)
And then, maybe not surprisingly, but work from home last year just accelerated the security opportunity because people usually price security based on number of endpoints and amount of bandwidth. Well, even for Acrew, our 12 person company, we went from having two offices to now we have 12. So everybody's spending had to increase.

Theresia Gouw: (32:13)
So I think that's the biggest thing. So it's that sophistication of the bad guys which means that you need to have more and more sophisticated countermeasures. And then just the massive acceleration of cloud means everyone needs... if you were a big enterprise and you were thinking about this slow transition and therefore also slow security transition over the next three to five years, it happened in three to six months. Or else you just weren't doing business. So those are the trends that we saw last year and they're continuing the pace this year for sure.

Theresia Gouw: (32:47)
I think most people, most of the surveys, nobody thinks it's going to go back to what it was before. So even if we're not 100% work from home, we're going to be in this hybrid environment which means that the scale of the infrastructure that needs to be secured has grown massively.

Sarah Kunst: (33:03)
Those are all excellent points. It feels like cybersecurity has gone from something that is someone else's problem to something that is everyone's problem. And it will only continue. That, like you said, is a great segue into a deal that we got to do together recently, that was super exciting. I'll have maybe Lauren, do you want to talk a little bit about Alto IRA and kind of what they do and then we can chat about getting to work on it together?

Lauren Kolodny: (33:32)
Absolutely. So I think one of the other kind of sub things that have been interesting lately, and it ties in perfectly well with this conversation we were just having about GameStop and personal trading and everything else, is the democratization of alternative assets.

Lauren Kolodny: (33:49)
More and more people are recognizing, they see these companies that are performing exceptionally well in the stock market but they know that people like us are getting in earlier, right? So tech is one example, private tech companies is one example of a category of alternative assets that I think is quite appealing to a lot of people. But as is real estate and many others, right?

Lauren Kolodny: (34:07)
And so, what Alto IRA does is it enables people to move their IRA investment, their traditional IRA, into alternative assets. And there are obviously major tax benefits to doing that. I think IRA's tend to be where people want to source their capital for alternatives, at least when they're first dabbling into this space.

Lauren Kolodny: (34:37)
I think what's really interesting for the company is an opportunity to help facilitate alternative asset investments more broadly down the line. And that is what I got really excited about and why I was excited to collaborate with Sarah on this because I know it's a space that you all, at Cleo, with future of income, have been thinking about a lot too.

John Darsie: (35:01)
Sarah, I don't know if you even know this but I've got to chime in on Alto IRA. So we use Alto IRA at SkyBridge. So we recently launched a Bitcoin fund. We saw sort of the marketplace of different Bitcoin products out there and some of our client base weren't comfortable with investing in Bitcoin by a coin base or a gray scale Bitcoin trust. So we created a private fund for our credit investors to invest in Bitcoin just to pass the product. But we've used Alto IRA for people who want to invest via their IRA. Fantastic platform. The team there is extremely responsive so hats off to you guys for identifying that company and helping them grow because it's a great solution for us and we think we're going to continue to do more business on the platform.

Sarah Kunst: (35:44)
Awesome. That is great news. We love customers. The Acrew team had already invested in Alto and Lauren brought it to me and I was super excited to chat with them. And then in that conversation we actually led to us being able to help them partner with Gemini as well. And I know that the twins were on SALT talks not too long ago.

Sarah Kunst: (36:09)
And so, yeah, it's an awesome product. And for us, with our future of income visas it made a lot of sense and complicated consumer, which is these are hard things to manage. Most people, the bulk of their net worth is wrapped up in pretty illiquid assets like their home or their IRA's. And so being able to make that a little bit more self directed, that's a really powerful tool.

Sarah Kunst: (36:34)
And if you've ever tried to do a self directed IRA without tech help it is, from everything I've heard, one of the most painful experiences in the finance world, if you can imagine that. So the ability to do it easily and simply and cost effectively is really kind of a huge game changer when it comes to accessing things like crypto or like investing in private equity vehicles or venture capital or even some real estate vehicles.

Sarah Kunst: (37:01)
So really, really, we are talking our book, but it's a book that makes the world of investing a lot more accessible and I think that's something that everybody on this call gets super excited about. So, yeah, that was an awesome company and we are just so excited to see them grow. So let's talk about your billion dollar... I'm sorry. John has a question. John?

John Darsie: (37:29)
I hate to take up too much oxygen but we were talking about the legacy financial system being disrupted by Fintech. We have several Goldman Sachs alumni at SkyBridge so I hate to throw them under the bus but they came out recently with some negative research on Bitcoin, basically saying they'll never allow Bitcoin into client accounts at their private bank.

John Darsie: (37:49)
And I find it ironic, they were also jockeying for the Coinbase IPO. Coinbase is doing dutch auctions right now for price discovery ahead of a direct listing. And I think there's a decent chance that in the first few weeks of it going public, that Coinbase's market cap could exceed Goldman Sach's. So just the irony of that disruption that's taking place is interesting to watch for us as somebody who has one foot in the legacy system and one foot trying to invest in disruption of space.

Sarah Kunst: (38:17)
And I mean I think that's the smart thing. Will the multiples hold? I'm a good Michigander so put a glass of wine in me and ask if I really believe Tesla's worth more than the big three auto makers. And I might have some controversial opinions but the reality is that these newcomers, I think, are massively helping shift where the focus is and I think that it pushes everybody in the industry to look a little bit more around the corner and all of a sudden these incumbents can't be sort of comfortable and complacent and think they'll be market leaders forever.

Sarah Kunst: (38:57)
So yeah, that is all great points. Speaking of that, to jump back to the billion dollar elephant in the room, let's talk a little bit about a tiny little company of yours that I heard is starting to do okay, called Chime. I would love for both of you to jump in and tell us about the deal and what made you excited early on. And then remind us all of how wildly successful of a ride it's been so far.

Lauren Kolodny: (39:29)
Happy to tell you about it. As hopefully is evident, we are very thesis driven as a firm. And back when we made the Chime investment that was the case then too. So we had a thesis at the time which was around millennials who were entering the workforce in droves. At the same time they've really come of age in the last recession and candidly were quite scarred from it and had pretty inherent distress in legacy financial institutions.

Lauren Kolodny: (40:04)
At the time, I think the number was... one data point that I think was helpful to exemplify this was that only 40% of the population had a credit card and shockingly it hasn't gone up much since. But I think that, as a result of that experience, millennials were looking for something that was more transparent and that offered a better consumer experience than what they perceived of legacy banks.

Lauren Kolodny: (40:31)
And then coupled with the fact that millennials also were digital natives and grew up with devices and the internet, we established this thesis where we really believed that that population in particular would adopt a digital first bank. And we shared that with some of our frequent co-investors and we were very fortunate in that both Forerunner and Homebrew had flagged the opportunity for us. The company had just gone through a bit of a pivot at the time and were, at that moment, sort of now a reflection of their current business. And so we led what was a kind of the second A, but the series A for the new model into Chime. We were both, Theresia and I, I think pretty blown away by the founding team.

Lauren Kolodny: (41:26)
Chris, with deep financial services and Fintech expertise as the CEO, and Ryan the CTO who had real technology tops operating as a CTO at Plaxo and Comcast, and a bunch of other places. And so we really thought they had it in them to build this thing. And we could never have predicted just how well they would execute. And I would say, I like to say that their secret weapon is Melissa Alvarado, their CMO, who is unlike any digital marketing person I've ever met.

Lauren Kolodny: (42:01)
So they scaled this thing and we invested. Our round was in 2016 at a 34 1/2 million dollar post-money evaluation and the most recent round, led by CO2 has been sitting at just over 14 1/2 billion. So it has been a pretty wild ride. T, I don't know if there's anything you would add?

Theresia Gouw: (42:25)
I think the only thing that I would add is that when I talked a little bit before about the fact that we need two people who have high conviction and it's 100%. Lauren's thesis, Lauren built this, Lauren's driven all of our, along with now Michelle, after she recruited Michelle, our Fintech practice. I think for sure it was Lauren's conviction on it.

Theresia Gouw: (42:50)
But I think that it really works when you have two people who have conviction on an investment. And sometimes you need that to overcome some other people who might not be as close to the sector. And granted, I'm not close but I think very highly of Lauren and spent a lot of time listening to her thesis about this.

Theresia Gouw: (43:15)
So the one thing I do know is, I think after doing this for a long time, as I'm sure you feel too Sarah, we need to know our thesis areas. We need to know about technology. We need to know about business model changes. But at the end of the day, especially at the early stage, what are we investing in? We're investing in people. So we need to know when an amazing founding team, like Chris and Ryan, walk in, even if you don't... and I will say, even if you don't admittedly understand 100% about all of their business model and what they're trying to build but you know when someone is an authentic, experienced, and passionate founder.

Theresia Gouw: (43:50)
I mean, Chris really knew the space. I mean, his prior company, you can look it up, I won't mention it because I don't... and it was very successful financially. But what he didn't like about it was that he was using his knowledge and smarts around how the traditional financial infrastructure worked to market to people who'd been overlooked by traditional financial institutions and to market them a product that they wanted but it wasn't necessarily a great financial trade, a great deal for them.

Theresia Gouw: (44:24)
And so that's why Chime, it just really, when you told the story it just spoke to me. It's like, I'm going to take all of that knowledge of how I know how to use ACH and debit rails and not credit card rails because it's more cost effective. I know how to build it but instead I'm going to use it for good. I'm not going to try to keep all of those bases points for my company. I'm going to put it back out into my users because what I really want them to do, I don't really want to make money on their transactions. I want to make money on them putting their direct deposit and becoming essentially their mobile first, their bank of record, right?

Theresia Gouw: (45:06)
So that's maybe a longer story, part of not... Lauren's story is the whole story but that was like the specific thing that I was like, all right, so here's a guy, here's a team, here's a founder who knows his space deeply. He's had one success and now he wants to take it to do something else. That really seemed incredibly thoughtful and authentic and genuine because it's obviously been a fantastic company, knock wood. Those valuations are what they are in the public but it's because it's been driven by their massive growth with accounts.

Theresia Gouw: (45:41)
And what he thought about really speaks to the mainstream America. That's who's on Chime. And he didn't want to create a product that was just created by tech dudes for more tech dudes, excuse the shorthand. But something that really was for mainstream America. And I thought he had exactly the right insights on how to do that. And he's obviously turned out to be even more successful than... maybe Lauren saw it but I was like, okay he's going to be successful but I don't know that anybody in a series A walks in, Sarah. They come in here like oh, it's going to be a $15 billion company.

Sarah Kunst: (46:14)
Yeah, it's truly a special company. On that note is this the space where it's winner take all? Chime is always going to be an outlier in terms of its speed to market dominance. But what is the term neobanking even mean anymore, right? I feel like anybody with an app that links to a bank account is a neobank. But it's interesting to think about what do you think the future looks like there? Are the big banks going to die and it's going to be all neobanks or the big banks are going to become neobanks? What happens here?

Lauren Kolodny: (46:53)
That's a good question. I wish I definitively knew the answer. I guess my view is that I don't think it's winner takes all. I think Chime obviously has a real stronghold on their member population which is people in the United States that are living paycheck to paycheck, which is the majority of Americans. I think they really speak to that population.

Lauren Kolodny: (47:16)
But as we've seen, neobanks haven't been super successful at traveling across borders is one point. So I do think that in different geos there are still opportunities. I also think that a lot of this infrastructure is enabling other companies to become financial services providers, right? And I think we're going to see a lot more consumer brands that have real loyalty and trust with their members, their users, start to offer banking products kind of embedded in their offering. We're seeing that already.

Lauren Kolodny: (47:53)
So I think that the movement is towards Fintech as business model, so to speak. And I think it will be really interesting to see kind of 5-10 years from now, are people still getting a lot of their financial services from traditional financial services providers? Or is it more these kind of crop of tech enabled banks but also other kind of consumer technology companies? My bet is on that.

Sarah Kunst: (48:23)
It was funny the other day.

Theresia Gouw: (48:25)
I was just going to say so, hanging onto that point. I was actually going to turn it back to you, Sarah, because actually in many ways, in terms of consumers and thinking about consumer segmentation, you're the deepest one on this call. But just building on what Lauren said, I said in addition to there's the geo piece because both consumer taste as well as regulation dip from geography to geography.

Theresia Gouw: (48:46)
I think what Lauren was saying is, if you think about, especially something specific like time which is consumer facing there will be multiple players because they might be the largest, right? The mainstream brand, right? But when you think about consumers in the United States and the winning brands there's always consumer segmentation, right? There are certain brands and certain offerings whether that's in banking or in retail. There might be one that's the largest because it speaks to sort of the broadest part of the population but there's always opportunity for people who speak to a very specific subsegment of the consumer base and have a differentiated value proposition and brand for that consumer. So I think that's the way we sort of see it playing out. I don't know if that's consistent with the way you think about it because I know you spend time in both of these sectors, as we do.

Sarah Kunst: (49:36)
I totally agree. I was thinking the other days, and obviously I'm friends with them so it's different but Gemini is gearing up to launch a credit card. And I was thinking about how 12 years ago, 15 years ago, you wanted a black card. Some day in your life you can maybe get an MX black card. I'm like, I would take a black card but I'm really excited to get a credit card that is my friend's company. And that is something that I'm excited about.

Sarah Kunst: (50:03)
And so it's just fascinating when you think about that from where the consumer loyalty goes. Fintech, it feels like, it's eating the world and maybe that's not such a bad thing. I think that exactly you're right. It's going to be a lot more than hey, there's only three companies you can trust. Now there's lots of places that are trustworthy and so it really comes down to who shares your values and who are you excited to be aligned with? That is going to be, I think, a really important part about the decade ahead in Fintech. So this has been so great. John, do you have any last questions?

John Darsie: (50:44)
I feel like we're just getting started but we'll have to have you guys back on for another conversation because we're fascinated by Fintech and just the way you guys look at trends. You talk about Chime, we have some involvement there. It's just interesting, like I said, to see which legacy companies are embracing the future. It's almost getting to the point now where some of these big banks, things like Chime, things like Plaid, things like Stripe that maybe a big bank or credit card company might have wanted to buy a few years ago, they can't buy them anymore because they're too big and they're disrupting them.

John Darsie: (51:14)
So it's a matter of whether they choose to embrace the future or they're going to become dinosaurs. So it's fascinating to watch and congratulations to you guys on being able to see around the corner and see some of these stories super early, Sarah, Theresia, and Lauren. So thank you guys so much for joining us, but we don't want to go too far into overtime here, but it's been a pleasure to have you on.

Theresia Gouw: (51:36)
Thanks for having us.

Lauren Kolodny: (51:40)
Yeah, thank you. This is great.

John Darsie: (51:40)
And thank you everyone who tuned into today's SALT talk with Lauren Kolodny and Theresia Gouw from Acrew Capital. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, whether with venture capitalists or hedge fund managers or public policy innovators, you can access all of our SALT talks and sign up for our future talks on our website at salt.org/talks.

John Darsie: (52:05)
Please follow us on social media. We're most active on Twitter I would say but we're doing more on Instagram. We post some of our content on Facebook and LinkedIn as well. And please spread the word about SALT talks and about SALT. We love growing our community and this lockdown has sort of offered a silver lining that we've been able to grow our brand and grow our community while everybody's sitting at home watching these SALT talks digitally, as opposed to having these space constraints that we have at our conferences, which we also enjoy.

John Darsie: (52:31)
On behalf of the entire SALT team, thank you again also to Sarah Kunst for organizing today's talk and introducing us to a wide variety of great guests as well. But on behalf of the SALT team and for Sarah, signing off for today. We'll see you back here again soon on SALT talk

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

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

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

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jeffrey W. Ubben.jpeg

Jeff Ubben

Founder & Managing Partner

Inclusive Capital Partners

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal in our SALT Conference series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Jeffrey Ubben to SALT Talks, somebody who both is investing and making a lot of money for his clients over his long track record, as well as driving social impact and increasingly so in his latest ventures. But I'll read you a little bit more about Jeff's background, but he's a man who needs no introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Ubben: (04:08)
One sister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:20)
Well said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venture Capital & Early Stage Science Startups | SALT Talks #156

Joe is a co-founder of Palantir, a multi-billion dollar global software company best known for its work in defense and finance. Most recently, he was a founding partner at Formation 8, one of the top-performing private funds and the precursor to 8VC.

Dakin Sloss is an entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist. He is the Founder and General Partner of Prime Movers Lab, the world’s leading partner of breakthrough scientific startups. He has led investments in and is a Board Member at Momentus, Heliogen, Covaxx, Tarana, and Carbon Capture. Prime Movers Lab I is on track to be one of the top-performing funds of 2018. Prior to founding Prime Movers Lab, Dakin served as founding CEO of Tachyus and OpenGov.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Joe Lonsdale.jpeg

Joe Lonsdale

General Partner

8VC

Dakin Sloss.jpeg

Dakin Sloss

Founder & General Partner

Prime Movers Lab

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 platform and networking platform, at the intersection of finances, 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 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: (00:41)
And we're very excited today to welcome two fantastic technology investors to SALT Talks, in Joe Lonsdale and Dakin Sloss. Joe Lonsdale is a general partner at 8VC. He was an early institutional investor in notable companies, including Wish, Oculus, Oscar, Illumio, Blend, Orca Bio, Relate IQ, Joby Aviation, Synthego, Guardant Health, as well as many others. And 2016 and 2017, he was the youngest member of the Forbes 100 Midas List. Joe is a co-founder of Palantir, a multi billion dollar global software company, best known for its work in defense and finance. Most recently, he was a founding partner at Formation 8, one of the top performing private funds, and the precursor to 8VC. Together, these funds manage a total committed capital base of about three and a half billion.

John Darsie: (01:33)
Before that, he found Addepar, which has over two trillion managed on its wealth management technology platform, and OpenGov, which modernizes various processes for over 2000 municipalities and state agencies. He's also a found of Affinity, Anduin, and Esper. Previously, Joe was an early executive at Clarium Capital, which he helped grow into a large, global macro hedge fund. And sorry for the banging above me, there seems to be some construction going on in the building. But that's just part of what we get here in the quarantine era.

Joe Lonsdale: (02:04)
They're getting tired of the bio, it's too long John. They're saying move on, we don't want to hear about Joe anymore.

John Darsie: (02:07)
Exactly. He also worked at PayPal while he was at Stanford, and that's the condensed bio for Joe, if we're being honest. He could have gone on for at least five more minutes with all the things that he's done. But we appreciate him packing about, I don't know, 50 trillion dollars worth of value that he's created into that short bio. So thank you, Joe, for that.

John Darsie: (02:25)
Dakin Sloss is the founder and general partner of Prime Movers Lab. Over the course of the last decade, he's created billions of dollars of enterprise value, including founding two breakthrough startups, OpenGov and Tachyus, investing in extraordinary early stage companies, like Boom Supersonic, and coaching dozens of prime movers, founders who invent breakthrough scientific inventions to transform billions of lives. And prior to Prime Movers Lab, he served as the founding CEO of Tachyus, where he built the leading prescriptive analytics company in the oil and gas industry. And before Tachyus, Dakin co-founded OpenGov where he was the CEO and recruited the core team, secured millions in angel funding and venture capital, and arranged the initial pilot partnerships, and launched the world's most advanced smart government platform. Before OpenGov, Dakin built California Common Sense, the premier California open data and government watchdog nonprofit, and California could certainly use some common sense. So thank you for doing that, Dakin.

John Darsie: (03:26)
Hosting today's talk and making his SALt Talks debut, we're very excited to have AJ Scaramucci, who as you might have guessed is a son of our typical host, Anthony Scaramucci. But AJ is an absolute beast in his own right. He started his career working at Google, then served as an entrepreneur in residence with Peter Diamandis, graduated from Stanford Business School, and has now launched the SALT fund, which is an incubator focused on life sciences companies, so we're excited to welcome AJ here to his debut on SALT Talks, and hopefully he comes back for many more episodes. Although he's busy building about seven different companies, so we try to squeeze him in in his spare time. So with that, AJ, I'll let you take it away for the interview.

AJ Scaramucci: (04:07)
Thanks John. Yeah. So I think what's unique about today's interview is we actually have two friends on the line, people that really know each other very intimately, have a long standing history with one another. I'd like to start there, actually. I'd like to start with how you guys met, as well as how you guys came up with the idea for OpenGov and created that together. I mean, Joe or Dakin, feel free to jump in there.

Joe Lonsdale: (04:31)
Yeah, well I remember Dakin was one of the brighter, more ambitious people at Stanford. You're not that much younger than me, but it felt like you were at the time. I feel like it was much-

Dakin Sloss: (04:39)
But I want to pretend I'm a lot younger than you, because the bios really make it seem-

Joe Lonsdale: (04:43)
I think you may be a decade younger than me, that's fair. But Dakin, we spent a lot of time meeting the top talent at Stanford, the different various groups, and entrepreneur groups, and policy groups there. And Dakin and I got along right away. He had a lot of strong opinions, and he wanted to do big things, and we became partners very quickly in a lot of different schemes.

Dakin Sloss: (05:04)
Yeah, I was just really lucky to have Joe as a mentor who's a bit further down the path and building amazing things that really help people transform their lives. And I certainly couldn't have created the things that I've gotten the privilege of working on over the last 10 years without learning and absorbing lots of lessons from Joe's successes and failures before me.

AJ Scaramucci: (05:26)
Absolutely. And so you guys both have... dabbled is not even the right word, you very much so have been intimately involved in building companies in the gov-tech space, whether it be OpenGov or Palantir. This seems to be a generally under invested in area in venture capital.

Joe Lonsdale: (05:50)
It's a very tough area. It's a very tough area to build companies in. I'd probably be in some ways wealthier even today if I had not spent time in gov-tech. That we're not going to make money in gov-tech, it just is very hard to do. I think Dakin and I are both very mission driven people, we both see problems in the world, and we say we're going to go and we're going to fix those problems. And obviously, the way our firm looks at it is just conceptual gaps in the world. There's how things should be working, and there's how things are working right now. And government has some of the very biggest conceptual gaps, so it's a really compelling area to work, and we do a lot of other things in healthcare, where there was lots of big gaps. We do a lot of things in logistics, in the deep tech. But government has so many big gaps, that yeah, it's something that really appeals to me to fix.

Dakin Sloss: (06:31)
And I think it's really important to note also that in today's day and age, government is, for better or worse, involved in almost every industry in the world deeply, and so whether it's a direct gov-tech company or not, if you're working in energy, transportation, infrastructure, defense, manufacturing, life sciences, all of these things involve huge aspects of interfacing both with domestic and international governments, and all the challenges and opportunities that come with that.

Joe Lonsdale: (06:57)
That's true, Dakin and I are doing some fun things in defense, that's true. We've co-invested on some things there lately, there are a lot of good opportunities there especially.

AJ Scaramucci: (07:05)
So yeah, I mean I think that's a natural segue, so both of you guys are at the helms of your own funds, you said you're very intrinsically motivated, which is very obvious given both of your track records and pedigrees. Can you articulate to us in a cohesive way what the investment thesis is for both Prime Movers as well as 8VC, and paint us a picture of this year, and out of this fund, what you are investing in today and why.

Joe Lonsdale: (07:33)
Dakin, why don't you take that first?

Dakin Sloss: (07:35)
Sure, yeah. So as John said, our mission is to invest in breakthrough scientific inventions that have the ability to transform billions of lives. We're basically investing in six areas, energy, transportation, infrastructure, manufacturing, human augmentation, and agriculture. And basically, the unifying theme across all our investments is that there's some sort of fundamentally very valuable intellectual property. Some sort of scientific breakthrough that's been invented, that opens up a big new market opportunity. And I think when I talk about Prime Movers Lab, it really boils down to two things that we're doing that I think are quite unique in the context of venture. It's this exclusive focus on scientific startups, and then it's really a service mindset.

Dakin Sloss: (08:16)
We treat our founders like customers and we have a whole set of portfolio support resources, executive coaches, talent partners, folks helping with PR, government relations, marketing, to make sure that the least useful thing we're providing to our companies is capital. And I will give a shout out to 8VC. I think there's been a lot of inspiration, because they're one of the few other firms that does think, I think, in a way that really supports founders so that they're not just building great companies, but they're learning and personally growing themselves, and enjoying the process in building companies as well.

AJ Scaramucci: (08:50)
Definitely. Definitely. Yeah, Joe feel free to...

Joe Lonsdale: (08:53)
Yeah, sure. So 8VC, we do a lot of different things. I think the number one role of a top venture capital firm is to focus on knowing where the very top technology talent is going, and what they're doing, and being a place where they're going to come knock on your door, and they know you are. And so Dakin's getting to this place with his firm too with a lot of success. We've been lucky to have a lot of things work, so in the last seven months we've had eight companies go public. When you have these things you backed early that are now going public, there's lots of people there doing new things. And so I think number one is we're managing talent, I'd say, if I'm honest about my job. I think it's more fun to talk about the macro stuff than the tech stuff. But managing talent, and having talent want to work with us, that's one.

Joe Lonsdale: (09:34)
I think number two, the question we always try to ask is what's possible now that was not possible five years ago? If you look at the role of venture capital in the global economy, and why are we investing venture capital, it's because it's helping the economy evolve. It's exploring new ideas. You couldn't have Uber, or Lyft, or Didi, or ride sharing work before the mobile phone existed. Once it existed, those were great investments. Now that they've existed for 14 years, you're not going to make 100X on those investments anymore. A venture capitalist should not probably be looking at that area. And so the big question always for us is what's possible now that wasn't possible before.

Joe Lonsdale: (10:07)
And there's a lot of good answers. Probably the most compelling answer might be the renaissance in biology, but there's still a lot of things with big data and cloud and AI, applied to big industry's processes. There's a lot of things with how healthcare works, and how risk works, and how you can use incentives, and accountability, and markets in different parts of healthcare to deliver healthcare better, with preventative medicine more affordably to everyone. Obviously a big issue for our country. So wherever you see gaps in the world where something new is possible or a better way of doing things are possible, that's venture capital's job. And if you find those areas, you own networks, you own platforms, and you're betting on the top people to go after them, you're going to make a lot of money.

AJ Scaramucci: (10:45)
Definitely. Yeah, both of us you seem to have a real keen interest in life sciences and biotech, and this is something has its origins perhaps in Boston, but is very much so now permeated Silicon Valley. Software is infecting wetware for the first time meaningfully-

Joe Lonsdale: (11:04)
That's right, a lot of biology is becoming information science in a lot of areas.

AJ Scaramucci: (11:08)
Absolutely. So I'd love to lean into this topic a little bit more. I know Dakin, you've been investing pretty aggressively here, both in response to COVID-19 with companies like COVAX, as an example, which I obviously know super well, given Mr. Diamandis. But I'd love to hear from you where in that landscape you're seeing opportunities in the near-term, long-term, whether it be synthetic biology, mRNA, or something else.

Dakin Sloss: (11:38)
Well yeah, as you said COVAX is one of our portfolio companies, they have near three billion dollars in vaccine sales this year, and hopefully can play a big role in ending the global pandemic. Not just here in the US, but with a vaccine that can actually be distributed safely, effectively, cost efficiently, to under developed parts of the world, where a lot of their business is. Beyond vaccine development, we're really looking at three areas in life sciences, neuroscience, longevity, and agriculture. And those are all obviously very broad areas, but we have companies like Elevion, that have identified the underlying growth factor that's responsible for parabiosis, where basically young blood can have rejuvenative effects for older organisms or people. And they're commercializing that first for targeting stroke recovery, but also for other indications as well.

Dakin Sloss: (12:33)
We've got companies in the neuroscience area, things across brain-computer interfaces, one of the areas I'm most excited about now actually is the application of psychedelics for the major mental health problems that we face as a civilization. I think there's 300 million people around the planet that have some sort of mental health challenge, and we've got compounds that have thousands of years of historical data. Not necessarily scientific data, but anecdotal data, that indicate they could provide some value there. And then in the world of agriculture, we have a major portfolio company, Upward Farms, which is using aquaponics rather than hydroponics to produce leafy green vegetables in urban areas at higher yields than anybody else in the market can. So that they can actually be economically scalable.

Dakin Sloss: (13:18)
And when you look across each of these areas, they fit the criteria that Joe was talking about of major things have changed, particularly in the application of computation to these areas. But in other discoveries and breakthroughs that have happened within these fields, that mean they're on the cusp of major commercialization revolution, not just scientific revolution.

AJ Scaramucci: (13:38)
Definitely. Definitely. And on this topic of in the subset or matrix in there, we find longevity, which is an interesting subarea. This is an area that circles around the nine hallmarks of aging, or in fact that aging is the fundamental indication that it is a disease in and of itself. This is something that is becoming perhaps more popular, with nodes like Peter Diamandis, or Dr. David Sinclair, or whoever. Is this an area, Joe, that you also are seeing an uptick in momentum? Actually longevity, preventative medicine, et cetera, as opposed to some of this indication driven traditional biotech?

Joe Lonsdale: (14:25)
Yeah, no it's definitely becoming a hotter area. Our fund is focused on things that maybe sometimes we don't take as much technology risk in very new technology, but I think there's a lot of things that are going to work there, and they're going to be really valuable. So we're probably not working on my end on nuclear fusion or on things that will prevent death, or et cetera, in a quiet stream way, but there's lots of things we're working on.

Joe Lonsdale: (14:55)
For example, in going after cancer, and going after Alzheimer's and cell therapy, that are all part of this longevity wave. And as we understand these things better... For example, I'm really fascinated right now with the whole idea of applying Yamanaka factors, which are these factors you trigger in a cell, that will put it back to being basically age zero. And one of our more advanced companies that's raised billions of dollars now is applying, one of the things it does is it applies these to white blood cells and it turns a white blood cell back into a pluripotent stem cell, turns it back into a young white blood cell. Suddenly it can fight cancer better.

Joe Lonsdale: (15:28)
So if you're able to fight cancer better, and it's working, you're using a mechanism that's changing something back to age zero, why not in theory couldn't you change other parts of the body back to age zero? So it's actually a really fascinating age where we're just right in the middle of, we call it a renaissance. Because every month or two, we're using these new tools with gene editing, and with cell therapy, and with synthetic biology, to discover how life works at a fundamental level, and to try things and to learn from it. And so yeah, I'm very, very bullish on the progress that's going to be made. I tend to take, and I know Dakin's done a great job at this too, take things that are possible to do now, as opposed to things that are really high in the sky that might happen in 10 or 15 years. But even those things that are possible in that area now are advancing the area, which will lead to these great results, hopefully.

AJ Scaramucci: (16:09)
Definitely. And what would you say, which area in this life science theme is not being invested in the way it should be? Which area is actually in fact under valued, or where is-

Joe Lonsdale: (16:23)
I think there's too much AI for drug discovery, as a default thing where they're just exploring. There's just a lot of like, "We're going to use AI to discover drugs." And I actually think AI is more useful in these much more narrow applications of helping. So I think AI, like to tweak how antibodies work, and we already have something working, and we're making it work better. Or AI to tweak how certain things are understood with the tools. There's applications of AI that require you to have the best scientists, and be working hand in hand with those scientists very closely, as opposed to these pure tech companies started by a lot of my friends, who may be the best in the world in computer science, but don't necessarily have a PhD in biology.

Joe Lonsdale: (17:06)
So I think having to go to the forefront, and spend the two or three or four years it takes for a smart person to really get to the forefront of some of these areas of science, at least to understand what's going on, and then help them by applying AI? That's not helping nearly enough. That's not happening nearly enough. People are working too independently from scientists.

AJ Scaramucci: (17:22)
Sure.

Dakin Sloss: (17:22)
Yeah, I think often at the beginning of these revolutions or renaissances, it can feel like, from a public perspective, that it's over hyped. And that already, too much money is going into bio. I think it's almost always, though, the exact opposite, which is it's extremely under hyped. So if we look forward 15 or 30 years, I think people are going to think it's a joke, the things that people were dying of, the things that people were sick from, the things that people were struggling with. And our current understanding of the human body, of physiology, and of how to prevent disease, rather than respond to issues that pop up, is so unsophisticated relative to what's actually possible now, based on the latest things that are happening labs.

Dakin Sloss: (18:05)
So I would say almost universally, all of these things are being under invested in. Specifically, I would say neuroscience in particular. I think neuroscience is a relatively novel and new field, and we're still very limited in our understanding of the brain. And if you project forward 20, 30 years, what is going to have made a massive difference in how human beings are functioning on this planet, and how we're expanding as a civilization and species, neuroscience is clearly going to play a crucial role there. And we're just at the very beginning of that wave of bio funding flooding into neuroscience.

AJ Scaramucci: (18:39)
Yeah, I see that. That resonates with me as well. It may be switching topics a bit here. In a world where capital is unbelievably abundant, where sovereign wealth funds, pensions are coming down and doing direct investments, where there's truly hundreds of billions of dollars now per year being injected into venture capital at every stage, how do each of you differentiate yourselves in the eyes of the entrepreneur? Why do they take your capital, which they do, very often, as opposed to another firm. I'd love to unpack that. I mean, Joe, if you want to start, go for it.

Joe Lonsdale: (19:19)
Yeah, sure. Well I mean, in a lot of cases, they or their close friends have worked with us over the last couple of decades, and they knew who we are, they know what we can do. You've got to find ways of creating unfair advantages for your entrepreneurs. Building a company is just fundamentally a very, very hard thing to do, and the world's usually against these new things, and usually crushes them. And it takes amazing perseverance, and so any advantages you can get are really key. And so the question is, what are types of advantages that you can create?

Joe Lonsdale: (19:45)
And obviously, if you have a brand and you have great people around you, that's one advantage. A lot of firms, we spend a lot of time figuring out how to build new advantages, so for example, we do a lot in logistics, that's another area we're very bullish on, how it's changing in the next 10 years. So five years ago we got to know the guys around logistics for four or five of the biggest companies over the last couple decades, like the guys who used to run it for Walmart, or guys who used to run UPS, or guys who used to run it for Coke.

Joe Lonsdale: (20:09)
And we got to know these guys, we made them our senior advisors, we got them involved in the firm, and then we got to know a bunch of their friends with conferences we host. So we got to know 30 or 40 of the CEOs, CCOs, of these places. We hired a couple of them as senior execs and residents, and some they were part of a network, with these leaders. And so now we introduce all of our companies to that space to them, they help give them feedback, give them deals. Now we're looking to build something new in the space, we're looking to partner with it, people know that we're the guys who know everyone there.

Joe Lonsdale: (20:37)
And so you do this in a handful of industries, and you start to get some pretty big advantages. And the more wins you have, the more the industry trusts you, the more the industry is going to look at, and going to help, and going to do deals with your new things. And of course, you spread the upside around, you have these companies make people advisors. So I think a big part is just the autocorrelation of venture capital is this very cool thing, because as you have more money, as you get more people on your side, and you have that. So I think that's a big part of it. But just in general, you have to have people who are running the firm who are admired and who are liked, and who are, ideally, in the same spectrum of the people building the company.

Joe Lonsdale: (21:12)
So our firm, even though we have 40 people, most of them are actually young entrepreneurs, mostly habit entrepreneurs were our partners, and for us that works really well. There's different ways of doing it, but you have to create some way in which these people relate to you and in which they see they're getting advantages from working with you and are excited to do it.

AJ Scaramucci: (21:30)
Yeah.

Dakin Sloss: (21:31)
Yeah, I agree with everything Joe said. I'll highlight just one of the things that we focus on. So one of our partners is Tony Robins, who's one of the world's leading business strategists and executive coaches, and basically in business, 80% of success is psychology, 20% is mechanics. And so when you talk to early stage VCs, I think everyone recognizes the biggest risk any company faces is the founder's psychology, the founder's development, the founder's leadership, and the dynamics across that leadership team.

Dakin Sloss: (21:58)
That being said, I think it's really under focused on how do you actually mitigate that risk? And so we have full time executive coaches, we have leadership training programs, we have a whole suite of things that we're doing, and when we originally started the firm, I figured that would attract less experienced founders, more than it would attract the more experienced founders. But I think the more experienced founders recognize how unique that is actually, and serial entrepreneurs recognize that if they can get a 1% improvement in how they're functioning, that can translate to a 10% or 100% improvement in how the business is functioning.

Dakin Sloss: (22:29)
And so we've really had a lot of serial entrepreneurs love that focus on their personal development and their expansion as a means to serving the company, and I think that's attracted a lot of founders to us. Because we're genuinely, I think this is something Joe and I, and 8VC and Prime Movers Lab have in common, we're entrepreneurs who happen to be running venture capital firms, and we're not just investing in cutting edge tech, we're rolling up our sleeves and helping to build a business. We're not taking control, or being a pain in the butt to deal with, but we're doing whatever it takes to help make sure that the company succeeds, and that's one example of the kinds of services that we offer. And we've built the firm like a startup, where it's like the founders are our customers, what are they most wanting? And then we figure out how to deliver that to them, and build our team to deliver that.

AJ Scaramucci: (23:16)
Absolutely. Yeah, I think both you guys have done, clearly, an extraordinary job. And Joe, I've seen first hand, perhaps Dakin is a great example, right? There was a real relationship there, there was a company built together, and all these years later, you're on this SALT Talk, you're interacting with each other, I'm sure you-

Joe Lonsdale: (23:36)
You've got to invest in the people you work with, you've got to keep learning from each other, and you've got to find things to do together. And we both... Dakin's done a lot of great things with people that have really benefited our firm, and we've tried to bring him into some things as well. And that's how this world works, it's very positive sum world in venture capital, if you have a big network doing this, that's just to your advantage.

AJ Scaramucci: (23:54)
Definitely. So I was catching up with Zach Rifkin a month ago or so, and I've seen some action on the interwebs related to this city, apparently, that is being built near Austin. Uh oh! So I'd love to get into that, Joe, what is going on with that, please?

Joe Lonsdale: (24:17)
Oh, we're still exploring ideas. We're still exploring ideas. But a lot of us, I wrote this obnoxious article in the Wall Street Journal op-ed that a lot of you may have read, about leaving California even though we love it, because there's just so many things that are broken, and so many things that are hard about doing business and hiring people there. And there's just lots of levels of problems that are hard to fix. And so a lot of my friends have moved to Texas, we have obviously, publicly Elon Musk is here and nearby, who we do a lot with, and there's like... I don't even know, I shouldn't mention all the names, because I don't know who's in public and who's not in public. But a lot of prominent entrepreneurs have moved here. It's usually either Texas, or Jackson Hole, where Dakin is, or Miami pretty much. Maybe a couple of other places and a lot of these entrepreneurs have moved to.

Joe Lonsdale: (25:01)
And a lot of people are realizing they can work from anywhere, but they still want to be around these clusters of other entrepreneurs around town, they still want to spend time with them. I was in Jackson Hole with Dakin and a bunch of friends even just a week around, and teaching my three year old how to ski, but also there for business purposes as well. And so there's just all these people on the move, there's all these people looking for better places to live and build and work, and a big gap in the world, we think, is how cities work. So we talk about our job is to identify gaps, obviously government could be better. It's not just the government itself, it's actually the way the city's designed, the way a city works. I don't believe in this whole status thing, where you can just design a city top down exactly, it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm very much about free society and organic, and evolution.

Joe Lonsdale: (25:42)
But I think you can give a skeletal structure and order in ways the city works, that make it work a lot better. So I have quite a few friends who are names you would know, that we've been chatting for a while about this. And we may buy a bunch of land somewhere and decide to build one. And the boring company to me makes it even more exciting, because we can dig... It sounds crazy, but we have. We've proven it now, we're digging this very, very cheap tunnels, and if you could do really inexpensive tunneling, that could really change how a city works, and how access to a city works. Economically, even, as it gets more expensive for everyone. So we would love to make a world-defining city, to teach the 21st century how these things should work, and do that with friends.

AJ Scaramucci: (26:16)
Our you keen on selling some [inaudible 00:26:19] to back-

Joe Lonsdale: (26:19)
You know, I think Elon's extremely clever about how to fund these things, and so it's one of these things where I think we may, especially if we have the right people like him involved, and we get a city going that's designed properly, and we make it lower cost of living, we make it easier to access, we make it cool in lots of different ways. I mean you could think about underground speakeasies with a boring company, right? Who knows. There's all sorts of fun stuff we could do with this stuff. I'm not sure we're going to have to worry too much about funding it, I think people are going to want to come right away. So it's a matter of finding the right place, and right leadership, and the right time, because all of us are so busy building what we're building. But I think it'd be really fun to work on something like that.

AJ Scaramucci: (26:52)
Definitely. Yeah, so I mean both of you guys, as well as myself, have origins in Silicon Valley, right, I mean you guys all went to Stanford here, we started our careers there, and so on and so forth. But now we're dispersed. I mean, I'm spending most of my time in Miami, and-

Joe Lonsdale: (27:12)
But we have these networks, and we know each other because we're from the same networks and we're excited to work together. Obviously I'd love to do more with you, AJ. And so I think it's an advantage, because we do have these networks we've built. That's why we can be dispersed.

AJ Scaramucci: (27:23)
Definitely. But is it, I mean the fact that you're in Austin, and you're in Wyoming, have we gotten past a sort of event horizon in the Bay Area such that it is a point of no return? Our people are truly leaving, I mean you can see in the news, we've got 70, 75,000 people leaving the state of California in fiscal year 2020. That seems to be a trend that has, if anything, accelerated into 2021. Is this here to stay? Is California on the decline? I'd love, Dakin, if you want to jump in and answer that.

Dakin Sloss: (28:04)
I mean, to put it bluntly, California has been mismanaged for decades. In any business, if you spend dramatically more, and commit to dramatically more obligations in the future, then what you're receiving in revenue, you go bankrupt. And we are running a grand experiment at a societal level about... not just at the state level, but at the federal level... how much can we outspend our means, and how long can we survive doing that? And California is the leader, unfortunately, in that, and I don't think it ends well.

Dakin Sloss: (28:35)
Now, none of us can predict when or exactly how, but I think the much more interesting and exciting story than California's decline is the rise of so many other places. And I think what the... I moved here three years ago, a little before it was trendy to leave the Bay Area, and already at that point you were seeing this wave of entrepreneurship happening around the country in teams that were being built that were remote teams from day one. Where there might be a particular location that's attractive for manufacturing, like Florida. There might be a particular location that's attractive for customer support, like Salt Lake City. And you have these tremendous benefits that have happened for the bay area, and for a relatively small group of people from the tech world over the last 20 years.

Dakin Sloss: (29:21)
And I think a lot of what's going to happen over the next 20 years is that benefit is going to be much more widespread across the country, and to many, many more people, because we are literally sitting at this point where almost every single area of our lives is being changed exponentially. And as a result of that, you end up shifting where the economy is. Most of the economy is not going to be sitting in the big companies that were the big companies 30 years ago, it's going to be sitting in startups and self-run businesses, and more distributed teams, which I think is exciting for just the average human being's lifestyle and quality of life.

AJ Scaramucci: (29:55)
Definitely, yeah. There seems, whether it's human capital dispersion, it's tax considerations, it's sunshine, there's many, many factors that are at play here, and have created a little bit of a shift away from California.

Dakin Sloss: (30:11)
I think on the tax piece, it's important to point out, because obviously no one likes taxes. The two inevitable things are taxes and death, nobody wants either of those. We're trying to fix death, but I don't think that... It's mis-covered, and often the first question I get is, "Oh, you left town because of taxes." No, I'm happy to pay taxes if I receive services in return. I'm not happy to pay taxes and then have my wife walking through the city and find heroin needles and nothing cleaned up. And so I think that the issues is much less about taxes, and much more about mismanagement of what services are being provided by governments.

AJ Scaramucci: (30:47)
Definitely. Definitely, yeah. I mean you've got over a million employees in the government, there's definitely, a lot of polarization, some mismanagement, lots of confusion, et cetera. I mean, are there some things just though that we can... Is there a way to inject some vigor back into the government? Is there a way to get real great human capital perhaps from Silicon Valley?

Joe Lonsdale: (31:15)
Yeah. Oh yeah, there's lots of ways. And so I have a policy group called the Cicero Institute, 14 full time people in there working specifically on issues like this, and it's purely how to help society, it's not cronyism, in fact we're trying to stop cronyism in all these areas. But what you basically need in government, is you need to make it look more like how a free society works. The way a free society works, is we try lots of stuff, and the ideas compete, and the good ideas win and the bad ideas lose. The problem with how government is set up right now is there's not a mechanism for a competition of ideas. So you'll have things happening in certain governments, like the way we run certain prisons is amazing. There's certain prisons with programs where there recidivism falls down below 10%, because they're doing some really clever, really inspiring work. And there are other ones, they're still using shock therapy and have over 90% recidivism. In fact, in New York State even they're doing that in one prison.

Joe Lonsdale: (32:03)
So you're like, wait a second, what's happening? And then you realize that the things the government touches, they don't have a mechanism for competition of ideas, then it's very, very hard to have this fresh thing going. Ti's like for example, the DMV in lots of states is a classic example. No one likes going to the DMV. For most places, it's horrible. Here's what you do, let's say you have 20 DMVs in an area. You should put one person in charge of 10, another person in charge of another 10. Just give them a little bit of a budget, ability to hire and fire their top five or six people, just they actually have the ability to change who's working for them and running it at the top. Ability to use the budget to try some innovative things, and then give them two years.

Joe Lonsdale: (32:38)
And for each one of them, we'll see how it works, and whoever wins gets a bonus, and whoever loses, they get pushed somewhere else, and someone else gets to try again. And just that competition... You know, just do it based on MPS scores from the consumers. So just a really basic set up of a competition of some control, some ability to innovate, wouldn't be that expensive. You could actually massively improve how DMV works. Same thing for every area of government, it's called accountability, and incentives. And without accountability and incentives, you should not expect government to work, it's just going to keep decaying, and keep getting worse. And so this is a very simple idea, but it's one of those things where just for whatever reason, people are really bad at this stuff.

AJ Scaramucci: (33:16)
Yeah, I mean this past year and even still now, the pandemic, COVID-19, has really pierced through and reared its head, and shown a lot of the huge issues we have in our healthcare system, in our ability to access supply chains, the FDA approval process. We've truncated some of that, a 10-12 year time horizon to bring a vaccine to market has been shrunk down to a little less than a year, which in and of itself is promising. But as you see the virus continued to tear open not just the United States, but the West, what can we learn from this? How do we adapt? What other countries and governmental bodies do you feel are doing a good job, and how can we come out of this as United States 2.0, instead of this perhaps continued decay? I mean, Dakin, if you have some thoughts there, jump in.

Dakin Sloss: (34:15)
Yeah, I mean I agree with what Joe was saying about looking at how do businesses work, and what are the lessons we can take from that. And it's not like every lesson in business is going to apply to government. I don't think that there's phenomenally inspirational examples of perfectly run governments in the world today. We live in general in a world today where the state is progressively playing a larger and large role in people's lives, rather than individuals in free society, and I think that there's these two opposing trends almost, right? One is the amazing technological progress that's happening, that has the potential, well used, to basically solve every major material problem that we face. And then there's these massive societal tensions that feel in general, and the way they're covered in the news, feel like we're moving backwards. And it feels like those two forces are against each other.

Dakin Sloss: (35:06)
I think ultimately, we need to come upon more flexible governance structures, that are designed for the world in which we live. And I think regardless of where one is on the political spectrum, you don't have to be critical of any particular political orientation to see that the way in which it made sense to set up a country 250 years ago or 100 years ago is super different in a completely globalized world, in a completely interdependent world, and I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done there. Joe, I think, is doing a great job exploring ideas in that landscape.

Joe Lonsdale: (35:41)
I tend to have a lot of respect for the philosophy of 250 years ago, I think a lot of it was quite good. I think it was a high [crosstalk 00:35:48]-

Dakin Sloss: (35:48)
I agree with the philosophy, too. I think structurally, though, basic things. I think it's difficult to imagine, and Joe and I may actually disagree on this one, it's difficult to imagine a couple hundred years from now, that we're going to end up with these big mega countries like we currently have, where people identify as American, or Russian, or Chinese. That, in a very global world, that's going to change a lot. And I think the way travel has been shut down over this period of time has shown how crazy and silly that is. I think you're going to end up with communities, like the type of city that Joe's talking about building, that people organize around, and you're going to end up with simpler, more adaptable structures. Which I think is even the spirit of the founding of America, not necessarily in its current implementation.

AJ Scaramucci: (36:34)
Yeah, I mean one of the linchpin problems that has been percolating or bubbling for some time is wealth inequality. If you have assets in an environment where things are imploding, you invest those assets, you will in turn compound them, right? So that is very much so what has happened over the last 12 months, and seeing things bubble, whether it's in the cryptocurrency or blockchain ecosystem, or even something like this GameStop run up we've seen, is a way to stick it to the man, if you will, or create-

Joe Lonsdale: (37:11)
A lot of assets lost a lot of them in that run up.

AJ Scaramucci: (37:13)
That's true. That's very true. Yeah, I mean I'd love to hear your thoughts and perhaps opine on some solutions to this wealth inequality, and...

Joe Lonsdale: (37:23)
Yeah, so I think it's always there's something weird going on there, and it's worth bringing up. I tend to not like the framing wealth inequality so much as how do you create opportunity for the least well off, right? And I think there's a couple things there. First of all, we do have a very unfair system in the sense that the fed is printing a lot of money, and it's creating a lot of asset inflation. So our government policy is specifically giving lots of money to those who own assets and those who are very wealthy. I think that's probably the biggest source, if you're going to talk about the word inequality, is just we are making assets worth more than they should be thanks to what I think is a very naïve monetary policy that it's ironic that the Democrats are even more in favor of it than the Republicans. They're just going to print like mad, and so that is interesting, that does help the wealthy more.

Joe Lonsdale: (38:12)
But I think we have to step back and say, what we really care about is let's look at an index of opportunity and of wealth, and of prosperity, and of wellbeing, for the bottom 20% of our society, the bottom 50% of our society, and first of all, they're way better off than anywhere else in the world. So we're not doing that badly. Overall, we're doing quite well on most metrics there. And you'd much, much, much rather be a bottom 20% socioeconomic person in a country where there's rich people than in countries where they've banned billionaires. Because the countries where they've banned billionaires, that's where you get real poverty, and you get a real mess. Because there's no one growing and extending the top ideas.

Joe Lonsdale: (38:44)
So you don't want to be in a poor country where there's not billionaires. But then second, what do we do to help the bottom of society? And this is where my policy work comes in, the policy group comes in. There's lots of things we've done to accidentally make it tough to be poor in America. We've made cost of living way higher. We've made commutes way longer than they should be. We've stopped building in major cities. So it used to be, if you were poor you could go to a big city, you work your way up, you can't do that anymore. It's too expensive. So a lot of policy that Cicero Institute focuses on, that I focus on, is not about the gap about rich and poor, because it's not about bringing down. If I go start another company, like next year, I obviously, Palantir's worth 55 billion dollars. My fund's setting back three billion dollars this year. I can go sit on a fucking... pardon my language, I can go sit on a beach, but if I go start another company instead, I'm increasing wealth inequality.

Joe Lonsdale: (39:28)
So obviously wealth inequality is not the right thing to think about, because obviously I'm increasing it by choosing not to go to the beach. If you really wanted to lower wealth inequality, you can just force me to go to the beach. That's obviously not good for anyone, it's good for me to create more things. So the question is not how to bring down creators, the question is what do we do to help the least well off. And there's so many ways, education, healthcare, cost of living. There's so many policies we could fix there, so that's what I'm focused on is how do we help them.

Dakin Sloss: (39:51)
Yeah, I agree with Joe's framing on this. Another thing I would add is, I think one thing we don't spend enough time talking about in these polarized topics is we're all part of a shared human family. And if we think of everyone in the US, or everyone in the world as part of a human family, one question that's worth asking is, if these are all my brothers and sisters, when would I want them to be born in history? Would I want them to be born in feudal society 300 years ago, where the richest king in the world couldn't fly halfway across the world to go see a movie, much less look at an iPhone and all the incredible abundance that comes with that. Or I'd rather that king, 300 years ago, be born today, as one of the poorest Americans?

Dakin Sloss: (40:34)
I would rather he was born as one of the poorest in America, because the thing that the inequality framing misses is the average human being's quality of life today is higher than it has ever been at any point in human history. And I think that's extremely exciting, and we should feel really good about that. Would it be attractive for the average human being's quality of life to go up further? Absolutely, that's what we're all working on, and that's what we're all investing our time and energy in, rather than going and sitting on a beach. And I think that's important, and I think as you have... One of the places this has come about a lot from, frankly, is how the news works today. The news is designed to polarize and shock us, and grab our two million year old brain's attention through negativity, rather than covering, wow, isn't it amazing what the average human being's quality of life is?

Dakin Sloss: (41:20)
And I'm not saying we should stop working on it, we should absolutely keep working on it, but I think we have to look at it, why did it change over the last 300 years? And a lot of why it changed over the last 300 years is good systems for innovation, and for encouraging people not to go sit on a beach, but to go pursue fantastic ideas and create novel products, and services, and tools that help the average human being's life quality go up. So I feel quite actually optimistic in this area. And philanthropically, the place we focus is feeding people abroad, in international countries. I think 10 years from now, you're not going to have people who don't have enough food. That's crazy that that's going on, and that is largely a structure due to poor governance in places, not to lack of resources. There's plenty of resources for everyone at this point, and it's a matter of execution, and a matter of governance to make sure that people benefit from the tremendous resources that they're already benefiting from at an even higher level.

AJ Scaramucci: (42:18)
Yeah, I mean one element to this opportunity gap, perhaps, is the idea market itself. So circa 1990s, early 2000s, companies would start and go public in a four to seven year time horizon. Today it's 10 to even 14 years.

Joe Lonsdale: (42:38)
Yeah, well it will be interesting to see if SPAXX change that, because Dakin and I are experiencing recently, some of our companies, three of our eight are SPAXX. I think Dakin's the king of SPAXX right now, they're all chasing him. So I agree, I think it could be faster, there could be rules to make it faster. At the same time, there's lots of other ways we could share benefits. Not everyone has to necessarily invest and be part of a tech company to hopefully benefit from it. Hopefully the things we work on and the policy we work on could lead to a better future for everyone regardless.

Dakin Sloss: (43:07)
And I do think that's a perfect example, right? So part of the reason that the IPO market and the time to go public changed so much was it became much more onerous to become a public company. And it's, you can see all the sides, right? People in government wanted to protect retail investors from bad actors in public companies, not disclosing things, not reporting things. Which, there's always going to be bad actors somewhere, but they're usually the minority in almost any system, not the majority. And the rules that were put in place made it much more attractive to stay private longer, and rather than actually protecting the average public market investor, a firefighter, or a teacher trying to grow their retirement account over time, the opposite happened, in that all the growth started happening in venture capital and growth equity, and stuff that the average investor couldn't access.

Dakin Sloss: (43:56)
And so I think it's exciting right now that through SPAXX, there's an opportunity for the average public market investor to get exposure to much earlier stage, higher risk tech companies than they would have gotten before, which is both going to produce some failures and produce some phenomenal returns. And help your average person grow their retirement and participate in the upside of all these things.

Joe Lonsdale: (44:20)
Yeah, I'd say that's a positive as well. We do need pensions to perform, otherwise we're in trouble. So there's a lot of good stuff we can do there.

AJ Scaramucci: (44:26)
So these SPAXX very much so seem here to stay. I mean, as you pointed out Joe, I mean Hims and Hers recently went public, I know Momentus is in the process of going public-

Joe Lonsdale: (44:40)
Joby just announced they're going, my flying car company, they're going to raise a billion it sounds like, in SPAXX.

AJ Scaramucci: (44:46)
Fascinating. So are you guys actually back putting together your own SPAXX at 8VC and Prime Movers-

Joe Lonsdale: (44:52)
I've been helping some friends, I've avoided it so far. There's argument that we should be. There's so many right now that I'm just a little bit cautious about it. I think it's a mechanism that's a great mechanism, and lots of my smart friends are doing them. They've done very well. My guess is the fees go down a little bit. I like making money in ways that are based in creating value over three or five years. Palantir is public now, it took us 17 years. That's a little long, may not want to wait that long for things I do, but I think making money over a longer period of time is a better framework for doing it. So I'm not really too focused on SPAXX. That said, if people are giving away money, probably should, nothing wrong with people doing it, you know?

AJ Scaramucci: (45:27)
Sure, sure, sure.

Dakin Sloss: (45:28)
Yeah, I mean we've got six different companies going public via this right now, and I think the thing that's really under reported on about this is the main innovation in SPAXX is the ability in the process of going and raising from a SPAC to do what you already do with venture capitalists, of showing forward looking financials. And those forward looking financials allow people to form a realistic perspective on the business, because none of the companies three or four years in look phenomenal from a rear looking financial perspective. They've been spending money and investing.

Joe Lonsdale: (45:56)
No, yeah, the fact that you did the forward looking is really good.

AJ Scaramucci: (45:58)
Dakin and Joe, thank you so much for joining us today on SALT Talks. I've found this conversation super dynamic, very interesting, we covered a lot of ground. John, feel free to jump in and wrap it up for us.

John Darsie: (46:10)
Yeah, thank you again Joe and Dakin, and thank you everybody who tuned in to today's SALT Talk. A lot of great information about building companies, trends that we're seeing, as well as how to fix public policy. We sort of covered the whole gamut here. So thank you guys, and thank you everybody who tuned in. Just a reminder, if you missed any of this talk, or any of our previous talks, or you want to sign up for future SALT Talks, you can go to salt.org\talks, we have our entire archive there, as well as fields where you can be altered to upcoming talks on subjects that interest you.

John Darsie: (46:42)
A reminder too, please spread the word. We love growing our community, which we've done a great job of during the pandemic, during the quarantine period. We're going to continue to do these SALT Talks even when we return to our in-person conference series. But please spread the word, and please follow us on social media, we're on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, our YouTube channel is SaltTube, so please follow us there, we have a fast growing subscriber base that gets alerted to all of our new content. So on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off. It was great to have you here for your debut on SALT Talks, AJ. We hope you'll come back and moderate one soon. But thank you everybody again for joining. We'll see you soon.

Financial Advisors Explain Wealth Management & Financial Literacy | SALT Talks #155

Backed by over 20 years of experience, Stacy works with her clients to understand their goals, define risk, manage liabilities, and proactively plan for their overall financial future. Stacy’s focus on a client-centric wealth management process has spanned her entire career.

Octavius Reid is a Senior Vice President and Wealth Advisor with Morgan Stanley. Over the past 30 years, he has developed an area of focus, working with clients in the sports and entertainment industry. As a Morgan Stanley Global Sports and Entertainment Director, provides financial management services and helps guide many professionals through what can be an incredibly difficult space.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Stacy L. Robinson.jpeg

Stacy Robinson

Financial Advisor & PIM Portfolio Manager

Wells Fargo

Octavius T. Reid, III.jpeg

Octavius Reid

Senior Vice President

Morgan Stanley

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. 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 what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We're very excited today to bring you a talk focused on wealth management with two fantastic guests. Our first guest today is Stacy Robinson. Stacy has been in the investment industry for over 20 years. She joined Wells Fargo Advisors as a financial advisor and PIM portfolio manager in September of 2016. Prior to Wells Fargo Advisors, Stacy was with Morgan Stanley for 17 years.

John Darsie: (01:04)
Stacy's practice is comprised of corporate executives, entrepreneurs, closely held business owners, retirees, athletes, and entertainers. She and her team grow the practice through selective referrals. Her caring, commitment, and attention to detail creates mutually fulfilling, multigenerational relationships. Stacy graduated from Rutgers University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics, and a Wealth Management Certified Professional. She continues to proactively pursue education and knowledge to strategically analyze the evolving landscape to address her clients' interests. We're glad to say that Stacy is a loyal watcher of SALT Talks. We're very grateful for her viewership here on these talks. Octavius Ted Reid the third is a senior vice president and wealth advisor with Morgan Stanley. Over the past 30 years, he has developed an area of focus working with clients in the sports and entertainment industry. As a Morgan Stanley global sports and entertainment director, he provides financial management services and helps guide many professionals through what can be an incredibly difficult space as they start to accumulate significant amounts of wealth.

John Darsie: (02:14)
He serves on the board of the Rhythm and Blues foundation and is a lifetime active member of the Omega Sci-Fi Fraternity. In 2012, he was inducted into the Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association's Hall of Fame for his impact on the organization. He's on the Board of Governors for the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences as well. Hosting today's talk is someone with no rhythm or blues, Anthony Scaramucci. He is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. He is also the chairman of SALT. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:49)
You are literally the whitest person that I've ever met in my life and you're telling me that I have no rhythm.

John Darsie: (02:54)
Yeah. I've still got better moves than you, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:55)
You've got better moves than me? What are you talking about? After you go in for your breast reduction surgery, we'll see how good your moves are. Okay, Stacy, good to see you. Ted, great to have you guys on.

Stacy Robinson: (03:07)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:08)
Don't mind the rapport between me and John. That's just typical of us. It's unfortunate, but what can I tell you? We have this young Millennial that we have to keep track of.

John Darsie: (03:20)
I have to get my shots in. The unfortunate thing is that Anthony is also the HR director at SkyBridge, so he might level a complaint on me after this talk.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:27)
Yes. Well, I keep getting these anonymous complaints into my email box about the harassment that I'm causing inside the firm. Of course, I'm hitting the trash button every time it comes in, John. Give it up. Let's go right into managing wealth for athletes and entertainers. They have sometimes shorter careers, certainly the athletes do. NFL athletes is an example, would be the most vivid example of that because of the high injury rates, and the psychology. Let's just be candid with each other. We're managing divas. There's only one diva on this SALT Talk. I'll let you figure that out at the end of this call. Someone with blonde hair actually. He's the only diva.

John Darsie: (04:11)
Oh, I thought you were being self-aware, Anthony. I was going to admire that quality.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:14)
No, no. I'm still in denial, my man. I've been in denial for 57 years. I'm going to stay in denial. How do you do it? How do you handle a diva, an egocentric maniac who has a short shelf life that's making a lot of money, and you want to keep them rich for the rest of their lives? Go ahead, Stacy. We'll start with you.

Stacy Robinson: (04:35)
Yeah. Anthony, thanks again for having me. This is an honor. Athletes, like you said, often experience peak earnings relatively in a short duration, early in their life. Entertainers are often contract to contract. There's a lot less predictability around their earnings. They also live with the knowledge that their careers could, like you said, abruptly come to an end. Though there is an understanding that their career could end, there is still always a sense that another opportunity is going to be right around the corner for them. Many feel a duty in support of their family and friends financially. They have that sense of duty because they were included in the support that they had before making this deal. Many, most unfortunately, don't understand that that deal came, and it's going to be a lot less after taxes and the number of fees. Their income can truly be 50% or less than their take home.

Stacy Robinson: (05:40)
They have pursued goals that put them where they are, and they beat a lot of odds. Now they have to consider planning life beyond. That can be daunting for any age. However brief this period is, their peak earnings are typically, and they dwarf typically the average individual who earns in a decade or a lifetime. They still have to establish a reasonable budget that reflects their current reality, along with the longterm needs and goals that they have and the legacy that they'd like to leave behind. Yes, having the come to Jesus moment has a lot to do with getting them to understand that this could be it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:27)
Ted, give me the speech. I'm coming in to you. I've got a $25 million a year contract. To Stacy's point, I've come out of probably a lower middle income family. I'm going to have some people that I want to take care of obviously. There's survivor's guilt too, right? We all know that. There's a person that's coming out of that situation. They saw two or three of their friends not make it. Some of them have died perhaps and some of them are just not doing well. Now they're at the top of the food chain, so they want to give some money away, yet you want to keep them wealthy. Go ahead. Give me the speech, Ted. Let me hear the speech.

Octavius Reid, III: (07:06)
I guess the first part is to get them to understand that in both sports and entertainment, they make a lot of money for typically a very, very short period of time, and they're young. That means they're typically going to have to live off of it for a long period of time. The average life for the NFL is 3.6 years, and the NBA almost 4.8 years. To get them to understand that if you start giving away all your money in the beginning, then you're going to run out of money at some point and you're not going to be able to take care of friends and family. I used to call it the MCI program back in the day. For folks that remember that, MCI, friends and family that suddenly come out of the woodwork that come to you. They want you to finance every investment idea they've ever had or help get them out of some financial decisions they may have made.

Octavius Reid, III: (07:59)
Yes, you do want to be able to take care of family. You do want to be able to take care of friends. But if you make the right decisions early, then you're afforded to be able to do that later on in life. It's not something going directly into the draft right away that you just automatically write a check. I think one of the best ways to help out friends and family, one of the things that I recommend to players and artists and actresses and actors that I work with, is while you have this celebrity, take advantage of this celebrity. Everybody wants to get to know you at that moment. Okay, well as you're meeting people in different businesses, introduce them to family members and say, "Hey, they want to learn about your business." Or, "Can they get a job? Can they work with you right now?" It's the old saying, "Teach them how to fish instead of giving them a fish."

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:48)
Let's go back to you, Stacy, for a second. You do a lot of coaching. It's interesting because you're in the psychology business. You're in the coaching business, and you're in the Dr. No business. That's my assessment. Maybe I'm wrong. But literally, someone is calling you. "I want to do this, I want to do that. I want to buy that G-Wagon with the extra mag wheels and you're saying no. You're saying no to somebody that's usually getting what they want, and they had the adulation of fans. They had the adulation of the sort of social network and ecosystem, so go ahead. Tell me what you do. Give me some more tidbits. How do you handle it?

Stacy Robinson: (09:30)
I am not in the business of telling my clients "No," because this is the money that they've created. What they've sacrificed to being able to put themselves in this position. But what I will do is say, "This is not a part of the goals that we initially established. If you remove these resources from what those goals are, how is it going to affect what you said you planned for?" There's always going to be a signee, something somewhere, that somebody is going to bring to them. My goal is to have them understand the process that we've taken, to put them in a position to realize a lot of the things they say they wanted to do. If we do something that's alter to that, how is that going to affect them? If they can understand the longterm effect, again, if this is something you really want to do, then if we remove it, this is how it's going to look based on the goals that you said you already established. Saying no, I don't necessarily say, "No." I say, "This is how it's going to affect you."

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:40)
Okay, that's fair enough. I think that's well said. I mean, obviously you want to be respectful of the fact that they're earning but you're also... One of the things I've tried to do with clients over the years is delay gratification.

Stacy Robinson: (10:53)
Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:54)
You can delay gratification and teach compounding. What ends up happening is they have a nest egg that grows. Then they can earn money off of the money that they made, which at some point in their careers they're going to need to do. In fact, all of us obviously will need to do that. Ted, let me ask you this question because it comes up all the time. Stock market volatility. There's no wizardry. The four of us know, we're in Wall Street, and there's no panacea. A client calls up and they have the perfect story. It is the uncle's sister's aunt's nieces dog that just invented the next internet sensation, and they want to put a tremendous amount of money into that. Go ahead, Ted. What do you say?

Octavius Reid, III: (11:46)
No, flat out no. Contrary to Stacy, I feel like I am in the business of saying no. I say no all the time. As you mentioned, people come to players every day, whether it's in the locker room, whether it's out in the club in a social atmosphere. For artists, it's in the studio. Everybody is coming up with some new great idea. The first thing that you've got to look at is, I can't recommend that they put money or don't put money into it. But what I start to do is point out the risks. What are the risk involved in this? Let's start. I start teaching them the right questions to ask about this situation so that they begin to understand, hey, maybe this isn't a good investment to begin with.

Octavius Reid, III: (12:38)
The other thing is that for somebody that has a very short lifespan in their career, and once again has to live off of this money for a long time, one of the biggest mistakes that I see people make is that they want to put a large portion of their money into risk assets. Realistically, they can't afford that type of risk. Now, maybe later in their career as they've gotten into their second or third contract where they're seeing significant money. Okay, you can take a percentage, put that money away, and we'll allocate that to higher risk assets and maybe look in the case of a fund or something like that. But I don't know if I would necessarily be going into some of those projects, especially like the one you mentioned.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:20)
Okay, all right.

Stacy Robinson: (13:20)
I guess mine is not directly saying no. Mine is a motherly way of saying, "Let's think this out because it's not going to be in your best interest. But let's put it all out there to see how this is going to affect you longterm."

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:33)
That's interesting. Ted is saying no, but you're saying, "I want you to get to know on your own." You're trying to coach them. I think it's an interesting thing because you're struggling with all of that. Stacy, how do you manage intergenerational wealth planning for wealthy families that you're doing business with?

Stacy Robinson: (13:53)
Oh, it's a lot about discovery. What's your interest, your values, the passion around that. What you want to leave as a legacy. Analyze what your client's goals are, what their objectives are. I have access to great internal wealth planning where I am. Often we use strategic relationships. It has a broad range of services that includes even things like family dynamics coaching. They also have a team of attornies that help me and my clients drill down on what their transition of wealth looks like for them. Whether it be trust, some kind of giving tools. The best way to do those taxes, gifting estate, even philanthropic concerns. Will they have a share in the findings that we can coordinate with other advisors and make suggestions to their attorneys that can provide actionable ideas and strategies to keep them on that successful wealth plan? And generationally.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:54)
Ted, anything you want to chime in there?

Octavius Reid, III: (14:57)
I can say that from my standpoint, when I'm talking about generational wealth, part of it is educating kids. I spend a decent amount of time with clients' children talking to them and trying to teach them how the capital markets work, and how to create a budget, and how to focus early so that they learn these habits early. Because ultimately, they're going to be the ones to inherit the money. I'll leave it at that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:25)
The stock market took a really hard hit in March of 2020, and then it recovered to a new all time high. Stacy, take us through that. Take us through how you communicate to clients during extreme volatility like that.

Stacy Robinson: (15:43)
I guess keeping just like they did with their coming up and trying to get to where they are ultimately in their professional career. Keep the eye on the ball. Focus on the goal, what the priorities are, what the goals are. It sounds kind of remedial, but it's held true throughout my career through different market cycles. We've seen, and Ted's been around 30 years, I've been 20 years plus, that there's been a lot of different things that have come along to effectively tell where clients feel like, "Should I be in this? Is it time for me to get out?" What I try to do, now if they've been with me a season, they understand that the adjustments to the investments isn't always... it might seem natural, but that's not the natural cause to address these market conditions or what we've experienced in March.

Stacy Robinson: (16:35)
They now are kind of trained to say, "Are my goals intact? Do I need to make any adjustments to my priorities of those goals?" Yeah, communicating during volatility is always on top of mind because we don't know what's going to happen. We can only control what we can control. Addressing it with what their goals are, and maybe making adjustments if that's necessary. But not necessarily going directly after the investments.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:04)
If you have a high profile client, a demanding personality and always used to the word yes, we were just talking about no. Have you been in a situation where you've had to let a client go? Have you been in a situation where you've had to have a tough talk, Ted? How does it go?

Octavius Reid, III: (17:26)
That happens very often. I had a client many years ago who had a thing for private planes several times a week. Was living a lifestyle that was costing probably close to several hundred thousand dollars a week. Actually, probably a bit more than that. At one point-

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:54)
Does he know my kids, Ted? I mean, it sounds like my kids you're talking about. Do one of my kids happen to be one of your clients? I'm just asking.

Octavius Reid, III: (18:00)
I know your son is in the industry. Probably not any of the people I've seen that he works with, but yeah, he's probably been around them but-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:10)
He just dropped a killer video with this kid Travis Barker. He's a drummer.

Octavius Reid, III: (18:17)
Yeah, that's cool.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:17)
And a kid named Poorstacy. I've got to send you the video. It's blowing up right now. I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead, so you've got this...

Octavius Reid, III: (18:25)
Yeah, so was spending a tremendous amount of money. We had many, many talks about the spending. Finally it came to a point where... the one thing that I've seen, Stacy I'm sure you can attest to the same thing, is when things go wrong, when that person ends up broke, it's usually the financial advisor's fault. Or at least that's the perspective, is it's the financial advisor's fault. My attitude was, okay, I can only teach you and point you in the right direction. I can't force you what to do. But what I do have the option to be able to do is no longer work with you because I don't want my name attached if you're just going to self destruct. I do my absolute best to try to coach them. I've rarely had that problem because I interview clients from the beginning. I can usually tell who I can help and who I can't right away, but yes, it does happen often. I think that you have to be the no guy.

Octavius Reid, III: (19:28)
One of the things that when I'm going into a new situation with clients, I usually bring that up in advance. I usually in advance say, while everything is good and they're filling out the paperwork to open a new account, that there are going to be times where we are going to disagree. There are going to be times where you are going to want to make some sort of financial decision and I'm going to say it's a bad idea. We may argue about it, but understand this. I'm giving you that from the perspective of someone who started... my first athlete was in 1987. I've been through working with players my entire career, working with artists, working with actors. I've seen this script before. When I'm giving you this advice, just understand whether we agree or disagree that it's purely in your best interest. You can always make a decision to go the other route. But at least understand that I'm not arguing unless I feel that it's in your best interest.

John Darsie: (20:29)
Stacy, I want to jump in with a question for you. We've seen a trend, at least a publicized trend, of some athletes choosing to live off of their endorsement income only and save all the money they earned in terms of their salaries. It seems like there's some enlightenment that's taking place among athletes and entertainers. And more awareness of the fact that they have a short earning span and a long lifespan after their careers are over. What are some other types of habits or guideposts or things like I just mentioned in terms of saving all of your salary income that you offer as tips to athletes and entertainers that you work with?

Stacy Robinson: (21:13)
Again, discovery. Determine what it is that their goals are. It's difficult to think about it when you're that young, but this is the perfect time to try to map out as much as you can. Because like you said John, they've seen the stories of the past athlete or entertainer that had these huge contracts. How could they dispense all that money and have nothing to pay for to it? Having the right advisors around them. Because sometimes, it's because they haven't paid their taxes and they don't have... nowadays, you've got to have even security around understanding that. Having access to those or the resources that can provide the kind of intelligence around their online presence. And things that could diminish or affect their reputational risks. There are so many things that since I started my career need to be addressed today. Because a lot of the athletes and entertainers have become a lot more aware that their resources can disappear, they are taking and receiving recommendations far more thoughtfully than they have maybe in the past where we've seen them, and the resources just replenish quickly.

John Darsie: (22:37)
Ted, do you have any frameworks that you use when you get new clients and they're looking to set some hard and fast habits and rules around how they look at money?

Octavius Reid, III: (22:48)
Part of it is, we start with planning to begin with. As a process with the team, we sit down and talk about, "What are your goals? What are your objectives? What do you plan to do when this is over?" That's the first discussion I always have is, "Okay, when the game is all over, when it's all over, what do you plan to do next? Let's start focusing on that now and creating a budget now." To create that budget, we're going to check in with you every time you go off budget to make sure. It's always about trying to put as much away as you possibly can today so that you're not out there trying to squeeze out another season, or having to take on a tour that you really don't want to take, or take a show that you really don't want to do because you've got to be able to pay the bills.

John Darsie: (23:37)
Right. You've talked about people, you talked earlier on Ted, about this notion that when you become famous, when you get drafted and it's clear that you're going to have a high income at least for several years, there's people that come out of the woodwork. Whether it be distant uncles or your local pastor offering services as a financial advisor. Those horror stories that you see on ESPN 30 for 30 about some of the most egregious cases of people trusting other people with their wealth, and turning around, and all that money being gone the next day. What do you do and how do you counsel people, Ted, on how to control that inner circle and really surround themselves with the right people? Who are those people? A financial advisor obviously is a great step in the right direction. What's the team that you advise these athletes and entertainers to put together? How do you advise them to keep people out that are sort of predatory?

Octavius Reid, III: (24:30)
I think it's the old saying, "It takes a village." It does require having the right team around you. In the really successful situations I've seen, there's the agent, the lawyer, the accountant or business manager, the financial advisor, they all tend to work together. We will tend to have quarterly meetings with the player. Sometimes the player may even have his family there. If you can have all of those people having discussions around each other, it could be a short half hour, hour call. But just to kind of review, this is what our plan is. This is what we're trying to do. It makes it a lot easier for that player. Yes, like you said, people are going to come out of the woodwork. They're going to come out of the woodwork all the time. You can't say yes to everybody.

Octavius Reid, III: (25:26)
One of the analogies I look at, I used to always say just because of the market that I'm in, every time somebody is part of a charity they call me. "Hey, can you call to get an autograph?" Or, "Can you call to get this signed for me or that signed?" Or, "Can you contribute to this salary, I mean to this charity? It's a great cause." Needless to say, if I were to write a check to every charity that called me, I'd probably be broke. Not that I don't support these things, but imagine a ball player or an artist who has got a million followers on Instagram.

Octavius Reid, III: (25:58)
Well, if you send everyone a dollar, after taxes that's almost... you're really running almost $2 million of your net income. Most people can't afford to do that. You've got to make a decision of, okay, what's important? Who do I want to support? What do I want to support? But you can't do everybody. That's the thing you've got to tell them when people call is, "Look, I've got family. I've got close people that I have to take care of. I just am not able to afford to be able to do that right now."

John Darsie: (26:26)
Yeah. One thing, we have some clients, we can't divulge their names, that are athletes and entertainers. It's almost like somebody who has addiction problems. If they go out to the bar, have something ready to say to people who come to you asking for things. Be prepared for that conversation and say, "You know what? I have to take care of so and so. I just can't be giving money to everyone around me." It's very important for them to have that, be armed with that catchphrase or that talking point that they need to fend off people looking for money. Stacy, what's your experience in terms of what an optimal team looks like around you and how you control that team?

Stacy Robinson: (27:05)
Yeah. Beyond the obvious professionals, it's the CPA or the estate and tax attorney or insurance providers, and of course what Ted and I do. Because there are so many discussions now, like you said, now athletes and entertainers are recognizing are recognizing that their likeness and their becoming influencers and content creators, I've got to have a Rolodex. I think maybe I just aged myself. I have a list of contacts that also includes people that do valuation work and could possibly tell you why you should not be involved in this. Whether it be financial or because of reputational risk, because that's just as important as finance today. Reputational risk can ruin a career pretty soon, early as well. Maybe having a business manager. Instead of you telling people, now you can say, "Bring all my requests to this person." They'll be your no person.

Stacy Robinson: (28:10)
Having a central trusted advisor who brings everybody under the tent, like Ted was talking about, when they are having family meetings where you can understand and discuss what the financial situation looks like in that top line that contract was written to. Everybody understands that there's a whole lot more between that line and you getting those resources. When people are all understanding and under that tent working together, then we are all working in concert and not in separate silence.

John Darsie: (28:42)
Yeah. Going back to some of these challenges and the pitfalls that the athletes and entertainers specifically fall into, Ted, what are some of the traps? We've talked about some of them, but what are the most common traps that you see? Maybe not with your clients because of course, you're keeping them from falling into those traps and experiencing a lot of those pitfalls. What are ones you see from the outside when you see cases of some of these athletes or entertainers who really get themselves in trouble?

Octavius Reid, III: (29:08)
Many times, I would say for artists, it's forgetting about paying taxes.

John Darsie: (29:19)
That's a pesky detail.

Octavius Reid, III: (29:21)
Yeah. It's thinking that $1 million is a lot of money, so I can go out and spend what I need. As we say, which over time, if you look at that over a lifetime, it's not. It's, like we said before, the friends and family that come out of the woodwork. It's not viewing it as a business. This is a business, and everybody else looks at you as a business. You should look at yourself as a business. Take the time, I know a lot of times, many creatives go, "Well, I don't understand finance. It's not my thing." Okay, well that's what I'm here for. It's something that I want you to learn. Somebody, if you're hiring a financial person, they should be able to explain it to you in plain English.

Octavius Reid, III: (30:18)
That's one of the biggest problems, is that you come in, people come in, a lot of times especially in the artistic community, people tend to make decisions with their heart. It's, "Well, this is a nice person. Seems like a good person, so I'm going to trust them with my money." It's the old saying, "Trust, but verify." One of the things that I try to do is show them, how do you do your due diligence? What type of questions should you be asking? How can you go online and look this person up before you hand over money to that person and then find out, oh okay, they've been stealing all along? Are they even a real financial advisor? One of the things I direct everybody to is finra.org so that you can go and check out their record, because there's a lot of folks that will hold that title out there.

John Darsie: (31:08)
Right.

Octavius Reid, III: (31:08)
Who have no experience in the investment world. I see people get burned that way.

John Darsie: (31:15)
How about you, Stacy?

Stacy Robinson: (31:19)
I will echo this. You met one of the personalities I deal with, who is kind of larger than life. I find that even though he's larger than life, I will bring him information for him to be able to make supported decisions around. He's thoughtful using that. Now, it may be that I work with more seasoned people in the sports and entertainment industry. They have seen the course of making educated decisions in their careers. But it doesn't change for whomever it is, whether they're just getting into the industry. Making sure that I am providing them as much information and resources to make educated decisions about what their tomorrows will look like after their career ends.

John Darsie: (32:18)
You talked earlier, Ted, about the process of educating even the children of athletes and entertainers that you worked with. And how important that is to set up the next generation to understand the same principles, and maybe even understand them better than their parents did as they entered their careers. What as a society, starting through secondary education up through college, can we do to help prepare these young men and women? Better financial education, better financial literacy. It seems to me college sports, for example, it sets kids up for failure by not offering some level of mediatory financial education. Stacy, I'll start with you on this one. What would you like to see done at an education level up through adulthood in terms of educating people more on financial literacy? Besides everyone tuning into SALT Talk and watching all of our conversations.

Stacy Robinson: (33:12)
Something that was discussed around my dinner table, budgeting and understanding the amount of money that you have, and paying yourself first. Paying everybody else that needs to be paid, including those taxes Ted talks about, but paying yourself first. Because that means that if you put away a nest egg for yourself, then you have the opportunity, the potential, to have something for you when this career ends. What I think they could do better in school is teach people about the compounding of interest, what it means when you invest. Robinhood and what they're doing right now is hopefully making it more democratized in investing. You've got to understand why you should not put your money on margin when you're buying a stock.

John Darsie: (34:04)
You shouldn't buy GameStop on margin when it's like $350 a share?

Stacy Robinson: (34:06)
Yeah, no. I think what schools are missing is just plain education. Even when I was there, I got a degree in economics. It still was theoretical. There was no applicable tools that you really had.

John Darsie: (34:22)
Right.

Stacy Robinson: (34:22)
When I got into the industry, that's when I started learning about why it was important to put away. Although my parents did give me the understanding that savings was important. But sometimes you need to have the application of what that means. Because when it's just out there in the ether, when you're young, it just doesn't make sense to you. Balancing a checkbook, although we don't use checkbooks anymore. Balancing a checkbook, you understand what I'm talking about.

John Darsie: (34:47)
Yeah, exactly. The digital checkbook now, Stacy.

Stacy Robinson: (34:49)
Yeah, the digital kind of checkbook.

John Darsie: (34:49)
We don't think you still use a physical checkbook.

Stacy Robinson: (34:53)
No.

John Darsie: (34:54)
How about you, Ted? What type of resources do you direct people towards, and how can we do a better job societally preparing these young men and women for just understanding basic economics for their household?

Octavius Reid, III: (35:08)
I'll start out by saying we've got to do a better job of teaching financial literacy in schools. I was fortunate. I grew up in Wellingborough, New Jersey, which was a working class area. I had a teacher in eighth grade that brought a game into our classroom called Stocks and Bonds that 3M put out that taught us about the stock market. That's how I ended up getting into this career. That's what made me want to be in the stock market, wanting to invest. That later became I think the stock market game a lot of schools played. I don't think it's in every school. I think it needs to be taught. Financial literacy needs to be taught in every schools. Players, I think that leagues have done a better job now. My firm that I work for created a sports and entertainment division a number of years ago. We go out to universities, to colleges and universities, and teach financial literacy to the athletes.

Octavius Reid, III: (36:06)
I actually used to do it for one of the major leagues. I would go out and talk to players. The thing is, sometimes you'll have these programs where they may two or three times a year talk about financial literacy. It's like this. It's like when you were a little kid, your parents told you to look both ways when you cross the road several times. You can't just have one or two classes and it's over. I think it needs to be consistent.

Stacy Robinson: (36:39)
Yeah, I think consistency is key.

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:43)
Let me chime in for one second because I'm just curious as to how you guys feel about this. This is an age old question. I always get this question asked, and that is financial independence. Do you reverse inquiry your clients? Meaning, do you sit down and say, "Okay, someday your earnings is going to be different. Maybe it'll be better." Certain athletes transition into broadcasting like Tony Romo, and it turns out he has a very lucrative career. But do you do the reverse inquiry in the beginning or the reverse engineering and say, "Okay, this is the number that it'll take for you to live this sort of lifestyle that you want, and this is the targeted way we're going to get there?" Do you guys sit down and do that in the beginning?

Stacy Robinson: (37:33)
Certainly. Yeah, you have to do it early on, like Ted was saying, and often and with consistency. I try to build mine around what's ideal and acceptable. Ideally, this is what we'd like to have. But acceptably, this is a comfortable life that wouldn't diminish what it is that you've created throughout your career. We have to make adjustments along the way. Does it mean that you have to not have exactly what you want ideally? Maybe there's a combination of both ideal and acceptable to get you to a point where this is going to be a source of income that you don't have to necessarily watch deplete over time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:24)
I love that. I try to do that with clients. I try to do that with my children. Ted, let me ask you this. Do you have something you know today, through all of your years of experience as a financial advisor, you didn't know it in the beginning of your career but you know it today. For me, what is that? It is to trust the process of compounding. Not to have happy feet in investing. For me, I'm embarrassed to tell you guys that I have owned Amazon. I have owned Google. I have owned Microsoft in mine and my family's accounts over the years. Had I just left things alone, I would've probably done way better than the friction that I created in my own life. That's me, that's my learning observation among many over 33 years. What about you? What is something you wish you knew about your career or your industry day one?

Octavius Reid, III: (39:32)
It's actually kind of what you just said. I just had this conversation just the other day. When I started in the business, we were stock brokers. It was much different. It was about sitting up late at night and analyzing balance sheets and income statements, trying to come up with a hot idea so we could sell as many people to that idea as possible. Today, it's about building wealth for people. What I realized is, and I think about this a lot when I see the current environment, the current news and these stocks that are doubling and tripling in value that have no real valuation over time. In the long run, you buy good quality businesses and hold on to them, and you let the managers do what they do best.

Octavius Reid, III: (40:19)
Back in '89, I shifted a lot of my business over to asset managers as opposed to me sitting there trying to pick, what is the hot idea? I go back to things that we all learned as a kid. A couple things that we learned as a kid was, one, don't put all your eggs in one basket. That was one of the most important things that you learned. You also learned the story of the hare and the tortoise. They don't make up these stories overnight. If you just look at... I've been fortunate that after 10 months I got hired was the crash in '87. Then we had the mini crash, and the collapse in the FSLIC. The jump on scandal, Operation Desert Shield, Desert Storm, 9/11. There was bad news almost every year I've been in this business.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:06)
You left out David Askin, Ted. Remember Davis Askin? He blew up the goddamn bond market in '94. Remember that?

Octavius Reid, III: (41:12)
Yes, yes, absolutely. There's been so much bad news that would scare anybody, but the bottom line is over time, companies are in business to make money. If you've got a fully diversified portfolio of quality businesses, over time you're going to build wealth. Stop trying to time the market. Stop trying to pick what that hot idea is out there. Just have a purely diversified basket. Now, you might make changes from time to time, but I think that makes a lot more sense than when I first started and all I wanted to do was trade and try to make a quick buck.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:51)
There's no holy grail. Anybody that's telling you they have a perfect strategy, then you know you've got to run for the woods.

Stacy Robinson: (41:57)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:57)
That perfect strategy is usually going to lead to that person being in jail at some point.

Stacy Robinson: (42:01)
Right.

Octavius Reid, III: (42:01)
Yes, absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:03)
What about you, Stacy? What about you? What is something you wish you had learned and was crystal clear when you first got started?

Stacy Robinson: (42:10)
First got started. Being at a firm that, like Ted is saying, when you got to work, you listened to the [inaudible 00:42:22] and tried to pick the stocks for that day. You heard the analyst pounding the table. That was excitement for me, and that's why I got into the industry. If I could just make sure that my clients had the right stock in their portfolio, and if I don't make the right decision, what am I going to do to this person? As you get time in business, like you say, time in the market, you start to realize it's more about planning and letting either the asset manager make the portfolio changes that are necessary, or in my case, I like using passive investing through indexing and just making sure that there's proper asset allocation for my clients. I include risk as part of their goal.

Stacy Robinson: (43:12)
Most people say they can take a lot of risk, and the moment they hit that risk they're like, "What has happened?" They're like, "We understood that risk was going to happen." I don't want to put them right up against the most amount of risk that they say they're willing to take. There's somewhere in between. The market is going to do what it does, but what we've seen since, as Ted said, he was in the business, the market has gone up. It might have taken some pullbacks in market cycles, but we have seen the market goes up. As long as we have cash available for those short term needs and understand what longterm goals mean, I think we will do the best with whatever the client brings to us and the best in their interest.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:54)
Quaker Oats, Stacy. Quaker Oats. That was the first stock that I sold to a client. I got on the phone. I said, "The analyst just recommended Quaker Oats." He bought 500 shares from me. I thought I was a kind for the day. I thought I was Bud Fox for the day, Quaker Oats.

Octavius Reid, III: (44:13)
It was Union Carbide for me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:15)
Union Carbide. See that?

Octavius Reid, III: (44:17)
Union Carbide and Trans America.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:19)
See that? Do you remember the first stock that you sold to somebody, Stace? Stacy, sorry.

Stacy Robinson: (44:24)
It might have been GE.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:28)
GE.

Stacy Robinson: (44:28)
Just because it was a stall word [crosstalk 00:44:31]

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:30)
See that? You're more sophisticated than Ted and I. I was selling oatmeal.

John Darsie: (44:38)
Well, now 60 years after you've made that first recommendation when you were in your 20s Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:43)
60.

John Darsie: (44:43)
I eat Quaker Oats still every morning for breakfast. I have my bowl of oatmeal.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:47)
60 years. Do you see him? 60 years. Next time you see Darsie and he's walking with a limp, you'll know why. That'll be the [crosstalk 00:44:59]

John Darsie: (44:59)
You called our IT department and had them disconnect my internet there so you could get back into the conversation that I was taking over there.

Stacy Robinson: (45:03)
Is that what happened?

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:03)
You noticed that, yeah.

Octavius Reid, III: (45:06)
Is that what happened? I thought you fell asleep.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:09)
You're a clever Millennial. You figured how to reboot [crosstalk 00:45:14]

John Darsie: (45:13)
Yeah, now I'm tethered to my phone's hotspot. I had to get creative. I think the jackhammer above my head might've had something to do with it. It's suspicious, Anthony, but I'll let this one slide. Thank you, Stacy and Ted, so much for joining us here on SALT Talks. We love bringing these conversations to our audience and allowing people to learn using free resources like SALT Talks. I think there are a lot of free resources out there today that didn't exist five, 10, 20 years ago because of the advent of the internet and just the proliferation of media that's out there today. If people are willing to learn, they have the resources to learn. They just need the right people guiding them like you, Stacy, and Ted do for the clients that you work with, which is why they're so loyal to you. Thank you so much for joining us.

Stacy Robinson: (46:00)
Listen, I want to say thank you as well. I'm in an industry, we're in an industry, that there's not too many people that look like I do that are women and a black woman. I'm acutely aware of that and what it means. We've seen what representation means. It shapes many discussions that we're having up to today. Representation is important. Anthony, I appreciate you recognizing that and using your platform to broaden the brushstroke. I'm [crosstalk 00:46:33] guest, Anthony. This has been a great opportunity. I thank you for welcoming a different voice.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:38)
I appreciate it. I hope you'll come back. We're always trying to do that, and I'm very grateful for you for the pioneering that you've done frankly, Stacy. You've been a great role model for so many people.

Stacy Robinson: (46:50)
Thank you.

Octavius Reid, III: (46:51)
Stacy, I don't think I could have set it any better. I appreciate you, Anthony and John, for giving us this platform.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:58)
Ted, I like you a great deal, but you're not getting out of here without a hair joke. I just want to let you know that. You thought you were getting out of the SALT Talk without a hair joke, but I'm just letting you know all those trials and tribulations in the market, I kept my hair, okay?

Octavius Reid, III: (47:14)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:14)
Just letting you know.

Octavius Reid, III: (47:15)
Well, I had hair until I went and got the vaccine last week.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:19)
See that? All right, well I'm going to be struggling with COVID-19. You know what I'm saying?

Octavius Reid, III: (47:27)
No, no. Seriously, please everybody get the vaccine, absolutely.

John Darsie: (47:31)
Anthony makes sure to control the camera angle so it doesn't come in from the top. That's all I'm saying.

Stacy Robinson: (47:35)
Oh, so there's the...

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:35)
There's a little bit of an alien landing strip in the back down there. I'm pulling it over. It's fine.

Octavius Reid, III: (47:41)
Did you think for a second that the hair is real?

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:43)
It's fine, okay? This is real hair, but [crosstalk 00:47:46]

John Darsie: (47:45)
The hair is real, but that's not what the real color looks like.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:48)
In fact, if I needed stat replacement, I'd be going in for it tonight.

Stacy Robinson: (47:52)
Listen, my dad used to say, let's see, "Grass doesn't grow on a busy street."

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:00)
Amen, or on a perfect head.

Stacy Robinson: (48:00)
Or on a perfect head.

John Darsie: (48:03)
Thank you again, everybody, for joining today's SALT Talk with Stacy Robinson, Wells Fargo Advisor, and Ted Reid from Morgan Stanley. We're hoping you were able to glean some important lessons on intergenerational wealth planning, specifically as it pertains to athletes and entertainers. I think a lot of what we talked about today is applicable for a wide variety of individuals who are looking to do longterm wealth planning. Just a reminder, if you've missed any of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them all for free on our website. It's SALT.org/talks. You can access them all on our YouTube channel, which is titled SALTtube. We post all of our episodes there and we livestream them there as well. Please follow us on social media. We're on LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter is where we're most active. Also, we're on Facebook.

John Darsie: (48:47)
Please tell your friends about SALT Talks. We love growing our community and exposing more and more people to the education that we strive to provide here on these SALT Talks. On behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off for today. We'll see you back here again soon on SALT Talks.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: How to Promote Racial Equity in the Workplace | SALT Talks #154

Dr. Akilah Cadet is the Founder and CEO of Change Cadet. Change Cadet provides people and companies with services that support anti-racism, diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging (DEIB).

As a young Black woman, Dr. Akilah Cadet experienced judgment, "isms", and numerous barriers in the workplace. One day she thought, “what if I could change that?” and Change Cadet was started. Cadet, her last name, is a French term that means soldier. Change Cadet prepares individuals and companies to be soldiers of change in the workforce so there can be more women and people of color at the top. She wants everyone to feel empowered in their career. She advises tech startups from concept to staffing, facilitates strategic workshops, coaches leaders, and speaks at various engagements.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dr. Akilah Cadet.jpeg

Dr. Akilah Cadet

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Change Cadet

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 these SALT Talks is the same as our goals 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. And we're very excited today to welcome Dr. Akilah Cadet today to SALT Talks. Dr. Cadet is the founder and CEO of Change Cadet, a consulting firm which offers a broad array of anti-racism and diversity services, including strategic planning, crisis rebuilding, advising, executive coaching and facilitation, all services that we're very much in need of. We've always been in need of them, but I think at least a light is being shined on some of these issues even more so over the last couple of years.

John Darsie: (01:11)
Cadet, which obviously is Dr. Cadet's last name, is a French term that means soldier. As it's often an uphill battle for women and underrepresented communities to achieve success and equity in the workplace, Change Cadet prepares of soldiers of change to overcome these continuous battles so that individuals and companies can thrive, because as we have dug into the research on this, having diverse teams drives better outcomes for companies. Dr. Cadet has 15+ years of experience working in various organizations with both private and public sector companies. She literally has every degree in the book. She lives in Oakland, California. She has a rare heart condition, which she is open about. And she's a proud Beyonce advocate, but Dr. Cadet, let's be honest, aren't we all proud Beyonce advocates?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (02:00)
Very true.

John Darsie: (02:01)
Hosting today's talk is Sarah Kunst, managing director of Cleo Capital, a venture capital firm that she founded. She's going to host today's interview, and I'm going to pipe in when I have questions, so looking forward to an open conversation between the three of us. And with no further ado, I'm going to turn it over to Sarah to begin the interview.

Sarah Kunst: (02:20)
Hi. Thanks guys, super excited to be back on SALT Talks. So Dr. Cadet and I actually met in a similar format to this. We got to share a stage at a panel pre-COVID, and in the years since, we've become friends and co-conspirators, and so super, super excited to have her here today. So Dr. Cadet, why don't you start by telling us your story?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (02:47)
Of course. Thank you, John, thank you, Sarah, for having me. My story is unfortunately common for most black women, and that is this fun, fun time that I have with discrimination in the workplace, being bullied, being harassed, being too smart, not smart enough, somehow not black enough. All these different isms and barriers were coming up. And the final straw for me was being in a position where I really did feel like the Olivia Pope of diversity in the workplace where my boss, white male in his 60s, looked at me in a one-on-one meeting and said, "I didn't think you were that smart when I interviewed you, but you are smart." And I was like, wait, this is a doctoral level preferred position. My doctoral title is in leadership and organizational behavior. I was in that department. The person, my predecessor had one as well, and so it was just an very interesting thing to say.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (03:43)
And so I asked him why he said that. And he said, "Oh, I guess that's offensive. I'm sorry." I validated that it was, and then I would have to rebuild my relationship and rebuild trust with him. He decided to fire me the next week. And so in that moment, because I had experienced those isms, wanting to fit into someone else's box previously, and throughout my career, and upon reflection, I was like, "What can I do to fix that?" So, Change Cadet was actually a side hustle, and it was an outlet, a way to pour back into myself for not feeling valued in the workplace, and I decided to take a chance on myself and start this business. And six years later, this is what I do.

Sarah Kunst: (04:22)
Awesome. That is great. So, give us an understanding of some stats, or facts, or not-so-fun figures of what does this problem look like, what does... We hear diversity, we need more diversity or companies aren't inclusive, there's only... Even I was shocked when I found that the newly appointed CEO at Walgreens was the first black female CEO ever of a fortune 500 company. I assumed that somewhere around 480 on that there'd probably be some industrial company I'd never heard of that had a black female CEO once. So, give us some kind of structure around where are we at?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (05:13)
So, that's a big question, I'll just tell you that. To be as succinct as possible, we're in a position where people are dealing with the ramifications of the murder of George Floyd, right? Because we saw a huge shift. He was murdered on May 25th, and then in June, it's like, Ooh, performative allyship, the black square. We need to hire a diversity consulting firm. We need to do something. Wait, are we racist? So all of these questions were coming about. We don't want to be part of that. We want to celebrate our diversity. We want to add and have more diversity. And so with that shift, people are now in a position where they realize that there's opportunities for growth, continuous learning and unlearning. The black community spends $1.3 trillion in consumption, just buying something, loading something up, whatever it is, they are getting something, and they realized that not only there's a lot of power in the black dollar, but there's also a lot of power in the allyship dollar.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (06:12)
So, it's a non-black person or a white person who's like, "Hey, business that I partner with, what are you doing for diversity?" "Hey, company that I've been buying stuff for a really long time, what's your diversity strategy?" #PullUpOrShutup was a big campaign that's still going on where we're looking at companies who are saying, "You know what? We actually have to do better. So, we're going to be transparent about our executive leadership." What you're saying, Sarah, with the new first black woman CEO for a fortune 500 company, and wanting to be transparent. So, we're seeing a shift where companies want to hold themselves accountable to show up in the best ways. Now, as a result of that, we're seeing a lot of growing pains from companies who are figuring out what does that mean for them. In addition, there is this pressure that happens externally and internally that makes it really hard for leaders to decide where to go, and that's where there can be pause or conflict.

Sarah Kunst: (07:11)
That's super helpful. Thank you. So, I would love... I had this as a question, you've sort of answered it, but we'd love to dive a little bit deeper. How has your work... You've been doing this for six years. It's now been nine months since the murder of George Floyd and the following protests, how have things changed since then? How much did people care in 2019, which was only two years ago, January or February, 2019, versus January, February, 2021?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (07:42)
Yeah, that's a great question. It's changed because I can say white supremacy. Before, that wasn't something I could say. People want to learn more about what white supremacy means, realizing it doesn't mean, again, that it doesn't mean KKK or white supremacist, Proud Boys, it means that, wait, I'm benefiting from something that's ingrained in my society, my daily life, the country, the workplace. I'm realizing I may be adding to systemic oppression of other people who may not have the same privilege as me, and so I can be much more transparent about that. So pre-murder of George Floyd, or the Floyd effect as my father likes to call it, it was like, "Let's talk about diversity, let's talk about equity, let's talk about inclusion," but now we're having more conversations around belonging and anti-racism, how can companies be anti-racist, and that's the big shift.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (08:34)
You also get to see how some of your favorite brands and companies feel much more comfortable being transparent too. I love, love, love ice cream, but I really love Ben & Jerry's. So Ben & Jerry's is role modeling behavior, two white guys talking about white supremacy, holding people accountable, using their platform to educate, still selling ice cream, partnering with Know Your Rights Camp and Colin Kaepernick, and showing how it can be done. So, I can have much more transparent conversations. I can meet people where they are at, and help them get to a destination that would have been much more complicated before the murder of George Floyd.

Sarah Kunst: (09:11)
Yeah. Yeah. I definitely agree with that. So, where does change start?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (09:17)
It starts within. As cheesy as it sounds, it's very true, right? Because if you think about it, the people who have the most power in any company, for-profit, non-profit, whatever it is, are leaders, and leaders have the most influential change. So if leaders are not holding themselves accountable, then nothing will happen. And it's not just for diversity all the way through to anti-racism, it's the same for any type of organizational change that's out there. And so what we encourage our leaders to do for the clients that we work with, is for them to act accordingly, to show up and act, meaning accountability, communication, and transparency. So, a common thing that happens with leaders, and the change that has to start within, is that leaders want to be the best at things. We have ego that's around, we are experts at things, we don't want to necessarily admit when we're wrong.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (10:15)
But if you think about accountability, communication, and transparency, being vulnerable and saying, "You know what? I'm not an expert in diversity, so let me partner with my people and culture person," or maybe a head of diversity, if they have that individual. "Let me bring in a consulting firm to work on that. Let me role model that I'm also figuring stuff out too." And that is the true power. And so if individuals don't address their own experiences, their lived experiences, their internalized, externalized experiences that develop their bias, their stereotypes, and that's where discrimination lives, then none of the change will happen with diversity.

Sarah Kunst: (10:54)
Yeah. No, I couldn't agree more. So, tell us a little bit about how do you work with a company? What does it mean to work with Change Cadet or another similar organization? What does that mean?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (11:10)
It means you're going to have a lot of fun, you're going to be pushed, and you're going to be held accountable for what you want to do. So, a lot of our engagements fall in four buckets. So one is strategic planning. And so in strategic planning, we may be helping them from zero to figure out their diversity strategy, or a pivot, because we're still pivoting in 2021, that has not stopped. So, we'll do that. That will sometimes include a needs assessment. What data do you have? And data looks like exit interviews, surveys, any stats that we can garnish. Looking at policies, practices, procedures, to develop a roadmap for them, or help them develop a roadmap. We also provide executive coaching. So again, going inward. We work exclusively with people who have influence, because they have the most change, right? Me, broken record.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (11:59)
So we work with them either individually or in groups. Group coaching is incredibly effective, because going back to ego and transparency and role modeling, leaders can learn from each other. We also provide workshops. So workshops around power, and privilege, how to be an accomplice in the workplace, and the list goes on and on. Also act, we have a workshop on act, allyship journeys, so that people can learn what to do. We only do workshops because workshops focus on individual behavior. We do not do trainings.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (12:30)
In fact, training sets people up for success because it's like, "Okay, you're going to do this training for two hours, four hours, two days," whatever it is, and then you go back into your virtual or actual workspace, and then the culture isn't set up for what you learned in training. So, that's why we focus on individual behavior. And then the fourth thing we do that John shared, is we do crisis management and crisis recovery. So something goes down, and we come in, and we help them move past that, holds themselves accountable, problem-solve and correct behavior, that's really when I get to be the Olivia Pope, and it's very fun. And even though I can't go outside and have fashionable jackets and bags, I do from the top up.

Sarah Kunst: (13:10)
Yeah. And you can have popcorn and wine, and sometimes that's enough.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (13:15)
Oh yeah, definitely that's how I decompress. But honestly, we're different from a lot of diversity consulting firms, because one, I do use a lot of humor, and I do meet people where they are. We are not prescriptive. We aren't saying, "Hey, you have to do A, B, C to get to your outcome." That doesn't make any sense, because of so many different variables in the workplace. So, we have a reciprocal relationship that allows us to be experts and tell them things, but they're the experts of their culture, and we've learned from each other.

Sarah Kunst: (13:49)
I love it. So, when should companies bring in a DEI expert?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (13:57)
Well, I mean, there's multiple points of entry for us unfortunately. A lot of it is in crisis management, and we had a lot of that after the murder of George Floyd, because the attempt was, "I'm going to make a statement," internally, externally or both, and it didn't work out for them. So crisis management, helping them get on the right path. But the best time to bring in a diversity consultant is when you're thinking and ready for... You don't have to be 100% there, but ready for organizational change. It's all it is, is organizational change, are people open to that, so that you can start to think about your company future state. We aren't in the business of firing all the white leaders in executive roles, because people still have a business to run. I run a business, I totally understand that money is important, but we're in the business of that long-term game.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (14:45)
So, if they're ready for change, ready to be patient with themselves, and ready to hold people accountable, that's the best time to bring in a consultant. Otherwise they're putting people in a stop-start situation that either results in initiative fatigue, change fatigue, and for BIPOC, black indigenous people of color, it puts them in a position where they're like, 'Oh..." "Oh no, it's not going to happen." "Oh..." "Oh no, it's not going to happen." And that's hard to take, especially if some of those individuals, particularly black people from last year continuing to this year, are already carrying additional work, maybe tokenized doing the work, it's a real let-down.

Sarah Kunst: (15:23)
Yeah. Yeah. I agree. So does wanting to improve DEI in your organization mean that your organization is just a terrible bad racist place, and that if you show up, it means that they're horrible and basically beyond repair, or can you start before that?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (15:41)
You definitely start before that. People who feel like bringing in a consultant means that the company or the org is racist, that's not true, that means leadership was not ready to bring someone in. Again, the best time to bring someone in is like, we want to make sure that we are creating a place of belonging where everyone feels valued and appreciated for who they are, from the period of application, all the way through past their 30-60-90, and being... That is the exact goal. If people are saying, "We don't want our clients or customers or consumers or employees or team members to think that we're racist," they're actually centering themselves.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (16:22)
And because we know the majority of leaders are white leaders, we call that white centering. So it's like, oh, I'm uncomfortable. I don't want people to think that I don't know something, so I'm going to make it about myself, so I can go back to what I know. And that's not the goal. The goal is for that white person to feel valued and appreciated, and that Latinx or Hispanic person, or black person, or disabled person, someone from the LGBTQ+ community, to also feel this same way. It's not taking from other people, it's having that equality across the board.

Sarah Kunst: (16:58)
I love it. So, people should be working with orgs like yours early and often, and making this a real big commitment, financial and otherwise, but if somebody is watching this and they're like, "That's awesome, but I'm not the person in charge, I can't..." Or, "Budgets at my company are such that we can't bring anybody in. We can barely pay ourselves." What are some of the things that people can do immediately or freely, and where, hey, I have to wait to next year's board meeting or budgets, aren't a problem.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (17:32)
So, there's lots of things that people can do. And I just want to point out that the goal is to get to the point of institutionalizing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, anti-racism in day-to-day. And that can be done with big things, and it also can be done with little things. So some of those little things, or the free 99 things I like to say, are one, setting of a resource library. Someone, anyone can open up a file... Hear me out, a file, box, drive, whatever it is, and people can share podcasts, articles, books, links, whatever, in this resource guide, so people can discuss it. Also for free 99, virtual lunch and learns, or in-person lunch and learns, people can talk about those very resources. Like, "Hey, this month, if everyone listens to this podcast at this lunch and learn, let's have a discussion about it. I don't know what's coming up for me. You don't know what's coming up for you, but let's set some ground rules so it's a safe space, and let's talk about it."

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (18:31)
Because it's having that opportunity to ingrain in daily practice in life, to celebrate that feeling and experience of learning and unlearning. Another thing that can be done that is pretty cost-effective, is that I have the Ally Nudge. And the Ally Nudge is text messages two to three times a week. Each day, you get a morning prompt that's educational, something, it's either a video of me doing this or a link to a podcast, or whatever it is, and then the evening you get an action prompt text directly correlated to what you're learning about in the morning. So we have police brutality, stuff around kids, definitions of anti-racism. And it's $5 per person, so people can sign up for that, it's very cost-effective to bring people in.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (19:20)
People also will do lunch and learn activities around that, book club activities around that. And then one thing that's also free and great is icebreaker. So icebreaker, there's modules that are already there, and people can go through training content and have conversations with each other, with video, without video, and discuss what's coming up from prompts that I set up. So if anyone's done a game and house party, or any type of card question game, it's done in a virtual capacity that can be done for a team or a whole department. There is an insane amount of free content that's out there that people can use to create, you just have to identify the point person or persons to do that. And last, people can create a culture committee or diversity committee, whatever they want to call it, and share that responsibility of educating the team.

Sarah Kunst: (20:10)
I love it. So talk a little bit about, we were talking about this the other day, there's definitely a feeling, I think, that for a lot of underrepresented minorities that were over-mentored and under-sponsored, so talk a little bit about the difference between those two things, and how people can be better sponsors, not just mentors?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (20:33)
Yeah. I mean, what we're talking about is a difference of action, and having actions and words match. If you're in some form of leadership, or you're established in one way or another, you've come to a point where you're mentoring other people. And mentoring is great. I love mentoring, it's fantastic. But when we think about sponsorship, it's taking it to the next level of action, meaning who can I actually connect this person to, what resources can I put into them, whether it's money or the network, so that they can build whatever they're building, or amplify in a way they need to be amplified. It's adding accountability to the mentorship part. It's so easy for us to be like, "Oh my God, let's [inaudible 00:21:12] a couple of times a year. It'd be great," to really being an accountability partner sponsorship of that person who needs to get somewhere.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (21:20)
This is incredibly important for people who don't have access to the network, are low-income, didn't go to a certain college. I went to all state schools, and look at me, it worked out. I don't come from clubs, I be anything. And supporting those individuals and doing what those types of colleges do to set individuals up for success. And I think the last thing that a lot of leaders will struggle with, is when you're in a position of sponsorship, it allows you to not only change someone's trajectory, particularly for BIPOC people, low-income people, people who don't have that certain amount of status, but it reminds you the importance of the privilege that you have, and the power that comes along with it. We all have privilege regardless of how we identify, but if you're using that privilege for good and ways to literally transform someone else's life, that's a wonderful way of free diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in a one-on-one basis.

Sarah Kunst: (22:25)
Yeah. I love that. So tell us about your shirt. Tell us about Do The Work?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (22:33)
So Do The Work, you are all getting a sneak peek, these aren't even released yet, but they'll be coming out soon. I have Do The Work shirts, and now crew necks that will come out. And so I used to be a preschool teacher. That's probably why I am the way I am now. But there's lots of ways in which people learn. And so when you have a message on a shirt, it either creates conversation, it's a reminder, or it's a point of celebration. And so when you have that on, you're like, "You know what? I'm doing the work. I remind people to do the work. People are telling other people to do the work." And it's just a way to get that message out there. Do The Work isn't my thing, but it's a thing that needs to happen for all of us, not just for white people, not just for black people, everyone have to continuously do the work, to learn and unlearn, grow, and hold each other accountable.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (23:23)
I also have Keep Being Amazing, which is my mantra, which I need, because this work is incredibly heavy and hard to do. I'm a black woman. I'm traumatized on the regular, just talking to clients, and so I remind myself to keep being amazing. It's also on my phone case, just to keep being amazing. And it's the same thing if people see that message, because it is hard, particularly for people who are new to this. If it's hard, they can remind themselves to keep being amazing. If black people can find ways to celebrate themselves, and through all the adversity that we have in America, keep being amazing, it's a powerful thing.

Sarah Kunst: (23:59)
I love it. Awesome. John, what questions do you have?

John Darsie: (24:03)
I have a lot of questions, but one of the things that's been great for me, I grew up in a city, Durham, North Carolina, that is very diverse. And it's actually ironic that in a state that I would say is a little more of a red state, you could say, North Carolina, I actually grew up in an environment where there was more mixing of races, and I was exposed, I had friends of all races, colors, and creeds. But then you go to places, I live in New York now in Long Island, where there's this homogeneity that exists. And it's not necessarily a conscious decision that people make like, "I don't want to be around Hispanic people, or I don't want to be around black people," but people just settle into a comfort zone, and they don't necessarily have any motivation to get out of it, and they're not conscious of the subtle racism that exists in everyday life when they walk into a store and somebody looks at them, or when they're walking across the street and somebody moves out of the way because they don't want to be near them.

John Darsie: (25:00)
And I think the conversation that was started by some of these tragic events that have happened over the last couple of years, in a way, people in the black community in particular, stepped up to the plate and said, "We're no longer going to accept the status quo." I think it's been amazing to see. But in terms of the hiring processes that companies go through, I've always found it interesting. And there's been a lot written and spoken about in terms of colorblind hiring practices, and truly eliminating unconscious biases that exist. You talked about your former boss, Dr. Cadet, who made a statement, an older guy, I'm going to be nice to him and say he's old-fashioned, but people have just these unconscious biases that exist. Some people say them out loud, and some people don't.

John Darsie: (25:42)
But when you're going through a hiring process, let's say you don't take the step to have an affirmative action style of hiring process where you're going out and saying, okay, we're an organization that's 80% white, let's hire 10 black people to balance that out so that our board doesn't get mad at us. How do you truly take it to a colorblind hiring process and ask questions and interact with people in a way that you're eliminating these preconceived notions that you might have in your head?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (26:10)
Yeah, absolutely. Well, first I want to say, I miss New York. This is the longest I've gone without being there. I'm Haitian, so half my family is there. I heard it's doing well. And the homogenous-

John Darsie: (26:26)
[inaudible 00:26:26] We've had a tough time in COVID, but hopefully it bounces back. And I love this city, despite being a little bit of a country boy, but I want to see the city bounce back obviously.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (26:35)
You made the big switch. I left Sacramento, California to be in the bay, and let me tell you, I was like, "Wow, this is a real downtown." It was a shift that was there. So it's not about affirmative action, it's not about being colorblind, because when people are doing colorblind hiring practices, that's the same as saying, "I don't see color." And when people say, "I don't see color," I always ask them, "What do you do at a stoplight? Is it just all red lights for you?"

John Darsie: (27:05)
It sounds like something Michael Scott would say on The Office.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (27:08)
Yeah. It's episode two when they do the diversity day, two or three or something like that, which is a great episode, teaching moment, free tool, Sarah. We can have a discussion around that. So, when people are saying, "Colorblind, I don't see color," what they're saying is, "I'm so privileged, that I don't want to consider that at all. I'm ignoring what the experience is like for myself or for Sarah." Not saying this of you, John, but that's what comes up from companies. And so when you do have companies that are 80, 90% white, what happens is the dominant culture of that workplace is white. So as soon as they hire someone like us to come in, we are already othered. We're going to receive those microaggressions that you're talking about, those little statements and actions, crossing the street like, "How do you... Is that all your hair? And how long does it take to curl it like that?"

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (27:59)
Not realizing that this is what my hair looks like after I wash it. Those types of statements, those small percentages of BIPOC people will have to deal with that all the time. So the way that companies should think about their hiring practices, their recruitment practices, is one, determining a metric that's realistic. Again, like I said earlier, don't just fire all your white leaders, that doesn't make any sense. But as you think about succession planning, who do you have lined up that can go into that role? How are you thinking differently? Take some time to look at middle management. Middle management is a great way to not only coach someone, but to get to know how they work to move them into senior and executive roles. So think about having recruitment around in that area, but the most important thing what you said, John, is to look at ways to minimize bias.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (28:49)
You can not completely get rid of bias. It's just hard to do. I'm a twin, I'm biased towards twins. If someone said they're a twin in a interview, we are going on a tangent. Are you older or younger? How many minutes apart? Brother or sister? Do you like each other? That's a whole thing. So there's value in that, and it's a positive thing, but it's done in a negative way to keep hiring people that look like you, and look like you ties back to the majority of the workplace, then that's an issue. So, what are some questions that people are asking in the interview process? What of the application? What do they have in there about their diversity statement, or how they're on a diversity journey? Are they making their application already biased in a way that says you have to have four years of education, or can you have lived experience? Do you need to have a technical degree or not? Do you a suggestion for timeframe or someone open to learning? And all of those are ways in which people can work to diversify their workplace.

John Darsie: (29:50)
That's great. And you can strip out the company names here obviously, I don't want to break anyone's privacy, but are there examples where you've either gone into a crisis situation, or it could be somebody who it wasn't a crisis, and you came in and you helped re-engineer their culture in an effective way, the way that I think you would hope and dream to change organizations, are there any specific case studies that you could talk about where it worked really well so people could visualize what that looks like if they're sitting here watching, and they want to undergo this change, but they don't know what the path is to getting there?

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (30:26)
Yeah. I mean, so the wonderful case studies we have like the Disneyland example, if you will, is that the highest level leader is on board. They're like, "Look, I may be part of the problem. I'm white. I don't know. How can we get better aligned to be more diverse?" So, when we work with leaders like that, automatically we're changing the recruitment process, automatically in addition to the recruitment process, the interview process, we'll have always two people interviewing minimum, because when you have two people interview minimum, then it minimizes bias. Because if someone's like, "Ooh, that Akilah reminds me of this person I dated, so thus therefore I'm not going to listen to them." The other person's going to be like, "Well, actually they were really likable." And so it's a way for accountability in that process. And then we will automatically have external and public statements, diversity definition, so diversity terms of definitions, updated values, and improved policies and procedures.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (31:27)
So when we get to do that with our clients, the outcome is everything, and that stems again from the executive leader. We've had situations where I've had to be the Olivia Pope and come in and do crisis management, and that is harder, because that means that at least two leaders didn't agree on the same outcome of how to respond to something. So for example, anytime there's... I hate to say anytime, but when there's a tragic event that happens, whether it's the insurrection or a murder of a black person or [inaudible 00:32:01] or whatever it is, we always tell our clients that they have to have boiler plate templates ready to go, to email their team so they can remind them, "If you need screen-off time, if you need to take time off, you can talk to your manager."

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (32:14)
You have employee assistance programs. "We're going to have a chat with the diversity committee later this week." We'll have those messages. So, we had a client who did that perfect, beautiful message, "Sign off for the rest of the day. It's too much." And then that leader kept working, kept sending emails. So, you can only imagine, both of you, what that's like, when it's like, I have the permission to just figure out what's happening right now, just to take care of myself, and then feel like I'm behind, and now I need to do that. So as soon as we have leaders who aren't ready to role model the behavior which they've communicated, again, the actions and words aren't matching, that is incredibly challenging. So, that means our engagement may actually extend to help with that behavior change.

John Darsie: (33:00)
Well, that's fantastic. And I'm so glad... One of the reasons why we brought Sarah in as a guest host is we wanted to meet new and different types of people that wouldn't necessarily be the first people that we called. And by us meeting you and getting to know you and exposing our audience to different points of view, we hope to create virality of these types of perspectives and these types of initiatives that I feel like are accelerating in the wake of some of these tragic events, as you mentioned, but obviously there's a huge hill to climb and we need more allies and more soldiers of change, or Cadet's of change, if you will. Darsie, my last name, has French origins as well from a certain region of France, so we're brother and sister, Dr, Cadet-

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (33:42)
Love it. It's like [inaudible 00:33:42]. It was fantastic. Yeah.

John Darsie: (33:42)
We're brothers and sisters, so thank you so much for joining us.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (33:48)
We are, for sure. Yeah, we both, again, have great hair.

John Darsie: (33:49)
Yeah. Thank you for having an open mind and... Thank you very much. I appreciate that. My mother would agree. But anyways, thank you so much again for joining us. Hopefully we can do more business with you in the future, both at SkyBridge and introducing you to other people in our community, and we can get you to one of our live events as well. I think it's also something that we've struggled with in industry, the financial industry, that, let's be honest with ourselves, whether it's venture capital or hedge funds, overwhelmingly white, and it's just hard to break. It's almost like trying to break the cycle of poverty, breaking the cycle of extreme whiteness in these industries where we try to put people of color and women on our stages, at our conferences, without it being tokenism.

John Darsie: (34:33)
And we've gotten better at that, but we can definitely do a better job. And the more people like that we put on stages, and the more people like you that come to our conferences and talk about these things, the more people of color, and the more women feel comfortable showing up, and it feeds on itself and has a sort of a snowball effect. So, that's what we're looking to create. We've done better at it, and I think we do better than a lot of people in the industry, but again, we have a huge way to go to improve everything that we're doing, so thanks again.

Dr. Akilah Cadet: (35:00)
You're very welcome. And I just have to say the allyship that's happening is fantastic. The hardest clients to work with, or they aren't ready, are typically hedge funds, and the financial space for those very reasons. So what you're doing is really important to inform them of different ways in which they can show up, either doing things for free, or bringing in the consultant. And then Sarah is always doing things. In partnership, or we work together, she's keeping me abreast of things, and any way I can step in and help her out in any way is great. But just her being in her space is an act of resistance, but it's another way to change the way people are thinking about financing, so thank you both for your wonderful allyship.

Sarah Kunst: (35:44)
Thank you.

John Darsie: (35:45)
Well, thank you again, Dr. Cadet, and thank you Sarah again for bringing all these great guests to us here on SALT Talks, and for hosting these talks. And thank you everybody for tuning in today, just by tuning in and watching this episode and watching it all the way through. I think sometimes there's people when these topics come up at a conference or on a digital interview like this, some people turn, they don't turn the channel, because they don't want to feel the discomfort that comes with confronting some of these issues. So, thank you everybody for watching and tuning in, you're contributing to the betterment of society by doing that. And just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, including several that we've done with Sarah, you can both access our entire archive of SALT Talks, and sign up for all of our future talks on our website at salt.org/talks.

John Darsie: (36:30)
Please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, we're on Instagram, LinkedIn and Facebook, and on YouTube is where we host all of our videos for free. Some people in the industry gate content and try to sell subscriptions for these types of conversations. We don't believe in that at all. We want to make all these interviews that we do open to the public, and a educational resource for people, not just in the financial industry, but in our communities as a whole. But on behalf of the entire SALT Team, this is John Darsie signing off for today. We'll see you back here again soon on SALT Talks.

Election Lessons 2020 with Commissioners Benjamin Hovland & Donald Palmer | SALT Talks #153

“In my 20 years, this was the best run election I’ve ever seen.”

Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer both serve on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), each nominated by President Trump and confirmed by unanimous consent of the U.S. Senate. Their work includes securing funds for states’ election security and improving all levels of voting administration.

The Let America Vote Act, which included the creation of the EAC, was passed after issues related to the 2000 presidential election. Because of the decentralized nature of voting, much of EAC’s work is non-regulatory and is focused on helping to support states’ individual needs. COVID-related health concerns created a shortage of poll workers that the EAC helped shore up with a national poll worker recruitment campaign. Despite a notably successful election from an administrative perspective, voting systems came under attack from many who sought to cast doubt on the results. “The allegations that were made against the voting systems just were not accurate. I always have an open mind… but the evidence just wasn’t there to prove that.”

Many of those hurt by unfounded accusations have been the election officials themselves who year after year are tasked with a thankless job critical to a healthy democracy. The ongoing effort to delegitimize elections will have long-lasting, damaging effects. “When we’re talking about our democracy and how our elections run, we’ve got to have a baseline of facts and truth. When we get away from that, it really hurts the fabric of our nation.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Commissioner Benjamin Hovland.jpeg

Benjamin Hovland

Commissioner

U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

Commissioner Donald Palmer.jpeg

Donald Palmer

Commissioner

U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

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. Our goal on these 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. And we're very excited today to welcome you to the second episode in our Elections Integrity series, focusing on lessons that we learned during the 2020 election as well as just setting the record straight about the facts of how elections operate, the security around elections, and again, things that we can take away from what was a very unique election in 2020 and how we can continue to hone and improve that process going forward.

John Darsie: (01:05)
And our guests today for this session are two members of the Election Assistance Commission, Benjamin Hovland as well as Donald Palmer. And I'll start with Ben in terms of reading his bio. Benjamin Hovland's 20 year career in elections has been shaped by his commitment to improving election administration and removing barriers to voting. Most recently, he served as acting chief counsel for the US Senate committee on rules and administration, where he was a driving force behind Congress appropriating $380 million in Help America Vote Act funds to enhance election security to the states in 2018. While at the Senate, he focused on the federal government's role in election administration and campaign finance regulation. He organized several hearings on election security preparations and improving election administration. He was integral to restoring a quorum at the EAC in 2015. Donald Palmer is a former bipartisan policy center fellow where he advanced the recommendations of the presidential commission on election administration.

John Darsie: (02:11)
Mr. Palmer is a former secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections and served as the Commonwealth chief election official from 2011 to 2014. During his tenure, he implemented an online voter registration system and joined Virginia as a founding member of the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, which is a nonprofit organization with the sole mission of assisting states to improve the accuracy of America's voter roles and increase access to voter registration for all eligible citizens. He also served as Florida's director of elections, where he successfully transitioned the state from electronic voting machines to paper-based digital voting machines prior to the 2008 presidential election and expanded the Florida voting system state certification program. Hosting today's talk is Elliot Berke, the managing partner of Berke Farah. And I'm going to turn it over now to Elliot to conduct today's interview.

Elliot Berke: (03:09)
Great. Well, thank you, John. Don, Ben, thanks so much for joining us. As John talked about, this is the second in our series on election integrity. And by design, what we're really trying to do here is bust through some of the hyperbole, tone down the noise and talk about what actually happened with the election. Our first session was on election security. And today we're going to talk about overall election administration and lessons learned from this election, what went right and where do we need to go from here?

Elliot Berke: (03:39)
So, we have two experts that are joining us today. Don and Ben not only serve on the Election Administration Commission, but they are also they've had a significant amount of experience in the states. This session is really designed to talk about and educate our viewers about the election process. Let's start out with the EAC, and what it is and what it is not. It is obviously not the FEC. It's not the Federal Election Commission, which actually has nothing to do with administration of elections. Donald, I'll turn it over you to start. Tell our viewers, what is the EAC, why do we have it, what were its origins and how has it evolved over time?

Donald Palmer: (04:24)
Well, sure. The Election Assistance Commission really came out of the 2000 election, Bush v Gore. Well, the Congress came together and it came together with a bipartisan bill, and some of the issues they looked at was creating the EAC. They wanted to have a federal entity test and certify voting systems on a voluntary basis. They wanted to provide some monies to the states to transition to new voting systems. They also wanted to start collecting data and to provide best practices. And so the EAC started all the way back then. It's only been a couple of decades, but that is really the origin of the EAC. And since then, the budgets, there'd been some smaller budgets and higher budgets. We are just coming out of a couple of years where we almost didn't exist as an agency, that we are almost basically eliminated as an agency. But I think that as the security issues arose at a 16, there was a refocus on what purpose the EAC could serve and actually assisting local and state election officials. And I think there's a change in that thinking across the board in the election community.

Elliot Berke: (05:37)
Ben, John kicked things off, he mentioned the help America Vote Act. Talk to us a little bit about what that is and how you interface with the states to bolster what the states do.

Benjamin Hovland: (05:50)
Yeah. Great to be here, Elliot. Thanks for having me. The Help America Vote Act, as Don mentioned, that was passed after the Florida 2000 election. It created the EAC. It also did a number of things. It got rid of punch cards. Everybody remembers the hanging charts from the 2000 elections. It helped get rid of those and provided a lot of funding to do that at the states. But because our elections are decentralized, one of the roles that we really play the Don hit on was serving as that federal clearing house. In other words, we're largely non-regulatory, but we're able to have that 50 state view. We conduct something called the EAV survey or the Election Administration and Voting survey, which is the only national survey of its kind that looks at how Americans are getting registered, how they're participating in the process in the sense of are they getting registered at the DMV, are they getting registered by a third-party group, are they voting by mail, are they voting early, are they voting in person?

Benjamin Hovland: (06:50)
And so it really gives election administrators, policymakers, the ability to look at the data and make data driven decisions. And so we're proud to do that as well as assist state and local election officials around the country with best practices, helping to share those. We really have the benefit of seeing the different ways that states implement elections, how they solve this puzzle of helping Americans participate. And this year in particular, you were really able to see how that decentralized nature of elections, some of those best practices were able to be shared and help more Americans participate across the country, help election officials respond to the challenges they faced this year.

Elliot Berke: (07:35)
I think coming out of this election we just had, it's harder to make these arguments. But playing devil's advocate, since its inception, the EAC has been criticized from the right as being obsolete and also concerns about [inaudible 00:07:50] attempting to federalize elections. What do you say to the critics who make these arguments?

Benjamin Hovland: (07:57)
So first and foremost, again, we're largely a non-regulatory agency. And so again, if people are worried about federal overreach, we're not designed to work that way. But I think you can really embrace the decentralized nature of elections, and that's what we're structured to do. Again, as Don mentioned, there been historic resource challenges that make that harder. But when you think about what's involved with running elections, particularly after the foreign interference of 2016, election administration is harder than it's ever been. And so to have a non-regulatory, largely non-regulatory federal agency that's able to share best practices, that's able to assist with training, that's able to provide information, and resources, whether those are grants from Congress, certainly we've seen over $800 million in security money distributed since 2018, $400 million in CARES Act funding this year. Obviously that's made a big difference.

Benjamin Hovland: (09:01)
But there are also resources that are beyond just money. There's also the ability to use the national platform. One of the things that we did this year that I'm really proud of, we heard consistently from election officials about shortages recruiting poll workers. And we were able to launched the National Poll Worker Recruitment Day effort. Again, having a national platform, a national website in helpamericavote.gov, but when you went to that website, it got you to your local election official or to your state or local election official. The place that you ultimately needed to get to but we were able to amplify that at a national level, and it really made a difference in getting a new generation of poll workers to step up and help Americans vote this year.

Elliot Berke: (09:50)
Don, in the lead up to the election in November, what else did you see in terms of potential issues that were out there? Those who are in the election business, we know that elections are messy, vote fraud exists. This is my opinion, vote fraud exists, vote suppression exists. But, a lot of what we ultimately see is just cracks in the systems, which we can fix along the way. And so the lead up to 2020, what else beyond the poll worker issue did you see that brought you the most concern?

Donald Palmer: (10:24)
Well, in the lead up to 2020, the big issue that we faced all together was the pandemic. And just like every other institution in the country, that was a big challenge. How were we actually going to administer elections? And states and localities had the same concerns, how are we going to pull off the primaries, how are we going to do a general election in perhaps a totally different environment where people may be afraid to actually go and vote? And so a lot of states and localities had to make adjustments to how they vote. There was more vote by mail than ever before. When we did do in-person voting for early or election day, it was going to have to be in a sanitized manner. There was going to have to be social distancing, so there were going to be some additional lines.

Donald Palmer: (11:08)
And so when we look back on 2020, that was a huge challenge. And really election officials stepped up to it because it was a success from a point of view that in many ways there could have been a total meltdown. And you're right. In every election, there's going to be flaws. There's going to be lines or maybe malfunctions of the voting systems. And I think that the EAC had ... I know the states, they're very proud of the work they put into let's make sure and test our voting systems, let's make sure they're secure and they're operational and they're not going to break down on election day. Sometimes these things happen and we record these things that we want to improve for the next election.

Donald Palmer: (11:47)
And so those were the two big issues I think that everybody was concerned, that look, we want to do we can to make sure that on election day and in a run up to election day, election workers are prepared to deal with the great turnout that voters will have when they show up. When you have 10%, 15% increase in turnout, it's going to stress the system. It's going to make everything a little bit more difficult than it would be let's say if turnout was half of that. But I think that one of the things we can take away from November is that we got through the election, and that we were able to overcome the pandemic in many ways and Americans were actually able to cast a vote and effectuate their intent. And the bottom line is that's the bottom line, is that we are able to do that.

Elliot Berke: (12:37)
And then compared to past elections, obviously we were dealing with things that we had never experienced before with the pandemic. And then the volume of mail in ballots that was unprecedented. We certainly have mailing ballots and we've dealt with this before, but just the volume is something we hadn't dealt with. How overall, what's your assessment at this point? I know the EAC is going to be having hearings and audit the actual results, but how comfortable are you at this point in terms of the overall result as compared to past elections?

Benjamin Hovland: (13:13)
Elliot, I think one of the stories that been lost in some of the post election day, I don't know, back and forth, or what some of the misinformation and disinformation has been the amazing job that election officials did this year. Again, as Don was saying, ramping up for the pandemic, unprecedented challenges. You had people who were running, as you said, the largest mail election that they'd ever run but also needing to keep polling places as safe as possible for in-person voters. And what you saw, I mentioned this earlier, the way that some of the election community came together, you had folks from Oregon and Washington and Colorado and Utah who'd been running full mail elections or who had done that transition, sharing the lessons learned with their colleagues across the country through vehicles like the EAC. We had a working group within the government coordinating council, which has federal state and local partners. We're able to share those best practices for jurisdictions that had maybe not experienced as much mail, who didn't have that luxury of time to ramp up.

Benjamin Hovland: (14:25)
We were also able to share information from partners with the CDC on how you make polling places as safe as possible. And then also what you saw was an amazing job getting the word out that voters were going to need to spread their vote out to help limit congestion. Again, that was in the CDC guidance. And so you did, you saw a record amount of mail and absentee voting. You saw a record amount of early in-person voting and you still had a significant election day turn-out, which is why we had nearly around 160 million Americans vote. But the mechanics, the election administration of 2020 was really done well. As Don mentioned earlier, there were hiccups. There always are. That's what happens when you have 160 million people involved in a process across over 9,000 jurisdictions across the country. There are going to be hiccups, but none of those were significant. None of those were out of the ordinary. And again, in my 20 years, this is the best run election I've ever seen.

Elliot Berke: (15:31)
Yeah. I appreciate those comments because I think that when we describe elections, sometimes the media forgets that this is a partnership. And even going back to Chris Krebs, who was at DHS and in charge of the cyber office and the comment that ultimately got the president's attention led to his firing. If I'm correct, that statement was actually part of a joint statement that, Ben, you were a part of, that talked about the overall success of the election. So on one hand, you have the underlying result. You also have criticism for the person saying it and whether or not that person's in the right position of expertise, I think [inaudible 00:16:14] lost in that entire situation was that that [inaudible 00:16:18] statement that reflected a federal state local, and to some extent, even private party partnership. And it was the assessment of all those components [inaudible 00:16:30].

Benjamin Hovland: (16:31)
That's right. And again, it was about the security of the election. And the reason that that statement was made and the people were able to say that with confidence was because we'd seen what had gone into it. The $800 million in federal grant money that had gone out for security, that had replaced paperless voting machines, that had hardened statewide voter registration databases. It had led to countless hours of training for state and local election officials around the country. You had seen over the last four years the amount of work that state and local election officials put in. Again, going through these trainings, going through tabletop exercises, replacing equipment, increasing audits.

Benjamin Hovland: (17:14)
And so all of those pieces contributed to a knowledge of how much had been done, contributed to having the visibility across the country. Again, as you know and as I mentioned earlier, there's nearly 9,000 jurisdictions around the country. But for the first time ever, you had network monitoring on all of those states. You have thousands of jurisdictions that now participate in an election information sharing and analysis center. Those things didn't exist before. And ultimately you had over 90% of Americans voting on a paper ballot or with a paper or on a system with a paper audit trail. And so all of those could be reviewed. Again, all of those factors just adding to the confidence we had in the security of the election.

Elliot Berke: (18:09)
Yeah. We'll get to the litigation, but some of these underlying issues, allegations, that have been raised, how do you feel about that given where you guys sit? You must have some reaction. I know we probably don't want to go state by state in the litigation, but you must have some reaction in terms of what's ultimately alleged in court and we'll talk about that, but the allegations that really that we saw that were unprecedented in terms of the the attack on the integrity of our system. Given this is not what just you deal with day to day, but you've built your career on it. How does that make you feel?

Donald Palmer: (18:52)
Well, I think that I had the opportunity to testify to the Senate, and we talked a little bit about the unprecedented attack on the voting systems and the accuracy of those systems. And frankly, that is something that both Ben and I and the commissioners that serve on the commission, that's our over reaching duty. And I've been involved at the state level and the testing of voting systems and now at the federal level. And so there's a whole mechanism for the testing. And it's not new. Look, going back since I started in this second career, I've heard criticism of the voting systems and the testing of it and how we could do better. And much of that is true, is that that's why I always have a sense of trying to improve what we do from an oversight perspective and testing and listening to experts.

Donald Palmer: (19:45)
But I think that at some point, as I was asked is do you have trust in our voting systems? And I think generally the evidence is there that our voting systems have been tested both at the federal and state level and at the local level for a multitude of elections. And so the allegations that were made against the voting systems just were not accurate. And I'm always having an open mind and I try not to cut people off, but the evidence just wasn't there to prove that.

Donald Palmer: (20:17)
And then the second part of that is, is again, there's other ways to try to or attempt to defraud a voting process on an election that may not involve voting systems. But again, that's outside our jurisdiction. And again, there were opportunities for candidates and campaigns and law enforcement to do investigations and prove that, and they never brought that evidence. And so the reality of it is, is that, that the evidence is simply not there to make allegations of fraud that would go to a point where, for example, 10 to 12,000 in Georgia, 20,000 in Wisconsin, the differentials in the races were to a point where the amount of fraud that may take place at a local level would not reach the level of changing results at the state level. And so we had the opportunity to talk about what we do at the EAC to protect those voting systems and how we work with locals. And that's what we did. And we just let the chips fall where they would fall.

Benjamin Hovland: (21:24)
And I'd add to that, Elliot, again, the folks who run elections across the country, the state and local election officials who do this, this isn't a job you get into because you want to get rich. These people care more about the integrity of our elections than anyone I know. They want to get it right. And that's bipartisan across the country. The parties not trusting each other isn't a new thing, and so the whole structure of the system has bi-partisan checks and balances throughout the process, whether that's bipartisan teams in polling places. Sometimes you got the back-end piece, but throughout you have all of these checks and balances built into the process to make sure it's accurate. Some of the time, frankly, that it took to get results was tied into security measures that are put in place.

Benjamin Hovland: (22:16)
I remember seeing, people were talking about getting results in Nevada. And the local official there, Joe Gloria, was giving a press conference and he was talking about how they were reconciling provisional ballots. Again, they were doing that checking with colleagues across the state, checking with the secretary of state, to make sure that no one had voted in more than one place, to make sure that people were eligible to vote in that jurisdiction. And again, those are safeguards and safety measures that are put in place to make sure that the election does have integrity. And again, what we ended up seeing was a lot of rhetoric that wasn't backed up with facts or evidence. Again, my experience has been if you present any of that to election officials, they want to get to the bottom of it. Again, they have all these procedures in place to ensure the integrity of the election. And at the end of the day, there was ample opportunities to present that in court and we never saw it.

Elliot Berke: (23:16)
Yeah. I think ultimately the Trump campaign went one in 62, something like that, in terms of the challenges. How closely were you following that along the way, were there times in certain states where you thought these allegations more serious than others, is there anything that really got your attention during that time?

Benjamin Hovland: (23:41)
[inaudible 00:23:41] following it, of course. That's the job. Obviously there was a lot. So, some days it was a little hard to keep all the different things straight, but I think what you'd kept focusing on was let's see the evidence, let's hear where there are valid claims. If there are valid claims, let's get to the bottom of it. Again, I think the point of running elections is to give the people a chance to make their voice heard and make sure that the outcome reflects the will of the voters. And so, again, I think where sometimes there were allegations made, obviously there were a lot of things around. And when you dug into that, there were answers. There were misunderstandings of the process. There were just rumors or conspiracy theories that frankly didn't make sense.

Benjamin Hovland: (24:38)
But again, it was certainly an effort to try to keep track of the volume and everything that was going around. It was important to try to educate people to the process where we could, certainly whether that intersected with things like our certification program or elections generally. One of the things that I don't think we anticipated how it would come into play but was an important effort this year that I know we were proud to participate in was the National Association of Secretaries of State drove an effort called #TrustedInfo2020, which was really about getting people to go to their state and local election officials for that to source information. And really, again, getting that from the source, how the process works. And I think once you got down to that, again, you saw so often, that there wasn't a real basis in this or it was a confusion about different processes.

Benjamin Hovland: (25:37)
And so I'd like to see us do more to help people understand the process. Obviously a lot of folks got a pretty big civics lesson this year. But I think we can continue to talk about the work that happens after election day. I think most people are used to tuning into the news on election night, seeing the result, and then forgetting about the election, not knowing that there are weeks worth of work still to go in processing those ballots and confirming whether or not people were eligible and recording voter history, all of those checks and balances that we mentioned that go into the canvas and certification process. And so I think, again, one of the things that we can do as an agency is look for more ways to help educate Americans on the process and make that more accessible.

Donald Palmer: (26:26)
Elliot, I was following a lot of it but I started to focus on those issues that involve the EAC like the voting systems and that sort of thing. And I think that one of the things I found is that oftentimes an election worker error or some other error would be confused with some sort of vulnerability in a voting system. And so a little bit of investigation into that would reveal that. What I found frustrating at the EAC is that we're a small agency and some of these facts were easily obtainable, but we weren't always asked to provide commentary. I think that from a perspective of oversight, I think the EAC could try to play more of a role as a independent third party for testing.

Donald Palmer: (27:13)
You saw some of that, for example, with one of our accredited labs in Georgia, was there were some issues regarding allegations of voting systems in Georgia. And I believe it was like eight to 10 counties basically sent the software to an accredited lab and they did a review of the software to make sure it was still the same software. There hadn't been any changes. And after review, that was what that lab found. But as I think about what the EAC could do in the future is that we could do more of that in the assistance of localities and states that perhaps there's a level of distrust that they may not believe each other of political parties, for example, but the EAC may be able to play a more beneficial role in the future looking at the forensics of some of these things after the election. That's just a thought.

Elliot Berke: (28:08)
Yeah. And I think that you touched on this a little bit, but part of this I think whole ordeal has been a good education for the American people, and to some extent, even some of the councils involved. Talk a little bit about this over voting, under voting issue, which to me was one of the most flavoring examples of people talking about a concept that happens in elections, every election. It is not unusual. It was not statistically different than we'd seen in the past, but talk a little bit about that and maybe then how the media helped drive this apparent controversy.

Donald Palmer: (28:52)
So I can talk a little bit about it. Overs and unders actually, the overs and undervotes, this first really came into play from my perspective after 2000, when there was a lot of debate of why there was a certain number of undervotes, which is members or candidates on down the ballot aren't having a ballot cast for them while there's other members on the ballot or candidates that are. And over votes were when there may be more ballots cast for two or two ballots cast for a candidate.

Donald Palmer: (29:23)
And so these are basically mistakes on the part of the voter or they intentionally decide not to vote for a certain candidate, they decide to vote for others. But it became such an issue after 2000 that the Florida legislature required the reporting of that. So these are the types of things that though can spawn conspiracies, and why didn't my candidate get this many votes when this candidate did? And I think that explaining what they are and why they're split votes or there's undervotes is really an issue that I find myself playing political scientist occasionally, explaining that Americans still do divide their votes. Sometimes they decide to undervote, and so not every candidate is going to have the same amount of votes. Ben, you want to weigh in on this one.

Benjamin Hovland: (30:13)
Yeah. I'll just add too, you saw a number of Americans voting in different ways this year. We know from the EAV survey that I mentioned earlier, that historically about 25% of Americans vote by mail or absentee ballot. That number is probably going to be closer to 50% this year depending on a state's cure process. If you're in a polling place in person and you accidentally vote for two candidates for the same race, for example, an over vote, and you put that in a scanner, it's going to kick back and tell you that you may have spoiled that ballot. If you're doing that on a mail ballot and your state doesn't have a cure opportunity, that vote's just canceled out in that race.

Benjamin Hovland: (30:59)
And so again, that's a small thing, but those are the details that's the nuance that goes into election administration. And that's the type of thing that you could see this year. And as Don mentioned, of course there's oftentimes people that are going out for a particular candidate. If anyone's lived in some of the states with longer ballots, you definitely see drop-off. And so there's an array of reasons that you do see these variables out there. And again, it's just part of election administration.

Elliot Berke: (31:38)
What about this allegation about votes being changed, that there was some sort of hack or some sort of systemic software manipulation. Talk a little bit about not just the allegation, but also the nature of how these machines work and how difficult, if not impossible, something like that could be.

Benjamin Hovland: (31:58)
Well, one thing I'd point to there, first and foremost, I mentioned earlier that you probably had about 95% of Americans vote on a paper ballot or with a paper audit trail this year, which is way more than we've seen in recent elections. And you saw that probably the best example to point to on talking about the audit process or whatever is, you look at Georgia. Georgia was one of the closest races across the country. They reviewed their ballots a number of times electronically. It was part of an audit process, but they essentially did a hand check of every single ballot in the state. And those were all largely identical. And again, that is a check that paper audit trail is a check on the computer system.

Benjamin Hovland: (32:50)
And so even if you were somehow manipulating coding, you've got to then be manipulating a paper audit trail [crosstalk 00:33:00] that voters don't detect that or see that. And so again, if you think about a presidential race, many times that's the primary reason somebody is going to go vote. And so do you really think that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people aren't going to notice? There's some research papers on it that I won't go into to bore you, but the point is that you have this check, you have this ability to audit that was done electronically, that was done by hand. And time and again, it reinforced the results and showed that the systems were accurate. And that was in Georgia, but that was around the rest of the country. And again, that's part of the checks and balances that are built in the system to ensure the integrity of the election.

Elliot Berke: (33:49)
Another interesting development we've seen over the past few weeks is the litigation [inaudible 00:33:57] has been filing and the threats of litigation against media outlets. We've seen retractions from Fox, Newsmax, the [inaudible 00:34:06]. This is something we've never really seen at this level in all candor. Do you think this in and of itself will help self police things moving forward that maybe the media is realizing they have to be ... That's behavior and actually report the news based on facts? [inaudible 00:34:32] about that.

Benjamin Hovland: (34:35)
I want to say something that my dad used to say to me, but it's probably not appropriate for this forum. The more polite version is probably the Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts." And I think when we're talking about our democracy and we're talking about how our elections run, we have got to have a baseline of facts and truth there. And I think when we get away from that, it really hurts the fabric of our nation. It hurts our democracy. The rules of the game get set. You run by that, you win and you lose. And foundationally, that's got to matter. And we've got to respect the will of the people. That's how this whole experiment got kicked off a few hundred years ago.

Elliot Berke: (35:23)
Right. That's right. So we're just past 2020. 2022 is on the horizon. What do you see as next steps in terms of improving what it is we do, the things that you think the EAC can help [inaudible 00:35:40] as we get ready for the next one?

Donald Palmer: (35:44)
Well, one of the things that I see is, on election day, one of the major issues that we kept hearing about was electronic poll books were having some issues breaking down or having issues connecting with voter registration systems. And one of the allegations out of Georgia was one of their electronic poll books was hacked remotely. This gets to a point where non-voting systems don't really have the same regulatory scheme that we've talked about, where there's testing and certification, but they are connected to the internet and they're vital to election services. And so many states will do some testing. Obviously they buy this equipment, they need it.

Donald Palmer: (36:29)
One of the things we've looked at the EAC is how can we provide assistance to the states in testing of that equipment, how can we provide some recommendations and how can we provide the information that we find to localities on that equipment? Because non-voting system is becoming more vulnerable yet it's vital to how we do elections in this country. And so it's one thing the EAC is going to be looking at because we frankly want to have our non-voting systems as secure as we believe our voting systems are. And we've got some work ahead of us and we're going to do that.

Elliot Berke: (37:07)
Yeah. From a security perspective, that seems to me, I agree, is one of the most vulnerable areas. And moving forward, I think that that's ... And some secretary [inaudible 00:37:19] spoke in our last session about. We haven't really seen, it's been remarkable how little success has been by third parties in terms of hacking our election infrastructure as opposed to other critical infrastructure of the United States. And so on one hand, I think we've been very fortunate and we've been prepared, but moving forward, we have to recognize that as a huge vulnerability.

Donald Palmer: (37:46)
Well, I think that the whole SolarWinds scenario has really awakened some eyes because it's like we can believe that we're doing a good job protecting ourselves and securing our systems but in some ways we may not know the extent of our vulnerability until after the fact. And so from my perspective, I think that this tells us a lot that we can never let our guard down, frankly. From a substantive point of view is you may already be hacked and simply don't know it.

Donald Palmer: (38:19)
And then this goes back into some aspect of what happened in 2016. There was some allegations, and the truth of the matter is it's a little bit unknown, but what we believe what happened is there was a number of counties in Florida, probably two or three, that there were some vulnerabilities there, where there were infiltrated. No voter registration data was captured. But what that tells us is that sometimes these things occur without us really knowing about it. And we may not know about it for national security reasons for years. And so as we sit here today, we may not know the full extent of SolarWinds and what foreign countries have tried to do with our critical infrastructure.

Benjamin Hovland: (39:04)
And one thing I'd add to that, Elliot, I think a couple things. So first of all, at the EAC, we're on the verge of adopting a new set of voluntary voting system standards. That's a big deal. And it will include things like software independence and offering additional support for audits. That's a big piece of what we're talking about. To Don's point, computers are hackable, that's the reality. So do you have systems in place, safeguards in place, to ensure that you're able to detect that, you're able to pick that up. That goes into the point I was making earlier about the amount of paper that we saw this year. The fact that more and more states and jurisdictions are implementing audits. And so to the degree that we can help enhance that, increase that, I think that's an important piece.

Benjamin Hovland: (39:50)
But we also know that the lowest hanging fruit in many ways is disinformation and misinformation. And so as I look at how we can play a role, as we look at the things that can be done, I think a lot of it is helping people to get that trusted source information. Some of that is a resourcing issue. Don mentioned earlier, our budget, it's increased a little bit in the last couple of years thankfully. But even this year, we just got our largest budget in over a decade at $15 million. That is well below the Federal Election Commission that does come in finances around 70, and that's nothing compared to the agencies that most people are familiar with. And so there is a need to invest in our democracy, whether that's the EAC, whether that's with state and local governments. Again, the Congress has provided through the EAC a lot of grant money, but we consistently hear from state and local election officials about the need for an ongoing funding stream.

Benjamin Hovland: (40:56)
I think about obviously our democracy is core to our identity as a nation, core of what we do and what we believe in. And when you talk about election administration, that's the infrastructure of our democracy. And so investing in that, making sure that the systems are working the way that they're supposed to, investing in that in a way that can educate people. One of the things I'd love to see us do is, again, knowing that elections are decentralized, have a one-stop shop where we can get people to the right place, to their secretary of state, to their state board of elections, to their local election official, or get them that information from that trusted source so that we can help people understand the process, better understand how they participate in the process, help people fact-check things more quickly to try to combat this misinformation that you see in this space.

Elliot Berke: (41:52)
I know we're getting close to our time here, but I did want to ask a couple more questions. One is on voter roll accuracy. That seemed to be a really big issue on this election [inaudible 00:42:05] but I think this time around it got a little bit more attention. What can you guys do to help states clean up their voter rolls? Because I think that is a strong way that we can bolster our integrity in our system.

Benjamin Hovland: (42:20)
Well, certainly National Voter Registration Act governs a lot of that. And Don [inaudible 00:42:26] mentions his role in getting Virginia involved in the Electronic Registration Information Center, ERIC, so I'll let him hit that. That's obviously an important effort and step. But again, I think their list maintenance is a challenge, but voter rolls being clean is good for everybody. It saves jurisdictions money, it prevents accusations being made about this or that. But the reality is it's a real challenge. You have Americans that turn 18 every day. You have Americans that die every day. You have Americans that move every day, and that requires a constant effort to maintain election rolls. And it is a real challenge, certainly one that I think to the degree that we can help with best practices. I think that's a great effort.

Benjamin Hovland: (43:21)
Again, I'll let Don talk about ERIC, but efforts like that I think are hugely important to ensuring that the rolls are as accurate as possible, that Americans are engaged. And to the degree, I mentioned some of the voter education piece. Helping Americans know that they need to update their address is a big piece of that. People move. They maybe go on and update their address with the post office and they think that takes care of it. But it doesn't. And so it's important for people to know they need to update their registration, whether that's moving across state lines or down the street. Because you may be in a different jurisdiction or it may save you time on election day to make sure you've got that right address. So those are important things to be able to emphasize.

Donald Palmer: (44:09)
So, Elliot, I think that the twin voting systems was one of the major parts that came out of HAVA, and the upgraded that. One of the things that get misremembered or not remembered is voter registration systems at the state level was the other factor there. And I really think that across the country, we really need a revolution in technology and upgrading those systems, both at the state and local level. And this is where Congress can really help, because again, this is a major part of the Help America Vote Act, was to allow the states to have these databases. And so the more technology and the more we upgrade those systems, the more accurate our voter registration systems are going to be.

Donald Palmer: (44:52)
So there's a substantive part of that and there's also the perception. And the perception is that why do we have people that shouldn't be on the rolls on the rolls. And I think that the Congress or the states really need to dedicate funding to that purpose. There's a lot of priorities and local election officials often just don't have the resources to do list maintenance the amount that they should be doing, in every quarter, for example. Usually they're going to need additional resources to do that. I think that if the EAC can provide best practices or helping jurisdictions find what's the best address for individuals, that's the type of thing that I think that localities would be helpful to localities. And so those are some of the things that I think the Congress or policymakers can look at, is how can we improve those voter registration systems?

Elliot Berke: (45:46)
What about on ballot harvesting and chain of custody issues? I'm an advocate for in-person voting but after this last election, I think we all have to be prepared for just increased mail voting moving forward. We may not see what we saw in 2020, but I think it's going to be there. What more can the states do to address this issue about harvesting and make sure that the chain of custody for mail and voting is as clear, and then again, from a public confidence standpoint, we're in the best position we can be in?

Donald Palmer: (46:21)
Well, I think without getting into the policy debate over it, I think that technology can really help us mitigate the problem that may have come with certain policies. I think that if we use technology to track where ballots are when it's in the possession of an election office or through the mail system, that gives everybody a warm and fuzzy that we know where the ballots are. We're keeping track of them. Sometimes these things cost money to implement existing technologies.

Donald Palmer: (46:56)
And so, once again, I encourage ... When I was at the state level, I spend most of my time trying to sell new technologies to localities and why it will help them do their job. And I think that it really sells itself. A lack of a chain of custody may actually come to burn a local election official very much so. Even the largest jurisdictions sometimes have difficulty maintaining a chain of custody. That's why it's so important. Failure to do so can get you on the six o'clock news or even on the national news. And that's where we don't want to be. And so transparency and using technology to improve chain of custody helps local [inaudible 00:47:43] officials do their job, helps us all do our job better and avoid what could become a political or partisan issue down the road.

Benjamin Hovland: (47:52)
And just to build off that technological point, I think you saw more jurisdictions during doing ballot tracking this year. That has been an innovation that has been spreading. And I think it goes a long way to solving a number of problems. Number one, I think it helps with voter confidence. People know where their ballot is in the system. They know when it's been received, if it's with the post office. It helps election officials to be able to catch problems before they really start. Maybe they get a call and they investigate and then they see, "Oh, there's a pallet still sitting in a warehouse at the post office." And they're able to solve that. It helps with staffing issues to know how many ballots are coming in a particular day, you can adjust for temps.

Benjamin Hovland: (48:39)
And I had heard that there was a ... The Federal Voting Assistance Program did a pilot. They specialized with military and overseas voters. They did a pilot with the USPS on full end-to-end tracking and checking on how that impacted voter confidence. And one of the things that I heard out of that was that they could do that for all military and overseas voters for between six and $8 million. And if you scaled up to that, it would be applicable or it would work for voters across the country. And so in the scope of things, that for probably $8 million, we could have end-to-end ballot tracking for all of the ballots across the country. That is a relatively minor investment, but one that needs to be made if you want that kind of service, if you want that kind of confidence. But I think that would be a great service for the voters both in giving individual Americans confidence in their process, but also helping election officials as well.

Elliot Berke: (49:41)
Great. Well, Ben, Don, thank you so much for your time. We greatly appreciate it and thank you for your service-

Benjamin Hovland: (49:47)
Good to be here. Thank you.

Elliot Berke: (49:49)
We're proud of you. John, back over to you.

John Darsie: (49:51)
Thank you everybody who tuned in to today's SALT Talk. I think it was a fantastic conversation. Thanks again Elliot for leading this series on election integrity and election operations. That last bit gave me a lot of hope that we can continue to build on the system that we have, which I think is fantastic. And people don't give the election workers around the country enough credit for what they've done for many years, but especially what they did this year in the midst of a raging pandemic to ensure that we had a secure and fair election. I think it's just amazing what they were able to pull off, and hopefully we can continue to build on our technological base that we have for our elections and restore integrity that has been called into question, I think, unfairly by some people in this country. We won't name names.

John Darsie: (50:37)
Anyways, thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk. By tuning in, hopefully you're able to learn some things that you didn't know before about election operations and can continue to spread the word about the facts of the matter in terms of our election processes here in the United States. But this was the second episode in our three episode series on election operations and elections integrity. We have one more coming up in a couple of weeks with the secretaries of state of Michigan and Georgia. That's Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson in Michigan, a Democrat, and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, a Republican. It's been very important to us that we make this a nonpartisan, and in some cases, a bipartisan conversation around the facts of election operations and elections integrity. So we're very excited about that episode of this series.

John Darsie: (51:25)
And just a reminder, if you missed our previous episode of our Elections Integrity series with former secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, you can see that at salt.org\talks. And if you miss any part of this episode, you can watch it again on our website at salt.org\talks or at our YouTube channel. And please, I always say this after every episode, but please spread the word about SALT Talks and about this SALT Talk in particular. I think it's so important that as a society, we get the facts straight and we spread the word about the truth about the way our elections operates. So please spread the word. We're also on social media, please follow us. We're on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram. And on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off for today. I will see you back here in a couple of weeks for the last episode of our Elections Integrity series with secretaries Brad Raffensperger and Jocelyn Benson. Thank you.

Dr. Jonathan Simons: The Evolution of Cancer Research | SALT Talks #152

“Cancer research is not a zero-sum game… in curing prostate cancer with gene-based treatments, you’re talking about finishing off 73% of other cancers.”

Dr. Jonathan Simons is the president and CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) which focuses on research and resources for a disease that 1 in 9 American men will be diagnosed with and claims 34k lives per year.

Except for skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. After his own prostate cancer diagnosis, Michael Milken was central in changing the equation around research and medical advancements through his invention of venture philanthropy. The rapid growth of investment and philanthropic partnerships with biotech and pharma has seen amazing progress in detection and treatments. “[Since that work began,] there has been a 53% reduction in the death rate from prostate cancer, the largest decrease in death rate of any of the major cancers.”

57% percent of prostate cancer runs in families, making it the most inherited of the major cancers and highlighting the need to be aware of family history. This is especially important among black men who are twice as likely to die from the disease. There are even greater breakthroughs on the near horizon in the fight against prostate cancer using gene-based treatments. These advanced treatments would also offer the ability to eliminate over 70% of other cancers.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dr. Jonathan Simons.jpeg

Dr. Jonathan Simons

Chief Executive Officer

Prostate Cancer Foundation

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 launched during 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 what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We have another great talk focused on community impact and philanthropy and science today. And when we can find that intersection, that's really the sweet spot that we'd like to cover here on SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (00:54)
And our guest today is Dr. Jonathan Simons. Dr. Simons is the president and chief operating officer of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, PCF, which was founded in 1993, and it focuses on research and resources for a disease that one in nine American men will be diagnosed with in their lifetimes, and which also claims 34,000 lives each year. Just as a quick personal anecdote, my father had prostate cancer and was cured and has lived many years beyond that. So thankful for the work of Dr. Simons and his team at the Prostate Cancer Foundation on that piece.

John Darsie: (01:32)
But the fight is personal to Jonathan as well who is the husband, son and grandson of cancer survivors. He's board certified in internal medicine and medical oncology. He received his medical degree from Johns Hopkins University and did his residency at Boston's Mass General, as well as a clinical fellowship in medical oncology at Johns Hopkins Oncology Center. Before joining PCF in 2007, he was the distinguished service professor of hematology and oncology at Emory University School of Medicine, my alma mater, and professor of biomedical engineering and material sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech.

John Darsie: (02:12)
Dr. Simons is the founding director of Emory's Winship Cancer Institute and co-director of the National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence at Emory and Georgia Tech. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm, and he's also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:37)
John, thank you. And Dr. Simons, thanks for being here. You mentioned cancer and cancer survivorship. It's obviously all very personal. Your grandfather survived. I believe your dad was one of the first people treated at the National Cancer Institute for Lymphoma and was cured or put into remission. Your wife is a cancer survivor. My wife is actually a cancer survivor. She had bladder cancer at the young age of 21, which was sort of hard to believe, but they say it was related to drinking water around the Love Canal, where she had gone to school up in University of Buffalo. So we have cancer in our lives, unfortunately. Just about everybody listening has a cancer story. Tell us about the journey that brought you to your cancer research.

Jonathan Simons: (03:27)
Well, my story, like so many stories, is not that unusual. One in three American families will experience cancer, and I'm glad John, your dad's doing well and I'm glad Anthony, your wife's doing well. But what was formative for me is, my father was cured after relapsing several times from Hodgkin's Disease on a clinical trial. So as a kid interested in science, if I couldn't make it to the Major League Baseball career, and I thought basically cancer research was heroic, because I literally saw the curability of the incurable illness unfold in our lives. And my father recurred several times. So he faced an existential threat.

Jonathan Simons: (04:22)
But I think that's a story that so many families can tell in different ways. But that's really mine, so I was interested in being a doctor and a cancer scientist in developing new treatment and got very interested in prostate cancer as a consequence of a baseball coach who got prostate cancer before there was a blood test to detect it and who succumbed in under 12 months of diagnosis. So I got interested in prostate cancer because I was interested in seeing prostate cancer go the way of Hodgkin's disease, which went from incurable to curable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:01)
This is an interesting disease. I'd like you to lay it out for people. It's obviously a male disease. Breast cancer is probably 97% women, but there's a small percentage of men that also get breast cancer. But yet this is a male disease. Treatable. We have way more understanding of it as a result of your research. So take us back to 1993 when you were awarded, as a scientist and a doctor, you were awarded a research grant from the Prostate Cancer Foundation. What were you researching then? Where are we today? Build the continuum for us.

Jonathan Simons: (05:41)
Sure. So you're right. Prostate cancer is the most common, non-skin cancer in men, and basically one in eight men, and actually one in six black men will get prostate cancer in their lifetime. Even though now, if caught early, the ten-year survival for prostate cancer is 98%. But in 1993, it was woefully behind. Given the amount of it and basically the public perception, it was a disease of old men. It took somebody to change the equation. And that was a 40 year old man named Michael Milken, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer, told he was terminally ill. He sounded pretty good on the phone yesterday. And he said, "I'm going to change the course of medical history and accelerate work on this cancer." And really, Mike invented, as we now really understand it, entrepreneurial or venture philanthropy for cancer research, but basically used every relationship he had, used his entire Rolodex in order to try to assemble partnerships between philanthropic support, biotech and pharma investment, and a significant government investment to basically deliver new treatments and better detection.

Jonathan Simons: (07:14)
And really, if you're looking at return on investment, and I know your viewers are interested in ROI in a lot of things, there's been, since Mike was diagnosed, a 53% reduction in the death rate from prostate cancer. And John, your dad's a part of the story, right? That's the largest decrease, absolute decrease in death rate in any of the major cancers. And that's a consequence of a heavy investment in research, public awareness and partnerships. But we must still do better. An African-American man is still twice as likely to die of this disease as a white man in the United States. And for every man and his family, we have the opportunity in this decade to really put prostate cancer in the rear view mirror as a major public health threat. But prostate cancer hasn't stopped in the pandemic and neither has a prostate cancer research in our foundation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:16)
Tell us about ways men need to think about it. How do they potentially prevent it? Michael Milken obviously has come to our SALT events. He's spoken many times. Once in Singapore, a few times in Las Vegas. He's always talking about nutrition, Dr. Simons. Tell us a little bit about what men can do to protect themselves. Obviously the PSA tests, et cetera, but give us a portfolio of things that people can do.

Jonathan Simons: (08:45)
There are three things that a man could do. They can talk to their family about risk, because in the same way put on seat belts because there's a risk of a car accident, they can talk about risk, they can get screened. I can talk more about that. And they can really take charge of the future of their health. And the way to do that is assume that you're very likely to get the disease and you'd rather live into your nineties and not die from it.

Jonathan Simons: (09:20)
Second, it's 57% of prostate cancer runs in families. It's actually the most inherited of the major cancers. So at 40, if you have a prostate cancer running in your family, not only do you need to be get checked, you need to be checked at 40. And certainly if you're, African-American, given the fact that you have a higher lifetime risk of getting the disease, you need to take charge of your health once a year, and basically have a conversation with your doctor at 40 if the disease is running your family. At 45, if you're African-American. And we believe at 50, if you're of European descent.

Jonathan Simons: (10:06)
Those are the three things. And basically, prostate cancer is to men as breast cancer is to women, we just have to assume far more family interest in our health as men, as women do, in caring for families and caring for themselves.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:26)
When you look back, is there anything in the prostate cancer research that you've done that has led to transformations in the research of other cancers?

Jonathan Simons: (10:41)
Yeah, I'm grateful for that question because it's a really important one. The discovery of checkpoint inhibitors that have made melanoma curable. It extended the lives ... In the Superbowl, you hear about treatment for lung cancer using the immune system. That discovery was made by James Alison and won a Nobel prize, but was originally funded, first real foundation support was from the Prostate Cancer Foundation, asking the question, "How can you turn the immune system on against prostate cancer?"

Jonathan Simons: (11:13)
So in fact, we've delivered 13 FDA approved drugs, which have significantly extended the survivability of prostate cancer over the years with 800 million in R&D that our foundations invested. But we've really pushed forward, rather profoundly, progress in over 11 other cancers. And cancer search is just not a zero sum game, particularly as we've come to understand how genes work. And right now we're really prosecuting research on new drugs that target prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, cancer through a gene called [Wint 00:11:56] pancreatic cancer, colon cancer.

Jonathan Simons: (11:59)
And in fact, in curing prostate cancer with these new genomic or gene based medicines, you're really curing prostate cancer by making these new precision medicines, you're really talking about finishing off 73 other forms of human cancer, including childhood brain tumors. One of the things that my community doesn't do very well is market itself, because it's much more interesting to talk nerd to nerd about how interesting these genes are. But fundamentally, this revolution and understanding how genes work through the human genome and then making medicines against genes that are rogue and abhorrent, and a cancer means that cancer is no longer just anatomic. Cancer care isn't just where the cancer came from. It's genomic. It's making medicines against the genes.

Jonathan Simons: (12:53)
And in the next few years, we're going to see extraordinary progress. This isn't Pollyannish, in basically making new classes of medicines that are going to treat the genomics, not the anatomics. So we'll see FDA approvals, not so much based on did the tumor come from the breast or the bladder or the prostate, but against really the Achilles heel, the genetic Achilles heels of these tumors.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:23)
Let's talk about the money raising aspect of this and how important it is to your research. And give us a sense for who is underwriting cancer research today. Is it mostly private citizens and foundations and drug companies? Is the government also in there? What does the mix look like now in terms of the R&D going into these things?

Jonathan Simons: (13:49)
The ecosystem has three major investors and they're all vital to each other. And they're codependent if the goal is to end death and suffering from cancer. Foundations like ours can often make the higher risk, most [inaudible 00:14:07] first series A round insightful investments. Our National Institutes of Health, our National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense invest millions in ... Maybe perhaps in thinking about validating or series B and C, or expanding on a discovery. So philanthropic support, although it's only 4% of the pie, it's some of the most essential of all the investments, because it can be more nimble and it can identify what we would call breakout opportunities, Anthony.

Jonathan Simons: (14:47)
But biopharma is essential in scale. There are extraordinary and healthy partnerships. Mike Milken and others really developed a new kind of ecosystem in the nineties and two thousands. When I started at Johns Hopkins, we were told never to go to a drug company research meeting because we were pure and they were purely profit driven. That whole culture evaporated with the excitement of university scientists and scientists, and project managers, and biopharma trying to accelerate getting a scientific development to patients.

Jonathan Simons: (15:30)
And our government, probably one of the things that our country still leads the world in, regardless of your views on American exceptionalism. Sorry, that's just the way it works right now with COVID. Regardless of your views about American exceptionalism, we've been an exceptionally generous people at funding basic research. I mean, one of our greatest exports, I think, is actually medical progress. And our National Institutes of Health, and you saw it with the development of COVID vaccines at just meteoric speed, but that meteoric speed in developing these vaccines is happening in cancer research all the time now. But NIH has just been a huge partner in the reduction of deaths as well.

Jonathan Simons: (16:31)
It doesn't mean that getting funded for a breakthrough idea is easy. It's actually harder, and it's going to be harder in the COVID economy, probably. But it's a proven ecosystem, our cancer research ecosystem. It just has lots of areas where we could still now go faster if we concentrated on solving some of the problems and choke points. And a really good example that's an African-American detection. Basically, an African-American disparity or health justice. Robert F. Smith made an enormous philanthropic commitment this year to accelerate the development of a test. You could test blood, or you could test saliva to identify African-American men, really men of West African ancestry, that have a two to 11 times higher chance of getting prostate cancer. And this whole idea of transforming even how we screen for cancer, by understanding genetics, it is built on NIH funding in trying to understand how genes work in family. But also an impatience for true health justice in trying to invest now in the actual development and testing and final really reduction to practice in communities of color.

Jonathan Simons: (17:55)
So the entrepreneurial philanthropist is still the most important part, we believe. Entrepreneurial donors, entrepreneurial biomedical research foundations, we think are still the vital driving force, where there's 10X from the government if you can move along the data.

Jonathan Simons: (18:19)
That was a long word answer. [crosstalk 00:18:21] I get cranked up on this topic because I-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:25)
No, I let you go because it's so interesting. Our resident millennial, Dr. Simons, is dying to ask a question here. So I have to put myself on mute. Don't let him out shine me, however. They try to talk over me.

John Darsie: (18:39)
That's impossible. My IQ is not nearly high enough relative to our guest here today. But just to go back to what Anthony said, we can't give Michael Milken enough credit for the work he's done as a venture philanthropist in the field of medicine. He has done so much. I don't think people realize how much capital he's driven into the space and the outcomes that it's generated. So we're very thankful to him.

John Darsie: (19:02)
But I have a question. The New England Journal of Medicine noted last year that the pandemic threatened public health, not only because the risk of COVID, but because of its effects on patients with other diagnoses, including cancer. It could be because risks of immune compromised people visiting offices, for example. How does the data show that playing out over the past year?

Jonathan Simons: (19:26)
There's no question that we don't have all the data on how disruptive COVID-19 has been in terms of delaying the standard of cancer care. I'm sure it will be unhappy. All I can do is speak from my own small, but real practice of prostate cancer oncology, and talking to colleagues. It's slowed down getting surgery or starting radiation, just the logistics of getting patients in and out and tested because we're trying to stagger them. And what's been very challenging is, it slowed down clinical trial accrual for cancer medicines that may be breakthrough medicines or really be very, very important part of developing new therapy.

Jonathan Simons: (20:14)
But the good news is that I think cancer patients have learned that telemedicine is here and that it may be possible to develop ways of actually more efficiently and actually more compassionately interacting with patients using telemedicine on a lot of issues that, until COVID, we wouldn't have considered. The key is going to be getting herd immunity established as soon as possible so we can get further and further towards the normal patient flow. And no question, as well, cancer screening rates are down, but I don't know what they are most recently. And we're very concerned about that. And particularly in lower socioeconomic environments and communities where we're so concerned about improving cancer screening rates.

John Darsie: (21:12)
Yeah, it's the problem that obviously the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate negative impact on communities, people of color. We talked about that with Paula Schneider of Susan G Komen, and it's rampant across a variety of different diseases and circumstances. But President Biden is arguably more dedicated to cancer research than any president that we've had in the history of the country. How optimistic are you that we could take a giant leap forward? And from a public policy standpoint, what would you like to see done that hasn't been done before, or maybe has been done, but not on a large enough scale to accelerate progress that we're making in cancer research?

Jonathan Simons: (21:52)
Well, first of all, I think you're right. I think President Biden will be the most nonpartisan or bipartisan champion of accelerating progress against cancer. And we've had some presidents that have experienced cancer and their families for certain. I worked directly with Vice President Biden and his staff on Vice President Biden's cancer moonshot. And actually, I have very specific answer. We think that our program with the Veterans Administration in delivering precision oncology. So if you're served your country first, you should be first to get cancer research breakthroughs for prostate cancer. We think that, in this administration not only will medical care and cancer care really in the Veterans Administration, but there's an opportunity to take the nation's largest health system with actually the best electronic medical record and really push forward how clinical trials are delivered, how we basically learn how to deliver precision care for all forms of cancer.

Jonathan Simons: (23:01)
And second, I think President Biden's going to be a champion of basic cancer research or basically fundamental discoveries that could bring breakthroughs in earlier detection or medicines. But also, I think this administration's going to be very interested in all the choke points.

Jonathan Simons: (23:21)
What's slowing us down? Well, the ease of letting rural Americans take place in clinical trials, or Americans in urban areas take place in clinical trials, because right now only four in a hundred Americans are taking, with cancer, even participating in a clinical trial. So even if we got that to 20%, that would be five times as fast as delivering to the FDA packages of data that show benefit.

Jonathan Simons: (23:51)
And last, I think, I think this administration is a real champion also for the important role of nursing. And our system needs to readdress, in our healthcare system, in particular, how vital for the future health of our country, nursing is, in particularly advanced practice oncology nursing. And here I am a physician scientists talking about nursing, but I think that these are going to be very positive developments.

John Darsie: (24:24)
Yeah. And how has data improved our ability to process data relevant to cancer? I feel like we talked to a lot of people in the healthcare space and they talk about how we haven't because of legitimate rules around privacy and things like that, haven't been able to sequence enough data, large enough data sets to really make huge progress. I had somebody I knew in New York, their brother was a founder of Flat Iron health, which you might be familiar with, backed by Google, acquired by Roche, that was trying to gain greater access to that data and process that data in a more effective way. Are you optimistic about breakthroughs in data processing as it relates to oncology generally?

Jonathan Simons: (25:10)
I'm aspirational and hopeful. I feel like the way we handle data in medicine is like January 1942, after Pearl Harbor, we had Navy prepared for the last war, right? We only had four aircraft carriers, even though air power was going to be the essential element for winning the war against the fascist. We all know in oncology, we all know a medical research, that the silos of data right now between the laboratory and the clinic and data scientists are woefully antiquated, given the opportunities. If you can sequence the human genome for less than one third the cost of a CAT scan, but you can't get that information to a doctor and to a pharmacist and to researchers. Just look at our challenges right now with sequencing COVID. Basically defining the genetic. This is like a surveillance problem that's trivial in terms of its genomics.

Jonathan Simons: (26:25)
But just look right now at our public health system challenges in terms of assembling data on variants. I'm hopeful that we completely reevaluate how we can protect patient privacy, but also put the patient first from the standpoint of getting the benefits of all this scientific and medical knowledge. And currently, our electronic health records are designed for reimbursement. They're not designed to ideally care for the next patient based on the science we know. So we're going to have to put patients again first in terms of how we think about big data. And we're going to need to allow data to be analyzed by all kinds of people in ways where we protect privacy.

Jonathan Simons: (27:19)
So in the long-term, I'm optimistic, but we haven't seen ... Well, there's been a lot of talk. We haven't seen a great example yet of a fully integrated health system. And again, I'm cranked up about this. That's why we're so optimistic without the Veterans Administration, actually, because they actually collect outcomes data independent of reimbursement. And I'm not saying reimbursement isn't important, but what I am saying is that we need a complete redesign in how we look at medical data and allow data scientists to make these important observations.

John Darsie: (28:05)
Well, I could ask you a lot more questions, but I'm going to turn it back over to Anthony to see if he has any final words before we let you go, Dr. Simons. So you can get back to your important work that you do every day.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:15)
Well, my question is about the future, Doc. You seem like you're on the cusp of a lot of breakthroughs and you seem like you've helped to integrate the narrative around cancer therapies with other types of cancers through your research. So where are we five and 10 years from now if things go well? Build us an optimistic case, if you don't mind.

Jonathan Simons: (28:39)
I am optimistic based on the facts in that there'll be no clinical decision without precision. Your genes will be sequenced. The expressed RNA will be sequenced, we'll be treating the right patient with the right drug at the right time or making the right clinical decision based on an extraordinary understanding of the disease that you have that.

Jonathan Simons: (29:06)
Second, if we can solve our access to care issues, if we can solve basically the delivery of these amazing things, I see a real steep drop in cancer deaths by the end of the decade, because we're also going to be doing precision detection like this Robert F. Smith test or the polygenic risk test effort. Basically, pediatricians will be able to help families understand their lifetime cancer risk. And getting back to nutrition, we'll have a very good understanding of food as medicine, not trendy thinking as medicine, but we'll have the core metabolic understanding of what makes a healthier lifestyle and then we'll have apps and I think reinforcing products that allow us to really live healthier lives.

Jonathan Simons: (30:11)
I actually think that this is not only going to be the greatest decade in the history of medical research, just the breathtaking speed of the COVID vaccines or the fact that we had seven FDA approvals. Hidden in plain sight with COVID, we had seven FDA approvals for prostate cancer, which is a record year. All really driven by, again, early stage funding by our foundation, and then leveraged by the government and biopharma. I think it's going to be a decade where patients will be partners in their care, whether they're millennials, John, or not. I think health apps and the general understanding that with good health information, you can be a partner in your care is going to actually improve the care of everyone. So I'm actually very optimistic about the decade. If we can just, again, if we can just stay very focused on supporting cancer research and more broadly, biomedical research is one of the most important humanitarian things we could be doing in this country for the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:22)
Before we let you go, you mentioned the vaccines. So have you been vaccinated, Doctor?

Jonathan Simons: (31:26)
I have.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:27)
And are the vaccine safe?

Jonathan Simons: (31:29)
Yes, that's what the data says.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:32)
Okay. But what would you be concerned about, because we have ... Just play this out for me, because we have people that are concerned about the vaccines. The data says they're safe. Do we need more data or was the data acceptable for you to get yourself vaccinated? So tell us what you think.

Jonathan Simons: (31:48)
We need more data in areas where ... We constantly need more data. In fact, what we need is a learning health system. That would have been the punchy answer to your big data question. So we need a lot more data, but by everything we know, it's much better to be vaccinated than not. And we're not over Coronavirus infections, as the variants show. So we need to become confident again that our health systems and our biomedical research efforts keep good ethical values, but are trying to basically save lives.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:34)
Well, no, I appreciate it. It's just, unfortunately, we are in the age of tremendous amounts of information. But we're also in the age, unfortunately, of tremendous amounts of disinformation. And so you and I, John, Michael Milken, we're believers in science matters and facts first. And so would you recommend this vaccine to your patients and family members?

Jonathan Simons: (32:59)
I am.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:00)
Okay.

Jonathan Simons: (33:01)
Actually, Anthony, you're very articulate, you're a student of history, and you know that at any moment in history, there's more that's unknown than known. So we have to be comfortable with continuing to learn. Learn about this disease. But we also have to be comfortable with evidence, and the evidence from randomized clinical trials, which is our best way of doing this, not the fastest way to do this is, the best evidence is to be vaccinated, to prevent yourself from dying of COVID-19 and spreading it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:48)
Amen. All right. Well, I want to leave it on that, I think. I think it's an optimistic note. We don't know everything, but we are advancing and we're doing the best that we can. It's in the best interest of our citizens in our society to get vaccinated. It'll protect them against the pandemic and future potential variants, et cetera. Anything else you want to add, Darsie?

John Darsie: (34:13)
That's it. Just want to thank Dr. Simons.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:15)
You want to call him Peter or something like that before we leave? [crosstalk 00:34:17]. There's a P in prostate. So do you want to call him Peter before he leaves? I'm just asking.

John Darsie: (34:23)
I think I got this one nailed down.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:25)
All right. I'm just checking.

John Darsie: (34:26)
[crosstalk 00:34:26] with Paula Schneider of the Susan G Komen foundation. But I just want to thank you Dr. Simons for all the work you've done. My father's one of millions of people. He's both a prostate cancer survivor and a skin cancer survivor. So all the research that you've done both directly related to prostate cancer, as well as the other cancers that you and Anthony were speaking about earlier, it's allowed him, this is more than a decade ago now, to live a long, healthy life, and he's now been vaccinated. So we hopefully don't have to worry too much about Coronavirus with him or my mother as well. So thank you for all the work you're doing.

Jonathan Simons: (35:02)
Well, thanks for the time today and good luck with delivering the truth to people.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:09)
We're working on it every day, sir. It's a work in progress every day.

John Darsie: (35:13)
It has been since the dawn of man.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:15)
Amen. Amen. It's getting a little bit tricky now, man. We got a lot of disinformation out there that we're trying to fight back. [crosstalk 00:35:26]

John Darsie: (35:26)
But thank you again, Dr. Simons. And thank you everybody who tuned in to today's SALT Talk. Just by tuning in and learning and spreading awareness of the progress that's being made, as well as the facts on the ground, you're doing a service, not just to yourself and your family, but to society as well. So if you have the means to donate to the Prostate Cancer Foundation, please do. We always put our money where our mouth is and contribute to these causes that we feature here on SALT Talks. And if you're able to do so, please do.

John Darsie: (35:54)
If you can't, protect yourself and protect your family. Go get checked, go to the doctor. If you have a history of cancer in your family, you especially need to get checked frequently. But encouraged family members and friends to get checked as well and encourage them to follow the facts and get vaccinated and get checked for a variety of different diseases.

John Darsie: (36:11)
But thank you for joining us. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk, or any of our previous SALT Talks, or want to sign up for our upcoming talks, you can do all of that on our website at salt.org/talks. You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel where we host all of our videos for free to try to broaden access as much as possible to these ideas that we feature here on SALT Talks on a variety of issues. And please follow us on social media. We're, as well as being on YouTube, on Facebook, on Instagram, on Twitter, on LinkedIn. And on behalf of the entire SALT team and Anthony, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We'll see you back here again soon.

Paula Schneider: Breast Cancer Research | SALT Talks #151

“Part of being a survivor is you’ve walked in their shoes… I had 40 rounds of radiation, 6 months of chemo. I understand the devastation it causes families.”

Paul Schneider is the CEO of Susan G. Komen, the world’s largest nonprofit source of funding in the fight against breast cancer. Until her own breast cancer diagnosis in 2007, Paula Schneider was an accomplished executive in the fashion industry. It was her own experience facing cancer that inspired a career pivot to help in the fight against the deadly disease.

The Susan G. Komen foundation focuses on three pillars: medical research, legislative advocacy and community involvement. Raising awareness is central to the foundation’s mission so women can understand the preventative steps available in identifying signs or risk factors such as genetic predisposition. Because the pandemic has slowed routine doctor’s visits, there will inevitably be screenings and diagnoses delayed. "There are about 40-70% less cancer diagnoses right now. It means people aren’t getting the screenings they need to get a diagnosis… We will have a breast cancer boom after people are less afraid to go to their doctor."

Much work remains in closing the equity gap for black women who are 40% more likely to die from breast cancer. Susan G. Komen is leading campaigns in major cities using technology to help close the gap by identifying the key areas for improvement.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Paula Schneider.jpeg

Paula Schneider

President & Chief Executive Officer

Susan G. Komen

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 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 what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future and we also love providing platforms for great causes as well. And when you can combine big ideas, big scientific ideas that are shaping the future with great causes, that's where we love to live at that intersection. So we're very excited today to bring you a SALT Talk on community impact with two great speakers, the first of which I will introduce to you now.

John Darsie: (01:00)
We're very excited to welcome Paula Schneider to SALT Talks. Paula is the president and chief executive officer of Susan G. Komen, the world's leading nonprofit source of funding for the fight against breast cancer, serving millions of patients in more than 60 countries, and helping to reduce the breast cancer mortality rate by 40% since 1989. Paula is responsible for the strategic direction and day-to-day operation of Komen's multi-million dollar research, community health, public policy advocacy, and global programs. For her it's not just business, it's personal because Paula herself is a breast cancer survivor and her own mother died of metastatic breast cancer.

John Darsie: (01:43)
She's been featured as a speaker at thought leadership forums, such as Fortune's most powerful women's summit, at the Milken Institutes Future of Health Summit. Paula was also named as one of Los Angeles business journals 500 most influential people for 2016 and garnered the National Association of Women's Business Owners Inspiration Award in 2010. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner at 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: (02:21)
John, thank you. Paula, thank you so much for joining us.

Paula Schneider: (02:24)
My pleasure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:26)
I want to start right away with your experience with breast cancer and how it led you to this Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Paula Schneider: (02:36)
Yeah. There's sort of a silver lining because nobody wants to have breast cancer, but it did set the stage for my future endeavors. And I was in fashion my whole career and running some pretty major fashion organizations all throughout Los Angeles and global organizations. And I had breast cancer in 2007 and my mom had died of breast cancer shortly after I got it. And I have two daughters, so enough said. I made this massive pivot because I was actually getting an award for being one of the top female retailers in the country. And when I got up to give a speech, I was supposed to give a speech about empowerment and it was supposed to relate back to something that was empowering about retail and I had nothing. So I got up and I started to talk about being the most empowered when I was the least physically powerful when I had breast cancer.

Paula Schneider: (03:32)
You have to have some sort of grace that allows you to take help from people when you have breast cancer and that was one of those moments in life. I got up, I got my speech, I sat back down to a friend of mine who was CEO of another big company, and she had just received an email from some recruiters who were in Dallas that had asked if she knew of anyone that would be interested in becoming the CEO of Susan G. Komen. And so she asked me, "Would you ever consider doing that?" And I said, "Yes I would."

Paula Schneider: (04:01)
And literally that was on a Thursday, Friday I made the decision I was going to go forward. I was running a publicly traded company, on Monday I gave notice. I didn't even have an interview, but to me I just decided that I didn't care if I sold one more pair of jeans to Bloomingdale's. And if I wanted to do something that was really meaningful for me, I was going to have to start. So I did and it took a few months of discussions back and forth, but ultimately I started here and it's been the best move I could have ever made.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:32)
It's an amazing story about purpose and finding your dream job.

Paula Schneider: (04:39)
Yep.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:40)
I'll segue for a second. One of my closest friends, after 9/11, had retired from Goldman Sachs. 66 people died in 9/11. He went to volunteer for the company. I mean, obviously 3000 people died, but in this one specific company, Sandler O'Neill. And he went there to help rebuild that company and help the survivors and their families and it's been one of the most rewarding experiences of his life. And so congratulations on what you're doing, but can you tell us how your experience as a survivor has shaped your leadership at the Komen foundation?

Paula Schneider: (05:17)
Yeah. I think there's the part of being a survivor, like you walked in their shoes, right? Other than having metastatic disease, which thank God I don't. I have gone through all of the treatments and they were rough. I have gone through truly the year of living dangerously, I call it, which is I had a double mastectomy. I had, I think it was 40 rounds of radiation. I had chemo for six months and it was a very aggressive form of cancer. And so these are the things that once you've been through, you really understand what people are feeling and how to make a difference.

Paula Schneider: (05:56)
We are a patient centered organization. We are an advocacy organization for patients. So it's easier for me to be able to talk the talk and walk the walk because I know what people have gone through and I know what it means. And I know what the devastation that it causes to families. I'm one of the lucky ones that got out on the other side and hopefully the more work we do, the more opportunities we have for more families to stay intact and not lose their moms, and dads get breast cancer too. Men get breast cancer too. It's a far smaller percentage, but still, it happens. So for me, it's a personal thing of being able to bring my experience, my real life experience to the cause.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:39)
Let's talk about the pandemic for a second. How has the pandemic changed treatment protocols, if any? How has it changed diagnostics, if any? Give us the landscape of operating in a pandemic for breast cancer patients and their therapeutic potential-

Paula Schneider: (07:02)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:03)
Outcomes and so forth.

Paula Schneider: (07:04)
Yeah. If you think about it, cancer isn't canceled folks, just letting you know that right off. There's about 40 to 70% less cancer diagnoses going on right now. And that doesn't mean that it's because they don't exist. It means because people are not getting the screening that they need to be able to get a diagnosis. So for all the women that are out there that are listening to this or all of the gentlemen that are out there that have wives or girlfriends that are in the age of getting screenings, you got to put your big girl panties on and go because we will have a very big breast cancer boom after people are less afraid to go back to their doctors.

Paula Schneider: (07:46)
So it's really bad and it's not just breast cancer, it's all kinds of cancers and the screenings that it takes because to have that many people, almost half as many diagnosis, that just means that it'll be further along by the time it's diagnosed. So don't let yourself be in that position.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:09)
Your plans over the next five years to grow and expand the foundation and the awareness that you guys are achieving in breast cancer, tell us a little bit about that, Paula because I think you are a great visionary.

Paula Schneider: (08:26)
Well these are tough times for any kind of philanthropic organization. Most philanthropic organizations have about, I'd say there's about 80% that have only six months of runway. So there will not be a lot of philanthropic organizations that survive the world of COVID. We're going to be on the other side of it. So it's looking out and seeing what we do. There's no one that would take the place of Komen because we've had our fingerprints on every major breakthrough that's ever happened. We sort of have three legs of the stool. We have research because nothing is going to cure cancer other than research. I usually say nothing cures cancer other than cash because cash pays for research, but nothing will cure cancer other than research. We have over 250 research projects that are going. Most of them are on metastasis because it's not the cancer that kills you, it's when it spreads.

Paula Schneider: (09:17)
So that's part one of our sort of three legged stool and we have some really, really interesting programs that we're working on there. And some of which we're actually putting together ourselves for our own Komen led research where we have a registry of patients that are giving us their genomic and their genetic information because we're sort of the trust broker and we have the ability to be able to get to the best scientists in the world. And there's a lot of information out there, but it's siloed and we are the ones that can share. And we can get that information to the top scientists in the world to do their jobs, to really figure out why does cancer metastasize? So that's a big part of what we're doing and that is actually using a lot of technology to do so by building this pretty massive patient registry that allows us to get that information.

Paula Schneider: (10:10)
That's just one part of what we call our Komen health cloud, which is the ability of following a patient all the way through their journey. And what you hope to find is that people will care about their breast health before they need help. Right? And going through the world of having breast cancer and understanding what that means, and this is where I can use my personal experience again, Anthony is I had one woman that helped me out through my journey. She was my patient navigator. And on average, if you will have breast cancer you have between 11 and 14 doctors. It's extremely complicated, even if you are educated and you have the funds and you have good insurance and a great support system, all the things that I had, it's still incredibly complicated.

Paula Schneider: (11:00)
So there was this woman that helped me and her name was Susan and she was my patient navigator that helped me navigate this really, really complex world and helped me figure out, as a thought leader, what is the best treatment plan for me, who are the best doctors that are out there, et cetera. And I want to replicate that for women that are going through the journey and that Komen can help them with in creating a patient navigation app that allows women, whether you're in the rural Mississippi or whether you're in New York City, to be able to sort of use it like telemed where you take this person with you into your doctor's office and you have the ability to have someone else listen to what's happening in your treatment schedule and what are the best things that you can do.

Paula Schneider: (11:44)
So I think that there's a lot of ways that we're using technology to help us through and it's easier to scale. So I think that that's one of the more important things for us is being able to use technology in our research, in our own research project because we could really crack the code. So that's one. And then the third part is, or the second part is advocacy. We have about 11 state led bills that have happened to improve women's health care that have been passed that are Komen led bills in the last 12 months. And there's a boatload to say about women in pink with pitchforks because we're really powerful and we bring it. So that's really exciting for us. And then the third is all of the work that we do in communities. And many of you have probably seen a walk or run because we bring over a million people together annually, or we did before the COVID pandemic, to do walks and runs, but we're still doing them virtually.

Paula Schneider: (12:43)
But in communities, we have a very big African-American health equity initiative that isn't just the flavor of the month for us. This is something that we have been working on for years and years, where, on average, if you're black and you get breast cancer versus me, you're 40% more likely to die. And that's just the average. And in some cities it goes up to like 75% and DC is one of them. We have DC, LA, we have Dallas, we have Philadelphia, Memphis is the highest of all. These are not little Podunk cities. These are major cities where there should be more opportunity to get people to the health care that exists. And if you did that, we'd probably decrease deaths by about 30%. So a lot of the work we do in community, we're using technology to enable our work in community. We do a lot in equities in our community work. So it's a pretty robust 360 degree view of how we help women with breast cancer.

John Darsie: (13:49)
So Susan jumping in here, you mentioned that-

Paula Schneider: (13:52)
Wait. It's Paula because it's Susan G. Komen. But people do that all the time.

John Darsie: (13:56)
I almost did that when I read the introduction and I stopped myself.

Paula Schneider: (13:59)
No worries.

John Darsie: (14:00)
Paula, but Susan obviously we hold in very-

Paula Schneider: (14:03)
My middle name, so that's helpful.

John Darsie: (14:05)
There you go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:06)
Can we just stop for a second Paula?

Paula Schneider: (14:07)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:08)
I am savoring the mistake, Mr. Perfect just made, okay? So can we just-

John Darsie: (14:13)
Oh man.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:13)
Allow that.

Paula Schneider: (14:14)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:14)
To just [crosstalk 00:14:15].

Paula Schneider: (14:15)
The end of it now.

John Darsie: (14:17)
I know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:17)
Over the internet. Let's just let it marinate, okay? It's like a symphony to me. Go ahead Darsie.

John Darsie: (14:22)
My webinar hosting career was taking off until that. I'm never going to live that [crosstalk 00:14:26] Yep.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:28)
Well you [crosstalk 00:14:29] never forget that John Susan Darsie. Go ahead. Ask Paula a question.

John Darsie: (14:33)
I'm almost going to do it again. It's hard. Paula.

Paula Schneider: (14:36)
Yes.

John Darsie: (14:36)
You mentioned the stat about people of color, African-American women in particular, who I believe the stat is they're 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. We see similar statistics as it relates to COVID-19. There's a variety of different factors that lead that to be the case. Why is the percentage of mortality so much higher with black women than it is for white women? And what is Komen doing, in addition to those technology initiatives you mentioned, to address sort of that inequality and allow people to get both the right prevention and the right treatment for their breast cancer?

Paula Schneider: (15:14)
Yeah. There's a lot of factors, right? There's first and foremost, it's where you live shouldn't determine whether you live. What you look like shouldn't determine whether you live. A lot of times in the African-American communities there's later diagnosis and the type of breast cancer can be much more difficult to cure. So there's that. Then there's the cultural implications of actually talking about your breasts. We did a whole thing on know your girls, right? And it was sort of a play on words because it's know these girls, it's know your sisterhood and your friends and you know all about your friends and your mothers and your aunties and all of those, but how well do you know these girls? And that was a really successful campaign for us in the African-American community because you have to be able to talk about it.

Paula Schneider: (16:08)
We have history tools that can look at your family history to see what are the challenges that your family might have. So it's looking at every aspect of why. And there's a lot of reasons that are very apparent and there's a lot of reasons that are underlying causes. When we have these 10 cities that we're working in, we've done it like a full blown landscape analysis as to the why. Because it's not just handing people vouchers for mammograms and then it all goes away because it doesn't. We tried that. But we had a pilot in Chicago that we helped fund that had looked at what's the story behind the story? Why is it not happening? Why are all these disparities happening?

Paula Schneider: (16:52)
And this was specifically that there was a challenge in reading mammograms correctly. And in some of the clinics in the south side of Chicago where they were actually lessening the amount of people that had breast cancer. They weren't reading them correctly. So we have to look at why. And then there's interventions that are specific interventions for each of these cities. It's very hard work. It's very expensive work, but it's work that actually saves lives on the ground every single day.

John Darsie: (17:27)
Yeah. And just an important note, and this is personal for me. My wife's grandfather actually died of breast cancer. So my wife's family on her dad's side have actually spent a lot of time and resources educating the public about male breast cancer as well. I don't know the statistics around it, but women are the majority of breast cancer cases.

Paula Schneider: (17:48)
97%-ish.

John Darsie: (17:49)
Yeah. Yeah. But male breast cancer is a real thing.

Paula Schneider: (17:54)
Yeah.

John Darsie: (17:54)
And it's important that people are educated around that too.

Paula Schneider: (17:57)
Your genetic information is really important. Like if you're Ashkenazi Jew, you have a one in, I think it's one in 40 to carry the BRCA gene mutation, which then means that you can pass it on to your children. And then they have a 50% chance of getting the BRCA gene mutation if you're one parent. So on your side, you may want to look into that. Any time that there's breast cancer in your family, you want to figure out the information, right? Because knowledge is power.

John Darsie: (18:28)
Yeah.

Paula Schneider: (18:29)
You can make all kinds of great decisions if you know. It's scary. I get it. When I go in for my MRIs that I have to get regularly and my heart pounds before I go because I know I don't want the outcome to be bad, but you know what? I'd rather know. And-

John Darsie: (18:44)
Yeah.

Paula Schneider: (18:44)
There's so much opportunity now to get genetic testing and to be able to tell if there's anything that you're predisposed to so that you can do something about it.

John Darsie: (18:54)
Yeah. I feel just anecdotally that I see a lot more people getting sort of preemptive mastectomies where having that knowledge allows you to get out in front of it and rather than living your life in fear that every time you go to the doctor you're going to get that bad news that there's a pretty significant percentage that you're going to get, you just go ahead and get out ahead of it and prevent yourself from having to live with that type of fear.

Paula Schneider: (19:17)
And it's significant. Like if you carry the BRCA gene mutations it could be up to 60 to 80% that you will get either breast or ovarian or both in your lifetime.

John Darsie: (19:26)
Right.

Paula Schneider: (19:28)
It's good for you to know that and if you do know that, then you have the opportunity to do something about it because there are a lot of prophylactic ... like Angelina Jolie was one that made a lot of news because she carries the gene and therefore she did the prophylactic mastectomy. I was really happy to see that because it brought it out into the public. I mean, I talk to women that are doing it all day long every day, but-

John Darsie: (19:53)
Right.

Paula Schneider: (19:54)
It is important. Who wants to live like that? And then you have to live scan to scan and be concerned about everything that you do and when is it going to hit me? And it's always better to take the prophylactic approach. No. That doesn't mean that everyone needs to go out and get a mastectomy if you carry the BRCA gene mutation. You have to talk to your doctors, but listen to the guidance and figure out what is the best opportunity for you?

John Darsie: (20:22)
Yeah. One last question before we get into how people can have help support Susan G. Komen. A big part of what you guys do is you're very effective at developing new partnership. Could you tell us what you've done in the past in terms of developing partnerships and what you plan to do going forward?

Paula Schneider: (20:38)
Yeah. There's a lot of ways that we do partnerships. I'll use a couple of examples here. We've worked really hard in being more transformational than transactional. Like I'm very happy if there's a partner out there that would like to give us a pin pad where you give money at the end of your transaction and that's wonderful because again, nothing's going to cure cancer other than cash. But what we did was we worked on a really wonderful partnership with Walgreens. And Walgreens has given us the money, the beginnings of the money, we still have to raise more, to build our patient registry.

Paula Schneider: (21:15)
And that's the patient registry where we're going to get 10,000 women to join and give us their genomic and genetic information and if we do that, that's a significant dataset and it allows us to be able to give that information and slice and dice it any way we want to the top scientists in the world that can actually help find a way to cure cancer from metastasizing. So we could crack the code. And again, because we are a trust broker and because we're neutral, all we care about, I mean, the only thing I care about is figuring out ways that my daughters are never going to get this and your wives and daughters are never going to get it. So if we can figure that out, then there's ways for us to work with the top people in the world to do that.

Paula Schneider: (22:01)
So that's like a transformational partnership that we have. The other partnerships, there's many partnerships that we have where we are working with different companies on our African-American health equity initiative. And it seems to resonate more now because of all the world that's happened in the last six months or year. But this is something that we've been working on for a long time. And I think that leaders need to stand up and they need to figure out ways that they can participate. And it's not like giving Juneteenth off. This can't be symbolic. If you're going to say you're doing something, do something. So we provide turnkey ways that organizations or businesses can help and really be effective in saving lives every single day. So our African-American health equity initiative is one of our biggest initiatives that we have going. And it's one that is gaining more and more notoriety and more strength because it's very sort of cutting edge, but helping people right now today. So anyone who wants to help with that, we got a place for you.

John Darsie: (23:09)
All right. Fantastic. You guys are like an API for philanthropy. I love that.

Paula Schneider: (23:16)
Exactly right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:16)
Excuse me. Before we talk about donations and how people can donate, I just have a question. I realized that neither of us are doctors, but when people call you and say, "Okay. Are there things I can do to prevent breast cancer, if possible, or is it a genetic disposition?" What does the foundation typically say to people as it relates to breast cancer prevention, if anything?

Paula Schneider: (23:42)
Well, I would say, going back my own diagnosis, I was in my 40s. That was before my mom had it for the first time. And I don't carry the BRCA gene mutation. And I an athlete and I eat healthy and all. I wasn't a candidate. But everyone is a candidate. The two things that make you a candidate are being a woman and getting older. So everyone is a candidate. Certainly, if you have a genetic mutation, there's predisposition for it, but it is kind of luck of the withdraw. Now we know a lot of alcohol isn't good, we know a lot of sugar isn't good, but there's very few things, like specific things, that you can do that will ward it off, if you will. So it really is just something that more research is going to have to be done so that we can understand what is the cause, what is the root cause, and how do we stop it? If you're out there, you're one in eight. And one in eight will get it in their lifetime.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:42)
Right. And so how do we donate? What do we do to increase-

Paula Schneider: (24:47)
Well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:48)
The awareness. How do we get you more money? Because I do think you're right. The research obviously is the cure, but you need the money first. So how do we do that? How do we help?

Paula Schneider: (24:59)
If you just go to komen.org, there's always a donate button. It's very helpful for us. And know that the work that we do is really, really, really impactful. We've had our fingers, our fingerprints, if you will, in almost every major breakthrough that's ever happened in breast cancer for the last 35 years. I've been with the company three years. For me, it's the greatest role in the world and the most meaningful, but there are real life things that have come out of this. Like there was a study that we did that Komen was in invested in called the TAILORx study. And this is one that was led by one of our head doctors in our scientific advisory board at Stanford who's an amazing, amazing human being, where we'd looked at whether or not all women had to have chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Paula Schneider: (25:47)
And it was determined that there's about 70% of women that didn't need chemotherapy. Do you know what the difference now that people have that information? And you have to go to your doctor. It's not like you can determine you don't need chemotherapy. It's where you fall on a scale. And it's all very specific, but the fact that so many women now do not have to have chemotherapy. Because that's a bitch. I mean, it's like the hardest thing that I have ever done and I'm tough as nails. So it's one of those things that these are real life impact that happened because of the work that we do at Komen. We save lives every day and we make life more pleasant for those who have to go through this journey. So if you feel it and you care about any of the issues that we brought up, it's at komen.org, or if you are running a corporation or an organization that wants to partner with us, we have many, many ways to partner. We are in contact with 30 million people a year through our organization.

Paula Schneider: (26:49)
And that's a huge community that we have that we can bring.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:55)
Anything else from you, Mr. Millennial who-

John Darsie: (26:58)
No.

Paula Schneider: (26:58)
What was your [crosstalk 00:26:58]

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:00)
Got Paula's name wrong.

John Darsie: (27:01)
Thank you, Susan. Thank you, Susan for [crosstalk 00:27:04]

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:04)
Oh my God. It's so good. It is so rich for me. I just have to tell you, it is literally like [crosstalk 00:27:11] Paula, I'm sorry. It's like eating a box of chocolates. I just got to tell you.

Paula Schneider: (27:15)
I get it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:15)
It's so rich for me. It's so enjoyable.

Paula Schneider: (27:18)
He's never going to hear the end of it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:20)
No. Never. Forget about it. I mean, he knows I have a 10 year shelf life on most things that he does that are improbable. [crosstalk 00:27:28] In all seriousness though, the work that you're doing is so inspiring to so many different people. And unfortunately, I would say just about everybody on this call, everybody that's listening to us, and everybody that will listen to us, unfortunately has been touched by either the scare of breast cancer or the unfortunate tragedy of breast cancer. So just encouraging everybody to give. Of course we will through our foundation and personally. I just want to thank you so much for all the great work that you're doing.

Paula Schneider: (28:02)
Yeah. And thanks for letting me talk about the work we do because I'm pretty sure that people have seen the women in pink and the walks and the runs and a lot of people think it stops there. It does. That's just the beginning. That's just one of the mechanisms that we have to bring our community together to raise money so that we can work on all of these aspects all at once. So appreciate the platform guys and really [crosstalk 00:28:23]

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:23)
You've done an amazing job of increasing awareness. And even though I brought baby Yoda with me today, you have crushed us on room raider as well, okay? So that must be your fashion trend.

Paula Schneider: (28:35)
No. This is not a ... like look. When I go like this, this is my actual office. I designed [inaudible 00:28:40]

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:40)
I love the wallpaper.

Paula Schneider: (28:42)
Thank you. Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:43)
And the shutters. I mean, it's just a great look. And I love the fact that you're beating John Darsie in the room rating as well. I have to tell you-

Paula Schneider: (28:50)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:51)
That's also [crosstalk 00:28:52]

Paula Schneider: (28:52)
Well that's not very hard if you look at his room rating.

John Darsie: (28:54)
I'm in a sterile office that nobody's here because of COVID.

Paula Schneider: (28:57)
Okay.

John Darsie: (28:57)
So it's not very hard to beat me, but at least she didn't have to donate money to the person in charge of room raider to get 10 out of 10 Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:04)
That's true.

John Darsie: (29:05)
Just for the record.

Speaker 4: (29:06)
I am the Jared Kushner of room raider. I have to admit that, okay? The way he got into Harvard, I got my 10 out of 10. Okay. Just want to let everybody know. All right. So go ahead, Darsie.

John Darsie: (29:16)
Thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Paula Schneider of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. A fantastic mission. Anthony and I are both married with daughters so it's a cause near and dear to our heart, especially given our family history and my wife's history with her grandfather who passed from male breast cancer as well. So thank you everybody for tuning in. Just by tuning in and learning more I think you're doing a great thing and spread the word about what Komen is doing. komen.org. As Paula mentioned, a lot of philanthropic organizations are struggling during the pandemic because of lack of engagement and physical events.

John Darsie: (29:54)
People are used to the Komen walks as well as people are struggling financially. So any help you can provide in this great mission is very much appreciated. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our other talks, we have other talks focused on business as well as focused on philanthropy, including one coming up with Dr. Jonathan Simons of the Prostate Cancer Foundation. You can watch all of our past talks and sign up for all of our future talks at salt.org/talks.

John Darsie: (30:21)
And again, please spread the word. I say that after every episode, but this one is incredibly important that you spread the word about this talk and about this cause. And please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, we're on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. And with that, this is John Darsie from SALT signing off for today. We'll see you back here again soon on SALT Talks.

The Psychology of Investing | SALT Talks #150

“Entrepreneurship and innovation don’t know boundaries, so great ideas can surface anywhere.”

Jihan Bowes-Little is the co-founder and managing partner of Bracket Capital, an alpha-driven global investment firm. Lo Toney is the founder and managing partner of Plexo Capital, an institutional investment firm spun out of Google Ventures. 

Diversity within a VC firm is more likely to lead to a diverse portfolio of companies and founders. Investing in people of color and women naturally produces stronger results as they’re more likely to challenge conventional wisdom and identify unique opportunities. VC’s can more easily seek out diverse companies and founders regardless of proximity as technology has made remote work and collaboration easier. "We know based on data, if there’s a diverse set of investors around the table, their portfolios end up being diverse."  

With the growth of venture capital, there has been a rise in secondary markets where IPOs were once a company’s main liquidity event. This allows entrepreneurs to be more patient in going public while also providing investment realization to investors and the company’s early 

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Jihan Bowes-Little.jpeg

Jihan Bowes-Little

Managing Partner & Co-Founder

Bracket Capital

Lo Toney.jpeg

Lo Toney

Founding Managing Partner

Plexo Capital

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie, I'm a managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership form and networking platform in the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks or digital interview series that we started during this work from home period in 2020. It's gotten great tracks and we look forward to continuing it as we sort of embrace the digital future the way a lot of companies have. But what it is, is conversations 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 in to the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think our big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:52)
We're very excited today to welcome two guest, who have been active investors in a lot of those big ideas, Jihan Bowes-Little and Lo Toney to SALT Talks. Jihan Bowes-Little is the managing partner and co-founder of Bracket Capital, an alpha driven global investment manager focused on later stage technology-enabled companies with asymmetric risk reward profiles. Jihan began his investing career in London on Goldman Sachs' esteemed Global Macro Proprietary Trading desk. in 2006, he moved to credit trading where he managed a multi-billion dollar portfolio through the great financial crisis generating record profits and gaining invaluable expertise, investing in semi-liquid markets and emerging asset classes at scale. He then joined Millennium Capital as a portfolio manager and was later recruited to lead a multi-strategy portfolio for BlueCrest Capital.

John Darsie: (01:45)
Lo Toney is the managing partner and founder of Plexo Capital, which is an institutional investment firm that he incubated and spun out from GV or Google Ventures. Plexo Capital invests in emerging seed stage VCs led by diverse teams and invests directly into companies sourced from the portfolios of VCs where Plexo has an investment. Prior to funding Plexo Capital, Lo is a partner on the investing team at GV, where he focused on marketplaces, mobile, and consumer products. Before GV, Lo was a partner with Comcast Ventures, where he led the catalyst fund and worked with the main fund where he focused on mobile messaging and marketplaces.

John Darsie: (02:25)
And 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 with that, I will turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:36)
Okay, well on behalf of Lo and Jihan, I just want to thank you for reading their bios the way their moms, their respective moms wrote the bio. I thought you did a great job, I mean...

John Darsie: (02:48)
Those were condensed bios [crosstalk 00:02:48]

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:51)
I know that your moms chipped in on that. It was unbelievable, if I had a bio like that, I'd be nailing it to the wall behind me. So congratulations to both of you. I want to start with both of you with a question I ask everybody. Our people love hearing about this and I'll start with you Lo just randomly. I need to hear something about your life I can't find on Wikipedia or from the bio that your mom wrote on your behalf, so tell me something about you that we need to know.

Lo Toney: (03:24)
Well, probably the thing that you can know is I love video games. And speaking of my mom, she probably is still holding on to some of my comics that I used to collect as a kid.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:35)
Oh good for you. So, your mom is absolutely terrific then. My mother incinerated hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of comics. And I'll totally expose myself in my age. G.I. Joe dolls, you guys are probably not old enough to remember those but I've lost a fortune. I don't even go on eBay for the tears that I shed as a result of my mother's OCD and our cleanliness.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:01)
What about you John what can we learn about you that we don't know?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (04:07)
I guess staying on the topic of kids, I got a three and a five year old so I'm deep in the business of parenting and juggling that with running the fun. I would say there's a-

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:17)
Boys, girls, what kind of kids you have?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (04:18)
A boy, girl.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:19)
Okay, what about you Lo, you have kids?

Lo Toney: (04:21)
I do too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:23)
How old are they?

Lo Toney: (04:24)
22 and 20.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:27)
All right good for you. Well, you guys look great, God bless.

Lo Toney: (04:30)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:30)
I have five children, so you guys can catch up anytime you want, okay? You just have to catch up.

Lo Toney: (04:37)
No, thanks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:38)
No, thank you, I hear you.

John Darsie: (04:40)
The youngest is known to storm into the room while Anthony's on MSBNC and start bashing... it was a Santa Claus doll that he had.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:47)
The youngest has a media contract, he came into the room one morning, "I told you not to work on Saturdays." He karate chopped me in the Adam's apple, he took out Santa, he pulled me out of it. It was a bad scene on live television but we get through these things.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:02)
Okay, you both have these amazing careers and we have so many young people that listen in and they're looking at the two of you and saying, "Okay, my God. Congratulations on your careers but how do I get started?" Describe the early parts of your careers if you don't mind. And talk about the trials and tribulations, the successes and failures. But what was the arc and the mindset to help you get to where you are? Why don't we go with you Jihan first and then we'll have Lo follow-up.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (05:33)
Sure. So, I started my career in investment banking. I moved into trading very early, I became a proprietary trader for Goldman after my first year within the firm. At that point I'd never put on a single trade in my life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:48)
What year was it when you started Goldman?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (05:50)
2002.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:52)
Okay.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (05:54)
So, I started 2002 in New York-

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:55)
You were still running London, Bob Steele? Was he still running London at that time?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (05:59)
It was Sherwood when I was there mainly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:01)
Oh, Mike Woody, yeah. Woody was actually in my training class.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (06:07)
Oh, yeah?

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:07)
Yeah. I'm an old-timer at Goldman back in-

John Darsie: (06:12)
Believe it or not, he worked at Goldman Sachs. They won't tell you that anymore but he actually did work at Goldman.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:17)
Look, John's trying to hurt my feelings guys but it's okay. After I got my ass fired from The White House, there's really no way you can hurt my feelings. But yes, Goldman has more or less tried to erase me from their alumni network but it's sort of too bad because Solomon comes to my wine party in Davos every year. So, he won't erase me because he likes drinking 100-Point Robert Parker wine. But I would say the rest of the firm has totally written me off. All right. But go ahead Woody's a good guy so you work with Woody?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (06:45)
Yeah. Many layers below, I was a first-year, second-year analyst. Christian Siva-Jothy was running the prop desk at that time. A great group of some of the foremost traders probably in the firm's history I just was there to soak it up. I learned from experience, there's not a lot of you can teach people sometimes. I think about proprietary training a lot of it is about understanding yourself, your own personal psychology, philosophy, risk, limits, fear, tolerance, things like that. And I spent a few years there. Most of them went on to set up their own hedge funds or go work at hedge funds, and so I moved over to credit trading. I never really market made in my life so I'd never really had that experience of touching and feeling the market. Those people start on the sell side and with a significant experience move over to the prop side.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (07:31)
I was kind of doing the reverse. So, I moved into credit trading, 2006. The firm I think has always been very good at allocating its resources ahead of major market changes. Earlier in my career I noticed a lot of employees being moved into commodities before the big commodity boom, and the same thing happened in credit. So, they moved some of us over into credit. Obviously, the subprime crisis unfolded, we had a front row seat for that. That was obviously a real pivotal time in terms of me understanding risk, managing risk at scale, understanding unknowable risks, and convexity, et cetera. After that I ended up moving over to the buy side. Like John said, I spent some time on Millennium and BlueCrest, kind of going back to my proprietary trading routes. And so, I traded a mixed portfolio, some credit default swaps and options, equities as well. That's generally been the arc of my career before I came back to California which is where I'm from in 2017. To set up Bracket Capital, which is focused on private markets.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:34)
Okay, terrific. So, Lo take us back and take us through some of these trials and tribulations.

Lo Toney: (08:41)
Sure not as fancy as Jihan. I was listening, that's pretty fancy. I almost had to go and dust off my finance book to understand what he's [crosstalk 00:08:50]

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:49)
Unbelievable Goldman Sachs humble-bragging, we'll get to that later. Unbelievable, there was like a potpourri of name dropping and even threw convexity in there Lo Toney, I mean "Come on." I've been on Wall Street for 33 years I still have no idea what convexity is. That's fine. [crosstalk 00:09:08] Rub it in, Jihan, rub it in.

Lo Toney: (09:12)
I learned about convexity actually, I was like "Wait, come back, okay. All right. Got it." So, my background goes all the way born and raised in Oakland, went to school in Virginia Hampton University, a historically black college. Decided that I wanted to enter finance as well. I wasn't fancy enough to go to Goldman or Morgan, so I ended up at some of the commercial banks. And I really discovered that the thing that was really interesting to me was more on the technology side. The reputation that I developed was... believe it or not, when I was in college I actually took Computer Science classes. I cannot use any of those languages anymore things like Cobol and Pascal. Although if you work for a financial institution, probably every now and then you have to break some emergency glass and pull a Cobol programmer out so your whole system doesn't crash. Because a lot of these infrastructure players are still running on them believe it or not.

Lo Toney: (10:07)
But nonetheless, decided that what I really was most interested in was just nerding out on technology and always looked for ways to see if I could do clever things with Excel pretty much at the time to solve some of the problems that I was tasked to do. Went back to grad school and during grad school I entered thinking, "Maybe now I actually will be able to go work for one of those fancy investment banks." I was a little more interested in the Hamricks and Quest, or the Robertson Stevens of the world. Because at the time, the four horsemen as they were called then were the ones that were taking the tech companies public. Because the fancier brokerages didn't really understand or maybe even believe in the power of these new technology companies that were coming to market.

Lo Toney: (10:56)
Now a funny thing happened, on my way to the coliseum, I ended up meeting a lot of venture capitalists. I was fortunate to go to Takao, I think that also played a role because just proximity-wise, there were a lot of VCs that would come in and just talk about what they were doing. And I have this epiphany that, "Wow, it's actually more interesting what they're doing. Which is at the front end as opposed to what the bankers do which is on the back end." So, I decided to completely shift gears and to focus on trying to get into Venture Capital. The eager beaver that I was, I would run up to every VC that came to speak to our class and ask how do I do it. Got some good advice, go be a product manager, run a P&L, see if you can be a CEO of a Venture-backed company.

Lo Toney: (11:46)
And that's the path that I set myself upon. And have some great experiences doing some of those things at companies like eBay. I was employee 2838 I think when I came in and four years later they were 15,000 people developed a great network there. And then was able to have some good experiences at companies like Zynga, the creator of FarmVille. I went there because I wanted to learn about game mechanics. I felt that game mechanics were going to be something big. And who would have ever thought that the combination of that eBay and marketplace experience, along with game mechanics would actually be able to help me understand some of these models that I see today? But I was also fortunate to finally enter Venture Capital through Comcast Ventures and then was pulled over into the GV, formerly Google Ventures.

Lo Toney: (12:43)
The early stage investing unit for alphabet is GV's goal. Saw a lot of amazing companies that came through, got to work with some incredible Venture capitalists that helped me really understand how to invest. And there was a strategy that was in place to kind of drive some alpha by working with GPs that were black and people of color and women. And decided to productize that strategy and kind of convinced the folks at GV that, "Hey, I think I want to just take this model that we've been using and then I'd like for you to keep paying me while I develop this into a platform." And then spun out with Plexo Capital.

John Darsie: (13:24)
You need to be my agent, Lo. That sounds like a pretty good deal.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:28)
It's an amazing career. I have a relationship with David Drummond, you may or may not remember David was GC there.

Lo Toney: (13:36)
Absolutely. David was my internal sponsor when he was there [crosstalk 00:13:41] for Capital along with David Crane, the CEO of GV who reported into David Drummond at the alphabet level.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:48)
I can't think of Jack's last name now but he's a guy from New York, maybe Jack Abernathy maybe? I'm not sure. But David was a terrific guy and David, he's good friends with Ronnie a lot. We do a number of Super Bowls together, which hopefully we can get back to those post pandemic, we can go back and party at the Super Bowl.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:11)
Jihan, let's talk a little bit about the limited general partner relationships and could you share the way you partner and do co-investments and so on? I'll ask Lo Toney the same question, but what's your thought process and philosophy there?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (14:30)
Sure. I think a lot of things within Venture Capital and perhaps just in financial markets right now that, that relationship is really evolving. And I think our relationship with Plexo, and LP, and Bracket Capital, and Lo and I know each other very well. It's evolving to encompass more I think than perhaps what was traditionally the standard arms length. LP writes a check into the GP who operates kind of with full discretion and reports back on a quarterly or annual basis. I think that just as funds like ours are beginning to be more creative and thinking about ways to approach the market, probably talk about that more later. I think that LPs are thinking the same thing. Actually at Bracket, one of the main things that we've done is structure our fund not just to optimize returns on the company level but also to optimize the relationship between us and the LPs. One example of that, we kind of doubled down pretty heavily on and which Lo and Plexo have been involved in is the co-investment side that comes from some of that top of funnel activity that we do.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (15:35)
We're out looking at companies diligencing, researching, et cetera. Many of the LPs in our cap table are highly sophisticated as well. Some on the technology side like Lo, some from traditional hedge funds, institutional matter, etc cetera. They have their own view and there may be things they want to double and triple down on which make more sense in the context of their portfolio at their level than our level. We have an operation where we invest primarily from the fund, and we report, and kind of manage that relationship in a standard way. But we also bubble up co-investment opportunities on many of the deals that we do. LPs like Plexo, et cetera, can just take their pro rata allocation from the fund but they can also exercise a view. I think this trend towards the institutionalization of family offices, the trend towards being both an LP and a direct investor, I think this is all kind of ties into the blurring of the lines which is happening where people are becoming multi-stage, multi-asset, most multi-strategy.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (16:38)
Most of our investors are quite active on the co-investment side as well and this is a trend that I think that we're going to continue to see develop.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:47)
Anything you want to add Lo Toney?

Lo Toney: (16:50)
That I think really encapsulates the way that we saw the opportunity. When we set out to execute on the strategy, the thing that i identified from our time at GV was we used the investment as an LP into some of these seed stage funds to really supplement our deal flow. It was another channel of deal flow and i think it's a strategy that's actually fairly widely used, it's just executed differently. I could think it's known that folks like Marc Andreessen, Chris Dixon and Andreessen Horowitz, they do it on an individual level. Folks like Lightspeed. they do it through both investments as well as through scout programs. Sequoia has a very robust scout program that bleeds over a little bit into some early stage folks. Then you have firms like Foundry Bradfeld's Group out of Colorado, they've done it so well through Brad's initial LP commitments. They actually brought in Lindel from UTIMCO and formalized a strategy around it. This is not something that's new I think the approach that we've taken at Plexo Capital and it's an approach that i think some of the family offices are looking at as well is to leverage investing as an LP as one of the sole sources of deal flow.

Lo Toney: (18:08)
We've got these GPs that are building amazing franchises, they're doing some heavy lifting looking at tens of thousands of companies on an annual basis. They invest into the top one to five percent or so. In essence, that's a curation of the best that they've seen in the market. It allows us at Plexo Capital to be able to use that group, that consideration set as our primary focus. And obviously we're spending a lot of time with our GPs like Jihan and others talking with them about where they see some opportunities. We're looking at all the reports and then that allows us to be able to operate in a much more leveraged approach and streamline manner in our operations and team building. But nonetheless, still have the ability to identify some amazing opportunities to invest into.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:59)
Okay. It's brilliant stuff and I love the way you guys are describing it. And it's sort of the future of the cross-sectional investing where people are wearing many hats and doing different stages of investing to really... it's almost like you're getting diversity through the staging as well as through the different technological sectors and whatnot.

Lo Toney: (19:22)
That's exactly right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:24)
What are some the most important trends that you're seeing in Venture Capital in private markets right at this moment? Where's the money going?

Lo Toney: (19:34)
I think there's money that is available across a multitude... one of the things that we touched on a little bit is this trend in essence around secondaries. I think that is something that's really interesting, just looking at the evolution of the secondary market. You can kind of think kind of pre-early 90s. Around the 2000s, the secondary space was fairly small. Probably, think around the financial crisis around '08 or so when a lot of the rules changed from a regulatory perspective which had this natural extension effect on the timelines for companies to go public. Because it became a much more onerous process to do the IPO. Maybe even kind of almost kind of later on couple that with the interest from some of the non-traditional players to come into some of these companies at the growth stage. I think the combination of both of those things kind of allowed these companies to be able to operate a little more patiently and not have to rush to the markets to provide liquidity.

Lo Toney: (20:44)
Then you bring in the fact that in order to actually get some realization both for the early employees and founders, they could actually execute secondary strategies to kind of offset their eggs being entirely within that one basket of their company. That was also the case for their investors. The investors could also now use the secondary whether they were individuals where they weren't really that concerned about trying to drive anything back to other investors, it's just going to their own pocket. Or for folks like ourselves, where we actually need to drive some dollars back because often our investors may get a little impatient. So it's nice to be able to have a realization through an avenue other than a merger or an IPO.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:30)
Jihan, that blurring between public and private markets, that's a hundred percent a positive development. It allows smaller and more diverse set of investors to get involved in some of these exciting tech companies early. Are there any downsides to that blurring or how do you think about sort of this democratization of access to private companies?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (21:53)
I think it's a great question. I think there's interesting points to explore on sort of the supply and demand side. I'd say one of the benefits to being new to a space is that sometimes, would you may lack an experience you may make up for the sort of clean eyes, right? So when we first entered the market after having spent so much time on the traditional side. One of the things that stood out most to me and this is kind of how my partner Yold and I began to zero in on this strategy was that every other developed market really is a secondary market, right? In Venture, you have this unusual bifurcation whereby the primary market is probably 100 times larger than the secondary market. Secondary market is generally an afterthought. What you think of is Venture Capital is primary market investing. But the stock market has a primary market as well, it's the IPO, right? And the bond market has a primary market which is the new issue. But neither of those markets are what fund managers spend their time trading, right? You actually operate almost exclusively in the secondary market in stocks, bonds, real estate, collectibles, et cera.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (22:55)
So, coming into Venture also thinking a lot about competitive advantage, right? And thinking about kind of transferring some of the skill sets which myself and the team had from other areas over into the private market landscape. The ideas struck out to us is quite obvious, right? That as companies, were extending their duration as low as referring to a company like Amazon went public sub 500 million dollar valuation. You have ByteDance now worth 250 billion, right? So, clearly the value creation is happening disproportionately in the private markets. The duration is extending because there are so many diverse capital sources helping to keep these companies private for longer. Which creates... in speaking of impatience, it creates an infeasibility for the average employee, right? For the first time entrepreneur, and also for the average employee, and often times for an early stage investor to wait 10, 12, 15, 17, years for a liquidity event is impossible in all but the most unusual circumstances, right?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (23:56)
I think that there was this view within Silicon Valley for a long time that if you were committed to your company, that you should be able to wait until a public market event. And I think that would be a three to five year timeline. It's probably reasonable, right, for alignment of interest? I think once you start talking about double digits, people start these companies and join these companies in their mid-20s. By the time they're in their mid-30s life has often changed and responsibilities have changed, et cetera. I think the outcropping of the secondary market is just an inevitability right as long as there is capital that wants to find its way into the primary markets, the private markets, which there is. This will continue and to your point, when you think about democratization, there's one side which is currently very topical obviously as we're recording this which is access to stocks and those might be public or private. That's sort of on the demand side.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (24:48)
But to Lo's point, democratization works in the other direction as well. I think if you feel like you want to join a startup, if you have that energy, if you want to create one, you want to be an entrepreneur or be involved in an entrepreneurial enterprise. And you realize that you're taking a thousand or a hundred thousand to one odds, right? But perhaps you're willing to do that. But you know that even if you create billions of dollars in enterprise value, you still won't be able to buy a home within driving distance of the office because you need to wait 10 to 20 years for a liquidity event. That turns off a certain kind of individual. There are certain kinds of risk tolerance and there's certain kind of inequities in the kinds of people who can afford to take a 10 or 20 year bet.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (25:30)
I think actually the development of the secondary market besides being in my mind... probably one of the most unique asymmetric risk reward opportunities that I've ever seen on the long side. I also think from a democratization and an ethical perspective. That it really gives access to being an entrepreneur, to being an early engineer in these kinds of places to know that if you do create value for your shareholders and your investors, even if it's paper wealth, then you won't be prohibited from monetizing some small portion of that along the way. I think that really opens up the funnel and the aperture for who can start companies and who can work at them. I do think that's good for everyone.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:14)
Lo, I want to jump to you on a separate topic and it has to do with diversity within the whole financial industry and Venture Capital industry I think are both plagued by it. But you've seen a wave recently of companies whether it be Andreessen Horowitz with their cultural leadership fund bringing more diverse voices into the asset allocation side of things. And you're also probably as a result of that seeing I think more startups led by minority founders. What are you seeing and do you think things are improving in terms of the diversity and the allocation of capital to more diverse founders within the industry?

Lo Toney: (26:47)
This is a topic we're super passionate about is the thesis around the sourcing side for Plexo Capital and how we make our decisions on GPs. So, we have this insight around the ability for black GPs we started with and then extended it to females and other people of color. But at GV, what we saw was that there was an access to a particular type of network through black GPs and this indirect path they had into Venture Capital. It allowed us to be able to have this moment where we said, "Oh, we can actually turn this access into an alpha strategy." Because what deals were being financed by these diverse GPs at the early stages, it required a little bit of familiarity with the market since there was not an abundance of data. And it required a little bit of a different approach and lens to evaluate an entrepreneur, since to your point which I think you're alluding to, we know based on data if there's a diverse set of investors around the table. Their portfolios end up being diverse and it partially has to do with the networks.

Lo Toney: (27:54)
So, we saw an alpha opportunity. And I think the realization that i had with Plexo Capital is that I can build this firm into a brand name institutional investing franchise and focus on using that same strategy to deliver these returns. But our strategy has this interesting byproduct of increasing diversity within the ecosystem. And i think what we need to see more of is that flow of dollars down the stack of Capital from the limited partners into the hands of diverse GPs, which should then go into the hands of diverse entrepreneurs. We have seen it getting better, so recently we've had a couple of instances of unicorns actually led by black founders. Calendly is the one that that sticks out in the minds of most people was-

John Darsie: (28:41)
Based in Atlanta all right, Calendly?

Lo Toney: (28:41)
That's right it. Was sneaking around under the radar and had only taken one round of financing. I think for maybe less than, I don't know, call less than a million dollars and now Lo and Bohold, they just took in some money at what is rumored to be in excess of a three billion dollar valuation. So we're moving in the right direction. The more that we can have those events, as well as the liquidity events that come after them, will be able to put these diverse founders down the wealth creation path but also some of those early employees. And listen, the calculus changes when one has a significant financial backstop because then one's profile and optionality changes. An employee that's early that has that liquidity event can then take the risk, go start a company or go invest as an angel. And then capital goes back to those diverse GPs if they string along enough events that lead to liquidity. Capital goes back to the LPs, then the LPs can look at that and say, "Wow. We should double or triple down on this because it's working."

Lo Toney: (29:44)
That's what I get excited about is that leveraged approach to really kick start that flywheel. Look, this is not dissimilar to geographic ecosystems outside of places like the San Francisco-

John Darsie: (29:56)
That was my next question question because if you're on Twitter today and you follow a lot of people in Venture Capital, every other tweet is about Miami. Oh, Miami, everyone's moving Miami. There's a SoftBank has a hundred million dollar fund now to invest in Miami-based startups. But we have Steve Case, has been to our SALT conferences and been on SALT Talks. And he's more about the distribution of capital across a wide variety of sort of second tier cities in the U.S.. Geographically, where are you seeing opportunities, is it distributed or are you seeing a few Austin, Miami type of places that capital is flowing to?

Lo Toney: (30:33)
It's a combination. One thing that this pandemic has shown us is that we've changed on a psychological perspective, in our acceptance of being able to have a remote workforce, a distributed workforce. And also this notion around, "Do I necessarily need to go and visit a company in order to get comfortable?" For a long time, there was this thought that in order to be an investor you wanted to invest in your backyard, so that on your way home from the office you could pass by your entrepreneurs and see if their cars were still in the parking lot.

John Darsie: (31:07)
If you're on the Google bus, you're waving out the window at your companies you invested in? Okay.

Lo Toney: (31:12)
Exactly. But this things have changed and now we've become more comfortable with having remote workforces, making investments into ecosystems that aren't in our backyard. It's easier because we can hop on a Zoom call, we've now become accustomed to get comfortable doing this type of diligence and having these conversations. But I think another thing that's really important, right? So it used to be, "Hey, if you want to be a movie star you go to Los Angeles. If you want to be an entrepreneur you go to San Francisco." Well, look entrepreneurship and innovation don't know any boundaries and so great ideas can surface anywhere. Now obviously, there are some advantages that will remain over time in places like San Francisco, but in addition to the other obvious ecosystems Los Angeles, New York.

Lo Toney: (31:57)
We are seeing some exciting developments in places like Atlanta, in places like the Midwest. What we like to look for typically in an ecosystem is are there certain elements? We like to see there's a little bit of an entrepreneurial spirit or a counter culture that comes with certain political views or views around activism. And if we think those as important ingredients, we like to see an educational institution that's very research driven that can spawn off not only a number of well-trained engineers and business people but also the research that comes out of some of those institutions that can be commercialized.

Lo Toney: (32:31)
And then, we also like to see a few other things, exciting places to live that are going to be attractive to young people, and have the ability for there to be a nightlife when they're not at the office working. And then probably some type of element of an international type of vibe. The ability to kind of have a reason for that place to be on a road map, all of those things when they come together it creates magic. And then if you can add to that, an anchor industry that's undergoing digital transformation and today what industry is not, then you can have some interesting crossover for both companies looking for new innovative ideas. And for those companies that are at the startup phase to have access to customers and potential acquirers as well as potentially even employees that want to jump on the startup craze.

John Darsie: (33:22)
Right. We'll let Jihan jump in here. Jihan, I want to talk about investor psychology for a minute. You've lived at the hedge fund level [crosstalk 00:33:30] a little bit of an investment [inaudible 00:33:32].

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:31)
You see how the millennial just took over the whole-

John Darsie: (33:33)
I took over the conversation and my bonus [crosstalk 00:33:36] has gone down by about 20 percent as opposed to me monopolizing the conversation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:41)
My contract says I'm allowed to talk more than you but go ahead and keep going.

John Darsie: (33:44)
No, you ask Jihan a question.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:46)
No, it's fine.

John Darsie: (33:49)
He gets mad when I get the fan mail, you know how it works.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:52)
Oh, Toney I paid him his bonus last week. This is how he acts, he gets all a reverend for the next 50 or so weeks.

John Darsie: (33:58)
He's not wrong I [crosstalk 00:33:59]can now

John Darsie: (33:59)
talk back to him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:02)
He's only nice to meet the week prior to the bonus payment and you know how that happened at Goldman Sachs, right? You know exactly what I'm talking about. Go ahead Darsie, go ahead. My feelings aren't hurt.

John Darsie: (34:12)
Jihan, right now we see public markets are extremely hot, tech stocks have gone crazy partly due to the pandemic of this transition to remote work, and everything's digital. How has that affected valuations and just the entire climate in private markets as a result of sort of the I don't want to say froth but the the heat that we're seeing in public markets?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (34:35)
Yeah. The heat indeed. Look, I think private markets are in a period of price discovery to some extent, right? We're in sort of uncharted territory here with the digitization of everything with zero slash negative rates, with the kind of global economic, and political backdrop, et cetera. I think that common knowledge over the last few years felt like the majority of so-called traditional or institutional investors, sort of those industries that I came from, generally thought that Venture Capital was overvalued, right? They were looking at these companies and saying unprofitable, being valued on unbelievable forward multiples, IPO window was relatively closed. These companies were continuing to stay private and I think that the commonly perceived wisdom was that they were staying private because they had no opportunity to go public and here would be no appetite from public market investors. Who I think like to think of themselves as sort of more sober and more rational and perhaps more more quantitative than the dreamers from California.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (35:41)
I think what's happened in the last 12 months besides the future being pulled forward due to COVID, et cetera, is that public market performance by some of these highly-valued and commonly thought to believe overvalued late-stage private companies. The public market performance has been exceptional and you have examples like Snowflake, you have examples like Palantir, et cetera. Which have sort of defied many investors' expectations. And I think one of the things which is great about the public markets and which I think is unfortunate for investors who've only spent their time in private markets is that the short feedback loops in public markets force a kind of honesty on every investor.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (36:26)
You're talking about investor psychology, it's very difficult to continue to hold a view in public markets, which is wrong because the market tells you you're wrong, right? It's painful but you have to realize it on a day by day if not a minute or second by second basis. Private markets have very long feedback loops, right? Sometimes it can be five or ten years before you know if an investment has worked or not. That company may have pivoted two or three times in between the early stage investment and so you may not know if the reason you invested and the reason you profited is actually the same thesis that drove you to make the investment in the first place.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (36:59)
So, I think there are benefits. Strong benefits to a very long-term mindset that the private markets have and endorse. And I think the public markets can learn from that, but also I think there's a degree of humility and a degree of kind of transparency with respect to looking in the mirror on the public side. And so, I think anybody who's honest with themselves who has sort of a public market mandate needs to look back at the hypothesis and sort of the wisdom of the crowds from the institutional side over these last few years. And essentially admit that they were wrong, right? They were wrong at least in the near term about what these companies could do. Certainly they were wrong about the investor psychology from public market participants, right? Because the stock price on any given day can show you that. And so, what does that mean?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (37:45)
What does that mean for public market investors beginning to look at private markets. Can you use the same kind of valuation metrics, can you use the same sort of mental models, is it as useful to be able to perform a discounted cash flow model on a business which is growing 500 percent as it is on something growing five to seven percent a year and so? I think we are in this very interesting area of price discovery. Obviously, the innovation with specs and direct listings and things like that are continuing to blur the lines between public and private. In my sense and sort of our bet in some ways as a firm at Bracket, is that some of these distinctions are really going to be looked upon as artifacts, right? I think that you're increasingly going to have someone who's an equity investor.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (38:31)
Now whether or not that equity trades on the Nasdaq or not is really sort of sort of an illusion to some extent. I think you have startups certainly and those have a different risk reward profile. You have very large companies right like the FANGS. But you have this very interesting subset of late stage businesses which we almost focus exclusively on which are market dominant, large enough to be public, in many cases larger than the public companies they're competing with. Oligopolistic like pricing power SpaceX's, the ByteDances, the Stripes of the world. And to have an artificial distinction from such a large capital base of institutional investors that say that they can't buy that company until it's in S&P 500, really is just forfeiting a lot of alpha to people who can look across that blurred line. And so, increasingly, I think that we're going to have [crosstalk 00:39:26] multi-stage investors on both sides.

John Darsie: (39:28)
Is that line going to disappear completely?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (39:32)
I think so.

John Darsie: (39:32)
And what does that look like?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (39:33)
I think what it looks like to me is that... as we said earlier, secondary markets are the norm, right? And so there will always be primary market financing on both private and public stocks. But I think that the end game is a very liquid secondary market which is orders of magnitude larger than the primary market, which as we said is the case of pretty much every other developed asset. And I think that the ability to buy an Airbnb last year or a Stripe this year will probably not be as liquid as buying Amazon stock today but it might look something like the corporate bond market. And so increasingly, I think you're going to see these things changing hands once companies can get their head around the rules and regulations. And there are concerns about having people in private companies sell stock too early, there are more hazard issues that need to be worked through, et cetera.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (40:21)
But all those things are achievable and so I think eventually, you're going to have a stock market, right? And that stock market will span the gamut.

John Darsie: (40:32)
I mean with Stripe, it raised at a 36 billion valuation in, i don't know, was it September or was it earlier in the year? We call late in the year and interested in maybe buying some... oh, it's a hundred. Just the movement that you're seeing in private markets the magnitude of those moves I guess is a reflection almost magnified that you're seeing of the the heat as we said in in public markets. But great time to be where you are Jihan, for sure and Lo. You guys partnering as well. I wanna ask one more quick question. We'll get quick responses about government regulations. So, we've seen a wave of outcry about censorship on social media. We have a new administration coming in that potentially could be a little harder on the regulatory front as it relates to business and tech. What do you expect to change at all, if at all, in the new administration as it relates to regulation around tech companies and how do you expect that to affect public and private market prices? And we'll start with you Lo.

Lo Toney: (41:38)
What an interesting question, it's a tough one to answer fast. But I will just say that i think that we have just seen along with the change in the administration, we saw some of the forces that came to light that led to some of the issues that we had around political parties clashing. And clearly the platforms play a role in that. I go back to something that i think about which is, the first amendment is designed to protect individuals from the government. But when we look at the decision-making process that that Jack Dorsey went through on Twitter when he was making his decision around former President Trump. The one thing that came to light to surface to me was, "Oh, of course he can do whatever he wants to, it's a private company." But what happens, individuals have options you can go to another platform and start your own site. But what happens when that platform becomes so dominant that it's almost like a utility where everyone that has something to say is expected to go on? And so I think we're in this interesting point where, once again, we are seeing how technology evolves at such a rapid pace. It's almost impossible especially for documents that were written three, four hundred years ago to try and keep up.

John Darsie: (42:59)
All right. Jihan?

Jihan Bowes-Little: (43:02)
Yeah. I think what I'd add there is that from my perspective, I expect there to be substantial regulation on large public tech companies and the platforms in particular. I feel like that's coming. I also think that probably the positive side of tech recognizing that it has sort of a societal role and not trying to be entirely distant from government. But realizing the two need to work together now that technology businesses are effectively the incumbency and that they affect the lives of people every day. Is that many of the most important problems that need to be solved, now that we know how to deliver food to ourselves at the click of a button and shop on social media channels, et cera. The areas like healthcare, FinTech, these are highly regulated areas. It takes a special and a different kind of an entrepreneur to operate in these kinds of spaces. And so I think the recognition that technology companies need to find a way to cohabit with governments, national governments, and local governments.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (44:10)
There's a lot of wood to chop on that side but there's also a lot of opportunity because I think that the real promise of some of these Venture-backed businesses if they're really going to be transformational is to deal with some of the most important problems. And some of the most important problems in our society are in those heavily regulated industries. And so it won't be easy but I think that there's actually a cause for a lot of optimism or around governments and technology businesses learning how to work together.

John Darsie: (44:38)
Well, Lo and Jihan, thank you so much for joining us today on SALT Talks. Anthony, very sorry for taking over the conversation, it was too interesting that our guests today were too interesting I felt compelled to jump in. And next time we don't have time for it today but Jihan is going to show off his musical talents on SALT Talks here. He sort of had to keep his musical career on the down low, Toney, when he was at Goldman Sachs. But thankfully now, he can openly show off his multitude of skills.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:08)
I mean this is some wise ass millennial though right you see how he used your name as a [inaudible 00:45:12]

Lo Toney: (45:13)
That was good. I've never heard that, it's not as good as Obama's.

Lo Toney: (45:15)
[crosstalk 00:45:15]

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:16)
Do you remember Ed McMahon? He's his own Ed Mcmahon where he laughs at his own jokes.

Lo Toney: (45:22)
I mean, look, it's not as good as President Obama when he asked me, "Oh, Lo Toney. So is there a High Toney?" That's the best one I've ever heard

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:31)
Sometimes, Low Toney was probably high though, right? Is that what you're talking about? I'm kidding man, I'm kidding.

John Darsie: (45:38)
All right. Well, thank you guys for joining us.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:40)
God bless you, guys. Okay, I'm looking forward to watching the sensational career arcs that you guys are on and I wish you much great success in the future.

John Darsie: (45:49)
And I think we're going to end up co-investing together on a couple deals guys. Let's work on that and we'll get you back on SALT Talks.

Lo Toney: (45:55)
That'll be fun.

Jihan Bowes-Little: (45:57)
That was great. Thanks for having us.

Lo Toney: (45:59)
Thanks for having us. Take care.

John Darsie: (46:00)
All right. Thank you to everybody who tuned in to today's SALT Talk with Jihan Bowes-Little and Lo Toney. Just a reminder if you missed any of this episode or you want to watch some of our previous episodes, we have all of them on our website free and on demand at salt.org backslash talks backslash archive. And you can sign up for all of our upcoming talks at salt.org backslash talks. Please follow us on social media Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, we are on there please follow us. And please tell your friends about SALT Talk, we love growing the community we love today, getting to know our guests, Lo and Jihan. And we love meeting more people through these SALT Talks. But on behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off for today. We'll see you back here again soon on SALT Talks.

Wes Moore: The Fight Against Poverty | SALT Talks #149

"We have policies that are very much still in place that are putting people and keeping people in poverty; Where we have a legacy of public policy… that’s making poverty incredibly predictable."

Wes Moore is CEO of Robin Hood, a leading foundation in the fight against poverty. This follows a distinguished career in academia, military and the White House.

Venture philanthropy involves using business-oriented data to identify the best solutions to poverty around the country. The capital investments in communities are delivered in partnership with on-the-ground collaboration with the affected community members. It’s important that the investments made are not seen as charity, but as tools for change. This also requires understanding why poverty exists. Poverty does not happen in a vacuum, but is structurally predictable because of the public policy we implement. "We have policies that are very much still in place that are putting people and keeping people in poverty; Where we have a legacy of public policy… that’s making poverty incredibly predictable."

Poverty affects every aspect of a community and its members. The pandemic presented just another example of how the effects of COVID-19 were felt disproportionately in poor communities and communities of color. “Poverty has this way of showing itself in every way. It’s the water you’re drinking, the air you’re breathing, the food you have access to, the schools your children attend, transportation assets you have or don’t, the way you’re policed.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Wes Moore.jpeg

Wes Moore

CEO

Robin Hood

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Jake Wood: Leading Through a Crisis | SALT Talks #148

"My unit has lost more men to suicide than we lost to the enemy overseas… I focus on things like the loss of purpose that veterans encounter when they take off that uniform for the last time."

Jake Wood is founder and CEO of Team Rubicon, a non-profit organization that utilizes the skills of military veterans to deploy disaster response teams to a variety of different humanitarian crises.

The US military provides some of the most advanced skill training in the world to its service members. Too often when these veterans leave the military, there are no smart ways to apply those skills. Team Rubicon has recruited over 750K veterans and responded to over 750 communities in crisis. Disaster zones provide a unique opportunity for veterans to use those skills for good around the world. "January 2010, the Haiti earthquake hit. It was the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. Seeing all the chaos and destruction, it really looked familiar to me. I’d just gotten done with two really hard combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Suicide remains a crisis among veterans. A loss of purpose and community can play a major role in driving mental health issues and Team Rubicon goes a long way in filling that void. Working as part of a group allows many a chance to process some of their own unaddressed trauma. "One of the fastest growing demographics of volunteers at Team Rubicon are Vietnam Veterans. It's really amazing to see these men process the trauma of their wartime experience for the first time in 50 years."

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jake Wood.jpeg

Jake Wood

Co-Founder & CEO

Team Rubicon

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. Our goal on SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our salt conference series, which our guest today has spoken at, I believe in 2015. But it's 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: (00:44)
And we're very excited today to welcome Jake Wood to SALT Talks. Jake Wood is the co-founder and chief executive officer of Team Rubicon, a nonprofit organization that utilizes the skills of military veterans to deploy disaster response teams to a variety of different humanitarian crises. Under Wood's leadership, Team Rubicon has launched over 650 operations in response to natural disasters and humanitarian crises since the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and has grown from eight people to 120,000 members.

John Darsie: (01:18)
Team Rubicon has finished in the top three of the Nonprofit Times top non-profit to work for in America list three years in a row. Wood is a leading veteran's advocate who briefed president Obama on veterans issues, met with former presidents, Bush and Clinton, on disaster response, as well as has testified before Congress. As a Sergeant in the US Marine Corps, wood was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as a scout sniper and earned the Navy Marine commendation medal.

John Darsie: (01:48)
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 and Jake for the interview.

Jake Wood: (02:01)
Thanks, John.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:02)
John, thank you. Jake, it was great to have you at the SALT Conference. I'm hoping and praying that we can get you back to a SALT Conference someday and we can end this virtual situation. We're going to make it happen. John's going to make an announcement here shortly about where he wants to put the SALT Conference. So I just want to comment on everybody's wardrobe. We know who the poorest person is on the podcast because I'm wearing the tie and these other two millennials, they're dressed like billionaires. So, we're going to leave it at that, Jake. You don't have to respond to it. I just needed to make that editorial statement.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:40)
But first of, I want to thank you for your service. You're an amazing American, I've followed your career obviously since you came to SALT, and I've listened to many of your interviews. But for people that don't know Team Rubicon, Jake, or you, and John did a very good introduction of who you are, tell us about Team Rubicon. What is Team Rubicon?

Jake Wood: (03:02)
Yeah. So Team Rubicon or TR as like we refer to it is a nonprofit organization like John mentioned. And what we do is we recruit, train and deploy military veterans for disaster response and humanitarian work in humanitarian crises. And the concept is actually really simple. The US spends tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars a year training American citizens on the latest technology, the best equipment. They are giving them these incredible skillsets. And over the last two decades, these men and women had been deployed all around the world and some of the most austere environments and complex situations on the planet. And our concept is that we can build a better mouse trap when it comes to fighting the rising costs and impact of climate change and the increasing frequency of disasters by recruiting these men and women to repurpose their skills to respond to them.

Jake Wood: (03:55)
So we've done that at scale over the last decade. We've recruited nearly 150,000 military veterans into doing the work that we do. We've responded to over 750 communities impacted by disasters and crises ranging from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods to things like civil wars and plagues. And of course, over the last 12 months, our work has been focused on assisting with responses to COVID-19.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:23)
Your name, the Rubicon was a river that Julius Caesar crossed, and it was an inflection point, which meant the end of the republic. And so, that was the beginning of the dictatorship and the end of the triumvirate that was holding the republic together. Why did you call Team Rubicon?

Jake Wood: (04:43)
Well, let's not invoke praises like the end of the republic given recent events. The name was no accident. When the organization was founded, it was not founded with the intent of starting a global humanitarian organization. I had just gotten out of the Marine Corps in late 2009. I'd been out for maybe 60 days. In January, 2010, the Haiti earthquake hit. I was watching that situation unfold, it was the worst humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century. And seeing all the chaos and the destruction, it really just looked pretty familiar to me. I'd just gotten done with two really hard combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I called up a couple of organizations, offered my services. They all understandably said no. And so I organized a team of veterans and some doctors to go down to Haiti. But you have to understand, we didn't know how we were going to be able to do that.

Jake Wood: (05:36)
And so, there were all these obstacles and challenges in the way of us being able to do that, but we knew that if we could get to the border, the Haitian-Dominican border and get across, that would be our Rubicon, that would be our point of no return. And so, we flew to the Dominican, we made our way to the border, we crossed the border about four days after the earthquake and made our way into Port-au-Prince. We referred to the team, and it was just a small team at the time, eight people, we referred to them as Team Rubicon.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:05)
Well, I didn't want to invoke the end of the republic. [inaudible 00:06:09]

Jake Wood: (06:10)
Too soon. Too soon.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:11)
And I have a tendency to be very shy and introverted related to my political points of view and my opinions of different political leaders, so, we're going to stick to Team Rubicon for this conversation, due to that shyness, Jake, due to the inhibitions that I have personally. What difficulties do veterans have transitioning back into civilian life? How do you address those issues?

Jake Wood: (06:40)
It's an important topic for me. There's an epidemic within the veteran space that is manifesting itself in the form of the highest suicide rate of nearly any demographic in the country. My unit has lost more men to suicide than we lost the enemy overseas, and understand that we served at the height of both wars and lost a lot of guys overseas. So it's tragic that we've lost more here at home to their own hand. When I think about what the root cause of that is, I don't focus on things like post-traumatic stress, I focus on things like the loss of purpose that veterans encounter when they take off the uniform for the last time. I think about that loss of community that they encounter when they leave that military base for the last time.

Jake Wood: (07:25)
And ironically, we were just talking about the threats to the republic, I think what we saw unfold on January 6th at the Capitol and in our subsequent understanding of just how many military war veterans were involved in that insurrection and are involved in right-wing extremist groups like the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, The Proud Boys, that military involvement I believe is also rooted in that loss of purpose and that desire for community. And so, Team Rubicon, we give those veterans a new mission, we restore that purpose and that community for them. But if you haven't discovered Team Rubicon, there's an appeal and an allure to an extremist group that gives you purpose, this purpose to fight and defend democracy as you see it, to be a part of something that is tight knit. And of course, that's a tragic application of purpose, but it's exactly what we're seeing.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:22)
This again, this is my experience, when you're happy in your life and good things are happening to you and you feel aspirational where you can achieve some of your dreams, maybe some of it is related to your disposable income, maybe some of it is just related to the holistic parts of your life, you seem less engaged in issues like that. But when you're returning home from war and you are, as you pointed out, disengaged from your team or your battalion or your group, and the adrenaline is down, and the trauma or the memory of what happened is up, that's a recipe for a disaster. Is that fair to say, Jake?

Jake Wood: (09:01)
Yeah, I think it is fair to say. There's a challenge in processing those things. And I think one of the things that we've seen at Team Rubicon is, we send these men and women into disaster zones. And in a way, some people think, oh, that must trigger those traumatic experiences. Has that happened? Yeah. I mean, we've seen people who failed to cope with the scenes of disasters. But more often than not what it does is it provides people perspective, because what happens for many military veterans is they assume that the veteran community, the military community, has a monopoly on trauma. And of course, we know that's not the case. People experience trauma in their childhood, they experience trauma in their marriages, they experience trauma in all sorts of things.

Jake Wood: (09:45)
And when these veterans see the survivors of these crises and these disasters and they see the loss of life or they see the loss of property, they realize the trauma in human suffering is universal, and it helps provide perspective for them that aids in their ability to cope and heal.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:05)
I think it's fascinating. One of the things I want to applaud you for is raising the awareness of all this. One of my uncles who I'm actually named after, my uncle, Anthony, was in Normandy beach on D-Day. Survived that, was subsequently wounded. When he came back, that generation was somewhat quiet about it. I think he never really recovered from the war and lived with post-traumatic stress his entire life. And so, tell us what you're doing at Team Rubicon to make those issues more aware. Obviously, you want family members to be more aware of these things. And making it acceptable. In the case of my uncle, it wasn't acceptable for him to talk about it culturally. I think you've done an amazing job of making it acceptable. Tell us steps that you've taken, tell us things that you've been doing to make that happen.

Jake Wood: (11:00)
It's a great question. We have certainly tried to provide a space for veterans to be safe, to feel safe about being open about their experiences. One of the amazing things about hard work, toiling together alongside people literally under the sun, sweating your ass off, breaking your back every day, which is what happens in these disaster zones, is it's got this unbelievable ability to bring people together and develop this inherent trust in sense of safety, psychological safety alongside these people who were just strangers two days before. We're very deliberate in providing people opportunities at the end of those days to share and open up about their experience. It might be their experience on that particular disaster response mission, it could be their experience from Iraq or Afghanistan years or decades before.

Jake Wood: (11:50)
And in some cases, one of the growing demographics that we have as a volunteer in Team Rubicon are Vietnam veterans. It's really amazing, to your point, to see these men, they're almost exclusively men, process the trauma of their war time experience for the first time in 50 years. And part of it is because they now have idle minds. They came home, they had careers, they're now leaving their careers and they're retiring. And now suddenly they don't have anything to stay busy, and they realize that, oh my God, in the quietness of this retirement, I have to for the first time really think about what happened in Da-Nang or Khe San or any of the battles that I fought. And so that's been really powerful to observe.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:36)
I want to talk about your book, Once A Warrior: How One Veteran Found a New Mission Closer to Home. It's interesting, how business executives learned from the experience of military leaders like you to improve their companies. You incorporate elements of that in the book. You obviously told the story that you're telling right now. For SALT viewers and SALT listeners that haven't read the book yet, why should they read this book and what will they get out of it?

Jake Wood: (13:08)
I would hope that there's a couple of motivations. On the one hand, this is a great American story. It's a memoir, but it's not just my story, it's my story of going to war and coming home. But this is really indicative of the story of three million men and women who served overseas and are coming back and have the opportunity to serve their community and their country in new ways. And that's the story of Team Rubicon. It's also the story of how to process trauma. I mean, going back to your earlier question, I lost my best friend and my sniper partner to suicide in 2011. It was a tragedy in all the ways that your viewers right now could imagine. It took me years, years to process his death and to forgive myself for his death.

Jake Wood: (13:57)
on the other side of the coin, one of the people that reviewed the book was Chris Sacca, a fairly well-known angel investor. And his review was, you know how the best business books aren't business books, this is that book. Because this is really also the story of how I scaled one of the fastest growing non-profits in America in the shadow of the great recession, overcoming all of the natural challenges you can imagine building an organization that responds to disasters. There's a lot of uncertainty when it comes to building out a strategic plan when the nature of your business is responding to things you cannot predict. There are plenty of leadership lessons throughout it that people can pick up.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:39)
Well, Chris is a leading innovator. I actually met him at Richard Branson's house in the Virgin Islands, which is a trip that I'm going to encourage you to take at some point in your career.

Jake Wood: (14:51)
Make that introduction for me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:53)
I will. John, remind me to do that. So, how can people support Team Rubicon? Where do they go to support your missions and to help you with the veterans that you're helping?

Jake Wood: (15:07)
We're easy to find. Our website, teamrubiconusa.org, across any of the social media platforms, we have a big voice. How can people help? There's a dozen things, more important to us than money but they all cost money. We're a nonprofit organization that runs entirely on philanthropy. We operate at a large scale. We run on a $15 million annual operating budget we have to raise every single year to assist these communities that would otherwise be forgotten in the aftermath of these storms. But beyond that, I imagine many of your viewers, they know someone in their life that could find value in the work that we do. We've got nearly 150,000 volunteers, but I can tell you, we're a couple hundred thousand short of where we need to be in order to continue to meet the need that we see across the country and around the world.

Jake Wood: (15:57)
So, whether it's that niece or that nephew or the cousin, the friend, the coworker that you know maybe served overseas in any war who might just be looking for that little extra something in their life. And even if that person's not a military veteran, we'll take anybody, we'll give them the training that they need, and we'll give them the opportunity to of service to their country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:19)
I think that's something I really want to emphasize to people, it's not just for military veterans. And I want to test the hypothesis on you and get your reaction to it. The world War II generation, you think about the draft and the inclusion of so many families in the military experience. And then you add this shared military experience, whether you're from New York or California, Dakota, Texas, once you were in the army or the marines, you could then have that bonding experience. Where were you, what battalion or division did you serve in, etc?

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:54)
And then we came out of that war, as a result of all of that military training, there was a level of civic virtue in the society that I think helped to transform the post-World war II society. Today Jake, you tell me, is it one and a half to 3% of our country is somehow tied to the nation's military. And so I'm wondering out loud, do we need to do more from a civic virtue perspective? Maybe the volunteer army is the right thing for the United States at this point, but do we need more compulsory service from our men and women the way the state of Israel does, or the way other people think about this to tie us together more closely and to make our union more perfect? What's your reaction to that?

Jake Wood: (17:42)
100% agree. And there are multiple reasons why this is important. One, you look at the state of our public discourse today, the inability of the factions across America to even understand or want to understand one another. Ultimately, what we lack today is empathy and compassion for our fellow Americans who have a different lot in life than we do. You can't have empathy or compassion for someone if you don't understand their perspective. You can't get their perspective if you've never left your bubble. Service helps transcend those bubbles, it brings people together in what is the most perfect melting pot that America ever created, which was I believe military service. We've seen that play out.

Jake Wood: (18:29)
So, there's that issue. But this is I believe actually a slow burning national security threat. We have an all-volunteer force today that has largely become a family affair. The vast majority of people who are joining the military today are coming from a lineage of military veterans. The challenge is that the military veterans of today poll after poll after poll are stating that they are not going to encourage their children to join the military. So we're actually going to have a pretty large recruiting crisis that's looming on the horizon.

Jake Wood: (19:07)
That is coupled with the fact that when you create almost this warrior caste where 1% of Americans serve becomes a family affair, they become disconnected from the rest of society. And it becomes much easier for the rest of our republic to send those men and women off to war because there's no cost to the rest of America. It's not their son or daughter that they're sending off. And so we find ourselves embroiled in conflicts that are poorly planned, no exit strategy. And we find ourselves there for decades upon decades. And that's not sustainable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:48)
I have to turn it over to the resident, millennial, Jake, otherwise, I can't get the ratings because I'm this aging white male, I'm heading deep into my middle age now.

John Darsie: (20:00)
As opposed to me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:02)
I don't know if I have the attraction of these young youthful looking millennials. I have to turn it over to this guy. It's a little horrifying for me. But go ahead, Darsie. I know you're dying to ask Jake all these brilliant scintillating questions. Jake, you know what's also horrifying, since you're cheaper than my therapist, this guy gets fan mail. [inaudible 00:20:23] it's unbelievable. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (20:26)
It's a big point of contention, Jake. I got I think one email that somebody said that I did a good job and it hurt Anthony's ego.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:34)
It was bruising. It was bruising. There's no euphemism to describe the pain, but go ahead. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (20:42)
I think your point about service and bipartisanship is very well taken, Jake. I frequently give my friend, Rye Barcott, a shout out on here for his organization With Honor, who you're likely familiar with. It's a pact that they basically encourage military members to run for office. While giving them funding, they forced those candidates to sign basically non-binding contracts to commit to bipartisanship. And naturally, there's just more of a comradery among those members across the aisle in terms of solving problems as opposed to looking at things through a partisan lens. So, I think that point is extremely well-taken, and we love what you do at team Rubicon and what Rye is doing at With Honor. And hopefully every time we shout out these organizations, hopefully members of our community step up and contribute to the cause.

John Darsie: (21:28)
I want to ask you about the COVID-19 pandemic. So you guys have responded to a variety of different types of humanitarian crises. How has the COVID-19 pandemic been unique and what does your response look like at Team Rubicon?

Jake Wood: (21:41)
This has been unique in immeasurable ways. Too many to enumerate. But to put it in perspective, back in March or April when this thing was first [inaudible 00:21:55] in the US, it was the first time in American history that all 50 states plus US territories were under an emergency declaration simultaneously. It was simply the scale, the breadth and depth of this crisis that was nearly impossible to overcome. Our organization pivoted very aggressively and early into the fight. We said early that we didn't have a playbook for a global pandemic, but we had the players going back to our philosophy on, our human capital strategy is based on recruiting these men and women who do chaos for their day job. And so, we, over the last year have done a variety of things. We searched over 10,000 volunteers in the food banks across the country to help sustain their operations in the face of growing food insecurity.

Jake Wood: (22:40)
Perhaps on the more complex side, we deployed hundreds of medics in the Navajo nation, where over the last several months we've treated 5,000 COVID positive patients. We established dozens of mobile testing sites for COVID-19 throughout the western US. We managed all the collection distribution of personal protective equipment for the city of Chicago. Over 330 American communities requested our assistance in the aftermath of COVID and we responded to over 300 of them with operations.

Jake Wood: (23:12)
Right now, our entire focus is on getting our organization into the vaccine space. We've been operating a dozen pilot programs in states across the US, supporting the logistics and wraparound services that are necessary for effective vaccination programs and delivery. And we anticipate rolling that out and expanding it and scaling it to several hundred communities here in the coming months. We're actively raising a fund right now to do that. Might as well make the pitch now. We're raising an initial $5 million to get it off the ground and $30 million to take it to scale and sustain it through October, which is really the point at which we'll think that our chief medical officer believes we'll hit the point of community immunity. Of course, all of that is dictated by pace.

John Darsie: (24:07)
And people can find information to donate to that fund on your website?

Jake Wood: (24:11)
People can find out about that on our website. We're about to launch a veteran's coalition for vaccination, which will bring about six other organizations focused on veterans under a tent that we will be managing. Of course, they can reach out to you with some fan mail and you can put them directly in contact with me and I'd love to have a conversation with them about it.

John Darsie: (24:33)
All right. I would ask you how we could have improved our response to the pandemic at a federal level, but I think that would take an extra 30, 45 minutes for us to get into.

Jake Wood: (24:43)
Talk about needing a therapist. I need to talk to a therapist about that myself, but yes, we would take much time.

John Darsie: (24:52)
We will leave it there. Thank you so much, Jake, for joining us. We always love having Team Rubicon affiliated with SALT. It's a tremendous organization and you have scaled it in a way that it's extremely impressive and you're really solving two problems. You're addressing these critical issues around the world and in the United States, while also helping military veterans transition back into civilian life and cope with those mental health issues and loss of purpose that you talked about. So thank you so much for everything you do.

Jake Wood: (25:20)
Yeah, John, Anthony, thank you for having me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:22)
Jake, tell us one more time where we can send money. Where do people go?

Jake Wood: (25:27)
Please visit us at teamrubiconusa.org. You can find out all the information right there. Love to have you.

John Darsie: (25:32)
And buy his book too. It's a tremendous memoir. Once a Warrior is the name of it. It's a tremendous memoir talking about a lot of these issues that we spoke about today, that loss of purpose and how veterans are uniquely suited to solve these humanitarian crises that exist around the world. So we encourage you to buy that book. Thanks again, Jake.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:50)
Jake, I hope to see you at a SALT event soon.

Jake Wood: (25:55)
I check my mailbox every day for the invite, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:58)
We're going to gear up the fundraising and the SALT event soon. We appreciate all your work, you're a great American patriot. Thank you for all the things you're doing for our country and the world.

Jake Wood: (26:07)
Thank you, Anthony.

John Darsie: (26:09)
And thank you everybody who tuned into today's SALT Talk, especially if you are now going to the Team Rubicon website and donating to the cause. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, you can see the entire SALT Talks archive at salt.org/talks/archive, and you can sign up for all of our upcoming talks at salt.org/talks. A reminder, please follow us on social media and tell your friends about SALT Talks. We love growing our community and spreading the word about great causes like Team Rubicon. We're on Twitter, we're on Facebook, we're on Instagram, LinkedIn.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:41)
Don't send any more fan mail to John Darsie.

John Darsie: (26:43)
Send all fan mail to, I'm not going to read your email out, but send all your fan mail to Anthony's email so he gets it and can treasure it. On behalf of the entire SALT Team and Anthony, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We'll see you back here again tomorrow.

Michael Chertoff: How Election Security Has Become a Top Issue | SALT Talks #147

“It turned out that there was very little interference with the actual voting process... It went remarkably smoothly."

This is the first episode in a three episode SALT Talks series focused on elections security. Michael Chertoff was the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009 where he led the country in blocking would-be terrorists and transformed FEMA following Hurricane Katrina.

Elections security became a greater focus as the Internet became more integrated with voting systems. One of the most effective safeguards against a mass breach of voting systems is the distributed and decentralized nature of elections. The nature of election concerns have evolved greatly to include potential domestic terrorism and foreign government disinformation. “There was actually very little interference with registration databases or the voting process itself."

The real issues turned out be after the election, culminating in the violent mob seeking to block congress’ certification of the election results. This was due to sustained misinformation propagated by then President Trump, his allies and conservative media outlets. The irresponsibility displayed should and could likely lead to successful legal action. “Frankly, I understand why these companies (like Dominion) are suing. They’re basically saying, ‘put your money where your mouth is.’ There needs to be accountability.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Secretary Michael Chertoff.jpeg

Michael Chertoff

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

(2005-2009)

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT