Kevin Carter: Emerging Market ETFs | SALT Talks #247

“[In emerging markets,] smartphones bring a computer to the world for the first time and the Internet with it. That’s a very, very important part of what I think is the fastest growing sector in the world.”

Kevin Carter is the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of EMQQ. In this episode, Kevin shares is introduction to emerging markets where he’s a leader in the space. He analyzes the exposure to Chinese state-owned companies within ETFs and potential risks. He explains the unique advantages emerging markets enjoy due to the lack of legacy tech infrastructure seen in more advanced countries like the United States. Carter offers his investment outlook in India and Latin America, and lays out his approach to measuring a company’s growth.

While he considers himself an active “value” investor first and foremost, he has collaborated with Princeton economist and indexing legend, Dr. Burton Malkiel, for more than 20 years. Their work together began in 1999 with the development of eInvesting, a pioneer firm in fractional share brokerage that was acquired by ETRADE in 2000. In 2002 they founded Active Index Advisors, a pioneer in so-called “direct indexing” that was acquired by Natixis Asset Management in 2005. In 2006, their efforts turned to China and Emerging Markets with Dr. Malkiel’s publishing of “Investment Strategies to Exploit Economic Growth in China” and the subsequent book From Wall Street to the Great Wall. Working with Guggenheim Partners, they launched several China focused ETFs on the NYSE.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Kevin Carter.jpg

Kevin Carter

Founder & Chief Investment Officer

EMQQ

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

5:45 - Emerging markets

7:48 - Advice to young investors

10:27 - Exposure to emerging markets through US companies

12:52 - State-owned companies in ETF’s

17:00 - Smartphones in emerging markets

20:25 - Technological leapfrogging in emerging markets

23:20 - Super apps

28:26 - Chinese government crackdowns and investor concerns

42:15 - Investing in India

44:48 - Investing in Latin America

48:12 - Measuring growth

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume this fall in our home city of New York, but that'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. And we're very excited today to welcome Kevin T. Carter to SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (00:48)
Kevin is the founder and chief investment officer of EMQQ, which is a leading emerging market ETF. While he considers himself an active value investor, first and foremost, he has collaborated with Princeton economist and indexing legend, Dr. Burton Malkiel for more than 20 years. I know Dr. Malkiel is also a big influence on Anthony with his great book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Their work together began in 1999 with the development of E-Investing, a pioneer firm in fractional share brokerage that was acquired by E-Trade in the year 2000. In 2002, they founded Active Index Advisors, a pioneer in so-called direct indexing, which is a trend that has taken over the wealth management world in the subsequent two decades. And that was acquired by Natixis Asset Management in 2005.

John Darsie: (01:35)
In 2006, their efforts turned to China and emerging markets with Dr. Malkiel's publishing of Investment Strategies to Exploit Economic Growth in China and the subsequent book, From Wall Street to the Great Wall. Working with Guggenheim Partners, they launched several China focused ETFs on the New York stock exchange. Kevin launched EMQQ in 2014 after noticing how the advent of the smartphone was changing his personal consumption habits and thus his projections on how it was going to change consumer behavior in emerging markets. He now lives in Lafayette, California with his wife and three lovely children. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:22)
Well, Kevin, first off, I want to thank you for getting the memo and dressing appropriately for this event. Unlike John Darsie that's trying to outshine us with his stupid sports jacket on, so thank you for that. I want to jump right into Burton Malkiel, Dean Malkiel, and I'll just tell you a quick story, which I think I have shared with John. I was about to be interviewed by the Goldman people. I'm at the Harvard Business School. I crossed the river. I was a Harvard Law School graduate, but I'm over at the business school, and somebody handed me a Dr. Malkiel's book. This is 1987, A Random Walk on Wall Street. I read the entire book waiting in the waiting room prior to the interview, and I'm absolutely confident that it helped me get through that interview and get me my first job. So tell us about his influence and Warren Buffett's influence on you.

Kevin T. Carter: (03:15)
Okay. Well, I didn't know the details of your experience with that book, but I did know there was some overlap. So, I graduated from college in 1991. And in January of 1992, I had my first interview with a firm called Robertson and Stephens Company, which you may remember, which my interview lasted about 20 minutes. And the first 19 minutes we talked about college basketball and then I got a one-minute overview of the investment business. And then the guy that was interviewing me said, "You can start Monday." And I said, "Well, how can I possibly start Monday? I don't know anything about investing." And he said, "Well, go buy this book and read it over the weekend." And he wrote down, A Random Walk Down Wall Street on a piece of paper.

Kevin T. Carter: (04:11)
I went to the bookstore and bought it and read it and showed up to work on Monday. And as you know, it's a book that's all about efficient markets and indexing, and one of the Seminole pieces in the modern investing world and Burt, the author is a longtime Vanguard board member and one of the founding fathers of indexing, but I very quickly gravitated towards Omaha and began to read all the Berkshire Hathaway annual reports and anything I could read that Warren Buffett or Charlie Munger had said.

Kevin T. Carter: (04:49)
So that's, I pray towards Omaha but in 1998, I met Burton over the telephone during the dot com bubble. And a year later when I started my first company, I asked if he would be an advisor. And he agreed after I flew out to Princeton for a three-hour lunch with him. And so we've been business partners in one way, shape or form since 1999, and so I've got one foot in the active world and one foot in the indexing world, and along the way, Burton dragged me into China and emerging markets more broadly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:27)
I would say it's an amazing story, congratulations, you're leading in emerging market ETF EMQQ. So tell us about that, what constitutes an emerging market, and what's the difference in groups like MSCI and the FTSE?

Kevin T. Carter: (05:44)
Sure. Well, when we talk about emerging markets, foundationally and fundamentally, we're really talking about the world. It's 85% of the world's people. It's about 90% of the world's future as measured by younger people under the age of 30. And it starts with China, but it's, if you include frontier markets, which are the junior emerging markets, it's about 50 different countries with China being the largest in pretty much every measure, India, Brazil, Russia, and then the frontier markets are things like Nigeria and other parts of Africa and South America. So that's what we're talking about.

Kevin T. Carter: (06:34)
There's no official list of what an emerging market is. MSCI really created the category. It used to be called third world countries, but in a stroke of genius by the marketing people, they've renamed third world countries, emerging markets. And MSCI did that. And so their list is really the default standard. But there are some discrepancies in the indexing world. The FTSE people which have their own index and Vanguard tracks, they don't have the exact same list, so the biggest difference there is Korea, which FTSE considers developed and MSCI does not. So if you own the iShares version of emerging markets, you own Korea, and if you own the Vanguard version you don't, which is a meaningful difference, but not huge.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:27)
If you were starting out today, with all the knowledge that you have of the world of investing, would you be where you are right now? And what would you recommend to a student embarking upon his career? A 100 ETFs, indexes, active indexes, what would your messaging be?

Kevin T. Carter: (07:49)
Okay, that's a great question and one I think about quite a bit, because I have a relatively young team of colleagues. And in thinking about their 401k plan, for example, I'm forced to think about that exact question. And I think that first and foremost, the miracle of compounding is the most important part of this whole thing. And whether it's buying the index or buying individual stocks, you got to buy and hold, and buy and hold, and buy and hold and repeat that. And that would be the first thing I would say.

Kevin T. Carter: (08:32)
And then for those that are industrious and want to try to figure out how to pick the best stocks to be active, I would have them study moats and what a moat is in the business palettes in the Buffet and Munger terminology, and then I'd tell them to learn about valuation. And the PEG ratio to me is the most important thing to look at if you're evaluating buying equity in a company. So moats, the PEG ratio and the miracle of compounding, I think, are the things I would suggest they study. And I think they should also study, I suppose, Bill Sharpe's piece, The Arithmetic of Active Investing, which most concisely details the mathematical fact that the Vanguard index fund is going to continue to beat all of the other actively managed versions of investing by simple basis of lower fees.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:51)
Fee savings is a big issue for Dean Malkiel, big issue for Mr. Buffet. One of the things Mr. Buffet has said, often, I want you to react to this, is that he's gotten his international exposure through American-based companies as a result of their gap accounting and him being able to understand that you guys seem to have for rate off the course of America, what would you say to this xenophobic American centric investors as to why they need to be in products like yours?

Kevin T. Carter: (10:26)
Well, first of all, absolutely you can get exposure to emerging markets and China through US companies. In fact, one of the first China strategies that Burt and I organized was sort of, we lift it from Abby Cohen, which was, we called it China for chickens. So if you didn't feel comfortable buying Chinese equities, you'd buy companies like Yum! Brands, which while based in Kentucky, had the vast majority of its revenue coming from China. So you can absolutely get that sort of indirect exposure.

Kevin T. Carter: (11:07)
The reality is that, for the last decade plus investors that have diversified internationally, either into international developed markets, the IFA countries, Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada, et cetera, they've underperformed the S&P. And investors in emerging markets have done terrible over the last a decade or even the 14-year return for the MSCI emerging markets index is zero. And you just got back to zero, you were underwater for almost all of those 14 years. So people have been disappointed by investing in emerging markets in particular. And I understand why, because the indexes are terrible. They don't really capture the growth in emerging markets.

Kevin T. Carter: (11:52)
So I think investors should, and can't find returns internationally, but they have to get a little bit more targeted in their approach. And in emerging markets, it's pretty clear to me that that's in the category of consumption. You want exposure to the growth of the consumer in emerging markets. And what we've put together is, is what I think is the tip of the spear of that growth, which is the smartphone enabled emerging market consumer that is getting access to the internet for the first time, getting their first computer in form of an Android-based smartphone. And in many ways, these people are even more digital than we are.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:34)
Yeah. And it begs the question then about China and the state-owned enterprises in China, a lot of the ETFs of the indexes, et cetera, represent some of that. What's your opinion about allocating to state-owned enterprises?

Kevin T. Carter: (12:52)
Well, I think it's a horrible idea, and this is why indexing is broken in emerging markets. And I tell people that the way I got involved with China 16 years ago, or 50 years ago, was when my partner Burt was asked to give a talk at Google about investing in China. I had become a default investment advisor to several of the earliest Google people right after they went public in 2004, and Burt published a paper about investing in China, and the Google people found out about it and called me and said, "Hey, can Burt come talk about investing in China?" And I organized that to happen. And Burton gave his talk about investing in China. And then all these people at Google looked at me and said, "We want to invest in China." And at that point, I had never been to China. I read Burton's paper, but I didn't really know what that even meant to invest in China.

Kevin T. Carter: (13:51)
And after that talk, we drove back to San Francisco and I asked our portfolio managers for a list of all the companies in the China ETF from my shares, because I assumed these Google people, to give them exposure to China, we would just buy the ETF. And I wanted to see what was inside of it because, with my Omaha brand, I like to see not just what the title of the ETF is, but what are the actual companies? And before they gave me the list, Burton pulled me aside and he said, "Look, when you look at the China ETF, you're going to see that the vast majority of the companies are Chinese state-owned enterprises and government-owned banks and oil companies."

Kevin T. Carter: (14:32)
And I said, "Yeah, I've heard about this," and a little skeptically, and he went on to give me an example. And the example was, you've got a Chinese manufacturing plant with 15,000 employees that's woefully inefficient, and it's been losing money for a decade, and it's about to run out of money again. And it goes across town to the Chinese-state owned bank and says, "We need more money." And where a normal banker would say, "No, you can't have any more money, you're bankrupt." The state-owned bank is conflicted and says, "Well, if you run out of money, then you'll have 15,000 people out in the streets protesting, and we can't have that sort of civil unrest."

Kevin T. Carter: (15:10)
And when Burt gave me that example, I literally got nauseous inside because with my simple Omaha brain, what gives companies value is earnings, and it's the growth of those earnings that is the growth of the value. And if the people that run those companies don't care about that, why would you invest in them at all? And so this was something I encountered in the first five minutes, and it's just become more and more clear in the case of China and the FXI, which is the ticker for that product, it was about 80% state-owned enterprises. And in the broader indexes, it's about a third, and this is why you can't expect to make any money in the broad indexes, because these companies are, in addition to being inefficient, their management is terrible. And there's lots of corruption, and you've got people going to jail, like the last two presidents of Brazil, the former president, a pariah, went to jail for corruption. So state-owned enterprises are a real big problem and they're the reason you should absolutely not use traditional approaches to emerging markets.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:23)
Right. I love the sentiment. I totally agree with you on all of that. And I've seen you make these presentations before, which I think are very important, particularly for the young people, Kevin. Let's go to the iPhone for a second. It comes out just before the Barack Obama administration, let's call it a 13 or 14 years old. I still see it as an emerging technology, but it transformed your way of thinking about investing. Tell us about how it did that? And how is smartphone penetration in emerging markets affecting consumer behavior?

Kevin T. Carter: (16:59)
Well, I think you're absolutely right. The smartphone is a pretty new thing, and I think we already take it for granted. But I remember my first encounter with an iPhone, one of my friends who was the first guy to get new stuff, had an iPhone, and he showed it to me and talked about apps. And I remember thinking, "Wow, an app." It was an abstract idea to me, what exactly is an app? And I wasn't sure I'd ever actually be involved with apps. And that was 11 or so years ago.

Kevin T. Carter: (17:33)
But when I got my first smartphone, my iPhone, I saw how it was changing my family's consumption. And back then, my family was going to the Target store four times a week, which is only a few miles away and easy to get to, but all of a sudden the trips to the Target store started going down, and the UPS man was starting to come to my house a couple of times a week. And that just intensified very quickly. And pretty soon my family had stopped going to the Target store and the UPS driver and other drivers were at my house 20 times a week. So I saw, eight or nine years ago, how the smartphone was changing my family's consumption.

Kevin T. Carter: (18:17)
And we all know this. This isn't really a secret, and you've also seen it in the stock market, is the FANG stocks, the Big Tech stocks, the platform companies have taken over the world basically. And I saw that happening in my own life. And as somebody that was trying to capture the growth of the emerging market consumer, I started to see how it was playing out in the emerging markets. And I could see that it was even a bigger deal in emerging markets because these people, they weren't getting their first smartphone, they were getting their first computer ever, and it wasn't on their desk, it was in their pocket. And most of them aren't iPhones. They don't have an Apple logo because we're talking about 50, 60, $80 android-based smartphones that are bringing the computer the world for the first time and also bringing the internet with it for the first time. So that's a very, very important, part of what I think is the fastest growing sector in the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:17)
The reason I'm hesitating here is I want to frame this question appropriately. Larry Summers said it to me best. He said that sometimes advanced country is hurt by their advancement. Meaning we built our airports in the 1920s. And then we layered upon those airports more infrastructure and airports, but our airports look like third world countries now here in the United States. And yet there are airports in Dubai and places like China that are pristine and brand new.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:49)
Moreover, we started with copper wire in the ground or on telephone poles, and yet you can go to places in China now where they don't have any of that. It's just full wireless technology at 5G switch speeds and rates. And so I want to ask you this question as an experienced investor, how disadvantaged are countries that are developed versus countries that are able to start new with the technologies that we have in the present time?

Kevin T. Carter: (20:25)
Well, this is a very good and important point, and I have to try to think about it in real time about the advantages or disadvantages. But there's no doubt that, I guess, the main advantage is you have new stuff and you have state-of-the-art stuff. And certainly that involves infrastructure like airports, and in the case of China, high-speed rail network that's very, very important to that country's economic growth that connect the, well over a billion people physically via high-speed rail. So it's a big advantage. And it's an advantage, I think, for investors. And that we've seen very clearly what's happened in our lives and in our stock market with the FANG stocks, but in the developing world and emerging and frontier markets, they're leapfrogging lots of things. They're leapfrogging the bank account and the debit card in everybody's pocket, they're leapfrogging the physical wires and getting connected via mobile broadband without the telephone poles.

Kevin T. Carter: (21:38)
So that's a big advantage and it's what makes the emerging market internet companies, I think, even more exciting because they're not competing with the strip malls, they're not competing with, well, they're competing with the traditional banks, but they're winning quite handily. And it's sort of a paradox. You would think people like you and I, that are in a prosperous country and in a prosperous industry, and I'm right here in the heart, basically of Silicon valley, I should be on the cutting edge of things like mobile banking, but it's not us. It's Africa paradoxically that is the most advanced in terms of mobile payments. So it's an advantage for the consumers and the consumption story as they leapfrog some of the legacy consumption infrastructure that we take for granted.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:34)
Very well said. I'm going to turn it over to John in a second, because he did put the sports code on Kevin, and so, as a result of which I've got to allow him to ask some of these questions. But I want to go to the mobile super apps for a second. They exist in several jurisdictions and they cover everything from e-commerce to payments, to entertainment and social networking. What are some of your favorite super app investments? And then we'll let Mr. Darsie, but just do me a favor, when Darsie is asking questions, don't say great question or anything like that, okay? Let's go to the super apps first and then we'll go to Darsie.

Kevin T. Carter: (23:10)
Your questions are a bit good, but I sure John's will be superior, he's got the coat. He's got the coat.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:17)
Oh my God. It hurts me, Kevin.

Kevin T. Carter: (23:20)
So, the two biggest super apps in the world are basically Alibaba and Tencent, WeChat platform. Everybody knows Alibaba, and people I don't think quite realize that in these two companies, these aren't really technology companies. They've been put in the technology box, but they're consumer companies and they're digitizing all parts of consumption. And so, that's e-commerce, that's the social networks, but it's also healthcare, it's entertainment, it's food. Alibaba's Hema market is the most amazing thing I've ever seen in China. And so these super apps are a really big deal. And we don't really have anything like them here. And we've always told people the way to think about Tencent is that it's the Facebook of China. That's true. WeChat is the social network, and it's how I talk to my Chinese friends and colleagues, but you can't call Facebook the Tencent of anything because these companies don't really have a US equivalent.

Kevin T. Carter: (24:31)
And you're seeing that spread. There's a lot of super apps now. And again, these are apps that combine lots of different things that we get from discreet, separate apps, but Southeast Asia is where a lot of these super apps are coming together. Sea Limited which trades in the US on the NYC with the ticker SE, is probably the one that's done the best. I think it might be the single best performing stock in the world over the last several years. But this is as a Singapore-listed company or based company operating all over Southeast Asia. And it's a mashup of gaming, of e-commerce and payments. And the FinTech sub story in emerging markets e-commerce is the most powerful as all these people skip the bank account. And it starts with payments. And once you get the money on the phone, then you can get into all sorts of financial services, including investment products, including insurance, and including banking and credit products.

Kevin T. Carter: (25:35)
And because things like Sea Limited sprouted with their gaming business in a place where people didn't have bank accounts, they end up creating their own payments platform, and it becomes the payments platform for these people's entire lives. So Sea Limited is one example. Also in Southeast Asia, you have a fascinating company that's called GoTo, which is a merger of the Indonesian Uber, Gojek and the Indonesian Amazon, Tokopedia. So these two companies, Gojek and Tokopedia are merging, and so you've got the Uber plus the Amazon plus the PayPal, all in one single app. And that's another example.

Kevin T. Carter: (26:24)
And you've got, all over the world, these stories happening. And I was, one of the best examples is last year when the super app of Kazakhstan, COSBY, went public in London. So the smartphone story is happening all over the world. But again, because these people in these markets lack the traditional consumption infrastructure, you're seeing these super apps come together, and it almost always involves some form of a payments application and FinTech.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:58)
John Darsie, with your beautiful sports jacket, go ahead.

John Darsie: (27:02)
Thank you very much. I want to talk about China for a second, Kevin, because I think you have an incredibly deep understanding and nuanced understanding of what's taking place in China. Obviously recently, the headlines have been around China's crack down on their own technology sector, on Alibaba and Jack ma and Ant Group on Tencent, on DiDi, which went public with their listing, despite warnings from China about issues related to data. But Ray Dalio, somebody who I think also has probably a more nuanced and deeper understanding of China than anybody else out there in the marketplace, and he wrote a great piece recently about how, if you truly understand the way China thinks about capitalism and the way they're running their domestic economy, then you can actually understand the pattern of behavior in terms of how they are pushing tech companies in different directions.

John Darsie: (27:52)
So, on one hand, certain people think, "Wow, China, all these crackdowns, they've taken on Chinese tech companies makes it impossible to invest in China with any expectation of what they're going to do with the next great tech company that comes along." But if you really understand the way they operate, maybe you can glean some patterns from their behavior. Could you explain to people who are less familiar with China's thinking, just about why they've made these decisions with the Tencents, the Alibabas of the world, with DiDi, and the way that can inform your investment decisions going forward as it relates to China?

Kevin T. Carter: (28:25)
Sure. Well, I follow Ray's thoughts on China closely. And I'd like to think he's right, because I think they're much more eloquently expressed version of how I feel about this. And I guess, importantly, one thing that I've experienced over the last 16 years focused on China, is that people in the United States, investors that I talk to, have this fear that they've had from the beginning, [inaudible 00:28:59] China time, that the Chinese government is somehow going to essentially steal their money or otherwise cause them to lose whatever they've invested in Chinese companies. And some people have a more detailed fear about the VIE structure, and whether or not that could be canceled, but it's just a general fear, that somehow the Chinese government's going to make me lose all my money because they're communist and they can do that. They can take over Alibaba, they can take over Tencent, and Xi Jinping can make himself the CEO and steal all the money.

Kevin T. Carter: (29:35)
And that fear has been part of my life for 16 years. And I think it's totally unfounded. I think the Chinese government understands capitalism. They've done it and experienced it for the last 30 years to their great benefit. They've benefited from capitalism more than anybody else in the world, probably, for the last 30 years. And, and they're smart people, and many of their leaders went to our best colleges, and some of them taught at our best colleges, and I think they understand that.

Kevin T. Carter: (30:09)
And I think that's, when I listened to Charlie Munger or Ray, talk about this, that's the one thing that I think sort of the commonality, that these people aren't out to steal all your money. Now, they do have to regulate, and this is not a China issue, this is a global issue of governments grappling with big technology. And it's on the front page of our newspapers pretty much every week. And last month you had the CEO of Apple, in a courtroom, six miles over my shoulder defending potential monopoly practices. You've got Google seemingly under assault from everybody and paying fines left and right of hundreds of millions and billions of dollars.

Kevin T. Carter: (30:55)
So all over the world, governments are battling to regulate technology for the benefit of their people and to make sure laws are being enforced. And that's the same thing that's happening in China. But China has one I think important difference, which I think is an advantage, but unfortunately it leads to people in the United States, investors in the United States looking at it as, "Oh, my gosh, my worst fears are coming true. The Chinese government is going to steal all my money and make my stock worthless."

Kevin T. Carter: (31:28)
And that advantage is speed. And if you look at the way they handled the antitrust issues and the FinTech rules at Alibaba, I think they did the right thing. And I think they had to do what they did. And it wasn't surprising particularly on the anti-monopoly issues because Alibaba and Tencent have blatantly done things that are anti-competitive. And you have to put this in perspective though. We've had antitrust laws in the United States for 120 years, and they've been refined a few times along the way, but China's had them for 13 years and Alibaba and Tencent were well into their lives and operating before they even had regulations.

Kevin T. Carter: (32:13)
So I think, those first two, because really in this series of the crackdown on the Chinese tech companies, it started in November with the Ant Group IPO pull, and the subsequent week they announced the anti-monopoly issues. And both of those issues got basically dealt with in April. And there's some follow-up and some fines they'll get paid and some rules changed, but the speed with which they were able to address both the FinTech rules and the banking part of that in particular, with Alibaba and antitrust rules, they did that in five months. They basically pulled the emergency brake, and did their repairs, and then push the start button and off they went. And in the United States that would have taken years, and had lobbying, and special interest groups, and hearings. And so I think that the first two parts of the regulatory story I thought was good. And actually to me showed some of the advantages they have.

Kevin T. Carter: (33:16)
What happened in July was sort of a debacle and China has got egg on its face. The regulators do just as the DiDi management does and the investment bankers that took them public. And I think that the biggest and most jarring part of the July happenings was when they basically pushed the nuclear button and the turn, or said that the for-profit education-

John Darsie: (33:45)
They deleted it from the app store.

Kevin T. Carter: (33:47)
Well, they pulled DiDi from the app store, that wasn't so troubling, but the canceling of the for-profit education sector, that was the first time in 16 years, that this fear that people had, that China's going to steal my money or otherwise I'm going to lose the value of my equity because of the Chinese government, it happened and, or at least the closest thing to it happened with New Oriental and the education companies. And so the panic that followed was not surprising to me, but I think all of it and all of the fear is way overdone at this point.

John Darsie: (34:27)
Why did they make that decision related to for-profit education, and there are other sectors or areas that you can learn from that decision that they made to avoid those types of situations in the future?

Kevin T. Carter: (34:39)
Well, the reason they addressed it is because it was a real problem, and the people, it was a pain point for the people of China. The Chinese government serves the people of China and there are so many problems with what was going on there with a for-profit education. And just the Chinese culture has revered education for thousands of years, going back to the time of Confucius. And there's a reason why our top universities are heavily populated by Chinese students, that have gotten very good grades and test scores. It's because they study and they study in a competitive way basically. And you've got 75% of the Chinese school children are doing school after they get home from school, and doing school on the weekends, and extra tutoring, and it's expensive. And again, we have a student debt problem here, and China's people were taking on debt to fund this education on top of education.

Kevin T. Carter: (35:48)
And one of the things that demographically that is important to understand about the school-aged children in China today, is there's an incredible amount of pressure that's multi-generational on them, because these children, they have four grandparents, two sets, they have two parents, and then they're the hope of the future and the embodiment of all of the dreams of all of these six people above them from the two previous generations. And how they do on the college exam, the Gaokao, it's their whole lives. And they spend years plotting it, and planning for it, and testing, and studying. And then they take that test, and then their lives largely will be shaped by how well they do, and do they get into college?

Kevin T. Carter: (36:41)
And it's become unhealthy, and it's become, with the Chinese citizen, a very significant pain point. And that pain boiled over last year, when there was a woman in Shandan who took the test 16 years ago. And she was actually one of two children in her family, but her parents, people don't always understand that in China, you can have two children, even during the one child policy, but only one of them can go to school and get other social services. And this particular woman was the child of farmers. And she had an older brother, but they had decided that did she ought to get the education because she was more academically inclined. And so four years, her parents and grandparents supported her education. And she sat for the exam 16 years ago, hoping to go to Shandan Tech. And she took the test and waited for the results. And back then, if you were accepted at the university, you got an acceptance letter, but if you failed the test and didn't get accepted, you didn't get a rejection letter. And she waited for her letter.

Kevin T. Carter: (37:54)
And through the summer, it never came and dejected. In the fall, she left and as a disappointment to her whole clan and went to the city and became a waitress. And 16 years later, she decided she should get some adult education at the functional equivalent of a community college in which she went to register, and they said, "Well, you've already graduated from Shandan Tech 12 years ago." And she said, no, I didn't. And they said, "Yes, you did. You're right here in the computer." And it turned out that she had in fact been accepted, but that somebody with more money had stolen her identity and stolen her acceptance letter at the post office. And she was one of hundreds of children whose lives had been basically stolen from them by people with more money. And that was a big problem. This particular episode, really highlighted what was wrong.

Kevin T. Carter: (38:51)
And this shouldn't have been too big, a surprise. She himself in March talked about the problems in this online education, private tutoring business. So I was surprised that they pushed the button and made them non-profit at least for the core curriculum. And I understand why that embodied everybody's worst fears about China. And that's why we had the market activity, we had a couple weeks ago on Tuesday when everybody was running around with their hair on fire. So I understand the fear.

Kevin T. Carter: (39:25)
In terms of damage, we have 0.05% exposure to the online education business. So it crushed the price, but the fundamentals were largely unaffected by really any of these regulatory issues.

John Darsie: (39:42)
So when it comes to China, obviously in financial markets, you have to pay for growth, something we'll talk about in a second, but these macro worries from people with a less nuanced understanding of why China's doing the things they're doing within their tech sector have made valuation certainly cheaper. Is there some type of max pain signal that you're looking at in China to potentially ramp up incremental allocations to Chinese companies?

Kevin T. Carter: (40:09)
Well, we buy and hold all of the emerging market internet companies, and that happens to be heavily weighted towards China. And in terms of the max fear point, the max pain point, I'm not sure when that will be, but I think it may have been Tuesday of the week before last, when I had never, in my 28 years, other than the Lehman period, which was a problem for the whole world in the real economy, I had never seen as much fear as I did on, I think, July 27th. And it was the morning after, the day after Stephen Roach had said he was concerned as a long time bull, he was even worried about China. And people were running around with their hair on fire.

Kevin T. Carter: (40:59)
And even before I read A Random Walk Down Wall Street, people told me, buy fear and sell greed. And I had never seen as much fear as I did that last week of July. And it could get worse, I suppose, maybe Xi Jinping really does want to steal the internet and maybe Jack Ma is missing, but I don't think that's true. And so I think you're supposed to buy fear and we still haven't, maybe it'll get more intense. But the 27th of July felt like the most intense fear I've ever felt, not myself, but around me.

John Darsie: (41:38)
Yeah, exactly. I want to go away from China and a little bit around the world. India is a country that fairly soon, it'll overtake China in terms of the leader in global population, but it doesn't get nearly as much fanfare. It doesn't have nearly the weight, in your ETF, for example, as China does. But there are some very exciting companies in India, both private that are in the IPO Pipeline and public companies now. What's the investment climate today in India? What's the pace of innovation? And what are some Indian companies that you're most excited about investing in?

Kevin T. Carter: (42:15)
Sure. Well, just to put it in perspective, we invest in all emerging and frontier markets. China is, in every way, the most advanced economy in the world digitally, and its e-commerce market is more than half of the Globe's e-commerce market. And that's why it's the largest weight in our offering. And if you look at it, the Chinese e-commerce market is four times as large as every other emerging markets internet market combined. So it is well above everything else.

Kevin T. Carter: (42:53)
Now, the next frontier of the emerging markets internet space is India. Certainly the largest part of that. And that's where the growth opportunity is the greatest. And they're coming, but it'll never catch China. China is so far ahead that certainly not in my lifetime will India catch China, but the growth rate there will be the highest. And there's a huge pipeline of Indian IPO's and they're coming fast. We had Zomato, the food delivery app come public last week. We've got Paytm, which is the Berkshire Hathaway backs FinTech leader in India getting ready to come public. We've got Flipkart, which Walmart controls. That's the largest e-commerce company in India. It will come public. And then perhaps next year we'll have Reliance Industries IPO, their geo digital super app business, which I think, if I was going to bet, that will be the dominant super app in India.

Kevin T. Carter: (43:54)
So India has got a ton of opportunity. It's got a lot of companies coming public, and the next 18 months could see as many as 15 or 20 Indian internet companies come public. And people should be excited about it, because it's coming off of a very low base with a large population. You still have 900 million people in India that don't have a smartphone, which means you have 900 million people without a computer or the internet, but that's changing very fast.

John Darsie: (44:24)
Right. Let's go to Latin America for a second. So you talked about a company like Mercado Libre that's been on fire over the last several years in Latin America, different characteristics than places like Southeast Asia or a place like India. What is the climate there right now for investing, and particularly in technology, which is an area that you're keenly focused on? And what does the IPO Pipeline look like in Latin America?

Kevin T. Carter: (44:48)
Well, it looks good. And Latin America's e-commerce penetration rates are a fraction of Asia's, and Mercado Libre is the leader. Mercado Libre technically, it's an Argentinian company, so on fact sheets and other things you'll see Argentina listed. But it really dominates both e-commerce and payments in every country, from Mexico all the way down through Argentina, with Brazil being the largest market followed by Mexico. And, in particular, it was a great example of the FinTech story. And it's what really drove the stocks incredible returns of the last several years, it was the strength of their FinTech business. And it's also a company that's a good example of another problem with traditional indexing. Mercado Libre is not in the Vanguard or iShares emerging market fund. And about half of these companies are not included. So you get, if you buy a, the traditional approach to indexing in emerging markets, you get Petrobras, the Brazilian corrupt oil company twice, but you don't get the Brazilian e-commerce leader, Mercado Libre. So that's the biggest of the companies.

Kevin T. Carter: (46:04)
But you've got Uruguay has a public company now, dLocal, that we'll add in our next rebalance. You've got the world's biggest online bank in Brazil, Nubank, which will come public likely in the next year. They just raised $500 million from my heroes in Omaha, Berkshire Hathaway. And that's an online only bank that now is half the size account wise as Wells Fargo. And Berkshire Hathaway is also an investor in StoneCo, which is a NASDAQ listed FinTech company out of Brazil. So there's a lot of entrepreneurs in that part of the world and the US institutional investors are backing them, including, as mentioned Berkshire Hathaway. So lots going on there.

Kevin T. Carter: (46:55)
And, I guess the other thing I would say when we talk about South America and having just talked about China and the China regulatory risks, everything's relative in the world. And you say, "Okay, well, I don't trust the Chinese government, so, okay, well, what else do we have in emerging markets?" You've got Putin in Russia, you've got the last two presidents of Brazil went to prison for basically stealing your money if you're investing in the broad indexes. So everything's relative in the world, and these other regions have political risk as well, and they also have regulatory risks. But China just happens to be a bit more advanced in all things.

John Darsie: (47:31)
Right. Switching gears a little bit, I talked about, a core tenet of investing is that you have to pay for growth. Things like P/E ratios and I know you look at something like the PEG ratio, which is looking at price to earnings in the context of growth rate, but you talked about how China's e-commerce and internet-based economy is much more robust than it is in places like India or Latin America or elsewhere in emerging markets, but how expensive is the growth that you're paying for generally in emerging markets right now, relative to what you're seeing in the US or developed markets? And in which markets are you able to most inexpensively access what you deem to be really exciting growth?

Kevin T. Carter: (48:13)
Well, I think you're absolutely right. The only ratio I care about is the P/E versus the growth rate. And I like to use the revenue growth rate for a couple of reasons. A, it's your purest form of growth. You can grow earnings with declining revenue by share, buybacks and so forth. And also you have what's now widely accepted model, which is to get big and not worry about profits until you're really, really big, all of Amazon. So I look at the P/E over the revenue growth. And the valuations right now at this particular group of companies, the EMQQ index has a PEG ratio of about 0.68, 0.69, and that's half the PEG ratio of the US tech leaders. And it's about a third the PEG ratio of the S&P 500. And so, after this big decline, I'm pounding the table. I think valuations are very reasonable.

Kevin T. Carter: (49:14)
The Chinese part of that story, which is the largest part, is the cheapest right now for obvious reasons. The fear has led to very, I think, attractive multiple. So I think that China's probably the cheapest part right now. But the non-China part, the next frontier, which is the 35% that's India, Brazil, Nigeria, et cetera, it's PEG ratio is about, one, it's growth rates higher, but the PEG ratios are, I think, quite attractive. And I launched this, EMQQ, seven years ago. I did it when a friend of mine asked me what was the best emerging markets ETF for her daughter's college fund. So a three-year-olds, 15-year time horizon, and I thought based on the valuations that this sector was the best way to get that exposure. And even after our big decline, we're still number one by a decent amount out of everybody in the emerging markets.

Kevin T. Carter: (50:22)
And right now with valuations, I think that we'll be in the same place five years from now because the PEG ratio is very attractive. And I think that the valuations will take a permanent hit from the current recent debacle, enough people will run away and not come back. But in the short term, as we say in Omaha, the market's a voting machine, but in the long-term, it's a scale. And what goes on the scale is the cash in the cash register at the end of the day.

John Darsie: (50:53)
Amen. Well, that's a good place for us to finish. Again, thank you for coming on Kevin T. Carter of EMQQ. Again, it's the number one emerging markets ETF over both a three and five-year time horizon out of, I believe around 57 funds over the shorter timeframe and about 46 that have been around over a five-year timeframe, focused on innovation in internet and e-commerce primarily. Again, EMQQ, Kevin, thanks so much for joining us. Anthony, do you have a final word for Kevin before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:21)
No, listen, I only wish I had met Kevin 20 years ago. I wanted to be in the room where it happened in the meeting with him and Dean Malkiel, putting this thing together. So congratulations to you, Kevin, and I'm looking forward to the next 20 years. I'm hoping that we can do a lot of fun things together.

Kevin T. Carter: (51:39)
I share your sentiments, lovely to meet you guys, both.

John Darsie: (51:43)
And Kevin, we're also excited to have you at our in-person SALT Conference this fall, which we're looking forward to you giving this presentation to our community in person, which we're thrilled to be bringing those events back. So look forward to seeing you then. And thank you everybody who is both attending SALT this fall, and everybody who tuned into this SALT Talk. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode, you can access an on-demand on our website. It's salt.org/talks, and on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT too.

John Darsie: (52:12)
We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at SALT Conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well, streaming some of these episodes there. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks. We think, especially with the recent drawdown that we've seen in China and emerging markets, we don't give investment recommendations, but it's certainly a compelling time to look at continuing to diversify your portfolio, and as Kevin mentioned, some of the valuations in emerging markets in terms of what you're paying for growth are particularly attractive right now.

John Darsie: (52:40)
But on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Ronald Cohen: Driving Change with Impact Investing | SALT Talks #246

“The force of impact transparency through technology and big data is going to shift our economies from creating problems our governments try to solve with taxes to businesses delivering solutions while making profits.”

Sir Ronald Cohen is Chairman of the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment and The Portland Trust. He is a co-founder director of Social Finance UK, USA, and Israel, and co-founder Chair of Bridges Fund Management and Big Society Capital.

He is the author of 'IMPACT: Reshaping capitalism to drive real change,’ published by Penguin Random House in 2020, which became a Wall Street Journal Bestseller. His previous book 'The Second Bounce of the Ball,' published in 2007, was described by the Financial Times as “one of the best books written on entrepreneurship in recent years.״

In this episode, Sir Ronald Cohen discusses the growth of ESG and impact investing and its role in addressing some of the world’s biggest challenges. He explains how technology and big data enable impact transparency so consumers and investors can understand the full scope of a company’s ESG impact. Cohen envisions more business models where economic efficiencies align with maximum positive impact. 

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot.png

Sir Ronald Cohen

Chairman

Global Steering Group for Impact Investment

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

2:49 - Growth of ESG

5:44 - Measuring impact investments

9:38 - Investing transformations among younger generations

11:07 - Impact transparency via technology and big data

14:30 - Addressing intractable global conflict via impact investing

16:17 - Impact investing and climate change

19:02 - Impact unicorns

21:57 - Pressure on fossil fuel companies from institutional investors

23:14 - Aligning impact with economic efficiency

25:27 - Long-term effects of COVID

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global Thought Leadership Forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these 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 there's no bigger idea in our opinion, in the investment management world today than the idea of ESG investing, which can take on many forms. But our guest today is going to talk in-depth about concrete steps that we can take to measure and implement both social and environmental friendly investing and business operations as well.

John Darsie: (01:02)
And our guest is Sir Ronald Cohen. He's a pioneering philanthropist, a venture capitalist, private equity investor and social innovator. He serves today as the Chairman of the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment, which is the Impact-Weighted Accounts Initiative at Harvard Business School and the Portland Trust. He is a co-founder and the former executive chairman of Apax Partners worldwide, which is a global private equity firm. He's also a co-founder of Social Finance UK, USA and Israel. And co-founder and chair of Bridges Fund Management, and the former co-founding chair of Big Society Capital.

John Darsie: (01:39)
Ronnie was born in Egypt, but left as a refugee at the age of 11 when his family came to the UK. Today, he's based in Tel Aviv, London and New York. He's also the author of a fantastic book called, Impact: Reshaping Capitalism to Drive Real Change, which was published in 2020 by Penguin Random House. And it's also a Wall Street Journal bestseller.

John Darsie: (02:01)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the Founder and Managing Partner at SkyBridge Capital, which is 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: (02:14)
Ron, thank you so much for being on with us. I know John's got a series of questions for you as well. I'm going to start with something that troubles me philosophically, and maybe you can help me through it. And it's related to the government and the private sector, recognizing that there is a problem and yet, for some reason we are not coordinated as a group to solve the problem. And so, how can we tap the financial markets to harness innovation and steer social change, which is the premise of what you're writing about?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (02:49)
So, Anthony, it's great pleasure to be here with you. And John, you come from the financial business and you understand it deeply. The financial capital markets have already cottoned on that the world is changing. We have $40 to $70 trillion of environmental, social and governance capital. That's flowing to achieve more than just profit. We've never had that before in history. We're talking of something that's equivalent to half or more of all professionally managed assets in the world.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (03:36)
And it is this flow of capital which was spurred into action by the changing preferences of consumers and [inaudible 00:03:45] to longer wanted to buy the products of companies that are polluting or to work for them. That got investors to shape investment flows and put pressure now on governments, through their regulators, to bring transparency to the impacts that investments create. So that is how the link between government and the private market is going to happen.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:19)
I don't want to sound pessimistic. But I feel somewhat pessimistic about all of this because we all know what the problems are. And yet we don't see that linkage. So, where is the catalyst for that?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (04:36)
Okay. So the catalyst is this coming from the valuations that are being placed on stock exchanges. If you look at the Harvard data that I have been involved in putting together at the Impact-Weighted Accounts Initiative at Harvard Business School, you can already see, Anthony, a correlation between higher levels of pollution and lower stock market values within several sectors. So investors are shunning the companies that are creating big environmental issues today. And that is what is driving this change. That's why you are seeing companies now beginning to take this whole issue of impact seriously.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:31)
So tell somebody that's not familiar with the term common impact accounting and those reporting standards. Tell them, or tell all of us what they are.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (05:44)
Okay. So we've all assumed that we can measure very little in the environmental or social area. And that we can't measure impacts in the way that we measure profit. The world's changed, Anthony. That was true a decade ago, but it's no longer true. With the massive data that is available now, that companies have made public about their carbon emissions, their water usage, their employment practices. And with the ability of computing to gather and sort through this data.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (06:24)
We can now take the tons of carbon that a company puts into the atmosphere as a result of its operations. And we can see on the Harvard Business School site, 3,000 companies' environmental impact. For the first time, you can see that 450 of these companies create more environmental damage than profits. That 1000 of them create environmental damage equivalent to a quarter of their profit. That together they create $4 trillion worth of environmental damage in a single year, right? And this is putting a completely different perspective on making investment decisions. Because if the level of damage is going to affect the stock market valuation of the company, then management's going to want to deal with it.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (07:22)
And what is also a major breakthrough, Anthony, in answering your question, is our ability to measure the employment impact of companies. We will soon be publishing 2000 companies' employment impact in dollar terms. You'll be able to look at the cost of diversity to the excluded communities. You'll be able to look at Apple's wage bill of 7 billion and say there's a $2.7 billion negative charge because of lack of diversity. And if you compare it with Costco, while Costco employs twice as many people, 160,000, but it only has $1 billion negative charge.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (08:09)
So when you then add to that [inaudible 00:08:14] and you can measure the sugar content of a product, then you can quantify the impact on health, process a lot of science about it, and express it in dollar terms. Or, you can measure the fiber content and you can put the positive value that that has in terms of health. You can begin to see that is a whole form of impact accounting now, which is going to be based on impact accounting principles like the GAAP accounting, that we're all used to in doing financial markets, and these numbers are going to be audited like financial numbers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:55)
Okay. It's very helpful. And it's also very encouraging. I have millennial children. And my very popular co-anchor here, John Darsie, happens to be a millennial. And some people pick on the millennials. They talk down to them, but not me. I actually think that these are some of the brightest people. And I think this is a very encouraging generation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:20)
And what influence do you think they're going to have in terms of allocating capital, the transparency issue that you talk about, the impact transparency, where we can see what companies are doing? How do you think the younger people and the millennials in particular are going to drive change or create [crosstalk 00:09:37]?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (09:38)
So, like the tech revolution, the impact revolution was started by millennials and then Gen Z that follows them. So they were the ones who started [crosstalk 00:09:49].

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:48)
I have some of those too, Ronnie. I have a couple of Gen Z or [inaudible 00:09:51] kids too. I got a whole collection.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (09:54)
People don't realize that millennials and Gen Z today represent 60%, 6, 0% of the US workforce. This is no longer the minority view, the views of millennials. And they're the ones who stopped buying certain products from certain companies. And they're also the ones who are going to inherit a ton of money, which was made by their parents. And that they are beginning to influence the investment market, having influenced the market for product. And so, I think the values of this generation is one of the three major forces that are transforming our world for the better.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:46)
You've been working on this a long time. And you've seen a lot of things over the course of your career, and it's impossible to predict the future. But I want you to make a case for 2031. It's 10 years from now in our civilization, what does it look like, sir?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (11:07)
So we're going to find the different shopping. We're going to be using an app which gives us the environmental and social impact of the product we are buying and the company that brought it to our shelves.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (11:25)
If we're sitting in the boardroom, we're going to be managing our business according to the profit we make and the impact that we deliver. We're going to realize that if we're delivering negative impact and negative profit, we're done for. But if we're delivering profit and negative impact, we're going to be done for too. Because investors aren't going to buy our shares.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (11:58)
And so I believe that this force of changing values, the force of technology that enables us to deliver impact through artificial intelligence, machine learning, augmented reality, the genome and computing coming together and finally, the force of impact transparency through technology and big data. Those forces are going to shift our whole economies, Anthony, from creating problems that governments then trying to solve by taxing everyone, to bringing business to deliver solutions as it delivers profits.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:43)
When you think about ESG and the focus effectively is on eliminating harmful outcomes, what would it mean to you to actively focus on creating good outcomes? So we have two things going on at once. How do you create the second?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (13:05)
Excellent question. The answer is impact transparency. If governments through their regulators, because they want every investor to get the same price sensitive information at the same time on their comparable basis, mandate that every company starting 3 years from now must publish impact-weighted financial accounts, which are audited like financial accounts are, it will enable investors to distinguish between those that are minimizing the harm they do and those that are bringing solutions to the big problems we face. And the money at the end of the day, is going to go to those who know how to deliver the maximum profit and positive impact at the same time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:58)
Let's talk about global conflict for a second. We've got the hotspots still in the world, in the middle east parts of Africa, and there's also major pockets of poverty still in our societies. How can we solve those intractable issues, which would include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also extremism that we find in Africa?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (14:30)
It's a very big question. And every conflict obviously is different in kind. But if you look at the Irish conflict, it gives you the beginning of an answer for conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian one and many others. The solution that brought Ireland to the Good Friday Agreement involved cutting the flow of money to the terrorists and inverted commas, "from the other side's point of view," terrorist organizations, so that they no longer had the supply of arms. It also involved a rising economic path. Because of Ireland entry into the European union, which made the Northern Irish look less suspiciously at the Southern Irish. All of a sudden they were prospered. There is an economic interest in cooperation. There was less fear that they were trying to grab what you've got. And so I think the simple answer to your question is we have to work on three dimensions of every conflict. Not just the political one and the security one, but the economic one, too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:58)
We're starting to see more technology in the impetus to remove carbon from the atmosphere. That's happening. How promising is the recent innovations addressing climate change? And are we seeing a willingness for energy companies to focus on these issues?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (16:15)
Two very important questions. We're certainly seeing a huge amount of money going into clean fuel technologies or carbon absorption technologies. And the phase of technological innovation is accelerating all the time. So our ability to bring solutions is vastly greater than it was three decades ago when the tech revolution was getting underway.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (16:50)
But what is going to drive the push for technology is the pressure on the incumbents today to shift their models. For instance, look at fossil fuel. If you look at the Harvard Business Group data, you can see that ExxonMobil delivers $39 billion of environmental damage in a year from its operations. Its environmental footprint, as it's called. You can compare it with Shell, the figure's 23 billion a year. You compare it with BP, it's 14 billion a year. So you already see leaders and laggards within the same sector. And so at the same time, ExxonMobil's share price falls by 2/3 in three years. You look across the way of Tesla, which is trying to shift us away from pollution through electric vehicles, and the share price multiply seven times in a single year.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (17:56)
So the power of financial markets today to drive technological advance both by the incumbents and through the venture capital industry and entrepreneurship, is going to be, what's going to bring this second disruption, this impact disruption. This time aided by technology to change the business models of many industries in the way that Tesla has changed the business model of the automobile industry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:30)
This is an impossible question. But this will be my last one before I turn it over to John Darsie who has a series of questions as well. And it's about the unicorns of the future.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:41)
What are we going to see as investors in terms of emerging technologies related to impact investing? Is there a Uber or a Google, a SpaceX out there that's in the process of being formulated today that we need to be aware of or keep our eyes on?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (19:02)
There definitely are. My definition of impact unicorn in my book is a venture that is worth $1 billion, and improves the lives of 1 billion people. And I think that's what the millennial and Gen Z, the generations are looking for. Whether they're working for a big business or whether they are entrepreneurs.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (19:31)
You look at fields like education today. Our ability to educate people by digital means enables us in essence, to give some people, a free education that they pay for after their earnings, when they've got into their job, after they'd been educated. They're going to be models like that. There're already are some startups like that, that they've got going. And they're arising by the way, everywhere or across the world. They're going to revolutionize our approach to education.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (20:11)
Telehealth. I don't need to tell you how Telehealth has grown the impact of COVID. We are going to see remote diagnosis. We're going to see remote treatment. We're going to see new technologies come in to give us much faster testing. We've learned our lesson with testing, through COVID in difficulty in getting testing going fast enough. It's something we can't afford to do when there's another epidemic. So, we're going to begin to see giant opportunities in many sectors coming from this delivery of risk, return and impact.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:01)
John Darsie, what do you got to say?

John Darsie: (21:04)
You asked a lot of great questions, Anthony. But I have a couple of follow-ups. Sir Ronnie, if you don't mind? You talked about Exxon...

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:11)
Sir Ron, if he asks a good question, I don't want you to say, "Good question," though, okay? I want you to just stay... I had the good questions. Okay. Go ahead, Darsie.

John Darsie: (21:20)
You talked about Exxon, Sir Ronnie, which I think is a fascinating case where Engine No.1, it's a small hedge fund that we have a relationship with, and we're looking forward to welcoming on SALT Talk soon. They won a proxy fight with a very modest amount of resources with Exxon trying to drive more urgency around their climate issues. Do you think you'll see more activism and more pressure put on these energy companies from whether it's hedge funds or government entities or things like that to accelerate what they're doing in terms of carbon capture and limiting their environmental impact?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (21:59)
Undoubtedly, John. Undoubtedly. The conversations I've been having suggest that there're already 200 motions have been tabled on both environmental and social issues. For shareholders, the meeting's coming up. Activist funds are getting, going. But they're not doing it alone in the ExxonMobil case. BlackRock came in alongside Engine No.1 as you well know. And so it is part of the pressure that is being exercised by investors today that is transforming itself into this open impact revolution that I write about.

John Darsie: (22:41)
Right. And you talk a lot in your books and in your commentary about how the idea of profit and impact are not mutually exclusive, that actually investing in impact drives returns. What are some concrete ways? And you talk about this in your book in a very, I think lucid way, that with a business, whether it's a manufacturing business or a services business, what are ways specifically that investing for impact actually does drive enhance productivity and enhance efficiency within the business?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (23:14)
So I gave you an example in the area of education. That you have a model where you're enabling people in remote corners of the world to get qualifications as coders or other vocational areas, or even university degrees, and they're only paying for it afterwards. And you make a profit out of that. The more impact you deliver, the more profit you deliver. If you look at FinTech platforms that begin to assess the credit worthiness of a potential borrower for a consumer loan, on the basis of their usage of their firm, instead of looking at their bank account. Because they don't have one. The more credits you deliver, the more profit you will make.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (24:07)
If you look at pharmaceutical companies, it's great to have a breakthrough cancer treatment. But if it costs $300,000 a year to administer, how many people could afford it? And so you only invested in a company which has a cancer treatment, that costs $20,000 or less. And so I think what's going to become the rule, John, is these great impact business models are going to involve distributing products very widely, at lower prices to help more vulnerable populations. And it gives you a bigger market and potentially a bigger profit than if you stay at the premium high price end of the market with a very narrow client base.

John Darsie: (25:01)
Right. And let's talk about COVID-19 for a second. So we've seen a short-term impact on emissions, for example, because of reduced business travel, reduced commuting into offices and things like that, do you think there's going to be a long-term benefit or impact from COVID-19 in terms of emissions that we can sort of build off of as we sort of remake the way we operate business and operate our societies?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (25:27)
I certainly think that COVID has shaken up a lot of our beliefs and habits, John. And we'll get back to some of them. We're not going to go back to others, or at least not in the same extent. And the question that you asked about travel is a very important one. Here we are having a perfectly intelligible interview to thousands of people, or could be hundreds of thousands of people. And neither of us has had to jump on a plane in order for us to have this conversation. We're going to see that replicated.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (26:10)
But I think COVID is going to have a much deeper effect too. It's somehow strengthened the feeling that we're all in the same boat. We can't live this COVID crisis by just looking at ourselves and our neighborhoods, nor as our cities only, nor are countries now, or even our continents. And I think that feeling of greater solidarity connects with the millennial and Gen Z values that we were talking about.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (26:44)
And so I think COVID will have strengthened hugely the attraction of impact investing and will hopefully bring our governments, whether it be the US, so Biden Administration or the EU or the British Government to realize that impact transparency is now a human rights. We all have the right to know, not just what profit companies are making, but what good and what harm they're creating. And governments owe it to us to provide this transparency because investors, apart from anything else, investors are demanding it and they're not getting it today.

John Darsie: (27:33)
We're going to leave it right there on a positive note. That we can turn this unfortunate situation with all the suffering and death that we've experienced around the world from COVID and try to turn it into a positive and come together to solve some of these intractable issues that you write so eloquently about in your book, Sir Ronnie, and in all of your commentary. Keep up the good fight. Thank you for everything that you're doing, and hopefully we get to see you in person. It's great to see you on Zoom, but we'd love to see you in person soon.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (28:00)
Likewise, thank you very much, John and Anthony, of course.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:01)
Thank you, Ron.

John Darsie: (28:06)
Thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with the great Sir Ronald Cohen. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this SALT Talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website on demand@SALT.org/talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. Please also follow us on social media. We're most active on Twitter @SALTConference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks. On behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT Team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Sergey Young: Longevity Investing | SALT Talks #245

“There are so many ethical tradeoffs we need to solve before we embrace the idea of radical longevity. We have created the science and technology to extend our lives while we haven’t created the life we want to extend.”

Sergey Young is a longevity investor and visionary with a mission to extend healthy lifespans of one billion people. To do that, Sergey founded Longevity Vision Fund to accelerate life extension technological breakthroughs and to make longevity affordable and accessible to all.

Sergey is on the Board of Directors of the American Federation of Aging Research (AFAR) and the Development Sponsor of AGE REVERSAL XPRIZE global competition designed to cure aging. Sergey is also a Top-100 Longevity Leader, who is transforming the world, one workplace at a time, with Longevity@Work – the first non-profit corporate longevity program of its kind.

Sergey Young discusses his Longevity Investment Fund, dedicated to the advancement of anti-aging and longevity research. As written in his latest book Growing Young, He lays out five buckets of behavior that contribute to living a longer and healthier life and predicts where the biggest healthcare transformations will come from. While longevity technology is rapidly advancing, Young stresses the importance of addressing ethical issues like inequality and humans’ impact on the planet if people are going to live longer.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Sergey Young.jpeg

Sergey Young

Founder

Longevity Vision Fund

HOOKE3647.width-250.jpg

Dr. Dina Radenkovic

Partner

SALT Bio Fund

TIMESTAMPS

00:00 - Intro

03:40 - Longevity Vision Fund

20:19 - Longevity practices- five buckets

29:17 - Health data sharing and innovation

35:57 - Ethical considerations around longevity

49:45 - Building awareness and education around longevity

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 talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume here in the fall of 2021, in our home city of New York. But that'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: (00:45)
And we're very excited to bring you the latest in our series of conversations about healthcare and biotechnology with the great Sergey Young. Sergey is a longevity investor and visionary, with a mission to extend healthy lifespans of one billion people. To do that, Sergey founded the Longevity Vision Fund to accelerate life extension, technological breakthroughs and to make longevity affordable and accessible to all. Now Sergey is on the board of directors of the American Federation of Aging and Research, and the development sponsor of Age Reversal XPRIZE global foundation competition designed to cure aging. Sergey is also a top 100 longevity leader who is transforming the world one workplace at a time with longevity at work, which is the first nonprofit corporate longevity program of its kind.

John Darsie: (01:35)
Sergey has been featured as a top longevity expert and contributor on CNN, Fox News, and Forbes. He's the author of several books, including most recently The Science and Technology of Growing Young, a fantastic read that we would highly recommend that you pick up if you're interested in the subject matter. He's also the mastermind behind the online life extension platform sergeyyoung.com. Now Sergey is passionate about sharing news from the exciting world of longevity, and definitely a premier thought leader in that space. Hosting today's talk to somebody who also knows a lot about longevity research, that's Dr. Dina Radenkovic, who's a partner at the SALT Fund, which recently raised a fund to invest in early stage programmable biology companies, which we're very excited to launch. Dr. Dina, thank you so much for joining us. I'll let you take it from here.

Dina Radenkovic: (02:26)
Thank you John, and Sergey excited to have you on our SALT talks.

Sergey Young: (02:30)
Hi John, hi Dina, hi everyone, I'm very excited to be here with you today.

Dina Radenkovic: (02:36)
Well, I mean, congratulations on the new book, it's a big achievement, and it managed to cover quite a lot in this field of longevity. When is it coming out? Tell us a bit more about that.

Sergey Young: (02:46)
Yeah it was a lot of fun, at least for the last three years. It's going to be published in August 24th, and we are already number one in three categories on Amazon, longevity, aging and preventive medicine. So I'm very proud even one month before the book launch.

Dina Radenkovic: (03:03)
And well we hope that success has its own longevity, and that it maintains post the book launch as well, we have no doubts about that. So, could you maybe tell us a bit more about your book in the project? We've seen, I guess, a bit increased interest in the field and several textbooks, including for example, David Sinclair's book, have tried to explain perhaps the science behind it. Certain books like the one from Peter Diamandis, trying to focus on the new technologies that will enable the science to be delivered. Where would you rate your book? Could you give us a bit more of a flavor while we wait to get the hard copy?

Sergey Young: (03:40)
Yeah. So Longevity Vision Fund is one of the few longevity focused funds in the world. And at certain point in time, we were like the largest font in the world which is 100% focus on longevity. This is not to say how great we are, this is to say that the space and a field of longevity is just right in the beginning of its growth. And, through my work in the fund, we're looking at 200 different companies a year, which are in the field of science and technology of living longer, and then the digital health. And I thought, this is what I can share with the world. We have a lot of books with scientific background, more kind of scientific view, but not a lot of books which talk about different technologies, which going to transform our ability and give us more optionality in terms of our lifespan and health span.

Dina Radenkovic: (04:41)
Fascinating. So it's basically like a massive overview for everyone who's interested in this field of longevity and to see what's coming up. And you mentioned your fund, and obviously we want to focus on the new content of the book but, you were one of the visionaries and you definitely had the temerity to go into this field of aging, which is evolving, and it's attracting more people, and it's proving its value. But can you tell us a bit more about raising and setting up that fund? You were one of the first people to set up 100 million funds solely focused on longevity and, how did you define the investments? What was your experience there of setting up a solely longevity focus fund, and putting it in the name as well?

Sergey Young: (05:22)
Yeah. So it's been pretty difficult road. Well the good news, I've been investing for last 20 years. So in fact, I have so many full time jobs, including the job of being loving husband and father of four kids, similar to some of us on this call. And so obviously it's all went through the experience, the outcome, and the failures, and successes that I've made through my private equity investment history. So right now I'm managing multi billion dollar private equity portfolio. So in a way, it was easy. But, what was difficult is to realize that longevity is an investment tail, it's so immature, it's almost like an orphan for huge institutions.

Sergey Young: (06:11)
And having said that, I thought if I want to support the space, if I want to give a kind of help to entrepreneurs and a scientist who's going to bring in more solutions for us to be healthy in this world, I'll just set up like a small fund, rather than reading news and books, I just wanted to write my own book in terms of investments metaphorically speaking. So I thought, I'll just set up $50 million fund. So then I met one of my investors, so I raised 50 million in the first five minutes. And I'm insecure overachiever, I couldn't really appreciate something which has been given to me like in five minutes, and I think it sounds very familiar to some of our audience, so I immediately raised the bar.

Sergey Young: (07:03)
I said, okay, it shouldn't be like 50 million because it was too easy, I'll raise 100 million. And it was amazing. Again, I've been doing investments for last 20 years. But like ... so we invested in LVF One, we invested in 16 companies. Our average holding period today is 2.5 years, and we already have four out of 16 companies public, and another three will be public by the end of this year, by the end of 2021. This was the fastest transformation from private to public I've ever seen in any of my portfolio. So that's been amazing. What else? We quickly realized that because longevity is such an unknown theme for the world, regulators, investors, portfolio companies, so we adopted the approach then we took intentionally broad definition of longevity, so our definition is like, whatever increase the average lifespan and health span on earth is longevity for us.

Sergey Young: (08:12)
So we invested in a lot of proper biotech place, but with only one additional side effect, they all need to contribute to healthy and happy living on the planet. And, again, since my mission is to change one billion lives, and some people ask me, "Sergey, why it's only one billion?" And what I've done is, we are focusing on affordable and accessible version of health care and longevity, so this is one of the investment criteria that we use, this technology, this intervention, this scientific discovery needs to have a profound effect in terms of affordability and give an opportunity for at least millions of people to benefit from that initial term.

Dina Radenkovic: (09:08)
Fascinating. And I mean, we both agree that longevity is a great space to build and invest and support companies. And I think you've proven it with the success in your portfolio so we can talk a little bit about that. But let's take a step back. How was it in the beginning? I remember once we met, I think it was in London about two years ago, you told me that, "Oh I caught the longevity virus." How is it switching and telling all these people? "Oh, I'm no longer just going to manage private equity, I want to set up a longevity fund." And what made you catch the longevity virus, or get interested and so excited about the field?

Sergey Young: (09:42)
Yeah. Well unfortunately I would say, we all start to develop interest into healthy living once we hit our own barrier, our own obstacle, we receive a wake up call. So I had two and they both on the personal side. The lung cancer case with my father back in 2005, he survived, but the quality of his life is never recovered. Or, I had, well back in 2014, I had my own health case. So I had high cholesterol in my blood. This is not rare, like 40, statistically actually, 40% of the people suffer from that around the world. But I've been offered to take study in this special class of drugs every day until the rest of my life, and I was not a big fan of this idea.

Sergey Young: (10:35)
So I started to experiment how I can achieve the same result, improve my health without necessarily taking medication every day. And that's it. And then the final thing, I started to push a lot of my friends and people who I know to do medical checkups, few of them discovered early stage cancer, and these days, unlike 20 years ago when cancer was kiss of death, your recovery rates, if you do a really early diagnostic of cancer can be as high as 95, even 100%, depending on the cancer type. So they all call me up and say, "Sergey, you saved my life, literally, thanks for pushing me to do this checkup, I owe you." And once you receive a few of calls like this, you're on the hook. You know I mean, you're just like, I have a bigger mission in life, I can change so many lives, and this is how this whole thing started.

Dina Radenkovic: (11:36)
Fascinating. Yeah, it's true with the new diagnostics, and you actually touched upon that in your book is that almost every cancer can be curable if discovered early enough. Okay, and then I guess, moving forward, you set up the fund, it was 100 million fund, and now we understand why it was that number and how you structure your investment. And you mentioned you already had 16 investments, a lot of them have done extremely well, I think the field has done a lot better than a lot of the skeptics thought initially. Could you tell us a bit more, you mentioned that it was obviously a very early field. And how do you pick your investments, you went for some really successful biotech firms. Tell us a bit more about that. You mentioned they all need to have a side effect to extend life expectancy, how do you assess that?

Dina Radenkovic: (12:24)
Because a lot of the companies that are get incorporated in longevity, almost feel like they need to mask as an oncology, like cancer company or a more traditional biotech because of all the implications that we have in the field of longevity. FDA does not recognize aging as a disease, they don't want to mention ... position themselves as to focus. The field is just getting moving. So. how are you picking, I guess, kind of being a pioneer and a very early stage fund with an extremely successful track record?

Sergey Young: (12:57)
Yeah. So what we've done, I mean, all you need to do is just look at statistics like, what are the reasons for death for the age 50 plus? And four killer monster diseases which are responsible for 90% of deaths after age of 50 are cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases. And the last one is actually breaking you. We still don't know what we don't know about dementia and scammers, et cetera. But for the rest of, for like three out of four, we have really good knowledge of like, what are the mechanism and root cause of these diseases and how we can treat them? So again, I mean just looking at the typical biotech or medical devices company, and you put it in a context of current mortality statistics, and exactly ... because, what is available to us today is, and a whole life extension strategy for the world in the last 100 years was eliminating early death.

Sergey Young: (14:09)
That's why if we look at this statistic, the life expectancy, lifespan, average lifespan on earth increased by two times. Somewhere from 40 to like 75 in the last 100 years. And this is not that we started to live longer, it was more about we were eliminating early death. Specifically like infant death or some other earlier stages of our life. But the maximum lifespan on earth was always the same. It was somewhere around 120 years, it is actually 122 thanks to this beautiful French woman who died 20 years ago. But, so what we doing is like 30% of our capital is invested into something which is relevant right now, like early diagnostic of cancer, or affordable medical diagnostic devices, or wearables.

Sergey Young: (15:12)
This is companies like Freenome, who have portfolio of cancers and use our blood tests to identify risk of colon cancer. This is super important because, in today's world to identify whether you have colon cancer risk or not, you need to do colonoscopy, and it's invasive, it's expensive, people hate that. I was delayed in my procedure for like two years, and I'm longevity enthusiast. So right now it's just, a few $100 and your blood sample and it's the same efficiency like the old invasive procedure. Or, affordable and accessible ultrasound devices. They're the size of our smartphone, the company called Echo Imaging that we invested in. This device costs like $2,000 while ultrasound device in the hospital next door is somewhere around between 100 and $200,000.

Sergey Young: (16:11)
It has the same efficiency, you scan, the holds a number of scans going to cloud, and then it's artificial intelligence pre analyze that before nurse or doctor can have access to the outcome of your ultrasound. So this is like 30% of our fund, like what we can do today. And 70% our fund is dedicated to what I call in the book neo horizon of longevity. This is the discoveries in science and breakthroughs in technology, which going to be available to us in the next five, 10, 15 years. So that's very important actually, to stay healthy now, because you need to stay on longevity breech, like Ray Kurzweil told us, for another 10, 15 years for your body and mind to be worth extending this resource in 10 years from now.

Sergey Young: (17:01)
But if you look at neo horizon of longevity, we're looking at genetic engine therapy. We're looking at regenerative medicine, in particular to organ regeneration, we all will have an ability to regenerate our organs, or to replace our organs if you want to imply here like an old car metaphor when you can replace certain parts and the life ... and the car extend its lifespan if you want. And some of this is in the field of drug discovery and drug development. I do believe that in 10 years from now, we're going to have a new special kind of drugs, which are longevity drugs or age reversal drugs, they're going to fight aging processes inside our body or in our DNA, unlike drugs that we have today which are very specific to one particular disease.

Sergey Young: (17:56)
So we trying to diversify portfolio like LVF One will have at least 20 to 25 companies in our portfolio, we right in the end of our investment period, just another 12 month remain. And literally this week, we just closed the first 100 million for LVF Two. We have a lot of interest from our LPs, from a lot of new investors so we raising the next fund, and we already completed the first call for that. So we have another 12 months to raise another 100 million for LVF Two as well. And probably final comment that, it's very tempting to look for one silver bullet solution to human health and longevity. And if you use your logic, if this would be possible, then it's either Mother Nature in the form of evolution or, talented human brains in form of science would have found a solution already.

Sergey Young: (19:00)
So it's not a silver bullet, it's going to be combination of the things that we need to influence to live longer, healthier and happier life. Well that's why a certain degree of diversification inside our portfolio in terms of technologies, geographies, different classes, is helpful.

Dina Radenkovic: (19:18)
Fascinating. Well, I'm a medical doctor by background and I certainly believe that health is very complex, and that it can ... I often get asked like, "What is going to be the single pill that's going to help us live longer, happy to 200 years?" And I tell them well, it might be a bit more complex. But you've touched upon so many things. First, congratulations on the fund and we're very happy that it's going well, your work really means a lot in the field. But you mentioned so many topics that we could just go and dive deeper. One of the first things you mentioned is this advanced diagnostics. And I think before we go and talk about the new test and the diagnostic kits, I think everyone is interested to see what did you do?

Dina Radenkovic: (20:04)
You mentioned that you were deferring your colonoscopy, you're a pioneer in this space, you're an advocate. And so, what is your longevity plan? What tests do you do? How do you optimize your own health?

Sergey Young: (20:17)
So, I'll tell you about five, our five main longevity choices. Like longevity which I put in, I call it five longevity buckets. But there's more information in the book, it's called bonus chapter, who wants to live forever quoting Freddie Mercury song, but it's about 10 things that I do, and actually the last, the bonus chapter is twice as long as any other chapter in the book. So it's just a lot of information. And this is the fascinating thing, this is why I started to do longevity and longevity investments, exactly for this moment when people try to change something now, rather than waiting for 10 years to become a healthy and happy version of themselves.

Sergey Young: (21:03)
So five buckets. One, when I have 30 seconds on longevity, I just push people to do their medical checkups every year. And I always say, this is the most important day of your life every year, as we discuss previous discussion, my wife has a little bit different view of what is the most important day within the year. But, otherwise, I'm doing my checkup every year, so I choose the place in California in San Diego, it's a human longevity center set up by Peter Diamandis, Craig Venter, so many great minds, but you can do a checkup in the hospital next door. It's not rocket science. And it's pretty standard procedure, just make sure they address to the maximum extent possible cancer, heart disease, diabetes risk. So that's your brief, this is the type of discussion you need to have with your doctor.

Sergey Young: (21:59)
And, well that's amazing, we have a lot of technology to help you to live longer, we just need to be mindful and preventive and proactive about your health race. So that's one, second piece is, I call it passive longevity award, don't do stupid things like tobacco smoking is just like, statistically, minus 10 years from your lifespan. Using seat belts in all occasions is plus two years to your life. What else? I just got a letter from my very good friend from California, she's amazing woman, entrepreneur, serial entrepreneur. So she's going to climb the mountain called K2. And this is the most dangerous mountain in the world, mortality rate is 25%.

Sergey Young: (22:47)
And I couldn't really explain that, right? Like Russian Roulette 100 or 200 years ago was six, sorry, 17% risk of dying from the first shot. But she took a risk which is much harder than this crazy exercise. So it is about responsible behavior. So the third piece is about diet. And, there's a lot of disagreement in the academic space, what actually extends your life, but there's only one agreement, reducing the caloric intensity of, or like a number of calories that you take every day by 15 to 25%, going to extend the healthy portion of your life by three, five or seven years. That's it. Well that's amazing. I mean obviously it's easier to say than to do, so my life hacks, I eat a lot of vegetables because even if I have a half of my table full of vegetables here today for the dinner, they so intense in terms of calories, so this is great.

Sergey Young: (23:56)
And it's not a lot of harm you can do to your body and mind with vegetables. And obviously it's about controlling the quality of your meat and fish. And I'm avoiding industrial version of meat and fish, it's going to be a wild fish or organic meats, so this is extremely important. Industrial meat got certain substances that you want to avoid after like certain concentration like antibiotics, growth hormones, equally bacterias. I think it was statistics for US when 70% of antibiotics is consumed by animal and by fish on the farms. Well that's ridiculous. And I do fasting, but I do a very radical version of fasting, it's 36 hours, Monday evening to Wednesday morning.

Sergey Young: (24:46)
You don't need to go that far, but just a window fasting, like consume all your food within the day, within the like six hours interval or eight hours interval, I think would do fine as well. So that's like bucket number three, diet. Four is about physical activity. We have this binary mentality or physical activity so I'm either doing like iron man or iron woman, or I'm just sitting in my home and watching football. And we don't need to be that binary. Just use your wearable, whether it's Apple Watch, Fitbit, Whoop, Garmin, it doesn't matter. Count your 10,000 steps today, because you can integrate walking into the to many activities that you do, and that's it. This is like two thirds of your physical activity agenda for the day. And on top of that, if you like yoga, you can add stretching, you can add cardio, weightlifting, whatever you like.

Sergey Young: (25:46)
And the fifth is, I call it peace of mind. And every time we talk about health, we talk about physical health. While I think the mental aspect of that is sometimes much more important. I don't want to live longer or not if I'm not healthy and if I'm not happy. So it's sleep, and my rule is eight hours in the bed, which is seven hours of sleep, and I use wearing, some of the wearables. I have plenty of wearables. Like I have glucose monitor here, all of this. I'm recreating internet of body, similar to Internet of Things and I'm an example of that. So sleep, meditation and mindfulness, because we need to decrease the level of cortisol in our blood, our body and mind were never created by the God and Mother Nature to handle all the stress that we have around us so we need just to be decreasing the cortisol, dangerous stress hormone in blood.

Sergey Young: (26:52)
And then finally, it's about sense of purpose. If you think about spiritual leaders and people who have a big mission, or a big dream in life, they always look younger, they live longer, they're more happier, so even statistically they're going to live plus five, plus seven years and they're going to enjoy the life. So it's having sense of purpose, sharing the best of you with the world, helping other people to succeed, and giving more than you take is important as well. So that's my five longevity buckets.

Dina Radenkovic: (27:28)
Wow, fascinating Sergey. Well I'm glad that you, I mean, you definitely have this big mission so it's helping one billion people live longer. And it's really exciting to people now who have that all in this big, last chapter of the book so they can find and make their own longevity practices. Certainly agree that with this kind of five buckets or however you structure it, people will live long enough in order to live longer, to wait for the new therapies, which are the ones that we've discussed like gene therapy, and epigenetic changes, and other anti aging interventions that are coming up. But I guess the one thing that might be interesting to this class, and I think you mentioned it in your book, and it's still a bit of a controversial issue, is the data that is collected by the wearables, and the data that is collected by diagnostics.

Dina Radenkovic: (28:17)
And as we convince people to switch from a reactive to proactive medicine that, their day of medical testing is the most important day and the happiest day of their life, because they're doing something very useful for themselves, we're collecting data. We both have a continuous glucose monitor on right now, we can compare our blood sugar, see how you're responding even to this conversation. But you mentioned an interesting concept that, health or data privacy will have a fight and health will win. What are the implications of this data collection? And how do we maximize the use of that data without breaking the barriers that people have about just confidentiality of their healthcare data that has, to be honest, a bit prevented organizations from all over the world from collaborating, working with each other in sharing insights?

Sergey Young: (29:16)
Yeah. Well this is a huge problem, and this is the biggest opportunity that we have in terms of changing the regulation so people are not afraid to share their health data. Because what drives your skepticism about this is the sense and fear of expected inequality when you have any kind of job conversation, or you you're trying to buy insurance. Well, that's it, this can be easy to regulated. But obviously the value of health data stored in one place, and where artificial intelligence and human intelligence can work with that, is enormous. And for some of the countries it's going to be a source of competitive advantage.

Sergey Young: (29:59)
Well, this was one of my key messages in UK Parliament. UK had this enormous opportunity to leverage the data of its citizen, obviously in a way which respect their privacy for the benefit of the nation, and the benefit of humanity. And the same thing is happening in Dubai, in Singapore, not necessarily in the US. Well, the problem is US, and I say it with a lot of love, right? US has the most inefficient and most expensive health care system in the world. We in US spend 18% of our GDP on health care. Think about UK, it's 8%, or Singapore, this is 5% of GDP. And they have far better results in terms of increasing lifespan. In fact pre COVID. Last five years pre COVID in US, the average lifespan has been decreasing in three years out of five.

Sergey Young: (30:58)
Well that's ridiculous for a developed country of this size, and the level of this success and the history. So we need to change this as well. And again, we don't need to be binary about this whole thing. And right now we really binary like, health data in hands of big tech or healthcare authorities, no. But you know what's on the other extreme? Right now, in some of the healthcare systems, 60 to 70% of data exchange is done through fax machines. Guys, when was the last time you actually seen fax machine? Are you okay with your data, your health data is transferred through faxes?

Dina Radenkovic: (31:43)
Yeah.

Sergey Young: (31:43)
No, I'm not we just under leveraged this whole thing. Like, when was the last time you was trying to collect all your health file to have intelligent discussion with your doctor? You would need to come back to any cleaning and every doctor you see, and I'm trying to make a paper copy. I have these two big files in my offices because I still don't have one electronic health record, which collects my health data even for the last 10 years. So I'm not saying we need to be really radical and transparent about this whole thing but, what I'm saying, we don't need to be so old style about exchanging the health data through fax machines.

Dina Radenkovic: (32:27)
Yeah, fascinating. I mean there's certainly a lot of implications there but I absolutely believe that we could derive so much from the data, and if we could show and demonstrate to people that their health and their lives would improve, they would give the data away for an improved service and in care facility.

Sergey Young: (32:45)
Yeah, just one other comment. So when you think about healthcare today, what are the kind of players that comes to your mind? It's hospitals, insurance companies, big Pharma as well. In 10 years time, I do believe that the largest healthcare companies on earth are going to be called Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft. If we will not do this through regulatory means, just by changing our policies and educating the public, and changing healthcare system, change will not come from old players doing new things, change will come from new players, disrupting the whole old system. Well that's why Apple is, and there's so many big tech companies, over investing in healthcare. Just, I think it was last year Morgan Stanley did a report saying, "Apple can do up to 50% of its revenue by the end of this decade from healthcare."

Sergey Young: (33:40)
And watch out Apple, they have a history of disrupting so many spaces, so the same change can come from Apple. And Apple Watch and so many other wearables are becoming our personalized healthcare device. It's not helping me to integrate with my WhatsApp, or count 10,000 steps a day, they would add couple of features in the next two years, and this is going to be 95% of my health data that I need to monitor every day. That's amazing opportunity but also, I would like for us to use this opportunity to the set of changes on the regulatory front, and in terms of changing the public ethics and social contracts for the benefit of everyone, rather than outsourcing this whole thing to Apple, or to Google, or to Microsoft, and then obviously enjoying this whole thing, but paying a lot of money to the big tech.

Dina Radenkovic: (34:44)
Yeah. And I think there's certainly space for new companies in this field, there's healthcare-

Sergey Young: (34:48)
Oh yeah.

Dina Radenkovic: (34:49)
... from consumerism, from paternalism, they can drive, and I think both the work we do on the investing side is really designed to support new companies disrupting the space. But I fully agree that, with the new connected devices we'll be able to do a lot more. And I like your, I mean people say futuristic, but I would like to say it's realistic, evidence based approach of the healthcare at home in the future. Perhaps you could give us a bit of an overview. I had a similar dream and people say it's science fiction, but I'm saying it's reality very soon that, you would wake up and you would have your medical devices in your home, and you would figure out what's the exact dose of vitamins and nutrients you need to take in the day. And then you're sleep monitored and you've already mentioned some of the few devices that you have, but they're advancing.

Dina Radenkovic: (35:43)
So, hopefully in a few years, you don't even need to go to the hospital, only for acute emergencies. So, I think there's a lot to do about that. And I think you actually talk about it in the book as well, and in a very illustrative way.

Sergey Young: (35:57)
It is yeah. So I have two chapters in the end, right before the bonus chapter, like what you can do today. For me this is the most important part of the book. But, so one describes our day in 30 to 50 years from now, so I'm going to define it. But the other chapter, the final chapter of the book is also important, it's called morality of immortality. There's so many ethical trade offs that we need to solve before we embrace the idea of radical longevity in this world. It's almost like, I just did a TEDx talk on that, again, it's called morality of immortality.

Sergey Young: (36:30)
And what I say, we have created the science and technology to extend our life, but we still haven't created the life that we want to extend. So that's important. So I'm going to be telling you all these beautiful things about human avatars in a minute, but we need to understand that, we need to start the global conversation about the future of the world, how we need to change that, in terms of closing the inequality gap, in terms of adjusting our social norms and social contracts like marriage, career, our approach to life. Or in terms of just resetting our relationship with Mother Nature. Right now, I mean you think you'll leave like 75 or 85 years, you can be irresponsible about your ecological trade offs.

Sergey Young: (37:23)
But in the future, when we all live radically longer, we're going to face the consequences of our own actions. So we need to sort it out today. Well, this was the ethical side, and I actually do believe, in 20 years from now, the biggest obstacles to use all these beautiful technologies, it's not going to be science, it's not going to be technology, it's going to be ethics and regulation. So, this is about the ethical side of it. So then, well let's take a look at the next 20 to 30 years. So how the world of medicine in our life will change. Number one, we will have a proven ability and very safe tools to modify our genes.

Sergey Young: (38:04)
So we can eliminate a lot of diseases, we can fight a lot of diseases and therefore increase our lifespan. So that's pretty clear. We're going to help people who suffer from neurodegenerative diseases to leave their highest quality life, because of the integration between human brain and artificial intelligence. And we people, we tend to be binary, it's either black or white, one or zero, so I don't think it's going to be either artificial intelligence or human intelligence, we're going to coexist, and it's all going to be very complimentary. So human brain, AI integration going to be essential part of it. We were looking at different non invasive interfaces but, seems to me that Elon Musk has his own way of building Neuralink and using actually invasive technology of electrodes to combine you with computer power.

Sergey Young: (38:59)
And this is not the last time that he was right and I was wrong, so I'm not make a prediction on what technology will win. So what else? We're going to be having options of using human avatars technologies, and actually my resolution for next year is to create the virtual avatar of Sergey Young. Because I want to change one billion lives so I need more guys like me participating in a conference, co-hosting ask me anything events, doing a lot of different things. And in 20 to 30 years from now, it's going to be okay to have a human avatar. I still don't know whether it's going to be a robotic avatar, and I actually interviewed the man who invented this whole concept back in 1980, he is Professor Susumu Tachi from Kyoto University.

Sergey Young: (39:55)
And she still call it telexistence, but we call it human avatars. So it's either going to be robotic on virtual avatar, and it's not going to be that scary, you will have an opportunity to replicate yourself in a virtual world in a controlled manner, and therefore leveraging up your efficiency, and fulfill more dreams and fulfill your mission in life. Similar to the concept of Internet of Things, it's going to be the concept of internet of bodies, we all going to be interconnected. We interconnected today anyway, but through very inefficient interfaces. So I'm using my eyes, my fingers to type the messages, my ears to listen but, it's all going to be seamless, we're going to be full of sensors.

Sergey Young: (40:45)
I'm full of sensors today anyway. But like, for the rest of the world, we can monitor ourselves. If I'm taking enormous care about my own car, I should take the same level of care, use a lot of sensors and technology to manage my most important tool, right, my body and my mind. So this is what going to happen. And we're going to have a completely new category of drugs in 20 to 30 years from now, which going to be drugs, which tackle aging at its core, rather than just trying to eliminate disease one by one. So that's just the view of the future, the picture of the future that I have. But guys you need to be careful, I'm always over optimistic, do we need to have a little bit of skeptical voices around this as well. So I'm totally aware of that.

Dina Radenkovic: (41:42)
Wow Sergey, well, again, so many points, I just want to say first that, we are really excited to be the first people to interview your avatar here at SALT so book us in straightaway, I want to be one of the first people doing that. But for sure, and I think what you mentioned is a really important topic. And Eric Topol was discussing it in his book, Deep Medicine about two years ago that actually, technology will no longer be a limiting step, but it used to be. Now we're there, we're kind of using the technology to solve problems in biology. But what will be a problem will be doctors who will ... like empathy. How do we empower the human connection?

Dina Radenkovic: (42:25)
And then the one aspect that you mentioned is this morality or immortality? And often when people ask you and you say, you work in the field of longevity, people say, "But we already have climate change and there's so many disasters, and a big population for this planet, why would we want to live longer?" They think of it as a resource limited, closed concept. So when you say that you want to extend life for at least one billion people to live to 200 years, and you've written a chapter, and you have a statistical approach that will, statistically likely to give effect. How do you deal with that? And how do you ensure and, what are the other things that we need to address? Like cellular agriculture, climate change, and in what ways so that we can ensure that this growth in human health and longevity is sustainable?

Dina Radenkovic: (43:22)
The other concept that you mentioned that I would like you to elaborate on is this idea of, when you live longer, you tend to optimize for longer term goals, this kind of stems from the Stanford socioeconomic selectivity theory of aging, right? That if we know that we're going to live only for the next 10 years, we won't care about the planet, we just try to consume all the resources. But if we know that we have 100 years left, we would trying to plan more carefully. So, how do you think we can use longevity to actually drive that innovation that is needed to make it increase the lifespan more sustainable or beneficial for the planet as well? And how do you address, because I'm sure you get similar questions.

Sergey Young: (44:01)
Yeah. So, well I do believe longevity and fighting aging processes inside our body can be one of the few unifying themes for the nations and countries, and for the world. Because inequality gap is increasing all the time, and I do believe the affordable and accessible version of healthcare is something that can unite. It's almost like part of your universal basic rights, or income, or the services mix that you you need to receive. So, few things, I obviously receive these comments a lot, so I've developed my own way to respond to that. Number one, I'm not particularly concerned about overpopulation of the planet. Because if you look at any sensible research on where we going with overpopulation, our reproductive rates in all the continents, beside African are well below two for every female.

Sergey Young: (45:05)
So, if you look at the mathematical model of population of the planet, using the status quo like where we are today, the population of the planet going to increase to 10 or 11 billion by the year 2050, and then it's going to decline to eight billion in the end of the century. China will lose 600 million people from its population, if China will not address that. Going down from 1.4 billion to 800 million. And the same for majority of countries in the world. So it's not like we have an option to extend our lives, it's our obligation, and a need to respond to this risk of decreasing population of earth, so that's number one. Number two, I'm not really concerned about resources side and my very good friend Peter Diamandis is probably the best example of speaking about this topics.

Sergey Young: (46:08)
This is just like resource limitation is our limiting beliefs, and look at the cost of renewable energy, and it's just always declining, or the cost of computer power. Or, well let's talk about food. Before we go into different like a vertical agriculture, or cell based illiberal meat, 45% of food goes to waste in US every day. From our supermarkets, from our table, from our households as well, 45%. We live in a abundant world, we just not really smart about how we using these resources. So that's important as well. So I do believe, I'm not really concerned about resources, but I do concern about the ethics of the society. I just don't think we ready for the questions that we're facing. And again, life extension and increasing the lifespan, it's happening whether you want it or not, we doubled our lifespan in the last 100 years on earth.

Sergey Young: (47:17)
And this trend will continue. And then it's up to you, whether you're waiting for the next 20 to 30 years, or you thoughtful and proactive and preventive about this whole thing, and you trying to respond to a lot of basic questions that all people ask, "How my life will change?" Will it be several beautiful mini lives? Or, what will have happen to my career? Can I have as many careers as decades in my life? Or what will happen to marriage? Will we switch to more kids raising partnerships? Two thirds of the families go to divorce today in the first three, five or seven years of their life, depending on the country which you look at. So we need to solve this problems anyway, it's not like some crazy guys arrive with the magic pill to extend our life and then we have all this disaster.

Sergey Young: (48:12)
We already have this disaster, we need to sort it out and longevity technologists and the progress in the science and technology of longevity is a great opportunity to start that conversation and our thinking process on that.

Dina Radenkovic: (48:27)
Yeah I actually like your response, I like that longevity could serve as a solution, or at least a driving force to address some of the needs and the problems that we already face, and you're right there are so many problems to address and hopefully living longer and healthier and happier will serve as some engine to help us power through these issues. And I guess Sergey just to kind of wrap up, because we could talk for-

Sergey Young: (48:56)
Yeah, forever.

Dina Radenkovic: (48:56)
... 10 hours and even longer, 200 years.

Sergey Young: (49:01)
Look I'm planning [crosstalk 00:49:01] to live 200 years so I have plenty of time.

Dina Radenkovic: (49:05)
Well I'm joining your longevity club, okay, and want to hang with the avatar for sure. So what does, coming up, you mentioned you have a new ... your fund, the portfolio has been growing incredibly well, obviously the book launch is in August, can you give us a bit of an update of the things that you're working on, excited about, you're preparing for SALT New York, covering all these ideas and advances in this longevity programmable biology space. Is there anything that-

Sergey Young: (49:34)
Yeah so what I'm trying to do is, I'm trying to build awareness about the opportunities in longevity field for as many people as possible. So I just launched my longevity video academy. And and for someone who pre orders the book, if you go to sergeyyoung.com, you can pre order the book and you can have access to this academy. As well as like 12 videos, 10 minutes each, talking about different aspects of longevity and this beautiful today and beautiful tomorrow that we all developing. I've just done a, as I said, TEDx talk on morality of immortality, so this is going to be published very soon. I'm fascinated by the ethical dilemmas and trade offs that we all need to solve for that. Again my resolution for the next year is to build a virtual avatar.

Sergey Young: (50:23)
We're going to be working as a couple, together like real me and virtual me for the next few months until he will absorb all my intelligence and can replace me, and I can double down in effort on my mission with this. I'm looking for the country to change in the next 12 months because, if you want to change your health you have like three options, one you can try to do it on your own basis, and we are really lazy on discipline as a species. Or you can work with corporation, or you can work with a government to change the whole employee base habits, or the whole kind of nation, and implement and create longevity enabling environment in certain corporate environment, or in certain country.

Sergey Young: (51:16)
So I'm in discussion with few countries and one state in US, to help them to implement this, well I call it longevity at work because I've done it with few huge corporations all over the world. The largest project I've done was changing 300,000 peoples life. It was employee base of one of the largest financial institutions in 20 plus countries. And again, this is all pro bono, I'm not really taking any money from it. But it's fascinating how you can create a longevity bubble for so many people, and they all have an opportunity to live longer, healthier and happier life. Obviously investing in a essential part, I love to support the field with the money, with our scientific knowledge, rather than just making the public statements.

Sergey Young: (52:13)
And I do hope that early next day we can launch a age reversal XPRIZE, this pro bono technological competition. We expecting two, three, 400 different teams from 50 plus countries to fly, like who can reverse aging. And we just done the largest XPRIZE competition in the history of XPRIZE foundation with Elon Musk for $100 million, to remove carbon from the atmosphere and create the minimum viable products. It's $100 million price for this pro bono competition. So I'm trying to replicate the success. And we're going to launch another hopefully $100 million prize early next year. So then a lot of beautiful minds from scientific and entrepreneurial and technological background can compete and provide solution for aging, and therefore fighting all this killer disease.

Dina Radenkovic: (53:07)
Well, fascinating. And I'm really excited about the XPRIZE, I'll hold you on to that because, we do want a lot of young scientists and people from all over the world using all their talent to fight aging. And we'll wait to hear the announcement, it's going to be like bitcoin in El Salvador, right? That we give this country that is incorporating aging with Sergey Young. So, exciting to hear what's coming up. Thank you for sharing all the ... everything you're up to Sergey, it's incredibly inspiring. You definitely getting 10 years of extra life there in terms of happiness and sense of purpose. You've inspired me as well, I think you've inspired everyone listening.

Dina Radenkovic: (53:49)
It's really exciting to have you. I can't wait to get the hard copy of the book. I think everyone will try to get it. I think we're also having it in our physical event as well as, and in New York coming up in September. And, thank you once again for your time today. This is brilliant.

Sergey Young: (54:06)
Thank you. Thank you. If I can have like a one minute closing thought. Think about this, we outsource our health decisions to so many parties, to big foot, to government, to healthcare providers, to insurance companies. And, I do think we need to take back control and responsibility for our own health, we need to be a part of this conversation. And specifically today, post COVID, I think it was a wake up call for all of us. So, again, it's time to take responsibility for our own health. And we are here to help you stay healthy and happy.

John Darsie: (54:45)
Love it. Thank you, Dr. Dina for leading the conversation. Thank you Sergey for joining us on SALT talks. And thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT talk with Sergey Young, one of the foremost experts in longevity. He has a great new book coming out that we're excited to give out to our attendees at the SALT conference in September. It's called The Science and Technology of Growing Young. So just another incentive for you to show up to the Javits Center expansion in September here in New York. But just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk, or any of our previous SALT talks, you can access them on our website on demand at salt.org/talks.

John Darsie: (55:18)
We post all the transcripts and show notes there as well, so a great resource if you're looking to learn about a variety of different issues that we cover. And also on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media, Twitter is where we're most active @SALTconference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. On behalf of Dr. Dina and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: Customized Liquidity Solutions | SALT Talks #244

“Liquidity aligns incentives for bigger outcomes… People are willing to take more risk if they’re less worried about their individual financial situation. If you provide financial liquidity, founders are more interested in getting the company to later stages, so you drive better fund-level returns.”

Justin Fishner-Wolfson is a founder and the managing partner of 137 Ventures, a growth-stage venture firm founded in San Francisco in 2011. The firm has seen five portfolio companies go public since September 2020: Palantir, Airbnb, Wish, Coupang and Didi. Its largest private portfolio companies include SpaceX, Flexport, Gusto, Workrise (formerly known as RigUp) and Curology.

Prior to co-founding 137 Ventures, Justin worked on the investment team at Founders Fund. He was also selected as a Kauffman Fellow, a program responsible for the development of leaders in global innovation and the venture capital industry. Justin graduated from Stanford University with honors, received a BS in Management Science and Engineering, a MS in Computer Science, and was a Mayfield Fellow.

Justin shares some of his background that led to 137 Ventures and how he learned the importance of offering personal liquidity to company founders. He discusses his approach to venture investing and the state of different tech sectors. He talks about his early and continued investments in SpaceX and the massive transformation SpaceX-operated Starlink will bring in delivering high-speed Internet to underserved areas of the world.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Justin Fishner-Wolfson.jpeg

Justin Fishner-Wolfson

Founder & Managing Partner

137 Ventures

darsie.jpeg

John Darsie

Managing Director

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

00:00 - Intro

02:20 - Background, Founders Fund and 137 Ventures

04:55 - Venture strategy

08:17 - Secondary markets

09:30 - Identifying growth stage investments

11:36 - Primary vs. secondary markets

13:02 - Investments in SpaceX, Starlink and Internet infrastructure

17:27 - Exit strategies and IPO’s

21:07 - Pandemic effects

23:34 - Technology and education equality

25:18 - Mobility sector

26:45 - Satellite-driven technology and changing the government contract model

30:29 - Public-private business dynamics

31:58 - Investing geographically

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to Salt Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of Salt, which is a global thought leadership forum, and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. Salt Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these Salt Talks is the same as our goal at our Salt conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 here in our home city of New York. But our goal at our conferences and on these 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 to welcome Justin Fishner-Wolfson to Salt Talks. Justin is the founder and managing partner of 137 Ventures.

John Darsie: (00:57)
Previously, he worked on the investment team at Founders Fund, leading venture capital fund as well. He was also selected as a Kauffman fellow, which is a program responsible for the development of leaders in global innovation, and the venture capital industry. Justin graduated from Stanford University with honors, received a BS in management, science, and engineering, and a master's in computer science and was a Mayfield fellow. Today, he resides in the beautiful city of Las Vegas, the fast growing city of Las Vegas. I should add as well, he's not like all those Founders Fund guys who have moved to Miami, but he's found another great home there in Las Vegas. I'm going to be hosting today's Salt Talk, again, John Darsie.

John Darsie: (01:35)
In addition to my role as the managing director of Salt, I'm also a director of business development at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm with about $8 billion in capital under management, primarily working in the fund to funds industry, but also engage in some of the secondary market investing in the tech sector that Justin has sort of pioneered. But Justin, we're very excited to have you here on Salt Talks. We like to start all of our conversations. I read a little bit about your bio, but we'd love to hear a little bit more about your background, how you decided to go to Stanford, how you got into venture capital and what you learned from experiences at places like Founders Fund that led you to start your own firm 137 Ventures.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (02:18)
Yeah, happy to. Thanks for having me. I mean, I think Stanford is, it is kind of the start of everything, at least for me, it's obviously a great school, but I think the fact that I ended up there is substantially the reason why I ended up in technology and venture capital. If you look back at Founders Fund, right? Peter Teal and Ken Howery, they were both Stanford alums, and that was ultimately kind of the original connection to those guys. And how I ended up at Founders Fund kind of at that beginning stage when they were making that transition to be an institutional venture firm. So it was kind of like Stanford is the nexus for a lot of things out in technology, in the Bay Area, in Silicon Valley, and so that's kind of a major reason why I ended up doing what I am doing today.

John Darsie: (03:04)
Very cool. And as I mentioned, you spent time at Founders Fund, but you've quickly identified an opportunity that you thought was too compelling not to pursue. You started your own firm, 137 Ventures. Before we get into what you do at 137 Ventures., I'd like to talk about how you came up with the name, which I thought is a very interesting backstory. So, what is the significance of the number 137 and the name of your company, 137 Ventures

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (03:28)
The background is my grandfather used to have a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, probably not too far from your offices would be my guess. And that was his enunciator number when he was there, and so they used to signal the traders on the floor with basically a train board. And so that was how we named the firm.

John Darsie: (03:49)
Right. And then there's other numerology involved with 137 that I was reading about that you guys came up with that holds a lot of significance as well, right?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (03:58)
It turns out it's one of those numbers that's like somewhat interesting when you talk to engineers, which I tend to do on a regular basis, people will ask you all sorts of things like, "Oh, is that because it's fine structure constant", or other things like that. So, you talk to people and you find out more and more interesting things about numbers over time.

John Darsie: (04:15)
Right. And 137 Ventures that opportunity set that I was alluding to earlier is you provide, you're a leading provider of customized liquidity solutions to founders, investors, and early employees of growth stage, a private technology company. So, you're going to, again, early employees or founders, or even funds that have invested in some of these leading tech companies and saying, "Hey, we have a better solution for you than waiting for an IPO, or even traditional secondary market sales." So what do those sort of unique liquidity solutions that you provide look like? How are they different from traditional secondary sales? And how's your strategy differentiated within the venture world?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (04:54)
Yeah. And there are a lot of questions there to unpack it. I mean, at a basic level, and in this even goes back to my time at Founders Fund, we had a very clear belief that liquidity aligns incentives for bigger outcomes. And so if you look at how the industry has sort of evolved, fund size have gotten bigger company outcomes have gotten bigger. And the thing that what you don't want to have as an investor is companies sell early, right? So, if you have these really powerful compounding companies that can grow to be 10, 20, 100 billion dollar outcomes, you don't want to see them ultimately sell the business for maybe a lot of money, but not ultimately the potential of what that business could be. And the challenge you have is, as an investor, you have a portfolio of lots of companies.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (05:37)
And so you're willing to take perhaps more risk on any individual company. And if you're a founder of a startup, any of these potential outcomes, if there's a large acquisition, mean a lot of really life-changing money to folks. And the insight was it's not like a magical insight. It's simply that people are willing to take more risks if they're less worried about their individual financial situation. And so if you provide people some amount of liquidity by no means anything close to what they would get upon an exit, they're ultimately much more interested in getting to much bigger stages. And so you drive much better fund level returns, and so I think there's a real alignment of incentives between founders, executives, and venture investors to provide liquidity, especially as companies have stayed private for much longer periods of time than they have in the past.

John Darsie: (06:28)
Right. And do you feel, like you said, you feel like decision-making at the company level improves as people have different liquidity options. Why is that attractive for the investor set to provide those types of liquidity solutions to early founders and employees?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (06:45)
I mean, it varies, right? So, I mean, we've literally done business with people who are paying off student loans. I don't necessarily think it's a great use of management's time to be concerned about whether, or not they can afford to service their student loan debt. The salaries in the industry broadly speaking, aren't particularly high. People do own large equity positions, but you don't want them worried if they're going to be able to pay the dinner bill. There are people that obviously gotten married they might have a kid, they don't necessarily want to live with roommates, right? San Francisco is expensive. New York is expensive. And these are, I think, reasonable things that allow people to be more productive at work. And so I think that's a good use of time and money.

John Darsie: (07:25)
Right. And as I mentioned earlier, there's been this massive explosion in private secondary market activity. At SkyBridge, We're involved in the space, it's public. And we can disclose the fact that we've invested in a handful of growth stage fintech companies, including Klarna and Chime being examples that we both invested in our funds and raise SPVs for some of our key relationships to invest in those products. Do you worry at all that that secondary market valuations are getting more expensive and sort of taking some of the meat off the bone? We've seen IPO's sort of act as liquidity events not particularly great entry points in some cases, certainly not the case for a lot of names in the last 18 months, but do you worry generally about secondary market, private valuations getting to a point where the opportunity set isn't quite as attractive?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (08:17)
I mean, I think the relationship between secondary prices and primary prices, and they're highly correlated obviously, right? So, companies are raising money at some valuation that's going to affect people's perception of what the company is worth. And that's going to find its way into the secondary market. I mean, in terms of your question, I think is so therefore it's sort of broadly evaluation question, right? Are companies more expensive today than they were in the past? I think on average, that's probably correct, if you look at the multiples that people are ascribing to a lot of the companies that you're talking about, but averages hide very important data. And so there's going to be companies that are above that average, they're going to be companies that are below that average. And I think for ourselves, we're trying to find companies that are reasonably priced, given the fundamentals of the business. And you're looking for very high growth, because the one thing that, broadly speaking, makes up for valuation mistakes is very high growth because you can survive [inaudible 00:09:14] ...impression in that situation.

John Darsie: (09:16)
Right. So that's a good segue and you touched a little bit on it in that answer, but what characteristics in terms of levels of growth, levels of maturity and other aspects, do you look for when you're identifying growth stage investments to offer these types of liquidity solutions?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (09:32)
And most of our portfolio is growing by 100% hundred percent, or higher, right? I mean, that's a large portion of the portfolio, especially when we're making initial investments in things. And what we care about in particular is trying to identify businesses that have some kind of long-term defensibility. One of the challenges in the world as a whole is there's a lot of capital out there. And so what you don't want to have is investment in a potentially really great business, have other people notice that it's a really great business, and then have people fund those other fast followers, and compete margins away, which then will result in multiples compressing. And so we're looking for businesses that we think have business models that are defensive when you think that these are well understood concepts, network effects, information asymmetries, economies of scale, things that allow businesses to maintain their margin profile over an extended period of time.

John Darsie: (10:25)
Are there certain sectors that you think more often embody those characteristics that you've been drawn to over the years? Or is is it pretty broad and you guys cover a wide variety of sectors?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (10:36)
Yeah. I mean, I think we cover a very large number of sectors. I mean, obviously I think we're, well-known for the SpaceX investment, but you look at marketplaces, I mean, you could be an Airbnb, or you could be in work [inaudible 00:10:47] I mean, they're very different marketplaces, but yet those marketplaces have very similar dynamics. There's a lot of information asymmetries and enterprise businesses, right? So, for example, Gusto is providing payroll and benefits to small, and medium sized businesses, but then they're rolling out financial services for consumers who are, another name for consumers are employees of small and medium sized businesses. And so they can leverage that data to reduce the costs for people. And I think that's a very interesting value proposition. [crosstalk 00:11:17]...in a lot of different industries,

John Darsie: (11:19)
Right. And you primarily do these customized liquidity solutions in the secondary market, but you do sometimes participate in primary funding rounds. How do you determine when you want to participate in a primary round versus focusing on secondaries?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (11:37)
I think what we do in the secondary market is... It's more differentiated. There are fewer people who do what we do. There are obviously many people who are primary investors. So, we're more agnostic as to how we're participating is simply that there are fewer people who provide structured transactions in the secondary market. So we're happy to use that as a better wedge to get into companies that we think are compelling, but fundamentally between those two opportunities, we're not going to say no to a company that we're very excited about.

John Darsie: (12:08)
Right. And you mentioned SpaceX before. It's one thing that 137 Ventures is very well-known for when you were at Founders Fund, you played a significant role, from my understanding, in having Founders Fund increase its allocation of SpaceX, at 137 you've accumulated a significant position in SpaceX. What about SpaceX got you so excited. And what is the opportunity set in space? Obviously, we've seen a lot of public relations around space recently with Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic going up into space. Jeff Bezos outdoing him by a couple of hundred thousand feet from what I remember, but obviously SpaceX has been on fire in terms of launch the Starlink Network, as well as its NASA missions. So just what is the market? How big is it and is it more based on tourism? Is it more based on industrial capabilities, but what does the market look like in space?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (13:02)
I think the joke is that it's expanding, right? But you look at Bezos, you look at what brands do. And I mean, I think it's great that they're getting people excited about space. I mean, if you think back to putting a man on the moon, I think it was a great unifying thing for the country. It was an exciting thing and had a lot of really important scientific discoveries that ultimately translated into people's lives. I mean like Velcro, right? I mean like things that people don't necessarily think of, that came from these developments. So, I mean, I think it's great what everyone is doing. I mean, SpaceX for the most part is really in a different business. So, you look at launch. I mean, the things that matter in the world, it's like all the earth observation, satellites, GPS, the things that really keep modern society working like this all floats above us in space.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (13:49)
And so SpaceX's launch capabilities are really second to none. I mean, they've built very, very reliable reusable rockets in a way that really no one imagined even five years ago. So, I think that's been a real transformation. You mentioned Starlink they're on basically the verge of this is all going to become, I think, very clear to everyone over the next six to 12 months, that anywhere on earth, you can get high-speed low-latency internet, as long as you have power and you can see the sky, the internet will be available to you. And that's an incredible change as opposed to having to dig fiber in lots of very difficult, expensive places. So, that's just like one example of how, I mean, yes, it's about space, but really it's providing internet service. And so there's all sorts of interesting things that are going to happen from this.

John Darsie: (14:36)
Yeah. Starlink is particularly interesting to me. Obviously the reusable rockets are a massive innovation and SpaceX is at the Vanguard of so much great innovation that's taking place related to space, but Starlink has a very clear addressable market. Just how much is it going to disrupt traditional telecom? I mean, I live today in Long Island when I'm taking the Long Island Railroad home, there's long patches of the train ride where I don't get cell service. The house I grew up in, in the Raleigh-Durham area in North Carolina, we struggled to get reliable internet and phone service. There's massive swats of not just the United States, but obviously around the world. Just how big is that market that Starlink is addressing and how big can that business be?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (15:17)
I think the market is actually huge, but it's really not targeted towards the urban centers, right? Because they're building a network that functionally covers the entire globe, they're really going after in some sense, the places that the traditional incumbents have ignored. And the reason that they've mostly ignored them is that it's very expensive to provide service there. And so what Starlink changes is all the places that used to be very hard to provide service are now the same as any place that was easy to provide service. And so sure they're going to pick off it whatever. They'll have some customers in Manhattan, but they're also going to have customers in lots of rural geographies in the US. There are many underserved populations, whether or not it's some of the Native American tribes that have traditionally and historically been underserved by all of these players.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (16:03)
So, I mean, like there's a lot of places that this now becomes easy, and the market's huge. I mean, if you look at some of the data coming from the US government, there are tens of millions of Americans who don't have access to high speed internet. And we're just talking about America. Like this is a global network. So you start talking about Europe, and Africa, and Asia, and everywhere in the world can be served by this network. And so I think it's very understandable how they get to multiple millions, if not tens of millions within the next years of subscribers.

John Darsie: (16:34)
Right? Yeah. I mean, it could fundamentally change society. We've seen this redistribution geographically within the United States, and in some cases around the world of working populations and some exit us out of the Bay Area and places like that because people realize they can work effectively in different parts of the country, different parts of the world. So it'll be interesting to se how a Starlink sort of affects society in that way. But I want to talk about exits. So when you're involved in private companies, they IPO, there's often an IPO pop, or they rally in the first few months after they go public. And obviously there's a different life cycle to every investment. But as you look at exiting these positions, is this is something where you take it at a company by company basis, in terms of evaluating your exit? Do you look to have a specific plan with every one of your investments after they get public liquidity? Or how do you look at exiting these positions?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (17:28)
And we certainly think about things on a company by company basis, right? The facts may always lead you to kind of a different conclusion, but because we're trying to invest in companies that we think can compound for extended periods of time, the private to public transition is more of a an evolution of the company. It doesn't change the fundamental business that they're in. And so while that is an opportunity for us to get liquidity for our investors, and we obviously care about that because funds, venture is a long business. I don't necessarily think that there's something magical that happens upon an IPO that suddenly means you don't like the business anymore. It's simply a point where it's easier to get liquidity. And I think just as a vague sight of that, that I think is a little bit funny. If you think about the public markets 99.999% of all transactions are secondary. Right? In fact, the public markets kind of think primary is a weird thing, right?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (18:23)
It doesn't happen that often and generally, they're sort of against it when companies start to raise more money. And it's exactly the exact opposite in the private markets, right. Primary is sort of the normal, and secondary's a little weird. I just always thought this distinction was somewhat funny. And I think it's the same thing as like, when there's an IPO transition, it doesn't actually mean that anything about the company has changed, except that the shares are now easier to trade. That that's all that really happened.

John Darsie: (18:48)
Yeah. And I mentioned sort of first day pops, or recent rallies that we've seen post IPO in some big tech companies, several of which you've had exposure to, including Palantir, Airbnb DoorDash is another one that had a significant rally. And they've certainly paired their gains in subsequent months. But in your view, why are we seeing, in some cases, such volatility or such ferocious rallies, post IPO, is this a matter of bankers mispricing the deal? Is it a matter of sort of strategically creating the right size float? Or why do you think we're seeing sort of asymmetries and how companies react once they enter public life?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (19:27)
I think it's hard to know what the right price is and what I've realized having kind of thought about this over all these liquidity events relatively recently is the amount of information that people get when they're investing in a private company is so much larger than what public markets investors receive. I mean, if you go public, you put out an S1, maybe you do some investor meetings, you go on a road show, whatever. Maybe you're going to put out some quarterly information, but most private investors would say, "Where's the rest of the diligence packet?" Right? And while I certainly think you can be a well-informed public markets investor. I think what people are doing is they're taking earnings calls over every quarter, they're building some trend lines, they're building their own models.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (20:11)
And they're refining that over time. And I think to look at a company on an IPO and think that all the public markets guys are not only going to get it right, but even have all the information to get it right within a day, I mean, that seems very hard to imagine and to expect of people. So, you're going to see volatility, obviously, as over time, people understand these businesses better and better. And then I think you'll find out what the real price is for all these companies are. And sometimes the market's going to be high and sometimes the market's going to be low and eventually it will be correct, but eventually it could be awhile from now.

John Darsie: (20:43)
Right. Are there any other companies, obviously, you've been involved and exited a lot of extremely exciting tech companies. Are there any in particular today, whether it be, you can talk sectors, you can talk individual names that you are most excited about in today's market and sort of a post pandemic world. Obviously the world has been shaken up by everything we've seen in the last 18 months. Are there any sort of theses that you've grown even more excited about?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (21:07)
The thing that I've been pleasantly surprised that we've seen play out in our portfolio, but I think has been true more broadly is there's just been this massive acceleration of tech adoption. And so things that we thought were going to take five, 10 years all got adopted in 12 months. And a lot of the companies also that we thought had the potential to be really impacted by the pandemic, think of Flexport, right? Is global trade going to be what it was. And then it turned out that shipping was really hard, logistics were really hard. There were major constraints on the system. Prices went up, and Flexport really shined because they had much better software for their customers. They were able to get more things done. They were able to allow people to plan as well as anybody could in that environment, even Gusto, right?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (21:57)
Like they're dealing with small and medium sized businesses in the US, and we obviously were somewhat concerned because those were some of the most impacted businesses. But you saw relatively quickly that their business was going to be okay. They did a lot of great things to help people, help their customers apply for PPP loans, and kept a lot of people in business that I think would have otherwise struggled to deal with the government. There were some good programs, but it's never that easy dealing with the government and filling out all the paperwork correctly, and making sure that things happen. So I was pleasantly surprised with how all of our companies reacted to the pandemic, and then ultimately, broadly speaking, how they benefited from that adoption cycle that we're going through right now.

John Darsie: (22:42)
Right. We had a great Salt Talk a couple months ago with Michael Moe, obviously a pioneer and ed tech. Talking about education. You guys have a position in a company called Course Hero. We talked about Starlink in terms of leveling the playing field in terms of access to broadband and things like that. How do you think education is going to evolve as a result of the pandemic, even trends that we were seeing before the pandemic, in terms of you have this great piece of paper that's extremely valuable. And the network you built from that piece of paper at Stanford is certainly probably even more valuable than the paper itself. But how do you think, given the massive rise in cost of education, this huge differential in the quality of education you can get in certain locations, how do you think technology is going to affect that? And do you think the pandemic sort of accelerated some of that change in terms of democratizing access to quality education?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (23:34)
I think it's been a mixed bag. I mean, you mentioned Starlink and a lot of this stuff really is the internet, right? So Starlink bringing the internet to people that didn't have it, is so important because the internet is not just education, it's also healthcare, right? It's also jobs. So all these things are related, but specifically in education, right? People, governments sent kids home from school and said, well, you can learn online. Except there were many, many kids in the US, and throughout the world, who didn't have access to internet that was fast enough to do that. They didn't have access to computers or tablets that they could use to actually go through classes. So, I think it's been a mixed bag, but it does bring with it this potential.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (24:15)
And I think more people are focused on this, where you really can do more and more of these things on the internet and bridging that digital divide, I think is more important. And I think it was always something that people thought about. And now they understand that you can bring everyone into the mainstream economy, if you can give them internet service, and the resources to learn, get healthcare. I mean, even our health care message, all these direct to consumer healthcare businesses. Like Curology, 30 Madison, [inaudible 00:24:44] club. I mean, you don't need to go to doctors for a lot of things. You can deal with that stuff remotely. And I think that's very exciting.

John Darsie: (24:51)
Yeah, absolutely. I want to talk about mobility for a second. So you have several investments in the mobility space ranging from scooters to car sharing and even had an investment in DiDi the Chinese ride sharing company. How do you think whether it's pre pandemic or post pandemic, how do you think mobility is evolving and what will that look like in 10 years? And how does your investment portfolio within the mobility space reflect your views on that market?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (25:17)
I mean, it's been a little bit of a mixed bag. I mean, obviously the pandemic shutdown mobility in a very broad sense substantially, so that affected different people's businesses in better or worse ways. But I do think that the underlying trend of people not needing to own really large, really expensive assets makes sense, right? So, that part of the business, I don't think it's going away. I think there's broadly speaking the standard trend towards urbanization. So, all of these business models make a ton of sense. Obviously, the pandemic was very disruptive, but you've seen them, quite frankly, to my earlier point, they bounced back much faster than even I would have expected. if you would have asked me last year to to look at what's going on with Turo, or Get Around, or Uber or any of these companies, like the businesses have really bounced back in a way that I got to say I was somewhat surprised.

John Darsie: (26:09)
Right. You have an investment in a company called Planet that takes pictures of the earth every day. And I've talked with some other investors who have investments in Planet, and some similar type ventures, but Planet and other satellite photograph services recently discovered the Chinese were building new missile silos, nuclear missile silos in certain parts of the country. What has Planet and other companies of its type made possible in terms of how we're able to monitor what's going on around the world and how are people using that in creative ways?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (26:45)
I mean, these things were never possible before all of the cost reductions in both launch and satellite and I think that, that's what's enabling this new generation of technologies to do what you're describing, where Planet really can take a picture of any spot on earth on a continuous basis once a day. And when you can start to see that you can understand what change is happening. And I think that's really the interesting thing. So you can see what's happening in the rain forest. You can see what's happening in China. You can see, and that helps for disaster management, right? Obviously, if there's been a natural disaster, knowing what's changed on the ground could be incredibly helpful to all of the workers who are trying to get to people.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (27:25)
So, it shows up in all sorts of interesting ways, whether or not it's farming, whether or not it's environmental, whether or not it's disaster response. And it only works if it's economically possible, right? I mean, the US government used to do these things and they could task a satellite and look at something once in a while. And that was an incredible change from what it was before. And you're just sort of seeing the cost curve come down on all electronics. And if you can launch things pretty cheaply, you can replace the electronics on a regular basis, which means you're always using the latest and greatest.

John Darsie: (28:01)
So, you also have, in terms of the di the defense sector, you have an investment in a company called Anduril, that is developing all kinds of novel technologies around defense. That is certainly courting government contracts, and things like that. How are they taking an approach that's disrupting sort of traditional defense companies and contractors?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (28:24)
Yeah. I mean, I think they're following sort of in the footsteps of what SpaceX and Palantir have sort of pushed the government towards, which is that you don't need to always specify everything that you want, and then have people build it for you custom. There are things that can be commercially viable that make it less expensive, and you can buy products off the shelves, right? And I think that it's this changed from cost plus manufacturing as a business and a mindset to we're going to build products that solve a problem that has a certain value to people.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (28:58)
And if we can do that well, then we've got a really great business. And I think it's a good change for the government to buy off the shelf products based on their value and not try to design everything themselves. I think that's a very hard problem. And I think for unique stuff, it totally makes sense. When you're sending a man to the moon, no one knows how much that costs, right? We've never done it before, but it's been a long time, and after 40, 50 years, we should find a commercial solution to this stuff.

John Darsie: (29:26)
Right. We know how to do it now. It's just a matter of being able to do it efficiently a high number of times.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (29:33)
I mean, look at smartphones, right? I mean, you don't need to specify this Apple and Samsung. These guys, they're going to keep improving these products and they're going to sell hundreds of millions of them. And that's what's going to drive the cost down for everybody, including the government.

John Darsie: (29:48)
Right. Yeah. We talked a little earlier about your time at Founders Fund. Peter Teal, obviously sort of the most prominent partner there at Founders Fund. Obviously he's not the only one making decisions, but he has sort of a libertarian view of the world. He believes that private sector has the ability to produce things, including things that you're talking about with Anduril more efficiently. What's your view of the world in terms of how public and private work together, you touched on it a little bit talking about defense companies and space companies and things like that. But what did you take away from your time working with Peter at Founders Fund? And do you share any of his worldview on that side of things?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (30:29)
I mean, obviously, it took a lot of things away from my time at Founders Fund my time with Peter, I think we share similar views of what companies are interesting, what companies are defensible, what companies will ultimately be incredibly valuable businesses. So I think a lot of that is the same. I mean, my views would be their market solutions work for a lot of things. And that ends up being better, faster, cheaper for everyone. I mean, obviously there are values to the government. There are things that the private sector is not going to do, but we should figure out where those lines are, and they constantly move. And the more things the government doesn't have to do, I think those things are better served by private businesses, by the market.

John Darsie: (31:13)
Right. And last question I want to ask you before we let you go relates to geography. So you had an investment in DiDi that I alluded to earlier. There's been a lot made of China's crack down on tech, starting with Alibaba through to Tencent. Now, DiDi delisting it from the app store. We could talk about China as its own distinct entity, how are you looking at allocating capital to China? We had some deals come across our desk based in China that we certainly took a hard look at, but had reservations about. How do you look at China and then geographically, are you focused on the United States? Or how do you look at places like Europe, places like emerging markets, whether it be Africa, Southeast Asia? Geographically, where are you focusing your investments and how do you think about geography?

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (31:59)
And for us, we've always been focused on the US the vast majority of our investments are here. Partially, that's just driven by we're a relatively small organization, and this is where our networks and our relationships are. And it's obviously the place that we understand the best. We've been willing to invest internationally. I mean, obviously you mentioned the DiDi investment. We invested in Spotify. We've been willing to invest elsewhere, broadly speaking, that's when we've had a very good relationship with the company. We've had friends who have brought us into opportunities. So we feel comfortable with why we're seeing them in the first place. China is its own unique place, in a way that I think India is also its own unique place, right? Europe is different than the US, but we share a lot more similarities. The markets are a little bit more structurally similar, so we're totally open to investing internationally, but we're somewhat hesitant to do it in place just because we don't know those areas as well. And so we will, generally speaking, do that when we feel we've got some friends around the table that make us feel more comfortable.

John Darsie: (33:02)
All right, Justin, well, it's been a pleasure to have you on congratulations on what you've built at 137 Ventures. I think you have an incredibly exciting portfolio. You've obviously exited a lot of the hottest tech companies that we've seen come to market in the last five to 10 years and best of luck with all your future growth.

Justin Fishner-Wolfson: (33:21)
Thank you. Very nice talking with you.

John Darsie: (33:23)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's Salt Talk with Justin Fishner-Wolfson of 137 Ventures. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous Salt Talks, you can access them all on demand on our website at salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called Salt too. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at Salt Conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these Salt Talks. We think people like Justin providing incredible access to private market opportunities, that a lot of investors didn't have access to when Justin started doing what he's doing. So thankful for people like him and how he's opened up these markets. 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 against soon.

Yasmeen Abutaleb & Damian Paletta: Nightmare Scenario | SALT Talks #243

“One of the biggest problems with this pandemic response was there was no one in charge. That had been an element of the Trump White House in the three previous years- he didn’t let anyone get too powerful.”

Yasmeen Abutaleb is a national reporter at The Washington Post, covering health policy, with a focus on the Department of Health and Human Services, health policy on Capitol Hill and health care in politics. She previously covered health care for Reuters. Damian Paletta is White House economic policy reporter for The Washington Post. Before joining The Post, he covered the White House for the Wall Street Journal.

Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta detail many of the major missteps from the Trump administration’s pandemic response, including shelving a ready-made plan to ship masks to every American household. Abutaleb and Paletta highlight Trump’s contradictions in his call for vaccine credit while refusing to advocate seriously for his followers to take it. They note some of the ways a power vacuum in the White House left a pandemic response void and how public health officials like Dr. Fauci have been demonized and threatened.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Yasmeen Abutaleb.jpeg

Yasmeen Abutaleb

National Reporter

The Washington Post

Damian Paletta.jpeg

Damian Paletta

White House Economic Policy Reporter

The Washington Post

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:17 - Pandemic missteps

6:35 - Trump administration’s war on science

9:48 - Operation Warp Speed and Trump base’s contradiction

14:17 - Anthony Fauci demonization and conspiracies

19:39 - Vaccine safety and convincing those who are hesitant

25:44 - Who was really in charge of the pandemic response in Trump administration?

30:45 - Establishing a record of Trump White House pandemic response

35:31 - Evaluating US public health agencies’ responses

39:50 - Missed opportunities to prevent death and economic fallout

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 talks is the same as our goal at our Salt conferences, which we're excited to hopefully resume here in September of 2021. And that'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. We're very excited today to welcome two fantastic journalists and authors to Salt Talks, they're out with a recent book about the Trump administration's response to the pandemic crisis. Yasmeen Abutaleb is a national reporter at the Washington Post covering health policy with a focus on the department of health and human services, health policy on Capitol Hill, and health care in politics.

John Darsie: (01:06)
Interesting beat to be on over the last 18 months to say the least. Damian Paletta is the White House economic policy reporter for The Washington Post. Before joining the Post, he covered the White House for the Wall Street Journal. The new book that these two co authored is called Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration's Response to the Pandemic That Changed History. And I think as this entire wave of Trump books has come out, I think a lot of them there's a little bit of staleness to a lot of the content. We know that the administration was chaotic and incompetent, and politicized in many ways. But I think this book, very unique in the way it tackles the politics of the pandemic, and why it ended up being such a disaster that it was for the country.

John Darsie: (01:49)
But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. I have to mention since we're talking about politics and public policy, that Anthony did spend 11 days within the Trump administration, as communications director, but with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:07)
So, you see, he's trying to knock me down a peg Yasmeen, you see what he's doing? Okay. That just, "Oh, he got fired from the White House after 11 days."

John Darsie: (02:17)
I didn't say fired. I said you spent 11 days-

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:21)
Let me just tell you something, okay? It's okay to do this in July, but I just want to let you know, I decide bonuses sometime around Thanksgiving. So you better stop between now and Thanksgiving, just let you know that.

Damian Paletta: (02:31)
He might have raised you up a peg actually by saying that you got out so quick.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:35)
Well, yeah, it might have raised me up a peg that in fact I got fired.

John Darsie: (02:38)
It's a badge of honor at this point.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:40)
Let's talk about this book, which is an incredible book, you guys did a brilliant job. And I started out by saying that a lot of it is hard to believe. Okay. So, let's start with you met Yasmeen. You wrote the book, Damian, you guys wrote the book. But when you're reading parts of it in terms of policies and decision making, it's like, "Oh, God, how could that have been made like that?" Tell us one of the more outrageous things that happened that you were like, "Okay, I can't believe I'm writing this, but it is factual, and so therefore I'm writing."

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (03:16)
I think one of the most devastating incidents Damian and I came across was this plan that a top health official had proposed to send a mask to every American household. They wanted to send a packet of five masks to every house in the US. And this official, Bob Kadlec, who was the head of emergency preparedness at the Health and Human Services Department, had already worked with a couple of undergarment manufacturers like, Jockey and Hanes, and the plan was that they were going to manufacture 650 million masks by sometime in May. And the goal was for the government to send these masks to everyone through the US Postal Service, which is an important detail for later. And that way you just depoliticize this whole thing. Obviously wearing masks was a pretty new concept to Americans. And they wanted to say, this recommendation's coming from the president, it's coming from the White House, just do this to protect yourself and protect your neighbor.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (04:21)
And that plan got shot down in the task force for a couple of reasons. One was the vice president's chief of staff Mark Short, did not like that. He felt that Kadlec was freelancing, that he had sort of done this without going through the normal processes at the Office of Management and Budget. And part of the reason for that was because I think Kadlec knew it would probably get killed if he went through the process that way. And also that they didn't want to be alarmist, this was in late March, by sending masks to everyone. And even though the health officials had coalesced around recommending that all Americans wear masks, some of the political officials still were not on board with this and were afraid of how Trump's base might react. And so this was pulled off the agenda. Mark Short made sure it never got back on. And another part of the reason it got killed was because there was concerned that the President was not going to go for a plan that relied on the US Postal Service, because at the time, he was waging a war against the Postal Service.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (05:18)
We're worried about mailing ballots ahead of the election. And so, Damian and I thought this was such a great example of the completely disastrous policymaking process throughout the response. It's not going through normal channels, it's yanked off the agenda not even discussed for political reasons. There's this President's weird aversion to the postal service. And so this whole plan gets mixed. And it's one of those moments where you just wonder how different things would have gone if in March and April and May, the government was just sending people masks and it was not turned into this political cudgel.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:52)
So, Damian, you and I've talked before, let me hold up the book here, I've got it here on my phone, because I left it unfortunately on my nightstand last night. It's a brilliant book, it goes in depth detail on what happened and how many avoidable things there were. But to me Damian, one of the most alarming things in the book, and correct me if I'm wrong, it feels like the administration was waging an all out war against the medical and scientific community in the United States. That's the thing I got out of the book. And so why, Damian?

Damian Paletta: (06:31)
Well-

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:32)
Do I have that right first of all, and then secondarily why if I do?

Damian Paletta: (06:35)
Yes, absolutely. And it's I think one of the worst legacies. Obviously, the death of 600,000 people is a terrible, terrible legacy of this. But one of the worst legacies, is what we're living through now, which is that the President by attacking the scientists and medical professionals, has ceded all this distrust to this day in vaccines and science. So, not only is he... He's out of office, he's gone, right? He's lost his Twitter account. But there's still millions and millions of people who believe this mindset that he kind of implanted in them, which is, "I'm right, the scientists are wrong, believe me, don't believe them." And I think it really got started in the early days of this when to his credit, Azar, and obviously, Fauci and Birx and others were warning that this could be really bad.

Damian Paletta: (07:24)
And the President was so used to deflecting every crisis that came his way, whether it was the impeachment, or all these scandals with women and stuff, everything just sort of kind of fell off his back, he was like Teflon, and he said this would be gone in 15 days, there's just a few cases, when it gets warmer it's going to go away again. He was creating this counter narrative to all the science. And that got harder obviously, as the virus really sunk its teeth into the country. And so instead of kind of reversing course, or acknowledging, "Hey, the scientists were right, I was wrong," he just kind of doubled and tripled down. He brought in Scott Atlas and other people who would kind of reaffirm his beliefs that this was just like the flu. And there came a point when it was just too late to change course. Obviously, one of the biggest moments of this the best example, sadly, was when he got sick and nearly died.

Damian Paletta: (08:17)
He did not wear a mask, he packed the White House with people. He was a month from the election and his poll numbers were bad. So he was doing whatever, he could just kind of send this image that he was indestructible and the country's indestructible, and obviously, the virus got him and it got him bad. And over that weekend, Yasmeen and I report in the book, the doctors... The red field and others met and talked and said, "Well, let's pray that this is the moment, the kind of epiphany that he's needed to see how dangerous this is." And they thought there's no way this guy could be on the brink of death and emerge with the same kind of cavalier attitude about it. And sure enough, the whole world watched as he walked up the steps and took up the mask and said, "Don't be afraid." Read fields heart sank and a lot of other people thought, "Well, there's no way he's going to reverse course, now he's just going to drive us off the ledge." And that's what ended up happening.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:10)
So, Yasmeen, explain this to me, because you write about it eloquently in the book, you guys do Operation Warp Speed, very successful, it was actually a great idea to funnel money out to the different pharmaceutical companies to backstop their risk taking to expedite the vaccine for the virus, and yet, they Trumpers, they don't want to take vac... So he should get credit for Operation Warp Speed, but at the same time, we're not going to take the vaccine that he should get credit for. So, can you square the circle for me?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (09:48)
I wish I could. So, I think there's a couple different pieces to that. Yes, he deserves credit for Operation Warp Speed, as does his administration. And it's kind of funny in this ironic way, because the vaccine was probably the hardest thing to do, and to get it done in record time. And it's the one thing they did successfully. So, it's kind of heartbreaking in a way, because you wonder if they had brought the same level of focus and energy and resources to other parts of the response, how things might have gone differently. But yes, they decided to make this massive investment, to take out the financial risk for these companies so that they could just throw everything they had into the R&D of the vaccine. They helped them get access to manufacturing facilities that they could manufacture doses of vaccine before they knew if they worked to basically to get rid of lags in the whole process.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (10:42)
But the President, while he does deserve credit for the administration taking this on, undercut confidence in the vaccine at every step of the way, because it became clear by the summer of 2020, and especially into the fall, as we got closer to the election, that he was berating the FDA to move faster on the vaccine, he made it clear and completely explicit terms that he wanted it before the election. And you could see in public polls, how much trust was falling in this whole process. You're already asking people to really trust that the FDA knows what it's doing because the fastest vaccine before this one had been developed in four years. Now, we're looking at one developed in under a year, so people need to feel assured that the FDA is not cutting corners, that it's doing a full safety and effectiveness evaluation. And if they feel like it's being done for political purposes, that's just going to undercut trust more and more. But unlike the Vice President, Dr. Fauci, a number of his administration officials, the President did not get vaccinated on TV, he did not sort of give a public display of confidence in the vaccine in that way, we found out-

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:51)
Why?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (11:53)
Well, he has a complicated history with vaccine. So, a lot of his base are anti-vaxxers, they don't believe in this. They're fueling a number of conspiracy theories about the vaccine. You can see on Fox News every night, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity who has changed his tune somewhat, are railing against vaccination campaigns and trying to get people vaccinated. So there's this dual thing of him wanting the vaccine before the election because he thinks it will give people confidence the virus will go away, but also not wanting to alienate that portion of his base. And he also has his own complicated view on vaccines. He's kind of flirted with anti-vaccine views in the past. And if he didn't get vac-

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:34)
Yeah. And he thinks it's experitorial, he throws out there. It's like a doorframe log, anything that you can throw sows the seeds of distrust he'll throw it out there. I'm sorry, but go ahead.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (12:45)
Well, to your point when you were asking the question, there's this dual thing of wanting credit for the vaccines, but also not doing anything to help more people get vaccinated. What a lot of I think doctors including Dr. Fauci learned last year was that Trump supporters really hang on his every word. So you just have to wonder how many more people would get vaccinated among the holdouts right now, if the President had, A, gotten vaccinated on TV, and B, was out there right now saying, "This was such a big accomplishment of my administration, you should go out and get the vaccine. It's safe and effective." But of course, we're not seeing that happen.

Damian Paletta: (13:21)
I would just add to that, Anthony. There's actually no evidence that he has been vaccinated. Okay? He said it on Fox News on a radio interview. There's no photograph, as he has been said, there's no doctor Who said anything. I think this kind of allows his supporters to-

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:39)
You've never met a bigger baby than this guy, trust me, he's been vaccinated. Okay? He's a big, big, baby. I guarantee that he's been vaccinated with or without his diaper. I'm not sure. But let's go to a question that's important to me. This is the Rand Paul, Anthony Fauci squaring off on each other. So, go ahead. Obviously, I'm biased, so you have to forgive me. I know Anthony Fauci a long time, [inaudible 00:14:08] rumors around respect for him. And I think that Rand Paul wears a tinfoil hat to work. But go ahead. You tell me what's going on there.

Damian Paletta: (14:18)
Well, I would just... The opening scene of the book is from August 2020, when Fauci takes a letter that he received in his house and opens it in his office with a letter opener and all this white powder kind of explodes all over his face. And he screams for security, they have to strip them down, essentially naked and decontaminate him. They thought it could be ricin or anthrax. There were a lot of people who wanted to hurt this guy. And in part, it was because of people like Rand Paul and President Trump, who were just you know, demonizing him and alleging that he was destroying the country. I think the threats against Fauci have only gotten worse since the inauguration of Biden. A lot of people including Rand Paul, have essentially suggested it was all Fauci's fault that Biden won, that Trump lost. Rand Paul, I think was one of the first members of Congress to get Coronavirus. He's still refuse to wear a mask. He is kind of an outlier in terms of Congress in his thinking on the Fed and the economy.

Damian Paletta: (15:19)
But there are many millions of people who agree with his conspiracy theory that Fauci created the virus in cahoots with the Chinese and this kind of stuff. It's completely out of this world crazy, but he continues to feed it. And I think Fauci does go toe to toe with him. A lot of people on Capitol Hill when they testify, will be careful not to be too adversarial. But Fauci, you can see how pissed he is that this guy has the nerve, this doctor no less has the nerve to question him. Yasmeen and I, we've talked about it a lot. It's not going to go away. And Fauci is not going to back down and this guys 80 years old, and he visibly pissed.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:03)
But I mean-

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (16:04)
And I think...

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:06)
Well, let's talk for our viewers benefit. Yasmeen, what are the allegations that Senator Paul is making? And then what is the refutation of those allegations?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (16:18)
So a lot of this, and Senator Paul started this last spring. And it's just the theme in all these hearings whenever Fauci appears before the Senate Health Committee, that the virus may have accidentally escaped or was engineered in a lab in Wuhan, that the NIH had indirectly had provided some funding to. So, the short version of it is, there's no evidence that the virus was deliberately engineered and unleashed on the world. That's been pretty clearly shot down. There are still questions about whether it may have accidentally leaked out of the lab and started an outbreak that way. And the way it accidentally leaked is it maybe infects a lab worker, and the outbreak goes from there. And what happened was the NIH had provided this grant to a New York group called Eco Health Alliance back in 2014. And part of that grant went to the Wuhan lab, because they are one of the top labs in the world one of two or three on coronaviruses, because so many of them originate in China.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (17:17)
So, there are all these allegations that the NIH funded the Wuhan lab and of course, there are some right wing conspiracy theorists who have taken that several steps further, said Dr. Fauci, worked with the Wuhan lab to create the virus and unleash it which of course, is nonsense, that the root of this is that a sub grant from the NIH went to the Wuhan lab, and it's like a $600,000 grant. And that grant was actually suspended last year when these questions started circulating about the origins of the virus, which we still don't know. But Senator Paul, in every hearing, insist on bringing this up. And then the hearing just a few days ago, he took it further than he ever has by accusing Fauci of perjuring himself by lying to Congress. And that's when you saw Fauci really kind of stand up and defend himself because he said, "I've never lied." He said, "If anyone was lying, it was Senator Paul."

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (18:11)
Because Senator Paul was trying to imply or not even imply, just state that Fauci had lied to Congress by saying that the NIH had not funded what's called gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, which there's no way to know whether the lab was conducting it or not, but the NIH grant was not approved for those purposes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:32)
So, I know John has a ton of questions for you guys. But I have one more question that's bothering me a lot. And I want to get both of your reactions to. I have family members that won't get vaccinated. I have school teacher friends of mine that will not get vaccinated. I came in this morning to a litany of email death threats, because I was on CNBC last Friday telling people they have to get vaccinated if they want to come to our conference if they want to work here at SkyBridge. And so now I'm a fascist for wanting to be vaccinated. But when we were fighting the Nazis in World War Two, we had a draft mandate, and everybody had to go to the drip.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:11)
All we're asking people to do now is to take a jab to protect their fellow men and women. So what am I getting wrong? Are these vaccines... This is a question for both you, two part question. Are these vaccines safe? Yes or no? And why? And then secondarily, what can we do if they are safe? And I believe that they are. What can we do to change the hearts and minds of these people? So let's start with you, Damien. Are these vaccines safe? Yes or no?

Damian Paletta: (19:40)
I think the vaccines are absolutely safe. At this point, they've administered more than 100 million in the United States. Okay. There have been some cases that required more study, but there wasn't anything that made them feel like they were unsafe. There are some breakthrough cases now we're hearing about. When you have a vaccine that's miraculously 95% effective, that 5%, when you do more than 100 million people, there's still going to be people who become sick, but they don't tend to... The symptoms are better and it's less severe. So, yes, the vaccine is safe.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:16)
Is there a microchip in the vaccine-

Damian Paletta: (20:18)
No.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:19)
... where the government's monitoring you?

Damian Paletta: (20:21)
No, but-

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:22)
Is it genetically altering your DNA, so you're going to-

Damian Paletta: (20:26)
No.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:27)
... turn into something that's not human?

Damian Paletta: (20:29)
It is not. It is a vaccine, the kind of vaccine that you've been given since you were six months old, you've been getting vaccines, okay? It's the top scientists in the world, it really is a miracle that they were able to do this in under a year. And there's literally more than 100 million people who have gotten one of three different shots in the past six months in this country, and are participating in society and healthy and running and playing basketball and baseball, and everything's going... And having babies and everything is working like it should. Now, it seems like a ridiculous thing when you mentioned microchips. Okay? But there was a recent survey that was done that said of the people who refuse to get vaccinated, more than 50% Anthony, believe that there is some kind of microchip that's being inserted. Okay? It's such a ridiculous thing to... I'm not being elitist.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:30)
No. But I look, I grew up in a blue collar family, these people distrust... You have to understand the blue collar people feel they've been left out of the system. So, they distrust the system and they distrust the establishment. Let me... Yasmeen, let me ask you this question because I just want to get your view on it. What do you say to somebody that's not vaccinated? I'm sure you've met them. Maybe you have them in your... I have them in my family. So, what do you say?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (21:57)
Yeah, I think all of us have people in our families or in our friend groups who are not getting vaccinated for any number of reasons. I think one thing that's really important is to not be condescending to people who are not getting it for one reason or another, but just explaining to them why they should trust it, the process that it had to go through to be evaluated as safe and effective. Why it's not going to... That people are seriously concerned it's going to alter your DNA. And there's a simple answer to that-

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:26)
Is it going to make people infertile?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (22:28)
No, it's not. And I've had friends who are six, seven.eight months pregnant, getting the vaccine in the third trimester of their pregnancy, they all delivered healthy babies, people who got the vaccine before they got pregnant, one of my friends got it just a couple months before she got pregnant, and now she's pregnant. So, there's no effect on fertility. It's been studied, it will continue to be studied. And I think like Damien said, we've now seen it administered in hundreds of millions of people. I think one thing that's important to understand about vaccines, is for every vaccine on the market, there are adverse events, we just normally don't pay as close attention to other vaccines, because they don't have the same kind of historic nature of this one. This one's kind of unique in that we're all getting it no matter what age group at the same time, as opposed to childhood vaccines or late adulthood ones or whatever they might be.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (23:20)
So, I think it's important to understand what a particular person's concerns are, if it's that their DNA is going to be altered, I think people are mixing of DNA and mRNA, which is what the Pfizer and Madonna vaccines are. So, you can just simply tell them, it's actually an mRNA vaccine, it has nothing to do with your DNA, there is no concern that your DNA is going to be altered. On the microchip piece of it, I know that that's a serious concern that people have, I think you have to explain why that's just not a possibility. You can't put a microchip in a vaccine vial. And that would never be approved by the FDA, you can't secretly do that kind of thing. So, I think a lot of this is just a lack of trust in the process, a lack of trust in the FDA and our public institutions for the reasons that you stated that people feel like they've been left behind. So, I think it's important to meet people where they are and address their concerns head on, not just keep yelling at them that it's safe and effective, safe and effective.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:16)
Yeah. I take your point because it is a control thing for some people. You don't want to sound condescending, you need to get them to make an informed choice. I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie, who's got a series of questions and he gets a lot of attention because he gets fan mail. I get hate mail. People are threatening to kill me because I'm a pro-vaxxer, but John gets fan mail about these Salt Talks. And he always reminds me of the fan mail that he's getting. So, just do me a favor, when he asks a good question, don't say, "Oh, that's a really good question." Because it will upset me. Okay? Go ahead, Darsie. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (24:50)
I like to say that I indirectly get death threats directed at you into just our generic inboxes at SkyBridge and Salt. So-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:58)
We get a lot of [inaudible 00:24:59] death threats too. Yeah.

John Darsie: (25:00)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:01)
I want people to get vaccinated. I think they... Well, that's all. They get upset with me. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (25:06)
Yeah. So, one thing you guys tackled in the book that I think is fascinating and sort of symptomatic, if you will, of the way the Trump administration operated, is it who was really in charge of the pandemic response within the White House? Was it something that Trump was commanding control, and he was day to day in there, obviously, monitoring logistics around the vaccine development and response to the pandemic? Was Jared Kushner? Was it Mike Pence, who was initially put in charge of the task force? Who was the one that was really leading the charge, and ultimately, had some accountability about the response? And I'll start with you on that one, Damien.

Damian Paletta: (25:44)
I would say that no one was in charge. At any given point, the President was in charge briefly, Jared Kushner was in charge of getting masks and gowns briefly, Mike Pence was supposed to be in charge of the task force, but he was constantly being undermined. And he was kind of trying to deal with all these conflicting forces, whether they were political or health. Deborah Birx was in charge of certain things, but then she was dramatically undermined. And then Anthony Fauci, I think had a big role in messaging and did a lot behind the scenes with the vaccine and other things, but the White House did everything they could to keep him from being too powerful. Then you had Mark Meadows, who would come in when he could to kind of cut the legs out from under certain people when he thought they were getting too powerful, Alex Azar started out with a lot of power initially, but the White House kind of reined him in.

Damian Paletta: (26:38)
So I think one of the biggest problems with this whole response was that there was no one in charge. And unfortunately, that had kind of been an element of the Trump White House for the previous three years that worked for the president. He didn't let anyone get too powerful. There was a rotating cast of Chiefs of Staff, by not allowing anyone to become too important and play too much of a leadership role. It allowed him to kind of keep everyone on their toes, made people more sycophantic because they were always worried about how they would look in his eyes. And so in a case like this, when there was a public health crisis, when you needed truth and information delivered quickly, it was a huge part of the problem in the response.

John Darsie: (27:18)
Yasmeen, do you have anything to add to that?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (27:23)
I think Damian hit on it. And we say this in the book. In many ways, it was designed so that no one was ever truly in charge. Because the president wanted to be able to append things or decide to do things differently at any point in time. And so, one of the... I think this was probably the most damaging element of the response, is that without leadership, people don't know who they're supposed to listen to, everyone can try to undercut each other and go behind each other's backs. And when you're fighting a virus this difficult and this lethal, you all have to kind of put aside your differences and unite to fight the virus. That is not what they were doing at all. And it's because at any point in time, people could come in and try to outwit each other or try to one up each other and take over the response.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (28:07)
And you saw that happen multiple times a month. Like Damien said, you had Azar, and then you had Pence, and then you had Kushner for a little bit, and then Kushner left and then Birx never really had the autonomy she wanted. So it's just... In the end, it was just kind of this team of vipers all vying to see who would come out on top.

John Darsie: (28:27)
Right. And it's almost as if at this point in the administration's lifecycle, that everybody had been hollowed out from the administration, who had the gumption to challenge the President and to tell him hard truths. And it's almost like we worried for four years about a bonafide crisis bubbling up that the Trump administration with all of its issues would have to deal with. We got one in the last year of his presidency at a time when he was surrounded all sort of by yes men that just wanted to save their own skin, rather than serve the public good. Is that an accurate assessment, Damien?

Damian Paletta: (29:03)
Absolutely. And I think, Kelly's gone, Tillerson's gone, Meadows is gone, a lot of the people who were kind of tough enough to stand up to him, obviously... Nielsen was gone, the people who weren't necessarily going to do whatever he said, had been pushed out. And so, I was actually just thinking, Anthony mentioned, we talked a lot about vaccines, as we should continue to talk for months. But one of... If you remember that moment in March, when they finally agreed as a taskforce that they should advocate for people to wear masks.

Damian Paletta: (29:33)
And then the President goes up to make the announcement and says, "Well, I'm not gonna wear one, it's voluntary." So then, the country's like, "Well, who do we believe? Do we believe Fauci? Who a lot of the country believed at the time, or do we believe when the president says he's not going to wear one, and we love him, maybe we shouldn't wear one either. And it was that kind of stuff. The lack of a single person kind of delivering a specific message that has plagued the process to this day.

John Darsie: (29:58)
Right. And the point you were making earlier Damian about there being no concrete evidence or testimony from a doctor about Trump getting a vaccine, I thought was very interesting, and one that I've never thought about before. And he sort of takes that approach with a lot of different issues, whether it be things like immigration and racism, he winks at certain things without fully endorsing them to sort of allow him to play both sides of the coin. So, in this case, I guess you were saying that there's no hard evidence of him getting vaccinated, but he says he got vaccinated. So if he gets challenged on it, he can say, "Well, I got vaccinated, why are you blaming me?" But at the same time, the vaccine hesitant and the conspiratorial side of his base, can still say, "Oh, he didn't actually mean it. He's just trying to appease sort of the woke movement by saying that he got vaccinated." Is that sort of what you were hinting at?

Damian Paletta: (30:45)
Exactly. And I think as you guys know, with the challenge of writing this book, Yasmeen and I felt really strongly that there had to be a book about the pandemic response. There's a lot of Trump books about different things and there should be, but there needed to be a specific book about the response. So, one of our biggest challenges was, Well, what do we know? There was so much misinformation and lying and deception, we really wanted to break down what we knew. And so when we reconstructed that weekend that he was sick, we really spent a ton of time going to different people to try to find out what exactly happened, who exactly was talking to who, how sick was he really? Because you can't trust the things that were coming out of his mouth or some of his senior aids mouths, we really thought it was important almost as a historical document, to really find out exactly what happened.

Damian Paletta: (31:36)
And so when he says on a Tuesday night at 9:30 on Fox News that he got vaccinated, well, it's up to us to try to find out whether he can back that up. And by not backing that up whether he was or he wasn't, people can interpret it however they want to interpret it. And obvious, months later they have.

John Darsie: (31:54)
Yasmeen, how hard was that reporting around his visit to the hospital when he was infected with COVID? It was the first time that I had seen a detailed in depth reporting of those events that matched up with some things that we had heard from other sources, but nobody in the media had written about all those inner workings of that visit, and just how close he might have been to dying from COVID, which obviously would have thrown the country into chaos. But how hard was that reporting relative to other things that you guys have reported on within the Trump administration?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (32:27)
It was really difficult because at the end of the day, it was a national security failure, right? They didn't protect the president. That's a complete dereliction of duty. And they had the tools they needed to protect him, but they just refused, including the President refused to use them, whether it was masks or regular testing at the White House or using more reliable tests. So, Damian and I were reporting for the Post at the time. And I remember reporting on that weekend, we could not get clear answers, we really did not know what was going on. We tried for weeks, and then of course it was the election before we knew it. But when we were recording that weekend and the days following, we kept asking the White House, "Are you contact tracing to try to find out where the President got the infection from and where everyone else got the infection from? Which event was the super spreader event?" But people thought it was the big event they had had in the Rose Garden for Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (33:27)
And the White House was getting so annoyed at those questions, because they were like, "Why are you asking us for the third day in a row for contact tracing? It's over, the investigations over." And I think that was just such a clear indication of that they really didn't want the answers to these questions. He got out of the hospital, he made it through. So it was really hard to get answers, and Damien and I couldn't actually get them until pretty close to when we were wrapping up the book, because a lot of the people who actually did know about the President's condition, and how sick he was and how the events unfolded that weekend, were not ready to talk about it until they knew he had lost the election. He was out of power, and that they were not going to go back in and work in the Trump administration or the next administration.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (34:10)
So it was really only several weeks after the inauguration that we could start getting the people who actually knew to open up. Because it turned out a lot of his closest advisors themselves had no idea what was going on that weekend.

John Darsie: (34:25)
Right. Yeah, it was certainly a tight circle of people that I think understood the gravity of what was going on. You could piece it together based on certain treatments that he was getting, but there was no... You couldn't responsibly report it in something like the Washington Post without verifying some of those sources. But, Yasmeen, I have another question for you. And it's about the public health community. Obviously, they've done yeoman's work during the pandemic, Dr. Fauci has been sleeping four or five hours a night at most as he's helped us work through the pandemic and he's one of many people that have been instrumental in trying to limit the number of deaths and infections from COVID. But the CDC, the FDA, there's been certain periods of this pandemic that haven't necessarily covered themselves in glory, they've given out either confusing guidance, or they've had to backtrack on different recommendations they've given. We're obviously sort of in the heat of battle still right now when it comes to fighting COVID.

John Darsie: (35:15)
So I don't think there's going to be a lot of hand wringing right now. But how do you think long-term, we might sort of reevaluate the way these public health organizations operate in terms of maintaining consistency, accountability, and things like that?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (35:31)
I'm so glad you asked that, because obviously, we spend a lot of time focusing on Trump. One of the strengths Damian and I thought of this book is that we've dive pretty deep into the health agencies and to other people who were involved in the response. The President's one of several characters throughout the book. So, I think this pandemic has really, really stress test the health agencies, especially the CDC and the FDA. And I think you're seeing the effects of that now still, even though Trump's not an office, they have a president who says he's going to follow the science and that they can go where the science leads them, they're still making a number of unforced errors and mistakes. And I think part of that is the fatigue of dealing with the pandemic for a year and a half. And also that they're not structured to deal with something like this. They're really not.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (36:19)
The CDC was supposed to be the leader in the world, they really failed in this response in multiple ways. And a lot of that rests with Trump and political interference. But a lot of it also rests with the agency, just that it's a very slow moving agency, it is not designed to respond to such a fast moving virus like this, they were way too slow with a number of decisions, because they kind of rests on academic science, and they're not as good at moving in with real time data and not having the perfect academic data, but saying, "Okay, this is what we're seeing happening on the ground and this is what we should do now."Like with masks, with the test, with some of their guidances. You see, even now with them kind of wringing their hands over what to do about the masks guidance with the Delta variant. And the FDA had so many forced errors last year in authorizing hydroxychloroquine, with no evidence that it worked. And the doctors could already prescribe it if they wanted to, with this whole debacle over convalescent plasma.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (37:19)
The reason they held firm on the vaccine, I think is because they had had so many disasters leading up to it, that they were like, "We're at risk of destroying this agency's 114 year reputation, if we don't hold firm on this." And they had seen the effects of making the wrong decision on these other treatments or rolling it out in the wrong way. So, they really didn't cut corners on the vaccine, which obviously was great. But you see them now still struggling with a number of things, and they have so much on their plate. So, I think hopefully people don't forget this pandemic too quickly, once we hopefully get through it. And really think about why our public institutions were not set up to respond very well to many parts of this crisis and what they need, whether it's, maybe the CDC has too much responsibility, maybe they need more flexibility, maybe the FDA needs to be structured differently. But I think there needs to be a number of sort of after action reports, hopefully some kind of congressional investigation to look at why the US public health institutions didn't do a better job.

John Darsie: (38:22)
Right. I think there's sort of a middle ground between sort of unbridled veneration of a lot of the agencies and the public figures that have led our response to the crisis that haven't always done the right thing and openly or questioning all institutions. I think, certainly some critical questions can be asked of certain agencies and people in regard to the response, but I don't think that means we should be questioning science at its heart. But I want to ask you a question for both of you sort of in the same vein, and it starts with Yasmeen. How many people and I know there's been public comment from various public health officials on this, but we have 600,000 plus people have died from COVID-19 in the United States. What's the number that if we had had a competent and rapid response to the pandemic, what's the realistic number that we could have hoped to limit it to in terms of the number of deaths? We'll start with that. And then Damien, they've always, I think the Trump administration, they looked at the economic impacts and the public health impact of COVID as distinct items.

John Darsie: (39:24)
It's like, "If we just keep things open, the economy will keep going." That was pretty much disproven, I think, people if they were going to get sick and potentially die, they weren't going to go out in public to restaurants and things like that. So what do you think the economic impact could have been? Let's say we had a competent response early on in the pandemic, what do you think the economic in terms of mitigating the economic impacts we could have had? We'll start with Yasmeen and then go to Damien on the second question.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (39:51)
I will say they didn't say the good things to agencies did, but they did, they did a lot right too. I don't know that we know one exact number for how many fewer people would have died with a different response, because there's so many elements to it. There are studies that have shown if everyone had worn masks, you could have prevented I think 60,000 deaths or something around that by last August. And that would have been dramatically more for that devastating winter surge. So, I think it's safe to say hundreds of thousands of deaths could have been prevented with a better response with something as universal as... or as simple as just getting most people to wear masks. Mask wearing was great in some parts of the country and almost non existent in other parts.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (40:34)
And then of course, I think consistent messaging would have made a really big difference, there's such a divide in how seriously people perceive the threat of the virus. And that affected what measures they were willing to take. And then of course, the fact that the US has a pretty poor safety net just made this exponentially more difficult for low income people, for essential workers who have to go into work. And then of course, for communities of color, black and Hispanic people were three times more likely to die than white people from the virus. So, there were a number of factors. But if there had been an administration paying attention to all of these issues, and continually stressing the need to wear masks that it had never gotten to the point it's gotten now, I think it is safe to say hundreds of thousands of deaths would have been prevented.

Damian Paletta: (41:23)
And on the economy, it's such a interesting question. I think what they did, and what they had to do at the time was an enormous amount of government assistance in March with the two trillion dollar Cares Act, and then they had to come back again, with another couple trillion dollars as the year went on. And so what they did in a way was they prevented... The stock market came back with the help of the Federal Reserve starting in late March of 2020 to now, where it's at record levels. Unfortunately, the White House saw the stock market rebound as their indicator that the economy was fine. And really what had happened was the economy was kind of addicted to government support. Because they gave hundreds of billions of dollars in small businesses, the stimulus checks went out, unemployment assistance went out, there was no way and to this day it continues, the government is still so attracted in the economy, that we don't know what will happen when a lot of these programs are allowed to expire. Can all these small businesses stand on their own two feet? We don't know.

Damian Paletta: (42:25)
Will the airline industry really come back, or if the Delta variant really sweeps through Europe, is that going to knock the travel industry off? I don't know. I think what we have to consider is that the hard things were not fixed. There're still millions and millions of Americans who do not have jobs because their job has disappeared. It's not like they're waiting for their employer to rehire them, the company doesn't exist anymore, or doesn't need them anymore because of automation or some other reason. And we're seeing these huge supply chain problems, the rental car industry is a total disaster, you can sell your used car now for more than you bought it for when it was new.

Damian Paletta: (43:06)
There's just these things in the economy that are broken. And the easy thing was just to give everyone money, and they had to do that. People needed to survive. But we don't know now what will happen when for example, the rental protections expire. Are they really going to kick hundreds of thousands or millions of people out of their apartments? These harder things haven't been done yet. And that's the legacy of the pandemic. And that's going to be really hard for the Biden administration to sort out.

John Darsie: (43:34)
Well, Damien and Yasmeen, it's been a pleasure to have you on again, I think you wrote in a sea of, I'm not going to say generic books and criticize the other books. But there's been a lot of political analysis of the Trump administration, while you guys certainly integrated politics into your discussion, I think it was a masterclass and just evaluating the administration's response to the pandemic, and something that's still ongoing and still affecting us today. What was their initial response and the sort of cleaning up of that process? But Anthony, do have a final word before we let Damien and Yasmeen go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:06)
No, I applaud the truth in your book, I'm shocked by a lot of the decisions that were born from ignorance or insecurity frankly, and I think it's a cautionary tale about the centralization of power frankly, because if you get one person in the mix, they can be destabilizing to a whole group of people that know better. And so I think that's really the lesson of the book. So, I just want to thank you, because it's a big contribution. And I know people will look back on it and say that this was very valuable to understanding what happened during one of our worst public health and safety crisis, which is still going on unfortunately.

Damian Paletta: (44:47)
Yeah. Well, that means a lot, Anthony. Thank you so much for saying that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:51)
It's the-

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (44:52)
Yeah, thanks for letting us come on and talk about it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:53)
No, we're going to sell a lot of books for you guys. You deserve it and we wish you nothing but great success with it.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (44:58)
Thank you so much.

John Darsie: (44:59)
Well, they don't need our help, they were an instant bestseller. Again, the book is Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration's Response to the Pandemic That Changed History. If you haven't ordered it, or haven't read it, we definitely highly recommend it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:13)
By the way, Yasmeen, he did ask very good questions though. It's sort of upsetting me.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (45:18)
He did. He boasted. He boasted-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:20)
No, he has very good question. Better stop with the firing stuff though, come November, because I'm obviously-

John Darsie: (45:29)
I didn't say firing, I just said [crosstalk 00:45:31]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:30)
I'm almost a senior citizen now, so I'm going to be forgetting the fact that you were bringing it up in July by the time your bonus gets set. But you should stop it at some point. I'm just letting you know.

John Darsie: (45:39)
I just said you spent a very illustrious 11 days in my opinion, it was the best 11 days of the entire-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:45)
It was 954,000 seconds. That's what I have to tell my therapist. Okay? So, everybody relax.

John Darsie: (45:52)
All right. Well, thank you guys again, and thank you, everybody for tuning in to today's Salt Talk with Damian and Yasmeen, talking about their book. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous Salt Talks, you can access them on our website on demand@salt.org\talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SaltTube. We're also on social media, Twitter is where we're most active @SaltConference, where Anthony gets a lot of his death threats, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. I'm happy to Anthony and the entire Salt team. This is John Darsie signing off for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Eric Gleacher: Risk. Reward. Repeat. | SALT Talks #242

“[When starting my company,] I figured you wanted to own equity, be a partner. You wanted to wake up in the morning and it be your business… To have that culture where people own equity is critical.”

Eric Gleacher is a man with a compelling story. He has always been determined to excel in all that he attempts and has never failed to exceed the very high expectations he sets for himself. His autobiography is the story of a tournament-winning amateur golfer; an officer in the Marine Corps; an investment banker who became one of the half-dozen who dominated the M&A and takeover business that changed Wall Street and American business in the latter part of the last century; and a man who had the courage to leave a position as a senior partner at a famous and immensely successful investment bank to establish his own firm. It's as stirring and interesting as when we lived it. You won't want to stop reading until the last page.

Eric discusses his winding and eclectic career with time in amateur golf, the Marines, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley where he transformed the M&A industry, before starting his own firm. He describes the formative impact amateur golf played in his life and how lessons learned helped in business. When starting his own firm Gleacher & Company, he explains the importance of offering equity to employees in developing a thriving culture.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Eric Gleacher

Author

Risk. Reward. Repeat.

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:54 - Supporting women on Wall Street

6:00 - Winding career path and taking smart risks

13:50 - Time at Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley

19:16 - Revlon M&A

24:20 - Impact and lessons from golf

35:22 - Building a culture at Gleacher & Company

38:21 - Writing his book

42:29 - Favorite golf courses

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:06)
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 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 Eric Gleacher to SALT Talks. And Eric is a man with a extremely compelling story. He's always been determined to excel in all the attempts and has never failed to exceed the very high expectations that he sets for himself.

John Darsie: (00:55)
His autobiography, which we're going to talk about today, is the story of a tournament winning amateur golfer, an officer in the Marine Corps, an investment banker who became one of the half dozen who dominated the M&A and takeover business that changed Wall Street and American business in the latter part of the last century, and a man who had the courage to leave a position as a senior partner at a famous and immensely successful investment bank to establish his own firm that he ran for almost 25 years.

John Darsie: (01:24)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. Anthony is successful in business, but he can't golf a link, but we won't hold that against him, Eric. But I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:40)
Why don't you tell Eric I got fired from the White House while you're at it? You might as well [crosstalk 00:01:44].

John Darsie: (01:43)
There's only one slight-

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:43)
It's not like he doesn't know that, but go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (01:47)
There's only one slight per introduction, it's either the fact that you're terrible at golf or the fact you got fired from the White House.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:53)
That could be a compliment to my buddies that don't play golf. You don't know that.

Eric Gleacher: (01:56)
It's a badge of honor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:58)
Well, listen, Eric, first of all, it is a pleasure to do this with you. And you wrote a legendary book. I read a lot, John will tell you that. I've tried to read 60 books a year. This book came to me from my lawyer, Ed Herlihy, who worked on our M&A deal for SkyBridge, another phenomenal world class person. But, I mean, the book is just chock full of great stories and lessons and principles.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:29)
And so, it's called Risk. Reward. Repeat.: How I Succeeded and You Can Too. John always prints out a script for me for these things, because he's keen to at least give me a few questions that he thinks are thoughtful, Eric, because he gets all the praise for asking the thoughtful questions. But I read your book, and one of the things that came out of the book for me is you're a cutting edge thinker. You're somebody that saw the future in our industry and a number of different trends. But I think you've done an amazing amount for a lot of different types of people.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:08)
There are women in our industry that say that you were the great equalizer, that you brought them to the table, and that many places there were glass ceilings for them but you broke... You didn't write that in your book, by the way, you wouldn't give yourself that self praise. But this is actually coming from friends of mine that worked for you, that you mentored, and that you trained, but you also pushed them through the glass ceiling. I want to start there, sir, and then I'm going to go back to other things.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:38)
What was it about these women that you saw? What was it about these women that were drawn to you as they were breaking into what you and I both know, at those times on Wall Street it was a little bit different culture than it is even today?

Eric Gleacher: (03:53)
What it was about these women is that they were very smart. They were tireless, and they wanted it, but they didn't know how to get there. And to me that was a challenge because I...

Eric Gleacher: (04:13)
One thing I learned at the beginning of my life experience, and what I mean by that was, when I was done with college and I chose to enlist in the Marine Corps that's when I really started learning things. And one of the things I learned very quickly is the power of delegating. And so with these women what I did was I put them in situations that were really ahead of where they were in terms of their development in the business. And, of course, they excelled. And that led to other things and other successes.

Eric Gleacher: (04:54)
And there's a lot of them I could pick out. For example, there's one who was a Chinese studies major at Radcliffe or Wellesley. And she was from the West Coast up in Seattle. And she spent her junior year in China. And she knew nothing about business, and yet she picked it up so fast that within a year she was the top analyst that I had in the M&A department at Morgan Stanley. So that just impressed me. And I enjoyed it. There weren't that many women there, but to give a few of them an opportunity to excel and hear feedback like you got, that's a home run as far as I'm concerned.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:45)
Look, it's a tribute to you, because it was a different culture and a different time, sir. So tell us about the journey though. Tell us about the journey from high school into the Marine Corps out to Wall Street. Why was that your career arc?

Eric Gleacher: (06:00)
Well, I had an unusual journey because I was born in 1940. My father, obviously, I met him when I was an infant, but before you knew it he was off in the war. He was gone. And he was a CB, which are the Navy construction battalions. And he was working in the Marianas out in the Pacific building the airfields for the bombers to go to Tokyo and back without having to refuel.

Eric Gleacher: (06:29)
And when the war ended he didn't come home for a couple of years. He got jobs outside the country. And the reason I tell you that is because when he did come home I was seven years old, so I was just getting to know him. And he never once would talk to me about what went on. So, it was a very unusual experience for a young kid. But then we found that we started playing golf together when I was 12, and lucky enough I could get up and I could hit the ball and I kind of had an aptitude for it. And we became very close. And so I ended up with a real happy ending in my childhood.

Eric Gleacher: (07:18)
But my dad was a construction engineer. That's what he was doing in the Navy, and that's what he did for the rest of his career. And we moved around. I went to 10 different schools. There'd be a job, and it would end, and he'd find another one, and it didn't matter where it is, and we went there. So when I got to college really I didn't know a lot, it opened my eyes about people and how other people live and things I didn't know. And I didn't know anything about business.

Eric Gleacher: (07:54)
And when I graduated from college back in those days you either had to keep going to school or you had to do military service, and so I decided to do that, and I decided to go into Marine Corps because it seemed to me it would be the most challenging thing I could do and that's what I wanted to do. And that was a great decision, because right away there were all kinds of challenges, and the book goes through them.

Eric Gleacher: (08:23)
And to successfully navigate my way through that was the first thing I ever did in my life, except win a golf tournament, that was really a success, and that's really got me going. I acquired self confidence and went on from there. And I learned a tremendous amount being in the Marine Corps.

Eric Gleacher: (08:46)
You talk about women, I was a rifle platoon commander in the infantry, so I had 45 men. Most of them did not have a high school education, but I found out that plenty of them were smart as hell. And that's where I learned to delegate and to give people an opportunity. And you'd be amazed in terms of what they can do. And so I enjoyed it a lot. I was in for three and a half years and ready to go to school when I get out.

Eric Gleacher: (09:23)
I decided to go to business school because I didn't know anything about business. The one thing I wanted to do, which was a function of what I went through growing up, was I wanted to make money because my family never had any extra money. And so I decided to go to business school because I didn't know anything about business, and fortunately, I got interested in finance at the University of Chicago, which is a great financially oriented school. And I found my way to Lehman Brothers. So that's-

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:56)
Well-

Eric Gleacher: (09:56)
... how it evolved.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:57)
... I want to get to Lehman in a second, but you place a particular emphasis in the book on taking smart risks. So I want you to analyze that decision. You're coming out of business school, you're going to work on Wall Street, you choose Lehman. Take us through that thought process.

Eric Gleacher: (10:13)
Well, the first smart risk I took was since I was going to go into the military I was going to do something that was real, that had some significance. And back in those days there were lots of six months reserver's programs, you could go into Air Force reserve and so forth, and I didn't want to do that, so I said, okay, I'm going to go into Marine Corps and really see what it's all about. And I learned so much. It affected my life so much, and that wouldn't have happened if I wasn't willing to take that risk and sign up for three and a half years instead of some six month reserver's program. And it started there.

Eric Gleacher: (10:57)
And I've said it in the book and I really believe it to the core of my being, is that the world belongs to the aggressive, and you can't just sit back. I have trouble politically with what's going on now because the politicians want to give people things, and most people I know don't want to be given things, they want to earn things, they want to have a job, they want to have self respect, they want to have a home, they want to have a kid, they want to send the kid to school.

Eric Gleacher: (11:31)
And so those values, all those things, I think, I accumulated by how I started. And like I said, deciding to do it right in terms of going into military rather than take the easy way out. And by the way, I can understand why it all changed after Vietnam and why the military establishment wanted to have a volunteer force. But boy, we left a lot on the table doing that. I think that we'd have a very different situation in Chicago, just to pick an example, with what's going on here how if you had compulsory military service at least for men when they turned 18. So, the way I look at it I was lucky to be able to go through it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:26)
Well, let me take it one step further though, the compulsory service, you would have taken a lot of kids off the street, they would have gotten trained, they would have learned some discipline, but they would also have been in esprit de corps and some civic virtue to all of that that would have probably binded the country more closely together. Is that fair to say?

Eric Gleacher: (12:44)
Not only that, it's absolutely fair, but a lot of them would acquire an occupation. I talked to a young guy this week who's going into Marine Corps, he's going to train as an aircraft mechanic, and when he gets out he's going to have that trade. And that was true way back when I was in it. There were opportunities like that. And you're right, if you have an 18 year old kid who all of a sudden he's part of a group, and there is esprit de corps and so forth, and he's bright and motivated, he can take advantage of things like that, whereas now that opportunity does not exist.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:29)
So let, and you and I agree on that, let's shift gears for second, let's talk about Lehman. [inaudible 00:13:35] book many, many years ago, there was a battle there between Lew Glucksman and Pete Peterson. And there was a lot of very smart people in that room, yourself, Steve Schwarzman, etc. Tell us about Lehman Brothers while you were there.

Eric Gleacher: (13:51)
Lehman Brothers was full of really talented people, but in those days it lacked a cultural backbone. And the people, the senior people at Lehman, the partners, were basically competing with each other rather than pulling together. And so you had various fiefdoms and the firm had its ups and downs. It was a place that did well, it went on for many, many years, but everybody knows what the ending was.

Eric Gleacher: (14:33)
And, to some degree, the end was a function of the beginning. But there was just tremendous infighting at Lehman, you had Peterson and people that were with him and Glucksman and Jim Glanville and others that were another group. And it was good for somebody like me because you could move at your own speed there. It wasn't stratified. When I got there I was the 15th guy in the, what they call the industrial department, which would have been the corporate finance department.

Eric Gleacher: (15:10)
There was no M&A. M&A really didn't exist then. And you could move at your own speed. There wasn't a lot of management. When I got there I was 27 years old, and I had a wife and a kid, and I felt the world was leaving me behind because I'd been in the military and I've been to business school, and I could really move, and I did. So there was good and bad, the place survived.

Eric Gleacher: (15:45)
Peterson was good to some degree, he was very smart, he was a great salesman, and Glucksman was a tremendous fixed income guy. He built up a very profitable fixed income business there. But then the whole thing fell apart and they were acquired by American Express. And that didn't work, and then they were spun out. And then Dick Fuld ran it and did a creditable job until the end when somehow he didn't figure out how to get a merger done and let the place survive, and then it caused a lot of problems and was very tough on him and his reputation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:26)
Yeah, I had sold my business to Neuberger Berman, and then it got bought by Lehman, so I knew Dick. I worked for him for three years. I still have a, I would say a close relationship with him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:38)
But when I was at Goldman, I spent the first seven years of my life at Goldman, and the legendary John Weinberg, who had such great aphorisms, one of them was some people grow, Eric, but other people swell, make sure you're not a person that swells and that you're growing, keep your head on straight. But he said something about Goldman's culture, and I want to transition over to Morgan Stanley for a second, he said, "So my job is to train you to take your six shooters and point them out and shoot out. I don't want you turning these six shooters on each other and shooting at each other and turning yourselves on each other. I want there to be esprit de corps."

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:19)
And you describe Lehman differently than that, what about Morgan Stanley? What was the culture like at Morgan Stanley, as you reference in the book?

Eric Gleacher: (17:28)
It was a great culture. It was teamwork from top to bottom, and it was more homogeneous than Lehman. Lehman was eclectic, it had lots of different kinds of people, which also is a big advantage if you can use it correctly, which Lehman really didn't. But they had a tremendous talent pool.

Eric Gleacher: (17:52)
And Morgan Stanley was a little homogeneous. I was the third person that came in from the outside as a partner back in those days. And you can imagine that you had this firm and we're only three people that came in from the outside. And one of the reasons why I think I succeeded there was because I wasn't a captive of the homogeneity. I didn't grow up there. I'd been in Lehman almost 16 years, and I was, by that time, I was who I was. And I came into Morgan Stanley and I did things a little differently.

Eric Gleacher: (18:36)
And Bob Greenhill, who's running an investment bank was a tremendous influence on the M&A business at Morgan Stanley. And after I was there for a few months he told me he wanted me to run M&A, and so I did, and I did it differently, and I did it aggressively. And did things like I brought Ronald Perelman in as the client for the Revlon deal.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:05)
You mention that in the book. And that was a unorthodox client for Morgan Stanley at the time, so tell us why that was and tell us why you recruited him in.

Eric Gleacher: (19:16)
Well, I had gotten to know him on other transactions, and Revlon was basically a conglomerate. It had the cosmetics business and then it had three or four healthcare businesses. And the CEO at the time, Michel Bergerac, he was unhappy with the lack of enthusiasm in the stock price and he decided that he wanted to do a management buyout, but unfortunately for him he didn't know what he was doing and he started to approach various companies and see if they're interested in purchasing the healthcare subsidiaries. And two or three of them came to Morgan Stanley and told us what was going on, and I knew right away that there'd be a transaction here and that it was not going to be the one that he had in mind.

Eric Gleacher: (20:12)
So I decided that Ronald Perelman would be a guy who would stick in there and be aggressive enough to try to get this done because he would be interested in cosmetics business. And we did the numbers, and we told him that we thought if it all worked out that he could buy the company, sell the healthcare businesses, and end up with the cosmetics business for nothing. And, in fact, that's exactly what happened.

Eric Gleacher: (20:45)
But I do have it in the book, it was a scary thing for Morgan Stanley. He was definitely unlike any other client that they'd ever been involved in something that was big and highly publicized. And when the executive committee was thinking about whether they wanted to do this, Parker Gilbert, who was the chairman, called me in, and he said, "Eric, we're going to go along with you because I trust you, " he said, "but please don't embarrass the firm." And my life went past my eyes and I said, "All right. I'm a risk taker, and I'm in, but I'm betting my career."

Eric Gleacher: (21:29)
And it turned out that I was right about Perelman. The deal was very tough. He hung in there. Everybody finally gave up, he bought the company. We sold the subsidiaries at the prices or higher, slightly higher than we had estimated, and he made a tremendous deal. And he's owned Revlon for the last, I don't know, 25 or 30 years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:54)
Yeah. 30 plus years according to the book.

Eric Gleacher: (21:57)
Yeah. But a lot of people wouldn't have done that. They wouldn't have played their cards like that at Morgan Stanley. But I just did what I believed. And I figured if I stumbled I'd pick myself up and I'd figure out something else to do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:15)
Well, I think that's the real message of the book. I mean, the risk, reward, repeat, because sometimes you take risks and it doesn't work out 100% but you got to get back up on your feet, which you demonstrate.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:25)
Byron Wien was a colleague of yours at Morgan Stanley. I have built a relationship with Byron. He talks about how every person in their adolescence they find something that shapes their approach to life. In his case he was collecting things and he decided that he was going to turn that collection, that stamp collection and a few other things, into stock collecting. And he often asks young people, "Well, what was it from 11 to 18 that you were doing that you were passionate about that you ended up doing for the rest of your life?" What was that for you, Eric? Is that business, golf? [crosstalk 00:23:05].

Eric Gleacher: (23:05)
That was golf, for sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:07)
It was golf. And so golf, that would have been my guess and answered based on the book. So tell us about how golf, in your mind, transformed your business relationships. And this is a question that John Darsie is loving right now, Eric, because all he does is play golf. So tell us about the benefit of it.

Eric Gleacher: (23:30)
John Darsie, when the moment is right, tell your boss that Ed Herlihy, who's your boss's lawyer, spends more time on the golf course than any lawyer in the United States.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:45)
There's no doubt about that.

Eric Gleacher: (23:47)
Yet many people are convinced that he's the most prominent lawyer in the United States. So there's an argument. Now in my case-

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:55)
Not to interrupt you, sir, he is also the most ethical, has the highest integrity, and I'll say something about Ed which he has said about you, which is obvious, that he loves people. And I think that's something, when you ask people that have worked for Eric Gleacher, what do they say about you, and you can see it here in the books, sir, that you love people. I didn't mean to interrupt you, let's go to the golf question though. Tell us about golf.

Eric Gleacher: (24:20)
Well, like I said, I've moved around a lot. When I was a kid I played baseball. Trouble is you make the baseball team and then you move and the baseball team means nothing. But when I started playing golf when I was 12 I liked it right away. And then when I was 13 I played in my first tournament. And we had moved. I started, we were living in Nebraska, and we moved to Norfolk, Virginia. And I played in a tournament, it was for 13 and under, and I won it, and I still have the sterling silver cup.

Eric Gleacher: (24:56)
And when you're 13 and you have an experience like that you want more. So then about a month or so later I played in the Virginia championship for 13 and under and I won it. And so I got a jumpstart in terms of playing golf, and that's what I did. You talk about 11, 18, I started when I was 12, but I played golf. You learn things about playing golf, you learn about competition, and hopefully, you learn about playing by the rules, you learn the satisfaction of doing something right, winning a tournament, and playing by the rules, and that's something that I think I've brought with me for the rest of my life.

Eric Gleacher: (25:42)
But I won a lot of golf tournaments, a lot of junior tournaments, and I would have never gotten myself into Northwestern where I went to college if I hadn't been a really good golfer. I went, my first year of college, to Western Illinois University in a little town in Central Illinois, and we won the national championship. It was called the NAIA. If you're familiar with sports you'll know what the NAIA is. It's a big deal. There's hundreds of smaller colleges around this country.

Eric Gleacher: (26:13)
So I was 18, we were national champions. That was an experience that I've cherished from then on. I had a great coach. But I decided that if I stayed there I was going to be a golf pro. And I was pretty decent player, but there were others who were better, Jack Nicklaus and a few others. And I said if I can't be in the top echelon I'm not interested. So I got myself into Northwestern, and they took me because they wanted me to play golf there. So, golf had a huge influence.

Eric Gleacher: (26:46)
In business, Anthony, I didn't play business golf. There's a difference. Ed Herlihy doesn't go around knocking on doors saying, "Hey, let's go play golf." But most people play golf. And if you get a relationship with somebody you get to be friends, invariably, you're going to spend time together. You might be skiing or you might go out on a yacht in the Mediterranean or go to art galleries or play golf.

Eric Gleacher: (27:15)
And so, in terms of relationships it's a wonderful thing. I've done it all my life. My wife and I compete all the time. We play even. She's a tremendous player. So it's brought a lot of joy in my life. We play for 10 bucks, and we pay right there on the 18th Green. And so it's good. It's a great thing, and it's had a big influence on me and I met a lot of people.

Eric Gleacher: (27:43)
And when I say reward in the title of the book it means reward those who've helped you. So in the case of Western Illinois University they had a nine hole course and I built the other nine so they'd have an 18 year old course. And we named it for my coach when I was there. And repeat means to be philanthropic and hope that others will follow what you did and repeat it. And those things with me, those were not conscious things, they just evolved. The things I did, it just seemed like the right thing to do.

Eric Gleacher: (28:21)
University of Chicago came to me in the mid '90s and they were building a downtown Chicago business school building and I gave them most of the money for the building. And it was a no brainer, because they had affected my life so much. And so that's the way I've lived, and I wouldn't do it any differently.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:47)
John, I'm going to turn it over to you. I know you've got a series of questions for Eric too. But I want to hold up the book one more time, because it's a phenomenal book, Risk. Reward. Repeat.: How I Succeeded and You Can Too. But the elemental thing in this book, Eric, that I got out of it is integrity, is to remain true to yourself, be anchored to your core principles, don't waver. Even if you're taking risks you don't want to shade anything in your life, you just want to go straight forward. And you can see it in everything that you've done, sir.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:20)
You're a big role model for all of us. And I congratulate you on the book. And I know John's got a series of questions as well.

John Darsie: (29:28)
We'll stay on golf for a second just because that's the most fun to talk about. Eric, as a fellow golfer you know that's where we want to stay. But you were a great golfer in your own right, but you also rubbed elbows with some of the greatest golfers in history. You played in all these events with these elite performers. What did you learn about the mentality of great athletes and great golfers in this instance about what it takes to maintain an edge, whether it's on the golf course, in the military, or in business?

Eric Gleacher: (29:57)
Well, the first thing you learn is that they are sticklers for the rules. I give you a really good example, is, I'm a good friend of Raymond Floyd, who's... he won five or six majors, famous golfer. And he won the US Open in 1986, I believe, at Shinnecock. The week before he was playing in the PGA Tour event at Westchester Country Club and he was in contention. He was right up there at the lead and he hit a pot, it didn't go in and it was on the edge of the hole and he just back handed it to knock it in and he missed it.

Eric Gleacher: (30:39)
And nobody saw, you couldn't really tell he did it, but he immediately called a penalty on himself and he lost the tournament by a stroke. But the next week he won the US Open. If he had somehow not done the right thing with the little pot I don't think he would have won the US Open, because it would have bothered him.

Eric Gleacher: (31:05)
The other things I've seen from the pros, and I sure have played with a lot of great ones, particularly Luke Donald is a fellow Northwestern alum, number one in the world for 56 weeks, it's a work ethic, it's a talent, the talent level, the eye-hand coordination is off the charts. And it's just the seriousness of the way they take it, the physical conditioning, the way they play, the way they deal with their fellow competitors. It's very impressive. The PGA Tour is a very, very high level ethical, professional operation.

John Darsie: (31:56)
Yeah, they say you can learn a lot about somebody's character and personality on the golf course. If somebody, it's something so trivial at golf, cuts corners, it certainly tells you something alarming about being in business with him for sure. But I want to transition back to your business career a little bit first, maybe we'll finish with a couple of golf questions. But you led M&A at Lehman and Morgan Stanley, you were almost a pioneer in some ways of this now, what we deem as just normal M&A activity where M&A is just a huge part of corporate strategy to grow.

John Darsie: (32:34)
How has M&A evolved from when you started in the business to what it is today in terms of how frequent and how aggressive people are with M&A versus when you started your career?

Eric Gleacher: (32:46)
That's a really good question, and I've thought about it a lot. Back when, and we're talking about the mid '70s, the Business Roundtable was an important group, all the big CEOs were remembers, and they had an unwritten deal, which was, we're never going to try to take over each other's companies. The world changed, and Morgan Stanley represented a Canadian company, made a bid for an American company, it was very shocking. And at that point I was at Lehman and I had sold and bought some smaller companies.

Eric Gleacher: (33:35)
And my premise was that American businessmen are aggressive, and if they want to build their companies as fast as they can they want to make them as strong as they can, and they want the stocks to do really well. And the way they were going to get there fastest was by acquisition. And I believe that was going to happen, and that's why I founded the M&A department at Lehman, so we'd have a specialized group that could deal with companies. And that all came to fruition, and that was really accelerated in the '80s by Mike Milken in the Milken years.

Eric Gleacher: (34:18)
And the section in the book that talks about the big deals during that period, I put that in there because it's never really been published, the inside story about those deals I think is pretty interesting. And that was a period in American business that had a big effect that goes forward today. And so the M&A business evolved for the basic reasons, I believe, that I said to you that I saw at the beginning, that businessmen want to succeed and they're going to do whatever it takes.

John Darsie: (34:53)
Right. And we talked about culture at the different firms that you worked at earlier. You talked about Lehman, it was sort of the eat what you kill type of environment, but there was maybe a little bit more diversity of people. At Morgan Stanley it was more homogeneous but a more team collaborative environment. If you were to design a culture from scratch for an organization what elements of each of those cultures and other places that you worked or observed, what's that culture that you would look to create?

Eric Gleacher: (35:22)
Well, that's why we had Gleacher & Company. We had this culture, first of all, everybody, when I say everybody, everybody that was with any kind of seniority at Gleacher & Company owned some equity. My secretary owned 1% of the firm. She's still my assistant after 40 years. But everybody did. Not a brand new associate, not an analyst, but a guy who was a vice president above everybody had equity, because that's what I wanted when I started.

Eric Gleacher: (35:59)
I figured I didn't know much about investment banking, but I figured you wanted to own equity, you wanted to be a partner, you want to wake up in the morning and it was your business. So everybody had equity. We had an eclectic group, not a homogeneous group. I didn't think that the homogeneity was necessary to have a teamwork culture. But we had an eclectic group. They were equity owners.

Eric Gleacher: (36:27)
And there's not a single guy that didn't tell me how much different this was than working for a big firm, how great it was to come into work and know it's your business. And that's the way it worked. And it was highly successful. The hardest part, I will say this for me and for any of these boutiques, is succession. It's very tough. And you'll see. Some people have done it right, they've changed their business, but it's really tough. But to have that kind of culture where people own equity, I think, is really critical.

Eric Gleacher: (37:04)
And one of the funniest quotes, Steve Schwarzman and Bruce Wasserstein and I were having a drink one night at a party at Wasserstein's house. And I love Bruce, and he said, "I really like you guys." He says, "I don't understand why everybody hates everybody else at Lehman." And Schwarzman, without hesitation, said, "Bruce, if you were there we'd hate you too." And that was a very perceptive comment about the culture at Lehman. So, you want to have diversity, you want to have women succeeding and so forth, but you don't have to have homogeneity.

John Darsie: (37:48)
Right. And I think a credit to your career is how many people that you helped achieve success on their own terms and inspired them to be great. I want to talk about, before we wrap up with some quick hitter questions, you decided to write this book early in the pandemic, from what I understand, your son helped you edit the manuscript, could you just talk about the process of writing and taking all that life experience and putting it into these pages and really pouring yourself into that project that you wanted to do before you started winding down your career?

Eric Gleacher: (38:21)
Well, I certainly was apprehensive because I had never done anything like that. But I had given lots of talks, at business schools particularly, but elsewhere too. And at the end of whether it was teaching a case or talking about RJR Nabisco or whatever it was, the question was, what did you do to succeed and what do I have to do to succeed? And it's the obvious question. People always ask that. And I thought that I had some interesting things to say and in a narrative.

Eric Gleacher: (38:57)
Some people might get some value out of it. And the books that I always like to read are books like Shoe Dog, Elon Musk biography, which tells what he did. And I'm not comparing what I did to those guys at all, I mean, don't get me wrong. But I think that narratives about business and a person's life and the moves they made, the choices they made, when you say what did you do to succeed, that's the answer. And in a narrative I think a narrative is way more effective than a professorial book based on some kind of research. So that's one of the reasons I wanted to write this book.

Eric Gleacher: (39:38)
So what I did, and my son taught me, he's published four novels and written a movie, and he said he's got to discipline himself, that he cleans his house on Thursday morning and does his laundry and whatever. He said, "You've got to have a schedule."

Eric Gleacher: (39:59)
So I made up my schedule, and that was every day I had to take out my laptop, open it up, and I had to write something. I didn't cure if it was one sentence, I had to write something. And I got into it, and I just... it all came out of me, just poured out of me. I didn't have any notes, I don't have any diaries, but fortunately my long term memory is still pretty good, not my short term memory, my long term memory is good. And I could write this.

Eric Gleacher: (40:27)
And then, of course, with Google search you can do all the facts checking. Anyway, it just poured out of me and then I edited it with Jimmy and we had a ball. And then I found that the editing took as much time as the writing. So it was a good experience for me. It was like a bonus experience. I was so happy I did it.

John Darsie: (40:49)
Yeah. My wife's grandfather is also a great golfer, around your age, routinely shoots his age, he can recall every shot he hit in a member guest or a club championship from the age of 14 to 60, but he can't remember what his wife told him about an hour prior.

Eric Gleacher: (41:09)
Well, that's par for the course.

John Darsie: (41:11)
Yeah, exactly. No pun intended. I want to finish with a couple fun ones related to golf because, yeah, I'm a lover of golf as well, not nearly at the level that you are, but I'm at least in sort of mid single digits. But, what's the best round you ever shot, doesn't have to be score, but where was it, when was it, and what were the circumstances?

Eric Gleacher: (41:34)
Well, that's a question I haven't ever... People ask me what my favorite hole is or whatever, I never have an answer for them.

John Darsie: (41:42)
We'll get to that.

Eric Gleacher: (41:47)
I don't know. I don't have one that sticks out.

John Darsie: (41:52)
No problem.

Eric Gleacher: (41:52)
I hate to give you a non answer, but I really don't have one.

John Darsie: (41:58)
No problem.

Eric Gleacher: (41:59)
I've had a lot of good ones, but there's not one that jumps out.

John Darsie: (42:03)
All right. There's no club championship where you shot 64 and stuffed it in somebody's face?

Eric Gleacher: (42:09)
No.

John Darsie: (42:12)
No problem.

Eric Gleacher: (42:14)
I mean, I've won a lot of them. They're all match play. John, I hate to disappoint you really. That's not the way my mind works with respect to golf.

John Darsie: (42:25)
There you go. Well, what's your favorite hole and/or your favorite golf course?

Eric Gleacher: (42:29)
Well, I have three favorite courses. I get this question a lot. One is the National Golf Links out here, one is Seminole down in Florida, and one is Muirfield in Scotland. Those are my favorite courses.

Eric Gleacher: (42:45)
I will say this, that I did have one experience which was one of the things that Nick Faldo thought it was one of the coolest things he ever heard. I took three of my friends to Muirfield in Scotland, and the daylight over there in summer months is pretty phenomenal because you're way, way up north. And it's light until close to 10:30 at night. So we played 72 holes in one day. We played the British Open in one day. And he won the British Open at Muirfield. So he's very, very partial to it. And he thought it was pretty cool.

Eric Gleacher: (43:27)
And I will say that we had a lot of bets. It was very painful. If somebody quit they had to pay a lot of money to the other three. Nobody quit. But anyway, I shot 69 the fourth round. And that one I do remember. It wasn't a meaningful tournament or anything, but it was a pretty cool experience.

John Darsie: (43:50)
There you go. That sounds like a heck of a day. How many holes in one did you have?

Eric Gleacher: (43:54)
Eight.

John Darsie: (43:55)
Eight? Wow. That's pretty good. There's a lot of guys on tour that don't have eight.

Eric Gleacher: (43:59)
If you play from age 12 to age 81 you get a lot of shots at it.

John Darsie: (44:04)
There you go. Well, Eric, we'll let you go there. It's been a pleasure to have you on. You're an absolute legend, both on Wall Street, in the golf world, and just among your friends. Everybody speaks so highly of you. And Anthony, obviously, has a lot more mutual friends than me, but every time we come across somebody and your name comes up they speak in glowing terms. So, it's an honor to have you on. Anthony, you have a final word for Eric before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:29)
Listen, I mean, among everything, Eric, I just think the way you help the younger people in your career, and you talk about repeat, I hope by and I hope John can pay that forward to a continual stream of people that come into our industry. I often think about that in terms of our summer program and how we can help people that are coming up underneath us, and you were a shining example of that, so I just want to thank you for that.

Eric Gleacher: (44:58)
Well, I want to thank you guys very much for inviting me. You've got a terrific business. I love the SALT portfolio that I looked at, and I know SkyBridge is doing well, and I look forward to meeting you both. My wife and I are still hoping we can go to Scotland for a month in September, but if we don't go I will definitely come to the Javits Center when you guys are doing that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:25)
We'd love to have you there. We find a lot of stuff. It's the unfortunate 20th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy and Jimmy Dunn has agreed to be one of our keynote speakers to talk with us there. So, of course, it would be a big honor for us to have you, sir.

Eric Gleacher: (45:46)
Well, great. Yeah. Now, I need to figure out if I'm going to buy some Bitcoin or not, so anyway.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:52)
But we got Byron on the bandwagon, okay, he listens to our Wednesday Bitcoin review. And so, as he says, he's a lot younger than Warren Buffett, so I don't think he thinks [inaudible 00:46:03] he's a junior kid compared to Warren.

Eric Gleacher: (46:07)
Yeah. Well, you guys are great, so thanks a lot. I've enjoyed this, and maybe I'll see you in September. If not I'll create some time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:16)
And honestly, I hope you go get to play golf, because that's your dream stuff, but maybe October, but if it is September we would love to have you. If you can't make it to Scotland we would love to have you.

Eric Gleacher: (46:25)
Right. Okay.

John Darsie: (46:27)
Eric, thanks again for joining us. Again, everyone, the book is Risk. Reward. Repeat.: How I Succeeded and You Can Too, a fantastic book talking about Eric's career and all the lessons embedded in that career that was so filled with integrity and empowering other people, as Anthony mentioned. But, thanks also for tuning into today's SALT talk with Eric. We love spreading the word about inspiring entrepreneurs like him.

John Darsie: (46:52)
And just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks you can access them all on our website at salt.org\talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at Salt Conference. But we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well and ramping up our activity there. But on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Matt Hougan: Crypto Index Funds | SALT Talks #241

“Bitcoin is evolving from a carbon intensive past to a carbon neutral future, just like automobiles… I think it’s part of a positive environmental story.”

Matt Hougan is one of the world’s leading experts on crypto, ETFs, and financial technology. He is the Chief Investment Officer for Bitwise Asset Management, the world’s largest provider of cryptocurrency index funds, with more than $1 billion in assets under management.

He was previously CEO of ETF.com and Inside ETFs, where he helped build the world’s first ETF data and analytics system, the leading ETF media site, and the world’s largest ETF conference.

Having spent much of his career educating investors around ETF’s, Matt Hougan details his transition to long-term crypto investing via index funds. He explains the importance of regulation in creating greater clarity around crypto, helping digital currencies reach their full potential. Hougan explains how a crypto index fund minimizes risk while giving access to one of the greatest potential-filled investment opportunities.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Matt Hougan.jpeg

Matt Hougan

Chief Investment Officer

Bitwise Asset Management

Rachel Pether, CFA.jpeg

Rachel Pether

Senior Advisor

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

2:15 - Development and education of ETF’s

8:25 - Offering crypto education

10:26 - Crypto polarization

12:26 - Crypto regulators

14:26 - Bitwise as a crypto index fund provider

17:25 - Explaining blockchain

20:20 - Bitcoin environmental concerns and ESG

24:00 - Potential Bitcoin risks and value of an ETF

29:30 - Explaining DeFi and future of crypto investing

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:00)
Hi everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name's Rachel Pether and I'm a Senior Advisor to SkyBridge Capital based in Abu Dhabi, as well as being the global MC for SALT, a thought leadership forum and networking platform that encompasses business technology and public policy. SALT Talks, as many of you know, is a series of digital interviews that we launched during the work-from- home period, and what we're really trying to do here is replicate the feelings from our global assault conference series and provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts.

Rachel Pether: (00:42)
Today I'm very excited to be speaking to Matt Hougan, who's one of the world's leading experts in cryptocurrencies, ETFs and financial technology. Matt is currently the Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise Asset Management, the world's largest provider of cryptocurrency index funds with more than a billion dollars in assets under management. Matt was previously the CEO of ETF.com and inside ETFs, where he helped build the world's largest ETF data and analytics system, the leading ETF media site, and the world's largest ETF conference.

Rachel Pether: (01:17)
Matt is also the co-author of two publications from the CFA Institute Research Foundation, which we'll be hearing a bit more about later, and he received a Lifetime Achievement Award from ETF.com for contributions to the ETF industry. Finally, he is also a strategic advisor to multiple crypto and financial advisor-related startups. Matt, welcome to SALT Talks.

Matt Hougan: (01:41)
Thank you so much, I'm so glad to be here.

Rachel Pether: (01:44)
Now, I'm really excited about this conversation and, you know, I find the evolution of your career so interesting, so I want to rewind a few years because the first US ETF was in the early 1990s, but then it took almost 15 years for the actively managed ETF to appear in the space, at which point you were already in the industry. So take me back a few years, tell me about your background and what drove you into ETFs when it was still pretty nascent in terms of its development.

Matt Hougan: (02:16)
It was nascent, that's right. In the earlier days when we started focusing on the ETF market, no one knew what they were people called them EFTs, they didn't understand how they worked. They were even skeptical of them. I remember the Financial Times writing about ETFs and calling them weapons of mass destruction, if you can believe it. Today, everyone loves them, but back then that wasn't the case. What attracted me to ETFs in the first point was I saw them as a fundamental technological advance that sort of took mutual funds developed in the 1940s and brought them into the modern era. They were lower costs, they were cheaper, they were more tax efficient. And I expected this to become, you know, what it is today, which is a massive part of how people allocate to this space. I saw it's ability to help investors and I wanted to get involved. So that's what brought me into the ETF space.

Rachel Pether: (03:07)
So I'm so interested in some of the parallels you mentioned there about the initial skepticism towards ETFs and how that plays into cryptocurrency now, but I'm guessing, given where you came into this in terms of the development, you must've had to do quite a lot in terms of education. So, maybe talk me through what you did in the space in terms of educating the market. And also, do you think there were any specific triggers for ETFs to become more mainstream, and as you say, not be seen as weapons of mass destruction?

Matt Hougan: (03:38)
Yeah, it is incredible. I mean, one more point on that, the US Congress actually held hearings where they brought ETF executives in front of them and grilled them for hours about whether ETFs were destroying American entrepreneurialism. It's hard to imagine today when they're at the center of everyone's portfolio, that there is that much skepticism and that much doubt, but that was true, and it's often true of disruptive technologies. Disruptive technologies challenge in status quo, they're new, sometimes they're hard to understand and it takes a long time for people to realize the benefits that they can bring to society.

Matt Hougan: (04:13)
You know, in terms of ETF land, what it took was people like me, but also an entire industry, fund providers like Barclays, like State Street, eventually like Vanguard, doing core education. What is an ETF? Why is it better than a mutual fund? Balanced education. What are the risks that come with ETFs? But really helping people understand this wasn't a new foreign, risky, unheard of concept. It was an evolution of the mutual fund structure that was designed to just make it better, cheaper, more tax-efficient, and telling that message consistently over 10 years eventually it got through. And now it's, you know, it's a $7 trillion industry and growing.

Rachel Pether: (04:54)
You know, you mentioned that they said it was destroying the financial ecosystem. Was that just because they saw it as taking over active management? Or what was some of the rationale behind that comment?

Matt Hougan: (05:06)
Yeah, there were a couple of reasons for that. So one, there is still today, a concern about the rise of index investing and whether it's interfering with price discovery, and people thought ETS were doing that. There was also this perception that because ETFs are traded intraday, they were encouraging people to overtrade their portfolios and not invest for the long term. And of course, the core part of capital markets is directing long-term capital allocation. And so there's this misperception that it was interfering with that.

Matt Hougan: (05:38)
In fact, what ETFs were doing, were they were actually improving the efficiency of people to be able to adjust to news. And today you see a lot of ETFs that are held for 5, 10, 15, 20 years. I know that I own ETFs that I haven't traded for more than a decade, and I think that's true of many people. But that was the concern, it was overwhelming active management and it was encouraging a short-term view of what investing is.

Rachel Pether: (06:05)
You know, I think two points you made there, I'd love to dive into a little bit more depth about how they pertain to cryptocurrencies as well, particularly the points on price discovery and trading intraday. But maybe just a little bit more on the education point, because I appreciate there's a difference between formal education and informal education. So what are some of the formal education steps that you took?

Matt Hougan: (06:30)
Yeah, on the ETF side I was fortunate with a couple other colleagues to write the CFA Institute's guide to exchange traded funds. I think credentialed well-accepted industry standard educational groups, educating people about what it really is and what it really isn't, was very important. I gave an ETF one-on-one talk, I think over a thousand times, at conferences large and small, at lunches over, you know, over salmon and salad with financial advisors around the world, and then spoke to the media constantly, consistently and repeatedly.

Matt Hougan: (07:08)
I do think some of the formal education through things like the CFA Institute really mattered because that was a well-established organization saying this is something you have to pay attention to. But a lot of it is one-on-one, hand-to-hand combat over a period of years, introducing people to what it is, letting them digest that for six months, having them come up with questions, answering those questions, and the ETF industry as a whole did a phenomenal job in the US, whether it was the industry itself.

Matt Hougan: (07:38)
supporting organizations, or individual investors walking through that process over a series of years. But it does take time, it was not at all clear. Even 10 years after the ETF launched that it was going to be as mainstream as it is today. There was huge skepticism, even 15 years after it launched. It was really only as it got into its second decade that people began to accept it as, okay, this really is the future of how people invest. So one message is, it takes a lot of time.

Rachel Pether: (08:10)
That's always a good message to remember when you're in the middle of hand-to-hand combat, that's for sure. And you talk about the thousand ETF kind of educational sessions. How does that compare to what you've done thus far in terms of cryptocurrency education?

Matt Hougan: (08:26)
Yeah, I'll tell you, I'm on that path again. I'm probably at number about 200, 250, but I give crypto one-on-one presentations to group of institutions and financial advisors and hedge funds and individual investors, literally almost every day, telling the exact same story what blockchains really are, how they work, what they introduce into the world, the real risks and benefits, and I imagine it's going to take years as well. But I'll say this thing, the level of interest in understanding what crypto is, is higher than the level of interest was and understanding what ETFs are.

Matt Hougan: (09:02)
When we do ETF or crypto one-on-one talks for financial advisors, we'll often have a thousand advisors show up for a webinar to learn about what crypto is to answer the hard questions. So, definitely repeating the same process, more engagement, and we're doing some of the things I did in ETF. So we wrote the CFA Institute's Guide to Bitcoin Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, which has become one of their most downloaded publications in the history of the CFA Institute, to show you the level of interest, the level of entry, and the need for understanding, it's one of the most popular things that they've ever published, which I think shows that people are engaged in this, but they still have a lot to learn.

Rachel Pether: (09:49)
And that's a great point that you raise about that willingness of people to learn more about it. And you know, when I look at the cryptocurrency market as someone who likes to think I'm reasonably balanced in terms of my views, it does seem that the follower's quite binary, right? So you have on one side, you have the people calling it rat poison, that it's the worst thing to ever happen to the financial markets, communities, countries. And then you have the people who are so pro cryptocurrencies, that it's very hard for them to see any other alternative. What do you think drives this kind of following when it comes to cryptocurrencies?

Matt Hougan: (10:26)
It is exhausting, it's the land of hype and hyperbole, you're absolutely right. It's either going to destroy the world or fix everything, and of course the answer is in the middle. I actually think the reason we have this bifurcation is that depending on how you view crypto, you're either naturally skeptical or naturally optimistic. And here's what I mean. If you think of crypto first and foremost as a currency, you're going to look at it and compare it to the dollar and say it doesn't measure up. "It's more volatile than the dollar, I can't spend it, I can't go buy something at Starbucks with it. It looks like a janky currency." And those are the people who come at it and say, "Well, this is rat poison squared, it's tulip bubble 2.0, it's not going to anything."

Matt Hougan: (11:09)
You have other people who see it as a technology, and they look at this software network that can move a billion dollars around the world in 10 minutes and have it settle for a fee of less than a dollar. And they compare that to the largest banks in the world with hundreds of thousands employees who, for whom it still takes two days to wire $10,000 to London. And they think this is incredible, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, it can move money at fractions of the time and fractions of the cost of the largest financial institutions in the world.

Matt Hougan: (11:40)
And I think that's why you get those two disparate views. Of course, the reality is somewhere in the middle. It is a phenomenal technology with huge potential applications, but it has to wrestle with a lot of regulation and real world uses to see where it evolves too. So the answer is in the middle, but I think that whether you view it as a currency first, or whether you view it as a technology first, determines which path you go down for skepticism or optimism. And I think that explains a lot of the confusion in the crypto space.

Rachel Pether: (12:10)
Yeah, I really like that explanation. I think that's also a really good segue to the regulation piece. You know, you mentioned, is it a currency, is it a technology? How do you think the regulators see it? And maybe we start with the US, since that's closest to home.

Matt Hougan: (12:27)
I think mostly they see it like, whoa, what is this thing that's exploded into the market? And it doesn't fit very well in US regulations. Most financial securities regulations were developed 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 years ago. The fact that a new digital asset that's money existing on the internet doesn't fit hand in glove into that, is not surprising. I think two things are true about regulation.

Matt Hougan: (12:52)
One, in order for crypto to become what I think it could be, which is the new centerpiece of a more efficient, more inclusive, more positive financial industry, it needs regulation. It needs AML, KYC, it needs clarity on whether it's a security or not, it needs guardrails around how new cryptocurrencies can launch. It can't reach its full potential unless regulators provide that clarity. That's one big thing.

Matt Hougan: (13:21)
The other big thing is regulators could easily overreach. As I watched the regulatory news right now, I definitely see people who are spooked by Bitcoin and crypto, or who are maybe first associated Bitcoin and crypto with what it was in 2012, 2013 when its primary use was in the illicit dark markets and it hadn't matured into an institutional asset. And so, there's real risks that regulators will overreach. The question of how regulators sort of come out of the next year is going to determine, I think, whether this is a once in a generation bull market, which it could be if the regulation is positive, or if it's significantly slowed down. And the short answer is we don't know how that's going to come out. It's evolving day by day in Washington right now.

Rachel Pether: (14:07)
Mm-hmm (affirmative) And I'd really like to go into a bit more detail about some of the points you raised on regulation, also how China plays into that. But please do tell me a bit more about Bitwise and what you're looking to achieve there. And also who's your target market in terms of clients and investors?

Matt Hougan: (14:26)
Love it. You know, Bitwise is one of the largest and fastest growing crypto asset managers in the world. The unique place that we sit is that we're first and foremost a crypto index fund provider. So you can think of like the S&P 500 or the FTSE 100 for crypto. We have the largest crypto index fund in the world and a series of other funds along that model. And then the other pieces were built to serve financial advisors and other investment professionals. You know, crypto emerged as a retail phenomenon with self-directed individual investors using apps like Coinbase to invest in this space. There are also a lot of VC firms that serve the largest institutions in the world. Bitwise sits in the middle. We're serving RAs, broker-dealers, wirehouse advisors, financial professionals who want to gain access to funds holding crypto assets for their customers. And so we try to build simple funds that capture this space in a secure way, and we've been doing it since 2017.

Rachel Pether: (15:27)
Great. And you know, you mentioned that you're hosting these salmon lunches all across the US. And speaking to the financial advisors, what are, I guess, the two or three most common questions that you get asked from them?

Matt Hougan: (15:41)
That's a great question. Yeah, they ask so many questions. So on the one hand, they want to know what it is. Many people have read about it in the news, but they couldn't tell you what a blockchain is, they couldn't tell you what programmable money is, they couldn't tell you the core benefits of what crypto is, and they couldn't explain it to their clients. So a lot of what we do is arm them with basic understandings, so when they get questions from clients, they can give good responses.

Matt Hougan: (16:09)
And then once they understand what it is and they see its potential, then they want to talk about the risks. The risks include, what will regulation shake out to be? Will it constrain crypto, or will allow it to grow? They worry about crypto's environmental impact. They worry about how you value crypto assets and how you decide if now is a good time to get in, or if you should wait for prices to adjust, and they want to know how much crypto you should have in your portfolio. Is it 1%? Is it 5%? Is it 10%? What is the right way to add it to a portfolio settings? So, that's what we try to do. We try to arm them with simple ways to explain crypto and then answer their questions and concerns about what the future looks like.

Rachel Pether: (16:52)
You know, it's interesting you mentioned that the first question is what is a blockchain? I have to admit that I'm quite embarrassed to say this, but when I was reading a paper on blockchain and it talks about a chain of blocks, and I was like, "Oh, that's why it's called a blockchain." So, maybe if you could just put it in layman terms, because it's one of these words, you know, big data, artificial intelligence, blockchain, a lot of people I think, drop them subtly into conversation without really understanding what they are. So how would you describe what is a blockchain?

Matt Hougan: (17:25)
Yeah. My favorite way to describe a blockchain is to start with something people know, which is PayPal or Venmo. We all use PayPal in our day-to-day lives because it's great. I can send you a hundred dollars and you get it instantly. What people don't think about is why is PayPal so fast, and the traditional banking system is so slow? It's not because PayPal is this new FinTech app, it's because it's one database. So when I want to send you a hundred dollars, PayPal can look, it says, Matt has a hundred dollars, he hasn't sent it to anyone else. They can move it to you instantaneously.

Matt Hougan: (17:57)
The reason traditional banks are slow is because there's thousands of databases. If I give you a check and you deposit it at your bank, your bank won't let you have that money until it checks with my bank and make sure I haven't overdrawn my account. So one database fast, a thousand databases slow. All a blockchain is, the first blockchain was the Bitcoin blockchain, it was the culmination of 30 years of computer science research that answered a simple question, which is how can we have one database that's available to everyone around the world that everyone can see and everyone agrees is updated at the same time, but without Venmo or PayPal sitting on top of it? Right? Because then you have to trust Venmo or PayPal, they can charge fees, et cetera. How can you have one database available everywhere in the world, everyone can see, but no one single party controls. That's what Bitcoin blockchain solved and all subsequent blockchains solved, and that core breakthrough is what allows blockchains to do incredible things.

Matt Hougan: (18:54)
It allows you to settle financial goods, move them as fast as you can move emails, right? Because it's one database, boom, boom, boom. It allows you to program money like you can program software, because you can have money native on the internet. And it allows you to have digital property rights because you can own something in that database without anyone blessing that you can own it. You can own it like you own a Picasso on the wall. And so this is the core breakthrough, one database available everywhere that everyone agrees is true, but is not controlled by any individual entity. And that's the real breakthrough from which all the benefits and potential flow.

Rachel Pether: (19:33)
That is by far one of the best summaries I've ever heard, very clear and concise, so thank you for that. You mentioned that one of the most common questions that you got from financial advisors was the environmental concerns, and I find that quite interesting because, you know, here in the Middle East, it's a lot of institutional investors, a lot of sovereign wealth funds, and they're really placing ASG on the agenda. And so I'm interested to say that that's one of the questions from financial advisors as well.

Rachel Pether: (20:03)
So my question to you is, how do you look at the environmental impacts of Bitcoin, and also how does this play into the recent news coming out of China with regards to, you know, the fifth time they've banned Bitcoin, but this time with a real crackdown on mining.

Matt Hougan: (20:20)
That's exactly right. So yeah, ESG is top of mine for the reasons you mentioned also because Elon Musk is tweeting about it. Look, Bitcoin consumes a fair amount of energy. Now, what's true beneath the surface is that Bitcoin uses a lot of renewable energy and is transitioning to a more carbon-neutral mix. But proponents of Bitcoin can ignore the fact that like many industries, it consumes a fair amount of energy.

Matt Hougan: (20:45)
What I tell people is that look, two things really. One, Bitcoin and crypto is evolving from a carbon-intensive past to a carbon-neutral future, just like automobiles. We still predominantly drive gas-powered automobiles, but we're moving toward electric vehicles. The same is true in crypto. The original crypto systems used a mechanism for securing the blockchain called proof of work, which involves using a lot of energy, but there's a transition going on from that to a new technology called proof of stake, which is effectively carbon neutral.

Matt Hougan: (21:19)
Now, Bitcoin will be the last blockchain probably to make that transition, but we're on our way. So I think it's part of a positive environmental story. And then the flip side of that is ESG is more than just environmental, there's social and there's governance aspects to it. The real reason China is cracking down on crypto, I believe, is because it's sort of a tool of financial freedom. It's harder for governments to surveil and control than digital versions of their own cryptocurrencies, and so you often see regimes with more authoritarian bends trying to constrain the availability of Bitcoin for that market.

Matt Hougan: (21:57)
It also has this environmental impact, but that I think is a big piece of it. One thing about China, I think it was Fred Wilson, famous venture capitalist, said that on the internet investing in anything that China bans is usually a good bet, and I think that may be true with Bitcoin as well. Certainly, the network and the asset has weathered the China ban is you mentioned the fifth one pretty well. And long-term, I think, it's probably positive for the market.

Rachel Pether: (22:23)
I think that's a great point you made about ESG and as someone who sits in an emerging market, it's always interesting to see which sort of pieces of emphasis different parts of the world focus on, because certainly, you know, if you're looking at Africa or parts of the Middle East, you know, look at our neighbors, Lebanon, Iran, you know, different authoritarian regimes. And it's really the financial freedom aspect that people focus on, right? It's a bit easier for you guys in the US to focus on the environment.

Matt Hougan: (22:56)
I think that's so true and so important. It's the financial freedom aspect and it's the lowering of costs. Look, one of the most expensive things you can do in the financial market, is send remittances back overseas. The fees on that are absolutely absurd and crypto offers the potential to just collapse that. The humanitarian benefits are really significant, and I think people are starting to realize that's more of the story. And yeah, the environmental thing, we need to improve processes going that way. But that holistic picture, I think, is really important.

Rachel Pether: (23:28)
True story. I actually transferred $100 to someone in India today, and I'm not going to name the bank, but they charged me 100 dirhams, which is $27.

Matt Hougan: (23:42)
It's ridiculous.

Rachel Pether: (23:42)
I don't know where a 27% transfer fee comes from, but we can [inaudible 00:23:47].

Matt Hougan: (23:47)
That's incredible.

Rachel Pether: (23:50)
So you spend a lot of your day talking about the benefits and also the risks. What do you as Bitwise, as Matt, what do you see as some of the key risks?

Matt Hougan: (24:00)
Some of the key risks? Well, as mentioned, I think how the regulations break out, not just in the US, but in other major economies, which are wrestling with this new crypto industry that's now too big to ignore. I think that's one of the primary risks out there. That's the one I spend the most amount of my time on. The other risk to an individual investor, I will actually say the biggest risk is behavioral. This is a volatile asset, the price goes up and down, it's the best performing asset in the world over the last 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. But within that time span, it's had seven 70% plus pullbacks. So the biggest risk that I worry about for people investing is that they panic and sell at the wrong time, or they chase prices on the upside. So I worry about regulation, I worry about behavioral risk. And then I worry a little bit about story risks, which plays into both of those things.

Matt Hougan: (24:55)
You see things, like in the US, we had the colonial pipeline ransomware that was paid in Bitcoin. In the end, that turned out to be a good story for crypto because the Department of Justice was able to seize Bitcoin in a way they wouldn't have been with cash. But I worry that stories like that may influence regulators and cause them to overreact to some of the things that crypto enables. But those are my two big concerns.

Rachel Pether: (25:19)
And I would also think that, you know, when you're looking to insulate yourself against these risks, behavioral risk is a pretty hard thing to insulate against. So how do you as a firm insulate against those sort of risks, and how do you advise clients on not falling prey to some of the behavioral vices?

Matt Hougan: (25:40)
Yeah, I mean, it's a great question. One thing is that our core product, which is an index fund, is designed as a long-term investment. The beauty of an index fund like ours, that's rebalanced on a monthly basis, that's monitored 24/7, 365, is that investors don't have to respond to each piece of news. If Elon tweets something, or China does something, or a new technology emerges, the index fund adjust to that automatically. And I think that allows our investors to take a long-term view. As an example of that, in 2018, the last great crypto pullback, Bitwise had consistent inflows every week of the year. Our investors realized that that was a potential opportunity and not a material risk. So I think the product design can help with that.

Matt Hougan: (26:28)
And then education, and just emphasizing this is a long-term allocation. Crypto is not something that you should buy in the hope that it goes up next week, next month, or even next year. It's really as you abstract out and you look three, or five, or 10 years, that you start to get the right appreciation. I'll tell you one more anecdote. We surveyed a thousand financial advisors in January and asked them how many were allocating to crypto in their client portfolios. And the answer was about 9%, which was up significantly from a year ago, but still a relatively small number. But then we asked them, what do you think the price of Bitcoin will be in the next five years? And about a third of those advisors expected the price to triple or more over the next three years.

Matt Hougan: (27:16)
I think when you talk to people about where this industry is going, not tomorrow when you're worried about Senator Warren and the latest China news and the Elon tweet, but where is it going over the next decade, people realize that this is a big part of our future. And so keeping that in mind, I think helps people keep on the rails.

Rachel Pether: (27:33)
Mm-hmm (affirmative) And when you're looking at the cryptocurrencies, then, you know, you mentioned the proof of work and improve the stake in Bitcoin perhaps becoming one of the last to transition over, within your index funds, which sort of cryptocurrencies do you focus on? And I would say which to avoid, but I know there's thousands of cryptocurrencies, so maybe it's just easier to start with which you see as the most valuable.

Matt Hougan: (28:01)
Yeah, that's a great question. Our index, our core product, the Bitwise 10, holds the 10 largest cryptocurrencies that passed certain screens. So these are assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and certain defy assets like Eunice Swap. These are well-known global brand names that have been around for a while, have significant development activity, significant liquidity, and real thriving ecosystems. I think the message for people evaluating the space themselves, is as you get into the smaller crypto assets, your risk increases exponentially.

Matt Hougan: (28:36)
Some of the smaller assets are outright scams. Many of them don't have good disclosures around them, and then it's just very hard for a new asset to emerge and topple one of the larger assets, which have huge network effect benefits. So we really focus on Bitcoin, Ethereum, other large-cap assets, like Cardano, or Litecoin. And then these DeFi assets, decentralized finance assets, like Uniswap and Aave, which are really an interesting, exciting frontier for crypto. And that's where most people, that's the kind of space most people should be focused on.

Rachel Pether: (29:12)
So then one more clarification question from me, because when I first, you know, I was reading so much about DeFi, and then sort of a few months in I realized, "Oh gosh, I should probably work out what DeFi actually means." How do you describe DeFi to people that are unfamiliar with the space?

Matt Hougan: (29:30)
Great question. If you think about crypto as a technology that allows money to move onto the internet, you can think about DeFi as what happens if you can program money like software. So to give you a simple example, imagine you have a trust agreement that releases a certain amount of assets to your son when he turns 30. You probably have a lawyer that you pay, who waits until your son turns 30 and then releases the assets to him.

Matt Hougan: (29:56)
That's actually just an if-then statement. If John turns 30, release X. Anything that's an if-then Statement, you can program in software to do automatically without the high-priced lawyer in the middle. So what DeFi is, is essentially replacing that high priced lawyer with software. Software has disrupted almost every industry in the world, and yet in the financial space, it's done very little. What DeFi is doing is, is disrupting traditional financial services in the same way that Amazon disrupted Sears. And you have hugely successful projects like Uniswap, which is a decentralized crypto exchange, which is starting to challenge Coinbase, the largest crypto exchange in terms of volume and pricing.

Matt Hougan: (30:41)
So this is a very exciting area of the market. If I were to pick one area of crypto with the most potential over the next 10 years, DeFi would probably be it. It has big risks, but it has that kind of, sort of once in a generation potential that I think a lot of investors look for.

Rachel Pether: (30:58)
That is a fantastic summary, I think that if-then statement just really boils it down to the basic premise. So again, I wish I'd talked to you a few months ago. And also then, maybe just, you know, looked at the past and what you're doing at the moment. If we're looking into the future, what is next for the Bitwise, maybe in the next sort of three to five-year horizon?

Matt Hougan: (31:24)
Yeah, our goal was to provide access products that give exposure to professional investors to every corner of crypto. So we started with the large-cap Space, we recently launched a DeFi index fund. You can expect to see more such funds from us, yield funds, other sector funds, single coin funds. We really think crypto, Bitcoin, blockchain is going to fundamentally transform the financial services industry as it exists around the globe. It's going to do it in a better way. And so Bitwise wants to be the leading provider, or a leading provider, of funds to professional investors in that space.

Matt Hougan: (32:02)
So we're really excited. It's going to be a lot of salmon and salmon lunches, a lot of talking about crypto, but I've never seen an industry growing as fast as this have. I've never seen this much venture capital and this much talent move into an industry before. It's really exciting to think about where it's going to be five, 10 years from now.

Rachel Pether: (32:23)
Well, that's great. Thank you so much for joining us, Matt, and I hope that you can also join us at SALT, New York in September. I promise we will have salmon on the menu if that entices you to come. But from my side, just thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and your wisdom, and also just for really being able to educate in the space in such a succinct and clear manner. So thanks so much for joining us today.

Matt Hougan: (32:49)
Thank you so much for having me, this was a great session.

Robert Breedlove: What is Money? | SALT Talks #240

“Bitcoin is a non-counterparty insurance policy on central banking. The more dollars or fiat they print, the more valuable Bitcoin becomes.”

Robert Breedlove describes the lesser known history of the Federal Reserve’s creation and its long-term negative effects. Breedlove explains his Bitcoin eureka moment and how game theory helped him understand the crypto asset’s value amidst an ever-expanding money supply. He projects Bitcoin’s medium- and long-term status and explains why he does not see any of the alternative crypto assets as a competitor. Finally, he describes some of the potential threats to Bitcoin from overly punitive governmental regulations.

Robert Breedlove is a freedom maximalist, ex-hedge fund manager, and philosopher in the Bitcoin space. To him, Bitcoin is fundamentally a humanitarian movement exposing the greatest con in human history: central banking. By learning about the connection between honest money, entrepreneurship, and civilization, we are renewing hope for the future of humanity. To this end, Robert's mission is to restore freedom, truth, and virtue in our world by tenaciously asking the question: "What is Money?"

He is also a YouTuber and the host of the “What Is Money?” podcast. Through his writing and media work, Robert aims to elucidate the importance of freedom and self-sovereignty across all spheres of human action. Find Robert on Twitter (@Breedlove22) where he posts about Bitcoin, macroeconomics, and philosophy.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot Resized.jpeg

Robert Breedlove

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Parallax Digital

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

2:45 - Federal Reserve’s founding and its negative effects

11:06 - Bitcoin eureka moment

12:24 - Inflation, stagflation and deflation

17:03 - Projecting out Bitcoin

23:55 - Evaluating Bitcoin dominance

29:44 - Threats to Bitcoin

35:04 - Bitcoin hash rates following China’s ban

36:54 - Potential Bitcoin crackdown in the US

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume in September 2021 here in our home city of New York, but that 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. And we're very excited today to bring you to the latest episode of our SALT Talks Digital Assets or Crypto series with Robert Breedlove.

John Darsie: (00:53)
If you're in the space, you likely know Robert. He has a fantastic podcast called What Is Money, something we'll talk about today. But he's a Freedom Maximalist, he's an ex-hedge fund manager, and he's a philosopher in the Bitcoin space, and he's also smarter than the rest of us because he lives in beautiful Hawaii where he gets to spend time in nature and think about the future of Bitcoin as well as plenty of other important topics as well. To him, Bitcoin is fundamentally a humanitarian movement exposing the greatest con in human history, central banking. By learning about the connection between honest money, entrepreneurship, and civilization we are renewing hope for the future of humanity in Robert's eyes. And to this end, Robert's mission is to restore freedom, truth, and virtue in our world by tenaciously asking the question, what is money? Again, the name of his fantastic podcast. We would highly recommend you go out and listen to every episode.

John Darsie: (01:48)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm with over 500 million dollars of exposure to Bitcoin. So I know he and Robert see eye to eye on a lot of things related to Bitcoin, but without stealing anymore of that thunder I'm going to turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:07)
Well, John, thank you and since I'm not the millennial here I'm the only one dressed, so I'm going to loosen my tie this way we can get into it a little bit. And Mr. Robert, obviously you're a brilliant guy. I read your stuff, I follow your podcast. Congratulations.

Robert Breedlove: (02:25)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:26)
You see something, but tell us when you started seeing something, so where was the eureka moment for you where you said, okay, I've got to own this, I've got to own it in size and then I've got to be a Maximalist or close to being a Maximalist about it?

Robert Breedlove: (02:46)
Yeah, it's a good question. I think the eureka moment was more of a process. It didn't exactly hit me quite like a bolt of lightning. But I had this foundation before Bitcoin in that in about, I think it was 2005, I had been going down the central banking rabbit hole and I got a lot of insight from G. Edward Griffin's, The Creature from Jekyll Island, which is a book that discusses the founding of the Federal Reserve, which is the latest and dominant implementation of central banking in the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:23)
[crosstalk 00:03:23] Sorry, I don't want to interrupt you, but we have a lot of young listeners.

Robert Breedlove: (03:26)
Sure thing.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:26)
So The Creature from Jekyll Island, basically Jekyll Island is off the coast of Georgia.

Robert Breedlove: (03:32)
That's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:34)
At the 1910, '11, '12, in that time frame they were organizing what would ultimately be the third nationalized banking system, if you will, central bank.

Robert Breedlove: (03:46)
That's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:47)
The other two failed.

Robert Breedlove: (03:48)
That's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:49)
They're off the coast of Jekyll Island and they're conspiring to put this together and it's a little bit of a nefarious story. So tell us about the nefarious nature of that story and again, the book is called The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Robert Breedlove: (04:02)
Yeah, that's right. I think what you alluded to there is there were two failed implementations of central banking in the U.S. and actually, my favorite Tennessean, former President Andrew Jackson, I think he was notorious for keeping... One of the charters expired and there's also a story, I'm not sure if it's apocryphal or not, of him punching a central banker in the face at one of these conventions.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:27)
Yeah, so in H.W. Brands' book on Andrew Jackson, he was a combative, spirited person. Obviously, he was a populist.

Robert Breedlove: (04:36)
Yep.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:37)
He didn't like central banking because he thought that there was a ripoff scheme in central banking and so he did punch one of the central bankers in the face. You got the story correct and he allowed that banking charter to expire.

Robert Breedlove: (04:52)
Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:53)
And it was based on his common sense assertion that the central bank was going to be pre-disposed to corrupting the money.

Robert Breedlove: (05:02)
That's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:04)
But after the panic of 1907, there was a huge liquidity crisis in the American banking system and so a guy by the name of John Pierpont Morgan stepped in. He was the only bank that had the liquidity and capital and he stepped in and liquified the other banks and of course, this pissed off the government because it made J.P. Morgan arguably the most powerful person in the United States, if not the world. And so they moved themselves off of the coast to Jekyll Island to build this central bank.

Robert Breedlove: (05:37)
Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:37)
You take it from there. Go ahead, Mr. Breedlove.

Robert Breedlove: (05:39)
Yeah-

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:40)
[crosstalk 00:05:40] How have I been so far? Am I doing all right?

Robert Breedlove: (05:42)
... No, you're... I really appreciate the fine detail because I tend to describe things in broad strokes, so I think it adds a lot of context. But to your point, so the implementation of the Federal Reserve was the third attempt at a central bank in the United States. It was done in a very covert fashion. These men were transported to Jekyll Island in a very secretive manner. They were carrying hunting rifles, so that was kind of a cover story for the trip. And long short is they basically passed... They developed the legislation that would become the Federal Reserve Act that would be passed, I think it was either on Christmas Day or the day after Christmas in Congress. And it was basically pitched as a resolution to the banking crisis that you just mentioned. It's like hey, we're going to implement this central bank. We won't have anymore of these liquidity crises. Like any state measure it was pitched as a resolution to chaos, when in fact it is a mechanism for control.

Robert Breedlove: (06:49)
So accurate to Andrew Jackson's foresight, the Federal Reserve was implemented. There's a great read too, Rothbard wrote a piece on America's Great Depression, which actually describes how instrumental the Federal Reserve was in creating the Great Depression, which is contrary to a lot of Keynesian belief, that it was actually gold somehow that caused the Great Depression, or going off of gold. So it is an institution that is the ultimate rent seeker, if you will. They just control the medium through which we all interact and interface in the commercial environment. It was done in secret and it was done... The wool was pulled over an unwary public's eyes, because they did not by this point understand the evils and failures of central banking that people had endured in England. A lot of the reason this country was founded as a decentralized federal model was because it was intended to resist a central authority like this, like a central bank coming to power. And I think that's why people like Andrew Jackson were so resistant to it.

Robert Breedlove: (08:10)
And we've seen the experiment run, right? We've seen this experiment run several times before. 1971 we went off the gold standard and it's hard to find a socioeconomic metric that has not become worse in the past 50 years. We're sitting here now in 2021, 50 years after breaking the peg to gold. So I think this is what my show and my work attempts to go deeply into, is that I think the corruption of the money and the unmooring of the money from the discipline and honesty that gold enforces on political actors and socioeconomic development more broadly is the reason we're seeing so much crisis in the world, cultural crisis, economic crisis, debt crisis, currency crisis. Now, we're starting to see the effects of inflation. I think the next 10 to 15 years are going to be really brutal. We're already seeing labor shortages. I think you're going to see price controls and capital controls coming to the fore over the next 10 years as well.

Robert Breedlove: (09:21)
So we're deep into the consequences of corrupt money and I think that's why many of us in Bitcoin are so passionate about what we do because we think it's the only viable alternative to have a functioning global economy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:36)
Okay, so let me test some things out on you and I want to get your reaction to it because obviously, we're in intellectual agreement and I think we see the world very similarly. You probably got there ahead of me. I'm more of a Wall Streeter if you will, more of an institutionalist, so it took me a minute to assess the landscape and get to where you are. But I want to test some things out on you because I think we're having something happen right now that's contemporaneous and very weird. We have asset inflation and we have inflation spiking on some goods and services like oil, fuel, some consumption oriented things, food prices. But at the flip side, we're having some deflationary forces at the same time where the long bond is going back down, the two, three, five year treasury of the United States trading about 100 basis points, let's just call it roughly there, there's a flatness there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:34)
Robert, in the 1970s we had something called stagflation and you had high unemployment, but you also had inflation at the same time. They couldn't figure it out. We have in-deflation right now, I'm coining that term right here on the SALT Talk, we have contemporaneous inflation in certain parts of the society and deflation happening at the same time. Am I right about that? And if I am right about that, why is that happening?

Robert Breedlove: (11:06)
Yeah, these are two of the most confusing terms in finance I believe. I'd like to first, I realized I didn't answer your first question about the eureka moment. So I had this broad understanding of central banking that led to my discovery of Bitcoin and I would just add this for the audience, it's a deep intellectual journey, I think, to understand Bitcoin. You need to answer the question what is money, you need to understand why gold became money, then you understand why Bitcoin is better. The eureka moment for me I will say is in the study of game theory though. I think the realization that money is really just a reflection of time or a tool for trading time that every market actor will voluntarily adopt the most inflation resistant money. That is what the free market will naturally select for. That's what gold was.

Robert Breedlove: (11:56)
And then when you come to understand that Bitcoin is the only money with zero percent terminal inflation, the self interest of every market actor globally will zero in on Bitcoin as money. So I think that, just to answer the eureka moment, I think if you can compile your hours of studying the multiple disciplines necessary to understand Bitcoin, but you cap it off with some game theory and you realize that, that functions at every level. That's individual, corporate, and nation state level.

Robert Breedlove: (12:24)
To get to inflation, stagflation, deflation, I think you're absolutely correct. The term inflation is typically used ambiguously. People don't know if you mean consumer price inflation, which is how the government typically identifies it. Clearly, asset inflation, which is going to be the nominal price increase in assets is another definition. And then the term that I... When I use the term inflation, I specifically refer to arbitrary increases in the fiat currency supply. So this centrally planned market manipulation that induces the first two forms of inflation, both asset and consumer price, that is what I think needs to be eradicated from the world and from our lexicon. We don't even need this term inflation to exist because basically what it represents is theft implemented directly into the money.

Robert Breedlove: (13:25)
We have systemic theft implemented directly into the medium, which is intended to be the trust minimized asset for commercial engagement. Right? We actually have a backdoor built into it, a tech backdoor if you will, that central banks use to siphon wealth and arbitrarily misallocate, they would say allocate, I would say misallocate capital. The deflationary forces that we are facing, these are specifically price deflation, typically in the consumer price realm, and this is the byproduct of exponentially advancing technology, right? There's a reason the zero marginal cost distribution of Netflix allows the price to get lower although, they're actually increasing their prices which is funny, probably because they're a monopoly.

Robert Breedlove: (14:18)
The ability to distribute these software products, whether it's Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon, with basically no cost of distribution is something that adds to the deflationary pressure of prices and the things being distributed. So you have this confluence of factors, we have the digital age emerging where exchange is being conducted much more frictionlessly, the cost of distribution is collapsing in many sectors, all of this would pull down prices. Additionally, there's essentially more economic surplus being created in the private sector, but you have that converging with this force of additional fiat currency supply inflation so that the central bank is actually using monopolized money to harvest the economic surplus being created in the private sector, which is growing exponentially in the digital age.

Robert Breedlove: (15:21)
So I guess the short answer would be, you would expect to see wild fluctuations and distortions. Energy intensive items will tend to go up in price, right? No matter how much we innovate, we're not going to get any better at making rib eye steak, for instance, necessarily much more efficiently or more quickly. I think that monetary inflation is just going to create a lot of confusion in the world. I tweeted out this quote from Henry Hazlitt yesterday from Economics in One Lesson, and just the last line of the quote was, "Inflation tends to create a thousand illusions." So I think that's what we're going to be suffering from over the next 10 years is that it will be very difficult for market actors to make sense of pricing because of so much policy intervention. It will be difficult to disentangle that from supply and demand fundamentals.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:21)
Very well said, I didn't want to interrupt any of that because I think it's a brilliant analysis of what's going on. So make the case for Bitcoin and make the case for your thinking about Bitcoin, because you're a long-term investor. Obviously, Bitcoin has oscillated a little bit, it had... I think this time last year it was probably $8,000.00 or $9,000.00, it's trading at $29,000.00 right now. That would be a phenomenal return to anybody, except for the psychology, Robert, where people saw it at $64,000.00.

Robert Breedlove: (16:50)
That's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:52)
Of course there are some people who bought it up there, and so they're bruised by it. So tell us about the near term, the intermediate term, and the long-term case for Bitcoin.

Robert Breedlove: (17:02)
Sure thing. So I would say the near term, in my perspective, is that I still believe the supply and demand fundamentals of Bitcoin are what is currently driving its price cycles. So as we all know, we have an inflation rate having pre-programmed into Bitcoin every four years. Historically, we've seen price run-ups, U.S. dollar Bitcoin price run-ups. The peak typically occurs, I think it's 510 days average post halving, so the general theory is that every time you constrict the new issuance of Bitcoin by 50% at the halving event, holding demand neutral or constant, that creates upward pressure on the price. The market tends to get out over its skis quite a bit. There's a lot of hype, a lot of FOMO, people pile in, it does a large parabolic move, and then it has sharp corrections downward.

Robert Breedlove: (18:05)
I am of the belief that, that pattern still holds until proven otherwise. Now, that said, that would have a price peak occurring, I think, mid October 2021. We would expect to see a new all time high, which would be above the $64,000.00 local peak. That said, we have this sort of anomalous event in China where there's been massive crackdown on Bitcoin mining, and a lot of those miners have been boxed up and shipped elsewhere. The hardware itself was... The market was soft, let's just say, there was kind of a duress liquidation of a lot of this mining equipment, so there are macro factors playing into this cycle that we haven't seen previously. This could either break the pricing cycle, if $64,000.00 proved to be the peak and we saw Bitcoin continue to draw down over the next 12 months, then I would have to throw out my theory of the halving cycle purely driving its price going forward. We'll have to start to account for more of these extraneous factors.

Robert Breedlove: (19:19)
Mid-term, say medium term, five to 10 year, I think Bitcoin is going to perform extremely well. The simple elevator pitch I give is Bitcoin is a non-counter party insurance policy on central banking. The more dollars or fiat they print, the more valuable it becomes. Clearly, we are printing money, we're expanding the money supply at an accelerating rate. I would expect that insurance policy to do really well over the next five to 10 years. And then longer term, I think it's the most important asset you can hold, frankly. It is the only asset in the world that no one, no singular interest can control, manipulate, regulate, change the rules of, assuming you custody it properly, cannot even be confiscated. It's really an evolution in property rights.

Robert Breedlove: (20:19)
This country again, was founded on this core natural law thesis of the right to life, liberty, and property. We've replaced that third one with pursuit of happiness, which I think is a big mistake. I don't think you should pursue happiness in life, I think you should pursue responsibility as Jordan Peterson teaches us. Happiness is a nice byproduct if you lead a responsible life. But that third one, property, that is the basis of civilization. If we don't have property rights that we know we can go and invest our labor into projects, and creating value for others, and reap the value that we create, store the fruits of our labor in something secure that we can then redeem for help from others, for services from others, then civilization breaks down. Then we're all just going to be out here... It regresses you to a caveman like state. If you don't have property, how do you create civilization?

Robert Breedlove: (21:23)
If you read a little bit of Ayn Rand, this is the basis of civilization. There is no other fruitful, or peaceful, or cooperative action among humans without property, and inflation is a violation of private property rights. We are arbitrarily allocating wealth from the hands of some into others. So long-term, I think Bitcoin is the solution to this dissolution of civilization through the violation of property.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:55)
So you said a lot there. I'll probably steal that from you, Robert, because it's such a good line.

Robert Breedlove: (22:03)
It's a free market for ideas, take it away. [crosstalk 00:22:05]

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:05)
It's okay, it's no problem, because I'm not going give anybody footnotes. I still a lot of my ideas from John Darsie, I might add as well.

Robert Breedlove: (22:11)
All good.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:11)
So I'm a plagiarizer, but I think it's a brilliant statement that inflation is property theft, because it's your time and your labor and the government is devaluing... You're using your time and your labor in exchange for fiat currency and the government is devaluing the fiat currency, so it's thieving your time and your labor.

Robert Breedlove: (22:31)
That's right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:31)
I think it's very well said. It can't be overstated. Ben Franklin, obviously Jefferson wrote property, you may remember this. John Adams and Ben Franklin proofread the Declaration of Independence and it was Franklin that suggested the pursuit of happiness. This was a John Locke idea. Remember, he was another philosopher in the great Enlightenment. And Franklin said that if you have life, and liberty, and you're pursuing happiness, the property itself would take care of itself, was what his point of view is, and they inserted that. So there's been a big debate over the 245 years about property and happiness, but I am in agreement with you that property is a central element for all of us because it gives us a sense of ownership in our temporal world, but also it's something we're holding, and we worked hard on, and we can transfer to our children.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:28)
That bring me to another very, very big question, which is about Bitcoin and Bitcoin's ability to continue to be the apex predator in the space. Is that something that you're fully confident in? Do you think something like Ethereum can creep in? Is there room for other digital currencies that have fixed supplies? What's your opinion there?

Robert Breedlove: (23:53)
Yeah, so I draw a pretty bright line in the crypto asset universe and that line is between Bitcoin and all other alternative crypto assets, endearingly called shitcoins by many Bitcoin Maximalists and others. And the analogy I use is that Bitcoin itself is more akin to the internet. The internet itself actually is a set of open source protocols, so some of them you've probably heard of, TCP/IP, HTTP, SMTP, et cetera. It's this stack of open source protocols for moving information without asking anyone permission basically and they interlock, and they inter-operate in a way that essentially no one entity controls. And that's what... The open, permissionless nature of the internet is what allows it to render so much value to the world.

Robert Breedlove: (24:55)
There was a time back in the mid-90s when we were struggling to get our language around the internet, the information superhighway, and all these other terms. And at that time intranets were a competing force, that people thought these private, permissioned intranets would be the wave of the future, that the open permissionless internet would not have as much of a place because corporations would just insert their large, privately controlled intranets in its place. So that model clearly played out to the favor of the internet and I don't think there's any intranets hardly around today. And the reason is, is because an open network inherently out competes a closed source network.

Robert Breedlove: (25:44)
So in a closed source network, you have a smaller development team, you have boundaries, and security cost, and rules to develop and enforce. There's a lot of cost with protecting that private turf, if you will, that the open network does not incur. It has... Anyone can participate, the rules are voluntarily adopted, if you don't like the rules of it you can fork it and do your own thing, so it's very open and permissionless. It does not accrue these regulatory and enforcement costs that a closed source network does. That's why the internet out competes intranets and I view Bitcoin as essentially the latest layer in the internet. It is... Just like the layers of the internet allow us to move information without permission, we now have the Bitcoin layer that allows us to move economic value without permission. It sits right on top of the internet protocol suite, augments it, and complements it in many ways.

Robert Breedlove: (26:45)
All of the alternative crypto assets I view more through the lens of intranet, that they've actually gone, copied and pasted Bitcoins code, modified it, and they are using it to either attempt to compete directly with Bitcoin as money, which I think is a failed value proposition for reasons I've outlined in a lot of my writing. Or they're trying to address other market niches, there's 10,000 of them out there. So I don't think the flipping of Bitcoin, Bitcoin as digital gold, which is a very apt analogy once you understand the importance of gold in the world today, I don't think it is being threatened by any alternative crypto asset whatsoever. I see Bitcoin as competitive to gold, sovereign bonds, fiat currency, other stores of value. I think it will absorb monetary premium from real estate, oil, et cetera.

Robert Breedlove: (27:44)
Alternative crypto assets I consider today as liquid venture capital subjected to little, if any due diligence. So some of them may succeed in some market niches. I would say that all of the value propositions that I have seen in the alternative crypto asset space remain theoretical. I haven't seen anything quote unquote prove itself. You could marginally argue Ethereum has succeeded but again, these are really good questions because we don't even know the criteria. How do you define success of an alternative crypto asset? I'm not even really sure about this. So one number I like to look at is the realized cap, which is... It's basically the cost basis for all the long-term holders of a crypto asset and the realized cap for Bitcoin just crossed 100 billion back in August 2019, I believe. So if we use that as our threshold metric, then really Bitcoin just became quote unquote market proven about two years ago.

Robert Breedlove: (28:54)
Today, Ethereum it's well below that now, it's probably in the 40, 30 to 40 billion dollar realized cap range. If you use that as your threshold, if we see Ethereum trade above 100 billion realized cap and hold that, then maybe my arguments bust and we've seen one successful alternative crypto asset. But again, these questions are very nuanced and it comes down to your framework for evaluation. How do you determine success in the marketplace? So no [flippiting 00:29:27] I think would be the short answer, but there is the possibility that some of this other venture capital could succeed.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:36)
Before I turn it over to John who's got a series of questions for you, Robert, what are the greatest true long-term risks to Bitcoin?

Robert Breedlove: (29:44)
Yeah, the greatest known unknown, to use a Rumsfeld term, is the state response. Right? We know that Bitcoin is engineered to be an enemy of the state effectively. It is something that demonopolizes the tool that has been most monopolized throughout the history of government. I think it was Kissinger who said that if a state controls the money, the food, and the energy that they basically control the population in its entirety. Money is one that historically was easier to control because gold had these natural centralizing tendencies. Right? There were a lot of economies of scale by centralizing the custody of gold and issuing paper redeemable for gold, so this gave governments an attack vector to control the money.

Robert Breedlove: (30:49)
So I think that... I'm sorry, I may have veered from the original question. What was the original question?

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:55)
Just the long-term risks [crosstalk 00:30:57].

Robert Breedlove: (30:57)
Long-term risks. So the state response in what we're seeing in China today, are we entering that now they fight you phase. I think Bitcoin has been somewhat disregarded up until this point as a joke, or not quite a threat, but when it got to a trillion dollar market cap it seemed like a lot of people started to pay much closer attention. That is when this latest Chinese response against miners and people participating in the financial ecosystem seemed to ramp up as well. So in the long run I think states ultimately have to... They are incentivized to interact with the Bitcoin network and support it so that they can generate essentially a tax base from the economic activity that it will usher in. But in the short run, I do think you're going to see more of these attempts at governments cracking down or controlling Bitcoin.

Robert Breedlove: (32:08)
That's in the sphere of the known unknowns. The unknown unknowns, which are just pure black swan events, which by definition I can hardly talk about because if I could describe them in detail they wouldn't be black swans. I think that is the greatest threat to Bitcoin, and as someone looking to make a risk adjusted bet on something that's actually what you want to see. You want to have identified all the possible risk vectors and be left with nothing but an unknown unknown possibility of hurting your investment. So in that camp I would put a technical flaw of some kind that we have not foreseen, some breaking in elliptic curve cryptography, which would break the commercial internet itself by the way. So it's not like just Bitcoin is singularly vulnerable here. You could say some broader cosmological event, I don't know like an EMP burst or a supernova that affected things. So I guess, we know the state's going to do something about it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:19)
The alien announcement and the UFOs landing, you're okay with that one?

Robert Breedlove: (33:22)
The alien announcement I would think is more in the bucket of the known unknowns at this point. I think the state may actually... It seems like they're kind of warming people up to that idea, that will be the next lockdowns we go into, alien lockdowns, or global warming lockdowns. Just if I zoom way out, I see an antiquated organizational model called the nation state vying to maintain its relevance in the digital age where we just don't need... We don't need the organizing influence of coercion nearly as much as we used to because we have voluntary networks like the internet and Bitcoin. That's the larger transition I think taking place and yeah, the risks to Bitcoin for me are minimal enough relative to its upside that I do believe it is the best risk adjusted bet still in the world today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:25)
John Darsie.

John Darsie: (34:26)
I want to ask you a couple quick questions before we go, Robert, one's about Bitcoin mining. So obviously China's crypto ban has had this big negative impact on hashrate, and whether it's causation or correlation hashrate traditionally has been correlated with Bitcoin price and we're continuing to see these downward adjustments. Obviously, Bitcoin rewards have gone up commiserate with that. Do you think that China's ban and this downward pressure on hashrate is a long-term concern? Or where do you think the trajectory of Bitcoin mining geographically and directionally is going?

Robert Breedlove: (35:04)
Yeah, I think long-term it's a benefit actually to have so much hashrate leaving China. I think the numbers were upward of 70% at one point and were all within just the Chinese jurisdiction, so that's actually reducing the risk overall in the long run. Short run though, hashrate, I believe, the last I looked, it's been a few months, it tends to precede price a little bit. There's a bit of correlation there. As far as whether hash rate and price are causative or correlative, I actually think it's a feedback loop where the... It's programmed into Bitcoin essentially, but as the hashrate increases the network is essentially becoming more secure so that the store of value properties of Bitcoin are increased, which in theory would increase demand for its utility as a store of value. So I do think they have this reciprocal interaction.

Robert Breedlove: (36:07)
Yeah, so long term I think it's a boon, short term could be very depressive to price and could contribute to a breakdown in this pricing cycle, which I still believe in until I see otherwise.

John Darsie: (36:22)
And in terms of government, let's say the United States government comes through and decides they don't like Bitcoin. Elizabeth Warren wins out, Janet Yellen, and the Federal Reserve, and all the other financial regulators got together on Monday, we're talking about the stable coin market, but generally people in the Biden administration don't love Bitcoin. If they were to come out and say, you know what, we're going to either tax it very punitively or ban it in some shape or form, do you think Bitcoin survives? And what form does it survive?

Robert Breedlove: (36:54)
Yeah, punitive taxation would definitely contribute to the incentive to hold long-term. So I think that would be positive for creating pressure on existing holders to continue to hold, but it would also likely delay further institutional adoption or other larger capital pools coming into the space. I think if there was a hard crackdown in the United States you're... Again, every time one jurisdiction presses down, as China's doing now, they're creating incentives for other jurisdictions to both tolerate and accept mining and build out additional financial services infrastructure into Bitcoin. And you could say that you're seeing some of that in the likes of El Salvador where they've said enough of this and have decided to make it a legal tender.

Robert Breedlove: (37:50)
So long run I think Bitcoin is going to continue to do its thing in the free market. We're basically seeing Gresham's Law play out. Again, initially at an individual level and that game theory percolates itself up due to corporate and ultimately nation state, central bank, sovereign wealth fund level. But there's going to be... They're going to fight back, they're going to press back as well, so that might be what we're starting to see. I forget, what is the Gandhi progression where it's like first they laugh at you, then they something, then they fight you, then you win. We might be going into that fight you stage. That might be what the beginning of this is.

Robert Breedlove: (38:34)
But then the other thing about the U.S., at least today as we still have this decentralized model, so we have people like Greg Abbott in Texas that are vying to get hashrate into Texas. There's a lot of surplus energy production there, which means that energy producers are basically leaving money on the table and I think as this realization dawns on them that they can just monetize a lot of this currently curtailed energy production, that you're going to see the market continue to defuse and enhance the Bitcoin hashrate globally.

John Darsie: (39:12)
All right, Robert. Well, we're going to leave it there. I wish we had three hours to do sort of long form conversations the way you do on your What is Money podcast, but we try to keep these at about 40, 45 minutes. But this has been fantastic, we hope to have you on again soon to pick up the conversation maybe a year or so down the line.

Robert Breedlove: (39:31)
Sure thing.

John Darsie: (39:32)
[crosstalk 00:39:32] But keep doing what you're doing. We love your podcast. Whatismoneypodcast.com, you can find Robert's fantastic work there. Again, we highly recommend it. Anthony, you have a final word for Robert before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:43)
Well, listen, I think that... I applaud you for your vision, Robert and I want to stay close to you and follow what you're doing because I know that you're seeing around the corner with those laser eyes that you have on Twitter. I put the laser eyes on as well, it's not coming as quickly as you and I both thought, but I do think what you're saying about this trend and the phenomena of having permanency of capital in things like Bitcoin is something that I think we're moving towards. That standard is something that's coming.

Robert Breedlove: (40:13)
Yeah, agreed. It's gradually then suddenly, right? So I hope to continue to establish some vision for us to work towards because a lot of people are struggling in the current structure at every level. So I hope to at least paint a picture of where we could be versus where we are today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:34)
Well, we appreciate it. Thank you for joining us.

Robert Breedlove: (40:37)
Yep.

John Darsie: (40:38)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Robert Breedlove. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website on demand at salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media, Twitter is where we're most active @SALTConference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Mariana Mazzucato: Mission Economy | SALT Talks #239

“As long as your investing through the public sector in really ambitious areas that are solving social and technological goals alongside private sector entities, you’re expanding your productive capacity… That won’t cause inflation because you’re expanding the pie.”

Mariana Mazzucato (PhD) is Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London (UCL), where she is Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation & Public Purpose (IIPP). She is winner of international prizes including the 2020 John von Neumann Award, the 2019 All European Academies Madame de Staël Prize for Cultural Values, and 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. She was named as one of the '3 most important thinkers about innovation' by The New Republic, one of the 50 most creative people in business in 2020 by Fast Company, and one of the 25 leaders shaping the future of capitalism by WIRED. She is the author of three highly-acclaimed books: The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (2013), The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (2018) and the newly released, Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (2021).

Mariana Mazzucato explains how Keynesian economics and counter-cyclical government spending is foundational to her perspective, but is only one part of her approach. Mazzucato gives her thoughts on debates around deficits and inflation, and how political polarization stands in the way of progress. She explains the importance of structuring a mission-oriented economy that requires a fundamental restructuring of public-private partnerships- creating conditionality around big, ambitious goals. This requires government to be creative and bold in solving the most urgent social and technological challenges, particularly around sustainability and the climate.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Mariana Mazzucato

Professor

University College London

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

7:30 - Background

6:32 - Economic perspective

14:44 - Deficits, polarization and political action

26:58 - Structuring a mission-oriented economy

35:41 - Mission-oriented policy from the Biden administration

42:22 - Vision, innovation and conditionality around infrastructure

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 that we started in 2020. Our goal with these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021. That'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)
Today's guest I think has a better grasp on what those ideas need to be for us to sort of fix a lot of the ills that are plaguing the world and capitalism than anybody that we've had here on SALT Talks. We're very excited to have her. That's Mariana Mazzucato, PhD. She's a Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at the University College London, where she is the Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation & Public Purpose. She received her Bachelor's degree, like Anthony, from Tufts University, and her Master's and PhD in Economics from the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research.

John Darsie: (01:22)
Her previous posts include the RM Phillips Professorial Chair at the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University. She is a selected fellow of the UK’s Academy of Social Sciences and of the Italian National Science Academy. She's a winner of international prizes including the 2020 John von Neumann Award, the 2019 All European Academies Madame de Staël Prize for Cultural Values, and the 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.

John Darsie: (01:55)
She was named one of the three most important thinkers about innovation by The New Republic, one of the 50 most creative people in business in 2020 by Fast Company, and one of the 25 leaders shaping the future of capitalism by WIRED. She's the author of three fantastic and highly-acclaimed books. The first one, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, which came out in 2013; The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy, which was released in 2018; and her newly released book, Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism. We highly recommend all those books. Today, we'll be focusing on the third and most recent book, Mission Economy, but we again highly recommend all three.

John Darsie: (02:37)
Mariana advises policy makers around the world on innovation led inclusive and sustainable growth, including the World Health Organization, OECD, the UN, and policy makers in Scotland, South Africa, Argentina, Sweden and Norway. She's a citizen of the world too. She was telling us before we went live that she was born in Italy, raised largely in the United States. I think her father taught at Princeton. Then now resides in the beautiful city of London. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the Founder and Managing Partner at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:16)
Are you going to mention I got fired from the White House, John?

John Darsie: (03:20)
I'm not going to mention that one today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:21)
I know you tried to throw that in there. I mean, every SALT Talk-

John Darsie: (03:23)
Mariana is sort of adjacent to [crosstalk 00:03:26]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:26)
Mariana, he tries to throw that into every SALT Talk, Mariana. I didn't want him to spare you. All right, you're a brilliant person. Let's just get to the facts. You're an absolutely brilliant person. Congratulations on the book. Why go into being an economist? Did you study economics at Tufts, just out of curiosity?

Mariana Mazzucato: (03:47)
Well, it's so interesting how different the US educational system is, the whole kind of liberal arts degrees. Here in the UK, unfortunately people start specializing way too early. If I think back at Tufts, no, I was much broader than just the economics. I was a double major in history and international relations. They have the Fletcher School there, that you'll know. And a minor in Latin American studies. What actually got me interested in economics was both some economics courses that I was taking as part of that, because I later went on as, you kindly talked about in the introduction, into economics for my Master's and PhD.

Mariana Mazzucato: (04:21)
Especially what I learned in those economics classes was what a debate there was within the economic field, and yet how much the existing theory, the one's that taught around the world in Econ 101 classes, is just one theory. We don't actually talk about all the different types of theories that exist. When we do, it's more like in a history of economic thought kind of perspective. Like, "Once upon a time Marx said that. Then Keynes said this. There's some other thinkers, but real economics is neoclassical economics." The fact that there's actually different tools out there, and yet we're only using mainly tools from one particular theory.

Mariana Mazzucato: (04:56)
That even the mathematics that's used in economic theory tends to be just from one branch of economics, basically Newtonian physics, all wed to a center of gravity, a unique equilibria and so on, I was very interested in widening that out. Also because I felt that the economy, and all the pressures that countries have in trying to show that their economically sound, required a much broader more open discussion that wasn't siloed within one particular theory that presented itself as the universal wisdom.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:28)
For those that are not economists, or for people like me who studied economics in college but probably don't remember most of it, tell us about economics for a second. There are different sleeves of economics. Just for our young viewers, we have a Keynesian sleeve, which is about stimulating the economy. Some could call it deficit spending. I don't want to oversimplify it, of course. Then you have the Austrian sleeve, which is sort of wedded to free economic principles and capitalism.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:00)
Then you have the Chicago School, which was Milton Friedman and his ideas around the free economy, and market based economics. Sort of keeping true to the principle of monetary stability, as opposed to debasement of anything related to our currency. Where do you fit in those categories? When I read your book, I don't see you fitting in any of those categories, frankly. I see you as a solutions based economist, irrespective of these theories.

Mariana Mazzucato: (06:32)
Right. Well it's really interesting you say that. I was very much informed and learned from those different theories. In the spirit of what I was saying before, I think it's really important for one to use the bits of the theories that one thinks are actually useful. Not necessarily taking the whole, everything that's in the bucket. For example, with Keynesian economics, I think in some ways Keynes was misunderstood. He wasn't just about counter cyclical spending. First, what did Keynes say? He said that when government acts as a private individual, so spends or invests too much in the boom and too little in the bust, that's why we actually get recessions that turn into depressions.

Mariana Mazzucato: (07:15)
You get this vicious cycle of the whole economy kind of unwinding. He really was one of the first people that talked about counter cyclical government, which is why by the way since World War II, shortly after that is when he had a lot of influence, we actually haven't had so many depressions. If you just look at the data in terms of global output, there was constant depressions before World War II. Since then, we have recessions, part of the business cycle, but more or less we've avoided big crashes like the great crash of 1929. Yet before 1945, they were constant. Government coming in and being a counter cyclical force was very important. By the way, minor inflation between say two and 4%, is actually an outcome of stabilizing the economy.

Mariana Mazzucato: (08:02)
Another thing you see in the data, if you look at before 1945, is often deflation. Something actually that we've currently experienced with this massive pandemic and economic activity coming to a halt. The bit of Keynes that I think has been misunderstood, and that's why I sort of pick up his theory and push it forwards in a new way, is that it's not just about counter cyclical government. It's about actually doing what's not being done. There's no point for government investment or spending to do what someone else could, and you're sort of just filling a gap. In fact, the fact that in economics, and even some misinterpreted Keynes is understood as government fixing market failures.

Mariana Mazzucato: (08:42)
It means you're always too little too late. You're always kind of patching the system up, as opposed to having real ambition and vision for what needs to be done. Which doesn't mean that government should do it all, some sort of centrally planned, micro managed top-down system. No, I don't believe in that. I do believe that the point of public policy, and the reason I set up the whole institution around pubic purpose, is that what we should expect from government, at least those that are democratically elected, is really setting a vision. For example, today surely for fighting global warming, but then how that can be done of course needs to be crowding in a many different types of actors in the business community and so on. But if you don't have a vision, it doesn't happen.

Mariana Mazzucato: (09:25)
Kind of mixing Keynesian economics, and that notion of counter cyclical government, but also with a vision of actually dreaming up a better world. Using creativity and our full imagination, and really getting discussions and debates happening across different stakeholders in the economy. I think that is the role of government. To do that, you need to be innovative. I've also borrowed a lot from Schumpeter. Schumpeter being a very important economist who also showed how traditional economics almost couldn't deal with innovation, because it's so wed to showing unique equilibria, representative agents. That all firms are more or less alike and any differences get winnowed away in the long run, and we get to these average actors.

Mariana Mazzucato: (10:08)
He said innovation is constantly disrupting that. We get multiple equilibria, dis-equilibria, constant differences between companies that are trying to differentiate themselves to increase their market share. Yet all those properties aren't within our kind of traditional understanding of the economy. Even to introduce innovation in traditional economic thought, you need to introduce it through what's called imperfect competition. You need to introduce, in the theory, patents for example that will incentivize a company to innovate, but that's a sign of imperfect information and then assymetry. Anyway, I don't want bore your audience.

Mariana Mazzucato: (10:43)
The point is, borrowing from Schumpeter, who said we need a new theory if we really want to understand innovation, creativity, the dynamic potential of the economy, and actually to use dynamic tools. That's why I also went to the Santa Fe Institute for Complexity Thinking in New Mexico during my PhD. That idea that we also need, for example, perhaps more mathematics from biology and not Newtonian physics, so that we can actually map these distance for mean dynamics, these replicator dynamics which biologists have looked at for a long time. What I think we lack today, and the reason I wrote my recent book, Mission Economy, is precisely that first question. What's the mission? What's the vision? If we don't have that, there's no point in having government. We didn't get to the moon and back by fixing market failures.

Mariana Mazzucato: (11:31)
You had a really ambitious plan by government. You had Kennedy saying, "We're going to do it because it's hard, not because it's easy." All the language we have today of the government not only just fixing markets, but de-risking the cool risk takers and business of at best leveling the playing field. Studying the rules of the game, facilitating those who are going to take on the difficulties. You'll appreciate this. The word facile in Italian, Anthony, means easy. The idea that government is there just to make things easier for others, which is the traditional way to think of things, just makes no sense if you look back at that kind of Kennedy speech.

Mariana Mazzucato: (12:08)
He said, "We're going to do this because it's hard. We're going to take on these difficulties together. We might fail along the way, but that's fine, because it's worth it." What is worth it today to us? I think we need to go to the sustainable development goals that every country has signed up to. Break them down into different types of moon shots that require both public and private, also sometimes third sector kind of philanthropy institutions. To really invest and create partnerships that are truly symbiotic and mutualistic, but focused on goals as opposed to just handouts to these random categories that we often get.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:44)
I mean it's beautifully well said. You delve into a lot of this in the book. I've got so many questions, but I'm going to start with my top three. They're a little disjointed, but I want you to stay with me. Do deficits matter? That's my number one question. That's sort of a Stephanie Kelton question. We've had Professor Kelton on with us to talk about her book The Deficit Myth. Number two-

Mariana Mazzucato: (13:11)
I was just on the phone with her 10 minutes ago.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:13)
Okay. Yeah, so we're big fans of Professor Kelton. She's opened my eyes to a lot of this. I would like your opinion on that, do deficits matter? The second question is, your ideas are fantastic but there seems to be a lack of Kennedyesque boldness in the political system globally, particularly in the West where the West seems to be fighting with each other. That could be frankly something that... I mean who knows? We've certainly looked into the active measures of the Russian government. We recognize that there's a lot of robotic technology out there that's helping to polarize our countries, but we're doing it to ourselves. I want to get the reaction to that. Then the third thing is, if I'm right about the second thing, how do we fix it? Deficit's number one. Number two, what about the political will to do the things that require the boldness of thinking that you're writing about. Can we fix it?

Mariana Mazzucato: (14:16)
Great. An amazing set of questions. Let me start with the first one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:18)
Let me stop you right there. Darsie, did you hear that? An amazing set of questions. I get very jealous Professor, because no one ever says that to me. They always say to Darsie, "Oh, John. What a great question. What a great question." Which is horrifying. Okay, we're going to end the SALT Talk right there. Professor, it was a pleasure to have you on. Thank you. No come back, I'm sorry.

Mariana Mazzucato: (14:43)
Well, it's a great set of questions because they're all three of them. If you just asked does the deficit matter, which unfortunately that is what the media tends to focus on, without getting to the point of, if actually we would worry less about the deficit, what should we worry about? That's the boldness bit. Then how can we actually fix the problems which are about all this siloed ways of thinking about both deficits and what the role of government is, and so on? Anyway, deficits. You and I both at least... Let me say historically come from Italy. Italy is a perfect place to answer that question. We have actually had a low deficit in the last 20 years in Italy in terms of the difference between what government spends and invests, and the tax revenue, and yet a very high debt to GDP.

Mariana Mazzucato: (15:27)
Unfortunately, we don't talk about that enough. Countries that are not investing enough in both the public sector and the private sector don't grow. They don't actually have long run growth potential. Their productivity, for example, remains stagnant, as Italy's productivity has remained stagnant over the last 20 years. The denominator of debt to GDP doesn't grow. Even with a mildly rising deficit, or the size of a deficit, whether it's two, 5%, 10%, whatever it may be, if you are not actually investing in key areas that increase your productivity, that might be publicly and privately funded research and development, a solid education system, training of workers, dynamic sustainable infrastructure and so on, then your rate of growth lags.

Mariana Mazzucato: (16:17)
You can have a very high debt to GDP, because the denominator is not growing. In fact in theory, the debt to GDP can go to infinity if the denominator is not growing. You'll remember when a ratio has zero in the denominator, no matter what's in the numerator it goes to infinity. That's a first point which I don't think is made enough even by the MMT folks, Stephanie Kelton and others. I really appreciate Stephanie's work. I think just that point needs to be made more.

Mariana Mazzucato: (16:43)
Otherwise, what we end up with is countries that obsess about the deficit, make all sorts of cuts to the public sector. Yet not only are they damaging society in terms of the cuts that are made often to really important social structures like public education, public health and so on, then they don't even solve the debt problem. Their debt to GDP rises even more so than it would have to, because government also has to come in and fix all those different problems that come about by a badly performing economy.

Mariana Mazzucato: (17:12)
The other point there with deficits is that as long as what government is investing in, and I again in the book argue for moon shots around all sorts of different targets that have to do with sustainability, combating inequality, for example. Imagine a mission that was to reduce to almost zero the digital divide so that our kids, when they are in lockdown, globally all have equal access to their human right to education because of the zero digital divide. That itself could foster all sorts of investment in innovation in both the public and private sectors. As long as you're actually investing through the public sector in really ambitious areas that are again solving social and technological goals alongside private sector entities, you're actually then expanding your productive capacity in the country.

Mariana Mazzucato: (18:01)
As long as you're doing that, your productive capacity, but also the social capacity and making that economy more resilient, but also expanding the opportunities for investment by others. As long as you're doing that, and not just kind of flying in helicopter money. Just kind of digging ditches and filling them up again. That was actually a quote by Keynes, which had to do with something else which I won't go into. As long as you're really being ambitious and strategic and mission oriented, then also that will not cause inflation because you're expanding the pie. The reason you would get inflation is if you just put in a lot of money.

Mariana Mazzucato: (18:37)
For example, expand people's aggregate demand, let's say, the Keynesian point of view. If you're not also expanding the productive capacity, that could potentially lead to higher prices. Which in and of itself, by the way, is not a huge problem. I already mentioned before that mild inflation is usually also a symptom of a growing economy. The fact that we don't have these continual depressions as we did before World War II, which caused constant deflation. Inflation getting out of hand can occur when this huge increase in the money supply occurs without that expansion of the productive capacity itself. That's why what you're investing in matters. It's not just handing out a lot of money to people and to businesses.

Mariana Mazzucato: (19:21)
It is about doing that in an intelligent way, for example around a strategy. For example around the Green New Deal, why not? We can go into more what that might look like. That brings us back to the issue about vision and mission. That it's not just about flooding the system with liquidity. We did, by the way, after the financial crisis. We flooded the system with liquidity in order to save basically the capitalist system. Most of that money ended up back inside the financial sector. That's another issue, which is how do we make sure that this money when it's created is directed towards productive capacity in the real economy, and also help transform that real economy so that it is more inclusive, more sustainable and so on?

Mariana Mazzucato: (20:01)
That brings us to your second question. Well to do that, surely you need creative thinking. We need collective intelligence in our political process. We need all sorts of really dynamic collaborations also between different actors in the economy, government, business, civil society and so on. That boldness in the political system that you talked about, I think that we have a vicious cycle. I come back to that phrase I used before. The more you think that government at best is there to fix the system, to fix what economists call market failures, there's no real reason for boldness, is there? There's also no real reason to be investing within your organization in the public sector, in what call the dynamic capabilities of the state and of the public sector.

Mariana Mazzucato: (20:45)
I actually think we've had the opposite of that. This is actually the key point of a new book I'm starting to write, we've had a massive outsourcing of government capacity to the private sector. The problem is not the private sector, it's the outsourcing of government's brain to the private sector. You see this also with consulting companies, KPMG, McKinsey, PWC. They are increasingly actually doing for a government what government should be investing within its own civil service to do. When you don't have that, government potentially also becomes stupid. It's not just a lack of boldness. It's a lack of learning by doing, if you're no longer doing and governing and managing.

Mariana Mazzucato: (21:23)
Again, it doesn't mean the government has to do everything. It's always about partnership, but when you stop investing in your own capabilities, this is something that NASA during the moon landing, during the Apollo program was very aware of. They knew they had to collaborate with lots of private companies. They did. They worked with companies as different as Motorola, Honeywell, General Electric and so on. They actually knew that in order to partner properly, in order to partner with a common purpose, they themselves needed capabilities. There was this really interesting quote I found in doing the research by someone called Ernest Brackett, who was the head for procurement for NASA. He said, if we stop investing in our own brain, we will be captured by what he called brochuremanship.

Mariana Mazzucato: (22:08)
In other words, private companies just coming in with a nice little shiny brochure saying, "I'll work with you." With NASA not really knowing if they were serious or not, did they have any real skills? They wouldn't even know how to write the terms of reference with the private sector if they themselves weren't investing in-house. I think that, to be honest, is just as much of a problem as the lack of boldness, but they actually go hand-in-hand. When you're bold, when you are mission oriented, you're also a really great place to come and work. If we continue to portray the public sector and build the public sector, that at best is about de-risking the cool risk takers in business, of course a young bright graduate will prefer to go work in business.

Mariana Mazzucato: (22:48)
That's why I wrote The Entrepreneurial State back in 2013, which was also to say, we use the word entrepreneurship to talk about businesses and places like Silicon Valley. Yet basically every real risk that was taken in the underlying technology, so in the early stage high risk phase of the internet, GPS, touch screen, Siri, you name it, everything that makes our smart products smart and not stupid came out of public funding. Yet we know so little about those public investments. It wasn't just, again, helicopter money into the economy. These were mission oriented organizations like DARPA, an innovation agency inside the Department of Defense. As economists, since we know innovation matters, it's again a key driver of long-term growth.

Mariana Mazzucato: (23:32)
You would think that we would have studied how do you set up dynamic mission oriented public organizations in all sorts of areas, health, energy, defense, to do that kind of DARPA thing? Yet there's very little understanding. Again, that's why I set up this institution, which is a full fledged department at University College London. We believe that we also need a new curriculum for civil servants globally that is less from Chicago's school ramifications into the civil service, which is basically new public management and a public choice theory, and more about a new curriculum which is truly about collective value creation, challenge led thinking, building creative bureaucracies, not boring bureaucracies. Also things like design thinking, and really governing digital platforms for the common good that require specific types of capabilities within the state, which we don't have.

Mariana Mazzucato: (24:24)
That's your third question, how do you fix it? Well that's I think the answer. We can't fix it just by saying, "Oh, that policy's stupid. Let's do that policy." It has to actually go to the core of how we think, how we've been trained, how we think about the role of the state. How we think about value creation as truly collective so that it's not just the production function. This is a concept within traditional economics. There's the production function, which is basically how value is created in the company. At best, government is to redistribute that value, or to somehow enable it from the sidelines. What does it need to fix the system using these ideas of the common good? Also collective value creation at the core so we also begin from the beginning with issues around capacity and capabilities within both public and private.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:13)
So it's fixable.

Mariana Mazzucato: (25:15)
It is. I mean there's nothing inevitable in something like the concept of secular stagnation. That's an outcome of the lack of ambitious investment. In fact, maybe that's a good point. I'm just letting you get like one word in, then I keep going off and rap.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:29)
I think it's good, by the way-

Mariana Mazzucato: (25:31)
But just on the private sector. Yeah?

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:34)
By the way, the only person that has ever been accused of boring people on the SALT Talk is me. That's not Darsie telling me that. I think you're doing great.

Mariana Mazzucato: (25:41)
Poor John. He's getting a lot of grief from you. No, it's just-

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:46)
Yeah. That's part of our schtick, Mariana. Otherwise I can't get my... I mean he's running the company. He's sitting in my office. The last time I checked, I think he stole my W-2. I don't know. It's a little bit of generational jealousy that I like to display on our-

John Darsie: (26:02)
By the way, I already filed an HR complaint while this talk was ongoing.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:06)
By the way, Mariana, you'll be pleased to know that the head of HR at SkyBridge is me.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:10)
Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:11)
There's a paper shredder right next to that complaint area. Just letting you know that.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:17)
That's awesome.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:18)
This is the point that I think you're making, that I want you to emphasize. It is totally fixable. One of the things that Kennedy also said at American University in June of 1963, he said that these problems that we have are... Forgive me, it's not sex. At the time, it really was.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:35)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:35)
These problems were mostly man made.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:38)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:38)
As a result, definitionally women and men can fix these problems. I'd like you to delve into that a little bit.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:44)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:45)
This is solvable for us. We don't have to sit here in a crisis of stagnation and pessimism. This is one of the beautiful things about your book. This is solvable. Just elaborate a little more, if you don't mind.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:57)
Sure. I mean I've talked enough about why I think government can be structured in a different way, and have much more ambition, and building both on kind of the Keynes and the Schumpeterian tradition. Also that kind of intra-organizational issue, which by the way, a wonderful woman economist used to write about in the 1920s, Edith Penrose. She talked about in terms of the private sector. She's responsible for a huge change within economic theory around the dynamic capabilities of the firm, of the company. That has led to all sorts of advances in management theory. I'm kind of calling for the same equivalent rethinking of capabilities and capacity within the government sector, precisely so it can be ambitious and bold. Your kind of that second question. It's not going to happen on its own by just calling out for boldness.

Mariana Mazzucato: (27:42)
One of the main things that needs to be fixed, and why I think we can do it... In fact, let me backtrack a bit. Where is the problem? The problem is that we've come to believe that the economy is kind of this deterministic system that is going in particular ways. Every now and then, we have to fix it, including the pandemic. "Oh, dear. Fix that one." Climate change, "Oh, no. Fix that one." Given that we don't fix it. Whereas if you start with the idea that the economy is an outcome, and markets themselves, the market economy. That's what we have, is an outcome of how we govern all the different actors in the economy. From the state actors, and I've already talked about the problems around a pure market fixing idea of the state in terms of how it's governed. In the private sector, this idea that it's just kind of maximizing its profits, and the right thing to do is just to maximize shareholder value as a consequence of that.

Mariana Mazzucato: (28:34)
That's a choice. There's all sorts of different ways to actually set up companies. Those decisions will also determine what kind of market outcome we get, but also the decisions of how public and private interrelate one to another. This idea that it's just about partnership and ecosystems of innovation... That's the trendy word that people use in my world. Really? What kind of ecosystem? What kind of partnership? I don't know if you're married. I have I think a nice marriage, but we know there's many abusive marriages. Any sort of partnership has to be dissected in what kind of partnership it is. I think we have problems on all those three levels. We have a misgoverned public sector, a misgoverned private sector that should be governed much more around notions of stakeholder value, not maximizing just shareholder value, and we have a very problematic relationship between the two.

Mariana Mazzucato: (29:21)
If we want to use the ecosystem terminology, we should learn from biologists who are a bit more concrete when they use that word. They will actually distinguish an ecosystem which is predator prey, parasitic, symbiotic or mutualistic. How do we build a truly mutualistic public private partnership? How do we govern business to be stakeholder and purpose driven? How do we govern the state to be mission oriented in that kind of Kennedy way, but around social issues, which of course are not just technological? These are wicked problems we have today that also require regulatory change, political change, organizational, technological. The reason we have problems is that all three of those are currently problematic.

Mariana Mazzucato: (30:05)
I think just the fact that we have such a financialized business sector, so over $4 trillion have been spent by the Fortune 500 companies in the last 10 years in buying back their own shares. Buy back your shares, increase your share price, increase stock options. Surprise, surprise, increase executive pay, which is often paid via stock options. You can undo that. In fact, it used to be undone. It used to actually be illegal. If you look at the history of share buybacks, the excessive use... Some share buybacks are fine. The excessive use of share buybacks is something that was then allowed during the whole period of deregulation. If you look at what the SEC did around that, that can be undone, but there was huge lobbying for that.

Mariana Mazzucato: (30:50)
Or if you look at capital gains tax, which at the end of the 1970s, early '80s, it went down by something like 50% in just four years. That's not only wrong, and I can tell you more about why I think that's a problem. It basically just increases short-termism in our financial sector. It didn't just happen. It wasn't just like, "Oh, whoops. We made a mistake." There was a huge amount of lobbying that occurred from the financial sector, interestingly mainly from the venture capital community at the time that was just starting up. To do that with the idea that, oh, we're going to invest in innovation as long as our capital gains is low. The National Venture Capital Association actually was responsible for that lobbying. That was believed, as opposed to just looking at the data.

Mariana Mazzucato: (31:33)
Also, today we could look at the data, where you see that venture capital has been the most successful when it has been on the back of public forms of venture capital. Whether it's the kind of Yozma funding in Israel, which is a public venture capital fund. Whether it's the SBIR in DARPA type funding in the US, with VC coming in almost always about 10 years or 15 years after the public sector. Made the big investments in biotech, nanotech, internet and so on. Which would be fine if we just admitted it. There's nothing wrong with coming in later. What's wrong is the kind of narrative, the storytelling, the lies... I guess we could also use that word, which then determines the kind of tax policy we have.

Mariana Mazzucato: (32:15)
This idea that only the Silicon Valley type companies, the venture capitalists, or in the health sector big pharma, or the big innovation machines, without admitting that collective risk taking, collective value creation has been used to then inform very problematic tax policies. In terms of fixing, you can't just reverse that. Say, "Oh, no. Don't do that tax. Do that tax." You need to uncover the assumptions and the stories and the lobbying that was made in order to get us that kind of regressive taxation. Otherwise, even if you undo it, someone else is going to redo it because you actually haven't created a new story. I'll just say one more thing, because I do need to let you get in a word every now and then.

Mariana Mazzucato: (33:01)
I believe that a progressive story has to be just as much about how to create wealth in a different way as also redistributing that wealth. If we're interested in inclusive growth, not just sustainable growth... I do think sustainability is key. Just look at what's happening to our planet today, the fires in BC and so on, Germany the floods this week. That kind of inclusive economy, not the 1% 99% economy, can't just be fixed with redistributive policies, as important as they are. I really believe in progressive taxation, not regressive taxation, and so on. We need to fundamentally create different relationships, different structures in the first place in a pre-distributive mode.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:44)
All right, well listen. The reason I let you go is that I think what you're saying is absolutely brilliant. I think more people need to get their arms around the notion that we can fix this. You said something I think very insightful that's worth repeating. The media is often focused on the problem, or the near-term problem, or the scary term deficit. People look at that from a household perspective, and you and people like Professor Kelton don't look at that as a household. You look at it more from a macro economic perspective, where you can see that the money's still in the system, and it's not as scary as it may sound to a household oriented person. I'm going to turn it over to the millennial, John Darsie, who has some questions for you, Professor. If you say, "Good question, John," I may leave the screen temporarily as I take different medications here. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (34:40)
Yeah. I think Anthony took all the great questions. I'm going to struggle to get a good question here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:45)
Get the hell out of here.

John Darsie: (34:46)
You've also poisoned the well. You've also poisoned the well. Even if I do deliver a great question, she's going to be hesitant to [crosstalk 00:34:53]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:52)
I definitely did that. That was the definite goal, was to do that.

Mariana Mazzucato: (34:57)
You guys should set up a radio station like Car Talk.

John Darsie: (35:02)
I guess that's sort of halfway what we have here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:04)
Yeah it is. There's no doubt there's a little bit of that going on.

John Darsie: (35:09)
Yeah, huge fans of your thinking, your way of thinking, and your book of course, Mariana. You're a big proponent of mission oriented thinking. We've talked with various guests on this program about the way we need to should rethink our society in the United States. This is also a global issue around. The more mission oriented thinking. On a practical basis, in the United States if we said, "We're going to recommit ourselves to more mission oriented thinking." What would that look like in practice? What recommendations would you have for our government?

Mariana Mazzucato: (35:41)
Well first of all, it's a really good question, but especially... And I haven't said this to Anthony, to ask it now. Why? Because Biden's team is actually investing not only in this big infrastructure bill, but in some ways they're highlighting again, after four years of kind of mercantilistic policy, where all the focus was on terms of trade, and foreigners and so on. By focusing on industrial and innovation policy, instead of just terms of trade and building walls, the first thing is, "Well, what do we need from an innovation policy? What do we need from an industrial strategy?" Which you'll know has actually received some bipartisan support, which initially was through the National Frontier Act, that now is with this new innovation and competitiveness bill that being passed through. I haven't checked yet whether it's completely out there.

Mariana Mazzucato: (36:28)
Anyway, what's really important is to first of all remember where the source of competitiveness in the US has come from. Again, I've already talked about it a bit, but those kind of big bold investments by agencies like SBIR, NIH, national institutes of health, which is public financed, funding something like 75% of our blockbuster drugs. The new molecular entities with priority rating almost all trace their initial high risk research to publicly financed national institutes of health. Again, DARPA, ARPA-E and so on. The first thing is, I really believe that in any kind of thinking about missions and mission oriented thinking, we also have to go to the organizations in question to make sure we understand them enough.

Mariana Mazzucato: (37:11)
We understand how they think about their portfolios of investment, so they're not putting all their eggs in one basket and so on. Also kind of really galvanizing that intra-organizational culture of risk taking within the civil service, which unfortunately we all think don't have. I've just done a whole study for the BBC, by the way, on notions of public value that they've had as a public broadcaster. How interesting it is that by having that, they've been able to really again crowd in lots of private sector investment in new areas that they wouldn't have if they just saw their role like PBS does in the United States.

Mariana Mazzucato: (37:44)
Which I love PBS, but it really just does what kind of a market fixing public institution does. Whereas the BBC kind of reframes soap operas, talk shows. Basically changing the Dallas and Dynasty soap operas... You're too young. You probably don't know what I'm talking about. EastEnders, a soap opera about the working class, that was all done through really interesting intra-organizational issues. Very different from DARPA, but still very kind of public purpose oriented.

Mariana Mazzucato: (38:11)
The second is, what are we even trying to do? One is this organizational element, which I think we don't have enough ambitious public organizations because they've bought into this idea that they're there just to facilitate, DARPA being an exception. Again, lots of these organizations I talk to in some ways being exceptions. The next thing is, what do we mean by mission oriented policy framing? What would it look like in the US? What I do in the book, I guess as Anthony was saying, I try to make it more of a recipe book. All right, let's get our hands dirty and see what this might look like. I give examples which I think are very relevant to the US.

Mariana Mazzucato: (38:43)
If we had, for example, a mission to have all large US cities all carbon neutral by say 2030, imagine the massive amount of innovation that would require in areas as different as construction materials, real estate, mobility systems, food, the social sector. And all the different kind of projects that you would want to be crowding in through very well designed procurement grants and loans, which would be less just about handouts, guarantees and subsidies to the private sector, as they often are. Much more with conditions attached, to make sure that kind of investment is leading to something that is purposeful. That would include buildings with carbon neutral components, a lean urban electric mobility system, citizen carbon ID cards, carbon neutral urban food industry and so on.

Mariana Mazzucato: (39:30)
Starting with the challenge, turning it into a mission, like having carbon neutral cities everywhere. Having that intersectoral approach, just like the moon landing was, where there was investment in nutrition, electronics, materials, software and so on. That next phase of redesigning the tools from bottom up so they really galvanize that experimentation across the economy, that's what we don't have. That's, by the way, the first thing that NASA did for the moon landing was to rewrite the contracts. They changed it from what they had at the time, which were these cost plus contracts, where basically they were just getting billed for high amounts from the business sector, to fixed price contracts, which were almost treated like price schemes with however constant incentives for innovation and quality improvement.

Mariana Mazzucato: (40:19)
They also, and this is so cool, they had no excess profits clauses in the contracts with the business sector. In other words, profits are fine. It's not about charity and philanthropy. This is about a business model, co-creating, getting to the moon together, but you're not going to turn this into a gambling casino. Which is what I think we have in space today, with the likes of Richard Branson and Elon Must, but we can go into that later. A common purpose, investing together, but taking care... This is what I think the challenge will be for the Biden team if they're really interested in building back better, unpacking, undoing problematic contracts. In the end, every public private relationship has a contract in it. Making it much more ambitious, purpose oriented, but also distributing the gains in a fair way instead of just socializing risks and privatizing rewards, which unfortunately is the current model in the US.

John Darsie: (41:09)
Right. You talked about mobility, but I wanted to dig into that more, and also housing. I think housing is going to be one of the greatest challenges of our generation, my generation especially. You have young people around the country, and this is anecdotally. There's also data that supports it as well. People around my age that are starting to want to buy houses, or buy apartments, whatever it may be. There's a massive scarcity of housing. Part of that has to do with the way our cities and our society is built. In terms of mobility, we rely heavily on automobiles. In and around New York, people like Robert Moses designed these interstate systems and highway systems that have created massive amounts of traffic.

John Darsie: (41:48)
Quality of life it affects as well, in addition to the carbon footprint. How can we go through our existing cities that are built with a certain type of infrastructure, that are conducive to cars, things of that nature? How can we go and fix those? Then if you were starting from scratch, what type of city would you build that fits in with your framework of mobility, social sustainable housing?

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:13)
Wow.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:16)
All right, that was a really good question. Okay? I have to admit that. Okay? That was as very good question.

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:20)
Excellent question. A very good question. Your question is really about how can we also think of infrastructure, not just as bricks and cement.

John Darsie: (42:29)
Right, it's people-

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:31)
As Anthony explained about boldness, think of-

John Darsie: (42:32)
There's a certain part of the political class in the US that says infrastructure, if it's not fixing potholes and fixing bridges then it doesn't qualify and shouldn't be in an infrastructure bill.

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:41)
Yeah.

John Darsie: (42:41)
Which is asinine, but we'll get into that maybe on another episode.

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:45)
Yeah. I mean the reason what you're asking is so important is that if you don't answer that question, you end up with your old systems, and old structures, and old contracts. By having a very ambitious strategy, ambition around the future of mobility, for example, and not just thinking about it as the transport sector. I always go back to that point. It's not about a sector. It's about a problem which many different sectors in this case, transport will be one of them, have to be innovating, investing and collaborating in new ways. That doesn't always happen unless you have that vision. An example would be in Germany where in recent years, very much on the back actually of a social movement around their green movement....

Mariana Mazzucato: (43:29)
Which today also we have children all over the world like Greta, the Fridays For Future, striking on Fridays because they believe the previous generation was quite rubbish, fighting climate change. On the back of decades of a social movement arguing for more sustainable production, distribution and consumption, they actually set a vision around, they call it the [Ende Gelände 00:43:51]. It's not perfect, by the way. I know there's problems with it, but it was very ambitious. The fact they had that, so starting with the vision, meant that the way that for example their public loans went out to sectors like steel.

Mariana Mazzucato: (44:04)
Steel in the US and the UK and in Italy, three countries that are part of my world, steel in all those three countries that I just mentioned have been asking for bailouts and loans. What they did in Germany though was the loan provided was conditional. To come back to this issue of conditionality, conditional on steel lowering its material content through, well they didn't tell them how to do it. They said, "You have to lower your material content, so you'll lower your carbon emissions, so you'll become a greener steel." The way the steel sector it was up to it. It wasn't told what to do. Again, micro managing does not work. That kills innovation.

Mariana Mazzucato: (44:37)
They ended up using new techniques around repurpose, reuse, recycle technology through the entire value chain. Today, they have one of the most innovative sustainable steel sectors in the world. Not because they went to the World Economic Forum in Davos and talked the purpose stakeholder value talk, but because they had to in order to get one euro out of the government. By the way, in the US... I realized when I was running an entrepreneurial state, this is kind of how the US government used to think. AT&T, when it had a monopoly, the condition for the monopoly to remain... This is just one part of the AT&T story. There's a whole other side of that, which we all know is also problematic.

Mariana Mazzucato: (45:13)
AT&T had to in order to retain its monopoly status, reinvest its profits back into the economy, into innovation and big innovation beyond telecoms. That was one of the conditions. That's where Bell Labs came from. Bell Labs, which is one of the most innovative private sector laboratories in the history of capitalism, came about because there was pressure on a monopoly, AT&T, to reinvest its profits rather than hoard the profits, rather than financialize the profits, or things like share buybacks today and so on.

Mariana Mazzucato: (45:44)
Coming back to that issue of conditionality, I think is super important in the US context. I think that conditionality can come in all sorts of different ways, but it's not going to happen in and of itself. You have to have a goal that you're trying to pursue. Also around social housing, again future mobility, these can all be used to formulate different types of objectives. Then it has to actually help design a different type of relationship on the ground between public and private.

John Darsie: (46:13)
Right.

Mariana Mazzucato: (46:14)
Around housing, by the way, one of the things I'm doing in London, because I work globally but I also work very much at the local level in literally my neighborhood in London. We have a renewal commission in Camden, the part of London where I live. We're trying to think about these carbon neutral targets at the level of social housing, what in the US you call projects. That shouldn't, again, happen top-down. That needs to also bring citizens to the table to even talk about, how do we want to live together? What does sustainable living even mean, as opposed to just think of it as a retrofit problem. That means reviving things like citizen assemblies, and bringing housing associations together. That kind of stakeholder governance of a mission oriented system I don't think gets talked about enough.

John Darsie: (46:55)
Right. A lot of it boils down to what you wrote a book about previously, and is ingrained in this book, is that creating these public private partnerships and doing them well is really an art. It's not overly simplistic, where every piece of government spending is wasteful, people say on one side. Then flooding the system with liquidity isn't particularly useful as well. You need to structure these things in a way where everybody is aligned with their incentives. You're able to not stifle innovation, but at the same time provide the capital needed to really execute these moon shots. I think it's a great lesson. We listed off a group of countries that we are closely working with on a number of issues. We hope you continue to work very closely here. At home, with the Biden administration. We'll leave it there, Professor Mazzucato. It's a pleasure to have you on.

Mariana Mazzucato: (47:46)
Thank you.

John Darsie: (47:46)
Your book is fantastic. It's called Mission Economy. We've been handing them out at the office. I was telling you before we went live, have gotten very positive reviews.

Mariana Mazzucato: (47:55)
Great.

John Darsie: (47:55)
I hope to have you back here on SALT Talks. I hope to have you at one of our in-person conferences here as soon-

Mariana Mazzucato: (48:01)
I'd love it.

John Darsie: (48:01)
As soon as we can travel back and forth safely, I know Anthony and I are eager to get back to London as well. Thank you for joining us. Anthony, do you have a final word for Mariana before we let her go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:10)
I'm not the most terrific wordsmith, Professor. I think what you're providing is almost like stripping out some of the ideology. Working towards the economics of pragmatism in terms of helping this society come up with policies that are not left or right oriented, but right or wrong for the society. We applaud you for that. We really thank you for coming on. Yes, John did ask a few good questions, Mariana, so we're going to let-

Mariana Mazzucato: (48:39)
And he pronounced my name really well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:41)
Yes, he did. You notice I've not pronounced-

Mariana Mazzucato: (48:42)
Can I hear you do it? Can I hear you do it?

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:43)
Mazzucato. Mazzucato.

Mariana Mazzucato: (48:46)
Oh, wait. Yours was better. You won.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:50)
Mazzucato. Let me explain to you something-

John Darsie: (48:51)
I notice an advantage.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:52)
I was nervous about it, because I'm a fellow Italian. I'm like, "Oh my God. Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. I can't mispronounce her name." See that, John? I pulled it off at the end here.

Mariana Mazzucato: (49:01)
We're ending with The Sopranos.

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:04)
Thank you, Professor. You're terrific. I hope we can get you back on, and-

Mariana Mazzucato: (49:06)
I'd love to.

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:06)
Good luck with the new book that you're working on.

Mariana Mazzucato: (49:08)
Thank you so much. Bye-bye.

John Darsie: (49:11)
Thank you, Mariana. Thank you, everybody, for joining us today on SALT Talks. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk, or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website on demand at salt.org/talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media @SALTConference on Twitter, is where we're most active. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. Please spread the word about these SALT Talks. Again, this is another I think is extremely important that people read books like Mission Economy and understand these problems are fixable. This notion that we're stuck in some sort of permanent malaise is misplaced for certain. On behalf of the entire SALT team, and Anthony, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Sasha Issenberg: The Engagement | SALT Talks #238

“Gay people are born to straight people. We know what social scientists call Contact Theory: people’s attitudes change when they have exposure to somebody who’s different than them.” 

Sasha Issenberg is the author of "The Engagement: America's Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage" and three previous books, including "The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns". He has covered presidential elections as a national political reporter in the Washington bureau of The Boston Globe, a columnist for Slate, and a contributor to Bloomberg Politics and Businessweek. He is the Washington correspondent at Monocle, and his work has also appeared in New York, The New York Times Magazine, and George, where he served as a contributing editor. He teaches in the political-science department at UCLA.

Sasha Issenberg contrasts Donald Trump’s use of celebrity in becoming president versus Joe Biden’s status as a lifetime politician. Issenberg then explains the different variables and stakeholders involved in the fight for marriage equality and why progress moved more rapidly compared to other social movements. He discusses the role of early LGBT activist Bill Woods and the current state of activism, citing NFL player Carl Nassib’s recent coming out. He discusses how President Obama and Trump each approached marriage equality and the significance of the recent Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court ruling.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Sasha Issenberg #238.jpeg

Sasha Issenberg

Author

The Engagement

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:17 - Politics around same sex marriage

4:56 - Professional background

7:49 - Joe Biden vs. celebrity presidential candidates

11:15 - Same sex marriage stakeholders

13:48 - Speed of LBGT rights advancements and acceptance

25:10 - NFL player Carl Nassib’s coming out

28:31 - Gay rights activist Bill Woods

34:58 - Obama’s same sex marriage stance

39:41 - Trump and same sex marriage

42:40 - Bostock v. Clayton County ruling  

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 talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021. But that 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, important ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Sasha Issenberg to SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (00:50)
Sasha is the author of three prior books including The Victory Lab, The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. He's covered presidential elections as a national political reporter in the Washington bureau of The Boston Globe, he's been a columnist for Slate, and a contributor to Bloomberg Politics and Bloomberg Businessweek. And he's the Washington correspondent at Monocle, and his work has also appeared in New York, The New York Times Magazine, and George, where he served as a contributing editor.

John Darsie: (01:20)
He teaches in the political-science department at UCLA and a very smart man, lives in beautiful Santa Monica out in sunny California. His most recent book is called The Engagement and it's about America's quarter century struggle over same-sex marriage. It's a fantastic, very thorough book on the subject, one that's very near and dear to our hearts and one that Anthony worked on personally along with Rob Reiner which he'll talk about more as he gets into the talk.

John Darsie: (01:49)
But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who's the founder and managing partner of Sky Bridge Capital which is a global alternative investment firm. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:59)
Well, I don't have a copy of the book with me Sasha because I'm out here in sunny California with you, but I have a picture on my phone. There you go. Hold up the book for everybody.

Sasha Issenberg: (02:08)
There it is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:08)
So I received your book. I'm going to tell you. My history with your book is I love books. I received your book. And then I read the New York Times front page book review which I thought was a fascinating review and they gave you a great one. And when I read the book, I'd read Victory Lab prior because I have obviously an interest in politics despite my disastrous 11-day episodic event in politics, and I thought these books were conjoined.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:37)
So we're going to get into your background in a second, but I'm going to tell you why they were conjoined, because in Victory Lab you wrote about the science of winning an election, but there was a scientific process in this book in my opinion in terms of the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage, in many respects, Sasha, I felt there was a political campaign going on at the same time apropos to the civil rights' campaign corollary to that, but also there was a political campaign and an agenda and a quorum very similar to Victory Lab. Did I get that right or did I miss something?

Sasha Issenberg: (03:16)
Yeah. Yeah. I think that there are parts of this book which are very much as you say about innovation and campaigns, figuring out how to persuade people, how to target your persuasion, how to measure your persuasion, and then how to actually make it work in what we're off in these state-level ballot measure campaigns which you've been around a lot of candidate campaigns and it's a very different beast when you have a bunch of non-profits and issue organizations coming together in a state like Minnesota to beat back a constitutional amendment.

Sasha Issenberg: (03:45)
And so yeah. I mean, I think that we tend to think of great campaigns as being candidate-centric or party-centric, but I think that this sort of proves to be one of the great political campaigns of recent memory. I think it'll be really surprising if we talked to somebody 15 years ago because it seemed like such a loser of a cause and that anybody associated with it, elected officials and the like were sort of doomed to be dragged down by it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:12)
Well, I mean there is a scenario here in New York which I know you remember. Several hedge fund managers, Dan Loeb, et cetera gave money to Republican state senators in New York to flip the marriage proposal, same-sex marriage. Those four Republican senators decided to vote for it. They all lost their elections, okay, and that's only I guess 10 or 12 short years ago.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:39)
Before we go completely into the book though, I think your background is also fascinating. What was it like to work at George? Tell us a little bit about how you grew up, why didn't you become a journalist, and then we'll delve more into the book which I'm obviously fascinated by.

Sasha Issenberg: (04:56)
So I grew up in New York, in Westchester County, and I went to a high school in the Bronx at the Horace Mann School. And I got lucky enough to end up at George magazine when I was 15 years old as a basically unofficial summer intern. The magazine was in its ... It launched in September of 1995 and early that summer I got in. One of the things about magazines pre-launch is there's a lot of work to do and nobody really knows who's supposed to do any of it, and it's quite possible they didn't understand child labor laws either. And so an editor told me that if I kept on coming in every day that summer, they couldn't pay me or give me anything official, they'd already hired their official ivy league interns, but I could make myself useful, and then, I guess, like the common cold or herpes or whatever I never went away.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:50)
Toe fungus. It's toe fungus, Sasha. I see myself as toe fungus. Once I'm in the toe, you can't get rid of me. So you were 15 when you started?

Sasha Issenberg: (05:59)
I was 15 when I started and then I gradually got more responsibility doing some my own reporting, a little bit of my own writing and all sorts of things that were less glamorous. And I ended up being the only person who was with the magazine for its whole life. So it lasted about five and a half years until it folded and by the end I was writing for the magazine and while I was in college.

Sasha Issenberg: (06:20)
And it was, I think a lot about this as we look back on what's happened with politics in the last 25 years since John Kennedy launched the magazine, but I think he was incredibly perceptive at noticing the ways that politics and popular culture were not just intersecting but sort of becoming indifferentiable from one another, and the way in which the sort of political media sphere and the entertainment sphere were one and the same.

Sasha Issenberg: (06:48)
That was a pretty radical proposition to build a magazine around in the 1990s, and like the advertising environment didn't quite understand whether it was a political magazine or a pop culture magazine, but I think often about how he would look at certainly the people who are national political figures now let's say and think that it might have been a sort of natural arc from some of the stuff that we were seeing back then.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:14)
You think Joe Biden is the last of the political infrastructure figures to become president? What I mean by that is President Biden became a senator in 1972. He went on to become president, but he was 49 years in the establishment infrastructure of the American political system. Do you think or do you think that we'll have celebrity presidents, apropos to Donald Trump or The Rock, or where do you think that that's going from a genre perspective?

Sasha Issenberg: (07:50)
Yeah. I mean, I think Trump shows that there are far more shortcuts to the presidency than there used to be. I guess we could talk about whether Eisenhower took a shortcut or not, but I think that that's clearly an example that you can build your profile, your sort of base of support outside of the political establishment and international politics at the highest level and have a foundation for it. The Rock, Will Smith, you'll talk about Tom Brokaw running for president 20 years ago, it's all basically the same proposition. That said, I think we can look back at Biden's success as, and I think we've talked for years about how senators or lifelong politicians have a tougher job running for president because they have all this baggage and all these votes and 49 years of clips of things they've said.

Sasha Issenberg: (08:42)
You can also look at Biden's success last year is very much a testament to the fact that he had paid his dues with almost every part of the Democratic coalition. He might not have been beloved by any part of the Democratic coalition, but was liked and trusted enough by just about all of them, and that was a testament to his longevity. I don't know if there's ever like a Democratic fan base for Joe Biden, but you know what? When it came time to run for president, African-Americans he had sort of built a long record of labor unions but he could raise money, the LGBT community and that was like accumulated over years. And I think that there is ... wouldn't surprise me if we see other situations where parties turn to people like that because other candidates are flawed in their way.

Sasha Issenberg: (09:35)
I think the question is how many people are going to be in politics for 49 years? I mean, that's the other thing, is we just don't see that many career politicians. We see people sort of skedaddle when they can make more money or they get frustrated in the senate or whatever else. I'm not sure if we'll see many more lifers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:53)
Sasha, I wanted your perspective because I think you've had your hand on the pulse of this for a quarter of a century. So back to the book, again, a fascinating book, The Engagement about America's quarter-century struggle over same-sex marriage. I saw the book as a layered cake. It had three tiers to it in my opinion. I'd like to get your reaction to it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:16)
The first tier was the sentiment on the ground and people in our society, and obviously the biblical society, the Christian society and others that was tier one. The second tier was politicians, and to your point in the book, most of them as recently as 10 or 15 years ago didn't want to touch it with a hot ... anything. It was hot stove to those people. Joe Biden interestingly enough was the first person on the national stage to really open up about it ahead of Barack Obama which is interesting.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:50)
But the top of the cake to me were the court cases, because you had a series of court cases that had to frankly break your way or our way. I'm a same-sex marriage proponent so I'll say our way. And I thought that was fascinating as well. And then of course you brought up the state legislature. I think that's at the top of that cake. What's your reaction to my analysis of the book?

Sasha Issenberg: (11:15)
Yeah. I mean, I'm not much of a baker, so my sense of cake architecture is a little wobbly, but I think one ... I think you have the elements right. I think one thing is that the sort of causal chain, in a lot of cases it was courts forcing politicians to address this issue. My book starts in Hawaii in 1990. At that point there's not a single gay rights organization in the United States that has endorsed marriage as an objective. There's barely a politician in the United States who's been asked his or her opinion on marriage. And there's obviously through '80s a lot of anti-gay activism on the religious right, but they're not trying to stop gay people from marrying because they're trying to stop sometimes gay people from working as teachers, serving in the military, having employment non-discrimination protections.

Sasha Issenberg: (12:03)
And it's a court case in Hawaii that ends up forcing just in Hawaii the legislature and the governor to have to stake out a position on this. And we see versions of that in Vermont and Massachusetts, and eventually part of what's driving senators who are changing their position in 2013 is it's going to the Supreme Court. So I think that the legal ... You're right that I think politicians were sort of followers of public opinion, but the thing that was driving this to the top of the agenda was often lawsuits, sometimes accidental like in Hawaii, and sometimes sort of well plotted civil rights test cases. But those are the elements, yeah. I think that there's a ground level social change that took place, and then I think the legal stuff was sort of the direct engine and then the political class had to respond to this.

Sasha Issenberg: (12:57)
And for a long time what same-sex marriage activists were trying to do was keep politicians out of this, because their feeling was if we won in court, the only thing that could be bad if the state legislature or a governor decided to amend the constitution or try by statute or something to undo a court victory.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:16)
When you go back in your intellectual journey on this idea of same-sex marriage, let's start with Bill Clinton in 1996 in the Defense of Marriage Act, and then let's fast forward to 2012. To me that's a pretty short period of time. If you think about the Civil Rights struggle from say 1865 to the introduction of Jackie Robinson in American baseball in 1947, it seems like this moved very fast. Why?

Sasha Issenberg: (13:48)
Yeah. And suffrage would be the other thing. We're looking for 75 years from Seneca Falls to women getting the vote nationwide. I think the biggest difference between the marriage, and I would separate here marriage as opposed to sort of the whole bundle of LGBT related issues, which has been a longer arc and still not won or settled. I think the big thing was that whether the majority or the people with power didn't have to give anything up. I think one way we often talk about sort of civil rights or social movements as these sort of contests over public ideals, justice, freedom, liberty, equality, stuff like that.

Sasha Issenberg: (14:40)
It's also a way to look at where they're basically contests over scarce resources. When women decided to seek property rights, husbands and fathers appropriately recognized that they were going to lose wealth. When men saw that women getting the vote would dilute their own political power, white people saw that black people getting the vote would dilute their own political power. Every push for immigrants rights, native-born population see it as a threat to their jobs. Desegregation was a threat to landlords who didn't want somebody to tell them who they had to rent their buildings to. The disability rights, the ADA burdened landlords with having to spend money on repairs and adjustments. Every time to be more accepting or open, people had to give something up often with a real material value to them.

Sasha Issenberg: (15:38)
And the thing, the sort of counterfactuals I like to play with is like what if there were a limited number of marriage licenses in the state. Would somebody like you or some of those straight hedge fund guys we mentioned, other sort of the moderate straight who came around and supported this? If you knew that you or your child would have to wait six or nine months in line for a marriage license because a gay person was now getting in front of them, would your views have changed? It might. And the other way of asking is sort of like what if the defining LGBT rights issue of the last generation were affirmative action for gays and lesbians in areas where they thought they'd been discriminated against.

Sasha Issenberg: (16:24)
This didn't really create a competition. And almost every other form of increased rights for a minority group creates a form of competition that's a threat to people who have wealth and power.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:35)
It doesn't create a competition, but for some reason, Sasha, and you correctly write about this in the book, there is a threat there for some reason. I don't know. It's a threat to someone's sexuality? Is it a threat to what people perceive normalcy, which I find ridiculous? But I'm just letting you know that's a lot of people see it that way. How did we break down those ideas? I mean, we went from 30% of the people supporting gay marriage eight years later 70% of the people, and we went from gay men and women being reluctant to admit that they're gay to an openly gay presidential candidate like Pete Buttigieg in 2020.

Sasha Issenberg: (17:26)
So I think on the marriage front in particular, May 17, 2004 is the day that same-sex couples are able to first legally marry in the United States in Massachusetts. And the rhetoric shifts after that day in a really significant way. Before then, people who were opposed to same-sex marriage, and as you said, at that point it's probably 65% of the population was opposed or such. And the things you heard from people I think were, "This is going to be the end of the American family. This is going to be the end of western civilization." Rick Santorum said that, compared the Massachusetts court decision to 9/11, said it's a homeland security crisis.

Sasha Issenberg: (18:17)
Look, I think some of that was like natural hyperbole-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:20)
He's my spiritual advisor, Sasha. I just wanted you to know that-

Sasha Issenberg: (18:23)
Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:23)
No. He's not my spiritual advisor. You didn't catch the sarcasm.

Sasha Issenberg: (18:30)
I've seen your list of bundling. I'm pretty sure that I didn't see you max out to Santorum. Look, some of that's hyperbole, like conscious hyperbole, and some of that I think people were really afraid of something that was new. And before 1999 there wasn't a society on earth that allowed gay couples to marry. And it was a radical proposal. Everybody has ... Unlike a lot of political issues, I don't think there are a lot of people in the United States who are more than one or two degrees of separation from somebody who's married. This isn't abstract. It's real. And people had seen only one type of family structure that was acknowledged under the law, and I think people were really honestly afraid of what would happen.

Sasha Issenberg: (19:18)
What happens after Massachusetts, there are these incredible warnings of like societal decay. And what happens afterwards is nothing. People are ... There's obviously no outward. Schools function the same way. Businesses function the same way the day afterwards. This question of that we sort of heard over the years from a gay or lesbian person, how would my marriage affect yours becomes like a real challenge and there's like nothing, and people are pouring over statistics. Gay couples are not getting divorced at a higher rate. Their kids are not having worse outcomes. Their communities are no weaker or less strong. And if anything, what you start to see is that communities around gays and lesbians were able to build a family on the same terms as straight people or stronger and better off.

Sasha Issenberg: (20:09)
And you know what? Guess what? Their employers like it because they get predictability over who's going to get what benefits and what they get from the government and what they don't. Labor unions like it because now they can negotiate for benefits without having to come up with something crazy. Communities like it because they want full stable families.

Sasha Issenberg: (20:26)
So part of what changes I think with time is that the coalition of people who are opposed to this starts to shrink because nobody is actually feeling any sense of harm. I mean one of the major challenges for maintaining a political coalition on any issue is getting people who are actually invested in an outcome. And the group of people who are invested in stopping this shrinks. There's still people who believe that biblical declarations of what's appropriate and godly, they haven't changed their views of this. But I think people who fear that somehow this would damage society don't have anything to lean on. And at the same time, you have the community of people who are invested in this spreading.

Sasha Issenberg: (21:20)
One thing that's different between, we talked about the sort of efforts at equality over race and sex. Unlike with race and sex, people control the conditions under which they acknowledge and disclose and announce their sexual orientation, and for that matter gender identity. So people can come out, and almost by definition gay people are born to straight people. And that means that there are not a lot of ... Social scientists call it contact theory. We know that people's political attitudes change when they have exposure to somebody who's different than them, whether or not-

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:02)
Senator Rob Portman's son came out.

Sasha Issenberg: (22:04)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:05)
And Vice President Cheney's daughter came out, and all of a sudden their views started to shift.

Sasha Issenberg: (22:11)
And one thing that's important to realize there's like that's something that can happen because of how heredity and sexual orientation work. There are not a lot of Latino kids being born to Jewish parents. There are not a lot of immigrant kids being born to native born parents. It's really important just to realize as best we understand the odds of a gay kid ending up in any household in the country are pretty evenly distributed, whereas racial segregation means that you're not likely to find out that your next-door neighbor has been raising an African-American child all these years. And that just exposes far more people to gays and lesbians, and I think probably transgendered people as well than they would get exposed to people of a different race or religion for example.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:58)
This is an opinion question but I'm curious because you have an informed opinion. Is there a stigma to being gay?

Sasha Issenberg: (23:07)
I mean I think it's ... I mean there certainly was in American society. I think it is greatly receding. And I think some of it's local. I'm a straight guy. If you told me I was a gay man and I had to decide where to start my life, there are probably certain places in the country and certain occupations or certain types of schools where I would feel more welcome than others, and I think that's a result of stigma.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:32)
But the good news is it's receding. The good news is that we're getting past it.

Sasha Issenberg: (23:37)
You mentioned Buttigieg. The fact that he was gay was not that interesting to people. People talked about he was young. He was mayor of a small city. Who did he work for at Bain. We didn't really ... It was not a defining part of his public identity, and I think that's pretty telling. A decade earlier any gay man who ran for president, that would have been the defining aspect of their candidacy at every moment I think.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:04)
Well, he's obviously a very impressive person, and I think that that's what we have to get past, whether it's our sexual orientation, our skin color, our religious preferences, can you do the job or not, I think that's ultimately the thing that we have to look to.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:22)
I have one last question for you before I turn it over to John Darsie, and that's, and I'm probably not going to pronounce the name right but Carl Nassib ... John, did I pronounce that right? I know you ...

John Darsie: (24:32)
Nassib, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:35)
Nassib. He came out and he said that he was gay.

Sasha Issenberg: (24:37)
This is the Oakland Raiders player or LA Raiders?

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:40)
Yes, the LA Raiders player. And the commissioner, Roger Goodell, a good guy might add, know him reasonably well, he applauded it, released a statement from the NFL. It was very well received. A couple of years back Michael Sam came out, less so received. So is this another sign of progress in the fight for equality? How do you think race factored into the reception of these athletes? And these are opinion ... these are ...

Sasha Issenberg: (25:11)
Yeah. I mean, I do think that you look at, I don't remember how long Michael Sam was five years ago. I mean, I think there's been a significant shift in that time. Some of it is, you mentioned the NFL as an organization. And one thing we have seen Pride Month ended a few weeks ago is institutional America and that includes corporate America becoming so unreserved in its not just acceptance of LGBT people but in its sort of active support.

Sasha Issenberg: (25:48)
I think companies falling over each other to be seen as allies or supportive, in part because they recognize that their employee base and their customer base and their investor base want to see that and they're responding to sort of market incentives. But I do think that some of this might be that organizations like the NBA or the NFL in this case want to be seen as leaders on these type of social issues, and so you're getting it from the top down as opposed to just sort of from the community up.

Sasha Issenberg: (26:22)
One thing that's worth in terms of this sort of the decrease of stigma, I think it's really important to realize how our understanding of the science of sexuality has changed over this time. I went back and consumed a lot of media coverage from the '90s while researching this book, and every time you read an article from Time or Newsweek about any gay rights issue, not just marriage from the 1990s, there's like always a paragraph like: To be sure, we don't know whether it's nature or nurture that turns people gay or lesbian.

Sasha Issenberg: (26:52)
Politicians, activists, preachers, whatever, would talk about lifestyle and choice. And nobody talks that way anymore. And it's because downstream from laboratory research we now have an understanding that basically people are born with a whole lot of stuff that they don't control, and that is not just related to sexuality, but temper, addiction. We talk differently about everything, and we, I think it's now widely accepted. Even the Rick Santorums of the world aren't going to pretend that Michael Sam or Carl Nassib or whoever it is chooses to be gay.

Sasha Issenberg: (27:30)
So then the question is like, in a decent society, if people are being born this way, how do you respond to that? And denying them the opportunity to have a job or play a sport would seem like a pretty harsh response to something if we sort of accept as a society that there will be gay people. So the question is what type of society do we want to be to them?

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:05)
John Darsie.

John Darsie: (28:08)
Yeah. And Sasha, it's a pleasure to have you on. Fantastic book you wrote. A lot of what you wrote about too in the book were colorful characters and consequential characters when it comes to this fight that obviously accelerated in the most recent decades. Could you just talk our audience through some of the people that you came across that you found most interesting and the role they played in this fight for marriage equality?

Sasha Issenberg: (28:31)
Yeah, sure John. So the book starts in Hawaii in 1990 and the main character there is this guy Bill Wood who I never got the chance to meet. He passed away a few years before I started working on this, but I was able to sort of reconstruct his life and activities. He was like the gay activist in Hawaii in the 1970s and '80s. And like a lot of I think first generation activists in any sphere of community, he was incredibly entrepreneurial. He founded the gay community center. He started the gay newspaper. He had the first gay radio show in Hawaii. But not particularly good at building alliances or coalitions or working well with others. Very good about getting attention for himself, but not terribly good about playing well with others.

Sasha Issenberg: (29:20)
And he ends up in this heady rivalry within a Pride planning committee in Honolulu in 1989. He already has a kind of has it out with these two lesbian women who are running this Pride planning committee, because they have launched a magazine Island Lifestyle that competes with his gay community news for what, John, you can only imagine is the large pool of advertisers in Oahu in 1989 who want to be in gay publications. And he wants to have a parade as part of the Pride planning festivities, and they just want to have a picnic and vigil.

Sasha Issenberg: (30:01)
So they give him a subcommittee to research the parade. He comes back with a report. They dismiss the report. So he decides he's going to quit their Pride planning committee and start his own Pride parade planning committee. And now Bill Woods is looking for all these ways to upstage the picnic event. So he invites the governor to be the grand marshal of this parade. He gets the royal Hawaiian jazz band. He gets a chef caterer friend of his to put on an international food festival, and he decides he's going to have a mass wedding, like a mooney style few dozen couples on stage at a rally at the end of this parade, and they're going to exchange vows. And there have been couples who've been doing this at the Metropolitan Community Church which was a local gay-friendly sort of ambiguously protestant denomination, these holy union ceremonies. But people knew it had no force of law. They were just exchanging vows.

Sasha Issenberg: (30:56)
Bill Woods was not a lawyer. It's pretty clear to me he misread the state's family law code, and he came away with the impression that these couples actually exchanged vows on stage that the state might have to recognize them as married. And he went to the Hawaii ACLU to get them to back him up in this sort of legal theory, and they also ... they wanted nothing to do with him, but they also didn't want to say no to him because they knew what's well enough to know that if you pick a fight with him, he would sort of revel in it and it wouldn't work out well. So they spent all of 1990 just sort of like pushing him off, clearly trying to get past June 1990 when Pride Month would happen, hoped that Woods would lose an interest in this marriage thing, go ahead with this parade or whatever and move on to the next thing.

Sasha Issenberg: (31:41)
And he didn't move on. The marriage ceremony didn't happen, but now he was pissed that the ACLU had basically been stringing him along and disrespecting him. So December 17th, 1990 Bill Woods decides he's going to launch this PR stunt basically to in his hopes to jam the ALCU into having to back him up, that once there's media coverage of this, there's no way that the ACLU can say no to actual gay couples who want to fight for marriage rights. So he gets like the Honolulu press corps to follow them into the public health department. These three couples request marriage licenses. They're turned down. The attorney general says that the health director was right under state law to reject them. Woods leads them to the ACLU with all these cameras. The ACLU still says no, we don't want to be part of this.

Sasha Issenberg: (32:33)
A civil rights attorney sues on these couples' behalf the next spring. And so the shock of everybody involved, this long shot lawsuit wins, and the Hawaii Supreme Court becomes the first court anywhere on earth to rule that the fundamental right to marriage could extend to same-sex couples in May of 1993.

Sasha Issenberg: (32:49)
This is what puts marriage on the map as an issue. The Defense of Marriage Act that Anthony mentioned in 1996 is Congress eventually feeling that Hawaii is very close to actually marrying same-sex couples, one trial judge away, and that you need to write it into federal law to basically insulate mainland governments, the other 49 states and the federal government from having to recognize these marriages.

Sasha Issenberg: (33:14)
So Woods ends up being the catalyst for the world we live in right now. This would not have become the issue the way it did if he hadn't launched this. He's both like just an amazing character whom I wish I had the chance to meet, but also just I think sort of telling in our understanding of history, and that once like ends at the Supreme Court and we see a landmark decision that it awards a set of rights to a new group of people, I think are natural instincts [inaudible 00:33:44] because the outcome was momentous and just and it had to be inevitable. And that's often the language we use around civil rights. And there's the fact is like nothing about this was inevitable. It wasn't inevitable it's going to end up at the Supreme Court when it did or turn out the way it did. But it also wasn't inevitable this was going to be a thing that we as a country were fighting over. So I really liked him because it shows how accidental the sort of origins of this was.

John Darsie: (34:09)
Anthony referenced Vice President, then Vice President Biden sort of taking the lead on marriage equality within the Obama Administration, President Obama himself actually for a long time being opposed to marriage equality. Certainly the Trump Administration was hard to discern exactly what their stance was, but they also enabled legislation or certain rulings that certainly didn't enhance the rights of the LGBTQ community, if you will. But can you just compare and contrast what took place in the Obama Administration setting aside maybe his early ... He was opposed to marriage equality at the beginning obviously and changed course there, but then within the Trump Administration, what kind of setbacks did we see in terms of LGBTQ rights?

Sasha Issenberg: (34:58)
Yeah. So Obama as you say, Obama actually in 1996 when he first ran for the state senate said he supported same-sex marriage rights, and then he later backed off and blamed a staffer for having filled out a questionnaire against his will. As he ran for congress, he became basically more conservative on this issue, and he became where the mainstream of Democratic politics were through the 2000s, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton which are saying some version of I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but I think that gay couples should have all the same rights and benefits through civil unions.

Sasha Issenberg: (35:33)
It became clear through 2011 ... in 2011 Obama sort of recognized he was going to be out of sync with his party on this. I tell the story of him coming to New York for some DNC fundraisers in the summer of 2011 after Cuomo has signed the marriage bill into law, and I think I quote one of Obama's advisers saying he felt like the skunk at the garden party or whatever, which is you sort of had the liberal donor class of the Democratic Party celebrating Andrew Cuomo for having sort of muscled through what they saw as courageously, muscled through this bill and Obama being berated by activists for being on the wrong side of it.

Sasha Issenberg: (36:18)
So there was this process underway in the White House, starting in the summer of 2011 where Obama said basically I want to change my position on this but you guys, my team, need to figure out how and when I do it. I think that one of the things about being president is there's just such scrutiny of your every statement and your opinion that you can't just sort of casually change your position on something and hope no one notices the way. You might be able to if you're a member of congress or something.

Sasha Issenberg: (36:44)
There was a sort of high-level effort to figure out how to do this. There's a decision that he should do it before November 2012, before the re-election, but you don't want to do it too late in the calendar because you don't want this. They wanted to run against Mitt Romney on private equity and the economy, and he did not want to spend the debates or his convention having to explain why he had flip-flopped on marriage.

Sasha Issenberg: (37:09)
I thought it would be a net plus for him running for reelection, but they still did not want this to dominate the campaign. So there are all these plans afoot in the White House. And eventually they settled on the idea there's ... should he give a big speech like the race speech he did in Philadelphia? No, that would make it more of an event than they wanted. So he should do ... He'll do an interview. They decide he should do with female questioners because there's research that suggested that from a messaging perspective it's better that when you talk about this family stuff. So they had plans, sort of tentative plans for him. He was going to be in New York in June for fundraisers. He was going to go on The View. So I guess the only thing better than one female interviewer is four female interviewers, and that's where Obama was going to lay out that he had evolved as he liked to say.

Sasha Issenberg: (37:55)
And Biden was aware of the general contours of this, and Biden basically jumped the gun a month early, said what he did and forced Obama three days later. One of the remarkable things though that's going on for a couple years before that is that the White House counsel's office is ... There's this question of what's Barack Obama's personal position on same-sex marriage. And it's kind of irrelevant what the president's personal position on same-sex marriage is because there's never going to be a piece of legislation that comes before the president's desk about marriage to sign, like it's just not a thing that the president is going to deal with directly. But the White House and Justice Department have a lot of say in how the government especially handles the defense of marriage act but also gets involved in other cases as they move into federal courts.

Sasha Issenberg: (38:50)
So what you see is actually the White House counsel's office starting in 2009 getting ahead of Obama in his public position by, they eventually dropped their ... They say we're going to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act because we think it's unconstitutional, which is a really unusual position for the federal government to take, say we're not going to defend our own laws in court. Basically our whole system of constitutional litigation is based on governments have to defend their own laws, otherwise there's nobody there to do it. So it's one of these things, and I don't know whether Anthony you spend enough days in there to get a good perspective on this, but there are a few different levels at which the White House can operate. There's what the President says publicly, and then there's what his government is doing. And Obama's government was always sort of more aggressive on this marriage question courts than he was.

Sasha Issenberg: (39:41)
I think the Trump years, Trump was always, he was very ambiguous about this throughout the election. He criticized the Supreme Court decision when it happened, the Obergefell decision in 2015 that made same-sex marriage the law of the land, but then he was interviewed by Leslie Stahl a couple days after the election 2016 and he says, "It's settled law, I accept it." I think that there was a real disconnect between Trump's attitudes towards marriage-

John Darsie: (40:09)
His words and action.

Sasha Issenberg: (40:10)
Well, between, I think on marriage where he did not ... I was surprised that this was not a bigger issue in the 2015-2016 election season among Republicans because you had the Supreme Court striking down state bans in some of the reddest states. Bobby Jindal briefly said we should abolish the Supreme Court because of this. There was a moment where Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee went down to Kentucky where where that county clerk, Kim Davis was refusing to issue licenses.

Sasha Issenberg: (40:42)
But for all of the ways in which Donald Trump has an exceptional gift for pitting Americans against each other for his own amusement, political benefit, instinct, whatever, he did not seem interested in pitting gay couples who wanted to get married against his base. That's just not ... was not his thing. That said, I don't think that ... I think there's a real difference between how certain parts of the Republican conservative world now look at gay and lesbian concerns and transgender issues. And Rick Grenell who's probably the administration's leading voice on sort of what gay republicanism should be seems pretty intent on kind of splitting the LGBT coalition between gay men and lesbians and maybe bisexual on one side and then people deal with gender identity issues.

Sasha Issenberg: (41:35)
So the Trump Administration on a rule-making level was set back LGBT rights in a lot of areas, but there wasn't a whole lot that it chose to do or really directly could have done on marriage.

John Darsie: (41:55)
You talked about the Supreme Court, and this will be the last question before we let you go is Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion last summer in a workplace discrimination lawsuit Bostock vs Clayton County. He basically ruled that you cannot fire someone, you probably are more familiar with this case even than I am, on the basis of sexual orientation. It falls under the sex category. And that surprised a lot of people.

John Darsie: (42:20)
There's been various rulings from the Supreme Court when Trump's appointees have been sitting in those chairs that have surprised people and sometimes to the consternation of certain elements of the Republican community. How surprising was that decision and how important was that decision in terms of ridding ourselves of certain workplace discrimination?

Sasha Issenberg: (42:40)
I think it was really important just in the lives of people. There's still 13, 14 states that permit a company to fire somebody because they're gay or lesbian or not hire them or not promote them. And it's been, there have been efforts for almost 50 years, but in earnest for 30 years to pass a federal law that would codify making that illegal and it hasn't gotten through the senate ever.

Sasha Issenberg: (43:11)
So this is important and creates conditions for folks in a lot of those states to bring federal actions. Now it just dealt with employment. There's still a question about housing discrimination, lending discrimination. In a lot of those states you can choose not to rent something to somebody because of their sexual orientation, or you can deny them a mortgage, you can turn them away from your diner or hotel. So Bostock, the logic of Bostok could apply to those other areas, but the actual decision did not.

Sasha Issenberg: (43:44)
Now, it's important to look at how Gorsuch wrote that, the reasoning behind that. Basically he calls himself a textualist. That means that you look at the text of, in this case of a law, of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and it says you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, blah, blah, blah. And his interpretation was that, "Well, traditionally or in the past we've understood sex to mean biological sex. Sex should be understood to mean sexual orientation, and that just based on that definition of the word sex, that employment discrimination against somebody because they're a woman is the same in legal terms as discriminate against them because they're a lesbian.

Sasha Issenberg: (44:43)
It's notable that that wasn't a Civil Rights decision. It was a momentous decision but it was narrowly applied to that, which is Anthony Kennedy also who was behind four major gay rights decisions also was resistant to kind of traditional civil rights thinking. And that meant that even when he ... There was a way that he could have written the marriage decision that would have affected other areas of interest to LGBT folks under the law and didn't. And Gorsuch's ... one irony, I mean it's an irony of I don't think this is necessarily his strategic plan, but what Gorsuch did was he left it open.

Sasha Issenberg: (45:25)
It wasn't a matter of constitutional interpretation. It was just a matter of interpreting the text of that bill. And it's possible that if you had a Republican house and senate or President Mike Pence in a few years, that they could amend with a majority in the house and whatever gets you through the senate these days the Civil Rights Act to say biological sex and overrule the Supreme Court. So by not making it a matter of constitutional guarantee and just making it a matter of statutory interpretation it was flimsier than it could have been.

Sasha Issenberg: (46:05)
So I think you're right to note that that was a surprise coming from a conservative justice, but it's also that getting there was notable for what it chose not to do and made it possible to get a majority I think of votes on that.

John Darsie: (46:22)
Right. Well, the struggle is ongoing. Again, the book is The Engagement: America's quarter-century struggle over same-sex marriage. A fantastic topic to write about and extremely well-written. Sasha, thank you so much for joining us. Anthony, you have a final word for Sasha before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:39)
What's next Sasha? What book are we writing?

Sasha Issenberg: (46:42)
I've gotten very interested in a historic election fraud scandal that took place in Indiana over 100 years ago that I think is just a hell of a true crime yarn and also shed some light on the conversations we're having now about the nature of election fraud and to what extent it exists or has existed in American history. It'll be shorter and I promise not to spend ... It won't be 900 pages and I won't spend a decade on it. That's my guarantee to you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:08)
Well, we appreciate it. This has been a great conversation for us. Sasha, if you don't mind, hold up the book because mine is in New York. I want to hold it up again for everybody, The Engagement. What a great story about America's quarter-century struggle over the same-sex marriage. Thank God we're through that struggle by the way. I think it's great for our society, and I appreciate you writing that book, and hopefully we'll get you to one of our live events soon.

Sasha Issenberg: (47:37)
I'd really like that. It's great talking to you Anthony. Nice to meet you John.

John Darsie: (47:40)
You as well. And just another piece of trivia before we wrap up here. President Joe Biden spoke at the SALT Conference in 2017. He came there along with the Human Rights campaign, so it's certainly encouraging to see somebody with a very proactive view of marriage equality just general equality. So we continue to hope that arc bends towards equality for everyone. But thank you Sasha, and thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Sasha Issenberg.

John Darsie: (48:09)
Just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website at salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel which is called salttube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active @saltconference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. And please, spread the word about these SALT Talks if you find them interesting. On behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Transforming Financial Services | SALT Talks #237

“Satoshi Nakamoto solved one of the hardest problems in computer science: distributed trust. It showed a way to build an application such that the data’s decentralized. I would argue that crypto can’t succeed if Bitcoin doesn’t succeed.”

Asiff Hirji and Kyle Samani describe their crypto journeys and how they’re engaging with the blockchain-powered technology. Samani talks about why he was drawn to Ethereum and Hirji explains why he left his role as COO at Coinbase to join Figure, a start-up that uses crypto rails in the home equity lending space. Both guests offer their concerns around misguided crypto regulations in the US, particularly after China’s recent banning of decentralized cryptocurrencies.

Asiff Hirji is the President of Figure Technologies, Inc. (‘‘Figure’’), a blockchain-based home equity lender since January 2020. Kyle Samani is a Managing Partner at Multicoin Capital, a thesis-driven investment firm that invests in cryptocurrencies, tokens, and blockchain companies reshaping trillion-dollar markets. Prior to joining Figure, Mr. Hirji served as President and COO of Coinbase, Inc. (‘‘Coinbase’’), where he helped significantly grow the company’s revenue and valuation.

As a former engineer, Kyle leads technical thesis formation and diligence. He is the more outwards facing partner, owning relationships with entrepreneurs and other investors. He is widely recognized in the crypto ecosystem for his writing and system-level analysis.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

resized-image-Promo-3.png

Asiff Hirji

President

Figure

resized-image-Promo-2.jpeg

Kyle Samani

Managing Partner

Multicoin Capital

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:27 - Entry into crypto

8:42 - Value of Ethereum

12:40 - Using crypto for home equity lending

17:30 - Interesting use cases for blockchain applications

24:30 - Impact of securitized crypto products

28:50 - Ethereum competitors

32:45 - Using crypto payment rails

36:45 - Concerns around crypto regulations

40:51 - China’s ban of decentralized crypto

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie, I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021 in our home city of New York. But that 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: (00:46)
And if you've been a recurring listener or watcher of our SALT Talks, you know of our enthusiasm for the crypto or the digital asset space, and we're very excited to bring you our latest episode of our digital assets series with two fantastic founders and executives in that space. Those two guests that I'm referring to are Asiff Hirji and Kyle Samani. Asiff is the president of Figure, which is a blockchain-based home equity lender. And prior to joining Figure, Asiff was the chief operating officer and president at Coinbase. Prior to that, he was an operating advisor at Andreessen Horowitz, chief restructuring officer of Hewlett-Packard, and served as the president and COO of TD Ameritrade.

John Darsie: (01:32)
Asiff also held senior leadership positions at TPG Capital, Saxo Bank, Hewlett-Packard, and Bain Capital, and is served on a number of public and private boards, including Citrix Systems. Kyle Samani is the co-founder and managing partner at Multicoin Capital, which is a thesis-driven investment firm that invests in cryptocurrencies, tokens and blockchain technology. In his current role, Kyle helps identify market opportunities and sets the strategic direction of the firm.

John Darsie: (01:59)
Prior to Multicoin, Kyle co founded Pristine, which is an enterprise software company that enables desk-less workers with solutions for smart glasses. And under his leadership as CEO, Pristine grew to millions in revenue and raised over five million in venture funding before being acquired by Upskill in 2017. Kyle is based in Austin, Texas, and holds a degree in finance and management from NYU Stern, and has been programming since he was about 10 years old, definitely way ahead of me on that one.

John Darsie: (02:30)
But hosting today's talk is me. Again, I'm John Darsie, I'm a managing director at SALT as well as a director of business development at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. That was about eight billion in assets. We also were the first [for-React 00:02:45] fund and the first fund of hedge funds to make a direct allocation into Bitcoin. And we currently have about $500 million of exposure into Bitcoin in our flagship products. But I want to start off, Asiff, I read a little about your bio, but I want to hear more from the horse's mouth.

John Darsie: (03:02)
You were at TD Ameritrade, you were the president and COO. You also have worked at some of the most respected investment institutions in the world, Bain Capital, TPG, Andreessen Horowitz. What convinced you as somebody that has this diverse background that it was time to dive head first into the crypto space, into the digital asset space that you did at Coinbase and now at Figure?

Asiff Hirji: (03:25)
Thanks for inviting me to this. Look, I've been an operator, entrepreneur, investor in fintech for over 30 years. I started initially in things like direct banks and insurers. And I would tell you, I'm a software engineer by background, so to me, very simplistically, we've been to two waves and we're now going to the third wave of innovation in financial services. The first wave was we went off mainframes and onto distributed computing, protocol-led, Internet1, great businesses being built including things like Ameritrade and so on. Basically, what we did was we made it self service.

Asiff Hirji: (03:55)
We took things that you had to go into a bank or a teller to do and we made them self service on the internet with a web browser. And that lowered costs and increased inclusion, but fundamentally, it didn't alter the cost structure. The next thing we did was when we went from distributed to mobile cloud, and that made things like the phone ubiquitous, it made lots of different types of products available. Again, all you did was you took the application and shoved it further out towards the user. It lowered some costs, but still didn't fundamentally attack the cost structure of financial services.

Asiff Hirji: (04:26)
We're now about to go through the third wave, and that's from mobile cloud to decentralized, or blockchain, if you prefer. And for the first time, we're actually affecting where the data is. The data is no longer on a central computer somewhere, the data is now distributed out to the users. You control your own data, Kyle controls his own data, I control my own data. And the fundamental thing that blockchain does is it gets rid of the intermediaries. The financial services system we have today is built such that you have to have a whole bunch of trusted intermediaries in every transaction, because that's the only way you can ensure that if I want to pay you, John, some amount of money, that my bank takes it from my account, sends it through the pipes to your bank, who then ultimately gets it to your account.

Asiff Hirji: (05:08)
And every single intermediary along the way there charges a fee. With blockchain, you can have peer-to-peer, bilateral, risk-free, real-time settlement. And that means I can send you money as easily as it would be for me to send you an email. As long as I have your address, I can send it to you and there's no settlement risk, and it just settles. And that means that the cost structure crashes for financial transactions. And so that's why I'm excited about crypto in general, which is, I think it'll fundamentally rewrite the way we do financial transactions. It'll make financial services more or less free. So this whole concept of the un-banked and under-banked will go away because you'll have financial inclusion.

Asiff Hirji: (05:45)
And best of all, you will be able to create this with far less capital being deployed, far less complexity, and you'll get rid of a number of the issues that we've had most recently with things like say the GameStop situation, or what happened with Robinhood, etc. None of those things can happen in a bilateral, risk-free settlement mechanism that crypto allows.

John Darsie: (06:05)
And Kyle, you come from a programming background, an engineering background. What was your Eureka moment as a young man deciding that you wanted to make crypto or digital assets your career?

Kyle Samani: (06:18)
Yeah. In early 2016 after I had stepped down from Pristine, I was trying to figure out what I wanted to do next with my life. I had studied finance at NYU and always had an interest in the intersection of software and finance. I started playing around with some of the Stripe's API, this is like February, March, 2016. And I got to the limit of them pretty quickly, which is basically Stripe made it really easy to accept credit card payments as a merchant. And I remember I had some ideas I was struggling with, and one of the ideas I remember I had is that I wanted to do something where as a user, I could go to a website and I could receive payment as a user quickly, like within five to 25 seconds, depending on my identity or some action I conducted or something.

Kyle Samani: (07:04)
And I just assumed that Stripe was the payments company, top dog. I just assumed that Stripe made it really easy as a consumer, you can get paid reasonably quickly. And what I learned real quickly after digging into Stripe's API's is that, A, that's, that was wrong. And that even still to this day as a consumer, if you go to a website, getting paid is very, very difficult. Paying is okay, I wouldn't say it's great, typing in a credit card and paying is okay, but getting paid sucks, and I realized that limitation.

Kyle Samani: (07:35)
I discovered about Ethereum and it dawned on me quite quickly that with Ethereum, I could go to any website and I could get paid theoretically in seconds. And then I started exploring what else you could do with Ethereum, and I realized that it was fully programmable extensible money. And when that light bulb went off, it struck me as a very, very important idea in technology. And so over the course of 2016, I started reading and learning about the space and investing my own money and time. By the spring of 2017, I had developed a full time internet hobby and made a decision to do that professionally instead of just personally.

Kyle Samani: (08:08)
And so I made the decision to launch multi point in May of '17 and we launched our hedge fund on October 1st of '17.

John Darsie: (08:15)
And we often come at these talks through the lens of Bitcoin as most people's gateway drug into crypto or DeFi, but you're not a Bitcoin-first evangelist within the crypto space, you're much more Ethereum first. And then obviously, Multicoin, you guys are investing in series of protocols. What did you like about Ethereum and what didn't excite you about Bitcoin? And to this day, how do you look at the differences between those two platforms?

Kyle Samani: (08:44)
Generally speaking, a lot of those sources of confusion, both inside of crypto and among new folks who are getting into crypto is the split between what I'll call the money crypto people and the tech crypto people. The money crypto people tend to have an econ background or tend to be focused on libertarian ideals of sovereignty and ownership and central-banks-inflated monetary base and all those kinds of things. Those were obviously the first people to get into crypto because that's what espoused Bitcoin.

Kyle Samani: (09:17)
And the tech people have only gotten into crypto more recently building on top of Ethereum and now on top of some of the newer smart contract platforms like Solana and some other ones as well. I've never had a strong background in economics or never had dove and into the history of central banks and all those things, so the Bitcoin value proposition to me just never resonated. I knew what Bitcoin was in 2012, I just didn't care. Ethereum struck me as important because I understood that I could program money in ways that Stripe could not let me do. It wasn't 10% better than Stripe, it was infinitely more extensible than Stripe. And so that's what pulled me in into the space.

Kyle Samani: (09:59)
Since then, the space has evolved even more, and we can do all kinds of things that I couldn't have imagined then, and now these systems are coming and scalable and we're seeing the next wave of things that you can do that are truly crypto native, things like social tokens and NFTs that weren't even conceivable a few years ago.

John Darsie: (10:17)
Right. Go ahead.

Asiff Hirji: (10:20)
Let me have some perspective on that. I was one of the original Bitcoin believers and I still am, that's what got me into it. And I would tell you that as a software programmer, and I do have a finance background, but whoever he, she or they were, Satoshi solved one of the hardest problems of computer science, it was how to do distributed trust. When I was at Watson Labs way back when, this is one of the issues we used to try and beat our heads against the wall against that we couldn't come up with a solution. They came up with a solution, and it's pretty ingenious. But more than that, they showed a way to build an application such that the data is decentralized. That's the fundamental breakthrough.

Asiff Hirji: (11:01)
And all the other things that came along, whether you're a Ethereum believer or a Solana, it doesn't matter, they would not have been possible without Bitcoin. And I would argue, and maybe this is not a popular point of view, crypto can't succeed if Bitcoin doesn't. And that's because the Bitcoin, if you think of crypto for the average person, if you said crypto, they would think Bitcoin, they don't think something else if they think of crypto at all. And to have the single largest asset in the space, the one that the started the space then fail is not going to be helpful for the industry.

Asiff Hirji: (11:33)
It's not like the internet where you could say, "Oh, AOL introduced the masses to the internet, and then it's okay that AOL failed because we had the rest of it come along." To me, it's not the right analogy. So a couple of things in my mind, one is Bitcoin is super important. It solved one of the biggest problems and showed us how to build applications in a way that we hadn't thought before. I believe it's a store of value, I believe it'll continue to innovate with stuff being built on top and beside it. But I think that it has unleashed all the other innovation that Kyle is talking about.

Asiff Hirji: (12:06)
We wouldn't have had NFTs, we wouldn't have had all these other things without Satoshi, again, whoever he, she or they were, having created the breakthrough in the first place.

John Darsie: (12:16)
And also tell us about Figure. So you were a president and COO at Coinbase, you were responsible for a lot of early to mid-stage growth. You left prior to the direct listing, but you were responsible for a lot of the growth there. And you probably had your pick of the litter in terms of where you could go next in the space, you chose Figure. Tell us about what Figure is and why you chose that.

Asiff Hirji: (12:40)
I go back to, I really think that blockchain or crypto should be fundamentally rewriting the way we do financial services. And it is, if you look at DeFi, but DeFi is aimed at people who are already long crypto. DeFi is bringing traditional financial services products to people who are already long crypto, it is not showing people like you and I and others who are using traditional financial services how to use crypto do those things better. Do you understand the difference?

John Darsie: (13:11)
Yeah.

Asiff Hirji: (13:12)
So if you're a long crypto DeFi's great. If you don't have crypto at all, so far, blockchain has had no impact on you at all, unless it's a speculative asset class. And for blockchain or crypto be successful, it needs to be as ubiquitous as the internet. We shouldn't be able to imagine living life without it if that's really going to be successful. So one of my biggest frustrations at Coinbase was that most of the projects that came to us while they espoused that they were doing something in financial services for the masses, etc, what they really were was token speculation. When you got right down to it, they really weren't doing anything real.

Asiff Hirji: (13:47)
And so I went looking for, who is using blockchain to at scale make financial transactions, everyday financial transactions better? And Figure was the only company I found. And what Figure is doing is, it takes very simple financial transactions that we do every day, like I want to borrow money to buy a house, or I want to borrow money to pay off my credit card, or I want to make a payment to a person, etc, and it's built how to do them on blockchain. So it's taken these really immensely complex, capital-intensive processes and boiled them down to things that happen in minutes with minimal capital requirements.

Asiff Hirji: (14:24)
And we're not doing it because we're trying to be the biggest lender in the world, we're doing it to show the lending industry it can be done. We were able to originate mortgages at double the margin of any other provider in the space, we're able to do home equity lines of credit instantly, whereas it's normally a 45 to 60-day process. And now, we have the largest players in the space looking at our technology wanting to adopt it, and that's what we're after. We're after them trying to adopt it and bring out the solutions to the masses with lower capital and much lower costs. That's the promise of crypto and that's what we're trying to push.

John Darsie: (15:00)
Why did Figure star with home equity lending as a product? Was it a proof of concept in order to expand to a more institutional audience to demonstrate that proof of concept? Why did they start there?

Asiff Hirji: (15:12)
We needed something that had both sides of the market. We needed something that the consumers needed and that the financial markets would then buy. So you could choose a lot of things. And then we wanted something that you could actually control end-to-end to begin with. And so a home equity line of credit is actually a good product that way. If I was traditionally a lender like a SoFi or whatever, I would originate, say $100 million worth of these loans, and then I would go to the market and say, "I want to securitize this." I would represent what that package looked like in terms of FICO scores and loan to value and geographic distribution, I'd get a bunch of bits.

Asiff Hirji: (15:50)
I'd pick a winner. They would hire an auditor, they would audit my loans. 60 to 90 days later, the transaction would finally settle. In the meantime, all my loans are tied up and capital's being consumed, the buyer's got their capital tied up. A hugely expensive process. We don't do any of that because when we originate a loan now, we get the credit score company to stamp the score to the blockchain. When we get a valuation, we get the valuation company to stamp the valuations on blockchain.

Asiff Hirji: (16:15)
There's no more auditing anything, you as an investor can sit there and say, "Hey, I want California. I want CLTV less than 80. I want FICO over 720. Only loans that match that show up in the end because we're replacing trust with truths on the blockchain. And if you want them, you can bid on them in the open market and you buy them. And so we've turned the 45 to 90-day capital-intensive process to a capital in advance of origination process. It's capital light. That's just in one product.

John Darsie: (16:45)
It almost reminds me a little bit of the early days of Amazon, where Jeff Bezos chose books as his proof of concept. "Okay, I'm going to master the logistics around delivering books, the commodity that everyone knows and likes. And then once I do that, I'm going to, I'm going to expand this technology to a whole different suite of products.

Asiff Hirji: (17:03)
Exactly. Exactly right.

John Darsie: (17:06)
Kyle, at Multicoin, you guys do multiple things. You invest into liquid tokens, but you're also investing into project builds on top of it, a lot of the blockchains that you're investing in. What are some of the most compelling use cases you've seen? In addition to talking about something like Figure, what are other really interesting use cases you've seen for blockchain-based applications?

Kyle Samani: (17:29)
Yeah. I'll touch on an example here that's very real-world and tangible. And then if you want, we can go into some of the more abstract, weird less tangible things. So we are the lead investors in a thing called Helium. Helium was one of our largest positions and we're super excited about it. Helium is new business model for deploying and managing wireless networks. So what does that mean? If you think about Verizon or AT&T today or any of those big telecoms, they're extraordinarily capital intensive.

Kyle Samani: (18:01)
They have to go identify where they want to have towers, they have to rent the land, they have to work with tower companies, they have to work with city governments. They have to hire armies and armies of people, get them trucks, get them much of hard hats and equipment. They drive around, they install all this equipment, they run a bunch of back haul. It is extraordinarily capital intensive, and they have to do it at large scale, like doing one city alone is not enough because people expect their phones to work wherever they go, so you have to do large, large geographical coverage.

Kyle Samani: (18:29)
The only way to do that is to then raise a tremendous amount of debt financing and then lock in your customers into two-year contracts so you have some guaranteed revenue that the underwriters will lend against, basically. And it's obviously a very centrally coordinated and top-down. Helium is basically the exact opposite of that. The vision of the Helium is any Joe Shmoe at home, either a consumer in their home or a small business owner can buy a hotspot, which is about yay big, plug it in the wall, put next to the window, plug in electricity, plug in ethernet and then create radio waves, and any device walking around nearby can access those radio waves and pay per byte of data.

Kyle Samani: (19:07)
And if you think about this model, you take the two largest sources of costs, which are labor and land, and you send both of those costs to zero. You just outright remove those costs from the system. And so this is really disruptive to the cost structure model of telecom. We were fortunate to lead the last round of Helium in 2019, and they started rolling out the Helium network later in 2019. Today, there's over 60,000 hotspots live around the United States and Western Europe and China, another 500,000 hotspots have been back ordered, but not yet shipped.

Kyle Samani: (19:42)
And you just see this network really rolling out. And so this is the kind of thing that we're really excited about, is using these decentralized technologies as a way to incentivize people all over the world, we don't know each other, don't trust each other, to all do some collective action and produce some net positive results as a result of that coordination. And the best part of this whole system is, the whole thing is not centrally owned and managed. Helium Inc mean could go out of business today and the blockchain would keep running, all the systems would keep running. It's a truly decentralized system.

Kyle Samani: (20:15)
That is the new kind of crypto-enabled business model that we think is super exciting. That just you can't map this to the traditional Web 2 type business models at all.

John Darsie: (20:27)
It's fascinating. So now I want to hear your weird abstract application.

Kyle Samani: (20:32)
Yeah. DeFi is the first segment of that. As Asiff noted today, this DeFi ecosystem has a fair bit of press coverage. There's probably $50 billion or so of capital sloshing around in it right now. It is circular, the DeFi ecosystem is mostly people levering up to speculate on more DeFi things. That is okay, that is not bad in and of itself. It's the Wild West, and the first thing people did was take leverage because that's what people do in financial markets. And what level up on is they leveled up on other DeFi crypto things. But now they're proving that this stuff works and you're going to start to see it expand into more regulated institutional offerings over the next few years.

Kyle Samani: (21:15)
So DeFi is section number one. I won't harp on it too much more. I think some of the newer cutting edge areas that we think are super interesting are things like social tokens and NFTs, and I think these things go together in some interesting ways. Social tokens are my favorite thought area at the moment. What is the social token? You may ask. There's no strict definition, but I'd say loosely, the idea of a social token is having a token that is in the name of a person or a group.

Kyle Samani: (21:46)
So it could be Kylecoin or Asiffcoin.

John Darsie: (21:49)
SALTcoin.

Kyle Samani: (21:50)
Huh?

Asiff Hirji: (21:50)
SALTcoin.

Kyle Samani: (21:50)
It could be SALTcoin.

John Darsie: (21:54)
We're working on that.

Kyle Samani: (21:55)
You can get it be whatever. You can have David's get a coin, you can have Red Hot Chili Peppers' coin. I don't really care. Pick your entity or organization that today doesn't really have an asset that represents value and their utility around them, and give one of them to those people. Obviously, one thing you're going to say is, what do you do with these coins? And the answer today is, I don't really know. But I do know that people are creative and they're going to do all kinds of weird wacky stuff with them. And I do think it's going to become a normal part of society where... It might not be everyday people, I don't know if my mom is going to have her own coin, she probably doesn't care.

Kyle Samani: (22:33)
But I think for anyone who has a public presence on the internet, it's just like everyone has an Instagram or a Facebook or a Twitter, it's going to become part of the public discourse on internet society. And creators and celebrities are going to do interesting things with their coins. So the obvious things are like, "Hey, if you own X number of coins, you can get lunch with me. You get access to movie premieres and stuff like that." Those kinds of things are relatively obvious and will happen over the next six to 12 months. I think there's going to be a bunch of creators though that starts to do really interesting things.

Kyle Samani: (23:06)
Like, for example, these TikTok hype houses, I wouldn't be surprised if you know those creators, you get three of them and say, "Look, if you own X number of each of our coins, you can come be in our next TikTok video, and you can use that to launch your own TikTok career and then develop your own brand identity from there. And the way that these things are going to get remixed, I think this is going to be super interesting and fascinating. The design space for social tokens is incredibly broad and interesting and is going to unlock the intersection of human creativity and finance in a way that it has never intersected before.

John Darsie: (23:38)
So Asiff, going back to Figure, you guys demonstrated the use case for blockchain technology with this home equity products. On March 11th, you had your first securitization, it was an ABS securitization. Maybe prior to that, banks were saying, "Oh, this blockchain thing sounds kind of interesting, but do we really need it? We have traditional databases. We have traditional ways that we gather information about the underlying loans and assets and the securitizations." Did that trigger some sort of aha moment for banks that that's led to a different level of interest?

John Darsie: (24:13)
And let's say for example, we had Figure during the global financial crisis or prior to the global financial crisis, how would Figure had changed the way we analyzed different securitized products and would it help prevent potentially the crisis?

Asiff Hirji: (24:29)
Two really good question. Securitization was a milestone, and third-parties went and looked at it and said, "Hey, compared to a regular securitization, not including the ratings, which is even more expensive, this saved over 120 basis points compared to a regular securitization." Now, you think about how big the securitization market is, 120 basis points on that is a very, very big number for the industry. So we got a lot of interest in that. And it's just some of the very basic things that are different. So if you're using blockchain, for a normal company originating loans, running a warehouse, you warehouse loans before you get ready to securitize them.

Asiff Hirji: (25:07)
If I've got a provider of the warehouse, that provider of the warehouse has three to five people managing the exposures in the warehouse to make sure I'm not overrunning the geographic distribution I'm supposed to be in or the FICO scores or whatever, and I've got two or three people doing that. We have none of that with blockchain. It's a smart contract. The smart contract basically says, "Here are the rules that govern the warehouse." That's it. If the rule set is right, you can't overrun the warehouse with stuff that you're not supposed to. And so those three to five people go away on both sides. It's just one very simple example.

Asiff Hirji: (25:37)
And so we've got to the point where when we originally started, we had hedge funds as the primary buyers of the loans we originating. Now, it's major banks, credit unions and pension funds who are the major buyers of all these things. And secondly, it was hedge funds that were providing the financing. Today, the financing is provided by the Wall Street banks, all the big ones, including JP Morgan. If you had said two years ago, Jamie Dimon's bank who said Bitcoin was a sham was providing a warehouse on blockchain, people would've laughed you out the building. But that's what they're doing.

Asiff Hirji: (26:12)
So what's happened in terms of the adoption. And to your second question, because the servicing data is all, again, on blockchain, our servicing data is real time and it's real time available to anybody. As long as you have the loan ID, you can look up the performance of the loan real time. When we had the COVID correction just over a year ago, we actually had hedge funds who were buyers of our loans using our real-time data to look at the performance. They were using it to ARB MBSs is on the market because they could see how well our loans performing relative to others.

Asiff Hirji: (26:47)
And by the way, our loans were outperforming first lien Fannie. That's how well they were performing because we had the real-time data and we're able to manage them in real time. And so again, you go to a blockchain-based system, it is less capital consumptive, it is much more real time, it is hired there for credit quality and higher credit performance. There's no reason to not do it this way. And that's all we're trying to do. We don't go in saying to people, "We have a blockchain-based system, are you interested?" We go in and say, "We have a system for loan origination, sales and service that saves you over 150 basis points, is real time and requires less capital. Are you interested?" It just happens to be on blockchain.

John Darsie: (27:29)
It's an example of the COVID correction that really resonates with us at SkyBridge. We had heavy exposure to the structured credit space, that entire market broke down on a technical place-

Asiff Hirji: (27:39)
Correct, it froze.

John Darsie: (27:40)
All these intermediaries, and one decides to do something out of the ordinary and it freezes the entire market. We are very transparent with our investors, we're marking things to market. The entire market froze, so we're telling people, "Our assets are marked down 25%." Fundamentally, they're not impaired. We don't think really at all, or definitely not to that extent. But if you remove all those intermediaries and you create a more efficient, transparent system, you make a lot of people's lives easier, including ours when communicating to clients around March, April of 2020.

John Darsie: (28:14)
But Kyle, you talked about how you really got jazzed about crypto through a Ethereum. You said, "Wow, this is taking what Stripe has done with this API and putting some leverage onto that." But there's other blockchains that compete with Ethereum. Ethereum obviously has as created tremendous network effects has become the go-to platform for NFTs and other tokens, but there's other blockchains that are out there doing similar things that in a lot of ways might be more efficient or better constructed. What are some other competing blockchains with Ethereum that you think stand out?

Kyle Samani: (28:49)
Sure. We're going to get loud public investors in a blockchain called Solana where we've been early investors. They started R&D back in early to mid 2018. Solana network has been live now for about 16 months or so. The reason why we've been so excited about Solana is they have from inception, been focused on two things, one enabling on-chain limit order books, and two, really focusing on scaling these systems. One of the interesting thing about Ethereum from is the market cap of Ethereum today is 250 billion plus or minus, and the number of daily transactions on Ethereum is about one and a half million.

Kyle Samani: (29:31)
So if you just think about that math, of any system you know whether it's Facebook or Twilio or Uber or whatever, any of these systems, the market cap per daily user on Ethereum is truly... It's at a totally different level. It's very, very high market cap per daily user. Now, these things aren't apples to apples comparisons because they're obviously different and what they do is different, so you can't rely too heavily on a direct comparison, but they really... The number of users there is actually a lot smaller than you would think, given the hype and given the market cap.

Kyle Samani: (30:06)
Our theory has been that you have to scale these things to get you to 500 million daily users plus, and the Solana team has provided an incredible alternative approach to scaling these things where you can write code now and know what's going to work in six months and in 18 months and in 24 months, and you know how it's going to scale. And so we've made a big bet there. And in the 15, 16 months since this thing has been live, we've seen a number of pretty interesting developers take advantage of this, and the most notable of which is called Serum.

Kyle Samani: (30:41)
Serum is a new order book, it's a decentralized exchange. It's conceptually similar to Coinbase or FTX or these other things. But it runs natively on a blockchain. If you think about the financial markets, look at equities, look at FX markets, look at commodities, look at any of these things, the way that all of these liquid assets trade is they trade on order books. You've got market-makers quoting spreads and quoting liquidity, and obviously, you're adjusting the prices as new information comes out and whatever. And that's how finance works. And there's a reason that it works that way because it's the right way to price assets.

Kyle Samani: (31:17)
The challenge in Ethereum has been because of the throughput limitations, you just can't run an order book on Ethereum, and everyone has agreed that that doesn't really work. And Solana has been architected, that was the goal from inception was to run an order book on-chain. And they've now proven that's possible. It's not as performant as the NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange, and I don't want to claim that it is, but it's close enough that you can get global permissionless order books for any arbitrary asset. And that works now, and you can see it live now, and that's already trading 50 to a million dollars per day on Serum right now, and that's been growing at a nice, steady clip.

Kyle Samani: (31:53)
We really think that the key primitive heading an order book available is going to be the most important financial construction as we think about scaling these systems to billions of people.

John Darsie: (32:04)
So if I want to go to payments, as we've talked about, Figure started with HELOC loans, and use that as a proof of concept and has gone out and done securitizations now, and is getting heavy institutional interest, but also has ambitions to solve this blockchain for payments issue, which is one of the holy grails for the industry about how to really potentially move off of those Visa, MasterCard rails to deliver point of sale credit. Could you explain to people who are less familiar what that means, what the implications of that are, and whether it is realistic to move off of those traditional credit card rails and why a point of sale credit is a better solution.

Asiff Hirji: (32:45)
Yeah. Look, if you and I walk into a merchant and we take out a credit card and swipe it, there's actually at least seven or eight intermediaries who take part in that transaction between my paying for something and the merchant receiving the money that I'm trying to pay them and me receiving the goods. And again, each of those intermediaries takes a cut, and the poor merchant depending on the size is paying somewhere between 100 to 300 basis points on that transaction. It's super expensive. And most of the merchants are paying at the upper end of that in terms of a fee. And a lot of that goes to, again, back to the complexity that we've built into the Visa-MasterCard system.

Asiff Hirji: (33:23)
And not only does is it really expensive, but the way Visa-MasterCard works because it's a credit product, I the merchant, I'm not actually guaranteed that I'm getting the value for the transaction because the consumer can claim that there's fraud or something else, and then I get a charge back. And so it's a hideously expensive process for the merchant. Studies show that a merchant on a $100 is maybe clearing something between 87 and 95, depending on what they're doing and how often they get charged back, etc. So go back to, what does blockchain do really well? Blockchain does real-time bilateral settlement between two parties, no intermediaries.

Asiff Hirji: (34:03)
So if I went into the merchant and I could pay with stable coin into their wallet, from my wallet to their wallet, it settles instantly, there is no risk anymore that there's going to be a charge back. There is no fee other than the blockchain processing fee itself, which is orders of magnitude lower than the 300 basis points that Visa, MasterCard, etc, are charging that merchant. You take just a tremendous amount of cost and complexity out of that system. So we have built a service we call Figure Pay, which is a challenger bank, so think Chime or Dave or whichever your favorite is, meets buy now pay later, say something like a firm meets merchant acquisition, so think Square.

Asiff Hirji: (34:43)
So it's got a card, you can use it at any merchant, but if it's a Figure Pay merchant, it's not the 300 basis points, it's more or less free, and it uses QR codes, just like they do all over Latin America and China, it's running entirely on blockchain. And if you were a fintech, not only can you leverage this product to offer payment services to your customers, but you can also offer banking services, because the core banking functionality is provided by the blockchain, there is no core. So if you're a bank, one of the biggest costs you have is your core banking system, which is probably antiquated written in COBOL 15, 30 years ago. And again, all of that goes away using blockchain.

Asiff Hirji: (35:24)
And so we have four or five of these businesses lending being the most mature, pay being somewhere in the middle, and we have some that we're incubating. Pay is now getting traction like lending was, say two years ago. Lots banks looking at it, lots of fintechs looking at it, lots of retailers are looking at it as a superior way of providing that merchant acceptance credit card type functionality, also banking functionalities to customers, again at a much lower cost all over Europe, all over your smartphone, all on blockchain rails.

John Darsie: (35:54)
Yeah. And we're investors in Chime and Klarna, so we understand that story intimately well. I want to talk about regulation. Elizabeth Warren, everybody on Wall Street's favorite Senator, she's both anti the establishment too big to fail financial system, banking system, but she's also been a loud critic of crypto, of blockchain. She recently issued a letter to SEC chair, Gary Gensler saying, "By July 28th," I don't know how she picked that date, "I need to have answers on how we're going to regulate crypto." Are you concerned, I'll start with you, Asiff. Are you concerned about irregulation being this existential threat to the development of this crypto ecosystem and blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies? Or how do you see regulation in the United States shaking out?

Asiff Hirji: (36:45)
I think regulation is a big risk. I think if you look at what China's doing with fintechs that are listing in the US, let alone anything else, the Bitcoin hash rate, if the regulators really are serious about lowering costs and increasing financial inclusion, and that's what they claim they are, if they're serious about that, they have to be pro crypto. I believe the reason that they're not pro crypto is because they don't understand it. And they view it simply as an asset class, which is the wrong way to think about it. And not only an asset class, but a highly speculative asset class, which will only end in their minds badly for most investors.

Asiff Hirji: (37:23)
And so that's why when I was at Coinbase, we started a bunch of things that tried to educate regulators and educate our legislatures about what crypto is and what it can do. And those things are making progress slowly, but they're making progress. And so I believe there is a mismatch between the level of understanding within regulators and their perception of what crypto is versus where crypto is actually trying to go. Are there things in crypto, which are which are scammy? Yes. Will some people lose their money? Yes. But that doesn't mean that all of crypto is scammy or that there is no real value underneath it.

Asiff Hirji: (38:03)
For a lot of what we do every day, there is a better crypto solution that is lower costs and will drive more inclusion for people who are currently excluded from the system.

John Darsie: (38:14)
Kyle, when you're evaluating investments, whether it be in liquid tokens or companies that are developing on different blockchains, how do you evaluate regulatory risk? And what's your outlook for regulation in the US?

Kyle Samani: (38:29)
Building off Asiff comments here, it's definitely a real risk, and there's no one in the world you can forecast how the political winds are going to change both in the executive branch, as well as in Congress and how that's going to filter into the SEC, the CFTC and other regulatory bodies. Those things are actually impossible to predict on any medium to long horizon term. I would say though, I'm just generally an optimist. If you look back at the history of the internet, there's been a lot of moments where people thought it wasn't going to take off, where the CIA and NSA tried to ban encryption.

Kyle Samani: (39:07)
There was that whole debate, there's been others over the years. If you look back at the early history of Bitcoin, say circuit 2010 to 2014 or so, there were a lot of real concerns that governments were going to just shut this thing down as a threat to monetary systems and stuff. And actually now, it's being in a meaningful way, embraced by a number of governments US and others. And so I'd say, I'm just generally a techno optimist on most of these things. And I think specifically, if you look at just wealth creation and obvious lifestyle creation of software and smart phones and computers over the last 25 years, literally everyone in the world understands just how powerful that forces has been.

Kyle Samani: (39:49)
I think general interest is in letting innovators innovate and do things. Obviously some folks like Senator Warren like to yell things on national television, but I'm generally quite optimistic that that's not going to... It may cause some bumps here and there, but I don't think it's going to present an existential crisis of any form.

John Darsie: (40:14)
Do you think it's a Bitcoin issue, but it's also a broader issue for crypto that China is now basically completely exited the entire cryptocurrency experiment? They said, "You know what, well, at least decentralized cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies." With the DD listing issue that you referenced earlier, Asiff, they're becoming very paranoid about data. And so they want to control every bit of data that passes through that country in and out. And so they're obviously going to prioritize the digital yuan. Do you think China's adversarial stance towards crypto is going to hamper development of the space? Asiff, we'll start with you.

Asiff Hirji: (40:53)
I think that just like every technology, there are two ways or three ways you could use it, some of which are not great. And China is showing us that there is a dark side to crypto, which is you can use it to further the totalitarian state. So should there be central bank, digital currencies? Maybe. Maybe. But China's basically said, "Our currency will be digital because that lets us further enhance the surveillance state because now you cannot get the fiat unless you have a digital wallet and I issued it to you, so I the Chinese government know exactly who you are, and I can track everywhere you spend it. And if I don't like what you say or what you do, I can block it."

Asiff Hirji: (41:35)
Now, that is the evil twin, if you want to think of it, of crypto in almost every sense because crypto is trying to be decentralized, it's trying to empower the end consumer. It's trying to give data back to people so that they can control the privacy settings of it, etc. But that same technology has been used in a very different way in China. My guess is there's been more and more technological separation between the Western and China, and I personally believe that will continue. I don't think it's a threat to Bitcoin or Ethereum, or any of the other projects that we've mentioned here on this show, but I do think that it's a very different application of the same technology with a very, very different outcome, which is not great for humanity at that point.

John Darsie: (42:26)
Kyle, how do you look at the China issue?

Kyle Samani: (42:30)
It doesn't impact us in a meaningful way on a day-to-day basis. They've shut down mining is the big thing that's happened. Motivations are a few fold, but I think that the most cynical interpretations are overstated, at least of that particular action. It does feel like China's generally moving towards a surveillance state, Orwellian future, that seems to be happening. Although, I don't take it for granted that is actually the outcome that we're going to get, although it's a reasonable probability outcome. When we think about crypto and the opportunity in China, there's two angles we think about.

Kyle Samani: (43:12)
One is developers and then there's users. Most developers who are building novel crypto things who are based in China or leaving China just for personal safety reasons, which is pretty smart thing to do. A lot of them go to Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, pick your locale nearby, and that's pretty common. And so that has really created problem for us as a firm. The other question then of course is users for these things. If you look at who is using DeFi today, it's actually overwhelmingly not Americans, it's overwhelmingly people in Asia, Southeast Asia is a massive market and has almost no press coverage in the United States. China is a massive market.

Kyle Samani: (43:51)
And the reason is because obviously people in these countries are trying to opt out of their fiat systems and of their payment rails that they are more or less subject to from birth onwards. And so those people are very interested in experimenting with these technologies, trying them, figuring out what they can and can't do so that they can opt out of the local regimes. And given what we've seen there in the last few years, I'm quite optimistic that we'll continue to be true. It may become more legally risky for folks in China, specifically unclear how exactly how that's going to play out.

Kyle Samani: (44:27)
But there's just across Southeast Asia and China, you've, call it, two billion or so, two and a half billion people, who for the most part are trying to opt out of their local financial systems. And that market is just astronomically large. And so we continue to spend a large percentage of our time and energy both understanding what developers are doing there as well as understanding the way that consumers are using these technologies in China and elsewhere.

John Darsie: (44:54)
Well, Asiff and Kyle, it has been a pleasure to have you on. We'll leave it there, save it for your next appearance, everything else we can talk about here today for your next appearance on SALT Talks. We hope that you'll be able to join us in person in September, we're bringing back our in-person Salt Conferences in New York. There's also the Block Works Digital Asset Summit going on at the same time. So we're excited to have just a really large ecosystem of players in the space, and from the institutional world, we're somebody that's a newer entrant into the space from a SkyBridge perspective, and really excited about all the potential that it holds.

John Darsie: (45:25)
And like I mentioned earlier, Bitcoin has been our gateway dragon and we're excited to be involved alongside the things you guys are doing in the space. But thanks so much for joining us here on SALT Talks.

Kyle Samani: (45:34)
Thanks for inviting us.

Asiff Hirji: (45:35)
Thanks for inviting us, John.

John Darsie: (45:37)
And thank you everybody for tuning in today's SALT Talk with Asiff Hirji from Figure, and Kyle Samani from Multicoin Capital. A reminder, if you missed any part of this SALT Talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website On Demand at salt.org/talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT too. We're also on social media, Twitter is where we're most active. We're @saltconference. We're also on Linked, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks, we love educating people, especially on the topic of crypto and digital assets.

John Darsie: (46:09)
So again, share this episode with your skeptical uncle when it comes to crypto. On behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie, sounding off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Daniel Silva: The Cellist | SALT Talks #236

“Gabriel Allon in the last five books has been a key figure in the defense of Western liberty… Restoration is the essential element of the entire series; tikkun olam- repair of the world.”

Daniel Silva is an American journalist and author of thriller and espionage novels. Prior to his novelist career, Daniel became a journalist at the age of thirty-three, directing CNN’s political talks. There is a tremendous amount of historical content worked into all of his novels.

Using the real world as inspiration and backdrop, Daniel Silva’s iconic protagonist Gabriel Allon’s recent storylines have centered around defending Western democracies. This continues in Silva’s latest book The Cellist which revolves around the impact of and defense against dirty foreign money from Russia. Silva recounts watching the January 6th Capitol attack on TV and soon realizing he had to rewrite his already finished book to include the insurrection. Silva worries about the state of America’s democracy and explains the value of the Capitol insurrection to Putin and authoritarians around the world.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Daniel Silva.jpeg

Daniel Silva

Author

The Cellist

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

2:35 - Creating the Gabriel Allon character and series

8:55 - Newest book: The Cellist

11:30 - Using real world events/themes in storytelling

13:00 - January 6th Capitol attack and DC lockdown

20:02 - Restoring liberal democracy in America and the West

26:03 - Western countries vs. Russia and authoritarian regimes

29:49 - Radicalization of Republican party

31:20 - Musical interests

37:12 - Impact of dirty foreign money laundered in the US and Great Britain

41:38 - Book writing process and the theme of tikkun olam

TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal in our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 here in our home city of New York, 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: (00:46)
And we're very excited to welcome Daniel Silva back to SALT Talks for his second appearance. I think Daniel is only the second guest that we've welcomed for multiple appearances. So we know it's worth it because he's one of the best authors out there today. I know Anthony is one of his biggest fans. So we're excited to have you back.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:03)
Danny, I think on the other guests that he's referring to, he allows me to come back on from time to time, so I think it's you and me, Danny.

Daniel Silva: (01:12)
I will try to move up to advanced billing.

John Darsie: (01:15)
I read a little bit more about Daniel for those who haven't tuned into the first episode we did with him or read his fantastic books, but he is an award-winning number one New York Times bestselling author, best known for his long-running thriller series starring spy and art restorer, Gabriel Allon. Silva's books are critically acclaimed bestsellers around the world. They've been translated into more than 30 languages. He resides in Florida with his wife, the wonderful television journalist, Jamie Gangel, and their twins, Lily and Nicholas.

John Darsie: (01:48)
And I will say my parents are now hooked on the Gabriel Allon series. They were not readers before you joined us on SALT Talks the first time and now they can't get enough of Gabriel Allon. And again, hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of Skybridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. And like I mentioned, Anthony might be your biggest fan, Daniel. And he was very excited to get an advanced copy of your book and pour through it. So with no further ado, I'll let Anthony take over.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:15)
Yes, I have to confess there's nothing more delightful than not having to wait for the delivery date of the publisher, Mr. Silva. Getting it from you was fantastic and I do appreciate it, but I got to flip to the back of the book here is a very handsome man. Is this Gabriel Allon, Daniel Silva? That's what I need to know.

Daniel Silva: (02:36)
That is not Gabriel Allon. There are many authors who see themselves in their characters or imagined their characters. I've just never been one of them. I can't do the things that he can do. I wouldn't want to do the things that he can do. Now, does he share certain characteristics of mine? Yeah, lots and lots. But no, I do not imagine myself to be Gabriel Allon. He's much better looking than I am. Not you, but not me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:12)
Did you hear that Darsie? I finally got a compliment from one of our guests.

Daniel Silva: (03:15)
You're one of the few guys around that can give him a run for money in that department.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:22)
All right. Well, that's very sweet and that concludes our SALT Talk. I just want to thank everybody for tuning in. Nothing else that we have to say, Mr. Silva. But in all seriousness, I love these books. This is the 24th book that I've devoured. I find it to be a summer delight for me. Sometimes I pace myself and savor it, as opposed to read it too quickly, but I can read it in a day because of how great a writer you are. It's the 24th book in the series. Did you ever imagine you would become a number one bestselling hero of a long series like this?

Daniel Silva: (04:03)
I didn't. And I think that it's shocking to say this, but Gabriel was never supposed to be a continuing character. He was supposed to appear in one book and one book only. And truth be told, when I finished that book, I knew that I had created a special character. But I didn't think that an Israeli could work long term to be a true mass market, American bestseller. I thought there was too much anti-Israeli sentiment in the world, and frankly, too much antisemitism for him to work long term. And I was talked into writing a second book by a very astute and well-regarded figure in publishing and it sold more than the previous book.

Daniel Silva: (05:02)
It seems difficult to imagine now, but when I made the first notes on The Confessor, which is one of the classics in the series, Gabriel was not supposed to be in that book. And I was told by my publishers and editor, "He must be in that book. It is his book," and that was the case. And so when I finished The Confessor, I felt like, "Okay, [inaudible 00:05:25]," we are 21 books later. No, frankly, I did not anticipate that he would ever be a repeating number one New York Times bestseller [inaudible 00:05:40] more surprised by his success than the person who created him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:45)
Well, he's a brilliant character. And all of us that are entrepreneurs love Gabriel Allon because he is an entrepreneur. There's a candoism about him. There's a creativity about him. He has a love for his country, love of Israel and a love for Western liberty where he'll stop at nothing to protect it. And I think that those things make him a hero, but there's also complexity there, Daniel, in the sense that he's an assassin, but he's also an art restorer. So at the same time, he's about restoration and renaissance and the rebirth, if you will, but he also recognizes that he has to simultaneously eradicate evil. Explain that duality if you will.

Daniel Silva: (06:32)
I want to I want to go back to something that you said earlier, the question, that is really important and that Gabriel in the last three, four or five books has been a key figure in the defense of Western liberty. Gabriel believes in the global order. Gabriel understands how remarkable it is that that we have essentially had peace in Europe since 1945 with some minor wars on the periphery, how as a survivor of the Holocaust he knows how incredible that is, what an achievement that is. And so he has been, since Moscow Rules, which is, gosh, I'm losing track of time, but about 14, 15 years ago now, fighting Russia. And he has been cast himself in that role of the defender of liberal democracy and taking on Putin.

Daniel Silva: (07:45)
And the duality of the character is what makes him special obviously. It's not that he's a magician and can take a beat-up old painting and make it look like new again. Restoration is the essential element of the entire series, Tikkun Olam: Repair of the World, the obligation to not accept the world as it is but to make it better, to gather up the sparks that were lost to creation in Jewish theology. And it's the central part of the story. And it's not just about paintings, it's about injustice, it's about people. He can make old cars run again. He just has this gift to restore and repair. And that's what gives the series its magic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:43)
So I don't want to give away any spoilers, there's a lot-

Daniel Silva: (08:45)
Don't give away lots of spoilers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:47)
There's a lot of plot twists here and a lot a lot of fun in the book, but tell us about The Cellist, the woman that enters of Mr. Allon's life.

Daniel Silva: (08:56)
The Cellist is one of my favorite characters that I've ever created. And she's one of those characters that popped from the instant she opened her mouth. A little side note the cover art, that's my wife. We photographed her for the book. That's Jamie on the cover.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:16)
Looking good, Jamie.

Daniel Silva: (09:17)
Looking good, Jamie.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:18)
I don't want to get in trouble with the He Too or Me Too Movement, but looking good.

Daniel Silva: (09:23)
Looking good. Her name is Isabel Brenner and she was trained at an early age. She's a young German woman. Musical prodigy, can play the piano. Started playing the cello at eight. Won her very important German competition when she was 17 years old, but decided that she didn't quite have what it took to make it in the very difficult music industry. Like many musicians, she's a very gifted mathematician. So she went to a university at London School of Economics and went to work for a German bank called RhineBank.

Daniel Silva: (10:08)
And in short order, she discovered that this bank that she's working for is really the dirtiest bank in the world and that it was serving as, in effect, a laundromat, the Russian laundromat, helping Russians launder ill-gotten assets and hide them in the West. She decides to blow the whistle by leaking documents to a Russian reporter and one thing leads to another. And before she knows it, she's fighting shoulder to shoulder with Gabriel Allon trying to save Western democracy, and ultimately, democracy here in the United States. The book begins in the summer of 2019 and it's effective conclusion is Inauguration Day 2021.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:05)
But you see the future in this book. You're known for seeing around the corner. So tell us about catching history and understanding that. You write about the insurrection. Tell us, in your process of writing this, how you come up with or able to distill what the near future is.

Daniel Silva: (11:30)
Well, the near future that I was trying to distill was, and I've written about this, touched on it in about the last three or four books, is that Western democracy, I don't want to say hanging by a thread, but it is under stress, it is battered, it is in trouble. And we now know, from some great reporting, investigative reporting and brilliant writing from some journalists and authors, from the British government, that the degree to which Russian money, that Russia has used its money as a weapon to weaken Western democracy. And so I wanted to write a book that deals with how to counter that threat.

Daniel Silva: (12:29)
And when I started the knob or the book, it was set in a post-Trump, post-pandemic era. I felt that President Trump would lose the election and that this book would be set in a Joe Biden era and that Gabriel and the new Biden administration would really take it to the Russians financially. And so I was working along with the book, had most of it written. On January 6, Jamie calls me. She's at the office, I'm in my office. I do not have a television in my office. She says, "You need to go upstairs." I said, "I'm really working. Is it important?" "Just go upstairs." And I turn on the TV in the kitchen and our Capitol is overran by supporters of the of the American president. And it became clear that Donald Trump had formed the mob inside of the mob, unleashed the mob and we had ineffective armed insurrection against our capital. Our capital had fallen for the first time in our history.

Daniel Silva: (13:51)
And within a few days, I just realized I had to write about this in the book. It fits so perfectly with what I was already working on, that I said to my wife, I said, "Look, I got to do this. I don't know how quite to do it." So I quickly plotted a new ending to the novel and I started writing that at that point on about January 10th or so. And so I finished a new ending to the novel and got it done, but the first half of the book didn't quite match up. It's in the wrong time. Everything was out of sequence. The beginning of the book was set after the pandemic and after the Trump administration. I had to back the whole thing up.

Daniel Silva: (14:37)
Long story short, I worked for about 14-15 hours a day for weeks and weeks and weeks, getting the book so that everything was synced up properly. It was a painful process. I was heartbroken by what I saw that day. I think that as bad as January 6 was, for me, the Inauguration Day was in many respects worse. If you weren't here in Washington during that period to experience the miles and miles of fences, the 40,000 troops on the streets, the military checkpoints that Jamie had to pass to to get to the office every day, the television cameras did not capture what it was really like here.

Daniel Silva: (15:33)
And I can't imagine what President Trump was thinking when he took that final lap over the city in his helicopter and he looked down on this empty, empty locked down city. And why was it locked down? It was locked down because we were afraid that thousands of armed Trump supporters, Republican voters were going to come storming across the bridges. How did we get to this point?

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:01)
Listen, I'm obviously saddened by all of that. January 6th is actually my 57th birthday.

Daniel Silva: (16:08)
Oh, my goodness.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:08)
I was sitting there in my home, looking at it and didn't think it was ever going to come to that, but it obviously did.

Daniel Silva: (16:15)
Well, what were your thoughts? How did you think we got there?

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:18)
Well, I was saddened by it. I didn't see it as ... It wasn't surprising to me, Danny.

Daniel Silva: (16:28)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:29)
It was definitely not surprising to me, but-

Daniel Silva: (16:31)
Well, I'll tell you a little ... I'm going to interrupt you on one thing, so this is how well known it was in Washington that this was coming, okay? On about January 2nd or 3rd, I was talking to a Republican member of Congress. I said, "When's the Reichstag fire?" reference to the fire that burned down the German parliament and led to the Enabling Act in 1933, "When's the Reichstag fire?" And the Republican congressman said, "The Reichstag fire is Wednesday." And so everyone knew that this was coming, but go ahead-

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:02)
Well, just the fact that he would equate it to the Reichstag fire explains to you how much danger we're in and not to go overboard on European history or German history, is it 1924? Is it 1933? Where are we right now? We do know that a good 20% of the people have decided that they are willing to disavow capitalism for whatever they fear in their lives. I'm sorry, democracy, I should say. There's elements of fear in capitalism as well, but well, there's 20% of the people that want to put aside our capitalist system, that has made this creation when Lincoln called the last best hope for mankind, has made this one of the more beautiful stories.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:46)
It's a story marred with tragedy. It's a story marred with biases and racism, of course, but it is a beautiful story of many, many different people coming together off of an idea. And what we know about our great country is that it's a work in progress. And to Gabriel Allon's point, it needs to be improved. I guess there's something I wanted to ask you. It's personal actually because every time I read your books, I close the book and say, "Okay, what did I learn from Daniel Silva?" First of all, it's an amazing summer read. It's a page turner. It's super exciting. I want to yell at you at times because I want to read this on the beach in front of the surf, but I'm not able to do that because I find myself reading at 3:00 AM in the bathroom, where my wife is like, "Turn the light out." I was like, "Yeah, I got to get to chapter 17. I can't turn the light out."

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:39)
But when I close the book, what I learned here, and I want your reaction to it, is that there is a group of forces. It's almost like a sibling rivalry, Cain versus Abel. There's a group of forces that are just frankly jealous of the United States. At the end of the day, they couldn't put it together. They couldn't put it together or they feared it. We know that we have great benefits from our decentralization, our checks and balances. There are countries that are autocracies that would actually never release that kind of power, even though what we know about power, the axiomatic fact about power is when we give it away, we become more powerful. That's the axiomatic irony of it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:24)
And I guess what I learned from your book is that we seem to have lost our edge. It's either our complacency. We've had hundreds of years now a vaccine, so people now believe that there's no need for them anymore, but we've gotten to this point of health as a result of these vaccines. The same thing with the democracy, we got here as a result of all these virtues. And I guess what I'm wondering when I close this book, how do you restore it? How do you become the Gabriel Allon of the American democracy and the movement of the West as it relates to individual freedom?

Daniel Silva: (20:07)
It's just in our country. France, for example, its democracy is under great stress right now. We had the yellow vest movement. We have the remote possibility, but maybe not so remote possibility that they could elect Marine Le Pen to be their president. Their parties are in complete disarray. British democracy is struggling. Look, in the United States, but coming back to us, we just got walloped by a succession of big, big unexpected events. 9/11, kaboom. Iraq war did not go as planned. A crippling financial crisis that we eventually recovered from but the recovery was uneven and I would say that it exacerbated some trends that are out there in the workforce. Globalization. And frankly the changing demographics of our country. These are huge, huge developments.

Daniel Silva: (21:26)
And we have a significant portion of the population that is not succeeding in this new economy, this new reality. I guess I have come back to that the demographic changes are ... They seem to come upon us more quickly. When you look back at the Hispanic share of the electorate in 1996, for example, it was minuscule and it happened so quickly. We became much more multiculturally. Diverse more quickly I think than people imagine that would happen. And these are enormous pressures and these are big, big things that we've got to deal with, but I am most concerned in this in the short run about the number of people who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning who no longer believe in democracy and who are willing to or at least they say they're willing to use violence to achieve their political ends.

Daniel Silva: (22:47)
This is what I find alarming in the short term. I find the prospect of even a Trump candidacy in 2024 to be almost too frightening to contemplate because I think it will ultimately lead to pre-election violence, post-election violence and a contested election. We got the ship to shore in 2021, but it was a close call. As Gabriel said, "The power was transferred, but it was not peaceful. It was not peaceful for the first time ever." So I don't want to sound like Chicken Little or Debbie Downer here, but I'm a little nervous. I'm a little nervous.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:36)
Listen, I respect that, but I would add to that, it's not just him. He's got acolytes that want to be him. They view themselves as smarter versions of him and that he has given them a playbook. And of course, through voter suppression and through different types of laws and just the gerrymandering process, remember, these Republicans are now controlling a large swath of the state legislatures. They're very confident they can take back the Senate, I'm sorry, take back the house, even though they may not have the popularity to do so. They know that they may be able to segment the districts in a way that will allow them to do that.

Daniel Silva: (24:26)
They have the ability of Trump to mobilize the darker elements of our society. That's one thing that he did that was just ... It really bottom fed for votes. It became a joke in Washington that white supremists were actually a core part of his constituency, but it's true. It was true. And white nationalists and Christian nationalists, that was the core of Trump's appeal. Look, I hope that they don't go down this road. I'm trying to choose my words carefully, of trying to get into a situation where they use maximalist power at the state level in the Congress to try to force a candidate through and pick and overrule the will of the voters and make them what make a republican president because it will destroy the country. There will be violence in the streets.

Daniel Silva: (25:35)
Imagine what would have happened if Trump had actually won a narrow electoral victory in the last election, losing the popular vote by 7 million votes. Would the country have been governable under those circumstances? Yes, constitutionally. So we have really some dangerous tricky months and years here coming up, whether we make it, whether our democracy survives. And by the way, our divisions are real obviously. I don't need to explain that to you. Our divisions are real. The flames have been fanned at every step of the way for years and years and years now by Russian information operations and Russian propaganda.

Daniel Silva: (26:25)
I invite you to read the Russia report that the British government released last summer, that the extent to which Russian money had rotted their political institutions and financial institutions and it was all planned. It wasn't by accident.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:42)
And I think that's a point that you make in the book and that's one that I have, the great sadness. And so the Russians weren't able to build a great fluid system. They weren't be able to build a multitribal democracy. So a result of which, they set upon destroying the United Kingdom, France and the United States. And so these active measures were perpetrated against people that weren't necessarily their adversaries, but they figured, "Okay, it's a race to the bottom. If we're hitting bottom, we would like to drag down these other"-

Daniel Silva: (27:18)
I was having dinner with an ambassador from a country that I can't identify the other night. And this is an authoritarian country that is under pressure to democratize. And the ambassador was telling me, "What a gift January 6th was to this," just to be able to hold this stuff to their people and say, "This is what democracy looks like. Do you really want this?" January six, Vladimir Putin must have just loved it. All the authoritarians in the world loved it. Because it showed our system to be in disarray, at least on that day. We pulled through, but we did enormous damage to our democracy and enormous damage to our reputation around the world.

Daniel Silva: (28:14)
And I will tell you, here in Washington talking to diplomats from various countries, they're not optimistic about our future. The Europeans are glad to have us back, but they're very wary that the whole thing could swing back again or that we might actually slide off a cliff and not be a democratic country anymore. I would say that even our closest allies are not betting on us right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:41)
Listen, I agree with that, obviously spending more time in the business realm than politics at this moment, but I look at somebody like Liz Cheney, I look at somebody like Adam Kinzinger or Kinzinger, however you pronounce his name, and I see, "Okay, well, at least they have levels of principle." I think if somebody like Lindsey Graham who I did have a relationship with, who I'm not sure what happened to him, maybe a new book and it could be a nonfiction book, Where is Lindsey Graham? because I don't know where he is. It's like Where's Waldo?. It's just a representation of what he once was.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:17)
And what I would say to you, that has me alarmed is Lindsey Graham said, "Trump plus," he wants Trump plus. That means he wants to dig into more of that fearmongering and he wants to dig into more of that hatred and more of that division to hold power as opposed to freshen up the party, break down and rebuild that party and go after a more beautiful mosaic of people with better ideas. And I'm at a loss to understand that, but I want-

Daniel Silva: (29:47)
I can explain it. Their base will not let them tack to the center in order to build that beautiful mosaic. Just ask Speaker Eric Cantor about that. He wanted to do an immigration deal and he's in leadership and he got primary gone. They're just not interested in it. Any party that has not been able to carry a popular vote at one time since 1988, one time, that party should tack to the center where all the votes are, but they're actually going farther and farther and farther and farther. And getting back to your previous point, the only way that out here with this shrinking base and out here to the edge, the only way they're going to get back into power is with voter suppression and maximalist constitutional means to try to get back in. That's what worries me, but I interrupted, I'm sorry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:53)
No, not at all. I have to turn it over here to my Millennial, John Darsie, so that we get our fantastic ratings, Daniel, but before I do that, let's play Desert Island discs for a second. You've got music abounds in this book and so what are your favorites? Let's go to classical, jazz and rock and roll. Tell us what your favorites are. And also what is your all-time favorite? What was the first song you remember?

Daniel Silva: (31:20)
First song I remember?

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:26)
[crosstalk 00:31:26].

Daniel Silva: (31:27)
I spent the first years of my childhood in Michigan. Wikipedia says that I was born in Detroit. That's not the case. I was actually born in Kalamazoo. So I love, love, love Motown music. I love, love Motown music. Those are the first songs that I really remember. So we do some classical, this is impossible assignment to pick, one thing to listen to on a desert island, but people ask me like, "I don't know anything about classical music. What should I start with? What should I listen to?" If I were to be trapped forever with only one thing to listen to, let's take the Five Piano Concertos of Beethoven. I have piles and piles and piles of different versions. These are some classics, but Beethoven's Piano Concertos is where I would, if I had to pick one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:28)
And what about jazz?

Daniel Silva: (32:31)
Well, I'm a bit of a jazz fiend and everyone faces this dilemma, "What's your favorite? What's your favorite?" and I think that most of us come back to Kind of Blue by Miles Davis. It's regarded as the greatest jazz album ever recorded and I agree with that. I'm going to put a second one. I'm going to cheat a little bit. I was just listening to it the other night and I'm so saddened by Keith Jarrett's health problems. I love, love, love My Song by Keith Jarrett. I just think it's just one of my favorite records. I'm going to transition to rock and roll by going to a jazz rock album, totally essential, but Steely Dan's Aja.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:15)
I love that, that Deacon Blues.

Daniel Silva: (33:17)
Really great, great, great, great-

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:19)
We're dating ourselves, Silva. We're dating ourselves.

Daniel Silva: (33:23)
I know, and then if I had to pick one, this is what-

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:25)
I love the song Peg. I love Deacon blues. Oh, there you go, The Boss.

Daniel Silva: (33:29)
And then my favorite rock and roll album of all time is Darkness on the Edge of Town [inaudible 00:33:35].

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:36)
It's a gritty, gritty album. I love that album as well. Of course, Darsie has no idea what we're talking about. That's fine, John. Let us live in the moment of our past glory or as Bruce Springsteen would say, "Glory days." Before I turn it over to Darsie, what about Sinatra though?

Daniel Silva: (33:54)
What about Sinatra?

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:55)
Sinatra.

Daniel Silva: (33:56)
I love Sinatra. Live at the Sands, I listen to that record all the time. There's Count Bassie.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:03)
Particularly his breakout into conversations. Sure.

Daniel Silva: (34:06)
Those are exactly the stories [crosstalk 00:34:10]. Some of the stuff that's on that album wouldn't pass muster today, but I love Frank Sinatra.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:20)
So John, what would you like to ask the award-winning bestselling novelist? By the way, before I get there, I have to thank you for the acknowledgement. Of course, I've got Boris and all the other undercover mobsters following me around, but it was a brilliant acknowledgement, so I'm sending you a hug over the phone lines here.

Daniel Silva: (34:45)
Well, I meant it though because I was working through, "What is the goal of this operation? How am I going to take this person down? Am I going to do it criminally or am I just going to do it as an effect?" What I did there is the name and shame type operation. You and I pulled it apart and-

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:05)
The only way you can do it, Daniel. That was my point in terms of our conversations.

Daniel Silva: (35:11)
Otherwise you have to throw the bankers in jail, right? That conversation with you, I meant it, it was pivotal in helping me decide what the operation was going to be, what the goal of the operation was going to be, what the mechanics of the operation were going to be.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:33)
Mr. Darsie.

John Darsie: (35:35)
Well, I'll have to confess, we did some investigative journalism or spy work in the spirit of Gabriel Allon and have some other questions for you, one, about your music. So we investigate and found that you used to go to punk concerts back in the day. What type of attire did you wear to those punk concerts?

Daniel Silva: (35:56)
My punk attire was more of the suit jacket over a t-shirt with jeans. I was that kind of punk. No crazy makeup. No piercings. None of that stuff. I was kind of a dressed-up punk. Actually, little bragging, I saw the first American performance of The Clash actually. I was living in the Bay Area. We had a vital New Wave music scene and I got to see a lot of great aspects.

John Darsie: (36:38)
So going back to the book, you talked about RhineBank is the bank that you mentioned in The Cellist. Did you draw any real-life inspiration from maybe was Germany a random selection in terms of the home of the bank that you mentioned? How much is dirty foreign money which is a big theme in the book? How much is it flowing into the United States and poisoning our democracy? How influential is this campaign by forces, especially emanating from Russia from a monetary perspective?

Daniel Silva: (37:13)
Well, the first part of the question first, as I point out, in the author's note, I did draw from the sins of a certain Frankfurt-based bank and applied them to my fictitious RhineBank. And I was talking to someone, a very important figure in the financial world, who helped me with the book and he described that bank as a rogue bank and that when he called that bank a rogue bank, it stuck in my mind and I ended up calling my bank RhineBank. Deutsche Banks, many, many sins are legendary at this point and its past behavior and conduct certainly helped me create my bank.

Daniel Silva: (38:16)
The truth is, I don't think we really have a grasp on how much money has made its way into the United States. I assume that Vladimir Putin owns property and shares of companies in the United States through intermediaries and cutouts. I'm not sure if Anthony would agree with me, but I think he probably does. People who launder money like the United States in Great Britain, because we have this enormous financial depth, there's just a lot of stuff out there to hide your money in, particularly in real estate. We allow anonymous purchases. We have people in the financial industry who are willing to soil their hands with these kinds of money. Miami and much of Florida are ground zero for this kind of activity.

Daniel Silva: (39:12)
A lot of it is criminal and more and more and more of it are kleptocrats. We have kleptocratic regimes around the world that are stealing money that they should be spending it on their people. And that money almost in most cases and nearly all cases has to be removed from the country that they are ruling and stashed someplace. And ultimately, I think much of it finds its way here. When the British released their report, a lot of the commentary at that time was that the British did a better job at dissecting the impact of money on their democracy and on their financial system, dirty Russian money that we haven't really quite gotten there yet. We haven't gotten our act together on figuring out exactly how much damage has been done by money on our political system.

Daniel Silva: (40:18)
I think if you look at the Trump campaign in a microcosm in 2016, you can see that money and the promise of money and the promise of Russian riches was how they wormed their way into that campaign. Paul Manafort was completely compromised by Russian money. He was in debt to Russians, millions from Russians and was in debt to Russians. It's a recipe for disaster.

John Darsie: (40:44)
And it's a pure coincidence that Trump, no other banking institution would lend to him except for Deutsche Bank. You talked about Florida being ground zero. There were some, let's call them sketchy real estate transactions involving Russian oligarchs and Donald Trump. And also we've discovered that Russian interests were laundering money through the NRA. So all things very relevant that you cover parallel tracks in your book. But moving away from the Russian angle a little bit, again part of our spy journey, talking about your writing process, you write a book every year. So it really means you have about six months to write. That's not a lot of time and you pack amazing stories, amazing amounts of research into that time. What's it like in your house when you're on deadline and what's your process? Do you sit down at your laptop and just type out ideas or what does that process look like?

Daniel Silva: (41:40)
The process is, and I just went through it a couple of weeks ago and the process is I want to be able to see about 100 pages of a novel in my head. When I can see 100 pages or so, I start working on it. I don't necessarily have any clue as to how it's going to end, but just if I have a clear enough vision to get going on something ... I'm not like Raymond Chandler, starting with a sentence or something like that, but I don't outline in detail. And I will tell you that that I'm going through it right now that already that the 100 pages that I started with in my head, two or three weeks ago, it doesn't really look much like that.

Daniel Silva: (42:32)
So I really work on my books, sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph, scene to scene. And I get to work nice and slowly for a while in the summertime in September and October, but boy, about Thanksgiving, I'm starting to get a little anxious because I've got a deadline coming up. After New Year, it's full on sprinting for the deadline. And so I decided to give myself another thing this year by throwing out my book. I threw out my ending and wrote a whole new ending. The last months of it are pretty awful, to be honest with you.

John Darsie: (43:18)
Your wife tells us that she sometimes hears laughter coming from your writing room. Is that something where you get into the characters? Do you feel that they're real and you're experiencing that story with them?

Daniel Silva: (43:30)
Yeah, when it's really, really working, when the magic is really, really happening, I'm just writing down what these characters are saying to one another. When I'm really in the moment, when I've really created a scene and put two familiar characters talking to one another, I'm just eavesdropping on them. And I know that sounds crazy. And Anthony right now is calling a medical professional. I can see him in the other shot. But when it's really working, I feel like I'm just eavesdropping on a scene that's going on inside my head. Sometimes, they will say things-

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:08)
I'm actually deflating for the rest of the summer because I can only read this once without knowing everything. You've left me in pain for another 364 days.

Daniel Silva: (44:21)
But the humor does find its way into the novel, I think the novels I should say, of its own accord. I don't necessarily try to make things funny, but one of the things that I discovered and hanging around with Israeli intelligence officers is they're funny guys. They are very, very smart, very worldly, incredibly dark, wonderful senses of humor. And Gabriel has that side to his character. He's quietly darkly funny.

John Darsie: (45:04)
Right. And last question I have before we let you go. There's a theme throughout all your books. It's a Hebrew phrase called Tikkun Olam. It means repair of the world. Talk about what Anthony mentioned earlier. Why is this idea of repairing the world so important to you and so important to Gabriel Allon?

Daniel Silva: (45:24)
Well, gosh, try to imagine the world that turned ... Gabriel should have been born in Berlin. His name should have been Frankel. He should have been living in Berlin, becoming a famous German artist, Gabriel Frankel. And things didn't work out that way because in 1933, Germany's democracy fell to pieces. They elected a madman. The world blew up into war. 6 million Jews at least were murdered. He ends up being born in Israel with a new name into a totally different circumstances and the circumstances that he should have been born into. And so why wouldn't you want to repair the world? Why wouldn't you want to make the world a better place?

Daniel Silva: (46:23)
And we can all do that in our daily lives. Just the smallest gestures, we can make the world a better place. And unfortunately, right now, there's a nihilism that's loose in the world. I would say what is Russia's foreign policy is nihilism. They don't believe in anything except raw power, the exercise of raw power. And we have enormous challenges facing us right now. And I think getting back to the broader point of this discussion, if democracy is going to succeed and Joe Biden has said this many, many times, it's got to prove itself that it can work. And by that it can, it can help people make their daily lives a little better. If we can help that woman who's working two jobs, if we can help her care for her children, that's a little bit of Tikkun Olam.

Daniel Silva: (47:25)
We can help people make their lives a little better, so that they might have a little bit of extra time and a little bit of extra money to be the best that they can be. That is what I think we should be striving for right now. And I think it will take the steam out of this ugly awful, I hate the word populism because I don't think it accurately describes what's going on right now.

John Darsie: (47:50)
Right.

Daniel Silva: (47:50)
If you take the steam out of this thing that's out there loose in our country right now.

John Darsie: (48:00)
Right. Well, Daniel, it's always a pleasure to have you on. Your books are fantastic. Anthony, hold it up one more time before we go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:06)
I'm holding at the front and the back. Also for all of you people there that just want to be green with envy, I have a signed one. Just get to that page before we allow the author to leave. So I was super excited about that. And so I want to appreciate you in a way that-

Daniel Silva: (48:26)
Let's see the sign one though. I saw it on social media.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:29)
I put it up. There it is. I just wanted to thank you for that.

Daniel Silva: (48:33)
469, 469.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:35)
You're a you're a sensational writer, Daniel, but in addition to that, you're telling us through stories what is really going on and what we all need to contemplate and think about. And so for those reasons, it's an entertaining book. It's a page turner. It's suspenseful, but it's also a brilliant exposition of our current zeitgeist. So thank you for writing it. And I'm looking forward to the next one. And you're going to break the record here, Silva. You're going to be on SALT almost as many times as me. John Darsie is going to let you come back.

Daniel Silva: (49:10)
I hope so. It's my favorite. I just love doing this with you guys. I really appreciate the fact that you had me back because it's just ...

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:19)
The pleasure is ours.

Daniel Silva: (49:19)
... a wonderful conversation and I love you guys and I really appreciate it.

John Darsie: (49:24)
Thank you, Daniel.

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:25)
The feeling is mutual.

John Darsie: (49:27)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Daniel Silva, the fantastic author. We highly recommend, if you haven't read all of the Gabriel Allon series as well as his other three books that you go out and read them. Great summer reads as Anthony mentioned. You'll pour through them. But just a reminder, if you miss any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website@salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel which is called SALTTube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active @SALTConference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook and please spread the word about the SALT Talks again.

John Darsie: (50:01)
If somebody's looking for a great summer read, they've come to the right place. Pick up one of Daniel's books. So in behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team. This is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Gillian Tett: Anthro-Vision | SALT Talks #235

“The other great shakeup in finance, which is in some ways driving the crypto world, is a shift in trust away from institutions and leaders, and towards the peer group, the crowd and technology.”

Gillian Tett is an Editor-at-Large for the Financial Times, where she is chair of the editorial board and editor-at-large, US. She has written about the financial instruments that were part of the cause of the financial crisis that started in the fourth quarter of 2007, such as CDOs, credit default swaps, SIVs, conduits, and SPVs. She became renowned for her early warning that a financial crisis was looming.

As part of her research while earning a PhD in anthropology, Gillian Tett visited and observed customs and rituals at Tajikistan weddings. She applies that same anthropology lens to the world of finance with her new book Anthro-Vision. With the coming AI revolution, Tett stresses the importance of also using a different type of AI, anthropology intelligence, in order to best handle tech disruptions and displacement in finance. Anthropology helps explain how the siloed nature of communities has contributed to the current state of American politics. It also helps explain a shift in trust away from institutions, contributing to the rise of cryptocurrencies and other tech-enabled peer-to-peer technologies.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Gillian Tett.jpeg

Gillian Tett

Editor-at-Large

Financial Times

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

6:07 - Anthropology intelligence

8:15 - Anthropology in finance

14:16 - Cambridge Analytica

17:55 - Anthropology and the pandemic

22:28 - Checks and balances

25:15 - Donald Trump’s communication style

29:50 - Social media effects

32:48 - Societal divide around mask-wearing

34:32 - Tech disruptions in finance

38:09 - Cryptocurrencies

40:54 - Societal anxieties

TRANSCRIPT

John Darcy: (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. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 and welcome our guests on SALT Talks today who'll be speaking at that conference as well. 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 Darcy: (00:48)
We're very excited today to welcome Gillian Tett to SALT Talks. Gillian today serves as the Chair of the Editorial Board and Editor at large U.S. of the Financial Times. She writes weekly columns covering a range of economic, financial, political, and social issues. She's also the co-founder of FT's Moral Money, which is a twice weekly newsletter that tracks the ESG revolution in business and finance, which has grown to be a staple Financial Times product.

John Darcy: (01:14)
In 2020 and 2021, Moral Money won the SABEW Best Newsletter Award as well. Gillian is the author of The Silo Effect, which looks at the global economy and financial system through the lens of cultural anthropology. She also authored Fool's Gold, which is a 2009 New York Times bestseller and financial book of the year at the inaugural Spear's Book Awards. Her next book, her most recent book is called Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See Life and Business and it was released in June of 2021, again, a fantastic book using Gillian's PhD in anthropology which not every business journalist has and applying that lens to the way we look at business economics and investing.

John Darcy: (01:56)
Gillian has received honorary degrees from the University of Exeter, the University of Miami, St. Andrew's, London University, Carnegie Mellon, Baruch, and an honorary doctorate from Lancaster University in the UK in addition to that PhD from Cambridge in cultural anthropology that I mentioned before. But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who is the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony has a couple of nice degrees but not quite as many as Gillian. He also definitely doesn't have a PhD in anthropology.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:27)
And no honorary degrees. Again, we're too politically toxic for an honorary degree in this woke place, John.

John Darcy: (02:34)
They're trying to take away Anthony's degrees at this point, rather than giving him new honorary degrees.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:38)
100%. So far Harvard still wants the donations, Gillian, so I'm okay. They're not quite that woke yet but we'll discuss that on another SALT Talk.

Gillian Tett: (02:49)
But I think you have degrees from the School of Life in every possible sense and the school of political life too, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:55)
Well, so the 11 day PhD in Washington lunacy. But Gillian, thank you so much for joining us. Again, another brilliant book, I've read two of your prior books, the one on JPMorgan and Bear Stearns and the derivative markets before the crash well-timed book, The Silo Effect, which I thought was another brilliant assessment of our living in our own little echo chamber. And now you're taking your life's work in study of anthropology, your work as a journalist and you're synthesizing it for us people. But before you get there, why did you decide to become a journalist and a writer? Where did you grow up? What was your inspiration for your life?

Gillian Tett: (03:39)
Well, if I certainly that, it basically explained a bit why I wrote the book because I am fundamentally completely weird by most people's standards, particularly by the standards of anyone working in finance and market. I spent the last 25 years as a financial journalist writing about finance, business, politics, tech, all the stuff that you've swum in all your life, Anthony but I actually started my career as an anthropologist, someone dedicated to the study of human culture, working in a place called Soviet Tajikistan, that's just north of Afghanistan, looking at the practices, symbols, ceremonies, rituals, belief systems of people in Tajikistan. I looked particularly at marriage rituals.

Gillian Tett: (04:24)
And a lot of people were saying "Well, that's really weird. Why would you go from that kind of cultural analysis, exotic stuff into writing about Wall Street?" And essentially I believe they're intimately connected and that's really what I said I was doing the book.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:40)
Well, they are connected but expound as to why they are connected.

Gillian Tett: (04:46)
They're connected because basically we are all human and humans everywhere in the world, whether they're on Wall Street, whether they're on a trading floor, whether they're in a C-suite or in the White House, or if they are in a Tajik village. We're all human social creatures, we operate according to all kinds of weird cultural practices that we absorb from our environment that always seems strange to everyone else but natural to ourselves. We're all shaped by rituals and symbols and ceremonies and we need to understand these cultural patterns and assumptions to work out what drives us, because if we ignore them, if we think that we are all as logical and rational as robots, then we are liable to be constantly tripped up by nasty surprises.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:34)
Well, I think that that's a brilliant part of the book. I'm just going to hold the book up for everybody because I like promoting the books of my friends. It's Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See in Business and Life. But I think it's an old way actually. I think that's the most interesting thing about your book. When I read it, it's an old way to look at things. You're basically stripping off the technology, you're stripping off of all the veneer that we put on ourselves today and looking at us from a historical perspective about how we behave with each other. Is that a fair assessment of the book?

Gillian Tett: (06:06)
I think Anthony, if you think on it, in some ways it is a very old way and it suggests that we, ultra modern sophisticated humans aren't that different from our ancestors or from people elsewhere in the world. But although that is in some ways incredibly obvious, it is amazing how often we forget it today, partly because anybody who's working in finance and markets and business has the illusion that they're operating in an ultra sophisticated world shaped by computers, shaped by rational expectations to use the economic framework that's tossed around so much in the markets. And also there's something really important which is the rise of artificial intelligence, big data sets and all the other computerized tools.

Gillian Tett: (06:54)
And one of the core messages in my book is that tools like AI are incredibly important and incredibly useful. They really can revolutionize finance, revolutionize a lot of business processes. But the problem with these tools is that they assume that human beings are rational and consistent, they tend to work by gathering data from the recent past and extrapolating that into the future and assuming that somehow correlation is causation, which of course we all know it isn't and they tend to ignore the context of all the models and all these big data sets. So what I'm really arguing in the book is a world that's being overrun by AI, artificial intelligence, neither another type of AI, anthropology intelligence, just to make sense of the context and consequences and the cultural patterns that shape us all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:49)
You mentioned rituals and I want to go there first before I dive into the book. And you've observed Wall Street and business and Western, Eastern business cultures, tell me a Wall Street ritual. Let's say that you were Jane Goodall and this was National Geographic and you had the binoculars on and you were observing the Wall Street primates in their habitat. And I want you to channel Richard Attenborough and... Tell me about those people. What are they like?

Gillian Tett: (08:17)
A lot of people when they think about Wall Street rituals, think about some of the more dramatic events like going to bars or buying things on trading floors or right in the bottom of stock exchange. And those rituals matter. But one of the most important rituals is something that we've not been able to do for the last year and a half, which was the investment banking conference and investment banking conferences are fascinating as rituals because in many ways, they're very similar to the gigantic ceremonial events that were weddings in the Tajikistan location where I did my PhD research. What investment banking conferences do like ritualistic weddings, is unite a scattered tribe of people, enable people to come together to reaffirm their social ties and to not just recreate social ties but also to share a common world view.

Gillian Tett: (09:12)
They have rituals which essentially reflect their shared core worldview and assumptions and then reproduce it amongst that network. And if you look at the ceremonies and rituals that go with your average investment banking conference, including I would imagine something like the SALT event, you can really see that shared worldview and see both the perils and the promise of that shared worldview. And I used that kind of analysis back in 2005 with an investment banking conference. In fact, it was the European Securitization Forum conference. And I analyzed the conference and what I saw then enabled me to predict the 2008 financial crisis.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:56)
And you did that in your book, more or less that first book that I read, you explained that the derivatives were being layered on top of each other and that the full risk assessment was cloudy at best and that things were being rated AAA and perhaps were not being rated AAA but it was a ritual, meaning there was a-

Gillian Tett: (10:15)
You can sit there and say, well, what went wrong with the 2008 financial crisis? You can look at it in terms of capital flows and numbers and ratings and all that kind of stuff. All you can say, there was a fundamental human process going on. You had a group of banknotes, there was such a tight knit tribe that they spoke in languages no one else understood, no one outside the tribe understood what they were talking about when they talked about things like CDOs and they didn't expect anyone else to understand. It gave them power controlling that language a bit like the priests and the medieval Catholic churches spoke Latin and no one else did, and they expected the congregation just to sit quietly and lap it up.

Gillian Tett: (10:57)
But also the vision they had of finance, that creation mythology, because every group has a creation mythology. The creation mythology essentially implied that they were doing this amazing thing with liquification, creating liquid markets. So, would be good for everyone. But they couldn't see the contradictions in their creation mythology and there were fundamental contradictions there like the fact that the products they were creating were supposed to be making markets more liquid but actually it was so complex and no one could trade them.

Gillian Tett: (11:32)
They couldn't see those contradictions precisely because they were in such a ghetto or a silo and also none of the PowerPoints in their ritualistic events had any faces or people that written people, the end user out of that financial creations. And that reflected a mentality that was absolutely beset with tunnel vision and had no sense of the consequences of what was happening in terms of risk-taking. And there's a wonderful scene in the book, Michael Lewis's book, The Big Short in the movie where the hedge fund trainers go down and meet a lap dancer in Florida who has actually taken out subprime mortgages. You're nodding, Anthony, because you probably remember that scene.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:18)
I do remember that scene, it was one of the better scenes in the book and I read the book 12 years ago, but continue.

Gillian Tett: (12:23)
When the hedge fund traders met that, I think it was a pole dancer or a lap dancer, they realized-

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:30)
That's rituals, John, just so you know, not that I read the book or anything. Okay, keep going.

Gillian Tett: (12:35)
When they met her, they basically said, "Wow, subprime mortgages have been used like that?" This is the kind of shock, this is kind of nuts." And the thing that was nuts was not the fact that the hedge fund traders realized it, it was a fact that no one else did because there were so beset with tunnel vision. So basically my book is simply a call for us to bust out of our tunnel vision, get a sense of lateral vision, look at the wider world like an anthropologist to really get out and meet some real life people, look at the rituals and cultural patterns we normally ignore because that's the only way to guard against risk properly and to get savvy about what could be about to hit us in financial markets or anything else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:20)
Listen, I think it's a brilliant assessment of what is going on. You also mentioned in the book that data is effectively the new oil. It has become this very valuable commodity on planet earth, it's manipulated by people like Oxford Analytica, it's used for forces of good but also for forces of evil. Tell us about what you write about oil being... sorry data being the new oil.

Gillian Tett: (13:48)
Well, I think the data is incredibly important. I do tell a story of it's actually Cambridge Analytica, not Oxford Analytica, but it's all posh English colleges.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:56)
I meant to say Cambridge's Oxford Analytica, my apologies to Oxford Analytica, I'm sorry, but I meant to say Cambridge first. You know, the great thing about me, Gillian, because I'm an Italian kid from Long Island, nobody cares. I don't even bother pronouncing the names right because no one assumes I'm going to pronounce them right anyway, I leave that up to John Darsie to figure out.

Gillian Tett: (14:17)
Well, funnily enough, the reason why the data company was called Cambridge Analytica was precisely because the name Cambridge sounds very auspicious and got a lot of credibility for an American audience. Strangely enough, someone else tried to copy Cambridge Analytica the data company and they based it in the city of Oxford down in Mississippi to try and create the same aura. So your mistake, Anthony, was exactly the same kind of idea that they were trying to capture in the marketing. But Cambridge Analytica was one of the breed of tech companies that arose starting from about 2012 to use data to predict the future through bringing up enormous amounts of information about what we're doing in cyberspace. And not just predict the future, to also try and manipulate people by sending out targeted messages.

Gillian Tett: (15:10)
In some ways, no different from advertising but what Cambridge Analytica did was to apply these tools into the political space, creating some incredible controversy in the 2016 election as you know, Anthony. And one of the things I argued in his book is that what's happening in this world of data is incredibly important not just in political times but also in economic times because this type of activity does not easily fit into any economist models nor into investors models when they're trying to value companies. And the reason is really simple, money is not involved. Money is not involved.

Gillian Tett: (15:53)
And economists are trained to think about everything in terms of money. It's one of the big shortfalls of the whole profession that they can't count things unless it's expressed in monetary forms. And the problem with data is actually what's going on is a back to trade in the sense that every day in cyberspace, we're giving up information in exchange for getting back services like Gmail or Google Maps or anything like that. And we normally express this in terms of a negative, i.e it's free, there's no money involved, but I argue in the book to often use a concept that's very common anthropology which is barter, which is basically what's going on. And so we need to start counting the barter trade, we need to start recognizing it because if nothing else, if you don't start talking openly about barter, you have no hopes of building a tech sector that feels more ethical to consumers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:49)
Yeah. Listen, I think it's well said and I'm going to now synthesize one of your last books with this book, "The Silo Effect about how we tunnel into our own confirmed biases and we live in our new little news silo or cultural eco centric, if you will silo, our ecosystem is quite narrow despite globalization. And one of the weird things in my observation, last book, I was like wow, we're becoming more globalized, the result of which it makes many people fearful and they were retrenched into a silo. And in this book, what I love is that you basically now are explaining because of that, we get a lot of fear related to information, conspiracy theory, disinformation, fake news and this manifested itself with the COVID-19 pandemic and the tragedy of that. So tell us a little bit about your observation of how our society in most, the global society and us as individuals handled the tragedy of COVID-19.

Gillian Tett: (17:56)
Well, in many ways, my book Anthro-Vision tries to provide some answers to the questions I raised in the book of The Silo Effect because the Silo Effect says that we're all incredibly prone to silos, we're all retreating into tunnel vision and tribes and Anthro-Vision says well, yes, as a way to bust out of it and to actually act and think more like an anthropologist and to try and get a sense of lateral vision, to try and look at the entire picture and above all else, what I'm calling for in this book is an effort to try and think yourself into the minds and lives of people who seem different from you, not just so that you can empathize with other people but that you can also flip the lens and look back at yourself with more clarity, because there's a wonderful Chinese proverb which is that a fish can't see water.

Gillian Tett: (18:45)
We can never see ourselves clearly unless we actually make an effort to jump out of our fish bowl, go and swim with other fishery bed or even ask the other fish what they think about our fish bowl and then look back. So it's a kind of win-win having the anthropology mindset, you both understand others better and you understand yourself. And that sounds really abstract, but let me just give you two examples of how this would have played out in the pandemic if we had more policymakers who thought like anthropologists.

Gillian Tett: (19:13)
Firstly, we would not have ignored what was happening on the other side of the world in a strange, weird place called Wu Han, because guess what? Most people did ignore that, it seemed long way away and they just turned their eyes away from it. Most people thought like Donald Trump when he said that African countries were "shitholes" people went, "Ooh, that's horrible, that's terrible." But actually most of us have the same instinct to shy away from places like Africa when they find the epidemics, rather than feel empathy to try and understand what's going on."

Gillian Tett: (19:47)
So a bit of empathy for other experiences would have helped us a lot to understand what to expect with COVID. It would have also shown us some of the possible solutions for how to respond. There's a lot of anthropologists who have studied mask culture, the use of face masks in Asia in relation to the Asian pandemics. I made the point that the reason why masks are useful is not just because of medical science, having that fabric stopping the viruses, it's also useful because of behavioral impacts. A mask is a very powerful, psychological prompt, a ritual, you can actually use each day to remind yourself to change your behavior.

Gillian Tett: (20:28)
And it also has a powerful cultural signaling aspect that if you put a mask on, you signal that you're being respectful to other people and thinking about the wider good. So we could have learned all that beforehand if we'd bothered to get some empathy, but also if people had looked at America with outsider eyes before 2020 and asked whether America was ready to cope with a pandemic or not, they would have seen all of these holes and problems in the healthcare system. And just to cite one tiny example, the problems in having federal structures run some things but local structures run another and they're just not joined up at all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:13)
Listen, I think it's excellent but if there's a core message that you have in this book is that we have intellectual superiority complexes and we don't listen to people. You tell this great story about Paul Otellini, who was the chief executive of Intel, where anthropologists were brought in to try to shake the minds of the engineers and you write in the book that they were dismissed, ignored or derided and the mindset of the highly trained engineers and executives tended to assume that everyone did or should, and I think that's the operative, they did or should think like them. And I think when I read chapter by chapter, it's more of a bunch of blockheads walled off from each other, is basically what the message is, break the walls down. Am I getting the right gist of it?

Gillian Tett: (22:10)
Yeah. Another easy way to say, Anthony, is to invoke a principle which is fundamental to American political structures and I know that you hold very dear, which is checks and balances.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
No question and it saved the civilization, saved the democracy actually, and probably saved people's lives at the end of the day.

Gillian Tett: (22:30)
As in the checks and balances in America's great political system are absolutely something which are fundamental. Checks and balances should be part of anybody's thinking at work, on the trading floor, in business, in the C-suite. And what I mean by that is we all have a tendency to assume that the way that we think is natural and inevitable and how everyone should think if they don't already think that way. It's just part of being human, just like being angry is being part of human. But we don't think that actually just succumbing to anger as a good thing, we realize we have to get over it. And so we have to get over this idea that we can assume that everyone else thinks the way that we can. And in a company like Intel where I cite the Intel engineers who actually brought in an anthropologist to help them, it was a shock for the 25 year old Silicon Valley geeks to realize that the rest of the world didn't think like they do when it came to products.

Gillian Tett: (23:27)
And actually if you're trying to design a device or gadget that might work for an 80 year old Indian grandmother, you cannot have the same assumptions that you have when you're a product designer sitting in Silicon Valley. But that same point is played out over and over again in business. And the simple message of anthropology is, if you have checks and balances, if you have a diversity of views inside a structural office, if you have ways of exposing yourself to the minds of others, if you simply have a way of getting some common sense into your thinking, and by that, I mean a common view of people who are not exactly like you, you will have a better chance of managing risks and also seeing new opportunities and that's as true in the financial world as it is in tech sector, Silicon Valley or anywhere else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:22)
Before I turn it over to my erstwhile cohost who I was told earlier today should have his own show, John Darsie, that's what I was told. He was like stabbing me in the chest, but I do-

John Darcy: (24:35)
I spoke to my mom earlier because I don't know [crosstalk 00:24:37]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:36)
No, no, but I begrudgingly agreed with your fan, I said yes, he's extremely talented and he deserves his own show. Before I turn it over to John Darsie, I want to go to bigly, which is a chapter in the book about understanding Donald Trump. And there are some brilliant insights there. One of them is Mr. Trump's language, the use of his language and the appeal of it. And then secondarily, obviously this whole silo effect where people have these reinforced biases Mr. Trump's very adeptly preyed upon. And so I want you to comment on that before I turn it over to the new television star.

Gillian Tett: (25:15)
Well, I should congratulate you, Anthony, for getting through a whole 20 minutes of conversation without mentioning the T word, Donald Trump.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:22)
Well, I couldn't avoid it actually because it was such an important, I thought a chapter in your book.

Gillian Tett: (25:29)
Yeah, I do have a chapter all about bigly and Trump. And actually I should stress that the chapter actually is not just about Trump, it's actually about journalists and myself, because one of the things I should say upfront and strengths is that journalists are prone to tunnel vision and tribalism as anybody else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:45)
You do point out that a lot of journalists missed the appeal of him, but I don't mean to interrupt, but I thought that was another brilliant assessment.

Gillian Tett: (25:52)
Well, I would put myself in that category. Hey, I'm human too, like everybody else, I can't always see the water in which I swim in as a journalistic fish. We're all shaped by cochlear assumptions and biases, myself included. And one of the things I think fascinating about journalists is that I tell the story that when Donald Trump said the word bigly during the 2016 campaign, the banks, all the journalists I knew instinctively laughed because we found it funny. And that's like okay, so we find it funny but the question to ask is, why do we find it funny? And in that moment of laughter, we basically all collectively portrayed the fact that we had this in-built arrogance and assumption that the only people in America who have the right to have power are those who have command of words and language.

Gillian Tett: (26:45)
That's one of the few acceptable forms of snobbery in America has been around having to monitor words and education. And that is so baked into us as journalists because guess what? We sweeten words every day, that's our craft, that we assume that everyone else thinks like us. Well, newsflash, they don't. The story of 2016 is actually, there's a lot of people who resent the arrogance or elitism of the educated people who control words. And the type of communication style that Donald Trump was using was very much based on non-verbal forms of communication as much as anything else.

Gillian Tett: (27:21)
I tell the story in the book that I went along on the advice of a friend to see a wrestling match. And of course Donald Trump had originally become well-known to many television viewers in America, not through the apprentice but through wrestling and until you've experienced the wrestling match and seen how visceral and nonverbal the communication is, you see the stage managed aggression and conflict and the name calling, which is so similar to crooked Hillary or Little Marco Rubio, and the chanting and the fact that the audience takes what is happening seriously, but not literally. Until you've seen that, you don't realize that that was a performative style that Donald Trump borrowed lock stock and barrel for his own political campaigns. It worked really well because it connected very deeply with a lot of voters.

Gillian Tett: (28:11)
And the key point is this, most educated links didn't even realize that was going on because they were in their own fishbowl and had never been to a wrestling match. So frankly, journalist like everyone else is a jump out the fishbowls, go and see the world more widely. And frankly, we all need to show a bit more humility to recognize our way of looking at the world thinking is not the only way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:36)
I think it was brilliant. Of course I also fell prey to it when he was attacking me, I called him the fattest president since William Howard Taft, Gillian. And that knocked me off of Twitter for 12 hours. And that wasn't even inspired by you, John Darsie, that was my own editorial commenting. So I'm going to turn it over to you now. Go ahead, Darsie.

John Darcy: (28:58)
Yeah, I can't take credit for that one, but you did get put on Twitter suspension, I remember that was interesting time. But Gillian, thanks so much for joining us, I'm always fascinated by your work. You talked a lot about human nature, obviously the study of anthropology is about human nature and social constructs and our role has obviously been changed by the internet and by the advent of social media. I'm curious your view on how much of social media and the echo chambers that we find there are a reflection of our human nature, they just found a new outlet for which to create these silos or these echo chambers, and how much have we been changed? How much has our society been changed by the internet, by social media, which a lot of people like to refer as is anti-social media where human interaction, especially during the pandemic has waned? How has it changed us or is it merely just a reflection of the ingrained DNA that we always experience?

Gillian Tett: (29:49)
Well, John, I think that's such a fantastic question. And what I think has happened is this, when the internet was started and social media was started, it held out the promise of connecting us all and breaking down silos and giving everyone access to everyone else and information. But what actually happened was that when we went online, we had such information overload that we automatically started re-congregating in silos and tribes just to manage this information overload. And there's something very important about the internet, which is that it creates the ability to customize our individual experiences. We really live in a world of generation scene, generation customization, where we don't just think that the world revolves around us, that where the center of the world, not that we're fitting into the world, but increasingly that we can customize the world using these digital tools.

Gillian Tett: (30:46)
You go back 50 years ago or so when people like myself or Anthony were growing up and we had vital records or cassettes of music which were preselected by someone else. Today's kids want their own playlist. And the same is true about how we get information online and how we present our identities. We customize it all the time and the more we do that, the more we tend to not just reflect the tribalism we have in the real world, we actually intensify it. And we go down these rabbit holes of customized information and customized identity and customized tribalism.

Gillian Tett: (31:22)
And in many ways, the internet, the COVID-19 lockdown has made it worse because not only have we been physically trapped in small spaces, we've been trapped with people who are just like us, i.e our social potable family. We haven't been colliding with different people every five minutes on the street or out and about. And also many of us have actually been more trapped mentally in cyberspace too as a result. And one of the other great messages I really want to stress is after COVID, we need to seize every opportunity we possibly can to bust out of our fishbowls, out of our ghettos, out of our rabbit holes, and go out and encounter the real world and other people who are not like us.

John Darcy: (32:11)
And I think COVID-19 in a number of ways was a manifestation of people's ingrained biases and the echo chambers that they tend to live in or the silos they tend to live in. And you write about the pandemic in the book and you and Anthony talked about it briefly earlier, but in your view, why is there still such a divide? It's almost a political divide between mask wearing, between vaccines, and then on the other side, the vaccine hesitant people that even at the height of the pandemic, viewed wearing a mask is sort of insulting to their own dignity that they would be forced to or asked to wear a mask. Why is there such a divide there? And what does that tell us about human nature?

Gillian Tett: (32:48)
Well, it's partly an issue of misinformation. As Anthony said, there's been tremendous amount of echo chambers and misinformation often deliberately planted. It's partly a question of political tribalism and symbols. For a long period of time, mask wearing became a symbol of your political allegiance, and that is just tragic. And it's partly because there are simply aren't a lot about glitz to enable people to collide with each other in the unexpected and this is really alarming. And we're seeing the very tangible implications and impacts of it. And one of the things that we've learned in COVID is that we are all interconnected, we're all exposed to each other but we don't understand each other, and that's very dangerous.

John Darcy: (33:33)
You talked about investment conferences. Obviously we run a big one, the SALT Conference, there's all kinds of other rituals and constructs that exist in the financial system in the financial industry that are being heavily disrupted by technology FinTech. I listened to a recent podcast with Marc Andreessen from a16z, he was making the analogy of blacksmiths. We used to get around on horses, the blacksmith put horse shoes on horses, they were an integral part of our society. As soon as the automobile was invented, those people either lost a significant portion of their income, lost their jobs, had to reinvent themselves. How much of that do you foresee in the financial industry? We obviously have things like crypto digital assets, blockchain that are reducing number of intermediaries we need for certain financial transactions and elements of the economy. How much of the financial system do you think is just going to shrink and people are going to have to adapt to the times, and what does that do to the psychology of our society?

Gillian Tett: (34:33)
Well, I think the financial industry is indeed undergoing quite a big shake up and change. And ironically back in 2008, everyone thought the financial crisis was going to be this massive shakeout moment. And it shook things up for a bit, but not dramatically. In some ways, the rapid rise of digitization which has been accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways may end up being more important than 2008 for the shakeout process. So what you are seeing right now is that a number of intermediate jobs are being knocked out, you are seeing rising use of digitalization and AI and other forms of robot finance coming into the markets. You're not seeing a complete dash online into digital. One of the other parts of my book talks about the fact that offices don't exist just because they bring people together to clearly delineate tasks, they're also very important as social spaces.

Gillian Tett: (35:30)
And it's a great irony that anthropologists have studied that although financial traders have had the ability to trade from home on a Bloomberg terminal since the year 2000, in reality, banks are built bigger on bigger trading floors, physical trading floors because they know there's merit in people being in the office together and interacting. And it's no surprise that banks like JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley and others are all saying that their employees need to come back into the office face-to-face now because they know there's value and also the human creatures being together and interacting in nonverbal ways.

Gillian Tett: (36:07)
But in spite of all that, I think the other great shakeup in finance right now which in some way is driving so much the cryptocurrency world is a shift in patterns of trust away from institutional trust and trust in people, trust in institutions and leaders into trust in the peer group, the crowd and trust in technology. And that's really at the heart of a lot of the rise of Ether, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies right now and that's also incredibly important. And also frankly, best understood from an anthropological perspective rather than an economist perspective.

Gillian Tett: (36:43)
Another message in my book is if you want to understand how money works, don't treat it like a branch of Newtonian physics. As Richard Feynman once said, the great physicist, if Adams items talked to each other, we couldn't do physics. The reality is if traders and finances talked to each other, you can't treat it like a branch of Newtonian physics, you have to look at how social science and social patterns interact with economics and finance.

John Darcy: (37:09)
And your compatriot, Neil Ferguson has written a lot about this, the history of money and there's a lot of great writings about Bitcoin, bullish cases for Bitcoin about just the evolution of what money has been historically. As a species, we've always collected trinkets and rocks and precious metals and totems and things like that to represent and store value. So if you look at Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies as just the latest evolution of that that's tailored for an internet age in a digital age, and it's not so ridiculous, but Bitcoin is such a polarizing topic and cryptocurrencies are such a polarizing topic. You see a certain group of people that are very obstinate and very resistant to the idea that this is a legitimate asset class and a legitimate part of the future and you see other people that are so rapidly bullish on Bitcoin, that it defies any level of logic. Why do you think those two camps exist and who are those two groups of people and what shapes their view of cryptocurrency?

Gillian Tett: (38:10)
Well, it's partly a question of whether you think that digitalization and technology is good and trustworthy or not, and that's just something that divides people, but it's also frankly about power. And it's very important to recognize that the current system we have is based on trust in institutions as much as anything else, is based on trust in central banks, and to a lesser extent, trust in private sector banks as well. And it's really based on a vertical axis of the trust which is what underpins most of our current society. But there's always been another axis of trust which is a horizontal axis of trust.

Gillian Tett: (38:43)
You can trust in the crowd, trust in your peer group. And that used to just operate on a very small scale in small face-to-face communities where everyone could eyeball everyone else and trust each other, but digitalization has brought around ways of building trust across large groups in terms of trusting either in online peer reviews and ratings systems and that's what drives things like Uber or Airbnb, you get in a stranger's car because you trust that the crowd has rated this person. Or you have trust in collective competing technology and that's really what is driving a lot of cryptocurrency at the moment.

Gillian Tett: (39:24)
So you have this clash between institutional trust and peer group trust, or if you'd like to use Neil Ferguson's metaphor between a tower or the type of towers that used to dominate, medieval European cities or squares, squares where crowds would congregate. And it's a inevitable aspect of human nature that people who benefit from institutional trust, who wield it, control it, shape it, never like being challenged by crowds or by horizontal trust because guess what, they're going to lose power. So that's part of what's going on at the moment as well I think.

John Darcy: (40:01)
That's fantastic. Last question I want to ask you, and it's about anxiety, a feeling of anxiety that feels to be gripping the world right now. And I'm curious whether that's something that as someone who's living in the present day, we feel that anxiety and assign a higher value to it than anxiety has existed throughout civilization. There's anxiety about the levels of debt we have on a national level, on a household level about central banking and all the money they're pumping into the system and what implications that has for the future, the rise of technology, the implications of that on our dignity as workers, whether we're going to be displaced by machines and also about things like terrorism and advanced weaponry and what does that mean for our world? Is that something that throughout history, there's been these levels of anxiety about change and about technological growth, or is it something that today based on your studies, it feels like it's above and beyond what it's been historically?

Gillian Tett: (40:55)
Well, I think that's such a great question, John. I think the issue is this, that profound uncertainty has beset every community in history. The difference today is that we think that because we have these wonderful computers and modeling techniques, that we have the ability to somehow muster the future, muster time, predict what's going to happen. And in many ways, that is exactly what has happened the last few decades. We collectively have developed these fantastic intellectual tools like economic models, big data sets, like corporate balance sheets, medical science, all of which tries to not merely help us navigate where we're going right now but predict the future too. And we put trust in these tools over and over again. And what we realized in the last decade ever since 2008 is they're not perfect, they break down, the world is a lot more uncertain than people expect.

Gillian Tett: (41:51)
We are prone to what the U.S. military calls VUCA, standing for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. And one of the other messages of my book is that if you rely just on those tools like economic models, big data sets, or corporate balance sheets to navigate the world with without recognizing the wider context and consequences and culture, you're like somebody walking through a dark world with a compass. Your compass can be brilliant and navigating, you don't want to throw your compass away, but if you just walked to that world and look down at your compass all the time, staring at the dark and never lift your eyes, you will trip over a tree root or walk into a tree.

Gillian Tett: (42:35)
And so an appeal for Anthro-Vision is really an appeal for people to look up, look around, see the context and the culture in which they're operating, in which they create those tools and see the consequences of what they're doing to get lateral vision instead of the kind of tunnel vision that has so marred so many of us in recent years.

John Darcy: (42:57)
Well, that was very comforting for my anxiety that humanity is still going to play a role in our world despite AI, despite the growth of big data, despite all this technological innovation we're seeing around us. So Gillian, thank you so much for joining us today on SALT Talks. Anthony, hold up her book one more time. It's called Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See in Business and Life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:18)
It's another brilliant book and a great assessment of what's going on in our world. Gillian, thank you for joining us and we'll see at the SALT Conference in a few months.

Gillian Tett: (43:27)
Absolutely. Well, thank you both very much indeed for your interest. Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:32)
Okay, we'll see you soon.

John Darcy: (43:32)
Thank you, Gillian and thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Gillian Tett of the FT, fantastic newsletter, I can't recommend highly enough Moral Money that's published twice a week that Gillian leads that team over the Financial Times. But just reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website, it's salt.org/talksondemand, as well as on our YouTube channel which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media at SALT Conferences where we're most active. We live tweet all these episodes and broadcast them there. So please follow us on Twitter, follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks. We love featuring great authors and we think Anthro-Vision is a book that has to be on your must read list for 2021.

John Darcy: (44:16)
But on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Gary Ginsberg: First Friends | SALT Talks #234

“I’ve always been fascinated by the American presidency… I started observing leaders and the people they kept around them. I started to see the influence their closest friends had on them. They could speak to the leader in a way no one else could.”

Gary Ginsberg is the Author of “First Friends: The Powerful, Unsung (And Unelected) People Who Shaped Our Presidents”. He is also a lawyer, American political operative and corporate adviser, serving as a strategist in both the public and private sectors for more than 25 years. He was most recently Senior Vice President and Global Head of Communications at SoftBank Group Corp. before resigning in 2020. Before joining SoftBank, Ginsberg served as Executive Vice President of Corporate Marketing and Communications at Time Warner and as Executive Vice President of Global Marketing and Corporate Affairs at News Corp.

Early in his career, Gary Ginsberg noticed that most political leaders had a at least one friend offering unfiltered thoughts. His latest book, First Friends, takes a look at the outsized roles played by the closest friends and confidantes of American presidents. Ginsberg focuses on a handful of American presidents and the impact each “First Friend” had as informal advisors. In this Salt Talk, Ginsberg evaluates the most influential friends of American presidents: Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Clinton, Harry Truman and Joe Biden.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Gary Ginsberg

Author

First Friends

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

4:52 - Presidents’ First Friends

8:27 - Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed

11:44 - FDR and Daisy Suckley

14:27 - JFK and David Ormsby-Gore

18:48 - Thomas Jefferson and James Madison

22:01 - Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan

27:20 - Franklin Pierce and Nathaniel Hawthorne

29:58 - Harry Truman and Eddie Jacobson

32:14 - Joe Biden and Ted Kaufman

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 talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 here in our home city of New York for the first time. But our goal at those conferences and on these 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, important ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Gary Ginsberg to SALT Talks. Gary grew up in Buffalo, New York home to two U.S. Presidents.

John Darsie: (00:55)
He's a lawyer by training, but he spent his professional career at the intersection of media, politics, and law. He wrote a great book that we'll talk about in just a second. He previously worked for the Clinton administration, was a senior editor and counsel at the political magazine George, and then spent the next two decades in executive positions in media and technology at News Corp, Time Warner, and then most recently at SoftBank. He's published pieces in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and was an on-air political contributor in the early days of MSNBC. He lives in New York City with his wife and two sons. The book that he just published is called First Friends, and it's a fascinating read about the close friends of several U.S. Presidents that ended up shaping American history and having a big impact on the presidents that they served with.

John Darsie: (01:42)
A netbook comes out July 6th, so if you're out at the beach over the holiday weekend, look in your bookstores for that new book, First Friends. But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also an author himself. And I have to add, since we're talking about politics today, Anthony spent, what is it? 11 days, Anthony? Working in politics. But we think that's the end of his political career, but you never know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:13)
Gary, he brings it up all the time. It happened four million years ago. Let me just hold on a second because I'm on the phone with my CFO. I just want to make sure that my W2 is not going to John Darsie right now. He sits in my office. He's taking over. Just please make sure it's not going to John Darsie. Thank you. Okay, hold on a second, Gary. So Gary.

Gary Ginsberg: (02:34)
Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:35)
Buffalo, New York. My wife went to the University of Buffalo. It's the second largest city in this great state, the empire state. It is a unique place, so I want you to describe Buffalo to people that have never been to Buffalo. And I'm going to have a little tell here. I have, obviously, family members in Buffalo visit often, and my family's originally from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which is a lot like Buffalo, as you know. So go ahead, tell us about Buffalo for those that don't know Buffalo, and how you grew up.

Gary Ginsberg: (03:06)
Well, Buffalo gets a bad rap, Anthony, as you know, for being snowbound, hardscrabble, bad luck city. It was the fifth largest city in the United States at the turn of the last century. And then William McKinley gets assassinated and basically, the fortunes of the city go down from there. But I grew up in a city that is the queen city. It's a city of good neighbors, It's a city of hardworking people. It's a blue collar city where people work hard. They play hard. They love their Buffalo Bills. I have loved the Buffalo Bills since I was old enough to breathe. It's a tough team to follow, tough team to love, but I think our fortunes are looking really up, as the city is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:52)
And you got great food. It's a great culture.

Gary Ginsberg: (03:54)
Great food. Great wings. Beef on Weck. City's got everything.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:00)
And listen, as you said, it was-

Gary Ginsberg: (04:02)
And a socialist mayor. A new, socialist mayor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:06)
Well, you probably like that a little bit more than I do. All right. But I just think it's important to bring up your background because Buffalo, when I think of that city, I think of friendship. You're writing a book about First Friends, the new book, which I found fascinating. Obviously, I have an interest in politics and it is illuminating to me that it's a presidency of one man, or soon to be one woman. Eventually, I expect that to happen, but let's just use the masculine term right now because of the last 46 presidents. It's a presidency of one man, but it's really a presidency of many confidants and people that that one person has to rely on. And so tell us why you wrote the book, and give us some of your insights there.

Gary Ginsberg: (04:53)
Yeah, that's a good observation. Well, since I was a little kid, I've always been fascinated by the American presidency. And as I got older and more involved in business and in politics, I started observing leaders and the people they kept around them. I'm sure you did and you get 11 days. And I started to see the influence that their closest friends had on them, how they could speak to the leader in a way that nobody else could, speak the blunt truth.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:16)
Well, obviously, I was speaking that way to the leader, which got me blown into Pennsylvania Avenue, but that's a separate topic for a different SALT Talk.

Gary Ginsberg: (05:23)
Usually a first friend of what? A couple of weeks, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:27)
Well, no. If you wrote a book about Trump, it would be no friends. Okay, there's no first friends. The guy literally had no friends, but that's a whole separate book.

Gary Ginsberg: (05:35)
Well, I was going there with that, because that was one of the reasons why I wrote the book. When I was younger, I worked on the Gary Hart campaign, 1984. You're probably too young to remember that campaign, but I watched Warren Beatty, the great Hollywood star, and he'd parachute in for the most important events. And he was the only one around Beatty. And I was 21 years old, so I was very attuned to all this stuff. And he'd say, "Stop talking and acting like a politician, Gary. Come on, you're better than this." And Hart would just... he'd listen, in a way he wouldn't listen to anybody else. But at the same time, they'd have these late night marathon talks and he would loosen him up and liven him in a way nobody else could.

Gary Ginsberg: (06:13)
And then I was worked on Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, and I saw the same effect. I saw the impact that his closest friends had on his campaign. And in particular, the role that Vernon Jordan played. And then, just to fast forward to what you brought up, I was struck by the corollary of what happened with Trump, the lack of any close friend around him, particularly in those last two months of his presidency, when no one dared to speak the hard truth to him to get him off the big lie, and perhaps save him from his second impeachment. And obviously, you could notice... you could see that at the beginning of his presidency. And I talked to somebody very close to the president who will go unnamed, who said, "Frankly, he didn't need it. He didn't need a first friend.

Gary Ginsberg: (06:56)
All he needed was the affirmation of the masses." So in effect, his Twitter feed became his first friend. And I think that had a really pernicious effect on his presidency. So based on all these observations, about three years ago, I decided to, hey, let's see if there's anything on first friends in presidential literature. It turns out, there's nothing. There's books, as you know, about first wives, first sons, first butlers, first chefs, first pets, but no one's ever written a book about first friends. So I looked around, spent about a year doing research, found, I think, I hope, nine good stories of first friendships and wrote the book.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:32)
The stories are great. They're great because they're touching. They bring about the humanity of the situation, the pressure on the American president, the decision-making. For anybody that's never read the Presidential Brief, once you read it, it's a life-changing thing because there's dilemmas. Richard Newstat once said about the presidency, if it gets to the desk of the president, it means that there were 5,000 other people in the executive branch that really could not make the decision. So now you're going from, wow, this could be a really bad outcome to an even worse outcome. Go ahead, sir. You make that decision. And now you're sitting there. I want to switch right away to Abraham Lincoln, who suffered from crippling depression. And before he went on to end slavery and change the country, who was his best friend? And how did that relationship play out? You write such a beautiful story in the book.

Gary Ginsberg: (08:25)
Oh, thank you. So let's go to 1837. This beanpole of a man walks into a store in Springfield, Illinois. He's a new lawyer looking for a place to live, looking for bedding, actually. He walks into the store, says, "You got any bedding?" He says, "Yeah, I got it. But it's 17 bucks." Lincoln doesn't have 17 bucks, but the store owner, Joshua Speed, knows of Lincoln because he's an aspiring politician himself. And he says, "You know what? I got a bed upstairs. Go check it out. If you like it, we can share it." So Lincoln goes upstairs, checks out the bed, comes back down and says, "Speed, I'm moved in." And for the next four years, they share a bed. I don't believe it was sexual. People have tried to suggest it was. There's no evidence to support that. Then in 1841, he falls under this crippling depression and Speed essentially saves his life, takes away all of his sharp objects, ministers to him, gets him back to health.

Gary Ginsberg: (09:20)
And Lincoln says at one point, "If I die now, no one will remember me." Well, Speed made sure that people would remember him. He gets back on his feet. He goes on to obviously, a career as a lawyer. Speed goes on to be a slave owner, a plantation owner, a big businessman in Kentucky. They come back together again in the 1850s, debating slavery. But their relationship is so strong based on what happened in the early 1840s, that one of the first meetings he has as president-elect is with Speed. And he says, "Speed, I need you in my cabinet, need you in my government." But Speed's making too much money. You know what that's like, Anthony. You're making too much money to join the government. So he says, "I'm going to help you in my role as first friend."

Gary Ginsberg: (10:04)
And what he does is he basically keeps Kentucky in the Union. It's one of the six border states. But he does everything he can to keep the state part of the Union. It does. They become even closer friends once Lincoln is in the White House. He spends Thanksgiving with him in 1861. He's one of the first people to hear about the emancipation proclamation. He's with him right at the end before he dies. And it's really one of the great friendships that affected history because without Joshua Speed, we may never have known the name of Abraham Lincoln.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:35)
I just think it's an amazing story, but if you wrote a chapter on Trump, it could be first grifters, because you mentioned about not being able to make money or you're losing money in the White House. These guys were making hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves inside the White House with complete disregard of the ethics laws. When they asked me to serve, I went to go sell the company. Thank God, the company, it didn't sell. I'm back at the company. But I just think it's an interesting thing, the evolution of the presidency, and the friends, and potentially some of the bad people around the president as well. FDR, you describe him in the book as extremely lonely and very overworked. And he had a couple of friends. There was a friend that I think passed away. He was a person that worked with him when he was governor.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:23)
Yes. Louie Howe.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:26)
I think it was Howe. Yep. He passed away.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:30)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:30)
That was a very touching story there. And then of course, the famous Harry Hopkins and the intrigue around Harry Hopkins. And he had a friendship, but a strain in his relationship with Eleanor Roosevelt. So talk about FDR.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:44)
Yeah, well, I think you're absolutely right that he was, I think, consumed with loneliness. Even though he's fighting a world war and a crippling depression, he says to the first friend that I identified in the book, Daisy Suckley, a distant cousin. He says, "I'm either exhibit A or left entirely alone." And what would happen is, he would have 22 meetings in a day, he would then go upstairs, and there was no one around him. His kids were either off to war or ne'er-do-wells, who he just didn't particularly have a close relationship with. His wife, who's one of the great crusaders of the 20th century, brilliant, brilliant woman, has an independent life from him. They are estranged in 1918 when she discovers a trove of letters that reflect a deep relationship with a mistress, who then comes back into his life at the end.

Gary Ginsberg: (12:36)
So he doesn't have a family life, doesn't have a home life. And so he becomes friendly, to the point of, I believe, it's a first friendship with this sixth cousin. And she provides him an emotional balance that he needed during his presidency. He wouldn't have been as natural or as effective a president without Daisy Suckley. John Alter, one of Roosevelt's, I think, most esteemed historians, says that in the book. And I think it's true. She was the antidote to that loneliness. She provided emotional sucker. She provided a constant presence of a really compassionate voice, a listening ear, was with him for every important moment of the last few years of his presidency. And was probably more attuned to his decline in health as anyone, with the exception of his daughter, Anne. And really ministers to him in his last couple of years, and is with him at the end in Warm Springs when he dies.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:33)
What an amazing story. And the loneliness is so true because they have to make these decisions by themselves. They're also... people that are coming at them, Gary, and they don't even know if it's a friendship, or it's a manipulation, or what's the angle. Barack and Michelle Obama both write in their books that they stopped creating new friends once they got to the presidency, for this reason. They didn't know what the agendas were for different people.

Gary Ginsberg: (14:02)
Exactly. [crosstalk 00:14:05]. And Kennedy said the same thing. He said, "I have enough friends. I don't need any new friends."

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:08)
Yeah. And it's an interesting point, and I'm going to bring up John Kennedy in a second. He met David Ormsby-Gore in pre-war London. Gore goes on to become a foreign policy advisor for him. Tell us about that story and how influential was Ormsby-Gore on John F. Kennedy?

Gary Ginsberg: (14:26)
Well, I said in the book, and I believe it quite vehemently. He was the most important foreign policy advisor to the President of the United States, despite not being an American citizen. What did anomaly that is. As you said, they met in 1938. They debated right off the bat. There were both second sons of powerful fathers and strong, older brothers. Both of their older brothers die. They both are a little bit lost in 1938, but they bond over their love of carousing, of horse racing, of golfing, of debating. They'd love to go to the House of Commons and see Churchill and action. And they start to really question, what is the role of a leader in a democracy? Is it to follow the dictates of the public and do what the public wants? Or do you take that bold stand as Churchill was doing in the late thirties, and saying, no, we have to rearm in the face of German rearmament, and provide a bulwark against their rising militarism.

Gary Ginsberg: (15:29)
And so that debate carries through for the next 25 years, and when Kennedy becomes president, I think Ormsby-Gore basically calls on that 25 years of friendship to convince Kennedy to do what is right. Both in terms of how he approached the Cuban Missile Crisis... he was a central player throughout those last seven days. And then more importantly, in the adoption of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Without David Ormsby-Gore, his counsel, his friendship, his wisdom, and the 25 years of friendship, I don't think you would have had that first significant piece of legislation, which led to the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:10)
Well, there's a great story in Evan Thomas' book, The Last Hundred Days of John Kennedy, about Ormsby-Gore working with John Kennedy to get the nuclear test ban. And one of the things they have to do is they have to go influence Eisenhower. And of course, Eisenhower's close first friend was his chief-of-staff that was under potential indictment by the Kennedy Justice Department. Of course, it's a very famous story where Ormsby-Gore says to JFK, "Why don't you give Ike a call and let's do a trade. You guys won't push hard on his former first friend, but you'll need his support for the nuclear test ban for the Republicans in Congress." And so Eisenhower doesn't like this. He's not a politician, but he cedes to the request. And a few days later, he writes an op-ed in support of the nuclear test ban, which helps get a done. So first friends in trouble, sometimes are influencing the course of history as well.

Gary Ginsberg: (17:10)
Yes. It's interesting. Eisenhower, after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy's feeling horrible. He calls Eisenhower. Now Eisenhower says, "Didn't you have anybody in the room to argue against this crazy-ass invasion plan?" And Kennedy says, "No," because Kennedy has a three and a half hour meal with Ormsby-Gore at the end of January. And he goes through all the foreign policy crisis he's facing. He doesn't bring up Cuba because at this point, Ormsby-Gore's not even the ambassador. He's just a friend. He's the minister of state. He doesn't feel like he can talk to a foreigner like this. And I think he learns his from that, and that is why he calls Ormsby-Gore on day six of the Cuban Missile Crisis and says, "Come to the White House unseen, and let's debate this thing out, blockade or bombing." And they spend hours, basically. And he listens to Ormsby-Gore, and Ormsby-Gore says, "Blockade. Don't bomb." And then he obviously, I'd say, you probably remember it, yeah. He actually moves the perimeter in from 800 miles to 500 miles and the-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:14)
I remember.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:15)
... blockade that gave invasions more time, which is just brilliant. And nobody else in the government had thought of it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:21)
And thank God Curtis LeMay, General Curtis LeMay, was not John F. Kennedy's first friend because he was calling for a nuclear strike, which would have probably caused 60 million deaths.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:33)
Oh, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:34)
So let's switch back a little bit. I want to go to Thomas Jefferson for a second, if you don't mind. In his very interesting and very close relationship with James Madison, two of the founding fathers, both becoming presidents, tell us about their relationship.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:49)
Yeah, that was one of the real wonderful delights of this process, was discovering that friendship. Everybody thinks of Thomas Jefferson as the dominant player of that duo. And very few know that they exchanged 1,250 letters, were intimate friends for literally 50 years, from 1776 to 1826 when Jefferson dies. And I think that it's probably the most consequential friendship in American history. It was more than a friendship. It was a collaboration. It was a power field, because the two of them together could do so much more than they could do individually. And I think for Jefferson to be Jefferson, and Madison to be Madison, they needed that friendship. They were very different in looks, personality, temperament. They were both sons of Virginia. They were joined by that. They were both... came from big, rich families, they were both philosopher statesman. But Jefferson was this big thinker, this idealist.

Gary Ginsberg: (19:52)
Madison was five foot, four and much more pragmatic. And so Jefferson would have these big ideas that he needed Madison to actually execute. And Madison. For his part, I think kept Jefferson in the game on two occasions when we may have lost Thomas Jefferson to history. He was the governor of Virginia in 1781. He was basically run out of the Capitol. He was put on trial, essentially, by the Virginia legislature for abdication of responsibility. And he was acquitted, but he was so distraught by it all that he said, "I'm done. I'm done with politics." This is 1782. And only because of Madison's intercession does Jefferson decide to get back into public life. He ends up going to Paris and that's where he flowers as this diplomat. But the two of them at various moments, keep each other engaged, such that their collaboration at the end of the day, results in so much of what we experience today in our democracy, two parties. They formed the Democrat-Republican Party.

Gary Ginsberg: (20:55)
Madison is really responsible for the Constitution. And a lot of that intellectual framework comes from Jefferson's gifts of books from Paris. They formed the Bill of Rights. That's because Jefferson is pushing Madison hard for a bill of rights immediately after Madison explains what the Constitution is in a letter to him. And then their collaboration results in the Revolution of 1800, which changes Federalist rule to Republican rule, democratic rule, and then the Louisiana Purchase. And ultimately, they collaborate on the University of Virginia in their later years. So it was an amazingly productive friendship, a loving friendship, 1,250 letters between them, and it changes history.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:38)
It's an amazing story about them, but it also speaks to the fact that you'd need people to lean on, particularly when you're having setbacks, which is something that a lot of these guys, of course, have because the trials and tribulations of politics. So you worked for Bill Clinton.

Gary Ginsberg: (21:57)
I did.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:58)
What were you doing for Bill Clinton, Gary? Tell everybody.

Gary Ginsberg: (22:01)
Well, I started as his first advance director way back in January of '92. Actually, the first day I got down there, Anthony, was the day that Jennifer Flowers had her famous press conference at the Plaza Hotel. So I thought, I may not even need to unpack my bags here in Little Rock. I can had right back to my law firm in New York. But he survived it. I did that for three months, until April when he was basically the nominee. And then I went up to Washington to work on the VP selection process. I was one of five lawyers who were holed up in an unmarked, law office in downtown Washington vetting candidates. And then I worked on the presidential transition. And then I was in the White House counsel's office in 1993, and the Justice Department at the end of '93 and '94, and then I went back to New York.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:53)
What would you say about Bill Clinton in his first friends?

Gary Ginsberg: (22:58)
I would say that bill Clinton, of the 46 presidents, probably had the greatest capacity for friendship. When he left law school in 1972, he wrote down his life's goals. And his third goal was to have good friends. And I think he clearly accomplished that. In 1992, when his campaign is floundering a month after I get down there, his best friends go up to New Hampshire to basically attest to his character and save his candidacy. Vernon Jordan, I write about at great length in my final chapter, and I think that was a real, true friendship. A friendship of equals, a friendship of incredible respect, shared interests, shared values, a shared love of politics, and sports, and of women. It has an unfortunate turn toward the end when Vernon Jordan becomes a central witness in the impeachment and investigation of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But I think it shows Clinton's amazing capacity for friendship, which is one of his great traits.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:08)
Yeah. And listen, I admire him. My friend, Rick Lerner, was my roommate. I don't know if you would remember Rick Lerner-

Gary Ginsberg: (24:14)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:15)
... but he worked for you guys.

Gary Ginsberg: (24:16)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:17)
My first visit to the White House was back in '93 as a result of Rick. But I went to New Hampshire with Rick to see then candidate, Governor Clinton campaign, and I was amazed about his personality. And I'll tell you how old-fashioned we all are. Somebody called them the disk drive presidential candidate. What did he mean by that? Any place that he went, he found the disk to put into his computer to talk about it. He was talking to union leaders, then he was talking to entrepreneurs, then he was talking to governmental officials. He found the disk, okay? Now, of course, we operate off the Cloud today, Gary, but that's what they said about Bill Clinton in 1992. 1991, actually.

Gary Ginsberg: (24:59)
That's funny. Can I just interject for one second?

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:01)
Please, please.

Gary Ginsberg: (25:02)
David Gergon had a really interesting observation to that point. He said that his friends served as a basis for his narrative. He would make friends, he would learn as much as he could about the friend's life, and it would fit into this mosaic that he was forming of how to run as president, how to discuss people's travails, their struggles, their challenges, their dreams. Everybody had a story, and every story then fit into that mosaic, and into ultimately, his campaign narrative.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
Yeah. A very, very interesting guy, great capacity for learning. He came to our SALT conference in 2010. I was in the green room with him prior to interviewing him. He was trying to assess me. So he said, "So what party are you a member of?" And I reached into my pocket, Gary, and I pulled out a roll of bills, and I said, "I'm a member of the Green Party, Mr. President. I work on Wall Street." What party you think I'm a member of? Okay. But he never forgot that. Every time I run into him, he always says, "Hey, Green Party." He doesn't know my name. He goes, "Hey, Green Party member."

Gary Ginsberg: (26:04)
Amazing memory.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:05)
All right. Well, I have to turn it over to my millennial friend, okay? John Darsie is a first friend of mine, despite the fact that I give him guff, and he's obviously trying to... he's the baby boss at SkyBridge. You see him sitting there?

Gary Ginsberg: (26:17)
Yeah. Corner office.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:19)
Yeah. Yes. And he's mercurial too, Ginsburg. I want to make sure you know that about him, okay? He's going to come across congenial here, but he has a tendency for mercurial behavior. But go ahead, John. I know you have some questions for Gary.

John Darsie: (26:33)
When Anthony's out of the office, I squat in his corner office here. And I think there's squatter's rights in New York, so I don't know if he's going to be welcomed back.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:40)
Well, that's true. That's true, because we also have a socialist mayor. I'm sure that office is yours now. That's true.

John Darsie: (26:47)
Yeah. But there were so many fascinating stories. Anthony got to a lot of them. But I also thought the Franklin Pierce/Nathaniel Hawthorne story was very interesting. Nathaniel Hawthorne is known largely for his romantic works, including the Scarlet Letter. It's probably the one he's most famous for. But he also wrote a very consequential campaign biography of his great friend, Franklin Pierce, much to the dismay of some of his colleagues in the abolitionist movement. But could you talk about their friendship. How much impact Nathaniel Hawthorne had on Franklin Pierce?

Gary Ginsberg: (27:19)
Sure. Yes. When he writes that campaign biography, people said that extensively, it's his first work of nonfiction, but a lot of people believed that it was just a continuation of his fiction work, because it had so glorified a man who, for many, many people, did not think he deserved it. And Franklin Pierce is probably the saddest president in our history. His presidency was sad, his home life was sad, he lost three sons in quick succession, including his last son two months before he's inaugurated. It's essentially two men against the world. As you say, they were both actually in support of slavery because they believed that slavery was enshrined in the constitution, was a right of states to maintain, and they wanted to preserve the Union over pursuing the abolition of slavery. And they became immensely unpopular in their home towns and in their own communities. And Hawthorne, to his credit, stands by Pierce in a way that very few friends would.

Gary Ginsberg: (28:27)
And that's what I found most touching. He actually dedicates a book, his last book in 1863, to Pierce. His book seller says, "We can't sell any books if you dedicate your book to this misbegotten, horrible, former president." And he says, "I don't care. I'm doing it." Pierce also stays incredibly loyal to Hawthorne. Pierce provides all the jobs for Hawthorne when he can't make a dime from these books that he's writing. He writes two books in 1852, House of Seven Gables and Scarlet Letter, both big successes. We have been subjected to the horrors of having to read The Scarlet Letter for 200 years, almost, but it didn't sell. It got great reviews, but didn't sell.

Gary Ginsberg: (29:08)
Pierce made sure he got jobs and Hawthorne in exchange, stayed very loyal to him. Pierce stayed loyal to him. And they end up taking a trip, at the end of Hawthorne's life, up to the woods of New Hampshire. Hawthorne is sick. Pierce checks in on him twice in the night. The final time he checks in on him, Hawthorne is dead. He opens the handbag that he has next to his bed and what does he find in the bag? A picture of himself. Just shows you how loyal and loving the two of them were, really against the world.

John Darsie: (29:38)
Right. The last one I want to ask you about is Harry Truman and Eddie Jacobson. So Israel, it's 1948. Truman's wavering on whether to recognize Israel as a state. His friend, Eddie Jacobson, steps in. How influential was Eddie Jacobson in now what we know as modern history of that region and how it's impacted the world?

Gary Ginsberg: (29:57)
Yeah. This goes to what Anthony was saying earlier. This just shows that it really requires a first friend, somebody who's known a president for decades, and knew him in more humble times when they had a much easier, less formal relationship. And you could say anything you wanted because you shared interests, and values, and really rooted for each other, as the two of them did. So Truman is really annoyed. The Jews in 1848 are hectoring him to recognize the state. He's sick of it. His family's not particularly in love with Jews. They don't let Jews into their home in Independence, Missouri. He's been generally supportive of allowing refugees from the war to go into Israel, but he's just tired of the issue. And he says to Eddie, "Don't come and see me. I don't want to talk about this issue."

Gary Ginsberg: (30:48)
Eddie just says, "To hell with it." Eddie gets on a plane, flies across the country, walks in unannounced, uninvited, into the Oval Office, and he basically says to Harry Truman, "Knock it off. I know you, Harry. I know you're better than this. The fact that you're allowing a few Jews to get under your skin and keep you from doing what you know is right, which is to..." In this case it was to see Haim Weitzman who was waiting in New York to make the final pitch. And everybody knew that Weitzman was the key to convincing Truman because he had great respect for him. He said, "You know you should see him." And he looks over at a little statue of Andrew Jackson and basically says, "Be like Andrew Jackson, your hero. You know what Andrew Jackson would do. You need to do it."

Gary Ginsberg: (31:30)
And Truman's furious. He turns his chair in the Oval Office, he drums his hands on the desk, and then he finally turns around and says, "God damn it, you son of a bitch, you win. I'll see him." And that ultimately leads to this meeting nine days later with Weitzman, and then 11 minutes after the state of Israel is declared in 1948, Harry Truman is the first foreign leader to recognize the state, and it really becomes the foundation for this alliance, this relationship between the two countries for the last 73 years.

John Darsie: (32:00)
All right. Yeah, Eddie Jacobson had a huge impact on history for certain, with that intervention. Last question is about the Biden administration. So as you've examined the Biden administration, does he have a clear-cut first friend who has an outsized impact on his decision making and worldview?

Gary Ginsberg: (32:15)
He does. He does. If you asked 100 people around Biden, who it is, they'll all tell you it's Ted Kaufman. He was a Senator right after Biden becomes vice president. He was his chief of staff for 22 years. The average length of a chief of staff today on the Hill is three years. So for 22 years, he works all day with him in the office, then he takes the train back and forth to Wilmington. So these two form an incredible relationship. They're as close as two people can be. It was Kaufman who told him to drop out of the race in 1987. It's Kaufman who wakes up when Biden wakes up in the hospital in '88, it's Ted Kaufman who's sitting there after his aneurysm. He is the first consoler, the consoler-in-chief when Beau dies, and they speak all the time on the phone, and Ted Kaufman was the first person to sleep in the White House when Biden became president, outside of family. That just shows you how close the two are.

John Darsie: (33:09)
I thought you might say Champ Biden. Rest in peace, the beautiful German shepherd that just passed, but Ted took off. Yeah, from speaking to people in the Biden orbit, they echo what you're saying. But Gary, it's fantastic to have you on. Congratulations on the new book, First Friends. You really covered a topic that, from reading reviews and commentators, it wasn't really something that had been delved into in depth. And so you really broke ground with this book, and I think people will really enjoy reading it. Thanks so much for joining us on SALT Talks.

Gary Ginsberg: (33:37)
Thank you very much. Thanks for having me. Thank you, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:40)
It's great to have you on. It's a phenomenal book, it was a great read, and I'm glad to have you. And you paid me a compliment, which I'm hugging you for over the phone, because I'm only a year younger than you, but you made the insinuation that I was a lot younger. Did you catch that, John Darsie? Did you catch that?

John Darsie: (33:59)
It's amazing what Harry and I can do, and I'm not going to go into the other stuff that [crosstalk 00:34:03].

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:02)
And by the way, I don't even have the gel in this morning because I was in such a rush to get to this SALT Talk. I didn't even have gel in. So Ginsberg, you are slowly becoming one of my first friends, okay? If I ever make it back into politics, you'll be stuck with me, okay? I just wanted you to know that.

Gary Ginsberg: (34:18)
I would welcome it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:19)
All right. Well, thank you again for joining us.

Gary Ginsberg: (34:22)
Thanks a lot, guys.

John Darsie: (34:24)
Thank you, everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Gary Ginsberg, author of the new book, First Friends, which is out July 6th. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on demand on our website at salt.org/talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media. We're most active on Twitter @saltconference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. But on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie, signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Zac Prince: What is Crypto Lending? | SALT Talks #233

“Despite the day-to-day price fluctuations of cryptocurrencies, this sector is in a long-term secular growth trend. There are new people and businesses all the time and BlockFi is launching new products all the time.”

Zac Prince is the Chief Executive Officer of BlockFi. Founded in 2017, BlockFi provides trade execution services for institutions and opportunities for retail investors to earn a yield on their bitcoin holdings. In January 2018, BlockFi launched its first product: USD loans backed by cryptocurrency for cryptocurrency holders allowing them to offer their bitcoin, ether or litecoin assets as collateral for a loan. In 2019, BlockFi launched its second major product to retail customers, a crypto-funded interest account. With this account, customers deposit bitcoin, ether or litecoin with the company for the assets to accumulate cumulative interest every month. BlockFi has previously advertised 6.2% annual interest, compounded monthly. The firm has $10 billion in outstanding loans, $15 billion in total assets and has been operating profitably for several months.

Zac discusses his crypto journey and founding of BlockFi, a financial services platform offering the ability secure a loan using one’s Bitcoin value. With the growth profile of Bitcoin, he explains the importance of avoiding the tax consequences of selling the cryptocurrency. With new entrants and businesses joining the crypto space every day, big banks will only continue to grow their involvement as regulations become clearer. Prince talks about BlockFi’s latest retail offering, a Visa credit card that earns users Bitcoin for every dollar spent, instead of traditional rewards like airline miles or cash back.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Zac Prince.jpeg

Zac Prince

Chief Executive Officer

BlockFi

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

4:18 - Crypto eureka moment

8:20 - BlockFi elevator pitch

13:38 - Borrowing against Bitcoin

15:56 - BlockFi success despite Bitcoin pullback

18:18 - Future of Bitcoin and BlockFi

22:48 - Big banks’ Bitcoin adoption

26:40 - Bitcoin regulations

31:01 - BlockFi credit cards

TRANSCRIPT

Jason Zins: (00:07)
Welcome back everyone to SALT Talks. My name is Jason Zins. I'm a partner at SkyBridge Capital. As most of you know, SALT is a global thought leadership and networking forum, encompassing finance, technology and politics. SALT talks is a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. Just as we do at our global SALT events, we aim to both empower big, important ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts. And so today we have a subject matter expert and business builder extraordinaire, Zac Prince, the CEO and founder of BlockFi.

Jason Zins: (00:51)
Quickly on Zac's background and biography. Zac is the founder and CEO of BlockFi, a crypto financial services company founded in 2017 with Flori Marquez. With experience in multiple leadership roles at successful tech companies, his career started in adtech where he was a part of two successful acquisitions Admeld, which was acquired by Google and Sociomantic acquired by DunnHumby. Prior to starting BlockFi, he led business development teams at Orchard Platform, a broker dealer and RIA in the online lending sector and Zibby, an online consumer lender. Zac graduated cum laude from Texas State University, with a BA in international business and a minor in Spanish. Zac, thanks so much for joining us today.

Jason Zins: (01:37)
A familiar face with us as well, of course, our host for this SALT Talk, Anthony Scaramucci.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:44)
A familiar face. You're worse than John Darcie, the other host. See Zac, you millennials, you give us a hard time. I like having baby boomers on this show so we can team up against you people. Zac, I want to get right into it with you. Jason's going to feather in some questions towards the end, but I want to talk about your upbringing, if you don't mind. What'd your mom, dad do? How did you end up where you are at BlockFi? Tell us that odyssey because I know when you were in junior high school somewhere, you didn't think you were going to be the founder and CEO of BlockFi, so tell us what happened.

Zac Prince: (02:21)
Yeah, so I grew up in South Texas. I was always a very competitive athlete and ultimately spent the most time as a tennis player and I was a nationally ranked. I used to travel around the country on weekends competing in junior tournaments across the US. I was always really financially minded growing up. I actually asked my parents for stocks for Christmas when I was 10, but my parents were not particularly financially minded. We were middle class and I was very comfortable, but they didn't give me stocks. And so anyways, so fast forward to college, I put myself through school as a semiprofessional online poker player. Was fortunate to come out of school with no debt. And I always anticipated working in the financial services industry, but I finished school in May of 2009 so it wasn't the best time to be looking for entry level roles in financial services. I ended up working at a advertising technology company and I was employee number 15 and it was just a tremendous experience.

Zac Prince: (03:25)
Three years after I joined, we were 250 people acquired by Google. At the time it was the sixth largest acquisition in Google's history. And after transitioning to Google, I realized that I really enjoyed building things and working on small teams. It took me about six months to completely lose my mind at Google with just the size of the org and everything that was going on. I left Google, went to another startup, launched the North American version of a German based adtech company. That was successful and acquired. And then after that, most relevantly for BlockFi, moved into the online lending sector and the alternative credit sector. And while I was working in that sector, I started personally investing in cryptocurrency in 2015.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:08)
Let me stop you right there though, because I want the eureka moment. You started investing in cryptocurrency in 2015. Why? And where was your Eureka moment?

Zac Prince: (04:19)
I was actually writing a blog on the side. I was working at this company called Orchard and we were the largest provider of data and technology tools to institutions that were either buying loans or directly financing online lending platforms. And so I was seeing all of this really interesting stuff, online consumer loans, online real estate loans and also more broadly in FinTech, robo-advisors were getting created and I kind of became the FinTech guy in my friend group. And I decided to start just writing some of this stuff down. Should you invest in fractional shares of commercial real estate online? Should you consider using a robo-advisor? Should you be participating in credit markets on some of these online lending platforms? And writing that blog led me to discover Bitcoin. And what really struck me about it initially was a lot of the things that happen in FinTech are kind of a new front end on top of the same core infrastructure that has powered the financial system for a long time.

Zac Prince: (05:15)
And I thought it was really interesting how Bitcoin was not only a new technology that enabled a new payment rail, but also a completely new investible asset that if things worked out for it, could potentially be very, very successful in terms of performance financially, but also have a positive impact on the world. And so I initially just took a flyer on it and was recommending on this tiny blog that I had, that probably 10 people read, that people should create a Coinbase account and buy some Bitcoin. I ultimately completely whiffed it in 2015. I originally bought Bitcoin around 200. I sold the majority of my Bitcoin at 600 and thought I was just such a genius Bitcoin trader and ended up buying more later. But that's what led me to it originally. And then I learned about Ethereum in 2016, made an analogy in my head that maybe Bitcoin is a little bit like a Blackberry. Ethereum's a little bit like an iPhone so I bought a ton of Ethereum.

Zac Prince: (06:12)
Ethereum for six months after I owned it was a horrible investment, down 50, 60% because there was this Dow hack and it was all very scary at that time. You had to send your money off with Coinbase, didn't know what was going on but then in late 2016, the prices started doing well. I had started going to meetups in New York City because at a certain point, my wife said, "You're talking about cryptocurrency with me and I love you, but I don't want to talk about cryptocurrency." She's like, "You can have Tuesday nights, go find some other nerds or whatever to talk about cryptocurrency with." And those meetups initially it was 10 people at a sleepy bar in Union Square just nerding out over cryptocurrency. But by the first quarter and second quarter of 2017, it had started to gather some real momentum and there were big law firms hosting 500 person meetups in Midtown Manhattan and there's a line of 200 people outside because there wasn't enough room to get in.

Zac Prince: (07:18)
It was clear that this was becoming very, very real. And at one of those meetups, I said to somebody, "I've been working in online lending. I think there's going to be a need in this asset class for people to finance Bitcoin and other assets and I think I'm in a great position to do it because I've been working in the alternative debt and credit markets for the last five years. Do you think it's a good idea?" And this person at the meetup was like, "That's the best idea I've ever heard. You need to start this business yesterday." Basically I went home that night and told my wife the idea and put in my resignation at the FinTech company I was working at the next day.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:58)
Yeah. I absolutely love this story. I want to take you to the elevator here at SkyBridge. Now we're on the fourth floor, but let's pretend we're on the 60th floor for this conversation. I want the elevator pitch. We're coming down the elevator. I open up the elevator, there's Zac Prince. Tell me about BlockFi and now we're moving down the elevator.

Zac Prince: (08:20)
Sure. We're a financial services platform for crypto investors and crypto market participants. We have a retail facing side of our platform where you can earn interest on your cryptocurrencies. You can buy and sell cryptocurrencies and you can get a loan secured by the value of your portfolio. We're also launching our fourth product on the retail side imminently, it's a Bitcoin rewards credit card. You can earn Bitcoin with every dollar that you spend on the card instead of airline miles or regular cash back. And then we have an institutional side of our platform where we're effectively a prime broker for the asset class. And we work with market making firms, proprietary trading firms, hedge funds and other types of institutions to finance their activities in the cryptocurrency markets and also to provide best execution and facilitate their participation in the trading markets without them having to go up and set up connections on all the various venues themselves.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:16)
And brilliant stuff and I can't wait to get that credit card in my hands. And just want you to know, I have a very high credit score. Just want to point that out to everybody on SALT Talks. But I want to ask you this, I'm going to move millions of dollars of Bitcoin to you, is my Bitcoin safe and secure on BlockFi? And if it is, tell us why.

Zac Prince: (09:36)
It's absolutely safe and secure. A couple of things that I would highlight. First off, we work with the best custodians in the industry, Fidelity, Gemini and BitGo are the core of our custody stack. Additionally, we have a risk management layer that not only is incredibly sophisticated, but has also been battle tested. We made our first loan in January of 2018 and we've been active in this market at increasing scale throughout lots of periods of volatility. We've never lost a penny across any of the lending that we do. Additionally, with the exact business model that BlockFi has, we're the only company that's domiciled and fully regulated in the US and has the backing of phenomenal institutional investors who go very deep in terms of understanding how everything works at BlockFi before deciding to invest in our platform. And we've raised quite a bit of money and we have a very, very strong balance sheet.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:34)
Okay. Now you've got me convinced, I've moved my millions of dollars over to you, my Bitcoin, I should say, in nominal dollars. And how much could I earn on my Bitcoin when I'm at BlockFi?

Zac Prince: (10:48)
Yeah, just to be clear, we're increasingly seeing folks not only use our platform to earn interest on cryptocurrencies, but also to earn interest on stable coins. Which I think of is just digital dollars. They're one to one interchangeable with dollars in a bank account on our platform and the rates for all of them are very attractive. On stable coins today, folks are earning 7%, on Bitcoin they're earning 4% and on Ethereum they're earning four and a half percent.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:17)
Okay. Those rates sound high to traditional finance. When we see lower rates and my checking account is zero at the such and such bank and maybe I'm at 90 basis points on my CD, Zac, my three year CD is earning me 90 basis points in fiat currency that's being devalued by the minute due to the printing press. How am I getting 7% from you?

Zac Prince: (11:42)
Listen, the fundamental reason that these high yields exist on platforms like ours is that we're able to charge high rates when we're lending out the capital that our clients are holding on our platform. And the reason we're able to do that is that the cryptocurrency sector, it's not connected to the traditional financial system particularly well right now. And the implication of that is that cryptocurrency companies, cryptocurrency trading firms, they're not accessing the traditional debt and credit markets from banks and so therefore they have a higher cost of capital, which they're accessing through firms like BlockFi. One analogy that I tell folks that resonates with some people is there's publicly traded REITs. One that's called Innovative Industrial Properties as an example. And they basically have warehouses where they allow cannabis growers in states that have legalized cannabis growing.

Zac Prince: (12:39)
They do triple net leases for them and they charge 15%. A triple net lease if you were growing carrots or if you were a normal franchise store is going to be liable or plus two and a half percent, but it's way more expensive. The cryptocurrency industry faces that same fundamental problem of being early, not having access to traditional debt and credit markets. As a result, the cost of capital is high. We enable folks to participate in that. And the good news here is that the majority of the lending that we're doing is over collateralized with liquid assets. On the spectrum of lending risk, we're on the low, low, low end of the spectrum with the types of loans that we're making and that's why we've had the perfect performance that we've had on our platform today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:24)
That brings my next question. I've now got my millions of dollars of Bitcoin over there, and I want to borrow against it. Let's say a million dollars, how much would you lend me on my Bitcoin account at BlockFi?

Zac Prince: (13:39)
You can borrow up to 50% of the value of the assets that you hold at BlockFi. If you have a million dollars worth of Bitcoin, you're going to be able to borrow half a million dollars secured by that million dollars worth of Bitcoin.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:56)
And what am I paying in a percentage of interest right now?

Zac Prince: (14:00)
We have three pricing options. You can borrow at a 50% LTV, 35% LTV or a 20% LTV. At a 50% LTV, the interest rate is 9.75%. And depending on the loan size there's also an origination fee, which can range from 50 bips up to 2%.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:18)
Okay. It's a fairly high yield, but if you're a big Bitcoin believer and you want to have a leverage play on Bitcoin, you're one of the great places to go for this. What am I missing?

Zac Prince: (14:32)
That's right. It's safe and secure. And importantly, in terms of tax optimization, if you're someone that's bullish on the future price of Bitcoin and you have a large embedded capital gain in that position, as a lot of folks in this space do, because Bitcoin has been an incredible asset in terms of investment performance, just not having to sell and realize that tax consequence is incredibly valuable. If you're someone like me that lives in New York, that's 35% that you're saving by not selling and you still have the position. Furthermore, to the extent that you use the proceeds of the loan to make other investments, which the majority of our clients do, this is kind of a high net worth type of borrowing. You can typically deduct the interest that you're charged on the loan using the investment interest expense deduction for your taxes. It's a very common wealth management tool. We're just making it available for cryptocurrency investors.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:36)
Zac, you've built this colossal company. The Bitcoin was down in the month of May. It was arguably the biggest month loss, month to date loss, if you will and yet your company did phenomenally well in the month of May. Why is that?

Zac Prince: (15:57)
I think there's a few reasons. Different products on our platform behave differently to market conditions. To give you an example, trading on our platform typically correlates really tightly with volatility. If there's volatility, there's a lot of trading volume. US dollar borrowing is not as active when market sentiment is bearish and performance is bearish like it was recently. But Bitcoin borrowing, which is something that we're also very active in, increases when market sentiment is bearish. Different products react differently to market conditions. Also, I think that our products are still relatively early in terms of everyone, even just in the cryptocurrency market, understanding that they're available and accessing them. I'll give you one stat just to recognize that, Coinbase has 55 million retail accounts, Blockfi has about 450,000 retail accounts today. We're still pretty early in terms of just letting people know that there's a platform where you can do these things.

Zac Prince: (17:08)
And then lastly, despite the day to day price fluctuations of cryptocurrencies, this sector is in a longterm secular growth trend. There are new people coming in all of the time. There are new business opportunities all of the time and we're launching new products all the time. We shipped our first credit cards last month to two employees and a couple of friends and family and influencers and we'll be rolling them out publicly this month.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:38)
I didn't get my credit card application yet, Zac. Am I still considered one of the friends and family I'm hoping? Or no?

Zac Prince: (17:46)
You absolutely are. You'll be posting a picture with the credit card potentially before this podcast or this show airs.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:54)
All right, I cannot wait for that actually because I want to spend and earn Bitcoin when I'm spending. Zac, you're in 20, we're going to fast forward now. We're in 2026, it's five years from today. Where is BlockFi? What's the price of Bitcoin? By the way, we're going to ask you to play a guessing game with us. And where is BlockFi?

Zac Prince: (18:19)
2026 I would say Bitcoin's between two and 300,000, BlockFi is doing all of the same things that we're doing today and we have continued to launch additional products that both make our platform more valuable to the clients that we already have, who are primarily crypto investors and crypto market participants, but also take this financial services infrastructure that we've built in the crypto ecosystem and apply it to other areas of traditional financial services.

Zac Prince: (18:57)
What does that mean? Well, we're launching a Bitcoin rewards credit card. That's our first product in the payments category. The payments category is one that we're going to be very active in on the retail side of our platform. We're going to be launching a debit card, peer to peer payment functionality and more on and off ramps so that our clients, both in and outside the US are able to easily transition between a traditional bank account or a FinTech platform where they hold funds like PayPal and the BlockFi ecosystem. And ultimately the impact that I expect we'll have there and that the entire industry will have there is financial services are going to be better, faster and cheaper and more accessible for global consumers. And I think that's a very, very powerful impact that this industry is going to have on the world. And BlockFi will be a significant part of that.

Zac Prince: (19:47)
Then on the institutional side of our platform, clients will be using us for a lot more types of activities than what they are today. Right now we're mainly offering the ability for folks to trade the spot market, but we're going to expand into derivatives. And I think there might be parallels in markets like commodities in FX, where some of the infrastructure that we've built out for crypto can also be applied for some of our institutional clients. Thematically, continuing to accelerate and do more things on the crypto side of the platform but also expanding more into what we think of today as traditional financial services. I ultimately think crypto, FinTech and traditional finance is all going to merge and BlockFi's part of that story in terms of what you'll see from us in 2026.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:37)
All right, well I appreciate you being on SALT Talks. I would be remiss if I didn't include my erstwhile partner, Jason Zins who I think shave three days ago. And he knows I'm a like George Steinbrenner, so I want people clean shaven. Zac, you can do anything you want. You're doing a beautiful job at BlockFi. I'm a proud investor and I'm looking forward to getting my credit card. And go ahead, Mr. Zins. I know you've got questions that you were thinking about for Mr. Prince.

Jason Zins: (21:08)
Thank you. And I did this to get you going so the public can see the real you. You're hard on us sometimes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:16)
I'm a very demanding boss, Zac. But then again, I don't ask them to do anything I wouldn't do myself.

Jason Zins: (21:23)
And the HR director, if I have a problem with it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:25)
I am, yes. If there's a problem at SkyBridge, I'm the personnel director, Zac. They have to put the suggestions in the suggestion box right here by the Muhammad Ali portrait. I set those on fire at 4:30. We had a little burning ceremony. Go ahead, Mr. Zins. Go ahead.

Jason Zins: (21:45)
Zac, I want to pick up on one of the points you ended on, which is sort of bridging the gap between the crypto ecosystem and the traditional financial ecosystem. And one, I want to commend you for it because I think a lot of times these days in the Bitcoin community and the crypto community, it's sort of us versus them. Whereas I think longer term to your point where Bitcoin is headed and where we really think the value is, is more engagement, more adoption. And so I think again, I want to commend you on helping to try and bring it mainstream. Now the flip side to that though is we're five years from now, it's 2026. You guys have executed on your plan. You're then playing in the sandbox with the big banks. Everyone sees the announcements from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley but you probably have some special insight here. Where do you think the banks are as it relates to supporting crypto in some of the manner that you guys already are doing?

Zac Prince: (22:48)
Yeah, so I think they're definitely more interested in making more progress today than they were last year or the year before or the year before. They are absolutely starting to do things. Some banks faster than others. And I think that's a trend that's going to continue because the opportunity in the sector is only going to continue to go up and they have to be here because if they're not, then their clients are going to be doing these activities with other folks. That being said, there is a tremendous lack of clarity from a regulatory perspective in a way that a bank would need clarity to do all of the things that a company like BlockFi does. And these aren't companies that turn on a dime and launch new products and technologies really seamlessly. That's not one of the strengths that we would describe banks as having is nimbleness and speed.

Zac Prince: (23:52)
What we're starting to see is two things today. One, asset management products being added to the wealth platforms. I believe it was Morgan Stanley that's added a couple of funds. I'm sure others will follow. And folks like Goldman are starting to get active in cash settled derivatives or clearing futures for some of their pre-existing clients. Ultimately, I think that all of these things are great for the sector. It all ties into the theme of accessibility and access and financing. And in fact, there are things that I anticipate BlockFi will be doing with some of the major banks in terms of partnerships or us being a client of theirs or even vice versa, depending on the scenario. If we are not able to at BlockFi, stay ahead of the curve relative to banks in terms of how fast they're building solutions.

Zac Prince: (24:56)
And I'll give you a couple of examples. If you start clearing cash settled Bitcoin futures, you're probably still a ways away from being able to do that on the cryptocurrencies number two through 10 in the market cap stack. Well, that's not the case for a platform like BlockFi. You're probably not close to offering your clients the ability to participate in staking or the different global markets around the world. And then on the retail side, look, they're even farther away from doing anything on retail that has tremendous regulatory and political ramifications. And ultimately all of the great FinTech companies that we know today have been created during periods of time where the banks were perfectly capable in theory of competing with them and a lot of massive companies have been built. I think we'll have an edge there in terms of technology and client service and just being on the front foot of innovation and user experience with our platform. We're in a good spot. We welcome their participation and it's definitely going to only increase as time goes on.

Jason Zins: (26:05)
Great. Well, I think one of the many aspects of your business that I find so impressive is how in such a short period of time you've rolled out and successfully rolled out all of these new products. Certainly seems like you're continuing to stay ahead of the curve. I do want to pick up on the regulatory side, because that's sort of synonymous when anyone is talking about Bitcoin or cryptocurrency. Give us the high level lay of the land on the regulatory side, as it relates to BlockFi specifically and then just the broader ecosystem.

Zac Prince: (26:40)
Sure. BlockFi specifically, we're a MSB, money services business, at the federal level. That's your KYC, AML type regulations. And then we hold money transmission and lending licenses at the state level. We are always evaluating ways that could enhance our regulatory positioning. And this is something that happens with lots of FinTech companies. Just to use Square as an example, in the early days of Square, they had a materially similar setup to the setup that BlockFi has today. Over the last couple of years, they've made progress on creating a new bank in Utah. And so whether BlockFi over the short or medium term makes it all the way to that bank step where we end up somewhere in the middle remains TBD. There are things that we're working on there and we do expect that there will be a progression over time. But every license we've ever applied for we've received. Oftentimes these are licenses where we're the first company ever getting this type of license for this type of activity.

Zac Prince: (27:51)
And so there's a lot of engagement and education that we do with the regulators. And overall, I think we've struck a very reasonable approach to the industry to date in the US and finding an appropriate balance between facilitating innovation, enabling the sector to get created and thrive and trying to tamp out things when they're too far in the deep end. I would be remiss not to say that we still have a ton of work to do as an industry. There are things that are just laughably bad today. For example, the treatment of cryptocurrencies on a balance sheet under the public company accounting rules, not being able to mark them at fair value is in my humble opinion, quite absurd and something that probably everyone in the industry can rally around as a area that needs some change.

Zac Prince: (28:55)
And there are still a few things that need to get sorted out with the SEC in terms of clearer definitions around tokens or why we don't have a green light for a Bitcoin ETF yet. I think those are probably two of the biggest things that are important for us to work on as an industry with regulators in the near future. But overall, I've been relatively happy with how we've let things play out. And I think that the US ultimately will stay true to form in terms of being a place where we want to facilitate innovation. We want to have these new high growth, high technology, high impact industries be built and domiciled here because it's great for the economy.

Jason Zins: (29:43)
It sounds like your philosophy, your view is really to embrace regulation or at least work with the regulators as opposed to try and operate in these gray areas that may exist out there.

Zac Prince: (29:57)
Absolutely. And look, even if you're operating, even if there's something that's a gray area, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't engage. And I think that's part of our DNA at BlockFi and that DNA comes from a traditional FinTech. There are numerous stories in FinTech corporate development, in other industries in FinTech that experienced a big boom and consolidation and maturation over time as an industry where striking that right balance and it always is a balance, separates the leaders from the folks that ultimately end up not being in positions one, two or three in a particular category.

Jason Zins: (30:45)
Great. Well, I think we're getting towards the end of our time. I know on Twitter, of course, as I'm sure you've seen, everyone's asking for when they're getting their credit card. Can you tell us anything when we can expect it?

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:57)
I'm getting my credit card right after this podcast, I mean right after this SALT Talk, that I know.

Zac Prince: (31:02)
We have waiting list for folks who aren't named Anthony Scaramucci.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:07)
Oh, I'm hugging you.

Zac Prince: (31:10)
And involved with BlockFi as an investor. We have a waiting list with a little over 400,000 people on it. What I can say is that by the time this airs, if it is indeed till the seventh, we will be taking folks off of that public waiting list. We won't be fully through the waiting list, but we will have launched it and the folks on the lower numbers, the first couple of thousands at least of the waiting list, will be getting their cards. And then we're going to work through the waiting list as quickly as we can. And by August, September of this year, we're going to be doing a ton of fun marketing. If you're flying around a major airport, you'll probably see ads talking about airline points are worthless, you should be earning Bitcoin and we're going to go big with it and have a lot of fun.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:55)
All right, well, I'm going to be spending all my money on my BlockFi credit card, Zac. I just want to make sure you know that. Zins, can you call the Lambo dealer please and find out if they accept BlockFi Visa? Can you call them for me after this?

Jason Zins: (32:08)
It's a Visa card, so you tell me Zac. I assume it can be used anywhere Visa is accepted, as they say on the commercials.

Zac Prince: (32:15)
That's right. Everywhere Visa is accepted.

Jason Zins: (32:18)
Anthony, everyone saw the pictures of you in the Lambo, Anthony. We saw them on Twitter, but let's wait to buy for the credit card.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:27)
By the way, it was a rented car. I know everyone goes crazy with the hating and everything. But I did get an orange colored car for the weekend, Zac, because I thought it was Bitcoin orange, Zac.

Zac Prince: (32:39)
I thought that was beautiful. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near as cool as you on the car front. We literally have, we have two Kias.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:48)
Let me tell you, anytime you want to come over to the Scaramucci house, because we're Italian, we got to have cars. Everybody's got to have a car in the family. Anytime you want to come over, drive any of the cars, you're welcome to, but something tells me you're not going to need to do that. You're an amazing entrepreneur. You've got incredible commercial instincts and I think one of the hallmarks of your success, in addition to your charm and your salesmanship is your adaptability. The way you've moved through your career and positioned this company, I'm just looking forward to your future and being a shareholder. I'm super proud of everything you're doing and so thank you for joining SALT Talks and we'll see you soon, Zac. You got to come to the SALT Conference. I'm expecting you there.

Zac Prince: (33:34)
Thanks, Anthony. We'll be there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:35)
I'm expecting you to have a kiosk with the BlockFi Visa.

Zac Prince: (33:37)
We have a booth.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:38)
Yeah, exactly.

Zac Prince: (33:39)
I think we're a sponsor with a booth, the team with be there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:41)
I'm looking forward to handing out BlockFi Visa applications to all my friends and delegates.

Zac Prince: (33:47)
Sounds great. Thanks so much for having me, guys.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:49)
Happy Fourth, my friend.

Jason Zins: (33:50)
Thanks, Zac. That was great. Appreciate it.

Michael Frazis: True Love & Explosive Growth | SALT Talks #232

“There’s always some key consumer decision point. We zoom in to find out who’s winning at that decision point. Things that work really well in a small group of people are very likely to work for all of us.”

Michael Frazis is a Managing Partner and Portfolio Manager at Frazis Capital Partners. Frazis Capital Partner's Frazis Fund beat both the S&P/ASX 200 and MSCI World Total Return Index by over 100% net in 2020. Over the past 12 months, the fund has generated returns of 188%. 

Michael Frazis describes his investment company’s strategy that involves a 30-40 year view, not panicking and diverting the approach during dips and rallies. Evaluating growth stocks involves identifying customer love for a product or service which acts a key indicator of explosive growth potential. This approach is utilized in picking winners in industries like the ‘buy now, pay later’ space. Frazis explains how vaccine development is a long process involving extensive trials and how the emergency approval of Moderna’s vaccine allowed the company to prove the mRNA concept, providing the company a significant boost. 

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Michael Frazis.jpeg

Michael Frazis

Portfolio Manager

Frazis Capital Partners

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

2:39 - Founding his company at 29 and investing strategy

11:38 - Evaluating polarizing stocks like Tesla

15:08 - Investing psychology

18:45 - Processing investment information

23:17 - Investing in industry creators

25:31 - Moderna and life sciences investments

31:43 - Dogecoin case study

35:30 - Growth stocks amid inflation

TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:07)
Hi everyone and welcome back to Salt Talks. My name is Rachel Pether and I'm a senior advisor to SkyBridge Capital, based in Abu Dhabi, as well as being the Global MC for Salt, a thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of business, technology, and public policy.

Rachel Pether: (00:26)
Salt Talks is a series of digital interviews that we launched during the work-from-home period and what we're really trying to do with this series is re-create the experience at our Salt conferences and discuss with some of the world's leading investors, creators, and thinkers.

Rachel Pether: (00:45)
Today, I'm very excited to be joined by Michael Frazis, the founder of, and managing partner at Frazis Capital, based in Sydney, Australia. Prior to founding the firm, Michael spent five years in private equity in London after completing internships at Goldman Sachs and the Boston Consulting Group. Michael read chemistry at Oxford University. He has an MSc Finance from the London School of Economics and he came first in Australia in the 2006 Chemistry Olympiad.

Rachel Pether: (01:13)
So Michael, welcome to Salt Talks.

Michael Frazis: (01:16)
Thanks so much, Rachel. I really appreciate you having me on.

Rachel Pether: (01:19)
No, I'm really excited about this one and I summarized your biography profusely. So tell me a little bit about your background. You often see people with physics degrees moving into investment management, but perhaps to pass from chemistry into finance is a little bit less trodden. So tell me a bit about your journey.

Michael Frazis: (01:40)
Yeah, sure. I mean, I was at Oxford for about four years, did a year of research. I think I was just one of those people that realized lab work probably wasn't for me and Oxford University, this was quite a while ago, 15 years. Since then, Oxford University has really taken off in terms of commercialization of business, which, as far as I was aware at the time anyway, it didn't really exist in the same way. But chemistry is a mess science, it's liquid, it's solutions. It's complicated, nothing's neat, no system is perfect. I think that actually applies pretty well to financial markets. There's so many models and ideas and frameworks you can use, but end of the day you have to accept that we're almost in the future prediction game that is messy and we're dealing with companies and people there are really complicated situations. So I think it did help me in that regard.

Rachel Pether: (02:27)
And I want to pick up on some of those models and frameworks that you use but you were just 29 when you founded the company. What drove you to sit up and go out on your own?

Michael Frazis: (02:40)
Look, I think it's just one of those kids that always knew what he wanted to do and spend most of my twenties working towards that goal. I think it was probably harder to launch the way it did. You're probably better off launching an established shop, but the good news was is starting with almost no capital and met the [inaudible 00:02:57] across every single aspect of the business. So not just the investing, but the marketing, very complicated operations, and regulatory, all the things that are involved in it. And I think that's why a lot of people find it so hard when they move either from a big fund to launch their own offer investment bank trading floor because so many things are looked after for you.

Michael Frazis: (03:15)
It's like, the analogy is, "It's easy to kick a goal in the park with your friends." It's hard if you're, I guess, playing rugby and getting beaten up for an hour and then have to do it in front of a crowd of pressure. I feel like that's a difference between trading on your own or trading within a big organization and coming out of doing it on your own.

Rachel Pether: (03:32)
Mm. You differently realize how much time you can spend on that kind of back-office and administrative side. Daniel can be quite so

Michael Frazis: (03:40)
Important. It's such a critical part of the business. You have to get it right. And it's quite complicated. So people sometimes underestimate how much is involved in that part of it.

Rachel Pether: (03:49)
Yeah, for sure. And just going back to some of the models and frameworks that you use to view the world at Frazis' Capital Partners, tell me a bit about your strategy and what, particularly types of stocks you look at?

Michael Frazis: (04:05)
Yeah, absolutely. So we invest long-only, mostly in technology and the life sciences, about 40 to 50 stocks. Look, our framework is we invest in companies with true customer love and explosive growth. It's a really simple framework, really simple idea, but the reason we chose that is it gives you the right answer to extremely difficult and extremely important questions. Do you think about all the big controversies in the investment world, whether it's Tesla, Bitcoin, early days Amazon, Australia companies like Aftepay often these were highly controversial stocks. They're generally investing heavily in growth and they are heavily shorted. These were stocks, which the smartest people in the market often bet against. Fast forward to 2021. And you know, these companies interest just do okay. In most cases are the best-performing assets in their class. So what we're trying to do is run for you.

Michael Frazis: (04:55)
How do you identify these things early? Who were there in Tesla in 2013, where then Afterpay six years ago, we were early identifying and able to identify these things early. And if you think about it, they all had like these two things in common, firstly, they had an extremely devoted customer base and secondly, they've consistently delivered outstanding results and both of those things are important, very happy to go into more detail in them. But broadly, we have a philosophy of no opinions. So if we think something's good and as true customer love, we should be able to see that in the data, we should be able to see it in the revenue growth, the user growth, the gross profit growth, their web traffic, their rankings on Amazon Alexa, the Google search trends, all of these factors should be combining to show a company that's growing extremely explosively. And that's evidence of that true love. And I can give a few examples if you think that'd be helpful.

Rachel Pether: (05:46)
Yeah, that'd be great. And just from that, there's so many things I want to pick up on and particularly dive much more deeply into that behavioral psychology side of it. But yeah, I'd love you to give me examples of those customers that have true customer love and explosive growth.

Michael Frazis: (06:01)
As an example. Well, example everyone will be familiar with is a company like Apple. So think back, I guess, 2009, 12 years ago, Apple launched the iPhone, there was intense competition. People forget now; you had Nokia, you had Microsoft, they had Blackberry just to pick three, you then had Samsung, Sony, Huawei. A host of well-funded, extremely well-funded companies that were putting out extremely high-quality phones. There was only one company that people queued outside stores for days in advance just to get the hands of be one of the first of 10,000 people with iPhone. There's only one company that people like pitch tents, literally camped, it looked foolish and silly to people. But also there was this cultural phenomenon around and so fast-forward, what happened in the next or the following, like decade or more, everybody else competed on price and features.

Michael Frazis: (06:53)
There are many years in which the smartphone industry lost money, other than Apple, which was able to charge a few hundred dollars extra for each phone and capture the entire profit margin. So as an example of that true customer love directly translating into fundamentals and creating $2 trillion worth of value. Now, to give you another example of, just step back a bit, just think about how that framework is helpful in this instance, it's extremely complicated 12 years ago to forecast which, out of all those amazing, well-resourced companies with globally significant brands, which one of those would win. And the answer was simple. It was which one did the customers love the most, which one is growing, which was delivering the best results. And that continued the whole way through another example is, and this would be very controversial or this has been a very controversial stock.

Michael Frazis: (07:43)
And that is Tesla, rewind the clock several years ago, similar to the smartphone industry, you have a number of amazing companies, top-tier engineers and globally significant brands. I'm talking about Toyota, Volkswagen, Ford. These are some of the best companies in the world, the best brands in the world. But the reality is, when it comes down to it, they're all competing on price and features. None of them really has that true customer love. Tesla obviously did. So Elon Musk love him or hate him and he's very controversial a couple of years ago, in particular, he was able to get on stage and sell hundreds of thousands of cars in a simple presentation, that's customer love.

Rachel Pether: (08:23)
Yeah.

Michael Frazis: (08:24)
And again, you fast-forward, he grew that production profile effectively from a couple of 1000 eight years ago but 25,000, 50,000, a 100,000 to 250,00, 500,000, close to a million cars a year run rate.

Michael Frazis: (08:38)
And that is the explosive growth so you have the true customer love. And then you had the explosive growth. And just to give another example from the auto industry, there are other examples of car companies that have that customer love, an example that'd be Ferrari. So an EV sales basis, Tesla is generally traded roughly around where Ferrari has, which shows there really is something going on. The companies that do have that real customer love that does transfer into their valuations. And most importantly, transfers into their fundamentals. We look back now in 2021 and the company is doing 25 times the sales it was doing several years ago when everybody was shortened. And that was the key. That was the key point. That was the clue, the true customer love, and that explosive ramp-up.

Michael Frazis: (09:23)
Basically, what we're doing in our fund is creating a portfolio of about 45 companies that display these characteristics. And one of the things we do is we push, I think, explosive growth much further than most people would. So the last time we calculated, we have to make certain adjustments, strip outgrowth from acquisitions, and so on using the latest quarterlies, maybe adjust for a couple of life sciences companies, but the average portfolio growth rate organically using latest results was over 150%. So these companies that are 150% bigger than they were last year. Last year we did over 108% net as a fund. I think this financial year we're tracking over 80% net. The reason we've been able to achieve those numbers isn't because we're smarter than anybody else or we can see the matrix better than anybody else. It's simply because we're backing companies that are systematically and structurally growing at explosive rates, and frankly taking those revenues and that success from the rest of the market.

Michael Frazis: (10:15)
I hope that gives some flavor of how we can use that really simple-sounding framework of true love and explosive growth to answer really difficult questions like was Tesla or long or short, eight years ago, or five years ago? Was Apple going to win? Who's going to win the smartphone war? I think, all the ink that was spilled, all those 100 page reports on the auto industry, all the analysts researching smartphones, assessing each model for the characteristics and the pricing and how they're compared to each other and true customer love and explosive growth got you the right answer to both those questions. And indeed we see that again and again and again and again

Rachel Pether: (10:53)
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, Apple's the only phone I've ever stood in a queue for three hours just to get it fixed. It's got that real following. And I think the Tesla example is really interesting because an Elon Musk is still a very controversial figure today, but he was one of the first, I know that recently there's been a sort of push from the retail side against stocks that are heavily shorted, but Tesla was the original heavy short, wasn't it? Just because of that polarizing following. And I guess that could really be driven by the people that did have that true customer love and the people that didn't really understand how that those dynamics were working.

Michael Frazis: (11:37)
Yeah. I think there's something really fundamental that you've touched on there, which was how heavily shorted Tesla was. There's a really good reason why these companies are both the most heavily shorted and controversial stocks and the best returning ones, it's the reason. And the reason is as simple as these are the companies that have excess consumer demand. The number one problem for every company is actually sales. How do we drive revenue? How do we grow? How do we beat our competitors? Take market share like that is the number one problem for any company. There's a very small number of companies, which are the only ones we invest in have the opposite problem. They sell out of iPhones, they still have pre-orders of cars and to meet that demand, they have to spend heavily.

Michael Frazis: (12:25)
And they're often spending in the income statement. They're not doing, they are doing CapEx, but they're also spending heavily in the income statement, on human capital, on R&D, on sales and marketing, on G&A all those things that are costs. So what's happening is people that come within traditional value lens, see those big cost items and see them as expenses and see the very mega cash flow at the bottom.

Michael Frazis: (12:47)
So software is the best example of this, a good software companies probably lose money if you consider stock-based comp probably generate cash if you take out stock-based comp, but the rational decision for them is actually to spend all their revenue, all their gross profit dollars on sales and marketing because they can get a five or 10 times return on that. And so it's really interesting to think that the framework everybody's using, this value framework, gives you the opposite answer to questions like Afterpay, Tesla, Shopify, you could go on all the best companies basically in the world. And the reason for that is they had this explosive demand. They're growing extremely fast. They're investing extremely heavily to meet that demand. So it looks like, to a traditionally investor, the cash flow negative. When, in reality, they're getting rights of return on that capital far beyond what you can get from a chemical factory or some industry that was invented 300 years ago.

Rachel Pether: (13:40)
Yeah. I love the point about capital as well and the human capital element. And I remember speaking to someone in Silicon Valley about someone, like, just to pick up on Elon Musk, the Elon Musk thing, and the quality of human capital that he attracts. So Tesla spaceX, it really is, it's the people are that employees as well, they are really committed to the business as well as the customer. So I guess that's really all tied up in the brand, isn't it in terms of true love?

Michael Frazis: (14:09)
You get the smartest people, you get to the right answer. So I'll give you another example of Tesla. The whole thing is fully integrated with computer systems. So if you could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a car, each component could be made by different suppliers. They will have to stitch them together. So it's really fragile, really difficult to manage that. And for Tesla, it's all ground up. And you're very right, these companies attract the best talent, as well as investors, and as well as immense demand. Yeah, it's very interesting point all around.

Rachel Pether: (14:46)
You mentioned about the composition of the balance sheet, I guess, and where the spending is happening. And you look at the last 12 months and all crises really trigger certain changes in behavior. So how do you see psychology as playing into investing, particularly on the behavioral finance side?

Michael Frazis: (15:08)
Yeah. Look, there's no doubt. There's something about the market, the way it forces everybody to panic and capitulated at lows, and then panic-buy at the highs. There's something really intrinsic going on. In those panics, like last year, we're genuinely long-term, we stayed fully invested last year. We stayed fully invested in two moments that mattered. The first one was obviously in March. So we didn't play a perfect game. We didn't foresee the crash. If anything, we thought it would be much milder than it was, but for every dollar of stock we sold, we made sure we bought a dollar of stock or something else. So it didn't change around without actual dollar exposure and that ended up we were fully ready for a two-year bear market that would have likely wiped most competitors in the industry out.

Michael Frazis: (15:55)
It brought us to the break. We're fully ready for that. As it so happened, that locked down of London, New York City. That was a lot, so, to go to your behavior psychology moment. The moment of panic turned out to be the low. So if you woke up, read the papers and like, "Whoa, they've shut down London and New York, this looks kind of dangerous." If that was your approach, I might sell my stocks. You actually caused, firstly caused that crash. The second one, that was it. And so we recovered within, not sure exactly it was probably 4, 5, 6 weeks later we're back on top. The second moment and this is probably more important and harder to do is that later in the year we're up 20% when the market was still down 20. So we're locked in is huge outperformance.

Michael Frazis: (16:36)
Now, people who know the industry, often when you get these 30, 40% outperformance, you're going to lock that in. You can ride the rest of your career on that. You can basically buy the market and your chart will always be that much bigger, better and stronger than your peers, but it's the wrong answer long-term. On a 30-to 40-year view, you have to stay invested through those rallies as well as through the dips. And so we're constantly going back to that decision making, how do we improve our decision making, our process? We don't decide what to do at any particular moment. We decide what to do in every single moment like that over the next 30 or 40 years. So sure, often sometimes the market will crash and that'll be halfway down, like something we saw in March that'll be halfway, and you can sell and do better out of it.

Michael Frazis: (17:19)
But what is the right answer? You're going to sell every crash what's that going to do to long-term returns? If you think like that, all of a sudden, it's obvious you cannot be a systematic seller in crashes. Similarly, if you think, okay, the market's up a lot, sorry, the market's down a lot, we're up a lot. Let's lock this in. If you sell the rallies, you'll also systematically underperform over 30 to 40 years, you have to sit there through both. And so I think that's allowed us to step back from that day-to-day behavioral tricks that the market plays on you and really focus on the long-term by making our decision making like that. It's a really helpful guide for us.

Rachel Pether: (17:59)
There's two really important points that you just made in there that I want to pick up on, you mentioned about not having any opinions as well. And one thing that I personally struggle with is that we've had this paradigm shift to a networked world. So we can shoot out from many media to many media very, very fast. And you almost go to infinity extremely quickly in terms of opinions being shouted at you and so many sources of information. And you mentioned that you try not to have any opinions. So how do you take all this information and particularly how do you use social media within that as well?

Michael Frazis: (18:46)
Look, we're pretty simple. We'll just look at the fundamentals and by fundamentals, I generally mean the key KPIs. So the user growth, the revenue growth, the revenue to user, gross profit margins, things like that, but no opinions. I mean, we won't walk into a room and shake a CEO's hand, and then form a view on the company based on how we think that meeting, well, like those little cute clues that we you picked up on. Similarly, you'll see a lot of people who read a lot of research, sell-side research, and also things written by other people in the buy-side. Well, let's pick, our think, I think this is going to happen next. I think this company going do better now, I think that this is happening. The market's got this wrong. I think the market hasn't understood this, what's really going to happen is this, whenever you see these phrases, which you see again and, again, that is opinion.

Michael Frazis: (19:29)
What excites us is somebody saying, "Hey, this company is going 200%" or "All the kids are obsessing about this new thing." That is what excites us. And you go, okay, let's look it up. Let's see how the website is doing. And then you see the traffic going up and then look at their results and see revenue growing explosively. And you can see that they're spending a lot of money, but also making a lot of gross profit dollars. And every time they spend a few million dollars on SGNA, they increase the total lifetime value by many times more. That's the thing that excites us. And that's what I mean by no opinions. So for us to come in and decide, I think this company has true customer love.

Michael Frazis: (20:06)
We'll then go back and look and say, okay, what's it growing at? Or maybe someone's pitching us a stock, a broker, they'd be like, "We think this is a really interesting software company and it's going to do really well in the next five years." And you look at it and it's growing at 15%. Well, if something's really 15%, it can't really be changing the world, it can't really be lighting the industry on fire. I can't really be that important, that relevant. Whereas like I said, our company is average in our portfolio averaging well over 100%, these are big companies. The medium mark-ups over 20 billion Aussies, I guess that's about 15 billion US. These are not small businesses, they're large businesses. And if they're growing at those explosive rates, they're taking money from the rest of the market because global GDP is roughly flat.

Michael Frazis: (20:50)
So we've got a portfolio of 50 stocks growing 100%-plus they're taking that revenue from somewhere else and that's somewhere else is the rest of the market. So look at how that performed. It's partly just higher returns, but it's also the fact that the market probably has done not as well as people were hoping, five years ago, it's been a very difficult. Now, there's been a bit of a rally in 2021. You could argue from 2017 to 2020, life was pretty tough for most markets and that was because a handful of companies. And one of the reasons it was a handful of companies were taking enormous amounts of revenue and market share from others. And sometimes you know it, sometimes you can see it. Sometimes you say, "Oh, Afterpay has basically killed credit cards in Australia or dramatically reduced credit cards in Australia" Afterpay has credit tens of billions of dollars of value.

Michael Frazis: (21:37)
Australian banks are down tens of billions of dollars value. Tesla has gone up like this, the rest of the industries come down, the rest of the auto industry has come down. Shopify has gone like that and Kovan has gone like that. The e-commerce providers have tripled and the physical retail are down.

Michael Frazis: (21:51)
Sometimes you can literally see where that value has gone, but sometimes it just must have come from somewhere else in the economy. It's share of mind, share of wallet. And it's so important, one of the reasons I'm bringing this up is people look at [inaudible 00:22:04] and think that's way too hard. You know what? I get it. I can't use my Warren Buffet, my Graham. I can't use my principles. I can't use my screening. I can't use fake cash flow. I can't use all these things that I'm used to using. It's in the too hard basket that you cannot outperform in today's market and then not own these companies doing this well, because if you do have that framework, you're going assist to that value, that traditional value framework, you will systematically miss every single good life sciences company, every single good software company, every good single good FinTech. And that's where the value and share of wallet share mind is going.

Rachel Pether: (22:39)
I do want to talk a bit about life sciences, but what I think is interesting is that some of the names that you keep mentioning, so affirm or sorry, Afterpay and Tesla, not only are they great companies in and of themselves, but they're also almost industry creators, right? You look at Klarna, Affirm, Afterpay, there wasn't really a buy-now, pay-later space a few years ago. And there wasn't really a electric vehicle car space a few years ago. So not only that, they have true customer love, but they're really creating new industries in and of themselves as well.

Michael Frazis: (23:18)
Absolutely. I mean, we used to focus on that as an entire way of looking at these things. And that's the category creators. It's interesting, like many years ago, and after it's like all this, we have 50 companies, these are all 2-3% positions. We just like to talk about the ones that people are most familiar with, because often they'll remember how they thought about them through their journeys: I remember Afterpay runs like PayPal will squash them, credit card companies will squash, but actually ended being the opposite. PayPal has responded to Afterpay basically by copying them, so has Shopify paying for. The visa mascot actually net beneficiaries of the buy-now, pay-later because it's splitting up one transaction into four, I guess there's another point that we often think about really carefully and it's applicable to the life science as well.

Michael Frazis: (24:00)
And any product or service, there's a decision point where you choose one product over another. It could be you sit down at this restaurant and not that restaurant, it could be you click Afterpay instead of PayPal, instead of putting in your long credit card details, it could be buy this car, not that car. There's always some key decision point consumer decision plan.

Michael Frazis: (24:21)
So one thing I should add, we're basic consumers, which I can talk about if you want, but there's always a decision point. And we always zoom in and try and figure out who's winning at that decision point because often who's winning in a small country or a small state can then roll that strategy out. Human psychology, there's certain things that seem to repeat, things that work really well in a small group of people, are very likely to work for all of us. So really focusing on that decision point is also something I think we do differently. We're not looking at historics in the same way. We're not spending as much time with management and index over weighting what they're saying, they're wink, wink, nudge, nudge is saying. We're really focusing on that decision point because that's what determines value in every industry.

Rachel Pether: (25:03)
Yeah. And so let's pick up on: you do mention life sciences, which is a nice segue. And you talk about the true customer love, and I know you're invested in Moderna. So how do you put that into the equation? Because obviously, you do have that, I guess that need at the moment, from the vaccine perspective, for customers to desire the product, but are there other aspects to Moderna that attract you to that as a stock?

Michael Frazis: (25:32)
Yeah, definitely. I mean, we're familiar with the company before Coronavirus, but the core part of our strategy in life science is ultimately simple. We want to see companies deliver, we want to see results. We don't want to guess on what's going to work and what's not going to work. mRNA vaccines got to a point where that they're basically on the cusp of working, Moderna had one for CMV. The issue with vaccines is they're really difficult to bring to market. Think about somebody who's terminally ill with cancer with a few months to live. You're very morally justified in experimental treatments to look after them. The ethics makes sense you need to try it. And you're very ethically justified in trying something that may or may not work. Think about vaccines, proper vaccine trials, you have to vaccinate huge numbers of people, the healthy people, generally there might even be people who could be pregnant, for example, or have all kinds of things.

Michael Frazis: (26:22)
The bar for safety is so exceptionally high. So it's extremely hard to commercialize these things. And Moderna was very slowly in making progress with the CMV, which stops Herpes, but the Coronavirus was just like a jolt for them, and the evidence was there quite early. So Moderna created the vaccine just from the data, just from the virus sequence. It was released on the internet. It's also one of the first times there was like a... It's really that point where medical science became a data science, this whole thing was developed and designed through data end up being incredibly meaningful. Here's the thing, the Coronavirus gave them a ton of funding, a ton of attention, a really urgent need, and that allowed them to prove the concept of mRNA vaccines and gave them huge amounts of funding.

Michael Frazis: (27:08)
So something like 20 billion of pre-orders this for company, that was only five billion very recently, or eight billion very recently. So it's a huge amount of money that is going into this company. The good news is that because they've commercialized the delivery method. They live in nanoparticle casing, which effectively goes into your bloodstream, isn't degraded. Somehow merges with cells and goes in and delivers the... All that was years and years and years of technological development to do that. And it's still very difficult to do, and we can only hit certain parts of the body and certain types of cells. But once they've proven that, now it's a simple case of just changing the data, changing the data sequence, the mRNA sequence, to cure a huge number of other diseases. So an example would be there was a Coronavirus that came out about over 100 years ago and it still circulates, it still causes a lot of deaths in elderly.

Michael Frazis: (28:00)
Moderna is very lucky to be able to put through a single-shot vaccine that can vaccinate against multiple types of influenza, all kinds of historic Coronaviruses, and obviously the more recent one, including new strands all in one because you can put multiple strands of mRNA in the one dose. To think about the commercial opportunity of that and that is just in respiratory diseases. And this, in our view, will be one of the major pharmaceutical companies. Now to bring the general point. But how does that compare to the other stuff? Well, we knew very early on that the vaccines were getting immunological responses.

Michael Frazis: (28:34)
I think there was something not quite right about the way that all the chief medical officers around the world, certainly in Australia, said, "These things take two years to develop." That's not actually true. Swine flu went from the first few cases to a vaccine in about nine months. E-bola set a precedent also for very rapid vaccine delivery, but effectively use the phase two, three trials to vaccinate frontline workers. There is historical precedent. It was one of the tests to know if the person talking new vaccines because if they said, "It always takes two to two years or more," you knew they didn't actually know the kind of history of it.

Michael Frazis: (29:10)
And it had very early, good data, so it wasn't our opinion that work. We knew that it was very likely to work and also had this ability to roll that technology out across the entire platform. So you have a number of other companies in the life sciences that we invest in. The vast majority of them have revenue or growing at triple digits plus. So they've already bought treatments to market, FDA approved and winning share of wallet from physicians. And then they're using that money to then invest in their pipeline, which uses the same platform technology. So we want a platform technology, proven technology. We have, I think we have like really good people on life sciences. World-class, these are people from the top universities in the world. I'm looking at this for us, but really the proof is in the pudding.

Michael Frazis: (29:57)
If they've got an FDA treatment that works and is generating revenues. Again, it's the way we look at the rest of the technology space that is a more important data point then even the smartest person in life sciences thinks. The data is more important than the most important person's opinion. So there's a lot of similarities in the way we do it as well. And it's really helpful about a third of our portfolios in the life sciences. It's really helpful in taming those swings across the rest of the portfolio because no way around it, we're fully invested in extremely high growth and volatile stocks.

Rachel Pether: (30:29)
Mm-mm (negative). No, and I think that's a great point you made about life sciences companies are really data companies as well. I guess in any factor of life, there's really no such thing as an overnight success, but given the precedent and the data that they've already accumulated over years of research, you're not starting from scratch, as it were. And another point; some of the things you've been saying, echoing a really great podcast I listened to the other day. It was a gentleman called Dan McMurtrie from Tyro Partners in the US and he was talking about how, when people see a situation, I think the actual example was Dogecoin. And he was saying that particularly the older generation can have this knee-jerk reaction of seeing something and screaming. It's absurd, it's absurd, it's absurd. And almost them giving that thing the attention actually is what makes it real. How do you, I guess you see that playing out and maybe a little bit about the intergenerational aspects as well?

Michael Frazis: (31:43)
Yeah, there's a couple of things there. So think about Dogecoin. It's like the perfect example almost of how user framework can make predictions. So explosive growth, obviously usage went up like that, tick. Customer love, people just obsessed about it. They loved it. They tweet about it. They're obsessed. All the cryptocurrencies they're most proud of, their Dogecoin. They'll talk about it. And like, it's got this huge amount of Mindshare, it's giving people pleasure just to put money in that. So our framework actually gets to the right answer. Our framework says that's a buy. And I wish we were thinking like this eight years ago, we could put some more money in bitcoin.

Michael Frazis: (32:17)
Another thing you touched on is the generational thing that is here to stay. That is huge. If a company has a funny name, like as my generation, we'll buy a stock if it's got a funny meme about it [inaudible 00:32:32] and we'll continue to do so in the future. And it almost makes sense. It's idea if something's good enough to make millions of people laugh and millions of people put a couple thousand bucks in, you're talking about huge numbers. It's not really that it's like, let's say there's, I don't know. I don't even know the numbers, but let's say there's... I think, I once calculated that if everybody on Wall Street bets, I think somebody else made the calculation invested a thousand dollars or something like 50 billion. And that is more than enough. There's a lot of very wealthy people on that side as well.

Michael Frazis: (33:00)
There's more than enough to push around any stock and even in any cryptocurrency. And that aspect is really interesting. And I think that's a change that will continue, especially with the pace of social media. Where a good meme can just go rip around the world and result in huge amounts of demand. I mean, we don't really participate in that. I think if you look at what's the main one, GameStop, so that was trading it way too cheap. If you think about it, it was like zero point, whatever-times sales on a company that had five billion of revenue, we lead to us. If we look at the numbers, we were actually, "It's definitely worth something," it wasn't worth the 300 million dollars. It was definitely worth something, probably in the billions. So it was way, way, way to cheap, which led to that huge ramp-up.

Michael Frazis: (33:45)
But in general, the main way that Apple flow is affected is our companies are generally shorter buy-in institutions and the other side of that is invested in by retail. And so there is a bit of a hot-element part to our portfolio, where when things moved there were really moved because the short sellers are buying back and the retail partners are buying. When they fall, they can really move as well, so that obviously gives us opportunities. We generally don't sell when things move up, for the reasons we mentioned, but often there's very good entry points. When you get these huge retail panics like we just had, we can get actually pretty aggressive and buy on the backside of that, because we do our numbers. We know our process works. We're not using opinion. We're going straight to the data, the revenue growth, the KPIs, the independence statistics that gives us the conviction to then take the other side of the hot money flows when they got out. So it's very relevant to us. And I think it's a fascinating part of the market that we all love to watch.

Rachel Pether: (34:37)
Yeah. I'm still now just a little bit depressed that I've spent so much of my life doing 40 page PowerPoint presentations, and I could have just done a funny picture or something.

Michael Frazis: (34:47)
Sadly, same way the investment management industry could have done better if we bought Bitcoins.

Rachel Pether: (34:48)
Yeah.

Michael Frazis: (34:51)
Instead of the things we are actually doing.

Rachel Pether: (34:56)
I do want to take one final point as well and bring it into the current market positioning and how inflation ties into true customer love because inflation obviously has a lot of market participants freaking out about growth stocks in particular. So I want to dive deeper into this. The stocks that you invest in growth stocks, but they have true customer love. How do you think this could make them more resilient to an inflationary scenario, what are your views on that?

Michael Frazis: (35:32)
Look, there's no doubt that a lot of our companies grew throughout, even the first part of the Coronavirus crash wasn't just a rotation into certain sectors. Look, inflation is really relevant and it's relevant in a few ways. I've actually got this weird idea that our stocks will actually benefit from that. So it affects valuations and fundamentals. Now, valuations have obviously taken a hit they already have. Most of these stocks are sideways at the last six months and they're growing at like I said, 150%-plus. So materially bigger than there were, the valuations have already materially contracted. And as inflation fears rise, rates will rise, and both, in theory, that means a higher discount rate and low valuations. In practice, it means that people just take the bigger money out of stocks and putting 2% for free with no risk.

Michael Frazis: (36:16)
That's pretty compelling to a lot of investors. There's no doubt that that relationship holds the way people expect it to. What is different is our companies should do and have been doing extremely well in inflation environments. The reason for that is firstly, inflation environments involved rising prices, e-commerce platforms, plus that straight through most of them in luxury or in those really loved parts of the market where they have exceptional pricing power and lifting prices even more. Second issue with inflation is typically high input costs. Well, most of the input for our company's is actually things like, I guess customer luck, realistically, IP, R&D, these intangible things. They're not buying, steal from a factory, and turning into widgets for another factory. That's where they get squeezed.

Michael Frazis: (37:02)
The third way it could hurt is if rising rates lead to a debt collapse if you're over-leveraged and rates go up, wiped out your cash flow, and collapse the equity value of a business. That is not relevant to our companies because they almost all hold net cash. And the payload of stock-based comp, which obviously we have to account for and account for carefully. But the reality is the high-interest rate, they actually get high cash flow from those things. Finally, in this particular inflationary environment, basically, what happened is we had a moment last year or period last year where certain parts of the economy ran red hot, places like e-commerce, in particular, comes to mind, they had their best, it's like Christmas every day for some of these online retailers. That then broadened into consumer boom and it flowed into places like auto's, where secondhand cars are being sold for more than they were bought new to real estate. It really turned into a broader consumer boom. And again, in that environment, we can expect our companies to accelerate, which is exactly what we saw in the last results.

Michael Frazis: (38:01)
Our average growth rate increased over that period. So pulling all that together, you have like, there's one of that valuation contraction, which could continue if rates continue to rise, but the fundamentals will win at any period longer than two years. The growth rates that we're investing in will very quickly dwarf any valuation change caused by inflation. So we're very comfortable with the current environment. It's really like deflationary environments that have the worst outcomes. I've got family in Greece. So look at what they experienced through deflation or the Eurozone in the 2000s in the aftermath of the last crisis, or even to a lesser extent, perhaps United Kingdom, after the 2009 crisis, deflation, it's people pulling money in, its prices is going down, it's wages just going down that's the environment that's really scary and really bad for stocks. This is not like that. So we are optimistic from here.

Rachel Pether: (38:57)
Fabulous. And on the point of the housing market, I did actually see the other day that there's now more real estate agents in the US than there are available homes on the market. So that just gives you a sense of how hot that market is right now as well.

Michael Frazis: (39:14)
Very interesting.

Rachel Pether: (39:15)
So well, thank you so much for your time, my God, it's been an absolute joy having you come on today, and I hope that we can get you back on at the end of this year to see if your performance has continued through 2021.

Michael Frazis: (39:27)
Thank you, Rachel. Really appreciate it. That was a lot of fun. So thanks for having me on.

Rachel Pether: (39:31)
Great. Thank you.

Nina Burleigh: Anti-Expertise America | SALT Talks #231

“We now have vaccines that protect children from diseases that used to wipe out or cause traumatic illness… We’re spoiled. We don’t actually know what’s on the other side of this shield modern medical science has created.”

Nina Burleigh is a best-selling author, journalist and lecturer. Her latest book, “VIRUS: Vaccinations, the CDC and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic”, is a brisk, real-life thriller that delves into the malfeasance behind the American pandemic chaos, and the triumph of science in an era of conspiracy theories and contempt for experts.

Nina Burleigh explains why vaccine hesitancy has been caused in part by a lack of Republican leadership with many in the party enabling or propagating misinformation around the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. She details some of the mistakes made by the Trump administration during its COVID response and how it resulted in unnecessarily high death counts. Burleigh notes the game-changing nature of the mRNA vaccines, the first widely experienced example of this breakthrough biotechnology. Despite many of the major errors, she acknowledges the difficulty governments face in striking a balance around lockdown measures.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Nina Burleigh

Author

VIRUS

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

5:53 - Vaccine hesitancy and misinformation

15:50 - Trump administration’s COVID response

25:38 - Evaluating the WHO

31:28 - mRNA technology

35:05 - Misinformation echo chambers

37:42 - Finding balance in a government response

41:41 - Continuing COVID impact

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 talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021, here in our home city of New York for the first time, but that 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: (00:45)
We're very excited today to welcome Nina Burleigh to SALT Talks. Nina Burleigh is a national journalist and author most recently of Virus, Vaccinations, the CDC, and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic, in addition to many other best-selling books. That's her most recent book obviously, which is highly relevant today. She's most recently covered America under Donald Trump as a National Politics Correspondent at Newsweek, she got her start in journalism covering the Illinois State House in Springfield, and has reported from almost every state in the continental US, and has been based in Italy, France, and the Middle East.

John Darsie: (01:22)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who is the Founder and Managing at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:31)
Well, Nina, first of all, congratulations on the book. I'm going to hold it up here, I like holding up the book of my friends. Virus, Vaccinations, the CDC, and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic. Which is obviously one of the tragedies of our time. Book is fascinating, it's a quick read, but you really go into all of the things that we did wrong.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:57)
So, before we get there though, tell us a little more about your background. You're talking to us from your friend's kitchen in beautiful Michigan, you're from Michigan, right? Tell us where you're from and tell us how you grew up.

Nina Burleigh: (02:11)
Well, first of all, I have to correct our millennial on the pronunciation of my name, it's Burleigh like a football player, not Burleigh.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:20)
Good, good, I love the fact that you corrected him, okay, -

Nina Burleigh: (02:24)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:24)
... because let me tell you something, he gets fan mail and I don't get any fan mail. So I just have to tell you, I'm very happy that [crosstalk 00:02:29].

John Darsie: (02:29)
I split the difference, I started Burleigh, and I said, maybe it's Burleigh.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:33)
By the way-

Nina Burleigh: (02:33)
I noticed you did that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:33)
... on all of these names, [inaudible 00:02:37] and he's always pronouncing it perfectly and I'm stumbling over myself. So I'm very joyous right now. Continue, Nina, please.

Nina Burleigh: (02:47)
Yeah, so okay, so it's Nina Burleigh, I am a Midwestern, born and bred. I grew up in, as Anthony said, spent lots of my childhood here at Southern Michigan. Played a lot in the woods and just learned to swim here and learned to hang out at the library because there was nothing to do. So it started me off on my writing career, I have strong roots here.

Nina Burleigh: (03:18)
In the Midwest, I got started in journalism as you said, at the Associated Press in Springfield, Illinois, when state capitals still had state houses filled with press rooms with lots of media. Especially Springfield being one of the big states like Albany, tons of corruption, lots of competing interests, and they're microcosms of what's going on in Washington. So I really got a strong grounding and I think covering and understanding the issues of our time as they were developing.

Nina Burleigh: (03:54)
I go all the way back to the Reagan years, and in my view, that period really was the turning point for a lot of things in our country, including how labor was treating, the unions started to go down, and this growing disrespect for expertise, especially scientific knowledge, by the industries because industry of course wanted to make sure that let's say if you were RJ Reynolds, that there would be competing voices against the notion that tobacco and cigarettes cause cancer. Then of course after that, you get to the climate change era which we're in now, in which companies like Exxon have bankrolled these contrarian scientists who will speak up for the 3% of the scientific community that thinks that climate change is not happening and it's not caused by fossil fuels.

Nina Burleigh: (05:01)
So this is stuff that's been in my purview, is covering politics over the last couple decades. Yeah, I'll leave it at that. I could talk on at length about my career, but let's... whatever you want to discuss, Anthony, I'm game.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:21)
All right, well let's go right to the book, then. Okay, the book, Virus, it's a brilliant story of the science of the virus and the history of vaccines and treatments. You and I know each other, you were on Mooch FM with me and we were talking about the phenomenon in the last 150 years as a result of vaccines. We've extended our lifespan, we're living healthier, and people are taking this for granted. Why do you think 25% of the adult population are vaccine deniers?

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:53)
By the way, my wife gets very mad at me, I might add, because some of her friends are actually college educated and will not take the vaccine. I look at them like they're imbeciles, and she gets very mad at me, but go ahead, I'm sorry. [crosstalk 00:06:06].

Nina Burleigh: (06:06)
Well, you know what? But that observation is very important, what you just said, because when we think of science deniers, we think of [inaudible 00:06:18] and people who didn't get very... they're low information, voters or people who will believe conspiracy theories over science, and so on, and we tend to think that they may be aren't as educated. In fact, that 25%, Anthony, a significant percentage of it, maybe not the majority, but a percentage of it certainly is among the educated. I call them the granola crunchy educated people. I've got friends in my circle like that too, where they won't say they aren't taking the vaccine because they know it's not cool, but you can tell where they're at because they won't say anything when you're talking about the vaccine. They go silent, look a little sheepish. Those are the people who believe that chemistry or chemical, manmade things are not as healthy as natural things.

Nina Burleigh: (07:14)
The answer to that, and for my book, I interviewed people who are in this world of medicine and the culture of science and society, the answer is, look, everything you eat is made of chemistry and chemicals. Bananas are chemical, and so and everything has genetic material in it. So that's the answer to them. You don't have to be chemo phobic to look at the world. So that's one segment of it. Maybe not the largest group, but it is a significant percentage.

Nina Burleigh: (07:48)
The other are low information, low information populations. Again, the low information population's in the white communities in the South, let's say, and some urban areas, black and Latino. There are very low vaccination rates among blacks and Latinos, and I think in New York still unfortunately.

Nina Burleigh: (08:12)
Then overall of this, the big umbrella is that you have or had a leader and have leaders still in political elected leaders in the House and the Senate. Of course, the former guy, I'm talking about who's not a leader. He's a leader in name still, but I don't think he's much of a leader, he doesn't exercise leadership, he is defacto a leader, who persist in refusing to correct, to lead their people and to say to correct these pieces of misinformation and to say, "You know what? This is actually really good. In fact, I got it and so did my children." I'm talking about the former guy. They won't step up for science, they don't want to step up for science because part of their MO, and I guess we can talk about the whole Republican Party behaving this way at this point, is to inject doubt into the fact-based world so that you can continue to press on with a big lie like the election lie.

Nina Burleigh: (09:26)
Okay, so that, we're talking about this distrust, the scorn for expertise, that there's always been that stream in Americans. Americans are, we're DIY, we're common sense, ride off in the sunset with the horse, I can fix it myself. That's a myth, but the 2016 election, the 2015 election really brought into the light this world of alternative information that people were living by, and literally making life decisions on. I can talk about some of the people I met at the Republican National Convention in 2016 whose decision making process was based on such false information that I almost wanted to stop. I almost wanted to stop reporting and start correcting them because I was worried about them. I didn't understand where these streams of miss and disinformation were coming from.

Nina Burleigh: (10:27)
The virus descends upon America at a point in time when we have this phenomenon of disinformation, misinformation, silos of information, and this giant challenging effect that's going on everywhere, and the refusal of people to agree on a fact-based reality. My book is I think what I tried to do was memorialize what they did, how this came about, what the last administration did and didn't do. Then also to really celebrate the science, the triumph of science here in the face of all this, that we then got this manmade miracle of a vaccine that's enabled us all to walk around without masks now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:20)
So let's set the record straight, just you make it very clear in the book. How successful have vaccines been in the modern era?

Nina Burleigh: (11:31)
Okay, so vaccines have been... I mean, we've had vaccine... the first vaccine comes around 250 years ago and it for the smallpox. Before 250 years ago and throughout the entire history of the human species, we had no defense against infectious diseases, nothing, only luck, or you could pray to your god or you can wear garlic or you could... it was sheer luck and supernatural belief. Then this vaccine comes along 250 years ago, they start to fight off, they start to be able to defend against smallpox. Then in the next century, microscopes get invented and humans begin to be able to understand, oh, there are these tiny little things that are in the bodies of cholera victims and tuberculosis victims. Gee, maybe we can attenuate those and you use those as a way to, similar to the cowpox, smallpox vaccine, what doesn't kill you will make you immune. So they would put these dead or weakened viruses and bacterias into people, and that was the vaccine. That is essentially what the platform of the vaccine has been up until this year.

Nina Burleigh: (12:48)
Then we have the 20th century where the developments of vaccines become more and more rapid, more and more effective, and also, mass produced. First big mass vaccination program in the United States, the polio vaccination program in the '50s, which they unfortunately hit a hiccup. One of the companies made a bad batch and they actually injected live virus into kids and that is one of the streams of vaccine... that provokes one of the streams of vaccine distrust that exists to this day.

Nina Burleigh: (13:25)
The vaccine technology or vaccines have like all science, it moves forward in fits and starts. Science, it's not perfect, it is, you experiment and as the data comes in, you alter your understanding. So vaccinations throughout the 20th century are history of these leaps forward, accompanied by on the margins, side effects that were scary, or ineffective vaccines, but overall, Anthony, and this is what we talked about before on your show. Overall, they have been a massive success story. We can see that in, if you were born in 1900, your lifespan in America was 48 and 49 for men and women. It's now 80, so we've doubled our lifespan. Now, of course some of it has to do with antibiotics and the type of food we eat, but most of it, a huge percentage of it has to do with the fact that we now have these vaccines that protect children from diseases, the names of which we can't event pronounce anymore, that used to wipe out or cause traumatic illness that people would remember for a lifetime if they survived it in children. Now we don't have that.

Nina Burleigh: (14:54)
So what's happened is, we have people walking around like your friends who are like, "I don't think I need the vaccine, it's not organic enough," and my friends who are that way, but even educated people walking around going, "Eh, I think I'll decide whether I want to do this or not because it doesn't seem like such a bad..." because we're spoiled, we actually don't know what's on the other side of this shield that modern medical science has created for us.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:20)
I want to go to the politics again for a second because you're mentioning... it's a weird thing, the former administration wants to take credit for Operation Warp Speed. The supporters of that administration want to take credit for it, yet a very large block of those supporters do not want the vaccine. So, I don't understand that at all, I can't get my arms around that. I was wondering if you could help me with that. Go ahead, Nina.

Nina Burleigh: (15:51)
So, Anthony, I'm the... sometimes we get in conversations about the supporters of the former guy and we all just start to sputter in incomprehension because there's no logic to it. There's no logic to this blind following of the leader except for accepting that people do follow leaders blindly. I guess that's what's going on here, because they have turned off the rational logical side of the brain and they're just giving into this emotional reaction to this guy whose behavior and statements, they seem to admire so much.

Nina Burleigh: (16:34)
So no, they should get some credit for Operation Warp Speed, I mean they definitely... Operation Warp Speed was, they threw billions of dollars at these pharma companies and they said, "You, you, you, and you, and you, and you," they picked six of them. No big contracts, nontransparent but hey, it was an emergency. They said, "We're going to give you the money whether it works or not. Make a lot of it, if it works, if it doesn't work, you're still going to get to keep the money. By the way, we're going to shield you from litigation. So it worked, it worked great, they made this. It is a medical milestone.

Nina Burleigh: (17:11)
Now this had been on the drawing board for about 15 years but in medicine in America, the FDA has to approve things and these clinical trials can take years. They call it the Valley of Death in the medical world. They bumped it into Warp Speed and yay, it worked. The problem was, they did that, what they weren't going to be able to distribute it widely because the ideology of the former administration that held sway in their actions was that government should be shrunk to the size of pinhead. They weakened the agencies, and that they didn't really want to activate all the levers of government. They didn't want people to see all the government can do this for you, because they preferred that it be shown that private enterprise can do the job just as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:08)
So let's go to the malpractice that took place, the public policy malpractice in the... How many lives could've been saved and what were some of the big missteps at the beginning of the pandemic that you write about in the book?

Nina Burleigh: (18:22)
Sure, well okay, we know from Deborah Birx, who was one of the administration top officials in this issue, that she has this since not being in the administration, that 100,000 Americans was probably what the number should've been, in terms of how many people were going to die of this. Instead, we're closing in on 600,000. Something went wrong. What was it?

Nina Burleigh: (18:54)
I think the early missteps were as we know, the... Well, the greatest misstep, the malfeasance that lasted throughout the year was that they put public relations above public health. He liked the numbers low, I like the numbers low, remember that? What's what he said. I like the numbers low.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:22)
He didn't want to test people, he didn't want to bring the cruise ship in off the coast of California.

Nina Burleigh: (19:27)
He said that in relation to the cruise ship.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:28)
He didn't want to increase the numbers of people, yeah.

Nina Burleigh: (19:30)
But he did, he said it also at a... the context of that comment had to do with the, they were at the CDC and this is actually how I open my book, this incredible scene where he's standing there with the MAGA hat and he's making up these numbers like, "Well, four million tests are going to be available to people at the end of the week." There was no such thing, there were not going to be four million tests. In the same press conference, because he has Tourette's syndrome and he blurts out whatever he thinks, which is great because you can track what's going on. He said, "I like the numbers low, I don't want the sick people coming off that cruise ship out there and put them in so we'll have higher numbers of COVID." Well, COVID was already stalking the streets and rooms at homes and hospitals and nursing homes, of New York State by then, and there were no tests to stop it. So that's the number one, that was the first error and first really preventable error.

Nina Burleigh: (20:31)
Then you had the masks issue, which they can share the blame for that with the WHO and other top officials because they were early on, the doctors were not... they were worried about running out of masks themselves so they were saying don't wear masks. They didn't fully understand that this is an airborne virus and that masks really do help. So they were like, eh, don't wear them. Then [inaudible 00:20:54] changed their mind, those who were opposed to any kind of government restrictions related to this crisis seized on that as a, hey, you know what? Look, they don't know what they're talking about.

Nina Burleigh: (21:09)
Again, that's people don't understand how science works. The doctors thought that it was not airborne and that you didn't need it, and then they realized it was. Well then they told you to do it. So you either have a science person in the White House standing next to you who respects that and who can explain it, and it is easily explained, or you have somebody like a man in a red hat on TV every night going, "Look, the scientists don't really know what they're talking about. You know what? I know what's going on and by the way, I'm not going to wear one. They tell you to wear one but I don't think I'm going to wear one." That's not leadership. He was a leader but he wasn't acting as a leader.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:50)
What do you think the big lessons were from all of this?

Nina Burleigh: (21:55)
Oh boy, well, the big lessons are hopefully that you have somebody in the White House. Look, this is the richest country in the world, we are equipped to deal with these types of things, we have experts all over. What you needed was somebody in the White House who had a scientist on speed dial who could activate what was needed, and he didn't. He puts Mike Pence, evangelical in charge of the COVID response. Birx, Redfield, Azar, the head of the HHS, these are evangelical Christians, Anthony. Not that they're not... well, Azar is a pharma exec, but the other two were actually medical people but ultimately they will call on the supernatural in the end. You needed somebody... like what they've put in there today. There's a guy that the... sorry, the science advisor to Biden is an expert in genetic science.

Nina Burleigh: (22:55)
Genetic science is the future, genetic science has in leaps and bounds in the last two decades begun to change how medicine works. This mRNA vaccine is the first widely experienced example. A fruit of all of that knowledge, but it's really hard to understand for the average person. It's like a separate language. I mean, I had a microbiology PhD student at Standard helping me with this book just to keep talking to me, doing genetics for dummies because it's really hard to understand when you start looking at it. You can visualize it, DNA, RNA, made of proteins on a strand, but it's hard to understand it. So you need somebody who really knows what it is and knows what these things are and knows how to speak in that language. Then you need somebody who respects that and says to that person, "You tell the public or you tell me what I need to tell the public. Then you tell the public what the scientists and the medical community are telling you." That's number one.

Nina Burleigh: (24:01)
Number two, what would be another lesson? I mean, to me that's the first lesson. I think the second lesson is, this has to be a global response. We're not there yet but we again, we're the first generation of human beings who carry these things around with us, every single one of us understands using this little machine we have in our pocket, that every other human being on the planet was experiencing the same thing that we were experiencing in real time. We could see that, we can see it right now, we can click on and see what's going on in India or in Africa. It's in real time, we have so much data and so much information that we can't really walk away from this moment without recognizing that we're a linked species. We are one species on this planet and if we can't have a global response to something like... This was a global catastrophe like an asteroid hitting us or like climate change. If you don't start thinking in global terms about responding to challenges like this, you're not going to get out of them. You're always going to be down in the ditch with the lowest, the weakest.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:14)
Well, one of the problems is, as you talk about a global response, and this feeds the conspiracists, this feeds [crosstalk 00:25:23]. Normal people in the establishment can make mistakes. As an example, the WHO, the World Health Organization, this probably wasn't its shining moment. Talk a little bit about that and your assessment of it in the book.

Nina Burleigh: (25:38)
Well, you mean about the WHO or about just this-

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:42)
Yeah.

Nina Burleigh: (25:42)
... sense of-

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:43)
Yeah, it didn't cover itself [crosstalk 00:25:44].

Nina Burleigh: (25:44)
... [crosstalk 00:25:44] paranoia about global [crosstalk 00:25:47]?

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:46)
Well, there's a combination of things going on. The WHO had some missteps, they had some missteps related to China, they had some missteps related to the protocols, and then that fuels the conspiracy even though they were perhaps, let's call them honest missteps as we were trying to understand what was going on.

Nina Burleigh: (26:04)
Yeah, well I mean the UN, UNISEF, the UNHCR, the WHO, all of these global bodies represent to a certain segment of Americans who supported the former guy, this sensation of our national entity is crumbling, the walls are crumbling, we're no longer a nation, we're now part of this world government. I'm old enough to remember when they were paranoid about black helicopters flying over Wyoming that might be coming from the UN. So this stream of paranoia remains very strong and the former guy provoked it. He also attached himself to it, they immediately when they got in there, immediately started disengaging from these world bodies. They got out of a bunch of them even before the virus, they were disengaging from UNISEF and complaining about the UN taking too much money and so on.

Nina Burleigh: (27:04)
Then the WHO, here comes this crisis that is a public health crisis, it's a global pandemic, and they fail to first of all, to get this mask things straight. They're giving miss or inconclusive certain information, and they are slow to respond. I mean, the whole China thing, the government, our government thought that there was something fishy about the Wuhan lab. They had been getting information for years that the bio safety maybe wasn't particularly up to snuff from their people over there. So they immediately seized on that because you had this Sinophobic, Peter Navarro and Pompeo and these people who had been just banging these drums about the Chinese and we need to stand up to the Chinese. So they did not like the way the WHO went along with what the Chinese were saying about what was happening. To their credit, I mean the Chinese did release the genome quickly, they did admit that there was something going on in January. Was it happening there earlier? I don't know, they claim that there were some sick lab workers but we have seen no proof of that yet.

Nina Burleigh: (28:23)
The point is, the globalization of the world is inescapable, we can't... the reason this thing is a pandemic is because we are linked, everyone is on airplanes all the time, the supply chains are messed up from COVID because we are so into... there are ships sitting in ports over in, I don't know, Portugal or China or Italy that can't go anywhere because there have been people locked down. So we are completely interrelated.

Nina Burleigh: (28:56)
I get why people object to, let's say the way the Chinese government operates, the authoritarianism, the intrusiveness of their... I mean, they'd lock down and they did get rid of their pandemic in a month or two, it was back to normal because of these extreme bio surveillance measures that they instituted, which we would never put up with here. I get that, but I think that when you're faced with a pandemic or global challenges, we need leaders who will sit down with other leaders and put that kind of thing aside and go, let's move on and let's talk about what we can do together to protect ourselves. One of those thing is, let's all get together and share this vaccine. I think that Biden trying to approach the patent issue, it's weak, he's not going to get around, they're not going to get around it because there's so much money in pharma, but people have to come together and look at this.

Nina Burleigh: (29:58)
I know it sounds Pollyanna-ish and like singing Kumbaya and so on, but sooner or later, we have to admit that we are one planet, one world, and it's very small, it's very small. We can have wars all the time and we can fight over borders and so on, but these types of species-wide challenges, we need leadership that will look at that and be willing to negotiate and compromise and work together on these types of issues.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:29)
Well, I really appreciate it, Nina. I'm going to turn it over to John who has questions from our audience and his own questions. The title of the book, Virus, Vaccinations, the CDC and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic, it's a great read, great invested research in it. With that, I'll turn it over to John, who has now learned how to pronounce your name, Nina, which makes me very happy.

Nina Burleigh: (30:56)
[crosstalk 00:30:56].

John Darsie: (30:56)
Nina Burleigh, it's a beautiful name and I'm proud to now be able to pronounce it correctly.

Nina Burleigh: (31:01)
Thank you, John.

John Darsie: (31:03)
But you talked about mRNA vaccines and we should all be thankful for the fact that there was this intersection between research that had been taking place on mRNA vaccines for the flu vaccine, for cancer research, and the perfect application for the coronavirus pandemic. Could you talk about the future of mRNA vaccines and just the potential that they have unleashed, in terms of vaccinations and treating a wide variety of diseases?

Nina Burleigh: (31:29)
I read a lot about it. I think in the book I address it a little bit. I mean, in terms of the possibility. They're even talking about the possibility that this could deal with the common cold, but it is a milestone, it's not as much of a milestone maybe as antibiotics, but it is up there with it because it's a synthetic, manmade little strand that they inject into your system. It's transient, it doesn't change your DNA, transient means it dissolves, it goes away. All it does-

John Darsie: (32:08)
It doesn't make you grow a third arm or leg or anything.

Nina Burleigh: (32:10)
It's not going to change, it's not going to make us grow a third arm, it's not going to make your... as my friend, nutty friend Naomi Wolf is running around saying it's changing women's menstrual cycles or other people are saying it's... god, I get emails now because I had this piece in the Time, an op ed piece, if you put something in the Times, you get this tsunami of responses because that's how many people are looking at it. All the responses that weren't sent to my private email were from anti-vaccine people saying, "You don't know what you're talking about. I know that people are dying of this. There this sensation that..." well anyway, we could talk about that more, these misinformation silos, but in general, yeah, I talk about it a little bit, I read more about it.

Nina Burleigh: (32:59)
I didn't put it all in there, but yes, it's going to change because it is a completely new platform. When we say platform, we mean the previous one was a attenuated virus or a attenuated bacteria platform, to this synthetic molecule, mRNA platform that changes... that tells your cells to make a response to a very specific part of a virus or in general, they're going to be able to do this again and again and again. They're going to be able to do it with other viruses, if another pandemic comes along, if another virus or another imminent or threatening pan... threaten let's say hopefully they'll be able to stop it from becoming a pandemic because they will be able to look at these genome and in this case within three days of the Chinese sending the genome over, within the three days the NIH had this mRNA figured out. They knew what they had to put in within three days.

Nina Burleigh: (34:06)
So I can envision at some point in the future there will be factories that will be able to... you'll just be able to farm up AI, I'll just turn it on and they'll start producing these vaccines within hours. I think that that's the future, and it's exciting and amazing. We should be optimistic about it.

John Darsie: (34:25)
Yep, god willing. You talked about your piece in the Times created all this vitreal that got sent to your private email and obviously that's unfortunate, but there's also an element on the right side of this, the right wing media machine led by Fox News and other outlets that are even more extreme these days, are partly to blame for sewing doubt in the vaccines, in the pandemic in general.

Nina Burleigh: (34:50)
Absolutely.

John Darsie: (34:51)
Calling it a hoax, things like that. How much of a role does that right wing media machine and social media, frankly, and the echo chambers it creates, contribute to the circular nature of a lot of these unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?

Nina Burleigh: (35:05)
I like the way you said circular because it just made me think of circular firing squad. That's actually what they're doing because they're killing their own people who are watching and participating in this. It's a huge part of it. I mean, I don't watch Fox News, I don't watch a lot of TV, but when I turn it on now, I am just blown away because these people are... Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham are not ignorant and yet they're spewing this stuff out there to millions upon millions of people who take what they're saying as fact.

Nina Burleigh: (35:43)
So one night I had the TV on and I saw Laura Ingraham just rattling on about faceless bureaucrats in Brussels telling us what to do. I'm like, what are you talking about? Where are the people in Brussels telling us what to do? People in Brussels haven't even gotten out of their lockdowns yet. This was us, we made this vaccine here in America and our government put this out there. Our governors were forced to do state-by-state responses, lockdown or not, because the federal government wouldn't step up. So we're the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.

Nina Burleigh: (36:21)
All of this, yes, the social media, the echo chamber, the siloed off information or misinformation, it's dreadful. I don't know what you're going to do about Fox, I really don't, because I think Roger Ailes, I always say this. Roger Ailes was the tumor and Fox News is the cancer, that it's going to take a generation to get cured of because I don't know. I honestly don't know how they're going to get beyond this, unless the government goes back to regulating that kind of information and we don't live in that kind of society, so.

John Darsie: (37:00)
As a country, the United States has always prided itself on freedom and an extreme free ideology as you write about in the book. The pandemic exposed some of the dangers of that, on the other hand, you have more authoritarian type societies, whether it be in China or other places that maybe were able to have a better pandemic response because of the heavy handedness of the way the government operates. How do you find the balance between those two? Obviously unfettered capitalism and the extreme free ideology that you talk about probably isn't practicable when you have to deal with situations like a global pandemic, but at the same time, people don't want government so heavy handed in their lives the way it is in somewhere like China. So, how do you find a balance between those two going forward?

Nina Burleigh: (37:44)
Well, it's tough, and that's why I'm a journalist and not a policy maker. I'm not Ron Klain, I'm not Biden, obviously I'm not working for them or in that business. As I've covered them over the years, I've become more sympathetic to people who are in those situations. I used to just like to take hot shots at them and look at what they were doing wrong and now I think it's really hard, that's a really hard question.

Nina Burleigh: (38:11)
My answer would be, moderation in all things. Try to find the middle road, try to bring people back around to a fact-based reality, that's the main thing, communications. Look-

John Darsie: (38:31)
Do you think the pandemic is going to change global democracy in the United States and elsewhere where you're going to see more government intervention, more government spending to [crosstalk 00:38:40]?

Nina Burleigh: (38:40)
Well, I don't know. I think obviously that's happening here right now. I mean, the Biden Administration is responded to being the opposite of the antigovernment ideology of the former administration. Now it's, let's throw as much money at this as we can. They're going macro, they're going to throw money at infrastructure, they're throwing money at the social services and so on. We're not getting [inaudible 00:39:03] out of it, which they could've started to but they could've moved the ball on that maybe, but in this country yes, we're swinging to the other side, at least for the moment. Let's see what happens in election 2022.

Nina Burleigh: (39:18)
But I was just talking to some friends of mine, Norwegians and Swedes, and this, what's going on there? I mean, those are societies where the people are much more trusting of each other. That was my, I lived over there lecturing, the months before the pandemic I spent in Norway. We talked a lot about government and democracy. In those societies, one of the reasons they don't have the problems that we're having here at least in terms of the rise of the right, and the breakdown of the democratic processes, is that people don't think that if the other side wins, they're going to be wiped out. There's a trust in your fellow citizens that we all are in this together, we want our country to thrive. Of course now, there is a rise, the right is rising in Germany and in Sweden, and they're having a crisis in Sweden. Part of those crises have to do with the lockdowns and the Norwegians and the Swedes have reacted against the lockdowns.

Nina Burleigh: (40:19)
I mean, so is this... and the French. I mean, you see people, they're just sick of it. They did start off saying, we're confident and that Macron is going to... they're going to figure this out. So they for the first two lockdowns in Paris, people were dealing with it, but then they had rolling more and more lockdowns and people started to resist. So as far as the west and these western democracies, it is a huge challenge to these leaders to figure out what to do. If they don't have the vaccine or they're going to keep telling people to lockdown. We are not going to do bio surveillance the way the Chinese do it, nobody would sit still for that. I don't think any of us would.

John Darsie: (41:03)
Last question I have for you is, the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and also there was socioeconomic issues. Poorer people died and suffered more from COVID than wealthier people, as well as communities of color suffered more. They're also among the most vaccine hesitant, communities of color, frankly. Why do more people of color first of all, die and suffer from COVID-19? How do we educate those portions of the population and build trust with them, in terms of accepting vaccines and the treatments that we need to mitigate these types of pandemics moving forward?

Nina Burleigh: (41:42)
Well, we know that the poverty and diabetes and those types of comorbidities and obesity go together, so there was a lot of that. A lot of communities of color, people work on the front lines. We could all leave our jobs and work from home, if you work at McDonald's or you work at a grocery store checkout, you can't just go and stay home. So they were on the front lines and I mean those are the main reasons. They're frontline workers and they also had a lot of comorbidities, they also tended to live in multi generational households.

Nina Burleigh: (42:26)
As far as the low information or the misinformation that they distrusted the vaccine in communities of color, I think that can be addressed over time. I think the churches, the pastors have to speak out, and as people become... it's really something that has to be dealt with from inside the community but with the help of urging of allies within the medical community.

Nina Burleigh: (42:57)
I will add that I just saw today, I think it's in the Times, red states are COVID states now. They actually are mapping it and they can see that it's really rising in these red states. It's not rising in the blue states, it's going up in all of these pockets, it's absolutely correlative to the support of the former guy. So I think you're going to see that tip a little bit, and I don't know what effect that's going to have on the 2022 election, but I think really the more that these smaller communities or these remote communities or the low information communities start to see that within their communities, oh my god, there's a refrigerator truck outside of our rural hospital, like in that Wisconsin town that the Times did a feature on a while ago, where suddenly all of these people in this little town that had been anti-mask are being fork lifted into refrigerated trucks right before their eyes. I think if... how sad that it's come to that and didn't have to come to that because if they're looking to their leader down there in Florida, their leader, all he has to do is stand up and say, "Get the vaccination," and say it over and over. It would make such a difference, it's such a simple thing, right?

John Darsie: (44:15)
He got the vaccine himself but refuses to encourage.

Nina Burleigh: (44:19)
[crosstalk 00:44:19].

John Darsie: (44:19)
He refuses to encourage his supporters to protect themselves in the same way he did. I think it's a perfect analogy for his presidency, not [crosstalk 00:44:27].

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:26)
What about all the Fox News' hosts? They all got the vaccine, and then they [crosstalk 00:44:31].

John Darsie: (44:31)
[crosstalk 00:44:31].

Nina Burleigh: (44:31)
Similarly, absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:32)
It's very upsetting.

John Darsie: (44:34)
Well, Nina, it's fantastic to have you on. Obviously we love hosting these talks to educate people and your book I think did a great job at just looking at the science, looking at the facts of the pandemic, and drawing a series of conclusions, but it's also challenging as you mentioned, for policy makers to find that right balance in a country that values freedom and liberty the way we do in the United States, but to also make sure we protect people and protect the group. But thank you so much for coming on and doing this and helping to educate people.

Nina Burleigh: (45:01)
Thank you so much for having me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:02)
Nina, thank you. I'm holding up the book again, Virus, Vaccinations, the CDC and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic. Thank you again for being on SALT Talks.

Nina Burleigh: (45:13)
You're welcome, take care, guys.

John Darsie: (45:15)
Thank you, thank you, everybody, for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Nina Burleigh. Just a reminder if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on-demand on our website, it's salt.org/talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT too. Please spread the word about these SALT Talks in particular, we think these relating to public health and the pandemic are extremely important, that people learn if they're unfamiliar with the science or the vaccine or they're hesitant to watch talks like this and learn.

John Darsie: (45:44)
We're also on social media, Twitter is where we're most active at SALT Conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. On behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie, signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Nic Carter: How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Actually Consume? | SALT Talks #230

“Eliminating Bitcoin’s exposure to the whims of the CCP is obviously a good thing. Broadening the geographic footprint is obviously a good thing. I don’t want 70% of Bitcoin’s hash power to be in any single jurisdiction.”

Nic Carter is General Partner at Castle Island Ventures, a public blockchain-focused venture fund based in Cambridge, Mass. He is also the co-founder of Coin Metrics, a blockchain analytics startup.

Today, Bitcoin consumes as much energy as a small country. This certainly sounds alarming — but the reality is way more complicated. Nic Carter joins us today to discuss several common misconceptions surrounding the Bitcoin sustainability debate, and ultimately argues that it’s up to the crypto community to acknowledge and address environmental concerns, work in good faith to reduce Bitcoin’s carbon footprint, and ultimately demonstrate that the societal value that Bitcoin provides is worth the resources needed to sustain it.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Nic Carter.jpeg

Nic Carter

General Partner

Castle Island Ventures

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

2:40 - China’s Bitcoin and tech crackdowns

8:13 - Bitcoin mining and capital inflow disruptions from China

29:48 - Bitcoin energy consumption

37:27 - Bitcoin, El Salvador and the lightning network

43:29 - Bitcoin ETF approval timeline

49:03 - Using on-chain metrics

52:50 - Crypto venture investments

TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie, I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 here in our home city of New York, and we hope you can make it.

John Darsie: (00:39)
But that'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. And if you've been watching SALT Talks over the past 18 months since we started the series, you know that the crypto or digital asset space is an area that we're keenly interested in. And I've had a lot of the top minds in the space here on the SALT Talks series and we're happy to take another one off the list here with the great Nic Carter.

John Darsie: (01:05)
Nic is a general partner at Castle Island Ventures, a Cambridge Massachusetts-based venture firm investing in startups in the public blockchain industry. And he's also the co-founder of Coin Metrics, which is a great blockchain analytics firm. Previously he served as a crypto asset analyst at Fidelity Investments. He holds a master's in finance from the University of Edinburgh and a bachelor's in philosophy from the University of St. Andrews.

John Darsie: (01:29)
As somebody with a Scottish heritage, I very much appreciate your academic background, Nic. But hosting today's talk is Brett Messing, who is the president and chief operating officer here at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm with significant exposure, I might add, to Bitcoin and potentially other investments in the crypto, digital asset space coming down the pike. But with that, I'll turn it over to Brett for the interview.

Brett Messing: (01:56)
Thank you, John. Nic, it's great to have you here. I'm a big fan of your stuff. I think you've done a real service to the Bitcoin community, particularly in addressing concerns around the energy issue. I do want to timestamp this because it's June 22nd and eight days ago, I returned from a silent meditation retreat actually with Russ Stephens of [Night EG 00:02:20], and I came back to find Bitcoin at 41,000.

Brett Messing: (02:25)
And today it traded as low as 28,600, although it's higher. And there's a lot of China news, and so I think we should start there. Fortunately, this isn't a family show, so Nic, what the fuck's going on in China?

Nic Carter: (02:42)
I think we're all wondering that right now. I would say there's like several different intertwined threads in China right now. One is the hash rate transition, that's an entire topic. It's something I've spent a huge amount of time trying to understand, talking to Chinese miners that are relocating. That's one thing that's certainly affecting the price in a couple of ways we can get into.

Nic Carter: (03:05)
The second is this continued crackdown on the ability of regular Chinese folks to get exposure to crypto, and those channels are being constricted and closed off. That's related, I would say to the mining activity, but that's a distinct phenomenon. So those are two really dramatic moves happening at the same time in China, happy to start with either, but yeah. China is basically the most important nexus to the market right now.

Brett Messing: (03:38)
I want to hit both. Before we do, I want to put it in a broader context or I want to get your reaction to something. It seems to me that people in Bitcoin, probably myself included think that everyone is solely focused on Bitcoin, and that China is out to get the Bitcoin, so the politburo is getting together and all they're talking about is Bitcoin. It seems to me what's going on is a broader attack on tech and fintech.

Brett Messing: (04:06)
So we can go back to the Alibaba IPO getting pulled, which was, if someone who worked at Goldman and equity capital markets, a remarkable event, 48 hours before pricing. And by the way, I would point out that Alibaba is not as big as Bitcoin market cap-wise, but is not that far away. And if it had gone public and traded up, it probably would be about the same size as the market cap of Bitcoin is presently.

Brett Messing: (04:33)
We haven't seen Jack Ma, the CEO TikTok is forced to step down. There was another tech billionaire that I guess had his wrist slapped last week. I don't remember the guy's name. So this feels like a part of that mosaic and not a Bitcoin attack. I guess, I like your reaction to that, and then we'll jump into the miner discussion.

Nic Carter: (04:58)
China is the worst place in the world to be a tech billionaire. It's a very perilous occupation to be a tech founder in China. It seems that given the local appreciation or lack thereof for property rights, there's a cap on how large you can take a tech company until you start to get harassed by the government or it gets forcibly broken up or nationalized in a certain way. And so it's just a tough place to be a tech founder.

Nic Carter: (05:29)
I think you're absolutely right to draw connection between the crackdowns on Bitcoin exchange in mining and Alipay. It seems to me that ultimately a big part of the motivation for this is the creation of the DCEP, China's digital currency network effectively, which would basically seize power over the transactional financial sector from the private sector, from these intermediaries like Alipay and WeChat and consolidate that power with the state.

Nic Carter: (06:07)
And so it's not that surprise to me to see the pendulum swing back in the other direction towards centralized system like the DCEP, especially as these private sector entities had gained so much traction and were intermediating such a large share of the payment space. So that crack down on Alipay makes sense in that context. We're seeing the CCP is heavily investing in the DCEP. They're rolling out ATMs to connect physical cash to the digital cash product.

Nic Carter: (06:43)
And we can certainly talk about the interplay with Bitcoin there. But yeah, I think you're right, this is definitely part of a broader trend to reconsolidate power.

Brett Messing: (06:55)
Let's talk about the mining. About, I guess it's a month ago or so, the central party said, "No Bitcoin mining." There've been a bunch of Bitcoin mining bans for those of us that are relatively new compared to you and no one was sure what it meant. And we saw a bunch of miners leave the coal regions. I think it was a reaction, okay, okay, well, this has to do with clean air. This past weekend, we've seen a province where it's all hydro and we've seen massive shutdown.

Brett Messing: (07:28)
It's real, it's not just a proclamation. I'd also add, and maybe you can speak to this, I've tracked the prices of mining equipment. And a month ago, I would say they were soft. Now obviously the price of Bitcoin is down a lot, but the price of the mining gear, well, not yet at what I would characterize distress levels is down a lot. What does it all mean? I'm going to give you a couple of different vectors to go at it.

Brett Messing: (07:58)
One is for Bitcoin security. Is there anything to worry about? The environmental issues, which are no front and center. Why don't we just start with those two?

Nic Carter: (08:14)
Security and climate. The Chinese miner situation is the most dramatic hash power shift since industrial mining has existed in 2013. And so I think it's really worth understanding why so much mining capacity ended up located in China in the first place. China is the world's capital of basically stranded energy, so energy that cannot be brought to market for whatever reason. This is because typically because the transmission line losses, so energy doesn't travel well.

Nic Carter: (08:47)
So if you're generating a lot of cheap energy in one place and you want to transport 1,000 miles to population center where it'd be consumed, you're going to experience significant losses, it's not going to be worth it to do that. And so in 2016, China was curtailing on the order of a hundred terawatt hours of solar, wind and hydro energy. And effectively that's the perfect energy source to mine Bitcoin, because Bitcoin doesn't care where it's mined.

Nic Carter: (09:14)
And so because China had massively overbuilt their hydro, wind, solar resources, and they also had very abundant coal resources in the Northern provinces, that's why Bitcoin mining ended up dramatically located in China. And that's why China had this 70% market share of mining for the longest time. So that was good and bad. Good, because two of those big provinces where Bitcoin is mined were Sichuan and Yunnan, which are 90% hydro.

Nic Carter: (09:42)
But then the other two provinces where Bitcoin is significantly mined in China are Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang. And those are 60, 70% coal with the remainder being wind and solar. And so what happened was the Bitcoin miners would kind of seesaw from the Northern, mostly coal-powered provinces in the dry season to the Southern hydro-powered provinces in the wet season. Right now it's the wet season, so mining would typically be occurring in Sichuan and Yunnan for the most part.

Nic Carter: (10:14)
But what actually happened and was interesting is that trying to build out over the last decade, this high voltage transmission grid to basically turn their very fragmented multiple energy grids into more unified whole to bring this curtailed energy to market in the population centers on the south of China and the east coast of China, which is where the big energy load is.

Nic Carter: (10:40)
And so that's important context to understand something that might well be motivating this crackdown on mining is not simply this desire to marginalize Bitcoin and stem capital outflows and to promote their own digital currency, but also the very pedestrian fact that their grid is just working better and there's less stranded energy from minus to exploit. And so that's something that hasn't been covered as much in the discourse is just changing industrial policy in China affecting their tolerance for miners drawing on these stranded energy assets.

Nic Carter: (11:22)
So from a climate perspective, it's really going to depend where that hash rate ends up going. And we're talking about 50 to 60% of Bitcoin's network cash, something on the order of probably-

Brett Messing: (11:33)
Let me just interject, Nic. So do you think that all of it leaves or is there a black market mining? So a year out or so, let's assume it's 50 to 60 it's gone on the hash rate or computing power is in China, where do you think we're headed?

Nic Carter: (11:52)
I think all of the industrial mining, the large scale, 100 megawatt plus mining firms leave China. They're very easy to triangulate and locate. And the crackdowns we've seen, the first province to go is Inner Mongolia, they really cracked down on the province level with raids. They were able to effectively identify all of the major players. So I think you will see small scale operations, for sure.

Nic Carter: (12:16)
It's easy to run an ASIC or two with cheap power, but I believe that all the industrial mining capacity based on the signals we're getting from China right now, and based on what I'm hearing from miners on the ground will leave China within six months.

Brett Messing: (12:30)
Got it.

Nic Carter: (12:33)
I don't know when this is going to air, but in Sichuan, it looks like there's effectively a one month deadline from this week for miners to shutter their operations. So it's likely that we're going to see the Bitcoin hash rate declined by another 20, 30% because that's where most miners should be operational right now.

Brett Messing: (12:51)
And so where would you think it would go? I guess if you put your self in the shoes of a miner, where would you want to go?

Nic Carter: (13:01)
If I were a miner, I would have a renewed respect for political stability and the protection and respect of my property rights, and getting away from capriciousness on the part of the energy authorities. So it's no surprise that the number one destination for miners is to go to USA, where we have the second most capacious grid in the world. It's a federal system, so the states have different policies, some are favorable, some are less favorable.

Nic Carter: (13:29)
And indeed, we're seeing Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas pitched Bitmain clients at a conference in Chengdu last week saying, "Yeah, come to Texas, we have the capacity." And it's true, Texas actually does have the capacity to absorb the share of Bitcoin miners that are leaving the network. Their grid instability issues are an ancillary issue, but they do generally speaking, not at peak times, but most of the time Texas does have the capacity to absorb this. So the USA would be my first choice.

Nic Carter: (14:00)
There's not a ton of actual hosting capacity available in the U.S. right now, that's going to take six to nine months to build. So there might actually be this furlough period, where miners are just looking for a home. They're actually not able to onshore their hash rate. Leaving the U.S. aside, the other big destinations would be Russia and Kazakhstan and other parts of central Asia. Those are the less regulated, so you can bring an operation to bear more quickly.

Nic Carter: (14:28)
They have relatively cheap power. Unfortunately, in Kazakhstan, it's mostly coal. In Russia, you do have other renewables, you've got hydro. Those are some of the destinations I've heard kicked around. I've also heard Southeast Asia kicked around as a possible destination, but the truth is we're just not going to know for a while. And there's going to be a period of uncertainty and probably depressed hash rate as miners desperate look to actually find places to house their machines.

Brett Messing: (14:54)
So do you think Bitcoin will end up being mining will be greener or less green just again, based on the incentives and available places to go for miners?

Nic Carter: (15:09)
It's a good question. The Chinese story was complex because you had half of the year mining at an extremely low carbon intensity, effectively, zero with waste water running out of these dams that were already built. So there was no additional contribution to emissions by mining with that water that was going to run through the river, run through the dam anyway. And then the other half of the year, you're mining with coal from Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.

Nic Carter: (15:37)
And so, your emissions factor, your carbon intensity is fluctuating dramatically based on the season. And so, you're still getting... Because coal is by far the dirtiest form of thermal energy, you're getting a relatively high emissions factor. If you on short all that hash rate to the U.S. the us grid has deemphasized coal in the last decade and it's much more natural gas-focused, and depending on the state, you have plenty of renewables too.

Nic Carter: (16:03)
That would probably be better overall for Bitcoin's emissions factor. If you were able to identify other hydro or renewable sources in Northern Europe and Russia, it is going to improve the carbon outlay of the Bitcoin system. If however, all of these miners just end up being mined with coal in Kazakhstan, it's going to be no better and possibly worse. So it's going to be a matter of actually monitoring where these machines are going, seeing if the pools are willing or the miners themselves are willing to contribute data regarding their energy mix.

Nic Carter: (16:36)
And that's something that I'm definitely optimistic about because miners have begun to understand that it's totally worth it to provide disclosure around this stuff, because if you don't disclose, then people just assume the worst. And so miners have begun to do this calculus where they realize, oh, if we do have 50% renewables as part of our energy mix, we should actually tell people about that.

Nic Carter: (16:58)
Hopefully this historically very opaque mining space becomes more transparent in the next year, much more, US-Based, I'm sure we're going to see that regardless. Hopefully more actually publicly traded companies and then they'll be doing disclosure anyway. So I'm very optimistic about the informational environment around Bitcoin mining, but I can't actually guarantee that it will become greener, especially because China is unnecessarily shutting down mining in the hydro-rich provinces, which seems pretty excessive.

Brett Messing: (17:29)
Nic, what's approximately the total revenues for the mining industry just globally broadly in a year?

Nic Carter: (17:38)
Current prices would be around $20 billion from Bitcoin.

Brett Messing: (17:42)
Okay. So we have a $10 billion business, call it approximately half of it quasi up for grabs. We're not completely right. Do you see any large us companies looking at this opportunity? And is it a natural fit for someone like Microsoft, Verizon, General Electric, Honeywell, Tesla, where they have existing infrastructure that they could probably get this going relatively quickly?

Nic Carter: (18:16)
The first one I would identify would be Tesla SolarCity, because it's totally viable to mine with a combo of wind and solar in conjunction with maybe a battery backstop or maybe a grid backstop. And that's going to give you a current levelized cost of energy. That's going to give you energy at three, four cents a kilowatt hour. You're going to be profitable at that rate. And I could totally see them creating a consumer product around that, around hosted mining that people could buy into.

Nic Carter: (18:44)
So any large solar producer distributor that also maybe has access to some wind assets. Solar alone doesn't work because it has a low capacity factor. If you pair it with wind, you get an uncorrelated distribution profile in terms of one of the energy is being created. So that portfolio of assets tends to work. And there are parts of the U.S. where solar and wind together work well, Northern Texas, for instance.

Nic Carter: (19:10)
That would be one obvious case. A lot of people have pointed this out to Elon, you can actually do something about the climate impact of Bitcoin if you rolled out a product like that. Other publicly traded companies that have some relevance to mining would be data centers. Amazon, Google operate huge data centers. When they have downtime with their GPUs, they could easily mine Ethereum, which is GPU-minable.

Nic Carter: (19:35)
My suspicion is that they may actually already be doing this. So at times of low load on those GPUs, they can turn that economically inner resource into something that is economically generative. That's not a Bitcoin story, that's more GPU-minable assets. But I think there will always be things like that, whether it's Ethereum or Filecoin or Chia. You could also use hardware to mine those. That's one very addressable thing.

Nic Carter: (20:06)
Lastly, the oil majors. These oil companies that have enormous gas or oil extraction wells, where they're producing significant quantities of natural gas, which they're flaring off in many cases because it's not economical to bring that gas to market. This enormous segment out there now, I call it pipe to crypto. Effectively, flared gas mining, you get a shipping container full of Bitcoin ASICs. You pair it with a generator that takes natural gas inputs, and you can effectively monetize the stranded resource, which you'd otherwise be flaring off.

Nic Carter: (20:43)
And that's completely not neutral from a climate perspective. So I've been paying attention to the earnings of the oil companies, expecting them to say, "Yeah, we're experimenting with flared gas mining," as a way to monetize this resource that they're otherwise wasting. So far, they haven't said anything about it. I'm actually pretty surprised that they haven't.

Brett Messing: (21:03)
I'm going to put on my Bitcoin PR hat and say, I'd be fine if they don't. Okay.

Nic Carter: (21:08)
I can see the headlines, [crosstalk 00:21:11] versus Bitcoin, that's right.

Brett Messing: (21:12)
I'm not sure that would be particularly helpful. This weekend, as I was watching this event on Twitter. There was video of mining equipment being unplugged as this... The beginning of this implementation, I wasn't aware until you said that there's a 30-day cutoff for all this mining to come out of this hydro-rich region. I was incredibly bullish and I think it's going to be the biggest event of the year. I guess we're going to kill the attack vector, China controls Bitcoin.

Brett Messing: (21:49)
I have to say, and I imagine others, I don't think I've... And I had my brain around that. I don't really understand what came out yesterday, which is the closing off of the on-ramps, how that relates to what happened previously and what that really... Are we going to see Chinese citizens unable to buy? Are we going to see for selling? I know it's early, we're 24 hours after they convened a meeting, but I'd love your perspective on the sort of the second leg, which did because this drop below 30,000, even though we've recovered since then.

Nic Carter: (22:29)
I think your analysis of the mining situation is spot on, eliminating Bitcoin's exposure to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party is obviously a good thing. Just broadening our geographic footprint, regardless of which country it's disproportionately based in is obviously a good thing. I don't want 70% of Bitcoin's hash fire to be in any single jurisdiction. And so, whether that threat was real or imagined, it's something that we can effectively mitigate.

Nic Carter: (23:00)
And so this seems like a stroke of luck that the CCP or the China would really crack down harshly on Chinese mining on its borders, forcing it abroad, forcing it to become more dispersed into a bunch of different geographies. Regarding the second leg down, I do think that's one of the more critical features of this, because we know there's a Chinese retail bed in these markets. That's where a significant portion of the capital comes from.

Nic Carter: (23:26)
And if you choke off that access, you're going to eliminate a significant inflow into the markets. That's not just through the exchanges, will be an Okcoin, the mainland on-shore exchanges. That's also through RMB to other OTC desks that are more informal, and it appears that China is also targeting those. And so there's a few sources through which capital can flow out of China into crypto, thus making it mobile and allowing people to ultimately invade those capital controls.

Nic Carter: (24:01)
It looks like China is taking an incredibly aggressive stance towards that now. From what we've seen, and it's still unclear what's happening, they seem to really be trying to choke that off. What I'm looking to is, are the executives, Okcoin and Huobi going to continue to be harassed by the government? We know that they've been detained in the past 12 months for a month or two at a time, and actually the market has sold off when those events occurred. Because people figured that there was a risk that those exchanges would be nationalized or the holders would be expropriated in some way.

Nic Carter: (24:40)
And so that's what I'm looking to, do those exchanges, which have existed under the watchful eye of the CCP and been tolerated by them, will they continue to be allowed to operate? But my guess is that there'll be some additional regulation or some additional attempt to control the funds in and out because the Chinese government has rightly realized, correctly realized that the crypto markets are means to offshore wealth from the country.

Nic Carter: (25:12)
And so it's just one of those ways that their capital account was being drained and looks like they were finally taking it seriously. It's a threat.

Brett Messing: (25:25)
Historically, when you ban things, it doesn't work; prohibition, drugs, but China's different. It's essentially an autocracy. So what I hear you saying is, this is a real negative, that we're going to... Because I do want to touch upon just the demand, supply dynamics in the marketplace. What I hear you saying is that we lost Grayscale as a buyer in January when the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust traded at a discount, which has persisted. That we may be looking at another source of buying that will disappear. Is that right? And can you quantify that?

Nic Carter: (26:12)
Yeah, correct. That would be the conclusion I would draw is that there's another inflow, which is being effectively cut off. And I would look at for instance, Tether creation, which is... We know Tether is a very popular instrument in those Asian markets as a bridge currency, basically to get access to crypto in general. And a lot of those mainland trades are brokered against Tether directly. And so if you see that rate of creation slowing down, that implies a waning appetite or a loss to the ability to get access to crypto.

Nic Carter: (26:52)
But I'd also look at the reserves being held by Okcoin and Huobi, which there's a bunch of Chainalysis companies that have triangulated those. I haven't looked this time, but during those previous events when the executives who were being detained, you could see there's an immediate outflow from those reserves as depositers of those exchanges started to fear that the exchanges would be closed up and it would be impossible to redeem their funds. So those would be kind of the two key indicators I'd be looking at.

Brett Messing: (27:27)
Right. I want to touch on the energy debate, which I think has contributed to Bitcoin's decline from higher prices firing the Coinbase IPO as there's been this heightened ESG focus, which is just a real thing in the U.S. And I think it has resulted in some institutional investors pressing pause and you've been out front and I think done a really fantastic job in making a case. I do want to raise an issue that I have a coral with broadly with the Bitcoin community and get your reaction to about the arguments that I think are being made.

Brett Messing: (28:09)
Firstly, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the, it's my energy, I can use it however I want. Because you buy land, we restrict where you can build, you buy booze, you can't give it to kids, you can't drive with it, so we restrict the uses of private property. While I have a libertarian bend, that argument, doesn't resonate with me. I hear two conflicting arguments on the energy issue. I hear on the one hand... Well, it's not that much. It's the amount of energy used for Christmas trees, it's the amount of energy for blow dryers, it's the amount of energy for YouTube.

Brett Messing: (28:50)
I don't know if any of those stats are correct, but you do hear other framing of energy use, the idea being, I saw a stat recently, it's only one or 2% of waste energy in the U.S. Again, trying to make it seem like it's not that big a number. But then on the other hand, we have this research piece by Square and Arc that says that Bitcoin is going to really facilitate renewables in the United States and globally.

Brett Messing: (29:23)
And those two arguments seem inconsistent because if it's small, how can it matter in furthering renewable energy. And by the way, it may just be, the answer is different people making different arguments. And one of the best things about Bitcoin is we're all not sitting in a room. But I'd like your reaction to that just generally.

Nic Carter: (29:49)
It's interesting because when I've written about Bitcoin energy, a lot of Bitcoiners will ask me to not apologize for it and to be defined and say, "It's our energy we can do with it what we want. It's a function of the grid and individual consumers of that grid energy should never be apologetic for using it, something that's been duly paid for." But I do think it's important to try and think about how Bitcoin could be rendered more carbon neutral over time. That's been a focus of my research over the last few months.

Nic Carter: (30:25)
I would agree probably that Bitcoin is not sufficiently material as a buyer of energy to really move the needle from an environmental perspective. I think that transition is just going to happen anyway from towards more renewable source of generation. The state is much more important in terms of doling out subsidies and the private sector through R&D, just through the general functioning of the economy, which is now prioritizing more renewable energy sources.

Nic Carter: (30:59)
If Bitcoin is this $20 billion per year pressure to find cheap energy, that's actually pretty small in comparison to the amount that's expended in the regular old energy sector. So I don't think it's really large enough to move the needle from a renewable perspective. I do think that just as time goes on and this might be a bit of a longer-term trend, the cheapest forms of generation will be renewable.

Nic Carter: (31:27)
And so that's kind of a secular trend if you look at any of the lasered levelized cost of energy studies, you see the utility scale, solar is now getting down to three cents per kilowatt hour and offshore wind is getting down to kind of sub five cents per kilowatt hour. Because we still have all this technological innovation be found there and these efficiencies to be found, I do expect the renewables will just simply be cheaper and better than thermal energy, where we've squeezed all the pips out of the lemon as far as coal or natural gas is concerned, and we're not going to get any cheaper in terms of coal-powered energy.

Nic Carter: (32:05)
So I believe that that grid transition is going to occur. I'm also pro nuclear, but there seems to be less political support for that in this country, unfortunately. But yeah, it's certainly a challenge. I think Bitcoin miners can abate it in a couple ways, so they can... And they're also being incentivized too, capital markets in this country are increasingly politicized. It does tend to matter. You do increasingly need to take broader stakeholders into account, not just shareholders.

Nic Carter: (32:36)
And so Bitcoin miners have started to realize this, that they have an obligation that goes far beyond just their mere shareholders. And so what I've seen from especially US-based Bitcoin miners is a pursuit of renewable energy sources, grids that are disproportionately renewable, even a purchase of renewable energy credits or offsets. I'm seeing that from a few different miners and hosts. And then just an effort to be more transparent about the type of energy being employed. So it's all pretty optimistic.

Nic Carter: (33:13)
And then the other good trend is that we're just going to see more hash rate onshore into the U.S. anyway, and be more exposed to U.S. capital markets and the demands that capital tends to carry these days. So more hash rate in the U.S. I think is just generally better for Bitcoin's ecology.

Brett Messing: (33:33)
Well, I'm not going to break news on this podcast, we have about $600 million in Bitcoin and we are looking very hard at purchasing credits. Because we think the ESG issue is a real issue and you take the world as it is not as you want it to be. And this is something that Bitcoin will be, in my judgment better off by taking seriously, as I think. Look, people don't like Elon Musk, Elon Musk will have done Bitcoin of service. He has focused people's attention, those of us in the community on this in a way that we would not have been.

Brett Messing: (34:08)
Eventually we would have ended up the same place, but I think he's going to accelerate. I'm certainly not applauding his tactics. He's been inelegant in how he's conducted himself, but if it has a good outcome, I'm fine with it.

Brett Messing: (34:23)
I want to touch on something else. You hear a lot about, well, Bitcoin can be used to balance the grid. And I want to press on that because it seems to me that if I buy a mining rig and I'm only going to use it part-time, how can that make sense when there's someone else who's going to buy a mining rig and find an energy source where they can use it 24/7/365. That argument feels to me like it sounds nice and it's sort of like get off our backs about the energy issue. It doesn't feel like a real solution. If I'm wrong, tell me how.

Nic Carter: (35:11)
Maybe there's just a little more subtlety I can inject there. It depends on the grid [crosstalk 00:35:17]

Brett Messing: (35:17)
That was a real polite way to saying, "Brett, you don't get it," which is fine, which is why I'm so happy to have you here.

Nic Carter: (35:23)
It depends basically on the nature of the grid. I agree, you definitely want to run your ASIC at 90% plus op time because you're depreciating it over, let's say three years and you don't want to have a significant period of time where it's economically not being employed for sure. Certain grids have these power-rich purchase programs, where at times of peak load, they basically pay big consumers of energy to stop consuming energy.

Nic Carter: (35:54)
The good thing about miners is that you can turn them off at short notice, which is very much unlike other industrial consumers of energy, let's say an aluminum smelter where you can't just turn it off at the drop of a hat. And so in the Texas grid, ERCOT, for instance, that's exactly what's in place. Most miners there will be active on these repurchase programs.

Nic Carter: (36:17)
And so during the time when the miners are idle at peak times where the grid is trying to direct power to households so that they can run their air conditioning at 6:00 PM on a hot summer's day or something like that. Those miners' actually still economically viable, it's just that they're being paid to turn off. And miners are particularly suitable for that because they can spin up and down so quickly.

Nic Carter: (36:43)
So I would say, in the case of formal repurchase programs existing, the grid stabilization claim does actually make sense to me. But that's not the case for all grids, that has just definitely be in place like an agreement like that.

Brett Messing: (36:59)
I was going to say, I think that's a pretty relative if you looked across the United States. There aren't that many places where the dynamic you described is in operation. Would you agree with that?

Nic Carter: (37:11)
This is where I'm reaching the limits of my expertise in terms of energy politics in this country.

Brett Messing: (37:14)
Okay, I get it. No, you've done great. Let's touch on El Salvador and I'll let John ask you a few questions, so we don't keep you. So big deal, little deal, no deal?

Nic Carter: (37:27)
I would say big deal because for the first time, this is an instance where we can call Bitcoin legal tender, currency and money. So a lot of economists always reject me or other Bitcoiners calling Bitcoin currency or money. They say, "Well, it has to be generally accepted as a medium of exchange in a specific jurisdiction." This Salvadorian law does that. And so while it is a small country, small GDP, not very important on the world stage, this is just crossing the Rubicon.

Nic Carter: (38:04)
Not to overstate the point, I would say it's as significant in Bitcoin's history is the time when Bitcoin initially monetized from being worth $0 to being worth 0.00, whatever dollars when that pizza transaction occurred. This is incredibly significant in my view because it's being institutionalized as a currency in at least one jurisdiction. To me, that's really huge.

Brett Messing: (38:31)
Were you surprised that they didn't buy any Bitcoin for the reserves?

Nic Carter: (38:36)
Honestly, that's how I thought that the first sovereign level actor would engage with Bitcoin. And I thought that we would see it from the Singapore Sovereign Wealth Fund or the Norwegian one, first, I thought it would be really technocratic, forward thinking, relatively affluent state that would be the first to take the plunge and diversify their reserves. That was obviously not the case.

Nic Carter: (39:02)
I was pretty shocked that El Salvador chose to go through the legal tender law approach and encourage Bitcoin as this medium of exchange, which to be frank, it's really not that suited for, especially in a country like El Salvador. So yeah, I didn't think that they would go this aggressively towards the medium of exchange. I think just buying some Bitcoin in your FX reserves is easier and makes more sense. They may still do it, who knows? I feel like the El Salvador story is not fully written yet.

Brett Messing: (39:33)
I would say that the only concern I have about what's going on in El Salvador... By the way, I agree, total big deal. So it was a bit of a setup question, is that somehow they screw it up. And so my question is, I think a remittance market, which in a prior life, I was actually deputy mayor of LA and remittances is obviously a big market in Los Angeles. And we did everything we could do locally to protect citizens, which was not a lot under city law.

Brett Messing: (40:04)
But I'm pretty current on the issues, any rate, I think it's 22% of their GDP. And so they're going to use the Lightning Network and my understanding is that, and I'll describe it, I want to send 50 bucks to my friend in El Salvador. I'm going to basically go onto like a Stripe, I'm going to convert my dollar to Bitcoin. When you use a technical term, it's going to get zapped to El Salvador.

Brett Messing: (40:30)
And then if they want it in dollars, they'll get another currency transaction from Bitcoin to U.S. dollars, and that happens right in the span of less than a second. Is it ready for that? In other words, I saw that there's something like $60 million of Bitcoin, I guess supporting the Lightning Network. Is it ready for such a thing?

Nic Carter: (41:00)
Lightning may not be at a current state of maturity where it could stand the strain of an entire country's worth of remittances. I will say that Bitcoin as a bridge currency is definitely a use case we've seen. So being that utility settlement layer between the end points in the remittance trade, there's certainly a number of startups that do it.

Nic Carter: (41:21)
There's a local Boston, one called LibertyPay that does their men's channel from Massachusetts to Brazil and they just settle up Bitcoin transactions between exchanges. And then the exchange is the nexus where you trade in and out of Fiat currency. So there are a variety-

Brett Messing: (41:38)
Nic, can you just explain that? Can you just explain it from one user to another, how would the Liberty do it?

Nic Carter: (41:43)
Yeah. Actually interesting and we're actually not investors, so I just find it fascinating. From the perspective of the user, they're really not aware that the transaction is actually through bidding through Bitcoin at all. That's just the settlement rails, but they cash in a supermarket or something. And that gets converted into Bitcoin, probably on a batched basis, batched end of day basis at an exchange, then the exchange settles up.

Nic Carter: (42:13)
They're probably even doing net settlement with the Brazilian counterpart exchange. And then at that exchange, it gets converted into Reals. And so there's relatively few hops involved. This was actually the original premise behind Ripple really, but as it turns out, the market didn't really see a lot of value in Ripple as the bridge currency and some of these remitters realized that they could ride on those Bitcoins settlement rails.

Nic Carter: (42:40)
Especially if there's local premium in Brazil, you can monetize that trade in terms of the inflow. That's definitely something that we've seen. There's a number of exchanges that are basically serving as defacto, like backbones for utility remittances. So you can almost overlay remittances on top of the crypto exchange network, which is one of the really interesting dynamics.

Nic Carter: (43:07)
But as far as like settling each transaction individually through Lightning, I think that's probably pretty cumbersome right now.

Brett Messing: (43:15)
By the way, I say that as a massive Elizabeth Stark fan. Just want to put that out there. Last question before I go to John. ETF approval, March 31, 2022, over, under? What do you got?

Nic Carter: (43:30)
I'm still going to go under. I'm still optimistic, I think the facts are on our side. I think Gensler will eventually see that. They're imposing a much, much more rigorous and much higher standard for a Bitcoin ETF than any other financial product ever, any commodity ETF. They've got 4X inverse levered, natural gas ETFs that it's truly decay to zero, that's allowed. But Bitcoin, one of the most liquid markets broadly dispersed, globally traded with professional high quality index providers, to still believe that that's unworthy of an ETF is beyond me. So I do expect that the SEC eventually sees the light.

Brett Messing: (44:15)
We have a filing before the SEC along with 10 or more others, so I shouldn't say much about it, but I would say I agree and I just think... I guess I'm going to say just what you said, the case forward is much, much stronger than the case against it, full stop. And to me, that wasn't the case several years ago and I think that is the case now. And I think we get one when Gary decides we want one.

Nic Carter: (44:44)
At this point, to be frank, I believe it's a political issue. And other asset classes have had ETFs at far less liquidity, far less overall market cap. There are many commodities than a much smaller than Bitcoin and more centralized and who owns them, and have less sophisticated market infrastructure. To me, Bitcoin has met all the criteria laid out in the prior ETF disapprovals.

Nic Carter: (45:10)
Whether it's a surveillance sharing agreements, whether it's qualified custodians of material, share of the markets being onshore. The existence of exchanges that are regulated by the CFTC. To me, it's met all those criteria. Now, it's just up to the SEC to see the light.

Brett Messing: (45:28)
I do think though that you raised the real concern I have, which is politics, and I'm increasingly worried that Bitcoin is going to become a partisan issue, where everything else in the world is mass, where if you think about the political's dynamic here, the Biden administration is not going to be able to deliver the progressive wishlist. He's going to deliver whatever Joe Manchin lets him. And I think he's going to try to play to the progressive wing on other issues.

Brett Messing: (45:58)
And so it worries me that Elizabeth Warren and Maxine Waters and Angelina, who I have not great history with, and will never come around on Bitcoin that he slow rolls it because it's a bone to throw to the left for a while. So I think you rightly point to that dynamic, because again, just purely on the merits, we should be there by the fall.

Nic Carter: (46:25)
It troubles me that it is so partisan. I tend to not believe the Bitcoin should be partisan. It's apolitical monetary system it's really neutral. Bitcoin doesn't care who you are, what you believe in terms of whether your transaction can settle validly. But I think I can probably only name two Democratic representatives that have expressed a pro Bitcoin sentiment. That'd be Ro Khanna and Darren Soto.

Nic Carter: (46:54)
Maybe I'm missing some others, but it does seem to be increasingly politicized, which is perturbing and unfortunate, I think at the state level, Bitcoin will have certain states that ended up taking very favorable paths and some that don't. And so maybe that's the saving grace, is just the federal nature of the system.

Brett Messing: (47:15)
No, and I think we as a Bitcoin community need to do a better job of making the case to the Progressives because after Elizabeth Warren did her Bitcoin rant or cryptocurrency, we have mutual friends and I had someone reach out to her and essentially say, "She spent her whole career focused on banks that repress, underserved and underprivileged communities. How can she not understand that this is an escape from that?" But she's doing the bidding of Jamie Dimon when she attacks Bitcoin. It's really that simple.

Brett Messing: (47:53)
By the way, we like Jamie Dimon. We'd love to have you come to SALT, but anyway. Hey, Nic, I'm going to let John ask you a few questions. This has been fantastic. Go for it, John.

John Darsie: (48:07)
And speaking of SALT, Ro Khanna will be speaking in September, so we're eager to amplify voices that look at things from a nonpartisan perspective, which I think Ro does on a number of issues, including on Bitcoin and crypto. I'm going to ask you about your two businesses that you're involved in Nic. One, Coin Metrics. You co-founded Coin Metrics, fantastic resource for a number of different sources of data on-chain metrics being one of them.

John Darsie: (48:32)
In terms of the way you've looked at this sell off and the way you look to identify potential turning points, and just the way you evaluate rallies and pullbacks in Bitcoin, are there are certain metrics that you're taking a look at right now that signal to you that maybe we've reached a bottom or maybe we haven't reached a bottom? I know there's been some discussion about change in liquidity from exchanges, off exchanges maybe signaling that hot LERS are accumulating Bitcoin again here at these lower prices. But how are you looking at on-chain metrics right now during this pullback?

Nic Carter: (49:04)
That's a great question and the beauty is that on-chain data has reached a level of sophistication and a variety of market participants too and providers that is really would have shocked me five years ago. I started Coin Metrics in 2016 when I was in business school and I wanted some verifiable data regarding crypto assets and just what the on-chain economy was like. And I was completely fumbling in the dark, I really had no idea what was interesting and what was worth looking at. It's incredibly immature.

Nic Carter: (49:34)
Fast forward to today, there's a number of different providers and this is an enormously robust industry and then tens of thousands of people that look at on-chain data and trade against all day. So it's really astonishing to see how far the industry has come. In terms of what I'm looking at, I would look at exchange balances but be careful with those samples because oftentimes the samples don't have all the exchanges in them.

Nic Carter: (49:57)
So if you're looking at exchange balances, oftentimes you'll be fooled about in and outflows. You might actually just be looking at rotations between exchanges. So you have to be very wary of the data quality issues in any of those datasets. I'd be looking at something like the ratio of market cap to realize capitalization. Realized cap shows you the aggregate cost basis of all the holders.

Nic Carter: (50:22)
Historically, that's been an oscillator that's been extremely good at picking tops and bottoms. It certainly was signaling top in May. I'd be looking at the share of coins that are currently active, especially the six month and one year cohorts. So we're fractional coins on Bitcoin have moved in the last six months, moved in the last year. When you see that number cranking up, that suggests that there's a lot of available liquidity in the market.

Nic Carter: (50:55)
And we actually tend to see that in rallies, as the rallies pull liquidity off the sidelines, out of long-term holders, who then divest and exchange those coins in near holders. And then more specific I'd look at the age profile of holders. So whether we're looking at short term holders for long-term holders, and the beauty of this thing is that you can assess this, you can have this granular data. You can track every single unit of Bitcoin and what kind of holder owns it, what address size they are.

Nic Carter: (51:24)
So that'd be the last thing I would also look at, whether smaller wallets are accumulating or divesting, what larger wallets are joining us. But also probably not enough time to take you through all the charts, but the on-chain data story is just such an amazing and deep rabbit hole.

John Darsie: (51:42)
The charting episode will be our second episode of SALT Talks with Nic Carter. But last question, Castle Island Ventures, you're wearing the great vest there. I think Patagonia now is refusing to finance companies logos on vests, maybe Castle Island will be exempted from that. But what type of venture investments are you most excited about in the Bitcoin ecosystem? You see market caps exploding or valuations exploding across private investments, across a range of different crypto type companies.

John Darsie: (52:11)
You got to think there's some baby in there, some bath water there, and what are the companies that you're most excited about? And what are maybe some areas you might not want to discuss this part of it, but do you think might be getting a little frothy or ahead of himself?

Nic Carter: (52:25)
Well, the thing is with Patagonia is that they just don't know if you buy the vest and have a third-party embroider it, so that's-

John Darsie: (52:31)
I thought there might be a loophole in that whole scenario, but-

Nic Carter: (52:36)
Yeah, it's not that difficult of a roadblock to route around, so that's my pro tip to any client experts

John Darsie: (52:41)
It's like peer to peer Bitcoin purchases in China.

Nic Carter: (52:45)
Exactly, exactly, with the equally powerful adversary. We just raised our second fund, we're actively deploying. Selfishly I think the market sell off is pretty great because it means that the private valuations that were extremely frothy, because obviously the public markets trickled down into the private. Those have come down a little bit. And frankly during the bear markets, the best companies tend to get funded, because you get the highest integrity founders, folks that want to build in the crypto space regardless of the valuations and have extremely high conviction on the asset class.

Nic Carter: (53:25)
And so if we were to enter an extended period of sideways trading, God forbid or a long bear market, that would be good for the average quality of entrepreneur, and that's what we're here to do. So we're not complaining too much about the sell-off in terms of what we're looking at. We've always been looking at seed and Series A stage financial infrastructure businesses in the Bitcoin and crypto space, whether that's exchanges, brokerages, lenders, asset managers, data providers, analytics, key management, wallets, things like that.

Nic Carter: (54:00)
Basically tools to take this asset class and make it mature, make it functional and bring it to the next billion users. We're only at a hundred million users worldwide. We think we can do a lot better. And so, one thing that we're specifically focused on right now is building sophisticated market infrastructure in X U.S. jurisdictions. So whether that's crypto dollarization in Latin America, whether that's retail brokerages in Africa, retail brokerages in Southeast Asia. That's where we're spending a lot of our time right now.

Nic Carter: (54:37)
I think the story of Bitcoin is increasingly been written outside the U.S. and it's a story of financial inclusion and giving people access to this apolitical settlement network. And there's some really key pieces of infrastructure that are needed do that. The U.S. exchange market is extremely saturated, amazing levels of choice as a consumer. If you live in Nigeria, you live in Indonesia, that's just not the case. And so we have a global mandate, so we're looking abroad to those kinds of jurisdictions to deploy this next fund.

John Darsie: (55:10)
All right, well, Nic has been a pleasure to have you on. We hope you can join us at the SALT Conference in September. You talked about how bear markets sort of reveal the real credible players in the space. We had our SALT Conference in may of 2019 in Las Vegas. It was during the tail end of a crypto winter and there were still tons of really smart people and exciting companies that came and that we featured that conference that were iterating in the space despite the price of Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (55:38)
So we always like to say, "Watch the news, not the noise." Adoption is growing, is accelerating despite price fluctuations. But thanks for coming on, we hope to see you soon. Brett, you have a final word for Nic before we let him go?

Brett Messing: (55:50)
No. Just thank you, Nic, this was fantastic.

Nic Carter: (55:54)
My absolute pleasure gentlemen. We'll definitely be there in New York.

John Darsie: (55:58)
All right, fantastic. We've been talking to your partner, Tim, over at Coin Metrics and look forward to having you guys there. But thank you also, everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Nic Carter. He has done so much for the Bitcoin community in terms of combating energy FUD, China FUD, all kinds of different FUD. He's the king of combating FUDs, so we appreciate everything he's done.

John Darsie: (56:17)
Just reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website. It's salt.org\talks. We have an entire series of SALT Talks on digital assets with most of the big voices in the space, so we definitely invite you to check that out and please spread the word. Talking about FUD, we like sending around these YouTube videos and podcasts episodes to make sure that people are truly educated on the asset class before they start casting aspersions.

John Darsie: (56:45)
But on behalf of Brett and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Jack Mallers: Bringing Bitcoin to El Salvador | SALT Talks #229

“The lightning network is a protocol that sits on top of Bitcoin. If we solve variable time and cost, we give instant and relatively free transaction finality to this monetary network- arguably the biggest step forward in money as a technology in history.”

Jack Mallers is the Founder and CEO of Zap, which created Strike, a bitcoin investment and payments company that transacts over the Lightning Network. Jack is known as one of the earliest Lightning Network developers, and recently has been providing market insights to help build El Salvador’s modern financial infrastructure using Bitcoin technology. This technology delivers powerful advantages over legacy financial rails and incumbent payment systems. “What’s transformative here is that bitcoin is both the greatest reserve asset ever created and a superior monetary network. Holding bitcoin provides a way to protect developing economies from potential shocks of fiat currency inflation,”

Strike is a mobile payments app that allows users to send and receive money anywhere, instantly, for free. Strike is built on top of the Bitcoin network – the largest global, interoperable, and open payments standard. Strike believes that open payment networks enable universal participation in the financial system, ushering in a new digital economy with truly borderless money transfers. Strike leverages Bitcoin’s open payment network to offer users the first global peer-to-peer payments app and a novel bitcoin-native financial experience.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jack Mallers.jpeg

Jack Mallers

Chief Executive Officer

Zap

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:40 - Strike's remittance trial in El Salvador 

12:20 - How Strike is paving the way for the future of remittance payments via Bitcoin’s Lightning Network

17:20 - How layer 2 protocols can improve Bitcoin for remittances 

19:06 - Bitcoin & El Salvador: the full story

25:20 - The process of onboarding entire countries

32:40 - Advantages of making Bitcoin legal tender

38:00 - Reasons for phasing out USDT

40:00 - Driving global Bitcoin adoption

45:00 - How is Bitcoin’s volatility changing?

TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to Salt Talks. My name is John Darsie, I'm the managing director of Salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. Salt Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. Our goal on these Salt Talks, the same as our goal at our Salt conferences, which we're excited to resume in New York in September of this year, but that'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. We're very excited today to bring you the latest episode of our digital assets series with Jack Maulers. If you're in the Bitcoin space, obviously he's a name that needs no introduction. Your name has been everywhere recently Jack, but if you're not in the Bitcoin space, I think you'll hear his name pretty soon with things that are going on around the world.

John Darsie: (01:02)
But Jack is the chief executive officer and founder of Zap, which is a Bitcoin investment and payments company that transacts over the Lightning Network. Zap is perhaps most famous for its Strike app, which the app is being used in El Salvador. El Salvador recently announced that it is making Bitcoin a legal tender, the first country to do so, Jack led that initiative with the president of El Salvador. Now the Strike app is being rolled out across the country to enable Bitcoin payments. He also was the driving force behind the Bitcoin car and the ND 500, he has the Bitcoin racing team hat on there.

John Darsie: (01:38)
The number 21 Chevrolet was branded all Bitcoin Ed Carpenter's racing team. So that was an awesome incident for the Bitcoin community as well. So Jack, it's a pleasure to have you on. Hosting today's talk is Brett Messing, who's the president and chief operating officer of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm with also a significant stack of Satoshi in our investment funds. And Brett, I'll turn it over to you for the interview.

Brett Messing: (02:06)
Thanks John. Hey Jack, thanks so much, really happy to have you here.

Jack Mallers: (02:11)
Thank you for having me. I'm a huge fan first and foremost. I think you guys did tremendous work and I'm very excited that you're Bitcoiners now, so I'm happy to be here. Let's go baby.

Brett Messing: (02:23)
We are Bitcoiners. So we're going to talk a lot about El Salvador, but I don't want to tell you about my Jack Maller's journey. So everyone is brought into Bitcoin by their own Bitcoin sherpa and I'm a Goldman Sachs alum and there are a bunch of early OG Bitcoiners like [Pip Reagor 00:02:41], Mike Novogratz, Dan Morehead and they helped me as well as Ross Stevens who we were talking about before we got going. But in the fall I think it was, I was listening to you on a podcast with Peter McCormick and you were describing how you and your company were going to address the remittance market, and in a prior life I was actually deputy mayor of LA and remittance is a big issue in LA of course. There's a very little a city can do, but we did whatever we could do to protect the residents from getting fleeced while sending money home.

Brett Messing: (03:17)
But anyway, I listened to you and Peter and I got off and my takeaway was, if this kid, sorry, I'm old enough to be your dad. So I say it, it's with love. If this kid can actually do this, Bitcoin is so much bigger than I imagined it was. And I called up Pip Reagror and Ron Stevenson, basically said that to him, and Ross said to... Pete didn't know, Ross is like, "Yes, he can." So let's start there. I guess we could send people to Peter McCormick's podcasts, but that's his content, this is our content. Can you talk about how you guys use the Lightning Network basically to address the remittance market? Because it really is a massive use case for Bitcoin that I think people don't understand. I didn't.

Jack Mallers: (04:04)
Yeah, 100%. And I think how we're using the lightening network and whether it's cross-border payments or just consumer merchant payments and questioning interchange for example, goes back to visiting monetary networks as a general concept. So Bitcoin is traditionally associated with slow payments, slow transaction times, not a lot of throughput, and that's why it's slow and inefficient and can never be used as a currency. That's the mainstream headline that everyone's familiar with over the last decade. Well, the Lightning Network is a protocol that sits on top of Bitcoin and you don't need to know all the cryptography and all the fanciness. But really smart people, arguably the smartest people in the world, set out to solve two things on the Bitcoin network. It was one, the variable amount of time it takes to achieve finality in a Bitcoin payment and then two, the variable cost that it takes to achieve finality with a Bitcoin payment.

Jack Mallers: (05:02)
And if we were able to solve the variable time and the variable costs, and we were able to give instant and relatively free transaction finality, cash finality to this monetary network, it would be arguably the biggest step forward in money as a technology in human history and the best monetary network of all time in human history. So that's an introduction to the Lightning Network is what it enables. It works, we did it. And what it enables is instant and nearly free and sometimes absolutely free Bitcoin transactions. And so if you encompass that with what Bitcoin is, now you have an open monetary network that operates 24-7, you have a digital barrier instrument that carries the sufficient liquidity profile in every single currency you could ever dream of 365, 24-7, and you can move fiscal value, no sense of credit, no balance sheet float, real hard value anywhere in the world at any time, at any place.

Jack Mallers: (06:02)
So the thesis that we hold at Strike is, well, let's take a look at other monetary networks, monetary networks that exist today to allow us to exist financially. The Square monetary network, the PayPal monetary network, the VISA monetary network. All these monetary networks achieve similar things, right? They define identity. Like what's the difference between my VISA card and your VISA card. They define payment standards. How do I send a payment? How do I receive a payment? They define credit and debt and finality and clearance. So if you think of Bitcoin in the Lightning Network as a monetary network of its own, it does all those things, except way better, except way cheaper, except way faster. Oh, and by the way, it's more inclusive. How well does the PayPal network work in El Salvador? Not very well.

Jack Mallers: (06:48)
How well does the Lightning Network? It works the same in Chicago, works the same in London, works the same in New York and it works the same in the third world. It's more inclusive and then lastly it's open. So the fact that it's open means that there's inherent network effects and economies of scale that are unprecedented. Open networks defeat closed networks throughout human history, exclusives of money. And this is the first time we've ever had an open monetary network. So what that means is that there's millions of people that are working on this network and no close network can ever compete. If you think of Bitcoin as a monetary network and PayPal as a monetary network, who has more employees? Who has more salespeople on Twitter? Who has more merchants subscribing? How many MIT professors are working on cryptography for the PayPal monetary network? Zero.

Jack Mallers: (07:33)
How many are working on Bitcoin? A lot. So for all of those reasons, we subscribe heavily to the concept that this monetary network is going to dematerialize the existing monetary networks that exist today. And the first killer app in my opinion was cross-border payments, because the inefficiencies are just absolutely absurd. It's the most outdated, expired. It's an expired carton of milk. It's two to 10 intermediaries to make a cross-border payment. It takes two to 10 days, and fees are upwards of 50% because there is no open... It isn't a race to the bottom, the market is not efficient and people especially in the third world get relatively abused by financial inclusion and fees and such. So first order of business once we got everything stood up was make cross-border payments free and instant. So that is the end of my rant and we'll go wherever you want from there.

Brett Messing: (08:25)
All right. So here's a thing that you said that blew me away. So maybe you can expound on this. I would love to make it very personal. I want to send money to a friend in Mexico city. He wants pesos. And what I understood you said is I can take my dollars, and they get converted to Bitcoin. And I'm going to use a very highly technical term, zapped on the Lightning Network for Mexico City, where they are converted, there's a Bitcoin to Mexican pesos transaction, and my friend now has... I sent 50 bucks, neither of us wanted really anything to do with Bitcoin, but Bitcoin facilitated this transfer of value. And I think that's incredible. So I don't know if I described that right. If I did, or if you can just speak to that. I think putting into real practical terms, these majestic concepts that you laid out I think will move people.

Jack Mallers: (09:31)
Yeah. So our product Strike, which was referenced in the intro. We divide Bitcoin the asset. So this is the asset that's 21 million coins. It's issuance is known, its monetary policy is defended in a distributed network of cyber hornets as Michael Saylor likes to say. And then there's the monetary network. And the monetary network, you can do a way. What if it's 22 million coins? What if it's 2.1 million coins? The network doesn't necessarily care. What if the monetary policy blocks every 20 minutes instead of every 10 minutes. The monetary network achieves similar things and enhances what existing monetary networks do and so our approach is can we enable people to benefit from this amazing monetary network, this absolute revolution in money as a technology without being encumbered by Bitcoin the assets? Bitcoin the asset is taxes property, Bitcoin the asset carries a lot of volatility. Bitcoin the asset is really accounting, tough accounting pains, people also aren't incentivized to send it.

Brett Messing: (10:33)
I'm wearing a Bitcoin hat. Don't pee all over Bitcoin. Come on man.

Jack Mallers: (10:37)
Well, the point is people aren't even incentivized to spend it. If I just hold the thing, I get wealthier, so why would I actually use it? So there had to have been a way to build an experience for consumers that they're traditionally used to. Link your bank account, scan a QR code, hit send, but use this new novel monetary network under the hood. So to delve into your example, that is exactly correct if I want to send $100 to Ireland received as euros. What the software does is it takes $100 out of my chase debit account, it's going to convert it into Bitcoin. It's going to zap the money on the Lightning Network over an ocean across a border, real fiscal value where it will land in Ireland and interface with counterparties to give it the BTC-EUR liquidity profile, to switch it back into euros and credit the user.

Jack Mallers: (11:27)
So what's happening is we're using the most efficient monetary network on the planet to escrow our fiscal value. We get cash finality on an open system instantly in and at no cost. And then we're using this new digital bare instrument, this new digital property in cyberspace, it's the most hardworking asset on the planet. It works 24-7, no other asset does that and it has liquidity profile of every currency ever. So once we escrow the value on the network and we have this magical asset parked, then we just exchange it for the goods and services with the various counterparties that can. So not only has that enabled amazing things, but also think about working capital costs, what's transfer wise working capital costs versus a Bitcoin infrastructure set. It's the most magical, impressive thing that's happened across border payments long before I was born.

Brett Messing: (12:18)
So is this now operational? How many people are doing what we just described? And I guess let's make it very personal again. Can I do this in other words, is it functional for me to use in some way or are we beta testing it in a more limited way? Give me a state of the union if you will.

Jack Mallers: (12:40)
Yeah. So beta testing in Europe now, we plan to be in over 100 countries within this calendar year. And the first pilot that made the most sense to me was El Salvador, which ended up becoming something much larger than a beta for cross border payments. But the thesis was here you have a country that operates on the dollar, they don't have a nation currency anymore. Over 20% of the country's GDP is in remittance. It's how capital is influxed into the economy. However, fees can be upwards to 50%. And there's a very important insight on that. If I would send a million dollars to El Salvador is Western Union going to take 500 grand? No.

Jack Mallers: (13:19)
Fees aren't 50% on a million dollars, fees are 50% on 10 bucks, on 100 bucks because there are fixed costs associated with the legacy financial system. So not only does this monetary network allow for free and instant, but it also opens a new economy of micro cross-border payments for those that have $300 a month of income and that they don't send a million dollars back home, they send $100 dollars back home a month. So it made all the sense in the world to enable a cross-border micropayment economy that was free and instant, and really how I plan on improving the GDP of the country by launching my product. So that is highly functional. We're onboarding 20,000 Salvadoreans a day, seeing tremendous amount of success and now we're going to launch in Europe.

Brett Messing: (14:10)
But Jack, you need to get people on both ends, right? So there's the Salvadorians, have to sign up. But they're family members or friends or whomever is sending them money in the United States need to do likewise. How does that... If you get the Salvadoreans, do they just tell their family member, you need to get this app. This is a better way to send me the money. Can you just talk about that rollout?

Jack Mallers: (14:38)
Yeah. Well, it's the best customer acquisition tool in the world. The family phones them and says, "Hey, listen, remember how you used to send $100 and I'd bus six hours to Western Union, and Western Union would only give me 70, and then I'd oh, another 30 to the gangs that sit outside and threaten my life. So now I come home with half of it and it's days worth of chores and I have to skip work every single month to go collect the remittance, well, download this app, link your bank account or fund it with cash collateral, and I get the remittance instantly to my cell phone from the comfort of my home. And you send 100, I keep all 100." So that customer acquisition tool, I don't need any marketing. Get out of here. That's just bread and butter right there.

Jack Mallers: (15:19)
But the other important thing about this is it's an open network. So if someone has a Coinbase account, they can interface with our service. If someone has a Square account, if someone has a Kraken account, millions of wallets, the beautiful thing on an open network is there's a singular open source standard and once you implement it, you are plugged into the open monetary network and all the services and nodes and networks that live within it. So yeah, sure. I would love them to be on Strike because I think it's arguably the best service on top of this open system, but they don't have to be, and that's amazing. So initially in the pilot it was how are we going to get these people liquid and exchange in and out? There's no Salvadorean Bitcoin exchange, but there are Bitcoin ATM's everywhere. So people would collect these remittance, we'd store it, and then they'd go to the ATM's and they'd cash out.

Jack Mallers: (16:04)
And the question is what? Did I install Strike ATMs all over El Salvador? No, there's no Strike network. There's no strike ATM. I'm on the Bitcoin network, this is a Bitcoin ATM and that's a power of the open monetary system, is that I benefit from other people's work. And so out the gate the product worked fabulously and then now as more services build and integrate and are interoperable with open network, the network effects and economies of scale, you just can't compete with that, because PayPal tried to compete with that, they'd have to hire thousands of new employees. I didn't hire anybody.

Brett Messing: (16:36)
So the remittance gets sent to El Salvador, but if I'm right, the receiver is receiving USD, right?

Jack Mallers: (16:45)
Correct.

Brett Messing: (16:46)
So they don't have to worry about going to a Bitcoin ATM, they're getting hit with US dollars in their bank account.

Jack Mallers: (16:54)
Yeah. Both the sender and the receiver can just interface with fiat currency and they don't even... A lot of our users, arguably majority having no idea that Bitcoin or any of this cryptography is involved in the efficiencies we're delivering. For a lot of them they just see as like, "Oh, wow. Innovation finally for remittances. Finally I can receive it safely and not get bullied into fees."

Brett Messing: (17:19)
I want to spend a lot more time in El Salvador. One more question though, just and I want to make sure I'm understanding, our audience as well. So in the US we a layered financial system, right? The Federal Reserve is on the bottom, then we have commercial banks that can go to the Fed window, PayPal sits on top of the commercial banks, VISA sits on top of the commercial banks. PayPal sits on top of VISA. The Lightning Network which is how you're making this magic happen is layered too on top of the slower, what we think of traditional but super safe Bitcoin network. Is that accurate? And do you have anything to add to that because I think that's an important concept for people to understand.

Jack Mallers: (18:02)
Yeah, that's absolutely correct. And it's also important to note that this isn't a novel concept and this isn't a concept that Bitcoiners came up with, is that protocols scale and layers traditionally most famously the internet. Is that you've got HTTP, you've got TCPIP and the internet is actually made up of seven layers. So that's absolutely correct. You've got the Bitcoin base layer, which optimizes for censorship resistance, decentralization, ultimate security and robustness and ensuring the consensus rules and monetary policy the asset. And then you've got the Lightning Network which comes comprised of different rule sets of this protocol. And once you subscribe to them, they're optimized for cash finality as cheap as possible and as fast as possible. Then on top of that, we sit, and we plug into both the Lightning and Bitcoin networks and we deliver software to people. And we as a company have the belief we can empower economic freedom for everyone. And we want to do that by making these networks as accessible and easy to use as possible. So we sit on top of them and we build software.

Brett Messing: (19:07)
Cool. All right. Back to my Jack Maller's journey. So importantly Bitcoin is not a security, and why is that important? Because there is no insider trading in Bitcoin. So we can all gossip about Bitcoin and no one's going to [inaudible 00:19:22]. And here's why that's important. There are no secrets in Bitcoin. So if you're plugged into the right text thread or group of people, there's just no secrets. So about a month or two, someone told me that Jack Mallers is down in El Salvador, and he's helping draft legislation that's going to integrate Bitcoin into the government. And I said, "That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." This is a real country. I assume they have some people who went to Harvard and worked at Goldman Sachs or they can get someone who's at Stanford Business School or Kathryn Haun from Andreessen Horowitz, and lo and behold there's a lot of things in Bitcoin where you have to open your mind. It is true. So if you can just tell us the story. How did that happen?

Jack Mallers: (20:13)
Yeah. I'll try and make it quick.

Brett Messing: (20:14)
I'm glad I was wrong by the way, I'm so happy to have been wrong.

Jack Mallers: (20:19)
Yeah. No. I'll make it as fast as I can, but I-

Brett Messing: (20:22)
No, take your time.

Jack Mallers: (20:22)
Okay. So I went down to El Salvador. It's very important to give a shout out to the Bitcoin Beach Project. So not only did this country carry the characteristics that embodied... They needed help. They needed help from a very high level. They needed help reinstilling basic human freedoms and financial inclusion, and that the federal Reserve's monetary expansion, the spill over was drastically impacting the quality of life and has been for a long time there. And that over 70% of the country didn't have a bank account, and there was a serious problem with financial inclusion, which ultimately I associated under the category of basic human freedom. So I needed to go, but there is a project Bitcoin Beach, and they had started what is a circular Bitcoin economy for those that didn't have bank accounts. And they were plugging into this open monitoring network and achieving financial inclusion through the Bitcoin network.

Jack Mallers: (21:16)
And they deserve all the credit in the world, legends of their time, they'll be remembered forever. So I went to El Salvador to visit that town, and I wanted to learn and ultimately launched Strike and improve on the financial inclusion and human freedom problem with the country. So while I was there we launched the product, I learned a lot. I met a lot of amazing people and got to really intimately feel the experience that these people were going through. Then we had a lot of success and I got a message on behalf of the president of the country via Twitter. Was a Twitter DM, and I was at a sushi restaurant and I didn't think twice about it. I thought it was another spammy message. I get a lot of those. And then I double-take and I noticed that it's the brother of the president, and I was like, "Oh God, okay, this is real."

Jack Mallers: (22:06)
And I'm sitting with two employees and I'm like, "Okay. We're either getting arrested or we're going to make history." And it was very unclear which one. Called my dad, I told him the president, I asked for a seven day window to see him, he said he had 24 hours. And I was like, "Oh boy. Okay." So I'm going into fight for human freedom. I believe in what I'm doing. I believe in my truth. So I called my dad, I say, "I'll see you on the other side, wish me luck, but I'm doing this for Bitcoin. I'm doing this for the betterment of humanity." And I went in there. I didn't have a suit. I went in there in a hoodie, it's all I had. And the president's brother came out in a hoodie and we hugged.

Jack Mallers: (22:39)
And we started to talk about rebuilding an inclusive financial infrastructure that embodies free markets and embodies human freedoms. We talked about the design of the country we would want to live in, we would want our kids to live in and we would want the world to eventually adapt towards. And at the United States and the European Union, and a lot of the more developed world was in no position to take such a stride. And that El Salvador felt like the perfect opportunity and to be brave on behalf of humanity and human freedoms and people that needed help, and that we had an opportunity to do something amazing.

Jack Mallers: (23:11)
And it was always about free market. It was always about the one quote that they kept saying was we want people to be themselves, is that by 18 years old, you society enforces almost that you take on six figures worth of debt to pursue a degree in something that you don't know you want to do, and that you end up optimizing your life around paying back debt and then going into more debt by the form of a mortgage and things like that. And that that isn't a great life and that doesn't create a great society because people can't be themselves and can't be free.

Jack Mallers: (23:44)
So they wanted to build a society that enabled freedom and that foundation starts with hard money, with economic opportunity, and with a sound financial system that's ultimately inclusive and doesn't carry any intermediaries that can bully anybody out of anything. That was the very ground level discussion. Then over time we iterated on things and we talked about everything. We talked about anime, talked about cartoons, talked about artwork, talked about music, and then how to use Bitcoin to solve two fundamental things, is protecting developing countries from the Fed spillover and their monetary expansion, and then improving on developing countries' financial inclusion and giving everyone fundamental financial access and human freedoms that they don't necessarily have when they're born today. And that is the start of what ended up becoming what you know of.

Brett Messing: (24:36)
I think that's an amazing story. So where we are today is El Salvador has passed a law to make Bitcoin legal tender, right? And as most probably aren't aware, I wasn't aware until recently about 20 years ago like many emerging nations, we forget how many countries in the world are babies, right? These countries have been around for less than 70 years, the independence movement was in the fifties and the sixties. They launched currencies and the currencies failed. So I think it was in 2003, El Salvador scrap their currency and the US dollar is their currency. So now they're going to have this dual system. How do they see it operating? And I know we have 81 days until we implement, but what does implementation look like? Of the legal tender law in El Salvador?

Jack Mallers: (25:39)
Yeah. The optimization is around the network and the financial inclusion and the openness of the network and embracing the free market. It's very important to know, there's been some confusion. It's not mandated that people hold Bitcoin, that they long Bitcoin, are exposed to volatility and such. The government, and again I'm conversating, I want to make it very clear. There's no commercial agreement between the government and Strike. I'm not beholden to anything. I speak my mind. I speak on behalf of myself and my company and you can think of me as just an advisor to what they're trying to do. And they call me, I give advice and they are reliant on my expertise and how they see fit. So get that out of the way. My perception of conversation with the government was it's important to retain the dollars legal tender for a lot of reasons. One of which is Bitcoin's highly volatile, it's very young. And as an asset you don't want to forcefully impose custody of savings in your general life quality on top of Bitcoin right now. If an individual decides to do so, that's fantastic.

Brett Messing: (26:49)
I just want to say I might have done that already. But anyway, that aside, because put that out there.

Jack Mallers: (26:57)
Me too. It's up to the individual. The point is that the legal tender law is not imposing that that decision is made for you on behalf of the government. That's not it at all. What it's about is treating Bitcoin as equivalent to the dollar. So there's one line in the law that's very important and that you cannot charge premium for things paid in Bitcoin versus a dollar. So if I go and buy pupusa for $5 and I want to pay in Bitcoin, you can't then charge me 10 because you don't like Bitcoin. Instead it's going to be treated equally as a dollar and that there is an... What they wanted to do is expedite interoperability with this open network. Because they have viewed that a large success and empowerment to the country and empowering the free market and empowering this world where people can be themselves and there's ultimate inclusion and there's no intermediaries.

Jack Mallers: (27:46)
And all of these amazing things come by being interoperable with this monetary network that is Bitcoin and the Lightning Network. So the line that everyone's freaking out about is that if you can and have the capabilities to accept Bitcoin, you need to, it's just an encouragement. A pupusa lady that doesn't have a phone. She's not going to jail because she's not accepting Bitcoin, from my understanding. It's encouraging interoperability where you need to plug into this open monetary system and speak the language. So we're working with the biggest banks. And I went to one of the banks and talking to them like, "Okay, how do I send money from this bank to the bank down the block?" And they're like, "You're crazy? You can't do that." I'm like, "Wait, you guys don't have the equivalent of ACH, automated clearing house or anything?" You can walk the cash over if you feel like it.

Jack Mallers: (28:38)
So we're working with the banks on making them interoperable with the system, with the merchants, with the cash points, with everyone. And it's going to flourish in the network, affects how many independent businesses and services are going to be working on the same open monetary network. So the government wanted to place a premium on the network. Is that if everyone plugs into this network, the economies of scale and network effects are going to elevate us to the promised land. And there's no better power than an open system that a government can enforce or an individual or a rap artist or an NBA basketball player. Open networks and the network effects that come with them are the most powerful thing in human history so far. So they understand that and they want to place premium that everyone plugs into this thing. And that is in essence the legal tender law and the direction the government's going to and in 81 days we plug in. We plug in, we start simply and we evolve from there, but we plug in.

Brett Messing: (29:35)
So Jack, as I understand it, the government, and correct me if I'm wrong or expound on it, is setting up $150 million fund so that I own a bar, right in wherever, the capital city. I really don't want to deal with a Bitcoin. I can somehow check a box on something and you come in, you want to buy a beer with Bitcoin, I'm almost instantaneously swapping my Bitcoin to this government fund, they're giving me us dollars. So it's all the same to me. Did I describe that properly? And that sounds like a pretty complex undertaking to implement that. Is it? Or is it not?

Jack Mallers: (30:22)
No, because well, yes, it is complex to implement, but no in the sense that it's already implemented. Because if you take that user story and then we go back to me sending dollars instantly received as euros, it's the same thing. It's allowing cash collateral to make Bitcoin payments, and it's allowing Bitcoin payments to be received as cash. And that's the infrastructure and the insight that we've already developed. So what the government did is hung out with me and talked about comic books and stuff and realized wow, Strike empowers the consumer to gain all the benefit of this open monetary network without giving the burden of Bitcoin the asset. If you want to long Bitcoin the asset, if you want to start a fund, go for it. But from a base minimum we now have technological infrastructure and the insight to give the experience that you show a singular open standard QR code.

Jack Mallers: (31:18)
Millions of apps can scan it. And when they do and the money comes in, you get dollars. That's an amazing experience. That's an irreversible payment, it's an open system. It was free to process. How much was the interchange on that? It's an open network. There's no interchange. There's no VISA sitting over my shoulder charging me for clearance. It was free. It's a beautiful thing. So the government took that concept and said, "Wait, hold on a second." If we want to be long Bitcoin as a government, we can provide the liquidity. We're not going to make Binance come to this country or Jack should stem the liquidity, let's take that concept and infrastructure and plug it into our reserves.

Jack Mallers: (31:57)
And it was novel and fascinating and it was great insight on their part, and that's what it is. But it's the same idea of sending dollars that goes into Bitcoin that comes out as euros. So same thing is I'm selling pupusas, I hit $20 and boom, out comes this Lightning Network QR code. Millions of apps can scan it. If you're super privacy oriented, you could build your own wallet that has a pink privacy logo on it for yourself. You scan it, no matter how the money comes in, it converts, dispatches the dollars to the merchant who's selling pupusas, and then the Bitcoin goes to the reserves of the country. And that's the idea and the concept and the design.

Brett Messing: (32:39)
All right Jack. So I'm going to give you an opportunity to break some news here with us. I've got a couple of questions. So I read somewhere that El Salvador's monetary authority, which by the way I have no idea what they do. If they're on the US dollar and the Bitcoin, they have meetings, I don't know what they talk about. They seem to have no power. But anyway, that they have $3 billion in reserves. Why don't they buy some Bitcoin, right? A $300 million slug of Bitcoin. Are they going to, should we try to convince the president? Can we DM, if you DM him right now and tell him, "Hey man, buy some Bitcoin," you can hook him up with Ross Stevens and you can buy it NYDIG or whatever. Anything to share on that. And before you answer, remember there's no insider trading in Bitcoin.

Jack Mallers: (33:27)
Yeah. Listen, I didn't write the bill. I talked with the government and the president writes and signs the bill. That's how the bill works. I'm not speaking on behalf of the government. If they want to talk about their reserves plans they should. I can say this though, and I would advise this if I were asked. I wouldn't be public about my reserve plans until I was confident I had acquired what I wanted to acquire. I don't want the market pricing and anything. So that would be the advice I would give. I wouldn't make my reserve plans public and known. It's a disadvantage unless it becomes an advantage, which maybe you're Michael Saylor and you buy a billion dollars first and then you announce it. So that would be my advice if I were asked to give advice, but I'm not the president, and so I'm not going to speak on his behalf.

Brett Messing: (34:23)
All right. Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. So where are you traveling to next? I think I'm going to want to get in touch with Google's location tracker for Jack Maller because I know there'll be something interesting going on there. Obviously there have been a bunch of legislators in various nations in Central and South America who have indicated they want to do likewise. I'm going to date myself, but I think a lot of our audience will remember. When I was a kid there was this thing called schoolhouse rock and it was this tune about, I'm a bill, I'm only a bill. I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill about... The challenges of a bill getting passed to law. There are certain times even in US history like during the John's administration, where you have a democratic president with a super majority in Congress, you can pretty much bang things through, which is what we had in El Salvador. Not the case in most nations, generally not the case in the United States. Any insights? I imagine people were reaching out to you in other countries.

Jack Mallers: (35:26)
Yeah. Listen, I actually told my team the following Monday after the announcement like, "This is no mistake. This is not an accident. This is not a one-off event. This is not something to be celebrated and forgotten about for us as a company. This is what we do." This is our mission statement of enabling economic freedom and economic empowerment and we do that through open monetary networks that are Bitcoin and Lightning providing a tremendous experience on top of them. So we've enabled that for Russell Okung, as an NFL player, we're talking to the NFL, we're talking to NASCAR, we did that with the Indy 500 folks, and we're talking to more countries.

Jack Mallers: (36:03)
It's just what we do, and so we're going to continue to do what we do. We're going to continue to be the best at what we do. So yeah, blanketed answer is absolutely there's more to come because I have an economically empowered all 8 billion people yet, and so this is a tremendous milestone, I'm super proud of everyone that was part of it and the small role I played. But no, we keep going. We keep going. We have a mission statement and it's far from finished.

Brett Messing: (36:28)
So if I was a bookie, I just said, betting odds on what country was going to be next. So I would make the odds around other dollarized nations like Panama, Ecuador, just curious, what nation would you... What would be your favorite?

Jack Mallers: (36:44)
Well, you're a smart guy man. So maybe you should give yourself a little bit more credit. But I don't know. I don't know. Keep in mind this was a tremendously long journey that I was on. Well, I guess both. It was very short, in that the last 90 days felt like it was yesterday. But it was long and like 90 individual days ticked off the calendar. So where are we 90 days from now? I'm not sure. I'm extremely inspired and enthused by the reaction that a lot of the developing world, Central America, Latin America, and just globally, I think this announcement was received fantastically. It wasn't clear at the time, such a geopolitical announcement from a 27 year old in a hoodie. But I'm fired up and I'm ready to get to work. And we'll see. I carry no bias. I'm willing to help anybody, whether you're a pupusa salesman or a president of a country. We've got tools for you.

Brett Messing: (37:41)
Well I have one more question. I'm going to let John ask a few. So you mentioned that you facilitated an NFL player getting paid in Bitcoin. We'd love to pay our employees in Bitcoin. Is that something you could help us with? Where is that from a rollout standpoint? Was that a one-off thing? Or is it ready to be productized or institutionalized? Could we do that in other words? Is that something we could do together?

Jack Mallers: (38:08)
Yeah. So this has been recorded on, what is it? Thursday, June 17th. So this time next week I will have made a big announcement that should inform you more on the answer, but absolutely. And in fact the product is designed to be in the hands of the consumer. It's a direct deposit product where the consumer can actually decide what percentage of their paycheck is automatic converted in store to Bitcoin for them. So I think that if you have capital that isn't working capital, that isn't capital required for your basic functions of living, it is fact that you can't store it in cash. So what are your options? And if you think about the Federal Reserve or anyone in debt, anyone in debt has two options typically, unless you're the federal reserve. Your options are one, pay it back like an honest man, or two, default on it and admit that you made a mistake.

Jack Mallers: (39:03)
The third if you're the Federal Reserve is to just keep printing money and print assets out of reach. So that by definition has to happen. So you should store your wealth in an asset that's designed to appreciate against that environment. And Bitcoin I'm selecting fighters in a video game. It's like a cheat code. So I think every consumer, whether you're an NFL player, whether you work at Salt should be able to go into an application and slide what percentage of their direct deposit and their paycheck and their wage of living is allocated to an asset that acts in their best interest. So we'll wait for the announcement next week.

Brett Messing: (39:40)
All right. If I was in a different mood I'd really hammer you on it and tell you that we'd embargo this and make news together. But given all the good work you've done on we're not going to put that pressure on you. John, you want to ask a few questions to Jack before we let him get back to it?

John Darsie: (39:57)
Yeah. Obviously a country like El Salvador and other countries in LATAM and around the world, the reason they go to a dollar peg or they use the dollar as their currency is because there's a complete loss in confidence in the local currency. So in El Salvador obviously the big challenge is going to be to convince the El Salvadorian people that Bitcoin or using the Bitcoin network or remittance for internal payment network should engender confidence. Something like 70% of El Salvadorians, I think I saw the stat, don't have a bank account. Less than half have access to the internet.

John Darsie: (40:32)
How far along, I know it's very early since you guys made the announcement, but are you and what are the indications are about how the El Salvadorian people are receiving this announcement and how many of them are planning to use it? I know the government has set up some referral programs and things like that to get people on the network. And how much do you think it could incentivize the growth of the El Salvadorian economy and society to more people to have cell phones, more access to the internet, things like that?

Jack Mallers: (40:58)
Yeah. Well, let's say we solve or drastically improve the remittance scenario in El Salvador, we're talking about improving the country's GDP by one to 5%. So that's very material. So I think it's going to do tremendous things almost immediately to the country outside of what it's already done. The amount of jobs created, amount of investment that's coming into the country is fantastic. Reception of the people. Listen, politics is very complicated and I'm no politician, that's the job of the president to manage expectations and the lives of its citizens. I think the only thing that I'm confident in as someone who builds software and someone who builds experiences for consumers is that time cures all and we just have coded right.

Jack Mallers: (41:40)
So I have nothing but confidence in our ability to deliver economic inclusivity and financial freedom to the people of El Salvador, improve on those qualities, and give financial access to the 70 plus percent that don't have it, and to the 30% that do may have it drastically improved in its quality. So there's no doubt in my mind, I have ultimate confidence and I know the president will give access to information and transparency to relieve a lot of the stress and confusion that may be caused by politics or politics and ultimately time is the truth teller.

John Darsie: (42:17)
Yeah. There was a lot written in the wake of El Salvador's announcement and the passage of the bill around what are the global implications from a legal standpoint of a country making Bitcoin legal tender. Does it have to be recognized differently now in countries that El Salvador trades with or conducts business with, what in your view are the implications, both literal implications about how Bitcoin has to be treated now internationally and what it does around the world to encourage other countries to potentially adopt similar types of models.

Jack Mallers: (42:49)
Yeah. So for the legal implications, I've seen some interesting threads around how the World Bank now has to accept Bitcoin as El Salvador's made it legal tender. I'm more curious than a participant to see how that unfolds. The way I view it is we are in unprecedented environment for macro economics right now. The monetary expansion happening at all central banks and then particularly the Federal Reserve should scare everyone, no matter if you're in New York, Chicago, or El Salvador. And you see a country that opts out that plugs into hope, plugs into an open network, plugs into a monetary policy that can not be co-opted by any individual that doesn't have a CEO and that's protected by software that's incorruptible, and that's defended by a distributed network. And that is a very inspiring thing to see and to witness and to understand that there are other options.

Jack Mallers: (43:47)
In fact, there's an option that's engineered to fix this exact problem. So I think now every single country in the world, especially those that are dollarized, especially those that are developing, but no matter who you are, you have to start to entertain the concept that Bitcoin has given financial inclusion, basic human freedoms and hope and solved the long outdated problem of subscribing to a monetary policy that can not be changed, that is fixed, set in stone. An asset that supplies cap and that achieves ultimate scarcity, and a country has done that and plugged into that and sees a better world with that. And I think that's going to kick off what I hope to be a new epoch for humanity. I think we have a better world with Bitcoin [inaudible 00:44:32] and Bitcoin's engineered to solve these problems and a lot of confidence it's going to fix it.

John Darsie: (44:37)
So last question before we let you go. You talked earlier about how you've built technology. The Lightning Network has been built, Strike has been built to be a technology that operates and solves problems irrespective of the price of Bitcoin, or whether somebody embraces Bitcoin as a currency or a store of value or whatever they perceive it as. But you're a fan of Bitcoin, Brett is definitely a fan of Bitcoin. I'm a fan of Bitcoin. But Bitcoin is volatile. If I was getting paid from SkyBridge or Salt two months ago in Bitcoin I would have been a lot happier than I would be today having that money having halved in value.

John Darsie: (45:13)
Do you think Bitcoin as an asset is on a path? And we talk about this a lot, Brett and I about volatility is your friend really with Bitcoin because that's what's created so much price appreciation, is most of the volatility has been to the upside. But do you think Bitcoin is on a path to being less volatile to being perceived as more of a currency that people in El Salvador or elsewhere might be able to have more confidence in it long-term that it will be somewhat more stable?

Jack Mallers: (45:40)
Yes, of course. Bitcoin's volatility metrics are going down by the day. They always have been as it's maturing as an asset and maturing in its participants, maturing in those who subscribe to it and hold it, maturing in its volatility characteristics, and it will continue to do so. However, I still think there's a tremendous amount of volatility to the upside, which then implies some short-term volatility to the downside. Markets act on nobody's behalf, markets are their own beast and their own freak of nature.

Jack Mallers: (46:12)
So I don't think we're near close what is... Bitcoin is around a trillion dollar asset. Considering how the world traditionally stores wealth, there's a lot more to go to the upside. So I still think that we're relatively early. So I wouldn't price out any volatility for these next market cycles. I think it's got to go up a lot, which infers it'll go down a little and then continue. But I mean, you can look at all the metrics you want and these things maturing tremendously fast considering it started a little over a decade ago, it's incredible.

Brett Messing: (46:49)
Jack, [inaudible 00:46:50] One last question before we wrap John. Jack, what do you believe is that the number of people in the world that own Bitcoin and how do you calculate that number? What are your data inputs?

Jack Mallers: (47:05)
Yeah, what's a Bitcoin user. That's the long dated question. Gosh, I wouldn't have any clue for owning Bitcoin. I would associate with being long the asset. I think someone with a Coinbase account that owns Bitcoin on the platform is an owner of the asset. I think yeah, there's a lot of nuance in that question and a lot of context needs to be provided to give an accurate answer. But I guess a lot and if it's people that literally hold [inaudible 00:47:36] and private keys, lesser then, but if it's people that are subscribed to funds and cash-settled derivative products and are on platforms like Coinbase and Robin Hood, then a lot. But I know the number keeps going up into the right, so that's why I'm a fan.

Brett Messing: (47:50)
Right. Well that seems like a good place to end John. I hope you're great.

John Darsie: (47:53)
Yeah, absolutely. Jack, we'd love to have you-

Brett Messing: (47:56)
[crosstalk 00:47:56] got better than up into the right.

John Darsie: (47:57)
Yeah, up into the right is fantastic. But Jack, it's a pleasure to have you on, we'd love to have you at our Salt conference this September in New York, it's going to have all the big players in the world of Bitcoin and digital assets. It's something that this all conference has evolved since it was started 12 years ago and it's going to increasingly have content and participants that are doing great things in this space. So we'd love to have you there and hope to see you down at Bitcoin Beach. That sounds like the place to be.

Jack Mallers: (48:26)
You should definitely visit Bitcoin Beach, shout out to Bitcoin Beach and all the people that have made this a reality and I'd love to come. I appreciate you both. Thanks for having me. I think you do tremendous work for the community and for the asset and let's go Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (48:40)
All right. Let's go Bitcoin. Thank you everybody for tuning into today's Salt Talk as well, and learning more about what's going on with the Lightning Network with Strike, this global evolution of Bitcoin. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous Salt Talks, you can access them on our website. It's salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called Salt Tube. And please spread the word about these Salt Talks. We love educating people on topics whether you're deep into Bitcoin and just learning about more in depth what's going on in El Salvador or looking to learn more about the space. Please tell your uncle that's skeptical about crypto, please send him this Salt talk. We're also on Twitter at Salt Conference is where we're most active, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And on behalf of Brett and the entire Salt team, this is John Darsie signing off from Salt Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Jason Crabtree: Reimagining Complexity | SALT Talks #228

"Risk is a consequence of dependence. If you get really dependent on something, you probably want to think a lot more about what happens if it goes away."

Learned from his time in the military, Jason Crabtree reveals government agencies’ and private companies’ vast cyber insecurities, leading to his founding of QOMPLX. Crabtree details some of the most common mistakes and how individuals and organizations should approach cybersecurity. He discusses his decision to take QOMPLX public via SPAC. Crabtree offers his views on energy security following the attack on Colonial Pipeline and discusses whether crypto plays a role in increased ransomware attacks. He predicts the nature of future cyber battles and explains how to prepare.   

While “complexity” is often viewed as a negative attribute, the most powerful things in life are complex. Planet Earth. Global enterprises. Human beings. Several years ago, Stephen Hawking said “the next century [21st] will be the century of complexity." Rick Nason of Dalhousie University’s Rowe School of Business explains in his book It’s Not Complicated: The Art and Science of Complexity in Business, “if you manage complex things as if they are merely complicated, you’re likely to be setting up your company for failure." Eliminating complexity would make no sense. Embracing complexity and harnessing it is the path to success.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jason Crabtree.jpeg

Jason Crabtree

Chief Executive Officer

QOMPLX

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and military career

6:52 - Ransomware and founding QOMPLX

9:41 - Cybersecurity best practices and mistakes

15:45 - Cyber insurance

18:32 - QOMPLX choosing SPAC route

22:22 - Understanding personal cyber risk

24:56 - Future of energy security

27:15 - Global cyber risks

31:10 - Crypto and ransomware

33:18 - Data integrity and cyber warfare

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 talks is the same as our goal at our Salt Conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 and welcome our guests to that conference as well. But that'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. And we're very excited today to bring you a Salt Talk focused on cyber security and operational risk with Jason Crabtree of QOMPLX. Jason co-founded QOMPLX with Andrew Sellers in 2014. As CEO today, he guides the vision and long-term direction of QOMPLX and oversees all aspects of the company's operations.

John Darsie: (01:05)
Prior to QOMPLX, Jason served as a special advisor to senior leaders in the department of defense cyber community in support of operational cybersecurity missions, including research and development, strategic risk management, and digital transformation initiatives. Jason is a widely recognized expert on cybersecurity, data and risk management. He's been featured on most major news outlets and quoted in the New Yorker, New York times, Yahoo Finance, and more. He received his bachelor's degree in engineering from the US Military Academy at West Point where he was selected as the first captain and brigade commander of the Corps of Cadets and later elected as a Rhode scholar. I received a master's in engineering of science at the University of Oxford before leading infantry troops in Afghanistan in 2012.

John Darsie: (01:52)
Hosting today's talk as somebody with not nearly the resume that Jason has, it's Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony did go to Harvard law school so we'll give him that, but it took him three tries to pass the bar, so that knocks them down a couple of rungs. But with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:10)
You see how he starts? Are you going to mention the fact that I got fired from the White House? You throw that in there and once in a while too, you're going to mention that?

John Darsie: (02:17)
We're trying to forget that one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:18)
Jason, let's just put it this way okay, I was a little cocky. I was out on Manhasset Bay, water skiing when my friends were studying for the bar, it was my bad. Let's move on Darsie, let's move on. Jason, it's a real pleasure to have you. You got this great story. You're doing things that most people dream of. You went to West Point, you were in a war zone, fought for your country, thank you for your service. You were a Rhodes scholar and now you're building an amazing business. So we have a ton of young people that listen to us. I want you to take us through your mindset and the arc of your career and how you got us to where we are right now.

Jason Crabtree: (02:57)
So I started raising cows. So that was actually...

John Darsie: (03:01)
That wasn't in the bio.

Jason Crabtree: (03:04)
So I grew up raising some Angus cattle and I grew up around a lot of ex-military people out, out of just West of Seattle. So I got to know a lot of folks that had been mostly part of the Navy, usurprisingly, it's a little wet there in Puget Sound. And we realized hat frankly, that post 9/11, that I wanted to do something with public service. And when 9/11 happened, I said, "If I'm not going to do this now, then this isn't a serious thing for me." And I had an opportunity to get to know some West Point graduates that I used to go mountain climbing with for fun. And they had this tremendous view on leadership.

Jason Crabtree: (03:39)
It was much more about enabling the people that worked for them and it was a little bit of the opposite of the Navy boomer commanders that I knew that were in the area where there's nothing closer to God than a boomer commander that's underway. And so I ended up finding myself just really drawn to these people and decided to apply to the academy and was fortunate enough to get accepted. And that started a whole chain of unexpected events.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:02)
Your service in Afghanistan was in 2012. And when did your service end?

Jason Crabtree: (04:10)
So I left the army in late 2014 after working at Cyber Command for a few years. So the time Paul Nakasone who now runs the NSA, he was a one-star still and so I worked for his boss, Lieutenant General [inaudible 00:04:22] Hernandez, which was awesome, great experience for me to just be able to see the whole of government capabilities in this space and what we were doing. And frankly, figuring out how the government was trying to sit alongside what was happening in the private sector.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:36)
I got to Afghanistan on a troop support mission in January of 2015 and so I met with General Campbell and his staff in Kabul, and they took me into their Cyber Command center. They showed they had actually Australian army in there with them as well. They were showing us the drones that were up in the air at that point, it's declassified now, they were in the process of disrupting a terrorist camp of which was in the Khandahar region. They ultimately went in there with the Afghani special forces, wiped out 180 terrorists, took all their laptops and so forth. And then we met with the Cyber Command people to discuss how they were going to unbundle those laptops to find treasure troves of information related to potential terrorism in the West. Is that sort of the stuff that you were doing, Jason?

Jason Crabtree: (05:32)
So I was an infantry officer. So after I finished graduate school at Oxford, I came back, went to ranger school, went to entry school and then went to out to Fort Lewis and then across to Kandahar initially. So probably not that far from where you were, right at the tip of the horn of Panjwai and Arghandab River Val. And so I spent time down there with a really great group of soldiers. And as you noted, a big part of getting advantage in Afghanistan was trying to figure out how you could suck out enough information to have an intelligence driven mission. Could you be focused about what we were trying to do? So we were constantly dealing with the bags of stuff that would come back from some of the different types of raids or other things, and could you figure out quickly what was there so you could get ahead of where the enemy was planning in their own cycle?

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:18)
And so Cyber Command is wickedly important for the American military. It's wickedly important for the defense of the United States. And we are at war right now, at least that's my opinion. I'd like to get your reaction to that. We're in an information war, the war is hacking, ransomware, disinformation that's being flooded onto the internet. Tell us about your business. Tell us about where we are in the world related to ransomware? And tell us your business model, Jason.

Jason Crabtree: (06:53)
Yeah. So I think when you start to look at where we are as a country, we're experiencing two kinds of things. We're experiencing all the information operations stuff, that's all the disinflation capability, that's all the manipulation of social media and how can you get people to behave differently? And then we're experiencing all of the actual attacks you're seeing in the news right now, which are much more about getting paid. And most of those are these criminal organizations that are out there harvesting American and global companies. And they're harvesting vulnerable businesses that have money and they can shut them down and hold them hostage. And that's a really attractive thing to do if you know how to get paid for it. And the entry price, the ticket price for that to join that ecosystem is pretty low. And it's gotten a lot lower over the last decade because so many of the tools and techniques to actually go out and find vulnerable businesses and hold them hostage are just widely available.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:51)
And so QOMPLX, you started it out of your garage, which is the classic American story, I absolutely love that. We started SkyBridge out of a little tiny office and you're going public via SPAC. Take us through that journey. Jason, take us through it.

Jason Crabtree: (08:06)
So, when Andrew and I were still in the service, we worked on a lot of these core defense issues. How do you be able to see not just the perimeter of these networks, but what's happening inside? And that's a big part of the story about why cyber attacks just continue to grow. The reality is that most businesses and government agencies, and you saw this not just in ransomware attacks, but remember department of justice, department of treasury owned end to ends, the keys to the kingdom held by Russian nationals. That's just this last year. Those capabilities were really about taking over the center of these networks because they look like a raw egg. They got this real thin crust and inside it's just a big gooey middle, and you can go wherever you want after you get in.

Jason Crabtree: (08:52)
And so we left in 2014 because we realized that some of the most important things that we were lacking, that private sector didn't have, public sector didn't have, was all about, could you actually make that big gooey middle more difficult? And could you identify the cracks on the outside of that network fast enough and quick enough that you could find them and patch them up before bad guys found them? And I think what you've seen as the answer is we haven't done very well in that as an industry and QOMPLX is doing that for some of the world's largest companies and government agencies, is we really try and change the power imbalance and put the blue guys back on the right side of history here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:30)
Oh, I love it. I want to take it to the very human level. What can individual executives and regular people do to keep themselves safer?

Jason Crabtree: (09:42)
Well, I think part of this comes down to the basics. Everybody wants to go talk about magic pixie dust, AI sparkle stuff, and they haven't gone back and done the basics and say, "Do I even know what's on my network?" If you're a corporation, "Do I actually know what kinds of privileges, what are people allowed to access?" That's one part of it. But for just a common person, don't reuse your passwords all over the internet. Go get a password manager. It's cheap, it's easy. There's even some free ones that are out there. It'll help you use a unique password and every site. And that's part of why you see a lot of folks get harvested and lose their social media accounts or lose their email accounts, it's because they're reusing passwords all over the place.

Jason Crabtree: (10:20)
The next thing is, turn on multifactor authentication. Multifactor authentication are being enabled everywhere. It's not going to stop everything, but it's definitely going to make it harder. It makes it more likely that someone has to target you. Last one is, backup your stuff. Whether you're a small business or whether you're an individual, a lot of people don't actually back up their things or ever even know how to restore from a backup. And that stuff's not sexy to talk about, but it's actually what helps people get going. And after that, it's all about visibility. And for corporations, are you looking for these things fast enough so you can identify where people screw up and put stuff on the internet that shouldn't have been there, or you can identify when people are in your network? You actually have to look for it. You can't bury your head in the sand and then say, "Oh my God, we're so surprised. Somebody was in here trying to get the money out of the bank. There's gambling in the casino, heaven forbid."

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:10)
I'm always worried about this stuff. And I'm fascinated about your view. Are there too many companies offering cybersecurity services and technology? I see more and more announcements and there are big transactions, public and private all the time right now. What's your thoughts on that?

Jason Crabtree: (11:27)
Yeah. I think cybersecurity is going to go through a real consolidation and we think that because you see so many legacy companies that were really designed for this big perimeter focused defense. A lot of corporations and government agencies were building more and more elaborate perimeter defenses, these tiler and taller walls. And it turns out that, whether you to pick the imagine a line or lots of other historical examples, you can go around the wall, you can go under the wall, ad that's exactly what you see happening with phishing attacks. So you get someone to click on something and download it and it bypasses the big wall into the organization. It's exactly what happens when someone in the finance department or the HR department opens up somebody's resume because that's their job every day to click that, someone's going to have a malware capability embedded in that, or they're going to have a macro in an Excel spreadsheet. Everybody loves to send those around.

Jason Crabtree: (12:22)
But turns out those are some of the most dangerous things you can possibly do is open up an Excel spreadsheet with a macro, and I don't see that going away anytime soon. And as a result of that, that means that you bypass all these tremendously expensive legacy companies that were really configured for a world that doesn't exist anymore. And their blinky boxes don't go to the cloud very well. And that's why you see QOMPLX and others, I think, positioned around the identity space. Identity is much more central to the future, and frankly, you're seeing the government endorse it. That's why President Biden just signed the zero trust order as part of the executive order for the federal government just a few weeks ago.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:58)
It's great stuff. So where does QOMPLX fit into that picture? How do we defend business and society? Give us the macro framework.

Jason Crabtree: (13:07)
So the macro framework is you're hearing big words like zero trust. And zero trust is all been about this idea that you're going to move away from the big perimeter and you're going to make your identity the center of your defense. Great. It also only works if you can authenticate that people are real, that computer and user log-ons are real. And it turns out that whether it was the office of personnel management, so in 2014 you saw this huge, huge attack by the Chinese, where they took millions of people's personnel records, their applications to gain a classified intelligence permission from the government, and we saw millions of those records go to China. That same attack was a part of what you saw at capabilities like Marriott, Merck, TravelX, Finastra, Norsk Hydro, all of these massive breaches that disrupted companies. Same thing at Colonial, this is what dark side ransomware getting does. This is what the Russians just did to DOJ DOT and the whole solar winds debacle.

Jason Crabtree: (14:13)
They all attack the keys to the kingdom. And once they get the keys to the kingdom, they can create users, they can impersonate users, they can do what they want because it's not your network anymore, it's theirs. And I think what QOMPLX really does is we actually catch that and we do it now for some of the world's largest corporations. And it's funny because this is actually what Andrew and I helped work on some of these problems for the defense department when he was doing some chief architecture work for the air force, before we started the business. We just realized that we needed to go so much further than the big incumbent vendors were willing to go. And that's what QOMPLX has been doing for the last six and a half, almost almost seven years now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:49)
So when you say much further, describe what that means? What does so much further mean in terms of capabilities?

Jason Crabtree: (14:57)
Yeah. So every time a user or computer wants to do something, you want to send an email, go to a file share, you have to effectively say, "Hey, am I allowed to do this?" The problem is if I can just impersonate me being you well, that's better than me being me on the SkyBridge network. I'd rather be you on the SkyBridge network.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:16)
You don't want to be me. Apparently I got fired from the White House and I failed the bar three times. So you can ask John Darsie, you probably don't want to be me. But I get the point, but I want to switch subjects for a second and ask you about your opinion of cyber insurance. We're watching more accelerated losses. I think they're confused about how to write premium related to these cyber losses. What's your thought there? And where do you think that industry is going?

Jason Crabtree: (15:45)
Yeah. So I think whether it's ransomware or whether it's cyber insurance, the whole world's gone digital. And that's not going away. But risk is all about what you're dependent on you. You have a lot of risks if you're dependent on stuff. And today cyber security is really in the news because in the course of the last decade, everyday business doesn't function without the IT department operating anymore. And I think the challenge when you look at cyber insurance, and this is where insurers are having to figure out what to do with it, it's the fastest growing line of insurance. It's also the one with the fastest deterioration in terms of its actual losses. So the adverse development you're seeing is really, really negative. But they have to solve it because everything's getting instrumented. You can manipulate a building control system and cause a fire.

Jason Crabtree: (16:38)
There was a big article this week talking about how vulnerable America's water systems are. Well, America's water systems can be manipulated, you can poison people, you can hurt people. So you don't really have a choice if you're an insurer in property and casualty about whether or not you're going to get good at this. You just have to figure out how to actually learn what the hell is going on so you can navigate it. And what you saw insurers start with was surveys and surveys didn't work very well. And then they said, "Hey, we'll look at the outside of that egg. We're going to scan the outside of you and maybe that'll work." The problem is though that all the big breaches were all about taking over the middle, getting the keys to the kingdom. And so what insurers are starting to figure out now is that all their loss events all look the same. 90% of breaches roughly, end up involving active directory and these big identity providers getting compromised.

Jason Crabtree: (17:24)
And that's exactly why you see both the security industry and the insurance industry suddenly saying, "Oh my God, we've got to totally reposition ourselves from building taller fences, to having really disciplined hunting and identification operations so we can find and root these kinds of people out. I don't want to be an outsider on your network. I want to be an insider. And if I take over your identity provider, I am an insider." That's the goal of every attack is to become authenticated. And that's why you see insurers really struggling.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:53)
I think it's great insight. It's great commentary. Let's switch topics about going public through a SPAC.

Jason Crabtree: (17:59)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:59)
Now Jason, I know I'm not somebody, I'm going to explain to you why, because the Wall Street Journal said that everybody that's somebody has a SPAC. And we don't have one so therefore I know I'm not somebody. But you have a SPAC and you went public in that methodology rather than through a traditional IPO. Explain why, SPACs are obviously very popular, why did QOMPLX choose that path? And then obviously, can you hang with the big companies who are making moves in the space through that structure?

Jason Crabtree: (18:32)
Yeah. Well, I think it's a really fair question. The SPAC market is certainly widely debated. I think the reality is for companies like QOMPLX, we are a real business, so our performa business, we bought a partner as part of this as well, our performa business did 96 million in revenue last year. So we're not one of the folks that are, I'll call it in the totally speculative bucket. I think we're building a real company, we're driving real revenue, we work with real partners, we have long relationships with them. But we also really wanted to partner with long-term investors and institutions that we know are committed to cybersecurity and this broader digital transformation as part of the future. I think QOMPLX is really tied in to this idea that you're going to want to watch the things you care about. You're going to want to see how healthy they are. You want to see how they're interacting over time, and you're going to want to simulate a lot of different futures for them so you can figure out how to make better decisions.

Jason Crabtree: (19:28)
That's really what risk management is. Can you identify something that's going to get you hurt or is going to be a great opportunity? And can you figure out how to maximize the likelihood of avoiding the bad spots and getting the good spots? And for us, a SPAC vehicle and for us, we partner with Tailwind and Bill Foley, Cannae Holdings is our largest shareholder going into the transaction, the largest shareholder coming out of it. It was really just about building our company and making incremental improvements to the capabilities we provided the clients. We could have done it privately. Being public, it allows us to be more aggressive in our future as we actually are really preparing to continue to tussle with these much larger businesses that are trying to figure out how to transform themselves from these legacy providers to a company that looks more like us, where we're actually a cloud native analytics infrastructure provider. We actually do this stuff like they're trying to make themselves look like for the future.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:24)
Well, listen, I think it's awesome. I don't want to take all the questions because we have the very elegant and intellectual John Darsie on deck here. But I want to ask this macro question. You went from West Point to Cyber Command, to taking your company public. After you ring that bell, what's next? And when do you sleep and how do you sleep? Do you sleep upside down? What are your secrets, Jason?

Jason Crabtree: (20:49)
Well, I think we're very just focused on how to go build the business, but I'm looking forward to getting some time back out in Montana with some family and frankly, getting an opportunity to just take a breather and spend some time with my little girl, my dog, and my wife. So that's definitely coming up for us. But I think for me, going through this whole process of going through the public listing process through SPAC has certainly been a great learning experience, but it's just really confirmed for us why I think a lot of great companies are going to continue to go through a SPAC listing process where they can partner with really good sponsors and frankly, engage with a lot of great investors. We had some great books come into our pipe and I'm excited about what that means for our future.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:32)
I'm super excited for you. It's an amazing thing that you've done and congratulations on the company. I'll turn it over to John for some remaining questions, but I'm looking forward to meeting you in person.

John Darsie: (21:43)
Yeah, and one of the things we're really excited about for our Salt Conference in September is having Jason and the QOMPLX team there. I know you work with a lot of organizations that we do business with as well, but helping to train our audience in terms of how to create more secure environments and more secure work processes is something we're looking forward to in September, and having you guys there. So grateful to have you involved. But we were joking before we went live, as we were setting up our cameras, about whether you had tape over your webcam or things that you can do individually to maintain individual cybersecurity. What are steps, if I'm an individual looking to just create a more secure environment in my life, what are steps that you would recommend?

Jason Crabtree: (22:23)
Well, I think the reality is that people just need to be aware that everybody's a target. And especially when it comes to small businesses, a lot of the folks that really get hurt by a lot of the ransomware groups in particular are small companies. And you see that when they take on your local school district. Ryack is really famous for actually stealing your financial information, and when you say you don't have money for ransom, they'll give you back your bank statement, show you how much money you have so that they... They like that kind of stuff because it engenders the right kind of response. So I think if you know that you're a target and then you start to think, "Hey, I don't want to walk down that dark alley. I want to think a little bit more carefully about how it is that I'm positioned." Password managers, multifactor, backups, make sure that you're actually configuring your stuff to be secure. Don't just enable everything. You're going to be much better off.

John Darsie: (23:09)
Yeah. You, I understand, are in the early processes of writing a book about how the democratization of technology is going to impact security going forward and that covers a lot of different areas. But what exactly does that mean? How does this democratization we've seen in the technology world impact how we need to look at security and operations risks?

Jason Crabtree: (23:33)
I think the key thing just goes back to some really simple precepts. Risk is a consequence of dependence. If you get really dependent on something, you probably want to think a lot more about what happens if it goes away. And a lot of organizations that get themselves in a lot of trouble, don't take the time to say, "Hey, how do I fall back from my primary mode to my alternate mode, to some sort of contingency or emergency plan?" And I think for whether it's your personal life, if your phone goes dead, do you have a map? Those types of simple types of relationships with technology in our life are becoming more important. And you see this when you see the internet outages, you see ransomware attacks, you see this just very complex digital supply chain that's emerging.

Jason Crabtree: (24:11)
So a lot of what I've been thinking about and had published on the past has been much more about how do you allow people to think about what are their dependencies? What is my unique business? What is my unique life depend on? And how do I get more comfortable that I'm going to be able to be successful even if something in there gets mucked up on a day-to-day basis?

John Darsie: (24:30)
Right. And energy is an area that you've covered a lot in the past. You wrote a book in 2015 called Driven By Demand How Energy Gets Its Power, which we would highly recommend. And obviously we saw the colonial pipeline situation recently and there's a lot of implications of a move towards more smart infrastructure that's more plugged in, but with that comes more risk. What is the global energy future look like? And how do we optimize it from the current system?

Jason Crabtree: (24:57)
I think one of the key things when you talk about energy, and it doesn't matter if you're talking about the power system challenges you're seeing in ERCOT that have been in Texas over the last year that have been very visible and in the national eye, or if you're thinking about resource and exchanges because of climate concerns and the shift away from coal and fossil fuels. It turns out that you have to think about how do you coordinate this stuff? Electricity moves at the speed of light, so you have to balance the inputs and the outputs constantly. And that requires a lot of information technology because you have to coordinate a lot of different people that make energy and consume energy. So if you're able to do that, you can do a much better job of having a much more efficient and flexible future, but wind farms and all these other variable power sources, they're both variable and uncertain.

Jason Crabtree: (25:46)
And so I think no different than when you're talking about dealing with variability and uncertainty in financial markets, or dealing with it in your own life, those are two words you really have to watch out for. And it means that you have to think carefully about how you do your own planning and again, you have to think, "What happens if this thing isn't available when I need it?" A nuclear power plant, you pretty much know it's going to be there when you're thinking about being dependent on wind and others, it's not that those aren't very valuable, they are, but you have to coordinate them as part of a whole system. And that whole systems design is a big part of our future.

John Darsie: (26:16)
Let's talk more about China for a minute. So the US government in one of the first big bipartisan pieces of legislation that we've seen in a long time just passed the $250 billion bill that'll be deployed over five years to build up our manufacturing infrastructure and our high-tech infrastructure, as a specifically an answer to China, their dominance on chip making and other resources like that. There was a great podcast from The Daily recently about Apple and decisions it's made in order to do business in China that potentially come with some risks. Tele-communications infrastructure Huawei has been on the controversy around 5G and whether or not the US is doing enough to invest in that infrastructure or seeding that territory to China. But how much of a risk in your eyes is China in terms of aggressive cyber attacks, cyber espionage, and how that could be used in more nefarious way moving forward?

Jason Crabtree: (27:16)
Yeah. So listen, I think it's widely acknowledged that Russia, China, North Korea, Iran are some of the most belligerent entities we'll call them, in terms of thinking about global cybersecurity and what that means. I think it's important to remember though that China historically has been much more around intellectual property theft and data theft for espionage and intelligence purposes. And that's been different than, I'll call it some of the moonlighting and some of the toleration of large scale criminal organizations that you've seen in Russia or parts of the supply chain for those criminal enterprises that are largely in parts of the former sort of Soviet Union. And so I think China is important as well in the sense that, if you look at some of the major recent attacks, after solar winds, there was actually a series of events around some Legacy VPN providers perimeter backing up that firewall edge perimeter device space.

Jason Crabtree: (28:13)
But when China got burned on one of its ops, it actually effectively let everyone have access. So Russia imposed a different way of thinking about being very stealthy and a little bit more targeted. China burned down its operations by kind of saying it's free for all and hiding in the noise. So it's going to be important for us to be honest about how to deal with these folks in different ways. And China's mostly still focused on pilfering secrets that can be used elsewhere.

John Darsie: (28:42)
Right. There's certain cyber attacks, including the recent one of the US government that we believe came from Russian sources, that we stumbled into. And they might've been in those systems for longer than we would like to think they were. But it led me to a thought and a question around how many, or what percentage of cyber attacks do we discover and how many just continue to live inside some of our systems in a more surreptitious type of way? But in terms of our ability to discover and detect cyber attacks and espionage, is there a percentage that you think about in terms of how many we actually know about?

Jason Crabtree: (29:20)
Well, I think part of why you're seeing more reporting is you're actually seeing more organizations know they're breached.

John Darsie: (29:26)
Right. Which I guess is a positive thing, right?

Jason Crabtree: (29:29)
Well, I think understanding the scope of the problem is really important. And I think you're going to see more movement towards mandatory breach disclosure for public policy reasons as well. And I think you're seeing even some proposals this week from Senator Warner and others that are driving us that direction. And part of that is that a lot of organizations haven't shared that they've been breached because they didn't have a mandatory reporting requirement. So even when people think about how big the JBS or Colonial ransomware were, and those were 4.4 million for Colonial, roughly 11 for JBS. CNA Financial, big insurer in Cincinnati, $40 million ransomware this year.

Jason Crabtree: (30:11)
So there's real money out there that started to go into these criminal enterprises and it's hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone. And it's driving continued escalation of capabilities and it's driving a lot more people to get into that space. So you've got to see more aggressive prosecution, but we also just got to make ourselves less of a target. Right now we've got a target on our back, we live in a glass house, and we look like something that's really easy to rip off. And that's part of why you see them doing it.

John Darsie: (30:38)
Right. How closely have you studied cryptocurrencies, blockchains, how those are enabling this rise in ransomware and attacks? Obviously the Colonial pipeline situation, the ransom was paid in Bitcoin, but the government was actually able to recover portions of that bribe. Do you think that crypto is creating this rise in ransomware attacks, or do you think it's just something that people are using it as an alternative to other systems they've always used in the past for ransoms?

Jason Crabtree: (31:11)
I think certainly crypto is one of the contributing factors that's helped make it easier to move vast amounts of money, and at least pseudo attributable formats across national boundaries. It's certainly easier to get money around the world using cryptocurrencies or NFTs or other things than it is to get swift transfers through a process and laundered as an example. So it's certainly an element, but it's definitely not driving all of ransomware. I don't think it's fair to say that cryptocurrency is causing ransomware or causing crime. If a bank leaves a bunch of hundred dollar bills in the middle of the lobby and with a sign that says, "Don't take, pretty please." We don't say, "Oh fundamentally, the problem is that we make money." And I think that's exactly why you see us call for two things.

Jason Crabtree: (31:59)
You need to see more stuff like what Lisa Monaco is doing, what John Carlin and others are doing in department of justice, going after and imposing costs and consequences on criminal organizations. So we should prosecute them. But we also actually have to acknowledge that a lot of global corporates and a lot of American businesses, large and small, are making it really easy. They're leaving stacks of Benjamins in the lobby. And then they're upset that there's gambling in the casino. They're upset that somebody is going to try and take them. And we've got to actually harden our defenses and not be surprised that criminal organizations are going to try and get paid.

John Darsie: (32:31)
Right. And we're hopeful that Lisa Monaco is going to join us at Salt in September, actually, which will probably put her just before the panel that you speak on, because she's obviously tackling a lot of the cybersecurity issues within the administration, Deputy Attorney General, for those who aren't aware. The last question I have for you, and it's more around warfare. You obviously now are focused more on the business community, but you spent time in the military. What big threats keep you up at night when you think from a cyber perspective or even of the other perspectives and what is the future of warfare look like? There's some startups, Anduril is one that just got, I saw they got a series D round, they're raising a lot of money to tackle the future of warfare with drones and cyber and all kinds of stuff. But what are the threats that keep you up? And what does the future of warfare look like?

Jason Crabtree: (33:19)
Yeah. So I think when you think about challenges that we're going to face in the future, and in some ways this ties back into Anthony's earlier question, how do you deal with securing the integrity of the information that your people, your trusted sources give you, your financials, your operations, things that you believe to be true because you sensed them, you measured them, you stored them, you moved them? And how do you also reconcile that with a world where you've got lots of people walking around with what would have been in the 1980s, a supercomputer. The iPhones, the Android phones, they've got everything from cameras, to microphones, to other kinds of sensors on them, and they're tremendously powerful. And now you can take that information where there's a shred of truth, and you can use a lot of different AI tools to manipulate that in a really convincing ways and to amplify those signals.

Jason Crabtree: (34:16)
So I think half of this discussion, and I think this is just as true for warfare is about how do you make sure that the integrity of what you own and control and operate is real? Why do I believe what I believe? How do I know it's true? Do I have security and visibility in my data supply chain? And that's part of why we started QOMPLX was not just the cybersecurity stuff, but how do you control your data supply chain? What's the ingredient list? You think about food safety or something simple like that. What's the actual nutrition label for the datasets that you're making your decisions on? I don't care if you're trading or if you're going to actually launch a bomb strike, you need to know what that is. And then the second app is, if you're paying other people for information, how do you know why they know it? And is it real?

Jason Crabtree: (35:03)
And so I think you're going to continue to see military community, intelligence community, finance community, individual people, trying to figure out how to navigate that. And that's going to be here for a long time. It's part of why I think it's a big growth industry for us to be in. We're a data company about risk and it's one of the most dynamic and fun places to be. So I can't imagine any other place for me. And frankly, we're also doing it for government and we're doing it for big companies. So we're seeing both sides of that in a really unique way. And I think it's going to keep driving, at least my thinking.

John Darsie: (35:37)
Well, I sleep better at night knowing that smart people like you are tackling these problems. So Jason, thank you so much for joining us here on Salt Talks. You guys are doing amazing things at QOMPLX. Again, we're grateful to have your expertise at Salt in September. And I know our community is looking forward to hearing from you. Anthony, have a final word for Jason before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:57)
Well, we know as entrepreneurs, it's all about the execution, Jason. So congratulations on the brilliant execution of what you're doing and we wish you great success and we'll see you at Salt. And you I've made a three step authorization by that time so you'll have to take me through that as well. All right?

John Darsie: (36:16)
I'll tell you a story offline about when Anthony got the job in the White House and he was calling me to help him secure his iPad and his laptop and things, but story for another day.

Jason Crabtree: (36:27)
Looking forward to it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:28)
And if you think I was relying on him for that, okay, I got a bridge I can sell you here in Manhattan, all right, Jason? All right, you guys be well. Have a great one.

Jason Crabtree: (36:39)
You too.

John Darsie: (36:39)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's Salt Talk with Jason Crabtree from QOMPLX. We think these topics around cybersecurity are extremely important. So thank you for tuning in and please spread the word about this talk if you enjoyed it. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this conversation or any of our previous Salt Talks, you can access them on demand on our website. It's salt.org\talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called SaltTube. We're also on social media Twitter at SaltConferences where we're most active, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And on behalf of Anthony and the entire Salt team, this is John Darsie signing off from Salt Talks for today. We hope to see you back here against soon.