How to Keep the U.S. On the Forefront of High-Tech Growth | #SALTNY

How to Keep the U.S. On the Forefront of High-Tech Growth with Congressman Ro Khanna of California’s 17th Congressional District. Governor Jeb Bush, 43rd Governor of Florida. Jason Crabtree, Chief Executive Officer, QOMPLX.

Moderated by Jeff Sonnenfeld, Senior Associate Dean for Leadership Studies, School of Management, Yale University.

PRESENTED BY

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Khanna, Ro - Cropped.jpeg

Congressman Ro Khanna

CA-17 (D)

Headshot - Bush, Governor Jeb - Cropped.jpeg

Governor Jeb Bush

43rd Governor of the State of Florida

 
Headshot - Crabtree, Jason - Cropped.jpeg

Jason Crabtree

Chief Executive Officer

QOMPLX

MODERATOR

Headshot+-+Sonnenfeld,+Jeff+-+Cropped.jpeg

Jeff Sonnenfeld

Senior Associate Dean for Leadership Studies

Yale University School of Management

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (00:05)
Given that the music has gone quiet, I think that's my cue that I'm supposed to start talking now. I want to start by pandering to the audience by saying, I've been telling the panel for the last 15 minutes, don't be offended. At the end of the day, we're going into a room that's one-third larger than the Radio City Music Hall, so it's going to be so cavernous. At this time of day, it'll look empty. It's not your fault. It's my fault. And sure enough, you're all here. So extra credit for everybody. I'm Jeff Sonnenfeld. I'm up at Yale.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (00:34)
That's all you need to hear from me, because we have such a superstar panel. Our topic is keeping America innovative, how to keep the US on the forefront of high technology growth. Innovation. Einstein said that the essence of innovation is a combination of intelligence and fun. Well, the series of superstars for intelligence and they also have a lot of fun. And my goal is to try to see if we can get some fun mixed in with their intelligence to wrestle with innovation.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (01:08)
As the description of this session is US has ceded its core role as dominant technology power in the world with China investing trillions of dollars in innovation across deep tech, education, and advanced manufacturing at a time of partisan divide. US Congress passed the US Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 on a strong bipartisan basis, which we're going to talk about where this goes. And on the panel, we have a great mix of public and private figures to wrestle with this.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (01:37)
But just as we think of who we have on our panel, we have Congressman Ro Khanna, who has told us that we can refer to him as Ro, so please don't think that I'm being rude and disrespectful, as progressive capitalist who has led the way on technology policy, job creation, and working across the aisle to pass multiple bills into law. Ro's named as the democrat most likely to succeed in having a bill signed by former President Trump passing five and to law ... That laugh was just off the record, by the way. Joined the Trump administration, he's got a kid running for office, we can't ... In response to the growing economic crisis, Ro led the way on the largest government investment in science and technology since the 1960s, the Endless Frontiers Act.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (02:23)
I thought it would have been Sputnik, but this is bigger, which invest 250 billion in science and technology hubs across the US. Ro has worked to spread the wealth of high paying digital jobs to areas of the country left behind in the digital revolution, partnering with Silicon Valley get companies to establish training programs in states like Iowa, South Carolina, Mississippi, to rebuild the middle class. And the most important thing that he is ... He is a Yale alum. That's where I work. And most important of all, he's a fellow of Philadelphia way back in his heritage.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (02:57)
[inaudible 00:02:57]

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (02:57)
Governor Bush said that we can refer to him as Jeb. You're wondering if they'll have to call me professor, I don't think so. As the 43rd governor of the state of Florida, starting from 1999 to 2007, he was the third Republican elected to the state's highest office and the first Republican in the state's history to be reelected. He's most recently a candidate for Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Jeb remained true to his conservative principles throughout his two years in office, cutting nearly 20 billion in taxes, vetoing more than 2.3 billion in earmarks and reducing the state government workforce by more than 13,000.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (03:32)
He has limited government approach, helped to unleash one of the most robust and dynamic economies in the nation, creating 1.3 million new jobs, improving the state's overall credit ratings, including achieving the first ever triple A bond rating for Florida. During his two terms, he championed major reforms of government in areas ranging from healthcare, environmental protection, civil service, and tax reform. But he also has some technology and technology background ideas that we're going to get into very shortly and across a great reach on cross-sectoral change and innovation. But we should point out that he, too, is a professor, having been a professor University of Pennsylvania, I think, at one point along the way.

Governor Jeb Bush: (04:13)
Yale didn't invite me.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (04:14)
Yeah, yeah, I know. I will forgive you anyway. But the part I'm not going to mention is the Harvard professorship, so forget that.

Governor Jeb Bush: (04:21)
Yale didn't invite me.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (04:22)
I thought he was such an honorable nice guy too. Jason Crabtree is the chief executive and co-founder of QOMPLX, founded with Andrew Sellers. As CEO, he guides the vision long term direction of complex and oversees all aspects of company operations. Prior to complex, Jason served as a special assistant to senior leaders of the Department of Defense and cyber community and supporting operational cybersecurity missions, including research and development, strategic risk management, and digital transformation initiatives.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (04:53)
Like the rest of the panel, you've probably seen him in the media quite a bit. He's been on all the major networks and cable channels and in the rest of the print media speaking often on cybersecurity issues. And in fact, some of you might even be his client here. So where are we on this problem? Well, the US had led in chip development and of course, in technology since World War II. And it's not looking so great more recently.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (05:22)
Just because they're little doesn't mean they don't matter, is that these chips are the fundamental building block for all advanced technologies, whether or not we're looking at AI or looking at perhaps any building block cutting edge technology. The chips are going to be critical for understanding our self-reliance for innovation around integrated circuits and microprocessors. And yet, what do we see now is the US has maybe 10% at most of chip manufacturing. And we take a look at backend, we're down to around 1%.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (06:07)
If we go back a few decades, say 1990, we were around 45%. So we've dropped precipitously. Well, who's grown? Well, who do you think has grown? It's about almost 80%, just below 80%, coming from Asia with half of that, People's Republic of China and the rest split between the rest of East Asia. Now, that has led to some challenges of what we do. And I'd love to turn if I could to the Congressman, is this is not a new issue for you. You've been wrestling with this.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (06:42)
Well, Jeffrey, thank you. First of all, thank you for inviting me. It's an honor to be on the panel and honor to be here with Governor Bush who, in my view, has always approached political debate with civility and patriotism even when I've disagreed. So thank you for that. And Jason, thank you for your leadership on cybersecurity. First, let me say this, I think America is and will remain the most innovative nation in the world for a simple reason. When you come to Silicon Valley, we don't have hierarchical teams.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (07:18)
You have a team at Intel or at Apple, and they basically have the direction to do what they want. They don't have to go through five levels of bureaucracy. The last technology coming out of Europe, I mean, they did Skype, but think how many tech companies they've come out of there. And yes, China has competed on TikTok, but it's probably one of the only places where they actually have an advantage on product. We still lead in the most advanced semiconductor design. The problem is we've had this complacency.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (07:47)
We thought, okay, if we're going to invent the best product that the scale doesn't matter, and we'll just let other countries like Taiwan or Korea deal with mass production. Now, do we really want at a time with the rise of China, our semiconductor supply to be dependent on what happens in Taiwan? Do we really want all the mass production jobs not being in the United States? Of course not. We need to have that mass production of semiconductor chips in the United States.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (08:16)
And the Congress in a bipartisan basis, Senator Schumer, myself, Senator Young, and Representative Gallagher from Wisconsin, in this innovation at have provided $40 billion for semiconductor manufacturing to help these companies establish manufacturing in the United States. That, to me, is smart policy. It's public private partnership. And it's going to help make sure that we are never dependent on a foreign nation for our critical supply.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (08:45)
Well, we've never met before, but we're best of friends now because we established the link to Philadelphia and Yale. So I can ask you the hardball question that I didn't clear with your team, and that is the Bloomberg innovation list that just came out has us falling off the top 10 for the first time ever. We're number 11. And you say the US will always be ...

Congressman Ro Khanna: (09:07)
I don't buy that. People say this, my parents are immigrants from India. Where's the line to go to China of immigrants? Why is the line here still to come to the United States? When people around the world want to stop coming to the United States is when I'll start to worry. I mean, this is still the most ... We have the most capital, the most risk capital. We have the best and brightest from around the world. We have a lot of advantages. And I'm very, very bullish. There's so many people running America down and pointing everything out. And I guess maybe because I'm the son of immigrants. I'll tell you, this is still an extraordinary country. Yes, we have challenges, we have problems, but we have a lot going for us.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (09:50)
So we should bring Michael Bloomberg in here to explain how he's distorted the list. You want to know, he has seven metrics that define this and what are they. The level of research and development investment they have to do with the fabrication, how much of the creative work is being done here on that end too that has to do with not just design, but diffusion and adaptation. And that's some of what you build into this legislation. So maybe we'll see that change.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (10:20)
But I'm just wondering, Jeb, when he talks about the bipartisan concern here that we ... It's got some momentum, but we have all these other things. We hear that Senator Manchin has had perhaps some great success in the last two or three hours and getting 6 of me to 10 to get a different version of voting rights legislation together. And the rumors are that the next four are lining up tonight. So maybe in two weeks or so, who knows? But it's caught in the weeds right now as infrastructure is and is the number of issues what we thought we had momentum, it's hit the wall. Do you think that Ro is too optimistic? Or do you think that both parties are going to take this over the finish line?

Governor Jeb Bush: (11:06)
Our political system ... Ro, thank you for those great words. You stole everything I was going to say. Jeffrey, thank you for hosting us. It's great being with a great entrepreneur here. So I think the key to this is to realize our system is dysfunctional, but there are good people inside it that want to find common ground. And in the pandemic, I think there's just such an eye opening experience for all of us. You take the lens back a bit, we've had learning losses in the K-12 system that are epic, that are creating inequality for 10 years down the road.

Governor Jeb Bush: (11:40)
The digital divide became pretty clear because some of us could actually enhance our productivity with high speed internet in our homes, get telehealth, be able to make sure our kids were well educated. We were thriving, many of us were thriving that environment. Too many people weren't, and we're leaving people behind. And if you look at the rural areas of our country, clearly, there's an opportunity now to say, in this crisis, what did we learn? And we've learned a couple of things. One, that there's big inequality that we can address.

Governor Jeb Bush: (12:09)
We don't have to talk about in cocktail parties. There are ways to solve this problem. And the second is supply chain dependency, which Ro is bringing up. It's not just semiconductors, it's across the board. And we should have a strategy to make sure that we're secure. It's in our national security interest to do that. Here's an opportunity. I don't think democrats republicans disagree with that. And then finally, I think we have to deal with the 10 million people that aren't getting jobs because they don't have skills for the jobs that exist.

Governor Jeb Bush: (12:38)
And that is a chronic problem that existed before the pandemic that has gotten worse. So you take those three things. They're not partisan. It's not ideological. And I think the Congress ... I hope that Joe Manchin doesn't get sick or anything because he's holding the power here and he's a rational guy and he could bring people together. And I'm optimistic that that will happen.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (13:00)
Well, if we have a shared consensus of two out of three on the diagnosis, maybe we can stir up some trouble in the minutes that remain a little bit down the stream when we take a look at the resolution, solutions that maybe you have some different approaches, solutions. But it is nice to see people across the aisle agree, isn't it, about common issues of patriotic concern. This is your calling, Jason. Weren't you a West Point guy?

Jason Crabtree: (13:28)
I was.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (13:28)
So, national security has been in your training from the beginning. Are we overstating this though? I mean, look at them, you got a roomful of finance ears who many of them grew up going and taking economics courses and believing David Ricardo with the theory of comparative advantage, that each company, each country brings to the global marketplace what they can do at its best, and we don't need to be self-reliant. Is that if the South Koreans are going to give it to us at a cheaper price and a lot of the manufacturing that we've lost here was also very unsafe manufacturing.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (14:00)
There a lot of problems with women working and at the backend of chip manufacturing is very labor intensive and has a lot of toxic chemicals. Intel and others were happy to get rid of them, especially AMD. Is that a bad thing? Or is that maybe we let other countries that they're willing to do it for us, why is that a problem? And how much is Apple manufacturer? Are they're outsourcing at all?

Jason Crabtree: (14:25)
Well, I think the reality for the United States is that talent, trust, and transparency are going to be a critical part of the future. When we talk about talent, there are people that are being left behind.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (14:35)
If we can just hold briefly on the talent because I know you don't trust me that I'll manage the time well enough to get through it, since all three of you have tried to go down that path, definitely have tried to frustrate you.

Jason Crabtree: (14:44)
That's great. Sure.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (14:46)
But tell me about what's the security issue first there as our security expert, about relying on Korea, relying on the other parts of Asia, if you don't trust China, Taiwan, elsewhere.

Jason Crabtree: (14:59)
Well, you have to have talent to have trust. Because at the end of the day, the supply chains that we're trying to operate, especially in an increasingly digital world, an increasingly outsourced world, an increasingly interconnected world require the people who are operating things like software as a service companies like my business, they're a critical part of your operations. These are outsourced entities, and they're an ambassador for your brand.

Jason Crabtree: (15:21)
And I think when we understand what it takes to operate these things, you look at the cyber and security crisis we have in this country right now. Why is that happening? Part of it is because of massive vulnerabilities and core products at places like Microsoft that are creating massive, massive issues and costs in our home. We actually have to be digging into those things and reestablish trust that the software products, the technology products do what they say they're going to do. That only works if you have the people. It only works if you have the educational system.

Jason Crabtree: (15:46)
That only works if people want to continue to line up the gates. And if they line up with the gates, they line up with the universities and they have an opportunity to stay. We have real options, real hope about actually creating an environment where this is the best place to do applied research and development. And I'll set the Bloomberg metrics aside, but operationalizing technology is hard. How many finance professionals here have tried to do things like adopt AI and machine learning, only to find out they didn't have any of the basics in place to actually do it in practice?

Jason Crabtree: (16:15)
A lot of people. That's happening across our government. It's happening in the private sector. So when we talk about all these new topics, many of them put the cart before the horse. And we really need to make sure we're building in those fundamentals and not leaving people behind as we think about the future, the talent base that's going to do it for us.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (16:29)
So there you have it. All three of you agree that David Ricardo is wrong, that we need to be self-sufficient, especially in something as ... You don't believe that?

Governor Jeb Bush: (16:39)
No, I don't believe complete ... It would create huge poverty all around the world, including our own country. But there's a middle ground here. There are key elements of our ... I mean, look, if Apple tomorrow, if we have frictions that get higher with China, given the fact that the supply chain for the Apple phone, which is an integral part of our lives, is made there, even though the value add is outside of China, by the way, it's here and it's in Germany, it's in Japan and Korea, our allies.

Governor Jeb Bush: (17:12)
But if they stopped allowing Apple phones to be sold, and there was a disruption in the supply chain, that would have a huge economic impact and a national security impact in our country. So there are elements that we have to harden our supply chain, for sure. I would advocate, by the way, reshoring, not nearshoring and reshoring. We should look at Mexico and we should be North American economy. And there's huge opportunities there for elements of this. Not all of it. Part of it has to be done here. Part of it can be done in Asia, for sure. I mean, Ricardo is not completely wrong at all, but it's not a zero sum game. It's not either or.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (17:51)
So you want to bring a little bit back here and you bring it back to North America, doesn't have to be the US necessarily, but just somehow in Mexico, you can reach us a little more easily.

Governor Jeb Bush: (18:02)
I want to make sure that our rare earths that we can access it because that's an integral part of technology. I want to make sure that our reliance on semiconductors ... Look, Ford Motor Company shut down their plants because they couldn't get chips across the spectrum of our economy.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (18:18)
Because ...

Governor Jeb Bush: (18:19)
These are issues that relate to supply chain logistical bottlenecks, as well as supply chain challenges. So we can do this in partnership with other countries. We can't do it by ourselves. But there's so many lessons learned from this last two years, let's learn them, and then act on them.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (18:37)
Do you know what the contingency plans are if we lost 40% of our chips from China? And let's just say that things were going the wrong way in Taiwan and we don't need to make headlines that make any political conjecture about Hong Kong versus Taiwan, but let's just say that the supply was less accessible there. Would our contingency plans are in the US?

Governor Jeb Bush: (18:58)
I'll let my colleagues speak to that. I think it's pretty, but ugly.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (19:01)
I'll save them for giving the wrong answer. We have none, is that the leaders of all the chipmakers that I talked to for this panel tell me that we don't have a contingency plan. Now, we still are a major headquartered company for chip manufacturing, but we don't really don't control where those plants are. One big shoe manufacturer told me he wanted to bring the biggest one in the country, want to bring shoes back to the US, and the Chinese told us, no, you can't do that, we're going to shut you down if you try to do it. And he realized he's just the marketing arm of a Chinese operation. So it's hard to bring it back here. Should there be incentives, some kind of tax incentives to reinvest back here in manufacturing chipmaking growth?

Congressman Ro Khanna: (19:42)
Absolutely. And there should be federal support when you have massive capital expenditures to set up volume manufacturing factories. You need federal purchase agreements or federal financing agreements. We did that with the vaccine, right? I mean, we provided purchase agreements to Pfizer and to Moderna, and that incentivized the private sector. So we have had a history going back to Alexander Hamilton of having the private sector work with the federal government to produce a very strong economy. Other countries have copied us. I don't know why we can't do what's worked to build us into the superpower we are. It's not a hard problem to solve because we have the innovation, we just need to do the volume manufacturing.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (20:19)
Does the chips legislation have tax incentives for manufacturing bill? Because some would argue, we chose to not fabricate here to outsource it. We chose to do it, and it's much cheaper and easier for US companies to build the chipmaking plant in China than it is to do it here.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (20:35)
I think the problem ... I mean, it's a complicated issue. As the governor said on the one hand, about the fact that millions of people are out of poverty around the world is probably good for stability, but we paid insufficient attention to jobs in this country. We said, okay, as long as consumers are paying less prices, who cares? And the reality is, those are good paying jobs. We should have those jobs in the United States. And some of the chip sect is one concrete bipartisan initiative that would fund a lot of that ...

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (21:02)
What's the level of tax incentives that you would put in there? Because as you know, in Korea, in the next three years, are funding about $70 billion into chip manufacturing. It's two-and-a-half times that in China with the explicit goal that Xi Jinping has, is to have self-reliance, Jeb, in three years. They were zero in ...

Congressman Ro Khanna: (21:25)
Let me be clear on China. China is terrible at semiconductors, horrible. And where has China's innovation been? They've copied a lot of the United States innovation. I mean, I don't know. Is there anyone in this room who would want to go start their company in China? I get that they're an authoritarian system, that is an inferior system to a free market system that allows for immigration. I mean, I fundamentally believe that. The challenges on our chips, $50 billion is what chips would authorize. It would allow for ... TSMC wants to expand in Arizona. It would allow Intel, other companies to expand. The solutions are there. I just think we have to have the strategic investment.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (22:09)
The preferred provider for a lot of US government outside the security agencies is Lenovo, that's a Chinese tech company, Chinese owned, Chinese manufacturer. You just wonder. Jeb, do you think that we're picking winners and losers by some of these tax incentives? Do we know how to do this the right way? It's national industrial planning. If the Chinese want to go into their 14th five-year plan, let them try it.

Governor Jeb Bush: (22:38)
Like the Soviets. That worked out real well for them. I think we're a bottom up country. I think there's a useful role for Washington, particularly in basic research. There's the success stories are ... I mean ...

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (22:51)
So basic research, you would fund, but you don't agree with Ro ...

Governor Jeb Bush: (22:54)
Totally.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (22:54)
... on funding building plants.

Governor Jeb Bush: (22:56)
Providing incentives for companies that are willing to put up capital to do it rather than saying, this is the one we're going to do, making it something where you're supporting private sector involvement, which I think is what Ro has proposed in this bill, that's okay. But if you have a venture capital arm inside the Department of Energy, we went through that. It didn't really work out very well. Government is not designed to be a venture capitalists, to be a risk taker, and our government particularly. I mean, maybe China knows how to do this.

Governor Jeb Bush: (23:27)
Well, it doesn't look like it to me. Comparing Korea or China to the United States misses the whole point. We're Americans, dammit. I mean, we operate in a totally different way. We operate in a garage with a dream to pursue it. So support that rather than have an industrial policy that dictates how this is all supposed to come out.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (23:49)
Ro, do you want to respond to that? The Chinese had the first five-year plan, gave them the first bridges, the first automobiles, the first a lot of technologies. The second five-year plan was the Great Leap Forward. That was a disaster. They made a big wrong bet in agricultural pass and small backyard furnaces for steel. It was a disaster and stuff. So what do you think? Is Jeb right that maybe you want to withdraw the national industrial planning part of this by picking the winners and losers?

Congressman Ro Khanna: (24:21)
I don't think we're picking winners and losers. I mean, obviously, the governor I probably have a disagreement of how big the role of government is. But I think fundamentally, we both believe in the public-private partnership. I mean, I imagine the governor would support the fact that we invested in DARPA. They gave us literally the internet. It wasn't China that invented the internet. It wasn't Europe. It was Vint Cerf sitting there at DARPA with US tax dollars, the fact that GPS emerged from there.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (24:47)
And the investments, if you have Intel saying, look, Korea's rolling out the red carpet, China is rolling out the red carpet, other places are. We need certain tax incentives to put the factory here. We need certain capital with certain loans. I think that is perfectly fine. Now, on the investments, I will say that I think it's better to have that administered by local regions and help with the private sector in picking bets, so you don't have government bureaucrats or Congress making some of the determinations.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (25:18)
But in terms of fundamental research and helping on factories and plant building, I think that's a perfectly good use of the federal government. One other point, there's a federal financing thing that provides loans and purchase agreements to federal agencies. Actually, Senator Rubio and I are working on something where we would say, if you want to reopen a factory in Ohio, why can't that federal financing bank help GM do that for a public purpose? So I think we have to explore those type of opportunities.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (25:49)
So I think you're right, it was actually not Al Gore who invented the internet, good for you. And in fact, the DARPA had a long history, of course, of spawning technological development just like the Interstate Highway Act, of course, took us through parts of the country. But there are a lot of people in your party, Jeb, didn't think that was the right way to go. The ...

Governor Jeb Bush: (26:13)
You mean Dwight Eisenhower [inaudible 00:26:15] Interstate Highway system?

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (26:17)
No. I mean, Jeff ... He ...

Congressman Ro Khanna: (26:18)
Or Lincoln either.

Governor Jeb Bush: (26:19)
Lincoln was ... Transcontinental railroad Lincoln.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (26:21)
People are still arguing against the Rural Electrification Act.

Governor Jeb Bush: (26:22)
Let's go through this.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (26:24)
My old student, Jeff Skilling, who we probably shouldn't bring up his name here, was arguing back as a student. He said the Rural Electrification Act was awful. He said, "Those farmers, want to pay for it, they should go out and pay for them." We don't have the government tried to manipulate private markets, but sounds like you guys will find some common ground on where ...

Governor Jeb Bush: (26:39)
I mean ...

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (26:40)
... mRNA came from the government financing, Moderna and Pfizer, great.

Governor Jeb Bush: (26:45)
And if we said that they found the basic research that created this incredible platform from which now we can find cures and then they provide it to the private sector and allow entrepreneurs, many of whom are coming from other countries to pursue their dreams and they do it with a vengeance. And they do it through trial and error, and they do it one step forward, 10 steps back, 20 steps forward, as is the case with Moderna. I mean, did not have $1 of revenue, and now it's a business worth billions of dollars.

Governor Jeb Bush: (27:16)
That wouldn't have happened if you contain that through a bunch of rules and through the government being heavy handed. But there is a proper role for these long term basic, infrastructure deals, as well as research to maintain our competitive posture, for sure.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (27:31)
Some people are trying to layer into Ro's legislation, blocking the loss of intellectual property developed in US universities that can migrate back to other countries. Do you see any problems with it?

Jason Crabtree: (27:45)
The reality of this is that when you look at things like mRNA and you look at a lot of DARPA programs, when basic research programs are actually creating these fundamental technologies, entrepreneurs can combine them in novel ways to create new services that deliver operational business benefit or consumer benefit. And that's where the government, to your point, Jeff and Ro, I think, the reality is that's a much more appropriate place for private sector to play.

Jason Crabtree: (28:09)
And I think one of the things we have to be careful of, and I think we've gotten close to the line, and I don't think the new legislation does, but I think there have been some historical missteps where we've started to play venture capitalist or we've started to get into picking winners and losers. And those haven't always ended well. But the reality of this for us has to be that those fundamental building block technologies need to get mature to technology readiness levels, that they can be readily accepted by private sector capital and risk takers that are not in a position to take fundamental technology risk.

Jason Crabtree: (28:38)
They're there to take distribution risk. They're they take actual product market fit risk. They're able to think about how those combinatorics are going to manifest in commercial opportunity. And that's something that's a lot more important, but it can't turn into Silicon Valley, no offense, tourism and innovation tourism. Most of the good ideas in America aren't in Silicon Valley, they're all over the country. And that goes back to how we have to make sure not to leave the rest of the country behind [inaudible 00:29:00].

Congressman Ro Khanna: (29:00)
So, Jason, what's your view on making sure that we build capacity?

Jason Crabtree: (29:05)
Well, building capacity comes down to actually helping [inaudible 00:29:09] ...

Governor Jeb Bush: (29:09)
Let's see what your ... We've got six [inaudible 00:29:09].

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (29:09)
Yeah, I know. Before we move on to the talent management issue, which I know Jeb and Jason was starting to open that door again, and we're going to turn to it and one second, anything you want to tell us more about your expertise in cybersecurity and technology? I won't make you talk about cryptocurrency because you chase that up before. Surveys overwhelmingly blame cryptocurrency for Ransomware, but that would have three quarters of this room up in arms. I wouldn't possibly bring that up right now.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (29:38)
However, you look at the new three Chinese cybersecurity laws, the first of them, which was three years ago, says like the old what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas. By the way, I hope Anthony Scaramucci keeps us in New York and not Las Vegas, is that data created in China has to stay in China. I think that would be a violation of general agreement on tariffs and trades going back 30 years, but nobody's challenged it.

Jason Crabtree: (30:07)
Well, internet balkanization is a real thing. And one of the challenges that we have to address as a country is it goes back to this idea of trust and supply chain transparency. It's not just the hardware level. There's more technology above the chip than in the chip. Not to say that they aren't important building blocks.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (30:22)
Are you worried about this Chinese light has to be managed by Chinese?

Jason Crabtree: (30:25)
That's not just China.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (30:26)
Chinese software and Chinese hardware?

Jason Crabtree: (30:26)
There's all kinds of data and nationalization and localization laws. And remember that we're seeing the same kinds of changes happening with privacy considerations, not just things like GDPR in the UK. There's California has a law, Virginia, where we're headquartered, has a new law. And by and large, that's going to be positive for us to think about data is an emerging element of property. Remember, most of the corporate balance sheet used to be physical assets, those factories, intangibles, dominate the market value of most real digitizing technology companies.

Jason Crabtree: (30:56)
So we have to deal with incentives and structure and investment that aligns with the fact that most of the value you're creating as an entrepreneur in a digital business is increasingly getting trapped in a different part of the balance sheet, and that has massive ramifications for how we actually build capacity.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (31:11)
Well, you just nailed it and you've been such a good sport. Tell us about the skill shortage and what we do about talent issues that we take a look at universities, is close to 90% of universities in our country have the majority of their STEM students are international students.

Jason Crabtree: (31:29)
Sure.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (31:29)
And we're down 75% this year at international student enrollment.

Jason Crabtree: (31:32)
Well, I mean, this is a huge challenge. So I think for us, we have to do a better job of making it attractive to start and build businesses here. And we have to do a good job of tying this to immigration policy reform. When you look at the amount of technology talent that is starting to go to overseas, right? I went to grad school at Oxford with my co-founder. But a lot of those folks should have come to the United States to start businesses. And a bunch of them didn't, a bunch of them went to other parts of the world.

Jason Crabtree: (31:58)
I'd love for everybody that we graduated with overseas to want to come here because this is the best place to build a business. Some of them are. But when we have talent applying to US universities and you look at the amount of university research R&D spending that is starting to globalize, we should be maximizing the amount of it that continues to build in the United States. We should be maximizing the conversion of those talented people into our society and bringing their families here. And some of that's just stability and trust that they don't have uncertainty.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (32:24)
But instead, we've seen the US which has been such a magnet for the world's top talent, as well as people who are suffering as refugees, that we see them as somehow displacing opportunities for American workers, when the reality is their course, their job creating, and that 45% of the current Fortune 500 firms are either created by immigrants or by first generation at Google, Tesla, Intel. These are all created by immigrants and a quarter of the tech workforce is foreign born, the current workforce.

Jason Crabtree: (33:04)
International talent, Jeff, is so important. And we have to create a society that's predictable and welcoming. And if you don't have a predictable future and you're thinking about bringing your family here, that undermines our competitiveness as a country.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (33:17)
What's happened, Ro? Is it the last four years, just between us and ... Yeah, I trust these people with your life, by the way, is that candidly that [inaudible 00:33:26] ...

Congressman Ro Khanna: (33:26)
What happened is Jeb didn't win in 2016. His vision on immigration would have been much better than Donald Trump's. I mean, I don't agree on everything. But let me say this as a son of immigrants. I was born in Philadelphia, 1976, or bicentenary. My grandfather spent four years in jail with Gandhi as part of India's independence movement. My parents came here in the 1970s. I grew up in Bucks County. It was about 95% White when I was growing up. I had little league coaches who believed in me.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (33:55)
I had high school teachers who believed in me, neighbors who believed in me. And at the age of 40, this country elected me to represent Silicon Valley, arguably, the most powerful economic place in the world. That story is not possible in almost any other country. Germany wouldn't put a first generation German in charge representing their most important industry. That, ultimately, I believe is the story of America. And no politician is going to change that fundamental story. We're a story of people who come with ambition, dreams, and it's what makes us the most exceptional nation in the world. And I don't care how many Donald Trumps or other people come around, they're not going to change the fundamental [crosstalk 00:34:39].

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (34:38)
What do we do to make this more hospitable to new Americans to come here? How do we get people a permanent residency status earlier? But there are people here that are coming for technology jobs, can't get an audit, can't get a driver's license, can't rent a house, let alone buy a house, and that their spouse can't work. The complications are ... And the kids, they age out of protection and under the visa. It's easier said than done. And there's a reason why we are falling. You can talk about us still being a magnet, but we aren't the magnet we were, that we need to brush it off a little bit.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (35:13)
We could talk about the details of policy, but I'll say and I'll give the governor the last word. There are places ... Look, I don't want to ... That Jeb Bush and I disagree. There are certain places that George W. Bush and I disagree. But President Bush, one of the moments that I thought was a highlight, was after 9/11 when he went out and he talked about Muslim Americans being Americans. And Jeb has always, in your rhetoric, been pro the value of immigrants to this country. We need more people willing to tell that story of America.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (35:44)
We need more people willing to tell that story in the Republican Party. It's not about the policies. It's about what you believe America is. And I think if we have more voices like that, we're going to be fine as a country.

Governor Jeb Bush: (35:57)
I think it's a wedge issue on both sides. And both sides think they win by having this gridlock because the gridlock existed before President Trump got in. We should control the border. You mentioned all these other countries that really got it going on great. They control the borders. They don't allow people to come in. And they actually don't allow many people to come in legally for that matter. And I think we need to move to a merit based system where we narrow the number of people coming.

Governor Jeb Bush: (36:26)
We're the only country in the world that has extended family being allowed in, adult siblings and parents. I think parents ought to be able to come in and children of immigrants ought to be coming in. But if you narrow that and then expanded by a half a million, the people that would be restricted legally to pick the kind of people you want to create jobs for all Americans, that's part of the answer. We have to control the border. There's a solution here if we depoliticize this.

Governor Jeb Bush: (36:56)
But the bigger issue to me is, why is it that we don't focus on the next generation of Americans not being able to have the skills to be successful? I mean, this shouldn't be a political issue either. But we dumbed down, we lower expectations. We actually had the state of Oregon this year pass the law that said it is unjust to have an accountability system, a testing system that has Whites and Asians being more successful than other minorities. Who thinks that's going to be a great outcome over 10 years?

Governor Jeb Bush: (37:32)
Where you're ending up saying, you have this what my brother called the bigotry, the soft bigotry of low expectations. We should have high lofty expectations for every person. We don't have the luxury of having some kids educated and some kids not. Our demographics demand that we do far better. And then the final thing I'd say is where the whole focus is on getting a four-year degree, and psychology is the number one major, and 60% of kids graduate in six years with a four-year degree and the number one degree is psychology. Come on, man.

Governor Jeb Bush: (38:06)
I mean, we should maybe move away from that and start focusing on career and college readiness in high school. And then offer nationally recognized certificates to give people, immediate jobs at a much higher wage than what they could ever imagine being a psych major after four years of that.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (38:21)
Do you think that Senator Sanders in the social infrastructure, the budget resolution piece is on to a solution here by taking a look at free community college for everybody?

Governor Jeb Bush: (38:37)
No. When you ...

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (38:38)
Is that not intended to address, those left out ...

Governor Jeb Bush: (38:43)
No.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (38:43)
... educationally? What do you think that's all about?

Governor Jeb Bush: (38:44)
If there's no expectations, no standards, it's just free something, I don't think that's the ...

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (38:50)
That's even worse than psychology. Jeb, what do you think? Jeb.

Governor Jeb Bush: (38:52)
Well, it's worse if you ... At least you won't have debt and fail. I mean, that's a better alternative than failing with that, but we should be having much higher expectations. We should have ... Kids are much smarter than we give them credit for.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (39:06)
Ro, is that part of a solution that Senator Sanders has in mind? Because, personally, you helped made his campaign.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (39:10)
I do. Look, I ... There are 25 million digital jobs by 2025, 25 million, more than construction and manufacturing combined. And most of them don't require a four-year degree. They require a credential, they require skill. So I would say, in a digital age, you need more than K through 12. If we have free K through 12, we can have a free vocational or post-secondary education that we disagree on that. But at the very least, we ought to make sure that they are collaborating with the private sector on the credentials that are going to get them employed. And that I think that there are ... Look, obviously, the governor and I come from a different perspective. But the point is, there's enough of a Venn diagram of overlap to get things done and ...

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (39:51)
Jason, did you find the talent you need?

Jason Crabtree: (39:55)
The reality is areas like cybersecurity technology have lots of opportunities, but they require skills. And it requires a mix of vocational skills and it does require some people with liberal arts. But remember, areas like the law are ripe for a lot of automation with a lot of the kinds of technologies that we're thinking about. There's a lot of opportunities for automation in finance. So we have to get out of saying that there's inherent value in four years or six years and 10 years and say, what are the life skills these people have to support their families, to be contributing members of society, to be good citizens, and in addition to good employees?

Governor Jeb Bush: (40:24)
I want to make it clear, I'm not disparaging psych majors. And every time I say this, someone comes up and says, "How dare you say that?" Look, I mean, you're going to go to graduate school, you're going to spend more time in school. We have a lot of therapists. We probably need more film makers.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (40:40)
As a psych major myself, I'm happy to hear you say that.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (40:42)
Jeb, it's better than Marco Rubio who wants what I like, we work together. And the Republican debates said, "Well, what do we need philosophy majors for?" And I didn't say, "Well, it was philosophers who helped build America's founding." I mean, Madison, Jefferson, there's a role for them.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (40:56)
Yeah. There is a role for all and there also was a role for this panel. And this panel knocked it out of the park. I tried not to get in their way too much, but to bring out some modest variations. But basically, we have three great patriots, three great Americans that are huge contributors to American society. I admire the three of you enormously. And thank you for not letting me tempt you in the cyber cryptocurrency because they would be furious. And the five minutes that were taken away from us, that would have gotten us into it.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (41:27)
Since we're from Philadelphia, Gene Ormandy, who was the great conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra once was going into taking the orchestra into a rehearsal, and the orchestra erupted. Even the concert master was like shop steward, he said, "We're not ready to perform." And he said, "You have to perform, it's Friday. We're performing tonight." So they said, "Listen," Ormandy said, "It's just Mahler. As long as we begin together and end together, they'll never know the difference." We, as Philadelphians, at least we began together and ended together. I want to thank you so much for your trust and your wisdom.

Congressman Ro Khanna: (41:58)
Thank you.

Jeff Sonnenfeld: (41:59)
Thanks.

Sustainable Infrastructure Investing | #SALTNY

Sustainable Infrastructure Investing with Petya Nikolova, Head of Infrastructure Investments, New York City Retirement System, Office of the Comptroller. Maureen O’toole, Head of the Americas Investor Development Group, Actis. Pieter Houlleberghs, Director, Investment (Energy & Environment), Temasek.

Moderated by Caroline Abramo, Founder & Chief Investment Officer, Panal LCE.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Nikolova, Petya - Cropped.png

Petya Nikolova

Head of Infrastructure Investments

New York City Retirement System

maureen-otoole.jpeg

Maureen O'Toole

Managing Director & Head of the Americas Investor Development Group

Actis Advisers

 
pieter-houlleberghs.jpeg

Pieter Houlleberghs

Director, Investment (Energy & Environment)

Temasek

MODERATOR

Headshot - Abramo, Caroline - Cropped.jpeg

Caroline Abramo

Founder & Chief Investment Officer

Pana LCE

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Caroline Abramo: (00:08)
Hello, everyone, it's great to be here. And what an act that we have to follow. I obviously wore the wrong jacket today. But hopefully you'll forgive me. I'm Caroline Abramo. I'm the CEO and founder of Pana (Low Carbon Economy) Investments based here in New York City. So thrilled that we get to have this event in New York City. And I really thank the whole SALT team for giving us this opportunity to talk about what we think is the best investment opportunity of our lifetime, besides Bitcoin, of course. And so I would love to bring you in and meet the panel, we're going to talk about a lot of what I call macro ideas about the space. Pana, our firm, is dedicated to what we call growth equity. So we're really bridging some of the breakthrough technologies that have been developed to reduce carbon in all our major supply chains. So all of our real assets supply chains, getting them to the stage where they could be deployed into large scale infrastructure. And that's really the topic is really, infrastructure.

Caroline Abramo: (01:13)
And my esteemed colleagues will talk about how from their perspective as both asset managers and investors, they're actually doing it. They're actually making investing, they're making investing decisions, and really bridging sometimes what the gaps are between the way government supports some of these technologies and these infrastructure, investments, the role of corporations and the private sector. So we'll talk a lot about all of those. And so without further ado, I want to introduce my panel. So each of them is going to tell you a little bit about their role and something fun about them. So Petra, if you can start.

Petya Nikolova: (01:52)
Thank you, Caroline. It's a pleasure to be here, good afternoon. I'm Petya Nikolova. And I lead the infrastructure asset class with New York City Retirement Systems. New York City Retirement Systems are the fourth largest pension plan in the US. Currently, we totally went over 260 billion. We invest across a variety of private markets but for the purposes of this panel, the infrastructure would be the most relevant one. Infrastructure, we started around nine years ago and we continue to invest very actively across different sectors. And as we'll discuss later on, a lot is going on in the sustainability space.

Caroline Abramo: (02:39)
Thanks, Petya. Maureen.

Maureen O'Toole: (02:41)
Hi, I am Maureen O'Toole and pleased to be here and not in Las Vegas, I will admit. This is always a great conference. I started attending years ago on the hedge fund side, I spent all of my career in the alternative investment world. Two years ago, I joined Actis. We are an impact and private capital manager based in London. What I'm excited about is to tell you more about what we do at Actis and to raise the level of awareness around what is achievable, both in terms of getting really good market rates of return. And in terms of taking a look at what the leave behind effect of your investments are on the ground. I was thrilled to get to Actis because I had been hearing about impact investing. We hear all these terms, ESG, sustainable investing, and Actis has a 70 year plus history in this area because they were originating within a development finance institution in the UK actually. They started a private capital investment arm within a DFI, to show that market rates of return can be made, exits can be made in developing markets.

Maureen O'Toole: (03:56)
And so I think that will be the angle that I will take today. We did not start as a carbon neutral or a carbon type of an investment arm, we started to bring power to people who don't have power. When we started there were nearly 2 billion people in the world that didn't have access to electricity. Today, there's approximately 1 billion. Great tailwinds, great supply, demand and efficiency and a great way to make market returns for our clients.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (04:25)
Great. So hi, everyone. I'm Pieter Houlleberghs. I'm with Temasek, the Singapore based investment firm. In the New York office, I lead our energy and environment practice for the Americas. So that includes clean energy, water, waste, really, energy transition and circular economy focus thematics, both private and public sector investments. And I've been with the firm for eight years, spent eight years prior to that also in the energy sector. And I have been thrilled to be part of a firm that's been transitioning and helping to also help industry transition as we Look at decarbonization as a massive investment opportunity, which simply makes sense. And I think as Maureen said and I quote, "We're also very much driven by that huge opportunity and excited to share a little bit more about it today."

Caroline Abramo: (05:15)
Thanks. So it's great. Well, didn't hear any fun facts. So we're going to get back to that, because you're not eluding me. So Petya, just started with you. Just wondering how the firm got comfortable with this specific investment area and the transition to a low carbon economy, and how your investments look versus what was currently in your portfolio, and maybe what's still in your portfolio and how you're thinking, potentially of transitioning all of it to a low carbon economy.

Petya Nikolova: (05:43)
Yeah, absolutely. And I'll start with a little bit of a bigger picture above infrastructure. So what do we do as an organization at the plan level? What we have done is we have divested a few of our boards from fossil fuels. But we also started investing and that is, the more interesting piece. We have tripled our investments in sustainability over the last three years. Again, at the plan level, for infrastructure, specifically, the dynamics has been extremely interesting. And that's to the point that both Maureen and Pieter made, which is that without necessarily focusing from the very beginning on sustainability, and the infrastructure portfolio as we as an investor could invest across a variety of asset classes, more traditional ones, like transportation, or the newer ones, like digital infrastructure. And yet, we invest primarily to funds. So where the opportunity has been, it has been renewables and sustainability. So our portfolio has very organically grown in renewables, and they represent currently the largest portion of our investments.

Petya Nikolova: (07:14)
And if we add other sustainability themes, like energy efficiency, or battery storage, it would be one larger portion of the pie. And I think the key here, Caroline, to your point about how did you get comfortable is based on returns, they are money to be made there. And we go through a very thorough process of due diligence to understand exactly the risk and return profile of this investment. And so far, it has been a great opportunity.

Caroline Abramo: (07:57)
Yeah, that's really helpful, Petya, and to know that with solar and wind that we're on a trajectory of spin started that 20 years in the making. In terms of achieving the right level on the technologies and derisking them, so that now that they're considered a basic infrastructure. Maureen, in terms of Actis, and how you taken advantage of, let's say, the renewable sector, maybe you can talk about your focus, and where it is. And we'll go back to you, Petya in terms of just geographies, like being in New York City, are you focused only on the US or is it a global mandate? But Maureen, if you could talk about your portfolio.

Maureen O'Toole: (08:43)
Right. So as I said, we're a power generation company are the area I'm going to talk about, we do other things, we do digital and data center, but for the sake of today, we'll talk about the power generation. As I said, we didn't start doing renewables because they weren't affordable. So what's so important, and I think so exciting for investing right now is we just we're raising a fund right now it's done. And this vintage year of ours is going to, I think be one of the most transformative when we started our first fund 15 years ago, we were doing thermal. We were studying wind and solar the minute they got affordable, the minute that their cost per kilowatt hour dipped below that of coal, which is just sort of the base case, we were able to pivot very quickly. What's so exciting today and we'll touch on it, I hope, is the new work that's being done in the renewables that will propel us for tomorrow. And that's going to be primarily in battery and storage and perhaps hydrogen as storage.

Maureen O'Toole: (09:40)
What we do right now, as I said is wind and solar because the minute that that price became affordable when you have input that costs zero, sun cost zero, wind cost zero. That is the most affordable way for an emerging market to bring power to its people. So today we build large scale solar and wind plants. We have our offices in 17 markets around the world we invest broadly throughout Latin America, Africa, India and Southeast Asia. We do nothing in the developed markets because of our history of being part of that DFI that focus primarily on the emerging markets. And in so doing, we keep track of how much carbon are we reducing out of the atmosphere. Many of the places that we... In fact, does anybody know how much of the world's power is still generated by coal, 30%. Go to a country like India, almost 90% of electricity in India comes from coal generation.

Maureen O'Toole: (10:41)
So I go back to when you're an investor, you should be looking at where that supply demand imbalance. And how can I take advantage of this huge transition and transformation that is going to occur? Yes, we will have infrastructure investment in the United States. And yes, we will continue to build renewable power, but the biggest opportunity from a global carbon impact. And from a life impact is bringing electricity for the first time to people or bringing industrial electricity so that you can actually have urbanization and improvement of lives. And taking that carbon out of the world's atmosphere because it is a world measuring problem. I'll give you one more stat as we measure it, and metrics are important. Greenwashing, impact washing, all of those things are very real. So we keep track and we compare, if this hadn't happened, if we hadn't opened a move from coal to natural gas, what would the carbon emission have been. And we have, since our inception, taken 15.7 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere.

Maureen O'Toole: (11:43)
That's just us, we're only a $16 billion firm. So it just shows you the power of what can be done in renewables where 1 trillion has been invested over the+ last 10 years in renewables. And the estimate is we need 20 trillion to meet that demand in need, especially in the demographically driven emerging markets over the next few years.

Caroline Abramo: (12:06)
And continuing with that one, thanks, Maureen. At Pieter, since Temasek, is based in Singapore, however, global reach, and to some of Maureen's comments about the amount of carbon that just Actis has been able to reduce over their time in wind and solar, maybe you could talk about some of the other areas that you're looking at. And maybe the entire, let's say, carbon balance that we are trying to reduce. So how much carbon are we really talking about. And maybe aligning with a lot of folks have heard about the Paris accord goals of 2050. And aligning with those goals, which are, the subsequent result would be to not raise surface temperatures by 1.5 degrees. So we'll get into that later. But Pieter, maybe talk about some areas of focus.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (12:52)
Yep, sure. And that's hugely in focus for us, I think. I would start by saying that as well, that the cheap clean power is certainly the fundamental building block, which everything else has to ask the stem from. But as we look beyond that, we look at really industry, transportation and materials, it's kind of the main other areas where I spend my time. And in industry, it's really the non-electric emissions. So heat or process emissions that do present fairly low hanging fruit opportunity as well to decarbonize and also increasingly an economic one. I think you've got a sort of trifecta of policy, as well as the actual technologies are starting to mature to a point where they make sense and they've derisk. And as well as in the fundamental building block that I started with, which is the Clean Power. So I think that those three together are unleashing business models that are ready to scale. And in many cases, in our view, the challenge is largely a business model and execution challenge.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (14:01)
So really pursuing that and supporting the management teams that are looking to seize that opportunity as what we feel passionate about and also working together with other investors. And really kind of trying to get to the right answer, which is, as Caroline mentioned, sort of really the overall climate objective that is at this point relatively well known and understood, but it's extremely challenging to achieve. So we'll take a concerted effort and a coordinated effort to be successful around. So, the industrial fees is an area that I spent a lot of time. Transportation and materials are also duty of interest. I think that the risk profiles change in each of these areas. Materials is a space where, I think it's intriguing that there's much less need for policy than we're seeing in perhaps, the energy or industrial decarbonization space. There's huge pull from corporates that are willing to co-develop with technology companies, and really provide that line of sight to fairly long dated offtake at scale for some of these facilities that are again built out, which then gives investors the comfort to underwrite and really get these breakthrough technologies off the ground.

Caroline Abramo: (15:23)
Yeah. Thank you for bringing that up. So in terms of, in light of not having incentives, so... Because a lot of people will get nervous about this space by saying, "Well, if there are government incentives like we started with wind and solar, I'm not comfortable with that. Government's could change those. That's not an investment risk that I'm willing to take." However, when we look at some of these other areas that we're looking to decarbonize, that are sort of the kind of the big ones that are the most carbon emitting. We see that companies that have good operating margins, and that they can exist incentive free so they can have 20, 30, 40%, 50% operating margins outside of an incentive scheme. So and that's, I think what Pieter is referring to. And maybe I'll get him to, he can talk a little bit more specifically about a few of those or at least one of those examples. Like some of the industries that we're trying to decarbonize. Like cement, steel, glass manufacturing.

Caroline Abramo: (16:18)
These are the big areas where there is big carbon emissions. So I don't know if you can speak a little bit more about maybe a technology or a group that you've seen and how that's playing out.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (16:31)
That question sort of touches on the aspect that I think is important to highlight in this panel, which is really the stock and flow example, right? So we have this huge capital stock that's out there. And is really, in order to move the needle quickly enough, I think, looking at the flow of new solar and new EVs and all that, is hugely important and will be an attractive investment opportunity. I think there's a second piece, which is really looking at the existing stock and finding the technologies that can be retrofitted or cleverly integrated into those, whether it's factories or other types of infrastructure really smartening things up, doing carbon capture. So I think what Caroline was encouraging me to speak about is the carbon capture piece which is, clearly can be done directly from air or from point source at industrial sources of emission, which is the latter part is an area that I spend quite a lot of time on and excited to really be digging into that space because it's very multifaceted, I think, capturing the carbon is one part of it.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (17:37)
So going up to being able to offer a cement company or an industrial gases business that's got a hydrogen manufacturing facility, offering them as a service the ability to, without messing with the process that's there, the industrial process that's clearly very delicate to retrofit onto that carbon capture technology that is in and of itself a viable economic proposition for the investors putting up the capital, we are very close to that really breaking through. And I think we're working hard to really make that into reality, because I think at that point you'll unleash a ton of capital that's ready to be deployed into that space.

Caroline Abramo: (18:23)
Yeah. And for I guess, just to scale things when we talk about early days solar and wind being relatively expensive. Maureen's talking about how we've derisked it, similarly with this carbon capture technology most of it from direct air capture, which literally is taking carbon out of the air. We're talking about 200, $250 a tonne that would make that economic. However, one of the opportunities that Pieter's working on, I'm working on too in the terms of point source capture can actually be feasible and profitable at $50 or $70 a ton. And that's actually directly relates to in the US some of the the legislation that's underway. Not just under Biden, but in terms of what's been happening with some tax credits, with the 45Q tax credit, which currently gives $50 a ton credit to people that develop some of this technology. So, just for an example and a level setting, and in terms of how these things are becoming very economic and profitable.

Caroline Abramo: (19:23)
So there's definitely now a derisking piece that's happening. Petya, how would it be, so for you and the plan how would it be to start thinking about some of these new technologies? Kind of what's the process? When you put them all against each other in terms of risk return, how will you start to think about some of these newer areas?

Petya Nikolova: (19:51)
Yeah. It's an interesting question because on the infrastructure side, we like a lot of the technology risk being taken out of the deals. The role of infrastructure in our portfolio is capital preservation, stable and predictable cash flow. So it's an interesting balance. And at the end of the day, it's a question of how it is derisked? So if there is another party that takes this risk that possibly make the deal more appealing from our perspective on infrastructure. We also collaborate with our private equity team so that we understand their themes and growth equity, we don't do venture. But we collaborate with them just to get an understanding of how the space looks like today and where it's going tomorrow, what the impact might be on our infrastructure deals going forward. So that's how we're thinking about it. It's not a very well defined process, it is just something that we try to look through and think about as we see new technologies emerging.

Caroline Abramo: (21:20)
Yeah. I think, another part of that and that's great that you mentioned just in terms of that derisking piece of the kind of in these opportunities the offtake agreements. So when you have wind power, if you can sell your power forward for 20 years, 30 years, it's becomes a stability of cash flows, which for that an investment makes it much more palatable, where... And if government's not there, then who's going to step into that? And what we've seen, and I think the whole panel seen corporations are stepping into that now, because there's a real desire from corporations as they put out their carbon reduction goals for 2040, 2050. To actually now, they turn around and say, "Well, how am I going to actually do this? How am I going to look through my supply chains, look to my head of sustainability, and carbon do this?" And so there's basically a lot of investments that's going to happen. And then if they will then purchase whatever materials that would be sustainable or carbon reducing, in a longer term fashion, and even at a premium to the existing products that are out there.

Caroline Abramo: (22:24)
So we call it green premium, that can stabilize these transactions. And that's, by and large, what we're seeing with lot of this. And where can get around some of this technology risks that Petya is talking about. And I would say, and Maureen I don't know what your experience is. I mean, you have tons over the years. Just this concept of technology risk. I mean, and how in infrastructure, this is not something you'll go to seven, eight, nine, 50 managers and they'll say, "In infrastructure, we don't do technology risk. If we want to invest in this company, they have to have the force for projects done and they have to be EBIDTA positive and all that kind of stuff." And maybe you can address some of that a little bit more. But that's just me, please. Take it from me.

Maureen O'Toole: (23:10)
Yeah. Okay, so a couple of things there. And I had a couple of thoughts while Petya was talking too. And let me pull a few things together. You mentioned power purchase agreements. So I think the important thing for those of you who may not know in the audience is that you can get 20, 30 year agreements, primarily from governments as to what they're going to pay you for electricity. There are publicly run auctions, these are all very transparent. They're online. I mean, one of the things that we get of course is, "Oh, all emerging market is corrupt." Well, okay, I live very close to New Jersey. Sorry, to anybody who does. But, yes, there's ways of doing business around the world. These are publicly available auctions. You see exactly to the penny who want a PPA. You have that long term cash flow, which enables you then to run your investment models and know exactly how you're going to build something and have this profitable cash flow stream. My firm is run by a bunch of engineers. I'm one of the few finance people so it's a bunch of engineers.

Maureen O'Toole: (24:12)
So they build stuff in complex markets, and they know how to do that. The new technology, and I think the thing that becomes very important, and again, I'm only speaking for emerging markets. We are profitable without government subsidies. Now what we do have in our markets though, is the very critical partnership of the world development money. So think of the World Bank, think of the Commonwealth Development Corp, CDC out of London. Think of the world that is trying to channel low cost loans to emerging markets, to improve the quality of life writ large. And power generation is one of those. So you have as a carrot and a stick approach. And we mentioned government, we mentioned corporate and the importance of aligning all of these to get it right. And again, I go back to we are at a glorious moment in time where I think there's going to be so much dynamic happening. We don't invent things in emerging markets, we need them to be invented and tested out here and then we take them there.

Maureen O'Toole: (25:11)
But we right now are very excited about the nudge that certainly the Paris Accord and the upcoming COP26, which you're all familiar with, is going to be happening in the first week of November. And these are all regulations that will push and continue to push towards the technologies and the broad implementation, that will help the profit seeking money to go afterwards. So I point to India, their renewables goal has gone up, I think it's like 440 gigawatts or something by 2030. So you have all these countries now putting 2050, 2030 goals out there. And the amount of wind turbines, the amount of solar panels, the amount of cobalt lithium that's needed to get there is almost insatiable. There is a supply demand problem even with that. But the opportunity set is there. And what we are very strongly looking at is, we do solar and wind. Fine, we're there. Two things to let you know. Wind blows harder, sun shines brighter, south of the equator. So you put a wind turbine in Germany, and you put one in Brazil, it is going to be three times more efficient and effective in Brazil.

Maureen O'Toole: (26:32)
So it's a slam dunk that renewables in certain areas, and that's what we're specializing in, right? You're not going to go put solar in someplace that rains a lot. You have to put it in the right place in our markets. But it can be so much more productive, and with that carrot out there of low cost loans to a government, to go ahead and build out their green infrastructure because of that zero cost input. To work on battery, need 24/7. You can't have a hospital running just when the sun is out or the wind is blowing. So we do you use natural gas as a transition fuel, which I think is a very fascinating topic as well coming up to COP. And you have that ability to really do both. So I guess the carrot and the stick thing in our markets is working exceptionally well. And the minute that any of that other technology gets affordable, the opportunity to implement on a broad scale is phenomenal.

Caroline Abramo: (27:29)
That's terrific. And that makes, Petya you know where I'm going. So that, in terms of some other areas for baseload power generation that are carbon reducing, and maybe don't have the regulatory support that wind and solar already have. So things like geothermal, kind of how is that progressing as one topic and then the second topic I want to bring up with you is some of the other big carbon emitting sectors like plastics. And then the insatiable, as Maureen said about insatiable demand for certain things. Insatiable demand from consumers for sustainable packaged goods, for alternate proteins. So just to to tie into some of the themes that even we've heard at the conference yesterday, who was a great panel on alternative proteins which is really cool. But Pieter, what do you what do you think?

Pieter Houlleberghs: (28:23)
Yeah. And then cueing off the comments that were just made, I think there's sort of three driving factors that I believe are going to generate or generating huge investment opportunities. It's really this decarbonization and then the resource efficiency, as well as the resilience of some of these solutions. I think, we look for things that tick all those three boxes, and I think those are applicable across emerging markets as well as develop markets. And being able to really look on a global basis, I think, help spot the right solutions and then also getting them to the right applications. And one of those solutions where I think there's a lot of good lateral thought that's been applied, and is being applied currently is geothermal. So it's really taking a lot of the innovation that was seen in the shale industry over the past 10, 15 years and translating that across to a sector which had seen less innovation, then perhaps or certainly less of well known innovation that then we seen in solar or wind.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (29:26)
So, really taking horizontal drilling and the cost declines in the oil and gas industry, basically brought into the money, a lot of applications in geothermal that that were previously just not economic. So again, that's just things are entering this interesting window. And if you can get geothermal to work, it is baseload, clean power, which is ultimately then obviates or complements the obvious need for a battery or it complements solar and wind which is intermittent. And really gets us to the last 20, 30% of the grid that has to be decarbonize, that's most challenging. So we believe that that is a fascinating area that's complimentary to the whole suite of solutions that's out there, and spending a lot of time on that space. And in terms of the other industries around, whether it's plastics or more of the kind of agri-food domain, that's an area we spend a lot of time as well. I'll speak specifically to the plastic space where there are effectively bio plastics, whether they're bio based or biodegradable. If we look at the lifecycle of those products, there's huge optionality and opportunities that's embedded in some of the attributes there.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (30:52)
We can think of an ecosystem where, from a food court let's say, all the cutlery and the plates and things are made of biodegradable materials, so then things all get directed into the organic stream. And really thinking about the ecosystem that sort of, how do we solve this as a society really? And that takes a lot of convening power, a lot of different actors that need to come together. And we're proud to play a small part in bringing those together and supporting the companies that are looking to really move the needle.

Caroline Abramo: (31:27)
Yea. That's thank you. It's super helpful. We're talking a lot about carbon reduction, but it's really about environmental sustainability, and like the E of the ESG, which we've talked quite a bit about at this conference. And we won't even get a chance to talk too much about the S and the G. But that's all something that isn't part of our investment processes, which is just kind of interesting to note. Talking about just this, well getting back to the whole geography and the nature of the, where these investments are. Petya, in terms of your portfolio, where do you look? Will you invest, is it only in US, North America, or is it outside?

Petya Nikolova: (32:07)
So we invest globally. And we don't have any restrictions on how much we need to invest in certain geography. Naturally, we try to have a balanced portfolio, which talking about risks also exposes us to different risks and different opportunities set as well. And historically, the city of New York or New York City retirement systems have not invested in emerging markets on the private side. But with infrastructure, given the opportunity set there and Maureen, very well described that opportunity set. And we actually were able to invest in emerging markets in a strategy that is primarily focused on energy transition and renewables. So, very happy to share that we are a global investor, and we were able to invest in emerging markets as well.

Caroline Abramo: (33:12)
And just, I don't know if you personally have an opinion, maybe and Maureen and Peter, of how we're doing around the globe. Where are the most opportunities? And when I say the most it's really... There's tons of options everywhere but how quickly are certain parts of the world, let's say Europe versus Asia versus US moving along with transition, and that can be many things. It could be the legislative part, the regulatory part, it could be where corporates are located manufacturing is. It could just be the consumer sentiment, but what are your thoughts on that, how it's going?

Petya Nikolova: (33:52)
Yeah. It's a very nuanced question, because there are opportunities but also that different returns. And in certain geographies, we see the returns being pushed down. So as we think about Europe and the US, a lot of the areas in straightforward renewables are generating relatively at least for us, low returns. And then you need to go up to the risk spectrum with taking more either construction risk and or development risk to be able to reach some of the benchmark targets. And then when you look globally, more towards emerging markets. Markets in Asia or Latin America, even Africa. There is much more growth, and to Maureen's point, just the radiation is better. I was smiling when you mentioned Germany because 15, 20 years ago in a prior life on the direct side of things, we worked on a deal with Germany, a portfolio of German wind farms. And guess what, there wasn't going to blow so the deal didn't go that well. Yeah. So we see also that contracting structure being different in different geographies, and again, in some of the emerging markets, much longer term contracts with great worthy counterparties.

Caroline Abramo: (35:31)
Now I don't have to ask you about what your worst trade was, but we covered that. Because Petra probably can't say but I can, just in terms of the return she's talking about. So let's say large scale wind and solar in North America, talking about six, 7% type of returns. Obviously, derisked in many ways, but that's... And for many plans, many investors, that's a great bogey. That's terrific. But when we kind of look now, as Petya is saying, and Maureen. Just in terms of emerging markets, in different places, different risks but increasing returns. And this is all kind of absent technology risks. So, Maureen, what are your thoughts?

Maureen O'Toole: (36:17)
So you can still get good returns in the emerging markets, but there's so much money sloshing around. Now, we've got some very dumb money that is coming into our markets, which is always dangerous for two reasons. These are complex markets within which to operate. So we've been doing it as I said, with a 70 year heritage, with a 20 year real track record of doing it. When this silly money comes in, it distorts everything on the ground. The pricing, and the silly money inevitably leaves because they don't do it quite right. So that's a danger that we are seeing right now in operating assets. And we do have two lines of business. We do have operating assets, whereas I think if you were to buy an operating solar or wind farm here, you mentioned six, seven. I think on the pure operation, it's even down to a cap rate of three to four. In our markets, you can still get eight to 10% of a dividend flow on operating. But how we really go ahead and make the money in the 20 plus range for our clients is to take that development risk.

Maureen O'Toole: (37:11)
But like I said, it's not totally greenfield because we've won the PPA before we even do shovel in ground. And then we're a bunch of engineers, so we know how to build stuff. But that still is the type of return profile you should be expecting if you take development risks. The other thing that I'll mention because I'm sure all of you are wondering like, "What about FX risk? What about corruption? What about a coup? What about all these things that happen?" Because that's what the newspaper tells you happens in emerging markets. The World Bank and numerous others has an insurance policy that you can almost ensure, and we do. We are the largest purchaser of these insurance policies in fact. Where you can assure and insure against multiple types of risk. FX is still one that's out there and that yes is something to consider. You get a blend of dollar PPAs, local currency PPAs. There's a way to help with the portfolio construction. Other risks can be mitigated and that's that partnership with the DFIs that matters so much. One more thing I just want to say because we are not-

Caroline Abramo: (38:11)
And define DFI for-

Maureen O'Toole: (38:12)
Sorry. Development Finance Institution. As I said, it's the World Bank's, it's the International Finance Corporation, it's USAID, and every country has these. It would be remiss if I didn't mention the SMG very briefly. It is very possible to go in the ground in these emerging markets, and leave behind not just a great wind farm and good returns for our clients, but a very positive impact on the community. And if you go in with that lens of leaving something positive behind on day one, the added cost to implement is nil. So we build schools, we build libraries, we build water filtration plant, so we de fluoridate the water so the kids don't have bowed bones. And that from day one is part of every project that we do. And that's that element that I think also has applicability as we go to other developing markets, and developed markets. And I think this responsibility and this idea that money can do both, is an unstoppable wave that people now really understand. And it's that having that lens on day one, and building into your model on day one.

Caroline Abramo: (39:18)
Well, I love that. Where a lot of, I think our best known climate advocates like Bill Gates started it was really on a health journey. Which thinking about how these things tie together and thinking about the technologies, about the feedstocks we're using to create sustainable products around the world. A lot of them are bio based. There's a huge interconnection which that's a whole nother topic to discuss. Pieter, any thoughts from your perspective just on geographies? Who's getting it right, who's not? What's happening?

Pieter Houlleberghs: (39:49)
I mean, the thing that came to mind just listening to Maureen's answer was also just the fact that one of the investments that taught me the most was an African gas to power investment, this was eight years ago now. Where just the sort of the, it shows all the good and the bad of the D. This sort of very centralized power grid and the chain of payments that you rely on, and the guarantees that you need to be able to get comfort as an underwriter. And really sort of taking that and then looking at the renewable space, and how can we create a decentralized grid that doesn't have some of these dependencies and therefore can also hopefully scale quicker and grow quicker, I think is hugely applicable in emerging markets, as well as here as we look at resiliency of our own grid and some of the wildfires and other things that are causing us to rethink a lot of that. So, these are all just changes and opportunities which we're trying to try to do our best to capture and and treatise still winds.

Caroline Abramo: (40:49)
So just, we only have about four and a half minutes left, and I want to make sure we... Is there any questions? Which I can't see any of you. But if there's any questions you'd like throw something at me. But maybe kind of last ideas about just cutting edge stuff. And again, many more topics that we can have about hot money, silly money, like SPACs and all kinds of stuff, money chasing tech. But in the next, I guess what's happen, to the panel. What's happening now and maybe what will happen in five years from now. What are your thoughts on some of these technologies that probably we hear about, like nuclear and fusion and hydrogen? Just your thoughts, and maybe how you and your institutions are thinking about things like this, that could be disruptive to some of the things that we're investing in today, or maybe not.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (41:40)
Yeah. I could start, I mean, it's sort of the... I think, disruptive, yes, but also discomplimentary. The energy sector is so big that just one breakthrough isn't sort of going to obviate all the rest, by the way. So we're certainly watching the fusion space and having making early bets, making sure we're sort of on top of those developments. And that's an area which I think we'll be talking about five, 10 years from now and continue to get closer to make another commercial reality.

Maureen O'Toole: (42:11)
I would say don't yet count out natural gas, it's the transition to the wild stuff in 10 years. And there are some places in the world that can't do renewables. I mean, I often find I'm in a geography class where I remind people, "Look at a map, here's Bangladesh. It is swamps and islands. There's 163 million people there. You cannot put solar panels up and generate enough power. So we have to use natural gas." So what we're going to do with this current vintage product, that I think is exciting is we will integrate hydrogen into some of the natural gas pipelines as possible, which will help in the reduction of the overall emissions. I think our thinking in the five, 10 year plus is we do believe someday this concept of the peaker power or the baseline, whatever you want to call it, when it's not renewable. We're very excited about battery. Now that could be traditional batteries as we're looking at them now, lithium, ion. Or it could be hydrogen as a storage as well.

Maureen O'Toole: (43:12)
Hydrogen is not going to be used in our cars. We might use it in cement manufacturing and steel manufacturing. But hydrogen as a battery, I think has great possibilities. We're less excited about fusion, it's a little too far out for us to even envision. And nuclear will remain what it is. Right? And just like good decommissioning of nuclear plants. It's the most clean energy out there.

Petya Nikolova: (43:40)
Hydrogen is interesting. I was reflecting as we were talking about these technologies. And hydrogen was so much more marginal just two years ago. Not talked about in the infrastructure space anyway. And all of a sudden, now everything is about hydrogen. So I think what's fascinating is how quickly some of these technologies become more downstream to your point about more private equity, technology growth equity. And then going downstream to infrastructure. So that's what we are monitoring. And I think there are going to be some investible opportunities relatively soon. Definitely, more quickly than I expected.

Maureen O'Toole: (44:28)
Cost is definitely coming down. I mean, we monitor the cost as well. And you guys might not know but solar wind, the cost is down like 90% from 10 years ago. Hydrogen is on that same trajectory, and it will flip at some point.

Caroline Abramo: (44:41)
Yeah. We're seeing, I mean, and we are a growth equity. We get tend to get involved earlier than in this traditional infrastructure, and it's an adjacency to natural gas and the infrastructure we have in the United States. It is a tremendous growth area. It's a tremendous focus. So when I think about my contribution of this geographic discussion is that, that will be one that I think will get pushed and there'll be initiative from a regulatory perspective. And just really what's in people's current portfolios. So we have 14 seconds left, any questions? [inaudible 00:45:14] I can see you.

Speaker 5: (45:14)
I have a question over here.

Caroline Abramo: (45:17)
Hi.

Speaker 5: (45:18)
Thanks. [inaudible 00:45:20]. Just the presence of activists in the space is that putting a little bit of pressure on sort of time duration and sort of the project expectations here?

Maureen O'Toole: (45:30)
Yeah. Yeah. I'll take that one real quickly.

Caroline Abramo: (45:35)
Yeah. Sure. Yeah.

Maureen O'Toole: (45:36)
Yeah. Activism in the space. Look, we love activists in general. They're good and they're bad. Right? They are no question, a large part of this impetus that we will not see going back on in terms of you name it. Carbon, DNI, all of this stuff. The activists and I would say social media very, very important to keep the thing going. Where I would say, sometimes activists run afoul is let's go to natural gas, okay? It is an important. We cannot just go renewable no matter how much we want to, there is simply a path to get there. And so sometimes I find that activists in their zeal can derail a conversation and prevent... At the end of the day, this is about people and the planet. And how do we go to people in India and say, "You cannot have air conditioning which will improve your quality and your health of life. Because we don't think you should have it." So that's I think, where I think activists, good, and activists can be bad. But a critical element to the conversation.

Caroline Abramo: (46:44)
Go with that. Thank you very much for your attention and looking forward to speaking to you again about this.

Pieter Houlleberghs: (46:50)
Thank you.

The Future in 2050 with Dr. Michio Kaku & Alex Klokus | #SALTNY

Dr. Michio Kaku is one of the most renowned figures in science and the world today. He is a theoretical physicist, bestselling author, acclaimed public speaker, futurist, and popularizer of science, he co-founded “String Field Theory” and continues Einstein’s quest to unite the fundamental forces of nature into a single grand unified “Theory of Everything.”

Dr. Kaku holds the Henry Semat Chair in Theoretical Physics at City University New York, graduating summa cum laude from Harvard with a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley. He has written numerous New York Times bestselling books including The Future of Humanity, The Future of the Mind, Physics of the Future, and Physics of the Impossible.

Kaku’s latest bestselling book The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything explores the history of unification theories from Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation through Quantum Mechanics and The Standard Model of Particle Physics — culminating in his own landmark contributions to the most cutting-edge ideas in theoretical physics.

Moderator Alex Klokus is a Founder and Managing Partner at the SALT Fund. Alex is a serial entrepreneur who built and sold both the media company Futurism and the sleep and wellness business Gravity.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Kaku, Dr. Michio - Cropped.jpg

Dr. Michio Kaku

Henry Semat Chair in Theoretical Physics

City University of New York

ALex Klokus.png

Alex Klokus

Founder & Managing Partner

The SALT Fund

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Alex Klokus: (00:07)
Hello. Thank you all for coming here today. It's going to be tough to top Paris Hilton, but if anyone can do it, I think Dr. Kaku can. Seriously, I think we can do it.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (00:25)
[inaudible 00:00:25].

Alex Klokus: (00:26)
He is better looking. I'd like to take one second quickly to thank the SALT team. If you can imagine this entire event is put on by a full-time team of less than five people. Less than five people does all of this. There's two people in particular, a Mr. Joel [Alito 00:00:52], and then Mr. John [Darcy 00:00:54], who are responsible for everything you see here. So please.

Alex Klokus: (01:02)
Okay. Dr. Kaku, we've got a great conversation in front of us. The objective for this conversation, we've got about 40 minutes or so, we want to visualize the future at two key times. The first is 2050, about 30 years from now. And the second we're just going to go even further because the weirder, the better, we're going to go to 2121, so 100 years from now. We want to get granular, we want to get specific and Dr. Kaku, we want to make some bold predictions. Are you ready?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (01:34)
Let her rip.

Alex Klokus: (01:35)
All right. So let's start with 2050, 30 years from now. And this is extremely consequential I think for most of us in the audience, because we will be living then. We will be alive, we will be inhabiting this world, this reality and things are going to look extremely, extremely different. Dr. Kaku when we visualize this future, what do you think are going to be the main drivers of change for us in 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (02:03)
Well, to get the most accurate description of the future, I've interviewed over 300 of the world's top scientists for the Discovery Channel, BBC Television, the Science Channel. And I asked them the key question, the question of all questions. I asked them the question, is there intelligent life on the earth? Well, I was watching the soap operas last night and I've come to the conclusion, nope, no intelligent life on this planet. But take a look at the big picture, take a look at humanity just a few hundred years ago. Throughout human history, people lived in poverty, disease, war, average life expectancy for most of human civilization was 30 years of age. You were born, you got married, had kids, and then you died. Life was a bitch. But then something happened. Something magical happened 200 years ago. What was that? You talk to a politician and a politician would say, "Where does wealth come from? Taxes. That's where wealth comes from, taxes."

Dr. Michio Kaku: (03:28)
But if you tax Peter to pay Paul, that is zero sum game. You don't get anywhere. You talk to an economist, where does wealth come from? And the economists would say, "Printing money. That's how you make money." But if you print money, you're simply borrowing against the next generation. I say, all wealth comes from science and technology. Because around 1800, we physicists worked out what is called thermodynamics, the laws of heat. From that we created the heat engine, the locomotive, the factory, the industrial revolution based on oil and coal, great wealth was created. In fact, that's where the Rockefeller fortune comes from.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (04:22)
The great Rockefeller fortune, which helped to create New York city as we know it, came from when we physicists worked out thermodynamics. Then we physicists worked out electricity and magnetism, and that gave us dynamos, television, radio, electronics, and that created wealth. General Electric, utilities, Westinghouse, tremendous wealth. Then we physicists worked out the quantum theory and that gave us the laser, the transistor, the computer, the internet, and that created Apple computers, created IBM. That was the third grade revolution.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (05:07)
Here's the question for all of you today. What is the fourth wave of wealth generation and what is the fifth wave of wealth generation? That's what we're going to talk about today. I say the fourth wave of wealth generation, the great fortunes that don't even exist yet, the fourth wave is physics at the molecular level. Meaning artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and biotechnology, and the Rockefellers of that era haven't been created yet. We're witnessing the creation of the next generation of wealth with artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and biotechnology. And that, let me go even farther to the fifth wave. The fifth wave is simply a gleam in the eye of a physicist.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (06:10)
The fifth wave of wealth generation is going to be first of all, fusion power, which gives us unlimited energy from seawater. Second, quantum computers. Because one day Silicon Valley will become a rust belt, because the age of Silicon is slowly coming to an end. We are now witnessing the slowing down of Moore's law. And the third component of the fifth wave is BrainNet. What will replace the digital internet? What will replace the digital internet is the neural BrainNet. We already can read memories in a mind, we can extract pictures out of the living brain. In the future, you will telepathically control the world around you, and we are laying the groundwork for that today. Machine brain interface with enormous implications for the future. In other words, digital immortality could become a consequence, living forever. Anyway, these are just some of the glimpses we are seeing now. Physics at the atomic level, the fifth wave, which will dominate wealth generation toward the middle to late part of this century.

Alex Klokus: (07:44)
There is no better way to get everyone here to perk up and say the next generation of wealth. So I think you really nailed that. And this is a finance conference, so we're all listening. And I had some questions here, but let's just ignore those and let's keep going into this. This is way better. So we're in 2050, okay. We talked about nanotechnology, we talked about biotechnology, we talk about artificial intelligence. Help us visualize what this world looks like. So we're here in this conference center in 2050, 30 years from now, there are drones in the skies. Are there people on Mars? Did Elon Musk get one million people on Mars by 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (08:23)
Well, Elon Musk is a great Pathfinder and a great prophet in terms of setting a vision, a vision for the future. Because well, the dinosaurs did not have a space program. The dinosaurs did not have Elon Musk, that's why there're no dinosaurs here today because they had no space program. We are here today, we do have a space program, so we have a shot at it. But you have to realize that it's going to take time before we can colonize Mars. I think we should do it as plan B. We need an insurance policy. It is a law of physics that the earth will one day be destroyed. One day, everything we love about this planet will be gone. In five billion years, the sun will eat up the earth. In a 50 million time period, a gigantic asteroid could wipe out humanity like it wiped out the dinosaurs.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (09:28)
On a 10,000 year timeframe, another ice age. This place was covered with half a mile of ice 10,000 years ago. This room was under a half a mile of ice 10,000 years ago, we are living between glaciations. And then on a scale of a few hundred years, we have to worry about city busters, meteors from the sky that could land down and wipe out Moscow or Washington or something like that. And then at a scale of decades, we have to worry about nuclear proliferation, the next pandemic and global warming. So it is a law of physics that at some point we may have to leave the earth, but my attitude is there's no rush. We don't have to leave the earth immediately, but it does mean that we should think about an escape clause. Plan B on Mars.

Alex Klokus: (10:17)
Plan B on Mars, and in 2050, maybe Elon gets people there. Do you think that we, earth will be even more consequentially impacted by climate change?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (10:29)
Yes and no. The bad news is that all the indicators show that the earth is heating up. Glaciation is receding, average temperatures are increasing, summer is a week longer than normal, winters are a week shorter than normal. Farmers know that the weather has already changed for the growing season. For all these reasons, we know the atmosphere is changing, but there's an ace in the hall. The ace in the hole is two things. First fusion power. The joke is that every 20 years we physicists say, "We will have fusion in 20 years." 20 years comes and oops, there's no fusion power. But we're very close to attaining breakeven now, in France and in California, and you've read the headlines. We are very close now to hitting break even with fusion power. And where does hydrogen come from? Seawater. Seawater is a source of hydrogen.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (11:30)
Does a fusion reactor melt down? No, it doesn't melt down. How much nuclear waste does it create? Almost none. Helium is the nuclear waste from a fusion reactor, and helium is commercially valuable, you can sell helium. So that's an ace in the hole. Another possibility is quantum computers, which can initiate the solar age. Now we've been talking about the solar age for decades.

Alex Klokus: (11:57)
And for people that don't know, can you explain what that is?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (12:00)
The solar age is when we have solar power from the sun and the wind to replace oil and coal on the earth.

Alex Klokus: (12:08)
Got it.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (12:09)
It never came. Why? Why aren't we in the middle of a solar age, celebrating the sun not worrying about global warming? Everybody forgets, it's the battery. The battery is the weak link. We think that everything obeys Moore's law, that computer power doubles every 18 months. We think everything obeys Moore's law. Nope, batteries do not obey Moore's law. We need a super battery. And where is the super battery going to come from, we think from quantum computers. Quantum computers can model quantum processes. Batteries... There's no digitization of a battery. It's a chemical reaction, it's hit or miss. It's done by hard luck, hard work in a laboratory by some nameless person in a chemical laboratory, it's sheer luck getting a super battery. But with a quantum computer, we can roll the dice and perhaps create a super battery, when the sun doesn't shine and the winds don't blow. So two technologies could save us from global warming, fusion power, and quantum computers.

Alex Klokus: (13:21)
So super battery created by quantum computer? Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (13:24)
Right.

Alex Klokus: (13:25)
2050, hopefully. I'm curious, do you think that there are any existential risks that will prevent us, us as in humanity, from making it to 2050? It sounds like climate change, no, not an existential risk. Asteroid. Is an astroid and existential risk, do you believe by 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (13:45)
Well, we monitor these things in outer space, except down to the size of a football field. Things smaller than a football field, we don't monitor that well, but anything bigger than that, we do monitor. But there's always a chance that an object smaller than a football field or a comet that goes behind the sun catches us off guard. That's always possible.

Alex Klokus: (14:06)
So it's possible.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (14:07)
Possible. [crosstalk 00:14:07].

Alex Klokus: (14:07)
... to be wiped out by 2050 by asteroid?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (14:09)
Right.

Alex Klokus: (14:10)
What do you think about this general AI, super intelligent AI? Elon Musk talks about this a lot, the idea that we will create an artificial intelligence that is conscious, that starts to take over. If we look around, AI has already proliferated throughout our society. Perhaps one can argue, it's already running the show, although it's not conscious. Do you think that that is an existential risk for humanity in the next 30 years by 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (14:42)
I think maybe the next 100 years. How smart is a robot today? We've been brainwashed by Hollywood. Hollywood seems tell us that [Shorts and Egor 00:14:52] and the Terminator robots are around the corner. Our most advanced robot today, how intelligent is our most advanced military robot? Our most advanced robot compared to an animal would be a cockroach, a stupid cockroach, a retarded, stupid cockroach. You put a cockroach in a forest, it looks for food, looks for a mate, finds shelter. You take our most advanced military robot and put it in the forest, and what does it do, falls over and can't even get up again. But eventually there'll be as smart as a mouse. Eventually they will be as smart as a rat, then a rabbit, then a dog or a cat, and by the late 21st century, perhaps as smart as a monkey. Now, why is that dangerous? Because monkeys know they are not human. Now, dogs are confused.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (15:56)
You see dogs think that we are a dog. We're the top dog, and they're the underdog and that's why they slobber all over us because we're the leader of the pack. They're pack animals. Now cats are not. Cats are solitary hunters. You cannot fool a cat, a cat knows that we are not a cat, but a dog is confused. Now, monkeys do not get confused. Monkeys know they are monkeys. So when a robot becomes as intelligent as a monkey, perhaps by 2100, we should put a chip in their brain to shut them off, if they have murderous thoughts.

Alex Klokus: (16:32)
Yeah. I like that. So you think humans, we, us, need to merge with machine. We have to become one.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (16:42)
Yeah. I think beyond 2100, robots will be so smart, they'll remove that chip. They will redesign their own brains, such that the fail safe chip is removed, and then what are we going to do? They're conscious, they can set their own goals, at that point I think we should merge with them. And that process is a slow process, but I think it's already starting. Humans have been altering ourselves ever since day one. Makeup, tattoos, [sorins 00:17:13]. Sorins are an extension of the hand. We've been altering our body ever since we came out of the forest.

Alex Klokus: (17:19)
Yeah. I love that. There's a phrase called [Homo Evolutis 00:17:24], the idea that we have entered a new species, we've now taken control of our own evolution. And it sounds very much like what you're talking about here. And again, I guess we go to Elon. Elon's got Neurolink. He seems to be spot on with your predictions. He is trying to put chips in our brains and it sounds like we've got a ticking clock. We've got about 80 years to become one.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (17:47)
One benefit of this is digital immortality. Digital, not biological, that's also coming. But digital immortality means we will digitize ourselves, our credit card transactions, our Instagram photographs, our memoirs. Everything will be digitized and you'll live forever. I would love to talk to Einstein, that's coming. Some person who will eventually digitize Einstein, all his thoughts, all his feelings. Winston Churchill, presidents, they'll all be digitized in the future. And we will become immortal in the sense that we'll talk to our great, great, great, great, great grandkids and our great, great, great, great, grandkids will be able to talk to us, because we'll live forever.

Alex Klokus: (18:34)
And so when you say a mortal, maybe let's drill down on that for a second. I think there is one form of being immortal. Let's say we take all of Einstein's notes, we upload it to an AI. It speaks to us like Einstein, it looks perhaps like Einstein. Okay, that's great. But it's not conscious, it is not thinking new unique thoughts, it is not aware of itself. When you say digital immortality, are you saying that we will be able to take our consciousness, Me Alex, you Dr. Kaku and upload that to a computer?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (19:06)
Yeah, I think so. I think it's [crosstalk 00:19:08].

Alex Klokus: (19:07)
By 2050?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (19:09)
Around 2050, we'll have a reasonable approximation of who we are. We'll talk to George Washington or everything known about the guy and have a great time. And also by the way, what are we going to do with this digitize personality? I say we should put all this digitized information on the laser beam and shoot it to the moon. In one second, you will be on the moon, in 15 minutes, you'll be on Mars. Four years, you'll be on the nearest star. You will be able to explore the universe at the speed of light with your digitized consciousness on a laser beam shooting at the speed of light throughout the galaxy. So I think that... and in fact, on the moon, we'll have a mainframe computer on the moon, which downloads your consciousness and puts your consciousness into an avatar.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (20:02)
And this avatar will roam Mars, roam the moon and explore the universe. In other words, a digitized version of ourselves will conquer the universe. No problems with radiation, no problems with accidents, no problems or the weightlessness, nothing, pure light. Our consciousness will colonize the galaxy at the speed of light. And in fact, I'll stick my neck out. Everything I've said so far is well within the laws of physics. I think this already exists.

Alex Klokus: (20:35)
Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (20:36)
I think in outer space there's a highway. A laser highway carrying the souls of digitized aliens, and we, humans are so stupid we don't even know that it's there.

Alex Klokus: (20:49)
Yeah, okay so-

Dr. Michio Kaku: (20:50)
Right next to us, there could be a laser highway of digitized alien souls. And we are so primitive of their technology that we don't even know about it.

Alex Klokus: (21:01)
So you've hit on something that I'm obsessed with, which is aliens. Let's just keep going. Let's keep going. Should we clap? Let's clap. Better than Paris Hilton? Better than Paris Hilton, a little bit. I love this. Okay. So aliens, a highway. You're saying there is a highway in the universe of digital remains of other intelligent life in the universe.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (21:26)
That's right.

Alex Klokus: (21:27)
And you believe this?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (21:28)
I say it's something that we have to seriously think about. And by the way, some people email me claim that I'm all washed up because the aliens are not there. They claimed that the aliens are here on the earth and they visit us. And they know that because they've been kidnapped, they've been on the flying saucers. Well, I have a word of advice. The next time you are kidnapped by a flying saucer for God's sake, steal something. There's no law of physics that puts you in jail for stealing from an extra terrestrial civilization, it's perfectly legal to steal from an alien. And you'll have proof, an alien chip, an alien hammer. That ends the debate right there.

Alex Klokus: (22:15)
But in all seriousness, and I think we'll all go home, we'll remember that note. Next time we're abducted, we'll steal something. But the Pentagon has come out, they have come out, they have said, "Hey, there is some weird going on. We don't know what it is. We've got video footage, we've got camera footage." They released an 80 page report that concluded, there were 120 incidents that cannot be explained. Have you seen the videos?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (22:42)
Yeah, I've seen all of them.

Alex Klokus: (22:43)
You've seen all of them?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (22:43)
Yeah.

Alex Klokus: (22:44)
What do you think?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (22:45)
Well, before this military report came out, it was hearsay. Now we have the gold standard. The gold standard is multiple sightings by multiple modes. Meaning not one person, but several, not just radar, but infrared sensors, optical sensors, eye witness accounts, all with one sighting using multiple individuals, multiple modes of detection. Now we have it. We physicists have analyzed frame by frame those 120 videotapes, frame by frame. And we now realize that these objects, whatever they are can travel between mark five and mark 20, 20 times the speed of sound zipping across the ocean, zipping across the planes. And when they zigzag, they create G-forces of several hundred, enough to crush the bones of any living creature that we know of inside a flying saucer. They can descend 80,000 feet within a matter of a few seconds, all of this on videotape, incredible.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (23:54)
And then these things dive into the ocean. They can actually go into the ocean and there's a videotape showing all these things. Now the military for the first time in history has now admitted, quote, "They're not one of ours." They never admitted that before. They hinted maybe it's a stealth bomber, maybe it's some kind of hush-hush project. Nope, "Not one of ours."

Alex Klokus: (24:17)
And that's unbelievable. I think that is not only unbelievable, it is unbelievably consequential. That would reshape society, it would allow us to reimagine our role in the universe, but we're not talking about it. We're all sitting here, we're at a finance conference, we're talking about the markets, we're talking about crypto, NFTs, all these other things, but this is more consequential. So why are we not talking about it? You Dr. Kaku, you are a very well-respected esteemed leader in this space, right here you are saying, "Hi, hello, something is happening. This is consequential. It seems like it could be aliens." But then that's it. Everybody goes home, we live our lives. Why are we not talking about this more? And then if you were to speculate and I promise we will not hold you to this, what do you think it is?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (25:11)
Well, first of all, we don't yet have a smoking gun. We have these suggestive videotapes. The military is saying, maybe they're Chinese, maybe they're Russian, I don't think so. But the Russians do have hypersonic drones. We are working on hypersonic drones. Hypersonic drones can duplicate some of these maneuvers, but the military admits that no, "These are more advanced than any of the hypersonic drones that we are developing in our laboratory." But we don't have the smoking gun. We don't have an alien ship, we don't have an alien hammer, an alien paperclip.

Alex Klokus: (25:45)
Do you think the government has that?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (25:47)
Well, they haven't led onto it. We can't rule it out that maybe they've been able to retrieve something from a crashed flying saucer, but I haven't seen any evidence.

Alex Klokus: (25:57)
You have not seen.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (25:58)
I'm not seeing any... I've talked to my friends and they have not seen any either.

Alex Klokus: (26:02)
Got it. But if you were to go out on a limb here and just speculate, you think that what we're seeing in these videos is some other form of intelligent species from somewhere else in the universe?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (26:16)
Well, it can't be ruled out. Now we physicist believe it or not have actually written about civilizations that are millions of years, more advanced than us. We scan the galaxy, we realized there's a hundred billion stars in the galaxy, on average, every single star has a planet going around it. I repeat on average, every single star you see at night has a planet going around it. How many of them have liquid water oceans? Maybe 10, 20%. So the galaxy is teeming with these life forms, and we physicists have categorized their level of advancement. A type one civilization is planetary, like Buck Rogers, they control the weather. They control volcanoes, earthquakes, anything planetary, they control, like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers. Then there's type two, which is stellar. They have the power of a star, they roam a piece of the galaxy like Star Trek. The Federation of planets would be a type two civilization, harnessing solar power. Then there's type three. Type three is galactic. They roam the galactic space lanes like Star Wars. Star Wars would be a type three civilization. Now on this scale, what are we?

Alex Klokus: (27:35)
We're type zero.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (27:38)
We're type zero.

Alex Klokus: (27:39)
Oh my God.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (27:40)
We don't even rate on the scale. We get our energy from dead plants, oil and coal.

Alex Klokus: (27:46)
By 2050, will we get to level one?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (27:48)
Well, by 2100, if you just do the math, by 2100, we should be a type one civilization. For example, what is the internet? Why is it so magical? The internet is the first type one system to fall into our century. It's a type one technology, it's planetary. The internet is the first planetary technology that we have. That's the glimpse of what's going to happen around 2100. Everything's going to be planetary after 2100. You'll communicate, your friendships, your relationships will all be planetary.

Alex Klokus: (28:23)
Planetary relationships. [crosstalk 00:28:25].

Dr. Michio Kaku: (28:25)
Yeah. And what language will they speak? Well already the two dominant languages on the internet are English and Mandarin, Chinese. What about type one sports? Soccer and the Olympics, the beginning of a planetary sports. What is Chanel? What is Gucci? The beginning of a type one culture. What is [crosstalk 00:28:44].

Alex Klokus: (28:43)
Wait. Chanel and Gucci are type one culture?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (28:45)
Yeah. The beginnings.

Alex Klokus: (28:46)
The beginnings. Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (28:48)
Right. What is Rock and Roll? The beginning of type one music. You see what I'm saying? We're seeing the beginning of a type one culture and the engineer is spearheading that because it's a type one technology, monetary.

Alex Klokus: (29:03)
Just so maybe we can all recap, understand, there's a lot that was said in the last 10 minutes. So you believe there is a universal digital highway in the universe that has remains of other intelligent extraterrestrial life, maybe they're sending data back all across the universe. Okay, that's happening. Now, there is some seemingly intelligent species that is coming to earth and they are evaluating us, they are looking at us, they are watching us-

Dr. Michio Kaku: (29:33)
And laughing.

Alex Klokus: (29:34)
... and laughing. They're perhaps laughing at us, but we must be important enough for them to watch us. There's got to be something... There may not be a lot of things going on here, but there's got to be something important for them to watch us.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (29:49)
Well, this is where we physicists argue with each other because we don't know, there's no hard data. Some people think they maybe it's like an interplanetary zoo, that we are the zoo animals and they are like the zookeeper, and they just come and watch us. Another possibility is when you go walking on a country road and you see a bunch of ants on the road, do you go down to the road and tell the ants, "I bring you trinkets, I bring you beads, I give you nuclear energy, take me to your aunt queen." Or maybe you step on a few of them? Well, if these aliens are entomologists, alien entomologists, they will consider us to be the aunts. In which case they would like to play with us a little bit, but after a while, they would probably lose interest.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (30:37)
If you were in a forest and you meet a squirrel, do you try to talk to the squirrel? Well, initially, yeah. But after a while you get bored because the squirrel doesn't talk back to you, the squirrel has nothing to offer you. So I think initially an alien civilization would be curious about us, but after a while they just get bored. They'll say, "What, soap operas again, turn the channel."

Alex Klokus: (31:00)
There was a great quote about this, I think from someone named Chris [Melanie 00:31:05], I believe he was at the Pentagon. He's leading a lot of this research initiative. And he said, "Hey, if we imagine, let's say we extrapolate out and we're now in 2100, we humans are exploring the universe. How would we do that? Well, what we would do is we would send an unmanned drone. They would go, they'd travel for X amount of time, many, many decades, if not centuries, until they reached their target planet. The drone would then observe, it would take a map of the planet. It would then go hide, maybe under an ocean, like what we're seeing. And then every, so often, every 20 years it would pop out, it would map everything and then it would send that data back, and it would go back into hiding." That sounds a little bit like maybe what we're seeing here. It seems like logically it checks out.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (31:48)
However, that's type one. Let's talk about type three now.

Alex Klokus: (31:52)
Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (31:52)
Type three is when you have galactic power, the power of a black hole. At that point, Einstein's equations begin to break down and you enter the realm of what I do for a living, string theory. String theory is the theory of everything. The theory before the big bang, the theory that would answer the question, is time travel possible? What happened before creation? Are there gateways to other dimensions? Is there a multiverse of universes? All these questions are far beyond Einstein's theory, but well within what I do for a living, string theory. String theory is for type three, a type three civilization is galactic. At that point, space and time could become unstable. If space and time become unstable, they may be able to break the light barrier. In which case they don't have to wait thousands of years to reach the stars, they simply create a gateway.

Alex Klokus: (32:45)
And how would we break the light barrier? Can you help us visualize and Imagine that?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (32:49)
Well, if I have a black hole... Already, we know that black holes exist, we photograph them, we study them now. But at the center of a black hole, there could be a gateway, like Alice's looking glass. Think of the looking glass of Alice. Alice sticks her hand through the looking glass and her hand winds up in Wonderland. So two universes are stuck back to back through the looking glass, and what is the looking glass, a black hole. So you need fantastic amounts of energy, like type three, before you can begin to play with hyper velocity rockets that can go faster than the speed of light. Again, this is still conjectural, we don't know for sure. String theory has not been verified.

Alex Klokus: (33:35)
Do you think it will be verified by, let's go further 2100? Do you think string theory will be verified?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (33:40)
Yeah, I think so.

Alex Klokus: (33:41)
You think so?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (33:42)
Already the next generation of Adams Smashers are the Japanese, the Chinese and the Europeans are proposing the next generation beyond the large Hadron Collider. But personally, I think that it's a math problem. Somebody who's smart enough will solve the string equations and be able to answer it once and for all, whether this is the theory of everything, the theory of the black hole, the theory of the big bang.

Alex Klokus: (34:06)
And you said somebody, what about something?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (34:09)
Or something, or somebody? If I do a TV interview, I tell people out there, that maybe one of you in the audience will discover the theory of everything.

Alex Klokus: (34:18)
This is the finest conference [crosstalk 00:34:19].

Dr. Michio Kaku: (34:21)
And if you ever find the theory of everything, tell me first, we'll split the money and the Nobel prize, you and me.

Alex Klokus: (34:31)
And so I'm curious, when you think about stage three, we are stage zero. There's another, I guess, group of thought or school of thought, which says, "Hey, maybe we're just living in a simulation. Maybe this is a simulation." There is another species, they have developed compute. They have developed their own digital world. They're now simulating their own realities. Many of them, millions of them, billions of them, trillions of them. And we are not the ultimate or the original reality. It's turtles all the way down, as they say. I know Elon Musk talks about this quite a bit, is that what you believe?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (35:11)
No. This theory says that we all live in the matrix. Somebody just hit the play button and here we are. We're nothing but a CD ROM, and somebody has to play button. First of all, why would any super being want to duplicate our life forever on a PC or a super PC? Second of all, even if you were to model the weather, just model the weather, it turns out that the number of molecules is trillions upon trillions and to model each atom would exhaust the power of any computer. The smallest object, which can simulate the weather is the weather itself.

Alex Klokus: (35:55)
That is a great line, I love that. The smallest... What did you say, the smallest what?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (35:59)
The smallest object-

Alex Klokus: (36:00)
The smallest object.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (36:01)
... that can simulate the weather is the weather itself.

Alex Klokus: (36:06)
And so when we think about the things that we simulate in our digital world, let's use maybe an example, like the Sims. Okay, are you familiar with the Sims?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (36:15)
No, but go on.

Alex Klokus: (36:15)
Okay. It's a game where you just simulate these little guys and they do basic things, like use the bathroom and talk to each other. So let's say you're talking about the smallest system that can simulate the weather is the weather. But I feel like we can simulate a lot of things in our computer, you're saying we can't simulate the weather?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (36:31)
Yeah. Because the weather has too many molecules, each molecule going in a different way. When we do something like Sim city, we're taking shortcuts, tremendous shortcuts, and as a consequence, the model we make is not realistic. To get a realistic simulation of this room, would exhaust the power of any known computer for billions and billions of years.

Alex Klokus: (36:56)
Yeah. When you say that, just so we understand, you're saying that because there's nuance. There are little things that happen in this room, there's a lot of unique actors. I can put my foot over here, I can put my foot over here, but that is not consequential, it doesn't impact the outcome of this entire experience. But you can take shortcuts. We can simulate this talk, maybe 95% of the time, it goes really well, 5% of the time you don't like me and this whole thing sucks.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:20)
That is possible. Some people say that maybe the simulation is not perfect. So that in this corner of the room, there's a ragged hole because the computer program hasn't fixed up that hole.

Alex Klokus: (37:32)
Yeah, it's like a glitch when you're playing-

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:32)
A glitch.

Alex Klokus: (37:32)
... a video game, it's not loaded.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:34)
Right.

Alex Klokus: (37:34)
Yeah.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:35)
So a simulation that is not realistic but 99% realistic, that's possible. How would you test it? You would test it by looking for rips, tears and inconsistencies in the fabric of reality. So if all of a sudden a hole erupts here, a tear, it's because ah, the computer program didn't fix that hole correctly.

Alex Klokus: (37:55)
And do we have any evidence of that at all-

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:57)
No.

Alex Klokus: (37:57)
... that you're aware of? No.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (37:58)
No. We see no evidence of a rip reality.

Alex Klokus: (38:01)
Okay.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (38:01)
If you ever find one, tell me first.

Alex Klokus: (38:05)
Okay. So I think we're approaching the end here just to summarize, and then we'll end with one parting question. So 2050, we have probably some people on Mars, Elon's going to push us there. Climate change is going to be consequential, but it is not an existential risk. We will have some form of digital longevity, maybe some meaningful extension of biological age, may be in there as well. And then by 2100 things are getting extremely weird. We are talking about taking our consciousness, uploading it and shooting it via laser all across the universe, and then reanimating as avatars across every... by 2100, 80 years from now. Maybe if we're lucky enough, we'll see that. We will do that?

Dr. Michio Kaku: (38:54)
That's right. That our consciousness will explore the universe. We'll download our consciousness on the moon into an avatar, and we are now Superman. Superman, Superwomen on the Moon, Mars exploring the universe at the speed of light, downloading our consciousness into avatars. And who knows, maybe some of you are an avatar that has been downloaded from outer space visiting us right now.

Alex Klokus: (39:17)
Yeah. If anyone is an avatar, Anthony Scaramucci is the avatar, for sure. He's amazing, he's unbelievable. And then there's aliens everywhere. There's aliens perhaps here, there's aliens in the universe out there.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (39:31)
Let me say that, if our grandparents could suddenly see us, what would our great-great-grandparents think about us? They would consider us to be magicians and sorcerers, able to conjure up images and things that can fly and go into space. So our great-grand ancestors will consider us to be sorcerers. When we talk to our great, great grandkids, how will we view them? We will view them to be gods. And what do gods do? Gods have the power of life and death, they have the power over their environment. That's where we're headed. We are headed to become gods. The gods that we used to worship, we will become the gods that we used to worship, power over life and death.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (40:26)
For example, take a look at cancer. We now know that cancer is not one disease, but thousands of smaller diseases that are genetic. We'll simply live with it like a common cold. We'll never cure cancer, but it's not going to kill people. We don't worry about the common cold because we can stop it, but we don't cure it. Same thing with cancer. So in other words, our descendants will have the power over disease. If they can't conquer it, we'll simply live with it. And they'll have the power to change our environment at will.

Alex Klokus: (40:58)
I love that.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (40:58)
That's the power of a God.

Alex Klokus: (41:00)
So the parting takeaway is that, as long as we don't blow ourselves up, we as in humanity, we will become gods.

Dr. Michio Kaku: (41:12)
That's right.

Alex Klokus: (41:13)
Okay. Dr. Kaku, thank you so much. I love it. Thank you all. This was a lot of fun. I hope you stay and enjoy the rest of the conference.

How Crypto Changes Everything: The Future of Finance & Culture | #SALTNY

How Crypto Changes Everything: The Future of Finance & Culture with Sam Bankman-Fried, Chief Executive Officer, FTX. Kevin O’Leary, Founder, WonderFi. Anatoly Yakovenko, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Solana. Jeremy Allaire, Co-Founder, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Circle.

Moderated by Kristin Smith, Executive Director, Blockchain Association.

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Bankmanfried.png

Sam Bankman-Fried

Chief Executive Officer

FTX

Headshot - O'Leary, Kevin - Cropped.jpeg

Kevin O'Leary

Chairman

O’Leary Ventures

Headshot - Yakovenko, Anatoly - Cropped.jpeg

Anatoly Yakovenko

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Solana

Headshot - Allaire, Jeremy - Cropped.png

Jeremy Allaire

Co-Founder, Chairman & CEO

Circle

 

MODERATOR

Headshot - Smith, Kristin - Cropped.jpeg

Kristin Smith

Executive Director

Blockchain Association

 

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Kristin Smith: (00:07)
All right. Well, good morning everyone. We have a fantastic panel here this morning. I feel like any one of these speakers could be a keynote at an event like this, so really honored to have them all on stage together. So we have a very bold topic, How Crypto Changes Everything: The Future of Finance & Culture. I think for those of us who work in the crypto industry, we really do see on the horizon that crypto networks and the tokens involved with them are incredibly powerful and are going to change the way we do so many things. Not just finance. So very excited about the discussion today. Real quickly, I'd like to introduce everybody then we'll dive right in. I'm Kristin Smith, I'm the executive director of the Blockchain Association, which is a trade association based in Washington, D.C.

Kristin Smith: (00:59)
We work on crypto policy is on behalf of the crypto industry. To my left here, we have Sam Bankman-Fried. For those in the crypto space, this man needs no introduction. He is one of the youngest brightest minds in this space. I also super love his personal style and his hair FTX that is a crypto derivatives exchange. And then FTX US, which is the U.S. component to that. And he's also co-founded Alameda Research. To his left we have Anatoly Yakovenko, who is the founder and CEO of Solana Labs, which is the creator of the Solana blockchain, which for those of you who follow crypto prices, last week everything was down double digits, but so Solana tokens were up. It's been an amazing ride for Solana. They're definitely having a moment right now, very exciting.

Kristin Smith: (01:54)
To his left we have Jeremy Allaire who I've had the pleasure of knowing for several years now. Jeremy is the CEO and founder of Circle which is founded way back in 2013. So they've been around for a long time. Circle helped create USDC, which is a dollar backed stable coin, which is very important for many of the DeFi applications, which we'll get into later today. But also one of the founding members of the Blockchain Association. So wouldn't be here without Jeremy. And last but not least, we have Kevin O'Leary who is many of you probably already know is the co-host of Shark Tank. But also has become a recent convert into the cryptocurrency space and has is a primary investor in a platform called WonderFi, which aim to bring DeFi to the masses.

Kristin Smith: (02:43)
So really a fantastic panel. One quick thought before we get started is several years ago, Mark Andreson wrote a very famous piece I believe it was in the Wall Street Journal that said, "Software is eating the world." Crypto is software and as a good friend of mine Amanda Casa pointed out to me last week. That means crypto is eating the world. And I think what our conversation today will hopefully help you hone in and grasp this point. So with that, why don't we start with you Sam, I want to talk about culture a little bit before we get into the finance piece. FTX has engaged with some major celebrities before we get into how crypto's impacting culture. Can we talk a little bit about how culture is impacting crypto and what you see that role is in bringing crypto to the masses?

Sam Bankman-Fried: (03:36)
Totally. Thanks for me, first of all. When we think about where crypto is today, and I think even more so where FTX is, were one of the newest crypto platforms, certainly the newest of the large ones. We are really proud of what we built and I think there's a lot of exciting things going on in crypto and despite all the adoption that we've seen for the ecosystem over the last few years, it still is touching a pretty small fraction of the world. When you put it into context, a pretty small fraction of transactions are happening through crypto, a pretty small fraction of people transact with crypto in any ways. And so I think a lot of what we've been thinking is like, what are ways that we can take what we see as an exciting growing set of products in industry, and introduce them to tens of millions of people in a way which doesn't dilute the brand, but instead strengthens and underscores it.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (04:37)
We've been working with Tom Brady, you've been working with Stuff Curry with Major League Baseball with TSM and others. And I think that a lot of what we're looking at there is how do we get tens of millions of people engaged with the cryptocurrency ecosystem? And we could buy tens of millions of Facebook Ads. And I don't know, maybe we should, at some point, we'll hire a team to look into whether that is worth doing, but that's not a thing which is going to really make the same sort of impact on people. Anyone can potentially do that.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (05:14)
And instead what we've really been looking for, like who are partners that we're really excited about and are really excited about us? Who can help represent us and who we can really work with in a way to build something stronger and more powerful than what we had. And I think I'll let him talk about more, but we've been working, with Kevin as well on this, which we're really excited about. And on other [Madison 00:05:45] work have been working with Jeremy and Anatoly on the product side a lot, which has been super exciting too.

Kristin Smith: (05:52)
Awesome. Anatoly maybe we could go to you for a second. I always thought of Solana originally, which by the way, I had heard about for the first time from your son, Jeremy, who told me to buy it like 18 months ago. And I really regret not doing that.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (06:08)
Think you heard about from me.

Kristin Smith: (06:09)
But in Anatoly, when I first thought abouts Solana, I thought of it for decentralized finance or I applications, but it turns out it's also been a great place for NFTs. And actually just like over the weekend, there was an NFT that was sold on Solana that was valued at over a million dollars for the first time. So, super exciting. Can you talk a little bit about what the role of blockchains is on culture and how artists are getting involved and some of the cool things that you're working on there?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (06:40)
For sure. I think the beauty of this technology is that it really gives the tools for artists to scale their work globally, without depending on traditional finance infrastructure, where if you're an artist that wanted to sell paintings, hundred million dollars worth of volume of paintings, you would need galleries lawyers, legal support in every jurisdiction in the world. And that's just a huge ask. For an up and coming artist. You really need to build up to that level, but with blockchain, those rules are enforced with software and they're unbreakable. So somebody that catches the right idea at the right time can spend maybe a day, maybe it took him like years to build this, but if they release it on chain, they're guaranteed that the financial support that they need is already there, and it's free. And the code and the infrastructure that is based on blockchain is designed to really give us much value to the artist as possible and extract the least amount of value from the process. That's really the goal of this technology is how do you eliminate the sand and the gears?

Kristin Smith: (07:56)
So Jeremy NFTs are for much more than just artwork. Can you talk about some of the other types of assets that can be incorporated into NFTs and then also what Circle is doing to help empower some of these businesses?

Jeremy Allaire: (08:10)
Sure. Yeah. I mean, I think the way that we look at it, I mean, the general concept is crypto's really good at proving a record, it's great at establishing providence of ownership and allowing that ownership to be highly liquid and exchangeable and tradeable. And I think a lot of people years ago, if you remember the interest in the space was like, how do you tokenize real estate? Or how do you tokenize stock in a company or real world things? And I think what NFTs really represent is that the friction is pretty high when you cross over into those established kind of juries, sort of legal frameworks, but with intellectual property, especially digital intellectual property, the barriers are super low. And so it's naturally, I think the first place where you're seeing this really explode, and that obviously is finding it's way in particular creative expression, creative outlets, but it's now moving into other arenas.

Jeremy Allaire: (09:12)
So owning moments, owning entitlements, owning brands that are attached to entitlements, all these kinds of things that were hard to do are now really easy to do. And so there's just a huge amount of experimentation beyond that. And I don't know if I have it right Sam, but I think you could buy like a pair of FTX socks that includes a lunch with you, or so something like that, but something like that, pretty powerful stuff. But in all seriousness, I think what we're seeing is just lots and lots of people who are trying to take lots of categories of intellectual property and digital intellectual property and represent that using this methodology.

Jeremy Allaire: (09:54)
And so what we're doing I mean, basically, I mean, we provide payment and treasury infrastructure for digital currency applications, for financial applications. And one of the very fastest growing categories is just people building different types of NFT apps, NFT markets, these kinds of things. And we're really just trying to make it really simple and seamless for people to go from the legacy fiat system into actual digital currencies. So you can transact in these markets and transact with these items. So we're a bit of a arm supplier to all the different people who are trying out lots of different stuff in creating NFTs.

Kristin Smith: (10:27)
So Kevin, as a bit of a cultural icon yourself, what brought you to crypto? It seems that this wasn't something you were always bought in on. What changed your mind and what makes you excited about this space?

Kevin O'Leary: (10:40)
I was a very vocal non advocate back in 2017 because I'm forced to live in a world. I service pension funds and institutions with indexing. We are a 100% compliant, 100% of the time. And my first purchase was not in our operating company. I just bought some Ethereum and some Bitcoin in a wallet myself back in 2017. And one day just talked about it on television, on business press. And my compliance officer called me up while I was still in the green room saying, "Are you outta your mind? Are you out of your mind? We cannot have this dialogue because we're going to get a call." And sure enough, we did. And what's changed is the regulatory environment because I don't have the option to be noncompliant. I don't even have that at all, but slowly and surely in other jurisdictions first Switzerland, Germany, France, Australia, England, Canada, which has allowed ETFs now with Ethereum and with Bitcoin.

Kevin O'Leary: (11:53)
So I changed when the regulator changed and I'm very interested in crypto now as an asset class and in my world, let's say you're running a billion dollar mandate, which is a typical mutual fund or ETF or whatever. And generally, if you're compliant with your own compliant department, there's 11 sectors in the S&P for example you're allowed to go up to 20%, in one sector and up to 5% in any one name, that's generally how it works. I argue today that crypto is the 12th sector of the S&P that's what it is. It doesn't mean I have to have everything in Bitcoin and I don't want to have everything in Bitcoin.

Kevin O'Leary: (12:38)
I want to have a portfolio of crypto coin, chain, tokens, whatever is compliant, and what's going to happen here and what we need to do and why I'm so happy. We have these dialogues and these conferences think about the typical institution every night at 4:01, they mark to market every position they have, the internal compliance department sees it, how much leverage is used, what the positions are. Is it within mandate? Not over 5%, whatever it is. Then their external auditors come in on a weekly or quarterly or annual basis and sign those auditing statements. Then they issue that report to the regulator. We don't have that infrastructure in crypto right now. On this stage there's two guys trying to do it, Sam and FTX and Jeremy here with Circle. And I'm definitely involved with both of them because I want to be getting that, but it took me months just to get my first purchase done on Circle with my own compliance department barking at me like a dog saying, "No, no, no, we can't do this."

Kevin O'Leary: (13:44)
And I'm saying, we got to do it. We got to get there. We have to figure it out. And my auditor and the regulated reports we going to put out and it's working same with Sam. I want to build a portfolio in FTX, because it's big enough that I can be compliant. I'm saying to everybody on this, if we solve this, there's trillions of dollars coming into this in the 12 sector of the S&P that's what it's going to be. So that's our job. We got to solve for compliance. It's boring, but it really matters.

Kristin Smith: (14:14)
Well. Yeah. And as somebody who's on the ground in Washington, looking at the regulatory side we have had some great progress, but there are still some things that if we could clear up, I think, would address that misconception that many compliance teams have. So well, why don't we pivot then into financial services a little bit because we do believe that finance is one of the first places that we're seeing crypto networks have an impact. And maybe we'll start actually with you Anatoly, can you talk a little bit about Solana and why it's different from other blockchains and what are the types of decentralized finance services that are being built on top of Solana?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (14:59)
Sure. In a lot of ways, Solana is ideologically very close to every other blockchain, it's a decentralized ledger that records AMP that has happens on it. The differences in terms of the architecture, how it's built is it's designed for speed. It's a technology. And when I think of technology, I think of Moore's law, Intel, the folks that build chips that are faster and faster every two years, if you're building a technology then as those guys make progress, your technology should get cheaper and faster. And this is the core thesis of how we architected the whole thing. Is that every two years when Intel, AMD ships a faster and cheaper chip than the network itself gets twice as performant, has more bandwidth, more capacity, and the cost to users should drop accordingly. And that's really the thesis of it.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (15:55)
Can we build a network that extracts the least amount of value from the applications running on top of it? And the rest is a high performance operating system that in my case, I spend my career at Qualcomm building brew and a bunch of mobile operating system. A lot of the ideas that went into developing those are now being developed on top of Solana. And we see it as a technology that is very well aligned to the tools and development practices that were prevailing at places like Apple, Intel, Google and stuff like that.

Kristin Smith: (16:31)
That's very cool. Sam, you own an exchange, you own a derivatives exchange in crypto exchange. But you've also been involved with Project Serum, a decentralized exchange. Can you talk a little bit about that and how that works and maybe to slowly ease into the regulatory conversation any sort of regulatory concerns you have around that?

Sam Bankman-Fried: (16:54)
Yeah, so really the genesis for that was, we started looking at DeFi a year ago. Well, I guess a year and a half ago now. And what became clear really quickly was that first of all, there were some really cool things going on in DeFi. And I think just to illustrate part of that, if you have a DeFi protocol which basically it's a company or a program, or some protocol, some system, which is built entirely into a blockchain, it's all transparent. It's 100% transparent, it's 100% predictable, what will happen given how people interface with it. And that means that if a third party comes and wants to integrate that protocol they can, and you can get potentially the sort of exponential explosion of creativity and innovation because all of these different parts can be composable into each other.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (17:48)
If you build a borrow lending protocol, then any other protocol on that blockchain can integrate it natively in which just doesn't work in centralized finance in the same way. And so it was really cool. There's a ton of hype around it. And it also absolutely sucked to use, it was unbelievably bad. And I think for those who haven't used DeFi and a lot of those who have it's worth just running side by side a DeFi protocol in a centralized one, just reminding yourself of how painful it sometimes is. And the reason is it was taking five minutes to finalize a transaction because the blockchain was completely overwhelmed. It cost $50 to click a button because you had to outbid everyone else trying to get their transactions in. And what became clear really quickly was that scaling the problem of scaling a blockchain wasn't one of the 17 constraints on a blockchain. It was the single blocker to mass adoption.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (18:54)
You cannot have a billion people using a chain that has 10 transactions per second. It just doesn't work. There's no two ways around it that map doesn't work. And in order to take these programs and scale them to masses or even scale them to a single large enterprise, you needed to get into tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of transactions per a second just take your favorite big enterprise. Whether it's a protocol, a company, a messaging protocol, whatever, it's going to have a million transactions a second, that's what it means to have a billion users. And you needed a blockchain that could keep up with at that. So we just had phone calls with a lot of blockchains.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (19:33)
And I don't know, our call with Solana was very different than our calls with other blockchains, one of the first things that Yakovenko said was, "Hey, we've been thinking about how many transactions do we need to do things like we want to get wherever we need to get? And like, here's where we are now. And here's a place you can go test it out." And so anyway, what I'm think I'm really excited about is a lot of the applications that bring built on so Solana and it's one of the few places in DeFi right now where you can see it scaling to a billion users and it's not there right now. It probably has another factor of what, 50 to go or something.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (20:16)
But that's a lot better than a factor of 50,000. And like Anatoly said, one of the foundings or principles of Solana is that it gets better over time, that it gets better with Moore's law, that it has an ambition to be able to service billions of users with millions of transactions per second. And we just see that sort of the holy grail of what DeFi could become. And so we've helped people build out Dexus on the Solana blockchain, serum being one of them. I don't know, as I've invested in a number of projects on the Solana blockchain in the serum ecosystem. We've worked a lot with Jeremy, Circle has added Solana support for USDC stablecoin, which now all of a sudden you have a massively scalable, stable object that can act as a pricing reference and pricing currency for transactions happening and for payments happening on Solana.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (21:17)
And again, you go to a payment company and you're like, "Hey, can you try to integrate crypto?" And they're like, "Great, we have 17,000 payments per second in this subclass that we'd like to test out on your network. How does that sound?" And your answer, but be like, "Yeah, we can make that work rather than can you try 17 without the thousand." And that's really where it all came from. Nothing is there yet. No DeFi protocols are at the level where centralized protocols have to be quaking in their boots because they're going to be overtaken tomorrow, but that's not the goal. The goal is moving, making progress and building the fundamentals and the infrastructure is something that could get there, that could get to a point where real large systems decide that it is the correct decision for their business to build on a blockchain. And I think up domestically we're a year or two away from getting real adoption there. If the industry builds its products right, plays its cards right. And I'm really excited about that progress.

Kristin Smith: (22:20)
Yeah, no, I think when I'm in Washington and I'm talking to policy makers, they're like, "This stuff, isn't useful. There's nothing that anyone's actually doing with this, is improving their lives." And I'm constantly having to reframe the conversation to this is still early stages, and there's a lot of great development that's going to lay the groundwork for all of these things to come. But Jeremy why don't you tell us a little bit about USDC and stable coins and what their role is both on the payment side, but maybe also as they work with the decentralized finance world. Because I think as Sam alluded to there is a lot of use of USDC in the world of DeFi.

Jeremy Allaire: (23:04)
Yeah, sure. I mean, I think the problem that we set out to solve was even when starting the company and then eventually when the technology got to a point where you could actually build something like USDC was, how can you build a protocol for dollars on the internet? How can we actually have something akin to being able to have photos like JPEGs on the internet or music files or streaming video, but actually have a protocol where anyone anywhere connected to the internet, can transact with anyone else anywhere. With the backing of something like a dollar and that technology really only became viable with second generation blockchains to do it well. And that's when we introduced, we started working on it four years ago and introduced it a few years ago, but a lot of people asked, "Well, what's the use case for this?"

Jeremy Allaire: (23:53)
And my use case is what's the use case for a dollar? And so I really think that it's actually going to have more use cases than existing dollars because you can do more things with a digital currency dollar than you can with a traditional dollar. And we see this even today, you see micro payments for a piece of digital intellectual property on a network, like an NFT on Solana to people who are using this to settle billion dollar trades and everything in between. And I think there's been boots strapping of this in the capital markets function of crypto. And so it's been really, really important for people who are trading to have stable settlement, irreversible settlement around the world. And I think that's been really key and we're just now as Sam was pointing out and really looking at infrastructure like Solana as well, we're really just now getting to a point where this can now start to be connected to everyday payments.

Jeremy Allaire: (24:49)
And if you have a way to I mean, the USDC on Solana today, as an example, you can settle a transaction in milliseconds, several hundred milliseconds. It has throughput to handle like real consumer scale applications and a tiny fraction of ascent. You that's incredible. And that's not with the centralized network, that's running on a decentralized infrastructure. And so I think we're just now starting to see, and we're seeing this in our own business, mainstream institutions, whether they be financial institutions, FinTechs, consumer companies, commerce companies connecting up to this. And I think that's tremendously exciting. And I think the timeline of one to two years is right in terms of when this will reach many, many hundreds of millions of people and then eventually billions of people. So I think we're making progress.

Jeremy Allaire: (25:33)
And then the payment utility piece is great and I think our vision has always been that payments is just going to be a commodity free service on the internet. There's not really going to be a business model and payments in the future. It just like, there's not a business model for transmitting data or emails or things like that. Those are just commodity free services for everyone. And the real value is going to be once you have hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in these stable value, digital currencies that they'll be used in capital allocation, capital markets, they'll be used really, really broadly in a lot of other applications. And so I think part of what we're excited about is all these building blocks in decentralized capital markets infrastructure, which is what like serum represents and so on are starting to come online and will be major, major uses of this in the coming years.

Kristin Smith: (26:25)
Kevin, tell us a little bit about WonderFi and how you see a roadmap for bringing DeFi from this early stage to something where a consumer can actually go and get a loan or do some financial service without going through traditional intermediate?

Kevin O'Leary: (26:44)
Well, what I hope WonderFi becomes and I'm very proud of it. The genesis of it is that it's a use case in our operating company. About 18 months ago, we reduced our exposure to commercial real estate and it generated a lot of cash. And we went to our cash desk and said, what can we do on short duration? And they said, 20 basis points, 21 basis points. Inflation is 2%. So that was the first time I said, wait a minute, this isn't going to work. And we started to look at platforms like FTX and Circle to try and solve for that. That's what got me into stable coins, because we started to explore that. But if you are a consumer and you are 18 years old, and you're making zero in your bank of whatever account, and you want to actually get some yield that keeps pace with inflation, you can't do, it's not easy to set yourself up unless you're really out there in the crypto community.

Kevin O'Leary: (27:46)
WonderFi is going to attempt and I think it's going to do a great job to really simplify this for anybody, an app based product, you download it, you ACH X dollars into your account. It writes the contracts for you. It generates the 1,099 for compliance. It does everything you have to do to stay compliant, even as a regular individual being taxed in whatever jurisdiction you're using it in. And that's the beginning of it. I'm very fortunate I took it public a couple of weeks ago and now it was well received. It's one of the very first public DeFi consumer platforms in the world. It's in Canada, where the regulator is very accommodative. It will soon be in Germany and we will continue to do it around the world. And then have the different use cases for it. I'm very interested in NFTs for example, but not every NFT, I'm investing in NFTs for high end watches.

Kevin O'Leary: (28:47)
There's a community of people out there that have billions of dollars tied up in watches. They're all insane. I'm one of them. And we want to be able to have a way to authenticate our inventory of ones we own with a maker of proving it. I want the WonderFi app to also be able to allow people to easily own those NFTs without knowing anything about how to set up a wallet or anything else. It's attempting to simplify it. Now, I'm very fortunate I have a very large social media following. I'm getting a lot of feedback from our base, Josh Richards who's a phenom on TikTok is an investor, as well as Sam. I think he supports some democratization of this and we're very excited about where this is going, but it's really about simplifying it and making it really easy.

Kevin O'Leary: (29:41)
I mean, we're all in tuned and excited about crypto, but it's not easy to use. And it's nearly impossible to be compliant. You cannot afford not to disclose your capital gains and your income, if any, to the tax man, I don't care if you're 18 or 84, I'm the compliant guy. I live in that world saying, okay, how do we get the forms out? How do we get the 1090s? How do we make sure these people never get in trouble? That's the value of WonderFi.

Kristin Smith: (30:12)
Well, in the last third of the conversation here, I do want to talk about something you brought up earlier Kevin, and that's the regulatory issues, but maybe we'll start with Sam. Sam, where do you live and why?

Sam Bankman-Fried: (30:26)
It's a good question. And I grew up here in the States. I worked here in New York for a number of years for Jane Street had a great time there. I was in the Bay Area till 2018 and then spent a bunch of time in Hong Kong. And the context there are a number of pieces of it. One of which is that crypto is really a global business. And there is a U.S. economy there's an Eastern economy, there's a European economy, there's an African economy. And especially, I think coming from a Western background, it was really important to be able to meet a lot of people in person to form those connections and those relationships to build up a multicultural team that could help understand where different users are coming from.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (31:33)
And I think you see really different demands and use cases from different parts of the world. I think, especially if you have less trust of banks in a country, you're going to start to see a lot of demand for an alternative way to store your assets. And I think that that creates very different dynamics in different places. We've recently been building out our offices in a number of places in Bahamas Gibraltar. And we also have a U.S. operation, which is at this point, biggest offices in Chicago, I've been flying between them because helping to foster the international exchange, helping to foster the U.S. exchange. We've hired a really great leadership team there with Brett and Ryan and others. In Chicago, I've been a little more stuck than I wanted to be recently because of quarantine and COVID as the world, hopefully it will open things up.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (32:39)
I have to be mobile one way or another. We're frankly trying to decide where the right places are to have the bulk of our workforce. And I think that the factors that are going into that basically are a combination of who's taking the lead on crypto regulation? Who's taking the lead on licensing? We have licenses, a number of jurisdictions and we are applying for licenses in a number of other jurisdictions. And I think getting to your question here, that's a really important piece of this is right now, many, many regulators are looking hard at crypto. And I think some of them are taking the lead on building out regulatory frameworks. Some examples that obviously the MAS in Singapore we've been in discussion in Singapore, been working on licensing, we don't have one, but we've started that process.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (33:31)
We've been in the United States, recently acquired a features exchange license through [inaudible 00:33:41], which we're really excited about, really excited about the paradigm the CFTC has, I think built for a while there. And I think it's been sort of living a little bit below radar. But I think that could be a huge piece of the industry going forward because it allows for futures and frankly, a lot of other contracts and you look at what call she has built on top of LX through the CFTC regime with event contracts. We're really excited about that. And there are a number of other regulars who are popping on the map.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (34:14)
And so I think basically the biggest things we're looking at actually are where is their licensing? And I think especially actually, there are a lot of countries that have started the licensing process, but haven't yet built licenses that can accommodate futures or derivatives that haven't built licenses that can accommodate a lot of the types of products that frankly are the bulk of volume in every asset class. And then frankly, honestly, quarantine's, I important to us to be able to get employees into a now future jurisdiction. This is not something we were thinking about three years ago when we were choosing office locations. It's now like our number two criteria. Can we get people basically into the country if we can. It's hard to hire. It's hard to grow.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (34:57)
And I think that that's becoming one of our top criteria for where we're going to be building out offices, where people are going to be moving and frankly that's changing on a monthly basis. It's pretty frustrating not to have sort of long term clarity on that, but those are the factors I think, going forward. And I'm going to be help building out our regulated offices is in probably four or five jurisdictions over the next year.

Kristin Smith: (35:27)
Okay. Jeremy, Circle is one of the most regulated crypto companies, I think in the United States you have just about as many licenses as anyone has. Can you talk a little bit about your regulatory structure that you have to deal with? But then maybe also talk a little bit about, there was some news last week that Coinbase announced that they aren't going to be moving forward with their lend product, which was related to USDC maybe give your thoughts on that. And I know Kevin, you have some thoughts on that as well.

Jeremy Allaire: (35:59)
Yeah, sure. I mean, I think when we got started in 2013, there was zero regulation. But the Treasury Department had basically said, "If you're going to sit at the intersection of the banking system and virtual currency, as they called it, you needed to be a money transmitter." So that was the first thing we did is we went out and got licensed in all the states as a money transmitter, the sort of first crypto company to get all those licenses. And then New York had a special license called the bid license and we got the first bid license. And then we did the same thing in Europe and went after an e-money issuer license. We also operate a broker dealer and then ATS. So those are a few of the things, and then an international entity, a couple international entities that are licensed as well.

Jeremy Allaire: (36:45)
But I think the big thing is regulation around global scale stable, coins is definitely a moving target. The framework for electronic money, and mission and stored value money transmission, I think has been a good one. But clearly as these go from tens of billions to hundreds of billions to potentially trillions of dollars of value, banking regulators and national regulators are looking a lot more seriously at it. And so that's one of the reasons why we're in the process of preparing an application to be a national commercial bank but we're interested in full reserve banking, not fractional reserve banking. And so there's a journey ahead for us on that. But I think the reality is as these get used at scale and if other financial institution want to build on top of this and do that at scale, that structure is definitely going to evolve we think certainly for centrally issued stable coins like USDC.

Jeremy Allaire: (37:50)
I think there are a lot of other major regulatory issues in the space, not just related to payments and banking, obviously exchanges and securities and all that fun stuff. But I think that maybe ties in, we all know that and referencing Kevin's comments as well. There's been a rapidly growing lending and borrowing market in USDC itself and in other crypto assets but USDC has become a really common form of digital currency to borrow and lend, and that's really grown significantly. So we have a product which is a yield service that's available exclusively to businesses, so we're not offering it to retail individuals.

Jeremy Allaire: (38:39)
But our view is that if you're going to offer a product where people are essentially making an investment and getting essentially like a fixed income type product, that that's a security. So we designed and launched our yield as a security and it's exclusively available to accredited businesses and it's offered through a regulatory regime as well, where there's a supervisory framework around it and around the risk management. And I think for these markets to really take, hold and get scale, and if you really want this to be something that is ultimately grow into tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowing and lending, it's going to have to fit in those kinds of models. I think that's somewhat different than of the retail products that are out there.

Kristin Smith: (39:27)
Kevin, did you have any thoughts on the Coinbase news last week?

Kevin O'Leary: (39:31)
About regulators?

Kristin Smith: (39:32)
The regulators.

Kevin O'Leary: (39:34)
Yeah. I would make this comments. Somehow over the last, I don't know, two years the popular press position, the crypto community as an adversary to regulators globally, and that's simply not true. And it's very stupid because probably some large percentage of the constituency in this room is somehow tied to financial institutions one way or another. And we have not even tapped. There's so many institutions that don't even play in this space of although they want to. And the primary reason is their compliance departments and the tone of that relationship between the crypto community and the regulator. And every week, we hear another case of somebody in a position of power let's call it that that's running a large crypto company striking out at the regulator really bad idea.

Kevin O'Leary: (40:38)
There is zero upside in that, because the regulator wants to solve for this because this, and I'll say it again. It's going to be the 12th sector, the S&P there's no question about it. It's not going away. And the demand is huge. The tone should be that of accommodating their concerns. I'll give you an case study this NFT investment I'm making in watches. Is it a security, or is it a piece of art? I can't go forward until it's resolved. I can't just throw it out there and start trading it all over the place, not knowing that outcome. And so I'm willing to reach out as an advocate to that one little sliver of NFTs and say to the regulator, "Give me guidance. Let's work together."

Kevin O'Leary: (41:23)
And if it is security, tell me I'm good. I'm good with it. I will treat it that way. I'm not fighting you on it. Just give me the rules so I can play football. You can't play football without the rules. And that's where we're at here. And the upside to solving this problem is trillions of dollars of assets that will pour into this. You want to see Bitcoin at a $100,000? You got to let the regulator determine what terms they'll allow it to go into an ETF. It's that simple. Look, what happened in Canada. They got a billion dollars demand in a matter of hours in just the first Bitcoin product. And it wasn't even institutional. It was just simply retail saying, "Oh, it must be safe. I can buy it and put it in my count online." And the regulator said, "It's okay." So my thing is, as a community, we have to form a lobby voice and say, "We are here to serve and protect just like you are, give us the rules so we can go back and play football." That's simple.

Kristin Smith: (42:29)
Well, and as that voice we represent 50 companies in watch, Washington, D.C. that are part of our trade association. And we do go and speak with regulators and are actively trying to bring ideas to them. That makes sense. Because what we don't want is to just put regulation on this new system and that doesn't address the actual risks, but we need something that is appropriate and gets the same goals, but doesn't in a way that's that makes. But one of the things that we focus on when we're interacting with regulators is it's very important to distinguish between the people developing the software and yes, crypto does have centralized intermediaries that are interacting with customers or taking custody of funds. But Anatoly can you give us your thoughts as you guys have built out and your company has helped contribute to these projects? Have you had regulatory concerns or do you feel that you're free to do what you want without having to think too much about regulation?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (43:30)
The challenge, I think it really hits teams that are trying to build and innovate in the space, like the example that Kevin brought up this idea that at 401, they check all the positions and check leverage and manage risk. Two guys built this as a smart contract. It runs on Solana. Those checks happen every 400 milliseconds and they balance a bunch of lenders and a bunch of borrowers without ever taking custody of the funds. It's just a bunch of software. So what does this team do in terms of regulation? How do they define the risk for themselves as founders? Where should they base their product out of, which jurisdiction? So if you're a startup and you just raised a really successful one and a half million dollar seed raise, which is massive amounts of runway for two, three people and the compliance in the U.S. is going to cost you 3 million compliance, somewhere else is going to be much, much cheaper, those folks are making those choices every day.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (44:32)
And that's really, I think the risks aren't that these products are not going to get built. They're going to get built because they're awesome. It's that they're going to get built elsewhere. And that's really, me as somebody that's been living in United States since my family were refugees from the Soviet Union in '91, that's really sad for me to see, I just want all this stuff happen to happen here.

Kristin Smith: (44:57)
We only have a couple minutes well left, but I want to do one more quick question before we get some final thoughts from everybody. How do we see in maybe 30 seconds or less the traditional finance world, or I guess tradfy, is that what we're calling it these days? Will they be embracing DeFi or is that going to be attention between those two worlds, but maybe just quick answer Sam.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (45:26)
I mean, I think there's a lot of work that has to be done before that decision can even be made. I think that right now DeFi isn't quite ready. I am optimistic it will be in the next couple years. Once it does, I think you're going to see companies decide that they are best off working with decentralized ledgers. I think we've already started to see those. I mean, you've seen Visa as an example, really embrace blockchain technology in a large number of ways. And they've seem to have made the decision that they want to try to find a way to work with I think emerging technologies and grow stronger from it.

Sam Bankman-Fried: (46:09)
I'm guessing you're going to see a number of companies make those statements. I'm guessing you're going to see a number of companies not make those statements. And I think that's going to be a task way of saying maybe they're not going to be actively fighting against crypto. But they're not a planning to work with DeFi, they're not planning to work with blockchain and they're going to be trying to hold their turf there. I think you're just going to see a split depending frankly, on gut calls from the leadership of lot of different companies with some going in one way, some going in another way it's going to be messy.

Kristin Smith: (46:43)
I see only have about five minutes left, so I'm going to just cut to the last question which I want to ask of everybody. Maybe we'll start with you, Kevin. So what is your prediction for where we will be 10 years from now, in the crypto space since it's going to change everything?

Kevin O'Leary: (47:03)
Let me tell you the one of the I'll make it short and sweet. Let's say a traditional mandate such as I want to go long Europe. I'm going to buy 50 stocks. I have to buy Swiss Franks, Euro based stocks, and British Pounds because I want to trade them on their domestic exchanges. In between me and that transaction is what called the bane of the earth. The FX trader, the currency trader who clips me every time I buy and sell, adds zero value, zero value and sucks friction out of the system and has my entire adult life as I've traded in Europe. I can't wait until we solve this problem and give them a new career shining shoes because they add no value whatsoever. This is where DeFi can take us on just one use case, but it's a multi-billion dollar one, and I want to be alive to have a regulator domestically, allow me a payment system to a Swiss Frank back and forth if I want to trade it 50 times a day with zero FX traders, that's my mission in life to help them find a real job.

Kristin Smith: (48:15)
Jeremy, where will we be 10 years from now?

Jeremy Allaire: (48:18)
Yeah, I mean, I guess I look at this from a couple of lenses, I think from the payments finance commerce lens. I mean, I think we'll be in a world where exchanging value is just this ubiquitous commodity free thing, and people don't even think about that and things like what Kevin described will be obviously the case. I'm really interested in the impact on capital markets and the internet has been amazing at creating these multi-sided platforms that create these incredibly like long tails, so long tail markets in advertising and content and media and retail. And I think that access to capital will be transformed on internet capital markets. And that will be a radically different world than things like Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange. But I guess the final comment is just I look at this way beyond finance. I mean, I think these are operating systems that are going to really restructure how the basic units of the economy function or corporations, everything else.

Kristin Smith: (49:25)
Anatoly?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (49:27)
I mean, in 10 years, imagine a world with more than a billion people with self custody, with cryptography that hold their own keys and understand how to use them at the same level of people understand how to browse the internet. That world is going to be as unpredictable as the internet in the '90s trying to predict that sharing pictures that are cats is going to be worth a trillion dollars. It's just something that I feel will revolutionize, like Jeremy said, every industry that we know today. Communities will never need advertisement to self monetize, folks can communicate and make financial decisions without any intermediaries at global scale. So what you see today with 10 million users in crypto, it's really going to be a dramatic change.

Kristin Smith: (50:16)
Sam?

Sam Bankman-Fried: (50:18)
I think the downside is the industry can't find it's footing. But I think in the upside case, which I'm optimistic will be able to reach, I don't know, 25% of activity could be on blockchains. I don't think 100% will be. I don't think a Bagel really will be, because you can't eat a blockchain or a block. But when you tweet, I think that tweet could be natively on a blockchain when you pay for something that payment could go through blockchain rails when you invest that can go through blockchain rails, huge swabs of industry can be rebuilt in open, composable, efficient ways on blockchain technology. And I think could really lead to a [inaudible 00:51:03] explosion of innovation if it's done right. And if it's done in a compliant way, and if industry can work with regulators to make that happen.

Kristin Smith: (51:14)
I'm going to make my own prediction. And that is that we were going to spend more money on digital goods than on physical goods in our home. Because all I know, I don't know about you guys, but I usually just wear yoga clothes and I stare at a computer screen all day long. So I would like that world to be more reflective of my personality, so. Well we are right at time. So why don't we give a round of applause to our fantastic panel.

Building a Multichain Digital Asset World | #SALTNY

Building a Multichain Digital Asset World with Steve Kokinos, Chief Executive Officer, Algorand. Jeff Schumacher, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, NAX Group. Anthony Scaramucci, Founder & Managing Partner, SkyBridge.

Moderated by Sarah Kunst, Managing Director, Cleo Capital.

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Kokinos, Steve - Cropped.jpeg

Steve Kokinos

Chief Executive Officer

Algorand

Headshot - Schumacher, Jeff - Cropped.jpeg

Jeff Schumacher

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

NAX Group

 
Headshot - Scaramucci, Anthony.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

MODERATOR

Headshot - Kunst, Sarah - Cropped.jpeg

Sarah Kunst

Managing Director

Cleo Capital

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Sarah Kunst: (00:07)
Awesome. I am so excited to chat about this, because there's some fun stuff happening that you guys have announced this week, and we're going to dive in. So Steve, why don't you tell us a little bit about what Algorand is?

Steve Kokinos: (00:20)
Sure. So Algorand is a developer of public blockchain protocols and technology. And I think if you take a step back, what blockchains really represent is a shift where the world can transact with people that ordinarily would have no reason to trust each other. And I think in the world that we know, you really need to understand who the person is on the other side of the table, who the firm is, and whether that's acceptable to you. And I think what that really means is there's a broader shift from a world where we're trusting people to one where we're trusting code.

Steve Kokinos: (00:58)
And I think the reality of that is it opens up all sorts of fascinating possibilities for new markets and new opportunities. But it also means that you really need to trust the underlying technology and code and understand that security. And at Algorand we have some of the most interesting researchers in the world, led by Silvio Micali, and have really thought through how you scale these networks from relatively small networks to billions of users around the world. And I think that's something that we've been focused on from day one and are really excited to see the evolution of.

Sarah Kunst: (01:44)
I'm excited too. I think we all are. Jeff, tell us about NAX group.

Jeff Schumacher: (01:45)
NAX stands for New Asset Exchange. And basically what it does is it works with corporate partners and takes assets that they have that are at scale and transforms them into new digital assets or alternative assets. It's like we're building the NASDAQ with the exception of everything that goes on our exchange we've built. So we have a development arm that mines the corporate assets, a technology arm that helps us transform them, a securitization arm that allows us to create liquidity and then a DeFi platform which we depend heavily on Algorand for. So that's the connection.

Sarah Kunst: (02:23)
I love it. The young man on the end, do you mind introducing yourself?

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:25)


Sarah Kunst: (02:31)
I think everybody knows you. So guys, this is an interesting point in time, right? What's happening in the market? Why now? Why have you been making, one, tell us about your big announcement and why this week, why now?

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:44)
Well, there's many different reasons, but I think the number one reason after doing extensive research on tier one protocols, it became clear to SkyBridge and the research team that Algorand is going to have a very big future in DeFi. Will there be a hundred? I can say that, likely not. Will there be three to five that will say that? Well, we believe that there will. And when you think of Algorand's interoperability and you think of the anti fragility of Algorand's technical properties in terms of the way you can lay out transactions.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:20)
And I'm going to quote Gary Gensler for a second. For those of you that remember this, Gary was on the faculty with Silvio Micali who created Algorand. And Gary said prior to entering his posts, his political post at the SEC, that this was going to be the big backbone, the big DeFi engine, the big blockchain. And he said that as an example, he actually used this and I put it up on Twitter about a week ago, the exact quote was, as an example, you could build all of Uber on the back of an Algorand. And I think what Steve and Jeff recognize is that combining their forces and having us have institutions take a look at it alongside of us, this is going to be a very powerful trinity or trifecta that will start laying out lots and lots of great applications and great, great ideas.

Sarah Kunst: (04:11)
I love it. So that, I mean, what... This is the time, right? And what better place than SALT to how have this conversation about why now. So tell me more about unlock, right. What does this mean, particularly for the institutional space?

Jeff Schumacher: (04:30)
Well, I think it means, if you look at what Anthony just shared and what he can bring is this institutional infrastructure to this. And if you look at the NAX, what we're bringing is we're bringing at scale corporate infrastructure to this. And then you take in what Steve has and what Algorand has is the DeFi infrastructure. And you put that together and we're capable of unlocking completely new different business models. And where I see it as like the Dutch Indie company in 1670 created stocks. And what grew into that is the current financial infrastructure we see today. Well, what we have at the NAX and these new assets doesn't require all of that infrastructure. So you can create entirely new businesses. You can go a lot quicker. You're not necessarily going around regulation. NAX, we embrace it because regulation walks you back, but you do not need this massive infrastructure that exists today. And I think this is the time.

Steve Kokinos: (05:30)
One thing I'd add is that what we're starting to see are scaled applications like you're building at NAX but also we're seeing scaled user bases show up. One of the things that we focus on at Algorand or we're seeing a lot of adoption are national projects. One example of how these things are crossing over already is the Italian music right system deployed about four and a half million NFTs onto Algorand to represent the rights of a hundred thousand Italian artists. And now we're seeing DeFi applications like Opulus, where now those artists can unlock value that they've created in the form of borrowing and lending against those music rights, selling partial royalties, and ultimately being able to create more music and art. And I think that's sort of a simple example of some of the power of how you combine these technologies, because now you have applications that never could have or would have existed in a traditional setting starting to empower people in new ways. And we think that that's pretty exciting.

Sarah Kunst: (06:36)
That's really exciting. That's, awesome. So piggybacking on that, is this a transition, or like you said, just a completely new way to get things, new things into fruition? What is not existed in traditional settings that you're able to unlock now?

Steve Kokinos: (06:56)
Well, I think it's a follow up to what I just said, which is if you put the example of the creator economy and also you bring the example of expanding audiences, we think that's a fundamental piece. And again, it goes back to this trust of code versus trust of people. But you may be an artist and have fans that would be interested in participating all over the world. We're seeing this in more traditional settings too, example would be residential real estate. We see applications on chain for that where people can invest in residential or commercial real estate in increments of as little as $50.

Steve Kokinos: (07:34)
And so now another project for the national blockchain for El Salvador, there's people there that don't typically have enough money to invest in large real estate projects. But now they can put relatively few dollars in and the universe is, or the liquidity and universe of participants is expanded in such a way that now you can reframe things and you end up with a better outcome for the investor who had no access in the past. You also end up with a better outcome for people creating assets because now they can have different forms of price discovery and liquidity than previously.

Sarah Kunst: (08:15)
More access and more assets, I love it. That's perfect. So what about you guys?

Jeff Schumacher: (08:20)
I think we have a number of, this initiative unlock has got earmarked about a handful of projects that are coming out right now. So we have a, the first one that's coming out is around consumer finance. And this craze around buy now pay later, you saw Square acquire Afterpay for 29 billion or so. And so there's this opportunity here and we're taking one that's in the consumer product space where large ticket purchase. So we're bringing that out. It'll have millions of customers that's going to launch just around black Friday and will do about 500,000 loans or so right then and there. And then we're capable of putting that on Algorand and then at the same time capable of securitizing it on the back. So it creates an entirely new financial instrument. We call it Caddy.

Jeff Schumacher: (09:09)
We have another one that's coming that's in the art space. That's again, going to come out on this unlock initiative on Algorand. And we have one of the world's largest underwriter of art. And if I just simplify this for the room, it's like, just look at the data, right, the data. And so we're all data. So if I look at the data of underwriting, there's about 25 attributes that requires you to underwrite art. But if you look inside that there's a subset of attributes, about 12 that's required to lend. So we take those 12, we stick it in a new instrument, we call the instrument watercolor. And we put a couple of our banking partners together, and we've just, bam, created the world's largest art lending platform. So if you think about it today, you can walk out of here and go into a Ferrari dealership and buy a Ferrari and get a loan right then and there for it, car financing. But you can't walk into a gallery and get art financing. It doesn't exist. So this product does exist.

Jeff Schumacher: (10:07)
If you think of even further with the COVID discussions that have been going on here at SALT, you have museums out there that have been just pummeled by COVID. Well, now we have a means to give them working capital. If you have people that are asset rich with art, you now have a means to give you working capital. And then on the backside, we're also our securities business and our trading partners, the exchanges, we're able to package that up. So you have mortgage back securities, and now you'll have art back securities. So these are just two examples, but these cannot exist without the environment we have today.

Sarah Kunst: (10:40)
I mean, I'm hearing art, I'm hearing Lamborghinis, I'm hearing black Fridays. Sign me up, you're speaking my language. So I love it. This is awesome. So what role does interoperability play in all of this?

Steve Kokinos: (10:54)
Well, if you think about the, I think the early days of the internet would be the best example I can come up with. There was AOL and computers, those platforms all largely lived on their own. And I think the early internet was seen as a strange wild place. I think the reality is that what it ultimately created though was a place where information largely flows freely anywhere that it wants to, and it's given rise to a whole variety of applications that couldn't really have been imagined in the early days. And I think that that's blockchain interoperability is of similar importance.

Steve Kokinos: (11:35)
And I think Anthony is right, we'll see a handful of scaled winning protocols that people use, but ultimately they're going to have to talk to each other because assets need to move wherever people want to use them. Users need to be able to move back and forth. And so that's something that we've done a lot of work on at Algorand, in particular, this idea of being able to capture state and cryptographically guarantee it on other platforms is something we've done a lot of work around. And so I think it's critically important. And just one last point on this is that we also believe that decentralization gives, again, people ways to transact that needs to carry through to interoperability as well. And so I think right now the first early attempts have largely been centralized. And we think that needs to shift over time as well.

Sarah Kunst: (12:28)
Awesome. What about you Jeff?

Jeff Schumacher: (12:30)
Well, I think interoperability is key. We have, and I'm trying to, I think projects make it the most relevant. Otherwise, it's a little bit esoteric what you're talking about. And Anthony and I were talking about the SALT conferences family offices, right, and institutional investors. And again, if you think about these digital assets that are getting created, they don't require that financial infrastructure that exists. So you can create these entirely new ways. So we have a product coming out that's a secondary exchange for digital assets. That doesn't work if you can't have interoperability of these assets across which again, we're going to put on the Algorand platform.

Jeff Schumacher: (13:08)
And then we've even pulling in a business that'll help the family offices plug in. It's a current venture that we're invested in. It's called iPaladin, that basically connects all of the family offices activities, the trust, the assets that they hold because if you're going to start to trade between, you have to have a way to normalize it. And that for me is that interoperability and then putting it in a decentralized environment so you can trust the data, allows for this idea of commerce to happen so.

Sarah Kunst: (13:41)
You have the best product names for, that I've ever heard from a crypto company, watercolor, iPaladin. It's like everybody else is like, magnesium train or whatever. So I like it. I like it. Shout out to the product people at NAX. They're doing-

Jeff Schumacher: (13:54)
It's just the names of Anthony before we actually roll them out.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:57)
It's not true, but they also have the greatest peril, trust me. My wife dear just wearing that NAX hat. So that's a good sign, okay. From, she doesn't like any hats, but.

Sarah Kunst: (14:06)
There you go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:07)
I want to say something because I think this is all about relationships, building relationships, expanding relationships. So 20 years ago, my old boss, Rob [Nats 00:14:18] had bought my first company. He was the President Chief Operating Officer at Neuberger Berman. We stayed close. I think Bob's been to every SALT conference since inception, probably sponsored the first one when less than 300 people were in the room. And he came to me and he said, listen, I like what you're doing with Bitcoin. I like what you're doing with Ethereum. But I want you to look at Algorand. It's faster, it's got better technology. My former team at Golden Tree has looked at it, likes it. It's got a negative carbon footprint, which Steve could take you through. And I think it's very, very important for you if you're going into this space to understand that there's going to be a few next generation leaders, tier one leaders. And I want you to go take a look at it. I'm going to introduce you to Sean who works with Steve and spend some time looking at it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:09)
Now this is the of human relationships. Jeff and I have been friends, I don't know, at least a decade. We sponsor a wine party in Davos Switzerland together, which the minute you tell people they can't go to the party, everyone wants to show up. Right, Jeff. And so we've got this world class VIP list, but we're also serving very expensive wine. But I go to lunch or breakfast, go to breakfast with Jeff at Beverly Hills hotel. I'm on his Advisory Board at the NAX. We start talking and I say, "Jeff, what do you think of Algorand? Have you done any work on Algorand?" He drops, I mean, look how thin he is. He like eats chicken sausage and some food, LA stuff. And looking at him, he drops the chicken sausage in the plate. He looks at me he's like, "Okay, you're not going to believe this. I flew back from the Bitcoin conference. I went up to Boston and I met with the Algorand team yesterday." I think it was on a Monday. You and I were having breakfast on a Tuesday.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:09)
That was several months ago and then I said, "Okay, let's see if we can put these pieces together." So one of the reasons why we love doing this conference is the relationships. So we want people to meet each other, have fun with each other, but we want them to connect commercially to see if they can find some universal qualities about each other that they like, but also can they put a business together that could be a next generation exponential business.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:37)
So I just wanted to lay that out for people. It's important for us to explain the story. It's important for us to break it down, which Steve and Jeff are obviously great at. And so if you have an interest in this, you could reach out to me, any of us. And we'll sit down, we're going to do a ton of one on one meetings. Steve and I are going to have a six city roadshow going to our relationships around the country. And we're going to cap the first fund to 250 million because there's no need to do more than that in this space at this time. But it will be a series of funds. And this is a long-term committed five to 10 year strategy of working together. And I think it's important for people to at least have the intellectual curiosity to understand why. Go ahead, Sarah.

Sarah Kunst: (17:25)
I love that. There's a lot of intellectual curiosity about what you guys are doing in this room I think. What are the macro trends, right? What's driving this overall because you're talking a lot about some awesome stuff that's happening in the blockchain. You're talking about some great real world applications. What are the big trends driving this?

Jeff Schumacher: (17:44)
Well, we see digital assets now there, we see a couple of big trends. First, the amount of money that is moving into this new value that's being created, I mean, it's gone up exponentially. I think digital assets get about a five trillion dollar market cap. It used to be just Bitcoin, it's now diversifying. So you're seeing that. You're also seeing the participation in these markets of these different, you see NFTs and some of the things that have been talked about. So around that you need infrastructure to support that and Algorand and what it's doing is quite capable of it. And then the unlock initiative that we put together is very much there.

Jeff Schumacher: (18:23)
There's another big trend if you look at what we're dealing with, which is around ESG. And we're at Davos and the Paris Accords, are a big thing. I fundamentally do not believe we will meet the Paris Accords. It just won't happen. We're not going to get there. And the reason for it is you can't get there with corporate responsibility capital and social impact capital. It can't be just throw away money. It's got to be, there's got to be new financial instruments that get created. And this type of platform allows for that. And you can get in, we have an entire ESG initiative that's led by Juan Bruce, who's somewhere sitting in here. And our partner AXA on that, which has pivoted their entire organization around this.

Jeff Schumacher: (19:05)
And the instruments that we can create that can attract new capital that this fund will actually put in money into, it's a game changer to what currently there. So you can create these new green bonds that then they attract capital. You can tokenize different activities that allow for investment in new buildings to pour the capital in to make sure that they're sustainable. And then the idea of decentralized by itself goes after not just the E but also the S and the G, the social and the governance. And you're basically democratizing markets. And so I think this ESG trend is significant. I think unlock will participate pretty heavily in that. The digital asset trend is significant. The follow the money analogy is moving that way. So these things are helping, and it's pretty exciting for what I see.

Steve Kokinos: (19:56)
Well, and just to add on the sustainability front, we agree that's hugely important. And I think somewhat overlooked in a way in this area. Algorand in particular as a network uses about, don't hold me for the exact number, around 10 homes worth of electricity. And we have seen several [crosstalk 00:20:18] what's come on chain with really novel applications. Climate trade is one example of that, where they work with the UN to source sustainable carbon credits. And they bring those into a marketplace that's on chain, on Algorand that anybody can use. One of the consumers of that is the network itself which automatically looks how much carbon is being consumed and then uses transaction fees to, in effect, purchase carbon credits that more than offset the amount of carbon being consumed by the servers that are supporting the network around the world. And I think that that's a really interesting way or use of the technology to sustain itself. But also do it in a way that isn't consuming huge amounts of power and huge amounts of computational resources that aren't needed.

Steve Kokinos: (21:06)
And I think one thing further is if you look at a simpler example, that climate trade is enabling, there're a Spanish company. If you take a flight on a Iberia during the checkout process, they enable people to click a button to buy the carbon offsets for that flight and to offset their seat. And we think that things like that lead to sustainability in different ways, because it gives people an opportunity to take responsibility for that.

Steve Kokinos: (21:32)
And I think a different side of the same coin, we, there's a project called PlanetWatch, they deploy air sensor, air quality sensors in different cities around the world. And especially in Europe where air quality problems lead to carbon tax. Sometimes it can be questioned whether the right information is making it into the logs. So now they have people walking around, they're deployed to all different places. All that data is stored imutably on the blockchain, and so now it can never be changed and they know exactly where the air quality looks like. And that's leading to better outcomes in cities around the world. And so I think you're right, for sure. There's not only examples of, or there's not only the case that technology needs to be sustainable, but we also need real world examples of how technology is empowering people to make the world a more sustainable place. And we're excited to be contributing to that.

Sarah Kunst: (22:23)
And I love that. Anthony, what do you... How does the ESG piece fit into all of this for you?

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:30)
Couldn't hear I'm...

Sarah Kunst: (22:30)
How does the ESG piece fit into all of this for you? How do you guys think about the sustainability?

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:37)
I love Jeff's vision because it's sort of like, it's Steve on technological properties, the integrity of system. NAX on vision and the exponential growth of taking those properties. And it's me on access and creating a bridge to the institutional investor. We had a couple of ESG panels on yesterday, and I think what Jeff is basically saying is that we can create a financial product, a financial token, a protocol that's designed to incentivize people to be more ESG friendly. And it'll have certain properties related to it that you'll have a financial incentive and now, economic incentive to do that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:19)
And so, remember, we have this big debate going on in the crypto community about whether something is green or something isn't green. Steve took that off the equation with this team by making this carbon negative. But just stop and think about the Petro dollar, or stop and think about the banking system, or think about all the ESG unfriendly things related to our current financial system. And then think about this backbone and the fact that this backbone will take out so many different intermediaries.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:53)
Last night, we had dinner, I think Sam Bankman-Fried was there. And I think we were discussing the, a stock transaction. There are seven layers of different people and I was very impressed with Sam Bankman-fRIED because he actually listed all seven of them off the top of his head. Before you buy apple, before it gets you, it goes through seven different intermediaries before it ends up with you. So just think about all of the carbon that's used as a result of that process. And I think what NAX is going to do with the help of Algorand is going to take all of that out of the equation. So even if it isn't just ESG incentivizing when we created tokens related to that, just the fact that it's going to take all those intermediaries out of the system, it's going to make it very economically friendly.

Sarah Kunst: (24:40)
Yeah, absolutely. So we get it, you guys get it, right. You've gotten it. I think this room gets it. But what does it take to drive global adoption? How do we get everybody else to get it? And to take up the mantle of what you're doing?

Jeff Schumacher: (24:55)
Well, I think three guys in a garage and a vision is a pretty hard way to get adoption, right? One in 5,000 startups get to a hundred million dollar valuation, that doesn't even mean they work. So there's a lot of failure in here. And if you looked at it, I wrote a piece a while back of what makes something investible. And so our, we have a method that we look to uncover these ventures and there's 13 components in there. But if you look at it, most fail for three reasons. One, product market fit was wrong. Two, the team was wrong. Or three, capital. And capital is a key reason.

Jeff Schumacher: (25:33)
And if you look at capital, what we learn from is most of the money is spent on growth. You have to get the people into it. So we start with the volume and this is why corporates are very important to us. And if you think about it, data is the most valuable commodity in the world now, right? It's more valuable than oil. But if you figured out oil is the most valuable commodity and nobody knew it, what would you do? You would go buy all the land. So what we do is we secure long-term contracts with corporations, to mine their assets, to find volume assets that we can put onto this market. And then if you have volume, you create scale. You create scale, you create change. And that's the key here. And in order for that to work, you have to have a protocol that can handle the volume. And this is why the Algorand and, put that together with unlock and you bring the institutional capital support and you got the source.

Sarah Kunst: (26:24)
I love it.

Steve Kokinos: (26:24)
I, go ahead Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:25)
I just wanted to ask him a question. I'm going to cross-

Sarah Kunst: (26:28)
Hey, it's your world Anthony. We just live in it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:30)
What was the eureka moment for you with Algorand and your team?

Jeff Schumacher: (26:40)
We were looking for a protocol that could handle the volume that we're putting on. And at the same time, technically, it's not proof of work it's proof of stake. And because if you-

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:53)
I'm going to stop you because there's a lot of people out here that actually still don't know the difference between proof of work and proof of stake. So just quick climber on that.

Jeff Schumacher: (27:01)
Proof of work, you got to do something thing to get something. That's like, you solve a puzzle and they give you a token, now that's Bitcoin, Ethereum, and such. Proof of stake, you have to stake something and they reward you for that. Proof of stake has far less carbon impact. Algorand with their carbon negative aspects are even better. So that was the eureka moment on that. And then the eureka moment on, well, we're not just trying to take something that exists fine today and make a ww.blockchain to, or .blockchain something. We're actually creating entirely new businesses that wouldn't otherwise exist without this infrastructure.

Jeff Schumacher: (27:38)
And then the third point was if you're going to do that, do it at scale. So we've launched ventures that, in the past, that didn't have scale and it required hundreds of millions of capital. You're not going to decentralize Uber. They spend 6 billion a year in marketing, right? So it's a really hard thing to do. But if you start with all the customers or the volume or what have you, and many of our ventures are starting with that volume, that's where this starts the change. And that's where this gets really exciting for the people in this room. And for that all to work, we had to bring these three parties together, which you did Anthony. And for this to get enabled, we need a protocol that can handle it.

Sarah Kunst: (28:19)
That's awesome. Steve, tell us, where do you see global adoption coming from? What's it going to take?

Steve Kokinos: (28:26)
Well, I think it comes from a few different places. I think the work that Jeff and NAX are doing is certainly a good place to start. And I think coming from organizations that have in some cases, hundreds of millions of users already gives you a way to launch things at scale that I don't think you see very often. So I think that's certainly very exciting. We do see other sources of demand though. I think one of the things that's interesting about any new technology is you don't know how people are going to use it. And so we do think, we see a lot of really cool work happening on De apps, so DeFi applications. NFTs, the creator economy, pursuing big shifts in really quickly. And then as I mentioned a couple times earlier, the other area that we see a lot of demand coming from are national projects where large portions of a country's population just get brought online into blockchain applications very quickly.

Steve Kokinos: (29:23)
We actually just, Columbia just announced last week that they have turned on their COVID-19 vaccine passport. And so a big chunk of their population will be on chain. And what we're excited about there is we think that that's a great application, but we also think that'll lead to more applications. And even in a number of those users being able to take advantage of applications like NAX i creating. And so again, I think in new application platforms, new protocols, it's not any one application itself that creates an ecosystem. It's when different applications within that ecosystem end up using each other. And that makes for really strong communities. So I think that's what we're really most excited about. And again, the more you can bring users at scale, they may come for one application or for one reason, but once they're using the network, they can use it for many other reasons too. So I think that's a really powerful effect that we're looking forward to seeing more of.

Jeff Schumacher: (30:27)
And I would say just his point on ecosystem is critical, right. So unlock in itself as an ecosystem, institutional corporate DeFi, right. So putting that together creates this peril, first of its kind ecosystem. If you think about the NAX, we've created an ecosystem over the last number of years now around to make this stuff work. You need an underwriting partner, you need a banking partner, you need a trading partner and you need a DeFi partner. So we built that on one side and then we built our platform. And then as we think about, I don't have COVID, by the way, I got my shot and everything. So every time I cough now I freak out. I'm like, no, I'm okay

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:07)
No, I trust you.

Jeff Schumacher: (31:11)
But we actually call, everything that comes out of our NAX platform, whether it's the green NAX on ESG, we call them scale ups because they're not startups. They start with the volume and that's, and I don't think it's an or you can only do it this way. You can do it both ways. But this gives us an advantage, a leg up as we get going.

Sarah Kunst: (31:33)
Awesome. And then to really look at the future, right, what does 2025 look like? What does 2030 look like for investment, for access? Where does this go in the near term?

Jeff Schumacher: (31:45)
I mean, from our perspective, we're seeing exponential growth. So it's not, it's exponentially, it's compounding. You take 30 meter linear steps, you've gone 30 meters. You take 30 exponential steps you've circumnavigated the earth a couple of times. So I think you're going to see just an explosion of growth now. And now that we have at scale protocols in ways to fundamentally create them at scale, that this is far different than it was a couple years ago. So I see it to be exponential growth over the number of years here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:17)
Just want to say something quickly. We made the announcement through $100 million, we're going to raise another 150, then we're going to cap it and we'll deploy it. And then we'll think about what we're going to do on our next round. But the very cool thing about this is to open up your eyes and to understand it, take the time to understand what is going on. Dan Lok was up here this morning, I don't know if you guys had a chance to see him. But he was a [inaudible 00:32:46] investor and he was a immediate naysayer on Bitcoin crypto and the blockchain.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:53)
And then he did the work. He did a substantial amount of work, and now he's in the coin space. He owns crypto currencies including Ethereum. I've asked him to look at Algorand, and he's he's backed FTX. Sam Bankman-Fried was up here speaking before. He's one of the smartest investors I know. And he took the time and the energy and deployed his intellectual curiosity in his team, and to understanding it. And that's my message. Everybody here take the time to understand it. And then you can make an informed decision whether you want to be an investor or not.

Sarah Kunst: (33:27)
I love it. Steve, where does this go in the next five, 10 years?

Steve Kokinos: (33:32)
Well if maybe if, I'm not sure the exact time horizon, but I think if you look back, say 20 years ago, there were a lot of people questioning why anyone should care about the internet or why you wouldn't just go to the store or why would you shop online. What do you use this thing for? I think you fast forward to today, obviously it's changed the way people communicate and shop and consume media in ways that probably were maybe expected by a few, but not by many.

Steve Kokinos: (33:59)
I think when we look back from where we are now in the future, I think people will be using blockchain networks every day, using apps that folks like NAX created. And I think victory here from our perspective is that protocols like Algorand become part of the infrastructure that's used. We don't really care that much if people know that they're using Algorand. And I think when you fire up Netflix today, they use Amazon web services, but nobody needs to care about that. And so I think that really what, in a way, what we're building is the next major public utility like the internet or the phone network or electricity or wear wolves before them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:39)
It's a really good metaphor. It's really true.

Sarah Kunst: (34:42)
I love it. Well, thank you guys. Steve, Jeff, Anthony, thank you. And thank you all guys for being here.

Biotechnology, Wellness & the Science of Aging | #SALTNY

James Peyer is the Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Cambrian Biopharma. He also serves as the Chairman of the Board of Sensei Biotherapeutics and board and executive roles across Cambrian’s pipeline. He has spent his entire life dedicated to the mission of finding ways of preventing people from getting diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s instead of waiting for people to get sick.

Nathaniel David has co-founded four biotechnology companies that have collectively raised over $2 billion in financing and have given rise to three IPOs, two M&A acquisitions, and four FDA-approved medicines (ALOGLIPTIN, TRELAGLIPTIN, ZEMDRI, and KYBELLA). Nathaniel holds 46 allowed patents in fields as far flung as nanovolume crystallography, antibiotic resistance, aesthetic medicine, and cellular senescence.

Kristen Fortney is the co-founder and CEO of BioAge, a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of treatments to extend healthy lifespan by targeting the molecular causes of aging. The company uses its discovery platform, which combines quantitative analysis of proprietary longitudinal human samples with detailed health records tracking individuals over the lifespan, to map out the key molecular pathways that impact healthy human aging.

Moderator Dina Radenkovic is a Partner at SALT Fund. Dina is an academic doctor and medical technology entrepreneur. She qualified with a dual degree in medicine and physiology from UCL Medical School. Dina is a co-founder and CSO of Hooke, an elite longevity research clinic, in collaboration with the Buck Institute for Aging.

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Fortney, Kristen - Cropped.jpeg

Kristen Fortney

Chief Executive Officer

BioAge

James Peyer

Chief Executive Officer & Co-Founder

Cambrian Biopharma

 
Headshot - David, Nathaniel - Cropped.jpeg

Nathaniel David

Chief Executive Officer

Jupiter Bioventures

MODERATOR

Headshot - Radenkovic, Dr. Dina - Cropped.jpg

Dr. Dina Radenkovic

Partner

The SALT Fund

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (00:07)
Well, welcome everyone to another Longevity Panel. And this time we're going to focus a bit on biotech. How do we set build successful biotech companies in the field of aging? And then how do we invest in the age of aging, as I like to call this period where we have long living, but not necessarily healthy population. So I'm joined on stage by James Peyer, the founder, CEO of Cambrian Biopharma. Nathaniel David, who is a serial biotech founder, and also founder of Unity, a biotechnology company, and Jupiter. And then Kristin Fortney the founder and CEO of BioAge labs. So I guess the best way to start perhaps would be, why don't you all give us a very brief introduction about your companies and what is the single thing that your company is doing that you're most excited about. Ned, I guess, would you like to go first?

Nathaniel David: (01:01)
Sure. So I'll talk about, thanks, Dina. And so Dina mentioned that I'm a serial company builder. So I'll just talk about, and I've been doing this for about 22 years, four approved medicines. Two of my companies, Unity is a company that makes medicines that eliminate old cells. These are cells that don't divide anymore and they drive a bunch of disease. And we tried it first in arthritis in human beings, didn't work there. It was a pretty big clinical failure there. And then we moved into diseases of the aging retina and we have beautiful data happening there where when we dose a patient with a disease of the aging retina, they can gain within 24 hours as much as 20 letters on an eye chart, like at the DMV. So that's really cool, that's Unity.

Nathaniel David: (01:53)
And brand new company we're starting called [Cavalry 00:01:56]. What we're doing is we're taking growth factors, these are things that float around in your body and tell your tissue what to do. And we're putting little zip codes on them so we can send them, so they swim to very specific spots. And we have one that we're building that can swim into the plaques in your arteries, functioning like a molecular stint. And we're building another one that can swim into your muscles to treat various muscular dystrophies. And a similar one for bone. And we call those molecules cupids. And they're pretty cool.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (02:29)
Yeah, I love the cupids. Kristen, tell us a bit about BioAge.

Kristen Fortney: (02:33)
Thanks, Dina, for having me here today. So BioAge is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of therapies that treat diseases of aging, and that ultimately might help extend the healthy lifespan. So we currently have three different programs in the clinic. Our most advanced one, so that's probably the most exciting piece of data right now. It's right in the middle of a phase two trial. And this drug we think rejuvenates certain aspects of immune aging. So in particular, as you get older, if you're challenged with pretty much any virus or bacteria, your dendritic cells don't migrate as well to where they're needed to wake up your T cells. And this drug can correct that. And so it can help improve your response to the flu, but also to COVID, which is clearly a disease of immune aging. If everybody here has the immune system of a 20 year old, it would be a very different pandemic.

Kristen Fortney: (03:21)
So that first trial was that drug where we're in the middle of the phase two, it's an older COVID-19 patient population that's hospitalized that we're going into. And these are people who still, 30% of these people because of their age are progressing to really poor outcomes like ventilator or even death. We have two additional programs that are in clinical stage right now, focused on muscle aging and really a pipeline of therapies. We want to bring several more clinical programs up forward over the coming years. And another important point to mention about BioAge is that all of these programs is different mechanistic bets on these molecular biology of aging are coming from our human data platform. So we have invested a lot in understanding how humans age from middle-age and onwards to death, and that's where our discoveries and our pipelines and our targets are coming from.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (04:14)
And James, Cambrian.

James Peyer: (04:16)
Thanks Dina. Thanks everyone for coming in. So I run a company called Cambrian, which was created to capture a bit of a promise of this longevity biotech industry, which is really in its infancy but a pretty exciting infancy. And so I've spent most of my career working with academics from around the world who have made a key discovery that can extend the healthy lifespan of an animal, usually a mouse. And figuring out with them, how do you take that discovery in a mouse and build it into a human medicine. And so Cambrian has created a whole series of subsidiaries. We have 12 different companies under our umbrella advancing 14 different programs, each of which has already shown that it can impact both a fundamental pathway in aging and another disease in mouse models. And now those programs are marching towards the clinic. And we're kind of along this path where we're bringing between five and eight new scientific discoveries under our umbrella every single year, which is a fun place to be.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (05:29)
A few things that we're going to dive deeper later on in discussion that you've mentioned, but that's just basically an overview. Should we start with giving a bit of background on aging. So even going into aging as a clinician, right. Going from, oh, we want to prevent heart disease. And then I just ended up, oh, heart disease is actually linked to the immune system. So why didn't I devote my career to actually preventing the causes of the causes. So all of you are creating drugs that address these causes of the causes. All of you are addressing aging in one way or the other. Could you tell us why does aging even happen? I don't know, Ned, what are your thoughts?

Nathaniel David: (06:08)
So first I'll just say, as a scientist, we do not know why we age. For example, a mouse lives three years, a human 85 years, a Greenland shark, 400 years. We do not have any real idea why these differences exist. And we are clearly missing something very big. But if you ask me what do I think? Okay, so I'll express why I think we age through a movie metaphor. So I don't know if you guys have ever seen this 1970s movie called Gray Gardens. It's a movie shown at the Cannes Film Festival. And it was this movie about these aging socialites living in this house that used to be this grand house out in the Hamptons. And they lived there for 50 years in ever increasing poverty and they never repaired anything. So after 50 years of this, they're hanging out and they're raccoons that are now living inside the house, feral cats live there, it's infested with fleas. The water doesn't work and there are holes in the roof. The health department was trying to evict them.

Nathaniel David: (07:29)
So why am I telling this story about a 1970s movie? Well, I think aging is a lot like that house in Gray Gardens. If you look at biology as we age, at every level of organization from the very lowest level where your DNA sequences to the very highest level of organization, when you look at an old person and what you see with your eyes when you look at them. If you look at your DNA, it mutates as you age throughout your body. If you click up another level of organization, you see that the cells that are centrally encoded by your DNA, you begin to lose them. You actually have fewer cells as you get older which is a little disturbing. Click up another layer to the layer of tissue organization, your tissues, which when you're young have beautiful organization. If you look in the retina, the retina of a 20 year old has these beautiful structural divisions between the various layers within the retina, which are lost as you age.

Nathaniel David: (08:34)
Or if you look in skin of a young person, which is defined with these beautiful demarcations between the epidermis and dermis. As you age, it becomes this chaotic undulating landscape where you can't even tell the difference anymore. And if you look at the highest level, when you simply look at an older person and you see the performance loss and all of the hallmarks you think of as aging, that you see disorder there as well. And I think that like in Gray Gardens, biology never figured out how to resist disorder. It never figured out how to resist it or how to reverse it because it was never selected on. But clearly the Greenland shark knows something we don't know about resisting disorder. And if we knew, I think we could start to build tools that would do that.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (09:24)
You want to make a comment?

James Peyer: (09:25)
It's an interesting point to leap off of. Ned mentioned, we just didn't evolve this. It's I think really important to remember in this space that the major killer of humankind was not these diseases of aging until the 20th century. And so the fact that we are as a society grappling with them is still a relatively new phenomenon compared to our ancestral and evolutionary predators, the infectious disease, right. And so we were programmed in some ways by evolution or selected for an evolution to become healthily into our reproductive ages. And then after that there's like some benefits of growing a little bit beyond that, but not huge ones. And so now this engineering problem that we have is like, okay, can we add in what evolution would have liked to do, but wasn't being selected for hard enough. Can we figure out those mechanisms and put them into a much more long lived society, which is what we're all becoming.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (10:27)
Fascinating, couldn't agree more. But anyway, I think where we want to take this panel forward is really provide the audience with some tips or like, what is a good longevity company. So let's structure it in three parts. Let's talk about the measuring things, how do we assess a good longevity acid. Then let's talk about the structure of a longevity company. And then perhaps about the computational approaches, proprietary data sets. If for example, BioAge has been pioneering to create a longevity company of high value. So James, let's start with biomarkers and perhaps we could talk about this further. People always talk about, oh, it's very difficult to do clinical trials of aging because how I'm going to follow up people over 50 years and then find out in 50 years time if this is going to affect their aging.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (11:14)
And then we talked a lot and there's been a lot of research about developing some surrogate biomarkers. So things that can tell us in only a short period of time how one's biological age is changing. But we ended up having, we are having different clocks, but not a single one has been validated. Do you think that a longevity company needs to invest in this biomarkers? And then what is Cambrian doing in this bioinformatics biomarker space so that we're able to actually conduct trials so that we can show aha, this intervention over this five-year trial affects aging and will extend your life if you take it for 20 years. And you're going to get, I don't know, 35 years of extra healthy life expectancy.

James Peyer: (11:56)
So the short, short answer to that question is yes, but just giving a little bit more data there and to reemphasize the point, the fundamental challenge of building a company in this emerging longevity space is what Dina just mentioned. If we chop the room in half and gave half of you an experimental aging drug and put half of you on a placebo, what do we expect that drug to actually do? We expect that people's house would grow into disorder slower, right? And we'd get less cancer, less Alzheimer's disease, less muscle weakness, all of these things that happen as we age. But if this was our experimental group, how long would we have to wait to see all of those changes start happening?

James Peyer: (12:40)
And so, as Dina mentioned, there is a way in developing medicines that can help us get around that problem and not have to wait for 15 years. And that is by developing a surrogate biomarker of age related disease risk. And this is something we don't know exactly what this will be yet, but this is going to be the fulcrum point where you change from a whole bunch of interesting medicines built on pathways and longevity to an industry that I think will eclipse the rest of the pharmaceutical industry. And so in my view, each longevity biotech company has to have these two things in mind. First, how do you take medicines that target fundamental pathways in aging, show them to be safe, effective, and get them on the market in some disease today. And secondly, how can you lay the foundations for this inflection point that will come to dominate how we think about medicines for the deadliest diseases of our time.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (13:40)
Fascinating. And I guess going back to the structure of this longevity company that we're all hoping for and hopefully multiple companies. And we also invest at SALT in some of these longevity companies. So how should this company be structured? Should it be a single company that has got multiple clinical programs? Should it be a distributed company, more like an LLC structure with multiple subsidiaries? Kristen, could you tell us a bit more about how you set up BioAge and which model did you choose for. And which model do you think is the best one? And there are pros and cons that we will discuss together.

Kristen Fortney: (14:14)
I mean, that's a challenging problem. I think what is the optimal model in biotech, and I think it's evolving. It depends as a function of what the investment climate is, but also what your strategy is as a company. And in our case at BioAge, all our targets are coming from our platform and we've invested a lot in really the human datasets to evaluate the targets, to do risk our clinical indications, but also just the really old mice that we use to test out all our interventions in the common indications that are our focus areas. So leveraging those over and over again, we're going to be a platform style company which has worked out well for a lot of other, I would say, comparables in our space like Recursion and others, [Denali 00:14:55], yeah.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (14:57)
I guess people often say could be easier to go public if you concluded everything, but how do you even stratify. And Ned, you've done both. Can you tell us a bit about your experience? You've been in both worlds.

Nathaniel David: (15:09)
So I wish I knew what was best. We are in the midst of lived experience right now, but I've, over the last 22 years, all the companies I built were normal. When I say normal, meaning you set up a C Corp, you divide up stock, you put people in it, you raise money. And that seemed to work well enough. Jupiter, my new vehicle is actually set up much the way Cambrian is set up where it's a structure where we have a sort of top co on top with, well, with Jupiter of course it has moons. So every one of the companies we start actually begins with a moon of Jupiter name, there's lots of moons of Jupiter, 79 at last count. So we've got a lot of names we can work with. And so we're giving that a try and I think actually James has a really good explanation as to why this works. James, you want to talk about the academic?

James Peyer: (16:05)
Yeah, sure. I'll jump in. So my general view on the biotech space broadly, not just the longevity world, is that discoveries coming... Most discoveries are coming out of universities at some point. And those discoveries are going to fall into two broad types of categories. Discoveries that create a platform that allow you to make a number of other fundamental discoveries. This is kind of what BioAge has, a platform company. And then individual breakthroughs that lead to a single opportunity to make a drug, a single hypothesis, but that has binary risk, right. Where you're going to, it's either going to work or it's not going to. And my view is that these are going to develop into two types of biotech companies that can live on the public markets. One is these platform companies like Moderna, a lot that we've seen in the biotech space today. And then another are what I call engines, where it's more about how do you source and operationalize these individual discoveries from around the world and then wrap them together into a single risk diversified entity. And that's what Cambrian is.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (17:14)
And could you elaborate a bit more about that, about your holding companies, subsidiaries. How you put it together because some traditional biotech investors would say, why would they invest in such a holding company because I'm essentially paying fees and fees. If the biotech fund invest into a holding company and then the holding company goes and acquire assets, why would I go for substructure? And what we're seeing right now in this world of biotech, an agent needs really this intersection off, it's kind of taking a step back, it's cross hybridization of multiple fields. So we have different set of investors and we've got a lot of tech investors and they're more open in this structure. For them it's like, okay, I understand this model. We can fail and iterate quickly, I like it. But biotech investors are still very cautious. So what do you say about that? And how have you created that system that it goes smoothly and you have multiple subsidiaries? Give us a bit more color there.

James Peyer: (18:06)
And I could talk about the financial engineering here until we all would hope for some aging drugs, but let me kind of just be general on it. I think that the fees on fees argument doesn't actually play out when you're operating these companies. So I used to run a VC fund before I started Cambrian. And we took, as one of our principle financial objectives, all of the fees that you would pay a VC fund plus all of the salaries and so on that you would pay to an executive team to run all of these different assets if you wanted to make individual bets. We can run their company for about 75% of what this would be, and then eliminate a lot of that extra management layer. In some ways, the inefficiencies of single VC bets. And so I think that that doesn't really hold water when you get down into the operation of these companies.

James Peyer: (19:02)
And then secondly, one of the big challenges of early stage biotech companies is finding a team that knows how to develop drugs. Academics are trained to make breakthroughs. It's different teams that are trained to develop drugs. And so building a centralized expert team that knows how to work with academics to bring those drugs forward is the differentiator between many of the companies that make it and many that don't. And it has been, you can get incredible people who you can deploy extremely efficiently in one of these roll-up models. I think that's part of the reason that I've really fallen in love with the structure.

Nathaniel David: (19:40)
I will say Dina, though, that this structure definitely gives the classic sandhill road, biotech VCs, sort of a conniption fit. And my classical, the VCs that I've invested with for years, Arch and Venrock, they don't want to invest actually in Jupiter. They want to invest in Jupiter's moons. And that works okay too, okay. I will say also there's no fees in our model because every single dollar that winds up going into Jupiter, winds up being converted into ownership in the moons. So there's literally zero. That was 100% capital efficient.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (20:20)
Fascinating. Well, I think the Biden model does need to change because we do need to remove that binary risk of finding true love. It might work, it might not. Kristen, what about the IP? So if we are just starting a longevity company, and again, how we're assessing longevity company. You started with a lot of proprietary data, and then you have managed to acquire clinical assets and really accelerated. I mean, it's extremely rare to find longevity biotech that has got two clinical assets almost. Do you think that that was the key? And how did you do that?

Kristen Fortney: (20:55)
Yeah, sure, great question. I mean, our whole approach at BioAge is aging is really complicated, right? You've heard that today. There's all these different things that are going wrong, and from the panel earlier. And we believe that, our thesis is that we want to learn from what's already working. And what I mean by that is that there were already all these human experiments and they're people that are living 90 or 100 plus. Their brains still work. Their bodies still work. What's different about their biology that we can learn from. And so at BioAge we've invested a lot in mapping out how humans age. We've made a number of special relationships with biobanks, where we have proprietary and exclusive data that started, they are very special biobanks. They started collecting samples from middle-aged people as long as 50 years ago. So there's like blood that's been in the freezer 50 for years. Collected longitudinally, and then coupled to health records that track these individuals for the entire rest of their lives. And so that's our starting point, right.

Kristen Fortney: (21:50)
And what we do is we go into these samples, we enumerate every molecule in there with modern technologies. That's thousands of proteins with the proteome, thousands of metabolites, tens of thousands of RNA transcripts, make a big list of stuff. And then from these data sets, you can ask a whole bunch of questions. So you can say, what's changing with age? But even more importantly you can say, what is predicting the future? What is different about those 50 year olds who are going on to live 90 plus with great muscle strength, with cognitive function from the rest of us, and start to build a map of those differences.

Kristen Fortney: (22:21)
And that's the science that underlies what we do. And as you might expect, because so many different things are going wrong, there are several dozen important pathways for aging. And then from that point onward, because aging is a new space, it's in biotech, it's hard. We want to start with the most de-risked programs possible. So we started with the intersection of these pathways that are important for aging in the human data, with the clinical assets that are already out there because there's a lot of risk in developing a drug and taking it through R&D, taking it to that first clinical trial, even looking at the safety signal. So our criteria for our first set of drugs, while it's have already been in a phase one, you have to know that it's already safe. You can know that it hits its target. Then we can go immediately into a phase two, proof of concepts study, an important agent indication. And we're making three such clinical stage bets today. And I'd like us to make as many as 10 over the next couple of years.

Kristen Fortney: (23:12)
An important point too, right, I think that's the first wave of targets emerging from our data sets. It's going to be these ones where the clinical stage assets exist. Then we can start to look at the assets that are near IMD and we can start to work on discovery programs. An important point too I I think, especially in the context of academic sciences, one reason we love our human cohorts is because we think it's like a human overlay on all of what's known about aging biology, right? So there's going to be a lot of things that are really important for how a mouse ages or how a rumor fly ages, which is really still the focus of academic science. And many of those are just not going to matter for us. Mice, for example, die exclusively of cancer. Heart disease is not a bottleneck to their lifespan. Alzheimer's never happens, which is why they've been a terrible model for Alzheimer's drug discovery.

Kristen Fortney: (23:57)
So we like being able to use our human data to say, like most, and I can tell you, right, most of the things that work on animals, you don't see human signal. And that doesn't mean that they're not going to work, but it just, they're much less compelling than the ones where you see a massive human signal. So for example, the drug that we brought in most recently from Amgen, it's an agonist of apollon receptor, apollon is an exokine that circulates in your blood. There was a nature medicine paper from one of our collaborators a couple of years ago, showing that it can increase mouse health span. So it actually, if you gave it to older mice, they ran better on their wheels.

Kristen Fortney: (24:33)
But then when we looked in our human data, you saw this really strong signal where if you had higher levels of apollon in that middle age, you're living longer, your brain works better and longer, your muscles work better and longer. And that's the kind of data package we really lik to see. And the way that we work is we see the human signal, then we reach out to a company to get an asset and we stick it into our in vivo models. So we did a whole bevy of muscle aging models in mice with Amgen's drug. And we are very excited by the results, and we're going to start that trial in after a few months.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (25:04)
Absolutely. And you've touched on a very important topic and which is clinical trials. Regardless of how excited we are about aging, aging is not recognized as an indication by the FDA. And a drug needs to pass through trials and show some results in order to be approved, in order to be licensed. So often a challenge of these companies is, what indication, what disease should I almost pitch this drug to so that I can have a good trial and then my drug will be in the market. And then we can potentially use this drug to cure other things and potentially be used for prevention of aging. Ned, I think you do need to tell a story there about how did you struggle once you identified a scientific pathway with indication and how you managed to find the right indication. And how should longevity companies think about conducting clinical trials.

Nathaniel David: (25:59)
So I come at this question pretty differently than James, probably more similar to the way Kristen thinks about it. So I'm a drug hunter by trade, okay. I don't necessarily try to cure aging. I use aging to help discover drugs. And so the way I came at this was really with the grain in terms of how FDA and similar agencies want us to discover drugs today. Which is pick a disease that you can point at, that you know people suffer from, and make a medicine for that disease. Hey, if it impacts aging, great. But please don't talk about it, right? And so that's the approach we took at Unity, going after first, arthritis, which is the primary reason it hurts to be old. I would say that's pretty close to aging. And then of course, diseases of the aging retina.

Nathaniel David: (26:59)
And so we shied away in a very intentional way from trying to use some sort of biomarker of aging and stuck squarely to diseases of aging. I think that an agency like FDA which views itself primarily, and it's in the DNA of the organization, as a protector of the populace. After all, they started regulating food before they did drugs. And the notion that they would allow you to make a medicine that would impact the very slowest thing that happens to us, which is aging, is just against their DNA. It's against their culture. Now, will that change occur? Sure, maybe. But I think it's a very uphill battle. And I think it's a really tough slog.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (27:52)
I see.

Kristen Fortney: (27:52)
I'd like to comment here too actually, because this is probably, it's drug developers and aging, it's like a central topic, right. How do you actually, if you believe you have an aging drug in your hands, like in our case, it's rejuvenating muscle, rejuvenating aging, how do you get the most out of that? And in our case, we're committing to mechanisms that we think ultimately could be safely administered to a large population chronically. We've made those decisions so far, but yes, you have to start with an acute indication that's a real disease because otherwise it's a hard road.

Kristen Fortney: (28:21)
We're trying to have the best of both worlds by going to town on secondary end points, right, because we're giving our drug, which we think is addressing an aging mechanism in a specific disease context. But we want to know, are we also slowing their aging? So we're very interested in collecting like omex biomarkers and using wearables to collect motion data and learn as much as we can about the aging of these people as well. Hopefully it's like to guided indication selection, right. There are a handful of examples, like statins which are prescribed like an aging drug today, right. But which had that more narrow start indication labeled, widening over time. And I think we can learn from this.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (28:57)
We can use it as a way in and then expand the indications. And I guess the final question, this is still an audience that actively invests and supports new technologies. What single technology or breakthrough that you think will happen in this decade are you most excited about and you think will have an impact of human longevity. Who wants to go first? It's a difficult one. All right, Ned.

Nathaniel David: (29:21)
So this decade?

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (29:22)
Yes.

Nathaniel David: (29:23)
So it's going to be how to properly dose rapamycin. So rapamycin is a drug that's approved in the United States for, believe it or not, when you get a kidney transplant so you don't reject it. So you take this drug every day and it tamps down your immune system. Now, turns out this drug given at a much lower dose, about one seventh of the dose, will extend the lifespan of rodents by 30%. And it works in flies, rodents, every species we've tried it in, this drug works. And this, but no one knows how to dose it. And no one really even understands why it extends life. It's a mystery. But figuring out a safe and efficacious dose of this molecule is going to happen this decade. And it's going to be something that will, when figured out, be used by tens of millions of people.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (30:25)
Fascinating. There were actually studies and we mentioned that rapamycin or rapamycin analogs might even be used as immune boosters together with effect vaccines. So it's something that I think has accelerated an interest into the field as we battled through.

Nathaniel David: (30:41)
Yeah, there's an extensive literature using rapamycin, both in humans as well as in animals. In which your response to vaccination doesn't go down as you might intuitively think, but goes up. Again mysterious as to why.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (31:00)
James?

James Peyer: (31:02)
So I guess I'm going to, it would be fun to just talk about rapa for a while and we could have a panel just on that. But I'm going to depart a little bit and say, talk about the biggest innovations in this field, I think that they're actually organizational and strategic as opposed to scientific. I think that the last decade saw enough scientific breakthroughs in this aging space to fill an awful lot of corporate pipelines. And all of those innovations addressing the question of how you take these fundamental insights into pathways of aging biology, and get those into human clinical trials, that's the experiment that in some ways the three of us are here taking different shots on goal at, taking different, I think very thoughtful, strategic approaches to building big biotech companies addressing this space.

James Peyer: (31:53)
And then somewhere around the end of this decade, there's going to be this strategic inflection point. And in my view, as Ned was just talking about, it's going to be around the time that the FDA or if the US is too slow and too conservative, another regulatory agency elsewhere in the world takes the plunge and allows companies that have safe and effective drugs that target an aging pathway to be tested in healthy people with a short surrogate endpoint clinical trial. And the moment that happens, the world starts to change forever. And I think that that can happen this decade.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (32:27)
It would be like [inaudible 00:32:28] and Bitcoin. We have to give Kristen a chance to answer this question.

Kristen Fortney: (32:32)
Yeah, for sure. So I mean, the kinds of enabling technologies that I'm the most bullish on are really these genomic scale technologies to interrogate and also intervene in biology. And, for example, that's what BioAge uses with proteomics and human cohorts or that's what a CRISPR screen is, right. And the reason why I think these are so important is because they allow you to brute force what are otherwise, incredibly challenging problems. Like Ned mentioned, we still don't actually know how rapamycin works, right. But it does work. And it's a matter of figuring out how to dose it. And if we could, I mean, whenever someone is doing an exome scale experiment to find a PCSK9, or another genetic variant that predisposes to, protects you from disease, it's the kind of a brute force in experiment.

Kristen Fortney: (33:14)
So now that we have these technologies and the AI and the computation to analyze these data sets for millions of points, I think there's a lot of really important problems in aging we can apply them to. And again, I'm a big believer in copying what already works, right. So bowhead whales, Greenland sharks, they're doing something different. We have the tools now to figure out what. Even epigenetic reprogramming, right? These are the tools that are going to teach us how it works. So I think the space is going to get a lot bigger.

Nathaniel David: (33:39)
Well, I was just going to say that it would be hard, well, much of what you said is true. There's all this stuff we can work on to make medicines out of. But the notion that that could be more exciting than knowing why a Greenland shark lives 400 years, that stretches it, I think. Because, I mean, when we start to piece that narrative together, oh my Lord, think of what we will be able to do.

James Peyer: (34:09)
I'm with you. I mean, as a scientist, nothing gets me more jazzed about that. But I think that the inflection point for this field is not going to be finding the next rapamycin or the next, whatever's driving the 400 year lifespans of the Greenland shark. It's to create an ecosystem where everyone in the world cares desperately about that problem. And I think that if we hit that inflection point, we enter a world where it's not just like the folks up here that know all about this, but all of you guys are thinking every single day about what that next scientific breakthrough that's going to elucidate how the Greenland shark lives to 400 years, because it will affect your lives in the impending future. And that I think is where I want to push this space. And I think that's where we're going to see stuff this decade.

Kristen Fortney: (34:59)
Well, the first approved drug for aging, I think it's going to be such an important milestone, right. It's still such a tiny field. There are a handful of biotechs, we are probably most of them. Clinical or near clinical working on aging and, but there are dozens of mechanisms that could be brought forward that could extend health span and lifespan. And I think that yes, getting that first program through which is probably already exists either in academia or the clinic is going to be transformational.

Dr. Dina Radenkovic: (35:24)
Well, the creation to a creation of a longevity ecosystem. And thank you everyone for the life of this question. And thank you to the audience for listening in.

Ray Dalio on Changing World Order: Current Economic & Geopolitical Challenges | #SALTNY

Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates sits down with Andrew Ross Sorkin of CNBC to discuss Changing World Order: Current Economic & Geopolitical Challenges.

Ray started Bridgewater out of his two-bedroom apartment in New York in 1975 and over the course of its 43-year history has grown it into the 5th most important company in the U.S. according to Fortune Magazine. For his innovative work, Ray has been called the “Steve Jobs of Investing” by aiCIO Magazine and named one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World by TIME Magazine.

Ray is the author of New York Times #1 Bestseller Principles as well as the author of Principles for Success, a distilled and easy-to-read illustrated novel of the bestseller, and Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises. Ray has also published several studies his economic views, including “Why and How Capitalism Needs to be Reformed” and “The Changing World Order.” Both are available on LinkedIn and the latter will be published as a standalone book later this year.

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Dalio, Ray - Cropped.jpeg

Ray Dalio

Founder, Co-Chairman & Co-Chief Investment Officer

Bridgewater Associates

Headshot - Sorkin, Andrew Ross - Cropped.jpeg

Andrew Ross Sorkin

Co-Anchor

Squawk Box, CNBC

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (00:06)
It is a privilege for me to be here with Ray Dalio, who needs no real introduction at all to this room. I'm hoping over the next 40 minutes, we can spend some time trying to make sense of where we are in the, 'real economy' but also in the markets. And I think one of the things that you've done so uniquely, especially over the last 18 months during this pandemic, was really spend a lot of time studying and thinking about the history of markets and economies. Literally not just in the most recent period but over 500 years as we've discussed. And you've also thought a lot about the, 'economic machine', a concept that you've developed. Help us understand where you think we are in the arc, if you will.

Ray Dalio: (00:57)
Well, maybe I just briefly describe the arc and then I'll tell you where I think we are. Yeah. About two years ago, I saw three things happening that did not happen in my lifetime before but happened in the 1930 to 45 period. And there's things I really want to talk about. Then we have the fourth thing, a pandemic. They all happened before. The first is the going to zero interest rates, the creation of a lot of debt and the printing of a lot of money to monetize that debt and seeing that cycle happen. That happened 1933, that happened 2008. Very interesting. How does that money flow matter to markets and everything?

Ray Dalio: (01:45)
The second is large wealth and opportunity gaps causing a great internal conflict of value. If I looked at the statistics, I like to look at statistics, like you say, the mechanics, I saw not only the wealth gap but the political gap and all of that operating at a level. And it has an effect, right. It has an effect on tax policy. It has an effect on that but I had to go back to the 1930s and actually before to see such gaps. And the third was the rise of a great power to challenge an existing great power. The United States, China rising to challenge the United States in that changing world order because a world order is a system for operating. Our last one began in 1945 at the end of World War II. There's a war and then there's a new system and it was the American system and that's being challenged.

Ray Dalio: (02:40)
And those three things individually and collectively did not happen before that. And then when I studied it, I wanted to study the rise in declines, not only of empires but reserve currencies because we're printing a lot of money. And what does that mean? And so I needed to study the Dutch, the British and the American and that cycle. And what I saw, was the same thing would happen over and over again. And if you want me, I'll take a minute on what that looks like or you direct me.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (03:12)
What happened? What did you learn?

Ray Dalio: (03:14)
Well, I learned that when there is bad finances, and we have bad finances.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (03:27)
Right now.

Ray Dalio: (03:29)
Bad finances, if you're spending more than you're earning and you have a balance sheet that has a liabilities, more liabilities than it has assets, that's bad finances. You can fill that in by printing of money and continue to create debt but that's not sound finances. Central banks have the ability to do that. And when they do that, that's a no. When you have let's say, bad finances ... And by the way, that's happened repeatedly in history, we can see how that's worked and the consequences of it and we have to understand the mechanics of it. When you have bad finances and you have large internal conflicts, that is a risky situation, particularly if you have a downturn because the rich and the poorer and so on, the left and the right, those with different ideologies have greater internal conflict. And the internal conflict has a risk politically. And it has a risk in terms of the effectiveness. When people are working well together to be productive, that's great but if ...

Ray Dalio: (04:41)
If you have bad finances and you have large gaps and you have the rise of a great power challenging an existing great power, and those things happen simultaneously, that's a risky set of circumstances. I can get into the statistics of that, how many times a rising power ... You take that and then what are the mechanics of that? For example, so what does it mean to markets? For example, if you look at every one of those movements, when they immediately print money and do that, you want to buy financial assets. I'll just take another minute, a lesson that I learned.

Ray Dalio: (05:24)
I was clerking on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in 1971. This was year after college and before business school on a summer job and it on it was August, 1971. I followed the markets a lot and president Nixon on August 15th, 1971, gets on the television. And he says basically, "That monetary system that we used to have and what money was, we're not going to have that anymore. It will not be ... You can't get the gold."

Ray Dalio: (05:59)
At that time, it used to be that money was like checks in a checkbook. They had no value. They would just get you the gold and then you'd have the gold and we're not going to do that anymore. And I figured, "Okay, now I walk on the floor of the New York stock exchange."

Ray Dalio: (06:12)
The next morning, got there early, figure we're going to have some pandemonium. And the pandemonium that we had, I thought it was a crisis. And the pandemonium I had was the stock market up the most in decades. And I went back and ... I didn't understand that. And I went back and I found out that the exact same thing happened on March 5th, 1933. It wasn't on TV, it was on the radio. And Roosevelt did the same thing and the stock market and gold and all of those assets went up again for the exact same mechanical reasons. I learned two things. I learned first of all, that I better study things that didn't happen in my lifetime before because as they might happen again, that's what helped us anticipate the 2008 financial crisis but I also learned that dynamic that when you print money and create that, that's a hell of a stimulant but it also means ... It means you don't want cash. It means that you want those other assets. That dynamic is the nature of what we're going through.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (07:22)
Do you want financial assets though?

Ray Dalio: (07:25)
It depends, financial assets are different things. You don't want bonds, cash is a financial asset. You want cash, you don't want a bond. It's going to have a negative real return. Who wants bonds? You're going to have a negative real return. You want that, okay. And you're not probably going to get the price appreciation through the bond. You have two ways you can make money. It goes up or it gives you a good yield. It's not going to give you a good yield, negative real yield and it's not going to go up much more when you get down to that. You don't want the bonds.

Ray Dalio: (07:55)
Stocks have an asset. They're a reflation asset throughout history. There are things that you want. You want stocks, you want gold, you want tangible assets. You want real estate. You want the things that are basically anti-money and you particularly want those when there's a large portfolio of those. Think about it right now. Through history, what we accumulate are a lot of financial assets. And the only purpose of those financial assets is to take those and convert them into buying things.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (08:30)
Yeah.

Ray Dalio: (08:31)
And when there's a lot of financial assets and we produce a lot more financial assets, then they're all claims for those other things and if you just went through the calculations and you were to say, "Okay, how much financial assets do you have relative to real assets? Or how much are there?"

Ray Dalio: (08:48)
There's too many relative to real assets. And so you want to get into those things that have more of those intrinsic values, a company is. And throughout history, you see that happen.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (09:01)
Okay, let me throw a new wrinkle in, which was not in any of the history though. And I wonder, we can even ask this room, how many people in this room are holding some form of cryptocurrency right now? And I know you own some Bitcoin. Actually, let's do that. How many people here have some, any cryptocurrency at all? What do you think that is? 80%. It's a lot. Okay, so crypto arguably wouldn't it have been a tangible asset historically. Where does that fit in the realm, this?

Ray Dalio: (09:36)
Yeah. Crypto is like a lot of historic currencies. There are some that have intrinsic value. It doesn't have intrinsic value but it has a limited supply. And as long as it's accepted for payments and so on and has a limited supply, if the demand grows more than the supply grows, it goes up and it serves that purpose. And it's done a heck of a job of programming, stood the test of time, meaning it hasn't been hacked and so on. And so it's a viable alternative. And I think that probably ... I think most of the people ... There are different reasons for owning it but I think most of the people would say, "Is it a store hold of wealth that's limited in supply and maybe not controlled? And is it a viable alternative to a Fiat currency?"

Ray Dalio: (10:34)
Don't trust the Fiat currency. How does it compare to Fiat currency? And so is it an alternative gold kind of thing? There's probably an attraction in there and it has an attraction for me in there but then there's the question of it. And how many in the audience, let's ask the question, how many in the audience have some in gold? I'm curious.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (10:55)
Let's do that. How many people have some gold?

Ray Dalio: (11:00)
A lesser percent.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (11:01)
Lesser percent. I'm going to go 50% or less, 40 even maybe. Yeah.

Ray Dalio: (11:05)
Yeah. That becomes an interesting question. For me, I don't have a huge amount but I have more gold than I have crypto.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (11:15)
Okay.

Ray Dalio: (11:15)
And my basic thing is, rather than make it crypto or rather than make it Bitcoin or the other, I would say diversification is a good thing. We could get into the merits of the one versus the other, I don't where you want to go with this but in any case, let me tell you that either one of those ... Crypto can go like that, meaning governments can regulate it, outlaw it or it can be traced and certain other things. Diversification is something I would emphasize.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (11:50)
Part of the argument though on crypto, when it comes to the regulatory regime, is or would be that it's already reached escape velocity, that it's at a level now that there's so much value around the globe, that it'll be almost impossible to shut down. It's a little bit like Uber. I oftentimes think about it like Uber because when Uber started, people thought regulators were going to shut it down but they grew so fast so quickly that all of a sudden, regulators didn't really have a choice. They just had to figure out a way to deal with it.

Ray Dalio: (12:22)
Yeah, okay. There are a couple of things in that. First of all, no, I think that it's easier to do deal with now. If you didn't ... Let's step back. Governments don't want alternative currencies, okay because throughout history, we see that. They want control over the currencies for all of the various things.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (12:47)
Especially when you have a successful currency but if you have a lousy currency, like El Salvador ...

Ray Dalio: (12:52)
That's what I mean. Since 1700, there have been about 750 currencies. Only 20% of those are still in existence. And all of those have been significantly devalued at one point another.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (13:08)
Okay.

Ray Dalio: (13:09)
We don't have to pick El Salvador. We can pick the German, we can go through history and pick the most credible ones. It's the norm, right. And so in any case, what I'm saying is that you don't want ... If you're holding a currency, it's an awfully good way to print money and get the money around, which is going to devalue because what is a debt that you're holding? Currency equals a debt.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (13:35)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (13:36)
And it means that you receive something and now you have no interest rate on it and they're producing a lot of it.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (13:42)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (13:42)
Okay. And so it's the way out. It's ultimately the way out because when ...

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (13:48)
Cash is the [inaudible 00:13:49].

Ray Dalio: (13:49)
If you keep it hard, you have a big debt crisis. And if you don't keep it hard, you don't keep it hard. History's always been the devaluation. There's a point of that and they want that because if you look at history, if they don't have that ... But think about that dilemma, just the fact that we're talking about the possibility of that dilemma means that you're going to want something else. And I don't see why one has to be ... There's not even enough choices of those types of things. We could take Bitcoin or you could take older, you could take ... The advantage of both of those is they're money. You easily transfer it, it's very different than real estate let's say, or equities.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (14:31)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (14:31)
Now, equities are in a sense, pretty portable.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (14:35)
[inaudible 00:14:35].

Ray Dalio: (14:36)
Okay. And that's real value, okay. It has the same attributes, as long as it's going to be real value and when inflation changes and so on, its value can change along those lines. Equities are a very viable alternative.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (14:49)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (14:50)
They're a good alternative but you think of this category of things that can't be devalued. The equity bull market that we're having is an extension of that. It's the same thing, don't differentiate it. What did you think happened? We distribute a lot more credit and a lot more money. There's a flow of funds. There's a mechanics to it. You have a lot more money. You get the money and then you buy things. An investor who gets the money, when there's an intervention, when the central bank buys, they buy a bond from an investor and the investor gets cash and what do they do? They invest it someplace else.

Ray Dalio: (15:26)
And all through that process, there's the mechanical part of that. And that's what you're getting. I don't think we even have to split hairs in terms of the one or another, just to make sure you have enough of a diversified portfolio of that and know what kind of an environment we're in. And we're talking now about the money and credit part of that. We also should be talking about the wealth gap part of that because that affects it, because there has to be a transfer of wealth, okay. That's going to affect investors, how they transfer taxes and those things are going to take place. And then you have to take a global view of these things, which includes China and other countries. It's all of those things [inaudible 00:16:05] together.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (16:05)
I want to dig into the second two pillars in just a moment but I have just two follow ups. One, when we talk about escape velocity of Bitcoin, one of the things you have also said though, is that if it becomes too successful, governments will, you believe, ultimately shut it down. And so therefore, if you're right, you want to own it to a certain point of success and you don't want to own it after that.

Ray Dalio: (16:30)
Yeah.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (16:30)
How would you define that? Cathie Wood, she was on the stage with me on Monday night, said that she believes ... I believe her base case five years from now, is that Bitcoin will be worth 10 times what it is today.

Ray Dalio: (16:41)
See, that doesn't make any sense to me because of the following reason. Look, I'm no expert in this but look, there is approximately ... Let's say, if you use gold as an example and you make the comparison, there's a certain amount of reflation, certain amount of those kinds of things going up to make a price increase. And then there's a certain market share that gold will have, that Bitcoin will have and other things might have. If roughly speaking, there's about ... If you take gold and you take central banks' ownership of gold, I don't think they're going to be owned by ... Central banks are not going to own Bitcoin, for various reasons. I don't believe so but if you take jewelry out of it and central banks, there's about 5 trillion in gold.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (17:37)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (17:38)
If you take it for Bitcoin, there's a bit less than a trillion dollars.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (17:42)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (17:43)
If you were to say, "I'm just going to have a portfolio of those two things."

Ray Dalio: (17:46)
Right now, about 20% of that portfolio, if you were to say, "The supply is there."

Ray Dalio: (17:51)
And you say, "Well, what's the right amount of that mix?"

Ray Dalio: (17:55)
That's going to be something like, "Okay, it's 20%."

Ray Dalio: (17:58)
And given the volatility and the total attribute, I don't imagine that the market share is going to be much greater. And so the question is, does that market share rise or where do you think the market share is going to go of that because ...

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (18:11)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (18:11)
You see what I'm saying, because if it was to go 10 times as much, then what'll happen is somehow Bitcoin not only will have to be greater than the total amount of money that's held in that non Fiat currency kind of thing, which seems like a stretch too far in terms of that but it could happen if you have a problem with Fiat currency as ... And as a percentage of one's own portfolio, that those things rise more perhaps but it's very much a stretch. And so when I'm looking at it, I'm saying ... I think, shouldn't we all pay attention to those not Fiat currencies or those things where you can take them from one place to another and that they're accepted around the world and that they're not debt and so on? It's that category that I think is a more interesting conversation. And do you have a diversified portfolio of those things? And what is good balance? That's the more interesting question, I think.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (19:12)
And then the other question I think, relates to where we are in the cycle if you will, given that you've now studied these periods. How difficult is it to actually ascertain where we actually are and also how it ends? Usually, leverage can be a great thing until it's not. And we are now in another levered moment. And the question is where we are in that moment.

Ray Dalio: (19:39)
Well, we know we are in the late cycle phase of the cycle in which there's a lot ...

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (19:48)
Well, you and I probably would've said that four years ago.

Ray Dalio: (19:51)
Oh, yeah. No but that's ... And we're just advancing in that. I don't mean much of the differences in that type of thing and you could tell the increment. All I'm saying is there are three ... There's a cycle. There are three types of monetary policy and you could almost judge it. First, monetary policy one I call it, interest rate policy. You move the interest rates up and down. Then when you hit zero interest rate, you don't have that anymore. The next policy that you have is what I call monetary policy two, which is also called quantitative easing, where a central bank buys bonds from investors. And then it goes in the hands of investors. The money goes to other investments and investments go up. And those who have investments do well and so on but it doesn't trickle down in the same way.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (20:36)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (20:37)
Okay. That's monetary policy ...

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (20:38)
We're in number two right now.

Ray Dalio: (20:39)
No, we're in number three right now.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (20:41)
Okay.

Ray Dalio: (20:41)
Monetary policy three, is when there needs to be a redistribution of wealth. And the way that works is that only the federal government can determine where the money goes. Federal government gets to determine how much I tax and where I distribute it. And the central bank gets to determine how much there is of it, how much money there is of it. And so when the central bank works together with the central government to direct money, to give it to others in that way, which increasingly then bypasses investors to some extent and gets money into the checks that we sent the money around to, to be able ...

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (21:21)
Right.

Ray Dalio: (21:21)
And so we're in monetary policy three, where there's a coordination of monetary and fiscal policy to redistribute wealth, to redistribute money in that way. We're in that monetary policy three. And then you could judge the size of the deficits and how they're being met. And so the debt problem is not a debt problem like we're not going to pay you off those debts because at the end of the day, they don't choose to pay them, they don't choose to have a debt crisis. At the end of the day, it's just a question of how long it takes them to print more money to monetize those things. In 1929 to '32, and '32 was when they printed the money, then stocks went up and everything went up. 1929 to '32 took a long time, 2008 took a lot less time. One took two and a half years, one took maybe nine months, this time took like that. And so the next time along those lines, that's what you're going to experience when you have that kind of devaluation.

Ray Dalio: (22:27)
You can see that's where we are in the cycle. Each of the stimulants has been greater than the one before. If you start in let's say, 1980 and every interest rate increase and every interest rate decrease has brought the interest rates to a lower level, every peak, every trough and interest rates down to hit zero. And then when you hit zero, every QE has been larger than the one before.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (22:55)
Is there a way out of the cycle then?

Ray Dalio: (22:57)
Well, it's like asking, "What do you do with ... What do you do with the debts?"

Ray Dalio: (23:01)
The mechanics of it is yes. The mechanics of it is, have an interest rate that is below the nominal growth rate and below the inflation rate. You must have an interest rate that way because think of it this way, if nominal growth in the economy, in other words, inflation plus real growth, let's say it was three and three or two and two, and that's four or five or six, and you kept interest rates at zero, then you are going to reduce your debt to GDP right, because you reduce debt service.

Ray Dalio: (23:40)
If you look at the times that it's been most stretched in history, the World Wars would've been the most. If you look at the amount of debt creation and the monetization, you would go back into the '30 to '45 period and you would see how that operates. They hold the interest rate down because what you have is the central bank becomes the owner and the central bank, when they become the buyer, they can tolerate whatever the central bank wants. If free market goes away and the central bank wants it, that they could hold it. And they hold that interest rate while inflation rate rises. And then what you do is you see your loss of purchasing power, such as we're seeing, if you hold it in debt. And that's one of the ways you deal with debt.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (24:26)
Let's talk about the second pillar for a second, because one of the things you also talk about is the politics of this moment and the politics that you've seen historically, especially when we've seen the inequality that we have and what it ultimately does to taxes and therefore, what it ultimately does to the economy. Lay it out for us.

Ray Dalio: (24:41)
Yeah. Well, the issue is really most importantly, a conflict and a productivity issue. If you have conflict that becomes dysfunctional in operating, historically sometimes that's the case.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (25:02)
And do you think we're at that point? Is this what dysfunctional looks like?

Ray Dalio: (25:08)
I think we're not ... No, no, no. We're not at that point.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (25:13)
Okay.

Ray Dalio: (25:13)
We are going there. We're drifting there okay, that the conflict ... There's a certain amount of ... And that has a political implication. And there's a range of possibilities but I think that the system is going to change greatly because there are irreconcilable differences in some way about how do you deal with the money, wealth distribution kind of thing? And there's a battle. And right now, that battle has been diminished because a lot of people have received checks and it's not as contentious if all the money goes and we're all now feeling pretty good. It's okay. It's when it happens in 2022 and 2024, if we start to look at 2022 midterm elections or 2024. And that's also the part of the cycle where it's so easy when you give it a good stimulant and everybody's high and it's great, okay. It's a different thing. When that wears off and that stimulant will wear off and it'll produce some other consequences, and you get farther towards 2022 and 2024 and so on, it's going to be a somewhat different picture, okay. A little bit more ...

Ray Dalio: (26:36)
And then the politics around that in terms of the polarity depends how bad it gets. For example, there's talk about the possibility ... There's talk about the possibility that elections would be contested. And if you can't go by the rules of who gets to sit in the seat, you have to resolve that kind of thing. Then you take the '24 election. Now, in the meantime, you're also having other things going on in the world. For example, China in this case, is having its political changes in November.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (27:10)
Yeah.

Ray Dalio: (27:10)
It's going to have its political changes, not probably Xi but the Politburo and the other political jobs and so on. Those things are going on. And so that clock continues to move. And as we start or to imagine it over two, three, four or five years as investors, we should think about beyond the immediate. We have to think two, three, four, five years ahead, I think.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (27:35)
You've long argued that the critics of China misunderstand China, especially I think the investor class recently that has looked at a lot of the regulatory crackdown and said, "We can't be in here. We can't be here anymore."

Ray Dalio: (27:46)
Yeah., I think ... I've been going to China since 1920, since 1984. And for the first 20 years of going there, I didn't do any business. I went there because I was curious and then because I liked the people. And then it was an exciting place in terms of the things that were happening. And I got to know from the lowliest people to other people, senior people, what the thing is. And I think it's not understood and it's understandably not understood, meaning I think you have to answer the riddle. If you could answer this riddle, you could understand China. The riddle is, "How is it possible for a communist, Marxist economy to be capitalist, have the second largest capitalist, produce billionaires and create the capital markets?"

Ray Dalio: (28:46)
That's not a new thing, that's been something going on since 1978, so you better have resolved that. And if you can't resolve that and understand why that is, then you don't understand China if you can't give the answer to that riddle. And the answer to that riddle was made clear by [inaudible 00:29:05] and so on, when in 1978 ... And like he said, "It doesn't matter if it's a white cat or a black cat, just as long as it catches mice."

Ray Dalio: (29:15)
And what he means by that, is get rich. He said also, "It's glorious to be rich."

Ray Dalio: (29:20)
To raise the living standards and then to redistribute wealth simultaneously to make them both operate together. And if you look at Marxism, it's dialectical materialism. What is dialectical materialism? Dialectical means two things that seem inconsistent and are at odds and when they are in ... That produces product, that produces progress. And so what it means is ... Okay, here it is. Marxism and capitalism and then they're very practical people. And so to understand that it's not your grandfather's communism in that same way, it's something that's been going on there. And so where it is in terms of that evolution, if you take any measures of capitalism in China and I use a lot of measures. How much is wealth distribution? What are the tax rates? And so on and so forth. And you take capitalism and use equal measures across countries, what you have is about the same amount of capitalism going on in China as you have in the United States and way more than is going on in Europe or is going on in other places.

Ray Dalio: (30:32)
I think it's important to understand them. In other words, what would they say and what are they doing? And I think that you're getting a move toward ... There are a number of things going on. We could talk about data management and so on, depending on how long you want to talk about it but one of the things is the broadening of the benefits, the move to the left. And the move to the left is like a move to the left here. If you were to look at let's say, their move to the left, I don't think is going to be a Bernie Sanders move to the left or those types of things but there is a movement to redistribute or to deal with that kind of issue in various ways, without knocking that over. Don't mistake it for what might be a return to something else, certainly onto Xi because if you follow Xi and you follow the policy and you know the policy makers around Xi, that's not what's happening.

Ray Dalio: (31:31)
Now, you also have to understand that there's a whole different way about regulation. One of the leaders described it as that in the United States, he was saying ... And this is not ideologically, just matter of factly, is saying, "In the United States, it's a country of individuals and individualism."

Ray Dalio: (31:55)
And that's of paramount importance. And so it's a bottom up type of place. In China, it's an extension of the family and the hierarchy. And it goes back to confusion and it's very much a top down type of thing. And so it's much more regulated. And so when you see things like let's say, do they regulate how much time your kids will be on video games? We would say, "Okay, that's really a parental decision."

Ray Dalio: (32:22)
A lot of people would. Some parents might say, "I would rather the government do that than me try to have a struggle with my kids all the time."

Ray Dalio: (32:29)
... but anyway. You have to understand the approaches. Different people can have different approaches but that's basically what's going on. And then the question is, when I'm thinking as an investor ... I admire their thinking, the quality of the thinking. There were the choices that each makes and there were pros and cons. The main thing is that each country, our country, is it going to be strong? Is it going to be capable? And there are basics of what that means. Do you educate your children well? Is there civil behavior and so on? That's what we have to focus on. I think if we have a diversification of a portfolio, it's dangerous to be in any one place. You want certain chips there, certain chips there and some other chips elsewhere.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (33:16)
What do you say to the China critics who say China represents an almost existential threat to the United States? And that actually, anyone here in the United States shouldn't be doing anything to help them get to that place?

Ray Dalio: (33:32)
Well, I think that China could be an existential threat to the United States and the United States could be an existential threat to China and so on. And I think that the more we move in that direction and don't understand and don't have contact and don't have interrelationships, the more likely that's going to be an existential risk.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (34:01)
We only have about five more minutes. And I wanted to actually talk to you a little personally because one of the things that I've been fascinated about during this pandemic and even before then, you had published a book called Principles, which I've written about but in addition to that book ... And we talked a lot about the culture inside Bridgewater and the idea of radical transparency. You've tried to take that radical transparency concept and bring it outside the four walls of Bridgewater to the public if you will. There's software, you can now ... Anybody in the room can go do it, where some of the same technology they use inside Bridgewater is now available to the public to use on Zooms, to effectively rate or judge other people on the Zooms. I'm curious, in the post COVID world, I don't know if ... Hopefully we're past it or getting past it, what the last 18 months has made you think about in terms of that culture that you've been trying to create and what it means elsewhere?

Ray Dalio: (35:05)
Well, I'm at a stage in my life ... I'm 72 years old. I'm at a stage in my life where my goal is not anymore to be more successful myself but just to try to pass along and then I'll do that for a year or two and then I'm done. I'm basically [inaudible 00:35:19].

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (35:19)
You're done in a year or two.

Ray Dalio: (35:20)
Yeah, basically...

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (35:22)
What are you doing in a year or two?

Ray Dalio: (35:24)
Go quiet, do the things I like to do and so on. I think that there's a life arc. There's a natural with transitions. In the first third of your life, you're dependent on others, you're going to school, your parents are there. Second phase of your life, others are dependent on you. You work, you try to be successful. And then your third phase of your life, the natural thing is to help other people be successful and try to pass along the things that are worthwhile. And I'm in that particular transition phase. And so one of the things was that ... And our culture, which is ... Say it in one sentence, it's a long sentence. An idea of meritocracy. In other words, the best ideas went out without hierarchy, an idea meritocracy in which the goals are meaningful work and meaningful relationships through radical truthfulness and radical transparency. And that's worked for me.

Ray Dalio: (36:21)
In other words, if you can be honest with people and you realize that there's both the great relationships but you can be truthful, radically truthful, you could talk about things in that way, then you can know what's true because if you don't know what's true in everybody's head and you have the politics, not only is that inefficient but it also undermines trust. If you can have that trust and you can also use data, collect data so that you could speak up about what's important to you and you can collect the data, that helps you make an idea meritocracy. Anyway, there was those things that work. I won't go explain it all. And so what I wanted to do was to pass that along. And so yes, I've passed along two things.

Ray Dalio: (37:06)
On Zoom, there's now the Dot Collector, a way that people can pass along their thoughts and also collect information data so that let's say, if you go into an annual review, rather an annual review, you have a daily review and so on and you learn. And bosses should be doing that all the time with their people in an honest basis or vice versa. People who work for somebody should do it with their bosses, I think. That process has worked for me and I believe it works very well. And then I put out also ... I found that personality file tests are really great, things like Myers-Briggs and so on. About 20 years ago, I started doing these. I had four or five that I would use and then I decided I wanted to make one. And I wanted to ... That's a simpler [inaudible 00:37:55] all the information. I put out one called PrinciplesYou. It's available for everybody. It helps people understand themselves and others. You took it.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (38:05)
I did.

Ray Dalio: (38:05)
Your wife took it, a lot of people take it and so on. I just made it available for everybody for free. And then there's a component of that PrinciplesYou if you want to take it, it's online. And then there's a part that it also, if you put in yours with somebody else's or even your whole team's, it'll tell you about the group dynamic, PrinciplesUs. And that's why, knowing what you're like and knowing what others are like allows people to play to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses rather than to try to cover them up with politics.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (38:37)
What do you think of Zoom life? And the reason I ask, is because I know you tried to create a specific unique culture at Bridgewater, how much easier or harder you think it is? Maybe it's actually easier because you used to always film meetings. That was always part of it. Now we all film our meetings.

Ray Dalio: (38:56)
Well, I think what ... I don't know that I have unique reviews but I do think that there's pros and cons and that it's a great alternative. The capacity to then make conscious choices of whether you're doing things on Zoom and then do you collect data or not? And that's a real benefit, time benefits and so on. I think we're going to a world where then the in person will be part of that but it'll be more tailored to in person and we'll now have a more tailored mix for everybody and they'll pick their tailored mix.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (39:28)
And the other thing that you have coming up is this new book, that you have coming up in November.

Ray Dalio: (39:33)
Now, this is the ...

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (39:33)
The Changing World Order.

Ray Dalio: (39:34)
Oh, okay. Yeah, you can order it if you want. You can order it. That's the study that I needed to do to understand where we were. And then because it was completed as a study and I want to pass things along, that's it, The Changing World Order. And it's a study of last 500 years, it brings it right up to the moment and it shows the patterns.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (39:59)
Ray Dalio, everybody. Thank you for the conversation.

Ray Dalio: (40:02)
Thank you.

Andrew Ross Sorkin: (40:02)
Appreciate it.

Ray Dalio: (40:03)
Thank you.

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain Discusses President Biden's Agenda | #SALTNY

Ron Klain is the White House Chief of Staff under President Joe Biden. He served in the two previous Democratic White House administrations that included his role as President Obama's Ebola Response Director.

Robert Wolf worked in the Obama administration, serving on the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness and the Export Council. He is fonder of 32 Advisors, an investment firm holding company, and was previously CEO of UBS Americas.

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Ron-Klain-Cropped.png

Ron Klain

White House Chief of Staff under President Joe Biden

Headshot - Wolf, Robert - Cropped.jpeg

Robert Wolf

Founder

32 Advisors

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Robert Wolf: (00:06)
Ron, this is truly an honor to interview you, especially during such incredibly challenging times at the White House, and throughout the globe. As you know, a few years ago, the SALT Conference had the honor of hosting then Private Citizen, and now POTUS, and your boss, President Biden. So, before I begin, on behalf of SALT and its founder, Anthony Scaramucci, we want to thank you. We're going to cover a few topics, but the thousands of attendees today watching live and streaming are mainly from financial services. So, we're going to start with the economy.

Robert Wolf: (00:44)
Ron, we've seen over the last three months, over 700,000 monthly job gains. I mean, really remarkable numbers. There continues to be a large number of unemployed, but what's amazing, and really for one of the first times, we have actually more jobs available than those unemployed, almost 10 million now. The GOP gladly says, "You're just way too generous. You're paying people to stay home," whereas the administration often talks about, "This is mainly COVID-related, childcare, elder care, healthcare," and just the change that's taken place in a post-pandemic world. So, I'd like to ask you, how do you close the gap and how do you see it?

Ron Klain: (01:32)
Well, first of all, Robert, thank you very much for having me. I appreciate being invited to speak to the attendees at the SALT Conference. It's always a great opportunity to get our message out and to answer some questions, and always great to be with you-

Robert Wolf: (01:43)
Thank you.

Ron Klain: (01:44)
... even if virtually, Robert. Look, I think we've gone through a difficult year here, as we've transitioned from a pandemic year to hopefully getting back closer to normal. The three months before Joe Biden became president, the economy created 50,000 jobs a month. The past few months, as you noted, it's been 700,000 jobs. And so, we're making a lot of progress, but I think the transition from a shutdown, shuttered economy to a fully open, reopened, moving economy is going to have some fits and starts, and is going to have some adjustments and some kind of growing pains, if you will. And so, that's what we're seeing, I think, with all these open jobs not yet filled.

Ron Klain: (02:24)
In terms of the generosity of unemployment benefits, well, however people see that, what we know is this fact: those extended unemployment benefits ended last week. So, right now, there's no one in America getting the extra $300 a week, no one in America who were in that group of what we call Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, big economy workers who weren't otherwise eligible for unemployment who got unemployment because of special benefits. No one in the group anymore who's getting the super-extended unemployment, the additional 49 weeks on top of the 26 weeks. So, those programs have now come to an end, and I think you're going to see more and more of those jobs filled, but I think what we have to do is finish the work of going back from pandemic to normal.

Ron Klain: (03:10)
That means getting people the childcare they need. I think we had a big moment the past couple of weeks as school started to reopen, sometimes for the first time. I think New York City was the first day today. The students were back in school in 18 months. So, our lives as a country, our lives as a society, were badly disrupted in 2020, and we had a bungled response to the pandemic. And so, I think this year as we've gotten people vaccinated, we're getting people back to work, the unemployment rate's down to 5.2%, created a lot of jobs, I think you're going to continue to see that transition back to more economic normalcy, as the year continues to unfold.

Robert Wolf: (03:46)
Well, that brings us, and we're going to go into childcare and elder care, but I think the next question I want to discuss is infrastructure. I am someone, and you know this, that would like it to pass tomorrow. My guess is there's a lot of people in the White House that would like to pass it tomorrow. It's a 550 billion bipartisan bill. President Biden is the president about bipartisanship. He touts it all the time, it was one of the reasons I think the nation elected him. That being said, we're at this impasse. Why aren't we passing it today when unions support it, businesses support it, polling supports it? What are we waiting for?

Ron Klain: (04:31)
Well, look, I think it's working its way through the legislative process, like everything else. We haven't made this kind of investment in infrastructure since the 1950s. So, we're talking about a lot of investments that are decades overdue, and we'd all like the legislative process to work lickety-split. I think we're on the verge of breaking, as I said, a 50-year, 60-year, 70-year deadlock, and finally getting a bipartisan infrastructure bill. I hope it passes in the next few weeks and gets to the president's desk. I think the thing we should be remarking is not that it's going so slow but really, by historical standards, it's a lot of progress very, very quickly.

Ron Klain: (05:06)
It has been bipartisan as you noted, Robert. It addresses very traditional forms of infrastructure, long overdue investments in roads, in bridges, and highways, those sorts of things, but also some new infrastructure. It really gives a chance to connect every single American to high-speed internet. It replaces all the lead pipes that still bring leaded water to too many of our schools, childcare centers, too many homes. It's a record investment in electric charging stations for electric vehicles, so we can really move into the clean energy economy. So, we're very excited about that bipartisan infrastructure plan. We're looking forward to it passing [crosstalk 00:05:42].

Robert Wolf: (05:42)
I'm always smiling, because I actually testified, I think it was 2009 or '10 on infrastructure. So in a way, I'm saying to myself, I think you made a good point. It's actually September 29th possibly, it may pass the legislative action, but I would say it's so long overdue. You guys have been at the forefront. It's something that I think I've heard President Biden talk about so often. I would say the anxiousness is every second, that people really are saying this, and we're going to talk about climate action, when you talked about kind of the changes being made.

Robert Wolf: (06:22)
I'll give you kind of the pass on, okay, infrastructure's around the corner. The one that seems a little less around the corner, and maybe in some ways, as if not more important, because it really impacts what I would say, the social agenda of Build Back Better, President Biden's main plan, which is really the reconciliation package, which is three and a half trillion. It's healthcare, it's elder care, it's childcare, it's climate action. From where I sit, it feels like it won't be north of two trillion, and I know that a lot of the Progressives want to tie it to the infrastructure bill. So one, do you think the infrastructure can pass without it? And number two, if it ends up being around two trillion, will that be big enough to get what you need to get done on the most important priorities?

Ron Klain: (07:19)
Well, first of all, we want both these bills on the president's desk, and that's how the president laid it out when he stood before Congress and the country in April and laid out, and the joint session of Congress has plans for what we called then the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan. The Jobs Plan has kind of morphed into the bipartisan infrastructure bill. The Families Plan is now the reconciliation bill, or what we like to call Build Back Better, because no one really likes the word "reconciliation bill." And so, we're making progress on both these things. It's a very bold, big agenda, and again, I think the amazing thing is Congress has moved as much of it as quickly as it has. We're only in the eighth month of Joe Biden's presidency, and here we are kind of in the final stages of getting both these bills to the president's desk. I think it's a great credit to everyone who's been working on it.

Ron Klain: (08:05)
And so, I think that in terms of the size of the Build Back Better Plan, I know the president's endorsed, and his plan was about a $3.5 trillion gross cost. It's always important. I always hate these numbers because the truth is, the cost of the Build Back Better Plan is zero, because we have proposed a way to pay for every single penny of spending in that plan, with a penny of revenue increases. Now, four years ago, people talked about Donald Trump's tax plan as a $1.7 trillion plan, but that was the net cost. It actually was a six or $7 trillion tax cut with five or $6 trillion of offset, so they talked about the net cost of that plan. Well, the net cost of Build Back Better is zero, because we can pay for every penny of those investments.

Robert Wolf: (08:46)
And we're going to talk, Ron, about the pay-fors. That's the next question.

Ron Klain: (08:49)
Okay.

Robert Wolf: (08:50)
And I did not show it to you, but that is the next question. But before I get to the pay-fors, I don't want to make this a Senator Sanders versus Senator Manchin debate here. I'd rather much hear what your view is. But you need 50 votes.

Ron Klain: (09:06)
Yes.

Robert Wolf: (09:06)
And so, it certainly feels like we won't see a $3.5 trillion package. So my question is a little more narrow. If it was a narrower plan, which I know is not the preference, what are the few most important priorities that you see that the president wouldn't sign without them?

Ron Klain: (09:27)
Well, look, I think the important thing is to make sure we meet the moment on the key items. Maybe they have to be cut down in size, maybe. Maybe they have to be shortened in duration, maybe. I'm not going to sit here and negotiate it out at the SALT Conference. This is what we're going to do here over the next few weeks with members of the House and Senate. But what is really critical is we have a big childcare problem in our country. We were talking a little bit before about the mismatch between jobs and workers, and we know one reason we have millions of people sitting on the sidelines in the economy, is they don't have affordable childcare, particularly at a time of great disruption and change, people moving, all these things. They don't have affordable childcare. We know we have other people sitting on the sidelines because they don't have elder care to take care of elderly parents, or maybe a disabled child or something like that. They need in-home care services.

Ron Klain: (10:12)
You go down the line. And so, we think about this as an investment, not just in people and social spending, but in economic growth, job creation, and doing the things we need to do to really build long-term growth. Now, the other thing I'll say is what are the must-haves? Another big must-have here certainly is climate change. Joe Biden ran, he said there were four crises he was going to deal with, COVID, the economy, climate change, and racism. Climate change is at the center of the agenda, and the Build Back Better Plan is a critical opportunity to make investments in combating climate change, and building jobs and creating a clean energy economy. That's absolutely central to us, it's got to be part of the mix here.

Robert Wolf: (10:48)
I want you to talk about taxes, but before I go there, that let's just talk about climate action. I mean, yes, it's great that you went into the Paris Accord, but forget what's happening globally. Let's just talk about the United States. The hurricanes, the floods. I mean, this has just been a brutal few months for this country, with respect to climate change and the impact it's having on everyone. What are the few things you think you can do that actually will be an agent of change?

Ron Klain: (11:20)
Yeah. Well, I absolutely agree. We've seen extreme weather, not just the things you mentioned. As you and I are having this conversation, the president right now is in Idaho at the National Wildfire Center. We have tremendous wildfires burning up the Western part of our country, another example of this extreme weather phenomenon that we're seeing. So what can we do about it? Well, we've got to move to a clean energy economy. We know doing that will be key to our international leadership. We know it will be key to our economic leadership. We know it's going to create a lot of jobs that can't be outsourced. We know it's going to make the planet healthier. And it means, first of all, working with industry. The president's had the CEOs of the big auto companies to the White House a couple times. He spent a lot of time on them developing new standards and new tools to convert our fleet over the coming years into an electric vehicle fleet. That's going to again, create a lot of jobs and make our economy stronger, and make our environment better. We also-

Robert Wolf: (12:12)
I think after that, GM actually made a pretty impressive announcement that they're going almost all electric vehicles over the next decade or something.

Ron Klain: (12:20)
Yeah, so we've had a lot of progress on that front, but we can't stop there. We also have to focus very much on power generation, making a lot of investments in expanding our use of solar and wind in particular, other alternative energy fuels. That's a big part of the money and the Build Back Better Plan, our tax credits to really help the further expansion of solar wind and other renewable energy. And so, we've got a bold, ambitious agenda on a number of fronts. As you said, it's both a domestic thing and an international thing. The president has a big international conference coming up at the end of this week with leaders around the world to continue to press the global approach here to fighting climate change, but we need to make the investments here at home that will create jobs that will get us on the right path.

Robert Wolf: (13:06)
So let's go back into the pay-fors. I know that President Biden, and you have said quite often, as well as Brian Deese, and all the people from the economic team, we're paying for everything. We have pay-fors, here they are. It's the global minimum tax, it's the corporate tax increasing, it's capital gains, and a lot of other tax reforms. It's taxing the wealthiest. So let's just be clear. Are we concerned about having Democrats be tagged as, "Oh, there they go again, tax and spend liberals," and if not, why?

Ron Klain: (13:45)
Well, so I'm not, because I think really what it's about is tax fairness. I mean, I know we have a lot of big economic interests in the SALT Conference, but let's be frank about it. Middle-class folks have paid taxes, they've paid their burden, and we've seen during the pandemic a lot of people at the top do extremely, extremely well. A lot of companies are doing well. We have the stock market essentially at record highs, we have corporate profits at record highs, and yet, the corporate tax rate is lower than it's ever been, frankly, lower at a level that... I remember when we did corporate tax, no one was really talking about 21%. I don't know how we wound up [crosstalk 00:14:18].

Robert Wolf: (14:17)
28 would've been a win.

Ron Klain: (14:19)
28 would've been a win. So that's what we're talking about. Were not talking about going back up to 35, our proposal's to go to 28, which I think at the time would've been seen as a very, very reasonable proposal, a very modest proposal. And so, that's the kind of thing we're talking about, I think a basic fairness. Secretary Yellen's done a great job working on this idea of a global minimum tax to try to avoid tax havens and companies escaping to different countries to deal with their tax burden. Putting that into our tax code makes a lot of sense.

Ron Klain: (14:48)
Raising the tax rate back to what it was when George Bush became president for the people, the top earners, we think makes a lot of sense. So these, I think are pretty reasonable provisions to kind of rebalance the tax code, to kind of get to a place where everyone's paying their fair share, the people at the top are still going to do extremely well. No one who makes under $400,000 a year will pay a penny in taxes more than they pay right now. That seems like a pretty fair way to do things.

Robert Wolf: (15:12)
I know my Republican friends will never admit it, but when you tout the idea of a minimum global tax and that there's 50 or 60 of the top Fortune 100 companies didn't pay any taxes, I know that they would support that on an up and down vote, they just would never admit that, but that's for a different conversation.

Ron Klain: (15:30)
Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

Robert Wolf: (15:31)
Ron, I want to move to COVID, because there's probably nothing that ties to the economy now more than the pandemic. We actually had you for one of our VIP sessions on April 2020 when you were a special guest, and we actually had you because of your experiences at that time being the Ebola Czar under the Obama administration. And to paraphrase you, you articulated that, I'm going to quote you, but "The opening will be more like a light dimmer than a light switch, and the two key variables we need to focus on are testing and vaccines." If we had that again today, where do you see us now? What are the most important variables? Just give us an idea of where you see us in this COVID environment.

Ron Klain: (16:17)
So look, I think that "the light dimmer, not the light switch," still is the right metaphor. And that's kind of some of the struggles we're seeing. On the one hand, as you said, we started off with a conversation about job creation. On the other hand, we know we have supply chain disruption that's creating production problems, all kinds of problems. A lot of that supply chain disruption traces back to the pandemic itself. These oddities in the economy, rental car companies that sold off all their rental cars-

Robert Wolf: (16:45)
Unbelievable.

Ron Klain: (16:45)
... during the pandemic, because, obviously, people weren't renting them, and now they need to go out and buy cars, and because they're buying cars or too few cars. So, this is part of this kind of dimmer switch thing. As we turn back on, we're seeing all these things that need to be worked out. A shortage of semiconductor chips, of course, that's wreaking havoc across a lot of different industries, but also just basic hitches in the supply chain. We had built an incredibly efficient economy with a lot of just-in-time inventory, just-in-time supply chains, maybe a little too efficient, but whatever it was, once it got kind of blown up with the pandemic, it's taking a while to work all that back out, get that all in place. Same thing with, of course, the labor markets, and as I said before, people who now lack childcare, people whose schools were closed until this week.

Ron Klain: (17:33)
So that's all kind of part of the readjustment, but fundamentally, what we need to do is get the rate of COVID down, right? That's the most important thing, I think-

Robert Wolf: (17:41)
Do you think-

Ron Klain: (17:42)
... in terms of economic growth and where we go from here, and that's what the plan the president announced last week to increase the vaccination rate, to help the people who are vaccinated with booster shots, to take steps to help small businesses. Again, all these things, that's part of kind of moving us forward from where we are now.

Robert Wolf: (17:59)
And we're going to talk about the requirement, but do you think that the nation understood the idea of the dimmer versus the light switch? I know that July 4th, we were all excited, and then Delta variant, and then 100 million people are not vaccinated, and all of a sudden, it speeds up and then it starts going through the bumps. Should we have expected that it wasn't just going to have this exuberant reopening?

Ron Klain: (18:22)
Look, I think human nature is to kind of hope for the best and hope that we could turn a corner quickly. That's that's just who we are, that's just, I think humanity. But the reality is you look at these epidemics throughout history, you look at particularly something this big, truly, a pandemic hitting every corner of the globe, you have manufacturers in the country, "Why is my plant shut down? My plant's shut down," because COVID's bad someplace on the other side of the planet, where a critical element of my production was assembled, where I have a supply chain. Companies probably who didn't even know where their supply chains fully reached and extended, they're now learning about COVID outbreaks in other parts of the world and things like that. So, this has been a real test. I think we are getting back to normal. I think things are coming along, certainly. We've made a lot of progress on employment, a lot of progress on economic growth, but we have more work to do about the pandemic.

Robert Wolf: (19:13)
Well, let's talk about where I think you guys have done an amazing job, and I have to admit, I'm a little confused at the other side right now, but last week, the president took incredibly bold steps on the vaccine requirement, what going to happen with the federal employees, the private sector, the healthcare sector, the education sector. I have to admit, I'm confused because you have red state governors, you know what they're calling him, but then they have their own immunization requirements for kids going to school. So we have so many different narratives coming out that people are confused, and in some ways, it feels like it's stalling our success. Two things. One, how do we square the circle and get people to know vaccines are important to take, and take it, and it makes everyone better? And then number two, what is the legal argument you have with the requirements that the president announced last week?

Ron Klain: (20:15)
Well, first of all, I hope everyone understands the vaccine is safe and effective. One reason the president held on these measures until now, is we waited until the FDA gave its final license to the Pfizer vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine is fully licensed permanently. We obviously have emergency use for other vaccines. The vaccines have been taken by billions of people around the world. Tens of millions of people, 175 million people in the United States are fully vaccinated. So the proof, this isn't some assertion, everyone can see this in their own lives around them that the vaccine is safe, effective. We also spent a lot of time, Robert, as you know, over the course of the spring, building out an unprecedented distribution network. 90% of Americans live less than five minutes from a place where they can go get a shot without an appointment-

Robert Wolf: (21:04)
It's incredible.

Ron Klain: (21:04)
... and without waiting, and it's free. So it's basically ubiquitous, it's free, it's well-proven, now we need to finish the job. Now, not withstanding all that, the problem is we only have about 64%, 65% of the adults in this country fully vaccinated. So we've got basically a third left that aren't vaccinated. 75 million or so eligible people haven't even gotten the first shot. And so, the steps the president announced last week were an effort to try to boost that number up. You look at countries where that number is up around 80%, not 65%, these countries have a much more normal way of life than we have right now. That's where we need to get to.

Ron Klain: (21:43)
And so, the steps the president announced, I think were all based on his strong legal authority to make the members of the Armed Forces get vaccinated. They live in barracks, they live in close proximity. We don't want COVID outbreaks in our Armed Forces. Who could possibly want that? The federal government pays for Medicare, Medicaid, having the medical facilities that get those benefits, have their staffs be vaccinated. You should be able to go into a hospital if you're sick, and have confidence that the people treating you are not giving you COVID. Okay? That seems like a very reasonable thing. And same thing with the announcement the president made last week about Head Start. Our youngest kids can't be vaccinated. Their caregivers should be vaccinated to lessen the risk to our youth.

Robert Wolf: (22:25)
But Ron, how about the private sector aspect, where it seems is the most pushback?

Ron Klain: (22:30)
Look, the private sector, first, let's be clear what the president announced is a requirement that for large employers, a hundred and up, their workforces either have to be vaccinated or tested. And so, first of all, I don't really understand the philosophical objection to being tested once a week. I don't really understand anyone's right to show up at work at a large workplace and say, "You can't know if I have COVID or not." That seems like a very odd right to me.

Ron Klain: (22:54)
In terms of the president's legal authority, that's going to be done through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, [inaudible 00:23:00] says to workplaces every day in this country, "You're going to work on a construction site, you got to wear a hard hat. You're going to work around noxious chemicals, you got to wear a mask that protects you from noxious chemicals." So saying that in a large workplace where consumers are coming in and out, where you got a lot of other people working there, those people either need to be vaccinated or tested, and COVID-free, it seems like a reasonable way to keep those workplaces safe in the middle of a pandemic.

Robert Wolf: (23:24)
So Ron, one more question, and then I just want to end with some of your priorities. This is kind of, I thought was very impressive what Justin Wolfers, the Economics Professor from University of Michigan, and I'm going to paraphrase him, said, "He's viewing Biden's vaccine mandate as the cheapest and most powerful economic stimulus ever enacted. COVID is a tax, a tax on all in-person interactions, and vaccinations is a tax cut. More jobs equal a bigger tax cut." I know we keep harping on vaccines equals economic growth, but that seems like such a clear message to me. How do we get that a message across, so the 64% goes to 85%, we go to our goal of herd immunity? But how do we get this economic vaccination message more clear that people just say, "Yes, that makes sense to me?"

Ron Klain: (24:26)
Well, Robert, I hope that this conversation and other things get that message out. I also saw that Goldman Sachs today said that the president's vaccine requirements might create, I read it briefly, but I think something like three million more jobs because of people being less fearful in the service sector. So I think there's a lot of evidence that our economic growth will be stimulated tremendously by getting more people vaccinated, by lessening the fear and anxiety that consumers have about spread of the virus, by lessening the absenteeism from workers who get sick from the virus, and by obviously, lessening the burden on our healthcare system from the unvaccinated that they're placing, and the impacts that has on our healthcare system. So it makes economic sense, it makes healthcare sense, it makes sense in every single way. That's why the president did what he did last week.

Robert Wolf: (25:11)
And who would've thought it's a tax cut?

Ron Klain: (25:14)
And who would've thought it's a tax cut? You bet.

Robert Wolf: (25:17)
So last question. I mean, we could talk about civil rights, voting rights, Afghanistan, China, trade, so many issues that literally are on your desk on a daily basis. What do you see away from COVID and the economy, which is kind of a strange thing to say, away from COVID and economy, but what do you see as the few key priorities of 2022 that we're not thinking about today?

Ron Klain: (25:47)
Well, I think voting rights is very important. I don't know about not thinking about it, I hope people are thinking about it, but it's certainly a very important priority that needs to be addressed this year. I think we need to continue the work on police reform and criminal justice reform that's been talked about and the Congress has been working on, we need to kind of get to the finish line on that. As we alluded to before, climate change remains a very, very high priority, both on the domestic front, the international front, as we build towards Glasgow near the end of the year as a critical milestone in terms of combating climate change.

Ron Klain: (26:21)
And so, those are critical things. I hope we get some action on immigration reform inside the reconciliation package. We need to do more work there to make our system a more fair system, more rational system, and fix what's broken in our immigration system. We obviously have tens of thousands of evacuees coming here from Afghanistan. We're going to get them settled appropriately, we're going to have to get them into their new lives here in the United States, and we're going to need a lot of help from state and local governments, but also from the private sector to help these people find jobs, help these people move on with their lives. Many of these people, many of these men and women fought alongside our troops or assisted our troops in other ways in Afghanistan, and they're now coming to our country, they're coming to a new country. There is a large Afghan-American community that's going to help them resettle, but we need broad social help to help these people begin their new lives.

Ron Klain: (27:12)
So I think all those things and many more. I'm sure I'm forgetting many things. Obviously trade, China, we could go down the line, a lot of priorities here, but for us fundamentally, those four key priorities, the economy, COVID, climate change, combating racism, those are the four key pillars for us this year and probably on into next year.

Robert Wolf: (27:30)
Well, listen, Ron, we truly appreciate your time. I mean, more importantly, I just want to thank you on behalf of our entire country. You have done an amazing job, what I think is really being one of the most transparent chief of staffs in White House that we've seen in years. And so, I just want to thank you for that, and thank you for thinking about us.

Ron Klain: (27:51)
Well, thank you for having me, Robert. Thanks for all you do and your public advocacy, and thanks for having me here at the SALT Conference.

Robert Wolf: (27:57)
Thank you very much.

Ron Klain: (27:59)
Take care.

The Hedge Fund Comeback: Steve Cohen, Ilana Weinstein, Dmitry Balyasny & Mike Rockefeller | #SALTNY

The hedge fund comeback with Steve Cohen the Founder of Point72. Ilana Weinstein the Founder & Chief Executive Officer of The IDW Group. Dmitry Balyasny the Managing Partner & Chief Investment Officer of Balyasny Asset Management. Mike Rockefeller the Co-Chief Investment Officer of Woodline Partners.

Moderated by Barry Ritholtz the Founder & Chief Investment Officer of Ritholtz Wealth Management.

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Cohen, Steven A. - Cropped.png

Steve Cohen

Founder

Point72

Headshot - Weinstein, Ilana - Cropped.jpeg

Ilana Weinstein

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

The IDW Group

Headshot - Balyasny, Dmitry - Cropped.jpeg

Dmitry Balyasny

Managing Partner & Chief Investment Officer

Balyasny Asset Management

Michael Rockefeller

Co-Chief Investment Officer

Woodline Partners

 

MODERATOR

Barry Ritholtz.png

Barry Ritholtz

Founder & Chief Investment Officer

Ritholtz Wealth Management

 

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Barry Ritholtz: (00:00)
All right, so this is really a fascinating crowd, and I think I have the easiest job of the whole three day event, because this is quite an illustrious panel and I know they all have a lot to discuss. When we look at the state of the hedge fund industry since the Great Financial Crisis, the performance has been a little lackluster, and there have been lots of conversations about what's going on in the hedge fund world, and are we ever going to see the sort of uptick that we saw pre-crisis. And I think the past two years has brought that question to the fore where we've seen tremendous performance, tremendous alpha and a lot of attraction of assets. And to talk about the question, "Is the hedge fund industry back?" is the panel, and let me introduce everybody very briefly.

Barry Ritholtz: (01:03)
Steven Cohen is the founder of Point72. He is a legendary hedge fund investor as well as proud new owner of the New York Mets. Dmitry Balyasny runs one of the more interesting hedge funds in the world. They manage about $9 billion, returned more than 30% last year. Ilana Weinstein is the founder of the IDW Group, one of the hedge fund industry's leading headhunters, and she knows all about talents and what it takes to get on top and stay on top. And at the end of our panel is Mike Rockefeller. He's the founder of Woodline, which was one of 2019's biggest hedge fund launches, in less than two years has eclipsed more than $5 billion in assets under management. And so let's start with a question for everybody. Are hedge funds back? Is the industry in a better place than it was before the pandemic lockdown? Let's start with Steve.

Steven Cohen: (02:08)
I mean, I don't know, have they ever left? I mean, hedge funds have been around for a long time. I mean, there are ups and downs. Listen, the markets have obviously been pretty good since March of last year, and there's been a lot of interesting... There have been sparks, and there have been new companies that have been IPOed and so there's a lot of stuff going on underneath the surface, a lot of rotations in the markets. And so lots of opportunities to create alpha. And I think the performance has been good, I don't think it's been extraordinary, and so usually, in up markets there's an opportunity to... We all tend to look okay, and we'll see what it looks like when the world changes.

Barry Ritholtz: (03:02)
Anyone else want to jump in?

Ilana Weinstein: (03:03)
I do think we're in a better place, but I think part of that is because there was a real calling of the industry from 2015 to 2018. As much as we've seen these fantastic headlines tuning the resurgence of hedge funds in the past year and change, there were all these headlines if you remember also predicting their demise back then and doomsayers about the industry. And we saw a lot of funds go out of business, big funds that once upon a time were brand name funds like Eton Park, and Blue Ridge, and Convexity and Pine River and Blue Mountain, and the list is honestly too long to recount. These were not two-bit players, these were real funds that just couldn't make it. And I do think where we are now is in a better place because like any industry that matures, and we are maturing, we're still young but we're maturing, there is a weeding out of weaker players.

Ilana Weinstein: (04:00)
And I think a healthier set of funds remain, and yes, COVID like Steve suggested that the opportunity set was great for funds, there was a lot of volatility, fundamentals came to the fore, great sector themes were accelerated, but there's also a path dependency to investing and you can take more risk when you're up, and buy at the bottom with both arms. And I think the fact that we do have now and this is continuing to evolve, we'll see more funds go out of business and new ones thrive, but the fact that there is a stronger set of funds today, I do think has helped in lifting returns.

Barry Ritholtz: (04:40)
Dmitry, what are your thoughts? What's the state of the industry today?

Dmitry Balyasny: (04:43)
Yeah, I agree with that. I think it's stronger. I also agree some capacity came out of the industry which was helpful. I mean, there is a little bit of cyclicality to the strategies, so if you look at just overall long short returns and equities from '16, '17, '18, they weren't that great, so we got a little bit of a bounce back from that same thing with macro had pretty slow period with very low volatility. We're getting a little bit of a bounce back from that. And I think in general, hedge funds do well when there's some sort of significant change in the markets that lead to more durable flows for some period of time, which we definitely got last year. We've gotten kind of bits and pieces of that this year, so there's a decent amount to do.

Barry Ritholtz: (05:32)
And, Mike, you come from a very different perspective, your fund launched much later than these gentlemen. You're 2019, you're West Coast based and most of us are East Coast based. How do you see the world of hedge funds today? What does it look like from your perspective?

Mike Rockefeller: (05:50)
There's no question 2019 and 2020 were strong years for hedge funds and long-short equity funds, but I'm going to give you a headline, Barry, that you haven't heard, and that is for equity long-short, 2021 is shaping up to be one of the worst years for the industry. And so you say, "How can that be?" On an absolute basis, hedge funds and equity long-short are up 8%. That is true, but from an alpha perspective, when you look at the prime broker data from Morgan Stanley and others, alpha generated is actually down 7%. So I think it's important to see, okay, where are those returns coming from? Is it driven by the major equity markets being up double digits, S&P almost 20%? Is there anything beyond what's going on besides the data and factors in the market? The data would suggest No. That being said, I am optimistic for the industry. Those are averages, and there are funds that are generating alpha, and I think LPs are as smart as ever in being able to understand what's driving returns, and so I think this will be a great year when it's over to see who those funds actually are.

Barry Ritholtz: (07:18)
So let's stay with that concept of alpha, and I have to ask the question, why are so few funds persistently successful? Why does it seem that alpha is so fleeting and such a small group of outlier funds have consistently come up with a process for managing a business generating above average returns and doing so persistently over long periods of time? For anyone who wants to jump on that?

Steven Cohen: (07:46)
Well, listen, I think there are a number of reasons. I mean, I think a lot of funds tend to be very focused on particular sectors, and sectors could go in and out of favor, and sometimes it's hard to generate alpha when things aren't going well in sectors. And in multi-manager platforms that I run, Dmitry runs, we can sort of move money around and take advantage of where the action is. We at Point72, we're providing our portfolio managers and our analysts with tons of resources, tons of new tools, and so our people have advantages as far as what they can use, and what they're offered as opposed to a smaller fund, that just doesn't have the resources that they need or would want or could afford to compete against the bigger funds. We're very talent oriented, and so we're constantly regenerating our talent, and they're always trying to hire the best and brightest. And so, it's sort of... I mean, smaller funds they lose one important person, it's hard to recreate that person again.

Barry Ritholtz: (09:13)
So let's stay with the concept of talents, and go to Ilana who runs a talent recruitment firm. How do you identify the best talents in the hedge fund space? How do you recruit them? And more importantly, how do you retain them once you get these people in the door?

Ilana Weinstein: (09:31)
We need like a whole panel on that topic, at least.

Steven Cohen: (09:35)
You can take the next 35 minutes.

Ilana Weinstein: (09:38)
All right. I think everyone's here more to hear what you have to say.

Steven Cohen: (09:42)
No, I rather hear you.

Ilana Weinstein: (09:43)
So, if you remember nothing else, talent is everything. It is everything. And this industry is much about human capital, as it is about managing capital. You can forget about alpha if you cannot attract and retain a winning team. And I think part of it all comes down to first defining what excellence is. people bandy about the term analyst and PM and head of business and founder, but they often mean different things, depending on the fund that we're talking about. So I think it's useful to focus on the skill set. With an analyst, we're really looking for somebody who is fantastic at identifying and systematizing opportunities, acquiring information, looking for patterns to figure out what's important and what's not, and velocity of ideas.

Ilana Weinstein: (10:46)
With a PM, we're looking for more of a risk gene, and somebody who can commit capital, and knows when to lean in and when to lean out, can be flexible, has the ability to construct a portfolio with diversification, and has a sense of how to really pull the levers of sizing and positioning. And I think a head of a business depending again, on what we're talking about, if it's somebody who sits at Point72 or Balyasny at a top multi manager, then we're talking about somebody who's almost like the coach of a all star basketball team, or maybe owner of a baseball team, who has a group of all star players, and really understands how to bring the best out of them without micromanaging them too much, and can really press on the nexus of ambition, youth and potential.

Ilana Weinstein: (11:52)
And ultimately, once you've identified what you're after, you have to provide something that the person isn't getting where they are today. And our industry, I don't think structurally, lends itself for the most part to evolution, because most funds, most of these 12,000 funds are small funds. There is a founder at the top who is the committer of capital, and when you get to a point or even if they're big funds, it may or may not surprise you. You could be a $30 billion single manager fund, and when you peel back the curtain, the investing team is maybe 10 individuals who matter. So if you want to move into running a business and committing capital, you have to leave, by its very nature you have to leave and either start your own thing, or go to a multi manager which will give you the autonomy and the tools to be successful.

Ilana Weinstein: (12:48)
But ultimately, this industry is about wanting to be treated fairly, having agency and being empowered, and the things that lend themselves to that or a funds approach to compensation, how much autonomy people are given and the skills that they're learning. I think in today's environment, which has become more and more complex, whether it's because of Reddit and melting ice cube shorts, or just the amount of data that everyone has access to in the industry, you need an infrastructure that's going to help you pair great ideas with superior risk management. And there are only so many funds that can teach you to do that. So that's also a big selling point for why people would leave.

Barry Ritholtz: (13:39)
So let me follow up that question and it's open for everybody. If you have a repeatable process, and you have a team in place that you have confidence in, through the changes in markets like WallStreetBets and Reddit and things like that, do they make any difference? Or can your team just adapt and adjust to whatever comes his way? Let's open up to anybody.

Dmitry Balyasny: (14:03)
Oh, I think it depends on what your strategy is. I think like the Reddit situation makes it tougher to run a concentrated portfolio, particularly on the short side. And so if you have a fun with a significant amount of AUM, and a relatively small number of short positions, you really have to adapt your strategy. For diversified platforms, I don't really think it makes much of a difference if we have thousands and thousands of short positions and pretty tight concentration limits, particularly on anything with high short interest. But if I could also step back on your previous question to why there's so few firms that are persistently successful, I think in addition to resources, which I totally agree with.

Dmitry Balyasny: (14:49)
I think the basic issue is markets are pretty efficient, and the amount of alpha spread that you can make consistently on levered basis, it's pretty small, right? A good long-short team, they can make 3, 4 or 5% a year over five years on GMV unlevered. That's pretty good, right? One year they might make 10, next year they might be at zero, but over time if they're hitting 4 or 5%, that's pretty good if you're neutralizing factors. So if you have a fund where you got a couple of groups of these guys, like it's just not enough return, you really need to lever it, and in order to lever it, you need to have a lot of people otherwise you have a lot of risk with a few positions or a few people getting cold. So now you're in a completely different business. Instead of just managing investments. you're managing a lot of people and people management's not easy, right?

Steven Cohen: (15:40)
No. People are no problem.

Dmitry Balyasny: (15:44)
Yeah.

Steven Cohen: (15:45)
So if you have people, you have problems, pure and simple.

Barry Ritholtz: (15:50)
So you better off with with a smaller startup firm where it's the manager, a small team and their portfolio? Do you feel like you have an advantage, Mike, against these guys, because you're not managing 1600 employees?

Mike Rockefeller: (16:07)
I think certainly being smaller is is an advantage, but I think scale is also an advantage. And in order to attract and retain the talent, you do need scale because if you think about what people want, and there's a lot written on this, there's a book by Daniel Pink called Drive and he talks about what motivates people, what do they really want. They they need all of the tools and resources to be the best at what they do, and that's the scale part because you can't offer them that unless you have a larger firm. They want autonomy, they want to be able to live and die by the decisions that they make. I think the multi-manager multi-PM model lends itself to that.

Mike Rockefeller: (17:00)
The last piece is kind of soft, but I believe in it 100% is purpose. People want purpose. And there's a lot of money in this industry, and of course, people want to make money but we have real evidence at Woodline and I think, I've heard Ilana speak on this as well, money isn't the only thing. At a certain point, people want more than that, they want partnership, they want to work with great people. They're willing to sacrifice short term compensation for long term wealth creation. And so if you can offer that to people, those three elements, I think those are what's going to drive retention and ultimately what we were talking about, sustainable returns for LPs.

Ilana Weinstein: (17:46)
Yeah. It's really not about the number. I know you and I joke about this, whether it's about the number, but it's about the approach to compensation, which I alluded to earlier. People want to be treated fairly, they don't want to be netted. They don't want to feel... They're fine not to get paid if they didn't perform, but if they did, they don't want their compensation going to subsidize the rest of the team that didn't do particularly well. And I think this goes back to your question before about why so few funds are persistently successful?

Ilana Weinstein: (18:29)
In recruiting talent, you can't be that transactional. And what I mean by that is even though this is a transactional industry, we raise money, we charge fees, we do well, we succeed, we eventually go out of business. It's very clear. When you hire people, there are always pivot points. I don't care if it's the same role, they're going to a new fund, there are nuances that they're going to have to learn, be it the nets, the approach to risk management, concentration, diversification, they may need to understand how to now build and hire a team if they have a more expansive remit, and they need more infrastructure underneath them.

Ilana Weinstein: (19:14)
And you need to give people room to fail and to learn, otherwise, you're not really collecting any ROI on all of the effort that you went through to get these great people and talent is scarce through the door in the first place. And then the flip side of that is, there does come a point where you have to pull the plug, and founders can't be afraid to do that because the number one corrupting thing out of fund is a lot of deadwood because then people again, they can't get paid the way that they would want to, and at the end of the day, if you are continually and again this may come as a surprise it may not. That $30 billion fund with a team of 10 that matters, they're not all A pluses, you peel back the curtain, it tends to be the same one or two people driving returns year after year. And it's fun to be the smartest guy in the room up to a point, but after a while you start questioning whether you're in the right room.

Barry Ritholtz: (20:15)
So so let's bring in the LPs into this conversation. I used to think that LPs were looking at performance and not a whole lot more than that, but you guys are confirming what I've sort of evolved into noticing, which is LPs are looking at a whole lot more than just past performance. They're looking for the ability to manage a team, they're looking for process. Tell us a little bit about how you perceive what limited partners look for when they interview a hedge fund as a possible investment.

Dmitry Balyasny: (20:52)
I mean, I think they're looking at the odds of persistent alpha generation. So in order to just the same way that we interview a PM and try to figure out, is this person persistently going to generate alpha for us, they're looking at the overall fund asking the same question, and then that goes back to what's your edge in various areas? Whether it's recruiting, developing people, it's just as important as recruiting. The vast majority of our PMs, they weren't super senior PMs when they started with us. And helping to develop them, helping to develop their analysts, people look at that they look at your risk management.

Dmitry Balyasny: (21:29)
It's like all the things that you evaluate to see okay, I'll con... In order to get in the door, your past returns have to be pretty decent, otherwise, nobody's interested. But to figure out if somebody wants to invest, like you're trying to figure out what are the odds that those returns are gonna sustain, and then it's evaluating all these different pieces that lead to that.

Barry Ritholtz: (21:49)
Steve, you want to jump in on that?

Steven Cohen: (21:51)
Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I think LPs are looking for a stability return, they're looking for... They're not looking for any surprises, they want an infrastructure operations where they can depend on their... You're not going to find out something wasn't handled correctly, or something financially was wrong, as far as accountingwise or anything of that nature. They want sustainability, they're thinking long term, they want to be involved in a fund not just for the next year. They want to be involved in the fund for five to 10 years. And they want to believe that a fund has sustainability, they're developing talent. They're thinking about the world not just the way it is today, but the way it is going forward, that the firm's adaptable. As far as I'm concerned, I'm always thinking about new businesses, new ideas. And you know the world is constantly changing, so what worked yesterday may not work tomorrow. And if I am an LP, I want to hear that. I want to hear that somebody is engaged thinking about the world, thinking about where it's going.

Barry Ritholtz: (23:03)
Mike, you don't have the same length of track record that some of the other funds have. How do you deal with LPs and what they're looking for as a relatively new fund? Is there any advantage to having been around a little less?

Mike Rockefeller: (23:22)
Well, I think there's certainly an advantage to be able to learn from Dmitry and Steve and my partner, Karl Kroeker and I came from Citadel, so we see what it takes to actually create a business and it was interesting. Before we actually launched Woodline, Carl and I we went out and interviewed a lot of top fund managers and LPs, and asked, "Okay, what do we need? What do we need to do first?" And the answer was somewhat surprising. It was, "Go and hire yourself a rockstar Chief Operating Officer." And so, we went out and did that, and couldn't have gotten anyone better than Matt Hooker. But why is that? Well, it's to Steve's point, these are businesses. And Carl and myself and our team, we know about investing, but we don't know how to run a business. And the complexities in today's world of managing a hedge fund are pretty immense, between the technology, the risk management, legal compliance, cybersecurity is a big issue. You need a fully built out operations team to ensure that this business is going to be sustainable for a long period of time.

Barry Ritholtz: (24:41)
And how did you deal with that during the pandemic and lockdown and work from home, I think that caught a lot of places unprepared, what was your experience like?

Mike Rockefeller: (24:53)
Well, fortunately, a lot of our systems were cloud based, so 10 years ago it would have been a different story, but because we were a newer launch, we already had a lot of the systems in place, and we were able to transition to work from home like a lot of funds that thrived through through the pandemic.

Ilana Weinstein: (25:13)
You know people underestimate the transition from analysts to PM to head of business to founder, and what Mike is talking about in terms of having to, they think they're just going to kind of go out, hopefully raise money, and the other stuff will fall into place because they have capital. There's so much complexity that goes into running a business. We have a guy in play now as a candidate, who is it almost two billion, and he raised it relatively quickly during COVID in the last two years. And the reason he's a candidate is because his operating team, his non-business team is a disaster. And he's spending so much time on non-investing issues, and he either has to sort of restructure his whole fund or what he's learning is about himself, he doesn't want that headache, he'd rather sit someplace that's going to give him resources and give him capital. You're not gonna have to also... It's not like you raise it, and you're done, you're constantly out there speaking to LPs. He doesn't really enjoy that aspect of it.

Ilana Weinstein: (26:20)
And I do think that that people underestimate how difficult that is, not even just raising the money, but actually manning the ship. On the point of new funds, Mike launched with what? Two billion, two and a half billion, something like that. It's so unusual, and I think it speaks to, you ask what do LPs want? For a new fund, what's really important to them is the DNA of where the person is coming from. So it's you being you, it's the success you had at Citadel and it's the fact that you came from Citadel. And that's a bet that LPs are willing to make. There's more predictive success, a higher degree, rather of predictive success around Mike than somebody who comes from a fund that kind of had a merit track record. And the idea that this person's going to do something different than the funded did, is you know, that's a bigger risk to take.

Ilana Weinstein: (27:24)
I had my team poll the biggest launches in the last two years, so defined as let's call it a billion or greater or got to a billion quickly, and there's only about for all the hundreds of funds that have "launched," there are only about 10 to 12 in that category for each year. And almost every single one of them came from either a top multi-manager or a fund with great pedigree like Viking. Viking alone has had five launches including this year in the last 24 months.

Barry Ritholtz: (28:00)
So is there an inherent tension with a firm like Viking between scalability and persistence of returns? Are people launching because at a certain point you begin to top out? What's the tension?

Steven Cohen: (28:16)
Let's say you hire great people, and there's going to be a percentage of people that are eventually going to want to be me or be... Mike worked for Ken and he wanted to go out on his own, right? I worked for somebody at some point, and I went out on my own. And if someone's got a bug to do that, you can't stop it. Okay, they have to go out and do it. Now, they may succeed, they may fail. And so when someone comes into my firm, they want to start their own firm, I say, "Thank you. Thanks for..." Relationships don't have to end, they can evolve and change. But if someone's got a bug to start their own firm, there's nothing you can do about it.

Barry Ritholtz: (28:57)
If you smell someone is got a foot out the door, but you think they're talented do you want to stake them? Do you want to push them out and say, "Hey, let's continue this relationship but go out on your own."?

Steven Cohen: (29:09)
Well, it's case by case. One of the problems with staking people outside your firm is you really can't control what they do outside your firm, and sometimes they start doing things and they start drifting. And so it's possible I might do it and possible I won't.

Barry Ritholtz: (29:28)
Mm, interesting. I want to shift gears a little bit because time is tight. We mentioned work from home and all you have to do is pick up the Wall Street Journal. Goldman Sachs wants people back in the office, Jamie Dimon is pounding the table to have people back in the office, but there's a sense of a hybrid model as being a little more flexible and a little more attractive to very top talent. What are your thoughts on this space? Is everyone going to end up back in the office or are we going to end up with some different model?

Steven Cohen: (30:02)
I mean, my view is I'm open to a hybrid model. I mean, I like working at home. I actually like it. I don't feel I have to be in the office five days a week. I can run my firm from wherever I am. I mean, Dmitry, you were in Jackson Hole.

Dmitry Balyasny: (30:21)
Yeah, I mean, it's like in Chicago, thinking how many PMs we had in the office there, I think we have like three or four PMs in Chicago pre-COVID. Most of our PMS are in New York in London, and so everybody spread out anyway. So we got like 10 offices around the world, so wherever you are you're seeing some portion of your people, but usually a small portion anyhow. So yeah, we're definitely doing hybrid. I think, the sort of pillars that we're trying to go to they're like, one is you have to be with your team some percentage of the time on a regular basis, right? That's gonna vary team to team, but it can't be like, "Oh, we never see each other, and it's going to be great." So you have to get you have to get together on a regular basis, whether that's in the office or the office, some combination of the two.

Dmitry Balyasny: (31:13)
And outside of your team, you have to show up once in a while, even if it works well with your team. You have to show up in the office on a regular basis, whatever it is, two days a week or four days a week, that depends on the person, but you need that to just have some connectivity with people who you're not going to just normally talk to because you're not going to talk to the guy if you know you're trading healthcare and the guy's trading industrials, you're not necessarily going to talk to him, but you run into him in office, and it might be a very interesting conversation that leads to a thought you wouldn't have had, right?

Steven Cohen: (31:46)
Dmitry, the reality is, we have offices.

Dmitry Balyasny: (31:48)
Yeah, exactly.

Steven Cohen: (31:49)
And you do too everywhere. Okay, I'm in New York twice a month. I mean, I have hundreds of people there that I don't see anyway, and they don't see me. So really what you got to do is you got to set up communication, and there's so many different ways to communicate today, Zoom or IM or chat or whatever the case may be that you can be very effective in communicating, and it feels like you there but you're not there. So it works. That was the big surprise of work from home, that we all thought it would be like what would be like being out of the office, the amount of time we're out of the office, and the big surprise and the big learning was we can do this regardless of where we are.

Ilana Weinstein: (32:40)
I mean, this has been like a huge experiment, let's all work from home for a year and see what happens. And in fact, the industry has had some of its best returns; long-short, equity, alpha notwithstanding this year.

Steven Cohen: (32:52)
That's also a bull market too.

Ilana Weinstein: (32:53)
Yeah, it was a bull market, but it was also a market for which we had never had a playbook, we'd never experienced COVID. We never experienced anything like this before. I don't think Steve and Dmitry necessarily need to be in the office 24/7, but I do think it is important for analysts in particular, to be close to their PMs. They can't be trained, otherwise, as effectively you need this for collaboration, you need this for creativity, you need this for spree décor. I will tell you, and maybe I shouldn't say this, but I'll say it. In some ways, my job has become a lot easier in the last couple of years.

Steven Cohen: (33:31)
But you're charging the same amount.

Ilana Weinstein: (33:35)
And you're still getting great candidates. So what I mean by that is people have a step back perspective. They can say to themselves, if they were sort of on the fence of should I leave or shouldn't I, now they're working from home, they can more clearly see what their value add is versus other people who are maybe just benefiting from being in the room with other smart people, and the stickiness to some extent, I think gets eroded when you're just not there. I'm all for flexibility, but I think as a founder you do want your people there enough of the time where... People have good days they have bad days but if they're there, there is sort of this almost psychological smoothing effect I think goes on, they just sort of get used to it. It's for better or worse, the devil known and they start risk weighting all the things that could go wrong if they left versus staying put. It's economic loss-aversion theory of play with talent.

Ilana Weinstein: (34:33)
But when you're working remotely, that's not as much of a barrier to entry. And this year, we have had, which I've never had before, people that we have gone after for years calling us telling us they're ready to leave. And maybe it's coincidence, but I'm not sure.

Barry Ritholtz: (34:50)
What about the flip side of this. From the employee side, "Hey, it's convenient. I don't have to leave my house to three days a week." What about what Jamie Dimon talks about with building a corporate culture, making sure all the members of the team are pulling in the same direction. How challenging is it to manage when everybody is in far flung locations?

Steven Cohen: (35:14)
[crosstalk 00:35:14]

Dmitry Balyasny: (35:14)
You definitely got to work at it, but I think you had to work at it before. To Steve's point, if you got offices all over the place anyway, you have the same problem. How do you get connectivity with your guys in Europe or Asia?

Steven Cohen: (35:24)
I mean, Jamie is sitting in New York, he's got offices everywhere. He's got the same issue. Okay, the real issue is how do you communicate in a way with... He's got a million people who work for him. We have 1000 or whatever, 1500 or whatever the case may be. There's still the same issues. How can you be effective as a leader communicating what you need to communicate across your platform? And can you get your message across in an effective way? And I think you can, and I think it has to be some combination. Listen, people want to be together. They want to feel like they're part of the firm. That's why I think a few days a week makes sense. There's some people who want to be in five days. They can be in five days, I'm not saying they can't be in five days, but I do think we have to be flexible. And if people want to do it differently, and as long as they're doing what they're supposed to do, and they're being part of the firm and communicating, I'm okay with that, I'm flexible.

Dmitry Balyasny: (36:37)
Yeah, I think it's also a bit of a recruiting advantage if you can give people flexibility, right? It's a competitive talent market out there, so our two fastest growing offices are in Austin and Miami.

Ilana Weinstein: (36:47)
Yeah, you can not be flexible. Just the stigma of saying I want to work from home on a Friday or a Monday I don't think exists anymore. and wanting to work in other cities is something that founders have absolutely accommodated. This is not really a work from home issue, the issue of developing and managing people, it's not just about being in the same office. I don't think this industry as a whole, we have a bigger issue, which is this industry as a whole does not do a great job of it.

Steven Cohen: (37:18)
No, speak for yourself.

Ilana Weinstein: (37:22)
There are exceptions to, pardon me, every rule, but as a general rule, the hedge fund managers are great investors, they're not great managers of people. And I think that day in and day out, PMs are drinking from or founders are drinking from a fire hose of information, they're making a ton of risk decisions simultaneously, they may be overseeing hundreds of positions, and you layer on top of that having to motivate, empower, and engage your people. It's tough, but we as an industry have to get better at this because the analysts are coming and telling us that their founders and PMs are giving the minimal attention, and they have to pitch and pound the table to get their ideas in a book in the portfolio, and they don't have a lot of clarity as to why some ideas make it and some don't.

Ilana Weinstein: (38:20)
And so it really speaks to needing to drive mentorship and learning because young people have more options, certainly than when I was coming out of business school, right? The two portholes were really investment banking and consulting and maybe also private equity. Now there's VC, you could join a fin tech company, you can trade crypto, you can go to outer space. I mean, literally the sky's the limit. And so if we want to do a better job of getting the brain trust coming out of school into our industry, we have to get better at this. And I've seen the numbers coming out of HBS to hedge funds and they are going down.

Barry Ritholtz: (38:56)
So let me stay with you, Ilana on a question that you and I have talked about. In general, the financial industry, speaking broadly, has had difficulty recruiting women and people of color. And as bad as the finance industry is, hedge funds lag even that, when you're talking about being a broad manager, how can the industry address that?

Ilana Weinstein: (39:22)
Well, first off, this isn't just hedge funds. I mean, this has been pervasive. When I pre-starting my firm, which was 18 years ago, I was in finance. I was an analyst at a bank. I went to business school when it was barely 30% women. I worked in consulting. I did a whole bunch of things, and I absolutely dealt with my share of sexism, misogyny, and bad behavior. And I am thrilled that when my son goes into the workforce and your daughters go into the workforce, that kind of overt, those bad actors, there's going to be a zero tolerance for. That is a big change from when I was just sort of cutting my teeth. Vis-a-vis, but we're still a young industry and it has to start at the bottom. There's never been more heightened awareness. Sitters and allocators are deploying to women and minority owned funds, LPs are serving their managers as to the diversity, leadership and ownership of their workforce, and heads of talent are being mandated to really focus on recruiting more women and minorities. But at the end of the day, these guys have to have a robust class of diversity candidates to pull from the ranks of Goldman and JP Morgan and fill in the blank bank so that those people can then be trained properly and develop at one of the hedge funds that matter.

Ilana Weinstein: (41:04)
And I say it that way because to our previous discussion, so few funds really control the AUM in this industry. It's not just about joining a hedge fund, it's about joining a winning fund and being trained properly and having a chance to be one of these guys, eventually. But we're still early on. We look at where medical school is, now it's over 50% women, law school's over 50% women. I just saw Wharton's class is now 52% women, so it's going to take time. From the beginning... Let me just say one more thing. From the beginning of when I started my firm, I have always had founders stress the importance of bringing more diversity candidates to the table and asking if there's any way for the successful candidate to please be a person of color or a woman. We don't have where to pull from. So that's when I talk about coming through the ranks and evolving, by the time we get involved, which is at a very senior level, we need a deep bench. Another important point is it's about a desire for racial and gender equality, but it's also a desire for founders we work with, for a diversity of background and thought, because having everybody think the same, having everyone grew up in Virginia, went to Princeton and UVA is a surefire way to drive down returns. You want divergence in terms of points of view.

Barry Ritholtz: (42:43)
So we're down to our very last question the last few moments we have. And I'm going to ask everybody this, and I want to open this. We'll start with Mike. All of you run successful businesses, what's been the biggest surprise running your firm?

Mike Rockefeller: (42:59)
I'll keep it quick here. There's no question, it's the compounding effect of great teams, and what you can do with lots of great people working together.

Barry Ritholtz: (43:12)
Dmitry.

Dmitry Balyasny: (43:13)
I think the scale that you need to be successful, if somebody even, not 20 years ago when we started, but even 10 years ago would have told me we'd have 1000 people to run $12 billion, I'd be like, "That's a lot." Right? But that's kind of what you need these days.

Barry Ritholtz: (43:29)
Go ahead, Ilana.

Steven Cohen: (43:29)
Yeah, Ilana you want to go?

Ilana Weinstein: (43:33)
Just how much I've learned from these guys, I really didn't anticipate how energized, how much we would develop because of all of the information that we get from dealing with the best founders and the best people in this business. We're just so much smarter for it.

Barry Ritholtz: (43:50)
Steve.

Steven Cohen: (43:51)
I mean, it's a people business, and you just have to treat people really well. You have to care about them. If you don't care about them and you treat them like just somebody who you're just gonna plug in, they're going to pick up on that and they're not going to be happy.

Barry Ritholtz: (44:05)
Well, Mike, Dmitry, Ilana, Steve, thank you so much for an informative panel. Let's hear it for our panelists.

From Reality Star to Business Titan: A Conversation with Paris Hilton & Carter Reum | #SALTNY

Paris Hilton is one of today’s most recognizable entrepreneurs and international influencers, Paris Hilton is a pioneer in television, podcasting and NFTs and an innovator in building businesses, social media and celebrity branding. With annual press valued at $702M in media spend equivalency, 28B monthly PR impressions, 130,000 press mentions over the last year alone and a global audience of over 54M across all socials, Hilton continues to solidify herself as a prominent tastemaker and powerful business leader.

Since starring in “The Simple Life,” Hilton has built a global empire as a businesswoman, influencer, activist, DJ, designer, investor, recording artist, philanthropist, host, actress, chef, model and author. In 2006, she created Paris Hilton Entertainment (now known as 11:11 Media), a multi-billion-dollar company that started with 45 branded stores and 19 product lines surpassing $4 billion in revenue. Today, 11:11 Media is a full-stop, integrated media and product company with verticals covering TV (Slivington Manor Entertainment), podcasts (London Audio), digital (11:11 Digital), licensing, NFTs, music, impact and more. Always attuned to emerging trends and opportunities, Hilton continues to expand 11:11 Media and use her platform to inspire, empower and create lasting positive impact.

Hilton has also solidified herself as an NFT leader as was recently seen by her being named #7 on Forbes’ NFT 50 most influential people in NFTs and through being awarded “Winner of Best Charity NFT” at the 2020 NFT Awards. In staying true to her goal of fostering empowerment and in collaboration with Sevens Foundation, Paris curated and launched “Empowered By Paris: Empowered Women Empower Women Exhibition”, which is an NFT exhibit dedicated to showcasing and equipping female artists with a platform to succeed.

Moderator Carter Reum is a Partner and Co-Founder of M13, a venture capital platform that invests in and incubates cutting edge consumer technology businesses. M13 now has two top decile funds and recently launched a $400MM Fund III - M13 now has AUM of over $750MM and is currently launching its 10th incubated business.

PRESENTED BY

 

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Hilton, Paris - Cropped.jpeg

Paris Hilton

Chief Executive Officer

Paris Hilton Entertainment

Headshot - Reum, Carter - Cropped.jpeg

Carter Reum

Partner & Co-Founder

M13

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Carter Reum: (00:07)
All right. Well, we're going to try to have a little fun here. Just in case there's any skeptics in the crowd that are trying to figure out why Paris Hilton is on stage as a keynote for lunch, let me just run through a few stats. I am going to warn you, they take a few seconds, because she's accomplished a lot, but let's just run through a few things. She has 19 product lines that have done over four billion in revenue the last decade globally. She's the highest-paid female DJ in the world. If any of you are having a birthday party, a bar mitzvah, wedding, she likes seven figures the most when she DJs. She has a social audience globally of over 65 million people, and her #thatshot hashtag on TikTok has been viewed over five billion times. Your PR reach the last 12 months makes you one of the largest 25 advertisers effectively in the country, bigger than Coca-Cola, Citigroup, and Adidas.

Carter Reum: (01:12)
I wish I could tell you I'm close to the end of this list, but I'm still about a third of the way through the list, but I'll try to speed it up a little bit. Your documentary, This Is Paris, was viewed 25 million times globally, you had 175,000 people sign your change.org petition, as a result of your documentary. This is easier though than dancing for 23 seconds on the jumbotron at the US Open on Friday, right? You've launched an audio company with iHeart during the last year, with three podcasts. You launched a production company with three TV shows already with Warner Brothers. You recently were number six on Fortune's top 50 Power Players of the NFT space. You have an investment portfolio with unicorns like Viome, Daily Harvest, things like Podz, and [inaudible 00:02:04]. I'm almost done, you're credited with being the first one to do reality TV, the original influencer, and even created the selfie, and last but not least importantly, you are marrying me this fall. Is that correct? Did I miss anything? Yeah. All right.

Paris Hilton: (02:24)
Thank you.

Carter Reum: (02:24)
Did anyone time that? Was that longer than the 23 seconds of the jumbotron at the Open on Friday? Go ahead, Paris. Did I miss anything?

Paris Hilton: (02:32)
Yes, but I think we'd be here all day if you had to list them all, but I just want to say thank you guys so much. I am so honored to be here today with so many people that I look up to and respect. I want to thank our friend, Anthony Scaramucci, for having me here today, and so many other friends in the room. Mike Novogratz, Dan Loeb, Congressman Ro Khanna, and many others. So thank you all for being here today, and I look forward to doing this with you, mister.

Carter Reum: (03:02)
All right. This is the first time we've ever done this in person, so this is definitely a special moment. Let's start with the easy but important stuff. Let's talk about your documentary, This is Paris. It launched last September. It had the equivalent of 150 million opening box office weekend. As a result of that, seven state laws have changed. The world saw a side of you I don't think they were expecting, very authentic and real, and you opened up about some stuff you never thought you'd talk about. Was that the original intention of the movie, or what was the original intention of the documentary when you were filming it?

Paris Hilton: (03:36)
With my documentary This is Paris, the original intention was just to show the true person I am, the businesswoman I am, how much I've accomplished. I feel that being in this industry for the past two decades, I was playing a character, so there's a lot of misunderstanding about me being underestimated, and I just wanted to show everything that I was very proud of. And then I ended up just getting very close with the director and started opening up to her about things I'd never discussed in my life publicly, and because of that film, it's now changed state laws in seven states, and next, I'm going to be going to Washington, D.C. in October to take this to federal legislation. So it really just shows the power of telling the truth and turning my pain into a purpose, and I'm very proud of using my voice to speak up for others.

Carter Reum: (04:33)
And for those of you who haven't got to watch the documentary yet, I expect you'll be watching it this weekend in between that and Cooking With Paris, which we'll talk about, but she talks about these schools she went to in Utah where children are sent, and physically, emotionally abused, sometimes sexually, thankfully, not in her case, but all kinds of kind of awful schools. And I have to say, it's been pretty awesome. I remember before the documentary launch, you said, "This is going to be great. It's going to shine a light on these awful schools and effectively hopefully encourage change," but I'll never forget, two weeks after the movie came out, you and I sat in our house and you read, I don't know, a thousand letters that had come in, and people just saying how much it had meant to you that you had shared your truth, and whether their truth was similar or something different, how it inspired them. And did you think a year later you would have helped pass seven state laws regulating the industry, and be on your way to D.C. in October? What's it meant to you?

Paris Hilton: (05:35)
This means the world to me, and I'm just so proud just to stand up for others and children, and make that the abuse that happened to myself and so many others no longer happens.

Carter Reum: (05:47)
That's awesome. Maybe one quick round of applause for that.

Paris Hilton: (05:50)
Thank you.

Carter Reum: (05:56)
So just switching gears a little bit here. So obviously, at M13, we kind of invest behind kind of leading consumer tech brands. We try to think about what consumers are going to be doing 10 years into the future, and invest behind the technologies that power that change. Obviously, no one has been two steps ahead of the game more than you, when we talk about things like reality TV, things like the selfie, things like social media. What trend are you most excited about in the future? I have a good feeling you might talk about NFTs, but what are you excited about?

Paris Hilton: (06:30)
There's just so many things that I'm excited about, especially all these virtual worlds and metaverses, and everything I've been doing in the NFT space, something that has just been a huge passion of mine. Back in 2018, I released a documentary called The American Meme, where I basically created this virtual world with avatars where people can come and meet, and now today in 2021, to see all of that really coming to life. So just doing things like that and being involved, and always being an innovator and someone who sees into the future, so that's something I've always been very proud of.

Carter Reum: (07:09)
And just to fill in the gaps for people, when did you do your first NFT and how'd you get to be number six on the list on Fortune?

Paris Hilton: (07:16)
Way before the whole NFT craze started, so I did my first NFT in March of 2020, where 100% of the proceeds went to charity.

Carter Reum: (07:25)
Yeah. I think one of the things that you always tell me what you love about NFTs is it just makes too much sense not to be a technology of the future, and for you, you have the unique ability to think about NFTs. I don't think I said it on my list, but you did set the largest female auction comp of an NFT. If anyone has any digital currencies burning a hole in their wallet, she sold her [inaudible 00:07:49] for 1.2 million. So, but she'll have some drops coming up, but I think it just does make too much sense for you around collectibles, music, the creator economy, kind of all these different things, so it's fun to watch you tackle it.

Carter Reum: (08:03)
Obviously, a big topic of conversation the last two days here has been crypto. People like Michael Saylor and the Winklevosses, and many others were very excited when you changed your Twitter profile about six months ago to you with laser eyes. Some people on Twitter immediately said, "Oh, here she is jumping on the bandwagon," but then a lot of other people on Twitter immediately came due to your defense and pointed out how long you'd been talking about digital currencies. Can you fill in the gaps for us in terms of kind of how you got excited about Bitcoin, and Ethereum, and the different digital currencies?

Paris Hilton: (08:40)
Yes. I have been involved and interested in this since 2016, when I had dinner with the founders of Ethereum when I was in Berlin, and just hearing about it, I just thought it was the future, and now to see today just how it's blown up, is something very exciting. So I'm very grateful that I invested back then.

Carter Reum: (09:02)
Yeah. So just to set the record straight, she was talking about metaverses in 2018, so well before Zuckerberg started talking about them two weeks ago, and she was buying digital currencies in 2016. So if you guys could Tweet that out to set the record straight, that would mean a lot to everybody.

Carter Reum: (09:20)
All right, all right. We're going to insert some light questions along the way too. Let's talk about brand evolution. One of the things people talk about when it comes to you, Paris, is no one understood brand like you did, coming out of The Simple Life. I think some people have said, "She's famous for being famous," but the ones who know you correctly point out that you were famous for being the first one to understand you were a billboard 24/7, and you could be a brand, not just a traditional brand. This year, it was fun to watch you during COVID, you made me lasagna, you put it out on YouTube, the world went nuts for it. Two months later, you had sold a deal with Netflix, and it launched to a lot of fanfare, two weeks, I guess, two or three weeks ago. But what is it that gives you the ability in one second to be cooking lasagna, in the other second to be going to D.C. and introducing federal legislation, in the next minute DJing? How do you think about kind of experimenting or being one step ahead?

Paris Hilton: (10:23)
I just feel very blessed that I get to do so many things that I love and that I'm passionate about, and I feel that I have this ability and this power to really elevate things and share my platform with so many. And even though it's constant, it's 24/7, and travel and working, it doesn't even feel like work because I really love what I'm doing, and I love inspiring and empowering others. And right now, just building my new media company, which is very exciting. So yeah, that's my next focus right now.

Carter Reum: (10:54)
Are you trying to steal my talking points? That's the next question, Paris. We talked about this, don't steal my thunder.

Paris Hilton: (11:00)
I'm psychic. I told you.

Carter Reum: (11:00)
In all seriousness, okay. So most people think you were the first creator. For VCs like me, all we talk about is the golden age of the creator. One or two stats, so far in 2021, 3.3 billion has been invested in creator economy technologies, sponsored influencers are worth about $8 billion today, meaning payments going to creators, and they think that number will be 15 billion by 2022. You just kind of teased it out, but obviously, you've been building a media company. I know your partner, Bruce Gersh is here today. You've hired 10 people during COVID. Why are you going from what you've been doing previously, which was just building on your own, to now building out a media company?

Paris Hilton: (11:46)
I just feel that I'm ready to take this to the next level, and what we're doing is something that's very innovative and exciting, and just seeing people like LeBron, who's built SpringHill, and also Reese Witherspoon who built Hello Sunshine, which was sold for 900 million, I feel that I have the same ability to do the same thing, and that's what we're doing right now. And I want to thank you, Bruce Gersh, so much. You are incredible, and I love having you as a partner and founder with me, and I'm so excited for what we're doing together in the future, so thank you.

Carter Reum: (12:17)
And I'll take the clap. I appreciated that, a little golf clap. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. Yeah, exactly. It's the lunch session, people. We got to keep it light here. Now, I do think it's a really interesting time in the creator economy from where we sit. You kind of have a diverge of kind of of two different types of creators, right? We've never lived in an era where your son or daughter who's kind of funny on TikTok, can somehow figure out how to monetize his influence. So on one hand, you have all these great tools that VCs like me are investing behind on the creator economy. On the other hand, people like Paris, Kevin Durant, Reese Witherspoon, LeBron are building these big media companies, because why should a media company be anchored by a news publication, versus somebody like Paris? I think what's fun to watch is how you can be the heartbeat of that media company, but make it so much bigger than you. All right, let's keep it light here. Which one of my light questions? All right. What is one thing nobody knows about you?

Paris Hilton: (13:13)
There's a lot people don't know about me. Well, one, I'm an undercover nerd. People don't know that. I am a huge tomboy. I love to go fishing, and surfing, skydiving. I was on my high school ice hockey team.

Carter Reum: (13:32)
And that's a true story. If anybody wants to Google that, you will enjoy the photo. It's one of those photos where you're like, "Who doesn't belong in the high school ice hockey team?" Keep going, Paris.

Paris Hilton: (13:45)
Yeah, there's there's lots, but we'll talk about it now in a second.

Carter Reum: (13:49)
I think the one thing that people don't know about you that I always tell people, is it is very well documented that Paris Hilton loves shopping, right? I think everyone knows that. What people don't realize is her favorite store, does anyone know what her favorite store is? Has anyone heard her talk about it? The Hudson Books in the airports. This girl will buy 8, 10, 15 business books. We have a carry-on that we take everywhere with us, just with those books, and I'm like, "Hey, maybe we just bring one or two books. Do we really need all 15?" She goes, "Well, I don't know which business book I'm going to feel like reading today." So everywhere around the world we go, we take that small carry-on with all the business books. All right. Let's do another fun one to keep it light here. Again, this is the lunch session. If you were a weather forecast, what would you be?

Paris Hilton: (14:40)
Hot and sunny.

Carter Reum: (14:43)
Hot and sunny, you heard it here first. It'll probably be on page six tomorrow. All right. Let's keep going on audio and podcasting. So you formed a partnership with Bob Pittman and iHeartRadio, obviously the industry leader in podcasting. You launched This is Paris, your podcast, you have a second podcast, which you can talk to the audience about what that is, and you have a third that will be both a podcast and a television show. Let's just talk about audio, and I'll prompt you along the way. What got you excited about audio and podcasting?

Paris Hilton: (15:17)
I got excited when we had dinner with Bob Pittman and we were talking just about the power of audio, and during the pandemic was the first time I ever even listened to a podcast, and I really loved how you could not only be listening to it, but you could be doing other things at the same time, and I also loved that I could have my own podcasting company. So when Bruce came up with that idea, I was like, "This is genius." So launching my podcast was so much fun because I've been interviewed like a billion times, so I love being able to turn the tables and be the one who gets to ask the questions, and make a really safe space for my friends to come and talk about anything they want, and also being able to control my narrative, because I feel like for so many years, the media has controlled my story, and I want to be able to tell the truth, and when things come out in the media that aren't true, I'm able just to go right on there.

Paris Hilton: (16:10)
And I invented something called Podposts, so it's basically more short form where I can talk about anything that's happening and literally have it up within an hour. And we've been doing a lot of that and correcting a lot of the information, and also being able to share my platform with others. We just launched another podcast with Cindy Eckert who sold her company for a billion dollars, and that one is called DOMINATED, and we are about to launch another one with a TV show along with it, and that is going to be about the social advocacy work and the troubled teen industry. And then some more coming up soon, which I can't announce yet.

Carter Reum: (16:49)
Just so people know whether they should go to your podcast tomorrow, will you be doing a Podpost on the SALT Conference and Anthony?

Paris Hilton: (16:55)
100%.

Carter Reum: (16:57)
All right. Quick show of hands, who's going to download it? Every download counts. Can I count on you? Okay, yep. A little over here. Oh, okay. All right. Every podcast counts, every download counts. All right. Let's switch gears a little bit from audio. I Googled it, because I wanted to see. You have five words in the Urban Dictionary. You actually hold the record from the time you first said a word to the time it showed up in the Urban Dictionary, I think it was two weeks, but you have famous catch phrases like, "That's hot." Actually, funny enough, my cousin Chloe was telling me she read a case study at Georgetown Law School about how you sued Hallmark and won, for infringing on your trademark. You obviously have catch phrases like, "Loves it," and "sliving." why come up with these catch phrases? Is it just that you're really good at creating them, or how did you think about it?

Paris Hilton: (17:48)
I just, I think I'm really good at coming up with words, and I just think it's important, I feel like every brand, they have their slogans and what people remember them for, and I don't know, sometimes when I just say something it catches on, and I think that's just what about being an influencer and a trendsetter is about.

Carter Reum: (18:08)
Cool. Just one thing I wanted to put you on the spot on while I have all my friends here at the lunch session, it was kind of news to me, but when you went on Fallon the other day, you said you have 10 dresses you had custom made for the wedding. Is that right? I thought you promised me this was going to be a low-key affair.

Paris Hilton: (18:25)
Well, it is a three day event, and I do love my outfit changes, so 10 or maybe more.

Carter Reum: (18:31)
So how many tuxes should I be thinking about?

Paris Hilton: (18:33)
Not 10.

Carter Reum: (18:34)
Okay, less than 10. All right, everyone heard it here first. Let's talk about your TV production company, because obviously, you're doing something leading up to the wedding, but you just launched Cooking with Paris on Netflix. For those of you who think she's going to teach you how to cook, you're going to be sorely disappointed. She mostly makes you laugh, with a side of teaching you how to cook. Things like Unicornoli, things like caviar and French toast with Frosted Flakes, so very cooking light. It's been recently in the press that you launched Paris in Love, leading up to the wedding, with NBC Peacock. Can you talk about Paris in Love and that show, and what's it going to kind of chronicle, and why did you decide to launch a production company with Warner Brothers?

Paris Hilton: (19:19)
Well, yes, I'm so excited for my new production company with Warner Brothers called Slivington Manor Entertainment, and to partner with Mike Darnell. He was the one who started out my career with The Simple Life, and being the OG who started reality television, I just thought it was the perfect next step to own my own production company and really just make content not only that I'm in, but also where I can be behind the camera and produce, and really just put out empowering, and inspiring, and thought-provoking content. And Paris in Love, I'm having so much fun. We've been filming it the past few months, every single day, so it's a lot of work. So just the whole lead-up to the wedding, which being a bride is already stressful enough as it is planning a wedding, but having a camera crew follow the whole time makes it even more stressful, but it's going to be a very interesting show, and very excited to partner with Peacock on this, and that will be out in the next few months, so stay tuned.

Carter Reum: (20:19)
Cool. And talk about, because I've heard you mention it plenty of times, why a TV production company now? You obviously had the opportunity to do it over the last 20 years. I know you mentioned just kind of the proliferation of streaming content, but just talk through why now, in terms of why the production company?

Paris Hilton: (20:36)
I just have so many things on my plate. I'm doing so many things and there's not enough time for me to be on camera all the time, so that's why I wanted to really do this so I could create, so that other people I could share my platform with, and really put out content that I think is going to be entertaining and fun, and really part of my brand.

Carter Reum: (20:56)
Cool. One thing that I had written down here to keep it light, let's let's ladder back to The Simple Life. Well before I knew you, I remember seeing a trailer for The Simple Life, and there's this cute little scene that put The Simple Life on the map, when I think you're probably in Arkansas or somewhere nearby, the family you're staying with, they're talking about Walmart, and you say in your cute cartoon, fake voice, "Do they sell walls there?"

Paris Hilton: (21:25)
I said that.

Carter Reum: (21:25)
Did you really not know what they sold at Walmart? Just clear the air for everybody here.

Paris Hilton: (21:31)
I say nothing by mistake. I'm not a dumb blonde, I'm just very good at pretending to be one.

Carter Reum: (21:38)
And for those of you... Okay, I like it. Yeah, yeah. Okay. And we do spend a lot of time. We don't have a Walmart near us, but we do spend a lot of time at Target. So I know that you knew what was Walmart.

Paris Hilton: (21:52)
Yeah, I like Walmart. It's fun.

Carter Reum: (21:54)
All right. Let's talk about investing. Obviously, it's what I spend my day job doing at M13. You've obviously, as I mentioned, you've invested behind great companies like Viome around gut health, Genies around avatar, the unicorn Daily Harvest, and a lot of others, and I think we'll see a lot more of it in the future. In the crypto space, you've been involved with things like Origin Protocol. Why get excited about investing, or how do you think about investing?

Paris Hilton: (22:22)
Well, I have you to thank for that, because you really got me involved in this whole world of investing. I have just been so blown away with everything you guys have done at M13, and just everything that you have ever told me about has always been a winner, so I trust everything that you say.

Carter Reum: (22:38)
No pressure, no pressure. To be fair, the first thing I had her invest in, she hit 18 times her money in four months, and now she said, "That can happen every time, right?" I was like, "Well, not exactly." We have two top decile funds, but that's going to be tough to beat.

Paris Hilton: (22:54)
But yeah, I love investing behind entrepreneurs that I really believe in, especially female entrepreneurs, just because being in this industry for so long, it took a while for people to take me seriously. So that's something that's always been a huge focus of me, and I just love to be involved in things that are innovative and the future, and just projects that again, I want to share my platform with, and that I want to help promote all around the world and get the word out there, and I have the power to do it, so I do it.

Carter Reum: (23:24)
Cool. I think what's been fun for me to watch the last year is the power of your platform is so big, so global. It ranges from teenagers who sing your songs, to adults who grew up watching The Simple Life, and everything in between. But now, I think what is going to make you so powerful the next decade is the fact that you've realized you can use your platform to influence your own companies, you can use your platform to influence companies you invest in, and in this particular case, obviously Congressman Ro Khanna I know is somewhere in the building, but he and others are very excited to see you take your federal legislation to D.C., and see if you can affect change the there.

Carter Reum: (24:04)
So it is really fun for me. I can tell you very proud for me is that people accost us everywhere and say, "Hi," and take a selfie and want to talk to Paris, and a year ago it would be like, "Oh my gosh, I love you, Paris Hilton. Can I take a photo?" And now it's just inspiring to see how many people come up to you and say, "I love what you're doing. I love that you're making the world a better place." So as your future husband and fiancé, I want to tell you I'm extremely proud of you, so I love you.

Paris Hilton: (24:33)
I love you too. Thank you.

Carter Reum: (24:38)
All right. Probably the last two or three minutes here, and maybe even shorter. So we've talked about a lot. We've gone through everything. I do want people to be able to eat their lunch a little bit here. Anything that I didn't talk about? Anything on the horizon or anything you're thinking about for the future?

Paris Hilton: (24:55)
Yes. You know me, I never stop, I keep going, and I'm going to continue to do what I'm doing to expand my brand and my empire all around the world, and my goal is the next time that I'm speaking at this conference, that I'm here to talk about selling my media company for a billion.

Carter Reum: (25:12)
All right. You heard it here first. Thank you.

Paris Hilton: (25:16)
Thank you all. Thank you so much.

Carter Reum: (25:20)
All right, thanks.

Paris Hilton: (25:21)
That was fun.

America’s Place in the World: National Security & Leading From the Front | #SALTNY

America’s Place in the World: National Security & Leading From the Front with General John Kelly, Retired U.S. Marine Corps General & 28th White House Chief of Staff. General H.R. Mcmaster, Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General & 26th United States National Security Advisor. Michele Flournoy, Co-Founder & Managing Partner, WestExec Advisors. Richard Fontaine, Chief Executive Officer, Center for a New American Security.

Moderated by Zoe Weinberg, Fellow, Schmidt Futures.

Powered by RedCircle

 

SPEAKERS

Headshot - Flournoy, Michele - Cropped.jpeg

Michèle Flournoy

Co-Founder & Managing Partner

WestExec Advisors

Headshot - Fontaine, Richard - Cropped.jpeg

Richard Fontaine

Chief Executive Officer

Center for a New American Security (CNAS)

Headshot - Kelly, General John F - Cropped.jpeg

GeneralJohn Kelly

Retired U.S. Marine Corps General & 28th White House Chief of Staff

Headshot+-+McMaster,+General+H.R.+-+Cropped.jpg

General H.R. McMaster

Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General & 26th United States National Security Advisor

 

MODERATOR

Headshot - Weinberg, Zoe - Cropped.jpeg

Zoe Weinberg

Fellow

Schmidt Futures

 

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Zoe Weinberg: (00:07)
Morning. Thank you, SALT, for bringing us together in person no less. I'm Zoe Weinberg, and I'm pleased to kick off this morning with the discussion about America's role in the world and the future of national security. We have with us today General John Kelly, former White House Chief of Staff and former Secretary of Homeland Security. We have General H.R. McMaster-

Gen. John Kelly: (00:31)
Wait a minute now. And also a retired Marine.

Zoe Weinberg: (00:33)
And also a retired Marine. Most importantly, we have General H.R. McMaster, who's currently a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, previously National Security Advisor, and also a retired US Army lieutenant general.

Zoe Weinberg: (00:52)
We have Michele Flournoy, who is the co-founder and managing partner of WestExec Advisors and formerly Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under President Obama. We have Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security and former foreign policy advisor in both the Senate and the White House. Welcome.

Zoe Weinberg: (01:16)
I'd like to start where everybody's attention is focused right now: Afghanistan. Exactly one month ago, the Taliban entered Kabul and took control of the presidential palace. Of course, historians are going to be debating for many years our role in the country, but with the events still very fresh, what are the lessons learned from both our decades-long engagement in Afghanistan and from our withdrawal? General McMaster, I'd like to start with you.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (01:45)
Well, so thanks for the question. I mean I think it is important that we learn the right lessons from, I think, what is a catastrophe in Afghanistan. I think the first step in learning the right lessons is to stop pretending. I mean what we hear from Washington today about the situation in Afghanistan and the ramifications, the costs, and consequences is exactly the opposite of reality.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (02:09)
So we have to stop pretending that we didn't surrender to a terrorist organization. We have to stop pretending that a lost war has no consequences. We have to stop pretending that the Taliban is going to share power and be concerned about the opprobrium from the international community and modify its behavior. We have to stop pretending that the Taliban is not completely interconnected with al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and lots of other terrorist organizations.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (02:41)
We have to stop pretending that the consequences of this surrender to a terrorist organization and our precipitous retreat from Afghanistan will not have profound consequences in three areas. First, the humanitarian catastrophe, which is just beginning, just beginning.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (03:01)
With our withdrawal, we have created not only a humiliating scene that is reminiscent but worse than the withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975, where we're now on fast forward to a hostage crisis more like 1979 in Iran, that is orders of magnitude larger and is of our own creation, not only for obviously US citizens but also for Afghans who helped us and for the citizens of our allies and partners who were part of the coalition.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (03:33)
So that catastrophe is now just beginning, but that humanitarian catastrophe is related to the security catastrophe of a massive refugee crisis that also is a source of strength for jihadist terrorists who are, by the way, the enemies of all humanity. Those refugees will become a great recruiting pool for the 20 or so US-designated terrorist organizations that are in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (04:00)
We know from 9/11, we know from 20 years ago that when these terrorist control territory and populations and resources, they become orders of magnitude more dangerous. What's sad in the area of lessons is we didn't learn from 9/11 and we didn't learn from an even more proximate experience, which was our complete withdrawal in December 2011, when then Vice President Biden called President Obama and said, "Thank you for allowing me to end this goddamn war."

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (04:31)
Think about the conceit that underlies that approach to war. Wars do not end when one party disengages. While we have been developing policy based on the mantra of ending endless wars, we should at least acknowledge the agency and authorship over the future that our enemies have and recognize that jihadist terrorists are fighting an endless jihad against us. When we disengage from that problem set abroad, we can only deal with the consequences at an exorbitant price once that threat reaches our shores.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (05:03)
Then, finally, it's a political catastrophe, political catastrophe in connection with our credibility. Deterring conflict really, I mean, depends on capability times will. Our adversaries and enemies now think our will is zero. And so, this catastrophe is connected, I believe, and will be connected to more aggressive actions by the Chinese Communist Party. Just read the China Daily and what they're saying about Taiwan.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (05:31)
It is connected to the missile launches out of North Korea and the activity at young beyond. It'll be connected, I think, to more aggressive actions on the part of the Iranians as well. And so, we're in for a rough ride ahead, and it's going to be an even rough ride because I think we have demonstrated our inability to learn lessons from even this ongoing catastrophe.

Zoe Weinberg: (05:58)
Thank you. Richard, what's your take on lessons learned and what are the implications for our longer term role in the region?

Richard Fontaine: (06:04)
Well, I think one of them is the difficulty with which the United States has in solving some of these foreign policy challenges. Afghanistan's a good example. We constantly and continue to look for the solution. We're going to defeat the Taliban utterly, we're going to surge troops in, we're going to take them back, we're going to leave. Something is going to solve it.

Richard Fontaine: (06:31)
Iraq was a similar situation in 2011. Everything was about exit strategies, about solving a problem. Some of these problems can be mitigated. The threats of jihadist terrorism can be mitigated, but they're not going to be solved in any meaningful timeframe.

Richard Fontaine: (06:48)
That's not very conducive to our way of thinking where we're going to get in, we're going to accomplish something, and then we're going to get out. If we've been there for a long time, it must mean that we've done something very, very wrong and we need to stop it.

Richard Fontaine: (07:00)
What that tends to do in the Greater Middle East in terms of military operations is a yo-yo diet where we're on the ground with a certain number of forces, we're trying to do some things. Doesn't seem to quite work out. We go really big half-satisfying. Then we say, well, nothing's going to work so we come all the way down.

Richard Fontaine: (07:18)
Really what we need is sustainability, sustainability over a long period of time. We need staying strategies as much as we need exit strategies for some of these kinds of things. I think Afghanistan is a case in point where we had too few at the very beginning. Then we surged troops and we came down. Now we say, well, it can't be won.

Richard Fontaine: (07:37)
Well, in fact, our American presence was not going to topple ... It was not going to defeat the Taliban, but it was going to prevent the government from being defeated by the Taliban. Those are two very different outcomes from an American interest and American point of view.

Richard Fontaine: (07:55)
And so, to focus on sustainability and the mitigation of threats rather than all or nothing, in or out, solving the threats once and for all and then coming home once they're done, I think, is the main takeaway. But, in fact, I think we're probably going in the opposite direction right now.

Zoe Weinberg: (08:13)
General Kelly, both General McMaster and Richard have referred to the very real risk that Afghanistan may become a haven for terrorists. There's been reports that the Biden administration has considered, or allegedly is considering, cooperating with the Taliban to combat the ISIS affiliate on the ground. I'm curious, how should we think about the terrorism threaten the country and the trade-offs of possibly cooperating with the Taliban to reduce it?

Gen. John Kelly: (08:46)
Well, the first thing I'd say is the Taliban is a terrorist organization, as both these gentlemen have referenced. They're aligned with all of the other radical terrorists, Islamic terrorists. This war is not over in their minds. Just because we withdrew doesn't mean the war is over. We're still at war.

Gen. John Kelly: (09:07)
This war will not be over for a long, long time. It's not about our friendship with Israel. It's not about opportunity in the Middle East. It's about who we are as a people. Until we either surrender to them, and I mean more than just surrender like we did in Afghanistan, or we just simply defeat them over time.

Gen. John Kelly: (09:31)
So the war's not over. So the idea that you can deal with the Taliban, who are sworn radical terrorists, that have sworn to kill Americans and, frankly, anyone they can kill on the west, to say that you can work with them, well, maybe there are smarter people in the White House than I can imagine. I can't wait to watch it. But I just don't see it working.

Zoe Weinberg: (09:54)
On that note, Michele, where do we go from here?

Michele Flournoy: (09:59)
Well, I think the thing that makes this even more consequential is that it's happening at a time when we're really in a period of a strategic inflection point. We've had 20 years focused on the post-9/11 period fighting terrorism. The problem has not gone away. It still needs to be managed.

Michele Flournoy: (10:19)
But we have a new set of challenges, and particularly the rise of China as a great power, the continued presence of revisionist Russia under Vladimir Putin, who's constantly trying to undermine democracy in Europe and here.

Michele Flournoy: (10:37)
But we're in a new era where we are going to be in a major competition with a rising China that is very committed to changing the rules of the road, changing the rules for trade, changing the rules for use of force, imposing its will on smaller countries, changing the architecture and the whole feel and operation of the Indo-Pacific region, which, oh, by the way, is the most important part of the world when it comes to the prosperity of Americans and the security of Americans here at home.

Michele Flournoy: (11:09)
So this point where we've just mismanaged withdrawal, which these two gentlemen can confirm that one of the most dangerous parts of a military operation is coming out of it. But that's clearly been mismanaged. I think US credibility has taken a hit at exactly the moment where we need that credibility and we need that leadership to start rebuilding alliances and partnerships and to try to take on and deter any kind of conflict with China, constrain China's influence, and in certain areas like climate change and preventing the next pandemic, we've got to find ways to cooperate.

Michele Flournoy: (11:52)
So the world really needs US leadership right now. Even though I think the president sought to get out of Afghanistan wisely, or unwisely, to free up bandwidth and energy and focus and resources to put to the Indo-Pacific, the truth is this has created such a mess that it's actually draining that bandwidth and refocusing it on the Greater Middle East.

Michele Flournoy: (12:17)
So I am concerned. I think the administration has made its own job much harder going forward to really focus on the major challenges we have in Asia.

Zoe Weinberg: (12:28)
I want to stick with this for a second. I think you're right. In many ways, to a certain extent, we are closing the chapter on 20 years of very counterterrorism-focused operations and shifting our focus toward great power competition, and specifically competition with China, as you mentioned. Michele, I mean this is obviously a departure from the playbook of the early 2000s. Is the United States prepared to compete with China? If not, what needs to change?

Michele Flournoy: (13:00)
Well, I think we need a vision and a leadership engagement. I think we need to have a president to talk to the American people to say this is one of those moments that Americans need to stand up and do what we're really good at. We are good at standing up out of crisis, dusting ourselves off, coming back strong, whether it was the Great Depression or World War II or Vietnam. I mean you can go through the scenarios, the financial crisis.

Michele Flournoy: (13:28)
This is one of those moments where we've got to stand up, turn the corner on COVID, get the economy again, reinvest in the drivers of our own competitiveness, re-embrace our allies and partnerships, but with a purpose, that we are going to compete. We know how to compete when we're inspired to do that, and we need to do it economically, technologically, in terms of defending democracy, and militarily.

Michele Flournoy: (13:53)
I'll just comment on the military piece. We do have the greatest military in the world, but we can't rest on our laurels. We have to adapt, we have to transform, we have to innovate to be able to effectively show up and deter a country like China, which has spent the last two decades, while we were focused in the Middle East, investing in the capabilities to try to keep us out of the Indo-Pacific.

Michele Flournoy: (14:19)
So we have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of rebuilding of our diplomatic core and the ability to show up and shape things there. So if you ask me, "Would you rather have the Chinese hand cards to play or the American hand cards to play?" I would far prefer to have our hand cards, but we have to start playing those cards better if we're going to be successful.

Zoe Weinberg: (14:42)
Yeah. So our allies obviously play a meaningful role here. Richard, you've written about the need to unite democracies, to enhance digital cooperation through an alliance of techno democracies. Will you tell us a little bit more about that concept and the role of multilateralism more generally?

Richard Fontaine: (15:01)
Sure. So when you're talking about this grand US-China competition, it's natural to think, well, power is shifting in the Chinese's direct because they're becoming, every year, more powerful, richer, more militarily capable, more assertive, et cetera.

Richard Fontaine: (15:17)
The real way to think about it is not America on one side of the scale and China on the other, but China on one side of the scale and America and all of its allies and partners, like-minded countries on the other side of the scale. When you start to add up all the capabilities, the economy, the diplomatic weight, and everything, then you see quite what we have to work with in this grand competition of United States and China, and this contest of models, of autocracy and democracy, and things like that.

Richard Fontaine: (15:46)
Those are some of our greatest assets are our system of alliances, the like-minded nature of partners that want to work with us more than they did even in the past, frankly, some of their apprehensions about China and it's illiberal directions in which it's going.

Richard Fontaine: (16:03)
That then goes into, okay, so what are the new things that you do about this? You're starting to see whether it's on the military front, on the diplomatic front with the Quad, with the US, Australia, India, and Japan, new frameworks there that the Trump administration really revived and has now been taken up by this administration.

Richard Fontaine: (16:21)
So you're seeing these different kinds of ways of countries that are like-minded working together. One that has not really come to the fore yet, but in my mind and in minds of others really needs to, is on technology. So right now there are technology aspects to gatherings here and there of the G7 and the US and the EU and others.

Richard Fontaine: (16:44)
There's no forum, there's no group where you get like-minded democracies that are the advanced technological economies together to say what is it that we really care about in terms of our democratic practices, our economic matters? What are we worried about in terms of the use of illiberal technology, surveillance technologies, Chinese innovation, et cetera, et cetera, and how do we actually work together across lines, both private sector and government sector to do this?

Richard Fontaine: (17:16)
It's the kind of thing that when you start to think about it, I think you start to say, well, it's almost amazing we don't have something like that now, given that technology is so key to everyday life, but also to this grand competition that we're in. And so, to build a structure like that, where the like-minded techno democracies can cooperate, I think, is a pretty near-term imperative.

Zoe Weinberg: (17:38)
On the subject of technology, I want to step back for a second and consider the role of technology and the evolution of conflict over time. Some have argued that, increasingly, war is becoming less about kinetic combat on the ground and instead technological control, surveillance, cyber attacks, disinformation, stolen intellectual property. That is what's going to define the next era of war. General McMaster, do you agree with this assessment? What does that mean for militaries of the future?

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (18:11)
No, that's a pipe dream because those who say that, really, really, really the next war will be fundamentally different from all those that have gone before it because of X technology. In the '90s, it was the combination of surveillance technologies, assured communications, space-based assets, precision strike capabilities, and GPS and so forth. Remember, we're supposed to have a revolution in military affairs.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (18:38)
Future war would be fast, cheap, efficient, and waged from standoff range. But what this kind of thinking neglects is really there are two ways to fight wars, asymmetrically and stupidly. You hope your enemy picks stupidly like Saddam Hussein did in 1991. But I think a lot of countries and jihadist terrorist organizations learned vicariously from the ass-kicking of that army in 1991. That's why jihadist terrorists used box cutters and airplanes to bypass our technological military prowess and strike as asymmetrically.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (19:14)
We also keep thinking that really force on the ground, that doesn't make a difference anymore, right? Well, do you think it made a difference to the Taliban? I think it did. When people say, "Hey, there are no military solutions to these emerging problems," we know the Taliban had one in mind. What we don't think about is the need to integrate all elements of national power and efforts of like-minded partners to achieve well-defined objectives in war.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (19:43)
That's the essence of strategic competence. We are incompetent because we divorce these and we engage in strategic narcissism, essentially. We define the world as we would like it to be and assume that we can map out a linear course toward progress, the kind of wars we want to fight in the future, for example. We're going to invest in these fewer and fewer, more exquisite systems. Well, guess what? Hey, your adversaries have a say. They develop countermeasures.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (20:13)
And so, I would say that the element that is most important to thinking clearly about future war is to balance, change, technological change, with continuities in the nature of war. There are really four of those.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (20:26)
War is an extension of politics. So you fight to achieve sustainable political outcomes consistent with your interests, like a political order in Afghanistan that is fundamentally hostile to jihadist terrorism. That would've been a good outcome. Afghanistan, as Michele mentioned, didn't need to be Denmark. It just needed to be Afghanistan.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (20:45)
Second, war is human. People fight for the same reasons Thucydides identified 25, 20 years ago, fear, honor, and interest. What we hear these days is the secretary of state and others saying, "Gosh, it's not in the Taliban's interest to do X." Well, the supreme leader of the Taliban, Hibatullah Akhundzada, his 17-year-old son was a suicide bomber. What else do you really need to know? Emotions and ideology drive and constrain the other as well.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (21:12)
Third, war is uncertain. Again, the future course of events depends not just on what we do, but what on the other decides to do. Remember in 2009, 2010, when President Obama announced the reinforced security effort in Afghanistan. He announced the timeline for a withdrawal at the same time and then said to the Taliban, "Hey, let's negotiate." President Trump actually doubled down on that approach. I mean how does that work? That resulted in the capitulation agreement of February of 2020.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (21:44)
Then, finally, war is a contest of wills. What we hear a lot today, we hear, well, the Americans don't support the sustained effort in Afghanistan, even though it was at a very low level and relatively low risk as the Afghans bore the brunt of that fight and our European coalition members bore a lot of that fight as well. Well, it's not a surprise that Americans didn't support it because three presidents in a row told them it wasn't worth it.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (22:07)
So I think that we neglected our peril continuities in the nature of war. The historian Carl Becker said the memory of the past and anticipation of the future should walk hand-in-hand in a happy way. We engage in self-delusion when we think that really the next war will be fundamentally different from all those who've gone before it. Wars still resemble each other more than they resemble any other human activity.

Zoe Weinberg: (22:34)
General Kelly, I'd love to get your perspective on this. What are the ways in which defense strategy may need to evolve and what are the places where there ought to be continuity?

Gen. John Kelly: (22:45)
Well, the first thing is the United States, in its very unique role in the world, has got to be able to operate across the spectrum of warfare, from cyber and all the rest to out and out war. So that's the reality of it.

Gen. John Kelly: (22:59)
The strength of the US military, I would offer, before we even talk about technology and weapons and all that, are the people that are in it. Very unique people, very unique Americans. I would offer this in terms of continuity.

Gen. John Kelly: (23:16)
The first war I was told as a young guy that I needed to get involved in was the Vietnam War. I didn't go to Vietnam, but that's the war where we just had to get in there, had to stop communism. And so, an awful lot of people went in, 50-plus thousand killed.

Gen. John Kelly: (23:39)
Then around the late '60s, Washington lost interest in the war because, politically, it was not popular anymore. So we decided to, in my view, cut and run.

Gen. John Kelly: (23:52)
Then the next time, I was told that this was one of the most important things you could get involved in, young men, young women, was the Beirut effort. That was fine until a bomb went off and then, again, Washington lost interest in that.

Gen. John Kelly: (24:07)
Then the next one and the next one and the next one. So you go to 9/11, and this is the most important thing young men and women can do. We've got to go and we've got to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. 20 years later, we lost interest in that.

Gen. John Kelly: (24:23)
When you start talking about conflict at the level, God forbid, with China and the potential casualties and how fast those casualties, again, I'm not so sure ... If I was a young person listening to we really have to shift to China and the Indo-Pacific and really do what we need to do out there, with the possibility of a war with someone like China, I'm not so sure ...

Gen. John Kelly: (24:49)
The consistency in terms of how we've treated wars since World War II is you've got to go in, you've got to do it, and we lose interest in it, mostly because it's politically unpopular. Then, of course, the politicians want to run for it.

Gen. John Kelly: (25:06)
So I really wonder if we ought to even consider the possibility of a conflict with China, because I just don't think we have the staying power. The troops do. They'll go and do anything that they're told to do to, to their lives. I'm not so sure, though, that that level of sacrifice can be maintained if there's a major war, clash, if you will, with China or for that matter Russia.

Zoe Weinberg: (25:46)
Any responses to that?

Michele Flournoy: (25:48)
Well, my own view is that the name of the game is deterrence, and our efforts have to be to make sure that the leaders in Beijing understand that if they launch aggression, they can't be successful, or they will face such costs from the international community that it's really not worth it, that they shouldn't take the action. They should try to work things politically and diplomatically and not through military means.

Michele Flournoy: (26:18)
But that means we've got to show up in the region, diplomatically. We have tons of embassies that are still empty, or at least ambassadorships. We've got to show up in every major forum there to reassure people that we care, we're here. We've got to find some positive agenda for engaging the region economically on trade.

Michele Flournoy: (26:41)
I think one of the biggest strategic mistakes that both Democratic and Republican administrations made was not joining the Trans-Pacific partnership, which is a trade deal that we negotiated and set the standards for, high standards. Then all of our allies joined and we didn't. I mean that's a self-inflicted wound.

Michele Flournoy: (27:03)
But we've got to show up and then we have to make the investments in the people and the technology and the concepts and demonstrate those concepts to make sure the Chinese understand that our military can inflict terrible costs if they try to move aggressively and unprovoked and against the rules of the road.

Michele Flournoy: (27:25)
So I'm not suggesting that we should charge into a war with a nuclear power, but I think it's in our interest to double down on trying to prevent that war in every way possible, but on our terms, on terms that favor the like-minded states and the democracies that Richard is talking about.

Michele Flournoy: (27:46)
This is a competition between systems. The stakes in this are are we going to have a global order that is defined by free market democracies? Are we going to have a global order that's defined by authoritarian states that are embracing a very oppressive surveillance-based model of governance? I think those stakes are pretty high.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (28:13)
Just to pick up on Michele's point, I think it's important to recognize that China has increased its defense measure by about 800% since the mid '90s. What's important is deterrence by denial, as what Michele's talking about, really. It really is convincing a potential enemy that the enemy cannot accomplish its objectives through the use of force.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (28:32)
I think it's important to invoke the early 20th century philosopher and theologian G.K. Chesterton, who said that war may not be the best way of settling differences, but it may be the only way to ensure they're not settled for you.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (28:47)
And so, it's important for us, I think, to maintain military capabilities that are essential to deterrence by denial, but also capabilities that will allow us to protect our vital interests and our security against determined enemies, from jihadist terrorists to the Chinese Communist Party, if they were going to employ military force against us.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (29:12)
I don't think the defense budget today, for example, is adequate to do that. I think Teddy Roosevelt's old adage of "speak softly and carry a big stick". On China, we're speaking super loudly right now and we're carrying a stick that's growing smaller because of real reductions in the defense budget.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (29:32)
So I think this should be more of a topic for public discourse these days as well. How do we maintain our deterrent capability, especially given the increasingly aggressive nature of the Chinese Communist Party that we've seen just in the last couple of years, bludgeoning Indian soldiers to death on the Himalayan frontier, weaponizing islands in the South China Sea, ramming and sinking Vietnamese vessels, the constant overflights and aggression toward Taiwan, this announcement the other day that they might start to patrol Taiwanese airspace with People's Liberation Army Air Force aircraft?

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (30:07)
I mean this is a period of extreme danger, I think. The only way to, I think, prevent the worst from happening is, as Michele says, to be strong in the region and to be strong with allies and partners.

Richard Fontaine: (30:19)
We also-

Gen. John Kelly: (30:20)
The other-

Richard Fontaine: (30:20)
I was going to say I think we obviously have to be intently concerned with deterrents, by bolstering deterrents, being prepared to win a war if, God forbid, everyone came, so that we can hopefully avoid it at all costs. That's with respect to China or Russia or some of these other threats. But we also have to look at the non-military threats that these countries pose that we need to defend ourselves against, and the much higher likelihood that we're going to face those.

Richard Fontaine: (30:49)
So, for example, we've got an entire NATO alliance that thinks every day about what we would do if a Russian tank column moved into Estonia and how we would beat it back. That's entirely appropriate. But NATO doesn't look at protection of our own democracies against Russia's meddling in democratic practices through cyber means, as they did in the United States in 2016 and in 2020, as they did in France before their presidential election, as they've done in Britain, as they do in other countries. And yet the possibility that that's going to happen is 100% because it's happening right now.

Richard Fontaine: (31:24)
Same thing on China. We have to think about what it would look like if China acted in an aggressive way militarily against one of our allies in the region and what we would do in response to that, entirely appropriate.

Richard Fontaine: (31:36)
But we also have to be thinking at the much higher likelihood they'll engage in the things they already do, like theft of intellectual property through cyber means at vast scale, at surveilling people well beyond their borders and trying to impose their own value system on other countries and their technological governance matters and things like that, their economic dominance and their use of economic coercion to try to get the outcomes that they like, including with countries like Australia and things like that.

Richard Fontaine: (32:06)
And so, we can't leave behind all of the non-military stuff that's happening right now while we prepare for a war that we hope never happens.

Zoe Weinberg: (32:15)
I want to shift gears and talk a little bit about our economic agenda as it relates to national security. This is obviously relevant to China, but extends beyond our engagement there. There's been a lot of activity when it comes to a defensive economic strategy, export control, CFIUS, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, sanctions. But there's been little, it seems, on the other side of the ledger when it comes to advancing a positive economic agenda. Richard, what do you think we should expect when it comes to proactive economic measures?

Richard Fontaine: (32:49)
Not much in the near term because it's caught up in domestic politics, but it's a real missing piece. I mean Michele mentioned the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Take Asia, for example. There are two region-wide, big trade agreements in Asia. There's TPR, CPTPP now, and there's RCEP, which is the other one. The United States is party to neither of those. China's party to one and is closer to joining TPP that we are at this point.

Richard Fontaine: (33:21)
There's been talk about digital economy agreements. Well, we can't. Trade is too controversial now. We're in this protectionist mindset. But maybe we can get digital economy agreements that liberalize digital trade and show some leadership there, reduce the barriers, and things like that. But there's been no effort thus far out of the administration, and the Congress is not particularly pushing this very hard.

Richard Fontaine: (33:44)
So I think you're absolutely right. There's all kinds of defensive measures on how to deal with export controls and investment screening and all these other things. Virtually nothing on the positive side of what would economic leadership in various parts of world look like, not only for geopolitical reasons but for no-kidding economic reasons at home.

Richard Fontaine: (34:05)
But it's too domestically, politically difficult now. Maybe something after the midterms or in a second term, but we're now seeing more or less three administrations in a row that are not terribly gungho on the positive economic side. And TPP didn't pass, as we know.

Zoe Weinberg: (34:29)
Yeah, Michele?

Michele Flournoy: (34:30)
If I could just jump in. I think there is an opportunity to make some lemonade out of lemons. When you look at the incredible integration of our supply chains globally with China, there are areas where, fine, not a big worry, but there are areas that touch on national security, that touch on our digital economy, that touch on heightened awareness, public health, supply chains, and pharma supply chains.

Michele Flournoy: (35:02)
There are places where we really need to reconsider our vulnerabilities and develop much greater resilience. Some of that may be reshoring things to the United States, but in many, many cases, it's going to be redistributing supply chains in the region.

Michele Flournoy: (35:21)
That's an opportunity for us, in terms of absent the trade agreement we wish we had, to make at least some progress in bolstering the economies of some of our key partners by moving some of the supply chains that are currently in China to places like Vietnam, or pick your favorite ASEAN economy.

Michele Flournoy: (35:44)
So I do think there's an opportunity there. But in the meantime, to me, the most important thing we can do economically is actually invest in the drivers of our own competitiveness here at home, which science and technology spending, research and development spending, access to higher education, 21st century infrastructure.

Michele Flournoy: (36:04)
Smart immigration policy. I mean look at the founders of Silicon Valley. Half of them are either immigrants or first-generation Americans. We benefit from an immigration policy that welcomes and draws the best and brightest from around the world to this country and then convinces them to stay and make their businesses here and so forth. We've lost the bubble on that somehow in the last administration and the last few years.

Michele Flournoy: (36:30)
So this is, this is an agenda that I think resonates in a post-COVID America. I think it's very, very important. As we evaluate these big investment bills, the two infrastructure bills, the Chips Act, we've got to make sure that we're investing in replacing some big bets in the areas where we need to compete. We're not just investing in technology, but we're investing in the human capital that's really going to help us win the competition in the longer term.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (37:04)
I would just say that economic security is national security. I think just one area I'd like to highlight is an area of energy security, how that relates to carbon emissions and climate change.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (37:13)
I think because we don't look at the interconnected nature of energy security and national security that we make some bad decisions. I mean the Biden administration blocked the Keystone pipeline, which made a lot of sense in terms of protecting the environment and from an energy security perspective and then green-lighted a Russian pipeline that has profound implications for Russia and Russia's ability to have course of power over Europe.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (37:39)
And so, I think we have to look at the interconnected nature of these problems and make decisions based on informed judgments, and ensure in the area of energy in particular that we don't trade our dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the 1970s for a new dependence on fragile supply chains that are dominated and controlled by China as we shift to the next-generation energy sources. In particular, I'm thinking of supply chains related to rare earths and rare earths refinement, battery manufacturing, and so forth.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (38:10)
So we have a lot of work to do, I think, from an economic security perspective, resiliency of supply chains that became too fragile based on maybe unchecked globalization or a bias in favor of efficiency rather than resilience.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (38:27)
We have a lot of work to do to catch up to China's weaponizing its authoritarian, mercantilist model against us. This is in areas like the Endless Frontier Act, the Chips Act, which are elements of industrial policy, which we don't do particularly well and have to be careful about, but I think are necessary to compete with China's economic aggression.

Zoe Weinberg: (38:49)
We only have a few minutes left, but I want to touch briefly on one more topic that's generating a lot of headlines these days, and that's space. Of course, historically, space has obviously been the domain of the federal government and programs in defense and science. But now we're watching the competition between Blue Origin and SpaceX and Virgin Galactic play out in real time.

Zoe Weinberg: (39:11)
Michele, you recently joined the board of Astra Space. What do you make of the commercialization of space and where is it headed?

Michele Flournoy: (39:21)
Well, I think it is a new frontier and it's a very exciting time. Because I think there's a lot that we can do in space to actually help better manage the planet, particularly when it comes to things like climate change, resource depletion, environmental degradation, and so forth.

Michele Flournoy: (39:42)
But it's also a great example where the federal government changed the model and opened the doors to commercial industry with great benefit. I mean the credit goes here to NASA, which decided to open up the door, let commercial industry compete with the traditional defense industry in providing solutions in space.

Michele Flournoy: (40:04)
It really created a market. Now we have not only the space companies you've heard of, but some of the ones you haven't heard of yet that are coming up with very interesting new models.

Michele Flournoy: (40:17)
Since you mentioned Astra, I mean Astra's model is to get to daily launch on demand out of a container truck from anywhere in the world. They're mass producing high-quality rockets that can put payloads for commercial, defense, intelligence into bespoke orbits and beat the best competitors on price.

Michele Flournoy: (40:39)
When you talk about resilience, when you talk about space becoming a contested domain and needing to be able to put assets back into space so we're not blinded, so our GPS doesn't go down, so our communications doesn't go down, et cetera, anything that contributes to that resilience has got to be part of our future.

Michele Flournoy: (41:00)
So this is one of those areas where I think it's a very exciting time, because you've got a lot of new entrants, a lot of new ideas, and some real energy behind transforming that sector.

Zoe Weinberg: (41:09)
General Kelly, I know that you departed the administration before this Space Force was created. But I was wondering if you could tell us anything about the motivation for its creation and what we can expect from the Space Force?

Gen. John Kelly: (41:23)
Well, there were a lot of people that had been encouraging this move for some time. The United States Air Force was doing, to say the least, a good job in terms of managing assets in space and that kind of thing. But there were certainly people that came on board that argued that it's about time to break it out separately.

Gen. John Kelly: (41:46)
So it wasn't necessarily ... And I don't know, H.R., if you remember. I mean there were a lot of good ideas coming into the White House, but it was not necessarily the president or someone like that who decided we've got to do Space Force. There was a lot of discussion about, okay, well, do we really need it now or do we need it at all? Because the Air Force has a separate Space Force and why aren't they doing a good job and all of that.

Gen. John Kelly: (42:09)
But I think, at the end of the day, it's a good decision. It's not going to grow into a huge organization nor does it need to. I was just up in strategic command up in Omaha last week and the week before, frankly, and a lot of great work being done on the Space Force. They're already credible and they'll get even more so.

Zoe Weinberg: (42:33)
Any final thoughts? Yeah?

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (42:34)
Yeah. I'll just say sometimes the government puts the right person in the right job. I think General Raymond and then his deputy Bill Liquori, who was our director of defense and worked with the Vice President in the space council to develop, I think, a really sound space strategy that ought to have broad, enduring, bipartisan support going into the future. There's an unclassified version and then there's a classified version. I think it's actually quite good.

Gen. H.R. McMaster: (42:57)
I was agnostic on it, but now that it's done, I think it was the right decision to split out the Space Force, because we've got the right people working on, as Michele just mentioned, is ... We're late to the game, recognized as a contested domain. There's so much potential now thanks to really the private sector coming up with so many innovative solutions to the problems we have and the opportunities that we have in space.

Zoe Weinberg: (43:24)
I have-

Richard Fontaine: (43:25)
The-

Zoe Weinberg: (43:25)
Go ahead, Richard.

Richard Fontaine: (43:26)
The one thing I would add is I think the commercialization, the creativity that's been unleashed in this country around space is a good example of the bright side of some of the darkness that we were talking about on this panel, because when you're talking national security, you talk about threats and China and Afghanistan, and it starts to get pessimistic.

Richard Fontaine: (43:47)
I think it's a good example because everything that the United States needs to compete in this new world that we're entering, whether it's China or deal with the threats around the world, we already have. We have the strongest, most powerful, richest, most creative, most innovative country in the world with an attractive democratic system, lots of friends around the world. It's about putting those pieces together and drawing on our greatest strengths as Americans that's going to win across this whole swath of stuff.

Richard Fontaine: (44:19)
On the one hand, it's daunting when you spend most of your hour talking about all of the threats and all the problems in the world, but the encouraging side is, as Americans, we're in the lucky place of if we just are better versions of ourselves, then we'll be able to deal adequately, if not excellently, across the whole spectrum of them.

Zoe Weinberg: (44:40)
Richard, thank you for helping us to end on a positive note. I have one final question this morning. This was a special request. I won't say from whom. It's for General Kelly. You can answer in just a sentence or less. General, tell us what was it like to fire Anthony Scaramucci?

Gen. John Kelly: (44:59)
Well, of all of the things I did at the White House, it was certainly the most enjoyable thing.

Zoe Weinberg: (45:02)
Great. Well, thank you.

Welcome to SALT New York! Eric Adams & Anthony Scaramucci | #SALTNY

Eric Adams, Democratic Nominee for Mayor of the City of New York welcomes SALT to New York! Joined by Anthony Scaramucci, Founder & Managing Partner, SkyBridge.

SALT New York is a global thought leadership and networking forum at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. Over the course of three days, leading investors, creators and thinkers will take the stage in support of SALT’s mission: empowering big ideas.

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Adams, Eric - Cropped.png

Eric Adams

Democratic Nominee for Mayor

City of New York

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Anthony Scaramucci: (00:07)
Super, super excited to do this. I want to talk about the right person, at the right time, in the right place for New York City. He's going to come out and present himself, but he's an amazing guy. He's a warrior for the city. He has a love of country. He has a love of humanity, which is more important than anything else. That's the thing that you really need, and our public servants, and our politicians. Mike Bloomberg endorsed him this week. He doesn't need my endorsement, but I'll be voting for him. I'm a financial supporter. Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to meet the future mayor of New York City, Eric Adams.

Eric Adams: (00:55)
Good morning. Good to see you all welcome to the Big Apple and it's shiny, beautiful redness. I went through Manhattan today the image of darkness came to mind. I just want to take a few moments to share with you.

Eric Adams: (01:13)
About four years ago, I woke up and I could not see my alarm clock. I went to the doctor. Doctor stated, "Eric, you're losing your sight. You're going to be blind in a year". I had permanent nerve damage in my hands and feet, that was going to lead to amputation. I learned that ahead, I was experiencing late stages of diabetes. Those were the symptoms; high blood pressure, high cholesterol. The entire American healthcare crisis package was all in my body, went to five of the best doctors. They all told me I will be on medication the rest of my life. And this was my new norm.

Eric Adams: (01:58)
I made the determination to seek beyond what the traditional medical profession said. I found an amazing doctor in Ohio, Dr. [inaudible 00:02:07] he said, "I can give you medicine for your vision loss, your nerve damage, your high blood pressure, your high cholesterol and all the other problems. Or I can tell you the underlying reason that you experienced in these issues. And if you change that you would change your entire health outcome". I did just that. I changed my diet and learned that it was not in my DNA, but it was in my dinner that caused me to have the diabetes issues that I was experiencing. Three weeks later, my sight came back. Three months later, my nerve damage went away. Three months later, my diabetes went in remission. I dropped 35 pounds. I don't have a six-pack. [inaudible 00:02:47] my body's healthy as it's ever been before in my life.

Eric Adams: (02:50)
I say that because when you look at our cities across America, we are playing whack-a-mole. We're continuously trying to respond to issue, after issue. We are dysfunctional as a city in New York and dysfunctional as a country, and we have to stop feeding the crises that we are experiencing and start going to the underlying causes. I believe Archbishop Desmond Tutu has the right quote, "We spend a lifetime pulling people out of the river. Let's go upstream and prevent them from falling in the first place." New York would no longer be anti-business. This is going to be a place where we welcomed business and not turn into the dysfunctional city that we have been for so many years. It is imperative that we face an unprecedented crisis. Government must do his job to create an environment for growth. That includes lower crime. The prerequisite to prosperity is public safety and justice.

Eric Adams: (04:00)
We have to curb COVID. Fewer homeless as you see on our streets. Greater affordability and partnership with the business community. That is why I have proposed some clear outlines, laser-focus on gun violence, all across our country, gangs and guns. They are destroying the foundation of not only public safety, but business. No one is coming to New York if a three-year old is shot in Times Square or bullets and carbon highways of death throughout our communities. We're going to create community health centers in undeserved neighborhoods where COVID is still spreading to improve access to vaccines and provide preventive care, to assure better, long-term health. We're going to invest and attract growing industries in New York. We're going to be the center of cybersecurity, drone development, self-driving cars, all the new industries right here. A pathway of young people having the opportunity to fill those jobs. A large new investment in green jobs, through the city's capital program to raise employment and create a more sustainable city in the process. We can't continue to feed our babies food that feeds their healthcare crisis.

Eric Adams: (05:23)
We in conflict with each other. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene spends millions of dollars to fight childhood obesity, diabetes, and asthma. You know what happens every morning? We feed our babies 960,000 meals a day. Those meals cause childhood obesity, childhood diabetes, and childhood asthma. That is the height of dysfunctionality. We can have a free and subsidized childcare for every parent who needs it at every age, so that young people can develop to their full potential and parents can work and thrive. There's a huge investment that we are planning to make in New York, but we expect something in return folks. It is my goal, and I want to be blunt with this. This is a business conference after all. So we have to be talking about business. We want to offer you, and ask you to offer your jobs to New Yorker's. Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of people out of work in New York.

Eric Adams: (06:23)
There are hundreds of thousands of jobs that you have that we can fill. We have to connect you to those New Yorker's who are unemployed or underemployed. If they do not have the skills or trainings needed to do the jobs you can and need to fill, we want to connect you with them and the road for us to develop them with our workforce development center. That is why I'm proposing unprecedented partnership between city employers, and the city itself to make those connections and create one common application. One job application to fill all the jobs you have available in this city. New York wants your jobs and we want to fill them. I'm offering my hand in partnership today, but I am also making an ask. Pledge to be part of this unprecedented effort to grow this city and get New Yorker's back to growth.

Eric Adams: (07:21)
I want you to join us today. You choose New York and we want to choose you. The anatomy of our city can be a healthy place. Not only physically healthy, but healthy by insuring we leave no one behind. We want to end inequality and create an environment where we raise healthy children and families. I wore a bulletproof vest for 22 years as a police officer to protect the children and families of the city. My son, Juan grew up in the city that I grew up in. We will be safe, will be affordable, and we will be practical in our practice.

Eric Adams: (07:55)
Thank you very much.

Brett Harrison: Crypto Derivatives | SALT Talks #255

“In order for all of the various DeFi applications to exist and really scale, you need a layer one blockchain.”

Brett Harrison, FTX US president, describes FTX’s founding by Sam Bankman-Fried and how the international exchange differs from its US counterpart. Harrison discusses FTX US’ recent LedgerX acquisition, the company’s broader vision and its recent marketing push. He explains the need for layer one blockchains in powering DeFi and how NFTs are serving as a crypto gateway for many. He lays out the case for centralized and decentralized finance’s coexistence and the potential of Serum, FTX’s latest decentralized project powered by Solana.

Prior to joining FTX US, Brett was Head of Semi-Systematic Technology at Citadel Securities, where he managed technology for the firm’s Options, ETF, OTC, and ADR trading globally. He began and spent the majority of his career at Jane Street, where he led the firm’s algorithmic trading system development. He also previously worked at Headlands Technologies as a senior software developer. Brett received his M.S. and B.A. in Computer Science from Harvard.

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Brett Harrison - Headshot - Cropped.jpeg

Brett Harrison

President

FTX US

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 – Intro and background

5:55 – Explaining FTX and FTX US

10:06 – Acquiring LedgerX

12:19 – The FTX vision

16:08 – FTX US marketing and naming rights

18:58 – Solana, Project Serum and DeFi

23:28 – NFTs

25:29 – Potential additional acquisitions

28:56 – Comparing traditional finance and crypto

31:35 – Centralized and decentralized finance coexisting

35:04 – NFTs and play-to-earn gaming

38:12 – Responding to crypto critics

43:06 – Pyth network

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:12)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy.

John Darsie: (00:26)
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. Our guest today is going to be a speaker there. We're very excited to have him and his firm at the SALT New York event. It's shaping up to be a fantastic event, not just in crypto, but covering asset managers from hedge funds, venture capital, down through the entire alternative investment spectrum. So looking forward to a fantastic event there.

John Darsie: (00:57)
But our goal there, and our goal here 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.

John Darsie: (01:09)
And our guest today is the president of FTX US. FTX is a company that we think is one of the most important companies, if not the most important company today in the crypto ecosystem. His name is Brett Harrison. Again, he's the president of FTX US, which is a US regulated cryptocurrency exchange.

John Darsie: (01:26)
Prior to joining FTX US, Brett was the head of semi-systematic technology at Citadel Securities in Chicago, where he still lives and where he managed technology for the firm's options, ETF, over the counter and ADR trading globally. He began and spent the majority of his career at Jane Street, which is where he met Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of FTX. Where he led the firm's algorithmic trading system development.

John Darsie: (01:50)
He also previously worked at Headlands Technologies as senior software developer. Brett received his master's and his bachelor's degree in computer science from Harvard. Our host today Anthony Scaramucci also spent some time at Harvard, but over at the law school. Anthony also took three attempts to pass the bar exam. So I'm going to go ahead and say that Brett's academic accomplishments maybe supersede Anthony's a little bit, but Anthony is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge, which is a global [crosstalk 00:02:16] alternative investment firm.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:17)
[crosstalk 00:02:17].

John Darsie: (02:17)
He's also the chairman of SALT. Go ahead, Anthony. Get your shots in on me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:23)
[crosstalk 00:02:23] mention the fact I got fired from The White House before we get the thing started or what?

John Darsie: (02:25)
[crosstalk 00:02:25].

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:26)
The problem is if I divided my age by four, it like adds up to your ages. Okay? I mean your respective ages. So I'm with two young bucks here. So I'm on my own, okay? I don't have any baby boomers here to protect me. Keep going Darsie. What else you got to say? Go ahead.

John Darsie: (02:42)
I'm done. I've said all the disparaging things I'm going to say, but we're excited to have Brett on here. At SkyBridge, Anthony obviously, as you might know Brett, we were one of the first '40 Act funds to invest in funds with allocations to cryptocurrencies, and obviously very enthusiastic about the space. And excited to have you guys at the conference. Anthony, you take it away. I'll pipe in with some questions later on.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:04)
Well, Harrison, that will not be the most disparaging thing that he says. Okay? You have to understand there's a little bit of a rivalry here because John Darsie gets fan mail, okay? I'm just letting you know Brett, that irks me. So let's go right into it. You got to tell us a little bit more about your background. Where did you grow up? Where did you go to school? And did you think you'd be doing what you're doing today when you left high school Brett, that's what I want to know.

Brett Harrison: (03:31)
Sure. So I was born in New York city. I grew up in Long Island, New York.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:37)
What town on Long Island?

Brett Harrison: (03:39)
Dix Hills.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:40)
Okay. [crosstalk 00:03:41].

Brett Harrison: (03:40)
So near Huntington, Commack. Right in the middle.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:42)
Yeah. All right. I'm from Port Washington. He's like a [crosstalk 00:03:46] at the Sands Point. He lives on a baronial estate, okay?

Brett Harrison: (03:50)
Fancy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:50)
He's incredible [crosstalk 00:03:51].

Brett Harrison: (03:51)
Very fancy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:51)
That's why he's wearing the Zuckerberg sweatshirt. [crosstalk 00:03:55] So you grew up in Dix Hills. Where'd you go to college?

Brett Harrison: (03:58)
I went to Harvard. Got my bachelor's and master's degree when I was at Harvard and then moved back to New York city to start my career at Jane Street. When I was in school, studying comp sci, I had no idea what I want to do with that. At the time, it wasn't obvious that with a computer science degree, you could just do anything.

Brett Harrison: (04:20)
Every single company needs computer programmers of some kind. I thought maybe I would be a teacher or just work for a company that I knew the name of like Google or Microsoft. But then I had a number of friends in my math and computer science courses who were getting all these internships at trading firms. And a couple of them had worked at Jane Street and they said, "Yeah, you really should try applying and check it out. It's a great place for math and CS and physics majors."

Brett Harrison: (04:46)
And I didn't know anything about finance, but sure, let's give it a shot. And then I interned there and I ended up at Jane Street and spent the majority of my career there. And that's sort of how I got my start into finance. But as for crypto, I really was not involved in crypto at all prior to FTX. Except for a short stint with crypto, with Jane street, when they were starting to get into the trading space towards the end of 2017. And mostly just spent my time building systems and managing teams for sort of the regulated financial instrument markets like equities, equity options, commodity derivatives, things like that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:31)
So FTX, perhaps the fastest growing crypto currency company in the world. For those people that are less familiar, tell our audience about the various lines of business, but also FTX US and how that all fits in together. And of course, you're the president of FTX US.

Brett Harrison: (05:54)
Yes. So FTX, the international exchange was started around two years ago as really an answer to the existing derivatives exchanges that existed. Where a bunch of bad stuff was happening. Customers were getting liquidated left, and right. There was no cross margining. So you couldn't use your Ethereum to collateralize your Bitcoin futures position.

Brett Harrison: (06:20)
It was a real pain to be able to operate any of these platforms. The interfaces were clunky, the risk systems weren't built by people who really understood trading. And so Sam Bankman-Fried founded FTX two years ago with no clear idea that this would be something that would be this huge. He thought, "Look, we know we could do a better job, but let's just give it a shot."

Brett Harrison: (06:43)
And organically, the growth has just been exponential over time. And FTX grew to somewhere between the fourth and second largest exchange in the world for trading crypto and crypto derivatives. Fast-forward to about a year and change ago when the company decided to make a US offering. Now in the US because of the existing regulatory and licensing regimes, there's a limit to what you can do without getting some certain kinds of licenses.

Brett Harrison: (07:13)
So in this case, the FTX US was started. It's a completely separate company that's run entirely within the US and it is currently a spot cryptocurrency exchange. So we offer 20 some odd pairs of spot crypto token pairs that you can trade. We also have some spot margin program. We have an NFT marketplace. We have a payments system whereby merchants can use FTX US to accept crypto as payments. And we're doing around $150 million of volume a day on the US platform. Up from around like a million dollars a day back in January. So we're growing super fast as well, but still climbing up the ladder to compete with some of the biggest competitors in the US space.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:04)
From a regulatory standpoint, how does FTX US operate differently from FTX International?

Brett Harrison: (08:12)
So FTX US is a FinCEN regulated money services business. So we operate under that regime and we report to FinCEN to be able to operate a business, which all it really does at the end of the day is transfer money between different persons. So one person from Washington wants to buy crypto from eventually... So let's say someone in Mississippi, because those are the two orders that match up in the order book.

Brett Harrison: (08:43)
We're licensed to be able to transfer either virtual currency or fiat currency between those two parties. And so that's how we are regulated within the US. It also means that there's a lot of things that we can't do. So for example, there are certain spot tokens that might clearly be securities under the SEC definition. And because we're not a securities exchange, and they're not registered securities, you can't offer unregistered securities to unaccredited investors.

Brett Harrison: (09:14)
So we can't list certain things on the platform in the US because of those restrictions. So that's a big way in which sort of we operate differently from ftx.com. Whereas ftx.com have a wider array of spot tokens on the platform. They offer futures quarterly as perpetual futures, other kinds of prediction market contracts that we can't offer in the US yet.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:38)
But you're getting there and you just...

Brett Harrison: (09:40)
We're getting there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:41)
Yeah, you're getting there. You just did a major transaction. Congratulations on that.

Brett Harrison: (09:45)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:47)
I have to disclose that I was an early investor in LedgerX.

Brett Harrison: (09:50)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:50)
So I'm disclosing that now. And I know the company quite well. Tell us a little bit about LedgerX. Why you decided to buy LedgerX? And the regulatory landscape related to the CFTC. And congratulations on the deal by the way.

Brett Harrison: (10:05)
Yeah, thanks so much. No, it's really exciting. Maybe working backwards a little bit. So in the US if you want to be able to operate an exchange that allows people to trade things like futures and options, you have to have a license from the CFTC called the DCM license or a designated contract market license.

Brett Harrison: (10:26)
Alternatively, you can also have a SEF license, or swap execution facility, which allows you to operate a swaps trading platform. Which you can only operate between ECPs. Exchange contract participants, which are basically clients that have a certain net assets. Above 10 million in assets and a few other definitions. And there's one more important part of this, which is in order to actually clear derivative contracts, you have to do it at a DCO or a derivatives clearing organization, a clearing house.

Brett Harrison: (10:59)
And there are very few DCMs and DCOs in the United States. In fact, on the DCO side, there is only really about five. And LedgerX has all three of the above licenses. They're a DCM, a DCO, and a SEF. And they have quite an expansive scope of their [inaudible 00:11:19] license to be able to clear futures, options, options on futures, swaps.

Brett Harrison: (11:24)
And so for FTX, which has this two-year history of running a huge successful derivatives platform, and we want to bring this to the US in a regulated fashion by using the existing regime from the CFTC, it's a very attractive target for us to be able to work with them, and in conjunction with their licenses be able to have a path to offering derivatives to US retail and institutional customers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:50)
Okay. So it's exciting. The transaction's been announced. You're closing subject to regulatory approval, keeping my fingers crossed there. You have ambitions beyond crypto coins, including things like tokenised securities, equity derivative products that you're discussing, innovative commodity derivative products. Tell us about the future. Give us a sense for the wide ranging vision that you guys have for the firm.

Brett Harrison: (12:18)
Sure. So I think one thing that makes FTX special as a technology platform is that it wasn't built just for crypto. It's a quite generic platform for doing things like matching up buyers and sellers of any asset that you can attach a price to, of being able to be custodians of customer funds, of providing an app or a website where people can go and manage their experience. Whether they're a new person to crypto or they're an experienced professional investor or an institution.

Brett Harrison: (12:53)
And so because of that, we could really be an exchange for everything. We don't have to adjust be for crypto. And for example, using the LedgerX licenses, there's no reason why after offering, let's say Bitcoin options or Ethereum futures, we couldn't eventually offer, an S&P 500 future on our platform. Right now you can't open up a phone and trade a CME future without going through, let's say some other kind of broker, and there's a lot of expensive fees involved in that.

Brett Harrison: (13:27)
And you might not be able to see the order book because market data fees are expensive on those platforms too. We could completely turn that on its head. And so I think that there's a huge potential for us to get into these different markets. And then beyond derivatives, I think in terms of having an investment platform that really attracts a wide array of retail customers. What's next? There's crypto, there's derivatives. Well, I think a natural extension off that is playing US stocks and options, which are hugely popular for investors in the US and again, no reason why that can't be something else on our future roadmap.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:06)
I mean, so very, very big ambitions. You're going to come up against some competition with some of the existing exchanges. So tell us how you're going to manage that.

Brett Harrison: (14:18)
Yeah, it's a tough climb because we're so new. FTX US has been around for a year. If you think about some of our biggest competitors in the crypto space, just the spot crypto markets, for example. Some of these companies have been around 8, 9, 10 years. They've become household names for trading crypto, and we need to do the same.

Brett Harrison: (14:38)
We need to be the name that everyone mentions first when they think about crypto. And so that's why we've also been making this huge marketing, branding sponsorship push in the US. Where we're partnering with Major League Baseball, or we named the Miami Heat arena, the FTX Arena. And it's to make a big splash in the US and get people to think of us as their household name for what they think to first, when they want to go download an app to trade crypto or anything else. And so the combination of having the superior technology, having a great user experience, having relatively lower fees, and also having this wide brand appeal, I think is going to help us eventually dominate in the US.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:21)
Okay. So I mean, this is editorializing by me. So forgive me. I think the move to name the arena was absolutely brilliant. But I think the move to put the name on the umpires was absolutely more brilliant than the brilliance of naming the theater. I'm not flattering you. I just think it's absolutely brilliant because it creates this instant imprimatur. And you've raised yourself up to the level of the "major leagues". Literally Major League Baseball. So who came up with the idea? How did you decide to do it? It is a bold and sweeping idea, which I greatly admire. Give us some thought behind that. Help me with that.

Brett Harrison: (16:06)
You know, Sam, as you've seen from the dizzying growth, all of the acquisitions, all of these partnerships, he thinks up here. When I think everyone thinks like, "What's the next incremental step?" He's like, "How can I leapfrog everything?" So I think the story went down something like this. I'm not going to personally take credit for the arena naming. That was before my time joining the company.

Brett Harrison: (16:33)
The story went something like this. Sam basically went to the employees of the company and said, "What's the biggest thing we can do? Go out and figure it out. Everyone just go figure out what's the biggest, coolest deal that we can do to really get our name out there. I don't want to just buy Google Ads or Facebook Ads or do like one TV commercial. I want to figure out something that's really going to stick and have immediate widespread appeal."

Brett Harrison: (16:58)
And then someone came back and I think it was... Avi had some experience with the MBA and said, "We might be able to name a stadium." And Sam said, "Go do it." And then he did it. And that's sort of how it happened. The same thing, like what's a established brand in the US that everyone knows, and everyone loves and everyone trusts. How about a professional sports league? And then the conversations went on from there. And I'll tell you, I think the umpire patch worked out better than our wildest dreams, because it was hard to really visualize it until it actually happened.

Brett Harrison: (17:36)
But every YouTube clip of a break, either a strikeout or a home run starts with looking at the player in front of the umpire with the patch. And so we're getting pictures and videos from fans of FTX all over the world who are showing, "Hey, saw FTX at the game tonight." And so it just has worked out so well for getting our name out there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:59)
Well, I think it accomplished all of those things and more because you get the goodwill, you've burnished some goodwill from both of those places, which have more or less universality of goodwill. So I applaud you guys for that. We did a recent SALT talk with Anatoly Yakovenko.

Brett Harrison: (18:23)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:24)
Okay. And so now... Look at me, because I'm scratching my nose. You know why I'm doing that? Because I pronounced his name right, and Darsie did not think I was going to pronounce the guy's name right. But I actually did, okay? He's the founder of Solana, as we both know. Okay? And we talked a little bit about Sam and FTX and simultaneously disrupting a centralized exchange model by building something called Serum. So tell us what Serum is and tell us why you guys are using Solana.

Brett Harrison: (18:56)
So DeFi is definitely... Has already taken a huge stake of the interest of the crypto world, but will take an even larger interest going forward. And in order for all of the various DeFi applications to exist and really scale, you need a layer-1 blockchain where you can achieve the number of transactions per second on that blockchain, that a real-world scalable app might achieve.

Brett Harrison: (19:24)
So if you think about, if you wanted to build Twitter on a blockchain, how many tweets and likes and replies and DMs are being sent per second. And can a blockchain keep up with that? If you have an order book where you have every order and cancel and trade message happening on the blockchain, can a blockchain keep up with that? And right now, for things like Ethereum and Bitcoin, those can support tens, maybe hundreds of transactions per second.

Brett Harrison: (19:54)
That's not going to scale if you have thousands or tens of thousands of apps with potentially hundreds of millions of users on those apps. And Solana was one of the few chains that FTX really saw that has that capability now, and can have that potential to scale in the future. And so it just made sense that look, if we're going to help the Serum company build this decentralized exchange, well, it's got to be on something that we know is going to work from the beginning.

Brett Harrison: (20:27)
If we put it on something, that's not something like Solana, it's going to be doomed from the start. And so that's how we ended up partnering so much with Solana and there's such exciting things happening there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:39)
Is there opportunities to use other coins and create new Serums or are you locked into Solano and Serum or because of your exchange ambidexterity and the diversity of what you're doing, will you do other things like Serum for other coins?

Brett Harrison: (21:00)
So what's really cool about the Solana ecosystem, and I guess in general about DeFi is that all of these apps that are all in the Solana blockchain are composable. So for example, there's another project on Solana called Raydium and Raydium is like a spot pool. And that Raydium is built on top of Serum, but Raydium has their own coin. You can stake that coin to receive yields, but it basically builds on top of something that's an order book.

Brett Harrison: (21:30)
And the order book itself is built on this layer-1 blockchain. And so what you see in the Solana ecosystem is this explosion of different apps that are being created because each one can take whatever the other ones had built, and use those as one components. And then they can have their own project, their own coin, their own ecosystem, their own user interface. And so what's really cool about this is you're not locked into some monolithic system that you have to use all of it or none of it. You can [inaudible 00:21:57] pick and choose which aspects of the systems on the blockchain that you want to use for your app.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:03)
Okay. So it sounds like it's Solana centric then because you like the versatility of Solana. Is that fair to say?

Brett Harrison: (22:11)
I think that [crosstalk 00:22:12] when we were thinking about DeFi, when we want to partner with someone in the DeFi space, we're pretty much... We're choosing Solana because of it's capabilities right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:22)
Okay. But you're open-minded to others or [crosstalk 00:22:25].

Brett Harrison: (22:25)
Yeah, absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:26)
[crosstalk 00:22:26] I heard a quote from him saying that we're at war, meaning there's a war for real estate in the digital space. And there's going to be a few winners and lots of losers. So you're open to others, or are you sort of-

Brett Harrison: (22:38)
I think there's definitely a room for a couple. I don't think there's room for 50. And what you see is some of these blockchains that they're kind of either copies of another one and they're not really adding much new to the space, or they're not as well designed as something like Solana. And so I think, you're going to see a couple over time that are going to stick around.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:56)
All right. Sounds good. I have a couple more questions. I know Mr. Darsie is dying to ask you questions. It's [crosstalk 00:23:03].

John Darsie: (23:03)
Chomping at the bit.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:04)
He's going to try to upstage me with his non baby boomer intellect. All of this millennial stuff. He thinks he's cutting edge with his hoodie, but let's go to the NFT and gaming area.

Brett Harrison: (23:16)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:18)
Tell us what you're doing there. I know you've got some things powered by Serum there, also decentralized. What's the future look like there?

Brett Harrison: (23:27)
So the NFT space is really hot right now. And first of all, just in general, people are coming into this space, looking for a way to participate in the crypto ecosystem, but in a way that's familiar and friendly. And I think that user-friendliness of NFTs is really helping draw people into this.

Brett Harrison: (23:47)
It's something that a lot of people can vibe with, "Okay. It's a collectible. It's something that is a really cool piece of art and it's limited. And I would like to own it." That's sort of an experience that is very familiar to people. And so I think more and more people are coming into DeFi by way of NFTs. Now, specifically Solana NFTs have really started to come on the scene in the last couple of weeks even. And we're seeing such interest. A pack of 10,000 single, first edition NFTs selling out in 30 seconds. And so what we at FTX are looking to do is-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:28)
Should I buy a Degenerate Ape?

Brett Harrison: (24:30)
Well, buying it a couple of weeks ago would have been a very good trade. You would have made a 1000% on it. Right now, I think the floor on a Degen Ape is a 100 SOL. So around $10,000 or so.

John Darsie: (24:46)
Yeah, it's getting more expensive every second Brett by the way.

Brett Harrison: (24:49)
Every second. If you keep refreshing, it gets even more expensive. But we would love to be the secondary marketplace for NFTs like Degen Apes. And so we're doing some hard work in the background as we speak to help build out our NFT platform to be a great place for not just Solana, but also Ethereum based NFTs for people to resell.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:14)
Listen, I think what you guys are doing is amazing and fascinating. What are the next projects or types of acquisitions you have in your sights for FTX US?

Brett Harrison: (25:28)
Yeah. It's hard to say for sure. Since the raise, we certainly get a lot of opportunities for potential acquisitions. There's a lot that comes across our desk and we're looking for a couple of different categories of things that we might want to look at for a potential acquisition. So one is ways of achieving user acquisition for our retail platform faster.

Brett Harrison: (25:54)
So for example Blockfolio, which was the first major FTX acquisition about a year ago. Was one of those plays. They have six, seven million users.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:03)
Yeah, not to interrupt you, but just because we have a lot of young [inaudible 00:26:05], what is Blockfolio in your words?

Brett Harrison: (26:07)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:08)
Just so that we can...

Brett Harrison: (26:08)
So Blockfolio was primarily an app for tracking crypto trades and your crypto portfolio. It was one of the first of its kind and one of the best. And when FTX acquired Blockfolio, we added trading to that app that was powered by FTX and FTX US. So the play there was for all these people who are constantly checking their app all the time, looking at the prices, let's give them a way of buying Bitcoin, of selling ETH. But let's do it in a way that is extremely user-friendly. That's really meant for that person who downloaded the app for the first time.

Brett Harrison: (26:43)
They don't even know what a Bitcoin is. Let's help them. Let's guide them through the process. So I think we're on the hunt for similar kinds of acquisitions that can help get users onto FTX US. And then I think licenses, and the sort of regulatory side of things is another part of our acquisition target. So LedgerX was an obvious one in hindsight now, great way for us to maybe get into derivatives in the US faster than if we were to apply for those licenses from scratch.

Brett Harrison: (27:13)
And there may be other such companies that allow us to do new business lines that this target company has been able to get those licenses that we would need.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:25)
All right. Well, I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie. I think what you guys have done is extraordinary. I applaud your marketing prowess.

Brett Harrison: (27:34)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:35)
I would like to get my house named after FTX. So I'm going to be talking to you guys about it later in the program.

Brett Harrison: (27:41)
FTX Scaramucci house.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:42)
Yeah. Forget Scaramucci. That name, forget about it. We're just going to go with the FTX, okay? And we'll be talking about that naming ceremony later, but in the meantime, I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie.

Brett Harrison: (27:53)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:54)
And congratulations on everything you've done, Brett. I'm very impressed.

Brett Harrison: (27:57)
Thank you.

John Darsie: (27:58)
Yeah, Brett, again, we're super excited about LedgerX's merger with FTX. We think it's a match made in heaven. When you guys started talking, it was just again, a great fit that I think will supercharge the growth that you guys organically have already achieved. So congratulations on that. But I want to talk about your background for a second.

John Darsie: (28:17)
You've talked about how you have a computer science background, both your bachelor's and your master's at Harvard. You went into the finance world. You were at Jane Street, you were at Citadel. So you sort of sit on both sides of the equation, where a lot of things going on in crypto today are being driven by engineering or computer science types, with less understanding of the financial world, less understanding of the regulatory environment. How do you think that sort of dichotomy of your experience where you've lived the computer science education and experience, but also had industry experience. How do you think that's helped you be an effective leader for FTX US?

Brett Harrison: (28:55)
Sure. So it's interesting seeing the differences in the crypto space and the traditional finance space. I'd spent 12 years of my life inside of these highly successful, but really secretive firms. Where they're very hyper competitive. Always looking to sort of outsmart their cohorts. And compare that to crypto, where in the crypto world, everyone is talking about what they're doing.

Brett Harrison: (29:26)
There's a lot of advertising. People are on Twitter chatting with each other directly about problems they're having with the platform. And people are investing in each other's companies, even Coinbase is an investor in FTX, even though they're our competitors. The kind of cooperation and openness is very, very different. And I think a lot of that has to do with people with no bias of how the traditional finance system has worked for all these decades.

Brett Harrison: (29:54)
Engineers who are used to more open source cultures coming in, creating companies as if they're just tech companies, even though they're so deeply rooted within finance. And I think that for me, getting to sort of be a software engineer in crypto, but also knowing what kinds of things have made traditional finance successful. How do you build a scalable system that allows for millions of users and billions of transactions, for example. There's a lot of hard burns, lessons from building those kinds of systems at a place like Jane Street that transfer over, I think pretty well to FTX and other exchanges like us.

John Darsie: (30:39)
Right. And one of the things we talked about with Anatoly when we had him on our SALT talk was, it's sort of what Anthony alluded to earlier is that you guys are building the fastest growing, if not... One of the fastest growing, if not the fastest growing exchange globally in the US. A centralized exchange where you're obviously abiding by all regulatory frameworks that are in place, the LedgerX acquisition was another way for you guys to obtain licenses, allow you to operate in a highly regulated environment.

John Darsie: (31:05)
But at the same time, you're investing in Serum, a decentralized exchange that has maybe greater ambitions for the future, and also is disrupting the same businesses that you guys are building from a centralized perspective. So how do you balance sort of that short-term perspective of, "Okay, we have to live inside of the box that we have to in the United States and other regulated environments." But also sort of taking that ambitious moonshot at the future of re-imagining the financial system and the regulatory framework.

Brett Harrison: (31:35)
So I think that centralized finance and decentralized finance will co-exist and continue to coexist even in the long run. And I think there's sort of two arguments behind that. There's sort of like a physics argument, and then there's a regulatory argument.

Brett Harrison: (31:51)
So the physics argument is something like, traditional finance firms, which many of which are institutions that trade on FTX US are looking for low latency, high throughput, high transactions per second. And in the DeFi world, in order to validate a transaction, it basically needs to hit all of these different validators that could be anywhere in the world.

Brett Harrison: (32:14)
So that sort of puts a theoretical lower bound on how fast a single transaction can occur. It's basically the time it takes light to go around the Earth once. So on the order of a hundredish milliseconds. But for something like the NASDAQ exchange, you can have a single transaction occur in single digit microseconds, sometimes hundreds of nanoseconds.

Brett Harrison: (32:36)
So they are on complete different orders of magnitude. And I think there will always be a place for large liquidity providers to want to be on platforms that allow for this very low latency. The second is that even as DeFi continues to grow, I think we're going to find that the regulatory agencies are going to catch up to the growth of DeFi. And they're going to want to say, "Look, this is great. And it's an awesome innovation. We want to be able to support it, but only if we can make sure we know who's actually interacting with this. We're making sure there's no money laundering occurring on the platform. Make sure people aren't being scammed and their money stolen and everything else."

Brett Harrison: (33:16)
And I think that there's going to be a potential for CeFi and DeFi to work with each other where centralized exchanges like us could be the on-ramp into DeFi. We're the player that knows how to do AML KYC for millions of customers. We're a place where people can safely store their funds like a bank, but then we can help provide sort of a gateway into DeFi from that as a portal. So that's sort of how I see these two things coexisting over time, and I think they will help build each other up.

John Darsie: (33:47)
Yeah. And to your point, the SEC recently... Or there was a report in the Wall Street Journal about the SEC investigating Uniswap, which is the largest DeFi exchange, for how investors are using the platform, how the platform is marketed. Probably tackling some of the same questions that you just talked about. Sort of the way smart people in the industry that understand regulation have explained it to me is that they think regulators will continue to crack down aggressively on the real nefarious players in the space, because there's certainly unscrupulous players in crypto.

John Darsie: (34:18)
The same way there is in any industry. And they'll slap other people on the wrist just to make sure that people are staying within the boundaries that the SEC wants to create. Do you think that's an accurate depiction of it?

Brett Harrison: (34:29)
Yeah, I think that's right.

John Darsie: (34:33)
Anthony talked about the NFT space and gaming. I alluded earlier to Aurory, which is the Aurory Project, which is a game involving NFTs powered by Serum that Anthony was referencing. There's also Star Atlas, which we talked to Anatoly about, that you guys are supporting with your exchanges. Could you explain again for the people on these talks that are less familiar with what is an NFT powered sort of play to earn type game? What does that look like and why is that so transformative?

Brett Harrison: (35:02)
Sure. So if you think about a typical video game with some kind of in game economy. There might be something like gems or gold, and you need those gems or bold to be able to perform actions within that game. And sometimes you can trade those gyms or gold within the game, but then that never really leaves the virtual world or hasn't prior to the advent of blockchain technology.

Brett Harrison: (35:32)
So what NFTs and blockchain in general have allowed games to do is for these sort of in-game currencies to sort of escape the game and actually be something that people can trade and buy and sell peer-to-peer. So an example is, the most interesting current day example of this is Axie Infinity. Which is this huge growing forest where people are actually quitting their jobs in the Philippines to go play Axie Infinity, because they can earn more per hour playing Axie Infinity than their previous jobs.

Brett Harrison: (36:07)
And so with that they breed these little monsters called Axies, but the Axies themselves are NFTs. They're tokens, like virtual currencies, but they're only sort of one of a kind tokens. And they can use them and trade them peer to peer with other people, sell them for profit, buy them, try to train them up, sell them again for profit. And so NFT has allowed for games to sort of interact with the real world economy in this sort of safe, [inaudible 00:36:37] way that has never really existed before.

John Darsie: (36:41)
I feel like Pokemon is screaming out for a massive multiplayer NFT driven gaming system. I mean, that's something that I grew up watching. [crosstalk 00:36:49]

Brett Harrison: (36:49)
I think that would be huge. I feel like it's only a matter of time.

John Darsie: (36:52)
Yeah. I feel like it's tailor made for it. And as a father of four, I have a one month old. I don't have enough time to game maybe the way I did when I was younger, but these games seem fascinating. It seems like we're just scratching the surface of... You read books like Ready Player One. I talked to Anatoly about this, and it's like, you could see that becoming a reality where these things are so fascinating and you create digital economies.

John Darsie: (37:15)
Anatoly was talking about how, when he was younger, he played World of Warcraft and used to mail physical checks to people to buy their goods and services on their game.

Brett Harrison: (37:23)
[crosstalk 00:37:23].

John Darsie: (37:23)
And this is just the next iteration of that, obviously in a much more seamless manner and scalable manner. But FTX is very focused on climate sustainability, ESG if you will of crypto and also just philanthropy generally. I know Sam's passionate about that. It's a value set that he's pushed down through the organization.

John Darsie: (37:43)
Crypto critics, one of the accusations they like to go to is that Bitcoin is where it starts, about Bitcoin mining and lack of sustainability. And there's other criticisms of crypto that it doesn't really serve a purpose in society while also having a large carbon footprint. First of all, how do you analyze those criticisms? And also how does that ESG mindset that Sam has adopted pervade the way you operate your business and the way you guys think about the future?

Brett Harrison: (38:10)
Sure. So I'll break that down into a couple of different parts. So the first is...

John Darsie: (38:14)
[crosstalk 00:38:14] few questions you [crosstalk 00:38:15] unpack.

Brett Harrison: (38:15)
Yeah. So is the industry worth it, is sort of a hard philosophical question. I think if you believe in markets and you believe that the markets will speak for themselves, a multi-trillion dollar industry doesn't appear out of nowhere without some use. And I think we're seeing so many different use cases of the technology and so much promise for that technology that it's hard to ignore. It's hard at this point, after so many years of criticism or skepticism to think that this is going away.

Brett Harrison: (38:51)
That this is somehow not a real value add to society. In terms of the actual energy usage, it's true that Bitcoin in particular, being a proof of work type validation scheme for its blockchain uses a lot of energy. But it's also really interesting in that counter-intuitively, it also helps prop up the renewable energy industry.

Brett Harrison: (39:20)
So one major problem with renewables is that they're typically unpredictable. If you want to use wind or solar power, how much wind or solar are you going to get per day? Well, it sort of depends on cloud cover and the weather. And what happens if you want to power a city with wind or solar? You need to always produce enough to be able to power the whole city in the worst case. But what if you overproduce? If you overproduce that energy would typically get wasted, but with Bitcoin mining, what Bitcoin miners are doing is they can easily move their business to the place around the world where energy is the cheapest, and there's a surplus of energy.

Brett Harrison: (39:54)
And so for example, if there's a surplus of wind energy in some particular country, the Bitcoin miners can focus on mining Bitcoin in that particular location and in doing so, they sort of subsidize that energy and that company to be able to produce that energy in excess of what they would normally have to do.

Brett Harrison: (40:12)
And so it's a little bit counterintuitive, but I actually think Bitcoin is helping the renewable energy industry and such a large percentage of Bitcoin mining is done on renewable sources of energy. And finally, I think in general, if people are concerned about their energy uses, not just for mining Bitcoin, but for running any industry that requires electricity.

Brett Harrison: (40:34)
How about, how many servers does Google have to run to run Google? A lot. We should think about how we can offset that energy usage. And so FTX in particular has done a lot of research into different kinds of carbon offsets and carbon offsetting programs and have already put in millions of dollars into programs to be able to offset FTX's specific usage energy for its businesses.

Brett Harrison: (40:58)
I think other others should do the same. And I think hopefully the mindset of Sam and the company and effective altruism in general is helping set a very positive example for how a company can be in a hyper-growth mode, can raise $900 million, but can still use money to give back and contribute positively back to society.

John Darsie: (41:20)
Yeah. And at SkyBridge, we have a significant amount of money invested in Bitcoin, also in Ethereum. And we're doing a lot more in the space. We'll probably have more down the pipeline from that, but we bought carbon credits to offset our Bitcoin ownership for that exact reason. I think, inspired by people like Sam, ignoring a problem and to call the carbon footprint of Bitcoin a problem, yeah it does use a lot of energy as you said, it's also incentivizing the build-out of renewables.

John Darsie: (41:48)
But I also think Sam is great. And you guys, as an organization are great in acknowledging the fact that we can get better. We can do things to offset the carbon footprint. We can make the industry more sustainable. And I think just shooting down those problems and saying they don't exist is not helpful to anybody.

John Darsie: (42:04)
And I definitely applaud what you guys are doing. What others in the industry are doing to continue to move it forward from a sustainability standpoint. And the growth of things like Solana, that's a really efficient proof of stake, proof of history oriented blockchains, I think is a positive step as well.

John Darsie: (42:20)
Last question I have for you is around the Pyth Network. So the Pyth Network, to quote their website, is a decentralized cross chain market of verifiable data from high quality nodes to any smart contract anywhere. It's basically trying to take a very fractured marketplace of data that is crypto, that in the early days of crypto, a lot of people have made a lot of money exploiting sort of arbitrage opportunities across boundaries and across different markets. You might know a couple of those types of people. But it's trying to make that market more efficient and trying to plug into high quality nodes, as I just read. Could you explain more in depth? What is the Pyth Network? Why is it so important to create trustworthy sort of nodes of data that people can operate off of?

Brett Harrison: (43:04)
Sure. So backing up just a little bit. So for anyone who works in traditional finance, you sort of know that the beginning and end of any project that you want to build, any brokerage you need to build, any trading firm is having good market data. And there's a couple of things you might mean when you say market data. It could be the top bid and ask price on an exchange in an order book, it could be the last trades that have occurred in the stock, let's say. It could be the full order book. It could be every single bid in the book, every single offer in the book. Most exchanges charge enormous amounts of money to be able to get this data. And so it's a very high barrier to entry just to even get your hands on good, reliable, low latency, high fidelity data.

Brett Harrison: (43:52)
Crypto has sort of done something completely different. And again, I think maybe this was back to our earlier conversation, having to do a lot with the fact that software developers with this sort of open source mindset built these systems. But most crypto market data is free. You can go on FTX US and start listening to the full order by order depth for every symbol for free.

Brett Harrison: (44:13)
And in order for us to have reliable blockchain applications, DeFi applications on blockchains like Solana, we're going to need good market data, and it needs to be reliable, and it needs to work across exchange. It needs to have people validating that it's correct and making sure it's kept up to date. So that every time someone wants to build an application with market data, they don't have to start from scratch. They don't have to get their own market data, they don't have to store it. They don't have to timestamp it. They don't have to make sure they're getting it in the right order and it's fast. They can rely on someone else.

Brett Harrison: (44:44)
And so what Pyth Network has been able to do is not just build the technology to enable market data to be published onto the blockchain for use in things like smart contracts, but they've gotten on board this amazing network of huge tier one institutions. So you think about like, there's Jump Trading, there's HRT, Hudson River Trading, Jane Street, all of these [crosstalk 00:45:11]. Yes.

John Darsie: (45:11)
[crosstalk 00:45:11] be speaking alongside Ari Rubinstein at SALT, which we're looking forward to.

Brett Harrison: (45:14)
Yeah. And they've all partnered to say, "You know what? We want to be part of the next wave of innovation. We want to be able to contribute some of our internal proprietary technology to improving the DeFi space by making sure that there's good, reliable market data." And so it's not just the technology itself, it's the sort of this meta thing that's happened, which is getting all of these very traditional firms on board with helping support the future of DeFi that makes Pyth pretty exciting.

John Darsie: (45:41)
Well, we're looking forward to hearing more about that on that panel that I mentioned. I believe you're speaking Tuesday, September 14th. The conference is September 13th to the 15th. Sam is speaking on Monday and we're excited to hear that he's coming in person and congratulations again on the LedgerX transaction.

John Darsie: (45:56)
I think people are just learning about LedgerX. It's sort of a, as you mentioned, Zach is a great guy, very smart. Operates a little more quietly than some other players in the space, but a great company that's done really innovative things in the way they've attacked the regulatory regime. To see you guys married together and growing together with the rocket fuel, that is everything in FTX. We're really excited about that. So, Brett, thanks so much for coming on. Anthony, have a final word for Brett before we let him go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:22)
I'm also excited, Brett, but I'm disappointed that it's an all cash deal. I just have to register that as a very tiny minority shareholder. I don't know what was wrong with these guys in that [inaudible 00:46:33] table that they needed all cash. I want as much FTX as I could possibly own.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:38)
So anyway, we'll have to have that conversation when we're not being recorded on a SALT Talk, but in all seriousness, I am grateful for you coming on and we are looking forward to having you guys and introducing you to a broad group of our delegates. And I'm sure there's going to be a lot of exciting things that happen there as well. And I look forward to seeing you soon.

Brett Harrison: (46:59)
Yeah. Thank you both so much. Looking forward to the conference.

John Darsie: (46:59)
And thank you again, Brett, and thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Brett Harrison, the president of FTX US, that you might've seen either in the Miami Heat arena or on an umpire shirt. I know it's been ubiquitous when I see baseball clips as well. I think the ROI on that as Brett alluded to has been extremely high.

John Darsie: (47:21)
But on behalf of the Anthony and the entire SALT team, thank you everybody for tuning in. Reminder, you can access all of our episodes on our website on demand, and on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. Our website is salt.org/talks to access all of our SALT talks. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at SALT conference. And again, we're a few days away here from the SALT conference in New York.

John Darsie: (47:43)
If you'd like to come hear Brett, come hear Sam speak, we'd love to have you there. We have a few tickets remaining. So definitely sign up at salt.org. But again, 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.

Ashraf Rizvi: Digitizing Gold | SALT Talks #254

“Gold has acted as a tremendous store of value for thousands of years. The problem is it hasn’t been functional. Gilded takes physical gold and makes it mobile, digital and usable.”

Ashraf Rizvi is the CEO and Founder of Gilded. Ashraf is responsible for the strategic direction and day to day running of Gilded. He has over 20 years of executive experience as Founder, Managing Partner and Global Business Head. Prior to founding Gilded, Ashraf was the Co-Founder and Managing Partner of SummerHaven Investment Management, a commodities management firm overseeing nearly $2 billion in assets for retail and institutional clients including endowments, foundations, and family offices. For over 13 years, Ashraf was a senior leader at UBS holding a variety of roles in New York and London including Global Head of Commodities Trading, Global Head of Metals, Global Head of Emerging Markets FX and Global Head of Credit Repo. Previously, he was Head of FX Options Trading in New York for Credit Suisse.

As a second generation immigrant, Ashraf Rizvi discusses how childhood experiences like seeing the fees and inefficiencies associated with remittance payments influenced the creation of Gilded. Rizvi explains the process of moving physical gold to the blockchain and the vast benefits it offers. He describes the current wave of tokenization and blockchain-enabled finance as the fourth revolution, noting its global impact because of the mobile devices’ ubiquity.

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Harrington,+Tim+-+Cropped2.jpeg

Ashraf Rizvi

Chief Executive Officer & Founder

Gilded

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 – Intro and background

4:38 – Founding Gilded

8:10 – Moving physical gold to the blockchain

10:22 – History and value of gold

14:31 – Mechanics of Gilded

20:10 – Crypto vs. gold

22:30 – Gilded for Good and its positive impact

25:35 – Sustainability and lower environmental impact

28:10 – Tokenization of asset classes

32:10 – Gold’s performance and the fourth revolution

36:11 – Conclusion

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:12)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to SALT talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of 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, September 13th to the 15th here in our home city of New York for the first time.

John Darsie: (00:44)
But our goal on these talks and the goal that we have on these conference series is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to bring you a SALT talk with Ashraf Rizvi. Ashraf is the founder and CEO of Gilded and is responsible for the strategic direction and day to day running of the firm. He has over 20 years of executive experience as founder, managing partner and global business head.

John Darsie: (01:15)
Prior to founding Gilded, Ashraf was the co-founder and managing partner of SummerHaven Investment Management, a commodities management firm overseeing nearly 2 billion in assets for retail and institutional clients, including endowments, foundations and family offices. For more than 13 years, Ashraf was the senior leader at UBS, holding a variety of roles in New York and London, including global head of commodities trading, global head of metals, global head of emerging markets FX and global head of credit repo.

John Darsie: (01:45)
Previously he was the head of FX Options Trading in New York for Credit Suisse. And prior to that, he was a senior trader at Susquehanna Investment Group. Ashraf earned a Bachelor of Science in economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He also served more than 15 years on the undergraduate board and the Europe, middle east and Africa board at the Wharton school.

John Darsie: (02:06)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder in 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: (02:17)
Through all these SALT talks, I'm surprised you haven't mispronounced my name once, just to give it to me a little Darsie.

John Darsie: (02:25)
Tony Scaramucci. I'll go with that one next time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:27)
You're going to do something like that, okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:30)
Ashraf, you got an amazing career. So I want to start there. Let's go to the amazing career. You come out of school, what's the first thing you do?

Ashraf Rizvi: (02:40)
Well first, I'd like to say thanks a lot for having me on Anthony and John. I'm looking forward to the conversation. So, undergrad out of Wharton. Decided to start my first business venture right out of school with a number of colleagues. We started trading in Philadelphia, grew to New York, Chicago over the years, and it was a great learning experience. We were trading FX derivatives. It was a phenomenal time in the marketplace and we had a great opportunity to learn and grow as individuals.

Ashraf Rizvi: (03:12)
And then ultimately, ended up at Susquehanna where we got the opportunity to trade in a bigger environment over the counter. Was involved in the early days of the ERM breakup. And of course, the demise of Sterling on Black Monday as well. So it was a great learning experience and a great opportunity to learn what it was like to be an entrepreneur.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:32)
Okay. So I'm going to stop you there because you got a lot of young listeners. When you say the ERM breakup, what you're referring to is the exchange rate mechanism that dissolved in 1992. There were short positions put on. One of the most famous ones was Stanley Druckenmiller and George Soros, where they were shorting the pound, because they knew that the Brits wouldn't be able to support the pounds valuation and they would have to accept some level of devaluation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:02)
I think it's a good point because you have a lot of history with this. We've been devaluing our Fiat currency since 1971, August of 1971. The US government under Richard Nixon's orders took the US dollar off the gold standard, $35 an ounce. Today, I guess it's around $1700 or so.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:23)
And tell us why all of these things are important and how they lead up to and are the precursor to you being the founder of Gilded.

Ashraf Rizvi: (04:37)
So I think the story really starts at that, I view it as my entire life. I feel like I was getting ready to do something like Gilded. And I point to maybe a few things. So one, the extensive experience in the financial markets. So having lived through that breakup of ERM, Black Monday, being involved in the financial markets, whether it was dealing with central banks, high net worth clients, family offices, institutional clients who want good money management, all of these, I think, contributed to what I've been able to do.

Ashraf Rizvi: (05:16)
I think also the other part that was very important is that I had the opportunity to start two different companies that were successful. One right out of school that we just touched on. Another that was started during the great financial crisis, that grew to manage a few billion dollars in commodity assets. And then there's also a personal touch to it. So I'm a second generation immigrant. My parents are originally from India. They moved in the 60's. I grew up in a small town in Iowa, so classic Americana. And I still remember, my parents used to send money back home to their family and help them be successful in difficult economic times in the 70's. And I remember my dad telling me about the fact that the gold price was, as you touched on, $35 an ounce back then. The rupee was seven and a half to the dollar. Today it's 74.

Ashraf Rizvi: (06:10)
And so, what we're looking at is a world where we've seen currency debasement. The dollar has become less valuable. The rupee has become less valuable. All currencies have become less valuable. Their purchasing power has shrunk tremendously. From 1971 on, the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power. And you know that, we all know this. If you go to the store and you buy eggs or milk or anything, you know that it costs a lot more than it used to.

Ashraf Rizvi: (06:41)
And so I think this is really what's driving the push now more than ever for things, assets like gold, which has served as a tremendous and a historic store of value for thousands of years. The problem is, it hasn't been functional. And so what Gilded really does, is we take physical gold and we make it digital, mobile and usable, which is really about making it functional. How can we make it operate like money without all the negatives of money, which is that, there's the general currency debasement across the world, the big issuance of debt and spending, which ultimately is going to be hard to pay back. And so here's something that we can use that's stable, supportable and something that can hold its value over the long term.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:32)
So let me rephrase it, just so as I know that I have it, and maybe John could also help me with this. You are basically a warehousing gold. And so you're going to then digitize it over the blockchain so that people can own portions of the gold that you're warehousing. They're buying it from you. Do you think that that goal then would trade differently than just spot price gold in the marketplace? Or do you think that the fact that it's been enhanced by a digitalization or the digital model, the blockchain, makes it more valuable?

Ashraf Rizvi: (08:11)
That's a really good point, Anthony. So I think it makes it much more valuable, in the sense that it becomes functional. And so by that what I mean is, that you get all the benefits of owning the physical asset. So first, what's the benefit. One is that it's your title and it's your property. And so if we think about the fractional reserve banking system, you don't have that. When you deposit money, when any of us deposit money in a bank account, it's no longer your money, it the bank's money, and they give you an IOU.

Ashraf Rizvi: (08:40)
When you have securities or other assets often that you hold, they become the custody of some other party at the end of the day. And you have counterparty risk. Let's think about the great financial crisis. You might have securities at an institution that could go under. In our case, in Gilded, it's not us who are the custodians, it's your property, it's your title. It's sitting in a Brink's vault, fully insured, audited, both for the quality of gold, but also that it's audited that you are holding is immutably stored on the blockchain.

Ashraf Rizvi: (09:10)
So you get all of those features, but you also get the additional feature of the fact that we can make it functional. So in certain countries such as India and middle east and Turkey, we already have product where you can send it to someone else instantaneously. You can own the entire bar. You can own a partial bar and it's still your property, your title. We aim to launch in the US soon. We have to get some regulatory approvals that allow us to be able to do the send functions, but we'll be able to at least allow you to be able to buy and hold and store, so that you have a better store value. So that's really where I think the value proposition is, is that it's your asset, but it's a functional asset, rather than what a lot of people remember it to be as a very expensive paperweight.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:57)
Okay. So the non-Bitcoiners out there, the Bitcoin skeptics or the crypto asset skeptics, they should like this, right? They're getting the best of both worlds. They're getting a material money, hard currency. However you want to describe what gold has traditionally been over the last 5,000 years. And they're getting the convenience and the portability and the transferability of the blockchain.

Ashraf Rizvi: (10:22)
Exactly. So I think our core vision is about freedom from Fiat. And as you know, Anthony, gold has served as freedom from Fiat for 3000 plus years. It was the original money. It served as the foundation for money for thousands of years. And up until 1971, it backed pretty much all the currencies through the US dollar, which ultimately was tied or pegged to various other countries currencies. Since then of course, we've really floated freely. So, that I think is an important part of it.

Ashraf Rizvi: (10:57)
Of course, the vision is to make it digital, mobile and usable, as we've talked about, and really make it functional. And so I think for investors, I like to think of it as freedom of choice. Depending on what it is that you want, if you want that physical asset, as well as the digital component, I think we're a great place for you to go. I think it's all also valuable in the sense that we know that gold is pretty stable. The price isn't moving a lot on a day to day basis. It's it's not a get rich, quick, fast. It's about stay rich quick for a long period of time. And protect your wealth, store your wealth. And do it in a safe, secure way, but also have the ease of use where we can use a mobile device to be able to access the marketplace and to have the benefit of the liquidity of the entire gold market, which is huge. On a daily basis, trading close to $200 billion a day, which makes it roughly the fifth largest currency in the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:58)
And listen, I'm a Bitcoiner, but I'm also, have a huge amount of respect for gold. I think you've had 5,500 years of history, if not longer. If you go back to the tombs, Egyptian tombs are all layered in gold. So obviously it's had value. It's held value throughout generations, throughout world history. So tell us how you're going to create demand for this. What is the audience that Gilded is going to be attracting?

Ashraf Rizvi: (12:29)
So I think the great thing about this product is that, I think the audience is everyone. So whether you're an individual, investor, whether you're a hedge fund asset manager, pension fund, institutional client, corporate, or even a government, you're a target audience for us at the end of the day.

Ashraf Rizvi: (12:47)
Why? One, store of value. Everybody's looking for better stores of value. Gold is a great store of value. It has served that purpose, as you just mentioned for thousands of years. And people know it, they trust it and it's quite stable. So that's most important, is, let's take that store of value that we know and let's make it functional. Let's make it do things that you can't do with it if you just buy the brick and put it in your safe deposit box or in your house. Let's make it movable.

Ashraf Rizvi: (13:22)
So in other words, let's offer the ability to send it to other people. And so in the US, we hope to be able to offer that in the coming months once we have regulatory approval. We're already doing it in other countries. Let's make it possible to earn a yield, yield enhancement product. Let's tie it perhaps to a credit card or debit card. Let's make it possible to take a loan against that physical gold. It's your property, it's your asset. So you can take a much higher loan than for example you can with the securities markets for an ETF or something like that. Let's make it pledgable as collateral. So if we can make it pledgable as part of repo or other factors that, other mechanisms that can allow you to access liquidity. All of these become possible when we digitize that asset, which are not possible when it's just a physical asset, as has been for thousands of years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:20)
And tell us about the fees. And how do you get access first of all? Do you need to go through your digital app or are you going to be on people's platforms? And then what are the fees?

Ashraf Rizvi: (14:31)
So the fee, there's really three layers of fees and it depends on what you use. So first the fee is for onboarding. So you buy the asset and now you've got it in the vault and you get all the benefits of having that. So there's a small fee for that, typically 1%. And now you own that physical asset at the end of the day.

Ashraf Rizvi: (14:53)
A second fee is if for the storing, the validation, the audit of both the gold, the blockchain of your respective ownership, and that's typically 50 to a hundred basis points, depending on the size of your holdings. And so here, it's applicable, as I said, for the retail client all the way to a corporate or government. And the nice thing is, if you're sending gold to another party, it's free. So you can think of it as a super highway, in that, once you're on the highway and you have access to the asset, now you can and move it freely, 24/7 [inaudible 00:15:33] So those are the two primary fees.

Ashraf Rizvi: (15:37)
A third fee is, in the event we offer you a premium type of service or additional service such as a loan or a yield enhancement product, or a ability to pledge as collateral, then we may do a revenue share with the party who helps us facilitate that. But for typical, for most people, it'll be the purchase and then the storage and validation. And I'd like to just point out Anthony, which I think is very important is that, compared to if you did this yourself, or you did it online or bought the physical asset yourself, these fees tend to be considerably cheaper than what you would be paying if you're doing it by yourself.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:21)
Okay, very informative. How is the gold secured from a physical and cybersecurity perspective?

Ashraf Rizvi: (16:29)
So that's something of course that's very important to every investor. And you know this Anthony, from what you do is that, safety of the assets for the clients is paramount. And so we do a number of things here. So one, first of all, the asset itself is sitting in a Brink's vault. Brink's has more vaults than any other facility in the world. They have them everywhere. We have Swiss based Brink's vaults. We can also store in New York, London, various other cities and countries around the world.

Ashraf Rizvi: (17:01)
Fully insured by Lloyds of London. Audited, physically the gold is audited within the vault, that it exists and it's the real thing. And of course, auditing of your holdings and the blockchain in which it's kept, which is Hyperledger. So it's a permission blockchain. So full KYC/AML compliance. So we're very sensitive toward the regulatory side.

Ashraf Rizvi: (17:25)
And then from a cyber security perspective, we're leveraging Microsoft Azure, AWS major cloud service providers, which have built in significant cybersecurity. And then we're also focusing on it through other vendors. And also on protecting your PII, where we segregate that and split that from anything we store in the blockchain. So your personal information is retained completely separately.

Ashraf Rizvi: (17:51)
And so all of these things are very, very important. But of course, one of the most important things here is, you own the physical asset. Somebody can't steal your digital part, and then that's it. You still always have the physical asset and you also have the right and the ability to take physical delivery if you want.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:10)
When are you launching in the US, Ashraf?

Ashraf Rizvi: (18:13)
So we're hoping to go live here on beta, early beta, here in the next few weeks through the Apple store and through Google Play. And I believe that by SALT we'll be in the marketplace. And then we're waiting for a approval from regulators for cross border activity. And so what that means is, that we have to get certain money transmission license, et cetera, which we've already in the process of applying for. And that will allow us to make it possible for party A to send to party B instantaneously, 24/7.

Ashraf Rizvi: (18:48)
We do have that ability to all already do that in India and various other countries that we're operating in. I'll just point out that the US is a little more complicated because that activity is governed on a state by state level. And so you have to tackle each state independently. There's no way to do it at the country level. And some other places you're able to do that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:15)
Before I let you go, I got to ask a question. John Darsie's going to take over here in a second. He's going to, of course, try to outshine me. And the good news is, I know he is at his house right now, and I only live two miles from him. If he tries to outshine me Ashraf, I'm going to run him over with my car sometime this afternoon. So that's just a threat, John. So you can report that to the local police.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:39)
But before I bring John in, who will ask [inaudible 00:19:43] questions, of course, what do you say to the crypto people? What do you say to Bitcoiners, people in the space of Ethereum? What's your reaction as a advisor, as a business person? Should they be selling their crypto to own Gilded and gold? Should they own some of it? Both? What do you say?

Ashraf Rizvi: (20:11)
Well, first I'll start by saying, we're not crypto, and we're not a stable coin, and we're not part of the Frank [inaudible 00:20:18] banking system. So that's first thing, in that, we're providing you the ability to own that physical asset, and then making it digital, mobile and usable. That's item one. And the second thing I think I would say is that, we're about freedom of choice. People have an interest in non Fiat assets. And I think gold has been the original non Fiat asset for thousands of years. And I believe it'll continue to exist. And we can make it more functional than it has ever been before. And that's what the objective Gilded it is.

Ashraf Rizvi: (20:58)
I think for all investors, whether it's individuals, hedge funds, asset managers, pension funds, governments, they need to have a variety of assets in their portfolio. And I think there's a place for all sorts of different assets, whether it's stocks or bonds or gold, or digital gold in our case, or crypto. And that's ultimately up to the users. But at think we occupy a different space. I don't think we have conflict with crypto or, stablecoin or Fiat for the matter. I think we just offer a different solution that can be helpful to people, help ultimately in their store of value, protect their life savings and be non-correlated assets to stocks and bonds, which when they tend to sell off, gold tends to shine very brightly. And so there's a very important place that it serves. And I think we can make it more functional than it has ever been before. And that's the whole mission behind Gilded.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:07)
It's a great message and a great product. I'm going to turn it over to John.

John Darsie: (22:14)
Ashraf, it's great to have you on here. We look forward to having you at SALT as well. What is Gilded for good? And how do you see that part of your business or the initiatives that you work on? How do you see that developing over the next five to 10 years?

Ashraf Rizvi: (22:30)
So Gilded for good is something I'm really excited about. I think it's an opportunity for me, after having done so many things in Wall Street to really, to do something that can make a positive impact on society. And so how can we do that? So I think there's many ways. So one, let's look at my own personal case of my parents sending money back home. Remittances, $600 billion market average fee that people are paying is 6% to send money back home to their loved ones. We can make that cost at least less than 50% of that. And so here's an opportunity where we can have a positive impact.

Ashraf Rizvi: (23:09)
Second, is think about the billion people on the planet who are unbanked. The financial system has not served them well. We're already in conversations with various firms that, how can we allow these folks to be able to complete the KYC/AML process and able to hold that asset that they want, which gives them store value and be able to plan for their financial future.

Ashraf Rizvi: (23:38)
Third. The hundred dollar bill is the most laundered instrument in the world. Gold is second and art is third. By holding that gold in a vault and having it digitized and traced, it means we can take a certain amount of that asset out of the system where it can't be laundered. And we know exactly who's got it, where they're keeping it. And that's good, whether it's from a CRS or FACTA perspective, but it's good from a government regulation perspective as well.

Ashraf Rizvi: (24:11)
And we can also make an impact on the environment. Most of the gold that exists in the world, 200,000 tons is already been taken out of the ground. That's 80% of all the gold there is in the world. That only leaves 20%. 1% comes out per year. So we by re-refining existing gold or using gold that's already in a vault, we can reduce the burden on the environment by not moving it. We're not consuming hydrocarbons. We're not putting it on a plane or on a truck. It's just moving from, let's say, me, to Anthony, or it's staying in our possession, it's staying in a vault. Very low energy usage. And so I think all of these are ways that we can have a positive impact on society.

John Darsie: (24:57)
The sustainability piece was another interesting piece to me. There's a lot that's been made in the cryptocurrency world about Bitcoin, the energy that goes into Bitcoin mining. Oftentimes Bitcoiners, they retort to those accusations as well. Mining precious metals and transporting precious metals and the entire security ecosystem that exists around safeguarding fiscal assets, that uses a lot of energy as well. How do you think that Gilded and these types of technologies are going to disrupt sustainability questions around gold and precious metals, and what's your view on that sustainability piece?

Ashraf Rizvi: (25:33)
I think that's a great question, John. I think the key here is that there's a big [inaudible 00:25:40] cost. As I said, 80% of the gold is already out of the ground. And it's sitting in really, three or four places. Really three main places, but four in aggregate. So one, half of it is in jewelry. 25% is in bars and coins. And 20% is in central banks. And then the balance is basically in functional applications, like yours and my iPhones or Samsung devices or laptops, computers, various other in industrial applications.

Ashraf Rizvi: (26:15)
And so that's already out of the ground and we've already paid the cost of that. We don't need to pay an additional cost. Now we're just storing it at the end of the day. And that's a relatively low cost to exercise. And as I said, relatively small amount of the gold comes out. That part is a dirty business. And I think the mining companies are doing a better job of addressing that, but it's not something that we have to maintain on an ongoing basis. Once you take it out, you put it in a vault and stays there. So I think that's very important.

Ashraf Rizvi: (26:45)
And I think the other thing is, there is a benefit to society if we can cut down on illicit and [inaudible 00:26:51] activity. That's positive for society. And so whether it's the hundred dollar bill, or a bar of gold, or art that's [inaudible 00:27:00] illicit, anything that reduces that, or can reduce things like human trafficking or child labor, all of these, these are all often associated with various instruments that people are using in order to be able to get paid so that they can't be traced. And so this is something that we can clearly cut down on, and I think that's a positive from a social good.

John Darsie: (27:24)
So your career that I read at the beginning of this SALT talk, you're steeped in financial markets. You've been involved in FX markets, commodities markets, you're a markets guy. And we had another group on for a SALT talk recently. The CEO was talking about how he thinks of eventually, there's a world of crypto, there's a world of FX, there's commodities, there's the traditional stock market today. He thinks that with the rise of blockchain and other technologies, that those markets, that the lines between them are going to blur.

John Darsie: (27:57)
Would you agree with that sentiment, that you think that eventually there's going to be tokenization blockchain technology that applies across all kinds of different asset classes? And what do you think the implications of that are for how financial markets operate?

Ashraf Rizvi: (28:10)
So first I think is, about asset classes. And so I agree with you and your previous speaker that, I think lots of asset classes are relevant to any portfolio. That's modern portfolio theory, goes back to in the 1950s, Harry Markowitz. And so what do we want? We want asset classes that generate positive returns that are non-correlated. That's the goal of every, whether it's a hedge fund manager, pension fund, individual, everybody desires that. Well, I think whether it's stocks or bonds or gold, they all fit that bill, in that they generate positive returns, non-correlated. And I suspect your prior speakers touching on the same point with crypto, or even whether it's wine or art, think there are many assets that fit these bills. So they're relevant from that modern portfolio perspective. So I would agree with that.

Ashraf Rizvi: (29:12)
The second part of the question is related to blockchain. So I have to admit I'm a huge fan of it. And I suspect you and Anthony are as well for a lot of reasons in that, we both share this common experience of managing money as a fiduciary for other people. And we've all had to deal with the fact that we have data, whether it's about our individual trades or managers, et cetera, that we have to retain. And then our auditor has that data. And then the exchange has that data. And our administrator has that data.

Ashraf Rizvi: (29:46)
So all these different parties have to get this data in order to perform their function. And so I remember that this was an enormous exercise. You have to validate it, you have to reconcile it. With blockchain, we all have the one set of data, which is the source of truth. And we can all share that. What a powerful solution that is for any financial firm and for anybody that, whether it's my data, my auditors can have it, other parties that I work with have it. And we all know have the exact same thing. I think that's a really powerful thing, and it's going to be huge in the financial markets.

John Darsie: (30:28)
The last question before we let you go. Over the last decade or so, obviously cryptocurrencies have been on fire. If you look at percentage appreciation of those assets, from very fringe pieces of technology, to now somewhat mainstream, especially if you look at things like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Gold during that period hasn't performed as well. Anthony actually did a recent debate with Peter Schiff on gold versus cryptocurrencies. As Anthony said, he's not a gold bear per se, but it was just an intellectual conversation around the future of alternative stores of value.

John Darsie: (30:58)
But I think gold in the context of something like cryptocurrency obviously doesn't feel as technologically forward or advanced as this new world of blockchain digital assets. Do you think companies like Gilded are going to help transform the image of gold and potentially help gold rebrand itself and potentially drive better performance over the next decade? Or do you think it's more of something you're just trying and get people access to what you think is a very stable store of value and insurance against a lot of craziness that happens in the world?

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:29)
But Ashraf, just to iterate, before you answer the question. In that debate with Peter Schiff, I was just talking about the virtue of Bitcoin. He thinks Bitcoin is worthless. And so I'm just saying to him, it's not worthless. Here are the properties of why it isn't worthless, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for gold. I'm trained as an economist like you, and I understand the value that gold has had in our civilization for millennium. And, and so therefore I have a tremendous amount of respect for gold. It's not a debate with me, whether about gold is going to exist or not. I think it's more about will Bitcoin be here. I believe it will be. But go ahead. Answer the question.

Ashraf Rizvi: (32:08)
I agree. Let's start at the basic level. So first it has been a store of value for thousands of years and has been a good store of value since it's really been separated from government control, which really starts in 1971. And as I said, 8% a year for the last 50 years. And I think you touched on and a key point there, John, which is that, that doesn't mean you get 8% every year. It doesn't mean you get three quarters of percent every month. It's not a financial instrument, like a T-bill or a T-bond, or a corporate bond at the end of the day. Of course, there you take a different kind of risk. Maybe you don't get paid at all. And they default.

Ashraf Rizvi: (32:47)
So you get the asset, you get the return from the asset over long periods of time. But over shorter periods of time, there may not be any return or it could even go down. So it's similar to currencies, for example. And so I think the last 10 years we've seen that. It has been pretty flat. But if we look at the last 20 years, since the beginning of the millennium, gold has rallied 9% per year, and it's done better than stocks and bonds. Also, if we look at the bigger picture, 1980s, 1987, dot-com bubble, great financial crisis, 2020 COVID, in each of these cases, these were stress events where stocks and other risky assets fell tremendously. In most cases, 30, 40, even 50%. Gold in all of those cases went up. This is part of portfolio exercise. And this is part of more modern portfolio theory. And this is why people should own the asset.

Ashraf Rizvi: (33:47)
With regards to the other thing that you touched on, which is bringing it into the 21st century, I think we're living in the fourth revolution. That's where we're at. The first one is really about the UK. And the second one of course is about Detroit and mass production. And the third one is largely about Silicon Valley and technology. This fourth one, I think most people believe is a global phenomenon.

Ashraf Rizvi: (34:20)
And so here's an opportunity where we can impact people on a global basis by leveraging technology and leveraging that most ubiquitous devices, which is a smart phone or a mobile phone, which most people on the planet who are over 10 years old, possess. And so now we're making it possible for them to access this store of value that they'd like to have, own it, as their property, their title, and have it stored way in a safe, secure way, and be able to do it from their mobile phone. And they can log in, create account and make a purchase in just in a matter of minutes from anywhere. That I think is about bringing it to 21st century. And that's, I think, where the world is headed is, that more solutions and products will be all about ease of use and access to what people desire and want. And here we're making it digital, mobile and usable.

John Darsie: (35:16)
Well Ashraf, it's a pleasure to have you on. What you've built is a fascinating innovation. Again, that you just touched on, that it's bringing something that's been a store of value for thousands of years into the fourth revolution that's going on here with digital assets. So congratulations on all you've built and continue to build. We look forward to seeing you very soon at the SALT conference in New York. We're very excited. In the New York post, we have Eric Adams, the mayor of New York confirmed his attendance recently, reaching an olive branch to the business community in New York, as new Yorkers are very excited about that. And everything related to the conference. We have a great lineup, including yourself. So thanks for joining us. Look forward to seeing you soon.

John Darsie: (35:55)
Anthony, you have anything for Ashraf before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:57)
I'm just letting you know, I'm going to invite you back on SALT Talks if you digitize those Muhammad Ali signed gloves behind you, and you offer me them up in an NFT, which I'll gladly purchase. Those are some hot gloves Ashraf.

Ashraf Rizvi: (36:11)
Well, look, John and Anthony, thanks so much for your time. I really enjoyed the opportunity to have the conversation. Again, just wrapping it up. Gilded, where it's all about making physical gold digital, mobile and usable. And really making that asset functional like money and being able to offer all the different services that people want and desire. Whether it's being able to borrow against it, create a return, be able to do it on a easy to use mobile application. And so that's what we're really excited about. Our vision of course, is about freedom from Fiat. And I want to thank you for your time and I really enjoyed the conversation. And I'm looking forward to participating in SALT.

John Darsie: (36:51)
Thank you Ashraf. Thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT talk with Ashraf Rizvi from Gilded. 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 to view all of these episodes that we've done over the last 18 months on demand.

John Darsie: (37:07)
We're also on social media, @SALTConference on Twitter is where we are most active. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks. Again, we love educating people about innovative companies, innovative ideas and Gilded is certainly on the frontier of FinTech innovation with what they're doing around gold.

John Darsie: (37:27)
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 Brown: Alternative Investments for All | SALT Talks #253

“Financial advisors won’t access alternatives just because it’s easy if they don’t understand the products, how to implement the strategy, or how talk to their clients about it… It’s really about education first and that’s why we started leading with learning.”

CAIS founder and CEO Matt Brown details his early career as a financial advisor before embarking on an entrepreneurial career that led to CAIS’s creation. Brown explains the massive opportunity that existed in the independent wealth management space and how CAIS was designed to connect independent financial advisors and alternative investments. He describes the game-changing nature of CAIS IQ, an AI-powered learning platform that delivers a customized education experience for advisors. The pandemic only accelerated CAIS’s growth as advisors leaned on virtual solutions and Brown expects significant progress over the next decade.

Matt has spent over 30 years at the intersection of wealth management, alternative investments, and platform design. He began his career as a financial advisor at Shearson Lehman Brothers and Smith Barney. In 2009, Matt founded CAIS, the first truly open marketplace for alternative investments, where financial advisors and asset managers can engage and transact directly on a massive scale. Financial advisors, the professionals we designate to oversee our economic futures, do not have the same access to alternative investments in comparison to large institutions. CAIS is changing that. Matt believes entrepreneurship is the major driver of economic and social change. He’s spent the better part of two decades working with Endeavor, the world’s leading organization for high impact entrepreneurs.

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Cropped.jpg

Matt Brown

Founder, Chief Executive Officer & Chairman

CAIS

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 – Intro and background

5:05 – Becoming an entrepreneur

8:12 – Founding CAIS

15:39 – CAIS IQ financial education platform

17:37 – The next ten years for CAIS

23:15 – Scaling financial education with CAIS IQ

27:15 – Evolving wealth management environment

31:20 – Educating financial advisors on crypto

33:36 – Competitive landscape

36:24 – Pandemic effects on CAIS

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:13)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darcy, I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021 with our great partner that we're having on here on today's SALT talk 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. And I will say that today's guests share a value set with us at SkyBridge, which is around democratizing access to alternative investments, as well as education around those alternative investments as well.

John Darsie: (01:01)
His name is Matt Brown. He is the founder, CEO and chairman of CAIS. He spent over 30 years at the intersection of wealth management, alternative investments and platform design. He began his career as a financial advisor at Shearson Lehman Brothers and Smith Barney. And in 2009, Matt founded CAIS, the first truly open marketplace for alternative investments, where financial advisors and asset managers can engage and transact on a large scale. He spent the better part of two decades working with Endeavor, the world's leading organization for high impact entrepreneurs. During his tenure at Endeavor, he had the opportunity to mentor dozens of entrepreneurs from around the world, including Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Matt is honored to have been Endeavor's South African and Turkish boards, to sit on those boards, which ultimately led to the position on the global board of directors for Endeavor.

John Darsie: (01:52)
It's Matt's personal mission to ensure that anyone with a dream and the drive to achieve it, have an equal opportunity to make it happen. 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 the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to him for the interview.

Matt Brown: (02:12)
Thanks John.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:13)
I'm looking at Matt's office and I'm seeing my own office there, John. Matt and I share the same location just on different floors in the same building.

Matt Brown: (02:23)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:23)
You have good taste in real estate, Matt Brown.

Matt Brown: (02:25)
Yeah. I'm earning my way up, one of these days I'm going to be on a higher floor [inaudible 00:02:29].

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:31)
No, you're just using ... You're probably on a lower floor because you're more cost conscious and more commercial and entrepreneurially more successful but I want to go way back, let's go to Shearson Lehman Brothers.

Matt Brown: (02:40)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:41)
Why'd you start there? What did you do there? Where were you? Were you down at 55 Water? Where were you?

Matt Brown: (02:48)
Yeah. No, actually San Francisco. I would describe myself very much as the accidental financial advisor. I graduated liberal arts degree, I was put in touch with a potential interview opportunity with a firm I had never heard of, for a job I didn't understand. I sat with the interview at Shearson Lehman Brothers to be a financial advisor. I met with a guy who literally looked like he was at a central casting for Wall Street, walked out of there, thinking, "Boy, that was a big waste of time."

Matt Brown: (03:26)
And the next day, the phone rang and they offered me a position. And back in the day Anthony, we weren't as picky about getting jobs as maybe this generation is. And so thought well, I was just excited to be offered a job out of college. I said yes immediately. Probably didn't even know what I was signing up for but I'll tell you the story there, which I think you'll find interesting. A year into it, I asked him, the gentleman that interviewed me who since became a good friend and mentor of mine, "But why would you take a risk on a kid with a liberal arts degree?"

Matt Brown: (03:58)
Didn't have a finance degree, didn't have an economic degree. And he said, "Because when I interviewed you, we spoke for two hours and I can teach people math but I can't teach people how to communicate and communication's key."

Matt Brown: (04:13)
And that really was a lesson for me. And the first moment of, "Oh. I get it, that business and finance is about personal relationships, trust."

Matt Brown: (04:23)
And also of course, the numbers and the spreadsheets but you really have to have both sides of it. I was a financial advisor for five, six years before starting my first company in the mid 90s, which is in the alternative investment space.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:35)
You do well at Lehman. You can catch the wave of the bull market at that time, I experienced that as well. If you and I could only go back Matt, because we didn't realize in our youth how easy things were and we probably took for granted those 25, 30% sparkling returns but why'd you leave? Why would you take a risk? You had a great job working for a great firm, why do you leave?

Matt Brown: (05:04)
I think it's a couple of reasons. When you're young ... I was in my 20s, I had always had that entrepreneurial bug. Started a business in college. I had an idea. I had an idea to strike out on my own and talked to a number of people I respected. And I think the same answer came back, which is, "If you think you can do it and give it a shot, do it now because Shearson Lehman will be there if you need to on the way back in but if you're going to strike out, do it young, fail fast and you got your options."

Matt Brown: (05:41)
That's what I did, the only difference there is that I never really ever back to the big company game and just always wanted to be in the seat of an entrepreneur.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:51)
Okay. You leave, what do you start when you first leave? What's the first business startup?

Matt Brown: (05:56)
First business was a fund that was investing in technology and healthcare companies. And it was really an exciting time. This was the late 90s, we were investing in private companies privately. We were investing in public companies privately. It's also the window of time that I probably have my biggest business regret, which is that I was negotiating with a small, struggling technology company in the Silicon Valley in the late 90s. They wanted a $20 million private placement. And we had the upper hand, they were a little bit in a distress situation. I was probably a little too young to hold back, probably asking for too much. They didn't end up doing the deal with us and I missed the opportunity. And that company was Apple computer, you may have heard of it. And that $20 million would be worth over 15 billion today, so lesson learned there. Always make sure you do a fair deal. You never know who you're negotiating with, could be the next Apple computer.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:10)
You and I both know there was a lot going on right, because Apple ... At one point, Michael Dell, when they had asked him what Steve Jobs should do upon his return to Apple, he said, "Give the cash back to the shareholders."

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:25)
Of course, that upset Steve. And Steve famously, when Apple crossed the market cap of Dell, he sent out that public statement.

Matt Brown: (07:33)
Yeah, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:34)
You never know what's going to happen in life. Of course, you're looking at a person that had the opportunity invest in something called Uber at a $25 million valuation. And I looked at these guys like, "I'm not going to put my daughter in a black car and no one knows who the hell the person is."

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:50)
And if you look at my American Express receipts Matthew, you'll see that my daughter's all over the place in these Ubers and I got that thing ridiculously wrong but got a lot of things right. One of the things you got right is CAIS. It's a FinTech company that you founded, you've run it for more than a decade. For those people that are listening and that don't know anything about CAIS, tell us what CAIS is.

Matt Brown: (08:12)
Yeah. CAIS is a technology platform that connects alternative asset managers, firms like you, SkyBridge, to this highly fragmented community of independent wealth advisors and financial advisors across America. A lot of people don't know that wealth management really is ... It's a story of two cities. You have big firms like Morgan Stanley and Merrill and Goldman wealth management. And there's a dozen of those firms and they control about 50% of the wealth, little over 10 trillion but there's also 10 trillion dollars in independent wealth. And that's tens of thousands of smaller firms that are entrepreneurs, that have built other own wealth management practices, many of which have come out of big firms to start their own. And they lack the infrastructure to really, in many ways, service their clients with the right products and information.

Matt Brown: (09:11)
We thought, I like to call it a bit of a David and Goliath story, I'm always up for a good fight there, "Why don't we build a platform that is a bit like a JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley platform for third party asset managers but why don't we do it in the independent channel and give them a chance to have the same platform experience and the same access to product and education around alternative investments?"

Matt Brown: (09:36)
And early on, it was a slug. There's no shortcuts in building a business but I got to say, in the last few years, especially with COVID now really kicking in, we've been able to just change the behavior of advisors to really use platforms.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:53)
And so let's describe that to a lay person. Use the platform. And so basically, you have alternative investment managers that you vetted. They're on your platform. Advisors can then click on the technology that you've created to access easily the paperwork and to create the transaction and all of the detailed paperwork and paper trail, if you will, with your help. Is that fair to describe it?

Matt Brown: (10:26)
Yeah, that's definitely part of it. There's a lot more that is important there. We serve two communities. We serve financial advisors that on our platform but we also serve the asset managers that list their products on our platform. When we think about the user experience or the value brought for both sides of our community, financial advisors and asset managers ... I'll start with the financial advisor. Well, what do they need? What problems are we solving for them? Well, alternative investment funds are hard to access, big minimums. We reduce those minimums down to a hundred thousand dollars, 250, $250,000. They're challenging to understand, so we've invested a ... Made a huge commitment to education, scalable education on these products and asset classes. They are challenging to due diligence. And we partnered with Mercer, the global leader in operational investment due diligence to vet all of these funds.

Matt Brown: (11:32)
And then when you finally understand them and how to implement them in a client portfolio, you want to go buy them. They're very cumbersome to buy. We've digitized the entire process to make it really as close to buying a mutual fund as you possibly can get at this stage of the game. A little spoiler alert, there's a lot of change coming and innovation coming, which we can talk about in the industry but yeah, we really have built the entire end to end workflow for that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:58)
Seems to be a big shift taking place. It seems like the investment world, the financial advisors becoming more independent. They're leveraging technologies like the ones at CAIS and other vendors. It seems like the wire houses, which would include some of the large investment banks that have huge brokerage teams and FA teams, are losing their grip a little bit on the business. Do I have that wrong? Are there more independent RAs today and is CAIS helping those independent RAs?

Matt Brown: (12:30)
The independent wealth community, the RA community, is absolutely growing. The wire house community, the large firms are also growing. Wealth is growing overall. We are a key player in the mosaic of service providers that will help an independent RIA compete with a more established wealth management firm that may in this case, have access to an alternative investment platform. There's many, many different service providers out there that are trying to in one way, shape or form, recreate the infrastructure access or education that a wealth advisor needs to best serve their client. Yes, we're really trying to champion that on behalf of the wealth advisor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:16)
Okay. Explain the CAIS value propositions on both sides, for the alternative investment manager or the private equity person or long-only and the FA. Tell us what the benefits are.

Matt Brown: (13:30)
On the FA side, as I just mentioned, it's the user experience. It's making information and product accessible. And it's streamlined execution, which was very cumbersome in the past. And that package, that turnkey if you will, is really allowing alternatives to be accessible and investible in end client portfolios. The value prop to the asset manager, whether you're a private equity manager or a hedge fund manager or real estate manager, crypto, private credit venture, all things alternative, they're looking at the CAIS platform and saying, "Wait a second. There's a multi-trillion dollar pool of capital out there in the independent wealth space that have allocation rates of less than 2% in alternative investments. Not because they don't want alternatives but they lack the access to them."

Matt Brown: (14:24)
And the CAIS platform has a very efficient way to deliver those new investors. If I'm an asset management firm and I want to grow and diversify my shareholder base in a channel of investor that I don't normally spend time in, we're a very efficient way to be able to do that. In many ways Anthony, these two communities have for so long wanted to meet, that the resistance isn't around alternative asset managers wanting wealth management as shareholders or investors or wealth advisors wanting alternatives, it's the mechanisms in the industry structure that prevented it and we're ironing that out.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:08)
Makes total sense to me. And I think it's a very exciting time in our industry because technology like yours is making for greater independence, greater freedom, also broader choice and ease of use. It's a combination of these things that makes the CAIS platform so valuable. You've made some big investments in education technology in addition to the core investment platform.

Matt Brown: (15:34)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:34)
What's your vision for what you're calling CAIS Q?

Matt Brown: (15:39)
CAIS IQ, our educational platform ... Yeah, we are investing a lot in education. I think this 10 year journey that we've been on, we started where I think many other platform forms have started. Some have stopped there as well, which is, "Hey, if we make it easier or a little more seamless, we're going to be able to make this transaction flow increase over time."

Matt Brown: (16:03)
And that's not incorrect, it's just not the full story. Financial advisors will access alternatives if it's made easier but they're certainly not going to access alternatives just because it's easy, if they don't understand the products or they don't understand how to implement the strategies or they don't understand how to talk to their clients about the strategies. When we realized that, and that was a real turning point for CAIS, that this is really about education first. And that's when we started to really lead with learning, not lead with product, not lead with a wealth tech solution to make subscription documents faster. This is really about educating financial advisors, bringing knowledge and information around strategies, around fund and product and doing it in a scalable way. CAIS IQ is the leading AI powered, artificial intelligence powered, learning platform that uses machine learning and light AI to understand on a one on one basis how the financial advisor is learning and then delivering information to them around these strategies over a period of time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:13)
Makes total sense, I love it. You start in '09, the world is totally different. The phone that we have is way more powerful. We had a pandemic, so now we're talking the way George Jetson talked to his wife, "Here we are together."

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:29)
Big differences in the last 10 or 12 years. Tell us what the next 10 years are going to look like.

Matt Brown: (17:38)
As it relates to CAIS specifically, the next decade is very exciting. I think a lot of entrepreneurs probably believe they were early on ideas. I don't think that's an uncommon thing to hear from an entrepreneur or a founder. I can say without doubt, we were very early on this idea, things needed to catch up. I do remember having conversations in 2011 and 12, 13 with big asset management firms. And we were talking about delivering the independent wealth channel to them as investors. They were scratching their head, saying, "Why would we ever do that?"

Matt Brown: (18:15)
Now, it seems you can't speak to an alternative asset manager without them saying, "Wealth is our number one channel priority."

Matt Brown: (18:22)
Just look at Blackstone, look at Carlyle and KKR. We were early on that. We really feel momentum in the flywheel. COVID has just absolutely accelerated platform adoption. And the reason is, is because the average age of a financial advisor is 56 years old and technology and building their business with tech has not always been a priority but when the pandemic came and it forced a change in behavior, it forced an adoption of technology. And we were right there for that. We really feel like this is an exciting time, as you said. A lot of great tailwinds around regulatory environment, structural environment to make this go. What you're going to see, is I think two things. CAIS continuing our mission to democratize access, fill in the blank. It's not going to stop at just what you and I would call alternative investment funds. There's more out there. Anywhere that we can level the playing field for every financial advisor and maybe even beyond to the end investor.

Matt Brown: (19:21)
15 years ago, there was only a fraction of the investment information out there, and you usually went to a financial advisor to learn. Today, individual investors are getting information everywhere. This is the day of Robin hood, this is the day of betterment. We got to think about that end investor in a different way. New products and democratization for sure but the real change here is going to be what you're talking about, this impact that really, forward technology is a going to make on all industries, including ours.

Matt Brown: (19:54)
Anthony, you and I today can go to JK Airport. We can cut the line with TSA because someone told them that at some point, we're actually not bad guys. And that seems to be good enough for us to get on an airplane but if I want to invest in Blackstone's real estate fund, I have to photo my driver's license and send it to them and manually fill out a form. That's ridiculous. With blockchain, with other technologies, it's not about, as we say, putting landlines in faster, it's about skipping two steps and going straight to mobile. It's not about making sub docs more efficient or subscription processes more efficient, it's about eliminating them completely.

Matt Brown: (20:40)
And you're going to see that change happen and when it does, it's going to have a massive impact on the way advisors allocate because if you can start to buy alternatives, like you buy an ETF with a CUSIP and accreditation rules for end investors are changing to include an educational requirement, not just a high net worth requirement, you're going to see a massive change. What's happening today, is that alternatives are replacing active management and that's a sea change of allocation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:13)
It makes sense. I got to turn it over to the erstwhile John Darsie, who dressed up for this occasion, didn't realize that he was going to be with two old timers that were dressing like millennials. Now, he's dressed like the old timer.

Matt Brown: (21:29)
You got .hoodie and I got a vest.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:29)
He's got questions for you and it would be remiss of me not to include him.

Matt Brown: (21:33)
That's really funny though because you're wearing a hoodie, trying to look cool. I got this vest on, trying to ... And [inaudible 00:21:40].

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:40)
You even got great product placement. I'm placing product for Ralph Lauren. I got to get a SkyBridge or a CAIS hoodie going next time.

Matt Brown: (21:48)
I'll send you a CAIS vest.

John Darsie: (21:50)
And at least Matt embraces his distinguished salt and pepper hair, whereas you have too much shoe polish in there. It's very visible on the camera, Anthony. I'm just saying. He's going to ignore that one. But Matt ...

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:05)
[inaudible 00:22:05] why I'm ignoring that. I'm going to tell you why I'm ignoring that, okay. It's not shoe polish, okay. This is very terrific permanent dye and I also put a little bit of a glaze on it. I was experimenting with a glaze prior to the SALT conference, okay. It's not quite what he's saying, okay but go ahead. Keep going, Darsie.

Matt Brown: (22:22)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:22)
When he needs the shoe polish, he'll be calling me because I'm an expert on hair color, okay but go ahead. Keep going, John.

John Darsie: (22:30)
I want to start with a little plug about our partnership related to SALT. You talked about CAIS IQ and one of the things ... And I was very familiar with CAIS going into our partnership but didn't fully appreciate what you guys have built with CAIS IQ and how important that is to the educational process for both advisors and helping investment managers that are on your platform communicate their unique value proposition to your distribution partners but we have a SALT learning center that we're partnered with CAIS on for the conference, where we are enhancing some of that education that we are both passionate about. It's why we launched SALT, it's why you guys launched CAIS IQ. And it's part of your mission with CAIS. Could you talk about the thinking again, behind CAIS IQ and the SALT learning so center and what we're doing for the conference?

Matt Brown: (23:12)
Yeah, really important. Let's just take a half step back. I'm a former financial advisor and I know a lot of financial advisors and have throughout my entire life. And I can tell you one thing, financial advisors do not talk about things they don't understand. They have that special role, they are the advisor, consultant to their client. They are to a large degree, expected to know a lot about a lot of different things. If you don't understand as a financial advisor, a hedge fund or a private equity strategy or a crypto strategy, there's a very good chance it's not going to come up in a conversation and certainly not going to end up in a portfolio. We wanted to understand, "How can we get education on this out and broad?"

Matt Brown: (23:59)
... but there is no real method. White papers, seminars, all manual, no one reads them, PowerPoints, forget COVID even attending anything. We needed a modern approach to learning. And I met an individual named Andrew Smith Lewis, who spent his entire career at the intersection of AI, machine learning. And he built an amazing platform and I made him an offer he couldn't refuse. I said, "Let's go transform education and wealth management."

Matt Brown: (24:31)
We built at CAIS, the most modern learning application, where we gamify learning in a way and measure impact of that learning through data for each individual advisor. Fully scalable, it's on an app on a desktop and what we're finding now, is that many, many of our advisory firms, whether big or small, are really wanting their advisors or in some cases, mandating their advisors to interact with CAIS IQ before they make their investments on behalf of their clients. And it's really making a difference. Advisors are feeling more armed with information, having better client conversations. And we're doing what we want to do, which is lead with learning and transform this industry.

John Darsie: (25:18)
Yeah. I think you hit the nail on the head with all of that. At SkyBridge, one of the things and one of the reasons why we've been so successful in distributing our fund to funds product into the financial advisory community, is that focus on education and engaging with the advisor and engaging with their clients to help them understand what they're investing in. Like you said, the advisor likes to be able to sound intelligent and be educated on products that they're putting their clients in. And if they're not, they're not going to transact.

Matt Brown: (25:45)
Yeah.

John Darsie: (25:45)
And so I think what you guys have built is amazing, the way you've gamified it. Talk about potential regulation in the pipeline around an education standard, rather than a wealth standard.

Matt Brown: (25:54)
Yeah.

John Darsie: (25:54)
You're allocating to alternatives. I think you guys are laying the groundwork for that and we're very excited to integrate it with SALT for SALT New York, which we're again, excited to partner with CAIS on in September. We're excited about that and having a lot of advisors that are in your community attending the conference, both in person and virtually and al lot of the funds that are on your platform participating as well.

Matt Brown: (26:14)
Yeah. And I have to say, the reception from the advisor side that we've been able to invite has just been overwhelming. We're at capacity and we are at a waiting list right now. It seems like the SALT conference is really ... It's getting a lot of traction and I'm happy to open it up to the RA community. It's great.

John Darsie: (26:35)
Yeah, absolutely. And you guys are a great partner on that. You talked a little earlier about some structural changes that you're seeing in the industry, that are paving the way for greater democratization of alternative investments. We've already seen several FinTech companies that are popping up, that are in their earlier stages. You guys are much more mature and robust in your offering and your business tackling the technology side but there are structural barriers. There are structural opportunities around things like minimums and things of that nature. There's regulatory barriers, there's tech and data barriers. How are you guys addressing those and what are those trends that you're seeing, if you could just explain those again to the audience?

Matt Brown: (27:14)
Yeah, sure. There's just a tremendous amount of tailwinds when it comes to the intersection of wealth management, alternative investments, technology, FinTech. And obviously, we're not the only platform that is benefiting from that. Some platforms that are very close to what we're doing, are doing great. Others that are in adjacent businesses are feeling that but again, our view is, anyone who's contributing to the narrative, to the impact of changing the industry is welcome. We very much believe that like every other aspect of Wall Street and also wealth management, this is not a one market or one platform business. You're going to have a handful of winners, just like there's a handful of custodians, a handful of reporting providers that are doing great work. And that innovation and competition is critical.

Matt Brown: (28:07)
Some of the bigger trends ... I'll just take the regulatory trend for a second. For some reason, it's taken a long time but our government finally realized that just because you're wealthy, doesn't make you smart. And I think that's great because if I went to a great school and decided to get my degree in business or finance and then decided I wanted to spend my time in the nonprofit community and not earn a lot of money but yet I understand complex investments or alternative investments, up until recently, I wasn't able to invest in them because I wasn't wealthy enough but at the same time, there could be an individual who may not know anything about alternative investing but inherits lots of money or maybe they sold a business. And so wealth is not equal capability and that's actually a huge step forward in democratization of access for all, which is a big and important theme. That's the regulatory side.

Matt Brown: (29:05)
The other side of it of course, is just structural. We are seeing more and more innovation right now than we've ever seen before with asset managers creating more wealth friendly investment structures to deliver their strategies to the wealth community. And when I say wealth friendly, what do I mean? Investment minimums that can be scaled across their entire book of business, investment structures that do address lower investment minimums and also accreditation requirements, reporting that's been made easier and faster. There's real structural change at work here. And I think there's a complete adoption happening on the wealth side at scale, as a result of that.

John Darsie: (29:54)
Right.

Matt Brown: (29:54)
Of course, you're also seeing technology play an enormous role, as we talked about. Look at what Apollo just did and their announcement with ... I believe it was Figure, a blockchain company to tokenize funds. We can talk about that for two or three hours but when you start thinking about a world where there's no longer a need for a fund structure, right and you're still able to replicate the rules base of that or legal base of that, that's a game changer.

John Darsie: (30:28)
Yeah. Figure is a fascinating company. We had the president of Figure, Asiff Hirji, on SALT Talks and what they're doing, taking blockchain technology tokenization and bringing it into the institutional world, it's certainly fascinating. I got a question about crypto digital assets. You guys have a Bitcoin fund on your platform, Galaxy. We're great friends with Mike Novogratz, great fans of what they're doing over there. As you guys look at an asset class, I don't need your opinion on whether Bitcoin's going to a hundred thousand or a million dollars a coin but as you guys look at a new asset class and how to onboard those types of products onto your platform, how to educate people around that, how do you guys think about that? Are you more cautious? Are you more responding to customer demand on the product side? Or how did you tackle that decision about whether to include crypto on your platform and how to educate advisors around that?

Matt Brown: (31:20)
Yeah. Everything we do at CAIS, we're a marketplace. We want to take the feedback that we're hearing from the community of investors or financial advisors and make sure that our platform is responsive on what they're interested in. We started crypto, not with the product on our platform but with just educational opportunities, "Let's learn about crypto. Let's start getting a little more fluent on what this means. What is blockchain? What is Bitcoin? How does it work?"

Matt Brown: (31:52)
We found that the topic broadly of blockchain and crypto, has from an engagement score level on our platform, the highest content engagement scores by far. Now, it could be because it's the most popular and least understood but more and more advisors are wanting to learn more and more. We wanted to make sure that we heard our audience and then they started saying, "Well, if we want to take the next step and start to get exposure, how do we do that?"

Matt Brown: (32:23)
And that's when we started looking at the field of players out there, we bring in our partner Mercer, who does the due diligence. And we got very comfortable with Galaxy, with Mike Novogratz's firm and fund and we started there. And we will be always pushing the envelope to a large degree on newer strategies. It's good to have your core basic four food groups right, on the shelf but you also have to have a few other things that are a little bit more satellite and that's what we're doing with crypto and we're going to continue to do with other things.

John Darsie: (32:57)
And I know Andrew Smith Lewis is very crypto enlightened and we're excited to have a conversation with him and Mike Novogratz on the CAIS alternatives track at SALT. Very much looking forward to that one.

Matt Brown: (33:07)
Yeah, that's going to be a [inaudible 00:33:08] conversation.

John Darsie: (33:08)
As you look out ... Yeah, it's going to be fantastic but as you look out on the competitive landscape for CAIS, what do you see as the competitive landscape for CAIS? Obviously, like I was saying, there's a lot of firms that are iterating around FinTech, alternative investments are certainly an area that's hot in terms of companies trying to create solutions to democratize access and go either direct to consumer or through advisor channels but what do you view as the competitive landscape?

Matt Brown: (33:36)
The competitive landscape is evolving. There are more and more platforms coming to market in different ways, trying to maybe put a different spin on approach. There's a couple of very large players who are at least today, dominating. And we think that's fine. The real competitive forces though however, have nothing to do with any of these other platforms. We can call ourselves competitors, we can feel that we might actually in some cases be competing but when you have a 10 trillion dollar market in the independent wealth, with 2% allocation rates to alternatives and then platforms like CAIS are only getting a small fraction of that, what we're really competing against is changing the behavior of financial advisors to use platforms. And I liken that to how an Amazon has changed the behavior of how people shop.

Matt Brown: (34:43)
Anthony, me and you and John, we will literally go and buy something on Amazon that we know is in a store less than a mile away from our house. Why? Because we've now changed how we go shopping. We like Amazon, it's easier, it's faster and we are just not going to hop in the car and go to CVS anymore. And that's changed the behavior. There are more transactions happening in alternative investments by a huge multiple. The old fashioned way of an advisor finding it themselves, doing their own due diligence, maybe filling out cumbersome paperwork, than are happening on platform. When I think about the competitive landscape, I cheer anyone who's competing and adding value that's a quasi competitor because what I think they're doing, is educating the market for us. Really, what we have to be doing is capturing all the transactions out there by convincing financial advisors that the single best way to be able to allocate to alternatives is on an end to end platform like CAIS, where there's education, product menu, due diligence and transactional ease of use.

John Darsie: (35:53)
The pandemic has had a profound impact on a lot of different types of businesses in different ways. It's had a profoundly positive impact on FinTech companies and on any technology driven business. And I'm curious what you guys observed as the impact on the CAIS platform, on funds that you work with on your platform, on advisors that you work with on your platform, how they dealt with the dislocation that took place during March of 2020, at the onset of the pandemic but what's been the overall impact to your business and how you guys think about your business from the pandemic?

Matt Brown: (36:25)
Yeah. Speaking of changing a behavior, the pandemic ... Obviously, not all businesses did well and we always are grateful to be in the category that as a technology platform, we were in the category that was positively impacted by that. What the pandemic did, is it was the true catalyst to change behavior, as we just talked about. As I mentioned, the average age of a financial advisor is in their mid to late 50s. They did not grow up being digitally savvy in many cases. They built their relationships on handshakes, spending time with their clients, so all manual. And we all are creatures of habit and we resist change.

Matt Brown: (37:15)
What happened in the pandemic, because the world did change, we no longer met with our clients face to face, has been a complete shift and adoption of technology across the board, whether it's them meeting now for the first time, truly e-signature capabilities to sign documents, to video technology, to financial advisors no longer needing to meet people to make investment decisions, or asset managers or their teams. As a result of that, people really said, "Okay. This is my time to really take a step forward, be a little more digitally savvy, adopt technology in a big way. I need to do it for my business."

Matt Brown: (37:57)
And CAIS was one of many, many firms that fit that profile. As a result, our adoption rates of a business have skyrocketed, volumes have skyrocketed. And we're feeling like this trend is not going to reverse back the old way, fortunately.

John Darsie: (38:14)
Right. Well Matt, it's been a pleasure to have you on SALT Talks. We're so excited for the partnership, both at New York in September and going forward. We think given our shared values, given the overlaps in some of the ways we look at business and democratization of alternatives, we're excited for that partnership hopefully going forward for many years. Thank you so much for joining us. Anthony, you have a final word for Matt before we let him go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:38)
No listen, I think ... Listen, as a fellow entrepreneur who started out as an FA, I get the struggle. And I think what you built is an amazing platform. And I'm super excited to see how CAIS unfolds over the next decade because I think it's going to be your best decade. And so for these young timers that are listening to the call or some of which they're participating on the call, I know that your and my best decade is ahead of ourselves.

Matt Brown: (39:05)
Thanks so much. And I know you're right. And thanks so much for the time. Look forward to SALT. Send me the name of the shoe polish, I could use it.

John Darsie: (39:15)
Oh, I like your look. I like your look.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:15)
You could use a little bit of so replacement, too. I'm going to work on you though. Don't worry, okay. When I'm done with you Matt, your wife's going to be very happy, okay.

Matt Brown: (39:23)
If I look like you, I'll be in good shape. Take care, cheers.

John Darsie: (39:27)
All right. Well, thank you again, Matt. And thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Matt Brown, the CEO of CAIS. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this SALT talk or any of our previous 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. Twitter is where we're most active, @saltconference is our handle but 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.

Anatoly Yakovenko: Building Better Blockchains | SALT Talks #252

“[Proof-of-stake and proof-of-work] are equally secure from a consumer’s perspective, but are fundamentally two sides of the same coin. Proof of stake doesn’t require the energy, but requires a lot more software complexity.”

Anatoly Yakovenko is the creator of Solana. In this episode, he tells the story of Solana’s founding and recent exponential growth. He explains some of the company’s key distinctions from other blockchain protocols, particularly the differences between proof-of-work and proof-of-stake. Yakovenko further details Solana’s approach to security protection and optimizing for speed and high performance. He lays out some of the next steps for the company and highlights the game-changing nature of two Solana-powered companies: Serum and Star Atlas.

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Yakovenko, Anatoly - Cropped.jpeg

Anatoly Yakovenko

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Solana

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 – Intro & background

4:15 – Creating Solana

6:49 – Proof-of-stake vs. proof-of-work

9:50 – Crypto maximalists

12:26 – Solana, FTX and a new decentralized exchange Serum

14:52 – Solana’s path to validation

17:00 – Ethereum vs. Solana

20:20 – NFT project: Degenerate Apes

23:00 – Settlement vs. execution

26:32 – Nakamoto coefficient

32:15 – 2018 crypto pullback

34:05 – Importance of key custody

38:30 – Crypto gaming and Star Atlas

41:45 – What’s next for Solana

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:11)
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 talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September, of 2021, and to have our guests participating on an exciting panel at that event.

John Darsie: (00:43)
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. This summer, it's Solana's summer. There's no bigger idea than the growth of Web 3.0 and decentralized finance. We're very excited to bring you a special SALT Talk with Anatoly Yakovenko of Solana. Anatoly is the creator of Solana. He led development of operating systems at Qualcomm for more than a decade, distributed systems at Mesosphere and compression at Dropbox. He holds two patents for high-performance operating systems protocols, was a core kernel developer for BREW, which powered every CDMA flip phone, and led development of the tech that made Project Tango AR/VR possible on Qualcomm phones.

John Darsie: (01:30)
Hosting today's SALT Talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of Skybridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. It was the first fund to funds and first registered '40 Act fund to make direct allocations into the crypto space, so we'd like to think we know a few things about crypto, but certainly not anywhere near the level of our great guest today. Anatoly, we're excited to have you. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony to drive the majority of the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:55)
Before we got started recording, I said to Anatoly his backdrop makes him look like he's coming in from the future. That is more or less the truth about your life, Anatoly. You're a hardcore engineer. You spent most of your career at Qualcomm. Tell us more about your background that led you to build Solana.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (02:18)
I'm an engineer by trade. I went to the University of Illinois. Started really, my engineering career there at a startup with some friends. I was trying to build voiceover IP phones. This was back in 2001-2002, and saw the dot com crash as a student, then. At that time, my advisors were telling me that computer science would not be a good career choice. Ended up in San Diego, working for Qualcomm and started really working on optimizations, all things making software faster, from day one. Really, my experience there, I got to see the mobile revolution.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (03:00)
If you guys remember, phones in 2003 were not like the supercomputers that we hold in our hands today. That transition happened over a decade and really powered by the amazing people at Qualcomm, TS&C, across all the fabrication, the entire fabrication industry and mobile chips. That was a huge 10 million-person effort around the world to make that possible. I was working in a small piece of it, ready high-performance firmware, but seeing that transition really showed the power of Moore's Law to me, and this is something that has been like, exponentials have really been fast from far away. 20 years is a 1,000 X improvement.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (03:48)
In the moment right now, it's going to take years to see a doubling in performance. And that may seem really slow.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:57)
You talk about the epiphany that you had and you were talking about the construction of an arrow of time and what you set out to do with Solana. Explain what that means to our audience.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (04:13)
Yeah, there's an interesting problem in mathematics because there is no clear definition of time. Einstein's equations work in both directions, forwards and backwards. And we take this for granted, as engineers. You look at something like second generation cellular networks, they wear these things called time division multiple access networks. It literally means that you have a source of time that tells which cellphone, which tower has the right to transmit over a certain frequency. And that's how all these networks get coordinated and folks can then transmit information to a large number of people across the same channel, across the same shared channel that is rotated through time.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (04:58)
This was the first thing the engineers thought of when they started building these things. That's really hard to pull off in crypto blockchain because this new kind of technology is built with very different trust assumptions. There is no AT&T. There is no FCC, there is no central authority that says what time it is, or who gets to [inaudible 00:05:22] a block, or who gets to be what part of the network. And that's a really tough, challenging problem. And this epiphany that I had once I realized there's a way to construct a source of time that doesn't depend a central authority, doesn't depend on AT&T or anything like that, or FCC.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (05:40)
Then we can start building the same level of high performance wireless optimizations but not applied to blockchain, it would apply to crypto.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:49)
So I'm going to put it this way because I think it's appropriate, part of your genius is taking ideas from your life experience and watching them unfold in cellular technology and then applying them to blockchain. So Steve Jobs, I want you to react to this. Steve Jobs once said that genius is a remix of ideas and seeing things on parallel planes that somehow connect. Is that true in your case?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (06:20)
100%. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants. That all the stuff that we're doing; the algorithms were in the 4,000 in the '50s and '60s. The engineering was done in the '70s and '80s and now we get to apply it to these new emerging technologies over and over as engineers. So we get to reuse the experience and brilliance of all these amazing people that came before us, for sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:48)
So there's a difference between proof-of-stake and proof-of-work. So there are many listeners here that don't know the difference. If you could describe what the difference is between proof-of-stake and proof-of-work.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (07:02)
Oh, that's a tough question. It's hard to describe because the problem is hard to explain. It's how do you trust anybody on the internet? How do you know that when you make a poll on Twitter and you say you think that omelets are the best breakfast, that you see those votes that actually come from people instead of bots. That's a tough problem. Proof-of-work is a way to solve it by forcing every vote to contain a proof that some amount of electricity was spent to generate it. So somebody somewhere had to go and burn some energy to do it.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (07:40)
That's how Nakamoto Consensus or bitcoin and Ethereum prepare networking. Most of the other major currencies work, but this is buy the energy in the [inaudible 00:07:54]. So it costs a lot of money to do this process because you have to go pay somebody for the electricity to go generate those groups. I'll say [crosstalk 00:08:05]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:05)
So proof-of-stake is better than proof-of-work?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (08:11)
It's different. So the cool thing about proof-of-work is that it is real physics. It is real electricity. There's no way for somebody to fake it. And the way that proof-of-stake works is that you realize on a common agreement on what the network is and then a way to split the way to those votes and transfer those votes cryptographically. So equally secure from a consumer's perspective, but fundamentally they're kind of two sides to the same coin. But different sides.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (08:47)
Proof-of-stake doesn't require the imaging, but requires a lot more software complexity, a lot more infrastructure. I think it takes more resources, brain resources to run. You've got to spend a lot more time making sure that the keys are secure, that there's no way for a package to go [inaudible 00:09:08] them and a bunch of other stuff.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (09:10)
Before working [inaudible 00:09:10], it was in a lot of ways kind of much, much simpler. It's like a motorcycle gas motor, there's two cylinders in it, you pour the gas in, it runs, versus something like a Tesla where it's a much more complicated system, but much more efficient.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:31)
Okay. I think you did a great job explaining that. There's a lot of maximal-ism and tribalism in bitcoin. Some people are bitcoin Maximalists, some people are Solana Maximalists, others are Ether Maximalists. What do these guys get wrong, if anything? Or, are they right and should everybody be a Solana Maximalist?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (09:48)
So I've seen this as an emergent technology, over and over. I remember when people were fighting over Linux file systems. They were Maximalists who believed that a certain kind of file system for your Linux distribution was better than anything else. And it's, I think this comes from when you're building something really complicated, like a personal computer, like where the idea is much bigger than the technology and the technology is so complex and you start to rely on your gut feel of what is going to bring about a change in the world?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (10:25)
Is it going to Apple and the historically designed thing? And I become an Apple fanboy, an Apple Maximalist. Is it going to become Linux and opensource community, or is it going to be Microsoft that's a vertically integrated company with a great founder? It's really tough to make those decisions in a very objective way and that's, I think, the source of and nexus of it. I think in some ways, it's just part of the growth process of any new, emerging, transformative technology.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (10:55)
If we thought that crypto was going to be a fad, we wouldn't have [inaudible 00:11:02]. It would just go away and peter off. But because it's such an idea that is so big and so much bigger than anything else, that I think this is where it comes from. When people really try to grasp it and try to understand it, it fit all in your head but it's so big, that it's pretty hard to do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:21)
All right. Well, you're doing a great job, so I want to keep going here. And I hope you don't mind the complexity of these questions, but I think it's important for our listeners because you're at the forefront of something. They're watching something emerge and prosper and grow exponentially and I think learning from you as the founder, I think, is super important. It's sort of like we're right here at the inception.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:44)
Let's talk about Sam Bankman-Fried, a favorite of yours and a favorite of mine, and also Sam Darsie's. Sam is the CEO and founder of FTX. He's really building the first, in my opinion, I think he has the capability at least of building the industry standard, the Microsoft, the Tesla, the Google of crypto with FTX. So he's a brilliant young man. He decided to build FTX decentralized exchange known as Serum, on top of Solana. Now, he's pretty impressive, so how did you convince him to pick Solana and why do you think he picked Solana.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (12:25)
So yeah, we had our first conversation literally a couple of weeks after we launched. And that was a year and a half ago, not even that long ago. Less than a year and a half ago. And we showed him this demo where it's a very simple page, we load it and he starts messing with keys and we see cryptocurrency transactions fired off and get confirmed as fast as he can type. So every keystroke was generating a transaction and when you compare that to something like Ethereum or even the competitors that have launched since, today, there's a stark difference between the user experience of dealing with this network with then, versus what you see now.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (13:09)
And that's really what set off the light bulbs in their head, in Sam's head and their engineers. And really from the engineering team came this drive that's still the best version of a decentralized exchange. We know how to build the best version of a centralized exchange. Let's do the same, and now it's possible. Which is something that they've been wanting to do internally for a very long time. So they incubated this project Serum, and now it's got a life of its own. There's these independent developers that are building on it, working on next versions of it.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (13:43)
It's really cool to have somebody like Sam that has a centralized service to commit to building something that could disrupt them, like fully commit to it. How often do you see that? I think Steve Jobs and I think how the iPad and iPhone disrupted their iPod sales, which is a big outsider revenue for them. Fully commit to something, a new product line that was risky but totally disruptive to the entire industry. So Sam as a person and as a founder, as a CEO definitely deserves a lot of respect for that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:24)
I am admirer of his and yours, but I'm also an admirer of Andreessen Horowitz. Ben Horowitz spoke at our event in 2019, before the pandemic. After your third hackathon this past May, A16Z became enthusiastic about Solana and they began the process of validating and investing in Solana. Tell us about that experience.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (14:53)
We were in Silicon Valley, we talked to them a bunch of times and the biggest question was that, is it possible to build a new ecosystem that has not really suffered from Ethereum? A whole new set of applications, new operating system, new ways for developers to build these things. That was a big risky question. Is there going to be developer to option? And what we saw over the year since we launched is that there's a large portion of devs that are ready to go build different kinds of tools. They see these technologies as tech stacks, as they should.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (15:32)
As an engineer said when they look at Ethereum or any other exchange, they should look at it, "Here's a technology that can do a feature, that's X, Y an Z at the toss, I'll pick the best one for my product." And we saw that, they'd proven true, when we saw this really massive explosion in the ecosystem of dev streaming into build.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (15:41)
We had prizes in our hackathons for seed funding and these were, I think, the de-frag hackathon had a prize of 300,000 and potential funding for a team that wins it, but before the hackathon was even finished there were, I think, over 10 teams that have raised over a million each already. So what we saw was that teams that are founders that want to build a new business, like a whole new company running on top of Solana, they saw their eyes light up when they saw the performance and the benefits of network infrastructure and they were able to build the products and MPV and raise funding those four weeks that we ran the hackathon without us even being the main driver of that. So this was really to me like a sing that we were onto something and I think a sign to everyone else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:49)
So how would you then if you had to tell people, what is the difference between Ethereum and Solana?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (17:00)
Short version, it's like when Intel shipped the multi-core chip. We're the multi-core. We're the massively multi-core version of a single CPU processor. Like you can think of it as the batch position in hardware when we went from single speed networks to now very parallelized high performance networks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:25)
So as a result of that, can Ethereum catch up? Can they create applications that can make them, or innovations that can make them, multi-core?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (17:37)
There are different ways to approach this. So Ethereum and Ethereum 2 and the way it's designed, I make these kind of morbid analogies, Solana's designed as you'd build a nuclear first strike detector. You want to maximize the number of sensors you have and how hard it is to break into all of these sensors and how hard it is to corrupt the entire network. Ethereum 2 is designed so there are some survivors left after the attack to tell you that it happened, which is a different thing.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (18:14)
You're building these shards and you're building a network which is maybe slower, but in some ways has some different properties which is what Ethereum 2 and their vision is going after. And some of the ways you can think about it in terms of, "Well, why do I care as a user?" In finance, you have these things called settlement platforms, things that do settlement. And then you have exchanges everywhere where execution and clearing occurs.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (18:43)
I like to think that if you were to apply a financial lens to it and think of it only from centralized finance and not application. Solana is the execution layer, in fact you access a bunch of different settlement layers. If you're in this settlement layer, then you connect to a different bunch of execution layers. So we're as a network, the hardware and the design and everything else that Solana is built for is to be this global place for execution, price discovery. In my mind, this is where all the fun innovation occurs.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (19:14)
I can name a dozen companies that do trading exchanges. I don't know a single settlement platform.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:23)
No, listen that makes sense. I want to shift gears before I get John involved. He's the Millennial, Anatoly, so he's going to try to ask better questions that me, okay? But you're older than him, so I want you to defend me. But before I get him involved, you have this major NFT project called Degenerate Apes. Now, where did the name come from first of all? Is that just another name for human beings, Degenerate Apes?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (19:48)
I guess so, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:50)
Yeah, I mean I'm sure that's basically what it is. We're all just degenerate apes. So now you've launched this on Solana, it is an incredible [crosstalk 00:19:58]-

Anatoly Yakovenko: (19:58)
We didn't release this. This was an artist, a random artist who [crosstalk 00:20:02]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:02)
Let me rephrase that. A random artist launched this on Solana. I'm sorry, I want to rephrase that to make sure that it's accurate. But it's an artist that came up with these degenerate apes. It's on Solana. People are super enthusiastic about it, but I think it's something important for the validation of Solana. So tell us what that is.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (20:22)
So again, it's really tough to show that Ethereum's network effects are not where I'd like.. Until somebody actually shows and proves that consumers really care about the speed and price and the use of the network moreso than the Ethereum of it, that is called Ethereum. What they care about is the experience, more than the network itself. So you have to go and proof it. So this was something that we suspected was going to happen eventually. We didn't know where or how or why.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (20:53)
And this project launched by this artist that maybe is coll looking NFTs that look like apes. They're adorable, I guess. They're cool and it had a positive network viral effect and what we saw was that people really liked the experience. They cared more about the product that this artist was making, much more so than they cared about what network it is on.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (21:22)
And because a lot of it is cheap and fast, it never got in the way of that experience. And this is what we hope to see more of that. As artists launch, they should pick Solana's network because we will never get in the way. You don't want to know that Qualcomm is the modem that is running inside your iPhone. You just never want it to fail. You never want to have the bad experience. You basically want to forget about it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:54)
John Darsie. By the way, Anatoly, congratulations Anatoly. What you're doing is nothing short of brilliant and I'm sending you a big hug and I'm wishing for even greater success for you and the Solana ecosystem.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (22:07)
Thank you.

John Darsie: (22:09)
Yeah, I mean to go with your analogy, Anatoly, this is not an Ethereum bashing session by any means, but almost Ethereum is a gas powered car, that there's gas stations all around the country, all around the world. It's easy to fill up, people use it almost by default, despite some warts on that protocol. Solana is the early stage Tesla of the crypto ecosystem, where once the infrastructure and the network effect is there to support the charging stations and everything you need, it seems like Solana has the advanced tech to lead the Web 3.0 revolution. Is that sort of the way you guys look at it? Is it in terms of network effects? It's all about creating projects like the Degenerate Apes and then we'll talk about Star Atlas in a second. But just how important are those network effects?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (23:00)
So I think there is a difference between settlement and execution and it's just I'm not sure that you can design a network that could be best at both. So if you're like folks at Ethereum, they're coming in from this idea of self-sovereign money and bitcoin and what that is, and what they're really focused on is competing with bitcoin and this idea that we can have a global currency that is self-driven and self-sustaining.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (23:31)
Then settlement becomes the most important thing of that feature. You almost have to pick, every time you make an engineering decision, you have to pick that as the most important factor, no matter what. And we're coming in as communications falcon folks and I'm looking at this thing, "okay, its censorship resistance is the most interesting thing that separates a block chain from a database." And the use cases that are interesting there are this idea of decentralized finance, price discovery, how do we optimize for that? How do we optimize for the execution layer?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (24:07)
It's possible that there's no proof, or at least no one's really tried to build one, but in my gut, kind of engineering level check, it's really hard to do both. It's a perennial push and pull problem. What we're doing is really going to be the fastest possible way to do price discovery, execution. But the settlement, final state can occur in any number of networks and you see that already with the number one trading pair at Serum is bitcoin against the FCC.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (24:37)
None of those are natively issued tokens at Solana, right?

John Darsie: (24:40)
Right.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (24:40)
Somebody else, they're [inaudible 00:24:42] settlement at bitcoin, certain guaranteed settlement of USDC and that's fine. Those are just two different goals. And what we will do deliver a cheaper version of that. The way that it's designed, it's never going to be as fast as, as responsive to user events as something that we're building, which is, "Let's beat NASDAQ, let's flip NASDAQ and Andreessen." That is like [inaudible 00:25:16] floats to this idea of information propagating through a censorship resistant network at the same speed as news, as financial news travels around the world and makes impact on prices, we want to be competitive with that speed, speed of microfiber.

John Darsie: (25:31)
Right. The idea of decentralization, there's a lot of things in what people would deem as crypto that are not actually decentralized. Especially as crypto becomes institutionalized, it's sort of a magic word in crypto, a lot of times decentralization goes away. You talked about somebody like Sam Bankman-Fried, who has a centralized exchange, also investing in a decentralized exchange with Serum that's built on top of Solana, there's an interesting idea around the Nakamoto coefficient. I think [inaudible 00:26:01], general partner at Andreessen Horowitz first coined the term, but it talks about the true decentralization of different block chains.

John Darsie: (26:08)
Bitcoin is famous as a proof-of-work blockchain that it requires 51% of users on that network in order to basically corrupt or takeover the network. Proof-of-state block chains, the Nakamoto coefficient is lower, but Solana, in terms of proof-of-stake block chains, has the highest Nakamoto coefficient. Can you talk about why that is and why that's important?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (26:32)
Yeah, and this is back to that analogy that I made of surviving the nuclear strike versus detecting it. And again, decentralization is a meaningless term and there's a lot of ways to look at it and fundamentally, everyone should go look at, read that article Webology, but basically, given all of these different ways to look at it, what is the smallest way we can draw a circle around the parts of the network that if we destroyed that piece that the network would halt, or the network would be disrupted in some way.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (27:05)
And that's really minimum surface area for an attack. In consensus, specifically and why this matters specifically to price discovery or execution of orders and flow and information flow, is if you have a visibly [inaudible 00:27:25] tolerant system, if you control more than 33% of the nodes, the stake, the voting in that thing, you can decide the order of events. And that means that if I have 33% of the stake and hedge fund A, wants to transfer dollars from financing it to Coinbase. And hedge fund B wants to transfer also dollars to finance the Coinbase. I get to pick which fund goes first.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (27:50)
And that's a problem. That's a problem for finance. I can't corrupt this data, I can't steal anyone's money. I can't create the network and cause it to sign, put in your keys that guarantee that you have custody, but I can definitely pick the winners and the losers. And for some use cases, that doesn't matter. Solana is, I think, one of those use cases where order of events no longer matters. It doesn't matter if hedge fund A, gets settled eventually first or second, within some reasonable timeframe. And that's kind of the idea of self-sovereign money and bitcoin. Their form of censorship resistance is that if I have my keys, I have my bitcoin and I submit a transaction that maybe not today, but within weeks or definitely months or years, somebody will eventually process it. There will be at least one honest block producer and enough of them in a row to guarantee its settlement.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (28:46)
But the use case that I think is more interesting is in realtime, there are orders, there's trading, all this information that stays locked up in NASDAQ, locked up at NYSE and CME, and decentralized financing, the primary use case of that, you really need to guarantee that it's as hard to corrupt as possible. And it will never going to be perfect so that it can be centralized and then taking on that responsibility yourself. But the only way to guarantee it is to maximize the minimum set of independent operators that add up to that 32%.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (29:23)
So it becomes much, much harder to draw that circle to make that set of that sub-network that could pollute and start corrupting the information flow. So this is really like the number one parameter that we're focused on and because of that, a lot of the engineering designs that I've spoken about, it has to be super high performance, it has to process a lot of messages, it has to do a lot of cryptographic signatures and you end up with something that is quite opposite of Ethereum 2 or any other competitor networks that are more focused on the settlement piece.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (29:59)
So that, I think, when we first started going to [inaudible 00:30:08], I thought, "Everyone else is going to do the exact same thing," because it was so obvious to me. This is the most important thing are these networks, the censorship resistance piece, the only way to ensure that actually works is to maximize the number of parties that are participating in the network, and the only way to ensure that, that's possible is to optimize the hell out of it. Actually make it possible to handle all these messages.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (30:32)
To me, it seemed like the obvious thing, but it turned out that basically we're the only ones really focused on that, and that's, I think the most important thing for finance. Even something like payment. You have somebody like big FinTech company that's in payments, Visa, or whatever, they need to guarantee that when merchants start receiving these payments, there isn't some set of small parties that can stop the flow of volume, because their business, their livelihood depends on it. They actually care that the stuff gets settled within seconds versus days later.

John Darsie: (31:08)
Right. Yeah, no one of the things I admire about you and I admire about Solana is you are focused on speed and you are focused on performance. We're very enthusiastic about the crypto space generally, but there is a lot of cheerleading that goes on. There's a lot of financially driven decisions, whether it be the big wave of ICOs that took place in 2017, or some of the other more nefarious things that go on in that ecosystem. But you guys had your heads down from the beginning, focused on building the highest quality product and not paying attention to the price of your coins or anything really financially driven.

John Darsie: (31:46)
When you were building Solana in early 2018, the bottom fell out of the crypto market, it was sort of a challenging time for a lot of people that once became enthusiastic about crypto and then pulled back a little bit. Goldman Sachs famously shuttered their plans to open a crypto trading desk. Did that pull back, that sort of bottom falling out of the crypto market in 2018, was that challenging at all for you? Did you lose heart at all, and what generally motivates you to continue building Solana?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (32:15)
It was like the media's psyched to peddle a dinosaur. It was definitely crypto winter and we saw a lot of teams fall apart. We were always somewhat conservative. We never raised a ton of money. We always had about two years of runway, so we were always like, "We've got to build this thing as fast as we can and really focus on the key product that we think is going to make a difference, like the key differentiator."

Anatoly Yakovenko: (32:47)
From our perspectives, probably one of those unexpected things that there's no way we could have wished for us but was extremely beneficial to us as a team, but it really forced us to focus and build the right thing. Every Silicon Valley book has all these lessons, "You should do X, Y and Z. Focus on the key thing, look for products, go for the most important users, worry about product market, theta development, [inaudible 00:33:15] everything else," but a lot of luck and the environment forces you to make those decisions.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (33:20)
I think again, all the options, some of our competitors, they raised hundreds of millions of dollars I think in some ways, they risked them way too early. They didn't have the same hunger or drive.

John Darsie: (33:35)
Right. This SALT Talks, is a series that we bring to both people that are very deep in the crypto world and also some people with a little bit less knowledge and experience. So this is one of those questions that is addressed more to that introductory crowd, but you've been very vocal about the fact that if you don't control your keys, you don't really participate in crypto in its truest sense. So, for those that are less familiar, could you explain the reasons why controlling your keys is so important?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (34:04)
So purely from a financial perspective, if you have custody of your keys and there's some value associated to those keys, 100% of the network can be corrupted and it's impossible for it steal your coins. This guarantee that your keys provide is a cryptographic certainty that you have custody of that thing. And when you're talking about particularly dollars, it's a peer-to-peer guarantee between you and Circle, which has this ledger that's represented by this cryptography at Solana but the money's, in fact, in a bank somewhere.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (34:45)
So that peer-to-peer relationship, I have keys that represent dollars in Solana, Circle has its dollars in a bank. The entire Solana network would be 100% corrupted and there's no way to break that as long as the keys are secure, between you and Circle. That's really what allows the state to scale, and really allows the network, like Solana to operate much more like a switch, like a AT&T or like a pure infrastructured information provider. The only thing that it's doing is making sure that this data's propagated and everybody can see that, but it really has no control over the values or the money that is actually being stored. It has zero control over it.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (35:26)
So that's a very important thing but from a decentralization, kind of like where is this industry going, if everybody holds their form of Coinbase, the Coinbase has a single key that represents all of those assets, it becomes the focal point for finance. Might as well use a bank, like what is the difference? There are differences, there's security between Coinbase and you see that better ETIs, maybe cheaper wires, but the users don't actually get to have those guarantees because they're so on the hook for Coinbase to do the right thing.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (36:11)
Removing all those obstacles is what allows an app developer, like an application developer that wants to provide returns to the users to build something, but purely with code. Never trusting, without any trust, never taking custody of anyone's funds, but allowing to coordinate 100 million cryptographic keys to borrowing money from each other and start giving a real return without any middleman.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (36:37)
If this is possible in software, you don't need a third party like Coinbase in the middle to pay another three, 4,000 engineers. You look at something like UniSoft, folks that have never heard of Ethereum are a peerless competitor. UniSoft is like 10 people. It's an exchange that has 32,000 pairs traded on them, 10 people. Because, it's a bit of code that just coordinates people. It doesn't actually take custody, and this is where I think the power of crypto is this ability for very small teams to build highly leveraged software that creates these new financial instruments, which similar instruments or where you have a traditional finance, but it removes all possibilities of failure, fraud and that's the magic of it. We actually leave people with self-custody to go exercise their power.

John Darsie: (37:34)
I mean one of the things we're so excited about for SALT in September is getting you, Sam and Jeremy Allaire from Circle on stage together to talk about just basically the new financial infrastructure that you're building on de-fi crypto rails, if you will, between USDC, the stable coin that was launched by Circle. Obviously what Sam is building at FTX, and also at Serum, and how Solana all plays into that as basically the optimum base layer for all that.

John Darsie: (38:05)
But I want to talk about, and this is not something that you guys developed, just to be clear again, but Star Atlas is a play to earn game that's being launched on the Solana blockchain that people are very excited about. The idea of play to earn games, in general, fascinate me and I think have a massive future. Could you talk about play to earn gaming? Could you explain to people what it is and why there's so much excitement around Star Atlas?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (38:30)
So gaming I think is one of those new opportunities for crypto, but simply that I don't always believe it's going to happen because I don't know if you've ever played like Ultima, [inaudible 00:38:42] or World of Warcraft's, I started with Ultima when I remember as a teenager I went to the bank, got a cashier's check, mailed it to somebody during the snail mail to get an item from Ultima [inaudible 00:38:54]. So that process of a person actually paying money for a digital item that they have no ownership of, it exists. There are secondary markets for World of Warcraft goals, Ultima, online as well had some and [inaudible 00:39:13] line, which is a space [inaudible 00:39:14] for very sophisticated economies around its units. Those things exist and they run and Star Atlas is an attempt to make it wholly on chain. To use all the same leverage and technology that, you have the best market makers in the world using Serum to trade, can now use that inside and exchange for crystals or energy units, whatever, it's like Star Atlas to build your spaceships. How cool is that?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (39:46)
It's all in one single giant computer that doesn't really care if it's trading bitcoin into dollars or endgame units. That's the essence of it is, "Can we build a game that is owned by the players that are generating their own content and that content is valuable because there are consumers, like players that just want to pay?" They don't want to play through the game, they don't want to earn those items, but they just want to have the experience, and [inaudible 00:40:18] that substitution. Like do you have enough people that want to effectively own the game and be those content creators and earn a living from it, and enough consumers that want to just experience parts of it?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (40:30)
It's, I think, something that feels like science fiction. So probably five years away. So I should start working on it now. [crosstalk 00:40:39]-

John Darsie: (40:39)
Ready Player One.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (40:40)
Exactly.

John Darsie: (40:41)
A popular book and movie, Ready Player One, that you... I read the book many years ago and said, "Wow, I could see our future resembling that in some way," but then you start to look at things like meta verse gaming play to earn gaming, something like Star Atlas, and you're like, "Wow, we're not that far away from that future where people are going to derive a lot of pleasure and probably spend a lot of time in these virtual worlds." It starts to help you crystallize in your mind why NFTs are so valuable. And why virtual digital real estate has value.

John Darsie: (41:11)
Because at the end of the day if we live in a highly virtual world, this is an oversimplification, there's no reason why those things shouldn't have the same type of value that people derive from physical goods and physical real estate.

John Darsie: (41:24)
Last question I have for you is, what is in your plans for the future? Obviously, you guys have had an explosive summer of growth, like I mentioned in the opening, it's been Solana summer, even though you guys are very humble and avoid the cheerleading that exists in a lot of areas of crypto, but what are the next topics of focus for you and the team at Solana labs?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (41:45)
So we're super engineering heavy company, like we're mostly focused on the boring side, which is let's build a fast software like system fast database. And it's almost like, it's oddly boring work. We have a bunch of performance improvements, most downhill engineering. You've got to benchmark, task, analyze, improve and that's something we've been doing, I think, for the last year, since we launched.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (42:18)
And we're continuously, incrementally improving everything. Maybe that's part of the success story is that iteration is the most important thing when it comes to engineering. I think that was an Elon Musk quote. So if that helps you, our goal is how do we iterate and improve the network as fast as we can?

John Darsie: (42:40)
Right. Do you think your focus on development is something that attracted people like Sam to the project? And I think Sam, as much as anyone, he again, takes sort of a sober view of crypto. He understands the bull case. He understands the bear case for certain protocols and for the industry as a whole. Do you think your heads down mentality is something that's attractive to hardcore developers themselves, and also people that are building on top of block chains?

Anatoly Yakovenko: (43:11)
He's not an engineer so this was really I think, in a lot of respects, this is driven by the engineering team that was like, "Hey, this isn't going to work. Let's just go build it." It feels like to maybe to outside folks, it feels like there's some master plan. It's not. There's not. There's kind of like fire driven development, "What is the most important thing that we need to fix right now?" is very much part of our daily routine. And what that means I think for the future is, I think more, kind of like I mentioned before, you don't notice Moore's Law when you're in it. But with those improvements, exponential improvements occur over large spans of time because really, really staggered.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (44:02)
So this is what I hope we should see in the next four to eight year. Imagine 100 million people with self-custody on a single network, or a billion people with self-custody on a single network. What impact they have had is very unpredictable. It's like me in 1996 telling you that sharing pictures of cats and babies with your friends and family is going to be worth a trillion dollars. You would tell me that I'm crazy.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (44:30)
So how do we predict where the stuff goes is really, really hard for us. There's folks that are heads down in the hardware and in the software.

John Darsie: (44:41)
Anatoly, it's been a pleasure to talk to you. Again, we're super excited about Solana. I think the more you talk to people in the space, the more impressed they are, not only with the amazing technology you've built, but also the power of the network effects of some of these projects that are coming online. And certainly you guys have a ton of momentum. So we're rooting for you, we're excited to see you in person in September and have that conversation you, Sam and Jeremy on stage at SALT. And we'll be, again, rooting for your success going forward. But thank you so much for joining us.

John Darsie: (45:12)
Anthony, you have a final word for Anatoly before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:14)
I just think it's a brilliant exposition of what you created and part of genius frankly, is simplicity, and I think you did an amazing job of explaining where things are and why you guys are on the cusp of something huge. It's already huge, but it's going to even exponentially more huge. So congratulations to you, Anatoly.

Anatoly Yakovenko: (45:37)
Thank you, so much. I appreciate it.

John Darsie: (45:40)
And thank you, everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Anatoly Yakovenko, the founder of Solana. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talk, you can access them on our website, on demand at salt.org\talks or on your YouTube Channel, which is called SALTTube. We're also on social media. Twitter is most active @SALTConference. But we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks, we love educating people, especially on this new, emerging asset class, crypto Web 3.0, all these types of topics. So again, please share this talk with your curious uncle.

John Darsie: (46:18)
On behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT Team, this is John Darsie, signing off on SALT Talks for today, we hope to see you back here again soon.

Brendan Boyle: Power of the Purse | SALT Talks #251

“I believe capitalism is the economic system that best goes with liberal democracy. That said… the way in which the wealth gap and inequality is going, especially the last 25 years, is downright scary and threatens the stability of our democracy.”

Congressman Brendan Boyle discusses the damage caused by 25 years of growing wealth gaps and inequality, and his proposed wealth tax legislation as a countermeasure. Congressman Boyle touches on issues around federal deficits, gun control, infrastructure and vaccinations. He expresses concern about the state of America’s democracy, noting the numerous stresses placed on institutions during Trump’s time in the White House, punctuated by the violent January 6th attack on the Capitol.

He was elected to the Pennsylvania state legislature in 2008, becoming the first Democrat to ever represent his legislative district. Now in his fourth term, Congressman Boyle represents the 2nd congressional district of Pennsylvania which is fully enclosed within the City of Philadelphia. He currently serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, and on the Select Revenue Subcommittee and Trade Subcommittee thereof. He also serves on the House Committee on the Budget. He previously served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government. Congressman Boyle also serves as a member of the United States Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

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

Brendan Boyle

Congressman

D-Pennsylvania, 2nd District

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 – Intro

2:48 – Background and choosing public service

6:16 – Wealth tax

9:32 – American tax system

12:55 – Deficits and debt

18:42 – Implementing a wealth tax

23:36 – Gun control

27:25 – Infrastructure bill

29:26 – Vaccinations, mandates and misinformation

33:05 – Twitter, Taliban and free speech

35:15 – Bipartisan support in checking China

36:40 – 1/6 insurrection and stresses on America’s democracy

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. And 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. We're very excited today to welcome you to a SALT Talk with Congressman Brendan F. Boyle. Congressman Boyle was born and raised in the city of Philadelphia, is the son of an immigrant and Congressman Boyle's father was a janitor for SEPTA and his mother was a school crossing guard.

John Darsie: (01:06)
The first in his family to attend college, he attended the University of Notre Dame and later graduated from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government with a master's degree in public policy. He was elected to the Pennsylvania state legislature in 2008, becoming the first Democrat to ever represent his legislative district. Two years later, his brother Kevin was also elected to the state legislature, making them the first brothers to serve together in the state house. In 2014, Congressman Boyle pulled off and upset and beat three better funded rivals to be elected to the United States Congress.

John Darsie: (01:43)
Now in his fourth term, Congressman Boyle represents the second congressional district of Pennsylvania, which is fully enclosed within the city of Philadelphia. He currently serves on the House Ways and Means Committee and on the Select Revenue subcommittee and Trade subcommittee thereof. He also serves as the Vice Chair of the House Committee on the Budget. He previously served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government. Congressman Boyle also serves as a member of the United States delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Congressman Boyle is the founder and co-chair of the Blue Collar Caucus, which advocates for working families by addressing wage stagnation, job insecurity, and the future of work. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm and with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:34)
So Congressman it's a big honor to have you on. I've got so many different questions for you, but I think the most important one for right now is your background. Tell us about your background. Why did you make a decision to go into public service?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (02:48)
Yeah, well, thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it. Anyone who follows me on Twitter knows my fandom for all the Philly sports teams, knows that I am Philly guy through and through. I'm born and raised in a row home in one of Philly's typical blue collar neighborhoods. My dad came from Ireland when he was 19, spent most of his adult life working blue collar jobs in a warehouse in south Philly and then later as a janitor for our city subway system. And my mom was a stay at home mom, but also worked part time as a crossing guard. So I'm, and I know it sounds almost stereotypical, but really their American dream was work hard, have stable jobs, send their kids to college, and I've been able to be fortunate and live that. Now in terms of how running for office-

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:47)
Yeah, I'm going to stop you for a second, because it's an amazing story. It's a classic American story. I remind everybody it's an immigrant story, and you and I are products of an immigration story, but to be a public servant is tremendous amount of sacrifice. Obviously, I could only do it for 11 days before I was ejected, but here you are, you've made a great career of it and it's coming with a lot of sacrifice to your family. So go ahead. Tell us why.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (04:14)
Yeah, so from as early as I can remember, and this really does link. You might identify with a lot of this, Anthony. It really does come from growing up in a household that the American dream was gospel. I mean, we had two religions, we were Catholic and we believed in the American dream, and both were held up as almost like religious faiths. I mean, one obviously is, but then the absolute firm belief in America that you can do anything, that is work hard. You can get ahead. We're sacrificing for you. I never even stopped and questioned that. It was just accepted as a fact like two plus two equals four is a fact. So public service plays into that. I mean, it goes along with it. And then specifically for me, as early as I could remember, I love politics and I love sports.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (05:10)
And I followed them both very closely when I went to college. I then major in government. But funny enough, as I was graduating from college and this was the boom economy of the 1990s, I was questioning how realistic is me coming from where I come from, actually running for office. How do you even go about that? I didn't know anyone, literally didn't know anyone who was in politics. So I went the normal business route, did that for a couple of years, really didn't feel too fulfilled. And then right around the time of September 11th, actually the afternoon of September 11th, I decided that this was the course that I wanted to take with my life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:58)
Super admirable. I appreciate your service to the country. I know hard these things are. You recently co-sponsored the Ultra Millionaire Tax Act alongside of Senator Warren. Why do you think a wealth tax is the best approach to solving the inequality?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (06:16)
Yeah. So let me back up for a second because, oh well, I'll say that the morning I did that, that afternoon, I ran into a good friend of mine, a colleague who's more of a moderate Democrat and he and I worked together and agree on a lot. And he was joking or half joking, half serious. He said, "Boyle, what the hell happened to you? You've become a socialist now?" And the answer is no. I firmly believe in capitalism. I believe capitalism is the economic system that best goes with liberal democracy. That said, if you look at our tax system right now, it actually asks a lot out of wage earners, particularly upper middle class wage earners that live in very wealthy Metro areas, New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, et cetera. So the folks who are doing well, but are by no means Warren Buffett, or maybe you're making $500,000 a year and are living right outside New York city, when you factor it all up, federal, state, local, et cetera, they're probably paying an effective tax rate of close to 50%.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (07:27)
And yet then when you talk about people worth hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars who mostly have passive income, they can game the system in such a way that their annual tax bill is literally zero or close to it. I mean, one classic example. I think Carl Icahn even talks about this, the way he simply, he makes sure every year, he doesn't necessarily realize the gain, borrows against the paper gains. And right there, you have no tax liability. In fact, you have a deduction with the low amount of interest that you're paying. So what I'm saying is, "Hey, our tax system is actually screwed up. It's too skewed." And this might be a slightly different argument than say, like an Elizabeth Warren would make. But my view, we actually need to move closer to more of a hybrid system that wait a minute, we're missing a whole bunch of in reality, is income and is wealth that isn't getting taxed.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (08:28)
And yet we're asking a lot out of middle-class people and even upper middle class people. So that's one reason for it. The other reason is the more obvious one. And I say this as someone who again firmly believes in the American dream, but believes that the way in which we're going with this wealth gap and inequality, especially over the last 20, 25 years is downright scary and threatens the stability of our democracy. And I do think there's actually a link. I want to be careful here. It's not a straight link, but there is somewhat of a link between the overall decline of the size of the middle class over the last couple of decades and the sort of political instability and division that we're seeing in our country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:15)
So there's a lot to chew on there. So let's break it down together. 1913, we developed an income basis to our taxation, not an asset basis. Why do you think we did an income basis as opposed to an asset basis?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (09:33)
Yeah, well I mean, I would have to go back and ask Woodrow Wilson historians on exactly why that was. Of course there was precedent for it back to the Civil War in terms of going on an income basis. But I would also point out that it's not entirely true that we don't ever tax wealth in this country. For instance, I mean I'm sitting in a small office in my house. I pay a wealth tax, except we don't call it the wealth tax. We call it a property tax. And actually, that's even sort of worse because I end up like most homeowners, end up having to pay a property tax not based on my equity in the house because my wife and I are still paying off our mortgage. We're actually paying a property tax rate based on the top line figure, what is the assessed value of the house. Some states have automobile taxes and other sorts of property or asset based taxes. So even though we started the income tax system in 1913, it's not entirely the case that we strictly only have 100% income tax based system.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:47)
So I'm with you intellectually on a lot of things. I'm not like one of these hedge funders that's anti-tax, I'm never moving to Miami. Love Miami, interviewed Mayor Francis, Mayor Francis Suarez on our show here, love Miami. One of my children lives in Miami, but I'm a New Yorker. I'm going to be here. I'm going to pay my taxes here. I'm going to do everything I can to help our city. And I'm a big believer that blue states, this is something that I argued with President Trump about when him and I had a relationship by removing the SALT deduction, you're misunderstanding what happens in these blue states. Philadelphia is a port city. New York, Boston, these are port cities. They're teeming with immigrants. Many of them are indigent. You need a welfare safety net, a safety net for these people. You also need to create a platform of equal opportunity for these people, despite the economic variances.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:46)
And so I understand the need for all these things intellectually but I would make the argument, these great cities, in addition to the cities on the West Coast, the port cities drive the entire economy. So if you want to cripple or hamper those cities, what ends up happening is you create a negative effect on the rest of the country. And so this whole blue state red state divide, very damaging for the country. But I also think we have a bloated government, Brendan, and I think we have a explosive deficit. This would be an indictment of both parties for that matter. Let me give you the facts, you know them, 7 trillion from George Washington to George Bush, 22 trillion from Barack Obama to Joe Biden. And obviously there was an $8 trillion four year moment in there with Donald Trump. So how do we, I get it, I get the taxation issues, but how do we stop or contain the over promising of government and the lack of taxation, because all of this stuff is just either unfunded tax liability going forward, or we're going to devalue our currency and make it harder and harder for the people that you and I grew up with.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (12:55)
Yeah. So a couple things there, first just on immigrants. I'd poured out that contrary to what the expectations were, both New York City and Philadelphia grew much more than were expected. All the naysayers were saying they're either going to lose population or a stagnant growth. Census just came out and showed both ended up growing far more than was expected. And the reason was because of immigrants and immigration, which is no surprise. That's how both cities grew up. So it shows you, and by the way, how many times has New York been counted out in the history of what essentially in many ways is the capital of the world? New York is never dead. It will always come back. And I think the census figures were just the latest evidence of that. Now in terms of a deficit and debt, this was an interesting intellectual conversation that's happening right now, because admittedly, there is no, I'll be very frank, there is no political party that has a room or has much of a base for folks focusing on reducing the deficit and reducing the debt.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (14:16)
Donald Trump changed our politics in many ways. That's actually one underappreciated way in which he changed the Republican party. Now before, the Republican party would talk a big game, they would never live up to it on deficit and debt, but now they don't even really talk about it any more. And then of course, my party believes in government, believes in taking advantage of historic opportunities to do certain things on the social safety net. So the sort of rightly or wrongly the sort of Gerry Ford type republicanism is not there. Now what's interesting to me is, and you know, there's a school of thought out there saying, "Wait a minute, deficits." I mean, even Dick Cheney actually, when he was Vice President famously said, Deficits don't matter."

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (15:03)
There's an economic school of thought out there that that is talking about that as long as people in the world continue to have such full faith in the assets in the United States and our economy and are continuing to buy our bonds as a kind of a fleet of safety, and we continue to have interest rates as low as they are, I don't think you were going to see either side really talk much about deficit and debt. What I think it will take is any sort of, and I'm not cheering for this by any means, but I think what it would take is a dramatic increase in our interest rates for then one or both parties to finally be talking about this in a meaningful way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:53)
And listen, I respect all of that as well. And we had Stephanie Kelton on, Modern Monetary Theory. She wrote a great book about this, and I'm worried though, I have to confess this because I'm trained as an economist and I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood and I can prove empirically to Stephanie or you, Congressman or Senator Warren that when we create deficit spending, there is a benefit to it and there's a good modulation theory. I have elements of Keynesian thought in my personality, but we've got to be very, very careful about dollar devaluation because people that own the assets, they will get richer and richer as we're devaluing, but the middle and lower class, the wages don't catch up. And so I'll give you this example. My dad was a crane operator. I priced his wages, contemporaries them. He would be down 26.5% in real economic terms.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:54)
So even though the wages did creep up over 35 years, the purchasing power is nowhere near where we were as children. My family would have gone from what I would call blue collar aspirational economics to blue collar desperational economics. And a lot of this is a result of this sort of a money corrupting, if you will, okay, where they are, but you want to tax the wealth. And I understand that, but I really want to just get my arms around the idea. So if I have, let's say $100 million, you tax it at the market rate, you tax it the way your property's taxed, where they're guessing at what it is. And they say, "Okay, you're going to pay this as an annual surcharge for the money that you've accumulated over your life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:43)
One argument would be though, "Wait a minute, Brendan or Congressman, I made the money. You paid me $1. I paid 50 cents to Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden. I got to keep 50 cents for myself. And then I invested that 50 cents and I happened to invest it quite wisely. I could have spent it. This is sort of a Prodigal Son dilemma from the new Testament, but I decided not to spend it." I would also say to you that it's not in my, the money's not in $100 bills in my swimming pool. It's being invested to create jobs and opportunity and innovation in the society. I'm delaying my own gratification in order to do that. And you're going to penalize me now. Again, I already got taxed on the front end, income based tax, made the money, paid my tax. I've now got it in savings. You're going to tax me again. And you say, "Yes, it's appropriate to do that because."

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (18:41)
Yeah. So a couple of things on mechanics. Our system would be similar to the four European countries that currently do this. It would also be similar to the sort of system we already have now at death, what we call the estate tax, or sometimes Republicans mislabel the death tax. We already had that infrastructure in place. So we're not, again this is not something where we're talking about creating something that doesn't already by and large exist, except instead of it being a one-time event at death, we're talking about doing it in an annualized way, although at a significantly lower rate. We're talking about 2 cents on every $1 above a $50 million exemption. Frankly, I mean the kind of folks that you know, who might have wealth more than $50 million, even if this were to happen, all of them would be wealthier year after year, even if they were to pay this, there's not one of them who's making a return of lower than 2% in any given year.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (19:51)
You also, you throw in there an assumption that we're increasingly seeing is not necessarily the case. And I mean, look, the argument on double taxation, I get it. In principle, that is correct. However, let's remember per what I was saying earlier, some of this wealth has actually never been taxed the first time. So that's in there too, right? I mean, that is one of the real flaws and whether it's the ProPublica articles or other sort of public reporting that we've been seeing, there are a number of ways in which the system is being gamed to evade that taxation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:30)
Let me stop you for our listeners to explain that, because I think it's a very interesting point. It hasn't been taxed because it was in what? Stock or property that got started and that value was created from, is that what you're saying?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (20:45)
I mean, I'm sorry, what I'm alluding to is ProPublica has done a series of exposes over the last several months. I don't know how they've gotten this information to be clear, but they have done remarkable reporting on a number of very wealthy individuals. Jeff Bezos is one of them, but folks who have been getting away with paying a zero tax bill, and for the most part, it seems legally. We're not talking about someone making 40,000 in tips and writing down 10,000. I mean, we're talking about legally gaming the system so that they have zero tax bill. And so when I tell you, look, if you go around Northeast Philly where I'm from, or parts of Queens in New York, and you talk to folks who are like the people, like our families are that we grew up with, they have a rock solid belief, whether Democrat or Republican, they say, "You know what? I know the system is screwing me. I know the guy who's in the very, forget top 1%, the top one half of one 10th of 1%. I know he's getting away with bloody murder and not paying anything. Meanwhile, here I am paying federal income tax. It's all being withheld from my paycheck, FICA, state, local. I'm getting taxed the wazoo. And yet the really big guys are getting away with paying basically nothing."

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (22:18)
As long as that exists, not only is that unfair economically, and we're missing a lot of tax revenue, it feeds the sort of cynicism that we're seeing about government. And you kind of referenced earlier and I think is major problem that we're facing in society, the sort of cynicism that we're seeing, the declining belief in the American dream, all of that goes into what we're talking about with what seems like trust the dollars and cents conversation is not. It's actually bigger than just the money.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:53)
Okay. We're going to move on, I could talk all day to you, Brendan, so good Congressman Boyle. I appreciate it. So we can move on. I'm just asking these questions because we both know tax policy influences behavior, which does have an effect on the economy. And again, I'm not suggesting that we don't have issues in the tax policy and that there's been rank unfairness that needs to be addressed. I just want to do it in a way that obviously promotes growth in the society. So we're going to go rapid fire on a couple of other things, if you don't mind, okay? Let's go to gun control, too many special interests to do anything on gun reform and gun control to stop this sort of, this mutilation of our children?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (23:36)
Yeah, it's sickening. Generally, over the last five years, 10 years, 20 years, you see anywhere from 70 to 90, depending on the measure that is being questioned in the poll, you generally see somewhere between 70% and 90% of the American people who support some sort of gun control, whether it's background checks, whether it's a bit more aggressive than that, like banning the AR-15. Along that spectrum though, again, very solid majority support. And yet it hasn't happened and it hasn't happened because that one third that disagrees, historically that has been their number one big issue, and they have voted on it. I mean, there's a difference between preference and intensity, right? So the two thirds to 90% of people who might want gun control care about a whole host of other issues, but that one third or even less that cares about gun rights is so hardcore.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (24:37)
They'll take that NRA list to the polls with them in a Republican primary and vote strictly on that issue. Now what's interesting is that in 2018, after mass shooting after mass shooting, it's really the first time in our lifetime that I saw the politics of that change, especially in suburban America. So in the suburbs of Philadelphia, in suburbs in New York, suburbs of Chicago, you saw Republican members losing their seats, both for Congress, but also state legislative seats. And they were getting hit on the gun issue. The gun safety side or gun control side was really bringing up this issue in an offensive way, not a defensive way. So that leaves me optimistic that we will finally join the rest of the civilized world in having some sort of stronger gun measures. I do for the first, and it's funny, we do this interview before the last few years, I would have been really pessimistic on this question about whether or not I would see things change. The last couple of years, first time you've actually seen the politics of that now flip.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:50)
Okay. So but I guess what I'm getting at is 70% of the country, maybe more would like some type of reform, but we've got these special interests creating these blockages [inaudible 00:26:03] and the procedures in the Senate and what they end up doing as well.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (26:11)
Yeah. So I mean, when this, like a lot of issues, this gets back to the F word, filibuster, because Manchin Toomey, when he pushed that, when they both pushed that, one is a Republican senator from my state, the other a Democratic senator from neighboring West Virginia, when they pushed that, I think they got 57 votes, but because of the filibuster, the 57 lost and the low 40s carried the day. I think we passed out of the House universal background checks and some other measures. In the Senate, that would have majority support. Every Democrat and I think anywhere from five to seven Republican senator supporting it, depending on the specific measure. But again, that's one of a whole host of issues that the question is, "Okay, what are you really going to do about the filibuster?" And if you keep the filibuster exactly as it is, it's hard for me, unfortunately, to see a meaningful change in our gun laws happen between now and the end of this session of Congress.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:18)
All right, we're going to whip through, infrastructure bill. You like it, you don't like it?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (27:25)
Love it, love it. This is something that I had been pushing for a long time. Coming from an older state, we would benefit from it more than most places, and pretty much if you're anywhere in the Northeast, that's the case. And I actually, something I was totally wrong about, I did an interview on CNN, maybe a few days after the presidential election in 2016. And yeah, I was very vocally anti-Trump. And so the interviewer said, "Well, look, you're a Democratic congressman. Sounds like you won't agree with Trump on anything. Can you name one thing then that you could see agreeing with him on and voting for?" I immediately said infrastructure. And the part that I was wrong is my prediction was given the kind of campaign he had run in 2016 because economically, he was the first Republican since before Reagan who took some very uncharacteristic positions.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (28:19)
And frankly, I think that was one of the reasons why he won in 2016, whether he was talking about on entitlements, the way he was talking about infrastructure. I mean, if you remember, you're part of the campaign, Trump brilliantly in 2016 would campaign in Pennsylvania, ripping Hillary for not being pro spending on infrastructure enough. It was a completely uncharacteristic critique from a Republican candidate. So my prediction was that he would lead off with infrastructure. I said then there were a number of Democrats who work well with organized labor who come from areas that really want those jobs. There are a number of us who despite the fact we might oppose Trump on X, Y, and Z, we would work with him and vote for it. And why in the end he didn't do that, I think was one of his worst political mistakes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:16)
Well, I mean, one of the reasons is Paul Ryan and Reince Preibus and those guys convinced him otherwise, but his instincts were to go in that direction. Are you vaccinated?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (29:28)
I am. Yeah, I was fortunate to be among the first. I actually got my second, I have the Pfizer shot. I got my second shot about 24 hours after the Capitol insurrection. I would not recommend doing that when you haven't had sleep for the previous 48 hours. But that said, I thank God I'm vaccinated. My wife is, and we both have a seven-year-old who of course is not vaccinated. So we're two of the parents who are just really candidly, very nervous about the start of school.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:04)
You say, lots of misinformation out there about the vaccine. I know perhaps you may not be able to opine about this, and if you can, I'm just looking for an opinion, the FDA, should the FDA approved the vaccine? Do you think there should be vaccine mandates in the country?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (30:26)
Yeah, I do, flat out. Vaccine mandates aren't anything new. Certainly, when we went to school and the college, we had a whole host of vaccinations.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:38)
Your seven year old has a vaccination record, and he needs that vaccination record to cross into the school he's about to enter in September.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (30:46)
Yeah, but this is, you talked way back in the beginning, you talked about Facebook. This is a way in which I grew up in the '80s and frankly, there wasn't much difference in the way I consumed media as a kid in the '80s and say, folks growing up in the '50s and '60s did, right? You had the three big networks, forget FOX News.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:08)
I was because I grew up in the '60s. Okay. Don't pick on us, Brendan.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (31:13)
Oh, you're a good bit older than I was. So you're a little bit like me. People think you're a lot younger, I take it than maybe the chronological, [inaudible 00:31:22].

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:21)
If I've got to go full Joan Rivers on you before this interview is over, I will. I want to make sure you know that.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (31:30)
But what I was going to say is that the reason why I bring this up is because this is a great way in which the change in the way we consume media is really influencing this tragic debate about vaccinations and all these kind of crazy conspiracies. Because if you grew up in '50, '60 '70s, '80s, there were three big networks. Basically all of us, whether Democrat or Republican consumed our media the same way, three big networks, a couple of newspapers in your town, same radio stations, but beginning with cable news in the '90s, and then the internet in the latter part of the '90s once it went widespread, that enabled, and then social media in around 2005 with Facebook, now we're in this very different environment in which we have self-selected news. And so, I have a close friend who's able to go on Facebook and is reading articles with all sorts of nonsense about what's in the vaccine. Previous era, that sort of misinformation would not have been able to be spread in the same way. And that's very dangerous.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:49)
Yeah. A couple of my close friends, Jonathan Greenblatt for the Jewish Defense League and Kevin O'Leary debated whether or not the Taliban should be allowed on Twitter. What are your thoughts about that?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (33:04)
It's interesting. Well first, I haven't specifically thought of that aspect, but my view, and this kind of is similar to some others. If you're using a social media platform to inspire violence or cause violence, you don't have some inherent right to use that platform.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:29)
Okay, you and I are probably closer, and I'm not with you, to be candid on the wealth tax only because that money, I think is somewhat misunderstood in the society. It's in the society working to create jobs. I understand that people think there's an unfairness. We have to rectify the unfairness and there's ways to do it. I'm just not exactly sure how to do it, but you and me are in total agreement on this. I mean, we didn't have World War II Nazi propaganda videos being shown in our movie theaters. Do they have a right to have those things shown?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (34:05)
Yeah, I think people are fundamentally, in the U.S. are fundamentally misunderstanding what the First Amendment means and what civil liberties mean. And if we were having this conversation 20 years ago, I was probably then a lot more optimistic about the internet and well, God, social media didn't even exist yet. We didn't have that term, but basically everything that the internet could do and unlock. A couple of decades later, when I see the effect that's had on our society, the impact that's had on our democracy, I'm a lot less positive today than I was a couple decades ago on that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:50)
Okay, we're going to let you go in a second here, but I want to talk about the bipartisan legislation, which is known as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. It's a five-year, $250 billion plan to help America compete with China on high-tech infrastructure. I think it's one of the more fabulous bills that I've seen in the last five years. And so did you vote yes on that bill? I'm assuming you did.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (35:15)
I'm a strong supporter of that, and I'll say this positively. I do think that one of the rare areas of bipartisan consensus is all of us recognizing frankly just how evil the Chinese regime is. It is not like the rest of us, and that's not a reflection on the people, frankly. They suffer from it more than anyone else, but we really need to wake up. I mean, the idea there now, there had been a school of thought maybe 20, 30 years ago that well, once China opens up economically, once they enact market reforms, democracy will naturally follow. That has flat out not happened. In fact, in some ways it's been the opposite. You have U.S. stars, NBA stars, movie stars that are now feeling muzzled by the Chinese government and the sort of economic power that they have. So I'm glad to see both parties getting tougher on China, getting tougher when it comes to competing against them economically, recognizing that they are not our friend. And so this is one of a number of initiatives that are within that vein.

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:31)
So the democracy is my final couple of series of questions. You worried about our democracy, sir?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (36:40)
Yeah. By nature, I'm an optimist. So my gut instinct is to say no, and it is to preach positively and evangelize about America, but I got to be honest, I am. And I mean, part of it is because of what I referenced earlier about the self-selected way in which all of us are consuming our news, and not even on the same basic fact sheet. Something like January 6th, I never imagined I would ever see something like that in the United States of America. So I don't know how anyone could go through the last several years, and especially January 6th and be more optimistic about the state of our democracy. I still have faith that we will get through it. We've gotten through previous eras before that looked very bad. So I'll still maintain that faith, but it is not without worry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:46)
My friend, I wish you the best. I know you're born on Ronald Reagan's birthday. He started out as a Democrat, if you'll recall. He ended up as a Republican. You seem like you're somewhere in the middle, so it's fascinating and it's a lot of fun to talk to you. I hope we get a chance to meet in person. Maybe we'll get you at one of our events someday when the Congress isn't in session, or maybe I can get down to Philly and have a surprise beer with you.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (38:13)
Yeah. I would love that. And whether it's the in-person SALT Talks or an Eagles-Giants game, one way or the other, I look forward to getting together with you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:23)
I just got to, I'm a lifelong Jets fan.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (38:26)
That's a lot better, okay. All right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:28)
I'm in permanent pain. You have a Philly native by the name of HR McMaster, General McMaster and I are close personal friends. We were arguing out with Governor Christie the other night at dinner, basically Christie's a Dallas Cowboy fan from New Jersey. What the hell is that?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (38:44)
It's incredible. I saw Christie on Amtrak once. I was commuting to DC, introduced myself to him. And I said, "You might think the reason why I so strongly oppose you is because I'm a Democrat. It's because I'm an Eagles fan. How the hell are you a Cowboys fan? And especially coming from New Jersey."

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:03)
Yeah. I mean, it's one thing. Yeah it's one thing, if you're like a Giants fan, you can respect it as a Philadelphian. I understand that, but look, I'm a Met, Jet fan. So once in a while in that Catholic church say a prayer for your friend, Anthony. It's been a brutal 50 years. Let's just put it that way.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (39:21)
You know, as a Philly sports fan, I can feel your pain.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:24)
You be well. I really enjoyed our conversation. I appreciate you joining SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (39:31)
Thank you, everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Congressman Brendan F. Boyle, representing the city of Philadelphia in the United States Congress. 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 SALTtube. On our website, we also have full transcriptions and links to our podcast version of these videos as well. Please spread the word about these SALT Talks. We love educating people on a lot of the issues that Congressman Boyle spoke about today. We think he's a great representative for our country in Congress. So please tell your friends about these SALT Talks and follow us on social media. Twitter is where we're most active @SALTconference on Twitter, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook, 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 again soon.

Andrew Steel: ESG Investment Principles | SALT Talks #250

“You need to understand that the expectations of investors in the future will be that you have ESG information available and it won’t be acceptable to say, ‘We don’t really know what our carbon footprint is.’”

Andrew Steel discusses the growth of ESG investing and how Fitch Ratings provides analysis and credit ratings based on ESG metrics. He lays out some of the challenges faced by a lack of standardization around data companies and investors use to inform decision-making. Ultimately, Steel predicts investing will evolve to the point where companies and institutions will integrate ESG information and evaluation into every decision.

Andrew is responsible for developing and implementing Fitch's sustainable finance strategy, across ratings and the broader Fitch group. His group is based in London, New York, and Hong Kong. In 2019 Fitch Ratings rolled out an integrated cross-asset scoring system for credit ratings to display how environmental, social and governance factors impact individual credit rating decisions. Prior to his current role Andrew held several senior management positions for Fitch in EMEA and Asia. Andrew joined Fitch 17 years ago with a background in project finance, private equity, LBO’s and M&A from investment banking and equity investments. Andrew is currently an advisory committee member of the UN PRI credit ratings initiative, and during the early 2000’s was an independent expert for the UN ECE advising on risk issues and sustainable energy development.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Andrew Steel.jpeg

Andrew Steel

Global Head of Sustainable Finance

Fitch Ratings

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:00 - Growth of ESG

4:56 - How to produce ESG insights

9:50 - Evaluating credit risks and working with regulators

13:42 - Data analysis challenges

16:23 - Modern ESG practices

18:17 - Concerns around greenwashing social-washing

20:21 - ESG prevalence

22:35 - Governance in ESG

28:35 - Evaluating climate risks

32:49 - ESG integration and need for labeling

35:35 - Evaluating EV proliferation

40:21 - Needed pace of ESG growth

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:12)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of 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 at 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. In the investment world today, there's no bigger idea shaping the future we think than ESG sustainability and there's no greater expert on that than Fitch. So we're excited to welcome Andrew Steel from Fitch to SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (01:02)
Andrew is responsible for developing and implementing Fitch's sustainable finance strategy across ratings and the broader Fitch group. His group is based in London, which he's outside of London today, New York and in Hong Kong. In 2019, Fitch Ratings rolled out an integrated cross asset scoring system for credit ratings to display how environmental, social and governance factors impact individual credit rating decisions. Prior to his current role, Andrew held several senior management positions for Fitch in EMEA and Asia. Andrew joined Fitch 17 years ago with a background in project finance, private equity, LBOs and M&A from investment banking and equity investments. Andrew is currently on the advisory committee for the UNPRI Credit Ratings Initiative. And during the early 2000s, he was an independent expert for the UN ECE advising on risk issues and sustainable energy development. Andrew graduated from Bristol University with a degree in psychology and as a postgraduate diploma from INSEAD in global management. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who's the 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: (02:19)
Andrew, once in a while, John Darsie allows me to do these interviews. So I want to be grateful to you John. I just want to personally thank you. So let's get right into it Andrew and in 2015, you said since 2015 investors have been calling on credit agencies and credit rating companies to get involved in the ESG story and to help investors, institutional investors figure out which companies are adapting sort of ESG practices. Where are we now, sir?

Andrew Steel: (02:57)
Thanks Anthony and thanks John for intro. Yeah, that is something which very much came to the fore in 2015, but I think there's background to it. It's important to remember that ES&G risk issues are not new. They've always been around. And in fact, we have seen investors doing ethical investing for hundreds of years already so the fact that this became far more prominent from 2015 onwards was largely around I think most of the issues that have risen to the fore in terms of climate change. I think there was also a desire amongst financial institutions to try and do some image rebuilding post the global financial crisis and to try and sort of demonstrate that not only were they doing well, but they could also do good at the same time. And so from that sort of 2015 point onwards where we had the social development goals, sort of the standard development goals from the UN being launched and increasing news content around climate change, we saw a real focus on environmental issues.

Andrew Steel: (04:05)
I think the pandemic since then has also caused there to be a heightened interest in social issues. And we'll perhaps come on to talk about that. And it's been a lot of asset owners, I think in general stakeholders in across many industries, in fact, that have been keen to be able to demonstrate how they are also helping to solve some of these issues. And that's really moved from a sort of exclusion policy for investors through now to something which is far more integrated and much more part of the normal process of investment or a fund.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:40)
Take us through the steps, Andrew, meaning your firm, you have analysts, you have research, you have outreach. Take us through the steps of Fitch in terms of how you synthesize product.

Andrew Steel: (04:56)
Oh and this is quite a journey that we've been on since sort of the early 2018 period particularly as regards ESG. And I think our initial focus with this ask from investors to provide more granularity and transparency around the influence of ESG was very much, we started off by looking at our bread and butter, which is providing independent insight and opinion around credit and credit profiles of entities. And so what we did was we actually started looking at this maybe slightly differently to how others had looked at it in the market to that point. And we said, okay, if we are saying that as an agency, this stuff isn't new and that it's always been there, then how can we extract it and how can we display the ES&G risks as a separate category of risks? And so what we did was we spent a lot of time working with our credit analysts to help adjust the focus of that credit lens that they view everything through.

Andrew Steel: (06:02)
And so we spent time identifying the credit aspects that were relevant for environmental, social and governance factors across each different industry sector and asset class. And it was clear as we did that that this was something that really needed integration into the analysis that we did. So it was a seamless process. So the external parties could see how much of the credit decision we were making was being influenced by this particular sub category of risks. And as we did that, it was clearly very credit focused. It was focused on the credit rating horizons and forecasts that we look at, but it also became apparent to us that you kind of needed to go beyond that. So we needed to look at producing more research around some of the themes and the issues of how they would develop.

Andrew Steel: (06:47)
And so we refocused some of our research team. We created a dedicated research team and we also started doing scenario analysis, particularly when it came to environmental risks because a lot of the crystallization of the cost aspects of environmental risks are over a much longer term. And with that in mind, we've also been working in the background in the last year or so doing a lot of product development and looking at how we can maybe expand also into pure ESG analysis as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:19)
Is it working Andrew? People are picking it up, adopting it? They're using it as a portfolio mechanism and it's influencing the management teams of these companies?

Andrew Steel: (07:33)
I think the short answer to that is yes. And it's not just what we're doing, it's what others are doing in the market as well. I mean, it is interesting when you look at the market as a whole, you see a lot of people who've developed niche solutions to particular individual problems that investors have come across or the market's been been interested in. But I think the unique thing about what we did was we looked at how we perform financial analysis and it's larger... It's a mix of quantitative and qualitative. We then looked at ESG as a subcategory and said does that neatly map to an individual aspect of quantitative analysis for a particular issue or a particular sector? And as we went through the process of trying to extract these ES&G risks from our credit criteria to display them separately, what we discovered is actually as a risk category, it's not very well aligned with an individual area of qualitative analysis or individual area of quantitative analysis.

Andrew Steel: (08:33)
What you find is that individual aspects of environmental, social, governance risks tend to end up spanning several different areas of quantitative and qualitative analysis and influencing those if they materialize and crystallize. And so what we try to do is, and I think we've been pretty successful in doing, and that's why it's started to be quite popular is to be very transparent and granular about how that happens. So it's not a sort of sector based approach, but it's a very specific entity and transaction based approach. Now that is highly technical. And it is also just a portion of the overall equation for an ESG investor. It's the very specific credit portion.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:18)
It make sense. I guess what I'm very impressed by is the combination of different forces, but how big a role Fitch is playing in actually moving the boulder down the hill. You do have situations where your credit centric scale will sometimes weigh heavily polluting fossil fuel producers, similarly to somebody that's in the renewable business. Is that something you can discuss and why that happens?

Andrew Steel: (09:50)
Yeah, sure. I mean, it is very much the case and that is because we are purely, with our credit ratings and the ESG relevant scores that we produce as an integral part of that, we are purely looking at the credit risk aspects. And so we're not looking at the good or the bad. We're only looking at carbon emissions increasing if there's a credit consequence to that. And a good example that we like to use there is just because you are, say an electricity generation company that only produces electricity from wind turbines, just because you're a neutral energy entity doesn't mean that your credit profile is stronger. If you are a renewable energy entity and the wind turbine electricity that you produce is sold under a feed in tariff and it gets priority of dispatch, then yes, your credit profile is going to be much better.

Andrew Steel: (10:47)
If you actually having to sell into a merchant market and you're a price taker with no priority of dispatch, then actually you're going to have a really poor credit profile. And there was a lot of confusion in the market up until we started to produce this stuff around about the beginning of 2019 where people were saying, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. But because it's a renewable business, it should have a really strong credit rating. And the answer is credit is not the same as ESG. There is a credit component to ESG and isolating that is extremely important. And it's part of the overall analysis toolkit that's required for investors to be able to do their job properly in this space.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:28)
And how do you guys intersect with the regulators from the various global community of regulators?

Andrew Steel: (11:37)
Yeah, that's a very good and a very interesting question. There is a lot of increased interest from regulators in ESG. The interesting thing about ESG relevant schools that we've produced is they are produced by our regulated business. And so they are fully under the [inaudible 00:11:53] of regulators such as AZMA and the SEC. It's just an integral part of the credit ratings process. That means, in terms of our doing that, it was tough. It was granular. We had to meet very stringent standards. When you look beyond that pure credit aspect, which I was talking about earlier, and you start to look at the bigger picture, pure ESG analysis. So you start to look at that good or bad contribution to social goals and the longer term, you look at preparedness for decarbonization in an industry, then actually there's a lot more subjectivity in that.

Andrew Steel: (12:34)
There's a lot of issues that I think we'll come to talk about around standardization of data, what metrics you should be looking at. And in that respect, it's very much an evolving market. And so from a regulatory perspective, when the regulators are looking at what's going on in ESG at the moment, I think they're starting to become more and more interested because they see more and more influence particularly where you have things like sustainability linked bonds with coupons that are linked to ESG ratings from ESG service providers. And that really, I think, was the trigger point some sort of 18 months or so ago for increased regulatory interest. As the regulators start to look at this and they say, well, hang on a second, we've got pricing triggers occurring in the market from opinion providers who are completely unregulated. And that to my mind is what will mainly drive regulation fairly quickly into this market. Particularly as we've seen sustainability linked claims, increasing a lot in activity recently.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:33)
Andrew you're also in the data business. Data is super important to make this analysis. Tell us what some of the challenges are there.

Andrew Steel: (13:42)
Well, the challenges have to be a huge, and I'm sure you're aware of that. Most of the most of the listeners are going to be aware of that as well. They're all very big challenges, but then on the positive side, there are a lot of initiatives going on to try and tackle these challenges. And the biggest challenges really are standardization and harmonization of information. I mean, particularly for us as an agency that's largely focused on financial analysis to date, we're used to seeing fairly clear and understandable standards. IFRS, et cetera, where there is a way to report information. There are clear metrics surrounding the reporting of that information. It's easy for financial auditors to conduct an audit on the information that a company provides and be very clear about how compliant that company is or isn't. When it comes to ESG, that sort of stuff is still very much in the early days.

Andrew Steel: (14:43)
And that's very, very problematic actually for most of the companies in the industry sectors that we look at and the investors want to invest in, because what it means is if you're a company and you're being asked for ESG data, if there are no clear standards, there's no harmonization, then it's very difficult for you to know what data you should be gathering internally, how you should be producing metrics to demonstrate your compliance with targets around that data and therefore what can be audited and what you can provide to the market in terms of standardized information. And so that sort of pushing and pulling that's going on between should we set the standards first or let the market decide what the standards are? That's causing huge, huge problems. There is a lot of momentum behind trying to resolve that. And we're seeing people like IFR are starting to get interested in it. And I think that's helping. As well as we're seeing quite substantial initiatives between different countries and regions. So there's a very big initiative at the moment between the EU, the UK and China on standards harmonization. Also the US is starting to sort of pick up the ball on this and the sort of increasing interest at the federal level in the US is definitely going to help push all of this forward, I think.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:05)
What would you say to a company that is behind the curve as it relates to their carbon footprint or their longterm strategy to get into the acceptability standards of ESG? What type of advice would you give them, Andrew?

Andrew Steel: (16:24)
Well, that's a good question to Anthony and it's one where I have to say we are not allowed to provide advice as a regulated rating agency so I can't provide advice. I can comment on what perhaps are some of the issues for companies. I think there is mounting evidence the over time, no matter what you do, no matter what asset class you're looking at, no matter what sector you are in, there is evidence that reporting on your ESG credentials will just become an integral part of what you need to do to be eligible for investors. And to the extent you don't do that, there'll be liquidity issues going forwards. Now that'll happen over time. And I think what we'll see is that governance tends to be reasonably well reported on.

Andrew Steel: (17:23)
Environmental standards or are appearing for that much more quickly. Social is going to be very difficult. But if you're an entity, then you need to understand that the expectation of investors in the future will be that you have this information available and that it won't be acceptable to say, well, actually we don't really know what our carbon footprint is. And so, in a sense, you don't need it immediately now, but if you're not starting to look at how you gather that information, if you're not keeping up with your competitors in the space, then you will disadvantage yourself over time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:01)
Let me ask a different question. Is it possible for people to game the system or is the system so transparent now from an ESG perspective that they can't do that?

Andrew Steel: (18:16)
No, they can definitely game the system. I mean, this is an evolving market and I think we were chatting just before we started this session about green washing, we're also seeing some social washing as well where people are sort of claiming social benefits from activities which are really much more geared to sort of build client basis and a clearly commercial rather than social in nature. But again, the sort of change in mindset for people of the need to report on this and the need to think about it is an important step forward even if we do see some green washing and some social washing along the way. I mean, for some big financial institutions, for instance, it's very easy for them to reclassify parcels of assets into being either environmentally friendly or socially friendly, but they weren't created in the first place for that purpose.

Andrew Steel: (19:15)
They were created because they were commercially viable. But the interesting thing is once you start to label and you start to define your portfolios like that, when it comes up for refinancing or renewal, then actually you do have to think about it. You can't substitute it with whatever assets are going to be the most commercially viable at the time. You will have moved your mindset into one that says, well, actually hang on this as a green activity that we do, or this is a social activity that we do. So whilst a lot of people get excited about it, I actually think it's going to happen. And actually there are positives to it as well because it does help change mindsets amongst management.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:56)
Got it. I'm going to get John Darsie in here in a second. And just remember before we started Andrew, John said that us as baby boomers destroyed the planet. I just want to make sure you know that it's you and me against him. But before we [crosstalk 00:20:09]

John Darsie: (20:08)
I will confirm those comments.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:10)
Where is ESG really taking hold and in finance? Is it just in Wall Street or is it very widespread?

Andrew Steel: (20:20)
It's very widespread. It certainly isn't. I think Wall Street tends to react to the challenges that are posed to it. It's good at innovation. It's good at coming up with products to meet needs, but the real push from this has come from a mix, I mean, it depends where you are on the world, but it's coming from a mixture of public opinion, some science around climate change and it's very much been driven by asset owners wanting to start to see what is actually happening with the funds that they're providing for asset managers to invest. And so you've got asset managers, owners and the stakeholders starting to say, well, yeah, I do want a return on my investment, but I want to ensure that I'm not doing harm. So maybe it may be Anthony, you and I can sort of come back at John and say, well, we're helping to drive the change in how funds are applied because we're the ones who are sitting on the cash. It may be people like John and his generation who need to come up with the clever, innovative ideas but.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:31)
Yeah. You better be careful. We're sitting on the cash. Okay? So you better be careful and respectfully ask these questions Mr. Darsie. Go ahead Mr. Darsie.

John Darsie: (21:41)
All right. Well, I'll do my best despite all the damage you guys have done to the world. I'll leave Andrew out of it because I think he seems like a responsible guy but Anthony with his Lamborghini and his Bentley [crosstalk 00:21:55]

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:55)
Oh my god, here we go. Okay. This guy's living on like a seven acre estate. He has a carbon footprint the size of Belgium. Okay. John Darsie. Okay. So what are you talking about? Go ahead. Go ahead Darsie.

John Darsie: (22:08)
So the E, the S and the G, they're grouped together, but they're very different in a lot of ways and when you look at it from a credit perspective, my understanding is that governance is probably the dominant factor when it comes to credit quality. How important is the G and how are the E and the S becoming more important in analysis and the way people are running their portfolios?

Andrew Steel: (22:35)
So, I mean, I think governance has always been recognized and analyzed in a lot of detail and it's not likely to decrease in importance. The way in which companies are run, the way in which operational practices are implemented, it's always going to be important, it's always going to be integral to the performance of any entity. Now, trying to balance that with achieving environmental social goals is perhaps a lot harder to do. And you were talking earlier about the sort of green washing and the social washing and ultimately it's easy to say what you're going to do when it comes to environmental and social aspects, but actually the hard implementation of that and the measurement of the impact of that is much more difficult to achieve. And if we're being candid about it, we've had a huge amount of statements from both entities and governments around the world about achieving net zero but very little detail about exactly how they're going to do that.

Andrew Steel: (23:44)
And one of reasons why ESG relevant scores, which remember that pure credit component, one of the reasons why those show governance as the most dominant factor impacting credit profiles is because in a lot of sectors and a lot of jurisdictions around the world, environmental issues just don't bite in terms of credit profiles. You're seeing. A good example would be electric utilities in Europe. You do see it biting and you see it biting because of carbon pricing and de-carbonization requirements, requirements to shut down coal fire plants. And that has a clear and obvious impact on credit profiles. Even if you compare Europe with the US, you see much lower impact in the US. You compare the US with Asia, you see even lower impact in a lot of Asian economies. And so a lot of this gets driven by a very complex equation. It gets driven by clarity around the path to net zero or decarbonization targets. If you're an entity in a sector, which is going to decarbonize at some point between now and 2050, if you make your product twice as expensive as the next person 10 years before you're required to do that under whatever pathway the government has determined, there is a strong chance that you'll actually damage your business by doing that.

Andrew Steel: (25:12)
And so it's a very difficult and complex equation and at the moment, I think a lot of politicians have got the issue and I think, I can kind of wax lyrical about this for a long time, but I think the biggest issue is we over-consume. Around the globe, everybody over-consumes. And ultimately the only way that all of this works is that everybody gives up a lot of the things that they take for granted or that they see as luxuries. Things like bread, meat should become much less affordable. Travel will become very elite. And if you think about that from a politician's perspective, if I make the decision to say, well, actually only the very wealthiest people can take a foreign holiday because air fares are gonna increase exponentially, I'm likely to get voted out by the populace.

Andrew Steel: (26:01)
So there's this very difficult balance going on. And there was a lot of rhetoric initially around saying you can have your cake and eat it too. But I think John, probably your generation are maybe starting to recognize a little bit more that that isn't the case. And certainly I see my daughters buying secondhand clothes rather because they'd rather do that to be environmentally friendly than buy newer, cheaper off the shelf stuff from department stores. So it's kind of interesting-

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:34)
Trust me Andrew, John is buying secondhand clothes. Okay. Trust me on that. Okay. Just want to make sure you know. Go ahead Darsie.

Andrew Steel: (26:40)
I didn't like to come in, but.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:43)
It's obvious. It's obvious.

John Darsie: (26:45)
Well, I mean, as it relates to food, it's certainly a trend that we are invested in ourselves on the asset management side of our business is there's GMO, the idea of genetically modified food is sort of a dirty word, but you have all these companies now that are using programmable biology basically to create different synthetic foods that imitate and meats that provide certain nutrients that you'd get naturally from food and proteins in particular. And there's a lot of companies doing really exciting things in the space that I think are getting increasing attention from ESG minded sovereign wealth funds and other asset owners who are looking for alternatives to... You can only farm so much land on the planet to produce the type of red meat that we need to feed a more affluent population. So it's certainly a fascinating time.

Andrew Steel: (27:32)
And arguably government should be directing more funds towards that type of innovation than towards trying to sustain unsustainable practices. But of course there's huge amount of lobbying and there's a lot of money involved and you see that everywhere around the world. It's not unique to any one particular country. I don't think so.

John Darsie: (27:54)
Yep. It's one way that capitalism, obviously we think is the best system. It's the worst system except for all the rest. But it's the best system, but it also has its flaws as it relates to special interests and the way capital flows. When you talk about longer term climate risks, how do those factor into credit ratings? Is it a factor related to regulation as you were talking about in Europe and other places where there's more restrictions being put on energy producers and things like that? Is greater weight placed on near-term risks or how do you think about sort of the different spectrum of short-term to long-term climate risks and how it affects credit ratings?

Andrew Steel: (28:33)
Sure. I mean, it's a good question and it very much relates as well to unfold back into one that was mentioned earlier about regulation and regulation not only around ESG factors, but regulation of ourselves on our credit ratings business side. I guess the regulated activities on the credit rating side that we perform, they're all subject to back testing, default testing in order to be consistent and accurate over time. And therefore they tend to be based on shorter term forecasts. So typically a credit rating forecast is that sort of three to five years for a corporate and the analysts look at that and they'll track and monitor on a rolling basis. So it'll get reviewed at least annually. And so it's a relatively short horizon in terms of a financial forecast when you're thinking about something like climate change. And again, that's one of the reasons why within the credit ratings, you don't see a huge impact, but accurately predicting the impact of these longer term effects without knowing what the policies are going to be and the timeframe for policy implementation is almost impossible.

Andrew Steel: (29:44)
So what we... But it's a great question and it's one that we had a lot of investors asking us after we produced this credit portion. They said, well, that's fine. That tells us what's within your credit ratings and it is forward-looking, that's nice, but ultimately, should I be still investing in coal bonds in China in five years time or does China look like Europe in five years time? And so what we started to do is we started to do some scenario based analysis because we said, look, in the short term, there are too many different uncertainties to be able to predict what the impact will be now of something that's going to occur in 20 years time. But we can look at the pathways that take us there and we can look at what we think will be the influences based on what we've seen previously and what we understand will be the situation going forward.

Andrew Steel: (30:38)
And so we picked the UNPRI's inevitable policy response scenario. That maybe won't surprise you because if you remember what I was talking about before is that policy action and timeframe from governments very much determines how costs crystallize in different industry sectors when you're actually forced to do something so that you don't get fined or penalized or your product becomes redundant or you don't meet the standards anymore required to sell into a market. And that scenario that we worked on with you, NPR and pivot economics is very much looking at how that occurs in different countries all the way around the world through to 2050. So we took that and we've started developing what we call vulnerability schools, which is looking at five-year time periods from 2025 through to 2050. And for those, marking how the risk exposure to environmental regulation changes over that time and under different sectors.

Andrew Steel: (31:36)
And what you see immediately is you see, for instance, that in places like China and India, where there's heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation, you see that the credit risk profile of entities in those jurisdictions doesn't reach the same level as we currently see in Europe until somewhere around 2035, 2037. And that's actually quite important if you're an investor. Here's what it tells you is that's a market that will transition, but isn't doing it now. It's an earlier stage. You can look at a market that's gone to a later stage and you can think about, okay, maybe I can get a better return from investing in coal and not just excluding it completely. And maybe what I can do is I can actually support the transition because I can [inaudible 00:32:21] terms and conditions around my investment that ensure that that transition part is met or it's locked to certain aspects of it are locked in. And so there's kind of a double opportunity to do good and do well from that.

John Darsie: (32:34)
Right. Could you see a future and how far away is that future we're potentially all bonds or green or sustainable bonds? And is there still going to be a place in the world in 10, 20 years for non green bonds?

Andrew Steel: (32:49)
Yeah. It's an interesting question which are kind of turn around because I think ultimately, you won't need to label things green or sustainable because investors will want to know about those aspects of the risk for everything. And so I kind of view it that we at the moment, we've got a big sort of momentum behind green bonds, blue bonds, social bonds, sustainability linked bonds. And I think that's starting to drive the early stages, but as the integration of ESG analysis becomes more embedded in investment processes, the need to do that will decline, but the requirement to have the information to demonstrate that will increase. And so you may see some green and social bonds in the future, but there'll be very, very specifically targeted instruments and for the majority of the other instruments, what you'll see is not a pricing benefit for labeling yourself green or social, but what you'll see is a liquidity penalty if you're not able to demonstrate your credentials. So fewer and fewer investors over time will want to invest in something where they can't assess that subcategory of risks.

Andrew Steel: (34:05)
And so I kind of agree with your premise, but I think the way it will evolve will be different. I think we'll see a surge in labeling then a fall off in labeling, but the fall off won't be because people aren't interested in the labels, it will be because it's just part of the everyday investment work. So a conventional bond will be expected to have certain characteristics. In terms of timeframe, wow, if I can guess that, I'll be a very rich man. I suspect it's going to take longer than people anticipate. So I think you're looking at, on the integration side, that standardization and harmonization of data is very, very important. I think you're probably looking at at least eight to 10 years from now until we see that becoming much more of the norm.

John Darsie: (34:54)
Right? When you look at industry trends like electric vehicles, obviously Tesla is the poster child for that, but you see a proliferation of electric vehicle manufacturers in China and the US and Europe. Renewable energy, there's obviously a huge focus there. How much is ESG and ESG standards related to credit ratings and investments driving those trends? Is it more of a consumer trend? How do you look at why those trends are so explosive right now? And also how does ESG investment principles feed into sort of the commodity super cycle? Do they stimulate it? Do they deter that market? How do you look at that?

Andrew Steel: (35:34)
Sure. We definitely look at, and we've produced research on things like the cost of decarbonizing sectors such as, or manufacturing processes such as steel, cement, fertilizers. And we've looked at what that means for companies in those sectors and also companies in different countries. So for instance, when we look at something like steel, you see that the US has a much higher proportion of arc furnaces for steel already, which are largely electric based. And that actually puts them in a much better cost position for de-carbonization going forward because the cost of changing the manufacturing process is far less. And so we do a lot of work around that and we think about how that impacts commodity pricing. We work with an entity called CIU very closely. We have a partnership with them where we look at commodity impacts over time. So we do spend a lot of time thinking about that. Can you just remind me the first part of your question? Sorry.

John Darsie: (36:39)
Yeah. Just about how much ESG factors related to investment decisions is driving this proliferation of electric vehicle companies and renewable energy companies that are seeing just massive waves of investment. Again, Tesla [crosstalk 00:36:56]

Andrew Steel: (36:56)
I mean, it's interesting. I think a lot of that gets driven by politics and political statements and that undoubtedly results in what you're talking about, which is a rush to invest in this stuff. It's seen as being up coming. You kind of need to get on the bandwagon to be in there towards the beginning. A lot of people connect to some of the sort of tech bubble that occurred where some aspects of the tech bubble back in the late 1990s proved to be very lucrative and very good as investments, but an awful lot of them really didn't perform well over the long term, but everybody felt they needed to invest in it at the time. There is a danger we go that way. And I think your example of electric vehicles is a really good one, because there's a huge amount of momentum for changing vehicle fleets in countries to all electric, but the infrastructure is just not there to support it and it really won't be there for quite a long time. And you're talking about a massive infrastructure spend for people to be able to travel in a similar way to how they travel with combustion engines.

Andrew Steel: (38:11)
And if you start to think about the logistics of that, then actually, if you can solve the hydrogen production cost, then the infrastructure that exists already is very easily adaptable to compress hydrogen. And so you would think spending a lot more money on hydrogen fuel cell development where the only byproduct is water, where you can refuel quickly is likely to be a much bigger long-term benefit. But of course, if you're a politician, you can't show short-term gains. You can't say, oh, we've, we've banned electric vehicle or we've banned combustion engine vehicles by 2030. I mean, that's all very well, but if you've no charging infrastructure and in the UK where we've got tiny proportion of electric vehicles and we're already seeing a lot of people experiencing problems in not being able to charge their vehicles or failing to get to their destination, because the weather is cold than they expected and so the battery range is lower. So there's lots and lots of problems. And I think it's unfortunate. It is progress, but again, it's not a long-term strategically thought-out plan and that really is where we need to spend more time. Certainly we will be at COP26 this year in November in Glasgow in the UK and we'll very much be pushing for people to think more strategically and long-term about this stuff.

John Darsie: (39:39)
All right. Amen. The last question I want to ask you is sort of a meta question around ESG. There's a lot of people that are very enthusiastic about ESG. There's a lot of people that shake their head and say that it's just executives paying lip service because it's something they have to talk about now because of pressure from asset owners. How much are we really building towards something that's going to have an impact on the planet, that's going to have an impact on the social situation in various countries around the world? And to what extent do you think true ESG investment principles are going to dictate who gets money in 2021, 2022, 2023 and who doesn't get the money?

Andrew Steel: (40:21)
Yeah, I think there's already some evidence to show that it is affecting the flow of funds. The slightly unfortunate thing is there still a surplus liquidity globally, despite going through the financial crisis. And so if you look at, we saw a great example a couple of years ago where a lot of traditional bank lenders were pulling out of lending to coal projects in Australia. And I think they thought this is going to make a difference. Kind of help to force a transition. And all that happened was a range of Asian and mainly Chinese bank stepped in to do the lending instead. And so, it's going to be difficult. There are going to be problems and issues along the way.

Andrew Steel: (41:11)
Unfortunately, and I suspect this may be what you're angling towards with this John is that we seem to still be at an early stage of exerting any real sort of influence and to still be at an early stage after what is now several years of talk to bait, target setting, lots of grandstanding and still not seeing much in terms of carbon reduction overall or nothing like the pathways that were being talked about 5, 10 years ago, really isn't good news. And what it means is that problem is being stored up and the timeframe to solve it in is starting to shrink. And from a credit perspective, this is our biggest single concern over the long run is we think that the less action that's taken now, the more extreme action needs to be taken in a shorter timeframe. And companies generally, and institutions, are good at adapting to change that's flagged in advance because they can work out that position, they can work out the impact, they know when that's going to happen.

Andrew Steel: (42:22)
But as that timeframe shrinks and the action that needs to be taking grows in severity, it becomes much harder and you're going to get a lot more shocks that occur if that happens. And from a credit perspective, that's bad news because companies struggle to react to big changes in short timeframes. We've seen a little bit of that with things like sugar tax in position in Europe to do with carbonated soft drinks, for instance, after a public outcry obesity. But that sort of thing I think is just the beginning of it. So I would like to be able to say yes, it's making a huge impact to make a really big difference. I think it's started. It's helping to change mindsets, but the practical reality is there is some change, but nothing like what needs to be done to meet these agendas that have been put out there.

John Darsie: (43:12)
We have a friend named Ketan Patel. He works at a firm called Greater Pacific Capital in London. He's working with the UN on a project called capital as a force for good where they're studying the volume of investment that's going to need to go green and go into these sort of UN sustainable development goals to really achieve the outcomes that we need. And that's numbers in the tens of trillions at this point. So hopefully people like yourself who are educating people around the realities of ESG can be a part of that and we're hopeful. But Andrew, it's been a pleasure to have you on. We hope to see you sometime in person when we're able to get back over to London or when you're able to get over here back to see your team in New York. But thanks so much for joining us.

Andrew Steel: (43:57)
Thanks John. Thanks Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:00)
Super insightful stuff Andrew. Thank you again.

John Darsie: (44:04)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Andrew Steel of Fitch. Again, please spread the word about these types of SALT Talks. We think these are really important ambitious goals that we need to get the planet and to get the global society where we want it. But we think education around these topics will help us get there. So please spread the word. Now, 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 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 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.

The Future of Healthcare & Education | SALT Talks #249

“I really believe Abu Dhabi is going to give us a window into the future… Geographically, it’s so well situated.”

Welcome to the first episode of the Emerging From a Post-Pandemic World series, presented by ADGM. Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) is an international financial centre (IFC) located in the capital city of the United Arab Emirates. Established by UAE Federal Decree as a broad-based financial centre, ADGM augments Abu Dhabi’s position as a global hub for business and finance and serves as a strategic link between the growing economies of the Middle East, Africa and South Asia and the rest of the world.

Michael Moe and Jim Mellon discuss their companies’ efforts to improve education and health care, respectively. They describe the advancements in each industry and how they will transform society while solving some of the world’s biggest challenges. Moe sees education innovation as a huge economic driver, particularly in the Middle East where it will power the region’s knowledge economy. Mellon emphasizes the importance of first improving quality of life before extending lifespans and predicts the mass adoption of meat alternatives that will address persistent health issues and climate change.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Mellon, Jim - Cropped.jpeg

Jim Mellon

Chairman & Co-Founder

Juvenescence

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

7:55 - American education system

8:55 - Healthcare and education in the Middle East and beyond

11:29 - Longevity and anti-aging advancements

12:57 - AgTech and food chain transformation

20:43 - Education as an economic driver

24:45 - Economic incentives driving AgTech, BioTech and education

30:08 - Education as an equalizer

31:31 - Quality assurance in education

35:35 - Non-linear education timeline

37:00 - Juvenescence, metabolic switch and restructuring society around longer life

43:02 - Intermittent fasting and biological breakthroughs

45:42 - Making education and healthy living more engaging

52:00 - Democratizing and reimagining education and healthy living

56:27 - Abu Dhabi as a global center

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Anthony Scaramucci: (00:49)
Welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is Anthony Scaramucci, I am the founder of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm and chairman of SALT, a global thought leadership forum encompassing finance, technology, and politics. SALT Talks is a digital interview series with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. Just as we do with our global SALT events, we aim to empower big, important ideas and provide a window into the minds of subject-matter experts. We are excited today to bring you the first episode in a new series of SALT Talks with our friends at Abu Dhabi Global Markets regarding new paradigms in a post-pandemic world. Co-hosting today's talk with me is my dear friend, Mark Cutis, the chief executive officer of ADGM, which obviously stands for Abu Dhabi Global Markets. ADGM is an award-winning international financial center located on the beautiful Al Maryah Island in Abu Dhabi.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:53)
We hosted our inaugural SALT Abu Dhabi Conference at Emirates Palace in 2019 and are excited to bring that event back to the UAE in the coming months. On today's SALT Talk, we will be hosting a conversation about new healthcare and education. This is very applicable and important for the post-pandemic world. These are two of the most successful investors and entrepreneurs, Jim Mellon and Michael Moe. Jim, Jim Mellon is a British entrepreneur, investor and philanthropist with a wide range of interests. Through his private investment company Burnbrae Group he has a substantial holdings in real estate as well as private and public companies. Jim's investment philosophy is underpinned by a careful analysis of new industries, or major shifts in markets. Most recently has focused on investments and businesses in healthcare, biotechnology and Ag tech. His recent book Juvenescence mark the beginning of a rush of capital into the nascent field of aging research, and also led to the formation of the company Juvenescence with his partners.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:06)
Juvenescence is a leading biopharma company in the commercialization of therapies to slow stop and reverse aging. More recently, Jim authored the book Moo's Law, focused on investment opportunities in the new agrarian revolution and fields of cellular agriculture. Jim co founded agronomics to invest in a portfolio of leading companies in the sector and is its largest investor. Jim sits on the board of trustees of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, and of the American Federation for Aging Research AFAR. He's a trustee of Biogerontology research... Excuse me, let me say that again, he is a trustee of Biogerontology Research Foundation, and an Honorary Fellow of Oriel College at the University of Oxford, where he established the Mellon Center for Longevity. And Jim also sits on the advisory board of the Milken Institute's Center for the Future of Aging. And I might add, Jim, you're going to be a really good friend of mine because I expect to keep this hair and my face unwrinkled. So I'm really looking forward to spending more time with you Jim.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:24)
Michael Moe is the founder of GSV, a modern merchant bank that invests advises and partners with the fastest growing most dynamic companies in the world, the stars of tomorrow. He's currently serves as the CEO of GSV asset management. Regarded as a preeminent authority on growth investing Michael's honors include institutional investors, all American research team and the Wall Street Journal's best on the street award. Michael is the author of several best selling books. Michael has increasingly focused recently on his greatest passion education. He is a visionary in the field of Ed Tech. He has a passion that he is pursuing for the last three decades. Today he sits on the board of directors of Coursera, Curious, GSVlabs, Course Hero, Class Dojo, Parchment, Storm Wind, OZY Media. Michael and his business partners, Deborah Quazzo created the GSV ASU summit, the world's greatest Thought Leadership Forum in the field of Ed Tech.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:33)
And my friend Mark Cutis, I'm looking over you and telling you, sir, that you and I are the underachievers here, sir. I don't know what we're doing with our careers after reading those two amazing bios. But I turn it over to you, sir, to start the questioning. And thank you guys so much for joining us on SALT Talks today.

Michael Moe: (05:50)
Thanks Antony.

Jim Mellon: (05:50)
Thanks Antony.

Mark Cutis: (05:52)
Thank you, Anthony. It's quite a pleasure to be involved with this group of the four of us here. And I do want to say both of you are covering two key areas education, and health care, that I think in so many ways will define the new post pandemic age. But if I could just step back for a moment and say, you have amazing credentials, you've achieved a lot. But when I think of the four of us, Anthony Scaramucci, has had many experiences that will be difficult to replicate. And if we do have a moment at the end, I would love to ask him some questions of his career, particularly in the Trump administration. But in any event, I won't delve into that I'll just go straight.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:41)
Well, first of all, Cutis it was a very long career.

Mark Cutis: (06:44)
Exactly.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:44)
I just want to make sure everybody knows that, okay? And if you want to make me feel better, you can say it lasted 954,000 seconds. Keep going Mark.

Mark Cutis: (06:54)
Okay, but let me just put in my two cents here. You're the only person that I know, that has emerged from that administration, which hasn't really been battered. So I think at another time, we'll talk about your longevity, and your ability to essentially come out of this unscathed.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:12)
[crosstalk 00:07:12].

Mark Cutis: (07:12)
So I want to turn for a moment to Michael, on education. And the issue with education, particularly for the Middle East is seminal. Now, before we talk about the Middle East, I want to ask you about the states. America has the best and the worst, kind of like Charles Dickens, with the best of times the worst of times. We have the best schools. And we also have massively underperforming schools particularly in our high school systems that have left behind a large swath of America. And I know that's been something that you have had close to your heart. Can you tell us a little bit about America, what we need to do in the States? And then we'll turn to your big project in the Middle East?

Michael Moe: (07:54)
Yeah, well, fundamentally, one of the biggest problems in America and this also is a problem many places in the world, is that your future is determined by how well you select your parents. And that fundamentally, is just unfair. And so we believe, I believe strongly that talent is pretty equally distributed around the world, but opportunity is not. And so how do you change that equation? How do you give everybody an equal opportunity to participate in the future? And the foundation of that is access to quality education.

Mark Cutis: (08:28)
Great. So when we talk about the region, because I think this is going to be one area yours in healthcare, that will be defining for the modern age for this area and for the world. What sort of initiatives if you can just touch upon those are you thinking about and what are you trying to do? Before we talk about why you're in Abu Dhabi?

Michael Moe: (08:52)
Sure. To back up even GSV stands for Global Silicon Valley, which is basically what we felt was a trend 10 years ago was the mindset of innovation, entrepreneurship that's made Silicon Valley such a remarkable place was spreading throughout the world. And we wanted to connect Silicon Valley with the emerging Global Silicon Valley. As it relates to specifically the Middle East, and I'm going to broaden that scope. The Middle East is a fascinating place in terms of the oil powered the manufacturing economy, where education is going to power the knowledge economy, and this region gets that. And so how do you transform a society? It's getting access to quality education. And so both the acknowledgement, and the mindset that education needs to be at the top of list of priorities is very, very clear. And so we feel that support in every kind of level of conversations that we've had and that's why we are so excited about putting a flag in Abu Dhabi.

Mark Cutis: (09:56)
So one more last question before I turn to Jim. And it's kind of a banal suggestion, but there isn't a one size fits all for education. But are there common characteristics that you think would apply to the US, the Middle East and Europe for that matter?

Michael Moe: (10:14)
Well, I think there's a key philosophy. So if you think about, one idea is that the word elite means scarcity in most parts of the world, where elite really means to mean excellence, as well as cost and quality are directly associated. So what we need to be able to do is make high quality education as at lower cost as humanly possible, if not free. So we're invested in Coursera, they have over 80 million students on their platform, 97% of them don't pay a dime. And so there's many, many, many lessons to learn from different parts of the world in different areas of where there's both opportunity and excellence. But I would say it starts with a mindset.

Mark Cutis: (10:58)
That's great. That's excellent, thank you for that. I'm going to turn to Jim for a moment. Anthony talked about longevity. And you were a member, you're still a part of The Buck Institute, which I belonged to, at one point in time. Tell us a little bit about longevity, what it means because many people have confused longevity with people becoming gnarled and living to be 110 but without a quality of life. Because I know, that's not what you mean.

Jim Mellon: (11:28)
Yeah, our first mission, and what we do, is to try and improve the quality of life in the latter years. And about 15% of people's lives at the moment are characterized towards the end of their lives by one or more severe illness. And our mission to begin with, is to try and reduce that period, which can be as long as 13 years. So rather than trying to extend life, which is our secondary mission, which I think will happen by the way. And so we are looking at aging as a central disease from which the diseases of aging cascades, all the familiar ones that we know about, like cancer or heart disease or dementia. They proliferate as you get older, so they are diseases of aging. And what we're trying to do is to address aging as a central disease, which is now possible, which in turn will lessen the burden of these diseases of aging, which are really quite dreadful and their impact on older people.

Mark Cutis: (12:32)
Great. And part of your mission also, is to help mankind change their dietary input various proteins or various ways of eating. There's been a lot of work in this area, which has applicability here, from a food security standpoint, but more importantly, you're saying to make the planet sustainable, we need to do different things in the way we grow food.

Jim Mellon: (12:55)
Yeah, I agree with that Mark. So basically, after the Second World War and led by the United States, intensive farming became the norm, that is animals reared in very close proximity and the use of antibiotics and hormones and so forth to encourage growth and to stop disease became rife. That intensive farming is not a big threat to humanity, partly because it's the biggest source of global emissions. And if you're a believer in global warming, which I am, it's something that needs to be addressed. It's about 20% of all global emissions. Partly because 80% of antibiotics go into farmed animals. And if you think about it, this pandemic is pretty bad. But just imagine if we had a bacterial rather than a viral pandemic and the antibiotics didn't work anymore, we could have... and I'm not making this up, because none of us would have thought a year and a half ago, that this would be as bad as it is. But we could have a black death on our hands where a third of the world's population died, for instance.

Jim Mellon: (13:58)
So we need to do something about reducing antibiotic usage in animals otherwise, we become more and more resistant to antibiotics. On top of that, one of the great causes of disease in the world is, frankly speaking the food that people eat. And you may have seen that Nestle admitted, their board admitted that 80% of the food, they're one of the largest food companies in the world, was bad for human health. And this is across the world basically. Diabetes has gone up from 1% in China, in 1980, to 13% today. And it's as a result of the Western diet. The food that we eat needs to change. And one way that we can do it and the technology is here is to eat plant based foods which are better substitutes than the food from intensive farming. And perhaps more excitingly use cellular agriculture, which is growing food and labs and factories to create healthy alternatives without antibiotics, without emissions without great land, use without water use, on the scale that it's currently being used. So it's a very exciting time. And there are many companies out there now with viable products.

Mark Cutis: (15:07)
Maybe you can touch upon briefly on a few of these companies that you've backed and what they're doing, particularly when they're growing meat in a petri dish exactly, from cells. So tell us a little bit about that.

Jim Mellon: (15:18)
So if I just showed you my little fingernail, and we took a sample from a cow that was equivalent to the size of my little fingernail now, was about 2.5 milliliters. The idea is that in 40 days, that little fingernails worth of sample and the cow goes back, it doesn't get slaughtered, it goes back to its field will grow into the equivalent of seven or eight cows worth of beef, about 3,000 kilos. Whereas the conventional way of growing cows would take about 28 months. And the way it works is that from my little fingernails worth of sample, stem cells, which are the precursor cells for all of us, are extracted differentiated into the cell types that you want, which are typically muscle and fat, grown in large steel containers that are called bio reactors. And this is why it's so interesting to me, because my background is in biotech.

Jim Mellon: (16:11)
So this is a biotech process. There's no genetic modification. There's no Frankenstein element to this. But the cells are bathed in the media, which is the nutrients which are roughly equivalent to what cows would get from plants. And that growth hormones, which are roughly equivalent to what cows get in nature, are introduced as well. And then you get this glute gloop that is amalgamated and creates this beef. And that can be done across all species without the use of antibiotics, no bacterial contamination. And it can also be done in materials. So some of our companies are growing leather in laboratories, cotton, cocoa. And all of these things will substitute very effectively for the Frankly speaking, poor quality food that is being offered to most consumers at the moment. And this will happen within 10 years. So I just want to make up... I'll quickly finish three predictions.

Jim Mellon: (17:03)
In 10 years time, there will be no dairy industry as we know it on the planet. None. Already plant alternatives are a huge business. And you saw that only went public quite recently. But precision fermentation is coming down the pipe very quickly. And there will be no cows producing milk in the way that we see them at the moment, within 10 years. In 10 years, 50% of the meat market will be plant based, or cell Ag based, and over 50% of the fish market will be cell based fish. So this is happening extremely quickly and will be one of the world's most transformative industries.

Mark Cutis: (17:38)
Wow. That's amazing. And I think if we step back, and I'm going to turn it over in a moment to Anthony. From the prospect of educating the masses, you mentioned 97% take Coursera courses for free to being able to change the food chain, and to provide people with nutritious food that doesn't damage the planet is amazing, and it's brave new world. On that note, Anthony I'll turn it over to you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:08)
I appreciate [inaudible 00:18:09]. Fascinated by the discussion. I want to ask both gentlemen, the same question in their respective fields. And this is about political will, not just in our countries, the UAE or the United States, but global political will, on things like changing the food paradigm, changing the food supply chain, but then also discussing education. And as Michael knows, in the United States, education being a big issue, I'm the product of a public school. But we have a tremendous amount of special interests in education that prevent us from making innovation. Jim, is that the case in what you're discussing as well. And so let's start with Jim, where is the political will, where the potential political unity to get these things done that you're talking about in the future?

Jim Mellon: (19:02)
Well, it's a great question, Anthony. And we're in the UAE, which imports between 85 and 90% of its food. It's one of the most food insecure countries in the world. Other countries like this would be my own country, the UK which imports 50% of its food. And so countries such as the UAE or the UK, have a natural inclination to accelerate the process of substituting the current form of agriculture. And so you're seeing a lot of innovation here forward thinking, and frankly, capital going into this into this area. So where the government's have a vested interest in making it happen, you get a bigger propellant. But I wouldn't discount the United States or European countries which have net food export as either. The US has a quite a good regime for regulating novel foods and as does Europe. And we're very surprised at the speed at which some of this stuff is happening.

Jim Mellon: (19:55)
So for instance, I can confidently predict that by the end of this year, the fish coming out of laboratories will be on the market for US consumers. Chicken is already on the market in Singapore, it's already on the market in Israel. This is the dial up phase of the Internet of this industry. But if we can pick some of the winners out of that dial up phase, we're going to do very well. But overall, I think the public is beginning to embrace this very much. And you can see that and Beyond Meat, Impossible Burger, Oatly. The enthusiasm for those companies is reflective of general enthusiasm, particularly among younger people to save the planet by changing the food system.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:36)
Michael.

Michael Moe: (20:37)
Yeah, so just following up on that point. What's happened is it's completely well known that in the knowledge economy in a global marketplace, what you know, your education makes the difference, not only for an individual, but for a company, and for that matter, a country. You only need to look at Singapore, which has really been the model for investing in human capital for over the last 50 years, where they started their independence, the same year that Jamaica did both hit about $2,500 GDP per capita. And because of the prioritization of education in Singapore it was a big part of what fueled that success of that country, which GDP, per capita [inaudible 00:21:24] is in excess in the United States. One of the things about, back to the point about Abu Dhabi, I think that Abu Dhabi is creating what is going to be the next Singapore.

Michael Moe: (21:35)
All the pieces of fundamentals in place, including that understanding of investing in the knowledge economy, but you only need to look at places like China and India, how education is really what they view is their key strategic advantage to fit to fast forward into the future. You look at the United States, and I too went to public schools, both public elementary and high school as well as college. And the fact of the matter is, the system that's been created in the United States today doesn't work. It's rigged. You only need to look at our nation's capital, right across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, Thomas Jefferson High School is the number one high school United States, right across Washington Memorial is the worst High School in United States yet Washington Memorial spends twice as much as Thomas Jefferson. Effectively Washington Memorial gets 30,000 per kid and is a dropout factory where less than half the kids that enter that school finish at school. That's unacceptable in a country like the United States.

Michael Moe: (22:40)
And the fact that because of this whole idea of the American dream, and how education really was that opportunity to advance your cause, that doesn't exist today. 70% of the kids are born poor, or remain poor. That system isn't acceptable. I think there's great awareness, but to your point, there is a very significant entrenched status quo namely unions and other people that benefit from the old system, which frankly it doesn't work. You look at every single data point, and you look at how America is competing against the rest of the world. You got parents, you got businesses that say, we can't employ students coming out of our schools, they can't read they can't write. You got parents that see studies that show this generation of the children will be less educated themselves. You got politicians are actually seeing that it's pulling for the first time to change the dynamics. And against that you got the [inaudible 00:23:27] status quo.

Michael Moe: (23:27)
And the good news is, I think America is finally starting to see 200... The union says, give us more time, give us more money. And American people are saying 200 years is long enough, we need to change things today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:38)
I just want to have a follow up, then I'll turn it back to Mark. And this is a follow up again, for both of you. And I appreciate what you're saying because all of us are friends with Michael Milken. He once pointed out to me that the women's liberation movement caused people like Meg Whitman not to be school teachers, they went on to become billionaires of eBay and CEOs of Hewlett Packard. I guess what I'm wondering and this applies to both of you as it relates to incentives, human capital and human ingenuity. It seems like in Jim's business, we have that and all that Jim opined, and that whether or not that's true. But it seems like in the educational businesses, we don't have that for some reason. In terms of you look at salaries, and you look at where people are. What's your reaction to that Jim? Do we have enough incentives economically to get the world going to where you see it going? And then for Michael, how do we make those incentives better in education?

Jim Mellon: (24:44)
So I think the incentives are fairly well entrenched by the IP, the Intellectual Property system patents around the world. And that works very well in biotech and that biotech IP system has been transferred into the novel foods business. So there'll be a period of 10, 15 years of commercial exploitation, which will be the base of the price of innovation, which is a well established and US led system. The same applies on the science of longevity. The longevity science is not just for the elites, as Michael was... The elites, the wrong way of describing it, not the way you described it. But you know what I'm saying. It's for everyone, ultimately, because we live quite a long life. And so if there's 10 years of patent exploitation on some of the drugs and therapies, that biotech companies such as ours are developing. That's a relatively short space of time in human longevity. And so I think this will become available for everyone.

Jim Mellon: (25:45)
And there are already drugs and therapies out there that we can all take to make ourselves live longer. And we know that people are getting better educated about food. And they are as a result, changing their diets. And so sugar consumption is beginning to go down for the first time ever in the United States than in Europe, which is a great thing, because sugar is directly related to a lot of disease, not just diabetes, but also Alzheimers, and the proliferation of Alzheimers, as a result is going down, which is wonderful news. That is based partly on this IP system. And I'm not going to put any words into Michael's mouth. But education doesn't really have IP around it, it has passion and commitment and money and governmental will, which is a very different thing.

Michael Moe: (26:33)
So looking at, back to what incentives need to be aligned to create change, I think, frankly, a lot of change is taking place in front of our eyes, which was catalyzed in many respects by the pandemic. In fact, you basically had 1.6 billion students that were instantly put online last March, essentially, that's 20% of the world's population that was thrown in the deep end of the online learning pool and told to sink or swim, some sank, some got to the edge of the pool crawled out and will never go back in. Many flail around a little bit and all of a sudden this digital education, which should be growing at a nice rate, but only 2% of the overall $7 trillion education spend has massive acceleration. Which by the way and we all know, it wasn't perfect in terms of the quality and access and so forth.

Michael Moe: (27:22)
But I think people can start to see the future and how you can start to not have to fight this entrenched status quo. But I think also you look at the great education systems around the world where you seeing kids more effectively educated, Finland, China, Singapore, Korea. One of the big changes or big differences is just the prioritization of education, and the people going in that field are the top of their class, not near the bottom. So you look at the conversation that goes along with that. In Finland, for example it's double that, the United States, right? There's all sorts of different movements that represents the complex system like healthcare. But the good part of this is change is happening in terms of investment categories. We frankly, stay away from where the control is taken out of our hands. And so investing in, for example, charter school, physical charter schools in the United States there's better places where you can see more explosive opportunity, and frankly, where there's going to be more of a systemic impact.

Michael Moe: (28:28)
So I think, again ultimately, capitalism does work. We can talk about contemporary capitalism, which is going to be a modification of that. But the fact of the matter is, you're seeing a wave of entrepreneurs that are coming into space, you're seeing amazing ideas. And you're seeing venture capital that is coming into the education space that is about 20x, of what it was 10 years ago. And that's because the growth is happening. You now have 40 unicorns in Ed Tech. People couldn't have imagined that five years ago. And so there's a bunch of different pieces that all add up to a big piece. And I think this wave is happening in a major way. And when I say it's such a big change, we had before Corona BC, and now you have AD, after the disease, and effectively the future is accelerated to the present.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:18)
I think it's a good point. I just want to cap it off, because I worry about this, given the neighborhood I grew up in. I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood. My dad was a crane operator, so we had a hourly wage. But we felt very aspirational. There is stuff going on in the UK here in the United States, where blue collar families that were once aspirational, feel desperation. And the goal politically has to be from a policy perspective, to reach those people. Now they'll become less populistic, if you will, if that's even a word. I'm channeling my George W. Bush, Mark Cutis, less populistic. They'll become less nationalistic. And so hopefully we can figure out good policies to do that for these communities.

Michael Moe: (30:08)
Well, I think what you're seeing, again, there's all these different... there's all this anger out there, there's all these people that are creating different movements. And if you boil it down, they're angry. What they're angry about is they don't feel like they're participating in the future. And the system is rigged.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:26)
Exactly.

Michael Moe: (30:26)
And you know what? They're right. The system is rigged, and they aren't participant in the future. And this goes back to the foundation, how you fix that is through providing access to quality education, like you had through your public schools, like I had through my public schools. But far too few kids, I mean, fewer and fewer are getting that type of opportunity. And that doesn't work. That's not sustainable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:48)
We certainly agree. I'll turn it back to Mark. But I appreciate the insight that you provide.

Michael Moe: (30:55)
Thank you.

Mark Cutis: (30:56)
Michael, I want to turn to you one more time on education. And you mentioned, bringing the full bearing of the capitalist system to seek new solutions, to make a difference, and to democratize education. And I think everyone will agree and everyone will nod their head, but tell me, how should we address the potential for shysters, and people who come in to this space, and I won't refer to the last administration and the universities that they fomented. And that caused a lot of problems. But how do we address those issues? And I'm not suggesting more regulation. But I'm asking you, how do you think we should be thinking about that to protect people from being sold a bill of goods?

Michael Moe: (31:40)
So one of the biggest reasons that you're seeing change happen faster in education, which historically was very slow to change, is because the internet not only provides access, but it provides transparency. And so I think there are a number of education operators that I can think of that basically, were really good at selling things, but weren't that good at actually delivering the goods and delivering quality. Less mean exposed. The information travels so fast. And you can see what goes on with artificial intelligence, you're getting real time results in what's going on in school. So it's no longer kind of after the fact to say, "Oh, my God, nobody learned anything in this classroom." Where they had this tutor, and this tutor didn't help me at all. That's just the transparency I think is extraordinarily important. I think is a waste of the financial lens of what we're seeing because this industry is getting so much attention, right. And there are very sophisticated people involved. They're just much more scrutiny-

Mark Cutis: (32:41)
So greater transparency and scrutiny?

Michael Moe: (32:42)
And scrutiny. And because now everybody gets the fact, what's the purpose of education is to give people the knowledge and the education, the learning they need to be successful. Or whatever that's defined as. And now you can actually measure it, we call that return on education. And that we think the companies that actually are going to create the biggest investment returns are the ones that create the greatest education returns. And that type of alignment, I think creates huge acceleration for what is already happening very fast.

Mark Cutis: (33:13)
But we've seen what's happening now with technology, and the new administration is looking at ways of curtailing the power of these large technological giants. Do you think we're ever going to get to that point where it'll be a similar situation? Because if you're referring to an unfettered space where it's open, then you're expecting civil society to harness the bad players. And you're suggesting that with artificial intelligence and with transparency, those issues will be addressed? Is it possible that we'll create another large operator in the space?

Michael Moe: (33:49)
So, heretofore there is no... Despite the second largest industry in the world spending nearly 10% of GDP, there was no large education companies. You got to scratch your head and say, why? Well, there's a number of reasons we could talk about if of interest, but much of that has changed. And you're seeing [inaudible 00:34:07], BYJU in India has gone from nothing to valued at $16 billion today. You have companies like Coursera, which basically was a freemium model [inaudible 00:34:18] in the public market, six, seven billion. So I believe you're going to see many, many mega cap education technology company. And again, all that with success comes not only scrutiny, but same when you get network effects, which are happening in this business where you get a disproportionate gain to the leader in the category. More scrutiny or more regulations ultimately happening.

Michael Moe: (34:46)
You see which is now happening in China. Where in China some of the two largest education companies in the world were in China, and they've gotten destroyed over the last several months, because the Chinese government has said, what they're saying is that kids are studying too much. I don't really believe that's the real message. So now there's concern about what the future of these companies that are providing tutoring are, TAL and New Oriental.

Mark Cutis: (35:09)
Interesting. So you've also talked about kids going to university that perhaps they're better served, not going straight to university but experiencing different jobs and getting into the job sector, doing something different than the traditional out of high school into college into the workforce. How do you see that potentially developing?

Michael Moe: (35:33)
I think people need to reimagine education. There are certainly some people, they're not going to go through a traditional route. But there's many other people that are going to get knowledge and get skills from other ways, which could include jobs. And what we've got today is you no longer can go fill up your knowledge tank [inaudible 00:35:53] and drive off through life. You're going to continually need to be learning things on an ongoing basis. Some of that might come from your occupation, some of that's going to be coming from online learning, some of that's going to come from games. There's just a number of ways that you're going to be able to mix and match and really create what I call a knowledge portfolio that allows me the future opportunities. A small part of that is going to come from traditional education. I think there's going to continue to be brick and mortar schools that educate a bunch of people. But this ongoing learning, which is the huge market, is going to happen a variety of ways.

Mark Cutis: (36:25)
Thank you. If I may, Jim, I'd like to turn to you for a moment, you have a great company Juvenescence. And it has this breakthrough metabolic product, which is called Metabolic Switch, as you know, in this region, in the GCC 30 to 35% of the people have metabolic diseases. Tell us a little bit about that. And also, if you can weave in some takeaways as to what we should be doing after this program, because that's also I think, will be useful to our audience.

Jim Mellon: (36:57)
Okay. Well, so Metabolic Switch is part of the consumer division of Juvenescence. And it's a very different market to the one that we're traditionally in, which is pharmaceuticals and regenerative medicine. So we hired people from Weight Watchers as an example from Vitamin Shoppe in the US to head up the launch. And it'll be followed by several other products that will be good for, for instance, the next one is Spermidine, which is good for your metabolic health, sorry, your mitochondrial health. But what we're trying to do is to get products that are scientifically proven, and this one comes out of the Buck Institute, which you know very well. And not just some sort of quackery that sold in a health food shop. And so Metabolic Switch puts you into a state of ketosis straightaway and it keeps you there for 10 hours. And you don't have to go through the ketogenic diet, which most people can't tolerate, because it's too difficult to do. So it's a great substitute for willpower actually.

Mark Cutis: (38:01)
So you don't have to go through the ketogenic diet?

Jim Mellon: (38:03)
No, it does it for you.

Mark Cutis: (38:04)
Okay, maybe you can explain that to us.

Jim Mellon: (38:06)
Yeah. So it basically is, it induces ketosis through its mechanism. And in the same way, as if you went on a ketogenic diet, but without you having to watch what you're eating, basically. So it's fantastic for this region. And actually, we would love for it to be, once we're fully embedded in the US to be commercialized in this region as well, because it will have a very positive effect. One of the problems is that it tastes absolutely horrible. And so they're working on new flavors to try and make it palatable, because it's a breakfast drink that you drink in the early morning. But there are things that people can do today, the statement of the obvious, don't smoke, do some exercise, not too much exercise, eat healthfully. People know all about that. But that won't keep you alive, any way above your normal lifespan, which is around 85 for the developed world.

Jim Mellon: (39:06)
But I do think, Mark that in 20 years time, children will be born with a life expectancy of between 110 and 120. And then we have to rethink the world. And that will happen because about 20 years ago, the human genome was unveiled and the key pathways that cause us to age, they don't determine us to die, but they cause us to age can now be manipulated. So all of them have been proven in mammals and in some cases in human beings, to enable us to live a little bit healthier and a little bit longer. So one key thing that I'm not advocating this as a medical practitioner, but you can go into a pharmacy here and get Metformin. Metformin is a frontline diabetic drug, but it has been proven empirically and in very many studies, it's been around since 1957, to be safe and to be anti cancer, and to be anti Alzheimers and to keep you alive longer, and it's a generic drug. So it's available to everyone, it costs cents.

Mark Cutis: (40:07)
It's been around for a long time obviously.

Jim Mellon: (40:08)
It's been around for a long time. Many millions of people use it. So that's one thing that you could do today.

Michael Moe: (40:15)
[inaudible 00:40:15]

Jim Mellon: (40:16)
What you're doing, and you look great, by the way. The last thing I'll just say, as a little soundbite is I completely agree with what Michael is saying. The paradigm at the moment is we assume we're going to live to 85 or 90. And if we make it to 65, maybe a little bit longer. So that paradigm is you're born, you learn, you earn, you retire, and you expire. That paradigm needs to be ripped up, thrown away. And that's why what Michael is doing is so important, because as he said, education is a continuum, you won't be... You said fill up your tank of gas and 25 you're on the road. You have to continuously reinvent yourself. But you also have to think, first of all, how are we going to finance our lives? We're not going to be able to retire at 65 years old, governments will not be able to support that. And secondly, how you're going to occupy your life, it's like waking up in the morning, with 36 hours ahead of you, instead of 24 hours.

Jim Mellon: (41:13)
We need new structures, we need new ways of building relationships. And this is going to happen very, very quickly. So as I said, within 20 or so years, life expectancy at birth is 110 or 120. Will humanity be able to cope with it? I hope so I believe so.

Mark Cutis: (41:30)
That's quite the challenge. Please.

Michael Moe: (41:31)
I was going to say, reminding me, you talked about the treatment, the taste, the side effect it tasted bad. That's one of the issues which historically education, it tasted bad. And so you find the entrepreneurs that are really succeeding, some of them might advise you, if I would advise you, this was amazing. [inaudible 00:41:49] $16 billion market [inaudible 00:41:51], we serve you broccoli, but we put chocolate on it. And so they don't tell you put chocolate until learning. We have a concept called Hollywood meets Harvard, how do you make education entertaining and engaging? How do you create great professors to be stars, right? In all in a way that you're going to learn more, it's going to be more, it's going to make more of a difference.

Mark Cutis: (42:11)
But that will be different from... That will be an evolutionary process, because you mentioned, for instance, Korea, in Asia, where they subject the children to very long hours of studying. And the idea is rote education, right? And then you pass the test, and in many other countries too. That will have to evolve. And we'll have to, as humans will have to go to a higher level to begin to appreciate this.

Michael Moe: (42:34)
Absolutely.

Mark Cutis: (42:35)
This is the world of I guess that Peter Diamandis talked about, the world of abundance, where we're going to have infinite resources. And then we're going to have to spend time thinking through this is what you're referring to. I want to ask you, again, a very basic question. You mentioned Metformin, how about intermittent fasting for the people in the region who have these metabolic disorders? Do you think if they practice intermittent fasting, eating within these time, windows of six to eight hours, it can actually help them?

Jim Mellon: (43:03)
Absolutely. Absolutely. We have plenty people in the longevity industry, who do use intermittent fasting, including the guy who advocates Metformin, more than any other my friend Nir Barzilai from Einstein University in New York. He's also a practitioner of intermittent fasting. So absolutely. But these things will not keep you alive to the 110, or 120. It's the new therapies that are being developed now, that are based on biological change. Because all of the gains in life expectancy that we've had in the last century or so which is roughly double our life expectancy, have come from environmental gains, they haven't come from any fundamental biological change. If we took someone from 1900, and put them around us today, they'd live just as long as us, but in those days, they lived to 47 years on average.

Mark Cutis: (43:51)
Exactly.

Jim Mellon: (43:52)
So environmental change has been the key driver. The next stage of longevity increase is biological. And that's happening very quickly. The science of longevity is catching up with the aspiration of just about everyone to live a longer and importantly, healthier life.

Mark Cutis: (44:09)
Great. One more basic question. You also mentioned that not too much exercise. And in this region, there is this tendency for a cohort of young people to really work out hard and also to get pumped. How do you see that?

Jim Mellon: (44:26)
Well, all they have to do is to watch as I did last week, the match between Denmark I can't remember what the other team was. And the young guy collapsed with a heart attack on the field. That's the danger. Use drugs that are enhancing drugs, do too much exercise and you put tremendous strain on your organs. You certainly won't live longer as a result of doing that. So don't do it.

Mark Cutis: (44:54)
That's categorical. Thank you. On that note, I want to turn it back to Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:58)
Well, it's interesting the exercise category people don't realize that but particularly as you age, you got to have moderate exercise because otherwise you'll, you'll hurt your kidneys actually. But I want to ask you both something for the common person. So let's start with you, Michael. I want to educate my seven year old, he's tied up on his phone, and he's tied up on his Nintendo Switch, and he's got a PlayStation, and an Xbox. Just kidding, he doesn't have all those things, but you get the point that I'm making. So what do I do as a parent, to break that stronghold? And to get them to start thinking more about the entertainment aspects of education?

Michael Moe: (45:43)
Well, I think that's it. Find things, put chocolate on the broccoli. Games is going to be an important way that people learn things, especially young people going forward. You look at Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg both learned coding because of the games that they played. It's finding things that they want to do, as opposed to being forced to do. But also say, as a parent being engaged. One of the most important things for student's success is having an adult that has really taken an active role in their learning. And in fact, in I see some of the most successful schools, and that can be in very difficult situations. It's required to have at least a parent that's really on top of it, [inaudible 00:46:28]. And kids like a parent that's curious.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:32)
And so the same sort of question for you, Jim, what do we do to get these kids... Obviously, can't bring the Oreos into the house or the Coca Cola. We saw Cristiano Ronaldo do that with the Coke the other day, drop $4 billion in market cap of the company. But what are some of the simple things that parents can do for their children to get them thinking about longevity and health?

Jim Mellon: (46:59)
I was shocked to see that 70% of 18 year olds in America are obese. That is unbelievable. There were almost none in 1950. One of the key reasons for that is the corn sugar syrup, which was subsidized and remains subsidized by the federal government in the United States. And food companies have been living under an umbrella of price protection for far too long. So yes, there's a parental influence. But parents can't monitor everything in the supermarket, they haven't got the time to pick out the best foods necessarily. But what I would say and I think this is really important in the year of COP26 and talking about global warming, with Joe Biden at the helm there, is that carbon taxes should be levied on conventional food producers that do damage to people's health. That should be a universal phenomenon. And it's great for governments because they all need money at the moment. But at the same time, carbon credits should be used to promote alternative protein and food producers to make alternative foods more commercially palatable for people to buy.

Jim Mellon: (48:13)
And so it's the parents I can't really say anything about except that most parents want the best for their children. But when faced with a panoply of rubbish in the supermarket, isn't it best just to get rid of that rubbish and subsidy with good stuff?

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:31)
Well, listen, I think it's, it's spot on. I think one of the problems though, is if I took you to the local diner here, the plate size in 1950 was this and the plate size now is that. And people they've created habits for themselves, myself included. Trust me, I have many nights of self loathing when I know I've overindulged. But I guess it's also education, isn't it, Michael? Isn't it an educational thing as well, in terms of creating these habits? Isn't the health component that Jim's talking about part of your education story?

Michael Moe: (49:10)
Absolutely. Again it's knowledge economy, and it's how people obtain knowledge to give them an opportunity to participate in future and health is obviously fundamental to that. I think it's made a difference, or at least has made a difference with many people I know, when they put the calories of a food on the menu. All of a sudden you're aware of it, gives you some information, you say holy cow, that's not worth 1,200 calories to eat this sandwich. It's just being informed and again, that we're in a world of infobesity, there's so much Information. So how do you create signals amongst that noise? How do you create crisp ways for people to obtain that knowledge? Because there's so much information out there that it's hard to know what's good and what's not. I just listened to my friend Jim, he tells me, no.

Jim Mellon: (50:01)
No.

Mark Cutis: (50:01)
I can just jump in for a second. I think the challenge of the modern age is not that we follow the elites is that the common man has to take responsibility for himself and herself. And this concept of infobesity, everybody knows that you shouldn't be eating that way. Honestly, everyone knows, no one is shocked. But they have chosen to eat that way, just the way people have chosen not to take the vaccine. So ultimately, as we go into the next, the New World, we're all going to have to be much more responsible for ourselves. The state will have to help people who try, but it's very tricky because we don't want the state to be heavy handed. And I think this is going to be an evolving political problem.

Michael Moe: (50:45)
Yeah. And, by the way, going back to a previous question, I don't want to imply that I think it's also... The secret to getting kids to learn is to give them corn syrup, right? I'm saying that creating things, ways to learn things that they want to do. You look at Roblox, Roblox has a $65 billion market cap. Kids love doing that and they're learning stuff, right? It's a creator economy. And that's the type of thing to think how you integrate that with obtaining real knowledge that can help you be successful is how I think about that.

Mark Cutis: (51:22)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:22)
Mark, if you don't mind. I have one last question for both.

Mark Cutis: (51:26)
Please.

Anthony Scaramucci: (51:26)
And then I'm going to let you conclude us here. We're talking about the democratization of your ideas. Both in education and in health and fitness and awareness and longevity to that common man. Mark is right, some people are making very bad decisions. But how do we make sure that everything that we're talking about today doesn't come across pedantic, doesn't come across elitist, and we can get it disseminated into those areas that they're so desperately needed?

Michael Moe: (52:00)
25 years ago, I wrote a white paper called The Dawn of the Age of Knowledge, and in that predicted or forecast the emergence of the knowledge economy and how the internet was going to change everything, and how education is going to be at the center, and how online learning was going to democratize education. Increase in access, lower the cost, and that ultimately improve the quality. The problem with that 25 years ago, not one part of the system was really ready to accomplish that, including me. John Chambers, 20 years ago, said, online education was going to be so big, it was going to make email look irrelevant. The problem with that 20 years ago, you didn't have the computer power, you didn't have video on the internet. Teachers weren't digital natives. They're digital immigrants. Every aspect it just wasn't ready, right? Today that's changed.

Michael Moe: (52:45)
And even poor kids, and again the ability. It used to be the dream to be able to provide cheap technology people [inaudible 00:52:52]. And there's some issues, but that's really not the issue. Cheap technology, whether a person's paying for... My daughter taught in most poor schools, basically in America, she said, every kid was, 100% minority. She said, every single kid had a smartphone. That shocked me, but that's what she said what the reality was.

Michael Moe: (53:14)
I don't think that's the issue. The issue really is about providing ways to not just put education, physical education online, but to reimagine how you can do this better, faster and fairer, more democratized. And by the way, that's what's so exciting, that's what gets me excited, when you see these... what I call weapons of mass instruction. So these rapidly scaling, easy to access, removing friction, from the ability to get the education or need to be successful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (53:48)
Jim, anything you want to add?

Jim Mellon: (53:52)
Yeah. I just say that an example of how we are living in better times is the fact that these vaccines would develop so quickly. This is the best example I can think of, in the olden days, it would take at least 10, 15 years to develop a vaccine. Within six months, US companies German company, a British company had developed a effective and now readily available vaccines, at least in the developed world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (54:16)
And safe vaccines.

Jim Mellon: (54:17)
Safe.

Anthony Scaramucci: (54:17)
It's important for us to [crosstalk 00:54:19].

Jim Mellon: (54:18)
Everyone should be having these vaccines. Everyone should be having these vaccines. They've done that really, really quickly. And that's an illustration of how first of all the collaborative power of the internet that Michael was talking about bring scientists around the world together very effectively. And secondly, our knowledge of biology, it's so much better than it was just 10 years ago, or 20 years ago. So I'm very optimistic that if in the last seven years we've been able to cure HIV, to cure Hepatitis C, to develop cancer immunotherapy and to develop CRISPR-Cas9, all of which are multi billion and very effective industries. What's the next seven years going to be like it's going to be even better. We should be very optimistic.

Jim Mellon: (55:02)
I feel that we're very lucky to be living in this age notwithstanding the pandemic, which will be gone quite quickly. All the good stuff that Michael's talking about, all the good stuff that you're doing Anthony. All good stuff that you're doing in Abu Dhabi. And the stuff that we're doing in our companies is just a small microcosm of all the great stuff that's being done by a collaborative humanity. Just don't listen to the noise and just let's be optimistic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:30)
Well, Jim, can you make me taller though? I'm just curious.

Jim Mellon: (55:35)
Yes, yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:35)
Throw that in there before we... Okay, good. I'll be-

Jim Mellon: (55:38)
You're pretty tall already.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:39)
I'll be talking to you after this SALT Talk to figure out how to do that. Again, and I expect it to be very easy. It's like a free stride-

Jim Mellon: (55:47)
It's hanging upside down for a couple of weeks. You look remarkably young, I have to say. You look the same age as your son. So that's a great tribute to you and your genetic makeup.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:56)
That's because I'm a television person, I know how to do lighting better than anyone. That's why. Well, thank you guys. Do you have any follow up questions Mark?

Mark Cutis: (56:09)
Yeah, just one basic question. You're both here in Abu Dhabi. Tell us a little bit about that. And because you're doing some extremely exciting things that are pathbreaking. And you've chosen to be here, how does that fit into your game plans?

Michael Moe: (56:27)
So after having the opportunity to be here, a number of times and other places, I really believe that Abu Dhabi is going to give us a window to the future. And for a variety of reasons. One, we talked about before just the prioritization of going from an oil economy to a knowledge economy. But also just the smart people doing important things, but also just geographically. As this world becomes more global and more connected, which it is every day, Abu Dhabi as we know, it's a two and a half hour flight to Mumbai, it's a three hour flight to Tel Aviv, it's a four hour flight to the west coast of Africa. It's just so well situated. When we look at the power, I call it the VCIIP, Vietnam, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, I mean, how could you be in a better place to reach these, where the world's going to be created for the future.

Michael Moe: (57:22)
And so the great leadership, of course, but the many, many smart people that increasingly are coming here. I think you're going to see the real network effects. And so we're going to plant a flag here as we said, we're going to be running money out of here. We'll be running innovation labs out of here. We're putting big conferences out of here. And we're going to be very active in helping. We hope to build this ecosystem, that I think in next 10 years, it's going to blow people away.

Mark Cutis: (57:48)
That's very exciting. Jim.

Jim Mellon: (57:50)
Well, I have not much to add to what Michael said, except I agree with it all. But I will just give you a little bit of historical flavor. When I started my career, I started in Hong Kong, where I have permanent residency as I do here as well. And I have to say, and I wrote an article about a couple of weeks ago. The minister of tourism, read somewhere that this is the new Hong Kong. This is the new Hong Kong, flat taxes easy to incorporate businesses, multicultural, very forward thinking. You just have to look around at the infrastructure as well. We are super, both Michael and myself super excited to be involved. An honor to be here actually.

Michael Moe: (58:34)
I have to ask you. What is your view of what is going on in Hong Kong right now? It's obviously quite troubling, since it will be in the new Hong Kong. Well, Hong Kong is going to be a bit replaced by [inaudible 00:58:45]. I think, again, and Singapore, which has been an interesting place. Again, I think there's so much opportunity, but what's your reaction to what's going on in Hong Kong?

Mark Cutis: (58:51)
What's happening in Hong Kong is very complex. But it certainly looks like, even to the untrained eye let alone to the professional. That there's a dramatic sea change that is underway. But for us, what we're looking at is that you have an ecosystem that we're building an ecosystem in ADGM, where the fact that you can now get golden visas, which was never the case before. The fact that you have very low taxes, the fact that the pandemic was handled very well. Because if you think about many Asian countries, they handled the pandemic very well. But then they shut down the country, so you couldn't come in and out. Whereas in the UAE, you were able to travel in and out most of the time. So if you combine that with the basic edifice of this country, which is low taxes, you have access to capital, because you have large sovereign wealth funds, you have the foundational pillars of ADGM which is common law, and a smart regulator. And you have expenses that are actually amongst the lowest in the world, particularly because of housing.

Mark Cutis: (59:54)
You're creating an environment where young motivated people who want to do things can come here. And that's the aspiration, is to create the future here. And to encourage innovation and to encourage people to come here.

Jim Mellon: (01:00:09)
And it's safe.

Mark Cutis: (01:00:10)
And it's safe. Exactly. Absolutely.

Jim Mellon: (01:00:13)
Which is a big consideration.

Michael Moe: (01:00:13)
And that's beautiful.

Mark Cutis: (01:00:15)
Excellent.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:00:17)
All of you forgot to mention the food. So since I'm Italian, I got to throw that in there. Some of the best restaurants in the world are in the UAE. But guys, thank you so much for joining SALT Talks with us in this new partnership that SALT has with ADGM. This will be the beginning, you guys are the inaugural part of this series that Mark and I will be doing. And so we're both very grateful to you. And I look forward to seeing you in Abu Dhabi soon. I can't wait to get over there. Mark's promised me easy entrance and easy exit. Isn't that right, Mark?

Mark Cutis: (01:00:51)
Absolutely. Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:00:53)
I can't wait to get over there. I'm going to have Jim pick the restaurant though. So that I know that it's plant friendly, and all that other good stuff. Thank you guys again for joining us.

Michael Moe: (01:01:03)
Thanks Anthony.

Jim Mellon: (01:01:04)
Thanks.

Mark Cutis: (01:01:04)
Thank you Anthony.

Jim Mellon: (01:01:04)
Thank you Anthony.

David Mercer: FX & Crypto Trading | SALT Talks #248

“[LMAX’s sixth exchange launch, in Asia Q4] will be the first exchange we launch that will have fiat currencies and crypto on the same exchange… I think the partition wall between fiat and crypto will be knocked own within the next 3-5 years.”

David Mercer is the Chief Executive Officer of LMAX Group, a global financial technology company headquartered in the UK, and the leading independent operator of institutional execution venues for FX and crypto currency trading. Following a successful management buyout in 2013, David has built LMAX Group into a key player in both the traditional capital markets and the crypto trading industry. With global client base and offices in 9 countries, LMAX Group was recently valued at $1 billion, following a minority stake sale to J.C. Flowers & Co. A former City banking executive and currency specialist, David is an outspoken industry commentator and a long term champion of the UK’s technology sector as well as a passionate supporter of entrepreneurship.

David Mercer discusses his career and entrance into the crypto space with LMAX. He describes the convergence of fiat currencies and crypto, highlighting LMAX’s soon-to-launch exchange in Asia that will host both fiat and crypto. He explains the advantages of institutional crypto exchanges and how the crypto space will continue to strengthen as adoption grows, banking participants increase and credit intermediation becomes available. Mercer predicts the top 5% coins will win out and see parabolic price growth in the next 2-5 years.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot - Mercer, David - Cropped.jpeg

David Mercer

Chief Executive Officer

LMAX Group

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

6:40 - Entrance into crypto

9:51 - Response to crypto critics

16:40 - Convergence of FX and crypto

20:09 - Addressing crypto storage concerns

24:00 - Institutional vs. retail crypto exchanges

27:33 - Wall Street adapting to crypto

30:17 - Bitcoin vs. Ethereum vs. the rest

32:43 - Transitioning to DeFi rails

35:37 - Crypto regulations

40:44 - Projecting crypto prices

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:12)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to Salt Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of Salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy.

John Darsie: (00:26)
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 the fall of 2020, in our home city of New York. And we're excited to welcome our guest today to the Salt conference in September.

John Darsie: (00:46)
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 to bring you the latest in our series of Salt Talks, covering the digital assets or crypto space and how it's also starting to bleed into things like FX markets and commodities markets as well.

John Darsie: (01:06)
With David Mercer, who is the chief executive officer at LMAX group, which is a global financial technology company headquartered in the UK and the leading independent operator of institutional execution venues for FX and cryptocurrency trading. Following a successful management buyout in 2013, David has built LMAX group into a key player in both the traditional capital markets and the crypto trading industry.

John Darsie: (01:31)
With their global client base and offices in nine countries, LMAX group was recently valued at $1 billion, following a minority stake sale to JC Flowers and company. David's a former Citi banking executive and currency specialist. He's also an outspoken industry commentator and long-term champion of the UK technology sector. As well as a passionate supporter of entrepreneurship.

John Darsie: (01:54)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm, also with a heavy investments into the digital asset space. SkyBridge was the first 40 act fund. The first fund of hedge funds in the U S to make a substantial investment into Bitcoin in November of 2020. And SkyBridge continues its foray into the digital asset space. I'm sure a lot for Anthony and David to talk about today, with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:23)
John, thank you. Well, first of all, David, graduations on an amazing career, but like me, you started in traditional finance. So my first question is, tell us a little bit more about your background that enabled you to expand the universe of your thinking and to move into the business at LMAX, the one that you're currently in.

David Mercer: (02:45)
Hi Anthony, Hi John. Hi everyone. Well, first of all, I'd like to say, not too early with the congratulations. I think I'm just getting started. We're just getting started. I think everything to date has been like an undergraduate degree. But to put it in a picture, I mean, I guess three chapters of my career to date, each chapter's about a decade long.

David Mercer: (03:05)
A decade and investment banking, just learning my trade, learning capital markets, everything from the middle office to the front office, fixed income emerging markets. Learning a lot about credit and sort of the swings and roundabouts of capital markets, the boom and bust, if you like, of capital markets.

David Mercer: (03:22)
Then a decade outside of it, trying to learn how to be an entrepreneur, trying to learn how to run a business. Because sometimes when you're in one of these ivory towers of investment banking, it's hard to ... everyone else does the work for you. It's hard to actually understand what it takes to run a business.

David Mercer: (03:39)
And then the last chapter or the most recent chapter, shall I say, hopefully not the last one, putting it all together. The last decade has been at LMAX. So typical turnaround job there. It was a startup back in the day, standard startup issues. Too many people, some of the wrong people, spent too much money. Hadn't spent enough time on sales and distribution. Hadn't finished the product. So apart from that, it was all easy.

David Mercer: (04:08)
But the last decade has been trying to narrow the focus, having a singular focus for the business. Hopefully putting together some of what I learnt in the previous two chapters, I say, in banking, learning how to run a business and we've had some success. So today, we run five exchanges, trade about $30 billion a day, and guess what we're here today to talk about most is probably LMAX digital, which is the fifth of our exchanges and has been our fastest growing exchange to date.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:37)
I want to get to LMAX digital in a second, but for our young listeners, because it's interesting. You talked about three different chapters, each taking a decade. I always tell young listeners an overnight success takes about 15 to 25 years.

David Mercer: (04:53)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:53)
You and I both know that, David. But what is one of the core tenants of your business principles in terms of the way you try to create the culture of success in the organizations that you're running, or a part of?

David Mercer: (05:09)
One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from one of your founding fathers over there, right? So it's persistence and energy conquers all things. And that's it. Look, you can't speak to the 20-something year old, David Mercer. You just cannot. Because back then, if you told me it would take a decade, I'd move on. I expected everything to happen in six months and 12 months, but not everything works perfectly, but it's just that persistence and energy.

David Mercer: (05:39)
Back to what we do here today, no one believed us 10 years ago, but I had a singular focus. We had a singular focus. I'm very lucky to have a management team and we just stuck at it, but make the mistake. It's a bit like investing in crypto today. There's a majority out there which is telling you you're wrong, that it's the wrong approach.

David Mercer: (06:00)
So just having the persistence and energy to keep going. And don't get me wrong, if you spot that you've taken a wrong turn, it's okay. Right. End it quick, right. So it's okay to succeed slowly. It's okay to succeed fast, but guess what? It's also okay to fail quickly, right? Just don't fail slowly. So if you make a wrong turn, just come back on it. But that's it, just the persistence and sometimes it's the sheer bloody mindedness to stick at it. And I think if you have that, you'll go a long way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:37)
Well, listen, I've been there. And I get it. You had a Eureka moment somewhere, where you said, okay, you just pointed it out and Neel Kashkari, who's a fed president, he said this morning that 95% of crypto is garbage and all this nonsense that he said this morning. But you've had a Eureka moment. Describe the Eureka moment. Describe why you're in crypto with LMAX.

David Mercer: (07:04)
Yeah, I wish I was that prescient. And I wish we were that prescient. I guess if we had been, we mightn't be here today, Anthony. We may have all invested back in '09, 2010. Certainly when someone first mentioned Bitcoin to me in 2013, but I guess it was towards the end of 2017.

David Mercer: (07:24)
So you can call us late comers if you like, but we have our work cut out, building our own exchanges. Everything we do at LMAX is proprietary technology. So all my FX exchange is run on that proprietary technology. And 2017, which was the first sort of retail tidal wave or parabolic growth that you saw in certainly the Bitcoin price.

David Mercer: (07:49)
And suddenly the same customers who traded FX with me, and these are the biggest banks in the world and the biggest proprietary trading firms in the world and Chicago, New York, London, and Amsterdam, more than one of them knocked on my door and said, "David, we need you. We need your technology. We need your proprietary technology in this space."

David Mercer: (08:07)
Because we're making markets, we're printing tickets all around the planet and all these retail platforms, but we need some industrial grade institutional infrastructure so that we can exchange risk with like-minded participants. And actually so no real Eureka moment, but it was a case then of moving fast, acting on it, speaking to the right people at LMAX.

David Mercer: (08:28)
I remember, if you want a particular moment, I called my COO, my CTO, my head of software development, my risk officer, into a boardroom. And I said, "Look, are we doing this or not?" And more or less, the way I pitched it was, "Find me a reason why not to do it." And the truth was we had the distribution, we had the liquidity, we had the technology. All we had to do is integrate with a few blockchains and to be frank, that took three to six months.

David Mercer: (08:57)
And from field to fork, as they say, or from concept to delivery, we launched LMAX digital within six months of that meeting, so that's when it happened. And I didn't even for one second think about failure. I guess we never do. Because everything we had in the background, as I say, the distribution, the people, the technology, it was all ready.

David Mercer: (09:23)
So if Bitcoin was going to work, if crypto was going to become a bonafide asset class, then we were going to be in the right place. And you know, just today, just to fast forward a little bit, I know we'll get into this more in more detail later, but look, 40% of my customers also trade FX with me. So I knew I had that. I knew if this thing was here to stay, I knew that we had the customers and we had the framework, the bedrock, if you like, for an institutional cryptocurrency exchange.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:51)
Is it here to stay? You know, crypto skeptics say that it has absolutely no real utility or no real benefit to the society. Warren Buffet said that it was rat poison. And then they asked him again. He said, "No, it's rat poison squared." His older brother, the 97 year old Charlie Munger, said, "It is the worst thing that's ever happened to the civilization." We've had some bad things happen to the civilization, but this was the worst. What is your reaction to all that, David?

David Mercer: (10:19)
Oh, you know, I guess if you've been in capital markets for a long time, you've always answering this question, what good do you bring to the planet? It goes back to when I was in emerging markets in the late nineties. What value do you bring to those worldwide economies? Well, actually, quite a lot. Right? So we funneled a lot of cash there.

David Mercer: (10:41)
But so look, there are people out there that will always criticize it, but you know, Bitcoin and crypto specifically, well, what have we got at the moment without it, right? We have a feat system that looks, if it's not broken, it's severely damaged. And people are now starting to see it, post-2008. And if you like, now post-2020 with the pandemic. People are starting to realize that the hundred bucks they had in their bank account, doesn't get them quite so much as it did in 2019.

David Mercer: (11:15)
And that's just a fact. We live in this inflationary society where governments are just printing more and more of our cash. And you're earning nothing in the bank. So, I mean, I'm scratching my head thinking, "What would I do? What do I do?" People say to me, "Buy fine art. Buy other assets."

David Mercer: (11:33)
So someone invented this new asset and I quite like it because it's just maths right? In that you just solve maths equations and that's it. And it's guess what, okay, if you want to call it digital gold, it's digital gold, right? But it's a finite supply of it. That seems intriguing. If nothing else, it's intriguing. If nothing else, it's a useful alternative to what we've now understood for the last 50 years, which is feat. I mean, the feat dollar's only been around for 50 years. That's nothing right in the history of currency, in the history of markets, that's nothing, right?

David Mercer: (12:12)
So we broke away from the gold standard 50 years ago. Was that the right thing to do? I don't know. Well, this and Bitcoin is, it's perhaps closer to that. So look, it's an alternative. It gives you the three things I guess you're looking for in a currency. It gives you a store of value. Discuss. I mean, is anything a store of value? Really?

David Mercer: (12:31)
It gives you a medium of exchange. I.e. You will accept it from me. Not everyone will just yet, but more and more are accepting it. And it's a unit of account, right? So you and I certainly could go anywhere and someone could price something up in Bitcoin and we'd get it or Satoshi and we'd get it. So it's a good alternative.

David Mercer: (12:52)
And I think my now to the skeptics, if you're still skeptical, I probably can't persuade you. But I'm going to give you another way of thinking about it. Probably if you're an investor, you've probably got some Netflix in your stock portfolio. You've probably got some Tesla. You've probably got some JP Morgan. You might have some Spotify.

David Mercer: (13:19)
Well guess what? The market cap of Bitcoin is bigger than all of those. So you probably need to have in your portfolio, you know, I'm not a maximalist. I'm not saying a hundred percent at all. I'm not an evangelist. Ultimately, what we do is match buyers and sellers. But this is an asset class that today is worth somewhere around $2 trillion.

David Mercer: (13:39)
So something close to Apple or Microsoft. So you're probably thinking, "I need to have something in my portfolio just in case." And then we go back to the former arguments. Well, maybe it can replace. Maybe it can become a part of capital markets going forward and part of our lives going forward, maybe it can replace feat, which as I say is damaged.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:04)
So I think it's a brilliant assessment, what you're saying. I'm going to tell you my Eureka moment and then I want to get your reaction to it.

David Mercer: (14:13)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:16)
Marc Andreessen said that this is a brilliant evolution of technology, the blockchain, and assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, because the first time in human history, we will be able to have a permissionless peer to peer transaction with people that we don't know, don't have to trust.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:39)
And when we're sending money around the world, now we send it to a quote/unquote third party, a JP Morgan, a Citi bank that we trust. And then they send it on to the person that we're trying to send it to, to create that exchange for goods and services.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:55)
This is completely transformative. It truncates that, and it creates an amazing level of efficiency. And so if you study the history of money, it has all of the capabilities of money, the trusted network of the impregnability of the blockchain. What's your reaction to that?

David Mercer: (15:17)
Yeah. Look. I love the theory. I mean, I guess we wouldn't be in it if we didn't believe in that theory. And I think, like everything, the world's going that way, Anthony, peer to peer. You mentioned peer to peer, that's the way the world's going with everything.

David Mercer: (15:37)
And if you were designing your ideal world, ideal scenario, everything we would do would be peer to peer. And you're seeing that, the likes of eBay guests got there first, right? And other walks of life. So with currencies, with transactions, with asset transfer, with the payments between each other, it makes total sense. Don't get me wrong.

David Mercer: (16:05)
You know, I'm a pragmatist and the evangelists will say, "We can just go now peer to peer," but we cannot. We can for a cup of coffee. We can perhaps for the price of a car. We cannot for the value of your net worth. We cannot for the value of your house just yet. But the scientific experiments are in development. And I think we're going to get closer to that peer to peer permissionless network that you sort of described.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:41)
You know, LMAX is focused on both crypto and FX. Do you see an increasing convergence between the two, crypto and FX?

David Mercer: (16:48)
A hundred percent. I mean, I'm impatient, I'm impatient and I want it to happen now. So in fact, we're going to launch our sixth exchange in Asia, in Q4 this year. It'll be the first exchange we launch which will have feat currencies and crypto on the same exchange, under the same or similar regulatory banner.

David Mercer: (17:12)
So I think the partition wall between feat and crypto will be knocked down within the next three to five years, for sure. And in many ways it already is, but there's pros and cons. Neither are perfect. Okay. So if I look at FX, it's not perfect. I mean, actually, we've run hard to keep up with technology and foreign exchange over the last 20 years. In fact, I would say the FX industry, whilst it's been going for centuries is really only 20 years old because that's the electrification of foreign exchange markets.

David Mercer: (17:45)
So it's actually not far ahead of crypto. Now, crypto. I mean, just think, if you landed on Mars or Mr. Musk takes us there and we create societies there. Why are we going to close the stock market at 5:00 PM on a Friday? Why are the banks going to be closed on a Saturday and Sunday? Why can we not transfer money Saturday and Sunday?

David Mercer: (18:05)
So if nothing else, 24-7 crypto markets, that's coming to a traditional capital market near you soon. So at LMAX group, we launched weekend FX trading last year. Now I'm not going to tell you we do much trading on our Saturday and Sunday, but we will. It's there because we see no reason why you can't trade euros and dollars and Mexican peso on a Saturday or Sunday. So that's fantastic.

David Mercer: (18:31)
I think a lot of the technology evolution on the blockchains that backup these cryptocurrencies is great. So look, payment clearing and settlement in traditional feat is clunky, right? You've been around for a while like myself T plus two. I mean, what is all that about? Two, by the way, everyone, in case you're not familiar with it. It's two days. Two days to move your dollars. Two days to move your pounds.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:58)
David, it was five, when you and I got in the industry, right?

David Mercer: (19:01)
There we go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:02)
Then it went to T plus three and you were waiting for these things.

David Mercer: (19:06)
We're talking two minutes here, Anthony. So, you know, still to this day, it's quite unbelievable, Anthony, as you well know. The easiest way, if you want to send Aussie dollars to your relative in Sydney, Australia today, still the best way to do it is to go to the bureau to show engine, get on a plane.

David Mercer: (19:23)
That's still quicker than you wiring them the money. That just can't be right. So, I mean, it's a long-winded way of saying, "Look, there's some great things in the crypto market we can adapt and adopt in traditional capital markets." And likewise, dare I say it to the crypto evangelists out there, there's some bits of traditional capital markets, like credit intermediation, like the infrastructure, like the market access provided, that are useful, that we could port over to crypto.

David Mercer: (19:55)
And I think together, Anthony, look, my impatience is that I just want to trade Bitcoin and Ethereum the way we do euros and Mexican peso and just get on with it and create a better ecosystem for both.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:09)
Talk about the infrastructure and the brokerage clearing, the storage of these cryptocurrencies for a second. You know, one of my skepticisms in the beginning was I was like, "Okay, my God, if I'm going to," SkyBridge now has about $700 million a Bitcoin and Ethereum across our portfolio spectrum. But I didn't feel comfortable doing that a few years ago, even though I liked the asset class, I feel more comfortable today because I think I can store it safely. What are your thoughts there?

David Mercer: (20:43)
You hit the nail on the head. I mean, the good thing is your investment thesis is correct. That was the biggest challenge you had. And it's still the biggest challenge holding people back today. How do I store it? The biggest challenge for within LMAX group of launching our next digital was, "Wow, I haven't got a Chase. I haven't got a Barclays. I haven't got a Bank of America. Where do I park my client's funds?"

David Mercer: (21:06)
There's no bank for this. There's no custodian. We actually built our own. We happen to think as best in breed, but there are, the one you use is very good. There's lots of other good custodians out, so that's a real challenge. And then if you come upstream from that, so first of all, where do you store it? Let's face it. The pension funds the asset managers in the world. They're not storing it in the mattress. They're not running around with hard drives, storing their private keys. They want to trust a custodian.

David Mercer: (21:32)
But then you move up streams. Okay. Let's say we crossed that one off, but we're not there yet. You know, there are a few good custodian solutions out there, but perhaps they're not all household names and moreover not everyone's using them, which would make it easier. Now, how do we plug those custodians onto exchanges so that you have ease of market access for that real money?

David Mercer: (21:54)
I truly believe there's a wall of money. There's a wall of institutional money waiting to get in, but what they need is that storage you talk about, and then they need the credit intermediation. Now they say to me, one of my better brokerage customers said to me, "David, don't talk to me about private keys. Don't talk to me about wallets, custodians, and blockchains. I just want to trade Bitcoin the way I trade euros,. The way I trade dollars, that's what I want to do."

David Mercer: (22:25)
But they forget that behind the scenes, they're happy that some banks are priming them onto exchanges and are storing their assets for them. So we need more of those developments. I mean, to this day, if you're a crypto only, if you suddenly became a crypto only fund, your banks may not open a bank account for you. They may not open a feat bank account for you. That's how difficult it is.

David Mercer: (22:50)
So we need more adoption there. I talk about the ABC of crypto. Everyone's heard it before, probably. About adoption banking and credit. The adoption's coming. We need the bankers to get more involved and then we need that credit intermediation so that there's less friction in the market. There's a bit of friction on the on-ramp and off-ramp, if you like, into crypto at the moment.

David Mercer: (23:13)
So there's good projects underway and I know you've engaged with a couple yourself and at SkyBridge, and hopefully there'll be more so that we can get this wall of institutional money into the crypto marketplace.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:28)
Yeah. Listen, I personally have been surprised at the general reluctancy. I actually think Larry Fink has been right when he's interviewed on CNBC, David. He says he doesn't really have clients that have a super amount of interest in it right now. I think the hedge fund managers do for sure and sophisticated managers do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:47)
But when the day comes that a large scale pension fund or a public employees' retirement system? Look out, those assets or ridiculously cheap. And they're in short supply of Bitcoin specifically. Let me ask you this question about an institutional exchange and the retail exchanges like Coinbase. What would you say to our viewers and listeners? The key differences are between retail and institutional exchanges?

David Mercer: (24:17)
Too many to mention, maybe. Look, first of all, I take my hat off to those retail platforms out there. You know, I don't actually call them exchanges. They are effectively broker dealers and they have platforms to match. But they need to solve many, many issues for those customers. Technology issues? Right? "Can you send me a statement? Can you show me the chart? Can you give me a price in a thousand coins? Can you give me some nice newsfeeds interview feeds?"

David Mercer: (24:49)
So there's a real technology challenge there, right? So you mentioned a name there, they're very public. They have 56 million customers, 5 million active. If you imagine just 5% of them logging in at one time, that's a big technology challenge. Institutionally, I cater for 500 customers, that's it. And I'm happy there. I don't have to do the KYC, the onboarding that you do with all that ... in the retail environment.

David Mercer: (25:17)
But I process probably more orders a day than all of the retail chain exchanges put together. So for me, the requirements for my institutional customers and they will be the largest banks in the world. Today, they are the largest proprietary trading firms in the world. Some of them are listed vehicles.

David Mercer: (25:36)
What they care about is does it work? Is it fast? That's it. I can't have a down second. I can't be slow. We process something around 4 billion orders a day. Our cancel and replace times are 80 microseconds. What does that mean, David? Well, that'd be about, that's 12 times in a millisecond. That's 12,000 times in a second. Right? And whether the market's going parabolic up or we're in that death spiral down that you saw at the start of the pandemic, the technology has to work. That's the challenge you need to solve.

David Mercer: (26:13)
And you must be able to give them a price in size. So we operate a central limit order book, in depth, and if I allow you to buy 20 million Bitcoin, 20 million dollars worth of Bitcoin at any one time, I've got to have orders there so that you can sell 20 million Bitcoins.

David Mercer: (26:31)
So those are the real challenges. It's really a tech challenge and a distribution challenge. And all we do, I mean to give my ... show a bit of empathy to my retail counterparts, right? My challenges are somewhat less in terms of the questions people could ask me. All they want to see is what is the price and what price can I buy and what price do I sell at?

David Mercer: (26:56)
My job is just to process as many of those, the same message, as many of those a second as I can. Whereas, as I said before, with retail, it's basically horizontal, right? Rather than vertical, in that you could ask one of your retail platforms, any myriad of 100, 200 questions. I need to answer the same few questions all the time, 24/7. So really it's a technology challenge, along with a infrastructure and credit challenge.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:28)
I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, John Darsie, but I have one last question for you before I do. What happens to old wall street?

David Mercer: (27:38)
Well, you know, Anthony, I think old wall street, I love old wall street, right? We all thought, I liked the city of London. You know, they say that the stock exchange down here is the oldest casino in the world, right? I think wall street, the floors have a great way of reinventing themselves, right?

David Mercer: (28:02)
So big bang, it's probably, there's going to be no traders left. Okay, so the traders, they left the floors and they went to the desks. Well, most of these guys are now retired, so the new traders then are now engineers, right? They now solve problems for a living, they now write algos.

David Mercer: (28:18)
So look, myself, sometimes we hanker back for those noisy days. I grew up on trading floors. People were smashing screens and a buddy of mine, we had a drawer full of spare phones because they'd smash a phone normally about once a month because a trade went against them.

David Mercer: (28:33)
So it's changed. But the skillset, the engineering ability, the problem solving ability, the speed of mind, it's now just transferred into computers and algorithms. So I think wall street has already partly reinvented itself. And the big name let's face it, Anthony, through our three decades, certainly that I've been around, the biggest names in banking, for example, are still the biggest names in banking.

David Mercer: (29:05)
And they will evolve. Good companies. You know, they're great by choice. You know, they choose to be great. They choose to stay great and they change their focus and they have the customer there. So I think wall street's here to stay and you know, but guess what, there's always room for some new guys on wall street.

David Mercer: (29:27)
It was only 20 years ago, 15 years ago, you heard about HFTs and proprietary trading firms. They were the new guys on the block. Now you've got some real crypto engineers, scientists, they're putting their size 11's or size 15's in the United States, squarely right bang in the middle of wall street. So I think it's going to evolve. I think it's going to get stronger and it'll probably be better than ever.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:56)
Well, I appreciate the commentary a great deal, David. I do miss those days. I will confess that. But go ahead, John. The future is yours, John, go ahead.

John Darsie: (30:05)
All right. Fantastic. David, it's a pleasure to have you on and thank you, Anthony for ceding the floor. My question for you, David, is about Bitcoin and Ethereum. And then also the growth of the ecosystem generally. You talked about how your entrance into the digital asset world was driven largely by demand and demand for institutional quality products.

John Darsie: (30:26)
In terms of the demand that you're seeing related to Bitcoin versus the demand you're hearing related to Ethereum and even the emergence of other coins and protocols and digital assets. What's the percentage? Is it still Bitcoin that's dominating the conversation? Is Ethereum catching up at all to Bitcoin?

John Darsie: (30:42)
I'll talk about SkyBridge for a second. We started as a Bitcoin only, we had full intention of only including Bitcoin in our portfolios, but have added Ethereum. And we think that has staying power in the digital asset world. But for you, what's the interest level, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and then other?

David Mercer: (30:58)
So I think it's clear in the institutional space, it's Bitcoin. So we're 70/30 Bitcoin, Ethereum, but there was days in June and July where Ethereum was 50/50. I've seen the stats like everyone else on the retail exchanges out there, that Ethereum just overtook, just shaded Bitcoin. The truth is, as a trading product, Ethereum's too expensive and it's too slow.

David Mercer: (31:26)
Bitcoin is the asset that traders want to trade today. But, why Ethereum? Why is it starting that much? Well, actually it's all about defi. Despite all the other, there's some other coins out there that are sort of seeding the defi experience. But far and away, Ethereum's the winner on that at the moment. It's the utility coin, it's the on-ramp into defi.

David Mercer: (31:57)
So I think everyone, or a lot of people are getting involved in defi, are starting with Ethereum and then switching it up into other tokens. But there's nothing that says it's going to hold that place for forever. I happen to think there's much better experiments out there than Ethereum. But look, it's a bit like gold versus silver. Or in my currency space, Euro dollar versus dollar yen.

David Mercer: (32:25)
So for now I can't see Ethereum shading Bitcoin permanently, but whilst defi is growing and that's the accepted on ramp, then yeah, it's going to have more of a share of wallet than it did, say 18 months ago.

John Darsie: (32:41)
Right. Anthony asked you the question about what you think is going to happen to old wall street. And I want to ask it in sort of a different way. Is that, a lot of people that are looking from the outside, who haven't fully bought into the idea of defi or the idea of this crypto ecosystem that's growing.

John Darsie: (32:58)
They view Bitcoin and Ethereum and other coins purely as speculative assets. But I think the entire defi movement has the potential to greater disrupt sort of the traditional financial ecosystem relating to things like banking, as you talked about before, relating to things like prime brokerage. How do you think those types of business lines, things like prime brokerage, traditional banking functions are going to be different in a decade using blockchain defi type of rails.

David Mercer: (33:25)
They're going to have to catch up quick, John. It's simple as that. I mean, if you go to ... I'm no expert necessarily in defi. I would say that we contribute to the valuation within defi. For me, that's the key. Smart contracts, the key is the valuation of the assets on those smart contracts.

David Mercer: (33:44)
So we started to contributing to pith the network for that. So that's the old world, if you like, capital markets moving into the new world. And so we contribute to that Oracle, I think it's the way forward, but look, step back. What do I like about defi?

David Mercer: (33:59)
The idea that we could be more capital efficient? The idea that we could move our balance sheets to the blockchain and large institutions can move their balance sheets to the blockchain. They can stake their assets that are basically gathering dust at the moment, like your dollars in your bank account or my pounds in my bank account, so to enable individuals and institutions to stake their assets.

David Mercer: (34:29)
Ultimately, when I look at it today, I look at defi, plenty more users than this, but it seems that what's hot at the moment is effectively good old fashioned stock borrowing and lending, right? They call it staking. They call it yield farming, but it's stock borrowing and lending.

David Mercer: (34:49)
So wouldn't it be great if that market access was provided to more people or more institutions and defi has the ability to do that. So I happen to think you will still have, I guess, in defi world, we talk about nodes, so those credit intermediaries, be they prime brokers or banks or credit cards, they can be more dis-intermediated.

David Mercer: (35:14)
They're can be more of them. There can be more credit nodes around the place to enable this capital efficiency. So I think the incumbents need to move quickly if they want to hold onto that space. If not, there's plenty of crypto projects out there that are looking to replace them or certainly supplant them when it comes to crypto.

John Darsie: (35:36)
Right. As Anthony mentioned, Neel Kashkari a fed governor, the former fed chairwoman, Janet Yellen, now the treasury secretary, has expressed very skeptical views about the crypto ecosystem. There's sort of old world, old wall street banking regulators across the U S and across the world, frankly, who have skeptical views about the nature of trading that takes place in the digital asset ecosystem. They characterize it as money-laundering or nefarious in some way.

John Darsie: (36:06)
And so it's creating obstacles for unfettered growth of a lot of these industries. How do you view regulation, in the UK, in the United States, and other jurisdictions that you do business? And what do you think they ultimately land on, in terms of how they regulate defi and how they regulate the digital asset world?

David Mercer: (36:25)
It's a two things there, and everyone puts them in the same bucket, right? Regulation and AML. They are different things, but AML is part of regulation. And I object highly to anybody that says that trading in crypto is money laundering or nefarious. Because when I launched LMAX digital, I had to implement the fifth money laundering directive before it was even a law.

David Mercer: (36:50)
As part of my regulation, but what does that really mean? You just KYC your customer, right? You have to ask them for the source of funds, source of wealth. That's just the way it is in capital markets. So there's no more risk of money laundering in the cryptos, if you're a regulated counterpart like ourselves in crypto, than if we're in feat. In fact, we can go a step further.

David Mercer: (37:17)
I don't KYC the coin. I KYC you. I need to know where you got your money from, source of funds, source of wealth. And if you don't give it to me, well, I can't open an account for you to trade feat or crypto. And in crypto I can go a step further, right? I can use the tools that are out there and I can check where the coin has been before.

David Mercer: (37:38)
I can't do that in dollars. I can't do that in pounds. So, I think people, sometimes when the politicians they have a stage and they don't know enough and they haven't researched enough before they pontificate, it's a challenge. You know, there were people and they're being investigated right now, who were letting you open an account with an email address. That's wrong. That's in breach of global AML guidance. Every country in the world is signed up to that global FATCA AML guidance, right?

David Mercer: (38:10)
Only one country in the world isn't, you can probably guess what it is, right. Everyone has signed up and we all use it. You've got to give me nine pieces of paper to open an account. With your lawyer, with your accountant, with your banker, with your broker. Now regulation. Again, let's get down off for soap boxes. It is right that we regulate and that we protect private investors. That's important.

David Mercer: (38:33)
I happen to think you don't ... banning things doesn't protect it, but doing things that they're doing in Europe and the UK, like limiting leverage, it's entirely sensible. We do something in the UK and FCA guidance called a suitability test. Do you understand this product? And if it comes back and says, "No, you don't." You can go off and do training courses, to get up to speed, so that this does become suitable.

David Mercer: (38:59)
"Do you understand leverage?" Most people actually initially say no. And then you say, "Well, have you ever bought a house? There you go. You've got some leverage in there because you didn't pay for it in cash. Most of you." So that type of thing, suitability test, allowing people to protect themselves, protect their investors. I think protecting private investors is important.

David Mercer: (39:19)
And a lot of what you see in regulation is doing that, and that makes complete sense. Outlawing it doesn't work because what you then do is drive your own citizens offshore into the hands of people who don't have this stringent regulation and protection mechanism or protection blanket that we surround the world, certainly in the UK and the United States, for example.

John Darsie: (39:45)
Right.

David Mercer: (39:45)
Otherwise, regulation in the wholesale environment, we're all regulated. We're highly regulated. They just haven't quite got a framework yet for what is crypto. Certainly in the U S, "Is it currency? Is it a security? Is it a commodity?" For me, it's definitely a currency, but you know, some of them, some of the crypto assets, they could look like a security.

David Mercer: (40:10)
So be careful when you're launching your token, if you pay dividends, for example, is there anything that resembles a security? You're going to come under SEC law, but the frameworks are there. So I think don't confuse the two, but generally we are fans of regulation. I'm highly regulated.

David Mercer: (40:27)
As an MTF, as a broker, by the FCA in the UK, in Gibraltar for digital and in three or four other jurisdictions around the planet. We're a big believer. Normally it protects private investors and it gives us, the wholesale guys, the rules of engagement.

John Darsie: (40:43)
Yeah. I mean, I think in the space, the exchange space, you have people that started off as crypto native and are struggling to grapple with traditional regulation, AML type stuff. And you're seeing growing pains there. I'm not going to single anybody out, but you probably know the types of people that I'm talking about.

John Darsie: (41:01)
And you have people like yourselves who are coming from an institutional background and responding to demand within the digital asset space. And I think one is certainly a better fit for institutional business, hence why you're growing so quickly on the institutional side, related to some of your competitors, I would imagine.

John Darsie: (41:20)
But the crypto ecosystem is growing rapidly, I think by any measure, but it's often done sort of in fits and starts and in bursts of sort of exponential adoption, both in terms of the price of coins and in terms of market penetration. As you look out over the next year or 24 months, what part of the cycle do you think we're in today, as it relates to adoption, as it relates to price of something like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other sort of defi protocols? And where do you think we'll be in that one to two year timeframe?

David Mercer: (41:52)
Ah. Short timeframes, they're always tough, right, when you're commentating anything. I always like five or 10, but look, genuinely on a longer timeframe, call it a decade, we're just at the very start. I think any chart you grow in terms of number of years, you show in terms of number of users or value of any asset, it won't register. It'll be a flat line compared to what it's going to be 10 years from now.

David Mercer: (42:17)
There's certainly a wave right now. So if you want a shorter timeframe in the next couple of years, look, it's all I see is every day I open more accounts than I did in the corresponding day, the previous month. And these are institutional accounts, right? I'm not in retail land. So I get more inquiries every day, just three years ago, I have 34 banks connected to LMAX group, trading foreign exchange.

David Mercer: (42:42)
We knocked on all of those doors three years ago, we launched LMAX digital and everyone said, "Thanks, but no, thanks. Not now." Now 10 of them are taking my market beta. Three, I've gone through conformance testing. They're not trading actively now. I know all the proprietary trading firms that could move more quickly or have maybe smaller bureaucracy. They're all trading.

David Mercer: (43:03)
So my biggest customers in foreign exchange of trading crypto. So that tells me it's coming. So look, there's $110 trillion of assets under management out there. If 5% was allocated to crypto, and that's the type of number you're talking about with pension funds and asset managers, allocating on their portfolio of 5%. Then it means the value of crypto assets has to be $5 trillion. Today, it's one and a half to 2 trillion.

David Mercer: (43:32)
That tells you where the price of crypto assets are going to be. You know, and going back to some of the common debt, as you mentioned earlier, not everything's going to win. It's like dotcom. Not all of these coins are going to win, right? Probably the bottom 95 to that 95% number the bottom 95, probably will go by the wayside and will fork into something else. But the top five, one of the top five certainly, will win out. And they will ... the price you see in two years now in five years from now will be parabolic compared to what it is today.

John Darsie: (44:02)
Yeah. I mean, you had a Marcy Frost, who's the CEO of Calpers, which is $500 billion asset owner that manages retirement assets in California this morning on CNBC. She didn't say that Calpers is imminently going to get involved in Bitcoin, but she says in five years, I wouldn't be surprised if Calpers has exposure to Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (44:22)
You know, it's something that I think there's social proof that's being demonstrated within the crypto space. Almost every big bank now has some sort of solution for clients based on demand. A lot of what you experienced as you got into the space.

John Darsie: (44:35)
And so I think that the stigma around Bitcoin is starting to fade away and you know, it could become exponential at a certain point, but David, it was a pleasure to have you on Salt Talks. We look forward to hopefully seeing you in September. If president Biden will let you in the door. We're certainly trying to help you in that regard, but look forward to having you involved in Salt in person, as well as sharing this Salt Talk with everyone. Anthony, you have a final word for David before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:00)
The next time you come on, I want you to smash one of these phones. Okay. I want you to help me relive my youth. Okay? I feel like we haven't smashed the phone in twenty-five years, David.

David Mercer: (45:11)
No, absolutely. I'll bring a drawer full.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:14)
Please. Bring a phone to Salt and let me smash one on the podium, just so I can relive what it was like in 1990 at Goldman Sachs and the J Aron commodities area.

David Mercer: (45:25)
I think they made them the right size deliberately, so they just snapped in half.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:27)
Right, exactly.

David Mercer: (45:27)
One side, you know, they weren't made-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:27)
The Hollywood version.

David Mercer: (45:31)
They weren't made with 2020 technology.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:34)
Listen, you built an amazing business, congratulations to you and your people and your team and culture. We look forward to seeing you in person at our event.

David Mercer: (45:43)
Thank you both for your time today. Thanks Anthony. Thanks, John. All the best.

John Darsie: (45:47)
Thank you, David again, and thank you everybody for tuning into today's Salt Talk with David Mercer of LMAX group. 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 salt.org/talks and on our YouTube channel, which is called salttube.

John Darsie: (46:05)
We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at Salt conference, but we're also on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these Salt Talks. We think this digital asset ecosystem is growing tremendously, firms like LMAX doing a great job bringing institutional credibility to the space and driving adoption in that segment of the market as well.

John Darsie: (46:24)
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.