The Big Picture

Transcript: MiB: Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest

 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

 

~~~

 

 

[00:00:16] Barry Ritholtz: On the latest Masters in Business podcast. I sit down with Jeff Chang. He’s co-founder and president of vest. They are a firm that specializes in defined outcome investing, buffered ETFs. They try and remove the uncertainty of outcomes of your investing by using options and derivatives to come up with very, very specific products. I thought our conversation was fascinating, and I think you will also, with no further ado, my podcast with Jeff Chang. Jeff Chang, welcome to Bloomberg.

[00:00:52] Jeff Chang: Great to be here, and thanks for having me. Oh, well

[00:00:54] Barry Ritholtz: Thank you so much for coming. I’m kind of always fascinated by people who have unusual or diverse backgrounds. You in particular US Naval Academy and then an MBA from Georgetown. Is that right? What, what was the original career plan?

[00:01:11] Jeff Chang: So, I grew up in Annapolis. The original career plan was to be, you know, be part of the Navy. And unfortunately, I got medically discharged for, for asthma and then, then decided to pursue more of a business path. And that’s what kind of led me to, to Georgetown. And then after Georgetown, I actually, right after, I actually always wanted to start my own company. Right. In fact, this is kind of a funny thing. Most people don’t know this. I’ve never actually said this. When I first started, I actually started a flat screen TV company in 2012, OEMing them from China. And do you remember back in the day, like flat screen TVs used to be like 25, 30,000.

[00:01:54] Barry Ritholtz: Oh yeah. When they first came out, they were crazy.

[00:01:55] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Yeah. So I was in DC selling those. In fact, I remember selling TVs to Reagan National Airport. So when you like, look at what terminal you are, back in the early two thousands. Wow. Those were Jeff Chang TVs that were there. No kidding. I think another client was Six Flags. Like when you, you

[00:02:13] Barry Ritholtz: The wait, how long the wait is.

[00:02:14] Jeff Chang: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. But then, you know, as TVs became further and further down, like I was like, Hey, that’s not the business I want to be in.

[00:02:21] Barry Ritholtz: So all commoditized, why do you want to be

[00:02:23] Jeff Chang: There? Yeah. It all commoditized. So I, it taught me a lot about starting a business on, you know, that and about life, is that I realized that I needed actual hard skills that that created a, a, you know, value add. And also the other component was I, I also realized that doing like accounting books, I didn’t pay too much attention in accounting. So I actually for six months went and studied for the CPA exam and took the CPA exam to be accounting, which was actually a twofold kind of reason. I think one of my mentors once told me is that like, hey, there, there is, for the better word, there’s fu money and FU skills. Right? Right. You don’t have that money. So make sure you’ve built skills in which you’re not always beholden to other people. And if you thought about it that, you know, the two guaranteed things in life is death and taxes. Right. And so in my head was I didn’t wanna be an undertaker, but I could take the CPA exam and assure that

[00:03:27] Barry Ritholtz: Participate in taxes wasn’t

[00:03:29] Jeff Chang: Exactly, exactly. So

[00:03:30] Barry Ritholtz: A growth industry.

[00:03:31] Jeff Chang: So that was the reason why I took the CPA exam was that like, Hey, I know I would never starve because, you know, after the failure of my first firm, I was like, Hey, there’s, you always have to have at least a safety net. And that also informed me that when I started a new company, accounting is actually extremely important when you’re starting a, a, a firm or even a startup for that matter. And it actually came to pass that, that has been a very, very important part of, of my career path as well.

[00:03:59] Barry Ritholtz: So, so it’s certainly a useful set of skills. Yeah. But I’m gonna assume the first business didn’t fail because of bad accounting. Yeah. It’s just a hyper competitive market That’s right. With razor thin margins and as stuff as economies of scale came out. That’s right. The market just dies for that.

[00:04:19] Jeff Chang: Yeah. And that really informed me is that you have to have an edge. I I, I think over the 13 years of founding this company, I noticed that there were actually key features that I noticed even going through Y Combinator, my classmates and people that built very successful companies, they had very common characteristics for their success. Right. In fact, I, I had Asian parents, they optimized for intelligence. Right. Which was very, you know, you get straight A’s you play the violin or the piano and you kind of go through that

[00:04:50] Barry Ritholtz: Process. They’re optimizing for Ivy League admission Exactly. Is what you’re, you’re implying.

[00:04:54] Jeff Chang: Exactly. Exactly. And or be a doctor for

[00:04:58] Barry Ritholtz: That matter. Right. This is so different from Jewish parents. Yeah,

[00:05:01] Jeff Chang: Exactly. So it was, and then as kind of over the years, I realized that the optimization, like if, you know, when I have kids, ’cause you know, I, I don’t have kids, at least none that I know of. But if I did, I would optimize for, actually number one is grit like that. And that grit is the not giving up. Like, like, you know, your company fails, what’s the next thing? Like, you, you know, you pick up yourself from your bootstraps and you, you, you get up and go. It’s almost like the thing is, like, as an example, my parents didn’t let me play video games. Right. But I realized video games actually, if, if you introduce grit, like, you know, if you play Call of Duty, like I was the guy that when I play Call of Duty in my twenties, I would buy the, the headphones that would let me hear whether or not someone’s behind me. ’cause whatever it takes to win, like that type of, you, you ever see that kid that does not wanna lose that like fails, but then gets up and figures out a way to win that is grit. And I feel

[00:05:57] Barry Ritholtz: Like that resilience is more important Exactly right. Than anything

[00:06:00] Jeff Chang: Else. And then the second is, I realize that nothing in this world can be done alone. That success requires you to have partnerships, friendships, and know people that can help build great things. Great things don’t come by yourself. And that’s what I think second is influence your ability to let people see your dream and believe in your dream. Think about this, like, if you’re starting a company, not just selling your product requires influence. Like convincing your first investors, your first employees to quit their jobs, their high paying jobs to make almost nothing and take equity. That’s talk about like selling a dream that’s influence. Like think about, you know, some of the greatest entrepreneurs out there. They, you know, you probably heard like Steve Jobs as a reality distortion field. You know what that is? That’s influence. Right? That is one of the key things.

I think when, when you’re looking at business influence is such a, a, a key thing of, of something that required to have success. ’cause like I said, nothing in the world is done alone. This third, which comes back to my point is creativity. The ability to spot things that other people don’t see. Right. To basically be, to see opportunity, to see things, to combine things together and have that opportunity. Then the last, if you combine it is intelligence. If you do all four, and I can give you examples of people who are immensely successful just with grit. Hmm. And by the way, it’s in that order. Influence, grit, influence, creativity. And last is intelligence.

[00:07:32] Barry Ritholtz: So, so I wanna, I wanna stop you there for a sec. Yeah. Because I wanna spend time going over Y Combinator. Yeah. I wanna talk about this. But before we get there, I mentioned the Naval Academy of such an unusual background. Talk a little bit about what your experiences were like at places like Freddie Mac, the World Bank, FBR and ProShares. That’s such a diverse Yeah. Set of experiences. What did you take away from that life experience and and how did that ultimately lead you to launching your own firm?

[00:08:06] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So I could tell you one of the best things about what the military teaches you is not just teamwork and looking after the people next to you and really making a commitment. But there’s also another thing is work ethic. Like, I, I could tell you that I’m a morning person. I, I didn’t grow up a morning person, but it’s like 5:00 AM I’m up. And, and the funny thing is, my girlfriend’s a night person. She’s like, how are you? Like, sprightly at five 30. And I was like, that is actually learned behavior. Right? So that was like kind of the first thing of, of learning grit and, and you know, tackling the day early on, making your bed things. Those small things in life, I think have been really, I’d say important and, and you know, kind of keystone in in that process. The second is actually when I first started my first job at the World Bank, after trying to start my company, I had to translate fi energy companies in China.

And I had two problems. Number one was I didn’t, my Chinese wasn’t good enough. And secondly, my accounting wasn’t good enough, hence the CPA Right. Came in. I was like, at least I gotta learn one. And then I cut over to Freddie Mac. And if you remember during the 2002, 2003 timeframe is when Freddie Mac went into Restatement. So as a certified public accountant, I was extremely sought after at that time. So I worked at Freddie Mac and I realized that I really wanted to, I read Liar’s Poker by Michael Lewis, and I realized that I, hey, I really wanted to trade mortgages. So I started to

[00:09:42] Barry Ritholtz: Take, which by the way, he said he’s horrified. ’cause he thought this was a cautionary tale. Yeah. And all it did was encourage more people to do that Wall

[00:09:51] Jeff Chang: Street. Yeah, totally. Totally. Reading that book really made me want to be, you know, what he said in the book, big Swinging. Right? Like everybody, it was just a such a, a fun story. It it, it almost painted Wall Street in a specific way, but it was just the interesting part. And, and by the way, it also got me into reading f Bozi about fixed income, about the mortgage market. And, and then I wanted to be a trader. So, you know, I studied for the CFA exam, I got my CFA charter. I didn’t know that would lead me to over a decade of teaching CFA. Right. But that was really fun to do that and, and kind of give back. But, so trading mortgages, Freddie, and then FPRI got to trade during 2008, I got to have a front row seat to seeing the, you know, bear Stearns Lehman, you know, I remember trading repo during the oh eight, September oh eight.

It’s the, the month I lost all my chest hair in, in, in one month. But it was fascinating. I mean, that’s what I thought finance was like. So then, you know, later on I cut over to convertible bonds and options. Then the flash crash hit in, in 2010, which was, by the way, I, I’d never seen an entire trading desk stand up within one minute of everybody’s like, what’s going on? So yeah, I got to see a lot of, of Wall Street in, in my twenties and thirties. It was, it was a definitely a formative time of understanding, you know, kind of what, what made capital markets tick and, and, and understanding and also understanding the pitfalls, the, the hubris of finance that, you know,

[00:11:32] Barry Ritholtz: Well that has to be the big takeaway from oh 8, 0 9 Yeah. Is that markets go up and down. Yeah. And if you’re leveraged Exactly. It’s a problem. And if you’re highly leveraged Yeah. It’s usually pretty fatal. Yeah,

[00:11:47] Jeff Chang: Exactly. And you know, and disasters are always clear in hindsight. Right. And you, you look back and you’re looking at 20, 30% default rates. You’re like, why That would’ve, that would’ve been so clear in your mind when you started to look at some of the data. And so that was really formative. And the other component is, is kind of like what Warren Buffet says. You always know who’s not wearing pants when the water goes out. Yeah. When

[00:12:11] Barry Ritholtz: The tide goes out.

[00:12:12] Jeff Chang: For sure. Yeah. Exactly. And so I always, I I’d say think about, hey, if the tide goes out, make sure the, the money we manage for our clients that we’re, we got pants on. Right.

[00:12:24] Barry Ritholtz: Ri risk management turns out to be more than just a exactly. Phrase. It’s really important if you’re running other people’s

[00:12:30] Jeff Chang: Minds. Exactly. And it’s something that you live and breathe. And what I actually, you know, a lot of our investment products is to try to get our clients to, to understand that. And you utilize kind of, a lot of the tools that we build are basically pants. Like, you know, when the water goes out, make sure that, that you have something there because of uncertainty.

[00:12:51] Barry Ritholtz: That’s to say the very least. So, so let’s talk a little bit about that. You come out of this experience on a desk through the financial crisis. You launch Vest in 2012. What was the motivator? What led you to say, Hey, I think we could do this better?

[00:13:07] Jeff Chang: Yeah, so I had a very short stint at ProShares where I met my co-founder, Koran, he worked on the structuring desk at, at Barclays. And we talked about, you know, like, Hey, let’s start our own firm. And then our first idea was going to be, you know, buffers like, like, like downside protection that we saw in the structure note market. And by the way, this actually segued into the mortgage crisis because in 2008, the largest issuer structure notes was Lehman Brothers. Right. Like, you have a hundred percent protected note and then now you’re standing in bankruptcy court. So that was a big change in the industry. I think the structure note industry went from 120 billion to 30 billion in, in that timeframe from after the 2008 crisis. So I,

[00:13:56] Barry Ritholtz: I’ll tell you a funny story. Yeah. I was a market strategist at a brokerage firm in oh 2, 0 3, and we got pitched a downside protected SMA and I was just sitting in, in a conference room hearing this pitch, what are the, any questions? And I didn’t ask the obvious question that I thought, which was, well, great, the NASDAQ’s down 81%. Yeah. Where were you five years ago? Who needs this now? But the question I asked and got got called into the corporate council’s office for was, Hey, what about counterparty risk? How do we know Yeah. That you guys are gonna be there to, to make the trade good. Sir Lehman Brothers has been here for 189 years. It’ll be here long after you’re gone. I’m like, okay. No, it’s an actual risk that no one was even discussing. Yeah. It was just assumed. So it turned out that, you know, counterparty risk is a real, is a real thing. Oh, it

[00:14:57] Jeff Chang: It, yeah. It’s a very real thing.

[00:14:59] Barry Ritholtz: So we’re gonna talk a little more about Vest and Buffer funds in a moment, but I just wanna get the timing right and talk a little bit about your experiences at Y Combinator. You launched Vest with your co-founder in 2012. You joined Y Combinator in 2015. What, what led you to saying, Hey, let’s, let’s see if we can hook up with the guys over at Y Combinator?

[00:15:23] Jeff Chang: Yeah, so that’s the thing. In finances, there’s not too much innovation, right? Because it’s a lot of regulation and so on and so forth. And so even at our company, we, we always, even our identity today is still, you know, Silicon Valley meets Wall Street. Right. I always think that, like in my mind, if, you know, someone in Silicon Valley were to come into our business, they could end up in jail. Right. Or if Wall Street ends up in, in Silicon Valley, you know, you, you, you might be, you know, just end up in a ditch. ’cause you know, you’ll

[00:15:57] Barry Ritholtz: Be run over for sure.

[00:15:58] Jeff Chang: Yeah, exactly. Because the end of the day is, you know, we went four years with no income. Wow. Right? Like lived off our Wall Street bonuses, me and my co-founder Kran Sue, like, we didn’t get paid for, you know, four plus years to found this company. Like that’s how much you have to the grit and the belief in something. And, and that culture really, really, I think comes out of kind of startup, kind of the Silicon Valley area. Y Combinator at the time

[00:16:26] Barry Ritholtz: Run run by Paul Graham, is it

[00:16:29] Jeff Chang: Paul Graham at, that was the first year Paul Graham stepped down and Sam Altman when I showed

[00:16:35] Barry Ritholtz: Up Ah, gotcha.

[00:16:36] Jeff Chang: Was president of Y Combinator. So 2015,

[00:16:38] Barry Ritholtz: I didn’t realize

[00:16:39] Jeff Chang: 2015. Yeah. Sam was president of Y Combinator. For the folks out there that don’t know. So yc, you know, similar to like a college application, you, you fill out an online college application, you actually don’t need a company. They, they help you form the firm. And you know, the companies that have come out of that program, you know, Airbnb, Reddit, Coinbase, DoorDash, OpenAI was funded by YC Research. So all of that, all of those firms came out of yc. So in fact, I think I read a book called The launchpad, which talks about yc, the companies that they’re, I mean, the first class of YC included Sam Altman, Justin Kahn, who founded Twitch, and Alexis Hanon who founded Reddit. And I think there was like, correct mem May, maybe nine companies. I mean, that’s a all star cast if you ask me for Yeah,

[00:17:33] Barry Ritholtz: Absolutely.

[00:17:34] Jeff Chang: For a class. And so it was definitely someplace that we wanted to be around. There weren’t a lot of finance firms. In fact, vest is the largest asset manager to merge outta yc. So it was definitely something to try something different and really in, get into the Silicon Valley and really push the innovation within, within finance.

[00:17:58] Barry Ritholtz: I don’t know if this is still the case, but a couple of years ago, the standard deal was something like half a million dollars for 7% of the company, plus a three month program of building, iterating, pitching, et cetera. That’s right. Does that more or less sound right? That’s

[00:18:13] Jeff Chang: Right. That’s the deal Today Our deal was probably close to one fifth of that.

[00:18:17] Barry Ritholtz: Oh really? Yeah. Well, 10 years ago. Yeah, exactly.

[00:18:20] Jeff Chang: A lot of changed over the last

[00:18:21] Barry Ritholtz: Decade.

[00:18:22] Jeff Chang: And, and, and they have done a great job. I I, I think they have maintained their, I I, I think the stat was since 2012, 20% of the super unicorns were funded by Y Combinator. Wow. That’s amazing. And then like second place is like 3% and plus or something like that. And

[00:18:43] Barry Ritholtz: This is like a full on bootcamp where it’s three months and they are really taking you through the process. Here’s how you build a startup. Here’s how you iterate. When you first joined yc, did you have any idea what the final product of Vest was gonna be? Or did that experience clarify where you wanted to go? There

[00:19:04] Jeff Chang: Were certain, we went in with the idea of buffers and downside protection. There were certain pivots as far as like, Hey, what’s the best delivery vehicle to start with?

[00:19:15] Barry Ritholtz: Meaning an ETF as opposed to an SA

[00:19:18] Jeff Chang: Versus, exactly. Exactly. But that was the foundational, if you even look at our application, our pitch, it was exactly talking about the need for downside protection, the need to, you know, fix liquidity and credit risk and other types of instruments. Those were kind of the foundational problems because YC always says that like, make something that people want. And then don’t just come up with the ideas. Start with the problem

[00:19:42] Barry Ritholtz: You’re solving for, solving a

[00:19:44] Jeff Chang: Specific problem you’re solving. And the problem needs to be painful enough. And so anybody out there that’s ever thinking about starting a startup, always start with the problem first and make sure the problem is painful enough for your customer. That that becomes, you know, how you solve it can change a little bit. But the problem always existed and, and we thought that that was a, a, a noble problem to, and, and a painful enough problem to, to seek.

[00:20:10] Barry Ritholtz: That’s a very customer focused approach to building a business. I don’t, I don’t know if Wall Street necessarily thinks in those terms. There tends to be an attitude of this is how it’s been, it’s been successful. Why do you think you’re smarter than everybody else? Smarter than the market? Like, that’s the sort of pushback you’ve gotten and that you tend to get when you roll out a different approach. That’s right. How has the experience been marrying the Wall Street ethos where failure is abhorrent? Yeah. And the Silicon Valley mindset, which is, hey, failure just gets you to the solution. It’s just one more step. Yeah.

[00:20:53] Jeff Chang: And, and that’s where kind of the ethos of our Silicon Valley meets Wall Street is that we live in both worlds. Like our background, me and Qurans are Wall Street backgrounds. That, that there is no move fast and break things mentality on our Wall Street ethos. Right. Right. It is measure four times cut once. This is people’s livelihoods, their, their wealth. So that part we did not adopt, not like break things type mentality. That is not, it’s

[00:21:25] Barry Ritholtz: Hard to do that when you’re a highly regulated industry.

[00:21:27] Jeff Chang: Exactly. Exactly. Second is that we also realized you can’t do this alone. It’s not like we’re starting an Airbnb where we can just kind of do X, Y, and Z. We needed partnerships. We needed, like coming back to the point of influence. Like we needed people that really could help us with innovation. Hence we actually only have two investors. One is Siebel Global Markets, Chicago Board Option Exchange, the largest option exchange in the world. And First Trust one of the largest ETF providers here in the United States that has been intricate in the ability to shape and mold the industry. Just like even with the exchange, like, wait,

[00:22:03] Barry Ritholtz: Let me roll you back. Yeah. You said you only had two investors

[00:22:07] Jeff Chang: Now today.

[00:22:07] Barry Ritholtz: Now, today all So let, before we get there, let’s, let’s talk about the, the Post Y Combinator experience. So they give you barely six figures Yeah. For a small chunk of the company. They, they take you through a, a bootcamp Yeah. That teaches you all these different things from focus on problem solving to iteration to pitching investors. Yeah. Who were the early investors? Invest.

[00:22:34] Jeff Chang: So we had our lead coming outta y Combinator was First Round Capital. People aren’t familiar. That’s the company

[00:22:41] Barry Ritholtz: That It’s a great name. Yeah. If you’re doing venture investing.

[00:22:43] Jeff Chang: Exactly. They were one of the first investors in a small company called Uber. And they had, so that worked out okay. Yeah. They got a lot of big wins there. And after that, you know, we had kind of a party round of a lot of different like angels and other, other smaller VCs. But after that, that’s when SIBO came in and, and wanted a, a bigger stake in the firm. But the whole YC experience was very much like the show Silicon Valley. Right.

[00:23:13] Barry Ritholtz: Which I, which I just loved. Yeah. So great.

[00:23:16] Jeff Chang: And to the point where, like, when we got to yc, we rented a hacker house. By the way, the house that we rented was called Hacker House. And it was a one story building with like three bedrooms, not enough bedrooms for all of us that were working there. I think Koran had to sleep on the floor on a mattress for three months. And by the way, this is coming from being over a decade on Wall Street. Like, we’re now sleeping on the floor.

[00:23:44] Barry Ritholtz: Hey, there’s nothing to do, but get this done.

[00:23:46] Jeff Chang: EE exactly. And this is why I I say like, sometimes like if a former trader on Wall Street ends up in Silicon Valley, they may end up in a dish. ’cause like you have to go four years, no pay sleep on the floor. It’s not fun. Where you’re used to like wearing, you know, suits and loafers on Park Avenue. It’s a big shock to the system. But that’s the thing is like, you know, at the same time, it’s, it’s to okay, sleeping on the floor, it’s better than sleeping on the ground when, when you’re in the military, but that, that’s the grit that you kind of go through. Right.

[00:24:14] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up, we continue our conversation with Jeff Chang, co-founder and president of Vest, talking about his experiences at Y Combinator. I’m Barry Riol. You are listening to Masters of Business on Bloomberg Radio. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Jeff Chang. He is the co-founder and president of Vest. The firm manages $50 billion in ETFs that are described as outcome oriented investing. Some people call them buffer funds. So you have this experience with Y Combinator, any of that graduating class with you, you’re still in touch with who else were Oh,

[00:25:11] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So I’m not sure if folks out there know GitLab. Oh, of course. Sid. Sid was our, our group. My group,

[00:25:18] Barry Ritholtz: No relationship to GitHub, which predates that by

[00:25:22] Jeff Chang: A long time. But yeah. But GitLab was our, I think they IPO’ed on the Nasdaq, I think over 5 billion or something like that. They’re doing really well. There was, the equipment share was also our, our batch. A lot, lot of lot of big winners in in our, and by the way, you’ve probably been to college where you go into a lecture hall Right. And you have your first day of class. The first day of yc. You know what they tell you? They’re like, you know, 4% of you guys in this room will be billionaires. Right. You know,

[00:25:54] Barry Ritholtz: No intimidation factor at all,

[00:25:55] Jeff Chang: By the way, that’s the math. Right? Right. Sure. Like on average it’s a 4%. I I think right now it’s like five to 6% unicorn rate. But how many classes can you go through that? Like, you’re like, Hey, 4% of four to 5% of you guys are gonna have extremely successful companies coming outta this class. And by the way, you look around and you’re like, oh man, is that really possible? And then you, you, you blink 13 years later, you’re like, wow, it really did happen. Like, there, there’s incredibly successful firms and incredibly successful people. And you look back and like, even now, I look at my group partners. I, I look back, my group partners were incredible. I had Gary Tan who found an initial eyes and also is now the president, COY Combinator, Alexis o’ Handon, founder Reddit. Justin Conn founded Twitch Cap Meac, who was like an allstar in, in in marketing and pr like I had an Allstar group.

[00:26:47] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah, no, it definitely, definitely sounds like it. We’re talking about winners, but Silicon Valley wears losers like a badge of pride. Yeah. Like it’s, hey, this is what’s expected, which is very different than the way the East Coast tends to approach things. Tell us about that. Not being afraid to fail, not being afraid to try things, iterate and take this doesn’t work. Let’s go with that. How, how different is that experience on the West coast than what you experienced on Wall Street?

[00:27:22] Jeff Chang: Yeah, I, I mean definitely in Silicon Valley, failure is, is okay. They, they have a saying if you’re gonna fail, fail fast. Right. Whereas I feel like on Wall Street is like, you don’t want to fail fast. Like that’s called a blow up. Right. Right. So there, there’s some parts. Given the industry that we’re in, we had to ignore some of the, the, the aspects of it. I think everything that we did, I wouldn’t say was ultimate failure. Maybe not the success that we wanted because we wanted to make sure everything we built were strong in foundation. Right. It would like last stand the test of time no matter what happened. Hmm. Maybe not wildly successful, but then that, that’s how you pivot. So it’s not necessarily failure per se, but not the success you’re looking for. Then pivot and try to find other ways to deliver and how to solve the problem better. But I, I still think that the idea of, of not being afraid of failure and that grit and the ability to, you know, pick yourself up. It, it’s that attitude that like, you know, this is not the end. Failure is just the, the mother of success. And you just have to keep learning from those mistakes. Is everything is a learning process. I can’t tell you one person that I know that’s successful. That has not failed.

[00:28:40] Barry Ritholtz: No, that makes perfect sense. You know, you, you don’t know what’s gonna work and you don’t know what’s not gonna work until you try. Yeah. And if you know there, the, there’s a story about, hey, if you’re not failing occasionally, then you’re just not taking enough risk. Yeah. Say to say the very least. All right. So, so let’s talk a little bit about how this developed. You come out of Y Combinator sometime in 2015. When did you first start taking client assets, client money?

[00:29:12] Jeff Chang: Well, NYC we were taking client assets. I think we launched our first mutual fund in 2016. It was the first buffer fund of, of its kind. And then,

[00:29:24] Barry Ritholtz: So wait, let’s stay with mutual funds, which have their own complications with capital gains tax. Sure. Given what you do primarily with derivatives and options in order to create that buffer, how, how does that play out in a mutual fund wrapper?

[00:29:41] Jeff Chang: Yeah. There are obviously challenges that may not be as, let’s say, the same as like an ETF, that, you know, in 2019 they introduced the in kind. This is also another example of the partnership with sibo. It’s, it’s been

[00:29:57] Barry Ritholtz: Around for real estate for forever it seems. Yeah, that’s right. And it just took Wall Street a while to catch up to that. Explain what in con in kind creation and redemption looks like. Yes. And what it means to you.

[00:30:09] Jeff Chang: So in mutual funds, there’s a challenge in, in some cases that in, if there’s a redemption, you would sell your securities, which could have the potential to realize gains. And ETFs not just unique to these ETFs are all ETFs. They have the ability to, let’s say in kind securities. So when someone wants their money back, instead of giving them market maker selling securities and giving them cash, in some cases you can give them securities thereby not potentially realizing the gain for, for the shareholders. So it per has the potential for tax efficiency by having in kind. Now, prior to 2019 October of 2019, that was not, we weren’t able to do that with options that was introduced in October of 2019. So we launched our first Buffer ETFs in November of 2019 in partnership with our partners at First Trust. And so that has been one of the fastest growing areas, not just for our firm, but as the ETF industry as a whole.

[00:31:15] Barry Ritholtz: So, so let’s talk a little bit about what a Buffer fund does. What are the advantages? What are you giving up in order to obtain those vantages? What, what’s the largest fund? What’s the largest ETF now at Vest?

[00:31:30] Jeff Chang: So the largest buffer fund and the one at Vest is BUFR. And it’s built good ticker. Yeah. It’s built on the foundation that, you know, the, the kind of fundamentals of the strategy is the buffer strategy, which is, you know, let’s say you get s and p exposure for one year, the first 10% is protected. So as an example of strategy, if s and P is down 10, you’re flat for the year and then you get upside up to, let’s say a predetermined cap. So let’s say s and P is up 15, you’re up 15. But the most you can make is 15. So if s and P is up 16, you’re up 15. Right. So you’re capped out at that 15%

[00:32:09] Barry Ritholtz: Percent so’s like 23 and 24 kind of unusual. Sure. You don’t usually see 25% two years in a row. Yeah. But if you were in the fund in 22, down 22% Yeah. Means you’re only down 12%. Is that That’s right.

[00:32:26] Jeff Chang: That’s right. So

[00:32:27] Barry Ritholtz: That’s the trade

[00:32:27] Jeff Chang: Off. Yeah. And the, and here’s the thing is that most people don’t realize these strategies have the potential to outperform the market. Even if you’re talking about, you know, high double digit equity returns. ’cause think about this, in 2022 because of inflation, when interest rates went up, stocks and bonds both went down at the same time. Right? Right. You could have mixed your stocks and bonds any way you wanted in 2022 you were

[00:32:48] Barry Ritholtz: Down 60 40 was negative. Exactly. In 2022.

[00:32:51] Jeff Chang: And unless you were managing money 40 years ago, you had not experienced inflation. Right. And you couldn’t hide anywhere. I mean, you were like Tom Brady choosing between alimony and child support while taking your kids to juujitsu practice. Right. Like the thing is there was nowhere to hide. Right. Right. Whereas if you were hedging, and the great thing about hedging is if you buy s and p and you buy an s and p put that put is perfectly negatively correlated to estimate. It’s like buying

[00:33:17] Barry Ritholtz: Insurance. It’s an inverse. Exactly. Its the

[00:33:19] Jeff Chang: Opposite. Right. And so imagine if you had a strategy that did not participate in the majority of the drawdowns in 2022, that means you had more to invest to take advantage of the gains in 20 23, 20 24, and 2025. This is the compounding effect of winning without losing. Right. It’s the compounding effect of playing offense and defense at the same time. Because the end of the day is, a lot of times, you know, these types of strategies are not the get rich game. If you’re 20 years old, probably not the strategy for you. But, you know, in in, in our industry, a lot of the people that have wealth, they’re in the stay rich game. Right. These types of strategies are in the stay rich game. ’cause if, if you have wealth, you just don’t want to be poor. Right. So that’s why that’s the kind of crux of protecting your, your equity exposure.

And the, the idea is, the issue with hedging has always been that to hedge with options and so on and so forth. One of the biggest, and they had surveys on why, you know, investors and financial advisors don’t hedge with options. And they all, everybody said the same. Two things, compliance and scalability. You know, the compliance burden associated with trading options and the scalability. ’cause when you buy a fund, you buy a stock, you, you could put in your portfolio, fall asleep for 30 years, maybe you boun, rebalance once a quarter. You buy an option every 30 days, 60 days from now, you have to trade it by having it inside a fund, we can trade that for you. And so now you can asset, allocate, rebalance once a quarter. It solves a lot of those issues. And, and this is the, the thing that I find very interesting is two things.

Number one is these strategies have been around for over 30 years. The buffer structure note has been around for years. Buffer annuities I think were introduced in 2010. All we did was cut the bank insurance company out. Like instead of having the banker insurance company hedge themselves with options and then issue you a policy or issue you a No, we just said, why not just put the hedge in a fund and now you own it? We cut the middleman out of the middle. The other component is to think about in business that I, I always look back, so Richard Thaer, the professor at University of Chicago won the Nobel Prize for behavioral finance. Right. The

[00:35:31] Barry Ritholtz: Nudge essentially created the field.

[00:35:32] Jeff Chang: Yeah. The nudge. And I believe one of the studies by, by Cornell University had this study of, I think they had kids in the lunch line. They gave them free apples. Like you get the end of the, you get a free apple. Right. By the way, the consumption was like less than like, I don’t know, 20%. Like it was a very low consumption rate. No one took the apple, then they cut the apples up and they put them in little bags. By the way, the consumption went through the roof. Why? This was the nudge, this was the idea that you make it simple, people will use it. Think about options as apples. And then that we had bagged those apples to make it easier for the user to consume them without the compliance and scalability burden to them. Because theoretically, any broker or any financial advisor out there can actually trade those themselves. But that’s like the same thing. Like every child could sit there and cut their own slice their own apples, but they don’t wanna do that.

[00:36:27] Barry Ritholtz: So let me ask you, ’cause ’cause you’ve brought this up a few times, and I wanna hone in on this. Is your target consumer mom and pop main street investors? Or are you focused more on the advisor channel or brokerage channel? Who, or, or all three, some combination.

[00:36:46] Jeff Chang: We are not that focused in the retail space mostly. And, and by the way, I would say a hundred percent of our focus is in financial professionals. Really. Because that, those are our partners. Those are our, the, the people that we stand side by side with. We build products that, those are the people we’re solving problems for them, which they’re solving problems for their clients. We stand side by side with the financial professionals that manage, you know, the,

[00:37:19] Barry Ritholtz: And once you bring them up to speed, it’s, it’s incumbent on them to find the clients that think are the right fit for this. And they get to explain that rather,

[00:37:28] Jeff Chang: Rather than Exactly, because every single client is different and unique. We make products across and every client is different. And how that, that gets utilized. We, we help the financial advisor even, you know, how to best build and achieve their client’s investment objectives. But as far as like the end client, that, that’s typically not, not our customer.

[00:37:49] Barry Ritholtz: So, so I mentioned 60 40 earlier, does a buffered fund act as a substitute for 60 40? In other words, if you own, whether it’s 60 40, 70 30, you own bonds for income, of which there hasn’t been a lot over the past 15, 20 years, but also as a non-correlated asset with equity other than 81 and and 2022 does this and it offsets the volatility in drawdowns inequities. Do buffered funds behave similarly to a 60 40? Is that the thinking? I

[00:38:25] Jeff Chang: Wouldn’t say similarly. Let let me give you a, a kind of a how, how we think about it. So if you look at, let’s say, a strategy of a 10% buffer on s and p, in fact, you know, there are indexes out there that track these. Even if you compare that to let’s say like a BlackRock 60 40 portfolio, you actually notice that the standard deviation is almost identical. The volatility is very similar Right. Over the long term. But the source of the risk management is different. Right. You’re actually hedging, you’re not hoping that the correlation between stocks and bonds, the negative correlation is there that, you know, when my stocks go down, I hope my bonds go up kind of situation. Right? Well

[00:39:06] Barry Ritholtz: Historically they do most of the time. Yeah. They didn’t in 2022. They didn’t in 1981. Exactly. You know, so it, it’s every 40 years or so we seem to get this headache

[00:39:16] Jeff Chang: Or with inflation at, you know, 3%. What happens if inflation rears its head again in 20 year,

[00:39:23] Barry Ritholtz: The next rising. Exactly. You’ll end up with the same issue the next time we see a serious set. Exactly.

[00:39:29] Jeff Chang: And this is why we say why not diversify your risk management and hedge. So if I have a hundred dollars portfolio, and let’s say I have $60 in equity, $40 in fixed income, and let’s just say I take 10 bucks out, I put six, take six from equity, four from fixed income. I put it into let’s say a 10% buffer strategy. In s and p, perhaps the standard deviation of the portfolio could be very, very similar. But notice the source of your risk management has changed. You’ve introduced hedging as the source of your risk management without the compliance, without the trading. Scalability, issues of options. You’ve introduced hedging as the source of risk management if inflation were to rear its head. ’cause the thing is, this is what everybody needs to ask themselves if inflation were to come back. Right. Which is a very, is not a, is a very, there’s a high

[00:40:20] Barry Ritholtz: So non-zero

[00:40:21] Jeff Chang: Possibility. It’s

[00:40:22] Barry Ritholtz: No possibility way above that. Yeah, exactly.

[00:40:24] Jeff Chang: What in your portfolio is going to save you if 2022 repeats itself? That’s the question everybody needs to ask. I always get the, I answer commodities, great commodities. It’s a timing trade, right? That’s right. You can get in, it’ll work. But when it’s not inflationary, what happens to that trade? I, I mean I’m not, well

[00:40:44] Barry Ritholtz: Lemme point out that gold didn’t do great in 21 or 22. Yeah. It’s only in the past few years where it’s really exploded higher.

[00:40:53] Jeff Chang: That’s right. That’s right. So I’m not smart enough to time that trade. And that’s the great thing about these types of solutions is you don’t have to time the trade, right? Like you’re diversifying your risk management through just hedging. And like I said, repeat it again. This is the stay rich game, right? How do we protect wealth? Not, not like make exorbitant amounts of it, but protect wealth and, and, and get a, a decent return from, from people’s wealth.

[00:41:22] Barry Ritholtz: So buffer is 10% hedged on the s and p 500. Tell us about some of the other ETFs you guys run.

[00:41:29] Jeff Chang: So one of the kind of overall themes that we’ve seen in the market is, you know, two things that really people are looking for is downside protection. But the other one is income generation. As the boomers are in retirement, the need for yield has really shown how high it is. I mean, if you look at the derivative income space, I think in 2018, and Morningstar ranked 58th last year is ranked ninth in flows. Right? People are looking for income. And as volatility goes up, just like strategies, like writing cover calls are extremely, it’s a another way to derive yield by monetizing volatility in different asset classes. You could do it in gold, you can do it in Bitcoin, you can do it in equities, you can do it in fixed income. And that’s the thing is people were always thinking one dimensionally that like the innovation is always about thinking three dimensionally when everybody else is thinking in two dimension. Right? This is why we have, you know, build strategies to derive income from, you know, not just equities, but fixed income. But for from gold, from bitcoin, from any asset class you can. So

[00:42:37] Barry Ritholtz: Give us a few ETFs that are primarily income focused. Yeah.

[00:42:41] Jeff Chang: So one of our biggest ones is K and G, which tracks the dividend aristocrats our DVI, which tracks the dividend achievers. These all provide, you know, attractive level of yield I think. So

[00:42:57] Barry Ritholtz: Dividend aristocrats tend to be high dividend, low price. They tend not to be high PE companies. Yeah. So they’re fairly stable. Is that, is that, yeah.

[00:43:08] Jeff Chang: So the companies that have grown their dividend, this was created by s and p back in 2005, companies that grown their dividend for 25 consecutive years. Wow. And these are dividend growers. They’re not dividend payers. So they typically, I believe, you know, yield less than 2%, but they’ve grown their dividend for 25 consecutive years. So for a company to grow their dividend for 25 consecutive years,

[00:43:29] Barry Ritholtz: That’s a stable business. Yes.

[00:43:31] Jeff Chang: And it has to cash flow. It’s not a pe play. Right, right. For, for all intents and purposes, it, it is companies that have to have strong moats. And the other thing that people miss is good corporate governance. ’cause who makes dividend policy? The board for a board to never cut a dividend for 25 years. It, it actually was a filter for good corporate governance. Now

[00:43:52] Barry Ritholtz: And that stock symbol is that ETF symbol is

[00:43:55] Jeff Chang: K-N-G-K-N-G.

[00:43:57] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. And, and you guys generate additional income on that with cover cover

[00:44:03] Jeff Chang: Call writing. That’s right. That’s

[00:44:04] Barry Ritholtz: Right. So if it’s a 2% yield, what do you actually

[00:44:07] Jeff Chang: Ballpark generating? So we’re, our distribution yield’s probably in the past year over 8%.

[00:44:13] Barry Ritholtz: Really? That’s a big number. And we’re on

[00:44:15] Jeff Chang: Average, I believe covering around 20% of every single name. So, you know, if I have a hundred shares of Walmart, I’m writing an at the money call and let’s say 20 of those shares as an example to achieve that target income. So one of the things that core beliefs that we have when writing cover calls is like one of the biggest drivers is stock selection. You pick good stocks, you get good results. Right. While you know the aristocrats, they don’t have the high flying mag seven names. Right. But definitely as you look forward into the windshield, these are really gonna be the names as the market bronze out. Right? Like I really do think in the next year you’re really looking at kind of a barbell approach where you, you, you have the NVIDIAs and the, and the high hyperscalers in your portfolio, but you really need to have the strong staples that cash flow, especially.

[00:45:05] Barry Ritholtz: What are, what are some of the names in KNG?

[00:45:08] Jeff Chang: Well, you got like Chevron, Walmart, like your really blue chip names that are there. I mean, look at Chevron. They, they, they have the potential to be, you know, one of the beneficiaries of oil in Venezuela, right? Like they were, they were there before. They, these are the cash flowing like crime like companies that like, like I said, grown their dividend for 25 consecutive years. These are strong, strong names that are out there.

[00:45:34] Barry Ritholtz: Do you, do you do anything with fixed income on the yield side? Yeah. As well.

[00:45:37] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So we have cover calls on high yield tracking. HYG gives you also, I believe a double digit distribution yield only covering about, you know, 20 to 25% of the portfolio. So you’re still getting over, you know, on a weekly basis. 70.

[00:45:55] Barry Ritholtz: And and what’s that? ETF symbol

[00:45:57] Jeff Chang: HYTI Heidi. Yeah. And,

[00:46:01] Barry Ritholtz: And what about Commod? Do you do anything on the commodity side? So

[00:46:04] Jeff Chang: We have gold, I-I-G-L-D. So you know, biggest knock on gold has been the hunk of metal. Since your portfolio doesn’t do anything now you can monetize the volatility and have, you know, potentially

[00:46:16] Barry Ritholtz: Same process covered coal writing. Exactly. So it, this is why CBO is a partner with you guys. How does that relationship help you manage all of this option writing all this? That’s a great call

[00:46:30] Jeff Chang: Activity. That’s a great question. So let’s take I Gold as an example, right? Prior to that fund, GLD options stopped trading at four o’clock. By the way, this is one of the reasons why SIBO partnered with us, is how do we solve certain issues in the option market for the construction of of funds, right? If options stop trading at four o’clock and I need to know the close, I can’t create an ETF on that. That’s right. Right. SS and p options. SPI options, they trade, they close at four 15 today. GLD options stop trading at four 15. By the way, that’s a really cool statement to say that the entire street trades GLD options, that extra 15 minutes because we wanted that,

[00:47:15] Barry Ritholtz: That’s great.

[00:47:16] Jeff Chang: But that’s because you

[00:47:17] Barry Ritholtz: Have, you have to take the closing price at four and then use it for an in day

[00:47:21] Jeff Chang: Hedge or Yeah. We that we need that, we need that option market to be open that extra 15 minutes. And by the way, that, that those products by First Trust, invest, are, are the reason why we have an extra 15 minutes to trade GLD options. So if you’re, you’re late and you’re trading at 4 0 5, that, that’s us.

[00:47:38] Barry Ritholtz: And, and option trading is so much more complicated. So much more difficult. Yeah. Like you, I started on an equity desk, but have always been a little bit of a, an option junkie. Yeah. ’cause it’s so fascinating and most people use, don’t use options correctly, they’re just making like a lottery ticket bet. Yeah. Which tends not to be smart. You guys are using options for a very specific purpose to achieve what you describe as a defined outcome. Yeah. Solving

[00:48:09] Jeff Chang: Result, a problem,

[00:48:10] Barry Ritholtz: Solving a problem started with a problem. Really interesting. Yeah. Coming up we continue our conversation with Jeff Chang, co-founder and president of Vest. I’m Barry Ritholtz, your listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I’m Barry Ritholtz, your listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Jeff Chang. He’s president and co-founder of Vest. The firm specializes in outcome oriented investing via primarily ETFs. They run over $50 billion in assets. Yeah. Before I get to my favorite questions, I want to ask any, so we’ve covered stocks, bonds, commodities, you mentioned crypto. What are you doing in terms of crypto and generating additional defined outcome results? Yeah. Using derivatives.

[00:49:15] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So we have a strategy also target income almost, I believe about a 18, 19% yield. And you’re still only covering about 20%. So that strategy tracks Bitcoin. So you can get on a weekly basis, let’s say, you know, 70, 80% of the upside in Bitcoin. And then a, you know, really high, high, almost 20% yield by monetizing the volatility. It’s the same thing because like, just like gold, some of the knock is, is that it just sits in my portfolio doesn’t do anything. And the value,

[00:49:47] Barry Ritholtz: Well no one could say that about Bitcoin. Yeah. It’s always doing something going up or going

[00:49:51] Jeff Chang: Down. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And

[00:49:52] Barry Ritholtz: What’s the ETF symbol for that?

[00:49:54] Jeff Chang: I bit, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m, I’m sorry. Not I That’s black eye. Yeah, yeah. Defi. D-F-D-F-I-I. That’s right.

[00:50:02] Barry Ritholtz: DFII. Yeah. And so that’s options. How much of the upside, how much of the downside do you get and give up? Or is it just geared,

[00:50:13] Jeff Chang: We’re just writing cover calls on to Target, you know, a specific yield. I, like I said, I think anywhere from recovering every week about 20 to 25%. And at the money, how

[00:50:23] Barry Ritholtz: Often do those roll? Every week. Every week. Wow.

[00:50:25] Jeff Chang: Every Friday. Yeah. The reason why we like Weaks is that when you sell a call, you want the premium to go to zero, right? That’s right. And that decay accelerates in that last week if you’re selling a monthly option. So if you like do it four times a a month, you, you, you have the potential to generate more yield because you’re always capturing that extra decay. It’s like, it’s like football tickets, right? Like you ever go on StubHub like game times at one o’clock and you, you, you go on StubHub at 12, the ticket starts to drop like a rock. Right? Imagine if you kept tracking that and you, you made money off that, that that drop Right. And everything kind of follows that, that in fact, there’s actually only one thing that doesn’t follow that, you know what that is?

[00:51:09] Barry Ritholtz: Go on

[00:51:10] Jeff Chang: Giants tickets, they decay before the season starts.

[00:51:14] Barry Ritholtz: Well, as a guy who used to be in New Jersey for sure. Or

[00:51:18] Jeff Chang: Jets tickets, actually both of those are anomaly. They

[00:51:21] Barry Ritholtz: So really, so in other words, bad assets Yeah. Don’t generate good option returns. Yeah. That, that’s pretty reasonable. Yeah. How often do things get called away? That’s obviously the risk when you’re writing calls. Sure. How, how do you manage around that? How frequently is that built into your models? I mean,

[00:51:39] Jeff Chang: That can happen Oh, pretty frequently. But here’s the deal. Like, like think about this. And this is just a concept of of of of, let’s say I collect a $2 premium and the stock goes up $1.

[00:51:53] Barry Ritholtz: You’re good. Yeah.

[00:51:55] Jeff Chang: I made a a dollar, but it still got called away, but I still made a dollar. I just buy the stock back or however, however way I deal with the assignment, depending on the, the strategy. So the idea is as long as the stock doesn’t go above the premium, if I’m writing out the money or what, what I’ve actually gotten. Exactly. It

[00:52:10] Barry Ritholtz: Gives you a buffer to repurchase the stock not at a loss.

[00:52:14] Jeff Chang: Exactly. And, and this comes into what we call about the implied versus realized premium meaning options. If I look historically of a particular asset, whether it be a stock or a commodity or whatever, and it, it historically moves X I’m not gonna sell the premium at that number. Right. It’s gotta be X plus, right? Right. Just like when you sell car insurance, like if my expected loss is a thousand dollars, I’m not gonna sell the premium F for a thousand. I’m gonna sell it for $1,200 to make 200. Right. That extra little bit. Right? So in options, they have what’s called the implied versus realized premium. And so that’s really kind of where you’re trying to capture is, is the implied volatility versus what the realized volatility. And you’re hoping that the implied will be greater than the realized. I mean that’s the hope and option, especially when you’re selling them. Right. I think there’s a stat that like, you know, 60% or 70% of the time the person selling the option wins the trade. Right? Right.

[00:53:12] Barry Ritholtz: Most, you know, old option traders don’t die, they just expire worthless. Yeah, exactly. Is the old, old desk joke, but Exactly. You know, if you are a writer of options, you’re making a very specific bet. Yeah. And if you’re a purchase of options, you’re making a very different bedside.

[00:53:25] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you see this, you know, in some cases the buying options is like you said, it, it, it, it, it can, you know, even Warren Buffet said there could be weapons of mass destruction. I mean, you could see these zero day options that people are buying.

[00:53:38] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. That’s become crazy.

[00:53:39] Jeff Chang: I mean, those are like scratch off lottery tickets. Right, right, right. Who’s buying them? I don’t know. The kid in his mom basement popping his pimples eating manna sandwiches. I don’t know. At,

[00:53:47] Barry Ritholtz: At one point in time I imagine that there were market makers that had a hedge that for reasons Yeah. That were complicated. They were stuck with overnight positions. Yeah. Like I almost understand that, but the day traders playing with these Yeah, this is fanduels and draftking. Yeah. Pure speculative nonsense. Yeah,

[00:54:08] Jeff Chang: Exactly. So that’s why we don’t have anything in that space, but it is something to look at from afar.

[00:54:16] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really fascinating stuff. Last question before I jump to my favorite questions. So you are constantly thinking about how do we hedge this position? How do we create a buffer? How do we define a specific outcome for clients? What do you think the average investor isn’t thinking about relative to that approach? But, but perhaps should be. What, what do you think most people are kind of missing or not paying enough attention to? And, and it could be a geography, it could be a policy, whatever. But you, you’re obviously thinking about a lot of things differently than the typical index purchaser. What are we missing?

[00:54:59] Jeff Chang: Yeah, I think, you know, while we’ve had a tremendous amount of growth in, in kind of the option space of downside protection and, and the income generation part, I think a lot of the market is still, I think thinking two dimensionally in the stocks and bonds. Right? Like instead of just diversifying across, think about you could still diversify, but think about other ways to shape your return. Right? Or thinking about income generation out of the equity portfolio think about income generation or boosting yield in your fixed income part of it. And then also thinking about risk management beyond diversification there, while there is a lot of good part of the financial professional space that is picking up on this, I still don’t think like we are just tip of the iceberg at this point. Right. Hmm. That’s on one, one standpoint. I think people are, are still missing. The second I think is the, I think one of the biggest drivers in the market today, and no one would disagree is ai. Right? For sure. However, that’s not the part that people are, are, are missing that, you know, having been through the two thousands, I really feel like this is like 1999, 2000. Like think about the stocks that were big then, right? Like you had

[00:56:15] Barry Ritholtz: Juniper Networks. Yeah. Metromedia fiber. Wow. Right.

[00:56:18] Jeff Chang: Like I remember you guys remember price line

[00:56:21] Barry Ritholtz: Global crossing. Yeah. Well pri you know, a lot of these companies have been either absorbed into other companies. Yeah. And still price line Expedia, there’s a through line there. Totally. How is pets.com not Chewy today? Yeah. So some of ’em were just a little early.

[00:56:37] Jeff Chang: Exactly. So now let me ask you, who won that trade? Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon. Amazon,

[00:56:42] Barry Ritholtz: Apple, Microsoft. A

[00:56:44] Jeff Chang: Lot of those companies were private or startups then Google,

[00:56:48] Barry Ritholtz: Right?

[00:56:48] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Like, think about that. And I think that’s the same, like history doesn’t repeat itself. It rhymes. I actually think a lot of the, kind of the hugely successful companies from AI are in startup mode. So they’re at y combin error. 90% of the, almost 80 90% of the companies at YC are AI driven. They have, I’ve seen an article recently. Their month over month average for the batch is double digits, meaning their revenue is growing over 10% month, month to month, month over month. Wow. Or, or in some cases week over week,

[00:57:23] Barry Ritholtz: The week that, that’s unbelievable. And I, I said to someone the other day, someone said, who’s gonna de Deron Nvidia? And I said, the founder of that company hasn’t graduated high school yet, but he’s coming or she’s coming. He’s not, it’s not impossible. All right. Let’s, let’s jump to our favorite questions that we ask all of our guests. Starting with, who are your mentors who helped shape your career?

[00:57:49] Jeff Chang: Oh, that’s a great question. I would actually have to say my brother. Really? Yes. And

[00:58:00] Barry Ritholtz: In

[00:58:00] Jeff Chang: What way? My, I have an older brother. He’s four years older than me. He’s the overachiever, I’m the underachiever of the family. Okay. So my brother, I remember growing up, he was like the, he was good at math and science. I would literally show up to class and they’d be like, oh, you’re Bill Chang’s brother. You must be smart by the way, you know what that does to you as like a, a lot of pressure. Yeah. A lot of pressure. So he went on, he worked at Apple and then was at Tesla. I think he was chief architect of the Dojo Dojo project. If, if PE folks that aren’t familiar with Dojo, it’s the AI system at Tesla that coded the self-driving. Hmm. Right. He recently, and in fact, Bloomberg wrote an article about his firm density AI that I think they are one of the, the first companies to really kind of take on. ’cause the Dojo, I think system is one of the, one of the more efficient ways that can take on Nvidia for the chip. So that’s why it’s funny that you said like, Hey, the person that’s gonna deth throw Nvidia, may, may not, may still be in high school. I was like, yeah, he might just be four years older. Older than me. Or Right.

[00:59:13] Barry Ritholtz: Or he could be deep into the process already.

[00:59:16] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Yeah. So they recently, like I said, like Bloomberg just wrote an article about them on density ai. And he, he has been extremely, like, a lot of times people ask like, Hey, did you work that hard? ’cause your parents were, you know, like tiger parents? No, actually I was just chasing my brother the whole time. It was definitely a different dynamic and yeah. I couldn’t be more proud of him. And a lot of times people are like, Hey, what, what tea are the Changs drinking? Because we’re, but we get along great. While we’re competitive, we, we support each other. But he’s been, you’re in

[00:59:54] Barry Ritholtz: Different fields, so the competition. Exactly. Yes,

[00:59:56] Jeff Chang: Exactly. He’s an engineering. I I’m in finance

[00:59:59] Barry Ritholtz: Financial engine. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So similar, similar background. Exactly. Let, let’s talk about books. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading right now?

[01:00:05] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Well, I said Liar’s Poker was Right. Classic was a very influential one. Classic. Yeah.

[01:00:10] Barry Ritholtz: Just had its 30th anniversary, I think last year. Yeah.

[01:00:12] Jeff Chang: I like, I thought was really good for me it was the book Influenced by Robert Chelani.

[01:00:19] Barry Ritholtz: Fantastic.

[01:00:19] Jeff Chang: It was a great book. The kind of along with that, how to Win Friends and Influence People. I think those are great. I actually in finance, one of my first ones was The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. Yeah. Ben Graham. Those are kind of cornerstones. Yeah.

[01:00:34] Barry Ritholtz: That, that’s a great list. Yeah. I know you are on planes a lot. Yeah. When you’re not reading, what, what are you streaming? What’s keeping you entertained on these long cross country flights? Either podcasts or Netflix or whatever.

[01:00:48] Jeff Chang: I do listen to podcasts. A master’s in business. Yeah. However, there’s a new thing that I I I’ve been doing, actually, it’s not a book. Right. And it, it, it’ll probably be hit everybody differently on, on what I’m doing here. Okay. And I could tell you, I got this from a good friend of mine and he’s gonna kill me for saying this. So I’m good. A friend of mine, his name Matt Bellamy, he’s the lead singer in the Muse. Okay. And he, he actually taught me this, so I can’t take credit for this. We go into chat GBT and he actually sent me the prompt and we prompt chat, GBT tell me in the last two weeks what you have learned that is beyond human comprehension. Something along those lines. Really.

[01:01:37] Barry Ritholtz: How

[01:01:38] Jeff Chang: Fascinating. And by the way, it spits out all this stuff because if you think about it, humans, like we as a human, you could get a PhD in biology, you get a PhD in astrophysicists, you get PhD in chemistry. But like, you’re the expert in their field. But think about this, that like chat GBT passed the bar exam in like, I don’t know, like a couple weeks. Right, right. So it’s becoming experts in everything and then it’s combining all of those things together. So how many like PhDs and chemistry astrophysicists do you have that like have like the expert in everything and then what comes out? Like you tend to learn so many things that like, by the way, it turns into this rabbit hole. And I noticed that my prompt actually, ’cause I always tell it to me, like, explain it to me, me like I’m 16. So I’ve been driving into this other thing of, it’s been teach me about quantum entanglement. Are you familiar with this? Of course. Well, like

[01:02:29] Barry Ritholtz: Who isn’t familiar with spooky action at a distance? I mean, they teach that in middle school. Yeah,

[01:02:35] Jeff Chang: Exactly. So the, the quantum entanglement of that, you have two protons that, you know, if you do want to XY we’ll do the same. It’s just like having two dice if dice on Earth, by the way, they’ve proven this, like if you roll the, the, the dice on earth, it rolls a six. It’ll definitely roll a six. And it’s not bound by space and time. So basically it could be light years away, you roll that dice, it rolls an eight, this one in earth is gonna roll an eight. And so then they sort of combine that with is that part of human consciousness that is your consciousness. Quantum entangled is what makes

[01:03:10] Barry Ritholtz: You, you

[01:03:11] Jeff Chang: By the way this type of like thinking, there’s,

[01:03:13] Barry Ritholtz: There’s a related topic, and I haven’t run this through chat GBT, but I should, which is the concept of emergence. Yeah. Intelligence emergence as the natural outcome of the universe. Why does the universe exist if not to create a conscience Yeah. Intelligence or, although the flip side of that is life is fairly common throughout the universe. Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen. But advanced technological life so far at least appears to be exceedingly rare. Yeah. So that’s the counterbalance of totally. Of emergence. Totally. But,

[01:03:52] Jeff Chang: And then the other thing that I found recently that people can dig into, I think this is fascinating, is that your head experiences time different than your feet from the proximity of gravity’s.

[01:04:05] Barry Ritholtz: Well certainly we have to adjust GPS Yeah, yeah. Because the, for the relative relative relativity Yeah.

[01:04:11] Jeff Chang: The GPS versus

[01:04:12] Barry Ritholtz: Which, which Einstein turned out to be Right. About that. Exactly. So, but the difference between your head and feet Oh yes. Is so tiny. Unless yes, you’re falling into a black hole and then spaghettification So is is the problem.

[01:04:24] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So then you take quantum entanglement and you then say, okay, if I have a proton here and a proton elsewhere, and the light and the how that proton experience is time through entanglement versus how time bends with gravity. By the way, all of this just keeps going deeper and deeper and deeper on the rabbit. And then, and then the thing is, is that I keep telling it to explain it to me like I’m 16 now. My entire prompt explains everything. I will explain it to you as if you’re 16 years old.

[01:04:57] Barry Ritholtz: So the, the issue I occasionally run into Yeah. With perplexity or, or Chachi pt, is it tends to conform its output to you. Yes. And sometimes I’ll ask a question and it’s like, no, I don’t want a list of 10 podcast questions. Yes. I just tell me about Jeff Chang and what led to vest. Don’t gimme a podcast. That’s right. I I have my own

[01:05:20] Jeff Chang: Questions. That’s why I use multiple gr everything else. Right. That, that way I get a, a whole plethora. And then what ends up happening is you get all this new stuff and then you dig deep into whatever topic. And I found that so fascinating because I just, it’s curiosity. It’s like it’s

[01:05:37] Barry Ritholtz: Continue if you’re interested in these sorts of things. Exactly.

[01:05:39] Jeff Chang: Absolutely. And, and

[01:05:41] Barry Ritholtz: By the way, but you have to be on guard for the occasional hallucination. Oh, a hundred percent. And every now and then I find myself leaving AI to go to just traditional search. Yeah. And say, Hey, show me a source for this. Is is this? Yeah. I, I don’t think before ai I don’t think people were skeptical enough about the sources of what they consumed with ai. Yeah. You really have to know what is real and what is fake. That’s right. People, people missed that. All right. Our final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in asset management? Or, or, or gen or ETFs specifically?

[01:06:22] Jeff Chang: Yeah. I think a recent college grad. I think similar to kind of bringing it full circle, same thing. Like develop the skills that, you know, you’re not beholden to anybody. Right. Whatever that is. Whether you’re in college or outta college. Like, develop those skills that you can actually, that they’re portable, one to the other. And then not be afraid of failure. Take chances. Now, this is not for everybody. I would say, you know, meaning not everybody is going to be a founder. Not everybody’s gonna be an entrepreneur, which I, by the way, I find as two different people. Founder has the creativity. An entrepreneur has the grit and influence. A founder has to have the creativity. ’cause you’re, you’re actually introducing a whole new industry or a whole new thing that somebody else has not seen yet. Right. But that’s the thing. And then also keep your eye out for painful problems that you have the skillset to solve. So obtain those skill sets and then have your eyes out, eyes peeled throughout life. Write them down.

[01:07:29] Barry Ritholtz: Look for pain points,

[01:07:31] Jeff Chang: Look for pain points, look for problems. And then the second, the last thing is just a personal thing is don’t take yourself too seriously. Right. Have fun with life. And, and I think that, that, that is, ’cause otherwise all this stuff can create massive amounts of burnout.

[01:07:46] Barry Ritholtz: And our, our final question, what do you know about the world of buffered funds investing ETFs today might have been healthful 15, 20 years ago when you were first getting started,

[01:07:59] Jeff Chang: How hard it would’ve been, right. Like literally,

[01:08:03] Barry Ritholtz: Would that have discouraged you from launching or, yes.

[01:08:06] Jeff Chang: I think that was actually the superpower, right? Like when you climb a mountain and you don’t know how high it is and there’s a cloud base, if you saw and a clear view, it, it probably wouldn’t be, if you told me to quit my job and I wouldn’t get paid for four plus years, I probably wouldn’t have done that. But then it’s like always success is always around the corner. At least you dream of it, right? Everybody sees what you are now. They don’t see the pain where you’re constantly just waiting for that cloud to clear on the next part of the mountain. Because I, I could tell you this, that like, if, if, if you saw the how big the mountain is, it would be nobody would do it. Huh.

[01:08:43] Barry Ritholtz: Really, really interesting. Yeah. Thank you Jeff for being so generous with your time. We have been speaking with Jeff Chang, co-founder and president of Vest. If you enjoy this conversation, well check out any of the 600 we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bloomberg, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the Croc staff that helps put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

The post Transcript: MiB: Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Sunday AM Reads

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetence, corruption and policy failures:

Cabinet Apocalypse: A News Review in an Imagined Conversation: “Calling this meeting to order. That was a long speech that I just gave. State of the Union. Long speech. Not going to stand up and do that again next year. So let’s hear it. Plans to make sure I don’t have to. Plans to end the United States by a year from now. Around the table. Go. Start us off, Linda.” (Thinking about…)

• Binance Employees Find $1.7 Billion in Crypto Was Sent to Iranian Entities: Binance pledged to crack down on crime. But internal investigators at the world’s largest crypto exchange continued to find evidence of potential legal violations on the platform. After Internal Binance investigations uncovered massive flows to sanctioned Iranian entities — and employees who flagged it were fired. (New York Times) see also Binance—Whose Founder Was Pardoned—Now Holds 87% Of Trump’s Stablecoin: The exchange whose CEO received a presidential pardon now dominates the market for the Trump-linked USD1 stablecoin. (Forbes)

‘Don’t go to the US – not with Trump in charge’: the UK tourist with a valid visa detained by ICE for six weeks: A British traveler with proper documentation was detained by immigration authorities. The chilling effect on international travel to the U.S. is growing. Karen Newton was in America on the trip of a lifetime when she was shackled, transported, and held for weeks on end. With tourism to the US under increasing strain, she says, ‘If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone’(The Guardian)

• The Real Reason Anthropic Wants Guardrails: The Atlantic digs into what’s really behind Anthropic’s resistance to Pentagon pressure — it’s not just ethics, it’s a calculated bet on where AI’s long-term value lies. (The Atlantic)

The Looming Taiwan Chip Disaster That Silicon Valley Has Long Ignored: If China invades Taiwan and cuts off its chip exports to American companies, the tech industry and the U.S. economy would be crippled. (NYTimes)

They Fought for the C.I.A. in Afghanistan. In America, They’re Living in Fear. Afghan operatives who risked their lives working for U.S. intelligence are now in the U.S. — terrified of deportation by the government they served. A shooting in Washington, D.C., threw their immigration status into jeopardy — and brought attention to a long-hidden dimension of America’s war. (New York Times)

• X Really Is Pulling Users to the Right: Algorithmic radicalization has now come for the elites, too. It’s not your imagination. The platform’s algorithmic and editorial choices are measurably shifting its user base’s political orientation. (New York Magazinesee also The Republican Party Has a Nazi Problem: How did the GOP become a haven for slogans and ideas straight out of the Third Reich? It’s not a fringe issue anymore. The Atlantic examines how extremist elements have become embedded in the GOP’s coalition and why the party can’t — or won’t — purge them. (The Atlantic)

• DoJ cases against protesters keep collapsing as officers’ lies are exposed in court: A string of embarrassing defeats for prosecutors as federal agents’ testimony falls apart under scrutiny as experts condemn DoJ effort to cast people as ‘violent perpetrators’. The pattern is hard to ignore. (The Guardian)

40 Iranian Doctors and Nurses Describe a Massacre: As street protests spread across Iran in early January, the authorities turned off the internet. Most of the world didn’t see the bloody crackdown that followed. We surveyed Iranian medical workers across 14 cities and 11 provinces about their experiences treating wounded protesters. Despite great personal risk, they shared their stories. Medical workers who treated victims of Iran’s 2022 protest crackdown break their silence, describing in harrowing detail what they witnessed in hospitals and morgues. (New York Times)

I am a 15-year-old girl. Let me show you the vile misogyny that confronts me on social media every day: Anonymous: Objectification, hate, rape threats: the politicians debating online abuse mean well, but to truly understand, they need to see what I see. (The Guardian)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this weekend with Jeff Chang, cofounder and President of VEST. The firm manages over $55 billion in client assets across various “Buffered” and “Target Outcome” strategies. Backed by Y Combinator, the firm launched in 2012 and pioneered an approach to portfolio construction based on defined outcomes and engineered certainty.

 

Why English-speaking countries have especially bad housing crises is their common law systems (adversarial and litigious) vs judge-led civil law systems elsewhere

Source: @jburnmurdoch

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

MiB: Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest

 

 

This week, I speak with Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest. We discuss his journey into founding Vest and how he developed his views on the benefits of hedging via ETFs. We also talk about the creation of financial products geared towards hedging.

He explains how the largest issuer of structured notes was Lehman Brothers(!) and why Vest created a different firm without that same counterparty risk.

A list of his current reading/favorite books is here; A transcript of our conversation is available here Tuesday.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

Be sure to check out our bonus Masters in Business episode this coming week with Bill Gurley of Benchmark Capital. We discuss his career, the current state of the Venture Capital space, and his new book,

 

 

 

 

Current Reading/Favorite Books

 

 

 

 

 

The post MiB: Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Weekend Reads

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a mug of Danish Blend coffee, grab a seat outside, and get ready for our longer-form weekend reads:

A war foretold: how the CIA and MI6 got hold of Putin’s Ukraine plans and why nobody believed them: Drawing on more than 100 interviews with senior intelligence officials and other insiders in multiple countries, this exclusive account details how the US and Britain uncovered Vladimir Putin’s plans to invade, and why most of Europe – including the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy – dismissed them. As the fourth anniversary of the invasion approaches and the world enters a new period of geopolitical uncertainty, Europe’s politicians and spy services continue to draw lessons from the failures of 2022. Western intelligence agencies had the playbook for Russia’s invasion months in advance. The story of why the warnings were ignored. (The Guardian)

The Rise of the Manhattan Mega-Mansion: Big-money buyers are no longer content with the usual conversions. Steven Harris, an architect whose eponymous firm has worked on more than 100 single-family townhouses over the past 30 years, says demand for bigger urban homes has been booming. (Citylab)

• Pills Are Becoming Machines That Work Inside the Gut: The next generation of medicine isn’t just delivering drugs — it’s deploying tiny machines inside your body that can diagnose, report back, and take action on their own. (IEEE Spectrum)

• Rolex Opened a College—and It’s as Selective as Harvard: The Swiss watchmaker is training its next generation of craftspeople at a school with an acceptance rate that rivals the Ivy League. America has fewer than 2,000 professional watchmakers. Rolex’s new Dallas school aims to fix that—and the demand for admission says a lot about the state of work in 2026. (GQ)

The Fallacy Fallacy: Why you shouldn’t go looking for faulty reasoning everywhere. Knowing the names of logical fallacies doesn’t make you a better thinker — it just makes you better at dismissing arguments you don’t like. (Persuasion)

Child’s Play: Tech’s new generation and the end of thinking: Sam Kriss goes inside an AI startup founded by a kid and finds something stranger and more unsettling than the usual Silicon Valley origin story. (Harper’s) see also Kids Show Us What They’re Into, From Pokémon to Pop Stars: Bloomberg photographs Gen Alpha kids’ rooms and obsessions — a window into the tastes, brands, and cultural forces shaping the next generation of consumers. (Bloomberg)

My maddening battle with chronic fatigue syndrome: ‘On my worst days, it feels almost demonic’ I suffered with my mystery illness for decades before gaining a diagnosis. Could retraining my brain be the answer? A deeply personal account of living with ME/CFS — a condition that remains poorly understood, widely dismissed, and devastatingly debilitating for those who suffer from it. (The Guardian)

• Metabolism, not cells or genetics, may have begun life on Earth: A big open question in 21st-century science is how life began here on Earth. A provocative new theory suggests life didn’t start with DNA or cells — it started with metabolism. Chemical reactions came first; biology came later. (Big Think)

Has Trump Delivered on His Promises? What These 12 Metrics Tell Us: Every year, Bloomberg Opinion chooses specific metrics to cut through the noise and measure the current president’s results on the job. This year, the 12 data points our columnists broke down are more important than ever, with control of Congress hanging in the balance ahead of the midterms. The analysis, in both text and video below, shares a consistent approach. For each issue, we focused on the numbers that best measured success, failure or something in between. A dozen data points against Trump’s campaign promises. The scorecard is mixed at best. (Bloomberg)

‘Survivor’ Is America It’s our greatest game and our truest mirror. Season 50 of Survivor is here, and the show remains the most durable metaphor for American culture — alliances, betrayal, individualism, and the illusion of meritocracy.  And in its tiki-torch-festooned way, it’s captured our society as an ever-changing collection of tribes. (New York Times

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Jeff Chang, cofounder and President of VEST. The firm manages over $55 billion in client assets across various “Buffered” and “Target Outcome” strategies. Backed by Y Combinator, the firm launched in 2012 and pioneered an approach to portfolio construction based on defined outcomes and engineered certainty.

 

Brazil, Canada, and Mexico gain as the 15% Section 122 tariff replaces higher IEEPA rates and USMCA shields North America.

Source: BofA Global Research

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Weekend Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Friday AM Reads

My end-of-week morning train WFH reads:

• People Loved the Dot-Com Boom. The A.I. Boom, Not So Much.: The dot-com era generated genuine public excitement. The AI boom is generating anxiety, skepticism, and resentment — even as the money keeps pouring in. (New York Times)

• Constellation Brands: The Fastest Growing Beer Company in America: The parent company of Modelo and Corona has been on a tear, riding the wave of shifting American beer preferences and demographic change. (Fiscal.ai)

• Luxury’s Overexposure Is Biting: The luxury sector bet on ubiquity — logos everywhere, collabs with everyone, accessibility as strategy. Now the bill is coming due as exclusivity evaporates. (Matter / Substack)

• Crypto Is Pointless. Not Even the White House Can Fix That.: Despite unprecedented government support, crypto still hasn’t found a reason to exist beyond speculation. The problem was never regulation — it was utility. (New York Times)

• The Biggest New Fans of 401(k)s Are Small Businesses: New tax incentives and simpler plan structures are driving a wave of small businesses offering retirement plans for the first time. (Wall Street Journal)

• The Trump ‘Affordability’ Pivot That Never Came: The president promised to bring down costs for working families. Heading into the State of the Union, housing, groceries, and healthcare are all still crushing household budgets. (The Bulwark)

• 10 Least Reliable Cars of 2026: Consumer Reports’ annual survey of 380,000+ vehicles names the models most likely to leave you stranded. (Consumer Reports)

• Across the US, people are dismantling and destroying Flock surveillance cameras: Citizens are taking matters into their own hands, physically removing the license plate reader cameras that have quietly blanketed American cities. (Blood in the Machine)

• How scammers are using AI deepfakes to steal money from taxpayers: AI-generated voices and faces are being used to impersonate government officials and steal public funds. The fraud is getting more sophisticated faster than defenses can keep up. (Washington Post)

• How Did Hendrix Turn His Guitar Into a Wave Synthesizer?: Jimi Hendrix was a systems engineer who happened to play guitar. A technical breakdown of how he precisely controlled modulation and feedback loops to create sounds nobody had heard before. (IEEE Spectrum)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Jeff Chang, cofounder and President of VEST. The firm manages over $55 billion in client assets across various “Buffered” and “Target Outcome” strategies. Backed by Y Combinator, the firm launched in 2012 and pioneered an approach to portfolio construction based on defined outcomes and engineered certainty.

 

Irrational Exuberance vs Chat GPT Launch (No earnings versus earnings)

Source: @steve_donze

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

 

The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

RWM Coming to San Francisco April 14-16

 

I am very excited to announce that RWM is coming to San Francisco, California, on April 14th.

Our relationship with the City by the Bay goes back to the early days when Josh, Kris, Michael and I would spend a few days here meeting clients. The tech center of the world is filled with amazing people, companies, and stories. We always had a great time in SF and looked forward to our trips.

But it’s been too long since we were here. I am very jazzed to be coming back to meet wth current and prospective clients, potential advisor hires, and others.

I will be doing several Master’s in Business Live on April 16 at the Bloomberg Pier 3 HQ/Auditorium. We have an outstanding lineup of guests; I’ll share more info as we get closer to the date.

Looking forward to seeing you in Fog City.

~~~

Seats are limited — reach out to us at RWM or Bloomberg for tickets.

For those people interested in learning about how RWM works with clients, or information about the event, reach out to us at Info AT RitholtzWealth.com.

 

The post RWM Coming to San Francisco April 14-16 appeared first on The Big Picture.

At the Money: Diversifying with Managed Futures ETFs

 

 

At The Money: Diversifying with Managed Futures ETFs (February 25, 2026)

Lots of asset classes promise uncorrelated returns, but few deliver diversification. One that does is managed futures. Sure, they are expensive and spikey, but when all correlations go to 1 – meaning everything is trading in lockstep, as we saw during the GFC and Covid – they seem to be the rare diversifier that works.

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Andrew Beer is a hedge fund veteran and founder of Dynamic Beta Investments, a firm focused on hedge-fund replication strategies delivered through low-cost, liquid vehicles like ETFs and mutual funds. His ETF, DBi Managed Futures Strategy (DBMF) attempts to replicate pricier managed futures portfolios

For more info, see:

Firm website

Masters in Business

LinkedIn

Twitter

~~~

 

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple PodcastsYouTubeSpotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

 

 

 

Transcript


Barry Ritholtz:
As we learned in 2022, sometimes all supposedly uncorrelated asset classes moved together. Stocks went down, bonds went down, tips went down, commodities went down, Bitcoin went down. Very few things, buck the trend. One version of that is a variety of alternative investments that are designed to not correlate to one during periods of stress. Let’s talk to Andrew Beer. He’s a hedge fund veteran and founder of Dynamic Beta Investments, or DBI that focus on hedge fund replication strategies delivered through low cost liquid vehicles like ETFs and mutual funds, liquid alts, managed futures, a variety of strategies that are specifically designed to not trade like stocks and bonds. So, so Andrew, let, let’s start with the basic question. Stocks and bonds seems to have become a whole lot more correlated in recent years. How should that change how we think about correlation in the need for diversifiers?

Andrew Beer: Sure. Well, it, it, it is, it is the question of the 2020s from a wealth management perspective. So I used to call bonds the superman of diversifiers in the two thousands and, and 2000 tens in that they had terrific risk adjusted returns. If you, they almost never went down. The maximum draw down was 4%, and they tended to go up or do better when, but when, when equities were doing less. Well, the, the problem this decade is that, and this is, people have shown this over a long period of time since that was unusual. In fact, if you go back over long periods of time, particularly when inflation gets above about 2%, stocks and bonds tend to move together. So astonishingly bonds have earned less than cash over the past 10 years. And now, and the correlations have been creep creeping up. That tears up the basic playbook of a 60 40 model portfolio because, and so, so what, what people are doing is thinking about what can we put into a portfolio?

And really, really the goal is to diversify equity risk because remember, I mean, Warren Buffett had that great quote and they said, if you didn’t have Berkshire Hathaway, what would you do with your money? And he said, I put 95% into the S and P have 105% in cash. That’s great if you’re him and you can weather a 40% or 50% drawdown and, and breathe a whatever and, and, you know, carry it for the next, for the rebound. But most investors don’t have that kind of risk tolerance, and they need things that are gonna help to protect them during, during difficult market environments.

Barry Ritholtz: So how do we avoid these specific diversification failures that we see in typical portfolios? How do each of your funds map to a different hole in, in that diversification process?

Andrew Beer: So, on on, on our side, you know what we’ve tended to look at our strategies that, that are durable and have worked for long periods of time, and then try to find out ways to make them work in mutual funds or ETFs or in, in Europe, we do it in uses funds, but I’ve also been an enormous critic of the, this, this broad industry that is built up around what are called liquid alternative products. Now remember, I come from a legitimate hedge fund background, and when I’ve, but I’ve been writing about this category of supposed diversifiers for 15 years, and it’s a catastrophe that these strategies on average have correlations of often around 0.8 to equities, and they’ve delivered two to 3% per annum over a period of time when 15 years, when equities have gone up by 14 or 15% a year. That I think is the, is, is, is is the most critical issue, is that 95% of things that people will pitch you are, are, are supposed to work, just don’t and don’t add value. And so we have tried to address that and say, no, there actually are things that work. But you’ve gotta take a somewhat different approach in terms of how you think about it.

Barry Ritholtz: So when, whenever I speak to either portfolio managers or anybody else who’s, who’s working on an allocation, they wanna know about draw, draw downs and volatility and sharp ratios, what do these various diversifiers do to kind of wonky metrics like those, the—

Andrew Beer: Strategy that we’ve, we’ve described having the most diversification bang for the buck is a strategy called manage futures. And it’s, it’s the core of what we do. And we, we came at it again, we came at it from your side of the table as we were looking for something that would help our portfolios. And then there’s a second part of it. How do we make it work? Well, because there’s this great book that was written was called, Where Are the Customer’s Yachts? Talk about how Wall Street took all this money. The, the, the asset management industry tries desperately to take as much money as they can from any kind of product. And the more complicated they make it, the easier it is for ’em to charge exorbitant fees. But what, what, what the strategy is very, very unusual and has no correlation to stocks and bonds over a long period of time and, and tends to do best in the most difficult market environments. But it’s not a high sharp ratio strategy. There are certain hedge funds that have sharp ratios of two, which if, you know, if you under, it’s almost magical from an investment perspective, this is not that. But what was compelling about it is I can make it work and do better than the actual hedge funds, but in liquid accessible vehicles like ETFs.

Barry Ritholtz: Huh. So when I think of things like managed futures or derivative based long short leverage strategies, my first thought is what’s the risk that this is gonna blow up? I don’t tend to think of this as di certain ways. These are expressed as diversifiers. How, how do you reconcile that? How do you do things differently than some of these other blowup risk funds? We’ve, we’ve seen, and every year we read about one of ’em, you know, blowing up.

Andrew Beer: Many features is a strategy’s interesting. And the blowup risk is very, very low for the following reasons. So blowups usually happen because you’ve borrowed money and somebody wants it back at the wrong time and you have something you can’t sell to fulfill it. Right? That’s Lehman Brothers, that’s Bear Stearns. That’s, that’s, you know, that’s, that’s the long legacy of true blowups or, or, or it’s, it’s fraud and mispricing of assets. There was a mutual fund called Infinity Q that kind of just made up its numbers. The what managed futures funds. And, and again, it’s a terrible term managed futures, but futures contracts are some of the deepest, most liquid contracts that you can possibly trade. And so when things, these guys will go through periods where they have drawdowns, but they don’t hold onto the positions with a white knuckle grip and, and they, they scale out of positions.

Like even everyone was long gold and silver last week, they will have cut gold and silver. And so if gold and silver go down another 50% from here, they will have reduced their risk. So when you look at the overall strategy over a 25 year period of time, the maximum drawdown is only 16%. And whereas inequities, you’ve had a 40% and a 50% and several 20% plus drawdowns over that period of time, bonds have also had a 16% drawdown. So it’s, there’s a perception that it’s very, very risky with high blow up risk. That is in simply because as you say, it sounds like, and it is a leveraged long short der base black box,

Barry Ritholtz: But they’re called managed for a reason. Right? Yeah. So, so let’s talk about the tendency for some of these, especially on the private side, these various strategies to kind of quietly drift back towards equity beta over time. Like sometimes we see someone’s identified a particular strategy that is both non-correlated, diversified and, and generating real alpha, but tends not to have persistency. How do you avoid this kind of problem? What, what someone else has called fake diversification?

Andrew Beer: Well, I, I think the, the, the structure of the traditional asset management business from a return source perspective is deeply, deeply flawed. That again, you are talking about an industry that has destroyed value for decades net of the fees that they’ve charged because low cost index products have done better, right? The product development and sales across the industry is equally flawed. And that product in, in the hedge fund industry, when a credible hedge fund launches a product, they think there’s a great investment opportunity and they’re gonna bring in their, their capital clients and they’re gonna, and they’re gonna try to capitalize on that opportunity. In the traditional asset management space, it’s designed by the equivalent of the car salesman on the, on the showroom floor who thinks he can sell it to you. And all he cares about is getting that commission up front. So it, it’s, there’s a structural reason why hundreds and hundreds of products have been offered, which, which, which have failed any measure of diversification and also funds.

Ben Johnson at Morningstar has a great expression called the spaghetti cannon, and he said, these guys will launch six funds and they will come in and one of the six will be doing well, and that’s all they’ll talk to you about, right? So it, it’s, it’s, so the odds are really stacked against the average. And, you know, unless you’re somebody like me who digs in and wants to see every fund that’s out there and tear it apart, it’s, it’s, it’s extremely difficult to see through this marketing haze and fuzz. So, back to the point about things that were look great until they look horrible, I think that is a, that is a marketing success, but an investment catastrophe.

Barry Ritholtz: So, so let’s talk a little bit about the spaghetti canon. You’ve built a variety of replication strategies. How do you avoid simply layering on new sources of hidden risk under the banner of diversification? Just throwing stuff up against the wall to see what sticks isn’t a good strategy other than, hey, we know what we can market. How, how do you find diversification but not add risk?

Andrew Beer: So, so, so in our case, we’ve only, we only have two strategies because the other eight or 10 that we’ve looked at don’t work. If you, if I come in and describe to you what we built and why we built it, and now again, ours is a, is a relatively unusual business in that we’re basically saying in two hedge fund strategies, we like what hedge funds do, but we can beat them by copying them cheaply and we can do it in a liquid fashion that’s, that’s called hedge fund replication. We know, we figure out their big trades, we figure out where, where, where their conviction is. But instead of paying them a lot of money to implement the trades, often in very complicated ways, we can synthesize it and do it, do it efficiently. I’ve only launched strategies where I’ve been 80% confident I could beat hedge funds at their own game in that.

Barry Ritholtz: So, so let’s talk about some of those strategies, because when you, I think when a lot of people hear the I name hedge fund replication, they think, oh, hedge funds are buying a lot of Nvidia. So Andrew’s buying a lot of Nvidia. We’re not talking about imitating their positions, we’re talking about applying their strategies aside from managed futures, tell us about the other strategies, get that, get layered into DBI’s exchange traded funds.

Andrew Beer: So, so there’s, there’s only the one other strategy. So we, we replicate the managed future space and we synthesize their portfolios into a simple portfolio. And, and it turns out it’s just much more efficient. It does better over time. We also replicate what I would call the broad hedge fund industry, which will include the kind of funds you read about equity, long, short, relative value, event driven. But in that, we’re not trying to figure out who owns Nvidia. And we’ve looked at that, it doesn’t, it’s not a terribly useful exercise. Goldman actually has a, has a business doing that. Rather, what we’re trying to pick up on, are there big themes? So are they migrating their equity exposure from US equities to non-US equities? Is it going from developed markets to emerging markets? Is it, do they have hedges in place on the view that, you know, inflation may or may not come back.

So our whole business is based upon the idea that, that if you can identify the big trades, the most important trades, that’s really what’s gonna be the big driver of performance. And, and everybody’s read about the subprime crisis and what happened there. Just like, what don’t people say about the subprime crisis? Oh, that guy got it right, but shorted the wrong bonds. No, you shorted any bonds, you did well, right? If you were a hedge fund that moved into tech stocks over the past 15 years, you’ve done well, it hasn’t mattered which tech stocks you own that. And by the way, this only works in very limited circumstances. So back to your first point is the thing you don’t wanna do is you don’t want to do stupid things, which is to launch products because you hope they’re gonna work, or if they happen to work, your investors won’t figure it out until they’ve given you a lot of money. That’s not how we roll.

Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really interesting. I’ve read a line of yours that I really like. Diversification is a protection against bad luck. Unpack what that means specifically in context of things like economic shocks or policy mistakes. We’re, we’re in an era of tariffs and trading by tweets as well as inflation surprises.

Andrew Beer: So, so the standard playbook from an asset allocation perspective is today to diversify and assume, just take it, it as a given that there won’t be any really catastrophic things that happen. You know, one of the great advantages that hedge funds as an asset class that drew me to the asset class as is, is, is they’re not, they’re not tied to a benchmark. They’re not tied to decisions that they made year before it. This is people with very, very smart, talented people with their own money who are trying to find ways to make money in good and bad environments. You know? And so, so bad luck is the return of inflation. You know, it’s something that affects your portfolio across the board that wasn’t part of your playbook. And the thing I find incredible about last year was that nothing broke, right? I mean, we have, we have, the system is being tested at every level.

Yeah, right? There are derelicts who are lighting matches and throwing them on the carpets and, and, and the drapes have not caught fire. Right? That we had an attack on the, you know, we had the deep seek scare, we had liberation day, we had frontal assault on, on the independence of the Fed. We’ve had various geopolitical skirmishes, you’ve had pockets of bond market tantrums around the world. And yet if you had gone to bed on December 31st, 2024 and woken up a year later, you think, great. Everything worked. So, so I, I think the world is changing, right? And I think what you’re seeing, what you’re seeing in gold and silver, it’s not normal, right? These, you don’t get these major asset classes melting up 80% in a year, going up another 20%, dropping 10%, you know, silver dropping 30% in a day. The, the, the, you know, I hear from international investors that, that their fear of something policy wide happening in the US is causing them to look at international markets in a way, even though the business environment in the US is still the best in the world, the companies are still the best in the world, but it’s not prudent anymore to be massively overweight the US.

So I think, I think we’re gonna be in for years of big change, and I think that that’s gonna be really challenging for the standard playbook of, of, of, you know, let’s just stick to our guns with our current positions and, and, and hope things work. It worked wonderfully in a year, like last year. I think we’re gonna go through some tough periods though.

Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Interesting. So, so last question. ETFs tend to be used by advisors and, and other portfolio constructors who often have to explain what’s going on to their clients. And a big challenge is, a big struggle is dealing with client behavior. I think of selling diversifiers, like house insurance. You, you don’t complain if your house doesn’t burn down, but when I see things like managed futures and other diversifiers, I just know how clients think after a few years without a disaster, someone’s gonna say, Hey, these don’t work, I wanna sell this. How do you actually work with advisors? So the clients who thought they wanted a diversifier don’t get impatient when the house hasn’t burnt down.

Andrew Beer: So for, for one is, is is in our strategies, but reducing fees and making it more efficient, you do better during the other, during, during all those periods you’re talking about, right? So our largest ETF was up 14% last year. No, we weren’t up as much as the S and P of a hundred, but we’re pretty close. And that’s a year where nothing terrible happened other than, you know, we had a lot of, a lot of scary shocks. But, but I think, and, and, and I’ve, I’ve, I’ve loved the past six years of really getting to know people in the wealth management space, in that I think the way people often pitch these things to clients is wrong. That I think they, they go in, I think a lot of allocators, they fall in love with these funds. They go in and they want to tell people, I found, you know, Lionel Messi, I found LeBron James, I found this person because look, look at how they’ve done over the past five years.

They’re unbelievable. And I think that is a terrible way to introduce these products to a, a, a a, an end client. ’Cause then they’re focused on it all the time and they want to know why they’re not scoring every game. And, and rather what we have tried to do is basically say, look, we know this strategy is useful, but we’re the boring way of getting exposure to it. We’re just like that in no one, no one. And people generally don’t panic because GD is down 5% in a day. It’s just part of your asset allocation. And so I think the, the advisor world needs a will, will be more successful when they frame these allocations not on a standalone basis based upon star power. And it’s okay to pay them 200 basis points a year because they’re never gonna be wrong. We know they’re gonna be wrong and we know things aren’t gonna work. So if you frame it in terms of this is just simply incrementally that fills a gap in terms of how we manage your money. And it’s priced at a very, very attractive price point. No one’s getting rich while we’re waiting for this to happen. And five years from now, seven years from now, 10 years from now, just like when we started to put you into high yield bonds or non-US equities or these other asset classes that made your portfolio more robust, this is just one incremental addition to it.

Barry Ritholtz: So, so to wrap up, for investors looking to diversify, to, to avoid the tendency for all asset classes to move in lockstep, they should consider low cost ETFs that try and replicate what big expensive hedge funds do. But in a liquid inexpensive version, DBI has not only managed futures, but liquid alts that try and do this, they’ve put together a really impressive track record over the past five years. Just keep in mind that you don’t wanna back up the truck and own 20, 30% of it. It’s supposed to be an insurance product. Andrew suggests 3%. I, I don’t disagree with that. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Bloomberg’s At the Money.

 

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

 

 

The post At the Money: Diversifying with Managed Futures ETFs appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Thursday AM Reads

My morning train WFH reads:

Europe v America: Who’s Really Winning? A wonkish but important discussion (Paul Krugman)

Finance in the Dark: The unregulated industry at the heart of the American economy (Phenomenal World)

Data center builders thought farmers would willingly sell land, learn otherwise: Even in a fragile farm economy, million-dollar offers can’t sway dedicated farmers. (Ars Technica)

The Looming Taiwan Chip Disaster: That Silicon Valley Has Long Ignored: If China invades Taiwan and cuts off its chip exports to American companies, the tech industry and the U.S. economy would be crippled. (New York Times)

The Tax Nerd Who Bet His Life Savings Against DOGE: When an unusual opportunity opened in the prediction markets, Alan Cole took his chances. He just needed the government to be the government. (Wall Street Journal)

Which piece of speculative fiction had the greatest single-day stock market impact? Oh, give my props to the writer. Price’s at an all-time low in the future. (Financial Times)

Inside the Roberts Court and its Failures: The Chief Justice humiliated our Constitution when he offered a president a year-long you-don’t-need-to-obey-the constitution card before telling us the obvious about Trump’s illegal tariffs. (Lincoln Square)

Training for New ICE Agents Is ‘Deficient’ and ‘Broken,’ Whistle-Blower Says: The former official appeared with congressional Democrats, who also released documents indicating significant reductions in instructional hours for recruits. (New York Times)

• How Covid Quietly Rewires the Brain: Researchers keep discovering more about the long-term neurological effects of SARS-CoV-2. Doctors call it Ondine’s curse—a catastrophic failure of the brain stem in which breathing no longer happens automatically, especially during sleep. It’s extremely rare, typically seen only in infants with genetic mutations or adults after severe trauma, and for a long time it wasn’t something doctors associated with viral infections. (Businessweek)

How reading books regulates your nervous system: Books don’t just stimulate the mind — they trigger physiological changes throughout the body. (Big Think)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Jeff Chang, cofounder and President of VEST. The firm manages over $55 billion in client assets in various “Buffered” and “Target Outcome” strategies. The Y-Combinator backed firm launched in 2012, pioneered the approach to portfolio construction built on defined outcomes and engineered certainty.

Forecasting the impact of artificial intelligence has become fraught, with evangelists pitched against sceptics

Source: Financial Times

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

 

The post 10 Thursday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Wednesday AM Reads

My mid-week morning train WFH reads:

• US Economy Fact Sheet: State of the Union 2026: USAFacts’ data-driven snapshot of where the economy actually stands — jobs, inflation, debt, growth — stripped of spin. (USAFacts)

• FedEx sues Trump administration for full tariff refunds after Supreme Court ruling: FedEx isn’t waiting around — it’s suing for a full refund of tariffs paid under IEEPA authority that the Court just declared unconstitutional. (Fox Business) see also Trump’s new tariffs are just as illegal as his old tariffs: The Supreme Court struck down the first round. The replacement tariffs invoked under a different statute have the same constitutional problems. (Popular Information)

• Diversification: It’s Not Just for Defense Anymore: The case for diversification has always been about risk reduction. Now it’s starting to look like an offensive strategy too, as concentration risk bites the mega-cap trade. (Wall Street Journal)

Trump’s Challenge to Free Market Capitalism: Stakes in private companies. Handshake deals with chief executives. The president’s economic agenda — tariffs, industrial policy, picking winners — represents a fundamental break with Republican free-market orthodoxy. The party is going along with it anyway. The president’s economic policy has drifted far from principles that long defined the Republican Party. Is it capitalism at all? (New York Times)

US probably shed jobs last year, top Federal Reserve official says: Christopher Waller says he would back March rate cut if there are further signs of weakening in the labour market: US employment probably fell in 2025, underscoring how the labour market weakened during the first year of Donald Trump’s second term, according to new projections by a top Federal Reserve official. (Financial Times)

How Prediction Markets Polymarket and Kalshi Are Gamifying Truth: Prediction markets promised to be the future of information discovery. Instead they’re becoming another form of entertainment gambling with a veneer of intellectual respectability. Two companies are pioneering a new way of predicting the future. Critics call it unregulated gambling. (Bloomberg free) see also The economics of the Kalshi prediction market: A deep dive into how prediction markets actually work — the mechanics of price discovery, liquidity, and whether these platforms are producing useful information or just noise. (VoxEU / CEPR)

What the Wealthy Want in Their Private Jets: At a time when the ultrarich are prioritizing privacy, interior designers are making yachts and private planes feel more like apartments than transportation, customizing private aircraft with features that make first class look quaint. A look inside the arms race of airborne luxury. (Wall Street Journal)

• Justice Department withheld and removed some Epstein files related to Trump: An NPR investigation finds the DOJ has removed or withheld Epstein files connected to the president. The cover-up is becoming the story. (NPR)

• How to talk about wine like a normal person: Wine language is absurd — full of geological jargon, French loanwords, and descriptions that make no earthly sense. Here’s how to navigate it without sounding like a sommelier or a fool. (Washington Post)

Rose Byrne Can, and Does, Do It All: An Oscar nominee for a movie in which everything crashes down on her (literally), Byrne is shifting gears with the Broadway comedy “Fallen Angels.” (New York Times)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Hilary Allen, Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law. She specializes in financial regulation, banking law, securities regulation, and technology law, with a particular focus on how new financial technologies like fintech, crypto, and AI intersect with financial stability and public policy.

 

“Institutional investors” — landlords who own 1000+ housing units — are a tiny sliver of single-family homes

Source: The Bulwark

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Wednesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Transcript: Hilary Allen on Fintech Dystopia

 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Hilary Allen on Fintech Dystopia, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

~~~

[00:00:02] Announcer: This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:00:16] Barry Ritholtz: I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Hilary Allen. She is a professor at the American University, Washington College of Law in DC where she specializes in financial regulation, banking, law, securities regulation and technology law. She published a book, FinTech Dystopia, a summer beach read about how Silicon Valley is ruining things, covering the intersection of finance, technology, law, regulation, and politics. It’s a perfect subject for us to talk about. Hilary Allen, welcome to Bloomberg.

[00:00:59] Hilary Allen: Thank you so much for having me.

[00:01:00] Barry Ritholtz: So fascinating conversation, fascinating topic that you write about. Before we jump into that, let’s, let’s spend a few minutes going over your background. You get a bachelor’s in laws from the University of Sydney in Australia, a master of laws, in securities and financial regulation law from Georgetown here in the States. And you graduated first in your class there. What was the original career plan? Was it simply, I’m gonna go be a lawyer? What, what, what were you thinking?

[00:01:31] Hilary Allen: The original career plan was, I’m just gonna be a lawyer, and then I loved law school and I practiced for seven years and discovered there wasn’t so much law always in the practice of law, and I’m a nerd and I missed it. And so the, the drive was to go back to Georgetown, get my master’s, do some academic writing, and then launch a career as a professor where I could really sort of think slowly about the law.

[00:01:56] Barry Ritholtz: And, and you practiced, you were in London, you were in Sydney, Shearman and Sterling here in New York. Tell us a little bit about the sort of legal work you were doing when you were a practicing attorney.

[00:02:06] Hilary Allen: So basically, there’s sort of two broad categories of the work I did. I did transactional work, banking transactional, typically acting for banks in leverage buyouts. But the work I think I enjoyed more was the regulatory compliance advisory. So there was more law in that, especially when you had new financial laws being handed down in Australia and changes in the US with Dodd-Frank and sort of trying to figure out how to comply with those new rules.

[00:02:34] Barry Ritholtz: So how do you go from practicing bank transactions and some regulatory law to ultimately working with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission? Tell us a little bit about your experiences there.

[00:02:46] Hilary Allen: So that was a, a series of, a series of fortunate events. While I was doing my masters at Georgetown, I had a professor who was tapped to be on the staff of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and he pulled me in to work with them two days a week. And we were investigating the causes of the 2008 financial crisis to put together the report that came out, which really was sort of,

[00:03:10] Barry Ritholtz: It’s a nice thick book that they published.

[00:03:12] Hilary Allen: It’s a really thick book with a really thick index even. And the idea was to tell the story, and that’s really sort of stuck with me throughout my career, the importance of being able to explain complex things and how they knit together to cause things.

[00:03:26] Barry Ritholtz: So working with the FCIC, how did that affect how you looked at regulation in general, but more specifically the government’s response to technology, new financial products, the regulatory world in, in general?

[00:03:44] Hilary Allen: So the gift that I got from working with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is sort of understanding that there are a lot of things that come together and you need to really look very broadly to understand systemic changes. Another gift that it gave me was, I think, a healthy skepticism of innovation rhetoric, right? Because if you think back to 2008 and what caused it, you know, there were all these stories about, well, these new financial products, these complex new derivatives, we don’t need to regulate them. They’re innovation sophisticated parties involved. We don’t wanna tamp down on innovative potential. And so that, that skepticism has been a helpful skillset as I’ve been navigating the sort of post 2008 financial world where you have the innovation rhetoric from Silicon Valley infiltrating into financial services.

[00:04:34] Barry Ritholtz: You, you raise a really interesting issue that I have to ask about. So how much of what we see is regulation is either an adherence to a, an ideology that sometimes says regulation is good and are guardrails on capitalism. And other ideology says regulation is expensive and anti innovative and reduces job creation. It seems like regardless of the facts on the ground, each side has their belief system. How, how, how do you contextualize that?

[00:05:12] Hilary Allen: Well, I mean, I think, I don’t think there were too many people in the depths of the 2008 crisis who were saying there’s too much regulation, right? I think it’s a function of where you are in a particular time. I think people’s memories fade really quickly, and as soon as regulation has solved the problems it was intended to solve, or the crisis that spurred the regulation has dissipated, people quickly forget why that regulation is there in place. And then it becomes much easier to see it as something that is just a hindrance, something that is just expensive that doesn’t have a role to play. But I think what we’re actually seeing right at this moment is the erosion of the securities laws that really have stood investors in good stead since the 1930s. Not to say they’re perfect, but the, the general sort of investor protection regime that the Securities and Exchange Commission has always implemented has really encouraged trust in the US stock market. And, and it sort of made it the envy of the world and people wanted to list here that’s really getting peeled back right now. And so I think, you know, it’ll be pretty soon a moment where we realize why we had all that regulation and we’ll miss it.

[00:06:31] Barry Ritholtz: So, so heading into the financial crisis, I recall looking at some of what I called radical deregulation prior. And this isn’t by no means the sole cause of the financial crisis, lots of factors led to this. But you had the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which allowed what was essentially an insurance product to be issued without any insurance reserves. Seems kind of risky. And then you had the repeal of Glass-Steagall that kept depository banks separate from speculative Wall Street banks. Probably didn’t cause the crisis, but certainly allowed it to get much bigger at, at the, at the very least. And yet there didn’t seem to be any desire after the crisis, Hey, maybe we should put these things back into place. Maybe we should repeal what was added and restore what was repealed. Nobody want, they want to go a totally different direction.

[00:07:33] Hilary Allen: Well, I think, again, this is a story of political economy and there are still a lot of people who are mad at the Obama administration for prioritizing healthcare over financial reform because basically they had one shot at doing something big. And if they had, and I, I’m not weighing in to say that this was the right or the wrong move, but if they had gone right outta the gates with financial reform, I think we would’ve seen more of the bigger structural things that you’re talking about. So, you know, in that immediate aftermath of the 2008 crisis, you had Sandy Weill, who had been the head of Citigroup and had sort of engineered the end of the Glass-Steagall legislation and, and from, this is maybe apocryphal, but apparently he had a, a deal toy that said shatter of Glass-Steagall that he kept on his desk. And again, this may be apocryphal, but I heard that he basically sort of had a conversion after 2008, said, Ooh, yeah, probably shouldn’t have done that. Well,

[00:08:33] Barry Ritholtz: Well a lot of people did. Alan Greenspan famously said, I incorrectly assumed people’s concern over their own reputation would’ve prevented some of the excesses we’ve seen. I’m paraphrasing, but that was pretty close to what he said.

[00:08:46] Hilary Allen: Yeah. He said the world sort of didn’t work the way I thought it did. And I think, you know, had they gone straight outta the gates with financial reform, you might have seen some of that structural reform. But by the time they got around to it, you know, Dodd-Frank wasn’t passed till 2010. Right. You know, then, then the political economy calculus had shifted. The industry was in more of a position to sort of argue for weaker rules and, and fewer structural changes. It

[00:09:11] Barry Ritholtz: It’s amazing how rapidly memories fade and people just quickly, oh no, that was then now it’s new. You’ve worked inside the global financial system as well as studying it from the outside. How did being part of the FCIC affect how you perceive technology, new financial products, regulation and deregulation? How, how did that affect your, your perspective?

[00:09:38] Hilary Allen: You know, I didn’t think a ton about technology at that time. That’s sort of been a later addition to the work that I do. But the broader themes of financial innovation regulation, deregulation, you know, I see the value in financial stability regulation in particular. So financial stability regulation are the rules that are supposed to prevent financial crises. And they work often sort of hand in hand with investor protection regulations, but they also aim to do something differently. And part of the challenge when you’re trying to prevent a financial crisis is this silo mentality where people just think about their own little piece of the world and okay, we can deregulate our little piece and we don’t, won’t think about the flow on consequences and what, what incentives it’ll create, et cetera. And so, you know, my real takeaway was always to have the most holistic perspective possible to break down that silo mentality. And later in my career, that meant learning about the new technologies that are sort of infiltrating the, the financial system. So,

[00:10:42] Barry Ritholtz: So I want to talk about technology and I want to talk about FinTech Dystopia, but there is a quote from within that that applies directly to what you’re describing with stability, which was it’s the economic precarity, stupid, paraphrasing James Carville. Tell us a little bit about the economic precarity.

[00:11:03] Hilary Allen: Yeah, so I think a mistake that we have made collectively in recent years is to say, well, look, the economy’s doing well, everything’s fine. And that really doesn’t, you know, mesh with many people’s experience of the economy. So it used to be, well, probably not always the case, but closer to the case in, in the Clinton years where there was less economic inequality than there is now, that you could sort of say a rising tide lifts all boats. But now what we’re seeing is over half of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck, even in a good economy, right? And so in that kind of circumstance, the financial system’s not, and the economy aren’t working for everybody. And so I think when we think about what we’re trying to achieve with our financial system, it should be that we are trying to find a solution to this economic precarity. And also that begs the question of whether the financial system in and investing is actually the way to get there. And maybe we need broader public policies to address that economic precarity so that no one, or at least not half of the population are just scraping by.

[00:12:18] Barry Ritholtz: So we just passed a new set of laws that include thousand dollar accounts for, for newborns. Isn’t that gonna solve financial inequality? All these kids, by the time they’re 30, they’ll be worth millions.

[00:12:35] Hilary Allen: I think you might need to offset against the people losing their health insurance subsidies. I don’t think that a thousand dollars gonna go very far.

[00:12:41] Barry Ritholtz: Right. And, and what’s fascinating is watching just the parade of billionaires come out and no, no, we need to supplement that thousand dollars. So first it was Michael Dell, and then it was Ray Dalio. I don’t know who else is gonna step forward, but it appears, hey, we’re not really paying a whole lot in taxes. We might as well throw some money at some, some babies. That seems to be the philosophy.

[00:13:05] Hilary Allen: Yeah. I mean, I don’t love philanthropy in that sense, supplementing democratically sort of elected policies, you know, it, it, it gives a lot of sort of discretion and power to people as to how they wanna distribute their largesse to, to some degree that’s fine. But again, when we have a society where half of the population is barely scraping by, I don’t think their livability should be predicated on the whims of billionaire largesse.

[00:13:33] Barry Ritholtz: Fair, fair enough. You, you talked about technological innovation. In your book you argue that financial technology innovation is driven largely by legal design rather than technical brilliance. Explain that a little bit. What, what is it about FinTech that seems to be working the perspective from an attorney rather than an engineer?

[00:14:00] Hilary Allen: Yeah, so this was something that, as I said, I came to a little later in my career. I think earlier in my career when I first started looking at FinTech, I generally accepted, you know, the party line. This technology is revolutionary, this technology is making things more efficient, this technology is fixing things. And then I realized that the people who were saying that had something to sell, and I probably should learn a little more about the technology because if you wanna work on financial regulatory policy, now you need to understand the extent to which the technology actually lives up to what is claimed it can do. And so, sort of my first sort of foray into this was, I’ve looked really in detail at blockchain, which is, is truly frankly a terrible technology. It’s a clunky database. And, and, and it’s not something you would ever choose for any kind of financial market infrastructure, but for the fact that it’s been very easy to convince regulators not to regulate it. And so the value add that comes from crypto has never been blockchain technology as a technology. It’s been whipping up stories about that technology that have justified avoiding regulation. And we see it in other instances as well. You know, there are FinTech lending that is replicating some of the, the predatory payday lending that we’ve seen before.

[00:15:22] Barry Ritholtz: The buy now pay later sort of financing or, well,

[00:15:25] Hilary Allen: The payday, payday loans have been around a lot longer than that. This is sort of a, it’s like a $400 loan that you get to bridge you over till your next payday. And you know, there’s been a lot of predation in that market and some states had banned those, those products. Essentially,

[00:15:43] Barry Ritholtz: You, you think 29% interest is not fair. You have a problem with that. We’re just trying to make a profit here.

[00:15:50] Hilary Allen: Some of these interest rates are 300%.

[00:15:52] Barry Ritholtz: Get out. Yeah. That’s in, and, and what is New York top out at like 19%? Something like that?

[00:15:58] Hilary Allen: I, I don’t know about New York. Yeah. But, but, but

[00:16:01] Barry Ritholtz: Normally anything, you know, mid double digits is, is thought of as luxurious. 300% is just next level.

[00:16:08] Hilary Allen: Yeah. I mean they’re not, it’s not set as an interest rate per se, they’re fees, but once you actually convert that into a, a per annum, they can be in the hundreds of percentages. And so that has always been a problem. And we’ve had states act and then we’ve had new FinTech lenders saying, well actually we’re different from payday lenders ’cause we use AI to screen our borrowers, and so you should treat us differently. And yet they’re charging interest rates that are equivalent to what payday lenders do. And then you mentioned buy now pay later. Again, they say, well we’re, we’re not even extending loans. This isn’t a loan at all, so we shouldn’t have to comply with the laws around lending, around disclosure around that kind of

[00:16:45] Barry Ritholtz: Thing. How is that not a loan? You’re buying a product that you don’t have money for? Someone is paying for that. Isn’t that a loan?

[00:16:54] Hilary Allen: I would say so.

[00:16:56] Barry Ritholtz: Okay.

[00:16:56] Hilary Allen: But, but

[00:16:57] Barry Ritholtz: How, what, what’s the counter to this isn’t a loan, this is a, a pre layaway,

[00:17:03] Hilary Allen: Essentially. Yeah, no, we, you know, we, we, we don’t charge interest. There are late fees if you don’t pay, but that’s not the same as interest. You know,

[00:17:10] Barry Ritholtz: That’s fair. Like we, we, we bought a couch no interest for six months. So as long as you pay it off within six months, that sort of thing seems to be interest free.

[00:17:22] Hilary Allen: But then when you look at the business model and you see that a significant chunk of the people are incurring these late fees, then well,

[00:17:28] Barry Ritholtz: That’s their fault, isn’t it? That’s human nature. We, you can’t blame us if we take advantage of people procrastinating and not paying off their fees in time. Well,

[00:17:38] Hilary Allen: It’s not that they’re procrastinating, it’s that they’re choosing between paying rent or paying this off. So this is

[00:17:43] Barry Ritholtz: Food. Yeah. Medicine.

[00:17:45] Hilary Allen: Exactly. So this, this is coming back to, it’s the economic precarity stupid, right? If people are in these dire straits, we should not be surprised that FinTech firms are trying to capitalize on that and profit from it. Which is why I think, you know, what we need are some kind of public safety nets to, to sort of make and, and a higher minimum wage and higher social security benefits.

[00:18:10] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up. We continue our conversation with Professor Hilary Allen discussing her new book, FinTech Dystopia, a summer beach read about Silicon Valley and how it’s ruining things. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Hilary Allen. She teaches at the American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC where she specializes in regulation of financial and technology laws. So, so let’s talk about the digital only book. Ironic, right? FinTech Dystopia where you describe modern financial technology simply as Silicon Valley ruining things. Explain that. Seems like an extreme example. And, and give us some examples of how Silicon Valley is ruining things.

[00:19:27] Hilary Allen: So just to be clear, not all modern technology is ruining things. There’s a particular business model approach that I think is ruining things and that is derivative in many ways of the venture capital model in Silicon Valley.

[00:19:40] Barry Ritholtz: Venture capital.

[00:19:41] Hilary Allen: Just venture, okay?

[00:19:42] Barry Ritholtz: Yep.

[00:19:42] Hilary Allen: Venture capital model in Silicon Valley. So it’s sort of got this sheen around it that’s iconoclastic and they, they make bets on these moonshots that’ll, you know, save all of humanity and yada yada yada. But in fact it’s, it’s pretty well established as a playbook at this point. You know, there’s a lot of subsidies that go to venture capital by virtue of their having access to pension funds by virtue of sort of capital gains taxation. And so they’ve got sort of, and and especially in low interest rate environments, they attract a lot of money. So they have pretty cheap money available to them, and then they go shopping. And what they go shopping for is not the iconoclastic sort of outlier that we think of, but what we’ve seen and what the evidence shows is that they tend to go shopping for the same things that their friends are going shopping for and they go shopping for the businesses that their friends have developed.

[00:20:36] Hilary Allen: And so there’s this sort of very, sort of insular mentality in what they’re looking for. And they’re also looking for something that they can cash out of very quickly because the, you know, the average venture capital fund has a, what, a 10 year, sometimes 12, but usually 10 year duration. That’s really not that much time to find something to invest in, have it grow and then cash out. And so they’re not looking for things that are going to take decades to develop. They’re looking for things that they can grow quickly and get out of in about five or six years.

[00:21:09] Barry Ritholtz: So give us a few examples. What do you think is this sort of, you know, not adding a whole lot of value venture backed businesses?

[00:21:19] Hilary Allen: So not intentionally, but it just turned out that way as I wrote this, this book, almost every FinTech business I looked at had been funded by Andreessen Horowitz. They had been sort of the lead. So, you know, they, they,

[00:21:33] Barry Ritholtz: They’re the hot VC these days. I, I’ve, full disclosure, I’ve interviewed Andreessen, I’ve interviewed Kaur, I’ve interviewed Horowitz. So I’ve sat with them and talked about a lot of their businesses. But the past few years they’ve been very front and center, very active. Yeah,

[00:21:51] Hilary Allen: No, and they sort of, they have their, as a marquee name as you said, they’re the hot VCs. Once they say they like something, they can basically attract other venture capital to those, those businesses. And so they’re essentially taste makers,

[00:22:05] Barry Ritholtz: Which, which is fascinating you say that. ‘Cause before that it was Sequoia, before that it was Kleiner Perkins. Like, you work your way, there’s a hot firm for a decade. The nineties had it, the two thousands had it, the 2010s had it. They tend not to maintain that position forever. Although to Andreessen Horowitz’s credit, they’ve been the it girl for a good, good run so far.

[00:22:29] Hilary Allen: Yeah. I mean I wouldn’t say that that’s a good thing, but yeah, so, you know, they, they basically built the crypto industry. So, you know, we, we, the, the narrative around crypto is this organic sort of community of cyberpunks and libertarians. But, but they really built that industry. They were early investors in Coinbase. That was their first crypto investment. And then they have plowed a lot of money into the industry and it’s sort of, their seal of approval has been what’s attracted people to it. And you know, part of what Andreessen Horowitz does is it doesn’t just invest, it does aggressive marketing campaigns for the things that they’ve invested in, aggressive lobbying. So they’ve really been at the forefront for trying to get the laws changed to accommodate their business models. So yeah, there’s, there’s crypto, but they’ve also been at the sort of the forefront of, I always, there’s one of the do not pays, I think it’s a firm that’s theirs. I always get mixed up. They, they were very early investors in Robinhood, the FinTech trading stock app, which

[00:23:39] Barry Ritholtz: Originally started out as a stock app and then it became eventually a crypto app and now it’s a bet on anything app.

[00:23:46] Hilary Allen: Yeah. And again, that is a company that by the time it IPO’d had racked up all kinds of fines from the SEC and FINRA because it was violating laws left, right and center. You know, it was one of the first to offer commission free brokerage. Right. But as the chestnut goes, if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product. And it makes most of its money from payment for order flow and was not clear with its customers in the early years about that, how that was going on and how they get paid a lot more for your options trades than your regular stock trades because more

[00:24:28] Barry Ritholtz: Profitable.

[00:24:28] Hilary Allen: Yeah. More profitable for the Citadel Securities of this world to, to take those. Yeah.

[00:24:33] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really kind of interesting. And yet at the same time you have a chapter in your book, Silicon Valley Welfare Queen, explain, I thought that these are, you know, Ayn Randian libertarians that don’t wanna suckle off the teat of big government. And these are people that are builders and self-made people. You’re arguing not so much.

[00:25:01] Hilary Allen: Well, they don’t want us suckling on the teat of the state because they might have to fund that with taxes, but, but they’re okay suckling themselves.

[00:25:08] Barry Ritholtz: Right. So, so give us a few examples what companies started out as welfare queens.

[00:25:14] Hilary Allen: Well, I mean, again, the, the whole story of, of tech, the, the internet and smartphone boom is very much based on technologies developed by the government.

[00:25:25] Barry Ritholtz: DARPA and the whole internet.

[00:25:26] Hilary Allen: Exactly. And you know, and, and I think if you look at the iPhone, a lot of the individual technologies that went into that, again came from everything.

[00:25:34] Barry Ritholtz: With microwaves comes outta NASA, right? Yeah.

[00:25:37] Hilary Allen: So, you know, first of all, this, this entirely self-made story falls apart right there, because as I mentioned earlier, if you’ve only got six years to turn around a technology, you’re not really investing in prototypes. In thinking really hard about physical hardware and how that works, you’re really looking for a software thing that you can gin up pretty quickly. And so the really long-term investment comes from the state and, and has always done. And then it’s commercialized, you know, and I think that that sort of has worked well except that you get to the point where the, you know, the venture capitalists who are commercializing are saying, well, we shouldn’t have to pay any taxes to fund the state that develops these technologies. They also benefit, as I said, enormously from laws that they lobbied for in the late seventies, I believe changes to ERISA, which allowed pension funds to invest in venture capital, basically didn’t exist before. Hmm. And at that same period, they were lobbying for changes to the capital gains taxation.

[00:26:42] Barry Ritholtz: Well you have the carried interest loophole. Exactly. Which continues to persist. I’m drawing a blank on the author’s name. There’s a book, Americana, 400 years of technological innovation that makes the argument you’re making go back to the telegraph funded by Congress, go back to railroad, like every major technological innovation or most major innovations got seeded with the government and then eventually the private sector takes over. And what has changed in recent years is that public private partnerships seems to have broken.

[00:27:20] Hilary Allen: Yeah, actually, so the book I really like on this is Margaret O’Mara’s book The Code, who does, she does a great history of Silicon Valley. And yeah, I think the, the understanding that there was a quid pro quo has sort of fallen away. So always the private sector has commercialized this, this technology, but if we have an unwillingness to sort of pay any taxes, if we have an unwillingness to invest in government capacity to invest in universities where so much of this stuff is developed, you know, you take Marc Andreessen, he, you know, he got his start because he was lucky enough to be a student at the University of Illinois at the time where they had a special grant to look at the beginnings of the internet. He worked on a team there that developed a prototype internet browser and then he went into the private sector and they let him build one from the private sector and that was Netscape and that’s how he made his fortune. So he was sort of in the right place at the right time to take advantage of public investment in this kind of thing. And yet this is the kind of thing that we’re seeing that these leading venture capitalists wanna shut down.

[00:28:36] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really interesting. Since we’ve been talking about books, you’ve, you’ve criticized Abundance, which is by Derek Thompson. And Ezra Klein has, the whole concept of abundance is sort of a sexy way to make excuses for techno solutions. Tell us a little bit about that.

[00:28:55] Hilary Allen: Yeah, so this is, this is something I get into a lot of conversations with people these days because I think there are some elements of the original sort of abundance agenda that are very appealing to people in terms of, for example, increasing housing capacity. And I, I do think that that is something that needs to happen and has to be done in the right way. But if you look at who is funding the abundance movement, they have conferences, et cetera, it is Andreessen Horowitz and other people from Silicon Valley. And it seems to be this attempt to essentially put a, a happier face on the deregulatory project that Silicon Valley is looking for to sort of make it seem kinder, gentler and more progressive. Because the abundance movement is sort of in a nutshell is supposed to be, well we shouldn’t have artificial scarcity, we should build more of what we want to do, that we should take away some of the roadblocks that are getting in our own way. And when you say it like that, it’s sort of hard to disagree with, well

[00:29:55] Barry Ritholtz: That works for housing. You, you have NIMBYism with housing, but when you take that away, it also means you’re gonna end up with perhaps high rises or multifamily units in a suburban area that some people don’t want in their neighborhood. There’s always a series of trade-offs with people who are already there versus people want to get there. What is the specific problem with abundance as a philosophy towards building more of what we want as a society?

[00:30:27] Hilary Allen: Because it’s who gets to decide what more of what we want is. And if you look at who’s funding the abundance agenda, it is the billions of the tech elite. And these are people who have really shown that they are quite willing to run roughshod over regulations that are there to protect the public from harm if that enables them to profit. And so I am just skeptical that a movement that is funded by these people is really going to be prioritizing the kinds of projects that would benefit the economically precarious. I think it’s more likely that it’ll be benefiting themselves and will lose protections for people with less voice that are currently in place.

[00:31:08] Barry Ritholtz: So what sort of overhyped products do you think best explain the problems with this approach? Like what are these companies putting out that either is a result of regulatory capture or just don’t do what they promised? ‘Cause you would think that in the world of venture, either your product finds an audience, it finds a customer base or it doesn’t and fails and that goes outta business.

[00:31:37] Hilary Allen: Yeah. So that’s sort of the perverted part of this is that that market logic, like, you know, survival of the fittest because of all the subsidies that benefit venture capital, that doesn’t really apply that logic anymore. So, you know, give

[00:31:50] Barry Ritholtz: Us an example.

[00:31:51] Hilary Allen: Crypto, crypto should have died many times already. Particularly it should have died in 2022. When we had the big crypto winter at that time, particularly Andreessen Horowitz crypto had this huge war chest of funds that they had raised and they stopped investing in crypto startups at that point because, you know, everything was done. But what they started using that money for was lobbying political spending. And they really worked very hard on members of Congress to essentially create laws that would allow the crypto industry to keep doing what they’re doing, which was not allowed under the securities laws as they were. So the whole business model was regulatory arbitrage. They wanted laws that would sort of give a patina of legitimacy and hopefully encourage institutional investment, attract more money to the space, but not actually make them have to, for example, like Coinbase combines the functions of a broker dealer and an exchange that’s not allowed in securities. You can see why there’s all kinds of conflicts of interest that come,

[00:33:02] Barry Ritholtz: Right? Either you’re an exchange or a brokerage firm, not both.

[00:33:05] Hilary Allen: But in crypto you’re both right. And so if you applied the securities laws to crypto, they would have to disaggregate and basically would probably destroy their business model. So what they wanted was a law that said, no, it’s fine, crypto special, you do both. And so that, that really an industry that should have failed is, you know, again, rising, being propped up all through this sort of aggressive political spending. And, and I mean, I’ve talked to people in Congress off the record who have said that they’ve only voted for these laws because they’re afraid that if they don’t, that crypto industries will target them.

[00:33:48] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. What other products do you think are, are overhyped and, and fail to satisfy their markets?

[00:33:55] Hilary Allen: Well, right now the obvious answer is a lot of the AI products, the anything sort of, it, it’s hard when you talk about AI because it’s such an umbrella term for so many different things, right? I

[00:34:06] Barry Ritholtz: I have Perplexity on my phone. It, it does a better job with search than Google does. I get better, more comprehensive answers. What’s wrong with AI?

[00:34:18] Hilary Allen: Well, let me disaggregate it first because there’s plenty of AI that there’s nothing wrong with, right? So AI is not intelligent in any way, shape, or form, right? It’s a marketing term. What it is is it’s an applied statistical engine. You have an algorithm that looks for patterns in data and then acts accordingly. And that kind of technology has been around for a long time. It does. Like for example, it’s great for fraud detection in a bank for credit card transactions for example. So that, you know, that’s, that’s an A plus use of, of AI. But the last few years everybody has been pouring everything they’ve got into these LLM based tools, these large language model based tools. So these are tools that can, you know, old AI tools would just sort of classify something, put something in a group or, or predict something. But, but now we have these tools that generate content, particularly text, but also, you know, video, music, et cetera. And there are so many problems with this technology because it’s being sold as technology that can replace humans, right? That that can basically, it’s worth throwing trillions of dollars into this because of the productivity gains that will get by firing all the humans, essentially is, is the story they’re telling. First of all, that would be great,

[00:35:40] Barry Ritholtz: Right? That’s a problem in and of itself. The, the way I have heard it described that’s a little less catastrophic is this is gonna make everybody more efficient, more productive, it’ll make companies more profitable and we’ll all be able to do more with our existing staff than having to go out and hire hundreds of more people.

[00:36:06] Hilary Allen: But that is not true, sadly. That’s the pitch line, right? So these, these tools make a lot of mistakes. You know, even the very best ones make mistakes. It’s,

[00:36:17] Barry Ritholtz: We, we’ve seen a lot of attorneys, you and I are both attorneys, a lot of judges have been calling out attorneys who theoretically are supposed to be doing this on their own and instead are outsourcing it to AI and all of its hallucinations and citing cases that don’t exist. The assumption is that’s gonna get better eventually.

[00:36:37] Hilary Allen: But it won’t. So this is, this is the problem. But it won’t, but it won’t. So these things are statistical engines, right? They, they can’t check for accuracy ’cause they don’t understand accuracy as a concept, right? There’s no reasoning. It’s, it’s literally, the, the most statistically most likely word after the last word I gave you is this word. There is no way to make that care about accuracy. ‘Cause it’s, it’s, it’s not a, it’s not a thinking machine. And I think there’s increasing acceptance that these, these models have hit a wall and they are as accurate as they are going to get. Really?

[00:37:15] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. That’s kind of, that’s kind of fascinating. My concern was, at least on the legal side, hey, you have this existing body of work and all this research and brief writing and arguments that exist as of now, if you’re gonna replace people from doing that, are you gonna freeze the state of legal knowledge at 2026 and five or 10 years from now? If you don’t have people writing these briefs, you don’t have people writing these decisions, how can AI respond to what’s taken place over the past 10 years if we don’t have the humans actually doing the grunt work?

[00:37:51] Hilary Allen: Yeah, I mean there’s a, there’s, I mean I think those kinds of concerns have been expressed very much in the cultural context. You know, if, if, if we disincentivize creators from making new music and new art or is this it, are we stuck with, with what we’ve got with something like the law? One of the challenges is that, you know, these large language models, they don’t get updated on a day-to-day basis. You know, there’s, there’s sort of a stop point and then they, they don’t know, well they don’t know anything that they don’t have the data from after a certain date. So that, that’s a limitation. But the thing I worry most about with the law is that you have to be able to spot the hallucinations or you’re gonna get yourself in very big trouble. And I think this is true for a lot of different fields.

[00:38:40] Hilary Allen: And, and this is again just to digress a little, why the, the profitability narrative is not true, right? Because the only place where you can just put this content out and just leave it there is in very low stakes places, right? Where it doesn’t matter if you get something wrong, but even, you know, things that you wouldn’t think are such a big deal have proved to be quite high stakes. So Air Canada had a chatbot that told a customer that if they wanted to apply for a bereavement discount for a flight, they could do that after their flight was done. Now that’s not Air Canada’s policy. They, you had to do it in advance. And so this customer tried to get their refund after the fact. And Air Canada said, well the chatbot got it wrong. Too bad. So sad for you and it’s your

[00:39:27] Barry Ritholtz: Chatbot, you own, you are responsible for it. Exactly. Not, not my mistake. Your mistake.

[00:39:31] Hilary Allen: Exactly. And so even in these sort of reasonably low stakes customer service interactions, there’s reason to be really worried about inaccuracy. Now you start dialing up to things, to medical advice, legal advice, you know, it’s just you, you can’t rely on them. And I worry that we’re putting people in a very difficult position because it’s a, it’s a lot easier to get something right when you write it yourself than it is to find mistakes in something someone else has put together. Right? So

[00:40:01] Barry Ritholtz: Let me push back a little bit ’cause I’ve been watching the AI reading medical scans and at some point last year, or maybe it was two years ago, the, the technology theoretically passed the accuracy rate of humans, fewer false positives, more identifying missed negatives that should have been positive than people. Is, is that not accurate or where, where are we with, with the medical application of that?

[00:40:37] Hilary Allen: So this is why I think it’s so important to disaggregate the different kinds of AI because that is not sort of LLM based AI and some, as I said, some of those tools are great, I can’t weigh in on medical imaging and things like that. So it may very well be the case. What I’m talking about is, you know, what, if you’ve got, you know, a doctor coming up with instructions for a care plan for their patients and they let the AI do it, right? If there’s a mistake in there, they’re much less likely to catch it. If the AI, because you, you know, you know how things go, you’ll be expected to look at more of these ’cause you’re not generating them yourself. Right? And it’s always easier to get things right when you do it yourself than when you’re reviewing someone else. I mean, when we were lawyers, we used to, that’s why you wanna have the pen on contracts. You wanna, you wanna hide things from the other side and now it’s, now it’s the AI hiding stuff from you. And I worry that especially with younger lawyers coming up through the ranks who are encouraged to rely on these tools from the beginning, who won’t actually develop the skills because you, you don’t learn well when you sort of don’t process it yourself. So if you’re, you spent your whole career using AI, you’re not gonna be able to spot the problems in the AI and

[00:41:53] Barry Ritholtz: The, you’re not gonna have the skillset.

[00:41:55] Hilary Allen: No. And so then I’m worried about, you know, those young lawyers getting sued for malpractice because they missed something that the AI generated, but they were never even given the opportunity to learn how to spot it themselves. It’s,

[00:42:06] Barry Ritholtz: It’s a problem with the rungs on the ladder being removed, especially we see that now manifesting itself, the unemployment rate of the under 30 is about double what it is for the national unemployment rate. And I can’t help but wonder how much of that is somehow related to the proliferation of AI tools for white collar jobs.

[00:42:30] Hilary Allen: I think, you know, Cory Doctorow who does a lot of work in the tech space, has a great quote on this that I’m gonna butcher a little, not say it quite as well as he does it, but he said the AI can’t do your job, but the AI salesman can convince your boss to replace you with AI that can’t do your job. Right. So it’s, I think you’re right that there is at this moment a, you know, a, I mean it’s also hard to say how much of this is AI washing as opposed to real AI displacement, right? The economy’s not in a great place right now. People don’t wanna hire anyway. It looks a lot better if you say, well we’re not hiring ’cause we’re replacing them with AI than just, huh, we’re having a rough time. We’re not hiring.

[00:43:14] Barry Ritholtz: AI washing is a, a phrase I haven’t heard used in modern parlance yet, but it certainly makes a whole lot of sense. The line I heard, and I don’t know where I’m stealing this from, is you’re not gonna be replaced by AI. You are gonna be replaced by somebody with a greater facility working with AI than you have. And it sort of creates a self-fulfilling arms race to make sure you, you learn how to use that tool. Otherwise you’re at risk for being replaced by somebody who knows how to use that tool.

[00:43:44] Hilary Allen: I’ve heard that too, but I don’t think these tools are that hard to use, right? I mean, that’s a failure on the part of the AI companies if they’re so hard to use, right? It wasn’t hard to use Google search.

[00:43:54] Barry Ritholtz: Perplexity and, and even ChatGPT is, is absolutely easy as pie to use. I don’t, I don’t find them difficult. Sometimes you have to keep changing the prompts to get an improved answer. Like if you just ask a question and walk away, well then you’re getting what everybody gets. But if you, I, I don’t, I don’t really buy into the prompt engineer job title, but a little exposure is the more you ask it and the more you vary it, you get a variety of answers and eventually you come up with something, oh, that’s interesting and different. Let me, let me take a look at that.

[00:44:31] Hilary Allen: So I, I mean I have strong feelings about this as an educator because if these tools are worth their salt, it shouldn’t take our students long to figure out how to use them, right? Right. So why are we bringing them into education where what they really need to learn is how to spot hallucinations, how to think critically so that if they are going to use these tools later, they can use them to the best of their abilities. This whole arms race sense of, well they need to use them in school so they don’t get left behind. I’m like, it, it didn’t take long to learn how to Google, they’ll be fine.

[00:45:01] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. You’ve been pretty critical of things like crypto and stablecoin. We’re going to get to those in a moment. I wanna talk about some other things you’ve discussed. You’ve brought up the whole idea of technology as a branding exercise. Phrases like democratizing finance, disruptive technology, banking the unbanked. You’ve described these as just, you know, marketing and not really accomplishing anything. Tell us a little bit about those and, and give us some examples.

[00:45:38] Hilary Allen: Sure. I mean, I think at the heart of all this is, is innovation speak and innovation worship, right? When we alluded to that earlier, the sense that anything that is innovative is inherently good and must therefore be permitted at all costs. And that is sort of the font of a lot of the rhetoric and narrative that we get out of Silicon Valley that ultimately is there to attract funding, yes, but also to procure legal treatment that facilitates what they wanna do. It, it actually creates often an unlevel legal playing field where you have the incumbents who have to comply with all the laws and then the disruptors, as you say, who don’t have to comply with all the laws and can succeed on that basis, even if their product isn’t superior in the way we would typically expect a disruptor’s product to be. So yeah, I mean, disruptive innovation, you know, goes back to Clayton Christensen and, and the Innovator’s Dilemma, this sense that if you, if you stay still and just make good products, you’ll be outcompeted by someone who is trying to do things a little differently. But you know, there, there’s no real formula that you can take away from that as to what, you know, disruptive is in the eye of the beholder.

[00:47:00] Barry Ritholtz: So, so let me push back on that a little bit. And all my VC friends, I could just hear their voices in my head and the pushback is, look, most new companies fail. Most new technologies crash and burn. Most new ideas never make it. And even the best of the best VCs, they’ll make a hundred investments for that one moonshot that works out. And most of the other 99 are at best break even, but mostly losers. How could you say this is true? Oh, and real innovation often finds itself in between the regulatory regime because the technology that’s being created was never anticipated by the regulators or, or anybody else. Fair, fair pushback.

[00:47:51] Hilary Allen: A lot of points that I would quibble with there. Some’s fair, quibble away, quibble away. Alright, so there’s this idea that the law is a barrier to innovation because law is old and innovation is new and the law couldn’t possibly have contemplated the innovation. The story about the innovation is what makes it new, right? Most of the things that we’re seeing in the FinTech space, they’re not that new, right? As I said, you know, we’ve got FinTech lending has a lot of the things that we didn’t like about payday lending, right? Why shouldn’t the laws from payday lending apply? Crypto, basically, I mean the, the crypto markets for all the world looked like the stocks and bonds in the unregulated markets of the 1920s. We saw how that ended. They ended in such a spectacular crash that we ended up with the securities laws. Why shouldn’t they apply?

[00:48:39] Hilary Allen: What’s, what’s so different, right? So this construction of novelty is something that is done intentionally as, as a narrative. Now I fully appreciate that we need the optimists in this world who are gonna try new things. And, and, and I say that very early on in the book, the people who these stories are useful because they attract funding to new things. So I’m not saying we should do away with it completely. My argument is that the, the yin and yang, the balance between the optimists and the realists is badly out of whack because we give so much deference to the stories about innovation, about disruption, about how technology can solve problems that have been with us for centuries. We can magically get rid of intermediaries now with blockchain technology apparently, except

[00:49:30] Barry Ritholtz: We can. Well that was one of the, that was one of the story narratives was disintermediation and until it no longer was the story, but, but let’s talk about some specific companies that you’ve mentioned that you’ve written about, and I, and I wanna get your sense on it. And, and the oldest one was PayPal. To this day. And, and I was a PayPal user back in the 1990s with eBay and those sort of things. To this day, I don’t understand what they did that was any different than a credit card other than being a bit of middleware that eventually became a rentier. Why not just use a credit card? Why do I need PayPal between me and Amazon or me and eBay?

[00:50:16] Hilary Allen: So this is really an interesting story and I learned a whole lot about this in research for this book by reading Max Chafkin’s book, The Contrarian about Peter Thiel and the start of the beginning of PayPal. And in fact, the idea for PayPal came from the same place that the idea for crypto has come from, which is this, this techno libertarian idea of we don’t like regulation, we don’t like central banks, we would like to have private money and we would like technology to help us have private money. And PayPal wasn’t the only one of these kinds of startups back in the early .com bubble. So PayPal I think succeeded because it sort of lucked into this deal with eBay, as you said, right? It, it sort of had no distinguishing features as far as I can tell that made it any superior to the Beans and the Floos of this world. It lucked into this deal with, with eBay. And so,

[00:51:13] Barry Ritholtz: And eventually eBay buys them to solve their, I guess, credit card management problem. I don’t really understand. Yeah. I still, you know, 20, 25 years later, I still don’t understand why they were necessary.

[00:51:28] Hilary Allen: I think, yeah, I mean my, my knowledge of this comes primarily from reading Max Chafkin’s book, which I highly recommend, but that’s, that’s my understanding too. And so, you know, they are a payments technology. I too struggle to sort of understand what they offer that a credit card doesn’t in many ways. One thing they are though is they are sort of the OG regulatory arbitrage story in FinTech, right? So, you know, I’ve said so much of FinTech is actually about arbitraging the law rather than technological superiority. PayPal from the beginning was flaunting quite aggressively the banking laws because only banks are allowed to accept deposits and people were keeping money in their PayPal wallets and for all the world that looks like keeping a deposit. Peter Thiel from the beginning was very aggressive on the lobbying to make sure that that was not considered deposit taking. Early on, there were multiple states that were investigating it because they thought it was the unlawful taking of deposits. He lobbied heavily in Congress and lobbied heavily at the FDIC and ultimately, you know, that worked. And so I think that has sort of been the prototype, that blitzscaling prototype. I think people perhaps underestimate the degree to which blitzscaling is really about playing it on an unlevel legal playing field.

[00:52:54] Barry Ritholtz: Let, let’s talk about stablecoins. What sort of value do they provide?

[00:52:59] Hilary Allen: Again, unless you are trying to do illicit transactions or gamble, not a whole lot, right? So,

[00:53:05] Barry Ritholtz: Well, a stablecoin is worth a dollar and it promises to always be worth a dollar. Don’t we have dollars? Why do I need a stablecoin?

[00:53:13] Hilary Allen: Well, you need a stablecoin often to do illicit payments. So if you want, you know, if you’re, they’re, they’re very popular, for example, with all kinds of drug cartels and they’re good for sanctions evasion. They’re also very good if you want to gamble in crypto and you wanna use it as sort of a cash management tool in between crypto investments, kind of like a money market mutual fund in your brokerage account for parking funds in between crypto gambling, but they’ve really never had any utility in any big way as a legal payments mechanism.

[00:53:48] Barry Ritholtz: Alright, so what about, you mentioned the blockchain. I keep reading that blockchain is gonna allow us to use smart contracts and have things happen automatically that now have to be manual. What, what’s the problem with blockchain?

[00:54:04] Hilary Allen: Well, first of all, smart contracts can work without a blockchain. Smart contracts predate blockchains, they can run on all kinds of databases. So if, if you want that kind of functionality and it has pros and cons, and I’ve written about this a ton, you can have that without a blockchain. The reason why you don’t wanna have it on a blockchain, and this is something that does not get anywhere near the attention it needs, is that there’s all kinds of operational risks associated with the blockchains themselves. So blockchains are software, they are maintained by, in the case of the Bitcoin blockchain, just a few individuals, in the case of the Ethereum blockchain, it’s the Ethereum Foundation. They’re not regulated at all. They have no obligation to invest in cybersecurity, to invest in getting the blockchains up and running again. Should something go wrong. You’re just, you’re really sort of, as I sometimes say, YOLO-ing operational risk with regards to these, these blockchains. And so if you want smart contract functionality, like don’t use a blockchain.

[00:55:11] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Coming up we continue our conversation with Professor Hilary Allen discussing her new book, FinTech Dystopia, a summer beach read about Silicon Valley and how it’s ruining things. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:55:43] Barry Ritholtz: I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Hilary Allen. She teaches at the American University, Washington College of Law in Washington DC where she specializes in regulation of financial and technology laws. So we’ve mentioned stablecoin, we’ve mentioned blockchain. Is there any value in any of the crypto coins, be it Bitcoin or Ethereum? I know we, we can’t actually describe the last hundred coins that are out there on the radio. We’ll, we’ll violate George Carlin’s seven words, you can’t say on TV or radio, but there’s a, outside of the, you know, the Doge coins and everything below that, what’s the value of the first five or so cryptocurrencies? Is there anything worthwhile to these or is this just a solution in search of a problem? It’s

[00:56:44] Hilary Allen: A solution in search of a problem. I mean, essentially even, so Bitcoin often is seen as the most credible of these because it’s been around the longest and has the largest,

[00:56:53] Barry Ritholtz: It’s Bitcoin and ETH, that’s, those are the two I hear about the most.

[00:56:57] Hilary Allen: But both of them are essentially Ponzi in the sense that there’s nothing backing them. The only reason they have value is because someone else might buy them from you. If they choose not to, it could go to zero. And actually, someone put it to me this way, it’s not that they could go to zero, they could go to less than zero because they don’t even have any assets that could be used to administer a winding up. Right, right. And, and, and that’s expensive. You know, you, you’re gonna get the lawyers and the courts and everybody involved. That’s,

[00:57:25] Barry Ritholtz: Well you’re not suggesting that if you own Bitcoin you may have a liability down the road. Is that, is that the implication?

[00:57:31] Hilary Allen: No, I’m just saying that if, if someone was trying to work out the end of one of these things, there wouldn’t even be, you know, office furniture you could sell to pay the lawyers.

[00:57:42] Barry Ritholtz: Okay. You, you’ve written about startups like Theranos, I remember Juicero,

[00:57:51] Hilary Allen: Juicero is

[00:57:51] Barry Ritholtz: The best. Tell us a little bit about those two and was that just, you know, one of these products that just didn’t work out? What, what’s the problem with that technology solution to our juicing problems?

[00:58:06] Hilary Allen: So Juicero is just my favorite metaphor for all of this. So for those of you who are unfamiliar with the, the gift that is Juicero, so basically this was a machine that cost hundreds of dollars. It was wifi enabled and well

[00:58:19] Barry Ritholtz: Roll back. The, the guy, and you described this in the book, the guy who invented this previously had set up a fairly successful, was it a juicing chain of companies that got bought. And so he had some credibility in the space and now I’m not gonna run restaurants, I’m going to create a technology that people can juice at home.

[00:58:42] Hilary Allen: And it was venture funded. They put a lot of money into this.

[00:58:45] Barry Ritholtz: A hundred plus million dollars.

[00:58:46] Hilary Allen: And these, these, what it did was it squeezed these juice pouches and the problem was that people could just squeeze the juice pouches with their bare hands and get all the juice.

[00:58:56] Barry Ritholtz: Out. There was, there was a notorious Bloomberg article about this, but why it raises the question, did the company already squeeze the juice and put in these pouches? Why didn’t they, like why wasn’t this set up so that you can actually put fresh fruit? Like doesn’t it defeat the purpose if you’re buying pouches or was the whole idea the razorblade model?

[00:59:22] Hilary Allen: So, I mean, the reason why I love this as a metaphor is it, it really gets at this, this techno solutionism, which is one of the concepts that I’m really coming for in this book. And techno solutionism is this idea that everything in our world can be reduced into a technology problem. And that the only reason we haven’t solved certain things is because we haven’t spent enough time and money on developing the technology. And, and what that does is it, it sort of flattens problems into, it gets rid of the human messiness. It flattens problems, it ignores domain expertise. People who’ve been working in particular fields for a long time and know a lot of non-tech stuff, it, it sort of dismisses their expertise. And sadly, you know, there’s just this magic associated with technology at this point. And, and as I said, I’m not anti-technology.

[01:00:11] Hilary Allen: A lot of it’s great, but it doesn’t deserve the level of sort of magical deference that we give it. It can’t solve all our problems. And when we get into this mindset where we think that if we throw enough money at technology, it can solve anything and it will always be the best solutions. We end up squeezing pouches with a machine that we could squeeze with our bare hands. And, and a joke that I try and make in the book, it’s like, with AI, we may be better off squeezing things with our bare minds.

[01:00:39] Barry Ritholtz: So one more company I have to ask about, Theranos. I love the book Bad Blood. What really went into details about how corrosive and co-opting the company itself was for everybody around it, including the attorneys and, and all sorts of other bad actors. Why wasn’t Theranos just an idea that didn’t work? That you can’t, if you wanna draw blood from a vein, you have to draw blood from a vein. You can’t just prick your fingertip and think that’s gonna be the same as venous draws.

[01:01:16] Hilary Allen: Well, so that’s the thing with this techno solutionism, it presumes that everything is a tech problem waiting to be solved. It doesn’t even countenance the possibility that there may not be a technological solution for what you wanna do. That the technology you want may not be able to do the thing you want it to do. And when you have that sort of collective sense that I think we have now that if we throw enough money at any technology, it can solve any problem we give it. You can see how people get so susceptible to being sort of drawn in the stories that outright con people like Elizabeth Holmes might be telling, but also the stories that were being told about, you know, about AI right now and about crypto. You know, the more you know about these technologies, the less impressive they seem and the more clearly it becomes illuminated that, that they just can’t do a lot of the things that they’re going to do. But that’s so counter to how we typically talk about technologies that it sort of, it feels a bit weird to talk like that and, and you sort of, you’re going against societal norms in a way. And so one of the things that I really wanted to do with this is to start making it easier to talk about these things critically to be not such an outlier to express your frustrations. And I think we’re actually having a moment like that about AI. ‘Cause so many people really hate it. Hmm.

[01:02:45] Barry Ritholtz: Really? So, so you use the phrase techno solutionism and Theranos is really the poster child for that. ‘Cause as you’re describing a lot of these things, I am recalling the story. Especially what you’re referring to with domain expertise. She had no medical or medical device training. None of the VCs who put money into Theranos were healthcare, biotech, medical devices. Like they all passed. Eventually she hired a number of people to try and with some background, but they seemed to turn over pretty quickly because no, you can’t do that. What, you just pricking the skin, you’re getting all the interstitial tissue and fluids and you’re corrupting the sample that you want to test for something. You have the, the reason we draw from the vein is very medically specific and yet it attracted Henry Kissinger and all sorts of big law firms and everybody plowed in. She’s the next Steve Jobs, the youngest self-made female billionaire. What is it about us that we’re just so susceptible to buying into these narrative tales that turn out to be nonsense?

[01:04:08] Hilary Allen: So I mean, part of it is that we’re humans and humans have often sort of been snowed by things that are flashy and shiny and exciting. I mean, that, that’s just very much the human condition. Some of the stuff I talk about in the, in the book that I really enjoyed working on was the cognitive psychology aspects of it. You know, sort of when we hear certain stories, it’s very difficult to budge ourselves and, and be contrarian. And I was, as I was saying earlier, so you sort of need a, a collective tipping point where people start to question it. So you don’t feel like an outlier or the norm when you start to question these things. And so I think there’s a role for media here. I think there’s a role for education. Unfortunately, the people who benefit from techno solutionism also know this and have a very big media presence and invest a lot in education. So it’s, it’s an uphill battle to start talking about these things differently. But, you know, ultimately we, we are all human and it’s nicer to believe that something will succeed than that it will fail. I mean, you might not think I’d be much fun at cocktail parties, although I am.

[01:05:24] Barry Ritholtz: And the book is available for free at fintechdystopia.com. Let’s jump to our final questions, our favorite questions we ask all of our guests. Starting with tell us about your mentors who helped steer your career.

[01:05:42] Hilary Allen: So my first mentor is probably my first law firm partner boss in, in Australia, Stephen Kavanaugh. And I had thought I was going to be an IP lawyer, but we had a rotation system and I ended up in his financial services practice. And he was just a wonderful person to work for. It was a time when the law had just changed in Australia and, and he really was willing to hear what I had to say about this, this new law. And so it was just, I just felt very invested in and that was lovely. And then I think as an academic, Patricia McCoy, who I adore sort of, I have had a very non-traditional path to academia. I had more practice experience than is usually the case. I had fewer of the bells and whistles credentials that people usually have. And again, she just saw in me someone who was really passionate about preventing financial crises, about sort of systemic risk and, and sort of was willing to look through the fact that I wasn’t as polished as most of the other people trying to enter academia and support me. And I was very grateful for that.

[01:06:54] Barry Ritholtz: We’ve talked about a run of different books. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading right now?

[01:07:01] Hilary Allen: Oh, I was an English lit major. So I’ve, I have many favorites. I’m, I’m very into the dystopian tracks. So Handmaid’s Tale, surprise, 1984. Yeah, surprise. I just finished The Parable of the Sower in that vein, which was

[01:07:13] Barry Ritholtz: Parable of the,

[01:07:14] Hilary Allen: The Parable of the Sower, Octavia Butler. I also have always had a soft spot for really good children’s literature. So Philip Pullman’s Dark Materials trilogy is one of my favorites. And and right now I’m reading with my kids Catherine Rundell’s books Impossible Creatures and The Poison King. And it’s just, they’re just so good. And then work-wise, I’ve just started Jacob Silverman’s Gilded Rage, which is very much on point for the conversation we’re having.

[01:07:45] Barry Ritholtz: Gilded Rage, you know, we talked about a few crypto related books. Did you see Zeke Faux’s

[01:07:52] Hilary Allen: Of course, Number Go Up.

[01:07:53] Barry Ritholtz: It, it, it really is just an astonishing, astonishing work. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in whether it was law, financial technology, regulation? What’s your advice to those people?

[01:08:11] Hilary Allen: It’s a really hard time for them, and I, I talk to my students a lot about the careers and, you know, things are, the ground is shifting under our feet and in this time of uncertainty, it’s really, it’s really hard to figure out what to do. So I would recommend investing in the fundamentals. And I think it’s, it’s hard to do when AI is being pushed, but, but becoming a good communicator, learning how to write and speak to people clearly, will never, I think, go outta fashion. And investing in relationships, again, we’re in this time where everything is sort of becoming technologized and atomized, et cetera. But in my career, having good relationships with people, and I’m pretty sure you’ll agree with this, has been one of the most successful things that has helped me along the way. And so just investing in personal relationships, I think is, is always good advice.

[01:08:59] Barry Ritholtz: And our final question, what do you know about the world of FinTech investing regulation today that might have been useful 20, 25 years ago?

[01:09:11] Hilary Allen: Well, honestly, I’m not sure that there’s much, because the world was very different 20, 25 years ago. You know, I, I always just invested in, in index funds basically. And, and, you know, and, and that worked out frankly, great for me.

[01:09:27] Barry Ritholtz: Worked

[01:09:28] Hilary Allen: Out really well. The challenge is, and I study financial crises, the challenge is that when things go horribly wrong, everything is correlated. Everything is correlated.

[01:09:39] Barry Ritholtz: All correlations go to one in a crisis for sure.

[01:09:41] Hilary Allen: And I think we’re on the brink of a crisis.

[01:09:45] Barry Ritholtz: When you say on the brink, days, weeks, months, years.

[01:09:49] Hilary Allen: Ah, well, John Maynard Keynes said that the markets can stay irrational longer than you and I can stay solvent. So I will never put a timeframe on it, but I, you know, all warning indicators are flashing red at the same time as we are pulling back all regulatory apparatus. So I think it’s safe to say we are on the brink of a crisis. How,

[01:10:06] Barry Ritholtz: How could that ever go wrong?

[01:10:09] Hilary Allen: How could it go

[01:10:09] Barry Ritholtz: Wrong? Just regulation leeches the animal spirits. As long as we’re talking about Keynes, it’s all good.

[01:10:18] Hilary Allen: Perhaps not.

[01:10:19] Barry Ritholtz: Perhaps not. Hilary, thank you so much for being so generous with your time. We have been speaking with Hilary Allen, professor of law at American University, Washington College in DC, an author of the book available for free online, FinTech Dystopia, A Summer Beach Read About How Silicon Valley Is Ruining Things. If you enjoy this conversation, well check out any of the 600 previous discussions we’ve had over the past 12 years. You could find those at iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bloomberg, or wherever you find your favorite podcast. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank our crack staff that helps put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer.

I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Hilary Allen on Fintech Dystopia appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Tuesday AM Reads

My Two-for-Tuesday morning train WFH reads:

A Yale Professor’s Investment Formula Says You Need More Stocks. See How It Works. James Choi’s research suggests most investors are too conservative with their asset allocation — and he’s got the math to back it up. The formula incorporates income, risk tolerance and other factors absent from typical rules of thumb. (Wall Street Journal)

Winners & Losers of SCOTUS Decision Striking Down Tariffs: The long-awaited Supreme Court decision on tariffs is finally out; it was a 7-2 decision in part, 6-3 decision more broadly. The street doesn’t quite understand the subtle nuances of the case. Take a moment to step back and consider the winners and losers of tariffs. (The Big Picture) see also Part II: IEEPA Tariff Ruling’s Losers: In broad strokes, the winners were the large companies that filed for refunds or sued the US, the dollar, consumers, the separation of powers, the US Constitution, and the Supreme Court. The losers are a bit more nuanced: some are obvious, many are not. (The Big Picture)

•  Inflation May Have Cooled, But Affordability Is Still a Hot Issue: The headline inflation numbers look better. The lived experience of buying groceries, paying rent, and filling a gas tank does not. (Bloomberg)

• Pros and Cons of Artificial Intelligence: We’re in the fun phase of AI innovation — tons of overreactions, wild predictions, and nobody really knows what happens next. A balanced look at what’s real and what’s hype. (A Wealth of Common Sense)

• The Ultra-Rich Are Different from You and Me: The billionaire class doesn’t just have more money — they operate in an entirely different economic and political reality, one that’s increasingly detached from everyone else’s. (Paul Krugman) see also Billionaires Gone Wild: Since Citizens United, billionaires’ share of political contributions exploded 1700% even as their numbers only grew 85%, making the oligarch power grab the defining feature of American politics. Their power grab is a dire threat to American democracy. (Paul Krugman)

• The giant void of nothingness where US financial regulation used to sit: The regulatory apparatus that once policed Wall Street has been hollowed out. What’s left is mostly a void — and the markets know it.‘There has never been a better time to be a crook’ (Financial Times) see also Crypto super PACs have hundreds of millions ready to spend on the midterms: The crypto industry is gearing up to pour enormous sums into the 2026 midterm elections, hoping to lock in favorable regulation before the window closes. With Trump faltering and their policy agenda incomplete, the crypto industry has moved at least $288 million toward the midterms in a desperate bid to keep Republicans in control of Congress. (Citation Needed)

Inside the Gay Tech Mafia: Gay men have long been rumored to run Silicon Valley. WIRED investigates. (Wired)

Judges Grow Angry Over Trump Administration Violating Their Orders: At least 35 times since August, federal judges have ordered the administration to explain why it should not be punished for violating their orders in immigration cases. (New York Times)

• Trader Joe’s wines are sneaky good. Here are 9 budget bottles to try.: The cashier did a double take at the $200 total. But dollar for dollar, Trader Joe’s wine selection punches well above its weight class. (Washington Post)

• Dilbert Creator’s AI Resurrection Not So Comic for His Family: Scott Adams is being digitally resurrected via AI video — and his family is not amused. The line between tribute and exploitation keeps getting blurrier. (The Bulwark)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Hilary Allen, Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law. She specializes in financial regulation, banking law, securities regulation, and technology law, with a particular focus on how new financial technologies like fintech, crypto, and AI intersect with financial stability and public policy.

 

Concentrated Markets? Not true We are seeing the broadest rally in history.

Source: @RyanDetrick

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Tuesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.