WEBVTT - Allison Schrager Discusses Monetary Policy

0:00:02.200 --> 0:00:06.359
<v Speaker 1>This is Masters in Business with Barry Ridholts on Bloomberg

0:00:06.480 --> 0:00:09.760
<v Speaker 1>Radio this weekend. On the podcast, I have a special guest.

0:00:10.200 --> 0:00:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Her name is Alison Schraeger, and amongst other things, she

0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:17.360
<v Speaker 1>is the author of a book that I took with

0:00:17.400 --> 0:00:21.920
<v Speaker 1>me on vacation and absolutely found intriguing. My my version

0:00:22.040 --> 0:00:25.599
<v Speaker 1>is just demolished because I plowed through it on a

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:30.320
<v Speaker 1>beach uh in Turks and Caicos, and really, despite everything

0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:32.159
<v Speaker 1>going on around me, I kind of ignored it and

0:00:32.200 --> 0:00:35.800
<v Speaker 1>just worked my way through the book. I love the

0:00:35.840 --> 0:00:39.600
<v Speaker 1>title and economists walks into a brothel, which really has

0:00:39.640 --> 0:00:42.280
<v Speaker 1>nothing to do with sex and everything to do with

0:00:43.200 --> 0:00:48.879
<v Speaker 1>finding ways to do risk reward analyzes in really unusual places.

0:00:48.920 --> 0:00:52.600
<v Speaker 1>So whether it's big wave surfing or horse breeding, or

0:00:52.960 --> 0:00:58.240
<v Speaker 1>poker playing or paparazzi, there are all these unusual um

0:00:58.280 --> 0:01:03.000
<v Speaker 1>situations where we don't really think about the risk reward analysis,

0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:06.600
<v Speaker 1>but really the details of that have a major impact

0:01:06.720 --> 0:01:11.679
<v Speaker 1>on how these industries and these individuals progress. And and

0:01:11.720 --> 0:01:15.520
<v Speaker 1>once you start looking into that, it changes the way

0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:20.920
<v Speaker 1>you look at everything from insurance to annuities to hedging

0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:26.760
<v Speaker 1>to market based portfolios. Risk permanent permeates everything we do

0:01:27.280 --> 0:01:30.720
<v Speaker 1>and most of us just don't give it enough time

0:01:30.760 --> 0:01:37.440
<v Speaker 1>and thought to recognize the dangers and advantages it potentially

0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:40.880
<v Speaker 1>can afford us. So, if you're at all interested in

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:47.200
<v Speaker 1>filling the blank investing, insurance, understanding risk, understanding what happens

0:01:47.200 --> 0:01:51.200
<v Speaker 1>in a brothel from an economic perspective, I think you're

0:01:51.200 --> 0:01:54.880
<v Speaker 1>gonna find this to be an absolutely fascinating conversation. So,

0:01:54.920 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 1>with no further ado, my interview with Alison Traeger. This

0:02:01.120 --> 0:02:05.160
<v Speaker 1>is Masters in Business with Barry Ridholts on Bloomberg Radio.

0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:09.480
<v Speaker 1>My special guest this week is Alison Schreeger. She is

0:02:09.520 --> 0:02:12.679
<v Speaker 1>an economist and adjunct professor at n y U, a

0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:17.600
<v Speaker 1>journalist at Courts, co founder of life Cycle Finance Partners,

0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:21.440
<v Speaker 1>which is a risk advisory firm. She is also the

0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:25.000
<v Speaker 1>author of An Economist Walks Into a Brothel and Other

0:02:25.120 --> 0:02:29.880
<v Speaker 1>Unexpected Places to Understand Risk. Alison Schreeger, Welcome to Bloomberg.

0:02:30.080 --> 0:02:32.880
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for having me. My pleasure. So, so let's

0:02:32.919 --> 0:02:38.800
<v Speaker 1>talk a little bit about your um backgrounds. You describe

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:41.680
<v Speaker 1>in the book making a series of what you later

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:46.519
<v Speaker 1>called risky career decisions, not exactly sure what you wanted

0:02:46.560 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 1>to do. Your assumption was, hey, PhD program and economics.

0:02:50.600 --> 0:02:56.000
<v Speaker 1>Obviously you're gonna become a professor. How did that work out? Um? Well,

0:02:56.040 --> 0:02:57.920
<v Speaker 1>in the end, I think it worked out well for me,

0:02:58.240 --> 0:03:00.880
<v Speaker 1>but the path was a lot rocky year than I

0:03:00.880 --> 0:03:03.760
<v Speaker 1>would have expected. I think, like a lot of people,

0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:05.880
<v Speaker 1>especially in this day and age, I fell into this

0:03:06.000 --> 0:03:08.959
<v Speaker 1>idea that more education was just better and it would

0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:10.600
<v Speaker 1>open up all these doors. And most of the time

0:03:10.600 --> 0:03:12.639
<v Speaker 1>it does. I think that is normally a good bet,

0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:15.920
<v Speaker 1>and certainly an economics PhD is is a good thing

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:19.120
<v Speaker 1>to have in life. But I had kind of a

0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:22.320
<v Speaker 1>rocky transition when I finished grad school because I had

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:26.760
<v Speaker 1>invested essentially my whole twenties into learning all these skills

0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:28.799
<v Speaker 1>and really being cut off from the rest of the world,

0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:32.160
<v Speaker 1>and then realized what I was investing in was this

0:03:32.240 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 1>idea of becoming a professor, and had this realization as

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:36.920
<v Speaker 1>I graduated, this was not what I wanted to do

0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 1>at all. So undergrad it and Edinburgh PhD at Columbia University.

0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:46.920
<v Speaker 1>What sort of thesis were you working on that? Um? Weirdly,

0:03:47.040 --> 0:03:49.480
<v Speaker 1>even when I was like eighteen, I was always really

0:03:49.520 --> 0:03:54.640
<v Speaker 1>fascinated by retirement. Uh So my PhD thesis was on

0:03:55.440 --> 0:03:59.640
<v Speaker 1>risk in retirement, so it was I started around two

0:03:59.680 --> 0:04:02.160
<v Speaker 1>thousand and so this is as DC Plans had really

0:04:02.160 --> 0:04:04.200
<v Speaker 1>taken a foothold in the market and I was doing

0:04:04.200 --> 0:04:06.280
<v Speaker 1>some work in the UK where they were taking over,

0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:10.080
<v Speaker 1>so really understanding more deeply the risks and define contribution

0:04:10.200 --> 0:04:15.800
<v Speaker 1>versus define benefit pensions. So eventually you come to the realization, hey,

0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:19.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm not going to be any sort of professor. And

0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:23.680
<v Speaker 1>then you happened to have a job interview with a

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:29.480
<v Speaker 1>world famous Noble Prize winning economist, Robert Martin. What happened

0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:33.360
<v Speaker 1>with that? Well, I uh, as I said, I had

0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:35.480
<v Speaker 1>this hard realization when I was finishing grad school. I

0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:37.120
<v Speaker 1>didn't want to be professor. I didn't want to be

0:04:37.160 --> 0:04:39.040
<v Speaker 1>a government bureaucrat all the things you're supposed to do

0:04:39.120 --> 0:04:41.599
<v Speaker 1>with an economics PhD. So I kind of had this

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:45.480
<v Speaker 1>burn it all down, do something new attitude, which also

0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:48.200
<v Speaker 1>turned out to be helpful for the book. So I

0:04:48.240 --> 0:04:50.320
<v Speaker 1>was like, I'm gonna do something fun. I've just spent

0:04:50.360 --> 0:04:52.680
<v Speaker 1>my whole twenties while everyone else was partying solving a

0:04:52.720 --> 0:04:56.840
<v Speaker 1>math problem. So I went to the economist unpaid, because

0:04:56.920 --> 0:04:59.560
<v Speaker 1>this is early days with web journalism, and they would

0:04:59.600 --> 0:05:01.359
<v Speaker 1>take people who had never written before to write for

0:05:01.360 --> 0:05:04.920
<v Speaker 1>the web back then and what you pay for right,

0:05:06.080 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 1>So I was just writing web web stuff for the

0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:11.200
<v Speaker 1>economists for free with any com PhD. And then someone

0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:15.280
<v Speaker 1>passed my dissertation along to Bob Merton and turned out

0:05:15.360 --> 0:05:19.359
<v Speaker 1>retirement was also his main interest. He was working on

0:05:19.440 --> 0:05:22.080
<v Speaker 1>market solutions to the retirement problem. So so let me

0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:25.240
<v Speaker 1>interrupt you there and ask some questions here, because this

0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:30.039
<v Speaker 1>is really kind of fascinating. You're wildly overqualified to turn

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:33.520
<v Speaker 1>out web based nonsense where you're not being paid for

0:05:33.560 --> 0:05:38.000
<v Speaker 1>a website, and you know they treat unpaid volunteers not

0:05:38.240 --> 0:05:41.719
<v Speaker 1>especially well, and they have the same respect for their content.

0:05:42.160 --> 0:05:46.720
<v Speaker 1>Who said, oh, I know Allison's pH d thesis. Let

0:05:46.720 --> 0:05:49.440
<v Speaker 1>me give this to Bob. He's busy, he want a

0:05:49.520 --> 0:05:52.160
<v Speaker 1>Nobel prize, but he'll like this. How on earth did

0:05:52.200 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 1>that come about? Um a friend of mine who I

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:57.679
<v Speaker 1>think had him when he was doing his NBA at Harvard.

0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:01.360
<v Speaker 1>And because my dissertation, that is exactly what Bob was doing.

0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:03.839
<v Speaker 1>Bob was trying to come up with financial models that

0:06:04.000 --> 0:06:06.280
<v Speaker 1>took the best to define benefit plans and put them

0:06:06.279 --> 0:06:09.080
<v Speaker 1>in a defined contribution structure, and that turns out, you know,

0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:10.479
<v Speaker 1>as I said, as much as I said burn it

0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:13.240
<v Speaker 1>all down, I always had a good dissertation which I

0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:16.720
<v Speaker 1>thought about risk in a clever way. So once Bob

0:06:16.760 --> 0:06:20.240
<v Speaker 1>didn't know, i'd sort of hit bottom career wise. You know,

0:06:20.279 --> 0:06:21.960
<v Speaker 1>it just goes to show where something you feel like

0:06:22.040 --> 0:06:24.279
<v Speaker 1>something can feel like it totally blew up. I was thinking,

0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:26.560
<v Speaker 1>I just really messed up here, you know, I just

0:06:26.600 --> 0:06:30.200
<v Speaker 1>wasted all this time. And then my paper ended up

0:06:30.240 --> 0:06:32.600
<v Speaker 1>in front of him and he was like, I really

0:06:32.640 --> 0:06:34.880
<v Speaker 1>want to do this. He called me in. He's like,

0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:37.440
<v Speaker 1>if you come work with me, I will teach you finance.

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:39.599
<v Speaker 1>Let me tell you when I first was handed a

0:06:39.640 --> 0:06:43.240
<v Speaker 1>book whose title was an economist walks into a brothel.

0:06:44.440 --> 0:06:48.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm intrigued. Okay, now, your your thought is they're not

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:51.520
<v Speaker 1>going in there as a customer or anything like that.

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:55.080
<v Speaker 1>You thought is what sort of wacky economic data are

0:06:55.080 --> 0:06:58.800
<v Speaker 1>they going to be analyzing? As an economist looking at

0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:01.480
<v Speaker 1>the sex trade, it's pretty fast spending subject. How did

0:07:01.480 --> 0:07:05.400
<v Speaker 1>you find your way to Nevada and going to the

0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:10.560
<v Speaker 1>bunny ranch? So I wrote a story for courts because

0:07:10.560 --> 0:07:12.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm it's interesting. I've always been in shouting risk even

0:07:12.720 --> 0:07:15.960
<v Speaker 1>as a journalist. You know, after I started working with Bob,

0:07:16.360 --> 0:07:18.880
<v Speaker 1>before I was a macro economist, I became I learned finance.

0:07:18.920 --> 0:07:21.239
<v Speaker 1>I'm like, everything I know about the economy, I was wrong.

0:07:21.920 --> 0:07:25.240
<v Speaker 1>Risk is a much more rigorous and interesting way to

0:07:25.320 --> 0:07:29.280
<v Speaker 1>understand the macro economy and every economic problem. So I

0:07:29.360 --> 0:07:32.680
<v Speaker 1>was applying that in sort of this freakonomics see way

0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:36.040
<v Speaker 1>as a journalist, and I wrote a story about uh,

0:07:36.760 --> 0:07:39.280
<v Speaker 1>a friend of a friend who was running an online

0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:44.400
<v Speaker 1>brothel where her value add was screening clients. This is

0:07:44.920 --> 0:07:48.320
<v Speaker 1>an illegal operation, so when you work illegally, you have

0:07:48.360 --> 0:07:51.840
<v Speaker 1>to screen your clients otherwise, especially these were first submissives specifically,

0:07:52.320 --> 0:07:55.440
<v Speaker 1>so they get they get tied up, so they're particularly vulnerable.

0:07:55.480 --> 0:07:59.119
<v Speaker 1>So screening has especially important premium. So she was being

0:07:59.160 --> 0:08:01.720
<v Speaker 1>paid this memium to screen them, and I was like, well,

0:08:01.720 --> 0:08:04.160
<v Speaker 1>this is pretty cool. Uh. So I wrote the story

0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:06.560
<v Speaker 1>about it did super well, as you can imagine, And

0:08:06.720 --> 0:08:09.400
<v Speaker 1>so I got a call from the Bunny ranch saying,

0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:11.520
<v Speaker 1>if you're gonna be writing about brothels, you should be

0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:15.720
<v Speaker 1>writing about us, and all, well, I don't write about brothels,

0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:19.240
<v Speaker 1>but this is an interesting call, So I'm gonna continue

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:23.880
<v Speaker 1>this um and so I was talking to them and

0:08:24.040 --> 0:08:26.280
<v Speaker 1>they were I'm like, how does this all work? They're like, well,

0:08:26.800 --> 0:08:30.240
<v Speaker 1>the women come in and every we don't upset prices.

0:08:30.240 --> 0:08:33.319
<v Speaker 1>They negotiate every transaction and they kind of another throwaway

0:08:33.320 --> 0:08:35.120
<v Speaker 1>thing he said. And I was like, well, that's actually

0:08:35.200 --> 0:08:37.480
<v Speaker 1>very interesting. So you're telling me you have women who

0:08:37.480 --> 0:08:39.640
<v Speaker 1>are about twenty years old negotiating with men in their

0:08:39.640 --> 0:08:42.720
<v Speaker 1>sixties over tens of thousands of dollars. He's like yeah,

0:08:42.800 --> 0:08:45.400
<v Speaker 1>and it's interesting you say that because most of them

0:08:45.400 --> 0:08:46.959
<v Speaker 1>come here not knowing how to negotiate. So have a

0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:52.040
<v Speaker 1>negotiation training program. So the Bunny Ranch in Nevada reaches

0:08:52.080 --> 0:08:54.520
<v Speaker 1>out to you and says, hey, if you want to

0:08:54.559 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>have a conversation about a brothel and about risk and

0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:02.040
<v Speaker 1>analyzing numbers, come to to us. What was your thought

0:09:02.040 --> 0:09:05.600
<v Speaker 1>process when you got this phone call? Well, at first

0:09:05.679 --> 0:09:07.560
<v Speaker 1>I was like, this isn't my thing, this isn't what

0:09:07.600 --> 0:09:11.240
<v Speaker 1>I'm like known for. I'm a retirement economist. But when

0:09:11.280 --> 0:09:15.000
<v Speaker 1>they said the thing about we have a negotiation training program,

0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:17.760
<v Speaker 1>which is something I struggle with. Two, Like, you would

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:21.000
<v Speaker 1>think a car dealership has a negotiating training program, not

0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:24.120
<v Speaker 1>a brothel or sales job on Wall Street, you know

0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:26.280
<v Speaker 1>they and they're like well, and then he even said

0:09:26.280 --> 0:09:29.080
<v Speaker 1>the headline, the women here don't know their value, so

0:09:29.120 --> 0:09:31.079
<v Speaker 1>we teach them to know their value and to ask

0:09:31.120 --> 0:09:33.679
<v Speaker 1>for enough. And I was like, well, I could use that.

0:09:34.200 --> 0:09:36.320
<v Speaker 1>So I talked to my editor at Courts to sending

0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:39.200
<v Speaker 1>me there to go through their negotiation training program. It

0:09:39.240 --> 0:09:41.880
<v Speaker 1>was the immediate reaction, this is a great story. Oh yeah,

0:09:41.880 --> 0:09:45.640
<v Speaker 1>they send a video crew, all right, so they were

0:09:45.679 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 1>they were pretty hip that, hey, this is funky and

0:09:48.160 --> 0:09:51.160
<v Speaker 1>on you. This was freaky before fre economics, wasn't this

0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:53.679
<v Speaker 1>freakonomics is already out, but okay, it took it to

0:09:53.720 --> 0:09:55.679
<v Speaker 1>another level because I don't think Steve Levitt's spent a

0:09:55.760 --> 0:09:58.160
<v Speaker 1>lot of time in brothels. Now he focused on young

0:09:58.400 --> 0:10:02.559
<v Speaker 1>drug dealers in the inner city and other similarly freaky stuff.

0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:05.240
<v Speaker 1>But this is like right up his alley for sure.

0:10:05.640 --> 0:10:09.240
<v Speaker 1>So you get to the Bunny ranch. How receptive were

0:10:09.360 --> 0:10:13.960
<v Speaker 1>the women to speaking to you about all these sorts

0:10:14.000 --> 0:10:18.760
<v Speaker 1>of economic related um issues of of salary and compensation

0:10:18.800 --> 0:10:21.880
<v Speaker 1>and negotiation and the beginning Some some are very very wary,

0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:24.959
<v Speaker 1>some are very open, but once you get talking to them,

0:10:24.960 --> 0:10:27.160
<v Speaker 1>they open up because I think a lot of people

0:10:27.280 --> 0:10:29.360
<v Speaker 1>go there and they don't really take them seriously as

0:10:29.360 --> 0:10:33.960
<v Speaker 1>business women. And okay, uh, Dennis when he was alive,

0:10:34.440 --> 0:10:37.040
<v Speaker 1>this is the guy who was running the bunny ranch. Yes,

0:10:37.640 --> 0:10:40.959
<v Speaker 1>uh really had a lot of good business training going on.

0:10:41.200 --> 0:10:43.360
<v Speaker 1>And the women they're are great business women and they're

0:10:43.400 --> 0:10:45.600
<v Speaker 1>proud of what they know. So once you get them

0:10:45.600 --> 0:10:47.800
<v Speaker 1>talking about that, they do open up. Because this is

0:10:47.800 --> 0:10:50.400
<v Speaker 1>a special skill a lot of them have learned, and

0:10:50.440 --> 0:10:52.240
<v Speaker 1>a skill honestly, I think most people could learn on

0:10:52.280 --> 0:10:56.320
<v Speaker 1>their jobs and they don't. So how to value the

0:10:56.400 --> 0:10:59.920
<v Speaker 1>worth of your own work products relative to the mare

0:11:00.080 --> 0:11:02.920
<v Speaker 1>could place and relative to customer on the other side

0:11:02.920 --> 0:11:05.360
<v Speaker 1>of the desk from you, and how to ask for it,

0:11:05.480 --> 0:11:09.080
<v Speaker 1>how to feel comfortable. Especially it's an interesting negotiation because

0:11:09.120 --> 0:11:12.760
<v Speaker 1>you have to negotiation can be very fraught and afterward

0:11:12.800 --> 0:11:14.640
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna have this very intimate encounter with this person.

0:11:15.360 --> 0:11:18.360
<v Speaker 1>So making that transition, which is I mean a more

0:11:18.440 --> 0:11:23.559
<v Speaker 1>exaggerated version how Valley calls that the pivot, it's a

0:11:23.559 --> 0:11:25.320
<v Speaker 1>more exactitary vision of what we all do, right, Like,

0:11:25.360 --> 0:11:26.839
<v Speaker 1>we have to negotiate with someone and we have to

0:11:26.880 --> 0:11:30.640
<v Speaker 1>work with them. So this is just that on steroids? Huh?

0:11:31.080 --> 0:11:33.840
<v Speaker 1>And and so what is the secret? What did they

0:11:33.920 --> 0:11:37.880
<v Speaker 1>do that's somewhat different than what or what did they

0:11:37.920 --> 0:11:41.480
<v Speaker 1>teach you that you didn't know going into this? I

0:11:41.520 --> 0:11:46.280
<v Speaker 1>think I always saw negotiation is very adversarial, and what

0:11:46.320 --> 0:11:48.240
<v Speaker 1>I learned is how to make it not so, how

0:11:48.280 --> 0:11:50.920
<v Speaker 1>to just put a bunch of things out there, which

0:11:50.920 --> 0:11:54.160
<v Speaker 1>apparently is a negotiation technique. Here's a here's a men,

0:11:54.240 --> 0:11:58.079
<v Speaker 1>you choose a be your sake. That's really interesting, and

0:11:58.200 --> 0:12:01.520
<v Speaker 1>therefore then it's not adversarial. It's just, hey, you know,

0:12:01.640 --> 0:12:04.040
<v Speaker 1>everyone feels like they're getting what they want. I'm customizing

0:12:04.080 --> 0:12:07.080
<v Speaker 1>this experience for you. So when I was there, I

0:12:07.120 --> 0:12:10.480
<v Speaker 1>learned a lot about pricing, sex pricing, and something that

0:12:10.520 --> 0:12:13.800
<v Speaker 1>fascinated me was how much more they could charge than

0:12:13.840 --> 0:12:18.120
<v Speaker 1>the illegal market. And now the assumption is, from the

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:21.480
<v Speaker 1>John's point of view, they're going into a place where

0:12:21.520 --> 0:12:25.760
<v Speaker 1>they know the workers have been tested for STDs, they

0:12:25.800 --> 0:12:28.280
<v Speaker 1>know they're not going to get mummeda, ripped off, they

0:12:28.320 --> 0:12:31.520
<v Speaker 1>know they're not going to get arrested. That should be

0:12:31.520 --> 0:12:34.120
<v Speaker 1>worth some sort of premium, shouldn't it. I never thought

0:12:34.160 --> 0:12:36.800
<v Speaker 1>of it that way before, but that was what always

0:12:36.800 --> 0:12:39.600
<v Speaker 1>on the lookout for risk fascinated me because I mean,

0:12:39.600 --> 0:12:42.000
<v Speaker 1>the premium is large. When I went, I went back

0:12:42.000 --> 0:12:44.719
<v Speaker 1>to the brothel for bookwork and surveyed a lot of

0:12:44.760 --> 0:12:48.360
<v Speaker 1>the women on their transactions. And then it just turned

0:12:48.400 --> 0:12:51.600
<v Speaker 1>out that this economist I knew, scraped all the data

0:12:51.640 --> 0:12:53.800
<v Speaker 1>from the Erotic Review, which is yelped for a legal

0:12:53.800 --> 0:12:57.120
<v Speaker 1>sex work. So I had one point two million legal

0:12:57.160 --> 0:13:01.360
<v Speaker 1>sex transactions. So i'd really good robust data set. So

0:13:01.640 --> 0:13:04.079
<v Speaker 1>I was kind of surprised in reading that chapter, that

0:13:04.160 --> 0:13:07.720
<v Speaker 1>section of the book the Bunny Ranch. To go to

0:13:07.840 --> 0:13:12.120
<v Speaker 1>the Bunny Ranch, it's a couple of thousand dollars per

0:13:13.160 --> 0:13:16.920
<v Speaker 1>um experience. I don't know what's called. The median price

0:13:17.320 --> 0:13:20.480
<v Speaker 1>I found was four hundred dollars an hour. That's a

0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:25.680
<v Speaker 1>lot of money. Yeah, uh, you know, especially if you

0:13:25.760 --> 0:13:29.040
<v Speaker 1>just hire a woman online, even for escorting, which is

0:13:29.080 --> 0:13:31.200
<v Speaker 1>more high end. I think equivalent to what you get

0:13:31.240 --> 0:13:33.200
<v Speaker 1>at the Bunny Ranch is three or four hundred dollar

0:13:33.280 --> 0:13:35.959
<v Speaker 1>an that's all. Yeah, and you don't have to go

0:13:36.040 --> 0:13:40.720
<v Speaker 1>to Nevada. Yeah, but then the risk is four dollars.

0:13:40.720 --> 0:13:43.600
<v Speaker 1>But you might get arrested, you might get robbed, you

0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:46.320
<v Speaker 1>might who knows. You might get killed, so it's worth

0:13:46.360 --> 0:13:49.719
<v Speaker 1>a premium, one would argue, And you effectively do that

0:13:50.360 --> 0:13:53.720
<v Speaker 1>in an economist walks into a brothel. Uh that what

0:13:53.840 --> 0:13:58.800
<v Speaker 1>you're paying is you're paying an insurance premium to eliminate

0:13:59.320 --> 0:14:04.160
<v Speaker 1>all of the risk associated with legal sex for higher transactions.

0:14:04.240 --> 0:14:06.240
<v Speaker 1>And on the other side too, because you think these

0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:09.680
<v Speaker 1>women they're getting so much money, but they're really not. Now,

0:14:09.720 --> 0:14:13.120
<v Speaker 1>what's the payout to the woman relative to at Ridge.

0:14:13.200 --> 0:14:16.319
<v Speaker 1>Let's call it fifteen hundred dollar average. They're getting what

0:14:16.360 --> 0:14:19.320
<v Speaker 1>you wrote about half goes to them, Well, not even

0:14:19.400 --> 0:14:21.840
<v Speaker 1>half goes to the brothel. So they have to give

0:14:21.880 --> 0:14:25.840
<v Speaker 1>fifty of their cut to the brothel. And then, uh,

0:14:25.880 --> 0:14:28.840
<v Speaker 1>they're legal sex workers, right, so they ten ninety nine employees,

0:14:29.160 --> 0:14:33.400
<v Speaker 1>so the self employment tax together cover that. And I

0:14:33.440 --> 0:14:36.200
<v Speaker 1>mean these are high earners. They're making, you know, probably

0:14:36.200 --> 0:14:38.520
<v Speaker 1>at least a hundred grand a year, so I mean

0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:40.320
<v Speaker 1>a lot of them don't live in Nevadas. They might

0:14:40.360 --> 0:14:41.800
<v Speaker 1>have stayed income taxes on top of it all. So

0:14:41.840 --> 0:14:44.720
<v Speaker 1>we're talking. So do they do an I RA A

0:14:44.840 --> 0:14:46.560
<v Speaker 1>or a KYO. They have to have some sort of

0:14:46.600 --> 0:14:50.280
<v Speaker 1>retirement friends. So Dennis had really had really good financial

0:14:50.320 --> 0:14:52.600
<v Speaker 1>planners coming in and give them very good financial literacy.

0:14:52.680 --> 0:14:55.040
<v Speaker 1>I was talking to these women who came from households

0:14:55.040 --> 0:14:56.600
<v Speaker 1>where no one had a bank account. They're like, I

0:14:56.640 --> 0:14:58.440
<v Speaker 1>didn't even know the credit score was. And then they're

0:14:58.440 --> 0:15:01.000
<v Speaker 1>telling me, oh, yeah, my ra is on index funds.

0:15:01.000 --> 0:15:04.080
<v Speaker 1>You know, why pay the fees for active That's just

0:15:04.280 --> 0:15:06.440
<v Speaker 1>that's just hilarious. I have a I have a million,

0:15:07.160 --> 0:15:10.400
<v Speaker 1>a million horrific puns, and I'm not going to touch

0:15:10.480 --> 0:15:13.440
<v Speaker 1>a single one of them. Wait, so are you saying

0:15:13.480 --> 0:15:17.360
<v Speaker 1>they were passive investors not active? Is that? Is that

0:15:17.680 --> 0:15:21.480
<v Speaker 1>what you're saying? They were indexers? Right, They're they're all indexers.

0:15:21.520 --> 0:15:26.280
<v Speaker 1>That's hilarious. That's that's really hilarious. So what was the

0:15:26.360 --> 0:15:30.160
<v Speaker 1>single most surprising thing that you came away from the

0:15:30.160 --> 0:15:36.080
<v Speaker 1>Bunny Ranch with having interviewed all these professional legal sex workers.

0:15:36.120 --> 0:15:39.160
<v Speaker 1>The most surprising thing? I mean, I know it's sounds

0:15:39.200 --> 0:15:42.400
<v Speaker 1>almost patronizing, and I knew they'd be smart, but I

0:15:42.440 --> 0:15:46.160
<v Speaker 1>was shocked at how much I learned from them about business,

0:15:46.240 --> 0:15:50.520
<v Speaker 1>about negotiation, and about risk. So more than just smart savvy,

0:15:50.720 --> 0:15:54.520
<v Speaker 1>very savvy. Let's talk a little bit about risk, because

0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:59.440
<v Speaker 1>I think different people think of risk differently, How can

0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:04.560
<v Speaker 1>you define what risk is for the average person. Well,

0:16:04.600 --> 0:16:06.560
<v Speaker 1>I think of risk. I think of it as an

0:16:06.680 --> 0:16:09.080
<v Speaker 1>estimate of all the different things that could happen and

0:16:09.080 --> 0:16:11.680
<v Speaker 1>how probable they are. As I say, it's a very

0:16:11.720 --> 0:16:15.040
<v Speaker 1>technical definition. Let me ask you the same question a

0:16:15.040 --> 0:16:18.080
<v Speaker 1>little bit differently, then, Since you run a firm who's

0:16:18.240 --> 0:16:22.160
<v Speaker 1>got the words life cycle in its name, how does

0:16:22.320 --> 0:16:27.680
<v Speaker 1>risk change over the course of a person's lifetime. Well, um,

0:16:27.840 --> 0:16:29.920
<v Speaker 1>you have career risk, you have academic risk, you have

0:16:30.000 --> 0:16:32.600
<v Speaker 1>retirement risk. I mean there has to be a million

0:16:32.680 --> 0:16:37.200
<v Speaker 1>different points in one's life where the risks that are

0:16:37.320 --> 0:16:41.320
<v Speaker 1>presented to you are very different with different ramifications. Totally,

0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:43.920
<v Speaker 1>and how we are able to deal with risk and

0:16:44.000 --> 0:16:46.880
<v Speaker 1>understand risk and how risk averse we are can also

0:16:46.960 --> 0:16:49.560
<v Speaker 1>change over a life cycle, which makes it even more complicated.

0:16:50.160 --> 0:16:52.960
<v Speaker 1>You know, there's all this evidence about behavioral biases, but

0:16:52.960 --> 0:16:56.440
<v Speaker 1>there's also evidence as people get older those biases tend

0:16:56.480 --> 0:16:59.240
<v Speaker 1>to be less prevalent. Really, so, is it that we

0:16:59.400 --> 0:17:02.600
<v Speaker 1>get a little wiser with age or it just matters less?

0:17:03.200 --> 0:17:05.439
<v Speaker 1>Have we get a little wiser with age? There's experience

0:17:05.840 --> 0:17:09.359
<v Speaker 1>that just as well. Experience really changes how you perceive risk. Like,

0:17:09.400 --> 0:17:11.520
<v Speaker 1>once you've seen things blow up for you a couple

0:17:11.520 --> 0:17:13.959
<v Speaker 1>of times, suddenly you become a little more risk averse

0:17:14.080 --> 0:17:16.760
<v Speaker 1>or a little more aware of the probabilities you face,

0:17:16.960 --> 0:17:19.240
<v Speaker 1>or take time to hedge or ensure when you take risks.

0:17:19.600 --> 0:17:21.840
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk about that, because you have a few chapters

0:17:21.880 --> 0:17:26.080
<v Speaker 1>in the book on the differences between insurance and hedging.

0:17:26.160 --> 0:17:29.760
<v Speaker 1>So let's talk a little about hedging, whether we're referring

0:17:29.760 --> 0:17:33.280
<v Speaker 1>to a market perspective or any other perspective. What is

0:17:33.359 --> 0:17:35.960
<v Speaker 1>hedging and what should the average person use it for?

0:17:36.560 --> 0:17:38.280
<v Speaker 1>I think of hedging and is it This is a

0:17:38.320 --> 0:17:41.560
<v Speaker 1>distinction that a lot of people don't. I think asn't

0:17:41.600 --> 0:17:44.439
<v Speaker 1>often made very clearly. In fact, I had lunch with

0:17:44.480 --> 0:17:47.520
<v Speaker 1>the CEO of an insurance firm who even he kept

0:17:47.520 --> 0:17:50.000
<v Speaker 1>we kept messing up insurance and hedging. So it's it's

0:17:50.040 --> 0:17:52.840
<v Speaker 1>a very subtle but important difference, and you make it clear.

0:17:53.000 --> 0:17:56.720
<v Speaker 1>They're two very distinct things. They are, and if you

0:17:57.800 --> 0:18:00.520
<v Speaker 1>draw a picture of what they mean in on a graph,

0:18:00.600 --> 0:18:03.520
<v Speaker 1>it's very clear. But intuitively it's a very hard difference.

0:18:04.000 --> 0:18:07.000
<v Speaker 1>So I think of hedging as you just take less risk.

0:18:07.520 --> 0:18:11.480
<v Speaker 1>So in basic finance world, that would be of a

0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:14.080
<v Speaker 1>risky asset and you have a risk free asset. So

0:18:14.160 --> 0:18:17.119
<v Speaker 1>hedging is just putting more of your portfolio and the

0:18:17.240 --> 0:18:20.879
<v Speaker 1>risk free asset, the typical sixty stock and bond portfolio.

0:18:21.040 --> 0:18:24.080
<v Speaker 1>You're not so much hedging your stocks as you're removing

0:18:24.119 --> 0:18:27.200
<v Speaker 1>some risk and putting it into much lower risk fixed

0:18:27.200 --> 0:18:31.159
<v Speaker 1>income exactly, So you're you're hedging your portfolio balance. So

0:18:32.359 --> 0:18:36.880
<v Speaker 1>I've always thought of hedging as I'm willing to give

0:18:36.960 --> 0:18:42.240
<v Speaker 1>up some upside and an exchange reduce my downside. That's

0:18:42.280 --> 0:18:44.879
<v Speaker 1>exactly it. Okay, So if you is it, If you

0:18:45.200 --> 0:18:48.520
<v Speaker 1>in some sixty you do fifty fifty, that's a less

0:18:48.560 --> 0:18:51.560
<v Speaker 1>upside of stocks do well, but also less downside risk

0:18:51.600 --> 0:18:55.560
<v Speaker 1>of stocks crash. Or conversely, I'll own X y Z

0:18:55.640 --> 0:18:58.320
<v Speaker 1>stock and I'll marry a put to it, and that

0:18:58.359 --> 0:19:01.560
<v Speaker 1>protects it. It costs me something, cost me a couple

0:19:01.560 --> 0:19:04.160
<v Speaker 1>of percent, but hey, if the stock falls out of bed,

0:19:04.320 --> 0:19:08.760
<v Speaker 1>the put should cover some percentage of most of that downside. Yeah,

0:19:08.800 --> 0:19:11.480
<v Speaker 1>they usually think of puts assure a little bit more insurance,

0:19:11.520 --> 0:19:13.080
<v Speaker 1>as I was saying it. So, so now let's talk

0:19:13.080 --> 0:19:16.760
<v Speaker 1>about insurance. How do you think of insurance? What? What

0:19:16.840 --> 0:19:20.879
<v Speaker 1>does purpose does insurance serve. So insurance is a little different.

0:19:20.920 --> 0:19:24.360
<v Speaker 1>So rather than giving up you know, upside, what you're

0:19:24.400 --> 0:19:26.000
<v Speaker 1>doing is you're paying someone a fee, So you give

0:19:26.040 --> 0:19:27.879
<v Speaker 1>up that amount of upsite, but it's a set amount

0:19:28.200 --> 0:19:33.160
<v Speaker 1>and you eliminate downside risk, So a predetermined costs, and

0:19:33.280 --> 0:19:37.119
<v Speaker 1>what you're purchasing is putting that risk or eliminating that

0:19:37.200 --> 0:19:40.280
<v Speaker 1>risk from yourself, putting it onto someone else in a

0:19:40.320 --> 0:19:43.600
<v Speaker 1>specific state of the world. Yeah, so it's insurance, which

0:19:43.640 --> 0:19:46.560
<v Speaker 1>is if if X happens, if this, if this stock

0:19:46.600 --> 0:19:51.280
<v Speaker 1>goes above the strike price, then I get something. So

0:19:51.520 --> 0:19:54.520
<v Speaker 1>I've never owned a car where I did not have

0:19:55.000 --> 0:19:58.199
<v Speaker 1>at one point in the ownership of that car, uh,

0:19:58.359 --> 0:20:00.560
<v Speaker 1>some piece of gravel of rock mo up on our

0:20:00.600 --> 0:20:03.840
<v Speaker 1>local crappy highways here in New York and either ding

0:20:04.520 --> 0:20:08.920
<v Speaker 1>or crack the windshield. So once I could start affording it,

0:20:09.240 --> 0:20:11.919
<v Speaker 1>I always get glass insurance on the car, and I

0:20:11.960 --> 0:20:17.680
<v Speaker 1>have replaced literally every single windshield I've ever owned. Um

0:20:17.840 --> 0:20:20.360
<v Speaker 1>is that a good use of of insurance or am

0:20:20.359 --> 0:20:23.720
<v Speaker 1>I just padding their profits and wasting money? It sounds

0:20:23.760 --> 0:20:25.480
<v Speaker 1>like it. I mean, if you're if you're if you're

0:20:25.480 --> 0:20:28.240
<v Speaker 1>claiming it. Well, but you know, a car you have three,

0:20:28.280 --> 0:20:31.560
<v Speaker 1>four or five years at least UM, and you're paying

0:20:31.680 --> 0:20:34.240
<v Speaker 1>whatever it is, a hundred bucks that I guess what

0:20:34.440 --> 0:20:36.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm really paying for is, Hey, I don't have to

0:20:36.720 --> 0:20:38.280
<v Speaker 1>worry about whether or not I break a window of

0:20:38.359 --> 0:20:41.639
<v Speaker 1>somebody else. Somebody else is responsible for that. Is that

0:20:41.720 --> 0:20:44.639
<v Speaker 1>a fair definition of insurance? Even though you're paying a

0:20:44.680 --> 0:20:48.240
<v Speaker 1>fixed amount, that stress and worry goes away exactly because

0:20:48.280 --> 0:20:51.240
<v Speaker 1>now the stress of breaking the window is on the

0:20:51.240 --> 0:20:53.400
<v Speaker 1>insurance company. I mean, you have to still go through

0:20:53.400 --> 0:20:56.680
<v Speaker 1>the rigamarole replacing it, but the financial risk is borne

0:20:56.680 --> 0:20:59.600
<v Speaker 1>by someone else. So let's talk a little bit about

0:20:59.600 --> 0:21:03.040
<v Speaker 1>the book and some of the other things, um you describe.

0:21:03.200 --> 0:21:06.600
<v Speaker 1>Outside of the Bunny Ranch, you spoke to a number

0:21:06.640 --> 0:21:11.000
<v Speaker 1>of poker players who had some kind of surprising statistic.

0:21:11.200 --> 0:21:14.800
<v Speaker 1>The one player whose name escapes me, but was notorious

0:21:14.840 --> 0:21:18.560
<v Speaker 1>for having yes for having these sort of hissy fits

0:21:18.920 --> 0:21:21.960
<v Speaker 1>when he either wasn't happy with his own play or

0:21:21.960 --> 0:21:25.280
<v Speaker 1>what have you. He said, he should really only be

0:21:25.359 --> 0:21:28.800
<v Speaker 1>playing a very small percentage of hands. And I would

0:21:28.800 --> 0:21:34.760
<v Speaker 1>have guessed what percentage does he play? It's twelve percent,

0:21:34.880 --> 0:21:37.680
<v Speaker 1>twelve percent. That's in a one out of eight hands,

0:21:37.680 --> 0:21:40.960
<v Speaker 1>so seven out of eight hands he's not participating in. Yeah,

0:21:41.000 --> 0:21:42.800
<v Speaker 1>and there's a lot of poker terminology, which is new

0:21:42.800 --> 0:21:44.560
<v Speaker 1>for me because I'm not a player, and they call

0:21:44.640 --> 0:21:48.600
<v Speaker 1>that patient. I don't know if that's specific to poker,

0:21:48.720 --> 0:21:51.560
<v Speaker 1>but you would think if you're passing on seven out

0:21:51.560 --> 0:21:53.760
<v Speaker 1>of eight hands, there's a lot of patients with that,

0:21:53.920 --> 0:21:56.040
<v Speaker 1>especially for someone who struck me as so volatile and

0:21:56.080 --> 0:21:58.800
<v Speaker 1>out of control. Now is how much of that is

0:21:58.840 --> 0:22:00.520
<v Speaker 1>real and how much of that is just to get

0:22:00.560 --> 0:22:02.680
<v Speaker 1>into the heads of the other players. I think it's

0:22:02.680 --> 0:22:05.359
<v Speaker 1>a combination of both. I think that's his natural temperament

0:22:05.520 --> 0:22:08.959
<v Speaker 1>and he's noticed it's also an asset. So in the

0:22:09.000 --> 0:22:11.119
<v Speaker 1>beginning it wasn't an asset. It was a bit of

0:22:11.200 --> 0:22:14.120
<v Speaker 1>a problem for him. How did he manage to deal

0:22:14.160 --> 0:22:18.000
<v Speaker 1>with that risk and turn it into a positive Well,

0:22:18.000 --> 0:22:21.760
<v Speaker 1>he tells stories of just being so emotionally overwhelmed by

0:22:21.800 --> 0:22:24.399
<v Speaker 1>trying to keep him in check your pass out. But

0:22:24.440 --> 0:22:27.159
<v Speaker 1>when you really delve into it, you realize, you know,

0:22:27.240 --> 0:22:30.679
<v Speaker 1>this is the classic behavioral bias we called loss a version,

0:22:31.080 --> 0:22:34.280
<v Speaker 1>which is when you're losing, you know you hate you

0:22:34.320 --> 0:22:37.840
<v Speaker 1>hate losses so much more than you value gains that

0:22:37.920 --> 0:22:40.760
<v Speaker 1>you'll take double down and take extra risk to avoid

0:22:40.800 --> 0:22:44.600
<v Speaker 1>a loss. And so this is often shows up a

0:22:44.600 --> 0:22:47.040
<v Speaker 1>lot in poker and why people play too many hands.

0:22:47.080 --> 0:22:49.280
<v Speaker 1>So he has to do is anyway, even though he's down,

0:22:49.359 --> 0:22:51.119
<v Speaker 1>is still not play the hands. So he has to

0:22:51.160 --> 0:22:55.760
<v Speaker 1>stay rational and like overcome this bias. And my found

0:22:55.880 --> 0:22:58.959
<v Speaker 1>is behind the scenes he's doing all these things so

0:22:59.000 --> 0:23:01.320
<v Speaker 1>he feels like there's less set steak so he can

0:23:01.359 --> 0:23:04.040
<v Speaker 1>stay more rational. He does things like he gets he

0:23:04.160 --> 0:23:07.520
<v Speaker 1>called steaked, which is someone else is an investor in

0:23:07.640 --> 0:23:10.680
<v Speaker 1>him and takes a percentage of the winnings exactly. So anyway,

0:23:10.720 --> 0:23:14.560
<v Speaker 1>he claims to be incredibly wealthy, um, he only puts

0:23:14.560 --> 0:23:16.760
<v Speaker 1>in ten tho dollars of his own money in any

0:23:16.760 --> 0:23:20.919
<v Speaker 1>poker tournament. The other thing he does so it's effectively hedging.

0:23:21.520 --> 0:23:23.119
<v Speaker 1>And the other thing he does is he sort of

0:23:23.119 --> 0:23:25.919
<v Speaker 1>gets this weird insurance, which is where he's in the

0:23:26.080 --> 0:23:29.080
<v Speaker 1>in a major game and he takes the other player

0:23:29.119 --> 0:23:31.879
<v Speaker 1>aside and they cut these little back deals, which is

0:23:31.920 --> 0:23:35.240
<v Speaker 1>apparently allowed. And so in other words, some of these

0:23:35.440 --> 0:23:38.119
<v Speaker 1>tournaments are winner takes all and if you come in

0:23:38.200 --> 0:23:41.120
<v Speaker 1>second you get nothing. So in one one of these

0:23:41.119 --> 0:23:43.440
<v Speaker 1>tournaments he pulled someone aside and said, here's the deal.

0:23:44.720 --> 0:23:48.679
<v Speaker 1>Let's agree to split um a million dollars each of

0:23:48.680 --> 0:23:52.240
<v Speaker 1>the purse, and whoever wins gets the balance. So so

0:23:52.440 --> 0:23:55.159
<v Speaker 1>if you lose, you take half a million, and I

0:23:55.200 --> 0:23:57.040
<v Speaker 1>think it was like two point two millions something like

0:23:57.080 --> 0:23:59.040
<v Speaker 1>that for the winner. So there's a little bit of

0:23:59.040 --> 0:24:01.239
<v Speaker 1>a hedge there as well. Yeah, so he does all

0:24:01.240 --> 0:24:03.480
<v Speaker 1>these things to take a little risk off the table

0:24:03.920 --> 0:24:06.879
<v Speaker 1>and that keeps him rational. What about the concept of

0:24:06.920 --> 0:24:11.280
<v Speaker 1>a player who, after they lose a few hands, instead

0:24:11.280 --> 0:24:14.560
<v Speaker 1>of being patient, has a tendency to try and get

0:24:14.600 --> 0:24:17.840
<v Speaker 1>back to break even. There's something about that concept of

0:24:17.920 --> 0:24:20.320
<v Speaker 1>I gotta get back to break break even. Stock traders

0:24:20.359 --> 0:24:22.480
<v Speaker 1>do the same thing. Hey, I know this stock is

0:24:22.480 --> 0:24:24.560
<v Speaker 1>a piece of junk, but dear Lord, if I get

0:24:24.560 --> 0:24:27.000
<v Speaker 1>back to break even, I swear I'll sell that sort

0:24:27.000 --> 0:24:31.160
<v Speaker 1>of attitude. Poker players do the same thing. They do um,

0:24:31.200 --> 0:24:33.480
<v Speaker 1>but the successful ones are the ones. This is what

0:24:33.520 --> 0:24:35.440
<v Speaker 1>I was saying about. There's evidence as you get older

0:24:35.440 --> 0:24:38.440
<v Speaker 1>and wiser, you are less prey to these behavioral issues.

0:24:39.040 --> 0:24:42.399
<v Speaker 1>And I think it's John List is this economist who

0:24:42.480 --> 0:24:46.040
<v Speaker 1>studies loss of version how impacts behavior? Uh, because the

0:24:46.119 --> 0:24:48.720
<v Speaker 1>break even effect is just sort of a corollary of

0:24:48.840 --> 0:24:51.399
<v Speaker 1>loss a version, which is, when you're down, you're so

0:24:51.480 --> 0:24:53.840
<v Speaker 1>determined to win back, so you didn't experience a loss,

0:24:53.840 --> 0:24:56.119
<v Speaker 1>you double down and take extra risk risky would have

0:24:56.200 --> 0:24:58.960
<v Speaker 1>never taken if you were up. It seems almost opposite

0:24:58.960 --> 0:25:02.639
<v Speaker 1>of risk aversion. You're embracing so much risk I guess

0:25:02.640 --> 0:25:05.440
<v Speaker 1>to try and recover from that loss only when you're down.

0:25:05.520 --> 0:25:08.000
<v Speaker 1>And this is the interesting, you know, sort of um

0:25:08.240 --> 0:25:10.880
<v Speaker 1>deviation from what economists normally think is when you're down,

0:25:10.960 --> 0:25:14.000
<v Speaker 1>you'll take that extra risk to get back. So tell

0:25:14.080 --> 0:25:16.240
<v Speaker 1>us a little bit about how we should be thinking

0:25:16.280 --> 0:25:20.560
<v Speaker 1>about risk in the stock market. Well, actually, I mean

0:25:21.480 --> 0:25:25.320
<v Speaker 1>my background to approach risk is from financial economics, which

0:25:25.359 --> 0:25:27.399
<v Speaker 1>is the study of the stock market. I think in

0:25:27.400 --> 0:25:29.600
<v Speaker 1>a lot of ways, the stock markets the perfect place

0:25:29.600 --> 0:25:31.560
<v Speaker 1>to think about risk because you just have so much data,

0:25:32.080 --> 0:25:35.600
<v Speaker 1>and what financial markets are doing is just finding ways

0:25:35.640 --> 0:25:39.280
<v Speaker 1>to price and move risk around. So I think anyone

0:25:39.320 --> 0:25:41.600
<v Speaker 1>who is in the stock market is someone who's naturally

0:25:41.600 --> 0:25:45.120
<v Speaker 1>thinking about risk all the time. Huh. And and we're

0:25:45.160 --> 0:25:49.200
<v Speaker 1>making more data every day, don't we. Yeah, I think again,

0:25:49.280 --> 0:25:52.040
<v Speaker 1>you you do get people who get away from you know,

0:25:52.080 --> 0:25:54.720
<v Speaker 1>as I said, if they're down there, like, there's all

0:25:54.720 --> 0:25:57.640
<v Speaker 1>this evidence that people won't sell losers, but they'll sell winners.

0:25:58.200 --> 0:26:00.520
<v Speaker 1>And you know how, you know that usually not a

0:26:00.520 --> 0:26:02.600
<v Speaker 1>good idea. The stocks going down, it might probably keep

0:26:02.600 --> 0:26:04.439
<v Speaker 1>going down, is supposed to you know, why would you

0:26:04.440 --> 0:26:07.119
<v Speaker 1>sell your winners and keep a loser. But that's supposed

0:26:07.160 --> 0:26:09.440
<v Speaker 1>to be some version of loss of version people think.

0:26:09.560 --> 0:26:11.760
<v Speaker 1>So there was a study that had come out towards

0:26:11.800 --> 0:26:16.200
<v Speaker 1>the end of eighteen that had looked at portfolio managers

0:26:16.600 --> 0:26:18.840
<v Speaker 1>and rather than compare them to a benchmark, what they

0:26:18.880 --> 0:26:23.399
<v Speaker 1>did instead was, let's instead of selling what the portfolio

0:26:23.440 --> 0:26:26.680
<v Speaker 1>manager sold, we're gonna randomly sell anything else from their

0:26:26.680 --> 0:26:29.520
<v Speaker 1>portfolio and then compare and see how they did. And

0:26:29.560 --> 0:26:34.239
<v Speaker 1>it turned out that random sales outperformed manager sales by

0:26:34.280 --> 0:26:36.920
<v Speaker 1>a hundred basis points over the next year. And when

0:26:36.920 --> 0:26:40.359
<v Speaker 1>they looked at what was being sold, they found two

0:26:40.440 --> 0:26:44.680
<v Speaker 1>broad categories that accounted for most of the underperformance. One

0:26:44.720 --> 0:26:47.200
<v Speaker 1>is stocks that had gone up a lot and therefore

0:26:47.240 --> 0:26:50.960
<v Speaker 1>we're benefiting from momentum. Managers had a tendency to sell those,

0:26:51.320 --> 0:26:54.719
<v Speaker 1>but also stocks that had collapsed a lot, rather than

0:26:54.760 --> 0:26:57.119
<v Speaker 1>selling them when they were small losers. They waited till

0:26:57.119 --> 0:27:00.960
<v Speaker 1>they were giant losers and effectively had become deep value

0:27:00.960 --> 0:27:04.920
<v Speaker 1>plays and they were selling them. And those two categories

0:27:04.960 --> 0:27:09.200
<v Speaker 1>were Um, we're determined to be the behavioral errors that

0:27:09.320 --> 0:27:14.400
<v Speaker 1>we're we're driving portfolio losses. So hold that aside. Let's

0:27:14.560 --> 0:27:17.439
<v Speaker 1>let's think of of the stock market in terms of

0:27:17.560 --> 0:27:25.520
<v Speaker 1>individual investors embracing of risk. Are most people overly invested

0:27:25.640 --> 0:27:28.320
<v Speaker 1>in the stock market and the embracing too much risk?

0:27:28.840 --> 0:27:33.080
<v Speaker 1>Or do you perceive the actual Do you perceive risk

0:27:33.160 --> 0:27:36.640
<v Speaker 1>amongst individual investors as just not taking enough of it,

0:27:37.040 --> 0:27:39.639
<v Speaker 1>especially in the early stages of a market, and not

0:27:39.760 --> 0:27:42.479
<v Speaker 1>embracing it until the very latter stages in the market.

0:27:43.119 --> 0:27:44.920
<v Speaker 1>I think it's hard to say. I mean, the rate

0:27:45.040 --> 0:27:48.360
<v Speaker 1>stock allocation really depends on an individual and where they

0:27:48.359 --> 0:27:51.800
<v Speaker 1>are in their life cycle. Um, I think people don't

0:27:51.800 --> 0:27:54.560
<v Speaker 1>appreciate a lot of people don't appreciate how risky the

0:27:54.600 --> 0:27:57.960
<v Speaker 1>stock market is. Like my mother is nearing retirement and

0:27:58.000 --> 0:28:00.600
<v Speaker 1>she expects her portfolio to like double every year, and

0:28:00.640 --> 0:28:03.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm like, sure, but you're gonna have to take on

0:28:03.520 --> 0:28:05.359
<v Speaker 1>a lot of risk for that to happen. And she

0:28:05.400 --> 0:28:08.000
<v Speaker 1>doesn't seem to internalize that. If you want more return

0:28:08.320 --> 0:28:10.600
<v Speaker 1>that comes with something, and you know, in stocks are

0:28:10.640 --> 0:28:13.240
<v Speaker 1>a great investment. They're a great way, especially an index fund,

0:28:13.600 --> 0:28:18.679
<v Speaker 1>to get UH risk exclosure cheaply and efficiently. But you

0:28:18.720 --> 0:28:22.360
<v Speaker 1>know there's you know, there's no guarantees. So we noticed

0:28:22.400 --> 0:28:26.560
<v Speaker 1>that when housing markets are booming, people have the same

0:28:26.760 --> 0:28:30.680
<v Speaker 1>overly optimistic expectations about how fast they are home prices

0:28:30.680 --> 0:28:33.680
<v Speaker 1>are appreciating. I'm assuming your mom is not a big

0:28:33.760 --> 0:28:37.400
<v Speaker 1>big bit clemon investor. Um, why does she think her

0:28:37.440 --> 0:28:41.960
<v Speaker 1>stock her portfolio should double every year given long term

0:28:41.960 --> 0:28:45.400
<v Speaker 1>returns between eight and well disundegrade. It's also you know,

0:28:46.080 --> 0:28:49.440
<v Speaker 1>errors and how we perceive risk. I mean, I think

0:28:49.480 --> 0:28:53.480
<v Speaker 1>people often in assume there's serial correlation where there is none.

0:28:54.520 --> 0:28:57.440
<v Speaker 1>So you know, if if housing prices have gone up

0:28:57.480 --> 0:29:00.120
<v Speaker 1>the last twenty years, people assume they'll stay doing that.

0:29:00.240 --> 0:29:03.080
<v Speaker 1>I think people also make that assumption around interest rates

0:29:03.160 --> 0:29:05.680
<v Speaker 1>that you know, they've been nothing but go down for

0:29:05.720 --> 0:29:09.280
<v Speaker 1>the last thirty years. So I though, it's questionable if

0:29:09.280 --> 0:29:11.560
<v Speaker 1>they can keep doing that, because how negative canields get.

0:29:11.800 --> 0:29:15.360
<v Speaker 1>So this was kind of an interesting um aspect of

0:29:15.360 --> 0:29:18.600
<v Speaker 1>the book that resonated with me personally because we're always

0:29:18.600 --> 0:29:23.800
<v Speaker 1>trying to teach clients to think about portfolios in terms

0:29:23.960 --> 0:29:27.560
<v Speaker 1>of a way that's easily understandable. And if you say

0:29:27.600 --> 0:29:32.280
<v Speaker 1>to somebody, hey, there's the seventy or here here, there's

0:29:32.280 --> 0:29:34.600
<v Speaker 1>a lot of software that can project you out to retirement.

0:29:35.000 --> 0:29:41.320
<v Speaker 1>There's a probability that you'll hit your retirement goals, assuming

0:29:41.480 --> 0:29:45.040
<v Speaker 1>inflation stays under four percent and you continue making your

0:29:45.040 --> 0:29:50.520
<v Speaker 1>regular contributions. I don't know what a confidence interval does

0:29:50.640 --> 0:29:53.560
<v Speaker 1>for most people, but if if you were to say

0:29:53.600 --> 0:29:56.920
<v Speaker 1>to them, hey, in nineteen out of twenty situations, we

0:29:57.040 --> 0:29:59.920
<v Speaker 1>can show you you'll hit your target goals. It's only

0:30:00.000 --> 0:30:02.080
<v Speaker 1>one out of twenty that you don't make it. Why

0:30:02.200 --> 0:30:05.280
<v Speaker 1>is that so much easier? Don't understand than percentile? Yeah.

0:30:05.400 --> 0:30:07.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm not a psychologist, but the research psychologist I talked

0:30:07.920 --> 0:30:09.680
<v Speaker 1>to and said just something about the way our brains

0:30:09.680 --> 0:30:12.200
<v Speaker 1>are programmed. His frequencies just resonate with us more. We

0:30:12.240 --> 0:30:18.160
<v Speaker 1>are so twenty is a better phrase, Yeah, and it

0:30:18.200 --> 0:30:20.800
<v Speaker 1>makes a big difference because we are programmed as humans were,

0:30:20.840 --> 0:30:23.600
<v Speaker 1>not complete like it's supposed to be. Disasters with risk.

0:30:23.720 --> 0:30:25.800
<v Speaker 1>Risk is something that's humans have been facing, you know,

0:30:25.840 --> 0:30:28.520
<v Speaker 1>as long as we've been on the earth. But you know,

0:30:28.600 --> 0:30:32.040
<v Speaker 1>probabilities are a fairly modern invention. They only really came

0:30:32.040 --> 0:30:33.720
<v Speaker 1>along on the Renaissance with a lot of sort of

0:30:33.760 --> 0:30:37.760
<v Speaker 1>brainy people Bernoulli and a whole run of difference calling

0:30:37.760 --> 0:30:40.400
<v Speaker 1>all these people. So, I mean, it's not surprising that

0:30:40.440 --> 0:30:43.640
<v Speaker 1>we aren't just born having this natural intuitive sense of probabilities.

0:30:43.680 --> 0:30:45.640
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we both work in this area all the time,

0:30:46.000 --> 0:30:47.600
<v Speaker 1>and they often don't mean that much to me either.

0:30:48.200 --> 0:30:51.600
<v Speaker 1>So so for the average person, how best should we

0:30:51.800 --> 0:30:57.080
<v Speaker 1>quantify risk? Well, you want to, um, I say converted

0:30:57.160 --> 0:30:59.480
<v Speaker 1>if you're thinking, except when I defined risk to you

0:30:59.560 --> 0:31:00.800
<v Speaker 1>and I was like, it's all the things that you

0:31:00.800 --> 0:31:02.760
<v Speaker 1>can measure happening and now probable they are. That is

0:31:02.760 --> 0:31:07.000
<v Speaker 1>a probability distributions the whole distribution of things that aren't

0:31:07.000 --> 0:31:10.520
<v Speaker 1>intuitive to us. Um So, I mean, part of it

0:31:10.520 --> 0:31:13.120
<v Speaker 1>really is sort of getting more comfortable with those concepts,

0:31:13.120 --> 0:31:15.400
<v Speaker 1>but it's also when you think of probabilities converting them

0:31:15.440 --> 0:31:20.320
<v Speaker 1>to frequencies. The book was really interesting. It reads really well.

0:31:20.480 --> 0:31:23.600
<v Speaker 1>It's sort of like like as I started reading it,

0:31:23.680 --> 0:31:29.320
<v Speaker 1>I immediately um thought of against the Gods because it's

0:31:29.360 --> 0:31:34.200
<v Speaker 1>also so risk focused, but from a historical perspective. This

0:31:34.320 --> 0:31:38.800
<v Speaker 1>is really a twenty one century perspective on risk. I

0:31:38.880 --> 0:31:41.280
<v Speaker 1>love Against the Gods. It was my favorite book, and

0:31:42.120 --> 0:31:45.480
<v Speaker 1>I was actually partially inspired by that because as much

0:31:45.520 --> 0:31:47.680
<v Speaker 1>as I love it, I wouldn't say everyone wants to

0:31:47.680 --> 0:31:49.720
<v Speaker 1>read it. I mean it's oh no, everybody should read

0:31:49.760 --> 0:31:51.840
<v Speaker 1>that book. It's amazing. Everyone should, but not a lot

0:31:51.880 --> 0:31:56.440
<v Speaker 1>of people will. I mean it is dense, um. He

0:31:56.920 --> 0:32:01.880
<v Speaker 1>is a very detailed or in. Every page is filled

0:32:01.960 --> 0:32:05.080
<v Speaker 1>with lots and lots of stuff, which is why ps

0:32:05.160 --> 0:32:07.400
<v Speaker 1>if you go back and reread it twenty years later,

0:32:07.960 --> 0:32:11.520
<v Speaker 1>it's still fresh, and I mean, that is a master work.

0:32:11.600 --> 0:32:14.200
<v Speaker 1>It's beautiful. I mean, I love everything about that book,

0:32:14.200 --> 0:32:17.520
<v Speaker 1>and I also love capital ideas. I like his everything

0:32:17.560 --> 0:32:21.600
<v Speaker 1>he's done. But you know your mom's probably talk about

0:32:22.320 --> 0:32:23.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, your mom is probably not going to read it.

0:32:24.040 --> 0:32:26.840
<v Speaker 1>And I felt like everyone needs to know what's in

0:32:26.880 --> 0:32:29.440
<v Speaker 1>Against the Gods. And that's partially what inspired this book

0:32:29.480 --> 0:32:33.600
<v Speaker 1>is I wanted to take those ideas that we're so resonant,

0:32:33.640 --> 0:32:36.479
<v Speaker 1>and I felt everyone needed to understand and make them

0:32:36.520 --> 0:32:40.880
<v Speaker 1>accessible to even broader audience. So obviously the whole Bunny

0:32:41.000 --> 0:32:44.600
<v Speaker 1>Ranch brothel section is hilarious. And must have been a

0:32:44.640 --> 0:32:48.640
<v Speaker 1>ton of fun to do. Um, what else did you

0:32:48.760 --> 0:32:52.200
<v Speaker 1>do in your research that was kind of fun and surprising?

0:32:52.520 --> 0:32:54.440
<v Speaker 1>It was all fun and surprised I had. I had

0:32:54.440 --> 0:32:55.840
<v Speaker 1>a I mean I was afraid to write a book

0:32:55.840 --> 0:32:57.640
<v Speaker 1>for a long time because my dissertation was such a

0:32:57.720 --> 0:33:00.600
<v Speaker 1>horrible slog. See. I think of my book as as

0:33:00.640 --> 0:33:03.840
<v Speaker 1>my PhD dissertation, and it was a horrible slob. I

0:33:03.840 --> 0:33:05.520
<v Speaker 1>think maybe you have to do that first big research

0:33:05.560 --> 0:33:08.560
<v Speaker 1>project just has to be horrible. Uh So I was like,

0:33:08.560 --> 0:33:10.120
<v Speaker 1>if I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna have a lot

0:33:10.160 --> 0:33:12.040
<v Speaker 1>of fun, which was the other way I wanted to

0:33:12.040 --> 0:33:15.160
<v Speaker 1>approach the book. So I just was like, I'm gonna

0:33:15.160 --> 0:33:17.520
<v Speaker 1>have all these adventures. It seems ceased to go places.

0:33:17.960 --> 0:33:20.680
<v Speaker 1>I went to a risk conference for big wave surfers

0:33:20.680 --> 0:33:23.760
<v Speaker 1>in a y right. That was the whole fascinating segment.

0:33:24.080 --> 0:33:27.920
<v Speaker 1>The guys who invented jet skiing their way onto eighty

0:33:27.920 --> 0:33:30.840
<v Speaker 1>foot waves that before you couldn't even get onto a

0:33:30.840 --> 0:33:33.960
<v Speaker 1>fifty footwave. You just weren't able to get out there

0:33:34.000 --> 0:33:36.760
<v Speaker 1>fast enough. Um, what was that like? You spoke to

0:33:36.840 --> 0:33:40.680
<v Speaker 1>some really interesting big surf names. Yeah, and you know

0:33:40.760 --> 0:33:43.920
<v Speaker 1>they have these this regular conference where they talk about risk,

0:33:43.960 --> 0:33:46.040
<v Speaker 1>and it's like going to a pension risk conference, although

0:33:46.080 --> 0:33:50.800
<v Speaker 1>everyone's better looking everyone Yeah, like I was in the

0:33:50.840 --> 0:33:54.200
<v Speaker 1>worst shape in the room. Um, but but you know

0:33:54.280 --> 0:33:56.080
<v Speaker 1>it is a it is a conference where they're very

0:33:56.080 --> 0:34:00.960
<v Speaker 1>thoughtful about risk in debating uh, you know, regulatory function

0:34:01.000 --> 0:34:03.880
<v Speaker 1>and who bears the responsibility of risk when your behavior

0:34:04.280 --> 0:34:07.680
<v Speaker 1>impacts other people? And you know, it was as intellectual

0:34:07.680 --> 0:34:11.400
<v Speaker 1>discussion as I've seen anywhere. And the guy who I profile,

0:34:11.920 --> 0:34:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Brian cu Lana, is the one who brought jet skis

0:34:14.840 --> 0:34:16.840
<v Speaker 1>to big wave surfing. And much like a lot of

0:34:16.840 --> 0:34:20.000
<v Speaker 1>financial jurve that is initially supposed to be insurance, but

0:34:20.040 --> 0:34:22.719
<v Speaker 1>as you mentioned, you can also use them to lever

0:34:22.920 --> 0:34:26.440
<v Speaker 1>up and take on more risk and take even bigger waves.

0:34:26.440 --> 0:34:28.960
<v Speaker 1>Because anything that can reduce risk can also be flipped

0:34:28.960 --> 0:34:32.160
<v Speaker 1>around to exacerbate risks. We see a plateau ng and

0:34:32.239 --> 0:34:37.239
<v Speaker 1>even an increase in the annual automobile fatality rates, and

0:34:37.360 --> 0:34:41.200
<v Speaker 1>the discussion in your book and and elsewhere has been, well,

0:34:41.239 --> 0:34:45.560
<v Speaker 1>how much of the confidence that people feel about air

0:34:45.600 --> 0:34:49.200
<v Speaker 1>bags and crumple zones and and anti lick breaks is

0:34:49.280 --> 0:34:52.160
<v Speaker 1>leaving them to drive faster and engage in more dangerous

0:34:52.200 --> 0:34:56.040
<v Speaker 1>behavior without these safety provisions. What what are your thoughts

0:34:56.040 --> 0:34:58.319
<v Speaker 1>on that? Yeah, I mean that is I felt like

0:34:58.360 --> 0:35:00.759
<v Speaker 1>an important thing to include an any book on risk

0:35:00.880 --> 0:35:03.279
<v Speaker 1>telling you how to how there's all these tools that

0:35:03.280 --> 0:35:04.960
<v Speaker 1>can reduce your risk, because then you have to be

0:35:05.040 --> 0:35:08.439
<v Speaker 1>mindful of not feeling so safe that you can then

0:35:08.480 --> 0:35:11.600
<v Speaker 1>go and take whatever risks you want, because nothing makes

0:35:11.640 --> 0:35:15.000
<v Speaker 1>the world truly risk free. You know, we're all risk

0:35:15.120 --> 0:35:18.680
<v Speaker 1>is all still an estimate of something that's immeasurable. So

0:35:19.080 --> 0:35:21.759
<v Speaker 1>you know, and you're you're basing your risk strategy on

0:35:21.880 --> 0:35:24.800
<v Speaker 1>something you know it's better than doing nothing. Just because

0:35:24.880 --> 0:35:26.719
<v Speaker 1>it's not perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. But

0:35:26.760 --> 0:35:30.239
<v Speaker 1>you also have to be aware of the limitations. So

0:35:30.360 --> 0:35:33.520
<v Speaker 1>even if you have every safety device in the world

0:35:34.000 --> 0:35:36.080
<v Speaker 1>and you're going to surf an eighty foot wave, it's

0:35:36.080 --> 0:35:38.000
<v Speaker 1>still not going to be safe. There's nothing to make

0:35:38.000 --> 0:35:40.920
<v Speaker 1>that risk free. And you specifically refer to a number

0:35:41.040 --> 0:35:45.880
<v Speaker 1>of big name surface who died even after or perhaps

0:35:45.960 --> 0:35:50.680
<v Speaker 1>because of some of these safety innovations being brought in. Yeah,

0:35:50.719 --> 0:35:53.400
<v Speaker 1>and when I went to the Big Wave Surf Risk Conference,

0:35:53.760 --> 0:35:58.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, they every innovation resurfaces this issue Initially it

0:35:58.200 --> 0:36:01.160
<v Speaker 1>was leashes because you're already hated when they first came

0:36:01.200 --> 0:36:03.600
<v Speaker 1>out totally because I don't know anything about surfing and

0:36:03.600 --> 0:36:06.280
<v Speaker 1>I've never done it. But apparently before there were leashes,

0:36:06.360 --> 0:36:08.080
<v Speaker 1>if you wiped out, you lost your board and you

0:36:08.120 --> 0:36:09.760
<v Speaker 1>had to swim to shore, and that could be maybe

0:36:09.760 --> 0:36:13.120
<v Speaker 1>twenty miles. So you think they were like amazing swimmers.

0:36:13.120 --> 0:36:15.319
<v Speaker 1>Now you can be a pretty mediocre swimmer and still surf. Right,

0:36:15.440 --> 0:36:18.480
<v Speaker 1>we're sending people out who really, if they get into trouble,

0:36:18.840 --> 0:36:21.120
<v Speaker 1>can't swim a half mile back to shore. Yeah. And

0:36:21.120 --> 0:36:23.000
<v Speaker 1>then it was worse with jet skis because now you

0:36:23.000 --> 0:36:24.960
<v Speaker 1>can have a jet ski, you know, push you not

0:36:25.000 --> 0:36:26.560
<v Speaker 1>only an eighty foot wave, but if you only need

0:36:26.600 --> 0:36:28.279
<v Speaker 1>to belong on a five foot wave, Now you can

0:36:28.280 --> 0:36:30.759
<v Speaker 1>go on a twenty foot wave, and you pose risk

0:36:30.760 --> 0:36:32.279
<v Speaker 1>to other people when that happens, if you need to

0:36:32.320 --> 0:36:35.160
<v Speaker 1>be rescued. And now the big debate is on something

0:36:35.200 --> 0:36:38.480
<v Speaker 1>called these inflatable vests right when you go under, and

0:36:38.880 --> 0:36:42.080
<v Speaker 1>they don't always inflate, but it gives people a sense

0:36:42.120 --> 0:36:44.399
<v Speaker 1>that all right, I'm okay, I could do anything now. Yeah,

0:36:44.440 --> 0:36:47.520
<v Speaker 1>And so this because they're new and just starting to

0:36:47.520 --> 0:36:50.080
<v Speaker 1>be sold. I think I mentioned Greg Long this dame

0:36:50.080 --> 0:36:52.880
<v Speaker 1>a surfer who's inflatable fest and open that was I

0:36:52.920 --> 0:36:55.480
<v Speaker 1>think he had a sort of an early version. But

0:36:55.560 --> 0:36:59.080
<v Speaker 1>now they're being widely sold and this is really tearing

0:36:59.160 --> 0:37:01.640
<v Speaker 1>up the surf community of who should be allowed to

0:37:01.640 --> 0:37:04.239
<v Speaker 1>buy these? Is it irresponsible to allow anyone to have

0:37:04.280 --> 0:37:06.960
<v Speaker 1>these vests? So, in other words, we don't want to

0:37:06.960 --> 0:37:09.759
<v Speaker 1>give people a full sense of confidence. Send down an

0:37:09.760 --> 0:37:13.959
<v Speaker 1>amateur with no skills and no minimal swimming ability out

0:37:14.000 --> 0:37:16.440
<v Speaker 1>into a dangerous area, and they feel because they have

0:37:16.760 --> 0:37:21.640
<v Speaker 1>this inflatable vest that they can serve with the big boys,

0:37:21.640 --> 0:37:23.279
<v Speaker 1>so to speak. But then the flip side of that

0:37:23.400 --> 0:37:25.880
<v Speaker 1>is what this is a potentially life saving piece of technology.

0:37:25.960 --> 0:37:28.200
<v Speaker 1>Are you going to deny people buying it? I mean

0:37:28.320 --> 0:37:32.160
<v Speaker 1>it's there aren't easy answers to this, which is why

0:37:32.239 --> 0:37:33.920
<v Speaker 1>they think it's just such debate. But you know, if

0:37:33.960 --> 0:37:36.480
<v Speaker 1>you go to a finance conference and you debate systemic risk,

0:37:36.760 --> 0:37:40.080
<v Speaker 1>there s the answers there. Either what what else do

0:37:40.120 --> 0:37:43.640
<v Speaker 1>you recall from your research that was um, if not

0:37:43.719 --> 0:37:48.320
<v Speaker 1>quite as buff um, really interesting and surprising because you

0:37:48.440 --> 0:37:50.319
<v Speaker 1>cover a lot of ground in the book. I've got

0:37:50.400 --> 0:37:53.919
<v Speaker 1>horse breeding, um that was kind of fascinating. Also, yeah,

0:37:54.000 --> 0:37:56.400
<v Speaker 1>I didn't. Again, I kind of went after things I

0:37:56.440 --> 0:37:59.880
<v Speaker 1>didn't really have much knowledge of before. Um and I

0:38:00.120 --> 0:38:01.960
<v Speaker 1>never been like a horsey person. I wasn't like when

0:38:01.960 --> 0:38:06.520
<v Speaker 1>these little girls who rode horses. Uh, I was so

0:38:07.760 --> 0:38:12.480
<v Speaker 1>I didn't realize that after the tax reform changed the

0:38:12.520 --> 0:38:15.480
<v Speaker 1>whole dynamics of horse breeding and the economics of horse breeding,

0:38:15.760 --> 0:38:18.359
<v Speaker 1>and and all sorts of other tax shelters. These things

0:38:18.440 --> 0:38:21.120
<v Speaker 1>had been devised as a way to hide money from

0:38:21.200 --> 0:38:23.759
<v Speaker 1>Uncle Sam, and suddenly now they have to stand on

0:38:23.800 --> 0:38:27.560
<v Speaker 1>their own feet. They can't just be a foe investment exactly.

0:38:27.640 --> 0:38:29.839
<v Speaker 1>So the fact that there's less return to long term

0:38:29.840 --> 0:38:32.319
<v Speaker 1>capital gains and they want to realize the returns from

0:38:32.320 --> 0:38:35.280
<v Speaker 1>their risk earlier means now that everyone solds a horse

0:38:35.360 --> 0:38:37.080
<v Speaker 1>after when it's one year old, when they don't have

0:38:37.120 --> 0:38:41.279
<v Speaker 1>complete information about how good a racer it's going to be.

0:38:41.640 --> 0:38:43.799
<v Speaker 1>The only information you have is who its parents are.

0:38:44.280 --> 0:38:47.000
<v Speaker 1>So this has led to this increase in inbreeding. So

0:38:47.080 --> 0:38:49.960
<v Speaker 1>we have all these horses that are sprinters, not long

0:38:50.000 --> 0:38:52.960
<v Speaker 1>distance runners, because that's the first thing that will show

0:38:53.000 --> 0:38:54.800
<v Speaker 1>and that will help sell a one year old horse.

0:38:55.080 --> 0:38:58.000
<v Speaker 1>It seems like the incentives are kind of weird and

0:38:58.080 --> 0:39:01.759
<v Speaker 1>not properly aligned. No, because what you really want is

0:39:01.800 --> 0:39:03.680
<v Speaker 1>you want a horse. Well, actually the real money and

0:39:03.760 --> 0:39:07.640
<v Speaker 1>horses is not winning races. It's from the breeding, the

0:39:07.680 --> 0:39:10.520
<v Speaker 1>stud fees. But you know a good race career is

0:39:10.560 --> 0:39:13.680
<v Speaker 1>necessary for that. But none of those things are necessarily

0:39:13.680 --> 0:39:16.760
<v Speaker 1>correlated with There's been studies on this, on the prices

0:39:16.800 --> 0:39:19.239
<v Speaker 1>that you sell for as a year old yearling. So

0:39:19.400 --> 0:39:21.880
<v Speaker 1>as I was reading through the whole horse section, and

0:39:21.920 --> 0:39:24.640
<v Speaker 1>I rode in college, so I was kind of fascinated

0:39:24.640 --> 0:39:27.040
<v Speaker 1>by that. And I'm not a big fan of horse

0:39:27.200 --> 0:39:32.239
<v Speaker 1>racing and betting, but but I enjoy riding. Um, I

0:39:32.280 --> 0:39:35.959
<v Speaker 1>was reminded of a book I read a hundred years

0:39:35.960 --> 0:39:42.560
<v Speaker 1>ago by William Goldman, who was the screenwriter for Butchcasting

0:39:42.600 --> 0:39:46.279
<v Speaker 1>and Sundance Kid, Princess Bride, and Marathon Man Hit. His

0:39:46.440 --> 0:39:51.800
<v Speaker 1>Screenless are Insane and his book was called Adventures in

0:39:51.840 --> 0:39:54.480
<v Speaker 1>the Screen Trade. But a quote of his that I've

0:39:54.560 --> 0:39:59.360
<v Speaker 1>used repeatedly when writing about markets is nobody knows anything.

0:40:00.040 --> 0:40:04.160
<v Speaker 1>And he refers to all the studios that passed on

0:40:04.200 --> 0:40:07.080
<v Speaker 1>Star Wars, all the studios that wanted nothing to do

0:40:07.120 --> 0:40:09.840
<v Speaker 1>with raiders, of the lost art, and he uses example

0:40:09.920 --> 0:40:14.520
<v Speaker 1>after example after example of these people who are supposed

0:40:14.520 --> 0:40:17.800
<v Speaker 1>to be in the film industry and they're throwing darts.

0:40:17.880 --> 0:40:23.520
<v Speaker 1>And I'm reading your right up about the various horses

0:40:23.560 --> 0:40:26.839
<v Speaker 1>that later go on to storied career that were picked

0:40:26.920 --> 0:40:30.520
<v Speaker 1>up for pennies because nobody recognized their value. And all

0:40:30.560 --> 0:40:36.920
<v Speaker 1>of these very storied stud married to uh, these mayors

0:40:36.920 --> 0:40:40.560
<v Speaker 1>who were great runners, and the horses nobody they don't

0:40:40.560 --> 0:40:43.160
<v Speaker 1>win anything, they don't. So is it the same sort

0:40:43.200 --> 0:40:46.960
<v Speaker 1>of situation when it comes to horse breeding nobody knows anything? Well,

0:40:47.280 --> 0:40:49.840
<v Speaker 1>I think it's that the incentives are kind of are off.

0:40:50.600 --> 0:40:53.680
<v Speaker 1>So you know what, people when they breed a horse,

0:40:53.719 --> 0:40:55.719
<v Speaker 1>they're looking for something that's gonna sell after one year,

0:40:55.760 --> 0:40:57.320
<v Speaker 1>which is very different from a horse that's going to

0:40:57.360 --> 0:41:00.759
<v Speaker 1>win a Kentucky Derby. You would think that there's so

0:41:00.880 --> 0:41:04.200
<v Speaker 1>much money in winning these big races that at least

0:41:04.360 --> 0:41:08.480
<v Speaker 1>some subsection of the breeding community would say, hey, if

0:41:08.520 --> 0:41:10.040
<v Speaker 1>you want to buy a horse to sell in a year,

0:41:10.080 --> 0:41:14.120
<v Speaker 1>don't come to us. We're trying to bread triple crown

0:41:14.280 --> 0:41:18.400
<v Speaker 1>competitive racers. How come that hasn't happened? Well, does some degree?

0:41:18.480 --> 0:41:21.719
<v Speaker 1>You're right that it is just impossible to know. I mean,

0:41:21.800 --> 0:41:25.399
<v Speaker 1>you're getting more information now with technology because you're able

0:41:25.400 --> 0:41:28.600
<v Speaker 1>to do the genetic profiling of the horses, which gives

0:41:28.640 --> 0:41:30.960
<v Speaker 1>you some information, like you can tell, you know, I

0:41:31.000 --> 0:41:32.840
<v Speaker 1>guess the horses that are best suited for like the

0:41:32.920 --> 0:41:36.120
<v Speaker 1>Kentucky Derby or so of these hybrid half sprinter half

0:41:36.120 --> 0:41:40.640
<v Speaker 1>distance runners, and you can test for that also reference. Um.

0:41:40.680 --> 0:41:42.840
<v Speaker 1>And there's a really fascinating story I'm trying to remember

0:41:42.840 --> 0:41:45.080
<v Speaker 1>where I saw it about the size of one of

0:41:45.120 --> 0:41:48.080
<v Speaker 1>the ventricles and the horses hard you reference. You're they're

0:41:48.120 --> 0:41:52.319
<v Speaker 1>looking for horses with not metaphysical of that horse as hard,

0:41:52.719 --> 0:41:57.120
<v Speaker 1>but genuine larger cardiac pumps. Yeah, although you have to

0:41:57.160 --> 0:42:00.719
<v Speaker 1>be careful because everything you know, horse like everything to

0:42:00.760 --> 0:42:03.640
<v Speaker 1>be like a racer, so of this freakish combination of

0:42:03.719 --> 0:42:06.640
<v Speaker 1>factors have to come together. It's like being a Nobel

0:42:06.680 --> 0:42:08.879
<v Speaker 1>Prize winning supermodel. It's like you just need all these

0:42:09.040 --> 0:42:13.640
<v Speaker 1>genetic components in perfect alignment. Um. That that's the I'm

0:42:13.640 --> 0:42:17.560
<v Speaker 1>sure it's an urban myth, but the Einstein Marilyn Monroe,

0:42:17.800 --> 0:42:20.080
<v Speaker 1>back and forth. You may not get the qualities you

0:42:20.120 --> 0:42:24.080
<v Speaker 1>want from each of the sires of the of the horse. Yeah,

0:42:24.120 --> 0:42:27.000
<v Speaker 1>you may get the worst qualities of both. So you know,

0:42:27.000 --> 0:42:28.719
<v Speaker 1>if you uh, if it was one guy explained to me,

0:42:28.760 --> 0:42:31.520
<v Speaker 1>it's like getting like that perfect heart in the wrong

0:42:32.160 --> 0:42:34.800
<v Speaker 1>um horse could be like having of them mentioned Ferrari

0:42:34.840 --> 0:42:39.000
<v Speaker 1>and a super U. So it's it's really hard to predict.

0:42:39.120 --> 0:42:41.440
<v Speaker 1>So this is why that chapter is about about modern

0:42:41.480 --> 0:42:44.240
<v Speaker 1>portfolio theory. By the way, that that is the super

0:42:44.480 --> 0:42:47.040
<v Speaker 1>super U w r X. They've done that and it's

0:42:47.040 --> 0:42:50.719
<v Speaker 1>been a very successful car. I don't know anything about cars,

0:42:50.480 --> 0:42:53.680
<v Speaker 1>so but that was really that was really a fascinating discussion,

0:42:53.680 --> 0:42:57.160
<v Speaker 1>and I I really enjoyed that last question about the book.

0:42:57.719 --> 0:43:01.120
<v Speaker 1>Anything else sort of stood out it is Wow, that

0:43:01.239 --> 0:43:04.040
<v Speaker 1>was really weird and unusual that I was not expected.

0:43:05.520 --> 0:43:08.120
<v Speaker 1>You know, there was every chapter sort of I guess

0:43:08.160 --> 0:43:11.040
<v Speaker 1>had those moments. I mean there were certainly when the

0:43:11.080 --> 0:43:14.480
<v Speaker 1>time I spent following around the paparazzi, I'm like, also

0:43:14.560 --> 0:43:17.800
<v Speaker 1>a fascinating story. This is weird. You know, I was

0:43:17.920 --> 0:43:19.920
<v Speaker 1>telling someone would say, you know, as I'm like crouching

0:43:19.920 --> 0:43:22.360
<v Speaker 1>behind a garbage can waiting for Alec Baldwin, I'm like,

0:43:22.440 --> 0:43:23.880
<v Speaker 1>this is just not what I expected when I went

0:43:23.920 --> 0:43:26.279
<v Speaker 1>to go out school, you know, to end up here

0:43:26.280 --> 0:43:28.520
<v Speaker 1>of all places. But you know again, they also have

0:43:28.600 --> 0:43:31.480
<v Speaker 1>a fascinating risk story that's going on behind the scenes.

0:43:31.520 --> 0:43:33.839
<v Speaker 1>You would never know because, as you can imagine, they

0:43:33.880 --> 0:43:37.480
<v Speaker 1>faced just crazy amounts of idiosyncratic risk. At the risk

0:43:37.600 --> 0:43:39.319
<v Speaker 1>that you're going to get that one money shot in

0:43:39.320 --> 0:43:43.040
<v Speaker 1>any one day is so large. They have to form

0:43:43.080 --> 0:43:47.160
<v Speaker 1>these complex alliances to share tips and sometimes royalties. It's

0:43:47.239 --> 0:43:49.879
<v Speaker 1>especially its pooling, so you're getting rid of your idiosyncratic risk.

0:43:50.320 --> 0:43:52.600
<v Speaker 1>But because all the money in celebrity photography is from

0:43:52.640 --> 0:43:55.000
<v Speaker 1>getting an exclusive, they also have this incentive to always

0:43:55.040 --> 0:43:59.000
<v Speaker 1>cheat to These alliances are inherently very unstable, so they're

0:43:59.040 --> 0:44:02.359
<v Speaker 1>always reef warming and breaking up these alliances, so they

0:44:02.400 --> 0:44:04.520
<v Speaker 1>all hate each other. So this is something you see

0:44:04.520 --> 0:44:07.000
<v Speaker 1>the paparazzi on the street and you're like, this is

0:44:07.000 --> 0:44:09.400
<v Speaker 1>a much more interesting story that's going on with this

0:44:09.400 --> 0:44:12.200
<v Speaker 1>this lineup of paparazzi than you would ever know. Then

0:44:12.360 --> 0:44:15.799
<v Speaker 1>the paparazzi a more interesting than catching a celebrity takes

0:44:15.800 --> 0:44:18.040
<v Speaker 1>their kid out for ice cream. Yeah, they'd always be surprised.

0:44:18.080 --> 0:44:19.919
<v Speaker 1>Can you me wait for these celebrities for like six

0:44:20.000 --> 0:44:22.080
<v Speaker 1>or eight hours and after maybe an hour or two.

0:44:22.120 --> 0:44:23.719
<v Speaker 1>I'll just get bored and I'm like, I've had a

0:44:23.719 --> 0:44:26.480
<v Speaker 1>good story here. I'm gonna go home. And they'd be shocked.

0:44:26.480 --> 0:44:28.480
<v Speaker 1>They're like, but she has an ampauty. I'm like, well,

0:44:28.520 --> 0:44:32.799
<v Speaker 1>I'm here for supermodel g who was friends with somebody else?

0:44:32.840 --> 0:44:38.800
<v Speaker 1>Want that? That's how suddenly she blew up on on Instagram. Yeah. Well,

0:44:38.840 --> 0:44:41.160
<v Speaker 1>the celebrities who do well with the paparazzi also play

0:44:41.239 --> 0:44:45.040
<v Speaker 1>the game with them. Huh. Quite interesting. You You also

0:44:45.120 --> 0:44:50.360
<v Speaker 1>have been writing regularly on Vox for some time, and

0:44:50.360 --> 0:44:56.320
<v Speaker 1>and some of the columns you've done sort of tangentially

0:44:56.320 --> 0:45:02.240
<v Speaker 1>involved risk in surprising ways. So everybody today is focused

0:45:02.280 --> 0:45:06.920
<v Speaker 1>on the Amazon HQ two disaster that blew up earlier

0:45:06.960 --> 0:45:10.319
<v Speaker 1>this year. Um, but but you looked at it from

0:45:10.320 --> 0:45:14.880
<v Speaker 1>the context of the US has a talent problem and

0:45:14.960 --> 0:45:19.680
<v Speaker 1>that presents a risk. Two corporations explain that. Well, so

0:45:20.040 --> 0:45:22.680
<v Speaker 1>this is as the Richard Florida argument that you need,

0:45:23.200 --> 0:45:25.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, anyway you think anyone would want to work

0:45:25.440 --> 0:45:29.480
<v Speaker 1>for Amazon. They still it's the the competition for sort

0:45:29.520 --> 0:45:32.000
<v Speaker 1>of really good talent is still very stiff, and it

0:45:32.120 --> 0:45:36.239
<v Speaker 1>is does occur globally. And we're talking about engineers and programmers,

0:45:36.280 --> 0:45:40.520
<v Speaker 1>not necessarily the surfs that they have enslaved in their

0:45:40.520 --> 0:45:43.520
<v Speaker 1>in their warehouse. Yeah, on the high skill tech workers.

0:45:43.560 --> 0:45:45.960
<v Speaker 1>I mean, they're kings of the labor market and they

0:45:46.000 --> 0:45:47.520
<v Speaker 1>compete a lot for it, which is one of the

0:45:47.560 --> 0:45:50.279
<v Speaker 1>reasons why Amazon probably wanted to come to New York.

0:45:50.320 --> 0:45:53.239
<v Speaker 1>It wasn't just the tax incentives. It was that you

0:45:53.280 --> 0:45:55.359
<v Speaker 1>could get talent who wanted to move here. It's really

0:45:55.440 --> 0:45:58.239
<v Speaker 1>hard to get a cluster of talented young people to

0:45:58.440 --> 0:46:02.080
<v Speaker 1>want to move to, uh, the middle of the country,

0:46:02.160 --> 0:46:04.920
<v Speaker 1>and that's why Brooklyn is so hot these days. Yeah. Well,

0:46:04.960 --> 0:46:07.280
<v Speaker 1>and you can see why because if you are talented,

0:46:07.320 --> 0:46:10.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean human capital, you know, is something you have

0:46:10.400 --> 0:46:12.200
<v Speaker 1>to work towards your whole career. You don't just go

0:46:12.239 --> 0:46:14.120
<v Speaker 1>to Harvard and then you're just set for life. You

0:46:14.160 --> 0:46:18.120
<v Speaker 1>have to manage a network. You have to keep your

0:46:18.160 --> 0:46:20.600
<v Speaker 1>skills sharp, and that's why you want to be around

0:46:20.719 --> 0:46:22.960
<v Speaker 1>and not just be limited to your own company, be

0:46:23.040 --> 0:46:26.680
<v Speaker 1>around other people, intelligent companies. That way, you keep your

0:46:26.680 --> 0:46:29.239
<v Speaker 1>skills fresh. You have the option of changing jobs. That's

0:46:29.239 --> 0:46:32.320
<v Speaker 1>always a very valuable option. I mean, if if Amazon

0:46:32.440 --> 0:46:35.040
<v Speaker 1>moved to a place where there were no other good jobs.

0:46:35.040 --> 0:46:36.560
<v Speaker 1>You're kind of stuck at Amazon and you give up

0:46:36.600 --> 0:46:39.040
<v Speaker 1>the option of job switching, that's you have to compensate

0:46:39.080 --> 0:46:42.319
<v Speaker 1>people for that. Towns are problematic for that reason. Yeah,

0:46:42.360 --> 0:46:45.480
<v Speaker 1>I mean it worked before when you have people who

0:46:45.480 --> 0:46:48.520
<v Speaker 1>are more middle skill. And also back before when you

0:46:48.560 --> 0:46:51.960
<v Speaker 1>had technology was such before where the skills you would

0:46:52.040 --> 0:46:54.560
<v Speaker 1>learn would be very idustocratic to the company you worked for,

0:46:54.880 --> 0:46:57.640
<v Speaker 1>and now they're very transferable exactly. So if you want

0:46:57.680 --> 0:47:02.480
<v Speaker 1>to maintain competitive competitive really in the labor market, you

0:47:02.560 --> 0:47:04.520
<v Speaker 1>have to be part of sort of these clusters of

0:47:04.520 --> 0:47:07.080
<v Speaker 1>people that allow you to move around. And and Google

0:47:07.120 --> 0:47:09.960
<v Speaker 1>announced they're doubling their New York workforce from seven thousand

0:47:10.000 --> 0:47:14.000
<v Speaker 1>and fourteen thousand. Apple has dramatically expanded its presence. So

0:47:14.040 --> 0:47:16.479
<v Speaker 1>if you're an Amazon work or theoretically in New York,

0:47:17.160 --> 0:47:20.560
<v Speaker 1>they're competing for your skills with some of the biggest

0:47:20.640 --> 0:47:23.359
<v Speaker 1>companies in the world. Yeah, but and you know, they

0:47:23.360 --> 0:47:25.719
<v Speaker 1>don't like the ice work for a company that was

0:47:25.880 --> 0:47:28.080
<v Speaker 1>far outside my cluster, and they kept trying to get

0:47:28.120 --> 0:47:30.200
<v Speaker 1>me to move there, And I'm like, but you're asking

0:47:30.239 --> 0:47:32.000
<v Speaker 1>me to give up a very valuable option. You're gonna

0:47:32.040 --> 0:47:34.880
<v Speaker 1>have to compensate me for it. That never really resonated

0:47:34.920 --> 0:47:39.000
<v Speaker 1>with them. But um, it seems counterintuitive that Amazon would

0:47:39.000 --> 0:47:41.279
<v Speaker 1>want to be close to their job competition, but it's

0:47:41.280 --> 0:47:43.719
<v Speaker 1>also what they need to do to attract talent. It's

0:47:43.719 --> 0:47:47.360
<v Speaker 1>why cities haven't disappeared despite the best predictions of people

0:47:47.760 --> 0:47:50.560
<v Speaker 1>half a century ago. What about I thought this was

0:47:50.600 --> 0:47:54.480
<v Speaker 1>an interesting headline. What is the real reason people regret

0:47:54.719 --> 0:47:59.880
<v Speaker 1>not saving more risk? So, you know, people think about

0:48:00.040 --> 0:48:02.799
<v Speaker 1>saving as something that they're gonna, you know, often for

0:48:02.960 --> 0:48:04.600
<v Speaker 1>something that's gonna happen in the future that they want

0:48:04.600 --> 0:48:06.880
<v Speaker 1>to do. But when they looked at people at the

0:48:06.960 --> 0:48:09.799
<v Speaker 1>end of their life or in retirement, the reason why

0:48:09.800 --> 0:48:11.480
<v Speaker 1>they think they wish had more money. They don't wish

0:48:11.520 --> 0:48:13.400
<v Speaker 1>they could have gone on better vacations when they retired.

0:48:13.400 --> 0:48:15.440
<v Speaker 1>They wish they could have a better lifestyle. It was

0:48:15.880 --> 0:48:18.200
<v Speaker 1>I didn't realize that divorce would blow all my savings.

0:48:18.480 --> 0:48:22.200
<v Speaker 1>It's not a luxury goal. It's a Hey, things happen

0:48:22.280 --> 0:48:25.279
<v Speaker 1>that are just unexpected and I failed to plan for that. Yeah,

0:48:25.320 --> 0:48:27.360
<v Speaker 1>and people, I mean the the like FOURG dollar for

0:48:27.400 --> 0:48:30.279
<v Speaker 1>emergency saving figure is a little controversial, but I don't

0:48:30.280 --> 0:48:32.359
<v Speaker 1>think it is a stretch to say people really don't

0:48:32.360 --> 0:48:36.680
<v Speaker 1>make emergency savings enough of a priority. Right, that's pretty fair. Um,

0:48:36.760 --> 0:48:39.439
<v Speaker 1>let's talk about charities. What's the best way to get

0:48:39.480 --> 0:48:41.800
<v Speaker 1>people to donate to charity? So I think it was

0:48:41.880 --> 0:48:44.200
<v Speaker 1>John List, who I mentioned earlier, did a study of

0:48:44.800 --> 0:48:47.319
<v Speaker 1>the of Alaska. You know, Alaska is just right for

0:48:47.440 --> 0:48:49.800
<v Speaker 1>a lot of economic studies because they get the dividend

0:48:49.840 --> 0:48:53.080
<v Speaker 1>payment from the from all the oil reserves that they're

0:48:53.080 --> 0:48:56.759
<v Speaker 1>selling to or licensing and leasing out to the big

0:48:56.800 --> 0:48:59.440
<v Speaker 1>public oil companies. Yeah, so they have a program where

0:48:59.640 --> 0:49:01.920
<v Speaker 1>you can give some of that money to charity. And

0:49:01.960 --> 0:49:05.799
<v Speaker 1>they had they did a study where you they they

0:49:05.880 --> 0:49:08.240
<v Speaker 1>came with a card and one said, you know, warm

0:49:08.280 --> 0:49:10.440
<v Speaker 1>your heart. The other is like improve Alaska. On the

0:49:10.440 --> 0:49:12.680
<v Speaker 1>other just was nothing. And they found the warm the

0:49:12.680 --> 0:49:15.640
<v Speaker 1>heart group donated the most and we're most likely to donate. So,

0:49:15.640 --> 0:49:19.200
<v Speaker 1>in other words, they made the charitable donation about the

0:49:19.239 --> 0:49:23.720
<v Speaker 1>person as opposed to the recipient exactly. So appeal appeal

0:49:23.800 --> 0:49:26.800
<v Speaker 1>to ego. So over the past year or two, we've

0:49:26.840 --> 0:49:31.600
<v Speaker 1>gone through this giant me too movement. Um, and I

0:49:31.640 --> 0:49:35.960
<v Speaker 1>know that amongst my colleagues we've had debates about what

0:49:36.000 --> 0:49:39.400
<v Speaker 1>do you do with an artist who turns out to

0:49:39.440 --> 0:49:44.160
<v Speaker 1>be a less than um nice guy. Uh. And the

0:49:44.239 --> 0:49:47.200
<v Speaker 1>Michael Jackson HBO documentary just came out. I have yet

0:49:47.239 --> 0:49:50.600
<v Speaker 1>to see it, but I know Michael Jackson fans are

0:49:50.680 --> 0:49:53.319
<v Speaker 1>kind of split. Some are defending him and others are

0:49:53.320 --> 0:49:55.759
<v Speaker 1>a little bereft. I was always a big fan of

0:49:55.800 --> 0:49:59.160
<v Speaker 1>Louis c K. I'm not happy with with what he did.

0:49:59.400 --> 0:50:03.879
<v Speaker 1>Go down the list, you know, it ranges from offensive

0:50:03.960 --> 0:50:08.240
<v Speaker 1>to criminal and everything in between. You raised the question,

0:50:08.480 --> 0:50:11.560
<v Speaker 1>what do you do when a brilliant economist is accused

0:50:11.600 --> 0:50:17.399
<v Speaker 1>of sexually harassing his research assistance? So what's the solution? Well,

0:50:17.560 --> 0:50:20.120
<v Speaker 1>I don't know because the thing about I was writing

0:50:20.120 --> 0:50:23.760
<v Speaker 1>about Rolling Fire, who has been accused but not found guilty. Um.

0:50:24.000 --> 0:50:27.920
<v Speaker 1>But there He's been accused by a number of research assistants,

0:50:28.480 --> 0:50:32.879
<v Speaker 1>some of whom have incredibly claimed that he awarded their

0:50:32.920 --> 0:50:37.919
<v Speaker 1>careers for They're refusing to succumb to his charms. So

0:50:38.320 --> 0:50:40.120
<v Speaker 1>which is hard. It's a terrible way to say. Is

0:50:40.120 --> 0:50:43.960
<v Speaker 1>this is terrible? But and in his what he always

0:50:44.040 --> 0:50:46.480
<v Speaker 1>defended himself with and this is a valid point, although

0:50:46.719 --> 0:50:49.680
<v Speaker 1>doesn't excuse his behavior in any way. Is I do

0:50:49.760 --> 0:50:54.000
<v Speaker 1>research that socially critical. He was the economist who was

0:50:54.080 --> 0:50:57.320
<v Speaker 1>leading the charge of understanding why a lot of minority

0:50:57.320 --> 0:51:00.759
<v Speaker 1>students don't do well in school. So this it's important.

0:51:00.800 --> 0:51:02.239
<v Speaker 1>But what does that have to do with whether or

0:51:02.280 --> 0:51:05.839
<v Speaker 1>not he's a pig. So here's the question is if

0:51:05.840 --> 0:51:08.799
<v Speaker 1>someone is doing research that's socially important, are supposed they're

0:51:08.800 --> 0:51:10.640
<v Speaker 1>on the verge of a cure for cancer and we

0:51:10.680 --> 0:51:13.640
<v Speaker 1>find out they're a pig, you know, do we should

0:51:13.719 --> 0:51:15.839
<v Speaker 1>they still have a career? You know, if there's all

0:51:15.840 --> 0:51:20.160
<v Speaker 1>these other positive externalities for society. I could so you

0:51:20.239 --> 0:51:23.880
<v Speaker 1>just had the bishop six years prison sentence in Australia.

0:51:24.320 --> 0:51:28.040
<v Speaker 1>You could see throughout history that the powerful will say, look,

0:51:28.320 --> 0:51:31.480
<v Speaker 1>there have been some bad behavior, but we're literally doing

0:51:31.560 --> 0:51:35.680
<v Speaker 1>God's work and therefore we should be exempt from this. Um.

0:51:37.080 --> 0:51:43.440
<v Speaker 1>You know, pick a person. Um. John Lennon was supposed

0:51:43.440 --> 0:51:46.160
<v Speaker 1>to be a bit of a hardass, and you don't

0:51:46.200 --> 0:51:48.319
<v Speaker 1>want to go through the history of literature to find

0:51:48.320 --> 0:51:51.520
<v Speaker 1>out how big a jerk half the writers out there are.

0:51:52.200 --> 0:51:56.480
<v Speaker 1>If we but and then artists and paintings and things

0:51:56.560 --> 0:51:59.239
<v Speaker 1>like that, if we're gonna have a moral purity test

0:51:59.280 --> 0:52:01.839
<v Speaker 1>on that stuff, your museums will be empty and there'll

0:52:01.840 --> 0:52:05.200
<v Speaker 1>be nothing on the air waves. However, it doesn't mean

0:52:05.200 --> 0:52:08.880
<v Speaker 1>they shouldn't suffer the ramifications from So should we separate

0:52:08.920 --> 0:52:11.480
<v Speaker 1>the value of the art from the artist. But that

0:52:11.560 --> 0:52:13.799
<v Speaker 1>doesn't give them a free pass in their career, not

0:52:13.880 --> 0:52:15.880
<v Speaker 1>at all. And I didn't honestly know the answer, so

0:52:15.960 --> 0:52:18.759
<v Speaker 1>spoke to philosopher, which was just I love talking to

0:52:18.760 --> 0:52:23.160
<v Speaker 1>philosophers because they always remind you know nothing about anything um.

0:52:23.200 --> 0:52:26.200
<v Speaker 1>And he pointed out that if you are doing important work,

0:52:26.440 --> 0:52:30.120
<v Speaker 1>like scientific works, but either economics or hard science, and

0:52:30.160 --> 0:52:32.440
<v Speaker 1>you're on the verge of really making the world important,

0:52:32.760 --> 0:52:35.640
<v Speaker 1>it's actually the more the pressure on you to behave

0:52:35.640 --> 0:52:38.400
<v Speaker 1>well is even higher because you're letting down especially no

0:52:38.400 --> 0:52:41.600
<v Speaker 1>good work happens alone. You're letting down everyone's effort, and

0:52:41.760 --> 0:52:44.640
<v Speaker 1>it's you know, not everyone gets the opportunity and resources

0:52:44.640 --> 0:52:48.480
<v Speaker 1>to perform research like this, and so if you're threatening

0:52:48.480 --> 0:52:50.719
<v Speaker 1>it with your behavior, it actually should be held to

0:52:50.760 --> 0:52:54.400
<v Speaker 1>an even higher standard. So the question is, according to

0:52:54.440 --> 0:52:58.400
<v Speaker 1>the philosopher, then once this bad behavior is identified, do

0:52:58.480 --> 0:53:02.480
<v Speaker 1>you stop the person from doing research or do you

0:53:02.520 --> 0:53:05.640
<v Speaker 1>just put a higher level of HR scrutiny in and

0:53:05.680 --> 0:53:08.440
<v Speaker 1>sit that person down and say you were putting millions

0:53:08.440 --> 0:53:10.560
<v Speaker 1>of people's lives at risk because you're this close to

0:53:10.560 --> 0:53:12.640
<v Speaker 1>a cure for cancer. And if you can't keep your

0:53:12.640 --> 0:53:15.440
<v Speaker 1>hands off your research assistant, here's what's going to happen.

0:53:15.480 --> 0:53:17.359
<v Speaker 1>I mean, how do you how do you resolve that? Well,

0:53:17.400 --> 0:53:21.480
<v Speaker 1>he was more in favor of just jettising them, I know,

0:53:21.600 --> 0:53:27.399
<v Speaker 1>jetting the assistance. No, the researcher, Um, the philosopher said

0:53:27.560 --> 0:53:29.759
<v Speaker 1>just fire the guy. Yeah, it's like whoever it is. Yeah,

0:53:29.760 --> 0:53:31.719
<v Speaker 1>he's like, we need, we need to have standards, and

0:53:31.760 --> 0:53:34.399
<v Speaker 1>you know, as he said, you know, yeah we might

0:53:34.400 --> 0:53:37.919
<v Speaker 1>have we might have a longer wait before a cure

0:53:37.920 --> 0:53:40.040
<v Speaker 1>for cancer. But he's like, but what about the behavior

0:53:40.040 --> 0:53:41.520
<v Speaker 1>he did all along? Maybe some would have come up

0:53:41.520 --> 0:53:44.279
<v Speaker 1>with a cure for cancer even earlier and he discouraged them,

0:53:44.960 --> 0:53:47.560
<v Speaker 1>and maybe we'd have had a cancer fifteen years ago

0:53:47.680 --> 0:53:50.880
<v Speaker 1>his behavior. So so you can't use as an excuse.

0:53:51.160 --> 0:53:53.279
<v Speaker 1>Bad behavior has to be punished, because you don't know

0:53:53.360 --> 0:53:57.239
<v Speaker 1>what sort of that's the I love a classic counterfaction

0:53:57.280 --> 0:54:02.000
<v Speaker 1>on that. That's a perfect one. Um, last one before

0:54:02.040 --> 0:54:05.239
<v Speaker 1>we get to our favorite questions. Actually there are two here.

0:54:05.239 --> 0:54:09.680
<v Speaker 1>They're fascinating. Um, let's start with this one. Are millennials

0:54:09.719 --> 0:54:13.560
<v Speaker 1>the wealthiest generation? They could be I think, you know,

0:54:13.719 --> 0:54:17.319
<v Speaker 1>I'm tired eventually maybe, but today they certainly don't feel

0:54:17.360 --> 0:54:19.680
<v Speaker 1>that way. Well, I'm a life cyclist, right, so when

0:54:19.719 --> 0:54:27.040
<v Speaker 1>I think about wealth lifecle, I think about all your assets.

0:54:27.360 --> 0:54:31.080
<v Speaker 1>So I think of human capital, which in life cycle

0:54:31.120 --> 0:54:34.400
<v Speaker 1>economics is the value of your future earnings. So for me,

0:54:34.480 --> 0:54:38.840
<v Speaker 1>the idea that people don't millennials don't own houses and

0:54:38.880 --> 0:54:41.560
<v Speaker 1>instead they have student debt doesn't seem to me like

0:54:41.600 --> 0:54:45.719
<v Speaker 1>they've made a huge investment in their future earnings and education.

0:54:45.840 --> 0:54:49.640
<v Speaker 1>It's not perfect. Is correlated with much higher lifetime earnings, true,

0:54:49.719 --> 0:54:53.040
<v Speaker 1>but the issue that they've appropriately raised you're an n

0:54:53.120 --> 0:54:56.440
<v Speaker 1>y U. It's the most expensive tuition in America sixty

0:54:56.640 --> 0:55:00.279
<v Speaker 1>three thousand dollars or something insane a year. UM. I

0:55:00.320 --> 0:55:02.560
<v Speaker 1>went to a state school. I want Stony Brook. My

0:55:02.600 --> 0:55:06.360
<v Speaker 1>tuition was four fifty semester. Even today it's like five

0:55:06.400 --> 0:55:10.600
<v Speaker 1>thousand a semester, which seems like a bargain. Um. Students

0:55:10.600 --> 0:55:15.719
<v Speaker 1>today are paying prices for education that are just so

0:55:15.880 --> 0:55:20.160
<v Speaker 1>vastly out of whack with what they were like forty fifty,

0:55:20.239 --> 0:55:23.480
<v Speaker 1>sixty years or even twenty five years ago, it was

0:55:23.600 --> 0:55:26.840
<v Speaker 1>much much cheaper relative to the total cost of living

0:55:27.239 --> 0:55:30.160
<v Speaker 1>to go to school. So are they going to get

0:55:30.280 --> 0:55:34.360
<v Speaker 1>the same return on their investment in education or have

0:55:34.480 --> 0:55:39.480
<v Speaker 1>things just completely run them up? Well, definitely they're getting Uh. Well,

0:55:39.480 --> 0:55:41.720
<v Speaker 1>it's hard to say. I mean, we can't predict the future.

0:55:41.760 --> 0:55:44.520
<v Speaker 1>I mean, so far it does seem I mean, I'm

0:55:44.520 --> 0:55:46.279
<v Speaker 1>not sure if there's much of value in going to

0:55:46.680 --> 0:55:51.719
<v Speaker 1>school over Stonybrook. Probably you're you're gonna do just as

0:55:51.760 --> 0:55:54.480
<v Speaker 1>well going to a good public school. Yes, I couldn't

0:55:54.480 --> 0:55:57.680
<v Speaker 1>get into stony Brook today with my grades. Back then

0:55:58.440 --> 0:56:00.600
<v Speaker 1>I was in a little bit of the value between

0:56:01.120 --> 0:56:03.120
<v Speaker 1>the boomers and the gen xers. And the same thing

0:56:03.120 --> 0:56:06.520
<v Speaker 1>with grad school. I couldn't get into grad school. Uh

0:56:06.520 --> 0:56:10.480
<v Speaker 1>with to my grad school. Uh, y you that I

0:56:10.520 --> 0:56:13.719
<v Speaker 1>got into way back when. So some of it's just

0:56:13.840 --> 0:56:16.320
<v Speaker 1>dumb luck when you're born. But the other aspect of

0:56:16.520 --> 0:56:21.040
<v Speaker 1>is what, um, what sort of return are are are

0:56:21.160 --> 0:56:25.720
<v Speaker 1>these current graduates? What should they expect going forward? Explain

0:56:25.760 --> 0:56:28.440
<v Speaker 1>why you say potentially they're the wealthiest generation. Well, I

0:56:28.480 --> 0:56:32.359
<v Speaker 1>think when people look at the outcome firm education, they

0:56:32.360 --> 0:56:35.680
<v Speaker 1>are too shortsighted because you don't often like I mean,

0:56:35.760 --> 0:56:38.640
<v Speaker 1>I didn't enter the labor market really officially until I

0:56:38.640 --> 0:56:41.920
<v Speaker 1>finished grad school was almost thirty. And my earnings well,

0:56:41.920 --> 0:56:45.080
<v Speaker 1>actually my first job is unpaid. Um, you know, weren't

0:56:45.080 --> 0:56:46.719
<v Speaker 1>that great. But when you're looking, when you think of

0:56:46.760 --> 0:56:50.440
<v Speaker 1>the payoff from human capital, it's your lifetime earnings. And

0:56:50.520 --> 0:56:52.879
<v Speaker 1>often out of school, you're gonna earn less than someone

0:56:52.880 --> 0:56:55.560
<v Speaker 1>who you know didn't go to college. But the trajectory

0:56:55.560 --> 0:56:57.920
<v Speaker 1>of your earnings as follows a much steeper path. So

0:56:57.960 --> 0:56:59.840
<v Speaker 1>they've they've been working for a few years, they have

0:57:00.000 --> 0:57:02.680
<v Speaker 1>of a series of raises. You're starting up below them,

0:57:03.080 --> 0:57:06.080
<v Speaker 1>but you're gonna as a college or grad student, you're

0:57:06.120 --> 0:57:08.959
<v Speaker 1>gonna accelerate way past them. And you also face less risk.

0:57:09.000 --> 0:57:11.040
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the unemployment rates for college grads is much

0:57:11.120 --> 0:57:13.640
<v Speaker 1>much lower. I'm sensing a theme with you. I don't

0:57:13.680 --> 0:57:15.440
<v Speaker 1>know what it is, so I only have you for

0:57:15.480 --> 0:57:19.320
<v Speaker 1>another ten minutes. Let's jump to my favorite questions. These

0:57:19.320 --> 0:57:23.480
<v Speaker 1>are what we ask all of our guests. Um, tell

0:57:23.600 --> 0:57:26.840
<v Speaker 1>us the first car you ever owned? Year making model? Well,

0:57:26.880 --> 0:57:29.400
<v Speaker 1>I've never actually technically owned a car, but in high

0:57:29.400 --> 0:57:33.280
<v Speaker 1>school I did drive Inde Okay, I love that car.

0:57:33.440 --> 0:57:35.920
<v Speaker 1>Oh it lasts when two thousand miles, which in the

0:57:35.960 --> 0:57:38.000
<v Speaker 1>nineties was a really big deal. That was a little

0:57:38.040 --> 0:57:41.080
<v Speaker 1>two seater. They were you couldn't you couldn't destroy them.

0:57:41.640 --> 0:57:43.360
<v Speaker 1>It wasn't the fastest car in the world. You could

0:57:43.360 --> 0:57:45.280
<v Speaker 1>get them with a stick shift, which was nice back

0:57:45.320 --> 0:57:47.800
<v Speaker 1>then that it was a stick st Oh there you go,

0:57:48.000 --> 0:57:50.400
<v Speaker 1>so you drive by the way Today. I call stick

0:57:50.440 --> 0:57:55.560
<v Speaker 1>shifts millennial anti theft divience because that's what they effectively are.

0:57:55.840 --> 0:57:59.240
<v Speaker 1>So what's the most important thing we don't know about

0:57:59.280 --> 0:58:03.280
<v Speaker 1>Alison shre ag Um, well, you wouldn't know from the

0:58:03.320 --> 0:58:06.400
<v Speaker 1>book title. But I'm just really a risk nerd. I mean,

0:58:06.440 --> 0:58:08.600
<v Speaker 1>I guess I don't know if that's not surprising. Um No,

0:58:08.760 --> 0:58:11.720
<v Speaker 1>that's not a shocker. You read the book and it's

0:58:11.720 --> 0:58:16.840
<v Speaker 1>like this is it should say Alison Schraeger comma PhD

0:58:17.160 --> 0:58:20.480
<v Speaker 1>risk nerd. So that that's not a big surprise that

0:58:20.600 --> 0:58:23.000
<v Speaker 1>you think of yourself as a risk nerd. Maybe that's

0:58:23.000 --> 0:58:25.720
<v Speaker 1>a well, I guess. I also I wasn't always Like

0:58:25.840 --> 0:58:29.240
<v Speaker 1>in college, I had a job in Alaska selling incense.

0:58:30.320 --> 0:58:34.240
<v Speaker 1>Incense in Alaska? Why would they need incense in Alaska?

0:58:34.320 --> 0:58:36.840
<v Speaker 1>Is there that much you would think of if anything

0:58:36.880 --> 0:58:40.360
<v Speaker 1>smells like the Great Outdoor was a fishing village. Oh

0:58:40.520 --> 0:58:44.520
<v Speaker 1>say no more. Yeah, that's very that's very funny. So

0:58:44.800 --> 0:58:46.320
<v Speaker 1>I know the answer to this, but I have to

0:58:46.320 --> 0:58:50.080
<v Speaker 1>ask who are your early mentors. Obviously Bob Merton, So

0:58:50.160 --> 0:58:52.000
<v Speaker 1>tell us a little bit about what he taught you,

0:58:52.040 --> 0:58:57.600
<v Speaker 1>because he's clearly fascinating and storied person. Well, he just

0:58:57.720 --> 0:59:00.640
<v Speaker 1>taught me finance, which you know I went to I

0:59:00.680 --> 0:59:02.720
<v Speaker 1>did an eCOM PhD, so it wasn't like I wasn't

0:59:02.760 --> 0:59:05.600
<v Speaker 1>exposed to it, but my program it was very empirical,

0:59:06.080 --> 0:59:09.800
<v Speaker 1>So I just thought financial economists just crunch data is

0:59:09.800 --> 0:59:12.600
<v Speaker 1>looking for deviations of the efficient markets hypothesis, and I

0:59:12.640 --> 0:59:15.120
<v Speaker 1>thought it was not very interesting and sort of corrupt.

0:59:15.760 --> 0:59:18.080
<v Speaker 1>But then when I met Bob and learned what financial

0:59:18.120 --> 0:59:20.760
<v Speaker 1>theory was, it really turned me onto theory too. In

0:59:20.760 --> 0:59:23.560
<v Speaker 1>a way. I was always much more empirically oriented of

0:59:23.960 --> 0:59:25.880
<v Speaker 1>how to think about the world and how to see

0:59:25.920 --> 0:59:29.120
<v Speaker 1>the world in terms of a risk lens, and how

0:59:29.160 --> 0:59:32.640
<v Speaker 1>to see risk problems everywhere and how they're driving all markets,

0:59:32.680 --> 0:59:35.280
<v Speaker 1>not just financial markets. So he was really like your

0:59:35.320 --> 0:59:37.919
<v Speaker 1>post doc work. He was. It was a very sort

0:59:37.920 --> 0:59:40.560
<v Speaker 1>of long, intense postdoc I had good training as an

0:59:40.600 --> 0:59:43.480
<v Speaker 1>as a graduate student too, but it sort of readied

0:59:43.560 --> 0:59:46.400
<v Speaker 1>me to really fully embrace all of his lessons. So

0:59:46.600 --> 0:59:50.680
<v Speaker 1>let's talk about investors and others who influenced the way

0:59:50.720 --> 0:59:52.920
<v Speaker 1>you look at the world of risk. Who who do

0:59:52.920 --> 0:59:57.200
<v Speaker 1>you consider to be UM important thinkers that affected the

0:59:57.200 --> 1:00:01.760
<v Speaker 1>way you perceived the world um, investors, investors, or or anyone.

1:00:01.800 --> 1:00:04.800
<v Speaker 1>Really you mentioned Peter Bernstein, who who affected the way

1:00:05.240 --> 1:00:09.040
<v Speaker 1>you perceive UM the world of risk? Certainly? Peter Bernstein

1:00:09.120 --> 1:00:10.800
<v Speaker 1>also said I worked at d f A for a

1:00:10.880 --> 1:00:14.800
<v Speaker 1>number of years. So David Booth, Um, when did you

1:00:14.840 --> 1:00:19.960
<v Speaker 1>work at d f A two thousand ten? Oh? So

1:00:20.040 --> 1:00:23.560
<v Speaker 1>really that was in fairly They were already fairly developed

1:00:23.560 --> 1:00:25.760
<v Speaker 1>and running hundreds of billions of dollars by then, and

1:00:25.760 --> 1:00:27.840
<v Speaker 1>it was it was a great experience for me because

1:00:27.920 --> 1:00:29.800
<v Speaker 1>I was working on a project that they were all

1:00:29.880 --> 1:00:32.800
<v Speaker 1>very interested in. So every two weeks I would have

1:00:32.920 --> 1:00:36.680
<v Speaker 1>these meetings with Gene Fama, Ken French Merton, David booth

1:00:36.680 --> 1:00:39.720
<v Speaker 1>and EDWARDA. Rippetto who is the U and we would

1:00:39.800 --> 1:00:42.680
<v Speaker 1>just because we were having to calibrate this very complicated

1:00:42.680 --> 1:00:45.160
<v Speaker 1>interest rate model I was working on, and we would

1:00:45.200 --> 1:00:47.960
<v Speaker 1>just debate the path of interest rates, and I learned

1:00:48.080 --> 1:00:49.720
<v Speaker 1>That's where I learned a lot of my finance was

1:00:49.840 --> 1:00:52.720
<v Speaker 1>just seeing obviously Geene and Bob go at it and

1:00:52.920 --> 1:00:55.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, with the influences of David Booth, who's just

1:00:55.640 --> 1:00:59.760
<v Speaker 1>a real market guy. And this was pre uh will

1:00:59.800 --> 1:01:03.000
<v Speaker 1>you when when Fama won the Nobel was just before

1:01:06.040 --> 1:01:10.840
<v Speaker 1>so right before quite quite. That's some collection of mentors

1:01:10.840 --> 1:01:14.720
<v Speaker 1>and inflot It's interesting because they're smart in such different ways. Huh.

1:01:15.400 --> 1:01:20.240
<v Speaker 1>So we mentioned Um Against the Gods. What are some

1:01:20.320 --> 1:01:23.520
<v Speaker 1>of your other favorite books? Well, that obviously anything in

1:01:23.520 --> 1:01:27.439
<v Speaker 1>Peter Bernstein writes, but I also just I love memoirs. Really, yeah,

1:01:27.560 --> 1:01:30.600
<v Speaker 1>give us an example. I love just kids like Patti Smith.

1:01:30.720 --> 1:01:33.960
<v Speaker 1>I just read Educated, which I hate write loving popular books,

1:01:33.960 --> 1:01:36.800
<v Speaker 1>but I really loved that wrote Educated. Was it, Tara Westover?

1:01:38.040 --> 1:01:40.160
<v Speaker 1>Don't ask me. Yeah, it's just it's outside of mine.

1:01:40.200 --> 1:01:44.040
<v Speaker 1>It's just just so beautifully written. Oh no kidding. What

1:01:44.040 --> 1:01:47.280
<v Speaker 1>What other memoirs have you read that really resonated with you?

1:01:47.560 --> 1:01:50.360
<v Speaker 1>By the way, I read two books on vacation. Yours

1:01:50.440 --> 1:01:54.920
<v Speaker 1>was one of them, and then McCullough's Um The Right

1:01:54.960 --> 1:01:58.320
<v Speaker 1>Brothers was quite fascinating. If you're if you're interested in

1:01:58.400 --> 1:02:02.200
<v Speaker 1>flight and or um, that's really less of a memoir

1:02:02.360 --> 1:02:05.440
<v Speaker 1>more of a biography. All right, skip that, give us

1:02:05.440 --> 1:02:09.280
<v Speaker 1>one more book. So you mentioned you mentioned two, Um

1:02:09.440 --> 1:02:10.920
<v Speaker 1>hit hit us with the third. By the way, this

1:02:11.000 --> 1:02:13.800
<v Speaker 1>is the question. I get more email about this point.

1:02:13.840 --> 1:02:16.320
<v Speaker 1>What was that book? The person I mentioned on? I

1:02:16.360 --> 1:02:18.800
<v Speaker 1>get more email about this than anything. It's a stressful

1:02:18.880 --> 1:02:23.120
<v Speaker 1>question because I feel like it's so personal and revealing. Yes, um,

1:02:23.160 --> 1:02:25.640
<v Speaker 1>and what makes it so good? And especially because I

1:02:25.680 --> 1:02:28.760
<v Speaker 1>read a lot of crap because you know you finished crap.

1:02:29.560 --> 1:02:32.040
<v Speaker 1>You know. When I was doing book research, I had

1:02:32.080 --> 1:02:34.600
<v Speaker 1>this idea that Chris Jenner was this risk mastermind because

1:02:34.600 --> 1:02:37.560
<v Speaker 1>look at what she's built. And I so I read

1:02:37.600 --> 1:02:39.720
<v Speaker 1>her biography thinking maybe I'll include her, and it turns

1:02:39.760 --> 1:02:41.200
<v Speaker 1>out she didn't have a good risk strategy, so I

1:02:41.200 --> 1:02:44.160
<v Speaker 1>couldn't um right place, right time? Is that all about?

1:02:44.280 --> 1:02:47.120
<v Speaker 1>She takes advantage? I mean, and it's like this extreme

1:02:47.200 --> 1:02:50.520
<v Speaker 1>level of diversification where she literally any opportunity that comes

1:02:50.520 --> 1:02:52.920
<v Speaker 1>her away, she seizes on it and she does work hard.

1:02:53.240 --> 1:02:55.760
<v Speaker 1>There's nothing like strategic. It's sort of or if it's

1:02:55.760 --> 1:02:57.280
<v Speaker 1>sort of as well, like a Donald Trump thing. It's

1:02:57.320 --> 1:02:59.560
<v Speaker 1>like well, if this blows up, I have something else

1:02:59.600 --> 1:03:02.200
<v Speaker 1>to distry people with, because I've got ninety gazillion things going.

1:03:02.240 --> 1:03:03.920
<v Speaker 1>So it's like we have a debit card that pour

1:03:04.000 --> 1:03:06.280
<v Speaker 1>people off. Oh look, here's a sex tape, you know.

1:03:07.800 --> 1:03:10.120
<v Speaker 1>But I remember I was reading her book on the

1:03:10.160 --> 1:03:13.080
<v Speaker 1>subway and I had this realization, like I've never read

1:03:13.080 --> 1:03:17.439
<v Speaker 1>Anna Karna, but I've read this. Um. I'm gonna say

1:03:17.640 --> 1:03:21.320
<v Speaker 1>you probably picked the wrong one of the two, just

1:03:21.320 --> 1:03:25.000
<v Speaker 1>just to hypothesize it. Um. Alright, so here's here's a

1:03:25.120 --> 1:03:29.280
<v Speaker 1>question that also is uh personal and probing. Tell us

1:03:29.480 --> 1:03:31.840
<v Speaker 1>about a time you failed and what you learned from

1:03:31.840 --> 1:03:36.080
<v Speaker 1>the experience. And by the way, you detailed some personal failures. Yeah,

1:03:36.280 --> 1:03:38.240
<v Speaker 1>I fell a lot. You don't. You don't show away

1:03:38.240 --> 1:03:40.520
<v Speaker 1>from that, No, I mean my first year of grad school,

1:03:40.560 --> 1:03:42.600
<v Speaker 1>I think I failed almost all my comps. I mean

1:03:42.720 --> 1:03:45.160
<v Speaker 1>largely because I was doing a quantitative PhD with no

1:03:45.240 --> 1:03:48.720
<v Speaker 1>math backgrounds UM. And it was the hardest failure I've

1:03:48.760 --> 1:03:51.360
<v Speaker 1>ever gone through because it was the biggest intellectual achievement

1:03:51.400 --> 1:03:54.240
<v Speaker 1>I'd ever done, which is I taught myself six years

1:03:54.240 --> 1:03:57.600
<v Speaker 1>worth of math myself in my free time. My first

1:03:57.640 --> 1:04:00.080
<v Speaker 1>year of grad school, I never intellectually had grown so

1:04:00.160 --> 1:04:03.400
<v Speaker 1>much from anything and never achieved so much. And I still,

1:04:03.560 --> 1:04:04.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, at the end of the day, you're still

1:04:04.800 --> 1:04:07.880
<v Speaker 1>taking a math exam and you're being judged against Korean

1:04:07.880 --> 1:04:11.160
<v Speaker 1>math champion. No matter how much math you learned quickly,

1:04:11.960 --> 1:04:13.760
<v Speaker 1>you're not going to stack up, so you're going to fail.

1:04:14.080 --> 1:04:19.480
<v Speaker 1>Meaning the rest of the student base was hardcore math people. Yeah,

1:04:19.480 --> 1:04:21.680
<v Speaker 1>and I was just reading math textbooks in my free time,

1:04:21.720 --> 1:04:24.640
<v Speaker 1>which wasn't all much. I wasn't sleeping. I was just reading,

1:04:25.040 --> 1:04:27.800
<v Speaker 1>working through entire math textbooks to try to do my homework.

1:04:28.200 --> 1:04:30.720
<v Speaker 1>That sounds horrible, and yeah, it was horrible. I was

1:04:30.760 --> 1:04:33.320
<v Speaker 1>such an unhappy person. I kind of started developing weird

1:04:33.360 --> 1:04:36.040
<v Speaker 1>social tics. And then I went through all of this,

1:04:36.600 --> 1:04:38.880
<v Speaker 1>never slept for a year, just working through math textbooks,

1:04:38.920 --> 1:04:41.560
<v Speaker 1>and I still just failed everything. And I mean that

1:04:41.640 --> 1:04:45.320
<v Speaker 1>was obviously just I was devastated. I'm gonna blame the

1:04:45.400 --> 1:04:47.680
<v Speaker 1>lack of sleep because that affects God want to function it,

1:04:47.960 --> 1:04:49.880
<v Speaker 1>you know. And it was like I had time to

1:04:50.240 --> 1:04:52.600
<v Speaker 1>get to retake them. And when I got to finally

1:04:52.680 --> 1:04:55.880
<v Speaker 1>rest and have all that knowledge should have marinate in me,

1:04:56.000 --> 1:04:58.400
<v Speaker 1>I realized how much I knew and I mean, I

1:04:58.440 --> 1:05:02.080
<v Speaker 1>think what I learned from that experience is, you know,

1:05:02.200 --> 1:05:04.439
<v Speaker 1>if you really want something, you know, I mean, there's

1:05:04.440 --> 1:05:07.120
<v Speaker 1>a point you have to cut cut loose, you just

1:05:07.640 --> 1:05:10.760
<v Speaker 1>you you can't take the first failure because you know,

1:05:10.960 --> 1:05:14.800
<v Speaker 1>no one remembers that you failed your first year exam.

1:05:14.880 --> 1:05:18.040
<v Speaker 1>All they remembers that you graduated. Huh. That's that's an

1:05:18.080 --> 1:05:21.600
<v Speaker 1>interesting observation. So now let me ask you the flip question.

1:05:22.040 --> 1:05:23.480
<v Speaker 1>What do you do for fun? When do you do

1:05:23.560 --> 1:05:28.520
<v Speaker 1>when you're not failing math exams? I play bridge? Really yeah,

1:05:28.560 --> 1:05:31.280
<v Speaker 1>my mother plays bridge, my wife plays bridge. This has

1:05:31.320 --> 1:05:34.200
<v Speaker 1>become like a giant thing. Now I'm part of this

1:05:34.520 --> 1:05:38.360
<v Speaker 1>great bridge group of all these intellectuals. There's a Field

1:05:38.200 --> 1:05:40.880
<v Speaker 1>medal winner, last of the last one, but mixed it.

1:05:40.880 --> 1:05:43.200
<v Speaker 1>But it's just a very humble, low key group. H

1:05:43.680 --> 1:05:47.680
<v Speaker 1>really quite quite interesting. Um what are you most excited

1:05:47.720 --> 1:05:52.840
<v Speaker 1>about in the future direction of the risk industry? I

1:05:52.840 --> 1:05:56.200
<v Speaker 1>hank technology. I mean everyone else is sort of scared

1:05:56.280 --> 1:05:58.280
<v Speaker 1>of it, but I think it's gonna sort of take

1:05:58.320 --> 1:06:03.960
<v Speaker 1>us to some interesting places. Interest interesting. I don't necessarily disagree. Um,

1:06:04.000 --> 1:06:06.560
<v Speaker 1>So if a millennial or recent college student came up

1:06:06.600 --> 1:06:10.560
<v Speaker 1>to you and asked you for career advice about going

1:06:10.680 --> 1:06:15.120
<v Speaker 1>into economics, risk or academia. What what sort of advice

1:06:15.160 --> 1:06:17.440
<v Speaker 1>would you give them? Find the smartest person you can

1:06:17.520 --> 1:06:20.520
<v Speaker 1>and attach yourself to them. It's funny you say that

1:06:20.520 --> 1:06:22.640
<v Speaker 1>that was my farthest advice to me when I went

1:06:22.680 --> 1:06:26.840
<v Speaker 1>to gratz. Did it work? Um? More or less? Actually

1:06:26.960 --> 1:06:30.600
<v Speaker 1>it began as joining track in high school. Find the

1:06:30.600 --> 1:06:33.120
<v Speaker 1>fastest guy, keep up with him. And then when I

1:06:33.160 --> 1:06:35.560
<v Speaker 1>went to grad school, he said, Hey, remember the advice

1:06:35.560 --> 1:06:38.200
<v Speaker 1>I gave you about track. I'm going to give you

1:06:38.240 --> 1:06:41.480
<v Speaker 1>the same exact advice, find the smartest And I'm like, Dad,

1:06:41.520 --> 1:06:43.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm way ahead of you. I already I already had

1:06:43.600 --> 1:06:47.080
<v Speaker 1>thought about that. So how does that manifest itself for

1:06:47.800 --> 1:06:50.880
<v Speaker 1>millennial or college graduate? How would they actually go about

1:06:50.920 --> 1:06:52.960
<v Speaker 1>doing that? When you're in a job, I said, find

1:06:52.960 --> 1:06:54.680
<v Speaker 1>the smartest person in the room and it should never

1:06:54.720 --> 1:06:59.040
<v Speaker 1>be you, um or there's something wrong um, and try

1:06:59.080 --> 1:07:02.040
<v Speaker 1>to get them to mentor you and be open to it.

1:07:02.040 --> 1:07:04.760
<v Speaker 1>And you know, anyway, contrary all these perceptions of millennials

1:07:04.840 --> 1:07:06.880
<v Speaker 1>being no it alls, I find that the millennials I

1:07:06.920 --> 1:07:10.120
<v Speaker 1>work with are always looking to learn. Um. Maybe I've

1:07:10.120 --> 1:07:11.720
<v Speaker 1>just been lucky. I don't know if no it alls

1:07:11.840 --> 1:07:16.800
<v Speaker 1>is the right, uh right description. They're definitely hard working,

1:07:16.880 --> 1:07:20.240
<v Speaker 1>and they have areas that they have great strengths in,

1:07:20.360 --> 1:07:23.840
<v Speaker 1>and I think the the biggest knock is their weaknesses.

1:07:23.840 --> 1:07:28.440
<v Speaker 1>They're not interested in working on UM. But I think

1:07:28.480 --> 1:07:31.680
<v Speaker 1>they've gotten a bad having worked with them for five

1:07:31.800 --> 1:07:34.960
<v Speaker 1>years in a firm, H do you think they've gotten

1:07:34.960 --> 1:07:36.760
<v Speaker 1>a bad rap. Yeah. I think they're the same as

1:07:36.760 --> 1:07:39.600
<v Speaker 1>every other generation. You got some noisy outliers, and I

1:07:39.640 --> 1:07:42.320
<v Speaker 1>think with social media the noisy outliers voices are amplified.

1:07:42.520 --> 1:07:44.880
<v Speaker 1>That's a great observation. I think on average, they're just

1:07:44.960 --> 1:07:48.320
<v Speaker 1>like everyone else. That that makes perfect sense. UM. Although

1:07:48.320 --> 1:07:52.080
<v Speaker 1>there they grew up in such a unique like think

1:07:52.120 --> 1:07:54.360
<v Speaker 1>about what you grew up in and then what people

1:07:54.400 --> 1:07:56.840
<v Speaker 1>born in ten or twenty years after you growing up

1:07:56.880 --> 1:07:59.680
<v Speaker 1>in technology is this thing that's kind of cool on

1:07:59.760 --> 1:08:02.440
<v Speaker 1>this id. They're immersed in it from birth. It's a

1:08:02.440 --> 1:08:06.520
<v Speaker 1>whole different headspace. So yeah, I mean it's it's very different.

1:08:06.520 --> 1:08:08.560
<v Speaker 1>I think their brains probably formed differently to some degree.

1:08:08.600 --> 1:08:11.360
<v Speaker 1>But again and again, I think ultimately even college students,

1:08:11.400 --> 1:08:14.560
<v Speaker 1>the ones I've interacted with from teaching are also really

1:08:14.560 --> 1:08:18.439
<v Speaker 1>open to debate in new ideas and even uncomfortable ideas. Again,

1:08:18.479 --> 1:08:23.440
<v Speaker 1>it's just the noisy outliers. That's that's quite fascinating. Um

1:08:23.479 --> 1:08:26.000
<v Speaker 1>and our final question, what do you know about the

1:08:26.040 --> 1:08:30.040
<v Speaker 1>world of risk and economics today that you wish you

1:08:30.120 --> 1:08:35.240
<v Speaker 1>knew fifteen twenty years ago when you were just graduating. Well,

1:08:35.280 --> 1:08:38.880
<v Speaker 1>that's when I was starting grad school, and you know,

1:08:39.200 --> 1:08:44.120
<v Speaker 1>I chose macro, and macro traditionally has not incorporated risk

1:08:44.160 --> 1:08:47.120
<v Speaker 1>at all. I didn't realize how fundamental that it was

1:08:47.200 --> 1:08:49.759
<v Speaker 1>to the economy. I thought, you know, I was studying

1:08:49.800 --> 1:08:52.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of either the neo classical Kensie or new Kynsian models,

1:08:52.880 --> 1:08:55.160
<v Speaker 1>where you know, if you do government spending, this is

1:08:55.200 --> 1:08:57.639
<v Speaker 1>what happens. Where if I was doing finance, I would

1:08:57.640 --> 1:08:59.680
<v Speaker 1>think of how does that impact markets? What are the

1:08:59.760 --> 1:09:02.679
<v Speaker 1>range of things that happened. So I wish I knew

1:09:02.680 --> 1:09:05.839
<v Speaker 1>about risk because I didn't really, So, Matt, I'm shocked

1:09:05.840 --> 1:09:09.160
<v Speaker 1>to even hear that I don't have an economics background.

1:09:09.240 --> 1:09:14.400
<v Speaker 1>It's just I play an economist on TV. How how

1:09:14.479 --> 1:09:19.519
<v Speaker 1>is it possible that macro economics does not incorporate any

1:09:19.560 --> 1:09:23.439
<v Speaker 1>analysis or study of risk? That seems shocking. It is

1:09:23.600 --> 1:09:25.960
<v Speaker 1>is actually, you know, people don't talk about this because

1:09:25.960 --> 1:09:28.400
<v Speaker 1>other things get attention. But I just went to a

1:09:28.400 --> 1:09:30.439
<v Speaker 1>conference two or three weeks ago that Lars Hanson and

1:09:30.400 --> 1:09:34.320
<v Speaker 1>Antilope put on about how can we incorporate finance into

1:09:34.360 --> 1:09:37.160
<v Speaker 1>macro how can we put risk into macro models? And

1:09:37.200 --> 1:09:39.800
<v Speaker 1>I think this was amongst academics, the big takeaway from

1:09:39.840 --> 1:09:43.120
<v Speaker 1>the financial crisis. Then law macro models have no meaningful

1:09:43.200 --> 1:09:45.080
<v Speaker 1>rule for financial sector, so how are you gonna even

1:09:45.160 --> 1:09:50.240
<v Speaker 1>capture systemic risk? So this is really where like hardcore economists,

1:09:50.240 --> 1:09:52.920
<v Speaker 1>but they've been working on post crisis, and it's it's

1:09:52.920 --> 1:09:55.400
<v Speaker 1>a hard problem because any economic model has to make

1:09:55.439 --> 1:09:58.520
<v Speaker 1>choices and once you bring risk in, they get more complicated.

1:09:58.840 --> 1:10:00.880
<v Speaker 1>This is a controversial thing to say. I mean, I'm

1:10:00.880 --> 1:10:03.519
<v Speaker 1>not gonna sound sexy to most people, but to small

1:10:03.560 --> 1:10:06.280
<v Speaker 1>group economist is I now feel strongly I don't think

1:10:06.280 --> 1:10:09.920
<v Speaker 1>anyone agrees with me that finance basic finance should be

1:10:10.120 --> 1:10:13.600
<v Speaker 1>part of basic economics training because it is such a

1:10:13.640 --> 1:10:16.519
<v Speaker 1>fundamental part of understanding how the economy works. Meaning basic

1:10:16.600 --> 1:10:19.680
<v Speaker 1>finance plus an understanding of risk. Well yeah, well you

1:10:19.800 --> 1:10:22.519
<v Speaker 1>you get a basic understanding of risk if you learn

1:10:22.560 --> 1:10:24.840
<v Speaker 1>finance because finance is all the principles of risk, because

1:10:25.160 --> 1:10:28.400
<v Speaker 1>finance and economics is just howcom study risk. It just

1:10:28.439 --> 1:10:30.640
<v Speaker 1>happens to be in financial markets because that's where the

1:10:30.720 --> 1:10:33.519
<v Speaker 1>data is. So I think it should be, you know,

1:10:33.960 --> 1:10:39.360
<v Speaker 1>undergraduate macro micro finance. Quite fascinating. We have been speaking

1:10:39.439 --> 1:10:43.960
<v Speaker 1>to Alison Schraeger. She is the author of An Economist

1:10:44.240 --> 1:10:48.080
<v Speaker 1>Walks Into a Brothel, as well as co founder of

1:10:48.120 --> 1:10:53.840
<v Speaker 1>the life Cycle Financial Partners UH and an adject professor

1:10:53.880 --> 1:10:58.000
<v Speaker 1>at n y U and journalists at Courts. If you

1:10:58.120 --> 1:11:00.599
<v Speaker 1>enjoy this conversation, we'll be sure look up an Inch

1:11:00.680 --> 1:11:04.240
<v Speaker 1>or down an inch on Apple iTunes, UH, Stitcher, Overcast,

1:11:04.240 --> 1:11:08.200
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com, wherever you find your favorite podcast. We

1:11:08.320 --> 1:11:12.960
<v Speaker 1>love your comments, feedback and suggestions right to us at

1:11:13.640 --> 1:11:16.600
<v Speaker 1>m IB podcast at Bloomberg dot net. Be sure and

1:11:16.680 --> 1:11:19.280
<v Speaker 1>go to Apple iTunes and give us a delightful review

1:11:19.920 --> 1:11:22.880
<v Speaker 1>for sharing all this time and information with you. I

1:11:22.960 --> 1:11:25.679
<v Speaker 1>would be remiss if I did not thank the crack

1:11:25.800 --> 1:11:31.240
<v Speaker 1>staff that helps put together UH these weekly conversations UH.

1:11:31.280 --> 1:11:35.680
<v Speaker 1>Attica Valburon is our project manager. Michael Batnick is my

1:11:35.800 --> 1:11:39.800
<v Speaker 1>head of research. I'm Barry Riholts. You've been listening to

1:11:39.960 --> 1:11:42.519
<v Speaker 1>pastors of business on Bloomberg Radio.