Hank Paulson, 74th U.S. Secretary of the Treasury: "It’s the People Skills that Matter"

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
[MUSIC]. [APPLAUSE] >> Thank you. Please if you can go for the far seat. >> [APPLAUSE] >> It's an absolute honor to have you here, and if you don't mind we want to take you back in time a little bit and ask about your time or your thinking straight out of business school. So we were very lucky to get enrolled into this program and we got two years to add value to ourselves. But most importantly we are encouraged to take time off to reflect on our career choices and what it is that we want to do after school. Naturally we are very, very confused at this point. Take that advice to heart. So how intentional were you about your career coming out of business school? >> I would tell you, I was sort of an accidental investment banker and an accidental CEO. And a matter of fact, when I was recruiting at Goldman Sachs, I was always very suspicious of students who said they came out of their mother's womb knowing they wanted to be an investment banker. So to step back, you won't hear many stories like mine, because I was an English major at Dartmouth. I went there thinking I wanted to be a forest ranger or work somehow in conservation. I was going to go to Oxford. I had a rental scholarship. I was going to study English. But I had a very low draft number. And I could get into the ROTC at Harvard. And so I went to Harvard Business School. I just turned 22, I hardly knew what business was. In those days, if you were a good student in an Ivy League School, you didn't admit you wanted to go into business. So when I told some of my friends I was going to business school they almost throw up. So I went with no business experience, and I got to Harvard and I'd been a very serious student. And I worked hard in college, but everybody seemed so much older. You know, they were 27 or 28. Some of them were married, and I was dating my wife, Wendy, who was at Wellesley. So I was out at Wellesley really more than I was at business school. And so I didn't even know what an investment banker was, and I certainly wouldn't have said I wanted to be an investment banker. I did a lot of work in one of the professor's classes, and he had worked in the Pentagon. And so there is this small group, this analysis group that McNamara had started when he was there. And I got asked one day whether I want to interview for this group. And since I was going to go in the Navy anyway, then this meant I wasn't going to have to go on my Navy cruise and I could be with my wife to be and so on. It seemed like a pretty good deal. And it turns out that this group, there were six people, four of us went on to become CEOs. One was Steve Hadley who became the national security advisor to George Bush. Another was John Sprat who was a couple years older who became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. So it was an interesting group to work with.. So that's how my career took shape. >> So you actually came out of business school, you took the two public office positions, Department of Defense and then followed by the President Nixon's administration. >From the outside it looked like you had it all figured out and you were well on the way to getting a Senate seat [LAUGH]. >> No, I did not have it all figured out, and I never worked in business. So I wore a suit on special occasions to go to church. I never worked in business. And so I got there to this analysis group, and I learned a lot when I was there. It's amazing how much I learned because I have this view that it's not just coming up with a right idea. Everybody can learn the computational skills, analytical skills and so on. But it's the people skills that matter. >> So why the shift into Goldman Sachs? >> Well, I would say this. You're moving faster than I. >> [LAUGH] >> Because literally, what I learned when I was there was I didn't know what the word mentor was. But I found that when I would work for five or six different people and on different assignments, so I did the same work. And some really appreciated my skills and others didn't. Some gave me the help I needed, others didn't. And one of the things I worked on, I worked on my first bail-out there, believe it or not. It was the Lockheed failure and the Lockheed loan guarantee. So I had a chance to do that, and I got to see how the political process worked. And as a result of that John Connolly had introduced me to some people in the White House who wanted me to go there. And then I learned that almost as important as what I was doing was who I was doing it with. It really made a big difference. So I interviewed all of the six different directors of the Domestic Council, and I picked the guy that maybe the least interesting work was going to be under him. But I thought I would learn a lot from him. And then it turned out I got to work on something I was very interested in, minimum wage, tax policy, I was the liaison for Treasury. And so one of the things I learned was that it was fun for me to work on financial problems. And that's why I decided on investment banking. And even investment banking was accidental because I knew I didn't want to work in New York. So I talked to regional investment banks, and it was only when I had a job offer from a company called William Blair where the CEO said, yeah we'd like to have you come here but you're very aggressive, ambitious. We don't think you'll be happy with a regional firm. Why don't you talk to Goldman Sachs and Saloman Brothers? And with Goldman Sachs, they rank like number ten in the league tables in those days. And I ended up talking with a few other firms, Morgan Stanley, White Weld, so on, but I really liked the people at Goldman Sachs. I met people like Bob Rubin and Steve Freedman and a whole bunch of names you wouldn't know, but they were. >> [LAUGH] >> People weren't there, but they made a big. So I just basically said, I feel comfortable with the culture. And I learned that almost as important as what you do, is who you do it with. But if you had asked me out of college, was I going to be an investment banker, I couldn't have told you what an investment banker was. And in business school when I was there The hot thing in those days, when I graduated from Harvard Business School, let me say, the first two years I was at Goldman Sachs, they lost money in '73 and '74. That people weren't going to investment banks out of business school, they all wanted to go to Mackenzie or BCG. And the hottest thing was Hilton Head. You know, Sea Pines, real estate development. You pictured people lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. >> [LAUGH] >> And so, wherever the students wanted to go that was all, just about before it would blow up, that's where they wanted to go. >> [LAUGH] >> So, 32 years later, you made the exact opposite transition going into public office as the Secretary of Treasury. So can you walk us through how you made that decision and how were you a different person then than the person who went into finance 32 years ago? >> Yeah, but again, brevity may not be one of my virtues but will say this. That when you went to Goldman Sachs, and you went into investment banking, you didn't go because you wanted to run something, you wanted to work with clients, okay? If you wanted to run something, you went to work for a real company. So I had no interest in running something, I wanted to work with clients. And so again I'm just saying this in terms of career advice because I am suspicious of career engineers. People that plan it out every step of the way. And I'd had people come up to me at all the time at Goldman Sachs and say Hank, should I do arbitrage or should I do private equity or should I be doing corporate finance? And I'd say, what is it you like, what is it you're going to do well? And so I only wanted to work with clients. And so I was in Chicago working with clients and was really focused on a wide range of clients. I turned down a variety of promotions, I stayed in Chicago. When finally they put me on the management committee, I ended up starting a private equity division from Chicago. Co-heading investment banking from Chicago and getting Asia in my portfolio because my partner in New York said he wanted Europe and he said, Asia's closer to Chicago. >> [LAUGH] >> So that's how, and I did. So my career took a whole lot of, only as time went on that I learned that I enjoyed managing. And then only when we had Bob Rubin went to run, went to work for Bill Clinton in the White House and then Treasury. And his co-head had a physical problem and had to leave at the same time Goldman Sachs had trading losses. And I was in Chicago and the management committee had to pick the next management team. I told my wife it's going to happen over the weekend, don't worry, I'll come back. And Goldman Sachs had losses and I had to have her send a couple suits. I had to go buy stuff, I stayed there. And I told her, I would just do this for two years and it was a rolling two years. I was there for 12 years. So I would just, I tell that story to say that if I think I had said I want to run Goldman Sachs, I would have come in and I don't think I would ever want to run Goldman Sachs. I just focused on doing what I was doing in front of me. Enjoying it, learning and growing. Now in terms of, boy, being Secretary of the Treasury, it was interesting. I sit in this group because I think back to 2006 because I had agreed to be a speaker at Harvard Business School and I had agreed to do that long before I thought I'd be Treasury Secretary. And so I was standing up talking to students knowing that I was going to be Treasury Secretary. And I remember thinking, I use to go and recruit all the time, and I would say to people, you know, the world is changing quickly. The pace of change is increasing, embrace change, change is your friend, etc, etc. And I was thinking, my stomach was churning as I was thinking about that change, and thinking my God, I'm going to have to eat my own cooking. Because we all say we like change, but we hate change, really. >> [LAUGH] >> It's a difficult thing. And so as I was running Goldman Sachs, I enjoyed it. I thought I was doing it well and so when I got the first approach from the White House, I immediately turned it down. I had a wife and a mother and two kids who were very, did not favor George Bush. >> [LAUGH] >> And so I turned it down and then they came back a second time. This was when I did a lot of work with China, and so Hu Jintao, who was the President of China, was going to be at the White House sometime in the spring of 2006. And I was asked, they didn't want to give the Chinese a state dinner so they gave them a state lunch if you can believe that. So I was asked for the state lunch and I was asked to have dinner or meet with George Bush in the residence beforehand. When I do that and I'd agreed to do it and then as the time got closer I said I can't do that, I can't turn down the president. I'm not going to leave Goldman Sachs and join the administration. So I blew it off at the last minute. >> [LAUGH] >> And so, I went into the White House for the lunch and everybody was sort of a little bit cool to me. And as I was walking out with Wendy it was a beautiful spring day and I was looking at the Treasury Building and I thought back to the days when I was in the White House as a kid and I'd go over and meet with George Schultz when he was at Treasury. And sort of a cloud came over my face and Wendy said to me, well I hope you didn't turn it down for me, sweetie, because if it was really important to you I would have agreed to do it. And I said no, no, no. And then when they came back the third time I just realized that it was fear of failure. I realized that I knew I could do a good job as Treasury Secretary. I couldn't think of many people that had gone from business to government and come back, left with a higher reputation than they'd come with. And so as soon as I realized that, I said, we'll, I'm not going to give into that and I accepted. And, my family was in shock for awhile. My mother said to me, by gosh, you started off working for Nixon and you're going to now finish working for Bush. You should be ashamed of yourself. >> [LAUGH] >> So, I cried. [LAUGH] Etc, etc. And they all decided as I did that they had great respect and liked when they saw how he worked with me. And I had great respect for him, and it was a real pleasure. But so I tell you that in more detail, do you see how some of these decisions. It's not like I said now I'm going to go to Goldman Sachs and now be Treasury Secretary. Things just worked out. >> But my mother was not a big fan of George Bush's vote and this actually makes me feel much better, and I'm sure it does all of you, about not having that strong of a plan coming up. So hopefully this will work out well. The next question I want to ask is You stated several times that the work-life balance is very important to you. And we are trying one of the main skills or core skills we're trying to gain is the ability to influence large institution. Now the cutthroat environment, 100 hour plus work weeks at Goldman Sachs, are to some extent in contradiction with the work-life balance that you've stated several times that you value. So when you were rising through the ranks and eventually running the organization, how did you think about managing or influencing that culture? >> I'll tell you another story because then, I think it was 1999 after we went public. I had a nephew who was graduating from Kellogg Business School. So, I was the speaker there and my speech was on work-life balance. And so, I told the story, which was absolutely true, that I was in the Chicago office of Goldman Sachs and I had a three year old and a one year old and I was working hard, coming home late and my wife Wendy said to me, Hank, this is unacceptable. And you either are going to come home and take an active part in raising the kids or you're going to come home some night and the kids are still going to be here and I'm going to be gone. >> [LAUGH] >> And so, I went to my boss and I said I really need to do something differently. I really do and I was off to a very good start. And so he said, look it, you do what you need to do. So my office was on the 60th floor of the Sears Tower, and if you can believe this, I would run at 4:30 from there to get the 4:42 train from the Chicago Northwestern to Barrington, Illinois. It got in at 5:25. I was home at quarter of six. I would give the kids dinner. I'd give them a bath and I'd read the goodnight story. And I'd be reading In the Great Green Room with the Red Balloon, Goodnight, Moon. I'd be going through this. >> [LAUGH] >> And so, I do not read with expression and so once Wendy came in, if you've heard me read a speech, you know it's not a very pleasant thing to listen to. >> [LAUGH] >> And so Wendy came in and she says, slow down, read with expression. When I did that the kids both started crying and said, no, read like a daddy not like a mommy. >> [LAUGH] >> So, I told that story to the Kellogg Graduating Class. And just like this, It was the same way, everybody laughed and particularly the women, they loved it. And the mothers loved it, and they all liked me. And I walked out and there was a competitive partner at Salomon Brothers at the time, named J Ira Harris. And he said, you hypocrite. You're standing up there, giving that speech and then you just work the living daylights out of the kids at Goldman Sachs. How can you do this? Where does this come from? And I said well, I would just tell you what I say to everybody that came to me for advice at Goldman Sachs. I said, you can't ask the firm to tell you how many hours a week you're going to work. If you're working 50 how about 55, 60 how about 65? You have to learn to say no. You have to plan your own life. And that the people spend so much time on their career and so little relative time on their family. And you just get out of it, what you invest in it. And you can't be a grunt. Think people need to be very careful. You need to do things you enjoy and that you're going to do well. And if the only way you can do well is working more hours than someone else, you're going to lose out, because there's always going to be someone else who's going to work more. And so you need to find something and you need to work to have a life away from the job. And I can tell you this, I know everybody has said this to you, but I can assure you this is this case, probably the one thing I've done more than anyone else who has ever run a Wall Street firm is work with clients. Because I worked from all the way up in investment banking, and when I ran Goldman Sachs, I still advised CEOs. And I handled clients, because I thought that was important. I worked with heads of state, I advised them. I advised the president of China, Germany CEOs. I've worked with many, many of them that have been successful professionally. I've worked with many, many people that didn't get where they thought they were going to get and retired, and came to me for advice. And I know of many, many people that didn't quite get to where they wanted to get with their career, and they're happy. They're happy and they're well-balanced. I don't know anyone that says, boy, I had a great career and I'm happy because I screwed up my life outside of my career, my family life. There's no one that feels that way. And I take it to the point where I encourage people to do things also In the not-for-profit area. When I ran Goldman Sachs, I chaired the Nature Conservancy. I chaired the Peregrine Fund. I encouraged people to do these things. It makes you better at your career. It's not easy and don't expect your bosses to take care of it. I think you need to take care of it. You need to get yourself in a situation where you can balance it. It is really, really important, really important. And you know, it's tricky. >> We have some class members who got offers already, so I hope they can pull this off. Good luck. >> [LAUGH] Moving forward to the point when you became the Secretary of Treasury, you've stated before that you identified specific risks that the financial system was running, specific financial industries and you've actually pointed it out to President Bush well before the crises. One of the core skills we're trying to gain out of our experience here is how to think and strategize in a preventive manner to avoid crises. So what did you do between the years of 2006 and 2008 to implement that change? And for example, would it have been possible to implement something like the Dodd-Frank Act earlier or maybe in 2006, rather than only implement it after hell broke loose? >> In 2006, after I became Treasury Secretary of the President, my first meeting he took the economic team to Camp David. And I was asked to talk about entitlements, because that was one of the reasons that I was coming down was to work on entitlement reform. And I said no, I'd like to speak about financial crises, because I'd been through one in '94 and '98 and I saw excesses in the system. Now, I saw nothing like the one we had coming. And when the President said to me, what will cause it? I said, I don't know. Afterwards, it'll be clear, people with 20/20 hindsight will say it's obvious and there will always be someone that says I predicted it, but that person won't predict the next one. Okay, because they're unpredictable in terms of the timing and the cause. >> If you don't mind me interrupting, we're of the shelf. The derivatives and credit default swaps not apparently toxic at that point. >> Yeah, so what I did when I came down. He said, what might cause it? I talked about credit default swaps. I talked about a huge problem I saw, which we were working with Tim Geithner at the New York Fed to clean up. Where there just, I won't go into it, but there's a very big technical problem with credit default swaps. I thought the hedge funds, hedge fund's connectivity to banks, I didn't look at, say, mortgages, I knew there were some issues with subprime. But the idea that the whole housing marking would drop. We'd been looking at, I was born in 1946, and ever since World War II, if you bought a diversified portfolio of residential mortgages the only risk you had was you got your money back too soon. Because there was no nationwide decline of housing prices, it was a commercial mortgage market. And so we didn't see that, we didn't see the money market. But the advantage of having said that was, the huge advantage to me, was I had a year to build the relationships we needed to build before the crisis. We couldn't, the horse was already out of the barn, there were, the excesses were there. But I had a year where we had something called the President's working group on financial markets. So then I started working with Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner, and we didn't uncover the problems. We never thought about money markets, or the tri-party repo market, but we did a lot of work together, and we built strong relationships. And then most important of all, I had a chance to build a relationship with George Bush, because, if there's any point I want to make to you all, it's all about interpersonal relationships, it's all about working with others. Getting anything done that's important requires that. I had negotiated quite a deal when I came to the white house, because I got turned down several times when I came to Treasury. And so that I could make all the appointments, regardless of political party, at treasury, that I'd be their primary spokesman and adviser on domestic and economic issues, how things would be staffed. But I realized when I got there that no matter what I negotiated, if it didn't work between me and the President the whole thing wasn't going to work, and it would be my fault and not his. And I'd been trained as an investment banker. I wasn't running a big firm where people gave orders, I was, I had to get down on my knees and persuade certain partners to stay, most of them thought they were smarter than I was. I had learned to work with clients, so I could run a firm and advise a principal. So I knew how to do that, and so I had an opportunity to build a very close relationship with the President, a relationship of trust before the crisis hit, and with Congress. So that was a key, and that was one of the benefits of getting ready, but we certainly didn't. If I had been omniscient, and I'd known exactly what was happening, I couldn't have got the powers a day earlier. Because I started working in Fannie and Freddie in 2006. It just it took a crisis to get what we needed from Congress. >> TARP was labeled as as the bailout of the guilty rich, at the expense of taxpayer money. So that was a very tough decision for you to make, of course. But how did you think about public messaging? Did you try to gain support, or at least understanding of the necessity of the decision by the public, and how did that go? >> So it's a very interesting thing. When I left Treasury, there was a poll that showed, and I don't remember the numbers exactly right, but something like 90% of the people were against TARP, and 60% or 70% were against torture. And yet, a big part of the population was also scared to death we were going to have a financial crisis. So I was never successful, that was one of the big failings of letting people know what we did was for the American people. It wasn't for Wall Street, and I think most people to this day still don't know that all the money we put in that, when I left the programs accounted for 95% of their programs, the programs accounted for 90% of the TARP dollars that were in place and 75% of the dollars were already out the door. And the money we put into banks and insurance companies all came back, plus just about $50 billion. And it prevented a disaster, but you don't get credit for a disaster that people don't see. When we went in and asked for the TARP, and painted the picture of the economy was turning way down. It was going to get much worse a number of months out no matter what we did. Barney Frank said to me, Barney Frank was chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he said, Hank this is going to be very difficult because you can't prove a counterfactual. And that was at midnight, and I said what's a counterfactual? And he said, well you're not going to get credit for, you know people are going to be very angry because they're going to be hurting, and you're not going to get credit for saving a disaster they didn't see. But the biggest thing we did with TARP that was unpopular, was people wanted to punish the banks, and they wanted us to be tougher on the banks. And we did something with TARP that was never been done before, was extraordinarily innovative, and I don't think people to this day understand it. Which is when we switched, which is another story, when I went to congress and said we're not going to put capital in the banks. We are going to buy a liquid assets. And the reason I did that was, only time I'd ever seen capital go in the banks, had been when they were nationalized. So bank is ready to fail, you nationalize them, you're very tough on them, right? That's what you do with. That's we did with Fannie and Freddie. That's what the Europeans did, you know, the British, they only put capital in two banks. They nationalized, the Europeans, a handful. So I thought we needed to recapitalize the system. And I had a theory about buying liquid assets. But I told Barney Frank, we need the authority to put capital in, because I thought we might have to nationalize a few. So, when we got the, but the two weeks we were up in Congress, the world seemed to change. Wachovia went down, Wamu went down, the Europeans had to bail out their banks. So I went to George Bush, and I would say you're in a crisis, you're dealing with big, ugly problems, there are not going to be elegant, perfect solutions. So you gotta make decisions, and if you're wrong, you gotta be willing to change. So I went and I said, guess what, it's not going to work, buy your liquid assets. We have to put capital in banks. And he said, well, how are you going to explain that to the whole world? I said, I don't know, I'll just say, we made a mistake, we're going to put capital in the banks. And he said, good, do what you're going to do to save the The economy. So, but then what we did was we made attractive terms. Because we wanted to recapitalize the banking system, and we put capital in 700 banks. So I chose stability over doing what would be politically popular. >> And what about the misconceptions or the personal misconceptions when it came to exaggerated bonuses, golden parachutes? Why not put something in place that makes it very clear to the people that individuals within those institutions are not benefiting? >> You're right, that of all the things, well first of all, if we'd done that, if we had put all those conditions on, we could have easily put those conditions on. And we did more than that when you look at AIG or Fannie and Freddie. But if I'd done that, then every bank is the tallest midget. They don't need capital until they're ready to fail. And you just would have had a number of serial failures. So what we did, we put in a number of provisions, and we put in a provision on parachutes, okay, but not bonuses. If we said we're going to determine how you pay people, then many banks would say, well we're not going to fail. But we recapitalized the banking system. So it was very unpopular, but look at where we are relative to Europe. The governments are bailing out the banks which is bailing out the government and so on. Our banks were recapitalized. And that put everything in place that was needed for the stress test and for recapitalizing the banking system. But you're totally right. And of all the things that bothered me, and I thought was egregious, I just thought it was so beyond the pale, was those bonuses. Because after the fact, bankers didn't have to say we've done anything wrong. They just have to say, thank you to the United States of America. What was done saved the system, even if our bank might not have gone down, which they all might have said. And so we are going to show some self awareness and sense of decency and so on. So I sat there dying watching the bonuses, but there weren't requirements and I would do the same thing all over again. I tell you that's why we recovered so quickly and why it worked, and the capital came back, but people are angry. >> Thank you very much for that. You've been very accomplished. You've actually accomplished more than any of us could wish to on several fronts. And after all of that, you decided to dedicate the rest of your life to the work at the Paulson Institute. So what is it about the US-China future collaboration that you place so much value on, and are there any specific opportunities or sectors that you think we should keep an eye on? >> Well, I would say this, first of all, as I look around here at you all. Because you're here, we're all similar. We all want to make a difference, right? We all want to have a rich personal life. We want to do something professionally where we make a difference. And my theory is always you need to say, in today's world where there's so many talented people, where do I have a comparative advantage? Where do I have the greatest chance to make a difference where there's an intersection of something that I can do well, and something that I enjoy? Okay, so two things happened over the course of my career. One of them was serendipitously, I got to Asia. I got there at the right time, I met the Chinese leaders and I was there. And I would just say if you're interested, my Chinese version of my book came out. Dealing with China, which is the book I wrote. I wrote the first one on the crisis was On the Brink, Dealing with China. The first third of the book is about investment banking in China bringing how capital markets transactions brought western know-how and capital, that the leaders used to open up the country to competition. And so I was there. It really revived my career. I would've left Goldman Sachs. I was interested in maybe doing some other things, and I worked on the first big public offering for China Mobile privatization, then PetroChina, then the first bank deal, Bank of China. So I worked alongside of people that if you were to name the people, the guy who runs the Central Bank, the Minister of Finance Lou Jiwei, Zhou Xiaochuan, the Central Bank, Wang Qishan who now runs a big interdisciplinary committee and who's on the standing committee. I worked with these people. President Xi Jinping, when I set up the strategic economic dialogue, which I did as treasury secretary with China, I've actually visited him in Hangzhou before I went to see the others, the leaders in Beijing. And so I helped him plan, when Xi Jinping visited the West Coast last September, he asked me to get together a group of CEOs to moderate a discussion with him. So I know these people, so I said I can make a difference there. And I always cared about conservation. Jim Morgan and I worked on the Asia-Pacific Council of the Nature Conservancy, so my wife got me involved in the Nature Conservancy. I worked in saving parks, setting up parks in Hunan in China. So I've always cared about conservation. I've cared about the environment. And so if you care about the global ecosystem, if you think climate change is the biggest economic risk by far we face in the world, and you want to do something about it, guess what? China's the place to be, because if they don't make progress nothing else we do makes much difference. And so I basically said, I care about the environment, I care about conservation. I've made enough money. I don't need to make more money, I'm going to do an NGO. So I set up the Paulson Institute. And also, the Nature Conservancy asked me to do for them what I've done in China, which I set up the Latin American Council of the Nature Conservancy. So I got back from China on Saturday and on the 9th, I'm going to Oaxaca, Mexico where we're going to have our meeting with the Nature Conservancy. And so I work with business because in China, I have a US-China CEO consul on sustainable urbanization. So I go there with people like Tim Cook from Apple and Doug MacMillon from Walmart and Ginny Rometty from IBM and Mary Barrow from General Motors and we work with Jack Ma, Alibaba, the State Grid construction companies. So we're doing the things that I know how to do and I like to do. And I must like work, because I'm no longer on a private plane going there, I'm on United Airlines, and- >> [LAUGH] >> Thank you very much for that. >> And I mean I can do this, I'd love to do this for hours but we're unfortunately out of time. So, one final question before we move to Q&A. You and Wendy have been married for just under 50 years. Myself and Donna, who's here with us today, have been married for just under two months. >> [LAUGH] >> So, [LAUGH] do you have any advice for us? [LAUGH] >> Well, I would say people always make jokes and so on about this, but to me it's serious. And I think the key thing is, [COUGH] we got married when we were young, and we grew together, and we kept common interest. I've seen so many couples, they get married and they grow apart. And so we've done all of our conservation work together. We've done so much jointly, she's helped me immensely in China. Many of our most important relationships were ones that we both built. We were in, last Thursday, it's the two of us, I was asking her, please stay an extra day. Because we're going to have dinner with Premiere Li Keqiang and his wife, Cheng Hong, and she speaks beautiful English. She studied American nature writing, literature study, the transcendentalists, Thoreau and Emerson. And so Wendy was there, we had a workshop on wetlands conservation, and Wendy was there doing that with me. So I think that the key is, you need to find things that you can do together. Everybody talks about me as being a bird watcher, okay? I like being outdoors, I really don't like bird watching as much as Wendy does. >> [LAUGH] >> But I do it because I've got bad eyes, I don't see them as well, but I do it because I enjoy it and I'm doing it with her, and so we find those things. And then the other thing I really find that is terribly important is, when there are differences, to talk about them and learn, the most important thing you can learn is to say I'm sorry, even if you think its the other person's fault. >> [LAUGH] >> If you learn to say you’re sorry and just really learn to say you’re sorry. So, we would always, every week, no matter what, no matter how busy I was at Treasury or whatever, we would go for a long walk or a bike ride. And she tells the story of the time when we were going for a bike ride at Treasury, when I was so, when my mind was elsewhere. I rode the bike right into a gate and collapsed on the pavement, so. >> [LAUGH] >> But these relationships you get out of, I will just say this to you. There is nothing, there's not a perfect job, there's nothing that's perfect. There's, I've got as close to perfect wife as you can have but nothing, no marriage, anything is going to be perfect. You get out of it what you put into it, and so you need to keep investing. And if you don't continue to invest in your marriage, no matter how much you're in love now 10, 15, or 20 years from now you'll grow apart. So you just, it's just like anything else, if you value it you will keep it. >> Well I'm sorry, and [LAUGH] we'll move on to Q and A now. So when you're asking the question please stand up and state your name. >> I wanted to ask what do you think of the financial technology sector? And how do you think that's going to evolve and change the relationship between banks and consumers? >> What do you think of the evolution of the financial technology center? And how do you think this will effect the relationship between the banks and the consumer? >> The evolution of what? >> The financial technology sector. >> The financial technology sector, Fintech okay? >> Fintech. [LAUGH] >> Sorry about that. >> Okay, because I tell you, it's amazing what's going on and the time, and you look at what's going on in China, with Alipay and so on. So it's extraordinary, and it is in China in particular, where you don't have all the financial infrastructure that we've got in other countries. It is growing, very, very quickly, I think it's exciting. I think a paperless, if we ever get to a paperless financial system, it will make a big difference in terms of transparency and all kinds of other things in terms of taxes. And I think the thing we need to be careful about is, I learned and one of the lessons from the financial crisis is, you can sometimes have too much complexity or innovation. And one of the things that happened before the financial crisis, is our financial system outgrew our regulatory system. And so I do worry about regulation, transparency in places, and I watch the money market funds. The scariest thing for me, and the closest I could see to the financial crisis bleeding over from Wall Street to Main Street was when we had three and a half or four trillion dollars worth of money market funds imploding. And they're the ones that were funding the commercial paper. So I was hearing from AAA companies saying we can't sell our commercial paper, and we're not going to be able to even make our quarterly dividend payment. And I could realize if they start paying their suppliers, then it goes, it just goes, pretty soon it hits small industrial companies and the whole system collapses. And so I think to make sure that this, what I call fintech doesn't grow so quickly, that it's unregulated. And we needed to make sure that there's the right protections and the right liquidity, and so on. >> So if there's an app that controls your entire portfolio at the click of a button, how would that affect Goldman's Private Wealth Management Team? >> [LAUGH] I'll tell you, for a long time, I remember, and this'll date me. So you all were in primary school, but when we had the telecom internet bubble burst, when I was at Goldman Sachs in about 2000. And the years running up to that everybody was saying, well, how's the internet going to change our business model? How's it going to disintermediate what we do? And I remember then we tried to set up a technology platform for a high net worth force. And I continue to believe that there are going to be a good number of people that are going to want real Advice and real judgment and customized, but there's a lot that needs to be done and can be done more efficiently through technology. So, but that's the story, the concern and what you all are going to deal with, we're dealing with right now, is going to be a big, big factor in your business lifetimes is the dark side of technology. It makes all of our lives better, we're not going to turn back the clock, but I will tell you, when you look at automation and technology and what's doing the labor markets, and the number of people that are going to be. Anything that can be automated or routinized, will be. So that's, what you're going to see is people at the top are going to do very well. And there's going to be a lot of people without jobs or without the jobs they want. And how we come up with a political system that lets our democracy work and lets our economy continue to flourish, is going to take a lot of interesting thought. And there's nothing you need to be afraid of but that's another reason why it comes back to my advice to you. You can afford anything other than not, you need to keep learning and growing in any job you get and get something that plays to your skill. It's going to take judgement and take wisdom and they can't be, you're not going to be disintermediated by technology. >> I think we have time for one more question. >> Peter Stradling, thank you for coming to talk to us. So I was just thinking about, given the immediate reporting on the crisis in the book Too Big to Fail and the narrative that both those things cultivated. Is there anything about this prevailing narrative that you feel is fundamentally misunderstood or you would want the public to know? You mentioned TARP and it's implementation but are there other things? >> I would say that I think Too Big to Fail got it largely right. If you want to read the narrative that got it totally right, you'd read On the Brink, because that was a first hand account, and no one has been able to quarrel with any fact in the book the way it's written. But I would say that the other thing that people ask about all the time. When they say if you made major mistakes and I say, well I think the major ones, we made a lot of mistakes, but the major ones we corrected right on the battlefield. So, putting, reversing ourselves, putting capital in the banks, or with Fanny or Freddie, I remember I said, if we had unlimited authorities or unspecified I wouldn't have to take the bazooka out, and I took it out when I had to. But, I would say, we still have a surprising number of people, that despite the fact that Bernanke, Geithner, and I are all generally regarded to be straight shooters, don't believe us when they say, we didn't have any authority, legal authority, that would have worked to save Lehman. And the fact is, but no one can tell us what that authority was we had. Because, we couldn't, we had no authority to, guaranteed debt, or to put in capital. And, what we learned when Bear Stearns was going down, was a fed loan didn't work when a bank was, frankly, unravelling. Everybody pulls their money and run, and so we were fortunate enough to have a buyer there, JP Morgan and it guaranteed the trading book. And so when Lehman went, we had AIG, Lehman, and Merrill all going at the same time. And frankly, it was terrible but we got the best possible outcome because if Lehman had been bought, then they wouldn't have been anyone to buy Merrill. And Merrill was bigger and they were going down immediately. And with AIG, we lucked out because the perception with all us was there's this big liquidity crisis at the holding company. Which was like a big hedge fund and the underlying insurance companies which had individual credit ratings were money good. So the treasury could loan against those and the market accepted it. But by the time the market figured out, guess what, that wasn't the case, we now had the tarp and we could put capital in. But at the end of the day, I realized that I've given up trying to explain that because unless you were close to it you're not going to really understand it that well anyway. And the fact is, bailouts shouldn't be, the whole thing was unpopular, and I don't think bailouts should ever be popular in the United States. And when people screw up, if they take a risk and they succeed they should be rewarded and if they fail they should fail. But the financial system is such that if it goes under everybody pays. The only other thing, which I think I wish people know and understood and I think this is quite important. Is that when there's a financial crisis everybody always blames the banks. >From the beginning of times banks get 100% of the blame. And banks make all kinds of mistakes and so some good comes out of that. But the root cause of a financial crisis is never the banks. Don't let anybody tell you it is, it is flawed government policies, and I don't care what the political system is. Whenever you've got a big economy and you've got a banking system, there'll be flawed government policies. They lead to excesses, excesses manifest themselves in the banking system and there'll be failures. So the best you can hope for is to get to it before the excesses become too great and have the tools you need. And so the Fintech question, the thing I'd be asking myself all the time about Fintech, is everybody now is focused on the big banks. But I think the problem is that if you regulate them so much and turn them into utilities you force the risk out elsewhere. And a lot of the risk was in the tri-party repo system, was in the shadow banking market, money markets and so on. And the basic risk comes in our financial system because whatever the size is, I forgot what number is, 13, $14 trillion or whatever, 60% of that is deposits. Okay, the rest is wholesale funding and so you're always going to have risk. And so the problem is if you just only blame the banks you get to this, it's going really far in the US, but then you don't focus on cleaning up the basic problems. What leads us to borrow too much, save too little, okay, why don't we get around to fixing Fanny or Freddy? If we have a vocal rule and banks can't do market making and you got liquidity problems and you've got interest rates that are almost zero and money is seeking out yield. You're going to have bubbles and what about the bond funds and liquidity there? There's so again I'd say don't just focus on the banks and don't ever believe that the banks are the only problem because that'll just cause you to beat up on the banks and we won't deal with the root causes. >> Thank you very much for your time Mr Secretary. >> Okay, thank you, thank you. >> [APPLAUSE] [MUSIC]
Info
Channel: Stanford Graduate School of Business
Views: 71,864
Rating: 4.6417036 out of 5
Keywords: stanford graduate school of business, stanford gsb, stanford business, view from the top, leadership lessons
Id: gTGybnPatQk
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 56min 12sec (3372 seconds)
Published: Sun Oct 30 2016
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.