Centerview Co-Founder Blair Effron: The Art of Financial Advisory, Dealmaking, and American Politics

[MUSIC] >> Hey everyone, welcome back to Policy Punchline. Here at the show, we bring in scholars, policymakers, and business executives to talk about world today. And our guest today is Mr. Blair Efron. He is of her trustee at Princeton University, but also the co-founder of Centerview Partners, one of the most leading investment banking and advisory firms out there in the Wall Street and probably in the world as well. So it's such an honor to have you in the suits. >> I really think so. >> Yeah. So I thought that because we're just a bunch of undergrads, asking you questions humbly and genuinely, we probably don't want to ask you some of the questions that you already answered on CMBC already. So why don't we just start from just the most broadest overview of your work at Centerview. What do you think investment banking work is really about? And what's so fascinating that attracts you to do it. >> Right. >> I think investment banking is actually like doing crossword puzzles every day. Meaning when done right, it should challenge you intellectually. It should make you creative in terms of how you apply problem solving to numbers, how you apply problem solving to strategic and corporate issues that affect every company of any size around the world. And if you're doing investment banking right, it's not actually about doing transactions. Sure, that's a part of it. But what you really want to do is get close to companies so you can be a trusted advisor, consiglary. Got you. >> I want to begin our conversation just by going all the way back to the time when you were undergrad and Princeton back in the 80s. So what did you take away from your Princeton education? What made you decide to pursue a career in finance in general? >> Great. So what I took away from education is real simple. >> Study. >> What you're interested in. >> And where you really have a passion. So I was a history major with a specialization in medieval history. Hard to find a connection from medieval history to banking. My point is that should not be relevant. You should build skillsets in terms of how to think, how to analyze, how to look at any problem critically. That's what I learned. I learned how to really open my mind up. I came in thinking I would be headed towards sciences. And I left thinking about journalism in fact, thought about teaching. And I kind of landed on banking. Like most people, I'm curious. Suiturously. I decided I probably wasn't going to be a very good professor. And after seeing the professor's a Princeton, I said, okay, well, that's not going to necessarily work for me. I did some journalism here. I did a little journalism right out of school. And then went to business school, worked in banking for the summer and found out that it was actually much different than my going in perception. It really was about helping companies, senior leaders in business solve problems. And you started your career at Dylan Reed. That's right. I had a very successful tenure at the firm and eventually transitioned to a position at UBS. So what part did you know that you wanted to start? Senator, because it wasn't until like over 20 years later of your career that you actually decided to. So Tiger, I think it's interesting question generally about entrepreneurialism. I have always thought and I am proven wrong in this all the time when I see all the great things being done by people in their 20s. But I always thought doing something and building something would be incredibly rewarding, but that building a skill set and expertise, a reputation in what you were doing would probably set you on a better course to then think about building a business. I've always come to a view, had a view and certainly come to it with center view that most really good entrepreneurs actually have a lower risk reward tolerance than people think. By the time I started center view, I had a pretty good sense it was going to at least work modestly well. Did I know how it would work? Of course not. But did I think that it probably. It's not looking at that you sleep on the cliff? No. But I really wanted to be in a business, expand my horizons. I get very antsy quickly. And if you have, you're somebody who likes to do a lot of things all the time, you want to have a very full play. And I said, "You know what? It might be fun and interesting to take my client work." And then really start to mentor and train others so they could do client work. And that becomes the basis of center view. And it's been an absolute joy to bring people on and train them in the skills of how to be talented business people, not just bankers. And that was always a really a part of my thinking. I think a lot of bankers would say they love to have a lot on their play, they'd love to help businesses. But I don't think the investment banking world is particularly known as being entrepreneurial. And this is. You're very unique in this. You created something on your own, whereas mostly investment bankers would look to stay in a more. Right. So, that's a great question. When I actually decided to do this, most of my industry thought I was kind of nuts. They were probably right. Why would you leave something when you were doing it well? I had a country-owned view. The time to actually leave is when you are doing well. If you have that itch, if you have that urge. And I do think careers as you move through the years, through the decades, should start broadly in your 20s, build a skill set, narrow kind of in your 30s and early 40s, become an expert in something, and then broaden again. And if you are somebody who wants to work into their 70s and 80s, I wouldn't mind that. You want to spend the last several decades of your career having as broad a platform as possible. The idea of therefore building something satisfies that. So would you say that you encourage young people to start at a more bigger, established platform versus. On their own? On their own? Something like that. I would tell you I have been proven wrong by seeing so many phenomenal businesses by people who are not yet 30 where I go, "Wow, how did you do that?" All that said, I do think developing skill sets does matter. How do you manage a business? How do you manage people? I see a lot of great business plans, but the ability to actually execute the business plan and build it requires a certain level of experience. So I would certainly say that somebody who wanted to do something on their own or do something with a small group of people, marginal, make sure you have a broad enough skill set that you maximize the chances of doing well. And I'd also say this, I don't. I was always a big believer of the five-year plan. You also, you mean five-year plan? It's probably about it. But I understand that. It's from China, so I understand. Well, I understand. The idea that you would say, "Well, I want to accomplish in each five-year period." I think the first five-year period, learning skills that are transferable to matter what you want to do, no matter what industry you go into, for profit, non-profit, and important. And you also have to be nimble enough to let your aspirations change as you move forward. I didn't know I wanted to start a bank in my thirties, but as I move forward and I thought about the next X years, it started percolate. And I'm a big believer in letting ideas percolate and letting them percolate over time. Got you. I want to just shift a little bit to the firm itself, Senator. Right. It has around 50 partners and 300 professionals across five cities in the world. I think it's very hard for people just outside the finance industry to imagine a small, boutique advisory firm would have more insights on certain industries in a big giant like Goldman Sacks or Morgan Stanley. So I want to ask you, like, how has the center of you managed to so successfully compete against those giants? So first of all, I'm a big believer that professionals need to have a broad skill set. What I find with big institutions today is they want you to be very narrow and deep. That can be something that's great or it can be something that makes you irrelevant. If you're working as the expert in coal and there's only a couple of coal companies, you're not going to be having a longer career. The idea that you would train people to be nimble enough to think across many industries, many kind of transactions, many kind of problems, I think is when I'll say is what a CEO is what a board director wants to say. They want someone with judgment and experience who has seen a lot. So I think the idea of an independent firm like center view is very much for a different industry than the big firms. Big firms are great, but they operate in a different industry. They operate in an area where the banker is supposed to deliver product services. And I kind of look at a center view as we want to deliver an intellectual capital. And if you do that, companies want to be around you. Because I remember you mentioning that 80% of the time spend a center view is actually just on the advising component rather than processing the transactions. We like transactions, but we also, we like them when they make sense for the company. It makes sense for the client. And at center view, we believe in going very deeply across the client's problems, becoming the real thought partner. So that when there's something more transaction be done, you have a good perspective as to frankly, whether it makes sense to do it. And if so, on what basis? What do you think is the more challenging part? Is it advising or the transaction, do you think? I think the advising, it's very easy for any of us to take a homework assignment and go do it. If your professor says, I don't really know where I want this class to go, but I kind of know where it ought to end up, you guys figured it out and come back to me. That's the non-transactual piece. That's the idea that says, how do I help a company? How do I help a management team where the issue, the problem is frankly much more amorphous. How do I do it proactively? How do I build trust in them? And here in many ways, forced to create your own path, transactions, you don't have to do that. There's a point A in the beginning and a point B at the end. You found a center view not really long before the financial crisis hit. I guess that's a very good timing. So I want to ask you what kind of challenges you face back then. What kind of lessons you took away from that in terms of after when you lead the firm going forward? Yeah. So I found it with my partner at a time when we saw the financial services industry changing a lot. We saw a financial capital being much more paramount, much more important than an intellectual capital. And we said that's probably an interesting opportunity. We started in '06. The financial crisis is two years later. For us actually it was the best thing that could happen. Why? Because one, the set of issues, problems, complications, facing all companies was obviously dramatic. So the need for experienced partners, while the more apparent. And two, we were able to recruit a lot of incredibly talented people who realized that the safety of a big firm, obviously, wasn't cracked up to be what they thought. And a lot of people were willing to say, you know what? This is probably a good time for me to take advantage of a crisis. I've had this study job. Let me try this. And we, but anything, I'll say this, Tiger. It all looks really strategic in hindsight. As you're building any business, what you're really trying to do is five or six great things a year, which are pretty tactical. And if you're maniacal in accomplishing those and you do that five years, let's say, well, that's 30 great things. Then it looks, well, then it looks tragic. Totally makes sense. Yeah. I really like how the center of view is very different from other investment-backening in the sense that you're really talking about the advising component, the problem solving component, the building relationships. And my friend Charlie and I were actually just talking about this. Andra Newe, the CEO of Pepsi. And she said that her relationship with Blair Efron has always been stronger than her relationship with any bank out there. So I wanted to hear thoughts on how do we pass down this kind of relationship building ability to more junior level bankers? I imagine center view passes down to it. Sure. I think we could take that question and expand to be on banking. How do you pass skill sets in any organization, irrespective of industry, irrespective of size, from one group of colleagues down to the next. It's done by role modeling. It's done by setting good examples. It's done by prioritizing what's important. And building a DNA. So when younger people come into any organization and they see the leaders of that organization focusing on collaboration, focusing on integrity, focusing on the three or four priorities that are obvious to everyone within the organization, it starts to become a part of your DNA. And you pass it on. And I think smart, talented people generally are good learners through osmosis. And part of our goal is to mentor formally, but also mentor informally, just by having people exposed to a lot of situations. I know a big believer in throwing talent to people in the depend of the poll, making them do things that they didn't think they could do, and finding almost always they rise to the occasion, and they end up making careers for themselves that are several years ahead of many of their counterparts that are their organizations. That totally makes sense. I guess we were just talking about the entrepreneurial spirit within the banking world and training people. Do you think there will be more boutique advisory firms emerging that have deeper expertise and very niche sub verticals than many of the boat-gracker banks? And they will gradually take over some of the businesses. Because I guess we're kind of seeing this trend of decentralization in many sort of fields. I mean, people are saying, yeah, like Google and Facebook and those tech giants will always be powerful, but we're just seeing a vibrant start-up scene that do really well in sub verticals. Do you think that would be the same for finding? So I think it's already happened. The share of business generally that goes to smaller firms has been on the up to get cheer. And if you look at the standard metrics, league tables, for example, have the top 10 spots are filled with independent firms. I think the key is that you have enough scale, enough resource to service problems globally. And that you're actually brought enough in your offering. I'm not sure in any business that going to narrow is a good recipe for long-term success. It may be a way to any business do well for a period, but every business depends on growth. You need to grow to provide opportunities for your people. And the way to do that is to figure out other areas within your business community, your area of expertise where you can apply your skill sets. So as center view expands itself to wider coverage, as you recruit more talents and grow bigger, do you have plans and make growing center view bigger or going public or do you kind of want to keep the size? Wait, I don't know. So I first of all, I don't think any size is the way I think about it. And I would never tell a client you make one dollar earnings. You should make one dollar earnings every year and be happy as opposed to figure out how you grow the dollar. How you create more opportunity. How you create more opportunity for your colleagues and employees. More opportunity for the stakeholders invested in involved with your business. So I think center view like any other business that is careful will want to grow. We will grow. But we'll do it prudently. We'll do it with discipline. And you don't want to grow just for the sake of growing. You want to grow well. And I do think that's important. And it lends a certain amount. You've got up to 20 or people, but it lends a certain excitement. Tiberty goes with you. They want to be part of something growing. In terms of where a center view is in five years, that open question. And I think we're pretty good about being nimble enough to try to lead what that five year view would look like rather than react. So we see plenty of opportunities in ancillary related areas to our business today that we'd like to think we're seriously about. Totally makes sense. And just regard it. Or not. Ask me five years. Doing that trend. Do you have any predictions regarding where finance or investment banking is kind of heading to the future? Because there's a lot of buzz about Fintech or where internet finance or crypto currency. And I guess we're seeing. I do. I don't have any predictions per se. I do think the idea of IT, the idea of technology generally is going to have a bigger part in everything the finance world. I think secondly, the worlds of various siloed businesses are emerging and will continue to emerge. So a media company will be in finance and a financial company will be in retail. It all becomes interdisciplinary. Absolutely. And it has to. And anybody who isn't thinking about how to react to that is probably doing their position to service. Now, all that said, I am a believer that it will be quite some time before good judgment, experience and human capital is not needed. So I guess what is your biggest takeaway about the market, which is finance, after all those years of observation analysis, which is about business. Like, what do you think is the most important lesson you've learned? What do you think finance really is? So I think finance, when done right, is a form of business growth and productive for society in helping companies across a wide sweep of industries grow, hire new people, capital to do well and then give back to the various stakeholders. Finance, when done narrowly and proctorally, I think, frankly, has earned a negative reputation. And I think that there's too many organizations, too many people that do it right, but not enough. And that said, finance, one of the things we do better than anything as a country, is venture capital, financing new businesses, helping them grow. And the number of patents in this country, 50% of the world supply, that all somehow is related to the financial community. Got you. I guess we talked a lot about the finance and business part of the center of view, but what really fascinates me is sort of the political component of it, is that in the center of view team, in addition to all the highly experienced partners work on banking, there are also a lot of senior advisors like former secretary of treasury Bob Rubin, former Chicago mayor, and manual, like, who have the tremendous careers in public service, and then they bring in those decades of expertise into center view. So, how do we kind of see the connection between public service, their public expertise, and what center of view is doing here? So first of all, it starts with what is center view? Solve problems. Who has had more experience solving problems on a world stage than a Bob Rubin or Ramam manual. Big point one. Big point two, I think when you are considering problems for any company, any government, anywhere in the world, the problems today are not just economic, they're not just political, they're not just commercial, they're everything. So, when you think about a trade issue, obviously very much at the four of the country, how does that impact a company? When you think about financial policy of various central banks, how does that impact a company, how does that impact an industry? The idea of problem solving generally for companies. Most big companies are as big as small European country. Their issues are just manifold across all things that affect us day in day out. So a Bob Rubin who has seen every issue from all sides brings a natural experience. I guess in addition to that component, you personally are also quite heavily involved in democratic party politics. You were especially known for being a very prominent supporter of John Kerry. And also you hosted a presidential Obama for fundraisers or events. I guess what motivated you to get involved in these issues? So always been important to me to think about how to give back. I think it's important to anybody who graduates from Princeton. There's a reason it's in the University's model service. And I've always been intrigued by policy making and how to use policy to the good of everyone as many people as possible, how to have a society with broad-based growth. And if you've done well or even fortunate which most of us have been and we start out in the place of fortunately being at Princeton, thinking beyond your day job, thinking just beyond our terms, it ought to be part of the ethos. You ought to do it. And at center of view, we encourage you strongly. And I find that I just get a ton of satisfaction being involved in the kind of democratic policy, politics arena and getting really involved and getting involved beyond that with nonprofits. All is important. Everyone has a desire to serve, desire to give back. And it's up to people who have been doing this for a while to lead the way, show the example of how to make that happen. So you were just saying that you derive a lot of satisfaction as you serve, but isn't there also tons of frustration when you see some of the issues in all today? So I'm very curious to hear whether you're an optimist or a total optimist. I mean, I think it's very hard for a total of us to talk about what I would tell you. I like anyone wish we were attacking truly catastrophic potential problems. With more speed, more money, more urgency. The fact is this country has always gone through various cycles. We always end up at a better place seeing a lot of people in their 20s and seeing how motivated and talented and service-oriented they are. I have no doubt that if you ask me this question 10, 15, 20 years from now, you look back and say, of course, we've got to a better place. If you look at issues that get solved, even this week, climate, everybody focused on climate. The idea that millions of people from schools around the world decide it's important to take a day off of school and show their energy, show their voice against the issue. You have to have confidence. But I guess one could certainly adopt a more pessimistic view at that. Okay. Now I've given it a long term. I would love to. But this short term pessimism, clearly we have a political apparatus which is as divided as ever. Civic-connecting is absolutely. Do I believe that it is incumbent upon us and we do best as a society when we can listen to those with different viewpoints, figure it out at a drive to a common solution? Absolutely. Civic-connecting is important when you have public officials who look at their jobs as trying to get something done. Help the constituents? Of course I do. And do I see these sclerosis that goes on in the political arena today? Sure. We all see it. But we've had it before. I happen to be optimistic that we will find it again. I mean, just as one example, as part of a group back in November of 18, helping strong democratic first-time freshman candidates in their elections, the 42 candidates who became members of the House as earnest, as energetic, as thoughtful, as talented a group as I have come across anywhere. I see them. And I know you're more optimistic. Absolutely. Got you. I think we're currently, since we're talking about democratic party, more specifically, I guess we're seeing a shift towards the left within the democratic party, right? Given we're seeing this a lot of people even call it populism or however you call it. And I guess we're seeing a significant more grassroots movement, sort of this bottom of demand, whether it's coming to climate change or inequality, or various issues across the country. Do you like what this direction is? How do you think a more bottom stop? Sure. The solution is the way to go. I think that it starts with where the voice of most Americans are. And I think the voice of most Americans has a level of absolutely justified frustration. Frustration to your point earlier, major issues not being tackled, issues of income inequality, issues of climate, issues of education. And I think you're getting what's bubbling up as a sense of enough is enough. We need leaders who will actually take our concerns, put them into action with good policy. And I think it's left about left versus right, and more about leaders who really want to push forward and address these issues. And I think if you finally, most issues people will agree on the need for a good outcome. The question is how you get there. But I think anyone who, you know, anybody in America, 30 million people will tell you, "Yeah, income inequality is an issue." And the question is, how do you address it? So as you view those issues and analyze them and observe politics throughout those past couple of decades, has your sort of end goal or vision for globalization or liberalism sort of changed? Because I guess a lot of, there's a lot of voices in academia or even politics right now saying, maybe there needs to be some revision to capitalism or the sort of liberal global water that we kind of thought about before. All those two issues. Two very separate issues. Yeah, one is the issue of capitalism. The other is the issue of a global order versus more national local order. I think too many issues today absolutely are global. You can't not have a global order and attack climate change. You can't not have a global order that figures out how to help underdeveloped countries have economic opportunity for the people. You have to. You can't have a global order dealing with issues of technology, internet. So I am as much a believer as ever that big global problems require big global solutions. Now within that do I think you absolutely have to pay close attention to those at home who need help most? Of course I do. But I think that you can figure out the right balance. And the question becomes capitalism. I don't even like the word capitalism. What I like is the idea of a society producing enough opportunity for its citizens to have a good chance in life to get ahead. And I think most people have given a chance to take advantage of it. We don't give nearly enough people in this country that chance. So when you think about how we develop a better economic model to address that, we must. Do I think that the country's basic framework of capital, your word capitalism works? Sure I do. Do I think it needs adjustments? Of course. Yeah. You probably won't answer this very directly but do you have any thoughts on the race so far for the-- Oh, I'll answer you directly. I think we actually have a really good field. I really-- I do. Really? I do. Really? And I think you're going to see whoever the candidate ends up being. Here he will capture the energy and imagination of a big part of the country and end up looking strong and having a good voice for worth this country needs. OK, that makes sense. And I'm curious about the relationship between Wall Street financial firms and politics because I remember interviewing former New York president Bill Dalley and he said to our interview he says that it's very rare to find people on Wall Street who can understand what the policy makers are saying and vice versa. And how do you-- And it's absolutely valid. You know, how do you-- It's absolutely right about that. So, first of all, you have to have a deep curiosity in policy generally. If you work in the financial industry and don't have a curiosity, chances of you're not going to have a good sense of those levers. Likewise, if you're in the policy world and you don't have a good sense of the practical implications of what your policies will do, you're also deficient in your skill sets. So I think Bill's right when he said there's not a big group of people who actually have enough interest in both worlds. It happens that our current Fed chair, well, Princeton and J. Powell, somebody that has that experience. He's been in the private sector, done great things. He's been the public sector, done great things. He has a very good sense of how his policies and what they enact, the impact broadly across an economy. But I also will tell you, it's not just about policies, but temperament. And you have to understand when you're involved with someone else's world, then what your day job is, day to day. There's always be a different temperament, a different cadence, a different pace. And you have to intuit it intuitive enough and patient enough to appreciate that and then operate within that framework. So why do you think that the relationship between Wall Street and politics has always been portrayed with such a negative sense of connotation? I guess when people think of it. So what does that relationship actually like from your perspective? How do we sort of make sure the public get a more accurate image? So what I would say is that, first of all, geographically, most firms are not Wall Street anymore. Yeah, whatever. But there's plenty of people in the French community who care very deeply about matters facing this country in all spheres. And there's plenty of people in the French industry who take that deep concern care and develop strong relationships with people in the policy world to make an impact. And the relationship is, frankly, much better than I think the public portrayal. The public portrayal says there's one that is a very separate group, Wall Street, very separate group policy makers that to should ever meet. Like anything, much more nuanced than that. But I think policy makers make a valid argument that Wall Street, where there are many people who have been successful, have responsibility to do more and share sacrifice leads to shared prosperity. So how do you think of, I guess, the current administration's policies, economic policy? I mean, the stock markets obviously do pretty well. I think a lot of finance firms like the tax costs, like the sort of the business environment right now. But I guess personally, you might not really agree with a lot of the policies that this current Republican administration have. So do you like the job they're doing right now? If you do, how do you reconcile that tension with sort of the, your support for the Democratic Party that you might not agree some of the part that they don't agree with? With much of what's going on, frankly. They tax cut for individuals. I don't think what needed. I think it did nothing but increase our deficit. And if you look at our deficit this year, it'll be 70% GDP. Probably more than twice what's really sustainable. I don't think the investments that we need to make in infrastructure, the investments we need to make in people, education, the investments we need to make in job training, skills-based learning, has been at all. And it were close to where it needs to be. And I don't think that the platform of certainty that the world needs generally to make progress decisions is in any way what we have today. So that said, the private sector always, I think, does a great job in figuring out how to operate against the world of volatility. And even in terms of the issue of climate, which I've met earlier, the fact is the private sector is carrying the amount to right now. And if you look at the Paris Accords, the US will meet its goals that we set out in Paris Accords. But why is that going to happen? Because of the private sector. It totally makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Before we wrap up the interview, I kind of want to come back to you a little bit more. Like, what, for example, what do you think are some of the values and characteristics of yours that you think led to your success today? Oh, boy. You have to ask all those that, I think. I think we ask very, very broad questions on this show. That's good. So what I would say is this. For myself, who knows, when I, what I see in others, hallmarks, discipline and focus, absolutely, hard work, a given, three, a willingness and ability to go beyond what you think you've been asked to do and figure out how to be an originator of things. In all this high ethics, I must, you can't be in any job successful without it, leadership skills and a sense of joy several times a week about what you're doing. I didn't say every day, but several times a week to be successful, the success has to be second. The day to day fulfillment has to be first. And I find most people who've been successful will tell you they're successful because that's a byproduct of them finding a role that they're kind of pretty good at. And they like. So what we're looking by, what do you think is sort of the biggest failure you've experienced? Was there ever a moment? I mean, there'll probably definitely will. Many failures. Yeah, exactly. They just felt like, wow, I just want to throw the towel in this sort of it. I would say not a moment where I want to throw the towel in. I think like most of us, we all have those moments, but you kind of want to have resilience, and say, you know what, lemons, forget, make lemonade. There have been times when I have felt stifled in any career every several years you will feel stifled. Do you feel like you plateaued? So then it's up to you to say, okay, how do I go from this plateau I'm at right now to the next plateau that will make me feel energized again. That to me is a period of discovery and really self-starting initiative. So when I've felt those moments of valleys, I can say, okay, what's up there? What's out there next that let's me climb the next hill. And therefore I don't look at it as a failure per se as opposed to current situation, not ideal. Great. How do I make it better? Do you have a story of, I guess, the moment when you think you took on a huge risk or you really experienced something, I would love to just hear some of this. So the story, July 12, 2006, when I left pretty secure job and doing well with it and deciding that I was going to jump off the cliff so to speak and have this moment of, okay, how do I even turn on the cell phone? How do I actually think about starting office? And it was scary. I imagine we must be a very painful process but filled with a lot of sort of sense of happiness and satisfaction. Yeah, I think that you're going so fast in the early days of something that you don't actually think about the pain, you don't think about the happiness, you just go and you try to make very quick nimble decisions and judgments and figure out that if seven of them are right at a 10, you done a pretty good job. I will say this, I did learn anytime I feel stuck or as you used the word, I guess nervous scared, just push forward, just push forward action. I guess everyone must regard you as a very highly successful person, highly respected person in any regard but do you personally feel like there's any regret or something that you've always hoped to achieve but you really haven't. It's a journey. I'm not done and I don't look at any destination as saying it's a regret or success. I like the idea that I get the fulfillment of what I do in terms of what I do today. And last but not least, the question in 10, 15, 20 years, I'll give you the answer. So you would say that you are certainly making progress as you go through and certainly the center of you has made progress and our world has made progress that you have this more optimistic forward looking viewpoint. I do. I do. I think that we figure out how to feel our way to the right answer. I know in the current environment it feels like that's difficult. It feels like we're going down lots of blind alleys but I just see too much energy, too much enthusiasm by particularly those in their teens, 20s, early 30s, to not be very optimistic. I mean, I personally worked at private equity this past time right then like TMT investing. It was really exciting. It was tough hours but I love the words but sometimes I struggle to find, I guess, sense of meaning when I do some of the stuff. That's a great question. So how do you sense of meeting, first of all, I think anyone need to think about meeting across the broad portfolio of their lives from what they do during their working hours to where they decide to volunteer, where they decide to get involved, philanthropically, politically, and of course where they get involved with their friends and family. And I think meaning can happen in small ways and big ways. And being involved with a small philanthropic organization ought to give you meaning on a day to day basis in your job. If you think what you're doing is somehow adding to the overall good, you have to feel fulfilled. If you give the right advice, for example, to a company and because of that, that company does better and because it's doing better, it's hiring more people, you had a modest impact in that. So you have to feel good. Don't hesitate to take the small wins and feel happy about these things and build upon them. Absolutely. And I think anybody who isn't feeling fulfilled to me, to very simple, they're not doing enough. Awesome. So what would be one contrarian view that you hold and many others don't agree with? I'm very interested in hearing your current thinking about something right now. So great question. I would say that the role of a university, since we're sitting here, will be as important as university, and as universally regarded across this country as one of our best things we do in the country that you can imagine. And I know that the higher education generally, it's kind of under the spotlight, under the gun, I'm making a big bet that the more everyone sees and understands what these goals are doing for big groups of populations, they will have their moment again and have the respect they deserve. Awesome. So the name of our podcast is Ponch Nies. So I always ask this question at the very end of our show. What's the Ponch Nies here for a set of view, for banking, for finance, for a society, anything to be continued? To be continued. And I mean that. And that thing is, the punch line should be always thinking about the next thing while you're enjoying the current thing. So I think this is sort of a contient sort of philosophy there. We're always striving for something, it's about the process that matters, but you have to enjoy the process. And you have to enjoy the process. And if it's suffering or struggle, you love it and it's thrive off that. Sure. Awesome. Thank you so much for this positive message and for joining us, David Stavron. Thanks, everyone. And I hope that our dialogue can be continued in the future when you come back on campus. I'll go look forward to it. Thank you so much. And this concludes this episode of Ponch Nies. Please visit us on policypunch.com and follow us on iTunes, Spotify, SoundCloud, and all those platforms right now. Review us. Thank you so much for listening today. You've been listening to Policy Punchline, a podcast generously supported by the Trulist Rebinnenwood Center for Public Policy and Finance at Princeton University. We would also like to encourage you to follow other podcasts produced by Princeton University, such as Politics and Post by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Policy punchline is intended to be informational only and does not reflect nor represent the views of Princeton University or the Trulist Rebinnenwood Center for Public Policy and Finance. For more information on subscription, donation, volunteering or contact, please visit policypunchline.com. Thank you again for listening.