The World's Greatest Energy Trader on Markets, China, and AI

Key Takeaway

John Arnold, legendary energy trader turned philanthropist, reveals his core philosophy: cultivate the best seat in your industry—the position with optimal information flow, perspective, and systems. By securing superior economics (3% management + 35% performance fees), he built the best fundamentals team, proprietary data sources, and trading infrastructure. This advantage compounded: better talent attracted better results, which attracted more capital and trust. The lesson: don't just compete—systematically build structural advantages that make excellence inevitable.

Episode Overview

John Arnold discusses his journey from being one of history's most successful energy traders to becoming an innovative philanthropist. The conversation spans his recent insights from visiting China's manufacturing and tech ecosystem, his trading philosophy and methodology, and his current work on US energy policy and systems thinking. Arnold emphasizes the importance of building "the best seat" in any industry through superior information, systems, and talent. He shares lessons from his baseball card arbitrage business in high school, his market-making strategies in natural gas trading, and his views on the future of US energy infrastructure in the age of data centers and AI.

Full Transcript

Transcript of The World's Greatest Energy Trader on Markets, China, and AI from Invest Like The Best. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

My guest today is John Arnold. John is probably the most famous energy trader of all time and certainly the most successful. One of the things John says was that he wanted to cultivate and build the best seat in his industry, the seat with the best perspective, with the most information, with the best systems. What's most interesting about John after being the most successful energy trader of all time, you could argue that he's gone on to be the most innovative philanthropist as well. John has applied this idea of philanthropy to all different sectors.

And what's so exciting about this conversation is it feels like you're talking to a talented entrepreneur or a talented operator in all of these different fields who's willing to share exactly what him and his team have learned about what makes certain problems manifest across our country. He has an incredible perspective not just on the things he's worked on, but on his travels, on companies, on technology. This conversation is a reminder to me that cultivating the seat is such a powerful concept that we probably underinvest in.

Please enjoy this wide-ranging discussion with John Arnold. Everyone listening, I think, is somewhat interested in what's going on in China. Your lessons that you shared were so interesting, and I'd love you to just share some of the highlights from that trip and what you learned trapesing around, studying robotics, studying AI, everything else that you did. What were your major takeaways from that trip? The origination for the trip was, you know, this realization that China's gone through this transformation unlike any other that's happened in the world of both economic and cultural in the course of 30 years.

This is a country that has gone from you really trying to replicate the west to in many ways leaprogging it. I was fortunate enough to spend a week running around, met with four or five companies a day um that were all very open and kind of got to tour factories and it was really striking and came away incredibly impressed and also with a lot of questions about what happens to the rest of the world as the as this rise of China is happening. The one big takeaway was just the speed and scale of which they can do things is unlike anything in the world.

They have this highly educated population. It's a very entrepreneurial culture. They've figured out how to get capital to these companies and they have this deep domestic market and so it allows them to um kind of build up these supply chains and agglamation effects to create something that I don't think exists in the rest of the world where and we're talking to a battery company and asking them are they looking at replicating factories elsewhere in the world and one of their responses was every one of my suppliers is within 200 miles of here and I can call them and meet with them same day and you can just can never get that and then kind of the scale of labor that they have and the flexibility if you need a thousand workers tomorrow you can get that and again it is a skilled workforce that's still very hungry that's coming often times from poverty and so having this factory job which in the west might not look very appealing for many people in China it is highly appealing right it's kind of the first step up and so this combination of things has allowed them really to create this competitive force that the world is suddenly reckoning with over the past decade and it's really interesting to think about kind of what's the right response from western countries um you know that don't want seed their markets to China for obvious reasons.

Um, but there's there's a lot that China can offer. And so what's the right symbiotic relationship that the West should be having with China, I think, is this massive question that policy makers are grappling with and I wanted to try to dig into. Which company visit was the most illustrative of these big lessons? What was the company visit that looking back on the trip taught you the most? So, I've been fascinated with the EV market in China, which about 10 years ago was deemed to be a strategic market and the way that the story is told is that China realized that they were behind on ICE cars and we're always going be playing catch-up and that if they could leapfrog to the next kind of technology, then they could have an advantage on the rest of the world.

And so right now there's uh apparently over a hundred different manufacturers of of EVs in China. Now many of these are have a contract manufacturer and so you can send in your design and do your branding um independently of the manufacturing. But there's many manufacturers there who actually have their own plants. And we went to this one for Neo, which is kind of the upscale Chinese car. They're kind of in the 40 to $80,000 range, although they've recently released one that's below $10,000. below $10,000. below $10,000.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Going to their factory and seeing number one how quickly that factory was built. So they went from, you know, first shovel in the ground to the first car coming off the line in 17 months, which was just phenomenal. And then second, the factory automation that that they had. And there were certainly people on the assembly line, but much of the process was done via robotics. And you you start looking at what are the plants that we have, the auto plants we have in the United States.

We still have a plant that was originally built 100 years ago operating outside of Chicago. Um kind of average age of US plant, a little hard to get, but kind of roughly 40 years now. They've been upgraded over time and you know there are certainly robotics in American car manufacturing but I don't think they replicate what's happening with robotics in China. And so kind of this combination of being able to do things really quickly with a skilled but lowcost labor force and then add on the robotics has just allowed China to uh create a quality product at a price that nobody in the rest of the world's really been able to figure out yet.

Did you learn anything about robotics or AI that just that surprised you? The number of robotics companies, there's over a hundred now in China. As I understand the process, each five-year plan, China specifies certain industries that are deemed strategic and then the head of the province gets evaluated on a number of factors. You know, the head of the province is selected and not voted on. And so the evaluation is based on things like employment and GDP growth, but then also are the industries that are being created there aligned with the 5-year plan.

And there are also some subsidies coming down from top on those favored industries. And so robotics is certainly one of them. So then each province takes a couple companies that it favors and gives them subsidies and supports to try to get the winner or one of the winners to be in their province and then get the supply chain to develop around them and then all the associated jobs and GDP and so you get this massive competition that happens. One of the end results is that that that most of these companies aren't very profitable today because it's just intense competition and a lot of times over capacity because of the province level subsidies and supports.

But it also creates kind of uh you this intense competition which is the term evolution for it also creates better technology. Right? If you're faced with that type of competition to be one of the winners, you have to be fantastic. Now, I think the question that China has is what do you do with those who are not the winners? And do you have a process where the losers stay in the industry and keep kind of everybody unprofitable with the overcapacity or are they closed? And so China has you know started this new process of anti-evolution of like trying to support the winners you make sure that they can build up to be healthy strong companies and be really global competitors and not just kind of brought down by this overcapacity in the domestic market.

Obviously there's tons about of understanding about what the state of China wants and is trying to accomplish. But if you add up all your conversations with all the people that you met across the week, how would you sum up what just the people that you met and interacted with wanted like what it felt like they wanted and what was their attitude towards us? It seems sort of increasingly adversarial from our direction to them, skeptical, worried about it, etc. But just adding up your conversation, what was your felt sense of what the people wanted and were trying to accomplish and and felt about the US?

I was struck by just how much the two countries have separated just in, you know, since 2019. The number of flights between the two countries is down 70%. I talked to a couple expats in Shanghai who said that the number of Western expats was down 50 to 75%, the number of American students studying there was down 90%. Um, and I started to push on this a little bit about what was happening. Part of it was when China was starting to develop and trying to copy the west, right?

One of the ways to do that was to bring over western expats and kind of teach it in western business practices and all the aspects about how to run businesses and capital formation and allocation. Those roles, those learnings have now been domesticated. And so instead of firms, you know, paying multiples of the cost to bring over a western professional to do it, those learnings are now, you know, domestic and and so it's cheaper and they have those skills and so they don't need the west anymore.

And that was kind of one of the the big senses I got is, you know, this confidence that's building there of, you know, we we used to try to just copy the West. Now we're world leaders in many of these things. We don't need the West coming to teach us things. We're going to teach the West. Most software companies try to maximize your time on their app to juice engagement. Ramp does the exact opposite. RAMP understands that no one wants to spend hours chasing receipts, reviewing expense reports, and checking for policy violations.

So, they built their tools to give that time back, using AI to automate 85% of expense reviews with 99% accuracy. And since RAMP saves companies 5%, it's no wonder that Shopify runs on RAM, Stripe runs on RAM, and my business does, too. To see what happens when you eliminate the busy work, check out ramp.com/invest. Every investor should know about Rogo because Rogo Aai's platform is not just another generic chatbot. Instead, it was designed to support how Wall Street bankers and investors actually work. From sourcing, diligence, and modeling to turning analysis into deliverables.

For me, three key things differentiate Robo. First, it connects directly to your systems so it can work with your actual data. Second, it understands your workflows, how work really happens across a deal or an investment. And third, it runs endtoend and produces real outputs the way the best people do. auditable spreadsheets, investment memos, diligence materials, and slide decks that match your standards. This all comes from the fact that ROGO is built by finance professionals for finance professionals. And it's already being adopted by some of the most demanding institutions in the world.

To learn more, visit rogo.ai/invest. OpenAI, Cursor, Anthropic, Perplexity, and Versell all have something in common. They all use work OS. And here's why. To achieve enterprise adoption at scale, you have to deliver on core capabilities like SSO, skim, arbback, and audit logs. That's where work OS comes in. Instead of spending months building these mission critical capabilities yourself, you can just use work OS APIs to gain all of them on day zero. That's why so many of the top AI teams you hear about already run on work OS.

Work OS is the fastest way to become enterprise ready and stay focused on what matters most, your product. Visit works.com to get started. I'd love to rewind the clock a little bit. I mostly talk to investors on this show. I rarely have talked to some of the world's great traders through history. At a point in your career, you were probably the greatest actor trader, one of them, certainly the best in your market. I'd love you to describe what it's like to what what it takes to be truly excellent at that specific discipline.

If you think back on the time when you were at I'm curious when you thought think it was that you were sort of at the peak of your powers. I'd love you to just take us in behind behind the scenes a little bit of what it took for you personally to get to that stage since I talked to so much fewer of of people that have done this. I might step back and think about my kids and what I think or what I want my kids to do.

One of the big components is do something that you're really passionate about that you want to do that it's not kind of a job that you do for income but if you can have a profession that you love that you have this real deep passion for and that's what I found with trading. I just loved the battle the puzzle the game of it. I would sit there from kind of six in the morning to 6 at night um you know at the desk and you either staring at the computer screen or you know doing some analysis and then you know go out with people from the industry that night and then dream about the industry and you know in the shower in the morning I'd be thinking about it and just being so locked in.

There were negatives associated with it. not sure I was a great person, a great friend, um a great partner for those times. Um but I think just having that like dedicating your life to this craft uh for a time period um was one of the things that I think separated me. Uh I think there's also some downside. There's um consequences to doing so. Um, it's not the healthiest lifestyle. It's, um, not healthy from a relationship relationship standpoint, not healthy from a physical standpoint. Um, and I think it's can be mentally exhausting.

And I think, you know, after doing that for 17 years, kind of this one thing and being so deeply intertwined with it, you know, at some point I just had to like step back. If you think about like the second or third best natural gas trader that was active when you were active, I'm so curious about the difference between you and them. Another way of asking like if you turn into advice for your kids, which I like that frame on it, what does it take to be number one in something versus like number two and three?

I don't know if I felt I was the best. I felt I was among the best. I had also managed to create probably the best seat in the industry. say more about that. So, my first job out of college was at Enron. I started there when I was 21 years old in 1995. Uh, it went bankrupt in late 2001, right? Um, so then I'm coming out and I'm trying to figure out what to do. Uh, and there were kind of had a bunch of options and one is I could have stayed with the Enron trading floor which ended up getting moved to UBS.

um and kind of decided I wanted to do something that was a little bit more entrepreneurial and ended up kind of deciding to start my own hedge fund. I had um you know kind of the classic hedge fund 2 and 20 structure and you know now I was there wasn't an intermediate intermediary between me and the 20% right I was getting the 20%. And so I had and of you know the best or as good at economics as almost anybody in the business. And then we had very good financial returns early on.

And so that did two things. Number one like there was a lot of retained earnings and new investors came in and so we had um a lot of risk capital and second was we had a very good investor base that trusted trusted trusted the team. team I had built whenever we had a down month or a down time period which we had they weren't calling to redeem but they would call up and say do you need more capital uh because we had earned their trust and we had done you know forced distributions along the way and so I'd set up this kind of really powerful seat where I had good economics so I could hire the best people in the business that I knew of.

Um, we had a lot of risk capital and had a very solid and stable investor base. I like this concept of like developing the best seat in your in your industry. Are there any other interesting or useful components to that if someone is listening and they're an investor or some or even a you know just a normal founder business person about setting up the best like structural advantage in a seat? Is it information flow? Is it other stuff? And I love this concept. We started at 2 and 20.

We did very well and had a lot of more demand for to invest and we had capacity. We raised the fees over time and ended up at three and 35 by the end. Um, and that allows investment in the business and so you can build up a fundamentals team that's going to best in the business because you can just pay them more. Um you can go do side projects um like trying to get proprietary data sources um that give an advantage and you can pay the trading team and the mid and back office more money and so everything in the business starts to work and you have you know this sense of excellence around the firm and that makes everybody better.

were able to develop kind of proprietary proprietary proprietary uh trade entry system and kind of position management system. So things that you don't necessarily think about but are extraordinarily useful. Being able to to buy any and all data, come up with proprietary data sources, have the best people trying to translate that raw data into something useful and build the best fundamental models in the business. I think all becomes part of the flywheel. So really scale like it's the redeployment of your scale that let you do all and get into all these fine grain ways that you could be better than your competitors.

competitors. competitors. Yeah, I think that's right. Can you tell me about the baseball card business that you built in high school? And I'm curious about it because I always wonder where the initial spark comes from. You mentioned the importance of passion and that you just fell in love with energy markets. I'm curious to sort of trace why you were entrepreneurial in the first place, what the formative things were, maybe where a chip on your shoulder came from to the extent there was one in hearing about that business, but then also hear the story between that and and the discovery of passion for the energy market specifically.

I was always entrepreneurial. I always wanted to make a dollar. as a, you know, 13, 14, 15 year old kid, you kind of have limited options and, you know, didn't really want to work retail and because you weren't going to make very much money doing that. I was uh in high school in the late 80s, early 90s and this baseball card boom was happening. And I remember, you know, even in middle school, first getting started, introduced into baseball cards. It was when it was really kind of starting to take off around 87.

And it became clear to me that you know I guess in retrospect that you know this is this really interesting kind of financial instrument instrument instrument um that's you know very volatile that information on pricing is not very uniform across the market that there was a lot of geographic price differences that were happening. Uh, I managed to tuck myself onto this bulletin board of of kind of baseball card dealers, which is when internet commerce is just kind of getting going and they just had this wholesale system.

Um, that was kind of real-time pricing in effect. Yeah, you'd have people in New York were trying to buy hockey cards and people in Texas were trying to sell their hockey cards because there wasn't much demand for them. And you know, there was this these arbitrage opportunities that got created. And I'm like, uh, I I kind of know this from this bulletin board, you know, people in Montreal or New York or Buffalo, you know, are willing to pay X and I can buy these at, you know, Y and make that money.

and the sports card business kind of really started to boom. And so there was more and more money coming into it, more and more cards. I was living in Dallas at the time, but would travel to, you know, Houston and Louisiana, Oklahoma. Um, you know, started getting on planes when I was 16 and going to to big card shows around the nation. And I just always had this sense of value of what something was worth at the time. and kind of turns out, you know, it was there were a lot of similarities between doing that and the trading.

I was in a way doing market making and in sports cards and I was taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities and sports cards and knowing what every product is worth at every moment, you know, kind of stuck with me. And that was my mantra when I was trading gas is that, you know, I knew what every month was worth um better than I think anybody else did. And I would do that, you know, and I knew that every moment of the day. And to do that, it kind of took a intense focus and just like sitting there and just staring at the screen and listening to every trade that happens in the market, you know, all day long, every day.

Um, yeah, it takes that that work and intensity. and intensity. and intensity. Can you describe the actual instruments that you were trading like when you were trying to put positions on and take them off? What what were those positions? What were they in on average? And I I want to get into some of the nitty-gritty details just to give people a sense of how far you had to go to get an edge in this world as an analogy for how far you have to go to get an edge in in anything.

you know, this was the thing you you enjoyed, but what were you literally trading at in those days? It was primarily futures and swaps that were kind of a lookalike to the future. I traded natural gas. The hub for natural gas trading was Henry Hub and Louisiana. And then there would be price differentials between what gas was worth in Louisiana versus gas in Pennsylvania or in West Texas or Colorado, for instance. Uh that's basis. Uh I did that for a small part of my career. Kind of those price differentials between one point and the hub in Louisiana.

Uh but most of my career in trading was trading what we call the fixed price of natural gas. And so this is you know if you're watching CNBC and on the ticker it, you know, has a gas price. That's what I was trading. And so in a given day like how much volume and activity would there be? Like how many decision key decisions would you make in a given day? So it changed over time. I was for a long time the largest market maker in the business.

Um which I did both for uh because it was profitable as well as maybe more importantly uh it allowed uh ability to put on and off positions uh with lower slippage and with fewer people knowing what my position was. and then also gave me insight into who was doing what in the market and so I could start to build the psychology of the market. I could you know see certain traders positioning certain ways and kind of try to reverse engineer what their thinking was which helped me in trying to figure out how I wanted to be positioned.

maybe for those that are less initiated in the act of market making just describe why what it does sort of how it provisions how you're provisioning liquidity for the market but also why you're able to sort of cover some of your tracks by being that player in the market. So a healthy financial market exists for a reason and that reason is that there are commercial players in this case producers or end users who have exposure to the commodity that are willing to pay something to have somebody else to reduce their risk to the commodity price.

And they will pay something to the market for that risk management. risk management. risk management. And if that exists and so if you think about a producer of natural gas whose revenue is almost entirely based upon what the price of natural gas is at for a given month or even at the day by day. Um there's these huge boom busts that can happen because commodities are naturally kind of have this boom bus cycle and so businesses then if you're exposed just to the spot price or kind of today's price those businesses also go through a boom bust cycle and so many businesses will choose to hedge out or fix some of their uh their forward revenue and reduce their exposure to kind of short-term swings in the market.

So that's the demand for hedging. And if there's demand, there has to be a supply. There has to be somebody who's willing to take the other side of that trade. And so somebody has to warehouse that risk, price the risk, and manage the risk. And in aggregate kind of that's what the traders as a whole have to do. And then there's also speculators that come in. the people who are warehousing that risk often um you know they have to price that risk and so they're become experts in the pricing and how to hedge it and so there's often speculation that happens on top of that.

Um as well as there can be speculators who are not actively market making but just have a view on natural gas or oil or gold or anything and you know come in and want to put on a position and again they need liquidity and so somebody gets paid to provide that liquidity. It strikes me as someone that looks at a lot of young companies that it is exciting. Energy is exciting. Again, maybe it's just because of data centers and AI and the the new demand uh that's coming on stream for for power.

Does it feel that way to you? I mean, I know you've you've looked at tons of companies. I'm sure you're incredibly, you know, on top of energy markets today. Do you feel like it's a good time if you're interested in this field like you were to go into it relative to 10 years ago when it seemed a little bit quieter? I think it's more on the asset side today, but I think there's a enormous amount of innovation that's happening in energy assets. So whether that is in new technologies like in batteries or geothermal or advanced nuclear I think also kind of all the data center development and the amount of money and capital that's in those fields and so the need for innovation that if you can make things even a little bit more efficient there's enormous value that's created that a new company or a new individual can take advantage of and I think that's you know one of the kind of characteristics of the energy industry broadly is that it is enormous.

So if you can have a little edge in a a niche of the energy industry, there can be tremendous gains to be had. And certainly like this mad scramble to build data centers and to power those data centers is creating enormous opportunities for new entrance to the market. If you were describing the industry today to someone that knew nothing about how the US energy system works, what would be the highle way that you would approach that problem of explaining it to somebody new? Like here like like here's just kind of the state of things today.

Maybe stepping back about what are the goals of the energy system? I think about systems a lot these days and you know what the incentives are, what the rules are, what the goals of a system are. But in in energy, you can think about having a product that's affordable to the consumer, that's reliable, that whenever you want it, you can access it. And you can think about times, whether you know the gas lines in the 1970s or, you know, blackouts, right, when reliability hasn't been there.

Um, think about having reduced emissions or a cleaner system. Um, and then kind of energy security. And then maybe fifth, I'd say that it creates, you know, good jobs for, you know, whatever country or whatever local you're in. And then, okay, you know, if you have lows as goals, then how do you meet those? You know, America's blessed with tremendous energy resources, has a lot of oil, gas, coal, has a lot of wind and solar resource. Um, and then there is, you know, we're a very innovative country.

And so, you know, ability to deploy, you know, solar um and wind and thinking about um both traditional nuclear as well as advanced nuclear. And so we have all these inputs and we're trying to get to the system that meets those goals. And then the challenge is and how do you devise policy and rules of the system to do so? It gets tricky because those the priority or the ranking of those goals changes from administration to administration administration administration and it's an industry that is slow.

It takes a long time to build the infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure and you need the stable supply chains in order to be able to meet the needs and you have these changing goals of it. And so the industry gets sent, you know, every four or eight years gets sent a different set of priorities or price signals about what we want as a society. And then the industry has to scramble. And then you throw data centers in here, which is just, you know, a load growth and being less concerned about price and more concerned about speed than any consumer of of energy that we've seen in this country maybe ever.

And so put it all in the mixing bowl and you know try to get a system that works. What is if you could imagine a US energy future? I'd love to paint the polls and have you imagine uh the best possible scenario you can imagine for us 10 years from now and what the components of that system would be that are different than how it is today and maybe like the worst possible version of the system that you could imagine in 10 years just to get a sense of having studied the system so carefully.

I love your way of thinking about the competing goals and this weird you know this weird um data center variable as well. Maybe starting well let's start bad like what would be the worst scenario that you can imagine that would get you concerned about the state of the US energy system in 10 years time or something or something or something the worst scenario is that the energy system becomes the bottleneck for both of us innovation uh as well as you know individual flourishing in this country and you know on US innovation you know especially on technology and AI data centers It's largely around can we build can we create the supply that industry is demanding and on individual flourishment it's you know can we do so in and maintain the affordability and reliability components that Americans have come to um not only desire but demand and there's this politics around energy and food and housing because we need all of those, right?

Those aren't optional for people. Um, but there's this politics around it that if you start to lose affordability of any of those, then there's real tremendous kind of political ramifications of it. And so, you can start to see kind of if an energy system that goes bad will have a huge impact on politics of this country. If you think about that bad case scenario both supply and demand wise, um I'm curious starting with demand, how certain you feel that this increase, this big increase in demand for really the first time in decades in the US, how lasting it feels to you?

Does it feel pretty certain that we're just going to get a ton more data centers almost no matter what or demand for them anyway? And then on the supply side like what the reasons would be that we just failed to meet that demand like what why we would stumble and and just not succeed. Visibility through uh kind of 2030 is pretty clear. The investments are being made. The actors that are making these investments are the largest most profitable profitable profitable companies that have ever existed on this planet.

They're also many of them are growing at very healthy clips and so their free cash flow is increasing. They you know have the financial capability to execute on these plans and they're making the investments today. I think the 2030s on is who knows the assumptions that you have to go into any model on this, you know, have such wide air bars and you extrapolate out that many years and you just create a garbage in, garbage out model. And what about our ability to meet that demand?

What would screw us up on the supply side the most? I think it's policy. It's gotten harder and harder to build in this country over the years and there's always this tension between what the needs of society are and what the preferences of a local community are. And so everybody realizes we need transportation and housing and energy. Uh but all people also want it not in their neighborhood. And so this is the whole nimi movement is yeah we need affordable housing work workforce housing we need and transportation we need energy assets but don't put them by me and if you try to I'm going to go fight you in the courts and for developers time is money.

the opponents to projects have gotten very clever about how to use kind of the existing regulatory laws to delay and delay projects and in doing so can often kill them. I've been very uh focused, you know, through our foundation at, you know, how do you do permitting reform to make sure that the projects that are good for society as well good that are good for society as well as aren't unnecessarily painful to any community will get built while maintaining kind of the parameters that the bad projects don't get built.

This nimism and this difficulty in building is what would lead to the problem of not being able to supply or of energy becoming the choke point for development of the United States and particularly kind of bringing it back to the first part of the conversation of China and just the speed and scale that they can build. They don't have this problem. I'm confident of that. And so yeah, it is one of the biggest differences between the two countries. And I I really worry about, you know, if energy becomes a choke point in the US, you know, it has real ramifications for the strategic ranking of this country.

If you were a politician, would you use the China story as fuel to the fire to try to communicate and market this concept that we're sort of getting lapped by someone that's sort of our, if not adversary, our competitor? 100%. Yeah. 100%. Yeah. 100%. Yeah. Um, you know, not only is it a good narrative, but it's true. If energy becomes the constraint, we will become less competitive visav China. If I was an uh, you mentioned the asset side being so exciting on the energy side. If I was a energy asset investor and I really wanted to fund stuff that would help us solve this problem where you got the joint growth and demand and this rise of nimism, where does this whole thing break down?

Like is it in transmission? Is that the problem? Because presumably if we could just produce lots of energy in remote places that nobody lived or cared and transported efficiently, the problem would be solved. Is that the right way to think about it? Do you think about it differently? I I want to get towards this like the best version of things you could imagine, you know, in 5 10 years time that would solve this problem and make us energy, you know, abundant and not slow. not slow.

not slow. Transmission is certainly a component of it. It's not the only component. We can talk about supply chains, can talk about land use, um but transmission is a huge component of it. Uh I actually started a company u about five years ago trying to build interreional transmission lines because it was an industry that had become so difficult to permit and build that uh that kind of private capital had largely given up trying to do new projects and it's one of the kind of solutions that can be a win-winwin for everybody.

We weren't talking about the goals of the system, right? It can reduce costs. It can increase reliability. It can reduce emissions. It can make, you know, the country more secure. It can, you know, create more jobs. But yet, you know, it had gotten so hard to build these lines. It is still very hard to build these lines that, you know, most of the developers who had gotten started with projects in the 2000s kind of gave up. They had started things uh thinking these were going to be five-year projects and they were 10 plus years in and many of them hadn't broken ground yet.

Again, this is part of the challenge of America. It just takes so long and part of this is, you know, there's not one entity that can just say, "Okay, do it." You have to there are multiple veto points along the way. Um and you have to convince a lot of different actors of this project. I talked to a lot of politicians, a lot of federal politicians on both sides of the aisle. Um, and one of the things I hear from almost all of them is this need to figure out how to permit and build faster and more efficiently in the United States.

So, there's very broad agreement on and at a top level, you know, you can get disagreements about the details about how to go about that. I think I'm remain reasonably optimistic that we can get federal permitting reform done this year. It'll be right the only bipartisan legislation that happens besides maybe a budget. But there is this will that I sense uh that is kind of unlike any other issue in DC right now is that there is this realization that this this can set the country back.

And you know, people would look at it for different reasons. Again, people have prioritized those goals in different ways. So, how can you do a bill that helps all of those goals? And that's what we're shooting for. shooting for. shooting for. What do you think about nuclear? Both new forms of fision, but also the, you know, the panacea potential of fusion. Promising, but very, very difficult. The innovation hasn't been proven. We can build you the AP-1000. The AP-1000 is kind of the the latest of the kind of traditional uh nuclear power plant.

We know it's a very very costly electron. It was the last power plant to be built or nuclear plant to be built in the United States. Finished I think in 2024. Vogle units three and four AP 1000s and have a very advanced um safety um safety um safety uh design for a nuclear power plant. Um, you know, the Vogle plants were enormously expensive. Um, and if anything, they've gotten harder to build since then because they require a very significant amount of labor in generally rural parts of this country.

At its peak, uh, Vogle had 9,000 uh, laborers on site, many of which were highly skilled craftsmen. And trying to do that today in the United States is very difficult. Um, but we've proven we can build that. We know it's of a high cost and so there's a lot of effort to do advanced nuclear and that's either of the um SMR small modular reactor that's fision or through fusion. I think the question is we don't know what the economics of either of those are. One we don't know whether we can build a commercial fusion commercial fusion commercial fusion unit.

I think there's a lot of optimism in the industry. Remains to be seen whether we can get there or not. Uh I think the greater question is what are the all-in economics of that and that's a big unknown because at the end of the day you're competing in a commodity market and we've seen that we're willing to pay a little bit more for a cleaner electron um but we're not willing to pay a lot more for a cleaner electron. So it has to be cost competitive.

Um optimally it is, you know, the cheapest electron is one that minimizes emissions. And so I think that's the promise of of nuclear. These aren't coming anytime soon. Even you know there are some pilot plants that are um being drawn up today. Um you know they may or may not have started construction on some of us. I think most of these announcements are kind of for the PR. By the end of this decade, I think we'll be have taken some small steps there, but we're probably looking 10 15 years to really have advanced nuclear be at any scale in the United States.

And that's best case. As your business scales up, everything gets more complex, especially your compliance and security needs. With so many tools offering band-aids and patches, it's unfortunately far too easy for something to slip through the cracks. Fortunately, Vanta is a powerful tool designed to simplify and automate your security work and deliver a single source of truth for compliance and risk. There's a reason that Ramp, Cursor, and Snowflake all use Vanta. It frees them to focus on building amazing differentiated products, knowing that compliance and security are under control.

Learn more at vanta.com/invest. I know firsthand how complex the tax stack is for asset managers. And seemingly every new tool and data source makes the problem even worse. Adding more complexity, more headcount, and more risk. Ridgeline offers a better way forward. One unified platform that automates away all that complexity across portfolio accounting, reconciliation, reporting, trading, compliance, and more, all at scale. Ridgeline is revolutionizing investment management, helping ambitious firms scale faster, operate smarter, and stay ahead of the curve. See what Ridgeline can unlock for your firm.

Schedule a demo at ridgelineapps.com. What do you think about the basket of startups that have been launched and raised in some cases a lot of money about the prospects of good returns for those dollars that are going into these companies and projects either either today or the historical dollars that have gone in the last 5 years. So it surprised me in some ways. I thought that some of these technologies were almost uninvestable from kind of the the VC side because of the such a long duration to get to kind of really a kind of free cash flow business.

I'm surprised at how much money I think it's fantastic. Um, I think this has to be a public private partnership where the government is putting in real capital into these because I I don't think they make sense as a kind of standalone investment without public support. kind of just the the time frame to commercial deployment, the amount of money that has to be raised for it. Um, and the fact that you don't you don't really know early on whether you're making progress or not. There's a a bunch of benchmarks to be overcome.

Um, but until you actually build one, you don't really know what your economics are going to be, what your efficiency of the unit's going to be. I worry that there's going to be a falling out in the industry. Um, there's probably too many SMR companies and it would be better if the industry can kind of coalesque around three or four different technologies and focus the resources there. It's a scary circumstance to imagine as an investor when funding dries up and free cash flow is still over the horizon, not even within, you know, the visible horizon or something.

I'm curious if there are other areas that you think that's less true, like solar and battery seems like a really interesting way of solving some of the problems in the energy markets. Uh the cost curves for both look really cool and interesting. I'm curious what you've learned about those two and just kind of generally what you think about that style of energy generation and storage. Solar has two trends. One is technology and manufacturing costs keep going down. Technology is improving, manufacturing costs are going down. So the end product of a solar panel, mostly in China, keeps getting cheaper, mostly in China.

And so the cost to develop a solar panel keeps falling. Now, a solar panel doesn't get you what you want. You want electrons at the location that load is at. And so there's a lot of steps to go from a solar panel to electrons in the right location. Some of those are inflationary, right? The panel itself is deflationary, but it requires land. It requires uh labor, it requires access to transmission, it requires, you know, access to capital and the cost of capital, which you know was falling for a long time and has now been increasing you over the past 5 years.

People love to talk about kind of the cost of a solar panel and usually whenever you see these graphs it's what's the cost of the panel and it's just kind of from top left to bottom right that's you know and meanwhile and the cost of a PPA a power purchase agreement for solar is well off the lows kind of lows happened around 2020 and it's the cost again of delivered electrons from solar is you probably 50% plus more expensive than they were at the cheapest point in 2020.

And it's because the panel itself again becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the total cost of the system. And so any advantage, you know, continued technological improvements or manufacturing improvements are just getting at a smaller and smaller percentage of the total cost. And meanwhile, the inflationary aspects of the system, you know, become a bigger and bigger percentage of of total cost. That being said, there's a lot of ideas about how to bring load closer to where the solar is being generated. And, you know, can you use some type of, you know, automation, factory automation or robotics to kind of build the plant better, uh, the the solar field better and cheaper way that requires less labor.

And so there are advancements being done. It's good to see that a lot of the data centers now are being you that the developers or the end users are you know signing new PPAs with with solar developers and so we've seen a tremendous amount of solar come onto the system. system. system. I think it's also true that in a you know generally in a stable demand environment each megawatt of solar that comes on is worth a little bit less. The most valuable solar that came on was the first megawatt and then you get to a point where the supply of solar has exhausted the demand during the sunny parts of the day in a certain region.

And so as you bring on more solar, either you have to also bring on batteries or you have to bring on transmission to move it to a different place. And so that has a cost. Battery costs have been declining as well. I wonder if some of the same dynamics that happen with solar will start happening with batteries soon. As the technology is getting better, the manufacturing gets optimized, you start running out of kind of the advancements that have significant cost significant cost significant cost uh ramifications for the battery system and it becomes more and more on what the input costs are.

And so we've seen lithium prices for instance just in the past few months be up more than 50%. And that's going to translate into higher battery costs all things being equal. It's fascinating that it all comes back to the same problem of like labor. Can we build these things? Can we build them quickly? Permits. Um, and a lot of our attention as a country maybe should just be there and we can sort of take for granted these falling cost curves which are great but not sufficient to have the the end system that we want.

If I was forcing you to invest in something related to the proliferation of data centers today, I'm curious how you would attack that problem. There's so much excitement around these things. lots of companies that are predicated on the rise of data centers and the buildout of data centers. What would it take for you to get excited about investing in something that was tied to that trend? There's a number of companies that are trying to kind of make the buildout of the data center a less labor intensive through robotics.

That's an interesting source. It could be a very crowded space though. So it remains to be seen how good an investment that robotics companies will be. From an energy standpoint, I think advanced geothermal is one of the most interesting components of the system today. It is a base load energy source that is, you know, friendly to the environment. Um, it is coming down the cost curve. It's still very early in this industry. Um so still it's unclear what costs are going to look like in a few years but there is you know the skilled labor force that exists in this country already that comes largely from the oil and gas sector and you know it the technology has now been proven out.

It's there's a lot of work to do to scale this. It's kind of like early on in the Shell gas or shell oil revolutions that you know it's just starts out small because these companies have had to prove out the geology, have to prove out the techniques, have to prove out the management team and and you have to uh get to the project finance market in order to get a very low cost of capital to make these things really work. And so it takes time to get from kind of startup of the industry and even kind of getting all these steps proven to getting to where you know banks are willing to loan you money because they know it's going to work and they know they will get repaid.

But I can see kind of in 5 years that the geothermal industry could be the most exciting in the United States. We've talked a lot about energy infrastructure specifically. Are there other parts of US infrastructure non-energy that interest you most? The housing discussions that are happening across the nation are really fascinating. And a lot of the yimiism or yes in my backyard as a combatant to nimism, you know, originated in California largely because California had some of the highest housing costs and the fastest growing housing costs and some of the the most stringent restrictions on trying to build new housing.

and had gotten so bad that there, you know, started to be this uh push back against all of that. And we've seen similar to permitting reform, there is this has become a very bipartisan issue of make it easier to build housing. And we see it from, you know, not only California, but you see it in Montana, you see it in places like Austin and and in the Northeast. And so it has kind of superseded politics and I think politicians are now realizing that this affordability issue is front and center for voters and that's driving you know this renewed focus on cost of electricity, renewed focus on uh cost of groceries and on housing.

And so people are asking the mayors, governors, um, federal government, what about housing? What are you doing to reduce the cost of housing and make it easier for people to buy that first house? And if you don't have a response as a politician, you're just not going to win a race these days. President Trump came out and made this comment about, uh, I want housing prices for those who have a house to go up. He also talks about making it more affordable to buy a house.

And so, you know, you can't do both. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Unless there's just a massive government subsidy. And I think that's one of the risks of this affordability push is that it's been decades in the making um from all these regulations, all these restrictions on building things in this country. There aren't easy solutions to overcome this besides just big subsidies, right? That the real solutions take time. And the problem is that that window is longer than the political cycle. And so, you know, if you're a politician and you're facing re-election every two or four years, you have to have an answer today about what am I doing that you can actually see in during my term.

And kind of the easiest thing to do there is if you have access to the budget, which you know, federal politicians do, you just start subsidizing things, which makes the problem worse in the long term, but you know, the electorate likes it in the short term. short term. short term. I'd love to apply your sort of system thinking to some other areas that you've studied carefully and been really involved with with the foundation. But before we do that, maybe to have you describe your goal for the foundation overall.

One of the things I've heard you say that's so interesting is that foundations should get less powerful over time. Uh individual foundations that is that is that is and as someone that's running a big one, that's an interesting interesting thought. I'm curious why you think that. So yeah, maybe before getting to some of the things that you focus on, just frame why have a foundation if you just wanted to get weaker over time. Any institution gets less effective over time. I think it's true of companies.

I think it's true of countries or you know governments. I think it's true of foundations that you know you have your best most innovative times when you're still relatively young as any organization and so I'm very cognizant of you know some of the downsides of having perpetual foundations and that they one of the roles of a foundation is to take risks that the private sector and governments aren't incentive advised to take. There might be political risks, there might be economic risks and the foundations can provide because there's less accountability on foundations.

They can provide that capital and resources to try things that others aren't willing to do. But those are risky. Often times those will fail. And I think organizations become more bureaucratic, more risk averse over time. And so they're not able to do one of the main functions of a foundation. There's this difference between charity and philanthropy. Um, you know, charity is often, you know, designed to meet and the short-term needs and philanthropy is more on, you know, trying to create long-term solutions. We do both of those.

We're mostly on the long-term solution side, but, you know, we also give money to our local food bank. We, you know, give money to help the the local hospital. It's harder work. It requires having bigger staff. Uh it requires requires requires um having a longer time frame and being willing to live with ambiguity and likelihood of failure on many of the the things that we're doing. You know, I talked about the easiest money to raise is a university that's going to build a new building because a donor, you know, has trust in that institution and they know that if I give a dollar that, you know, I can point at the brick that my dollar went to and you know, sometimes you even have your name on that brick and so you see directly like where your money's going.

A lot of the work that we do which is um based on trying to improve these big systems in America whether that is the health care system or the criminal justice system or infrastructure uh or public finance system u education uh you know it is long-term work um and progress is slow but we really act as this um conduit between researchers and policy makers and trying to like you know do this experimentation experimentation experimentation and do uh evaluations and research about what works and what doesn't in these systems and help people think about new ideas and how would you test them and how can we translate into something that's useful for policy makers to improve the outcomes of these systems.

What about criminal justice? Like describe your work in that part of the world. What progress have you made? What progress do you think needs to be made to that system? We first got involved in this um we just started passively funding the Innocence Project and you know the Innocence Project tries to go look at cases of you know people that have been convicted of a crime and you know do new DNA testing on some of the evidence and see whether that evidence that was used as part of the conviction actually points and you know to them as the perpetrator of the crime or not.

And the Innocence Project has been able to overturn many many many convictions. And you know, there's a lot of very sad individual stories there. But I think most important u from the innocence project is they're really looking at kind of what was this process that led to this wrong conviction and how do we improve the system to lead to fewer um incorrect prosecutions and convictions. And so they were using the individual to try to improve the system. And with that entry we started looking more and more into criminal justice system.

And we heard a lot of anecdotes about some of the inefficiencies or failures of the system. And so we kind of, you know, took a step back and say, okay, where can we try to help in the system? And there was a lot of the uh kind of cris criminal justice principles um came from the great crime spike that happened in the 60s7s 80s in this country culminated with a bipartisan crime bill under Bill Clinton in the early 90s that was really about getting tough on crime and it was about kind of increasing the penalty um for if you're caught doing things.

And meanwhile, the researchers have kind of known for years that what's more important than the penalty, you know, if and when you're caught is probability you get caught. A lot of people who are who are committing crime, you know, don't have that, you know, the ability to process if I get caught, will I have a 5year sentence or a 10ear sentence and that's going to change my behavior. A lot of it is more is am I going to get caught or not? And then there was, you know, lots of questions about um things like how do you do pre-trial detention, right?

This time between when you're arrested for a crime and this time when you're convicted that in courts of a crime and what should happen to you in that time frame. And so like we got asked to come into um New Jersey to help them think about that. And you know, Kentucky, a Republican state, was one of the first to really try to redesign the system when their existing system was deemed unconstitutional. And so thinking about what's important in that decision process and what many states have decided is what's important is, you know, are you a threat to others?

And what's the likelihood that you're going to come back for your trial? And that should decide like do you need to be ta detained before you're convicted of the crime or can you kind of be be released back into the community. And meanwhile we have this cash bail system that's largely based upon do you have money to post to get out or not. We've worked with a number of states both Republican and Democratic states over the years trying to think about kind of how do you you know align the process with what the goals of society are.

this kind of criminal justice reform um movement has had its ups and downs. We were one of the very few philanthropies that was looking at it when we got started um close to 15 years ago um particularly on the adult side. And then it became a very popular um uh movement and a lot of the people that were coming into it were coming in from a social justice and racial equity perspective. I think one of the things that distinguishes us is we always try to think about kind of what are they all the goals of the system.

Well, you know there's the goals of the criminal justice system, right? First and foremost, you can never lose public safety on it. So any reform you do, you know, can't have a trade-off of public safety. But, you know, like social justice and racial equity are certainly goals in that system. We look at a lot of of ideas about how to improve it. And we try to um figure out what are the trade-offs that exist, try to quantify them to the extent that we can, try to figure out, you know, are there trade-offs?

You know, if you do one thing, you know, it could improve social justice or racial equity, but there could be a trade-off on cost or trade-off of public safety. Do you think that the best place to improve things is just that probability, subjective probability that you'll get caught? Like, is that where we should invest, you know, the outsized amount of our time and attention cuz it seems all it takes is one case of some guy's probability is low. So, you let him go and he commits another really bad violent crime or something and everyone freaks out and says, "Shut this down." like it's like nuclear like three three mile island happens and then you know we get no nuclear forever.

Um does that mean that we should focus our attention on on on making people more scared that they'll get caught as the number one lever in this system? this system? this system? I think so. The way you do that in a society where number one we there's not the public funds at the city level to really significantly increase the number of police. Um and second is that communities are hesitant to have a lot more police in their neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. It's it's kind of weird in that, you know, communities don't want to lose the police they have, but you also ask them they don't want a lot more police coming in this and the status quo bias associated with it.

But and so kind of the question is like you know if you don't have a lot more money and um communities don't want a lot more officers just kind of walking around then and of what's the solution and I think there's a lot of interesting technologies that are being developed and and there's there's always this trade-off about kind of security versus surveillance right and security versus privacy. And I think this is one where kind of each community has to figure out where they want to be on that spectrum and different communities are going to choose different different uh equilibriums there.

You walk down Midtown Manhattan might be the most surveyed place in the United States, right? And it's also one of the wealthiest. And then you know I've been in the real time crime center in Beverly Hills, right? and and cameras everywhere and they have drones and you're just everything's being filmed. Um and so like the wealthy communities have decided we want this and we're willing to trade some of our privacy for security. Meanwhile, like a lot of the debate happens like um the assumption is that low-income people don't want that and that they want more privacy at the expense of security.

And I think there's real questions about that. you see kind of the positive response that people have whenever crime goes down and the privacy that we're willing as individuals to give up on the internet in order to get something we like right the rewards of the internet where we're willing to to give a lot of our privacy and so I think there is this broad rethink now about kind of this trade-off and what tools are available and how to use the tools that you know don't lose the trust of the public and that you know minimize the chances that people are going to misuse any of these tools.

What about education as something upstream of of crime? Is there have you observed or discovered in your work a useful or interesting relationship between those two things? And how do you think about the system of education as well? The first issue we got involved in was K12 ed because the outcomes there are associated with kind of almost any outcome you could think about that matters whether it's um you know drug dependency or you know economic outcomes or criminal outcomes. So the relationship is strong like better K through2 equals better outcomes.

Yes, there's strong correlation, right? And then you try to like okay, is there causation here? Right? If I can improve the education outcomes, does that change? And I think, you know, um I think the answer is kind of generally yes. I think the hard part is how do we improve educational outcomes? And that's a question and of United States has been struggling with for decades. Um and we've been able to do it a little bit as society. Um, but we haven't we haven't cracked that nut.

What's maybe surprising is, you know, this is true globally as well. We've worked with a number of charter schools, worked with Teach for America over the years. years. years. Almost every country around the world, you know, that has a a significant K12 system has come to America to try to figure out what we're doing because they're facing the same challenges on education that we are. What makes you most hopeful in that area? I had Joe Lemont on the show talking about Alpha School last year. That that seems young but extremely promising and some of the early results.

Uh I I always had to try to catch myself to be not too overly optimistic about technology solving all of our problems, but it sure does seem like AI could solve a lot of the problems in education. Maybe I'm curious what you think. think. think. I think there's a lot of promise. I think there's promise in office school. What my hesitancy to get too excited about is we've been hearing this promise from the edtech industry for 20 years now. We've adopted more and more technology in the classroom over that 20 years and outcomes have gone down.

And you talk to any of these providers of an edtech platform and they have all this data they're going to show you about the remarkable results that they get from their students. And then you step back and you just never see it in the actual data, you know, applied in the real world. world. world. Is that kind of like the solar thing where the solar, you know, the AI system is the equivalent of the solar panel, like it's getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper, but that's not actually the thing that matters.

It's more like the rest of the stuff in the system. system. system. I think there's a question of, you know, how do you engage with kids? You know, often times kids have short attention spans is probably more true today than has ever been. And we can all probably think back about some remarkable teacher that we had that just captivated us and kept our attention for the full 60 minutes of a class. And we can also think about teachers that were just terrible. And you know, you wouldn't pay attention at all.

And I think part of the challenge has been that sitting there staring at a screen oftentimes just has not been an engaging format for people. And the question is, you know, can this some combination of AI plus AR or VR try to create some type of more engaging engaging engaging uh both content as well as the delivery of the content uh that we haven't seen before. And so I I think there's promise there. I want to be optimistic, but again, like I'm so frustrated with the lack of results that we've seen from this field for decades with, you know, a lot of promise being there for a long time and just seeing nothing.

I feel greedy asking you about all these different systems, but there's two more that I really want to hear about. Uh those being healthcare and journalism, uh which is one that that I'm I'm personally interested in, of course. Um maybe starting with healthcare. This everyone knows the headline stats. You know the percent of GDP that that healthcare represents has ticked up steadily over time. Outcomes uh in many cases haven't gotten better. There's some counterveailing things like GLP1 seem to be sort of a a modern medical miracle of sorts that can address some of these problems and cost in the healthare system.

When you assess that overall system, where does your attention get drawn? What are the things you've discovered are most interesting and important? We've had this kind of multi-deade financialization of the health care system and that's really driven up costs as you know people have figured out you know ways to get in start businesses or consolidate businesses and take advantage of you know some of the regulations that exist in the field to maximize firm profits. And you know the healthcare um you know violates kind of every principle of a uh competitive market from econ textbooks.

You know thinking about you know even what information does the patient have? what information does the payer have versus what are the incentives of the provider who has kind of this asymmetric information advantage and also you know gets to decide what treatments you need. And so you t load up all these market failures onto the system and that requires this huge system of regulations to try to overcome that. And so you know if there were no market failures then you could just say like okay like no need for government policy here government regulation we step back but with all the market failures you need books and books and books and you know tens of thousands of pages of regs about how to deal with every certain thing.

Um and you have you know a third party payer whether the government or a private insurance company for the vast majority of the system and so you creates all these rules that then private industry will naturally try to seek and find out where's where's the gap in the rules and this happens in every industry right now. One of the big things is skin substitutes. So, if you get a burn, you need some type of new skin on um there's regs about how those get reimbursed and the first six months whenever a product is released, they are there's um not history of deallows that product's been priced before.

So, the federal government gives a lot more latitude on how a manufacturer of that product can price it for the first six months. And then as the market starts to react after six months the government now puts more regulation on price. So what manufacturers have done is you know introduce a new product let it be out there for 6 months take that off the market introduce a new one that's slightly different you know and the prices you know keep going up and there's you know some quote unquote kickbacks.

It's just an example of this cat and mouse game that constantly happens on, you know, you um government or private industry rights or regulation and then everybody tries to figure out how to beat that. And so a lot of our work is, you know, trying to identify these and trying to correct and make the rules and incentives of the system be more aligned with the outcomes we care about as a country. as a general matter, not just in healthcare, but in all of these systems that you've studied, is is a conclusion that fewer rules are better.

Do you find yourself pro- deregulation as a general matter? Not necessarily. This is one of the reasons why I don't feel at home necessarily with either political party because I think different problems need different solutions and we are going to have a health care system that has you know third party payers forever um and the need for very tight regulation and you know if you look at K12 for instance um you know it's a very different system very different actors in the system and um you know fewer market failures and you can have maybe less regulation and you can regulate different things.

You can regulate outputs rather than inputs in the system. And so you know I've been very favorable to um having the government try to get out of service being the service provider in K12, right? That you know the government doesn't do a great job of being both the regulator and the service provider that the traditional district is. and that the government needs to choose one of those. And so it's not, you know, is regulation good or bad? It's, you know, different systems need different types of regulation.

And there's always going to be this cat-and- mouse game between regulators and the private actors. And we need to make sure that the regulators, you know, you know, both do a good job of devising the rules of the system up front and then are actively, you know, fixing it as they fail. Finally, what have you learned about journalism? It's it's a kind of one that stands out in contrast to some of these other, you know, massive countrywide systems that that you've studied and explored and and done things in and around.

What about journalism have you learned and what what does it need? We got drawn to journalism um because you know view it it's called the fourth estate that it's you know a check on both government and on private actors um that there is a public good of you know both the dissemination of information um as well as kind of the investigative um journalism that that many outlets do and trying to find the frauds and abuses and wastes that are happening and you know for a long time you had this package product of the daily city paper and that's been largely um you know has fallen apart and so the role of you know both coverage of local and state politics as well as kind of a lot of that investigative work we feel is being underinvested in and the commercial commercial commercial uh revenue potential of that is limited.

Our view is that there is a need for philanthropy to fund some of this. The same way that philanthropy funds the opera house and museums, you know, and parks that having a vibrant journalistic outlet outlet outlet to oversee a lot of these things is ne necessary for a vibrant community. You get to see so many parts of the system probably more than almost anyone I've ever talked to. What has you the most excited about the world? Innovation. It's very easy to get pessimistic. It's very easy to talk about the problems, to talk about the debt and deficit and all our political dysfunction.

Um, and then you kind of step back and look at what this country's gone through since its formation and the number of challenges it's faced and that it's been so robust and being able to overcome those challenges historically challenges historically challenges historically and the innovation that that many have provided and created over the years and how that's improved quality of life for us. And I think that's what we have to trust and have faith in. We'll continue to do so in the future. When I do these interviews, I always ask everyone the same traditional closing question.

What is the kindest thing that anyone's ever done for you? When I was really deep into trading and about how it kind of created some unhealthy habits and started to change me. At one point, my brother pulled me aside and just said like, "You've changed and not for the better." that took courage on his part to do and and I think it caused me to step back and think about did I agree with it or not and if of course like the first instinct is to say no you're wrong and then you know that thought lingers and you know start trying to see yourself as a third person would um and I started to think like you know maybe he's right and what do I need to change in my life and you know try to make these other parts of my life besides the business make the other parts of my life, you know, high performing as well.

I love the closing idea that uh saying something hard to someone you care about can be a great kindness. A cool and unique answer. John, thank you so much for your time. Great to be here. Thanks. Most software companies try to maximize your time on their app to juice engagement. Ramp does the exact opposite. Ramp understands that no one wants to spend hours chasing receipts, reviewing expense reports, and checking for policy violations. So, they built their tools to give that time back, using AI to automate 85% of expense reviews with 99% accuracy.

And since Ramp saves companies 5%, it's no wonder that Shopify runs on RAM, Stripe runs on RAM, and my business does, too. To see what happens when you eliminate the busy work, check out ramp.com/invest. As your business grows, Vant scales with you, automating compliance and giving you a single source of truth for security and risk. Learn more at vanta.com/invest. vanta.com/invest. vanta.com/invest. Ridgeline is redefining asset management technology as a true partner, not just a software vendor. They've helped firms 5x and scale, enabling faster growth, smarter operations, and a competitive edge.

Visit ridgelineapps.com to see what they can unlock for your firm. OpenAI, Cursor, Enthropic, Perplexity, and Verscell all have something in common. They all use work OS. And here's why. To achieve enterprise adoption at scale, you have to deliver on core capabilities like SSO, skim, arbback, and audit logs. That's where work OS comes in. Instead of spending months building these mission critical capabilities yourself, you can just use work OS APIs to gain all of them on day zero. That's why so many of the top AI teams you hear about already run on work OS.

Work OS is the fastest way to become enterprise ready and stay focused on what matters most, your product. Visit works.com to get started. Every investor should know about ROGO because Rogo AAI's platform is not just another generic chatbot. Instead, it was designed to support how Wall Street bankers and investors actually work. From sourcing, diligence, and modeling to turning analysis into deliverables. For me, three key things differentiate Rogo. First, it connects directly to your systems, so it can work with your actual data. Second, it understands your workflows, how work really happens across a deal or an investment.

And third, it runs endtoend and produces real outputs the way the best people do. auditable spreadsheets, investment memos, diligence materials, and slide decks that match your standards. This all comes from the fact that ROGO is built by finance professionals for finance professionals, and it's already being adopted by some of the most demanding institutions in the world. To learn more, visit rogo.ai/invest. AI/ Invest