Investing Billions - E231: Lloyd Blankfein: Keynote at AlphaSummit

Episode Date: October 27, 2025

David Weisburd had a chance to witness live the conversation between Jack Kokko, Founder & CEO of AlphaSense, and Lloyd Blankfein, former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, during AlphaSummit 2025 in New York City. In this wide-ranging discussion, Jack draws out Lloyd’s reflections on his early years in Brooklyn, his path to leading Goldman Sachs, and the lessons learned from steering the firm through periods of volatility and transformation. Together they explore how leadership, risk, and technology continue to shape Wall Street—and what it takes to stay adaptable in an ever-changing world.

I recently attended Alpha Summit 2025 in New York City, Alpha Sense inaugural user conference dedicated exploring the future of market intelligence and decision-making. This event featured a very insightful keynote conversation between Jack Coco, founder and CEO of Alpha Sense, and Lloyd Blankfein, former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Record live on October 7th, the discussion was inspiring exchange on leadership, markets, and innovation in the age of AI. I'm thrilled to share the special. Alpha Summit keynote, with you here. To learn more about AlphaSense,

visit Alpha-sense.com. That's alpha-sense.com. Enjoy. Really incredible to have you here. Thank you again for joining us. It's my pleasure. In fact, known it was like this that I've gone to Brooklyn more.

It's beautiful. It is beautiful. Well, I think I mentioned to you that I started my career in investment banking. actually applied to Goldman Sachs, didn't get the job, so I ended up working at another firm.

You know, I applied to Goldman Sachs and never got a job there either. They turned me down, and the only job I got was at a small commodity trading firm called Jay Aaron and company, and Goldman bought them. That's how I got into Goldman

after being rejected by them. I spent two years trying to avoid all the people that turned me down, and then they spent the next 20 years trying to avoid me. So you didn't do a victory speech and coming back? Say again? You didn't do a victory speech coming back?

No, no. But anyway, go on. So you started Morgan Stanley. Yeah, I know. I was just going to say that... And then you went astray. I'm even more humbled, you know, given that, you know, just to be on stage with you. So again, thank you.

You've got an incredible personal story, and I thought it would be really great for the audience to hear kind of your story arc from your earlier years through that period when you joined Goldman and ultimately led the firm from the top would love to hear what shaped your approach

at the top from those earlier experiences. Yeah, well, there are people who started out in life in kindergarten being voted the most likely to succeed. That wasn't me. I started when I'm joking about Brooklyn because I grew up in Brooklyn and actually I grew up in public housing in East New York, Brooklyn. None of you will ever have been there. And I spend a lot of time trying to leave Brooklyn. So it's always, I always get PTSD when I have to cross the river and come back. But here I am nonetheless. But, you know,

it's kind of unlikely. I worked. my way through it. My dad was a clerk in the post office and we lived in the projects. And I always wanted to get out and go, you know, my ambition was to go to an out-of-town school. And, you know, I achieved that, work my way up. And I'm not, and, you know, it kind of worked out for me. If it hadn't, somebody else would be sitting here and you'd be talking to that person. But it, um, I would say it was a low probability that it would be me and a high probability that somebody would be here. I would say that

in terms of, I don't want to sound like I walked uphill both directions to and from school. You know, my parents, you know, I had an intact family and they valued education. They were happy for me when I got into schools. You know, I didn't have to walk across a desert to get out of a war-torn

country or anything like that. But I got in, I went through essentially seven years of liberal arts. I went to college and law school, and I went to law school because it was kind of at that time was a continuation of liberal watch because I didn't know what I wanted to do. And of course, I graduated with loans and had to pay him back. So I ended up in a law firm. And that was when I decided after five years

of that drudgery, I decided that, you know, to apply to Wall Street. And that's where we pick up the story of getting turned down by everyone, as I should have been, and getting a small job and working my way up through starting out as a gold trader at Jay Aaron and company. and eventually, you know, running fixed income trading and equating all the trading parts of the firm. So for the 20 years, I ran kind of the risk side of the firm trading and eventually became chief operating officer and succeeded my boss, my then boss, Hank Paulson, when he became Secretary of Treasury. Goldman had a tradition, you know, Bob Rubin, Steve Mnuchin, Hank Paulson of going into the cabinet and other government offices, which I kind of, which kind of ended with me, because here I am with you and not in, not in Washington. Well, we've got a room here full of decision makers and influencers, and we've been talking a

lot about data-driven decision-making, how to be smarter about... I think it's terrific. I'm curious about, you know, from your history at the top of Golden Sacks, what are some of the big decisions that you're most proud about? maybe there's one or two, and maybe there's something that you'd go back and change and do differently. Well, I think, and this is a generic thought, the things that you end up being proudest of were always, you know, having gotten through your worst moments. And I, you know, I sometimes try to comfort people that, you know, the most prize thing in the American culture

is resilience of all the things you could be is, you know, the person who gets knocked down and gets up. And every time one of my friends is somebody I know, gets killed on something, I say, well, congratulations. Now you have the predicate for a comeback, you know, but it's true. I would say that in a million years, I would never pull the lever to be part of the financial crisis, although, you know, some of you are too young, but of a certain age, you know, spending like, you know, a hundred hours testifying and getting killed in front of, you know, being part of a, on the wrong end of a show trial in Washington and all that kind of stuff. But at the end of the day, taking an organization through that is something that's

distinctive. I mean, anybody can run something when things are going well. You can get swept in a vortex along. You know, AI is the thing and you're in the right company at a right time and you do it. What happens when the cycle shifts? Or more importantly, what happens when you have to decide whether something is cyclical and will shift or secular and won't ever come back? And you You have to convince some people that it's secular or cyclical if the rest of the world is thinking otherwise. And those kind of fork in the road moments and those times when you're under the most pressure are the things that, you know, you feel proudest about, you know, at the end of things. Because that's the only time you could think of, gee, if someone else was there, it might not have worked out as well. How did you go about it?

You know, you had your executive team. You had clients, other advisors, I'm sure, around you. Were you leaning in any particular directions or were you just like doing this alone in a room sort of thinking hard and coming up with those tough choices? Well, I'm sure, you know, Morgan Stanley culture is not going to be that different from Goldman.

And I would say, I don't think there were six people in all of Goldman Sachs who didn't think that I should be working for them and not the other way around. You know, and maybe 10% of them were even right. But there I was. So I would say in, you know, leadership, if you're running the post office or something like that or something where you have thousands of people who are happy to have a job and they get paid by the hour and it's a union.

You know, that's different than when you're running an organization where everybody came out of great schools, as ambitious as you are, can maybe are as smart as you, but maybe they're just younger and you got there first. And, you know, it's a different thing to make. people who are super smart and super effective and as ambitious as you are and have a legitimate claim to that ambition. And I would say, and you must have this in your organizations, most important thing you can do is in building teamwork and partnership, is communication. And whether or not you're a real partnership, technically, you can have the culture of a partnership. And I think, you know, startups and people in these industries do a very good

job because they do share ownership and so people can real feel skin in the game kind of partnership but partnership also implies certain things you know the rights of a partner is to know what's going on so communication excessively sort of suborning the organizational chart knowing people three layers down is an element of making people feel partner like taking more time to socialize the things you want to do. You know, in a normal corporate hierarchy, lightning bolts come from the fingers of CEOs. We're going to do this and everything is, yes, sir.

You know, taking more time to socialize the things you want to do. It's cumbersome. By the way, occasionally changing your mind in the face of, like actually listening and paying attention. That's what makes an organization feel partner-like, and the best organizations are partner-like. the difference between, you know, the Soviet army and the U.S. armies, at least theoretically, we have people in the field who make decisions like they own the consequences of what they're doing

instead of wrote obedience. And in order to achieve that, the leader has to kind of bend and invest time and energy in acknowledging the equivalence of some people who are subordinate to you in the organization. And at the end of the day, you're responsible. And the buck stops with you but you let things go on maybe a little longer tolerate a little less speed in order to bring everybody up to speed at the same time thank you i hope somebody's taking notes i wish i was i'd love to talk a bit about kind of taking a step back through years and how you've seen wall street change over the past decades since you first joined goldman and perhaps even more so in the in recent years is it is it really sort of

the financial crisis and regulation that drove most chains? Was it technology? Is it kind of the rights of private markets or something totally different? I would say Wall Street has, again, what did say? You know, it doesn't repeat, history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. Or, you know, I'm thinking that, you know, the DNA of a pig and the DNA of a human are about 97% the same. But the 3% makes a big difference. I would say it's different now, but 97%, you know, you have ambitious people making their way in the world, taking risk, the tools are different, and you're contributing yet another set and layer of very important tools that'll make things more efficient.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to the judgment that gets applied to the information and the data. You know, you want to have the best data because you're competing with other people who are trying to get better data than you have it. but at the end of the day, you're at the fulcrum, humans are at the fulcrum of a bigger lever. Having said that, the leverage is much greater. And so the people who are very good and very important to their organization are worth more,

and maybe the people who are less important are worth less. And so if I had to say one thing that's different, I think, is that the person who is making the decision has much more leverage today because everything has an extra two zeros at the end of it. And so I would say the winners are going to be bigger winners and the people who are just, you know, filling out the ranks are going to have, you know, are going to have less fulfillment

probably in the world that we're in today. But it's gone through those things before. You know, when I started, at Goldman in trading, there was a trading room of hundreds of people, you know, big buildings, which we don't need as much big buildings as before. And to get prices and to get liquidity, you'd have 10 people pick up a phone and call out and get 10 things and somebody would scoop them all up. Now someone's just tapping on a machine. And they're still functioning. It's all, you know, it's better. When I started out, I spent three hours.

hours a day, proofreading telexes. Nobody's proofreading. What's a telex? You know, that ticker tape that used to fall out of building windows when somebody would, you know, when, you know, when somebody, you know, when the soldiers came back from World War I, those are telling that people were doing that. Nobody's doing that now. I'm sure it was character building in some way, but not so much that it was worth so much time. There's just much more leverage in the system where the person who's, you know, If it's not win or take all, it's win or take most. And therefore, the people who help with that, who are special, are worth more. And, you know, so, you know, I'm sure that 90% of the people here are in the top 10% of their organization.

So, you know, you have nothing to worry about. Actually, that's a debate that we end up having a lot. There is, you know, I guess you can think about AI as a technology. elevating everybody but then your point is more about maybe it's the superstars that it elevates the most

and it's all leverage the world is and I think of it as a lever and a fulcrum the people, you know at the fulcrum are going to lift more

than they ever could have before and it behooos you to do it you know people are wringing their hands about space what choice do you have you know you can't in trade

you know trading evolved differently Now it's, you know, you're entering things. And if you want to get a price and, you know, we're not focused on this business principally, but if you want to take an offer or hit a bid in a market, you're going to the person who is one millisecond faster, who lives, whose machines are a half a block closer to the exchange's machines wins 100% of the time. So how could you not invest in the technology to get closer?

and the same thing applies to the people who are exercising judgment over, you know, investment decisions. It may not be, you know, as obvious, but you know, you want to have the best tools and resources or at least have an arms race, you know, have a, you know, a nuclear settlement where if you don't use it, I won't use it. But guess what? They're using it. So you better, you better catch up and try to stay ahead. And if you're not trying to be ahead, you're going to fall behind. You know, everyone's going and anguishing over whether you should have the spend or not. I said, who can afford? How could you not do it?

And if later you overspent or you invest in the, you know, too bad, sorry, you know, let's fix it quickly. But what choice do you have? You can't walk off the field. I love that analogy of, you know, being one millisecond closer to the exchange. It sort of really crystallizes how, you know, edge really matters, even if it seems very minute. can mean everything depending on what you're trying to do so that makes a lot of sense

how do you think that's an example of sort of this automated trading and financial market players giving some control to machines letting them make decisions in that millisecond scale where

people can't compete so the world has financial world has already given some autonomy to machines at what point do they really get uncomfortable with that, with AI agents and like trying to automate? Well, I'll tell you, one thing that I think is that is worrisome is in the olden days, like 20 years ago,

you could have a room, and by the way, I'm using analogies from trading, but it applies universally, where you'd have the intuition of knowing whether something was right or wrong. You could have a cacophony of noise all around, The person next to you is fighting with his wife, someone's arguing with our husband and blah, blah, blah, million things. But if somebody said something wrong, a wrong price, or somebody was buying and should have been selling, or someone was saying the wrong thing about a company, the room would stop and everybody would focus

because it was an intuition about things. Now everything is in a glop, in a box, and the things are going so fast and analyzing so much information, that you can't into it anymore. It spits out an answer. What are you supposed to do with it? You can't criticize it. You have to accept it. And that's where there's an opportunity.

You know, leverage goes both ways. The age of this kind of thing, you couldn't have a mistake that would cost $10 million. You know, you could do things backwards or you know, how could it cost you that much money? Today, you can have an errant piece of software that in one minute exercises 100,000 transactions.

And you could lose billions of dollars. In other words, the world leverage has made things better, but it also makes things more concentrated and dangerous and take away the intuition element. One of the things I like about your product is, you know, let me go, things I'm more familiar with. The thing about Google was always, it's a bibliography. you get the sources and you have to investigate it.

Then you come up with AI and it gives you the answers. But that's not totally satisfying because how do I know to trust it? What I want is I want the answer with a bibliography. I want to trust but verify. I want to get the thoughtful, you know, intelligent response to my question and maybe an elaboration of it. But I want to go back and look at the sources. Or at least verify that there were sources.

and I think that that's an important element going forward of all these different devices. Mere bibliographies aren't going to work and the answer is not going to work because who could trust, you can't trust it. And you don't want to trust it. And you don't want a world where everyone's going to just trust it because then whether they need anybody. Introducing your new Dell PC powered by the Intel Core Ultra processor. It helps you handle a lot, even when your holiday to do list gets to be a lot. because it's built with an all-day battery plus powerful AI features that help you do it all

with ease, from editing images to drafting emails to summarizing large documents to multitasking. So you can organize your holiday shopping and make custom holiday decor and search for great holiday deals and respond to holiday requests and customer questions and customers requesting custom things and plan the perfect holiday dinner for vegans, vegetarians, and Uncle Mike's carnivore diet. luckily you can get a PC that helps you do it all faster so you can get it all done that's the power of a Dell PC with Intel inside backed by Dell's price match guarantee get years today at Dell.com slash holiday terms and conditions apply see dell.com for details

no that's that's fascinating and you know I think from your investment banking lens banks are kind of all about risk control. It's sort of letting ambitious people go and take risk, but also building the right controls to prevent that. And now if we're, you know, there's a lot of ambition from, you know, technology players to go and build agentic, automatic

things. I think that risk control lens is really important. Look, there's nothing that can go wrong. When you have balance sheets that are in the trillions, and you're in, you know, you're advising at the, you know, at the sort of the coal front of all these changes in technology,

shifts and other things in politics, there's nothing that could go wrong anywhere in the world that doesn't affect you adversely. And if you're Goldman, there's nothing that could go wrong where they don't accuse you of having caused it. So it really behoved us to pay a lot of attention to what was going on. And by the way, there's two things at work here. You want to know what's going on so that you don't have problems. And you want to put the effort in to know what's going on. So when inevitably something slips through, at least the world knew you used your best efforts to try to stop things from going wrong.

Because eventually, inevitably, something screws up. And then the, you know, and then what happens is, what did you do? How hard did you work? Were you negligent or worse? Or did you, you know, was it something that was totally unavoidable given all the diligence that you put in? So for a variety of reasons, well, those two reasons. One, you'd like to not have a problem, and two, when a problem does happen,

you'd like to have the record show that you did everything you could. That makes sense, and again, becomes a lot more, a lot harder when you're trying to control machines at the speed of machines. So that's fascinating. I wonder, like, just taking that in another direction with a thought experiment, If you think about the evolution of investment banking and where things are heading and take that even further, if you were starting Goldman Sachs today or an investment bank, how would you design what would be the edge today for that sort of built from scratch

new winning bank? You know, there's different directions you can go in. The difference, you know, Goldman Sachs and what a lot of people here are doing, you know, Goldman Sachs is a big company. The burden is it's very hard to move it, very hard to affect it. And in a startup, like you're, well, I mean, not a startup at this point, but a young company and other young companies, big impact. You don't have to have a burden that anything you do could blow up the planet

because you're still small enough that you can't even if you wanted to. And if you're a goalman, you don't want to, but anything you do can. So how do you, the idea of starting up a Goldman is very hard to even imagine because what makes Goldman a Goldman is the influence it has, the reputation it has that the people who have capital and want to invest it and the people who need capital. And our role is kind of intermediating between those very, very large and kind of very capable and effective groups.

You know, the people who are the most entrepreneurial and the biggest who have the most demand for something and the people who have the biggest supply of it is no, almost there's no way of incrementing your way to it. And, you know, a lot in my life, you know, most, a lot of people, like, you worked in an investment bank for a while

and then when, you know, you want to be an entrepreneur and you wanted to, and so there's some, you know who you are, and there's some people who value that kind of big ship, big thing, influential thing, with the burden of not knowing that you have to have a lot of partners and it's not you alone and you're wielding you know you're driving a battleship it could sometimes take 75 miles before you could turn it

around and all the consequences of that and there's some people who are wired to be more entrepreneurial do things quicker and you forego possibly the influence and you know unless you become one of like you know one of the big uh hyperscalers who were both in this new world and you can aspire to that, but that's rarefied atmosphere. So what would I do today? You know, I don't know what the other. I didn't do both. I was a big firm kind of a person, but I got to a level where you could kind of wield it.

And so, you know, that was, you know, that was fun for a while and very much not fun at other times. Yeah, it's a thought experiment I've been having. So that's very, I love. I love having this conversation. But let's shift a little bit and just talk about how you see the equity market evolving. You know, when you talk about, you know, all the entrepreneurs no longer necessarily aspiring to go public. It's not a given that a company has to go public as they grow. You see private market allowing startups to raise billions of dollars and not have to go public.

So how do you think about, is that a good or bad thing? You know, where are we heading with that? Well, it's, look, let me just say my credentials for answering the question. I was at, I spent almost exactly, I was at Goldman, you know, 38 years. It's hard to imagine for you to imagine me. I can imagine it. But exactly half my time is a private company and half my time as a public company. And it's a lot easier to.

function in a private company. You don't have, you know, have, you know, obviously you don't work for yourself. You have investors instead of shareholders, but the rules are different and, you know, the stuff you have to do, the burdens you take on as a public company and the regulators you take on as a public company are very difficult. But if you want to achieve mass and scale and size, eventually you have to do it. And so people will put it off. But eventually the people who, you know, as you get.

lots of people who've invested lots of their time and lives in your company, they may want to stop sleeping on their mother's couches and maybe want to be able to sell stuff. You can do that somewhat now and very highly publicized

that people are, you know, like OpenAI managed to get liquidity and give liquidity some of its people, but it's still not liquidity. You know, you can't buy and sell shares in the company very easily if you're an insider. Other people can invest. And it becomes,

you turn yourself into a bit of a pretzel to try to make the things you can do easily as a public company doable and a private company and you can go for a very long time but it's very hard to go forever. I think the world externally

has made it much more onerous to be a public company which is why people stay private for longer and you're going to find out that they're going to be the next set of problems and blowups could very well happen in private companies and people are going to go tis, tis, these are unregulated.

We have to draw them into the regulatory, regulated world. And in order to do that, you might have to make it less oner, so people want to go public sooner. I would say right now the gap between the degree of difficulty and private and public is too great. I think there has to be more oversight of private companies if you're going to have, you know, $500, which you already have, half a trillion dollar private companies,

the world has to pay more attention to them and it has to make it less burdensome to be a public company and so that has to be some convergence but right now it takes it where people will stay private longer but inevitably it's very very tricky and hard to do and it's very hard to satisfy

all your constituencies if you don't have the access to liquidity that are public and you know the ability a lot of capabilities that you only get from being public but I would stay private law, you know, if I were today, I enjoyed life much better. It makes decision-making different. When I was in a private company, which, by the way, it was one company, but the private Goldman

didn't have, you only cared about how much money you made in your capital account. If you made all your money in year one, lost money in year two, and made a fortune in year three, you added it all up and the bottom line was good and you split and it all went. winning to cap, and that was fine. In a public company, the value that you make is not it's your earnings, but it's your earnings times the market multiple, and the market multiple may be affected by how smooth your earnings are. In a private company, I never cared about how smooth my earnings were, or your growth is 30% this year, 32% next year. It doesn't become ever, doesn't ever go down. You never have a down round. Did I care in a private company, whether I had the equivalent of

down round or a bad year. But in a public company, you find yourself sacrificing earnings in exchange for having a smoother earning platform. So businesses that were more volatile, but maybe in the long run, higher performing and higher income generating, you dischew because you cared about your stock price. And you might have, you know, and your stock price was your earnings E times a P.E. And if you had higher earnings one year, it might lower your P.E. That the market gives you, your price, you know, the multiple, to a point where you wish you didn't have those earnings. Crazy. And so I thought I could behave more rationally, in my point of view, in a private company, but in a public company, and maybe that's right. I shouldn't say

that it's not rational because people will pay more for smoother earnings than volatile earnings. than volatile earnings, because volatility may suggest to people that it may not be there next year. And it was smooth for the last 10 years. It's more likely to be there in the 11th year. So it not only affects your mood or your state of mind, it affects really your decision-making. And in my mind, not necessarily for the better, but other people would dispute that and say you should, as a company, aspire to have, you know, kind of, you know, smoother, growth pattern and not a volatility that suggests that you might not be, it might not produce in the next period.

Yeah, it sounds like it's, you know, a lot, a lot of arguments in both sides and maybe it's really depends on who you are as a company. You know, as a public company, when you have to go through and talk to the public and communicate with sell side analysts, they're going to, you know, all of a sudden, the volatility, by the way, it's not necessarily volatility in your earnings. It might be volatility in the way you deal with your. people. You may want to replace people. And you might say, if you're a public company, gee, is this going to make us look bad to the investor? You have to explain yourself to the investor community. You

may not think those people are so smart, but you know, they have, you know, they, you know, we know what they say. They buy, this is a bad metaphor these days, but they buy ink by the barrel and you don't. And so they publish and, you know, you have to please people who, you know, you may not hire, you may not think they're good enough to be hired in your own business, but they may have a lot of influence. Absolutely. Well, not the Goldman analysts, but of course. Let's talk about, again, your perspective on just big picture, markets and business.

What has changed over the past decades and then what's different about the market today? And how then do you look at the next 12 to 18 months? What is going to be the primary driver of what really changes the markets? Here is nothing ever, I mean, history, you know, this is where it rhymes, but really rhymes. We're going through cycles now, and you can't turn on, you can't watch pundits on TV without somebody saying, is this 1999 or 1996? You know, we've seen through these cycles, you know, one of the advantages of, not many advantages of being older, but one of the advantages you have actually lived through these things. Now, you can read about it in history books, but it's not quite as vivid. and when you live to these, you know, elevations and crashes and stuff,

it's like the difference in living in a war or reading about the war. I'd say it's cyclical and it's changes, and why is it different this time? And, you know, it's very funny, and you turned on, you listened to the punditry, and nobody's talking about this other than to describe the differences between the spend today versus the dot-com era, people were making money, they weren't making money then.

you know, and making those analogies. And, you know, I find myself thinking about that, too. Not to overcomplicate things. But if you ask me about the market for the next period, there's a lot of exogenous events. The market, nobody really knows things. You have to, you know, that's why they call it speculating. I don't know what's going to happen next.

But with what I know, we're in a growthy market, things are going relatively well on the cusp of great technological innovation that's going to make things more efficient. It may take time. It may be spending too much or maybe not spending too much. But in this moment, when things are going pretty well,

and I know if you're talking to a big group, you have to say there are a lot of people who are suffering, but in a macro sense, the economy is going pretty well. It's essentially full employment. And into this market, we're about to go through tremendous monetary market stimulation

because we're going to take interest rates down or whether we take them down in the next three cycles or we skip one, rates are coming down. And we're about to go through a fiscal stimulus because all the stuff that's coming in with the last bill hasn't hit yet, but it's gone. That spending is going to hit. So I would say your starting position is that the next period going forward is going to be very friendly to risk assets. Having said that, they don't blow a horn when sentiment shifts. So you'd have to be cagey, but I would say your baseline position is that things are going well, what could go wrong, not like, you know, and that's how you have to start out.

That's how you have to look at it. I would say you start from a position of optimism and then worry about what could go wrong. Well, I'm getting some hints that we are running out of time. I'd love to continue to hear all your fascinating. insights, maybe one quick one at the end. What advice, based on what you described on what's happening in the market, what's shifting, what

advice do you have for what people should do differently now, whether it's, whether you're investing in a market or a company playing in that new landscape? Look, what's the new? Stay front of foot on all the things that

are evolving and developing. You know, you don't want to be, you know, you don't want to be working on the borough's community, computer when everybody has a, you know, a desktop and you don't want to be, you know, you don't want to be, you know, you know, there's a lot of stuff that has to be done, but if I were, you know, younger starting out, I'd want to be on the forefront of the technological changes and the opportunity set that's, that's happening and try to stay on that train as long as you possibly can. I know people who are 80. I know people, you know, I'm not going to name the names, but I couldn't. You'd know them

who are in their 70s and 80s are on the cutting edge and running companies that are in the cutting edge. And they're on the cutting edge within their own company. I know people who are 35 years old and are just doing their jobs every day and hope that nobody asks them a question about what's new and different. And so just stay, you know, stay front and foot and try to stay on that, just try to stay on that new that train of innovation for as long as you can and you know don't and if you don't ever get off you'll be you'll be at the top of the heat well lloyd thank you so much it's been an incredible conversation thank you thanks for listening to my conversation if you enjoyed this episode please share with a friend this helps us grow also provides the very best

feedback when we review the episode's analytics thank you for your support