Odd Lots - Former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein on Why He Doesn't Tweet

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

Lloyd Blankfein was CEO of Goldman Sachs for more than a decade, riding the trading boom to the top of the storied investment bank and steering it through the 2008 financial crisis. In his new memoir, Streetwise: Getting To and Through Goldman Sachs, he writes about his journey from public housing in Brooklyn to the pinnacle of Wall Street. So what's he up to now? And how does he see markets and finance today? In this episode, we talk about deglobalization and Wall Street, the threats AI and tech pose to investment banking, risk management in private credit, and rich people's attitudes towards taxes. Plus, Lloyd shares some of what he left out of the book and he explains why he doesn't tweet more. Read more:Goldman’s Solomon Is Watching for ‘Frothiness’ in Private CreditPrivate Market Titans Warn of Pain as Credit Cracks Widen Only http://Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox each week, plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at  bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots Subscribe to the Odd Lots NewsletterJoin the conversation: discord.gg/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's show is brought to you by Vanguard. To all the financial advisors listening, let's talk bonds for a minute. Capturing value and fixed income is not easy. Bond markets are massive, murky, and let's be real. Lots of firms throw a couple flashy funds your way and call it a day. But not Vanguard. At Vanguard, institutional quality isn't a tagline. It's a commitment to your clients. We're talking top-grade products across the board of over 80 bond funds, actively managed by a 200-person global squad of sector specialists, analysts and traders. These folks live and breathe fixed income. So if you're looking to give your clients consistent results year in and year out, go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com slash audio. That's vanguard.com slash audio. All investing is subject to risk vanguard marketing

corporation distributor. Thanks for listening to Odd Lots. Follow the show on Amazon Music for more future episodes or just ask Alexa play the Odd Lots podcast on Amazon Music. Streaming, is it still TV? Is it still TV if there's no TV box? If I can stream all my favorite channels and pause and record shows, that's TV, right? A new era of FibTV. It's streaming, but it's still TV.

Well, glad that's settled. Bell, connection is everything. Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts Radio News. Hey there, Oddlots listeners. This is Tracy Allaway. And Joe Wisenthoff. We are very pleased to bring you a live recording of the podcast that was part of Bloomberg Invest.

That's our flagship investment conference over here at Bloomberg. And we truly had the perfect guest. Someone I've wanted to interview for a very long time, never got the chance. It is, of course, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blank Fine. Take a listen. Joe, I have a confession to make. Yeah, go on. This is probably the most nervous I've ever been for an All Thoughts episode.

Are you for real? Yeah. And I'll tell you why. And actually, the reason why, you'll know because you were there. I do know. I do know. The first time Joe and I ever met Lloyd Blankfein in person was at a sort of media roundtable. And for some reason, I felt it incumbent upon myself to tell a joke.

Well, you were late, too. Oh, I was. Yeah, you came in late. All right. I forgot that part. I like that. I told a joke to try to, you know, make it up, I guess. probably the joke was at Goldman's expense, at which point Lloyd leaned forward on the table

and he said, let me tell you how I would have made that joke funny. And the worst part was he then made a very, very good joke that was a lot funnier than what I had just said. Oh, I think I said, you're supposed to, you should put the punchline at the end, not at the beginning. That's right. Wait, can we actually talk about what the joke was, the context of the joke? Because I remember it well. Go on. So the whole reason that the media roundtable happened was that apparently, Lord.

Lloyd was supposed to be in China for some reason. And something happened, like someone from the UK was there, and Lloyd's schedule got changed. And so they, at the last second, they're like, oh, maybe some reporters will bring in. And that the joke that Tracy made was something about having to like, oh, were you going to go there to recruit princelings for Goldman Sachs, which at the time was, you know, one of those scandals out there. I swear it was better than that. But that was the theme of the joke. It was a Goldman's expense. All right. So we all learned our lesson, which is don't try to be funnier than Lloyd, because he'll beat you at it every time. But Lloyd, congratulations on the book. Well, thank you. Very exciting to be speaking with you. One thing I learned from the book is that you're spending your time trading now. And when I read that, I sort of had a vision of you on your phone on Robin Hood, trading like zero-day options or something like that. What are you actually trading? And where? Well, I'm sort of committed to Goldman. I would be on Robin Hood. That would accept. Yeah.

history. No, to me, that's one of the occupational hazards of my prior life is that I watch markets all the time. I watch markets at night while I'm asleep. And so I know the price of everything all the time. And I trade, but it's not like when you say I'm spending, you spend your time trading. No, it's just background noise while I'm having a conversation. In my life, with people I, you know, hang around with sometimes in business, it is not considered to be rude that if you're talking to somebody, you're not looking at them but looking at a screen or a phone or something like that. That's kind of okay. So it's like...

I work with Joe. I know. So, Tray, doing that, when somebody says, what percentage of your time, your time, it's like listening to music. You can listen to music while you're doing something else. So it adds up to more than 100%. What are you, trade? No, we're not here for stock recommendations.

But like, what's interesting in markets and such that you feel compelled to click buttons and try to anticipate moves? Well, I was always kind of a Mac. I mean, I came up through what we call them, you know, the macro markets, large things, interest rates, you know, government policy, fiscal, you know, the sort of stuff that kind of moves all assets together, although there's always differences. So that's my background. But I think of things, I mean, everybody now is in tech, because if you weren't in tech, you'd be bankrupt because you'd be wrong for all this time. So everybody is, given how the markets have moved sort of consistently for a very long time. I can tell you what everybody is kind of in. And, of course, I can tell you who's getting hurt at any given part when it gets upset for a day. But I mean, probably things that wouldn't surprise you. But maybe the biggest surprise is that I'm all in.

You know, so like I'm always 100% in equities now. Wow. Risk assets. That's what you say. Risk assets. Yeah. Risky assets. Well, so after you retired from Goldman, some people were surprised that you didn't

choose to go into politics, like some of your peers. Yeah. Well, explain that. Like, why did you? You took a proper break when you left Goldman. Yeah, well, let me tell you, if somebody gave me something overwhelmingly interesting and fun, I might have done it.

Five of my last six predecessors either went into the cabinet, except for John Corrasonry became Senator of New Jersey, but, you know, Bob Rubin and Hank Paulson and Treasury secretaries and whatnot. I came out in the, I stopped in 2018, and end of 2000, so the second half of Trump won, the beginning of Trump won, you know, the economic team was Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin, all ex-Goldman, so I think we had had enough of that. And I certainly didn't want, I didn't want to, like, add myself to the list at that point.

And so kind of drifted on, then I drifted through COVID. And I say, you know, I kind of like this, you know, not sending an alarm clock in the morning, Saturday afternoon, having lunch with people and not having to go to the airport on a Saturday afternoon so I could get to Beijing first thing Monday morning. And so it's easy to get used to sloth. So here's the thing. I get not taking some big job after retirement. Like I totally get that. I get wanting to trade and that sounds like stimulating and intellectually, you know, interesting and fun and so forth. Here's what I don't get. Why don't you tweet more? And the reason I ask that is like, because like I'm addicted to posting and a lot of people in your shoes or at your level, they feel this impulse to like always weigh in on everything. And Twitter's a group. I did for a while. I know, but never that much.

And what I want to know is like, I was, I was fighting with people. I was fighting with people that had subpoena power. Okay, so how do you resist the temptation to keep doing it? Because I would like to know how to post less. So how do you resist the urge to chime in on everything? I was in the risk management business. And so the risk reward of certain things. So for example, retired, when things are going badly, you can't leave my job.

And by the way, we had the crisis of the century every four years. and most of the time they accuse us of, and probably you accused us of causing it falsely, of course. I did write a few of those headlines. Yes, I'm not sure. I pretend to have forgotten that. But when things are going well, you know, when things are going badly, you can't leave. When things are going well, you don't want to leave, which is why in my line of work, everybody leaves in distress. You know, you get fire, something comes over, the world blows up, you don't do well,

you have, you lose, something happens. And I didn't do that. I left on my own steam. Yeah. And I quit tweeting. I still tweet very occasionally, but I mostly quit tweeting before I got canceled, which is very unusual.

Really impressive. Because most people quit after they've been. Most people, most people get quit. They don't quit on their own. And you chalk that up to your natural risk management knowledge and intuitions. You're like, you know what? I'm just going to, I'm not going to do it until the end when you're not going to go all the way general.

I chalk it up to my normal anxiety. and my not wanting to, you know, get killed. So, cowardice you might call, you know, just sensible, well, sensibility. But really, most of that stuff, and, you know, because I was doing things on the line, I would fight with, you know, Elizabeth Warren and, you know, largely because they would say something, mostly I was responding. And I kind of liked it. And the problem is you get a good reaction, you know, good reaction, and then you start to feel clever.

Yes. And when you start to feel clever, that's when you're going to get killed. because then you think, gee, this is irresistible. And then somebody might say, well, they're not going to like that. And I said, how can I resist? It's so clever. Yeah. And so guess what?

I found it resistable. So I stopped. It's impressive. Yeah, it just takes one bad tweet, really. So when I think about your career and, you know, I read the whole book, so I know your career trajectory fairly well at this point, I kind of think of it as synonymous with globalization. And, you know, you wrote this sort of wave of international expansion. And then you retired in 2018, and it turned out 2018, 2020 was sort of the end of that globalization era.

Yeah, the world is a little less flat. Yeah. When you look back on that time, do you think that was a blip? Was that an unusual circumstance that's never going to be repeated? When I start, you know, when sentiment changes, it changes your memory of what you used to think. It's kind of a weird thing. So nobody can remember being friends with Russia now. But we were, when I started, you couldn't think of going to Russia.

I remember my early trips, I was in the commodities business also. I started in the commodities business. I used to go to Russia in the early 80s, literally, like 1982, 1983, middle of the Cold War. And I remember when the plane would take off, and you wouldn't go direct, you'd go to switch. The plane would go in the air, people start applauding when the plane lifted off. You couldn't imagine Russia being normal, like a place to go business. Then in the go-go years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, you'd go there. And it was like the what, it was capitalism on steroids.

And you thought that that was going to endure. And now, you know, it reversed again. Same thing with China. When, you know, we invested a lot of time. I personally invested a lot of time in Leverndon. By the way, we still have a big business in China. But, you know, as you imagine, it's strained now. It's very hard to do business.

We had a lot of joint ventures that can't be done because it's the Chinese, you know, so it's too much of Chinese association for it. But when I started, you couldn't have gone. then for a long time, you thought we were growing into each other. And then, you know, now we hit a speed bump. The point is there are cycles to everything. It's not a question of something being a blip. Everything is a blip, and everything gets a little bit undone.

I think I would have said, and I still believe, I think the tendency is for things to improve, to get better. You know, what happened? What, you know, globalization, it's not just the rivalries or the polarization of the East and the West. The global financial crisis contributed. to that because what happened was, you know, there was these central banks of the world and the governments of the world were coordinating their policies. And then when it hit the fan, in a digital world where nothing really moves except electrons and digital notations, it suddenly became

important to each government where an institution's assets were. If the assets were in the United – the U.S. central bank, the Fed, was lending money, for example, to the U.S. affiliate of Deutsche Bank, and they were lending to Deutsche Bank multiples of the assets that Deutsche Bank had subject to the U.S. because most of their assets were Germany. All of a sudden, people realized that, and it became very 19th century. It became, where are the assets, like physically, as if they were really physical assets as opposed to, but assets have a location, and they discover that. Similarly, I mean, you can go case, data point by data point, COVID. It made a real difference where they were manufacturing the vaccines for who got them first or the PPE and all this

other stuff. And so now, of course, that's been emphasized now because now it's, you know, America first and I'm sure, you know, I don't speak German, but I'm sure in Germany it's Germany first and it's like that. But that also will evolve. And that cycle will go again because, you know, does the world, it turns out when we started to globalize, you say, does Europe need 14 battery makers. Shouldn't they just have three for the whole thing? And then it became very important that you had a battery maker

if it's strategic in your own country and supply chains and other things that make people less global. Today's show is brought to you by Vanguard. To all the financial advisors listening, let's talk bonds for a minute. Capturing value and fixed income is not easy. Bond markets are massive, murky, and let's be real.

Lots of firms throw a couple flashy funds your way and call it a day. But not Vanguard. At Vanguard, institutional quality isn't a tagline. It's a commitment to your clients. We're talking top grade products across the board of over 80 bond funds, actively managed by a 200-person global squad of sector specialists, analysts, and traders. These folks live and breathe fixed income.

So if you're looking to give your clients consistent results year in and year out, go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com slash audio. That's vanguard.com slash audio. All investing is subject to risk vanguard marketing corporation distributor. Eating well shouldn't be complicated, but somehow it turns into recipes, prep, cleanup, and half your Sunday gone. Factors solves all that. These are fresh, ready-to-eat meals designed by dietitians, delivered to your door, and ready in just minutes. No prep, no cleanup, no excuses.

And it's not just about convenience. You're getting real food, balanced nutrition, and zero artificial stuff. Meals that help you stay on track for all of your goals. without the grind of doing it all yourself. Grilled chicken, roasted veggies, steak plates, postables. They taste like something you get in a restaurant, but they come out of your microwave in two minutes flat. If time, cost, or effort have been holding you back from eating better,

Factor just took those off the table. Right now, get 11 meals, free shipping, and free sides for life. Hurry, this offer won't last long. Go to FactorMeals.C.A. and use code fit. That's 11 meals, free shipping, and free size for life, but only with the code fit at factorneals.com. Canada's number one ready-to-eat meal delivery service. If Bellfib TV is now streaming, is it still TV?

Is it still TV if there's no TV box? If I can stream all my favorite channels and pause and record shows, that's TV, right? A new era of FibTV. It's streaming, but it's still TV. Well, glad that's settled. Bell, Connection is Everything. When you think about that time, the Fed opening up swap lines with central banks all around the world, banks getting support, even if they're not necessarily primarily domiciled in the U.S., do you think that that would even be possible today in the current media environment? Because it was controversial then, but not many people were aware of what was going on.

First of all, you have to do what you have to do. Okay. So would you think it would be possible to, and in America first, presidency, where we're not going to go into wars, is this possible? But of course, you know, he felt, you know, obviously he felt there was some compulsion to do it. People would disagree, but that's certainly how he's representing it. So you do what you have to do. If we had a crisis like that, you would have to sort out the banking system. Now, you can, you can want to, you know, bring them up in trial and kill them, you know, do whatever you want to do it. But at the end of the day,

governments don't lend money to people, and central banks don't lend money to people. The transmission for economic policy and for monetary policy and getting money out into the public is the banking system. And if the banks are distressed, if you gave them money, they husband that money to increase their reserves so they could be solvent. And in fact, they have to do that. The regulation requires that they do that. And so it's very, very hard to get money and resources and get people going and provide that stimulus to the general public with a distressed banking system, which is why the big recession was a big recession, because it was very hard to get over. Today, if we had bad employment, if growth went down,

and we weren't particularly worried about inflation, it'd be no problem to stimulate the economy. You take rates down, fiscal spending. The banks are in good shape. If the banks are in bad shape, that's very hard to do. I mean, since we're talking sort of hypothetical, crisis scenarios. One of the things we sometimes hear from people is because the U.S. government is very polarized at the moment. Maybe some people would say feels a little bit disorganized at times. If we had a financial crisis, the response would be a lot less direct or a lot less swift than what we saw in 2008 when we had ex-Goldmanites like Hank Paulson at the helm or Geithner, for that matter. What's your sense of how the current administration would react?

to something like that. Look, I said this, and you know, you don't, you don't know, nobody knows anything, but my guess is they would be fleet of foot and they would do because you have to do what you have to do. They would hate, look, they would hate if that had to happen, hypothetically, they would hate it. They hated it in 2008, really hated it. Really, really, 15 more realies hated it, but we will look, you know, staring at, not so much staring at the abyss like it would have gone. But my guess, and everyone's always asked it, I think there was like a 15 to 20 chance that it could have really have gone off the rails and that we really would have had a crisis that would have taken a very long time because what happens is in a kind of crisis

where there's credit, a credit crisis, which is what it was, a credit crisis. We owe each other money. There's a daisy chain of money. You bought something from him. He bought it from me. And that goes around. In a credit where you don't know the solvency of your counterpart, you're not going to pay me until I pay you. So you're waiting. But I can't pay him unless I get my money from you. So I'm stuck. And he's stuck and he's stuck and he stuck. So the system is frozen. You need somebody with a big balance sheet, and it's usually a government, to say, we will for this short term cover it. So all of you will get paid now go. And generally, you don't have to use the money. The money comes back because it's just insecurity that drives that.

And I think the government would have to do that. They'd hate it, but would have to do that. And by the way, is that going to happen again? You know, fortunate, you know, it was a once-in-80-year storm, but, you know, I'm not, I don't think I'm going to see the next one. But, you know, these things, you know, when you get through a crisis like that, everyone says, let's ensure we never have another crisis again. And you know how you can do that?

you can turn yourself into a treasury bill. And even a treasury bill has risk because you're taking a risk that the value of the dollar doesn't get inflated away and it retains its purchasing power. If you take zero out risk, you will have zero progress and zero growth.

And so what happens is, and again, it's a cycle to things. You come out of that and you say, never, never, never, you implement very, very tough protocols and regulations and things. And over time, you start to think, you know, it would be a lot growthier if there was more... Growthier is a good word. It would be a lot growthier. Or wouldn't it be great

if banks did mortgages again? Or wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to put down 30% to get a more? And blah, blah, blah. And it relaxes that time. Memory start to dim. And it gets to a point and maybe it gets past the point where it should and the cycle resumes. And you say, how could that have happened again? So soon, it's only been 80 years. Right. So, one area, and you've commented on this a little bit in your little media tour over the last several days. But, you know, we've had a lot of stress in private assets, private credit, in particular, some of the big companies having issues, all kinds of issues.

It's one thing for it to be bad and maybe it's one thing for people to lose money. Is there anything about the structure, though, that could get systemic, where it becomes something beyond just investors lost money because they made bad. I think, you know, talking about credit, I think the general issue is illiquid, illiquid stuff. It could be private equity. And, you know, like everything, like everything else that balloons into a crisis, of course I don't think it's going to be systemic. No one does. No one thought, because if everyone thought it would be systemic, you know, you would have fixed it.

Or we would have done something about it before it got to that point. You're always surprised. Even the people who you think are in the inside who should know better, they're also surprised, too. I don't know, you know, the private credit and other private assets, I think they're generally, of course, by definition, they don't trade publicly, so they're less liquid and probably, maybe sometimes illiquid, and consequently very hard to price. So when you have your asset and you look at your account and you own this and you get a mark to market, is it reliable, is it where you can sell it? There are a lot of private assets on people's balance sheets that take private equity. We've just gone through a period. of time where we've had record equity prices in a world that's awash with liquidity, the best financing market, and there's still an accumulation of assets on the balance sheet of companies that are in the business of selling the assets they invest in, yet it hasn't happened. So maybe they're not marked for sale, really, to be done.

So that could be an issue in general. I'd say one of the thing, now, there's nothing wrong with private credit, private asset, private equity as long as the returns, the expected returns, compensating you for the illiquidity and the people you're communicating to understand the illiquidity and the consequence of the illiquity to them. That has to be made clear. I'm not always sure that it is. And certainly, if it goes wrong, no one will remember having been told that.

Right. So I would say, and taking account of that, I would say a particular private asset, whether it's credit or private equity, is no different in your hand in an individual. hands or an institution hands, but the consequence of it going badly is much worse. If it's individual hands, why is that? Because I would say the official sector can watch institutions, very high net worth individuals, lose money and not be particularly perturbed about that. But when it goes to consumers and retails, other names for which are citizens and taxpayers and voters, the public, the official sector gets very perturbed. So one of the comments I made is without applying whether these are good

or whether the marks are correct or whether the illiquidity premium you're getting is adequate or not, I just said, you know, be careful. Some of these firms, people who run these firms have fabulous lives, do very well for a long time, have boats and everything and great, had multiple houses, have some trepidation about extending your business from institutions into 401Ks, people. People, ETS, people who are less than the highest net worth individuals. And by the way, adjacent insurance companies, which is sort of one order away from individuals, because insurance companies insure real people and need to be solvent. So that's something that I'd say is happening to.

It's not just the nature of the assets, but where some of these assets are being put now. So I take the point about retail investors and private credit, but just putting your old Goldman Sachs CEO hat on again. I mean, one of the things Goldman was famous for was its very dynamic risk management at the time. And so I'm very curious, walk us through an excruciating detail how you as CEO of Goldman Sachs would be managing private credit risk at the moment on a day-to-day basis for something that, you know, might be marked to market quarterly. I mean, risk that we had? Well, just hypothetically. Yes. Like what would Goldman style risk management look like for private credit?

I mean, in the financial price, everyone's focused on mortgages. some of the biggest risks that we had were just loan commitments to come, you know, we have a very big, we're the biggest M&A house. So we have a very big M&A franchise, which means that if you do an M&A deal, you commit to the financing. So we had a lot of financing commitments outstanding. That was sort of eye-opening at the time because we had commitments to make loans, which, believe me, at the time, you know, when things are going crazy,

it's the last thing you want to do is do then. So we had to manage those risks. So, you know, what do we do? we make sure in the lead-up to the press, you know, once something is happening, you know, it's pretty late to start doing stuff when everybody's trying to get out of the same stuff. We sort of always knew, we had a, you know, a real abiding respect for reality. So we would always try to mark stuff to market, and very assiduously. We had a separate group.

Half the firm would take risk, another half would market, would do the marks. And sometimes the risk takers would disagree and say, oh, that mark is too concerned. if I think this asset's worth more, and we'd say, fine, I'm sure you're right. Go sell something and prove that your mark is better than their mark that it's worth more. We would do that religious. I mean, we were firm on that. And then when things started to get bad, when people couldn't sell things for where they thought it was, we started marking it lower.

And when that started to happen, we didn't necessarily think, we didn't have a view what was going to happen. We went into risk management mode. So it didn't matter whether it was bullish or bearish. stuff is happening. And so we just put out the word, stay close to home. So we have to take risk. People come to us to buy from them what they want to sell, to sell to them what they want to buy. We get caught in risk-taking situations from our general activities for our clients. But whenever we were veering too much in one direction, getting too long and getting too short,

we would stop until there was another side to it. And we would source the other side. So, I mean, the key for us was not reacting crazily when it started to go badly, but what we did in the lead-up. The other thing we did when we couldn't get other sides to things, we bought insurance in the market. Famously. Famously from other banks for very little because it was worth very little. We bought insurance on AAA companies that weren't turned out not to be AAA. We didn't do that because they thought that, aha, these really aren't AAA companies. Oh, no, we thought they were AAA companies,

but we just didn't want to have too much exposure to anything at that point. And the good thing about the fact that it doesn't look like you need the insurance is that the people who sell you the insurance don't charge you very much because they think it's free money. And by the way, we thought we were wasting money and it turned out not. But that's just a discipline that you have to have all the time. You can't have that discipline when it looks like things are going bad. You have to have that discipline when things are that discipline

when things are looking good. Right. That makes a lot of sense. New York City, how are you feeling? Is New York City the center of the finance world today the same way it was 15, 30 years ago? And is that at risk? Look, New York City is still where people come, young people come especially, to learn from their colleagues and to be around and be surrounded by a good culture

and a good place. And I think, you know, that's why I love the book. And I thought it was a brilliant book, but I thought it was wrong. The world is flat. You know, you can be stimulated by something. it's not right. The fact of the matter is, you know, you could be hooked up and be living in Warsaw, which, by the way, is a financial community and there's a lot of tech people in Warsaw. But people who are smart and ambitious want to be around other people who are smart and ambitious.

Is that changed at all? I'd say there are more poads than there were before. So I think there's communities in San, obviously in San Francisco, which is a tech community. A sub-tech community is Boston, which has bio. And so there are other places that grow, but I still think the highest concentration is still New York. People are promoting Miami for that. And there's a lot of, you know, a lot of reasons for it. Like you get to keep more of your money because there's no state tax, expensive place to live, New York. By the way, very expensive place to die. I don't know why I'm thinking those dark thoughts

now, but because New York has an estate tax and even California doesn't. But so for tax reasons and for reasons of sunshine, people are going there. But it's not. New York. It's still in New York, you know, kind of sorry, you know. On the Miami thing, I like Miami, but why aren't you there? You don't spend 183 days of the year? I'm still in New York. I'm a New York taxpayer. Yeah, why? Stupid. Okay. No, I do it. Because New York City is the greatest, right? I have, you know, my wife, you know, we have kids and we have grandkids. I tell my wife from time to time, if you really loved your kids and your grandkids, you'd move to Florida. And We just said no, but we like being around a family.

We have plenty of money. You know, my wife, I don't know how things run in your household, but I would say that she has full voting control. I'm not going to say anything. I'm a holding back comment right now. So I just want to go back to risks for a second. So, you know, in your book, you talk a little bit about private credit, but the one risk you highlight as the sort of big one that worries you the most is some sort of the most.

sort of technological risk. Like a giant... Oh, no, I said, yeah. You know, it has said the world is going to end in a whimper, not a bang. Yeah. You know, everybody's talking about malevolent state agents, you know, taking it down. Every time we lost stuff and we had some wonderful problems in technology, well, every once in a while there was some bad behavior and somebody hid something for a while.

But most of the time, it was a fat finger. Like, I remember one famous incident where somebody now, anybody would do this, but they were, they were testing some software. And in the software, they were, you know, it just said they, I remember this. Like somehow they were selling, somehow it got turned on and it sold all stocks that started with an L, M, N, O, or P for a dollar. Now, if you were going to test something, why wouldn't you sell, sell it for a million dollars? So nothing ever gets it. But they had to sell it for a dollar. And that thing was working for about 15 seconds and did about $2 billion, you know, a billion.

and a half dollars worth of transactions, which we managed to get undone mostly. Yes. You know, fat finger. What's a fat finger? That's when you hit the wrong key. And somebody who's like stupid, somebody put in and do it. The problem with technology is you want to check things over and over again, but if you build in nine checks, nobody takes it seriously because I know eight other people are going to check it. It doesn't even solve the problem to build in more layers of checking because it's mind-numbing to check something where there's not a problem, except one. every two years. Who's going to live, who's going to sleep through that? No, the world, I've said, the world is getting dangerous in a way. When I started out in a trading room, everyone was said

out loud, somebody would say, buy, and, you know, people, and it was all annoyed. Today, you go into a trading room, and you're communicating digitally with the person sitting next to you. In the old days, you'd shout across the room. And if somebody said something wrong, a buy instead of a sell, or the wrong number or the wrong price, the whole room would stop, and everybody would look at that person. You would hear it. Now, now, nobody hears anything and if they did they would know because no one could intuit anything because it's all a lot of algorithms and a lot of technology trading so I would say with technology technology is leverage and leverage is good

when it's going the right way and leverage is bad when it's going the wrong way and by the way that's in life and you know if you had an industrial you know prior to the age we're in today the nuclear age where proliferating and more atomic power and things like that, even for good uses. What could an industrial accident be? Do you think the biggest industrial accident was Bhopal, Union Carbide, 8,000 or 9,000? Very tragic, horrible situation, liability for Union Carbite, destroyed the company. But I think 8 or 9,000 people died.

In Fukushima, the Japanese, when they had the tsunami, an infected plane, if the wind had been going in a different direction, you would have had millions of people die. That's technology and progress. you. So not only is their leverage, the ability to intuit and see what the problem is, is less. So I just postulated that, you know, we have all these safeguards, all these things, all these state actors malevolently trying to cause. Well, I'm not, yes, but you know something? I'm also worried about the mistake, the fat finger, the unintentional thing. Because when not, how do you build it? It's hard to build in safeguards. Because the more safeguards than that you build, the more

repose and relaxed you get about each one of them. And nobody, you find out that no one's doing No one's doing their job. Eating well shouldn't be complicated, but somehow it turns into recipes, prep, cleanup, and half your Sunday gone. Factor solves all that. These are fresh, ready-to-eat meals designed by dietitians, delivered to your door, and ready in just minutes. No prep, no cleanup, no excuses.

And it's not just about convenience. You're getting real food, balanced nutrition, and zero artificial stuff. Meals that help you stay on track for all of your goals, without the grind of doing it all yourself. Grilled chicken, roasted veggies, steak plates, postables. They taste like something you'd get in a restaurant, but they come out of your microwave in two minutes flat.

If time, cost, or effort have been holding you back from eating better, Factor just took those off the table. Right now, get 11 meals, free shipping, and free sides for life. Hurry, this offer won't last long. Go to FactorMeals.C.A. and use code fit. That's 11 meals, free shipping, and free sides for life, but only with the code fit at factorneals.com.

Factor, Canada's number one Ready to Eat meal delivery service. If Bell Fib TV is now streaming, is it still TV? Is it still TV if there's no TV box? If I can stream all my favorite channels and pause and record shows, that's TV, right?

A new era of FibTV. It's streaming, but it's still TV. Well, glad that's settled. Bell, connection is everything. The news doesn't stop on the weekends. Context changes constantly. And now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all. Hi, I'm David Gurra.

Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg this weekend. I'm Christina Rafini. We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis, and big interviews. All the stories that hit home on your days off. And I'm Lisa Mateo. Watch and listen to Bloomberg this weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture. On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened

in the markets and the world. Then on Sundays, we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead. Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you. Watch us on Bloomberg Television. Listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg business app, or listen to the podcast. That's Bloomberg this weekend.

Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7 a.m. Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, radio, and wherever you get your podcasts. I mean, it seems inevitable to me now that AI is going to become more and more of banks risk management or back office systems. Like, what parts of a bank would you feel comfortable outsourcing to an AI system? Everything shy of the job I had. Okay. Go on. You know, we don't know. I mean, the greatest technologists today aren't sure themselves where it'll go.

but you're going to, look, if you think about it, our brains, we're just wiring, we're just code. We're a lot, a lot, a lot of lines of code, but we're just code. And at some point you cross into judgment and reasoning. And I'm sure it'll happen. I'm sure it's a lot. I'm sure the people who, at least until they start to walk better than they walk today, the people who garden for me and the massage therapist and the personal trainers are safe. Well, man, maybe not even personal trainers.

but everything shy of that is just some you know and then we're going to just have to and then there'll be more jobs that leverage whatever stage of progress we're at you know once upon a time not that long ago beginning of the 20th century more than half the country was involved in agriculture guess what we absorb those people but it's not without stresses and strains not everybody who's not everybody who's a software programmer is going to be a Pilates teacher right and so there'll be some stress and dislocation but who knows the way society is going to evolve. Maybe, you know, remember, you know, from school you read the Marxist ideal where everybody's going to only have to work four days a week, Marxist ideology. Who knows? Maybe they'll be, once upon a time, there was a six-day work week, even on Wall Street. People came and Saturday. That's when they did all the back office stuff.

And maybe we go to a three-day work week. Maybe we work once upon a time, it was a 10-hour work day. Now it's an eight-hour work day. Maybe it goes to five. Maybe everybody just works less. and moans to high heaven that they have to work four hours that day. So, by the way, it doesn't matter whether we like it or not. It's going to happen.

So you could spend a lot of time mourning for it and regretting it, but it's going to happen. But the idea that machines are going to do a lot of stuff that we do. When I started on Wall Street, you know the tape, people don't know, you know, ticker tape, what is that ticker tape? Those were the threads that came out. Well, once upon a time, that's how you communicated. You communicated tickers and you couldn't get it back. So you had proofreaded very carefully.

And you had to make sure that the confirmation you were sending to the central bank of China, Beijing, didn't go to the central bank of China, Taiwan. And you'd kill yourself. So I spent three hours a day doing that. Nobody spends any time doing that. When I practiced law, you used to have to go and look at every case that ever mentioned a case you relied on, lest it be, have been overruled or criticized. I spent days doing that. No one spends minutes doing that today. that's progress. It's going to happen. And I welcome it, particularly since I've already made my money and I'm unemployed.

Must be nice. Joe, when I first joined Bloomberg, one of my key duties was to monitor the fax machine just in case the Bank of Japan sent a fax overnight. Do they still, do they communicate with fax? I believe it's been automated now. One of the versions of the future that people talk about is that, okay, AI is going to come, a bunch of white collar jobs are going to be eliminated and there's going to be some sort of like, universal basic income, redistribution so that people can survive. But in theory, like, that would require some taxation and the handful of winners of the AI world, like they'd have to find some way to tax their wealth, perhaps. But this gets, I'm really interested in taxation because, like, I pay a good chunk of my salary disappears in taxes.

We had a good year last year. So we got bonuses recently, a good chunk immediately disappeared. I'm not going to like... So now you're not a social Democrat in you? You know, the socialist Democrat. It's like not the end of the world. I don't love it, but it's not the end of the world. It's hard for me to wrap my head around people who have all the money in the world

and still optimize their lives about going to the lowest marginal tax jurisdiction. Can you help? No, it's crazy. No, I haven't done that. But you're still in Europe. It's crazy. But I'll just say that's why they have a lot of money to begin with because that's how they think. And also they're fiercely competitive and they just want to win.

I mean, actually it's good in a way. I'm glad that the Mark Zuckerberg's, you may like or just like these names of people. But the fact is, or Elon Musk, they're on the cutting edge and they're still motivated to work. Thank goodness. I'm glad they're ours. I'm glad they work. But to just extrapolate the point you're making, an economic system has to do a couple of things. I mean, it has to do a lot of things, but two major things.

It has to create wealth. And then it has to allocate that wealth, thus created, according to the values of society. I think our system has done a pretty good job in creating wealth. Nobody can get out there and figure out what the new thing is, and nobody's more ruthless about taking things that fail, getting rid of them and repurposing them and getting them off the balance sheet and building, you know, plowing over that airport that no one lands at and making it turn it into a Walmart.

Nobody's better at doing that. But where we have done poorly is the allocation of it, the allocation of the proceeds. And that's, of course, where a lot of the polarization that we're living through now. And, you know, so a variety of things, you know, you have to, you know, obviously progressive taxation is one of them, just building the safety net. So things are free and available to everything that previously you would have had to pay for. So public housing has air conditioning now. Public housing when I grew up didn't have air conditioning. So making life better at a base minimum. But that's the task and that's the challenge that we have to do.

to allocate based upon values in a way that doesn't disincentivizing people from working. So at some level of taxation, you may be disincentivized from working. Poor Elon Musk went back to his shareholders and said, you know, I'm only worth $500 billion because you took away my options from the Tesla thing. Give them back or else I'm not going to work for Tesla anymore. So there. And so he got it back. And so now he's got that extra stimulus of billions, 501 to $700.

49. So people do what they do. But by the way, I'm glad he's working and I'm glad he's one of mine. And I still can't believe those rocket ships can land in TANNAS so beautifully. And nobody else seems to be able to do it. So Bravo, keep on going. I'll give you an extra couple of dollars if it'll help you. You know, we started this conversation talking about how your career trajectory kind of mirrored the rise of globalization. But the other thing it mirrored was the rise of trading and thick on Wall Street. I'm curious if you have any sense now. nowadays what the next sort of booming business is going to be among the investment banks. Everything kind of feels the same. Everything kind of feels flat. Like, is there something that's

going to take off at where you can depreciate yourself? It's not the same, but it rhymes. You know, it doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. You know, really the last generation, the, you know, the cool kids in town were, you know, private equity and alternatives, deals a little less cool the last couple of days, you know, shifts. But there's always, you know, we're always ringing out efficiencies for things. And we're always figuring out, you know, risk versus reward. And so illiquid stuff look better than public market stuff. Then you have a liquidity event where people try to sell and they get gated and that's not working out so well. And so that goes, I don't know. I think, you know, one of the things that AI can't really do is they can't take risk. They could tell you,

in my opinion, based upon my, you know, working this algorithm against this huge database, how those dice would have rolled and what, you know, what percentages when we'll do these simulations and stuff. But at the end of the day, you have to still apply judgment. And if we were sitting there having a conversation a hundred years ago, by the way, people a hundred years from now are going to be around, I don't know if they'll be sitting on this chair or floating above ground, but they're going to be talking about how primitive we were thinking that we're, you know, we're thinking sitting here thinking how cool we are today and how everything's up to date in Kansas City and everything is good and novel.

But all this is going to look, could you imagine they carry their cell phones? Ha ha ha ha. Or could you imagine? Yeah, I mean, but some things as general principles are going to persist. I think they'll be create, create, you know, people are going to still write music and natural.

You know, people will fill in the gaps. If you plug in a song, it'll publish another song like that, but will it do something radically innovative? I don't know. It's possible. again, brains or lines of code. Maybe they'll just have more lines of code and eventually do it. But I do think certain things like willingness to take risk, judgment. I've known so many brilliant people and I've known so many people with good judgment. It's amazing how infrequently

those come together at the same person at the same time. Within a given bank, you know, the push-pull or the tug between, okay, now banking and deal-making is hot or trading as hot and it seems to go back and forth. Like, is there a direction at Goldman or any other bank? What the next leader is going to come from? Could it come from the technology side of the bank? Yes. Well, first

of all, it already has. In a firm like Goldman, I bet over a third of the population of the firm are engineers. It was when I was there. It wouldn't have gotten less in this period of time. If anything, it would have gone more in that direction. So it already is engineering

in efficiency. Look, we're in a world now. We're in trading and market making, a lot of which is done algorithmically by machines. It's a millisecond game. If you have your computers a half a block closer to the main computers of the platform, you win everything. Because even moving at the speed of like getting there ahead, so that's already been done. But in a firm, it's answer, maybe I'm interpreting your question a little bit differently. These things happen at different times. So sometimes it's the people who put deals together. Sometimes it's the people who finance deals.

Sometimes the biggest, coolest kids on the block are the risk managers who prevent the firm from discombobulation and manage risk so successfully so the other people can do their jobs. In our organization, one of the things that I think has helped Goldman Sach through the agent is that the firm is still run like a lot. It's 26 years since it was a private partnership. Half of my tenure was in a private partnership, half was in a company. But we ran the firm as a partnership.

Everybody in the firm got paid largely based on how the firm as a whole did, not just their narrow area. People who did a good job and it wasn't their turn or the market was working away that they couldn't make money, got compensated well for doing a good job, even if the opportunity wasn't there. and if it was an easy market to make money in and they weren't doing a good job and didn't do well, it didn't matter that they did well. In other words, we looked at the firm as a whole. People had to look out for each other.

The place was run as a partnership. That's very helpful. If you have a firm full of people who are owners, everyone is looking around what the people next to them are doing and if they see bad behavior or something's not right, they demand information about the whole firm, not just their narrow area, and they give you opinions even when you don't want to hear it.

And guess what? It's a little bit slower and harder to run that organization. But I think you get a better, you get a better outcome. Now that the book is officially published, it's been a whole 18 hours, I suppose, since it's been published. But is there anything with the benefit of that 18 hours of daylight and reminiscence that you wish you had included in the book and that you left out? I want the really good gossip. I was always telling me, I told, you know, we had, you know, Bloomberg was very nice enough. Mike, Bloomberg, the man, not necessarily the company, hosted an event last night. And I thought of a Bloomberg. There was a story that I told that at the end of it, I could tell you the story, but.

Please. Okay. A million years ago when the first Bloomberg terminals came out. And I was a fairly junior person. They put a Bloomberg turbo in front of me that about 900 people were supposed to share, but it was right in front of me. and everybody was walking by it. Like they were walking, remember the movie 2001 of Space Odyssey? Remember the obelisk?

The obelisk and everyone's doing this. Everybody was doing that. And I finally figured out how to use it. I put yellow pastings on it with my schedule and numbers that I had to look out for. In other words, I couldn't turn. I didn't know how to turn on the machine, but I was using it as a bulletin board. And then somebody calls up and he said, well, Lloyd phone line so-and-so. Who is it?

Bloomberg. So I said, I'll call him back. He said, no, no, it's Bloomberg the person, not Bloomberg the company. And it was Michael Bloomberg. And he calls me. And he called up. And I get on the phone. And he said, I noticed you, we noticed you haven't turned on your machine.

And I said, oh, my God, where's the camera? Now I said, well, we could tell. Digital surveillance very early on. Yeah, we started to get. And I said, and I said, well, and so you're calling me. And he goes, oh, no, we do the way here. And I don't know if they do it today, but in early Bloomberg. he had all the senior people in the organization every day they had to call five customers each one

and call them and discuss and I said I said you know wow I promise I'll turn on machine probably about two years later I figured out how to do it but I'll turn on the machine but I said isn't that a very inefficient use of your time because here you are calling me and I wasn't a senior and you guys no no we learn a lot about the business I realize now that was a very stupid comment Because here I am, first of all, everybody on our floor knew that Mike had called and that he cared. The guy whose name was on the door cared about whether we're using or not. And not only laterally across that dimension, everybody knew, but here I am 35 years later telling the story. And so now you're hearing about it.

That was a very good use of three minutes of Michael Bloomberg that I'm telling that story about his care. And so, to me, I know how Bloomberg got built. And so that was the lesson I learned. So I told that story. And then I said, you know, Mike, this book is so good and has so many good stories that that one didn't even make it in the book. It's on the cutting room floor. If it sells well, maybe volume two or volume three. Well, we went a couple minutes over, but that was a good story.

That was a good ad for both the book and for Bloomberg. So thank you. I know my audience. Lloyd Blank Fine. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. That was our conversation with former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blank Fine recorded live on March 3rd at Bloomberg Invest. I'm Tracy Allaway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.

And I'm Jill Wisenthall. You can follow me at the stalwart. Follow Lloyd Blankfein. He's at Lloyd Blankfine. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armand Dashobin at Kailbrews at Kail Brooks. And for more odd lots content, go to Bloomberg.com slash oddlots for the daily newsletter in all of our episodes. and you can chat about all of these topics 24-7 in our Discord, discord.g.g slash oddlots. And if you enjoy Oddlots, if you like it when we ask Lloyd Blankfein why he doesn't tweet more, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely add free.

All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening. You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News. Now, I'm Amy Morris. And I'm Karen Moscow here to tell you about our new on-demand news report delivered right to your podcast feed. Bloomberg News Now is a short five-minute audio report on the day's top stories. Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest information and data to keep you informed. Yes, there are other products like this from a variety of news organizations. But they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day.

That's not what we do. We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg News Now. And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news. When news breaks, we'll have an episode up in your podcast feed within minutes. So you're always getting the latest stories and developments. Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts we're all over the world. Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News Now on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen.

What separates good leaders from transformational ones? I'm Jessica Chen, and in season two of Leading By Example, we'll sit down with executives like Grace Chen of Bertie Gray to find out. It's important to understand where you spike, but also really acknowledge where you don't and find people who can fill those gaps. Listen to Leading By Example, executives making an impact on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.