Stephen Schwarzman on The David Rubenstein Show:

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZyH2wXC6DkY” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>
Nov.14 — Blackstone Group Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Stephen Schwarzman talks about starting the firm, surviving the real estate crash of 2007, and being rejected from Harvard. Schwarzman appears on “The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations.” The show was recorded on Sept. 4 in New York.
18:15
it worked out and alchemy you did the
18:18
IPO and Chinese invested and then after
18:21
you did the IPO let me mention two deals
18:24
that you did one was the biggest real
18:26
estate deal in history GOP real estate
18:29
company built by Sam Zell and you did a
18:32
40 billion dollar buyout in effect is
18:34
that right yeah it’s 39 actually okay
18:36
all right thirty nine billion dollars it
18:39
was a bidding war you won the bidding
18:41
war but the real estate market crumbled
18:43
right after the deal was done so how did
18:44
you survive with that deal well we
18:47
worried
18:47
because the same reason we were going
18:49
public I sense we were a market top for
real estate so so just buying 39 billion
dollars of real estate III thought was
dangerous because you had to pay a
pretty good price to get it because it
was competitive so as as soon as we
decided we were going to actually raise
our price enough to be the winner there
were two or three of us sitting around
saying this deal is potentially
dangerous we’ve got to reduce the
leverage and we’ve got to take advantage
of the crazy prices
that people are paying so we’ve decided
to sell half of what we bought the same
day we bought it so when I told people
that they just sort of looked at me and
and said the same day I said I don’t
want to take any risk that the world’s
gonna change and we’re gonna be stuck
with all of this so we basically had
every conference room at the firm active
one buying but then we broke it up into
all these pieces but if you hadn’t done
you would have lost all your money I
think that’s probably a market cratered
virtually the next day right because
most of the people who bought from us
basically got into enormous financial
trouble or went insolvent and and so
after we did that and closed everybody
went home
they’d been sleepless three days later
they came back and we said let’s sell
half of what we got left now and be even
more conservative so everybody went back
to work
and we ended up with one quarter of what
we bought very conservatively priced so
we could survive any kind of nuclear
winter we ended up making three times
our money buying right this this giant
thing at the top and and
there’s never been more than ten billion
dollars bought or sold by a group we did
70 billion so you wants to blot another
company before the recession really hit
that was caught Hilton and that was a
leveraged buyout and some people might
21:17
say at the top of the market and that
21:19
deal went down in terms of the debt and
21:22
maybe the equity but then you openly did
21:24
things that made it the most profitable
21:26
buyout in the history of buyouts what
21:28
did what did you do well that was pretty
21:29
easy actually looked hard but you know
21:34
Hilton had not been integrated they were
21:36
running for different headquarters and
21:38
there was a huge modernization and and
21:42
and and cost takeout Oklahoma you sold
21:45
it up about a fourteen billion dollar
21:47
profit yes well if we had held it it
21:49
would have been held it longer it would
21:51
have been over 20 so so it was a good
21:54
day
21:54
cuz nice forty nine billion in recent
21:57
years you’ve become one of the nation’s
21:58
biggest philanthropists you gave three
22:00
hundred and fifty million dollars to MIT
22:03
for a computing Center and related to
22:05
artificial intelligence you never went
22:07
to MIT you had no connection there how
22:08
did that come about well that was that
22:10
was really fascinating i I’m not a
22:12
technologist I had met the president of
22:16
MIT Rafael Reif and we started talking
22:19
and you know I we were concerned that
22:23
the u.s. was just not investing enough
22:25
in these technologies and I said do you
22:28
have any interesting ideas so he came
22:33
back with a let’s double the computer
22:36
science faculty let’s take our it’s
22:39
established a new department in effect a
22:42
new school called it a college which is
22:46
now gonna be the MIT schwartzman College
22:48
of Computing and let’s connect AI to all
22:52
the other departments at MIT so MIT will
22:57
become the first AI enabled university
23:00
in the world and I said now that’s a
23:03
vision I could buy in on final question
23:06
I’d like to ask you it just deals with
23:08
this if somebody is watching or reading
23:10
your book
23:11
and they want to be a leader a leader in
23:13
business or philanthropy or or in
23:16
government what do you think is the key
23:17
quality to be a leader and what have you
23:19
seen as their key quality enable you to
23:21
be a leader I I think to be a leader you
23:23
have to be a really good listener you
23:27
have to understand what’s going on
23:29
around you you you have to be measured
23:33
and and you have to realize that
23:36
everything you do is amplified in the
23:41
minds of the people who are listening to
23:42
you so so care nuance kindness but
23:49
defining a culture it’s what a leader
23:53
does Steve thanks very much for this
23:56
time I appreciate it thanks David

The End of Neoliberalism and the Rebirth of History

For 40 years, elites in rich and poor countries alike promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. Now that the evidence is in, is it any wonder that trust in elites and confidence in democracy have plummeted?

NEW YORK – At the end of the Cold War, political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote a celebrated essay called “The End of History?” Communism’s collapse, he argued, would clear the last obstacle separating the entire world from its destiny of liberal democracy and market economies. Many people agreed.

Today, as we face a retreat from the rules-based, liberal global order, with autocratic rulers and demagogues leading countries that contain well over half the world’s population, Fukuyama’s idea seems quaint and naive. But it reinforced the neoliberal economic doctrine that has prevailed for the last 40 years.

The credibility of neoliberalism’s faith in unfettered markets as the surest road to shared prosperity is on life-support these days. And well it should be. The simultaneous waning of confidence in neoliberalism and in democracy is no coincidence or mere correlation. Neoliberalism has undermined democracy for 40 years.

The form of globalization prescribed by neoliberalism left individuals and entire societies unable to control an important part of their own destiny, as Dani Rodrik of Harvard University has explained so clearly, and as I argue in my recent books Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited and People, Power, and Profits. The effects of capital-market liberalization were particularly odious: If a leading presidential candidate in an emerging market lost favor with Wall Street, the banks would pull their money out of the country. Voters then faced a stark choice: Give in to Wall Street or face a severe financial crisis. It was as if Wall Street had more political power than the country’s citizens.

Even in rich countries, ordinary citizens were told, “You can’t pursue the policies you want” – whether adequate social protection, decent wages, progressive taxation, or a well-regulated financial system – “because the country will lose competitiveness, jobs will disappear, and you will suffer.”

In rich and poor countries alike, elites promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and that the benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. To get there, though, workers would have to accept lower wages, and all citizens would have to accept cutbacks in important government programs.

ps subscription image no tote bag no discount

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Subscribe today and get unlimited access to OnPoint, the Big Picture, the PS archive of more than 14,000 commentaries, and our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.

SUBSCRIBE

The elites claimed that their promises were based on scientific economic models and “evidence-based research.” Well, after 40 years, the numbers are in: growth has slowed, and the fruits of that growth went overwhelmingly to a very few at the top. As wages stagnated and the stock market soared, income and wealth flowed up, rather than trickling down.

How can wage restraint – to attain or maintain competitiveness – and reduced government programs possibly add up to higher standards of living? Ordinary citizens felt like they had been sold a bill of goods. They were right to feel conned.

We are now experiencing the political consequences of this grand deception: distrust of the elites, of the economic “science” on which neoliberalism was based, and of the money-corrupted political system that made it all possible.

The reality is that, despite its name, the era of neoliberalism was far from liberal. It imposed an intellectual orthodoxy whose guardians were utterly intolerant of dissent. Economists with heterodox views were treated as heretics to be shunned, or at best shunted off to a few isolated institutions. Neoliberalism bore little resemblance to the “open society” that Karl Popper had advocated. As George Soros has emphasized, Popper recognized that our society is a complex, ever-evolving system in which the more we learn, the more our knowledge changes the behavior of the system.

Nowhere was this intolerance greater than in macroeconomics, where the prevailing models ruled out the possibility of a crisis like the one we experienced in 2008. When the impossible happened, it was treated as if it were a 500-year flood – a freak occurrence that no model could have predicted. Even today, advocates of these theories refuse to accept that their belief in self-regulating markets and their dismissal of externalities as either nonexistent or unimportant led to the deregulation that was pivotal in fueling the crisis. The theory continues to survive, with Ptolemaic attempts to make it fit the facts, which attests to the reality that bad ideas, once established, often have a slow death.

If the 2008 financial crisis failed to make us realize that unfettered markets don’t work, the climate crisis certainly should: neoliberalism will literally bring an end to our civilization. But it is also clear that demagogues who would have us turn our back on science and tolerance will only make matters worse.

The only way forward, the only way to save our planet and our civilization, is a rebirth of history. We must revitalize the Enlightenment and recommit to honoring its values of freedom, respect for knowledge, and democracy.

Right Forecast by Schiff, Wrong Plan?

Peter Schiff predicted a collapse of the U.S. financial system. The bust-up he didn’t foresee was the one that made mincemeat of investors who took his advice in 2008.

Mr. Schiff’s Darien, Conn., broker-dealer firm, Euro Pacific Capital Inc., advised its clients to bet that the dollar would weaken significantly and that foreign stocks would outpace their U.S. peers. Instead, the dollar advanced against most currencies, magnifying the losses from foreign stocks Mr. Schiff steered his investors into.

Investors open accounts at Euro Pacific to take advantage of Mr. Schiff’s investment advice, which generally involves shunning investments in dollars. Individual returns can vary. Some investors may like gold-mining stocks, while others prefer energy-focused stocks.

Most had one thing in common last year: heavy losses. A number of investors said their Euro Pacific portfolios lost 50% or more in 2008, worse than the 38% drop in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index last year. People familiar with the firm say that hardly any securities recommended by Euro Pacific brokers gained ground in 2008.

Such losses came as something of a surprise. Mr. Schiff’s prescient call for the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the weakening of the financial system helped him gain fame as an economic guru and savvy investor who promised shelter from the financial storm.

In his 2007 book, “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse,” he recommends that investors pile into gold, commodities and overseas stocks that spit out steady dividends.

When global markets were soaring, many Euro Pacific investors’ accounts experienced strong performance. For several years, investors saw returns in excess of 20% a year as foreign stocks and commodities surged, according to people familiar with the firm.

In 2008, investors nervous about the state of the U.S. economy who were impressed by Mr. Schiff’s track record poured money into Euro Pacific, nearly doubling the number of accounts to 16,000. But many did so at the worst time possible, much like investors who piled into Internet stocks as the dot-com bubble peaked.

Mr. Schiff, 45 years old, says the downturn in his strategy is a short-term setback. He argues that it is only a matter of time before the dollar collapses, pressured by massive government bailouts, triggering outsize returns for his investors.

I think the dollar is going to get destroyed,” he says. Investors with the staying power to wait out what he sees as a temporary phase of irrational confidence in the dollar will reap huge rewards, he argues.

Mr. Schiff is still riding high on his housing-market call. This week, he spoke at a global competitiveness conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, alongside former heads of state, prime ministers and American gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps. He is the subject of more than 3,000 YouTube videos, including one called “Peter Schiff Was Right.”

His admirers even created Web sites supporting a possible run for the U.S. Senate in 2010. Mr. Schiff, who was economic adviser to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul in 2008, says he has no plans to run for the Senate but “anything’s possible.”

Critics say Mr. Schiff’s strategy is much riskier and more aggressive than many investors realize. David Yeske, managing director of Yeske Buie, a Vienna, Va., money manager, says Mr. Schiff’s investment strategy was a focused bet on a single outcome, rather than risk management for investors looking to protect assets from an economic collapse. “He’s a speculator; he thinks he can see the future,” says Mr. Yeske, former chairman of the Financial Planning Association. “That’s not really risk control.”

One of Mr. Schiff’s biggest forecasts was that many overseas economies would “decouple” from the U.S., gaining strength even as the American economy struggled. Instead, overseas stock markets plunged as much or more than U.S. stocks in 2008 as the global economy skidded. Prices for commodities also tanked, torpedoing another favorite investment theme of Mr. Schiff’s. After last year’s losses, his firm has about $845 million in assets.

Early last year, Richard De Gennaro, a retired Harvard University librarian, put $100,000, about 15% of his assets, into a Euro Pacific account that included Canadian Oil Sands Trust, which focuses on crude-oil projects in Canada, and the India Capital Growth Fund, which holds investments in companies that do business in India.

Both investments took big hits in 2008, compounded by the fact that the Canadian dollar and the Indian rupee fell 18% and 19%, respectively, against the U.S. dollar. The 83-year-old retiree’s account is now worth about $37,000, a 63% plunge. Mr. Schiff “goes around saying that he was right,” says Mr. De Gennaro. “He was right about one thing and wrong about everything else.”

Among investors who turned to Mr. Schiff’s firm just as his strategy began to falter, Brian Kullberg, a design engineer in Portland, Ore., says he started to worry about the state of the U.S. economy in early 2008. He put $70,000 into a Euro Pacific account, hoping it would benefit as the U.S. economy and the dollar weakened. By late January 2009, his investment had shrunk to about $25,000.

“It’s curious,” says one longtime client of Mr. Schiff’s who works in finance. “His thesis of how things are going to collapse and crumble and fall apart isn’t effectively executed in [my] account.” The account, which is largely invested in gold, mining and infrastructure stocks from Canada to Australia, was down roughly 35% last year, the client estimates. The Australian dollar weakened 19% against the U.S. dollar in 2008.

Mr. Schiff says one year’s poor performance doesn’t prove he was wrong. He has admitted in notes to clients that his investment thesis hasn’t performed as expected, particularly with respect to the U.S. dollar. But he holds fast to his convictions and has been telling investors to scoop up a number of depressed stocks.

Some clients are inclined to agree. “The decoupling he talked about has not happened,” says Barbara Hearst, a clothing entrepreneur who splits her time between Charleston, S.C., and Bridgehampton, N.Y., and has invested with Mr. Schiff since 2000. But “longer term or medium term, I don’t discount what Peter says.”