Scott Chan

And that would be difficult enough to manage alone, but they're highly levered institutions on top of that. And so you're levering up this fundamental mismatch. If you think about that system, it's bound to go wrong. It's bound for something to go wrong. And in fact, every crisis in the U.S., you see 500 to 1,000 banks go under.

We have this generational shift of assets that most likely never belonged on banks' balance sheets, shifting to balance sheets where they do belong. So if you think about a CalSTRS, on the other hand, we don't have leverage or we have a very small amount of leverage. Our horizon is super long-term.

We have this generational shift of assets that most likely never belonged on banks' balance sheets, shifting to balance sheets where they do belong. So if you think about a CalSTRS, on the other hand, we don't have leverage or we have a very small amount of leverage. Our horizon is super long-term.

We have this generational shift of assets that most likely never belonged on banks' balance sheets, shifting to balance sheets where they do belong. So if you think about a CalSTRS, on the other hand, we don't have leverage or we have a very small amount of leverage. Our horizon is super long-term.

So we never have a run on the bank, and we can match that asset with the appropriate long-term horizon and duration. So I think we'll see this generational shift of assets that are moving, and there can be cycles where there's more or less of it providing better or worse pricing opportunities, but this is something that it's going to take years. It's a generational shift.

So we never have a run on the bank, and we can match that asset with the appropriate long-term horizon and duration. So I think we'll see this generational shift of assets that are moving, and there can be cycles where there's more or less of it providing better or worse pricing opportunities, but this is something that it's going to take years. It's a generational shift.

So we never have a run on the bank, and we can match that asset with the appropriate long-term horizon and duration. So I think we'll see this generational shift of assets that are moving, and there can be cycles where there's more or less of it providing better or worse pricing opportunities, but this is something that it's going to take years. It's a generational shift.

of assets that are going to be moving to different hands, right? Insurance companies and pension funds, for example. Those crises that could be born. Number two, there are new areas, right? So if you think about technology, what's different today? A tech CEO might be spending half their time in power and in data centers three years ago.

of assets that are going to be moving to different hands, right? Insurance companies and pension funds, for example. Those crises that could be born. Number two, there are new areas, right? So if you think about technology, what's different today? A tech CEO might be spending half their time in power and in data centers three years ago.

of assets that are going to be moving to different hands, right? Insurance companies and pension funds, for example. Those crises that could be born. Number two, there are new areas, right? So if you think about technology, what's different today? A tech CEO might be spending half their time in power and in data centers three years ago.

It probably was delegated to somebody where the CEO or president ever got involved, right? This year, if you looked at some of the public companies, it's like over 300 billion in capital expenditure that they want to start to deploy. And so there's such a big demand in a new area.

It probably was delegated to somebody where the CEO or president ever got involved, right? This year, if you looked at some of the public companies, it's like over 300 billion in capital expenditure that they want to start to deploy. And so there's such a big demand in a new area.

It probably was delegated to somebody where the CEO or president ever got involved, right? This year, if you looked at some of the public companies, it's like over 300 billion in capital expenditure that they want to start to deploy. And so there's such a big demand in a new area.

And because they're trying to move it off the balance sheet, a lot of it's going to go into the private markets, whether it be private credit, or the development and building of the real estate. So they're new areas. And then I think there's also a complexity premium, right? So if something is complex that takes, for example, mature technology, but you're trying to scale it in a new area.

And because they're trying to move it off the balance sheet, a lot of it's going to go into the private markets, whether it be private credit, or the development and building of the real estate. So they're new areas. And then I think there's also a complexity premium, right? So if something is complex that takes, for example, mature technology, but you're trying to scale it in a new area.

And because they're trying to move it off the balance sheet, a lot of it's going to go into the private markets, whether it be private credit, or the development and building of the real estate. So they're new areas. And then I think there's also a complexity premium, right? So if something is complex that takes, for example, mature technology, but you're trying to scale it in a new area.

It's hard for us to think of something not... at least in a five-year set or more to think about taking advantage of a structural shift. If you think about CalSTRS, if we're successful with $350 billion today, 10, 12, 13 years from now, we will have created a whole new CalSTRS. We will have doubled our asset base. So this idea of how we find

It's hard for us to think of something not... at least in a five-year set or more to think about taking advantage of a structural shift. If you think about CalSTRS, if we're successful with $350 billion today, 10, 12, 13 years from now, we will have created a whole new CalSTRS. We will have doubled our asset base. So this idea of how we find

It's hard for us to think of something not... at least in a five-year set or more to think about taking advantage of a structural shift. If you think about CalSTRS, if we're successful with $350 billion today, 10, 12, 13 years from now, we will have created a whole new CalSTRS. We will have doubled our asset base. So this idea of how we find

How we invest with scale is a compounding idea because as our returns compound, we become larger and larger as an organization.