BONUS: NY Comptroller Candidate Drew Warshaw on Changing the NY State Pension Funds

26:10I don't think that could be the definition of success in a position of this consequence. And unfortunately, that is what we have heard. So look, I think he is not corrupt. I don't know of any sex scandal, but we have to be doing more. And you asked some of the things that he could be doing more of. I think the way he has managed the$300 billion public pension fund has amounted to malpractice. I think it has cost New Yorkers, and we'll talk about this, nearly$60 billion of extra taxes that have come out of our pocket and literally just been vaporized. So I think whether it's the public pension fund, the fact that he hasn't been able to get$20 billion of New Yorkers back into their pockets in the middle of an affordability crisis, or the way he focuses the audit authority, not going after the things that matter most to New Yorkers and instead spreading his staff and diluting his staff over thousands and thousands of audits.

27:08And if you audited 2 ,000 things every single year, it is very difficult to get to the root cause of any one of them. And so I think just even the level of focus, and we could talk about some of the ideas and some of the areas that I would audit, just need to be fundamentally more focused. And when you run large organizations or large businesses or even large government agencies, resources are finite at the end of the day. And you need to understand that and you need to concentrate those finite resources on the things that matter most. So let's talk about the New York State Pension Fund, nearly$300 billion.

27:42You've taken to standing by the Wall Street charging bull with a giant check for$21 million that you say is how much the fund is wasting every week. So that's$1.1 billion a year in fees. Yes. We'll dive into that. I'm just curious, what sort of reaction do you get from people down by the bull on Wall Street? Yeah, so I think Drew for NY is what you're talking about. And by the way, it's lower Broadway near Wall Street. Right. So if you go to DrewFranY on Instagram or X or whatever social channel, you will see what Barry is talking about. But every single Friday, which is payday, which is when New Yorkers get paid, I go down to the Wall Street Bull and I call – I don't know what we can say on this podcast.

28:32You can say whatever you want. Okay, I call bullsh** on the fact that our New York State Comptroller for the last 18 years has given$11.3 billion in fees to hundreds of Wall Street bankers who fundamentally didn't do their job, who did not beat the market net of their fees. They did not even come close. In fact, they underperformed his own market benchmarks by 39 % and got$11.3 billion in fees. And we got this all off of the Comptroller's annual reports. Is that how you got to 50 plus billion dollars was the underperformance? The underperformance would have had to be made up by taxpayers. Now, the state controller walks around and he goes, you know, I've done a really good job.

29:13Why? Because the Public Pension Fund of New York is one of the best funded in the nation. And he's right. It is. But he doesn't tell you why. It's funded through taxes. It's funded because 11 million New York taxpayers over the last 18 years paid fifty nine point one billion dollars in extra property taxes. and extra state income taxes to make certain it was fully funded. It was the taxpayers that insured that, not the stewardship of the investment fund, because it is New York state law for the public pension fund to be fully funded. Mickey Mouse could be the state controller, and it must be. The question is how.

29:47How is it funded? Is it through the investment income and the returns, if you're doing your job, or is it through taxpayers subsidizing the underperformance? And that's what we found, Barry. We found that$59.1 billion of additional taxes, what we call the Dinapoli tax, has had to subsidize that 39 percent underperformance over the last 18 years. So I live in Nassau County, which I think is like the third or fourth highest property tax in the country. Are you telling me that my taxes are higher because the New York State Pension Fund is not even getting market beta? Is that what I'm to understand?

30:24That is exactly the case. You understand this perfectly. And that is the direct connection between this job and people. And that's just one of the direct connection between this job and everyday New Yorkers' lives. On Long Island last year, 10 of the 13 towns on Long Island blew through their property tax cap. The reason they blew through it is because Tom DiNapoli did not do his job. It's because he underperformed the market and we are sending billions of dollars of property taxes,$1.1 billion last year alone, or$20 million every single week. every single payday alone in fees to a bunch of bankers who fundamentally did not do their job.

31:01And if you and I didn't do our job for 18 straight years, what would happen to us? We'd be fired. And these guys continue to get paid and paid and paid. So let's talk a little bit about what that pension fund should look like. And full disclosure, I've testified at various state pension funds. I've made the argument, actually it was about a dozen years ago, to the Connecticut Pension Fund that they should move away from high-priced alts and just simplify. What do you think we should do with this$300 billion pension fund? How should it be positioned? So the state controller right now pays 664 different investment managers to actively invest the fund.

31:46And their promise is we will beat the market net of our fees. And as we've established, they have not even come close. And what I would do is I would replace those 664 investment managers with a diversified set of low-cost index funds. To your point, let's not pay all these fees for something that they have been unable to do over the last 18 years. And let's take the market return. Let's focus on asset allocation. To be very clear, that matters. Whether it's between 89 % or 93.4 % of a portfolio's return will be driven by your asset allocation. So let's spend our time and resources on getting that right and making sure that asset allocation matches the job description of the fund.

32:28An asset allocation can look very different depending on what that fund needs to do, the liquidity needs, and so on and so forth. So let's focus on that. Once we do that, the picking and choosing of the underlying securities and so on and so forth, to me, I think that's a loser's game, as one person famously said it. And I think we should save taxpayers their money in the form of these fees, and we'd earn a better rate of return for the pension, and we'd be able to lower property taxes in the process. Right. The data on active managers beating their benchmark. And to be fair, a big chunk do every year, but it's just about half, usually a little less each year.

33:06Over time, that drops to about 20 percent over five years, 10 percent over 10 years. And over 20 years, it's virtually nobody. You know the handful of names, Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, et cetera. But the vast majority, vast, vast majority don't. Um, what sort of response do you think you would get from wall street who is very happy to collect, uh, big fees on underperforming funds? And, and again, to be fair, there is a substantial chunk of fund managers that do great each year. It's just really hard to pick them consistently over time. And that's the thing. Um, so one, the response that I've gotten from people who understand finance and investments, no one could possibly understand how someone could hire 664 different investment managers.

33:56Effectively, he's bought the most expensive index fund in the world with the worst tracking error. And that's basically what he has done, right? And with a lower sharp ratio than the market. So you're getting a worse risk adjusted rate of return and you're underperforming the market by 39%. So it's like on every possible level, this thing is not performing. And I'm not here to say, you know, we can debate active management versus passive management. What I am here to say is for purposes of a$291 billion fund that is managed by a bunch of folks in Albany, I do not believe that fund should or needs to try to pick the pickers and to somehow be the ones who, frankly, I think would be arrogant enough to think that they know how to choose these folks.

34:44And they have 664 of them. So I don't know how selective you could be by basically hiring everyone anyway. Hey, someone has to be pretty good in that group. Right. Exactly. But how do I know which one? And I'm not arrogant enough to think I do. So here's the pushback. And I have this discussion on the regular, but the pushback is, well, we could be concentrated in any one index or any group of indexes, but we want non-correlated returns and we want the potential to outperform the market. So when we go to venture capital or private equity or private credit or real estate investments, it allows us to withstand whatever the market or the economy throws at us because these are so non-correlated and they give us the chance to outperform the market.

35:37When you buy an index, all you're going to get is the market. Yeah, sure. So I guess a couple of things on that. One, I think diversification matters. So that's back to asset allocation. Absolutely, we need to be thoughtful about diversifying. We need to be thoughtful about idiosyncrasies and trying to find those non-correlative asset classes. But to me, the idea that we should put our money in a bunch of private asset classes to basically perform an exercise in volatility washing just because they may not have to mark to market their valuations the way every split second in the public markets we know exactly what an asset is worth in terms of that value discovery and price discovery.

36:23To me, that can't be the reason we are putting our money in private asset classes. We can deal with volatility in the mechanics of the contribution rates and look-back periods and smoothing mechanisms and things like that. But let's not have that be the reason we put our money in private asset classes. If there are idiosyncratic opportunities, if there are ways to diversify within the context of a private market, I am open to that. But what I am not open to is the idea that just because it's somehow in private equity, the laws of physics and gravity of the economy are not impacting the underlying assets simply because the ownership model looks different, right?

37:09I mean, to me, that doesn't mean that we've diversified. It just means we've changed the ownership structure. And if we can diversify, I would love to have that conversation and we could get the benefits of those idiosyncrasies. then great. I truly am open to that conversation. But to me, it can't simply be because we're going to wash away the volatility because that is a terrible reason to make investments. That volatility washing, you're channeling Cliff Asnes of AQR. He's the one who's championed that phrase more than anybody else. And he's a quant and an active manager. And he says, Because if you're putting things into privates just so you don't have to do quarterly reporting, you're probably paying too much in fees and you're probably giving up too much in terms of future returns.

38:02Yeah, that's a bad reason. Right. And again, in the context of a pension fund, we could deal with volatility. I appreciate and am sensitive to the liquidity needs to ensure benefit payouts. But we can do those things outside the context of our investment choices. We could do that in the context of the mechanics of how the pension fund is funded and smoothing mechanisms and averaging and so on and so forth. We don't have to do it in the actual job of investments. So let's stay with that because it's really a fascinating way to think about – whenever I talk about perpetual funds like a pension or a foundation, they have certain obligations.

38:44There's a substantial payout every year. If you're a tax-exempt foundation, it's 5 percent at a minimum. I think the pension fund pays out a whole lot more than that each year, right? That's right. Like$15 or$16 billion a year. So that's not an insubstantial chunk of money. How do you think about and how should whoever is running the New York State Pension Fund think about the future liabilities that fund has for forever and what it means for asset allocation. Does this mean we steer away from illiquid assets? Does this mean we steer towards fixed income? How do you think about that asset allocation model?

39:27I think it just needs to be balanced, and it needs to align and reflect to the job description of the fund. And I was talking to a former chief investment officer of one of the largest public pension funds in the United States, and he was the one who reminded me, You know, Drew, what is the job description of the New York State Public Pension Fund? What does it need to do? What is the benefit stream that it needs to pay out? What is the income stream that is coming in, whether it's from the investment income or, you know, public taxpayers and, you know, employers, the 3 ,000 municipalities that are paying into the public pension fund that are funded by those property taxes?

40:05So to me, that is first principles. And for my part, I think we absolutely can be in areas that are less liquid. We just need to have balanced liquidity. We just need to ensure that, on the other hand, we have pockets of the portfolio that we know can perform or we know can pay out and we know are highly liquid. And fortunately, in the capital markets, there are plenty of asset classes that can provide that liquidity. while some of our assets may be tied up and can either get, whether it's some illiquidity premium or some other cash flow characteristic that is useful, again, for that broader job description of the fund that has to pay out now, but also, to your point, is the ultimate long-term investor.

40:52The state of New York is not going away anytime soon. They are a forever open fund. And we need to have that focus of and that balance of what are our liquidity needs today and over the foreseeable future. But how are we investing to ensure the public employees and the public school teachers who just entered the workforce, who are teaching my two sons, are going to have the benefits paid out 30, 35, 40 years from now? And for sure, 90 percent of the assets don't need to be liquid each year, even if most of them will be. It's less than 10 percent annually that has to be paid out. What you're proposing sounds radical, but I could look at elsewhere around the country.

41:41I know CalPERS made a shift a few years ago, 10 years ago, where they took a lot of money away from not just underperforming hedge funds, but even fairly well-performing hedge funds that were kind of pricey and rolled them into index funds. And then very famously, The Wall Street Journal did this somewhat hilarious article about the head of a Nevada pension fund. And it's one person who is fully indexed and really goes in, answers some email, answers his own phone, has lunch and goes home. This isn't really radical what you're proposing. This is BlackRock, half of their$12 trillion is passive or I should say indexed.

42:29Even more of Vanguard's$11 trillion is indexed. This is fairly state-of-the-art thinking. If you want to use radical, it is radical common sense. It is the first day of business school. They gather you around and they say, come close. We're going to tell you a secret. It turns out it's really, really hard to beat the market net of fees. It's really hard to do that over a long period of time. It's especially hard to do that with a fund size as big as$300 billion that just wants to regress to the mean. And so focus on asset allocation. Think about diversification. Think about that job description.

43:05But once you do, don't worry about the last 6 % or whatever it is, which a lot of people argue may not be skill, could be luck, could be a lot of other factors. I don't need to have that debate right now. For purposes of the third largest public pension fund in the United States of America, we should not be trying to beat the market and doing something that we can't possibly do because it turns out over the last 18 years, it has crushed taxpayers in the process in the middle of an affordability crisis. And what we've seen, Barry, and what this basically amounts to is our state controller over the last 18 years has overseen one of the largest wealth transfers that no one knows anything about.

43:42From ordinary taxpayers,$59.1 billion, to hundreds of Wall Street bankers who didn't do their job. And if they were to do their job, if they were to beat the market net of fees, great. Then it's a win-win. Then everyone wins. Then we are living in a world in which we can have our cake and we can eat it too. But I live in the real world. 19 million New Yorkers live in the real world. It hasn't happened over the last 18 years. And that's why I think we need a fundamental change. Coming up, we continue our conversation with Drew Warshaw, candidate for New York State Comptroller, talking about what most New Yorkers don't understand about the position.

44:23I'm Barry Rittles. You're listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

44:36I'm Carol Masser. And I'm Tim Stenevec, inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Now, every day, we are bringing you reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead. We've got insight on the people, the companies, and trends that are shaping today's complex economy. That's right, Tim. We're all over global business, finance, tech news, all as it is happening in real time. And we've got complete coverage of the U.S. market close. Gotta say, basically, if it impacts financial markets, if it impacts companies, if it's impacting trends and narratives that are out there, we are on it.

45:06We also have a lot of fun doing it. Bloomberg Business Week also brings you the analysis behind the headlines through conversations with our expert guests. And we are doing this all live each weekday. And then we bring you the best analysis in our daily podcast. Search for Bloomberg Business Week on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen. Check it out on your way home from work to catch up on the conversations that you miss during the business day. And on the weekend, check it out for a complete wrap-up of your Business Week. That's the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. I'm Carol Masser.

45:35And I'm Tim Stenevec. Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts.

45:44I'm Barry Ritholtz. You're listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is Drew Warshaw. He is a candidate for New York State Comptroller in New York. Really, the primary is the whole thing, and that will be held in June of 2026. So we've talked a bit about the pension. Let's talk about some of the other roles within the New York State Comptroller's Office. You mentioned the office does 2 ,000 audits a year. What areas are they auditing? What's the purpose of it? And how do you want to change that? What areas do you think they should be auditing but are not?

46:28Sure. So their remit, their job jar is they are allowed to audit anything that touches a state tax dollar, which if anyone understands public finance is basically everything because our taxes go up to Albany and then they get redistributed all across the state. So he, in theory, is able to audit anything he wants. These are audits, I think, importantly to understand, these are not only financial statement audits, which they are, they do do those, but these are auditing the efficacy of how our tax dollars are spent. Are they spent well? Are they getting the results that the legislature and these laws intended?

47:06If not, how should we improve them? So this is also not just chief auditor, but sort of chief efficiency officer of the state of New York. And one of the things that – and there are nearly 3 ,000 employees who work for the state controller, which I hear, and that seems like a lot. That seems like an extraordinary resource to be able to deploy over a quarter of a trillion dollars of spending. But when you dilute those resources over thousands of different audits and you don't focus your finite resources, I think, on the things that matter most, then you don't get to the root cause of so many of the challenges.

47:42Give us a few examples. So let me give you three. Let me just give you three examples. And everyone, you know, would start with the MTA. And of course, we're going to audit the MTA. But the first thing I was thinking of is why is it so expensive to build subway or roads and tolls and things like that? But one of the things that I want to get to some of the other things, because the state controller actually does audit the MTA. And one of the things that I would want to do is because there have been so many audits of the MTA, I would first initially just do an audit of the audits. I would want to truly understand what have been the findings, make sure that those findings make sense, and then just simply cross-reference to what have they implemented and what are still outstanding.

48:21And, like, literally just simplify it from that point. And then we can get in the weeds once you've gotten smarter on that. But for my part, before we, like, launch into some new MTA audit, there have been so many MTA audits. Let's just understand what of the findings have actually been addressed and what remain outstanding. But I want to talk about three audits, three things that I think we should concentrate this authority on. One is I think we should audit the Department of Financial Services. What is the Department of Financial Services? It turns out the State Department of Financial Services is the largest regulator of insurance companies in the country.

48:57Insurance companies are not regulated by the federal government. They are regulated on a state-by-state basis, and the Department of Financial Services in the state of New York happens to be the largest among them. How are they doing? We have no idea because we have never done a top to bottom audit on the way in which they regulate this massive sector of our economy, whose business model these days seems to be to take our money and make it really, really hard to get it back, whether it's on the health side and the health insurance, you know, gauntlet that you have to run or in my old world, in the housing world.

49:32With property insurance premium skyrocketing, with deductibles going up to the point where you basically are self-insuring anyway, so you need to start asking questions like that. We are going to get to the bottom of this insurance industry, and we can from this position of state controller. A second area, the New York State Public Service Commission and the Department of Public Service, another sort of mouthful of bureaucratic-sounding things. Well, it turns out this bureaucratic sounding thing is the largest regulator of our electric and gas utility monopolies. This is the one thing that ensures that these monopolies actually serve the public interest.

50:12And I was in the electricity business for eight years building renewable energy, power infrastructure all across the country. And I had to deal with these utility monopolies. And these utility monopolies are broken. And their regulator is not doing anything about it. And what I would do is go in and we would audit the regulator. The one thing that's standing in between the public interest and these monopolies. Why aren't we laser focused on that when electricity rates are going up by double digits? I was up in Rochester, New York, and Rochester Gas and Electric, one of those utility monopolies, proposed a one-year 36 % increase to your electricity rates.

50:52That is an admission of failure. That is literally an admission that the company in charge does not know what it is doing and is not up to the task. We need to fundamentally change the utility business model. I think we can. I think there's a financial incentive structure that was built for 100 years ago, not for today and for the next 100 years. And I think that that would ultimately be good for rate payers, good for consumers, and fundamentally good for the investors and the developers of these power infrastructures in the first place. And the third thing that I would audit is I would audit the New York City and New York State building code.

51:29And people say, well, wait a minute. You can audit agencies. You can't audit something like the building code. But my authority extends to anything that touches a state tax dollar. And if you had energy, imagination, and urgency, you would recognize that the silent killer of not just housing but of anything in this town or all across New York State is the building code. This thing kills projects before they start. And it is gold-plated and it is outdated. And what I would do is propose a model building code that we estimate will strip 15 % of the cost to construct anything, not just housing, which obviously I care a lot about and New Yorkers need more of, but anything.

52:09And I would literally do – the audit would be a track change version from the model building code to the existing two codes that govern construction in New York. And we would show precisely what would need to be changed to get to that lighter, simpler, easier, and more cost-effectively to build building code. We would do the work for them. And then we would go to the mayor and we would go to the city council. And they have talked a lot about affordability. And we would say, if you are serious about this, go adopt this code. And we would go to the governor and the legislature and they talk a lot about affordability as they should.

52:43And we would give them a concrete way to be able to deliver that. And that is how I think we need to be thinking of leveraging the power of this audit. So is the code passed by a city or state legislature or is it administratively passed? No, it's adopted by the city of New York and then the basically rest of state. The state adopts a building code. Different municipalities can add on. But that's one of the challenges, Barry, is we always add. We never subtract to these things, right? And no one has done a top-to-bottom audit of the thousands of pages of code that drives up the cost to build anything.

53:23And that's the type of creativity and energy and experience-driven audits that I think we need to bring. So you're talking to a large degree about making this position much more public, much more visible, much louder than it's been. What's been going on with the incumbent? I don't think most people and, in fact, the data point that you've shared before, 62 percent of Democrats don't know who he is. 20 % of them view them favorably. This has kind of been a stealth position. You're really proposing, if not elevating this, while certainly making it much more visible and public. Tell us about that and your thoughts in that space.

54:15Yeah. I mean, look, the job cannot be keeping the job. That's not what this job is. And we are in a moment where if you were sitting on money and you were sitting on power and you are not using that really, really well, you have got to step aside. When one out of every seven New York City public school students do not go home at night because they don't have one and you are sitting on the third largest pool of public capital in the United States of America and none of that money is invested in homes that people can afford, by the way, while earning a reasonable risk adjusted rate of return, which is what we did for a living, then that is a massive problem.

54:53And so for my part, the fact that no one has ever heard of this office is a problem. That is not an asset of the last 18 years. That is a massive liability. That is red blinking lights that the fiscal watchdog of the state of New York, no one has ever heard of them. And if you were to ask, if you were to make up a name and you were to poll it, you know, it is human behavior for at least one out of every three people to say, yeah, yeah, sure. I've heard of that person. And so the fact that 62 percent of New Yorkers and New York Democrats have never heard of this guy, to me, is an indictment of the performance of this job.

55:31And in terms of definitions of success, we need to address this cost crisis. But after four years, you better have heard of the New York State Comptroller, right? Because that means we are actually using this power and this money for the people who don't have it. So let's talk about some things that I think have worked out pretty well. And they tend not just to be New York City or New York State programs, but port authority and bigger programs. Also, as a lifelong New Yorker and a long time, lived in the city for a long time, I've been really impressed with, I think, LaGuardia could be the best airport in the country now.

56:14I don't know, is that six or eight billion dollars? Later, they should have done it 20 years ago, adding and moving part of Penn Station to Grand Central as well as the new facility. A huge win, the extension of the Second Avenue subway. And then as I drive around New York State, we seem to be repaving everything. I know a big infrastructure bill passed a couple of years ago and the Long Island Expressway and the Interstate 95, the New York State Thruway. And it seems everywhere I look, new roads, new bridges, new tunnels are being laid. Are these are we getting the best bang for our buck with these projects?

57:00And what other projects there's talk about a very expensive project to protect southern Manhattan from climate change and rising sea levels. And I recall after Sandy, there was just every Superstorm Sandy, there was a brief discussion about, gee, look at the towns that had buried power lines. They didn't lose electricity as opposed to half the state lost electricity for two weeks or longer. How do we look at all these projects? How do we manage the expenses of them? Are we getting a bang for our buck on any of these? Tell us about these big public works projects. What do you see the next five or 10 years looking like?

57:44Sure. So the short answer is no, we are not getting the best bang for the taxpayer buck in these projects. And there are any number of reasons why I talked about the building code as one of those reasons. Another reason, and I think listeners will appreciate this, is you look at the Department of Buildings and where are their service level standards, right? Where are their turn times? Where are the things that they need to be doing to ensure that the people out in the world who are investing the capital and putting that capital to use and all the workers who are trying to build these projects and build these infrastructures, these pieces of infrastructure, where are those service level standards?

58:28You know, in the world that I used to occupy, we would have service level agreements, right? Our counterparty would have to perform based on a number of different metrics. And this is, you know, goes back to that audit authority. These are the things that the state controller can do both by proposing those service level standards and making sure that they are adopted. And if they aren't adopted, that's okay. We can still measure them anyway. And we can come back every single year and see how they're doing. So the Department of Buildings is one of those places where, again, sort of projects go to die.

59:02And I think there just is a lack of discipline and focus around metrics to just make sure that they are doing their legally required job. You should not have to hire an expediter to have an expedited project. That seems to be the standard. It's a layer of cost, right? That is a layer of cost and a layer of friction that basically admits that the status quo makes no sense. And so we're going to have this off-ramp for people who can afford it and only those people who can afford it. And they will somehow get special treatment. And to me, that is like the exact wrong thing and the wrong direction.

59:39And we have to show that the regular thruway works, that you don't need the Lexus lane that only certain people can afford. And that's where we have to kind of pull government back in that mindset, that they should just be able to do their core job. So let's zoom out and ask you to imagine four years or eight years into the job. What does success look like? How do you define being able to look back after a term or two and saying, this is where we succeeded. This is how it should be run. Yeah, great question. So a few very concrete examples. One, hopefully property taxpayers and state income taxpayers aren't bleeding because they're paying a bunch of fees to a bunch of bankers who just are not doing their job.

1:00:27So, one, we have pivoted the investment strategy away from that sort of beat the market idea that has failed utterly over the last 18 years. And we are moving away from that and we are taking pressure off of taxpayers that is part of the cost crisis that we are facing in New York and why New Yorkers cannot afford to live here. So that's one thing. The cost of housing. I think the state controller has an ability both on the capital side and on the audit side to address it. We talked about the audit side in terms of addressing this building code issue, and I hope that that can lower or at least keep neutral the cost of construction.

1:01:07And on the financing side, I think we could bend the cost curve of the cost structure, the capital structure, and the cost of capital for affordable housing by making available, and I propose the largest housing fund in the United States of America, a$10 billion housing fund to invest in homes that New Yorkers can afford. Definition of success, that is deployed in what we estimate to be 100 ,000 homes that New Yorkers can actually afford. That is something that is absolutely concrete. And then this$20 billion fund of New Yorkers own money in the New York State Unclaimed Fund, that we actually start getting that money back.

1:01:47And you have to go to some dopey website right now that is complicated and hard to use. And if you have money, they don't even tell you how much because they don't even really want you to get it back, right? It sounds like you're trying to issue a health insurance claim or something like that. We are going to get rid of this website. We are going to decommission it. We won't have a website because we won't need it because we're automatically going to send New Yorkers their money back because it's their money. It is not Tom DiNapoli's. It is not the state of New York's. It is New Yorkers. We have your name.

1:02:16We have how much you're owed. We have your last known address. We have access to all the data in the world. And we are in 2026. My phone knows more about my personality than I do. My phone knows where I live. why can't we figure out how to get you your money back automatically we can and we will true really interesting thank you so much for coming in and i'm going to extend an invitation to tom dinapoli if you want to come to bloomberg and talk to us about um what you've been doing as controller and what your plans are for the future we would love to have you i'm going to have my producer reach out um really really interesting stuff thank you uh for a thought provoking conversation.

1:02:56We have been speaking to Drew Warshaw. He is a candidate for New York State controller and the Democratic primary in June 2026. If you enjoyed this conversation, well, check out any of the 600 we've done over the previous 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bloomberg, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I not thank our crack staff who helps me put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I'm Barry Ritholtz. You've been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

1:03:44I'm Matt Miller. And I'm Hannah Elliott, inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Hot Pursuit podcast. Every week we bring you news and industry insight on everything cars. And we do a whole lot more than just talk about cars, Matt. We actually get behind the wheel of basically every latest model, especially the luxury ones and the sports cars, direct from the showroom floor. It really is remarkable how many cars we have access to. I feel a little bit guilty about it, but everything from$40 ,000 EVs to exotic half million supercars. We also speak with the insiders who shape the automotive industry from the top CEOs and collectors to visionary designers and racing champions.

1:04:24Search for Bloomberg Hot Pursuit on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Maybe you listen while you're on your weekend drive, maybe go into Cars and Coffee. Listen to us talk about what we are driving this week. That's Bloomberg Hot Pursuit. I'm Matt Miller in New York. And I'm Hannah Elliott in Los Angeles. Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you.