Free with a sign-in.
The best 14 min of 36
Lloyd Blankfein at AlphaSummit: A Conversation with Jack Kokko (CEO of AlphaSense)
Lloyd Blankfein says leaders must pair technology’s growing leverage with human judgment, verification and risk controls.
HIHow I Invest · Jack Kokko
- Lloyd Blankfein is a former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs.
The best minutes
- 24:19Public markets can push companies to favor smoother earnings7 min
- 31:15Blankfein sees a supportive backdrop for risk assetsPro pick 3 min
- 16:10Automated trading can magnify errors and weaken human oversight3 min
Also worth watching
- 10:26Technology concentrates value among Wall Street's top performers6 min
- 21:17Goldman's reputation and scale are hard to build incrementally3 min
Skip the opening event setup, career story and leadership discussion, plus the closing advice on staying near technological change.
Full analysis · 5 min read
Real Alpha · Nov 8
Blankfein says errant software could execute 100,000 transactions
- Blankfein said errant software could execute 100,000 transactions in one minute and lose billions.
- He offered a scenario, not a documented incident or measured failure rate.
- Set action limits, verify sources, and test stop rules before expanding autonomy.
Free with an account
Read the rest of the analysis
7 sections, the 6 other voices it tests Blankfein against, and what it means for you. Every episode we cut gets one.
Check your inbox
We sent a link to your address. Click it to finish signing up. Not there in a minute? Look in spam.
or
Signed up before? The same buttons sign you in. The episode, its moments and the transcript stay free.
One error can scale before people can intervene
Blankfein said errant software could execute 100,000 transactions in one minute and lose billions of dollars. He offered a scenario, not a reported incident, named loss, or measured failure rate.
The number describes possible blast radius, not probability. For example, one faulty instruction could repeat across orders before a person notices.
Our read
This is a scenario, not a reported loss. It puts a control problem ahead of an adoption forecast. Teams need to know how far one bad output can travel before intervention.
Technology gives stronger decision makers more leverage
Blankfein's broader point is that technology does not distribute gains evenly. He said decision makers have more leverage because everything now has an extra two zeros at its end. He expects winners to become bigger winners, while people filling out the ranks may have less fulfillment.
The trading example makes the leverage tangible. In his example, Blankfein said the trader one millisecond faster wins 100% of the time. He placed those machines half a block closer to the exchange. That describes a particular market speed race, not all work.
On Invest Like the Best in September 2026, Rogo CEO Gabe Stengel gave a forecast. He said software and data could represent 90% of top firms' enterprise value, rather than people. That is Stengel's projection, not proof Blankfein's shift has already happened.
Our read
The episode supports a leverage thesis, not a precise forecast about where value will settle. Boards should measure output per decision maker before assuming every employee gains equally.
Speed can erase the room's warning signals
Blankfein remembers a trading room where colleagues could recognize a wrong price through intuition. He contrasts that room with a box producing answers too quickly for people to criticize. His concern is lost intuition and the inability to challenge outputs.
That account does not mention a stop mechanism. Requiring a stop is our operational implication, not his stated point.
Greg Jensen, Bridgewater's managing chief investment officer, told Odd Lots in September 2026 that human intuition still worked better. He also said AI-first investing was closing the gap. That tension supports a human role now, but does not establish a permanent human advantage.
Angela McNeal, Thread AI's CEO, said on MTS in November 2026 that workflows improve through iteration, not instant automation. She favors constrained tasks and early human input, making oversight part of deployment.
- GJGreg Jensen · Odd Lots · Sep 11Bridgewater is testing an AI-first investment fund
Angela McNeal · MTS · Nov 8AI workflows improve through iteration, not instant automation
Our read
The practical boundary is task scope. Start where mistakes are containable, then require evidence before widening autonomy.
Answers need sources, and systems need an audit trail
Blankfein opened by saying he liked something about AlphaSense's product, then shifted to Google and AI. He described the answer he wants as intelligent, with sources a user can inspect. This was AlphaSense's inaugural user conference, hosted by CEO Jack Kokko. That is product context, not an independent test of AlphaSense's sourcing.
At 20:21, Blankfein described why firms should know what's happening and document their diligence. A record can show best efforts when something inevitably slips through. He was discussing risk control, not tying that record to AI citations.
On MTS in October 2026, Hamlet founder Sunil Rajaraman described scattered local government websites. He said this fragmentation can make AI answers about officials unreliable.
On the a16z Podcast in October 2026, VGS chief strategy officer Terry Angelos outlined agent checks. His list covers card validity, authorization, and whether an agent made a sound decision. He also leaves liability unresolved, a governance issue this episode does not settle.
- SRSunil Rajaraman · MTS · Oct 22Local data gaps make AI answers about officials unreliable
Terry Angelos · a16z Podcast · Oct 15Agent transactions need authorization and liability rules
Our read
Sources are necessary but insufficient. Teams also need to test source fidelity, action authority, and failure ownership.
Public markets can reward smoothness over resilience
Blankfein says public-market incentives can change operating decisions, not just valuation. He contrasted private Goldman, where results over multiple years could add up, with public earnings judged partly on smoothness. He said public firms may sacrifice earnings for a smoother record, even when volatile activity could pay off over time.
That is his account, not a universal finding about public companies. Still, the incentive matters when leaders set AI budgets and risk tolerances. For example, measuring only steady cost savings could hide growing error exposure.
Our read
Reporting cadence can shape choices as well as valuations. Boards should ask whether automation metrics reward reliability or merely smooth quarterly results.
Partnership culture keeps judgment distributed
Blankfein's control model depends on organizational culture. He said partnership requires communication, broad access to information, and time to socialize decisions. That can slow a rollout, but it helps operators understand its rationale and own consequences.
He wants leaders to listen, sometimes change their minds, and let people lower in the hierarchy make field decisions. That is not a case for automatic autonomy. It is a case for informed delegation with clear accountability.
On MTS in October 2026, Mintlify co-founder Han Wang drew a related boundary. He said agents should surface high-level choices with business impact. His example concerns product decisions, not trading controls, but reinforces a limit on delegation.
Our read
A control is real only if an operator can use it. Leaders need to share context and make decision rights explicit before automation reaches production.
Firms should keep pace but budget for correction
Blankfein's competitive advice is to keep pace with new technology. He said firms cannot walk off the field while competitors use new tools. He accepted the possibility of overspending, then said to correct quickly.
That is a competitive argument, not a cost-benefit model. He offered no spending threshold, payback period, or test for separating necessary investment from waste. His closing advice was to stay near the forefront of technological change.
McNeal's iterative approach offers a more staged implementation model. Constrain tasks, capture human input, and improve through measured cycles. For example, budget separately for model access, source verification, and rollback capacity. Expand only after tests show errors are detected, bounded, and reversible.
Our read
Blankfein is right to treat technology as a competitive necessity, but urgency needs operating gates. Stage spending and require evidence before expanding action rights.
What it means for you
- Map blast radius. For each automated workflow, calculate maximum actions per minute and name who can halt it. Blankfein's scenario makes speed and scale direct control tests.
- Check source fidelity. Test cited answers against original documents, including whether each source supports the answer. Measure source coverage and factual match separately.
- Keep a failure log. Track preventive checks, detected errors, response time, and decision owner. Review this record before granting systems broader action rights.
- Separate reliability metrics. Separate reliability measures from quarterly cost or earnings targets. Check whether smoother reporting masks risk or reduced human review.
What to watch
- Whether AI tools return inspectable sources, and whether citations support their answers.
- Whether firms place transaction limits, authorization checks, and working stop mechanisms around automated actions.
- Whether oversight of large private companies rises while public-company burdens fall, the convergence Blankfein expects.
Send this to product and risk leaders setting AI action limits.
Watch the minute where Blankfein gives the 100,000-transaction scenario
Written by Real Alpha from the episode's transcript and the other moments it links, then checked against the transcript. Quotes are the speaker's exact words.
Minute by minute
A Pro write-up, open to you here. Try Pro free for 7 days
A Pro write-up. The minute by minute is in Real Alpha Pro; the episode, its moments and the transcript stay free.
Read it with Pro, 7 days free- 2:15A route into Goldman Sachs
Blankfein says he grew up in public housing in East New York, worked through college and law school, and spent five years at a law firm before moving to Wall Street. After Goldman rejected him, he joined J. Aron as a gold trader; Goldman later bought the firm, and he rose through trading and operations to succeed Hank Paulson.
- 5:27Crises test leadership
Blankfein says resilience is among the most prized qualities in American culture, and that leaders often feel proudest after getting through their worst moments. He points to taking Goldman through the financial crisis and Washington hearings, and says leaders must judge whether a shift is cyclical or lasting.
- 7:09Communication builds partnership
Blankfein says strong teams depend on communication and a partnership culture, even without a formal partnership. Leaders should reach across organizational layers, explain plans, listen and sometimes change course; he says this takes time but helps people act with ownership.
- 10:26Technology magnifies decision leverage
Blankfein says Wall Street’s ambition and risk-taking remain familiar, but technology gives decision makers far greater leverage. He contrasts trading rooms that relied on phone calls and his hours proofreading telexes with machine execution, and says people still need to apply judgment to better data. He argues that technology makes top contributors more valuable while routine roles may lose value.
- 16:10Automation can magnify failures
Blankfein warns that fast, opaque automation can remove the human intuition that once caught bad prices or decisions. A software error could trigger 100,000 transactions in a minute and cost billions, he says. He wants AI answers to include their sources so users can verify them.
- 19:19Controls prevent and explain failures
Blankfein says banks need controls both to prevent problems and to show they made serious efforts when failures still occur. He says events around the world could affect Goldman, which could also be accused of causing them, so the firm had to pay close attention and document its diligence.
- 21:17Big banks trade speed for influence
Blankfein says it is hard to imagine building a new Goldman incrementally because its value rests on its influence, reputation and role connecting large pools of capital with those seeking it. Startups can move faster and have less systemic impact, while large firms require many partners and carry heavier consequences. He says the choice depends on whether someone prefers scale or entrepreneurship.
- 24:19Private firms still need liquidity
Blankfein says private companies avoid some of the burdens of public markets, but firms seeking scale and broad liquidity eventually need access to public markets. He argues that large private companies need more oversight and that public-company requirements should become less burdensome. He says he would personally stay private longer.
- 27:44Public markets reward smooth earnings
Blankfein says private-company decisions can focus on cumulative results, while public markets may reward smoother earnings through higher valuation multiples. That pressure can lead managers to give up potentially higher earnings in exchange for a steadier pattern, he says, though he acknowledges investors may see smooth results as more dependable.
- 31:15Risk assets may get support
Blankfein says the economy is doing relatively well, with full employment and major technological innovation underway. He expects lower interest rates and already-authorized fiscal spending to support risk assets, while warning that sentiment can shift without notice and that he cannot predict exogenous events.
- 34:25Stay close to technological change
Blankfein advises people to stay near the forefront of technological change and emerging opportunities. He says people in their seventies and eighties can remain on the cutting edge, while some younger workers stick to routine. He recommends staying on the train of innovation as long as possible.
Published Oct 27, 2025.
Transcript · 28 min read
How I Invest, hosted by Jack Kokko, with Lloyd Blankfein.
From the transcript How I Invest publishes with the episode.
I recently attended Alpha Summit twenty twenty five in New York City, AlphaSense inaugural user conference dedicated exploring the future of market intelligence and decision making. This event featured a very insightful keynote conversation between Jack Coco, founder and CEO of AlphaSense, and Lloyd Blankfein, former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Core live on October 7, the discussion was inspiring exchange on leadership, markets, and innovation in the age of AI. I'm thrilled to share the special Alpha Summit keynote with you here. To learn more about AlphaSense, visit alpha-sense.com. That's alpha-sense.com.
Enjoy. Really incredible to have you here. Thank you again for joining us. No. It's my pleasure. If I'd known it was like this, I'd have gone to Brooklyn more. It's beautiful. It is beautiful. Well, I think I mentioned to you that I started my career in investment banking, actually applied to Goldman Sachs, didn't get the job. So I ended up working at another firm. You know, I applied to Goldman Sachs and didn't get and never got a job there either. They turned me down, and I the only job I got was at a small commodity trading firm called J. Aaron and Company, and Goldman bought them. That's how I got into Goldman after being rejected by them.
I spent I spent two years trying to avoid all the people that turned me down, and then and then they spent the next twenty years trying to avoid me. So so you didn't you didn't do a victory speech and coming back? Say again? You didn't do a victory speech coming back? No. No. But, anyway, go on. So so you went so you started Morgan Stanley. Yeah. I know. I was just gonna say that And then you went astray. I'm even more humbled, you know, given that, you know, just to be on stage with you. So, again, thank you. You've got an incredible personal story, and I thought it would be really great for the audience to hear kind of your story arc, you know, from kind of your earlier years through that period when you joined Goldman and ultimately led the firm from the top?
Read the whole transcript
Be yeah. Just would love to hear kind of what shaped your approach at the top from those earlier experiences. Yeah. Well, there are people who started out in life in kindergarten being voted the most likely to succeed. That wasn't me. I started when I I'm joking about Brooklyn because I grew up in Brooklyn. And actually, I grew up in public housing in East New York, Brooklyn. None of you will ever have been there. And I spend a lot of time trying to leave Brooklyn. So it's always I always get PTSD when I have to cross the river and come back, but here I am, never nonetheless. But, you know, it was it's kind of unlikely.
I worked my way through it. My dad was a clerk in the post office, and we lived in the projects. And I always wanted to get out and go. You know, my ambition was to go to an out of town school. And, you know, I achieved that, worked my way up. And I'm not and, you know, it kinda worked out for me. If it hadn't, somebody else would be sitting here and you'd be talking to that person. But it I would say it was a low probability that it would be me and a high probability that somebody would be here. I would say that in terms of I don't wanna sound like I work walked uphill both directions to and from school.
You know, I you know, my parents, you know, had an intact family, and they valued education. They were happy for me when I got into schools. You know, I didn't I didn't have to walk across a desert to get out of a war torn country or anything like that. But I got in, I I went through essentially seven years of liberal arts. I went to college and law school, and I went to law school because it was kind of at that time was a continuation of liberal arts because I didn't know what I wanted to do, and of course, I graduated with loans and had to pay them back, so I ended up in a law firm, and that was when I decided after five years of that drudgery, I decided that, you know, to apply to Wall Street, and that's where we pick up the story of getting turned down by everyone, as I should have been, and getting a small job, and working my way up through starting out as a gold trader at J.
Aaron and Company, and eventually, you know, running fixed income trading and equities, accreting all the trading parts of the firm. So for twenty years, I ran the kind of the risk side of the firm, trading, and eventually became chief operating officer and succeeded my boss, my then boss, Hank Paulson, when he became Secretary of Treasury. Goldman had a tradition, Bob Rubin, Steve Mnuchin, Hank Paulson, of going into the cabinet and other government offices, which I kinda which kind of ended with me, because here I am with you and not in not in Washington. Well, we've got a room here full of decision makers and influencers, and we've been talking a lot about data driven decision making, how to be smarter about all I think it's terrific.
I'm curious about, you know, from your history at the top of Goldman Sachs, what are some of the big decisions that that you're most proud about? Maybe there's one or two. And maybe there's something that you'd go back and change and do differently. Well, I think and this is a generic thought. The things that you end up being proudest of were always you, you know, having gotten through your worst moments. And I, you know, I sometimes try to comfort people that, you know, the most prized thing in the American culture is resilience. Of all the things you could be is, you know, the person who gets knocked down and gets up.
And every time one of my friends or somebody I know gets killed on something, I say, well, congratulations. Now you have the predicate for a comeback. You know? But it but it's true. I would say that in a million years, I would never pull the lever to be part of the financial crisis. Although, you know, some of you are too young, but of a certain age, you know, spending, like, you know, a hundred hours testifying and getting killed in front of you know, being part of a on the wrong end of a show trial in Washington and all that kind of stuff. But at the end of the day, taking an organization through that is the the you know, is something that's distinctive.
I mean, anybody could anybody can run something when things are going well. You can get swept in a vortex along. You know, AI is a thing, you're in the right company at the right time, and you do it. What happens when the cycle shifts? Or more importantly, what happens when you have to decide whether something is cyclical and will shift, or secular and won't ever come back. And you have to convince some people that it's secular or cyclical, if the rest of the world is thinking otherwise. And those kind of fork in the road moments and those times when you're under the most pressure, the things that you know, you feel proudest about, you know, at the end of things because that's the only time you could think of, gee, if someone else was there, it might not have worked out as well.
How did you go about it? You know, you had your executive team. You had clients, other advisers, I'm sure, around you. Were were you leaning any any particular directions, or were you just, like, you know, doing this alone in a room instead of thinking hard and coming up with those tough choices? Well, I'm sure, you know, your Morgan Stanley culture is not gonna be that different from Goldman. And I would say, I don't think I don't think there were six people in all of Goldman Sachs who didn't think that I should be working for them and not the other way around. You know, and maybe, you know, maybe 10% of them were even right, but there I was.
So I would say in, you know, leadership if you're if you're running the post office or something like that or something where you have thousands of people who are happy to have a job and they get paid by the hour and it's a union, you know, that's different than when you're running an organization where everybody came out of great schools as ambitious as you are, can maybe are as smart as you, but maybe they're just younger and you got there first. And, you know, it's a different, you know, it's a different thing to manage people who are super smart and super effective and as ambitious as you are and have a legitimate claim to that ambition.
And I would say, and you must have this in your organizations, most important thing you can do is in building teamwork and partnership is communication. And whether or not you're a real partnership, technically, you can have the culture of a partnership. And I think, you know, startups and people in these industries do a very good job because they do share ownership. And so people can real feel skin in the game kind of partnership. But partnership also implies certain things. You know, the rights of a partner is to know what's going on. So communication excessively, sort of suborning the organizational chart, knowing people three layers down is an element of making people feel partner like.
Taking more time to socialize the things you wanna do. You know, in a normal corporate hierarchy, lightning bolts come from the fingers of CEOs. We're gonna do this, and everything is yes, sir. You know, taking more time to socialize the things you wanna do. It's cumbersome. It's by the way, occasionally changing your mind in the face of like like actually listening and paying attention. That's what makes an organization feel partner like, and the best organizations are partner like. It's like the difference between, you know, the Soviet Army and the US Army, at least theoretically. We have people in the field who make decisions like they own the consequences of what they're doing instead of rote obedience.
And in order to achieve that, the leader has to kind of bend and invest time and energy in acknowledging the equivalence of some people who are subordinate to you in the organization. And at the end of the day, you're responsible and the buck stops with you, but, you know, you let things go on maybe a little longer, tolerate a little less speed in order to bring everybody up to speed at the same time. Thank you. I I hope somebody's taking notes. I I wish I was.
“the person who is making the decision has much more leverage today because everything has an extra two zeros at the end of it.”
I love that analogy of, you know, being one millisecond closer to the exchange. It sort of really crystallizes how, you know, edge really matters, even if it seems very minute. This can mean everything depending on what you're trying to do. So it makes a lot of sense.
“Today, you can have an errant piece of software that in one minute exercises 100,000 transactions, and you could lose billions of dollars.”
That's that's fascinating. And and, you know, I think from your investment banking lens, banks are kind of all about risk control. It's sort of letting ambitious people go and take risks, but also building the right controls to prevent that.
And now if we're you know, there's a lot of ambition from technology players to go and build agentic, automatic things. I think that risk control lens is Look. There's nothing that can go wrong when you have balance sheets that are in the trillions, and you're in you know, you're advising at the, you know, at the sort of cold front of all these changes and technology shifts and other things and politics, there's nothing that could go wrong anywhere in the world that doesn't affect you adversely. And if you're Goldman, there's nothing that could go wrong where they don't accuse you of having caused it.
So, you know, so it really behooved us to pay a lot of attention to what was going on. And by the way, there's two things at work here. You wanna know what's going on so that you don't have problems, and you wanna put the effort in to know what's going on so when inevitably something slips through, at least the world knew you used your best efforts to try to stop things from going wrong. Because eventually, inevitably, something screws up. And and then the you know, and then what happens is, what did you do? How hard did you work? Were you negligent or worse? Or did you you know, was it something that was totally unavoidable given all the diligence that you put in?
So for a variety of reasons well, there's two reasons. One, you'd like to not have a problem. And two, when a problem does happen, you'd like to have the record show that you did everything you could. That makes sense. And, again, becomes a lot more a lot harder when you're trying to control machines at the speed of speed of machines. So that's that's fascinating.
“what makes Goldman a Goldman is the influence it has, the reputation it has”
You know, it's it's a thought experiment I've been having. So that's that's very I love love having this this conversation.
“you find yourself sacrificing earnings in exchange for having a smoother earning platform.”
“So I would say your starting position is that the next period going forward is gonna be very friendly to risk assets.”
I'd love to continue to hear all your fascinating insights. Maybe one quick one at the end. What advice based on kind of what all of what you described on what's happening in the market, what's shifting, What advice do you have for what people should do differently now, whether it's whether you're investing in the markets or or company playing in that that new landscape?
Look. What's the new? Stay front of foot on all the things that are evolving and developing. You know, you don't wanna be, you know, you don't wanna be working on the boroughs community computer when everybody has a, you know, a desktop, and you don't wanna be, you know, you don't wanna be, you know, you know, there's a lot of stuff that has to be done, but if I were, you know, younger starting out, I'd wanna be on the forefront of the technological changes and the opportunity set that's that's happening, and try to stay on that train as long as you possibly can. I know people who are 80 I know people, you know, I'm not gonna name the names, but I couldn't even know them, who are in their seventies and eighties, are on the cutting edge and running companies that are that are in the cutting edge, and they're on the cutting edge within their own company.
I know people who are 35 years old and are just doing their jobs every day and hope that nobody asks them a question about what's new and different. And so just stay, you know, stay front and foot and try to stay on that just try to stay on that new that train of innovation for as long as you can. And, you know, don't and if you don't ever get off, you'll be you'll be at the top of the heap. Lloyd, thank you so much. It's been an incredible conversation. Thank you. Thanks for listening to my conversation. If you enjoyed this episode, please share with a friend. This helps us grow. Also provides the very best feedback when we review the episode's analytics.


