Mark Gerson - Founder of GLG: Better Philanthropy

Mark Gerson co-founded Gerson Lehrman Group, the world’s largest expert network. He’s also the co-founder and Chairman of United Hatzalah and the African Mission Healthcare Foundation. 

In this episode of World of DaaS, Auren and Mark discuss: 

• Measuring charity impact and ROI 
• Real philanthropy vs “fake charities” 
• Building GLG and expert networks
• Marriage and religion in the US

Looking for more tech, data and venture capital intel? Head to WorldofDaaS.com for our podcast, newsletter and events, and follow us on X @WorldOfDaaS.  

You can find Auren Hoffman on X at @auren and Mark Gerson on X at @markgerson. World of DaaS is brought to you by SafeGraph & Flex Capital. 

Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com)

Transcript

Auren Hoffman: 0:02

Welcome to World of DaaS, a show for data enthusiasts. I'm your host, Auren Hoffman, ceo of Safegraph and GPFlex Capital. For more conversations, videos and transcripts, visit safegraph. com slash podcasts. Hello, fellow data nerds. My guest today is Mark Gerson. Mark co-founded the Gerson Lehrman Group, the 3i Network and a lot more. He's also the co-founder and chairman of the United Hatzalah and also the African Mission Healthcare Foundation, mark. Welcome to World of Deaths, oren. Great to be here. Thank you. Now you've co-founded two large charitable organizations United Hatzalah, which runs like a network of emergency response volunteers in Israel, and African Mission Healthcare Foundation. Do you approach charity in the same way as approaching founding companies?

Mark Gerson: 0:51

Yeah, it's a great question and the answer is absolutely. And it's not only just founding companies, it's doing business generally. Every business person and every investor, whether they do so intentionally or intuitively, asks one question, which is do so intentionally or intuitively asks one question which is what's the return investment, what's the ROI that I expect to receive for the money I'm committing or the time I'm committing? It's very simple. It's the only question. There's a lot around it, but it's all commentary. The substance is ROI. Everything else is just trying to assess what the ROI is. As business people and investors, we all think in terms of ROI all day, every day. But when it comes to giving to charity, a lot of philanthropists and a lot of givers just completely drop the discipline of ROI and don't think about it at all. Yes, when my wife, who's a rabbi, when we give, and particularly in my founding and chairmanship of United Hatzalah and African Mission Healthcare, we think about ROI all the time.

Auren Hoffman: 1:46

How do you evaluate ROI in charities? It is more complicated to do right, no, I don't think it's more complicated at all.

Mark Gerson: 1:53

I think if a charitable organization says it's complicated, they're probably trying to obfuscate it. Whenever anyone gives, they should just think how many lives am I saving, how much pain am I ameliorating, or how many opportunities for the poor am I creating per dollar invested? Those are really the only three functions of charity. Everything else that is considered charity is just some variant of a consumption good with 501c3 status. But in terms of giving to charity, those are the three things. How many lives am I saving, how much pain am I ameliorating? How many opportunities for the poor am I creating? And then you have to think how many dollars am I committing to save this many lives, to ameliorate that much pain, to create this many opportunities? And what do you know? Out comes the ROI.

Auren Hoffman: 2:40

That sounds a lot like the EA movement, the effective altruism movement, where it's essentially math, where you're kind of putting like a math formula to figure out and in their case it's like, okay, we'll do whatever is the cheapest way to save lives is a bed net in Africa, or something like that is the best outcome. I didn't get from you that you're purely building like a math case for each thing.

Mark Gerson: 3:03

We're certainly building a math case for each investment we make, and how else could you, just looking at the numbers here, for what?

Mark Gerson: 3:09

We could go over this for basically any of the hospitals, because we certainly have it for all the hospitals, but African Mission Healthcare, which I co-founded in 2010, having supported Christian missionary physicians for several years before that.

Mark Gerson: 3:20

At African Mission Healthcare, we partner with Christian missionary doctors at Christian hospitals to provide clinical care for the poor, to build infrastructure and to do training. So there'll be a lot more doctors and other medical providers in the future than there are right now. Because the fundamental problem that we're not solving but ameliorating is that in Africa right now, there's one doctor in many countries for every 20, 30, sometimes 50,000 people. That means that if your daughter breaks her leg, if your wife needs a C-section, if you have a hernia, whatever the medical condition is HIV, whatever it is it's going to be very difficult to access any kind of care. So the people who are in the field providing this care to the poor right now are Christian missionary doctors and they're also training the next generation of providers so that in the future and hopefully the near future and the far future access to quality, compassionate care for Africans will be far more accessible than it is today.

Auren Hoffman: 4:17

Saving a life in Africa is going to be a lot more cost-effective than saving a life in New York. Some people will say, okay, that's fine and we need to go globally, because math is math and a life is a life. Other people say, no, you need to take care of your own community. It's really important to focus on your own community. How do you square that?

Mark Gerson: 4:36

Well, there's an old expression charity begins at home, but it doesn't end at home. People who say that charity begins at home, okay, but it doesn't end at home. While, of course, it's important to support one's communal institutions, it's not really charity. That's just everyone chipping in to create something that everyone agrees is of value. But it's important to support one's communal institutions. It's also important to support one's local needs very important.

Mark Gerson: 4:58

But in all of that one cannot forget the biblical injunction to love the stranger. And when we're instructed in the Bible to love, love, as Rabbi David Wolpe says, is an enacted emotion. It only exists in action. You can't love the stranger and not do anything for him and you can't say charity begins at home and therefore I'm going to completely ignore everybody who's far from home. But actually the logic here works, because the sociology indicates that allegiances don't trade off, but they build. People who give more locally also give more internationally. It's people who don't give, they just don't give. Or if they give a little, they give a little, but it's actually not a trade-off. It's people who give give both locally and internationally. And in fact the studies are very interesting in that religious people are by far the biggest charitable givers. Religious people give by far more than secular people. All the studies have confirmed this.

Auren Hoffman: 5:50

And not only do they give to religious organizations, they give more to secular organizations and secular people.

Mark Gerson: 5:55

Exactly, and that's a surprising fact is that they certainly give more to religious institutions, probably starting with their own churches and synagogues, but they also give more, and they give more to, obviously, religious institutions nationally, internationally. But religious people also give more to purely secular institutions than do secular people, because once you're a giver, you give.

Auren Hoffman: 6:15

And is it just a way like thinking okay, I think of myself as a giver, therefore I give or is there a mind shift that people start giving?

Mark Gerson: 6:24

I think people do everything in habit. If something is not a habit, it's not dependable. Everything we do dependably happens in habit. So therefore I think it's important that people who want to become givers which I think everybody should particularly if you give to the right charity, there's no notion of it's not big enough to make a difference, and we can go through some of the numbers in Africa that really illustrate how even small dollar amounts if that's what one's capable of giving at this point in his or her life, can make an enormous difference. People who want to become givers should get into the habit of giving and give all the time.

Mark Gerson: 6:52

Maimonides, the greatest rabbi of all time. He was asked by someone I don't know who, obviously, but he was asked should I give one big gift a year or should I give smaller gifts every day? And he said give smaller gifts every day because then you'll become a giver. I think we have to get in the habit of giving, but not just the habit of giving, the habit of giving intelligently. And giving intelligently means doing so with a maniacal focus on ROI.

Auren Hoffman: 7:13

Is it more important for people to become givers One of the reasons maybe some people don't become givers I don't know if it's going to make a difference and people might waste the money or is it more important to first focus on the ROI piece of it?

Mark Gerson: 7:25

If people say I don't know if it's going to make a difference, people might waste the money. That's lazy thinking. You wouldn't say I don't know what to buy because maybe the good will be defective so I won't buy anything. You would say, well, I'm going to do some research and figure out what I should buy. The dynamic that you described is both lazy and wrong. It's like there are some truly spectacular causes, as measured by ROI, where lives will be saved, paying will be reiterated, opportunities for the poor will be created with small dollars and even more, of course, with larger dollars. And then there are plenty of quote unquote charitable organizations where the money is wasted, and even some charitable organizations where the money won't even be wasted but it'll actually cause harm. There are charitable organizations that will do incredible good. There are charitable organizations that are effectively a waste of money, and then there are charitable organizations that will do harm but in terms of doing good.

Mark Gerson: 8:10

I mean I'm just looking at our ROI data for African Mission Healthcare. This is the hospital that we support in rural Burundi. They had a budget of $1.5 million. It's like two to three big operations in the US. For a budget of $1.5 million they supported 35,000 outpatients, 10,000 admissions, 3,000 surgeries and, in so doing, facilitated the training of 40 medical students, two surgical residents, 15 interns, dozens of nursing and physical therapy students and soon to be, because of all the structures that have been built, family medicine residents.

Auren Hoffman: 8:46

There's these organizations like GiveWell that try to rank the charities, and you mentioned these products, so sometimes you just go to Wirecutter and buy the first one. You see, how do you think about some of these ranking organizations that are out there? I don't know that much about them.

Mark Gerson: 9:01

I would be skeptical only insofar as when you make an investment Okay, so if you buy a commodity, you can go to Wirecutter and buy a vacuum cleaner, but, oren, you're a great investor you would never go to some report that says here are the top 15 SaaS companies and you say, well, I'll invest in number one, two and three because some guy put a blog. He would do a lot of work. You might say these are interesting. I'm going to take a look because I respect the blogger. That just begins the process. It doesn't end the process, it just begins it and, as you know, it's probably like 1% of the whole process.

Mark Gerson: 9:33

If people are, quite appropriately and rightly, taking financial investments that seriously and are spending that much time and energy to invest a few hundred thousand or whatever, a couple million, it doesn't matter in a venture-backed company or a public stock, why shouldn't they spend that kind of time and invest that kind of effort in terms of providing opportunities for the poor, saving lives or ameliorating pain? The reason why we make money is, hopefully, so that we can allocate it intelligently in the service of good. So why would we spend so much time figuring out how to make money which we definitely should. Of course we should. That's entirely right.

Mark Gerson: 10:08

My argument is only that is so right. We should just import all that rightness into charitable, giving those kinds of rankings and Charity Navigator and GiveWell. I think they can be helpful starts. But you really got to get into the data and ask if I want to fund maternal care, which we do a ton of at African Mission Healthcare, how many C-sections, birth injury repairs and normal deliveries and clinic visits am I getting for the dollar? All that is knowable, the data is there. And then you got to, of course, as you would with any investment interview, the management get to know the management. It's all money. So it doesn't really matter if the money is being deployed for commercial or investment purposes, whether it's being deployed for philanthropic purposes. The same discipline that enables money to be allocated intelligently in finance exists in philanthropy.

Auren Hoffman: 10:53

Most people, when they're investing their money especially not people maybe that are uber wealthy they just put in the S&P 500 and they set and forget it. But those types of uber charities that somehow, if you think of like an index fund that distribute, seem to be very, very inefficient in the charitable world. Could you imagine a scenario where you could just put it in an index and set it for it's like okay, great, I want to give $100 a week or $100 a month. I'll just put it and it'll go and then I feel like I'm doing good without actually having to do any of the work to do it? Or do you think that that is just never going to be able to happen?

Mark Gerson: 11:31

No, I think it's a really interesting question. I mean, it's happening a little bit. Step back for a minute. So an index works for the S&P and actually a great way to invest, of course, is to just buy VTI or buy the S&P. It's a great way to invest. It works as a market sufficient. Now, oren, you know much better than me it would never work with venture capital. That's true, because the market's not efficient. Why is the public market efficient? Because you have so many very smart people looking at these opportunities and buying and selling based upon their intelligence and what they learn and what they know and what they analyze, et cetera, et cetera. So the markets are fundamentally efficient. So, therefore, buying the VTI or the S&P as a great strategy, it would never work in venture markets, simply in philanthropy. Now take UJA UJA, United Jewish Appeals, a terrific charitable institution, but that's not really an index in the sense that they have professionals who are choosing very carefully and very rigorously where to give. So that's not an index.

Auren Hoffman: 12:20

It's more like a hedge fund because they're also just like a hedge fund takes two and 20. They have a lot of fees and they have a lot of upkeep and the people there make a lot of money and they've got nice buildings and they put on nice balls and other types of things. So you have a carry essentially to give to some of these Uber charities.

Mark Gerson: 12:37

Yeah, it's a great analogy. It's more of an investment fund than an index. Exactly, You're totally right. When you give to a UGA and I'm sure there are secular and Christian equivalents your investment fund analogy is exactly right. You're giving to a manager. You respect who's making allocations on your behalf. But, you're right, it's not an index. And so no, I don't think the index would work, because indices work only in efficient markets and the charitable market's not efficient. There are several charities that do extraordinary work. I think United Hutsal and African Mission Healthcare are right up there Extraordinary work both in terms of what they do but also in terms of the return that the philanthropic investor, that the donor, gets for the dollar that he donates. And then there are plenty that do nothing. There are some that do harm and there are some that are not even really charities but they enjoy 501c3 status. Like if you give to a museum or the opera or the ballet, it's not really a charity, it's just a cultural institution. Why is the opera privileged over the New York Yankees?

Auren Hoffman: 13:37

I don't know, but it's just a quirk of tax law. Your belief is, in that case, if you're giving to the opera, you're not really giving. It's like buying a box at Yankee Stadium or something like that. If you enjoy the opera, great. If you enjoy baseball, great. But maybe in the opera's case people look at you better from society. Or you get to brag to your friends or you get to take a tax break or something.

Mark Gerson: 13:59

Opera, people can make the case why it's so important for society, and baseball people can make the case why baseball is important for society. And both can be articulate and they're not charities, even if one enjoys 501c3 status. Now, if you give to a university, I think you've got to be concerned that you're actually doing harm. And there are other charities where you can actually do harm.

Auren Hoffman: 14:16

Walk us through that, because obviously there's been a lot of people talking about universities and stuff like that. Why do you think you could be doing harm there as opposed to like the opera, which maybe you're saying is not necessarily a harm but not really a charity?

Mark Gerson: 14:28

Well, I think any institution that has a commitment to DEI, specifically if it's in the very bloodstream of the institution, significantly risks doing harm to those that it allegedly benefits. So to the extent an institution is devoted to DEI is the extent to which I would be concerned about it.

Auren Hoffman: 14:45

I imagine New York museums are also committed to those types of things too. I presume I don't actually know Good point?

Mark Gerson: 14:53

Absolutely maybe. But the notion that people should be separated on the basis of their race, their gender, their ethnicity, their sexuality, all that is bad in and of itself and has really bad consequences that reverberate widely through the institution. So any subsidy of that is going to be negative. So let's consider that negative. But then on the other side, there are so many charities maybe not so many, but there are enough charities where someone can get passionate about because the return on their philanthropic dollar is so high, because they know that, without a doubt, people are going to live and thrive and be pain-free because of the dollars they donate.

Mark Gerson: 15:34

I mean at African Mission Healthcare and United Hatzala. I mean both are devoted to saving lives and ameliorating pain in different ways, but both do it extremely effectively and measurably and we have all the data. Pain in different ways, but both do it extremely effectively and measurably, and we have all the data. And in both cases, the professionals running them in United Hatzalah's case, the EMTs and the paramedics, and in African Mission Healthcare, the Christian missionary doctors we support. They would say, without the donors we'd be working with Band-Aids. They both say the same thing. And so therefore, someone who donates to an organization like African Mission Healthcare United Hatzawa can feel like, because they actually are the genuine partner of those doing the heroic life-saving work.

Auren Hoffman: 16:11

A lot of giving, especially local giving, is often there's a little bit of community pressure from people. There's also a status thing. Well, if I give, I'll sit at the better table. Whenever you see the list of charity, you'll always say, okay, there's the president's club and the senator's club and the gold club and the platinum club and whatever. And they listed an order of people and the higher up in the order, the more status. That is part of the reason that people give. Sometimes people are giving anonymously, but quite often they're giving because they want to bestow status upon themselves. Is that inherently a bad thing, or can that be a good thing, or can it be harnessed in the right way?

Mark Gerson: 16:50

Exactly, it can be harnessed in the right way. It can be a great thing in the sense that if someone gives a significant gift and significance could be whatever's meaningful to that person at that stage in their life and they're acknowledged for giving that gift. Whether it's having their name on a wall somewhere or they're an acknowledgement in a website or an event, it can inspire others to give and it can inspire others to give there. If someone is committed to giving to a great charity, like United Hatala or African Mission Healthcare, I want to put their names in light, so to speak, at an event, literally only a little more abstractly because I want others to be able to say I know that person and I respect that person and now I'm inspired by not only their generosity, but I'm inspired by where their generosity directed them to give, and now I'm interested.

Auren Hoffman: 17:36

No, I think it's all good.

Mark Gerson: 17:37

I think when people are acknowledged for their appropriately directed generosity, it's an unalloyed good. Even donors of the two charities I chair, I always say no, please don't be anonymous. I want all your friends, your family, your colleagues, your associates to know that you've given here and you should be proud of what you've done. So let's put your name up there.

Auren Hoffman: 17:56

When I talk to my friends about charitable giving and we kind of break it down, there's the hobby often somebody has, or passion, and so they're giving that they care about the dolphins or something like that and they were passionate about that all their life. Then there's something very local. It's usually having to do with their kids, their kids' school, their kids' softball association, those types of things. Probably ROI is not very high on those things. Maybe it's not doing harm, but it's probably not that high.

Auren Hoffman: 18:24

When you really break it down, even when I think of myself or most of my friends, it's very hard to make a good argument for 80, 90% of people's charitable giving. There's emotions. There's other things. Is that just life? Certainly, when I buy things, maybe when I'm investing, I'm trying to be hard-nosed, but even there probably lots of emotion come in. Certainly, when I buy stuff, a lot of it just ends up on a shelf somewhere I never used it to get. There's a lot of other types of things. There's going to be a decent number. Maybe I can go from like 80% wasted to 70% wasted over time, or how do you think about this?

Mark Gerson: 18:58

Hopefully let's go to 0% wasted. Some of what you described your kids' school. That's a great example you use. Okay, it's not a charity, it's a communal institution. Communal institutions need money to run. I think everyone should just contribute to the communal institution to support it. Very simple, it's not charity. There's nothing to be proud of, nothing to be ashamed of.

Auren Hoffman: 19:18

There's a certain number of dollars in your head and there's some sort of budgetary thing people have and by contributing to the quote-unquote communal institution means you're contributing less to maybe a higher ROI charity.

Mark Gerson: 19:32

Possibly, but it depends how much one contributes to the communal institution and it also depends upon how much one wants to allocate overall, if we go by the theory which is confirmed by the data, that allegiances don't trade off but they build someone who gives a modest amount to their communal institution. I say modest amount because I think communal institutions like we're all members of a synagogue, we're all members of a church, we're parents of school, whatever we all should chip in to support this place because this place is important to us. Okay, it's not that interesting, let's all join in and support it. It's not really charity, although it's very valuable. We need communal institutions. Every community needs communal institutions. They need to be supported by the people who attend them. I mean, no one else is ever going to or ever should support someone else's communal institutions.

Auren Hoffman: 20:16

There's one thing okay, you give a little bit of money, but then of course your communal institution is doing a big capital campaign. They're putting a new wing, they're making the building much nicer, they're creating a gym. All of a sudden they need millions and millions of dollars. You can imagine this whole thing kind of changes there. You're totally right when communal institutions it's like we need to make the bathrooms nicer or something.

Mark Gerson: 20:37

Perfect example. It's not making the bathrooms nicer and the gym bigger. Then I think it's the time to say right, this is no longer a communal institution, it's something else. I'm going to direct my philanthropic resources elsewhere. We've established a place. We don't need all of this stuff, and you know who needs this stuff. It's the women in Uganda who, if they don't get the C-sections that African Mission Healthcare provides, are going to develop birth injuries which are going to be catastrophic until they can get surgical repair, which they won't be able to do because there are no surgeons around unless we train Almost all charities.

Auren Hoffman: 21:02

it seems like as they get more successful, they get better and better raising money it's like, well, now I need a bigger gym, a really nice office building. It does tend to do that over time. So you're saying, as the donor, as the investor, you need to recognize that point and then move on.

Mark Gerson: 21:18

Exactly, and that's why I think it's exactly like investing in a company. The older we get, the more we realize how little rules work, particularly in investing. You really have to get into each specific situation to make an intelligent decision. Should you invest in a big company? The answer is sometimes Depends on the company. Some of the best performing stocks in the last five years or 50 years have been big companies. Some of the biggest disasters have been big companies, so there can be no rule about whether one should invest or not in a big company or a startup. Some of the best ROI has been in startups and some of the biggest disasters have been in startups. There's no rules and it's the same thing with philanthropy, so some charities deliver far less ROI as they grow.

Mark Gerson: 21:54

I think your examples are perfect. Instead of thinking about how can we create opportunities for the poor, ameliorate pain or save lives, they think about how can we create a nicer bathroom or a bigger gym or a new wing or whatever Other charities as they get bigger. African Mission Healthcare Now we can build oxygen plants at six different Christian hospitals in Africa and by building oxygen plants we're able to treat all the surgical patients who need oxygen and produce enough oxygen to send the oxygen out to outlying clinics. Thus, for an investment of, in this case, several hundred thousand dollars, were able to improve the lives of millions of people over 30 years, because an oxygen plant will last 30 years. So in one example, an organization is taking more money to make its physical space spectacular. In another organization, they're taking the increased funding to supply a hospital with oxygen, which is going to facilitate surgery at the hospital and an outlying clinic. So is bigger better? It depends on the individual situation.

Auren Hoffman: 22:54

Now, besides for being a founder of charitable institutions, you've also been an extremely successful founder of for-profit companies and institutions as well, and I know that one of the things that you've been doing recently is also incubating companies and incubating a lot of interesting businesses. One of the things I really admire about your incubation is a lot of the ones at least all the ones I know about have been very capital light, which is different than a lot of other incubators. How do you think about the business creation process?

Mark Gerson: 23:24

It's an exhilarating experience when you realize that you have an idea that has product market fit. You need both. You need the idea and product market fit to realize there's something big here. And once those two things align and they don't align immediately, sometimes it takes some time and some discovery then it's all about hiring a team and raising the capital and staying close to the customer and continually not only adding value but continually operating with the concern that your customer is going to take his or her hard-earned dollar and put it elsewhere. So you got to overwhelm the customer with value so that they're getting like 20x what you're charging by any reasonable metric and will never leave. But it's that combination of both the idea and the product market fit and you can throw in the team, because that's so important, the team that's capable of executing on it. Those could be the three things.

Mark Gerson: 24:12

It's hard to find, but all valuable things are hard to find. It's hard to find a new opportunity. Now, why is it hard to create a new opportunity? Because there are so many intelligent, creative and deeply motivated people looking for them, but they're always out there. And there are so many intelligent, creative and deeply motivated people looking for them, but they're always out there.

Mark Gerson: 24:26

And what's interesting about business formation is business formation begets business formation, because think about Oren, some of the great companies that you've invested in the previous several years Many of them could not have been founded 15, 20 years ago because their customers didn't exist. The fact that businesses have formed, those businesses become customers and users and then a new business can exist to serve them and then the next generation, which will only be three to five years, can start serving them. It's really truly one of the many great things about the United States of America is how friendly we are to business formation, how socially encouraged business formation is, how much of it happens so successfully. And, of course, the successes couldn't happen without the failures, but the successes do happen and they've created the most innovative economy the world has ever known or dreamed of.

Auren Hoffman: 25:05

One of the things I also admire about you is that you've been able to attract very, very talented people that co-found these businesses with. Is there some sort of formula to do that, or how would you break down why you've been successful there?

Mark Gerson: 25:18

Sure, I don't know if there's a formula, I would say the kind of person who's very successful. Someone might say, well, I've never done anything like this and the answer is well, that's why I, like you, believe in somebody. Somehow, exactly, identify somebody you believe in because they're hardworking, they're intelligent. Importantly, they're humble and they want to learn from everybody. They know what they know and they're proud of it. And they know what they don't know and they want to learn it. They're proud of it and they know what they don't know and they want to learn it. Identify that person and then give them vastly more responsibility than they think they're capable of and, by the way, this implies to founding CEOs, it also implies to employees is that identify someone with those characteristics and then overwhelm them with responsibility. Don't worry if they've done it in the past. That actually may be a disqualifier. I don't want to say that too strongly, but it's definitely going to be overrated, if not a disqualifier.

Mark Gerson: 26:06

Whereas, think about so many of the great businesses that have been started in our lifetimes. How many of the entrepreneurs had lots of experience in the space before they started them. Some did, but most didn't. These were just people who had the skills and the personality and the discipline to create great businesses because they had the idea of the product, market fit and the capability of building a team, but they didn't have the experience. It's just someone or some group of people believed in them and gave them vastly more responsibility than probably anyone would have rationally thought they could handle. But they could handle it and they did and they built great businesses.

Auren Hoffman: 26:40

Now, you mentioned one reason you like America so much is that it's been a great place to start companies, great for entrepreneurs and founders. That also is descriptive of Israel. There's been a ton of written about why Israel has been such a startup nation, but do you have any non-obvious reasons why Israel has been so successful there?

Mark Gerson: 27:00

I think Israel has been so successful for a number of reasons. One they have a great culture of entrepreneurship. It's deeply ingrained in the society that if you have a business, idea.

Auren Hoffman: 27:09

You should pursue it. I don't know if that was true in like the 80s, even in the 90s. That does seem to be much more true in the last 25 years than it was in the first 40 years of Israel's history.

Mark Gerson: 27:21

There are far fewer businesses founded in the world in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s than there have been recently. So Israel's been one of the leaders. And, as we talked about before, I think business creation begets business creation. So the more businesses that are created, it's going to be that much easier to start the next one, that much more socially encouraged about the next one, I mean.

Mark Gerson: 27:37

I think another great fact about Israel is everyone serves in the army. Men and women both serve in the army. I think so many American college students will go to college at 18 and effectively waste two to three years. And in fact there are some very interesting studies about what students know when they come out and what they know when they came in. And some shocking amount know very little more, if anything, than when they came in. And why is that? It's just because 18, 19 is just too young for a lot of people to be given that kind of freedom to go to college. So in Israel they go to the military for two or three years. What do they do in the military? They do what we're talking about before with CEOs and executives.

Mark Gerson: 28:11

These young men and women 18, 19, 20 in the military are given vastly more responsibility than anyone would have thought an 18, 19 year old is capable of, and they execute magnificently. And in so doing, they developed this two things confidence and seriousness. They developed the confidence that if I can do well which I did, what I did in the army I can do well with anything. And they develop a seriousness. They're not going to leave the army, maybe travel for six months or a year and then go to college and immediately try to find out how much they can drink. It's just not an Israeli thing. They become confident and serious people, and that's a really powerful combination of confidence, earned confidence and seriousness when it comes to starting a business.

Mark Gerson: 28:52

The other thing I would say about Israel two more things actually is that one, it's a society that deeply values community, and we see this at United Hatzalah. I mean, united Hatzalah has 7,000 volunteers. They're all volunteers, and these are people from every segment of society, from Orthodox Jews to Arab Muslims, secular Jews, men and women, and it's just a societal ethic pervading everybody in society that when you can help someone in need, you do so. It's a deeply communal ethos. It's very powerful for both the society and for the economy.

Auren Hoffman: 29:21

Is there something about? Just part of Israeli society is just always this pervading thing, that it's not always perfectly safe, and there's just something about that that brings people together and that fosters a lot of innovation, and that it'd be hard to replicate that in Sweden or something it's the power of today, and the Bible says this all the time today, particularly in Deuteronomy.

Mark Gerson: 29:43

It uses the word today all the time. For today it's like wait, what are we talking about? I mean, I'm not going to be reading the Bible tomorrow. We're not talking about yesterday, it's no, it's for today. Because the consistent use of the word today and the idea of today is so important in Israeli society. It's that the time to do something is now. No Israeli would ever say I want to compile more experience before I start a business. I have an idea, I think there's product market fit, I think I can build a team. I'm going to do it now. It's really the power of today and the power of now. That is another reason why the Israeli economy has been so vibrant and so successful.

Mark Gerson: 30:16

This is kind of deeply in the biblical ethos is that there's an expression in the Talmud which derives right from the Bible, which is you know, you should run to do a mitzvah, a good deed, when the opportunity presents itself to do something good, and that good thing certainly is make a donation to a worthy charity that delivers high ROI. We talked about our could even be started business the time to do the good and the right thing is now. And why is that? It's because if you say I'm going to do the good or the right thing later, just think of how many things might intervene between now and later. So if you say I want to do the good thing later, but then its importance may diminish in your mind, several other competing priorities may emerge and a variety of other factors all conspire so that the odds of doing the thing diminish, not to zero, but significantly. The ethos that I think that is one of the reasons why Israeli society and economy have been so successful is just the power of now and the importance of today, which really all derives from the biblical ethos of run to do a mitzvah. When you have the opportunity to do the right thing, do it now. And, by the way, we see this all the time with charitable giving at the two charities that I chair and this is actually Elie Bier, the founder and leader of United Hatzal.

Mark Gerson: 31:20

This is his insight. He said when people say I'll give after my next deal, that means they will never give. We started the organization over 20 years ago, so we have enough data to know he's totally right. It's people who say I don't think I can afford to give this, but I'm going to do it anyway. Those are the people who give and those are the people who inevitably and we've seen this over 20 years do well economically. And it's been a very interesting observation because it's exactly what the Bible promises. The Bible promises in Deuteronomy that he who gives generously in support of the poor will be blessed in all of his undertakings. In other words, if you give, and you give generously, and we can add and give now, because if you don't give now, as we've said, you're never going to give. So you give generously to the poor and you give now, the Bible says that you'll be blessed in all of your undertakings, and we've seen it to be sociologically true.

Auren Hoffman: 32:07

Speaking of religion. Why do you think religion has declined so much in significance in the United States?

Mark Gerson: 32:12

It's declined in certain areas but it's also rising in other areas. We've seen the rise in non-denominational evangelical churches In Protestant Christianity and we know about this because of our work in African Mission Healthcare. And we know this because the question is why are these Christian missionary doctors who deliver so much needed care for the poor, who save so many lives and ameliorate so much pain of people who are lost and forgotten and completely overlooked, the stranger? They used to be supported by the denominations the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Baptists but not anymore nearly as much. Why? Because the denominations the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Baptists but not anymore nearly as much. Why? Because the denominations, to your point, have become weaker, smaller and poorer, but instead there's been the rise of non-denominational evangelical churches. But because they're non-denominational and evangelical and independent, they're just not tied together in a denomination that can effectively tax all of its members through their churches and fund missionary, but certainly even with the rise of these evangelical churches in the US, the amount of people that go to regular religious services has declined.

Auren Hoffman: 33:14

A number of people who say they're agnostic or they're just not practicing they may still believe in God, but they're just not practicing has gone up quite a bit, and so it does seem like general religious institutions are less big than they were in the past in the US.

Mark Gerson: 33:31

And it's deeply unfortunate. If I could wish one thing for America, it would be a mass religious revival.

Auren Hoffman: 33:35

Kind of like what happened in the 1800s or something.

Mark Gerson: 33:38

There was a great awakening in the 1800s. But I think if more people found meaning and purpose in the great faiths of the United States, people would be happier and better. Certainly, what the Surgeon General has declared, unfortunately but properly, to be an epidemic of loneliness, which has, by the way, massive mental and physical health consequences, that would go away. I mean, if there was a mass religious revival, we wouldn't have loneliness. People would be in church and synagogue and mos. That would go away. I mean, if there was a mass religious revival, we wouldn't have loneliness. People would be in church and synagogue and mosques all the time.

Mark Gerson: 34:08

There would be no loneliness it would be reduced, for sure I mean, if there was a real religious revival, yeah, it would be significantly reduced. So I think people would also find meaning and purpose both in their community and what people can do in community Almost everything valuable that people do, they do in communities. It could even be a small community, but they do in community. If there was a mass religious revival, I mean, just think about what might happen in a newly strengthened or newly even emerging church. They might say you know, we've now identified this missionary in Uganda, the people we support or Burundi or Cameroon or Ethiopia or Kenya, and let's really get behind that person. They'd alleviate loneliness. They would study the great text and realize what a great guidebook the Bible is for all of us and how it can really help direct us in all of our decisions and all of our challenges and all of our opportunities.

Mark Gerson: 34:56

I think if there was a mass religious revival, americans would be vastly happier. They'd be vastly wealthier, because wealth is created in community. They'd be happier, wealthier, they'd have more meaning, more purpose, they would do more good. Or and I think you point out something very important that the decline in religion is a fact and it's a deeply unfortunate fact and the other interesting if perverse dynamic about the truth, you tell, is that when people give up religion, they just find another one.

Mark Gerson: 35:24

Nobody is truly secular, no one is really an atheist. What's the data proof on this? In the year 2000, no one heard of Wiccans, which are people who worship witches. Literally. Now there are a million Wiccans in America. When people cease to believe in traditional religions, they will find something non-traditional and that does not have any of the embedded wisdom, the beneficial structures that enable these traditional religions to give people meaning, purpose and to channel them to do genuine good. Because, again, if you look around the world and you look at the organizations that are doing the most good on an ROI basis, they're going to be largely religious organizations.

Auren Hoffman: 36:03

If you define religion even more broadly as to believing something that's bigger than yourself, that you maybe can't prove that you need to have a little bit of faith in, and stuff like that then you can make an argument that everyone in the world is super religious and that they find something. Maybe they're replacing that with politics today, or maybe they're replacing that with some other type of thing that's out there. If politics is your religion, that doesn't seem like that's good for society.

Mark Gerson: 36:31

Exactly when people give up on traditional religion, they will find a substitute, and the substitute will not be nothing. The substitute, you're totally right, it might be politics, it might be climate, it might be witches, it might be something that you and I can't conceive of right now because it's so wild. But the one thing I'm sure it won't do is it will not be devoted to serving the poor, which is so deeply embedded in the biblical notions that animate Judaism and Christianity. Expert networks.

Auren Hoffman: 37:00

you kind of invented them, and GLG was really the original one. Now there's dozens of them out there, but still, even from these expert networks, almost all their revenue comes from financial services like hedge funds and private equity. Why is the industry being so constrained to financial services?

Mark Gerson: 37:16

It's not anymore GLG. We serve a lot of professional services firms.

Auren Hoffman: 37:20

Even like professional services. When Bain buys these expert networks, they're usually doing it because of, like a private equity deal or something like that. They're billing it essentially usually At least that's what I thought.

Mark Gerson: 37:31

There's certainly a lot of that in terms of private equity firms using GLG to make investments or purchases, but there's also consulting firms using GLG to better understand businesses that they're just consulting for Law firms use us, lots of corporations use us. The philosophy is that if you want to make a better investment or business decision, you have to learn more than you know. How can you best learn more than you know? Talking to an expert? Yeah, by learning from one's peers, and that's what we facilitated. This notion of peer-to-peer learning really enhances how people do in business. And an expert yeah, by learning from one's peers, and that's what we facilitated. And this notion of peer-to-peer learning really enhances how people do in business and investing. It would work in nonprofits too. It's become a pretty broad-based phenomenon.

Auren Hoffman: 38:13

Now you and your wife married about six months after meeting. You guys are well-known well-known at setting people up and encouraging people to find love. What's your advice to young people trying to find a partner?

Mark Gerson: 38:26

Oh, I'm so glad you asked that. So Genesis 2467 presents the great love story in the Bible, and that's between Isaac and Rebecca. Now, isaac and Rebecca had the best marriage in the Bible. It wasn't perfect, but it had the best marriage in the Bible.

Mark Gerson: 38:38

What did Isaac and Rebecca know about each other before they decided to get married? Each of them knew two, and only two, things. This is the important thing. They each had a list. The list consisted of two things Rebecca she knew that Isaac was wealthy, ie he'd be a good provider, and she knew he loved God.

Mark Gerson: 38:57

Isaac, through his father's servant, eliezer, knew that Rebecca was quote very fair to look upon. She was beautiful and she was extraordinarily generous in giving. She brought water for Eliezer and for all of his camels herself. They each look for two qualities. She looks for is he a good provider and does he love God? Check, check, marry him. He looks for two qualities Is she beautiful and is she extraordinarily generous? Check, check, get married. Okay, on the basis of two qualities, they decide to get married.

Mark Gerson: 39:24

But then the Bible, in Genesis 24, 67, describes the sequence. It says they got married. She became his wife. So therefore, becoming a wife is something different than being married. So what would becoming a wife be? Or a husband, probably doing spouse-like things, which is iterative acts of giving. What's the biblical formula? Identify two characteristics in the other person, then get married. Don't think so much about it. Identify the two characteristics, get married, start doing spouse-like things. And what happened after they got married and after they're doing spouse-like things and he loved her? Identify the two characteristics, get married, start doing spouse-like things, which is going to be interdicts of giving, and then the love will follow and the love will continually deepen. And I just think that the modern Western romantic notion it definitely has it backwards. The modern Western romantic notion it definitely has it backwards both in the order and, I think, in terms of the formula for what makes a marriage enduring and continually deepening and the most meaningful thing in one's life, which is what it should be In some ways.

Auren Hoffman: 40:21

what you're saying is that as long as two people were actually committed to the marriage, committed to helping each other, that in some ways you could almost marry anybody.

Mark Gerson: 40:30

Well, you got to have the two things, you got the two characteristics, but there aren't going to be that many characteristics to choose from, like if you say, well, it's really important to me what kind of music she likes. No, that's not one of the characteristics. It's really important to me what kind of vacations he likes. Does he like warm weather, cold weather? No, that's not one of the characteristics. Identify two characteristics and maybe we can liberalize it and say three. We can each have lists of three. Single people not you and me, but single people can have lists of three and then they can check one, two and three. And let's just be sure that the three are not dating characteristics but are marriage characteristics, and there is a significant difference. So pick three marriage characteristics.

Auren Hoffman: 41:05

Someone says mine is a sense of humor. So I really like the one that have a great sense of humor or something that helps me, or something like that you would say is that a characteristic or is that not a characteristic?

Mark Gerson: 41:15

That's not a characteristic. Oh, okay, why not? I mean I can't imagine. But yeah, if they're totally severe, yeah, that might be a characteristic.

Mark Gerson: 41:22

You can say three characteristics and, within a broad sense of reason, on the rest, what are the characteristics going to be? They're going to be and this applies to men and women is he or she giving? Is he or she generous? Are they good with children? Very important Do they share my faith? You can even say three to four characteristics. It's not going to be any longer than that. We're going to be building something together. So what are the three or four characteristics of the person with whom I want to build? And, of course, physical attraction is a baseline. That's in the Bible. She was very fair to look upon. That's absolutely their baseline of physical attraction. Then think of two to four characteristics. But these lists that people have now of 10 and 20 and God knows how many. Just look at the divorce rates. The Western divorce rates are over 40%. The only reason why they've gone down since the 80s which they have, is people start getting married later.

Auren Hoffman: 42:06

Marriage rates have gone down too, so you would expect divorce rates to go down as marriage rates go down.

Mark Gerson: 42:10

Yeah, people start getting married older. The marriage rates have gone down. The fact that divorce rates gone down isn't some great accomplishment. It's also understated because about 20% of marriages where couples have been separated for more than 10 years do not end in divorce. This is the phenomenon known as endless separation. In other words, a couple they decide to separate. They also realize they don't totally hate each other and that he needs her health insurance and she could use his social, whatever, and so they just say, for financial reasons, let's just stay legally married, but we're going to effectively be divorced. It shows up in the statistics as a happy marriage. It's not? Yeah, interesting.

Auren Hoffman: 42:43

You're an incredible connector. You and I have been friends for almost 25 years and continually amazes me how you like, build and maintain friendships. How do you think about that? Is that something like you actively work on?

Mark Gerson: 42:54

or Well, I would ask you, oren. I mean, you're the greatest of all In terms of originating and sustaining friendships. You're the master. I look up to you.

Auren Hoffman: 43:02

Oh, there's a love fest. Maybe that's how, maybe it's just giving a lot of love to other people or something like that is how you do it. I always admire you for that.

Mark Gerson: 43:10

I just wish we could convince people about the formula for marriage. I mean, eric and I have thrown many singles Shabbat dinners. We do them for Jewish singles who are looking to get married, and we've done dinners for straight people and gay people and I wish we had more marriages to come out of it. Now, at the beginning of every dinner, both the ones for straight people and gay people, I go through Genesis 2467. I think it's one of these things. The logic of Genesis 2467 is irrefutable and in theory, people agree with it. No one has ever said you know what? I totally disagree. There should be a list of 20 characteristics and then you should date for three years before you decide to come. Everyone kind of agrees in theory. I just wish people would practice it.

Auren Hoffman: 43:46

You didn't get married when you're 21 either. Is there a point where someone somehow realizes you didn't get married when you're 21 either? Is there a point where, like, someone somehow realizes, okay, I'm ready to get married and you believe we should try to move that point earlier in people's lives? Perfectly put, yes.

Mark Gerson: 43:58

There is that point, but it should be earlier. Having children, as you and I know, is the single best thing in the world, and people who have children young can have more of them and they can also be able to spend that very special time with their grandchildren. The two to four characteristic theory the logic of it is get married younger and don't date very long, because the other thing is it doesn't take very long. You should know, yeah, looking for two to four things. How long does it take you to find out? Two months.

Auren Hoffman: 44:26

So then you should just cut it off. People just stay in relationships for too long if it's not going to work out.

Mark Gerson: 44:31

Which wastes people's time and takes away crucial years from both men and women. The fertility statistics show that it's better for a woman to have children when she's younger. It's also better for a man. The statistics now show it's better for everybody to have children younger. I think people should first recognize that marriage is the single greatest institution ever created by mankind, unless it was created by God. Okay, so it's the best institution in the world, it's the best thing ever. Therefore, people should seek it when they're younger.

Mark Gerson: 44:57

Identify the two to four characteristics get married, do spouse-like things, and then you'll experience a profound love. And, by the way, about the worst term is falling in love. You don't fall in love. You might fall on your face, you might fall on the ground. You don't fall in love, you might fall on your face, you might fall on the ground. You don't fall in love, you rise to love. And how do you rise to love? You get married, you do spouse-like things and then you rise to love. Then you get this ever-increasing, deepening love. But it's not falling, it's rising. Words are important and the ideas that they con do it younger and they would also give themselves the opportunity to experience this deeply profound love. The Bible gives us the formula. The Bible is a great gift, the great guidebook to all of us. Let's just read Genesis 24. The guidance is there. Let's follow it. I think the vast majority of people will be vastly happier in the moment when they have more kids and also when they're able to enjoy time with their grandchildren as young grandparents.

Auren Hoffman: 45:53

A couple personal questions before we go. I know you're a massive fan of Elvis. What's the deal there Like? Why is he so special to you?

Mark Gerson: 46:01

Oh, we love Elvis. Eric and I have taken the family on two pilgrimages to Graceland. It's a great American place, by the way. I would encourage everyone to go to Graceland. It happens to be 15 minutes from the Civil Rights Museum, which is a truly moving and amazing museum, one of the few museums that I really gravitate to. It's right there in Memphis, so it's a great trip. Elvis A, his music was just beautiful, everything he did. He got his start in 1955 in gospel and then really gave birth to rock and roll, and everything he did from the 50s until maybe the mid-70s, which everything was just magnificent. Listening to Elvis, I think, gives someone kind of the epitomized experience of music listenership and appreciation. And the more you learn about Elvis and his struggles and his challenges, just the more respect you have for the man and his art. Love Elvis, the more Elvis the better.

Auren Hoffman: 46:52

I still haven't been to Graceland. I know you and I have talked about this many, many times over the years. I'm going to add it to my list of things to do with my kids is to go there.

Mark Gerson: 47:01

It's a whole thing. I mean, you tour Elvis's mansion, you take the kids on Elvis's plane. This may be a little ridiculous, but I don't think so. We're able to hold some of Elvis's things, like his phone. Elvis had a cell phone in the 70s, wow that's cool.

Mark Gerson: 47:13

We got the whole Elvis experience right there at Grace when you see his car museum. Did you like the movie? The movie is spectacular. Yeah, I thought it was very good. The proof the movie is spectacular is Elvis radio on Sirius, which I listen to all the time. The Elvis radio. People love the movie. And when the hardcore true believers love something because hardcore true believers are usually well, something's popularized, here's a fault. There's a fault these guys love the movie.

Auren Hoffman: 47:35

I thought the actor I forgot his name was great. I thought Tom Hanks was great as well. Last question we ask all of our guests what's a conventional wisdom or advice?

Mark Gerson: 47:45

do you think is generally bad advice. Well, I think we answer I'm going to give goes back to two of the things we said, which is that you should wait longer before committing. I think this applies to two of the things we discussed. I think it applies to starting companies and getting married. The best decisions are made with relatively few information inputs, presuming those inputs are correct. So when you start a business, if you have the idea and product market fit and you can assemble a team, do it. In dating, if you have the two or four characteristics, marry him or her. The more information you get in both cases will actually make you a worse decision maker.

Auren Hoffman: 48:21

Is part of the problem in our society, especially among super smart people, is that they overvalue optionality.

Mark Gerson: 48:27

Totally. They overvalue optionality. They also get lost in their own analytical capabilities. It's because they think they're good at analysis and in some cases they are they think there's value to it, but there's actually not. There's a value to cutting off the analysis. And I think we see it both with starting a business. I mean, how many great businesses could have been started by people who said, well, I need to get more experience first, or acquire certain skills first, or get a different position in life first. How many great businesses could have been created but they weren't because of that philosophy? And then, by the way, how many wonderful, enduring marriages with lots of kids and grandchildren have been forsaken because people waited too long or they ruled people out for the wrong characteristics? And I think we should realize that it's important when making a decision, to make that decision with the right inputs, but they're never going to be that many. Just be sure that the two or three inputs are the right ones. Make the decision and go.

Auren Hoffman: 49:17

Now. Thank you, mark Gerson, for joining us. I know you have a book coming out soon. When is that coming out?

Mark Gerson: 49:21

A year from now, February of 2025. And it's about how modern social science has proven the Torah to be true.

Auren Hoffman: 49:29

I can't wait to read it. That's exciting. I read your last book. Social science has proven the Torah to be true. I can't wait to read it. That's exciting. I read your last book. I really liked it. I also follow you at Mark Gerson on Twitter. I definitely encourage our listeners to engage with you there. This has been a ton of fun.

Mark Gerson: 49:39

Yeah, thank you so much, Warren. Great conversation.

Auren Hoffman: 49:44

Thank you. If you're a super data nerd, go to worldofdascom that's D-A-A-S. Worldofdascom and out YouTube for videos. You can find me at Twitter, at at Oren that's A-U-R-E-N. Oren, and we'd love to hear from you. World of Das is brought to you by Safegraph. Safegraph is geospatial data for physical places. Check it out at safegraphcom and by Flex Capital. Flex Capital investests and data companies like those we talk about. A.