WEBVTT - Netflix Earnings and Twitter Wins... For Now

0:00:02.279 --> 0:00:05.640
<v Speaker 1>From the heart of where innovation, money and power collive

0:00:06.400 --> 0:00:10.960
<v Speaker 1>in Silicon Valley and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with

0:00:11.000 --> 0:00:26.799
<v Speaker 1>Emily jay I rememerly Chang in San Francisco, and this

0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:29.440
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg Technology coming up in the next hour. Well,

0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:31.960
<v Speaker 1>it could have been worse. That's what analysts are saying

0:00:31.960 --> 0:00:36.840
<v Speaker 1>about Netflix results. Shares jumping in late trade despite losing

0:00:36.880 --> 0:00:41.440
<v Speaker 1>almost a million subscribers could add solve the company's problems.

0:00:41.960 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 1>We will discuss plus Twitter wins for now. A judge

0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:49.479
<v Speaker 1>grants the company's request to fast track its lawsuit against

0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:53.400
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk. The trial now scheduled to start in October.

0:00:53.760 --> 0:00:57.080
<v Speaker 1>We'll explore this particular judges record and what it tells

0:00:57.160 --> 0:01:01.160
<v Speaker 1>us about which side has a better shot. And as

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:04.959
<v Speaker 1>a major crypto lender and hedge fund collapse, is regulation

0:01:05.280 --> 0:01:07.920
<v Speaker 1>the answer? The head of US policy of coin Based

0:01:08.000 --> 0:01:10.720
<v Speaker 1>joins us to talk about the way out of the

0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:14.040
<v Speaker 1>ashes of the crypto crash. Let's stay with Netflix now,

0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:17.039
<v Speaker 1>I'm bringing down morgantin, your portfolio manager at sent Novis Trust.

0:01:17.080 --> 0:01:20.320
<v Speaker 1>So Dan, explain this to me. Why are shares up

0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:25.080
<v Speaker 1>if they've still lost almost a million subscribers. Well, it's

0:01:25.120 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 1>kind of a confusing report, Emily, isn't it. I mean,

0:01:27.080 --> 0:01:28.920
<v Speaker 1>if you think about it, it's kind of a sigh

0:01:28.959 --> 0:01:31.520
<v Speaker 1>of relief, I think by a lot of people coming

0:01:31.560 --> 0:01:35.720
<v Speaker 1>to the numbers. I mean, obviously, the projections going into

0:01:35.800 --> 0:01:39.000
<v Speaker 1>the third quarter below expectations. In terms of number of

0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:41.520
<v Speaker 1>new subscribers. They're saying they're going to add a million.

0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:44.160
<v Speaker 1>The street was looking for one point eight million. They

0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:48.080
<v Speaker 1>did lose less, right than expected in the second quarter.

0:01:48.120 --> 0:01:50.000
<v Speaker 1>I think there were a lot of estimates. Some people

0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:52.080
<v Speaker 1>are saying as many as two million. They came in

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:55.760
<v Speaker 1>losing seventy thousand. The other thing that's kind of confusing

0:01:55.800 --> 0:01:58.200
<v Speaker 1>to Emily is that if you look at their guidance

0:01:58.240 --> 0:02:01.360
<v Speaker 1>going into revenues and earnings for the third quarter, they

0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:04.000
<v Speaker 1>are also below consensus, and yet the stock was up.

0:02:04.040 --> 0:02:06.000
<v Speaker 1>And the only thing I can think of, Emily, is

0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 1>that they're kind of addressing a lot of their issues, right.

0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:12.080
<v Speaker 1>They talked in their shareholder letter about how they're going

0:02:12.120 --> 0:02:15.080
<v Speaker 1>to address the issues with all these people a hundred

0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:17.320
<v Speaker 1>million people you know that are using the service for

0:02:17.400 --> 0:02:20.160
<v Speaker 1>free um and they talked a little bit about free

0:02:20.160 --> 0:02:23.120
<v Speaker 1>cash flow and various other things. So I think maybe

0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:25.880
<v Speaker 1>people are just saying they're addressing their issues. It was

0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:28.400
<v Speaker 1>as worse as we thought, and hopefully things will get

0:02:28.440 --> 0:02:29.799
<v Speaker 1>better in the future. And that's how we have to

0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:32.920
<v Speaker 1>leave it because the stock is up. Let's talk about

0:02:32.919 --> 0:02:36.080
<v Speaker 1>this crackdown on password sharing, because let's be honest, Netflix

0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:38.680
<v Speaker 1>has been giving Netflix away for free for a while

0:02:38.760 --> 0:02:41.560
<v Speaker 1>to a lot of people who just haven't paid up.

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:43.919
<v Speaker 1>If they cracked down on the passports, how big an

0:02:43.960 --> 0:02:46.080
<v Speaker 1>impact do you think that will actually have in getting

0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:49.960
<v Speaker 1>some of those people to pay up. Well's teteresting him

0:02:49.960 --> 0:02:51.959
<v Speaker 1>because in the shareholder letter they mentioned they're going to

0:02:52.080 --> 0:02:55.079
<v Speaker 1>test two approaches in Latin America and they're going to

0:02:55.200 --> 0:02:57.720
<v Speaker 1>charge to nine a month, and they're going to try

0:02:57.760 --> 0:03:00.160
<v Speaker 1>to work something to try to to get these able

0:03:00.200 --> 0:03:02.040
<v Speaker 1>to start pain. So I'm kind of curious to learn

0:03:02.080 --> 0:03:04.679
<v Speaker 1>a little bit more about that. That seems pretty low

0:03:04.760 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>to me, right tone a month. I pay close to

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:10.200
<v Speaker 1>twenty dollars a month for my Netflix subscription here in

0:03:10.240 --> 0:03:12.359
<v Speaker 1>the United States. But so it's gonna be kind of

0:03:12.400 --> 0:03:14.359
<v Speaker 1>interesting to see how they roll that out and put

0:03:14.400 --> 0:03:17.680
<v Speaker 1>that together and and try to monetize these people and

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:19.760
<v Speaker 1>bring them in. How So, I think we need to

0:03:19.800 --> 0:03:21.440
<v Speaker 1>just learn a little bit more about how they're going

0:03:21.480 --> 0:03:24.239
<v Speaker 1>to do it. But that's a huge number, a hundred million,

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:31.120
<v Speaker 1>So advertising be the answer to Netflix's problems, you know, Emily,

0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:34.160
<v Speaker 1>it's kind of interesting because I'm curious to see how

0:03:34.160 --> 0:03:36.320
<v Speaker 1>that's going to play out. Right, they signed the agreement

0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:39.040
<v Speaker 1>with Microsoft to help them last week. On that. I'm

0:03:39.080 --> 0:03:40.760
<v Speaker 1>just wondering. And I could ask you, because you're a

0:03:40.760 --> 0:03:42.880
<v Speaker 1>big user Netflix, if they got to the point where

0:03:42.920 --> 0:03:47.000
<v Speaker 1>they're offering an add you know, streaming service and there's

0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:50.120
<v Speaker 1>not that many ads, maybe it's every fifteen minutes, which

0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:52.200
<v Speaker 1>is you'd be willing to maybe just say, hey, I'm

0:03:52.240 --> 0:03:54.240
<v Speaker 1>not going to pay the fifteen twenty dollars a month

0:03:54.480 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 1>and just go straight for the free ad streaming service.

0:03:57.880 --> 0:04:01.000
<v Speaker 1>So that's interesting. And then the other thing component is

0:04:01.040 --> 0:04:03.560
<v Speaker 1>they have two or twenty million people using their system

0:04:03.640 --> 0:04:06.000
<v Speaker 1>right now. How many people do they add to this

0:04:06.040 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 1>new ad streaming service and do they start competing against

0:04:09.240 --> 0:04:11.760
<v Speaker 1>the like so let's say a Facebook or Google in

0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>terms of garnering all this revenue through advertising. So I

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:17.160
<v Speaker 1>don't know how that's going to come together for them.

0:04:17.160 --> 0:04:19.800
<v Speaker 1>They're gonna let us know more and they're introducing some

0:04:19.839 --> 0:04:22.200
<v Speaker 1>new services, I guess in two thousand twenty three, So

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:24.359
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be interesting to see what happens with

0:04:24.400 --> 0:04:28.880
<v Speaker 1>this new ad streaming Netflix right. Time is precious, and

0:04:28.920 --> 0:04:30.320
<v Speaker 1>so is money down. I mean, I think i'd have

0:04:30.360 --> 0:04:32.600
<v Speaker 1>to look at the numbers and also the ad experience.

0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:34.840
<v Speaker 1>You know, what kind of ads are these? How long

0:04:34.880 --> 0:04:37.479
<v Speaker 1>am I watching them? Are they pleasing? Are they really

0:04:38.120 --> 0:04:41.600
<v Speaker 1>tailored to me? The thing is, and and this point

0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:44.280
<v Speaker 1>has been made. You know, the companies that are brought

0:04:44.360 --> 0:04:49.960
<v Speaker 1>up as competitors Disney Plus, m Hulu, Amazon, HBO. Disney

0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:54.560
<v Speaker 1>Plus isn't necessarily a substitute for Netflix, is it? What

0:04:54.680 --> 0:04:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Dosney Plus is interesting because they have about a hundred

0:04:57.040 --> 0:05:01.679
<v Speaker 1>million subscribers, are the largest competitor next to Netflix. They're

0:05:01.720 --> 0:05:06.040
<v Speaker 1>targeting about two hundred and forty million subscribers by two

0:05:06.120 --> 0:05:08.680
<v Speaker 1>thousand twenty four, which seems like a really big number

0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:11.560
<v Speaker 1>for them. But I think you're right, Emily, Disney Plus

0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:13.800
<v Speaker 1>seems a little bit more different in terms of their

0:05:13.880 --> 0:05:16.719
<v Speaker 1>content than what we find on Netflix. You were talking

0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:20.560
<v Speaker 1>earlier about the various uh, you know, series that they

0:05:20.560 --> 0:05:22.919
<v Speaker 1>have and how people get hooked on them. A little

0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:25.320
<v Speaker 1>bit of a different component as Disney has that huge

0:05:25.760 --> 0:05:28.560
<v Speaker 1>library of movies and content through all the years of

0:05:28.600 --> 0:05:31.240
<v Speaker 1>Disney production, so it is a little bit different. But

0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:33.400
<v Speaker 1>there's no doubt that Disney in terms of number of

0:05:33.400 --> 0:05:37.400
<v Speaker 1>subscribers is the closest in terms of Netflix in terms

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:39.800
<v Speaker 1>of their having the you know, hundred million, which is

0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:42.120
<v Speaker 1>pretty close to two or twenty million. The rest of

0:05:42.160 --> 0:05:46.000
<v Speaker 1>the other players have much less subscribers. So here's the

0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:49.960
<v Speaker 1>other thing. Is the return on content space spending, paying

0:05:50.000 --> 0:05:54.360
<v Speaker 1>off or dropping off. If Stranger Things is costing reportedly

0:05:54.480 --> 0:06:00.560
<v Speaker 1>thirty million dollars an episode, is that worth it? Yeah?

0:06:00.600 --> 0:06:04.400
<v Speaker 1>It's interesting, Emily. You look at their content expense projection

0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:07.880
<v Speaker 1>for this year, it's about seventeen point nine billion, which

0:06:07.920 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 1>is pretty much in line with they projected last year,

0:06:10.720 --> 0:06:13.680
<v Speaker 1>which is around seventeen billions. So it seems to me

0:06:13.760 --> 0:06:16.600
<v Speaker 1>like Netflix is getting a little more cautious in regards

0:06:16.640 --> 0:06:19.479
<v Speaker 1>to this attitude We're just going to spend tons of money,

0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:22.120
<v Speaker 1>create tons of content, and we're going to get the

0:06:22.160 --> 0:06:24.400
<v Speaker 1>subscribers and we'll be able to pay for it. Seems

0:06:24.400 --> 0:06:26.840
<v Speaker 1>like they're starting to pull back a little bit in

0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:30.560
<v Speaker 1>regards to their content budgets. And expectations. It's starting to

0:06:30.600 --> 0:06:33.120
<v Speaker 1>be a little bit more careful on margins and so forth.

0:06:33.480 --> 0:06:35.599
<v Speaker 1>So you bring up a good point, where do you

0:06:35.640 --> 0:06:37.960
<v Speaker 1>just keep spending and spending and spending if you're not

0:06:38.000 --> 0:06:41.080
<v Speaker 1>getting the subscriber growth because your subscriber growth is negative.

0:06:41.520 --> 0:06:43.840
<v Speaker 1>Doesn't make sense to keep spending more and more money

0:06:43.880 --> 0:06:45.560
<v Speaker 1>on content. You need to bring it back in a

0:06:45.640 --> 0:06:48.479
<v Speaker 1>little bit and kind of refocus, and it appears that

0:06:48.520 --> 0:06:50.960
<v Speaker 1>they're starting to do that instead of this growth at

0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:52.760
<v Speaker 1>all cost model, which is what they were doing in

0:06:52.760 --> 0:06:55.039
<v Speaker 1>the past. All right, well, we're going to continue to

0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:58.200
<v Speaker 1>digest these Netflix results to have a bit more later

0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:00.440
<v Speaker 1>in the show, Dan Always get to have you here,

0:07:00.600 --> 0:07:05.480
<v Speaker 1>Dan Morgan, Novist Trust. All right, coming up, Twitter gets

0:07:05.480 --> 0:07:08.240
<v Speaker 1>the green light to take Elon Musk to court and fast.

0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:10.680
<v Speaker 1>We will talk about what's next in Twitter v. Musk

0:07:10.760 --> 0:07:15.560
<v Speaker 1>with a Columbia law professor and our very own Kurt Wagner, Mr.

0:07:15.600 --> 0:07:28.160
<v Speaker 1>Is Bloomberg. Round one goes to Twitter. The company was

0:07:28.200 --> 0:07:31.200
<v Speaker 1>granted its request a fast track its lawsuit against Elon

0:07:31.320 --> 0:07:34.040
<v Speaker 1>Musk as he attempts to walk away from the fort

0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:37.760
<v Speaker 1>four billion dollar deal. Delaware Judge Kathleen McCormick set a

0:07:37.840 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 1>five day trial to start in October. For more, we're

0:07:41.800 --> 0:07:44.880
<v Speaker 1>joined by Eric Talley, Columbia Law School professor and faculty

0:07:45.000 --> 0:07:47.760
<v Speaker 1>co director of its Millstein Center, along with our very

0:07:47.760 --> 0:07:50.320
<v Speaker 1>own Kurt Wagner, who of course covers Twitter for us.

0:07:50.360 --> 0:07:52.760
<v Speaker 1>So what actually happened in court today? And by in

0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:56.360
<v Speaker 1>court I mean virtual corp? The judge actually has COVID,

0:07:56.680 --> 0:07:59.200
<v Speaker 1>Yes she does, so, I was listening on the dial

0:07:59.280 --> 0:08:02.160
<v Speaker 1>in the public die Island, actually, which felt very interesting

0:08:02.280 --> 0:08:04.880
<v Speaker 1>to listen to arguments that way. But both sides kind

0:08:04.880 --> 0:08:08.080
<v Speaker 1>of presented their case. Obviously they had already submitted written, um,

0:08:08.120 --> 0:08:10.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, elements to this. The judge took a little

0:08:10.120 --> 0:08:11.800
<v Speaker 1>bit of time to review and think about things and

0:08:11.800 --> 0:08:15.160
<v Speaker 1>then and issued a pretty quick verdict. You know, she said,

0:08:15.160 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 1>based on the evidence, based on the arguments that had

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:20.320
<v Speaker 1>been made, I feel that it makes sense to speed

0:08:20.360 --> 0:08:22.520
<v Speaker 1>this up. Not quite as fast as Twitter wanted. They

0:08:22.520 --> 0:08:25.000
<v Speaker 1>were hoping to do a trial in September, but she

0:08:25.080 --> 0:08:27.640
<v Speaker 1>still thought that, you know, the longer this thing drags out,

0:08:27.720 --> 0:08:30.280
<v Speaker 1>the more chance there is for damage to Twitter's business

0:08:30.280 --> 0:08:32.360
<v Speaker 1>and brand. And as a result, she said, we should

0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:34.480
<v Speaker 1>do this in October. Versus the Musk team wanted to

0:08:34.520 --> 0:08:36.920
<v Speaker 1>wait all the way till February. Now, Professor Tally, you

0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:42.760
<v Speaker 1>actually know the judge here and know her record well.

0:08:43.000 --> 0:08:47.079
<v Speaker 1>I understand she's a seller friendly judge, or at least

0:08:47.120 --> 0:08:50.200
<v Speaker 1>has made seller friendly decisions in the past. What can

0:08:50.240 --> 0:08:53.800
<v Speaker 1>you tell us about her? Yeah, I think she's largely

0:08:53.880 --> 0:08:56.360
<v Speaker 1>right down the middle in terms of her predilections. But

0:08:56.600 --> 0:08:59.280
<v Speaker 1>she's very good. She works harder than just about any

0:08:59.320 --> 0:09:02.480
<v Speaker 1>judge I've ever met, and it's extremely smart. Now, the

0:09:02.720 --> 0:09:06.360
<v Speaker 1>thing to remember is that the Delaware courts have seen

0:09:06.400 --> 0:09:08.920
<v Speaker 1>a fair number of these cases in which buyers get

0:09:08.960 --> 0:09:11.120
<v Speaker 1>cold feet and try to walk away, whether it's because

0:09:11.160 --> 0:09:14.120
<v Speaker 1>of COVID the financial crisis. So in many ways, this

0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:17.400
<v Speaker 1>is the most recent chapter. And Chancellor McCormick actually had

0:09:17.440 --> 0:09:20.840
<v Speaker 1>one of these cases that came up during COVID about

0:09:20.880 --> 0:09:23.400
<v Speaker 1>a year ago, and she did hold for the seller.

0:09:23.480 --> 0:09:25.920
<v Speaker 1>Basically told the buyer, you know what, You're gonna be

0:09:25.960 --> 0:09:29.320
<v Speaker 1>required to go forward with this transaction by the company

0:09:29.360 --> 0:09:31.400
<v Speaker 1>that you're now trying to walk away from. And I

0:09:31.400 --> 0:09:34.400
<v Speaker 1>don't even care that your financing has fallen through because

0:09:34.559 --> 0:09:37.400
<v Speaker 1>you sort of made that happen. You sort of engineered

0:09:37.480 --> 0:09:41.079
<v Speaker 1>or sabotage your own deal. So during the argument today,

0:09:41.120 --> 0:09:45.120
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of argument from Twitter's lawyers about whether

0:09:45.160 --> 0:09:49.120
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk had similarly been trying to sabotage the deal.

0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:51.760
<v Speaker 1>Now we haven't gotten to any of those matters yet.

0:09:51.800 --> 0:09:55.160
<v Speaker 1>The key question is whether this deal, this this litigation

0:09:55.240 --> 0:09:57.720
<v Speaker 1>was gonna get fast tracked or put on the slow track.

0:09:57.800 --> 0:10:00.360
<v Speaker 1>And we're definitely on the fast track. While Twitter lawyers

0:10:00.360 --> 0:10:03.280
<v Speaker 1>didn't get exactly what they were hoping for, they ended

0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:05.640
<v Speaker 1>up missing it by only about a couple of weeks,

0:10:05.640 --> 0:10:07.640
<v Speaker 1>and she pushed what they had hoped to be a

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:11.920
<v Speaker 1>September trial into October. So largely one would chalk this

0:10:12.040 --> 0:10:14.920
<v Speaker 1>up to a victory, at least as of today, to Twitter.

0:10:15.679 --> 0:10:17.480
<v Speaker 1>So the question is how big a victory. I mean,

0:10:17.480 --> 0:10:21.040
<v Speaker 1>you talk about precedent here, but was that other case

0:10:21.080 --> 0:10:24.160
<v Speaker 1>of forty four billion dollar deal, and did it involve

0:10:24.320 --> 0:10:28.840
<v Speaker 1>taking on Elon Musk Unless there are cake decorating companies

0:10:28.880 --> 0:10:32.520
<v Speaker 1>that are worth forty four billion dollars, No, it wasn't.

0:10:32.559 --> 0:10:34.800
<v Speaker 1>This was a small deal. It wasn't even a publicly

0:10:34.840 --> 0:10:37.600
<v Speaker 1>traded company. And so there is a kind of an

0:10:37.640 --> 0:10:40.959
<v Speaker 1>interesting question about whether when the stakes get ratcheted up

0:10:41.000 --> 0:10:44.800
<v Speaker 1>like this, Chancellor McCormick is similarly going to be unsympathetic

0:10:45.280 --> 0:10:49.040
<v Speaker 1>towards a buyer that wants to walk away. However, Uh,

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:51.640
<v Speaker 1>this particular deal, and everyone knew this because it was

0:10:51.679 --> 0:10:54.160
<v Speaker 1>out there in the public domain. Uh, you know, Elon

0:10:54.240 --> 0:10:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Musk went after Twitter. They were a reluctant seller. They

0:10:57.280 --> 0:10:59.440
<v Speaker 1>finally signed up the deal when he said, hey, I'll

0:10:59.440 --> 0:11:01.800
<v Speaker 1>make this a really sell her friendly deal. I won't

0:11:01.800 --> 0:11:04.920
<v Speaker 1>do any diligence on a bunch of these technical aspects.

0:11:05.120 --> 0:11:07.880
<v Speaker 1>And only after the deal got signed up did he

0:11:08.040 --> 0:11:10.520
<v Speaker 1>start to seem to have problems with bots. And I

0:11:10.559 --> 0:11:13.400
<v Speaker 1>think a lot of people, including Twitter's lawyers, said, you know,

0:11:13.840 --> 0:11:17.000
<v Speaker 1>this is a pretext. This is essentially the beginning of

0:11:17.040 --> 0:11:20.440
<v Speaker 1>an elaborate set of demands that was really intended to

0:11:20.520 --> 0:11:24.760
<v Speaker 1>engineer an exit ramp for Elon must So one of

0:11:24.760 --> 0:11:27.680
<v Speaker 1>the key um claims that he made was, oh, this

0:11:27.800 --> 0:11:29.920
<v Speaker 1>bot problem is bigger than I thought it was going

0:11:29.960 --> 0:11:33.200
<v Speaker 1>to be. But that was never really in the document itself.

0:11:33.240 --> 0:11:35.800
<v Speaker 1>It was never in the agreement itself. It's sort of

0:11:35.840 --> 0:11:38.319
<v Speaker 1>something that he injected into the picture. And I think

0:11:38.360 --> 0:11:40.360
<v Speaker 1>one of the key questions that people were looking at

0:11:40.440 --> 0:11:42.600
<v Speaker 1>today was whether the judge was going to be willing

0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:46.080
<v Speaker 1>to take a long term litigation approach, which would be

0:11:46.120 --> 0:11:48.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of a signal that she might be more willing

0:11:48.080 --> 0:11:51.400
<v Speaker 1>to listen to some of this bought count war, and

0:11:51.440 --> 0:11:55.120
<v Speaker 1>instead she's fast tracted. There's still gonna be arguments about bots,

0:11:55.160 --> 0:11:57.280
<v Speaker 1>don't get me wrong, but they're not going to be

0:11:57.360 --> 0:12:00.040
<v Speaker 1>the sort of blown out thing that Elon must and

0:12:00.120 --> 0:12:02.959
<v Speaker 1>his lawyers wanted. You know, the professor makes a really

0:12:03.000 --> 0:12:04.960
<v Speaker 1>good point. So much has happened you almost forget that

0:12:04.960 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 1>Twitter didn't want to do this deal in the first place,

0:12:08.720 --> 0:12:11.120
<v Speaker 1>and now here we are. What are you hearing from

0:12:11.160 --> 0:12:13.679
<v Speaker 1>your Twitter sources about what they are going to be

0:12:13.720 --> 0:12:17.640
<v Speaker 1>doing over the next few weeks. Well, obviously there's a

0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:20.679
<v Speaker 1>lot of preparation that will go into this. But I

0:12:20.720 --> 0:12:23.240
<v Speaker 1>think this, you know, as Eric mentioned, like, this is

0:12:23.280 --> 0:12:26.240
<v Speaker 1>a good win for Twitter because it shows that their

0:12:26.360 --> 0:12:29.600
<v Speaker 1>argument is already being well received, right, which I think

0:12:29.679 --> 0:12:31.920
<v Speaker 1>was the big thing. I think they've already sort of

0:12:31.960 --> 0:12:34.719
<v Speaker 1>one a little bit in the court of public opinion here.

0:12:34.760 --> 0:12:37.080
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, I certainly on on my Twitter feed.

0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:38.760
<v Speaker 1>You know, there was a lot of support for Twitter

0:12:38.800 --> 0:12:41.880
<v Speaker 1>from their lawsuit. I've I've certainly seen employees seem to

0:12:41.920 --> 0:12:44.160
<v Speaker 1>be happy with how the company has handled this. So

0:12:44.760 --> 0:12:47.680
<v Speaker 1>I think at this point it's about trying to remove

0:12:47.720 --> 0:12:49.920
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the uncertainty, right because the company has

0:12:49.920 --> 0:12:52.400
<v Speaker 1>been in this weird state for months where they you know,

0:12:52.480 --> 0:12:54.520
<v Speaker 1>they say, hey, it's business as usual, but you can't

0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:57.200
<v Speaker 1>imagine that, you know, you're gonna be putting a six

0:12:57.240 --> 0:12:59.920
<v Speaker 1>months twelve month product roadmap out the door when you

0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:02.440
<v Speaker 1>have Elon Musk covering there. So I think at this

0:13:02.480 --> 0:13:04.120
<v Speaker 1>point again, they want to do this as quick as

0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:06.840
<v Speaker 1>possible so that they can get back to doing things

0:13:06.840 --> 0:13:11.280
<v Speaker 1>like shipping products, doing things like, you know, improving the business. Indeed,

0:13:11.440 --> 0:13:15.600
<v Speaker 1>um Professor Tally, how do you think Elon Musk's larger

0:13:15.600 --> 0:13:17.839
<v Speaker 1>than life personality, the fact that he has a hundred

0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:21.040
<v Speaker 1>million Twitter followers himself. I mean, there's a pretty uh,

0:13:21.080 --> 0:13:22.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, if if we're talking about the court of

0:13:22.840 --> 0:13:25.560
<v Speaker 1>public opinion, Elon Musk has a lot of fans. How

0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:29.120
<v Speaker 1>do you think that will influence this trial? Well, there's

0:13:29.120 --> 0:13:31.160
<v Speaker 1>a sense in which it already has. One of the

0:13:31.280 --> 0:13:34.320
<v Speaker 1>arguments that Twitter's lawyers made today was that you just

0:13:34.360 --> 0:13:37.880
<v Speaker 1>can't leave this deal in limbo when it may just

0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:40.040
<v Speaker 1>be thrown into utter chaos if we're going to be

0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:42.920
<v Speaker 1>going into another year's worth of litigation, and that may

0:13:42.920 --> 0:13:45.959
<v Speaker 1>be in part due to their arguments about the amount

0:13:45.960 --> 0:13:49.680
<v Speaker 1>of damage that Elon must could potentially do here. Now,

0:13:49.800 --> 0:13:52.640
<v Speaker 1>it's definitely true that that you know, there is this

0:13:52.880 --> 0:13:55.480
<v Speaker 1>There has long been this kind of question about whether

0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:58.400
<v Speaker 1>Mr Musk has some sort of I don't know, Elon

0:13:58.520 --> 0:14:02.040
<v Speaker 1>exceptionalism that wouldn't that wouldn't make him bound to the

0:14:02.080 --> 0:14:04.559
<v Speaker 1>same rules that applied everyone else. This is an early

0:14:04.640 --> 0:14:07.560
<v Speaker 1>shot across the bow that suggests that this judge in

0:14:07.559 --> 0:14:10.160
<v Speaker 1>particular is willing to treat this case just like she

0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:13.120
<v Speaker 1>would any other case. And when you've got a deal

0:14:13.160 --> 0:14:16.640
<v Speaker 1>that has gotten signed up on very seller friendly terms

0:14:16.880 --> 0:14:20.400
<v Speaker 1>with very little due diligence in what seems like, at

0:14:20.480 --> 0:14:23.400
<v Speaker 1>least at present, to be a bit of a drummed

0:14:23.440 --> 0:14:26.040
<v Speaker 1>up reason to want to walk away. Uh, you know

0:14:26.080 --> 0:14:30.120
<v Speaker 1>that the the musque team probably has an uphill battle

0:14:30.280 --> 0:14:32.560
<v Speaker 1>to climb here. Uh you know, I think there is

0:14:32.600 --> 0:14:35.560
<v Speaker 1>a real sense as well that Delaware courts view this

0:14:35.680 --> 0:14:38.360
<v Speaker 1>is kind of their um look in the mirror moment.

0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:40.920
<v Speaker 1>They are widely reputed to be, and they embraced this

0:14:41.240 --> 0:14:43.680
<v Speaker 1>as the place where sort of grown ups go to

0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:46.280
<v Speaker 1>to to transact with one another. And if you put

0:14:46.280 --> 0:14:48.640
<v Speaker 1>something down on paper and you promise it, um, they're

0:14:48.640 --> 0:14:51.040
<v Speaker 1>gonna hold you to it. And so on some level, yes,

0:14:51.120 --> 0:14:54.440
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk has a has a larger than life presence,

0:14:54.720 --> 0:14:57.760
<v Speaker 1>but that also has a countervailing effect that the Delaware

0:14:57.800 --> 0:15:01.360
<v Speaker 1>courts might have an opportunity to say, even for this person,

0:15:01.840 --> 0:15:05.480
<v Speaker 1>we're going to hold into his agreements. Fascinating. Well, I'm

0:15:05.520 --> 0:15:07.880
<v Speaker 1>sure there will be many more twists and turns between

0:15:07.880 --> 0:15:12.000
<v Speaker 1>now and October. Eric Talley, Columbia Law School Professor, thank you,

0:15:12.080 --> 0:15:14.360
<v Speaker 1>as well as our very own Kurt Wagner, who has

0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:26.640
<v Speaker 1>a day in Delaware court in October. A newly released

0:15:26.640 --> 0:15:30.720
<v Speaker 1>memo is raising alarm about competitive practices in Silicon Valley

0:15:30.720 --> 0:15:34.480
<v Speaker 1>and helping to shape regulation. An internal document prepared for

0:15:34.680 --> 0:15:39.800
<v Speaker 1>Mark Zuckerberg by Facebook executives, now released by the House,

0:15:40.200 --> 0:15:42.800
<v Speaker 1>reveals the company is more worried about threats from its

0:15:42.800 --> 0:15:47.680
<v Speaker 1>own products like Instagram and What'sapp then threats from rivals.

0:15:47.680 --> 0:15:51.080
<v Speaker 1>This memo has helped lawmakers put together the American Innovation

0:15:51.160 --> 0:15:55.480
<v Speaker 1>and Choice Online Act that would curb some of Meta's powers.

0:15:55.520 --> 0:15:59.160
<v Speaker 1>Here to discuss Bloomberg's Lee and Nilan who covers regulation

0:15:59.440 --> 0:16:01.640
<v Speaker 1>in washing too, and so Lea tell us exactly what

0:16:01.680 --> 0:16:05.240
<v Speaker 1>was in this memo and why it matters. Yeah, So

0:16:05.360 --> 0:16:07.840
<v Speaker 1>this memo was written in twenty eight keen by a

0:16:08.000 --> 0:16:13.640
<v Speaker 1>senior data scientist and economist at Facebook, Thomas Cummeningham, and

0:16:13.680 --> 0:16:18.320
<v Speaker 1>he actually analyzed the ways in which Facebook's own products

0:16:18.360 --> 0:16:20.960
<v Speaker 1>compete with each other, So the ways in which Instagram

0:16:20.960 --> 0:16:23.960
<v Speaker 1>and Facebook compete against each other, the ways in which

0:16:24.240 --> 0:16:28.360
<v Speaker 1>Facebook Messenger and What'sapp compete against each other, and how

0:16:28.560 --> 0:16:32.480
<v Speaker 1>um those were growing or shrinking. And that was really

0:16:32.520 --> 0:16:35.560
<v Speaker 1>interesting because this entire memo is about how Facebook's own

0:16:35.640 --> 0:16:39.200
<v Speaker 1>products are really cannibalizing each other and seen as like

0:16:39.280 --> 0:16:43.160
<v Speaker 1>the biggest competitors against Facebook's main product instead of any rivals.

0:16:43.200 --> 0:16:47.000
<v Speaker 1>There aren't that many external companies that are even mentioned

0:16:47.000 --> 0:16:49.760
<v Speaker 1>in this memo, you know, like YouTube gets a very

0:16:49.760 --> 0:16:52.600
<v Speaker 1>small shout out, Apple's I message gets a very small

0:16:52.600 --> 0:16:55.520
<v Speaker 1>shout out. TikTok isn't even mentioned in here, and that

0:16:55.560 --> 0:16:58.640
<v Speaker 1>was what is so was so interesting to house investigators

0:16:58.760 --> 0:17:02.520
<v Speaker 1>is it's sort of backs up the idea that Facebook

0:17:02.520 --> 0:17:05.440
<v Speaker 1>had bought these properties to sort of extend its monopoly

0:17:05.720 --> 0:17:11.639
<v Speaker 1>in social networking. So what's the impact that this memo

0:17:11.720 --> 0:17:17.480
<v Speaker 1>could have on pending regulation and impact essentially on Facebook's

0:17:17.560 --> 0:17:20.080
<v Speaker 1>laws that Facebook is ultimately potentially going to have to

0:17:20.119 --> 0:17:24.520
<v Speaker 1>abide by. Yeah, so Congress right now is considering this legislation,

0:17:24.640 --> 0:17:27.840
<v Speaker 1>the American Innovation and Choice Act, that would prevent some

0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:31.119
<v Speaker 1>of the big tech platforms like Facebook from self preferencing,

0:17:31.200 --> 0:17:35.960
<v Speaker 1>so giving advantages to its own products over those of rivals.

0:17:36.000 --> 0:17:38.359
<v Speaker 1>So one thing that Facebook does, for example, is make

0:17:38.400 --> 0:17:41.359
<v Speaker 1>it really easy to cross post between Facebook and Instagram,

0:17:42.080 --> 0:17:45.400
<v Speaker 1>right this legislation would force them to make it easier

0:17:45.440 --> 0:17:48.120
<v Speaker 1>for other platforms to also cross post to their own

0:17:48.480 --> 0:17:53.719
<v Speaker 1>to their social networks. Um, this UH legislation has advanced

0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:55.679
<v Speaker 1>in both the House and the Senate, but it still

0:17:55.720 --> 0:17:58.040
<v Speaker 1>needs a floor vote, and so there's been a lot

0:17:58.080 --> 0:18:00.600
<v Speaker 1>of pressure um in the Senate and for particular, for

0:18:00.640 --> 0:18:02.440
<v Speaker 1>this to come up for a vote before the August

0:18:02.440 --> 0:18:05.480
<v Speaker 1>recess and lawmakers sort of leave for the month and

0:18:05.520 --> 0:18:07.359
<v Speaker 1>then when they come back they really are focused on

0:18:07.400 --> 0:18:09.520
<v Speaker 1>the November elections. So this is seen as like the

0:18:09.600 --> 0:18:14.080
<v Speaker 1>really large and last window for Congress to actually act

0:18:14.119 --> 0:18:16.560
<v Speaker 1>on the NHS legislation if something is going to happen

0:18:16.600 --> 0:18:21.320
<v Speaker 1>this year quickly any response from Facebook about this, I

0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:23.320
<v Speaker 1>mean Facebook is actually the one that handed over the

0:18:23.320 --> 0:18:26.520
<v Speaker 1>memo to the House in the first place. Yeah, they said,

0:18:26.560 --> 0:18:29.879
<v Speaker 1>you know this is old news, this is from you know,

0:18:30.080 --> 0:18:32.840
<v Speaker 1>the landscape has shifted since then. They do like to

0:18:33.000 --> 0:18:35.119
<v Speaker 1>bring up now you know that TikTok Is is a

0:18:35.200 --> 0:18:38.280
<v Speaker 1>very emerging rival, and um, you know they think that

0:18:38.320 --> 0:18:41.760
<v Speaker 1>there's still a lot of competition in the social networking space.

0:18:43.000 --> 0:18:46.080
<v Speaker 1>All Right, something will continue to follow Bloombergs Leon Nilan,

0:18:46.240 --> 0:18:58.240
<v Speaker 1>thank you for that context. Welcome back to bloomber Technology

0:18:58.240 --> 0:18:59.840
<v Speaker 1>and Emily changing in San Francisco. I want to get

0:18:59.880 --> 0:19:02.440
<v Speaker 1>back to our top story, and that is Netflix share

0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:07.680
<v Speaker 1>still jumping after hours after the streaming giant reported lower

0:19:08.080 --> 0:19:10.920
<v Speaker 1>a lower than expected loss in subscribers in the second quarter,

0:19:10.960 --> 0:19:15.879
<v Speaker 1>but the forecast still slower than expected recovery in the

0:19:16.000 --> 0:19:20.720
<v Speaker 1>current quarter. Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerbert Kawasaki, joins us. Now, Ross,

0:19:21.040 --> 0:19:23.040
<v Speaker 1>do you like what you see? I know you're a

0:19:23.040 --> 0:19:26.639
<v Speaker 1>big Netflix holder, but here we are having lost another

0:19:26.720 --> 0:19:31.240
<v Speaker 1>million subscribers. Well, yes and no, I mean obviously losing

0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:34.840
<v Speaker 1>subscribers is not a great headline, but you have to

0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:37.320
<v Speaker 1>look at it in the context of obviously rising prices

0:19:37.359 --> 0:19:38.960
<v Speaker 1>in the United States and the fact that they don't

0:19:39.000 --> 0:19:41.560
<v Speaker 1>have a way to monetize people who don't want to pay,

0:19:41.560 --> 0:19:45.880
<v Speaker 1>which is turns out about people who watch Netflix don't pay,

0:19:45.960 --> 0:19:48.520
<v Speaker 1>and that's really why I think people are so bullish.

0:19:48.600 --> 0:19:51.200
<v Speaker 1>Is the strategy that Netflix is going to be employing

0:19:51.280 --> 0:19:54.480
<v Speaker 1>to get these people to pay is a two pronged

0:19:54.520 --> 0:19:56.680
<v Speaker 1>strategy that I think will be very effective. One is

0:19:56.720 --> 0:19:59.680
<v Speaker 1>the ad supported tier, which I think is a wonderful

0:19:59.680 --> 0:20:02.719
<v Speaker 1>opera tunity to address a global market if you're an

0:20:02.720 --> 0:20:06.879
<v Speaker 1>advertiser and a very engaged audience. So as an advertiser myself,

0:20:06.920 --> 0:20:09.840
<v Speaker 1>I would definitely put ads on Netflix, and then secondly

0:20:10.240 --> 0:20:13.560
<v Speaker 1>um from getting some add on sub revenue from the

0:20:13.600 --> 0:20:16.800
<v Speaker 1>people who use their mom's accounts. So you know, essentially

0:20:16.880 --> 0:20:19.520
<v Speaker 1>this is a wake up call to millennials across America

0:20:19.840 --> 0:20:21.520
<v Speaker 1>that they're going to have to watch ads if they

0:20:21.560 --> 0:20:23.479
<v Speaker 1>don't want to pay for Netflix or their mom can

0:20:23.520 --> 0:20:25.960
<v Speaker 1>pay another couple bucks a month. But the days of

0:20:26.040 --> 0:20:30.000
<v Speaker 1>free streaming are definitely over for Netflix. What's your take

0:20:30.160 --> 0:20:34.840
<v Speaker 1>on their content spending strategy. Yes, there are huge hits,

0:20:34.840 --> 0:20:37.200
<v Speaker 1>they spend a lot on those hits, But it seems

0:20:37.240 --> 0:20:41.680
<v Speaker 1>like Netflix makes a lot of stuff. Well, when you're

0:20:41.720 --> 0:20:45.280
<v Speaker 1>serving the world, essentially, you have a huge audience to

0:20:45.359 --> 0:20:48.240
<v Speaker 1>make happy, you know, so like a lot of content

0:20:48.320 --> 0:20:51.359
<v Speaker 1>they make is really for niche audiences one way or

0:20:51.359 --> 0:20:53.720
<v Speaker 1>another that they're trying to serve all throughout the world.

0:20:54.119 --> 0:20:56.760
<v Speaker 1>But you have to look at it from this, you know,

0:20:56.840 --> 0:20:58.960
<v Speaker 1>like how much goes out and how much comes in

0:20:59.160 --> 0:21:02.360
<v Speaker 1>versus and what they get for what they're spending. And

0:21:02.400 --> 0:21:03.919
<v Speaker 1>I think one of the things in the report that

0:21:03.960 --> 0:21:06.720
<v Speaker 1>I found really interesting was the fact that Netflix is

0:21:06.720 --> 0:21:09.400
<v Speaker 1>now getting to a point where they're amortizing the same

0:21:09.440 --> 0:21:12.439
<v Speaker 1>amount as they're spending on content, and they used to

0:21:12.440 --> 0:21:15.240
<v Speaker 1>spend a lot more than they're amortizing, And so what

0:21:15.359 --> 0:21:17.280
<v Speaker 1>we're really getting out of their financials there's a real

0:21:17.400 --> 0:21:20.359
<v Speaker 1>number of profitability on the content spend that they have.

0:21:20.560 --> 0:21:23.920
<v Speaker 1>So if any group of people that I trust spending

0:21:23.960 --> 0:21:26.560
<v Speaker 1>content is the group of people at Netflix. They just

0:21:26.640 --> 0:21:29.040
<v Speaker 1>make amazing content and they have a great team. Now,

0:21:29.200 --> 0:21:32.280
<v Speaker 1>obviously valuations have dropped out there, and I wonder what

0:21:32.359 --> 0:21:35.680
<v Speaker 1>you think about M and A could Netflix potentially acquire

0:21:36.400 --> 0:21:40.160
<v Speaker 1>some you know, new capabilities here. What about a Roku

0:21:40.520 --> 0:21:43.240
<v Speaker 1>or a theater chain. Well, I was kind of pushing

0:21:43.240 --> 0:21:46.240
<v Speaker 1>towards the theater chain idea because I love putting Ryan

0:21:46.280 --> 0:21:48.320
<v Speaker 1>Reynolds movie in the theater, which I think it could

0:21:48.359 --> 0:21:50.760
<v Speaker 1>generate a hundred million plus that Netflix isn't going to

0:21:50.840 --> 0:21:53.800
<v Speaker 1>get and as a user, I would wait another two

0:21:53.840 --> 0:21:56.520
<v Speaker 1>weeks to watch it on Netflix. You know, it wouldn't

0:21:56.520 --> 0:21:58.840
<v Speaker 1>matter to me. So, you know, it makes me sad

0:21:58.880 --> 0:22:01.159
<v Speaker 1>they're not moving that action. But I'm I'm in the

0:22:01.160 --> 0:22:03.560
<v Speaker 1>gaming business too, and they're moving towards gaming, and their

0:22:03.600 --> 0:22:06.399
<v Speaker 1>partnered with Microsoft, which is one of our top holdings

0:22:06.400 --> 0:22:08.920
<v Speaker 1>in my fund g K and as well as Netflix.

0:22:08.960 --> 0:22:12.640
<v Speaker 1>So I'm really happy with Microsoft and Netflix moving into

0:22:12.640 --> 0:22:16.040
<v Speaker 1>the gaming area together. If you look at the way

0:22:16.080 --> 0:22:19.280
<v Speaker 1>Disney is monetized i P at Marvel, that's what Netflix

0:22:19.320 --> 0:22:21.600
<v Speaker 1>is really thinking about in their futures. How do we

0:22:21.680 --> 0:22:23.960
<v Speaker 1>monetize our i P better? How do we get more

0:22:23.960 --> 0:22:26.879
<v Speaker 1>revenue dollars per user? Maybe it's live events, and we

0:22:26.920 --> 0:22:29.719
<v Speaker 1>saw that with the Netflix comedy specials, which were actually

0:22:29.760 --> 0:22:32.600
<v Speaker 1>live events that Netflix sold tickets to but then put

0:22:32.640 --> 0:22:35.320
<v Speaker 1>on the platform as well, so I think that's really

0:22:35.359 --> 0:22:38.639
<v Speaker 1>the thinking they're Um, we're a very big company with

0:22:38.720 --> 0:22:41.080
<v Speaker 1>lots of subscribers, and we still want to grow, but

0:22:41.160 --> 0:22:43.560
<v Speaker 1>there's a huge amount of revenue and profits. We have

0:22:43.680 --> 0:22:46.439
<v Speaker 1>a tapped from this audience that they're really focused on,

0:22:46.480 --> 0:22:49.360
<v Speaker 1>and I think that approach is really, you know, attractive

0:22:49.600 --> 0:22:51.440
<v Speaker 1>to me as a sharehold. I also want to ask

0:22:51.480 --> 0:22:54.399
<v Speaker 1>you about Tesla and Twitter. I know you're a big

0:22:54.480 --> 0:22:58.480
<v Speaker 1>Tesla holder. As I understand it, you held Twitter until

0:22:58.880 --> 0:23:01.000
<v Speaker 1>Elon must decide and he wanted to pull out of

0:23:01.040 --> 0:23:05.359
<v Speaker 1>the deal. Now we're seeing this judge fast track the

0:23:05.440 --> 0:23:08.360
<v Speaker 1>trial as Twitter wanted them to do, and there are

0:23:08.400 --> 0:23:12.320
<v Speaker 1>certainly signs that this Delaware court could force Elon Musk

0:23:12.560 --> 0:23:15.439
<v Speaker 1>to do the deal. What's your take. I'm not a lawyer,

0:23:15.480 --> 0:23:17.399
<v Speaker 1>so I just want to say I have a pretty

0:23:17.400 --> 0:23:20.760
<v Speaker 1>good understanding of law. But but I'm not a professional lawyer.

0:23:20.840 --> 0:23:24.160
<v Speaker 1>But my take on this, and I've spoken to many

0:23:24.200 --> 0:23:26.760
<v Speaker 1>legal people about this as well, and my own experience

0:23:26.920 --> 0:23:29.760
<v Speaker 1>in watching mergers over my life, is that Elon has

0:23:29.800 --> 0:23:32.840
<v Speaker 1>made a big mistake and this is a mess. You know,

0:23:33.040 --> 0:23:35.920
<v Speaker 1>there was a material effect on Twitter and you can't

0:23:35.960 --> 0:23:39.040
<v Speaker 1>deny it, and pulling out of this deal has severely

0:23:39.119 --> 0:23:42.840
<v Speaker 1>damaged Twitter and and you know, their future, so I

0:23:43.280 --> 0:23:46.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, I think Ellen is at risk to potentially

0:23:46.480 --> 0:23:49.400
<v Speaker 1>losing billions of dollars and damages. But I don't see

0:23:49.440 --> 0:23:51.920
<v Speaker 1>a court forcing a person to run a company they

0:23:51.920 --> 0:23:54.720
<v Speaker 1>don't want to run. I mean, that's not really the

0:23:55.040 --> 0:23:58.600
<v Speaker 1>solution to this. Twitter has been damaged, and the question

0:23:58.720 --> 0:24:01.200
<v Speaker 1>is whether they find that damn is to be Elon's

0:24:01.200 --> 0:24:04.840
<v Speaker 1>fault or not because of the information that he received

0:24:04.920 --> 0:24:08.840
<v Speaker 1>from Twitter, which no question was questionable. But in my mind,

0:24:08.880 --> 0:24:11.479
<v Speaker 1>they had a merger agreement and and he breached it,

0:24:11.520 --> 0:24:13.639
<v Speaker 1>and it's going to be a costly encounter for Elon.

0:24:13.720 --> 0:24:16.399
<v Speaker 1>I think doesn't damage Tesla too, I mean, doesn't make

0:24:16.440 --> 0:24:20.240
<v Speaker 1>you concerned as a Tesla shareholder. No, it's a real

0:24:20.320 --> 0:24:22.760
<v Speaker 1>positive for Tesla that he's not going to be the

0:24:22.760 --> 0:24:25.280
<v Speaker 1>CEO of Twitter. I mean, you know, as much as

0:24:25.480 --> 0:24:28.440
<v Speaker 1>yet he's not going to be the CEO of Twitter.

0:24:28.560 --> 0:24:30.439
<v Speaker 1>I can tell you that. I mean, he doesn't want

0:24:30.440 --> 0:24:32.560
<v Speaker 1>anything to do with it. That's the bottom line. He's

0:24:32.560 --> 0:24:35.400
<v Speaker 1>gonna lose billions of dollars, which he knows very wealthy man,

0:24:35.480 --> 0:24:39.520
<v Speaker 1>so he'll survive. But from a Tesla perspective. Tesla's in

0:24:39.720 --> 0:24:43.040
<v Speaker 1>massive growth mode right now. I mean, it couldn't be

0:24:43.040 --> 0:24:45.800
<v Speaker 1>a better environment to sell electric vehicles, and they got

0:24:45.800 --> 0:24:48.600
<v Speaker 1>two brand new factories and ramp mode at the same time.

0:24:48.880 --> 0:24:51.720
<v Speaker 1>His focus needs to be on Tesla right now because

0:24:51.760 --> 0:24:54.440
<v Speaker 1>the next twelve months, the eighteen months are the most

0:24:54.640 --> 0:24:57.960
<v Speaker 1>consequential months for Tesla's future that I've seen in the

0:24:58.000 --> 0:25:00.560
<v Speaker 1>eight years i've been an investor in Tesla. So so

0:25:01.160 --> 0:25:04.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm I'm you know, happy that I mean, this is

0:25:04.480 --> 0:25:06.960
<v Speaker 1>still a waste of time, and it's still distracting, but

0:25:07.040 --> 0:25:09.720
<v Speaker 1>I'm happy he's not gonna end up being CEO of Twitter,

0:25:10.080 --> 0:25:13.119
<v Speaker 1>and hopefully he'll learn his lesson and really focus on

0:25:13.160 --> 0:25:15.280
<v Speaker 1>what he's done great, which is Tesla, and and I

0:25:15.320 --> 0:25:18.840
<v Speaker 1>think that's what he's learned. Well, stranger things have happened, Ross,

0:25:18.880 --> 0:25:22.160
<v Speaker 1>and I'm going to keep using that pun. Ross Kerberg

0:25:22.240 --> 0:25:26.000
<v Speaker 1>or Wakawasaki CEO. Always great to have you, Thank you, Okay.

0:25:26.080 --> 0:25:29.640
<v Speaker 1>Coming up, calls for clear crypto regulation are getting louder,

0:25:29.680 --> 0:25:32.639
<v Speaker 1>but SEC chair Gary Gensler says there are laws in

0:25:32.720 --> 0:25:36.960
<v Speaker 1>place and crypto platforms aren't coming forward. Well on that, next,

0:25:37.200 --> 0:25:41.439
<v Speaker 1>Mrs Bloomberg there's a lot of non compliance, meaning like

0:25:41.480 --> 0:25:45.960
<v Speaker 1>if you raise money from the public and and that

0:25:46.040 --> 0:25:51.560
<v Speaker 1>public is anticipating based on your efforts, UH, some profit

0:25:52.200 --> 0:25:55.320
<v Speaker 1>that comes into the securities laws. We at the SEC

0:25:55.400 --> 0:25:58.359
<v Speaker 1>are going to do what we can. But right now

0:25:58.400 --> 0:26:03.600
<v Speaker 1>there's far too many of these platforms that haven't come

0:26:03.640 --> 0:26:08.280
<v Speaker 1>in uh to basically comply with the law and register.

0:26:22.720 --> 0:26:26.560
<v Speaker 1>When you look back, there was very little self regulation. Uh.

0:26:26.920 --> 0:26:33.320
<v Speaker 1>There was inane risk management where companies took massive leverage,

0:26:34.000 --> 0:26:36.880
<v Speaker 1>took asset liability mismatch, which means they had short term

0:26:36.920 --> 0:26:39.879
<v Speaker 1>deposits they lent them out long. I mean, those are

0:26:39.880 --> 0:26:46.240
<v Speaker 1>the two ways people always go bankrupt. Galaxy Digitals, Mike

0:26:46.320 --> 0:26:48.960
<v Speaker 1>novograts they're saying crypto companies might have needed to better

0:26:49.200 --> 0:26:52.040
<v Speaker 1>self regulate. He was at the Bloomber Crypto summer earlier

0:26:52.040 --> 0:26:55.080
<v Speaker 1>in New York, along with coin bases out of the

0:26:55.160 --> 0:26:59.000
<v Speaker 1>US policy. Cara Calvert, who joins US now to unpack

0:26:59.480 --> 0:27:03.160
<v Speaker 1>it all, also look a couple of competing narratives here, Kara.

0:27:03.520 --> 0:27:06.560
<v Speaker 1>One that there is regulation, this according to the Chair

0:27:07.720 --> 0:27:11.600
<v Speaker 1>of the SEC former Chair of the SEC, but that

0:27:11.720 --> 0:27:16.280
<v Speaker 1>companies aren't listening, aren't coming forward. What do you think

0:27:16.640 --> 0:27:19.480
<v Speaker 1>well a coin base. We actually have really founded ourselves

0:27:19.480 --> 0:27:21.840
<v Speaker 1>and pride ourselves on and on being compliant on being

0:27:21.840 --> 0:27:24.160
<v Speaker 1>the trust and most secure, and so we are regulated

0:27:24.160 --> 0:27:26.520
<v Speaker 1>by more than forty two state forty two state licenses.

0:27:26.600 --> 0:27:28.640
<v Speaker 1>We have a bit license, we have a trust charter,

0:27:28.920 --> 0:27:31.560
<v Speaker 1>so we actually view ourselves as very well regulated. We

0:27:31.600 --> 0:27:34.760
<v Speaker 1>are regulated at the federal level by CFTC, by the SEC.

0:27:34.920 --> 0:27:36.879
<v Speaker 1>We have a dormant broker dealer license. Two of them

0:27:36.920 --> 0:27:39.440
<v Speaker 1>actually were regulated by SINS and so we actually think

0:27:39.440 --> 0:27:41.959
<v Speaker 1>that there is a regulatory framework in place that is

0:27:42.040 --> 0:27:44.960
<v Speaker 1>that is pretty effective. But we think really what we

0:27:45.000 --> 0:27:46.960
<v Speaker 1>need to do is make sure that we modernize those

0:27:47.080 --> 0:27:49.600
<v Speaker 1>rules and bring them into into a space that can

0:27:49.720 --> 0:27:53.520
<v Speaker 1>really and truly understand the technological capabilities of blockchain and

0:27:53.600 --> 0:27:57.679
<v Speaker 1>digital assets and actually help consumers achieve and understand those benefits. So,

0:27:57.800 --> 0:28:01.480
<v Speaker 1>if those rules were modernized, do you think that the

0:28:01.520 --> 0:28:04.960
<v Speaker 1>spectacular crash we've just seen could have been avoided? The

0:28:05.040 --> 0:28:07.600
<v Speaker 1>collapse of you know, a major crypto hedge fund, a

0:28:07.600 --> 0:28:10.919
<v Speaker 1>major crypto lender, could have been avoided. I think it's

0:28:10.920 --> 0:28:13.159
<v Speaker 1>difficult to predict what may have happened, but I do

0:28:13.280 --> 0:28:15.919
<v Speaker 1>think that there certainly if we had clear rules of

0:28:15.920 --> 0:28:18.920
<v Speaker 1>the road for all different types of the all different

0:28:18.920 --> 0:28:21.639
<v Speaker 1>companies engaged in the crypto ecosystem. We certainly would have

0:28:21.680 --> 0:28:24.800
<v Speaker 1>more clarity where it comes to disclosures or um certain

0:28:24.840 --> 0:28:27.200
<v Speaker 1>requirements on how on you know, how you may address

0:28:27.240 --> 0:28:29.840
<v Speaker 1>different business risks or different needs. What we saw through

0:28:29.880 --> 0:28:32.400
<v Speaker 1>the recent volatility is that the issue is really a

0:28:32.400 --> 0:28:35.960
<v Speaker 1>credit problem, not a crypto problem. And so what we're

0:28:35.960 --> 0:28:38.360
<v Speaker 1>hoping for again is these consistent rules that will help

0:28:38.360 --> 0:28:41.480
<v Speaker 1>consumers understand what they're getting into when they have crypto,

0:28:41.520 --> 0:28:44.360
<v Speaker 1>and that you have businesses and and innovators and new

0:28:44.400 --> 0:28:46.520
<v Speaker 1>projects that can come to the table and instead of

0:28:46.560 --> 0:28:49.600
<v Speaker 1>hiring a team of lawyers to comply with what can

0:28:49.680 --> 0:28:52.080
<v Speaker 1>be considered some vague rules, and so they can go

0:28:52.080 --> 0:28:54.320
<v Speaker 1>out and innovate and create the next big thing for consumers.

0:28:54.800 --> 0:28:58.520
<v Speaker 1>There's a crypto bill being pushed by Senators Lummis and

0:28:58.840 --> 0:29:02.320
<v Speaker 1>Jilla Brand. I actually recently spoke with both of them

0:29:02.360 --> 0:29:05.360
<v Speaker 1>about the bill and why they think this could be

0:29:05.440 --> 0:29:08.040
<v Speaker 1>the answer to take a listen to this from Senator Lamas.

0:29:08.640 --> 0:29:13.960
<v Speaker 1>The bill in one piece, as a total bill is

0:29:14.080 --> 0:29:18.720
<v Speaker 1>more likely to be deferred until next year. Uh, it's

0:29:18.720 --> 0:29:22.560
<v Speaker 1>a it's a big topic, it's comprehensive, and it's still

0:29:22.720 --> 0:29:26.520
<v Speaker 1>new to many U S. Senators. Do you like this

0:29:26.680 --> 0:29:28.959
<v Speaker 1>legislation and do you think it will pass? I'm so

0:29:29.080 --> 0:29:31.480
<v Speaker 1>really glad you yus this legislation for two reasons. One,

0:29:31.560 --> 0:29:33.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm from the great state of Wyoming, so i hold

0:29:33.920 --> 0:29:36.120
<v Speaker 1>all the work that Senator Lamas is doing very near

0:29:36.120 --> 0:29:38.080
<v Speaker 1>and dear to my heart, and so does my grandmother,

0:29:38.080 --> 0:29:39.680
<v Speaker 1>who turns on her and two and still lives there.

0:29:39.720 --> 0:29:42.120
<v Speaker 1>She she very much believes in it. So I really

0:29:42.120 --> 0:29:45.640
<v Speaker 1>appreciate Senator lemass work for the Cowboy State. Second, this

0:29:45.680 --> 0:29:48.640
<v Speaker 1>bill is by far and away the most comprehensive, detailed.

0:29:49.240 --> 0:29:52.480
<v Speaker 1>Really the intellectual rigor that was put into building it

0:29:52.280 --> 0:29:54.560
<v Speaker 1>is really impressive, and I think it will create very

0:29:54.600 --> 0:29:58.320
<v Speaker 1>much a foundation for for future legislation. And I think

0:29:58.360 --> 0:30:00.680
<v Speaker 1>she's right that at the end of the day, legislation

0:30:00.760 --> 0:30:02.680
<v Speaker 1>can take a very long time to get across the

0:30:02.720 --> 0:30:05.920
<v Speaker 1>finish line. And this is very complex. Her bill includes

0:30:06.040 --> 0:30:10.680
<v Speaker 1>CFCC juristiction sec juristiction, tax reform, it includes UM sections

0:30:10.720 --> 0:30:13.800
<v Speaker 1>on stable coins. It's very complex and putting this puzzle

0:30:13.840 --> 0:30:17.560
<v Speaker 1>together will take time. A lot of different committees leadership,

0:30:17.640 --> 0:30:20.240
<v Speaker 1>It will take the administration. So once we get all

0:30:20.240 --> 0:30:22.440
<v Speaker 1>these pieces together, I do think we're set up for

0:30:22.480 --> 0:30:26.160
<v Speaker 1>success in the coming year. Coin Base is very much

0:30:26.160 --> 0:30:29.000
<v Speaker 1>aspiring to be a global company, and cryptos, you know,

0:30:29.080 --> 0:30:32.200
<v Speaker 1>certainly a global market. Are other companies, excuse me, other

0:30:32.320 --> 0:30:35.680
<v Speaker 1>governments doing this better than the US or are they

0:30:35.760 --> 0:30:39.600
<v Speaker 1>ahead of the US on regulation? Some of the countries

0:30:39.640 --> 0:30:41.960
<v Speaker 1>actually are, I think ahead of where the U S is.

0:30:42.000 --> 0:30:44.240
<v Speaker 1>And part of that is is by just by by

0:30:44.360 --> 0:30:45.920
<v Speaker 1>nature of the fact that they may be set up

0:30:45.960 --> 0:30:47.920
<v Speaker 1>with a with a single regulator, for example in the

0:30:48.000 --> 0:30:51.440
<v Speaker 1>UK or in in this instance of EU, they're actually

0:30:51.440 --> 0:30:54.640
<v Speaker 1>putting forward a very comprehensive approach to digital assets. We're

0:30:54.640 --> 0:30:59.320
<v Speaker 1>seeing additional work in India, in Singapore, and Japan and Australia,

0:30:59.520 --> 0:31:01.400
<v Speaker 1>so they're a lot of different countries that are coming

0:31:01.400 --> 0:31:04.480
<v Speaker 1>to the table and working with stakeholders and industry participants

0:31:04.480 --> 0:31:07.920
<v Speaker 1>and consumers to understand what the impact of digital assets are.

0:31:08.200 --> 0:31:10.080
<v Speaker 1>I think that's where we need to get in terms

0:31:10.120 --> 0:31:14.000
<v Speaker 1>of the United States, is really creating a rulemaking process

0:31:14.040 --> 0:31:17.520
<v Speaker 1>and going through a regulatory process that's transparent, that is

0:31:17.520 --> 0:31:21.400
<v Speaker 1>engaging stakeholders. It's thinking about both retail and institution and

0:31:21.440 --> 0:31:23.360
<v Speaker 1>really how we can move for in a way that's

0:31:23.400 --> 0:31:26.479
<v Speaker 1>really includes all of the different viewpoints. That's what we're

0:31:26.480 --> 0:31:29.120
<v Speaker 1>missing in the United States right now. Alright, Coin based

0:31:29.120 --> 0:31:32.120
<v Speaker 1>head of US policy Karat Calibert, thanks for giving us

0:31:32.160 --> 0:31:44.640
<v Speaker 1>your view. In this week's Teconomics, Controlling a computer with

0:31:44.760 --> 0:31:46.960
<v Speaker 1>your brain. This might sound like something out of a

0:31:47.000 --> 0:31:51.440
<v Speaker 1>sci fi movie, but the technology already exists, and for

0:31:51.480 --> 0:31:55.400
<v Speaker 1>the first time, a brain computer interface device has been

0:31:55.440 --> 0:31:59.880
<v Speaker 1>implanted into the brain of a US patient. Sanchron is

0:31:59.880 --> 0:32:02.080
<v Speaker 1>the company that makes it, and its founder Tom Arksley

0:32:02.200 --> 0:32:06.000
<v Speaker 1>joins us now with more So, who is this patient

0:32:06.280 --> 0:32:08.920
<v Speaker 1>and why did they decide to do this? Tom. We're

0:32:08.960 --> 0:32:11.520
<v Speaker 1>not talking too much about the patient, Emily out of

0:32:11.680 --> 0:32:14.360
<v Speaker 1>his respect for privacy, but I can say it's a

0:32:14.360 --> 0:32:18.640
<v Speaker 1>patient that has a severe paralysis due to a LS

0:32:18.680 --> 0:32:21.400
<v Speaker 1>and he is not able to use his hands, he's

0:32:21.400 --> 0:32:25.320
<v Speaker 1>not able to speak, and he depends on assistive technologies

0:32:25.320 --> 0:32:28.720
<v Speaker 1>to communicate with his family and friends, and he's looking

0:32:28.720 --> 0:32:31.480
<v Speaker 1>for a way to improve that capability. So how will

0:32:31.560 --> 0:32:34.920
<v Speaker 1>this implant help him? The concept with a b c

0:32:35.120 --> 0:32:38.640
<v Speaker 1>I is essentially the idea that we have become dependent

0:32:38.680 --> 0:32:42.680
<v Speaker 1>on digital devices to engage with the world that there's

0:32:42.720 --> 0:32:45.640
<v Speaker 1>a part of the brain that controls our fingers. We

0:32:45.720 --> 0:32:48.200
<v Speaker 1>use our fingers to do point and click. And if

0:32:48.240 --> 0:32:50.240
<v Speaker 1>we can go straight to the source in the brain

0:32:50.360 --> 0:32:53.480
<v Speaker 1>that controls the intention to do point and click, put

0:32:53.480 --> 0:32:56.400
<v Speaker 1>a sensor in there. You can decode the information out

0:32:56.400 --> 0:32:58.640
<v Speaker 1>of the brain and then control point and click without

0:32:58.680 --> 0:33:01.120
<v Speaker 1>the need for your hands. Do that comes ditically from

0:33:01.160 --> 0:33:03.320
<v Speaker 1>the brain. What are you hoping to learn from this

0:33:03.720 --> 0:33:08.120
<v Speaker 1>patient's experience? This has been a long journey the we

0:33:08.200 --> 0:33:11.120
<v Speaker 1>became the first company to get a IDEA approval from

0:33:11.120 --> 0:33:13.880
<v Speaker 1>the FDA to conduct the study of a permanently implanted

0:33:14.240 --> 0:33:17.840
<v Speaker 1>b c I. We're still primarily focused on safety, but

0:33:17.880 --> 0:33:21.720
<v Speaker 1>we're now starting to test out the how we measure efficacy.

0:33:21.840 --> 0:33:25.080
<v Speaker 1>So the FDA has publicly stated that it's not obvious

0:33:25.200 --> 0:33:28.240
<v Speaker 1>how we would quantify the effectiveness of the b c I,

0:33:28.680 --> 0:33:31.040
<v Speaker 1>and we're starting to test out some of those parameters

0:33:31.440 --> 0:33:34.560
<v Speaker 1>with a view towards preparing that packet for FDA approval

0:33:34.600 --> 0:33:37.800
<v Speaker 1>and then going to commercial launch. Now, as I understand it,

0:33:38.240 --> 0:33:41.920
<v Speaker 1>your technology is ahead of what Elon Musk has accomplished

0:33:41.960 --> 0:33:46.040
<v Speaker 1>so far at Neuralink. How how much farther ahead, and

0:33:46.080 --> 0:33:48.080
<v Speaker 1>how is what you're trying to do different than what

0:33:48.160 --> 0:33:50.239
<v Speaker 1>he is trying to do. I would say we're at

0:33:50.240 --> 0:33:53.920
<v Speaker 1>the beginning of a renaissance of brain science, and I

0:33:53.920 --> 0:33:56.680
<v Speaker 1>think this is going to be a huge problem that's

0:33:56.680 --> 0:33:59.640
<v Speaker 1>solved for many, many patients, and there are many ways

0:33:59.680 --> 0:34:02.160
<v Speaker 1>to try to solve the problem. The way that we're

0:34:02.160 --> 0:34:04.920
<v Speaker 1>doing it is going into the brain through the blood vessels.

0:34:05.360 --> 0:34:08.400
<v Speaker 1>Were on a particular path with FDA, and we've been

0:34:08.440 --> 0:34:11.760
<v Speaker 1>able to leverage decades of knowledge around safety of leaving

0:34:11.760 --> 0:34:14.759
<v Speaker 1>devices in blood vessels um and the way that we

0:34:14.800 --> 0:34:17.520
<v Speaker 1>can expect the body to react to that. So it's

0:34:17.520 --> 0:34:20.560
<v Speaker 1>a different approach. It's a big problem, and I think

0:34:20.760 --> 0:34:23.480
<v Speaker 1>there are going to be many approaches needed. But we're

0:34:23.520 --> 0:34:26.120
<v Speaker 1>excited to be finally getting into the clinical stage in

0:34:26.160 --> 0:34:29.960
<v Speaker 1>the US, after you know, five years of discussion with

0:34:30.000 --> 0:34:34.359
<v Speaker 1>FDA and demonstration of safety and testing about our technology.

0:34:34.440 --> 0:34:36.560
<v Speaker 1>So who do you imagine we'll be doing this in

0:34:36.600 --> 0:34:40.760
<v Speaker 1>the nearer term future and in the longer term future.

0:34:40.840 --> 0:34:45.759
<v Speaker 1>Is this something that you see anyone opting to do well?

0:34:45.880 --> 0:34:49.960
<v Speaker 1>I think paralysis is a massive problem. We probably all

0:34:50.000 --> 0:34:53.560
<v Speaker 1>know someone who's lost the ability to use their hands, strokes,

0:34:53.600 --> 0:34:59.560
<v Speaker 1>spinal cord injury, als, muscular distribute multiple sclerosis, um many

0:34:59.600 --> 0:35:02.759
<v Speaker 1>condition and make our body ineffective while our brain is

0:35:02.800 --> 0:35:06.360
<v Speaker 1>still working. So our big focus is to show that

0:35:06.400 --> 0:35:10.360
<v Speaker 1>this technology is effective for the for a patient population initially,

0:35:10.400 --> 0:35:12.560
<v Speaker 1>and I think the way I think about where this

0:35:12.640 --> 0:35:15.160
<v Speaker 1>technology is going, it's going to be something like lasic.

0:35:15.360 --> 0:35:19.160
<v Speaker 1>It's an elective procedure. It helps you engage with technology more,

0:35:19.200 --> 0:35:23.080
<v Speaker 1>you reconnect with the world, you overcome physical disabilities, and

0:35:23.120 --> 0:35:27.080
<v Speaker 1>you re establish a digital um digital your digital world.

0:35:27.360 --> 0:35:30.960
<v Speaker 1>So you think that in the future, putting a device

0:35:31.080 --> 0:35:33.839
<v Speaker 1>inside your brain will be as easy and simple and

0:35:33.920 --> 0:35:38.600
<v Speaker 1>desirable as getting lasic eye surgery. Well, lasic eye surgery

0:35:38.640 --> 0:35:41.720
<v Speaker 1>is a minor procedure, still a laser on your eyeball.

0:35:41.880 --> 0:35:44.080
<v Speaker 1>It comes with risk, and it takes a couple of hours.

0:35:44.120 --> 0:35:47.239
<v Speaker 1>It's in a day procedure unit. That's the type of

0:35:47.400 --> 0:35:51.120
<v Speaker 1>position that are putting in stents and pacemakers are using

0:35:51.160 --> 0:35:53.799
<v Speaker 1>the same technology that would be putting in a brain

0:35:53.800 --> 0:35:56.600
<v Speaker 1>computer interface if it goes through the blood vessels. So

0:35:56.640 --> 0:35:59.640
<v Speaker 1>that's a cat lab and they thousands of them across

0:35:59.640 --> 0:36:01.960
<v Speaker 1>the country, tree with many many physicians who can perform

0:36:01.960 --> 0:36:04.960
<v Speaker 1>the procedure. It's a day procedure. It's invisible to the

0:36:04.960 --> 0:36:08.759
<v Speaker 1>outside world, and it helps you reconnect and it offsets

0:36:08.920 --> 0:36:11.319
<v Speaker 1>our you know, all of the things that come with

0:36:11.400 --> 0:36:14.560
<v Speaker 1>the human body that can fail for a number of reasons.

0:36:15.120 --> 0:36:18.799
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely fascinating. I understand you've done this a handful of

0:36:18.840 --> 0:36:23.400
<v Speaker 1>times in Australia to date, but your first US patient

0:36:23.520 --> 0:36:27.239
<v Speaker 1>now has a syn chron brain implant. We'll we'll keep

0:36:27.280 --> 0:36:31.719
<v Speaker 1>following your progress, Tom Sinn Chrong founder Tom Oxley, thank

0:36:31.760 --> 0:36:34.040
<v Speaker 1>you for joining us. That does it for this edition

0:36:34.120 --> 0:36:37.600
<v Speaker 1>of Bloomberg Technology. Don't forget to check out our podcast.

0:36:37.680 --> 0:36:40.920
<v Speaker 1>You can find it wherever you get your podcast. As always,

0:36:41.040 --> 0:36:43.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm Emily Changing in San Francisco. This is Bloomberg