Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. Well, there you have it,
Speaker 1: fetchjer J. Powell wrapping up comments roundtable questions at an
Speaker 1: event at Harvard University. It was a moderated discussion in
Speaker 1: a principles of economics class. Let's take a look at markets.
Speaker 1: On the back of those comments, we actually saw yields
Speaker 1: fall across the curve.
Speaker 2: As fed jer J. Powell spoke.
Speaker 1: Look at that down on the two year and the
Speaker 1: tenure by let's go ahead and.
Speaker 2: Call that nine basis points.
Speaker 1: We also did see stocks move off their lows of
Speaker 1: the session when fed jer J.
Speaker 2: Powell was speaking.
Speaker 1: The NASAQ one hundred right now up close to two
Speaker 1: tenths of one percent, The S and P five hundred
Speaker 1: intra day up four tenths of one percent. The S
Speaker 1: and P was flat going into this in the NASAQ
Speaker 1: one hundred.
Speaker 2: Was ever so slightly lower.
Speaker 1: I want to bring in Bloomberg's International Economics and Policy
Speaker 1: correspondent Mike McKee. Mike, apart from no selfies with J. Powell,
Speaker 1: which seems like a relatively good rule when you are
Speaker 1: someone like J. Powell, I want to hear about the
Speaker 1: big takeaway from this it really seems like supply shocks
Speaker 1: have the FED has little control when it comes to
Speaker 1: supply shocks such as the one we're seeing right now
Speaker 1: in oil. Is that the big takeaway from him seeking
Speaker 1: earlier today.
Speaker 3: Yeah, If there is a takeaway, it would be that
Speaker 3: the FED doesn't know what's going to happen because it
Speaker 3: does have this supply shock that's going to weigh on
Speaker 3: the inflation rate. It could also if the inflation rate
Speaker 3: stays up for a while away on demand. So the
Speaker 3: FED is, as Pal repeated several times, well positioned to
Speaker 3: sit and wait for a while. Now, if you look
Speaker 3: at FED fund's futures, they traded the opposite of where
Speaker 3: they've been during Poll's comments. They now price in some cuts.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure that's the right reading of this. I
Speaker 3: don't think the FED knows yet where they're going to go,
Speaker 3: except that they're going to be on hold for a while.
Speaker 3: He noted risks to both sides to growth and employment
Speaker 3: and as well to inflation, but express confidence the FED
Speaker 3: will get inflation down to two percent at some point.
Speaker 1: Tearis have a one time impact on inflation, He said,
Speaker 1: inflation expectations remain well anchored. The FMC will reach its
Speaker 1: two percent inflation goal, and the fed's tools have no
Speaker 1: meaningful effect.
Speaker 2: On supply shocks.
Speaker 1: That doesn't necessarily mean, though, Mike, that we will not
Speaker 1: see and are not seeing, an inflationary effect from this
Speaker 1: more than month long conflict any wrong. What can the
Speaker 1: FED do or what will the FED do if we
Speaker 1: do see inflation flow through as a result.
Speaker 3: Well, it depends on what areas inflation flows into. If
Speaker 3: it's oil prices, gasoline prices, those are things that the
Speaker 3: FED can't do much about. If it starts to get
Speaker 3: into the broader economy, which it will in the sense
Speaker 3: that higher diesel prices are going to mean it's going
Speaker 3: to cost more for your package to be delivered, that
Speaker 3: sort of thing, and for trucks to resupply the rest
Speaker 3: of the country. If it starts to get into other
Speaker 3: areas of the economy, they might think about a rate increase,
Speaker 3: but they'll probably do more jaw bating than anything else,
Speaker 3: because they feel that at some point the strait will open,
Speaker 3: the oil will flow again, and it may take a while,
Speaker 3: but inflation will come down. And he made the point
Speaker 3: that if the FED raises rates now, the effects are
Speaker 3: long and variable and could take as a year or
Speaker 3: more to start to hit the economy, and the economy
Speaker 3: might be in a totally different situation by then, and
Speaker 3: the FED rate move wouldn't be good news. So the
Speaker 3: Fed is going to be very very cautious about what
Speaker 3: they're going to do going forward because mostly they think
Speaker 3: this is going to be about oil prices, and they
Speaker 3: just keep an eye on the rest of the economy.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg, a TV and radio international economics and policy forsponded
Speaker 1: Mike McKee, Mike, thanks so much well. Thre's higher energy
Speaker 1: prices in focus the war and Iran officially enters its
Speaker 1: second month. Treasury Secretary Scott Besn't indicated some optimism about
Speaker 1: a reopening of the Straight of horm moves, but that's
Speaker 1: as President Trump renewed threats against Iran. If a deal
Speaker 1: isn't made soon, Let's bring in Bloomberg Balance of Power
Speaker 1: co host Kaylee Lyons to break it all down. Kaylee,
Speaker 1: the President said the US is end quote serious discussions
Speaker 1: with a new regime in Iran. An Iranian official earlier
Speaker 1: said there haven't been any direct talks. Do we know
Speaker 1: who is talking to whom right now?
Speaker 4: Well, that's a major question, Tim. Whatever talks are happening
Speaker 4: are through intermediaries. You had the likes of Egypt, Pakistan,
Speaker 4: Turkey all meeting this weekend as they seek an end
Speaker 4: to this conflict, though representatives from the US and Iran
Speaker 4: were not at that table, and as you say, Iran
Speaker 4: contends that they are not talking directly with Washington, having
Speaker 4: rejected the fifteen point ceasefire plan in public that President
Speaker 4: Trump told reporters a board Air Force one last night
Speaker 4: that Iranians had accepted most of those fifteen points, that
Speaker 4: we didn't specify which one. So there's a bit of
Speaker 4: a he said, she said, situation here when it comes
Speaker 4: to the US and Iran. It also is a bit
Speaker 4: of a good cop bad cop situation, Tim, Except frankly,
Speaker 4: President Trump seems to be playing both of those roles.
Speaker 4: Is on the one hand, he is citing good progress
Speaker 4: and ages ciations he says are happening. On the other hand,
Speaker 4: he's taking to true social and threatening running an infrastructure,
Speaker 4: the energy infrastructure, oil wells, carg Island. He said, all
Speaker 4: of these things, even a water infrastructure through desalination plants,
Speaker 4: could be targeted. According to the President, if the straight
Speaker 4: off news is not open for business, which, of course
Speaker 4: right now it is not. So the escalation risk is
Speaker 4: certainly there, especially considering thousands more American service members have arrived.
Speaker 5: In the theater.
Speaker 4: Of course, you had thousands of marines and sailors aboard
Speaker 4: an amphibious assault ship. You have more marines and Army
Speaker 4: paratroopers that have been ordered there. And you have reports
Speaker 4: than the likes of the Wall Street Journal in the
Speaker 4: Washington Post that the President is seriously considering putting troops
Speaker 4: on the ground in some form, the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 4: talking about the idea of seizing enriched uranium, something that
Speaker 4: would likely require ground forces and take some time. You
Speaker 4: also had the President telling the Financial Times that he
Speaker 4: would like to take Iron's oil, something that could involve
Speaker 4: the seizure of carg Island, which is also something that
Speaker 4: is likely to need ground forces. Then the other escalatory
Speaker 4: thing we have to keep an eye on here is,
Speaker 4: of course, the Iranian proxies, the Houthis, who over the
Speaker 4: weekend launched attacks, missiles and drones at Israel. Specifically, remember
Speaker 4: how disruptive the Houthies were in the Red Sea beginning
Speaker 4: back in twenty twenty three, very disruptive to commercial shipping,
Speaker 4: so that poses a threat to the alternate route through
Speaker 4: the Red Sea that other Gulf nations like the Saudis
Speaker 4: are using to try to get their energy exports out,
Speaker 4: So there's exculatory risk at the same time, Tim that
Speaker 4: the President is still talking about this diplomatic off ramp.
Speaker 4: I guess though, when you still have Iran saying that
Speaker 4: the claims the President is making around Iran accepting these points,
Speaker 4: when Iranian officials are calling them excessive and illogical, it
Speaker 4: doesn't seem like we are necessarily getting any closer to
Speaker 4: concrete resolution here.
Speaker 1: In Bloomberg's Kaylee lines more from her and Joe in
Speaker 1: the one o'clock hour on a Balance of power.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Kayleie well back to market.
Speaker 1: It's because the NASAQ one hundred has slipped into correction territory.
Speaker 1: The selloff in big tech now flashing signals that have
Speaker 1: marked turning points in the past. Many and Wall Street
Speaker 1: now see the sector as a potential opportunity, pointing to
Speaker 1: oversold conditions and the likelihood of relief rallies, even amid
Speaker 1: uncertainty tied to the Iran war.
Speaker 2: From where let's bring a.
Speaker 1: Denise Chisholm, Fidelities, Director of Quantitative Market Strategy. Denise, in
Speaker 1: your view, is this a turning point? Is this a
Speaker 1: buying opportunity when it comes to tech.
Speaker 6: Yeah, when you look at the data, I mean, there's
Speaker 6: certainly concerns around the technology sector since it's been such
Speaker 6: dominant leadership in the markets. But it's interesting when you
Speaker 6: look at the mathematical setup. We saw this very very
Speaker 6: briefly in the tariff tantrum last year, but the sector
Speaker 6: is now in the bottom third of its cheapest when
Speaker 6: you look back to the data since the sixties, and
Speaker 6: we haven't really been this cheap from a valuation perspective
Speaker 6: in over ten years. And look, I mean, there's always
Speaker 6: the potential that it could be different this time, or
Speaker 6: there's a value trap, but there is a very linear
Speaker 6: relationship between the cheaper this sector has been historically, the
Speaker 6: more likely it is to outperform seventy percent odds or
Speaker 6: not one hundred percent odds. But the risk reward when
Speaker 6: you take a one year time horizon, I can't say
Speaker 6: if the bottom is in right now, but when you
Speaker 6: take a longer term time horizon, it does look more
Speaker 6: like an opportunity now that those seventy percent odds are
Speaker 6: actually sticky, even if things like operating margins decline or
Speaker 6: earnings revisions come down, which is kind of a mathematical
Speaker 6: way to say, whatever it is that you're worried about
Speaker 6: might be partly priced in at this point.
Speaker 1: I think what people might be concerned about right now, Denise,
Speaker 1: is that this sell off looks a little bit different
Speaker 1: if you peel back the layers of quote unquote tech,
Speaker 1: because there's this worry about AI and the idea that
Speaker 1: AI will lead to the demise of some in the
Speaker 1: software industry, the so called saaspocalypse.
Speaker 2: Where are you seeing deals?
Speaker 1: Because just because we're seeing something is relatively cheap doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily mean there's opportunity around the corner.
Speaker 5: Right to your point in terms of a value trap.
Speaker 6: Now, look, I'll let the fundamental analysts tackle what will
Speaker 6: happen to software from a long term perspective, But when
Speaker 6: I look at the data, you see something very rare. Historically,
Speaker 6: you have an industry that's never been more profitable, pin
Speaker 6: to the one hundredth percentile of their profitability, and yet
Speaker 6: what we've seen over the last three months only has
Speaker 6: been a devaluation such that relative forward pees or now
Speaker 6: in the almost the bottom decile. So you have this
Speaker 6: massive disconnect between the valuation and the operating profit that
Speaker 6: is rare.
Speaker 5: Historically.
Speaker 6: When you look back in all industries to the sixties,
Speaker 6: you only see this happen two percent of the time.
Speaker 6: The instances that it happens are things like the financial crisis.
Speaker 5: So one of the ways that we can.
Speaker 6: Sort of tackle this quantitatively is to say, well, it
Speaker 6: is different, but we have seen a little bit of
Speaker 6: this movie before. In some ways, software is going through
Speaker 6: its own great financial crisis pricing, now, how has that
Speaker 6: worked historically?
Speaker 5: Speaking now?
Speaker 6: And is only two percent, so you can't draw broad conclusions.
Speaker 6: But we have seen this historically in technology sectors like communications,
Speaker 6: common equipment, and hardware. Even though we haven't seen it
Speaker 6: in software, we've also seen it in semiconductors. When you
Speaker 6: look back historically, and it's you know, in some ways
Speaker 6: the odds, but go forward perspective, what's your price like this,
Speaker 6: what are your odds of out performance over the course
Speaker 6: of the next twelve months, and what's your average out
Speaker 6: performance over the next twelve months? Is look, it's only
Speaker 6: fifty to fifty which is hard to say that that's
Speaker 6: a table pounding buy. It's not, but it is to
Speaker 6: say that the average out performance of all these sectors
Speaker 6: is around zero, in the sense that they tend to
Speaker 6: be at the point where much is priced in and
Speaker 6: downside might be more or less limited.
Speaker 2: Denise, I do want, yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 6: The technology sectors like semiconductors and common equipment have actually
Speaker 6: had higher odds about performance, which gets to a little
Speaker 6: bit of what sharepal was talking about, which is technology
Speaker 6: as a sector has a history of reinventing itself.
Speaker 5: And yes, there may be in.
Speaker 6: Fact bankruptcies within the software industry, but there might be
Speaker 6: companies that are actually coming in to create new products
Speaker 6: as well.
Speaker 1: I understand the urge to use history as a guide here,
Speaker 1: but I do wonder for those people who are out
Speaker 1: there who say, wait a second, we are on the
Speaker 1: verge of a new industrial revolution. We are seeing something
Speaker 1: with AI that we've never seen before in modern investing
Speaker 1: and in the modern economy. Do you have to throw
Speaker 1: the history textbook out the window, or the market's history
Speaker 1: textbook out the window in an environment like this.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm always struck by the fact that it is
Speaker 6: always different this time right, COVID was very different, terrorists
Speaker 6: were very different, and yet the patterns are very sticky.
Speaker 6: I do think that there's always a knee jerk reaction behind.
Speaker 6: You know, equity markets need to be reflective of very
Speaker 6: good times in the economy or no existential risk. But
Speaker 6: when you study history, you know you see over and
Speaker 6: over again this. Sometimes the market goes up and climbs
Speaker 6: the wall of worry despite whatever you are worried about,
Speaker 6: ending upcoming to fruition. And I do think that what
Speaker 6: is the definition of this cycle when I look at
Speaker 6: the math, is that the equity market has remained much
Speaker 6: more fearful on an ongoing basis than we see in
Speaker 6: most credit markets, which are tend to be the smarter markets.
Speaker 5: More you see that fear.
Speaker 6: And that knee jerk reaction, the more likely the market
Speaker 6: is to be highed, not to say over any three
Speaker 6: month time horizon, but it is to say over any
Speaker 6: long term time horizon. So yes, could it be different
Speaker 6: this time, But I think history shows you that those
Speaker 6: differences might end up being tailwinds that you don't suspect,
Speaker 6: like productivity like higher GDP growth, like higher earnings growth,
Speaker 6: like more profitability in the overall market as well.
Speaker 1: I'm taking a look at WTI crew, It's up to
Speaker 1: one hundred and two dollars a barrel. Brand is at
Speaker 1: about one hundred and twelve dollars a barrel. To what
Speaker 1: extent are.
Speaker 2: High energy price is a drag on the tech industry.
Speaker 6: On the tech industry, you know, in some ways you
Speaker 6: can think of it as a cyclical industry. So I
Speaker 6: think it's pro cyclical in the sense that it's tied
Speaker 6: to the US economy overall. I mean, energy prices are
Speaker 6: interesting in that I understand why the knee jerk reaction
Speaker 6: is to.
Speaker 5: Look at real energy prices.
Speaker 6: Over time, and we've seen them spike in you know,
Speaker 6: obviously nineteen eighty and even the high in two thousand
Speaker 6: and eight from a real inflation adjusted perspective was nominally higher,
Speaker 6: was actually higher than the peak.
Speaker 5: In nineteen eighty.
Speaker 6: So you draw those peaks and you say that there's real,
Speaker 6: very strong correlation to very uncomfortable economic situations. But it
Speaker 6: is quite different.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 6: History can show you what the similarities are and also
Speaker 6: the differences, which is to say that oil intensity has
Speaker 6: actually declined substantially in the overall economy, so that effect
Speaker 6: on the same price might actually have a much less
Speaker 6: impact than you think on the overall economy, and in
Speaker 6: some ways to think about it in very practical terms
Speaker 6: instead of just oil prices, to think about the stress
Speaker 6: that it could impact on corporate profits, specifically when we're
Speaker 6: talking about equity prices. If you renormalize those oil prices
Speaker 6: in relation to corporate profits, you'd see that that spike
Speaker 6: in nineteen eighty effectively was one thousand dollars in terms
Speaker 6: of the price per barrel that it would take to
Speaker 6: equate the same stress. Which is not to say that
Speaker 6: higher energy prices don't take a bite off the US consumer.
Speaker 5: They do. You see declines in.
Speaker 6: Real income growth and especially year of the short run
Speaker 6: demand is relatively an elastic. But what you do see
Speaker 6: is I think that the comparisons to the seventies and
Speaker 6: eighties of stagflation, this is a very different economy and
Speaker 6: it might be much more absorbable than you think, which
Speaker 6: might mean back to technology, that more of that is
Speaker 6: priced in than you may think.
Speaker 1: Okay, some really good historical context. Denise Chisholm of Fidelity Investments,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining.
Speaker 2: Us on Bloomberg Tech.
Speaker 1: Well coming up, NASA is preparing to send astronauts back
Speaker 1: to lunar orbit for the first time since the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 1: It's a critical milestone for broader US space ambitions. We'll
Speaker 1: discuss that next. This is Bloomberg Tech. Some news in
Speaker 1: Elon Musk's world. A top judge in Delaware said she
Speaker 1: will no longer preside over a handful of lawsuits involving
Speaker 1: Musk in his companies, and will reassign several Musk related cases.
Speaker 1: This comes after the billionaire's lawyers alleged she had shown
Speaker 1: bias against him after she had ruled against him in.
Speaker 2: High profile cases.
Speaker 1: Well, NASA is sending astronauts back to the Moon for
Speaker 1: the first time in over fifty years. The lunar flyby
Speaker 1: will test the Artemis to spacecraft, paving the way for
Speaker 1: a lunar landing in twenty twenty eight. Let's get more
Speaker 1: on this historic mission from our reporter, A Lauren Brush
Speaker 1: at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Lauren, good to have you
Speaker 1: on the program, especially joining us from Kennedy Space Center.
Speaker 2: I think if we think.
Speaker 1: Historically about the Moon mission, when we did this fifty
Speaker 1: years ago we were locked in this space race with
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union a very different time. Now, why spend
Speaker 1: so much money to go back to the Moon, Well, I.
Speaker 7: Think it just depends on who you ask. You know,
Speaker 7: recently there has been a lot of concern brought up
Speaker 7: about the fact that China is also sending astronauts to
Speaker 7: the Moon, and so you'll hear lawmakers and even you know,
Speaker 7: NASA executives talk about the need to beat China to
Speaker 7: the Moon. There's been concerned that maybe they will get
Speaker 7: there first and kind of stay a claim to that area,
Speaker 7: preventing our exploration of it.
Speaker 5: But for more.
Speaker 7: Peaceful reasons, you know, there's a lot that NASA hopes
Speaker 7: to gain from the Moon. For instance, there's this idea
Speaker 7: of jump starting a looter economy, so finding ways to
Speaker 7: make money off the Moon, possibly for an economy around
Speaker 7: the Moon. And then of course it's learning how to
Speaker 7: live off of another planetary body that's no small small
Speaker 7: feet and eventually, you know, the goal is to get
Speaker 7: to Mars, and so learning to live off of the
Speaker 7: surface of the Moon, those lessons can then be applied
Speaker 7: to Mars living someday.
Speaker 1: Lauren, how is this a test for NASA in an
Speaker 1: environment where there's you know, significant investment in the private
Speaker 1: space industry, namely in a company like SpaceX, which is
Speaker 1: expected to IPO this year. What does this mean for NASA?
Speaker 1: What's at stake?
Speaker 7: The unique thing, Artemis is that it is kind of
Speaker 7: an amalgam of the old and the new. Right, so
Speaker 7: they are using a lot of their long time, long
Speaker 7: term contractors like Boeing and which will be on display
Speaker 7: with this mission. And when it comes to landing on
Speaker 7: the Moon, NASA has contracted and outsourced the lander development
Speaker 7: to newer players like SpaceX and Blue Origin. So it's
Speaker 7: actually kind of a mashup of the old and new
Speaker 7: way of doing business. And so it'll be a test
Speaker 7: to see if those companies can work together in this
Speaker 7: and these different contracting mechanisms can actually work together to
Speaker 7: put people back on the surface of the Moon.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's Lauren Grush live at Kennedy Space Center. Thanks Lauren,
Speaker 1: check out her reporting in the entire teams reporting on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Terminal and at Bloomberg dot com. More on
Speaker 1: space with the SpaceX IPO this time.
Speaker 2: That's next. This is Bloomberg tech.
Speaker 1: Let's fivoting out of the business of space as investors
Speaker 1: gear up for the highly anticipated mega IPO from SpaceX.
Speaker 2: Joseph Alagna is.
Speaker 1: The foundingner at Buttonwood Funds. It's invested in the Elon
Speaker 1: Musk led company four times in the past year and
Speaker 1: a half. Joseph, good to have you on the program
Speaker 1: this morning. I want to start with a potential one
Speaker 1: point seventy five trillion dollar valuation at an IPO that
Speaker 1: raises a wopping seventy five billion dollars, which our team
Speaker 1: reported last week. Would this represent a satisfy, satisfying valuation
Speaker 1: or exit for you at Buttonwood Funds.
Speaker 8: I don't know if we were to exit or not.
Speaker 8: I mean, we're about to go public in a few weeks,
Speaker 8: so I can't really talk about what we're going to
Speaker 8: doing we're doing going forward. But you know, the one
Speaker 8: point seventy five trillion dollar IPO valuation, you know, was
Speaker 8: was announced right after the merger with Xai, and you
Speaker 8: know before that was one point five at the end
Speaker 8: of last year before they talked about the merger. But
Speaker 8: no one's really talking about the addition of terror fab
Speaker 8: yet what that impact has. And I do think that
Speaker 8: that is going to be a game changer for for SpaceX.
Speaker 2: Why do you think that'll be a game changer.
Speaker 8: Well, he really has the total ecosystem now with terrafab,
Speaker 8: he no longer is going to be dependent on chips
Speaker 8: from Nvideo. It might be one of the reasons why
Speaker 8: you're seeing, you know, in video stock act the way
Speaker 8: it is. You know, Elon Musk is the type of
Speaker 8: guy that does not like to be dependent on other companies.
Speaker 8: So look what he did with the Tesla, you know,
Speaker 8: with the with the Gigawat factories. You know, he didn't
Speaker 8: want to be buying batteries and be dependent to to
Speaker 8: other companies. So it's it's it's the same playbook that
Speaker 8: I think he's doing right now with whether it's SpaceX
Speaker 8: and building a significant infrastructure play in space and artificial
Speaker 8: intelligence like no one's ever seen.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that raises a really important question, Joseph, what
Speaker 1: are what are people investing in? If they invest in
Speaker 1: in space X in the I p O, are they
Speaker 1: investing in in your monopoly in space? So they investing
Speaker 1: in an AI company, a telecoms company or is it
Speaker 1: Elon who they're investing in?
Speaker 8: Well, I always say it's Elon because there really is
Speaker 8: no one else out there. I quite like him, but
Speaker 8: you know, he's what he's put together here with AI space,
Speaker 8: you know, and the combination here and infrastructure play that
Speaker 8: he's got a mote now that that that's built around him,
Speaker 8: that makes very difficult for any other company to really
Speaker 8: truly be a competitor. You know, we've seen other companies
Speaker 8: like Amazon try to compete with SpaceX as far as
Speaker 8: the installing division is in the satellite, you know, deployment.
Speaker 8: But now things that people are are quite different the
Speaker 8: ecosystem he has now built. I don't think anyone is
Speaker 8: going to be able to touch.
Speaker 1: You did mention you're a little limited in what you
Speaker 1: can talk about because of your fund going public in
Speaker 1: the near future.
Speaker 2: Can can you give us.
Speaker 1: Some more color around a timeline there.
Speaker 8: We expect to probably start trading in May, possibly in
Speaker 8: early June. SpaceX is one of eleven positions within the
Speaker 8: but would first access fund that we're bringing public. The
Speaker 8: second second largest to Anthropic, but we also had to
Speaker 8: say as a position in the fund and now they
Speaker 8: merch together, but there's still slightly less than our positions
Speaker 8: in Anthropic, which.
Speaker 1: Is the largest there are other funds that do give
Speaker 1: access to public market investors and privately held companies.
Speaker 2: What makes butt in what different?
Speaker 8: Yeah, you know, we're starting to see this trend now
Speaker 8: right of public vehicles that are own public companies that
Speaker 8: are like how do you want to call them? The
Speaker 8: pre i pos? You know, what makes us different, I
Speaker 8: believe is really the timing that you know that we've
Speaker 8: invested in some of these companies, and you know, I
Speaker 8: think when you look at that at some of these
Speaker 8: other vehicles that might have similar portfolios two hours, you know,
Speaker 8: I think you have to ask yourself, well, you know
Speaker 8: that the portfolios might look similar, but you know, wind
Speaker 8: management purchase these securities now might not do any thing
Speaker 8: for someone that steps in and buys a portfolio that's
Speaker 8: that looks the same as another portfolio now, but it
Speaker 8: should give you some insight on management ability to identify
Speaker 8: companies in the future. Was obviously all these funds, including mine,
Speaker 8: will be adding other public private companies, you know, pre
Speaker 8: IPO companies in the future.
Speaker 2: You mentioned Anthropic.
Speaker 1: You have invested in Anthropic over the past year and
Speaker 1: a half, and you would give access to investors to
Speaker 1: that through this fund. Where do you see Anthropic playing
Speaker 1: differently than XII.
Speaker 8: Well, XAI has got a long way to go to
Speaker 8: catch up to Anthropic. I don't know if they have
Speaker 8: a will. You know, Anthropics really you know focused on
Speaker 8: the enterprise customer and that was a very smart move
Speaker 8: by them, you know. And the reason why we chose Anthropic,
Speaker 8: you know, over a year and a half ago is
Speaker 8: when you know, everyone's very concerned about artificial intelligence and
Speaker 8: how it can you know, run.
Speaker 2: Run a miss.
Speaker 8: And you know, they have guardrails that they put on
Speaker 8: with their constitutional AI and they've been taking a different
Speaker 8: approach to artificial intelligence than say some of the other
Speaker 8: companies that are out there that are really is looking
Speaker 8: for growth. So you know that's probably why you have
Speaker 8: seen in Tropic pro so quickly.
Speaker 2: Right, XAI now is going to.
Speaker 8: Have capital that I think that they needed. I think
Speaker 8: they were having a hard time competing with.
Speaker 1: The Joseph Traffic and Chat. We got to run up
Speaker 1: against the clock. Appreciate you joining us. Joseph Alana, managing
Speaker 1: member and founder partner of the Button with fund that
Speaker 1: is going to do it for this edition of Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Tech