Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney, along
Speaker 1: with my co host of Bonnie Quinn. Every business day
Speaker 1: we bring you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts,
Speaker 1: along with essential market moving news. Kind the Bloomberg Markets
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Mark Zuckerberg always knew. This
Speaker 1: is how jon Oh Sarah starts his column on Facebook,
Speaker 1: which she says only has itself to blame for a
Speaker 1: drastic remedy which might be in the works on the
Speaker 1: part of a g s all around the country. Let's
Speaker 1: bring in Jono Sara now for our Bloomberg Opinion piece
Speaker 1: of the day. Joe obviously a Bloomberg Opinion columnists covering business.
Speaker 1: So Joe, what did Mark Zuckerberg always know? Hi, Banni.
Speaker 1: He always knew that these companies that he was buying
Speaker 1: and telling the government it was just a little, a
Speaker 1: little purchase. We're in fact, companies that he could see
Speaker 1: might one day proved to be a serious competitor, and
Speaker 1: he was cutting off competition with these purchases, even though
Speaker 1: it was two thousand twelves in the case of Instagram
Speaker 1: and two thousand fourteen in the case of what's happened,
Speaker 1: if it was going to become such a problem, you
Speaker 1: know that a g s around the country want something
Speaker 1: done about it, Why didn't regulators stop those purchases at
Speaker 1: the time. Well, to be honest, I don't think regulators.
Speaker 1: I think I think Markael Zuckerberg was a lot more
Speaker 1: foresighted about this sort of thing then the regulators were.
Speaker 1: So for instance, you know, one of the reasons they
Speaker 1: let Instagram go through was because Instagram had no revenue.
Speaker 1: So the thought was, well, if Instagram has no revenue,
Speaker 1: then they're really not expanding markets uh their market share
Speaker 1: by buying Instagram. Um. You know. The other thing is
Speaker 1: that at the time there were other photo apps, so
Speaker 1: the idea was, well, you buy Instagram. You know, there's
Speaker 1: still companies like uh Camera I think it was called
Speaker 1: Camera Anywhere or something like that. Camera also, yes, Camera Awesome,
Speaker 1: which no longer exists of course. So um, so I
Speaker 1: think the regulators were you know, honestly, I don't think
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook were completely straight with the regulators
Speaker 1: about their rationalpha buying these companies. And second of all,
Speaker 1: I don't think the regulators were foresighted enough to see
Speaker 1: the potential harm down the road. So what's your outlook
Speaker 1: for what happens with the FTC and these forty eight
Speaker 1: attorneys general dual antitrust suits now to undo both the
Speaker 1: merger of Facebook and Instagram as well as the takeover
Speaker 1: of What'sapp. Does the succeed eventually? It's really hard to
Speaker 1: know because, um, you know, if this goes to court,
Speaker 1: you know, it's gonna be a couple of years before
Speaker 1: there's a trial. That's That's that's point number one. Um,
Speaker 1: And who knows, you know how you know, Facebook, no
Speaker 1: doubt try to settle in some way that does not
Speaker 1: uh force them to give up Instagram and What's App. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, like if you take the Microsoft case
Speaker 1: as an example, Yes, the district court judge in that
Speaker 1: case ordered that Microsoft be broken up into two parts,
Speaker 1: but that was eventually overruled by the by the appeals court.
Speaker 1: And and although Microsoft wound up being sanctioned, they wound
Speaker 1: up remaining the same company that they once were. So
Speaker 1: it's it's way too early to think that it's either
Speaker 1: going to be broken up or it's not going to
Speaker 1: be broken up. It's just there's no there's just no
Speaker 1: way to know. Is it bad for corporate America that Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 1: and What'sapp or all one big company? Now? I certainly
Speaker 1: think it's it's bad for consumers, um. I mean, the
Speaker 1: the main issue is that there's no competition in the
Speaker 1: social media space. They're just none. So if you don't
Speaker 1: like Facebook's privacy policy, where are you going to go?
Speaker 1: You go to Instagram, you're still in Facebook. If you
Speaker 1: go to What'sapp, you're still on Facebook. Where you close
Speaker 1: your browser and open a book, well you could, you could,
Speaker 1: you could, but who does that in this world that
Speaker 1: we live in? I mean, but that's sort of the problem,
Speaker 1: isn't it? Isn't it a joe? People have really embraced
Speaker 1: social media as a way of connecting, and it's it's
Speaker 1: almost like they can't do without it. All of these
Speaker 1: studies on addiction and so on, they really sort of
Speaker 1: hit the point. People have now got so used to
Speaker 1: messenger and you know, posting updates on Facebook that it's
Speaker 1: almost like the phone was. It's become a utility. Well,
Speaker 1: I agree with you. I agree with you about that. Um,
Speaker 1: but I would say, uh, turning Facebook into a utility
Speaker 1: is is even is more than even the Justice Department
Speaker 1: you can hit the FTC can handle at this point.
Speaker 1: But but look, if you had I need to, if
Speaker 1: you had um, Instagram and What's App as separate entities
Speaker 1: from Facebook, they could compete on the basis of privacy.
Speaker 1: They could compete on the basis of how are you
Speaker 1: going to use your data? They could compete on the
Speaker 1: basis of what kind of ads will we put in
Speaker 1: front of you or what kind of disinformation? Will we
Speaker 1: have this information or will we not have you know,
Speaker 1: you can have that kind of competition. UM and and
Speaker 1: and I think that's really what the g S and
Speaker 1: the and the and the FTC are are trying to accomplish.
Speaker 1: Is there time, I mean, is it too late, I
Speaker 1: should say, for this to succeed in the sense that
Speaker 1: you know, even What's Up founder left because of how
Speaker 1: you know, the what'sapp was turning into under the Facebook banner.
Speaker 1: Is the train gone so long from the station that
Speaker 1: it's going to be hard to bring it back? Um? Well,
Speaker 1: you know Facebook has not really integrated those two apps, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, um intertwined it is Facebook, so they you know,
Speaker 1: breaking it up would actually be in those terms relatively simple.
Speaker 1: The question is who would run those companies? And you know,
Speaker 1: we're getting way ahead of ourselves. But my, my, my
Speaker 1: strong guess is that the government would not allow some
Speaker 1: Facebook executive to to go over to Instagram and they
Speaker 1: have to undoubtedly find new leadership. UM. And so I
Speaker 1: don't think it's it's I really don't think it's too
Speaker 1: late in that sense. In a in a legal sense,
Speaker 1: that's a different question. And the problem there is that
Speaker 1: the courts over the last two or three decades has
Speaker 1: become very tolerant of mergers and has used a very
Speaker 1: standard called the consumer welfare standard to decide, uh, if
Speaker 1: a merger is okay or not. That really UM makes
Speaker 1: it almost impossible to put a glove on the big
Speaker 1: tech companies. So that has to change over their course
Speaker 1: of the next few years in order for Facebook to
Speaker 1: be broken up. Will it hope, Joe? Will it hope?
Speaker 1: These A G S and the FTC that you know,
Speaker 1: many many early workers in Silicon Valley that totally believed
Speaker 1: in in the projects, let's say, of connecting the world
Speaker 1: have now turned against Silicon Valley for the reason you
Speaker 1: know that it did become the monster that everybody got
Speaker 1: eaten up by Will it hope that that so many
Speaker 1: of those employees have now turned against Facebook absolutely, because
Speaker 1: let's face it, those people are the ones who wouldn't
Speaker 1: want on the witness stand um. Also, more importantly, almost
Speaker 1: as just as importantly, is the fact that both Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats in Congress really are become anti big tech,
Speaker 1: so anti Facebook, anti Amazon, anti anti Google, and so uh,
Speaker 1: there's a decent possibility that legislation of some sort will
Speaker 1: pass anti Truss legislation will pass in the next Congress,
Speaker 1: not this one, but in the next Congress that could
Speaker 1: well um put strictures on these companies and make it
Speaker 1: easier to break them up. Joe, we will watch this
Speaker 1: with absolute interest, but it's going to be years, as
Speaker 1: we heard earlier from Dave Wilson, So Joe, we expect
Speaker 1: that you'll be following it as well and keeping us
Speaker 1: up to date with your Bloomberg opinion columns out really
Speaker 1: all week on the Bloomberg and please do follow Jonah
Speaker 1: Sarah for all of his wonderful columns. That's Jonah Sarah,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg opinion columnist joining us and his latest column. Facebook
Speaker 1: has only itself to blame for drastic remedy, and our
Speaker 1: thanks to Emily Chang for bringing us that wonderful interview
Speaker 1: with newly minted billionaire Brian Chesky his golden retriever, Sir
Speaker 1: Richard Parker. I'm sure we'll also benefit from this I
Speaker 1: p O. As we said, we are waiting for the
Speaker 1: first trade. Emily brought the news of where it was
Speaker 1: being priced to Brian, and I can tell you because
Speaker 1: I saw the screen his eyebrows raised when she said
Speaker 1: one thirty nine. That's of course now moved up even
Speaker 1: higher to one fifty And we haven't even had a
Speaker 1: first trade yet, so it's not done yet. We're off
Speaker 1: to the races. Let's bring in Mundy Singh for a
Speaker 1: little bit of intelligence here. Mundy senior tech industry analyst
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg Intelligence and has been listening to that interview
Speaker 1: as well. A b n B. The I p O
Speaker 1: priced at sixty eight dollars. We're looking at more than
Speaker 1: double that now, and Emily put that to Brian Chesky
Speaker 1: and he was extremely surprised. Are there dangers here, Maundy
Speaker 1: that it's going to be overpriced? I think so, especially
Speaker 1: you know when you look at evaluation of about fifteen
Speaker 1: to twenty times sales for a new I p O
Speaker 1: and a mature company like Airbnb. Airbnb is not a
Speaker 1: startup or you know, an early stage company like Snowflake was,
Speaker 1: you know, a couple of months back. So this is
Speaker 1: a company that will likely have five billion dollars in
Speaker 1: revenue next year. And for any you know, high growth company,
Speaker 1: the most important thing investors care about is growth. So
Speaker 1: you know, we are still coming out of the pandemic,
Speaker 1: and yes, there will be a vaccine driven recovery next year,
Speaker 1: but beyond that, I'm not so sure Airbnb can keep
Speaker 1: growing at thirt top line every year. And that's the risk.
Speaker 1: When the market values at fifteen to twenty times sales,
Speaker 1: the valuations can be cut into half the moment you
Speaker 1: know there is a doubt that the growth is going
Speaker 1: to decelerate. Mandyp He came out and said that in April,
Speaker 1: when they got debt financing, the price they got then
Speaker 1: would have priced them at thirty books a share. In
Speaker 1: April was obviously a very different time. We were just
Speaker 1: into the pandemic and it was the worst of the pandemic.
Speaker 1: But that's a huge difference thirty dollars a share. It
Speaker 1: shows you how just a sentiment can change absolutely, and
Speaker 1: you know they have to go to Silver Lake and
Speaker 1: six Streets. Really, these guys are the veterans, you know
Speaker 1: when it comes to the private equity investments. So at
Speaker 1: that point of time, Airbnb was going through a cash
Speaker 1: burn issue. He mentioned about cancelations. Cancelations were at its
Speaker 1: peak at that time and they really had to raise cash.
Speaker 1: So the market sentiment has shifted completely since then. And look,
Speaker 1: other sectors in tech have also done well. We have
Speaker 1: seen a lot of software I p s do really well.
Speaker 1: The biggest concern I have with Airbnb is online travel
Speaker 1: is a saturated or somewhat of you know, a highly
Speaker 1: penetrated market when it comes to shift to online. You
Speaker 1: look at food delivery. Food delivery is still in the
Speaker 1: very early stages of you know, shifting to online. But
Speaker 1: in case of Airbnb, it's a consolidated market. You've got
Speaker 1: three big players Booking, Expedia, Airbnb. I think what Airbnb
Speaker 1: has to show is really good execution, probably take share
Speaker 1: from Expedia for it to keep justifying this kind of evaluation.
Speaker 1: And he did mention that there how brought back Airbnb experiences,
Speaker 1: and they are looking at opportunities in other sort of dimensions.
Speaker 1: Certain opportunities are perishable, was the word to use. Certain
Speaker 1: are not, and we'll look at those down the road.
Speaker 1: So presumably experiences is not a perishable opportunity for them,
Speaker 1: and so they brought that back, but they had to
Speaker 1: to let some of that go now. He also mentioned
Speaker 1: that they took two d and fifty million dollars from
Speaker 1: the balance sheet to give it to their hosts at
Speaker 1: the beginning of the pandemic. It was a very very
Speaker 1: difficult time. There is danger here that they're going to
Speaker 1: have to keep tapping that balance sheet every time there's
Speaker 1: a hiccup, right, bundyep Well, so Airbnb again is a
Speaker 1: gig economy company, and with the gig economy companies, you know,
Speaker 1: when you don't have all these people who are kind
Speaker 1: of working for you but they are not employees, you
Speaker 1: have to keep, you know, using incentives. It's the same
Speaker 1: with Uber having to use driver incentives. It's the same
Speaker 1: with door Dash having to use incentives for the careers.
Speaker 1: And Airbnb has to keep doing things, which is why
Speaker 1: we think the cost of doing business for the gig
Speaker 1: economy companies is higher than the traditional you know, ok
Speaker 1: is like booking an Expedia, So that will weigh on
Speaker 1: on the cost side for the near to medium term.
Speaker 1: The people want things to be intimate and private. Now,
Speaker 1: he was explaining why he thinks the Airbnb has a
Speaker 1: leg up on just the general hotel room. He also
Speaker 1: said that for business travel, you know, people don't need
Speaker 1: to check in at an airport at midnight to have
Speaker 1: an eight am meeting anymore anything, so that that will
Speaker 1: also help airbnbs business. I mean, there are reasonable expectations,
Speaker 1: but are they scientific. Well, so, look, the last time
Speaker 1: we had a crisis, financial crisis, Airbnb started back then.
Speaker 1: Now we had sort of you know, a six month crisis.
Speaker 1: Things will change, I'm sure you know, coming out of
Speaker 1: this pandemic. Consumer behavior will change. Now Airbnb will be
Speaker 1: able to you know, benefit from that change, but chances
Speaker 1: are there will be another startup somewhere who's also trying to,
Speaker 1: you know, do things to leverage the change in habits
Speaker 1: and and so I think I treat Airbnb as a
Speaker 1: mature company. And granted they have created this category alternative accommodations,
Speaker 1: but it's not said that they can keep you know,
Speaker 1: growing their top line, they have to find new categories
Speaker 1: for growth, and there's a still a lot to execute upon. Alright,
Speaker 1: man Deep, thank you, Mandy. People will get back now
Speaker 1: to his Bloomberg to what's that a b NB taker
Speaker 1: to see when the first trade trades. Mandeep Sing is
Speaker 1: senior tech industry analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence and of course
Speaker 1: giving us some context there around that. Brian Chesky interview
Speaker 1: Brian very adept At giving us his personal story, which
Speaker 1: of course always goes down well with investors, particularly when
Speaker 1: you talk about your mom and dad being so social
Speaker 1: workers and how you're going to celebrate with your golden retriever.
Speaker 1: Let's bring in now somebody who has been watching with
Speaker 1: great interest the Scotus hearings and Funny and Freddy. We're
Speaker 1: not going to get a decision from Scotus obviously until
Speaker 1: the middle of next year, but Chris Whale and German
Speaker 1: of Whale and Global Advisors has lots of thoughts on
Speaker 1: what should happen and what will happen. Chris welcome, Oh,
Speaker 1: thank you, Vannie. I hope you're well great, Thank you.
Speaker 1: So talk to us a little bit about what we
Speaker 1: heard yesterday at the Supreme Court. It was happening as
Speaker 1: we were live on air, so we didn't get a
Speaker 1: chance to actually listen in on the oral arguments. But
Speaker 1: if you heard them, what were the orient arguments made
Speaker 1: and if you didn't, what would have been made? Well, No,
Speaker 1: I I read the summaries. I didn't get a chance
Speaker 1: to actually listen to it. I probably will later. But essentially,
Speaker 1: the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie Mac, the r sets
Speaker 1: private shareholders are arguing that the money's taken by the
Speaker 1: Treasury after the failure of these two entities should be returned.
Speaker 1: And they're basically saying, well, these are private comp and
Speaker 1: ease the received or the excum of the conservatorship was
Speaker 1: wrongly imposed upon us, and and you know we should
Speaker 1: basically get the companies back for nothing. Um. I take
Speaker 1: a different view, which is that the companies did in
Speaker 1: fact fail. Congress provided a framework for dealing with this,
Speaker 1: and the Treasury required them when they were taken over,
Speaker 1: to pay the taxpayer for the rap for the securities
Speaker 1: at the issue. In other words, Fannie Freddy Mac mortgage
Speaker 1: bonds are triple A rated because the government of the
Speaker 1: United States stands behind them. The government of the United
Speaker 1: States also stands behind the two corporate entities. The companies
Speaker 1: at the plaintiffs and the Supreme Court action are trying
Speaker 1: to get control of again. And as you know, during
Speaker 1: the Bush administration, there was a lot of talk and
Speaker 1: a lot of acts about getting Fannie and Freddy out
Speaker 1: of government control. So here we are, and essentially the
Speaker 1: plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to step in between
Speaker 1: Congress and the executive branch and essentially overturned the decisions
Speaker 1: made by Treasury with the authority of Congress and return
Speaker 1: the moneies to private shareholders. I don't think that's going
Speaker 1: to happen so and I've I've felt that way since
Speaker 1: day one. Judge Lamberth many years ago came out with
Speaker 1: a decision. It basically said, Vanni, I'm sorry, I can't
Speaker 1: do anything for you. Go up to Capitol Hill and
Speaker 1: he said, this is a political problem. And he's right,
Speaker 1: because when Congress creates something, they created Fannie Mae and
Speaker 1: Freddie Mack, and then they subsequently sold shares to the public. Okay,
Speaker 1: you end up with this hybrid. It's neither public nor private.
Speaker 1: But the one thing that you can very clearly see
Speaker 1: is that these are not independent entities. They're federally chartered
Speaker 1: and all of the india of control that you would use,
Speaker 1: say in a bank, uh situation or in company if
Speaker 1: you're trying to decide who's in control. The government is
Speaker 1: still in control. They regulate them, the appoint the officers
Speaker 1: or review you know, the appointment of officers and directors.
Speaker 1: They have a lot of public policy control over them. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: And that is then the powers, which is back to
Speaker 1: Mark Calabria. In some ways, he's the f h F
Speaker 1: A head. Will he keep his job through the next
Speaker 1: administration and what will he do? That's when clear we
Speaker 1: have to find out. And again this is in front
Speaker 1: of the courts if the president has the power to
Speaker 1: remove him for any reason. Remember they litigated over this,
Speaker 1: and they also litigated over the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
Speaker 1: because it was a unit terry, single director kind of
Speaker 1: a design for the agency. And so what happened was
Speaker 1: the courts ultimately said, now the president can remove at
Speaker 1: the time, this was Richard Cordrey anytime he wants because
Speaker 1: to prevent the president from extra sizing that authority they
Speaker 1: judged to be unconstitutional. So my guess is is that
Speaker 1: the Biden administration is going to find some way, one
Speaker 1: way or another once the courts have ruled to remove
Speaker 1: Mr Callabria because he is so far out of step
Speaker 1: with both the industry and with what we need today,
Speaker 1: I think he's going to have a fairly short half life.
Speaker 1: What does it mean for the mortgage industry in the
Speaker 1: United States? Chris? Where do you see it headed? Oh?
Speaker 1: Next year is going to be another boom year. Profit
Speaker 1: margins will be less because competition for those loans is intensifying.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm in the process of buying a
Speaker 1: house right now. I got pre approved in a day. Well,
Speaker 1: you're though you're special, Chris. No, I'm not special. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you that. And this was a non bank. I
Speaker 1: won't mention their name, But the non banks are so
Speaker 1: much more efficient than the commercial banks. It's frightening. I
Speaker 1: got an appointment with Bank America a week later, and
Speaker 1: I got pre approved by a non bank next day,
Speaker 1: had two. So are there any dangers in the system left? Yes,
Speaker 1: if volumes slowed down, then uh. The forbearance that Congress
Speaker 1: gave borrowers is going to become a problem because Congress
Speaker 1: didn't pay for cleaning up the mass. They left it
Speaker 1: with the private sector, and that's unfair. The Congress is
Speaker 1: going to have to go back pretty quickly in January
Speaker 1: February and provide some kind of support for the industry
Speaker 1: to clean up all of the forgiveness and the forbearance
Speaker 1: that was provided for and the Cares Act. And it
Speaker 1: wasn't just consumer residential mortgage loans, Fotnie, this was business
Speaker 1: loans too. You had a lot of states imposed moratoria
Speaker 1: on private lending, auto loans, all of these things. Well,
Speaker 1: who's paying for that? The note holders and the investors
Speaker 1: and the companies that issue these uh these loans. So
Speaker 1: we have a kind of a troubling situation because if
Speaker 1: we mess up the private bond market, this economy has
Speaker 1: got big problems. The reason the US recovered so well
Speaker 1: during this mess with COVID is because we still have
Speaker 1: a private marketplace. Chris, it's always just fascinating to speak
Speaker 1: with you, Chris Whale, And of course author are several
Speaker 1: books as well, most recently Ford men. Do look them
Speaker 1: up on Amazon dot Com or your nearest bookstore dealer.
Speaker 1: Talking to Chris, they're about Fanny Freddie. Of course we're
Speaker 1: not going to get any resolution on that anytime soon,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. All Right, it's time not to talk
Speaker 1: packaged foods. When is it not time to talk packaged foods.
Speaker 1: Let's bring in Xavier uncle Vic who is CEO of
Speaker 1: Amy's Kitchen. Savir first, give us, you know, the the
Speaker 1: overview of what happened to you from the beginning of
Speaker 1: the pandemic to now. Did you see a surge or
Speaker 1: did people just stay away completely from stores and you
Speaker 1: know there therefore hurting your sales? Good morning, good afternoon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for welcoming me. Yes, definitely, we've seen a
Speaker 1: significant surge and we were as a company delighted to
Speaker 1: help those consumers needs. But the pandemic peak has been
Speaker 1: significant for our business. For me, growth in sales or
Speaker 1: frozen minimum of fifty for frozen foods to a maximum
Speaker 1: of a hundred sixty percent growth in sales during the
Speaker 1: peak of the pandemic for our soups, you know, um,
Speaker 1: and we were, we were, you know, definitely challenged to
Speaker 1: those orders by our customers and consumers. They're happy also
Speaker 1: to mobilize to help the consumers to feel better, eating
Speaker 1: better and healthier as well. Yeah, and you know, we
Speaker 1: all know the Amy's Kitchen packaged foods from our local
Speaker 1: drain reader CPS or what have you. You're really everywhere
Speaker 1: and there are two hundred and fifty varieties of your
Speaker 1: packaged foods, and you're also in thirty countries. I have
Speaker 1: to ask, are the spacks circling listen? We were probably independent,
Speaker 1: family owned business. Sure, I think this is this is
Speaker 1: something that we're super delighted to be when it comes
Speaker 1: to the nature of our company. And at the moment
Speaker 1: of time, Yes, our family founders have been massively contacted
Speaker 1: in the past today where they're very much willing to
Speaker 1: stay remain independent and family owned as a business. And
Speaker 1: there's there's a value to this because it allows us
Speaker 1: to think and act long term and do the right
Speaker 1: thing according to our purpose and our values. And and
Speaker 1: we're allotted today to be in a position where we
Speaker 1: can we can grow and develop from within and uh
Speaker 1: and having a great team and great employees at Amy's
Speaker 1: that are very much supporting our growth agenda and and
Speaker 1: helping the world to be in a very place in
Speaker 1: in in a way, sure, but is it not tempting
Speaker 1: to take some of the capital or some of the
Speaker 1: ideas so that you could scale up even further. I
Speaker 1: mean you're doing a pretty good job of scaling already.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're in thirty other countries around the world,
Speaker 1: but you know, a capital and fusion like that or
Speaker 1: an I you is it not at all tempting. It
Speaker 1: is always tempting, Yeah, but you you you also have
Speaker 1: to reflect about what your long term strategy as a
Speaker 1: company and and what the owners of your company wants
Speaker 1: to do. And for us, we're delighted to say that
Speaker 1: our owners are very much looking to stay in the
Speaker 1: course and be independent and and help us to our
Speaker 1: challenge the business and the ones that are running the
Speaker 1: business to find ability to stay and remain free by
Speaker 1: performing better. And this is what we've done for the
Speaker 1: last years as a as a leadership team and me
Speaker 1: as a CEO, having the objective of driving financial freedom
Speaker 1: so we can reinvest and we're not tempted by looking
Speaker 1: outside of our our founders and an existing capital savire
Speaker 1: and talk to us about a competition between you guys
Speaker 1: and the likes of say Bird's Eye or Finders or
Speaker 1: some of these others. How do you weight watchers? I mean,
Speaker 1: there are so many out there, and yet it is
Speaker 1: pretty easy to spot the Amy's packaged foods in your
Speaker 1: in your local growth where you've got to, you know,
Speaker 1: very definite look and it's it's a niche products, But
Speaker 1: how are you keeping your moat around your business? So
Speaker 1: first and foremost, as you as you just said, we're
Speaker 1: the only family owned business. We're also the only business
Speaker 1: that is proposing to consumers um organic, sustainably sourced ingredients
Speaker 1: that are making our meals that we cook every day
Speaker 1: in our kitchens, and and the way we make our food,
Speaker 1: the way we source our ingredients, it is quite unique.
Speaker 1: So the way we position ourselves in the marketplace is
Speaker 1: not so much looking at our competition and trying to
Speaker 1: gain share. We're very much and that's the discussion we
Speaker 1: have with all the customers that we do business with.
Speaker 1: The whole Foods of the world are independent natural stores,
Speaker 1: but also wall Mark and also Target. We look at
Speaker 1: it at Amy's helping those customers to grow the category
Speaker 1: we're in, so to grow the entree category, to grow
Speaker 1: the soup categories. So we keep saying we're not here
Speaker 1: to gain share on top of our competitors. We're here
Speaker 1: to bring new consumers to the marketplace and grow the categories.
Speaker 1: Grow the frozen category, grow the soup category. So for us,
Speaker 1: for many many years, when the soup can category was down,
Speaker 1: Amy's was growing. When the frozen category were down, Amy's
Speaker 1: was growing and helping those customers to grow and to
Speaker 1: develop their cells. So it was a very mutual relationship
Speaker 1: by helping having consumers being exposed to better food for
Speaker 1: them and better foods of the planet. Zavier were pretty
Speaker 1: much out of time. But I have to ask you
Speaker 1: what was the best selling items through the pandemic and
Speaker 1: what your favorite is too. My favorite is the result
Speaker 1: of I cannot leave without a beautiful risulto with a
Speaker 1: with a mail of those marshrooms being cooked in a
Speaker 1: in a night. Choose and the best seller, Uh, it's
Speaker 1: not the best seller. It's not the best seller which
Speaker 1: was And so where it depends on where we are.
Speaker 1: So if you think about pizza vegan bugarita pizza is
Speaker 1: our best seller, but it all depends in the channel
Speaker 1: we operate, and we're happy to say, and this is
Speaker 1: why we're somewhat everywhere but also very customized. Fault customers. Well,
Speaker 1: you're making us hungry now, Savier. So Thank you for
Speaker 1: that savior. Uncle Vic is the CEO of Amy's Kitchen
Speaker 1: and me thank him forward joining Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Boomberg Markets podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm Bonnie Quinn. I'm on Twitter at Bonny Quinn. And
Speaker 1: Paul Sweeney I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. Before the podcast,
Speaker 1: you can always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio