WEBVTT - SpaceX To Target $75B in IPO at $135 Per Share 

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:12.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Bloomberg Tech is alive

0:00:12.960 --> 0:00:16.759
<v Speaker 1>from coast to coast with Caroline Hyde in New York

0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:19.040
<v Speaker 1>and Ed Lovelow in San Francisco.

0:00:22.239 --> 0:00:23.720
<v Speaker 2>This is Bloomberg Tech coming up.

0:00:23.760 --> 0:00:27.240
<v Speaker 3>Belon Musk rejects another Wall Street convention, sets a fixed

0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:30.280
<v Speaker 3>price for his space xipo ahead of the marketing phase

0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:33.040
<v Speaker 3>of the deal. The plan offer shares at one hundred

0:00:33.040 --> 0:00:34.520
<v Speaker 3>and thirty five dollars a piece.

0:00:34.479 --> 0:00:37.639
<v Speaker 4>Plus Palo Alto Networks falls after the company reported its

0:00:37.680 --> 0:00:40.920
<v Speaker 4>results failing to meet really elevated by side expectations. This

0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:44.120
<v Speaker 4>following a more than six percent run to date.

0:00:44.240 --> 0:00:47.840
<v Speaker 3>And candidates backed by tech billionaires and founders fell short

0:00:47.960 --> 0:00:51.400
<v Speaker 3>in California's primary elections. Yesterday. We break down the results

0:00:51.400 --> 0:00:53.120
<v Speaker 3>and what it means for Silicon Valley.

0:00:53.600 --> 0:00:56.280
<v Speaker 4>But let's check in on what current geopolitics means for

0:00:56.320 --> 0:00:56.880
<v Speaker 4>this market.

0:00:56.920 --> 0:00:57.800
<v Speaker 2>We take a breather.

0:00:57.920 --> 0:01:00.480
<v Speaker 4>We have been at record high after record high, have

0:01:00.560 --> 0:01:02.520
<v Speaker 4>been on a nine day tair. The NASDAG have been

0:01:02.600 --> 0:01:05.080
<v Speaker 4>up for four straight training days. Today we pause rob

0:01:05.120 --> 0:01:07.160
<v Speaker 4>By just a tenth percent. Of course, Front and Center

0:01:07.280 --> 0:01:10.120
<v Speaker 4>is maybe conflict rumpting once more, A little bit that

0:01:10.200 --> 0:01:12.880
<v Speaker 4>sees far under pressure between the US and Iran. All

0:01:12.959 --> 0:01:15.759
<v Speaker 4>those higher bonialds they go higher. Stocks just pull back

0:01:15.760 --> 0:01:16.319
<v Speaker 4>a little bit ed.

0:01:16.319 --> 0:01:16.720
<v Speaker 2>But what are you.

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:21.080
<v Speaker 3>Watching, skit today's big number eighty four point seventy five billion.

0:01:21.200 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 3>Alphabet is upsizing It's equity raised to that level, up

0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:27.920
<v Speaker 3>from the previously announced rays of eighty billion dollars. All

0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:32.840
<v Speaker 3>this to fund its AI infrastructure expansion. Interesting like this

0:01:32.880 --> 0:01:35.280
<v Speaker 3>is a multi day story. The stock's basically flat, but

0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:38.720
<v Speaker 3>is an element of dilution, the main point being parts

0:01:38.760 --> 0:01:42.440
<v Speaker 3>of the equity offering really oversubscribe to Alphabet's saying okay,

0:01:42.760 --> 0:01:46.400
<v Speaker 3>we'll do a little bit more. Google's lay is fundraising.

0:01:46.600 --> 0:01:49.720
<v Speaker 3>There's a race happening here, guys. Highlights this scramble for

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:53.520
<v Speaker 3>capital in the Aire, and now SpaceX is taking things

0:01:53.520 --> 0:01:56.600
<v Speaker 3>a step further. Elon Musk company is planning a seventy

0:01:56.600 --> 0:01:59.360
<v Speaker 3>five billion dollar IPO and has already set a fixed

0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:03.360
<v Speaker 3>share price ahead of the traditional roadso process. Another sign

0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:06.960
<v Speaker 3>Musk is willing to rewrite Wall Street's playbook. That's all

0:02:07.160 --> 0:02:11.280
<v Speaker 3>according to sources. Bloomberg's caffriin dollarities here with more.

0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:12.160
<v Speaker 2>It's been.

0:02:13.919 --> 0:02:15.800
<v Speaker 3>Well, a bit of a well in few days, So

0:02:15.840 --> 0:02:18.280
<v Speaker 3>we report it's one hundred and thirty five dollars a share,

0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:21.560
<v Speaker 3>five hundred and fifty six point five million shares. Do

0:02:21.639 --> 0:02:24.120
<v Speaker 3>the math, they'll raise seventy five billion dollars. That's not

0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 3>how this typically works in an IPO process.

0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:31.680
<v Speaker 5>Why No, Typically a company that's looking to list in

0:02:31.720 --> 0:02:34.800
<v Speaker 5>the US markets is going to look at a range.

0:02:34.840 --> 0:02:37.360
<v Speaker 5>They're not going with a firm number like this one

0:02:37.440 --> 0:02:41.000
<v Speaker 5>hundred and thirty five that you're referencing. And that's because

0:02:41.080 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 5>in the next week or so there's a lot of

0:02:43.280 --> 0:02:44.959
<v Speaker 5>things that could change. This is supposed to be a

0:02:45.000 --> 0:02:48.840
<v Speaker 5>marketing process, but locking in a price of one hundred

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:51.679
<v Speaker 5>and thirty five dollars a share is giving some sort

0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:54.359
<v Speaker 5>of certainty. It's giving a signal to the market of

0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 5>what to expect. We're expecting that next week, by around

0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:02.120
<v Speaker 5>the eleventh is when we could see these SpaceX shares

0:03:02.160 --> 0:03:05.200
<v Speaker 5>come to market, But even leading up to it, it's

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:09.919
<v Speaker 5>just another indication of the difference in the approach that

0:03:10.320 --> 0:03:12.920
<v Speaker 5>SpaceX and Musk's team are taking at this time.

0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:16.360
<v Speaker 4>I mean, there is some precedent for doing it this way, Catherine,

0:03:16.480 --> 0:03:16.799
<v Speaker 4>just not of.

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:21.359
<v Speaker 5>This size, right, absolutely so, smaller companies can take this

0:03:21.520 --> 0:03:25.000
<v Speaker 5>route that SpaceX is looking like it will, but it

0:03:25.040 --> 0:03:28.840
<v Speaker 5>is not typical for a company, especially given that this

0:03:29.200 --> 0:03:33.600
<v Speaker 5>is supposed to be the largest listing on record. So

0:03:33.639 --> 0:03:36.960
<v Speaker 5>it's taking just some unconventional roots. But you're absolutely right,

0:03:37.240 --> 0:03:40.600
<v Speaker 5>it's not the first time or likely the last, especially

0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:42.200
<v Speaker 5>for companies of smaller sizes.

0:03:43.200 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 4>I mean, and you've been at the forefront of reporting

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:48.520
<v Speaker 4>each tick by tick when it comes to what's happening

0:03:48.520 --> 0:03:50.960
<v Speaker 4>with en On Musk and SpaceX more broadly. But isn't

0:03:50.960 --> 0:03:52.440
<v Speaker 4>there there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen

0:03:52.520 --> 0:03:54.960
<v Speaker 4>right now. How we understanding is to what this price

0:03:55.000 --> 0:03:58.440
<v Speaker 4>point means and what it means for all of those friends, family,

0:03:58.520 --> 0:04:01.200
<v Speaker 4>those are about to potentially becomes well.

0:04:01.120 --> 0:04:02.920
<v Speaker 3>The price point is interesting. So one hundred and thirty

0:04:02.920 --> 0:04:05.920
<v Speaker 3>five dollars to share is a twenty eight percent premium

0:04:05.960 --> 0:04:08.720
<v Speaker 3>from when they did a stock split on May the fifteen,

0:04:08.840 --> 0:04:11.840
<v Speaker 3>So basically SpaceX's shares were above five hundred dollars in

0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:13.600
<v Speaker 3>the private market, so it did a five for one

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:16.520
<v Speaker 3>took it down to one hundred and five at the

0:04:16.560 --> 0:04:18.680
<v Speaker 3>valuation of one point twenty five trillion. So this is

0:04:18.720 --> 0:04:20.839
<v Speaker 3>like math, it's kind of you know, a little bit dry.

0:04:20.920 --> 0:04:22.960
<v Speaker 3>But the point is is that the share price at

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:26.680
<v Speaker 3>one thirty five is not keeping up with the jump

0:04:26.680 --> 0:04:30.479
<v Speaker 3>in valuation. There's dilution there, but the friends and family

0:04:30.520 --> 0:04:33.720
<v Speaker 3>that'll get an allocation, all of the mechanics are still

0:04:33.720 --> 0:04:36.360
<v Speaker 3>in place, like traditional IPO stuff. The roadshow will happen,

0:04:36.520 --> 0:04:39.080
<v Speaker 3>it will price in the normal way. You're just saying, like,

0:04:39.279 --> 0:04:42.320
<v Speaker 3>here's the number. It's a very very unusual situation, by

0:04:42.360 --> 0:04:45.120
<v Speaker 3>the way, Bloomerskaarn dotty, thank you very much. Top recording.

0:04:45.160 --> 0:04:48.200
<v Speaker 3>As always, some news crossing the terminal as well. Elon

0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:53.680
<v Speaker 3>Musk's ai company Xai has paused hiring for professionals to

0:04:53.720 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 3>train its groc chatbot on a range of specialized skills.

0:04:56.440 --> 0:04:59.160
<v Speaker 3>That's according to sources, who say the decision is at

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:03.279
<v Speaker 3>least partly to concerns that the company's HR department is

0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:09.760
<v Speaker 3>overwhelmed and often unable to process new candidates. Read that

0:05:09.800 --> 0:05:11.120
<v Speaker 3>one on the Bloomberg.

0:05:10.720 --> 0:05:12.800
<v Speaker 2>Carat we always will.

0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 4>Meanwhile, read on the Bloomberg just how these markets are performing? Look,

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:18.120
<v Speaker 4>you know the S and P five hundred had been

0:05:18.120 --> 0:05:21.000
<v Speaker 4>writing a really powerful winning streak.

0:05:21.160 --> 0:05:22.520
<v Speaker 2>It was up for nine straight days.

0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:25.400
<v Speaker 4>Maybe it's nine straight weeks stocks a record hires as

0:05:25.440 --> 0:05:28.839
<v Speaker 4>of yesterday. Next guest saying, look, we are just actually

0:05:28.880 --> 0:05:32.719
<v Speaker 4>at the infancy of this AI industrial revolution. Joining us

0:05:32.800 --> 0:05:36.080
<v Speaker 4>now with her outlook Rebecca Wels CEO, Chief Investment Officer,

0:05:36.279 --> 0:05:38.960
<v Speaker 4>whilst the wealth management and look we take a breather today,

0:05:38.960 --> 0:05:41.760
<v Speaker 4>it's more about geopolitics, Rebecca. But how when we have

0:05:41.920 --> 0:05:44.720
<v Speaker 4>five trillion dollar companies and we have Alphabet tapping the

0:05:44.760 --> 0:05:48.040
<v Speaker 4>market for eighty five billion dollars let's call it. How

0:05:48.320 --> 0:05:50.720
<v Speaker 4>is that not some sort of sign that we're kind

0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 4>of nearer the end than the beginning here.

0:05:54.320 --> 0:05:55.560
<v Speaker 6>No, I don't think so, Caroly.

0:05:55.640 --> 0:05:59.400
<v Speaker 7>I think this is the very very beginning stages of monetization.

0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:02.520
<v Speaker 7>Now we I've seen some financing changes. I think Alphabet

0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 7>Google is just trying to get ahead of the three

0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:08.920
<v Speaker 7>huge IPOs. Obviously just talked about SpaceX, the largest IPO

0:06:08.920 --> 0:06:13.320
<v Speaker 7>in history, will be the largest company valuation and the

0:06:13.480 --> 0:06:14.320
<v Speaker 7>entire world.

0:06:14.520 --> 0:06:16.360
<v Speaker 2>So that in and of itself is just crazy.

0:06:16.360 --> 0:06:19.520
<v Speaker 7>Then you follow that with opening AI and anthropic googlegle

0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:22.320
<v Speaker 7>once to get more money. If you look at the hyperscalers,

0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:25.520
<v Speaker 7>they're usually writing about a little under thirty billion of

0:06:25.560 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 7>bonds a year and last year in twenty twenty five,

0:06:28.000 --> 0:06:30.080
<v Speaker 7>they wrote one hundred and twenty one billion. So we're

0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:33.880
<v Speaker 7>starting to see we can't get enough capital to do

0:06:34.080 --> 0:06:36.680
<v Speaker 7>all of the investments the capex that we want, and

0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:38.479
<v Speaker 7>so I think if we get the capex, we're going

0:06:38.560 --> 0:06:39.920
<v Speaker 7>to keep seeing this market go up.

0:06:40.080 --> 0:06:41.280
<v Speaker 2>It's the beginning stages.

0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:44.520
<v Speaker 3>So, Rebecca, you are the capital or you're a part

0:06:44.560 --> 0:06:47.919
<v Speaker 3>of the capital. Right, you have the alphabet equity raise SpaceX,

0:06:48.000 --> 0:06:52.240
<v Speaker 3>IPO and tropics filed confidentially, a lot of debt financing,

0:06:52.560 --> 0:06:55.359
<v Speaker 3>and then there's the Nvidia bit. Is this the fomo

0:06:55.480 --> 0:06:58.120
<v Speaker 3>trade where you just have to have exposure to everything

0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:02.200
<v Speaker 3>or do you pick a hole in the race and say, actually,

0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:04.840
<v Speaker 3>in the end, why there are five lanes, but I

0:07:04.880 --> 0:07:06.880
<v Speaker 3>only think three of them will will succeed.

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:09.360
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's a great question.

0:07:09.440 --> 0:07:12.200
<v Speaker 7>It's so hard to pick the winners at the beginning

0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:15.920
<v Speaker 7>stages of monetization because we don't know who what technologies

0:07:15.960 --> 0:07:18.680
<v Speaker 7>are actually gonna win out or what methodologies. So I

0:07:18.720 --> 0:07:22.520
<v Speaker 7>do think you have to sprinkle some capital kind of everywhere.

0:07:22.240 --> 0:07:24.120
<v Speaker 2>But that's and you have to hold.

0:07:24.160 --> 0:07:25.560
<v Speaker 7>You have to be willing, Like if you look at

0:07:25.560 --> 0:07:28.560
<v Speaker 7>the monetization of Nasdak in the nineties we had you know,

0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:32.680
<v Speaker 7>thirty thirty three percent overall, but we had fifteen pullbacks.

0:07:32.680 --> 0:07:37.080
<v Speaker 7>So people need to understand that monetization is volatile and

0:07:37.400 --> 0:07:40.920
<v Speaker 7>get the steal the band of steel to stay the

0:07:41.040 --> 0:07:44.240
<v Speaker 7>course and to be in for at least the long haul.

0:07:44.320 --> 0:07:48.040
<v Speaker 7>Most of our IPOs usually are you know, coming down

0:07:48.160 --> 0:07:49.960
<v Speaker 7>in the first twelve months, so I think there's gonna

0:07:49.960 --> 0:07:52.440
<v Speaker 7>be a lot of emotion. Possibly wait till the at

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:56.320
<v Speaker 7>least the insider lockups expire in six months, and then

0:07:56.440 --> 0:07:58.080
<v Speaker 7>go in. But I do think if you're going to

0:07:58.160 --> 0:08:00.120
<v Speaker 7>participate in the emotion of it, you're going to I

0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:02.800
<v Speaker 7>want to feel the pressure pulling back. So I would wait,

0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:05.240
<v Speaker 7>and I would buy in strategically, and I would keep

0:08:05.280 --> 0:08:08.240
<v Speaker 7>my investment broad I.

0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:11.160
<v Speaker 4>Mean, in many ways people come what may well have

0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:13.680
<v Speaker 4>exposure to these names just by the very weight within

0:08:13.720 --> 0:08:14.600
<v Speaker 4>certain benchmarks.

0:08:14.600 --> 0:08:15.880
<v Speaker 2>But Rebecca, how much exposure do.

0:08:15.920 --> 0:08:19.200
<v Speaker 4>You want outside of the US that the IPO frenzy

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:21.920
<v Speaker 4>is stealing the thunder when it comes to big US giants.

0:08:22.360 --> 0:08:25.760
<v Speaker 4>But still we've seen significant outperformance over an Asian training

0:08:25.800 --> 0:08:26.440
<v Speaker 4>for example.

0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:30.720
<v Speaker 7>Yes, I definitely think that you've got things in Korea Obviously,

0:08:30.800 --> 0:08:33.199
<v Speaker 7>you've got markets outside of the US that are going

0:08:33.280 --> 0:08:35.280
<v Speaker 7>to be a part of AI, and I look really

0:08:35.360 --> 0:08:38.600
<v Speaker 7>to the legislative policies. I'm really concerned about the Secure Act.

0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:42.400
<v Speaker 7>If the banking lobby is successful and really pulling weight

0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:44.360
<v Speaker 7>and teeth out of the stable corn in the United States,

0:08:44.360 --> 0:08:46.280
<v Speaker 7>it will route elsewhere and that is going to be

0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:48.720
<v Speaker 7>part of this whole AI monetization. We're changing our payment

0:08:48.760 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 7>system to digital that's coming.

0:08:50.800 --> 0:08:51.720
<v Speaker 2>So the United States.

0:08:51.559 --> 0:08:54.360
<v Speaker 7>Seem to be a part of that and facilitating that

0:08:54.400 --> 0:08:56.680
<v Speaker 7>and not trying to stop it and keep legacy systems

0:08:56.679 --> 0:08:58.720
<v Speaker 7>in place because they are on their out. It's going

0:08:58.760 --> 0:09:01.200
<v Speaker 7>to take time, but they are legacy, and we need

0:09:01.240 --> 0:09:04.959
<v Speaker 7>to keep making sure the United States is the focal

0:09:05.000 --> 0:09:06.880
<v Speaker 7>point of everything. But certainly I would pick up some

0:09:06.960 --> 0:09:08.080
<v Speaker 7>international as well.

0:09:09.679 --> 0:09:11.160
<v Speaker 3>Just what you said a minute ago, By the way,

0:09:12.360 --> 0:09:15.120
<v Speaker 3>love that participate in the emotion of it. I'm not

0:09:15.160 --> 0:09:19.880
<v Speaker 3>participating in the markets right for obvious reasons. Certainly participating

0:09:19.920 --> 0:09:22.199
<v Speaker 3>in the motion and the emotion of what's going on.

0:09:22.280 --> 0:09:25.840
<v Speaker 3>So now you've given me something to think about. There's

0:09:25.960 --> 0:09:28.960
<v Speaker 3>statement as well, right. Jensen Mung's on stage again last

0:09:29.040 --> 0:09:32.240
<v Speaker 3>night for the seventh time in five days saying that

0:09:32.280 --> 0:09:35.520
<v Speaker 3>you would be insane if you didn't see the return

0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:38.520
<v Speaker 3>on investment that is now real out in the world

0:09:38.559 --> 0:09:41.600
<v Speaker 3>from AI, and that you would be foolish, you know,

0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:45.560
<v Speaker 3>not to keep investing in the space. Do you see

0:09:45.600 --> 0:09:47.199
<v Speaker 3>it as clearly as he does.

0:09:48.520 --> 0:09:49.240
<v Speaker 2>Well, I was just.

0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:51.040
<v Speaker 7>Excited that he was on stage saying here's the first

0:09:51.120 --> 0:09:54.439
<v Speaker 7>laptop for an agentic AI agent Like I was like, yay,

0:09:54.559 --> 0:09:57.800
<v Speaker 7>Now we're buying laptops for agents AI agents, not people.

0:09:57.840 --> 0:09:59.040
<v Speaker 2>This is really interesting.

0:09:59.320 --> 0:10:03.480
<v Speaker 7>Listen, this is the largest technological change and the history

0:10:03.520 --> 0:10:06.560
<v Speaker 7>of human time. You can't be more hyperbolic and parabolic.

0:10:06.720 --> 0:10:09.360
<v Speaker 7>With these equity prices going up, there is going to

0:10:09.400 --> 0:10:10.079
<v Speaker 7>be volatility.

0:10:10.080 --> 0:10:11.120
<v Speaker 2>It is going to pull back.

0:10:11.320 --> 0:10:15.199
<v Speaker 7>But this is the largest opportunity for wealth creation and

0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:17.760
<v Speaker 7>for people, average people to get in on it.

0:10:17.960 --> 0:10:18.760
<v Speaker 6>Take only to.

0:10:18.720 --> 0:10:21.760
<v Speaker 7>The risk that you can tolerate, but definitely participate in

0:10:21.800 --> 0:10:24.439
<v Speaker 7>this and just know that you're going to have a volatility.

0:10:24.559 --> 0:10:27.160
<v Speaker 7>Stay the course, that's the theme. Stay the course and

0:10:27.200 --> 0:10:30.000
<v Speaker 7>you will be a winner in the long run. Financially. Anyways,

0:10:30.000 --> 0:10:31.760
<v Speaker 7>we don't know about all the other bad side of AI,

0:10:31.840 --> 0:10:33.480
<v Speaker 7>but the financial side positive.

0:10:35.720 --> 0:10:35.960
<v Speaker 6>Wow.

0:10:36.120 --> 0:10:39.560
<v Speaker 3>On debut, Rebecca Walsa, CEO and Chief investment officer of

0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:43.240
<v Speaker 3>so Wealth Management on Bloomberg Tech. Hit every single story

0:10:43.240 --> 0:10:44.839
<v Speaker 3>that we had to offer today, Thank you very much.

0:10:44.920 --> 0:10:49.040
<v Speaker 3>Now coming up Palato Networks fools after the company failed

0:10:49.040 --> 0:10:51.719
<v Speaker 3>to meet very elevated by side expectations. We got the

0:10:51.800 --> 0:10:55.000
<v Speaker 3>earning story and a little chat about a pay package

0:10:55.040 --> 0:10:55.880
<v Speaker 3>that's coming up next.

0:10:56.240 --> 0:10:57.280
<v Speaker 6>This is Bloomberg Tech.

0:11:05.160 --> 0:11:07.920
<v Speaker 4>Let's check in on Palo Alto Network shares down. They're

0:11:07.960 --> 0:11:10.199
<v Speaker 4>actually having their worst day and let's call it a

0:11:10.240 --> 0:11:12.000
<v Speaker 4>couple of months. April the tenth, we're off five to

0:11:12.040 --> 0:11:14.559
<v Speaker 4>five percent, but that's such a cybersecurity firm.

0:11:14.559 --> 0:11:16.440
<v Speaker 2>Actually reported really strong revenue growth.

0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:19.320
<v Speaker 4>They've again been fueled by AI spending in the fiscal

0:11:19.360 --> 0:11:22.680
<v Speaker 4>third quarter. It was up though against the Hima paralle

0:11:22.679 --> 0:11:26.320
<v Speaker 4>Alto network shares. Look, they're up fifty three percent so

0:11:26.400 --> 0:11:28.320
<v Speaker 4>far year today they were up sixty percent going into

0:11:28.320 --> 0:11:32.520
<v Speaker 4>this release. Let's talk more with Bloomberg's editor covering cybersecurity, Linduan,

0:11:32.600 --> 0:11:34.360
<v Speaker 4>and we've got plenty to talk about in the exec

0:11:34.480 --> 0:11:37.320
<v Speaker 4>chair as well. But first talk about these numbers, because

0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:39.719
<v Speaker 4>there was a lot of anticipation they raised, but it

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:40.320
<v Speaker 4>wasn't good.

0:11:40.240 --> 0:11:41.320
<v Speaker 6>Enough, Karlin.

0:11:41.480 --> 0:11:45.720
<v Speaker 8>It feels baffling at first, right, But as you noted

0:11:45.800 --> 0:11:48.360
<v Speaker 8>just now, there was a huge run up in this

0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:52.520
<v Speaker 8>dark ahead of the earnings. They have done amazingly since

0:11:52.640 --> 0:11:54.600
<v Speaker 8>the beginning of the year. I think there was a

0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:57.280
<v Speaker 8>lot of anticipation. I'm just going to call this like

0:11:57.320 --> 0:12:00.400
<v Speaker 8>the Nvidia effect. From here on out right, you can

0:12:00.440 --> 0:12:04.319
<v Speaker 8>beat on every single key metric, and that's what Palo

0:12:04.360 --> 0:12:09.160
<v Speaker 8>Alto did. Every beat on revenue, earnings, outlook was solid.

0:12:09.480 --> 0:12:11.680
<v Speaker 8>And yet your stock can still come down because of

0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:14.400
<v Speaker 8>that run up, because analysts aren't really honest about what

0:12:14.440 --> 0:12:17.040
<v Speaker 8>they want to see in those earnings, and because of

0:12:17.080 --> 0:12:19.400
<v Speaker 8>the macro review, right. I mean, I'm sure that it

0:12:19.440 --> 0:12:22.520
<v Speaker 8>doesn't help that the entire stock market is down on

0:12:22.760 --> 0:12:26.079
<v Speaker 8>usc run news on top of all that bad timing

0:12:26.080 --> 0:12:26.800
<v Speaker 8>for Palo Alto.

0:12:26.840 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 3>Of course, one of the issues that shareholders have with

0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:34.480
<v Speaker 3>the company, or as we put it, the recurring beef,

0:12:35.360 --> 0:12:38.720
<v Speaker 3>is with the pay package of the CEO and other

0:12:38.760 --> 0:12:41.839
<v Speaker 3>senior leaders. We ran this big feature twenty four hours

0:12:41.880 --> 0:12:43.040
<v Speaker 3>ago explaining it.

0:12:43.520 --> 0:12:44.440
<v Speaker 6>Explain it to us.

0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:47.920
<v Speaker 3>You know, that's a really interesting issue, as I said,

0:12:47.920 --> 0:12:49.760
<v Speaker 3>that's going on in the background.

0:12:49.760 --> 0:12:50.120
<v Speaker 2>Isn't it.

0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:53.520
<v Speaker 8>Now, This is an analysis that we did based on

0:12:54.360 --> 0:12:58.160
<v Speaker 8>proxy data that is available on the Bloomberg terminal, and

0:12:58.320 --> 0:13:03.160
<v Speaker 8>we went back several years to twenty fifteen, and what

0:13:03.200 --> 0:13:06.120
<v Speaker 8>that revealed to us in a surprising way. We didn't

0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:10.120
<v Speaker 8>expect to see this that Palo Alto Networks has seen

0:13:10.240 --> 0:13:14.280
<v Speaker 8>more rejections on its say on pay votes, which cover

0:13:15.240 --> 0:13:21.000
<v Speaker 8>executive compensation for that past year, than any other company

0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:24.760
<v Speaker 8>in the SMP five hundred. They have seen seven total

0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:29.200
<v Speaker 8>rejections by investors on those SAM pay votes since twenty fifteen.

0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:31.440
<v Speaker 8>No other company in the EDIX comes close to that.

0:13:32.840 --> 0:13:35.320
<v Speaker 4>The last vote I think was in December, and at

0:13:35.360 --> 0:13:37.880
<v Speaker 4>that point I think more than half of shareholder has

0:13:37.880 --> 0:13:40.680
<v Speaker 4>pushed back on the one hundred million dollars potentially coming

0:13:41.200 --> 0:13:43.960
<v Speaker 4>Nick kesh Aora's way. But to be fair to the guy,

0:13:44.480 --> 0:13:47.160
<v Speaker 4>the stock has added a market cap of one hundred billion.

0:13:47.240 --> 0:13:49.319
<v Speaker 4>Is that sort of how they tend to say, Like, yes,

0:13:49.559 --> 0:13:51.840
<v Speaker 4>he's paid more, actually more than some of the biggest

0:13:51.840 --> 0:13:54.000
<v Speaker 4>CEOs in the world, like a Tim Cook, but a

0:13:54.040 --> 0:13:56.720
<v Speaker 4>lot more is actually linked to the performance of the stock.

0:13:56.880 --> 0:13:57.400
<v Speaker 2>You're raising.

0:13:57.480 --> 0:14:00.360
<v Speaker 8>Such a good point, Caroline, and we actually hit that

0:14:00.520 --> 0:14:03.079
<v Speaker 8>in the story because the story itself isn't even just

0:14:03.120 --> 0:14:06.280
<v Speaker 8>about Palo Alto. It's about the effectiveness of these say

0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:09.000
<v Speaker 8>on pay votes. And in fact, there have been reports

0:14:09.080 --> 0:14:13.280
<v Speaker 8>done that suggest that investors like it and they like

0:14:13.360 --> 0:14:18.640
<v Speaker 8>to compensate CEOs when the returns on their investments are strong.

0:14:19.120 --> 0:14:22.040
<v Speaker 8>So in that way, Palo Alto and its CEO are

0:14:22.080 --> 0:14:25.840
<v Speaker 8>a bit of an anomaly because Palo Alto has soared,

0:14:25.920 --> 0:14:28.080
<v Speaker 8>as we just talked about, in the past year. In fact,

0:14:28.120 --> 0:14:31.440
<v Speaker 8>they've soared in the past like six years. They've been

0:14:31.600 --> 0:14:34.640
<v Speaker 8>on the rise since Aurora took over. I think they've

0:14:34.640 --> 0:14:37.600
<v Speaker 8>added well over one hundred billion dollars in market cap, right,

0:14:37.680 --> 0:14:41.600
<v Speaker 8>So you would think that their shareholders would vote supporting

0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:45.200
<v Speaker 8>that compensation, but they are an exception to that rule.

0:14:45.640 --> 0:14:47.200
<v Speaker 8>They have voted against it.

0:14:48.280 --> 0:14:51.200
<v Speaker 3>Nikesha ROR's package is valued at like nearly one hundred

0:14:51.200 --> 0:14:52.520
<v Speaker 3>million dollars, and one of the things you do in

0:14:52.560 --> 0:14:56.240
<v Speaker 3>the story is compare it with some of the titans

0:14:56.520 --> 0:15:01.080
<v Speaker 3>of corporate America. Right, So it's not just tech. You know,

0:15:01.120 --> 0:15:03.520
<v Speaker 3>you've outlined the performance of the stock. Why is it

0:15:03.560 --> 0:15:06.880
<v Speaker 3>that the shareholders think that number is too big relative

0:15:06.960 --> 0:15:09.480
<v Speaker 3>to Nikesh's peers?

0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:11.080
<v Speaker 6>Well ed?

0:15:11.240 --> 0:15:15.600
<v Speaker 8>If you are comparing Nikesh and his pay packages to

0:15:15.760 --> 0:15:19.920
<v Speaker 8>his peers, ISS would say, and Glass Lewis for that matter,

0:15:20.360 --> 0:15:23.880
<v Speaker 8>both proxy advisory firms would say that it is not aligned.

0:15:24.360 --> 0:15:28.480
<v Speaker 8>He is consistently paid well above his peers in the

0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:32.680
<v Speaker 8>cybersecurity industry. What Nikesh would say, and what he did

0:15:32.720 --> 0:15:35.800
<v Speaker 8>say in our story is that that's because he's been

0:15:35.840 --> 0:15:39.520
<v Speaker 8>capable of delivering outsize returns. And in fact, if you

0:15:39.640 --> 0:15:43.440
<v Speaker 8>look at Palo Alto Networks performance this year, it has

0:15:43.760 --> 0:15:47.600
<v Speaker 8>performed well, far and above the rallies that you've seen

0:15:47.640 --> 0:15:51.600
<v Speaker 8>from other major cybersecurity stocks in the US.

0:15:51.600 --> 0:15:54.400
<v Speaker 3>Being mostly into bringing that story to life, thank you

0:15:54.520 --> 0:15:57.240
<v Speaker 3>very much. Indeed, CEOs and a ings are also top

0:15:57.240 --> 0:16:00.320
<v Speaker 3>of mind for Adobe investors. The creative software giant is

0:16:00.400 --> 0:16:03.360
<v Speaker 3>under pressure from AI native rivals and is in the

0:16:03.400 --> 0:16:06.680
<v Speaker 3>process of finding a new CEO to replace shantan In Iran,

0:16:06.920 --> 0:16:09.360
<v Speaker 3>who's led the company for nearly two decades. Being the

0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:12.600
<v Speaker 3>software reporter, Brody Ford joins us with reporting that there

0:16:12.640 --> 0:16:15.840
<v Speaker 3>are two internal candidates in the running, but the company,

0:16:15.960 --> 0:16:17.520
<v Speaker 3>Brody is also looking elsewhere.

0:16:18.000 --> 0:16:21.320
<v Speaker 9>What do we know, Yeah, well, we know that Adobe

0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:25.680
<v Speaker 9>needs a new CEO. They decide they stop nice. They

0:16:26.000 --> 0:16:28.400
<v Speaker 9>you know, they are kind of one of the air

0:16:28.560 --> 0:16:33.680
<v Speaker 9>examples of the saaspocalypse. Or investors have decided that AI

0:16:33.840 --> 0:16:37.040
<v Speaker 9>might disrupt some of these leading software companies that enjoyed

0:16:37.040 --> 0:16:39.920
<v Speaker 9>some of the best growth rates and margins for decades.

0:16:40.480 --> 0:16:42.680
<v Speaker 9>And so Adobe announced back in March that they're going

0:16:42.720 --> 0:16:44.600
<v Speaker 9>to do a whole search for a CEO. And what

0:16:44.640 --> 0:16:47.200
<v Speaker 9>we have today is that they've zeroed in on two

0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:50.440
<v Speaker 9>internal leaders, and they've also brought in one of tech's

0:16:50.440 --> 0:16:53.200
<v Speaker 9>best known search firms to look for folks who might

0:16:53.240 --> 0:16:56.400
<v Speaker 9>have a little more experience with cutting EDGI development.

0:16:56.760 --> 0:16:58.840
<v Speaker 4>I mean talk to us about the internal leaders and

0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:02.440
<v Speaker 4>where they were they stood to lead before in the

0:17:02.480 --> 0:17:05.200
<v Speaker 4>business units. Because this is a company that probably, rather

0:17:05.280 --> 0:17:08.359
<v Speaker 4>like Salesforce, a lot of the general revenue.

0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:09.240
<v Speaker 2>Drivers are just flowing down.

0:17:09.280 --> 0:17:10.960
<v Speaker 4>There's like a little bit of macro overhang.

0:17:11.040 --> 0:17:12.080
<v Speaker 2>Companies aren't spending so.

0:17:12.080 --> 0:17:14.879
<v Speaker 4>Much on software as much unless it is sort of

0:17:14.920 --> 0:17:16.160
<v Speaker 4>directly AI related.

0:17:16.680 --> 0:17:19.920
<v Speaker 9>The most obvious choice is somebody named David Wadwani. I mean,

0:17:20.640 --> 0:17:23.280
<v Speaker 9>he's been the main deputy for quite a while for

0:17:23.359 --> 0:17:25.760
<v Speaker 9>the largest chunk of the business. I think a lot

0:17:25.760 --> 0:17:28.679
<v Speaker 9>of folks within Adobe assumed that he would just be

0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:31.680
<v Speaker 9>the next CEO, and so the fact that they announced

0:17:31.680 --> 0:17:35.440
<v Speaker 9>this big public search made some folks say, hmm, oh, well,

0:17:35.440 --> 0:17:38.040
<v Speaker 9>maybe David isn't going to get it right. Our understanding

0:17:38.119 --> 0:17:39.879
<v Speaker 9>is David certainly still could get it.

0:17:40.200 --> 0:17:43.520
<v Speaker 4>You need to have an evident race, you know, you

0:17:43.560 --> 0:17:46.000
<v Speaker 4>need to prove yourself that you are the right person

0:17:46.040 --> 0:17:46.480
<v Speaker 4>for their job.

0:17:46.560 --> 0:17:48.480
<v Speaker 3>Having at Disney as well, right like you know that

0:17:48.520 --> 0:17:50.640
<v Speaker 3>you go in internal candidate, but you put a little

0:17:50.640 --> 0:17:53.080
<v Speaker 3>pressure by saying, well, we're also looking at You said

0:17:53.080 --> 0:17:55.639
<v Speaker 3>search for them, but you mean executive search, right, headhunters

0:17:55.720 --> 0:17:56.439
<v Speaker 3>or that case.

0:17:57.119 --> 0:17:59.720
<v Speaker 10>Do we know if there's anyone out there headhunters? Yeah,

0:17:59.720 --> 0:18:02.520
<v Speaker 10>they're looking quite widely. One name that we have in

0:18:02.560 --> 0:18:05.560
<v Speaker 10>the story is Microsoft's Charles Lamana. I mean, he's an

0:18:05.560 --> 0:18:09.679
<v Speaker 10>ascendent executive at Microsoft. He helped some talks with Adobe,

0:18:10.119 --> 0:18:13.400
<v Speaker 10>ultimately backed out of those, but it's an illustrative example

0:18:13.440 --> 0:18:15.920
<v Speaker 10>of the kind of folks that Adobe's probably looking at,

0:18:15.960 --> 0:18:18.240
<v Speaker 10>those who are seen as being able to kind of

0:18:18.600 --> 0:18:21.720
<v Speaker 10>develop and monetize AI at the scale that you need

0:18:21.760 --> 0:18:23.320
<v Speaker 10>to at a company like Adobe.

0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:26.239
<v Speaker 4>What about Shantanou right now and how he guides it

0:18:26.280 --> 0:18:28.200
<v Speaker 4>in this interim period where everyone's.

0:18:27.960 --> 0:18:31.359
<v Speaker 2>Kind of just what kind of just holding all breath

0:18:31.400 --> 0:18:32.400
<v Speaker 2>and to find out more.

0:18:32.920 --> 0:18:34.320
<v Speaker 9>He's the chair of the board, so it's got to

0:18:34.359 --> 0:18:36.119
<v Speaker 9>be a little awkward for him, right. I mean you

0:18:36.200 --> 0:18:39.600
<v Speaker 9>have these two deputies. The other one Neil Chakravarti, he

0:18:39.720 --> 0:18:42.640
<v Speaker 9>runs the other big part of the business. He's done

0:18:42.720 --> 0:18:44.919
<v Speaker 9>very well that part of the business. While it's not

0:18:44.960 --> 0:18:48.680
<v Speaker 9>what we think of as Adobe. It's marketing software, marketing

0:18:48.680 --> 0:18:51.360
<v Speaker 9>and analytics software, which is you know, it's not Photoshop,

0:18:51.400 --> 0:18:53.200
<v Speaker 9>but it's still a big money maker and it's grown

0:18:53.280 --> 0:18:55.560
<v Speaker 9>quite a bit. You know, he has a Neil, and

0:18:55.600 --> 0:18:58.640
<v Speaker 9>he has David Likely saying hey, pick me.

0:18:58.680 --> 0:18:59.840
<v Speaker 6>I should be your next CEO.

0:19:00.160 --> 0:19:04.040
<v Speaker 3>Soare going back spaces right? You know people will know

0:19:04.080 --> 0:19:08.119
<v Speaker 3>Adobe because of Photoshop or PDF or some video editing

0:19:08.240 --> 0:19:12.320
<v Speaker 3>equip software platforms. But the basic story is that a

0:19:12.359 --> 0:19:18.320
<v Speaker 3>lot of that tool can be found free from some

0:19:18.400 --> 0:19:20.720
<v Speaker 3>kind of generated AI platform.

0:19:21.160 --> 0:19:21.320
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:19:21.400 --> 0:19:24.040
<v Speaker 3>So Adobe, you know, you and I've worked on this together.

0:19:24.119 --> 0:19:25.920
<v Speaker 3>Right when we've we've sat down with Chantono in the

0:19:26.000 --> 0:19:29.040
<v Speaker 3>last twelve months, is to say what are you good

0:19:29.040 --> 0:19:32.440
<v Speaker 3>at here? Like are you using AI? Have they sort

0:19:32.480 --> 0:19:35.040
<v Speaker 3>of dispelled those fears with investors? Where are people still

0:19:35.080 --> 0:19:37.879
<v Speaker 3>saying oh, you know, the AI companies are coming for you.

0:19:38.359 --> 0:19:41.359
<v Speaker 9>The big concern with Adobe is that their software is

0:19:41.400 --> 0:19:44.800
<v Speaker 9>expensive when it's complicated hosting. If you're a professional who

0:19:44.880 --> 0:19:47.480
<v Speaker 9>needs all the knobs, you're not leaving. But if you're

0:19:47.520 --> 0:19:49.640
<v Speaker 9>somebody who wants to make a stupid meme and show

0:19:49.680 --> 0:19:52.760
<v Speaker 9>your friend and photoshop them doing something silly, you might

0:19:52.800 --> 0:19:55.399
<v Speaker 9>have bought Photoshop in the past, and you're probably not

0:19:55.520 --> 0:19:58.560
<v Speaker 9>going to today. That's the big concern the verse.

0:19:58.600 --> 0:20:01.000
<v Speaker 3>Brady Ford, thank you the real, really important read on

0:20:01.040 --> 0:20:02.600
<v Speaker 3>what's going on with the Adobe CEO.

0:20:03.000 --> 0:20:03.200
<v Speaker 6>Sir.

0:20:05.080 --> 0:20:07.280
<v Speaker 4>Let's go out to the Bloomberg Global Credit Forum while

0:20:07.280 --> 0:20:10.120
<v Speaker 4>Bloomberg savanas co host Elisa and Bromowitz is sitting down

0:20:10.119 --> 0:20:13.400
<v Speaker 4>with Steve Tannenbaum's Golden Dry Asset Management founder and Cia

0:20:13.600 --> 0:20:14.160
<v Speaker 4>take a listen.

0:20:14.880 --> 0:20:18.879
<v Speaker 11>Yes, and it also is very competitive. There's hundreds of

0:20:18.960 --> 0:20:22.720
<v Speaker 11>different managers out there. I remember when I started at

0:20:22.760 --> 0:20:25.720
<v Speaker 11>Makay Shields, we were eighty nine out of ninety one,

0:20:26.320 --> 0:20:28.080
<v Speaker 11>and within three years I was very proud we got

0:20:28.119 --> 0:20:28.840
<v Speaker 11>to be number one.

0:20:29.280 --> 0:20:30.440
<v Speaker 6>But that's a.

0:20:30.359 --> 0:20:34.639
<v Speaker 11>Lot of people to compete against and so and you

0:20:34.720 --> 0:20:40.160
<v Speaker 11>get your scoreboard every day. But more importantly, strategically, there

0:20:40.359 --> 0:20:43.680
<v Speaker 11>was the mindset of why do people buy, why do

0:20:43.760 --> 0:20:44.320
<v Speaker 11>they sell?

0:20:44.880 --> 0:20:46.439
<v Speaker 6>And can you front run that?

0:20:47.320 --> 0:20:52.760
<v Speaker 11>Can you predict if the premise if you're thinking of

0:20:52.880 --> 0:20:57.240
<v Speaker 11>investments as maybe as short movies, and how's a movie

0:20:57.280 --> 0:21:00.760
<v Speaker 11>going to end? And if your premise is that this happens,

0:21:00.760 --> 0:21:03.160
<v Speaker 11>and this happens, can I sell?

0:21:03.160 --> 0:21:04.840
<v Speaker 6>Who am I going to sell it to? And why

0:21:04.840 --> 0:21:05.679
<v Speaker 6>are they going to buy it?

0:21:06.280 --> 0:21:08.280
<v Speaker 11>And so, you know, part of that could be liquidity,

0:21:08.520 --> 0:21:10.480
<v Speaker 11>part of it can be the stats. Why isn't somebody

0:21:10.560 --> 0:21:16.480
<v Speaker 11>going to buy the four times levered software company that's

0:21:16.520 --> 0:21:20.760
<v Speaker 11>growing at eleven percent? Sure they're going to be upset

0:21:20.800 --> 0:21:22.800
<v Speaker 11>that they didn't buy it a twenty percent, but it

0:21:22.880 --> 0:21:25.680
<v Speaker 11>was five and a quarter or five and a half

0:21:25.680 --> 0:21:30.080
<v Speaker 11>times leverage back then, and the mindset was different. So

0:21:30.160 --> 0:21:32.640
<v Speaker 11>I think that and if that looks attractive, for instance,

0:21:32.720 --> 0:21:35.800
<v Speaker 11>just using an example to what else is in the

0:21:35.840 --> 0:21:39.320
<v Speaker 11>market that's yielding ten percent or nine percent, there's going

0:21:39.400 --> 0:21:42.000
<v Speaker 11>to be enough takers in that. So that so having

0:21:42.040 --> 0:21:46.720
<v Speaker 11>that mindset's always been attractive and helpful. There's also the

0:21:47.960 --> 0:21:50.119
<v Speaker 11>you know, you look at something like COVID and okay,

0:21:50.119 --> 0:21:53.800
<v Speaker 11>how are people going to going to behave there was usually.

0:21:53.840 --> 0:21:57.080
<v Speaker 11>I remember in mutual funds that when people got redeemed,

0:21:57.400 --> 0:22:01.040
<v Speaker 11>they would sell what they could sell quickest, or what

0:22:01.240 --> 0:22:04.000
<v Speaker 11>was most liquid. I always tried to sell my semi

0:22:04.040 --> 0:22:08.480
<v Speaker 11>liquid product because I know I could never sell it

0:22:08.520 --> 0:22:11.280
<v Speaker 11>in another week at this continued. So there's just different

0:22:11.320 --> 0:22:13.560
<v Speaker 11>strategies to think about.

0:22:13.840 --> 0:22:16.560
<v Speaker 12>So if you fast forward to now at Golden Tree

0:22:16.600 --> 0:22:21.040
<v Speaker 12>Asset Management, how do you perceive the mentality right now

0:22:21.840 --> 0:22:24.040
<v Speaker 12>in the masses or in the funds that you go

0:22:24.119 --> 0:22:24.640
<v Speaker 12>up against?

0:22:24.800 --> 0:22:27.200
<v Speaker 6>Sure, so there was a bigger question.

0:22:27.400 --> 0:22:30.880
<v Speaker 11>We were talking just a few moments ago about the

0:22:30.960 --> 0:22:34.600
<v Speaker 11>perspective on credit, particularly total return credit, and there's probably

0:22:34.640 --> 0:22:41.919
<v Speaker 11>frustration because some other assets equities are participating significantly. In

0:22:42.080 --> 0:22:45.600
<v Speaker 11>credit broadly speaking is in the low single digits, So

0:22:45.640 --> 0:22:50.800
<v Speaker 11>there's frustration and anxiousness. How do I capture returns against

0:22:50.800 --> 0:22:56.679
<v Speaker 11>that backdrop You have great current yields and still value

0:22:56.720 --> 0:23:01.640
<v Speaker 11>when you subtract out versus the faults that justify being

0:23:01.680 --> 0:23:02.159
<v Speaker 11>in credit.

0:23:03.600 --> 0:23:06.160
<v Speaker 12>Just to have everybody participate, this is a great time

0:23:06.160 --> 0:23:08.240
<v Speaker 12>to bring in our question, which is how you're positioned

0:23:08.600 --> 0:23:11.680
<v Speaker 12>in credit for the remainder of this year. And I

0:23:11.720 --> 0:23:14.800
<v Speaker 12>would love for you all to weigh in defensive, neutral

0:23:14.960 --> 0:23:20.560
<v Speaker 12>or risk on. From your perspective, how are you positioned?

0:23:20.640 --> 0:23:22.600
<v Speaker 12>I mean, right now, do you want to take more risk?

0:23:22.720 --> 0:23:25.600
<v Speaker 12>Are you looking for yields or are you looking for

0:23:26.040 --> 0:23:29.000
<v Speaker 12>defense ahead of greater opportunities.

0:23:29.400 --> 0:23:33.159
<v Speaker 11>So when we spoke in January at Davos, I mentioned

0:23:33.200 --> 0:23:38.560
<v Speaker 11>how the setup was poor for credit and good for equities. Historically,

0:23:38.640 --> 0:23:43.120
<v Speaker 11>when you've had stretch valuations in a mid cycle, where

0:23:43.119 --> 0:23:45.680
<v Speaker 11>the economy is expected to grow at two percent or better,

0:23:46.359 --> 0:23:52.240
<v Speaker 11>your returns in credit or less than the coupon, and

0:23:52.280 --> 0:23:55.800
<v Speaker 11>that's exactly what's happened so far. In contrast, usually that's

0:23:55.800 --> 0:23:58.399
<v Speaker 11>a great environment for equities, and that's what's happened. And

0:23:58.440 --> 0:24:00.159
<v Speaker 11>even if you look at the equal weight to S

0:24:00.200 --> 0:24:02.239
<v Speaker 11>and P is certainly beginning to catch on.

0:24:02.280 --> 0:24:03.120
<v Speaker 6>So it's been a.

0:24:03.080 --> 0:24:06.679
<v Speaker 11>More broader rally, particularly the last few weeks. Even in

0:24:06.720 --> 0:24:09.800
<v Speaker 11>the face of a run on again off again conversations,

0:24:10.040 --> 0:24:14.840
<v Speaker 11>credit has still been is still linguished, and we expect

0:24:14.840 --> 0:24:17.240
<v Speaker 11>that to continue. Now that's not to say that it

0:24:17.320 --> 0:24:20.760
<v Speaker 11>can't have a better second half, but I do think

0:24:20.760 --> 0:24:27.840
<v Speaker 11>there's some pockets of opportunity. But this is historically a

0:24:27.920 --> 0:24:30.080
<v Speaker 11>tough time to be in credit in terms of in

0:24:30.080 --> 0:24:30.960
<v Speaker 11>the cycle.

0:24:31.359 --> 0:24:36.440
<v Speaker 12>Because of inflation and growth. That doesn't really benefit the instruments.

0:24:36.840 --> 0:24:40.760
<v Speaker 11>It's just how it's priced its price as if defaults

0:24:40.760 --> 0:24:45.840
<v Speaker 11>are going to be low, and and that the corporate

0:24:45.880 --> 0:24:49.280
<v Speaker 11>earnings are going to and that they're more likely to disappoint.

0:24:49.320 --> 0:24:53.560
<v Speaker 11>You're getting you're not getting paid to increase corporate earnings

0:24:53.600 --> 0:24:57.640
<v Speaker 11>or for earnings to surprise on the upside, and you're

0:24:57.720 --> 0:25:01.240
<v Speaker 11>being heavily penalized at the surprise on the downside. In

0:25:01.280 --> 0:25:05.800
<v Speaker 11>the equity market, there's still some acceptance or excitement if

0:25:05.840 --> 0:25:06.840
<v Speaker 11>you're taking up numbers.

0:25:07.080 --> 0:25:10.600
<v Speaker 12>There are some opportunities. Like you said, where's the distress

0:25:10.720 --> 0:25:12.120
<v Speaker 12>and where are you finding them right now?

0:25:12.400 --> 0:25:14.800
<v Speaker 6>So it's very situational.

0:25:15.200 --> 0:25:20.040
<v Speaker 11>There's the expected distress, which is in software where the

0:25:20.080 --> 0:25:24.080
<v Speaker 11>business model is getting called into question. Then there is

0:25:24.160 --> 0:25:29.639
<v Speaker 11>also in telecom another business model that's getting called into question.

0:25:30.000 --> 0:25:33.639
<v Speaker 11>And there's an interesting relationship between the public equity. As

0:25:33.680 --> 0:25:35.320
<v Speaker 11>you look at a Comcast, I think that's hitting a

0:25:35.359 --> 0:25:37.720
<v Speaker 11>new low as we speak, a fifty two week low.

0:25:37.840 --> 0:25:40.960
<v Speaker 11>If not, it's certainly close to that. Charters probably in

0:25:40.960 --> 0:25:44.879
<v Speaker 11>the same camp, Cable one in the same camp, but

0:25:45.000 --> 0:25:49.400
<v Speaker 11>yet some of the debt isn't, so I think that's

0:25:49.480 --> 0:25:53.960
<v Speaker 11>kind of an interesting relationship the debt and what happened

0:25:55.320 --> 0:25:58.800
<v Speaker 11>I guess recently with lts with threatening a transaction. I

0:25:58.800 --> 0:26:01.399
<v Speaker 11>think it's all a ploy for negotiation, but it probably

0:26:01.400 --> 0:26:04.560
<v Speaker 11>brings people to the table sooner if it works. It's

0:26:04.600 --> 0:26:07.240
<v Speaker 11>the same team that brought you Ballish and we respect

0:26:07.280 --> 0:26:10.000
<v Speaker 11>them an awful lot, but it kind of went nowhere

0:26:10.000 --> 0:26:14.400
<v Speaker 11>when there was a bunch of of I guess potential

0:26:14.440 --> 0:26:18.040
<v Speaker 11>transactions being contemplated that didn't get to the finish line

0:26:18.119 --> 0:26:19.120
<v Speaker 11>from the equity.

0:26:19.880 --> 0:26:22.960
<v Speaker 12>So playing the debt equity structure in creative ways is

0:26:23.160 --> 0:26:24.119
<v Speaker 12>why you're playing.

0:26:23.840 --> 0:26:24.239
<v Speaker 6>With it right.

0:26:24.359 --> 0:26:28.240
<v Speaker 11>And within industries, I think the equity in cable is

0:26:28.359 --> 0:26:32.800
<v Speaker 11>much easier. It's hard to see that the equities don't work,

0:26:33.760 --> 0:26:36.800
<v Speaker 11>workers don't work, and the debt works. So I think

0:26:36.840 --> 0:26:40.320
<v Speaker 11>that relationships kind of is kind of interesting. I'd say

0:26:40.320 --> 0:26:42.840
<v Speaker 11>the same thing in healthcare, which seems like it's been

0:26:42.840 --> 0:26:46.399
<v Speaker 11>a source of funding for technology stocks, and there's certain

0:26:46.480 --> 0:26:48.720
<v Speaker 11>companies like Tenant which strike.

0:26:48.600 --> 0:26:50.440
<v Speaker 6>Me as very reasonable value.

0:26:50.720 --> 0:26:54.240
<v Speaker 11>Sure there has been some volume issues, but the valuations

0:26:54.240 --> 0:26:55.640
<v Speaker 11>seem very credible.

0:26:56.480 --> 0:26:57.960
<v Speaker 6>Top match management team, and.

0:26:57.920 --> 0:27:01.200
<v Speaker 11>I think the equity market exhues me the credit markets

0:27:01.240 --> 0:27:03.080
<v Speaker 11>would finance the entire market cap.

0:27:04.720 --> 0:27:08.320
<v Speaker 12>More broadly, you started by talking about the frustration felt

0:27:08.359 --> 0:27:10.840
<v Speaker 12>by a number of credit fund managers because right now,

0:27:11.280 --> 0:27:13.399
<v Speaker 12>this isn't an assa class that tends to work that

0:27:13.440 --> 0:27:17.520
<v Speaker 12>well or give that many that give outsize returns, given

0:27:17.560 --> 0:27:20.840
<v Speaker 12>the narrow we're in, and yet people are pouring trillions

0:27:20.880 --> 0:27:26.040
<v Speaker 12>of dollars into AI infrastructure. Does that worry you, excite

0:27:26.080 --> 0:27:27.760
<v Speaker 12>you for the potential down the line?

0:27:28.119 --> 0:27:31.400
<v Speaker 11>Well, when you look at the devils in the details

0:27:31.440 --> 0:27:33.520
<v Speaker 11>in terms of what the terms are, but when you

0:27:33.560 --> 0:27:36.600
<v Speaker 11>look at who's backstopping it, they seem like good credits.

0:27:37.080 --> 0:27:40.840
<v Speaker 11>And people tend to think of two and three years out,

0:27:40.880 --> 0:27:43.040
<v Speaker 11>not five or ten years out, and it looks like

0:27:43.040 --> 0:27:45.679
<v Speaker 11>for two to three years out you're getting overcompensated for

0:27:45.720 --> 0:27:50.840
<v Speaker 11>the risk. On the other hand, you're dealing with terrible technicals.

0:27:50.880 --> 0:27:54.159
<v Speaker 11>They don't seem to run out of product. And I

0:27:54.200 --> 0:27:58.480
<v Speaker 11>think even this Google financing is suggesting that they want

0:27:58.520 --> 0:28:00.919
<v Speaker 11>to make sure to be out in front of the

0:28:00.920 --> 0:28:05.200
<v Speaker 11>financing in terms of the equity, and there's almost not almost,

0:28:05.280 --> 0:28:08.760
<v Speaker 11>there is an arms race going on, and the issue

0:28:08.800 --> 0:28:13.359
<v Speaker 11>is will the infrastructure investment be justified or will this

0:28:13.480 --> 0:28:16.520
<v Speaker 11>be more like underwater cable, which was a good thing

0:28:16.600 --> 0:28:17.520
<v Speaker 11>until it wasn't.

0:28:18.359 --> 0:28:20.200
<v Speaker 6>Do you have a take on that.

0:28:20.359 --> 0:28:24.160
<v Speaker 12>Are you imbedding a sort of thesis into your investments.

0:28:25.359 --> 0:28:30.000
<v Speaker 11>I'm somewhat agnostic, but history would have a bad record

0:28:30.320 --> 0:28:36.639
<v Speaker 11>in terms of overinvestment for industries that have very high payouts,

0:28:36.960 --> 0:28:44.840
<v Speaker 11>whether it's riverboat gambling to something like undersea cable. So

0:28:45.120 --> 0:28:47.600
<v Speaker 11>you know, it's not a great precedent, but there's not

0:28:47.680 --> 0:28:51.640
<v Speaker 11>a great precedent, But there's an argument that you know,

0:28:51.640 --> 0:28:53.840
<v Speaker 11>I understand the arguments now, and I think our view

0:28:53.920 --> 0:29:00.440
<v Speaker 11>is to be very deliberate to have additional assurances by

0:29:00.440 --> 0:29:02.840
<v Speaker 11>the users that they're committed to these projects.

0:29:03.680 --> 0:29:06.120
<v Speaker 12>Would you rather invest in the high yield part of

0:29:06.160 --> 0:29:09.600
<v Speaker 12>the investment grade part with the all in back drop

0:29:09.680 --> 0:29:11.800
<v Speaker 12>the idea that it tends to be lower duration, shorter

0:29:11.880 --> 0:29:15.040
<v Speaker 12>maturity in the high yield but higher risk investment grade

0:29:15.200 --> 0:29:16.520
<v Speaker 12>longer duration but tied to.

0:29:16.600 --> 0:29:20.680
<v Speaker 11>Very So my guess is at different points in this

0:29:20.840 --> 0:29:24.360
<v Speaker 11>funding you're going to get high yel type of spreads

0:29:24.640 --> 0:29:27.600
<v Speaker 11>in the investment grade market. So the issue is, you

0:29:27.640 --> 0:29:31.160
<v Speaker 11>know what you do in between them. So I think

0:29:31.160 --> 0:29:33.400
<v Speaker 11>it depends you know, on the pricing, but I think

0:29:33.440 --> 0:29:40.400
<v Speaker 11>you'll get at least every other stretched or over financed

0:29:41.400 --> 0:29:43.800
<v Speaker 11>industry I've been part of, you usually have been able

0:29:43.800 --> 0:29:49.360
<v Speaker 11>to get excellent protection with below investment grade pricing at

0:29:49.360 --> 0:29:49.800
<v Speaker 11>some point.

0:29:50.200 --> 0:29:52.440
<v Speaker 6>So now what do you do in between? There? You

0:29:52.480 --> 0:29:54.640
<v Speaker 6>know is the issue, But it's going to get there

0:29:54.640 --> 0:29:55.160
<v Speaker 6>at some point.

0:29:55.720 --> 0:29:58.760
<v Speaker 12>So just dance and cable and and and some pick

0:29:58.840 --> 0:30:01.720
<v Speaker 12>up some distressed software where and wait to invest in

0:30:01.720 --> 0:30:02.920
<v Speaker 12>this area until it falls out A.

0:30:02.880 --> 0:30:07.120
<v Speaker 11>Bit no, no, because if it's two or three years,

0:30:07.160 --> 0:30:08.920
<v Speaker 11>it's a lot of return to give up. But to

0:30:08.960 --> 0:30:13.920
<v Speaker 11>be deliberate about what you're getting versus the opportunity of

0:30:14.200 --> 0:30:16.920
<v Speaker 11>what you might be getting. And you know, at I'm

0:30:17.000 --> 0:30:19.560
<v Speaker 11>incredibly fickle on these topics. So I could you know

0:30:19.640 --> 0:30:21.440
<v Speaker 11>in a month or two, could just have a different

0:30:21.440 --> 0:30:22.760
<v Speaker 11>perspective with more evidence.

0:30:23.240 --> 0:30:26.240
<v Speaker 12>How do you remain nimble at a time when you're

0:30:26.280 --> 0:30:30.200
<v Speaker 12>going in and out of sometimes less liquid instruments.

0:30:31.880 --> 0:30:34.280
<v Speaker 11>First is you've got to assume you can't be nimble

0:30:34.320 --> 0:30:37.880
<v Speaker 11>and less liquid instruments and lower prices brings in illiquidity,

0:30:37.960 --> 0:30:41.400
<v Speaker 11>higher prices brings in confidence. So that's kind of the

0:30:41.440 --> 0:30:46.520
<v Speaker 11>way the credit markets work. Just trying to ask as

0:30:46.560 --> 0:30:49.640
<v Speaker 11>many questions and focus on what we think are the

0:30:49.720 --> 0:30:53.720
<v Speaker 11>key variables, and something like AI. You can be overwhelmed

0:30:53.840 --> 0:30:57.280
<v Speaker 11>by so much, so to try and look at some

0:30:57.440 --> 0:31:01.280
<v Speaker 11>of the larger issues and just focus on that and

0:31:01.320 --> 0:31:03.959
<v Speaker 11>be deliberate, you know, because there's so much supply.

0:31:04.600 --> 0:31:05.920
<v Speaker 6>The idea of.

0:31:08.440 --> 0:31:11.760
<v Speaker 11>You're going to run out of opportunities isn't a real Yeah,

0:31:11.760 --> 0:31:14.239
<v Speaker 11>that's not realistic. There's going to be something to do

0:31:14.280 --> 0:31:18.960
<v Speaker 11>in this space, particularly as it continues to be successful.

0:31:20.000 --> 0:31:20.240
<v Speaker 6>Right now?

0:31:20.280 --> 0:31:24.080
<v Speaker 12>Would you rather be in public securities or private securities?

0:31:24.120 --> 0:31:26.040
<v Speaker 12>Just as a rule, I mean in terms of the

0:31:26.080 --> 0:31:27.040
<v Speaker 12>interests that demand.

0:31:27.720 --> 0:31:30.080
<v Speaker 11>So when we look at asset classes, probably the asset

0:31:30.120 --> 0:31:32.440
<v Speaker 11>back to asset class we find the best value, which

0:31:32.440 --> 0:31:36.200
<v Speaker 11>is a private asset class. So we're finding good value there.

0:31:36.360 --> 0:31:40.680
<v Speaker 11>In private credit, there's some of the more anxious capital

0:31:40.760 --> 0:31:43.280
<v Speaker 11>the open end of private credit funds are out of

0:31:43.320 --> 0:31:47.160
<v Speaker 11>the market, so that leaves the funds and other players

0:31:47.160 --> 0:31:50.480
<v Speaker 11>in private credit who are more deliberate being the main

0:31:51.760 --> 0:31:54.200
<v Speaker 11>buyers of private credit. So we're seeing good good value there.

0:31:54.520 --> 0:31:57.960
<v Speaker 11>We're seeing good of value in some of the out

0:31:57.960 --> 0:32:00.760
<v Speaker 11>of favor sectors, which is always the case by definition,

0:32:00.760 --> 0:32:01.880
<v Speaker 11>out of favorite sectors or.

0:32:01.800 --> 0:32:06.160
<v Speaker 6>At discounts, but so I'd say it's eclectic.

0:32:06.240 --> 0:32:09.320
<v Speaker 11>But we certainly are seeing better value in private credit

0:32:09.360 --> 0:32:11.520
<v Speaker 11>today than we've seen in the last twenty four to.

0:32:11.480 --> 0:32:12.320
<v Speaker 6>Thirty six months.

0:32:12.520 --> 0:32:16.520
<v Speaker 12>Are you getting paid for the illiquidity premium?

0:32:16.760 --> 0:32:21.120
<v Speaker 11>That's always after the fact comment, but it seems like

0:32:21.160 --> 0:32:24.880
<v Speaker 11>you're getting better paid in the absolute. When I think

0:32:24.920 --> 0:32:29.000
<v Speaker 11>of things, I think it's far to say out of ten,

0:32:29.840 --> 0:32:32.680
<v Speaker 11>maybe a six, you know, six and a half, So

0:32:32.720 --> 0:32:34.760
<v Speaker 11>it's above average, but not by much.

0:32:36.160 --> 0:32:39.000
<v Speaker 12>Right now, we're looking out for a year where a

0:32:39.040 --> 0:32:41.480
<v Speaker 12>lot of people keep talking about inflation inflationary risks, and

0:32:41.520 --> 0:32:43.880
<v Speaker 12>this is one of the reasons why credit hasn't been

0:32:44.280 --> 0:32:45.640
<v Speaker 12>as much of a sweet spot.

0:32:46.480 --> 0:32:46.960
<v Speaker 7>How do you.

0:32:47.360 --> 0:32:47.880
<v Speaker 2>Price it in?

0:32:47.920 --> 0:32:49.000
<v Speaker 12>I mean, at what point do you just start to

0:32:49.040 --> 0:32:51.680
<v Speaker 12>increase the sleeve of equities and create some protection on

0:32:51.720 --> 0:32:54.160
<v Speaker 12>the downside And I kind of hope for the best

0:32:54.240 --> 0:32:57.760
<v Speaker 12>with a couple of security selections.

0:33:00.000 --> 0:33:00.280
<v Speaker 6>At least.

0:33:00.320 --> 0:33:03.320
<v Speaker 11>It's probably the biggest risk in the market, and it's

0:33:04.080 --> 0:33:07.400
<v Speaker 11>impacted because it's impacted rates much more credit than it

0:33:07.480 --> 0:33:10.640
<v Speaker 11>has equities, which I'm surprised at, but just as what

0:33:10.720 --> 0:33:13.400
<v Speaker 11>it is, and if you look in the seventies there

0:33:13.440 --> 0:33:16.680
<v Speaker 11>were better equities did better than credit. So you know,

0:33:16.720 --> 0:33:20.320
<v Speaker 11>if if the if you're looking at a bad environment,

0:33:20.360 --> 0:33:27.680
<v Speaker 11>at least that's one example where equity outperform credit. It's

0:33:27.680 --> 0:33:30.360
<v Speaker 11>it's very much data dependent. It's also what's going to

0:33:30.400 --> 0:33:33.120
<v Speaker 11>happen with the war. You know, if you look at

0:33:33.240 --> 0:33:36.200
<v Speaker 11>one of the big surprises so far this year is

0:33:37.000 --> 0:33:42.800
<v Speaker 11>oil has been relatively calm in a relative to what expectations.

0:33:42.840 --> 0:33:45.520
<v Speaker 11>Most people thought if you got past Memorial Day, it

0:33:45.560 --> 0:33:48.000
<v Speaker 11>would be one twenty five, one thirty five.

0:33:48.400 --> 0:33:51.720
<v Speaker 6>But yet we're in the mid nineties. So I think it's.

0:33:53.080 --> 0:33:55.920
<v Speaker 11>You know, that's a factor that seems to you know,

0:33:56.040 --> 0:33:56.640
<v Speaker 11>be developing.

0:33:56.840 --> 0:33:58.640
<v Speaker 6>So it's hard to do. It's hard to.

0:34:00.640 --> 0:34:02.840
<v Speaker 11>You have a line, you know, to draw a line

0:34:02.840 --> 0:34:04.960
<v Speaker 11>in the sand, you know on that you know.

0:34:05.040 --> 0:34:08.960
<v Speaker 12>This is a cognitive dissonance. Every single morning. We talked

0:34:08.960 --> 0:34:11.000
<v Speaker 12>to a lot of people, and we were speaking with

0:34:11.000 --> 0:34:13.400
<v Speaker 12>Mike Worth of Chevron the other day and he said,

0:34:13.480 --> 0:34:15.319
<v Speaker 12>we're going to end up with shortages. If this keeps

0:34:15.360 --> 0:34:16.919
<v Speaker 12>going in the next couple of weeks, we could start

0:34:16.920 --> 0:34:19.200
<v Speaker 12>seeing shortages. In the United States, diesel inventories are the

0:34:19.200 --> 0:34:21.719
<v Speaker 12>lowest levels since two thousand and three, and then you

0:34:21.760 --> 0:34:24.759
<v Speaker 12>get an equity strategist on a credit strategist on we're

0:34:24.760 --> 0:34:28.440
<v Speaker 12>not looking at that. That doesn't matter. How do you

0:34:28.480 --> 0:34:29.080
<v Speaker 12>think about that?

0:34:29.400 --> 0:34:32.680
<v Speaker 11>So I've kind of processed a little different is how

0:34:32.719 --> 0:34:37.319
<v Speaker 11>are equities pricing this? And equities seem to not be

0:34:37.480 --> 0:34:41.439
<v Speaker 11>pricing the future's curve. So on the strip curve, it's

0:34:41.520 --> 0:34:45.960
<v Speaker 11>just so on oil service. Sure, Helliburton's having an excellent year,

0:34:45.960 --> 0:34:47.480
<v Speaker 11>But when I look at some of the mid caps,

0:34:48.280 --> 0:34:53.200
<v Speaker 11>very much pricing in i'd say seventy seventy five dollars oil.

0:34:53.400 --> 0:34:55.560
<v Speaker 11>And when we see the M and A market in

0:34:55.880 --> 0:35:00.320
<v Speaker 11>oil services, and we have a company that we or

0:35:00.400 --> 0:35:03.160
<v Speaker 11>more than half of that looks at the M and

0:35:03.200 --> 0:35:05.719
<v Speaker 11>A market and has bought a few companies in the

0:35:05.719 --> 0:35:09.239
<v Speaker 11>past twelve months, that market hasn't changed that much so

0:35:09.880 --> 0:35:13.520
<v Speaker 11>in terms of levels and pricings and multiples and expectations.

0:35:13.560 --> 0:35:17.120
<v Speaker 11>So we see the regardless of what people are saying,

0:35:17.400 --> 0:35:20.120
<v Speaker 11>how they're voting with their feet, they're still very cynical

0:35:20.560 --> 0:35:22.840
<v Speaker 11>of how long this will last. And that's probably it

0:35:22.880 --> 0:35:25.799
<v Speaker 11>seems like a better opportunity that it's going to be

0:35:25.880 --> 0:35:27.560
<v Speaker 11>higher for longer than what's in the market.

0:35:27.760 --> 0:35:30.440
<v Speaker 12>So in other words, by MidCap oil names.

0:35:30.719 --> 0:35:34.560
<v Speaker 11>Yeah, and suppliers, but also when you're thinking about oil

0:35:34.719 --> 0:35:37.399
<v Speaker 11>as an input to your companies, and I'm thinking as

0:35:37.400 --> 0:35:41.160
<v Speaker 11>a portfolio manager, Okay, what should we be assuming in

0:35:41.239 --> 0:35:46.600
<v Speaker 11>terms of whether it's in building material products and which

0:35:46.640 --> 0:35:49.839
<v Speaker 11>oil can be an important input? You know, what does

0:35:49.880 --> 0:35:52.120
<v Speaker 11>it mean for inflation, etc. My guess is going to

0:35:52.120 --> 0:35:53.000
<v Speaker 11>be higher for longer.

0:35:53.320 --> 0:35:54.839
<v Speaker 12>I want to pull up the results to the pole,

0:35:54.920 --> 0:35:57.680
<v Speaker 12>and unfortunately we didn't have an answer to the pole

0:35:58.040 --> 0:35:59.239
<v Speaker 12>of just frustrating.

0:36:00.120 --> 0:36:01.399
<v Speaker 2>What the answer was, how are.

0:36:01.360 --> 0:36:04.040
<v Speaker 12>You positioning credit for the rest of twenty twenty six?

0:36:04.120 --> 0:36:08.239
<v Speaker 12>Not for ultimate frustration but neutral forty two percent, defensive,

0:36:08.480 --> 0:36:11.280
<v Speaker 12>thirty one percent, risk on twenty seven percent?

0:36:11.320 --> 0:36:12.080
<v Speaker 6>Does that surprise you?

0:36:14.080 --> 0:36:18.240
<v Speaker 11>So I look at it as almost seventy five percent

0:36:18.320 --> 0:36:23.120
<v Speaker 11>seventy three percent of people who are like yeah, what

0:36:23.160 --> 0:36:23.879
<v Speaker 11>else did you say?

0:36:24.000 --> 0:36:27.799
<v Speaker 6>Yeah? And so you know, it's it seems about about fair.

0:36:28.120 --> 0:36:31.640
<v Speaker 11>What's being What's a strategy that's been very popular this

0:36:31.719 --> 0:36:35.000
<v Speaker 11>year in terms of inflows is opportunistic credit having a

0:36:35.040 --> 0:36:39.440
<v Speaker 11>long playbook and instead of a distress manager a private

0:36:39.480 --> 0:36:42.279
<v Speaker 11>credit manager, how about a manager who can look for

0:36:42.320 --> 0:36:46.120
<v Speaker 11>the best opportunities with a long playbook, So that strategy

0:36:46.200 --> 0:36:48.800
<v Speaker 11>has been gaining a lot of traction.

0:36:48.960 --> 0:36:54.360
<v Speaker 6>I think the.

0:36:52.160 --> 0:36:55.560
<v Speaker 11>Positioning and credit credit in terms of getting alpha and

0:36:55.640 --> 0:36:59.960
<v Speaker 11>dispersion is that's not surprising with the results here.

0:37:00.920 --> 0:37:04.400
<v Speaker 12>You've been in the business for decades. You've seen a

0:37:04.400 --> 0:37:06.600
<v Speaker 12>lot of cycles. You were talking earlier about the seventies.

0:37:07.000 --> 0:37:09.120
<v Speaker 12>I hope that's not the aut analog. But is there

0:37:09.120 --> 0:37:11.239
<v Speaker 12>an analog to the moment that we're in right now

0:37:11.280 --> 0:37:13.120
<v Speaker 12>that you can think of in terms of investing, in

0:37:13.200 --> 0:37:15.320
<v Speaker 12>terms of the macroeconomic backdrop.

0:37:15.600 --> 0:37:20.920
<v Speaker 11>So we're mid cycle in a stretched environment where it's

0:37:21.080 --> 0:37:25.000
<v Speaker 11>very narrow for what the opportunities are. That's like most

0:37:25.040 --> 0:37:25.799
<v Speaker 11>markets I've been in.

0:37:26.640 --> 0:37:27.680
<v Speaker 6>I mean, that's like just in.

0:37:27.760 --> 0:37:30.000
<v Speaker 12>Feeling most markets for most people.

0:37:30.320 --> 0:37:32.680
<v Speaker 11>So if you were to go back and count, yeah,

0:37:32.840 --> 0:37:38.160
<v Speaker 11>stretch valuations, very little dispersion except for a certain percentage

0:37:38.160 --> 0:37:40.200
<v Speaker 11>of the market, call it less than twenty percent of

0:37:40.239 --> 0:37:42.520
<v Speaker 11>the market, that's kind of most markets.

0:37:42.719 --> 0:37:43.880
<v Speaker 6>I bet, I haven't.

0:37:44.600 --> 0:37:48.040
<v Speaker 11>I bet it's three quarters of the market, is what that?

0:37:48.200 --> 0:37:49.360
<v Speaker 11>It's certainly more than half.

0:37:49.880 --> 0:37:52.120
<v Speaker 12>So you think that the analog is almost every time

0:37:52.160 --> 0:37:54.200
<v Speaker 12>except for the big extremes, Well.

0:37:54.120 --> 0:37:56.720
<v Speaker 11>I think that what's different this time because every cycle

0:37:56.760 --> 0:37:57.760
<v Speaker 11>has something that's different.

0:37:58.120 --> 0:38:00.439
<v Speaker 6>And what's different this time is.

0:38:00.640 --> 0:38:05.960
<v Speaker 11>The AI expense and what the ramifications of who the

0:38:06.000 --> 0:38:08.160
<v Speaker 11>winners and losers are. And you could have said that

0:38:08.239 --> 0:38:12.680
<v Speaker 11>with media with the Internet, and who's going to be

0:38:13.400 --> 0:38:18.680
<v Speaker 11>when I think of software and try and conceptualize who

0:38:18.680 --> 0:38:21.440
<v Speaker 11>the winners and losers are. I look at legacy media,

0:38:21.840 --> 0:38:25.600
<v Speaker 11>and there was TV which went from call it nominal

0:38:25.640 --> 0:38:29.200
<v Speaker 11>growth to lesser noomenal growth, but still growth. You look

0:38:29.239 --> 0:38:33.000
<v Speaker 11>at cable programmers who still had above nominal growth for

0:38:33.040 --> 0:38:36.399
<v Speaker 11>about fifteen years, so those were healthy businesses. You had

0:38:36.520 --> 0:38:41.439
<v Speaker 11>radio that call it by two thousand and eight or nine,

0:38:41.520 --> 0:38:46.919
<v Speaker 11>seem to really be a more marginal product, and then

0:38:47.560 --> 0:38:50.400
<v Speaker 11>by the late teens really in trouble. And then you

0:38:50.440 --> 0:38:53.960
<v Speaker 11>had newspapers which really peaked about I'm trying to think

0:38:53.960 --> 0:38:56.960
<v Speaker 11>of the tribune transaction of two thousand and six, two

0:38:57.000 --> 0:38:59.120
<v Speaker 11>thousand and seven, I think two thousand and five. So

0:38:59.680 --> 0:39:03.760
<v Speaker 11>after two thousand and five really began to be disintermediated.

0:39:04.080 --> 0:39:07.560
<v Speaker 11>So where does some of these industries fall with that methodology?

0:39:08.200 --> 0:39:11.600
<v Speaker 12>Fascinating and everyone wants to be not radio, although radio

0:39:11.680 --> 0:39:13.600
<v Speaker 12>is coming back with podcasts, so there's.

0:39:13.400 --> 0:39:18.600
<v Speaker 11>That though it's not though it's not only on the band, right,

0:39:18.920 --> 0:39:21.880
<v Speaker 11>So when you're thinking about radio, as I grew up

0:39:21.920 --> 0:39:25.239
<v Speaker 11>with it, it was AMFM and really FM for the

0:39:25.239 --> 0:39:28.520
<v Speaker 11>most part, though I think I remember being invested the

0:39:28.560 --> 0:39:32.520
<v Speaker 11>largest credit in MS, which was w FAN on the

0:39:32.560 --> 0:39:37.000
<v Speaker 11>AM band, But it was but that's a different it's

0:39:37.040 --> 0:39:40.240
<v Speaker 11>a different medium for radio.

0:39:40.480 --> 0:39:44.320
<v Speaker 12>Yeah, different distribution mechanisms. Stephen Tannebaum, always a clinic, Always

0:39:44.320 --> 0:39:46.640
<v Speaker 12>wonderful to speak with you. Steven Tannabaum of Golden Tree

0:39:46.680 --> 0:39:50.960
<v Speaker 12>Asset Management, Thank you, it's so good here.

0:39:52.000 --> 0:39:55.720
<v Speaker 3>That was Steve Tannenbaum, Golden Tree Asset Management founder and CIO,

0:39:55.840 --> 0:39:59.160
<v Speaker 3>speaking with our own Lisa Abromowitz. Hello, Welcome back to

0:39:59.160 --> 0:40:01.840
<v Speaker 3>Bloomberg Tech. This is what financial markets look like, zeroed

0:40:01.840 --> 0:40:04.000
<v Speaker 3>in on the tech sector. There is a lot in

0:40:04.040 --> 0:40:06.200
<v Speaker 3>the market to do with the move in oil. There

0:40:06.239 --> 0:40:09.239
<v Speaker 3>is some concern about the current state of affairs in

0:40:09.280 --> 0:40:11.319
<v Speaker 3>the relationship between the US and Iran and what that

0:40:11.360 --> 0:40:14.520
<v Speaker 3>means for peace talks. Broadly, we're a little softer to

0:40:14.640 --> 0:40:16.839
<v Speaker 3>flat on the Nasdaq one hundred, you know, that's our

0:40:16.880 --> 0:40:19.920
<v Speaker 3>go to tech heavy index. But continued out performance in

0:40:20.000 --> 0:40:22.719
<v Speaker 3>chip stocks and we've given you that story throughout the hour.

0:40:22.760 --> 0:40:23.880
<v Speaker 3>We're going to get a lot more on it in

0:40:23.920 --> 0:40:26.560
<v Speaker 3>just a moment's time. Bitcoin at sixty six thousand US

0:40:26.560 --> 0:40:30.120
<v Speaker 3>dollars per token, down two percent, but you know, kind

0:40:30.120 --> 0:40:32.600
<v Speaker 3>of risk off. And then there was that big number

0:40:32.760 --> 0:40:35.680
<v Speaker 3>alphabet boosting its equity offering to eighty four point seventy

0:40:35.680 --> 0:40:38.080
<v Speaker 3>five billion dollars. A little bit of dilution going on,

0:40:38.120 --> 0:40:40.799
<v Speaker 3>maybe down six ten to one percent. Okay, markets are fun?

0:40:40.840 --> 0:40:41.839
<v Speaker 3>What else is going on current?

0:40:42.160 --> 0:40:45.200
<v Speaker 4>Maybe politics is fun in certain places. Right here in California,

0:40:45.320 --> 0:40:48.840
<v Speaker 4>several tech favored candidates they delivered actually a poor showing

0:40:48.840 --> 0:40:52.120
<v Speaker 4>in California's primary elections just yesterday. The results are still

0:40:52.120 --> 0:40:55.120
<v Speaker 4>being tallied, but so far, the big buck spent by

0:40:55.120 --> 0:40:58.680
<v Speaker 4>Silicon Valley billionaires and founders they haven't resulted in wide

0:40:58.760 --> 0:41:01.960
<v Speaker 4>ranging wins for their favorite candidates. But in most California

0:41:02.000 --> 0:41:05.840
<v Speaker 4>reporter Aniahou Commission is here with us and an iaho.

0:41:06.400 --> 0:41:08.200
<v Speaker 2>Why why has money not worked?

0:41:08.840 --> 0:41:11.960
<v Speaker 13>That's a good question. I think we're seeing that a

0:41:11.960 --> 0:41:16.440
<v Speaker 13>lot of this frustration in Silicon Valley has been concentrated

0:41:16.520 --> 0:41:19.799
<v Speaker 13>amongst a very small group of tech elite, and it

0:41:19.800 --> 0:41:21.839
<v Speaker 13>didn't really translate to the voter base.

0:41:21.920 --> 0:41:25.280
<v Speaker 6>So they spent a lot of money on Matt Mayhon.

0:41:25.120 --> 0:41:28.719
<v Speaker 13>The moderate San Jose mayor, and they there's a lot

0:41:28.719 --> 0:41:33.160
<v Speaker 13>of enthusiasm on X for him. A lot of venture capitalists,

0:41:33.840 --> 0:41:37.160
<v Speaker 13>big names like Mike Morritz, Sergey Brinn came in behind him.

0:41:37.160 --> 0:41:39.480
<v Speaker 2>But he promising like no billionaire attacks.

0:41:39.120 --> 0:41:42.280
<v Speaker 13>Basically that was one of his promises. He was against

0:41:42.320 --> 0:41:44.400
<v Speaker 13>the billionaire tax. He wanted to kind of do a

0:41:44.440 --> 0:41:50.000
<v Speaker 13>more back to basics, smaller government, you know, kind of

0:41:51.120 --> 0:41:54.760
<v Speaker 13>less taxation and little less regulation, a little more friendly

0:41:54.800 --> 0:41:58.759
<v Speaker 13>to tech. And I think, you know, we've seen that

0:41:58.800 --> 0:42:01.799
<v Speaker 13>there's a lot of actually fresh with Silicon Valley in

0:42:01.840 --> 0:42:06.560
<v Speaker 13>California and these leaders who are making a lot of

0:42:06.560 --> 0:42:08.760
<v Speaker 13>money in the tech boom, and they're feeling very confident.

0:42:08.800 --> 0:42:10.800
<v Speaker 13>It's actually not translating.

0:42:10.200 --> 0:42:13.560
<v Speaker 3>To the ballot box right now if you're watching Bloomberg

0:42:13.600 --> 0:42:17.120
<v Speaker 3>Tech from outside of California, we're talking about the gubernatorial primary,

0:42:17.120 --> 0:42:20.840
<v Speaker 3>the race for governor, and the first instance of that

0:42:20.920 --> 0:42:23.279
<v Speaker 3>has been gone. The top two will go to the

0:42:23.360 --> 0:42:26.759
<v Speaker 3>general election in November. Just where do we stand? You know,

0:42:27.000 --> 0:42:29.800
<v Speaker 3>who is likely to go through on that? And always

0:42:30.160 --> 0:42:32.200
<v Speaker 3>on this show, give us the tech angle of whoever

0:42:32.280 --> 0:42:32.879
<v Speaker 3>does go through?

0:42:33.200 --> 0:42:35.960
<v Speaker 13>Yeah, so there's three candidates that are at the top.

0:42:36.120 --> 0:42:39.640
<v Speaker 13>Is Javier Bessera, Joe Baden's former health secretary, Steve Hilton,

0:42:40.040 --> 0:42:43.920
<v Speaker 13>who is a Republican former Fox News commentator, and then

0:42:43.960 --> 0:42:49.319
<v Speaker 13>Tom Steyer, who is a liberal former hedge fund billionaire.

0:42:50.239 --> 0:42:52.799
<v Speaker 13>And right now it looks like Javier and Hilton are

0:42:52.800 --> 0:42:55.319
<v Speaker 13>going to go to the runoff, although ballots are still

0:42:55.320 --> 0:42:59.800
<v Speaker 13>being counted and Tom could make a late run. The

0:43:00.120 --> 0:43:02.840
<v Speaker 13>ending on, you know, to be determined. I think what

0:43:03.120 --> 0:43:05.799
<v Speaker 13>the tech angle is Javier has kind of started to

0:43:05.840 --> 0:43:11.080
<v Speaker 13>coalesce some of the establishment democratic interests and also a

0:43:11.120 --> 0:43:11.960
<v Speaker 13>little bit of.

0:43:11.840 --> 0:43:13.040
<v Speaker 6>The tech money.

0:43:13.120 --> 0:43:17.200
<v Speaker 13>So when he started surging as a late stage favorite,

0:43:17.200 --> 0:43:20.479
<v Speaker 13>you saw Meta and you saw Airbnb come in for him.

0:43:20.680 --> 0:43:23.800
<v Speaker 13>And interesting, they're kind of they laid in the stage.

0:43:23.840 --> 0:43:25.640
<v Speaker 13>They acknowledge that he's going to be the front runner,

0:43:25.640 --> 0:43:27.840
<v Speaker 13>and they're trying to kind of put pick a winning horse.

0:43:28.160 --> 0:43:31.520
<v Speaker 3>Bimbogs Ellie Camrashow on tech and politics. What's happening in

0:43:31.520 --> 0:43:35.120
<v Speaker 3>a selection cycle here in California? GitHub is beending big

0:43:35.160 --> 0:43:38.799
<v Speaker 3>on ai agents, launching a new GitHub co pilot desktop app,

0:43:39.120 --> 0:43:41.640
<v Speaker 3>or racing to keep up with surging demand. I sat

0:43:41.680 --> 0:43:45.120
<v Speaker 3>down with Microsoft's EVP of Core Ai, Jay Prie, to

0:43:45.200 --> 0:43:49.160
<v Speaker 3>discuss GitHub's growth, its efforts to improve reliability, and what

0:43:49.280 --> 0:43:49.840
<v Speaker 3>comes next.

0:43:50.040 --> 0:43:50.560
<v Speaker 6>Listen to this.

0:43:53.000 --> 0:43:56.880
<v Speaker 14>For us, it is one where GitHub continues to get

0:43:57.200 --> 0:44:00.239
<v Speaker 14>lots of help from the rest of Microsoft. Right, So,

0:44:00.360 --> 0:44:03.000
<v Speaker 14>we have even in just the year and a half

0:44:03.040 --> 0:44:06.680
<v Speaker 14>I've been at Microsoft, we have brought in really great

0:44:06.719 --> 0:44:09.359
<v Speaker 14>talent from other parts of the company to help us

0:44:09.400 --> 0:44:12.560
<v Speaker 14>build products, to help us scale, to help get Hub

0:44:12.600 --> 0:44:16.040
<v Speaker 14>be more secure, to build those enterprise backstory.

0:44:15.719 --> 0:44:18.120
<v Speaker 3>Was the outage security issues, and then there was a

0:44:18.239 --> 0:44:22.280
<v Speaker 3>change or departure of leadership. So you're describing what's happened since.

0:44:22.640 --> 0:44:24.839
<v Speaker 14>So you know, we should start with the fact that

0:44:25.160 --> 0:44:27.560
<v Speaker 14>beginning since the beginning of the year, the amount of

0:44:27.719 --> 0:44:31.239
<v Speaker 14>traffic that has come to Getthub has gone up significantly. Right,

0:44:31.320 --> 0:44:34.000
<v Speaker 14>So last year we had about a billion commits that

0:44:34.040 --> 0:44:37.239
<v Speaker 14>we processed in all of twenty twenty five. Now we

0:44:37.280 --> 0:44:41.480
<v Speaker 14>process about three hundred million commits each each week, So

0:44:41.680 --> 0:44:45.800
<v Speaker 14>traffic has gone up pretty significantly, and we're very committed

0:44:45.960 --> 0:44:50.319
<v Speaker 14>to improve the availability the performance of the platform. We're

0:44:50.360 --> 0:44:54.000
<v Speaker 14>getting help from more of the Microsoft engineers and the

0:44:54.040 --> 0:44:57.080
<v Speaker 14>top talent that we have. We're attracting new talent to

0:44:57.160 --> 0:45:00.120
<v Speaker 14>the team, We're bringing in more capacity to scale well,

0:45:00.480 --> 0:45:03.359
<v Speaker 14>and we're re architecting these systems. But you know, I

0:45:03.360 --> 0:45:05.960
<v Speaker 14>feel really good about the path that we're on.

0:45:06.200 --> 0:45:09.480
<v Speaker 3>Could you just give us a real time view of

0:45:09.560 --> 0:45:12.920
<v Speaker 3>how much work is being done, real work by an

0:45:12.920 --> 0:45:15.319
<v Speaker 3>agent and where you see that going over the next

0:45:15.320 --> 0:45:16.480
<v Speaker 3>twelve months and beyond.

0:45:16.960 --> 0:45:19.480
<v Speaker 14>And I think we're just at the start as this

0:45:19.600 --> 0:45:22.359
<v Speaker 14>is right because it's early, but it is amazing to

0:45:22.440 --> 0:45:26.839
<v Speaker 14>see how people are translating these ideas into these use

0:45:26.880 --> 0:45:30.359
<v Speaker 14>cases and building these platforms right, and lots of use

0:45:30.400 --> 0:45:34.919
<v Speaker 14>cases even internally where teams are building agents to continually

0:45:34.960 --> 0:45:38.440
<v Speaker 14>improve their product even when they're sleeping, you know, on

0:45:38.480 --> 0:45:41.879
<v Speaker 14>the weekends, these agents are running and then analyzing all

0:45:41.880 --> 0:45:45.279
<v Speaker 14>sorts of different telemetry to find ways to then make

0:45:45.320 --> 0:45:48.560
<v Speaker 14>suggestions for the engineers for the product folks when they

0:45:48.560 --> 0:45:50.799
<v Speaker 14>wake up in the morning to how to improve the

0:45:50.840 --> 0:45:54.319
<v Speaker 14>systems right. And this is technology that works today. You

0:45:54.360 --> 0:45:57.759
<v Speaker 14>need that observability, as you keyed on earlier. You need

0:45:57.760 --> 0:46:00.080
<v Speaker 14>that human in the loop to make sure the thing

0:46:00.120 --> 0:46:02.640
<v Speaker 14>stay on track and that it is doing what you

0:46:02.800 --> 0:46:06.440
<v Speaker 14>expected to and prioritizing it correctly. It's early, but it

0:46:06.600 --> 0:46:09.280
<v Speaker 14>is going to be I think a really really quick

0:46:09.400 --> 0:46:12.799
<v Speaker 14>ramp and it's exciting that we're seeing this. And you know,

0:46:12.840 --> 0:46:15.479
<v Speaker 14>the team's super energized to be working closely with our

0:46:15.520 --> 0:46:19.399
<v Speaker 14>customers to be iterating on these platforms, on these technologies.

0:46:20.840 --> 0:46:24.440
<v Speaker 4>Microsoft's EVP of Core ai j perk there with ed

0:46:24.719 --> 0:46:27.520
<v Speaker 4>coming up, all eyes and Broadcom as they get set

0:46:27.560 --> 0:46:29.480
<v Speaker 4>to report off of the closing bell. What I need

0:46:29.520 --> 0:46:32.480
<v Speaker 4>is you tell us about the AI trade chess Hi,

0:46:32.640 --> 0:46:33.240
<v Speaker 4>this is blue.

0:46:33.080 --> 0:46:33.640
<v Speaker 2>Bag Tex.

0:46:37.040 --> 0:46:38.760
<v Speaker 6>The next trillion dollar company.

0:46:38.840 --> 0:46:43.400
<v Speaker 11>Ladies and gentlemen, WHOA that would be exciting.

0:46:43.480 --> 0:46:44.240
<v Speaker 3>Let's do it together.

0:46:44.560 --> 0:46:45.120
<v Speaker 6>Let's do it.

0:46:45.040 --> 0:46:50.720
<v Speaker 4>Together A CEO Jason Wong alongside Marvel CEO Matt Murphy

0:46:50.880 --> 0:46:53.839
<v Speaker 4>over in Taiwan at computext that was yesterday and share

0:46:53.880 --> 0:46:57.080
<v Speaker 4>some of continuing to run high and look at that

0:46:57.160 --> 0:46:59.840
<v Speaker 4>move over three training days that we are getting c

0:47:00.160 --> 0:47:03.439
<v Speaker 4>set potential one trillion dollars as Jensen was just talking

0:47:03.440 --> 0:47:06.080
<v Speaker 4>about for more who most Denavas joins us. Now, it's

0:47:06.160 --> 0:47:09.680
<v Speaker 4>the power of the five trillion dollar giant in the

0:47:09.760 --> 0:47:12.359
<v Speaker 4>room to anoint the next one trillion. But is there

0:47:12.360 --> 0:47:13.480
<v Speaker 4>real fundamentals behind it?

0:47:13.560 --> 0:47:17.480
<v Speaker 15>Dina, It's we're i think waiting to see you know

0:47:17.560 --> 0:47:21.160
<v Speaker 15>what Broadcom reports today Marvel's made competitor. But also Marvel,

0:47:21.680 --> 0:47:24.680
<v Speaker 15>you know, and Broadcom are basically competing for the business

0:47:24.760 --> 0:47:28.680
<v Speaker 15>around custom AI accelerators that aren't in video. Now, Jensen

0:47:29.160 --> 0:47:31.479
<v Speaker 15>is not objective when he and you know so to speak,

0:47:31.480 --> 0:47:34.360
<v Speaker 15>annoints Marvel in that manner. Marvel is the horse that

0:47:35.000 --> 0:47:38.960
<v Speaker 15>Invidia has backed in that space, They've invested, and you know,

0:47:39.000 --> 0:47:41.160
<v Speaker 15>he wants to set them up as an even stronger

0:47:41.160 --> 0:47:45.200
<v Speaker 15>competitor to Broadcom because Broadcom itself has you know, been

0:47:45.239 --> 0:47:48.360
<v Speaker 15>positioned and has positioned itself as a the alternative to

0:47:48.480 --> 0:47:51.240
<v Speaker 15>in video if you don't want to use in videos GPUs.

0:47:51.040 --> 0:47:53.840
<v Speaker 3>Right, and Broadcom is now a two point three trillion

0:47:53.880 --> 0:47:57.600
<v Speaker 3>dollar company as a result. This is an important earning.

0:47:57.640 --> 0:48:01.000
<v Speaker 3>Sprint explain why it's important, but also why Broadcom is

0:48:01.320 --> 0:48:03.320
<v Speaker 3>a genuine competitor to Nvidia.

0:48:04.360 --> 0:48:07.359
<v Speaker 15>So the vast majority of the AI chips that are

0:48:07.480 --> 0:48:12.560
<v Speaker 15>used are in video's GPUs. The alternatives increasingly are coming from,

0:48:12.760 --> 0:48:15.440
<v Speaker 15>you know, some of the hyper scalers and the large

0:48:15.680 --> 0:48:18.840
<v Speaker 15>frontier labs that are making their own custom chips, and

0:48:18.960 --> 0:48:23.560
<v Speaker 15>Broadcom has several of those. The biggest customers there. We

0:48:23.640 --> 0:48:25.680
<v Speaker 15>talk a lot on this show in the past few

0:48:25.680 --> 0:48:30.600
<v Speaker 15>months about Google's TPU that's made with Broadcom. Anthropic is

0:48:30.640 --> 0:48:33.080
<v Speaker 15>buying a bunch of those and paying Broadcom for them,

0:48:33.239 --> 0:48:37.360
<v Speaker 15>Metal Works with Broadcom, and those three companies have signed extended,

0:48:37.640 --> 0:48:40.319
<v Speaker 15>you know, long term deals with Broadcom in the last

0:48:40.320 --> 0:48:42.640
<v Speaker 15>few months. They already had deals and they expanded them.

0:48:42.680 --> 0:48:45.840
<v Speaker 15>And so what we're seeing from Broadcom is, you know,

0:48:45.840 --> 0:48:49.520
<v Speaker 15>according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts, a better visibility of what

0:48:49.560 --> 0:48:53.000
<v Speaker 15>the long term picture looks like for that pipeline. That's

0:48:53.040 --> 0:48:55.440
<v Speaker 15>been something I think investors have been a little bit

0:48:55.480 --> 0:48:57.759
<v Speaker 15>concerned about. You know, what is the long term pipeline.

0:48:57.760 --> 0:49:00.759
<v Speaker 15>When do these contracts come online? And if they're a

0:49:00.800 --> 0:49:03.480
<v Speaker 15>multi year contract, what is the amount of revenue the

0:49:03.480 --> 0:49:05.239
<v Speaker 15>Broadcam is going to be able to get from each

0:49:05.280 --> 0:49:08.000
<v Speaker 15>of them in you know, in each quarter. How does

0:49:08.000 --> 0:49:10.839
<v Speaker 15>that kind of play out? But there is now greater visibility.

0:49:11.640 --> 0:49:14.120
<v Speaker 3>Bloomberg's Dina Bass with the broadc on preview and stay

0:49:14.120 --> 0:49:17.400
<v Speaker 3>with Bloomberg Tech tomorrow. We're live from the Bloomberg Tech Conference.

0:49:17.640 --> 0:49:21.040
<v Speaker 3>Hock Tan, Broadcom president and CEO, joins us. This is

0:49:21.120 --> 0:49:23.680
<v Speaker 3>just pure timing Caro and the linings after the Bell

0:49:23.880 --> 0:49:24.840
<v Speaker 3>conversation tomorrow.

0:49:25.000 --> 0:49:28.040
<v Speaker 4>What a phenomenal executive discussion to be having. Tom Giles,

0:49:28.440 --> 0:49:30.520
<v Speaker 4>our executive editor, is going to be leading that conversation.

0:49:30.760 --> 0:49:32.960
<v Speaker 4>What an array of people we're going to speak into

0:49:32.960 --> 0:49:34.640
<v Speaker 4>throughout the day. I mean, you're going to be speaking

0:49:34.640 --> 0:49:36.839
<v Speaker 4>with Andrell's chair and of.

0:49:36.719 --> 0:49:38.400
<v Speaker 2>Course big Player over it found us fun.

0:49:38.440 --> 0:49:40.880
<v Speaker 4>I'm going to be talking to San Francisco Fed President.

0:49:41.160 --> 0:49:42.719
<v Speaker 2>We have a lot to digest tomorrow and it's a

0:49:42.719 --> 0:49:43.120
<v Speaker 2>big show.

0:49:43.360 --> 0:49:45.200
<v Speaker 3>It was a good show today, So recap it you

0:49:45.200 --> 0:49:47.160
<v Speaker 3>know where on the podcast and you can find it

0:49:47.200 --> 0:49:51.600
<v Speaker 3>online Spotify, iHeart and on Apple and then of course

0:49:51.640 --> 0:49:54.759
<v Speaker 3>and all the Bloomberg platforms. This is Bloomberg Tech