WEBVTT - The "Bear" Necessities in Crypto and Tech

0:00:02.240 --> 0:00:05.600
<v Speaker 1>From the heart of where innovation, money and power collive

0:00:06.360 --> 0:00:10.879
<v Speaker 1>in Silicon Valley and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with

0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:26.759
<v Speaker 1>Emily Jay. I'm Emily changing San Francisco, and this is

0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:29.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Technology coming up in the next hour. A wild

0:00:29.360 --> 0:00:31.600
<v Speaker 1>day to end a wild week. The SMP on the

0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:34.000
<v Speaker 1>rink of a bear market bounces back thanks to a

0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:38.640
<v Speaker 1>dramatic late session rally, though still on its longest losing

0:00:38.680 --> 0:00:40.680
<v Speaker 1>streak in more than twenty years. We'll try to make

0:00:40.720 --> 0:00:45.000
<v Speaker 1>sense of the madness plus panic in both public and

0:00:45.320 --> 0:00:48.720
<v Speaker 1>private markets. We're gonna explore how startups are getting creative

0:00:48.840 --> 0:00:53.840
<v Speaker 1>as they try to stay afloat and Bitcoin dipping below dollars,

0:00:53.840 --> 0:00:56.440
<v Speaker 1>How long does the crypto crunch keep up? And is

0:00:56.480 --> 0:01:00.800
<v Speaker 1>their hope on the horizon. We'll discuss all that in

0:01:00.840 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>a moment. But first it looked like we'd end the

0:01:03.280 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 1>day for sure in bear market territory. But a late

0:01:05.440 --> 0:01:07.679
<v Speaker 1>afternoon bounce back saved the day. Is it only a

0:01:07.680 --> 0:01:10.280
<v Speaker 1>matter of time though, bloom said Ludlow here to walk

0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:13.760
<v Speaker 1>through the movers and who is feeling the most pain? Right?

0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:16.280
<v Speaker 1>Get you get to Friday afternoon and you see this

0:01:16.360 --> 0:01:19.240
<v Speaker 1>on the screen, zero point zero one percent flat on

0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:22.000
<v Speaker 1>the SMP five and you think it's been a nothing

0:01:22.080 --> 0:01:26.119
<v Speaker 1>kind of day. Not so volatility across equity markets. There

0:01:26.240 --> 0:01:28.400
<v Speaker 1>was this late come back on the SMP five hundred.

0:01:28.640 --> 0:01:32.640
<v Speaker 1>We escaped that bare market territory, that bear market label.

0:01:32.680 --> 0:01:34.480
<v Speaker 1>But you look at the NAZAC one hundred was still

0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:38.040
<v Speaker 1>softed by three tenths and one percent, very tech heavy index,

0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:42.280
<v Speaker 1>trading at its lowest level since November. On a weekly basis,

0:01:42.400 --> 0:01:46.720
<v Speaker 1>SMPI also lower by around three percent in seventh consecutive

0:01:46.920 --> 0:01:49.120
<v Speaker 1>weekly decline, which we'll talk about later in the show.

0:01:49.320 --> 0:01:51.520
<v Speaker 1>Bitcoin has also been interesting. It kind of held its

0:01:51.560 --> 0:01:54.639
<v Speaker 1>own earlier in Friday's session above thirty thousand dollars be token,

0:01:54.880 --> 0:01:59.000
<v Speaker 1>but fell away frankly in the latter hours of Friday's trading,

0:01:59.200 --> 0:02:03.200
<v Speaker 1>now just above dollars per token. In this volatility and

0:02:03.240 --> 0:02:07.360
<v Speaker 1>equity markets, it was much more chill in the bond markets.

0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:10.000
<v Speaker 1>You look at the US tenure yield two point eight percent.

0:02:10.320 --> 0:02:13.120
<v Speaker 1>Yes we're down five basis points, but it wasn't one

0:02:13.160 --> 0:02:15.600
<v Speaker 1>of these days where we saw a big twelve or

0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:20.160
<v Speaker 1>four teen basis point jump or decline. Much more calm

0:02:20.520 --> 0:02:22.519
<v Speaker 1>bond market, even though we did see a move into

0:02:22.560 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>haven assets risk off kind of sentiment. You see the

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:28.080
<v Speaker 1>dollar getting strength as well. Ultimately, this is the story

0:02:28.160 --> 0:02:31.280
<v Speaker 1>coming me into my Bloomberg terminal. A bear market label

0:02:31.639 --> 0:02:35.280
<v Speaker 1>or a bear market territory is where we're falling on

0:02:35.400 --> 0:02:38.079
<v Speaker 1>an index or an asset from its most recent high.

0:02:38.160 --> 0:02:40.920
<v Speaker 1>We were at that level throughout much of Friday's session,

0:02:41.200 --> 0:02:43.959
<v Speaker 1>but that late comeback sees us down eighteen point six

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:47.639
<v Speaker 1>percent from that January third high on the SMP five.

0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:50.680
<v Speaker 1>The question really is the direction to travel from this point.

0:02:50.960 --> 0:02:54.000
<v Speaker 1>Do we continue to see pressure on equity markets or

0:02:54.040 --> 0:02:56.359
<v Speaker 1>do we turn a corner going into next week. We're

0:02:56.400 --> 0:02:58.760
<v Speaker 1>hoping to turn a corner m because I'll be honest,

0:02:59.080 --> 0:03:02.799
<v Speaker 1>it's been a stressful week. I'm exhausted, you're exhausted, and

0:03:02.880 --> 0:03:06.080
<v Speaker 1>we could all do with some positivity. Lastly, some specific movies.

0:03:06.120 --> 0:03:08.760
<v Speaker 1>We want to talk about Apple Interesting up two tens

0:03:08.800 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 1>of one percent on Friday's session, but it's been a

0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:13.400
<v Speaker 1>real drag on the index throughout the week. And Tesla

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:16.120
<v Speaker 1>actually also it's lost a hundred ten billion dollars a

0:03:16.200 --> 0:03:18.840
<v Speaker 1>market cap over the last five days or so. It

0:03:19.000 --> 0:03:20.919
<v Speaker 1>has been a real drag on the index, and you

0:03:21.040 --> 0:03:23.639
<v Speaker 1>forget and one hand, we're thinking about the FED, we're

0:03:23.680 --> 0:03:26.600
<v Speaker 1>thinking about inflation, we're looking for the outlook on higher rates.

0:03:26.760 --> 0:03:29.519
<v Speaker 1>But we still have supply chain problems, we still have

0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:32.480
<v Speaker 1>lockdowns in China, and we're really focused on the impact

0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:36.240
<v Speaker 1>on US corporates that that's having dear really interesting earnings,

0:03:36.280 --> 0:03:39.600
<v Speaker 1>disappoint a big plunge on that stock down Foard, a

0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:42.320
<v Speaker 1>big drag on the SMP five. What's the story there,

0:03:42.440 --> 0:03:45.560
<v Speaker 1>supply chain issues. And lastly, I'm looking at ross stores down.

0:03:46.560 --> 0:03:49.840
<v Speaker 1>The other big story of the week, retail, the consumer,

0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:54.280
<v Speaker 1>the missed estimates, the cut forecasts, the tepid outlook. The

0:03:54.360 --> 0:03:56.600
<v Speaker 1>world is changing m and there's a lot to considering

0:03:56.640 --> 0:03:59.120
<v Speaker 1>the markets obviously interesting indeed on the back of those

0:03:59.160 --> 0:04:03.119
<v Speaker 1>targeting results, thank you. While we're seeing tech stocks down

0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:05.240
<v Speaker 1>across the board, as and mentioned, I want to talk

0:04:05.240 --> 0:04:07.840
<v Speaker 1>about all this and more with Robert Kentwell, portfolio manager

0:04:07.880 --> 0:04:11.040
<v Speaker 1>at Upholdings, the firm behind the compound Kings et F

0:04:11.120 --> 0:04:14.160
<v Speaker 1>which includes a number of megacat tech stocks, and also

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:16.680
<v Speaker 1>joined by Dan Eyes, managing director of red Bush Securities,

0:04:16.680 --> 0:04:18.920
<v Speaker 1>who cover some of the biggest names in the eye

0:04:19.040 --> 0:04:20.600
<v Speaker 1>of this storm. Robert, I want to start with you,

0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 1>how much farther do you think we have to go

0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:26.680
<v Speaker 1>before we hit bottom here? Well, that was a pretty

0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>negative setup. Uh, let's see, Uh, let's see if we

0:04:30.040 --> 0:04:32.640
<v Speaker 1>can find a silver lining in all this. Um. You know,

0:04:32.760 --> 0:04:36.000
<v Speaker 1>the one thing that's been particularly unique to us about

0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:39.599
<v Speaker 1>this sell off has been how uniform it's been across

0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:43.080
<v Speaker 1>so many different technology companies, from e commerce to media

0:04:43.720 --> 0:04:47.760
<v Speaker 1>to software, and but that doesn't necessarily reveal what's been

0:04:47.760 --> 0:04:51.480
<v Speaker 1>happening underneath the surface. So in retail and an e

0:04:51.560 --> 0:04:54.320
<v Speaker 1>commerce and the media, you've been seeing subscriptions canceled, you

0:04:54.400 --> 0:04:57.600
<v Speaker 1>can see spending pullback, you've been seeing margins compressed from

0:04:57.600 --> 0:04:59.560
<v Speaker 1>all the supply chain issues that you've been talking about.

0:05:00.200 --> 0:05:03.279
<v Speaker 1>But one area that stuck out to us is cloud computing.

0:05:04.080 --> 0:05:06.919
<v Speaker 1>And you take a business like Amazon that's down thirty

0:05:06.960 --> 0:05:09.719
<v Speaker 1>seven percent year to day, that has an enormous amount

0:05:09.720 --> 0:05:12.680
<v Speaker 1>of wealth destruction in a single in a single security.

0:05:13.279 --> 0:05:17.719
<v Speaker 1>But because AWS has still performed so well, Amazon's prices

0:05:17.800 --> 0:05:22.480
<v Speaker 1>actually down about fifth year sixty on evaluation basis. And

0:05:22.600 --> 0:05:25.080
<v Speaker 1>so what we've been telling investors in an environment like

0:05:25.200 --> 0:05:28.000
<v Speaker 1>this is you're being given one of these few opportunities

0:05:28.080 --> 0:05:30.440
<v Speaker 1>to ditch some of these losers, ditch these companies that

0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:33.520
<v Speaker 1>are burning cash with flawed business models, because you're getting

0:05:33.520 --> 0:05:37.800
<v Speaker 1>opportunities by great businesses like aws or service now that

0:05:37.880 --> 0:05:39.880
<v Speaker 1>have actually been growing in spite of what the market

0:05:39.920 --> 0:05:45.640
<v Speaker 1>has been saying about their share Robert, who are the losers? Well, uh,

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:49.320
<v Speaker 1>there's you certainly have the carbonas. I mean, the companies

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 1>that have had these extremely marketing driven growth stories that

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:56.200
<v Speaker 1>are very expensive to fund. You know, you and I

0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:59.320
<v Speaker 1>we talked a lot about the right sharing companies last

0:05:59.320 --> 0:06:02.480
<v Speaker 1>time we were together. Peloton obviously falls into this group.

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:05.600
<v Speaker 1>But any business where you see them spending more of

0:06:05.640 --> 0:06:10.120
<v Speaker 1>their gross profit on marketing dollars than any other opex

0:06:10.120 --> 0:06:12.880
<v Speaker 1>slide item, that's usually a red flag. And those tend

0:06:12.960 --> 0:06:14.839
<v Speaker 1>to be the companies now if you throw a screen

0:06:14.920 --> 0:06:17.440
<v Speaker 1>up of you know, take gross profit minus marketing, those

0:06:17.480 --> 0:06:19.360
<v Speaker 1>are the businesses that right now are all struggling the

0:06:19.440 --> 0:06:21.840
<v Speaker 1>most because it's only getting more and more expensive to

0:06:21.880 --> 0:06:26.200
<v Speaker 1>acquire customers when you get into these demand m evaporating

0:06:26.240 --> 0:06:29.080
<v Speaker 1>climates like the one that we're in right now. Dan,

0:06:29.440 --> 0:06:31.920
<v Speaker 1>you of course cover some of the biggest names that

0:06:32.160 --> 0:06:35.720
<v Speaker 1>are in focus here. For example, Apple, which you know,

0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:38.880
<v Speaker 1>facing some some some some challenges that are you know

0:06:39.640 --> 0:06:42.560
<v Speaker 1>now facing companies across the board. How do you think

0:06:42.600 --> 0:06:45.360
<v Speaker 1>Apple weathers this? Do you think Apple has further to fall?

0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:49.240
<v Speaker 1>And you know, does Apple keep innovating? Is this is

0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:53.040
<v Speaker 1>safe by right now? I mean, look, I think it

0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:56.000
<v Speaker 1>continues to be a rock with Gibraltar stock and a

0:06:56.080 --> 0:06:59.160
<v Speaker 1>business model in terms of where we see iPhone the

0:06:59.279 --> 0:07:03.040
<v Speaker 1>name on the other side of the storm. And I believe,

0:07:03.240 --> 0:07:06.760
<v Speaker 1>as we've talked about holding up much better, they're expect expectation.

0:07:06.839 --> 0:07:09.360
<v Speaker 1>But I think right now is your other guests talking

0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:11.920
<v Speaker 1>about everything that you can get thrown out in risk

0:07:12.000 --> 0:07:15.800
<v Speaker 1>off environment that creates the opportunities to own these means.

0:07:15.840 --> 0:07:17.640
<v Speaker 1>And when you look at Apple, we think the services

0:07:17.720 --> 0:07:21.440
<v Speaker 1>business and women is worked over a trillion dollars microsofts

0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:24.240
<v Speaker 1>another example, it's all going to be induscriminate and selling.

0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:27.040
<v Speaker 1>That's the opportunity. You know, in terms of how we're

0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:30.920
<v Speaker 1>handholding horns, Robert, is Apple it aimed to you that

0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:34.920
<v Speaker 1>stands out as something that will survive the storm. I

0:07:34.960 --> 0:07:36.640
<v Speaker 1>mean Apple, you know you're not gonna find a lot

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:39.880
<v Speaker 1>of people who don't think Apple is going to keep innovating. Yeah,

0:07:40.120 --> 0:07:42.360
<v Speaker 1>it's like it's fine. I mean, it's it's a safe

0:07:42.400 --> 0:07:44.920
<v Speaker 1>place to put money. It's probably not the place where

0:07:45.280 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna get these, you know, devastatingly awesome investment returns

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:51.000
<v Speaker 1>for the next ten years. That's what I think is

0:07:51.280 --> 0:07:53.120
<v Speaker 1>also really exciting about a market like this is you

0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:55.480
<v Speaker 1>get to even look past the fundamentals some of these

0:07:55.520 --> 0:07:59.920
<v Speaker 1>businesses right now, and investors are reevaluating saying which pieces

0:07:59.920 --> 0:08:03.040
<v Speaker 1>of technology you're actually gonna matter the most over the

0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:08.400
<v Speaker 1>next ten years. And everything was focused around the iPhone

0:08:08.400 --> 0:08:10.520
<v Speaker 1>in the app store for the last ten years, and

0:08:10.800 --> 0:08:14.400
<v Speaker 1>those are likely to continue to remain important, but they're

0:08:14.400 --> 0:08:16.600
<v Speaker 1>gonna look much more mature, and you see that in

0:08:16.720 --> 0:08:18.800
<v Speaker 1>some of the regulatory dealings that you know, we're having

0:08:18.840 --> 0:08:21.520
<v Speaker 1>to shake out with with businesses like Apple right now.

0:08:22.080 --> 0:08:24.880
<v Speaker 1>But we think, you know, there's opportunities to look, you know,

0:08:25.040 --> 0:08:28.520
<v Speaker 1>deeper down, and you know, you did a great interview

0:08:28.520 --> 0:08:31.480
<v Speaker 1>to the night with Dave Zuoki over roadblocks. We think

0:08:31.560 --> 0:08:33.599
<v Speaker 1>that platform has the potential will be one of the

0:08:33.640 --> 0:08:36.439
<v Speaker 1>most important businesses. It is right now tracking to be

0:08:36.480 --> 0:08:40.440
<v Speaker 1>bigger than Nintendo. How many assets are there that exists

0:08:40.480 --> 0:08:43.079
<v Speaker 1>in the market of public investor can participate in to

0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:47.520
<v Speaker 1>get to live with that type of household recognition. So

0:08:47.559 --> 0:08:50.240
<v Speaker 1>whether it's a business like roadblocks for a cloud computing

0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:54.439
<v Speaker 1>platform like in AWS, or enablers like data down, these

0:08:54.480 --> 0:08:56.440
<v Speaker 1>are some of the enabling technologies that we think are

0:08:56.480 --> 0:09:00.200
<v Speaker 1>gonna matter most um this decade. And you then check

0:09:00.240 --> 0:09:02.840
<v Speaker 1>out that interview with David Buzuki the see of Roadblocks

0:09:02.880 --> 0:09:04.480
<v Speaker 1>on Studio one. Point out, Dan, I want you to

0:09:04.520 --> 0:09:06.160
<v Speaker 1>react to some of the things Robert just said there.

0:09:06.240 --> 0:09:09.160
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk about Apple. Is Apple just the safe that

0:09:09.440 --> 0:09:14.800
<v Speaker 1>maybe too safe in this environment? I mean splin adjusted

0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:18.199
<v Speaker 1>stock six hundred they said the same thing about it

0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:22.400
<v Speaker 1>shape at a hundred hours and now okay, remember it

0:09:22.440 --> 0:09:25.880
<v Speaker 1>goes back to your Apple continues to be so much

0:09:25.920 --> 0:09:30.320
<v Speaker 1>more intervention beyond I think how investors appreciate it because

0:09:30.920 --> 0:09:34.719
<v Speaker 1>what we've seen install base, it's a billion iPhones or

0:09:34.760 --> 0:09:37.600
<v Speaker 1>some having upgrade last three and a half years. Then

0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:40.320
<v Speaker 1>you look at their being intellator room game in terms

0:09:40.360 --> 0:09:43.960
<v Speaker 1>of the chip side, plus services like Robert talked about,

0:09:44.200 --> 0:09:47.760
<v Speaker 1>I think indeeds environments. You have to look at software,

0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:51.600
<v Speaker 1>fiber security and the years when we believe we're gonna

0:09:51.640 --> 0:09:53.880
<v Speaker 1>be in terms on the stalwart side and Apple is

0:09:53.920 --> 0:09:55.959
<v Speaker 1>going to be one of them, and it's one the

0:09:56.080 --> 0:09:58.280
<v Speaker 1>haters will continue to hate. But to see more. In

0:09:58.360 --> 0:10:01.360
<v Speaker 1>my opinion, we will it again to a blue trillion

0:10:01.400 --> 0:10:06.600
<v Speaker 1>dollar mark up once the inscriminate selling stops. Okay uh,

0:10:06.720 --> 0:10:08.600
<v Speaker 1>And I can't let you go without talking about Tesla,

0:10:08.760 --> 0:10:11.040
<v Speaker 1>which is you know now no longer the top stock

0:10:11.280 --> 0:10:15.360
<v Speaker 1>in Kathy Wood's flagship fund of course, facing some um

0:10:15.640 --> 0:10:18.080
<v Speaker 1>different forces based on what's going on with the Musk

0:10:18.520 --> 0:10:21.120
<v Speaker 1>and Twitter deal. What do you think, well, the story

0:10:21.240 --> 0:10:23.959
<v Speaker 1>for Tesla will continue to be here and and and

0:10:24.080 --> 0:10:28.120
<v Speaker 1>how much will Tesla stocks suffer from the uncertainty over

0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:30.040
<v Speaker 1>whether or not it's CEO is going to buy Twitter?

0:10:31.040 --> 0:10:34.400
<v Speaker 1>M Well, the book first off, in terms of China

0:10:34.480 --> 0:10:37.800
<v Speaker 1>and the zero COVID situation, that's been a huge headwind.

0:10:37.880 --> 0:10:40.440
<v Speaker 1>I think you know they're op soft deliveries and that's

0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:43.720
<v Speaker 1>over our price target this week. When it comes to Twitter,

0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:48.040
<v Speaker 1>it's become a full on circus show that's almost turned

0:10:48.040 --> 0:10:51.439
<v Speaker 1>into a twilight zone. And you know, you look at Musk,

0:10:51.880 --> 0:10:55.920
<v Speaker 1>he opened Pandora's box and tomm in about the need

0:10:56.080 --> 0:10:59.479
<v Speaker 1>to hand holding. You know, it continues to be uncertainty

0:10:59.559 --> 0:11:01.800
<v Speaker 1>not just Twitter in terms on the test of stock

0:11:01.920 --> 0:11:06.600
<v Speaker 1>perspective throw distraction situation, that's something he needs to give

0:11:06.679 --> 0:11:10.000
<v Speaker 1>comfort to investors at a turn where risk goships are

0:11:10.000 --> 0:11:14.240
<v Speaker 1>getting thrown out the window. Robert, what's your take on

0:11:14.280 --> 0:11:17.280
<v Speaker 1>this Tesla Twitter situation and and now the fact that

0:11:17.360 --> 0:11:22.360
<v Speaker 1>they are intricately entwined and do I have to have

0:11:22.440 --> 0:11:26.320
<v Speaker 1>a take? Uh? Of course everybody has to have a take.

0:11:28.440 --> 0:11:32.440
<v Speaker 1>Look Twitter Twitters. I actually think no matter what happens,

0:11:32.480 --> 0:11:35.040
<v Speaker 1>whether Elon bias Twitter or not, I do believe that

0:11:35.080 --> 0:11:36.480
<v Speaker 1>Twitter is going to turn out to be a better

0:11:36.559 --> 0:11:38.760
<v Speaker 1>company three or four years down the road as a

0:11:38.840 --> 0:11:42.160
<v Speaker 1>result of this moment of turmoil because it is forcing

0:11:42.200 --> 0:11:45.200
<v Speaker 1>the company looking where to reevaluate its business model. They're

0:11:45.240 --> 0:11:48.800
<v Speaker 1>realizing that they can get away with charging their biggest accounts,

0:11:49.320 --> 0:11:51.720
<v Speaker 1>uh for you know, tweeting, and they should be right.

0:11:51.800 --> 0:11:53.880
<v Speaker 1>We're on Twitter, it's on we pay to be on Twitter,

0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:56.839
<v Speaker 1>but they don't charge us anything. So there's absolutely a

0:11:56.920 --> 0:12:01.199
<v Speaker 1>way to unlock you know, traditional social media modernization mechanisms.

0:12:01.280 --> 0:12:04.080
<v Speaker 1>They haven't taken advantage of that. No matter who's runing

0:12:04.120 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 1>a company posts all this stuff that's gifts or about um,

0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:10.319
<v Speaker 1>you know, we think that's now much more likely to happen. Um.

0:12:10.960 --> 0:12:14.880
<v Speaker 1>We're actually we're kind of wondering pay you know, Twitter Board,

0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:18.040
<v Speaker 1>maybe you reopen the process up, like why didn't you

0:12:18.120 --> 0:12:20.000
<v Speaker 1>run a full process to begin with? Why didn't we

0:12:20.000 --> 0:12:22.079
<v Speaker 1>get multiple bidders in here? Why did you, you know,

0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:24.760
<v Speaker 1>do a deal with Elon all by himself? You know,

0:12:24.840 --> 0:12:26.599
<v Speaker 1>why didn't you see if Google wanted to take a

0:12:26.640 --> 0:12:29.480
<v Speaker 1>swing at it? Because who knows, the regulators haven't been

0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:31.959
<v Speaker 1>quite as aggressive as people feared that they might be.

0:12:32.520 --> 0:12:35.800
<v Speaker 1>So we think that this saga is far from over

0:12:36.000 --> 0:12:38.839
<v Speaker 1>and that there's a wide range of potential outcomes for Twitter.

0:12:39.440 --> 0:12:42.400
<v Speaker 1>And as it pertains the test lad, it's still a

0:12:42.440 --> 0:12:45.120
<v Speaker 1>car company, um, and so it doesn't kind of fall

0:12:45.200 --> 0:12:48.520
<v Speaker 1>into our software and digital advertising universe that we follow

0:12:48.600 --> 0:12:51.040
<v Speaker 1>really closely. All Right, I knew you'd have a take,

0:12:51.120 --> 0:12:53.040
<v Speaker 1>So I'm glad I've asked. Thank you for sharing that

0:12:53.280 --> 0:12:57.240
<v Speaker 1>with us, Robert Kentwell of Upholdings, Dan, I've always good

0:12:57.280 --> 0:12:59.760
<v Speaker 1>to have you as well. We'll see what next week.

0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:10.840
<v Speaker 1>Called belts are tightening across the board and startups are

0:13:10.920 --> 0:13:15.320
<v Speaker 1>also feeling the pain, with valuations being cut and layoffs underway.

0:13:15.360 --> 0:13:17.839
<v Speaker 1>For more. Now I'm joined by Johnny Price, the vice

0:13:17.880 --> 0:13:21.120
<v Speaker 1>president of fundraising, we founder. So Johnny, first of all,

0:13:21.160 --> 0:13:23.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, we see what's happening in the public markets.

0:13:23.280 --> 0:13:26.000
<v Speaker 1>It's a lot more difficult to understand exactly what's happening

0:13:26.400 --> 0:13:29.240
<v Speaker 1>in the private markets. What are you seeing? Just how

0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:34.000
<v Speaker 1>much uncertainty and quite frankly panic is there. Yeah, there's

0:13:34.040 --> 0:13:36.959
<v Speaker 1>a lot of uncertainty. It's the right word. UM. I

0:13:37.040 --> 0:13:41.480
<v Speaker 1>think we're seeing less contraction, especially early stage. I think

0:13:41.559 --> 0:13:44.959
<v Speaker 1>growth stage is contracting a little more in recent months.

0:13:45.480 --> 0:13:48.160
<v Speaker 1>Early stage, I think we're seeing less to date. UM

0:13:48.600 --> 0:13:52.160
<v Speaker 1>getting kind of mixed reactions from vcs and founders that

0:13:52.240 --> 0:13:55.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm talking to. UM, But obviously I'm not sure if

0:13:55.320 --> 0:13:57.640
<v Speaker 1>you saw that. You know why Combinator, you know, their

0:13:57.679 --> 0:14:03.280
<v Speaker 1>founders recently saying, you know, buckle up, you know, raining

0:14:03.559 --> 0:14:06.839
<v Speaker 1>rain in the spending, get to default alive, get to

0:14:06.920 --> 0:14:10.120
<v Speaker 1>profitability asap because it could be a rough a few

0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:13.319
<v Speaker 1>few months and years ahead. Well exactly, you've got y

0:14:13.400 --> 0:14:16.839
<v Speaker 1>combinators saying that, You've got other vcs sending out their

0:14:16.880 --> 0:14:19.680
<v Speaker 1>black Swan membos. On the other hand, I saw this

0:14:19.880 --> 0:14:24.320
<v Speaker 1>from Ali Partov, who's an early stage investor he tweeted,

0:14:24.520 --> 0:14:28.760
<v Speaker 1>Unlike vcs predicting doom, I'm bullish for early stage startup.

0:14:28.880 --> 0:14:31.880
<v Speaker 1>This downturn differs from two thousand and two thousand eight.

0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:35.080
<v Speaker 1>If you're an early stage CEO, don't panic, don't obsess

0:14:35.080 --> 0:14:38.520
<v Speaker 1>about extending runway, obsessed about making something people want. There's

0:14:38.520 --> 0:14:41.760
<v Speaker 1>a whole thread below it. What's your reaction to that?

0:14:41.880 --> 0:14:47.680
<v Speaker 1>Would you agree? Um? Yeah, I think you could argue that. Um.

0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:51.720
<v Speaker 1>I think I'm I'm a little more pessimistic. Maybe. I

0:14:51.760 --> 0:14:53.840
<v Speaker 1>think it's going to be harder and harder for early

0:14:53.920 --> 0:14:57.280
<v Speaker 1>stage founders to raise counsel over the coming six months.

0:14:57.960 --> 0:15:07.960
<v Speaker 1>Um uh because um there's uh less Um. Vcs are

0:15:08.000 --> 0:15:10.400
<v Speaker 1>gonna just be tightening their belts. You know, we're going

0:15:10.440 --> 0:15:12.760
<v Speaker 1>to see the valuations in the public market compressed the

0:15:12.800 --> 0:15:15.520
<v Speaker 1>great stage early stage. UM. I just think it's going

0:15:15.560 --> 0:15:17.640
<v Speaker 1>to be harder for early stage founders to raise I

0:15:17.680 --> 0:15:20.520
<v Speaker 1>think post post two thousand and eight we saw that.

0:15:20.600 --> 0:15:22.680
<v Speaker 1>I think we're going to see that again in two

0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:27.560
<v Speaker 1>So we found funder focuses on something called community rounds,

0:15:27.640 --> 0:15:30.720
<v Speaker 1>which of course is different from venture capital funding and

0:15:30.840 --> 0:15:34.760
<v Speaker 1>also typical crowdfunding. As I understand it, Can you explain

0:15:34.840 --> 0:15:38.520
<v Speaker 1>what that means. Yeah, absolutely, So we found us a

0:15:38.560 --> 0:15:42.240
<v Speaker 1>platform that's let anyone invest in startups they love UM.

0:15:42.480 --> 0:15:45.600
<v Speaker 1>So for eighty years, the securities laws of this country,

0:15:46.400 --> 0:15:50.320
<v Speaker 1>as you know, didn't allow ordinary Americans to invest in startups.

0:15:50.960 --> 0:15:54.960
<v Speaker 1>You had to be accredited to invest in early stage companies. UM.

0:15:55.280 --> 0:15:57.400
<v Speaker 1>The Jobs Act of twelve that was rolled up to

0:15:57.480 --> 0:16:02.040
<v Speaker 1>the sec now allows everyone and not just created investors,

0:16:02.080 --> 0:16:05.160
<v Speaker 1>not just switch people to invest in startups they love UM.

0:16:05.320 --> 0:16:08.600
<v Speaker 1>And so what we're trying to do we founder UM,

0:16:08.880 --> 0:16:12.480
<v Speaker 1>is to popularize this concept of community around. When the

0:16:12.560 --> 0:16:16.640
<v Speaker 1>Jobs Out was rolled out, it was called equity crowdfunding. UM.

0:16:16.840 --> 0:16:19.200
<v Speaker 1>This is how you introduced this segment. We don't love

0:16:19.320 --> 0:16:22.800
<v Speaker 1>this term crowdfunding. We're trying to rebrand it as a

0:16:22.840 --> 0:16:25.520
<v Speaker 1>community around. You. You owe twenty five cents to the

0:16:25.600 --> 0:16:28.040
<v Speaker 1>square jar Emily fees in the word crowd funding earlier.

0:16:28.400 --> 0:16:30.480
<v Speaker 1>And so the idea with a community around is that

0:16:31.240 --> 0:16:34.520
<v Speaker 1>startup founders can raise up to five million dollars per

0:16:34.680 --> 0:16:39.960
<v Speaker 1>year from their customers from their community UM and uh,

0:16:40.400 --> 0:16:45.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, alongside conventional investors vcs and angels. Mercury is

0:16:45.120 --> 0:16:48.680
<v Speaker 1>a great example UM. Recently they raised a one twenty

0:16:48.720 --> 0:16:52.320
<v Speaker 1>million Series B from Andrewson and Co. Two and then

0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:55.080
<v Speaker 1>opened up a five million dollar allocation to let their

0:16:55.120 --> 0:16:59.160
<v Speaker 1>customers invest on the same terms, um and in my

0:16:59.720 --> 0:17:03.200
<v Speaker 1>ce EO with no factor. Mark and then has called

0:17:03.240 --> 0:17:06.080
<v Speaker 1>those two and a half thousand we founder investors his

0:17:06.240 --> 0:17:10.560
<v Speaker 1>favorite investors, you know, letting his customers invest, he thinks

0:17:10.760 --> 0:17:13.680
<v Speaker 1>is a good thing to do at you know, face

0:17:13.720 --> 0:17:16.240
<v Speaker 1>the avenue puts a little more cash in the bank

0:17:16.320 --> 0:17:18.600
<v Speaker 1>at a time when, as we've been talking about, that's

0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:21.480
<v Speaker 1>probably not the worst thing in the world, and most importantly,

0:17:21.680 --> 0:17:23.639
<v Speaker 1>you know, generally a good thing to do for startup

0:17:23.640 --> 0:17:27.520
<v Speaker 1>founders to be delighting their customers by learning them investing them. Right.

0:17:28.000 --> 0:17:30.879
<v Speaker 1>It give us an idea how much money has actually

0:17:30.960 --> 0:17:33.920
<v Speaker 1>been community raised, though right now it still seems to

0:17:33.960 --> 0:17:36.280
<v Speaker 1>be the exception, not the rule. Doesn't it have to

0:17:36.359 --> 0:17:40.680
<v Speaker 1>scale up dramatically if the next Uber or Facebook or

0:17:40.760 --> 0:17:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Google is going to be community funded. Yeah. Absolutely, It's

0:17:45.520 --> 0:17:49.639
<v Speaker 1>still a very small percent of early stage capital right now.

0:17:49.800 --> 0:17:52.920
<v Speaker 1>So as a signage your VC an angel dollars, community

0:17:52.960 --> 0:17:56.680
<v Speaker 1>arounds are very very small. Um. You know, it's it's

0:17:56.720 --> 0:17:59.720
<v Speaker 1>been growing so that the job the jobs that was

0:17:59.800 --> 0:18:02.360
<v Speaker 1>right up with the sec in twenty sixteen. In March

0:18:02.440 --> 0:18:06.159
<v Speaker 1>of twenty one, the SEC rolled out some improvements to

0:18:06.200 --> 0:18:09.640
<v Speaker 1>the regulations that increased the amount that startup finnessting raised

0:18:09.680 --> 0:18:12.080
<v Speaker 1>from a million to five million per year UM. And

0:18:12.160 --> 0:18:14.760
<v Speaker 1>since then we've seen significant growth in the sector and

0:18:14.960 --> 0:18:18.119
<v Speaker 1>sector overall group by about four acts in one. And

0:18:18.359 --> 0:18:20.800
<v Speaker 1>I think the froth the early stage VC market in

0:18:20.840 --> 0:18:23.080
<v Speaker 1>twenties twenty one was actually a break on the sector.

0:18:23.720 --> 0:18:26.800
<v Speaker 1>I think in twenty two will be countercyclical. We'll see

0:18:27.000 --> 0:18:28.639
<v Speaker 1>you can have me back in a year's time and

0:18:28.800 --> 0:18:31.640
<v Speaker 1>and see if that prediction has has been born out.

0:18:32.320 --> 0:18:35.720
<v Speaker 1>But as early stage VC pulls back in two, which

0:18:35.800 --> 0:18:39.440
<v Speaker 1>we expect, I think that more and more early stage

0:18:39.440 --> 0:18:42.080
<v Speaker 1>founders will be looking to their customers, looking to the community,

0:18:42.400 --> 0:18:45.639
<v Speaker 1>looking to we fund this million investors UM to to

0:18:45.800 --> 0:18:48.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, be a buffer and enable them to raise

0:18:48.119 --> 0:18:52.720
<v Speaker 1>capital where otherwise they might be struggling. To to your point,

0:18:53.320 --> 0:18:56.720
<v Speaker 1>it's not a panacea, you know, this is still uh,

0:18:57.480 --> 0:19:00.480
<v Speaker 1>this is hopefully a silver silver lining on on a

0:19:00.760 --> 0:19:04.200
<v Speaker 1>day of pretty dark clouds. UM. It's still a relatively

0:19:04.280 --> 0:19:07.440
<v Speaker 1>small part of UM you know, tital early stage capital formation.

0:19:07.840 --> 0:19:10.560
<v Speaker 1>You can only rate five million dollars per year. Um.

0:19:10.800 --> 0:19:14.800
<v Speaker 1>But yeah, we're seeing we're seeing positive, positive trends. Another

0:19:15.000 --> 0:19:17.600
<v Speaker 1>string though that can be pulled for sure. Johnny Price,

0:19:17.920 --> 0:19:21.359
<v Speaker 1>vice president of we Funder, thank you. Coming up. We

0:19:21.440 --> 0:19:23.560
<v Speaker 1>are going to Miami, going to get a check on

0:19:23.600 --> 0:19:38.920
<v Speaker 1>the crypto market. That is next. This is Bloomer Bitcoin

0:19:39.040 --> 0:19:43.800
<v Speaker 1>dropping below twenty dollars. What will the weekend hold as

0:19:43.880 --> 0:19:46.720
<v Speaker 1>crypto continues to trade. I'm joined out by Bloomberg Intelligence.

0:19:46.800 --> 0:19:50.359
<v Speaker 1>Is Mike mcglog with us from our Miami bureau, So

0:19:50.680 --> 0:19:52.520
<v Speaker 1>Mike talk to us about the factors at play here.

0:19:52.600 --> 0:19:56.399
<v Speaker 1>It seems like cryptocurrencies are so tightly correlated with what

0:19:56.520 --> 0:19:59.399
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing in equities, which is the opposite of what

0:19:59.560 --> 0:20:03.359
<v Speaker 1>many in masters hope they would do. We're getting there, Emily,

0:20:03.400 --> 0:20:05.159
<v Speaker 1>It's just gonna take a little time. But right now

0:20:05.240 --> 0:20:08.000
<v Speaker 1>it's a significant fact that you've pointed out is the

0:20:08.040 --> 0:20:10.639
<v Speaker 1>stock markets going down. The tide is ebbing. The Fed's

0:20:10.720 --> 0:20:13.600
<v Speaker 1>jaw boning has got to reduce set ability for people

0:20:13.640 --> 0:20:16.840
<v Speaker 1>to buy stuff, reduce set risk those risk assets and

0:20:17.000 --> 0:20:19.959
<v Speaker 1>bitcoining the theorem and cryptos are prime part of that. Remember,

0:20:20.000 --> 0:20:22.080
<v Speaker 1>they went up the most, they have to come down.

0:20:22.400 --> 0:20:24.320
<v Speaker 1>But the way you started this segment, I think is

0:20:24.359 --> 0:20:27.560
<v Speaker 1>the most significant thing is what's going to happen this weekend.

0:20:27.640 --> 0:20:30.320
<v Speaker 1>So it's five thirty on that afternoon and the East

0:20:30.359 --> 0:20:33.480
<v Speaker 1>coast all markets are shut, but Bitcoin is trading, and

0:20:33.680 --> 0:20:35.879
<v Speaker 1>that's what the markets starting to realize. This is the

0:20:35.920 --> 0:20:40.600
<v Speaker 1>world's most fluid seven global trading vehicle with price discovering

0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:43.639
<v Speaker 1>and no one else's liability, and that's starting to trickle

0:20:43.680 --> 0:20:47.120
<v Speaker 1>inch what I'm sensing his bids blow. Bitcoin offers above

0:20:47.200 --> 0:20:49.480
<v Speaker 1>in the stock market. And a key fact this week

0:20:49.600 --> 0:20:52.320
<v Speaker 1>is bitcoins down about two percent and nazex down about

0:20:52.359 --> 0:20:54.560
<v Speaker 1>four percent. So bitcoins actually I'll perform in this week

0:20:54.600 --> 0:20:57.520
<v Speaker 1>despite the fact that it's much higher volatility. Okay, now,

0:20:57.680 --> 0:21:00.159
<v Speaker 1>not all digital tokens are being viewed equally. Are there

0:21:00.160 --> 0:21:03.760
<v Speaker 1>any winners here? Well, I think bitcoin is gonna be

0:21:03.800 --> 0:21:07.399
<v Speaker 1>the biggest winner, along with gold and protectionant potentially long bonds.

0:21:07.560 --> 0:21:09.880
<v Speaker 1>Gold was up about two percent this week in Bitcoin

0:21:10.040 --> 0:21:12.320
<v Speaker 1>is the digital version of gold. But the way I

0:21:12.440 --> 0:21:15.159
<v Speaker 1>view gold now is if you're not allocating some of

0:21:15.200 --> 0:21:17.520
<v Speaker 1>the bigcoin and your gold investor, then you're missing out.

0:21:17.600 --> 0:21:20.080
<v Speaker 1>But that's the key thing to remember. But the bottom

0:21:20.160 --> 0:21:24.080
<v Speaker 1>line that's really happening in this space is the proliferation

0:21:24.160 --> 0:21:26.480
<v Speaker 1>of crypto dollars. Now, we heard about what happened with

0:21:26.560 --> 0:21:30.320
<v Speaker 1>an algorithmic dour crypto dollar that broke down people call

0:21:30.320 --> 0:21:33.119
<v Speaker 1>the stable coins. But on coin market cap now the

0:21:33.320 --> 0:21:37.000
<v Speaker 1>top of among the top four cryptos, there's two crypto dollars.

0:21:37.040 --> 0:21:41.440
<v Speaker 1>There's bitcoin, Ethereum, tether and usdcoin. And this is what

0:21:41.680 --> 0:21:44.119
<v Speaker 1>happened during the bear market two thousand and eighteen. The

0:21:44.200 --> 0:21:46.240
<v Speaker 1>only thing that was going up was the proliferation was

0:21:46.359 --> 0:21:48.920
<v Speaker 1>increasing market cap of dollars. And I think that's what

0:21:49.000 --> 0:21:51.400
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing in the spaces. It's just a better way

0:21:51.440 --> 0:21:55.600
<v Speaker 1>to transact, that's crypto dollars. All right, Well, we'll be

0:21:55.680 --> 0:21:58.840
<v Speaker 1>watching to see just how wild this weekend is. Indeed,

0:21:58.880 --> 0:22:01.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg's Mike mcglow for us in Miami and go and

0:22:01.480 --> 0:22:03.480
<v Speaker 1>I'll let you get started with your weekend. Thanks Mike,

0:22:12.119 --> 0:22:14.520
<v Speaker 1>Welcome back to Bloomer Technology. Emily Chain in San Francisco.

0:22:14.600 --> 0:22:16.320
<v Speaker 1>Want to get back to bloom brooks Ad Ludlow for

0:22:16.440 --> 0:22:19.600
<v Speaker 1>more on the SMP five hundreds losing straight again, the

0:22:19.640 --> 0:22:23.080
<v Speaker 1>longest one in a couple of decades exactly. So it's interesting,

0:22:23.119 --> 0:22:24.520
<v Speaker 1>like at the top of the show, we were talking

0:22:24.560 --> 0:22:26.800
<v Speaker 1>about how we ended flat on the SMP five hundred,

0:22:26.800 --> 0:22:30.080
<v Speaker 1>but there was volatility. Your guests said, perhaps I was

0:22:30.160 --> 0:22:32.600
<v Speaker 1>being a little bit dramatic, you know, I love drama

0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:34.639
<v Speaker 1>and being a diva on a Friday about the market.

0:22:35.119 --> 0:22:37.040
<v Speaker 1>But over the course of a week, that's a lot

0:22:37.080 --> 0:22:39.640
<v Speaker 1>of red on the screen. The SMP five hundred down three.

0:22:40.359 --> 0:22:44.240
<v Speaker 1>The declines in technology heavy indexes like then as that

0:22:44.320 --> 0:22:46.520
<v Speaker 1>one D, the n Y s Fang Plus Index, which

0:22:46.560 --> 0:22:49.160
<v Speaker 1>is made of the megacaps, and the US listed shares

0:22:49.200 --> 0:22:52.360
<v Speaker 1>of China tech companies also seeing big declines. And there's

0:22:52.400 --> 0:22:54.840
<v Speaker 1>really good reporting on the Bloomberg that if you have

0:22:54.960 --> 0:22:57.440
<v Speaker 1>a four or one K where you think you're diversified

0:22:57.480 --> 0:23:00.119
<v Speaker 1>because you're tracking the SP five hundred, well you're US

0:23:00.200 --> 0:23:03.200
<v Speaker 1>is exposed. If you strip out the five biggest megacap

0:23:03.280 --> 0:23:05.720
<v Speaker 1>tech stocks, the declines this week would have been lesser.

0:23:05.920 --> 0:23:08.159
<v Speaker 1>The reality is this chart. Look on the far right

0:23:08.200 --> 0:23:12.679
<v Speaker 1>hand side. That block of red. The seventh consecutive weekly

0:23:12.760 --> 0:23:15.680
<v Speaker 1>declined for the SMP five hundred driven by tech the

0:23:15.760 --> 0:23:18.959
<v Speaker 1>likes of Apple, the longest weekly losing streak since two

0:23:19.000 --> 0:23:21.400
<v Speaker 1>thousand and one. That's a lot to take on board,

0:23:21.440 --> 0:23:25.719
<v Speaker 1>and we started having discussions about how analogous, how similar

0:23:25.800 --> 0:23:28.920
<v Speaker 1>what we're seeing now is like what we saw in

0:23:29.080 --> 0:23:32.040
<v Speaker 1>two thousand, two thousand one in the dot com bold. Now,

0:23:32.640 --> 0:23:36.640
<v Speaker 1>full disclosure, I wasn't doing this in two thousand, two

0:23:36.720 --> 0:23:41.720
<v Speaker 1>thousand one. Right now, I'm a little older than you,

0:23:41.880 --> 0:23:45.240
<v Speaker 1>but I was yet either no no comment, but I've

0:23:45.240 --> 0:23:48.600
<v Speaker 1>read about it. Fortunately, you have a guest who I'm

0:23:48.680 --> 0:23:51.639
<v Speaker 1>sure has studied the charts and the historical data. But

0:23:51.720 --> 0:23:54.399
<v Speaker 1>this is the question, right, are we seeing what we

0:23:54.480 --> 0:23:58.480
<v Speaker 1>saw the dot com bubble and what happens next? Right? Indeed,

0:23:58.840 --> 0:24:01.879
<v Speaker 1>Ed Ludlow, thank you well. From Apple to Teslas, some

0:24:01.960 --> 0:24:05.760
<v Speaker 1>of the biggest names in the SMP, fueling this relentless

0:24:05.760 --> 0:24:09.320
<v Speaker 1>sell off that briefly pushed the broad equities benchmark into

0:24:09.600 --> 0:24:11.720
<v Speaker 1>bear market territory. From more, I want to bring in

0:24:11.840 --> 0:24:16.160
<v Speaker 1>that guest, Eric Freeman, US Bank Wealth Management ce I. Oh, so, Eric,

0:24:16.480 --> 0:24:18.680
<v Speaker 1>is this different than the dot com bust or not?

0:24:20.280 --> 0:24:23.760
<v Speaker 1>Emily actually was working, in fact, about a couple of

0:24:23.760 --> 0:24:26.000
<v Speaker 1>blocks away from where you are right now during the

0:24:26.320 --> 0:24:29.040
<v Speaker 1>dot com rise in San Francisco. So I would say

0:24:29.080 --> 0:24:30.720
<v Speaker 1>that we do think it's a little bit different. This

0:24:30.840 --> 0:24:34.080
<v Speaker 1>time only. The biggest factor behind that is more of

0:24:34.160 --> 0:24:37.440
<v Speaker 1>a macro step back with the Fed funds. Back then

0:24:37.760 --> 0:24:40.600
<v Speaker 1>at six and a half percent, that was a really

0:24:40.720 --> 0:24:43.159
<v Speaker 1>elevated level. Right now we think we probably peak it

0:24:43.240 --> 0:24:45.440
<v Speaker 1>like three and a quarter three and a half for

0:24:45.640 --> 0:24:48.280
<v Speaker 1>Fed funds. So I do think that in terms of

0:24:48.359 --> 0:24:51.280
<v Speaker 1>the selling that we saw back then, it was relentless.

0:24:51.320 --> 0:24:54.280
<v Speaker 1>It certainly feels relentless now. But we do think that

0:24:54.400 --> 0:24:57.960
<v Speaker 1>there again there's there's more of a calming effect that

0:24:58.000 --> 0:25:00.840
<v Speaker 1>should emerge, let's call it a little later this this year,

0:25:00.880 --> 0:25:03.640
<v Speaker 1>so we'd expect a little more volatility, Emily, But again

0:25:03.720 --> 0:25:06.480
<v Speaker 1>we don't have the same Fed funds backdrop that we

0:25:06.600 --> 0:25:09.200
<v Speaker 1>had back then, so a little more optimistic than I

0:25:09.320 --> 0:25:13.119
<v Speaker 1>was then. So you use the word relentless, I'm wondering,

0:25:13.240 --> 0:25:15.639
<v Speaker 1>does that also mean you think this sell off is

0:25:16.000 --> 0:25:19.119
<v Speaker 1>unwarranted given the fundamentals. I mean, we did see a

0:25:19.240 --> 0:25:24.160
<v Speaker 1>lot of companies, especially tech companies, miss on their results. Yeah,

0:25:24.200 --> 0:25:26.520
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's unwarranted. As as tough as it

0:25:26.680 --> 0:25:29.800
<v Speaker 1>is to to experience, Emily, I think that that when

0:25:29.880 --> 0:25:33.560
<v Speaker 1>you go from Fed funds projections that the Fed has

0:25:33.680 --> 0:25:36.760
<v Speaker 1>has put out, there were basically nothing. You've had this

0:25:36.840 --> 0:25:38.840
<v Speaker 1>whole repricing that started with a two year and the

0:25:38.920 --> 0:25:42.879
<v Speaker 1>three year treasury and all their as two classes have

0:25:43.000 --> 0:25:46.639
<v Speaker 1>to react. So ultimately our viewpoint is that the the

0:25:47.200 --> 0:25:50.359
<v Speaker 1>overall repricing is probably in the sixth seventh ending. We

0:25:50.359 --> 0:25:52.760
<v Speaker 1>think there's probably a little more left to go, especially

0:25:52.800 --> 0:25:57.080
<v Speaker 1>if you start to see a evidence of demand and destruction.

0:25:57.160 --> 0:25:59.240
<v Speaker 1>We're not seeing that quite yet, but some of the

0:25:59.320 --> 0:26:01.440
<v Speaker 1>retail earning that we saw with the past couple of

0:26:01.720 --> 0:26:05.440
<v Speaker 1>weeks indicate that there's some tough stutting heads still. So again,

0:26:05.520 --> 0:26:07.600
<v Speaker 1>we do think there's probably a little more downside left,

0:26:07.640 --> 0:26:10.040
<v Speaker 1>but not quite the snare we saw way back in

0:26:10.080 --> 0:26:13.160
<v Speaker 1>two thousand, two thousand and one. Well, we are calling

0:26:13.280 --> 0:26:17.800
<v Speaker 1>a bottom here, like how much worse does this get? Yeah,

0:26:17.880 --> 0:26:20.840
<v Speaker 1>I think that that for us, the you know, the

0:26:21.080 --> 0:26:23.879
<v Speaker 1>downside snare is probably down under five or seven percent

0:26:24.000 --> 0:26:27.200
<v Speaker 1>across broad SMP, probably a little more than that for

0:26:27.400 --> 0:26:30.320
<v Speaker 1>NASTAC and I think at that point and the Fed

0:26:30.440 --> 0:26:32.320
<v Speaker 1>has a decision to make, that would be the market

0:26:32.359 --> 0:26:35.159
<v Speaker 1>setting a very clear signal that this is a this

0:26:35.320 --> 0:26:37.680
<v Speaker 1>is a challenging environment, and that we're starting to see

0:26:37.800 --> 0:26:42.080
<v Speaker 1>some erosion of both corporate profits as well as consumer activity.

0:26:42.240 --> 0:26:45.320
<v Speaker 1>So we think that that would be really a heads

0:26:45.400 --> 0:26:47.480
<v Speaker 1>up period where if the FED says, you know what,

0:26:47.640 --> 0:26:50.480
<v Speaker 1>we see it, but we still have to contain inflation,

0:26:50.920 --> 0:26:52.960
<v Speaker 1>that would be we think probably a trapdoor for a

0:26:53.000 --> 0:26:55.720
<v Speaker 1>little more downside. But again, the first test I think

0:26:55.760 --> 0:26:57.720
<v Speaker 1>in earnest will probably come down under five or seven

0:26:57.760 --> 0:27:00.320
<v Speaker 1>percent from where we are right here. Where do you

0:27:00.359 --> 0:27:03.520
<v Speaker 1>see the opportunities in tech? I mean there's a lot

0:27:03.600 --> 0:27:06.440
<v Speaker 1>of confusion. For example, you know Netflix having you know,

0:27:06.520 --> 0:27:09.600
<v Speaker 1>its first subscriber loss in a decade, and then Disney

0:27:09.720 --> 0:27:16.120
<v Speaker 1>pulls through with surprisingly optimistic subscriber numbers. Yeah, I think

0:27:16.160 --> 0:27:18.760
<v Speaker 1>a couple of areas that we find attractive. One would

0:27:18.800 --> 0:27:21.399
<v Speaker 1>be software as a service. We we think that that

0:27:21.760 --> 0:27:26.199
<v Speaker 1>that installed base plus the ongoing maintenance revenue is attractive.

0:27:26.800 --> 0:27:29.200
<v Speaker 1>That's certainly a model that you've seen adopted from a

0:27:29.320 --> 0:27:33.359
<v Speaker 1>number of different different companies. So we still think there's

0:27:33.640 --> 0:27:35.520
<v Speaker 1>there's an opportunity there. I would say, just on a

0:27:35.640 --> 0:27:39.000
<v Speaker 1>broader basis, and only if you look at the bias

0:27:39.080 --> 0:27:43.639
<v Speaker 1>from CFOs and CEOs, they recognize that we're not getting

0:27:43.720 --> 0:27:46.080
<v Speaker 1>more productive as an economy. So we do think that

0:27:46.520 --> 0:27:50.119
<v Speaker 1>that communications infrastructure, even though it's obviously been challenging, we

0:27:50.200 --> 0:27:52.680
<v Speaker 1>still think that's an area that as we see more

0:27:52.880 --> 0:27:57.239
<v Speaker 1>hybrid workflows continue, that's the spot that we think as

0:27:57.320 --> 0:27:59.840
<v Speaker 1>some opportunity we would be moving up in cap and

0:28:00.040 --> 0:28:01.800
<v Speaker 1>up in quality. Again, this is more of a of

0:28:01.840 --> 0:28:04.080
<v Speaker 1>a duck and cover type of strategy in the near term,

0:28:04.119 --> 0:28:07.000
<v Speaker 1>but again we think software is a service as well

0:28:07.080 --> 0:28:11.480
<v Speaker 1>as what we're seeing with respect to broad infrastructure remain attractive.

0:28:12.000 --> 0:28:13.399
<v Speaker 1>And what about on the flip side, we have a

0:28:13.440 --> 0:28:16.520
<v Speaker 1>guess earlier reference the losers saying it's time to get

0:28:16.560 --> 0:28:21.000
<v Speaker 1>out of the losers. Who do you think the losers are? Well,

0:28:21.040 --> 0:28:23.320
<v Speaker 1>I think there's you know, there's there's a saying that's

0:28:23.359 --> 0:28:25.280
<v Speaker 1>probably approp to right now that it's it's too late

0:28:25.320 --> 0:28:27.159
<v Speaker 1>to sell and it's too early to buy on on

0:28:27.320 --> 0:28:30.119
<v Speaker 1>some of those, uh, some of those more challenge business models.

0:28:30.160 --> 0:28:34.760
<v Speaker 1>So I would say that the super consumer heavy businesses,

0:28:34.840 --> 0:28:37.760
<v Speaker 1>those are the ones that would be would be more risk.

0:28:37.800 --> 0:28:41.160
<v Speaker 1>So let's call it the nice to have subscription models.

0:28:41.400 --> 0:28:43.920
<v Speaker 1>Those aren't areas that we think will be will be attractive.

0:28:44.440 --> 0:28:46.760
<v Speaker 1>If you look particularly at what we're seeing from a

0:28:46.840 --> 0:28:50.760
<v Speaker 1>macro perspective, Emily there really is some erosion in and

0:28:50.920 --> 0:28:54.000
<v Speaker 1>of course spending power because of inflation, but we do

0:28:54.160 --> 0:28:56.960
<v Speaker 1>think the wealth effect is relevant here. You talked about

0:28:56.960 --> 0:29:00.400
<v Speaker 1>crypto earlier, talked about just portfolios in general. We start

0:29:00.440 --> 0:29:03.120
<v Speaker 1>seeing home values in your backyard of the Bay Area

0:29:03.200 --> 0:29:05.280
<v Speaker 1>as well as other areas that of course have been very,

0:29:05.400 --> 0:29:07.960
<v Speaker 1>very strong. That's the next leg that we think that

0:29:08.080 --> 0:29:12.040
<v Speaker 1>some of those again secondary in tertiary of subscription models

0:29:12.080 --> 0:29:15.560
<v Speaker 1>are more more at risk. How bullish are you on crypto,

0:29:15.760 --> 0:29:18.240
<v Speaker 1>because you know we're touching on this earlier. I think

0:29:18.240 --> 0:29:20.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot of crypto investors have been hoping to see

0:29:20.720 --> 0:29:23.520
<v Speaker 1>crypto break away or be immune to um, you know,

0:29:23.840 --> 0:29:26.440
<v Speaker 1>broader equity sell offs, but that's so far hasn't really

0:29:26.480 --> 0:29:29.959
<v Speaker 1>been the case. Yeah, you know, it's something that if

0:29:30.000 --> 0:29:33.280
<v Speaker 1>you look at the correlations across broad crypto, and if

0:29:33.280 --> 0:29:36.240
<v Speaker 1>you look across the correlations of assets that we're supposed

0:29:36.280 --> 0:29:39.160
<v Speaker 1>to act differently than they did, they're really gear. They're

0:29:39.160 --> 0:29:41.120
<v Speaker 1>early levered. I mean, even if you look at at

0:29:41.200 --> 0:29:44.600
<v Speaker 1>at NASTAC, which appropriately so is thought of as a

0:29:44.760 --> 0:29:48.360
<v Speaker 1>as a really tech heavy index, the worst performing subset

0:29:48.640 --> 0:29:52.360
<v Speaker 1>of of NASTAC is actually the industrial components. So I

0:29:52.440 --> 0:29:55.760
<v Speaker 1>think what that says is that sensitivity towards the consumer

0:29:56.280 --> 0:29:58.560
<v Speaker 1>is becoming more of a challenge. And if you also

0:29:58.640 --> 0:30:00.680
<v Speaker 1>look at some of the issues that we're seeing right

0:30:00.720 --> 0:30:03.959
<v Speaker 1>now across currency and currency risking, and the dollar has

0:30:04.040 --> 0:30:07.560
<v Speaker 1>been a one way trade higher, that's another factor that

0:30:07.840 --> 0:30:12.240
<v Speaker 1>I think the correlations between dollar, correlations towards consumer, those

0:30:12.280 --> 0:30:14.600
<v Speaker 1>are things that have been the other way than people

0:30:14.680 --> 0:30:18.800
<v Speaker 1>expected at the start of the year. All right, Eric Friedman,

0:30:19.200 --> 0:30:21.840
<v Speaker 1>we will see what next week brings. Thanks for sharing

0:30:21.880 --> 0:30:24.880
<v Speaker 1>your perspective here with US US Bank Wealth Management. CEE.

0:30:24.920 --> 0:30:39.440
<v Speaker 1>I am it is time now for our crypto report,

0:30:39.440 --> 0:30:42.600
<v Speaker 1>and it seems that crypto winter in full swing. For

0:30:42.680 --> 0:30:44.680
<v Speaker 1>more on this, I'm joined by Coveta Guptashi is the

0:30:44.720 --> 0:30:49.280
<v Speaker 1>founder and general partner at Delta Blockchain Funds. So Kvita,

0:30:49.320 --> 0:30:51.600
<v Speaker 1>I want your take, just how long is winter gonna

0:30:51.680 --> 0:30:53.320
<v Speaker 1>lask and how cold is it going to get? Like

0:30:53.560 --> 0:30:57.000
<v Speaker 1>how much lower is before I'm going to go? Hi, Emilee,

0:30:57.120 --> 0:31:00.280
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much for having me um. I think

0:31:00.360 --> 0:31:02.880
<v Speaker 1>it's just the beginning of crypto winter, to be very honest,

0:31:03.160 --> 0:31:06.440
<v Speaker 1>and uh, I am very surprised that people are expecting

0:31:06.480 --> 0:31:08.600
<v Speaker 1>that it's going to continue to over around thirty K.

0:31:09.280 --> 0:31:12.400
<v Speaker 1>I do expect it to go down to somewhere between

0:31:12.560 --> 0:31:15.880
<v Speaker 1>fourteen K, eighteen K, maybe twenty two K as a

0:31:15.920 --> 0:31:19.000
<v Speaker 1>stable point. But remember this is we have seen this

0:31:19.240 --> 0:31:21.800
<v Speaker 1>in the past two times. This is nothing new, right.

0:31:22.280 --> 0:31:24.520
<v Speaker 1>Every time it goes up to an all time high,

0:31:24.680 --> 0:31:26.480
<v Speaker 1>there is a point when it comes down to and

0:31:26.560 --> 0:31:29.760
<v Speaker 1>find the new lower point as a base point to

0:31:29.960 --> 0:31:33.360
<v Speaker 1>stand around. I still feel that we are if we

0:31:33.440 --> 0:31:36.120
<v Speaker 1>have already entered crypto winter, we're gonna stay here for

0:31:36.280 --> 0:31:39.240
<v Speaker 1>at least year to year and a half, and we

0:31:39.400 --> 0:31:42.600
<v Speaker 1>should we Yeah, I I don't believe that bitcoin is

0:31:42.600 --> 0:31:44.640
<v Speaker 1>going to go back to forty five, fifty or sixty

0:31:44.720 --> 0:31:47.800
<v Speaker 1>K for another year and a half. We will see

0:31:47.840 --> 0:31:51.360
<v Speaker 1>another all time high, but that will be for ethereum

0:31:51.440 --> 0:31:54.840
<v Speaker 1>to actually especially for either because I believe this is

0:31:54.920 --> 0:31:57.360
<v Speaker 1>the time and people are going to build and they're

0:31:57.360 --> 0:32:00.240
<v Speaker 1>gonna have a lot of technology with major adopt option.

0:32:00.320 --> 0:32:02.840
<v Speaker 1>Look at what FTX just announced, which is going to

0:32:02.920 --> 0:32:05.840
<v Speaker 1>bring a lot more people into the space, and that

0:32:06.200 --> 0:32:09.440
<v Speaker 1>adoption is going to trigger back us to another big

0:32:09.600 --> 0:32:12.240
<v Speaker 1>high cycle. So let's just game this out for for

0:32:12.480 --> 0:32:15.760
<v Speaker 1>for a moment, you think Bitcoin, for example, we'll stay

0:32:15.760 --> 0:32:17.959
<v Speaker 1>in the twenty dollar range for the next year, year

0:32:18.000 --> 0:32:21.040
<v Speaker 1>and a half. Potentially, Yeah, we can see some more

0:32:21.280 --> 0:32:23.640
<v Speaker 1>depths and we can see some more high but I

0:32:23.800 --> 0:32:25.680
<v Speaker 1>don't think that we're going to see it going back

0:32:25.720 --> 0:32:30.640
<v Speaker 1>to sixty to seventy k during the winter time anytime soon. Huh.

0:32:31.080 --> 0:32:34.400
<v Speaker 1>So then what does the new high become after that?

0:32:34.640 --> 0:32:37.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean a lot of investors are getting in just

0:32:37.400 --> 0:32:40.200
<v Speaker 1>waiting for that. I think a lot of people have

0:32:40.280 --> 0:32:43.400
<v Speaker 1>been talking about bitcoin at hundred k, and I I

0:32:44.360 --> 0:32:46.520
<v Speaker 1>can't really predict whether it would be hundred k or not,

0:32:46.680 --> 0:32:48.680
<v Speaker 1>but I can definitely say it's going to find a

0:32:48.800 --> 0:32:53.000
<v Speaker 1>new high, which was last time sixty four something. But

0:32:53.400 --> 0:32:55.600
<v Speaker 1>as I said, every time, if you look at the

0:32:55.720 --> 0:32:58.120
<v Speaker 1>history and look at the data every time, if it

0:32:58.200 --> 0:33:02.400
<v Speaker 1>has gone back, it's not purely space culative anymore. Speculation

0:33:02.560 --> 0:33:04.680
<v Speaker 1>is definitely a part of it, but it's also the

0:33:04.720 --> 0:33:07.880
<v Speaker 1>adoption of technology. It's also the adoption by big companies

0:33:07.960 --> 0:33:11.280
<v Speaker 1>and institutions. Tesla holding it on the balance sheet makes

0:33:11.320 --> 0:33:15.680
<v Speaker 1>it goes up. Twitter having uh basically tipping mechanism on

0:33:15.720 --> 0:33:17.920
<v Speaker 1>Bitcoin makes it go up. And I feel like the

0:33:18.080 --> 0:33:22.160
<v Speaker 1>same thing with ethereum and other technology driven tokens that

0:33:22.320 --> 0:33:24.560
<v Speaker 1>we're going to see the adoption making it go all

0:33:24.600 --> 0:33:27.360
<v Speaker 1>time high, but I don't think it's going to happen

0:33:27.440 --> 0:33:30.600
<v Speaker 1>in another year, two year and a half. I'm curious

0:33:30.640 --> 0:33:33.280
<v Speaker 1>what you think about what's happening at coin base, and

0:33:33.480 --> 0:33:39.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, the most established platform for the trading of cryptocurrency,

0:33:40.480 --> 0:33:43.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, and obviously their business is, you know, somewhat

0:33:43.240 --> 0:33:47.320
<v Speaker 1>divorced from you know, the actual trading of cryptocurrency. What

0:33:47.440 --> 0:33:48.880
<v Speaker 1>do you make of what do you think the fate

0:33:48.920 --> 0:33:53.480
<v Speaker 1>of coin basis, I mean coin bases, a centralized exchange.

0:33:53.560 --> 0:33:58.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't see all the speculation about coin based going bankrupt. Honestly,

0:33:58.760 --> 0:34:01.160
<v Speaker 1>I don't believe that because the technology is so strong,

0:34:01.600 --> 0:34:04.760
<v Speaker 1>and I do understand that when the when it is

0:34:04.840 --> 0:34:07.520
<v Speaker 1>really deep, you don't see that much of trading volume

0:34:07.680 --> 0:34:11.200
<v Speaker 1>and exchange making money out of the trading volume or

0:34:11.320 --> 0:34:14.759
<v Speaker 1>the defiance taking, et cetera. Will not have that much

0:34:14.800 --> 0:34:17.720
<v Speaker 1>of cash to show. So there are four thirty million losses.

0:34:17.760 --> 0:34:20.719
<v Speaker 1>I completely understand when our companies into an expansion mode

0:34:20.840 --> 0:34:24.520
<v Speaker 1>and suddenly crypto prize is dumb, this is what you expect.

0:34:25.360 --> 0:34:27.960
<v Speaker 1>But will that make them disappear? I don't think so.

0:34:28.760 --> 0:34:31.600
<v Speaker 1>I do believe that they have already announced that they're

0:34:31.640 --> 0:34:33.600
<v Speaker 1>going to have a hiding freeze, They're gonna take care

0:34:33.640 --> 0:34:37.120
<v Speaker 1>of cost, etcetera. And I do see them whether the

0:34:37.200 --> 0:34:41.439
<v Speaker 1>storm honestly speaking, but with different measures, and that there

0:34:41.840 --> 0:34:44.239
<v Speaker 1>we keep hearing it is time to build that. I'd

0:34:44.280 --> 0:34:46.440
<v Speaker 1>love to get a little more specific when it comes

0:34:46.480 --> 0:34:49.920
<v Speaker 1>to crypto projects. What do you think makes it and

0:34:50.160 --> 0:34:54.160
<v Speaker 1>why what gets washed out? I think a lot of

0:34:54.239 --> 0:34:56.919
<v Speaker 1>fluff gets washed out. As a as a pre seat,

0:34:57.000 --> 0:34:59.879
<v Speaker 1>seed stage, early take investor, for over five six years

0:35:00.080 --> 0:35:02.239
<v Speaker 1>in the space, I can tell you every time there

0:35:02.320 --> 0:35:04.800
<v Speaker 1>is a high anyone who thinks, oh, I have an idea,

0:35:05.040 --> 0:35:08.920
<v Speaker 1>the idea thinks is like hundred million dollar evaluation. Now

0:35:09.040 --> 0:35:12.320
<v Speaker 1>you're coming back to fifteen million dollar valuation with the

0:35:12.360 --> 0:35:15.640
<v Speaker 1>product or the m v P associated with it. Last

0:35:15.719 --> 0:35:20.440
<v Speaker 1>time we saw Defy really really getting built during the

0:35:20.520 --> 0:35:24.439
<v Speaker 1>crypto winter, and that's pushing the adoption and the money

0:35:24.560 --> 0:35:27.200
<v Speaker 1>coming into the space, which also had n f T

0:35:27.280 --> 0:35:31.360
<v Speaker 1>associated with that before that in two thousands, sixteen and seventeen.

0:35:31.400 --> 0:35:34.200
<v Speaker 1>The I see, oh, the smart contract on Etherium is

0:35:34.360 --> 0:35:37.120
<v Speaker 1>what made us come down, come up from the crypto

0:35:37.160 --> 0:35:40.759
<v Speaker 1>winter and height of sev hundred dollars free, and I

0:35:40.880 --> 0:35:43.480
<v Speaker 1>think as we go into the space, I think multi

0:35:43.600 --> 0:35:49.320
<v Speaker 1>chain indexing search results, a lot of analytics platform V

0:35:49.480 --> 0:35:52.080
<v Speaker 1>see that's gonna really gonna build out, and maybe a

0:35:52.239 --> 0:35:56.360
<v Speaker 1>whole new, whole new infrastructure platform. I mean, people have

0:35:56.440 --> 0:35:58.880
<v Speaker 1>been buying n f t s from multimillion dollars. We

0:35:58.960 --> 0:36:01.200
<v Speaker 1>really don't have a proper infrastructure for n f t

0:36:01.320 --> 0:36:04.000
<v Speaker 1>s right now. And I'm very excited about what's gonna

0:36:04.040 --> 0:36:07.680
<v Speaker 1>come out of this crypto winter. Curious about your thoughts

0:36:08.160 --> 0:36:12.440
<v Speaker 1>on Elon Musk potentially taking over Twitter, you know, given

0:36:12.640 --> 0:36:15.960
<v Speaker 1>its role in the crypto community and Elon Musks role

0:36:15.960 --> 0:36:19.359
<v Speaker 1>in the crypto community himself, do you think decentralized social

0:36:19.440 --> 0:36:24.880
<v Speaker 1>media is actually possible with blockchain technology As of the

0:36:25.080 --> 0:36:27.759
<v Speaker 1>current technology which I have seen in the space, I

0:36:27.920 --> 0:36:30.800
<v Speaker 1>don't think so. Identity has been a huge problem in

0:36:30.880 --> 0:36:32.839
<v Speaker 1>the space. We still need to figure out a lot

0:36:32.920 --> 0:36:38.080
<v Speaker 1>of indexing, identity, trust associated but should social media and

0:36:38.280 --> 0:36:41.040
<v Speaker 1>reputation system is a huge problem which were still figuring

0:36:41.080 --> 0:36:44.160
<v Speaker 1>it out. Um. But in the future, can there be

0:36:44.239 --> 0:36:47.600
<v Speaker 1>a technology where it could be truly decentralized? Absolutely, that

0:36:47.719 --> 0:36:51.280
<v Speaker 1>would be an ideal day. But No, it cannot be possible.

0:36:51.280 --> 0:36:53.800
<v Speaker 1>It's not possible that any technology you have seen in

0:36:53.840 --> 0:36:57.839
<v Speaker 1>the space so far. So are you calling Elon Musk's laugh?

0:36:57.960 --> 0:37:02.160
<v Speaker 1>Then I I think he's a visionary. He probably thinks

0:37:02.200 --> 0:37:04.960
<v Speaker 1>that over years he's gonna build. It's like when ten

0:37:05.080 --> 0:37:06.920
<v Speaker 1>years back he went and said he's going to put

0:37:07.000 --> 0:37:10.160
<v Speaker 1>people on Mars. I mean, he has put a spacecraft

0:37:10.280 --> 0:37:13.120
<v Speaker 1>on there. There hasn't been a human being out there,

0:37:13.400 --> 0:37:15.960
<v Speaker 1>but hopefully the next ten to fifteen years there would be.

0:37:16.400 --> 0:37:19.040
<v Speaker 1>And I think that's what he's looking for. A decentralized

0:37:19.080 --> 0:37:21.600
<v Speaker 1>social media, which is a novel idea and something which

0:37:21.640 --> 0:37:24.839
<v Speaker 1>would be great for the tech and people and mental health.

0:37:24.920 --> 0:37:28.200
<v Speaker 1>I guess. But is it possible today in an year,

0:37:28.280 --> 0:37:31.520
<v Speaker 1>two year, three year, I don't think so. All right,

0:37:31.680 --> 0:37:35.200
<v Speaker 1>So looking forward, you know the market is still reeling

0:37:35.320 --> 0:37:40.560
<v Speaker 1>from the Terra debacle. What's next? What's next for stable coins?

0:37:41.320 --> 0:37:44.279
<v Speaker 1>We have to make a differentiation Like Terra vo was

0:37:44.920 --> 0:37:48.080
<v Speaker 1>is a programmatic stable coin. Right when the definition of

0:37:48.120 --> 0:37:50.399
<v Speaker 1>stable coin came, it is like back to some FIA

0:37:50.520 --> 0:37:53.320
<v Speaker 1>currency and one is to one. So USDC had to

0:37:53.400 --> 0:37:57.040
<v Speaker 1>show in their audits, like how much reserves do they

0:37:57.080 --> 0:38:00.680
<v Speaker 1>really have? In dollars, cash, cash equivalent, bonds, tosties, etcetera,

0:38:00.719 --> 0:38:03.200
<v Speaker 1>etcetera to support it, and so did us t t

0:38:03.320 --> 0:38:06.320
<v Speaker 1>to a particular percentage. I think Terta is different. It

0:38:06.440 --> 0:38:09.120
<v Speaker 1>has been on the programmatic side. So one thing which

0:38:09.160 --> 0:38:12.920
<v Speaker 1>we have learned though the decentralized world will always push

0:38:13.080 --> 0:38:16.280
<v Speaker 1>away from fear. Then try to have a different version

0:38:16.360 --> 0:38:20.240
<v Speaker 1>of programmatic stable coin which is pegged by its own cryptocurrency.

0:38:20.800 --> 0:38:23.319
<v Speaker 1>We do have a lot of issues and a lot

0:38:23.360 --> 0:38:26.560
<v Speaker 1>of gaps as of now, which Terta just showed. Um,

0:38:26.880 --> 0:38:30.279
<v Speaker 1>will there ever be a programmatic stable coin? I absolutely

0:38:30.360 --> 0:38:34.160
<v Speaker 1>hundred person beliefs. So would would that be in an

0:38:34.239 --> 0:38:37.640
<v Speaker 1>year or two during this cryptos winters? I don't think so,

0:38:37.800 --> 0:38:40.239
<v Speaker 1>because a lot of trust has been shaken and a

0:38:40.320 --> 0:38:43.560
<v Speaker 1>lot of people got wiped out. All right, Gupta alta

0:38:43.640 --> 0:38:46.400
<v Speaker 1>blockchain fund founder, thanks for giving it to us straight,

0:38:47.080 --> 0:39:23.200
<v Speaker 1>appreciate it more. Sols Accomb, this is boomer. I want

0:39:23.239 --> 0:39:25.799
<v Speaker 1>to get back to the markets and bring back our

0:39:26.080 --> 0:39:28.600
<v Speaker 1>at ludlow one final time. So the big question is

0:39:28.600 --> 0:39:31.440
<v Speaker 1>does this volatility continue next week or not. There was

0:39:31.480 --> 0:39:33.160
<v Speaker 1>an investor earlier in the show who thought you were

0:39:33.200 --> 0:39:35.240
<v Speaker 1>being a little traumatic. Yeah, they thought it was being traumatic.

0:39:35.280 --> 0:39:37.239
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if we knew the answer to which way

0:39:37.280 --> 0:39:39.640
<v Speaker 1>markets would go, we'd all be very rich, right if

0:39:39.640 --> 0:39:42.880
<v Speaker 1>you're an investment manager or retail investor. We can do

0:39:43.360 --> 0:39:45.960
<v Speaker 1>is financial journalists look at the past data and what's

0:39:46.000 --> 0:39:49.040
<v Speaker 1>really interesting and think about the sp We almost fell

0:39:49.080 --> 0:39:52.120
<v Speaker 1>into a bear market. That's a decline from the most

0:39:52.200 --> 0:39:55.200
<v Speaker 1>recent high. We've seen this before on an inch day basis.

0:39:55.280 --> 0:39:57.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to give you the history. I'm sorry for

0:39:57.560 --> 0:40:03.160
<v Speaker 1>a Friday to thousand eleven, two thousand eighteen, the market

0:40:03.280 --> 0:40:06.640
<v Speaker 1>on an inch date basis, some cases when beyond as

0:40:06.680 --> 0:40:10.880
<v Speaker 1>a decline, but it never actually closed in a bear market,

0:40:11.160 --> 0:40:13.279
<v Speaker 1>and we never even got close to those levels in

0:40:13.320 --> 0:40:16.600
<v Speaker 1>the weeks that followed. So it's a psychological test for

0:40:16.640 --> 0:40:20.040
<v Speaker 1>the market, and really a conversation is what is it

0:40:20.120 --> 0:40:22.360
<v Speaker 1>that we're worried about? What is is it inflation? Is

0:40:22.400 --> 0:40:25.279
<v Speaker 1>it the Fed? Where do we look for some hope? Well,

0:40:25.320 --> 0:40:28.239
<v Speaker 1>and it was interesting hearing our guests speak throughout the

0:40:28.280 --> 0:40:31.200
<v Speaker 1>show that the fundamental the macro economic issues are very

0:40:31.280 --> 0:40:33.520
<v Speaker 1>different right now from what we saw in two thousand one,

0:40:34.080 --> 0:40:35.919
<v Speaker 1>for example, And we should bring it back to tech.

0:40:36.080 --> 0:40:39.239
<v Speaker 1>I mean, remember some of these companies like Apple that

0:40:39.320 --> 0:40:41.239
<v Speaker 1>are now feeling a lot of pain. These are like

0:40:41.760 --> 0:40:45.200
<v Speaker 1>amazing companies, strong balance sheets, you know, But there's so

0:40:45.360 --> 0:40:48.160
<v Speaker 1>much happening at once. When we talk about check broadly,

0:40:48.480 --> 0:40:50.040
<v Speaker 1>we have to remember what the story is here. The

0:40:50.120 --> 0:40:53.520
<v Speaker 1>FED is going to raise rates, and higher rates discount

0:40:53.560 --> 0:40:57.359
<v Speaker 1>the present value of future profits, making tech stocks less

0:40:57.360 --> 0:41:00.759
<v Speaker 1>attractive as an option. But at the same time, we're

0:41:00.800 --> 0:41:04.840
<v Speaker 1>worried about whether the FED can fight inflation without causing recession.

0:41:05.040 --> 0:41:07.080
<v Speaker 1>In other words, if they raise rates too quickly and

0:41:07.160 --> 0:41:10.640
<v Speaker 1>in two bigger increments, the economy might crash. And no

0:41:10.800 --> 0:41:12.600
<v Speaker 1>one does well in a bad economy like that, not

0:41:12.719 --> 0:41:14.200
<v Speaker 1>even the likes of Apple. But if you look at

0:41:14.200 --> 0:41:16.680
<v Speaker 1>the companies and their fundamentals, and if you talk about

0:41:16.680 --> 0:41:18.279
<v Speaker 1>a company like Apple, which was on the brink of

0:41:18.440 --> 0:41:22.560
<v Speaker 1>bankruptcy literally in the late nineties, it's a completely different story.

0:41:23.440 --> 0:41:26.439
<v Speaker 1>Apple is going to keep making new products people want

0:41:26.440 --> 0:41:29.160
<v Speaker 1>to buy, and they've got a lot of cash, they

0:41:29.239 --> 0:41:32.799
<v Speaker 1>have innovation, they have scale, And then we wonder what's

0:41:32.800 --> 0:41:34.000
<v Speaker 1>going on in the rest of the world. We put

0:41:34.040 --> 0:41:36.920
<v Speaker 1>aside the FED, we put aside the inflation picture, and

0:41:37.000 --> 0:41:40.640
<v Speaker 1>we worry about supply chains, the lockdowns, in China them

0:41:41.040 --> 0:41:43.680
<v Speaker 1>a big problem has been We're really sorry, guys, we

0:41:43.800 --> 0:41:47.680
<v Speaker 1>missed earnings because we couldn't sell enough products. Why because

0:41:47.719 --> 0:41:49.560
<v Speaker 1>our supply chains are in and the question is how

0:41:49.719 --> 0:41:51.920
<v Speaker 1>our investors is going to interpret it? And there are

0:41:52.080 --> 0:41:55.360
<v Speaker 1>is also this Tesla Twitter Elon Musk overhang, which is

0:41:56.239 --> 0:41:58.920
<v Speaker 1>because of a completely different narrative. Yes, Tesla has supply

0:41:59.000 --> 0:42:01.959
<v Speaker 1>chain issues, right, what is Elon must gonna buy Twitter?

0:42:02.239 --> 0:42:04.960
<v Speaker 1>Is he going to is he gonna take Tesla? Tell

0:42:05.040 --> 0:42:06.480
<v Speaker 1>whether that or what I thought I was going to

0:42:06.560 --> 0:42:09.680
<v Speaker 1>get through an entire show without talking about Elon Musk.

0:42:09.760 --> 0:42:13.839
<v Speaker 1>I really thought this would be the day. There's two things,

0:42:14.000 --> 0:42:17.000
<v Speaker 1>key man risk. Elon Musk is very busy. He's the

0:42:17.080 --> 0:42:20.440
<v Speaker 1>CEO of Tesla, and the market's asking is he distracted?

0:42:20.640 --> 0:42:23.239
<v Speaker 1>That's the simple way of looking at it. But also

0:42:23.320 --> 0:42:26.799
<v Speaker 1>with Twitter, you know all of this indecision about will

0:42:26.840 --> 0:42:30.480
<v Speaker 1>the deal happened, won't it happen? Twitter didn't really suffer

0:42:30.560 --> 0:42:32.719
<v Speaker 1>like the rest of tech stocks. It hasn't seen the

0:42:32.800 --> 0:42:36.719
<v Speaker 1>declines that other tech companies have. And there's a question why, Well,

0:42:36.719 --> 0:42:38.919
<v Speaker 1>because it was subject to a takeover deal, a take

0:42:39.000 --> 0:42:41.319
<v Speaker 1>private deal. But if you factor in the cell off

0:42:41.360 --> 0:42:43.919
<v Speaker 1>we've seen in tech. Should Twitter be revalued and should

0:42:43.960 --> 0:42:46.520
<v Speaker 1>Elon must come back in at a lower price? I

0:42:46.560 --> 0:42:48.719
<v Speaker 1>don't know who knows Twitter's annual meeting next week, You're

0:42:48.719 --> 0:42:50.239
<v Speaker 1>going to be there, going to be a big moment.

0:42:50.320 --> 0:42:53.239
<v Speaker 1>Where are we talking about this a lot? So don't

0:42:53.280 --> 0:42:55.840
<v Speaker 1>forget it yet at Ludlow. Thank you. That does it

0:42:55.920 --> 0:42:59.560
<v Speaker 1>for this edition of Bloomberg Technology. Have a wonderful weekend

0:42:59.680 --> 0:43:02.040
<v Speaker 1>every one Wall Street week with my colleague David Weston

0:43:02.160 --> 0:43:04.239
<v Speaker 1>coming up next, He's going to be talking about inflation

0:43:04.360 --> 0:43:07.920
<v Speaker 1>and all of this. In just a moment, Monday shouted

0:43:07.960 --> 0:43:09.040
<v Speaker 1>and Oryon of Adobe