WEBVTT - Peloton's New Spin and Disney's ESPN (Podcast)

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

0:00:10.960 --> 0:00:27.560
<v Speaker 1>Emily Jay. I'm Emily Shack in San Francisco, and this

0:00:27.600 --> 0:00:30.160
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg Technology. Coming up in the next hour, Build

0:00:30.200 --> 0:00:32.720
<v Speaker 1>your Own Bike As Peloton looks to cut cost, the

0:00:32.760 --> 0:00:37.320
<v Speaker 1>fitness company is planning redesign so that customers can assemble

0:00:37.360 --> 0:00:39.600
<v Speaker 1>their own bikes at home. Will customers spin for it?

0:00:39.840 --> 0:00:44.120
<v Speaker 1>We'll discuss. Plus, activist investor Dan Loebe is calling for

0:00:44.240 --> 0:00:48.120
<v Speaker 1>changes at Disney. Details on his new steak and why

0:00:48.159 --> 0:00:53.600
<v Speaker 1>he's urging a spinoff of ESPN, and how Google Maps

0:00:53.800 --> 0:00:58.840
<v Speaker 1>routinely misleads people searching for abortion clinics, Why and why

0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:02.320
<v Speaker 1>it's ever more critical in a post grow World War.

0:01:02.840 --> 0:01:07.000
<v Speaker 1>On our Bloomberg analysis later this hour. To that Disney story,

0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:10.800
<v Speaker 1>activist investor Dan Lobe urging Disney to make a sweeping

0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:14.880
<v Speaker 1>set of changes to boost shareholder value, including new board

0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 1>members and spinning off esp the PN. Lobe's third point,

0:01:19.240 --> 0:01:22.240
<v Speaker 1>taking what it calls a significant steak in Disney. Here

0:01:22.240 --> 0:01:25.759
<v Speaker 1>to discuss. Paul Verna of Insider Intelligence in Bloomberg's Leona Baker,

0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:28.680
<v Speaker 1>Leona some of the changes that Dan Lobe is calling

0:01:28.680 --> 0:01:32.080
<v Speaker 1>for here not necessarily new ideas. I mean, we've heard

0:01:32.120 --> 0:01:36.520
<v Speaker 1>talk about spinning off ESPN for years. Um, what is

0:01:36.640 --> 0:01:40.400
<v Speaker 1>Dan Lobe suggesting and why? Well that's right Emily. In

0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:43.800
<v Speaker 1>the letter, if you read it, Lobe actually says Disney

0:01:43.880 --> 0:01:46.559
<v Speaker 1>might be working on some of these things already, although

0:01:46.600 --> 0:01:49.520
<v Speaker 1>sources close to Disney's tell me you know, there's not

0:01:49.560 --> 0:01:53.360
<v Speaker 1>gonna be an espn uh spinoff anytime soon. But some

0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:55.760
<v Speaker 1>of the other things that Lobe is calling for, like

0:01:55.840 --> 0:02:00.200
<v Speaker 1>cost cuts and buying a steak in Hulu from Comcast US,

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:03.240
<v Speaker 1>these are things that investors have kind of been expecting

0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:06.240
<v Speaker 1>for years. And this is loped second bye of the

0:02:06.240 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 1>Apple at Disney. Remember, he had also taken a stake

0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:13.880
<v Speaker 1>and asked for changes like Disney scrapping the dividend and

0:02:13.919 --> 0:02:17.240
<v Speaker 1>putting all that investment into the streaming product. Those are

0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:20.160
<v Speaker 1>things that Disney never really did. So we'll see if

0:02:20.160 --> 0:02:22.800
<v Speaker 1>he has a better shot this time around. Lobe is

0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:25.440
<v Speaker 1>a big name in the world of activists investing. He's

0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:28.360
<v Speaker 1>shaken up companies like Yahoo and Sony over the years,

0:02:28.400 --> 0:02:30.560
<v Speaker 1>but he does have a mixed track record as to

0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:34.239
<v Speaker 1>really seeing the changes that he's asking for lobes. Letter

0:02:34.480 --> 0:02:39.160
<v Speaker 1>to Disney initially starts off, you know, fairly flattering to

0:02:39.840 --> 0:02:43.440
<v Speaker 1>CEO Bob Jpeg. Then he sort of digs in, saying

0:02:43.639 --> 0:02:47.440
<v Speaker 1>ESPN is a great business that currently generates significant free

0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:50.760
<v Speaker 1>cash flow. Despite these advantages, we believe a strong case

0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:53.359
<v Speaker 1>can be made that ESPN should be spun off to

0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:56.400
<v Speaker 1>shareholders with an appropriate debtload that will alleviate leverage at

0:02:56.400 --> 0:03:00.520
<v Speaker 1>the parent company. Uh Disney responding sort of thing banks

0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 1>not quite but not quite, No thanks, saying, we welcome

0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:07.480
<v Speaker 1>the views of all our investors. As our results demonstrate,

0:03:07.520 --> 0:03:10.560
<v Speaker 1>the Walt Disney Company continues to deliver strong financial results

0:03:10.800 --> 0:03:13.600
<v Speaker 1>powered by world class storytelling and our unique and highly

0:03:13.639 --> 0:03:18.320
<v Speaker 1>valuable content creation and distribution ecosystem. Paul, what do you

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:20.280
<v Speaker 1>make of this? Well? I think it's always got to

0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:25.079
<v Speaker 1>stir the pot, you know, dialogue is always helpful and

0:03:25.080 --> 0:03:28.480
<v Speaker 1>and it's interesting to to put out these ideas. But

0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:31.679
<v Speaker 1>I don't think if I were bought ta Peck, I'm

0:03:31.800 --> 0:03:35.840
<v Speaker 1>keeping espn' I'm not spinning it off. ESPN does a

0:03:35.880 --> 0:03:40.280
<v Speaker 1>lot of things for Disney Sports. For one, it does

0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:42.720
<v Speaker 1>a couple of things that no other form of entertainment.

0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:46.400
<v Speaker 1>Does one is, uh, you have loyalty, so you know,

0:03:46.560 --> 0:03:48.920
<v Speaker 1>someone is more likely to tune out the next season

0:03:49.080 --> 0:03:51.840
<v Speaker 1>of The Mandalorian if they don't like a plot twist

0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:55.080
<v Speaker 1>or something about the casting, but they're not likely to

0:03:55.160 --> 0:03:58.360
<v Speaker 1>just stop watching Major League Baseball or li Liga or

0:03:58.400 --> 0:04:01.160
<v Speaker 1>whatever else they watch on esp end. And then there's

0:04:01.200 --> 0:04:03.760
<v Speaker 1>this whole thing about appointment viewing, which is something that's

0:04:03.800 --> 0:04:06.920
<v Speaker 1>kind of a vestige to bygone days, but it still

0:04:06.960 --> 0:04:10.080
<v Speaker 1>exists in sports because the game is taking place when

0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:12.240
<v Speaker 1>it takes place, and people want to watch it. So

0:04:13.360 --> 0:04:15.920
<v Speaker 1>I think there's a lot of benefit to having ESPN

0:04:16.360 --> 0:04:19.240
<v Speaker 1>as part of that portfolio. It's not an accident that

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:22.640
<v Speaker 1>every other media company that Disney competes with has a

0:04:22.720 --> 0:04:26.560
<v Speaker 1>major sports entity as part of their mix. Leanna, you know,

0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:29.560
<v Speaker 1>what do we know about lobes track record and how

0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:33.320
<v Speaker 1>likely it is that he'll he'll be successful here, especially

0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:36.719
<v Speaker 1>with a company like Disney, It's hard to say. There

0:04:36.880 --> 0:04:39.720
<v Speaker 1>was a vaguely threatening line in the letter today where

0:04:39.760 --> 0:04:42.800
<v Speaker 1>he said that there's a talent gap on Disney's board

0:04:43.200 --> 0:04:46.160
<v Speaker 1>and that he has good connections and can maybe make

0:04:46.200 --> 0:04:48.760
<v Speaker 1>some introductions to Disney. Now, I don't know, you know

0:04:48.920 --> 0:04:51.279
<v Speaker 1>who Disney needs to meet that doesn't know already. But

0:04:51.360 --> 0:04:54.080
<v Speaker 1>the idea there is that he's floating out with investors

0:04:54.120 --> 0:04:57.000
<v Speaker 1>to see if they'll support him, maybe in a board fight.

0:04:57.440 --> 0:05:01.920
<v Speaker 1>So right now, Disney h their window for directors would

0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:04.040
<v Speaker 1>open later this fall, so Low would have a few

0:05:04.040 --> 0:05:06.240
<v Speaker 1>months to see if he wants to do a board fight.

0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:09.040
<v Speaker 1>He really does have a mixed track record at taking

0:05:09.040 --> 0:05:12.560
<v Speaker 1>over boards. Um, at Yahoo back in you had a

0:05:12.560 --> 0:05:15.240
<v Speaker 1>lot of success, although history will tell whether you know

0:05:15.320 --> 0:05:19.000
<v Speaker 1>Marrissa Meyer was the right move At Southby's the company

0:05:19.040 --> 0:05:20.800
<v Speaker 1>went private, but it was a really long haul. It

0:05:20.839 --> 0:05:23.359
<v Speaker 1>took several years, and Sony still hasn't made a lot

0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:26.640
<v Speaker 1>of the changes he's wanted. So while he's a big name, Uh,

0:05:26.680 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>it's not clear that you know, even though he's going

0:05:29.680 --> 0:05:31.760
<v Speaker 1>after this blue ship company, that's a slam dunk that

0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:34.800
<v Speaker 1>all of this will come true. Gosh, I remember covering

0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:39.039
<v Speaker 1>that Yahoo lobed Marrissa Meyer story every day for gosh,

0:05:39.080 --> 0:05:41.160
<v Speaker 1>at least a year. Um, Paul, what do you make

0:05:41.160 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 1>of some of these other changes? New board members? Uh,

0:05:43.839 --> 0:05:47.719
<v Speaker 1>you know, full ownership of who Again, as I said earlier,

0:05:47.760 --> 0:05:50.760
<v Speaker 1>not necessarily new ideas but you know something, something that

0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:54.080
<v Speaker 1>several investors have been calling for for a while but

0:05:54.200 --> 0:05:58.559
<v Speaker 1>hasn't happened. Well, I think that Disney buying the share

0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:01.960
<v Speaker 1>that it doesn't own and Hulu from Comcast is a

0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:04.760
<v Speaker 1>good idea. So I agree with Dan Lobe on that one.

0:06:05.680 --> 0:06:08.760
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of tension within Disney because, on the

0:06:08.800 --> 0:06:11.840
<v Speaker 1>one hand, you know, there's a deadline to execute this

0:06:11.920 --> 0:06:17.279
<v Speaker 1>deal by so obviously it's in Disney's best interest for

0:06:17.320 --> 0:06:20.480
<v Speaker 1>the price of that chunk to be as low as possible.

0:06:20.520 --> 0:06:24.280
<v Speaker 1>So it's almost like a weird motivation to drive down

0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:27.400
<v Speaker 1>the value of Hulu. And that's just a very tense

0:06:27.440 --> 0:06:30.000
<v Speaker 1>situation that's going to unfold for the next couple of years.

0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:33.960
<v Speaker 1>Disney already has a controlling interest in Hulu, and in

0:06:34.000 --> 0:06:36.039
<v Speaker 1>my view, they're doing a great job with Hulu. I

0:06:36.040 --> 0:06:39.760
<v Speaker 1>don't see that they should fold it into Disney Plus necessarily.

0:06:40.040 --> 0:06:41.840
<v Speaker 1>I think it's a very strong brand on its own.

0:06:42.200 --> 0:06:46.159
<v Speaker 1>So I see a lot of value in basically Disney

0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:49.880
<v Speaker 1>executing on this earlier, even if, as Dan Lobe says,

0:06:49.920 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 1>they have to pay a little bit of a premium

0:06:51.640 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>for it. All right, well, we're going to continue to

0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:58.200
<v Speaker 1>follow this evolving story. We'll see how long it lasts.

0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:02.480
<v Speaker 1>Boomer's Leanna Baker, Paul Verna insider intelligence, thank you, and

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:06.479
<v Speaker 1>more changes for Peloton after last week's layoffs and price hikes.

0:07:06.800 --> 0:07:09.880
<v Speaker 1>Thank d I y. The struggling fitness brand is retooling

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:13.320
<v Speaker 1>its bikes for self assembly. Yes, that means customers will

0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:16.000
<v Speaker 1>be able to put them together themselves. This is part

0:07:16.040 --> 0:07:18.520
<v Speaker 1>of a wide ranging turnaround for Peloton by its new CEO,

0:07:18.560 --> 0:07:21.760
<v Speaker 1>Barry McCarthy, who's also planning to launch a rowing machine

0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:26.160
<v Speaker 1>this year. Bloomberg Smart German covers all things Peloton for us. So, uh,

0:07:26.240 --> 0:07:28.920
<v Speaker 1>let's get this straight. Peloton just raped prices for the bike.

0:07:28.960 --> 0:07:33.120
<v Speaker 1>Now it wants customers to put the bikes together themselves. Yeah.

0:07:33.160 --> 0:07:34.880
<v Speaker 1>I wonder if Dan Loebe is going to try to

0:07:34.920 --> 0:07:38.000
<v Speaker 1>get his hands on Peloton as well. But there's clearly, uh,

0:07:38.040 --> 0:07:40.720
<v Speaker 1>they have a lot of changes to implement here. So yes,

0:07:40.920 --> 0:07:43.240
<v Speaker 1>one of the initiatives last week is part of the layoffs,

0:07:43.560 --> 0:07:47.600
<v Speaker 1>was really changing their costs and dropping them significantly when

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:51.440
<v Speaker 1>it comes to distribution and warehouses. Right, so laying off

0:07:51.480 --> 0:07:54.200
<v Speaker 1>over five people that work in distribution. Now, if you

0:07:54.240 --> 0:07:56.560
<v Speaker 1>ever bought a Peloton before this is how it works.

0:07:56.640 --> 0:07:59.080
<v Speaker 1>And you know this already. You order it online and

0:07:59.160 --> 0:08:01.160
<v Speaker 1>they show up to your house a White Glove service,

0:08:01.200 --> 0:08:03.040
<v Speaker 1>they bring it in, they unboxed it for you, and

0:08:03.080 --> 0:08:05.120
<v Speaker 1>they set it up for you. That's a four dollar

0:08:05.160 --> 0:08:07.920
<v Speaker 1>fee to consumers, and that's very expensive for the company

0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:10.200
<v Speaker 1>to release, supply and make happen. That's why they're winding

0:08:10.200 --> 0:08:12.680
<v Speaker 1>in the ware houses right now. They're going to start

0:08:12.680 --> 0:08:15.280
<v Speaker 1>moving to third party companies, logistics companies to do that

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:18.160
<v Speaker 1>White Glove service. The next step is having consumers set

0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:20.960
<v Speaker 1>these devices up themselves, so they're in the process right now.

0:08:21.000 --> 0:08:23.840
<v Speaker 1>The CEO told me an interview last week of redesigning

0:08:23.840 --> 0:08:26.480
<v Speaker 1>its equipment so they can ship it via ups, via

0:08:26.520 --> 0:08:29.400
<v Speaker 1>fed X, whatever you want. You take it home, you

0:08:29.920 --> 0:08:32.080
<v Speaker 1>it arrives at your doorstep, you open the box, you

0:08:32.080 --> 0:08:34.720
<v Speaker 1>put it together yourself. And like you said, d I Y,

0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:37.640
<v Speaker 1>that's obviously not a great customer experience compared to the

0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:40.560
<v Speaker 1>White Glove service, but that would be cheaper for the customer,

0:08:40.640 --> 0:08:43.160
<v Speaker 1>no longer paying that four set up fee, be cheaper

0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:45.920
<v Speaker 1>for Peloton. And if they have redesigned it in such

0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:48.400
<v Speaker 1>a way where it's a fifteen minute process, right with

0:08:48.480 --> 0:08:51.080
<v Speaker 1>just a few parts. It's actually pretty convenient rather than

0:08:51.120 --> 0:08:54.720
<v Speaker 1>having people come into your house. We've covered some of

0:08:54.720 --> 0:08:57.160
<v Speaker 1>the safety issues with Peloton products. I mean, are there

0:08:57.160 --> 0:09:00.760
<v Speaker 1>any safety issues with this? Yeah? I mean I have

0:09:00.840 --> 0:09:02.800
<v Speaker 1>to tell you obviously, if you set up a bike

0:09:02.840 --> 0:09:06.480
<v Speaker 1>incorrectly or the rower or treadmill incorrectly, right, and that

0:09:06.559 --> 0:09:08.560
<v Speaker 1>thing falls apart because you didn't do a good job,

0:09:08.960 --> 0:09:11.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, setting up the device, that's a clear liability issue.

0:09:12.240 --> 0:09:15.520
<v Speaker 1>So that really comes down to their engineering, their supply chain,

0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:18.640
<v Speaker 1>their operations to figure out a way to make these

0:09:18.640 --> 0:09:22.679
<v Speaker 1>devices work reliably and set up reliably right. So if

0:09:22.679 --> 0:09:24.440
<v Speaker 1>you have to have the equipment to do it, the

0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:28.040
<v Speaker 1>right screwdriver, the right screws, that could be a complicated situation.

0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:30.959
<v Speaker 1>So that is definitely a consideration, and I guess we

0:09:31.080 --> 0:09:33.240
<v Speaker 1>just have to hope that Peloton has engineered these things

0:09:33.440 --> 0:09:36.720
<v Speaker 1>so they could be set up quickly and safely. All right? Interesting?

0:09:36.720 --> 0:09:39.960
<v Speaker 1>What will continue to follow your reporting on Peloton? Bloombergs

0:09:39.960 --> 0:09:44.240
<v Speaker 1>Mark German as always appreciate it. Meantime, Monday is the

0:09:44.240 --> 0:09:47.760
<v Speaker 1>deadline for hedge funds to disclose their US equity investments

0:09:47.800 --> 0:09:49.560
<v Speaker 1>for the second quarter. This is one of the few

0:09:49.600 --> 0:09:51.840
<v Speaker 1>ways that we get inside into how hedge funds and

0:09:52.280 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 1>some large family offices actually invest hedge fund Ducane bought Eli, Lily, CrowdStrike, Maderna,

0:09:58.720 --> 0:10:02.000
<v Speaker 1>and Dated dog Me Time. Tiger Global took new positions

0:10:02.000 --> 0:10:05.120
<v Speaker 1>in Alphabet and Zillo. According to a new thirteen F filing.

0:10:05.440 --> 0:10:10.479
<v Speaker 1>Tiger Global also exited positions in DocuSign, Zoom, and Salesforce,

0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:22.880
<v Speaker 1>reducing its stakes in Snowflake and Microsoft. This back world

0:10:22.920 --> 0:10:26.520
<v Speaker 1>continues to unravel. At least four planned mergers to go

0:10:26.600 --> 0:10:30.040
<v Speaker 1>public have been canceled since the market closed last Friday,

0:10:30.080 --> 0:10:33.800
<v Speaker 1>bringing the years tally to two. Those concerns have pushed

0:10:33.800 --> 0:10:36.800
<v Speaker 1>eighty nine backers to withdraw plans to raise fresh capital

0:10:36.920 --> 0:10:39.880
<v Speaker 1>for blank checks. Here to explain that Bloomberg's Bailey lip

0:10:39.920 --> 0:10:42.520
<v Speaker 1>shoalds So, Bailey, just how many of these are we

0:10:42.559 --> 0:10:44.839
<v Speaker 1>talking about here? And why are we seeing so many

0:10:44.880 --> 0:10:47.599
<v Speaker 1>of them? Yeah, So, as you saw the in the

0:10:47.720 --> 0:10:49.880
<v Speaker 1>chart that we've seen kind of a growing number that

0:10:49.920 --> 0:10:52.400
<v Speaker 1>has only kind of shot up since the start of

0:10:52.400 --> 0:10:54.920
<v Speaker 1>the year, and that's really coming as we've seen over

0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:57.679
<v Speaker 1>six hundred blank check companies on the hunt for deals

0:10:58.040 --> 0:11:01.120
<v Speaker 1>um that are racing against deadline that either really are

0:11:01.120 --> 0:11:03.080
<v Speaker 1>built up at the end of the first quarter of

0:11:03.120 --> 0:11:06.200
<v Speaker 1>next year, some going into the second quarter of next year,

0:11:06.360 --> 0:11:09.640
<v Speaker 1>but really just over seven hundred SPACs either with signed

0:11:09.640 --> 0:11:13.959
<v Speaker 1>deals or chasing to find new target companies to bring public.

0:11:14.040 --> 0:11:15.520
<v Speaker 1>When you look at some of the breakups that we've

0:11:15.520 --> 0:11:18.200
<v Speaker 1>seen in the last few days, those are either in

0:11:18.320 --> 0:11:22.440
<v Speaker 1>things like electronic vehicles, cryptocurrencies, so a lot of high

0:11:22.520 --> 0:11:26.560
<v Speaker 1>growth technology companies that are ways away from generating any

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:29.080
<v Speaker 1>kind of EBITA, and that's really something we've seen fall

0:11:29.120 --> 0:11:31.960
<v Speaker 1>out broadly across the actual public markets. So that's part

0:11:32.000 --> 0:11:34.120
<v Speaker 1>of the reason that these plug has been pulled on

0:11:34.160 --> 0:11:37.760
<v Speaker 1>some of these deals. So talk to us about the

0:11:37.800 --> 0:11:42.800
<v Speaker 1>broader market for spacks and how this what this bodes

0:11:42.840 --> 0:11:45.079
<v Speaker 1>for the rest of the year. Yeah, so we've seen

0:11:45.120 --> 0:11:48.040
<v Speaker 1>more than sixty actually closed their deals so far this

0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:51.080
<v Speaker 1>year and another hundred are live deals. No, So that

0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:54.040
<v Speaker 1>means that there actually is a partnership between the sponsorship

0:11:54.080 --> 0:11:57.000
<v Speaker 1>team and the target company, So you can you can

0:11:57.040 --> 0:11:59.080
<v Speaker 1>expect to continue to see some of these getting across

0:11:59.120 --> 0:12:01.560
<v Speaker 1>the finish line. But the way these despects are trading

0:12:02.480 --> 0:12:05.720
<v Speaker 1>class is down to media and percent this year, so

0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:08.839
<v Speaker 1>markedly under performing the market, markedly under performing those who

0:12:08.840 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 1>went public via the traditional I p O. So you

0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:14.520
<v Speaker 1>can expect to see some deals getting across the finish line,

0:12:14.679 --> 0:12:17.679
<v Speaker 1>but there is expectations for liquidations like we saw with

0:12:17.760 --> 0:12:20.520
<v Speaker 1>the Bill Ackman's back, like we saw Sam Zell announcing

0:12:20.800 --> 0:12:24.120
<v Speaker 1>um last week, in addition to expectations that we will

0:12:24.160 --> 0:12:26.600
<v Speaker 1>see some of these deals being broken just because these

0:12:26.679 --> 0:12:30.160
<v Speaker 1>terms were agreed to back in December, even through April,

0:12:30.200 --> 0:12:32.959
<v Speaker 1>when the market was in very different shape compared to

0:12:33.000 --> 0:12:34.439
<v Speaker 1>where it is right now, where there are so many

0:12:34.480 --> 0:12:37.520
<v Speaker 1>concerns about a potential recession and what lies ahead with

0:12:37.640 --> 0:12:40.679
<v Speaker 1>expectations for the Fed to continue to hike interest rates.

0:12:40.720 --> 0:12:44.320
<v Speaker 1>So question does this trend pick back up when or if,

0:12:44.440 --> 0:12:49.280
<v Speaker 1>hopefully the markets get better or longer term, our investors

0:12:49.280 --> 0:12:54.319
<v Speaker 1>just souring on this as a means of doing business. Yes,

0:12:54.440 --> 0:12:57.520
<v Speaker 1>sponsors are really optimistic that they can get deals done.

0:12:57.559 --> 0:13:00.320
<v Speaker 1>That's why we saw hip its High announcing that they

0:13:00.400 --> 0:13:04.080
<v Speaker 1>planned to push back to deadlines to sometime next year.

0:13:04.440 --> 0:13:06.560
<v Speaker 1>Kind of the reading of the room from talking to

0:13:06.640 --> 0:13:09.800
<v Speaker 1>investors is the idea that as the market rebounds, there

0:13:09.800 --> 0:13:12.120
<v Speaker 1>will be some demand for some of these back deals

0:13:12.200 --> 0:13:14.040
<v Speaker 1>to get across the finish line. For some of these

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:18.959
<v Speaker 1>experienced sponsors to find and bring private targets public. But

0:13:19.080 --> 0:13:21.040
<v Speaker 1>the expectations from the people that I talked to is

0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:26.320
<v Speaker 1>that the future iteration of spacts in two or four

0:13:26.480 --> 0:13:28.520
<v Speaker 1>will really look what like what it did back in

0:13:28.520 --> 0:13:31.520
<v Speaker 1>twenty nine team, where you've got fifty to sixty spacts

0:13:31.559 --> 0:13:33.880
<v Speaker 1>filing to go public. They're taking some of these smaller

0:13:34.120 --> 0:13:37.120
<v Speaker 1>target companies public that maybe don't have the following to

0:13:37.200 --> 0:13:39.760
<v Speaker 1>get a bank like a JP Morgan or Goldman Sex

0:13:39.800 --> 0:13:42.320
<v Speaker 1>to underwrite their I p O. And we'll find ways

0:13:42.320 --> 0:13:45.160
<v Speaker 1>to get deals across the finish line. But broadly speaking,

0:13:45.240 --> 0:13:47.320
<v Speaker 1>the expectation is that the go go days that we

0:13:47.360 --> 0:13:51.200
<v Speaker 1>saw in one is very much a thing of the

0:13:51.200 --> 0:13:55.440
<v Speaker 1>past and more of an anomaly. Alright, uh, really interesting,

0:13:55.480 --> 0:13:59.000
<v Speaker 1>Bailey lips Sheltz, thank you for covering that story for us.

0:13:59.520 --> 0:14:03.040
<v Speaker 1>All right, Coming up, how conspiracy theorist Alex Jones made

0:14:03.080 --> 0:14:07.079
<v Speaker 1>even more money after being taken down from major social

0:14:07.080 --> 0:14:10.160
<v Speaker 1>media platform. We're gonna have more on that next. This

0:14:10.320 --> 0:14:30.360
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg. In the summer of Apple, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter,

0:14:30.480 --> 0:14:34.040
<v Speaker 1>and YouTube all banned the media company of conspiracy theorist

0:14:34.160 --> 0:14:37.880
<v Speaker 1>Alex Jones, that is Info Wars that means taking down

0:14:37.880 --> 0:14:42.000
<v Speaker 1>many of its recorded broadcasts. This after Jones threatened then

0:14:42.080 --> 0:14:45.640
<v Speaker 1>special counsel Robert Muller. The platforms all sided some sort

0:14:45.680 --> 0:14:49.040
<v Speaker 1>of unspecified content policy violation for their decision to d

0:14:49.280 --> 0:14:53.280
<v Speaker 1>platform the controversial host, which was supposed to relicate Jones

0:14:53.680 --> 0:14:58.440
<v Speaker 1>to relative obscurity. As it turns out, Jones's audience didn't

0:14:58.480 --> 0:15:01.600
<v Speaker 1>quite disappear. In fact, his big business became more lucrative

0:15:01.960 --> 0:15:05.520
<v Speaker 1>than ever. Bloomberg Smacks Chafkin took a deep dive into

0:15:05.520 --> 0:15:08.960
<v Speaker 1>this for us Max. How is this even possible? Well, so,

0:15:09.160 --> 0:15:11.200
<v Speaker 1>there are two things that are going on. One is

0:15:11.280 --> 0:15:15.720
<v Speaker 1>that although the big tech companies banned uh info Wars

0:15:15.760 --> 0:15:18.880
<v Speaker 1>pages and in some cases eventually banned Alex Jones, they

0:15:18.920 --> 0:15:22.360
<v Speaker 1>didn't take down you know, they didn't stop the circulation

0:15:22.400 --> 0:15:25.560
<v Speaker 1>of these Sandy Hook related conspiracy theories. They didn't um

0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:30.200
<v Speaker 1>stop other people from posting Jones videos, either in support

0:15:30.320 --> 0:15:33.440
<v Speaker 1>or in criticism of him. And as a result, even

0:15:33.480 --> 0:15:37.040
<v Speaker 1>though UH he was banned, you've still seen quite a

0:15:37.040 --> 0:15:40.440
<v Speaker 1>lot of Alex Jones on social media, either in the

0:15:40.440 --> 0:15:43.400
<v Speaker 1>form of him appearing on podcasts. You've seen a bunch

0:15:43.440 --> 0:15:47.120
<v Speaker 1>of these kind of contrarian edgy types like Joe Rogan

0:15:47.240 --> 0:15:50.360
<v Speaker 1>have Alex Jones on on on on their shows and

0:15:50.400 --> 0:15:53.120
<v Speaker 1>as well as just people out there criticizing him. And

0:15:53.160 --> 0:15:55.520
<v Speaker 1>then the other thing that happened is that, you know,

0:15:55.560 --> 0:15:58.760
<v Speaker 1>Alex Jones used this and turned into a storyline where

0:15:58.760 --> 0:16:02.480
<v Speaker 1>he became this order. Um. He does not make money

0:16:02.520 --> 0:16:05.640
<v Speaker 1>through uh like a traditional media company does. He makes

0:16:05.640 --> 0:16:08.359
<v Speaker 1>money by selling products. So there may be a situation

0:16:08.400 --> 0:16:12.120
<v Speaker 1>where although his audience he's not getting the huge numbers,

0:16:12.200 --> 0:16:14.880
<v Speaker 1>he's making more money off of the audience that he

0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:17.760
<v Speaker 1>does have because he's been able to activate them by

0:16:17.880 --> 0:16:21.120
<v Speaker 1>by spinning this narrative of martyrdom, which, as we learned

0:16:21.160 --> 0:16:23.560
<v Speaker 1>during the trial, it simply isn't true. He's doing uh

0:16:23.800 --> 0:16:27.520
<v Speaker 1>really well financially. You mentioned the trial, of course, uh,

0:16:27.560 --> 0:16:31.760
<v Speaker 1>the judge awarding um the parents of one of the

0:16:31.760 --> 0:16:35.520
<v Speaker 1>Sandy Hook victims tens of millions of dollars. There's also

0:16:35.560 --> 0:16:41.080
<v Speaker 1>a Texas verdict another one coming up. Are these verdicts,

0:16:41.120 --> 0:16:44.960
<v Speaker 1>these penalties actually changing the narrative around him or are

0:16:45.000 --> 0:16:49.160
<v Speaker 1>they making him potentially more powerful? Well, it's hard to know.

0:16:49.240 --> 0:16:51.320
<v Speaker 1>I mean, what you have you have a jury award

0:16:51.440 --> 0:16:53.800
<v Speaker 1>in Texas that's the fifty million dollars you mentioned. You

0:16:53.880 --> 0:16:57.160
<v Speaker 1>also have this case in Connecticut. Um. In both of

0:16:57.200 --> 0:17:00.360
<v Speaker 1>these cases, Jones has been found to have fame to

0:17:00.400 --> 0:17:04.320
<v Speaker 1>the families, and you have trials to decide on the damages.

0:17:04.800 --> 0:17:07.399
<v Speaker 1>Um and and and the thing is, it's very tempting

0:17:07.440 --> 0:17:09.760
<v Speaker 1>even now to say, Okay, well, this is probably the

0:17:09.880 --> 0:17:13.320
<v Speaker 1>end of Alex jones career. You know, he's gone too far.

0:17:13.640 --> 0:17:16.000
<v Speaker 1>But but people have been saying this for a long time.

0:17:16.359 --> 0:17:18.440
<v Speaker 1>And you know, as I point out a column, you

0:17:18.520 --> 0:17:22.760
<v Speaker 1>still have lots of people, lots of companies basically enabling

0:17:22.920 --> 0:17:25.679
<v Speaker 1>and and and making money off of this stuff. Alex

0:17:25.760 --> 0:17:29.400
<v Speaker 1>Jones has a book that's coming out. It's it's near

0:17:29.400 --> 0:17:32.280
<v Speaker 1>the top of Amazon's bestseller list. Um, there's a there's

0:17:32.320 --> 0:17:36.520
<v Speaker 1>a documentary, a very sympathetic documentary, uh that that that

0:17:36.560 --> 0:17:38.600
<v Speaker 1>has just come out. So you have lots and lots

0:17:38.600 --> 0:17:41.960
<v Speaker 1>of media types still kind of, like I said, eating

0:17:42.000 --> 0:17:44.840
<v Speaker 1>off of these conspiracy theories in one way or another. Uh.

0:17:44.840 --> 0:17:48.239
<v Speaker 1>And it's it's pretty depressing just because the cruelty as

0:17:48.240 --> 0:17:52.399
<v Speaker 1>we saw during the trial of these conspiracy theories towards

0:17:52.400 --> 0:17:58.720
<v Speaker 1>the parents, UM was you know, it's it's disturbing. Yes, well,

0:17:58.800 --> 0:18:01.200
<v Speaker 1>you can read more on that in Max's story. Max,

0:18:01.240 --> 0:18:04.639
<v Speaker 1>thank you for bringing that issue to light with us,

0:18:04.640 --> 0:18:07.680
<v Speaker 1>and we'll be following the verdict from the upcoming trials.

0:18:16.760 --> 0:18:20.080
<v Speaker 1>We've been covering the changing digital privacy landscape in a

0:18:20.160 --> 0:18:23.360
<v Speaker 1>post rural world, issues with access to information on abortion

0:18:23.400 --> 0:18:28.400
<v Speaker 1>and the power that tech companies have to safeguard that information. Well,

0:18:28.400 --> 0:18:32.240
<v Speaker 1>it turns out that even Google Maps regularly misleads people

0:18:32.320 --> 0:18:35.720
<v Speaker 1>searching for abortion clinics. This according to a new analysis

0:18:35.720 --> 0:18:38.520
<v Speaker 1>by Bloomberg News. Let's take a deep dive on this

0:18:38.640 --> 0:18:41.560
<v Speaker 1>with Bloomberg's Jack Gillum, who went through all of the

0:18:41.640 --> 0:18:44.520
<v Speaker 1>data for us. So tell us what you found, Jack,

0:18:44.920 --> 0:18:47.160
<v Speaker 1>So Emily, we wanted to just start out as if

0:18:47.200 --> 0:18:49.800
<v Speaker 1>somebody wanted to find an abortion clinic, right, a very

0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:52.399
<v Speaker 1>straightforward search that you could put into Google Maps. And

0:18:52.440 --> 0:18:54.320
<v Speaker 1>when we did that for all fifty states and the

0:18:54.359 --> 0:18:57.720
<v Speaker 1>District of Columbia, the results were pretty surprising. About a

0:18:57.800 --> 0:19:01.240
<v Speaker 1>quarter of the cases returned not abortion mix but instead

0:19:01.280 --> 0:19:05.040
<v Speaker 1>what are called crisis pregnancy centers. These places that are

0:19:05.119 --> 0:19:07.280
<v Speaker 1>often you know, are encouraged to encourage women when they

0:19:07.320 --> 0:19:10.600
<v Speaker 1>come in to uh not get an abortion and even

0:19:10.640 --> 0:19:14.119
<v Speaker 1>though they often will masquerade themselves as a as a

0:19:14.480 --> 0:19:18.400
<v Speaker 1>bona fide abortion clinic or some sort of doctor's office. Um,

0:19:18.440 --> 0:19:20.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, this is very different than if you maybe

0:19:20.760 --> 0:19:23.359
<v Speaker 1>type in a certain maybe fast food chain or type

0:19:23.359 --> 0:19:26.000
<v Speaker 1>of restaurant, it will give you alternatives. In this case,

0:19:26.080 --> 0:19:29.000
<v Speaker 1>post row, it's led to some confusion among folks. So

0:19:29.119 --> 0:19:32.119
<v Speaker 1>we've spoken with who believe Google, they see the result,

0:19:32.160 --> 0:19:34.160
<v Speaker 1>they assume that it's an abortion clinic, they go there,

0:19:34.200 --> 0:19:37.840
<v Speaker 1>and in some cases they're in for a pretty alarming surprise.

0:19:38.560 --> 0:19:43.640
<v Speaker 1>What does this practically mean for those seeking an abortion? So,

0:19:43.720 --> 0:19:46.080
<v Speaker 1>what it means is that if somebody is in need

0:19:46.680 --> 0:19:49.240
<v Speaker 1>of this procedure and they go to one of these

0:19:49.280 --> 0:19:52.560
<v Speaker 1>places and it's a crisis pregnancy center, they can be

0:19:52.680 --> 0:19:56.320
<v Speaker 1>sort of drawn into this process and be told, sometimes

0:19:56.720 --> 0:20:00.680
<v Speaker 1>with very erroneous, erroneous medical information, that they don't need one.

0:20:00.920 --> 0:20:04.320
<v Speaker 1>We spoke with one woman who in fact googled an

0:20:04.320 --> 0:20:08.040
<v Speaker 1>abortion clinic, ended up going to Prices crisis pregnancy center

0:20:08.440 --> 0:20:11.359
<v Speaker 1>and then quickly realized that it was not it was

0:20:11.400 --> 0:20:14.159
<v Speaker 1>not an abortion clinic, was given a rubber fetus, what

0:20:14.320 --> 0:20:16.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, confided in them that in fact she was

0:20:16.320 --> 0:20:18.640
<v Speaker 1>in an abusive relationship and they try to convince her

0:20:18.680 --> 0:20:21.320
<v Speaker 1>that if you just stay in this relationship with the baby,

0:20:21.400 --> 0:20:24.040
<v Speaker 1>things will get better. So, I mean, it's unclear what

0:20:24.160 --> 0:20:26.680
<v Speaker 1>sort of emotional and damage that did to that woman

0:20:26.720 --> 0:20:29.719
<v Speaker 1>and other people who are seeking UM, particularly if they

0:20:29.720 --> 0:20:32.840
<v Speaker 1>are seeking an abortion UM. There might not people who

0:20:32.840 --> 0:20:34.760
<v Speaker 1>are up to date on this post row world, And

0:20:34.800 --> 0:20:36.919
<v Speaker 1>it really sort of raises questions in a quarter of

0:20:36.960 --> 0:20:39.960
<v Speaker 1>these cases that we found, what happens when somebody is

0:20:40.000 --> 0:20:41.840
<v Speaker 1>in need and when they search and get a wrong result.

0:20:42.760 --> 0:20:47.120
<v Speaker 1>What's Google doing about this? So they say that they

0:20:47.160 --> 0:20:50.720
<v Speaker 1>have extra layers and verification in place, they have policies

0:20:50.760 --> 0:20:53.000
<v Speaker 1>they say that prevent this, and people can report these

0:20:53.119 --> 0:20:56.880
<v Speaker 1>erroneous results. Um. You know, there's still the critics we've

0:20:56.880 --> 0:20:59.639
<v Speaker 1>spoken to ask, well, is Google doing enough given that

0:20:59.680 --> 0:21:02.399
<v Speaker 1>they to index the world's information and that some of

0:21:02.400 --> 0:21:05.160
<v Speaker 1>these websites are pretty clear that they do not provide abortion.

0:21:05.240 --> 0:21:08.240
<v Speaker 1>Is their way to modify that algorithm and take those

0:21:08.600 --> 0:21:13.440
<v Speaker 1>erroneous results in new account? All right, Jack Killen, thanks

0:21:13.440 --> 0:21:17.679
<v Speaker 1>for bringing that story to life. Appreciate it well. For

0:21:17.800 --> 0:21:20.600
<v Speaker 1>more on the implications and the power of tech in

0:21:20.600 --> 0:21:24.680
<v Speaker 1>a post ROW world and the impact on tech, telehealth,

0:21:24.840 --> 0:21:27.000
<v Speaker 1>tech investing at large. I want to bring in Susan

0:21:27.080 --> 0:21:30.200
<v Speaker 1>Line BBG Ventures managing partner formerly and executive with a

0:21:30.320 --> 0:21:32.920
<v Speaker 1>O L and Guilt Group, just to name a few.

0:21:33.160 --> 0:21:35.720
<v Speaker 1>So Susan, you know, as we were talking about tech

0:21:35.760 --> 0:21:40.240
<v Speaker 1>platforms have incredible power UM in a post row row

0:21:40.359 --> 0:21:43.480
<v Speaker 1>world and obviously have some decisions to make about how

0:21:44.040 --> 0:21:47.240
<v Speaker 1>they lose that use that power. UM. What are you

0:21:47.320 --> 0:21:53.439
<v Speaker 1>most concerned about, UM, from the perspective of an investor, UM,

0:21:53.480 --> 0:21:57.800
<v Speaker 1>as we see these issues play out. That's a really

0:21:57.880 --> 0:22:01.960
<v Speaker 1>good question. I actually think about it more as opportunities

0:22:02.000 --> 0:22:07.120
<v Speaker 1>that that exists. UM. You know, it's it's really clear

0:22:07.240 --> 0:22:12.400
<v Speaker 1>that uh that women are not being served UH, certainly

0:22:12.520 --> 0:22:18.800
<v Speaker 1>in the twenty states that have banned abortion. UM. But additionally,

0:22:18.840 --> 0:22:21.200
<v Speaker 1>I think that there's going to be just a huge

0:22:21.240 --> 0:22:28.080
<v Speaker 1>impact on on business overall, and so that always creates opportunity.

0:22:28.160 --> 0:22:30.800
<v Speaker 1>There there will be founders out there who are looking

0:22:30.880 --> 0:22:37.280
<v Speaker 1>for solutions that UH enabled companies to really address the

0:22:37.359 --> 0:22:43.080
<v Speaker 1>retention issues, the recruitment issues, UM, and the challenges in

0:22:43.240 --> 0:22:47.520
<v Speaker 1>a post row era. I mean this is there are

0:22:47.520 --> 0:22:51.640
<v Speaker 1>two million fewer women in the workforce today than there

0:22:51.680 --> 0:22:56.080
<v Speaker 1>were before COVID so a lot of women left for

0:22:56.359 --> 0:23:01.399
<v Speaker 1>multiple reasons, remote learning, daycare centers closing, and just the

0:23:01.480 --> 0:23:06.320
<v Speaker 1>overall caregiver issues that fall to women. UM. Those women

0:23:06.359 --> 0:23:10.879
<v Speaker 1>have not come back. This new ruling is going to

0:23:10.960 --> 0:23:13.919
<v Speaker 1>just exacerbate that. We're going to see fewer women in

0:23:13.960 --> 0:23:17.439
<v Speaker 1>the workforce. We're going to see fewer women advancing at

0:23:17.520 --> 0:23:23.080
<v Speaker 1>companies UM. And we all know that gender diverse teams

0:23:23.520 --> 0:23:29.040
<v Speaker 1>perform better. So until unless UH companies find a way

0:23:29.080 --> 0:23:33.399
<v Speaker 1>to begin to mitigate this, I think we're gonna have

0:23:33.440 --> 0:23:38.480
<v Speaker 1>big challenges. So how is this impacting your own investment thesis?

0:23:39.080 --> 0:23:43.840
<v Speaker 1>You know, we back female and diverse founders who bring

0:23:44.440 --> 0:23:48.440
<v Speaker 1>new thinking to sectors where a lot of changes overdue.

0:23:48.600 --> 0:23:55.680
<v Speaker 1>So it's healthcare, work, finance, education, climate UM. And they're

0:23:55.720 --> 0:24:00.320
<v Speaker 1>all areas where diverse founders have been traditionally over looked.

0:24:01.400 --> 0:24:05.159
<v Speaker 1>But one of the things we've learned during now the

0:24:05.240 --> 0:24:08.719
<v Speaker 1>eight years nine years we've been doing this UM is

0:24:08.760 --> 0:24:12.359
<v Speaker 1>that people with lived experience as well as learned experience,

0:24:12.400 --> 0:24:16.440
<v Speaker 1>people who really understand the end users of a tech platform,

0:24:16.520 --> 0:24:18.800
<v Speaker 1>the people whose lives are going to be better for it,

0:24:19.880 --> 0:24:22.600
<v Speaker 1>are generally the people who are going to come up

0:24:22.640 --> 0:24:26.959
<v Speaker 1>with better solutions. So it's really for us, it's always

0:24:26.960 --> 0:24:30.960
<v Speaker 1>looking a little bit ahead of where things are right now,

0:24:31.760 --> 0:24:37.439
<v Speaker 1>UM to identify where the opportunities exist, and and I

0:24:37.480 --> 0:24:42.040
<v Speaker 1>think we're seeing them in multiple areas. Certainly telehealth that's

0:24:42.080 --> 0:24:50.760
<v Speaker 1>a UM really interesting arena right now. Look in UM

0:24:50.840 --> 0:24:58.200
<v Speaker 1>the restrictions on medication abortions which used to demand that

0:24:58.240 --> 0:25:01.879
<v Speaker 1>you go to a hospital or or healthcare provider in

0:25:02.040 --> 0:25:06.040
<v Speaker 1>order to get prescriptions UM that was lifted because of

0:25:06.080 --> 0:25:12.080
<v Speaker 1>COVID UH and those restrictions are still gone UM. So

0:25:12.119 --> 0:25:16.800
<v Speaker 1>that opens the way for a whole new stream of

0:25:16.800 --> 0:25:23.040
<v Speaker 1>of telehealth solutions companies that are are both serving UM

0:25:23.160 --> 0:25:27.800
<v Speaker 1>women in their own states, but also women nationally. You

0:25:27.840 --> 0:25:31.960
<v Speaker 1>mentioned the women that we've lost in the workforce post pandemic,

0:25:32.000 --> 0:25:36.080
<v Speaker 1>and there's been a big concern about female entrepreneurs also

0:25:36.440 --> 0:25:39.320
<v Speaker 1>backsliding in the pandemic. You know, for example, in a

0:25:39.359 --> 0:25:42.720
<v Speaker 1>tough market conditions, investors might go back to what they

0:25:42.760 --> 0:25:45.439
<v Speaker 1>know and you know, continue to back the sort of

0:25:45.480 --> 0:25:48.480
<v Speaker 1>stereotypical idea of what a founder should look like, which

0:25:48.520 --> 0:25:52.280
<v Speaker 1>is not necessarily a woman. Are you seeing evidence that

0:25:52.480 --> 0:25:55.639
<v Speaker 1>female founders and entrepreneurs are you know, at more of

0:25:55.680 --> 0:26:00.800
<v Speaker 1>a disadvantage than they were at the start of You know,

0:26:01.040 --> 0:26:05.840
<v Speaker 1>I would say no, Um, we have seen more female

0:26:05.880 --> 0:26:10.439
<v Speaker 1>founders pitching this year than we did last year. UM,

0:26:10.480 --> 0:26:14.000
<v Speaker 1>more last year than we did the year before. UM.

0:26:14.320 --> 0:26:19.639
<v Speaker 1>I think part of the reason is that we invest early,

0:26:19.880 --> 0:26:25.280
<v Speaker 1>We invested seed stage, even sometimes precede. UM. Those rounds

0:26:25.680 --> 0:26:31.160
<v Speaker 1>have been far less impacted by the market changes. UM.

0:26:31.240 --> 0:26:35.479
<v Speaker 1>And that's where you find most women playing. To write,

0:26:35.520 --> 0:26:38.480
<v Speaker 1>they have not been doing this for long enough to

0:26:39.320 --> 0:26:42.600
<v Speaker 1>have you know, seen hundreds and hundreds of I p

0:26:42.680 --> 0:26:46.040
<v Speaker 1>O s at this point. UM. So I think for

0:26:46.119 --> 0:26:51.359
<v Speaker 1>the time being, women are slightly advantaged um by what's

0:26:51.359 --> 0:26:56.520
<v Speaker 1>been happening nationally. In fact, the the early part of

0:26:57.280 --> 0:27:03.880
<v Speaker 1>two saw increase in the percent of rounds that were

0:27:04.480 --> 0:27:07.640
<v Speaker 1>led by women. All right, Uh, well, lots to continue

0:27:07.640 --> 0:27:09.640
<v Speaker 1>to watch, Susan. Good to have you back on the show.

0:27:09.800 --> 0:27:12.720
<v Speaker 1>It's been a while. BBG Ventures managing partner, Susan Line,

0:27:12.880 --> 0:27:15.920
<v Speaker 1>thank you. Coming up. Galaxy Digital wants to end its

0:27:15.960 --> 0:27:19.800
<v Speaker 1>acquisition of Big but bit Go is fighting back. We'll

0:27:19.840 --> 0:27:40.560
<v Speaker 1>tell you how next. Mrs Bloomberg, Elon Musk isn't the

0:27:40.560 --> 0:27:43.120
<v Speaker 1>only one walking away from deals in the crypto world.

0:27:43.200 --> 0:27:46.560
<v Speaker 1>Mike novo grad says. Galaxy Digital now says it's terminating

0:27:46.600 --> 0:27:50.000
<v Speaker 1>its acquisition to Bitco one point two billion dollar deal.

0:27:50.080 --> 0:27:53.800
<v Speaker 1>They're citing bit Goes failure to deliver audited financial statements

0:27:54.760 --> 0:27:57.639
<v Speaker 1>by a deadline. Let's get all into this with our

0:27:57.680 --> 0:28:02.160
<v Speaker 1>chryptic contributor, Chanale Boss and Channa. Bigo is fighting back. Oh,

0:28:02.200 --> 0:28:04.560
<v Speaker 1>they certainly are. And it's a really interesting deal to

0:28:04.560 --> 0:28:06.240
<v Speaker 1>look at. Emily, this is one of the largest we've

0:28:06.240 --> 0:28:09.359
<v Speaker 1>seen in the crypto universe. Galaxy Digitals one point two

0:28:09.400 --> 0:28:12.760
<v Speaker 1>billion dollar agreement, and they have been waiting. The industry

0:28:13.000 --> 0:28:15.120
<v Speaker 1>investors have been waiting a long time for this deal

0:28:15.119 --> 0:28:17.440
<v Speaker 1>to close. Now we know that Galaxy is looking to

0:28:17.520 --> 0:28:20.720
<v Speaker 1>terminate this deal and Bigo wants them to pay that termination.

0:28:20.840 --> 0:28:23.239
<v Speaker 1>See if you look at the statements here by Bit

0:28:23.320 --> 0:28:27.920
<v Speaker 1>Goes lawyers, they're saying that it's pretty audacious that Mike

0:28:27.960 --> 0:28:31.600
<v Speaker 1>Novagrats and Galaxy would go blaming bit go on this merger.

0:28:31.600 --> 0:28:33.639
<v Speaker 1>They call it absurd. And this is according to the

0:28:33.680 --> 0:28:38.040
<v Speaker 1>Quinnum Annual partner from Big Goes legal team. Here. Both

0:28:38.040 --> 0:28:41.080
<v Speaker 1>Galaxy and Mr Novograts have been distracted, they say by

0:28:41.080 --> 0:28:43.920
<v Speaker 1>the lunar fiasco either Galaxy os big go a hundred

0:28:43.960 --> 0:28:46.800
<v Speaker 1>million dollar termination fee has promised, or it has been

0:28:46.800 --> 0:28:49.320
<v Speaker 1>acting in bad faith and faces damages of that much

0:28:49.440 --> 0:28:52.520
<v Speaker 1>or more so Again, Emily, kind of like Twitter here,

0:28:52.760 --> 0:28:56.160
<v Speaker 1>it's not easy to terminate a deal. While Galaxies shares

0:28:56.160 --> 0:28:58.040
<v Speaker 1>have been under pressure, they are up on the day,

0:28:58.120 --> 0:29:00.640
<v Speaker 1>So you do see investors really applauding the decision to

0:29:00.720 --> 0:29:02.720
<v Speaker 1>let go of what would have been much more expensive

0:29:02.800 --> 0:29:05.240
<v Speaker 1>last year than this year. All right, hang on, Chenali,

0:29:05.280 --> 0:29:07.640
<v Speaker 1>I want to get into this and more with Caveta Groupta,

0:29:07.720 --> 0:29:11.120
<v Speaker 1>general partner at Delta Blockchain Fund of venture capital firm

0:29:11.200 --> 0:29:13.600
<v Speaker 1>that focuses on blockchain tech, def I, n f T

0:29:13.760 --> 0:29:17.240
<v Speaker 1>S player to earn and more coveted drama, drama, Um,

0:29:17.280 --> 0:29:20.000
<v Speaker 1>what do you make of this latest development? And no

0:29:20.120 --> 0:29:24.640
<v Speaker 1>regrats trying to get out of this tale. I generinely

0:29:24.720 --> 0:29:27.520
<v Speaker 1>feel like if anybody who is in the VC space

0:29:27.520 --> 0:29:29.880
<v Speaker 1>would look at the deal and say, hey, the valuations

0:29:29.880 --> 0:29:32.840
<v Speaker 1>are different from the time the conversation started. Took longer

0:29:32.880 --> 0:29:36.080
<v Speaker 1>than for it to close. Also, after the Luna fiasco,

0:29:36.200 --> 0:29:38.440
<v Speaker 1>do we really have cash on the balance sheet to

0:29:38.520 --> 0:29:41.360
<v Speaker 1>do it? I mean, of course they blamed that for

0:29:41.600 --> 0:29:44.560
<v Speaker 1>sec filing. They needed some certain more documents, which is

0:29:44.680 --> 0:29:48.000
<v Speaker 1>very easily provable by the exchange of emails, so could

0:29:48.040 --> 0:29:50.600
<v Speaker 1>have never been reached here if there was ever an

0:29:50.640 --> 0:29:53.840
<v Speaker 1>intention of actually doing the deal. I generally feel as

0:29:53.920 --> 0:29:56.600
<v Speaker 1>the market sentiments than anything else where the Galaxy can

0:29:56.640 --> 0:29:59.040
<v Speaker 1>afford it, does need it at the same valuation, or

0:29:59.040 --> 0:30:01.200
<v Speaker 1>does it even make us with the business they're going

0:30:01.240 --> 0:30:03.680
<v Speaker 1>forward with. You know, I'm so curious about what you

0:30:03.680 --> 0:30:06.320
<v Speaker 1>think this means for deal making and moving forward. This

0:30:06.440 --> 0:30:09.200
<v Speaker 1>was such a massive deal on the space A lot

0:30:09.320 --> 0:30:11.320
<v Speaker 1>had to be said about confidence with the deal like

0:30:11.360 --> 0:30:13.840
<v Speaker 1>this getting broken up. On the other hand, you look

0:30:13.840 --> 0:30:16.440
<v Speaker 1>at the investment banks, including Galaxies, and they seem to

0:30:16.440 --> 0:30:19.240
<v Speaker 1>be busy. But are these deals born out of a

0:30:19.360 --> 0:30:22.680
<v Speaker 1>market that is trying to restructure or deals born out

0:30:22.680 --> 0:30:25.360
<v Speaker 1>of a chance to build a stronger market. At the end,

0:30:26.520 --> 0:30:29.760
<v Speaker 1>I feel like it's everywhere right. So you have deals

0:30:29.800 --> 0:30:33.200
<v Speaker 1>which is like coin bases making with institutional accounts to

0:30:33.240 --> 0:30:37.080
<v Speaker 1>be able to help them have their private wealth. Managers

0:30:37.360 --> 0:30:41.800
<v Speaker 1>do direct crypto ownership. So I feel like the infrastructure

0:30:41.840 --> 0:30:44.640
<v Speaker 1>play is going on with respect to crypto companies which

0:30:44.640 --> 0:30:47.840
<v Speaker 1>are going which exists at the very big level but

0:30:48.040 --> 0:30:51.960
<v Speaker 1>acquisition offers. If the offer, if the valuation is still

0:30:51.960 --> 0:30:54.440
<v Speaker 1>the old valuation, people are backing out. We have been

0:30:54.480 --> 0:30:58.240
<v Speaker 1>seeing that since the Luna fiasco, even at the smallest level.

0:30:58.360 --> 0:31:01.280
<v Speaker 1>So many funds who have committed the money into early

0:31:01.360 --> 0:31:05.160
<v Speaker 1>stage investments have also asked money or disappeared, or backed

0:31:05.200 --> 0:31:08.600
<v Speaker 1>out or asked for lower valuations. So we have been

0:31:08.600 --> 0:31:11.480
<v Speaker 1>seeing it for the last couple of months. Continuously. We

0:31:11.520 --> 0:31:14.520
<v Speaker 1>have seen the shift in the valuations in a massive way.

0:31:14.560 --> 0:31:16.640
<v Speaker 1>But I think this is one of those cases where

0:31:16.640 --> 0:31:19.720
<v Speaker 1>the valuation is still the old built and the deal

0:31:19.760 --> 0:31:21.360
<v Speaker 1>has to be done in the market where you can

0:31:21.400 --> 0:31:23.600
<v Speaker 1>get a bit of another deal on the market that

0:31:23.760 --> 0:31:26.040
<v Speaker 1>is worth talking about. Is this idea that you can

0:31:26.280 --> 0:31:30.360
<v Speaker 1>pay through Reddit for a way to purchase etheroryum through

0:31:30.400 --> 0:31:32.880
<v Speaker 1>an integration with f t x. You know, f t

0:31:33.080 --> 0:31:34.640
<v Speaker 1>X is in the stacks. F t X is in

0:31:34.720 --> 0:31:38.120
<v Speaker 1>the crypto, but what is something like Reddit do for them.

0:31:38.160 --> 0:31:40.880
<v Speaker 1>Do we think that more social media platforms or partner

0:31:40.920 --> 0:31:43.840
<v Speaker 1>with companies like this to get the job done. Yeah,

0:31:43.920 --> 0:31:45.640
<v Speaker 1>and I think this is not the first one. Twitter

0:31:45.720 --> 0:31:48.320
<v Speaker 1>did it already, They just did it with bitcoin. I

0:31:48.360 --> 0:31:50.760
<v Speaker 1>think we're going to see more and more web to adoption.

0:31:50.840 --> 0:31:53.520
<v Speaker 1>When you say fintech, there will be an extra layer

0:31:53.600 --> 0:31:56.040
<v Speaker 1>of payment through blockchain if you directly want to go there.

0:31:56.520 --> 0:31:58.640
<v Speaker 1>And that is also the idea of the cave I

0:31:58.720 --> 0:32:01.720
<v Speaker 1>seen and exchanges come and getting new customers like how

0:32:01.760 --> 0:32:03.200
<v Speaker 1>are you going to get them? And I think it's

0:32:03.240 --> 0:32:05.960
<v Speaker 1>a very smart way of the exist coming and not

0:32:06.080 --> 0:32:09.320
<v Speaker 1>only working with social media platform but any payment any

0:32:09.360 --> 0:32:11.840
<v Speaker 1>place where you have an e commerce option to be

0:32:11.920 --> 0:32:16.240
<v Speaker 1>done up. Just add another crypto payment system out there.

0:32:16.480 --> 0:32:18.400
<v Speaker 1>All right, Commedia, thank you so much for joining us.

0:32:18.440 --> 0:32:21.520
<v Speaker 1>Always great to have your take on the latest gramatic

0:32:21.560 --> 0:32:26.480
<v Speaker 1>twists and the crypto business. Uh Commniota Delta Blockchain Fund

0:32:26.600 --> 0:32:39.520
<v Speaker 1>along with our very own snap says it's paid subscription

0:32:39.600 --> 0:32:42.080
<v Speaker 1>plan is a hit with more than a million users

0:32:42.080 --> 0:32:46.000
<v Speaker 1>across the globe. The company launched snap Chat Plus back

0:32:46.040 --> 0:32:48.960
<v Speaker 1>in June, a plan that gives users early and exclusive

0:32:49.000 --> 0:32:53.560
<v Speaker 1>access to features for month, including changing the app icon

0:32:53.640 --> 0:32:56.719
<v Speaker 1>and seeing who we watched your story. Let's bring in

0:32:56.800 --> 0:33:00.960
<v Speaker 1>our own Alex Barrinka for more on this. So kind

0:33:00.960 --> 0:33:03.360
<v Speaker 1>of surprising that Snap was able to rack up this

0:33:03.440 --> 0:33:09.240
<v Speaker 1>many paying subscribers. What exactly are they so excited about? Yeah?

0:33:09.360 --> 0:33:12.280
<v Speaker 1>And and doing it in just six weeks UM since

0:33:12.360 --> 0:33:15.040
<v Speaker 1>this product has launched, so a lot of these subscribers

0:33:15.120 --> 0:33:18.000
<v Speaker 1>are You can probably assume the younger users that Snap

0:33:18.000 --> 0:33:22.200
<v Speaker 1>has brought onto the platform and try to give them interesting, exclusive,

0:33:22.280 --> 0:33:25.880
<v Speaker 1>new ways to monetize a million Emily. It's a number

0:33:25.920 --> 0:33:28.960
<v Speaker 1>that surprised me, but it will also probably be a

0:33:29.000 --> 0:33:32.000
<v Speaker 1>surprising but important number for Snap as they move forward

0:33:32.040 --> 0:33:34.840
<v Speaker 1>and look for revenue streams outside of kind of their

0:33:34.920 --> 0:33:39.600
<v Speaker 1>beleaguered ad business. How quickly and how much do you

0:33:39.600 --> 0:33:42.680
<v Speaker 1>think Snap can expand this? I can tell you this

0:33:42.720 --> 0:33:45.040
<v Speaker 1>is what they're focused on right now. If you remember

0:33:45.080 --> 0:33:47.920
<v Speaker 1>their last earnings report UM just over a month ago,

0:33:48.400 --> 0:33:51.240
<v Speaker 1>they got hammered in the markets. They basically came out

0:33:51.280 --> 0:33:54.280
<v Speaker 1>and said, our advertisers aren't spending money on the platform.

0:33:54.920 --> 0:33:56.920
<v Speaker 1>We're seeing a lot of softness on that side of

0:33:56.920 --> 0:33:59.480
<v Speaker 1>the business. When you think about Snap, there's two places

0:33:59.520 --> 0:34:02.080
<v Speaker 1>they can we make money. It's the advertisers and then

0:34:02.120 --> 0:34:05.240
<v Speaker 1>it's users like this with Snapchat Plus now in the

0:34:05.280 --> 0:34:08.520
<v Speaker 1>social media industry, we know historically it's been pretty tough

0:34:08.640 --> 0:34:11.920
<v Speaker 1>to get users to pay up UM, so this seems

0:34:11.960 --> 0:34:15.279
<v Speaker 1>to be kind of an early win for Snap. Historically,

0:34:15.400 --> 0:34:18.160
<v Speaker 1>This is a company that's been really good at rolling

0:34:18.160 --> 0:34:20.840
<v Speaker 1>out products that they know their users would love, and

0:34:20.920 --> 0:34:23.279
<v Speaker 1>it seems like they're they're finding a little bit of

0:34:23.440 --> 0:34:26.759
<v Speaker 1>a winning ticket here, which, again, as advertisers tend to

0:34:26.760 --> 0:34:29.239
<v Speaker 1>be a little bit pocketbook shy right now, will be

0:34:29.280 --> 0:34:32.520
<v Speaker 1>a potential important revenue stream for them going forward. Okay,

0:34:32.560 --> 0:34:34.759
<v Speaker 1>so our other social media company is going to try

0:34:34.760 --> 0:34:36.759
<v Speaker 1>to do this and is it gonna work? I mean,

0:34:37.280 --> 0:34:40.480
<v Speaker 1>Roger mcnabie, early Facebook investor, has been pushing for a

0:34:40.480 --> 0:34:43.759
<v Speaker 1>subscription model at Facebook three years. You know, could Instagram

0:34:43.800 --> 0:34:47.880
<v Speaker 1>do this or TikTok? I think the question will be

0:34:48.000 --> 0:34:51.000
<v Speaker 1>what value can they provide? So Snap is giving people

0:34:51.160 --> 0:34:53.400
<v Speaker 1>like uh the ability to get to the front of

0:34:53.440 --> 0:34:56.440
<v Speaker 1>the line in a celebrity's d MS when you direct

0:34:56.440 --> 0:34:59.560
<v Speaker 1>message them. When you look at Instagram and Facebook and

0:34:59.600 --> 0:35:03.000
<v Speaker 1>TikTok talk right now, it seems like they're rolling out

0:35:03.280 --> 0:35:05.759
<v Speaker 1>some other user focus things that are not monetize able,

0:35:05.920 --> 0:35:11.080
<v Speaker 1>like um algorithmically driven feeds or focusing on different types

0:35:11.120 --> 0:35:13.480
<v Speaker 1>of content. So I do think this is a place

0:35:13.520 --> 0:35:16.400
<v Speaker 1>where Snap is unique. It's smaller, it's a bit of

0:35:16.400 --> 0:35:19.120
<v Speaker 1>a different platform than those other names that you mentioned,

0:35:19.360 --> 0:35:22.720
<v Speaker 1>and again, they've been laser focused on kind of doing

0:35:22.800 --> 0:35:25.680
<v Speaker 1>things maybe zagging when everyone else is zigging, focusing on

0:35:25.719 --> 0:35:28.440
<v Speaker 1>peer to peer messaging when everyone else is focusing on

0:35:28.719 --> 0:35:32.399
<v Speaker 1>broadcasting messages to the world. So probably a unique case here.

0:35:32.480 --> 0:35:34.640
<v Speaker 1>We've seen the likes of like Twitter flirt with this

0:35:34.719 --> 0:35:38.240
<v Speaker 1>a little bit um, but we haven't seen any news

0:35:38.360 --> 0:35:41.439
<v Speaker 1>really of somebody getting to a million users paying for

0:35:41.640 --> 0:35:44.440
<v Speaker 1>something within a social media platform. So this is my

0:35:44.480 --> 0:35:49.160
<v Speaker 1>next question. What is going to continue to differentiate Snapchat

0:35:49.440 --> 0:35:54.439
<v Speaker 1>in a see of other options. Yeah, so Snap has

0:35:54.440 --> 0:35:57.760
<v Speaker 1>been focused around kind of this idea of a camera company,

0:35:57.920 --> 0:36:00.160
<v Speaker 1>and that seems to be kind of um, where are

0:36:00.160 --> 0:36:03.400
<v Speaker 1>sitting ways to create content? Their filters and their lenses

0:36:03.440 --> 0:36:06.040
<v Speaker 1>continue to be differentiated, even though you see TikTok kind

0:36:06.080 --> 0:36:08.759
<v Speaker 1>of creeping up on them. Also, they spend a lot

0:36:08.760 --> 0:36:13.239
<v Speaker 1>of time really focusing on person to person communication, which

0:36:13.280 --> 0:36:17.000
<v Speaker 1>again is not necessarily the main feed or the home

0:36:17.080 --> 0:36:20.120
<v Speaker 1>feed on a lot of other apps. Snap also again

0:36:20.320 --> 0:36:23.200
<v Speaker 1>kind of is winning over this younger market. Now, Emily

0:36:23.320 --> 0:36:26.040
<v Speaker 1>will remind folks that Snap is a much smaller user

0:36:26.080 --> 0:36:28.800
<v Speaker 1>base than what we see out there. Their revenue is

0:36:28.840 --> 0:36:32.520
<v Speaker 1>a lot smaller than giants like Meta and Facebook and Instagram.

0:36:32.560 --> 0:36:35.319
<v Speaker 1>That being said, it does seem like they are kind

0:36:35.320 --> 0:36:38.279
<v Speaker 1>of really zeroing in on what that younger eighteen to

0:36:38.400 --> 0:36:41.520
<v Speaker 1>twenty four year old demographic wants and catering to how

0:36:41.600 --> 0:36:43.760
<v Speaker 1>they want to talk and spend time with their friends

0:36:43.760 --> 0:36:46.840
<v Speaker 1>one on one instead of just broadcasting content to the world.

0:36:47.120 --> 0:36:49.280
<v Speaker 1>So one million in two months, does that mean twelve

0:36:49.280 --> 0:36:51.719
<v Speaker 1>million in a year? We'll see back of Knack and math,

0:36:51.840 --> 0:36:53.680
<v Speaker 1>that's like forty eight million a year at the current

0:36:53.719 --> 0:36:57.360
<v Speaker 1>number of everyone's paying every month one percent of revenue there, Emily,

0:36:57.440 --> 0:36:59.319
<v Speaker 1>But we'll see if those numbers shake out and if

0:36:59.320 --> 0:37:01.160
<v Speaker 1>folks stick around on paying for it dollars a month

0:37:01.200 --> 0:37:04.799
<v Speaker 1>for these extra features. Okay, Alex Barnka, as always, thank

0:37:04.840 --> 0:37:07.160
<v Speaker 1>you for stopping by, and that does it for this

0:37:07.320 --> 0:37:10.399
<v Speaker 1>edition of Bloomberg Technology Tuesday, we're gonna be talking about

0:37:10.440 --> 0:37:15.040
<v Speaker 1>investing in clean energy with Jason Kelly Ginko Bioworks, as

0:37:15.160 --> 0:37:20.120
<v Speaker 1>President Biden signs the Inflation Reduction Act. And don't forget

0:37:20.160 --> 0:37:23.000
<v Speaker 1>to check out our podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

0:37:23.120 --> 0:37:25.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm Emily Changing in San Francisco. This is Bloomberg