Speaker 1: From the heart of where innovation, money and power collive
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with
Speaker 1: Emily Jay. I'm Emily Shack in San Francisco, and this
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Technology. Coming up in the next hour, Build
Speaker 1: your Own Bike As Peloton looks to cut cost, the
Speaker 1: fitness company is planning redesign so that customers can assemble
Speaker 1: their own bikes at home. Will customers spin for it?
Speaker 1: We'll discuss. Plus, activist investor Dan Loebe is calling for
Speaker 1: changes at Disney. Details on his new steak and why
Speaker 1: he's urging a spinoff of ESPN, and how Google Maps
Speaker 1: routinely misleads people searching for abortion clinics, Why and why
Speaker 1: it's ever more critical in a post grow World War.
Speaker 1: On our Bloomberg analysis later this hour. To that Disney story,
Speaker 1: activist investor Dan Lobe urging Disney to make a sweeping
Speaker 1: set of changes to boost shareholder value, including new board
Speaker 1: members and spinning off esp the PN. Lobe's third point,
Speaker 1: taking what it calls a significant steak in Disney. Here
Speaker 1: to discuss. Paul Verna of Insider Intelligence in Bloomberg's Leona Baker,
Speaker 1: Leona some of the changes that Dan Lobe is calling
Speaker 1: for here not necessarily new ideas. I mean, we've heard
Speaker 1: talk about spinning off ESPN for years. Um, what is
Speaker 1: Dan Lobe suggesting and why? Well that's right Emily. In
Speaker 1: the letter, if you read it, Lobe actually says Disney
Speaker 1: might be working on some of these things already, although
Speaker 1: sources close to Disney's tell me you know, there's not
Speaker 1: gonna be an espn uh spinoff anytime soon. But some
Speaker 1: of the other things that Lobe is calling for, like
Speaker 1: cost cuts and buying a steak in Hulu from Comcast US,
Speaker 1: these are things that investors have kind of been expecting
Speaker 1: for years. And this is loped second bye of the
Speaker 1: Apple at Disney. Remember, he had also taken a stake
Speaker 1: and asked for changes like Disney scrapping the dividend and
Speaker 1: putting all that investment into the streaming product. Those are
Speaker 1: things that Disney never really did. So we'll see if
Speaker 1: he has a better shot this time around. Lobe is
Speaker 1: a big name in the world of activists investing. He's
Speaker 1: shaken up companies like Yahoo and Sony over the years,
Speaker 1: but he does have a mixed track record as to
Speaker 1: really seeing the changes that he's asking for lobes. Letter
Speaker 1: to Disney initially starts off, you know, fairly flattering to
Speaker 1: CEO Bob Jpeg. Then he sort of digs in, saying
Speaker 1: ESPN is a great business that currently generates significant free
Speaker 1: cash flow. Despite these advantages, we believe a strong case
Speaker 1: can be made that ESPN should be spun off to
Speaker 1: shareholders with an appropriate debtload that will alleviate leverage at
Speaker 1: the parent company. Uh Disney responding sort of thing banks
Speaker 1: not quite but not quite, No thanks, saying, we welcome
Speaker 1: the views of all our investors. As our results demonstrate,
Speaker 1: the Walt Disney Company continues to deliver strong financial results
Speaker 1: powered by world class storytelling and our unique and highly
Speaker 1: valuable content creation and distribution ecosystem. Paul, what do you
Speaker 1: make of this? Well? I think it's always got to
Speaker 1: stir the pot, you know, dialogue is always helpful and
Speaker 1: and it's interesting to to put out these ideas. But
Speaker 1: I don't think if I were bought ta Peck, I'm
Speaker 1: keeping espn' I'm not spinning it off. ESPN does a
Speaker 1: lot of things for Disney Sports. For one, it does
Speaker 1: a couple of things that no other form of entertainment.
Speaker 1: Does one is, uh, you have loyalty, so you know,
Speaker 1: someone is more likely to tune out the next season
Speaker 1: of The Mandalorian if they don't like a plot twist
Speaker 1: or something about the casting, but they're not likely to
Speaker 1: just stop watching Major League Baseball or li Liga or
Speaker 1: whatever else they watch on esp end. And then there's
Speaker 1: this whole thing about appointment viewing, which is something that's
Speaker 1: kind of a vestige to bygone days, but it still
Speaker 1: exists in sports because the game is taking place when
Speaker 1: it takes place, and people want to watch it. So
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of benefit to having ESPN
Speaker 1: as part of that portfolio. It's not an accident that
Speaker 1: every other media company that Disney competes with has a
Speaker 1: major sports entity as part of their mix. Leanna, you know,
Speaker 1: what do we know about lobes track record and how
Speaker 1: likely it is that he'll he'll be successful here, especially
Speaker 1: with a company like Disney, It's hard to say. There
Speaker 1: was a vaguely threatening line in the letter today where
Speaker 1: he said that there's a talent gap on Disney's board
Speaker 1: and that he has good connections and can maybe make
Speaker 1: some introductions to Disney. Now, I don't know, you know
Speaker 1: who Disney needs to meet that doesn't know already. But
Speaker 1: the idea there is that he's floating out with investors
Speaker 1: to see if they'll support him, maybe in a board fight.
Speaker 1: So right now, Disney h their window for directors would
Speaker 1: open later this fall, so Low would have a few
Speaker 1: months to see if he wants to do a board fight.
Speaker 1: He really does have a mixed track record at taking
Speaker 1: over boards. Um, at Yahoo back in you had a
Speaker 1: lot of success, although history will tell whether you know
Speaker 1: Marrissa Meyer was the right move At Southby's the company
Speaker 1: went private, but it was a really long haul. It
Speaker 1: took several years, and Sony still hasn't made a lot
Speaker 1: of the changes he's wanted. So while he's a big name, Uh,
Speaker 1: it's not clear that you know, even though he's going
Speaker 1: after this blue ship company, that's a slam dunk that
Speaker 1: all of this will come true. Gosh, I remember covering
Speaker 1: that Yahoo lobed Marrissa Meyer story every day for gosh,
Speaker 1: at least a year. Um, Paul, what do you make
Speaker 1: of some of these other changes? New board members? Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, full ownership of who Again, as I said earlier,
Speaker 1: not necessarily new ideas but you know something, something that
Speaker 1: several investors have been calling for for a while but
Speaker 1: hasn't happened. Well, I think that Disney buying the share
Speaker 1: that it doesn't own and Hulu from Comcast is a
Speaker 1: good idea. So I agree with Dan Lobe on that one.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of tension within Disney because, on the
Speaker 1: one hand, you know, there's a deadline to execute this
Speaker 1: deal by so obviously it's in Disney's best interest for
Speaker 1: the price of that chunk to be as low as possible.
Speaker 1: So it's almost like a weird motivation to drive down
Speaker 1: the value of Hulu. And that's just a very tense
Speaker 1: situation that's going to unfold for the next couple of years.
Speaker 1: Disney already has a controlling interest in Hulu, and in
Speaker 1: my view, they're doing a great job with Hulu. I
Speaker 1: don't see that they should fold it into Disney Plus necessarily.
Speaker 1: I think it's a very strong brand on its own.
Speaker 1: So I see a lot of value in basically Disney
Speaker 1: executing on this earlier, even if, as Dan Lobe says,
Speaker 1: they have to pay a little bit of a premium
Speaker 1: for it. All right, well, we're going to continue to
Speaker 1: follow this evolving story. We'll see how long it lasts.
Speaker 1: Boomer's Leanna Baker, Paul Verna insider intelligence, thank you, and
Speaker 1: more changes for Peloton after last week's layoffs and price hikes.
Speaker 1: Thank d I y. The struggling fitness brand is retooling
Speaker 1: its bikes for self assembly. Yes, that means customers will
Speaker 1: be able to put them together themselves. This is part
Speaker 1: of a wide ranging turnaround for Peloton by its new CEO,
Speaker 1: Barry McCarthy, who's also planning to launch a rowing machine
Speaker 1: this year. Bloomberg Smart German covers all things Peloton for us. So, uh,
Speaker 1: let's get this straight. Peloton just raped prices for the bike.
Speaker 1: Now it wants customers to put the bikes together themselves. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I wonder if Dan Loebe is going to try to
Speaker 1: get his hands on Peloton as well. But there's clearly, uh,
Speaker 1: they have a lot of changes to implement here. So yes,
Speaker 1: one of the initiatives last week is part of the layoffs,
Speaker 1: was really changing their costs and dropping them significantly when
Speaker 1: it comes to distribution and warehouses. Right, so laying off
Speaker 1: over five people that work in distribution. Now, if you
Speaker 1: ever bought a Peloton before this is how it works.
Speaker 1: And you know this already. You order it online and
Speaker 1: they show up to your house a White Glove service,
Speaker 1: they bring it in, they unboxed it for you, and
Speaker 1: they set it up for you. That's a four dollar
Speaker 1: fee to consumers, and that's very expensive for the company
Speaker 1: to release, supply and make happen. That's why they're winding
Speaker 1: in the ware houses right now. They're going to start
Speaker 1: moving to third party companies, logistics companies to do that
Speaker 1: White Glove service. The next step is having consumers set
Speaker 1: these devices up themselves, so they're in the process right now.
Speaker 1: The CEO told me an interview last week of redesigning
Speaker 1: its equipment so they can ship it via ups, via
Speaker 1: fed X, whatever you want. You take it home, you
Speaker 1: it arrives at your doorstep, you open the box, you
Speaker 1: put it together yourself. And like you said, d I Y,
Speaker 1: that's obviously not a great customer experience compared to the
Speaker 1: White Glove service, but that would be cheaper for the customer,
Speaker 1: no longer paying that four set up fee, be cheaper
Speaker 1: for Peloton. And if they have redesigned it in such
Speaker 1: a way where it's a fifteen minute process, right with
Speaker 1: just a few parts. It's actually pretty convenient rather than
Speaker 1: having people come into your house. We've covered some of
Speaker 1: the safety issues with Peloton products. I mean, are there
Speaker 1: any safety issues with this? Yeah? I mean I have
Speaker 1: to tell you obviously, if you set up a bike
Speaker 1: incorrectly or the rower or treadmill incorrectly, right, and that
Speaker 1: thing falls apart because you didn't do a good job,
Speaker 1: you know, setting up the device, that's a clear liability issue.
Speaker 1: So that really comes down to their engineering, their supply chain,
Speaker 1: their operations to figure out a way to make these
Speaker 1: devices work reliably and set up reliably right. So if
Speaker 1: you have to have the equipment to do it, the
Speaker 1: right screwdriver, the right screws, that could be a complicated situation.
Speaker 1: So that is definitely a consideration, and I guess we
Speaker 1: just have to hope that Peloton has engineered these things
Speaker 1: so they could be set up quickly and safely. All right? Interesting?
Speaker 1: What will continue to follow your reporting on Peloton? Bloombergs
Speaker 1: Mark German as always appreciate it. Meantime, Monday is the
Speaker 1: deadline for hedge funds to disclose their US equity investments
Speaker 1: for the second quarter. This is one of the few
Speaker 1: ways that we get inside into how hedge funds and
Speaker 1: some large family offices actually invest hedge fund Ducane bought Eli, Lily, CrowdStrike, Maderna,
Speaker 1: and Dated dog Me Time. Tiger Global took new positions
Speaker 1: in Alphabet and Zillo. According to a new thirteen F filing.
Speaker 1: Tiger Global also exited positions in DocuSign, Zoom, and Salesforce,
Speaker 1: reducing its stakes in Snowflake and Microsoft. This back world
Speaker 1: continues to unravel. At least four planned mergers to go
Speaker 1: public have been canceled since the market closed last Friday,
Speaker 1: bringing the years tally to two. Those concerns have pushed
Speaker 1: eighty nine backers to withdraw plans to raise fresh capital
Speaker 1: for blank checks. Here to explain that Bloomberg's Bailey lip
Speaker 1: shoalds So, Bailey, just how many of these are we
Speaker 1: talking about here? And why are we seeing so many
Speaker 1: of them? Yeah, So, as you saw the in the
Speaker 1: chart that we've seen kind of a growing number that
Speaker 1: has only kind of shot up since the start of
Speaker 1: the year, and that's really coming as we've seen over
Speaker 1: six hundred blank check companies on the hunt for deals
Speaker 1: um that are racing against deadline that either really are
Speaker 1: built up at the end of the first quarter of
Speaker 1: next year, some going into the second quarter of next year,
Speaker 1: but really just over seven hundred SPACs either with signed
Speaker 1: deals or chasing to find new target companies to bring public.
Speaker 1: When you look at some of the breakups that we've
Speaker 1: seen in the last few days, those are either in
Speaker 1: things like electronic vehicles, cryptocurrencies, so a lot of high
Speaker 1: growth technology companies that are ways away from generating any
Speaker 1: kind of EBITA, and that's really something we've seen fall
Speaker 1: out broadly across the actual public markets. So that's part
Speaker 1: of the reason that these plug has been pulled on
Speaker 1: some of these deals. So talk to us about the
Speaker 1: broader market for spacks and how this what this bodes
Speaker 1: for the rest of the year. Yeah, so we've seen
Speaker 1: more than sixty actually closed their deals so far this
Speaker 1: year and another hundred are live deals. No, So that
Speaker 1: means that there actually is a partnership between the sponsorship
Speaker 1: team and the target company, So you can you can
Speaker 1: expect to continue to see some of these getting across
Speaker 1: the finish line. But the way these despects are trading
Speaker 1: class is down to media and percent this year, so
Speaker 1: markedly under performing the market, markedly under performing those who
Speaker 1: went public via the traditional I p O. So you
Speaker 1: can expect to see some deals getting across the finish line,
Speaker 1: but there is expectations for liquidations like we saw with
Speaker 1: the Bill Ackman's back, like we saw Sam Zell announcing
Speaker 1: um last week, in addition to expectations that we will
Speaker 1: see some of these deals being broken just because these
Speaker 1: terms were agreed to back in December, even through April,
Speaker 1: when the market was in very different shape compared to
Speaker 1: where it is right now, where there are so many
Speaker 1: concerns about a potential recession and what lies ahead with
Speaker 1: expectations for the Fed to continue to hike interest rates.
Speaker 1: So question does this trend pick back up when or if,
Speaker 1: hopefully the markets get better or longer term, our investors
Speaker 1: just souring on this as a means of doing business. Yes,
Speaker 1: sponsors are really optimistic that they can get deals done.
Speaker 1: That's why we saw hip its High announcing that they
Speaker 1: planned to push back to deadlines to sometime next year.
Speaker 1: Kind of the reading of the room from talking to
Speaker 1: investors is the idea that as the market rebounds, there
Speaker 1: will be some demand for some of these back deals
Speaker 1: to get across the finish line. For some of these
Speaker 1: experienced sponsors to find and bring private targets public. But
Speaker 1: the expectations from the people that I talked to is
Speaker 1: that the future iteration of spacts in two or four
Speaker 1: will really look what like what it did back in
Speaker 1: twenty nine team, where you've got fifty to sixty spacts
Speaker 1: filing to go public. They're taking some of these smaller
Speaker 1: target companies public that maybe don't have the following to
Speaker 1: get a bank like a JP Morgan or Goldman Sex
Speaker 1: to underwrite their I p O. And we'll find ways
Speaker 1: to get deals across the finish line. But broadly speaking,
Speaker 1: the expectation is that the go go days that we
Speaker 1: saw in one is very much a thing of the
Speaker 1: past and more of an anomaly. Alright, uh, really interesting,
Speaker 1: Bailey lips Sheltz, thank you for covering that story for us.
Speaker 1: All right, Coming up, how conspiracy theorist Alex Jones made
Speaker 1: even more money after being taken down from major social
Speaker 1: media platform. We're gonna have more on that next. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. In the summer of Apple, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter,
Speaker 1: and YouTube all banned the media company of conspiracy theorist
Speaker 1: Alex Jones, that is Info Wars that means taking down
Speaker 1: many of its recorded broadcasts. This after Jones threatened then
Speaker 1: special counsel Robert Muller. The platforms all sided some sort
Speaker 1: of unspecified content policy violation for their decision to d
Speaker 1: platform the controversial host, which was supposed to relicate Jones
Speaker 1: to relative obscurity. As it turns out, Jones's audience didn't
Speaker 1: quite disappear. In fact, his big business became more lucrative
Speaker 1: than ever. Bloomberg Smacks Chafkin took a deep dive into
Speaker 1: this for us Max. How is this even possible? Well, so,
Speaker 1: there are two things that are going on. One is
Speaker 1: that although the big tech companies banned uh info Wars
Speaker 1: pages and in some cases eventually banned Alex Jones, they
Speaker 1: didn't take down you know, they didn't stop the circulation
Speaker 1: of these Sandy Hook related conspiracy theories. They didn't um
Speaker 1: stop other people from posting Jones videos, either in support
Speaker 1: or in criticism of him. And as a result, even
Speaker 1: though UH he was banned, you've still seen quite a
Speaker 1: lot of Alex Jones on social media, either in the
Speaker 1: form of him appearing on podcasts. You've seen a bunch
Speaker 1: of these kind of contrarian edgy types like Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: have Alex Jones on on on on their shows and
Speaker 1: as well as just people out there criticizing him. And
Speaker 1: then the other thing that happened is that, you know,
Speaker 1: Alex Jones used this and turned into a storyline where
Speaker 1: he became this order. Um. He does not make money
Speaker 1: through uh like a traditional media company does. He makes
Speaker 1: money by selling products. So there may be a situation
Speaker 1: where although his audience he's not getting the huge numbers,
Speaker 1: he's making more money off of the audience that he
Speaker 1: does have because he's been able to activate them by
Speaker 1: by spinning this narrative of martyrdom, which, as we learned
Speaker 1: during the trial, it simply isn't true. He's doing uh
Speaker 1: really well financially. You mentioned the trial, of course, uh,
Speaker 1: the judge awarding um the parents of one of the
Speaker 1: Sandy Hook victims tens of millions of dollars. There's also
Speaker 1: a Texas verdict another one coming up. Are these verdicts,
Speaker 1: these penalties actually changing the narrative around him or are
Speaker 1: they making him potentially more powerful? Well, it's hard to know.
Speaker 1: I mean, what you have you have a jury award
Speaker 1: in Texas that's the fifty million dollars you mentioned. You
Speaker 1: also have this case in Connecticut. Um. In both of
Speaker 1: these cases, Jones has been found to have fame to
Speaker 1: the families, and you have trials to decide on the damages.
Speaker 1: Um and and and the thing is, it's very tempting
Speaker 1: even now to say, Okay, well, this is probably the
Speaker 1: end of Alex jones career. You know, he's gone too far.
Speaker 1: But but people have been saying this for a long time.
Speaker 1: And you know, as I point out a column, you
Speaker 1: still have lots of people, lots of companies basically enabling
Speaker 1: and and and making money off of this stuff. Alex
Speaker 1: Jones has a book that's coming out. It's it's near
Speaker 1: the top of Amazon's bestseller list. Um, there's a there's
Speaker 1: a documentary, a very sympathetic documentary, uh that that that
Speaker 1: has just come out. So you have lots and lots
Speaker 1: of media types still kind of, like I said, eating
Speaker 1: off of these conspiracy theories in one way or another. Uh.
Speaker 1: And it's it's pretty depressing just because the cruelty as
Speaker 1: we saw during the trial of these conspiracy theories towards
Speaker 1: the parents, UM was you know, it's it's disturbing. Yes, well,
Speaker 1: you can read more on that in Max's story. Max,
Speaker 1: thank you for bringing that issue to light with us,
Speaker 1: and we'll be following the verdict from the upcoming trials.
Speaker 1: We've been covering the changing digital privacy landscape in a
Speaker 1: post rural world, issues with access to information on abortion
Speaker 1: and the power that tech companies have to safeguard that information. Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out that even Google Maps regularly misleads people
Speaker 1: searching for abortion clinics. This according to a new analysis
Speaker 1: by Bloomberg News. Let's take a deep dive on this
Speaker 1: with Bloomberg's Jack Gillum, who went through all of the
Speaker 1: data for us. So tell us what you found, Jack,
Speaker 1: So Emily, we wanted to just start out as if
Speaker 1: somebody wanted to find an abortion clinic, right, a very
Speaker 1: straightforward search that you could put into Google Maps. And
Speaker 1: when we did that for all fifty states and the
Speaker 1: District of Columbia, the results were pretty surprising. About a
Speaker 1: quarter of the cases returned not abortion mix but instead
Speaker 1: what are called crisis pregnancy centers. These places that are
Speaker 1: often you know, are encouraged to encourage women when they
Speaker 1: come in to uh not get an abortion and even
Speaker 1: though they often will masquerade themselves as a as a
Speaker 1: bona fide abortion clinic or some sort of doctor's office. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, this is very different than if you maybe
Speaker 1: type in a certain maybe fast food chain or type
Speaker 1: of restaurant, it will give you alternatives. In this case,
Speaker 1: post row, it's led to some confusion among folks. So
Speaker 1: we've spoken with who believe Google, they see the result,
Speaker 1: they assume that it's an abortion clinic, they go there,
Speaker 1: and in some cases they're in for a pretty alarming surprise.
Speaker 1: What does this practically mean for those seeking an abortion? So,
Speaker 1: what it means is that if somebody is in need
Speaker 1: of this procedure and they go to one of these
Speaker 1: places and it's a crisis pregnancy center, they can be
Speaker 1: sort of drawn into this process and be told, sometimes
Speaker 1: with very erroneous, erroneous medical information, that they don't need one.
Speaker 1: We spoke with one woman who in fact googled an
Speaker 1: abortion clinic, ended up going to Prices crisis pregnancy center
Speaker 1: and then quickly realized that it was not it was
Speaker 1: not an abortion clinic, was given a rubber fetus, what
Speaker 1: you know, confided in them that in fact she was
Speaker 1: in an abusive relationship and they try to convince her
Speaker 1: that if you just stay in this relationship with the baby,
Speaker 1: things will get better. So, I mean, it's unclear what
Speaker 1: sort of emotional and damage that did to that woman
Speaker 1: and other people who are seeking UM, particularly if they
Speaker 1: are seeking an abortion UM. There might not people who
Speaker 1: are up to date on this post row world, And
Speaker 1: it really sort of raises questions in a quarter of
Speaker 1: these cases that we found, what happens when somebody is
Speaker 1: in need and when they search and get a wrong result.
Speaker 1: What's Google doing about this? So they say that they
Speaker 1: have extra layers and verification in place, they have policies
Speaker 1: they say that prevent this, and people can report these
Speaker 1: erroneous results. Um. You know, there's still the critics we've
Speaker 1: spoken to ask, well, is Google doing enough given that
Speaker 1: they to index the world's information and that some of
Speaker 1: these websites are pretty clear that they do not provide abortion.
Speaker 1: Is their way to modify that algorithm and take those
Speaker 1: erroneous results in new account? All right, Jack Killen, thanks
Speaker 1: for bringing that story to life. Appreciate it well. For
Speaker 1: more on the implications and the power of tech in
Speaker 1: a post ROW world and the impact on tech, telehealth,
Speaker 1: tech investing at large. I want to bring in Susan
Speaker 1: Line BBG Ventures managing partner formerly and executive with a
Speaker 1: O L and Guilt Group, just to name a few.
Speaker 1: So Susan, you know, as we were talking about tech
Speaker 1: platforms have incredible power UM in a post row row
Speaker 1: world and obviously have some decisions to make about how
Speaker 1: they lose that use that power. UM. What are you
Speaker 1: most concerned about, UM, from the perspective of an investor, UM,
Speaker 1: as we see these issues play out. That's a really
Speaker 1: good question. I actually think about it more as opportunities
Speaker 1: that that exists. UM. You know, it's it's really clear
Speaker 1: that uh that women are not being served UH, certainly
Speaker 1: in the twenty states that have banned abortion. UM. But additionally,
Speaker 1: I think that there's going to be just a huge
Speaker 1: impact on on business overall, and so that always creates opportunity.
Speaker 1: There there will be founders out there who are looking
Speaker 1: for solutions that UH enabled companies to really address the
Speaker 1: retention issues, the recruitment issues, UM, and the challenges in
Speaker 1: a post row era. I mean this is there are
Speaker 1: two million fewer women in the workforce today than there
Speaker 1: were before COVID so a lot of women left for
Speaker 1: multiple reasons, remote learning, daycare centers closing, and just the
Speaker 1: overall caregiver issues that fall to women. UM. Those women
Speaker 1: have not come back. This new ruling is going to
Speaker 1: just exacerbate that. We're going to see fewer women in
Speaker 1: the workforce. We're going to see fewer women advancing at
Speaker 1: companies UM. And we all know that gender diverse teams
Speaker 1: perform better. So until unless UH companies find a way
Speaker 1: to begin to mitigate this, I think we're gonna have
Speaker 1: big challenges. So how is this impacting your own investment thesis?
Speaker 1: You know, we back female and diverse founders who bring
Speaker 1: new thinking to sectors where a lot of changes overdue.
Speaker 1: So it's healthcare, work, finance, education, climate UM. And they're
Speaker 1: all areas where diverse founders have been traditionally over looked.
Speaker 1: But one of the things we've learned during now the
Speaker 1: eight years nine years we've been doing this UM is
Speaker 1: that people with lived experience as well as learned experience,
Speaker 1: people who really understand the end users of a tech platform,
Speaker 1: the people whose lives are going to be better for it,
Speaker 1: are generally the people who are going to come up
Speaker 1: with better solutions. So it's really for us, it's always
Speaker 1: looking a little bit ahead of where things are right now,
Speaker 1: UM to identify where the opportunities exist, and and I
Speaker 1: think we're seeing them in multiple areas. Certainly telehealth that's
Speaker 1: a UM really interesting arena right now. Look in UM
Speaker 1: the restrictions on medication abortions which used to demand that
Speaker 1: you go to a hospital or or healthcare provider in
Speaker 1: order to get prescriptions UM that was lifted because of
Speaker 1: COVID UH and those restrictions are still gone UM. So
Speaker 1: that opens the way for a whole new stream of
Speaker 1: of telehealth solutions companies that are are both serving UM
Speaker 1: women in their own states, but also women nationally. You
Speaker 1: mentioned the women that we've lost in the workforce post pandemic,
Speaker 1: and there's been a big concern about female entrepreneurs also
Speaker 1: backsliding in the pandemic. You know, for example, in a
Speaker 1: tough market conditions, investors might go back to what they
Speaker 1: know and you know, continue to back the sort of
Speaker 1: stereotypical idea of what a founder should look like, which
Speaker 1: is not necessarily a woman. Are you seeing evidence that
Speaker 1: female founders and entrepreneurs are you know, at more of
Speaker 1: a disadvantage than they were at the start of You know,
Speaker 1: I would say no, Um, we have seen more female
Speaker 1: founders pitching this year than we did last year. UM,
Speaker 1: more last year than we did the year before. UM.
Speaker 1: I think part of the reason is that we invest early,
Speaker 1: We invested seed stage, even sometimes precede. UM. Those rounds
Speaker 1: have been far less impacted by the market changes. UM.
Speaker 1: And that's where you find most women playing. To write,
Speaker 1: they have not been doing this for long enough to
Speaker 1: have you know, seen hundreds and hundreds of I p
Speaker 1: O s at this point. UM. So I think for
Speaker 1: the time being, women are slightly advantaged um by what's
Speaker 1: been happening nationally. In fact, the the early part of
Speaker 1: two saw increase in the percent of rounds that were
Speaker 1: led by women. All right, Uh, well, lots to continue
Speaker 1: to watch, Susan. Good to have you back on the show.
Speaker 1: It's been a while. BBG Ventures managing partner, Susan Line,
Speaker 1: thank you. Coming up. Galaxy Digital wants to end its
Speaker 1: acquisition of Big but bit Go is fighting back. We'll
Speaker 1: tell you how next. Mrs Bloomberg, Elon Musk isn't the
Speaker 1: only one walking away from deals in the crypto world.
Speaker 1: Mike novo grad says. Galaxy Digital now says it's terminating
Speaker 1: its acquisition to Bitco one point two billion dollar deal.
Speaker 1: They're citing bit Goes failure to deliver audited financial statements
Speaker 1: by a deadline. Let's get all into this with our
Speaker 1: chryptic contributor, Chanale Boss and Channa. Bigo is fighting back. Oh,
Speaker 1: they certainly are. And it's a really interesting deal to
Speaker 1: look at. Emily, this is one of the largest we've
Speaker 1: seen in the crypto universe. Galaxy Digitals one point two
Speaker 1: billion dollar agreement, and they have been waiting. The industry
Speaker 1: investors have been waiting a long time for this deal
Speaker 1: to close. Now we know that Galaxy is looking to
Speaker 1: terminate this deal and Bigo wants them to pay that termination.
Speaker 1: See if you look at the statements here by Bit
Speaker 1: Goes lawyers, they're saying that it's pretty audacious that Mike
Speaker 1: Novagrats and Galaxy would go blaming bit go on this merger.
Speaker 1: They call it absurd. And this is according to the
Speaker 1: Quinnum Annual partner from Big Goes legal team. Here. Both
Speaker 1: Galaxy and Mr Novograts have been distracted, they say by
Speaker 1: the lunar fiasco either Galaxy os big go a hundred
Speaker 1: million dollar termination fee has promised, or it has been
Speaker 1: acting in bad faith and faces damages of that much
Speaker 1: or more so Again, Emily, kind of like Twitter here,
Speaker 1: it's not easy to terminate a deal. While Galaxies shares
Speaker 1: have been under pressure, they are up on the day,
Speaker 1: So you do see investors really applauding the decision to
Speaker 1: let go of what would have been much more expensive
Speaker 1: last year than this year. All right, hang on, Chenali,
Speaker 1: I want to get into this and more with Caveta Groupta,
Speaker 1: general partner at Delta Blockchain Fund of venture capital firm
Speaker 1: that focuses on blockchain tech, def I, n f T
Speaker 1: S player to earn and more coveted drama, drama, Um,
Speaker 1: what do you make of this latest development? And no
Speaker 1: regrats trying to get out of this tale. I generinely
Speaker 1: feel like if anybody who is in the VC space
Speaker 1: would look at the deal and say, hey, the valuations
Speaker 1: are different from the time the conversation started. Took longer
Speaker 1: than for it to close. Also, after the Luna fiasco,
Speaker 1: do we really have cash on the balance sheet to
Speaker 1: do it? I mean, of course they blamed that for
Speaker 1: sec filing. They needed some certain more documents, which is
Speaker 1: very easily provable by the exchange of emails, so could
Speaker 1: have never been reached here if there was ever an
Speaker 1: intention of actually doing the deal. I generally feel as
Speaker 1: the market sentiments than anything else where the Galaxy can
Speaker 1: afford it, does need it at the same valuation, or
Speaker 1: does it even make us with the business they're going
Speaker 1: forward with. You know, I'm so curious about what you
Speaker 1: think this means for deal making and moving forward. This
Speaker 1: was such a massive deal on the space A lot
Speaker 1: had to be said about confidence with the deal like
Speaker 1: this getting broken up. On the other hand, you look
Speaker 1: at the investment banks, including Galaxies, and they seem to
Speaker 1: be busy. But are these deals born out of a
Speaker 1: market that is trying to restructure or deals born out
Speaker 1: of a chance to build a stronger market. At the end,
Speaker 1: I feel like it's everywhere right. So you have deals
Speaker 1: which is like coin bases making with institutional accounts to
Speaker 1: be able to help them have their private wealth. Managers
Speaker 1: do direct crypto ownership. So I feel like the infrastructure
Speaker 1: play is going on with respect to crypto companies which
Speaker 1: are going which exists at the very big level but
Speaker 1: acquisition offers. If the offer, if the valuation is still
Speaker 1: the old valuation, people are backing out. We have been
Speaker 1: seeing that since the Luna fiasco, even at the smallest level.
Speaker 1: So many funds who have committed the money into early
Speaker 1: stage investments have also asked money or disappeared, or backed
Speaker 1: out or asked for lower valuations. So we have been
Speaker 1: seeing it for the last couple of months. Continuously. We
Speaker 1: have seen the shift in the valuations in a massive way.
Speaker 1: But I think this is one of those cases where
Speaker 1: the valuation is still the old built and the deal
Speaker 1: has to be done in the market where you can
Speaker 1: get a bit of another deal on the market that
Speaker 1: is worth talking about. Is this idea that you can
Speaker 1: pay through Reddit for a way to purchase etheroryum through
Speaker 1: an integration with f t x. You know, f t
Speaker 1: X is in the stacks. F t X is in
Speaker 1: the crypto, but what is something like Reddit do for them.
Speaker 1: Do we think that more social media platforms or partner
Speaker 1: with companies like this to get the job done. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think this is not the first one. Twitter
Speaker 1: did it already, They just did it with bitcoin. I
Speaker 1: think we're going to see more and more web to adoption.
Speaker 1: When you say fintech, there will be an extra layer
Speaker 1: of payment through blockchain if you directly want to go there.
Speaker 1: And that is also the idea of the cave I
Speaker 1: seen and exchanges come and getting new customers like how
Speaker 1: are you going to get them? And I think it's
Speaker 1: a very smart way of the exist coming and not
Speaker 1: only working with social media platform but any payment any
Speaker 1: place where you have an e commerce option to be
Speaker 1: done up. Just add another crypto payment system out there.
Speaker 1: All right, Commedia, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Always great to have your take on the latest gramatic
Speaker 1: twists and the crypto business. Uh Commniota Delta Blockchain Fund
Speaker 1: along with our very own snap says it's paid subscription
Speaker 1: plan is a hit with more than a million users
Speaker 1: across the globe. The company launched snap Chat Plus back
Speaker 1: in June, a plan that gives users early and exclusive
Speaker 1: access to features for month, including changing the app icon
Speaker 1: and seeing who we watched your story. Let's bring in
Speaker 1: our own Alex Barrinka for more on this. So kind
Speaker 1: of surprising that Snap was able to rack up this
Speaker 1: many paying subscribers. What exactly are they so excited about? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And and doing it in just six weeks UM since
Speaker 1: this product has launched, so a lot of these subscribers
Speaker 1: are You can probably assume the younger users that Snap
Speaker 1: has brought onto the platform and try to give them interesting, exclusive,
Speaker 1: new ways to monetize a million Emily. It's a number
Speaker 1: that surprised me, but it will also probably be a
Speaker 1: surprising but important number for Snap as they move forward
Speaker 1: and look for revenue streams outside of kind of their
Speaker 1: beleaguered ad business. How quickly and how much do you
Speaker 1: think Snap can expand this? I can tell you this
Speaker 1: is what they're focused on right now. If you remember
Speaker 1: their last earnings report UM just over a month ago,
Speaker 1: they got hammered in the markets. They basically came out
Speaker 1: and said, our advertisers aren't spending money on the platform.
Speaker 1: We're seeing a lot of softness on that side of
Speaker 1: the business. When you think about Snap, there's two places
Speaker 1: they can we make money. It's the advertisers and then
Speaker 1: it's users like this with Snapchat Plus now in the
Speaker 1: social media industry, we know historically it's been pretty tough
Speaker 1: to get users to pay up UM, so this seems
Speaker 1: to be kind of an early win for Snap. Historically,
Speaker 1: This is a company that's been really good at rolling
Speaker 1: out products that they know their users would love, and
Speaker 1: it seems like they're they're finding a little bit of
Speaker 1: a winning ticket here, which, again, as advertisers tend to
Speaker 1: be a little bit pocketbook shy right now, will be
Speaker 1: a potential important revenue stream for them going forward. Okay,
Speaker 1: so our other social media company is going to try
Speaker 1: to do this and is it gonna work? I mean,
Speaker 1: Roger mcnabie, early Facebook investor, has been pushing for a
Speaker 1: subscription model at Facebook three years. You know, could Instagram
Speaker 1: do this or TikTok? I think the question will be
Speaker 1: what value can they provide? So Snap is giving people
Speaker 1: like uh the ability to get to the front of
Speaker 1: the line in a celebrity's d MS when you direct
Speaker 1: message them. When you look at Instagram and Facebook and
Speaker 1: TikTok talk right now, it seems like they're rolling out
Speaker 1: some other user focus things that are not monetize able,
Speaker 1: like um algorithmically driven feeds or focusing on different types
Speaker 1: of content. So I do think this is a place
Speaker 1: where Snap is unique. It's smaller, it's a bit of
Speaker 1: a different platform than those other names that you mentioned,
Speaker 1: and again, they've been laser focused on kind of doing
Speaker 1: things maybe zagging when everyone else is zigging, focusing on
Speaker 1: peer to peer messaging when everyone else is focusing on
Speaker 1: broadcasting messages to the world. So probably a unique case here.
Speaker 1: We've seen the likes of like Twitter flirt with this
Speaker 1: a little bit um, but we haven't seen any news
Speaker 1: really of somebody getting to a million users paying for
Speaker 1: something within a social media platform. So this is my
Speaker 1: next question. What is going to continue to differentiate Snapchat
Speaker 1: in a see of other options. Yeah, so Snap has
Speaker 1: been focused around kind of this idea of a camera company,
Speaker 1: and that seems to be kind of um, where are
Speaker 1: sitting ways to create content? Their filters and their lenses
Speaker 1: continue to be differentiated, even though you see TikTok kind
Speaker 1: of creeping up on them. Also, they spend a lot
Speaker 1: of time really focusing on person to person communication, which
Speaker 1: again is not necessarily the main feed or the home
Speaker 1: feed on a lot of other apps. Snap also again
Speaker 1: kind of is winning over this younger market. Now, Emily
Speaker 1: will remind folks that Snap is a much smaller user
Speaker 1: base than what we see out there. Their revenue is
Speaker 1: a lot smaller than giants like Meta and Facebook and Instagram.
Speaker 1: That being said, it does seem like they are kind
Speaker 1: of really zeroing in on what that younger eighteen to
Speaker 1: twenty four year old demographic wants and catering to how
Speaker 1: they want to talk and spend time with their friends
Speaker 1: one on one instead of just broadcasting content to the world.
Speaker 1: So one million in two months, does that mean twelve
Speaker 1: million in a year? We'll see back of Knack and math,
Speaker 1: that's like forty eight million a year at the current
Speaker 1: number of everyone's paying every month one percent of revenue there, Emily,
Speaker 1: But we'll see if those numbers shake out and if
Speaker 1: folks stick around on paying for it dollars a month
Speaker 1: for these extra features. Okay, Alex Barnka, as always, thank
Speaker 1: you for stopping by, and that does it for this
Speaker 1: edition of Bloomberg Technology Tuesday, we're gonna be talking about
Speaker 1: investing in clean energy with Jason Kelly Ginko Bioworks, as
Speaker 1: President Biden signs the Inflation Reduction Act. And don't forget
Speaker 1: to check out our podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: I'm Emily Changing in San Francisco. This is Bloomberg