WEBVTT - NYC's Shrinking Tech Presence

0:00:02.240 --> 0:00:05.520
<v Speaker 1>From the heart of where innovation, money and power Colli

0:00:06.320 --> 0:00:10.880
<v Speaker 1>in Silicon Vallet and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with

0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:26.599
<v Speaker 1>Emily Jay. I'm Emily checking San Francisco and this is

0:00:26.640 --> 0:00:29.600
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Technology. Coming up in the next hour. Twitter has

0:00:29.640 --> 0:00:32.280
<v Speaker 1>a big week ahead, not just earnings, but the first

0:00:32.320 --> 0:00:36.800
<v Speaker 1>hearing in Twitter v. Musk is now scheduled for Tuesday

0:00:36.960 --> 0:00:41.280
<v Speaker 1>in a Delaware court. We will tell you what to expect. Plus,

0:00:41.360 --> 0:00:44.800
<v Speaker 1>Amazon and Meta are getting creative to save cash with

0:00:44.920 --> 0:00:48.200
<v Speaker 1>plans to cut back on office expansion in New York.

0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:52.239
<v Speaker 1>Will bring you the Bloomberg exclusive. And we're chatting with

0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 1>bitcoin bull Anthony Popliano about the crypto downturn and his

0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:59.840
<v Speaker 1>new startup designed to train workers for a new generation

0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:04.200
<v Speaker 1>of crypto comy. Looking ahead, a judge set a hearing

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:07.800
<v Speaker 1>for Tuesday, granting Twitter's request to fast track its case

0:01:08.120 --> 0:01:11.920
<v Speaker 1>against Elon Musk. Twitter lawyers claim Musk wrongfully canceled his

0:01:12.000 --> 0:01:14.920
<v Speaker 1>forty four billion dollar buyout and say they only need

0:01:14.959 --> 0:01:17.880
<v Speaker 1>four days to prove it in Delaware court and the

0:01:17.920 --> 0:01:20.679
<v Speaker 1>Court of Public Opinion. Joining me now Jasmine Emberg, principal

0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:24.800
<v Speaker 1>analyst at Insider Intelligence, So look, Jasmine, Twitter has been

0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:27.680
<v Speaker 1>in a state of limbo now for months. How significant

0:01:27.800 --> 0:01:30.000
<v Speaker 1>is it that they got the judge to hear this

0:01:30.080 --> 0:01:34.399
<v Speaker 1>case right away. It's significant, um, but it is of

0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:37.000
<v Speaker 1>course only the first hearing in what I expect will

0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 1>be a pretty long and drawn out court battle. Either way, though,

0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:43.720
<v Speaker 1>there really is no great outcome for Twitter at this point.

0:01:43.760 --> 0:01:45.880
<v Speaker 1>It is either going to end up in the hands

0:01:45.920 --> 0:01:49.800
<v Speaker 1>of someone who is unhappy and uninterested in the product,

0:01:50.360 --> 0:01:52.120
<v Speaker 1>or then it's going to go back to the same

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>position it was before this whole ordeal began, which of

0:01:54.840 --> 0:01:58.960
<v Speaker 1>course is a position of under performance relative to its peers,

0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:03.080
<v Speaker 1>or perhaps even weaker than it was lost April. Right

0:02:03.120 --> 0:02:07.360
<v Speaker 1>Twitter earnings are coming out towards the end of next week.

0:02:07.560 --> 0:02:09.320
<v Speaker 1>What are you expecting there in the middle of all

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:13.240
<v Speaker 1>of this. Yeah, I'm expecting that we will see that

0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:16.640
<v Speaker 1>Twitter had a pretty turbulent quarter, and I'm not expecting

0:02:16.720 --> 0:02:20.160
<v Speaker 1>the termoil to end right now. Musk is the noisiest

0:02:20.240 --> 0:02:22.560
<v Speaker 1>challenge that Twitter is dealing with at the moment, but

0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:25.840
<v Speaker 1>of course it's also susceptible to many of the challenges

0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:29.360
<v Speaker 1>within the digital advertising landscape, which include these macro Economic

0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:34.119
<v Speaker 1>headwinds include iOS changes include shifting consumer behaviors which are

0:02:34.160 --> 0:02:38.040
<v Speaker 1>impacting you know, social media platforms across the board. Twitter

0:02:38.240 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>is a relatively small player in the social media advertising landscape.

0:02:42.240 --> 0:02:45.360
<v Speaker 1>At Insider Intelligence, we expect Twitter to rank in just

0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:49.240
<v Speaker 1>one percent of worldwide digital ad revenues this year. Compare

0:02:49.280 --> 0:02:51.600
<v Speaker 1>that with Facebook, which we're expecting we'll bring in around

0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Instagram nine percent and TikTok is even double. Um what

0:02:57.200 --> 0:02:58.960
<v Speaker 1>where Twitter is expected to be by the end of

0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:01.320
<v Speaker 1>this year at around two per set. So for especially

0:03:01.360 --> 0:03:04.079
<v Speaker 1>for a small tier player, this was probably a very

0:03:04.160 --> 0:03:09.240
<v Speaker 1>tough quarridor meantime, you've got Twitter still making product announcements

0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:11.239
<v Speaker 1>in the middle of all this, trying to portray this

0:03:11.320 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 1>sort of business as usual environment when all of this

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:18.520
<v Speaker 1>is completely unprecedented. I'm curious how you think of courtroom battle.

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:21.320
<v Speaker 1>You've also got the U S midterm elections coming up.

0:03:21.600 --> 0:03:25.560
<v Speaker 1>How do you think this is all going to impact engagement? Yeah,

0:03:25.560 --> 0:03:27.959
<v Speaker 1>I mean Twitter has been rolling out new ada and

0:03:28.000 --> 0:03:31.400
<v Speaker 1>commerce related tools in order to you know, prove to

0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:33.760
<v Speaker 1>advertisers at it's business as normal, as you said, but

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:38.000
<v Speaker 1>it certainly isn't. Twitter is a platform that thrives on

0:03:38.080 --> 0:03:41.400
<v Speaker 1>news and controversies. So there is a possibility that people

0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:44.200
<v Speaker 1>logged in a more signed up for the platform to

0:03:44.240 --> 0:03:47.080
<v Speaker 1>watch the drama unfold. But we also heard that some

0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:49.800
<v Speaker 1>people may have left the platform because they didn't want

0:03:49.800 --> 0:03:52.720
<v Speaker 1>it to be controlled by Musk. I am still expecting

0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:56.080
<v Speaker 1>to see perhaps some growth in monetize able daily active

0:03:56.160 --> 0:04:00.040
<v Speaker 1>users at Insider Intelligence. So for the full year to

0:04:00.320 --> 0:04:04.000
<v Speaker 1>we're actually expecting just very minimal growth worldwide and a

0:04:04.080 --> 0:04:08.480
<v Speaker 1>decline in Twitter users. Now we UM forecast monthly users,

0:04:08.480 --> 0:04:11.000
<v Speaker 1>so they're not comparable to Twitter's m d a US.

0:04:11.960 --> 0:04:14.360
<v Speaker 1>So look, if you're a Twitter investor right now, what

0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:18.480
<v Speaker 1>do you do? You know, that's a great question. I

0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:20.360
<v Speaker 1>think we'll have to wait and see the state of

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:23.720
<v Speaker 1>the financials next sport next week. Um well, and we'll

0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:26.960
<v Speaker 1>get a better picture of what Twitter is um really

0:04:26.960 --> 0:04:30.920
<v Speaker 1>dealing with at the moment. Alright, Jasmine Emberg, Insider Intelligence

0:04:30.960 --> 0:04:33.560
<v Speaker 1>principal analysts. Always good to have your perspective here on

0:04:33.600 --> 0:04:38.000
<v Speaker 1>the show. Jasmine, thank you. So what are Musque's chances

0:04:38.040 --> 0:04:40.040
<v Speaker 1>of getting out of this deal? And how good is

0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:42.040
<v Speaker 1>Twitter's case? For more on that, I want to bring

0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:46.200
<v Speaker 1>in Lawrence Hammermash, Executive director of the University of Pennsylvania

0:04:46.320 --> 0:04:49.640
<v Speaker 1>Carry Law School. Uh, Larry, I'm so excited to have

0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:53.279
<v Speaker 1>you so curious to hear what you think. Whose argument

0:04:53.320 --> 0:04:55.880
<v Speaker 1>is better here? Looking at what you've seen so far,

0:04:56.120 --> 0:05:00.640
<v Speaker 1>a very um raucous complaint from Twitter, as well as

0:05:00.880 --> 0:05:03.280
<v Speaker 1>what we've heard from Elon Musk to this point. Of course,

0:05:03.279 --> 0:05:06.320
<v Speaker 1>he's been very prolific on Twitter itself. Who's got a

0:05:06.320 --> 0:05:10.000
<v Speaker 1>better case? Based on what I've seen so far, I'll

0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:12.520
<v Speaker 1>side with Twitter, but you know that it's early in

0:05:12.520 --> 0:05:18.120
<v Speaker 1>the day. I've seen from Musk's lawyers their principal contentions

0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:22.279
<v Speaker 1>about why Musk is entitled to walk away. I've now

0:05:22.360 --> 0:05:29.000
<v Speaker 1>read Twitter's complaint and it's it's pretty clear that there's

0:05:29.040 --> 0:05:31.400
<v Speaker 1>there's more to the story at once Twitter tells it.

0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:36.000
<v Speaker 1>That suggests to me that Musk's arguments are gonna be tough.

0:05:36.560 --> 0:05:38.159
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I can go into detail, but that's the

0:05:38.240 --> 0:05:42.360
<v Speaker 1>overall of you I've got. How significant is the judge

0:05:42.440 --> 0:05:47.360
<v Speaker 1>fast tracking this suit? I wouldn't well, First of all, Uh,

0:05:47.480 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 1>it's absolutely standard when someone asks for a trial in

0:05:52.120 --> 0:05:55.000
<v Speaker 1>a couple of months for the judge to hear the

0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:58.920
<v Speaker 1>that question of scheduling pretty much right away, and sometimes

0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:01.719
<v Speaker 1>the same day. So Tuesday. It's kind of leisurely for

0:06:01.800 --> 0:06:04.360
<v Speaker 1>something like this. The real question is what's going to

0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:07.080
<v Speaker 1>happen on Tuesday? And is the judge going to schedule

0:06:07.080 --> 0:06:11.200
<v Speaker 1>a trial in September, as Twitter as asked, or is

0:06:11.720 --> 0:06:15.120
<v Speaker 1>Musk gonna come in with guns blazing with a filing

0:06:15.160 --> 0:06:17.919
<v Speaker 1>that says, you know you shouldn't try this case in

0:06:18.000 --> 0:06:21.120
<v Speaker 1>any kind of with any kind of speed or unusual speed. Uh,

0:06:21.160 --> 0:06:23.560
<v Speaker 1>this is You're never gonna make me have to go

0:06:23.640 --> 0:06:28.200
<v Speaker 1>through with a deal, so there's no rush. Uh, you know,

0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:32.440
<v Speaker 1>I haven't seen we haven't seen Musk's filing in opposition

0:06:32.480 --> 0:06:36.760
<v Speaker 1>to Twitter's request for speed, But it'll be in I

0:06:36.760 --> 0:06:39.599
<v Speaker 1>would guess by Monday, and we'll know more than I

0:06:39.640 --> 0:06:42.160
<v Speaker 1>still would think. The judge would set the case down

0:06:42.200 --> 0:06:46.320
<v Speaker 1>for trial sometime in the fall, maybe even early even

0:06:46.400 --> 0:06:50.479
<v Speaker 1>late summer. Right when does Musk not come in guns blazing?

0:06:53.080 --> 0:06:56.159
<v Speaker 1>Well he's he's got a big arsenal, I'll tell you that. Well,

0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:58.280
<v Speaker 1>so are you saying there that you think this could

0:06:58.279 --> 0:07:00.800
<v Speaker 1>be wrapped up in the fall. I mean, we just

0:07:00.880 --> 0:07:04.480
<v Speaker 1>heard Jasmine Edinburgh predict this is gonna be a long

0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:06.599
<v Speaker 1>and drawn out court battle. But maybe it won't be

0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:09.360
<v Speaker 1>as long as we think, well, it will be drawn

0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:11.680
<v Speaker 1>out and it's gonna seem long, but it's possible that

0:07:11.800 --> 0:07:15.480
<v Speaker 1>could be over by the fall late fall. Certainly. Um,

0:07:15.520 --> 0:07:18.600
<v Speaker 1>that's not an unusual kind of a pace for the

0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:23.840
<v Speaker 1>Delaware Court of Chancery in handling disputes involving busted deals.

0:07:23.880 --> 0:07:26.920
<v Speaker 1>So how likely is it that a court will force

0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:29.680
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk to do this deal? I know it is

0:07:29.960 --> 0:07:35.679
<v Speaker 1>fairly unprecedented, but there is some precedent there. There certainly

0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:38.200
<v Speaker 1>is some precedent, and in fact, the chancellor who's going

0:07:38.240 --> 0:07:41.040
<v Speaker 1>to be hearing the case did it herself within the

0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:43.800
<v Speaker 1>last couple of years. Uh, for a much smaller and

0:07:43.920 --> 0:07:47.400
<v Speaker 1>less notorious company. But but it's a remedy that has

0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:51.000
<v Speaker 1>has been used forcing the other, the buyer, to go forward.

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:54.520
<v Speaker 1>But um, and I can also say that the merger

0:07:54.560 --> 0:07:59.240
<v Speaker 1>agreement between Musk and Twitter is pretty strong in suggesting

0:07:59.240 --> 0:08:02.680
<v Speaker 1>that that's what the court would need to do. But uh,

0:08:03.560 --> 0:08:05.960
<v Speaker 1>it's a judge, it's a chancellor. They I think they

0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:10.360
<v Speaker 1>value their flexibility and discretion in deciding what remedy is appropriate.

0:08:10.960 --> 0:08:14.440
<v Speaker 1>And I could see the Chancellor saying, you know, forcing

0:08:14.520 --> 0:08:17.120
<v Speaker 1>must to go through this deal. Is not necessarily a

0:08:17.120 --> 0:08:20.920
<v Speaker 1>good idea for the world. Uh, And people will be

0:08:20.920 --> 0:08:25.080
<v Speaker 1>better off if I find some other way to enforce

0:08:25.240 --> 0:08:28.800
<v Speaker 1>or apply sanctions for non compliance with the agreement. If

0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:31.800
<v Speaker 1>that's what she finds, how could the court force Musk

0:08:31.920 --> 0:08:35.400
<v Speaker 1>to buy Twitter? Do you see a daily fine, for example?

0:08:35.480 --> 0:08:39.200
<v Speaker 1>Do you see going after his assets, going after his

0:08:39.280 --> 0:08:42.960
<v Speaker 1>tesla shares? Yeah? I mean those are that those would

0:08:42.960 --> 0:08:46.800
<v Speaker 1>be the natural go tows. Uh. People have asked me

0:08:46.880 --> 0:08:48.920
<v Speaker 1>in the course of the week, but what about imprisonment?

0:08:49.480 --> 0:08:52.679
<v Speaker 1>And I kind of don't think in the cards, but

0:08:53.720 --> 0:08:56.160
<v Speaker 1>daily finds. I suppose you could call it the usual

0:08:56.200 --> 0:08:58.760
<v Speaker 1>stuff if someone is contempt or of course a long

0:08:58.800 --> 0:09:00.760
<v Speaker 1>way away from that. There's got to be a judgment

0:09:01.240 --> 0:09:04.800
<v Speaker 1>and Musk would have to find an appropriate response. And

0:09:05.679 --> 0:09:07.720
<v Speaker 1>if a if a court orders you to go forward

0:09:07.720 --> 0:09:11.600
<v Speaker 1>with a deal, I could see even Elon Musk settling it.

0:09:12.840 --> 0:09:14.720
<v Speaker 1>And if he is forced to buy it, could he

0:09:14.800 --> 0:09:18.360
<v Speaker 1>then turn right around and sell it? What are the

0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:22.880
<v Speaker 1>legal issues there? I think once he's a buyer and

0:09:22.880 --> 0:09:27.040
<v Speaker 1>and finishes the acquisition, it's his company, I will say

0:09:27.040 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 1>to do with what he wishes. But you know, whatever

0:09:30.240 --> 0:09:33.600
<v Speaker 1>governance powers he's got over the company he can use

0:09:33.720 --> 0:09:39.040
<v Speaker 1>to seek new investors, sell off a significant steak, or

0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:43.920
<v Speaker 1>just continue to run it as a buyer. Interesting. Now,

0:09:44.360 --> 0:09:46.760
<v Speaker 1>I want to talk about who wins in any of

0:09:46.760 --> 0:09:50.200
<v Speaker 1>these scenarios. We were speaking with Jason Goldman, one of

0:09:50.200 --> 0:09:53.560
<v Speaker 1>the early early members of the Twitter founding team, who said,

0:09:53.880 --> 0:09:56.880
<v Speaker 1>nobody wins except the lawyers. Take a listen to what

0:09:57.000 --> 0:10:01.200
<v Speaker 1>he has to say. Definitely the lawyer years. When you

0:10:01.200 --> 0:10:03.440
<v Speaker 1>know the lawyers are excited when they describe a case

0:10:03.480 --> 0:10:07.800
<v Speaker 1>as being unprecedented and complicated, that's definitely code for there's

0:10:07.840 --> 0:10:11.160
<v Speaker 1>going to be unprecedented legal fees. So they're they're said,

0:10:11.200 --> 0:10:16.120
<v Speaker 1>everyone else is a loser in this for sure. So look, Larry,

0:10:16.200 --> 0:10:19.040
<v Speaker 1>no matter the outcome, is this gonna be any good

0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:22.640
<v Speaker 1>for Twitter or Elon Musk in the end? Well, Jasmine

0:10:22.720 --> 0:10:25.040
<v Speaker 1>Edburgh said something before that I thought was right on

0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:30.040
<v Speaker 1>the money. Um Uh, No matter what happens, the longer

0:10:30.120 --> 0:10:33.200
<v Speaker 1>this drags out, the worst it is for Twitter. Uh.

0:10:33.440 --> 0:10:36.480
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk is sitting on the sidelines right now looking

0:10:36.520 --> 0:10:39.320
<v Speaker 1>at Twitter, and he doesn't have to do anything at

0:10:39.320 --> 0:10:42.760
<v Speaker 1>the moment except litigate. Uh. And certainly he's got the

0:10:42.800 --> 0:10:46.480
<v Speaker 1>resources to pay the lawyers to do that. Uh, Twitter's

0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:49.120
<v Speaker 1>the party here that's got to deal with running a

0:10:49.160 --> 0:10:52.400
<v Speaker 1>business while all these fireworks are going off all around.

0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:56.000
<v Speaker 1>And as I've told people from time to time this week,

0:10:56.080 --> 0:11:01.160
<v Speaker 1>that's that's not an enviable negotiating position. So, uh, you know,

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:03.760
<v Speaker 1>there there is a victory scenario I suppose for Twitter,

0:11:03.920 --> 0:11:07.000
<v Speaker 1>but uh, there are a lot of things can go

0:11:07.080 --> 0:11:11.000
<v Speaker 1>wrong for everybody. For sure. How much will Musk's own

0:11:11.240 --> 0:11:13.600
<v Speaker 1>record be used against him? He's got a history with

0:11:13.640 --> 0:11:18.240
<v Speaker 1>the SEC. He didn't disclose his initial Twitter shares the

0:11:18.280 --> 0:11:21.959
<v Speaker 1>way he should have. He's had problems with other regulatory

0:11:22.040 --> 0:11:25.360
<v Speaker 1>agencies over the course of just the last few months.

0:11:25.920 --> 0:11:29.559
<v Speaker 1>Will that come into play? Um? I think at best

0:11:29.559 --> 0:11:33.360
<v Speaker 1>asthmic atmospherically, the the court in a case like this

0:11:33.960 --> 0:11:37.040
<v Speaker 1>is going to focus like a laser on the terms

0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:39.640
<v Speaker 1>of the merger agreement. If this case is going to

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:44.440
<v Speaker 1>get decided after a trial of four days or six

0:11:44.520 --> 0:11:47.280
<v Speaker 1>days or whatever. Uh, it's still going to have to

0:11:47.320 --> 0:11:50.959
<v Speaker 1>be pre focused. And I I would think you're not

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:55.480
<v Speaker 1>going to hear a whole lot about uh these peripheral

0:11:55.520 --> 0:11:57.880
<v Speaker 1>things what Musk has done. It's not as if the

0:11:58.720 --> 0:12:02.520
<v Speaker 1>Chancellor is unaware of some of the color here, but

0:12:03.559 --> 0:12:07.360
<v Speaker 1>I wouldn't expect the parties to focus on it all right,

0:12:07.920 --> 0:12:11.960
<v Speaker 1>Larry hammer Mesh, University of Pennsylvania Carry Law School Executive Director,

0:12:12.200 --> 0:12:24.439
<v Speaker 1>really appreciate your thoughts and insights here. Today, TikTok just

0:12:24.520 --> 0:12:26.640
<v Speaker 1>named a new head of security as the app deals

0:12:26.679 --> 0:12:30.800
<v Speaker 1>with increasing scrutiny from US policymakers over concerns that user

0:12:30.920 --> 0:12:34.000
<v Speaker 1>data could wind up in the hands of the Chinese government.

0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:36.840
<v Speaker 1>Blue Bricks Alex Brinka is covering the story. So, Alex,

0:12:36.880 --> 0:12:39.320
<v Speaker 1>who did they tap to run security? And of course

0:12:39.360 --> 0:12:42.360
<v Speaker 1>we're talking about the parent company, Byte Dance of course,

0:12:42.679 --> 0:12:45.520
<v Speaker 1>of course, And and they've tapped somebody from Internal UM

0:12:45.600 --> 0:12:49.920
<v Speaker 1>called kim Alberella. She will run UM Global Security for

0:12:50.120 --> 0:12:54.520
<v Speaker 1>Byte Dance UM and is replacing the chap Ronald Courtier

0:12:54.520 --> 0:12:56.559
<v Speaker 1>who was there before. And I want to point out

0:12:56.600 --> 0:12:59.280
<v Speaker 1>something really interesting here, because we're in this moment for

0:12:59.360 --> 0:13:02.880
<v Speaker 1>TikTok where they are sparring with the US government, A

0:13:02.920 --> 0:13:05.960
<v Speaker 1>lot of focuses on what they are doing security wise,

0:13:06.280 --> 0:13:08.880
<v Speaker 1>and in making this move and and this change this

0:13:08.960 --> 0:13:12.320
<v Speaker 1>morning to bring him in as the interim um TikTok

0:13:12.400 --> 0:13:14.560
<v Speaker 1>CEO and Bye Dances VP of tax said that this

0:13:14.640 --> 0:13:19.000
<v Speaker 1>is part of their evolving approach to minimize concerns about

0:13:19.120 --> 0:13:22.680
<v Speaker 1>security in the U S So, UM, what I'm reading

0:13:22.720 --> 0:13:24.760
<v Speaker 1>between the lines here, Emily, and what I what I'm

0:13:24.800 --> 0:13:27.400
<v Speaker 1>hearing from a source who is close to the decision

0:13:27.400 --> 0:13:31.480
<v Speaker 1>making behind this move is that um Clotier was a

0:13:31.520 --> 0:13:34.360
<v Speaker 1>really great keep the bad guys out guy. Uh. Now

0:13:34.520 --> 0:13:37.320
<v Speaker 1>they are kind of evolving their approach to think about

0:13:37.360 --> 0:13:42.560
<v Speaker 1>how to UM best set up a data management department

0:13:42.559 --> 0:13:46.280
<v Speaker 1>and security department that allays some of these concerns that

0:13:46.360 --> 0:13:48.680
<v Speaker 1>we've seen coming out of Congress, coming out of the

0:13:48.800 --> 0:13:52.520
<v Speaker 1>SEC about what TikTok is doing with US users data

0:13:52.760 --> 0:13:55.680
<v Speaker 1>and if any of that data gets into nefarious hands

0:13:55.679 --> 0:13:58.240
<v Speaker 1>through his parent company, Bye Dance. We do have a

0:13:58.240 --> 0:14:01.120
<v Speaker 1>statement from the CEO show to to part of our

0:14:01.559 --> 0:14:05.400
<v Speaker 1>evolving approach has been to minimize concerns about the security

0:14:05.400 --> 0:14:07.480
<v Speaker 1>of user data in the US, including the creation of

0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:10.680
<v Speaker 1>a new department to manage user data US user data

0:14:10.800 --> 0:14:13.679
<v Speaker 1>for TikTok. Can you remind us what the company has

0:14:13.720 --> 0:14:17.040
<v Speaker 1>said about how they handle user data, who can see it,

0:14:17.080 --> 0:14:21.200
<v Speaker 1>and whether the Chinese government can see it or not. Yeah,

0:14:21.240 --> 0:14:22.960
<v Speaker 1>and they've said a lot. Emily, just in the past

0:14:23.000 --> 0:14:25.440
<v Speaker 1>couple of weeks UM. Basically in a letter to U

0:14:25.480 --> 0:14:28.520
<v Speaker 1>S senators, the company said that they're working on coordining

0:14:28.560 --> 0:14:31.920
<v Speaker 1>off US users data and working with Scipius and National

0:14:31.920 --> 0:14:35.320
<v Speaker 1>Security Arm of the US government to decide which protected

0:14:35.440 --> 0:14:38.400
<v Speaker 1>data is geeped by the US government should actually stay

0:14:38.400 --> 0:14:40.480
<v Speaker 1>in U S servers. Those service will be run of

0:14:40.520 --> 0:14:44.000
<v Speaker 1>course by Oracle. So they have said, uh, we're trying

0:14:44.000 --> 0:14:46.920
<v Speaker 1>to keep stuff here. But what has raised concern is

0:14:47.120 --> 0:14:49.360
<v Speaker 1>a couple of weeks ago they did admit that some

0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:52.440
<v Speaker 1>US users data does get into the hands of Chinese

0:14:52.440 --> 0:14:54.440
<v Speaker 1>employees who are doing work. They say that there are

0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:57.560
<v Speaker 1>there are rigorous security um kind of constraints and who

0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:00.720
<v Speaker 1>can see that. But so far what that information is

0:15:00.800 --> 0:15:04.000
<v Speaker 1>it is things like public videos, public comments, and things

0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:07.360
<v Speaker 1>needed to run the app writ large. UM. So that's

0:15:07.400 --> 0:15:09.920
<v Speaker 1>kind of the split that they're talking about right now.

0:15:10.080 --> 0:15:11.960
<v Speaker 1>But it does seem like Emily, this will be an

0:15:11.960 --> 0:15:16.320
<v Speaker 1>evolving landscape and evolving infrastructure for them going forward, UM

0:15:16.360 --> 0:15:18.320
<v Speaker 1>with this kind of shake up and the Security Arm

0:15:18.320 --> 0:15:22.360
<v Speaker 1>with their operations. So what's next? What do we expect? Yeah,

0:15:22.960 --> 0:15:26.680
<v Speaker 1>there should be um some meetings with Brendan Cars team

0:15:26.760 --> 0:15:28.680
<v Speaker 1>is something we learned about this week Brendon Cars an

0:15:28.680 --> 0:15:31.960
<v Speaker 1>FCC member or Republican member who has been very loud,

0:15:32.080 --> 0:15:35.440
<v Speaker 1>very vocal, saying that just this week that TikTok's a

0:15:35.520 --> 0:15:38.800
<v Speaker 1>security threat to our military who's using it overseas um.

0:15:38.800 --> 0:15:40.560
<v Speaker 1>The company has said this week that they're meeting with

0:15:40.600 --> 0:15:44.400
<v Speaker 1>that team. They will also continue this process working with Syphius,

0:15:44.400 --> 0:15:47.560
<v Speaker 1>that national security arm of US government, to try to

0:15:48.240 --> 0:15:50.760
<v Speaker 1>wall off this information in a way that they feel

0:15:50.800 --> 0:15:53.200
<v Speaker 1>comfortable with. I would guess what they're trying to do

0:15:53.400 --> 0:15:55.840
<v Speaker 1>is head off any large buzz like we saw a

0:15:55.880 --> 0:15:58.680
<v Speaker 1>couple of years ago, with folks like President Trump at

0:15:58.680 --> 0:16:01.400
<v Speaker 1>the time saying we need to get rid of TikTok

0:16:01.600 --> 0:16:04.440
<v Speaker 1>because it is a national security threat. Um. But I

0:16:04.480 --> 0:16:07.880
<v Speaker 1>would expect that kind of volleying to continue between lawmakers,

0:16:07.880 --> 0:16:12.520
<v Speaker 1>folks like the SEC, and TikTok. All right, Bloomberg's Alex Barnka,

0:16:12.640 --> 0:16:15.920
<v Speaker 1>thank you for breaking all that down. Coming up New

0:16:16.000 --> 0:16:18.800
<v Speaker 1>York's prospects as a tech hub, just take a bit

0:16:18.800 --> 0:16:37.440
<v Speaker 1>of a we will explain next. This is Bloomberg Now

0:16:37.520 --> 0:16:40.680
<v Speaker 1>to an exclusive. Sources tell Bloomberg that Meta and Amazon

0:16:40.720 --> 0:16:43.280
<v Speaker 1>are cutting back on plans to boost their office presence.

0:16:43.320 --> 0:16:46.640
<v Speaker 1>In order to cut costs, both companies are backing out

0:16:46.640 --> 0:16:49.200
<v Speaker 1>of expansions in New York that could have brought hundreds

0:16:49.200 --> 0:16:52.360
<v Speaker 1>of millions of dollars to the city's economy. Bloombergs Natalie

0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:56.040
<v Speaker 1>Wong broke this story. Natalie, what do we know? Thanks

0:16:56.080 --> 0:16:58.480
<v Speaker 1>for having me. So we reported today that Meta and

0:16:58.560 --> 0:17:02.280
<v Speaker 1>Amazon have pulled back on their expansion plans for offices

0:17:02.280 --> 0:17:04.960
<v Speaker 1>in New York City. Meta had planned to take over

0:17:05.160 --> 0:17:08.399
<v Speaker 1>roughly three hundred thousand square feet of new offices in

0:17:08.440 --> 0:17:10.760
<v Speaker 1>a building near Astor Place, and that would have been

0:17:10.760 --> 0:17:13.320
<v Speaker 1>a big expansion. It's no longer doing that, according to

0:17:13.359 --> 0:17:16.680
<v Speaker 1>our sources. Amazon was also in talks to expand in

0:17:16.720 --> 0:17:19.479
<v Speaker 1>a JP Morgan subly space, taking over a roughly four

0:17:19.560 --> 0:17:22.840
<v Speaker 1>hundred thousand square feet, and they're also cutting back on

0:17:22.920 --> 0:17:25.000
<v Speaker 1>the amount of script they're looking to take. So it

0:17:25.080 --> 0:17:28.360
<v Speaker 1>really shows a sort of ca caution on these tech

0:17:28.400 --> 0:17:30.840
<v Speaker 1>firms parts in terms of looking at how much office

0:17:30.840 --> 0:17:33.800
<v Speaker 1>space they really need in this current market condition. So

0:17:33.840 --> 0:17:36.800
<v Speaker 1>how big a blow is this to New York's ambitions

0:17:36.840 --> 0:17:40.600
<v Speaker 1>to become a bigger tech hub. It's a pretty big

0:17:40.640 --> 0:17:43.919
<v Speaker 1>blow just because New York has already been struggling with

0:17:44.000 --> 0:17:47.439
<v Speaker 1>a major office split. UM, and it's just slowly started

0:17:47.480 --> 0:17:49.600
<v Speaker 1>to come back in terms of office leasing in the

0:17:49.640 --> 0:17:52.320
<v Speaker 1>past two years. The firms that were really driving us

0:17:52.359 --> 0:17:54.280
<v Speaker 1>for the big tech firms that seem to have instatiable

0:17:54.320 --> 0:17:57.600
<v Speaker 1>appetite force bace like Facebook, like Amazon. So the fact

0:17:57.600 --> 0:18:01.359
<v Speaker 1>that even these firms are pressing pause on growth, you know,

0:18:01.440 --> 0:18:04.320
<v Speaker 1>that's likely going to trickle out across smaller tech firms,

0:18:04.440 --> 0:18:07.240
<v Speaker 1>their crypto firms, and other financial industry firms as well.

0:18:09.160 --> 0:18:13.240
<v Speaker 1>Is this happening elsewhere across the country. This is happening

0:18:13.280 --> 0:18:16.240
<v Speaker 1>elsewhere across the country. You know, we've reported that Amazon

0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:19.399
<v Speaker 1>has cut back on other real estate needs in terms

0:18:19.440 --> 0:18:22.680
<v Speaker 1>of planned warehouses for sites that they just built for

0:18:22.920 --> 0:18:26.200
<v Speaker 1>just purchased several months ago. You know, they've pressed pause

0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:29.360
<v Speaker 1>on those sides. They've expanded too quickly. UM construction as

0:18:29.359 --> 0:18:32.320
<v Speaker 1>halting on other sides across the country, and office markets

0:18:32.320 --> 0:18:35.439
<v Speaker 1>in many places like San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles have

0:18:35.520 --> 0:18:38.720
<v Speaker 1>already been struggling to come back because tech firms especially

0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:41.120
<v Speaker 1>have been slower to bring back their workers. So now

0:18:41.119 --> 0:18:44.000
<v Speaker 1>you have a double whammy of a companies see that

0:18:44.040 --> 0:18:45.840
<v Speaker 1>remote work is here to stay and they have to

0:18:45.920 --> 0:18:49.280
<v Speaker 1>juggle how much space they need versus how many workers

0:18:49.320 --> 0:18:51.520
<v Speaker 1>are actually gonna return, and then they also have to

0:18:51.680 --> 0:18:54.840
<v Speaker 1>figure out, you know, how much costs they have to

0:18:55.359 --> 0:18:57.919
<v Speaker 1>cut in terms of this slow down with their growth,

0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:01.479
<v Speaker 1>with the economy and fears about it central recession. All right,

0:19:01.720 --> 0:19:04.719
<v Speaker 1>Natalie Long, thank you for your reporting on this. We

0:19:04.760 --> 0:19:16.640
<v Speaker 1>will keep following. Welcome back to Bloomberg Technology. We've got

0:19:16.640 --> 0:19:19.920
<v Speaker 1>some breaking news. Elon Musk has responded to Twitter's request

0:19:19.960 --> 0:19:23.760
<v Speaker 1>to expedite the trial, which of course had judged today granted,

0:19:23.800 --> 0:19:27.520
<v Speaker 1>setting a date to start for Tuesday. Musk now saying

0:19:27.640 --> 0:19:30.880
<v Speaker 1>he wants that move to February or later. Of course,

0:19:30.920 --> 0:19:34.840
<v Speaker 1>Twitter wants the trial to start in September, Musk saying

0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:37.800
<v Speaker 1>that Twitter dragged its feet on the deal is and

0:19:37.960 --> 0:19:41.359
<v Speaker 1>is now rushing this trial for a little bit more

0:19:41.359 --> 0:19:43.560
<v Speaker 1>of a breakdown. I want to bring back a leadlow

0:19:43.800 --> 0:19:46.920
<v Speaker 1>and not surprising that Elon Musk wouldn't want to rush

0:19:46.960 --> 0:19:49.480
<v Speaker 1>to court on Tuesday. Yeah, yeah, not surprising at all.

0:19:49.560 --> 0:19:51.679
<v Speaker 1>I mean, and most of the lawyers the Bloomberg spoken

0:19:51.720 --> 0:19:54.640
<v Speaker 1>to you felt that Twitter had a good case too

0:19:55.440 --> 0:19:57.399
<v Speaker 1>hold Moss to account to the original terms of the

0:19:57.440 --> 0:20:02.200
<v Speaker 1>deal cents a share. The hearing is set for next Tuesday,

0:20:02.240 --> 0:20:04.919
<v Speaker 1>the initial hearing. The expectation is that this will be

0:20:04.920 --> 0:20:08.920
<v Speaker 1>a protracted legal proceeding anyway. But as you say, Musk

0:20:09.080 --> 0:20:12.320
<v Speaker 1>is accusing Twitter of having dragged its feet over the

0:20:12.400 --> 0:20:15.879
<v Speaker 1>negotiation of the deal and now rushing to court. Remember,

0:20:15.920 --> 0:20:19.160
<v Speaker 1>the sticking point for him is and what he will

0:20:19.280 --> 0:20:24.240
<v Speaker 1>argue is that Twitter was not forthcoming in the timing

0:20:24.520 --> 0:20:27.639
<v Speaker 1>frequency or what they shared on the issue of bots

0:20:27.680 --> 0:20:29.960
<v Speaker 1>on the platform. And he's going to argue that that

0:20:30.080 --> 0:20:33.480
<v Speaker 1>was equal to material adverse effect, thus changing the value

0:20:33.480 --> 0:20:36.159
<v Speaker 1>of the deal, thus voiding it. Well, and we were

0:20:36.200 --> 0:20:39.440
<v Speaker 1>speaking with the professor from the University of Pennsylvania Law

0:20:39.480 --> 0:20:42.800
<v Speaker 1>School earlier who said, not surprising that the judge granted

0:20:42.840 --> 0:20:46.960
<v Speaker 1>this request for a Tuesday hearing. What's going to happen

0:20:46.960 --> 0:20:51.280
<v Speaker 1>on Tuesday will be more surprising. He suggested this trial

0:20:51.359 --> 0:20:55.080
<v Speaker 1>could be wrapped up by the fall exactly. And the

0:20:55.119 --> 0:20:58.679
<v Speaker 1>thing is that, you know, it's hard to judge judge

0:20:58.680 --> 0:21:01.320
<v Speaker 1>pun the pun how this will oh because there's very

0:21:01.320 --> 0:21:06.639
<v Speaker 1>little past precedent in holding an offer maker an acquirer

0:21:06.720 --> 0:21:08.800
<v Speaker 1>to account. But also there's not a lot of past

0:21:08.840 --> 0:21:12.280
<v Speaker 1>precedent around the material adverse effects. What's fascinating, of course,

0:21:12.320 --> 0:21:17.159
<v Speaker 1>is that Twitter has earnings next Friday before market, you know,

0:21:17.160 --> 0:21:20.240
<v Speaker 1>while this is all going on, and earnings is happening,

0:21:20.240 --> 0:21:22.560
<v Speaker 1>so you know, hard pivot. Let's talk about what's happening

0:21:22.600 --> 0:21:25.479
<v Speaker 1>in a while, because because it's just so much right

0:21:25.640 --> 0:21:28.400
<v Speaker 1>to take on board that Twitter reports Fridays, they said,

0:21:28.480 --> 0:21:32.560
<v Speaker 1>we start Monday or Tuesday rather with with Netflix, Tesla Snap.

0:21:33.320 --> 0:21:35.159
<v Speaker 1>What these many of them have in common is that

0:21:35.200 --> 0:21:37.639
<v Speaker 1>they have actually revised guidance the year right. Tester had

0:21:37.680 --> 0:21:41.119
<v Speaker 1>a very difficult quarter where the Shanghai plant was shut down.

0:21:41.320 --> 0:21:43.800
<v Speaker 1>You see how tired I am. This Friday will bring

0:21:43.880 --> 0:21:45.480
<v Speaker 1>up the next poor business director, and look at the

0:21:45.480 --> 0:21:47.880
<v Speaker 1>following week, because we're bracing not just for next week

0:21:48.200 --> 0:21:51.159
<v Speaker 1>but the week after that. Look at the number of

0:21:51.280 --> 0:21:53.760
<v Speaker 1>companies reporting in the space of just a few days,

0:21:53.760 --> 0:21:56.399
<v Speaker 1>the mega cap that's around them very quickly, and we

0:21:56.480 --> 0:21:58.800
<v Speaker 1>make a really interesting point as we look at what

0:21:58.880 --> 0:22:01.919
<v Speaker 1>the kind of expectation is for this earnings period. The

0:22:02.000 --> 0:22:06.879
<v Speaker 1>expectation is sales growth, right, top line growth. Part of

0:22:06.880 --> 0:22:09.000
<v Speaker 1>that is boosted by inflation. Part of that is that

0:22:09.040 --> 0:22:12.600
<v Speaker 1>the consumer is kind of held up strongly and that's

0:22:12.640 --> 0:22:15.359
<v Speaker 1>kind of where we're looking. Sales growth is looking pretty

0:22:15.400 --> 0:22:17.639
<v Speaker 1>good other than for the alphabet parent company of Google.

0:22:18.119 --> 0:22:20.480
<v Speaker 1>But if you look at the earnings estimates, the profit

0:22:20.600 --> 0:22:24.159
<v Speaker 1>that's expected, those earnings expectations have come down. Why you

0:22:24.200 --> 0:22:27.720
<v Speaker 1>have inflation, you have things eating into margins, higher input costs,

0:22:27.760 --> 0:22:30.879
<v Speaker 1>labor costs. So this is it. Now we're super focused

0:22:30.920 --> 0:22:33.239
<v Speaker 1>on what the world looks like, and hopefully in the

0:22:33.240 --> 0:22:35.639
<v Speaker 1>next two weeks some companies and some of their CEOs

0:22:35.680 --> 0:22:37.040
<v Speaker 1>are going to give us a good explanation of what

0:22:37.080 --> 0:22:40.720
<v Speaker 1>it's look at those beautiful graphics. Add thank you very much,

0:22:40.800 --> 0:22:43.080
<v Speaker 1>appreciate you walking through all of that for us. I

0:22:43.080 --> 0:22:45.280
<v Speaker 1>want to get a little more in depth now on

0:22:45.440 --> 0:22:47.399
<v Speaker 1>the earnings and what we can expect with Bambahara and

0:22:47.440 --> 0:22:52.439
<v Speaker 1>principal analyst and CEO at Creative Strategies, Ben Gosh, what

0:22:52.480 --> 0:22:54.320
<v Speaker 1>are you expecting? Where are you expecting to see the

0:22:54.320 --> 0:22:58.040
<v Speaker 1>most pain? Let's start there. Yeah, so I am a

0:22:58.080 --> 0:23:01.960
<v Speaker 1>bit more cautious on consumer central companies. I think there's

0:23:02.000 --> 0:23:05.000
<v Speaker 1>a lot of worry UM and that consumers are Companies

0:23:05.040 --> 0:23:09.560
<v Speaker 1>who are a bit more adverse and UM and more

0:23:09.640 --> 0:23:11.879
<v Speaker 1>consumer focused are going to bear a bit more of

0:23:12.200 --> 0:23:15.160
<v Speaker 1>the pain here. I'm not quite sure how much we're

0:23:15.160 --> 0:23:20.800
<v Speaker 1>gonna see in this particular cording corders earnings of absolute pain.

0:23:21.119 --> 0:23:23.120
<v Speaker 1>I think as we see where they might be guiding

0:23:23.240 --> 0:23:25.720
<v Speaker 1>and seeing some cutbacks, I think some of the companies

0:23:25.720 --> 0:23:31.600
<v Speaker 1>like Snapchat, Um, Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, that have advertising

0:23:31.600 --> 0:23:34.000
<v Speaker 1>focused businesses and really companies that are trying to go

0:23:34.240 --> 0:23:37.520
<v Speaker 1>to consumers through those channels, if we see them start

0:23:37.560 --> 0:23:39.240
<v Speaker 1>to cut back, that that I get, I think will

0:23:39.280 --> 0:23:42.520
<v Speaker 1>be very telling about how much pain we might expect.

0:23:42.600 --> 0:23:44.480
<v Speaker 1>But yeah, I think those that are over index or

0:23:44.720 --> 0:23:47.760
<v Speaker 1>or most subject to a weakening consumer market are the

0:23:47.760 --> 0:23:49.560
<v Speaker 1>ones that I'm a bit more a bit more worried about.

0:23:49.560 --> 0:23:52.119
<v Speaker 1>I think on the enterprise side and the infrastructure side,

0:23:52.400 --> 0:23:55.480
<v Speaker 1>we're not seeing that that business is cut back to

0:23:55.520 --> 0:23:58.199
<v Speaker 1>the same degree or spending go down and infrastructure. But

0:23:58.280 --> 0:24:02.160
<v Speaker 1>that consumer segment, I think is really where there's both questions,

0:24:02.200 --> 0:24:04.240
<v Speaker 1>and if we do see a little bit more of

0:24:04.240 --> 0:24:05.679
<v Speaker 1>a recession, I think it's going to be more on

0:24:05.720 --> 0:24:08.919
<v Speaker 1>the consumer facing side than the industry at large. Well,

0:24:08.960 --> 0:24:12.000
<v Speaker 1>let's start on social media. Since you went there, you've

0:24:12.000 --> 0:24:14.840
<v Speaker 1>been tweeting about the value of the interest graph, which

0:24:14.880 --> 0:24:17.359
<v Speaker 1>is something that TikTok seems to do very well versus

0:24:17.800 --> 0:24:19.920
<v Speaker 1>the social graph. At the same time, you've got all

0:24:19.920 --> 0:24:23.560
<v Speaker 1>of this background noise happening with Twitter, and I wonder

0:24:23.720 --> 0:24:26.840
<v Speaker 1>if that's, you know, continues to be a story contained

0:24:26.840 --> 0:24:30.919
<v Speaker 1>in itself, or if that story can be contagious or

0:24:30.960 --> 0:24:35.960
<v Speaker 1>contaminate some of the other social media stories we're following. Yeah,

0:24:36.000 --> 0:24:39.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the thing that's interesting about the engagement side,

0:24:39.680 --> 0:24:42.920
<v Speaker 1>So consumer engagement with social media is going to continue

0:24:42.960 --> 0:24:45.320
<v Speaker 1>to go up and remain strong, right whether or not

0:24:45.600 --> 0:24:49.119
<v Speaker 1>brands feel like consumer appetite is there for some of

0:24:49.119 --> 0:24:52.600
<v Speaker 1>their products. If consumers have to cut back on disposable income,

0:24:53.200 --> 0:24:55.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure it really hits things like maybe PCs

0:24:55.920 --> 0:24:57.800
<v Speaker 1>or smartphones, although I think that gets hit, but not

0:24:57.840 --> 0:25:00.680
<v Speaker 1>as much as things that are more luxury type products

0:25:00.800 --> 0:25:02.399
<v Speaker 1>or things that they can cut out of their life

0:25:02.560 --> 0:25:04.920
<v Speaker 1>if they need that disposable income back again because of

0:25:04.960 --> 0:25:08.440
<v Speaker 1>inflation or perhaps because we have issues with the job

0:25:08.480 --> 0:25:10.840
<v Speaker 1>market that that I think we're still is uncertain around.

0:25:10.920 --> 0:25:13.880
<v Speaker 1>So I think the engagement stays, but again not say

0:25:13.920 --> 0:25:17.640
<v Speaker 1>metric in terms of consumer engaging with these media platforms.

0:25:17.680 --> 0:25:20.520
<v Speaker 1>If ad spends cut back and not affects their revenues,

0:25:20.560 --> 0:25:23.440
<v Speaker 1>so the consumers will still be there. How they dispose

0:25:23.520 --> 0:25:25.800
<v Speaker 1>of that income to spend on things that they either

0:25:25.880 --> 0:25:28.880
<v Speaker 1>really need or want coming into this holiday season, which

0:25:28.920 --> 0:25:31.840
<v Speaker 1>is really where you'll see these advertisers use those channels,

0:25:32.240 --> 0:25:33.720
<v Speaker 1>is going to be the big question. So I think,

0:25:33.840 --> 0:25:37.160
<v Speaker 1>as I pointed out in the segment prior, where they

0:25:37.200 --> 0:25:39.160
<v Speaker 1>guide what they start to think about the next few

0:25:39.240 --> 0:25:41.280
<v Speaker 1>quarters from these CEOs I think will be very, very

0:25:41.320 --> 0:25:43.720
<v Speaker 1>telling because I I don't think we'll see the full

0:25:43.720 --> 0:25:46.800
<v Speaker 1>pain right now, but I think we're aching toward a

0:25:46.840 --> 0:25:49.240
<v Speaker 1>bit more pain in the consumer side, and that's at

0:25:49.320 --> 0:25:51.639
<v Speaker 1>least where I think more of the thesis needs to

0:25:51.640 --> 0:25:54.159
<v Speaker 1>get built out. I want to ask you about chips.

0:25:54.240 --> 0:25:57.880
<v Speaker 1>I recently had the CEO of IBM on Arvin Krishna.

0:25:58.200 --> 0:26:01.159
<v Speaker 1>He said he was feeling opt to stick about the

0:26:01.200 --> 0:26:05.680
<v Speaker 1>economy and corporate spending, but what he feels pessimistic about

0:26:06.000 --> 0:26:10.919
<v Speaker 1>is supply and chip semi issues. Too quick, listen to

0:26:11.000 --> 0:26:14.480
<v Speaker 1>what you have to say. I actually maybe a bit

0:26:14.520 --> 0:26:18.280
<v Speaker 1>more pessimistic on that than optimistic. I think supply chain

0:26:18.920 --> 0:26:22.280
<v Speaker 1>resilience is a real fundamental issue that's going to go

0:26:22.359 --> 0:26:26.280
<v Speaker 1>on for a couple of more years, we're going to

0:26:26.320 --> 0:26:30.919
<v Speaker 1>see a raft of semi results. What are you expecting there? Yeah,

0:26:31.160 --> 0:26:33.119
<v Speaker 1>this is something we could talk along try. This is

0:26:33.440 --> 0:26:37.360
<v Speaker 1>a deep web of of complex problems. But I think

0:26:37.400 --> 0:26:39.159
<v Speaker 1>absolutely and even if you look at some of the

0:26:39.200 --> 0:26:42.000
<v Speaker 1>commentary that's come out of t SNC over the last

0:26:42.040 --> 0:26:44.320
<v Speaker 1>few days, noting that they feel a lot of their

0:26:44.359 --> 0:26:47.399
<v Speaker 1>customers have a glut of inventory is going to cause

0:26:47.440 --> 0:26:50.160
<v Speaker 1>them to cut back a little bit on on manufacturing

0:26:50.160 --> 0:26:52.800
<v Speaker 1>and even in some of their investments going forward, because

0:26:52.880 --> 0:26:55.520
<v Speaker 1>most of their customers are sitting on inventory that they

0:26:55.560 --> 0:26:58.399
<v Speaker 1>need to go and make and make products. So the

0:26:58.440 --> 0:27:00.359
<v Speaker 1>hard part with that is it's going to look like

0:27:00.840 --> 0:27:04.680
<v Speaker 1>manufacturing companies like D s MC and even the likes

0:27:04.760 --> 0:27:07.200
<v Speaker 1>of you know, Intel and Qualit, common A and D

0:27:08.359 --> 0:27:10.920
<v Speaker 1>might have less than stellar corders, but that's not really

0:27:10.920 --> 0:27:14.040
<v Speaker 1>indicative of demand. It's more indicative of their customers cutting

0:27:14.040 --> 0:27:16.639
<v Speaker 1>back orders because they're sitting on so much inventory. So

0:27:16.720 --> 0:27:18.919
<v Speaker 1>it's kind of is this really an issue or how

0:27:19.000 --> 0:27:21.720
<v Speaker 1>much is this disguised on the fact that they over

0:27:21.920 --> 0:27:24.920
<v Speaker 1>ordered because of that the supply chain issues, Knowing that

0:27:25.040 --> 0:27:26.840
<v Speaker 1>they were going to have a hard time getting chips

0:27:27.000 --> 0:27:28.800
<v Speaker 1>and so by sitting on all that inventory, we're going

0:27:28.840 --> 0:27:31.240
<v Speaker 1>to need that to ease into the market before orders

0:27:31.280 --> 0:27:34.960
<v Speaker 1>can get placed up again. So there's a balancing act

0:27:35.040 --> 0:27:38.159
<v Speaker 1>that I think most of the particularly the semi conductor companies,

0:27:38.200 --> 0:27:40.960
<v Speaker 1>are going to have to navigate while they either try

0:27:41.000 --> 0:27:44.280
<v Speaker 1>to fill orders and help their customers, then get through

0:27:44.280 --> 0:27:46.440
<v Speaker 1>that the inventory that they're sitting on so that their

0:27:46.560 --> 0:27:49.080
<v Speaker 1>orders can come back again, hoping that demands stays high

0:27:49.240 --> 0:27:52.520
<v Speaker 1>for their products across the board. All right, well, thanks

0:27:52.520 --> 0:27:56.719
<v Speaker 1>for digging into that very deep and complex web. Ben Maharan,

0:27:56.760 --> 0:28:00.840
<v Speaker 1>principal analysts and CEO at Creative Strategy, is always going

0:28:00.880 --> 0:28:15.720
<v Speaker 1>to have you time out for our crypto report bitcoined

0:28:15.800 --> 0:28:18.040
<v Speaker 1>up over the last few sessions, but all eyes on

0:28:18.119 --> 0:28:22.600
<v Speaker 1>the bankruptcy of major crypto lender Celsius, sparking calls for

0:28:22.720 --> 0:28:27.360
<v Speaker 1>more regulation, especially bankruptcy legislation, as the crypto market continues

0:28:27.400 --> 0:28:30.920
<v Speaker 1>to tumble more broadly, our crypto contributor Sali Bossick here

0:28:31.040 --> 0:28:33.520
<v Speaker 1>with more shale. What's the latest that we know here?

0:28:33.600 --> 0:28:35.280
<v Speaker 1>This is a problem here, Emily. At the end of

0:28:35.320 --> 0:28:38.920
<v Speaker 1>the day, the question is how are consumers protected, not

0:28:39.000 --> 0:28:40.960
<v Speaker 1>only in the event of a bankruptcy. But in the

0:28:41.040 --> 0:28:45.520
<v Speaker 1>event of larger market stress. You've seen several instances now

0:28:45.560 --> 0:28:48.920
<v Speaker 1>in which customer withdrawals were paused, and now you're seeing

0:28:49.040 --> 0:28:53.480
<v Speaker 1>in the bankruptcy filing here for Celsius. Is there a

0:28:53.520 --> 0:28:57.240
<v Speaker 1>clear roadmap here on what happens to customer coldings as

0:28:57.240 --> 0:28:59.880
<v Speaker 1>certain creditors want to get paid back. You're seeing this

0:29:00.040 --> 0:29:02.800
<v Speaker 1>issue come up, even as Celsius has has started to

0:29:02.800 --> 0:29:06.000
<v Speaker 1>pay back some DeFi counterparties in other ways. But where

0:29:06.000 --> 0:29:08.000
<v Speaker 1>do the customers fall at the end of the day

0:29:08.320 --> 0:29:12.160
<v Speaker 1>when you're thinking about who gets owed what when and

0:29:12.360 --> 0:29:17.240
<v Speaker 1>in what order. Now, this Celsius bankruptcy just has so

0:29:17.280 --> 0:29:20.280
<v Speaker 1>many knock on effects, including now that it could potentially

0:29:20.360 --> 0:29:25.040
<v Speaker 1>impact bitcoin mining. Yeah, this was an interesting question too.

0:29:25.160 --> 0:29:27.440
<v Speaker 1>I've spoken about it with Sam Bankman. Freed also would

0:29:27.440 --> 0:29:30.200
<v Speaker 1>he buy bitcoin miners? And part of the answer he

0:29:30.280 --> 0:29:32.560
<v Speaker 1>had was to the extent that it was, you know,

0:29:32.880 --> 0:29:36.120
<v Speaker 1>tied to the defy activity that we're seeing in the lending.

0:29:36.240 --> 0:29:39.160
<v Speaker 1>Maybe we'll think about it, but probably not more immediately.

0:29:39.520 --> 0:29:41.760
<v Speaker 1>So what's happening here? A lot of worries about the

0:29:41.760 --> 0:29:45.880
<v Speaker 1>bitcoin mining subsidiary about Celsius. If Celsius were to sell

0:29:45.960 --> 0:29:49.040
<v Speaker 1>the business or sell rigs or offload rigs in anyway,

0:29:49.280 --> 0:29:53.280
<v Speaker 1>does that put more downward pressure two prices across the industry.

0:29:53.680 --> 0:29:56.239
<v Speaker 1>We're going to shift a little bit over now and

0:29:56.280 --> 0:29:59.640
<v Speaker 1>talk about this more with Anthony Pompliano of the crypto

0:29:59.640 --> 0:30:03.640
<v Speaker 1>firm POMP Investment Venture Capitalist for a while now. Pump,

0:30:03.680 --> 0:30:05.720
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much for joining us. You've shifted gears

0:30:06.080 --> 0:30:09.280
<v Speaker 1>UH to kind of focus on some optimism here at

0:30:09.280 --> 0:30:12.000
<v Speaker 1>a tough time for the industry, focusing on not just

0:30:12.560 --> 0:30:15.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, the trouble and the pricing here, but as

0:30:15.400 --> 0:30:18.280
<v Speaker 1>prices go down, jobs start to dry up. So you

0:30:18.400 --> 0:30:21.560
<v Speaker 1>launched a new company here that really focuses on those jobs.

0:30:21.880 --> 0:30:25.760
<v Speaker 1>And I'm curious as to how many you're actually seeing. Yeah,

0:30:25.800 --> 0:30:27.719
<v Speaker 1>thanks for having me. Um. If you think of the

0:30:27.840 --> 0:30:29.400
<v Speaker 1>job market, you know, one of the biggest problems in

0:30:29.400 --> 0:30:31.400
<v Speaker 1>the world right now is that the global debt to

0:30:31.480 --> 0:30:33.960
<v Speaker 1>GDP and also in the US debt to GDP UH

0:30:34.080 --> 0:30:36.440
<v Speaker 1>is skyrocketing. And everyone always focuses on the debt side

0:30:36.440 --> 0:30:38.600
<v Speaker 1>of the equation, Hey, how can we stop taking on

0:30:38.640 --> 0:30:40.720
<v Speaker 1>more debt? But there was another side of the equation,

0:30:40.760 --> 0:30:42.880
<v Speaker 1>which is how do we grow GDP faster? And obviously

0:30:42.920 --> 0:30:45.160
<v Speaker 1>job creation is a key piece of that, and so

0:30:45.280 --> 0:30:47.640
<v Speaker 1>our idea eighteen months ago was basically just how do

0:30:47.680 --> 0:30:49.120
<v Speaker 1>we get the best people in the world working on

0:30:49.160 --> 0:30:53.440
<v Speaker 1>the fastest economic UH sector from a speed and growth standpoint,

0:30:53.440 --> 0:30:56.440
<v Speaker 1>and that tends to be the bitcoin and crypto industry. Now.

0:30:56.480 --> 0:30:58.920
<v Speaker 1>Of course, as market prices go down, becoins drawn down

0:31:00.080 --> 0:31:02.560
<v Speaker 1>since about November of last year, there are plenty of

0:31:02.600 --> 0:31:05.560
<v Speaker 1>companies that are doing hiring freezes or layoffs, but there's

0:31:05.600 --> 0:31:08.600
<v Speaker 1>still tons and tons of companies that are hiring. And

0:31:08.680 --> 0:31:11.200
<v Speaker 1>so just in the last eighteen months, we've helped over

0:31:11.240 --> 0:31:13.920
<v Speaker 1>a thousand people get a job in the industry UH

0:31:13.960 --> 0:31:15.320
<v Speaker 1>and we've been doing a lot of kind of corporate

0:31:15.360 --> 0:31:18.480
<v Speaker 1>training both for crypto native firms but also non crypto

0:31:18.520 --> 0:31:20.960
<v Speaker 1>native firms as well. And I think what you're seeing

0:31:21.160 --> 0:31:23.440
<v Speaker 1>is there is some short term pressure because of price,

0:31:23.520 --> 0:31:25.520
<v Speaker 1>but over the long term, most people in the industry,

0:31:25.560 --> 0:31:29.120
<v Speaker 1>both the entrepreneurs and the incumbent companies, they're very long

0:31:29.200 --> 0:31:31.000
<v Speaker 1>term bullish and they continue to invest in the space.

0:31:31.720 --> 0:31:35.120
<v Speaker 1>Eighteen months that included what was still a bowl market

0:31:35.120 --> 0:31:37.760
<v Speaker 1>in crypto and now we're in a very very different environment.

0:31:38.000 --> 0:31:40.320
<v Speaker 1>So to what extent are those jobs really drying up,

0:31:40.680 --> 0:31:43.560
<v Speaker 1>and are the jobs that are out there changing to

0:31:43.960 --> 0:31:47.480
<v Speaker 1>enter a new environment. It's a great question. Um. If

0:31:47.480 --> 0:31:49.719
<v Speaker 1>you think about that thousand people that we've helped get

0:31:49.720 --> 0:31:51.760
<v Speaker 1>a job, four hundred of them or so was last year.

0:31:52.080 --> 0:31:55.080
<v Speaker 1>Uh So in some way, actually we've seen it pick up. UH.

0:31:55.160 --> 0:31:57.200
<v Speaker 1>And what you're seeing is there's a lot of venture

0:31:57.200 --> 0:31:59.360
<v Speaker 1>capital it's being invested in the space. There's a lot

0:31:59.400 --> 0:32:02.120
<v Speaker 1>of companies that our hitting kind of scaling. Uh. They

0:32:02.120 --> 0:32:04.000
<v Speaker 1>were started over the last two years. Now they've kind

0:32:04.000 --> 0:32:05.800
<v Speaker 1>of found product market fit and they begin to actually

0:32:05.880 --> 0:32:07.640
<v Speaker 1>higher and kind of stuff on the gas. And then

0:32:07.640 --> 0:32:09.800
<v Speaker 1>the other thing you have to remember as well, UH,

0:32:09.880 --> 0:32:12.840
<v Speaker 1>is that there's just so many companies that are getting started.

0:32:13.080 --> 0:32:16.440
<v Speaker 1>There's almost a kind of overwhelming of the market. And really,

0:32:16.440 --> 0:32:17.920
<v Speaker 1>I think one of the most interesting parts of this

0:32:18.040 --> 0:32:21.680
<v Speaker 1>story is not just the pure aggregate job creation, but

0:32:21.840 --> 0:32:24.560
<v Speaker 1>also it's a brain drain from Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

0:32:24.560 --> 0:32:26.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, almost on a daily basis myself for someone

0:32:26.920 --> 0:32:30.200
<v Speaker 1>on our team, we'll talk to very high level uh

0:32:30.200 --> 0:32:33.480
<v Speaker 1>folks at large corporations, at large financial organizations. UH, and

0:32:33.520 --> 0:32:35.320
<v Speaker 1>they say, look, you know, now is the time they've

0:32:35.320 --> 0:32:36.800
<v Speaker 1>been thinking about it for a while. They're ready to

0:32:36.800 --> 0:32:39.200
<v Speaker 1>make the jump and they want help navigating finding a

0:32:39.280 --> 0:32:41.840
<v Speaker 1>job somewhere in the bitcoin and crypto industry. And so

0:32:41.920 --> 0:32:44.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that necessarily job creation slowing down. I

0:32:44.680 --> 0:32:47.440
<v Speaker 1>think it's just kind of shifting between different types of companies.

0:32:47.480 --> 0:32:49.360
<v Speaker 1>You know, n f T s were really really hot

0:32:49.360 --> 0:32:52.000
<v Speaker 1>and Q three last year. Uh, maybe not so much now.

0:32:52.040 --> 0:32:54.680
<v Speaker 1>You just saw Open see layoff of their staff as

0:32:54.720 --> 0:32:57.720
<v Speaker 1>an example, And so there are some subsectors where there's transitioning.

0:32:57.840 --> 0:33:00.520
<v Speaker 1>But still the job growth is is pretty incredible and

0:33:00.840 --> 0:33:03.680
<v Speaker 1>still accelerating. I'm curious about your own investors. How did

0:33:03.680 --> 0:33:06.800
<v Speaker 1>you go through the process of raising money for inflection points?

0:33:07.120 --> 0:33:10.120
<v Speaker 1>Why is Peter TiO interested in the future here of

0:33:10.520 --> 0:33:14.360
<v Speaker 1>more jobs in crypto and is he invested anywhere else

0:33:14.400 --> 0:33:17.840
<v Speaker 1>that you know of it to promote the industry. Yeah.

0:33:17.920 --> 0:33:20.000
<v Speaker 1>You know, look, the mission of our company we started

0:33:20.040 --> 0:33:22.800
<v Speaker 1>eighteen months ago, and it wasn't really ever an idea

0:33:22.800 --> 0:33:24.560
<v Speaker 1>of hey, let's go raise money and doingy this. We

0:33:24.640 --> 0:33:26.800
<v Speaker 1>started a business, uh, and the mission is to just

0:33:26.840 --> 0:33:30.959
<v Speaker 1>accelerate economic growth globally. UH. And we were profitable almost

0:33:30.960 --> 0:33:33.040
<v Speaker 1>immediately out of the gate. Uh. And for eighteen months.

0:33:33.040 --> 0:33:34.440
<v Speaker 1>We kind of just kept our head down and we worked,

0:33:34.480 --> 0:33:36.600
<v Speaker 1>and we only really took the money because we wanted

0:33:36.600 --> 0:33:38.600
<v Speaker 1>the right investors around the table. We didn't need the money.

0:33:38.640 --> 0:33:41.800
<v Speaker 1>We're still profitable today. UM. But it was an idea

0:33:41.800 --> 0:33:43.320
<v Speaker 1>of how do we get people who have tons more

0:33:43.360 --> 0:33:46.680
<v Speaker 1>experience And so when you look through the entire cap table,

0:33:46.720 --> 0:33:50.520
<v Speaker 1>what you find is these are investors who are highly sophisticated.

0:33:50.760 --> 0:33:53.320
<v Speaker 1>They've got tons of experience. They built our companies before,

0:33:53.360 --> 0:33:56.440
<v Speaker 1>They've invested in plenty of others that have scaled aggressively. UH.

0:33:56.480 --> 0:33:58.520
<v Speaker 1>And many of them are very big proponents of the

0:33:58.520 --> 0:34:01.160
<v Speaker 1>bitcoin and crypto industry. You mentioned Peter Teal, you know,

0:34:01.200 --> 0:34:03.400
<v Speaker 1>he obviously spoke at the Bitcoin conference. He's been a

0:34:03.400 --> 0:34:06.520
<v Speaker 1>bitcoin investor for a long time. There's folks like former

0:34:06.560 --> 0:34:09.640
<v Speaker 1>Alegant CEO Brent Saunders. Uh. And then there's folks that

0:34:09.719 --> 0:34:12.279
<v Speaker 1>are you know, large family opposites, fit down capital or

0:34:12.320 --> 0:34:13.919
<v Speaker 1>you look at somebody like an x y Z fund,

0:34:13.960 --> 0:34:16.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, top ten on the Forbes Midas list for

0:34:16.920 --> 0:34:20.640
<v Speaker 1>seed investors. Like these are real investors who understand, Uh,

0:34:20.680 --> 0:34:24.120
<v Speaker 1>infrastructure is a key piece to investing in a new sector. UH.

0:34:24.120 --> 0:34:28.080
<v Speaker 1>And while most companies focus on building software infrastructure like exchanges,

0:34:28.120 --> 0:34:30.920
<v Speaker 1>while its data providers. UH. People is a very key

0:34:30.920 --> 0:34:32.319
<v Speaker 1>piece to it, and we think that we can build

0:34:32.360 --> 0:34:34.239
<v Speaker 1>out a niche there and really scale. I know you

0:34:34.280 --> 0:34:35.960
<v Speaker 1>tend to take the positive view on things, but there's

0:34:36.000 --> 0:34:37.880
<v Speaker 1>a lot of talk out there about projects that just

0:34:37.960 --> 0:34:40.640
<v Speaker 1>might not make it through the crypto winter. What types

0:34:40.680 --> 0:34:43.040
<v Speaker 1>of projects are you most concerned about? Are their tokens

0:34:43.080 --> 0:34:46.520
<v Speaker 1>that are worth shying away from? Uh? Yeah, pretty much

0:34:46.520 --> 0:34:48.600
<v Speaker 1>all of them for the most part. Um. I think

0:34:48.600 --> 0:34:50.239
<v Speaker 1>that even if you talk to people who are big

0:34:50.280 --> 0:34:52.480
<v Speaker 1>proponents of the industry, they'd say the same thing. Uh.

0:34:52.520 --> 0:34:57.200
<v Speaker 1>Anytime that you get innovation happening, it requires experimentation first.

0:34:57.239 --> 0:34:59.040
<v Speaker 1>And so what you're seeing as a ton of experimentation,

0:34:59.080 --> 0:35:01.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot of bad ideas, a lot of bad execution,

0:35:01.440 --> 0:35:03.080
<v Speaker 1>but also a lot of bad market timing. You know,

0:35:03.080 --> 0:35:04.600
<v Speaker 1>if you go back to the late nineties and you

0:35:04.640 --> 0:35:06.920
<v Speaker 1>look at most of those ideas, UH, they were the

0:35:07.000 --> 0:35:10.440
<v Speaker 1>right ideas, they just didn't end up actually working. Uh.

0:35:10.480 --> 0:35:13.080
<v Speaker 1>In that current iteration, it took about ten years or

0:35:13.120 --> 0:35:16.200
<v Speaker 1>so before consumer behavior has changed. Before more people had

0:35:16.239 --> 0:35:19.160
<v Speaker 1>internet that wasn't dial up, mobile phones were in their hands,

0:35:19.200 --> 0:35:22.759
<v Speaker 1>their kind of familiarity, uh, their willingness to put their

0:35:22.760 --> 0:35:25.400
<v Speaker 1>credit card online. All these different things had to change,

0:35:25.400 --> 0:35:26.920
<v Speaker 1>and so I think some of that is what we're

0:35:26.960 --> 0:35:29.400
<v Speaker 1>seeing right now. But one thing is very clear. Over

0:35:29.400 --> 0:35:32.440
<v Speaker 1>a hundred fifty million people around the world that hold bitcoin,

0:35:32.600 --> 0:35:34.680
<v Speaker 1>and I think that bitcoin has crossed over from something

0:35:34.680 --> 0:35:38.280
<v Speaker 1>that people look as an experiment or could possibly be valuable.

0:35:38.400 --> 0:35:40.400
<v Speaker 1>And I think now what you're seeing, especially given the

0:35:40.400 --> 0:35:43.120
<v Speaker 1>backdrop of the undisciplined monetary and fiscal policy, is that

0:35:43.200 --> 0:35:46.120
<v Speaker 1>bitcoin has now broken out its separated itself. It is

0:35:46.160 --> 0:35:49.080
<v Speaker 1>different than most of the experimentation of other things. UH.

0:35:49.080 --> 0:35:50.840
<v Speaker 1>And there's a lot of folks on Wall Street and

0:35:50.880 --> 0:35:53.319
<v Speaker 1>in Silicon Valley, uh, and then across the world that

0:35:53.440 --> 0:35:55.160
<v Speaker 1>say bitcoin is here to day, and I tend to

0:35:55.200 --> 0:35:58.320
<v Speaker 1>agree with them. That's pomp Investment Sounder Anthony pomp Lano.

0:35:58.440 --> 0:36:02.400
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much for your time, Emily, back to you, Janali,

0:36:02.560 --> 0:36:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Thank you. And The Bloomberg Crypto Summit returns Tuesday July

0:36:06.320 --> 0:36:08.960
<v Speaker 1>in New York. The summit gathers some of the biggest

0:36:09.000 --> 0:36:11.280
<v Speaker 1>names in the industry to talk about the market turmoil,

0:36:11.520 --> 0:36:15.000
<v Speaker 1>regulatory scrutiny, and so much more. That is all starting

0:36:16.200 --> 0:36:21.280
<v Speaker 1>a m Eastern time coming up. Can this struggling startup

0:36:21.400 --> 0:36:24.840
<v Speaker 1>end up taking on ribbing. We'll talk about that and

0:36:24.960 --> 0:36:45.560
<v Speaker 1>the EV world next. This is Bloomberg time now for

0:36:45.680 --> 0:36:47.759
<v Speaker 1>our technomics segment, and I want to take a look

0:36:47.800 --> 0:36:50.240
<v Speaker 1>at the world of mobility. There is one EV maker

0:36:50.680 --> 0:36:54.800
<v Speaker 1>rising through the ranks, and it's called Canoe, and it

0:36:54.920 --> 0:36:57.600
<v Speaker 1>just won an order for forty five bands from Walmart,

0:36:57.680 --> 0:37:01.600
<v Speaker 1>sending its share soaring this week. Could have taken Rivan.

0:37:01.680 --> 0:37:03.440
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk about all that and more with who else

0:37:03.560 --> 0:37:07.279
<v Speaker 1>but are at Ludlow could it? That's an amazing chart,

0:37:07.320 --> 0:37:09.759
<v Speaker 1>a hundred percent gain in seven days. I mean this

0:37:09.920 --> 0:37:12.719
<v Speaker 1>really surprised us because people were writing it off. Let's

0:37:12.719 --> 0:37:15.320
<v Speaker 1>speak exactly. This is for context. You know, a startup

0:37:15.400 --> 0:37:19.000
<v Speaker 1>that has struggled, you know, literally do anything. You know,

0:37:19.040 --> 0:37:21.319
<v Speaker 1>it's missed its own goals, it's changed strategy a number

0:37:21.360 --> 0:37:24.760
<v Speaker 1>of times, has this kind of futuristic camper van looking

0:37:24.960 --> 0:37:28.440
<v Speaker 1>kind of e v but it's never really made any progress.

0:37:28.480 --> 0:37:32.000
<v Speaker 1>The stock you know, was obliterated basically since it when

0:37:32.000 --> 0:37:35.360
<v Speaker 1>public virus back in. But getting a big order like

0:37:35.440 --> 0:37:38.799
<v Speaker 1>this from Walmart, not just on the share reaction, but

0:37:39.000 --> 0:37:42.560
<v Speaker 1>the company's outlook has completely changed, and you actually got

0:37:42.800 --> 0:37:45.879
<v Speaker 1>kind of inside look at what they have going on

0:37:46.239 --> 0:37:48.480
<v Speaker 1>when you were in Bentonville, which is of course from

0:37:48.480 --> 0:37:50.719
<v Speaker 1>the home Walmart right quarters. So I was at UP

0:37:50.760 --> 0:37:52.879
<v Speaker 1>Summit a few weeks ago. UP Summit is a kind

0:37:52.880 --> 0:37:56.799
<v Speaker 1>of annual conference from mobility nerds and vcs that is

0:37:56.840 --> 0:37:59.759
<v Speaker 1>co hosted by the Walton family and Sam Walton is

0:37:59.800 --> 0:38:02.279
<v Speaker 1>a Remember at Walmart and I was walking around and

0:38:02.280 --> 0:38:05.879
<v Speaker 1>I was like, hold on, isn't that a canoe over there?

0:38:06.200 --> 0:38:09.080
<v Speaker 1>And it was. It was a prototype and at the time,

0:38:09.160 --> 0:38:10.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, I didn't really think much of it. And

0:38:11.000 --> 0:38:13.640
<v Speaker 1>low and behold, a few weeks later, they have this agreement.

0:38:13.680 --> 0:38:16.200
<v Speaker 1>Although there's a lot of caveats to this agreement. I

0:38:16.200 --> 0:38:19.040
<v Speaker 1>have to say, what are the caveats? So Walmart can

0:38:19.080 --> 0:38:21.880
<v Speaker 1>walk away at anytime thirty days notice for no reason.

0:38:22.239 --> 0:38:27.640
<v Speaker 1>That's worry if your canoe. And you know, the other

0:38:27.640 --> 0:38:29.800
<v Speaker 1>thing is that canoe hasn't demonstrated it can do anything.

0:38:29.880 --> 0:38:31.919
<v Speaker 1>It hasn't really built anything. It doesn't have a clear

0:38:31.920 --> 0:38:36.279
<v Speaker 1>manufacturing strategy. It has various plans to do stuff, some

0:38:36.360 --> 0:38:40.759
<v Speaker 1>in Bentonville, some in other states. So you know, this

0:38:40.800 --> 0:38:44.080
<v Speaker 1>is a hypothetical right now, And aren't they boxing Amazon

0:38:44.120 --> 0:38:45.960
<v Speaker 1>out of buying any of these? Well, here's what's interesting,

0:38:46.040 --> 0:38:48.480
<v Speaker 1>right you think about Walmart and Amazon. These are great

0:38:48.560 --> 0:38:53.720
<v Speaker 1>logistics giants. Amazon already uses multiple brands for gas powered

0:38:53.840 --> 0:38:58.319
<v Speaker 1>or diesel powered trucks. Walmart has made this bet, but

0:38:58.320 --> 0:39:01.400
<v Speaker 1>Walmart also has agreements with GM forward, you know, and

0:39:01.440 --> 0:39:04.400
<v Speaker 1>no one is making any of these any volume, right exactly?

0:39:04.440 --> 0:39:06.680
<v Speaker 1>That isn't that really the biggest challenge just to actually

0:39:07.160 --> 0:39:09.840
<v Speaker 1>how are they going to make exactly? So, you know,

0:39:09.920 --> 0:39:12.400
<v Speaker 1>Rivian is kind of the poster child because they have

0:39:12.520 --> 0:39:15.040
<v Speaker 1>this order for one hundred thousand units from Amazon to

0:39:15.080 --> 0:39:16.480
<v Speaker 1>build these kind of bug e ad vans. You just

0:39:16.480 --> 0:39:18.759
<v Speaker 1>showed them on the screen. My sources tell me they've

0:39:18.760 --> 0:39:21.640
<v Speaker 1>built about six hundred of them so far, maybe a thousand,

0:39:21.840 --> 0:39:23.880
<v Speaker 1>and they're supposed to deliver ten thousand by the end

0:39:23.880 --> 0:39:25.920
<v Speaker 1>of the year. And you know, the pace just has

0:39:25.960 --> 0:39:30.399
<v Speaker 1>been disrupted by supply chain problems, etcetera. But there's competition there,

0:39:30.560 --> 0:39:33.280
<v Speaker 1>and it's it's an interesting market because we're super obsessed

0:39:33.320 --> 0:39:36.000
<v Speaker 1>with the consumer e v but we forget that in

0:39:36.080 --> 0:39:38.319
<v Speaker 1>the world of moving things from A to B. All

0:39:38.360 --> 0:39:40.920
<v Speaker 1>these commercial giants need other stuff. They need vans and

0:39:40.920 --> 0:39:43.120
<v Speaker 1>trucks and and things that you and I won't get

0:39:43.120 --> 0:39:45.200
<v Speaker 1>behind the wheelock. Well, it is not a zero sum game.

0:39:45.280 --> 0:39:48.400
<v Speaker 1>But as far as we'll be watching ruins at Ludlow,

0:39:48.640 --> 0:39:51.480
<v Speaker 1>thank you and enjoy the weekend to all right. That

0:39:51.560 --> 0:39:54.919
<v Speaker 1>does it for this edition of Bloombrick Technology. We've got

0:39:54.920 --> 0:39:57.160
<v Speaker 1>great shows coming up next week. We will be across

0:39:57.200 --> 0:39:59.360
<v Speaker 1>earnings all week long. Of course, we'll be following that

0:39:59.440 --> 0:40:02.520
<v Speaker 1>big hearing in court in Delaware. Twitter Versus Musk and

0:40:02.680 --> 0:40:05.680
<v Speaker 1>Matthew Ball will be joining us on Monday to talk

0:40:05.680 --> 0:40:09.960
<v Speaker 1>about all things metaverse and more. I'm Emily Chang in

0:40:10.000 --> 0:40:13.520
<v Speaker 1>San Francisco. Have a wonderful weekend everyone. This is Bloomer