Speaker 1: From Marhart where Innovation of Money and Power Collie in
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley NBN.
Speaker 2: This is Bloomberg Technology with Caroline Hyde and Ed loved Love.
Speaker 3: I'm Caroline Hyde at Bloomerg's world headquarters in New York, ED.
Speaker 3: He's off today. This is new Meg Technology. Coming up,
Speaker 3: We're going to talk the state of hiring in Silicon
Speaker 3: Valley after yet another blowout US payrolls report, and we'll
Speaker 3: bring you the latest information from the trial of Sam
Speaker 3: Makmin Freed is the FTX co founder Gary Wang justifies
Speaker 3: that he and mgmin Free committed a multi billion dollar.
Speaker 4: Forward with customer funds.
Speaker 3: Plus, we'll wrap up the latest from Google's anti trust
Speaker 3: trial and bring you a new report that shows the
Speaker 3: US is warning the EU on his AI regulation and competition. First,
Speaker 3: so let's check in on these markets because look, blowout
Speaker 3: jobs number. We see the ramifications in the bond market,
Speaker 3: but actually tech managers to push on through after initial
Speaker 3: knee joke reaction to that three hundred and thirty six
Speaker 3: thousand jobs report, we actually see.
Speaker 4: The nasack managing to push on higher one point two
Speaker 4: percent higher.
Speaker 3: As we close out the week, US tenure those selling
Speaker 3: off were up some four basis points. Once again, we're
Speaker 3: heading like multi decade highs here since two thousand and seven.
Speaker 4: Four point seventy six is where we trade.
Speaker 3: Bitcoin actually on the higher side, so a little bit
Speaker 3: of a desire to get into the risk assets on
Speaker 3: the back of some of these numbers. But let's have
Speaker 3: a little look at what's happening in terms of the
Speaker 3: micro the individual stock movers in the world of technology PDD.
Speaker 4: Just on a tear. Is this team that's calling is.
Speaker 3: The fact that everyone's going to Halloween outfits for a
Speaker 3: cheaper price point. We are seeing outperform over the last
Speaker 3: few months and weeks and currently on the day up
Speaker 3: eight point eight.
Speaker 4: Percent as performer. On the last that one hundred adym.
Speaker 3: As well also happening helping really upset the Nasvack initial
Speaker 3: foulter on the job's data.
Speaker 4: We're up some four percent, so a lot of the.
Speaker 3: Chip makers managing to push on the higher side, and
Speaker 3: video also helping on the points perspective. And I'm looking
Speaker 3: at Tesla though on the downside it had been off
Speaker 3: more than multi percent at one point, we're now off
Speaker 3: by eight ten percent. This is thing once again, cut prices,
Speaker 3: particularly to the Model Y, the Model three up to
Speaker 3: two point two five one hundred, two hundred and fifty
Speaker 3: being pulled down in terms of a price point, just
Speaker 3: keeping on pushing that. Maybe as we see the bomb
Speaker 3: market sell off, let's have a little look at what's happening,
Speaker 3: though more broadly in the macro data, because maybe Elon's
Speaker 3: reacting to that jobs hiring, specifically in the tech sector.
Speaker 3: We want to be bringing in Daniel Zau, of course,
Speaker 3: who's lead economist senior manager at Glassdoor, and ultimately Daniel.
Speaker 3: We are seeing what has been a focus on, of course,
Speaker 3: an issue of hiring within the technology space, and I'm
Speaker 3: interested as to whether or not that's really being born
Speaker 3: out from a macro perspective. I think we're still waiting
Speaker 3: for our guests to be brought on, so we'll give
Speaker 3: him a moment to be sap. But we have been seeing,
Speaker 3: of course, what has been pretty buoyant numbers overall. We're
Speaker 3: seeing the fact that we're unemployment rate holding at three
Speaker 3: point eight percent after a surge of unemployed re enter
Speaker 3: this job's market participation participation remaining unchanged at sixty two
Speaker 3: point eight percent. We want to dig into some of
Speaker 3: the areas that we've seen some growth. I'm looking at
Speaker 3: hospitality and leisure, education, healthcare sectors which have really been
Speaker 3: leading some of these rebounds. But for us in the
Speaker 3: technology sector, we've just been talking about well, letting go
Speaker 3: of people, and now more broadly thanuel, we're seeing well,
Speaker 3: they're focus on maybe people starting to rehab in very
Speaker 3: specific spaces like AI.
Speaker 4: What do you see in your sectors, Well, we.
Speaker 5: Definitely are seeing that the tech sector the way that
Speaker 5: softest has manifested has shifted over the year because at
Speaker 5: the start of this year we saw this big wave
Speaker 5: of layoffs that company is large and small in the
Speaker 5: tech sector. But now it's more about that softness and
Speaker 5: hiring the difficulty in some of those laidoff workers from
Speaker 5: finding new jobs. And in fact, this is something we
Speaker 5: see reflected in how employees are talking about the tech sector.
Speaker 5: I've seen that employee confidence in the tech sector has
Speaker 5: measured on glass Door, is actually below fifty percent. That
Speaker 5: means that under fifty percent of tech employees actually have
Speaker 5: a positive business outlook for their employers. That's not really
Speaker 5: a great situation to be in for the industry.
Speaker 3: Can you give demographics on that regions on that the
Speaker 3: kinds of people who are nervous here.
Speaker 5: Well, generally speaking, entry level workers tend to be a
Speaker 5: little bit less confident than say, executives, and when you
Speaker 5: think about that, that totally makes sense. But I think
Speaker 5: one interesting cut of that is actually middle managers have
Speaker 5: seen a pretty dramatic decline in their business confidence as well.
Speaker 5: I think part of that might be because you look
Speaker 5: at companies that are cutting costs, while a lot of
Speaker 5: that pressure falls on middle managers who have to enact
Speaker 5: these cost cutting measures at the same time doing more
Speaker 5: with less as they tried to get those costs under control.
Speaker 3: How much is flexibility or a lack thereof faring weight
Speaker 3: at the moment. It's interesting that we're worried about participation
Speaker 3: rates in women. We've actually seen that recover now perhaps
Speaker 3: pull back a little bit.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of talk within the tech sector in
Speaker 4: particular that.
Speaker 3: We want you back in the office, and that impacts
Speaker 3: certain people more than others.
Speaker 5: Well, definitely, we know that flexibility is a really appealing
Speaker 5: feature for jobs beyond the tech sector, for really everybody,
Speaker 5: and of course it manifests in different ways. It might
Speaker 5: be flexible work arrangements in terms of location or in
Speaker 5: terms of hours. But it is absolutely something that we
Speaker 5: see employees care a lot about, job seekers care a
Speaker 5: lot about. But we are also seeing that a lot
Speaker 5: of employers are pulling back on those options as they
Speaker 5: really try to get cost center control and try to
Speaker 5: be as productive as possible. But on the flip side,
Speaker 5: you know, the evidence I think is mixed.
Speaker 6: There.
Speaker 5: There are a lot of employers who are getting by
Speaker 5: just fine and flexible in those flexible work arrangements. So
Speaker 5: it's really up to employers to figure out what the
Speaker 5: best way is to manage their workforce.
Speaker 3: Now we have seen really the oxygen within technology space
Speaker 3: just been sucked out of the room by artificial intelligence.
Speaker 3: What is happening from a training perspective, What is happening
Speaker 3: from job openings, and whether or not companies can fill
Speaker 3: those job openings for AI within their own labor forces.
Speaker 3: It exists, although they're having to reshuffle the benches a.
Speaker 4: Little bit here.
Speaker 5: I think that's a great question. I think it's a
Speaker 5: little bit early to say, because all of these new
Speaker 5: generative AI tools are pretty new and a lot of
Speaker 5: companies still haven't figured out exactly how to use them.
Speaker 5: They haven't figured out what their strategy should be for
Speaker 5: using and experimenting with these tools. So I think right
Speaker 5: now we're just seeing a lot of experimentation and there
Speaker 5: aren't really a lot of firm plans in place. But
Speaker 5: I think that training is a really great way that
Speaker 5: employers can reward the loyal employees that they have by
Speaker 5: giving them opportunities for career growth and skill development and
Speaker 5: really get access to a pool of talent that offers
Speaker 5: them a lot.
Speaker 3: Wage growth slowing from a macro perspective in the job's
Speaker 3: data four point two percent year of a year.
Speaker 4: What in wages looking like in the tech sector.
Speaker 5: Well, in the tech sector, we are seeing that wages
Speaker 5: aren't necessarily falling, but they're more stagnant year every year.
Speaker 5: And I think that also it's important to keep in
Speaker 5: mind that compensation is not just about your base salary, right,
Speaker 5: It includes especially in the tech sector, it includes bonuses,
Speaker 5: it includes equity, and that is a place where we
Speaker 5: have seen a little bit of a pullback. So it's
Speaker 5: not necessarily that people are getting their bonuses cut or
Speaker 5: their equity packages cut, but when they're looking for a
Speaker 5: new job, well, maybe the size of the package that
Speaker 5: they can actually demand is not as large as it
Speaker 5: might have been a year or two ago.
Speaker 3: What signals now do you look to Like you're measuring sentiment,
Speaker 3: which seems to be on the downside, Where do you
Speaker 3: look next? Because many in the macro perspective are thinking
Speaker 3: this job's market has to eventually start to cool, even
Speaker 3: though it defies that every single month it feels like well.
Speaker 5: I think it is important to see that marriage of
Speaker 5: hard and soft data together because we do see that
Speaker 5: the hard data is looking really healthy for the job market,
Speaker 5: in fact, almost shockingly healthy compared to what we were
Speaker 5: thinking coming into the year. But I think it is
Speaker 5: really important to look at that sentiment data, especially as
Speaker 5: we look at how employees feel. Because who knows businesses
Speaker 5: better than their employees who are on the front lines
Speaker 5: every day, who are interacting with customers, actually seeing how
Speaker 5: the business is operating. That's why we think you can't
Speaker 5: discount these soft sentiment indicators.
Speaker 3: Particularly from the middle management layer. Daniel, it's great to
Speaker 3: have some time with you. Thank you for the expertise,
Speaker 3: particularly in this sector. Daniels A of Glassdoor.
Speaker 4: We thank him. Meanwhile, coming up now, we're going to
Speaker 4: unpack the.
Speaker 3: Latest developments from Google's anti trust trial. Rebecca Allensworth, professor
Speaker 3: at Vanderbilt University Law School, going to be joining us
Speaker 3: speaking of antitrust. We are watching shares of Microsoft and
Speaker 3: indeed Activision. Remember next week the CMA, we're likely to
Speaker 3: get that announcement as to whether or not this deal has.
Speaker 4: Been rectified enough for them to allow it to go through.
Speaker 3: In fact, we understand reporting from the Verge saying that
Speaker 3: Microsoft certainly thinks that this deal will be completed as
Speaker 3: soon as next week, and we understand that there was
Speaker 3: Today was the last day that they could get any
Speaker 3: comments as to the CMA's points of this particular deal.
Speaker 3: We're trading higher from New York this Bloomberg Technology. This
Speaker 3: is a great bit of reporting Anna Bloomberg today that
Speaker 3: apparently new analysis from the US State Department is warning
Speaker 3: the EU policy makers about its proposal for generative AI regulation,
Speaker 3: saying that look, it's too vague, could foster in favoritism
Speaker 3: for big tech firms. Anna Edgerton, one of the key
Speaker 3: reporters on this, Seattle bureau chief for Bloomberg News. And
Speaker 3: what is the argument here that this head of the
Speaker 3: curve regulation that they use getting in before other countries.
Speaker 3: It seems seems to have favor big tech even.
Speaker 6: More than small Yeah, these are really interesting documents. You know,
Speaker 6: some of the arguments we'd heard before, but the level
Speaker 6: of detail in these documents was really interesting to see
Speaker 6: the kind of exchange between policymakers in the US and
Speaker 6: their current counterparts in Europe. Now the sources of we
Speaker 6: spoke with, so that this was offered in a spirit
Speaker 6: of cooperation and alignment of values. Does it not meant
Speaker 6: to criticize the EU when it comes to writing regulation
Speaker 6: for AI. It's really important that even the definitions of
Speaker 6: like what artificial intelligence is, what do we mean by
Speaker 6: foundation models, what do we mean by generative AI, that
Speaker 6: those definitions are aligned so that whatever policy has passed
Speaker 6: in the European Union can then be kind of working
Speaker 6: together with whatever policy is eventually passed in the United States,
Speaker 6: and that it's even possible for companies to comply with both.
Speaker 4: The AI act.
Speaker 3: I mean many had pushed back against it because it
Speaker 3: wasn't just about the underlying foundational models and how they're built,
Speaker 3: but then how they're applied as well. The original idea
Speaker 3: was that it would just be within their applications and
Speaker 3: when it's risky or not. But now they seem to
Speaker 3: want to have transparency about what's within the foundational model
Speaker 3: or how they built it. Is that the key issue
Speaker 3: of sort of competition here, is it because it's going
Speaker 3: to be so expensive to be able to give that
Speaker 3: sort of transparency.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there are a lot of issue US and like
Speaker 6: you said, it's really interesting to see how this conversation
Speaker 6: in Europe develops. Because the AI Act was pretty much
Speaker 6: ready to go at the beginning of this year. It
Speaker 6: was focused on the riskiness of that end use. Like
Speaker 6: you said, this is a risk based approach, which the
Speaker 6: US supports. But then with the release of chat, GBT
Speaker 6: and other consumer facing AI products, there was really a
Speaker 6: kind of growing concern that these the application of these
Speaker 6: tools wasn't enough to regulate, that there needs to be
Speaker 6: some kind of regulatory rules for the way these models
Speaker 6: are even developed in the first place. And that's where
Speaker 6: we started to see a lot of pushback from companies
Speaker 6: who initially, I think we're pretty open.
Speaker 4: To the AI Act.
Speaker 6: You know, they're open to this risk based approach, but
Speaker 6: what they don't want to do is to have regulators
Speaker 6: in Europe saying how they can or can't develop the
Speaker 6: underlying models. And that's where we see the United States
Speaker 6: kind of saying, you know, some of the way that
Speaker 6: this has written could cause problems for innovation for the
Speaker 6: little guys who are trying to catch up with some
Speaker 6: of the bigger companies that already have these models. So,
Speaker 6: you know, we know kind of how this was offard
Speaker 6: from the United States, but what we'll be watching really
Speaker 6: closely is how this has received in Europe.
Speaker 3: Anna Edgerton, thanks so much for bringing us this great story.
Speaker 3: We really appreciate it. Meanwhile, look, it's the same names
Speaker 3: that keep coming up time and time again. And of
Speaker 3: course who's building a foundational model Google and who's been
Speaker 3: under other anti trust viewpoints, shall we say, and potential
Speaker 3: regulation right here in.
Speaker 4: The US alphabet parentor Google.
Speaker 3: Let's just revisit what's been happening throughout this week, the
Speaker 3: trials that's underway, the assessment of also what's happening with
Speaker 3: Amazon to Rebecca Allensworth joins US professor at Vanderbilt University
Speaker 3: Law School. Boy, busy time in the world of anti trust,
Speaker 3: and we all knew it would come eventually. All seems
Speaker 3: to have arrived at once like buses. I'm interested, Rebecca
Speaker 3: on what you think about the alphabet case in particular.
Speaker 3: We've had some really phenomenal in terms of kind of
Speaker 3: shocking pieces of revelations coming from none other than CEO's
Speaker 3: of rival companies like Sati Nadella.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 7: So the big news out of the Google anti trust
Speaker 7: trial this week is the testimony of Sakunadella. He testified
Speaker 7: about what it was like to compete with Google and
Speaker 7: painted a very bleak picture, and so doing sort of
Speaker 7: seemed to paint a little bit of a bleak picture
Speaker 7: of his own company's ability to compete. So he must
Speaker 7: have been feeling like he was walking a fine line there.
Speaker 4: But his point was that you know.
Speaker 7: We could, we could approach Apple with the same billions
Speaker 7: and billions of dollars, and they were never going to
Speaker 7: take it. They were always going to go with Google.
Speaker 7: And it's basically impossible to compete with Google on search.
Speaker 3: But therefore does that play into Google's hand and at
Speaker 3: least his argument, well, Apple's argument has always been Google's
Speaker 3: a better product. It's not that they're just too big,
Speaker 3: it's that that that much better.
Speaker 7: That's right, But the rest of the testimony over the
Speaker 7: past few weeks, a lot of it has focused on
Speaker 7: this idea of scale and how scale is essential to
Speaker 7: build that better search product. So part of why Being
Speaker 7: was willing to pay as much as it was to
Speaker 7: be the default on Apple was that they wanted to
Speaker 7: get the scale. It was worse worth it to them
Speaker 7: to lose money on that deal in the short term
Speaker 7: if they could have the user data to build a
Speaker 7: product that could really compete with Google.
Speaker 4: And so the question in this.
Speaker 7: Case, one way of framing it is, you know, is
Speaker 7: Google better because it's big or is Google big because
Speaker 7: it's better. Google wants you to think the latter. They
Speaker 7: want you to think that they one and they're big
Speaker 7: because they have a better product. And I think the
Speaker 7: government is trying to tell a little bit of a
Speaker 7: different story, saying you kind of have to be big
Speaker 7: to be good. You ought to let other companies have
Speaker 7: a shot at becoming big.
Speaker 3: And I suppose this does push us forward to a
Speaker 3: and era in which perhaps Alphabet's Google is under some
Speaker 3: competitive threat because of generative AI, because we're starting to
Speaker 3: see well chatchebt open AI's relationship with Microsoft maybe bear through,
Speaker 3: Maybe bring people across to a different kind of search product.
Speaker 3: But more broadly, what did you make, for example, of
Speaker 3: the reporting around the AI Act, the worries that the
Speaker 3: smaller companies might not be able to compete with the
Speaker 3: big companies. How much of this just is a never
Speaker 3: en conversation when it comes to size and power.
Speaker 7: So absolutely, any kind of regulation, well, unfortunately most regulation.
Speaker 7: We won't say any regulation, but a lot of regulation
Speaker 7: does benefit big companies in the sense that compliance is expensive.
Speaker 7: It's expensive to comply with the laws, and sometimes that's
Speaker 7: something a small company can't do. It's another reason why
Speaker 7: being big is important and why we need to allow
Speaker 7: other companies besides behemoths like Google, at least in the
Speaker 7: search space, to get that kind of size and scale.
Speaker 7: What's a little funny about this, of course, is Microsoft
Speaker 7: is not a small company by any measure, but it
Speaker 7: is in terms of market share for search.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you've had the smaller players like Duck dot Go
Speaker 3: for example, giving evidence a CEO there as well, and
Speaker 3: interesting revelations as to who might have bought who at
Speaker 3: what point. Rebecca moving on to what's also been front
Speaker 3: and center for us has been the FDC's analyzation of
Speaker 3: Amazon in the marketplace. What's also interesting is the CMA
Speaker 3: over in the UK also looking into well interpretation of
Speaker 3: cloud and how Offcom has felt that perhaps is not
Speaker 3: much competition in that space either. Can you just paint
Speaker 3: a picture of how regulation is evolving here?
Speaker 4: UK? EU? Is everyone fighting the same fight? Here?
Speaker 7: Everyone is fighting the same fight in the sense that
Speaker 7: everyone's recognizing the market power of these platforms, the way
Speaker 7: that technology is changing fast, and therefore the competitive conditions
Speaker 7: are changing fast and wanting to be adaptive in their
Speaker 7: regulation to foster competition in all these new areas. The
Speaker 7: suit against Amazon is represents the third major strike by
Speaker 7: the government against a major American platform monopoly, and I
Speaker 7: guess the last one left is Apple.
Speaker 3: Indeed, and I think to that point, when you're drilling
Speaker 3: in on the likes of Amazon and Amazon also getting
Speaker 3: into other people's competitive space, of course, it's becoming an
Speaker 3: advertiser in and of itself and being able to draw
Speaker 3: that away from perhaps some of the social.
Speaker 4: Media giants out there.
Speaker 3: How do you see ultimately these sorts of inquisitions going.
Speaker 3: Do you think in any way that the FTC will
Speaker 3: win out and bedrout or lay ultimately not even need
Speaker 3: to win this case to change the direction of the
Speaker 3: way we think about monopolies and power and regulation.
Speaker 4: Both things are possibly true.
Speaker 7: So, first of all, it's too early to say that
Speaker 7: the FTC and the DOJ's attempt to brain in big
Speaker 7: tech has been unsuccessful. They've had some disappointing losses in court,
Speaker 7: but they've also had some small wins. And it's also
Speaker 7: only been a couple of years since they've been trying
Speaker 7: to do this. We look back at the seventies when
Speaker 7: in retrospect antitrust turned on a dime, but actually it
Speaker 7: really took many years for that to crystallize. And so
Speaker 7: I do think it's too early to say. And I
Speaker 7: think as far as the long run prospects for these imperatives,
Speaker 7: I think that it depends on the political will. Law
Speaker 7: is not impervious to what the people want, and I
Speaker 7: think people are starting to be more skeptical of market
Speaker 7: power by major tech monopolies.
Speaker 3: They send me r And in that respect, we will,
Speaker 3: of course aware that the FTC investigation of Amazon is
Speaker 3: going to take well at least eighteen months even to start.
Speaker 4: Do you think the timeline is here in any way
Speaker 4: you know, in an.
Speaker 3: Investors' mindset, something that they should be thinking about.
Speaker 7: Well, you sort of said it before when you said
Speaker 7: you have to win to change, to change the situation,
Speaker 7: and I think that the delay is kind of a
Speaker 7: part of that explanation. So, yes, it may not be
Speaker 7: true that you file a suit and then you know
Speaker 7: six months later there's a resolution and you have an outcome.
Speaker 4: In fact, it might take so long.
Speaker 7: That the competitive conditions change and the thing that you
Speaker 7: were suing about isn't really true anymore because the market's
Speaker 7: moved on. That was true about the Microsoft case. It
Speaker 7: took too long to really allow Netscape to survive. But
Speaker 7: that doesn't mean it doesn't have a detern effect. If
Speaker 7: these companies know going forward, going into their business dealings,
Speaker 7: then that they're gonna sorry.
Speaker 3: Sorry, Rebecca, I'm gonna have to end you there because
Speaker 3: we've just got warning that the president is walking out.
Speaker 3: Rebecca Allensworth there, Let's now go to president on the
Speaker 3: Jobs Office.
Speaker 2: We've created thirteen point nine million new jobs. Heard me
Speaker 2: say it before, and we're gonna keep saying that. My
Speaker 2: dad had an expression, it's a joey. Your job's about
Speaker 2: a lot more than the paycheck. It's about your dignity.
Speaker 2: It's about respect, It's about being a Look your kid
Speaker 2: in the eyes, honey, it's going to be okay, and
Speaker 2: mean it well. Three hundred and thirty six thousand more Americans,
Speaker 2: if they have children, can say that to their children
Speaker 2: and mean it. The unemployment rate has stayed below four
Speaker 2: percent for twenty months in a row, for the longest
Speaker 2: stretch in fifty years. We've achieved a seventy year low,
Speaker 2: and unemployment rate for women, record lows and unemployment for
Speaker 2: African Americans and Hispanic workers and people with disabilities, folks
Speaker 2: who have been left behind and previous recoveries and left
Speaker 2: behind for too long. We have the highest share of
Speaker 2: working age Americans in the workforce in twenty years, and
Speaker 2: it's no accident. Is bidnomics. We're growing the economy from
Speaker 2: the middle out, the bottom up, not the top down,
Speaker 2: and inflation's coming down at the same time. It's down
Speaker 2: sixty percent since last summer. Core inflation was just two
Speaker 2: point two percent over the past three months, and now
Speaker 2: we have the lowest inflation of any major economy in
Speaker 2: the world. Today, we're celebrating National Manufacturing Day. We didn't
Speaker 2: name it that it was already National Manufacturing Day, but
Speaker 2: it seems appropriate. I can think of no better way
Speaker 2: to mark the occasion than to thank the thirteen million
Speaker 2: Americans who are manufactured in manufacturing jobs as we speak.
Speaker 2: They're restoring our pride making things in America. And today
Speaker 2: I want to highlight that of those thirteen million manufacturing jobs,
Speaker 2: eight hundred and fifteen thousand of those jobs were created
Speaker 2: since I took office, twice as many as the previous administration,
Speaker 2: and report when we learned earlier this week that's spending
Speaker 2: on construction for new factories being built to generate more
Speaker 2: economic growth and jobs hit an all time high last month. Folks,
Speaker 2: bidnomics is about investing in America and investing in American
Speaker 2: workers and business are investing more manufacturing than ever before.
Speaker 2: I'm bringing the supply chains home. Before the pandemic, supply
Speaker 2: chains was a phrase most people didn't even associate with,
Speaker 2: didn't think much about. But today, after a few delays
Speaker 2: and availability of parts and products, everyone has known about.
Speaker 2: They know why it's so important. My economic plan is
Speaker 2: bringing supply chains home and investing in the industries of
Speaker 2: the future so we can make things in America again
Speaker 2: with American workers. We're creating good jobs and communities all
Speaker 2: across the country, including in places that have been left
Speaker 2: behind for the last in some cases twenty years. Factories
Speaker 2: they used to work at for years and years shut down,
Speaker 2: leaving them with no options, no jobs in that community.
Speaker 2: All over the Midwest and all over the Northeast that
Speaker 2: under Bidenomics, you won't have to leave home now to
Speaker 2: get a good job. I don't know how many times
Speaker 2: I heard and out on the road people saying, my
Speaker 2: kid came up to me, got a decent education in
Speaker 2: the state, came up to me and said, Mom, I
Speaker 2: got to leave no jobs, no jobs. Well, you're going
Speaker 2: to be able to find a good job close to
Speaker 2: home more and more all across America. We're also making
Speaker 2: sure the jobs we're creating offer workers are free and
Speaker 2: fair right if they choose to join a union. To
Speaker 2: form a union, Bidenomics is leading to surge and unionized
Speaker 2: workers exercising their collective bargain the rates. For example, our
Speaker 2: clean school Bus program under the Bipartis Infrastructure Law was
Speaker 2: replacing dirty diesel buses with clean electric buses, so children
Speaker 2: getting out and off those buses can bring clean their
Speaker 2: diesel fuel. We're encouraging the companies building those buses to
Speaker 2: allow their employees to unionize if employees choose, and it's working.
Speaker 2: We saw in Georgia when blue workers at Bluebird, the
Speaker 2: electric school bus manufacturing company that's receiving federal funds, voted
Speaker 2: to unionize because that was their choice. Treasury Department laid
Speaker 2: out recently in a major report that unions and collective
Speaker 2: bargaining are good for the economy overall. They help raise
Speaker 2: wages not only for the workers and not factory, but
Speaker 2: for everyone, whether or not their union, whether or not
Speaker 2: you belong to a union, and they also increase excuse me,
Speaker 2: they also increase corporate growth. And today's job report is
Speaker 2: just another example of what it looks like when we
Speaker 2: focus on building an economy from the middle out and
Speaker 2: the bottom up, not the top down, while bringing deficits
Speaker 2: down at the same time. You know, just this summer,
Speaker 2: I signed strong bipartisan laways shook hands with a former Speaker,
Speaker 2: and we passed in the House and the Senate as
Speaker 2: well to cut spending by one trillion dollars over the
Speaker 2: next ten years. Unfortunately, last weekend, Republican House members decided
Speaker 2: they were going to put that progress in jeopardy. Instead
Speaker 2: of honoring that commitment they made, they once again brought
Speaker 2: us to the brink of a government shutdown, creating unnecessary
Speaker 2: instability and risk in order to secure more extreme cuts
Speaker 2: and programs that help working Americans and seniors. Cuts that
Speaker 2: would have hurt everyone, from US manufacturing, that would have
Speaker 2: stimy the pay of military people, a whole range of things.
Speaker 2: They tried cutting funding by thirty percent for small businesses
Speaker 2: which are growing under our administration, for local manufacturers for manufacturing,
Speaker 2: and extension Partnership program that helped small and media sized
Speaker 2: manufacturers attract and train workers and grow their businesses. But
Speaker 2: we stopped them. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of
Speaker 2: Republicans in the House saying they want to cut the
Speaker 2: deficit when all they really want to do is once
Speaker 2: again cut taxes for the very wealthy and big corporations,
Speaker 2: which will only add to the depth. So when I
Speaker 2: was able to cut the federal debt by one point
Speaker 2: seven trillion over that first two years, we'll remember what
Speaker 2: we were talking about. Those fifty corporations that made forty
Speaker 2: billion dollars weren't paying a penny in taxes. Well, guess
Speaker 2: what we made them pay thirty percent, fifteen percent in taxes,
Speaker 2: fifteen percent, nowhere near what they should pay. And guess
Speaker 2: what we're able to pay for everything, and we end
Speaker 2: up with the actual surplus. You know, it's not about
Speaker 2: That's not what the economy reason needs right now. More
Speaker 2: tax cuts for the wealthy. I've said it before and
Speaker 2: I'll say it again. We've cut the depths of over
Speaker 2: one trillion since we've taken office. The laws that I
Speaker 2: signed will cut up by another one trillion over the
Speaker 2: next ten years, and my budget would cut it by
Speaker 2: another two point five trillion over ten years. Here's the deal.
Speaker 2: The federal debt went up by fifty percent under my predecessor,
Speaker 2: in part because he passed a two trillion dollar TAXI
Speaker 2: cout overwhelmingly skewed to the very wealthy and large corporations.
Speaker 2: I believe we should be reducing the deficit by making
Speaker 2: sure that the wealthy and large corporations and just pay
Speaker 2: their fair share. I mean that's going to pay ninety percent.
Speaker 2: Just pay their fair share, by cutting wasteful spending on
Speaker 2: special interests like big oil, all the money they made,
Speaker 2: paid so little in taxes, Big Pharma, same thing. You know,
Speaker 2: we just gave the American public a real gift in
Speaker 2: terms of what not gift, but fairness in terms of
Speaker 2: what they have to pay for insulin, what they're gonna
Speaker 2: have to pay for other things.
Speaker 3: Well guess what that Also President Biden making comments on
Speaker 3: the job's data, of course, a blowout number of three
Speaker 3: hundred and thirty six thousand jobs being added. Notable that
Speaker 3: participation rates perhaps bearing between men and women. So we
Speaker 3: keep an eye on what President Biden is saying, and
Speaker 3: of course he's turning his attention.
Speaker 4: To tax rates as well, particularly for corporates.
Speaker 3: Let's turn our attention now to the trial of Sam Magunfried.
Speaker 3: FGX co founder Gary Wang said he and magwin Freed
Speaker 3: committed a multi billion dollar fraud with customer funds that
Speaker 3: led to the cryptocurrency exchange's collapse. When he took the
Speaker 3: stand to testify, Please to say that Mrs Hannah Miller
Speaker 3: has been well across this story for the last several years.
Speaker 3: But also now as we see this what's going to
Speaker 3: be a six week trial come to bear here in
Speaker 3: New York. What did you make of Gary Wang in particular,
Speaker 3: I mean, they certainly didn't make high contact.
Speaker 8: It's very damning testimony. Gary Wang has laid out on
Speaker 8: multiple times that Sam Bankman Breed was a guiding force
Speaker 8: in terms of setting up special privileges for Alimeter Research
Speaker 8: as an FTX customer. I mean, the advantages Alameter had
Speaker 8: are absolutely stunning.
Speaker 3: Billions that they had basically as a credit line is
Speaker 3: the accusation here, and ultimately that really the defense argument
Speaker 3: that simumnfreed couldn't be across everything in Alometer Research. That
Speaker 3: was the lot of the role of the CEO seemed
Speaker 3: to be being undermined here.
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 8: Yeah, Alimeter Research had a sixty five billion dollar line
Speaker 8: of credit. No other customer had a line of credit
Speaker 8: over a billion dollars, so this is pretty insane. They
Speaker 8: were also allowed to have a negative balance on their accounts,
Speaker 8: they were allowed to withdraw their accounts wouldn't be liquidating
Speaker 8: if their crypto bets went sour. And it seems like
Speaker 8: Sam Bakman Freed, according to Gary Wings testimony, was well
Speaker 8: aware of this and people were trusting his judgment. And
Speaker 8: in terms of setting up these advantages for Alnita.
Speaker 3: Has there been anyone that's come a little bit more
Speaker 3: towards Sam Munfried's defense here in terms of who's been
Speaker 3: giving evidence. It was notable that other long term friends
Speaker 3: people had beensity with then did come on board and
Speaker 3: work and perhaps sort of tried to echo that he
Speaker 3: wasn't someone who was flamboyant. Even though there was a
Speaker 3: lot of money being spent on a penthouse, he wasn't
Speaker 3: spending it lavishly on himself.
Speaker 8: Yes, Adam Yrdidiot testified yesterday he's a former friend of
Speaker 8: Sam Bateman Freed's. He had worked for FTX.
Speaker 1: He testified that Sam didn't live.
Speaker 8: This arsentagious lifestyle, that he wore regular clothes. But I
Speaker 8: believe that's offset by the millions of dollars in real
Speaker 8: estate purchases that FTX made and the luxe lights employees
Speaker 8: had in the Bahamas.
Speaker 3: Annamella, great podcast on the extraordinary dealings of FTX and Downfall,
Speaker 3: and I'm sure you'll continue to be an avid viewer
Speaker 3: and listener in on all that's happening in the trial
Speaker 3: in her in New York. We thank you so much
Speaker 3: for running us through what happened yesterday. Meanwhile, turning to
Speaker 3: another story that we've been following phenomenal one in terms
Speaker 3: of the world of diversity. Fearless Fund so VC foundations
Speaker 3: grant for businesses run by black women. Now it has
Speaker 3: been prohibited from closing its application window on September thirtieth,
Speaker 3: all then from picking a winner until further ordered by
Speaker 3: a court. This is following the lawsuit from the American
Speaker 3: Alliance for Equal Rights. It argues that the program by
Speaker 3: the Fearless Fund violates Section nineteen eighty one, which bans
Speaker 3: racial discrimination in contracting.
Speaker 4: Let's bring in.
Speaker 3: Bloomberg's Kelsey Butler to break down what is a complex
Speaker 3: but far reaching argument that's happening out in Georgia right now. Ultimately,
Speaker 3: the argument here is that you cannot level up in
Speaker 3: terms of allocation of capital here by only giving money
Speaker 3: certain funds to women of color. What is their argument
Speaker 3: in particular against Fearless Fund here.
Speaker 9: Absolutely so, as you mentioned, the group behind this says
Speaker 9: that this violates the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six.
Speaker 9: That is, essentially, by targeting a specific group though they
Speaker 9: are under a resented it leaves out other groups, specifically
Speaker 9: on the basis of race. And I think something interesting
Speaker 9: to remember here is the person behind the organization that's
Speaker 9: suing Edward Bloom, who you know, the name might not
Speaker 9: be familiar, but is a conservative activist who was involved
Speaker 9: in the case against Harvard, and as we know, the
Speaker 9: Supreme Court ultimately banned the use of banned race conscious
Speaker 9: admissions in colleges. So affirmative action is no longer the
Speaker 9: reality when it comes to college admissions. And certainly that
Speaker 9: when I think emboldened him and probably other conservative activists
Speaker 9: that you know have an issue with diversity programs.
Speaker 3: This has got to just be one of quite a
Speaker 3: few funds that have been set up to allocate money
Speaker 3: to minorities, whether it's to entrepreneurs who or women diverse entrepreneurs.
Speaker 3: In many ways, what is the far reaching effect to
Speaker 3: something that is going on for one particular fund in
Speaker 3: the moment.
Speaker 9: I think this is certainly going to have a chilling
Speaker 9: effect to you know, we're not only seeing this play
Speaker 9: out in courts, but we're seeing politicians dive in and
Speaker 9: specifically target and you know, name check companies, and so
Speaker 9: what that is doing, and what I'm hearing a lot
Speaker 9: about is that companies don't want to put a target
Speaker 9: on their own backs. By loudly talking about their diversity programs,
Speaker 9: by even really keeping ones in place that they already have.
Speaker 9: They're now you know, running those by lawyers and seeing
Speaker 9: are we in any way potentially running a foul of
Speaker 9: the law or going to you know, shine a spotlight on.
Speaker 4: What we're doing.
Speaker 3: Thank you for shining a spotlight on it with your reporting,
Speaker 3: Kelsey Butler, really setting up a situation here that many
Speaker 3: of VC and indeed Corporate Allocator are now considering. Let's
Speaker 3: to get a little bit deeper. Joey Mack is also
Speaker 3: at the front of this. He's a CEO of Chicago Blend.
Speaker 3: It's a nonprofit working to advance diversity, equity inclusion in
Speaker 3: the Chicago region's bench capital industry. And this does have
Speaker 3: far reaching effects. What are your questions coming inbound for
Speaker 3: you at the moment from diverse founders, diverse bcs who
Speaker 3: are now worrying about some of the funds perhaps that
Speaker 3: they've raised from Corporate America.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, thank you for having me.
Speaker 10: Certainly we were shocked by the brazenness of this lawsuit,
Speaker 10: but not at at all surprise, because we know this
Speaker 10: is part of a broader push to diminish diversity efforts
Speaker 10: in business. Certainly there are lots of questions coming in
Speaker 10: and around, you know, what does this mean for me
Speaker 10: for my firm. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 10: sewing firms like Fearless Fund does nothing to move the
Speaker 10: industry forward. It only reinforces existing inequities within ventures. So,
Speaker 10: you know, our message to those firms that are investing
Speaker 10: in underrepresented founders is to continue doing the work. This
Speaker 10: is going to be a long legal battle, it's just
Speaker 10: the beginning stages of it.
Speaker 1: So while that's playing out in.
Speaker 10: The courts, we're encouraging firms to continue investing in underrepresented founders.
Speaker 3: Now, we do know that the statistics are pretty awful
Speaker 3: when it comes to diverse allocation. I mean, ultimately, what
Speaker 3: is it, less than two percent of overall capital deployed
Speaker 3: is in women led startups, black founders in the US
Speaker 3: getting even less than one percent of total venture. But
Speaker 3: to play the other side here, is it right that
Speaker 3: you should have affirmative action that you should have certain
Speaker 3: funds allocated to only minority led businesses to help with
Speaker 3: leveling up, to help with equitable distribution of capital.
Speaker 4: Is there another way of.
Speaker 11: Doing this, Joey, you know, at the end of the day,
Speaker 11: having more more diversity among the investor class will enable
Speaker 11: more diverse, more.
Speaker 1: Checks to be written to underrepresented founders. So you know,
Speaker 1: we know that.
Speaker 10: People tend to associate with and invest in other people
Speaker 10: who look like them. So you know, for us, we
Speaker 10: look at what does diversity look like across the venture ecosystem,
Speaker 10: across the ecosystem to people who are making those investments,
Speaker 10: and we've seen that because of the severe underrepresentation of
Speaker 10: specifically women and people of color, we're seeing that translate
Speaker 10: to who's actually getting checks. You know, ultimately, if we
Speaker 10: can get more dollars in the hands of underrepresented founders,
Speaker 10: they'll be able to build companies, penetrate new markets that
Speaker 10: a lot of investors aren't currently looking at, and ultimately
Speaker 10: build companies that will be durable and that can serve
Speaker 10: totally different segments of the population that are being overlooked
Speaker 10: right now.
Speaker 3: Joey, we're looking at Chicago Blendbacker's bad being one of them.
Speaker 3: Tech stiles manifold are any institutions and I think of
Speaker 3: the Fearless Fund, for example, that has had money multimillion
Speaker 3: dollar allocations from MasterCard, from Costco, from Bank of America.
Speaker 3: How many of these institutional companies and institutions are worried
Speaker 3: about supporting non for profits like yours, funds like Fearless Funds.
Speaker 10: Well, I can speak about the companies and the corporations
Speaker 10: that have been supporting us. I think they support us
Speaker 10: because they share our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Speaker 10: They see the business case for why we need to
Speaker 10: continue investing in underrepresented founders, and you know, they continue
Speaker 10: to support our work. So, you know, although this chilling
Speaker 10: effect that your previous speaker mentioned is certainly very real,
Speaker 10: you know, our message to them, as well as to
Speaker 10: other funds, is we need to remind.
Speaker 1: Ourselves of why we're doing this work.
Speaker 10: Ultimately, we need to focus on getting more dollars, more
Speaker 10: ventor finance dollars in the hands of underrepresented founders, and
Speaker 10: that's ultimately how we're going to build a more equitable
Speaker 10: and competitive tech ecosystem.
Speaker 3: So, when someone is looking for advice, when they're looking
Speaker 3: at what's occurring in Georgia, when they're seeing what's happening
Speaker 3: with the Failest fund, what are you saying to vcs
Speaker 3: that do have a mandate as it stands to just
Speaker 3: allocate to women of color, people of color, diverse founders.
Speaker 10: More broadly, yeah, well, you know, people are definitely fired up,
Speaker 10: and right now we need to be educated about the
Speaker 10: legal issues and implications at hand. So that's where Chicago
Speaker 10: Blend has been focusing our energy. But we also need
Speaker 10: to be prepared to speak up and stand up against
Speaker 10: this broader back flash to diversity, whether it's in venture
Speaker 10: capital or in business more broadly, so again, our advice
Speaker 10: to firms that investment representative founders is to continue doing
Speaker 10: the work. That's ultimately how we're going to bring about
Speaker 10: positive change.
Speaker 4: Are you seeing an off institution speaking up?
Speaker 10: Well, Again, the the organizations that we work with, they've
Speaker 10: been very supportive of our approach to increasing diversity.
Speaker 1: But I do think that, you know, we.
Speaker 10: Would be great for the business community to remember why
Speaker 10: they are investing in uh in diversity efforts. More broadly,
Speaker 10: several of the organizations that we work with, they make
Speaker 10: investments internally as well as externally to support diverse and
Speaker 10: our message to them is please continue to double down
Speaker 10: on that.
Speaker 3: Joey Mack, great to have some time with you. Thank
Speaker 3: you so much, CEO of Chicago Blend. We really appreciate
Speaker 3: some of the expertise coming from the advice you're currently giving. Meanwhile,
Speaker 3: coming up, we're going to talk about cyber MGM says
Speaker 3: it's recent computer hack into its casino hotels.
Speaker 4: It's going to cost a big time. We'll have all
Speaker 4: the details next.
Speaker 3: Meanwhile, look, you've got to keep an eye on some
Speaker 3: shares that are on the move today.
Speaker 4: Amazon. We look at Yeah, we were already.
Speaker 3: Discussing some of the regulatory overhang, but on the higher
Speaker 3: side today at more than eight tenths of a percent. Interesting,
Speaker 3: they're going to be focusing on those satellites. Of course,
Speaker 3: they've got two test satellites to be going into lower
Speaker 3: orbit today on a rocket. We understand at two pm
Speaker 3: ET we keep a nice un.
Speaker 4: Of that from New York. This is Bluebeg.
Speaker 3: Technology MGM, and has just said that the recent compute
Speaker 3: to hack that shut down many services at its casino
Speaker 3: hotels will reduce its third quarter profit by about one
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars, and the company also incurred almost ten
Speaker 3: million dollars in costs fighting the attack, with the most
Speaker 3: related to technology consulting services, legal fees. It's all according
Speaker 3: to a filing now cybersecurity insurance should cover most of
Speaker 3: the cost, ENERGM said, although the full impact has yet
Speaker 3: to be determined. For more we're pleased to welcome J Blue,
Speaker 3: chief security officer cybersecurity firm Rapid Stefan, who is trying
Speaker 3: to analyze ultimately the costs for businesses here. I can
Speaker 3: imagine in a macro environment, companies have been reticent to
Speaker 3: spend on things that they feel are extra but cybersecurity
Speaker 3: one area that they pull back on and ultimately does
Speaker 3: it end up hurting them in the longer term.
Speaker 12: I think absolutely, as they are not spending enough preventatively.
Speaker 12: And you know, there is a rough number that we've
Speaker 12: tossed around in Europe for quite a long time, which
Speaker 12: is ten percent of your total IT spend is what
Speaker 12: you should reserve for your cybersecurity spend on making sure
Speaker 12: that all the things that you integrate into your netw
Speaker 12: or consistence also have this component for a cybersecurity whether
Speaker 12: that's monitoring in detection or prevention of vulnerabilities, or you know,
Speaker 12: all of the other kind of remediation stuff that you
Speaker 12: would need to have on hand in order to combat
Speaker 12: such an incident, and you know, have a certain part
Speaker 12: reserve for outside council as well as forensic support. But
Speaker 12: most companies aren't doing that preventative stuff and then they
Speaker 12: wind up being caught off guard during an actual incident.
Speaker 3: We've had so many headlines so it's MGM, whether it's
Speaker 3: the ongoing fallout for Clorox, which is again is trying
Speaker 3: to really lay bare how much this is going to
Speaker 3: cost from their own cybersecurity hack. Is this something that
Speaker 3: people are regulators to trying to eye. Ultimately, we're seeing
Speaker 3: carrots put in place of like, hey, the upside of
Speaker 3: not getting a cyber attack, but also a stick put
Speaker 3: in place.
Speaker 12: Absolutely so from an SEC perspective. As you know, there
Speaker 12: was a new SEC disclosure for cybersecurity incidents, and it's
Speaker 12: about reporting material incidents within four days of you know,
Speaker 12: knowledge of the company that they actually occurred and that they.
Speaker 4: Are indeed material.
Speaker 12: And this is in order to help shareholders make better
Speaker 12: decisions about the companies that they've invested in. I would
Speaker 12: argue though this is remarkably difficult to do for a
Speaker 12: lot of these companies. First in terms of determining what
Speaker 12: is a material incident in the fog of the actual incident.
Speaker 12: That's really hard to do, so that four days is
Speaker 12: an ambitious, aspirational kind of thing that you know why
Speaker 12: you're actually doing all of this response to an incident,
Speaker 12: that you can understand the material impact as well. So
Speaker 12: that's going to be difficult, and I think the Cloros
Speaker 12: example is going to be a sort of poster child
Speaker 12: for a lot of people in the cybersecurity industry who
Speaker 12: are wrestling with this, because you do see that Clorox
Speaker 12: is going to report a decline in their profits because
Speaker 12: of this incident, not only the direct cost impact but
Speaker 12: also the fact that they couldn't stock shells with their product.
Speaker 12: And then subsequently, we'll need to report to shareholders what
Speaker 12: the consequences of this cybersecurity incident was. And coincidentally, it
Speaker 12: was the same group that attacked MGM.
Speaker 4: Yeah, can you check to us about the troop miscatisfied?
Speaker 3: How and what are they bringing to bear that is
Speaker 3: so upending certain companies.
Speaker 4: Well, they're clearly.
Speaker 12: Interested in profit, or at least that's what they claim
Speaker 12: to be interested in. So there are opportunistic attackers from
Speaker 12: that perspective who are looking for someone who will pay
Speaker 12: their fees. They're working together with a ransomware group that
Speaker 12: was formerly or associated with the Russians Alpha V and
Speaker 12: what they're causing is an enormous amount of impact to
Speaker 12: these companies to just you know, get that data ransomed,
Speaker 12: make sure that those operations are locked until the ransom
Speaker 12: gets paid.
Speaker 3: What we keep hearing time and time again is that
Speaker 3: AI in particular is going to make companies more vulnerable,
Speaker 3: but also give them the armor that they need to
Speaker 3: be able to prevent against such tacks. Who's winning out
Speaker 3: in this race to ensure that AA is being adopted
Speaker 3: at the fastest pace possible.
Speaker 12: You know, initially I thought that defenders had a huge
Speaker 12: head start in this AI raise. So we've been having
Speaker 12: machine learning techniques for a very long time and a
Speaker 12: lot of cybersecurity tools, and the only types of AI
Speaker 12: attacks that we were seeing are something called domain generating algorithms,
Speaker 12: and it is exactly what it sounds like, which is
Speaker 12: just that you spin up a domain like ww dottle
Speaker 12: up or you know, some difficult domain dot com in
Speaker 12: order to stop Defender from finding out what all of
Speaker 12: those evil domains are and blocking them. So those are
Speaker 12: the only things we were saying, and now we're seeing,
Speaker 12: of course, with things like dark Birth the ability to
Speaker 12: craft more, you know, better phishing mails, et cetera. And
Speaker 12: I think that the de vendors are losing their advantage.
Speaker 12: That advantage is slowly but surely slipping towards the adversaries.
Speaker 12: And we need to kind of make sure that cybersecurity
Speaker 12: companies are adopting AI measures in their products and that
Speaker 12: our consumers are buying those products the likes of.
Speaker 3: I've certainly had Prime oyin Han and other CEOs say
Speaker 3: like the one area that they never are going to sacrifice,
Speaker 3: no matter how many macroeconomic headwinds are is the cyber
Speaker 3: allocation and the focus on just protecting customers and indeed
Speaker 3: every stakeholder. Is that something you're seeing ring true or ultimately,
Speaker 3: have you seen companies worldwide pullback?
Speaker 4: And what is your answer to that.
Speaker 12: I do think you're seeing a decline overall in the
Speaker 12: amount of appetite to spend on all types of IV things,
Speaker 12: including cybersecurity. So I'm not seeing that. Actually I would
Speaker 12: love that to be true. Let me be clear, but
Speaker 12: I think that you're seeing Caesar budget's shrink as the
Speaker 12: importance of this role tends to increase, so globally, the
Speaker 12: trend is not favorable for security when you look at,
Speaker 12: you know, the actual budget incapacity of these chief security officers.
Speaker 3: Want to be keeping a keen eye on. We thank
Speaker 3: you for breaking down so expertly. What currently is a foothedge,
Speaker 3: A bloom chief security officer who is probably quite busy,
Speaker 3: a supersecurity firm Rapid seven, great to have her in
Speaker 3: the studio.
Speaker 4: X of Course, formerly known as Twitter, is.
Speaker 3: Giving banks an update on efforts to reinvigorate growth into
Speaker 3: the PLATF CEO Linda Yacarino, saying that it's testing three tiers
Speaker 3: of premium service, which would allow the company to charge
Speaker 3: customers different amounts depending on how many ads are shown.
Speaker 3: Numgust asiaccounts joins us on more and this all is
Speaker 3: coming out as they're trying to persuade debtholders in particular
Speaker 3: that well they're managing to grow.
Speaker 13: This business exactly as we all know that takeover of
Speaker 13: Twitter was extremely chaotic forty four billion dollars, which is
Speaker 13: quite a lot, thirteen billion dollars in debt, and so
Speaker 13: the bankers that help finance that take over want to
Speaker 13: see what are they doing to make money, especially after
Speaker 13: advertising revenue declined sixty percent and so that's where these
Speaker 13: advertising tiers come in. Now is going to be for
Speaker 13: premium users. So again premium, which used to be called
Speaker 13: Twitter Blue, you pay about eight dollars for some additional
Speaker 13: features like the ability to edit your post and things
Speaker 13: like that, and so excess testing having three different tiers,
Speaker 13: so basic, standard and plus. Similar to the way that
Speaker 13: whour Netflix operates, the more money you pay, the less
Speaker 13: ads you're going to see.
Speaker 4: Kyme.
Speaker 3: We talk about how for the advertisers are feeling at
Speaker 3: the moment, did we get any sense from Linda Yakarino
Speaker 3: that they're coming back, staying back and paying more.
Speaker 13: So one of the things that ex did say is
Speaker 13: that advertisers are coming back. So they said in June
Speaker 13: about seventy five percent of their top one hundred advertiers.
Speaker 13: So you think of about some big marquee names, we've
Speaker 13: got seventy five percent of those were back in June.
Speaker 13: Now that number is up to ninety percent. But they
Speaker 13: are spinning significantly less, and even X admitted that, and
Speaker 13: then even by some sort of independent third parties they're
Speaker 13: estimating it's like seventy eighty.
Speaker 1: Percent less in some cases.
Speaker 13: So it's definitely not where it was historically, and advertising
Speaker 13: revenue has made up the majority of revenue for X
Speaker 13: traditionally about eighty ninety percent of their revenue.
Speaker 3: Now, going back to the slightly chaotic purchase of this company,
Speaker 3: it's not just debtholders a one time with Enoon Musk.
Speaker 4: It seems as their regulators do too. Can you update
Speaker 4: this with what's going on with the SEC right now?
Speaker 13: Yeah, So again going back to chaotic, right is the
Speaker 13: word when you think about the takeover, when actually before
Speaker 13: must acquire the company, he acquired a stake, So we
Speaker 13: had about a nine percent steak in Twitter at the time,
Speaker 13: and whenever you acquire over five percent stake, you have
Speaker 13: to dispose that to the sixth Stree and Exchange Commissions
Speaker 13: the SEC within about ten days must disclosed it, but
Speaker 13: dispose it about a month later, and so the SEC
Speaker 13: began to probe and like why did you dispose this slate?
Speaker 12: And must was.
Speaker 13: Actually supposed to testify last month, but a couple of
Speaker 13: days before, like ten to fifteen days before, he started
Speaker 13: making objections saying maybe we could do a different data,
Speaker 13: do a different location. And so now they're trying to
Speaker 13: compel him and try to push him to testify regarding
Speaker 13: the takeover.
Speaker 3: I spere of course the attorney from US saying enough
Speaker 3: is enough. You've had multiple times with the interview's ash accounts.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for bringing us up speed on all
Speaker 3: things X. Meanwhile, that does it with this addition of
Speaker 3: blue Meg Technology. Don't forget to check out our own podcast.
Speaker 3: You can find it on the terminal as well as online.
Speaker 4: On Apple, Spotify, iHeart.
Speaker 3: We've got a big week coming up for you next
Speaker 3: week as well as we head to LA from New York.
Speaker 3: This is Blueberg Technology.