Fed Hesitates on Tariffs, The New Mag 7, Death of VC, Google's Value in a Post-Search World

26:11M &A, we saw a door dash by two companies this week. We've seen a bunch of companies file to go public. We've seen them pausing. Does this kind of uncertainty which it seems like is causing the disking, right? You explain this disconnect how people feel about the economy and then their behavior. Is that disconnect caused by the sort of communication that Chimath and I and other folks were saying hey needs to be improved here and it seems to be with this UK. If this had been the process from the start where we're like hey, we're gonna do one of these a week for 50 weeks and And you're going to get this good news each week as we sort this out.

26:45That seems to me like something that would build confidence as opposed to, hey, everybody's going to go back and forth. You say 50. We're going to go to 150 tit for tat. So maybe talk about the impact this has for founder startups executive teams. I think for tech guys, buying large, you know, a lot of the tech is in services. So that's out of the picture for now. But there's obviously going to be a lot of tears for semis and then for the assembling of the motherboards into computer. So those are the two key areas. And one of the difficulties is we have these sort of base tears, but we also have these sector tariffs.

27:20And we've had sector tariffs in cars, 25%. There's rumored to be sector tariffs in Pharma that could come out next week. And there's also been potential sector tariffs, you know, in semis. So it's been pretty disruptive and I don't really know how to think about it. And I think nobody knew which is why the market just took a 25 % peak to a trough down. And then after that we learned well the government is actually smarter. They're going to one of the things that I love to see is all these executives that get to come to also plead their case in Washington. And maybe that was never the case, you know, a few months ago.

28:01and there seems to at least be a feedback loop. Okay, we do something, we see what breaks, we listen, we readjust and stuff like that. But to be honest, I don't really know how it's going to play out. And I sort of was very conservative for a period of time just waiting. And then to me, what happened last week with Microsoft saying that AI had really picked up, that was like a really big deal. and I almost like coined it in my own mind, like tokens greater, greater than tariffs. And I think that one of the reason why the market's moving up to right now, just explain that just a little bit. Talking over tariffs.

28:41Tokens, I don't know, I put the greater, greater sign. Tokens are much greater than tariffs. Tokens, you mean AI tokens? AI tokens, yeah. So I sort of view tokens, you know, I don't really understand the, as well as a day for sure, you know, all the AI models and stuff like that. But I sort of view tokens to an AI model is like fuel to a car or electricity to a computer, right? And Microsoft said that in their Q1, they processed 100 trillion tokens, 50 trillion alone in March. And so the tokens are really going basically vertical, which is probably because of these reasoning engines, which are much more sophisticated and require more compute power.

29:22And I think the market, it didn't touch it's a bit unfair for Trump, but the market did not just go down because of tariffs. If you remember it went down because people freaked out where in an AI bubble, AI is not really working, what's the ROI on AI? That was maybe I don't know, half, a third to a half of the problem. And I think what Microsoft said is like, CapEx is going up and everybody has a gigantic shortage of chips right now. That I know for sure from all of our private companies public companies. There's a shortage of shape a shortage of compute power And so I think that's also maybe why the market's going up and so for me it was sort of a way Emotionally, I got so drained with the tariffs and thinking about tariffs and having to think about something I don't really understand and I feel now there's a chance When you look at the next year or two at some point tariffs goes away Trump makes this big deal with the tax breaks, sort of cancel out the tariffs.

30:22We move on and what are we left with? We're left with tokens. And I think the world of tokens for me have been doing this for 35 years. It's maybe the most exciting trend and thing that I've seen and all these people that say, oh, this is the end of American exceptionalism. I almost wanted to say, no, you guys are wrong. This is the beginning of American exceptionalism because we've got Wall Street, we've got Silicon Valley, And we still got a pretty good government that at least tries to get stuff done. So I'm pretty excited by that. I've been talking with my management team a lot about AI first principles and we're actually doing an off -site in two weeks on this because I've been following a lot of what the other CEOs have been doing and hearing stories.

31:08We had a great conversation with Sergei. He gave us two anecdotes of how he personally has used some of these tools to make management decisions and his observation was managers are the first to go. And if you zoom out from that statement and you zoom out from the comments you're making Philly, there is, I would say like a once in a generational opportunity to select companies that are going to accelerate growth because of the leverage they're going to create by adoption of these tools. not tech companies in the traditional sense, but across the entire economy. And some of what we're seeing right now in the reformation of venture capitalists and I know you're going to talk a little bit about CO2 here in a bit, but so much of the thesis is around traditional businesses being reinvented using AI.

32:02And as a result, it's not just of the few tech companies that are providing the fuel, but there are these fires that are going to take off in all these different markets that we could sit and spend probably hours extrapolating and theorizing on that creates a real opportunity for incredible market value creation. Traditionally, it's like the market grows and the differentiation among the competitors is minimized once the market has matured. But for the first time ever, every mature market can be completely disrupted. So if you're smart about selecting management teams and selecting companies, it seems to be an incredible opportunity to realize investment returns.

32:38Okay, even in a mature equity market. Let's move on to our next topic, which is obviously super related. Google was down 8 % on Wednesday after some bad search data came out because the Justice Department, as everybody probably knows, is doing the Sampdai Trust lawsuit with Google. And the key part of that lawsuit is Google paying Apple 20 billion a year to be the default search engine on iPhones. Obviously, we all know iPhones have elite customers. Those are very precious searches from people with a lot of money because iPhones are expensive. of, anyway, Eddie Q who's been with Apple for 35 years.

33:12He said, quote, for the first time ever last month, our search volume actually went down, quote, that has never happened in 20 years. If you ask what's happening, it's because people are using chat GPT. They're using perplexity. I use it at times. He believes that AI search is going to replace classic search like Google. Quote again, there's enough money now. Enough large players that I don't see how it doesn't happen Bloomberg reported on Q's comments at 11 a .m. an hour later, Google is down $100 billion in market cap. It bounced back a little bit today. We're taping this on Thursday. Here's the statement from Google responding to Q's comments.

33:52We continue to see overall query growth in search that includes an increase in total queries coming from Apple's devices and platforms freeberg. Is it time for Google to panic? Google shareholders We talked last week about making bold decisions about what is the default and how my Google get out of this classic innovators dilemma. What do you think? We keep coming back to a search -dead conversation. Everyone knows that the search -click -repeat paradigm is over. And there's a new model in what I would zoom out a little bit and say is kind of the difference in human computer interaction for knowledge information and services.

34:36It may not be that I type something into a search box. It may be that I'm having a chat. That chat may happen in a chat window. It may happen via voice. It may happen on a screen. It may happen in your pod. We don't yet know where the consumer is going to go with this, but there's a lot of paradigm shifts underway. I will say Google has models that are, if not the best, competitive. So the underlying models, the underlying technology exists. They are certainly aware of the shift in the paradigm. And so the transition for Google doesn't need to happen overnight to a chat interface that looks like chat GPT.

35:18It may be a standalone app. They have a standalone app as Chimath has pointed out in the past. They don't do a great job promoting it. They don't do a great job integrating the chat interface into search or replacing search of the chat interface Because remember search ad revenue today is $200 billion and the cost to serve an AI query is Order a magnitude higher than the cost to serve a search query So flipping the search interface over to a chat interface overnight doesn't make sense and they don't need to they have the users They have the models. They already have the product So it's going to be a slow kind of process of finding the optimal course for them to make the transition would be my guess on what they're doing.

35:58It's a question of at what point do you change the default on Google? Do you make it a slow one box, which is that answer section at the top of the search page and you slowly get people used to that and you lead them over to the chat interface or do you do it all at once or do you tell people, hey, go use the app instead of the search box. So there's a lot that I think they're going to discover. And if anything, this is an organization that is used to doing testing and then making incremental changes and then making big changes once they're kind of tested and proven. So I'm pretty positive on their ability to respond to the shift if there is one underway.

36:33I guess two important data points to them off of, I'd like you to respond to. Search is only like 56 % of Google's revenue right now. People forget they have cloud. So they have diversified. It's not a one revenue stream company anymore. And then also these Google search results at the top of the page, they're dropping precipitously the number of clicks below it. So different studies, 15 to 35 % of the clicks below the box are not get, you know, are dropping. So this is significant, but it seems manageable. Where do you stand on it right now? Time to panic or, as Friedberg was saying before, hey, maybe it's a great opportunity for Google to add yet another product line yet another revenue stream.

37:15They definitely have the best models in many domains. I would say that the code gen models from Anthropica are really good, but in many other domains including general information and chat, I think, Gemini's exceptional. So what is the problem? The problem is that they were effectively at 99 % share. And now we were always just waiting for that shooter drop, which is where they started to go from 99 to something less than 99. And the point is now that it has happened, it is very easy for anybody to build a model that precisely calculates the economic value of every single basis point of share shift that happens.

38:01And what you saw was an initiation of that process this week. So what do you do? The problem is that this is not Google's problem. This is a consumer choice issue and they have chosen something different. And whether we like it or not, whether they like it or not, the reality is that chat GPT is running away with it. And if you look at the growth and the share that OpenAI is seeing, it's quite an incredible thing. So what does one do? I think that instead of waiting for data, I think that you have to assume that you're going to go from 99 % share to 75 % in the next two years as an example. And you need to start asking yourself what will go wrong.

38:53And if you can ask yourself that question honestly and read TeamVat, But then I think the conclusion you get to is you need to start very aggressively integrating Gemini as the front facing window to Google link. But again, as I sort of said last week, that requires a combination of taste and courage. Otherwise what will happen is if you're waiting for the data, you're just going to get caught off guard because Apple will do things and then make a press release months after the fact. OpenAI will announce a press release, Facebook will do something. And what that does is it destroys the morale of the company, of the brilliant product managers of which there are many, and the brilliant engineers of which are many inside of Google.

39:37If you're sitting around waiting to react to some sandwich served up by your competitors, that is a terrible approach. Flee, what are your thoughts here on Google? You obviously participate in public markets. Is it a buy right now? I mean, I don't want to give investment advice, but do you think the company has the talent, the temperament to make these hard decisions and to turn this around or avoid the iceberg, if the iceberg being chat GPT and people getting answers instead of links? Well, I think you guys have summarized the situation pretty well. I would just add just a couple of small things.

40:15One is the market cap of Google is like 1 .8 trillion and that of chat GPD is let's say 300 so Google is worth 6 chat GPD and is that the correct ratio into the future or not. The second one is I was around sadly in the times of the yellow pages and I remember when the yellow pages the way you go somewhere to bounce and go somewhere else and basically these yellow links got replaced by the blue link and the yellow page companies went away Now part of the reason they went away is they were very levered. Google has no leverage, sits on a lot of cash and imagine what someone like Elon would do if he had to reengineer Google.

40:58I think they have, you know, it's a much larger company, let's say, than Twitter. So like the part that I'm wondering about, I haven't made an opinion on Google is like, hey, is this the next IBM? You're going to stick around for a really, really long time, but you're just not going to be like a company growing as fast as you use to and maybe there'll be little growth and you just sort of struggle ahead or can they completely reengineer their business? And they do have two great businesses, Waymo and YouTube and really cloud and all the cloud -lamp. So they have three great businesses and then they have this one search business like you said maybe it's 60 % of the revenue, it's probably 85 % of the profits because it's just so profitable.

41:42No, I would say 110 % of the profits. 110, right? So you're right because some of these others lose money. That's actually a good point. So if you put that together, it's just a classic innovator's dilemma. And imagine that they create a Gemini app and we start downloading the Gemini app. I would love to be the fly on the wall between the head of the Gemini app and then the head of like the search box. And they're both fighting because one guy is stealing the business from the other and and stuff like that. Personally, me, I found that these stocks, they're like a little bit too complicated for me.

42:19And I think that sometimes in life, you just gotta say, hey, this is just tricky. There's like a lot of forces that work. But the one thing stepping out that I would think about is there was this concept of the MAX7. And for the last two or three years, everybody is like, oh, you just need to own the MAX7. It's really easy. I can do it on my own. And I think what AI is showing is that, at a time of great change. And like you guys said on the show, a couple of you, AI is sort of precipitating so many fast changes. To me, it's a little bit like the end of the max 7. And what we should do is almost think like, hey, what is the next?

42:57Remember when the max 7 used to be fang? And then fang plus plus. And nobody talks about fang anymore. And now, I don't know, like with the max 7, the sexy 6, the fabulous 5, there's going to be a new index that comes up. And I think we should think about like who's going to be on the new index, which private companies, which public companies. And I think Google for sure has some struggles, but it's got a lot of advantages and a lot of cash. You know, to your to your to your point though, to just to add one thing, which I love this framing. Here's another data point. If you were going to make the case that we need to go into harvest mode and say we don't know the rate of change of the search business.

43:44So let's just have as much money on hand so that we have as much optionality. That's a very reasonable and fair strategy. You would probably not spend $75 billion a year of CapEx on making these models. The opposite is also true. If you're going to drain your cash at a rate of change that's greater than it needs to be to the tune of an extra $75 billion a year, there's probably a case to be made. Well, if we've made the cake, let's sell the cake. We've made the dog food. Let's have the dogs eat the dog food. It's the in the middle strategy of both spending the money, but then stagegating the product that is the worst outcome in my opinion.

44:24I think they're right to invest. I find these companies that decide to harvest, you know, the cash cow and buy all their shares back, you know, it never really works I think that the only chance that Google has to create an amazing company is you got to take some risks at the end of the day The man in the arena he who takes the risk usually gets the spoil and They've got to invest in the future. It'll be interesting to see if their shareholders, you know agree with that or not What do you do Jacob? What do you think? Great question. You guys teed it up perfectly. I think they're going to cut a large number of employees, get people to return back to office and take this a little more seriously on a corporate level because you got that sense from Sergei who's in the office every day.

45:09And I use Gemini and I have a sort of AI first company where everybody's required to do their work on AI, two or three different claw, Gemini, GROC, etc. And what I've been noticing inside these products is they're very deeply integrated. I got surprised just the other day I was asking it about a travel question and it referenced my g calendar. I didn't know they could do that. Then obviously you can use Gemini inside of Google Docsnet. They have four or five products right now that are one or two billion users per month. Obviously Chrome might get spun out, but you have YouTube, you have Google Docs, you have Android.

45:49They have such a data advantage and such a deep integration into people's lives because they use three or four services. I use YouTube TV. I use YouTube. And I have a subscription to that. YouTube music. They have such integration. I think Google is going to figure this out. And if they cut their team size down, the earnings are going to go massively up. And they're spending $75 billion on infrastructure. I think it's going to be... Would you integrate these models more aggressively into in front of the consumer? Or would you... Is this the rate that makes the most sense in your mind? I think you mentioned like maybe go all in on certain other services.

46:27I think YouTube search is the place to go all in. Right now when you do a YouTube search it just gives you 10 links, right? Just give you that rolling bank. You should be able to ask a question to YouTube and you should be able to ask questions to your calendar. You should be able to say, who have I met with over the last 10 years, who I'm no longer in touch with, and what are they up to? And it should do a Gemini search inside of Google Calendar. It's very light right now. And then if you did that on YouTube, hey, tell me everybody's opinion on Co2 and and their strategy over the years and how it's changed.

46:55And you ask that on YouTube, with all their transcripts, they can make a super cut of all of that. This would train people, you know, at the point of pain in a very deep way without sacrificing Google search queries, you know, too aggressively. So there's YouTube such a secret weapon. I hear you, I would just remind the Google management team that very, very, very smart people like Philippe and others who control trillions of dollars. I wish. Well, collectively, are not making the decisions about today, but are taking the trail of bread crumbs of what they see today and guesstimating what 18 to 24 months in the future looks like.

47:37And all I'm encouraging them to do is, I think that that data point from Eddie is the beginning of a stream of such data points. and I just encourage them to inoculate them from the morale hit that will come if they don't have an explicit aggressive strategy and instead if they become reactive to external data, it's really demoralizing. But what if they're actually cracking the data and they're seeing their own sense of search queries driving clicks and then driving positive response to the AI driven one box results that they show at the top. I think that's exactly what they're seeing. But they're just making the requisite balancing decisions, right?

48:27No, no, what I'm saying is that's absolutely what they're seeing. The demonstrated strategy is emblematic of exactly that. It's the rationalization. My point is there's something that you can't rationalize because you don't know until it's presented to you, which is what is the other company doing? They don't have spies inside of OpenAI. They don't know what the OpenAI product strategy looks like. They only hear a second hand what the OpenAI growth looks like. And all I'm saying is it's a bit of a sort of damacles. At some point the sword drops. You're not in control of it. And once you start to see a trend, that's the rationalization that I think puts companies in a very difficult and tricky strategic situation.

49:08It takes a lot of courage to say, oh my god. Like it's like Buffett said this like Buffett has this very famous thing of just putting his CEOs on this bottom saying Stop telling me all these things that can go right. Let's go paint the death case What can absolutely go wrong and bread team need the solution and then justify for me why you haven't done it and all I'm saying is If you start to think about like for example, you saw open AI today Fiji Simo. She's leaving Instacart, right? She's gonna go and be the CEO of apps inside of open AI. You're seeing a level of talent, concentrate that I have not seen since I was at Facebook.

49:42There was nobody we couldn't get when we thought we were building a model that was totally orthogonal to Google. Now it did not mean that Google diminished in any way, but it creates a different use case. In that example though, the social use case was very much non -canabilistic to the blue links. And to your point, David, if it turns out that question asking is not cannibalistic so search, Google will be fine. All I'm encouraging them to do is play the scenario where it is cannibalistic and figure out what to do. I think there's a chance that we're underestimating the power of Google's ad network right now.

50:22It's quite possible that knowing your queries in Gemini, knowing what you're doing in calendar, knowing what you're watching on YouTube could lead to a stream of more target ads that do better and are more valuable. And so we've been seeing a number of companies start ups, you know, in the early stages and year one startups that are figuring out how to use your queries and what you're doing in AI to present to you search results. So imagine you're doing a Gemini search, Tramoth and an Orphalee, but on the side of it, it's giving you a rolling list of ads or offers that you might be more interested in.

50:54That could be a better advertising product than even search itself, Rebert, your thoughts. Well, let me ask all three of you a question, which is since chat GPTs come out and Gemini and other tools like it, do you find that you're doing generally more stuff or less stuff? I find that I am using search a lot less. But the aggregate is your aggregate like usage of the internet to do things for yourself for work. kind of, are you getting more active? Yeah, I've learned how to ask things that I've always wanted to know, but didn't even know where possible. Right. But all of that to me goes to OpenAI and to X.

51:38I use it right. Right, that's fine, but I'm just saying, like if you were to, because what I'm trying to do is paint the picture of where the denominator of, quote, search queries is going, because if search queries is no longer the wrong way to think about this. No, I like your, I like your free, I'm doing five times as many queries, And I would say they're spread across a number of different platforms because instead of asking humans to do work I'm now doing it myself you used to ask a human hey can you do this research? I'm going to do it higher somebody who's a consultant now I'm doing it myself So you're on to something that the total volume the total pie could be five ten times better I think like a person yeah if if the old paradigm is like measuring search queries and quote market share as a function of search queries I don't know if I care about having 99 % of that or if I'm actually better off having 80 % of something that's now three times bigger.

52:29Yes. Where there's so much more use. Imagine you get, you lose 99 % of one bucket, but you're only getting 10 or 20 % of the new bucket. That's the bad scenario. That's exactly right. That is the bad scenario. That's the issue. That's right. That bucket is getting built right now and there are nowhere's villain that bucket. How are you going to show up in 18 months and say, oh, that new bucket, that's so shiny, pick me, pick me. This is why it's a strategic error. Well think about the let's say you're running growth at Facebook to mop and you guys have a new product you want to launch You've got a billion users.

53:02How do you get them to use that new product because Google has a chat GPT competitor? How do you get them to use that product? Yeah, I walked through this Last week, but I'll do it again, which is I think that today the part that I agree with you is this whole view on searches Antiquated and it makes no sense I think instead what you need to think about is where are the inbound actions into the house that is Google, right? Google Inc. And you have to have a very simple way of deducing what is the value of that inbound action. And if you rank them, the inbound actions to the Google search bar are obviously way more valuable than the inbound actions in all these other apps.

53:43I would start in those places that are more bottom of the list on the money side, but high on the list in terms of intention and behavior, and I would redo the experience around Gemini. But that requires taste and cannibalization that you have to be willing to take the hit off. Which service do you think is number one? YouTube? I think your idea, Jason, around YouTube is a very smart one because it's a jug or not business. I also think workspace. We use workspace here every day. Gmail, calendar. I think workspace could be really interesting as well. Gmail is a great one. Yeah. Inside of Gmail.

54:18And it is going to get better. Like there are smart people thinking about this. All I'm saying is that the market will now start to price this decaying. I'm long. Well, Philly, I want to know your bucket of what are the most important companies that matter the most? Okay. I'll try, but I have to ask you guys a question before. Do you guys think that the two founders come back in a very forceful way into the company? I don't know exactly why. But one thing that I was wondering, Chamath is you bring up a very important word taste. Do you have to be a founder to be able to impose this sort of new taste and you need sort of founder credibility at the junction at which Google is at?

55:03It seems like this is a big junction, right? This is the first time in their 20, 25 year history where I feel like, whoa, Oh, there's a real threat. How do you do that without the founders? And on top of that, they're alive. It's just they may not be able to come up with this. Yes, Sergey. Yes, Larry. No, Sergey's gonna do it. I think he's building up. The reason we're seeing all the events, the reason he's going to work every day is that he's building up his knowledge base here. And I don't want to speak for him, but I've seen him really engaged on this stuff. And the Gemini app is kick ass. And I've had long conversations with him about little details in the Gemini app.

55:37He is super engaged. I've had conversations with them about granular details of Google local and YouTube searches and how they should be presented in the results in the Gemini app. He's into it. But you're bringing up something which I think is very important. When you're at a junction, this important, who has the gravitas to come in and actually make a difficult change like this? I think in general, it's the founders. investors. And, you know, in fairness to Larry and Sergey, these are two brilliant, brilliant guys. They've done it once. And in fairness, they probably did it kind of a second time when they created Alpha Bet because now you have these other businesses that are pretty impressive.

56:17Now they're just going to have to do it a third time. But they're going to have to impose their will and they're going to have to develop some very specific taste. This is nothing against Sundar and the team, by the way. This is just to say that the only people that can come in and say, guys, we're going to make a change that could have this negative impact to a $1 .8 trillion company are people that are going to feel it the most, they will feel it more than anybody else. And so if they say that it should happen, they'll have the moral credibility to make it so. I love this question that you would just ask, Felipe.

56:47Go through your top 10 companies. Why don't you love the number? It's not top 10. What's the number, so what are the companies that matter the most? Yeah. Yeah. So I have a lot, I've thought about that a lot. I'm not sure, you know, great answers. But the first one is I keep defaulting to the number 25. I can't explain you why, but they're not a hundred companies. But if you think there's only five and all these money managers, you know, they have like five stocks that represent 80%. I feel the level of risk that you're taking is too high. And that one has to be, you know, I started with a public market.

57:26I would say most French people are not known to be particularly humble. But at least if you've been in the stock market as a French guy, you've been beaten up so bad. I started January 1st, 2000. So imagine what my first three years looked at. I got reduced to, you know, ashes just beaten up by the market. You know, we did reasonably well because thank God being a hedge fund, you know, you have different tools that you can do. And so I think you need to have a certain number of stocks. You need to know that some stuff you get lucky, some stuff you get unlucky, some stuff you get right, and some stuff you get wrong.

58:06And then I think that there's a second phenomenon once you agree to the 25 you say wait a minute why are there no IPOs? Why are these private companies amazing private companies some of the best in the world space sex? Strike answer that question why open AI why in your mind? I think that the cost of being public is too difficult one. I think the reputation, the regulatory, like you get busted, like left and right by agencies. And like when's the last time that a public company? I think that during the last administration, something like someone told me, I don't know if it's true or not, but I love the quote so much that I'm using it without checking if it's 100 % true or not, something like 35 % of the S &P had an issue with a government agency in the last few years, right?

59:12When's the last time that you guys remember a private company that has an issue with a government agency like I'm sure it happens but like off the top of my mind, it seems like a fraction of that, right? And then I also think that the private markets have become so sophisticated that in essence and it's like our private market, public markets that just trade three times a year. Like, you know, these companies, they do these rounds, you know, once or twice, they're becoming pretty sophisticated, they match buyers and sellers, and I think that's okay. And then the last piece, which I think that's a very bad piece for the four of us and all of us on this call and many of your listeners is that there's such a view that like large companies are bad and we got to bust them and we're not going to let them do any MNA and as a result of that small companies no longer get bought by big ones and for me to disaster because if I fund small companies but now you take away one of the best ways that I have to monetize my investment why should I invest in risky private companies I can just buy the public one and so I'm really hoping that as part of this direct or move and you guys and and sacks will have way more influence than we.

1:00:27But to convince people that in my mind, the best way to create competition is to allow these large companies to fight against each other. And the battle between OpenAI and Google is the best way to do that. But not by telling Google not to buy something or telling OpenAI not to buy something. Let's double click on that, Flee. I think it's a super important point to singles the doubles in the industry. I've been harping about this on this program as well. So we're some pateco. So what about a proposal where maybe the non -MAG 7, let's pick a number under a trillion market cap, under 750 billion, we let those companies buy and sell each other at a very vibrant pace.

1:01:05We saw a chance at GPT by a $3 billion company, I think this past week in the kind of coding space. Like I mentioned earlier in the program, DoorDash bought two companies. What if we said, hey, okay, we understand Google getting bigger, Apple getting bigger, Microsoft getting bigger. What could be an alternative? How does the S. How would be? But how does size make a difference to whether or not someone should buy a company? Very simple, because they have such a market dominant position. That's different. Let me just find out. Let me finish my sentence. They have such a market dominant position when a company like Apple has half of the mobile phones or Google has Chrome, Android, plus all these things that they could shove that product for free down the throats of users, price dump it, which is illegal.

1:01:51and create less competition in the future. But if you said door dash and lift or coin base plus a stable coin company, this would build the max seven to the max 70. And then you would have many more larger companies. What do you think of this? Philippe. I'll respond to that, because I don't think that that makes any sense. And I think that the comments you're making about size shouldn't drive these decisions. The fact that Apple, for example, has a minority market share in operating systems on mobile phones. Remember, Android is the majority. That's right. It's no longer true in the US, by the way.

1:02:29Right. Now, the US is pretty globally, right? And Apple comes along and says, hey, I want to buy a car company, or I want to buy something else. Why should that affect consumers in any way? What's so ever? The ultimate objective of antitrust authority is to prevent monopolistic practices that hurt consumers and hurt the market and take away options and choice and freedom in the market. But if companies want to make orthogonal acquisitions, if companies want to continue to grow and become a large holding company, why should we step in and say, oh, you're too big now? Ultimately, Jason, you could see that threshold very quickly becoming a slippery slope that leads to a general anti -capitalist concept where people say, well, let's stop all companies from getting bigger than a billion.

1:03:16or let's stop them all getting bigger than 100 million now. And that is a very slippery slope. Scale shouldn't matter. At the end of the day, protecting consumers from monopolistic or antitrust practices should be the objective of these antitrust authorities. Yeah, I think my response to that would be except in the case where the bundling, as we talked about in previous episodes, makes it so any of the large companies can just hold on. And we finish my sentence again. In the case that a large company could kill all the competitors instantly by price dumping. So you take something that people are paying for, you know, like say Robinhood or Coinbase.

1:03:53You know, Google buys Robinhood or Apple buys Coinbase and they just say, everything's free. We're going to make our money from our main business. Yes, it's better for consumers, but it's not as good for a competition. And in the long term, then you would kill all the competitors and then they can do unnatural acts. That would be the argument. I'm not saying it's a great argument. That's a great argument for what you're talking about. It is not a great argument for stopping companies above a threshold of market cap from doing stuff and coming up. It's also a low -threat shop. Because the company below a threshold in market cap could have the same effect as what you're describing in a smaller market.

1:04:26You have to be thoughtful about your 100 % correct if they're in the same arena. So Coinbase, Robinhood, and E -Trade merging could cause the same effect to your right. What are your thoughts on just how to get the country out of this debate? Because big companies bad, we shouldn't let them do any M &A. The wrath of Lina Khan, is there an off -ramp here? Can Trump just laterally make this happen? What are your thoughts? Or should he? Oh, I think that to me, one of the best part of being an investor of venture capital is When you have a really big idea and it works out, it takes care of a lot of sins.

1:05:06There's a little aspect like, would you like to play the lottery? If the lottery was capped, like, hey, if you win the lottery, you can't win more than 30 million dollars. 30 million is insane amount of money, but I read that there's some lottery guys who make one billion and two billion. And the reason why people are willing to bet so much and most people are willing to lose is they all think that they're going to have this one ticket that's worth a billion. And I think when you reduce the incentive, the financial incentive of, and I agree with Dave, like success should be rewarded as much as possible.

1:05:42But if you've done something wrong, then use these, you know, the existing laws to define what success is. I don't think you can cap, because once you start capping and then what happens if the stock market goes down, you then have to just recap. But I agree with you, you bring up an interesting point which is in these bundles, like Amazon Prime bundle, Apple bundle. There's a Costco bundle, right? We seem to be living in those word of bundles where the stock market is willing to pay 40, 50 times earnings just for the membership fee, as long as whatever you do on the side, you basically make no money like Costco, I think makes 100 % of its money more or less on membership fee and trades for 50, 60 times earnings.

1:06:29There is a limit to like how big the bundle is before you start dumping. So I don't think I'm saying anything super interesting. I just hope that you don't cap the upside because that's what enables all of us to fund these new companies. The reason why all of you guys and me were willing to fund this company knowing that many of them are going to fail is the hope that you get the power of an AI. Yeah. It's well said, the parallel. Traumat, I think maybe a good time to maybe talk about private markets and liquidity in VC, yeah. I mean, it's just so hard. It's hard to make money. And if you view making money as some and derogatory thing, and you put a bunch of impediments in the way.

1:07:19The downstream impact is interesting ways to make money will be out of fashion, and simple ways of making money will be the only things that people do. The problem is that society doesn't move forward if all you do are simple things. You need people who are willing to put risk capital to buy these lottery tickets, and And if you marginalize the upside, you're just going to have exactly that, a stagnant society of marginal things that doesn't move along. And unless people fundamentally embrace that idea, we're going to lose. We being America. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. last five year period in China or Canada, where both of them, two totally different political regimes, but they both had the same thing happen, which is the amount of investment capital that went into both of those countries fell off of a cliff for two totally separate reasons.

1:08:14What is interesting is going to be, what is the downstream impact of that in 10 and 15 and 20 years? and you can look historically back and we know what this looks like, which is country's stagnate. In the absence of investment in risk capital, so you will become a marginalized, also ran country. And, you know, not to slag Europe, but part of what Europe got wrong was that compact didn't exist to many administrators, to many hall monitors, not enough ability to put risk capital to work and actually get gigantic outcomes. So the most important thing we can do on that dimension is to figure out how to have less regulation, have these companies fight it out and create the incentives for for these smaller businesses to be bought and or to go public.

1:09:05So let's back this up with some data here. Nick pull up the chart on exits. This is an important one for people to see. We've had since the wrath of Leonicon last four years under Biden. You know, you had this 2021 spike of IPOs, peak is a lot of inventory, a lot of risk capital have been put to work for 10 years. And after that 2021 spike, things have been flatlined and companies are preferring to stay private. And now we have venture capital constricting in terms of new funds being done and people are making larger funds to do later and later stage investments. And Jason, it's constricting at the absolute worst time because what Philippe said before is we're in the midst of the early phases of an entirely new economy that's going absolutely parabolic.

1:09:51But the people that are supposed to accelerate that innovation and make these companies come to life are going to run out of gas because if they don't return money to their limited partners, where are they going to get the incremental capital from? Yeah, it's retail investors and sovereign wealth funds outside the US seem to be the answer to that question. lead to a normalized market, Philippe and Chimap. So ultimately, shouldn't the exit volume define the amount of capital that LPs should invest in this asset class to get an out a return that compensates them for the liquidity relative to public markets at the same kind of risk levels.

1:10:28At the end of the day, it is what it is and you're going to see a reduction in venture dollars and that's just the market normalizing. The economy only grows and only innovates at a certain pace. maybe is what the data shows. I think the way that I think about this as an LP, and maybe Philippe can talk about this as a GP, but as an LP when I think about putting capital into different funds, I have a base return in my mind, which is I want after taxes net of everything to generate about 10 % a year. That's where my risk of ruin is basically zero. It compounds to infinity. I like the profile of my return in my assets.

1:11:06How do I get to 10 %? Well, sometimes when I'm holding short -term stuff, I'm only generating 4 -5 % in paper. So then I have to go out on the risk curve. So I talk to a hedge fund. They're going to give me, 12 or 13 % net maybe in some cases. I try to understand their risk, but I can only get so much working. So then I have to go further out on the risk curve. Then I talk to some private credit and private equity guys who tell me, yes, I can give you mid teens returns. Then I do the analysis on that and I think, okay, I'll give you some money, but they are going to lock me up for five or six years.

1:11:36It's still not enough to get to a blended rate of return of 10%. So then I go yet further out on the risk curve. I call my friends at Sequoia and all these other places. And when you talk to the venture investors, the problem is you are so illiquid for so long that the rates of return need to be in the mid to high 20s net to me. But when you look at the data of what's possible, they actually look like a three and four -year hedge fund. And part of the reason is because of this strangulation of illiquidity that's caused artificially by administrations, by regulations, and by agencies like the FTC.

1:12:21The question is, if they didn't exist or if the regulations were a lot smaller, what What would the upside return be? It's probably 500 to 1 ,000 basis points higher. Much higher, 100%. But I think at current course and speed, with the lack of IPOs and with the lack of M &A, you can't justify that asset class on its own, in my opinion, unless you think about it as something that you're doing almost philanthropically. Unless capital comes out and then prices come down and then return multiples. Let me put some numbers on this. Here's the second chart, annual IPOs, and just give you some broad strokes here of how amazing 2021 was for a lot of firms.

1:13:06Rivian went out at 66 billion, a firm at 24 billion, Qualtrics, 25 billion, Robin Hood, which I was involved in when the first investor's 30 billion, Doolingo 5 billion, Toast, et cetera, Rollblocks, 42 billion, Squarespace. And then you had all this M &N, Square bought after pay for 29 billion, Zoom acquired five nine for 15 billion mail shipment with that one 12 billion Microsoft and nuance the spoken the latest model's 20 billion. Do you know what the distribution of these IPOs were by method SPAC versus direct listing versus traditional IPO. I don't have that here. We'd have to do it not just on the names but also on the amount distributed.

1:13:47Yeah, that's a good question. You know what I look at that data? What I look at if you just bring it back for one second is ever since you know the 20 and 21, which were very high. If you look at 22, 23, 24, and now the 25, I'm like, how is this that it's worse than 0, 4 of 506 that were normal years? How is this worse than 13 and 14 and 15? Yeah. And she scared that. She scared people. She scared people. Correct. I've talked to M &A people for weep and they have said it's not even worth bringing it to the point. And she doesn't want the discussion. She can't connect the dots. You know, she's like, I want people to not, you know, play the lottery anymore.

1:14:35I don't care for them. She doesn't understand that our system is based on this risk taking. And so listen, I think it's almost, I think it's also a change. It's also worse than that. I think that they probably look at like Adobe Figma and they look at the cap table and they probably just make a judgment that, hey, I don't want these people to be billionaires. Yuck, I hate these people. But they don't understand to your point the waterfall effect of not returning capital to all kinds of other investors who are in the business of taking risks. It's this like collateral damage. You know, one of the things I feel none of these people understand so well is like all the collateral damage.

1:15:14You think you're moving in one direction and all these dominoes sort of fall around you? Exactly. Well the second and third order impacts this cascade, you know, it's Ford foundation. It's Harvard It's California retirement. Those are the people who are they gonna be the beneficiaries and the third thing because I've been talking to a lot of Geographies in the Middle East, Japan, Australia, Singapore, etc. Asia they all want to recreate what we have here. Well, what we've created here in Silicon Valley and in America is these diasporas that start when a company like Google goes public. And then those people go create Facebook or go work at Facebook like Cheryl Sandberg did and they accelerate the growth there.

1:15:55And then those people become angel investors, they become LPs. This incredible flywheel was cooking. I mean, it was so smooth. And now we've literally stuck a stick in it. And the first look over. And you don't have the downshrew the fact of Canva in Australia, but I don't know if you know that company is an incredibly well They were are you are involved here? We're we're involved but sorry Just one thing I would add because it makes what you said so much more powerful on top of that when these people die Most of them gave all their money away to foundation which is something very different between the US and Europe in In Europe, a lot of the wealth, and in many other countries outside of the Europe, the wealth basically continues for generations.

1:16:40In America, these people built companies, create new companies, invest in new companies, coach new companies, mentor new companies, and where they die. All that money goes to foundation that continue to promote and do some of the work that governments were doing finally. How great is it that some foundations are competing with the government to decide what needs to be done? as opposed to a larger government, right? And so that ultimately serves the Doge mission at Lassien and those incredible founders who did Jira et cetera bought other companies, they wound up being the seed investors in Blackbird, the venture firm in Australia that did Canva and they were the investors in Canva.

1:17:19Both of those companies are creating this incredible flood of entrepreneurship in Australia. And we're breaking that in America, Australia copied that I play book, I want to know about the new fundraiser doing Philippe and why maybe you could explain to people. I guess this is one of these. What do they call it? Closed or open end funds and they operate differently than venture ones. And also the seating. You seated it in a very unique way with a couple of very unique family offices. Yeah, but guys are nice to ask and a couple of you have tweeted some nice things about it. So I really appreciate it.

1:17:53I loved it. I loved it. Let me tell you a bit of story behind it. So I was like, on one hand, you've got private funds. They're only available for the super, super rich. Like you got to be like a super, dupor accredited investor. You put your money in there and you might not see anything for 10 years. And then for me as a GP, every three years I need to raise a new one of these funds. So God forbid we have one fund that doesn't work and we raise the next one or not. So that was on one side of it. And then on the public side, what basically is going on in the public is very strange. But in essence, the black rocks of the world and the vanguards of the world and make it that almost everybody wants to invest in an index.

1:18:40And as a result of that, the people who are still active managers, they're all basically closet indexers because the risk of being wrong, you do better for 10 years than then you do worse for one year, you're out. So basically, the public market, everybody wants to index, which is I think why the max seven, you know, is so big and stuff like that. And the other part that's weird with the public market, is since everybody needs to be indexed, everybody needs to be fully invested at all times. I'm not why. Why is it that you need to be fully invested in 1999 if the P -multiple of the market is 60?

1:19:17Why is it that you want to be fully invested when you're already down 10 % things are not working. Why not raise cash a lot? So to freshen up your ideas a little bit, go take a long walk on the beach and try to understand maybe you've made some mistakes and stuff like that. So I've always wanted to do two things, which is one on the public side, have the ability to be different in the stocks that I own, but also that if I'm nervous, then what's wrong with holding cash? And I hate to put this in the same word, but you look at Berkshire had a way today and everybody wants to compare themselves to Berkshire a little bit, but Berkshire today is a trillion dollar company, a third in cash, a third in public equity, a third in private equities, right?

1:20:01And so I was like, okay, well, what if we have a system where we can be in public stocks, we can be in private companies, but we also can be in lots of cash, and where investors know, on day one, please, do not compare me to an index. If you come in, you gotta give me sort of five or seven years to do my work. And I'm also gonna let you take a little bit of money every year. So in essence, I'm willing to work at much lower fees because you give me capital for longer. But you don't give me the capital forever and you're not stuck forever. And so these interval funds are really interesting because I think the minimum investment is like $50 ,000 or something like that and the conditions to qualify for such a fund are much smaller So there's many more investors that can come and I look at it a little bit I've like this is the democratizations of tech investing and I really believe in it I've been doing my thing for 30 years for institutional investors why can't I do it for like people who don't have access to?

1:21:10Let me ask you a question. You have what, 53 billion under management? Something like that. Something in that zone. So I mean, obviously you've been phenomenally successful. Talk about the fees and the carry and how you decided how to set that and then tell us how your competitors reacted when you announced this fund. I'm very curious about that. Both of those two things. Yeah, so We got a little bit lucky in that we studied the fees of other Fund these are things are called interval funds and it seems like the fees were more like 1 .25 and 12 and so we're like well Can we live at 1 .25 and 12 and I was like yeah, you know, it's a really good deal For other people, but I get something for it which is I get near permanent capital.

1:22:02And in exchange for that near permanent capital, I'm willing to lay at lower fees because I think I'm going to be able to compound it for longer. So in essence, it's not like I'm being altruistic. I'm not claiming, oh, I just want to do a good deal for people. It's I'm being selfish. If I can compound capital at 12 .5 % incentive fee for very long time, it's better than 20 % for a short period of time. And for the investor, I love the fact that I'm sort of investing. Like if you told me, Philip, start from scratch, write on a little blank piece of paper, what would you do? I think all of us on the show would say, well, it would have to be something that looks like Berkshire had a way, right?

1:22:41Berkshire is the model. And you want to do cash, you want to do publics, you want to do private, you want it to be a good deal for people, you want it to be permanent capital for you, and you want to try to be able to do that for a long time. And I think that's sort of what those things do. And then I was like, okay, but then the problem is like you have a snowball at the top of the mountain How do you get it to roll into be bigger? And I was like, you know, we're not very well known. I have to admit this is sort of one my first podcasts, you know Ever so I really appreciate you're doing great being here with you guys So I was like I got to get the ball rolling at the top and so I thought okay Maybe I can get some tech entrepreneurs to help me out who believe in this concept that democratizing tech investing and stuff like that.

1:23:28So I went to see the family offices, I didn't quite see the founders directly, but the family offices for both the Peasos family and then the Dale family. And I sort of pitched them the idea, they liked the idea, then we pitched it to the founders and then we got to some agreement and they gave us a combined billion dollars to get going. And then we were also gonna put a lot of personal money in it and as I great and I had read I don't know if it's true that the largest fund that was ever launched was the one of the first blackstone song was 1 .3 so then I said okay I need to launch the fund that's 1 .301 like that I can claim that is the largest launch ever so I don't know if I'll get there or not but that was the idea and I think it's nice to have the backing of these guys so typically what happens is people come to see me in my office I'll ask some folks to do diligence and then I sign up to an LPA.

1:24:22Is that how this works? Like if I'm interested, what is that what I do now? Or is this totally different? You mean you as an LPA now? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Me as just a normal person. So this fund in particular starts to be marketed by one of the Wall Street firms. It's in this one, we picked UBS. They were the first ones who believed in us, but many other firms will work with others and we have great relationships with J .T. Morgan and others. So in time, you'll be available on all these different platforms. And then most of the people that we target usually have a relationship with a wealth management firm.

1:25:00And our hope in time is to work with a bit, the leading wealth management firms. And you can invest. And frankly, I'm like, hey, just start giving me a little bit of money. See, if you like what I do. on that, how many people can be involved? Because when you do venture, obviously, there are caps. You can only sell to accredited and qualified purchases. That's about a 6 % of the country. And you can only have 99 accredited investors in a venture fund. And then it's, I think, uncapped. And then you can have 200. You can have up to 10 million. And they can be 250. I did this when I did our fourth fund.

1:25:39And I had 120 million in interest. I can only take 10 million of the accredited's. So it really is capped in the venture space, but you're doing a different type of vehicle. Is there a cap on the number of LPs you can have? That's a good point. And of course, I knew I should be more prepared doing this. I don't remember exactly all the caps are, but the point is, is that the number of people that can join the fund is much greater. And the number and the amount of money that can put in is also much smaller. And as a result of that, you're reaching a wider audience. And that particular audience, they're happy.

1:26:12Because if you think about that fun, right, one thing that's a pain in the ass. How do you manage all the capital calls? They drive me crazy. How do you manage all the distributions? Oh, I just got some stock in a public IPO. Should I keep it? And I not keep it. Is it a good company, like Google, that's going to 20X post IPO? Or is it another company that I should just sell immediately? right? You basically have one structure, it manages everything, and then you get a $10 .99 instead of like a bunch of K -1. So do you think like Sequoia and Dres and Coastla founders fund? How do they respond? That's question one and then two, does it change the behavior of the fundraising cycle or process for you and your partners when you're evaluating companies or for the entrepreneurs, like, does any of that change?

1:27:01So how does competition react and then how do companies and CEOs react?

1:27:10Listen, when you start worrying about your competitors, in my mind, it's a bit of a version of the grass's greener elsewhere, and you have to focus on ourselves. It's such a hard business. There's so many smart people and this and that. But we tried to design something that placed our strength. And our strength was we got the public markets, we got the private markets, and then we've got risk management with the cash and don't want to be in and out. I would suspect that other people will do the same. Hopefully it'll be different because they have different strength and stuff like that. And I thought that what was nice for us is to sort of do this a bit of a hybrid Public private and frankly in private you guys think there's venture.

1:27:58There's the growth capital There's private equity this vehicle could own a hundred percent of a company You could do that you could go up and down So what is your plan then to do with private company specifically? Do you see yourself? You know leading a series there participating one of those or buying secondary and SpaceX on the open market it from former employees, maybe buying out strips of other venture firms that are looking to wind down or get early liquidity and you come into some mid -sized $300 fund and buy out 20 % of it. What's the strategy here with private specifically? This is a good point.

1:28:34It's a bit like, so what's your North Star? Don't tell me you can do everything. What are you going to really do? right and to me the North Star is Jason I got a build for you in 10 years the new Mag 7 that's my job so we know we know who are the 10 largest companies in the S &P or the NASDAQ today what are they going to be in 10 years some are already public they're just gonna get bigger and some are private so to that extent I I don't believe that necessarily venture is the right model for this particular because it's like it's a thousand to one to go from a zero to one million in revenue, then it's a hundred to one to go to ten million.

1:29:19That's the insight that, and you mentioned this on our call earlier today, that I actually think is really, really, really powerful. The Mag 7 was this set of correlated seven companies that sucked up all the attention, all the money, they moved in unison dollar for dollar. Now that that correlation has broken down, it allows you to ask this question, which is what is the real mag X companies? And to your point, if it's a 25 company basket, you're absolutely right. Like SpaceX would be in the basket. It's private. So, Stripe would be in the basket. Like so to be long, some rando public company because it's public and ignore SpaceX and Stripe would just be stupid.

1:30:07So to your point, that is really powerful. The optimal basket of the companies you'd want to own for the future, because of these rules and regulatory burdens, are partially public, partially private, and so you need a vehicle that can straddle both if you want to own it. Yes. I think that that makes a ton of sense. To me, that's the idea. And also like the people who choose to the max have a know it's like some employee at MSCI world or Something like that. Will you actually go out on a limb and try to publish what you think the version of that index is as you Constructed inside of that fund or we have some public requirements, which will force us To do that the private markets are overheated There's a lot of secondary offering so if you try to get into striped space X and roll or like there was recently one of these which robotic companies that has zero revenue and wanted a $40 billion valuation.

1:31:05And there's all these civilians, retail investors who are investing in your fund, but also have direct access to the secondary markets. I mean, you also have to buy at the right price and these, I know firsthand, for those top companies are massively inflating. You have $30, $40 billion valuations on companies that are pre -revenue sometimes. How do you think about that? I have no idea of the company you just referred to. I have no idea which one it is. I don't want to say, but yes. Maybe they did a trial with BMW that was in the factory. Or not in the factory. I don't know. Listen, human oil is a pretty exciting area.

1:31:40I don't know what companies are, but there is going, like let me end my top 25. I don't think it's so bit early. I would have a human oil company. I'd have a robot taxi company. I tried to find some, whoever is the leader, And I think the point that you make that's really good, Jason, is we also have to wait to me. There's two key things. Can I establish with 75 % chance that this is the leader? I don't want to do it if it's like a 1 % chance it is the leader. I got to pay more later. That's one, but two. There's one advantage that the public markets have over the private. That we know how to value things because we have comps and we know about revenues and profits and earnings and P multiples and stuff like that.

1:32:26Sometimes private investors, they just value a private company, like, hey, if the last round was a hundred, well, this round's 200. And I'm like, but why? You know, why is that? Where the CEO is really good on camera and finding a Twitter. And Twitter, right? And so I think that in the growth business, like being a public investor is important because it lets you at least say, if this company were already public, what'd it be worth? And then when you're on public company, the one thing that the private company gives you, if you want the public business, it gives you discipline. But what the private business gives you, which is really cool, it gives you the telescope into the future.

1:33:09And I think that to be a good investor, you need to have one side of your brain, which is imagination, creation, believing in the future. And you need to have another side that says a slowdown chemo. This is like 80 times earnings, and it's twice as expensive and be patient. And for me, the best investors are the ones where you sort of have the telescope in the future, but you also have the day -to -day discipline of the public markets. And as I said before today, man, you get beat up in the public market so bad all the time. because you buy something, it goes down by half. You know, in the private markets, it goes up, goes up, goes up, and then one day it just goes to zero.

1:33:53Yeah. Yeah, it's like we're out of business. Take the laws. Hey guys, some breaking news, breaking news. The Pope has been selected, and I thought, you know, since you guys haven't been here, let's go through it. Here it is. The smoke has come out and Phil Helmuth is home. Oh, no, no, no, no. What little work to be done on these language models? Oh look, here's another one coming out Tomah congratulations The first no that was a luxury lock in that black smoke that's black smoke oh no, maybe schmop didn't win it Oh, no, who do we got next? Oh She was trading she did better than you fully you didn't beat the Pelosi index so you don't become I'm hoping in a mention divine intervention on her portfolio maybe a little insider information, okay?

1:34:41Wonderful episode Philippe you're amazing. Yeah, that was great. Thomas. You got competition your big brother He did pretty well So now you know, we don't have to we have one or the other so we'll let the audience decide Forchimoff Polyhapotir you share my dictator for our czar who couldn't make it today and Your Sultan of science. I am the world's I'm just a huge fan of the greatest moderators. Thank you. Love you boys. Bye bye. Bye bye. We're like your winners ride. Brain man David Sackett. I'm going on a win. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. I'm the west.

1:35:22I'm the queen of kilowatt. I'm going on a win. What? What are winners ride? Besties are gone. I don't think that's my dog taking a wish to drive away So sex Wait at all Oh man My ham is the actual meaty athlete We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release that out What your feet What your feet Where are your feet? Beek and wet Let's get good We need to get my feet out of that I'm going all in

1:36:02I'm doing all it.