Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays from 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with full episodes posted to Spotify immediately after airing.
Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” TBPN has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella. Diet TBPN delivers the best moments from each episode in under 30 minutes.
Just a few days until Christmas. We're so excited. We're live from the TVPN UltraDome, Temple Of Technology, the fortress Of finance, the capital capital. No travel until Christmas, baby. No travel until the New Year.
Speaker 1:We're in the UltraDome hanging out. We're monitoring the situation. We're monitoring Always. The Paramount Netflix Warner Brothers situation because this is one of the most fascinating deals. The deal has gone hostile.
Speaker 1:Paramount has launched a hostile bid to acquire Warner Brothers. That's an all cash offer. 77,900,000,000.0. Really. Really.
Speaker 1:And it's a fun one because, I feel like it's it's obviously tech adjacent, but it's not it's not the story that people have been monitoring all year. We've been talking about foundation models. That whole story has just gotten a little bit Like
Speaker 2:I see media said, they got tired of not getting enough attention.
Speaker 1:Exactly. So
Speaker 2:let's spice it up.
Speaker 1:Spice it up. Here's something new to learn about.
Speaker 2:So Yep.
Speaker 1:Everyone's having fun. Everyone's learning new things. And I could tell because when I came in today, I had a bunch of questions that people were throwing at me about how all of this works. Why are why why isn't Warner Brothers just going with the highest price? Like, when I sell a stock, I don't care if Citadel or Jane Street's buying it.
Speaker 1:Like, if I'm selling $80 a stock, just give me the best price. But when you're selling an $80,000,000,000 company, there are other considerations, and it goes beyond just maximizing shareholder value. And so, I wanted to break down a few of those, so I did that in today's newsletter. We can run through that, and then we can run through some of the news. This this question, you know, it seems obvious.
Speaker 1:The board has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. That's legal requirement to take the higher offer. And yet that's not what's happening. Like, yesterday, we saw that, that Ellison and Paramount came in with over a 100,000,000,000. Of course, that included the CNN, the TV assets.
Speaker 1:But even when you broke it out, it seemed like it was very clear that Ellison was willing to pay more money and make a higher offer. So under what circumstances can a board whose job it is to maximize shareholder value not take the higher offer. They can't just they can't just be whoever we had the better dinner with, right, which is part of the news, of course. They they went out to dinner, and, Paramount CEO David Ellison sent a text to David Zaslov, who's running Warner Brothers, after they made a hostile bid today to buy Warner Brothers. And, David text the other David and says, David, but I guess he misspelled his name, even though that's his name, which is just funny.
Speaker 1:But, anyway, he says, I appreciate your underwater today, so I wanted to send you a quick text. Know that despite the noise of the last twenty four hours, I have nothing but respect and admiration for you and the company. It would be the honor of a lifetime to be your partner and to work and to be the owner of these iconic assets. He's talking about Foghorn Leghorn. He's talking about Porky Pig.
Speaker 1:He's also talking about Batman and Superman, obviously, and Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings and a million other iconic assets, which is true. If we have the privilege to work together, you will see that my father and I are the people you had dinner with, which I I I like that. I think that's cool. They they they had dinner. They
Speaker 2:It's a fantastic text.
Speaker 1:Yes. Yes. Yes. It's a great one. There are two main reasons why you don't just take why why your size might not be size.
Speaker 1:Directors at a company like Warner Brothers, they have to maximize shareholder value, but maximizing shareholder value is an expected value calculation. So if you come in with a $100,000,000,000 offer and I think there's a 75% chance that you're gonna deliver that and someone else comes in with an $80,000,000,000 offer and I think there's a 100% chance that they're gonna deliver that, well, expected value of your bid is 75,000,000,000. The expected value of their bid is 80,000,000,000. I go with the 80,000,000,000. Even though it's like a lower headline number, it has a higher
Speaker 2:How much of the calculus do you think is just a deal that will actually get done?
Speaker 1:A deal that doesn't get done could still have value because of a breakup fee. You could, in theory, go into a deal that you know is impossible. And and the example that I gave is, what if BiteDance came in? And they were like, hey. You know, we're a $400,000,000,000
Speaker 2:media company. To own porcupine.
Speaker 1:Love to own these iconic assets. Let's, let's pick up Warner Brothers. We'd love to own CNN too. You know? Who knows what we'd put on the TV?
Speaker 2:We already own TikTok.
Speaker 1:We already own TikTok. Why not CNN also? Why not Shark Week? But, obviously, the government would would block that. And we have we have CFIUS, which is an organization in the US government that determines whether or not an international buyer can take an American company because of intellectual property, all sorts of geopolitical considerations.
Speaker 1:We don't want another country cornering a market on a really key piece of the supply chain, like the NVIDIA h 200, for example. Then there's also just the FTC. So certain deals like the I gave you the example yesterday, like Disney. Disney would be, like, so blocked, I think, that that deal doesn't even get kicked around. No one even talks about it.
Speaker 1:And because it would get blocked by the FTC, but it would maximize shareholder value if Disney came and said, We'll give you a $10,000,000,000 breakup fee, and we wanna try and buy you for 200,000,000,000 or a trillion or 200,000,000. Like, you would immediately say yes because you just want the breakup fee. But having being in this turmoil and being in this limbo and not being able to sign deals with other that has an opportunity cost. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 1:And so you might want to back off of that. And so basically,
Speaker 2:Yeah. You look back at the Figma acquisition. Yep. Adobe paid a $1,000,000,000 breakup fee. So that's effectively like non dilutive financing for Figma.
Speaker 2:That has a happy ending because they were able to reaccelerate, get out into the public markets. But there was another situation where they went through a rough patch and actually really needed that capital Really? Yeah. To get through.
Speaker 1:There's basically two buckets of risk that I think most most dealmakers would be considering in this situation. First is financing risk. So will the will they come through with the money, and what money are they paying with? Because the initial offer this is the history. There's actually been six offers put forward by Paramount.
Speaker 1:David Ellison is putting on a clinic of just not taking no for an answer. Because all the way back on September 14, he offered $19 a share, and 60% of that was cash. So 60% cash offer. Then September 30, two weeks later, he comes back $22 a share and ups the amount of cash to 66.7%.
Speaker 2:Zaslav is doing a masterclass and making your opponent negotiate against themselves.
Speaker 1:100%.
Speaker 2:It's actually great.
Speaker 1:And so 10/03/2023 50 a share, 80% cash. Then November 20, $25.25 50 a share, 85% cash. Then finally, December 1, $26.50 per share, 100 percent cash. December 4, $30.30 dollars a share, 100% cash. Now why does this matter?
Speaker 1:Well, it's because you get locked into owning the shares of 40% of the shares is paramount, and then while it's closing, the the stock trades down, you wind up getting less value. And so the 80,000,000,000 today might wind up being 70,000,000,000 later. And that doesn't maximize shareholder value. There's also just the the just the question of, like, can you actually marshal the cash? Just like if somebody comes to you and you're about to sell your house to them and they say, yeah.
Speaker 1:I'm definitely gonna get a loan for this. Well, that's a financing risk. Maybe they don't. Maybe they back out of the deal the deal.
Speaker 2:That's why cash offers oftentimes.
Speaker 1:Exactly. If you can Super easy. Prove you have the cash, that that makes a difference. And, I mean, he's effectively gone and done that because he's teamed up with Jared Kushner reportedly and gone around the world, got got a whole bunch of different sovereign funds, and just really people any any one with big deep pockets is has has kind of, you know, said, yes. I'm I'm down to come along on this ride Yeah.
Speaker 1:And put up a bunch of the capital. The capital has been marshaled. It seems like it's ready to go. And then also, you have Larry Ellison, who has three times as much money, I think, than the whole deal value, something like that. 275,000,000,000 to his name.
Speaker 1:And he's old friends together.
Speaker 2:Not cash.
Speaker 1:Assets. Not cash. But
Speaker 2:He should not just I I know they want it, but do not market sell your oracle position, please.
Speaker 1:Yeah. But but but he's like, I'm actually I'm actually going all cash now. But but he's he's effectively acted as a backstop. And so everyone who's come in and said, okay. Who I guess I'm good for 10,000,000,000 of that 80,000,000,000, but only if everyone else is in?
Speaker 1:Larry Ellison reportedly has come in and said, well, you know, if if there's one person in the bunch that that backs out of their slug at the last second, I'll jump in and get that. That. He's not saying he's gonna put up the whole 80. He's just saying he's backstopping it. David Ellison feels very, you know, good because he's done what Zaslav wanted him to.
Speaker 1:He said, hey. They wanted an all cash offer. I brought them an all cash offer. I brought them an offer that's higher, and we believe that it's there's no reason why, factor number two should come into play. And factor number two is regulatory approval.
Speaker 1:And so there's been this question about, will Netflix get approved? If there was a different buyer, it would have even more regulatory risk. And so you don't want to even if the price is higher, you don't want to accept a higher price with a lower chance of actual actual conversion.
Speaker 2:Bobby thinks NLE Choppa might, up his offer to a 100 k of
Speaker 1:cash and get back in the mail. In that scenario, at least you know that the 100 k cash is real, and it's gonna be delivered on the day of close.
Speaker 2:Maybe in actual cash too.
Speaker 1:Probably. I I think that was the that that that is funny because that that was the joke of that meme was that he was giving, like, actual cash. When we're saying cash offer here, of course, we are not talking about physical cash. Is Tyler doing money spread? What does he got?
Speaker 1:Did Christmas come early for you?
Speaker 3:I so I I had a question, though. What makes the Paramount offer, like, hostile? Is it that it's, like, reacting to the Netflix offer?
Speaker 2:Is that the Netflix board
Speaker 1:Already or
Speaker 2:sorry. The Warner Warner Brothers board went with Netflix and they're coming it's hostile because they're saying, screw the board decision. We're we wanna go to the shareholders.
Speaker 3:Okay. Yeah. Because the it sounds like they had a nice dinner and the techs were, like, kind.
Speaker 1:Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Sound very hostile.
Speaker 1:No. No. No. Hostile in the sense of, like, of, like, not accepting the final the the like, the final decision there. And then and then also, there is a there is a point where you can appeal directly to the shareholders and and make the you can actually make the legal case that the board is not acting in in their fiduciary duty and in their in the interest of shareholders.
Speaker 1:But, again, these things need to be argued in shareholder lawsuits because it is fuzzy. Like, if if I say, I'm offering you a 100,000,000,000 and someone else is offering 80,000,000,000 and the board says, yeah. But that 100,000,000,000 has only a 75% chance of going through, you have to discount that. Now now the board says it's worth 75. But whoever made that offer can say, no.
Speaker 1:We're actually good for it. You need you should apply a 10% discount rate and treat our offer as if it's 90% or a 100%. And so all of those arguments, those can be made in the court, and the shareholders can, you know, react to that. And if the shareholders align and say, yeah. Actually, we think we'd be getting more money here with this with this deal, then they can push back against the board at a certain point.
Speaker 1:But yeah.
Speaker 2:Friend of the show, high powered media
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:Exec says, Zaslav has been architecting this situation for the last twelve months, sitting pretty, and he's a wild wily old fox and has what he has been shooting for. Two heavy hitters fighting over a deal. Don't doubt there will be a couple more turns here with the price or even another bidder coming in sideways.
Speaker 1:Which is remarkable because the price is so high already compared to where it was six months ago. Zaslav, it really feels like it's coming together that he will be remembered as, like, an incredible business executive for this deal.
Speaker 3:Possible deal guy of the year.
Speaker 1:He's in the conversation. He's definitely in the
Speaker 2:Sam Sam was Sam looked like he was running away with
Speaker 1:it Yes.
Speaker 2:Over the summer
Speaker 1:That's true.
Speaker 2:Early fall. But Sam ball control.
Speaker 1:He lost ball control. Yeah. There is a wrinkle that, that people haven't really been considering, which is, the fact that Warner Brothers Discovery holds massive a massive, often underrated vault of masculine cinema. And if this falls into the wrong hands
Speaker 2:What what does what is masculine cinema?
Speaker 1:Masculine masculine cinema would
Speaker 2:be dudes on So
Speaker 1:they own they own Clint a bunch of Clint Eastwood films, Dirty Harry, Magnum Force, The Enforcer, Heartbreak Ridge, American Sniper, Letters from Iwo Jima, Unforgiven, Gran Torino. They also own Rambo, the whole survivors to loan the Cobra Wing. Cobra, demolition man, the specialist, tango and cash, bullet to the head, get Carter, the 2,000 remake. They also own Mad Max, lethal weapons, all of the lethal the lethal weapons. The Matrix, Blade, Mortal Kombat, 300 Rush Hour, Pacific Rim, and a number of dad and military shows, Band of Brothers, the Pacific Generation Kill.
Speaker 1:There's a whole host
Speaker 2:They should release the full DVD set just called Guys Being Dudes.
Speaker 1:Yes. They also own some Jason Statham properties, the Meg franchise where Jason Statham fights a big shark.
Speaker 2:Woah.
Speaker 1:Wrath of Man. I I guess most of the Guy Ritchie films are actually with Lions Gate or MGM. But and and I think this could be a, you know, a big political hot button of what happens to the the Rambo franchises, the the the Hollywood hunks. No one's talking about the Hollywood hunks. Everyone's focused on Looney Tunes characters.
Speaker 1:But if the Hollywood hunks fall into the wrong hands, it could be it it could swing our entire culture potentially. You're hiding inordinate amounts of Middle Eastern funding sources in your takeover bid, are you not? Says boring business. And not hiding it. It's out in the open.
Speaker 1:Like, this is this is this is, like, the playbook for these big deals.
Speaker 2:Double double that of the amount of equity that the Allisons are putting in. Okay. Putting in around
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, I think everyone assumes that there'd be a lot of Middle Eastern funding in this. That has become the standard funding instrument these days. Like EA Games, we just followed that story a little bit. That was obviously a
Speaker 2:It's like 90 amount. 3%.
Speaker 1:Saudi money. And that is part of the modern deal making playbook these days. A lot of venture funds have raised money over there. A lot of the big AI companies have raised money over there. Like, that seems like a foregone conclusion.
Speaker 1:If you need money, you go where the money is. Why do, why do bank robbers rob banks? Because that's where the money is. Right? Trump says that The United States will allow NVIDIA h 200 chip sales to China and get a 25% cut.
Speaker 1:This is a pretty big change. I mean, we were talking about not selling I mean, I guess it's not Blackwell. Right? It's Hopper. So we're still a generation behind.
Speaker 1:But was this it it was like a pretty nerfed chip before. We're getting less nerfed. We seem to move we seem to be moving in a in a more thumbs up direction, more, let's let's actually get the chips over to China. At the same time, AI is fake, so it doesn't matter. Right?
Speaker 1:That's the take. The the pro China take is that
Speaker 2:It's SaaS.
Speaker 1:It's it's SaaS or it's not it's not like this, nuclear bomb that's going to destroy everyone. So it's harder it's getting harder to make the the the Manhattan Project argument.
Speaker 2:And it feels impossible to make the argument that we're gonna get them addicted to The US AI supply chain, and they'll never develop their own capabilities. And so we want them
Speaker 1:Well, disagree with that. I think that argument actually holds. That argument holds for sure.
Speaker 2:I mean, totally disagree. I think China's smart enough to know they don't wanna be dependent on any foreign country to produce any
Speaker 1:Yes. But I still think there's enough of, like, a market force within China that if we flood the market with cheap NVIDIA chips, there will it'll just be expensive for them to keep propping up their local industry. Even if they are aware of it, even if they know that they have to, it's a cost, and it's something that a lot of AI researchers over there will just say, you know what? I'm already it's so much easier. The NVIDIA ecosystem is so great.
Speaker 1:I'm just gonna stick with that. I'm a little bit skeptical that, like, there isn't there there's no advantage to to selling NVIDIA chips there. I've become more receptive to that argument particularly even though you have not. Tyler, what were what were you gonna say about this?
Speaker 3:Yeah. I was just gonna say, I mean, we kind of joke about this. Yeah. But it is kind of crazy the extent to which you can basically bake down all like AI policy Mhmm. Questions to like if you are AGI build.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Because like if you are if you're Dario
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:I mean, you shouldn't be giving stuff to China.
Speaker 1:Well
Speaker 3:You also shouldn't you'll like, if you are AGI pilled, you should be thinking about safety, all these things. Like, we had Keith Raboy on. Yeah. He's doesn't seem super AGI pilled. He's also like, oh, safety is a hoax, etcetera,
Speaker 1:stuff like this. Well, let's read through this Wall Street Journal article on the on the details of the new NVIDIA deal.
Speaker 2:Notable that this seems to have been completely priced in already because NVIDIA is actually down half a half a point today.
Speaker 1:Yes. I've it's it's been such a dramatic story all year, and yet it's always felt like a complete footnote in the overall financial performance of NVIDIA. They're growing so fast that, you know, I I don't know how many we're gonna get into figuring out how many h two hundreds they sell, but they would need to sell a lot to actually move the needle on this behemoth of a business, what is the world's largest company in the world. President Trump said he would let NVIDIA export its h 200 chip to China and that The US would receive a 25% cut, his latest bid to make money for the government in an unusual agreement with a private company. I have informed president Xi Jinping of China that The United States will allow NVIDIA to ship h 200 products to approved customers in China and other countries under conditions that allow for strong national security.
Speaker 1:25% will be paid to The US today. The move is a boon for NVIDIA, which has fought for months to maintain access to the world's second largest economy. The company had agreed earlier this year to give The US 15% of China's sales from a lower performing chip only for the Chinese to scuttle those plans as part of continuing trade talks between the two sides. Chips from the world's most valuable company have become a prized geopolitical tool. The h 200 has higher performance than the h 20 that NVIDIA was previously allowed to sell.
Speaker 1:Even with the US government taking a cut, the decision could be worth billions of dollars in sales to NVIDIA. In the most recent fiscal quarter, NVIDIA reported gross margins of 73.4% on $57,000,000,000 in sales. That is crazy. They can totally afford 25% for the big guy.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Right around that time quarter. Butnick was on CNBC. Yep. And this was the quote that originally ticked off the Chinese.
Speaker 2:He said, we don't sell them our best stuff, not our second best stuff, not even our third best. He said, you want to sell the Chinese enough that their developers get addicted to the American technology stack. That's the thinking. CCP basically immediately said, we don't want any of them now.
Speaker 1:Trump said that the government would take a similar approach to exports from NVIDIA competitor AMD as well as Intel, in which the government now has a 10% stake. We exported a ton of Teslas to China, and BYD and Huawei have now But arguably,
Speaker 2:completely leapfrogged. Completely leapfrogged.
Speaker 1:They did not become addicted to the American
Speaker 2:That's what I'm that that was the point I was making earlier. Yeah. You can make the art like, almost with every single product, they've said, we'll work with you to make this thing that you wanna make.
Speaker 1:We're really
Speaker 2:good at making things. Yes. And then they ultimately just make a better version of said product and make it for cheaper. And in the case of cars, right now, we're obviously not allowing these cars to be imported Yeah. Into The US.
Speaker 2:They can simultaneously say, we're happy to keep making you these things. We're also going to compete with you directly.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And you don't allow Tesla to export the amazing Model S or Model three. Does that slow down BYD's development of their car?
Speaker 2:My Or understanding is they were able to basically get a paid education making Teslas, and they were able to leverage that into making
Speaker 1:But that's about making the car there.
Speaker 2:NVIDIA has a Shanghai
Speaker 1:But that's research. That's not made there. That's not made there. It's very different when you're when you're saying, Okay, we're going to go and produce this product there. And you are going to get educated there.
Speaker 1:And the
Speaker 2:I world it's different. Worth But you remember, we've gone through this before, China's five year plans to create a domestic chip industry.
Speaker 1:They've been doing five year plans for sixty years.
Speaker 2:I know. They're building that's what I'm saying. And I would argue that it's working. They're not caught up. But they're certainly made, you know, a massive amount of progress.
Speaker 2:They've made more progress than any other country on Earth.
Speaker 3:I I think if you wanna think about, like, getting the Chinese addicted to our chips,
Speaker 1:it's like
Speaker 3:how addictive are the chips. Yeah. Because if you can make a comparison between, like, you have the NVIDIA chips and then you have the Chinese or, like, TPU. Right? Because the TPU is, like, in some ways, it's it's harder to use.
Speaker 3:The open source is not as good. Yep. But if it's just more economical, like if the actual hardware is just like a little bit cheaper Yep. Then it doesn't really matter how worse the software is. People will eventually move to it.
Speaker 3:Mhmm. So it's like the the I don't think there is actually that much like soft power in the kind of general open source stuff, like, that that in regards to, like, NVIDIA. It doesn't seem very addictive outside of it just being cheaper.
Speaker 1:At the same time, like like, we are America is very much, like, addicted to Chinese solar panels right now. Like, the Chinese solar panels come here. They're cheap. And so we don't wind up buying or building a domestic solar panel industry because just to get anything off the ground, you have to go in and say, okay. We're we're going to deal with having no margin forever, and no venture capitalist can underwrite it, and no private equity firm can underwrite it.
Speaker 1:And so it just doesn't really happen.
Speaker 2:Gavin It's pretty far up. Gavin knew we needed a new narrative. Yep. He said after the be the fateful BG two episode ended the AI trade Yeah. We needed a new trade.
Speaker 2:And now we're getting the space data center trade.
Speaker 1:Okay. Let's hear the space data center.
Speaker 4:Think the most important thing that's going to happen in the world in the next three to four years is data centers in space. If you think about it from first principles, data centers should be in space. What are the fundamental inputs to running a data center? Their power and their cooling. And then there are the chips.
Speaker 4:The inputs to making the tokens come out of the magic machines. Yeah. So in space, you can keep a satellite in the sun twenty four hours a day.
Speaker 1:It's pretty cool.
Speaker 4:And the sun is 30% more intense. And this results in six times more irradiance in outer space than on planet Earth. So you're getting a lot of solar energy. Point number two, because you're in the sun twenty four hours a day, you don't need a battery. This is a giant percentage of the cost.
Speaker 4:So the lowest cost energy available in our solar system is solar energy and space. K? Second, for cooling. In one of these racks, a majority of the mass and the weight is cooling. And the cooling in these data centers is incredibly complicated,
Speaker 2:you know?
Speaker 4:Mean, the HVAC, the CDUs, the liquid cooling. In space, cooling is free. You just put a radiator on the dark side of the satellite.
Speaker 1:It's fucking golf. And it's
Speaker 4:as close to absolute zero as you could get. So all that goes away, and that is a vast amount of cost.
Speaker 1:What are you going
Speaker 4:to collect connect those racks? Well, it's funny. In the data center, the racks are over a certain distance connected with fiber optics, and that just means a laser going through a cable. The only thing faster than a laser going through a fiber optic cable is a laser going through absolute vacuum. So if you can link these satellites in space together using lasers, you actually have a faster and more coherent network than in a data center on Earth.
Speaker 4:Okay? The user experience. You know, when I asked Rocket about you and gave the nice answer.
Speaker 1:This is crazy though. They've done a podcast together five times. Why is he asking Rocket about Patrick? I was like, what is going on?
Speaker 2:I would like to I would like to know how much SpaceX exposure Gavin has. You just put a radiator on the dark side of the satellite. Thermal engineers in absolute shambles right now.
Speaker 1:Yeah. People are not it's I don't know. People are so
Speaker 2:Casey Hammer says, to be fair, this is a big satellite. You need basically a lot of, mass in order to dissipate enough Sure. Heat.
Speaker 1:There's some massive news from Gulfstream Aerospace. The g 400 introduces next gen Gulfstream tech to its class. How has Mark Burns not been on the show yet? Here we go. Clearly don't have a no render policy over here.
Speaker 1:They're they're render axing.
Speaker 2:Is they're just not at you you think they could just be adding special effects?
Speaker 1:What do you mean? This is the most rendered video I've ever seen. This looks like it was rendered Okay.
Speaker 2:But here he is.
Speaker 1:2010.
Speaker 2:You think this is real, though?
Speaker 5:Bring Gulfstream performance standards No.
Speaker 1:This is like a green screen. Class.
Speaker 5:Fulfilling our customers' needs for a product line
Speaker 1:I knew
Speaker 2:it was too good to be true.
Speaker 1:And enhance every journey. You're like, this is real. This is what it looks like.
Speaker 5:With Gulfstream's signature combination of range, speed, and cabin comfort, The g 400 will provide unrivaled efficiency. Thanks to the combination of the advanced practice
Speaker 1:This is gonna be a hot Christmas gift this year. Absolutely. People will be wondering. Wing I think this will be top of this will be under the tree for a lot of people. Mark Benioff says LLMs are the new disk drives.
Speaker 1:Commodity infrastructure, you hot swap for whoever's cheapest plus best. The fantasy that the model is the moat just expired. Mark Benioff having fun on the timeline. I love that he's having fun. I love that he's he's taking shots.
Speaker 2:Don't they have an AI lab, to be clear?
Speaker 1:They were working on Einstein for a while, but I think that they they are very much happy to be a rapper, happy to be a buyer of LLMs at this point. Everyone that knows anything knows this. OpenAI is the next Netscape, doomed and hemorrhaging cash. Microsoft is still trying to keep it afloat while keeping it off balance sheet and sucking out the IP. So why do they keep getting funded?
Speaker 1:The whole industry needs a $500,000,000,000 IPO ASAP.
Speaker 2:This post would go super hard if you don't understand the Microsoft OpenAI relationship.
Speaker 1:The dynamics of the of the of the competition here feels like there will still be a lot of value. Even if it is somewhat commodity infrastructure, it's like, you know what else is commodity infrastructure? AWS, GCP, Azure. You get a, you know, an like, a a server with some hard disk on it. Like, that is commodity, and yet they all have 30% margins.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's interesting too. I mean, Burry has has, you know, positioned himself of of just hating any company that's overheated. ChatGPT having close to a billion weekly actives. And ultimately, even if they just compete in search, right Yep.
Speaker 2:At least it's a, you know, multi trillion dollar opportunity. Whether or not they, you know, fully execute against that is another thing.
Speaker 1:A hedge fund was ordered to pay a bonus to a trader who made 97% of its revenues. This is hilarious because when I read this at first, I thought it was he had made he like, his target bonus was, let's say, 10,000,000, and he brought in 9,700,000.0. And they were like, you didn't you didn't hit your bonus, buddy. You you don't get the bonus at all.
Speaker 2:So And
Speaker 1:I was like, oh, that sucks, but, like, that's kind of the deal that kinda makes sense. But, Evolution Capital Management has to pay him because he Yeah.
Speaker 2:So a hedge fund that was sued by a trader for refusing to pay a performance related bonus despite him making 97% of its revenue has been ordered to pay him 5,400,000.0 plus interest by the high court in London. When I read the headline of the story, I expected it to not be in the mid 7 figures.
Speaker 1:What'd you expect?
Speaker 2:I mean, I I was hoping at least eight. Yeah. Hoping at least eight.
Speaker 1:He's not getting a g 400 off of this.
Speaker 2:Robert Gagliardi sued his former employer, Evolution Capital Management, in London alleging that it acted in bad faith by denying him a 7 and a half million dollar discretionary bonus after he had generated more than 60,000,000 for the firm.
Speaker 1:Wow. There are some harsh words here. Gagliardi, a block trading specialist, alleged that he was told in early twenty twenty one that a return of $10,000,000 over the rest of the year would be an excellent result. When Gagliardi asked the fund's founder, Michael Lurch, for the payout in 2022, he responded, I'm not going to pay you the bonus. F you sue me.
Speaker 2:So Gagliardi did. Yeah. And he won.
Speaker 1:Saudi Arabia is loosening alcohol rules, letting non Muslim foreign residents earning over $13,000. You can buy alcohol.
Speaker 2:This is such a galaxy brained idea. It could only come from a mind totally disconnected from normal material reality. It is interesting. Imagine being Hey, like if you want to do drugs, if you want to consume alcohol Yeah, you've to be a pretty
Speaker 1:good number.
Speaker 2:But you have to be putting up numbers. Cannabis should be like $10,000,000 a year on your W-two.
Speaker 1:I was about to say. But you know what happens then? Everyone in America, you turn 17, 18, 19. You're not 21 yet. You get a fake ID to try and buy some booze.
Speaker 1:You're going need a fake W-two as well. Going to need to fake your income statement.
Speaker 2:Your fake W-two to the corner liquor store just being and then just, like, looking through every In
Speaker 1:Saudi Arabia so you're in Saudi Arabia. And let's say you're making $1,000 a year USD or you're making 10,000 rales. You need to go and set up a circular contract where you're a 17 year old, somebody else is 17. I pay you $10,000 You pay me $10,000 And then we get our
Speaker 2:a couple of times.
Speaker 1:Exactly. If you it a couple of times, then we're earning enough to go buy alcohol. We can go get drunk together.
Speaker 2:That is crazy.
Speaker 1:That is truly galaxy brained.
Speaker 2:Azari says they got their hands on some North Korean cigarettes.
Speaker 1:They did?
Speaker 2:They got them in a DPRK state owned restaurant from a waitress who was from Pyongyang. Basically impossible to find any background info on them online. They taste and look 100%. But I like the packaging. The packaging goes pretty hard.
Speaker 2:It feels
Speaker 1:Does. I can't support it because I don't support North Korea.
Speaker 2:Thank you for being with us today, folks. We we love you dearly, and we will see you tomorrow. We
Speaker 1:hope you
Speaker 2:a fantastic evening.
Speaker 1:Goodbye.