E76: Elon vs. Twitter

SPEAKER_00: You got like moisturizer all over your face. Are you moisturizing? SPEAKER_02: I am I'm just my skin is so dry. I just got over having food poisoning and I'm like I dehydrate. Hold on. Let me get this off camera. Look at this guy. You got makeup on. SPEAKER_00: It's not makeup. It's moisturizer dipshit. It's just as bad reason you look like the fucking SPEAKER_02: cryptkeeper and I look shy and young and she felt because I do a little skincare routine. Okay, give me a fucking break. Look at him. You turn off his camera because he's embarrassed. SPEAKER_00: But whatever he's doing, I'm not embarrassed. I just don't need you telling that SPEAKER_02: shit. Sax is in a fucking good mood. Just a lot of up 15 cents. Why are you so fucking happy dummy? SPEAKER_02: Well, the markets are closed today. It's Good Friday. So my stock portfolio can't be down SPEAKER_00: because the markets are closed. Thank Jesus. Praise Jesus. SPEAKER_00: Yeah, it's a good Friday. If the markets are closed, my portfolio can't go down. It's truly a good Friday. Your portfolio will rise again. And these be resurrected. SPEAKER_02: Nowadays, he works in DNA. But in the 90s, all I cared about was the MDMA, the Duke of DNA, the Titan of Tempe, the shepherd of the soy boys, he turns water into wine and dollars into dimes. He's a foolio for Coolio. The Sultan of Science himself, David Friedberg. Welcome. I have never done drugs just for the record, but go on. No, of course not. Of course, none of your behavioral problems in high school had to do. Yeah, neither has Jason. No, absolutely SPEAKER_02: not. Not this morning. He's the VC who loves brie. He'll sell you the sleeves off your vest. He's enthralled with green wall. He eats uppers for supper. The rain man himself, David Sachs. All right. Thank you. You're welcome, Dan. All right. Coming around the bend. That timepiece, what does it do? It reminds him of how much more money he has than you. The sweater is worth six times. Laura Piana is above his line. Your super villain with that 1985 Sasekaya. He be chilling. There it is. He loves spax just like junkies love crack. He's your dictator. She might follow that works. I'm like becoming the M&M of intros. I mean, I'm, SPEAKER_02: I'm rhyming shit. It's really solid, bro. I gotta say I'm where I'm working shopping it. I shout out to Nick and one person on Twitter of a hundred gave anything. I'm moving into my spring SPEAKER_03: sweater season. My swing sweater collection. Oh, wait, hold on a second. I just got a call. SPEAKER_02: Oh yeah. Confirm me. Nobody gives a fuck. Christ. He's the king of the name. SPEAKER_03: I don't think it's a name. It matters to exactly one person. No, the person selling you the SPEAKER_02: sweaters. I think if you took a poll on Twitter, there's a lot of people who silently hate it, SPEAKER_03: but love it. I think a lot more who hate it. Uh, let's get to all the news. So much news going on SPEAKER_02: all the news. Where should we start Jason? I'm trying to think about it. Was there any news topic this week? Because obviously the war in Ukraine has obviously got everybody in America. Oh wait, no, I'm sorry. That that's not important anymore. We're onto the next thing. It's only one issue. SPEAKER_02: You want to put it in a bid to buy Twitter outright on Thursday and take the company private in a deal worth $43 billion. Uh, the most breaking news when we're taping this on Fridays at 11 AM, when we typically tape this, uh, is that the board of directors, you know, the professional board of directors has decided they would like to get personally sued. I mean, this is the most SPEAKER_02: insane thing. I woke up and read this and I was like, okay, they're creating a poison pin. I'm sorry, a poison pill. That's going to give Twitter's existing shareholders the ability to buy more shares. If Elon hits 15% of the company at a discount, Shema explained the concept of a poison pill, just generally speaking, and then give us your, cause everybody knows what's going on, but like here we are in this, whatever, I don't know if this is the seventh or eighth inning of this saga or it's the second, uh, but where do you think we are in this saga? And then what happens on Monday and X describe a poison pill. A poison pill is basically a SPEAKER_03: defensive maneuver that a board of directors uses to prevent a hostile takeover. And basically the simple way it works is it allows the board to create enormous amounts of new shares and effectively dilute the potential hostile acquirer so that it becomes economically unfeasible for them to get enough shares to get controlled. The way that they do that is that they basically give everybody except a person that crosses a certain ownership threshold. So let's use Twitter as an example. So the Twitter's poison pill basically says that if you get to 15%, you're essentially locked out from a right that then everybody else has that effectively allows them to buy another share of stock at, I think it's a 50% discount. And so what it does is it creates an incentive to essentially almost double the fully diluted shares outstanding of the business. And what that does is it makes it almost impossible for the person with 15% to then go and acquire what's necessary to get to 50%. There are different kinds of poison pills. There's things that you can do with debt. There's things that you can do with equity. But that's the thing that Twitter did. I think if anybody's interested in it, Nick, maybe you can just bring it up, but you can Google on Wikipedia. There's a phenomenal article called Revlon versus McAndrew and Forbes. And McAndrew and Forbes was the holding company of this very prolific deal maker in the 70s, 80s, and 90s named Ronald Perlman. And what happened was he was the CEO of a company called Pantry Pride. And Pantry Pride made an unsolicited hostile takeover bid for Revlon, which made makeup. And basically, there was like 40 to 45 bucks a share. The board instituted all these poison pills. The price kept escalating. Then a private equity firm stepped in, also tried to compete for the asset. All along the way, there was enough shenanigans that essentially what Ronald Perlman did was sue Revlon, which went to Delaware court. And from it basically came the current framework of law that we use in this situation. And basically, what it means is that board directors have these fiduciary obligations to their shareholders. And in some cases, these are very broad fiduciary obligations, meaning do the right thing. But in some really narrow circumstances, all of that collapses, and their sole focus is to get the best price. And what a director and a board of directors typically wants to do in a situation like this is not end up in that second bucket. They want to keep all their options available. They don't necessarily want to sell to one person. They're probably going to assume they're going to get fired from the board. They want to stay on for different reasons, et cetera, et cetera. And so right now, what Twitter and their advisors are trying to do is basically stay in that first bucket, have all of the options available to them, and not be forced to run an auction. And I think what Elon will try to do is essentially use the public pressure that's going to build and the existing shareholders who own stock at 40 some odd dollars, a chance to basically get a 20% payday by selling it to Elon for 54 bucks or 53, whatever the price was. And the Twitter board now will have to justify how whatever they come up with is better than this, because then if they don't, and they're still exercising this broad fiduciary obligations, one thing I'll tell you as a public company director, it is a horrendous process when you get sued. And these guys will be in court for years. And the incremental pressure that this Twitter board has is that they can be held personally liable here. So I think it's getting very complicated, very complicated. On that note of personal liability, we have director's insurance. So SPEAKER_02: how can that pierce through? Doesn't cover it. Doesn't cover it. SPEAKER_03: Have there been examples of this happening? SPEAKER_02: Yeah. DNO insurance is kind of like, DNO insurance is their director and officer insurance is a SPEAKER_03: layer of protection that we all have as public company directors. We actually also have it as private companies. But the amount of coverage changes. But what I'll tell you is DNO coverage tends to be relatively nominal because the risk profile doesn't really include these kinds of tail events. And now what you're talking about is 10 to $15 billion of equity value that's going to either get created for existing shareholders or get taken away. And typically what courts will do is that they will look at the amount of money and they will start to think about SPEAKER_03: compensatory and punitive damages as a function of how much money was made or lost. And so you're talking about a realm of risk now for these directors that's well beyond what DNO insurance will cover. When the philosopher did happen, Shamath, you have to find damages. So if the board found a better SPEAKER_02: offer, great. But if this thing goes down on Monday, Elon sells the shares and it goes down to 30. Now you have the opposite effect. Go ahead, Freebird. So I'll say two things. One is all in all these cases, by the way, the board is indemnified by SPEAKER_01: the company. So the individual board members, I don't know if there's ever been a point in history when an individual board members had to pay out of pocket for liability associated with their actions as a board member and as a fiduciary, except when they've done something to benefit themselves outside of the company. Now, in this case, the job of the board is to use their best judgment to do what they believe to be in the best interest of creating the most value possible for the shareholders. It's very simple. When the stock price is at 30 and someone says, I'll give you 50 bucks to say, Oh, well, obviously getting 50 bucks is in the best interest of the shareholders. Let's assume, though, that you're on that board. And you know about some super secret plan that you believe in the next 30 days is going to get the stock price to 60. And your belief in that plan and your understanding of that plan gives you a good rationale for having a debate as a board that this deal doesn't make sense at 50. We should hold out until we finish our plan over the next 30 days, get the stock up to 60. And then we'll see if someone comes in and says, Hey, I'll give you even more than than 60 could be something on the product roadmap, right? This is the complicated point. It's not just about the current share price. And there's a history in the 80s and 90s, early 90s, when stocks would drop tremendously, for market volatility reasons, or very some bad news event or someone quits the board macro, and all of a sudden the stock price drops, and you have a hostile buyer that says, Oh, my God, this company looks super cheap. I'm going to come in and buy it while it's cheap. And I'll offer him a premium to the current share price. And the share price recently may have been much higher than the price that's being offered. And the board says, You know what, we're going to get back to that share price, because the market will pick up again, the things we're working on are going to grow us out of this hole. And so it's very hard for us to sit here, as I know that I want everyone here on this zoom, to suspend your Alliance to Elon and belief that Elon will do a better job just for one second. And just think about the board members. They've all been working on quarterly plans, strategic plans, etc, with the current CEO, and as a board for Twitter, that gives them a point of view that says, may give them a point of view that says, Hey, you know what, we can get back to 70 bucks a share. So remember, it was only a few months ago, Twitter stock was trading at 70. The stock price dropped with market compression, we've all experienced. And then Elon's come along and said, I'll offer you guys 54 bucks. And the board's like, Wait, a few months ago, we were at 70. We have all these great things we're working on. And so I'm just trying to paint the other side for everyone that this is not just like a clear cut, obvious deal. It's their judgment at this point that they should get more for the stock, given where they think the company's headed, and where the stock price will will eventually get to. All right, going to you, Sachs, you heard from Friedberg to suspend disbelief that the SPEAKER_02: greatest entrepreneur on the planet running two of the most important companies is not more qualified to run Twitter than the current. I'm not gonna suspend my disbelief. Let me make the case for the SPEAKER_00: clear cut for the clear cut case here. Sorry, let me just say something. He could be better at SPEAKER_01: running this company. Okay, he will be better, Jason, but the shareholders don't benefit from that. Because he buys the whole company for 50. They do all on. Yeah, they're getting $54 of cash. SPEAKER_01: They do not have any ownership in Twitter after Elon takes over. That's the deal that's on the table. So if I as a shareholder get $54 of cash, I don't care if Elon does a better job running Twitter down the road, because I have no interest. Suddenly, if one fact check on that one fact check SPEAKER_02: on that he said he wants to bring along as many as the deal Jake. Oh, that's a thing he said. That's SPEAKER_01: not actually in the proposal, right. So as a board member, I have to look at the proposal on the table, which is I got to take $54 of cash, okay, for my shirts and give up all the upside. Sachs looks like he's gonna explode. Fair enough. Look, here's the reason why fiduciary duties SPEAKER_00: exist. Let's just explain where this concept comes from. There is fundamentally a principal agent problem. This is what it's known as between stockholders and the people running the company. So in other words, the owners of the company are the stockholders, okay, they appoint agents, managers to run the company for them. But those managers can be conflicted. They have an incentive, not just to get the highest share price for the stockholders, but to pocket personally, as many benefits as they can. And the whole reason why fiduciary duty was invented is to prevent that agency problem. So if the board members or the CEO of the company are just looking out for themselves and trying to pocket personal benefits, excessive compensation, or turning down an offer to sell the company for a much higher price, that would be a breach of their fiduciary duty because they're looking out for themselves. Perog knows that if Elon buys this company, he is out of a job. His head is on the chopping block. He is fired right away. Elon has made that clear. He said, in this letter, on this SEC filing on Thursday, I have no confidence in the management of the company. If I'm unable to buy the whole thing and take it private, I will dump all my shares. It's all or nothing for him. So Perog is interested in preserving his job. If Elon wins this battle, Perog is going to have the shortest executive career since that pope who got poisoned, okay, to borrow a line from Wall Street. So he is incentivized to fight this thing, whether it's in the interest of shareholders or not. Now, why is... I think they're the same. These are guys who love the power they derive from being on this board. SPEAKER_00: We know Twitter has enormous cultural power. These guys, they enjoy all the benefits they get. They probably do get some compensation being on the board, but they enjoy being in this very exclusive club that wields enormous power over our culture. And they have no incentive to give that up. And by the way, how much of the company do they really own? Not that much. If you look at the wealth of the people on Twitter's board, and we know all the people SPEAKER_01: on Twitter's board, their wealth is significantly greater than whether Twitter stock sells for 60 or 70. And I think that we all know that these are all sophisticated actors. They are all high-integrity people. We all personally know many of the people on Twitter's board. I don't think that... Look, maybe there's a variety of people on the board. SPEAKER_00: They're conflicted. It's got nothing to do with integrity. The fact of the matter is... You could say the same about any board, Sax. SPEAKER_00: No, because it's different. Listen, when we're on a board... Okay, because I'm on plenty of boards. We own a huge percentage of the company. So when somebody makes a takeover offer to buy one of our companies, we are thinking like stockholders. We're fundamentally in line. You have massive skin in the game. Yeah, we have massive skin in the game. These people on the board, what skin in the game do they have? Most of them are these directors who are disappointed. And it is... It's like a club. These guys... It's all big back-scratching club. These guys are all on a bunch of different boards. You think they're motivated by the influence of being a Twitter board member? SPEAKER_02: Yes, of course. Why do they do... The nexus of power. Why do they serve on these boards? And that is what this is shaping up to be, is the nexus of power and who controls the power. None of them own much of Twitter. None of them own much of Twitter. SPEAKER_00: SPEAKER_01: I do 100% agree with Sax. I've always believed what I think Carl Icahn said, or whoever it was, that the board should be represented by the biggest shareholders, the folks who actually have skin in the game, the folks who actually care about the share price. Having some nominal number of shares issued to you as a board member of a public company showing up, patting each other in the back, it certainly, generally speaking, leads to non-founder-led companies ultimately dying because there is no motivation and incentive and drive from anyone. SPEAKER_03: Let me take the other side partially. I think you're mostly right. I would never join a public company board that I did not own a significant piece of, and I have never. Now, the reason to be on a public company board is that, unlike a private company, the single biggest advantage... SPEAKER_03: There are many disadvantages of being public, but the single biggest advantage of being public is that you have a lower cost of capital. So if you have an ambitious company, an ambitious leader, and an ambitious plan to build and compound value, you cannot do it privately forever. You must do it in the public markets because there's just an infinite amount of capital that's available and an infinite amount of ways in which you can raise capital relative to you being private. So with that being said, when you are public, I think the best boards are the ones that are sort of 50-50 split between the biggest shareholders and people who are very much experts in a handful of things, and I just want to be specific. In a public company board, you have to have a lot of focus these days on things like governance, audit, because you have to attest to these financial statements, right? Cybersecurity becomes a huge one because you have to disclose these risks. And so I think that it really behooves boards to have a few experts who can chair those committees. Compensation tends to be another one, as David mentioned, that can be a real hot button, but there are experts you can find. They're not going to own a large piece of the company, but they're going to do a really good job of managing those things. That minimizes risk for the business so that then the rest of the board, which are the large shareholders, can really use their influence and strategic understanding of the business to build huge equity value. When those things come together, you have great outcomes. But I really agree with you. If you stack the board, and we've had this issue, public boards in America got perverted over the last few decades to being these little badges of status that people would collect. And now we're starting to see a real pushback on what's called overboarding, right? Where these distinguished folks will pick up five, six, seven boards, all of a sudden that's the fastest way to make three, four, five, six million dollars a year. How can you sit on five or six public company boards? It's impossible and at any value. Exactly. SPEAKER_00: And do you think those people get appointed to boards by standing up to the CEO? No, the opposite. SPEAKER_03: They're there to be a safe vote for the CEO. SPEAKER_00: So let me ask you guys a question. What do you think is the right thing to do as companies that SPEAKER_01: go public mature and their ownership base disperses? So, you know, in Europe and Asia, many companies go public, families own them for a very long period of time, as you guys know, they remain significant owners, they don't sell off the shares. In the US, traditionally, as companies have gone public, the shares, the founders, the original investors, because we have a lot of venture capital in this in this country, historically compared to other countries. So those owners end up selling off their shares, and they get dispersed, and a long tail of owners end up owning the bulk of the shares. How do you think those companies can be best represented on the board, given that there isn't concentrated ownership in public companies, generally mature public companies in the US like Twitter, the largest, you know, owner is Vanguard with 5 million other investments. And then Jack Dorsey, he only owns 2%. What do you guys think is the right thing to how do you create good alignment with board members that that could be better, you know, placed and better suited here? Well, I think one of the ways that you do it is that when somebody wants to step up and acquire SPEAKER_00: a concentrated position, because they have a plan for the company, you don't stand in the way and completely thwart that your job isn't to assess their plan, because your job is to assess the SPEAKER_01: dollars you're getting paid today for your shareholders. And then whatever they're going to do with it, it's their thing. But are you getting a fair price is it? SPEAKER_00: Elon is willing to put massive skin in the game, in order to basically fix this company and get the best value. We all agree, but that's not about the shareholders sex. Like I agree with you. I SPEAKER_01: think Elon should own and run Twitter. SPEAKER_00: Let's evaluate this poison pill for a second. Okay, so Elon comes in, he starts buying up the stock. The premium he's proposing is something like a 50 something percent premium from when he started accumulating. 54% is like a 38% of 40% from the time from the time from the time he basically made the offer. And by the way, the stock is going right back to that previous level, if they turn down this proposal, okay, so he's made them a good offer. Okay, now, I think it'd be acceptable for the board to say, Okay, this offer is attractive, but we need to shop this, we're going to run a process, and we're going to see who else is out there. And if there's nobody better than we're, you know, why wouldn't we take this? There's one thing that's left over that you SPEAKER_01: didn't mention. The thing that's left over, you're right, they absolutely have a responsibility to shop it and find the best price. But what's left over is their judgment that the company's not right now get above that level. They have the they have the ability and the right to do that. And the responsibility to do that as a board. This happens all the time. The problem is the board can look at the deal and they can say, you know what, we believe that this business in the future is going to be worth a lot more than what we're being offered for cash today. The problem they have some inside information. SPEAKER_03: The problem with that argument is that this is what activist firms use all the time in reverse. The inverse of the argument is more powerful. You've been a director with purview into all these confidential plans that has effectively caused this company to tread water for five years. Why should we believe you now? And that argument is way more credible than actually you can really trust us this time. Because if you look at the tenure of all these folks, you know, the last sea change that happened on the Twitter board was when Elliott pushed to add, I think, two or three directors. But in the absence of that, I think David is largely right. These are status games. And when status games ultimately play out over years, they either play out in the stock price one one way or the other. And in this case, what's true is that this is a languishing stock that has largely been going sideways, independent of anything that's been happening. And what about the fact that that less than 90 days ago, it was trading at $70. You mean during the COVID bump? SPEAKER_02: Yeah, everybody was betting stocks. I mean, history of freeburg, it was $69. Guys, you have to give some context January 3, 2014, the stock was trading at $69. The fact that it got a ridiculous bump, like the entire market did during the Robin Hood stonks, you know, heyday during COVID means nothing. Right. That was market beta, not their performance. SPEAKER_00: Exactly. That's exactly that's exactly what I was gonna say this, if you could actually point to SPEAKER_03: some alpha, meaning there was a strategic misstep, or something that happened that was fixable. A better example would be, let's just say that there was a let's just say that instead that Twitter instead was not a technology company, but a pharma company, but this example would be easier to understand. The stock is at $69 and you get some interim results from your phase three trial. People misread it and the stock tanks. Meanwhile, the stock market broadly speaking is at the same level. You could say well that negative alpha can actually be fixed because of our strategic plan. But what Sachs just said is more true in this case, in this case, what's irrefutable is that there's been a broad based drawdown in the markets, there is nothing that you can point to that says this is something inside of Twitter's control to get the stock back to $69 meaning 69 three months ago is actually 38 or $40 today. We're at an apples to apples even comparison. So from there, the real question is this 20 or 30% premium to this, can you actually show a plan? I think the right thing for Twitter's board to do just to be very precise is the following. They have to take Elon's offer, and they have to create a go shop, I will go and try to get a better price, they won't be able to. And the reason they won't be able to is not a single person who is capable of stepping up with $43 billion would ever get it through regulatory muster, not going to happen in my opinion. And anybody with the 43 billion who could buy it will never take it on meaning could Comcast show up? Sure. Could Disney show up, they'll never even look at it. No, I'm not sure. I mean, I think it's a good thing. So there's a lot of things that we can do to make sure that we're not losing money. And if we're not losing money, we're not losing money. And so if we're not losing money, we're not losing money. So if we're not losing money, we're not losing money. That's good. That's good. Disney show up. They'll never even look at it. The people for whom this asset is strategic? Apple, Facebook, Google can bite dance. Amazon. Amazon could never get it done. SPEAKER_00: Nina Kann, no, Breno. I think that's probably right, Chumath. But there is a chance. SPEAKER_03: I just want to finish. I just want to finish. From who? Just let me finish. I got finished, Chumath. And then Saas who? So I think basically, it's like, Elon, thank you. We're going to create a go shop. We'll try to find the best offer. I don't think any offer comes in, I think basically it's like, Elon, thank you. We're going to create a go shop. We'll try to find the best offer. I don't think any offer comes in. But then I think what they can do, Freeberg, is if there is this magical plan to shoot rainbows up their ass, they should actually put that to a shareholder vote and let people decide. SPEAKER_03: And I think that's a really fair thing to do that also allows them the credibility and the air cover to say, look, we actually have been working on a plan. We think that that will create an amazing amount of shareholder value. And we just want shareholders to be able to see that compare it to Elon's offer and decide for themselves. SPEAKER_02: Who's the white knight? If anybody heard Comcast, we know that big tech can't do it because Alina Khan and then we'll go on to the next topic and the next nuance here. Sax, do you have anybody, a financial player, anybody who is a dark horse in your mind, somebody you know, I think it could be Disney. SPEAKER_01: Jack is on the board of Disney. There's a lot of relationships. Sorry, God. They tried to buy it. Bob Iger said he bailed on it. SPEAKER_00: Listen, I think there's a lot of companies that could be interested in Twitter. And I think you, you create the period to shop it to see. And by the way, listen, I think this administration does not want to see Twitter become a free speech company again. And so the political winds will blow towards letting, I think Twitter be acquired by a big tech company, even if it means big tech gets bigger. So I think that I think they will put Lena Khan on pause to allow Google to buy this company. If that's what it comes down to, you're kidding me. SPEAKER_02: Your conspiracy theory is that I will take a hundred to one odds against that comes down SPEAKER_01: to it. I'm saying Biden's going to whisper in Lena Khan's ear, put your thumb on the scale and SPEAKER_02: let Google buy this thing. I'm just saying the Dems can own it. The libs can, I'm saying, I'm saying if it was a choice, if it was a choice between what SPEAKER_03: David's saying is my enemy's enemy is my friend. And so instead of having Elon's stated goal, I guess what David is saying is instead of having Elon's stated goal of having a free speech platform at scale exist on the internet, which they may believe is even the bigger threat to political power, they'd rather it go into the hands of companies that will acquiesce to them, at least on the margins. SPEAKER_00: But no question about it. SPEAKER_02: Biden would tell Lena Khan to put her thumb on the scale. Chamath, do you believe that? It's the lesser of two evils. SPEAKER_02: You believe that conspiracy theory? SPEAKER_03: From their point of view. I do not personally, but I feel like I'm on the radio, but go on. SPEAKER_01: Yeah. Listen. Yeah. Where's my, where's my tin foil hat? And by the way, I just want, I just, just to go back, I just sent you guys, hold on one sec. I just sent you guys the revenue chart for Twitter. It may not be that impressive relative to enterprise software companies and others, but I want to be really clear. I am not arguing against this deal. I'm trying to give you guys the perspectives that we all have a really kind of honest dialogue about this, why this board may actually stand on their own two feet and win with shareholders by saying, you know what, look, our revenue has been going up. We're continuing to grow revenue. We're continuing to grow usage on the platform. We've got all these products that we're working on. There's a real reason that we're going to make more than $54 a share over the next 12 to 18 months as we start to deliver this year's numbers. And we start to deliver these product features that we've all been sharing and talking about in the progress we've been seeing. And that's honestly, I think the most likely kind of middle ground here is that this board has enough to stand on by looking at the fact that it doesn't matter if the stock's gone up and down. What matters is that they've been in their minds steadily improving the business and continuing to improve the business. And it is an iconic asset that the market should own, not a single person and yada, yada. And I think that's going to be part of the case. SPEAKER_00: Let me make two points. First, the problem with Freeburg's argument is that there's no limiting principle to this. Any board at any time could always claim that they've seen the magical plan and therefore they can reject the bid. You're right, by the way. That's the problem with it. And particularly in this case, we have to look at the track record of this management team, which is barely exists, but also this culture at Twitter. This is a company that's languished for years. The culture, look, this culture, a decade, this culture has been so inept that in response to Elon's takeover offer, they gave all the employees a day of rest because- Oh no, that's a reoccurring monthly thing. SPEAKER_01: SPEAKER_02: They haven't got a rest. No, they don't. Did it really? The employees were so stressed out. SPEAKER_00: The employees were so stressed out, they told them to stay at home and take it easy. This is a weak- SPEAKER_02: You don't know the emotional labor it takes to deal with this. SPEAKER_00: This team is weak. Okay. Soft. It's soft. A workplace and weak. And Elon would give the whole company an enema and fix this thing and that is why they don't want him taking over. You are 100% right. SPEAKER_01: But that's not the question at hand. But this is why you should not let this board and this CEO invoke some magical plan that SPEAKER_00: they don't have, that they never came up with and they would never come up with because this is the big excuse so they're not out of a job. But now let me go, wait, I never got a chance to make the second point. Let me respond to the tinfoil hat thing. So listen, what is this story really about? It's about free speech. It's what it's about for Elon. He said in this takeover and then at the speech that he gave at TED that, listen, this is not about economics for me. Twitter needs to be the open town square. It is the marketplace for ideas. We're going to make it a free speech platform. We're going to open source the algorithm so people know when they're being canceled, they know why they were taken down. Is that algorithmic? Was that a human intervention? This is what it's about for Elon. It's also what it's about. Hold on. It's also what it's about for all the elites, for everyone observing this, for everyone who's criticizing it. Listen, look at the reactions. We haven't talked at all about the hysterical reactions to all of this news that happened. I mean, there was a fantastic tweet here. Well, Business Insider said that Elon Musk's attempt to buy Twitter represents a chilling new threat. Billionaire trolls taking over social media. This is one problem. Back in 2013, Business Insider's headline was, Billionaire Jeff Bezos, Washington Post Buy marks a fascinating cultural transition in America. So these guys are completely hypocritical. When it's a billionaire that they like, they praise it. When it's a billionaire supporting free speech, they oppose it. That's what's going on. You had Jeff Jarvis with this insane— Oh, Professor Jeff Jarvis? Yes. Saying, today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar, Germany. I mean, somehow these people think that the re-institution, the restoration of free speech is somehow like the end of Weimar, Germany. And then I think probably the best example was this tweet by Max Boot where he says that for democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, i.e. censorship, not less. So in the warped mind of all of these elites and the media, the corporate media, they think that for democracy to survive, they need more censorship. It's crazy. SPEAKER_02: This is the worst thing the Democrats ever did is give the Republican Party free speech. That was our issue. How we gave it to you guys is just insane, Dave. SPEAKER_01: By the way, this is your bias in evaluating this deal. I want to point that out. You talk about the board's bias, but you do have a bias on—and that's not really the question at hand. The question at hand is $54 the fair price to pay for this company. No, I know, but it is also about free speech. SPEAKER_02: There is another issue here at its core. That's not—sorry. I agree it's not about the deal, but that is why Elon's buying the company. I agree. SPEAKER_01: I agree. I agree. He's not doing it for profit. I'm just pointing out that we all criticize the board and we all criticize them for not taking the deal. We're motivated generally because we want to see the deal happen. We want to see Elon do it. I want to be very clear. SPEAKER_03: A couple of things. First of all, the stock is basically the same price it was in December of 2013. Right. SPEAKER_02: Right. Okay. So— SPEAKER_03: What happened in the market during that time? It went absolutely up and to the right in a violent manner. SPEAKER_02: Right. So if you had a strategy to not grow and you deployed it, could you actually achieve this SPEAKER_03: performance? So I'm just saying that's just an objective fact that we have to keep in mind. Yes, that's true. Whatever has happened has collectively not worked. And it is systematic, meaning the underperformance is not a quarter. It's not in a month. But whatever has happened here collectively inside this business has not been working for nearly a decade. Okay. So just getting all the emotion out, that's a fact. SPEAKER_01: Right. SPEAKER_03: Okay. And so at some point people will say, well, the devil I don't know is better than the devil I do know because the devil I do know is destroying money for me at a horrific rate, which if you look at how the S&P has compounded since 2013 versus now, I mean, my gosh, if you had done a spread trade of long the S&P and short Twitter, you would have made a fortune. SPEAKER_02: How about long Tesla short Twitter? Well, I'm just trying to give the general market— SPEAKER_03: Spread trade, not— I'm trying to give you the general market math, right? Forget any individual stock. Right. SPEAKER_00: And look, Friedberg, it's not just ideological here. I think we all agree on the correct economic thing to have happen here, which is that the Twitter board should run a process. They should see if there's a better bid out there. If there is, you play for the bigger bid, make Elon come up on the price, okay? But if there's not a better bid, Elon's offer is the best deal on the table. I think you take it. That's what economically should happen. But it's not going to happen. And the reason it's not going to happen is not because of superior economics or a magical plan. It's going to be because the board members on this country club, they call a board. Their interest is to stay on that board. Perog's interest is to stay as CEO. And all the elite observers in the media, all the people denouncing Twitter— I'm going to give you guys some numbers. Want censorship to remain in place. That is what's going on. SPEAKER_01: Give me one second. I want to ask one question. Okay, Friedberg. You have a lot of Bitcoin? You have a decent amount of Bitcoin? SPEAKER_00: A little bit. Some. SPEAKER_01: Bitcoin's trading like 40,000. If I said I'm going to buy out all your Bitcoin for 45,000, would you take it? SPEAKER_00: Well, it's a different situation because you can't make an offer for that. And by the way, there's no principle agent problem in that context. SPEAKER_01: I know. It's a fully decentralized currency. But you have a point of view on Bitcoin. No, forget about the structure. I'm coming to you and I'm saying, hey, Sax, I want to buy all your Bitcoin for 45,000. What's your answer? It's trading at 40. That's not a share. That's not a share of stock. SPEAKER_03: Put it to a vote. Yeah, I'm trading. Then put it to a vote. Right. Let every single shareholder decide. Then put it to a vote and we'll see. SPEAKER_00: Yeah. And by the way, Friedberg, there's no limits on your ability to go on the open market and buy Bitcoin. So if you do want to try and acquire 100% of Bitcoin, go on the open market and acquire it. There are people trying to build big positions exactly that way. Yeah, exactly. So go do that. But there are huge limits. I just want to... Hold on. I want to have the ability of Elon to go on the open market and just keep buying up all of Twitter. And the poison pill is whack. And now it's this poison pill. Now this poison pill, they've stopped it. SPEAKER_02: SPEAKER_01: Do you agree with the poison pill, Friedberg? See, J. Cal, hang on. I want to explain why that is because this is really important from a corporate governance perspective. So people understand what you're saying is right. But the job of the board is to look out for the interests of all shareholders, particularly minority shareholders, people that own a small stake in the company. So if someone came along, let's say a private equity firm owned 60% of a public company, the board can't just act in the interest of the private equity firm. They have to protect the smaller shareholders. And so their job is to say is their upside for the smaller shareholders that their vote should matter more. And that's why we have a board to have that judgment debate and to decide. And I'm not arguing against you as much as I'm explaining what goes on in the lawyers meetings with the board. This is what they're telling me. I think they're saying your job is to look out for all shareholders. So Elon can go out and buy a bunch of shares. But if he doesn't have 30% of the shares, the board has to represent the interest for those 30%. Right. SPEAKER_03: That's how it works. I think what also works and what normally good boards will do, and I don't know whether Twitter will or will not do this, but I'm assuming they'll do the right thing here because we do know most of them. They should probably get a fairness opinion. I'm sure Goldman is doing evaluation as we speak. SPEAKER_03: But again, when you factor in what's happened to this stock over the last decade, and when you factor in the market beta today, I think you're going to have a very hard case to make that there is a path to an outcome that's a lot bigger in an obvious way here. And I don't think that that's going to pass a lot of muster. And so the problem that this board will have is justifying the alternative of not taking this. I think it's going to be harder than you think. Yeah. And I think it's going to create an enormous amount of backlash where there is a probably a lot of shareholders that would probably want to get out. You have to understand, like why are Vanguard and all these guys owning Twitter? They have to own it through these ETFs that they've created in retail. That's right. They don't necessarily have a view on Twitter. They don't have a point of view on the company. SPEAKER_01: Right. SPEAKER_03: I agree. And so they're out to just basically, so when you really boil it down, how many concerned interested shareholders are there? Well, Elon is clearly the largest there. And then after that, it's probably only 30 or 40 percent of the total outstanding equity. SPEAKER_01: I bet Jack has a really, I bet Jack is the linchpin in what's going to happen here. You know, his point of view on this transaction and whether or not Elon should be the steward of this business going forward and whether this is a fair price for him is going to sway a big part of how this process is going to go. SPEAKER_00: Jack owns 2 percent. Elon owns over 9 percent. Yeah. SPEAKER_01: But my point is, I think Jack's going to be a big opinion setter in that board discussion. And I think they're simpatico and they're friendly. SPEAKER_02: So just to give you guys a number to react to here, 2021 revenue is 5 billion. They have 8,000 employees back of the envelope, $625,000 per employee in revenue. Just looking at Google, which is the greatest business ever created, perhaps in terms of efficiency, as we've talked about, they have 135,000 employees and revenue is $257 billion, which puts them at two close to 2 billion, 2 million per employee. How many people, Sax, on an operational basis does this business actually need to run efficiently? 8,000? Yeah. SPEAKER_00: You could fire half those people or more. There'd be absolutely no impact to the business. In fact, they probably run better because right now they probably got too many meetings happening with too many people. We all know this. That company culturally has been broken for a long time. Elon comes to you and says, you're my guy. SPEAKER_02: You did Yammer. You're in charge. Would you run it, Sax? Would you take the seat? Of course he would. Of course you'd take the seat. SPEAKER_00: I'm going to be seen now, guys. SPEAKER_02: Come on. I'm going to be seen. No, I wouldn't. SPEAKER_01: You're a liar. Would you take the job for 10%? SPEAKER_00: No. I'm done operating companies. SPEAKER_02: I'm sick of it. What if your funds got to- I don't like doing real work. SPEAKER_03: Hold on. Hold on. I think this is time where we can share- I'm too old. I think it was six years ago, five years ago, I did approach Twitter with another large investor, but it was more of a friendly activist thing. David was our nominated CEO to work that place apart. Breaking news. Must credit all in. But now after that meeting, which was a little heated, the VP of engineering and CTO quit the next day, I remember. I thought that was very funny. SPEAKER_02: What? Just that concept of reporting it to Sax, they quit? They raged, quit at the possibility. We all have made this point. SPEAKER_00: Storms are like the NBA. I mean, you get to a certain age, you're too old. You're the coach. You'd be Phil Jackson. I'm done. Guys, it's flattering. It's flattering, but I'm done. I'm done operating. I'm so sick of all that. Wow. Who do you think- I go on Zoom calls a couple of times a day. It's a great life. Sax, Elon can't run it. SPEAKER_02: SPEAKER_01: He's got a lot going on. Who do you think should be the actual CEO, the day-to-day CEO there? SPEAKER_00: Well, I think Elon would figure... I think he would go in and figure it out. I mean, he is obviously an extremely competent operator. But who would be his guy? Who would be on the ground? SPEAKER_00: Well, he's got a lot of people he can probably plug in there. My understanding of the way that things work at Tesla and maybe Space- Jake Elton's running a good job. You know, SpaceX is... He's got some terrific young talent who he appoints to these sort of project manager or product manager positions. And he's got like 20 of them reporting to him and they run the company doing a whole sequence of projects in parallel. So he has like a bench, a deep... Like Elon is the new GE. Remember when GE, when all the talent used to go there? Elon's got so much incredible talent on his bench. He could parachute in some amazing operators there and clean up that place. It'd be incredible. The AI team on that self-driving team, which I've met and I've seen their work like, you SPEAKER_02: know, in private. And it's so impressive that if he took one of the AI people working on self-driving and dropped them into Twitter, one, they would solve the bot problem, the spam problem in 30 days with one. And if God forbid he sent three, they would solve it in the weekend. The fact that they can't solve spam and bots and other meshugana going on at that company is crazy. Right. SPEAKER_00: He would fix that. By the way, there would be less sort of, there would be less problematic content on that site with Elon running it. Why? Yes, there'd be less harassment. There'd be less harassment because he'd get rid of all the bots. He'd impose an authenticity requirement. Who's doing the brigading? SPEAKER_02: It's all these bot armies. The problem is they don't want the bots to go. Cause the only sign of life in that business is spammers and you know, all these fake accounts being created. So they're just scared to take that 20% hit. SPEAKER_00: But the site would be cleaner without it. But look, Jason, I really think that part of the problem with our conversation today is that we're viewing this whole Elon versus Twitter thing purely in economic and to some degree operational terms when really I think this is also an ideological and cultural battle or struggle. SPEAKER_02: All right, we'll go to that. Let's do it. SPEAKER_00: And this is why it's really captured the imagination of the public. There, look, what is the, if you were to sort of zoom out 30,000 foot view, the big struggle of our time politically and culturally is populous versus elitist. Okay. That's the big battle that's happening. Elon is one of the rare billionaires who is sort of anti elitist. He pokes fun at their pieties all the time. This is why they call him a troll. Okay. He wants to restore free speech. Somehow the elites are now on the side of censorship. Like Max Boot said, they believe that in order to protect democracy, they need more censorship. What they really mean is to protect their control over democracy. They need censorship. Why? Because they're greatly outnumbered. There's more populous than elitist. So if the more democratic this country becomes, the more they are going to lose power and be kicked out. That is why they are so fiercely resisting the restoration of Twitter as a free speech platform. It means the end of their cultural power. SPEAKER_03: The Axios headline encapsulates that to a T. I gave you guys the link, Nick, you can show it. The world's richest man, someone who used to be compared to Marvel's Iron Man is increasingly behaving like a movie supervillain commanding seemingly unlimited resources with which to finance his mischief making. I mean, what a like, are you really, are you serious? This is the same guy that's journalism. I mean, this is the same guy that's doing more on climate change and has been doing it 20 years ago when it wasn't popular and satellites. But I said this before, and space travel, and I said this before, but I just want to say it again. I think if he does get a control of Twitter and there is a strong, reliable moral force SPEAKER_03: for free speech, I think that's actually going to be his biggest contribution to society. Because independent of all these other things, you know, we want sort of this political philosophy of democracy and capitalism to roughly work together. And I think it sits on top of this fundamental idea that you can say what you think without retribution. And it's only there you can actually seek out different opinions and try different ideas and say things, and most importantly, make mistakes. And right now we have such a high cost for making mistakes that it just shuts so many people down and out. And if he does that, that's actually a really big deal, I think, globally. You know what that Axios headline could have said, Shama? SPEAKER_02: That could have said, Elon Musk spends significant portion of his fortune to restore trust in public square by open sourcing, but you can't open or hold on open sourcing the API and allowing transparent moderation. That's what he said in his TED Talk. SPEAKER_03: Jason, they can't because they lose power if Elon wins and gets control of Twitter. SPEAKER_00: Right? Exactly. Look, the corporate journalists like Axios, they don't make a lot of money. What they have is some degree of status, but more importantly, they have influence. That's why they do those jobs. And the fact of the matter is that their influence is enhanced when other people don't have the right to speak. And the reason why Elon is a supervillain in their eyes is because he's going to give the people their right to free speech back. That is what this is really about. And they are adamantly opposed to that. Now, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, every member of the press would have defended the First Amendment. They saw freedom of speech, freedom of the press as synonymous and fundamental to our republic. Today, they don't believe that anymore. History has been inverted. Glenn Greenwald actually had a great paragraph about this. SPEAKER_00: If I could just, you know, just in front of the fact that – Look, I mean, I'm going to Glenn Greenwald stand on a minute. What he said is that somehow these elites, they've somehow inverted history. So now they believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascist tyrants and authoritarians. Even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship as a key means from any power, but they instead believe that it is free speech, free discourse, and free thought that are the instruments of oppression. So that is what it is about. But the irony is that these elites now believe in the use of authoritarian tactics to preserve their cultural power. That's the battle that's taking place right now. I think they're conflating harassment on a platform or hearing opinions they don't like SPEAKER_02: with, you know, like actual censorship. There's going to be harassment, sadly, in the world. And you can build tools to mitigate that. I mean, one of the things I don't understand, you know, I don't know if you know this feature they added last year or so, where you can say only your followers can reply. You know, all these people who are complaining about harassment, I never see any of them say, my followers can reply. If they did, they would never have anybody reply who they didn't want to reply, the problem would be solved. So, lots more to come on this topic. I want to just get a long topic for us. Wow. Well, I mean, it's it is a lot of the perfect topic for us because you have freedom of speech, you have markets, you have governance. I mean, it's just everything entrepreneurship. I just want to end with, we're here 30 days from now. What is your majority case? What is your majority probability here of what happens? Give it a second. SPEAKER_02: What is the stock trading at and who's running the company in 30 days? Sax, your first. SPEAKER_00: Here's what's going to happen. This goes back to my tinfoil theory. I think one of two things is going to happen. Okay, first of all, Elon is going to be thwarted by these folks. He's not going to get control of this company. They're the vested interest in stopping him by the board by the new CEO, and by the corporate media and and and the political elites is too great. They will find a way to stop him. Okay. So there's two things is going to happen. Either the poison pill will win and Twitter stock will be down in the dumps 30 days from now. It'll be the same price it was when around that price. It's going to be back in the dumps. And to Chamase point, all these board members are going to be sued justifiably. So because they did not pursue the best deal of the company, or there's one other possibility that they will find a buyer for Twitter and that the way they will defeat Elon will be to find another buyer at the same or greater price. And they will place Twitter in the hands of another company who they regard as culturally safer because that company buys into the regime of censorship. And it might be Disney, it might even be Google. I'm telling you, I think that if Google were the company to step up, the administration would ultimately support that deal rather than Elon getting the company. And I think they would tell Lina Khan to stand down in that instance and let it go through. Okay, Lina Khan, you have that we will find out and I'm telling you in 30 days, we will find out how rigged this game is and how deep the corruption goes, because they will do anything to stop Elon from requiring this company, even if it means violating their fiduciary duty or violating antitrust law. SPEAKER_02: Okay, there you got it. Alex Jones position. Let's go free. I mean, I am not at all majority case in 30 days. I'm not at all as conspiratorial as Sachs. SPEAKER_01: I don't think that this is your first part, Saxio protect. I think that I think that we have a board of rational actors. I really do. I think that they're going to do what they think is in the best interests of shareholders in terms of price per share. I think that's how they're going to operate. They're all super smart, super ethical, high integrity people on that board. SPEAKER_01: Now, would I like to see Elon own and operate Twitter personally? Yes, I would. Why? Well, I think he's gonna be a better operator and he's gonna make that product better. I think he's gonna make the business better. I think it's gonna be better, he's gonna he's gonna have a much more rational view on moderation that I think has been lost over the last couple years. And I think he'll innovate in ways that we haven't seen in that business in many years. So I'd be excited for him to own that business as a user of Twitter. That's awesome. But I don't think that I think the board's gonna act rationally, they're gonna try and find the best price, they're gonna reject his offer. I don't think he's gonna up the offer significantly to the point to get it to get it done. They're gonna go out and run a long strategic process. Three months from now, we're still gonna be running that process. That process is not going to be done. No one's gonna have a real answer. Elon's gonna trail off and do something else. And this whole thing will kind of fade into the sunset. And the stock will be trading where in three months? SPEAKER_01: Thirty five bucks a share. SPEAKER_02: Thirty seven bucks a share. Yeah. What is the majority case here? 30 days, 90 days from now? SPEAKER_02: I think the 30 days is we're kind of kind of still be here. SPEAKER_03: I don't think much is gonna get figured out in the next 30 days. In the next 90 days, I don't think you're gonna see a better offer. I don't think anybody wants to buy this dumpster fire. Because you have to understand this dumpster fire is twofold, right? On the one hand, you have a whole user usage bot spam harassment problem. And then you have an internal issue around culture and monetization and all of this other stuff. And so you have to be really prepared to step in and deal with both of these two issues in a really definitive way. I think that that I'm not sure that corporate boards and companies and CEOs have the stomach for all of that. So I don't think there's a better bidder. But I think within 90 days, they're gonna probably first try to reject it. I'm not sure that that's in the best fiduciary interest of shareholders. In fact, I don't think it is. And I think to reject it would be more a sign of ego than a sign of logic. And then I think they are going to get sued and they're going to be embroiled in lawsuits for years. SPEAKER_02: No sale happens, the stock languishes again, stalemate, disaster. SPEAKER_03: Well I think by saying it, look, I mean, if you look at the stock, like a simple stock market analyst would say, whenever there's a merger announced, right, at like X price, right, like look at Microsoft and Activision, that's a better example. You know, Microsoft announces the stock was at like, you know, $57, $58 a share. Microsoft says we're going to buy Activision, I think it was for $95 a share, right? And if you notice the stock hasn't gone to 95. Now typically merger arbitrage, what happens is that the stock goes to one or two dollars of the acquisition price right away, almost immediately, or it goes to within five or ten dollars or five or ten percent and then it bleeds towards the M&A price as the deal gets closer to certainty. So when there's a big gap, what the market is voting is that the deal is not going to happen. And so when you look at the gap, Microsoft Activision, it kind of says it's going to take a long time and there's a risk that it doesn't happen. Similarly, if you look at this Twitter thing, why didn't it go to 53 bucks a share? It's because a lot of people think that the board's not going to do the right thing. SPEAKER_00: Agreed. The fix is in. SPEAKER_01: That's so conspiratorial. Sax, do you listen to Alex Jones? SPEAKER_00: The fix is happening in plain sight, Freeburg. Chamath just said it. Why is the price below $54? Listen, when a deal is going to go through, the price goes right up to like below that price. The fix is well below 54. I think the reason the price isn't going up is there is no buyer who wants this asset. SPEAKER_02: It's going to be years to clean it up. SPEAKER_03: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, SPEAKER_02: Jason, Jason. I don't think there's a buyer who wants it. SPEAKER_03: Even if you thought that there was another buyer that was going to come at a higher price, the money good thing to do is for people to basically buy that equity to basically bleed into the acquisition price. No, no, I get all that. Yeah, yeah. And so the fact that it didn't move at all, in my opinion, is a concerted belief that the board is going to reject the offer. Got it. SPEAKER_02: Even if there was another offer. SPEAKER_03: And what they didn't want to do is buy the stock at 50, have the thing all of a sudden get announced as, you know, we're not going to take it. Elon dumps his shares. All the people that bought the stock at 50 hoping it'll go to 54 would all of a sudden lose a lot of money because the stock would instead be at 34. So the fact that the stock basically didn't move is essentially the market's way of voting. This is a head fake. You should take the offer. The board's not going to end the stock's going to tank back to its other its original price. SPEAKER_02: My prediction is the board tries to fight it. Stock collapses. Nobody thinks it's going to get done. Elon lowers his offer. And he wins it by the end of the year and gives him a lower offer. You didn't like always with the optimism. Now we're going to 49. SPEAKER_00: That's very Michael Corleone. Now 49 and it goes down $2 every quarter until you guys we asked the end. SPEAKER_02: It's trading at 30. I lower my offer. SPEAKER_03: Jason, if you want to if you want to just finish with this little code of the the the Revlon story, it was actually kind of cool. Forceman Little comes in to try to basically give like a white knight bid. And what Ronald Perlman did was basically say, I'm just going to, you know, top tick every bid. He was pretty baller. He's like, I'm going to top tick every bid. So Forceman would be at 51. And then you know, Perlman would be at 51 50. We'll go to 54 55. You know, and so he was and he exhausted Forceman Little and eventually they're just threw their hands up. They said we can't we can't do this anymore. I want to I want to make a couple of movie recommendations real quick because I tweeted SPEAKER_00: a couple of things. They get no gate. There's barbarians at the gate in Wall Street. And you know, I tweet these things and they get no likes. I think people just don't watch old movies. These movies came out. They came out in the 1980s. Wall Street is one of the all time great movies. Certainly great. Probably the best movie business has ever been made. Oliver Stone directed it. Wall Street is yes. Wall Street is. Yeah, it's pretty good. SPEAKER_02: SPEAKER_01: I really like margin call. But yeah, I agree barbarians at the gate was better book. SPEAKER_00: We're more book. Yeah, was it was a TV movie with James Gardner. It was good. I was watching the book is excellent. SPEAKER_03: The book is next level. SPEAKER_02: I gotta go. Everybody love you besties. You guys back out. SPEAKER_02: Hey, everybody, we decided to split this epic episode into two parts one two parts. Let me get you all the Elon Twitter discussion out as soon as possible for your Friday night viewing pleasure. Stay tuned for Episode 76.5. This part two coming out in just a few hours. We're going to talk about the global food crisis. China's plan for food storage geopolitics, including the French election, and we got a bunch of all in summit talk. Everything's heating up. So stick with us. Let your winners ride. SPEAKER_00: Rain Man David Saks. SPEAKER_02: We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy. We're going to be the winners. We're going to be the winners. We're going to be the winners. SPEAKER_00: We're going to be the winners. We're going to be the winners. We're going to be the winners. We're going to be the winners. We're going to be the winners. They've just gone crazy. Love you, buddy. You're the queen of can do it. Bananas line. Besties are gone. OK. Oh, man. Man! My appetizer will meet me at the... We should all just get a room and just have one big huge order because they're all just... It's like this like sexual tension but they just need to release them out. Wet your bee! Wet your bee! Wet your bee! Bee! We need to get merch!