E120: Banking crisis and the great VC reset
发布时间 2023-03-17 05:48:16 来源
摘要
(0:00) Bestie intro!
(1:35) Recapping the events of the past week
(5:39) Understanding the banking crisis
(32:55) Solving the global debt problem, righting the ship
(54:20) VC market update: Founders Fund splits its eighth fund in two, Sequoia's reported returns, YC cuts its growth-stage team
(1:08:36) Science corner: Superconductors
(1:24:56) DeSantis update, Ukraine spending run rate, bestie wrap!
Follow the besties:
https://twitter.com/chamath
https://linktr.ee/calacanis
https://twitter.com/DavidSacks
https://twitter.com/friedberg
Follow the pod:
https://twitter.com/theallinpod
https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast
Intro Music Credit:
https://rb.gy/tppkzl
https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg
Intro Video Credit:
https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect
Referenced in the show:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4565388-svb-financial-blow-up-risk
https://www.wsj.com/articles/easy-loans-great-service-why-silicon-valley-loved-silicon-valley-bank-6b3f203e
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-silicon-valley-bank-bailout-chorus-yellen-treasury-fed-fdic-deposit-limit-dodd-frank-run-cc80761e
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-16/credit-suisse-got-its-lifeline-now-it-needs-to-win-back-clients
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-15/credit-suisse-top-shareholder-rules-out-more-assistance-to-bank-lf9gfhbr
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/16/world/france-pension-vote#france-pension-vote
https://www.politico.eu/article/police-fire-dutch-farmer-protest-nitrogen-emission-cut
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64968795
https://www.treasurydirect.gov
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/03/founders-fund-slashes-vc-peter-thiel
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/15/stripe-50-billion
https://www.businessinsider.com/sequoia-capital-venture-capital-returns-university-of-california-2023-3
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiger-global-writes-down-venture-funds-bets-by-33-in-2022-3f9f6ade
https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/13/y-combinator-cuts-nearly-20-of-staff-scales-back-growth-stage-investments
https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1633570102326202368
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05742-0
https://youtu.be/4lE8QWtrEvQ
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/desantis-ukraine-pro-russia-position-gop-presidential-nomination/673392
#allin #tech #news
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
All right, everybody, welcome to the all in podcast and with me again this week, the Sultan of science, the principal panic attacks, the queen of Kenwa David Friedberg, the dictator, Dr.
大家好，欢迎收听《全程参与播客》。这一周我又和大家见面了，我们有科学界的苏丹，惊恐症首席治疗师，肯沃食品女王大卫·弗里德伯格，还有独裁者医生。
So what's the amuse bouge? I did her every time he said something he yelled like he was in all I want another butter Scotch pudding The butter Scotch pudding is delightful I'm four feet away from you Jake how you take the cab slot Sean was so I'm there chef Sean crushed it Chef Sean crushed it once again Were you sounding alarms when the restaurant like almost ran out of something? Alert alert alert restaurant is running low on coffee. We're dangerous
那么这个小开胃菜是什么？每次他说话的时候我都可以听到他咆哮，就像他在喊叫。我想再来一份黄油布丁，黄油布丁很可口。我距离你有四英尺远，Jake，你怎么打车位啊？肖恩是主厨，他很棒。肖恩又一次表现出色。当餐厅的某种东西快要用完时，你是否会发出警报？警报，警报，餐厅的咖啡快要用完了，我们很危险。
All right everybody welcome to the pod where we you know try to inform you We try to make some jokes here. I just want to make what is a little bit of an opening statement here It's not an apology and it's not a victory lap in any way but there's been a lot of attention I think on the last episode of the pod and perhaps some tweeting from two of the four besties this past weekend I Saw and I you know I'll let you speak for yourself here sacks and we're gonna get into the timeline of what's occurred and And then what are potential outcomes here in solutions to the banking issues that we've witnessed in What is a week since the bank run on Silicon Valley Bank and the shutdown on Friday?
大家好，欢迎来到我们的播客节目，在这里我们试图告知你们一些信息，同时也会加入一些笑话。我想在这里做一个开场陈述，这不是道歉，也不是任何胜利的庆祝，但在上一期节目中，有很多关注度，可能是由于四位最好的友人中的两位在上周末发了一些推文。我看了一下，Sacks你可以说说你自己。我们将进一步讨论发生的事情时间线，以及在银行问题上我们所遇到的潜在结果和解决方案。这是自硅谷银行发生银行运动和周五停业以来的一周。
But what I saw and again speaking only for myself here was absolutely terrifying up close and personally Watching people pulling money out of banks and watching people have to set up loans to hit their payroll and This was like one of those surreal moments in a in a movie where like a meteor is coming towards earth and you see it in the telescope and nobody I'll see is it or only a small number of people in the observatory see it and I think part of the reason people listen to this podcast is because we are insiders and speaking again just for myself I'm always trying to be exceptionally candid and transparent with the audience Additionally, I make jokes so sometimes you might laugh during this podcast or you might laugh when you're reading my tweets and And that's part of what I do now I also realize that we have an audience now that is larger than I think any of us expected for this podcast
但是，我所看到的，仅代表我自己的观点，近距离亲眼目睹了让人绝望的场面，看着人们从银行里取钱，看着人们不得不设置贷款来支付工资，这就像电影中的超现实时刻之一，就像一颗陨石朝着地球飞来，你通过望远镜看到它，但没有人会看到，或只有天文台里的少数人会看到。我想人们之所以聆听这个播客，一部分原因是因为我们是行业内部人士，而我个人非常诚实透明地与受众交流。另外，我也会开些玩笑，所以有时你可能会在这个播客中笑，或者在阅读我的推文时笑。这也是我现在做的一部分工作。我也意识到，我们的受众现在比我们预期的任何一个播客都要大。
I certainly Magneto larger than I expected and frankly, I know if this podcast was gonna make a past 50 or 100 episodes and my Twitter following count doubled since we started this podcast and Because you tried to ruin the pot. I think it was because of the caps lock, but anyway putting on that aside
我真的感到很惊讶，Magneto比我想象中的要大得多。老实说，我知道这个播客会过50或100个剧集，而且自从我们开始这个播客后，我的Twitter粉丝数量翻了一番。你试图破坏这个计划，我认为这可能是因为你用了大写锁定键，但无论如何，我们不妨把这些放在一边。
What I would like to say as well is like We are living in a situation that is unprecedented I think the alarm bell I sounded you know was because I saw a fire We'll get into the timeline here, but I sounded that alarm bell after Silicon Valley bank Was put into receivership and when I saw additional bank runs occurring I wouldn't change it I think these were the right the right thing to do was to inform folks now I did use all caps perhaps a little too much That was a little bit of a bit if people didn't understand that maybe I need to adjust my Communication style now that this thing is so popular but I stand by My mode of operating in the world, which is I always want to be candid with people I always want to tell the truth and yes sometimes I make jokes about life and You know dealing with these stressful situations.
我想说的另外一件事是，我们现在生活在一个前所未有的局面中。我觉得我发出警报的原因是我看到了火情。让我们来看一下时间线，但是在硅谷银行被接管并出现额外的银行挤兑后，我发出了这个警报，我认为这样做是正确的，因为我想告诉人们。我可能用了太多大写字母，如果人们不理解，也许我需要调整我的交流方式，但我仍然坚持我在世界上的操作方式，那就是我总是想坦率地告诉人们真相，有时我也开玩笑，但处理这些压力情况仍然很重要。
That's it. It's not an apology it's more of an explainer and Yeah, maybe I need to adjust the caps lock or how I deliver stuff But I stand by the message of what I said and I think it's important for us to maybe look at The series of events and misinformation that has spread because there are people literally blaming Venture capitalist for the bank run that is now systematic and The balance sheets of multiple banks around the world and I think that should be great for you to maybe just comment on The week that was and the timeline of events.
这就是它。这不是道歉，更多的是解释。也许我需要调整大写锁定键或者我的表达方式，但我坚持我所说的信息，我认为我们也需要关注因为有一些人正在把风险投资家归责于现在全球银行出现的系统性危机和多个银行资产负债表的误解和事件。或许你可以谈谈上周发生了什么和事件的时间线。
Yeah, so as usual. You're not apologizing. No, absolutely not apologizing But we'll recognize that this platform is bigger and that maybe on the margins I could adjust my communication strategy, but Chris There's a lot of people who don't know that I make jokes and maybe people don't understand when I'm joking and when I'm serious, right? And so Jason what would you change?
嗯，像往常一样。你不道歉。不，绝对不道歉。但是我们会认识到这个平台更大，在边缘地带，我或许可以调整我的交流策略。但是，Chris，还有很多人不知道我在开玩笑，也许人们不理解我什么时候是开玩笑，什么时候是认真的，对吧？那么，Jason，你会改变什么？
Is there anything you change? Jamal I Think I might not have used a Mad Max image and gift about the end of the world Because people are too stupid to understand that's a joke and a fictional movie. I see so you find yelling effective It depends.
你有什么要改变的吗？贾迈尔，我想我在关于世界末日的问题上可能不应该使用疯狂的麦克斯形象和礼物，因为人们太愚蠢了，不理解那只是一个玩笑和虚构的电影。我明白了，所以你认为大喊大叫是有效的吗？这要看情况。
Well, Jake. I agree that I don't think you have anything to apologize for in terms of the substance So what you're trying to get across I personally could have done without the all caps. It was a bit Yeah, what you're basically saying is nobody should listen to you because you're not that important and I I'm gonna agree with that
嗯，杰克。我同意你没有必要为内容道歉。但是，我认为你不需要使用大写字母来强调。有点过了。你想表达的是没有人需要听你说话，因为你并不重要，对吗？我同意这一点。
No, I'm saying understand I might make a joke consider me more of course Of course category.
不，我的意思是理解我可能会开玩笑，把我当成更加幽默的类别当然可以。
Yeah, all right. Let's go back Let's go back and look at the timeline because there are now serious accusations and I would call it really scapegoating And it wasn't just you it was me and Bill Ackman in fact the Wall Street Journal editorial board which I respect a lot mischaracterize what Me and Ackman were trying to do in terms of drawing attention to a regional banking crisis in progress a run on the banks
好的，我们回过去看一下时间线，因为现在有了严重的指责，我认为这真的是寻找替罪羊。不仅是你，还有我和比尔·阿克曼，事实上，我很尊重的《华尔街日报》社论委员会误解了我们和阿克曼所试图做的事情，即引起人们对正在发生的地区银行危机和银行挤兑的关注。
They called it spreading panic. I don't know how you tweet or publicly discuss a run on the bank. That's currently happening needs to be addressed with an immediate federal intervention. I don't know how you can discuss it without then having someone else mischaracterize it as trying to spread a panic.
他们说它是散播恐慌。我不知道你该如何在推特或公开讨论银行抢跑时进行，这种事正在发生，需要立即进行联邦干预。我不知道你如何讨论这个问题，而不被别人误解为试图散布恐慌。
But Jake, how the Wall Street Journal didn't mention you so you're off the hook. They didn't know who you are. Thank you. Thank you.
但是，杰克，怎么《华尔街日报》没有提及你，所以你没有事啦。他们不知道你是谁。谢谢。谢谢。
But no, but seriously, so I went back and looked at the timeline of all of this. First, we have to understand that this banking crisis now has swept in five banks - five bank failures. First, was Silvergate, but everyone dismissed that because of some weird crypto bank; then it was SVB, but everyone sort of dismissed it because they said it was based on panic evc's rather than a systemic problem in the banking system. Then it was Signature Bank which got seized on Sunday which I think utterly refuted the idea that this was just a Silicon Valley problem.
但是不开玩笑，我回过头来看了一下这一切的时间线。首先，我们必须了解到，这次银行危机已经波及了五家银行——五家银行破产。首先是Silvergate，但是因为这是一个奇怪的加密银行，所以每个人都对此不以为意；然后是SVB，但是每个人都认为这是基于恐慌 EVC，而不是银行系统的系统问题，所以也被忽略了。然后是Signature Bank，在周日被接管，我认为这完全驳斥了这只是一个硅谷问题的想法。
Then you had the Fed step in and backstop First Republic, which would have been the next dominant to fall if it wasn't backstopped, and then five - you had Credit Suisse, basically again avoid an outright failure because they got backstopped by the Swiss government.
然后你会看到美联储介入，支持救助第一共和国，因为如果没有支持，它本来将是接下来的主要受害者。然后，又有瑞士信贷因得到瑞士政府的支持而最终避免了彻底的失败。
So we now have five banks in roughly a week, and these are not small banks. Credit Suisse is a g-seb, a globally systemically important bank and the other ones are top 20 top 30 type banks. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in deposits.
我们现在已经在大约一周内有了五家银行，而这些并不是小银行。瑞信是一个全球系统性重要银行，其他银行则是前20前30类型的银行。我们在谈论数千亿美元的存款。
Clearly there's a larger phenomenon going on here, and frankly, it's being caused not by anything VCs did because VCs are just depositors. Where does one class of depositors and depositors are not to blame for what's going on here? What's going on is that these banks have huge unrealized losses on their balance sheet, and the losses have come from the Sun's spike in interest rates.
很明显，这里正在发生一个更大的现象，而实际上，它并非由风险投资家所做的任何事情所致，因为风险投资家只是存款人。哪个存款者群体不应为这里所发生的事情受到责备？事情的原因是这些银行在资产负债表上有巨大的未实现损失，而这些损失是由于太阳利率的激增所造成的。
That's what's going on, the Sun spike in interest rates, which is because we've had the most rapid Fed tightening cycle in our lifetimes. In the last year, the Fed funds raised gone from roughly zero and almost 5% that has broken a lot of things, and the banks which have broken first are the ones that had pre-existing problems and they had horrible risk management, but that's who gets broken first in a stress test.
这就是正在发生的事情，太阳升息率升高，这是因为我们目前生命中经历了最迅速的美联储紧缩周期。在过去的一年里，美联储基金利率上涨了将近零到5%左右，这破坏了很多东西，最先崩盘的是那些本来就存在问题且风险管理极差的银行，但这也是压力测试中最先破裂的人。
Right, is the most poorly run banks the ones with pre-existing issues, but just because they went first doesn't mean that others don't have similar kinds of issues.
对的，运作最不良的银行是那些存在预先问题的银行，但仅因为它们先出了问题，并不意味着其他银行没有类似的问题。
Now I'm not saying this in any way to be panicking with those banks. We find but there are larger issues in the banking system that are worth talking about, and to the point about whether VCs could have spread this, Jake, how you're absolutely right about the timeline. I mean, I went back and checked. I personally never tweeted anything about SVB until Friday afternoon when SVB was already in receivership and the run on the bank had already started with Signature and First Republic, and we could see it with our own eyes.
现在我并不是想和那些银行一起惊慌失措，而是我们发现银行系统中存在着更大的问题值得讨论，至于风险资本是否能够传播这些问题，杰克，你的时间轴完全正确。我是说，我回去查了一下，我个人从来没有在星期五下午之前发推文提到SVB这件事，那时SVB已经破产并且Signature和First Republic已经开始了银行挤兑，我们能亲眼看到这一切。
And then this pod didn't drop the one where we talked about this problem. Didn't drop until Saturday morning when the banks were already closed, and by Sunday night, the Fed had acted and basically implemented our recommendations, which was to basically intervene.
然后这个信息通讯设备没有在我们讨论问题的那个时间将那个信息发送出去。一直到周六早上银行已经关门了，才将信息发送出去。到了周日晚上，联邦储备委员会已经采取行动，并基本上实施了我们的建议，即干预。
So I don't know how you can blame this search for scapegoats. I think it's getting out of control and it's just not factually accurate. And, you know, that it's convenient to make tech, which is hated right now, the scapegoat. Venture capital is obviously the part of tech that people might hate the most or the easiest target.
我不知道你怎么会把这次寻找替罪羊的责任归咎于科技。我认为这已经失控了，而且根本不符合事实。你知道，把现在最受人恨的科技作为替罪羊确实很方便。风险投资显然是科技中最受人厌恶或最容易攻击的部分。
But let's talk about the Fed raised those rates because of inflation, and inflation happened because of out of control spending due to COVID and then the second administration. So you had a Republican administration that spent a lot of money, and then a democratic administration schemed out that spent a lot of money. So maybe we could even go backwards from Fed Fund rates going, you know, what looks like parabolic when you look at the chart.
但我们来说说美联储提高利率的原因，这是因为通货膨胀，而通货膨胀是由于COVID和第二次政府控制不了支出。所以你看到共和党政府花了很多钱，然后民主党政府也计划要花很多钱。也许我们甚至可以从美联储基金利率看起，当你看到图表的时候，它似乎是渐近的。
Maybe you could speak to what got us to the Fed making those decisions, Schem out or Freedberg? Maybe I can just do a little cleanup on what Sachs said. I think the issues at Credit Suisse are different than the issues at First Republic, and the issues at First Republic are different than those other three banks - the other three banks, David, that you mentioned, Signature, Silicon Valley Bank, and Silvergate all had very traditional liquidity crises.
也许您可以谈谈是什么促使了联邦储备委员会做出那些决定，是 Schem out 还是 Freedberg？也许我可以简单解释一下 Sachs 所说的内容。我认为瑞士信贷的问题与第一共和国的问题不同，而第一共和国的问题又与其他三家银行的问题不同 - 您提到的另外三家银行，David，即 Signature、Silicon Valley Bank 和 Silvergate，它们都面临了非常传统的流动性危机。
Right - duration mismatching where you have depositors who want their money today but you have assets that mature in 10 years, and as a result, you have huge unrealized losses if you all of a sudden cash them out today versus waiting 10 years.
有时候，存款人想要今天拿回他们的钱，但银行所持有的资产需要十年才能成熟。由此导致了债权人在今天突然将这些资产兑现会产生巨大的未实现损失。因此，会出现右侧时间不匹配的情况。
I think what's happening at First Republic is really just about making sure that that loan book and the depositors can get parked into a combination set of banks that can take care of the balance sheet so that there are no more liquidity issues. At Credit Suisse, they have an enormous amount of liquidity, what that was was I think a lot of speculation around whether they would default on their bonds or whether they would theoretically need more liquidity, but the balance sheet itself was not only liquid but also very solvent.
我想，第一共和银行正在努力确保其贷款簿和存款可以打包进一组银行来管理资产负债表，这样就不会再出现流动性问题了。而在瑞士信贷银行，它们拥有大量的流动性，所谓的问题是很多人担心他们是否会违约债券，或理论上需要更多的流动性，但其资产负债表本身不仅是流动的，而且非常健全。
So I think that was just more of a Hanaki reaction to comments from a 9.9% shareholder. Who just said that they can't put in any more equity. But even then I went back. This is the chairman of the Saudi national bank. He was asked on Bloomberg would you give credit suites more money. And he had a very reasonable answer. But it was snapshot in a very awkward way. The first sentence was under no circumstances would he do that? Okay, now if you stop there you could be panic, but the rest of it made a lot of sense which is he said look Inside Arabia if we go above 10% We have to go through regulatory approvals domestically and there are regulatory approvals abroad.
我认为那只是Hanaki回应9.9%股东不能继续增加股权的评论而做出的反应。但即使如此，我又回去看了一下。这是沙特国家银行的董事长。他在Bloomberg被问到是否要给瑞士信贷更多资金。他的回答非常合理。但它是以非常尴尬的方式呈现的。第一句话是他绝不会这样做？好的，如果你只停留在那里，可能会恐慌，但剩下的话很有道理，他说在阿拉伯内部，如果我们超过10％，我们必须经过国内和国外的监管批准。
That's a big hill to climb and all of a sudden it no longer becomes a financial investment. It becomes a somewhat political investment and so we're very happy at 9.9%. That was the totality of the statement. But if you just cherry pick the first 45 seconds and ran with it which people on the internet did, this is sort of what caused that second level wave panic at a g-sub. And then the Swiss national bank stepped in and I think that that panic has largely gone.
这是一个巨大的难题，突然间不再是一个金融投资，而是变成了一种具有一定政治性质的投资，因此我们非常高兴9.9％。这就是全部声明的内容。但是如果你只挑选前45秒并运用它，就像网络上的人所做的那样，这就导致了G子公司第二层面的恐慌浪潮。然后瑞士国家银行出手了，我认为那种恐慌已经大幅度消失了。
Okay, so what is the real issue? The issue again is I think we have had a bit of supervisory failure here. Right, because we all know this in any industry. If you let capitalism go totally unchecked but shareholders will demand immediate profits today. It happens in every industry. Except in ones where you can basically gamble on future profits and that's what tech does. But every other shareholder in every other asset class demands money today and that's the same for banks. The problem is the banks are a highly regulated business. They are supposed to be supervised by the regulators. And this is a very clear example where why is there not a real-time spreadsheet? I mean, this is not complicated stuff.
好的，那么真正的问题是什么？ 我认为我们在监管上遇到了一些问题。 对，因为我们都知道在任何行业中，如果你让资本主义完全无法控制，股东将要求立即获得利润。 这在每个行业中都会发生。 除了那些可以基本上以未来利润为赌注的行业，这就是科技行业的情况。 但是在其他每个资产类别中，每个其他股东都要求今天得到钱，银行也是如此。 问题是银行是一个高度监管的业务。 监管机构应该对其进行监督。 这是一个非常明显的例子，为什么没有实时电子表格？ 我的意思是，这并不是复杂的东西。
Where assets and liabilities and duration mismatching can be known on a real-time basis where the San Francisco Fed Mary Daly should have a report that's escalated to her. When SBB got over their ski tips which they did in Q4 of 2022. So I think the real question that has to be examined is where were these folks for the last four months when they could have done something. Not just about this but rules in general for all banks that are not the G-Syps. And I think that's a very important question that politicians need to get to the root of.
在资产负债和期限不匹配可以实时了解的情况下，旧金山联邦储备银行的玛丽·戴利应该有一个向她汇报的报告。当SBB在2022年第四季度陷入困境时。所以我认为真正需要检查的问题是，在过去的四个月里，这些人在哪里，他们本可以做些什么。这不仅仅关系到这个问题，而是涉及所有非大型全球系统重要银行的规则。我认为这是政治家们需要深入探究的一个非常重要的问题。
Friedberg, we discussed this article from seeking alpha which came out on let me get the exact date here December 19th. Title of this seeking alpha story is SBB financial colon blow up risk and the summary in three bullet points. Says Bullet point one potential losses in loan portfolios could severely impair book equity number two unrealized losses in whole to maturity portfolio already equal to book equity number three funding environment for startups. We're pressured to posit base adding even more pressure to the balance sheet in other words start up spending money to cover their burn rate.
弗里德伯格，我们讨论了这篇来自seeking alpha的文章，它发表在12月19日。这篇seeking alpha报道的标题是SBB金融：炸弹风险，总结分成三个要点。第一点是潜在的贷款组合损失可能严重损害账面净资产。第二点是到期整个组合的未实现损失已经等于账面净资产。第三点是初创公司的融资环境受到压力，迫使它们增加支出，更加加重了资产负债表的压力。换句话说，初创公司花钱来应对燃烧速率。
And obviously we had the Dodd Frank rules lessened or loosened under the previous administration and that specifically was driven by Silicon Valley bank that had big part in that. So looking back on this and people do want a place blame. Let's talk about the effects that occurred because this was hiding in plain sight. Literally in December in an article that looks like it was written by somebody who went into a time machine and said how do I warn people in December about this. Maybe you could talk about the feds interest rates the spending and what led up to this.
显然，在先前的政府下，我们减轻或放松了Dodd Frank法规，这特别是由硅谷银行所驱动的。回顾这个情况，人们确实想要找一个责任人。让我们谈谈发生的影响，因为这件事情其实就是明目张胆地存在。在12月份，有一篇看起来像是由一个穿越时光机的人写的文章，那个人问:"我怎么才能在12月份警告人们呢？” 也许你可以谈论一下联邦利率、支出以及导致这种情况的原因。
Look issue with the banks. You guys remember when we started this podcast three years ago. We were like they're gonna shut down the economy. There's gonna be crazy second and third order effects of doing that. No one knows what they're gonna be. Here they are and I think that's like the root of what is a rippling effect. You can't shut down the global economy. And stop trade and stop people and have the government step in to write a giant check and not expect that you're gonna have to cash that check at some point.
你们还记得三年前我们开始做这个播客时说过的话吗？我们说他们会让经济停摆，会引发一系列疯狂的二三阶效应，没有人知道会是什么样子。现在这些问题已经来临了，而这正是涟漪效应的根源。你不能让全球经济停摆，停止贸易和人员流动，让政府出面写下一张巨额支票，然后不期待自己在某个时刻不得不兑现这张支票。看起来银行也遇到了这样的问题。
That's effectively what I think we've been kicking down the the road here. The way we initially tried to resolve the problem was to drop rates to zero. And then spend our way you know back to a growing supported economy and then overshot ended up with you know too much stimulation too lower rates for too long. Responded too quickly with flashback. At the end of the day there was a giant gaping hole blown into the global economy. When we shut down the world from covid. There's no blame. It's just what happened and when that happened there was a massive cost that had to be born at some point.
我认为我们一直在推迟解决问题的方式，这是实际上的情况。我们最初尝试解决问题的方法是将利率降为零。然后通过支持经济的成长来花钱，最终出现了过度刺激和过长时间的过低利率。快速反应导致了闪回。事实上，全球经济被一口巨大的窟窿炸开了。当我们因COVID而关闭世界时，没有责任。这只是发生的事情，但是在那个时候，必须承担巨大的代价。
And it's gonna get born at some point and the rippling in a pond. You don't know where the ripple is gonna hit what part of the pond what leaves it's gonna hit. That's what's going on still and it's such a dynamical system. It's so hard to say with linear certainty. This is what should be done and what could have been done and what they should have done at the time. No one had that predictive capacity back then. They did what they needed to do people thought that they should have. Stimped dropped rates they said we should have written all these big stimulus checks some people said you shouldn't some people said you did certainly.
它将在某个时刻出生，并在池塘中扩散涟漪。你不知道涟漪会打在池塘的哪一部分，会触及哪些叶子。这仍然是一个非常动态的系统，很难准确预测。当时没有人有这种预测能力。他们做了他们需要做的，人们认为他们应该这样做。Stimped降息，他们说我们应该发放所有这些大规模的刺激支票，有些人说你不应该，有些人说你确实这样做了。
Some people are being proven right and some people are being proven wrong. But at the end of the day. The economic loss that was realized at that period of time. We're still trying to get out of it and we're still recovering from and I think that's a big part of what's being eaten up right now. And you're gonna see it in the wipeout of certain equity you're gonna see it in the wipeout of these banks of the assets that they hold and and these portfolios and the effects of that are obviously you know still being felt.
有些人被证明是正确的，有些人被证明是错误的。但是在一天结束的时候，那个时期所产生的经济损失，我们仍在努力摆脱，仍在恢复，我认为这是当前的一个很大原因。你将看到这在某些股票的崩盘中，你将看到在这些银行的资产和投资组合的崩盘中，其影响显然仍在被感受到。
Sacks, do you agree that mistakes were made in this banking crisis? There isn't somebody to blame because it's clear that the fed said inflation is transitory and that was wrong. Then they went faster than in history to raise rates. Those seem like two glaring mistakes. Then there's the Dodd-Frank loosening under Trump and with Silicon Valley Bank pushing them, that seemed like a really big mistake.
Sacks，你认为在这场银行业危机中犯了错误，是否同意呢？因为很明显，美联储称通货膨胀是暂时的，而这是错误的。然后他们比历史上更快地提高了利率，这似乎是两个显眼的错误。然后，在特朗普时期，有杜德-弗兰克法案的放松和硅谷银行的推动，这似乎是一个非常大的错误。
By the way, I wasn't saying the fed's not to blame for not raising rates fast enough. That was because, as you guys remember, I was the first person to talk about sure what Stand-Ruck and Miller had said, that they're not raising rates fast enough. That we've got massive inflation. We should have been raising rates. I was the first person on this show to be, you know, barking that. So, don't forget, like I was there, okay, like pretty early. What I was pointing out was like we shut down the economy during COVID, the global economy. Yeah, I got just the main cause, that is the cannonball that got blown through the ship. Got it? And everything else is plumbing and patching and work to try and keep the ship afloat. And we're still dealing with that.
顺便说一下，我不是在说联邦政府没有快速加息的责任。这是因为，你们还记得吧，我是第一个谈到斯坦德-拉克和米勒所说的，他们没有足够快地加息。我们面对着大规模的通货膨胀。我们应该开始加息了。我是这个节目里第一个在叫嚷的人。所以，别忘了，我一直在那里，很早就开始了。我指出的是我们在 COVID 期间关闭了全球经济。对，这是主要原因，像炮弹撞击船舶一样。其他所有的工作都是为了让船继续浮着。我们仍在应对这个问题。
And at the same time, as you guys know, we've been loading the ship up with debt, the global ship, the global economy, with debt – 360% global debt to global GDP ratio right now. And as that ship has gotten heavier and heavier, to have a giant hole blown in the side while you're trying to do all this patchwork with all this debt weighing on it. It's a critical challenge. And the ship is feeling acutely here. They're feeling it in Europe now. And we're certainly going to see the global ramifications as we try and fix this economic catastrophe that was caused by COVID at the same time that we've been spending our way into a happier future that it turns out we have to pay the bills for at some point.
同时，正如你们所知，我们一直在给全球经济这艘船装上债务——全球债务占全球 GDP 的比率已经达到了 360%。随着船越来越重，当你试着用所有这些债务做修补工作时，突然在船边被打了一个巨大的洞，这是一个至关重要的挑战。船正在这里感到尖锐的痛苦。欧洲正在感受到它。我们肯定会看到全球的影响，因为我们试图修复这场由 COVID 引起的经济灾难，同时我们一直在花钱过日子，直到最终我们不得不为此付账。
Sacks, your response: the question of who you blame for this banking crisis has really become a political Rorschach test. And I've seen that there's six different parties that people want to blame in this situation, and there's some merit to all of them. But the degrees are very different.
萨克斯，你的回应是：谁该为这次银行危机负责已经成为一种政治罗夏测试。我看到人们想要指责6个不同的当事方，在这种情况下，他们每个人都有一定的道理。但不同的程度却大不相同。
Number one, let's go through them, okay? Number one, the bank management of all these different banks. Clearly, very poor risk management, didn't do a good job. They are to blame. However, and Timothy's right about these banks, they differ in the details, but the point is that they're all operating under conditions of extreme stress. Where did that come from?
首先，我们来详细了解一下它们，好吗？第一，所有这些不同银行的管理层。显然，风险管理非常糟糕，没有做好工作。他们应该为此负责。但是，蒂莫西对这些银行的看法是正确的，虽然它们的细节有所不同，但关键是它们都在极度紧张的条件下运作。这个问题是从哪里来的？
Number two, the Fed's rapid rate tightening cycle. Clearly, I think that the combination of poor risk management with the spiking interest rates that basically has precipitated this larger problem.
第二个问题是，美联储的快速升息周期。显然，我认为，糟糕的风险管理与利率飙升的结合基本上引发了这个更大的问题。
Number three is I think the Biden administration spending, which in fairness started with COVID before Biden but Biden really intensified it, and then I think it really compounded the problem in the summer of 2021 by claiming that inflation was transitory when it wasn't. That allowed them to keep spending and keep printing money and kept QE going for the other six months. That created the bubble of 2021. Everything got super frothy and then that made the rate height cycle even more vicious because you started six months later. They could've started six months earlier, and it could've been more gradual, and I think that really was a disaster for the economy.
三号我认为是拜登政府的开支，公平地讲，这是在拜登之前因为COVID而开始的，但是拜登真正加强了这一点。然后我认为他们在2021年夏天声称通货膨胀是暂时的时候，实际上却不是，真的让问题更加复杂。这让他们能够继续支出、不断印钞票并继续量化宽松政策进行六个月。这创造了2021年的泡沫。一切变得超级 frothy，然后这使得利率高度周期变得更加恶性，因为你开始晚了六个月。他们本可以提前六个月开始，这样可能更加渐进式，我认为这对经济真的是一场灾难。
Okay, number four, the D-reg in 2018. I think Elizabeth Warren and Rokana have made what I would call a compelling case. That the D-reg in 2018 have contributed to this problem.
好的，第四号，2018年的D规。我认为伊丽莎白·沃伦和罗卡纳已经提出了令人信服的观点，即2018年D规的确有助于导致这个问题。
I think in hindsight Creating a two-tier system of banks where one tier are the systemically important banks we're completely guaranteed and backed up by the federal government and then a sort of lower tier a second tier of regional banks was a poison chalice for the regional banking system.
我想，回过头来看，创建一个两层银行系统，其中一层是系统重要性银行，完全得到联邦政府的保证和支持，另一层是较低层的地区银行，对于地区银行系统来说是一杯毒药。
Because in the short-term event They were more lightly regulated which maybe appropriate for you know smaller banks that aren't these mega banks. However, it has also now I think created a situation where people are less confident about them And so the money flows are going from the regional banks to the systemically important banks the SIPs.
因为在短期事件中，它们受到的监管更加轻松，这可能适用于那些不是这些大型银行的较小银行。然而，现在我认为它也造成了一种人们对它们缺乏信心的情况。因此，资金流向从地区银行流向系统重要银行SIPs。
So like I said it might be a double-edged sword and I think we're gonna have to look at those regulations and figure out what's the right regulatory regime to create confidence in the regional banking system. We want to thriving regional banking system And so the question is what's the right regulations that get us there and then that is the final two.
就像我之前说的，这可能是个双刃剑。我认为我们需要审视那些规定，并找出什么是适当的监管制度，以增强地区银行系统的信心。我们希望拥有蓬勃发展的地区银行系统。问题在于，我们需要什么样的规定才能实现这一目标。这就是我的最后两分意思了。
But we can talk about later are I'm hearing wokeness getting blamed which listen I think that wokeness was a distraction. There were a lot of crazy programs happening at these banks. But listen if wokeness was the key factor the whole fortune 500 would be out of business because they all do this stuff.
但我们可以之后再谈论，我听到很多人将"觉醒"（wokeness）归咎于这些银行的问题，但我认为"觉醒"只是个干扰。这些银行有很多疯狂的项目。但是请听我说，如果"觉醒"是主要因素的话，整个财富500强（Fortune 500）都会破产，因为他们都会做这样的事情。
They all do this stuff. So I think I think we're going back to the well a little too often on that critique and I don't want to burn that critique out Because I think that wokeness is bad But it's not the key reason why this stuff happened and then the last Group that gets it's a bit more wokeness we could also maybe frame it as ESG more broadly as the distraction because woke This is charge ESG is real Yeah, what I would say for sure is that if these banks have spend as much time on risk management as they did on ESG or on woke Then this crisis would happen.
他们都在做这些事情。所以我认为我们在批评方面有些过于频繁地回到了老套路，我不想过度使用那种批评，因为我认为“醒”（wokeness）是不好的，但这不是这些事情发生的关键原因，最后一个受到批评的团体更多地涉及到“醒”这个概念。我们也可以将其更广泛地形容为ESG，将“醒”视为干扰因素，但ESG是真实的。我要说的是，如果这些银行像他们在ESG或“醒”方面花费的时间一样致力于风险管理，那么这次危机就不会发生。
So definitely a distraction But not not the thing that like specifically caused it and then just the final thing is VCs. And I just can't fathom at this point Given the multiple bank failures given that we see the larger problem of unrealized losses on bank balance sheets That somehow any class of depositors would be blamed for this that just makes no sense to me.
肯定是个干扰，但不是引起它的具体原因。最后一个问题就是风险投资者。在我们看到银行资产负债表上存在着多个银行失败和无法实现亏损的大问题的情况下，我无法理解为什么会有任何一类存款人会被指责，这对我来说毫无道理。
Chimath I think the VC the critique is specific to Silicon Valley bank because I think and this article was in the Wall Street journal But what it shows is a really complicated intertwined relationship between VCs and Silicon Valley bank where You know VCs were given very cheap interest rate loans They were given GP call lines of credit. They were given LP lines of credit And then those same VCs would be directing their companies to put their deposits inside of SVB.
我觉得这个风投批评是针对硅谷银行的，因为这篇文章发表在华尔街日报上。但它显示了非常复杂的风投和硅谷银行之间密不可分的关系。你知道，风投们得到了非常便宜的利率贷款，也得到了有限合伙人的授信额度。然后这些风投会指导他们的公司将存款放在SVB里面。
Who would then take those deposits and buy and buy risk? And while the reality is all of this stuff will come to light because I think it will get exposed as we go through congressional hearings on all of this But I think the I think pointing the finger at VCs in this specific case is somewhat warranted because there was a little bit of people working in lockstep together.
那么谁会接管这些存款并购买风险呢？虽然现实是所有这些事情都将被揭示出来，因为我认为随着我们进行国会听证会，所有这些都会被暴露出来。但我认为在这种情况下指责风险投资公司有些合理，因为有一些人在紧密协作。
And there was a lack of functional responsibility around how to be a true fiduciary.
在如何成为真正的信托责任人方面缺乏功能性责任。
So if you come to a board and your founder is 22 years old and you give that person 15 or 20 million dollars I think it makes a fair amount of sense that you are supposed to be The more sophisticated financial person in that room. And if you have incentives that aren't properly disclosed to that CEO And now a set of decisions are made. I think that that There should be some accountability for that or at least some exploration of why that happened.
如果你去了一个董事会，你们的创始人只有22岁，你给了这个人1500万或2000万美元，我认为这在房间里的人中，你应该是最具有财务知识的人。如果你的CEO不透明地制定了激励措施，然后做了一些决定，我认为应该为此负责，或者对为什么会发生这种情况进行探讨。
I just want to make sure the audience understands this because it is a bit in the weeds and it's a bit inside baseball. What you're saying, Chimoff is if I can summarize it. There are people who are the adults in the room venture capitalists.
我只是想确保观众能明白这一点，因为这有点深奥和内行。你所说的，Chimoff，如果我可以总结一下的话，就是有人是成年人的风险投资家。
They have deposits at Silicon Valley Bank They also might have loans that are fantastic with Silicon Valley Bank.
他们在硅谷银行有存款，而且他们可能还有和硅谷银行非常出色的贷款。
I had a mortgage for this office from Silicon Valley Bank and I talked about how on the last episode how great it is They come, they open wine with you, it's white glove service that you wouldn't get it at another bank.
我从硅谷银行贷款购买了这个办公室。上一集节目中，我提到了它的好处，他们会和你一起开葡萄酒，提供白手套服务，而这是其他银行所不能提供的。
And then they might have loans against what's called the GP carry or the GP Share or they might have mortgages and so there's a conflict there if you're a venture capitalist and you're directing a 22 year old CEO to Silicon Valley Bank maybe You're doing that is I guess you could be interested.
然后他们可能会根据所谓的GP股权或GP股份贷款，或者可能会有抵押贷款，所以如果你是风险投资家，而你正在指导一个22岁的CEO往硅谷银行发展，那可能会存在冲突。我猜，如果你对此感兴趣，你可以去做。
No, the bigger conflict of interest and in some cases Silicon Valley Bank is a limited partner in all of these funds My point is that all of these things Okay, hold on we have to explain that so imagine a situation You go and start a fund Silicon Valley Bank comes to and says Let me be a limited partner and invest with you let me give you some amount of money I don't know where that money comes from from Silicon Valley Bank.
不，更大的利益冲突在某些情况下，硅谷银行是所有这些基金的有限合伙人。我的观点是所有这些事情。好了，我们不得不解释一下，想象一下这样一个情况，你去开始一个基金，硅谷银行来并说，让我成为一个有限合伙人，并与你一起投资，让我给你一些资金，我不知道那些钱来自哪里，来自硅谷银行。
But they Well, let's be realistic more like 25 50 million 100 million.
但是，让我们实事求是，更可能是2500万、5000万或1亿人。
Okay, this is a lot of money. So a million kind of is whitewashing this problem. So you give them a reasonable amount of money. They're like wow, I'm I have tremendous loyalty for you. Thank you. Well, do you need anything else? Do you need personal loans? Do you need lines of credit for your business? Sure. Why not? I take those two.
好的，这是一笔很大的钱。所以一百万有点淡化了这个问题。所以你给他们一个合理的数额。他们就会说哇，我对你有极大的忠诚。谢谢。嗯，你还需要其他什么吗？你需要个人贷款吗？你需要为你的企业开通信贷额度吗？当然。为什么不呢？我两个都要。
And invariably on the back end now your loyalty obviously builds up again. Nothing none of this is wrong. But this is what's happening and then you tell your companies to keep your deposits there. Maybe the cash management program is not as strong as it would have been if you were more circumspect and you didn't have those incentives to direct people to one institution only in any other part of the market.
然后不可避免地，现在你的忠诚度又开始建立。这些都没有错。但是现在正在发生这种情况，你告诉公司将你的存款保留在那里。也许现金管理计划不如它应该的那么强大，如果你更谨慎一些，并没有那些导向人们只选择一个机构的激励，也许它会更好一些，在市场的其他领域里也是如此。
So in the public markets as an example, there is such a bar for disclosure. Okay, and I cannot stress this to you enough related party transactions all of this stuff. We have to tell everything not just for us. But even if our like sister or brother or mother may have a transaction with an entity that we're doing a deal with. And it just isn't the case in private markets and so it's not to say that anything untoward happened. But when people point the finger at VCs I think they are pointing to this whole set of issues and asking the question, shouldn't there have been more disclosure and transparency around it?
在公共市场上，需要披露的标准是很严格的。我强调了许多次，即使是与我们做交易的机构有关的关联方交易，我们也必须向大家透露所有信息，不仅仅是为了我们自己，甚至是我们的兄弟姐妹或母亲的交易。但在私人市场中，情况并非如此。并不是说有什么不妥的事情发生了。但当人们指责风险投资公司时，他们指的是这整套问题，并且问：难道在这方面不应该有更多的披露和透明度吗？
And now that this has come to pass shouldn't we explore it? And I think that's what the Wall Street Journal did they started pulling on this sweater thread. And my guess is that you're going to find a whole ball of yarn at the end of it. Sacks.
现在这件事已经发生了，我们不应该去探究吗？我认为《华尔街日报》就是这么做的，他们开始拆掉这个毛衣的线头。我猜你们最后会发现一整个毛线球。Sacks。
What do you think of this? I think Jamalath makes a fair point that if VCs have SVB as an investor. And then they're directing startups to use SVB. That is a conflict that should be disclosed by the way. We never did either one of those things we never had SVB as a limited partner. And we also never directed our starts to bank at SVB.
你觉得这件事怎么样呢？我认为Jamalath说得很有道理，如果VC有SVB作为投资者。然后他们将创业公司导向使用SVB。这是应该披露的冲突。顺便说一下，我们从来没有做过这两件事情，我们从来没有将SVB作为有限合伙人。我们也从未指示我们的初创公司在SVB开户。
I don't know why we'd ever do that. Moreover, I always try to talk founders out of taking venture debt whether from SVB or elsewhere. So listen, we'll be clear about that. And to be clear, I never directed anybody to a specific bank. I know I always told people to get two or three banks and have redundancy.
我不知道为什么我们会这样做。而且，我总是试图劝创始人不要从SVB或其他地方采取风险贷款。所以听着，我们会明确说明这一点。而且，我从未指示任何人去特定的银行。我知道我总是告诉人们去两三个银行并具备冗余。
Totally, totally. Yeah, totally. And look, founders have multiple VCs typically on their boards. So the idea that like anyone VC directs them which bank to use. This is not that's not realistically what happens at these startups. But look, I think Jamalath is right that when there is a bank failure or any kind of failure at this big.
完全、完全的。是的，完全正确。创始人通常在他们的董事会上拥有多个风险投资人。所以有人认为任何风险投资人都可以指导他们使用哪家银行是不现实的。但是，我认为Jamalath是正确的，当发生银行倒闭或任何大型问题时，将会有影响。
Then all the practices are going to be under a microscope. And there's going to be some scrutiny of things. And maybe there should be. But my larger point is we're now operating in an environment in which clearly there's a larger set of stresses on the banking system. We've already had now five bank failures or near failures.
那么，所有的做法都会受到严格审查。也许现在应该加强监管。但我的重点是，我们现在正在一个环境下运作，银行系统正面临更多的压力。我们已经经历了五次银行破产或濒临破产的事件。
Moreover, do any of us believe that this is over? Or do we believe there are more shoots to drop? If we believe that there are more shoots to drop. We may not know exactly what they are. But I think all of us probably believe that we're not the end of this. But but but but just finish the thought.
此外，我们中的任何一位相信这已经结束了吗？还是我们相信还有更多的事情会发生？如果我们相信还有更多的事情会发生，我们可能不知道准确是什么，但我想我们所有人可能都认为这不是结束。但是，但是，但是，只要完整表达。
If we believe there will be more shoots to drop, then clearly the issues cannot just be limited to Silicon Valley. They have to be a larger set of issues. I think that it's important to understand the facility that the Fed created. So what the Fed did this weekend is essentially create a buyer of last resort again.
如果我们相信还会有更多问题，那么显然问题不仅限于硅谷，而是更大的一系列问题。我认为理解美联储创建的措施是很重要的。因此，美联储上周末所做的基本上是再次创建了一个最终购买者。
Now how do they do this? So all of these banks basically have assets. That they bought for a dollar and are now worth 95 cents. And that's what's creating this whole issue. Or 80 cents or 85 cents you pick the number. But they're not worth the dollar that they bought.
现在他们是怎么做到的？所以说，所有这些银行基本上都拥有一些资产。它们以一美元的价格购买，现在的价值只有95美分。这就是整个问题的根源。或者说是80美分或85美分，你可以选择一个数字。但它们不再值得以前购买时的一美元了。
What the Fed basically said is okay. Give me that asset, give me that bond. I will value it at a dollar and I will give you a dollar as a loan. And you will pay me interest. And the interest rate I think is what's called OIS. And they added 10 basis points on top. So I think it's about 4.9 percent
美联储基本上说的是可以。把那个资产给我，把那个债券给我。我会把它估价为一美元，然后给你一美元的贷款。你会向我支付利息。我认为利率是所谓的OIS利率，再加上10个基点。所以我认为利率大约是4.9%。
So what it allows all of these banks And if you take all of the banks that are not the top 4 in America So the top 4 are JP Morgan, B of A, City and Wells So just ignore those for one second The other end banks If you look at all of the assets that are underwater Because of all the rate hikes that SACs talked about And you add up all those losses That is about $2 trillion
所以它允许所有这些银行，如果你看看美国排名不在前四位的所有银行，即JP Morgan、B of A、City和Wells排名不在前四位的银行，那么只需忽略这些银行一秒钟，其他末端的银行，如果你看看所有因SACs所说的所有利率上涨导致的不良资产负债，然后把所有这些损失加起来，约为2万亿美元。
And the Fed didn't denounce that there was a Beginning and an end to this program Other than saying these would be one year loans And so I think the exposure for the American banking system At a minimum Is going to be this $2 trillion
美国联邦储备委员会并未谴责这个计划有一个开始和结束的时间，只是说这些将是一年期贷款。因此，我认为美国银行系统的风险暴露至少将达到2万亿美元。
Because now the incentive If you're a banker right now running one of these banks That has not gone under Is to immediately go to the Fed Put all of those assets to them Get a loan And now take that and buy different assets Different bonds, different US treasuries That are yielding much more Than what your old treasuries were yielding And I think that's the arbitrage that we've unfortunately created
因为现在的动力是，如果你是一个银行家，现在经营着这些没有破产的银行之一，那么你的最佳选择就是立即去向联邦储备委员会寻求援助，将所有的资产都交给他们，并获取一笔贷款。接着，用这笔贷款来购买不同的资产，不同的债券，不同的美国国债，这些新的投资会比你的旧债券收益更高。我认为这就是我们所不幸创造出来的套利。
And the other question now though however Is what does that mean for the top 4 banks Right because if it's 2 trillion for everybody else but the top 4 What's the gap for the top 4 That looks like it's somewhere between a trillion and 2 trillion So that's another A amount of money we're going to have to cover The Fed will have to backstop
现在另一个问题是，这对于前四大银行意味着什么，因为如果其他机构有2万亿，但前四大银行的差距是多少呢？这看起来似乎在1万亿到2万亿之间，因此我们还需要另外一笔款项。联邦储备银行将不得不提供支持。
And then As Friedberg said these checks always come do What do we do in a year Because in a year The problem is The only way to make the banks in a position To repay this much money in one year Is to cut interest rates so massively That these assets massively inflate And now a little bit sudden you're in a position to cover this
那么，正如弗里德伯格所说，这些检查总是到来。在一年内我们该怎么办呢？因为在一年内，问题是唯一的方法是大幅削减利率，以使银行有能力在一年内偿还如此巨大的金额。这会导致这些资产大幅膨胀，然后你会突然发现你有足够的能力来应对这个问题。
So it's a private rate Delta is because it's about they're down 15% 10% in book value these Long returns on your security Again it depends on what they bought We don't really know enough details so I don't want to guess
所以，三角洲的私有率是因为它们大概损失了15%到10%的账面价值，这对于您的证券来说是长期回报。但这取决于他们购买了什么，我们不知道足够的细节，所以我不想猜测。
But if you own these 10 year treasuries You could be off 10 or 15% If you own mortgage-backed securities It could be off a little bit more If you own short-term securities They're off a little bit less But these are with the government You get a loan collateralized by these assets So you still holding them right Yes and they mature
但如果你拥有这些十年期公债，你可能会损失10%到15%。如果你拥有抵押支持证券，你可能会损失更多一点。如果你拥有短期证券，你的损失会更少一点，但这些都是由政府支持的。你可以获得以这些资产作为抵押品的贷款，所以你仍然持有它们，对吗？是的，它们会到期。
So if the Fed Takes an emergency posture and says Okay guys we want to avert a crisis in a year from now And we're going to cut rates These assets that these banks own will be worth more Which will allow them to repay the loan
如果美联储采取紧急姿态，说：“好的，伙计们，我们要在一年后避免危机，我们将降低利率。”这些银行拥有的资产将更有价值，这将使它们能够偿还贷款。
As far as I can tell All we've done is we've kicked the can down the road for a year But I do think it's important for people to realize This doesn't solve the problem It just means that mark your calendar for a year from now We have a problem on March 15th 2024 Because all the folks that took money What do we do?
据我所知，我们所做的一切就是把问题拖了一年。但我认为人们应该意识到，这并没有解决问题，只是意味着我们需要在一年后的日历上标记特定日期，即2024年3月15日我们会遇到问题，因为那些申请贷款的人怎么办呢？
Yeah and so a year to work it out Freeberg would seem Like a good idea Because The Fed is fighting inflation They seem to have gotten some portion of it under control It's not out of control right inflation And maybe if they can slowly You know either start rate cuts or pause
是啊，所以一年的时间来解决自由伯格似乎是个不错的主意，因为联邦储备委员会正在对抗通货膨胀，他们好像控制了一部分。通货膨胀也没有失控。也许如果他们能慢慢地开始降息或暂停...
So let's shift the discussion to Hey what are the changes we need to make to the system And how do we think this plays out over the next year Freeberg Shemoth had one suggestion Which was all of these banks Should have a disclosure statement Mark to market every day Week, month, quarter, whatever it is Just like Circles USDC Their stablecoin Has a page with their disclosures of all their holdings So that seems to be a very productive one
那我们来把讨论的焦点转移到“嘿，我们需要对系统进行哪些变革？在接下来的一年中，我们如何应对呢？”这个问题上吧。Freeberg Shemoth提出了一个建议，即所有这些银行都应该每天、每周、每月、每季度或其他一些周期根据市场价格报告他们的财产情况，就像Circles的稳定币USDC那样，它们会把所有资产的披露列在一个页面上，这个建议看起来非常有成效。
We should have them mark to market the the Dodd-Frank stuff As SAC said You know Elizabeth Warren probably correct We need to reverse that So those are two very tangible suggestions What are your suggestions?
我们应该让他们按市场价格标记《多德-弗兰克法案》。正如SAC所说，你知道伊丽莎白·沃伦可能是正确的，我们需要改变这种情况。因此，这是两个非常具体的建议。你有什么建议吗？
We need to have a real-time dashboard We need to have a real-time dashboard At every single Fed That allows them For every bank that they supervise To know in real-time They should choose to ignore it I'm not sure that should be true But they are their supervisors They should see it They should choose to ignore it But they should not not have it
我们需要在每个联邦储备银行都拥有实时的控制台，这将允许他们监督的每家银行都能实时了解情况。如果他们选择忽视它，我不确定是否应该是这样，但他们是监管者，应该看到它。他们可以选择忽略它，但不应该不拥有它。
Freeberg, what are your suggestions going forward As to how we can learn from this situation Forget about the Cannibal As you vividly express there I think very well Great analogy But just going forward How do we keep the ship From taking on water If we do have a Cannibal hit it again
Freeberg，你对于我们接下来该怎么做才能从这个情况中学到经验有任何建议吗？忘了那个食人族吧，正如你所生动地表达的一样，我认为你很好地比喻了情况。但是我们接下来应该怎么办才能防止船进水呢？如果我们真的再遭遇食人族袭击，该怎么办呢？
Now we got a hard That's a hard equation to solve We got a hard question That's why I'm asking you We got a lot of demands for money You guys see I think there's a lot of things That are Team unrelated That are all pretty related right now
现在我们遇到了难题 这是一个难以解决的公式 我们遇到了一个难题 这就是为什么我要问你的原因 我们面临着很多对钱的需求 你们能看出来我认为有很多事情 与球队无关 但现在都联系在一起了
There's a massive protest underway By labor in France There's a massive protest underway In the Netherlands There are strikes on the underground in London When we talk about global debt In the US debt We often I don't think account for all the debt Which also includes Promissory obligations Made to a workforce
目前法国正在进行一场大规模的工人抗议活动，荷兰也是如此。在伦敦地铁中也发生了罢工事件。关于全球债务和美国债务，我们经常没有考虑到所有的债务，其中还包括对劳动力做出的承诺。
Global workforce That's been working for decades Individuals that have spent their whole lives Committed to some company Or to some government working With the expectation that they're going to retire And have some benefits paid to them And there's this massive Underfunding of those benefits
全球劳动力已经工作了几十年的人，他们一生都在为某个公司或政府工作，期望退休后获得一些福利补贴。然而，这些福利补贴的资金被严重短缺。
Quickly talk about unfunded pension liabilities But when you actually kind of account For the number of people And the amount of capital that those people are expecting That the workforce, the global workforce Is expecting to be paid to them in retirement Both public and private It's a massive amount of money that's not funded today And you start to see the cracks in the system
快速谈论未得到资助的养老金责任，但当你实际考虑到人数和那些人员期望的资本数量，也就是全球劳动力期望在退休后支付给他们的资本（无论是公共的还是私人的），这是一笔巨大的资金，目前没有得到资助，并且你开始看到系统中的裂痕。
When that population Says Pension payments are not keeping up with interest With inflation Or when there's a threat That pension payments or retirement benefits Are going to kick in at a later age Or you're not going to get them fast enough Or you're not going to get as many as you thought you were going to get
当这些人口说养老金支付跟利息或通货膨胀不匹配时，或者当存在养老金支付或退休福利会在晚年才开始发放、您没有及时领取或者没有像您预计的那么多的风险时，他们就会有这样的观点。
We have that problem in the United States And the form of Social Security And these underfunded pension liabilities That is the critical macro tension in this equation That I think Drives the real problem That's going to come to a head at some point
我们在美国也有这个问题，即社会保障的形式和资金不足的养老金责任。这是这个方程式中的重要宏观矛盾，我认为是真正问题的驱动力，最终必将达到顶点。
That blue a whole in the boat. But we're also forgetting that there's like a massive amount of weight that's going to drop on the boat. And I think that it's a really hard equation to solve. We can talk about keeping banks solvent and all this sort of stuff. At the end of the day the Central Bank, it appears in the United States and probably globally, it's going to be one big bank obligations due to me. And guess what? You know, Jason here important statements historically about the importance of democracies. Ultimately, you know, the members of that democracy are going to say this is a benefit that the majority are owed. And that's going to pull things out.
那个洞破了整艘船。但我们也忘了会有一大堆的重量掉在船上。我认为这是一个非常难解决的问题。我们可以讨论如何保持银行的偿付能力等等。但最终中央银行，在美国和全球范围内似乎都会成为一家大银行对我所拥有的债务。猜猜会发生什么？你们知道，Jason在历史上强调民主的重要性。最终，民主的成员们会说这是大多数人应得的福利。这将拯救局面。
I think the only stopgap, I'll just say one thing. The only stopgap in the next decade is going to be significantly higher tax rates in the United States. I don't see how you're going to fulfill the tension gap that's underway right now with respect to where productivity is going and where capital markets are going and where the demands are on the system from people requiring additional capital to come out to them without taxing assets away from the asset holders. So this would be corporations and high network people. And I think that's why you see the spite and proposal. We may not like it, but at the end of the day, it's going to be the only way to create a stopgap that's going to avoid massive inflation in the near term.
我认为下一个十年唯一的权宜之计就是美国要明显增加税率。我看不出来在当前的紧张形势下，如何满足经济生产力、资本市场以及人们对系统需求的紧迫性，除了从资产持有者那里收取更多的税款。这会影响到公司和高净值人群。我认为这也是为什么有人提出敌视和建议的原因。我们可能不喜欢这样做，但归根结底，这将是避免在短期内发生大规模通货膨胀所需要的唯一方法。
Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just say the only other way, the only other, I'll just say one more thing, Jake, on the only other way, besides, you know, a massive long term tax regime to fill the whole would be some extraordinary productivity gain. And this is where we can all have a hope in a dream and investment and effort around technology, AI automation, people think that their energy job, energy, but if you can get energy down below three cents a kilowatt hour and you can scale its production by tenfold. If you can automate a lot of labor, if you can get AI to do a lot of stuff that we do today, productivity will go through the roof. The economy will grow fast enough to get out of the debt bubble and meet all of these liability obligations. So there are three ways.
等一下。等一下。等一下。让我说一件事，除了一个大规模的长期税制以填补这个漏洞，只有一种另外的方式，是一些非凡的生产率增长。这是我们所有人都可以在技术、AI自动化、投资和努力方面抱有希望和梦想的地方。人们认为能源的工作是能源，但如果你可以把能源降低到每千瓦时三美分以下，并以十倍的规模生产，自动化很多劳动，如果你能让AI做很多我们今天所做的事情，生产率将飙升。经济增长足够快，以摆脱债务泡沫并满足所有这些责任义务。所以有三种方式。
Yeah, just to summarize, I think to me, to me, that's the long term, the medium term is going to be this tax stopgap, this very high tax stopgap. And then the short term is going to be all the shenanigans that we're talking about.
嗯，简单概括一下，我认为对我来说，长期来看，中期会是这个高税收抑制，而短期则会是我们正在讨论的所有花招。
Okay, I'll go to you in a second, SAC. So just to recap, there is actually a third way to there are three ways productivity as you very stutately point out and we just highlighted some of the ways productivity could help whether it's energy, AI, etc. The second is of course increasing taxation on the people who are at the top of the pile would be the likely solution. The third is also austerity, cutting spending in some way. But let me also propose one thing here, as we look forward to what do people want out of a bank and how should startups or just individuals deal with bank runs and their trust in banks to Tremots point.
好的，SAC，我立马就去找你。所以，只是简单地回顾一下，事实上有第三种提高生产力的方式，正如你所指出的那样，我们刚刚强调了一些生产力能够帮助的方面，无论是能源、人工智能等等。第二种方式当然是增加对处于顶层的人群的税收，这可能是一个可行的解决方案。第三种方式是实行紧缩政策，以某种方式削减支出。但是让我也提出一个观点，我们要想未来人们需要银行做什么，以及初创公司或个人如何处理银行运营和对银行的信任，达到Tremots的要求。
I was thinking about this over the weekend and then this discussion that we would have based on a lot of things you said, SACs, which was people just deposited their money and they don't have the ability to assess if a bank is solvent because the FDIC can't do it and it's their full time job. It's their mandate to make sure these banks are solvent. So how is a consumer going to be able to do that or even a startup founder or even a sophisticated investor like Ackman or any of us before you're in fact sophisticated.
我这个周末在想这个问题，然后和你们讨论，基于你们所说的SACs。这些人只是把他们的钱存进去，但他们无法评估银行是否偿付能力强，因为FDIC不能做到这一点，而这正是他们的全职工作。他们的使命是确保这些银行偿付能力。那么，消费者如何能够做到这一点，甚至是初创企业创始人或像Ackman等我们中的任何一个复杂的投资者，在你成为复杂的投资者之前呢？
So let me pause for a second here and pause at something. We don't want a bank, we want a bank vault. Consumers do not want their deposits to be used for shenanigans just like many people with rather pay for a social network than have their privacy data sold. So I think we should bifurcate banks into bank vaults and banks. Banks can do what they want with your deposits you get free checking, but what I wanted a bank what I want my startups to use what I want my venture firm to use is I want to pay the bank for services, whether it's 10 basis points 25 basis points, $500 a month, I would rather see my startups pay $1,000 a month in banking fees, $2,000 a month on banking fees for $2 million, whatever it is.
所以，让我在这里暂停一下。我们不想要一个普通的银行，我们需要一个银行保险库。消费者不想让他们的存款被用于欺诈行为，就像许多人更愿意付费使用社交网络而不是把他们的隐私数据出售。因此，我认为我们应该将银行分为银行保险库和普通银行。普通银行可以随意使用你的存款，而你可以获得免费的支票账户，但是我想找一个银行，希望我的创业公司和风险投资公司使用。我愿意为银行的服务支付费用，无论是10个基点还是25个基点，每月500美元。我宁愿看到我的创业公司每个月支付1000美元的银行费用，2百万美元的创业公司每月支付2000美元的银行费用，无论是多少，都可以。
And pay for each check pay for wires pay for white glove service, whatever they choose, but not allowed the banks to take that money and loan it out or do things with it. I just want a vault and I think a vault service is what the majority of consumers want and given what we're seeing with two insane bank run bailouts in our lifetimes as adults for those of us who are in Gen X 2008 and now we would rather pay for services and I leave it to you, Sacks, is this a potential solution because I don't hear anybody saying.
支付每个支票的费用，支付电汇的费用，支付白手套服务的费用，无论他们选择什么，但不允许银行拿走这笔钱并将其借出或用于其他事情。我只想要一个保险库，我认为大多数消费者都希望得到一个保险库服务，鉴于我们在成年后经历过两次疯狂的银行运行纾困，对于那些在X世代的我们来说，2008年和现在我们宁愿为服务付费，我把这交给你，萨克斯，这是一个潜在的解决方案吗，因为我没有听到任何人这样说过。
Give me a bank vault and why does that service not exist in the world. Yeah look what people really want are they want a service provider who gives me the ability to make payments which if you're a small business is payroll and payables things like that they want a money market fund to basically earn interest. And they want all that to be safe I mean it's it's very simple the idea that when you go open a checking account at a bank that you are making an unsecured loan to that bank that is not something that any consumer of small business understands that whole model I think is completely obsolete not dated and what I heard so many people say and I think this is not sincere I think it's because they hate tech is that depositors should take it on the chin.
给我一个银行保险库，为什么世界上没有这种服务？是的，人们真正想要的是一个可以提供服务的供应商，让我能够进行付款，如果你是一个小企业，那么就是工资和应付账款之类的事情，他们希望有一个货币市场基金来赚利息。他们希望所有这些都是安全的，我是说这是非常简单的，当你去银行开一个支票账户时，你其实是在向银行提供一笔无担保贷款，而这并不是任何一个消费者或小企业所理解的，我认为这个模式完全过时了，不再适用，我听到很多人说，我觉得这不是真诚的，我认为这是因为他们讨厌科技，他们认为存款人应该承受损失。
Because somehow they made a stupid decision when they open to checking account it's like are you kidding me listen what do you want the process to be. You want consumers and small businesses when they open a bank account have to review the financial statements of that bank try to figure out all their disclosures where their assets are whether they have toxic assets on the books and if they don't do a good enough job doing that if they're not smart enough to do that then you want them to be disciplined this is the word that I kept. Her being used as we to discipline the depositors the depositors are not in a position to evaluate the balance sheet of these banks that's what the feds are supposed to do that's what the regulators are supposed to do that's what news is supposed to do you're telling me that a bank that an a rating from moody's the week before and had an FDIC seal of approval that somehow they got it wrong and the feds got it wrong but the.
因为某种原因，当他们开设支票账户时，他们做出了愚蠢的决定。就好像你在开玩笑听听你想要的流程是什么。你希望消费者和小企业在开立银行账户时，必须审查该银行的财务报表，试图弄清所有披露情况，他们的资产在哪里，是否在账面上有有毒资产，如果他们做得不够好，如果他们不够聪明，你希望他们受到纪律惩罚。我一直听到这个词被用作我们对存款人进行纪律处分，而存款人并没有评估这些银行的资产负债表的能力，这是联邦银行和监管机构所应该做的事情，这也是新闻所要做的事情。你告诉我一个从穆迪得到A级评级并得到FDIC认可的银行，前一周他们弄错了，而联邦政府也弄错了，但是...
And I'm really is for to get I mean come on that's ridiculous in related news to mouth I would like an airbag in my cars to protect my family but I don't want to evaluate the airbag technology and unpack it and make sure that it's got the right right. Right. Yeah. Let me finish the point it's about consumer protection here and I don't care who the depositors is if the banking system is going down because the feds haven't done their job I mean pal two days before the bank failures was testifying that he didn't see stress in the banking system so either he was lying or asleep at the wheel and they're said the feds had given the seal approval to SVB and all these other banks they'd all passed the regulatory exams and so to now put it on the deposit when the fed screws up and the regulators screw up and Washington screws up by printing all this money and creating this inflation that we've had again out of all the six parties that you could blame I just think it's the least culpable.
我真的希望能有汽车安全气囊来保护我的家人，但是我不想评估气囊技术，拆开它，确保它是正确的。这关系到消费者保护问题，我不关心存款人是谁，如果银行系统崩溃了，因为联邦政府没有履行职责，两天前保罗正在作证时，他表示他没有看到银行系统有压力，所以他要么在撒谎，要么在睡觉，联邦政府已经批准了SVB和所有其他银行，他们都通过了监管考试，现在把责任归咎于存款人，当联邦政府、监管机构和华盛顿政府打印所有这些货币并制造通货膨胀时，我认为这是最不该负责的一个。
Chimoff should there be a service that provides no interest but is just a custodian of money that is absolutely protected where is the bank vault product in the world does it exist because I can't seem to find it some people seem to say I think freeberg you alluded to this maybe in the group chat that if you have a brokerage account that's kind of similar to what I'm saying but it doesn't have it I don't want any interest I don't need any interest for putting this money in the bank for a startup they're not in the business of making one to five percent an optimizer. I have founders who are now sending me five page memos if they can't if we're bank if yeah if the bank can't use your money they're going to charge you so remember I want to be charged that's the service I want but I think this is an important point a bank is a service provider they spend a lot of money building technology having people that work there providing service and infrastructure so for the services that they're offering if you're not going to let them use your money to make investments with your money and they can participate on that game they have to charge you they can't do it.
如果有一种服务只提供一个货币保管者，没有利息，但货币绝对得到保护，那么在世界上是否有这种银行金库产品存在呢？因为我好像找不到它。有些人好像说在群聊中你可能暗示了这一点，如果您有经纪人账户，那么这与我所说的有点相似，但它并没有。我不想要任何利息，我不需要任何利息为了创业，他们不是做1%到5%的优化①。我有创始人现在给我发五页的备忘录，如果他们不能用你的钱，他们会收你费用，所以记住我不想被收费，这是我想要的服务 ，但我认为这是一个重要的观点，银行是一种服务提供者，他们花费了大量的资金来建立技术，拥有工作人员提供服务和基础设施，所以对于他们所提供的服务，如果您不允许他们使用您的资金进行投资，并参与这个游戏，他们必须收取您费用，否则他们无法做到。
They charge you they charge you and I think that's really worth it. Freeberg is an honest service provider under the current laws you understand how it works now is that what we're being told is that when you went to the bank thinking you were just getting a service provider and frankly largely a commodity service provider you're getting a phone manager you're getting an instant manager. Yes and you're being told that you actually made a risky investment decision think about that when you open a checking account you weren't just trying to you know again use a vendor you were actually making a risky investment decision that's what they're doing. And you deserve to lose your money if you chose poorly even though nobody else could figure it out and on the extra to figure out.
他们会向你收费，但我认为这真的很值得。Freeberg是一个诚实的服务商，在当前的法律下它是合法的。你现在明白了它是如何运作的吗？当你去银行，认为你只是在找一个服务提供商，实际上你得到了一个电话经理，一个即时经理。是的，他们告诉你，你其实是做了一个有风险的投资决定。想一想，当你开一个支票账户时，你不仅仅是想使用一个供应商，你实际上正在做一个有风险的投资决策。这就是他们所做的。而且，如果你选错了，即使其他人也无法弄清楚，那么你也应该失去你的钱，并付出额外的努力去弄清楚。
You should talk about the challenges of your system to someone who lives in Argentina. It's far worse in other parts of the world, and we've come a long way in the last hundred years. We talked about 500 or 600 bank failures on average per year in the 1920s. So, I'm not saying that hey, that's not the case, but there's always been to some degree risk when people are giving their capital over to someone else, and we've certainly made huge strides in progress.
你应该向住在阿根廷的人谈论你系统的挑战。在世界其他地方情况更糟，而在过去的一百年里，我们已经取得了很大的进展。在20世纪20年代，平均每年发生了500到600次银行倒闭。所以，我不是说这不是事实，但当人们把他们的资本交给别人时，总是存在一定程度的风险，而我们在进步方面肯定取得了巨大的进展。
But, I think J. Cal, to your point, you know there is a point of privilege now that people are saying I want to have a position where I know that my money's not going to get used not going to get moved going to be completely safe in a democracy. And what would you pay for that? What's the price, Freeberg? What would you pay for that? Because right now we're basically giving every crypto entrepreneur and seller the high ground because they could make this product. I would pay 10 basis points, literally $10,000 a year per million, is that right? Yeah.
我认为，卡尔，关于你的观点，现在有一种特权观点，人们说他们想要一个地位，确保自己的钱不会被使用、不会被转移，在民主国家里会完全安全。你认为这需要多少钱？费伯格，你会为此付出多少价钱？因为现在基本上每个加密货币企业家和卖家都处于优势地位，因为他们可以制造这种产品。我愿意支付10个基点，每百万年付10000美元，是这样的吗？是的。
Remember when you thought Jeff Bezos was going to be president? I still think it's a distinct possibility. Anyway, what would you pay for this product? Just a Chamath or like Bloomberg or Bezos. I don't want to speculate on new products. It's kind of a dumb tangent.
还记得你曾经觉得杰夫•贝佐斯会成为总统吗？我还是认为这是一个很有可能的情况。不管怎么样，你会愿意花多少钱买这个产品？像查马特、彭博或贝佐斯那样高价吗？我不想揣测新产品，这有点愚蠢。
I think the thing that you're bringing up, though, is a dumb tangent, okay. Why doesn't a product like this exist? And I think that it was very well explained. It's that every for-profit business is in the business of making money, and there are physical costs that you have to bear. In the case of a bank, there is physical infrastructure, literally bricks and mortar that go into making the branches, there are lots of people, there is lots of software, there's lots of complex back-office and middle-office things that banks have to do in order to accept money. That has a cost, so I don't see how it will be very easy for somebody to create a bank that just stores your money for you without you being charged quite a lot of money, unfortunately. I think that there has to be a different way to solve this problem, and I think that what we did after the Great Financial Crisis was the regulators wrote down all kinds of new rules.
我认为你提出的问题有点离谱。为什么像这样的产品不存在呢？我认为这已经被很好地解释了。任何营利性企业都是为了赚钱的，而你要承担物理成本。对于银行来说，有物理基础设施，这些基础设施就是支撑分支机构的砖和灰泥，还有很多员工、软件和复杂的后台和中台工作需要银行来接受资金。这都需要成本，所以我不认为有人可以很容易地创建一个只为你存储资金的银行，而你不需要支付相当大的费用，不幸的是。我认为必须有一种不同的方式来解决这个问题，我认为我们在大金融危机之后所做的就是监管机构制定了各种新规定。
But the crazy thing in 2008 where those rules were written on paper, and now we're in 2023 and these rules can be written in software, and so I think what it requires is some amount of tactical real-time intelligence that regulators need to have over those that they regulate. And I don't know why we're so afraid of demanding that the next time some of these complicated real-time laws are written in law that they also need to get written in code. And I think that that's a practical solution. It should be the case that every bank that is supervised by the Fed has a dashboard that has all of the key levers that allows what you said, Jason, to happen, which is a real-time market.
但2008年的疯狂之处在于那些规则是写在纸上的，而现在我们已经到了2023年，这些规则可以用软件编写。因此，我认为需要一定的战术实时情报，监管机构需要对其监管的人有所掌握。我不知道为什么我们如此害怕要求在制定一些复杂的实时法律时，也必须将其编写成代码。我认为这是一个实用的解决方案。每家由联邦储备委员会监管的银行都应该拥有一个仪表板，其中包含所有关键杠杆，允许像Jason所说的那样实现实时市场。
Should those or should those not be disclosed to shareholders? That's a different discussion. But the regulators should have 100 percent transparency into how these organizations run because, as SAC said, they are an enormously critical institution that, at best case, after this fiasco, what we've realized is very poorly understood by consumers and that, at worst case, is being mis-marketed to us.
这些信息是否应该向股东公开？这是另一个讨论话题。但监管机构应该有100%的透明度，了解这些机构运作的情况。正如SAC所说，这些机构是极其重要的制度，在这场灾难之后，我们意识到消费者对它们的理解非常不足，最糟糕的情况是，我们被误导了。
Yeah, I think that shouldn't be allowed. We're also missing the other side of the balance sheet. We haven't talked about it at all, but banks play a really critical and important role as lenders. Banks act as the channel for lending capital to small businesses for lending capital to individuals to buy homes. It's the primary place where capital is provided to help fuel economic growth and prosperity, particularly in the United States where we have such a liquid fluid and available mortgage market to support home buying in America.
是的，我认为这是不应该被允许的。我们还缺乏资产负债表的另一面。我们还没有讨论过它，但银行在借款人方面扮演着非常重要和关键的角色。银行是向小企业提供资本和向个人购买房屋提供资本的渠道。这是主要的资本提供地方，可帮助促进经济增长和繁荣，特别是在美国，我们有如此流通的贷款市场来支持美国的购房。
And the absence of you know Jason what you're talking about having the ability to use deposits to make loans and have what banks have fundamentally been in this country for over a hundred years, which is taking short-term deposits to make long-term loans and making sure that there's some degree of balance and availability of liquidity to support transactions. And ultimately, mortgage securities came out of the need to generate more liquidity by banks to support depositors, and obviously, there were always inflationary things that happen in the market and bubbles that happened, but it's an important role that banks play.
你知道吗，Jason？银行能够利用存款贷款并从根本上帮助国家，这已经持续了一百多年。银行以短期存款做长期贷款，保证一定程度的平衡和流动性，以支持交易。而房贷证券产生的原因，则是为了提供更多流动性以支持存款人。市场中总是会有通货膨胀和泡沫的出现，但银行的作用是十分重要的。
The lending aspect of banks, if it gets stifled too much because we swing too far the other way, it can actually have a really adverse effect on economic growth and prosperity and the ability for people to afford homes in this country. So that's the other side of the coin and where things can go back.
银行的贷款方面，如果因为我们走得太过了而被扼杀，实际上会对经济增长和繁荣以及人们在这个国家负担得起住房的能力产生相当不利的影响。这就是另一面的硬币，也是事情可能会反转的地方。
So, this is where I find like the current banking model to be sort of like weird and maybe obsolete and definitely not what consumers expect.
所以，这是我发现目前的银行模式有点奇怪、可能已经过时，而且绝对不是消费者所期望的。
So, for example, if you go to a bank and you put your money into a deposit account and then they loan it out to make mortgages. Do you realize that you're an investor in those mortgages as the as the depositor I don't think you do.
举个例子，假如你去了银行，将你的钱存入定期存款账户，然后他们会把这些钱借给人买房。你知道吗？作为储户，你其实是这些抵押贷款的一个投资者。我认为你并没有意识到这一点。
I mean what they what they do is they take those mortgages socks they package them up they sell them and they get an origination fee and they get the money back.
我的意思是，他们所做的是拿这些房贷，打包出售然后获得一个起初费用再拿回钱。
So they're not that's not always they should be like should be a way well as far go do not exactly so be a way well as far go for example they do a lot of that but if you look at first for public they have a 90 billion dollar loan portfolio on their balance sheet that they've not packaged up and sold.
所以，它们并不总是像它们应该的那样，应该有一种方式。例如，它们确实做了很多事情，但是如果你首先看公众看到的，它们的资产负债表上有900亿美元的贷款组合，还没有打包出售。
So the packaging and selling of mortgages generated the liquidity that the banks needed but there's a cost to that so a lot of banks will try and balance out their loan portfolio where they'll package some of it up and sell it but when they do that they take a loss they were they pay.
因此，包装和销售抵押贷款为银行提供了所需的流动性，但这也有代价，于是很多银行会尝试平衡他们的贷款组合，他们会把一部分打包出售，但是这样做会有损失，他们需要付出代价。
Maybe they should be required to do that because because because I mean look to the point about mark to market assets it's very hard to mark an asset to market unless it's liquid and publicly traded.
也许他们应该被要求这样做，因为因为因为我是说看一下关于市价计价资产的观点，除非它是流动性高且公开交易的，否则很难按市场价计价。
Let me give you an economic point I think that there's about seven trillion dollars in deposits in banks so what you guys are saying happened you're basically sucking seven trillion dollars out of the system that's being used to fuel purchasing in the form of loans and you're taking that said or call it a 10% discount to that so about call it six trillion dollars and you're saying we got to go find a market.
让我给你们一个经济要点。我认为银行存款大约有七万亿美元。所以，你们所说的情况实际上是将这七万亿美元从被用来提供贷款燃料的系统中吸走，并以10%折扣的方式减少了六万亿美元。你们现在说我们必须去找市场。
For six trillion dollars of loans and then we're going to have six trillion dollars of cash sitting in a bank account doing nothing and that that challenges the way that cash were going to money market funds so in other words like you'd package up all those mortgage bonds you create a mortgage bond security and then if consumers if depositors want that product they'll just buy it.
我们要贷款六万亿美元，然后我们就会有六万亿美元的现金坐在一个银行账户里什么也不做，这挑战了现金流向货币市场基金的方式，换句话说，就像你把所有那些抵押债券打包成一个抵押债券证券，如果消费者或存款人想要这种产品，他们就会购买它。
But what is a money market it ends up being the same thing where money is you earn interest on cash that's being used to make investments elsewhere so you want to earn interest on your cash it has to be loaned out somewhere to someone.
但什么是货币市场呢？它最终变成了同样的事情，即在其他地方进行投资使用的现金上赚取利息，因此，如果您想在现金上赚取利息，必须将现金借出给某个人或某个地方。
I understand but what I'm saying is look I'm just brainstorming here I don't you know I don't have the answer but spitballing yes exactly I'm not saying this is what should be done I'm just kind of asking whether it might make more sense what if on the depositor side all of the things you put your money in our money market funds and then when the bank goes out and does its lending business it does ultimately at some point after packets those up and they get turned into securities you know sacks but money market funds you know where that cash goes when you when you invest in a money market fund you're giving money to someone who's using it to make a loan like it is also I understand but then the depositor would never be a risk mark to market is sex is pulling the deposit would never be a risk of being fairly.
我知道你的意思，但是我想说的是，我在这里只是一些头脑风暴，我不知道，你知道，我没有答案，但是我们进行下一步探讨，没错，我不是说这就该这么做，我只是在探讨这样做是否更有意义，比如说，如果在存款人方面，你把所有的钱都放进货币市场基金里，当银行进行贷款业务时，它们最终会将这些基金打包，转化为证券，你知道的，类似于股票，但是当你投资货币市场基金时，你的现金是被用来借贷的，因此存款人就不会承担任何市场风险，证券在流通时也不会对存款人造成明显的风险。
I just want to give your shifting the risk equation to the fund manager the money market instead of the manager of the bank and and at the end of the day that money is just the owners of those just the owner of that security that money market fund that that would take the hit okay just as we wrap your case I want to talk on some other issues as well.
我只是想把风险转移的问题给基金经理的货币市场，而不是银行经理，而且在一天结束的时候，这些钱只是那些证券的所有者的钱市场基金会承担损失，好的，正如我们结束你的案子，我想谈谈一些其他问题。
There's two things that are super tangible that founders can do right now or people who want to mitigate against these kind of issues the there's something called ICS insured cash sweeps these are accounts that automatically you know we'll put your money into multiple FDI insured institutions 250 K at a time we talked about this previously there's a bunch of folks doing that in Fintech I won't give any of them free plugs here but you can just go look and search for ICS there is also maybe some thought here that the FDIC 250 K limit maybe that's outdated certainly for businesses it is so maybe that should double or triple and obviously that cost would be spread out and then finally you can go to treasury direct a government that government that and I literally have start-ups doing this we have major treasuries they're going there and buying short duration stuff themselves holding it themselves so they don't have to worry this is part this is provided by the government is my understanding and people are buying direct from the government.
有两件非常具体的事情，创始人或想要缓解这种问题的人现在可以做的，其中有一种叫做ICS有保险现金扫描的账户，这些账户可以自动将你的资金投入多个受联邦存款保险公司保险的机构中，每次25万美元，我们之前谈过这个。Fintech中有一堆人在做这件事，我不会在这里免费宣传任何人，但你可以去搜索ICS。或许对于FDIC的25万美元的限制来说，这是过时的，特别是对于企业来说是这样的，因此也许应该加倍或加三倍，显然这个成本会分摊。最后，你可以到国库局直接购买短期的资产，我们有创业公司正在做这件事，我们有大量的财务人员也在这样做，他们去买债券并将它们自己保存，这是由政府提供的服务，人们直接从政府那里购买。
I personally am not a fan of start-ups buying T bills because of the duration mismatch problem. They always underestimate when they're going to need their cash, and so I don't like tying up this is if you had a giant treasury. Yeah, but this is for giant treasury always get it wrong. I see this all the time whenever they try to let me just say when start trying to create ladder bond portfolios, they end up needing the money sooner than they thought.
我个人并不喜欢初创企业购买国库券，因为存在持续时间不匹配的问题。他们总是低估何时需要资金，所以我不喜欢将这些资金捆绑起来，就好像你有一个巨大的国库一样。是啊，但是即使是这种情况，巨大的国库也经常犯错。我经常看到他们试图创建梯形债券组合时，始终需要比他们预计的时间更快地拿出资金。
What I much rather see start-up do is buy a hundred percent US T bill backed money market fund run by the absolute biggest of the big financial institutions because you can get in and out of it at any time you want and without paying a fee. And that's so much better than trying to manage your own bond portfolio. Let a professional fund manager do it.
我更希望看到创业公司购买由绝对最大的金融机构运营的百分之百美国国债支持的货币市场基金，因为你可以在任何时候自由买入和卖出，而不用支付任何费用。这比尝试管理自己的债券组合好得多。让专业的基金经理来做吧。
Well, there are people who do provide these kinds of bond ladders. I'm just telling you what the best practice advice going around is. Symbol through like brokerage account sure or multiple ones, right? But now this is I think speaks to Chimoff the fact that we have start-up founders and people having to measure, manage a treasury this granularly. Is this a failure, or is this what should be happening? Should we have to have treasuries in the 10 million or 20 million be this granularly manage or should this just be FDFD I see rates, you know should be just a 10x?
嗯，确实有人提供这种债券梯队。我只是告诉你目前最好的实践建议是什么。就像经纪账户一样符号化，或者多个账户，对吧？但是现在我觉得这涉及到了Chimoff的事实，即我们有初创企业创始人和人们必须精细管理财务。这是一种失败，还是应该发生的情况？我们应该将10万或20万的财务管理得如此精细，还是应该只是FDFD我看到的利率，你知道应该只是一个10倍？
In the absence of regular regulatory changes that protect this money, you need to have a financially sophisticated actor on the board. And again, I go back to that should be your venture capitalist. And that person should not have conflicts of interest with the banks that they direct you to.
如果没有定期的监管变化来保护这笔资金，你需要在董事会中拥有一个财务老练的角色。而且，我要再次强调应该选择风投资本家。并且，那个人不能和他指导你去的银行存在利益冲突。
I mean, I don't think that that's a very controversial statement. I yeah it's just not happening and I am just flabbergasted that people are not even doing the basic blocking attack on here of having three or four accounts.
我的意思是，我不认为那是个很有争议的说法。是啊，这种事情不会发生，我很吃惊人们甚至没有做一些最基本的防御措施，例如拥有三个或四个账户。
I've always had three or four banking relationships always had it split up. Should we move on to some of the other pressing issues?
我一直都有三四个不同的银行账户，这样更安全。我们要不要转移到其他紧迫的问题上呢？
There was a really interesting founders fund story about them breaking their latest fund in half and then there is stripe closing their funding. Which one would you gentlemen like to go to or a different story on the docket?
其中有一个非常有趣的创始人基金故事，他们将最新基金分成两半，还有Stripe关闭他们的融资。先生们想听哪一个，还是另一个故事呢？如果需要的话，我可以改写一下。
I think there are four things that are very interrelated okay in startup plan.
我觉得启动计划中有四件非常相关的事情。
Founders fund took their just to make the math simple because I'm going to get the numbers not exactly right but like a two billion dollar fund that they're going to break into two one billion dollar funds.
创始人基金（Founders Fund）将进行调整，以便让数学计算变得简单，因为我可能不会准确地说出数字，他们将把一个价值20亿美元的基金拆成两个价值各10亿美元的基金。
I think that's one story. It's a one point eight billion dollar fund they're going to break it into two nine hundred million dollar funds. It's their eighth fund, it's being cut in half and it will become eight and nine.
我觉得那只是一个故事。他们打算把18亿美元的基金分成两个9亿美元的基金。这是他们的第8个基金，被减半了，变成了8和9。
I think what that speaks to is valuations and the marks that we think we have for existing companies and the future value that smart investors like this see.
我认为这表明的是我们对现有公司的估值和我们认为的未来价值以及像这样聪明的投资者看到的价值标记。
All roads lead to it's is we're in for a slog and so trying to put a two billion dollar fund to work doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense to some of the smartest people in the room so that's that's that.
所有道路都通向它，这意味着我们将面临一个艰难的工作，因此有些会议室里最聪明的人认为，投入20亿美元的资金似乎并不具有很大的经济价值，这就是现状。
The second one there, it's according to Axios, Peter Tio led this charge and he is the Contrarians Contrarian. He was the one according to Axios that led that cut of the fund size with some at a founders fund according to the reports.
第二个是根据Axios的说法，彼得·提奥领导了这次行动，他被称为反对派中的反对派。据Axios报道，他是领导减少创始人基金资金规模的人。
I'll say him I'll say the more important thing which in Peter and I on the same where the largest I'll peace in our funds and so you know as the largest I'll peace in our funds I think this is a no brainer decision.
我会告诉他最重要的事情就是彼得和我在同一个地方，我们的资金是最大的和平，所以你知道，我认为这是一个显而易见的决定。
Number two, strike basically takes a 50% haircut which is this single best run most highly valued company in Silicon Valley again that's going to eviscerate the company a lot of TVPI and a lot of people's portfolio is a lot of theoretical money that LPs were going to get.
第二，罢工基本上要面临50%的损失，这是硅谷最高价值的单一最佳公司，这将摧毁公司，许多TVPI以及大量LP的理论资金都将消耗殆尽，很多人的投资组合也会受到影响。
I think the third thing is there's a person that went and filed a FOIA request that UC Berkeley to get Sequoias returns and it turns out that the best investor in the game quote unquote since 2018 has not really done that well.
我觉得第三个问题是，有个人前往提交了一个FOIA请求给加州大学伯克利分校，想要获得Sequoias的回报情况。结果发现，自2018年起，传说中最好的投资者其实并没有表现得很好。
And I think the University of California invested over $800 million in Sequoias since 2018 and I think is a return what some 40 million bucks on that number.
我觉得加利福尼亚大学自2018年以来在 Sequoias 上投资了超过8亿美元，并从中获得了大约4千万的回报。
And then the fourth which just came out today is that Tiger wrote down the value of their private book by 33% for 2022 and so you know I think Tigers and you have basically has gone from 100 billion to 50 billion in a year.
然后，今天发布的第四个消息是，Tiger 将他们的私人账簿价值 2022 年度下调了 33%，所以我认为，Tiger 和你们的基本资产已经在一年内从 1000 亿美元下降到了 500 亿美元。
There's one more note to add to that YC basically let go of their growth team this week. YCominator for people didn't know what was called the continuity fund they were doing late stage investing and that got cut which is a signal and the 17 employees are gone now and Gary 10 I think is making the right decision.
还有一点需要补充，就是YC基本上这个星期放弃了他们的成长团队。对于那些不知道他们所谓的连续基金的人，YCominator一直在进行后期投资，但现在这个项目被取消了，这是一个信号，17名员工也离开了，我认为Gary 10做出了正确的决定。
You know they have to focus on what they're great at which is the earliest stage of the company and they had called this one look now.
你知道，他们必须集中精力做他们擅长的事情，也就是公司早期阶段，他们把这个叫做"现在看看"。
This is the most interesting thing for me in the following way. I think the YCominator Unicorn hit rate is 6% right so every hundred companies that come out of YC which costs only about 10 million dollars to seed right six of them become worth a billion dollars or more and obviously some become worth much much more.
我认为YCominator独角兽的成功率是6％，所以从YC出来的每一百家公司（仅耗费约1000万美元进行播种）中，有六家公司价值达到了十亿美元或更高，显然有些公司价值更高。对我来说，这是最有趣的事情。
And so if you see how difficult it is even for a growth fund that's attached to that funnel to be successful and make money because obviously this thing was tonning cash you would not have cut it.
所以，如果你看到即使是和那个渠道相关联的成长基金很难成功并赚钱，因为显然这个事情正在赚钱，你就不会削减它。
I don't think anybody would do that so I think it was a very challenging strategy at a challenging moment in time and so I applaud these guys were having the discipline to do it but if you take them all in totality it is a complicated place in venture capital and start a plan holy macro like it's a reset.
我不认为有任何人会这样做，所以我觉得这是一个非常具有挑战性的策略，在一个具有挑战性的时刻，因此我赞扬这些人有纪律地去做，但如果你把它们全部考虑在内，风险投资和创业计划是一个复杂的领域，就像重启一样。
It's tough to make money, be a lot of folks may not know exactly what they're doing, see a bunch of evaluations are totally wrong and D we're going to have to start doing the cleanup work now resetting all of it which just takes years as you guys remember into the city took us took us five years to fix this.
赚钱很不容易，因为很多人可能并不确切知道他们在做什么，还会出现一堆完全错误的评估。我们现在需要开始清理工作，重新设置所有的东西，这需要很多年时间，就像你们记得城市花了我们五年时间来修复一样。
It's a hard reset sacks what do you when you look at these in totality what would you say?
当你全面审视这些内容时，这就是一个彻底的重启，你会怎么说呢？
I agree with what trim off the said. I mean it is going to be a hard reset, a lot of restructuring, a lot of cap tables, there's a lot of mess to clean up.
我同意trim off所说的话。我的意思是，这将是一次艰难的重置，需要大量的重组和财务分配表的调整，需要清理一堆混乱。
All of that being said, I think I'd rather be an investor today than an investor two years ago or one year ago because at least the valuations have corrected to some degree and then also we have this really interesting AI wave happening now and there's a lot of opportunities to invest in that new you know cycle.
说到这一切，我认为我今天比两年前或一年前更愿意成为一位投资者，因为至少估值已经有所修正，同时我们现在正经历一个非常有趣的人工智能浪潮，有很多机会可以投资于这个新的周期。
So at least there's like an interesting product cycle. It's getting me excited to go to work and see these new demos from all these different companies whereas you know you go back a year or two and just the product innovation since seem as world changing as it does now so.
所以至少有一个有趣的产品周期。它让我兴奋地去上班，看到这些不同公司提供的新演示品，相比一两年前，产品创新似乎没有现在这么具有世界变革性。
I think that as bad as things are my guess is that the new ventages of VC are going to be better than you know call it 2021 for sure. That's not going to be a high bar. It's not a high bar but still. Wow that's the same thing but actually to moth this is a contradiction. Trash this is the contradiction is that it felt better to be a VC in 2021 but in hindsight we know that the vintage is going to be not good.
我认为，尽管事情看起来很糟糕，但我猜测新一轮风投的优势将会比你认为的更好，当然这个时间点可以叫作2021年。这不会是一个高的门槛，但仍然是一个门槛。哇，虽然说的是同样的话，但对于我来说却是矛盾的。这个矛盾之处在于2021年当时担任风投人员感觉很好，但事后我们知道那个年份的风投可能不那么好。
We're asked how many told on but today it feels not great to be a VC but I think the vintage will be a lot better. But anybody would tell you that at some point you're going to have to divorce yourself from emotion to be a reasonably good investor over long periods of time. How many data points do we need to realize that too many people were put into this game that may not have known what they were doing and we're going to have to go and work through all of those excesses. And I think it's just going to take a lot of time.
今天我们被问到有多少人告发了，但作为风险投资家，我感觉并不好。但我认为，这个时代将会变得更好。不过，任何人都会告诉你，在较长一段时间内成为一个合理的投资者，你需要与情感脱离，并拥有足够的数据量才能意识到，太多人参与了这个游戏，但可能并不知道他们在做什么，我们需要努力解决这些问题。我认为这需要很长时间。
US limited partners are in a really difficult spot. European investors I think are probably in a pretty difficult spot. There are a couple of right right points around the world the folks that are still optimistic and doing well. I think Middle East is one. Southeast Asia is another. But other than those it's just a whole group of folks that just have to get completely re-underwritten from first principles.
我们美国的有限合伙人现在处境真的很困难。我想欧洲的投资者现在也处境相当困难。全球也有一些地区的人仍然保持着乐观并且表现不错，如中东和东南亚。但除了这些地区外，其他地方的人们必须从头再次审视他们的经营原则和风险承受能力。
Even when you have an incredible platform like Sequoia, five years of no returns on 800 billion dollars for somebody like UC Berkeley, what it really means without commenting on Sequoia's performance is that UC Berkeley is effectively out of business in being a limited partner for the foreseeable future. Well, and I think that that has that has implications.
即使您像红杉资本这样拥有一个不可思议的平台，在8000亿美元资本中五年没有回报，对于像加州大学伯克利分校这样的人来说，不评论红杉资本的表现，实际上意味着加州大学伯克利分校未来的有限合作伙伴地位已失效。这就有一些深刻的含义。
So even if you think these ventages are great, I don't think they're open for business. And frankly, even if they wanted to be open for business, how do you go to an IC when they look at all of the totality of those dollars that have not made anything, how do you justify the next 800 billion? I just think it's very hard.
所以即使你认为这些优势很好，我认为它们还没有开展业务。而且，即使他们想开展业务，当IC看到所有这些钱都没有赚到任何东西时，你如何为下一个800亿美元辩护？我觉得这很难。
I agree that LPs are out of it. I think the story was garbage because all funds go through a J curve and they're literally talking about the majority of the funds in that vintage 2008-2019-2021. They're all, literally, the definition of the J curve, the third, fourth, fifth year. One of the most important things you need to be able to do is measure how long does it take the Delta T to 90% of calling committed capital? And how long does it take the Delta T to return one XDPI?
我同意有LPs已经过时了。我认为这个报道是垃圾，因为所有基金都经历过J形曲线，它们实际上是在谈论2008-2019-2021年这个时间段的大部分基金。它们都是J形曲线的定义，第三、第四、第五年。你需要能够做的最重要的事情之一是衡量Delta T需要多长时间才能到达90%的承诺资本？还有Delta T需要多长时间才能回报一个XDPI？
I can tell you Jason, if you're a reasonably good fund, those numbers should be between five and seven years for both. Which none of those funds I've had the average for a normal venture fund is around five to seven years to call 90% of the capital and around five to seven years to return one XDPI. I'm just telling you that's what the average is. And if you talk to firms.
我可以告诉你Jason，如果你是一个相当好的基金，那么这些数字应该在五到七年之间。我拥有的基金中，普通风险投资基金的平均周期是五到七年，能够回收90%的资本，并在五到七年内回报一个XDPI。我只是告诉你这是平均水平。如果你和公司谈论。
So all I'm saying is there was a period of time where in the absence of getting money back again, this is not a Sequoia thing. It just means that there was an entire coal-hort and years of capital allocation that is not necessarily in a J curve, it's impaired. Because if after five years, you've returned nothing, sometimes you just have to see the writing on the wall.
所以我想说的是，有一个时期，在没有再次获得资金的情况下，这并不是Sequoia的问题。这意味着有整个一批年份的资本配置，并不一定是在J形曲线上，而是受损的。因为如果五年后，你还没有回报，有时你只能看到现实。
Explain the J curve one more time for folks and then what is your analysis of that Sequoia story? Well, the J curve, the theory behind it is that when you start deploying a new fund, you're drawing fees down to pay for the firm and the investments you've made have not been marked up yet. So the value of the fund is actually going down because some of it's going to eaten up in fees and you haven't really had a chance for any of those investments to be successful.
请再次向大家解释J形曲线，然后谈一下你对红杉树的故事的分析。嗯，J形曲线的理论是，当你开始部署新基金时，你是在拿取费用来支付公司，而你所做的投资尚未被标记。因此，基金的价值实际上正在下降，因为其中一部分被用于支付费用，而你还没有机会让这些投资变得成功。
And then what happens? And shut down tap it early. I don't even know about that. I just think they have a chance to get marked up. But then what happens is you start getting markups and now at least on paper, the value of the fund goes up and then hopefully those markups eventually turn into distributions or DPI like Jamath is talking about.
然后会发生什么？提前关闭水龙头。我甚至不知道这件事。我只是认为他们有机会获得加价。但是接下来就会开始涨价，现在至少在纸上，基金的价值会上涨，然后希望这些涨价最终会变成发行或像Jamath所说的DPI。
Yeah, we have a vintage 2017-2018 fund that's actually fully returned at this point. You exited some secondaries for acquisitions? No, we just had some exits. But look, I think that is a little bit on the early slash lucky side. But we haven't really seen much of the J because you know, you should be getting markups within two years, I think on your investments if the companies are looking good. At least historically, that was the case.
是的，我们有一个古董投资基金，它在2017年至2018年期间完全退还了资金。您退出一些二级市场的收购吗？不，我们只是有一些退出。但是，我认为这有点太早/幸运了。但是，我们还没有看到太多增值，因为如果公司看起来不错，您应该在两年内获得回报。至少从历史上看是这样的。
Freeberg, any thoughts on this collection of stories with venture basically having the great venture recent? The end of the super cycle, the beginning of the next. It's happening. Okay, we're in the thick of it.
Freeberg，你对这个故事集有什么想法？基本上是有伟大企业的冒险最近的故事集。超级周期的结束，下一个周期的开始。这正在发生。好的，我们正在经历它的高峰阶段。
By the way, I would just go back to the point that with all the problems Jamath is talking about, the reset and the wipeout that needs to occur. I think this is still, I think that's part of what makes this a better time to be an investor. This is what I'll say about that, SACS.
顺便说一下，我想回到Jamath所提到的所有问题的要点，需要进行的重置和清除。我认为这仍然是，我认为这是使这个时候成为投资者更好的一部分。这就是我对此的看法，SACS。
I think I agree with you. I disconnect asset values and asset prices from fundamental business value being created. So the market bid stuff up prices went up. That doesn't really mean that businesses aren't fundamentally good, that there aren't amazing technology businesses being built today that are going to affect billions of lives tomorrow.
我认为我同意你的观点。我把资产价值和资产价格与基本商业价值分开。所以，市场抬高价格，价格上涨。这并不意味着企业在根本上不好，也不意味着今天没有正在建设将来将影响数十亿人生命的惊人技术企业。
If you are tracking a public company's stock and you like the business, you spend time with management, you see what they're building, you see their revenues growing, their profits are growing, they're making great products, people are happy with what they're doing. But the stock is really expensive, you don't want to buy the stock. Suddenly the stock drops by 80%. Nothing about the business has changed. It's just that the market is paying less to own shares in that company.
如果你追踪一家上市公司的股票并且喜欢这个公司，你会花时间与管理层交流，了解他们正在开发的产品，看到他们的收入不断增长，利润不断增加，同时产品质量也变得很好，人们对他们的产品感到满意。但是股票非常昂贵，你不想买这只股票。突然股票下跌了80%。公司的业务并没有发生任何变化，只是市场付出的代价变得更加低廉了，从而拥有该公司的股票。
That's a great time to buy that stock. I think that's the moment we're in in Silicon Valley. Everyone's like, oh my God, it's over. There's things are terrible. Just because the asset prices of the shares in companies has gone down does not mean that the quality of the businesses has changed or that there isn't fundamental value being created in Silicon Valley.
那是买那支股票的好时机。我认为我们在硅谷就是这个时刻。每个人都像“哦我的天”，一切都完了。事实上，股票价格下跌并不意味着企业的质量发生了变化，也不意味着在硅谷没有创造基本价值。
In fact, the contrary point to SACS comment is that it is a great time to be buying these shares. It is a great time to be investing. It is a great time because as we've talked about countless times, there are extraordinary technologies from AI to biotech becoming software to fusion, to novel applications with AI and SACS. On and on and on.
实际上，与SACS的评论相反，现在正是购买这些股票的好时机。这是一个投资的好时机。这是因为我们已经反复讨论过，从人工智能到生物科技，再到融合软件、以及AI和SACS等领域都有着非同寻常的技术。无论如何，无穷无尽。
Many of the amazing things we've talked about that I think can and will affect many industries and billions of lives are being built today and they're not going to stop being built. You can now buy the stock at 80 percent off. If you're investing today and if you're a builder today, as long as the capital keeps flowing to support the building work, which I think to some degree it will because there's still enough of it sitting there.
我们谈论的许多惊人之事我认为将会影响许多产业和亿万人的生活，这些正在今天建造，而且不会停止建造。现在你可以以八成折扣购买股票。如果你今天投资，如果你是一位建造者，只要资本继续流动来支持建造工作，我认为在一定程度上它们将会，因为仍然有足够的资本滞留在那里。
You're not going to have a lot of these crazy growthy rounds with high prices and all the nonsense that went on the last couple of years. But there's certainly a lot of opportunity to create real business value and right now an opportunity to buy shares pretty cheap and participate meaningfully in that value creation.
你不会再有很多这种价格高昂、各种乱七八糟增长轮的疯狂情况，就像过去几年所发生的那样。但是现在确实有很多机会去创建真正的商业价值，并且有机会以相对便宜的价格购买股票，有意义地参与到这种价值创造中去。
I'll tell you the thing I'm seeing on the field and like playing the game on the field is something we've been talking about for the last year. We started a program called Founder.University and it's basically like a 12 week course on how to build your MVP. We had 350 people join the last one.
我会告诉你我在球场上看到的东西，像在球场上玩游戏一样，这是我们过去一年一直在谈论的事情。我们启动了一个名为创始人大学的计划，它基本上是一个为期12周的课程，教你如何构建你的MVP。上一次我们有350人参加了这个计划。
What's the discount code people can use to this? No discount code. It's free for founders basically. If it's free for founders if they come to the 12 weeks. But anyway, what I did was. I said. No, it's Founder.University because it's an extension. But in the words of of SACS. Let me finish. Please let me finish.
人们可以使用哪个折扣码呢？其实没有折扣码。对于创始人来说，基本上是免费的。如果他们参加了12周的课程，那么对于创始人来说是免费的。但是，无论如何，我说的是，没有折扣码。因为它是Founder. University的延伸。但是，用SACS的话来说，让我把话说完。请让我完整地说完。
What we did was we just said anybody who gets to an MVP and it's two or three builder co-founders will give them a 25 K check. And I did 20 or 30 of these 25 K checks in the last couple of months of just the founders right now who have been laid off by other companies.
我们所做的是说，只要任何一个拿到了 MVP（Minimum Viable Product），并且有两到三个创始人，我们就会给他们一张 25k 的支票。在过去几个月里，我给了20到30张这样的支票，针对的是现在被其他公司解雇的创始人们。
Their dog-id, pragmatic, absolutely customer-centric product-centric founders whereas the last five years have been filled with theatrics and white papers and ICOs and just nonsense and absurd valuations and people want an credit for work not done. And now people are actually building MVPs and their dog-id product-driven founders customer-centric mission-driven founders and it feels to me like 2010 all over again.
他们的狗标识，务实、绝对以客户为中心的以产品为中心的创始人，而过去五年充满了戏剧性、白皮书、ICO以及毫无意义和荒谬估值的事情，人们想要因为完成的工作而得到信用。现在人们正在实际构建MVPs，他们的狗标识是以产品为驱动的、以客户为中心的、以使命为驱动的创始人，对我来说，感觉像是回到了2010年。
That first part is so well said. People wanted all this credit for work not done and for progress not achieved. That game is over. Finished. Finished.
那第一部分说得这么好。人们想要所有这些工作没有完成和进步没有取得的功劳。那个游戏结束了。完结了。完结了。
Which means if you are a product-led CEO and you're a mission-driven CEO who actually builds something, you stand out so much in this ecosystem and have people begging for money sending me long emails and decks and totally trustable market. I'm just like, can you just build a product and show me that you can actually deliver a product and then we'll start the process of the rewards-based system here.
这意味着，如果你是一个以产品为导向的CEO，而且你是一个充满使命感的CEO，实际上建造了某些东西，你就会在这个生态系统中脱颖而出，并且有人不断地给你发长长的电子邮件和介绍信来请求资金，市场完全值得信任。我的意思是，你可以先把产品构建好，让我看看你能否实际交付产品，然后我们会开始奖励制度流程。
The reward-based system in Silicon Valley is so magical when it works. You get money from founder university or tech stars or Y-combinator, then go to a seed fund, then go to a series A fund. That milestone-based funding was so broken and now it's back and it's so functional when it's working. It's just a magic of Silicon Valley is when people work and get rewards, work and get rewards. And it just creates this great pace and dynamic that I'm glad to see.
在硅谷，如果奖励制度运作良好，它会像魔法一样神奇。你可以从创业者大学、科技巨头或 Y Combinator 获得资金，然后到种子基金，再到 A 轮基金。这种基于里程碑的融资方式曾经很糟糕，但现在它回来了，当它运作良好时它非常有效。在硅谷，当人们工作并获得回报时，它就像魔法一样，会创造出这种伟大的节奏和动态，我很高兴能看到它。
Just as we wrap here, everybody's been begging for a science corner. Enough about the chaos in the world. Everybody wants the Sultan of science to tell us and educate us about something and Saks needs to use the Lou anyway. So let's do a science corner here.
就在我们结束时，大家一直都在恳求开设一个科学角落。关于世界上的混乱已经说够了。每个人都想听科学大王告诉我们关于某些事情并对我们进行教育，而且Saks也需要用一下洗手间。所以让我们在这里开个科学角落吧。
Room, temperature, superconductor. You sent me a link. I read the abstract of this paper and I don't know which language I need to put this into Google translate, but I couldn't understand any of it. So please, I literally read the abstract that I was like, I couldn't get through the first two sentences without having to start doing searches.
你给我发了一个链接。我看了这篇论文的摘要，但不知道要把它翻译成哪种语言，我一个字都没看懂。所以，请你相信我，我读了摘要，但前两句话都看不懂，又不得不开始进行搜索。至于“房间”、“温度”和“超导体”，如果必要的话，我可以更改翻译。
I'll start with just like the simple explainer on superconductors. You know, materials that conduct electricity are called conductors. So conductors, electrons move through them like a copper wire. That's how electricity flows. And all conductors have some amount of resistance, meaning not all the electrons kind of flow through at a perfect rate. They bump into the atoms in the material in the wire and they generate heat. You know, you've ever felt a wire while electricity flowing through it gets hot, right? So that's because the conductor has some resistance, which means the electrons bump into the walls of the atoms in the material. They generate heat and you lose electricity, you lose energy, you lose power.
我会从超导体的简单解释开始，就像讲解导电材料一样。你知道，能导电的材料叫做导体。所以对于导体来说，电子就像穿过铜线一样在其中移动。这就是电流的流动方式。但是所有的导体都会有一些阻力，也就是说并不是所有的电子都能以完美的速度流过去。它们会撞到材料中的原子，产生热量。你知道，当电流流过一根电线时，它会变热，对吧？这是因为导体有一些阻力，意味着电子会撞到材料中的原子壁上，产生热量，你会失去电能、能量和功率。
And so in 1911, it was discovered when mercury was reduced to a very, very cold temperature that there was a point at which the material conducted electricity with absolutely no resistance. So the electrons flowed through the material completely unbounding, un, you know, not bouncing into the material, not generating any heat. And having no resistance mean you're losing no power in transmission of that electricity.
所以在1911年，发现当汞被降到非常非常冷的温度时，材料会出现一个点，电流会完全无阻力地通过。这样电子就可以完全不受干扰地穿过材料，不会弹跳到材料中，也不会产生任何热量。没有阻力意味着在电力传输中不会有任何功率损失。
But a number of other super interesting effects occur. Number one is that magnetic fields now reflect off of that metal perfectly. So if you put a magnet, you ever see that image of it and Nick, we could probably pull one up in the YouTube video. We put a magnet on top of a superconductor. It actually floats because the magnetic field like the north and the north pushes against each other and it floats up.
还发生了一些其他超级有趣的效应。首先是磁场现在完美地反射在那种金属上。所以如果你把一个磁铁放在一个超导体上，你可能在YouTube视频中看到这样的画面，它会漂浮起来，因为磁场像北极和北极互相推挤，可以使它漂浮起来。
So superconducting materials kind of became this fascination in the early 20th century that oh my god, if we can actually make materials that superconduct, there are all these amazing benefits. One of the benefits is you could have no loss in electricity being transmitted. Today 15% of power is lost in the transmission from the power station to your home.
超导材料在20世纪初就成为了一个迷人的话题，如果我们真的能制造出超导材料，那么会有很多惊人的好处。其中一个好处是在电力传输中可以没有任何能量损失。如今，在电厂到您的家中的电力传输中会有15%的功率损耗。
You could also do interesting things like create maglev or frictionless trains that float, you know, like magnets floating off the ground on top of a superconducting track. And by having no friction, you could push the track the train once and you wouldn't need to use any energy to move it along. So you could have basically powerless transportation. You could have really powerful new microprocessors. So a superconductor microprocessor instead of a traditional semiconductor microprocessor would use just 1% of the energy of a semiconductor microprocessor. Think about that. All the AI stuff we're talking about, all the chips that we're talking about dropping the energy needs by 99% if those chips were made from a superconducting material.
你还可以做一些有趣的东西，比如制造磁悬浮或无摩擦的火车，就像磁铁在超导轨道上离地飘浮一样。由于没有摩擦，只需将火车推动一次，就不需要使用任何能量来移动它。因此，你可以拥有基本上无需能量的交通工具。你还可以拥有真正强大的新型微处理器。因此，超导微处理器而非传统的半导体微处理器只需使用半导体微处理器能量的1％。想想看，所有我们正在谈论的人工智能的东西，所有我们正在谈论的芯片，如果这些芯片是由超导材料制成的，它们的能源需求能降低99％。
And one of the more interesting applications of superconducting materials could be infinite battery storage. So you could take a superconductor, turn it into a coil and the electricity would just flow through it infinitely because it would never turn into heat. And then when you're ready for that power, you just plug in and you get the power out. The actual loss of energy in a superconductor battery, less than 5%. And that's compared with significantly more energy loss used in chemical systems. And you wouldn't need to kind of get all the materials that we're struggling to get now to generate batteries. So the idea of generating like superconductors and industrial scale has always been super interesting.
超导材料的一个更有趣的应用之一可能是无限电池存储。你可以把超导体制成一个线圈，电力将永远流过去，因为它永远不会转化成热能。当你需要那股能量时，你只需插上插头就能获取能量。实际上，超导体电池能量损失不到5％，而在化学系统中使用的能量损失要大得多。你也不需要获取我们现在努力获取的所有材料来生成电池。因此，产生像超导体这样的产业规模一直是非常有趣的想法。
Today, the way that we generate superconducting materials is we have to make a material super super cold. In 1987, a physicist named Chu developed one of the first ceramic superconductors where they discovered a new way of generating superconductivity. It wasn't just taking a metal and cooling it down very, very cold because when you get it very, very cold, the atoms stop moving and the electrons inside pair up and it's called Cooper pairing and they flow through.
今天，我们产生超导材料的方式是要让材料变得超级冷。1987年，一位名叫朱的物理学家开发了其中的一种陶瓷超导体，他们发现了一种新的产生超导性的方法。不是只是将金属冷却得非常非常冷，因为当它非常冷时，原子停止运动，内部的电子配对，这被称为库珀配对，它们流动通过。
And he said we could actually do this with a hotter temperature. And he demonstrated this in a ceramic, E3 and Barym copper oxide, super confusing name. But basically he took a bunch of materials and baked them in an oven and they turned into this really interesting material that became superconducting. And then the race was on because what he did is he made a superconductor that could superconduct at the temperature of liquid nitrogen and liquid nitrogen is really cheap.
他说我们可以用更高的温度来实现这个。他用一个陶瓷，E3和Barym氧化铜进行了演示，这些名字非常混乱。但基本上，他拿了一堆材料，放进烤箱里烤，它们变成了这个非常有趣的材料，变得超导。然后开始竞赛，因为他制造了一个能以液氮温度进行超导的超导体，液氮非常便宜。
So we can just use and that's actually how all MRI machines run today is you have superconductors that reflect the magnetic fields in the super in the MRI machine and they're using liquid nitrogen to stay cool. And so there's a lot of industrial applications today that use superconducting materials using liquid nitrogen. But in order for us to do all the stuff I mentioned like maglev trains and infinite battery storage and superconducting microprocessors, we have to get superconductors.
所以我们可以只使用 'and'，现在所有MRI机器运行的方式实际上都是这样的，您有超导体反射MRI机器内超级磁场，并使用液氮保持冷却。因此，今天有很多工业应用正在使用超导材料使用液氮。但是，为了像磁悬浮列车、无限电池储存和超导微处理器等我提到的所有东西，我们必须获得超导体。
We have to discover a material that can superconduct at room temperature so that we can sit with it in a computer on our desktop or we can have it run on a railroad track or you know we can put it in our backyard to store energy. And there's been this race and there's all these different classes of materials that physicists and material scientists have spent decades trying to figure out what can superconduct at room temperature we started with metals, you know copper and we tried carbon nanotubes and full rain tubes.
我们必须发掘一种可以在室温下超导的物质，这样我们就可以将其放置在台式计算机上使用，或者让其在铁路轨道上行驶，甚至可以将其放在后院存储能源。物理学家和材料科学家们已经花费了数十年的时间，竞争着寻找各种级别的超导材料，我们从金属开始，例如铜，然后尝试使用碳纳米管和碳纳米管棒等。
We had all these different ceramics like like was like I talked about and there have been literally tens of thousands of ceramics that people bake in ovens and try and see how superconducting they are. Basically, take the material and you cool the temperature and you measure the resistance. And as soon as it hits superconductivity boom there's this magic moment where it drops to zero and it becomes superconducting and there's this big change over effect so everyone's trying to find that temperature which can happen at room temperature.
我们有各种不同的陶瓷材料，就像我刚刚提到的那样。人们使用烤箱烘烤成千上万的陶瓷材料，并尝试测量它们的超导性能。基本上，拿起材料，降低温度，测量电阻。一旦达到超导状态，它会急剧下降并成为超导体，出现巨大的变化效果。所以，大家都在尝试找到能够在常温下实现的超导温度。
And people have found superconductivity on the surface of DNA and organic molecules but you can't scale that. People have found you know superconductivity on all these weird kind of material on the surface of things but no one's ever been able to industrialize it. In 2015 there was a new kind of material called a hydride which is basically taking a thin metal and putting it in hydrogen gas and kind of baking it for a couple of days and the hydrogen sticks to the metal and then you would use this hydride as a new kind of conductor and hydrides that turned out had really good superconducting potential.
人们已经发现了超导现象出现在DNA和有机分子的表面上，但这是不可扩展的。人们已经在各种奇怪的材料的表面上发现了超导现象，但是没有人能够工业化它。2015年出现了一种新的材料，叫做氢化物，基本上是将一种薄金属放入氢气中并在烤几天，氢气会附着在金属上，然后你可以使用这个氢化物作为一种新的导体，而这些氢化物具有非常好的超导潜力。
They would superconduct at room temperature but they needed super high pressure so you'd actually have to leave them in like something that's like hundreds of times the pressure of the atmosphere and so that that's not really technically an industrially feasible either. So this guy named wrong ideas published a paper a couple of weeks ago that got a ton of press and a ton of controversy and basically he said look I've got this new hydride and it's I've got this really you know weird metal that no one ever talks about.
他们能在常温下表现出超导性，但需要超高压力，所以你实际上需要将其保留在像大气压力的数百倍那样的东西中，因此这不是工业上可行的。几周前，名为错误观念的人发表了一篇引起了大量关注和争议的论文，基本上他说：“看，我有这种新的氢化物，我有这种很奇怪的金属，从来没有人谈论过。”
And I baked it with this with hydrogen gas and this hydride can actually superconduct at you know room temperature and at only one gigapast gal which is still greater pressure than room temperature but it basically starts to show on the chart of are we getting there can we actually get there that maybe we are. And so this paper was published in nature a couple of weeks ago and it got a ton of a ton of coverage because everyone's like oh my gosh the problem is this particular individual.
我拿着氢气把它烤了，这种氢化物实际上可以在室温下超导，只需要一兆帕的压力，比室温还要大，但基本上可以在“我们是否到达了目标，我们是否真的能够到达目标”的图表上看到，那么也许我们就到了。所以这篇论文几周前发表在《自然》杂志上，并得到了大量的报道，因为大家都很惊讶这个特殊的个体可以解决这个问题。
You know the lead research or on the paper he's pretty controversial because he made a room temperature superconducting claim back in 2020 in a paper he published in nature and after he made that that claim a lot of scientists tried to replicate what he did and they were not. And then the journal retracted his paper and he had a method that he took data noise out of the measurement system he was using and the way that he took the data noise out people said actually skewed the results and made it look like it was superconducting when maybe it wasn't.
你知道那篇论文的首席研究员其实很有争议，因为他在2020年在《自然》期刊上发表了一篇关于室温超导的声明。在他发表这个声明后，很多科学家试图复制他的实验，但却失败了。杂志还撤回了他的论文，因为他提出了一种方法来消除他所使用的测量系统中的数据噪声。人们说他取出数据噪声的方式实际上扭曲了结果，可能让它看起来像是超导，但实际上并不是。
And he actually had a talk that he did it that was published on YouTube a year later where he said he raised 20 million dollars from Sam Altman and Daniel and a bunch of other investors and it turns out that also wasn't true and then he came back and said well I didn't actually raise the money. I was talking to them about raising the money so this guy's kind of a sketchy character in the space but the temperature at which he was able to generate or claims to have generated and he did get peer review and did get published.
他实际上曾在YouTube上发表过一次演讲，声称他筹集了2000万美元来自萨姆·阿尔特曼、丹尼尔和其他一些投资者，但这事实上也不是真的，后来他回来解释说其实他只是在和这些人讨论如何筹集资金，因此这个人在这个领域里有些可疑，但他所声称的温度确实得到了同行评审并发表了文章。
A superconductor is at room temperature it's a slightly high pressure but if it's real and it does get repeated it's one of the next steps that we're almost going to be getting to this point of true room temperature superconducting materials and then this whole industry will be. Transmission lines battery storage maglev trains superconducting microprocessors.
一种超导体在室温下，需要稍微高一些的压力，但如果它真实存在且得以重复，那么这就是我们即将达到的真正室温超导材料的一个关键步骤。随之而来的是整个行业的变革，包括输电线路、电池存储、磁悬浮列车和超导微处理器等等。
You know many new industries can and will emerge from this material discovery if it's proven to be real so you know it's a super interesting storyline a lot of people in the material science world and scientists. Chemists physicists are kind of going crazy about this and there was a survey done by quantum magazine and half the scientists were like this is bullshit and the other half was like this is going to change the world so we don't really know yet where this is all going to settle out but I thought it was worth kind of talking about and bringing it up because if room temperature superconductivity is really realized in the next decade it's another one of these kind of black swan technology discoveries that we none of us are thinking about right now but it totally transforms all these markets and very quickly.
你知道，如果这个材料的发现被证明是真实的，就会涌现出许多新的产业。所以你知道，这是一个超级有趣的故事情节，很多材料科学界和科学家们都对它着迷。化学家、物理学家都在对此感到兴奋。量子杂志进行了一项调查，其中一半科学家认为这是胡说八道，另一半科学家认为这将改变世界。所以我们还不知道这会怎么发展，但我认为这值得讨论并提出来，因为如果在未来十年内确实实现了室温超导，这将是另一种这种黑天鹅技术发现，我们现在没有想到，但它完全可以在很短时间内改变所有这些市场。
And very quickly kind of increases like we were talking about earlier productivity makes renewable energy super super cheap makes computing power 99% less power intensive AI chips will explode using this technology so a lot of super interesting applications if room temperature superconductivity comes to light super interesting story I thought we should share it and talk about yeah, I would love to get your insights on it and then sacks I would like to understand how many emails and what you order from Uber Eats during that segment catch my.
我们之前谈到的生产力提高，让可再生能源变得非常非常便宜，计算能力降低了99%的能量密度，这些技术的应用会变得特别有趣。如果室温超导能力得到实现，那肯定会是一个很有趣的故事，我们可以分享一下，聊聊这个话题。我很想听听你们的见解，同时我也想了解一下，在那个时段你从Uber Eats定了多少餐点，发送了多少封邮件。
Thank God this when Nathan who runs a battery group at Carnegie Mellon introduced me to ranga two years ago me and my partner J we were like holy shit this is outrageous. And we tried to spin it out into a natural company but the University of Rochester blocked it. And so we've been following this guy for two years and all the trials and tribulations but. It's a really really exciting thing if it does come to you got capital blocked explain why you get capital blocked in a situation like that why wouldn't they allow you to spin it up it is interesting because like typically universities have a tech transfer office and you can do these deals pretty cleanly so you know when you go to stand for the tech transfer offices quite sophisticated at MIT it's quite sophisticated there these pretty standardized deals and.
谢天谢地，两年前，在卡内基梅隆大学研究电池的Nathan向我介绍了Ranga，我和合作伙伴J当时都觉得这太过离谱了。我们试图将其推广成一个自然的公司，但是罗切斯特大学阻止了我们。所以我们一直在跟随这个人的生活中经历种种考验。如果这个项目成功，这将是一个非常激动人心的事情。资本的问题会被阻止吗？为什么在这种情况下他们不允许您推广这个项目？这很有趣，因为通常大学都有技术转让办公室，您可以非常干净地做这些交易，所以当您去参加技术转让办公室的时候，在麻省理工学院和其他一些高校，这些非常标准化的交易受到了很好的解决。
And roll the percentage what is the standard deal explain to the audience how a tech transfer deal would work and how does the university make money from it if you're a profit you invent something or even if you're a student it's technically owned by the school. And so if you want to commercialize it you go to them and use basically say here's a capital partner of mine and we want to go and start a company around it and what they will normally say is okay great give us a piece of equity and give us some royalty in some cases depending on what it is especially.
请向观众解释技术转让交易的工作方式以及大学如何从中获利。如果您发明了一些东西，即使您是学生，这些发明也归学校所有。因此，如果您想将其商业化，您需要去找他们，并且基本上说，这是我的一个资本伙伴，我们想围绕它建立一家公司，他们通常会说好的，给我们一些股权和一些版税，在某些情况下特别是这样。而百分比就是标准交易的一部分。
The equity tends to be in the mid single digit percentages the royalties tend to be in the mid single digit percentages it depends on how okay yeah call it five five six seven percent but it can be a lot when you think about a you know a school like Stanford who's spinning out hundreds of these things a year. But if you're if you're a school that doesn't historically do a lot of tech transfer or has a lot of cutting edge R&D you wouldn't have that team and so Rochester didn't necessarily have it now look rung is probably getting bombarded by 30 other people who pay 10 times more than what I was trying to pay 18 months ago it's a really interesting thing and I think there'll be some there'll be some what's there is anybody know what the top tech transfers of all time were like was Google a tech transfer of freeberg do you know like yeah because they drank was out of the what it's there for the no yeah Larry and Larry and Sergey gave Stanford I think one percent yeah they give them a percent yeah yeah because back rub because back rub was written while Larry was a PhD there so technically they you know they had some part of it.
股权往往在中间的单数百分比，版税往往在中间的单数百分比，这取决于你觉得如何，是的，叫它百分之五、百分之五十六、百分之七，但如果你想到像斯坦福这样每年都会产生数百个这种事物的学校，它可以很多。但如果你是一个历史上不做很多科技转让或有很多尖端研发的学校，你就不会有那个团队，所以罗切斯特并没有必要拥有它，现在看来，隆格可能正受到其他30个人的轰炸，这些人可能比18个月前我想支付的金额高出十倍，这是一个非常有趣的事情，我认为会有一些，会有一些。有没有人知道有史以来最高的技术转让是什么，像谷歌是弗里伯格的技术转让吗，你知道吗，因为他们喝斯坦福。因为拉里和谢尔盖是斯坦福的博士生，他们给了斯坦福百分之一，因为Back Rub是在拉里读博期间写的，所以从技术上讲，他们有一些的价值。
Carnegie Mellon ranked as top tech transfer university I'm just seeing here in terms of the rankings university Florida Columbia Stanford Harvard is so much some of them are terrible like and some of them are cronyism so like you go to some of the universities and the tech transfer offices have deep relationships with certain vcs and investors at the only work on and they always get first picks and first days and they're super tight with them they don't run a real market process and then some tech transfer offices just give away the farm for nothing and then some tech transfer offices think that they own it and they should get paid 60% royalties for the thing it's all over the map and some of them are sophisticated and some of them are not so it's it's actually quite surprising.
我刚刚看到卡内基梅隆大学在科技转移方面被评为顶尖大学，接下来看到的排名中，佛罗里达、哥伦比亚、斯坦福、哈佛都很强，但有一些大学非常糟糕，因为它们存在关系腐败，科技转移办公室与某些风险投资商和投资人之间有着密切的深度关系，并且他们总是首选和优先选择他们，他们之间关系非常密切，他们不运行真正的市场流程，有些科技转移办公室为零分文将整个项目屈服，有些科技转移办公室认为他们拥有此项目，应该获得60%的版税，这种情况百花齐放，有些聪明，而有些则不太聪明，事实上这很令人惊讶。
And then we're going to talk about the importance of fundamental research and the importance of you know the support from academic institutions and governments and other aspects when you're still not sure what the technology is that to do that I think is a good collective social benefit and then to industrialize it commercialize it requires I think a market based approach which is you take that capability try and build a business find customers make money and that's really how you get it to be funded to be scaled because you're never going to you shouldn't have to put you know government and academic money behind that sort of effort but private market participants should and so you know it's interesting I mean I think I'm not holding my breath I've been you know I did a science project in 1993 when I was probably 12 or 13 years old on super conductors and I got a E3 and Barium Copper Oxide disc and I got some liquid nitrogen from UCLA and I poured it on the disc and I floated a magnet above it and I had a poster board and a computer presentation back then and I was super enthralled about the future of superconductors and exactly what I said today is what I said back in 1993 so you know 30 years ago it was so busy dating I didn't think you had time for super conductor experiments yeah look I don't think I don't think that this stuff has really it's been it's been like fusion it's always been a promise around the corner physicists have always had hope we've taken incremental steps towards it but it's always felt like one of those things we were always getting 50% closer to the wall it's like you're never actually reaching the wall and so and it's a dream one yeah.
我们接下来要谈论基础研究的重要性以及学术机构和政府支持的重要性，以及当你还不确定技术要做什么时，我认为这是一个好的集体社会利益，而将其工业化商业化需要采取市场化的方法，这意味着你利用这种能力尝试建立一个业务，找到客户赚钱，这真的是你获得资金和规模化的方式，因为你永远不应该把政府和学术机构的资金投入到这种努力中去，而是应该由私人市场参与者投入，所以，你知道，这很有趣，我想我不会抱太大希望，我在1993年时做了一个有关超导体的科学项目，当时我可能只有12或13岁，我得到了一个E3和钡铜氧化物圆盘，我从UCLA得到了一些液态氮，我将它倒在圆盘上，然后我在圆盘上方漂浮一个磁铁，我还有一个海报板和一个计算机演示，当时我对超导体的未来非常着迷，所以今天我所说的正是当时我说的，你知道，30年前的事了，我当时很忙着约会，没有时间做超导体实验，是这样的，我不认为这些东西真的像聚变一样，一直是在未来的承诺，物理学家们一直抱有希望我们已经取得了增量的进步，但总感觉像是在逐渐靠近墙壁，但从来没有真正到达墙壁，这就是一个梦想。
By the way I will say one area that that that a lot of people think holds a lot of promise for super conducting research is in quantum computing because you can actually model on a molecular level what might be going on right now the BCS theory is the theory on Cooper pairing that happens in ceramics is the only way that we really understand how superconducting actually works why it works why there's no resistance at certain temperatures for certain types of materials for most materials we have no friggin clue why it happens we don't understand the physics of it there's something going on on a quantum mechanical level that we just don't get and so if we can understand it better through quantum modeling using quantum computers all of a sudden we may be able to actually start to come up with ideas for molecules and crystal structure that would allow us to make superconducting material that we simply don't have enough time in our lifetime to run all the experiments in a lab today we can simulate it and so that's why quantum computing could play a real role in advancing our ability to discovery and superconducting materials and like I talked about these are like not just one but like two or three order of magnitude improvements in the efficiency of certain systems of industry on earth today so it shows how the compounding benefits of technology and things you cannot see around the corner can suddenly cause these explosive growth moments in technology and in industry.
顺便说一下，很多人认为超导研究非常有前途的领域之一是量子计算，因为你可以实际上在分子水平上模拟现在可能正在发生的事情。BCS理论是协同作用在陶瓷中发生的理论，这是我们真正理解超导物质如何工作为什么在某些温度下对于某些类型的材料没有电阻的唯一方式。对于大多数材料，我们不知道为什么它会发生，我们不理解物理学的原理。有一些量子力学层面上的事情我们不懂，因此，如果我们能够通过使用量子计算更好地理解它，我们可能会突然开始提出分子和晶体结构的想法，这将使我们能够制造超导材料。我们在一生中没有足够的时间在实验室做所有实验，但是我们可以模拟它，这就是为什么量子计算可以在提高我们的发现和超导材料的能力方面发挥实际作用。正如我所说的，这不仅仅是某些行业系统效率方面的一次，而是两到三个数量级的改进，表明了技术和那些你无法预见的事物如何在技术和行业方面引发这些爆炸性的增长时刻。
I don't know what when quantum computing gets here when it gets here it might discover superconducting and then when that gets discovered boom energy cost drop by 99% computing goes up by 100 fold so there's these amazing things that are still like in front of us that each one of which could be you know really great exponential triggering events and we're seeing a little milestone today but yeah I don't know.
我不知道，当量子计算到来的时候会发生什么，如果它到来了，它可能会发现超导体，然后当那被发现时，能源成本会降低99%，计算速度会提高100倍，所以还有一些令人惊叹的事情在我们面前，每一个都可能是一个真正伟大的指数级触发事件，今天我们看到一些里程碑，但我不知道。
Sax reaction sounds good. How many moves did you play in your 12 chess games with you guys I got stuff to do. Freeberg was talking about superconducting points did you go up? I look I got shit. Well let's go. Oh, Sax. All right listen this has been a great episode.
萨克斯反应听起来不错。你和你的小伙伴玩了12盘棋，你们动了几个棋子啊？我有事要做。弗里伯格在谈超导点，你去了吗？我看看，我要去忙其他事情了。好的，我们走吧。哦，萨克。好了，听着，这是一集很棒的节目。
Sax checks for the best comment on the Atlantic article that says Ronda Santas has peaked already. Don't forget that. Don't do it don't do it. Why you got a troll. I didn't see that but it's in the Atlantic.
Sax在大西洋的文章中寻找最好的评论，其中称Ronda Santas已经巅峰了。不要忘记这一点。不要这样做，不要这样做。你为什么要玩恶意评论。我没有看到过，但在大西洋有出现。
Oh you want to know why the Atlantic suddenly has turned on him is because of the biggest backers of the war they those guys have all these like new cons over there and so he gave a statement saying that you know our support for Ukraine shouldn't be a blank check and some other comments expressing let's say skepticism of what we're doing over there and that was totally inaccessible to them so all these new cons are registering disappointment. But I would argue that's a electoral asset not a liability.
噢，你想知道为什么《大西洋》突然对他不友好吗？这是因为支持战争的最大后盾是那些新保守派。他发表了一份声明，表达了对于我们在乌克兰的支持不应该是一张空白支票，以及对我们在那里所做的事情持谨慎态度的一些评论，这让他们完全不能理解。所有这些新保守派都表示失望。但我会认为这是选举上的优势，而不是劣势。
I have a prediction given what's going on with these banks and what's going on in this kind of I think we all agree the soft landing concept is over we're going to be in a recession. The war is going to end there because we're not funding this an American the American public is not going to want to see tens of billions of dollars going to Ukraine and to fund this war in year two or three hundred's a billion. I'm just saying every month yeah I know this spending run rate of this war is actually greater than what we did in Afghanistan and Afghanistan ended up being a 20 year multi trillion dollar operation that just flushed all that money down the drain.
在这些银行的状况和现在发生的事情中，我有一个预测。我认为我们都同意软着陆的概念已经结束了，我们将会进入一次经济衰退。战争将在那里结束，因为我们不资助这场战争，美国公众不会想看到数十亿美元流向乌克兰，资助这场战争，在第二或第三年会达到数千亿美元。我只是想说每个月我们知道这场战争的支出速率实际上比我们在阿富汗做的要多，而阿富汗最终成为一个耗费多万亿美元的20年多万亿美元的行动，只是把所有那些钱扔进了垃圾桶。
So yeah I mean we're in a greater run rate than Afghanistan. Yeah. Do we know what the monthly run rate is for this? Oh my god. How is it possible? We've appropriated over 130 billion Jamath and Afghanistan we spent two trillion over 20 years. So there's a hundred billion a year run rate. Yeah this is. Think about what a monumental waste of money that was and now look at the financial crisis we're in. Can you imagine if we could have two trillion back? I mean all these trillions that we just squandered instantly we would take that. Just all those trillions and trillions we squandered on stuff that didn't matter and now we're paying the price for it.
嗯，我的意思是我们的年度支出比阿富汗要高。你知道我们每月的支出是多少吗？天啊，这怎么可能？我们已经拨出了超过1,300亿美元，而在阿富汗，我们在20年内花费了2万亿美元，平均每年支出一千亿美元。想想这是多么巨大的浪费，现在看看我们所处的财务危机。你能想象如果我们能够拿回这2万亿美元吗？我是说我们刚刚浪费的所有这些数万亿美元，我们立即会拿回来。我们浪费在无关紧要的事物上的那些数万亿美元，现在我们正在为此付出代价。
That could be education could be universal health care could be paying down the debt. How about paying down the debt's vulnerable inflation? Exactly. Let's think logically here the number one issue for this country in the next election. I am with Friedberg his great prediction from the year end show is we need a president and we need an administration that is fiscally responsible and controls the balance sheet in a logical fashion like the last two administrations have not seem capable of doing.
这可能是教育，也可能是普及医疗保健，也可能是偿还债务。偿还债务会不会面临通货膨胀的问题呢？确实如此。我们必须理智思考下一届选举中这个国家最重要的问题。我赞同弗里德伯格的预测，我们需要一位财政负责的总统和管理层，像过去两届政府一样以逻辑方式控制资产负债表，而这两届政府似乎做不到。
I am with Friedberg single issue voter balanced the budget get spending under control austerity measures. And then we have a tax tag. All right for the Sultan of science. Sorry what's that can you repeat that?
我是与弗里德伯格一样，关注单一议题的选民，要平衡预算，控制支出，实施紧缩措施。然后我们有一个税标。好的，对于科学苏丹来说没问题。抱歉，什么？你能重复一遍吗？
What I wanted to say from office are there any plugs for the remaining part of the episode Mr. Beast is curing blindness and buying people shoes has he been canceled yet. Tax aren't you excited about superconductors and the benefit for AI and energy storage and energy costs and humanity. Yeah what does it do to burn rate of assassins? Yeah but I'm not I'm not like an expert at assessing like hard science or hard tech. I mean I'm a software investor.
我想说的是，办公室里还有剩余的插头吗？Mr. Beast正在治疗盲眼，并买鞋子给人们，他被取消了吗？税收，你对超导体的优势和对人工智能、能源储存、能源成本和人类有何好处感到兴奋吗？是啊，这对刺客的燃烧率有何影响？但我不是硬科技的专家，我是软件投资者。
I'm just a simple man. I'm just a software investor.
我只是一个简单的人。我只是个软件投资者。
All right everybody for the rainman himself David sacks the dictator trim off polyhapatia and the Sultan of science. The principal panic attacks no more. Mr. David Friedberg I'm the world's greatest monitor undisputed.
好的，大家请注意，我们的天才戴维·萨克斯是多面手的独裁者，也是科学的苏丹。从现在起，我们再也不用担心校长会因为惊恐发作而烦恼了。我的名字是戴维·弗里德伯格，我是无可争议的世界顶级监控大师。
Congratulations everybody on another successful episode and Friedberg when are we locking in the date for all in summit 2023. My replies my DMs are filled people want to know.
恭喜大家又成功完成一期节目。弗里德伯格，我们什么时候能确定2023年所有峰会的日期呢？我的回复私信都被人们塞满了，大家都想知道。
Do you have the day locked it down and we had a parking issue where they don't want us parking there so soon as we get the two. We don't need to park there everybody that's we told so now they've gone back to their committee to get approval for us doing it without parking and just doing so.
你们有安排好这一天吗？我们遇到停车问题，他们不想让我们在那里停车，所以一旦我们到了那里，我们不需要在那里停车。我们已经告诉每个人不需要在那里停车，所以现在他们回到他们的委员会，为我们在没有停车的情况下进行活动获取批准。
Or walk a shuttle or sort of people. Uber Uber Uber Uber Uber let's get that we should be hopefully if they accept it then we are okay. How many shuttles do we have to take to your rings?
或者步行或者坐班车或者其他人。Uber Uber Uber Uber Uber，让我们把它拿到，希望他们接受，那么我们就没问题了。我们需要坐几个班车才能到你的地方？
Yeah exactly how am I the prince of panic attacks I think you're the king of caps locks at this point. They were called me J caps J caps was the best what I heard talking about panic attacks J. K.L. this weekend man panicking panicking.
是的，我怎么会成为惊恐症的王子呢？我觉得你现在是大写锁定的国王。他们叫我J大写锁定，J大写锁定是我听到谈论惊恐症最好的人。这个周末JKL，人们都在惊慌中。
I was a sheer terror shirt I have literally gotten rid of the caps lock everybody relax you can follow me twitter.com slash Jason will see you all next time bye bye.
我之前用了极度恐怖的方式表达了一些话，但我已经取消了大写锁定。大家可以放心，你们可以在 twitter.com/Jason关注我。下次见，再见。
We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. W었는데細in It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release that out What your B, what your B, B What's good for you?
我们把它开源给粉丝，他们疯狂地使用它。
就像有这种性紧张感，我们需要释放出来。
你在干什么，你怎么样？什么对你最好？
We need to get merch these aren't it? I'm going on lead! I'm going on lead!.
我们需要购买相关商品，这些不是对吧？我要去领导！我要去领导！