E158: Global trade disrupted, Adobe/Figma canceled, realtors sued, Trump blocked
发布时间 2023-12-23 10:36:16 来源
摘要
(0:00) Bestie intros: Jason comes in hot, All-In's new Chairman Dictator, Holiday party recap, and more (7:54) Understanding the ...
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
I care I'm coming in hot by the time I told you seven times you didn't work for me. Work for your own work working for some of my employees Jason. You guys are going to billionaire me and that's the greatest revenge of all. You want to run the show in your for go in the head chairman you guys won the vote guess what Jake I was going to do I'm going to ski and you're going to make my 25% worth 500 million get to work bitches deal. Let's go deal.
我很在乎，我正要火急火燎地前来，可我告诉你七次了，你对我毫无用处。让你们自己工作，为我一些员工（比如Jason）工作。你们将让我成为亿万富翁，这是最大的复仇。你想要在你所领导的项目中掌控一切，你们在选举中获胜了，猜猜杰克，我原本打算做什么？我要去滑雪，你们要让我的25%价值达到5亿，开工吧！搞定。
Chamaas title has been upgraded from dictator to chairman chairman dictator. That is very funny chairman. Chairman dictator. He's got the super voting. I have no saying anything. I built this entire empire and I have nothing. I built the empire came up with the name of the show. I came up with the format. I invited you miss Rick's. Let's go distribution checks. Daddy needs new skis three two or eight everybody. Welcome back to the all in podcast. If you can believe it for almost that four years of this Michugana episode 158 today. We've got a full docket. I'm going to have speed. I got a little bit of the sniffles but we're going to power through the docket with me again today. Sniffles. I got a little bit. Can I get you a tissue? Give me a little tissue and some some juicy juice box. So cough drops. I'll be fine. I'll be fine. You'll tough it out. You'll tough it out.
Chamaas的头衔已从独裁者升级为主席主席独裁者。主席独裁者，真是太有趣了。他拥有超级投票权。我什么都说不了。我建立了整个帝国，却一无所有。我建立了帝国，想出了节目的名称，制定了格式。我邀请了你，Rick小姐。让我们去分发支票。爸爸需要新的滑雪板。大家好，欢迎回到《全都投资》播客。如果你能相信，已经过去将近四年了，这是第158集的疯狂剧本。今天我们有一个满满的议程。我会尽快完成。我有点感冒，但我们会坚持完成议程。感冒。我有点咳嗽。需要给你纸巾吗？给我一些纸巾和一些果汁盒子。还有咳嗽糖。没事，我会没事的。你会坚持下去。你会坚持下去。
Well, listen. I just want to say you can make it through this pod. Of course, of course. I'm a professional with me again today. The king of beep. We can't say what he's working on. It's a cop. I don't know if people understand that like what the beef there were so many **** beeps last time that people couldn't understand it. Beep the beep out of the show. It's crazy. It's a prop he's genetically engineering. But he's it's top secret. Which one is going to be out in the comments by the way. Oh, the conversation. Everything. I don't know what's so secret. They already figured it out. So can we say what it is? The horse out of the barn free bird. Can we fit get through introductions? Go ahead. Keep going. And chairman dictator. Chamof Palai hapitya is with us. Welcome back to the program. Thank you.
好吧，听着。我只是想说，你能够通过这期节目。当然，当然。我是一名专业人士，今天再次与大家见面。嘟嘟声的王者。我们不能说他正在做什么。这是一个警察角色。我不知道人们是否明白上次有那么多****的嘟嘟声，人们无法理解。嘟嘟掉节目里的那一部分。太疯狂了。这是一项他正在进行的基因工程。但这是绝密的。顺便说一下，哪个将会显示在评论里。哦，那场对话。所有的东西。我不知道有什么那么机密。他们已经猜到了。那么我们能说出是什么吗？马摆脱了束缚，自由自在。我们能不能继续进行介绍？请继续。而主席独裁者，恰莫夫·帕莱哈皮蒂娅也和我们在一起。欢迎回到节目。谢谢。
By the way, I was feeling pretty bad about your sore throat. So I was I went on Google and I found something that may be the cause of it. Nick, can you just throw up this? I'm going to get canceled. Let your winter ride. I'm going to get canceled. Let your winter ride. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. I'm going to get canceled. Rain amen David acts as I'm going to get canceled. And I said we open-source to the fans and a discoloracy then I'm going to get! I am Georgia Bodier. I'm Dr pain and I'll go with you! Jayene's 20. I'm prod boy. I'm li'n you are myturbit. And I'm here to do the best job I can. I'm serving Mike vib my senior and explain to the audience what these two words me. sell them a? Billionaire percent color. So we checked the DEI manifesto and it said we needed to make a chairman of the organization. So SACS is leading the all-in DEI group and they voted Chumath to be the first chairman of all-in as we get our CEO ready to come on board. And so you did a diversity token candidate. SACS explained the process. Well, it's more like Chumath was getting a little bit touchy about being called dictator all the time. And you were kind of playing the Biden role of needlessly offending him. He's kind of playing the Xi Jinping role. So we've elected him chairman so that you can stop calling him dictator.
顺便说一下，我对你的喉咙痛感到非常难受。所以我上了谷歌，找到了可能是引起这个的原因。尼克，你能把这个吐出来吗？我会被取消的。任由你的冬天经过。我会被取消的。任由你的冬天经过。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。我会被取消的。雷恩，（非常感恩）大卫开始我会被取消的。而我说我们向粉丝公开了一个不透明性（计划），这是我会被取消的原因！我是乔治亚·博迪尔。我是疼痛博士，我会陪伴你！杰恩的20。我是产品男孩。我是你的风火轮。我在这里尽力做好工作。我在帮助迈克·维布（Mike Vib）先生，并向观众解释这两个词的意思。卖给他们一个亿万富翁颜色的份额。所以我们查了一下DEI宣言，上面说我们需要选出一个组织的主席。所以撒克斯领导着全部DEI小组，他们投票选出Chumath作为首任全体主席，为我们未来上任的CEO做准备。所以你就像一个多样化的代表候选人。撒克斯解释了整个过程。嗯，更像是Chumath对被称为独裁者有些不悦，而你则充当了无端冒犯他的拜登角色。他有点扮演习近平的角色。所以我们选举他当主席，你就可以停止称他为独裁者了。
Right, because you want to be more diplomatic, more sensitive. Yeah, I think it's great. I'm all about the diplomatic.
是的，因为你想更加外交、更加体贴。是的，我觉得这很棒。我一直都重视外交。
Listen, there was a polypeuro. There was a process. It was meritocratic. The chairman was on the chimney. And now for year one, there's a polypeuro consisting of me, Freeberg and Chumath. And the polypeuro has selected Chumath as chairman. Get to work. Get to work. Let's make my 25% worth a billion dollars, please. And of course with us, Hadoof is hosting of the absolute best party of the season. Well, top two. You're a distant two, man. It was a top meat protein party. And Chumath and I went to Saxons. I hope you got enough food. I did. Yeah, I mean, the dessert table was crazy. No, the dessert table, I had to, I was like, I found myself beside it. And I was like, why am I near this dessert table after the fiasco at Freeberg's? I had to go to the other side.
听着，有一个聚合竞选。有一个流程。它是按功绩评定的。主席就在烟囱上。现在进入一年，聚合竞选中有我、Freeberg和Chumath。而聚合竞选选择了Chumath作为主席。开始工作吧。开始工作吧。请让我的25%价值达到十亿美元。当然，Hadoof也和我们一起举办这个季节中最好的派对。恩，排名榜前两位。你排在第二位，跟我相距甚远，伙计。那是一场肉类蛋白质盛宴。我和Chumath去了Saxons。希望你吃得够。我吃得很多，是的，说实话甜点桌子太夸张了。不，我不得不离开甜点桌旁边，我不知道为什么会呆在那里，还记得Freeberg那场灾难。我不得不到另一边去。
Well, here's what Chumath and I did. We got in there and we sniffed out the caviar. And this was top shelf caviar on potato chips, creme fraiche and also on Bellinis. And we parked it there. And then that actually is a great way to, you know, those Bellinis are too, like, bready. I don't think it's a good combination with caviar, but. Same word. Cabbiar chip. Oh, high and low. The quality of the business.
嗯，这就是Chumath和我所做的。我们进去后闻到鱼子酱的味道。这是顶级的鱼子酱，可以配薯片、奶油和贝利尼酒。我们将其摆在那里。那其实是一个很好的方法，你知道的，那些贝利尼酒太像面包了。我认为它与鱼子酱不太搭配，但是同样的词语。鱼子酱薯片。哦，囊中物和品质不一。
The most important thing, Nick, I'm sure you have a queued up is our annual awkward hug. This is a tradition amongst the all in every year to celebrate the holiday seasons. We engage in the awkward all in hug. Let me explain how the hug went down. We're at the caviar and Chumath is on his eighth Pringle. I'm about 15 in. I've eaten half the 10 of caviar at this point. I'm getting my money's worth for coming all the way up to the city and risking my life. And then here it is. We got to break this down. First, Chumath is in a loving embrace with sacks. What you see there from sacks is not a cry of joy. It's it's absolutely fear. Object fear. Object fear. It was a little bit too long. That was mainly Chumath refused to let off for a while. That's what you guys don't. Because if you look at the studies in Free Burke and the test of this, when men hug for two minutes, there's a release of oxytocin and it's an incredible anti-inflammatory. It's a great anxiety. So I was giving you therapy. That's like the care of cut. It was a gift. That was your Christmas gift. So tell us what you're feeling here. We see this blood curdling scream and or cry of joy. What were you what was going through your mind when you got to minute two of the hug? Take us to the moment. I'll show you what I was thinking of here. Hold on. Okay. Because you can see here also if we break this down. Free Burke comes in with an Asperger side hug. I don't know if you can see that there in the photo. But let's see the because you know he could get a zoom over to the left. Free Burke looking at his shoes is like I'm going to express joy and love with my three besties through a man hug. And he gets enough of the shoulder in there that he doesn't have to have. He's technically part of the hug, but he's not really cannot make eye contact. And he says, I have to do it. Now me, I'm like, this is hilarious. So I just jump and I grab all three guys. And I just said, that's just me pure joy. Hilarious friendship is great. Good to have good friends and friendship is great. I love you guys. I love you guys too. Yeah. Back at you. This is what I was thinking. This is what I'm wondering. This is Sax is personal Vietnam. This is great. That's a great scene. From Fight Club. That's me. Yeah. The great scene. That's a great movie. He's on estrogen therapy in the scene and he grows man boobs and then he stuff said we're Norton into his man boobs. It's a great scene. We're men. Men is what we are. Let's get to work. We got a full docket here and the world continues to spin into chaos apparently.
尼克，最重要的事情，我敢肯定你肯定已经排队好了，那就是我们每年的尴尬拥抱。这是我们每年为了庆祝节日而举行的传统活动。我们进行尴尬的拥抱。让我解释一下这个拥抱的过程。我们在享受鱼子酱，Chumath已经吃了八片薯片了。我已经吃了大约15片了。到这个时候我已经把鱼子酱的十分之一吃完了。为了这次从远处到城市冒生命危险的旅行，我要物有所值。然后拥抱开始了。首先，Chumath与Sax深情拥抱。你从Sax那里看到的并不是欢乐的叫声，而是绝对的恐惧。害怕物体。害怕物体。这个拥抱有点太长了。主要是因为Chumath拒绝放手了一段时间。这是你们不知道的。因为如果你看一下自由伯克和对此进行的测试，当男人拥抱两分钟时，会释放催产素，这是一种令人难以置信的抗炎剂。它对焦虑很有帮助。所以我给了你治疗。这就像是一种关心护理。这是你的圣诞礼物。告诉我们你在这里感受到了什么。我们看到了这阵血腥的尖叫声或者欢乐的叫声。当拥抱进行到第二分钟时，你脑子里想的是什么？带我们进入那一刻。我来告诉你那时候我在想什么。等一下，好吧。因为你也可以看到，我们分析一下。自由伯克给出了一个支撑性的拥抱。你可能在照片中看到了。但我们来看看，因为你知道他可以把视线转向左边。自由伯克看着他的鞋子，他想通过拥抱这三个好朋友来表达快乐和爱。他适当地将肩膀放进去，不必紧盯。他说，我必须这样做。而我，我觉得这太好笑了。所以我就跳过去，抓住了这三个人。我只是说，这就是我纯粹的快乐。有趣的友谊很棒。拥有好朋友真好。我爱你们。我也爱你们。对你们也同样如此。这就是我当时的想法。这就是我好奇的地方。这是Sax的“个人越南战争”。这太棒了。那就是《搏击俱乐部》中的一场精彩场景。那是我。是的。那是一部伟大的电影。在那个场景中，他正在接受雌激素治疗，长出了男人的胸部，然后他把温顿塞进了他的男胸部里。这是一个很棒的场景。我们是男人，我们要工作起来。我们有一份满满的日程安排，而世界似乎仍在陷入混乱中。
Members of the Hootie movement have been attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea with drones and with missiles. This is largely underreported in the mainstream press. So we thought we would tackle it here. They are calling this revenge for Israel's military campaign in Gaza. The Hooties say they will only stop once Israel begins allowing food and medicine to freely enter Gaza. I think something we'd all like to see. Critics suggest this is a power play for more legitimacy in the reason.
霍亚运动的成员一直在红海地区用无人机和导弹攻击商船，这在主流媒体中鲜有报道。因此，我们决定在这里谈论一下。他们称这是对以色列在加沙地带的军事行动进行报复。霍亚人表示只有当以色列开始允许食品和药品自由进入加沙时，他们才会停止。我相信这是我们都希望看到的。批评者认为这是为了在这个地区争取更多的合法性。
US allies including the UK, Canada, France are reportedly preparing to deploy naval vessels to the region to deter more strikes. Obviously there's a lot of geopolitics here and this is a business story. We can link this back because the attacks have interrupted one of the world's busiest trade routes. As you know, all five of the world's largest shipping conglomerates have paused transfers through the Red Sea and that means they've got to go around Cape Horn. They got to go around South Africa to get things to Europe, from Asia, thousands of extra miles from what I understand. And this has caused oil and gas prices to rise. And if this becomes acute, it could be really, really impactful to the economy on a global basis.
据报道，美国的盟友，包括英国、加拿大和法国，正在准备调派海军舰艇到该地区以阻止更多袭击。显然，这涉及到很多地缘政治问题，这也是一个商业新闻故事。我们可以将这一事件与商业联系起来，因为这些袭击已中断了世界上最繁忙的贸易航线之一。正如您所知，世界上五个最大的海运公司已暂停通过红海的转运，这意味着它们必须绕过好望角，从南非到欧洲运输货物，据我了解会增加数千英里的航程。这导致了石油和天然气价格的上涨。如果情况变得严重，对全球经济将产生非常重大的影响。
So in order to understand what's happening, of course, we go to our foreign war correspondent. Yes, he's got his military cap on. He's now at a total of zero tours of duty. Now, thanks, can you please, with your infinite wisdom and experience in the field, tell us what is happening in this matchbox situation? Yeah, what's happening is, yeah, what's happening? Come on, you're an expert. Yeah, I'm really struggling with this one, J-Cal. Can I use a lifeline? I'd like to phone a friend. I'd like to answer this one. For the first time, Saks is unable to give us a competent answer. He's chosen to phone a friend, which we allow here on the All In Podcast. Who would you like to phone? Have you thought about that? What are you going to phone? Since this is involving impact on a global trade. Steve Bannon, Zuckerberg. No, I'd like to phone Ryan Peterson, the founder of Flexport. All right, here we go. We're going to the AT&T phone call, phone a friend. Zoom. We're going to click through on Zoom and can we get Ryan Peterson from Flexport? Ryan Peterson, you're here. It's Jason Kalkandis from the All In Podcast. It's your boy, J-Cal. Go skiing soon. We're live. We're live. We're live. We're live. You're on the All In Podcast live. We've got an official phone, a friend moment here. You understand what's going on there better than anybody. Ryan obviously runs Flexport and he is in the business of shipping containers. So, Saks, you want to ask him for some help? What is the impact on global trade here from what's happening in the Red Sea?
为了理解发生了什么，当然，我们需要去找我们的外国战地记者。是的，他戴着军帽，他从来没有执行过任何任务。好了，谢谢。请问，凭借您丰富的智慧和实地经验，能否告诉我们在这个局势中到底发生了什么？是的，到底发生了什么？来吧，您是专家。嗯，我对这个问题真的很迷茫，J-Cal。我可以打个电话给朋友吗？我想使用求助。我想回答这个问题。Saks第一次无法给出一个有能力的答案。他选择打电话给一个朋友，我们在All In Podcast中允许这样做。你想打电话给谁呢？你考虑过吗？你打算给谁打电话？因为这关涉全球贸易的影响。史蒂夫·班农、扎克伯格。不，我想给Flexport的创始人Ryan Peterson打电话。好的，我们来了。我们要打AT&T电话，给朋友打电话。Zoom。我们要点击Zoom，然后能联系上Flexport的Ryan Peterson吗？Ryan Peterson，在线上。我是来自All In Podcast的Jason Calacanis，你好。你了解那里正在发生的情况比任何人都清楚。Ryan显然经营着Flexport，并且从事集装箱运输业务。所以，Saks，你想向他寻求帮助吗？红海局势对全球贸易有什么影响？
Well, it's massive. About 30% of all ocean container traffic flows through the Suez and through the Red Sea. Most of that is going Asia to Europe. So, the biggest impact here is going to be felt on those two areas. It's going to make Chinese manufacturing that much more challenging. You have to go around the southern tip of Africa. It's adding about 20%. 20 to 25% longer journey. Now, in a network business, a longer journey means less capacity. So, you're talking about a 20%, 25% cut in shipping capacity on the 30% of all containers. So, less containers. I also understand that about 12% of global oil goes through and about 8% of liquefied natural gas.
嗯，规模十分庞大。大约30%的海洋集装箱流量通过苏伊士运河和红海。其中大部分是从亚洲到欧洲的货物。因此，这将对这两个地区造成最大的影响。这将使中国制造业面临更大的挑战。你必须绕过非洲南端，航行距离增加了大约20%。这意味着航程延长了20%至25%。在网络业务中，航程延长就意味着容量减少。因此，这意味着30%的所有集装箱运输能力减少了大约20%至25%。所以，集装箱数量减少了。另外，我也了解到大约12%的全球石油和大约8%的液化天然气经过该运河运输。
And just to explain what we're talking about there, can we zoom in? There's a very narrow straighter called the Babel Mandeb Street. I hope I didn't massacre that pronunciation. So, you go around the Gulf of Aden through that Babel Mandeb straight into the Red Sea.
并且只是为了解释我们正在谈论的内容，我们可以放大一下吗？这里有一条非常狭窄的海峡叫作巴贝尔曼德卜海峡。希望我没有发音错误。因此，你可以绕过亚丁湾，穿过巴贝尔曼德卜海峡进入红海。
And then from there, you can go through the Suez Canal of the Mediterranean. Yeah. So, it's a maritime choke point. By the way, this is a going back. It always has been. You know, there's documentation. Caesar Augustus invaded Yemen in like 63 bees. I forget, 63 AD. No, I forgot the dates, but it was during the reign of Caesar Augustus. So, it would have been right around the birth of Jesus Christ.
然后从那里，你可以通过地中海的苏伊士运河前往。是的，所以它是一个海上瓶颈。顺便说一句，这是个回溯的地方。一直以来都是这样。你知道，有文件记录。恺撒·奥古斯都在公元前63年左右入侵了也门。我忘了日期，但是是在恺撒·奥古斯都统治时期。所以，那大约就是耶稣诞生的时间。
And you're talking about thousands of years of this being a really important choke point. Even the Egyptians actually built a canal. The ancient Egyptians had a canal that connected the Nile River. So, this has always been the place to connect East and West. An incredibly important maritime choke point.
你说得没错，这里是一个历经数千年来非常重要的要冲。就连埃及人也曾经修建过一条运河。古埃及人曾有一条连接尼罗河的运河。因此，这一直都是连接东西方的重要海上要冲。
And the rebel forces in Yemen have been firing missiles at ships. And that what that does is spike the insurance costs. Obviously, it puts the crews lives in danger, which they can't tolerate. But it also really spikes the insurance costs. If you sail a ship into a region that's got missiles being fired, the insurers just won't cover it. And so you can't you can't operate a ship without insurance, because if it sinks, you go out and you will bankrupt. Um, and so they're just taking the long way around, which, as I said, is it's 20% reduction in capacity.
也就是说，也门的反叛势力一直在向船只发射导弹。这导致了保险费用的激增。显然，这会危及船员的生命，他们无法容忍这种情况。而且，这也会大幅增加保险费用。如果你将船只航行到一个有导弹袭击的地区，保险公司就不会给予保险。所以没有保险，你就无法运营船只，因为如果船只沉没，你将破产。嗯，所以他们只能绕道前行，就像我说的，这导致了20%的运力减少。
What we've seen, remember with COVID, you had all the ships off the port. You guys brought me on to the show. The last time, I think, was when that happened, that was about a 20% reduction in capacity. But at the same, what happened during COVID was there was also a 20% increase in demand. So this time there's not an increase of demand. So I don't think as impactful as what we saw to shipping prices during COVID, where you had like a 10 X run up in price.
我们所看到的是，要记住COVID-19时期，港口外有很多船只。你们邀请我参加节目。上次发生这种情况，我记得，容量减少了大约20%。但与此同时，COVID-19期间发生的是需求增加了20%。所以这次没有需求增加。因此，我认为对航运价格的影响不像我们在COVID-19期间看到的那样重大，那时价格上涨了10倍。
But you're already seeing prices are coming out now for January freight, for ocean freight, Asia to Europe. You're seeing about a three X increase in the price of ocean freight, uh, versus where we were a month or two ago, which was very, very cheap, a month or two ago.
但你已经看到现在1月份的远洋运费价格正在露出端倪，从亚洲到欧洲的远洋运费价格大约增长了3倍，与一两个月前相比，那时的价格非常非常便宜。
So I wouldn't read too much into this. And frankly, the Suez Canal is too valuable, in my opinion, too valuable to civilization, to the modern world, to believe that, you know, a group of rebels, no matter how well funded they may be, is going to be able to disrupt that for any long period of time. I think there's too many interests aligned here to say, to keep this thing flowing.
所以我不会对此过多解读。老实说，根据我的意见，苏伊士运河对文明世界来说太有价值了，太有价值了，无论这种支持资金多么充足，我都无法相信一个叛乱组织能够长时间干扰它。我认为这里面涉及太多的利益，足以保持运河的畅通。
Well, okay, two points on that. So we call them a rebel group. And I guess they are. It's a Shia group in Yemen that rose up in 2014 and deposed the monarch there. And they basically control large swaths of the country, but they're not internationally recognized. That's why they're called rebels, but make no mistake, they basically control the vast majority of, of Yemen. It's a Shia group. They're, you could say sponsored by Iran, but I'm not sure they're controlled by Iran. People call them proxies. And that's true to some degree, but they also have agency. Like you said, J Cal, they are doing this, they say in solidarity with the Palestinians.
好的，对此有两点。所以我们称他们为一个叛乱组织。而且我想他们确实是。他们是也门的一个什叶派组织，于2014年起义并废黜了那里的君主。他们基本上控制着该国的大片地区，但他们并没有国际认可。这就是为什么他们被称为叛乱者，但请不要误解，他们基本上控制了也门的绝大部分。他们是一个什叶派组织。可以说他们受到伊朗的支持，但我不确定他们是否受到伊朗的控制。人们称他们为代理人。在某种程度上这是正确的，但他们也有主动权。就像你说的，J Cal，他们这样做是为了与巴勒斯坦人团结一致。
When the invasion of Gaza first began, they were firing rockets at Israel, but they had to go all the way over Saudi Arabia. They didn't make it. So now they started firing on ships that are going through this straight. They started mining the straight. And so like Ryan saying, this is basically put a damper on on commerce unless you're a country that the hoodies like apparently Russia's been able to move its ships through still. They claim they're only targeting ships that are transacting with Israel, but that's not true. I mean, a lot of ships have been targeted that don't have a relationship with Israel.
当加沙地带的入侵刚开始时，他们向以色列发射火箭，但是火箭需要绕过沙特阿拉伯一路飞过去，所以没有到达目的地。所以现在他们开始向穿越该海峡的船只开火，他们开始在海峡中布雷。正如Ryan所说的，这基本上给商业活动蒙上了阴影，除非你是一个深受他们喜爱的国家，比如俄罗斯似乎仍然能够通过。他们声称他们只针对与以色列有交易关系的船只，但这是不真实的。我意思是，许多与以色列没有关系的船只也成为了袭击目标。
So let's just say broadly speaking for Western ships, they can't get through. Now, what the US has done in response to Ryan's point is that we've announced this operation prosperity guardian, which is to restore the flow of trade through the Red Sea. But the question is what that's going to involve. And I think we are bracing now for the US to start taking military action against the Houtis.
所以，广义上说，西方船只无法通过。现在，美国对瑞安的观点所采取的回应是我们宣布了“保卫繁荣行动”，旨在恢复红海贸易的流动。但问题是这将涉及什么。我认为，我们正在为美国开始对胡塞武装采取军事行动做好准备。
The problem is, I think Ryan, when you're saying this is going to be resolved maybe quickly is that the US was already backing the Saudis in a war against the Houtis that started in 2015. It only got sort of resolved with a ceasefire that's still pretty fragile last year. And so the Houtis have already survived almost a decade of Western sponsored attacks on them.
问题是，我认为，当你说这件事可能很快解决时，瑞安，是因为美国早在2015年就开始支持沙特对抗胡塞武装的战争。去年才通过了一项仍然相当脆弱的停火来解决这个问题。因此，胡塞武装已经在西方支持下经历了将近十年的袭击。
It's not clear what we have to do to basically stop them from taking these actions. And I think if the US starts a war basically against the Houtis in Yemen, we're talking about an expansion of this conflict in the Middle East from beyond what's happening in Gaza to now another front that directly involves the US. Moreover, this is I think very underreported, but there've been almost 80 attacks on US bases in Syria and Iraq by Shia militias, again sponsored by Iran over the last couple of months. So this whole region is a powder keg. And it's not clear to me that if the US attacks the Houtis that this is going to lead to a quick resolution.
并不清楚我们要做什么才能基本上阻止他们采取这些行动。我认为，如果美国开始对也门侯赛因展开战争，我们将看到中东地区冲突的扩大，不仅限于加沙地带的发生，而直接牵涉到美国的另一个战线。此外，我认为这一点被报道得非常不足，但过去几个月以来，由伊朗支持的什叶派民兵组织在叙利亚和伊拉克的美军基地遭到了近80次袭击。整个地区都是一个火药桶。并且，对我来说并不清楚，如果美国攻击侯赛因，这是否会迅速解决问题。
So I guess my question back to Ryan is let's say there is a war here. Let's say the Houtis don't stop. I don't think they will. And let's say the US gets an award there, but isn't really able to bring it to a decisive conclusion. And let's say that this blockade of the Red Sea continues for all of 2024. What does that do to global prices? Because I think right now the market is pricing in rate cuts next year on the theory that inflation is coming down as a solved problem.
所以我猜我的问题回给Ryan是，假设这里发生战争。假设胡塞人不停止。我不认为他们会停止。假设美国在那里获得了一个奖项，但实际上无法达到决定性的结局。并且假设对红海的封锁会持续到2024年结束。那会对全球价格产生什么影响呢？因为我认为现在市场正在预计明年会降息，理论上通胀问题将被解决。
It's the right question. It'll be a big impact. And if you listen to like retailer earnings calls, they're all talking about, hey, we've had six, 12 months of deflationary environment prices are coming down. A lot of what they cite is the lower ocean freight prices. And if that goes back, and if it goes back anywhere near, I mean, we're already seeing a 3x, but even that 3x is sort of, well, it's just going to last. So I need to price it all in. And it hasn't really taken hold of like, that's not a true market dynamic of what is the supply and what is the demand. Freight is very inelastic. You're going to ship the product regardless of the price of freight. Unless your business model has the tiniest of margins, the price of freight goes up. It doesn't impact how many products you ship. You're going to go sell as many products as you can.
这是一个正确的问题。它将产生重大影响。如果你听过零售商的收益电话会议，他们都在谈论，嘿，我们已经经历了六个或十二个月的通货紧缩环境，价格下跌。他们所提到的很多原因是海运运费下降。如果这种情况回归正常，即使是三倍的涨幅，它也只是在持续。所以我需要把这一切都计算进去。但这还没有真正抓住，即供应和需求的真实市场动态。货运是非常不弹性的。不论货运价格如何，你都会运送产品。除非你的商业模式利润微薄，否则货运价格的增加不会影响你的货运数量。你要尽可能地销售更多产品。
Does it impact America as much as it impacts Europe? Absolutely not. Now, this is the fastest route for many parts of Asia to the East Coast of the United States. And especially with the Panama Canal is also congested at the same moment right now. Because of, they say it's because of a drought, but actually they built a bigger canal. It is just draining the lake faster. That's my hypothesis, but I'd like to look into it a little further. But the Panama Canal is only going at about two thirds capacity. So if you're going Asia to the East Coast, those are your options. But to go around the southern tip of Africa around the Cape of Good Hope to get to the East Coast, it's like an 8% increase in transit time versus 20 to Europe.
它对美国的影响和对欧洲的影响一样吗？绝对不是。现在，这是许多亚洲地区到达美国东海岸的最快航线。而且尤其是现在巴拿马运河也在拥堵中。他们说这是由于旱情，但实际上是因为他们建了一个更大的运河，它只是更快地排水湖泊。这是我的假设，但我想进一步调查一下。但巴拿马运河的运输能力只有三分之二左右。所以，如果你要从亚洲到东海岸，这些是你的选择。但如果绕过非洲南端好望角到达东海岸，航行时间将增加约8%，而到欧洲将增加20%。
And there's alternatives. So definitely impacts Europe much more. It impacts China. Like the reason I think that this, there's so many people lined up here. Like this is not good for China. China wants to be able to ship stuff quickly to Europe and get it to market. So to the extent that they have any impact, I think they're going to be clearly on the same side as the United States here. Europe obviously has it. And the other thing that I haven't really talked about is like, you look at that map, they're blockading, not just the Suez, but they're blockading Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's biggest port is in Jeddah. Right up there. Well, I don't think they're going to tolerate being cut off from the world. And taking on Saudi seems like an unwise idea. Well, they've been a war in the past as David pointed out. So, and I'm not, I'm certainly no expert.
还有其他选择。所以这绝对对欧洲产生更大的影响。它对中国也有影响。就像我觉得这样，这里有这么多人排队。这对中国来说不是好事。中国希望能够快速将货物运到欧洲并推向市场。所以在任何程度上，我认为他们与美国明显站在同一边。欧洲显然拥有这种能力。我还没有谈到的另一件事是，你看看那张地图，他们不仅封锁苏伊士运河，还封锁沙特阿拉伯。沙特阿拉伯最大的港口在吉达。我不认为他们会容忍与世界隔绝。而且与沙特作对似乎是一个不明智的想法。正如大卫指出的，他们过去曾打过一场战争。而我并不是一个专家。
By the way, I find this ship to be amazing. It's since, it's since transited, but this is one of the ships that was there yesterday just going for it. And if you look at the destination, it says armed guard on board, as they set that in the GIS GPS transponder so that if anyone comes after him, you know what you're going to get.
顺便说一句，我觉得这艘船真是太令人惊叹了。它经过了许多旅程，但这是昨天出发的其中一艘船只。如果你看它的目的地，上面写着“有武装护卫”，他们在全球导航卫星系统(GIS)和全球定位系统(GPS)的发射器上设定了这个信息，这样如果有人对他们不利，你就知道将会发生什么。
I have two comments. When I looked at this in the last couple of days, that was sort of my takeaway, which is that the really significant impacts are downstream to Europe consumer prices. So, I think like European inflation has more chance of up taking again than America does. Because I think the practical reality is what you said, Ryan, they'll just, the need to ship is inelastic and so they'll just pay 8% more and they'll just go to the East Coast in a more, in a longer way through the Cape of Good Hope or whatever.
我有两个评论。在过去几天里我看到的情况是，真正重要的影响对于欧洲消费者价格是下游的。所以，我认为欧洲的通胀可能会再次上升，而美国则没有这样的机会。因为我认为实际情况是你说的那样，莱恩，他们只是需要运输，需求是不弹性的，所以他们会支付8%的额外费用，通过好望角或者其他更长的路线去到东海岸。
The second comment, I think to me is a little bit more macro in nature, which is if you look at what's happening now, there's a hot war in Israel and Gaza. And theoretically now there's a hot war in Yemen. I think the positive take on this is that it actually puts the Middle East in a position to resolve all of these things. And what I mean is the following. If you're Saudi Arabia or if you're the UAE or if you're Qatar, what you really want to do is build for the next 30 to 40 years. They've said it as much. They want to pull trillions of dollars of oil and that gas out of the ground. They want to monetize it and then they want to invest in their people.
我认为第二条评论在一定程度上更具宏观性，就是如果你看一下现在正在发生的事情，以色列和加沙正在进行一场热战。而且从理论上讲，也是也门正在进行一场热战。我认为这其中的积极一面实际上是把中东置于解决所有这些问题的位置上。我的意思是这样的。如果你是沙特阿拉伯，或者是阿联酋，或者是卡塔尔，你真正想做的是为未来30到40年建设。他们已经做了这样的表态。他们想要从地下开采数万亿美元的石油和天然气，然后将其变现，再投资于他们的人民。
The last thing they need is to be bookended by two hot wars, largely propagated by a third party actor in Iran. And so I think if there was not resolve for them to get aligned, I think that the resolve now really amps up. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to be in the middle of this nonsense. Qatar doesn't want to be in the middle of this nonsense. UAE does not. And then the fact that Canada, America, Britain, France are now all of a sudden pulled in. And China, as you said, Ryan, I didn't even think about the implications of China as a supplier of record for most of these goods. All roads, I think, lead, in my opinion, to a coming together of folks to say, OK, let's use this as a definitive moment to just clean the decks here. And I think that that'll put a lot of pressure on Iran, a lot of pressure on the money flows. I suspect that both of these two hot wars get resolved quickly because the larger multi-decade implications for the Middle East are too big to let it be subsumed by the Houthi rebels or Hamas.
他们最不需要的就是被两场由伊朗第三方势力大肆宣传的热战夹在中间。因此，我认为如果他们没有决心调整立场，现在他们的决心真的会加强。沙特阿拉伯不想卷入这种无聊的事情。卡塔尔也不想卷入这种无聊的事情。阿拉伯联合酋长国也不想。而且，加拿大、美国、英国、法国突然被卷入其中。正如你所说的，Ryan，我甚至没有考虑过中国作为这些商品的主要供应国的影响。在我看来，所有的迹象都表明，人们会走到一起，说：“好吧，让我们把这个作为一个决定性的时刻来整顿现状。”这将给伊朗带来很大压力，也会对金融流动造成很大压力。我猜想，这两场热战都会很快解决，因为中东的多年意义对于被胡塞叛军或哈马斯吞噬是太重要了。
It's interesting here how you see like Israel's a relatively small economy in the world and you start to see in the same way that Ukraine is not a big economy. Russia is not that big, but it has a massive, the war there has just a massive impact via the commodities markets because Russia is such an important supplier of commodities. And now you see what Israel and Gaza relatively small, potentially a small regional conflict, big global implications because of everything that goes behind it.
有趣的是，我们可以在这里观察到像以色列这样在全球经济中相对较小的国家，以及以乌克兰和俄罗斯为例。尽管俄罗斯并不算大经济体，但由于其作为重要的大宗商品供应国，其战争对于大宗商品市场产生了巨大影响。现在我们可以看到以色列和加沙的冲突相对较小，潜在的地区冲突却因为背后的一切而具有重大的全球影响。
But now you see the spread to something that really could impact if this is an extension of that conflict. Now you're seeing, wow, this actually has the ability to extend to global markets in a way that's similar to what happened in Russia and Ukraine, where all of a sudden commodity markets are impacted and you're seeing that inflation.
但现在你看到了一种可能会影响到这种冲突延伸的情况正在扩散。现在你看到，哇，这实际上有能力以类似于俄罗斯和乌克兰之间发生的情况一样，对全球市场产生影响，突然间商品市场受到了影响，你会看到通货膨胀的情况。
But I don't know, Chaimant, if your view is, hey, we're going to have progress because progress is good or something. I don't know that that's necessarily the direction that the world follows. You can have terrible stuff. I think you're sitting in Dubai or Saudi or Qatar, you're thinking, this is the last thing we need.
但是，Chaimant，我不知道你的观点是什么，是认为进步是好事情，所以我们会有进步呢？我不确定世界是否会一定跟随这个方向。你可能会看到很糟糕的事情。我想，如果你坐在迪拜、沙特或卡塔尔，你可能会认为这是我们最不需要的。
For sure. Well, I think that's definitely true. Multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar investment plans and we're going to let the Houthi rebels derail that. And literally on ports, like Saudi is trying to build a big port as part of the Nion project there in the northwest of the country on the Red Sea, which would be cut out. I mean, they're not going to fly.
当然。嗯，我认为这绝对是真实的。多年来，投资数万亿美元的计划，我们居然让胡塞叛乱分子破坏了这一切。而且从字面上来看，像是沙特正在建设一个大型港口，作为该国西北部红海地区Nion项目的一部分，这个项目将会受到影响。我的意思是，他们不会飞上天。
Yeah, it looks Saudi Arabia is in a really tough spot here because what happened is after the Houthis deposed the monarch there in 2014, Saudi Arabia started fighting a war to restore the leader in 2015. And that war went on for almost a decade, created a huge humanitarian crisis really underreported compared to other crises. There were hundreds of thousands of civilians who were killed, millions of people displaced when hungry. Finally, that war again got paused by a fragile ceasefire that was negotiated, I guess, in the last year or so. And then simultaneous to that, there was a reproach mob between Saudi Arabia and Iran that was brokered by China. And so the last thing Saudi Arabia wants to do is get involved in restarting this war or restarting hostile relations with Iran. I mean, they would like to move beyond that, which is why they're not participating in this Operation Prosperity Guardian. The problem they have is that the Houthis aren't going to stop doing what they're doing until the Israel's war and Gaza stops. And Netanyahu, just the last 24 hours, made it clear that the Israel won't stop fighting. They will not agree to another ceasefire until Hamas is eliminated.
是的，沙特阿拉伯似乎陷入了一个非常困境的境地，因为在2014年胡塞反政府武装废黜了该国君主后，沙特阿拉伯于2015年开始了恢复领导人地位的战争。这场战争持续了近十年，导致了一个巨大的人道主义危机，与其他危机相比，报道得相对较少。数十万平民丧生，数百万人流离失所、食不果腹。最终，通过一项脆弱的停火协议，这场战争暂时停止了，我想是在去年左右谈判达成的。同时，沙特阿拉伯与伊朗之间的冷战状态得到缓和，中国起到了斡旋的作用。所以沙特阿拉伯最不想做的就是重新卷入这场战争，或者重新与伊朗敌对。他们希望超越这些，这就是为什么他们不参与“繁荣守护行动”的原因。他们面临的问题是，胡塞组织不会停止他们正在进行的行动，直到以色列在加沙的战争停止。而且在过去的24小时内，内塔尼亚胡明确表示，以色列不会停止战斗，除非哈马斯被消灭。
So, Chamath, I think you're right that if there were a ceasefire, that this situation would go away very, very quickly. And shipping normal shipping would be restored. However, I'm not sure you're going to get the parties to agree to ceasefire anytime soon. I mean, the Israelis seem pretty determined not to agree to a ceasefire. I think the Biden administration clearly would like that.
所以，Chamath，我认为你说得对，如果有停火，这种局势会非常迅速地消失，正常的运输也会恢复。然而，我不确定各方能够很快达成停火协议。我的意思是，以色列人似乎非常坚决地不同意停火。我认为拜登政府显然希望停火。
I think they would like this problem to be over. But with the continuation of hostilities in Gaza, you continue to have the potential for the second order effects, these kind of knock-on effects. And like I mentioned, one is the Houthis and other are all these American bases that are under attack right now by these Shia militias.
我认为他们希望这个问题能结束。但是随着加沙的敌对行动继续进行，就会继续存在这种二级影响，也就是连锁反应。正如我所提到的，其中一个便是胡塞武装，另一个便是现在受到这些什叶派民兵袭击的所有美国基地。
So I think this has the potential to be a black swan in 2024, meaning that somehow the Israel Hamas war spirals into a larger regional war that pulls the US in. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but I think the potential is there the longer this goes on. And I think that if that does happen, there could be the potential for an oil shock. By the way, the Houthis have said that if the US attacks Yemen, they will light the Saudi oil fields on fire. Now, I'm not sure they have the potential to do that. I mean, presumably, if they have the potential to do it, they would have done it during their long war. So that probably is just, you know, hyperbolic rhetoric. But there's so many ways for this to somehow turn into a larger Middle Eastern war.
所以我认为这有潜力成为2024年的黑天鹅事件，意思是以色列哈马斯战争不断升级，演变成一场牵扯美国的更大区域战争。我不是说一定会发生，但我认为随着战况持续，这种潜力是存在的。而且如果真的发生了，可能会引发石油震荡。顺便说一句，胡塞武装已经表示，如果美国攻击也门，他们将点燃沙特的石油田。现在，我不确定他们有这个能力。我是说，假设他们有这个能力，他们在他们漫长的战争中为何不这么做呢？因此，这可能只是夸大的修辞。但这种局势在很多方面都有可能演变为一场更大规模的中东战争。
To your point, Shama, I think, you know, I've been meeting with folks in Doha and Riyadh and Abu Dhabi and Dubai for the last six months. And I was talking to people this past weekend. You're absolutely right. There are a group of people within agenda, which is to modernize the economies there, to move off Petro and to move into technology and to move into hospitality with the NEOM project, as you pointed out, Ryan. And that's not going to get derailed. And those are the most powerful, you know, depopulated influential forces there. And so, yeah, they're working with the United States and any of these rebels, etc., I think they're going to be dealt with because people want prosperity and they want to keep evolving these societies and moving them. Normalization. Normalization.
在这一点上，沙玛，我觉得，你知道的，过去六个月里我一直在多哈、利雅得、阿布扎比和迪拜与人会面。上周末我和一些人交谈，你说得完全正确。在他们的议程中，有一群人致力于现代化这些经济体，摆脱石油依赖，转向科技和酒店业，正如你所指出的NEOM项目。这个进程不会受到破坏，因为那些是最有权势和影响力的力量。所以，是的，他们正在与美国合作，和任何这些叛乱者等等，我认为他们将得到处理，因为人们期望繁荣，并希望推动这些社会不断发展。正常化，正常化。
Yeah. I mean, have you ever, have you guys, who's been to Riyadh here? I have. Yeah. I think Freeburg or Sax, have you been to Riyadh? No. Freeburg. I mean, no, it's beautiful. And it's changing rapidly, massively. And obviously Dubai's already been changed. And then Dohan, I'm not arguing that. Yeah.
是的。我的意思是，你们谁去过利雅得？我去过。是的。我觉得弗里堡或者萨克斯，你们去过利雅得吗？没有。弗里堡。不，它很美丽。而且它正在迅速、巨大地改变。显然，迪拜已经改变了。然后是多哈，我不想争论这个。是的。
Saudi Arabia isn't a great place and they want to do the right thing here. But you're acting like the Houthis can just be dealt with. What does that mean to you? Well, I think that the larger forces are united in wanting to have prosperity for their people, education for their people, and to build deep ties with the West and the East to do commerce. And so I think those forces are greater than maybe some of the traditional forces that are at work and these longer term conflicts maybe are not as important to the leaders and the citizens of these countries as prosperity is. And so when I say dealt with, I think they're going to just focus on developing their economies over these skirmishes.
沙特阿拉伯并非一个理想的地方，但他们希望在这里做正确的事情。但你的行为就好像胡塞武装可以轻松处理一样。这对你来说意味着什么？嗯，我认为更大力量的目标是希望让自己的民众繁荣，接受教育，并与西方和东方建立深厚的联系来进行商业贸易。因此，我认为这些力量可能比传统力量更强大，并且这些长期冲突对这些国家的领导人和公民来说可能并不像繁荣一样重要。所以当我说要处理这个问题时，我认为他们将会将重点放在发展经济上，而不是纠缠于这些小冲突上。
But are you saying there's going to be a diplomatic solution here? Because I don't see it. I mean, here's the problem. Israel's not stopping. It's war in Gaza. The Houthis aren't going to stop until Israel stops. So how do you make them stop? That's a great question. Containing these conflicts is probably the likely scenario when I've asked that same question to the people who are in those regions. And when I spoke to them, they're all about containment. They don't think there's a resolution like we might think about it here on the West that there's not going to be a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. They just think containing it and having it not be an all out is success.
你是在说这里会有外交解决办法吗？因为我看不到。我的意思是，问题在于以色列不会停止。在加沙进行战争。胡塞派不会停下，除非以色列停下来。那么如何使他们停下来呢？这是个很好的问题。将这些冲突控制起来可能是最有可能的情况，当我向那些地区的人提出同样的问题时，他们都是关于控制的。他们认为不会像我们这里在西方那样有一个巴以冲突的解决办法，他们只是认为控制住它，使其不会全面爆发就是成功。
What do you think is going to happen? I mean, we have two sides who are implacably resolved. Israelis to continuing their fight against Hamas and the Houthis to continuing to lash out at Israel or the West in general until that stops. The likely scenario is that Netanyahu is losing support. That's what every Israeli and every person in the region says is that Netanyahu is not going to last long term. So what have you heard, sex? What do you think the resolution?
你认为会发生什么呢？我的意思是，我们有两方面都不会妥协的立场。以色列人要继续与哈马斯作战，和胡塞武装要持续对以色列或西方国家进行报复行动，直到这个停止为止。可能的情景是，内塔尼亚胡正在失去支持。每个以色列人和该地区的每个人都认为内塔尼亚胡的长期执政是不可能的。所以你听到了些什么消息，有什么解决方案呢？
Well, I think it's interesting. If you look at Israeli domestic politics, it's true that Netanyahu is unpopular, but something like 90% of the Israeli public favors the continuation of this war until Hamas is eliminated.
嗯，我觉得这很有趣。如果你看看以色列国内政治，确实有人对内塔尼亚胡不满，但大约90%的以色列公众支持继续这场战争，直到哈马斯被消灭为止。
I mean, the Israeli people are really, I think, hardened on this question. Those tapes of Hamas atrocities on October 7 were compiled into a film. They were recorded by the Hamas fighters own gopros. And the Israeli people have watched all those things and they are resolved to destroy Hamas.
我的意思是，以色列人民对这个问题真的很坚定。10月7日那些记录哈马斯暴行的录音被编成一部电影。这些录音是由哈马斯战士自己的GOPRO相机录制的。以色列人民观看了所有的这些内容，他们决心摧毁哈马斯。
Now you can argue with their tactics and I'm just stating the fact, okay, I'm not judging it. And the point is just whether Netanyahu survives or not, I think the Israeli public wants to eliminate Hamas. So I think they are resolved.
现在你可以对他们的战术进行争论，而我只是陈述事实，好吗？我并没有对此进行评判。关键点在于无论内塔尼亚胡是否能够幸存下来，我认为以色列公众希望摧毁哈马斯。所以我认为他们已经下定决心。
I think the Houthis are resolved. And the Houthis control this choke point so they can stop or interfere with global trade. And I think, look, there could be a ceasefire. I mean, I think Biden clearly would like there to be a ceasefire, certainly before the election. And that would bring all this to a rapid end.
我认为胡塞武装已经决心坚持下去。胡塞武装控制着这个战略要地，因此他们可以阻止或干扰全球贸易。我认为，拜登显然希望实现停火，尤其是在选举前。这将使得所有这一切迅速结束。
But if there's not a ceasefire, I don't understand how you just stop the Houthis. I mean, the only way to stop them is if you want to go to war with them. That's what we're talking about. So we're talking about the US using its naval assets to go get the regions. Shabaf mentioned could use diplomacy and or financial measures. And so those are other actions on the table.
但是如果没有停火，我不明白你们如何能仅仅停止胡塞武装。我的意思是，唯一的办法是要与他们开战。这就是我们正在讨论的。因此，我们谈论的是美国利用海军力量去获取Shabaf提到的地区。Shabaf提到的地区可以通过外交或金融手段进行处理。所以，这些都是可行的其他行动。
Well, no easy solutions here, Ryan, thanks for jumping on the pod with us once again. One question, how much more resilient post COVID if at all are supply chains? Because you talked about wanting to make them more resilient. And that was a major focus for Flexport. Is it better now post COVID? Have we done it?
嗯，这里没有简单的解决方案，Ryan，再次感谢你加入我们的节目。有一个问题，供应链在 COVID-19 疫情后是否变得更加有弹性了？因为你曾谈到希望使供应链更加有弹性，而这是 Flexport 的一个主要关注点。现在的情况是否比 COVID-19 疫情后变好了？我们做到了吗？
I think at the physical infrastructure layer, nothing's really changed. I don't think the bottlenecks have gone away just because demand went back down. The US had like a 20% increase in container volume. It created all these bottlenecks. We couldn't process that many containers in our ports. And then the containers now are back at 2019 levels and everything's flowing normally. But I wouldn't say that makes us more resilient. It's the same as before.
我认为在物理基础设施层面上，没有什么实质性的变化。我认为，需求回落并不意味着瓶颈问题已经解决。美国的集装箱运量增加了约20％，导致了所有这些瓶颈。我们的港口无法处理那么多集装箱。现在，集装箱数量已经回到2019年的水平，一切都在正常流动。但我不能说这使我们更具弹性。情况与以前相同。
And situations like this, you learn just how amazing and resilient the global trading network is though global logistics infrastructure. But also it's pretty fragile. If a small group of rebels can fire missiles and you go, well, even the US Navy, what are we going to do? I mean, this kind of an asymmetric warfare type thing, they shoot a $20,000 drone and we need a $2 million missile to shoot it down. It's not a great setup. And it's not clear that firing missiles back is going to open it back up. And so yeah, I think it's much more fragile than we realize as civilization always has been, you know, it takes, takes 100 years to develop the civilization and an afternoon to go back to barbarisms.
而在这种情况下，你会意识到全球贸易网络和全球物流基础设施的卓越和弹性。但同时它也很脆弱。如果一个小组叛军能发射导弹，你想一下，即使是美国海军，我们能做些什么呢？我的意思是，这种非对称战争，他们用一架价值2万美元的无人机，我们需要一枚价值200万美元的导弹来击落它。这不是一个很好的局面。而且不清楚以导弹还击是否能重新恢复它。所以，是的，我认为它比我们意识到的更脆弱，就像文明从来都是如此，建设一个文明需要100年，而退回野蛮却只需要一下午。
And air freight you had talked about previously, that's still four or five times more expensive than C freight. Is that about right? That multiple?
之前你提到的空运货物，比C货便宜四到五倍，是这样的吗？这个倍数对吗？
In general, that's a reasonable assumption is about four types of work. The air freight networks are very small and proportioned to give you a sense like one of these container ships that flows through the ever given is the world's most famous container ship that got stuck in the so as canal a few years ago. That one holds about 10,040 foot containers. 747, which is basically the biggest cargo plane out there, can hold seven 40 foot containers.
一般来说，这是关于四种工作类型的合理假设。空运网络非常小并且按比例分配，让你感觉就像是这些货柜船之一，像“长赐号”一样穿越苏伊士运河的世界上最著名的货柜船。这艘货柜船可以容纳大约10,040个较小的集装箱。而波音747是目前最大的货机，可以容纳七个40英尺的集装箱。
And so if you have a diversion of global ocean freight, we'll rapidly flow over to it doesn't take a lot of freight going, hey, I'm going to ship this by air instead to suddenly have the air freight markets get impacted. So it hasn't yet the air, the airlines are a little bit less connected to this market and haven't instantly said, hey, we're raising prices in January. But I suspect if this last another week or two, you're going to see big run ups and air freight prices. And these are global markets. The price of freight from Asia to the US gets impacted because they're pulling ships off. The supply gets redirected. The planes get rerouted. It is a global market. So an impact here will affect prices of shipping Asia to US as well.
因此，如果全球海洋货运产生偏离，我们很快将转而使用这种方式，因为并不需要太多的货物，嘿，我要改成空运来运送，以突然影响空运市场。所以目前还没有，航空公司在这个市场上的联系稍微少一些，并没有立即表示，嘿，我们将在一月份提高价格。但我怀疑如果这种情况持续一两周，你会看到空运价格大幅上涨。这些都是全球市场。从亚洲到美国的货运价格会受到影响，因为他们撤离了船只，供应被重新定向，飞机也被改变路线。这是一个全球市场。因此，此处的影响将影响从亚洲到美国的货运价格。
Thanks so much for coming back on the program, Ryan Peterson. Great to have you here. And oh, congratulations on being CEO of the company you found at Flexport again, we didn't get a chance to talk about all the craziness with this CEO and turn over. But you're back, you're back in the home and right back. It's amazing. It's amazing having the time of my life back here and working at the Flexport office every day.
很高兴你再次回到节目中，Ryan Peterson。很高兴能够有你在这里。还要恭喜你再次成为Flexport公司的首席执行官，我们没有机会谈论关于这位CEO和管理层变动的一切疯狂。但你回来了，回到了家，真是太不可思议了。在这里重新享受生活，每天在Flexport办公室工作，感觉太棒了。
All right, we'll see you soon. And thanks for coming on as Sax is lifeline. Well done.
好的，我们很快就会见到你的。感谢你成为Sax的救命稻草。干得好。
All right, guys, sit here. Ryan did bring up a really interesting point there that you don't hear enough, which was the asymmetry of the warfare that the hoodies can launch a drone or a cheap missile that costs thousands of dollars and it costs us millions of dollars to shoot it down. That is just not sustainable for the US. We see this happening in Ukraine as well. All these multi-million dollar expensive tanks get taken out by a landmine or by a cheap RPG or something like that that costs a few thousand dollars.
好的，伙计们，坐下吧。Ryan提出了一个非常有趣的观点，这个观点我们很少听到，那就是外套帮派可以发射一架无人机或者一枚成本数千美元的廉价导弹，而我们打击它需要花费数百万美元。这对于美国来说是不可持续的。我们还可以在乌克兰看到这种情况。所有这些价值数百万美元的昂贵坦克被一颗地雷或者一枚几千美元的廉价火箭弹击毁。
It's also the fact that if you send a drone and it blows up on a ship and it costs you a couple thousand bucks to do that, the lack of risk tolerance, the fact that the insurance companies won't ensure the ship anymore means that now that ship can't travel and that's tens of millions of dollars of commerce that gets shut down off of a $3,000 investment. So there's a deep asymmetry in the sensitivity we also have to loss. We won't take, hey, well, maybe one in 10 ships can blow up. Let's keep going. It's the fact that there's no margin for loss. There's no allowance for loss. As a result, any sort of threat of loss means that the whole system shuts down. I'm not advocating that we should, but it's just the condition we're in.
这也是一个事实，如果你派遣无人机，并且它在一艘船上爆炸，造成几千美元的损失，缺乏风险容忍度，保险公司不再为这艘船提供保险，这意味着这艘船无法继续航行，这是一笔价值数千万美元的商业交易因为仅仅3000美元的投资而被关闭。因此，我们在面对损失时存在急剧不对称的敏感性。我们不能接受“也许十艘船中有一艘会爆炸”的说法。事实上，我们没有损失的余地，没有容忍损失的余地。因此，任何可能造成损失的威胁都会导致整个系统关闭。我并不是主张我们应该这样做，但这就是我们目前所处的情况。
I also think the other point I didn't make, I would imagine that this behavior with the hoodies is driven in part by the emboldenedment that arises following October 7th and the praise that Hamas has received globally. And if you believe that to be true, there are many other groups like this that may get emboldened and you start to see more activity in other regions as well that you can have these kind of outsized impacts and folks suddenly start to take action. I think that's why we're between a rock and a hard place here is that on the one hand, if we don't do anything, then you're emboldening that behavior. And if you do do something, you're escalating the war. Yeah. And to your point, saying like, hey, the US is going to enter the war, I think that there may be this moment where it's not even an option, that the US is being provoked in a way that you can't say no, you have to, you know, maybe they end up having to act. The guerrilla warfare aspect of this is super fascinating because you can really do incredible damage to very expensive airplanes with hypersonic missiles that go incredibly fast or like Mach 5 or something insane. And they're cheap. So $100 million or $20 million. Fighter jet can just be annihilated by a couple of $100,000 in, you know, hypersonic missiles.
我还认为，我没有提到的另一点是，我想象这种穿戴帽衫的行为部分是由于10月7日后的获得授权和哈马斯在全球范围内得到的赞扬所推动的。如果你认为这是真实的，那么还会有很多其他类似的团体可能会变得更加自信，并且你会开始在其他地区看到更多的活动，因此你会看到这种超出比例的影响，并且人们突然开始采取行动。我认为我们在这里进退两难的原因是，一方面，如果我们什么都不做，那么就会强化这种行为。而另一方面，如果我们采取行动，就会使战争升级。是的，正如你所说，如果说美国将参与战争，我认为可能会有这样一个时刻，那就是不得不采取行动的时候，因为美国被以一种无法拒绝的方式挑衅了，你必须采取行动，也许他们最终不得不采取行动。这种游击战的方面非常引人注目，因为你可以用超音速导弹对价值不菲的飞机造成巨大破坏，这些导弹速度非常快，比如马赫5或者其他什么疯狂的速度。而且它们价格便宜，所以一架价值一亿美元或两千万美元的战斗机可以被几十万美元的超音速导弹摧毁。
All right. There's been a ton of M&A activity and M&A deals that have been canceled. Adobe Figma has been called off and Illumina and Graal has been unwound as well. The big headline is that after a 15 month review process, Adobe and Figma called off their merger. We talked about it here multiple times. It was a $20 billion cash in stock merger that was agreed to back in September of 2022. And there's tons to unpack here. Shareholders, employees, a startup ecosystem. And of course, limited partners who were expecting huge paydays from Figma being sold to Adobe are now back to a waiting game of figuring out if this company can go public, etc. At Shammoth, you had tons of thoughts on this. And maybe you could educate everybody on the Illumina Graal deal. So they don't make people understand that.
好的。最近发生了大量的并购活动和被取消的并购交易。Adobe对Figma的收购已经取消，Illumina对Graal也做了撤销处理。最大的新闻是，在经历了15个月的审查过程后，Adobe和Figma取消了他们的合并计划。我们在这里多次谈论过这件事。这是一笔价值200亿美元的现金和股票合并，在2022年9月达成一致。这里有很多事情需要理清。股东、员工、初创生态系统，当然还有一直期待获得Figma被卖给Adobe后巨额回报的有限合伙人们，现在又回到了等待的游戏中，看这家公司是否能上市等等。在Shammoth，你对此事有很多想法。也许你可以向大家讲解一下Illumina和Graal交易的情况，让他们了解更多。
Yeah. I think there are three deals or almost deals that got essentially called off or canceled or never consummated in the last few weeks, which show a pretty interesting trend. So the first, as you said, Jason was Adobe Figma. The second was Sigma and Humana. They were proposing a multi-decadillion dollar merger. And it was very clear that the FDC was going to have a huge fit around it. So they said that we're not even going to do it. And then Sigma just said they'll do a $10 billion buyback instead.
是的，我认为过去几周有三笔交易或几乎达成交易被基本上叫停、取消或未能达成，显示出一个相当有趣的趋势。所以第一个，正如你说的，Jason，是Adobe Figma。第二个是Sigma和Humana。他们提议进行一项数万亿美元的合并。显然联邦贸易委员会对此将非常不满意。所以他们说我们干脆就不做了。然后Sigma只是表示他们将进行一项100亿美元的回购操作。
And then in the craziest example, Illumina and Graal, so Illumina makes gene sequencing machines and Graal makes one of the leading tests for 3DNA cancer detection. And at the time, Illumina owned almost half the company. They bought the other half. They merged it in even though the regulators said, hey, hold on, we have an issue with this. And now they're being forced to unwind the merger. So to pull this company back out and divest it.
然后在最疯狂的例子中，Illumina和Graal，Illumina制造基因测序机器，而Graal则制造着一种领先的用于3DNA癌症检测的试剂。当时，Illumina拥有该公司近一半的股份，他们收购了另外一半股份并将其合并，即使监管机构表示，嘿，等等，我们对此有异议。现在他们被迫解除合并，将该公司重新分离出来并进行剥离。
I think the point of this is two things. One is that there is no viable M&A path for early stage venture capital businesses. So if you can't have a $20 billion merger or a $40 billion merger or $15 or $20 billion M&A with a high degree of confidence, then the path to liquidity to M&A is less than 20% of the outcomes, which means that the overwhelming path to get liquid is what you said, Jason, which is IPO. But the problem is the second part, which is that the capital markets in the United States are not ready or not in a position to support all this IPO liquidity.
我认为这个观点有两个方面。首先，早期风险投资企业没有可行的并购路径。因此，如果没有一个可以信心满满的200亿或400亿甚至150亿到200亿的合并交易，那么实现并购的途径少于20％，这意味着实现流动性的主要途径就是你所说的IPO，Jason。但问题在于第二个方面，即美国资本市场还没有准备好或者没有能力支持如此多的IPO流动性。
Why? The banks won't underwrite. There aren't enough researchers, research analysts that will cover these stocks. The ways in which the banks make money have become so constrained. And so I'm kind of left pondering to myself, how do you go back to a world of the 90s where startups four and five years old would go public to raise capital? I don't think that that's going to happen. So I don't know exactly what happens to us, except that we'll have companies gestating for 15 and 20 years. And I think that just has a chilling effect, because it's like, what investor wants to put money away locked up in highly liquid stuff for 20 years? What rate of return do you need to give them that makes them want to do that?
为什么会这样呢？银行不愿承担风险。没有足够的研究人员和研究分析师来关注这些股票。银行赚钱的方式变得越来越受限。所以我有点思考，如何回到90年代的世界，那个时候成立四五年的初创公司会通过公开募股来融资？我不认为那会发生。所以我不确定会发生什么，除了我们会有15到20年的潜伏公司存在。我觉得这会产生一种抑制效应，因为投资者谁想将资金锁在高流动性资产里20年呢？您需要给他们怎样的回报率才能让他们愿意这样做呢？
So something has to change, because if the M&A market can't exist, then we need to change the rules of the capital market so that there's incentives for these banks to underwrite these companies to go public. Well, I guess there's two things, sex, that could change this dramatically. One is if we put in more conservative, Republican, libertarian, et cetera, less regulatory regime in Washington, that could open up M&A as soon as 2025, perhaps. And then the second is direct listings, dare I say, SPACs and alternative ways to get companies public and may not be the gold standard as a traditional IPO. But at least we get those liquidity started.
所以必须做出一些改变，因为如果并购市场无法存在，那么我们就需要改变资本市场的规则，为这些银行提供承销这些上市公司的激励措施。嗯，我想有两件事情可以极大改变这种情况。一是如果我们在华盛顿实施更加保守、共和党式、自由主义等少一些监管的体制，那或许能在2025年之前开启并购市场。然后第二个是直接上市，胆敢说，特殊目的收购公司（SPACs）以及其他一些获得公司上市的替代方式，也许并不是传统IPO的黄金标准，但至少能启动流动性。
And I guess third, SACs, and I'll get your thoughts on this for private investors and their LPs, everybody seems to be focused on building strong, stable, hash-flowing businesses. And we've seen all the companies that went public, whether it's Airbnb or Uber, are now focused on ringing the cash register and being profitable. So ultimately, maybe this log jam and M&A blockage makes everybody focused on sustainable, profitable companies. And that's a good thing long term. What do you think, sex?
我猜第三个是SACs，对于私人投资者及其有限合伙人，我想知道你对此的想法，每个人似乎都专注于建立强大、稳定、现金流充裕的企业。我们已经看到所有上市公司，无论是Airbnb还是Uber，现在都专注于从中收益并获得盈利。因此，最终，也许这种并购障碍会引导所有人关注可持续盈利的公司。从长远来看，这是件好事。你认为呢，怎么样？
Look, like I said last week in relation to the Figma Adobe deal, the fact that regulators took 15 months to analyze the deal only to come to the conclusion that they basically weren't going to allow it. And then Adobe finally killed it, is going to have a chilling effect on M&A and Silicon Valley. I mean, if acquirers and targets can't have confidence that the deal will be approved, and in fact, they're going to be left in limbo for over a year waiting for speculative approval, they're going to be less likely to do deals in the first place. And I'm sure Adobe's not happy about the fact they got to pay a billion dollar breakup fee, which by the way, was a really smart thing for Figma to negotiate. I mean, if you're a company that started that's going to get acquired, you'd need a pretty big breakup fee now as insurance on the deal, because there's a very good chance that regulators aren't going to allow it.
看，就像我上周在讨论 Figma 和 Adobe 的交易时所说的一样，监管机构花了15个月的时间进行分析，最后得出的结论基本上是不会允许该交易。然后 Adobe 最终终止了交易，这对于并购和硅谷将产生寒蝉效应。我的意思是，如果收购方和目标公司无法确信交易会获批准，实际上他们将被搁置一年以上等待凭空的批准，那么他们在首次的谈判中可能会更不愿意做交易。而且我确信 Adobe 对于不得不支付10亿美元的违约金并不高兴，顺便说一下，这对于 Figma 来说是一件非常聪明的谈判策略。我的意思是，如果你是一家即将被收购的公司，你现在需要一笔相当大的违约金作为交易的保险，因为监管机构很有可能不会允许这笔交易。
So yeah, absolutely. The fact that regulators got in the way that the Adobe deal and moreover, the way that they did it with this protracted delay is absolutely going to have a chilling effect on M&A and Silicon Valley. And look, there are only two good outcomes for a startup. You can either IPO or you can get acquired. That's it. The third is basically you go out of business. That's the third outcome.
是的，当然。监管机构干预Adobe交易的事实，而且他们以拖延的方式进行这种干预，将对并购和硅谷产生冰冻效应。看，对于初创企业，只有两个好结果。要么上市，要么被收购。就这样。第三个结果基本上是你破产。
So when you take half the potential exits off the table, you're absolutely making it tougher for VCs and founders to get a good return. It's that simple. And that is going to have a depressing effect on the investing of risk capital and Silicon Valley. I don't think it's a good thing for anyone. And by the way, even if the US sort of fixes this, even if we get a regime that's more friendly towards M&A, you still have the EU to worry about. And you also have the UK to worry about because they're not part of the EU thinks to Brexit.
当你将一半的潜在出口排除在外时，对于风投公司和创始人来说，获得良好回报变得更加困难。就是这么简单。这对于风险投资和硅谷的投资将产生压抑效应。我认为这对于任何人来说都不是一件好事。另外，顺便提一下，即使美国解决了这个问题，即使我们获得更友好的并购政策，你仍然需要担心欧盟。而且，你还需要担心英国，因为他们不再是欧盟成员，这是脱欧所带来的结果。
The UK, like I said last week, they're like the Chihuahua who's leading the pack. They're the smallest market, but they're the most aggressive on antitrust enforcement. Tax, they may just be the beards for the US and the Europeans. It's possible. But in any event, now you got three regulators to worry about not just one. And like I said last week, I think if you're a startup and you're trying to consider where to put your Europe office, I would not choose the UK anymore. I used to think that the UK was number one because it was so easy. But you don't want to create that nexus if you can help it. It might subject you to a competition authority you don't want to deal with later when you get acquired. Yeah, I would have just opted out of the UK. I would have called their bluff, as I said last week.
英国，就像我上周说的那样，他们就像领导着群体的吉娃娃犬。他们是最小的市场，但是在反垄断执法方面最具有侵略性。税收上，他们可能只是美国和欧洲的代言人。这是可能的。无论如何，现在你不仅要担心一个监管机构，而是三个。就像我上周说的那样，如果你是一家初创公司，并且正在考虑在哪里设立你的欧洲办事处，我再也不会选择英国了。我过去认为英国是第一位的，因为它非常方便。但是如果可以避免的话，你不想在那里建立联系。当你被收购时，这可能会使你受到你不想面对的竞争机构的约束。是的，我本应该选择不进入英国。就像我上周说的那样，我本可以对他们的吹牛顶嘴。
Freeburg, any solutions here you think to solving this problem in VC land? Or do we just have to build stronger, more profitable companies and be more patient about taking them public since M&A is not on the table?
弗里堡，你认为在VC领域解决这个问题有什么解决方案吗？或者我们只能建立更强大、更具盈利能力的公司，并在上市方面更加耐心，因为并购并不是可行的选择？
I don't know if I'd take the antitrust regime as being the core driver of M&A not being on the table. I mean, there's a couple of these examples, but I don't think there's a predominance of this going on. I think that there's a lot of smaller deals that still end up being good outcomes. I mean, we've also talked a lot about the lower cost of capital and starting software businesses and the era of AI type tools. And that leads to being able to hit a 100x. If you put small enough amount of capital in and have a decent outcome where you're not building the market monopoly in some particular market, it doesn't feel to me like that's the biggest driver of concern here.
我不知道是否将反垄断制度视为造成并购不在菜单上的核心驱动因素。我的意思是，虽然有几个例子，但我认为这种情况并没有占主导地位。我认为还是有很多较小的交易最终会有良好的结果。我是说，我们也讨论了资本成本较低、创办软件企业和人工智能工具时代的话题。这导致我们能够达到100倍的回报率。如果你投入的资本足够小，并且有一个不错的结果，在某个特定市场上不会建立市场垄断，对我来说并不像是最主要的担忧驱动因素。
The biggest driver of concern is just all the return on capital metrics that the big buyers are having to face. Return on invested capital is becoming more important than it's ever been because we're talking about trillion dollar market cap buyers. And so that's how they're measured. And so they have to be really thoughtful about how they're deploying capital. In a high interest rate environment, there's a greater sensitivity to a faster path to cash returns than there has been historically. So it feels to me like that's, and I would imagine if I'm a Dobi and I'm looking at this Figma deal, do I keep fighting it? Or at this point, paying a billion dollars is probably net accretive to them. I think the stock price went up when they called the deal off, which highlights that it was probably a better investment for them to say, I'm going to pay a billion dollars to actually get out of this deal at this point. And I think we see more of that happening, which is this rationalization of timelines to ROIC in a high interest rate environment.
最大的关注点是大买家面临的资本回报指标。投资回报率变得比以往任何时候都更重要，因为我们谈论的是市值上万亿美元的买家。这就是他们被衡量的方式。因此，他们必须非常谨慎地考虑如何运用资本。在高利率环境下，对于更快的现金回报路径存在更大的敏感性，这与历史上不同。所以对我而言，如果我是Dobi，我在考虑这笔Figma交易时，是应该继续抗争还是支付10亿美元，这对他们而言可能是有利的。我认为当他们取消交易时，股价上涨说明这对他们而言可能是一笔更好的投资，他们选择支付10亿美元来实际上退出这笔交易。我认为我们会看到更多这样的情况发生，即在高利率环境下，将回报率与时间表合理化。
Shabbat deals do get done. There's a lot more tolerance for smaller deals, obviously. Yeah. Salesforce was able to acquire Slack. That was 2020. Amazon was able to acquire Whole Foods, Walt Disney 24 Century Fox with the X-Men. So those are a different era. I really think that the larger. No, these are all 2016 to 2020. You're right. Yeah. Those are all. They're very different era. I don't think that that's what you can expect anymore. I don't think you can underwrite to get a $20 billion deal done in any industry. Yeah. Remember, Matt or Facebook buying WhatsApp for, was it $17 billion? I mean, that was one of the biggest venture returns ever. Yeah. Today, that could never happen. Never happened. Today, that could never happen.
安息日交易确实会达成。对于小型交易，人们的容忍度显然更高。是的，Salesforce成功收购了Slack。那是在2020年。亚马逊成功收购了全食超市，华特迪士尼公司则收购了21世纪福克斯的X战警系列。这些都属于不同的时代。我真的认为，规模更大的交易已经不可能再出现了。不，这些都是2016年到2020年之间的交易。你说得对。是的，它们都来自一个非常不同的时代。我不认为你能再期望发生类似的情况了。我认为在任何行业，都不可能完成一笔价值200亿美元的交易。是的，还记得马特或者是Facebook以170亿美元收购WhatsApp吗？那是有史以来最大的风险投资回报之一。是的，如今这种情况再也不会发生。再也不会发生了。
That Figma Adobe deal, it was a $20 billion deal. But with the rise in Adobe stock, it's really a $30 billion deal if it would have been consummated because half the consideration was in Adobe stock and that has basically doubled. So all of those investors and employees were looking at a $30 billion exit. And look, Figma is going to do great. I think the numbers that came out about Figma, where they're going to do about 700 million of ARR growing 40%. So I don't know, they'll be able to IPO anytime based on that. But what's the multiple they're going to get? Probably 12 to 15 times. 8 to 10. Maybe it's like a $10 billion company in the public markets growing nicely. But it's just not as good an exit. I mean, that's a big haircut.
那个Figma与Adobe的交易，价值200亿美元。但由于Adobe股票上涨，实际上如果交易完成的话，这则交易价值将达到300亿美元，因为交易中一半的代价是以Adobe股票形式支付的，而这股票的价值基本翻了一倍。所以，所有那些投资者和员工本来期望的是一个价值300亿美元的交易退出。看吧，Figma将会非常成功。我认为关于Figma公布的数据显示，他们的年度收入将达到约7亿美元，增长40%。所以，我不知道，他们将能够根据这个情况什么时候进行首次公开募股。但是他们将得到多少倍的估值？可能是12到15倍。8到10倍。也许在公开市场上是一家估值约100亿美元且增长良好的公司。但这只是一个较低的退出价值。那可算是一次很大的损失。
The positive to this is consumers or retail investors haven't been able to buy IPOs and get in our companies earlier. So if people build stronger companies that aren't that are more capital efficient, then companies can go public earlier as you alluded to Chama where Microsoft, Apple, a lot of these companies back in the PCR, they used to go public in under a decade. And now it's always over a decade. So maybe this will make stronger companies that go public. And then if there's a regime change and maybe people feel more frisky, they still have to get through Europe. But you know, biotech is the only market that's always viewed going public as a transitory capital raising moment, right? Every biotech company that goes public in America, at least, are startups. They're pure startups. It's pure risk capital. But the technology side has viewed it very differently. It used to be the same, right? And then it went to like, we must be mature and then it has to be growing really fast and it has to be profitable. There were so many ands ands ands that the end of all of that, there were just very few companies that qualified. And then by the time they did go public, they're 12, 13, 14, 50 years in, they're so long in the tooth that their best growth periods are beyond them. Now, a couple of companies have bucked that trend. But by and large, that's the case. And I don't think to support what David, what Sax said, that's just unsustainable. You cannot, you will not have risk capital flow into the United States if this is going to continue.
好处是消费者或者零售投资者无法购买首次公开发行股票并提前进入我们的公司。所以，如果人们建立更加资本高效的强势公司，那么公司就可以更早上市，正如你所提到的Chama，微软、苹果等很多公司在PC时代，它们都会在不到十年的时间里上市。现在则总是需要超过十年的时间。所以也许这样能够培养出更强大的公司上市。如果发生了政权更迭，也许人们会变得更加大胆，但是他们仍然需要通过欧洲。但你知道的，生物技术市场是唯一一直将首次公开发行视为中期筹资时刻的市场，对吧？至少在美国，每家上市的生物科技公司都是创业公司。它们是纯粹的风险资本。然而，科技行业对此的看法却截然不同。过去也是相同的情况，对吧？然后转变为我们必须成熟，然后必须快速增长，然后必须有盈利。有这么多的条件，导致最终只有极少数公司有资格。到他们上市的时候，已经过去了12、13、14、50年的时间，他们已经历太多岁月，他们最好的增长时期已经过去。现在，有一些公司打破了这个趋势。但总的来说，大多数公司都是如此。我认为，支持大卫、撒克斯所说的，这是不可持续的。如果继续这样下去，你将无法吸引风险资本流入美国。
Yeah, this is going to be super challenging for founders. You got to build companies that are sustainable and can go public because that's really the only path. And it's exacerbated by what Friedberg said, which is then that that family office or that endowment who can rip in a check as an LP to a fund can still get 5, 6, 7%, can get corporate bond at corporate yields at like 8, 9, 10%. Why take on 15 year illiquidity for oftentimes funds that return less than the S&P? Which is the dirty little secret of Silicon Valley. It makes no sense. It is going to be a challenging environment for some time to come, I think, as we work this out.
是的，对创始人来说，这将是极具挑战性的。你必须建立可持续发展并能够上市的公司，因为这是唯一的道路。而弗里德伯格说的恶化情况进一步加剧了这一挑战，那些家族办公室或捐赠基金仍然可以成为基金的有限合伙人，从中获得5、6、7%的回报，可以以8、9、10%的公司债券收益率获得公司债券。为什么要承担15年的不流动性，而往往这些基金的回报率还不如标准普尔指数？这是硅谷的一个不为人知的秘密。这对我们来说将是一个具有挑战性的环境，在一段时间内需要解决这个问题。
I mean, the thing that I find super interesting with the SPACs was like, you got to invest in some companies that were very early and speculative like Joby. Now, how could a consumer ever make that kind of betch them off to bet on? And that wasn't one of yours, I know. But it was one of these incredible moments where you could bet on flying cars literally as a consumer. And I think they're actually going to figure it out. I always attempted to buy it. And I've been tracking the stock. And I'm like, wow, if they actually make air taxis work, and it's kind of cool that the public can participate in that. And that's what they were saying when there weren't enough IPOs, and we had half the number of public companies.
我的意思是，我发现特殊目的收购公司（SPACs）非常有趣的一点是，你可以投资一些早期且具有投机性的公司，比如Joby。但是，作为一个消费者，你怎么可能进行这种赌注并相信它们会产生回报呢？虽然我知道Joby不是你们的公司之一，但这是一个难以置信的时刻，你可以作为一个消费者真正地投资飞行汽车。我认为他们实际上会找到解决方法。我一直想买入该公司的股票，并一直追踪着它。如果他们真的使空中出租车成为可能，这真的很酷，因为公众可以参与其中。那是在没有足够的首次公开募股（IPOs）和我们公开上市公司数量减半的情况下他们所说的。
So I don't know if you have thoughts on it. The number of public companies, I think, has halved in the last 20 years. So are more public companies better than less? I don't know. I think that's kind of like a random statement. I think what is true is that the public markets used to be used for raising risk capital. But the public markets at the time also had a ton of research analysts. There would be a lot more coverage of these companies. There would be a lot more visibility, a lot more checks and balances because people would be meeting with management on a regular basis, writing thoughtful research reports. All of that is constrained as the business of being on Wall Street has changed.
所以我不知道你对此有何想法。据我所知，上市公司的数量在过去的20年里减少了一半。所以，更多的上市公司是否比较少的更好？我不清楚。我觉得这有点像一个随意的说法。我认为真正的问题在于，公开市场过去常用于筹措风险资本。但同时，公开市场也有大量的研究分析师。这些公司会有更多的报道和曝光度，有更多的监督与平衡，因为人们会定期与管理层会面，撰写深思熟虑的研究报告。而随着华尔街的业务发生变化，所有这些都受到了限制。
So it's not enough to just all of a sudden have a bunch of companies go public if all of that supporting infrastructure isn't there. So this is what I mean by it's a catch 22. On the one hand, there's no M&A, so you need to have more IPOs. But the banks will need to hire more people. That comes at a cost, which means that they're going to have to generate more revenue somehow. That comes at a cost to somebody else. And until that's figured out, you're not going to solve this problem. And instead, what's going to happen is folks will be less motivated to invest in the innovation economy because there will be no path to liquidity. And when you do invest, you'll invest much smaller amounts of money and you'll make it as part of your risk allocation, a smaller piece of the overall pie.
所以，如果没有支持性基础设施，突然间让一大堆公司上市就不够了。这就是我所说的“进退两难”。一方面，没有并购，所以需要更多的IPO。但银行需要雇佣更多人。这是有成本的，这意味着他们将不得不通过某种方式产生更多的收入。这是以其他人的成本为代价的。在解决这个问题之前，你不会解决这个问题。相反，人们将不太愿意投资于创新经济，因为没有获利途径。当你投资时，你会投入更少的资金，并将其作为风险分配的一部分，在整体饼图中占据较小的比例。
What it also means is that if you're an entrepreneur and you haven't started a company yet, you may want to seriously consider raising a friends and family round using these AI tools and trying to build a very different kind of business, slow and steady, profitable from day one. And that's never been rewarded by Silicon Valley VCs. But if the reward for VCs don't exist, then the VCs themselves won't exist. And so you may want to start thinking about different ways to capitalize your business. And it's interesting point you make that is very subtle. So I just want to restate it here.
这也意味着，如果你是一位创业者，但尚未开始创立一家公司，你可能要认真考虑利用这些人工智能工具筹集家人和朋友的资金，并尝试建立一种截然不同的企业，即采用稳步发展、从第一天就盈利的方式。这在硅谷风投界从未受到重视。然而，如果风投机构无法获得回报，那么风投机构本身也将不存在。所以你可能要开始思考不同的方式来为你的企业筹资。你提出的观点非常微妙而有趣，我想在这里再次阐明一下。
The analysts who are covering companies, like say, Joby, I'm just picking this air taxi company because I'm obsessed with it. If there's not an infrastructure, those analysts act in a way as a backstop or a bit of pressure on management, I think is what you're saying, to hate perform and we're checking on you and we're meeting with you. So without that, there's just a company sitting out there and nobody is asking them hard questions and then making decisions to put a buy or a sell rating on it. Is that correct? Maybe you could expand on that. Yeah. Missing piece. There is an evolution in the public market.
那些负责分析公司的分析师，例如，比如说，Joby，我只是选择这家空中出租车公司是因为我对它着迷。如果没有基础设施，这些分析师将起到一种支持或对管理层施压的作用，我想这就是你所说的，让他们表现出色，我们会检查你们，我们会与你们会面。所以如果没有这个，就只是一个公司孤零零地存在，没有人向他们提出艰难的问题，然后做出买入或卖出的决策。这样理解对吗？也许你可以详细解释一下。是的。缺失的一部分是公共市场正在发展。
So look, the public markets back in the 90s was a bit of a rigged game where you could call a CEO if you had his or her number and they could tell you things that they didn't tell everybody else. And when you look at the folks in their 60s and 70s and 80s who really tunded, I'm sorry, folks, but they profited massively from that information arbitrage. And that changed when there was a regulation called Reg FD that got passed in America, which said regulation full disclosure, what you tell one, you have to tell everybody. That was an attempt by the SEC to level the playing field. It was a very smart piece of legislation. But what that did was it constrained the touch points that a company would have with the public markets to a few organized events, right? Analysts, conferences, research days, actually banks are allowed to organize formal company dinners. And you'll get all these people together, analysts across the entire spectrum from fidelity to Goldman Sachs to Morgan Stanley.
所以你看，90年代的公开市场有点被操纵了，如果你有某位首席执行官的电话号码，他们会告诉你一些他们没有告诉其他人的事情。当你看到那些60、70或80多岁的人真正获利丰厚时，很抱歉，但他们是通过这种信息套利获得的。后来有一项名为《FD法规》的监管出台了，在美国通过，要求进行全面披露，你告诉一个人，就必须告诉所有人。这是SEC为了公平竞争而制定的一项非常明智的立法。但这就限制了公司与公开市场的接触点，只能通过一些组织的活动，如分析师会议、研究日，实际上，银行还允许组织正式的企业晚宴。会有所有这些分析师们聚在一起，从富达到高盛，再到摩根士丹利，都会有人参与。
And the company has to perform to them. And those folks will write both internal and external reports that say, buy neutral or sell, right? That became the only check and balance to make sure that management was held accountable to the large swap of public shareholders. Because otherwise, it's not Jason, you as a shareholder of Joby, quite honestly, have any say, right? You exert your pressure through the analysts who then represents the ability to influence your buying and selling decision.
而且公司必须为他们履行职责。这些人将撰写内部和外部报告，表明是买入、中性还是卖出，是吧？这成为唯一的制衡，以确保管理层对大型公共股东负责。否则，作为乔比的股东，坦率地说，你没有任何发言权，对吗？你通过分析师施加压力，而分析师代表你对购买和出售决策的影响能力。
But if those analysts don't even exist, there is no feedback loop between management and the people that on the stock. And that's the problem we have today. There's not enough research coverage. There's not enough analysts. There's no organized way to keep companies held accountable. And so if you have a bunch more companies that go public without that infrastructure, it's very difficult. Seems like there's an opportunity somewhere in there.
但是如果这些分析师根本不存在，管理层和股民之间就没有反馈机制。这就是我们今天所面临的问题。研究覆盖不足，分析师数量不足，没有组织的方式来追究公司的责任。因此，如果有更多的公司在没有这种基础设施的情况下上市，将会面临很大的困难。看起来这其中有机会可寻。
You don't have the big opportunity that I think should happen is that a bunch of these banks should actually use these AI tools, Jason, to be crawling all these eight Ks and 10 Ks and all these filings and generate statistical measurements of all of these public companies that they make free and available to everybody. These things should be a bunch of dashboards and charts that are just out there for anybody to subscribe to so that you can just do the initial work of having to parse through all of these filings. Have it done by an AI, by an agent, from a bank who can train it properly, I think that would be an immense value to all shareholders. And I don't think it costs that much money. And I think it would be goodwill. Robinhood could do this. It would be great goodwill to build a lot of trust and credibility with investors.
我认为你没有我认为应该出现的重大机会，就是这些银行实际上应该使用这些人工智能工具，来爬取所有这些8-K、10-K以及其他所有的文件，并生成关于所有这些上市公司的统计数据，然后免费向所有人提供。这些东西应该是一堆仪表板和图表，任何人都可以订阅，以便您只需要初始工作就能解析这些文件。让一家银行的人工智能代理来进行这项工作，以正确地对其进行培训，我认为这对所有股东来说是巨大的价值。我认为这不会花太多钱，而且这将是善意的行为。罗宾汉可以做到这一点。这将是一种很好的善意，可以树立与投资者之间的信任和可信度。
So now that you're CEO of a company, how do you look long term at potential exits going public? What is the thoughts you have on this as you architect the company, Freeburg, as the CEO? Do not care about exits. Don't care about it. Expand on that. Yeah, explain. I just want to build a great business that makes great products for our customers. That's it. So if you do that, all these discussions around giving shareholders liquidity, I'm the main shareholder. So I don't need liquidity. I just want to build the business.
现在你已经成为一家公司的首席执行官了，你如何从长远角度看待潜在的上市退出计划？作为首席执行官，你对此有什么想法？我不关心退出。不在意这个。请详细阐述一下。嗯，解释一下。我只想建立一个为我们的客户提供优秀产品的伟大企业，就这样。所以，如果你能做到这一点，所有关于为股东提供流动性的讨论对我来说都没有意义。我就是主要的股东，所以我不需要流动性。我只想建立业务。
So how do you think about profitability then? Because if you have to fund it or funding might be harder to come by. How do you think about funding over the next decade, this vision you have? It freaks me out. You got to keep businesses capitalized. So there's definitely across businesses I'm on the board of or involved in, universally a bias towards profitability. I've seen a couple of decisions we've made at some companies to shift from making longer time cycle investments that may not pay off for many years where you had the luxury of doing that in a zerp environment. And you could always get capital to fund anything that's multiple years away from realizing any sort of return to shifting towards a bias towards making things that can generate real revenue and real profitability in the near term, keeping costs low and building from there.
那你对盈利能力有什么看法呢？因为如果你必须提供资金，或者融资变得更加困难。你对未来十年的资金筹集有什么想法？这让我感到很不安。你必须让企业资本充足。所以在我参与的或董事会上的企业中，普遍存在对盈利能力的偏好。我看到一些公司做出了一些决策，从以往可能需要多年才能收回投资的长周期投资转向于趋向于在近期内能够产生真实收入和真正盈利能力的事物，降低成本并在此基础上进行发展。
So it's definitely, I'd say, been a flip flop in the environment. It's why the biotech landscape has largely kind of dried up. The funding landscape has dried up significantly because most of the investment opportunities are those multi-year out before you know if you have a return on your investment kind of investment cycles. And so the ones that do get funded are those that have a near path to profitability and where you can build some sort of cash generative service in the near term on the path to building a bigger product down the road.
因此，我可以肯定地说，环境发生了变化。这也是为什么生物科技行业的发展局势基本上停滞不前。资金来源已经显著减少，因为大部分投资机会都需要多年时间才能知道是否会获得回报。因此，那些获得资金支持的项目，必须具备接近盈利的途径，并且能够在短期内建立一定的现金流服务，以此为未来打造更大型的产品铺路。
So as you're strategizing, you're thinking, how can we get to cashflow positive, break even whatever quicker? You're not strategizing, how do I get a huge multiple and get some dumb tiger money, whatever, no addicted tiger, but they paid the highest prices at the end of the cycle. I've got enough wisdom at this point to tell you that if you don't have to raise venture capital, you're better off. Yeah.
当你制定战略时，你在思考如何更快地实现现金流的正收益，达到盈亏平衡。你并不是在考虑如何获得高额回报并从某些愚蠢的投资者那里得到巨额资金，无论是什么投资者，也不是那些在周期末以最高价格购买的虚弱的投资者。目前我有足够的经验告诉你，如果你不必筹集风投资本，那就更好了。是的。
Shamath, you also became a CEO. I think it's hustle is your company, and that's profitable, and you're running it, I'm assuming for growth, but maybe profit first, then growth. How do you think about those two dials? How much growth? How much profits?
Shamath，你也成为了一位首席执行官。我想你的公司正在努力发展，并且非常有利可图，而且你正在经营它，我猜你首先考虑的可能是获利，然后才是发展。你如何思考这两个调节因素？发展程度应有多大？利润应有多少？
We have the same belief that Freeberg has, which is our job is just to make really great products for our customers. When I took over the business, we had to go through a difficult layoff and a rebasing of the business, but it's a business that's growing 45% a year, and it's profitable. What I talked to the team is that we will reinvest our profits, and so we have an ambitious plan, and as long as we meet that, we'll take some percentage of that profit and reinvest it. I, like Freeberg, also have no plans for liquidity. I just want to build this thing to be as big as possible, and I don't want one single shred of pressure that isn't defined by our customers.
我们和Freeberg有相同的信念，即我们的工作只是为我们的客户打造真正优秀的产品。当我接手这个企业时，我们不得不经历一次困难的裁员和业务重建，但这是一个年增长率为45%，盈利的企业。我和团队讨论的是，我们将重新投资我们的利润，因此我们有一个雄心勃勃的计划，只要我们达到这个目标，我们将拿出一部分利润进行再投资。和Freeberg一样，我也没有流动性计划。我只想把这个东西建设得尽可能大，我不希望有任何压力，除了由我们的客户定义的压力。
And so by being profitable, we have complete control of the cap table. We can do whatever we want. The people that benefit, frankly, are the employees because they can get paid and our ability to hire people without being subject to pressure to raise a new round and set a new random valuation. So no unnatural acts, just no unnatural profits. By the way, if I can grow for 10 years, if we can grow for 10 years at 40% a year, this will be a ginormous business. So they're trying to three acts and do it unnaturally. Yeah.
因此，通过盈利，我们完全掌控着股权结构。我们可以做任何想做的事情。受益最多的人，坦率地说，是员工，因为他们可以得到报酬，我们也能够招聘人才，而不受压力影响去筹集新的一轮融资并设定一个新的随机估值。所以没有不自然的行为，只是没有不自然的利润。顺便说一下，如果我能够在10年内以每年40%的速度增长，这将是一个巨大的业务。所以他们试图以三倍速增长并且不自然地达成。是的。
Jason, just to chime back on the question you asked a couple minutes ago, I number one, if you can avoid raising capital, you're better off, because then you don't have any shareholder pressure to get liquid, and that can create contortions in what you do, and how you operate the business. And second is if you're going to raise capital, if you set too high evaluation, if that becomes the bogey, you set yourself up for challenges, because now you've got to have a multiple on that valuation to satisfy investor return hurdles. And the higher the valuation, and you apply multiple to that, the higher the exit has to be. And suddenly, all the options start to fade away.
杰森，回答你几分钟前的问题，首先，如果你能够避免融资，你会更好，因为这样你就没有股东压力要获得流动资金，这可能会对你的行为和业务运营产生曲解。其次，如果你要进行融资，如果你设得太高的估值，这就成了一个障碍，因为现在你必须在该估值上达到多倍的回报要求，以满足投资者的预期。估值越高，应用的倍数越多，退出门槛就越高。突然间，所有的选择都开始消失。
You can no longer have a modest exit that can do really well for employees and the founders and early investors, and it becomes a necessity that you have a massive outcome. And by the way, we see this now in this post-Zerp environment that a lot of businesses that raised a lot of capital at a very high valuation, and then you have this multiple compression that's just happened in the last two years, their valuation effectively, if they were to go public to their get sold, is less than the capital they've raised. And that's the most extreme scenario where suddenly all the common shareholders get wiped out in terms of their return.
现在你再也不能有一个对员工、创始人和早期投资者都非常好的适度退出方式，取而代之的是你必须有一个巨大的结果。顺便说一下，在这个后零环境中，我们看到很多企业以非常高的估值筹集了大量资金，然后过去的两年里发生了多重压缩，他们的估值实际上，如果要上市或者被出售，低于他们筹集的资金。这是最极端的情况，突然间所有普通股东的回报全部被抹去。
It's such a great point. The thing that people used to say was, oh, it's a tech company, so we need to give it a premium. The problem is now everything's a tech company. To say your tech company is a meaningless statement that means nothing. You're a company so that you're a company. So then there's no premium for being a company. No, there's a premium for profits. Well, there's a premium based on quality of revenue, which has to do with gross margins. I mean, obviously economics, and you need economics. Obviously a company that has 80% gross margins is different than a company that's 20% gross margins. It's not profitable.
这是一个非常好的观点。过去人们常说，哦，它是一家科技公司，所以我们需要给它溢价。问题是现在所有的公司都是科技公司。说你是一家科技公司是毫无意义的说法。你是一家公司，只是一家公司罢了。所以现在没有因为是一家公司而需要付出溢价的必要了。不，付溢价是为了盈利。好吧，溢价是基于营收质量的，这与毛利率有关。我是说，显然，经济学是必要的，你需要经济学。显然，一家毛利率为80%的公司与一家毛利率为20%的公司不同。后者是没有盈利的。
No, no, I totally get that. I'm just saying that you can normalize based on gross margin as opposed to the type of company it is. Sometimes we'll see a company that markets itself as a tech company and when he has 20% gross margins, that's an indication that something is wrong usually, or it's not truly a software company. It's just a company. That's just a company. Yeah, I think that's the way to look at it. High gross margin versus lower gross margin.
不，不，我完全理解。我只是在说你可以根据毛利率来进行标准化，而不是根据公司类型。有时候我们会看到一家自称为科技公司的公司，但它的毛利率只有20%，这通常意味着有些问题存在，或者说它并非真正的软件公司，只是一家普通的公司而已。是的，我认为这是观察的方式。高毛利率与低毛利率相比。
Just to go back and answer your question, Jay Cal, about how do you decide how much money to put into growth versus being profitable? I think the right answer to that is not to say there's some absolute amount of money you should burn given your round. It's to look at growth on an ROI basis or a unit economics basis. What is the return on the growth dollars you're spending? And probably the best way to do that is to look at the payback on customer acquisition. How long does it take you to pay back your customer acquisition costs? And I think a lot of people don't do that analysis correctly because they just look at the revenue they make from that customer, but you actually have to look at the marginal profit.
只是回答一下，Jay Cal，关于如何决定将多少钱投入增长与盈利之间的问题，我认为正确的答案并不是说根据你的轮次应该燃烧一定金额的资金。而是要从投资回报率或单位经济学的角度看待增长。你所花费的增长资金的回报率是多少？也许最好的方法是看客户获取成本的回收期。你需要多长时间回收回你的客户获取成本？我认为很多人没有正确进行这种分析，因为他们只关注从客户那里获得的收入，但你实际上必须看边际利润。
So this is how the gross margin ties in. Easy example is something like Spotify. Spotify, it costs $100 a year and they were to acquire somebody for $100 a year. Hey, they get to year two. It looks like you made $100. Except Spotify has to pay a massive amount to the record label. So their margin isn't as high as maybe a SaaS company. And that's where the devil is in the details.
所以这就是毛利率的联系。一个简单的例子是 Spotify。Spotify 的费用是每年100美元，假设他们每年获得了100美元的用户。嘿，到第二年，你看起来赚了100美元。但是 Spotify 必须支付给唱片公司一大笔钱。所以他们的利润率可能没有像 SaaS 公司那么高。这就是细节中的问题所在。
I had overhead and overhead. You got to look at churn as well. So if that customer only lasts two years and half the margin goes to the record companies, well, you can't count 100% of revenue. Now you're looking at, I don't know what's that. It's like you're dividing by two twice. So effectively, you know, a quarter. 50 bucks of the 200, let's say, what are you seeing in the companies you're funding? You're seeing profitable companies or revenue generating companies? What are you telling folks you got to grow and raise a big series A? Are you telling folks, hey, take your time then?
我有一些间接成本和额外开支。你也得考虑客户的流失率。所以如果这个客户只能持续两年，而利润的一半都给了唱片公司，那么你不能将100%的收入算进去。现在你看到的是什么，我不知道这是什么情况。就好像你分两次除以二一样。因此，实际上，你知道的，只有四分之一。在你资助的公司中，你看到的是盈利的公司还是有收入的公司？你告诉大家你们必须要增长并筹集大量的A轮融资吗？还是告诉大家，嘿，慢慢来吧？
Yeah, it's a great question. We invested in 100 companies this year. It's more than I've ever done. That's the same amount I did in the first seven years of my career. And 100% of the time, they are not expecting to raise some giant seed or series A. They're raising just the amount of money they need. And they're keeping their expenses absurdly low. The biggest trend I'm seeing is outsourcing of talent. And so Americans, and I'm not going to make us like a huge anti American thing, but the level of entitlement and the effort Americans are putting into jobs expecting 150 K, let's say, and then offshoring a developer Latin America, Portugal keeps coming up Canada. They're all looking for what's the most efficient way for me to build a 10 person team? And then I'll see a burn rate of $30,000 with 10 people. How is that possible? Like, oh, our developers cost 22,000 are, you know, SDRs or 10. And like, how is that possible? Oh, we have two people in Manila, etc.
是的，这个问题很好。我们今年投资了100家公司，这比我以往做过的投资还要多。这是我职业生涯前七年总共投资的数量。而且100%的时间，它们并不指望筹集大笔的种子资金或A轮融资，他们只筹集所需要的资金。而且他们把开支保持在非常低的水平上。我观察到的最大趋势是人才外包。我不想把我们美国人说成是极度反美的人，但是美国人期望从工作中得到150K的报酬，并将开发者外包到拉丁美洲、葡萄牙以及加拿大等地，他们都在寻找最有效的方法来组建一个由10人组成的团队。然后，我会看到这样一个团队的燃烧速率是30,000美元，居然是可能的吗？哦，我们的开发者花费2.2万美元，我们的销售代表是10个人，开销是1万美元，等等。
Long way of saying efficiency, efficiency, we have to get to break even with the money we just got. We're not expecting a second round of funding. And a lot of them are raising, but 500 K to 1.5 million. And if this was 2020, it would be three to 10. We talk about like AI as like a big disruptor to like the big companies and this and that. But AI may be the biggest disruptor to VC big time in the end.
效率的说法太长了，我们必须用刚刚获得的资金来实现支出平衡。我们不指望获得第二轮融资。而且很多人正在募集资金，但只有50万至150万美元。如果是2020年的话，可能是三倍到十倍。我们谈论的是人工智能作为对大公司的重大干扰因素，但人工智能可能最终成为对风险投资的最大干扰因素。
Explain what you mean. I know what you mean, but I want the audience to understand. Let's say you raise a $2 million seed round. In the past, what you would do to your point, Jason, is you would hire seven people at $200,000 each. Right. So now you have a $1.4 million burn. So you basically have and let's just say you co-work someplace, you have a year and a half. And so you're a pedal to the metal, right? You're basically trying to throw as much spaghetti against the wall as possible. See what sticks by as many ads, do whatever it takes. The money basically goes to AWS and Facebook and a couple of other companies to Google. And then you hope that there's enough traction where somebody then writes you a $10 or $15 million series HF.
请解释你的意思。我知道你的意思，但我希望观众能够理解。假设你筹集了200万美元的种子轮融资。过去，根据你说的，杰森，你会雇佣7个人，每人20万美元。是的。所以现在你有140万美元的烧钱速度。所以基本上你有，再假设你共享工作空间，你有一年半的时间。所以你要全力以赴，是吧？你基本上尝试尽可能多地投放各种广告。希望有足够的反响，然后有人会给你写下1000万或1500万美元的A轮融资。
Now, if you take that same $2 million, you could have a three person team, four person team, half of them offshore, where they also use things like co-pilot, which is like a two to three X lever. Now all of a sudden, they have the same 10 person team and it costs $40,000. Exactly. And so now all of a sudden, they have four years. So why wouldn't they do that where they would still own 80% of that company and all of a sudden, there is a potential to exit it for $50 million or $100 million. And they've made more money than in a traditional outcome if you sold it for $2 billion.
现在，假设你用同样的200万美元，你可以组建一个由三个人或四个人组成的团队，其中一半人在海外，他们也使用了一些像“副驾驶员”这样的工具，这相当于是一种2到3倍的杠杆效应。突然之间，他们拥有了同样10人的团队，并且成本只有4万美元。确实如此。因此，现在他们突然之间有了四年的时间。那么为什么他们不这样做呢？他们仍然可以拥有公司80%的股权，突然之间有了以5,000万美元或1亿美元的价格退出的可能性。与以20亿美元出售的传统结果相比，他们赚了更多的钱。
Precisely the case, this is literally what founders are modeling right now. They previously wanted to beat the record of the person in their cohort who had who raised the most money at the highest valuation. Now, they're just like, how do we get to profitability? And how do I own as much of my company's possible so sacks?
确实如此，这完全是创始人们目前正在模拟的情况。以前，他们想要超越同一批创业者中那个以最高估值筹集了最多资金的人的纪录。而现在，他们只是在考虑，怎样才能实现盈利？以及如何尽可能拥有自己公司的股份？
You've got under over a billion dollars under management. You've been one of the most successful new venture firms in Silicon Valley in the last decade. You got a lot of cash you could deploy. How do you deploy it intelligently given the circumstance of people maybe raising less or being more efficient? And what do you think of the AI's impact on venture?
你们管理的资金超过10亿美元。在过去的十年里，你们是硅谷最成功的新创公司之一。你们有大量的现金可以使用。在人们可能筹集较少资金或变得更有效率的情况下，你们如何智能地运用这笔资金？你对人工智能对风险投资的影响有何看法？
Well, the most important thing is to have opportunities to invest in. And the fact is that before this AI wave, the whole cloud social mobile wave had kind of petered out. I mean, the pond of opportunities had kind of been fished out. And AI is great because it restocks the pond. I mean, there is a lot of new ways for founders to use these advancements to solve problems that they weren't addressing before.
嗯，最重要的是有机会进行投资。事实是，在这个人工智能浪潮之前，整个云社交移动浪潮已经有点退潮了。我的意思是，机会的池塘已经被捞空了。而人工智能很棒，因为它重新填补了这个池塘。我的意思是，创始人有很多新的方式来利用这些进步来解决他们之前没有解决的问题。
So I think you guys are being a little too gloomy. I mean, I think that the impact on capital efficiency will take some time to play out. But I think that for the first time in a number of years, it feels everything's feeling fresh again. And there's just, I think, a lot more opportunities for founders to go after now. It's the beginning.
所以我觉得你们有点太悲观了。我的意思是，我认为对资本效率的影响需要一些时间才会显现出来。但我觉得这是多年来第一次，一切都感觉重新焕发了活力。而且，我认为创业者现在有更多的机会去追求了。这才刚刚开始。
It's like this at the beginning of any big new tech wave, right? Is this a new platform opportunity? Same thing was true with the app store, when the iPhone launched, same thing was true when the internet launched. Now, I understand a lot of these opportunities are going to be taken by big companies that already exist. But there's always going to be an opportunity for founders when you have a big disruption.
这就像是任何一次重大科技浪潮刚开始时的情形，不是吗？这是否是一个新的平台机会？同样的事情在应用商店上也是如此，当iPhone推出时也是如此，互联网推出时也是如此。现在，我明白很多这些机会将被已经存在的大公司抢走。但是当你面临一次重大的颠覆时，创始人总是会有机会的。
David, I agree with you. My comment is less about the pond. I agree with you that the pond is getting restocked. My comment is that the economic impact of AI is so massively deflationary. It may be an order or two orders of magnitude more deflationary than AWS was. And that was massively accretive to the startup economy. So if this is a 10 Xing or 100 Xing of that economic impact, my only point is that the break even threshold for a founder will have gone way down. And then as a result, it's only a matter of time until they can put two and two together in a Excel spreadsheet to figure out that owning 50% of a hundred million dollar company is greater than owning 18% of some other company when you're massively deluded or 8% or whatever. It's just all I'm saying is the effective break even goes way down in a world where AI proliferates. And I think that's positive for founders.
大卫，我同意你的观点。我的评论与池塘无关。我同意你的观点，即池塘正在进行补充。我的评论是，人工智能的经济影响如此之大地通缩。它可能比AWS的影响力还要大上一两个数量级。而AWS对初创经济的贡献是巨大的。所以，如果它的经济影响是10倍或100倍的AWS，我唯一的观点就是创始人的回本门槛会大幅降低。结果就是，在Excel电子表格中，他们只需简单地计算，就会明白拥有一个价值一亿美元公司50%的股份要比持有其他公司18%、甚至8%的股份要更有利。我只是在说，在人工智能广泛应用的世界中，有效的回本门槛会大幅降低。我认为这对创始人来说是积极的。
If you look at what founders do with the money when we invest in a series A or B, the number one thing is go to market. So they want to basically triple their sales. Let's say they want to grow from 5 million of AR to 15 million of ARR. They have to staff up the quota capacity to hit that number. And for every AE, you're going to need some number of FCR, some sort of management, you're going to need some sort of operations overhead. So you've got to hire all of that. And then they want there to be a cushion in case they miss their numbers, right? Because there's no guarantee you're going to hit that. So founders still need to raise the money to staff up to go after that opportunity. Now does sales become more efficient over time because of AI or does lead gen? Yeah, I think that's possible. But in order for that to happen, you're going to need to see a rise in quota capacity. I mean, that's what we're talking about is that that same AE can now hit a greater level of sales because they have better tooling. We're just not there yet. Maybe that happens over time. But I think your typical SaaS start right now is spending the money on more prosaic things.
如果你看看创始人们在我们投资A轮或B轮时如何使用资金，最重要的事情就是市场推广。所以他们基本上想要将销售额增加两倍。假设他们想要从500万的年度收入增长到1500万的年度再生年收入。他们必须增加配额容量以达到这个数字。而为了每个销售代表，你需要一些固定资本回报率，一些管理层，需要一些运营开销。所以你必须雇佣所有这些人。而且他们希望有所保留以防他们错过目标，对吧？因为没有保证你能达到目标。因此，创始人仍然需要筹集资金来增加员工并追求这个机会。那么，由于人工智能或潜在客户生成的原因，销售是否会随着时间的推移变得更加有效率呢？是的，我认为这是可能的。但是为了实现这一点，你需要看到配额容量的增长。我意思是，我们谈论的是同一个销售代表如何因为更好的工具而达到更高水平的销售。我们现在还没有达到那一点。也许这会随着时间的推移发生。但我认为你典型的SaaS初创公司现在正将资金用于更加平凡的事情。
I mean, yeah, yeah. No, I think you're right. All I'm saying is, I think what it means is that the $200 million fund today becomes 50. The $500 million fund needs to be 100 and the billion dollar fund needs to be 200. It's basically back to the future. It's like back to the 1990s style 2012. By the way, I'll show you a table here. Nick, I need you to blur out the names. Okay. I just think it's super interesting. I walked feedback through this, but this was like a list of all these funds that I've invested in. These are venture funds you've invested in. These are all the venture funds I've invested in. If you look at this, what do you notice about like the megafonds that just clock out DPI? Look, this is a $100 million fund, right? Look at, look at, clocked it. This was a $220 million fund. My point in all of this is like, if I look at my returns as an LP, I've never had success when I've invested in big funds. I've only had success in small funds. It's true that smaller funds do perform better and larger funds become more of an index and achieve more average returns. When you got a multi-billion dollar fund, it's way harder to achieve an outside return.
我是说，对，对。不，我觉得你是对的。我只是觉得，我觉得它的意思是今天的2亿美元基金变成了50。5亿美元的基金需要变成100，10亿美元的基金需要变成200。它基本上是回到了过去。就好像回到了2012年90年代的风格。顺便说一句，我给你看一个表格。尼克，我需要你把名字模糊掉。好的。我觉得这非常有趣。我已经向他们反馈过了，但这是一份我投资的所有基金的清单。这些是你投资的风险基金。这些都是我投资的风险基金。如果你看一下这个，你注意到什么关于那些只有平庸回报的超大基金吗？看，这是一个1亿美元的基金，对吧？看，看，已经完成了。这是一个2.2亿美元的基金。我在所有这些中的观点是，作为有限合伙人，当我投资大型基金时，我从来没有成功过。我只在小型基金上有过成功。小型基金的表现更好，而大型基金变成了更加平均的指数回报。当你有一个数十亿美元的基金时，要取得超过平均回报的成绩就更难了。
I agree with you. I think this dynamic would be healthy. Our funds actually are not that big in the grand scheme of things. Definitely, the game is changing dynamically.
我同意你的观点。我认为这种动态将会是健康的。从整体来看，我们的资金实际上并不算太大。当然，这个游戏正在以动态的方式改变。
This podcast is going to be great in 2024, because we went from four capital allocators to two capital allocators, myself and SACs, to two in the arena CEO. We're going to be having this discussion, I think, in a very granular way, now that we've got two players on the field, SACs, that we can watch what they're doing.
这个播客在2024年将会非常精彩，因为我们从四位资本分配者减少到了两位，即我和SAC的负责人，再到如今竞技场首席执行官。我认为，现在我们有了两个参与者，也就是SAC，我们将以非常详细的方式展开讨论，观察他们的行动。
I've got a new incubation that's going to be launching soon. I'm not going to be CEO of it, but I'm the executive chairman. Is it a SAC company? Yes, SAC company. What kind of company is SAC? It's basically Yammer 3.0. You have our attention. Wait, did you see Yammer 3.0? Yeah. I thought that was Slack. Yeah, you guys see Yammer 3.0. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay, let's go.
我有一个即将推出的新孵化项目。我不会成为该项目的首席执行官，但我会担任执行主席。这是一家SAC公司吗？是的，是SAC公司。SAC是什么样的公司？基本上就是Yammer 3.0。你已经吸引了我们的注意力。等等，你看到Yammer 3.0了吗？是的，我认为那是Slack。是的，你们看到了Yammer 3.0。是的，是的。好的，我们开始吧。
We had a push on call-in, so now we need to get our 50-act-on Yammer 3.0. Give us a little tasty poo for your best thing. No, you're right. We sold call-in, so now we've cleared the decks. And I can't work on multiple incubations. I can only work on one at a time. Can you have your person that runs that SAC grid thing? Email me because I want to onboard my company into SAC grid. Yeah, do it. So good.
我们进行了呼叫推动活动，现在需要在Yammer 3.0上有50个行动。给我们一点可口的东西，展示你最擅长的事情。不，你说得对。我们出售了呼叫推动服务，现在我们已经完成了前期工作。我不能同时处理多个孵化项目，我只能一次性处理一个。你能让负责SAC网格的人给我发邮件吗？因为我想把我的公司引入SAC网格。是的，请去做吧。太棒了！
Well, by the way, that was the last one. So I've done, I guess, three of these now. There's call-in SAC grid. So SAC grid is now spun out completely of craft. And the founder of SAC grid was our VP of analytics at craft. And now he's going full-time to SAC grid. So I think it's very successful. But can I get onboarded and can I get a massive family discount? Yeah, of course.
好了，顺便说一下，那是最后一个。所以我已经完成了三个了，我猜是这样的。现在已经将SAC Grid从Craft分离出来了。SAC Grid的创始人曾是我们在Craft的分析副总裁。现在他全职去了SAC Grid。所以我认为它非常成功。但是我能进入该项目并得到一份巨大的家庭优惠吗？是的，当然可以。
Let's explain this concept to the audience since it's unique in the world. And we should maybe double-click on the economics, not on a specific company's acts, but just generally, YVC's are doing this. You're incubating a company. You're a former founder. You have that itch. You have ideas. So instead of investing in a company, you say, hey, let's all get to the office. I have an idea. Let's make this ourselves as craft. And then we'll put some of craft's LPs money into it. And then there's some slug of capital saved for the new team that comes.
让我们向观众解释这个概念，因为它在世界上是独一无二的。也许我们应该重点讲解经济学，而不是某个特定公司的行为，但总之，YVC正在这样做。你正在孵化一家公司。你是一个前创始人。你有那种渴望。你有想法。所以，你不是投资于一家公司，而是说，嘿，让我们一起去办公室。我有一个想法。让我们把这个当作手工制作。然后，我们将用手工制作的部分有限合伙人的资金投入其中。然后会保留一些资本用于新团队的需求。
So how does the economics on something like this work? And why do LPs love it or do they love it? And then why is it good for your internal team or for you to incubate a company? I suppose you just find them. Well, when we first set up craft, we actually wrote it into our LPA that we had the ability to incubate companies. And we had a prearranged economic deal with our LPs on those incubations, because I didn't want it to come up later. And then there's some conflict of interest between the management company and the LPs. So it's a predetermined deal. And we don't do a lot of these. Like I said, I guess there's been three. There's been SaaS grid calling and now this YAMR 3.0 we're talking about.
这种模式的经济学是怎么运作的呢？有人喜欢吗？他们为什么喜欢呢？对于你们的内部团队或者说对于你们来孵化一家公司来说，这有什么好处呢？我猜你们只是找到他们。嗯，当我们建立Craft的时候，我们实际上在有限合伙协议(LPA)中写入了我们孵化公司的能力。我们与我们的有限合伙人在这些孵化项目上有预先安排好的经济协议，因为我不想在以后出现矛盾，导致管理公司和有限合伙人之间的利益冲突。所以这是事先确定好的协议。我们并不经常这么做，就像我说的，可能只有三次，就是之前的SaaS Grid和我们现在谈论的YAMR 3.0。
But really, I got to give the credit for SaaS grid to our VP of analytics, who really, I think, pushed this idea. And it started with a simple way for us to analyze deals and dashboard deals. It started as a spreadsheet that we would give founders that would crank out their charts. And then we turned it into a website that was free and then you realized. You needed it as an investor, right? You needed it as an investor. Yeah, we just needed it as an investor. And then what happened is that we saw founders started using SaaS grid as their dashboard to manage their companies between funding rounds. And we're like, oh, okay, that's a big aha moment.
但实际上，我必须将SaaS网格的功劳归功于我们的分析副总裁，我认为他真的推动了这个想法。一开始，我们只是用一种简单的方式分析交易和将其显示在仪表盘上。起初，我们给创始人的只是一个能快速生成图表的电子表格。然后，我们将其转化为一个免费的网站，这时你意识到了。作为投资者，你需要它，对吧？作为投资者，我们确实需要它。然后发生的是，我们发现创始人开始将SaaS网格作为他们的仪表盘，用于管理在融资轮之间的公司运营。我们当时就想，噢，原来如此，这是一个非常重要的时刻。
So basically there was no dedicated verticalized business intelligence tool or dashboarding tool just for SaaS companies. And the advantages of verticalizing are massive because when you know what kind of company it is, you can just give them all the dashboards out of the box. And all the formulas are going to be calculated exactly the right way. This is going to be less room for error. They don't have to reinvent the wheel. Yeah. Every time you use it like how low or look or whatever, you're reinventing the wheel, you're writing all the formulas yourself. It doesn't make sense.
基本上，目前没有专门为SaaS公司设计的垂直化商业智能工具或仪表板工具。垂直化的优势是巨大的，因为当你知道是什么类型的公司时，你可以直接给他们提供所有的仪表板。所有的公式都会按照正确的方式计算，减少错误的可能性。他们不必重新发明轮子。是的，每次使用它时，你都在重新发明轮子，要自己编写所有的公式，这是没有意义的。
So back to the DL. Yeah. You pre-did the DL, so LPs wouldn't be surprised. That's awesome. So the management, there's a predetermined valuation, I guess, at that seed stage. A certain amount of money goes in and you're holding company gets some equity, which is like a nice little extra icing on the cake for incubating it. And then the LPs get a sweetheart deal or a better deal. Is that why they would be in favor of it? Yeah. The LPs get basically a big in the startup.
所以回到DL（融资时的初始门槛）。是的。你之前已经为DL做了准备，这样LP们就不会感到意外了。真是太棒了。那么关于管理层，我猜，在种子阶段有一个预先确定的估值。一定数量的资金投入，你的持有公司获得一些股权，这就像是对孵化项目的额外锦上添花。而LP们则获得了一份特别优惠的合同或更好的交易。这就是为什么他们会支持这个项目吗？是的。LP们基本上成为了这个初创公司的大股东。
Got it. We kind of modeled it after YC's original deal, right? Where YC got, was it 7% for $100,000? Yeah. And then on top of that, the fund can invest in the seed round at the market valuation, whatever the market. Ah, okay. So they get basically 7% for free or something in 7% for $100,000. Then plus whatever the seed round is going to be. Brilliant. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's a good deal for them. And also it's good for you because you have to want to come to work every day. And this keeps you mentally engaged. Like Shammat said, he felt like he was becoming a talking head and just not, I don't know how you phrased it exactly in your newsletter.
明白了。我们有点按照YC最初的交易模式进行建模，对吧？YC获得了7%股份，价值100,000美元，对吗？对。然后，除此之外，该基金还可以按照市场估值投资于种子轮，无论市值如何。啊，好吧。所以他们基本上可以免费得到7%的股份，或者付100,000美元得到7%的股份。然后再加上种子轮的股份。太棒了。是的。是的。我认为这对他们来说是一个很好的交易。而且对你也有好处，因为你必须每天都想着去工作。这让你保持思维活跃。就像Shammat说的，他觉得自己正在变成一个说话的傀儡，不再... 我记不清你在时事通讯中的确切措辞了。
Well, like you said, scratch is an itch. It's nice to be able to, if you have an idea for a product, you can work creatively on it. Yeah. I don't want to run companies anymore. I don't have any desire to be CEO, but it is fun to work on products if you have an idea. Shammat, how has it been for the first couple of months now? Are you really feeling more intellectually curious and challenged? Is it annoying to deal with employees and customers and all that kind of stuff? What's it been like? I think you've been at six months, I think. It's been really challenging.
好的，就像你说的，创业是一种渴望。如果你有一个产品的想法，能够创造性地进行工作是很好的。是的，我不再想经营公司了。我没有成为首席执行官的渴望，但如果有一个想法的话，研发产品还是很有趣的。Shammat，你过去的几个月怎么样？你真的感觉到更多的好奇心和挑战吗？处理员工和客户之类的事情是不是很烦人？前面你已经过了六个月了，这真的很具有挑战性。
The first part of it was quite honestly, we had to re-base the cost basis of the company and get cost under control. That's hard. We had to lay some good people off. And then we had to kind of reset the strategy, get our values in a good place, reorient the organizational design, like who will do what? All of these things require just enormous amounts of time that where you don't see necessarily the obvious impact in a metric or a dashboard right away. And so you just have to commit to this process and really follow through in it.
最开始的部分实际上相当困难，我们不得不重设公司的成本基础并控制成本。这很难。我们不得不解雇一些优秀的员工。然后我们必须重新制定战略，使我们的价值观达到一个良好的状态，重新定位组织设计，确定谁来负责什么？所有这些事情都需要耗费大量的时间，这段时间内你不会立即看到明显的度量或仪表盘上的影响。因此，你只需致力于这个过程，并真正坚持下去。
You have to find the people that have this real potential, elevate them, make decisions quickly, find out you made some wrong, undo them, find out you made some right, double down on them. So it's been a real learning process. The thing, and then on top of all that, I've tried to start coding again. And Sonny helped me a lot. I built a couple of models. Care program, repair program. Yeah. And then, but then I did that to go back into our all hands, which we do every week. And I wanted to demo some stuff mostly just to set the values that we're all grinding here. You know, and I'm here grinding and learning the stuff like anybody else. And it's embarrassing because like it's janky code. It doesn't work and blah, blah, blah. It was, but it's been really, I think in the long run, it's, I think the company is a lovely business and I want them to be successful because I think they deserve to be successful.
你必须找到那些拥有真正潜力的人，提拔他们，迅速做决策，发现自己犯了错误就及时纠正，发现自己做对了就加倍努力。所以这真的是一个学习过程。而且除此之外，我还尝试重新开始编程。Sonny帮助了我很多。我建立了几个模型。关爱计划，修复计划。是的。然后，我为了参加我们每周的全员大会而这么做，我希望演示一些东西，主要是为了传达我们所有人在这里都在努力学习的价值观。你知道的，在这里我也在努力学习，和其他人一样。虽然有点尴尬，因为代码有点乱七八糟，不工作，诸如此类。但是从长远来看，我认为这对公司来说是个可爱的业务，我希望他们能够成功，因为我认为他们值得成功。
And for me, it's been a great outlet to just get back to the basics of like, what really matters in running a company in 2023? I don't think I really knew the details. That's good. And I'm finding a little humbling, perhaps a little humbling to get in there and be in the cockpit. Really, really humbling. Yeah, it's good. Yesterday, we were sitting there in E-Team, which is our executive team, and we're in the middle of a big deal. And the seven of us were redlining a contract back. And I know that may sound like really tactical stuff, but it was, for me, it was amazing. I'm like, this is great work. And I felt like I accomplished something when it was done and maybe the deal gets closed today. The team is on the call. And I just think it's wonderful. I get a real talk. Awesome. Yeah.
对我来说，这是一个很好的渠道，让我重新回归到企业管理的基础，了解2023年公司经营中真正重要的事情。我觉得自己并不真正了解细节，这是好事。进入其中并参与其中也让我有点谦卑，非常谦卑。是的，这很好。昨天，我们坐在我们的执行团队E-Team那里，我们正在进行一笔重大交易。我们七个人一起修改一份合同。我知道这听起来可能很操作性，但对我来说，这是令人惊讶的工作。我觉得自己完成了一些事情，也许今天这笔交易会达成。团队正在通话中。我只觉得太棒了。我真的很开心能进行真实的交流。棒极了。是的。
All right, listen, there's another story that is under reported. We try to find these under reported stories, things people are talking about in their group chats, but maybe not reading about or hearing about in the mainstream media or even on social media.
好的，听我说，还有另一个被低估报道的故事。我们试图寻找这些被低估报道的故事，这些人们在小组聊天中讨论的事情，可能在主流媒体甚至社交媒体上没有阅读到或听到。
There are a couple of unbelievable bombshell class action lawsuits that are dropping in the United States regarding our real estate industry. In October of federal jury in Missouri found the NAR. That's the National Association of Realtors and several of the brokerages that have those brokers working for them, guilty of conspiring to artificially inflate commissions for home sales. They now have to pay at least $1.8 billion in damages to sellers of more than 260,000 homes between 2015 and 2022.
在美国，关于房地产行业的几项令人难以置信的轰动性集体诉讼即将到来。今年十月，一家联邦陪审团在密苏里州裁定，美国全国房地产经纪人协会（NAR）以及一些经纪公司与其雇佣的经纪人，共谋人为提高房屋销售佣金。他们现在必须赔偿2015年至2022年期间出售了260,000多套房屋的卖家至少18亿美元的损失。
Let's get a bag of the NAR. And if you don't know what a racket this is, people selling homes in the United States pay 6% commissions on average, 3% for the seller. That's if you were in the home and you're selling it, you give them 3% of the sale. And then the buyer, you also give them 3%. And there have been a number of companies like Redfin who have tried to change this. I actually use Renfid on a transaction to try to use a mo' sale. And I was faced with brokers who I kid you not literally said, I'm not going to show your home because it's a lower commission rate. And they have been working in unison to try to stop this kind of innovation. But the 6% is a tradition. It's not a rule. You can actually negotiate it.
让我们来谈谈关于美国房地产协会的话题。如果你不清楚这是什么 racket（潜规则），在美国卖房的人平均支付6%的佣金，卖方支付3%。如果你是卖家，当你卖出房子时，你需要支付3%的销售额给他们。而买家也需要支付给他们3%。一些像Redfin这样的公司尝试改变这种局面。我曾在一次交易中使用了Redfin以获得更低的佣金率。但实际上，我遇到了一些经纪人，他们简直说不出口地告诉我，因为佣金率较低，他们将不会展示我的房屋。他们协同工作，试图阻止这种创新。但这6%只是一种传统，而不是规定。你实际上可以进行谈判。
And now, since this case got one, another couple of cases have been dropped. And these new class action lawsuits all put together could be $13 billion in damages. I don't know who's been following this in the group, but I have a lot to say about it. But yeah, I mean, I spent a bunch of time looking at this because I've done several no broker real estate transactions.
现在，自从这个案件得到解决，另外几个案件也已经被撤销了。这些新的集体诉讼案件可能会总计达到130亿美元的损害赔偿。我不知道小组里有谁一直追踪这个事件，但我对此有很多看法。不过，是的，我的确花了很多时间研究这个，因为我已经进行过几次无经纪人的房地产交易。
Oh, just lawyers. Yeah, just lawyers. And then in California, I don't know if you guys know this thing called MLS, the multiple listing service. Yes. Which feeds the data into Redfin and Zillow. And in order to list a property on MLS, you have to have one of these real estate licenses and be a member of National Association of Realtors. Part of the monopolistic racket that goes on is that you have to be a licensed broker in order to list your home on the service. That is the monopoly in the listing of homes. Which everyone looks at.
哦，只是律师而已。是的，只是律师。而在加利福尼亚，我不知道你们是否知道这个叫做MLS的东西，即多重上市服务。是的。它向Redfin和Zillow提供数据。为了在MLS上列出一处房产，你必须拥有其中一个房地产执照，并成为全国房地产商协会的会员。这种垄断之举的一部分是，你必须是一名持牌经纪人才能在这个服务上列出你的房屋。这就是房屋上市的垄断。而所有人都会看的。
So there's a bunch of folks who have set up a listing service where you can list your home directly on MLS. And basically it's a guy who has a brokerage license and you pay him $100 and he just has a website set up and then you list it. And so you can kind of just list your own home, post the photos and all the docs. And then when the agent asks for disclosures, every disclosure they want to see on a National Association of Realtors form and the NAR forms are only available if you're a member. So there's a whole bunch of ways that they've tied up the market and made it impossible for the system to operate without the NAR members being a key principle in the transaction process.
所以有一群人成立了一个房屋挂牌服务，你可以直接在MLS上挂牌你的房屋。基本上，这是一个持有经纪人许可证的人，你支付给他100美元，他只需设立一个网站，然后你就可以挂牌。你可以自己挂上房屋的照片和所有文档。当房屋中介要求披露文书时，他们希望看到的每个披露都必须使用全国房地产经纪人协会的表格，而这些表格只有协会成员才能获得。所以，他们通过各种方式垄断了市场，使得没有成为全国房地产经纪人协会成员的人无法参与交易过程中的关键角色。
When at the end of the day, having gone through this a number of times myself, there's just all these templates and data that flows into this. There's no reason why you necessarily need to have an individual that needs to be involved here. But if you did, it's actually a data entry service. The process of entering this data could probably reduce down to a fixed fee of calling it a couple thousand bucks per home rather than a percentage of the home value.
当一天结束时，我自己多次经历过这个过程，只是有大量的模板和数据流入其中。并没有必要真的需要一个人来参与。但是如果你需要，实际上是一个数据输入服务。输入这些数据的过程可能可以简化为每个房屋一个固定费用，而不是按房屋价值的百分比。
And by the way, think about the craziness around this. If you buy a home and you sell it in most parts of the United States, you actually have a tax that you have to pay that's a percentage of the gross and most people have most of their net worth tied up in the real estate. So it's one of the few places where you will actually see a large chunk of your net worth actually taxed on a gross basis and take it away from you if you end up selling it, rather than on a net basis, meaning net of the profit you make. And then the brokers want to get paid a percentage of the gross as well.
顺便说一下，请考虑一下这种疯狂的情况。如果你购买一套房子并在美国的大部分地区出售，实际上你需要支付一笔税款，这是你要支付的一定比例的总价值，而大多数人的净资产大部分都与房地产有关。因此，这是少数几个地方之一，你实际上可以看到你的净资产的一大部分按照总体基础征税并从中扣除，而不是按净值（你所获利润的净额）征税。而经纪人还希望得到总收入的一定比例作为佣金。
These are the commissions they get paid from a first principles perspective. It doesn't make sense that we're paying a percentage of the gross to agencies to to transact this volume. The total volume in the US is an incredible number. It's a hundred billion dollars a year in residential real estate commissions. And there's 1.6 million folks who are real estate agents that are licensed, making their living doing this. So it's not an inconsequential industry and it's not an inconsequential verdict.
这些是从根本原则上得出的他们的佣金。我们付给中介机构的佣金比例与处理这个数量没有任何道理。在美国，每年住宅房地产佣金的总额是一个不可思议的数字。这是一年一百亿美元。而且有一百六十万持有房地产经纪人执照并以此为生的人。因此，这不是一项微不足道的产业，也不是一个无关紧要的判决。
Nick, if you could pull up that chart of the different countries, here's a good comparison. So in the US, we pay about five and a half percent brokerage commission split between the buyer and the seller's broker. And again, legally, you don't need a buyer's broker. You don't need a seller's broker. You're allowed to sell your home without a broker. There's nothing in the law that prevents you from doing that. So this is just an industry that's popped up to service this need and their pricing model is to take a percentage of the gross. And that's just the way the market's developed. But in a competitive market, that should be competed away. And it hasn't been because of this behavior that's gone on with institutions like the NAR. And you can see across different countries, different pricing systems, as a percentage of gross, in the UK, you only pay about 1.3 percent total brokerage commission on Bicyte and sell side. In China, two and a half percent, in Russia, three and a half percent. Some countries like Japan and Argentina are comparable to the US at 6 percent. France is at 5 percent. Germany is at 4 and a half.
尼克，如果你能找出那个不同国家的图表，这是一个很好的比较。在美国，我们支付约5.5%的经纪佣金，买家和卖家的经纪人均分。而且，合法上来说，你不需要买家经纪人，也不需要卖家经纪人。你可以无经纪人出售你的房屋。法律上没有任何阻止你这样做的规定。所以这只是一个为满足需求而出现的行业，他们的定价模式是按总价的百分比收费。这就是市场发展的方式。但在竞争激烈的市场中，这应该会被竞争所消除。但由于像美国房地产经纪人协会这样的机构的行为，它并没有被消除。你可以看到不同国家有不同的定价制度，以总价的百分比表示。在英国，你只需支付总经纪佣金的1.3%。在中国是2.5%，俄罗斯是3.5%。日本和阿根廷这样的国家与美国的6%相当。法国是5%，德国是4.5%。
Can I ask you a question, Freebird? Yeah. I only own one house, so I've never gone through this experience really that I can remember because that was more than a decade ago. But today, if I wanted to sell a home, okay, I could sell it to you, right? But if you have a broker, do I have to pay you 3 percent as well? No, you could sell your home to me. And then if I have signed, who pays your brokers 3 percent? I do. Sell you days, the buyers broker, but they don't have to. Yeah, no, here. It's really important to understand this. If you're going to go buy a home, you're typically not signing a contract with an agent when you go home hunting. The seller has an agent, and in the agent listing, they say, hey, if you're a buyer's agent, you show up, we'll give you 3 percent commission. And so the buyer's agents who don't actually have a contract with the buyer are like, well, let me show you rent homes. Let me show you rent homes. And then they get to a home and they're like, okay, this home's listed. Let's buy it. And they're going to make a 3 percent commission, which by the way, I just want to point out the disincentive there. They're not looking out for my best interest as a buyer. They're looking out for their commission. And the higher the price they get you to pay, the more they make. More money they make.
我可以问你一个问题吗，自由鸟？是的。我只拥有一栋房子，所以我没有真正经历过这种情况，记不起来了，因为那是十多年前的事了。但是今天，如果我想卖房子，好的，我可以卖给你，对吧？但如果你有经纪人，我也需要支付你3%的费用吗？不，你可以把房子卖给我。然后如果我签约了，谁支付你们经纪人的3%？是我支付。出售方天，买方经纪人，但他们不是必须支付的。是的，这里很重要的是要明白这一点。如果你去买房子，通常不会与经纪人签订合同。卖方有一位经纪人，在房产清单中会说，“嘿，如果你是买方代理人，你出现了，我们将给你3%的佣金。”因此，买方代理人们实际上没有与买方签订合同，他们会说，“好的，让我带你看一些出租房屋吧。让我给你看一些出租房屋。”然后他们会到达一处房屋，并说，“好的，这套房子正在出售。我们来买吧。”他们将获得3%的佣金，值得一提的是，这会导致他们没有为我的最佳利益着想，而是只关心他们的佣金。他们让你付更高的价格，他们就挣更多的钱。
What I want to understand is if I'm going to sell my house to you guys, and you guys have a buyer's agent, and I just refuse, can I just refuse to pay you 3 percent? No one gets paid because there's no, the buyer's agent has no contract with anyone. Yeah. You can just refuse. And you don't have a contract with anyone. The place where you end up paying a commission as a seller is if you sign a seller agent listing, and where you sign a contract itself to the seller's agent, I'll pay you 3 percent. And I'm also going to pay a buyer 3 percent if they show up with an agent.
我想了解的是，如果我要把房子卖给你们，而你们有一个买方代理人，我却拒绝接受，那我可以拒绝支付你们3%的费用吗？因为买方代理人与任何人都没有签订合同，所以没有人能得到佣金。是的，你可以拒绝支付。而且你也没有与任何人签订合同。作为卖方，你最终支付佣金的地方是，如果你签署卖方代理人清单，并在合同中约定支付他们3%的费用。而且如果买方携带代理人出现，我也会支付买方3%的费用。
How do I list my house on MLS without a seller's agent? You cannot. In California, I mentioned, I just, I recently went through this. I paid $99. I did it all myself. And I listed it on MLS without an agent. I've done a bunch of person-to-person sales of real estate where I haven't had any agents involved, but I knew the people on both sides and we just did a transaction. But was your legal cost per transaction? Oh, like your, like 15 grand, you know, to do that? That was my exact number. It was 15,000. So just to give you a comparison, here, Trimoth, if you were to have a million-dollar house, that would be 6 percent, it'd be $60,000. So that's 15,000 in legal cost for you to sell it, right? If I wanted to sell it to you directly, and that's what happened. My friend owned a really nice house. We did it off market. And now all the brokers in my neighborhood hate me. Like they are really upset about it. Imagine it was a $5 million house or a $10 million or a $20 million house.
我怎样在没有卖方代理的情况下在MLS上列出我的房子？不能。在加利福尼亚，如我所提到的，我最近经历了这个过程。我支付了99美元。我自己完成了所有的操作，并且在MLS上列出了它，没有代理人。我曾经进行过许多房地产的个人交易，没有涉及任何代理人，但是我认识双方的人，我们就这样进行了交易。但是，你每次交易的法律费用是多少？哦，像你的，好像是15万美元，你知道，来完成那个？那正是我的数字。它花掉了我15,000美元。所以，给你一个比较，如果你有一百万美元的房子，那就是6% ，也就是60,000美元。所以对于你来说，卖掉它需要15,000美元的法律费用，对吗？如果我想直接卖给你，事情就是这样的。我的朋友拥有一栋非常漂亮的房子。我们在市场之外进行了交易。现在我所在社区的所有经纪人都讨厌我。他们对此非常不满。想象一下，如果是一栋价值500万美元，1000万美元或2000万美元的房子。
Is it true for commercial real estate as well? This is how it works? No, no commercial real estate is the same situation. So there's an agent that represents the building, the landlord, it's actually talking about this, then the buy side agent. So when they're running-
对商业房地产也适用吗？原理是这样吗？不，商业房地产不是同样的情况。所以有一个代理人代表楼盘的房东，实际上是在讨论这个问题，然后还有购买方的代理人。所以当他们在运作时-
What's Buffett? Buffett owns Berkshire Realty. What is that? That's just basically- It's a residential broker, just like Coldwall Banker, just like all these other brokers. So it's sweeping up this 6 percent vig. They were part of the lawsuit. They were named. Yeah. They were named. If you look at- Listen to Buffett's earnings reports, he often talks about how many sides of a transaction they were on. And that's kind of the key measure of revenue in that piece of the business. And he was super ecstatic, I think in 2020 or 2021 when real estate boomed. And he's like, we got this many sides of the business. It's a great business. It's cash generative, such a great business. But that's the business. You want to be on- You want to get as many sides as you can. You want to get on a sell side and buy side in the market, and you just get 3 percent depending on which side you're on. But now the courts basically said, hey, this is legal. Here's how you'll know that the monopoly has ended, is when the buy side commission goes away.
巴菲特是什么？巴菲特拥有伯克希尔地产。那是什么？基本上就是-它是一个住宅经纪人，就像Coldwall Banker一样，就像所有这些其他经纪人一样。所以他们从这6%的佣金中赚钱。他们曾经参与诉讼。他们被点名了。是的。他们被点名了。如果你看巴菲特的财报，他经常谈论他们参与交易的各个方面。这在该业务中是收入的关键衡量指标。我觉得他在2020年或2021年房地产繁荣时非常兴奋。他说，我们在这个业务上有这么多方面。这是一家很棒的企业。产生现金，非常好的业务。但这就是这个业务。你想要尽可能多地参与各个方面。你想要在市场上成为一个买方和卖方的一方，然后你会得到3%的佣金，这取决于你处于哪一方。但现在法院基本上说，嘿，这是合法的。当买方佣金消失时，你将知道垄断已经结束了。
Yeah. I mean, the sell side 3 percent may be excessive, but I do think that the sell side brokers do work in terms of having to market the property. Whereas on the buy side, the vast majority of the value is created by MLS. Like you're saying Freeburg. I think it's flipped, but in terms of where the value- No, I mean-
是的。我的意思是，卖方的3%佣金可能有点过高，但我确实认为卖方经纪人在市场上推广房产方面做了一些工作。而在买方方面，绝大部分价值是通过多个上市服务（MLS）创造的。就像你说的，弗里伯格。我认为情况正好相反，但就价值所在而言- 不，我的意思是-
Go ahead. No, you have to stage the house, take pictures. Yeah, as a buyer, I just want someone to look out for me and make sure I'm not like all the diligence that goes into researching a home and reading all the disclosures and going through them. I don't know if you guys have gone through this. Yeah, I have gone through it, but I'm a lawyer for that stuff, who I pay by the hour. Right, what I do. I'm not saying that the buy side broker does not say- Yeah, no, it's true. Yeah. But I'm saying that most of what they do is to schedule appointments for tours for you. After you've gone through MLS yourself and picked out what you want to say- You give them the list and then they just put it on your calendar. You know what I'm-
请继续。不，你需要布置房子并拍照。是的，作为一个买家，我只是希望有人替我着想，确保我不会在研究房屋和阅读所有披露文件以及浏览它们方面做无用功。我不知道你们有没有经历过这个。是的，我经历过，但我是作为律师，按小时支付费用。对，我就是这么做的。我不是说买方经纪人没有这样做-是的，没错。是的。但我的意思是，他们大部分做的就是为你安排看房的预约。在你自己查看了MLS并挑选出你想看的房源之后-你把清单给他们，然后他们就把它们加到你的日历上。你明白我在说什么吗-
What I'm going to know, I'll just apologize to is travel agents. I don't know if you remember, like, I mean, most people watch this show probably don't remember, but in order to book an airline ticket a long time ago before the internet, you call up a travel agent- Travel agent. Because they have the- They printed out and bring it to your house. They have her proprietary access to Sabre, which is the online ticketing system. Totally. Totally. That's what happened. But then what happened is with the internet, you had sites like Expedia just give you direct access to Sabre and so you could book the ticket yourself. There's no reason to have a travel agent. Yeah. Same thing has happened with MLS. It used to be proprietary access by the brokers to MLS. You couldn't even see it. Then you had sites like Zillow basically give you direct access to MLS. So you can just go on there and find what you're looking for. And again, the main thing that the Bicybokers do is to schedule the appointments, because you can't get a tour typically unless you represent it. And if you're not represented and you reach out, then the sellers agent will try to basically enlist you.
我只会向旅行代理人道歉，因为我对旅行代理人所了解的事情还很有限。我不知道你是否记得，对大多数人来说，他们可能不记得，但在互联网出现之前，为了预订机票，你需要给旅行代理人打电话。因为他们会将机票打印出来送到你家。他们有Sabre的专有访问权，这是一个在线预订系统。完全是这样。完全是这样。但是随着互联网的出现，像Expedia这样的网站直接提供了Sabre的访问权限，所以你可以自己预订机票。没有必要找旅行代理人。是的，同样的事情也发生在MLS上。之前，经纪人对MLS是有专有访问权的，你无法看到它。然后，像Zillow这样的网站基本上直接提供了对MLS的访问权限。所以你可以在那里找到你想要的房子。而经纪人的主要工作就是安排看房的时间，因为如果你没有代理人，通常你是无法得到看房机会的。如果你没有代理人却主动联系，那么卖方的代理人将会试图吸引你成为他们的客户。
Have you done a direct transaction sack? I'm curious. You can. I don't think you can, residentially. I mean, it's very, very hard. I've done it. Yeah. No, actually- No. If you happen to already have pre-identified the buyer, then yeah, I guess you could do it. But basically it happened in our case at- for everybody I'm curious how yours went down. I had told the person, or my wife had told the person, we love your home if you ever sell it, let us know. And then they let us know. And then we bought it with them off market. And they said, we don't want to use brokers. We don't want to pay this huge commission, which we've had hundreds of thousands of dollars. And would you agree to this price? And we're like, yes. And then done. How did yours come about for a bring? How did you find a buyer if you were on the sell side? This is all like relationship driven people that I know and that kind of stuff. So it's like, hey, I think this is the future. If two of the four people here have done it, I think this is the future. I don't know if that's the common model. I don't think that's true. I do think-
你有没有做过直接交易的事情？我很好奇。你可以。我觉得你不行，在住宅方面很难。我做过。对，不，其实不是- 不是。如果你已经预先确定了买家，那么我猜你可能可以做到。但基本上在我们的情况下，这种情况发生在- 对于所有人来说，我很好奇你是怎么做的。我告诉那个人，或者说是我妻子告诉那个人，如果你卖房的话，告诉我们。然后他们告诉了我们。然后我们和他们在市场之外购买了房子。他们说，我们不想用经纪人。我们不想支付这个庞大的佣金，我们已经支付了几十万美元。你同意这个价格吗？我们说，是的。然后完成。如果你是做卖方的话，你是如何找到买家的？这都是建立在人际关系的基础上的人，我认识他们，那样的东西。所以，嘿，我觉得这就是未来。如果这里四个人中有两个人已经做过，我觉得这就是未来。我不知道这是否是通用的模式。我不认为是这样。我确实认为-
You need a marketplace. You need a marketplace. You need a marketplace. And the brokers control the marketplace. It's a one-off. It's a fluke when you actually have to go to your buyer. But here's the thing. The MLS is the de facto market. Because I mean, ask anyone in the country who's bought a home in the last year or five years. Almost everyone, I'm sure, went on Zillow or Redfin or Trulia and looked at homes. And the place that those marketplaces get their data is from MLS. They sweep the MLS. So the real kind of monopolistic breaking is, can you break that marketplace? Can you break MLS? And can you get some other alternative listing services going that enable this brokerage commission to get competed away? Because it's currently locked up in the monopoly they have on the MLS.
你需要一个市场。你需要一个市场。你需要一个市场。而经纪人控制着这个市场。当你真正需要去找买家时，这只是一个例外情况。但问题是，MLS是事实上的市场。因为我是说，问问整个国家中，在过去一年或五年里买房的人。几乎每个人都是在Zillow或Redfin或Trulia上查看房源。而这些市场获取数据的地方就是MLS。真正可以打破垄断的关键是，你能打破那个市场吗？你能打破MLS吗？能否推出其他替代的房源服务，使得经纪佣金变得竞争激烈？因为目前它们被垄断在MLS的手中。
What's so perverse, here's where the monopoly comes from, is that if the buyer had to pay the 3% directly to the buyer's agent and that was a choice you could make, nobody would pay that much. Of course. I'm not saying that the buyer's agent doesn't provide some value, but there's no way you pay 3%. But the reason they get it is because the brokers tell you, well, you're not paying that. The seller's paying that. But of course, you're indirectly paying that because the transaction fees are so much higher. And when the seller goes to list their house, if you tell your seller's agent, hey, I don't want to pay the buyer's agent 3%, make it half a percent, they won't do it. You know, they will always make it equal. So this is the game. This is where the locking comes from is the buyer doesn't have a choice and the seller doesn't really have a choice either.
这里有一件很荒谬的事情，就是垄断的根源。如果买家必须直接向买家代理人支付3%，而且这是一个可以选择的选项，那么没有人会支付那么多。当然了，我不是说买家代理人没有提供一些价值，但是不可能付出3%的费用。但他们之所以能够得到这个费用，是因为经纪人告诉你，嗯，你不用支付，卖家支付。但当然了，你间接地支付了这笔费用，因为交易的费用要高得多。当卖家开始挂牌出售房屋时，如果你告诉你的卖家代理人，嘿，我不想支付买方代理人的3%，只支付0.5%，他们是不会答应的。你知道的，他们总是会让这个费用一致。这就是这个游戏，这就是为什么买家没有选择，卖家实际上也没有选择。
As we wrap here, just real quick, pull up that link, Nick, and go to number five. So that is the key issue. I don't have a horse in this race. I don't own Redfin stock or anything, but here's Redfin explaining exactly what you talked about. It's FSBO for sale by owner. And there's now these third party sites and they kind of allude to it there. But you know what those are? Those FSBO sites are actual real estate agents that are registered in the state and are members of NAR. And so they have a right to list on MLS. So what they're doing is they've basically set up a super simple website. And then they're posting your listing on MLS for you. For a flat fee. For a flat fee rather than getting a commission on the sale. Awesome. Yeah. And that's kind of interesting. But for most people, they're like, well, I don't know. Now, I don't want to disparage the value of folks that are in this industry. There's obviously a lot of value for agents and brokers in this industry. But the real point is that if the monopoly breaks on the marketplace, then the business model will get competed away and there will start to be a change here. And I think that this lawsuit and the settlement ultimately leads to a change, a shift in the industry that would certainly benefit consumers but could have a negative economic impact because of the number of people that depend on brokerage fees as their job. The settlement is likely to be that when you hire a broker, they will give you a form and you'll pick what percentage you want to pay. I'll pay you 2% and I'll pay the buyer's age at 1.5. I'll pay you 1.5. I'll pay the buyer's age and 2 or they should be caps on it, right? Or you should have because of the incentives. It doesn't matter if I sell my home. If it's a $5 million home, it may matter to me, $5 million, $5.5 or $6. It doesn't matter to the broker, their commission. They just want to sell it as quick as possible. If it sells for $4.5, $5.5, it's relatively the same commission. So it really should be based upon a flat rate up to a number and then a percentage above that number to align interests. Anyway, keep an eye on this one, folks, because it's going to have a massive impact.
当我们结束这里的讨论时，快点打开那个链接，尼克，看看第五点。那就是关键问题。我对这场争论并不关心，我没有拥有Redfin的股票或其他什么，但是这里有Redfin解释了你所提到的内容。FSBO意味着“房主自售”。现在出现了这些第三方网站，他们在这里进行了些许暗示。但是你知道那些是什么吗？那些FSBO网站实际上是注册在州内并成为NAR成员的房地产经纪人。因此，他们有权在MLS上进行房源挂牌。他们基本上是建立了一个超级简单的网站，然后为你将房源发布到MLS上。这是一笔一次性费用，而不是根据销售获得佣金。非常棒。嗯，这非常有意思。但对于大多数人来说，他们可能不太了解。现在，我不想贬低这个行业中人们的价值。对于经纪人和经纪公司来说，这个行业显然有很大的价值。但真正的重点是，如果市场垄断被打破，业务模式将受到竞争，并且将会产生变化。我认为，这场诉讼和最终的和解将导致行业出现变革，这肯定会使消费者受益，但可能会对经纪费的数量依赖于其工作的人造成负面经济影响。这项和解可能是，当你雇佣经纪人时，他们将给你一个表格，你可以选择要支付的比例。我给你2%，给买方经纪人1.5%。我给你1.5%，给买方经纪人2%或者应该有一些上限，对吧？或者应该有一个基于激励的机制。如果我卖掉我的房子，那也没关系。如果是一套价值500万美元的房子，对我来说可能有影响，是卖500万、550万还是600万。但对经纪人来说，他们的佣金是没关系的，他们只是想尽快卖出去。如果卖价是450万、550万，佣金相对来说是差不多的。因此，佣金应该基于一个固定的金额，超过这个金额则按照比例计算，以达到利益的一致性。无论如何，请大家密切关注这个问题，因为它将产生巨大的影响。
All right, Colorado Supreme Court has removed Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot. This was decided in a split, four to three decision by the court. It's worth noting that all of the justices were appointed by democratic governance, the democratic state, the court based its decision on section three of the 14th Amendment. This bars anyone from joining Congress, the military, or any federal state offices, if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, then engaged in insurrection against the US. This is the first time in US history that the 14th Amendment has been used to legally disqualify a presidential candidate. The 14th Amendment was originally passed after the Civil War and was aimed at former Confederates.
好吧，科罗拉多州最高法院将特朗普从该州总统初选的候选名单中除名。这项决定是由法院以四票对三票的裁决结果作出的。值得注意的是，所有法官都是由民主政府任命的，这个民主州的法院根据第14修正案第三条作出了这个决定。该条款禁止任何人加入国会、军队或联邦政府职位，如果他们先前曾发誓支持宪法，然后参与反叛行动。这是美国历史上第一次使用第14修正案合法地取消总统候选人资格。第14修正案最初是在内战后通过的，旨在针对前南方邦联成员。
I'll say a couple things. The first is that I thought that the Democrats were going out of their way to give Trump the election with the documents case. But now I think that they've basically made his winning the Republican nomination of foregone conclusion and he is the overwhelming favorite to win the presidency after this. And the reason is pretty simple, which is if you take Donald Trump out of this, the idea that you haven't been convicted of a crime, but now a government agency or a government court in this case can deprive you of what really is like a pretty momentous sign of liberty and freedom, which is to run for president of the United States to deprive an American citizen unconvicted of that crime of that right, I think is really a bad step in the wrong direction. And so there just needed to be a lot more prudence and thought about this. And I think that it will do nothing except embolden the base. It'll get Republicans out to vote. I think it creates a deep wave of momentum in the direction of Donald Trump. And so this to me was just an absolute complete head scratcher that makes no sense. And I think will is surely to get overturned in the Supreme Court.
我想说几件事情。首先，我认为民主党人不择手段地给了特朗普赢得选举的机会，事涉文件案。但现在我认为他们基本上已经让他赢得共和党提名成为了板上钉钉的事实，他也成为之后赢得总统大选的压倒性热门人选。原因很简单，就是如果把唐纳德·特朗普排除在外的话，联邦政府或政府法院都可以剥夺一个尚未被判定有罪的人，剥夺了他参选美国总统这一象征自由和权利的至关重要的权利。我认为这是一个朝错误方向迈出的非常糟糕的一步。所以在这件事上需要更多的审慎和思考。我认为它除了会振奋基层选民外，什么都不会改变。它将会激励共和党人参与选举。我认为它会在特朗普的方向上引起巨大的势头。对我来说，这绝对是一个令人困惑且毫无意义的问题。我相信它肯定会在最高法院被推翻。
Freeburg, your thoughts. Okay, for those of you not watching, Freeburg put both hands up in the air gave a shrug like a shrug emoji. So if you want to understand Freeburg's position on Trump, it is shrug emoji.
自由堡，你的想法呢？好的，对于那些没有在观看的人来说，自由堡举起双手，做了一个像 shrug 表情符号一样的耸肩动作。所以，如果你想要了解自由堡对特朗普的立场，那就是一个耸肩的表情符号。
Coming around the horn sacks red meat. What are your thoughts? On the Colorado Supreme Court banning Trump from the ballot. I agree with what's a democracy now means the right of the people to vote for Canada to approve by liberal judges. And yes, J Cal, all these judges were democratic appointments. I think this case makes clear that the point of all of this lawfare against Trump is to keep them off the ballot until now they've been pretending it's about something else. And I think this decision rips the mask of all the legalistic bull that we've heard throughout 2023. I mean, Democrats don't really give a damn whether he paid off a porn star or kept classified documents or supposedly led a racketeering conspiracy. They just don't want him standing for a vote that he might win. And I feel like all the time we spent on this pod earnestly debating the details and the Gallities of the documents case, it was a total suckers game. That's the narrative they want us engaging in. It never had anything to do with documents. They just want to keep them off the ballot. And I think that by being so naked about this, by ripping the mask off what they're trying to do, the Colorado Supreme Court has really done us all a favor. I mean, this Supreme Court of the United States is surely going to reject this decision. But the lasting impact is going to be in revealing liberalism's true face. They are the real authoritarians. And while restricting the right of the people to vote for the candidate who is leading the polls right now, they proclaim that they're saving democracy. I mean, they self-glorify and engage in this self-righteous rhetoric that they're saving democracy.
通过绕过红肉来说服别人，你有什么想法？关于科罗拉多最高法院禁止特朗普参选的问题。我赞同“现在什么是民主”的意思是人民有权利选举加拿大通过自由派法官。是的，J Cal，所有这些法官都是民主党任命的。我认为这个案例明确表明，针对特朗普的所有法律诉讼的目的是要让他无法参选，直到现在他们一直假装关注的是其他事情。我认为这个决定揭示了我们在整个2023年听到的所有法律相对论之下的真相。我的意思是，民主党真的不在乎他是否支付给色情演员，保密文件是否泄露，或者他是否涉嫌恶意阴谋。他们只是不希望他参选而有可能获胜。我觉得我们在这个播客上认真讨论文件案细节和法律难题的时间是完全被愚弄的。这正是他们希望我们参与的叙述。这从来都与文件无关。他们只是想让特朗普无法参选。我认为科罗拉多最高法院揭示了他们试图做什么，这真的对我们所有人都有帮助。我是说，美国最高法院肯定会驳回这个决定。但是持久的影响将是揭示自由主义的真面目。他们才是真正的专制主义者。尽管限制人民选择目前在民意调查中领跑的候选人的权利，他们声称他们在拯救民主。他们自吹自擂，沉湎于自以为是的言辞中，声称他们在拯救民主。
I mean, the rest of the country, any normal person is looking at this and saying these people have completely lost touch with reality, completely lost touch. The other unfortunate outcome of this is that there will be a wave where people will talk about the big steal as this. And what people will say is that there was an attempt by the Democrats to really roadblock Trump's ability to be voted up and down by the American people. And that's disenfranchising the ability for people to vote. And I think that that's really unfortunate. And I wish that the Democrats would have thought about that in their calculus before engaging in what is really a deeply partisan thing to do. That this will get overturned. But the damage will be long lasting, unfortunately. That's a shame.
我的意思是，全国其他地方，任何一个正常人看到这个情况都会说，这些人已经完全脱离现实，完全脱离了现实。这样做的另一个不幸后果是，会出现一波人们谈论他们所谓的“大偷窃”。人们会说，民主党试图阻挠特朗普被美国人民选中的能力，这侵犯了人民的投票权。我认为这真是不幸的。我希望在他们做出这种明显党派行为之前，民主党能考虑清楚这一点。这件事情可能会被推翻，但不幸的是，造成的损害将是长期的。真是太可惜了。
Totally. And Matt Taibbi had a good line. He said that only people who live in a bubble within a bubble, within a bubble could ever think a decision like this is a good idea. Here are the three bubbles.
当然。马特·泰比有一句很有道理的话。他说，只有那些生活在一个又一个气泡中的人，才会认为这样的决定是个好主意。这里有三个气泡。
Number one, all of these judges were Democratic appointments because they're living within the Democratic parties, the first bubble.
首先，所有这些法官都是民主党任命的，因为他们与民主党保持着密切联系，是第一泡泡内的人。
The second bubble was the fact that they all went to Ivy League schools. This was actually a four, three decision. The four justices who went to the Ivy Lees all voted for it. They thought this was a good idea. The three that went to Denver Law School, the non- Ivy League school were all against it and wrote scathing descents against it. So that tells you the second bubble is the Ivy League.
第二个泡沫是他们都去了常春藤盟校。实际上这是一个四比三的决定。那些去了常春藤的四位大法官都投票支持了这一决议。他们认为这是一个好主意。而那三位去了丹佛法学院的法官，一个非常春藤的学校，全都持不同意见，并发表了严厉的反对意见。所以这告诉我们第二个泡沫就是常春藤盟校。
The third bubble is people who've been totally marinating in the mainstream media and their coverage of this because they think that they can just conclude that Trump is guilty of an insurrection because it's just a fact, according to the media, they listen to Trump has never been convicted of that crime. He's ever even been charged with it. Right. So I think that's an important distinction that the 14th Amendment, which my understanding came about to keep members of the Confederate army out of Congress because they had rebelled against the government. And so the whole point was this amendment was passed to keep anyone who'd engaged in insurrection or rebellion or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. It may not be elected member of Senate, Congress, or president or vice president.
第三个泡沫是那些完全深深熏陶于主流媒体及其对此事的报道中的人，因为他们认为他们可以仅仅依据媒体的说法就断定特朗普有罪，说他参与了一次起义是事实。事实上，特朗普从未被判犯有那样的罪行，也没有被控诉过。对，因此我认为这是一个重要的区别，就是第14修正案的出现是为了阻止那些曾参与叛乱的联邦军队成员进入国会。所以，整个重点是通过这个修正案，任何参与起义、叛乱或者为敌人提供帮助和庇护的人都不能当选为参议员、国会议员、总统或副总统。
So, Saks, if that's the case, that is still the 14th Amendment. That's the claim being made here. It doesn't define whether or not there needs to have been a conviction of a charge of insurrection. Is that what will ultimately be the Supreme Court decision, do you think is that he was or wasn't actually found in a court of law to have been guilty of insurrection?
所以，萨克斯，如果情况确实如此，那仍然属于第14修正案。这就是这里所提出的主张。它并没有规定是否需要对叛乱指控进行定罪。你认为最终最高法院的判决将是他是否在法庭上被判有罪叛乱的问题吗？
No, it's that the actual article three of the 14th Amendment doesn't even define the presidency as applying in terms of where this applies. So even before you get to that legal threshold of the fact that he's never been tried for this thing, there is a simpler threshold, which is most legal scholars say it doesn't even point to the fact that you can actually hold the president to that standard. So there's like all these layers of what do you mean? It says no person shall be well, it's unclear. It's unclear if officers of the United States includes the presidency. I think that's one way you could overturn this.
不，问题在于第14修正案的实际第三条甚至没有明确定义总统适用于哪里。因此，即使在达到他从未因此受审的法律阈值之前，还存在一个更简单的阈值，即大多数法律学者认为它甚至不能表明你可以将总统确实置于这样的标准之下。所以，有很多层面的问题，你是什么意思？它说不得人，不清楚是否包括总统在内。我认为这是你推翻这一点的一种方式。
Another way is to point out that there was no due process. The dissents really harped on this issue of due process. You had a district court decide after a five day hearing in which Trump was not allowed to subpoena, no subpoena power, no calling of witnesses, no cross examination. They basically just looked at tape of the January six yearing, which was itself biased because Republicans didn't even get a chance to cross examine. So basically they just looked at MSNBC coverage. And this district court concluded on that basis that Trump was guilty of an insurrection. Again, that is a crime for which he's never been convicted. And he's never even been charged with. And he's ever even had the chance to answer those charges in court. And there was a special counsel at the federal level that declined to prosecute.
另一种方式是指出没有进行正当程序。反对意见真的很纠结于正当程序的问题。在一个为期五天的听证会之后，地方法院作出了决定，特朗普被禁止传唤证人，无权传唤证人，无交叉询问。他们基本上只是看了一下一月六日的录像，这本身就有偏见，因为共和党人甚至没有机会进行交叉询问。所以基本上他们只是看了MSNBC的报道。而这个地方法院根据这个基础得出结论，特朗普犯有叛乱罪。再次强调，这是一个他从未被判罪的罪行。他从未被起诉过，也从未有机会在法庭上回答这些指控。而且在联邦层面还有一个特别检察官拒绝起诉。
That's right. That's exactly right. So, Zach, if a prosecutor had taken up the case and he had been convicted, would you support him being disqualified from the state ballots for being the nominee of her party for president?
是的，没错。完全正确。那么，如果检察官接手这个案件并且判定他有罪，你是否支持他因为成为其政党总统候选人而被取消参选的资格呢？
Well, there was a very simple way to disqualify Trump from running again, which was to impeach him was to convict him in the impeachment trial. Remember, the second impeachment was all about January six. And he was exonated. That was the time to do it.
嗯，有一个非常简单的方法可以阻止特朗普再次竞选，那就是在弹劾审判中定罪他。记住，第二次弹劾完全是关于一月六日的事件。然而，他被宣判无罪。那个时候就是实施的时机。
Now, I don't know if a conviction for incitement to insurrection would hold up in that way, freeberg, I don't know. But the point is they didn't even try. And the reason is because when Merrick Garland first came in, they actually did an analysis of January six and there was a memo written. And it said that if we the DOJ tried to prosecute Trump for either incitement or for insurrection, we will lose that case. And so Merrick Garland didn't bring those charges.
现在，我不知道煽动叛乱的指控是否会成功，傅里伯格，我不知道。但关键是他们甚至都没有尝试。原因是梅里克·加兰德刚上任时，他们实际上对1月6日的事件进行了分析，还有一份备忘录。备忘录指出，如果司法部试图起诉特朗普，不论是煽动还是叛乱，我们将输掉那个案子。所以梅里克·加兰德没有提出这些指控。
Then there was a story in the New York Times saying that Biden reacted really negatively to that. And he told his inner circle that Garland needed to stop acting like a ponderous judge. This is the New York Times words and that he needed to take decisive action. And Biden made clear to his inner circle, I'm going to provide the receipt on this, that he thought Trump should be prosecuted.
然后有一篇在《纽约时报》上的报道说拜登对此做出了非常消极的反应。他告诉他的亲信加兰德需要停止表现得像个深思熟虑的法官。这是《纽约时报》的措辞，他认为加兰德需要采取果断行动。拜登向他的亲信明确表示，我将提供相关证据，他认为特朗普应该被起诉。
So all of this law fair ultimately flows from that it flows from the top. Biden is the most vindictive president we've ever had. I cannot think of another time in American history where a president incited his own aides and advisors to basically go prosecute the leading alternative for the presidency that he's likely to face in four years. That is what happened.
因此，所有这些法律纷争最终都源自于权力的流动。拜登是我们历史上最具报复心的总统。在美国历史上，我无法想象另一次总统煽动自己的助手和顾问基本上去起诉他可能在四年后面临的总统竞选中的主要对手。那就是所发生的事情。
By the way, we've seen this behavior before. Remember, this is also the president who said we need to go look at this guy, meaning Elon. I mean, I can't believe that this behavior is just accepted by so many Americans. This is petty vindictive un-American behavior and it's anti-democratic. And the people who are engaging in it the most, again, are glorifying themselves as somehow standing up for democracy. This is a joke. And I think the average American is going to rebel against this.
顺便说一下，我们以前见过这种行为。还记得吗？这就是那位总统说我们需要去看看这个人，意思是埃隆。我是说，我简直不敢相信这种行为竟然被这么多美国人接受。这种行为是小气、报复心重、有违美国价值观，而且是反对民主的。而那些最积极参与其中的人，却自诩为民主捍卫者。真是个笑话。我相信，普通美国人会对此进行反抗。
And I said, I think it was like last year that all of this law fair, all these tactics and shenanigans that the Democrats were trying, it's either going to put Trump in the big house or the White House. And I think he said it for the White House on this basis right now.
我说过，我觉得大约是去年，所有这些法律诉讼、策略和把戏，民主党人试图采取的一切措施，要么会让特朗普入狱，要么会让他进入白宫。我认为他现在选择了进入白宫。
I agree. You would say that it's reasonable that if you got convicted in the court of law for in charge of insurrection, that he should not be allowed on the ballot. If the Supreme Court then decided that that's what the 14th Amendment meant, sure, but that's not what happened here. There's zero due process. I get it. I'm just trying to understand where your threshold is.
我同意。你会说，如果某人在法庭上因叛乱指控被定罪，那么他不应该被允许参选。如果最高法院决定这就是第14修正案的意思，那当然可以，但这不是在这里发生的。这里根本没有正当程序。我懂。我只是想弄清楚你的底线在哪里。
So you think you'll certainly, this will certainly go to the Supreme Court and they'll adjudicate what the 14th Amendment really needs. Because it's never been tried, the 14th Amendment.
你认为肯定会这样，这肯定会进入最高法院，并且他们将会裁决第14修正案的真正需要。因为第14修正案从未被尝试过。
Well, again, it was written, think about why that's Tetchukir about. Chamath is right. It was written for the Confederacy. Right. The only other time it was used was in 1919 against one person that was about to enter Congress who was who had given comfort to the Germans in World War One. That's the only time we've actually invoked Article three, Section three of the 14th Amendment. Were they allowed to run? No, they were not allowed to take the seat.
好的，再说一遍，它是写给Tetchukir思考的，为什么它与Confederacy有关。Chamath是正确的。它是为邦联写的。对，它唯一被使用的另一次是在1919年，对付即将进入国会的一个人，这个人在第一次世界大战中给德国人提供了安慰。那是我们唯一一次正式启用14条修正案第三节第三款的情况。他们被允许竞选吗？不，他们不被允许就任。
Now that's at the federal level and at the and at the state level, it's been used a couple of times. The point of this is for me, again, take Trump out of it. You do not, I think, I'm pretty sure we do not want to find ourselves in a country where you can all of a sudden be deprived your liberty and your rights for random acts where somebody believes that you are a threat to them. And that person is in a position of power to affect your liberty. That can't happen. Vote the man up or down.
现在，在联邦层面和州级层面上，它已经被使用了几次。这其中的关键是，对我来说，再次提到特朗普是没有意义的。我认为，我几乎确定我们不希望自己置身于一个国家，你的自由和权利会突然被剥夺，而这是基于某些人认为你对他们构成威胁。而那个人处于一个可以影响你自由的权力职位上。这是不能发生的。对这个人投赞成票还是反对票。
Yeah, and I agree with that. And I would say that, I mean, what you're speaking to is due process. These judges basically believe that because the mainstream media says something is the case, that we don't need to go through a legitimate court procedure to determine that as a legal finding. They just declare that, okay, he's guilty of insurrection. That was never proven. People don't realize you can this thing can go the opposite direction so quickly.
是的，我同意这一点。我要说的是，你所说的是正当程序。这些法官基本上认为，因为主流媒体说某事是事实，我们就不需要经过一个合法的法庭程序来确定这是否是一个法律认定。他们只是宣布说，好吧，他有叛乱的罪名。这从未被证明过。人们没有意识到这种情况可以很快地反转。
Imagine that there's a democratic candidate that is running against a Republican incumbent. Is this the standard we want to create where there's this political warfare that happens where each party is trying to essentially prevent the leading candidate of the other party from running in every election from here on out? Because that's the precedent that is being created. That's why I have such an allergic reaction to this.
想象一下，有一位民主党候选人正在挑战一位共和党现任职者。我们真的希望创造这样一种标准吗？这种政治战争会发生，每个政党都试图阻止对方的领先候选人在今后的每次选举中参选。因为这就是正在形成的先例。这就是为什么我对此感到如此反感。
That's totally true. Why wouldn't every president from here try to do this? I mean, it's already the case that every president that loses Congress is probably going to face an impeachment hearing. That's happening too. And now we're going to have a situation where every presidential candidate can be potentially excluded from the ballot based on a local court's findings. From the Democrats' point of view, this was deeply short-sighted. And I think it has a very high chance of blowing up in their face. We haven't heard from Jay Kal. I get my information from two really good sources.
这是完全正确的。为什么从现在开始的每一位总统都不愿意尝试这样做呢？我的意思是，事实上，任何一位失去国会控制权的总统都有可能面临弹劾审判。这已经在发生了。而现在，我们将面临这样一个局面：任何一位总统候选人都有可能根据地方法院的调查结果被排除在选举名单之外。从民主党的角度来看，这种做法非常短视。我认为这很有可能会适得其反。我们还没有听到Jay Kal的意见。我从两个非常可靠的消息来源获取信息。
The first one I recommend for our listeners is cafe.com. It's a podcast by Pre-Barara. Fantastic. He does really deep dives on these cases. Cafe.com. Yeah, Cafe.com is his podcast. Cafe.com. It's a paid podcast, but it's really detailed.
我推荐给我们的听众的第一个是cafe.com。这是Pre-Barara主持的一档非常好的播客。他在这些案件上进行了非常深入的调查。cafe.com，是他的播客名字。cafe.com 是需要付费的播客，但非常详细。
And then there's actually speaking of lawfare. There's a law for our podcast. And so I listen to those and they're covering this, but and also the two other cases that are of note, the federal election interference case and the Georgia case, highly recommend that our listeners go to those experts and get a really well-balanced view of the cases against the 45th president.
然后还有一点要说的是法律战。我们的播客中有一项法律。所以我听那些内容，并且涉及到这一点，还有其他两个重要案件，联邦选举干涉案和佐治亚案。强烈推荐我们的听众去向那些专家咨询，并且对针对第45任总统的案件得到一个充分客观的观点。
All right. For Chairman, Jamath Polyapiti, the new chairman of the all-in LLC. I like chairman dictator. I don't want to lose it. Chairman dictator authoritarian. Nope. Nope. Jake. BIPOC. Chairman BIPOC. Chairman of the Polyburo dictator of the all-in pod. You have my proxy go to all hell at the chairman dictator and for the king of. And rain man himself.
好的。对于詹姆斯·波利亚皮提主席，这位新任全体有限公司的主席，我喜欢主席独裁者。我不想失去它。主席独裁者专制主义者。不是。不是。杰克。有色人种。有色人种主席。全体有限公司的政治局独裁者主席。你拥有我的代理去主席独裁者那里闹一番，也去见国王。以及雨人本人。
Hi, I'm the world's greatest moderator. Love you boys. And we'll see you next time. David Sacks. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Love you guys. I'm the queen of Ken Watt. Going home. Besties are gone. Go 30. That's my dog taking a picture of driveway. Sacks.
大家好，我是世界上最厉害的主持人。爱你们，男孩们。我们下次再见。大卫·萨克斯。它说我们向粉丝开放源代码，然后他们就疯了。爱你们，伙计们。我是肯·瓦特的女王。回家了。最好的朋友们都走了。第30步。这是我的狗在拍摄车道的照片。萨克斯。
We're going to go. Oh man. My eyes are really weak. I'm going to go. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just because it's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release. So now man.
我们要走了。天哪。我的眼睛真的很虚弱。我要走了。我们大家应该找个房间，举行一个巨大的聚会，因为他们都像有这种性紧张感需要释放。太过分了。
What? You're the beak. What? You're the beak. Beak. Beak. What? We need to get mercy. I'm going all in. I'm going all in.
什么？你是鸟嘴？什么？你是鸟嘴。鸟嘴。鸟嘴。什么？我们需要得到宽恕。我全力以赴。我全力以赴。