E146: Did the Fed break the VC model? Plus IPOs, M&A, revaluing unicorns & more
发布时间 2023-09-22 23:24:37 来源
Did you just finish a good cry because you have this wetness right here on your eye. Oh sorry, I just got out of my cold plunge in my sauna because you know I hit a new record low weight 169 this week. Oh, hold on a minute. I was what's your temperature on. I don't want to say it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing. I don't want to say. No, what is it? I've been doing like 56 58, but it's great. It's okay. I mean, all these lunatics like, I don't know, they're at 45 degrees 48 degrees. I think it's unnecessary. You get the same value. I think you're 50. My two year old does 56. It's really impressive. I consider an 80 degree pool to be a cold plunge. I don't get it unless it's like 85. That's actually I've been to parties at Saxon's house. There's no difference between. No, it's a Schritz. It's a Schritz. It's a Schritz. It's a Schritz. If it's not the temperature of mouth water, I don't get it. Yeah, it's a Schritz. It's crazy. And then I went in my infrared saunas and I've been going in. You do the cold, then the warm. I think you're supposed to be warm, then cold. No. And they say end on cold. And so I've been ending on cold. Yeah. But I just do like a cycle. You do cold, warm cold. Cold, warm cold. Yes.
And what do you do? Like two minutes, 10 minutes, two minutes or what do you do? Yeah, exactly. Like one or two minutes cold plunge, four minutes, you warm up, you get back to it and then you jump back in. Yeah, it works pretty good. You know, I have to say my energy level goes way up.
刚才你是不是哭得很伤心，因为你眼睛上有眼泪？噢，对不起，我刚从我的桑拿浴室里冲了个冷水潜水，你知道这周我体重又创下了新低，169斤。哦，等一下。我在问你的体温。我不想说，它很尴尬。真的很尴尬，我不想说。不，告诉我吧。我一直保持在56到58之间，但这很好。我是说，这些疯子们，我不知道，他们都在45度到48度之间。我觉得没必要。你脚部温度是50度。我两岁的孩子也能达到56度，真是令人印象深刻。对我来说，80度的泳池就已经是冷水潜水了。除非是85度那样。我曾经去过萨克森的家参加派对，其实没什么区别。不，这是谢利斯。这是谢利斯。这是谢利斯。这是谢利斯。只有等于口水温度，我才能理解。是的，这是谢利斯。太疯狂了。然后我去了我的红外桑拿浴室，我一直在使用。你先冷再热，我觉得应该先热后冷。不，不是这样。他们说最后是冷水。所以我最后是冷水。是的。但我只是一个循环。你冷水，热水，冷水。冷水，热水，冷水。对，很有效。你知道，我不得不说我的能量水平飙升了。
Have you been tracking your blood pressure? I have not, but I have this executive health coach that I'm using. And so that's where I got those ridiculous glasses, the blue lights and my sleep's better. I got some, I've taken some supplements, a meeting. That's true. Yeah. Are you taking the estrogen? No, estrogen levels are at an all-time high for megalore. You guys, it just oozes on to me. No, it turns out, you know, even F-52, my testosterone. Your own is very high. So that's what is your free testosterone? I don't have the number here, but they said it's the high end of normal. So I was like, should I be shooting up testosterone? They're like, no, you're good. You're good. Just will send it over to Freeberg. I said, all right, great. And you're over to Freeberg. A lot of people take testosterone in their 50s and 60s. And I've had a couple of my friends in their early 60s start H is it HGH? Human growth. Yeah. Is that right? Not a good idea. Seems like a really bad idea. That off menu stuff, I don't think it's a good idea. I think you got to be careful with the off menu items. No, I think you can get a prescription for it. Is that right? Yeah. I know there's a lot of off menu items available to affluent people with the right doctors, and I don't think it's a good idea. I mean, you guys see Bezos. He's jacked. I didn't bring up anybody specifically. He looks great. I think that's just all weights.
你一直在追踪你的血压吗？我没有，但我有一位执行健康教练在帮我。所以这就是我戴这些荒谬的眼镜，蓝光都让我的睡眠变好了。我有一些补品，还有课程。是的，你在服用雌激素吗？没有，我的雌激素水平是历史最高的。你们不知道，我就像沐浴在雌激素里一样。不过，我发现我的睾酮水平也是F-52的最高值。你的游离睾酮水平很高吗？我没有具体的数字在这里，但他们说是正常范围的高位。所以我就想是不是该注射睾酮？他们说不用，你很好。好吧，就发给Freeberg吧。好的，我会给Freeberg发。很多人在五六十岁的时候都会注射睾酮。我有几个六十多岁的朋友开始使用HGH是吗？人类生长激素，对吗？这样做好像不是一个好主意。这些非正式项目似乎不是一个好主意。不，我觉得你可以开处方拿到它。是吗？是的，我知道有很多供有钱人和合适医生的非正式项目，但我认为这不是一个好主意。我是说，你们见过贝佐斯吧，他身材真好。我没有特别提到任何人，他看起来很棒。我想那只是举重的结果。
Is he going to be president? I mean, if you had your choice right now between Bezos and Bob Biger, who would you try to find Biden? I think we know who you bet. I mean, listen, I was talking to some affluent people and they everybody's going with that. I'm going to some affluent people. I don't want to say who, but Vivek is now people are starting to talk. Vivek. I think he's hitting the right chords, man. Vivek is about to pass to Santa's. He will be, I think, if you look at the polling right now, New Hampshire, he'll be the clear number two in about four between four and eight weeks from now. That's crazy. That's crazy.
他会成为总统吗？我的意思是，如果你现在可以在贝佐斯和鲍勃比格尔之间做选择，你会支持拜登，对吗？我想我们都知道你会选谁。我是说，我跟一些富有的人交谈过，他们都支持他。我会去找一些富有的人。我不想说是谁，但维韦克现在人们开始谈论他了。维韦克。我觉得他现在正走对了方向。如果你看现在的民意调查，新罕布什尔州，大约在四到八周后，他将是明显的第二名。太疯狂了。太疯狂了。
And so I think if he becomes a clear number two, the, the think of this, it's like then all of a sudden, all these MAGA supporters are given Trump and then Trump with some small feature improvements that are actually pretty meaningful. Right. And then they're like, well, do I want the 80 year old Trump or do I want the 38 super upgrade with like the super features, you know, I can forgive all of his other issues when he tells me that he's going to cut the government, the federal government by 75% second. So my gosh sold. So you're on, so you're on team Vivek. I want to continue to gather a little data. There's no rush to make a declaration right now. Give me a little bit of time. Chema.
所以我认为如果他成为明确的二把手，这样想的话，就好像突然间所有这些持有MAGA（美国制造）的支持者都给了特朗普，而特朗普又有一些小特性的改进，实际上相当重要。对吧。然后他们会想，嗯，我是想要80岁的特朗普还是38超级版升级带有超级功能的特朗普呢，你知道的，当他告诉我他要削减政府机构，把联邦政府减少75%的时候，我就能原谅他的其他问题了。所以没错，你是Vivek团队的支持者。我想继续收集一些数据，现在不用急着做决定。给我一点时间。切玛。
Are you with Vivek? Yes. And the reason is I would love for it to be RFK and Biden in a debate and then Trump and Vivek in a debate so that I could really figure out between RFK and Vivek who I would like to vote for. But I think it's been pretty clear that the Democrats have chosen to railroad RFK's candidacy. It's unfortunate because I don't think we're given a real fair shake in really being able to evaluate him. Yeah. So even the tractors like Freeburg, you have some pretty significant things that you dislike about RFK, which I think are fair, they're never going to get a chance to get aired out because you're never going to get a chance to be put on a national platform where there will be really enough debate. And I think that's where America loses. So yeah, in that context, I would say that Vivek has done more in the last month to convince me that he is fiscally responsible and that he has some intuitions that I think RFK and Trump and a lot of people in America share, which is just about the usefulness of the blob. And, you know, that there may be needs to be a grand experiment where we deconstruct the blob and I'm for that experiment to be totally honest with you to see what happens. So that's where you at.
你是和Vivek一起的吗？是的。原因是我希望能够看到RFK和拜登进行辩论，然后特朗普和Vivek进行辩论，这样我就可以真正确定我想投票支持RFK还是Vivek。但我觉得很明显，民主党选择了针对RFK的候选人。这真是不幸，因为我认为我们没有得到一个真正公正的机会来评估他。是的。所以，即使像Freeburg这样的批评者，你对RFK也有一些不喜欢的重要事情，我认为这是公平的，但他们永远不会有机会发表自己的意见，因为他们永远不会有机会被放在一个全国舞台上进行充分的辩论。我认为这就是美国的损失。所以，在这个背景下，我可以说，在过去的一个月里，Vivek做出了更多让我相信他在财政上是负责任的，并且他有一些直觉，我认为RFK、特朗普和很多美国人都分享了这些直觉，那就是大团队的有用性。而且，我觉得也许需要一个大实验，我们解构大团队，坦率地说，我支持这个实验，想看看会发生什么。所以你的想法是什么？
He's unhappy. What I would say, I think it's too early in the process to say definitively, okay, this person has to be the person. For me, I'm viewing candidates as either being acceptable or unacceptable. And Vivek is acceptable to me. I think DeSantis says to the ones who are unacceptable to me or the ones who had escalate the Ukraine war, because I think that avoiding World War three is, to me, the central issue of the campaign. So for me, it's just a litmus test issue. I can only support a candidate who would work to end this war, not one who had escalated.
他不开心。我想说的是，在这个过程中，现在说出这个人一定是那个人还为时过早。对我来说，我把候选人分为可接受和不可接受两类，对我来说，维韦克是可以接受的。我认为德桑蒂斯是对我不可接受的人，或者说是升级了乌克兰战争的人，因为我认为避免第三次世界大战对我来说是这场竞选的核心问题。对我来说，这只是一个试金石问题。我只能支持那些努力结束这场战争而不是升级战争的候选人。
Where does our fiscal emergency sit for you in terms of priorities? So no World War three priority one is the fiscal emergency that we're facing priority two or is it overstated by me, the event, or others? No, I think it's important. But the problem is this is that in order to do something about that problem, you really need bipartisan support. Yeah, because it would be suicide for one party to try and do all the heavy lifting without the sport of the other. And I just don't see in the near to mid term that you're going to get that kind of bipartisan support, no matter who is president, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, the only issue that for sure, the American president has unilateral discretion over is our foreign policy. And so for me, making sure that the next president pursues a foreign policy that doesn't result in the destruction of the United States, that to me is the overwhelming issue. It doesn't mean these other issues aren't important, but look at how some numbers are. Let me show you this poll for a second, just so we level seven with the audience. Poll ending September 18, 2023 for those who are not watching on YouTube. Trump, 39% is that or 38, then the vague 13% Haley, 12% Christie, 11% DeSantis, 10%. That is a stunning turn.
对于你来说，我们的财政紧急情况在优先级上排在哪里？所以不是第一优先事项是第三次世界大战，我们面临的财政紧急情况是第二优先事项，还是我，事件或其他人夸大了它的重要性？不，我认为这很重要。但问题是，为了解决这个问题，你真的需要两党的支持。是的，因为一个政党试图独自承担所有重责会自掘坟墓。而且我只是不看好在近中期内能够获得这种两党支持，无论是哪个党派的总统，美国总统唯一可以单方面决定的问题就是我们的外交政策。所以对我来说，确保下一任总统追求一种不会导致美国毁灭的外交政策，那对我来说才是最重要的问题。这并不意味着其他问题不重要，但看看一些数字如何。让我给你看一下这个调查结果，只是为了让观众与我们站在同一水平上。截至2023年9月18日的调查结果，对不在YouTube上观看的人来说，特朗普39%或38%，然后是13%的差异，海利12%，克里斯蒂11%，德桑蒂斯10%。这是一个惊人的变化。
Yeah, that's probably because it's New Hampshire to account, but you know, no, I know it's just, but that's a very critical state, right? I mean, sex, what do you think about what Dollyo said on stage about the need to have a Manhattan project style effort here that is bipartisan, comes to the center and tries to resolve this as that scale of an emergency? Is that realistic to kind of frame this as we are in a fiscal emergency? We have to get a Manhattan project style effort underway to try an engineer's solution. Well, let's back up. First of all, I think you asked the right question to him, which is, is our decline a matter of physics, you know, due to forces we can't control? Or is it something we still have control over? And I think that that's a really good framing. I think if you're in the bucket that we can do something about it, I mean, I believe that we can. The question is how? And I think his view was that somehow you get all these elites together and you get them on the same page. I don't think that's how our system works. I think what happens is you have elections, people compete against each other and the voters decide who's right. And so one side has to defeat the other. And I think until we get some clarity from voters on the direction they want to go, I don't think there's going to be a resolution. But to your point, there's no solution without bipartisan.
是的，那可能是因为这是新罕布什尔州的原因，但你知道，不，我知道这只是，但那是一个非常关键的州，对吧？ 我的意思是，就性质而言，你对Dollyo在舞台上关于需要在这里进行一个类似曼哈顿计划的双方共同努力、走向中心，并试图解决这个紧急情况的观点有什么看法？ 把这个框架说成我们正处于财政紧急状态是现实的吗？我们必须开始一个类似曼哈顿计划的努力来寻找解决方案。 那么，让我们回到最初的问题。首先，我认为你对他提出了正确的问题，即我们的衰退是一个物理问题，即由于我们无法控制的力量所导致的？还是说我们仍然可以控制它？我认为这是一个很好的框架。我认为如果你属于我们可以采取行动的那一方，我是指我相信我们可以做点什么。问题是怎么做？我认为他的观点是通过把所有这些精英聚集在一起，并使他们心意相通。我不认为这是我们的制度运作方式。我认为发生的是你们进行选举，人们互相竞争，选民决定谁是对的。因此，一方必须击败另一方。我认为在我们从选民那里获得一些对他们想要走向的方向的明确指示之前，不会有解决办法。但是根据你的观点，没有双方合作就没有解决方案。
Bipartisanship here. So what is the path to bipartisanship when it comes to the fiscal crisis? I'm not sure. Wouldn't the obvious thing be if one party wins with that as part of their platform, then it becomes part of the winning platform and the winning formula. We're just saying that's not even possible because it's too unpopular to tell people that they don't give free money. I think it's political suicide for one party to engage in deep cuts, deep government cuts, deep cuts of programs, especially at popular programs. You probably cut the unpopular ones at the margins, but it's political suicide to cut anything important without having the other party on board.
在这里存在两党合作的问题。那么，在财政危机方面，达成两党合作的路径是什么呢？我不确定。显而易见的是，如果一党在其政纲中加入这一部分并赢得选举，那么它就会成为胜利的政纲和胜利的公式的一部分。我们只是说这根本不可能，因为告诉人们他们不能得到免费的钱是太不受欢迎了。我认为，对于一党来说，参与大幅削减、大幅削减政府和大幅削减项目，尤其是受欢迎的项目，这是政治自杀行为。你可能在边缘地带削减不受欢迎的项目，但在没有得到其他党派的支持的情况下，削减任何重要项目是政治自杀。
There's been a couple of times where we've been able to have this type of consensus. I mean, the one that always gets mentioned is when Reagan and Tip O'Neill cut a deal and they were able to reform entitlements and make some changes those programs and they kind of did it arm in arm. And that worked. And then the other time where it kind of happened, not through agreement, but almost through lack of agreement was when we had the sequester. Remember when Obama was president and what happened is the Democrats and the Republicans worked out a deal where if they couldn't agree, you would get equal cuts in both military spending and social spending. The idea being that Republicans, one of the military spending, the Democrats wanted the social spending. And that's ultimately what happened is that they couldn't agree. And so you got the sequester and we had some spending restraint for a short period of time.
有几次我们能够达成这种共识。我指的是人们经常提到的一次，里根和蒂普·奥尼尔达成了一项协议，他们能够改革社会保障并对这些计划进行一些改变，他们几乎是手挽手做到的。而这样做是有效的。另一次则是一种通过缺乏协议而发生的情况，记得当时奥巴马是总统，发生的是民主党和共和党达成了一项协议，如果他们不能达成一致，就会在军事开支和社会开支上进行同等规模的削减。这样做的想法是共和党想要削减军事开支，而民主党想要削减社会开支。最终的结果是他们无法达成一致。因此，我们出现了自动削减措施，有一段时间进行了一些开支的限制。
The problem now is that both Republicans and Democrats want more military spending. I don't hear anybody really arguing for cutting military spending, except for maybe Rokana that are a vent, but the Democrats are completely on board with war now. And then on the social spending, I don't think either party really wants to cut social spending either or do entitlement reform. So there is no constituency out there for raining in the biggest sectors of government spending. So I don't see how it's going to happen, no matter who the president is.
目前的问题是，共和党和民主党都希望增加军事支出。除了罗卡纳可能是个例外在发泄一下，我没听到任何人真正主张削减军费开支，而且现在民主党完全支持战争。至于社会开支方面，我认为两党都不愿削减社会支出，也不愿进行福利改革。所以，没有支持削减政府开支最大部门的群众基础。所以，无论总统是谁，我都看不到这会发生的可能性。
Well, the forcing function will be the debt service costs, which is just crossed a trillion dollars a year just to pay the interest and it's mounting. Right. 30% of our debt, I think, is coming up for refinancing in the next 12 months. And that's going to refinance at a 5% rate. That's where the markets are at. Just like consumers can ignore it for a burn and put their fingers in their ears and say, la, la, la, la, I don't have to worry about my payments. Then the payments show up and you got to worry about them. Same thing's going to happen here in the US, right? The federal budget will get naturally constrained at some point here. But yeah, as the economist Herb Stein once said, if something can't go on forever, it won't. So I think I think you're right, Freeburg, that this is not your embarrassed and so absurd. I think yeah, if somebody can't go on forever, it won't. I think that that's where we're headed is we're going to have restraint imposed on us from the outside. It's not going to come from people. Stop buying bonds. People stop buying treasuries. Interest rates just have to go up to a point that. What's happening in Japan, right? I mean, their bond auctions have been very lukewarm and supposedly a lot of the money in Japan is coming west looking for opportunities to get alpha. So we have an example that we can look to.
嗯，强制因素将是债务服务成本，仅仅支付利息就已经达到了一万亿美元，而且还在增加。对的，我认为我们30%的债务在接下来的12个月内将需要重新融资，按照目前市场的情况，融资利率将为5%。就像消费者可以忽视并堵住耳朵说“啦啦啦，我不需要担心我的付款一样”，然后付款到期时，你就不得不担心了。同样的情况将在美国发生，是吧？联邦政府的预算在某个时候自然会受到限制。但是，就像经济学家赫伯特·斯坦（Herb Stein）曾经说过的那样，如果某件事情不能永远持续，那么它就不会持续下去。所以我认为，自由堡，你说得对，这不是你尴尬和荒谬。我认为是的，如果某件事情不能永远持续，那么它就不会持续下去。我认为我们正朝着一个被外部施加限制的方向发展。这不会来自人民停止购买债券，停止购买国债。利率只是必须升至某个点位。就像日本发生的情况一样，对吧？他们的债券拍卖一直不温不火，据说日本的很多资金正在向西方流动，寻找获取超额收益的机会。所以我们可以借鉴一个例子。
All right, let's get, we can get started here. We have so much to talk about. I think we got to give some flowers here last year, the Sultan of Science, the Prince of Panic attacks, the Queen of Kinwa was an absolute terror when I did the all in Summit 2022. And then this year he was an absolute all starring delight. What an amazing job you did on the content. People are saying the content that all in Summit 2023 is the best conference ever had. Bill Gurley got a four minute ovation. And that talk is on YouTube. Elon Musk, the star linked in from 40,000 feet. He crushed it. Toby was fantastic. Ray Dalio, Larry Summers, Mr. B beast, went with Paltrow, the Bo-Test sisters, which we did a pretty good showing. I have to say a great job to Saks and Friedberg who held the line with the Bo-Test sisters in our group chess. Brian Armstrong, who am I missing here? I mean, what an incredible lineup. Look at all Nicole Polk. Rob Henderson, Jenny Joss, Rob Henderson. I mean, extraordinary. Let me just go around the horn.
好了，让我们开始吧，我们可以开始讨论了。我们有很多要谈论的事情。我想去年我们给了一些鲜花，科学苏丹、恐慌症王子、金瓦女王在2022年峰会上绝对是个可怕的存在。然后今年他绝对是个全明星般的愉快。你在内容方面做得太棒了。人们说2023年的全力峰会是有史以来最好的会议。比尔·格利得到了四分钟的欢呼。他的演讲在YouTube上。埃隆·马斯克，从4万英尺高空的明星链接。他压倒了众人。托比表现出色。雷·达利奥，拉里·萨默斯，比斯特先生，博特斯姐妹们，我们展示得相当出色。我要向萨克斯和弗里德伯格表示一声良好的工作，他们在与博特斯姐妹的团队对局中稳住了阵线。布莱恩·阿姆斯特朗，我还漏掉了谁吗？我的天，真是一个令人难以置信的阵容。看看所有的尼科尔·波尔克，罗伯·亨德森，珍妮·乔斯，罗伯·亨德森。真是非凡。让我遍地赞美一下。
Chamoc, your, what, what discussion or moment, pick your choice there for you was the most intellectually engaging and important at the summit. You can mention two or three if you like. I thought number one were my outfits. Pretty great. I mean, you did do an half a change twice a day. So congrats on that. I liked that. I thought it a really good job with that. I do agree. I agree. Did you guys get the special shoes from Laura Piano? Oh, God, the King's cashmere loafers. Yeah, those are ridiculous. I'm wearing them as we speak, actually. I wore them. They're a bit of night and I came with them. Yeah. Yeah. They are the most incredible shoes. Clouds. They're the most incredible. Like 10 pairs or something and yeah, and we got four special for us. Yeah. Then I get back to the Beverly Hills Hotel, the suite that Freberg book me a beautiful suite. Thank you, Freberg. And there is a Laura P on the box. Freberg shafted me on my room. What? What? Yeah, I got to put you by the garage. No, I got a room that was. Well, it's very appropriate that these rooms exist, but it's handicap accessible, which totally fine, except the problem is the closet and everything is set for wheelchair height. Why did you change your room, dude? And so all Mike and then so I thought, oh, he just fucked me on purpose. He just tried to be trawled you a little passive aggressive name check. So you guys got some work to do in the group therapy. Yeah. I would never do that to you guys. Don't worry. When I when I organize this summit, I'll make sure these details are perfect.
Chamoc，你在峰会中参与过哪些讨论或时刻让你感觉最有智力挑战和重要性？你可以提到两三个。我觉得我的服装是第一位的。非常棒。我是说，你每天都换了一半的服装。所以对此要恭喜你。我觉得你做得很出色。我同意。我同意。你们有从劳拉·皮亚诺那里拿到特制鞋吗？哦，天啊，国王的羊绒便鞋。是的，真是太可笑了。实际上，我正在穿着它们说话。我穿过它们。它们有点夜店的感觉。是的。它们是最棒的鞋子。云朵一样。它们是最棒的。大约有10双，我们得到了4双特别为我们制作的。是的。然后我回到了比弗利山庄酒店，住在Freberg为我预定的美丽套房。谢谢你，Freberg。但是盒子上有一个“Laura P”。Freberg在我的房间上搞砸了。什么？什么？是的，他把你安排在车库旁边了。不，我的房间是......嗯，有这样的房间是非常合适的，但它是无障碍的，也就是说对轮椅用户很方便，除了一个问题，就是壁橱和一切都是按照轮椅高度设计的。你为什么不换个房间，伙计？然后，那就是迈克和我想到的，哦，他故意刁难我。他只是试图给你挖苦一下，间接地点名批评你。所以你们在团体治疗中还有一些工作要做。是的。我绝对不会对你们这样做，别担心。当我组织这个峰会时，我会确保这些细节完美无缺。
I fly onto my plane. He has gluten free Nutella crepes handmade in the morning and I stick him in a handicap accessible room where he can't even put his bag in a bag. And I can't put my clothes except without it touching the ground. So then I had to play them on the bed and then I got to lay them on the. So I'm talking about. No problems here.
我乘坐飞机上机。他早上吃了自制的无麸质Nutella可丽饼，我把他安排在一个无障碍的房间里，他甚至没法把他的包放进去。我只能把我的衣服放在床上，不能碰到地上。所以我不得不把它们放在床上然后睡在上面。所以我在说什么呢。这里没有问题。
The audience right now is just triggered by the suffering that you went through at the Beverly Hills Hotel. My honest reaction was I thought the content was really inspiring. I guess it's kind of like I knew what I was going to get up front with so many of the folks because I knew them, but then where I still came away, where they exceeded my expectations.
现在的观众对于你在比佛利山庄酒店经历的苦难感到愤怒。而我的真实反应是，我觉得这段内容非常鼓舞人心。我猜这可能是因为我对许多人的了解，所以我已经在前面知道一些我将要得到的东西，但他们的表现还是超出了我的期望。
Number one, probably was Graham Allison. Oh, I could literally talk to him for eight hours a day. I feel like and I don't know him well. So I felt like I was scratching the surface of the things that he knew. I could do an entire dinner. I think where he could just walk through the Cuban Missile Crisis and I could just sit there listening. So I thought he was unbelievably. Intellectually stimulating for me.
第一，大概是格雷厄姆·艾里森。哦，我可以每天与他交谈八个小时。我感觉我并不熟悉他，所以我只是了解到了他知道的一部分。我可以整个晚餐的时间让他讲述古巴导弹危机，而我只需坐在那里倾听。所以我认为他对我来说是令人难以置信的智力刺激。
Every time I sit down with Toby, I'm just like in awe of how smart and different Toby Lute key is. And so I always kind of like walk away thinking this is really one of the very special entrepreneurs of our generation just in terms of his mindset. Underrated.
每次我和托比坐下来，我都对他的聪明和与众不同感到敬畏。所以我总是会离开时想着，他是我们这一代中非常特别的企业家之一，仅仅就他的思维方式来说就是如此。被低估了。
I thought Larry had the line of the summit. Larry Summers. Ray said, self-esteem should come from achievement and not the opposite, which is that achievement should come from self-esteem. And he was talking about wokism and sort of like the entire philosophy around that stuff right now. And I thought that that was really insightful.
我认为拉里（Larry）在峰会上的发言很有道理。光说了，自尊应该来源于成就，而不是相反的情况，也就是成就应该源于自尊。他谈到了“工作主义”（Wokism）以及当前关于这一理念的整个哲学。我觉得这非常深刻。
Those are probably the three moments. I thought girly's obviously presentation was superb. But again, it's kind of like saying the obvious because it was just so masterclass. But the from what I expected to what I got, those were the three that I thought were the most. Inspiring and net new positive for me.
那可能是三个瞬间。我认为Girly显然的演讲非常出色。但再次说出这个显而易见的观点，因为它真的是如此出色。但与我预期的相比，这三个瞬间是我认为最令人鼓舞和给我带来正能量的。
Fantastic. Sacks, did you have any moments aside from Gwyneth Paltrell saying she was your favorite bestie other than that being the clear number one for you and crushing soul crushing for us. Well, we've heard that because the issue is we had technical issues during her interview and it got really hard to hear her at various points. And I don't think you guys heard that either, right? I heard I tried to ignore it. I tried to block it out. I couldn't I couldn't hear it. So I didn't know that. Yeah.
太棒了。Sacks，除了葛温妮丝·帕尔特勒说她是你最喜欢的最好的朋友之外，你还有其他任何时刻吗？那个显然是你的首选，对我们来说是心碎的和灵魂的粉碎。唉，我们听说了，因为在她的采访过程中，我们遇到了技术问题，很难在不同的时刻听到她的声音。我想你们也没有听到，对吧？我听到了，但我试图忽略它，把它封闭在外面。但是我听不见。所以我不知道那些细节。是的。
Well, congratulations. We have that we. Can we get that up right here? No, we're not doing victory laps on the pod. We talked about this on the chat. No, I mean, that's awesome. Go. Go for it. I want to hear it. Yeah. My husband, but we were a little on this potential is to face. I'm doing a public day. Except for people. Letting do it. So it's okay. Oh, my God. She said it. Love it. David. Sacks.
恭喜恭喜。我们有那个。“那我们能把那个放到这里吗？”“不，我们不能在播客上庆祝胜利。我们在聊天中已经讨论过这个了。”“不，我的意思是，那太棒了。继续，去吧。我想听。”“是的。”“是我丈夫，但我们在这个潜力上有所牵制。”“我会公开展示的一天。除了那些人之外。让他们来吧。没问题的。”“哦，天啊。她说了。太棒了。大卫·萨克斯。”
No, it's that his her husband thinks that she is. Oh, she is. But we were a little on this potential is to face. I'm doing a public day. It's not good. David is incredible. Oh, the husband's jealous. And that's not a good situation. Reuse after that.
不，是他丈夫认为她是那样的。噢，她是的。但是我们对这个潜在的情况有些担忧。我正在进行一项公开的日子。这不好。大卫真是太棒了。噢，丈夫嫉妒了。这不是一个好的情况。之后再重用。
What did you like? Sacks. Be honest. I want to also give credit to David Sacks who showed up for every talk. And free break said, J Cal, the issue. I said, well, anything I can help. He said, Oh, well, actually the issue is I asked David's tax to show up at eight forty five for the run through. And he won't respond to me. Can you can you get in touch with him? I said, let me tell you what's going to happen with David Sacks. Program's going to start at nine. He'll be here at eight fifty six. And if you get him on stage with two out of three talks, you did better than I did.
你喜欢什么？Sacks。说实话。我也要感谢大卫·萨克斯，他在每次演讲中都出现了。还有免费的休息时间说，J Cal，有个问题。我说，嗯，我能帮忙吗？他说，噢，实际上问题是我要求大卫·萨克斯在八点四十五分出现在彩排中，但他不回复我。你能联系上他吗？我说，让我告诉你大卫·萨克斯会发生什么。节目将在九点开始。他会在八点五十六分到达。如果你让他参加三个演讲中的两个，你比我做得好。
And free birds team, which God bless the production work team. They did an amazing job. These Wolverines are incredible. Shout out to Laura. Rachel and everybody on the team. They did a fantastic job. And sure enough, Sacks shows up at eight fifty six goes on stage and he grushes it. So great job getting him on stage, but congrats on showing up for us.
自由鸟团队，上帝保佑制作团队。他们做得太棒了。这些狼人太令人难以置信了。向Laura、Rachel和团队中的每个人致以敬意。他们的工作做得太棒了。果然，Sacks在八点五十六分上台，给我们带来了极好的表演。所以很高兴你们成功让他上台，但也要祝贺你们为我们的到来。
Well, they wanted me. I mean, I asked when's the first speaker going on stage? Yeah. Actually, he was 10 a.m., right? 10 a.m., sorry, 10 a.m., 10. So I'm like, okay, my head, I'm thinking, okay, I'll be there at nine fifty nine. And I'm like, what time do you? Yeah. And then they're like, you were there in nine fifty five. And I was like, they said, you need to be there at eight thirty for a sound check. And I'm like, just a stick. Let me take a look for the sound check. I'm sorry, Jimmy. Like, I'm talking about here to smoke down a cub check.
好的，他们想要我。我的意思是，我问第一位演讲者什么时候上台？是的。实际上，他是在早上10点，对吧？早上10点，抱歉，早上10点，10点嘛。所以我心里想着，好的，我会在九点五十九分到那里。然后我问，你是什么时候到的？是的。然后他们说，你九点五十五分就到了。我当时就说，他们说我需要在八点半进行音频检查。我就说，让我看看音频检查要做什么。对不起，吉米。我是在说，我让所有人等我一下。
Okay, let's start the show. Can we have a very self-grandising? Look, I thought the conference was amazing. It exceeded my expectations. Your conference exceeded my expectations to J-Cal, but I think free bird took it to another level and exceeded my my already high expectations.
好的，让我们开始节目吧。我们能有一个非常自吹自擂的人吗？听着，我觉得这次会议太棒了。它超出了我的预期。你的会议让我对J-Cal的期望值超过了，但我觉得《自由鸟》又将它提升到了另一个水平，超过了我已经很高的期望。
Yeah. You know, highlights. I mean, I think starting with Ray Daliu as the first speaker was really interesting. I think we only got to go for what thirty forty minutes with him. I felt like we could have gone for two hours to bring it back on the pod and, you know, drill into that topic more. Two hours with Daliu would be amazing. Because I think what's really interesting is the way that he's looking at the grand sweep of history, right? He's thinking about not just a ten year business cycle or a seventy five year debt cycle. He's looking at a two hundred fifty year empire cycle. I think this is really interesting that he thinks in that really big way.
是的。你知道，亮点。我的意思是，我认为以Ray Dalio作为第一位发言者开始真的很有趣。我觉得我们只有三十到四十分钟的时间和他交流。我觉得我们本可以再花两个小时回到播客中，深入探讨那个主题。与达利欧共度两个小时将是令人惊艳的。因为我认为他的看法真的很有趣，他从历史的大格局来看待问题，对吗？他考虑的不仅是十年的商业周期或七十五年的债务周期，他看问题的角度是两百五十年的帝国周期。我认为他这种以宏观的方式思考问题真的很有意思。
I agree. Graham Allison, really interesting. We could have spent two hours with him. Larry Summers, these are all people I think should bring back on the pod for a long form conversation. I agree that Bill Gurley's talk was one of those great TED style talks that I think should go viral. I think it has. I think 20 million people should watch that. Yeah. I mean, the people retweeting it are incredible and I was at a dinner party last night and everybody was talking about it. So it's it's spread into our industry and it's starting to tip over into other industries already.
我同意。Graham Allison真的很有意思。我们本可以花两个小时和他一起。Larry Summers，我认为这些人都应该再次在节目中进行长篇对话。我同意Bill Gurley的演讲是那种应该走红的伟大TED风格的演讲之一。我认为它已经走红了。我认为应该有2千万人去观看。是的。我是说，转发它的人真是太不可思议了，昨晚我在一个晚宴上，每个人都在谈论它。所以它已经在我们的行业中传播开来，而且已开始渗透到其他行业。
The chess was really fun. I am a game day player that way. You know, I brought it and managed to win the game. But else I know there are a lot of great moments. I'm sure forgetting about things. I love that. I love that. The parties were incredible. The parties were absolutely incredible. We missed both of you guys at the Grimes DJ set. That was amazing, by the way. I think Chamofu is there for that. Don't you know, I left right at 10 to fly back to the Bay Area.
这场棋局真的很有趣。我是那种完全投入的竞技玩家。你知道，我带着棋盘参加比赛，并成功赢得了比赛。但是，我知道还有很多美妙的时刻，我肯定忘记了一些事情。我喜欢那种感觉，我喜欢那种感觉。派对太棒了，真是令人难以置信。我们在格莱姆斯的DJ演出上两位都没有出现，真遗憾。顺便说一下，那场演出太神奇了。我想Chamofu应该在那里。不知道你们知道不知道，我在晚上十点就离开了，回到了湾区。
Probably not. Yeah. Got it. Yeah. She Grimes. Thank you to Grimes for doing that for me. Personal favor. The audience lost their minds. Santa Monica. She was incredible. She's such a performer. It's incredible. Yeah. People were losing their minds. For you, Freberg, best moments on stage. It was just great to be with everyone and go through it.
可能不是吧。是的，明白了。是的，她叫Grimes。感谢Grimes为我做这件事，真是个人情。观众们都疯了。在圣塔莫尼卡，她太不可思议了。她是个出色的演员。太不可思议了。是的，人们都疯狂了。对于你，Freberg，在舞台上最美好的时刻。能和大家一起度过这段时间真是太棒了。
I mean, honestly, I didn't source all these speakers you guys did. And so I don't want to take credit for that. I think it was what I had hoped. You know, I went to Ted for 12 years. I started going to Ted. I think 2007. I felt pretty disappointed over the last couple of years. And I actually spoke to the CEO of Ted and said, I'm not going to go anymore because so much of the talks became kind of social justice type talks. Nonsense. I don't want to use that term because I do think it's all very well intentioned. And I think it just became overwhelming that you would go to Ted and you would basically feel bad about yourself and that it kind of missed the element of the world is an amazing place. And so we should have a great degree of optimism with technology and where it's taking us.
我是说，说实话，这些演讲者并不是我找来的，是你们做的。所以我不想为此而得到荣誉。我觉得它符合我的期望。你知道，我去TED听了12年。我开始去TED是在2007年。过去几年里，我感到相当失望。实际上，我曾经和TED的CEO谈过，并告诉他我不再去了，因为很多演讲变成了一种社会正义的话题。胡说八道。我不想用这个词，因为我确实认为那些演讲都是出于善意的。但我觉得这些演讲让人感到压力重重，你去TED只会让自己感到糟糕，而忽略了这个世界是一个了不起的地方。所以我们应该对技术和它带给我们的未来保持极大的乐观。
We should observe the greater cycle and the bigger perspective of things that are happening in the world, not kind of go into them who done it and who's to blame and us versus them kind of mentality, which I think so much of this stuff turned into at Ted. And I was really hoping we could capture some of that. And so I'm really glad we got a lot of the speakers we did and had a couple hours to be able to share, you know, those sorts of perspectives. So it was fun.
我们应该观察世界上发生的事情的更大周期和更大的视角，而不是陷入谁做了什么和责备谁的思维以及我们与他们对立的心态中，我认为Ted大会的很多东西都变成了这样。我真的希望我们能够捕捉到其中一些。所以非常高兴我们有很多演讲者，有几个小时来分享这些观点。所以很有趣。
I really enjoyed what you do. What you did with the conference in terms of the editorial direction was great. You leveled it up certainly from last year as Truma pointed out correctly. And it had a great amount of optimism, realism. And we didn't talk about superfluous virtue signaling, social justice, woke nonsense that really is should not be at the top of the agenda in my mind. I'm not saying that these issues are not important to some people, but I think prioritizing what's important in the world is what I got out of the conference.
我真的很喜欢你所做的事情。在编辑方面，你对会议的引导方向做得很棒。正如Truma正确指出的那样，你确实对去年的会议进行了升级。会议中充满了乐观和现实主义的精神。我们没有谈论一些多余的虚伪的美德标榜、社会正义以及一些我认为不应该成为重点议题的觉醒胡言乱语。我并不是说这些问题对于一些人不重要，但在我看来，重要的是优先考虑世界上真正重要的事情，而这正是我从这次会议中获得的收获。
You know, when you have people on this level speaking for, you know, very long periods, not long enough, but you know, the Larry Summers and, you know, Ray Dalio, these talks, they really gave you a sense of this is what's important in the world right now. This is the priority. And I came away from it so intellectually stimulated it. Maybe just say, Hey, you know, I want to travel more. I want to read more. I want to have more conversations and I have been basking in that like afterglow. So I just want to say, you know, once again, what an extraordinary amount of teamwork, just as the moderator of our quartet felt everybody did a great job moving the ball around.
你知道的，当有这些层级的人讲话时，你知道的，时间虽然不够长，但是你知道的，像拉里·萨默斯和雷·达里奥这样的人，这些讲话真的让你感受到了现在世界上什么最重要，这是当务之急。我从中获得了如此强烈的智力刺激，也许只不过想说，嘿，你知道的，我想要更多地旅行，更多地阅读，更多地交谈，而我一直沉浸在那种余晖之中。所以我只是想再次说一下，多么非凡的团队合作，就像我们四重奏的调解人感受到的一样，每个人都在很好地推动事情发展。
I think everybody was on their game. Everybody, you know, I'm talking about the three of you guys. Very focused on just knowing exactly when to insert a great question. So I felt like we were playing basketball, like the Warriors when they play prime basketball. All moved really well. Great questions. People picking up on themes, threading themes from one talk to the other. And it just made me really excited for next year. So I just want to say a great job to each of you. Thank you.
我认为每个人都表现得非常出色。每个人，你们知道，我在说的是你们三个。非常专注于在适当的时机提出一个很棒的问题。所以我觉得我们就像打篮球一样，就像勇士队在他们打出巅峰表现时那样。大家都运动得很好，问题也出色。人们能够捕捉到主题，并将一个谈话与另一个联系起来。这让我对明年感到非常兴奋。所以我只想对你们每个人说一声干得好。谢谢。
Back at you. Yeah, back at you. Listen, we could talk about ourselves all day, but people hate that. Let's talk about what's going on in the markets. Yeah, we only did it for 40 minutes. Perfect. Yeah, exactly.
还是归还给你。是的，还是归还给你。听着，我们可以整天聊我们自己，但人们不喜欢那样。我们来聊聊市场上正在发生的事情吧。是的，我们只进行了40分钟。太好了。是的，完全正确。
So we've had a lot of videos in our M&A on fire. We've had a ridiculous week. Six quarters of down market has suddenly turned into a bunch of green shoots on the M&A front. Cisco announced it acquired Splunk for $28 billion in an all cash deal. If the notes are correct here, it's about 10% of Cisco's market value. A little fugacy, congratulations to Nancy Pelosi on that trade possibly. Allegedly, don't forget your favorite word, allegedly. Allegedly, allegedly. Perhaps. I don't know. She's good at trades. So if somebody's going to make money on that trade or somebody's going to jail. So congrats to Screli. Instacart, Clavio, and ARM all IPO'd in the past week. And they've fallen back to Earth. Just crazy stat. 21 months since the last significant ventureback company went public. I'll leave out the Middle Eastern Food Company. It was a Kava that went public and then the vacuum company that went public. But that's just in the past seven days.
所以我们在我们的并购中有很多视频热门。我们经历了一个荒谬的星期。连续六个季度的下行市场突然在并购领域出现了一大批绿芽。思科宣布以现金交易方式斥资280亿美元收购Splunk。如果笔记没有错的话，这大约是思科市值的10%。有点可疑，对此交易恭喜南希·佩洛西。据称，别忘了你最喜欢的词，据称。据称，据称。也许。我不知道。她在交易上很厉害。所以如果有人在这笔交易中赚钱的话，也有人会坐牢。所以恭喜Screli。Instacart，Clavio和ARM在过去一周中都进行了首次公开募股，并回归现实。一个疯狂的统计数据。过去21个月没有重大风投公司上市。我会略过中东食品公司。曾经上市的是一家名叫Kava的公司，还有一家真空公司。但这仅仅发生在过去的七天内。
So we talked about this on the program. We discussed, hey, we'll know when the markets are back. If some of these companies are forced to walk the flying slash, get public and fix their cap tables and sure enough, Instacart really kind of represents that most of the late-stage investors in Instacart are underwater. The early-stage folks absolutely crushed it. Chama, listen, you're a market expert here. You've taken a lot of companies public. What do you think the last week means for the greater technology industry?
所以我们在节目中谈到了这个问题。我们讨论了，嘿，当市场反弹的时候我们会知道。如果这些公司被迫上市并调整股权结构，那肯定有一些公司会受到影响。而事实上，Instacart真的代表了大部分后期投资者处于亏损状态。而初期投资者却取得了巨大的成功。查玛，你是一位市场专家。你把很多公司上市了。你认为过去的一周对整个科技行业意味着什么？
I don't think that this was the great reopening that we all were hoping for. I think it's important to understand the dynamics of bank-led traditional IPOs in America. The best way to understand them is to contrast and compare to how that same company would go public in Europe or Asia because it'll explain what happened. I think, unfortunately, what has happened is not good for the market. Typically, what happens is when you construct an IPO, you're selling 15 to 20 percent of the company. When you do that, you go and you call hedge funds and you call these mutual funds, what are called long-only, meaning they don't short, they just go along, these big mutual fund companies. You try to find a handful of people to anchor the IPO. They take a huge piece of that 15 to 20 percent. In Europe and Asia, the securities law says that when you get such a big allocation, you have to hold it for six months, which means you're treated exactly the same as the employees who are typically locked up in an IPO for at least six months. What happens is these firms do all kinds of diligence and when they buy something, it's because they really believe in it and then they go long it for what is at least half a year. It's a non-trivial amount of time. That's what happens in Europe and Asia. 15 to 20 percent of the company is sold, a handful of people anchor and you're locked up for six months.
我认为这并不是我们都希望看到的伟大复苏。了解美国银行主导的传统IPO的运作动态非常重要。了解它们的最佳方式是将其与同一家公司在欧洲或亚洲上市的方式进行对比和比较，因为这将解释发生了什么。不幸的是，我认为发生的事情对市场来说并不好。通常情况下，在构建一项IPO时，你会出售公司15%至20%的股份。在这样做时，你会与对冲基金和那些只进行长线投资（即不做空的）、大型共同基金公司进行联系。你试图找到一些人来主导这次IPO，他们将获得那15%至20%中的重要份额。在欧洲和亚洲，证券法规定当你获得这样大的配售时，你必须持有六个月，这意味着你和通常至少会被锁定六个月的员工受到相同的对待。这些公司会进行各种尽职调查，当他们购买某个股份时，那是因为他们真正相信它，并且至少会持有半年。这是一段不简单的时间。这就是欧洲和亚洲的情况。公司的15%至20%的股份被出售，一些人主导，并且你会被锁定六个月。
Now you need to look at how American IPOs are done, which is why people have experimented with direct listings. We've experimented with SPACs. It's because the fundamental architecture of IPOs are broken. They're set up in a dynamic where it's a heads-eye win, tails-you-lose situation for the bankers that run the IPO.
现在你需要看一下美国的IPO是如何进行的，这也是人们尝试直接上市的原因。我们已经尝试过SPAC。这是因为IPO的基本架构有问题。它们设置了一种对于主导进行IPO的银行家来说，无论如何都能赢的局面。
What happened in these three IPOs? Number one, it was less than 10 percent of the float, so highly, highly, highly concentrated, small amount of the company was made available for sale. Number two, there really weren't anchors. What happened was the allocation of that less than 10 percent was smeared across 50 or 60 different organizations. Then number three, there was no lockup, which meant that people could sell right away.
这三个IPO发生了什么情况？首先，这些公司的上市股份仅占总股本的不到10%，因此非常、非常、非常集中，只有很少一部分股份可供出售。其次，实际上没有主要的机构参与。所发行的不到10%股份被分散在50或60个不同的机构中。最后，没有锁定期限，这意味着人们可以立即出售股份。
What you saw with all of these companies was the exact same dynamic, which was it opened because there was such a small amount of supply, it traded up. The minute that retail, which typically tends to be late to the game because they don't have access to these things, when they started buying, what was unique this time around is all of the mutual funds just dumped everything. The hedge funds were like, well, we don't have a real allocation. Our friend said in the group chat, he got a five or $10 million allocation in these IPOs. These are $20 and $30 billion hedge funds. Five and $10 million allocations don't move the needle. The hedge funds sold right away and got on the sidelines and said, I don't care about this. The long-onlys bought just enough to make the stock go up because of such a small supply. Then when retail stepped in, they just dumped it all.
你在所有这些公司中看到的情况都是一样的，也就是因为供应量非常少，所以它们一上市就炒高了。但这一次与以往不同的是，零售投资者通常会因为无法获得这些机会而迟到，但当他们开始买入时，独特之处在于所有的共同基金都把所有股票抛售了。对冲基金则表示，我们没有真正的配置。我们的朋友在群聊中说，他在这些首次公开招股中获得了500万或1000万的配额。而这些对冲基金的规模达到了200或300亿美元。500万或1000万的配置对他们来说根本不算什么。对冲基金立即卖出并退到了一旁，表示他们对此不在意。而只看涨不看跌的基金则买入了足够多的股票，以使股价上涨，因为供应量很少。然后当零售投资者进入市场时，他们把所有股票都抛售了。
Unfortunately, what's happened is all three IPOs within a few days have breached their issue price. Now, they're at the same issue price, maybe slightly higher, but that is an unsuccessful dynamic.
不幸的是，最近几天内，所有三个公司的IPO都突破了发行价。现在它们的价位基本相同，可能稍微高一些，但这是一个不成功的趋势。
What could have been different? The banks could have forced these companies to sell up to 20%. The banks could have found a few anchor buyers. The banks could have created a lock-up structure for these anchor buyers. They did none of it. The result is a lot of downward pressure in a moment where the overhang of rates have come back and are forcing all of us to realize, and we'll talk about it in a second, that these rates are going to be higher for longer, which completely changes how you value these tech companies. Net net, very poor IPO construction by the banks.
有什么可能会有所不同呢？银行本可以强制这些公司出售多达20%的股份。银行本可以找到几个主要买家。银行本可以为这些主要买家创建一个锁定机制。但他们什么都没有做。结果是，在利率前景回升并迫使我们认识到这些利率将会更长时间地保持较高的背景下，市场承压很大。这完全改变了您对这些科技公司的价值评估方式。总体而言，银行对IPO的设计非常糟糕。
The grand reopening was a grand closing, I think. Just to put some numbers on that, Instacartes float was 6.7% and Clavios float 7.6. The numbers almost hit the 10% and 9.4%, but certainly less than the 20% that you would expect.
我认为盛大的重新开业实际上是一个盛大的关闭。具体数字来说，Instacart的浮盘比例为6.7%，而Clavio的浮盘比例为7.6%。这些数字几乎接近10%和9.4%，但显然远低于预期的20%。
Then, I guess the follow-up question here at SACS is, why did these companies go out? Will we see the other big ones go out, the stripes and some of the other backed up inventory? What's the back channel in our industry about the viability of other IPOs? Is this going to push a lot more people out to get liquidity even at discounted prices, even with the headwinds that Chumat points out, or is this going to have a chilling effect? People are going to say, let me wait until 2025.
然后，在SACS这里，我猜接下来的问题是，为什么这些公司离开了？我们会看到其他大公司离场吗，比如斑马（Stripe）和一些其他备货的公司？关于其他IPO的可行性，我们行业内有什么渠道和背后的消息？这是否会推动更多的人以折扣价格获取流动性，即使有Chumat指出的逆风情况，或者这是否会产生冷却效应？人们会说，让我等到2025年再看。
I think they went out because investors and others need liquidity. There's no point holding on and waiting for a valuation that's never going to come back. You take Instacart, for example, their last private round was at $39 billion. What's the market cap now? Around $10.9. It's great that they got out. I think that is- I know it's at 8 today. It's sort of a green shoot that they got out, but we're never going back to the valuation level. We had a couple of years ago during a giant ZIRP created asset bubble. I just think there's no reason to wait. You look at SoftBank, they needed the liquidity from the R-MIPO. I think that's why these companies are going out is we're getting back to business as usual.
我认为他们离开是因为投资者和其他人需要流动性。继续持有并等待不会恢复的估值是没有意义的。以Instacart为例，他们最后一轮私下融资时估值为390亿美元。而现在的市值是多少呢？大约是109亿美元。他们能退出是很好的事情。我知道今天市值已经下跌到80亿美元。这是一个积极信号，他们能够退出，但我们永远不会回到当年因零利率政策导致的巨大资产泡沫的价值水平。我只是认为没有理由再等待。看看SoftBank，他们需要RM-IPO的流动性。我认为这就是为什么这些公司要上市的原因，我们正在恢复正常的商业活动。
Just to broaden out the question a little bit, what I think is interesting is that for the past year or so, we've been in a software recession. It really started in the first half of 2022. The markets cratered, especially for growth stocks. There's a huge correction in valuations that happened in the first half of 2022. But then about a year ago, it started in mid-22 and continuing through Q2 of this year, you saw a reduction in growth forecasts. Everybody started forecasting down. There wasn't a single board meeting that I was in in private companies that wasn't missing their numbers and re-forecasting down. You saw it in the public companies as well. I think Germanball substacks showed that the average growth forecast for SaaS companies for next 12 months have been cut roughly in half.
为了稍微扩展一下这个问题，我认为有趣的是，在过去的一年左右，我们处于软件经济衰退中。这种情况真正开始于2022年上半年。市场崩盘了，尤其是对于成长股来说。在2022年上半年发生了一次巨大的估值修正。但大约一年前，即从22年中开始，一直延续到今年第二季度，你会看到对于增长预测的减少。每个人都开始调低预测。在我参加的私人公司的董事会会议上，没有一次不是没达到他们的数字并下调预测的。在公共公司中也看到了这种情况。我认为Germanball substacks表明，SaaS公司未来12个月的平均增长预测已经削减了约一半。
For the last year, year and a half, we've been in a software recession. You could say a B2B recession. We saw companies like Meta, Google, and so on cut thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs get much more efficient each. That meant they were buying a lot less software on a perceived basis. I think we've been through call it a B2B or enterprise recession. But the thing that's held up stronger than I think people might have expected over the past year has been the consumer.
在过去的一年，一年半，我们一直处于一个软件衰退的状态。可以说是B2B（企业对企业）衰退。我们看到像Meta、Google等公司裁员数千人，成千上万的岗位变得更加高效。这意味着他们在感知基础上购买的软件大大减少了。我认为我们已经经历了B2B或企业的衰退。但在过去的一年里，消费者表现出了比人们预期更强的韧力。
Consumer spending has kept the economy afloat. The B2C part of the economy has been strong whereas B2B has been very weak. What I wonder about next is whether that's going to flip. I wonder if the consumer is on their last legs here.
消费支出是支撑经济的关键。B2C（企业对消费者）部门一直保持强劲，而B2B（企业对企业）部门则非常疲弱。接下来我想知道的是，这种情况是否会发生逆转。我想知道消费者是否已经接近崩溃的边缘了。
You see that in credit card debt is at an all-time high. Interest payments on credit card debt, all-time high. Mortgage is the rate now is approaching 8%. No one can afford to sell their house, which has a 3% mortgage, and then buy a new one at 8%. Real estate transactions have cratered. The commercial real estate industry is on its last legs. I think they're starting to throw the keys back to the bank and start forfeiting buildings because they can't refi at an attractive rate.
您看到信用卡债务达到了历史最高水平。信用卡债务的利息支付也达到了历史最高水平。房贷利率现在快接近8%了。没有人负担得起卖掉他们拥有3%房贷的房子，然后以8%的利率购买新房。房地产交易已经完全停滞。商业房地产行业处境岌岌可危。我觉得他们开始将钥匙交还给银行，并以无法获得有吸引力利率的方式放弃建筑物。
So I just wonder if the consumer now is about to go through the type of pain and restructuring of their personal balance sheets the way that the enterprise segmented the economy over the past year.
所以我想知道，消费者现在是否即将经历与企业分割经济过去一年所经历的那种痛苦和重新调整个人资产负债表的过程。
I think, your thoughts on what we're seeing here in terms of the IPO window companies getting out and the impact that will have maybe on how limited partners look at venture funds. That's been frozen for 18 months, limited partners. I'm raising a fund right now publicly under 506C so I can talk about it. It's going great, but man, it's a lot of meetings. I'd say two thirds of the meetings I'm having. People are saying we're not adding managers, we're cutting managers, and we're cutting commitments to managers. But we'd love to meet just to start the relationship.
我认为，就目前IPO窗口公司的现状以及对有限合伙人对风险投资基金的影响而言，您对此的想法是什么。有限合伙人的投资已经冻结了18个月。我目前正在公开募集一支基金，以便可以谈论它。一切进展顺利，但是噢，会议真的很多。我要说，我目前开的会中有三分之二的人都表示他们并不打算增加经理人，而是要减少经理人，并减少对经理人的承诺。但是，我们非常希望能见面并开始建立关系。
So what do you think this means overall for the limited partner GPs and the startup market? Start of a turnaround or maybe just sideways for more?
那么对于有限合伙人（General Partners）和初创市场而言，你认为这总体上意味着什么呢？是扭转的开端，还是只会更多的相持不下？
I guess we should just put the volume in context if you look at the slide. This is from Ernst & Young showing the IPO activity by year. This was through June 30th. If you assume a steady state, you probably are going to come in at a volume that's less than 22 and perhaps even less than going back all the way to 2019 with less than 1,200 IPOs during the year compared to the peak of 2,400 which happened in 2021.
我猜我们应该从图表中将交易量放入背景来看。这是安永公司展示的按年度划分的IPO活动情况。这个数据是截至6月30日的。如果你假设保持稳定，那么今年的交易量可能会低于22，甚至低于2019年的1,200 IPO，而不会像2021年的峰值2,400 IPO那样多。
If you go to the next slide and just look at the total dollar volume raised so that IPO proceeds thus far through June 30th of this year is just around $60 billion. Compare that to a total of about $180 billion all of last year, $450 billion in 2021. And the IPOs we're talking about today, Instacart, Clavio, ARM, in total raised about $5.5 billion. So that doesn't have a huge consequence on this dollar volume for the year.
如果你跳到下一张幻灯片，只看今年6月30日之前通过IPO筹集的总美元数量，那么目前为止的总金额大约为600亿美元。与去年全年的约1800亿美元和2021年的约4500亿美元相比，这个数字要小得多。而今天我们讨论的Instacart、Clavio、ARM的IPO总共筹集了约55亿美元。因此，对今年的美元总量来说，这并没有什么很大的影响。
And then if you look at what's in the pipeline right now in terms of what's publicly filed as S1s, there's basically nothing right now. So I think everyone's sitting around waiting to see how these transactions go before they decide to put other stuff.
然后，如果你看一下当前已公开提交 S1 表格的项目，基本上现在没有什么。所以我认为大家都在等待看这些交易的结果，然后再决定是否进行其他投资。
I think the big mistake is that we continue to treat IPOs as this big yardstick. The real yardstick for a business is the performance of the business. And the valuation you get when you raise capital at some point in time is largely driven by market conditions, not necessarily by the performance of the business. And the value of the business over time, the market will do its job and rightly value that company. We've talked at length about how much value has accrued as a public company for Apple, for Microsoft, for Google, 99.9% of their total market value was realized post IPO. So the IPO transaction, I think it's a little too much weight and gets a little too much attention in terms of determining success or failure of a business and success or failure of the investors in that business.
我认为一个重大的错误是我们继续将IPO（首次公开募股）视为一个重要的衡量标准。一个企业真正的衡量标准是企业的业绩。而在某个时间点上，当你进行资本筹集时所得到的估值很大程度上是市场状况所决定的，并不一定是企业的业绩所决定的。而企业的价值会随着时间推移，市场将会履行其职责，合理地估计该公司的价值。我们曾经长时间地讨论过苹果、微软、谷歌等上市公司所获得的价值有多大，他们总市值的99.9%是在IPO之后实现的。因此，我认为IPO交易给企业的成功或失败以及投资者在企业中的成功或失败，所承担的重量和获得的关注过多了些。
So I really hate this whole thing about does the IPO price go up on a day? It's this really weirdly engineered thing that they try and do to drive psychology and marketing by banks to go out and the banks to try and get people to give them more capital or to give them more deals in the future.
我真的很讨厌这种关于首次公开募股（IPO）价格会在一天内上涨的说法。这是一种非常奇怪的工程化手段，银行为了影响心理和营销而试图采取的手段，银行希望通过这种方式吸引更多人向他们提供资金或在未来达成更多交易。
Do you think that the IPO market would be better served if banks were forced to be locked or the allocations were forced to be six month locked like the employees? Of course. Maybe longer. Where if they were locked for seven, what do you think? Where would the float come from on day one? But why do you need a float? Yeah. I mean, that's a good point.
你认为如果银行被迫锁定，或者分配被强制为员工一样的六个月锁定，IPO市场会更好吗？当然了，也许更长些会更好。如果他们被锁定七个月，那么首日的流通股份将从哪里来呢？但是为什么你需要流通股份呢？是的，我是说，这是个好观点。
I believe the direct listing should be the way that you do this and then you do a follow on offering once you're shared. The problem with the direct listing. As I've found as a seller because I went through a handful of direct listings. I went through Slack and I went through Coinbase.
我认为直接上市应该是你实现这一点的方式，然后在你的股份上市之后再进行跟进发行。直接上市的问题在于，正如我作为卖方发现的那样，我经历过一些直接上市的事情。我经历过Slack和Coinbase的直接上市。
Coinbase, right? Yeah. And in the Slack direct listing, I only sold a small portion on day one and it turned out to be a mistake. And the reason was because the pricing of a direct listing forces you to find the absolute highest price at the open. Now we learned that so then going into the Coinbase IPO, what all the venture investors did was distributed literally the day before and the day of the direct listing. So that you would get delivered your stock at the highest price so that you could sell.
是指Coinbase吗？是的。在Slack的直接上市中，第一天我只卖了一小部分，结果证明这是个错误。原因是直接上市的定价迫使你在开盘时找到最高的价格。现在我们已经学到了这一点，所以在Coinbase的首次公开募股中，所有的风险投资者都在直接上市前一天和直接上市当天分发股票。这样你就能以最高的价格卖出你的股票。
I'm not sure that that serves anybody any better. You know what I mean? Because then you get a lot of price volatility and the price just goes straight down. So I don't exactly know what the answer is. I suspect though that getting companies to float at least 15 to 20% and doing a better job of allocation so that you're right David, removing the psychology of like it has to go up a hundred percent on day one is success is the thing that actually catches these companies off guard.
我不确定这样做是否对任何人都有好处。你懂我的意思吗？因为那样会导致价格的大幅波动，并使价格直线下跌。所以我不确定答案是什么。不过我怀疑，至少让公司上市15%到20%，并在分配方面做得更好，这样你就对了，去掉了“第一天就必须涨100%才算成功”的心理状态，这正是让这些公司措手不及的原因。
Now, we haven't even talked for a minute about whether any of us thinks the quality of Instacart and Clavio and arm are good businesses. Exactly. You just spent 15 or 20 minutes debating the stock price that is completely divorced from the reality of these businesses. And that's a bunch of distraction that the banks create as well that is totally unnecessary. I mean, what do you guys think about these businesses?
现在，我们甚至还没有花一分钟讨论我们是否认为Instacart、Clavio和Arm的质量是好还是坏。没错。你刚刚花了15或20分钟讨论股票价格，但这与这些企业的现实完全脱节。这些都是银行制造的干扰，完全是不必要的。我的意思是，你们对这些企业有什么看法？
Let me just respond to the direct listing point. I just want to also point out Spotify went public via direct listing. The stock actually traded up after the direct listing. It went down a little bit after, but it continued to trade up into the 2021 era. And today it's trading at or above what it was trading at during the direct listing. So can I tell you why though, the performance of that business fundamentally drove interested from investors. The thing with the Spotify IPO was that it was still a very new vehicle. And so that direct listing was we were all learning as we went along. And at the end of the day, there was one bank that kind of not cornered the market, but really became an expert on it. And they use Spotify as the example. So by the time Slack and then Coinbase came along, the playbook was so tight that everybody knew how to play the game.
让我先回答直接上市的观点。我只想指出 Spotify 是通过直接上市方式上市的。直接上市之后，股票实际上有所上涨。稍后有所下跌，但随后又继续上涨，一直到了2021年。而且，今天的交易价格要么与直接上市时相等，要么高于当时的交易价格。那么我能告诉你为什么这样的业务表现从根本上引起了投资者的兴趣吗？Spotify IPO 的特点是它仍然是一个非常新的机制。所以在我们学习的过程中，直接上市是一种新鲜的做法。最后，有一个银行不是垄断市场，但确实成为了专家，并以 Spotify 为例子。所以当 Slack 和 Coinbase 出现时，策略已经成熟得让每个人都知道如何玩这个游戏。
So I think a lot of the Spotify post IPO behavior was a bunch of people figuring out what a direct listing meant by the time that we actually DL'd slack. And specifically when we DL'd Coinbase, the bank was so sophisticated in telling us, here's what's going to happen. Here's what you shoul d do. What do you want to do? And obviously we wanted to do the thing that maximize returns for our LPs. So I'm not sure that the Spotify example will ever repeat in a direct listing. I think that the Slack and Coinbase particularly will be the example going forward. You'll top tick day one, and then the thing will spear down, find a bottom.
因此，我认为Spotify上市后的很多行为都是一群人弄清楚直接上市意味着什么的过程当我们实际上进行了Slack的直接上市时。特别是当我们进行Coinbase的直接上市时，银行非常成熟地告诉我们，这将会发生什么。这是您应该做什么。您想做什么？显然，我们想做的是为我们的有限合伙人最大化回报的事情。因此，我不确定Spotify的例子是否会在直接上市中重演。我认为Slack和Coinbase将特别成为未来的典范。第一天您可以找到最高点，然后事物会下跌，找到底部。
But why does it matter? Why does isn't it ultimately about finding the real market value for the company? Yeah, price doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the price goes down or goes up that ultimately the buyers that want to pay a certain price will step in and buy and the folks that want to sell because they think the price is higher than their mark will want to sell.
为什么这很重要呢？最终不是要找到公司的真实市场价值吗？是的，价格并不重要。价格的上涨或下跌并不重要，最重要的是那些愿意以一定价格购买的买家将会进来买入，而那些认为价格高于他们所划定标志的卖家将会想要卖出。
I agree with you. I do think that it's really about business fundamentals. But there's a lot of people that get caught up in the price as what the quality of the business is. Now, those people are maybe not the most sophisticated people in the world, but they make a lot of noise for not knowing what's going on. And so they can be a real distraction to a CEO trying to run a business.
我同意你的观点。我确实认为这主要是关于商业基本原理。但是有很多人会只看价格而忽略企业的质量。这些人可能不是世界上最精明的人，但他们却因为不了解情况而大声喧哗。因此，对于一个试图经营企业的CEO来说，他们会成为真正的干扰。
I remember in 2008, I think I've told you guys this story. It was like November of 2008, Expedia was trading down to seven bucks, and I saw Dara at some event in March. Yeah, March. I said, hey, our stock's at seven bucks. I can't believe it. I mean, everyone should be buying our stock. And that was well off of the price that it had been trading at in 03, 04, 05, and sure enough, if you had bought that stock, you would have made 15x from there to where we sit today. And even more if you sold at the top take in 2021. So that's a good chart. So look at where Expedia was in March of 09, it was right around seven bucks.
我记得在2008年，我想我告诉过你们这个故事。那是在2008年的11月份，Expedia的股价下跌到了7美元，并且我在3月份的某个活动上见到了Dara。对，就是在3月份。我说，嘿，我们的股票只值7美元，简直难以置信。我是说，每个人都应该买进我们的股票。而且这个价格相比于2003年、2004年、2005年的股价都大幅下跌。果不其然，如果你当时买进了那只股票，到现在你的收益就翻了15倍。如果你在2021年最高点卖出，收益就更多了。所以这是一个很好的图表。看看2009年3月份Expedia的股价，大概就是在7美元左右。
And I think that that was, for me, like the first example where I really understood that the price where the market trades a stock shouldn't matter as much as the fundamental value of the business if you're willing to be a long-term holder, if you're willing to say, you know what? And you're willing to do the work. And you have to do the work. Most people are not willing to do the work. They want to look at a price, and then they want to imbue all of their own psychological desires into it versus what are the actual ones and zeros of a spreadsheet tell you?
我认为那是我第一次真正理解，对于长期持有者来说，市场交易股票的价格并不像企业的基本价值那样重要。如果你愿意，你可以说，你愿意做这项工作。而这项工作需要你付出努力。大多数人不愿意付出努力。他们只想看价格，然后将自己的心理欲望投射到价格上，而不是关注电子表格中实际的数据。
Yeah. But I'm like a pure efficient market guy. I feel like whatever shares should be, people want to sell, they should be able to sell whatever people want to buy should buy the market. And if the stock gets too cheap, there's plenty of capital out there to step in and buy the stock if they think that it's too cheap and the market will find itself.
是的。不过我是一个纯粹的高效市场的支持者。我认为无论股票的价格如何，人们想卖的话，他们就应该能够卖出；人们想买的话，就应该买入市场。如果股票价格过低，总有足够的资金愿意介入并购买这支股票，如果他们认为股票价格太低，市场会找到平衡点。
So let's do the underwriting of Instacart then. Were any of you guys investors in Instacart?
那么，让我们来对Instacart进行核保吧。你们当中有人是Instacart的投资者吗？
No.
不好意思，由于您没有输入具体的句子或段落，我无法进行翻译或理解您想要表达的意思。请提供需要翻译的具体内容，我将尽力帮助您进行翻译和解释。
I am in a fund that's in Instacart from the seed round. So I will do, I think, very well because of that.
我在一个基金里参与了Instacart的种子轮融资。所以我认为，由于这个原因，我将会表现得很好。
Let's bleep that out. Thank you. That will be a yum for Jake out.
让我们将其屏蔽掉。谢谢。这对杰克来说会很美味。
But let's just talk about revenue. Well, actually, when it trickles down all the way to you as an LP, what's the real multiple?
但我们就谈谈收入吧。嗯，实际上，当它下泄到你作为有限合伙人时，真正的倍数是多少？
I guess, if you take out the carry, 25% or 30% less than what looks like to be, I'll tell you the game. Right. We got to make the whole fund first. So yeah, that fund's been paid back many times over already. So that will be.
我猜，如果你把佣金除掉，可能是看起来的25%或30%少一些，我会告诉你游戏的内容。对的，我们必须先筹集到整笔资金。是的，那笔资金已经回报了很多次了。所以那就是。
Do you know what the multiple is on that fund for you?
你知道该基金对你来说是多少倍数吗？
Yeah, it was 8 million invested.
是的，投资了800万。
No, that's their investment. That's not your investment.
不，那是他们的投资。那不是你的投资。
Yeah. What. No, I know. If you look at your investment, what multiple have you got now? Is that investment's going to be 200x, 100 or 200x? Some are in that range. I will report back, but I think the seed round and best ones are going to be.
是的。什么？不，我知道。如果你看一下你的投资，你现在得到的是多少倍的回报？投资会是200倍、100倍还是200倍？有些是在这个范围内。我会汇报回来，但我认为播种轮和最好的投资会处于这个范围内。
Wait, okay, so hold on. So you're saying 8 million will become 1.6 billion? I think it's over a billion. We can actually have a chart here. Let's take a look at. Let's assume it's a billion, 1.6 seems a little high. Let's say a billion. But let's say the fund was what? 5,600 million? So for the LP, it's like a 2x. I'm just saying that, yeah, for the fund, it was 100x, but for the LP, it's a 2x. I think that's a big difference, right?
等等，好的，所以你是说800万会变成16亿？我觉得是超过10亿的。我们可以在这儿列一个表来看看。我们假设是10亿，16亿似乎有点高。我们来假设是10亿。但是，基金是多少来着？5600万？所以对于有限合伙人来说，是2倍的回报。我只是在说，是的，对于基金来说，回报是100倍，但对于有限合伙人来说，是2倍。我认为这是一个很大的差异，对吧？
Fund's already in the block. So it's two extra turns of your investment. Meaning if it was a 4x, Jason, he's saying that it'll become a 6x. Yeah, something like that. I mean, it's a good fund. I'm not disparaging it, but I'm just trying to put things in proportion. I think at this point, that funds at 21x right now.
基金已经在区块链中了。所以你的投资将增加两倍的回报。也就是说，如果是4倍回报，Jason说它将变成6倍。是的，差不多这样。我的意思是，这是一只不错的基金。我并不是贬低它，而是试图把事情放在适当的比例上。我认为这个基金目前是21倍回报。
Something in that range. So it's a pretty great fund in terms of total. It'll build to 23x. Something to that effect, yes. It's going to be pretty amazing.
在那个范围内的某个数值。所以从整体来看，这是一个非常出色的基金。它将增长到23倍。类似这样的效果，没错。这将是非常惊人的。
What else was in there? I think that was. It's the instant cram and WhatsApp were also in the fund either before it or with it. That's a pretty good fund. There were two funds. I wouldn't say which firm this is. What 12 and 24x, I believe, is the last time I checked in on it. WhatsApp was a monster. That was a really big effort.
还有什么其他的在那里面？我觉得那就是了。那个基金里还有即时补习和WhatsApp，可能是在它之前或与它同时进入的。那是一个相当不错的基金。有两个基金。我不会说这是哪个公司。最后一次我查看时，12倍和24倍，我相信是这样的。WhatsApp是一个庞然大物。那是一次非常大的努力。
Well, everybody learned from WhatsApp and shout out to the Sequoia team, Wianni, I think. They did every round. Jim gets to them. They did every round. So it was an internal round for, I think, four rounds in a row. So they just may preemptive offers. The reason WhatsApp was a home run is because it was so capital efficient. They didn't burn that much. They didn't raise that much. So there's very little dilution for everybody. I think that's the problem with Instacart is. How many billions do they have to raise?
好吧，每个人都从WhatsApp中学到了东西，并向Sequoia团队、Wianni喊话。他们参与了每一轮融资。Jim已经认识到他们了。他们参与了每一轮融资。所以，我认为这是内部融资，连续进行了四轮。所以他们可能仅仅做了预先收购的报价。WhatsApp之所以是一个成功之作，是因为它在资本利用上非常高效。他们的烧钱量不大，也没有筹集很多资金。因此，对每个人来说，稀释度非常小。我认为这就是Instacart所面临的问题。他们需要筹集多少亿美元呢？
Let's pull up this chart here. This is super telling to pull up who made money. I think this shows you what happens in a surf environment when people do not look at entry price. The Series C under water. No, no, Series C not under water. Everybody from F on is kind of underwater. Everybody from the Series C is under water compared to the S&P 500 to your free bar.
让我们来看一下这张图表。这个图表非常能够表明谁赚了钱。我认为这说明了当人们不关注进入价格时，在冲浪环境中会发生什么。C轮下方了。不，不，C轮没有下方。从F轮开始的所有人都有点亏本了。与标准普尔500指数和你的免费酒吧相比，从C轮开始的每个人都亏本。
Yeah, Series F broke even. And then everybody who invested in 2020 and 2021 actually lost money. General Caddles, DST, D1, T-ROW, Fidelity, all the late stage folks, even Sequoia was in that late stage at Series I in 2021, and it was worth 39 billion. So. But that whole environment, not only was it bad for all the late stage investors who invested it to a higher price, I would argue that it was bad for the companies and even their early stage investors because these companies got so inefficient. The dilution is ridiculous.
是的，F系列基金实现了收平衡。然后，所有在2020年和2021年投资的人实际上都亏钱了。General Caddles、DST、D1、T-ROW、Fidelity以及所有的后期阶段投资者，甚至包括2021年I系列由Sequoia引领的投资，市值达到了390亿美元。但是，整个环境不仅对投资于更高价格的后期阶段投资者不利，我认为对公司和早期阶段的投资者也不利，因为这些公司变得效率极低。稀释非常严重。
The dilution is ridiculous.
这个稀释太可笑了。
Yeah. The dilution was ridiculous. I also think you have to think about this in the context of what your alternative returns are. I think that we always look at these numbers and we think we try to make judgments. But if you put yourself into the mindset of an investor, it's actually the alternative of what you could have gotten. And it's the spread between the two that's really important.
是的。稀释太过夸张了。我还觉得你必须要考虑到这个问题的背景，即你可能获得的其他回报。我们常常看待这些数字并试图做出评判。但如果你将自己置身于一个投资者的思维模式中，实际上要考虑的是你本可以得到的另一种结果。而两者之间的差距才是真正重要的。
So Nick, do you want to just throw up this image that I just sent you? This is an example that I saw in Axios. I thought that this visualization, by the way, I want to try to use this visualization in the future because it tries to really. It just paints a very. Oh, this is wonderful.
尼克，你愿意立即展示我刚才发送给你的这个图片吗？这是我在Axios上看到的一个例子。顺便说一下，我想以后尝试使用这个可视化，因为它试图真实地描绘出一个非常...哦，太棒了。
Let's. Let's. Sports This picture shows is essentially. And this uses Instacart as an example, but you could use it for any company, but it just basically shows you at every point in which you could have invested money in Instacart. What would the equivalent return have been had you just invested that same amount of money in the S&P 500? And the difference between that is what you would call the alpha, right? Because the S&P 500 is the beta, meaning it is what the market's going to do. It'll be up 10%, it'll be down 4%, whatever. And so by owning the market, you get that. If you decide to not own the market and make an explicit decision like owning Instacart, then you get a different return stream. And if you compare the two, you know how much better or worse you would have been.
让我们来看看。让我们来看看。这张图片基本上展示的是一个例子，以Instacart为例，但你也可以用任何公司来做类似的分析。它基本上展示了在每个可能投资Instacart的时刻，如果你把同等金额的资金投资于S&P 500，那么等值的回报会是多少？而两者之间的差异就是所谓的正收益（alpha），对吧？因为S&P 500是市场波动的基准，它会上涨10%，下跌4%，或其他情况。拥有市场的份额，你就会得到这个回报。如果你决定不持有市场的份额，而作出明确的决策，如持有Instacart的份额，那么你将得到不同的回报。通过比较这两者，你就可以知道自己在这方面有多好或多差。
So what this chart shows, for example, is the series F-investor in 2018. If you had taken a dollar and put it into Instacart would have gotten 13%. But if you had put a dollar into the S&P 500, you would have gotten 68%. In the series C in 2015, had you invested a dollar in Instacart, you would have made 153%. But the S&P would have returned 121. The difference means that the series C investor generated about 32% alpha.
这张图表示的是2018年F类投资者情况。例如，如果你拿了一美元放在Instacart上，你会得到13%的回报。但如果你把一美元放在标准普尔500指数上，你将会得到68%的回报。在2015年的C类情况下，如果你在Instacart上投资了一美元，你将会获得153%的回报。但标普500指数将会回报121%。差异表明C类投资者产生了约32%的超额收益。
Now then the decision you have to make is that 32% of incremental gain over the last seven years or eight years, was it worth it? You're not liquid. And because you have to then solve for illiquidity and other things. And this is the math that I think all of the LPs will be engaged in. They'll be doing these calculations. It just goes back to what Saxis Point said, which is our business, frankly, did very well in moments where we had zero interest rates. Our business now when prevailing rates are at five or six percent and you can own those things or you can own structured credit for 11 to 13%, our business unfortunately does not look so good.
现在你需要做的决定是，在过去的七年或八年里，新增收益率达到了32％，这个值得吗？你并不流动。因为你必须解决流动性问题和其他事项。这就是我认为所有有限合伙人将会参与的数学计算。他们将会进行这些计算。这只是回到了Saxis Point所说的，坦率地说，我们的业务在零利率时刻表现得非常出色。而现在当利率达到五到六个百分点，你可以拥有那些东西，或者你可以拥有11到13％的结构性信用，我们的业务不太好看了。
And when people do the calculations on what the true alpha of venture capital is, they're going to come back with answers like this, which is it's not that great. And I do think it will impact how limited partners have an appetite to give all of us or you guys, folks that are accepting LP checks more money because the alternative universe is more liquid. It's less volatile and it has roughly the same amount of return. I can tell you what they're saying because I'm doing about a dozen LP meetings a week and I've got 50 more on the calendar to the end of the year. So I'm going to hit 100 of these meetings.
当人们对风险投资的真实alpha进行计算时，他们得出的答案可能是这样的，即它并不那么出色。我确实认为这将影响有限合伙人是否愿意给予我们或你们这些接受LP支票的人更多资金，因为另一个可行的选择更具流动性，波动性更小，并且大致具有相同的回报率。我可以告诉你他们在说什么，因为我每周参加大约十几次LP会议，年底之前还有50次会议安排。
They're really saying two things. One, we want to go earlier. We don't want to go later as that chart proves. They're suddenly fascinated with the seed and series A rounds and they're looking for distinctly different strategies. They're looking for some sort of edge. So the first two questions are how earlier are you getting in and securing a 10% position in this company? And then what's your edge? And literally the start of my pitch deck now, when I walk people through it is I have two podcasts. One of them gets 50 million listens a year. The other one gets over 50 million listens a year. Those 100 million listens result in 20,000 applications. I have larger deal flow than anybody with the only exception being my combinator and that resonates with folks. But if you're somebody who's got a new fund and you're like, what's your edge? I go to some demo days. That's not an edge. You have to have a massive competitive edge and a differention. You have to be differentiated in some very credible, believable way.
他们实际上想要表达两件事。首先，我们想要尽早参与。作为图表所证明的，我们不想要迟到。他们突然对种子和A轮融资产生了浓厚兴趣，并且正在寻找完全不同的策略。他们在寻找某种优势。所以前两个问题是，你有多早介入并在这家公司中获得10%的持股份？然后，你的优势是什么？而现在，当我向人们陈述我的项目展示时，我从字面上来说，我有两个播客。其中一个每年收听量达到5000万次。另一个每年收听量超过5000万次。这10000万次的收听结果是20000份申请。除了我的合作伙伴之外，我拥有比任何人都更多的交易流量，这让人们感到共鸣。但是，如果你是一个拥有新基金的人，你会问，你的优势是什么？那我会参加一些演示日。这不是一个优势。你必须拥有巨大的竞争优势和区别性。你必须以一种非常可信、可信赖的方式做出区分。
And they're telling me the same thing. They're cutting two funds out of their 20 and then they're cutting their commitments to the weaker ones of the other 18.
他们告诉我同样的事情。他们正在削减他们的20个基金中的两个，并减少对其他18个中较弱基金的承诺。
I have a question for all of you guys. You had a wonderful question which we never touched. Guys, what do you guys think about the ARM business model or the Clavio business model or the Instacart? Have you guys had a chance to look at any of those companies and think about that? Let me tip the facts and then you guys respond. The revenue is up 15% year over year, $716 million. Add revenue is $206 million. That's on pace to make up 28% of their revenue. This is just the last quarter I'm talking about right here.
我有一个问题要问大家。你们曾经提出了一个很棒的问题，我们从未涉及过。各位，你们对ARM的商业模式、Clavio的商业模式或者Instacart的商业模式有什么看法呢？你们有机会去了解过这些公司并思考过吗？让我先给出一些事实，然后你们进行回应。收入同比增长了15%，达到了7.16亿美元。增加收入为2.06亿美元，占据了其总收入的28%。这仅仅是上一个季度的数据。
And to June 30th, net income, $114 million. They have $600,000 Instacart shoppers. Those are like the drivers. You can think of them like Dordash or Uber drivers, $7.7 million monthly active orders. The red flags is that they're gross transaction volume, which is the value of all of the gross groceries in the bags is flat. But ad revenue is growing. This means ad revenue is just a massively larger percentage of the total revenue. They're on track for $800 million in ad revenue. So this is starting to look not like a e-commerce business but more like an advertising business your thoughts, free burger or socks on the actual car business. Amazon, by the way, has that dynamic too now? Have you seen the chart showing advertising on Amazon compared to the entire internet? Yes, it's huge. And also, Uber has blown past a billion, I believe.
截至6月30日，净收入为1.14亿美元。他们拥有60万Instacart购物者，可以将其视为司机，类似于Dordash或Uber的司机，每月活跃订单达到770万笔。问题在于他们的总交易额，即所有食品杂货的价值是持平的，但广告收入却在增长。这意味着广告收入在总收入中占比非常高。他们预计广告收入将达到8亿美元。因此，它开始看起来不像一家电子商务公司，更像一家广告公司。你对此有何想法？与此类似的还有亚马逊，你看过显示亚马逊广告与整个互联网相比的图表吗？是的，巨大的。而且，Uber的广告收入已经突破了10亿美元。
Here's what we know. We know that advertising multiples broadly speaking have contracted. Right? So I think that the market in general doesn't love that revenue quality because it's too levered to interest rates in the economy. So when the economy does well, more companies advertise, when the economy doesn't do well, companies advertise less. That's number one. And number two, the ones that can systematically drive advertising more broadly. The Facebook's in the Google's of the world tend to get an increasing share. So advertising as a revenue stream, I think is good and complimentary. Unfortunately, the markets don't necessarily love it.
以下是我们所了解的情况。我们知道广告倍数广泛收缩了，对吗？所以我认为，整体上市场并不喜欢这种收入质量，因为它过于倚赖利率和经济。因此，当经济好时，更多公司会进行广告宣传；当经济不好时，公司宣传减少。这是第一点。第二点是，那些能够系统性地推动广告宣传的公司，在广告领域逐渐获得更大的份额，比如Facebook和谷歌。因此，作为一项收入来源，广告宣传是好的且互补的。不幸的是，市场并不一定喜欢它。
And then the second thing, generally speaking, for these businesses that drive huge GTB's, gross transaction values is I think most people when they try to find what they're worth are very sensitive to the take rate. And what they typically do is they assume a falling take rate, which means what percentage of the transaction can you get? And the reason why most people do that is that history has shown that these kinds of businesses cannot defend take rate for a very long period of time. Whether it's for competitive pressure or whether it's because their suppliers actually develop more pricing power, take rate tends to decay. So said in, you know, in grocery land, I think it's because Walmart and Amazon will try to do it for much, much cheaper and or charge just be more aggressive in how much they want to keep, which means it's less that you can maybe necessarily pass through. I don't know the Instacart business at all, but if I were starting to look at it, that's where I would focus is what are the assumptions on take rate? And if the take rate is going up, it would be a little bit of a head scratcher.
然后第二点，总的来说，对于那些驱动巨大总交易价值（GTB）的企业而言，我认为大多数人在评估它们的价值时非常敏感于收费标准。通常情况下，他们会假设收费标准下降，也就是说能获得交易价值的百分比是多少？之所以大多数人这样做，是因为历史表明，这些类型的企业无法长时间维持高收费标准。无论是因为竞争压力还是因为供应商实际上获得了更强的定价权，收费标准往往会逐渐降低。因此，在食品杂货业领域，我认为这是因为沃尔玛和亚马逊将会试图以更低廉的价格提供服务，或者对他们希望保留的利润更加积极，这就意味着你能够通过的利润比例可能会减少。我对Instacart的业务一无所知，但如果我开始研究它，我会关注的是收费标准的假设。如果收费标准正在上升，那会让人感到困惑。
I think that you have to model the health of the business with a declining take rate and growth share. I can actually build on that pretty easily having spent a long time in the advertising market. If this was very profitable advertising, Shumaf, it would get a 25 X multiple on earnings. Let's take that 800 million. You put it at 400 million in profits. Like if the other business didn't exist, so you have 400 million in profits of advertising times that by 20, you get a bill. That's exactly their market cap. So perhaps what you're saying is exactly what the market is actually penciling out Google, which obviously has a lot of other technologies. I think a 28 X PE and Facebook is crushed at like a 35 PE, but these are much different scales and scale matters. This is not one or two billion in little extra revenue on top of your business. That's the entire 90, 95% of their.
我认为你必须以递减的提成率和增长份额来模拟企业的健康状况。由于在广告市场上花费了很长时间，我可以很容易地在此基础上进行扩展。如果这是非常有利可图的广告，比如Shumaf，它将以25倍的收益倍数计算。我们拿800亿来计算。如果将其视为纯利润，即使其他业务不存在，广告的纯利润也有4亿。将其乘以20，结果就是一个巨额账单。这恰好是他们的市值。所以也许你说的正是市场对谷歌的估值，当然谷歌拥有许多其他技术。我认为谷歌的市盈率是28倍，而脸书则被压缩到35倍，但这些是非常不同的规模，规模很重要。这不是你的企业额外收入的十几亿或二十几亿。这占据了他们整个90%至95%的业务。
I think what's working in favor of Instacart is that if you compare it to probably Uber and DoorDash or Airbnb, at least Airbnb Dash, I'm going to guess that it looks pretty cheap. Now, I think of all the three businesses, Dash probably has the biggest upside quite just like, again, parms length. I don't know in any of these three stocks. I'm just saying business model quality Dash seems infinitely scalable. Airbnb I think probably has long term issues with take because of this exact reason, could just competitive dynamics and pressure regulatory capture. You're seeing that in New York, Fair B&B. And then the question is, what is the business outside the United States look like for Instacart? I don't know. But if I had to figure out what to pay for, that's how I would try to break the problem down.
我认为Instacart能赢得优势的原因可能是与Uber、DoorDash或Airbnb相比，至少与Airbnb Dash相比，它看起来相当便宜。现在，我认为在这三个企业中，Dash可能有最大的上升空间，就跟，再一次，差距拉开了。我不清楚这三家公司的任何一家股票。我只是说在商业模式质量方面，Dash似乎具有无限的可扩展性。我认为Airbnb可能会因为这个确切的原因而面临长期问题，这可能是由于竞争动态和监管压力引起的。你可以在纽约看到这种情况，Fair B&B。然后问题是，Instacart在美国以外的业务是什么样的？我不知道。但如果我必须弄清楚要支付多少钱，这就是我尝试解决问题的方式。
So, any of your thoughts on the actual business here or do you want to jump over to Clavia?
你对这个实际的业务有什么想法吗，还是你想转向 Clavia?
Yeah, I think Clavia is the really interesting one, at least from my standpoint, because it's a software business. I think Jason Lemkin had the take here. He said that Clavia's IPO will be the ultimate yardstick for SaaS in 23 and 24 top growth, top margins, top founders, going to cruise past a billion in ARR. Whatever multiple they end up trading at, you're almost certainly worth less. I think it's trading at about 12 times for revenue.
是的，我认为Clavia是一个非常有趣的公司，至少从我的角度来看，因为它是一个软件业务。我认为Jason Lemkin在这里有自己的看法。他说Clavia的首次公开募股将成为2023年和2024年SaaS的终极标杆，实现最高增长、最高利润率和最佳创始人，将超过十亿的年度营收。无论最终以何种倍数交易，你几乎肯定比它的价值要低。我认为它的交易价格大约是营收的12倍。
So, just a.
Last quarter they did 165 billion. As high as 65 million, sorry. Yeah, so they're at 650 million in ARR growing 56%. That's amazing. But you're over here, 51% over here. So, you know, project that for, they're probably going to be at a billion in ARR next year. 119% in ARR, which is very good, especially considering that it's a mess of bees.
所以，就是这样。
上个季度，他们的总收入达到了1650亿。很遗憾，是6500万，对不起。是的，所以他们的年收入达到了6.5亿，增长了56%。真是令人惊叹。但是你们这边却是51%。所以，你们可以预测，他们明年的年收入可能达到10亿。年收入增长率为119%，这非常好，特别是考虑到这都是一团糟的情况。
Explain that to folks, yeah. Isn't that revenue retention? The way to think about that is if you just look at your existing customers, going into next year, what percent of that subscription base is going to be there? And if it was 80%, it would mean 20% of your customers are turning away. If it's 119%, it means you have expansion from your customer base. In other words, your customers are buying more. And there will be some who churn, but the ones who are expanding more than make up for that. And then they've been very capital efficient. Apparently, they've only burned 15 million today. That does not mean they've only raised 15 million. They've raised several hundred million in various growth rounds, but they've still got that money in the bank. So I assume they raised it as a cushion in case they missed their forecast or something like that. Yeah, it seems like a pretty strong business. But I think his point is right is that they're kind of the ceiling, you know.
向大家解释一下，是的。这不是留住收入吗？从这个角度来看，如果你只看你现有的客户，在明年，你的订阅基数中有多少百分比会留下来呢?如果是80%，那就意味着有20%的客户流失了。如果是119%，那就意味着你的客户群在扩大。换句话说，你的客户正在购买更多。当然，也会有一些客户流失，但扩大份额的客户数将弥补这一点。而且他们非常资本高效。显然，他们到目前为止只烧掉了1500万。这并不意味着他们只筹集到了1500万。他们在各个发展阶段筹集了几亿资金，但他们还有那笔钱在银行里。所以我猜他们筹资是为了以防万一他们预测不准或者其他情况。是的，看起来这是一个相当强大的业务。但我认为他的观点是对的，他们也有天花板。
So I think founders still have maybe unrealistic expectations from the days when SaaS businesses were being valued 100 times ARR. Have you had this conversation sex with folks coming in for funding who have great businesses or let's call them good to great businesses somewhere in that zone? There's 7, 8, 9 businesses, but their valuations are way off. And do you bring up, hey, here's what your company would be worth publicly. This is what your last round is. And then trying to negotiate in between those two numbers because it does seem like founders are bringing that up proactively in some meetings with me. They're actually aware of public comps now and they're kind of admitting, hey, I get it kind of situation.
所以我认为创始人对SaaS企业被估值为ARR的100倍时的预期可能还存在着不切实际的期望。你是否曾经和一些有着非常不错的企业，或者我们可以称之为好到很好的企业来讨论资金问题，但是它们的估值完全不合理。你是否曾经提出过，你的公司在公开市场上应该具备的价值与你最后一轮融资的估值之间存在较大差距。然后试图在这两个数值之间进行协商，因为在某些会议中，创始人似乎已经主动提到了这一点。他们实际上已经意识到了公开市场的比较，并且坦言“嗯，我明白这种情况”。
Yeah, I think thunder expectations have adjusted on this. Yeah, it is healthy. When you're in a hot market, there's definitely a lot of sharing among founders of what's happening and where valuations are at. And I think the same thing is probably happening in the down market as well. So yeah, I think everyone's getting more realistic.
是的，我认为对雷电期望已经进行了调整。是的，这是健康的。当你处于一个炙手可热的市场时，创始人之间肯定会分享正在发生的事情和估值状况。我认为在低迷市场，同样的事情也在发生。所以，是的，我认为每个人都变得更加现实。
Yeah, just to finish on Clabby, I just want to give a shout out to Toby Luki. The best thing that I saw about that was that Shopify actually owns like 11% of this company, which I think like if you look at the corporations, again, just doing an incredible job of building an ecosystem, not only does Toby support these companies, but Shopify ends up owning a huge non-trivial portion. I think Shopify owns like 11 or 12% of Clavio. Amazing. I think with the sale of the Flexport deliver back to Flexport, they own 13 or 14% of it. I suspect they probably own a non-trivial share of Stripe. I say it's incredible.
是的，仅在论点完结前，我想给Toby Luki竖个大拇指。我认为最棒的一点是Shopify实际上拥有这家公司大约11%的股份，如果你看看企业，他们在构建一个生态系统方面做得非常出色，Toby不仅支持这些公司，而且Shopify最终拥有了一个巨大且重要的部分。我想Shopify大约拥有Clavio 11%或12%的股份，太棒了。我认为他们在Flexport的出售中返还给Flexport后，现在拥有13%或14%的股份。我猜他们也可能拥有Stripe的一部分。我想说这真是令人难以置信。
Right. And actually, if you do some of the parts on Shopify, their cash and cash and then cash equivalents are only valued at like two or three billion. So I feel like there's a ton of upside there just for free. Again, I don't know that I haven't done the work, but I'm just saying seems like he's a great actress. Same, yeah.
没错。实际上，如果你在Shopify上购买一些股份，他们的现金及现金等价物只值20到30亿美元左右。所以我觉得这是一次免费的巨大收益机会。当然，我不确定，我还没有做过相关研究，但我只是觉得他是一位伟大的演员。是的，我也是这么认为。
So I think that brings up a really interesting point, which is the only vulnerability or negative I think about Clavio's business is the fact that 70% of it is on Shopify. So that's a platform dependency. And whenever 70% of your business is on one platform, you always have to be afraid of getting the rug pulled out from under you. By the way, that was PayPal's problem back in the day, 20 years ago, 70% of our business was on eBay. eBay had a competitor. We're constantly worried that they were going to pull the rug out from under us. If we could have made a business deal with eBay, we would never have had to sell the company. It would have been ideal.
我认为这提出了一个非常有趣的观点，即Clavio的业务的唯一脆弱点或负面之处就是70%的业务都是在Shopify上进行的。所以这就存在平台依赖性。当你的业务的70%都在一个平台上时，你总是担心在一夜之间被废掉。顺便说一下，这是PayPal在20年前的问题，我们公司的70%业务都是在eBay上进行的。而eBay有竞争对手，我们不断担心他们会把我们扔掉。如果我们能与eBay达成商业协议，我们就不必卖掉公司了，那将是理想的情况。
Clavio was really smart, creating alignment with Shopify by letting them invest, giving them equity, doing a rev share agreement. And they would be smart to continue that rev share agreement into the future to take this risk off the table because investors do not like existential risk. You could have a perfect business. But if there's some hard to quantify risk of the whole thing basically getting rug pulled, then how do you discount that? David, as an investor, you look at that and you're like, okay, I then price this company as a function of Shopify. That's a good point. I mean, 70% of the business is Shopify. The way I would look at it is I would price it as a SaaS business because Shopify is more of a transact.
Clavio非常聪明，通过允许Shopify投资、给予他们股份、签订收益分成协议与之保持一致。未来继续签订这种收益分成协议对他们来说也是明智的举措，以此来化解投资者对于存在风险的不喜好。你可以拥有一个完美的业务，但是如果整个事情都存在难以量化的风险，那么你如何进行折价衡量呢？作为投资者的大卫，你会考虑这一点，然后将这家公司的定价与Shopify挂钩。这是一个很好的观点。我是说，该业务中70%的份额是Shopify的。我会将其定价为一个SaaS业务，因为Shopify更像是一个交易平台。
Well, they're a transactional slash SaaS business. Clavio has a superior SaaS business. I'd price this as a SaaS business, but I would have to create some sort of discount for the chance that the. Well, Shopify adds the features. How do you figure that out? That's a really complicated thing to figure out. Yeah, I agree. But I think that Clavio mitigates the risks that they do this like Refshire agreement. It's a really savvy move for people who have insights into the market to own pieces of emerging companies and lock in that partnership. This was Emil Michael Shadd out at Uber and Travis did this with all of the grabs, DDS, etc. And then Dara just slowly sold those positions and they were incredible cash, a creative to that stock and to running that business.
嗯，他们是一个交易型/软件即服务（SaaS）的企业。Clavio是一个优秀的SaaS企业。我会定价为一个SaaS企业，但我必须为可能的风险做一些折扣处理。嗯，Shopify会增加一些功能。如何解决这个问题？这真的是一个非常复杂的事情。是的，我同意。但我认为Clavio通过像Refshire协议这样的举措来减轻风险。对于对市场有深入了解的人来说，拥有新兴公司的一部分并锁定合作伙伴关系是一种非常明智的做法。这是Emil Michael在Uber时做的事情，Travis也与所有的抢购公司（Grab、DDS等）都这样做了。然后Dara慢慢地出售了这些位置，它们为该股票和业务运营创造了巨大的现金增值。
Let's talk about air table for a second. This also trended on Twitter with the tweet storm. If you don't know what air table is, it's kind of like, what is it? It's like Excel meets a database and it's more programmable. So if you wanted to have a bunch of data. Who uses it? A lot of small businesses use it, medium-sized businesses, and they use it to, let's say, instead of hiring somebody to build a database system. It's like Google Sheets on steroids. It's actually a really good product. It's a really sick product. I've seen it used like 10 different ways. Some people use it for tracking product feature requests and task lists. Some people use it for contact database. Some people use it for complex project management. It's super extensible, super easy to use, and a great collaborative tool. You think about it like a spreadsheet for words instead of numbers? Yeah. But you could also do numbers. Yeah. With a lot of great features that you can do really dynamic things within the spreadsheet.
我们来谈一谈 Air Table。这也在 Twitter 上成为一个热门话题，带来一系列推文。如果你不知道 Air Table 是什么，它有点像什么呢？类似于 Excel 和数据库的结合，而且更具编程性。所以，如果你想有一堆数据。谁在使用它呢？很多小企业和中型企业都在使用它，他们用它来代替雇佣别人来建立数据库系统。它就像强化版的 Google Sheets。实际上它是一个非常优秀的产品，非常强大。我见过它被运用在十种不同的方式上。有些人用它来跟踪产品功能需求和任务清单，有些人用它作为联系人数据库，有些人用它进行复杂的项目管理。它非常易于扩展，易用性很强，是一个很好的协作工具。你可以把它看作是一个用于文字而非数字的电子表格，对吗？是的。但你也可以处理数字。是的。它具备许多出色的功能，可以在电子表格内完成非常动态的操作。
Do you guys believe in this Swiss Army? Do you think the knife approach of building these kinds of things? Or do you believe that it's just cheaper and simpler to build best-in-class versions of each of those use cases free-berg that you just mentioned? Well, I think it allows certain businesses to have a very specific, tunable version of what they need from call it a project management tool. So if you use a traditional project management tool, it may be too overbuilt, or it may be too specific, whereas this tool allows you to build something unique for your platform. So that's where I've seen a lot of teams use it instead of other tools like JIRA or whatever for tracking projects.
你们觉得这个瑞士军刀可信吗？你们认为构建这类工具的方式就是采用万能刀的方法吗？还是认为只需花费更少的成本和精力来建立每个用例的最佳版本，就像你刚提到的 Free-berg 一样？嗯，我认为它让某些企业能够拥有非常具体、可调节的项目管理工具版本。如果你使用传统的项目管理工具，可能会过于复杂或过于特定，而这个工具则允许你为自己的平台构建独特的工具。所以我见过很多团队使用它来替代其他像 JIRA 这样的工具来跟踪项目。
Well, that's the point. I just wonder that you get these small, non-scalable use cases because then if the company is successful, don't they then just migrate to JIRA, for example? No, I do it a lot like spreadsheets. Basically the reason people use spreadsheets for so many different things is because everyone's got their own representation of data and utilization of a spreadsheet. And I think this is just an extension of that. It's a cult. Think about it as a more feature-rich spreadsheet tool.
嗯，这就是关键所在。我只是想知道你是怎么得到这些小型、不可扩展的使用案例的，因为如果公司成功了，它们不会转移到比如JIRA吗？不，我很多时候都用电子表格来完成这些。基本上，人们之所以在很多不同的事情上使用电子表格，是因为每个人都有自己对数据的表达和利用方法。我认为这只是这一概念的延伸。可以把它看作一个更功能丰富的电子表格工具。
I actually think that Chamost question is an excellent one. I tweeted many years ago that the way I saw Excel was the long tail of use cases that hadn't moved into a dedicated SAS app yet. That's interesting. Yeah. And that the way that if you wanted to be a SAS founder, you're trying to come up with ideas, find some really complicated Excel spreadsheet that's used across many different businesses, and just figure out if you can move that into a SAS app.
实际上，我认为Chamost的问题非常好。多年前我在推特上发表过一条推文，对于我来说，Excel的用途是尚未移入专用SAS应用程序的长尾应用案例。这很有意思。如果你想成为SAS的创始人，你可以试图找到一些在许多不同企业间使用的非常复杂的Excel电子表格，并想办法将其转移到SAS应用程序中。
So for example, think about HARDA. You know, before HARDA, people just use a spreadsheet for the CapTape and every company. Totally. The CapTape will spreadsheets. Totally. But they just move that into specific SAS app. So I think there's a lot of that. And all the spreadsheet is it's a visual representation of a database with some relational logic that you build into the cells of the spreadsheet.
举个例子来说，想想HARDA。在HARDA出现之前，人们只是使用电子表格来处理CapTape和每个公司的相关信息。完全是这样。CapTape就是电子表格。完全是这样。但他们只是将它迁移到了特定的SAS应用程序中。所以我认为有很多类似的情况。而所有的电子表格都是数据库的可视化表示，其中还嵌入了一些关联逻辑，这些逻辑被构建到电子表格的单元格中。
And this pattern of breaking apart, breaking apart a major product was the playbook for Craigslist. People looked at Craigslist and said, oh, there's Couchsurfing, make that error B&B. Oh, there's a ride sharing. I'm going to LA. I have two extra seats. That became like Uber. So people, this playbook has a vision. It's very visual of that too, where every category on Craigslist became its own dedicated marketplace. Like five startups. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, test wrap. It was one. Well, you know, everybody uses free break.
这种将一个主要产品分解成若干部分的模式成为了Craigslist的成功策略。人们看到Craigslist后，想到了Couchsurfing，就创造了像Airbnb一样的错误。看到有人提供拼车，就像Uber那样，我要去洛杉矶，车上还有两个座位。所以，这个策略看起来很有前途。它非常直观，Craigslist上的每个类别都变成了自己专门的市场，就像有五个创业公司一样。是的，没错。哦，还有一个叫Test Wrap。嗯，你知道，所有人都使用免费试用。
Everybody uses practice for something different. It's interesting that it comes to you. That's the one that comes first. Craigslist was a huge dating product before dating apps came. It was casual encounters or missed, what was it called? Miskinactions. Miskinactions is hilarious to read. It was like me, you, then I'm going to be a four-trang. But I think the point, I think the point, though, the question that I was asking is exactly this, which is you have these beefed up workflow things that happen in Excel. But then eventually you go to these systems of record that are purpose-built to solve the use case. And if the use case is important enough, it just seems like that's what's happened.
每个人对实践的使用都不同。有趣的是它找到了你。这是首先出现的那个。在约会应用推出之前，Craigslist是一个巨大的约会产品。它提供了随意的相遇或错过，叫什么来着？Miskinactions（错误行动）。读起来很有趣。就像是我，你，然后我变成四肢。但我认为，我认为问题是，你在Excel中进行了这些强化的工作流程。然后最终转向这些专为解决用例而构建的记录系统。如果用例足够重要，似乎就是发生了这种情况。
I don't have a view because I've never used the product. But I wonder whether part of this valuation reset doesn't reflect that dynamic. It is a dynamic. The two companies or two or three companies that represent it best is there's a product called CODA, which is part wiki, part air table, part database, and it's programmable and Notion. And now people are making templates in Notion. And then they're adding things like project management. So I asked my team to do project management for events, and they tried base camp. They were looking at a sauna. And then somebody was like, you know what? I just added it to Notion is good enough. It's not as good as those other two products, but it's good enough. And the reason they didn't want to do it was not because we're cheap. I don't want to spend money on another SaaS product. We don't want to have to teach everybody a new SaaS product. We don't want to do the logins for that. So I think it is a natural attention. And people are doing both, Jamal, Phil. People like the best of breed.
因为我从未使用过这个产品，所以我没有意见。但我想知道，这种估值重置的一部分是否反映了这种动态。它是一个动态的过程。这两家或两三家最能代表这种动态的公司有一个叫CODA的产品，它是维基、空中表格和数据库的一部分，它是可编程的，还有一个叫Notion的产品。现在人们正在Notion中制作模板。然后他们会添加一些项目管理之类的东西。所以我让我的团队为活动进行项目管理，他们试用了Base Camp，也看了Asana。然后有人说：“你知道吗？我刚在Notion中添加了这个功能，已经够用了。”这并不像那两个产品那样好，但总体来说已经足够了。他们不想这么做的原因不是因为我们吝啬，不想在另一个SaaS产品上花钱。我们不想教每个人学习一个新的SaaS产品。我们也不想处理它们的登录问题。所以我认为这是一种自然的关注点。人们同时都在使用，Jamal、Phil这样的人都喜欢最好的骨干产品。
But you're also seeing it. I don't know if you saw this past week's Slack added, I think, during Dreamforce, the ability to give you an AI summary of everything you missed. And then Zoom added AI summaries of calls. So that feature that I guess, Otter and some other people were doing, that feature is now built into Zoom. You get a transcript from Zoom for free, and now you get a summary of the call for free. That is work that was done by somebody on the meeting. Somebody was responsible for being the note taker. Sometimes somebody was, so those are jobs that are gone. And I think it speaks to the bigger economy.
但你也看到了这一点。我不知道你是否注意到了这个星期Slack增加了一个功能，在Dreamforce期间，你可以通过AI摘要了解到你错过的所有事情。然后Zoom添加了对通话的AI摘要。所以，我猜，Otter和其他一些人正在做的那个功能现在已经内置到了Zoom中。你可以免费从Zoom获得一份文字记录，现在你还可以免费获得通话摘要。这是由会议上的某个人完成的工作。有人负责做笔记。有时候也有人这样做，这些工作岗位都消失了。我认为这反映了更大的经济情况。
I had the CEO of Kayak on this week and startups this week. It will come out next week. It was really great. And I asked him about hiring and the size of the company said, I'm not hiring anybody in the next year or two, because all my developers are 30 or 40% better. I got junior developers that are acting like senior developers. I got senior developers who are turning into 10x developers. We're not hiring. We're just going to have increased margin. So what happened to air table? Air table had a massive valuation.
本周我请了Kayak的首席执行官和一些创业公司参与采访，这个节目将在下周播出。这次采访非常精彩。我向他询问了公司的招聘和规模问题，他回答说：“在接下来的一年或两年内，我不会雇佣任何人，因为我公司的开发人员都进步了30%或40%。我有初级开发人员表现得像高级开发人员，而我的高级开发人员则成为了10倍效能的开发人员。我们不需要再雇佣人手，我们将获得更高的利润率。”那么Air table怎么了？Air table的估值曾经很高。
Here's the tweet storm that somebody from CB Insights, this guy Anand, who I think I follow him. Oh, so did something happen or nothing? Well, they're most recently valued at 11.7 billion in December, their 2021 series app. His thesis, not only is air table worth less than 11.7 billion, it's likely worth less than 1.4 billion in funding it has raised to free birds from bringing this point up over and over about the overfunding and cash in is less than the valuation. Yeah, most of these unicorns are worth less than their total press tech. This is a good example. I've just been through this this week. I saw there's a company I was an investor in that I saw this happen. Parenting the investment to do their big problem is they're doing over 100 million of ARR. It's a great product and 150 million of ARR. That's no small feat. The problem is the growth rate, I think, so only 15%. What do you do with the founder sex? Because this was my point earlier is in these circumstances, it's still a good business. Investors are going to want to own these shares at some price. Someone will buy new shares at some price. But to do this transaction, given that the preference in the company, which is effectively debt, is greater than the value of the company, the founders and the employees get their ownership stakes wiped out. So if you want to keep the employee.
以下是来自CB Insights的某人(Anand)发布的推特风暴，我想我关注了他。发生了什么事情还是什么都没发生？嗯，在去年12月，他们最近的估值达到了117亿美元，这是他们2021年的系列轮融资。他的观点是，不仅仅是Airtable估值低于117亿美元，它的估值可能低于其筹集的14亿美元的融资。这个观点是在一次又一次地提出有关过度融资和现金流入小于估值的问题。是的，大多数这些独角兽的估值都低于它们的总融资技术价值。这是一个很好的例子。我就在这个周内遇到了这个情况。我发现我曾经投资过的一家公司遇到了这种情况。扩大投资规模是他们面临的主要问题，他们的年收入超过1亿美元，这是一个巨大的成就，年收入超过1.5亿美元。问题在于增长率只有15％。在创业者看来，这该怎么办？因为我之前说过，在这种情况下，这仍然是一家好公司。投资者们可能希望以某个价格持有这些股份。总有人以某个价格购买新股。但是，鉴于公司的偏爱股，也就是实际上的债务，超过了公司的价值，创始人和员工们的股权将被抹去。所以，如果你想保住员工。
I think their only hope is to go public because that wipes out the prep stack and everyone basically just owns their percentage of the company. If they don't go public and if they found it. Why would a private investor do that? Why would a preferred investor allow that to happen? Well, this is going to be the huge tension on the board. Is that if you're a common holder or if you're one of the early investors of the company, you want to go public. If you're a late stage investor, you don't want to give up your preference. But those late stage people, sex did not have blocker rights in many cases because the market was so hot, they just put the money in without a problem. Unless they had a ratchet into the IPO. Yeah, but in many cases, but that's not a universal truth. In the majority of these cases, the preferred shareholders do have significant representation on the board. They do have the ability to influence whether or not the company is going to go public. And there's likely some middle ground that every company ends up having to meet at, which is we're going to recap the company in a way that we're going to give some shares, newly issued shares to founders. What we saw in Doritash. I do already have to say, I'm sorry, the last. Yeah, in Doritash, I think they all just got dragged out. They didn't have a choice. My understanding of some of these late rounds during peak zerp 2021 from talking to Bill Gurley was people did not negotiate those rights. So the blocker rights weren't available. And if the majority of common says we're going public, you're going public. And that's the end of the story.
我认为他们唯一的希望就是上市，因为那样会清除预先占据的利益堆积，每个人基本上只拥有他们在公司中的比例。如果他们不上市，如果他们找到了其他途径，为什么私人投资者会这样做呢？为什么偏好投资者会允许这种情况发生呢？嗯，这将是董事会上的巨大紧张局势。如果你是普通股持有人或者是公司的早期投资者，你想要上市。如果你是后期投资者，你不想放弃你的偏好权益。但是这些后期投资者，很多情况下没有锁定权益，因为当时市场太火热了，他们毫不犹豫地投入了资金。除非他们在IPO过程中有回购条款。是的，但在很多情况下，这并不是普遍的真相。在大多数情况下，优先股股东在董事会上有重要影响力。他们有能力影响公司是否要上市。很可能有一些折衷的中间地带，每家公司最终都不得不达到这个地带——我们将对公司进行回购，发行一些新股给创始人。我们在Doritash看到的情况就是如此。我必须说，对不起，最后。是的，在Doritash，我想他们只是被拖了出来，没有选择。我从与比尔·格利交流中了解到的2021年高峰期的一些后期融资情况是，人们没有谈判这些权益。所以没有可以使用的锁定权益。如果大多数普通股股东说我们要上市，那就上市吧。这就是故事的结局。
Here's the punchline to the air table. If you look at the Ford price to sales multiple, 78x for an $11.7 billion valuation at $150 million ARR. And you compare it to the trailing price to sales multiples in the project management space Mondays at 12x plus, Asana 6.6x and smart sheets at just around 8x. So it's a challenge. Yeah. Well, to Freeberg's point, one of the downsides of taking all this excessive capital at these ridiculous valuations is that it produces a dynamic in your boardroom where your board members are at war with each other. The late stage investors are going to be awarded the early stage investors and the founders. And who knows who comes out on top of that?
这是对空中表的关键点。如果你看一下福特的销售倍数，将其与项目管理领域中Mondays 12倍、Asana 6.6倍和Smart Sheets约8倍的尾随销售倍数进行比较，福特的市值为117亿美元，达到了1.5亿美元的年均销售额。这是一个挑战。是的。好吧，正如弗里伯格所说，接受这些荒谬估值的过多资本的一个缺点是，在董事会议室里，董事们之间会产生对立。后期投资者会得到早期投资者和创始人的奖励，而谁能在其中脱颖而出，谁知道呢？
I've been saying this, I don't know if you guys have, but I've got like so many anecdotes over the last couple of months on this exact scenario playing out multiple companies. And amalgamation of those, you know, without talking about specific ones, but you know, you can make an amalgamation.
我一直在说这个，不知道你们有没有注意到，但在过去几个月里，我遇到了很多类似情况的例子，发生在多家公司身上。虽然不具体提到某些公司，但你可以把这些例子综合考虑。
What is the dynamic and how does it work itself out? Investor invested a multi-billion dollar valuation. The company is now worth 20% of that valuation. And the investors have more money in the company than it is worth. And the company needs more cash.
什么是动态以及如何实现？投资者投资了数十亿美元的估值。而现在该公司的价值仅为该估值的20%。投资者在该公司中投入的资金已超过公司的价值。而且公司需要更多现金。
They can't go public at this rate because the markets are shut down. No one's going to buy new shares. They can't raise cash by going public. So they have to raise cash in the private markets.
以这样的速度，他们无法公开上市，因为市场已经关闭了。没有人会购买新股份。他们无法通过公开上市筹集资金。因此，他们必须通过私人市场筹集资金。
So then the tough question is, okay, what's the value of the company? In almost all of these cases, the CEO has been replaced or there with some professional CEO, so there's a new option pool created equal to 10 to 15% of the company. New options are issued. And a round is done at a significant discount and there's a huge recap and a pay to play and all this other sort of stuff starts to play out that the original founders and the company get wiped out.
所以，接下来的难题是，公司的价值是多少？在几乎所有这些情况下，CEO都被替换或者有一位专业的CEO加入，因此会创建一个新的期权池，相当于公司的10%到15%。发行新的期权。然后以显着折扣进行一轮交易，进行大规模再融资，进行“纯赢家付钱”等一系列操作，导致原始创始人和公司被清零。
Most of the management team leaves because their options are now worthless. And the investors who historically have been totally passive late stage investors have had to step in and try and take action in rebuilding a management team, which guess what? They're not necessarily good at. And so it ends up becoming this really nasty unwinding of the business because everyone thinks, oh, well, I deserve to get a fair deal because I put money in and I have a preference in this company.
大部分管理团队离职是因为他们的股票期权现在已经一文不值。而那些通常处于被动地位的投资者不得不介入并尝试重新建立管理团队，而这并不是他们擅长的事情。结果，这个企业逐渐解体，变得非常糟糕，因为每个人都认为自己应该得到公正的待遇，因为他们投入了资金并在该公司中享有权益。
Founders don't want to see their ownership go down from 20% to 2%. They're like, why would I keep working for 2%? I'm fully vested. I'm going to leave the management teams like wait a second, I'm getting offers left and right to go join other companies. And so it's a real kind of nasty unwinding. And I think that's the scary scenario that's likely going to play out.
创始人们不想看到他们的股权从20%降至2%。他们会问，为什么我要继续为2%的股权而工作呢？我已经完全投入了。然后他们会对管理团队说，等一下，其他公司纷纷给我提供工作。结果就是一场真正令人不悦的解决过程。我认为这可能是一个令人恐惧的情景，而且很可能会发生。
Not all, but a good chunk of these companies that are, there are still businesses. They have decent value to their business, but they just raise too much capital relative to the valuation of the business today. If you looked at it on a blank piece of paper, these businesses will look incredible at whatever the true valuation is today. But if you have the psychological hindsight bias of what the price was two years ago, you just can't see that. You can't get it totally. I can't get it.
并非所有这些公司都是如此，但其中大部分仍然是正经营的企业。它们的业务价值还是不错的，但相对于今天的估值，它们所筹集的资金过多。如果你从一张白纸的视角来看，这些企业在今天的真实估值下会显得令人难以置信。但如果你总是往两年前的价格上回顾，你就无法看到这一点。你无法完全理解。我也无法理解。
By the way, I will say in this structure, there's legacy structure in the cap table from, yeah, meaning there's like this prep stack. I will say that the terms are so crazy good for the recap that investors are clawing their way into the recap. Well, that means, oh my gosh, I get the nature markets are healing. That's means in the end game, right? That's part of what's happening.
顺便说一句，我会这样说，这个结构里有一些传统的股本结构，是说有像这种准备的股权堆栈。我要说的是，重新融资的条件非常好，投资者都争相参与。哇，这意味着自然市场正在恢复。这意味着最终目标是什么，对吧？这是其中正在发生的一部分。
Part of what's happening is they bring in, it's totally predatory. It's totally predatory. It's totally predatory. It's totally predatory. But that means when you have a whole to go public again, I think that when there's a recap and the founder is still running the company, there's a chance of it being fair. But when they bring in a new CEO who then does a recap. Oh, yeah, they don't care. They don't care. They don't care about their investors. They don't care. Exactly. And all these recaps turn into a disaster.
所发生的部分情况就是他们带进来的，完全是剥削性的。完全是剥削性的。完全是剥削性的。完全是剥削性的。但这意味着当你整体重新上市时，我认为当有一次资本重组而创始人仍然在公司运营时，公平的可能性就会存在。但是，当他们带来一位新的首席执行官然后进行资本重组时。噢，是的，他们不在乎。他们不在乎。他们不在乎他们的投资者。他们不在乎。完全正确。所有这些资本重组都变成了灾难。
Yeah. Well, it's recap or you're going to go out of business. So I mean, this is a force and function and everybody party too hard.
是的。好吧，这是一个总结或者你们将会破产。所以我是说，这是一种力量和功能，而且每个人都狂欢过度。
I think it's time for everybody's favorite part of the show, which is to give Chamath his flowers. Here we go. Chamath, the Fed spoke this week and it's time for Chamath to take his victory lap. Here he goes. Everybody. Chamath, is this Hollyhousard? Is this, this is Vangelis? Yes, Vangelis doing chariots of fire this week.
我认为现在是节目中所有人最喜欢的部分，就是给Chamath送花的时候了。开始吧。Chamath，联邦储备系统本周发言了，是时候让Chamath欢庆一下了。他来了。大家好。Chamath，这是霍莉解谜？这是范吉利斯的作品？是的，这周是范吉利斯演奏《炼狱之火》的一周。
The Fed said to quote Chamath. Well, this is. Look, I've paid it. This is, but it's about having connections to the deep state for longer. There he is. There's Chamath leading the pack. I sent my, I sent my talking points from six months ago to my deep, to our friend deep state. Deep state sent the note and deep state sent it to the Fed and the Fed just cut and pasted it into the race.
美联储引用查马斯的话说，这是真的。看，我付过了。这个就是，但它涉及更长时间与深层机构的联系。那里他是，查马斯带头。我将我六个月前的谈话要点发送给了我们的深层机构朋友。深层机构将备忘录发送给了美联储，而美联储只是复制粘贴到了比赛中。
We'll stay higher for longer. We're going to get a chamau. You run on this? We're going to have to talk. You're going to have to talk. Who cares? He understands what it is that Chamath said that he's taking the victory lap on.
我们会保持更高的水平更长时间。我们要赢得一个 chamau（可能为某种成就）。你理解这个吗？我们需要谈一谈。你需要说话。谁在乎呢？他明白 Chamath 说的是他正在庆祝胜利。
Why don't you set that up, Jacob? He said that rates will stay higher for longer. And now he takes his victory lap. All right. Enough of this shenanigans.
为什么不让雅各布来处理这件事呢？他说利率会保持较高很长时间。现在他在炫耀胜利。好了，够了，不要再耍花招了。
Chamath said rates will stay higher for longer. The Fed said rates will stay higher for longer. The end. Congratulations, Chamath. You got it, right? Thanks.
Chamath说利率将会继续保持较高水平，美联储也表示利率将会维持较高水平。就这样。恭喜你，Chamath。你理解得对吗？谢谢。
Okay. Well, let's talk to you. We're going to give our chariots of fire. Oh, Chamath, you're receiving a medal. Here he is. Chamath, can you yourself a medal in the group chat? This is Obama. This is Obama. This is when Obama, who is Obama giving the medal to? What's the real picture here? It's Obama. Is he giving it to Obama? Give him the medal to Obama. To Biden. I think he's giving it to Obama. He's giving it to Biden. He's giving it to Biden. He's giving it to Biden. He's giving it to Biden. It was so. Chamath, give me a medal to Chamath.
好的。好吧，让我们和你谈谈。我们将会给你们“火的战车”奖章。哦，Chamath，你将获得一枚奖章。他在这里。Chamath，在群聊中你能给自己颁发一枚奖章吗？这是奥巴马。这是奥巴马。这是奥巴马给奥巴马颁发奖章吗？这里真正的画面是什么？是奥巴马。他在给奥巴马颁发奖章吗？给他将奖章给奥巴马。给拜登。我认为他在给奥巴马颁发奖章。他在给拜登颁发奖章。他在给拜登颁发奖章。他在给拜登颁发奖章。是这样的。Chamath，给我一枚奖章，给Chamath。
So I think what happened this week is actually pretty important because I think the markets were really trying to force Jerome Powell to start the cutting cycle and now they had to move the date at which they could expect cuts out by a year. And I think that we're only starting to see the reverberations of that. You're going to have to reprice a lot of risk assets. So if you put it all together, oil is creeping back up. Oil commodity prices essentially are trending up. I don't think that's going to have a big impact on inflation because of the way that owner equivalent rents and core CPI is calculated because it's calculated on this six month lag, this dumb nonsense of just how arcane our system works. But that's going to spike down. So basically the Fed's saying, we know all of this is happening. We're sitting on our hands.
我认为本周发生的事情实际上非常重要，因为我认为市场真的想逼迫杰罗姆·鲍威尔开始削减利率周期，现在他们不得不将预期减息的日期推迟到一年后。我认为我们现在只是开始看到这种反响。你将不得不重新定价很多风险资产。所以，综合考虑，油价正在缓慢上涨。实际上，原油商品价格正在上涨。我认为这不会对通胀产生很大影响，因为业主等价租金和核心消费者价格指数的计算方式是基于六个月的滞后，这是我们体系的愚蠢和古怪之处。但这将会产生下降的尖峰。所以基本上，美联储表示，我们知道所有这些都在发生，但我们只是坐视不管。
But the problem is that if you add another 100 basis points to your discount rate for an unprofitable SaaS company, my gosh, guys, you're taking another turn and a half of market cap out of the business. If you thought it was worth eight times, it's now worth six and a half, six times. So unfortunately, that's going to hurt everything that's not the top seven tech companies. And everything else is just going to just kind of meander along for a much longer time. So it's really good for the magnificent seven. I think it's really bad for everything else. And we're going to be in a holding pattern for a while.
问题在于，如果你在对一家无盈利的SaaS公司增加100个基点的折现率，天哪，伙计们，你们又会削减这家企业约一个半的市值。如果你原本认为它值八倍，现在只值六个半，或者六倍。所以不幸的是，这将对除了前七家科技公司之外的一切造成伤害。而其他一切只会继续浑浑噩噩地进行下去更长的时间。所以对于这七家巨头来说是非常好的，但对其他一切来说是非常糟糕的。我们将进入一个持续一段时间的观望期。
Crude oil is at, let's say, $89 barrel. Yeah, it's getting back up there. I told remember this conversation. I told my CEOs, guys, let's get enough. Cash to last through the middle of 25. Sure. Remember, I was pretty clear about that to folks. I mean, get to get to default alive. But if you can't, please have enough money to the mid of 25. I think that that was wrong. I think now you got to be Q1 of 26 and maybe even mid 26. So now I have to go back to all these CEOs and redo an entire justification for why they need to cut even more people. That even more expense cut more burn. I don't know where we're going to find another year of burn in most of these businesses. So I was wrong by at least a year, Jason, because of this. I think I got the words right, but I got the timing wrong. Yeah. Just to further translate this.
原油价格已经回到了，假设是每桶89美元。是的，它又回升了。我告诉你们要记住这次谈话。我告诉我的首席执行官们，伙计们，我们要准备足够的现金，够支撑到2025年中期。当然。我对大家非常明确地表达了这一点。我的意思是，要确保能够避免破产。但是如果做不到，至少要有足够的资金支撑到2025年中期。我想我错了，我认为现在需要推迟到2026年第一季度，甚至可能是2026年中期。因此，现在我必须重新向所有这些首席执行官解释为什么他们需要再裁员更多，再削减更多的费用，再燃烧更多资金。我不知道我们在这些企业中怎么能找到另一年的资金燃烧。所以至少我在时间上错了一年，Jason，因为这个原因。是的。再进一步翻译一下。
Okay. So the markets right now are definitely taking a bath. The growth stocks are off significantly. Expect them to be off more. Yeah. And the reason is because the market had started to price in rate cuts next year. And now the Fed is saying that because inflation ticked up a little bit, it's not coming down as much. We have higher energy prices. We may not get those rate cuts. I think the Fed still maintains that we'll get 50 basis points of rate cuts next year, but the market was pricing in more. And I think people are starting to wonder if we'll even get the 50. So as a result of that, interest rates are going to stay higher longer, which means that risk capital be less available. So valuations are going to go down or at least they're not going to be racing back up like they used to. When I was saying mid 25 sacks, that was because the forward curves started showing cuts in early 23. You know what I mean? So I was like, okay, let's assume they're wrong by 18 months. It turns out that that initial data point in early 22, my God, we were wrong by three years, not a year and a half. It's brutal.
现在市场情况确实很糟糕。成长股明显下跌，预计还会进一步下跌。原因是市场开始预定明年会有降息，但现在美联储表示，由于通胀略有上升，降息幅度不会很大。能源价格上涨，我们可能无法得到这些降息。我认为美联储仍然坚持明年会有50个基点的降息，但市场预期更多。人们开始怀疑我们是否能够得到这50个基点。因此，利率将保持较长时间较高，这意味着风险资本可用性将减少。因此，估值将下降，或者至少不会像过去一样迅速反弹。当我说25分钟中，是因为未来的曲线开始显示在2023年初进行降息。你明白我的意思吗？所以我想，假设他们错了18个月。结果证明，2022年初的初始数据点，天哪，我们错了三年，而不是一年半。这太残酷了。
I think the X factor here is that we're running almost $2 trillion deficits in peacetime. Well, I mean, we're not in a direct war. We're in a proxy war, but in relative peacetime and in a relatively decent economy.
我认为在这里的关键因素是，我们在和平时期几乎每年出现近2万亿美元的赤字。嗯，我的意思是，我们并不处于直接战争中。虽然我们处于代理战争状态，但相对而言仍是和平时期，而且经济相对良好。
So what happens if either of those things change and what happens to long term rates as all of these debt issuances have to get raised as the Fed has to keep selling more treasuries to fund our deficit and debt at these higher rates, do long term rates keep going up based on the debt financing needs of the federal government?
那么，如果其中任何一项发生变化，而且随着美联储不得不继续出售更多国债来筹措我们的赤字和债务，所有这些债务发行面临的问题是什么，长期利率会发生什么变化？基于联邦政府的债务融资需求，长期利率是否会持续上升？
And this is again where we made a huge mistake by politicizing this idea of raising money beyond 30 years. We made that mistake under the Trump presidency because people reacted to Trump saying it, but it was the smartest thing we could have done to give our kids and our grandkids a reasonable economy and freeburg has been right all along about just like our spending is just going up and up and up.
在这一点上，我们再次犯了一个巨大的错误，即将筹集资金的时间延长到30年以上这个理念上进行政治化。我们在特朗普总统任期内犯下了这个错误，因为人们对特朗普的说法做出了反应，但这却是我们可以为我们的孩子和孙子辈提供一个合理经济的最明智的举动。弗里伯格一直是对的，我们的支出一直在不断增加。
And now short term rates are really high. Maybe we'll have enough political will to just get out of the Fed's way and the Fed can actually look at raising in durations past 30 years.
现在短期利率真的很高。也许我们会有足够的政治意愿，让美联储能够考虑将超过30年的期限加以提高。
Because if you believe that we're going to start an aggressive cutting cycle at some point and you believe we'll get back to like a 2% terminal rate, you could theoretically justify 50, 60 year bonds at much lower than the 30 year, but I don't see it happening.
因为如果你相信我们将在某个时候开始一轮激进的削减周期，并且相信我们将最终恢复到像2%的终端利率，理论上你可以用低于30年期的利率来合理地支持50年、60年期的债券，但我不认为这会发生。
Here's a really good way to look at this. There are prediction markets. This one call she is when I use KLSHI chances of a rate cut by May of 2024, 29% chance. And these are people actually making bets on these things. And so it has gotten pushed out and I guess 74% chance by the fourth quarter, third fourth quarter of next year, people think they'll be already cut. So we're a year away from a rate cut.
这是一个非常好的看待这个问题的方式。有预测市场存在。这个叫KLSHI的市场显示了到2024年5月降息的概率为29%。而这些都是人们真实下注的结果。因此，这个概率被推迟到了明年第三、第四季度，人们认为降息的概率已经达到了74%。所以我们距离降息还有一年的时间。
Everybody needs to just take that off the table, which means the translation for founders for GPs is performance has to go up. You got to beat 5, 6, 7% or whatever people are going to get on those other instruments, proper debt, 10, 11, 12%. You got a really hard bogey to beat here.
每个人都需要剔除这个问题，也就是说，创始人对于普通合作伙伴(GPs)的解释必须提高。你必须超越其他投资工具上人们可以获得的5、6、7%或者更高的回报，如正规的债务可以达到10、11、12%。你在这里有一个非常艰难的目标要达到。
The alternative to that statement is that total capital has to go down in order for the capital remaining to have its return multiple increased given that there's a generally set number of companies that are going to generally create a certain amount of value over the next couple of years.
这个陈述的另一个选择是，为了增加剩余资本的回报倍数，总资本必须减少，因为未来几年内将总体上设定一定数量的公司将创造一定价值。
And the way to create that value is, so if that's true, well, I'm saying if there's a bunch of startups that are going to make $100 billion of market value over the next five to seven years, you need to have less capital going into those companies in order for that capital to generate a higher return.
创造这种价值的方法是，所以如果这是真的，我是说如果在接下来的五到七年里有一堆初创公司将创造1000亿美元的市场价值，你需要让更少的资本进入这些公司，以便让资本产生更高的回报。
Which on your day to day basis means what? Explain on a day to day basis. On a day to day basis, it means it's going to be less companies that are going to get funded. But more importantly, it's going to be less LP money going into venture. And there's going to be less capital available to fund startups in aggregate by significant amount.
在你的日常生活中，这句话的意思是什么？以日常为基础进行解释。从日常来看，这意味着获得资金的公司将减少。但更重要的是，风险投资中的有限合伙人资金将减少。因此，用于资助初创企业的资本总量将大幅减少。
So in a day basis, you need to do more with less as a founder, you need to delight customers with less resources, spend less money on marketing, send less money on teams and get to profitability. You've got to be a stronger founder.
作为创始人，每天你需要在更少的资源下做更多的事情，用更少的资源来让客户满意，减少在营销上的支出，减少团队开支并实现盈利。你必须成为一个更强大的创始人。
I'm seeing it across the board in the seed stage. Two, three, four founders raising two, fifty to a million instead of raising three to five.
在初级阶段，我发现这种情况普遍存在。两、三、四个创始人筹集二十五万到一百万的资金，而不是筹集三到五百万的资金。
I got to be honest, Jekyll, I thought it was much easier to kind of say the sky was falling this time last year. Sure. Now, and I think that people are a little bit, again, exhausted about hearing this message constantly of like, cup more. It's like, I think that they're exhausted. And I see a lot of founders that are exhausted and giving up. There's a lot of giving up. They're like, I can't cut anymore.
老实说，吉克尔，我觉得在去年的这个时候，描绘天塌下来这样的说法更容易一些。是的，现在人们可能有点疲惫了，再次不断听到增加负担的信息。就像，他们感到筋疲力尽。我看到很多创业者都感到疲惫并且放弃了。有很多人选择放弃，他们觉得再也不能再削减了。
And now I do think we have to go back to them and say, if we're doing our jobs, right? Okay. And look, our now, our strategic view was right, but the time scale of our analysis was wrong. And I think now you got a plan to mid-26. I don't even know where to start, to be honest with that conversation.
现在我觉得我们必须回去告诉他们，如果我们的工作做得没错的话？好吧。看，我们现在的战略眼光是正确的，但我们分析的时间框架是错误的。我认为现在你应该有了一个到2026年中期的计划。说实话，我甚至不知道从哪里开始这个对话。
I agree. Actually, what I'm seeing is people are emerging companies and M&As picking up because, hey, you got two companies doing five million each, but they're burning two million each a year, cut half the team, put one team with the other. And I think you're going to just see some of that portfolio consolidation happen.
我同意。实际上，我所看到的是新兴公司和合并交易正在增多，因为嘿，你有两家每年都损耗200万的公司，但他们每年都损耗200万，减少一半的团队，将一个团队与另一个团队合并。我认为你会看到一些投资组合整合的情况发生。
Go ahead, sex. I think one way to put it is that we've had a regime change. Those are the words that we've been using for a while. And specifically, we've gone from a regime of capital abundance to a regime of capital scarcity.
请继续，谈论性问题。我认为有一个方式可以解释，就是我们已经经历了一次政权更替。这是一段时间以来我们一直使用的词语。具体而言，我们从过去的资本丰富时期转变为了资本短缺时期。
And I think a lot of people are holding out hope that there's going to be a quick bounce back because we've cut these interest rates and capital would start flowing again in a big way. And I think that the Fed here has dumped a bucket of cold water on the markets, basically saying we're not bouncing back to capital abundance anytime soon. We're going to be in this environment of more capital scarcity. And that's what I think if this founders in VCs now have to take into account is this shift could be permanent or it could last a while. Colespa tenure, sure.
我认为很多人都寄希望于经济能够迅速反弹，因为我们已经降低了利率，资金将会大规模流动。而我认为，美联储在这里给市场泼了一盆冷水，基本上是在暗示我们短时间内无法回到资金充裕的状态，我们将一直处于资金短缺的环境中。而这就是我认为创业者和风险投资者现在必须考虑的，这种转变可能是永久的，或者可能会持续一段时间。当然，这取决于科技企业的业绩。
We're seeing a lot of- And the big question I have is just what do you guys think is going to happen to the consumer? I actually think that even though founders in many cases could cut more and they could have acted faster, I actually think that the B2B economy has kind of taken its licks. I mean, for the last year we've been in this software recession, companies have been sharpening their pencils. They've been cutting costs and getting more efficient. Yes, you could say maybe they haven't done enough. But the consumer has still been strong. But what is the consumer going to do now that credit card rates and interest payments are at all time highs? They're going to.
我们目前正在看到很多情况-我想问问你们，你们认为消费者会发生什么情况呢？实际上，我认为尽管在许多情况下创始人们可以再削减一些并且可以更快行动，但我认为B2B经济已经遭受了一些打击。我的意思是，在过去的一年里，我们一直处于软件衰退中，公司一直在削减成本并提高效率。是的，你可以说他们可能还没有做得足够。但是消费者一直还是很强劲的。但现在信用卡利率和利息支付达到了历史最高点，消费者会怎么做呢？他们会......
They can't sell their house. No. They're going to skip an iPhone cycle. Instead of going from 13 to 14 or 14 to 15, they're going to go 13 to 16, 14 to 17. They'll just skip, which I did for the first time. I don't need to skip it, but I was just like, this 13 is good enough. They're going to skip upgrading their car. You're going to keep your car for an extra two or three years. And if you were thinking about moving your house, you're going to say, you know what? I'm going to make this house work. We're going to put two of the kids in a room. I don't care 100% right. That's it.
他们不能卖掉他们的房子。不行。他们准备跳过一个iPhone的周期。不是从13跳到14或者从14跳到15，而是从13直接跳到16，从14直接跳到17。他们会跳过，这也是我第一次这样做。我不需要跳过，但是我觉得这个13已经足够好了。他们打算跳过升级汽车的机会。他们会多使用两三年的车。如果你考虑要搬家，你会说，你知道吗？我会让这栋房子继续使用下去。我们会让两个孩子住在一个房间里。我不完全在乎。就是这样。
I think that's very well said. And the other side of it is that some of these industries where you have these large ticket purchases that drive consumer consumption, their backs are against the wall. Look at the automakers. That deals that the unions have proposed to the automakers will cause them from, I thought I saw an analysis of Ford, where Ford would go, if you just did a pro forma and went back the last couple of years, they would have gone from like 30 billion of profits to minus 17 billion of losses. So that's a $47 billion swing in the Ford P&L. The only way they overcome that is with more expensive cars, which Jason, to your point, means that those cars are not going to get sold.
我认为这样说得很好。另一方面，一些需要大额购买才能推动消费的行业正面临压力。就以汽车制造商为例，工会提出的交易将导致它们（比如我记得我在福特公司看过的一份分析）从过去几年的300亿利润转为170亿亏损。这就是福特收支表中470亿美元的巨大波动。他们唯一的克服办法就是提高汽车价格，而这也意味着这些汽车很难售出，正如Jason所说的那样。
I do think that you're going to just have a little bit of belt tightening in the consumer. I think this is interesting. I think, you know, Trimath, you're right, that at the same time that the auto companies are facing what you'd expect to be reduced demand because no one can afford a car payment at these higher interest rates, the unions are going on strike demanding. Oh, I think this is existential and higher wages for a four day work week. How does this work? Four day work week. I think that the labor deal is an existential risk to the unionized auto industry in America. And I'm not opining on whether this deal should or should not happen. I'm just making an observation.
我认为消费者方面会有一些紧缩的需求。我觉得这很有意思。你说得没错，特别是在汽车公司面临需求下降的同时，因为没人负担得起高利率下的汽车分期付款，工会还在罢工要求更高的工资和四天工作周。四天工作周，我认为这劳资协议对美国工会化的汽车行业来说是一个生存风险。我并不评论这个协议应该发生与否，我只是做出一个观察。
If the deal as announced happens and you sensitized Stellantis GM and Ford's P&L to these new terms, and then you compare that against non unionized, highly automated organizations like Tesla and Rivian, it's going to be very difficult for the established auto industry to survive. And then if you'd layer on top of it, 7, 8, 9% consumer lending rates for new cars, forget about it. And yet the Fed forecast at the same meaning they were being hawkish about rates, they also said that they were expecting unemployment next year to be 4.1% down from their previous expectation of 4.5% and they forecast that economic growth would be higher. So I just don't understand how these countervailing forces aren't going to create so much stress in the economy that something breaks.
如果所宣布的交易确实发生并且您将Stellantis、GM和Ford的利润与这些新条款敏感化，再与像特斯拉和Rivian这样非工会化、高度自动化的公司进行比较，对于已经建立起来的汽车行业来说，要生存下去将会非常困难。而且如果你继续加上新车的7、8、9%的消费贷款利率，就更不用说了。然而，美联储对利率的预测与此同时，他们也表示他们预计明年的失业率将从之前的4.5%下降到4.1%，并预测经济增长将会更高。所以我真的不明白，这些对抗性力量如此强大，为什么不会在经济中造成如此大的压力，以至于有些东西会崩溃。
And these idiot unions, honestly, they're timing is so down, whether it's the ones, you know, in Hollywood or this car strike, while they're shutting down the plans for Tesla. I mean, it's giving Tesla the entire US auto market. Yeah, Tesla is lowering the price when I bought my Model Y long range. I think I paid 72 for it. The old price on this chart says 66. That car is now 53. That's down 20% of 13,000. I'll say the model Y long range, I think is the greatest vehicle ever made. I paid 57, I think, for my Model Y long range. Oh, no, no, I think I, sorry, I paid 57. I paid this price for the Model Y performance, the best car.
这些愚蠢的工会，老实说，它们的时机真是太差了，不管是好莱坞的工会还是这次汽车罢工，都在特斯拉关闭计划时发生。这意味着特斯拉将占据整个美国汽车市场。是的，特斯拉降低了价格，当我购买我的Model Y长续航版时，我想我支付了72万。这张图上的旧价格是66万，而这款车现在只卖53万。价格下降了20%，大约减少了13,000美元。我要说，Model Y长续航版是有史以来最棒的车辆。我记得我为我的Model Y长续航版支付了57万。哦不，不，对不起，我是为Model Y高性能版支付了这个价格，它是最好的车。
And yeah, that'll be a $40,000 car in the next three years. Well, you know, and I looked at it and I, speaking of austerity measures, I was like, I have the Model X. Do I get another Model X? I think I'll just go with the Model Y because the Model X is, I don't know, 50% more and I just prefer the Model Y.
是的，那辆车在接下来的三年里将会是一辆价值40,000美元的车。嗯，你知道的，当我看到它的时候，又想起了紧缩措施，我在想，我已经有了Model X。我是买另一辆Model X呢？还是选择Model Y呢？我觉得我们选择Model Y吧，因为Model X要贵50%左右，而且我更偏爱Model Y。
I think this labor deal is going to put tremendous pressure on these established automobiles. China is now the world's largest exporter from what I understand. That just happened. They work, I looked it up 58 to 64 hours a week, factory workers. The US factory workers want to work 32 hours a week. They want a four day work week. I mean, I don't understand the timing of these unions. I mean, they're just going to move these factories to Mexico or I think it's reasonable for the unions to ask for as much as possible on behalf of their members. That's like obvious and good because meaning if you're collecting fees from those folks and you're doing a good job on their behalf, your job is to ask for as much as possible. I get that.
我认为这项劳动协议将给这些传统的汽车压力巨大。据我所了解，中国现在是世界上最大的出口国。这就是刚刚发生的事情。他们工作时间长，我查过了，每周58到64个小时，工厂工人们。而美国的工厂工人希望每周只工作32个小时。他们希望每周只工作四天。我不理解工会的时机选择。他们只会把这些工厂迁移到墨西哥或其他地方。我认为工会代表会尽可能地为会员争取更多，这是合理的。这显而易见，也很好，因为如果你从这些人那里收取费用，并且在他们的利益上做了好事，你的工作就是尽可能地争取更多。我明白这个道理。
Where I see the breakdown is that it just doesn't seem like there's enough numeracy between them and the companies that they're negotiating against to really sit down and look at what the impact of this is because you may get a short term labor deal that you can celebrate, but it may actually destroy that union member's pension. Yes, it may destroy the company and this is my concern is that then that has to get build up by the US taxpayer. Once it happens in one industry, it's going to be very difficult to actually not do it in other industries. The thing that needs to be understood is the risk that it puts on those kinds of tail outcomes and I think that that's not well discussed. Nobody in the media is really talking about it.
我认为问题所在是，似乎工会和他们正在谈判的公司之间缺乏足够的数字能力，无法真正坐下来看看这会产生什么影响，因为你可能会达成一项短期劳工协议，可以庆祝一下，但实际上可能会摧毁工会成员的养老金。是的，它可能会摧毁公司，这就是我的担心，因为那将由美国纳税人承担。一旦它在一个行业发生，实际上在其他行业也很难不这样做。需要理解的是，它给这些尾部结果带来的风险，我认为这一点没有得到很好的讨论。媒体中没有人真正谈论这个问题。
They make it a moral issue of what is the CEO pay versus what is the ratio of the seat end. Yeah, sure. That's an important issue at some level. For example, you have US senators blathering on about how they'll wear a suit and not look like a homeless bum if this deal happens in that and it's like, well, that's not what you should be saying. What you should be saying is my team has done a financial analysis and here's what it shows. Right. And they're not saying that. This is crazy. What you're saying is that the negotiation and also the political dimension of this have become completely untethered from economic realities. Yes. They are negotiating in the review mirror. They basically talked about whatever billions of dollars in profits the companies previously had during the SERP environment during the heyday. Yeah, it's just timing is off. Just add to the list of latent problems in this economy. It just feels to me like something is about to break, but who knows.
他们将CEO的薪水与座位比例作为道德问题来看待。嗯，当然，在某种程度上这是一个重要问题。例如，你会看到美国参议员们大谈特谈，如果这项交易达成，他们将穿西装，不会看起来像无家可归的流浪者，这就不对了。他们应该说的是，我的团队进行了财务分析，这是分析结果。对，他们没说那些。这太疯狂了。你在说的是，这个谈判和政治因素已经完全脱离了经济现实。是的。他们在倒车镜中谈论着以前公司在SERP环境中拥有的数十亿美元的利润，这只是错过了时机。把它加到经济中隐藏的问题清单上。感觉到有什么东西即将崩溃，但谁知道呢。
I mean, if the huge your point is actually you keep bringing up like what happens with the consumer. Yeah, I think they just slow their role. You know, staycation instead of your application. No, Larry Summers said at the summit, he said that soft landings are like second marriages, the triumph of hope over experience. Yes. So, I think everyone's talking about a soft landing, everyone's banking on a soft landing, but soft landings are actually exceedingly rare. When you have very fast rate tightening cycles, it generally has a very predictable effect on the economy. There's a lag, but the effect is very predictable, which is a causes recessions. And then I would argue we've already been in a beat-a-beat recession. We're starting to come out of that, but I think the consumer has been hit yet. And maybe that has to do with all the stimulus they pushed through. Yeah. And it's some amount of cushion for the consumer. But I just wonder if that cushion's run out now, we're about to enter a new phase.
我的意思是，如果你一直在提的重点是与消费者有关的情况，是的，我认为他们应该冷静下来。你知道，选择居家度假而不是应用程序。不，拉里·萨默斯在峰会上说过，他说柔和的降落就像再婚一样，是希望战胜经验的胜利。是的。所以，我认为每个人都在谈论着柔和的降落，每个人都在押注柔和的降落，但柔和的降落实际上是非常罕见的。当你拥有非常快速的加息周期时，它通常对经济产生非常可预测的影响。有一个滞后期，但影响是非常可预测的，即导致经济衰退。然后，我会说我们已经经历过一次连续的衰退。我们开始走出来了，但我认为消费者还没有受到影响。也许这与他们推出的所有刺激措施有关。是的。这在一定程度上为消费者提供了一些缓冲。但我只是想知道这个缓冲是否已经消耗殆尽，我们即将进入一个新阶段。
And it would, would all of these strikes you, if you overplay your hand, Shamoth is automation. So this happened in New York just over 10 years ago, the fast food workers wanted, you know, I think it was 15, 20 bucks an hour. Okay, seems reasonable. And they replaced every cashier. You go to McDonald's now, you're ordering on the app or you're ordering on a kiosk in the space. And we have an investment in a company called HelloMeter. But this company does is pretty simple. They just study what's going on inside fast restaurants. And then they just increase the speed at which people are getting served. And they're crushing it. Why? People can hire people. There's not enough immigrants in the country anymore. We have an anti-immigration thing going on here. So unemployment's too low. And the salaries are too high. It's not working. A lot of restaurants are breaking because a $30 or $40 dishwasher is the difference between a company, you know, a restaurant being profitable or not.
如果你玩火过头了，自动化将会让你付出代价。在纽约发生的事实上是十几年前，快餐工人想要每小时15到20美元的薪水。听起来合理。然后他们用自动取代了每个收银员。现在去麦当劳，你要么通过手机应用点餐，要么通过自助点餐机。我们投资了一家叫HelloMeter的公司。这家公司做的事情很简单，他们研究快餐店内部的情况，然后提高人们被服务的速度。他们做得非常出色。为什么呢？因为人们不能雇佣人了。国家里的移民数量不足。我们这里正在进行一项反移民行动。因此，失业率太低，工资太高。这种情况行不通。许多餐馆面临倒闭，因为一个30到40美元的洗碗工，是餐馆能否盈利的关键。
Alright, listen, there's apparently some potential major breakthrough in autoimmune disease treatment with this new inverse vaccine. Let's go to our science correspondence, the Sultan of science himself for science corner. The taxes, turns his camera off.
好的，听着，显然这个新的逆向疫苗可能在自身免疫疾病治疗方面取得了一些重大突破。让我们前往我们的科学通讯，科学之王本人的科学角落。主持人关闭了摄像头。
Lastly, sex, wow, sex is going to take a duck. He'll be back. He's back. I'm here. I'm here. Geez, you wouldn't even let me get away with that. Nope. We were trying to go. So we were zoom shaming you. Do not leave. You could learn something, Saks. I just want to give you a shout out. I just have my super gut chocolate. Oh, so good. I just got my super gut protein and the weight loss continues. Health posting. My gut is so good.
最后，性爱，哇，性爱要遁入鸭子中。它会回来。它回来了。我在这里。我在这里。天哪，你居然不让我逃脱这个问题。不行。我们试着要离开。所以我们在嘲笑你。不要离开。你可以学到一些东西，Saks。我只是想对你大声喊叫。我刚刚吃了一块超棒的巧克力。太好吃了。我刚刚补充了超棒的蛋白质，减肥继续进行中。健康帖子。我的肠胃很健康。
There was a paper published in the journal Nature this week, which I thought was worth highlighting. Saks, you're going to be quizzed afterwards on exactly what I say during this and the implications for it.
本周在《自然》杂志上发表了一篇论文，我认为值得注意。萨克斯，在我进行这个讲解并讨论其意义后，我会考你对我所说的内容以及其影响的问题。
We've all heard of and know folks that have autoimmune conditions and some of us may suffer from them. An autoimmune condition is when our immune system mounts an attack against a protein that exists in our body that is natively part of our body. Our immune system kind of mistakes that protein for being a foreign antigen. So the term antigen refers to proteins that the immune system views as invading and it needs to go in and attack.
我们都听说过并且了解一些患有自身免疫疾病的人，其中一些人可能会遭受这些疾病的困扰。自身免疫疾病是指我们的免疫系统攻击我们身体内原本存在的一种蛋白质，这种蛋白质是我们身体固有的一部分。我们的免疫系统有点把那种蛋白质误认为是一种外来抗原。因此，抗原这个术语指的是免疫系统认为入侵体并需要进行攻击的蛋白质。
So when the immune system messes up and it sees a protein in our body as being a foreign antigen and starts attacking it, you get these autoimmune conditions. And autoimmune conditions, as you know, are very debilitating cost on the health system on people's lives. The top 10 autoimmune diseases. This is like lupus. Prones. Rheumatoid arthritis. One type one diabetes, multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel, show grins, Hashimoto's, thyroiditis. These are all pretty in different ways damaging diseases.
当免疫系统出现问题，并将我们体内的蛋白质视为外来抗原并开始攻击时，就会出现自身免疫疾病。正如你所知，自身免疫疾病会对健康系统和人们的生活造成严重的损害。排名前十的自身免疫疾病包括：红斑狼疮、克罗恩病、类风湿性关节炎、1型糖尿病、多发性硬化症、肠易激综合征、席尔格林氏综合征和慢性淋巴细胞性甲状腺炎。这些疾病在不同程度上都会对人体造成损害。
So this team at University of Chicago in 2019 published a paper where they actually took an antigen and glycosylated it. So basically attached some sugar molecules and carbohydrate molecules to it and presented it in the liver. So they put it into the blood and it showed up in the liver. And they were able to cause type one diabetes to not develop in an animal model that was supposed to get type one diabetes.
所以，在2019年，芝加哥大学的这个团队发表了一篇论文，他们实际上取得了一种抗原，并将其糖基化。基本上是将一些糖分子和碳水化合物分子连接到其中，并在肝脏中进行展示。所以，他们将其注入血液中，然后它出现在肝脏中。并且他们成功地防止了一种被认为会患上1型糖尿病的动物模型发展成病。
So they did an extension of that work and the team has gotten broader and they just published this week, a much more substantive paper that highlights a pretty incredible technique that may potentially address a long list of autoimmune conditions. So they take the antigen, the protein that is causing you. Are you saying sorry in the type one example? Are you saying like the beta cells didn't get destroyed? Like it just stopped everything on a time. Yeah. So the immune system has a bunch of ways for self-regulating. There are T cells in our body called Treg cells, the regulatory T cells. Their job is to go find the T cells and the antibodies that are attacking our own protein. That's their job. And when they don't do their job, the antibodies and the T cells go and attack our own body.
所以他们对这项工作进行了延伸，团队也变得更广泛，他们刚刚在本周发表了一篇更有实质性的论文，强调了一种非常令人难以置信的技术，可能能够解决一系列的自身免疫疾病。所以他们抓住引发你疾病的抗原，也就是蛋白质。你是说，例如在类型一糖尿病的例子中，你是说β细胞并没有被破坏吗？就像时间停止了一样？对，免疫系统有很多自我调节的方法。我们体内有一种被称为调节性T细胞的T细胞，它们的工作是找出攻击我们自身蛋白质的T细胞和抗体。这是它们的工作。当它们不能完成这个工作时，抗体和T细胞就会攻击我们自身的身体。
So Treg cells, kind of when they're turned off, they're not doing their job. So it turns out that when a protein is presented in the liver, in this particular part of the liver, the immune system recognizes that protein as being a safe protein. And there's a regulatory process that gets kicked off that causes the immune system to start to see that protein as being safe. It should not be attacked. And Treg cells start to develop and other systems start to develop that tell the whole immune system, stop attacking this protein. This is a safe protein. This is our body should not be attacked. This is like friendly fire, right? Like do not.
因此，Treg细胞在关闭状态时无法发挥作用。原来，在肝脏的特定部位呈现一种蛋白质时，免疫系统会将该蛋白质识别为安全蛋白质。接着，会启动一种调节过程，使免疫系统开始视该蛋白质为安全，不应该攻击它。 Treg细胞开始发展，其他系统开始发展，告诉整个免疫系统停止攻击这种蛋白质。这是一种安全蛋白质，我们的身体不应该受到攻击。这就像友军误伤一样，不要攻击它。
It's like friendly fire. Do not attack this protein. So what they did is they took several antigens, proteins and glycosylated them, meaning they put some molecules on them, put them in the blood just with an IV hookup. They go into the liver. And once they're in the liver, the immune system sees them and is like, whoa, these are totally safe now. And they found by analyzing all the different T cells, the regulatory pathway that emerged that caused the body to stop attacking that protein. And they were able to end MS using this induced system in animals.
这就像友军误伤一样。不要攻击这种蛋白质。所以他们采取的措施是，他们取了几种抗原、蛋白质并对它们进行糖基化，也就是说在它们上面放置了一些分子，然后通过静脉连接将它们注入血液中。它们进入肝脏。一旦它们进入肝脏，免疫系统会察觉到它们，并认为它们是完全安全的。通过分析所有不同的T细胞，他们发现了出现的调节通路，导致机体停止攻击该蛋白质。他们成功地在动物中通过这种诱导系统治愈了多发性硬化。
So basically that we have a known model for making multiple sclerosis show up in animals.
基本上，我们已经有了一种已知的模型，用于在动物中观察多发性硬化症的表现。
And they were able to stop MS in the animals by taking this particular protein that they use for MS.
他们通过使用与多发性硬化（MS）有关的特定蛋白质，成功地在动物体内阻止了MS的发展。
And they put it in the liver, IV.
他们把它放进肝脏，通过静脉注射。
They did the same with an egg allergy and they did the same with several other antigens.
他们对鸡蛋过敏也采取了相同的措施，而且他们对其他几种抗原也采取了相同的措施。
This represents a very novel and seemingly super impactful and powerful way to think about eliminating autoimmune disease going forward is that we can take the antigen.
这代表着一种非常新颖、看似具有超强影响力和力量的思考方式，以消除自身免疫疾病的方法，那就是我们可以采取这种抗原的方式。
And we now know the antigen or the protein that causes almost all of these autoimmune conditions from thyroiditis to lupus to RA to MS.
我们现在知道引起从甲状腺炎到红斑狼疮、类风湿关节炎到多发性硬化症等近乎所有自身免疫疾病的抗原或蛋白质。
And we can take that protein glycosylated, put it in an IV, ends up in our liver, gets presented and our immune system realizes I shouldn't be attacking this anymore and resolves it.
我们可以将那些被糖基化的蛋白质注入静脉，它最终进入肝脏，并被呈递出来，我们的免疫系统意识到我不应该再攻击它了，并得到解决。
So it opens up a whole new category of therapeutic pathways for addressing all autoimmune conditions. It's a totally new modality. It's a very interesting approach.
这就开辟了一种全新的治疗途径，可以应对所有的自身免疫性疾病。这是一种全新的方式。这是一种非常有趣的方法。
It'll be studied more deeply.
它将被更深入地研究。
Folks will take this paper and try and start to develop very specific therapeutics for very specific autoimmune conditions using this approach.
人们会拿起这篇论文并尝试开始使用这种方法来开发针对非常具体的自身免疫疾病的治疗方法。
And hopefully over the next couple of years, we see some of these things have success, gain traction and go to market.
希望在接下来的几年里，我们能够看到一些这些事物获得成功、被广泛接受并进入市场。
These autoimmune diseases are typically some combination of genetic and environmental.
这些自身免疫性疾病通常是基因和环境的一些组合。
So this is not attacking them on that basis.
所以，这并不是基于那个方面来攻击他们。
It's attacking them in a different modality.
它以另一种方式攻击着他们。
There's two ways that we address autoimmune conditions today.
目前我们对自身免疫性疾病有两种治疗途径。
The first one is by presenting the antigen to the immune system before you develop auto immunity.
第一种方法是在你产生自身免疫反应之前将抗原呈现给免疫系统。这样做的目的是尽可能早地引导免疫系统对抗原产生免疫应答。
This is like, you know, when they give little bits of peanuts to kids and that's how you present prevent peanut allergies.
这个就像是，你知道的，当他们给孩子一点点花生，这就是如何预防花生过敏的方法。
In most autoimmune conditions, we're past that point.
在大多数自身免疫疾病中，我们已经超过了那个阶段。
The immune system has already developed T cells and antibodies to go and attack. So that doesn't work.
免疫系统已经发展出了T细胞和抗体去攻击了。因此，这个方法行不通。
意思是，免疫系统已经产生了T细胞和抗体，可以用于攻击入侵的病原体，所以其他的方法不起作用。
The second way is immune suppression.
第二种方法是免疫抑制。
And that's terrible.
那简直太糟糕了。
Globally suppressing, meaning on the whole body, turning off the immune system is not healthy in a lot of ways.
在全身范围内全面抑制免疫系统，也就是关闭免疫系统在许多方面都不健康。
And that's the current, you know, kind of best thing we address auto immune conditions.
这就是我们目前所能解决自体免疫疾病的最佳方法。
So this is a new approach, which is we can actually re regulate the immune system to not attack itself, to not attack our own proteins by introducing that protein with what's called glycosylation, getting it into the liver and boom, this magic starts to happen.
所以这是一种新的方法，我们实际上可以通过引入所谓的糖基化蛋白质来重新调节免疫系统，使其不攻击自身，不攻击我们自己的蛋白质，通过将该蛋白质输入到肝脏中，一切就会神奇地发生起来。
And we'll see what the side effects are as they start to try this on humans.
我们将看到在他们开始在人类身上尝试这个方法时，会有什么副作用。
We'll see what conditions are more effective than others.
我们会看到哪些条件比其他条件更有效。
Sorry for the stupid basic question, but how is the, how is it different when we put these into say like you said, these were monkeys or chimpanzees.
抱歉提出这个愚蠢的基础问题，但是当我们将它们放入，就像你所说的，像猴子或黑猩猩这样的动物中，情况有何不同呢？
So how are their enuses different than Uranus?
那么，它们的鼻孔与天王星有什么不同呢？
What?
什么？
Sorry.
对不起。
Anyway, let's keep going here.
无论如何，我们继续前进吧。
Great science corner.
优秀的科学角。
I'm laughing at how contorted that you go.
我正在笑你所走的弯路有多曲折。
You punch it up.
你给它加油。
I'm just watching.
我只是在观看。
I'm just watching.
我只是在看着。
I'm just watching.
我只是在观看。
Yeah.
是的。
Let me, let me work on. We're punching it up.
让我来，让我处理。我们正在增添一些亮点。
We'll try to get a better Uranus show.
我们将努力提供更好的天王星秀。
Anyway, it's super cool auto immune conditions.
无论如何，自身免疫条件超级酷。
New world's getting better.
新世界越来越好了。
The term of the first to refer to refers to an approach to a therapeutic and this modality is a new modality.
“首次提及”这个术语用于指代一种治疗方法，而这种方式是一种新的模式。
So it's a super exciting new kind of universe to be explored now on how we might be able to treat auto immune conditions ranging from time.
所以现在有一种非常令人兴奋的全新宇宙可以探索，即我们可能如何治疗各种类型的自身免疫疾病。
Let me try.
让我试试看。
Hold on.
稍等片刻。
Yeah.
是的。
Hey, yeah.
嗨，是的。
What, what part of the body do you think is going to be most impacted by these discoveries?
在这些发现中，你认为身体的哪个部位会受到最大的影响？
No.
不。
The immune system.
免疫系统。免疫系统是人体内的一套复杂的防御机制，用于保护我们免受疾病和感染的侵害。它由许多不同的细胞、组织和分子组成，共同合作来识别和消灭外来的病原体，如病毒、细菌和真菌。免疫系统的主要功能是识别自身与非自身物质，并产生相应的免疫反应，从而维持身体的整体健康。当我们身体遭受病原体入侵时，免疫系统会迅速作出反应，攻击并清除这些病原体，以防止疾病的发展。免疫系统是我们身体的保护盾，保持我们健康和强大。
No, no, no, that's not good.
不，不，不，那不好。
That's not good.
那不太好。
Okay.
好的。
Let me try.
让我试一试。
Let me try.
让我试试看。
Let me try.
让我试一试。
Let me try.
让我试一试。
Let me try.
让我试试看。
Let me try.
让我试试看。
Let me try.
让我试试看。
Here we go.
我们开始吧。
Here we go.
我们开始吧。
I thought the only solution to MS was fecal transplantation through Uranus.
我曾以为对于多发性硬化症（MS）唯一的解决方案是通过“天王星”进行粪便移植。
表达的意思是发言者曾认为对于治疗多发性硬化症，通过直接将粪便注入肛门是唯一的解决方案。这句话可能是恶搞或是用幽默的方式表达对于疾病治疗的一种错误或奇特观点。
Yeah.
嗯。
Okay.
好的。
There's your winner.
这就是你的获胜者。
There's your winner.
这就是你的获胜者。
I like a fecal transplant.
我喜欢粪便移植。
I kind of did a little, a misdirection there with the fecal transplant.
在粪便移植这件事上，我有点耍了个小手段，有点欺骗的意思在里面。
Yeah.
是的。
And then we came back to Uranus.
然后我们回到了天王星。
That would be the way to get that done.
这将是完成那件事的方法。
We're going to wrap here.
我们打算收尾代表完成。
Thanks to everybody who came. Brian Armstrong also did a great job. Elon did a great job. Thanks to everybody who showed up for us.
感谢所有前来的人。布莱恩·阿姆斯特朗也做得很出色。埃隆也做得很出色。感谢所有为我们出席的人。
And if you want to watch all the talks, all the talks are being released exclusively on YouTube and X. So go to X and look at the all in podcast Twitter handle and type all in podcast on YouTube and you get to see all these talks available now.
如果你想观看所有的讲话，所有的讲话都会独家在 YouTube 和 X 上发布。所以请前往 X，并查看 all in podcast 的 Twitter 账户，然后在 YouTube 上搜索 all in podcast，你就可以立即看到所有这些讲话。
And Ray from the unofficial all in podcast meetups is doing a hundred fiftieth meetup for the fans in all different cities around the world. So just do a Google search for that for the Sultan of science and the world's greatest conference producer, the dictator in the arena, making it happen.
来自非官方全球播客见面会的雷先生将在世界各地为粉丝举办第150次聚会。所以，只需在谷歌上搜索"科学之君"和世界最佳会议组织者，在斗技之场的独裁者，让它成为现实。
And four. When it pouches, favorite bestie, David Sachs, and the industry is moderate. See you next time. Bye bye. Bye bye.
还有最后一条。当它隐藏起来时，最爱的好伙伴David Sachs和这个行业都相当稳定。下次再见。再见。再见。
Matt. uh. I'm going only.
马特，嗯，我只是走了。