Friedberg

And it's an opportunity for Google to cross sell and to secure more enterprise customers and theoretically cross sell more enterprise revenue by getting folks on a platform that Google could now offer. I would imagine that what Sachs is saying is probably right. I have absolutely no sense of what these individuals and board members at Wiz are thinking, but I think what Sachs is saying is right.

This is an incredibly fast growing business. Peter Thiel made the comment once, which I think is totally right. Either the buyer pays way too much or the seller sells way too early.

This is an incredibly fast growing business. Peter Thiel made the comment once, which I think is totally right. Either the buyer pays way too much or the seller sells way too early.

When you have a fast-growing business like this, it's really an important question to kind of acknowledge that if Wiz continues to grow at this rate, it's conceivable they could be in the range of a Palo Alto Network's $100 billion market cap in a couple of years, given this momentum and if you progress it forward.

When you have a fast-growing business like this, it's really an important question to kind of acknowledge that if Wiz continues to grow at this rate, it's conceivable they could be in the range of a Palo Alto Network's $100 billion market cap in a couple of years, given this momentum and if you progress it forward.

So if I was them, I would ask that question, could we reach 100 billion if we feel reasonably confident? This may be a risk worth taking. And what's the downside, right? The downside is they go public next year anyway, and maybe they're only valued at 15 billion or 20 billion. There's not a lot of downside from this offer and certainly seems to be quite a bit of upside.

So if I was them, I would ask that question, could we reach 100 billion if we feel reasonably confident? This may be a risk worth taking. And what's the downside, right? The downside is they go public next year anyway, and maybe they're only valued at 15 billion or 20 billion. There's not a lot of downside from this offer and certainly seems to be quite a bit of upside.

But I think for cloud, the thing to watch is what they're gonna do next. Google wants to accelerate beyond AWS. They wanna become the leader. And they're gonna look for other sizable transactions that will pass antitrust muster. And so I think you could see them perhaps looking at some public M&A in the same space. And I wouldn't be surprised to see them start to get active in that sense.

But I think for cloud, the thing to watch is what they're gonna do next. Google wants to accelerate beyond AWS. They wanna become the leader. And they're gonna look for other sizable transactions that will pass antitrust muster. And so I think you could see them perhaps looking at some public M&A in the same space. And I wouldn't be surprised to see them start to get active in that sense.

No, I think it's definitely this mini AI bubble deflating a bit. And transactions are, let me get out of some of these high multiple tech stocks that are expected to grow rapidly because of AI and shift more into stable market recovery. Interest rates are going to get cut, type trades that will benefit there. So I think it's just a rebalancing.

No, I think it's definitely this mini AI bubble deflating a bit. And transactions are, let me get out of some of these high multiple tech stocks that are expected to grow rapidly because of AI and shift more into stable market recovery. Interest rates are going to get cut, type trades that will benefit there. So I think it's just a rebalancing.

And as a result of the high concentration of the MAG7 and the S&P and in the Qs, the indices look like they're coming down, but Yeah, there's obviously a lot of complexity in what's going on in the economy right now. But I do think that that's been a big trade for PMs, for portfolio managers over the last couple of weeks.

And as a result of the high concentration of the MAG7 and the S&P and in the Qs, the indices look like they're coming down, but Yeah, there's obviously a lot of complexity in what's going on in the economy right now. But I do think that that's been a big trade for PMs, for portfolio managers over the last couple of weeks.

Freeberg, your thoughts? Yeah, so I definitely agree. I think I've talked about this. We talked a little bit about it with Jonathan Haidt. There's some great studies that have shown in the past that the change in income is a better predictor of happiness than absolute income. Eventually everything normalizes. So I think UBI makes no sense for three reasons.

Freeberg, your thoughts? Yeah, so I definitely agree. I think I've talked about this. We talked a little bit about it with Jonathan Haidt. There's some great studies that have shown in the past that the change in income is a better predictor of happiness than absolute income. Eventually everything normalizes. So I think UBI makes no sense for three reasons.

The first is this normalization of spending level. So once you've kind of had this increase, you have a moment of happiness and then you actually start spending differently or spending more. And effectively every human has one innate trait. desire. And desire is what drives humanity. It's what drives progress. It's what pushes us forward.

The first is this normalization of spending level. So once you've kind of had this increase, you have a moment of happiness and then you actually start spending differently or spending more. And effectively every human has one innate trait. desire. And desire is what drives humanity. It's what drives progress. It's what pushes us forward.

Because no matter what our absolute condition, it's our relative condition that matters relative to others, or relative to ourselves in the past, or prospectively in the future. And so we always want to improve our condition. So a UBI-based system basically gives a flat income. So the only way for it to really work is if you increase the income automatically by, say, 10% a year.

Because no matter what our absolute condition, it's our relative condition that matters relative to others, or relative to ourselves in the past, or prospectively in the future. And so we always want to improve our condition. So a UBI-based system basically gives a flat income. So the only way for it to really work is if you increase the income automatically by, say, 10% a year.

So in a UBI world, no amount of money will actually make someone satisfied or meet their minimum thresholds because those minimum thresholds will simply shift. And the second issue is just the net economic effect. If we gave 350 million Americans a thousand bucks a month, that's $350 billion a month. That's $4 trillion a year.