emily: i am emily chang and this is the "best of bloomberg technology," where we bring you all of our top interviews from this week in technology. big tech takes on washington as jack dorsey and sheryl sandberg testified before the senate. how is this different from when mark zuckerberg was in the hot seat? how will the e-commerce giant amazon fare alongside apple. bumble puts women first in the dating game. now the company is turning that attitude towards investment. we will hear from the ceo on her plans to invest in other women.

you had to our top story big , technology took center stage on capitol hill this week. facebook coo sheryl sandberg and twitter ceo jack dorsey took questions about meddling. notably absent was google. a third chair was left empty for them. sandberg and dorsey, though contrite, gave familiar answers. >> as a bipartisan report from this committee said, russia used social media as part of a comprehensive and multifaceted campaign to sow discord, undermine democratic institutions, and interfere in u.s. elections and those of our allies. we were too slow to spot this and too slow to act. that is on us. >> we are proud of how that free

and open exchange has been weaponize and used to distract and by people, and our nation. we found ourselves unprepared and unequipped for the immensity of the problems we have acknowledged. emily: once that was over the twitter coo answered questions before the house energy committee. bloomberg's chief washington correspondent kevin cirilli caught up with mark warner and asked about his thoughts on the testimony. >> they clearly understand this problem of russian intervention or other foreign countries intervention, and spreading misinformation is not going to go away. i think they are finally taking it seriously. now i think they realize this is an ongoing challenge. i heard a willingness to sit down and work with us on how we can get appropriate rules.

not to over regulate, cut off innovation, but i heard from twitter that they thought there was validity in the point i made should a human being have a right to know whether they are being contacted on social media by another human being or by computer. does that mean you get rid of the bot? there is also a question where i thought facebook was very forward leaning about the idea of not only would they make more public the personal day-to-day use and sell to advertisers, and how much value they are getting. they thought there were certain or sites that incited violence to such levels that they would have a moral or legal obligation to take down those websites.

i heard a real willingness to think about this together in a way that tries to -- you know, the wild, wild west of social media is going to expand. there has to be some guardrails but not in a way that cuts off innovation. >> what is the timeline here in terms of regulation, in terms of there being working groups? >> our committee showed that a lot of folks had done their homework. this was not internet 101 the way some of the earlier hearings had been. we will continue to sit down with this company and others. that's why it was so frustrating that google decided not to participate, but we will sit down with these companies and say, how do we get this right in a way that at the end of the day allows users of this information

to have a better judge of its accuracy, origin, and not trying to limit people's discussion, but at least trying to have some sense of what is real or not. >> you went there, visit them, met with these companies. for them to essentially say we are not showing up, they were a no-show at this hearing. essentially not just say no to the committee, but also not taking questions from the country just 10 weeks before the midterm election. >> i don't get it. i have worked with google for years. i think they have been a very forward leaning company and their unwillingness to try to sit down and work with congress, and answer questions that americans have, i think at the end of the day it will hurt the reputation, not just with policymakers, but with a whole lot of google users.

what do they have to hide if they are not willing to show an answer questions? emily: that was senator mark warner with bloomberg's kevin cirilli right there. i want to walk through the day's and bring in somebody who recently testified before the senate committee on foreign operations in social media, laura rosenberger, codirector of the alliance for a secure democracy. walk us through the highlights today. the room was packed. conspiracy theorist alex jones was there, interestingly, probably one of the many people interested in these discussions around shadow banning. were there any surprises? >> it certainly has been a marathon of hearings and one of them is still ongoing. the senate hearing, you certainly saw that the lawmakers were more prepared and quite a light the issues they wanted to hit the tech companies on. we also saw facebook and twitter really a vote their statements to say that this is their number one priority him at to stop abuse, stop for election meddling.

there are also a lot of questions about, are they adequately equipped to deal with the evolving threat? many lawmakers brought up the new, coordinated miss information campaign coming from russia and iran. we saw the tone shifted to a much more political tone. we saw the democratic and republican lawmakers really start to divide and be quite combative towards each other. the republican lawmakers wanted to focus on alleged censorship on these platforms, while democratic lawmakers saw this as an invented conspiracy that republicans are using to push their ideas in preparation ahead of the midterms. the conversation steered towards other issues like election interference, and data privacy. jack dorsey has really kept his cool through all of this. this was his first time testifying and it was quite impressive how he was able to methodically and in his own way responded to all of the

lawmakers questions. emily: dorsey was perhaps more contrite than investors would have wanted him to be. we saw twitter shares fall, facebook shares fall as well. what did you make of what we heard from both dorsey and sandberg? was there any new information here? >> thanks, emily. there was not really much new information here. i think what we heard from them was a recognition that there is a problem, a recognition that they have an obligation to do something about it, but extremely short on specifics in terms of what that actually means. i agree with senator warner's assessment that we are hearing more in terms of a willingness to cooperate, potentially with government, in terms of tackling this problem. one of the things that the members asked about was information sharing across the platforms with one another. this is a problem that is not confined to one platform.

our adversaries are using different platforms to different ends, and really to tackle the problem we have to be able to pull all of the information together. this is two years after the 2016 election and we are still talking about needing to develop ways to tackle the problem rather than actually doing that in a meaningful way. that is what concerns me. emily: that was laura rosenberger of the alliance for securing democracy, codirector and boomer text selina wang. first apple, than amazon, but what company will be next to cross the trillion dollar valuation. listen to us on the bloomberg app, bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: amazon started september

with a bang. shares of the tech giant rose this week, pushing the company above a market value of $1 trillion, a milestone apple reached just last month. it is a big milestone for ceo jeff bezos, currently the world wealthiest person. most notably has been the speed at which amazon hit this milestone. shares have almost tripled in the last three years. we spoke with ivan feinseth and brad stone about all of this. >> when i first visited amazon in seattle stock prices were falling in the single digits. we are not our stock price. it is something amazon employees might remember today, because as the chart you showed demonstrates, this company has been propelled by strong fundamentals and increasing net income, and also a wave of optimism. that everything amazon is involved in will turn out well.

this market capitalization has tripled in the last few years. everything has to go perfectly for amazon to justify this valuation had keep growing. it is doing quite well in all of its core businesses. and has transformed its business into a marketplace and service that helps other customers, other retailers sell online, but clearly there is a lot of optimism. emily: how likely is it that everything will go perfectly, as brad said? >> i don't think they really expected to go perfectly. it is a company that takes risks, they get into new businesses, they invest in growth, and continued to expand outside of their core business by adding different services into their online retail supply chain management system, and also their web host amazon web services. they are adding big data analytics, artificial intelligence capabilities, so they keep expanding what they

do. i think the next big area that amazon goes into will be focused on health care. emily: i'm looking at the chart from 1999 and looking at the speed in which shares have risen over the last three years. is this rational? brad: the kind of market decides that. clearly, it is. these are all rational actors that are buying. amazon stock this is a company that has executed extraordinarily well in the last 10 years. the increasing success of the fulfillment by amazon, where amazon turns its warehouses over to third parties. all of the things it does so well, i mean, and online retail is still 5% of total retail in the u.s.. it is much smaller than other markets, so i think some of the optimism is investors rationally looking and seeing that amazon is an extraordinarily well-run company in markets that have so much room for growth.

emily: oil prices crashed. do you see some big potential challenge or headwinds out there that could lead to some downside risk here? >> there could be with at recent run-up and the long-term run-up, there could be some profit taking. there is a lot of value in a number of other leading technology stocks, specifically google. i think that google is a tremendous value here. it has not increased and is not trade at the valuation that amazon does, yet it has a lot of the key business drivers similar to amazon. also, microsoft is again close to the $1 trillion market, a little bit ahead of google. microsoft is evolving into a leading cloud player as well, so i think you could have some profit taking in amazon and people reallocating the money into other stocks that also have potential to go across the trillion dollar, or at least increase in value as well.

emily: what about the threat of regulation? is that the biggest threat? >> the trillion dollar mark is a subjective number. amazon is not different than yesterday or tomorrow. it is different in one context, which is it puts an incredibly visible target on the backs of these companies. there is no better illustration than they dominate our landscape. i think amazon seen get from the right with trump and his tweets about taxes and the post office, and jess ownership of the " washington post." i think that there is a big conversation about whether amazon prices are having an effect on inflation. i think regulation is one of their biggest obstacles in the year ahead.

emily: a venture capital austin things amazon will be the first company to hit the $3 trillion mark. i know it is hard to look that far ahead, but what do you think of that prediction? >> i think the stock still has potential for a number of reasons. it is, along with apple, the dominant stock within the s&p 500. as money continues to go into the market, passive investors have to -- four cents out of every dollar in an s&p index fund goes into amazon and apple. with the rise in the market it will attract more money. i think it continues to trade up on that basis. they are a fast-growing company that continues to evolve into new businesses, and develop new markets, and go after markets that are fast-growing that they can bring their operating efficiencies to, and i think they will continue to do that, which will drive more growth.

i think there is further upside in the stock. $3 trillion is probably a ways away, but at some point when the market rises significantly amazon is going to continue to rise significantly as well. emily: your take, brad? brad: it seems excessive but $1 trillion in 2018 would have surprised me also. amazon plant a lot of seeds. alexa is one of them, it is leading this voice market. if they bring that into vehicles and to the workplace, then i see a lot of different opportunities for amazon. emily: that was brad stone and ivan feinseth uber is introducing a number of features to make passengers and driver sacred. there will be an emergency button for drivers and voice-activated commands. coming up, dating app bumble, where women make the first move is battling tinder in court, but is now looking beyond dating.

we will hear from the ceo. a defense contractor launching the market search for the latest artificial intelligence innovation with a challenge to drone users. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: china is said to be exploring a megamerger between two of the nation's three wireless carriers. a merger between china telecom and china unicom would help gain an advantage over the united states. in 2012, whitney wolfe herd was the only woman on tinder's team. she launched bumble, the female

first app where women make the first move. today the company is one of tinder's biggest competitors and now she is investing in other women. last month they launched the bumble fund, focused on investing in female founded and led businesses. >> we are generally flattered when a competitor wants to come into our unique space. what we really stay focused on is being true to ourselves. we were founded based on values and we are a mission driven company. there is authenticity to that. as long as we stay true to that and keep innovating beyond that, we are really not too concerned about competition. candidly, facebook has been in the dating business since facebook started. the fact that they are actually attaching a label to that is hugely validating to the entire dating industry. bumble has expanded beyond

dating. emily: professional networking, is that a foreshadowing of what's to come are what you want bumble to become? >> the mission of bumble is to be the global empowerment brand. we want to bring people together at every level of their life. we want to connect you across the board. nobody in our space has ever been able to successfully do that. the fact that we have been able to for a into friend finding and networking successfully, and show that we have this value of when someone meets that significant other, we don't lose that user. they can find a friend or a business partner. this can be a platform for introducing you to people you don't know yet. emily: women make the first move. i'm curious how the trends have changed. is that the norm now?

where do you see the online dating trend going. >> when we launched we were the only platform to ever really put women out there and empower them to be confident and own making the first move. traditional gender norms and suggested men had to make the first move. you saw that spill over into the digital apps. we are also going to evolve. bumble is in such a right position to continue building upon that and giving women more control through features, and evolving even beyond where we are today. emily: you have launched a new feature, news, which allows people to take a break from online dating. why can't they just put their phone down or log out of the app? >> when was the last time you put your phone down? we want to have accountability.. we really want to empower our users to take a break when they need to. the beauty of bumble, why we are not nervous about losing our bottom line for users is that at the end of the day we all need

human connection, even if we take a break for a moment. when you to connect, need to find love, business connections, and friendship. we will always be there but we are encouraging users to focus on themselves. it is core to who we are. a lot of these big social media giants are on capitol hill and apologizing for their lack of accountability, their lack of catering to their users and giving users a break, or taking care of their users and the lack of accountability across the board. bumble, we really want to say we have been here standing up, raising our hands say we are here to bring you an accountable experience. it is really fascinating to see

these giants right now kind of apologizing. and here we are saying, we have been doing this from the very beginning. emily: let's talk about match, the parent company of tinder. they sued you for patent infringement and you sued back. how would you describe your relationship status with match now? is it impacting investor sentiment? >> we are not raising money at the moment and our users don't care about what type of a lawsuit the company might be in right now. by the way, we are staying so focused, we are so untracked. with scaling at such a level, comes challenges. we will weather the storm. i have nothing but respect for their current ceo. i think she is a remarkable woman and i think we will keep doing our thing, keep innovating, building, adding value to our users, and we will see what happens. as emily: they purchased hinge.

does that change the landscape for you in terms of public or is private? >> no. the big vision is to add as much value to the users and grow exponentially. the focus right now is going deeper into our existing market, which will just penetrate the markets we have already had exponential growth in, and then really proving that we can be this global, international, high scale, very scalable brand. what they choose to acquire and choose to do is there on business. we wish them all and nothing but the best. emily: bumble ceo whitney wolfe herd. genetic testing company 23 and me has high hopes for a new partnership with big pharma. how they are hoping to cure a range of disease. be sure to follow our breaking news network, tictoc, on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: welcome back to the "best of bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. defense contractor lockheed martin is looking for drone racing for the next advance in intelligence. we caught up with the company's chief technology officer keoki jackson at the techcrunch disrupt event in san francisco this week. >> this is the autonomy of a.i. challenges bringing back to the world of high speed play. we are partnering with video and drone racing league. if you see this on tv, we are raising the bar and raising the excitement level. we are challenging people out here at the conference today and

around the world to develop the technology that will allow autonomous drones to meet and compete in a complicated race. emily: there will be no human drone intervention. keoki: once it goes, it has to work on its own. that is what we call edge computing, to navigate and complete the course. as fast as possible. these are speeds up to 80 miles per hour. emily: talk about the track that you use and the technical challenges about making this possible. keoki: a couple of things. it is all about putting really complex and highpowered computing into a very compact, lightweight, low size weight and power device at the edge. these are small drones. movement is very high speed. they are moving into you have seen on tv these drone racing courses, these are 3d courses where they have to maneuver around obstacles and have to be able to complete the course in the fastest time possible.

ultimately we will compete with these machines, and the ai folks out here develop against top human drone racing pilots. emily: what kind of tracks are you using? keoki: we use tracks comparable to what the pilots are using in drone racing today. emily: lockheed martin likes to say it has been in silicon valley before silicon valley was silicon valley, but for a defense company how, how do you respond? keoki: whether it is defense-related, or it is putting people back on the moon and out to mars, these are incredibly complex challenges. they are very difficult missions and very difficult environments. they require a whole range of technology. so to meet those mission challenges, we need to be bringing in not just the very best talent from around the area here.

we are looking to partner with someone that has new ideas, whether it is autonomy, a.i., sensors, learning, quantum information sciences. these are the technologies that will bring advancements of these capabilities. emily: are these technologies that lockheed martin could help develop? keoki: absolutely. we are looking to collaborate with small companies through large companies. we are here on the floor at techcrunch. we have representatives from lockheed martin ventures fund, $200 million plan where we are looking for companies that have interesting technology. they have a range of challenges from undersea to deep space. emily: we talk about self-driving cars, but in reality they are probably a long way off. are we further along when it comes to drones that can be controlled by a piloted plane with or without human

interaction? keoki: let me give you a couple of examples. i will use one in the military. a few years ago there was a big problem with improvised explosive devices harming troops in afghanistan. our engineer said we have technology that can deal with that. we ended up deploying two autonomous helicopters. they did 1700 missions autonomously delivered over 4 million pounds of food and supplies and cargo. those of the capabilities that exist today. on the commercial side we are developing what we call matrix technology. autonomous fullscale helicopters, doing that the past five years, operating in zero-zero weather conditions, indoor or at sea. you can detect a forest fire. you can send a helicopter out to rescue somebody and another helicopter out with a water bucket to put the fire out.

emily: that was lockheed martin's c.t.o.s the keoki jackson. also at techcrunch was 23andme c.e.o. and cofounder anne wojoliki. they are working to develop treatments and cures for some of the most devastating diseases. she told me why it is a dream close to her heart. anne: 23andme started with the data. we said that drug discovery can fundamentally change if you have an incredible amount of data. the hypothesis we have is if we have all of this information and we discover targets that started from a human component, that will have a higher success rate with drug development. most drugs fail. the reason why it is so expensive to develop a drug is that 95% of everything fails. so if we can actually have a better beginning starting with human genetics, we believe we

have a higher likelihood of succeeding. the partnership is all about helping us scale the drug development process. we can find tons and tons and tons of ideas. each idea is like a child. imagine today, we have 13 children. that is a lot. we have called out the big guns here to help us really develop all of these programs and enable us to scale and really bring, have the potential of bringing drugs to market much faster to our customers and whole world. emily: anything in particular? >> i'm most excited. i'm biased. we have this genetic that runs in my family on parkinson's disease. i'm most excited that glaxo has a program on that. i'm excited about that. we're going to be able to combine from the power that 23andme has from all of our engage it customers to the drug

development that g.s.k. already had going. emily: the f.d.a. also approved you doing a test for the breast cancer gene. as the first direct consumer. how groundbreaking or powerful anne: i think that is huge. more and more there is a trend if you want to have good healthcare at scale, it can't always be a one to one position. you have to find ways to leverage the internet and leverage ways to scale information across the entire country. this allows people they are really important, valuable, lifesaving information in an affordable fashion without having to have a physician or genetic counselor. emily: you volunteered 23andme services to help reunite parents and children at the u.s.-mexico border. what's the status of that? >> no one took us up on the offer. we had groups contact us whether

or not we could be part of this. part of our business is connecting families. there are a lot of issues other people have around it. fundamentally for me 23andme is always about helping people improve their lives. this was an opportunity for us to really help people. it never came to fruition. there was too many controversies having us involved. emily: could law enforcement subpoena that data? >> it was a shame it didn't happen. a lot of the children have been reunited. there is all kinds of things that we can do. you can opt people out of research and being part of the d.n.a. relatives. it is anonymous. when you choose this it is just you. there is no we do not cooperate with law enforcement. we don't give your data to anyone else. we felt like we had a good handle on privacy. we will always offer to help

when there is an opportunity for us to help. emily: there is this question once you hand over that data, even if you have the proper concept place, how do you prevent misuse? how do you prevent it from getting hacked? how do you think about these things? anne: i love looking at your d.n.a. but your bank account is so much more interesting. there is so much technology that is dedicated to protecting bank account information. we can learn. there is tons of things that we can learn and security and data. privacy and security are top of mind for us. we have always said we have no business if we can't protect the data of our customers. we have to do everything as a company to make sure we are protecting your data, but at the same time, we want to give you choice. if you want to share your data with me or your mother or a friend, let's give you that choice. if you decide you want to delete you data, you can delete your data. totally fine. what we want to do is allow you

to have choice about how your data is being used. it is part of the reason why we always give you back when there is a publication about our research, we want you to know about it. emily: that was 23andme's c.e.o. and cofounder anne wojoliki. theranos will formally dissolve. it is reported the silicon valley company will seek to pay unsecured creditors its remaining cash in the coming months. this means more bad blood for founder elizabeth holmes who promised to revolutionize blood testing but was criminally charged in june with defrauding along with the company's former president. both have denied the charges. coming up, the technology matching cancer patients with treatments specifically tailored to them. it has the backing of a hong kong billionaire to take it global. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: a new global platform is aiming to revamp cancer care. driver was developed by a harvard-trained oncologist. the ceo and cofounder told our chief asia correspondent the startup launched in china with a number of cancer patients is exploding. >> we did not pick the timing. we have been in china over three years. we have endeavored to build our platform as a global one. >> in a nutshell, how does it work and what need is it filling? >> the problem driver has is the following. we have a market failure in terms of how a patient gains access to treatment. there has never been more treatment. the doctor did a good job interfacing with the patient and getting them treatment. >> there's a lot of information.

how do you get the right treatment? >> there's a ton of information. the only way the patient can get access for this treatment is through a physician. and the data is giving the patient access to the most advanced therapies in the form of clinical trials. driver says instead of the doctor being by himself or herself responsible for clearing that market, what if we had a platform to help? we are not a new treatment, per se. we're an operating system between the patient and doctor, but what we are hopefully curing is the treatment itself. hopefully we can speed up the development and delivery. hopefully we can speed up the development and delivery. >> is that marketplace, the ecosystem that is there between the doctor and patient and what is out there, is that marketplace broken? >> broken. it's completely broken.

the data comes from societies like the united states where post obamacare, more than nine out of 10 patients have their cancer care paid for. for society at least in the united states, whether it is the government paying for it, insurance paying for it, yourself paying for it, 95% of patients have been cared for. but too many patients do not get the standard of care. the overall statistic is hard to define. numbers differ disease by disease, but there are some cancers where more than 60% or 70% of patients will not get guidelinebased stateoftheart care, so i would say that is a market failure meaning that the treatment exists but the consumer is not getting it, and they have the ability to pay for it, and the second failure is access to clinical trials. the number of americans who would like to have access to clinical trials is more than 80%.

>> how does fill the need as well to bridge the gap that we have seen. we have seen shortages in this and this. oncologist shortages in the world, which is huge. >> there is a massive shortage of oncologist. teen of really bad things are wo really bad things are happening at the same time. one is there is not enough oncologist, and two is this more and more cancer patients. you take the fact that there are not enough oncologists. in eight countries in africa, there are zero oncologists. there is a 10th of the number of oncologists in china compared to the united states. >> i think it's 18 oncologists per one million people in china. >> in the u.s., we might have a 20% or 30% efficiency. if we are not comfortable taking part of the oncologist's job and migrating it, it means you are

comfortable with a lot of people in the world not oncologist at all. >> you decided you are a technology company, not a health care company. >> we're not even a health tech company. i'm not sure why in health care and medicine, if you are a tech company, you need an adjective in front of you. health tech. digital. i like to say drivers know more of a health care company. we are a tech company. >> how much did this impact how you decided to seek funding? >> you're exactly right. exactly. many people, when we were getting started, said why didn't you start off with going to pharma? why we are really excited, we wanted driver to be a platform

for the patient, and we wanted to build alignment with those key stakeholders in that room when a patient comes out of treatment, and that's just two people, the patient and the doctor. we wanted to build our platform with the patient being the primary customer, with alignment with our partner centers, and now that we have done that, we are really excited to bring pharma in, but in highly patientaligned ways that can augment their options. emily: driver c.e.o. and cofounder with bloomberg's steven engle. coming up, tackling venture capital diversity problems and making bets on companies big and small from startups all the way to amazon. we're going to hear from her next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: president of abc entertainment, c.e.o. of martha stewart's media company and ceo has worn many hats, and she has been on hits like "grey's anatomy" and "desperate housewives." today she wants to see more women at the top. she leads built by girls, a venture capital firm that looks for companies with at least one female founder and happens to be a personal investor in amazon, which just hit a $1 trillion evaluation this week. >> they are a tech company. they are a commerce company. they are a media company, and they have really diversified in the way most have not. they have created an ecosystem or flywheel that is brilliant that moves people from one part of their ecosystem to another

very seamlessly. emily: there has been a huge run-up in the shares the last three years. the stock has exploded, but really quickly, does that concern you? that this could be the top, the plateau? susan: i don't think it is the top. when you look at it is a highly valued stock, let's be fair. but i do think there is still a lot of room there when you think that ecommerce is still 15% of all commerce in the country, and they are the dominant player in that space. as it expands more, they will benefit from that. they are also one of the few companies out there where you can say, they are not going to be profoundly impacted by the trade wars. emily: interesting. i want to ask about that. i have a chart comparing apple

to amazon. what about the threat of regulation? what about the fact amazon is in the president's crosshairs? susan: i think it is, but amazon support and they enable thousands and thousands of small businesses around the country. so you go after amazon, and you are going after really the mainstay of the president's support system. i think he will think long and hard about how and when he goes after them. emily: you know what it is like to run an ecommerce company competing with amazon. today we saw j.crew actually partner with amazon. you can get j.crew products on amazon. which is kind of surprising. do you think that is the only choice for a retailer today is to work with amazon, not against, or is this going to be an isolation?

susan: i think there are lots of different options for retailers and brands. so one of them is definitely to use the amazon platform because you can reach an enormous number of people, but there are plenty of brands doing very well by going directly to consumers, and those are among the companies we back as a vc firm. there is no question there is a lot of things amazon does really well. one of them is not necessarily developing brand strength. and so for companies like parker and casper, they develop a direct relationship with their consumer. it is an emotional connection, and it keeps the customer with them i think for longer, and on a more consistent basis. emily: talk about bbg.

you came on the show when you launched its fund. every company has a female founder. have you found that to be a competitive advantage? susan: 100%. one of the reasons that we launched bbg ventures is we knew women were the dominant consumer. we are either responsible for or have the last word on 85% of all consumer purchases in every part of life. it is not just fashion and beauty. it is what health care plan you use. it is what insurer you use, it is where you buy your house. all of those things, women are the dominant force in. him and it made sense to us to back entrepreneurs who understood that end user, and we will speak her language, know where to find her, and how to delight her. how to serve her needs. emily: despite the fact there are people out there like you making bets on women, i have a lot of investors saying we are looking hard but cannot find them.

what are they doing wrong? susan: they aren't really looking. we have seen 4000 companies since we launched four years ago all with a female founder. i think organizations like all raise, which i imagine you have covered, all raise is doing fantastic work in that space. emily: nonprofit trying to get more women into venture and women funded. susan: correct, exactly. i think there are lots and lots of women out there starting businesses. the problem is the vc world is still dominantly male. 91% of all, all vc partners are male, so that impacts the way venture dollars get invested, and it may seem like it is an

arcane part of the finance world and not really important, but it is. venture capital has a much bigger impact than you would think. if you look back over the last 44 years, 42% of all the companies that went public during that period of time were venture backed. if we want to have a more diverse ecosystem of companies out there, if we believe that, that a more diverse group of entrepreneurs will come up with better solutions, then we must find ways for mortgage capital to go to women. emily: bbg ventures. that does it for this edition of the best of bloomberg technology. we will bring you all the latest throughout the week. you can tune in every day. 5:00 p.m. in new york. 2:00 p.m. in san francisco. be sure to follow our global breaking news tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

this isn't just any moving day.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. >> coming up on bloomberg best,

the stories that shaped the week in business around the world. e.m. mayhem. currencies said in nations around the world. >> too little too late, unfortunately, the story of this emerging market crisis. >> i despise the word contagion. >> a court candidate and some tech titans answer questions on capitol hill. >> it is believed that this manipulation of platforms is even close to addressed is false. >> patrick leahy describes the setting here on capitol hill -- julie: citigroup restruc