♪ emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." off itst kicks roadshow. valuation less than it fetched in its last valuation round. facebook, instagram, twitter, even more face possible fines over a u.k. band under a new law if they don't remove violent and

hateful content. in what is so special about snap? the company has nearly doubled in 2019 and investors are looking to jump in on the optimism. pinterest has raised $2.8 billion in its initial public offering, setting the price range of shares at 15 to 17 dollars per piece. valuation.he total why the conservative pricing? a platform helping investors understand the companies discover the future. also, bloomberg tech's eric newcomer. what details are we getting from the roadshow and investor appetite for pinterest so far? i think we are still seeing that it is early in the process. , which wasom lift

priced at $72 and has struggled to maintain that range, i can have sympathies for pinterest to try to set expectations somewhere. emily: what are your expectations for pinterest? they are making money, losing met less -- losing less money than lyft. >> snap, the business is almost identical. pinterest is almost twice as big as snape was. what is interesting about pinterest is it is just a much more mature company and therefore a much more highly rated company by r rating system than snape was when it came out. as far as the ipo is concerned, lyft or in a process to find the highest possible price. pinterest is probably in a process to find the right price

for long-term shareholders. emily: couldn't that lead some investors to scratch their heads and say, why would a year or two years ago investors be so excited to jump in on this price? is the company less great now? rett: public companies have prices that go up and also go down. a long time to see what the seasoned prices going to be. pinterest's business model is sort of like snap, selling big brands to a large and established audience, very different from lyft, very different from uber. uber were expecting potentially an f1 filing any day now. what's the latest on that? eric: on uber, any day now this

could bed the roadshow this month. pinterest is a very different company from bloomberg and lyft. -- from uber and lyft. snape is a better comparison. there's been this question about whether the private markets work rational or whether they were overpricing all of these private companies. i think that is why this conversation over whether pinterest is worth $12 billion, now it might be worth $9 billion, is really interesting. i think this process of figuring out how the public market feels about all this private valuation is ongoing here. it is a fascinating business story. i think that is why we are talking about all these companies at the same time when they have sort of raced out the

door. emily: you are nodding your head. why? rett: i don't think we know what will happen after uber files. it could have the effect of pulling the oxygen out of the room. we haven't seen a deal that big until alibaba -- since alibaba. emily: what are some other interesting prospects you are watching? we are talking about. eric: we joke that zoom has three things we almost never see in a company that goes public in techland. eps. it should probably get more attention than it is getting right now in comparison with lyft on the one hand and pinterest on the other. the names are all -- we are waiting for slack, waiting for

palatine, maybe pelletier -- and an, maybe palantir few others. emily: rett wallace and eric newcomer, thank you both. tesla followed a disappointing deliveries report by cutting another swath of sales staff across the country. as the company continues to pare back personnel and shift its ordering process online. the company dismissed several dozen sales team members across the united states. teams known internally as "inside sales," tasked with reaching out to customers and inviting them to test drive cars. companies have asked international government to take the lead on regulating the internet and the u.k. is planning to do just that. we will discuss possible new laws, next. if you like bloomberg news, check us up on the radio, the bloomberg app, in the u.s. on

sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

content to sit around and wait for social media companies to regulate themselves, the u.k. is proposing its own new laws. if companies like facebook, google, and twitter prevent to -- failed to prevent, say, the livestreaming of mass shootings, they could face fines. that could include penalties for individual company executives. -- hecretary of state for discussed the proposal on monday. >> if you take as an example the information commissioner's office in the u.k. has the power to fine those in breach of the

privacy and data regulations, and have the power to impose fines up to 4% of the global turnover of the company in concern. we think something of that order may be appropriate here, too. ofwe had mark zuckerberg facebook come out and say that maybe it is time to have an international coordinated regulation. have you spoken with mr. zuckerberg or his representatives? have spoken to mr. zuckerberg and we discussed exactly what it is the british government is proposing to do. i don't believe that he doesn't either that we will be the only government in the world to do this. i think there an acceptance on his part and other companies like facebook that some form of regulation is now inevitable and that they recognize the government should play a part in this. it is important that decisions are made by an independent regulator and that that

regulator is able to assess the systems to keep their users safe. if they do what they should, the regulator will be satisfied. if they don't, the regulator will have penalties available. emily: have you had concerns about tit-for-tat? i can't imagine the u.s. will sit by and feel ok about that? what if they do the same for countries operating in the u.s.? mr. wright: it is companies wherever they are located that will be subject to these rules. from our perspective, it is most important to keep citizens of the u.k. safe. those offering services to citizens in the u.k. will be subject to these rules. we very much hope we won't be the only country to put in place measures like this. i'm confident companies in the united states will -- lawmakers in the united states will be subject to the same pressures we are.

we want our kids to feel safe online, we want to feel safe online, and we want to deal with harmful online content. right now, it is not controlled, where it would be controlled in almost any other environment. i hope very much that others will be interested in what we are doing. >> how do we strike a balance between keeping people safe in one hand and curtailing speech that may be uncomfortable but is good for society? mr. wright: that is a difficult balance to strike. one thing we will specifically require a regulator to do is to take full account of freedom of speech and also the need to promote innovation. it is very important that companies have the opportunity to innovate. emily: that was jeremy wright, the u.k. culture, media, digital, and sport secretary. andnt to bring in tom giles capital analyst mark, who currently has an outperform on

facebook. it seems like they just can't get away from the bad news. how concerned are you about impending regulation of the content on these sites in particular given that they have demonstrated an incredible inability to regulate that themselves? a technical challenge that no company can overcome, same thing with youtube and the quality of content. emily: is it a technical challenge or ache values challenge? mark: it is at least a technical element. it may be values as well. the three major risks to these large platforms, competition, maturity, and regulation. regulation has risen dramatically. in terms of stocks, probably puts a little bit of a cap on the multiple they can sustain. there will be extra costs. i think it is already in facebook's numbers, which caused the company to lower its

guidance. i think this will be ongoing risk. i don't think it is existential. i don't think some of the most extreme things we've seen, like having them divest whatsapp or instagram, i think that is highly unlikely to happen. i think there is an advantage that you are moving wildcard regulatory risk. emily: there was a law passed in australia in the aftermath of the christchurch shooting that would require these companies to pay up to 10% of their revenue if they violate the law. they are violating this law almost every day. hateful content up there all the time. could that be material to their business? mark: it could be. i would be surprised to see that implemented. maybe it will be in one country. have never seen anything of this size. one area of regulation we haven't talked about, the size of the company. facebook accounts for about 90%

of social media usage worldwide. they should be regulated. whether that should be in a way that undermines the profitability of the business, that is an open question. emily: tom, you've been walking through the potential new law. tell us what these different countries are looking at here. tom: overall, and europe, you already have gdpr. that subjects these companies to a potential of 4% overall revenue fine. you have the u.k. considering something extra that would punish these guys for failing to curb the kinds of content we saw in the aftermath of the new zealand shooting. you have friends, a digital tax. there's a lot of questions around exactly what that would look like. would that be taken away from they already tax have to pay in that country or

region? mark zuckerberg needs to be careful what he asks for. he talks about, we are willing, we are ready, we need the regulation, we invite it. but what does that look like? i don't think what he and jack dorsey and sheryl sandberg are talking about is, find us, take us,revenue -- is, "fine take our revenue, please." i think they are looking to set a standard which is acceptable and what the repercussions should be if we fall short. i don't think they are talking about 4% and plus of revenue intake. emily: the backlash against these companies and facebook in particular only seems to be getting stronger. new zealand's privacy commissioner tweeted overnight, "facebook cannot be trusted. they are morally bankrupt pathological liars who enable mar), and then

undermining of democratic institutions." he later deleted these tweets saying he received what he called a flood of misinformation. there's a lot of anger out there and it only seems to be getting worse. how does that affect the company on a bottom-line level? i think the outrage is slowly ebbing. in the u.s., in the midterm elections, there weren't issues. if there were, i think the heat heat would be rising. you are going to have these one-off incidents. that kind of commentary seems to me a little bit over the top. ishink the real surprise they didn't realize how --ressively their contact their platform could be of use.

facebook wasn't the only company that was surprised by interference. i think there are technological challenges here. it is very hard when you have --e video and you know what facebook is tempted to do that. it is always going to be a problem with a live media platform, whether facebook, twitter, youtube. emily: in the u.s. itself, you have u.s. lawmakers training their sites on u.s. lawmakers. elizabeth warren calling for big tech companies to be broken up. would you agree that here in the u.s., the outrage might be reaching a plateau? tom: i think this will continue to be a bit of a political football throughout 2020. does ratchet up the

pressure on youtube, facebook, twitter, to do a better job of policing their platforms. it is good to remember that hate deeds and these nefarious did not originate with facebook. this is not something that has cropped up in the last 10 years. these companies do play a role in helping the speed at which this information and misinformation, hate speech. i think they do accept a sense of responsibility of doing a better job, of being a gatekeeper, of keeping our worst impulses in check. emily: we will be watching to see how these new potential laws play out. tom giles, thank you. mark is sticking with me to talk snap. coming up, snap extends its rebound after picking up another buy recommendation from rbc.

this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: snap continued to rally on monday with shares closing at the highest level since mid august. that is in part due to picking up another buy recommendation from rbc capital. just last week, snap announced a suite of new products and services including eight videogame business. from rbch us, mark capital. what makes you so optimistic about snap? remains thetill most controversial name in large cap internet. that skew is dramatically more bearish than you would find for -- name any stock you want, twitter, facebook. i thought that was interesting. the popularity of this asset

hasn't changed. if you look at the most downloaded maps, snap was one of the top five most downloaded apps. the second thing, they have had an android problem. has fulln app that integration. when you open snap, you open up your camera. it has to be fully integrated into the device. it took them two years. theird reason that we like stock is upw the 85% since the all-time high. the third thing is the announcement of these games. game of acacian of snap -- boostication of snap can it to levels we haven't seen before. emily: you also think user

growth could accelerate? mark: we haven't seen that yet. the story of 2018 was user growth stagnated. no growth from december of 2017 to december of 2018. that is why the stock corrected as much as it did. two years in a row, the worst performing stock for two years in a row. now if they truly have fixed their android problem, they will open up a much broader range of users. you will see revenue growth accelerate, see gross margins accelerate, stocks will go higher. emily: what about the kylie jenner effect, the day that she tweeted, does anyone use snap anymore? sand. i don't. his snap still cool? mark: it has got something like 70% more daily average users in the u.s. than twitter does. it's a utility. it is a tool that people use first and foremost communicate

with each other. toolu are a munication's that means you are necessary for people on the platform. now the question, can you broaden the demographic appeal of snap? emily: are you pointing at me? mark: you need to make the site more intuitive and increase the functionality. more media, more games, they just did that. emily: why are you so excited about the gaming aspect? mark: i think we are seeing a broad trend of gaming leaving chunkyphisticated, maybe devices, to apps integrated with the user interface. we spend a lot -- we spent a lot of time playing with the games last week. it was fun. it seemed like these were natural activities that are on snap would want to do. emily: you're channeling your inner 17-year-old. mark, we will be watching to see

if you are right. coming up, a chinese woman who breached security at president trump's mar-a-lago resort had a stash of tech and electronics, most likely wanting to gain u.s. intelligence. we will have reaction from a former top u.s. cyber diplomat. later, veteran tech investor roger mcnamee weighs in on the tech ipo craze. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: this is bloomberg technology. let's return to the top story. pinterest giving the interest in tech ipos going. the company will offer 75 million shares at $17 a piece, which would value it at $9 billion. is interest in the newest crop justified? roger mcnamee elevation partners cofounder joined. >> when i look at pinterest, they are doing a strategic thing on the ipo. a super bargain, way below the last round. this is to lure people in,

because pinterest has a real business model. in there above breaking fourth quarter. the market itself is quite compelling. you have to worry about competition from facebook long run, but these guys, they're advertising they are the safe site and that facebook obviously is not, right? being me, these guys are really smart about how they are doing it. at the end of the day, we will forget about the ipo itself a couple days. certainly, a couple weeks after it happens which raises the bigger question whether it is lyft, pinterest, or uber, they are all coming to market. >> they will suck up a ton of capital. not all of them have viable business models but they have a lot of scale. they will take a ton of capital out of the market and they are obviously going to generate a lot of enthusiasm because these are relatively speaking hot with

consumers, because they are all consumer companies. to me, with an inverted yield curve and the other issues we see in the economy, thing slowing down in the u.s. in particular, you know. if you are going to end a market cycle, at least historically consistent with experience. >> does this signal the private markets are capped out? these private companies were able to stay private for so long that a lot of the growth was captured in the hands of private investors. are you saying the public investors will be the ones left? roger: the public investors are always left holding the bag. in this case, the private investors are holding some bags biggest many invested in the high valuations. these ipos will not make them a huge return. i think the really core issue in the private market is the next generation. that if you look at it, google in particular, but also facebook, amazon are blocking

startups in their competitive spheres. as a consequence, we have had way too little investment in the next generation of the internet. i'm deeply troubled by that. we will talk about that later, but i am looking for some kind of intervention to try to make sure that -- for example, artificial intelligence. it is insane that four companies have like 80% of the artificial intelligence talent. what i worry about is there is this blank space behind these guys that is filled with only scooter companies, crypto companies, services your parents used to provide for you. from an ipo point of view, they may be perfectly good businesses but they don't have the kind of future market opportunities that pinterest might have. emily: roger mcnamee of elevation partners. court documents reveal new details following the arrest of a chinese woman after she gained access to the reception area of

the mar-a-lago club last month. she was carrying two passports and a thumb drive containing malicious software. they found five cell phones, nine usb drives, five sim cards and a radiofrequency device that detects hidden cameras. this comes as president trump dismissed kiersten nielsen as homeland security secretary, which could have a large impact on the state of cybersecurity in the u.s.. for more, chris painter, the cybersecurity coordinator for the u.s. state department and a fellow at stanford center of international security and cooperation. the lawyer for this woman says there is no evidence she was spying but when someone has that much advanced equipment on them, what do you think? chris: obviously, we have to see where this goes. we want to see were the evidence leads. why was she there with a bag

full of cell phones and usb drives? the other thing i saw was from the affidavit. the secret service agents said they not only saw malware, malicious computer code, but when you plug it into his laptop -- why he did that, god only knows -- it downloaded code on his laptop. i doubt she was there to go swimming. i doubt she was there to install 5g may be at mar-a-lago. i think she was clearly there for some surreptitious purposes. emily: she says she was there to use the pool, but then authorities checked her statement and sh whatever she said she was therefore did not exist. in theory, how vulnerable is mar-a-lago? chris: you expect them to bring a swimming trunk and not five cell phones. i think it really indicates a huge vulnerability. it is essentially the southern white house and the security

should be very strong. yet, you have this person -- who knows who she is -- she was able to get in pretty deep. what we don't know is was this the first time this happened? mother votes from china, but other intelligence services or from a company or someone else penetrating mar-a-lago and being able to release security, including electronic security. that is troubling. emily: that was my next question. the threat certainly is not from china, it is from anyone, right? chris: certainly. it is hard to imagine a country, especially an adversary country, would not want to get u.s. intelligence and that is a prime target. it is the mother load in terms of intelligence. if you can get something in there, you can get either listening devices or into the computer networks, that is what a foreign intelligence network or even company that is trying to gather intelligence would want to do.

so, it is an attractive target. it.eed to protect emily: you have the homeland security secretary resigning, as we are battling towards the 2020 election which is no doubt going to the threatened by the russians in one way or another. and, the cybersecurity threats are ongoing as far as we can tell. does that place the u.s. in a particularly vulnerable position right now? chris: it absolutely does. we heard from the director of national intelligence and the entire intelligence community that russia is continuing to target our elections and doing this around the world too. we need to step up to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect those systems. it is true that dhs and others have done some good work. there are good people at dhs working at even senior-level, but when you remove the

leadership of an organization and that leadership has cybersecurity experience and has made cybersecurity a priority, that is troubling because without that leadership, who knows what will happen? will the resources be directed to the operations of this priority? will this even be a priority given the other priorities that dhs has? you couple that with the fact the trump administration got rid of the cybersecurity coordinator in the white house. it really shows perhaps this issue is not a priority for this administration. as i look at the entire time i have been involved with cyber issues for 27 years now, there is no time when it is more important for us to take us seriously and do all we can to protect our systems, our networks and our elections from these threats. emily: her acting successor is u.s. customs and border protection commissioner, who does not have any substantial background in this field. give us a sense of what the homeland security secretary would be doing on any given day

when it comes to cybersecurity and what that job involves to sort of stem threats that the u.s. is getting on a daily basis. chris: i think, again, at that level, the candidate level, it is showing leadership and really making sure people understand why this is such a serious problem. we are still faced with a situation where people think of cybersecurity as this bright shiny object, when it is really a core issue of our national security, economic security. you need someone at that level to not only be the champion of that nationally, but also be the champion of that within the cabinet and the president. to say this is a key factor. this person is coming in to replace her without any experience. likely, the perspective is going to be immigration, that is their background. and customs, that is their background. they will push on that and i really understand the importance. it is one thing to be told something is important.

it is another thing to understand it and having lived it. we need more people can really show that leadership at a candidate level and a presidential level where it is clear this is not just another priority, not just something that is a sidelined issue, but one that is core to our national security. emily: chris painter, former cybersecurity for the u.s. state department. think you so much for weighing in. twitter is changing the number of accounts that users can follow each day from 1000 to 400. the reason -- pretty straightforward. those with a high volume of following and on following activity are usually spammers and bots. coming up, is the navy one of the world's biggest brands, but can it compete with the likes of netflix? what is in store for the upcoming disney plus streaming service, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

fell afteres of roku its fourth downgrade in the last month. this time, it was citi cutting its rating on roku. the video streaming platform is facing competition from both amazon and apple. well, disney is excited to show up its highly anticipated disney plus platform on thursday, giving investors the first look at the netflix rival. it will include original movies and tv shoes from brands like marvel and pixar, and scheduled to debut later this year. but there are still many questions and its ability to compete in a crowded

streaming space. joining us is richard greenfield and paul sweeney. rich, how optimistic are you about disney plus and how well will it be able to take on netflix? richard: i think the way to start off as you cannot blame -- frame the debate between disney and netflix. disney is going at this at a lesser ambitious standpoint the netflix. disney is not taking its movies out of movie theaters and putting them on the streaming service. so what avengers comes out, it will be in movie theaters. and then you will be able to buy it on dvd or download it and buy it at a run box and eventually it will get seven or eight months after it has come out, people will get to disney plus. i don't think disney ais at the point they will put all of their content assets into the streaming service the way netflix does. disney will try to balance its centers with starting

off into the streaming world of. i know it has been framed as disney versus netflix. this is really disney adding a streaming service. netflix will be the core you subscribe to and some subset of people take disney plus, especially people with young kids and families. emily: what are we expecting this disney service to include? will all of these legacy titles like a lion king and the little mermaid, will you be able to watch those for free if you pay whatever the monthly fee is? will you have to pay extra for even that? paul: that is one of the things investors want to see thursday, what is going to be in the service. the price point for the service and what kind of investment they are going to make an original programming. there is a lot of numbers around disney plus that investors want to get a better handle on. as a relates to these the thing disney content, one of the best content on the planet. bob iger has paid up a lot of money to buy up the big studios

like pixar and marble and lucasfilms. he will get the benefit on that, but not all of that content will be available day one because disney's has licensed this content out. most of the content will migrate back. one could argue it will certainly have very credible programming. the question is relative to netflix and the other tech companies getting into the media business, will that be enough for disney? emily: rich, talk to us about the addressable market. this is a more family-friendly market. disney is hoping to reach. i know it is not all about netflix. how does that impact your outlook? richard: i don't think a couple will come on on a friday night and say i want to disney plus and chill. that will be a bridge too far. from the standpoint of, they are going at pg rated and below, family-friendly, no sex, no violence. this is going to be really

disney, which is going to be really limiting.you think about netflix . they're already at 60 million subs domestically. the broad consensus view is they are moving to the 70 million to 80 million subscriber range. basically what the cable industry has been. they are rapidly the cable universe. there is probably 30 million plus homes with kids under the age of 18. some incremental fan boys and fan girls who love these franchises like lucas and marvel, probably 30 million domestically. that is why i think there has been this view from consumers that there is this massive opportunity. you've got to size what disney is trying to do. they are not trying to create a service for everyone. they are trying to create a family service for disney plus. inind of espn add-on service espn plus. there's hulu going after this adult/family family market. even though they are saying it is an adult market, most

of it is family-friendly. we are looking for how will disney explain what their streaming strategy is. most of our late, every viewer of this show should be thinking about for thursday, how does disney continue to tell people to pay more for disney channel, pay more for espn when they literally going out with products and services that are away from the bundle that actually kind of competes with a bundle? how does that balancing work? do they continue to get paid a couple of dollars a month for disney channel, eight dollars a month for espn while they attack the bundle, which iger has said publicly his company's number one priority now. emily: they will be losing licensing fees they currently get from companies like netflix. richard: a lot. emily: do we have any cross a vacation on how much disney -- quantification on how much disney could be losing? paul: north of a billion dollars

when you think about the investment they will be making an original programming plus that they are getting from the netflix of the world today and other distributors. this is a major pivot for the walt disney company. it is all of bob iger's name. this is his legacy as he tries to pivot the company away from the traditional cable bundle which has been so good for disney. now pivoting to the streaming service. because i think the clear issue from bob iger's mind, he knows where his audience is going and he has to be a credible player. emily: a lot of excitement about this, but are you concerned disney could be cannibalizing itself? richard: being an arms dealer is a great business. the media industry has been an arms dealer forever. content studios that sold to movie theaters, hbo's, sold to netflix -- more buyers than ever before. trying to build a direct to consumer company -- disney does

not know who the three of us are. they don't know what paul watches. they don't know what rich greenfield watches. they don't know you go to the movie theater. going into trying to launch a direct to consumer streaming service is really hard. you look at the amount netflix loses and how much they are investing. it is not just content. isflix's marketing budget $2.5 billion a year. their technology spend is a couple billion dollars the year. this is a very, very expensive endeavor to do and replicate. what i struggle with is why disney feels the need to do this versus being an arms dealer of this incredible content to every single streaming platform. that seems to be the real challenge. can they actually justified what they are going to spend, how many subs they will get versus remaining in arms dealer which has been incredibly profitable business? you could say the same thing about at&t time warner with their new strategy. emily: well, it is a provocative

metaphor. we will be reading the fine print on thursday when disney unveils this. rich greenfield, good to have you. along with paul sweeney. still ahead, ridesharing is off the ground. how startups like jet are changing the way we fly. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: with the touch of a nap, you can get a ride in a car or scooter. well, now you can take to the skies. private flights once reserved only for the rich and famous, but now all you need is a smartphone to pitch a ride with one of these aviation startups. ♪ emily: imagine you want to take a quick visit. instead of shuffling through long security lines and navigating terminals to board a commercial airline, you can opt for the private flight experience with a touch of an app.

two startups in a flock of companies pushing the private flight industry forward. >> we think of ourselves kind of in the same vein as the on-demand transformation companies like uber, lyft. we are the journey that is further. emily: offering flights in small aircraft and the company is focused on the journey. it announced a $10 million funding round backed by new enterprise associates. >> aircraft today are only utilized 1% to 2%. a highly underutilized asset and expensive. when you can actually start to advertise the cost basis over a lot of rides and unable a lot of pilots who want to fly, you really create a flywheel of increasing adoption. unicorn,t suite x, a valued at $1.5 billion advertises semi-private flying. it utilizes larger jets and

paris passengers together, offering flights between short range destinations. other private aviation companies offer the private jet experience by putting passengers on empty legs of private jets. >> i see a lot of technology minded people who think that with the right algorithm, you can make money from the inefficiency in private aviation. you've got big players in the industry who are operating airlines, whether they are private or charter. emily: like delta offering full priced private flights, as well as discounted anti-leg flights. >> you have the technology component of the non-aviation craft. that is not to say this is not a business that can grow by leaps and bounds and there is not huge opportunity. it is just that, i think, we have not seen the regulatory regime keep up with a lot of the tech innovation. emily: faa guidance prevents

private pilots from profiting from flight sharing and even shut down the flight sharing services in 2014. blackbird's pilots are commercially certified and own their own plane, keeping the startup's costs lows while meeting regulation. the charter flight industry has grown by 2.6% in the last five years to reach revenue of $25 billion. tech startups what a slice of that margin -- want a slice of that margin. ♪ emily: sonos sent furniture retailer ikea and teaming up. they announced their first joint product monday, including a bookshelf speaker and table lamp speaker. both controllable through the app and could be integrated as a set up to control. the partnership began in 2016 as part of ikea's smart home initiative. ikea just got a little more interesting. that does it for this edition of

bloomberg technology. we will hear from the ceo of softbank. we will talk about the company's $2 billion commitment to invest in tech in central and south america. this is bloomberg. ♪

haidi: welcome to daybreak australia. ramy: i'm at bloomberg's world headquarters new york. sophie: i'm sophie kamaruddin in hong kong. we are counting out to asia's major market open. ♪ haidi: here are the top stories were covering. wall street edges higher with the s&p 500 extending its longest rally since 2017. about 1% from an all-time high. oil is at the highest level since november