♪ >> this is bloomberg technology. coming up, will pressure point to the trump administration leaves portfolio flows into china. it includes possibly delisting chinese companies like alibaba and i do from u.s. stock exchanges.

the trump administration is weighing a new weapon in the trade war with china. they are discussing ways to limit portfolio flows into china. a move that could include delisting major chinese companies u.s. exchanges. the move could impact of theions in the markets and nasdaq s&p 500 and dow were all in the red following the report. joining us to discuss is sarah in los angeles who has been covering the trade war. of u.s.the goal policymakers here? they trying to punish or just protect u.s. investors? interesting that with the trade war this is not meant to be provocative or to push china into the corner and remind

them of the leverage the u.s. has. talks in the these capital restrictions on china are not part of the trade talks and they're trying to keep them separate. if we look at the marco rubio's of the world, who've been trying to push for this kind of thing in the past, it is more of a moral or ethical argument. we really what american investment funding a nondemocratic government? they alleged human rights issues in china and other things. i think he believed that they do not want to give money to this rising strategic and economic power to the u.s.. the newba listed on york stock exchange. baidu is on the nasdaq. what does this mean for those companies? is veryu said, this much in the beginning stages and trump is not approved it. not goingus but it's

to be put into place tomorrow or anything. the delisting of these chinese companies. at some data shows that there are 156 chinese companies on the three biggest exchanges in the u.s.. this is not small change we are talking about. for some of these companies, it has been a huge win for them to get into the u.s. market. they have seen a rules-based approach and ways for these companies to expand themselves. it would be a big move for these companies and it would not be taken lightly. >> tell us about peter navarro, the white house trade advisor and one of the primary sources behind this thinking. quite all along in the trade war, the question is who has trumps year? there is always a lot of speculation.

with a proposal like this, it's clear that advocates like peter navarro and outside advisors like steve bannon are behind it. they are some of the key advocates. they are very hawkish on china. as i said earlier, they really see a decoupling of the u.s. and china whether it is a ninja markets or otherwise as a key of punishing china cutting them off. they see china as a bad actor in the world and a very big threat technologically economically to the u.s.. something of this extremely it would not be surprising that peter navarro would be an advocate of it. flex we have heard now for many months that the primary goals of the trade dispute has been to over the markets to allow more access to those markets into chinese companies. when move because church that goal? let's >> these tariffs are the belief that

the u.s. wants a trade deal and increase transparency three at the same time, to make sure there is a level weighing real for american companies to compete better. like theee these proposal and the capital restraints. we see section against companies like huawei that total u.s. suppliers. .urrency manipulation many -- some of the actions seem could make you believe perhaps that the trump is using some of this leveraged in ways that run against what it says it's stated trade policy is which is to make everything better for u.s. companies. i think it leaves a lot of people in a fit of a confusion goal ofat really is the the trump administration. >> last question. on one hand, we could have a trade resolution and on the other hand is the prospect of a

fallout decoupling from the chinese economy. it's where are we heading right now? >> that is the million-dollar question. i think we have some talks coming in the next few weeks. at this point, it would be small wins. the two sides cannot of the meeting saying china has agreed to agriculture purchases and the u.s. maybe to really move forward on granting these huawei licenses as promised for instance i think that would defuse the situation even a little bit. worse case scenario, with the these capital restraints. there are multiple ways this trade war can go. that's why it's so poor -- important moment of these trade meetings, we can get a sense of where is this headed now? what's the latest direction? >> thank you for joining us. while the u.s. and china remain

far apart when it comes to trade, the u.s. and japan sealed a deal this week. the agreement between tokyo and washington ensures tariff free cross-border data transfers. videos, video games, e-books and software. what does that mean to the u.s. industry? is a really important agreement because digital trade as a component of the economy is growing much faster than the rest of the economy. it is the growth of jobs which are now digital focus. it is important for the entire digital economy. what's really important within this agreement, this sets the gold standard for what we think these digital trade agreements should really look like. it has the components, the elements that we have been strong proponents four. >> it is part of a larger agreement that includes reduction of tariffs on farm goods.

the u.s. chamber of commerce says it doesn't go far enough and it raises the specter of u.s. property to go further. is this go as far as it needs to? >> this is absolutely the gold standard in digital trade. let me walk you through a few pieces. the things that the international community can now look to as they think about how they enter into these kinds of agreements. first, there is free data flow. there's privacy and security but also free flow of data across all industries. needsindustry where data to be kept for security reasons, that will get covered but by and large, data across all industries can move freely. that's very important. secondly, it doesn't have any data localization mandates. neither of the two governments are going to force a company or any participants to store their data in a particular place. that's very unproductive and it

doesn't achieve what they are trying to achieve. thirdly to your question on thislectual property, agreement does two things that make it the gold standard. it protects your source code. neither country will force you to give up your source code. we have never given up our source code and we never would. it also protects the algorithms that you using your software. when you think about the source code and the algorithms, that is of critical design elements the next century of the software driven economy. >> what does that mean to glencore a company like ibm that has a sizable business in japan? >> it gives us a framework by which we can be very confident as we build our business in these two it that economies are going to operate in a digital way that we think is the right way to do it. more importantly, as we are out talking about digital trade with all of the other places we do

business, it is very clear and we can point to the gold standard. in the usmcats agreement. we have been very active promoting usmca am a digital trade perspective. now we have two good examples. challenge now is we have to get many more countries to adopt these digital trade standards. >> we are very far from any kind of trade agreement with china. perhaps we can dream. what would a digital trade agreement with china look like? >> input only, i will do them in reverse order because i think there are elements of this that will be important in that discussion. that is all about protecting intellectual property and protecting algorithms. any regional trade agreement between any countries needs to protect source code and algorithms. there is obviously an element to this that says we cannot make anyone store their data in a particular place erie it data

localization mandates should be removed from these. that would be a big component of something we would want to see. then, the idea that data can flow through -- float freely. that is the way the world supply chains work. that's the way the banking systems work. be country that wants to integrated into this global supply chains or global banking systems needs to recognize those three principles because i think that's how the rest of the world is going to be thinking about digital trade. >> a quick last question. what does this agreement mean for the u.s. technology consumer? .ax this is a big help when you think about the digitization of the world, any discussion we have going on with our clients, we are an enterprise focused business that our enterprise clients are serving consumers. this allows our enterprise clients to digitize their processes and offerings in holy

ways. we have seen a lot of innovation coming out of technology. and thisvation agreement between the u.s. and japan can continue and now we have to make it much more widespread. >> that was the senior vice president of ibm global markets. coming up, micron has a very bad day. the rest of the industry follow suit. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> micron is having its worst day in the year. shares tumbled on the heels of micron giving a forecast that was below expectations on thursday. some analysts say the worst may not be over.

in ian king to discuss. i think of them as a bedrock. what was happening was a common thread that was going on. that was, they were pressing the red panic buttons fortunate investors. inventory is absolutely the worst thing you can say in the chip business. you are saying this could be a problem for the semi conductor industry and tech overall. >> you're absolutely right.

the memory chip market is very volatile. micron is one of those companies that says they can go and buy ,tuff from wherever they want what are you hurting us? that's the most representative of this conundrum that a lot of tech companies are facing. >> most people probably haven't heard of micron that recently the president of the united states went to the un's general assembly and talked about micron. let's listen. >> a company owned by the chinese state allegedly stole toron's designs valued at up $8.7 billion. soon, the chinese company obtains patents for nearly an identical product. and micron was banned from selling its own goods in china.

>> what is the president talking about? >> some of those references i'm not a hundred percent sure with. there was a case here and it's an ongoing case that started an investigation in taiwan. taiwanese company was allegedly facilitating the theft of micron's designs to take them to china which as you know is trying to build its own memory chip business that is an ongoing situation and something the doj thelooked at and lauded taiwanese for trying to do something about. >> there is an entirely separate trade-off between south korea and japan. i would imagine that would help micron's position because then samsung have limited interest to the japanese market but that doesn't seem to be the case. >> yes the idea is that the japanese and koreans are angry with each other and the japanese have threatened to cut off crucial supplies to make memory

chips. that would not be good for micron because where else are you going to go in get chips? it turns out the answer is that the chinese are the biggest market for this thing and they have gone ahead and bought a load of this these things in advance to forestall a possible benefit, any switch in market share. that wasn't taken too well when they talked about that. >> is there a chance we are going to look at this week and what has happened to micron as the canary in the coal mine for the semiconductor industry or tech in general? >> that is absolutely the concern. when you look at the money that has come into the stock and in chaps in -- chips in general, what they are saying is it's hard to see that right now. >> we will see what happens. thank you very much. coming up, unprofitable companies are raising the most cash since the.com era.

that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

the continuing black eye for the ipo market. shares of balaton fell for the second day of trading. the startup has fallen by double digits since it went public this week. the poor debut is adding to a year of lackluster ones including uber, lyft, and we work. it has been a banner year for tech companies yet it has gotten really ugly lately. what's happening? is this one of those imperceptible shifts in market economy? >> i don't think so. what we are seeing is a moment of recognition.

the private markets, the bankers and public markets have to come to terms with how the private shares are valued. overall, it has been great. $50 billion raised so far. exits are important. it's getting a hit because of wework and the issues right now. overall, i think the ipo process is alive. the pipeline is robust. everything is going great. it just needs to -- we need to tweak the model and the valuation is what's broken at this point. the ipo process is still alive and doing well. >> when i hear you saying that, the markets have been able to accommodate the valuations set markets, whatte is the role of the investment banks? what should they be doing as

they ushered these companies down the runway and recently to ipo offerings?us >> i follow this market very closely. is, i canng to happen understand in the early stages you to the proof of concept, the revenue so the valuations reflect that. i think expectations have to be managed and bankers have to play a big role saying this is and this is what the public markets are expecting. bankers will play a very big role in getting this to work. it's important that if they play a big role in this, ipos are

important and the majority of them are doing well. >> they pull back and that's fine. ultimately, they grow into the valuation. you have to give them some room. finally i want to add, how do you value a transformational company? it's not easy. lyft and uber are transformational companies. by definition, they are disruptive and no one knows. surprise discoveries went to be tough. you need to comes to terms with that. let them grow and let them be we need them. >> wework has shelved its ipo. startupstill over 100 that have filed to go public that are on the runway including some of yours at manhattan ventures. how do you advise them? is the ipo door still open right now? >> it is wide open. the valuations are going to be more rational.

that's the biggest thing. i think everything is going to be more rational. it needs to come down, let it be more rational, let there be a path to profitability even if you aren't there, explain it very well. get there and that's what we do. when we invest in these companies we look for that unless we have that, we tell our investors that you have to be careful. all that is factored in that's the right way to invest. don't just throw money at an ipo. look at it look at the corporate governance structure then enter the market. companies went public this year. lyft and pinterest. there laboring under a dark cloud. what do those companies need to do in this market environment to change the perception that they went public at a difficult time? >> we are very happy with both investments.

they are doing very well. lyft is getting tethered to uber and uber problems. lyft is a very good investment. when we look at lyft on an -- a long-term basis. we did not expect it to take off. ofre is a huge market on-demand transportation. transportation as a service is going to be huge. lyft in particular this is why we invested in them is a pure play vocus in north america where the economics are the best. they have a path to profitability. they already said that 2019 is there peak investment year. optician and pricing is getting more rational. i think these guys the last two quarters were very good. we are very happy with lyft and i think pinterest is also a very good story and it will continue to do well. >> thank you for joining us.

coming up, a handful of tech ceos step down. more on a dizzying week in tech. this is bloomberg. ♪

brad: this is "bloomberg technology." i brad stone in san francisco. a text trend this week was the revolving door. three notable ceos stepped down in the midst of controversy. and kevinn of we work -- to jewel all are being discuss, and bringing in andrew challenger, vice president. he is joining us from phoenix, arizona. thank you for joining. why is it a volatile time here for ceos of american companies? andrew: it is really not even just the tech sector where we

see this volatility. we recorded 159 ceo departures in august, the highest single month of ceo departures that we have tracked over the first eight months of the year. we have tracked 1009 ceo departures, the largest number we have seen over any eight month period since we started tracking into thousand two. that includes 2008 during the rough session. it is -- the recession. it is tough to hold the role at the home of a company. brad: that is remarkable. what is going on? why the turnover? there is no simple answer. part of it is the predicted economic slowdown around the world. it is getting some people dashboards are a little jumpy, they are making changes. steppingeing some ceos

down by choice at a time when the company is doing well financially, they can go out on their own terms and put into place their succession plans. and then we are also seeing a lot of tech companies. an area where we saw the second most number of ceo departures. a lot of that -- we are in a 10 year bull market run right now. off companies that started have had founders move up with them for a long period of time. some of those companies are moving into a more mature phase of their organization. corporate boards are finding that these younger, often founder ceos are not able and don't have the skill sets to navigate the company in this next period of their lives. brad: let's talk about who is replacing those founders, ceos. interesting choices. i'm curious if you see any trends in replacement ceos.

companies like wework and juul, they are searching for a contrast to the visionary charismatic, slightly unpredictable founder-ceo? brad: -- andrew: you saw a great example of that at juul where they moved to a new ceo that is a longtime executive in the tobacco industry. such a clear example of a founder that broke through regulatory paradigms, made something out of nothing, but has now run into the next phase of the company's lifecycle where they are dealing and navigating with a very complicated, bureaucratic, slow-moving regulatory environment. i think they made a really smart an executiveing in from the tobacco industry that has a lot of experience there.

brad: real quickly, let's talk about ebay. the cfo now replacing devon when big as ceo. does the fact that the cfo has taken over signal financial engineering is in ebay's future? push towell, the entire reallym removed was propelled by active shareholders in the company. they have a clear site on the bottom line looking at the numbers. they are probably pretty happy with the naming of the cfo of the organization, somebody that is going to be thinking about cutting costs. they will also be looking for one of their main complaints which is even though there had been growth at ebay, the growth wasn't seismic enough. it was not large enough in this environment where you would think a company like ebay would be doing fairly well. i think they will continue to search and maybe look for another transformational type ceo. brad: ok, andrew challenger of challenger gray and christmas,

thank you for joining us. the week also centered on the ipo craze of 2019. beened offerings have closed to -- close to disastrous. bloomberg learned part of the reason the end ever got cold feet is the poor performance of palatine in this first day of training. investors soured on the startup known for its exercise bikes and allowed users to join along in virtual spin classes. palatine shares have tumbled more than 10%. to discuss this another top tech stories of the week, we are joined by michael factor, also with us, bloomberg businessweek's max chafkin. michael, it is a tough week to do a weekend review because so much as happened. let's start quickly with wework. do you see any path forward for wework? think they just mischaracterized themselves as a tech company. bytbank reinforce that

making big investments and i think investors figured out this is a real estate company. every time you see them compared, you see them compared to other real estate companies and multiples are much lower. there really is a lot of tolerance for losing money in the business. they have 15 year leases and then they turn around and carve that up, rented out piecemeal to individuals and small businesses. there is no tech involved. i think that is starting to weigh on all the other companies. it is weighing on netflix. they are a tech company but you are seeing their valuation drop. palatine arguably is a tech company, they are delivering health services, workout services into the home. it's pretty smart. but the valuations are coming down because investors are not buying it anymore. brad: max, lots of companies, airbnb and postmates among them, are still looking at the ipo market and wondering if they can get out the door.

if you are in their shoes looking at what is happened to palatine and wework, what lessons do you take from it? max: i'm sure they are worried. we saw airbnb come out publicly saying we are going to go public next year and i assume that was kind of a response to watching wework have all its trouble, they want to communicate to their investors that they are still committed to getting them some liquidity. as michael says, there is this thing where a lot of companies that were not really tech companies were selling this vision of network effects. wework's case, it is we are not just a sublet, we will be a hub for where you live and educate your children. and there will be members who do not rent the space who will pay us for some reason. it was a lot of magical thinking that depended on this one guy. the thing about wework is that as a business, there is something solid about subletting. it is more of a problem for

softbank argued lee than it is for wework. i think wework can have a real business. how do softbank deal with a huge write-down? brad: michael, do you expect softbank in the broader private markets that have a bid up these valuations to be humbled out all by? recent events? -- by recent events? michael: i think that is like the tulip bubble. i read this brilliant book by brad stone and it talked about the sharing economy, and that made sense to me. if a company through technology can get individuals to share their assets and give their time, then there is a lot of profits being made. in that frenzy, we started classifying companies like wework and pellet gun as tech companies. no, softbank overstepped. they made a mistake. as max said, they are going to have to take a write-down. this thing is not going to recover that valuation. brad: next, let's talk about facebook. the doj investigating facebook,

in addition to the fdc. if you live in washington and you are not investigating facebook you have to ask yourself what you are doing there? we recently reported sheryl sandberg going to washington next month. what does this mean for facebook and how they steer out of this? max: you have congress, you also have state attorneys general and you have the european union. many government entities looking at facebook closely. i think when we saw mark zuckerberg testify in congress in the wake of the cambridge analytic a thing, he repeatedly brought up the idea that facebook is an american social network and is in competition with china, with chinese social networks, particularly tictoc, fast.has been growing i wouldn't be surprised if you see the message from facebook coming out that you don't want to break us up because our competition is outside the u.s. you would be damaging on

american technology company and you don't want to do that. brad: michael, amazon had a hardware announcement, its annual hardware announcement. new echos, a ring where you can talk to alexa, earbuds they announced. was there anything in that hardware announcement and the strategy that surprised you? michael: yeah, the glasses are easily the dumbest thing i've ever seen. [laughter] michael: i saw the funniest line on twitter, buy the glasses and alexa sits on your face. that's the dumbest thing i've ever seen. i think amazon is grasping at straws on its hardware strategy. in an in-home health device, i understand the echo devices, and to some extent i understand the integration with a ring because it gives you your whole home amazon eyes. i think some of these other things are solutions to a searchable problem.

it seems like a really stupid move. brad: i presume you are not wearing the eyeglasses now. michael: these are real glasses. max: i feel like i have to defend amazon. brad: go for it. max: intellectual curiosity, the argument here for what amazon is doing is number one, they are known for releasing crazy products. they do this sort of thing all the time. arguably, they do not have the same brand as apple. no one blames them when they put a dead out there. even in the branding of these probably -- products, they are calling it the day one addition. they are not presenting this as a consumer product. the other thing is the whole bet with alexa is a get it everywhere. they want people to use this thing to do other things beside listen to music. it isre they realize that pretty weird to put a smart speaker on a pair of eyeglasses. but maybe somebody uses it and

maybe it is more about communicating the valuable -- the value of alexa to the world. that's my best attempt at what this is for. brad: thank you for that. we will count on seeing you wearing a pair of those glasses. we have to leave it there. chafkin,achter and max thank. you for joining us regulation reality. why libra coin has not been as quick out of the gate as hoped. this is bloomberg. ♪

brad: it has been a rough week for cryptocurrencies with the likes of bitcoin tumbling more than 20% over the past week. some have attributed the decline to facebook ceo mark zuckerberg hinting the launch of its libra

coin may be delayed. bloomberg's guy johnson anna vonnie quinn spoke exclusively to bertrand perez, the libra association coo about the challenges they are facing in bringing libra to market. >> we are engaged with a discussion with the regulators on both sides of the atlantic. though the discussions are important and that is the reason why we have taken so much time early before launching anything, because we knew we would have questions coming from regulators from different parts of the world. our discussions with regulators is for us to prove that we are going to provide a proper solutions and proper answers to their questions and concerns, when it turns out to aml and cantor financing. the launch date will be depending on how those discussions go, and how quick we get approval from the

regulators. guy: let me pin you down on this one then. the pushback from regulators has been fairly fierce. do you think you are going to be able to launch in the first half of 2020? yes or no? bertrand: we are still discussing with regulators. what i want to be clear is as we have said, we will not launch a lot -- a platform that is not compliant with regulations across the world. as far as we don't get those proper regulatory approvals, we are going to continue working and we will not launch anything before that. vonnie: how is your application for a license going? the swiss regulator who has to be on board here as well as europe and the u.s. bertrand: if you weeks ago, it decided that we should be regulated as a payment system.

was the announcement made by them a few weeks ago. right now we are in the process of submitting and applying for that license. over the course of the next few months, ideally before the end of this year, we would be applying to the fin my, and then they will be reviewing our application and we will decide upon a license for this payment system network. vonnie: talk to us about hiring. what does it look like right now? how many do you have in geneva? how many are you hoping to hire soon? and will they be technical or will the technical staff be more in silicon valley? bertrand: geneva is the headquarter of the libra association. right now, we are shy of 10 people. the idea is that we are going to start staffing in different areas whether it is compliance, whether it is finance operations, tech operations, and also we will have engineering

people here in geneva, in addition to the resources that we have in the silicon valley. hiringe you advanced in in your regulatory approach as he would like to be? did you expect to be where you are now or did you expect to be further forward in all of this? everyone would prefer to be more advanced. but all the discussions we are having with the regulators and the questions they are asking, and the fact that we want to be a long-term platform that is sustainable and compliant, i think it is worth having those discussions and going through the details with the regulators, even if that is consuming sometime. it's worth it because we are here to build a long-lasting platform that is therefore the long-term, that will bring a lot of benefits for the customers. we don't want to do that in competition against compliance. that is key to our platform.

and we better have those discussions again in advance. that is why we decided to announce the projects are in the stage so we can make sure we have provided the proper answers to the questions. and then we -- once that is clear, we can move on with the execution phase. brad: that was libra association coo bertrand perez. sondra digs into the hotel market to keep up with airbnb. we will have the details. this is bloomberg. ♪

brad: apple is taking on hollywood. dow jones is reporting that company will bring feature-length films to theaters before releasing them on their streaming service. apple hopes the move will attract producers and directors, and apple reportedly hopes to avoid the tensions that have bubbled up between theater chains and another hollywood player, netflix. in the past year, hotel chains

on home sharing sites have started encroaching on each other's turf. airbnb advertises hotel rooms on its platform and marriott launched a homestay offering. the latest player to blur the lines is short-term rental startup sonder. the same for cisco spaced hospitality company is expanding beyond its network of vacation apartments. is sonder a rival to airbnb or a partner? we are joined by olivia carville. i guess i'm unfashionable because before your story, i have never heard of saunter. tell us about it and how it fits into the fast-growing short-term rental market. olivia: they are a relatively unknown company. the interesting thing about sonder's they are trying to target the sweet spot between a home and hotel. they want to have that funky vibe of an airbnb with a cool

furniture and a hip neighborhood, but also with the convenience of a hotel. 24/7 concierge service and cleaners, trying to target the business consumers and travelers as well as those who may not want to stay in this in business district in a mess of hotels but want the convenience of one at the same time. brad: you are right that sonder is a partner to airbnb. it sounds like it could be a competitor. why is airbnb not threatened by this upstart? olivia: i feel like airbnb might be threatened by sonder one day. sonder is relatively small. they have about 10,000 listings globally. they are also using airbnb as a platform to advertise their listings. they really view airbnb as a partner because they need airbnb to connect to their potential consumers. from airbnb's perspective, sonder is actually like another listing on their website, rather than a rival necessarily.

but it is also important to remember that airbnb is moving more into that boutique hotel space. as we get further along the line and sonder continues growing, maybe they will be deemed a rival. brad: or could they be an acquisition target? airbnb wants to expand its hotel listings. some of the hotel chains are going to think twice about partnering with a potential juggernaut like airbnb. could airbnb turned to sonder for an acquisition? olivia: the finale possible. airbnb has invested in a direct competitor of sonder, and that happened earlier this year. we also saw airbnb go after the hotel tonight acquisition earlier this year. a $400 million acquisition. the biggest to date so far. airbnb is definitely actively looking in the space, and it is likely that they have been talking to sonder or will be doing so. brad: one of the things that has slowed it down the short-term rhyme tour market is the

regulatory hurdles, particularly in cities like new york. does sonder face those challenges? olivia: one thing that is distinctive for sonder beyond is they areairbnb legally compliant in all 21 cities. they are more interested in going after the hotel licenses in order to legally provide accommodation, rather than necessarily disrupting the market and trying to take on eunice apologies over those regulatory shows. brad: it is not a regulatory hurdle. what could slow sonder down? olivia: i talked to skeptics who say one of the biggest issues for sonder is its business model. we have heard there -- they have been signing on with leases with about 60 different small and medium-sized hotels. typically they are signing five-year leases, and then they go into -- they are going to revamp the property and rent

them out on a short-term basis. deals likerm rental short-term arrangements is very similar to a wework model. people have been asking questions about how much is sonder going to take on before they start turning a prop -- a profit? people have been asking questions about that and will be looking at the company closely as they sign these leases. art rentalquestion, capitalist as excited about sonder as they were about airbnb? olivia: it does not appear so. we are actually -- they are one of -- sorry, they had a funding round in july, a $225 million round. that vaulted them into the unicorn category. in that degree, they are. i think you are right and what you said earlier. they are not very well known at this stage which is surprising given they have a $1 billion valuation. brad: bloombergs olivia carville, thanks for joining. that does over this edition of "bloomberg technology."

reminder, we are livestreaming on twitter. andk us out at technology follow our global breaking news network at tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ oomberg. ♪ devices are like doorways

that could allow hackers into your home. and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.

david: a lot of young lawyers who are not happy practicing law would love to go work for the commissioner of the mba. adam: honestly, i got incredibly lucky. david: you said players have depression and melancholy. adam: they are no more immune from mental illness than any other sector of our society. david: you encourage your players to be involved in social media. adam: it is in our business interest to demonstrate to our fans and the greater community that did these are multidimensional people. >> would you fix your tie please? david: people would not recognize me if my tie was fixed. but ok. let's keep it this way. ♪ david: i don't consider myself a ur