tp of that, very expensive product. we don't know how large the market is. a year goes by and if we are in a macroeconomic slowdown, what happens? not willing to stick around with the patients that john is asking them to have. taylor: are you sticking around ♪ with that? the ceo came out and said, we could be profitable tomorrow if i'm taylor riggs in san we wanted to but we really want to invest in growth at this point. are you comfortable knowing francisco, in for emily chang, that? i think weer-term, and this is "bloomberg technology." record low. uber stock sinks tuesday. would be comfortable. today, given the investor we have details. plus, what is going on for its sentiment, given that the biggest investor, softbank, ampany just acquired which is poised to post earnings? posts earnings but manufacturer, they are investing in marketing, investing in a lot

investors question the path to of things. profitability. sidelines, a step toward and, many state and local elections are taking place the company generating some cash tuesday. in our electioneering series, we .low examine free speech versus falsehoods when it comes to political ads. competition at this it is pitting facebook against twitter. on tuesday tanked point? rohit: i would take the other after failing to prove itself to wall street. side. while the ride-hailing app is there is nothing like the peloton bike on the market with projecting profitability by 2021, it did just not seem to be butintegrated ecosystem, enough. shares hitting a record intraday loss. an more, i want to bring in when you look at consumers, mkm partners executive director. thinking, can i work out today, where am i willing to spend walk me through the share price action tuesday. what is your take? $100, $150 per month and what can i do? >> thank you for having me. there are a lot of connected was,nk that what uber did products. and of its three ipo lockups, if you take a broader view of

options that consumers have, it they should have recorded a -- is getting more and more saturated. they had higher take rates which fitness, you have not led to a beat in revenue. seen a very long-term yet. it was a mixed quarter. maybe peloton is the one that forwilling to stick around will show that up but we have tomorrow, an given not seen that yet. taylor: rohit kulkarni of m km partners, he is the executive estimated 800 billion shares director. thank you. coming up, we hear from the ceo will be for sale. because iar with me of goldman sachs, david solomon, know you are on the phone, but i about what he is doing differently following stinging want to show a chart you are losses from wework and uber. bloomberg terminal audience that is showing the market cap of the company versus the value of the and, match shares plummeting free float. released aompany right now, it looks like there is only about $5.5 million of disappointing forecast, citing free float outstanding. how much seems to be a technical conditions like brexit for part of its sales problem. the ceo saying the company is issue around the lockup ending versus the fundamentals that you embroiled in two or three big

were also highlighting? lawsuit. rohit: it is both. last month, match was sued by i would add a third factor. the federal trade commission for --ulation there are issues allegedly deceiving consumers. shares down 15% in after-hours regulatory overhang. trading. this is bloomberg. there are issues in london and ♪ new york. three issues the company is facing. technical, somewhat fundamentals, and what is happening with the regulatory environment. they will be more shares coming -- investors bailing out on the stock today. taylor: do you think there is so much pressure on these recent companies that are ipoing to be profitable, that no matter what they say, nothing is good enough right now? a factorthink there is of how much you are going to thesee in the story, also names. they have been great stories.

story, we want to see execution. a clear pathway. steps, uber is taking but baby steps right now. some numbers trending in the right direction. taylor: rohit will stay with me because i also want to pivot to another company out with earnings today, peloton. they are projecting strong revenue growth as they reported a narrower loss than expected for the quarter. we met up with ceo john foley and asked about the report. john: it will be profitable over the next couple of years in the u.k. and canada. our trend is this is subscale so

it has lower margins. as it gets to scale, the unit economics goes up. we don't need to launch more .roducts or more platforms we choose to invest in those things over time but it not needed for profitability. --lor: free trident taylor: goldman sachs stung by caroline: free trials being offered, how important is it losses in both uber and wework that when the scaling these markets such as the u.k. and but ceo david solomon has a germany? john: right now, we don't feel message for investors in growth we have a true competitor, a stocks, that profit does matter. he spoke on the current state of like-minded competitor. the ipo market including what it has always been the question could be the world's largest of, should you lower the price aramco., saudi arabia's on the peloton bike? it has been incredibly academic david: we are involved in the to think about lowering the price. when you are doubling the company in size every year, aramco ipo. not, on an ongoing transaction including last quarter, 103%

like that. we have been involved in the ipo topline growth, it is somewhat academic to think about lowering the price when you are cellaring market. generally speaking, we are fortunate to be in a position to that that you are selling them as fast as -- when you are help our clients. selling them as fast as you can >> it seems difficult to value and ipo's in general. make them at the price point. they can buy them for $58 per month and you can divide by two people were talking about wework because your living partner also as a $60 billion, $65 billion rides. than $50sehold, less company. day,: at the end of the per adult for unlimited boutique fitness classes with the best when the rubber hit the road, bike, software, instructors in what are investors willing to pay for a company when they have the transparency of the real the world. it is a pretty good value financial information that has proposition at the current price been vetted and presented in an point. ceoor: that was peloton appropriate way? when you have that, the market john foley. will speak. using wework as an example, give me your thoughts on the share price reaction. there is a lot of hype around you have a stock today off that. when they were able to provide almost 8%, decent fundamentals from the company. feedback and work with an what do you make of it? rohit: i agree. underwriting, there was a pretty

clear view. -- the numbers companies, thef unicorns, that have had ipo problems or have not performed are post-ipo, like uber, tell a very good story. the company is growing revenue year on year, five quarters in a you concerned that we are seeing row, having stable gross margins raflections of the dotcom e with rising gross margins on the subscription side. things are trending in the right when nobody focused on making money? david: these are real companies. direction. the company is peddling in the we can debate the evaluation right direction. investors want there certainly real -- debate the valuations, but these are to see profitability. certainly real companies. bubble, therecom i think the story here, what peloton is telling the investors, look, we will invest were companies in a different state getting to markets. the monetary policy that has every fifth year. next year, we are going to show been rampant around the world has basically forced people out a real progression. on the risk curve, forced people to look for other ways to drive i think it is just about returns. one of the things they are chasing is growth. i think there has been a sentiment that if you can hook

your wagon to a company focused on growth, that something good will come to that. lots of incented companies to take the capital they are raising from investors and spend it aggressively without understanding how that can translate to profitability. it is important for people to , but there has to be a clear and articulated path. aam a believer that over time company can only be worth the future discounted value of its earnings. it is important to have a business model that can generate profitability. taylor: for more, let's bring it bloomberg's should nelly bostic in new york.

-- have you ever heard them talk so much about that growth, about the market starting to discern between the path to profitability? sonali: as we get into the next leg of the central banking irrational type behavior that is driving these skyhigh valuations has to come to a reckoning. everyone is not amazon. it only took one major flop for people to turn around quickly. we have had the head of investment banking and citigroup tell us that for bloomberg television as well. people are already starting to tighten the reins earlier this summer. the talk is getting a lot louder for banks like goldman sachs, j.p. morgan, that stuck with a lot of these companies through very tough times. taylor: talk to be more about

, sayingmon's comments that you don't really have a price discovery, you just have an investor telling you what it is worth. sonali: jamie dimon is saying something similar to david solomon, that a market of investors sets a valuation. jamie dimon also said something that softbank is also addressing, ic in corporate governance. that is something we have been waiting for forever here. softbank, right now, according to the financial times, is thinking about tighten the reins in terms of corporate governance. that is something you heard jamie dimon also address. thatr: another story caught our attention here as we look at the tech landscape has been robin hood markets. there was a story coming out that said basically, put down a little bit of a deposit on

margin and you get infinite leverage. there is a glitch in the system. sonali: basically, you have a certain set of robin hood users who are selling calls and that money is being counted in that user's capital. this is such a timely story. meetings of people were about the future of fintech. once we are borrowing from a firm, you're becoming a bank and a personal hedge fund. you are to deal with issues as you scale and grow. robin hood is not only trying to grow but has considered a .anking charter the users that have been doing this say they have levered a $4 million investment -- a four dollars investment into a million dollars investment. taylor: going back to derivative coveredo learn about

calls. bloomberg'sore from tesla model three survey. we dive into how many users feel safer with the autopilot feature. "bloomberg technology" is livestreaming on twitter. be sure to follow our global breaking news network at tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: it is the biggest survey of tesla drivers ever conducted and lubricants polled nearly 5000 -- and bloomberg has pulled 5000 model three owners. it turns out, more than 90% say the feature of autopilot made them feel safer. so, autopilot, hopeful or hurtful? the answer tos that question. such a simple question but such a complicated answer, as is the

case with all things autopilot. this is a system that tesla has generated so much buzz with, that elon musk has invested so much money in, so much reputation in. there are sort of data points galore in here as you would expect with a survey as big as this was. whohave a lot of people system witht the saving their lives. six within the survey also claimed that autopilot contributed to a collision. you have more than 90% of people say that they feel like this system makes them safer. a running joke covering the car , many people thinking

they are above average drivers. the findings of this survey oflect the messiness automated driving and they will be times that these systems save us and there will be times that as they are ironing the kinks out, that they put us into dangerous situations. taylor: describe for me distinction between autopilot, i can take a nap in the backseat, versus auto assisted, where i should maybe be paying attention and not just snoozing in the back. be in ae should not position of just napping in the backseat even with autopilot, the name is so controversial. we have seen these videos people and taken on the highway where they see people who have fallen

asleep at the wheel of their tesla and rely on autopilot to continue to drive them. at the point where you can safely do that. that is why it is so important that tesla does emphasize that people should be paying attention at all times. but you do get these mixed elon musk ise showing the system around with his hands on his lap. in the handbook on you should be using the system. this is a company that talks about a full self-driving package with tesla and yet this is not a system that could be relied on for self-driving in any situation. this is a system where you need to be paying attention and that is why it is technology that is so controversial. theor: quickly, describe

two different packages that tesla offers within autopilot. there been updates and packages you can or can't turn off. craig: they sell a higher level of capability. some of that capability, they have not delivered yet. one of the sort of features within that suite of technology, for instance, it is a feature that allows you to call your car to you in a parking lot. just with that, we have seen sort of near misses. you do see people that are very excited about it and like to show it off. but again, back to the word controversial. taylor: bloomberg's craig trudell, not controversial, thank you for joining us. coming up, our conversation with

the ex-cc chairman. what he has to say about huawei being caught in the trade war crosshairs. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: this is bloomberg technology. we now join bloomberg daybreak australia to bring you the latest in global tech news. i'm taylor riggs in san francisco. with shery ahn in new york and haidi stroud-watts in sydney. let's take a look at the global top tech stories of the day. haidi? haidi: masayoshi son is paying the price from wework to uber. the sopping founder has seen his fall after his strategy of aggressively backing technology pioneers backfired.

tumble to roughly 13 $1 billion a. that is according to the bloomberg billionaires index. facebook has expanded its production to vietnam and will manufacture its oculus rift virtual-reality headsets in the country, according to the facebook asia-pacific vice president of policy. facebook is seeking partners to manufacture other products in vietnam. and, huawei expects shipments to grow 20% next year even if it is blocked from the google software. this suggest the trump administration's efforts to contain the company's rise may not be working. the president of corporate strategies says the company can rely on its massive home market and in-house software to keep the division humming. those are the top global tech stories of the day. shery: more on huawei as the u.s. trade with china plunged in september following fresh tariffs. both countries aiming to ease

tensions with wilbur ross saying licenses to sell to huawei will be coming "very shortly." earlier today, i sat down with ajit pai who warned chinese tech firms pose a threat to u.s. national security. take a listen. mr. pai: we have seen a great variety of evidence with respect to particular chinese vendors of behaving in ways that are not consistent with the rule of law with free markets and the like. earlier this year, the department of justice announced an indictment against huawei in which case the indictment specifically states huawei officials offered bonuses to individuals who successfully stole confidential information from certain businesses. more generally speaking, this is part of the overall chinese government effort we fear to leverage their influence over global commerce. shery: no wonder they have to see has about coming up to prohibit companies of receiving federal subsidies from buying equipment from huawei and zte. will this banning of firms of

selling to huawei or carriers not be allowed to use cheaper tiny equipment of an impact on the u.s. firms and jobs? mr. pai: i start with a bedrock principle. when it comes to the security of america's committee case and networks, we cannot take a risk and hope for the best. we have to get it right, especially with something as transformative as 5g. when we rollout the proposal, we make very clear we don't want federal funds coming from the ftc to be spent on un-trusted vendors wherever they may be located. in this particular case, we have serious concerns with china's national intelligence law requires companies to comply with requests and not disclose that to any of their customers. shery: beijing argues the 2017 national intelligence law you are alluding to is defensive, it does not authorize spying. why are you not convinced? mr. pai: partially because the chinese government has made clear they want to leverage their influence in any particular area, especially when

it comes to telecom networks. that is a risk we cannot take. we have seen evidence -- the indictment from earlier this year, but that vendor in particular has engaged in certain practices we find problematic. we want to make sure the equipment and services going into america's committee case and networks are secure. that is the base level every regulator and consumer should have. shery: the small and rural carriers have bought chinese equipment because they are cheaper. if you tell them they have to remove them and replace them, what would be the financial cost and would you help them? mr. pai: the only problem with cheap is sometimes it can cost too much. we are talking about national security, that is a risk we do not want to take. later on this month, the fcc will be voting on my plan to evaluate which equipment from chinese vendors are in the network and think about ways to fund the replacement of it. that is a conversation we will be kickstarting in a couple of weeks. shery: wherewith the money come from? would it come from the

university fund? mr. pai: there is legislation to fund the replacement and removal. shery: with that happened before they go through the process? some of these carriers do not have the credit to do it and then get refunded. mr. pai: that is one of the things we will explore in this conversation to how to make the conversation from the current state of the network to the more trusted framework we would like to operate under. shery: the reason we are focusing so much on security is because of the launch of 5g. two companies that have said they will try to deploy flawlessly 5g has been t-mobile and sprint. you have cleared their merger. do you expect the fcc order to have an impact on those bunch of states that are actually suing, that they don't want to see this happen? mr. pai: i would hope those states recognize that the fcc has recognized what many people has recognized, the transaction would be in the public interest. the companies agreed to deploy 5g in 99% of the american

population within six years. that is a huges, public interest benefit. more in-home fixed broadband competition. price commitments. these other kinds of things that will be consistent with public interest. shery: the argument though is that would have happened anyway because t-mobile and sprint committed to 5g anyway. mr. pai: t-mobile has a very good position in low band spectrum and high band spectrum but it does not have mid band spectrum assets. spring has mid band but not strong high or low. for 5g, you need a mix of all three. we think the newly capitalized company will be a great competitor, especially in an industry where the two largest competitors have 93% of the free cash flow. we want to turbocharge the third competitor to compete with that. shery: when would this happen? it has been 18 months. when did you expected to happen,

when even the hearing has not happened? mr. pai: i cannot forecast when litigation -- how the litigation will turn out. that depends on the state lawsuit in new york. from our perspective, we want to make sure the public is able to benefit from these commitments we have gone from the parties that will deliver faster, better internet access services when it comes to wireless well into the future. taylor: that was fcc chairman ajit pai. so interesting, he spoke with him about other news, particularly twitter's decision to pull political ads and taking a firm stance against facebook. what was his take? shery: i asked him that because ajit pai has been vocal about transparency among these big tech companies. i asked him what did you think about these bans on political ads by twitter and facebook not doing it? he said we don't regulate content companies so he does not want to talk about that. he says it is important to have

transparency, that you want to know how these companies are making those decisions. he was very vocal on emphasizing privacy concerns, transparency. something he actually talked about already in a blog post last year. i asked him what did you think of progress made since then? he said those are coming in spurts around d.c., but at least the conversation is going there. taylor: thank you to bloomberg's shery ahn for that great interview and haidi stroud-watts. much more to come next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: it is the social media battle line being drawn ahead of the 2020 u.s. presidential election. in one corner, it is facebook and ceo mark zuckerberg.

their message to politicians -- the social network will not police the accuracy of your ad'' content. in the other corner, twitter and jack dorsey with the stance that no political ads at all on twitter. this all comes at a predicts onl ad spending will total $1.2 billion out of the $6 billion spent in 2020. who better to discuss this in our electioneering series leading up to the 2020 election than two people who intimately unfamiliar with how politicians leverage social media? in d.c., we are joined by when jason rosenblum. he was hillary clinton's digital ad director and a member of google's political ads team. i have tim cameron, ceo of flexpoint media. prior to that, the chief digital officer for the national republican senatorial committee. i will start with you both, ask the same question. tim, i will start with you.

your take on facebook versus twitter, who is right? tim: i think facebook is right. largely the reason why twitter decided to get off political ads is a moral one, it is a financial one. the only made $3 million last election cycle which is basically a rounding error of all the online ad revenue that there is in politics. this is an embarrassingly low number for a company that is argued the most political social network in the world. taylor: jason, your thoughts? jason: i think both companies' approaches are actually problematic. is awe are seeing here certain abdication of their responsibility, and this is an issue that we dealt with other forms of media for decades. what we are lacking is a legislative and regulatory approach to provide some guardrails for social media paid advertising.

tv and radio stations for years have been prohibited from running factually incorrect advertising. and, political advertising should be no different. so, what we need is for congress and regulatory agencies to implement some kind of guardrails for this technology. the obvious first step would be to pass the honest ads act which would provide true disclosure for political advertising so we know who is spending what and where. taylor: tim, i want to take a step back and take a look at facebook in particular has taken a stance on this. part of their heads are really hyper targeted. when you talk about this, we want to distinguish how do you make sure that within those hyper targeted ads that they are accurate? how do you go about doing that? should we not do hyper targeted ads? should we? tim: i don't think hyper

targeted ads are anymore risky than broadly targeted ads. you could disseminate wrong information to a small group or big group. this is the cost we pay for living in a free society. to quote former supreme court justice anthony kennedy, the remedy for false statements is the truth. that is the cost of living in a free society. to protect the first amendment and to be able to get out there without prior restraint, that is something that is important. because if we start prohibiting ads, and you look at somebody like elizabeth warren who is completely in favor of facebook taking on this role despite saying at the same time that they are way too powerful, you risk potentially republicans from being blocked from saying that her plan on medicare for all will raise taxes on the middle class. you know, maybe not this election, but down the road, that could lead to tyranny. taylor: jason, and your earlier comments, you brought up some

local media coverage or radio where they are not allowed to run false ads. i'm wondering if part of the problem here is the ads on facebook or other sites are not clearly marked as ads. we need to do a better job of presenting these ads for what they are? paid for, by, and make it clear these are ads? with this solve part of the problem? jason: we do have that. federal election law requires that paid political advertising be disclosed, that there is disclosure on those advertisements. and we should have that. we should also have checks in place to ensure that political candidates, political organizations can't run factually incorrect advertising, knowingly do so. these are checks we have had in place for over 50 years for broadcast television and radio. we have a new technology with social media that is still in its infancy and has proven to be remarkably powerful in its

ability to change people's opinions. we have to ask ourselves, are we going to provide some guardrails here? if we are, and i believe we should, are they meaningful? i don't believe either banning political advertising or throwing our hands in the air and saying candidates can run whatever they want is meaningful reform. taylor: tim, in response to some of those comments that jason was making, i also wanted to bring up a quote from trump's campaign manager talking about the 2016 and the election and the role facebook plate and that, where he said i think facebook is how we won in a lot of ways. i think president trump won. facebook is a point that delivered that message. if facebook didn't exist, it would have been a lot tougher. your take? tim: i think that is absolutely true. it is a big reason why they won in a big reason why a lot of campaigns have won. it is not the singular reason,

but it contributed one. everybody is looking at this from the perspective of the presidential campaign and the implications go much further down. a lot of what these social networks do is enable city councilmen and statehouse reps and smaller candidates to gain traction. twitter made by banning political advertisements is it is going to have a distinct impact on smaller, under the radar candidates like, say, andrew yang who suffered underneath a media blackout for months, and to prevent them from getting the message out. we have to think through what the long-term implications are, because this is bigger than the 2020 election. we are talking about the first amendment which is something that is fundamental to our society, and hopefully will be here for centuries to come. as we: jason, finally, take a look out at the landscape

and the democratic committee, where are they and catching up with online spending? we remember barack obama was very tech savvy. came out and was able to get that niche, younger audience in part because of technology and social media. where is the democratic national party on this today? have they done enough? jason: we have a crowded democratic primary field. most of those candidates are running very aggressive, sophisticated programs. it has been written a lot that president trump is spending significant amounts of money online. he's the incumbent and he has a large warchest right now. the democratic candidates are spending significantly on early states and across the country. and, i think -- i believe still far more sophisticated than many of the republican candidates in the field. taylor: tim, earlier in the conversation, jason said some of the solution to all this could be more regulation.

i want to give you a chance to comment on if regulation looks like the right answer in your opinion. tim: i'm always hesitant to adopt regulation around speech. if you look at the comment thread between totalitarian governments, is that they have a ministry of truth, a ministry of information. do we need to implement that here? false advertising and fake claims made by political candidates is not a new phenomena. it has been something that has dated back to ancient rome and ancient greece and to the very origins of democracy. we are society that knows how to handle this. i don't think regulatory framework is necessarily something we need at it on. there are a number of remedies such as libel, slander laws as well as the media combats these fake ads. tim, thank yound both for joining. still ahead, a tech investment taking a tumble.

could this be a tough quarter for one of the world's biggest investors in startups and tech companies? that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: investor giant softbank will be under scrutiny when it releases earnings on wednesday. sources say the company's vision fund is planning a write-down of at least $5 billion, reflecting the value of some of his big holdings. the company's founder and ceo masayoshi son will give details of that damage during the earnings call and it is excited to include the major loss of the failed attempt to take wework public. joining us to break down the earnings numbers, it is ed ludlow. what are analyst expecting? ed: a big loss in the quarter. billion, 2.7 ¥300 billion u.s. dollars. compare that with the same quarter a year ago, softbank had a profit of ¥500 billion.

the company expected to have a significant write-down out of the biggest investments. wework has taken the headlines of the money softbank put into we were in its failed attempt to take the company public. take a look some of the publicly traded companies in the portfolio because they have also underperformed. names that had been shining stars for softbank. this chart shows shares of uber -- uber, the white line and slack is the blue line, have really seen major declines. more than 30% in the quarter ending september 30. softbank has big stakes in those companies. another company is the wireless carrier sprint. 3.5 million shares, 84% of the company. on the cusp of being purchased by t-mobile. that deal was given a green light. some good news for softbank which has a lot riding on this deal. u.s. states have brought a challenge on that deal on antitrust grounds.

the trial is due to start i n december. we will hear about both of those things, about the underperforming investment and the deal between sprint and t-mobile. taylor: thank you. for more on softbank's vision fund and the venture-capital landscape, i'm joined by mark canha. the is a professor at the university of san francisco school of management. as we take a look at softbank, how much of a permanent or temporary scar would be the big write-down for both softbank and their vision fund this quarter? mark: first of all, thank you for having me. i think for any venture fund which is really what the softbank vision fund is, you have to consider it as a long-term fund. like any venture fund, don't necessarily expect every investment to do well right away or sometimes ever. while certainly in the short run, it is going to hurt definitely. the time spent for these types

of investments is much longer than say a typical public portfolio. rather, it is really measured in years rather than days or months. taylor: like you point out, the whole point of venture -- the word alone0's and those companies too much and should we assume, yes, some are bound to fail? mark: i typical fund, which is typically much smaller than softbank's vision fund by a factor of 100 or more, there is an expectation that many of these companies -- a portion of the companies will fail. the different think about the vision fund is it is so large and investment are so huge that failures magnify. we have more interest in those because we are talking about much larger numbers. taylor: in your decades of experience, have you recently, let's say in the past year or

so, really started to see differentiators between the venture-capital that are succeeding and those that have been failing, you know, publicly in the ipo market? mark: that is a great question. i think typically, the major venture-capital criteria really starts and ends for the most part with the management team. so, just like -- as i understand, masayoshi son interviews every algebra newer before he invest -- every entrepreneur before he invests into the company. all venture capitalists take a very hard look at the capabilities, the passion and integrity of the management team. really, it is this type of criteria along with a huge potential market that over time leads to more successful firms. because business models may change, markets may change, but the management team and its determination to make something work is often the deciding factor.

taylor: we will have to leave it there. thank you to mark cannice, professor of entrepreneur ship and innovation at the university s ition of bloomberg technology. tune in tomorrow. this ibloomber ♪

haidi: very good morning. i'm haidi stroud-watts. we are under oh hour away from the markets open in japan and south korea. shery: good evening from new york. i'm shery ahn. sophie: i'm sophie in hong kong. welcome to daybreak asia. ♪ this: the top stories wednesday. talking tough on trade. china wants tariffs lifted before any deal can be agreed. transpacific trade has slumped in recent weeks. nonetheless, optimism about a