distinction between supervisory guidance, but i think it's important to note that this request for this rule according to the feds staff memo, that this guidance was issued upon industry request. they specifically note the bank policies to the american bank association with this petition asking for this rule to provide guidance to try and weaken the punch of supervisory rules paid are you aware of that? >> that martin: yes, senator. >> this goes into the frame the chairman of the committee made earlier, we have a lot of folks that have been saying for months and years. let's rain in the bank's supervisors. now all of a sudden, it is like,

where the supervisors? why were they not being more aggressive? do you agree that that guidance, putting that into rule, sent a message that you do not have to listen to supervisor's guidance that much? and would you be willing to take a look at whether or not that should be repealed? martin: senator, i am not sure of the impact of that guidance, i think it is an appropriate area for us to be looking at, i know that staff will be thinking about that respectively svb case. if it mattered or did not matter. i do think it is an appropriate area to look at. i do not have a firm conclusion about it. >> i hope you take a look at it. it was done at the behest of the industry. clearly the intent was to undermine the impact of the guidance provided by the regulators. it seems to be part of a pattern

of an effort to push back on regulator's authorities. then come back and do monday morning quarterbacking and ask where were they? thank you. >> senator brett recognize from alabama. >> thank you mr. chairman, tinker senator. -- thank you senator. i appreciate the opportunity to ask you all if you questions. i am proud to be from the great state of alabama where the financial institutions our strong. our regional banks, community banks, credit unions and the critical role they play from the main streets to the rural roads cannot be understated. i am proud of the work they do in part of the strength they continue to exhibit. i want to follow-up on a question one of my colleagues brought up. you keep talking about the fed focusing on the size of svb and banks however 2155 requires the

fed to take into consideration riskiness, and other risk related factors. tailored supervision ensures that the fed focuses on the most risky banks. you said repeatedly that vanke mismanagement led to svb's failure. the point of 2155 is to tailor your. supervision to risk. why did not -- why did you not require definitive corrective action based on the flaws you saw? martin: thank you very much, and i appreciate your comments about the alabama banking sector that i think is a thriving sector and riveting to its community -- contribute in to its community. like banks across the country it is strong and vibrant. you should be very proud. >> we are. martin: we are looking at the range of tailoring approaches the federal reserve took. to set those lines by asset size

and other risk factors was made back in 2019. i joined the board in july of 2022 and began looking at that approach. i expect to continue to review it as part of the svb review. i believe we have substantial discretion to alter the framework. >> you talked about your review that is ongoing. in that review what you take a look at if you used all of the tools in your toolbox to prevent this both before and after? will that be part of your review? martin: yes, the staff is reviewing steps supervisors talk and if they should've taken more aggressive action. >> at current rate you cannot speak to whether or not utilized all the powers given to you. >> i really would like to wait for the formal review, for the staff to come evaluate the full supervisory record to make an assessment. we are certainly very focused on that question. every did not do the right steps we're going to say that. >> yes, i find it concerning,

when each one of you were asked, would you like to see more powers, more strength, every single one of you said yes. when you do not know if you utilized the tools in your toolbox correctly. or if the people under your supervision were supervising appropriately. that is what people hate about washington. we have a crisis and you come in here without knowing whether or not you did your job. you say you want more. that is not the way this works. you need to be held accountable, each and every one of the. i am a big leavy have to own your own space -- believer that you have to own your own space. you are not the primary supervisor of, it is the fed. you were the primary surveys are for svb, correct? >> backups revision. -- supervision. >> you had that before dodd-frank, correct? 20115 did not change that

supervision, correct? >> that is correct. >> how did you fail to exercise that power? >> we working with the fed's institution was expensing difficulties. -- experiencing difficulties. it was in the support of the role of the primary rig later. >> -- regulator. >> we were working with the primary regulator in regards of the institution. >> we have to make sure we are working together and doing our job in order to prevent these things from happening in the future. one of the things i want to talk about, is just a different responsibilities that each of you have, whether they were executed, and additionally i want to move into the fdic bank process and just them and although when we 33 seconds left. it seems you failed to put the bank into receivership and the fdic passed on allowing the silicon valley bank to be

purchased. is that a correct assessment or has that been incorrectly and invite revenue cycles? >> yes, senator the bank was placed in receivership friday morning. we endeavored to solicit bids over the weekend, as i indicated previously, it was a rapid failure. there was no opportunity prior to failure to prepare for a resolution. we tried to bids, neither would have been less costly than liquidation. so we then receded to put in place a process where we able -- were able to. >> six month prior jp morgan notice there was a problem. their equity research team and moody's met with us prior to saying they would downgrade. i heard you say it is a rushed process. if the outside sector new this was happening, you in the fed and the 4000 examiners should

have known this was coming as well. >> thank you very much. many americans, in fact all of us would remember the unfairness of the 2008 and that crisis. when bankers, who made bad decisions, who played games with our economy. not only did they not go to jail, they got to keep their jobs. and there will to million-dollar salaries. i feel that in a particular way who -- as someone who pastors and moves in communities where poor and marginalized committees have the way a law come down on them for the smallest infractions. not one going to jail in cap their multimillion dollar salaries. when bankers made risky threats to the economy they got to cash in. they should be held accountable.

we discovered shortly after regulars took control of silicon valley bank the top is negatives at the bank -- executives that the bank uploaded millions of dollars worth of stock in the weeks leading up to the collapse. very convenient. including the former ceo who sold $3.6 million worth of stock two weeks before the bank crashed. the dodd-frank banking reform law included a compensation clawback provision for executives identified as execs -- excessive risk takers. those that put the banks and the entire economy in jeopardy. the fdic in conjunction with the other financial regulators begin working on a will to implement this provision in dodd-frank in 2011 and again in 2016. the final rule was never issued. does the fdic have plans to

revisit this rule? >> it seems appropriate. >> i would say urgent, i know the justice department and the sec are looking closely into this matter. i would encourage them to include any evidence of insider trading. that seems only appropriate given the circumstances. that should be part of the scope of their probe. there is a scenario where these executives not only get away scott free, but also with sizable paydays. the fdic should use every tool it has at its disposal to prevent it. we certainly do not want to incentivize this kind of behavior. again, outside of this rule, tell me where can congress step in to stop incentivizing this type of high-risk behavior? does the fdic need additional

legal tools to hold excessive risk takers accountable? martin: thank you, senator, as a matter of law whenever a bank ails the fdic is required -- fails, the fdic is required to conduct an examination of the conduct of the board and the institution. we have authorities under the law to a credibility. -- in countability. we have -- it was mentioned earlier i think it is appropriate we do not have explicit clawback authority in regards to compensation. we can get at that issue through our existing authorities, certainly providing explicit clawback authority under the federal deposit insurance act as the fdic has under the dodd-frank act would be appropriate. in addition to completing the rulemaking that you raised previously. >> both of these things are important.

we have to complete the rulemaking and see whatever additional tools are necessary, as the ship is sinking we do not want the bankers to move their products onto a lifeboat. we have to address this. i want to switch to a related topic. several payroll providers banking with svb and signature bank had no way to access the posits. every day folks leading to many americans receiving their paychecks late or having missing paychecks. too many americans live paycheck to paycheck in this case they got it late. as a result some of the 64 million americans living paycheck-to-paycheck were hit with overdraft fees. nonsufficient fund fees due to the disruption, something i have addressed in other settings. that is why i sent a letter with

senator booker urging regulators to impose a temporary moratorium on overdraft and nonsufficient fund fees for those that incurred these fees at no fault of their own. does the ftse -- fdic have a plan surrounding overdraft and nonsufficient fund the protections in the event that we's -- we express broader systemic issues? martin: you raised an important question. we received your letter. as a starting point we know there were delays. we want to get the facts in terms of, if overdraft fees were imposed as a result of those delays. if we can confirm that information, we can consider what actions to undertake. we are glad to work with you and your staff as a follow-up. >> i look forward to working with you on this. here is the bottom line. ordinary folks who showed up come up with the deposits, they should not have to bear the brunt and burden of these bad decisions made by banks. martin: understood.

>> chairman, thank you, the failure of silicon valley bank, signature bank, the general turmoil in the banking sector of the direct result of the failure of regulators included the agencies we have before us today. also the executive teams, the financial institutions, and the inflationary varmints barkindo part by the biden administration's reckless spending. i remember having debates right here in the bank committee about the massive stimulus bills, even lauren somerset was inflationary. it passed with democrat supporting and republicans of -- opposing. each of these groups back to signature valley bank, failure -- failed to prioritize rising interest rates. instead opting to focus on climate change. equity. other factors that do not contribute in any way to the crisis before us.

i raise the issue of misaligned clarity -- priorities with sin -- secretary yellen. she identified climate change, and treasury market resilience as keys -- q are part -- key priorities for fsoc. we have banks in my home state of montana and elsewhere's for providing tens of billions of dollars in potential more to bailout irresponsible coastal banks for risk-taking regulators failed to act upon. despite sing as far back as 2019. you state your testimony that your view is focusing on whether the federal reserve supervision was appropriate for the rapid growth and vulnerabilities of the bank. if you find this part of your view that certain individuals were clearly negligence in the performance of the duties are

you to recommend they be fired? martin: i do not want to prejudge in any way the review. i will get that evidence back. i will understand it fully. >> if in part of your review and you find them negligent would you recommend they be fired? >> it is hard for me to answer in the abstract. i believe it will take appropriate action with respect to the supervisory structure is able. >> are you -- his termination one of the options? that is an easy question. i'm saying an option. can somebody can be -- can somebody be fired for this? >> i would have to understand the basis in our human resources law. >> the bank executives lost their jobs as should some of the regulators. shouldn't that be the case if they are asleep at the wheel? >> center i want to be very careful there are laws and procedures with respect to how -- >> you can make a recommendation

to hr and they can tell you if it is allowed or not. i have been in the corporate world for most of my career as an true of the federal government. you can make a recommendation where someone is asleep at the wheel and negligent. >> i am happy to follow-up with you. we will take appropriate action based on the review. i do not have a definitive answer for you at this moment. >> i do find it ridiculous, you're unwilling to say if people failed to perform the responsibilities that you might recommend they be fired. vice chair bar, did you visit the san francisco fed in october of last year? >> october of last year? in 2022? i do not believe. >> the san francisco fed, published a brief memo saying the top priorities you outlined with that visit aligned with their top priorities. >> and may be that i did a virtual seminar for a range of

supervisors. so the san francisco fed folks were in attendance for that. i do not believe i was in san francisco. >> so the regulator's perspective that came up from the 12th street, said they were aligned with what was top of mind for the work, the first thing it says is financial risks from climate change. this is that time back in october 22 with the discount rate was only -- 3%, the in court -- the increases of the dead were over and over and targeted. they were communicating with continue -- it would continue. that was the time that also, the richmond fed in the district had a different view in terms of prioritizing risks. they thought perhaps a rising rate environment might be the highest risk in priority to look at. versus emphasis go fed that says it is about climate change is

number one listed, stacked rank of three. it is clear in hindsight the richmond fed was focused on the clear and present risks of rising interest rates, while the san francisco fed was not. my question is, since you were confirmed in july. what percentage of your time have you spent focusing on climate policy and financial inclusion versus the federal reserve monetary policy might impact for svb. >> be as great as you can. >> i have been focused on risk throughout this, both short-term and long-term risk. interest rate risk is a bread-and-butter in banking is what we do all the time. >> san francisco fed said it is climate change. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you to our witnesses for being here today. today's hearing is about trust. who's trust is broken. who broke that trust. how all of those -- of us work

together to reaffirm that trust. trust is a key principle the modern banking system is built on, families trusty hard earned savings are safe in the u.s. banking system. congress trusty federal banking regulars to supervise, regulate and examine banks, we trust you to be the cops on the beach and have given you the tools to do that job, the earlier of silicon valley bank on the federal reserve's watch clearly calls into question if that trust is misplaced. make my own mistake -- make a mistake. the lion share of the blame is on incompetent bank executives. it is outrageous that they took bonuses and sold stock in the days needing up to the failure. we should hold these executives accountable to the fullest extent of the law, clawing back those bonuses and stock sales. i am coast on -- cosponsoring a bill to do that. as i laid out, spanning the

ideal of -- it is greatly -- gravely concerning that regular everyday people were able to figure out that something was wrong with silicon valley bank before your regulators took appropriate action. these folks do not have access to non-public information like the bank examiners to. when people on reddit and twitter can spot bank mismanagement before the regulator something is terribly wrong. my question is for you, vice chair bar. i would like concise answers and will follow-up in writing. you were sworn in on july 19 2022. your testimony indicates that due to ongoing review we will focus on what you know. we will start their. the fed knew of problems at the bank think it -- dating back to 2019. were you personally made aware of major deficiencies at silicon valley bank prior to the collapse? if so, which ones, when we

notified? >> thank you, senator. the staff made a presentation to the board of governors in the middle of february this year that was focused on interest rate risk broadly in the banking system and how banks, managers, supervisors were addressing those risks. as part of the presentation the staff highly the interest rate risk that was present at silicon valley bank and indicated they were in the middle of april the review. they expected to be coming back to the bank shortly with further information about their status. i believe that is the first time i was told about interest rate risk at silicon valley bank. >> you were first notified shortly after folks on your staff learned about these

deficiencies. >> senator, the supervisors began highlighting these deficiencies at the firm, and interest rate risk management and liquidity management in a serious way in november of 2021, a little bit more than a year prior to that. they intensified that supervisory review as part of that fullscope exam in the summer of 2022 when the firm was downgraded for deficiencies in its risk management practices. they brought those issues again, according to the record, to the cfo of the firm in october. they issued additional findings in november of 2022. that as far as we know from the current supervisory record is the picture. >> that was when you were first notified in october and november of 2022? >> know, senator to the best of

my knowledge i first learned -- of the issues at silicon valley bank in respect of interest rate issues mid february 2023. several weeks before the bank failed, staff made a report to the board about risks and highlighted silicon valley bank and indicated they were following up of the bank about further measures. >> your testimony says asset size is not necessarily an indicator of complexity and i agree. that is why the fed has explicit authority to impose regulations and enhanced supervision for -- that is normally for larger institutions. the fed is given this authority to prevent or mitigate risks to the financial stability of the u.s.. we both agree this is existing the -- authority the fed has had since the enactment back in 2018

, correct? >> the fed has broad authority to change the rules are uses for different approaches to supervision affirms. under the rules put in place in 2019 the firm was pocketed by a set of categories. i think that is important to revisit as i have done since arriving at the federal reserve since july. >> given the document of issues. >> you are overtime. >> this is my last question. >> given the document it issues you have found, though we went over, did you ever consider using your existing section 401 authority before the failure to aggressively regulate the bank? >> based on the record it looks like the escalation that occurred was in the format of matters requiring attention and matters requiring immediate attention. the supervisors also put in place what is called a 4m

agreement. a limitation on the firm's ability to engage in merger transactions with financial companies. >> thank you mr. chair, thank you all for being here. i want to start maybe with a question i think vice chair are -- barr answered you think tanks of $100 billion should have additional credential requirements. did i hear that correctly? martin: i think it is important for us to strengthen capital and liquidity requirements for large banks. really up the spectrum. >> is there any of the tools, just going back, mr. chair i would like without objection to some of this without -- to this record. this is the regulatory regiment that of plies -- that applies to

banks of certain categories. i always worry about when we create an arbitrary asset limit for doing something. because it was the activities of silicon valley that got them in trouble. i want to ask briefly, i have a lot of questions and i'll get them done on time. you have mentioned a couple of times, vice chair, that the 2019 , i guess implementation of senate bill 2155, bucket it -- bucketed silicon valley in a rigid -- revelatory regiment. did that restrict it from having supervisors make the judgment that increased provincial regulations and supervisory functions cannot occur? >> senator, we are bound by the rules we put out. a new framework -- >> 2019, different administration creates your tenure. icing sing the promulgation and

implementation of 2155 took certain revelatory regiments --regulatory regiments off the table for silicon valley bank? >> the limitation of 2019 set the standard for how the firm would be applied, think supervisors do have judgment and can put in place mitigate matters. >> when i hear about bucketing i hear -- i think about ring fencing. when you look at matters requiring immediate attention, attention and immediate attention, do you know yet, i know we will get the report in may. do you know yet how many of those mras were followed by mris? the six that were issued, over the year and a half or two years, how many of them or an escalation of a matter requiring attention to immediate attention if any? if you will just summative for the record.

we have a ceo of silicon valley bank that is a class a member of the board of the san francisco federal reserve. who got summarily terminated on the day of the bank's collapse. in your review, we also have insight into california's role in regulate this bank? will it be purely federal jurisdiction? martin: we are looking only at the federal reserve the state of california is initiating its own review. >> i think will be helpful. in my opinion i agree with former fed that he sees this as a regulatory lapse. he was never come from entry of senate bill 2155. he was in lamenting dodd-frank when we were doing it. he was hammering at. he has made the statement, like like to smit for the record an article interview with mr. carrillo from okta place. -- marketplace. he's physically says in here that 2155 is impossible to be

the root cause of the problem. i am paraphrasing. he says it looks like a regulatory and supervisory collapse. i think -- lapse. i think the lapses with the fed and also likely the state of california was involved in. i'm curious in the report will we see any movement, i am not a conspiracy theorist, but there is one question. did we have a level of comfort this bank among the supervisors. do we have any insight over the past two years that if anyone that work for the fed work for this bank? we know the ceo was on the fed board. >> senator with respect to the class a directors that you mentioned. they are prohibited from participating in any way and supervision. >> i get that.

people with proximity, may be calling balls and strikes, the supervisors did not get that quite right. but, i think there are some people, i want to find the root cause of the problem. i think you'll all find a lot of information when you issue your report. i do not think we are doing the banking industry any service going forward if we talk about, now we have to rein in the small banks. we have to increase, by default, regardless of the activities of the bank. we have to increase by default there -- their provincial requirements and with a holistic review capital requirements. when you have a run on a bank like you had with silicon valley, could any bank possibly have enough to cover the run? any bank? >> senator the particular bank in question is quite unique in its structure come of the liability approach and the

interest rate risk management. i can speak to that particular bank. that particular bank at -- >> if you look at their bank, at the internal liquidity stress testing, if he took a look at the contracts and interest rate exposure. this does not take a highly sophisticated person to understand the risk. indenture had to be known months -- it had to be known months before the chickens came home to roost. i wish we could focus on the problem. and not use the red herring of some lapse in regulatory oversight that was a root cause of the collapse. it simply was not in our love the fight anyone to prove it wrong. i do not care how you feel about regulatory tailoring. use a valid argument to fight against it, do not use silicon valley bank as an example. not suggesting you have. there are many people sit up here that have at the expense of how we can prevent this in the future.

i do have questions for the record. >> think all three of you for your testimony and your public service. i look forward to the reviews on these bank failures. thank you for helping start that process. it is interesting many of my public and colleagues are now so eager for bank regulators to crackdown on banks for taking on too many risks. i hope they're met with evan it comes time to empower regulators -- they remember that when it comes to empowering regulators and the independent thing of financial reg leaders. the events -- regulators. the last month have shown why we need funding stability for the financial watchdogs. now the supreme court considers if the independent funding is constitutional, the ability to keep the financial system stable faces an existential threat. u.s. regulars are independently funded so they can wrigley respond when -- quickly respond when crises happen. on this issue i will continue to

fight to protect american workers from wall street arrogance and greed. thank you for joining us. meeting is adjourned. >> you have been listening to the senate inking committee hearing on banking -- banking hearing on banking failures. a lot of focus for the federal reserve vice chair michael bar was when regulators and supervisors became aware of risk at silicon valley bank. there was discussion around a presentation made by his staff in february. belonged that -- beyond that a lot of the focus was on the responsibility on the executives. the actions they took as well as the emphasis on the timing of stock sales at silicon valley bank took prior to the bank's collapse. the fdic chair, accounting for the cost to the government around $20 billion as a result of svb's collapse.

why in that initial week and there was not a solution or a buyer in the first 48 hours following the collapse. let's go out to washington dc, anne-marie will wrap up the latest. really the focus was on accountability. >> accountability and also the next steps. what you hear from the top regulators come they were asked by senator elizabeth warren, and the democrats somewhat more regulation, they think some of this needs to change when it comes to capital requirements and liquidity from banks worth more than $100 billion. this is something republicans will not get on board for. they do not think there needs be more revelation. they think enough regulation is in place. as the supervisors who missed it comey heard from the senator saying, the supervisors were showing were issues. no one came down with a hammer in terms of making sure to fend off some of the concerns. you can see the politics and all this as well.

the democrats really want to point, as you see there, due to what happened in 2018. the rollback of some of the dodd-frank ranking -- banking regulations. even some moderate democrats voted for that. looking ahead we have another hearing tomorrow on the house side. you will likely hear more of this combative remarks and potentially political remarks with regulators. everyone is looking forward to michael barr's assessment and report that is due in about a month on may 1. >> we will continue to track that here on bloomberg television, if you want more to recap, you can be on the terminal come you're watching bloomberg technology. let's stick with the discussion, sarah, remind ourselves in the context of this hearing. what happened at silicon valley bank impacted it's core client base. start -- start up and venture capitalists. what have your takeaways been?

guest: i have been watching the hearing and vice chair michael rr -- barr field and most of the questions from the senators. it sounds like they did a review of what happened and what could've been prevented under direction of chair jay powell. was there a good way for them to see what was coming? do they need more stringent standards? he said that size is not a good proxy of risk. when silicon valley bank grew to over $100 billion in assets, should they have seen the rapid growth was part of the equation? we also heard them say that his group will be looking at whether they should change its rules. it would take a notice of proposed rulemaking. they are assessing with the could've done differently. ed: you at the technology policy institute, put yourself in the shoes that the founders and vcs that banked at svb.

do you think what they heard from the panel satisfied what they went through and the questions they may have coming out of it? guest: for startups and vcs, i am not sure if they really considered silicon valley bank as a regional banking organization. they probably just saw a bank that was friendly to venture businesses. at probably was not on their mind whether the bank was sounder not or how they were managing their assets and their securities. as a depositor, i think it makes sense for businesses to not have to worry about what the bank that they are banking with is doing. ed: right. guest: that said, things are different now, businesses are locking towards the bigger banks. >> treasury undersecretary lee, that has a focus on finance was part of the panel. got very few questions, what she did talk about was insuring the

deposit base. what is your assessment of the ripple effects it has had among the positive? do we see the health of the start of ecosystem still impacted two weeks after the bank's collapse? guest: you hear a lot more about how businesses are learning about cash management. apparently they are holding millions of dollars in their cash and checking accounts. now there are other banks that are saying, you can use our sweep accounts, money market accounts you can buy treasury bills through our banks. it is a lesson on businesses on how they manage their cash. it is unfortunate they have to learn this way about banks. that they cannot just keep cash in the checking account, but hopefully with more oversight this will not happen again. ed: as she reported monday aspects of the vocus was account -- one of the aspect of the focus was accountability. the other is what happens next.

from a policy speck of what in your mind has changed after the svb collapse? >> you will see a lot of administrative process happening. vice chair michael barr said they would need to do a rulemaking proceeding to change their rules. they are having to implement the 2019 economic growth and consumer protection act. it will be the realm of regulators discussing and getting public comments on how to tighten up this monitoring regime. ed: sarah, of the technology policy city with instant reaction to the senate banking committee hearing. thank you so much. a changing of the guard at rideshare lyft. our conversation with david risher. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

- [mo] if you're thinking about going back to school, this is for you. ♪ - i ended up spending less money my entire time at snhu than i did in just one year at my other university. - [juan] my time at snhu has given me more confidence. now i can go for that promotion. - if you're ready to go back to school... you can do it. southern new hampshire university has changed my life. and it can change yours too. ♪ - [announcer] visit snhu.edu.

the new chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that... ...i need a breakthrough card... like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas... ...a brilliant reality! the new ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours.

ed: lyft shares decline and that is after the new ceo told me the company was not for sale. it was up earlier in the session on news of his appointment. we are now at session lows come have a listen of the conversation that took place early this morning. >> first of all i would characterize it as a crazy idea. we will come back to it. ed: it is outside of your cv what you have done in the past. >> in another sense i was at amazon focused on the customer, at microsoft focused on computing, built a nonprofit getting 20 million kids reading with very little resources. they approach the board at the end of last year saying it was time to think of the next thing.

ed: with your name or generally speaking? >> that is right, they greeted a search committee, hired a search firm, saw hundreds of people and dozens of strong candidates and came to me and said you are the guy. ed: when they came to you what they want you to do? what is the big pitch why lyft is better under your leadership? >> they are proud of what they have crated and for good reason. the rideshare sector exists in a large part because of lyft. at a certain point they realized it was time to pass the baton to someone else. they look at my background and said you're the guy. ed: you acknowledge that lyft is an increasingly distant smaller secondary player in rideshare now. >> i do not like to say increasingly, but i do acknowledge it is number two. ed: when it comes down to, and a lot of analysts and investors talk about is diversification. what is your plan for lyft at

this early stage? does it remain a right stair -- rideshare business or do you jv with other delivery platforms and expand your offering? >> i tell you where my head is that, as i reserve the right to change my mind. my focus is rideshare. i will tell you why. the united states is going through a crisis where we have been locked inside our houses, work, and we are coming back. if you look at happy well lived lives, i think being together is a good idea. if you try to also deliver pizzas and packages at the same time it might be a good business model, we will see. i do not know if it is a great experience. ed: you are not ruling it out. >> which? ed: expanding past pure play rideshare. what is so interesting about left his people use lyft.

strange thing to say, i went to my audiences had a new ceo was coming the show and what should i ask him? a majority said when is lyft is getting outside of north america? maybe the idea that competition brings better pricing. have you thought about international expansion? >> i love your second point, i think that is right. competition is good for everybody. that is a generic statement. i think you're better off if you have one service, if they disappoint you to go to the other. we keep each other honest. if we go to europe that is for the future. ed: there is a big question in the market place. is it for sale? >> no. ed: not for sale. you see why people coming in, i open the door for that? >> look, people can make these sorts of arguments about how aggregation is good. my argument is on focus. for our customers and drivers we are doing great job. ed: you talk about amazon learning to obsess over

customers. i am trying to work out of -- how you obsess over people who take ridesharing. i guess it comes down to pricing. david: it starts, -- if you are not price competitive you are not in the game. we will call it that. ed: is lyft price competitive? david: that is our goal. we build on top of that in a do think you can build over time differentiated products and services. i will not go there today but that is where you will see iesco. ed: the phrasing people use is pricing war, we try to monitor real-time pricing. lyft versus uber in manhattan or the bay area, are we already in a pricing war? david: tell me what you found. there is anecdotal evidence, it can be $10 cheaper at one moment and more extensive next. what is your goal and the respect? david: the goal is to match. if you get into lyft and the

price is too high, or you do not get them one because the prices too high, send me an email i want to know. ed: let's turn to microsoft announcing its latest information -- innovation in artificial intelligence. microsoft security copilot, using city 5 trillion security --65 trillion security signals each day to keep the client safe. joining us now, -- thank you for joining us on the program. microsoft is done a lot in ai in the matter of weeks. why is it security tool important? >> first of all, thank you so much are having me here. it is great and we are excited about the announcement this morning. the undershot -- understand why we launched security copilot we have to go back to the landscape. it is been incredibly challenging fears for security. we have seen attacks increase

from two years back. it takes less than two hours now from when a user clicks on a phishing link for an attacker to get access of their inbox. we are facing a global talent shortage. the odds are not in favor of the defenders. it is an asymmetric war. security copilot empowers defenders to defend at the speed and scale of ai. ed: microsoft is in working in cyber and security software for some time. does the relationship with open ai and security copilot actually mark a technological advancement? or is this a marketing exercise for the security offerings? guest: it does absolutely market a technology advancement and brings two worlds together and creates this network effect. security copilot builds on the open ai large language model,

the gpt for innovations of open ai. that are groundbreaking. it goes on top of what is cyber specific model from microsoft that is informed by microsoft's global threat intelligence. very unique cyber skills like threat hunting, finding threats, investigation, reverse engineering. it brings these two technologies together in a way that has never been done before. it is absolutely the first and only model in a generative ai technology of its kind. ed: late january headline across the bloomberg terminal, microsoft has passed $20 billion in offerings for security in the past year. how does this bruce that? can you -- boost that? >> we are incredibly proud of how may people we protect,

customers are using microsoft in their journeys. security copilot builds on that. we absolute belief you have to lock all doors and windows to have a safe house. that is our approach. it builds on this because it typifies security for all defenders everywhere. it catches what others miss because it is able to give you this signal graph. it helps you address the talent shortage by augmenting your teams with the skills they may not have. we look upon it as a best of all worlds to take us to the next era of security. >> thank you, we will catch up later in the year at rsa and track your progress. thank you. as we had to break let's check in on shares of alibaba. these are the u.s. listed adrs, the company announcing overnight it will split its six business units. we have the details next. shares really flying up 12% on a two day basis. this is bloomberg.

♪ (upbeat music) there's more to business than the business you're in. (robot whirring) want smarter factories? that's the internet of things business. accelerating r and d? data science business. hey. have a look. managing global supply chains? shrink our carbon footprint business. thank you. (in foreign language) that's where deloitte comes in. with a potent blend of acumen and technology to help advance and connect all that it takes to excel in business ... to the business i'm in. deloitte. introducing the new sleep number climate360 smart bed.

the only smart bed in the world that actively cools, warms and effortlessly responds to both of you. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. proven quality sleep. only from sleep number.

ed: continuing to watch shares of alibaba up hurting percent. the biggest -- 13% the biggest jump since june. announcing a split of its business. one of the newest details? guest: investors are liking what

they are seeing, it will be split into six, a unit on cloud intelligence, digital business, and why do investors like this? a lot of people are saying when beijing cracked down too big to fail tech companies alibaba was one of those in the spotlight. this will make them under less scrutiny. the thing is it is hard to imagine this move was done without beijing's consent. this is likely something they planned with the government. we do not know the details are what actually happens behind closed doors. it is interesting this happened a few days after jack ma reappeared. it was just monday he reappeared. ed: the other interesting thing is well, six new business units means six new potential ipos, right? guest: yes, i will not assume they will do their debut in hong kong. ipo's all over the world have been lackluster. my friends in the capital markets group do not do anything, they say this may revive that.

also it is up to them and how they plan to raise money. ipo's is one of those. ed: thank you so much that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology," so much more to come this week across the technology sector. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> weare live from bloomberg's world headquarters in matt -- downtown manhattan. >> welcome to "bloomberg crypto ." a look at the people, transactions and technology shaping the world of decentralized finance. as u.s. lawmakers assess the regulatory response, regulators make the formal -- forceful you -- move yet to crackdown on a crypto exchange. >> he shoots back on the