>> from the hardware innovation, money, and power collide, in silicon valley and beyond, this is "bloomberg technology." with caroline hyde and ed ludlow. >> live from new york, and tim stenovec. >> and i'm jackie develops in san francisco. coming up, intel shares are soaring on reports that tsmc and

broadcom are mulling potential deals that would split the u.s. chipmaking giant in two. plus, elon musk's artificial intelligence startup showcases its updated model and a fresh challenge to openai. we will dive into concerns around a i as companies and governments appear to change their attitudes on how to make the technology safer. first let's look at markets. tim: i'm looking at the nasdaq, searching for a little bit of direction. down not even .1%. bouncing between gains and losses throughout the session. watching the latest geopolitical developments. the u.s. and russia agreed to more talks on resolving the war in ukraine set no date for a meeting between donald trump and vladimir putin. ukraine's volodymyr zelenskyy canceling his visit to saudi arabia. we will bring you updates on that.

i am watching shares of intel, up about 10%, surging after the wall street journal reported tsmc and broadcom are mulling separate attentional deals that would split intel into two. the journal is reporting that broadcom would be interested in the chip design and orchid business while gs mc is apparently interested in intel's chip plants. today's surge does come after intel had its best week going back to the year 2000. shares rose more than 20% last week on reports that the u.s. government is possibly getting involved with a plan that involves both intel and tsmc. jackie: let's get to it with ryan bystolic up. ryan, let's talk about those to plants which intel is operating at a loss. what could he deal with tsmc mean for that loss? ryan: lot remains unclear, but certainly this has been a drag on intel for quite an extended period of time.

the previous ceo invested heavily in the foundry business. billions of dollars. did not really see too much of a return on that. it is well behind tsmc and samsung, so people are looking to see if there is any kind of rescue for the foundry business. it is really expected to support intel if there is some kind of deal coming to fruition. tim: what would be left of intel if tsmc and broadcom were to succeed in this as reported by the journal? ryan: that is a great question. again, so many details are up in the air. there is such a focus on domestic manufacturing. it was building up a factory in ohio, for example. there is a geopolitical aspect to this. if tsmc is able to work with intel in some capacity that would be good for tsmc to have more of a domestic presence

here. certainly good for intel, but we really don't know what any of this is going to end up looking like if anything does come to fruition. jackie: let's talk about some non-sexy names in tech. like ibm and cisco. they are showing themselves to be ai contenders. it is leading this enthusiasm? ryan: cisco last week gave a positive revenue forecast, talking about the demanded is seeing relating to all of the ai infrastructure being knelt out. ibm early this year had a strong forecast of its own, heading up some strong long-term sales targets. these were two companies forgotten by a lot of investors. they are nowhere near the air sexy heydays, but as it is starting to show a growth narrative people are taking another look. these are stocks that are trading at pretty considerable discounts to the mag seven names. they have pretty strong dividend

yields. at a time when people are maybe wondering, have the mag seven gone too far? having some new ai stocks in their, especially companies with cash flow and dividends, trading at lower multiples, you can see why people might be taking another look at them. tim: let's stick with the mag seven always good to see you, ryan. i do want to bring in dana d'auria, co. chief investment officer at envestnet. we heard ryan just now talking about the mag seven. it is more than 30% of the makeup of the s&p 500, those seven stocks. how are your clients diversifying away from the mag seven? are they over-invested in them? dana: it is in the eye of the holder, right? there is research that suggests, if you are invested in the market, the market's determination is that is what these stocks are worth and they are invested where they should

be. i think a lot of our clients are looking at that and obviously at envestnet we are talking about managers managing our assets and they look to diversify in other places. they look to have a globally-allocated portfolio that has investments that perhaps things a little bit into small caps. let's be honest. if you are more than $.50 on a dollar that goes into our platform goes into passive assets. if you are there you've got a ton of -- you said it yourself, it is 30% of the s&p. even if you are in an active window it is hard at this point to have a ton of tracking to the passive index, because it has performed so well over the last several years. jackie: there is a couple of different ways we can look at tech companies now. you have software, hardware, enterprise, and then the consumer focus. how were you thinking about how to bucket the sort of investments going forward and the sorts of catalysts you are looking for from each bucket?

dana: for the average client on the platform it is more about the second your and more about, where is the sector from a market cap-weighted perspective? if you are in a russell 1000 growth actively-managed strategy how is that manager doing? how are they thinking about playing the ai tray? is it a question of, you know, do i diversify and get away from nvidia? this has been a struggle for them because you have to meet rules around diversification in a lot of cases, and it is hard to do when you have more than 50% of the russell 1000 growth invested in these mag seven. i think that bucketing helps where a good active manager who is able to look at the tech sector and say, ok, you know, i see opportunity sets may be in some of these suppliers, you know, to the mag seven, and

these different parts of the market where i can still take that bet on ai and attack, but not necessarily, you know, be so heavily focused on the mag seven and not meeting those diversification roles. that is something these managers struggle with. every time you see a dip, you know, it is a question, is it a buying opportunity? to kind of like more into those things? as opposed to actually diversifying? that is kind of a question. jackie: where can we find certainty? i know that is asking a lot given these days, but when we think about where we can see the tangible return you have concerns around infrastructure, capacity, and at the same time in consumer don't know how these sorts of features are going to be monetized. which one do you think holds more certainty for investors? dana: i think the energy theme has been a huge one. it comes across. we sit at the junction of hundreds of asset managers, so

we get a good sense of where the zeitgeist is leaning. i would say to you the secular trend in energy has been a theme. i also think people understand this administration is probably going to be not only pro-growth, but helpful in terms of energy centers, you know, helping the energy sector in general in the u.s. i have a view, you know, we are going to have to meet the energy demands over the next several years and into the next, you know, decade, etc., you're going to have energy sources from everywhere. sustainable, yes. more traditional incumbent, yes. we are just not there yet to transition to sustainable. i think energy is a play a lot of investors have focused on for this. particularly with this administration they see the opportunity set there. even before ai, right? our inner need -- our energy needs were going to increase.

population growth, you know, parts of the world moving into a better standard of living, which is what we obviously want to see. all of that is going to create energy demands even before you get to the ai trade. tim: growth versus value. it is a debate i have been having with guests since i started doing this. is this finally the year? is this finally the year we see value outperform? dana: it is so hard to be of value manager? . here is what i would say. january is interesting. it is not seek to -- it is not statistically significant, but there is a signal in there. january did see our in value. the notion that we are higher for longer in interest rates, traditionally speaking that should benefit value because more of those cash flows are coming earlier. the growth stocks should theoretically be impacted worse by that because they have more cash flows, more years you have to discount by a higher number.

theoretically there are some makings for that they are but we all know the ai trade can just blow that out of the water. so it is very hard, i think, in the short run to say what will win, but won't win. at the end of the day evaluation will matter. it matters more for medium-term suspected returned to trade on it in the short run. it doesn't have a good track record for that. jackie: there is hope yet for value investors. dana d'auria of envestnet, thank you. elon musk's calls the latest grok ai model the smartest on earth. more on the chatbot that aims to dethrone its rivals. this is bloomberg. ♪

jackie: elon musk's x ai has debuted its latest model, promising advanced reasoning and a smart search feature. this comes days after musk made a bid to buy sam altman's openai, which was rejected. for more mandeep singh joins us now. what do you make of this model? how does it stack up to rivals? mandeep: but they have shown as another reasoning model that can do well on certain benchmarks, and clearly was trained on one of the biggest clusters out there. when you think about the number of gp used a use for this model. is there anything groundbreaking? i don't think so, but at the same time what they are showing is all of these llm's are narrowing the capability --

capability gap they had with openai. i still think openai is the preferred model when it comes to the distribution and usage they have created for themselves. would be interesting to see how much upsell ex ai can have on twitter and how much users are willing to pay in subscription. that will be the test, but i think it scores well on all of the benchmarks. tim: is the market big enough now and in the future for chatgpt, for whatever comes next? is it smart enough or gemini? is it big enough or gemini? we need all of these? mandeep: we just got off the earnings season in the past one month, and it is very obvious that everyone is doubling down when it comes to their capex investments. so, the market is big enough to answer your question. at the same time our view is that the field is narrowing when it comes to the foundational modern -- model players. only ones with deep pockets that

can spend on these billion-dollar training runs will be the ones that have the foundational models and try to roll it out for all of the applications to use. tim: mandeep singh joining us here in new york. thanks so much. meanwhile openai co-founder les gets fever is looking to raise more than $1 billion for his start up, safe super intelligence. it would barely -- it would value the company at over $30 billion. green oaks capital partners is leading the deal. for more, kate clark joins us now here in new york. where does this company sit in the ai world? kate: this company is brand-new. it was founded in june of last year. the company is trying to create a safe super intelligence. it is all in the name, but otherwise we don't know much about this company. it is very secretive. it is very much under the radar and just getting started. jackie: what do we know about

why investors are interested? as you mentioned, it is super new. and you add on to the fact that the word safety is almost coming out of vogue this year. that doesn't really seem to put too much importance on responsible ai. what do you make of that? what is the hook here for a vc investing in this company? kate: there is one clear hook, and that is the founder, which as you both know, is a cofounder of openai and a chief architect of those ai models. people truly believe he is a singular force and that whatever he builds will be a massive success. the company has zero revenue and we will not see a product for years most likely as it seeks to create this safe super intelligence. so, truly, it is all about the founder in this one and that is what is justifying this evaluation, which by the way,

makes this one of the most highly-value openings in the world. i don't have the statistics in front of me, but i think having zero revenue in evaluation that high is pretty rare. tim: you are emphasizing the fact that this company does not have a product. can we say froth? kate: vcs are saying froth. vcs are also saying this is a one should -- is a once in a generation moment and then want to get on board with people like ilia, because they believe someone like him can create the next trillion dollar company. outside of maybe ilia is a unique person who will create that super intelligence, you are saying tens of billions of dollars going to one-year-old, two-year-old company stuck up it will take five to 10 years before we know how much money into capitalists will lose, but they will lose a lot of money. jackie: that is kate clark. thanks for joining us. speak to cato networks ceo shlomo kramer as the company

sees a big revenue boost in 2024. this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪ we are taught you don't talk about your problems with nobody because you could get in trouble, and i've been through a lot. anxiety, depression, sexual assault. when i decided to get help, my life changed. and the mental health box, that was one of the big tools. accepting help means that we are allowing somebody to bless our life. it's freeing. we got stronger together. love, your mind.

tim: elon musk's doge team is said to be attempting to gain access to taxpayer data, raising concerns. strict u.s. laws prohibit the disclosure of taxpayer data, with some exceptions for law enforcement. the team is seeking the data but has not yet accessed it. jackie? jackie: cybersecurity firm cato networks said they surpassed 250 million dollars in annual recurring revenue for 2024.

that is a jump of 46% compared to the year prior. here with us is ceo shlomo kramer. at a time when companies are on the hook to show they can deliver can you tell us where this demand is coming from? shlomo: the demand is coming from all sizes of organization that faces increased complexity of point solution and are looking for a platform to deliver their network security with operational efficiency and business agility. so, it is all about digitally transforming i.t. security to serve the digital business. tim: are you seeing a decline in demand in terms of total spent on this sector due to investment in ai? or are you seeing investment grow here? shlomo: we are seeing consistent

increase in spend on security. in the four years following covid spend of i.t. security out of i.t. budget is gone 40%, while we are not more secure now than we were four years ago. so, actually, this is actually the increase in spend is the core problem that platforms such as cato solve. tim: how do we get more secure? if companies are spending more money but not seeing the results when it comes to security how do we get more secure? shlomo: we replace the 50-point product with 3, 4 core platforms. you know, on the endpoint, a platform on the cloud, cato on the network side. all integrated together. it is much more manageable.

it is much more agile. you can say yes to the business and fitted within the budget and talent you have. jackie: let's talk about venture capital investors. they are pretty excited about cybersecurity startups. you last raised around in 2023. $238 million. is an ipo next for you this year? shlomo: as a growth company we have many different options, both public and private and the real goal here is to build a long-term leader in this new category called sase platform for network security. jackie: do you see that being a possibility this year? if you were to speculate on who potential buyers could be, perhaps not just for your company, but in the space in general, what are you seeing? shlomo: we are really heads down

on building cato, and i won't speculate on any financing of m&a this year. tim: what would be the next financial benchmark? you did say you have passed 250 million for 2024. what is the next benchmark? shlomo: gardner assesses the market growing at 26%, $28 billion in less than four years, and last year we go much more than that and we fully expect to go this year also more than the market and take market share, and continue to build the company. tim: what would you say is the market size? shlomo: it is a huge market

essentially the category is the third generation of network security. it replaces the second generation, which are the appliances. these are many tens of billions of dollars that are going to be re-architected five to seven years from now. 80% to 90% of our appliances are going to be replaced by sase cloud implementation. there is a huge potential and we are just in the beginning. less than 15% of enterprises have started implementing sase, and almost 50% of enterprises are saying that they are going to implement sase in the next three years. this is really the money time of this category. tim: shlomo kramer, thanks so much for joining us. we are going to take a look at

how priorities around ai safety and ethics are changing with hugging face's ethics scientist. taking a look at the nasdaq, shares bouncing between gains and losses on the index. kind of doing a whole lot of nothing today. you are listening to and watching bloomberg technology. ♪ our honeymoon. what about africa? safari? hot air balloon ride? swim with elephants? wait, can we afford a safari? great question. like everything, it takes a little planning. or, put the money towards a down-payment... ...on a ranch ...in montana ...with horses let's take a look at those scenarios. j.p. morgan wealth management has advisors in chase branches and tools, like wealth plan to keep you on track. when you're planning for it all... the answer is j.p. morgan wealth management. when i started walton goggins goggle glasses, i had no idea what i was doing. but godaddy airo does. using ai to build a logo, website and social content. so i can let the world know, if your goggles ain't goggins,

they don't belong on your noggins!

tim: welcome back to "bloomberg technology." i'm tim stenovec in new york. jackie: and i'm jackie duval us in san francisco. tim: i do want to take a look at shares of supermicro. 13%. it is extending gains after the totally beat up chipmaker issued an aggressive revenue outlook and pledged to meet a nasdaq deadline to file financial results. supermicro has rallied almost 90% this month, putting it on track for the past month going

back to may 2023. it looks like it finally could happen. meta platforms halting that 20-day winning streak. shares adding more than 20% over that record run. shares down about 2.3 percent in today's session. creators of a new ai chat part often claim their model is the best. the website chat but arena puts those claims to the test, allowing users to rank these programs. fans of the site likely knew that deepseek's model would challenge rivals. set figure man is here to tell us more about chatbot arena. what happens on this site? >> it seems fitting that an industry is being shaped by students at berkeley. it is kind of a blind test. people can try out 200 different models and kit two against each other can ask them a question and see which does better and voted up or down.

based on that crowd sourced ranking we will see which models are at the top of the leaderboard. deepseek rose up pretty high for months leading up to the launch that captivated everyone. today as we speak grok three is ranking high too. it has become a bragging right for some in the industry. jackie: talk to us about some of the risks of some of these crowd sourced platforms that allow us to benchmark how well one model is versus another. what can go wrong? seth: it is a great question. it seems definitive, but these are systems that can be rigged. the real point is there are not that many really agreed-upon benchmarks right now for ai systems, and as these get that are there is even fewer. i think you are seeing last exam as a model to test it with, and also at the end of the day a lot of this is vibes. these systems are similarly competitive. what might feel good for one person may feel differently for another. jackie: always the vibes.

thanks for joining us. concerns around ai safety consent -- appear to be shifting and companies and governments are starting to change the language they use to talk about the topic. dr. margaret mitchell is the chief ethics scientist for hugging face, an open-source source platform for building and training ai. talk to us about this shift in tone we are seeing not just from lawmakers, but also from companies as they are starting to reckon with the fact that we are in a completely different era as it relates to ai safety. margaret: in the u.s. we have seen a shift, removing some of the language they had in their various terms of use and responsible practices so it is less focused on things like accountability, less focused on not participating in surveillance, that sort of thing, and less of a focus on this general concept of safety.

there was recently this ai action summit where jd vance spoke and said he thinks the focus should be on opportunity. it seems like the larger tech companies are following suit on that. tim: if the large tech companies are not necessarily the ones who put the framework into place when it comes to rules, regulations, does government need to step in? what is your view there? margaret: my view of the role of government is the government should be set up to protect the people, not to protect companies. you know, creating a marketplace of ideas that companies can sort of thrive in. but ultimately stepping in where companies cannot step in in order to make sure there is a level playing field that everyone can do the responsible thing within the context of market dynamics where you might accidentally destroy your company if you are trying to do all the things that are the best for the people, right? like, companies exist to make

money so there needs to be a counterbalance that sort of thinks about, what if we are not making money? what if we care about people? and what can we put in place for all companies to abide by and change the marketplace dynamics in light of that level playing field? tim: david sachs is crip though and ai czar. are you confident this administration will put in policies that will protect people? margaret: i think the jury is still out on that. there definitely is interest in growing the economy. so, they have spoken a lot about creating healthy competition. that sort of thing. i haven't seen as much of their thoughts on protecting people and what that is. i think right now there is sort of a reactionary force, so there is always pendulum swings in ethics. people care a lot about ethics and safety and things like that, and some people absolutely do not.

i think we are having a pendulum swing right now back to not being as concerned about foreseeable risks. hopefully the government will listen to the will of the people. and a step in where no one else will help them. jackie: just a couple years ago we had companies highlighting the existential risks. some of these ai safety groups were dubbed as doom or tabs, if you will. elon musk has a growing influence in washington, and he has been one of those at the forefront of kind of highlighting these existential risks as he is building his own ai technology. what do you make of his influence, but also the existential risks that have been raised before? margaret: yeah, so, there is a lot to unpack there. this is big in ethics circles. there is an issue where people who focus on ask essential risks tend to drown out the concerns

about current discrimination. so, that causes a little bit of tension in ethical discussions. elon musk in particular i'm concerned about the role he has throughout the government right now. but within the context of ai in particular he doesn't seem to be someone who would really stand up for making sure technology is not discriminatory or does not disproportionately harm some sub-populations. so, there is a pretty big risk there. existential risk is now less of an issue within the past few months. we have seen some stepping down from that as part of these pendulum swings. and so one would hope that that would mean the immediate and current harms of ai would have more of a center stage. but as it seems to be right now neither current harms nor foreseeable harms are much of the focus. jackie: even coming out of the paris ai action summit so much of the language shifted from

safety to security. the u.k. safety institute being rebranded as the u.k. security institute. who should we look to as a leader for, you know, how to build not just innovative technology, but also responsible ai technology? margaret: there is a bunch of ways to approach this. one is via governments and one is via different companies. so, like, the company i work for, hugging face, takes an approach of being transparent and open because that is a way of making yourself accountable to people. even in marketplace dynamics where you are going for profit you also have to show your work and that you are doing responsible things. this is an area where openness can be helpful in driving forward responsible practices. then there has also been a lot of really nice work in the eu on legislation. the eu and u.s. are not currently fully aligned on what to prioritize, but i have appreciated a lot of their work

on legislation that looks at foreseeable harms and risks, as well as benefits. tim: what are the stakes here? what could go wrong if we don't get this right as a society? margaret: we are in a situation where there is a large centralization of power for the ai companies. and the larger ones. and they are accruing a lot of wealth while a lot of people are losing their jobs. so there is more and more of a divide between the have-nots and have yachts, as trudeau said recently. you are seeing that the wealthy people are getting wealthier and people just struggling by our losing their jobs or having their data used in these ai systems that then larger tech companies are benefiting from while they cannot even get a basic income. so, this massive divide is happening right now. there has been, like some discussion about ubi, universal

basic income, but i have not seen that really move forward in the ai world, despite the great idea there. so, that is happening now. that also means people who are disempowered are going to be more subject to be more subjective things like surveillance, nonconsensual usage of their content, in a way that could be used to further harm them. you know, not give them the medical benefits they need, this sort of thing because of something they had said on social media. you can get into really nasty territory in terms of the rights to the general public, the rights that people have. tim: hugging face's chief ethics scientist, margaret mitchell. carson block, founder and ceo of muddy waters, set down with haslinda amin to discuss elon musk's empire and tesla's future in particular. check it out. >> it is one thing to ask whether you would on elon musk.

but i would not bet against him. i don't count the arbitrage trade as betting against him, because that is hedged. be that is me being intellectually disingenuous. but i would not bet against him. in terms of the robotaxis, literally he has been saying that tesla's robotaxi capability is imminent -- i think he has been saying that since 2016. so come you know, take that with a grain of salt. you do see in the u.s. waymo is offering robotaxi services where i live in austin. it will not drive on the freeways. my understanding is that tesla's technology, because they will not use lidar, is not up to par with waymo. or even with crews. so i would be skeptical of that. do they find a local or state government somewhere in the u.s. that says, ok, you can run this service here? maybe, but i don't think it is

-- even waymo is not ready for prime time if you are not driving on the freeway. >> would you be a buyer of tesla then or not? >> i will check with the quantitative screen we have and let you know. >> as it stands now? given where he is with trump, given his relationship with trump, given the chances of him being able to influence regulation, for instance? how does that play into your calculation? >> that is a double edged sword. one of the i was marveling all over on the 16.5 hour flight here was, when you look at how elon musk has really changed his positioning politically over the years -- he used to be a darling of the left, right? pounding the table that we need to electrify the economy, we need electric cars or else we are going to die as a civilization, we are killing ourselves with co2 emissions, etc. politically we know he has

totally switched polls, but he has allied himself very closely with the no, let's be realistic here about energy transition. if we are going to transition we need natural gas, we need nuclear, and electrification is a pipe dream. we don't have the battery technology. it is with the smarter people on the right -- and i happen to agree with those views -- that is what they are saying. elon musk is now aligned with them. my question is, with all of the focus he is putting into doge, which by the way, ahead of the election i had no idea whether this was really just him trying to be a provocateur or whether he was serious. he is serious. he is really focusing on this doge, and i think he is actually doing some interesting things there. but my question then is, in his head, has he basically -- has he admitted to himself that tesla is never going to be -- that

electric vehicles are a long, long way away from supplanting i ce's, and it is a nich product, and has he convinced himself that, no, we should not be pushing, running headfirst into trying to electrify the grid were trying to electrify our economy? i suspect he has switched views on a macro level, but especially with how he thinks about tesla. that would be embarrassing for him to say publicly, so maybe just hanging the table about, ai, ai, and robotaxis, is how he tries to cover up that sentiment shift internally. jackie: that was muddy waters' founder carson block along with haslinda amin. coming, big tech's big pullback from dei. the ceo of inclusion benchmarking platform paradigm

joins us next. this is bloomberg. ♪ investment opportunities are everywhere you turn. but at t. rowe p, we're letting curiosity light the way. asking smart questions about opportunities like advances in healthcare. and how these innovations will create a healthier world tomorrow. better questions. better outcomes.

jackie: this is "bloomberg technology." check out the bloomberg technology podcast. you can also find it on the terminal, as well as online. this is bloomberg. tim: following the lead of the trump administration some tech companies are scrapping or rolling back d.e.i., diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. for more on what this could mean we are joined by joelle emerson, the cofounder and ceo of paradigm. it is a platform that helps companies improve and benchmark inclusion efforts. good to see you. i'm curious. i would imagine you kind of have a problem with the premise of the question here, because you argue that these companies are not rolling back there d.e.i. programs. that is what it looks like to me. joelle: i think it is a moment of evolution.

definitely the social landscapes are changing, but what i see especially from the companies we work with is the desire to refocus efforts on programs that create fair and inclusive cultures for everyone. the good news is that is a goal that is pretty universally popular, and i think that is going to require some evolution. it's going to look like a shift away from some of the more performative or high visibility, but less impactful to employees, types of programs companies may have been focused on the last several years. i don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. jackie: for some of the people this might affect, the underrepresented groups, people of color, women, it is somewhat emboldening when you see companies really taking a stand and making their stands known publicly. what are some of the drawbacks of perhaps pulling some of this language back even while some of these programs are still going on behind the scenes?

joelle: i think the risk is companies that are going to signal in some of their messaging that they no longer care about casting a wide net for talent, they no longer care about elvin cultures where people from all backgrounds and identities can come together and do their best work and thrive, which, you know, communicating that you care about those things is pretty essential to building a company. it is the kind of thing that attracts the best employees. it unlocks engagement and -- engagement. i think what companies should do if they still care about those goals but do not want to be associated with this now highly charged acronym is communicate more precisely about what it is they are going to be doing. maybe they are no longer going to be tying executive compensation to hitting targets. which, by the way, is the type of thing we have not seen be all that impactful. it is focused on one of the most lagging indicators of whether you are building an equitable culture.

and instead talking about, how are we going to build a culture for everyone? are we going to take a look at what is happening and make sure people from all backgrounds have a fair shot at getting hired here? i will be going to make sure we are looking at things like who gets promoted or who stays and who leaves? if we are consistently looking at those things and addressing any problems we identify, i think that will help employees understand that the acronym was not really what mattered. what mattered is, are we doing the things that make our culture more diverse, more fair, more inclusive? those are the types of things that by and large i see companies continuing to focus on. tim: i imagine you have data that shows there is a business case for doing this. if that is the case then why doesn't the free market softness? or do you think the free market could solve this? joelle: i think the free market does solve this to some extent, which is why i'm not that concerned that companies are going to stop doing the things that help them compete for the best talent, that help them build cultures that unlock

performance. i think the business case is complicated. it is not true that you make your team marginally more diverse and magic happens and your share price goes up. i think what tends to unlock performance, what drives better business outcomes is building a more inclusive culture. cultures where people are going to speak for 50 have an idea that might divert from the norm. cultures where people that are different from each other, which is increasingly true because the population is becoming more diverse, or people who are different from one another can collaborate effectively and communicate effectively. these things matter to company performance and i don't always think it is so obvious whether you are doing out or whether you are not, or companies are pretty complex. it is not always obvious which things are contributing to which outcomes. it is important to remind companies that a lot of the things that formerly might have been categorized under d.e.i. are actually pretty universally

popular and uncontroversial. like making sure you are opening up access to your company to people from different backgrounds. like veterans. things like robust parental leave policy so caregivers can return to work and continue their careers after taking time off to have a child. things like promotion practices to make sure we are applying the same standards to everyone. the actual best person and not the person who is closest friends with the manager who has an opportunity to grow. the vast majority of things we categorized under d.e.i., they help companies perform better, they make organizations more fair, and the majority of people think they are a good idea. those are the things i do not see companies shifting away from. jackie: that is joelle emerson, ceo of paradigm. we will discuss what to expect from apples event tomorrow. this is bloomberg. ♪

jackie: tim cook teasing last week the arrival of the newest member of our family. bloomberg intelligence analyst joins us now with more. what can we expect next week? >> it is really looking forward to the cheapest phone they have coming up with a big bang. art has already told us of the faster processor and a larger screen. i think this is a good thing for apple, because they are struggling to really break the market share both in china and

india, and brazil, in terms of hitting a bigger piece of that pie and a cheaper phone can help them do that. jackie: that is anurag rana. thank you for joining us. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." forget to check out our podcast. you can find it on the terminal, as well as online. this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪ safari? hot air balloon ride? swim with elephants? wait, can we afford a safari? great question. like everything, it takes a little planning. or, put the money towards a down-payment... ...on a ranch ...in montana ...with horses let's take a look at those scenarios. j.p. morgan wealth management has advisors in chase branches and tools, like wealth plan to keep you on track. when you're planning for it all... the answer is j.p. morgan wealth management.

sonali: tim: