tv Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg April 5, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am EDT
♪ caroline: i'm caroline hyde in new york in for emily chang. this is "bloomberg technology." it could be weeks before a final trade agreement is made. facebook ceo mark zuckerberg released his outline for regulating the web, but some in washington are not convinced. we will speak with fcc commissioner brendan car. the owner of blue apron saw massive gains this week but it
still is a cautionary tale for tech ipos, losing 90% of its value before going public. it is a busy week for trade talks in washington and yet still no trade deal to speak of. president trump meeting with china's vice premier on thursday. pres. trump: we've never done a deal like this with china. it's a very unique set of circumstances. but it is a massive deal. it could be one of the -- i guess it is, if you think about it, the biggest deal ever made. this is the granddaddy of them all. caroline: a granddaddy deal. the president added that it could be announced within four weeks. pres. trump: i don't want to predict a deal or not a deal. very successfully for our country. caroline: to discuss in washington is bloomberg's sarah
mcgregor. let's start with you, sarah. four weeks, maybe six, but overall, the stumbling blocks seemed to be the same. ip, tariffs, and enforcement. >> a monumental deal, the granddaddy of all deals. if there was any doubt that the u.s. would go a little bit weak in the knees, it should be sort of wiped out. trump's timeline, four weeks, maybe six weeks. something that goes hard on china's intellectual property, commits china to purposes. and what they really want, to make it enforceable so that if china doesn't live up to its commitments, they can hit back with tariffs or some sort of
automatic way to punish china. caroline: i've been watching markets all day and relative optimism out of the u.s. and china. i'm looking at a chart that shows trade market uncertainty seems to have come down a fair bit. >> i think the optimism that a deal will be reached is to be the book -- is to be believed. i think whether or not this will deal with what u.s. businesses want in regards to china. what trump wants is a win and to reduce the trade deficit. what businesses want is a more level playing field. these are not issues that are front burner issues for trump, who just wants this magical trade deficit number to go down. caroline: robert lighthizer is the key negotiator here, and has always been the china hawk. the companies that may be a u.s.
venture has within china, they would have full ownership, they wouldn't have to have. >> we have heard from our sources that parts of our agreement would open up full ownership and parts of our industries to foreign companies. they want to operate there instead of joint ventures. commit to a certain amount of purchases by 2025. those purchases would be frontloaded ahead of his bid.
there is probably a political motive in play. lighthizer is here for sort of the end game. he would like to see a deal. yesterday, when president trump met with the chinese negotiator, lightra t more work to be done. i think he offered that dose of reality. caroline: dose of reality also coming to china. when you are looking at the train numbers, you are saying that everyone kind of once a deal done. when you are looking at the measures and showing how much imports-exports have been falling, and negative territory, seeing the monthly trade balance coming down. from a power perspective, do you think some of the will of the u.s. corporates, the ip, those elements, could be done with china because of pressure on their economy. isaac: i think chinese corporates will still be focused on these issues. in line with what the u.s. government wants and going what the chinese government wants. what would change that? we are not right now at a crisis in u.s.-china relations. i think a real push that made trade with china radioactive in a way, alternatively, actual
concrete steps that make u.s. businesses feel that china is changing, being more open. a lot of things that they want benefit china as well. actual ways for them to invest. this could be a situation that really benefits both sides. caroline: what are the lobbying elements that you are hearing about? many a time, tim cook or tim apple, as he may be referred to by president trump, clearly has the year of washington to a certain extent. these are companies that are affected by supply chains with china and would be hugely impacted if they were to ramp up any further.
>> they would love to have their items left off the list, the supply chains that have tariffs placed on them. there is huge emphasis right now from the business community. i think getting a quick solution to the trade war would be important for a lot of companies. this uncertainty that is hanging over companies right now is huge and it is preventing them from making the investment decisions they want to make, whether they want to create new jobs. there is no real sort of total slamdunk outcome that anyone can hold those to. another four to six weeks might not seem that long but if this drags on much longer, i think business could start to agitate a little bit more. caroline: thank you. let's talk tesla. the board conducted a probe into allegations that ceo elon musk
pushed an employee. that's according to a statement issued to bloomberg by the company's directors that concluded there was "no physical altercation between the two." others told bloomberg that musk did make physical contact with a staff member. we discussed with the person who leads our automotive coverage. it is a story that has taken a while to report out. >> this is putting aside all the details of what happened, the significance of this story is it's another instance in which this board has sort of had to answer for musk's conduct. the incident itself took place in septets.
he was having to defend himself against that. obviously that effort all kind of fell apart within a few weeks. this particular executive that was the subject of the story was on his way out from the company and was sort of physically accosted by musk on his way out. he was touched on his way out, we are told and actually just followed on his way out of the parking lot, there was a verbal altercation as well. caroline: it doesn't seem to disastrous. but to reach board level means something really significant must have happened here and -- craig: what got the board involved was this being flagged to the human resources department of the company. he was ousted as chairman of the board. he remains on the board. but in order for this to be
investigated, you would sort of gather that you would have to bring in an investigation that the board itself was involved with because the human resources department is reporting up to a guy who is not only the ceo but the chairman, and is sort of the face of the company. that's what we've learned over the course of reporting this story. caroline: a reminder, the stress that elon musk puts himself under, sleeping, saying he was in production hell. we can see the tension he's under. craig: it begs more questions as to whether this is a reason why this guy is having so much trouble retaining some of his top employees. one of the things we have noticed is that he has had trouble maybe bringing in bigger name hires from outside of tesla where you were able to see a little bit more of that in the past, this being a company that could recruit from outside.
now that this is a company that is having trouble with production, having trouble now with deliveries, he needs all the help that he can get. this may be sort of an example of why he is struggling to get that help. caroline: certainly trouble with the sec. a torrid week for elon musk and it seems the reporting continues. we thank you, bloomberg's craig trudell. mark zuckerberg once the government to save big tech companies from themselves, apparently. we will speak with the fcc commissioner brendan car. you can listen on the bloomberg gap, bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. at sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
♪ caroline: some more troubling news for facebook. the social media network housed dozens of groups that sold things like stolen credit card information. pages of this contained over 300,000 members and were apparently quite easy to locate as long as you had a facebook account. facebook has said it removed the groups, some of which are at least eight years old. last weekend, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg laid out his four-point plan calling for global regulation of the internet. in response to this op-ed, one government official voiced his opposition, fcc commissioner brendan carr. he tweeted, "facebook thinks it
is taking heat, so government -- outsourcing it to the government would violate the first amendment." commissioner brendan carr joins us from washington. break it down for us. commissioner carr: as you pointed out in the earlier segment, facebook has been under pressure for a lot of missteps recently. one area in particular has been the mistakes it has been making with respect to moderating online content, the decisions and chooses to make about what can appear on its platform. calling in the government in response to that pressure and asking the government to police our speech, that is not just a bad idea, that is a violation of the first amendment. caroline: in some ways, there is tension, particularly within the party you come from, the republicans. ted cruz wants to see more regulation from facebook. in some ways, the companies need to be held accountable. on the others, there are
concerns from republican lawmakers that there is some bias built-in to firms like facebook. how do you think regulation should be enacted in general? commissioner carr: regulation facebook is calling for is not asking for help in policing illegal content or going after unlawful activity. what it says is that the government should step in and start regulating what it calls harmful content. how do you define harmful content? facebook wants politicians to step in and start making those decisions. around the world, there's plenty of government regimes that would accept the invitation to silence political speech, to shut down ideas that they don't like based on the mantle of it being harmful content. caroline: free speech, i can see, is something you are concerned about protecting. should facebook in general be regulated? should there be regulation for the other areas of content they are looking at? commissioner carr: i think it is
interesting that facebook waited until after it obtained a dominant position, until after it was about a half $1 trillion market cap, to start calling for heavy-handed government regulation, whether on the speech front or the gdr front. i can tell you, large corporations don't call for greater government control as an act of charity. it makes it that much harder for competitors or startups to compete in that space. i think we always want to see more competition. caroline: how can you foster that without regulation coming from the government? commissioner carr: there are all kinds of actions that facebook could take with its algorithms and otherwise to act in a neutral, unbiased manner, if the goal here is to get at unlawful activity. one of the things that was called for in this piece was for the government to start regulating what zuckerberg called decide -- called divisive
political speech, in particular speech on issues like immigration. i think we have a long tradition in this country of wanting to foster discussion on hot button issues and not having the government step in shut it down. i think it is this marriage of big tech and big government that presents this pretty scary outlook. caroline: what, from the other side of the aisle, has been discussed, ted cruz agreeing with elizabeth warren about breaking up large companies. you said earlier that facebook has reached such a scale, some would call it an oligopoly or a monopoly. these companies need to be
looked at and split up, or is that something you are against? commissioner carr: i think calls from people like senator warren who are looking to break up big tech, that is not what i'm advocating for. in some ways, this is a reaction to those calls. my main position is that we shouldn't be sacrificing the first amendment or offering it up to the government as tribute to distract from calls for broader reform. caroline: there is an element that harmful content is just one element of regulation that mark zuckerberg was talking about. election integrity, privacy, data. how did you react to them? commissioner carr: not very favorably. on elections, one idea he had was that there is this neri -- this narrow category of speech americans have been willing to accept regulation on. campaign ads around elections. he put forward, instead of regulating the campaign ads, we should extend that to a
discussion of all hot button issues outside of campaigns. we want to be encouraging discussion about immigration, other hot button issues that the proposal would subject to regulation. caroline: going forward, is there anywhere that you could see any changes done internally by facebook that could aid the way in which we see harmful content reach the public discourse? how would you like the company to self regulate if you don't want to see overall regulation being enforced by government? commissioner carr: i think facebook can fix facebook. we don't need to get the government involved to do it. i think there's a lot of neutral unbiased steps that can be taken to get there. my point is we don't need to be taking the government in. to be able to solve whatever
♪ caroline: google's ai ethics council was created and disbanded over the course of one week after a dramatic outcry of who was appointed to serve on the panel. google said, "we are ending the council and going back to the drawing board. we will continue to be responsive on the issues that ai raises and will come up with different ways to get outside opinions." mark, talk us through what the backlash is really about. the people on the board? mark: i think it is fundamentally about google's
problem has had with dissent inside the company around the issues of ai, ethics, their new cloud division. the main issue was the appointment of the american heritage foundation, a conservative think tank in washington dc. there were several at google who started a physician who thought their positions on transgender issues and climate change were not the right advocate and person to be on the committee. another committee member actually declined the invitation after he saw a lot of back-and-forth on twitter. it just sort of immediately was a backlash that people weren't prepared for. caroline: it is interesting in the u.k., i've seen the government reached to the founders of deep mine, is it the same sort of thoughts
of how to get ahead of the curve in the debate? mark: google has been talking about this for a long time. when deep mind was formed, they said they would start an outside counsel to hold accountability for artificial intelligence. the joke was that they were building ai that was so powerful that they needed to put guardrails in place. there have been these conversations at google and other companies. some people are saying this is basically their way of getting ahead of any particular regulation. google, last year when their set of seven topics. they said, when we use ai, we
are going to be thinking about this. that was prompted by their contract with the military. that was another employee revolt that actually caused them to back out of that contract. they can satisfy their engineers but continue to get contracts with governments and companies as they move into cloud computing which is, of course, their biggest area of growth outside their core business. caroline: it seems to have become a growing problem for google, being able to get ahead of what their own very large employee base is thinking. mark: i talked to a lot of employees who said there is a market shift. the eighth those would be that they would be transparent inside. and these kind of a collective front. google, for years, had this culture that they had open dialogue, discord, agreements. you talked to a lot of employees and they talk about lack of transparency. that is a fundamental issue that google can't solve. caroline: mark bergen, thank you for your analysis. after much fanfare, lyft is struggling to trade above its listing price. this is bloomberg.
♪ caroline: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm caroline hyde. we have new details ahead of uber's ipo. the job of stabilization agent is a coveted one because it carries potential for more commissions on trade. morgan stanley helped uber writing prospectus which should be publicly filed this month. the new ipo landscape has not been so rosy. lyft traded below its price and bloomberg businessweek covered the cautionary tale for investors, looking back at blue apron's performance. the stock tumbled nearly 90% since its idea. joining us right now is the writer of that report and in seattle, the director of research joined justice.
sarah, great piece. it reminds us of what the failings were up blue apron that now can be translated to lyft, uber and the other non-profit-making companies. sarah: what is interesting, you look at the business models and what they are doing. yes, meal kit delivery service very different from the likes of ridesharing. however, when investors thought of blue apron, it was not of a high-growth company with a lot of large growth prospects. it was a disruptor and that is really what it has in common with the likes of lyft or uber or the other names coming out. the fact that they are disruptors. they are very different. however, you look at blue apron and what happened, now down 90% since its ipo. you have to ask yourself could it be possible that some of these other companies have similar issues and cannot capitalize on what they are saying they will do going forward? caroline: to a certain extent,
we live in bubbles nowadays. yes, the idea of a delivery to our home offing $23 to make your own meal within 30 minutes sounds like a great idea on the east coast and west coast, but the central of america and the middle of many countries, these rather luxurious ideas do not carry weight. guest: you are exactly right. when blue apron came out, they were talking about how they got they could address 99% of the u.s. population with all ready-made meals. i think what they have forgot is a lot of america has a chef hat and make really good homemade meals without that having to happen. they are affordable just -- affordable market is drastically understated. caroline: i look back to the
european version, hello fresh, and that company managed its valuation better. 1.3 billion euros. not the selloff we have seen. perhaps blue apron was a victim of competition here, but what about the idea of trying to invest in nonprofitable companies and this desire for growth right now? sarah: there is really a desire right now. you look in the public market and you can see it immensely, especially with the idea of lower growth, lower interest rates. right now, investors are really reaching for it. you look at lyft. it is not a profitable company. uber is not a profitable company. there are many of these unicorns
that are going to come out, but do not necessarily make money just yet. so, investors have to come up with some type of way to value the company. now, it seems they are learning it might take a little bit longer for these companies to turn a profit than initially expected, but it is difficult to find a proper way to really value these companies and pinpointed down because a lot of it is a guessing game or holding these companies to their word they are going to do what they say, as blue apron is saying they will eventually get in the hands of 99 percent of americans. caroline: tony, in some ways, are the views and needs of wall street aligned to the future investor base? tony: in many ways, no. the other thing they lust after is disruptor innovation. you mentioned those words. there was ultimately not anything disruptive about eating a meal. having a good app to interact with that is kind of new and innovative, but the market capitalization that gets us cried this disruptive idea has been way misallocated. caroline: many of these ipos are coming to fruition. these companies are about a
decade old, but you make the point it is not just the companies that neither liquidity moment, but it is also wall street that needs the ipo's to get out. tony: i think you mentioned morgan stanley did the first junk-bond debt offering to underwrite uber in 2016. they will be the lead organizer of the stock in the first few hours. in the c-suite, former goldman sachs people. ultrahigh net worth investors own this thing. there was a lot of vested interest in this thing doing well and getting off the ground. right now, they have an open window on the ipo front to do just that. caroline: on the flipside, to
all the cynics, there is also the lesson we have learned, that sometimes you can have a phenomenal disruptor that does incredibly well and eventually hands you profit. sarah: facebook for example. facebook did not have a good year after its ipo, yet look at it now. it has took off and monetized itself very well. but at the same time, some people are looking at lyft and saying they struggle to trade above the ipo price of $72. today, we close above it, but we cannot know for sure in a week. we are going to have to see what this appetite is really like as we see more of these companies come to market, particularly uber which could come as soon as this month. it is difficult to take the likes of snapchat or blue apron or a week's trading of lyft and completely extrapolate it. there could be differences, but there are similarities. caroline: it is also worth remembering the five most valuable companies in the s&p 500 are all technology. great to get your perspective. tony scherrer. sarah ponczek will be sticking
with me in new york because i want to cover another one of her key stories. time for millennials to stand aside. make way for generation z. this year, gen z were places millennials is the biggest consumer globally. a new obsession for investors and it looks like it comes down to marijuana, social justice and kylie jenner. sarah, talk us through your great, incredibly readable piece. it all started because you started to think up ways of being able to encapsulate investing in gen z. sarah: the way i got involved was pretty interesting. i came up with a hypothetical
fund that was the influencer economy etf. the ticker was genz. the podcast was the weekly etf podcast and we had a competition to see who could come up with the best idea. this is what i came up with. you look at the top 20 influencers that are ranked by forbes and attention to account how many followers they had on social media accounts and looks of the companies they partner with. you think of cristiano ronaldo, ariana grande, selena gomez, the rock. celebrities like these have an influence on what gen z is doing. you mentioned kylie jenner. she is the perfect example. she has a partnership with ulta because she sells her beauty line in the company. the line went over last year, it is up 40%. caroline: the theoretical etf you design has significant the outperformed. you also included other companies. what is it that motivates -- what is different from gen z to millennials? sarah: i'm just about in there. you think about gen z, they grew up on this.
the entire time, from age seven to 22, they have been around. so too have been the likes of amazon, much of the lives, instagram, snapchat. this is embedded in their lives. they know nothing other than it. they are so influenced by everything they see. bloomberg did a survey and they found that 52% of gen z actually do say that they find out about new products on instagram. that is really the mode that they found out -- find about these products. that is more than millennials, that is more than gen x. you see this change and a lot of it comes because it is not just because of the internet. they have exposure to these companies that have not been around for too long. caroline: it is not actually going on the social media platforms they access. it is going on the companies they access through social media. nike, also cannabis stocks. sarah: also in the survey, they found gen z is twice as likely to use cannabis than the
national average. caroline: cannabis or cbd? sarah: not as much cbd. cbd seems to be catering to the older generation, but cannabis is wedd. ed. you look at these numbers and they are also shunning beer, alcohol. they don't want to wake up feeling bloated. bayfield weed and cannabis is a way around that. you think of companies like aurora. but also, kind of on that front, but in the food arena as well. a lot of gen z's are vegans, vegetarians, even more so than millennials. when you think of these large packaged goods companies or the
big fast food companies, they are going to have to really think about strategy as this age gets even older because they are going to have to keep them attracted. caroline: fascinating, thinking up burger king introducing the impossible burger. and nestle bringing out their own one. it is a very on trent story. sarah ponczek bringing us all things gen z. coming up, casper has achieved unicorns that is with a $1 trillion capital raise. how the company plans the use its investment next. this is bloomberg. ♪
caroline: online mattress startup casper has joined the you record club. it's guilt $100 million in new funding, bringing the valuation to more than $1 billion. casper is part of a growing start of selling directly to consumers online and looking to expand its footprint in the mortar business. bloomberg's selina wang spoke to the casper ceo. >> we have a couple of areas we are excited to put that capital to work in. we continue to bring great products to market that are designed to help people sleep better, period. our sheets, pillows and mattresses are designed to help improve the quality of your sleep and we will continue to take great products to market. the next area is taking those products to market through more and more points of distribution. we have 23 stores today. we will open up dozens more this year. the stores are a great complement to our online
experience, casper.com, where customers can learn and go inside the store and talked to a sleep expert and understand the full value proposition of our product. selina: it has been reported that casper has not reached profitability. brick retail stores are really expensive so why extend that footprint and doesn't lengthen the time to profitability? philip: when we decide to invest in an area, it stems from listening to our customers. we launched the business five years ago. customers were immediately asking us to design pillows, sheets and all the other products you need to get sleep. customers are asking us where to i go to lay on your product, understand what is right for me? we're happy to design and rollout these stores. the good news for us is that they are amazingly productive from an investment standpoint. we are seeing some of the highest retail dollars per square foot out of our stores so far. mid-double-digit percent comps on stores that have been open
for a year. we are seeing record-breaking investment profiles out of our retail expansion. it is actually both great for the customer experience and business model. selina: you have plenty of competitors on the online space. they are all slightly different products and price points, but the idea is the same in terms of cutting up a middleman, going online director consumer. how does casper differentiate itself? philip: casper really started this innovation that the
traditional mattress buying experience was broken. it left the consumer in the wind because the traditional incumbents in this space have taken all of the dollars out of the ecosystem. it has not invested in innovation on the product side or the experience side. what casper does better than anyone is create best in class products. our mattress is the number one rated mattress on consumer reports. the number one rated brand. we continue to invest in product innovation. leading the industry. that is across all of our products. we have a group in san francisco called casper labs that does all of her own product innovation. none of our competitors invest like we do to build world-class products. i would say the next area we are trying to design this brand to be and to end all things sleep for consumers. the products, experiences, distribution strategy. we want to be the top of my brent . i don't think any of our customers think like that, have that perspective, and really us buyer to change the overall
wellness equation so it includes sleep. selina: what about the threat from amazon? they started to sell their own line of mattresses. philip: amazon has always been a large seller of mattresses. they have been a great partner for us so far. having been introduced the amazon basic mattress did not really change the consumer offering. what i mean is there is always been very low price mattresses in the mattress industry. there is always been the opportunity to buy a $200, $300 mattress that is not designed the last, around sleep quality. they did not change the consumer offering like they did in other categories. for us, it is a shift in market share at the very bottom end of the overall industry and we'll really play that. casper place in the high-end, best in class quality products, but we do pass on a great value because of our business model. caroline: that was casper ceo and cofounder philip krim speaking with selina wang. in europe, amazon go's rapid growth in the confident so the help of a tiny startup. it is pitching its technology to european markets and the goal is to beat amazon for the first checkout stores. it has not announced any plans. still ahead, snap has announced several new products and services, including a new gaming business, but will it be enough
caroline: snap rallied in trading friday after the company announced new products which included a gaming platform, new original shows, and ad networks. shares close at the highest level since august, up 115% year-to-date. this is the company struggles to add customers. joining us is deutsche bank senior analyst lloyd wolseley. you are pretty bullish we are turning a corner on this stock? lloyd: we are starting to warm up to the name. we brought the target price up.
we are seeing signs that the company innovation is alive and well. you are seeing confidence in the management team. you are also getting exposed to a rank of executives below the very senior-level that for the first time really and you are seeing the death of the company. it does seem they are getting ready to turn a corner. caroline: they have moved on for perhaps some of the missteps where we lost executives, strategy officer, and many felt was the adult in the room. lloyd: last year, there was a lot of turnover. last year, the cfo left. they had the disastrous rollout of a new ad version. they lost users in the second and third quarter. it feels like things are a lot more stable at the company at this point and i think they have put a lot of that the hind them. we are not out of the woods yet. a lot will come down to the android rollout of the new
design. basically, they had a lot of problems technologically. you look at the company, all of the executives had iphones, and what they realized as they started to pivot their strategy to try to grow internationally, their product it not work very well on android. they had to go back to the drawing board and rebuild the product from scratch. they were just getting some testing out. the company is starting to release this news -- new app and they sound encouraged but we should get more from the company in the next quarter. caroline: how regularly does that happen that people forget about the android device making? many put it second tier, but how many do they realize they actually don't build the app in the correct way? lloyd: it is a good question. it is pretty rare. we have seen instances where companies have flagged in documents of lagging on android but never have we seen a company take over a year to rebuild an
app for android. it is very unusual. that is part of the uncertainty, what does it look like as this rolls out? caroline: the other part of the uncertainty is how they monetize all these new games, apps, new ways and means to engage with the consumer. how do you think that happens? lloyd: right now with the new games they rolled out, it will be an ad model. if the user wants to click to get an extra life or extend the game, they have to watch an ad. it is a good model because the user is getting something in return for watching an ad. the question in our minds is what kind of adoption did they get? they are making it really easy and social so there are some encouraging signs, but the games look pretty basic. we will see. i think in terms of broader
monetization on the platform, there is a lot of room for them on the core advertising. the pricing is really low compared to some of the other social platforms. so, if they prove that the ads work to advertisers, if they get more advertisers into the system, they can show the right ad to the right user at the right time and revenue should follow. but we will have to see. they have done a pretty good job but there is a lot of room left. caroline: what are you hearing from marketers? we saw a slight spike in snap share price when facebook was having some of its woes. boycott on youtube might sometimes be advantageous. it is really the only other place to get access to gen z and millennials. can they extend that? lloyd: we hear they have done a great job attracting the young audience that is increasingly harder to reach. they don't watch a lot of broadcast tv. they have done a great job there. where the company has not done a good a job is on the performance marketing side and they spent the last two years rebuilding their performance marketing capabilities.
we are starting to hear better things from the ad community. one thing we consistently heard is the team at snap building the underlying technology is very talented. so, encouraging signs but the one thing we have not heard yet is advertisers being able to scale their spend and see consistent return on ad spend. if they can do that, there is a lot of room they can get to on monetization. we have heard some positive signs, but nothing definitive yet. caroline: how high can the share price go? lloyd: when we talked to investors, the target price right now is 13. but when you look at the target multiple -- we still use a discount to what other companies in the internet space growing at the same growth rate are trading at. you get a little bit of a lift in the multiples.
if they can be on revenue, you can see a nice gain on the share price. there is still some room to go. caroline: so glad we got your opinion. lloyd, on all things snap. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." we are live streaming on twitter . have a very good weekend. this is bloomberg. ♪ the biggest week in television is almost here.
xfinity watchathon week. starting april 8th, enjoy free access to the best shows and movies from hbo, showtime, epix and more. what! whether it's more jaw droppers, standing o's upon standing o's or tv's biggest show stoppers. get more into what you're into. get ready to watch with xfinity x1 or the xfinity stream app. xfinity watchathon week. free starting april 8th. boop!