tv The David Rubenstein Show Peer to Peer Conversations Bloomberg June 23, 2019 1:30am-2:01am EDT
emily: welcome back to the "best of bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. ripple announced a partnership with global payments provider moneygram which will let ripple serve as a payment of foreign exchange option for moneygram users. the ceo of ripple joined us. >> it is a big step for ripple and a bigger step for the overall industry. there has been excitement around blockchain and digital assets and what crypto can mean for the industry and the recent players like facebook are diving in. we have not seen much beyond experimentation and at ripple we
are the market leader because we have matured aggressively and are solving real problems for real customers. moneygram is a manifestation of that and the second-largest global remittance company. we have a big impact with one customer and one partner. emily: western union has tested ripple to use for its network but said it is more expensive. is moneygram saving money by using ripple? >> western union said -- they have been around for decades and they said in our beta time, when the product had not launched, that we match the efficiency of what they were optimized. my view was they spent decades getting to an efficiency that we matched with a beta product. so i was pleased western union said we are already as good as the decades they have invested in building out the capability. with moneygram, we know out of the gates we can make their system much more efficient because today western union and moneygram pre-fund accounts
throughout the world so they can make payments. moneygram and western union have negative working capital and we allow them to not pre-fund and to shoot payment in real-time which is a massive savings in terms of efficiency, not just because it affects the capital cost, the outlays, it is a dormant asset when you pre-fund, sitting there waiting for people to make payments and that is the transformational thing that xrp has, its functional digital asset allows for the industry. emily: how much equity did ripple get in this deal? >> we committed to invest up to $50 million and we will own somewhere between 6% or 7% and 10% of the company. they will decide over the course of the year, to that $50 million they want to go down and a close they call down $30 million at a price of $4.10 per share.
we are excited to be shareholders because it has been an undervalued asset. somebody tried to buy moneygram over a year ago but it was blocked and we think it is an undervalued and strategic asset in the overall payments landscape and we could not be more excited about how digital assets can change the major of how liquidity is for payment providers globally. emily: the deal was blocked by the u.s. government. what is next? do you have plans to gain shares in other existing money transfer services? >> what is next for us is to continue to build out and expand the number of places we are live. we work with over 200 banks and financial institutions and the new product around liquidity we are now enabling liquidity into the mexican peso and philippines peso and we expect to be much broader than that.
we have only been live with this product for six or seven months and we have made a tremendous progress in a short time. we will invest with customers and expand the number we serve globally. emily: the new streaming service from jeffrey katzenberg and meg whitman is not launching until 2020 but already raking in ad dollars with short form streaming service has already hit $100 million in ad revenue. meg whitman sat down with caroline hyde to talk about what is really in the new sponsors. >> a mobile only platform with hollywood quality content married with a fantastic tech platform that allows video to be viewed on mobile in a whole new way. they are excited about the fact that it is targeted to at an obvious and a brand safe environment because nothing gets there that we do not say gets there, targeted to the millennial audience on the go during these lean in moments.
they think it is a unique opportunity and that is how we announced today we have six of the most iconic innovative brands as our launch partners. >> giving you $100 million already, you want $150 million from advertisers and this is the subscription level. how will the business model be divided between the two? >> one offer is $4.99 per month plus ads, and $7.99 per month without ads. about 75% of our customers would pick the ad supported version because it is cheaper and we think the advertising will be of incredibly high quality to match the content on the app. similar to the hulu pricing models and most choose the ad supported version. >> interesting some of the supporters of the hollywood makers of content, and how,
therefore, when you had disney for example, they are launching disney plus. could they ever be getting into short form? >> the top eight hollywood studios, now seven with the fox-disney merger, are all investors in us and they made available some of their best show runners and they want us to be successful. the reason is they view this as a growth opportunity for studios and they are launching their own subscription service but it is longform living room television oriented. we are short form on the mobile, on the go viewing. neither party thinks this is competitive, it is an additive thing for the studio to make money off. >> perhaps for the competition lies with the likes of owning the beaches behind me, the likes of youtube and facebook, it is interesting you brought up your
distinctive factor is brand safety, everything is chosen by you to be advertised next to. how is the reaction from capitol hill, consumers against the power that social media has and how that fits with the advertising realm and with your realm? >> advertising has undergone a major disruption in the last decade, think about how different it was. whenever there is a big change, regulars often want to see what is happening. we said, we have a very clear view of what we want to offer consumers and we thought, something that hasn't been offered is a mobile only environment towards millennials targeted where we are quite conservative in how we use data and share data with advertisers. we will not share personal information or device id, we want to be conservative. some of the advertisers want access to that but some understand it is a different time and place and we are a brand-new platform and we have a chance to build from the ground up.
emily: apple is urging the trump administration not to move forward with new tariffs for a 5% on a new slate of products imported from china. the tech giant said it would reduce the company's contribution to the u.s. economy and hurt its global competitiveness. the proposed tariffs would affect nearly all major apple products including the iphone. joining us to discuss is sarah mcgregor. this is the first time apple specifically mentioned the iphone in a plea to the united states government. are they asking for special treatment? >> you are right, this is the first time they mentioned the iphone and it is so critical because the phone, two thirds of apple sales in the baseline and the rest of their sales because people get the other products because they get the iphone. are they asking for special treatment? sort of.
they are the most significant phone maker out of the u.s., pretty much the only company in this unique position of being such a global conglomerate that has such a strong hold on this market while also being an american company that produces pretty much everything in china. in a way they are asking for special treatment but if this pass was granted to other phone makers, they would not be too upset. emily: we know that tim cook, the ceo of apple, has been to washington a number of times and met with president trump several times and made an effort to keep the conversation going. if the administration does bring the new tariffs on products, would apple be an exception? >> tim cook was in washington as early as last week meeting with donald trump and talking about trade and immigration. we do know he does have the ear of donald trump. in previous tariffs, the draft list, apple got a couple of its product off of it.
companies can apply for exemptions. there are options at apple's behest or any other company to avoid these tariffs. that being said, the trump administration wants to hit hard and make an impact with the $300 billion if it did move forward with them and it is hard to tell how much flexibility they will have. emily: correct me if i'm wrong but apple comes in almost every conversation with tariffs but they have not been impacted by tariffs on any products yet at all, right? >> i would not correct you if you are wrong, but you are not wrong. [laughter] >> they have not been impacted by tariffs at a significant level, there has been some accessories and wireless routers
they do not even sell anymore and old versions of computers they do not sell anymore. the iphone is apple's bread and butter and at the core of this debate. will the iphone be impacted for a year? this letter is significant because it is the first time apple is saying, please, u.s. government, do not do this to us. basically they are saying this will hurt their contribution to the u.s. economy but what is actually going to hurt are there very high industry-leading margins for these types of products and they do not want to sacrifice that. emily: coming up, more companies looking for a backup plan in the escalating trade war. the intel ceo is reviewing its global supply chain next. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: intel is reviewing its supply-chain and uncertainty over the u.s.-china trade war. in the interview from tel aviv, ceo bob swan says it wants to mitigate the impact of tariffs. >> we have a lot of customers there. we have a factory there, assembly, test, brilliant engineers in china and it is a big market for us. we want to encourage the governments on both sides to engage in constructive dialogue. we do not believe that tariffs is an effective way to drive global trade. that is where we think we have influence, we do not have control.
with our customers and partners, we tried to work to mitigate any consequences of tariffs that go into place that can infect the free flow of goods around the world and we have focused on the quite a bit. because our customers have been focused on that quite a bit. because our customers have biggest operations in china and we need to work constructively with them to try to mitigate these implications. >> i would understand from that, although your peers like google, which is starting to shift production out of china and apple, that has some kind of plan. intel is not considering, or at least at the back of your mind, you have some backup plan should something happen to shift some of the production out of china. >> in light of tariffs we need to think through, with our customers and our own operations, how do we mitigate the flow of goods to reduce any impact of tariffs that could have on our respective businesses.
our belief is higher tariffs ultimately end up in higher prices for consumers around the world and we do not think that is an effective vehicle. >> you are not thinking about shifting anything out or worried about a backup plan? you are working on mitigating between the governments, mediating? >> no, i think there are multiple things going on. first, we are working with the governments to encourage them to get to a better resolution for the good of global trade. secondly, we have been working since the tariffs started last year, both with our manufacturing operations as well as the assembly operations. we have been working to mitigate the impact of tariffs by looking at more effective ways for the movement of goods around the world so that products will not be more expensive at point of sales. >> anything actionable you can
tell me? what does it mean, mitigate? >> the first three weights of tariffs have been effectively on products assembled in china and shipped to the united states. mitigate means, how do we move goods? sometimes our customers will move operations and how do we work the global supply chain so that what is coming directly in china to the u.s. that will be subject to tariffs. mitigate means how do we collectively work together as a global supply chain, us, our customers, and our partners to reduce the impact of higher costs arriving at consumer shelves. >> it does involve perhaps a moving around? >> absolutely. >> autonomous cars, you took your third ride in the autonomous car and tried out a new system that will be part of a ride-hailing service. what is your feeling about it as you come out of this ride? >> i went on the streets of
jerusalem, traffic going both ways, on ramps, off ramps, roundabouts, with people going across the street and doors opening and to watch how our mobileye technology have come to adjust and adapt in a safe environment. the man behind the wheel that took me on the drive not once did he have to put his hands on the wheel. it is incredible and the most impressive thing is to see how far they have come in each one of the successful drives i have gone on over the last two years. >> intel mobileye announced a plan to build out a self driving ride-hailing service. what is going on with that and what can we expect, and when can i hail down a robo cab? >> we announced in conjunction with partners, volkswagen and champion motors. volkswagen would build the car and mobileye would build the technology inside the car, and champion motors would assist in
the operations of the car to bring mobility of service here in israel in the 2021 timeframe. we are excited about what that means for bringing safe security to address two fundamental problems on highways in jerusalem, traffic and safety. we think, with our technology, we can pull mobility to service over time here and expand it over the rest of the world. emily: that was the ceo of intel, bob swan. coming up, calling out tech companies, not over privacy, but their carbon footprint. why investors are saying enough is enough. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: some big tech names like amazon and facebook are being called out for how they report, or do not report, carbon emissions. they are among 700 companies targeted in a campaign backed by a large group of investors. the group wants greater transparency when it comes to the environmental impact of these companies. to talk more about this we spoke with jesse michael keenan and abe yokell. >> their footprint is defined by server farms, and increasingly we have seen sustainability, for sourcing that power from wind in the midwest and there has not been a big push to sink in terms of sustainability, not just primary energy generation but carbon offsets. a lot has been done but the next frontier is thinking across the organization and enterprise-level risk management to think about climate change
and climate adaptation from primarily a risk management point of view. emily: what is your take on some new companies, their feet being held to the fire? >> it depends on what company are talking about but many of them are forward leaning and thinking about sustainability and their impact for their shareholders, stakeholders, customers, and employees, which is a motivating force for a lot of these companies. there are different methodologies you can measure, 150 different frameworks that are used and cdp is probably one of the most frequently cited, carbon disclosure project. emily: how would you rate how transparent tech companies in particular are at this moment about their carbon footprint? >> i think it varies. there has been some who are let's say, pick on amazon, amazon has an arguably
unsustainable model when it comes to logistics. if carbon tax were implemented, the amazon prime account would not have a great deal of economic parity, it would be too expensive. you have other companies that are not oriented towards logistics or primary production retail that i think are much better suited to engage energy efficiency and other energy technology. i think it runs a gamut. emily: amazon says in response that they have a goal to reach 50% of all amazon shipments with net zero carbon by 2030 but can we really rely on the companies themselves to do the right thing, or do they need outside pressure from investors and activists? >> i think they certainly need pressure and there is a rising tide and trend of investor and
stakeholder support in pushing for disclosure for sustainability efforts and we could list 10 different efforts in that area. it has all caused the tech companies in general to do good things, 50% renewables is a good thing for amazon from procurement, going to 100% and the claim to be disclosing the full carbon footprint, through their own methodology by the end of the year which is a net positive. amazon has a unique challenge in that it is a tech company but it also ships a lot of stuff. most other tech companies do not and they have a huge carbon footprint. emily: we all get so many amazon boxes and we do not know what to do with them, isn't that a problem? >> it is an economic problem and we are filled with them. emily: this is happening at the same time the trump administration is rolling back much of the work president obama
did on climate change and in a way these investors are fighting an uphill battle. can corporations lead sustainability when perhaps the political winds are blowing elsewhere? >> it is not necessarily the case that corporations and the private sector have to be led by the hand, by the federal government in terms of regulation and some discipline. the fact of the matter is this is good for business, thinking about not only climate change risk but climate change opportunity. we talked about the carbon disclosure project but we have the task force for climate financial disclosure, which gives companies a robust methodology by sector to really think about a wide range of risk and wide range of opportunity. this is an altruism, this is about making money and the bottom line and what we will see in the future, i think it is
emerging now, arguably, a greening and browning of asset and companies will soon fall into that one way or another in terms of classifications. emily: speaking of making money, we have 30 seconds, i assume there is an investment opportunity in the companies that can help bigger companies to decrease their carbon footprint? >> always an investment opportunity and things like this and our investors are pushing for these kinds of changes through our investments. the university of california is our single biggest stakeholder and they are pushing this through us and through their own efforts. there is a lot going on that is positive. emily: that does it for this edition of the "best of bloomberg technology." tune in every day at 5:00 p.m. in new york and 2:00 p.m. in san francisco and we are livestreaming on twitter. follow our global breaking news
i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass.
alix: middle east turmoil. the u.s. moved more troops into the region. oil prices care more about trade geopolitics. gold bugs rejoice. prices spike as jay powell delivers a flock full of doubts. you are hired. just maybe not if you are a woman. clean energy looks like big oil dominated by white men. ♪ alix: i'm alix steel. welcome to "bloomberg commodities edge." 30 minutes focused on the companies, physical assets and