tv Bloomberg Business Week Bloomberg June 23, 2019 7:00am-8:00am EDT
flax makes its public debut. itses opening above reference price, valuing the software messenger add more than $20 million. icon up with the cfo. >> at this point it has been working exactly the way it is supposed to work. we are very much focused on -- >> you are still paying large fees to bankers and you still the public on
market. what problem are you solving? >> the first one is, no need to raise primary capital. a little bit more freedom in how we tell the story. instead of only having a roadshow, we were able to do an investor day, livestream it and make the video available to everyone. emily: black is still profitable. >> our primary focus is to invest in growth. this is the drive toward the national breakeven. we can still invest very aggressively.
emily: how much of a priority is profitability? >> i don't want to get technical but there are a lot of deferred revenues. in outside investors is great because it allows us to control our own destiny. we try to find new ways to continue to invest. we don't need a lot of free cash flow but just a little bit. emily: revenue growth is slowing. what are some new sources you are planning to tap? >> we are very pleased with our revenue growth. progress with customers. our enterprise customers are growing as well.
we are very optimistic about the opportunity. we believe it is a huge new opportunity. so we are focused on that. back to ourt archives in the first interview i did with you was 2011. you are making a game called glitch which sort of became black. in 2015, jared lehto crashed our interview. the users really love isirkiness of slack which very much inspired by you. that said, you are becoming a public company, earnings calls every quarter. how do you manage that transition? been committed to building the types of controls that would allow a stop -- operate -- allow us to
operate as a public company. we believe we can keep the same culture and the same approach to starting customers. it,e is a nice humility to but also a huge ambition. the challenge for us is bringing investors along, and helping them understand what the long-term vision is and what we can truly do to support companies all over the world. the midst of an trade war with china. you can imagine that businesses are going to cut budgets. nice --ht not cut the they might cut the nice to have an slack could fall into that category. risk of't see any real
that. we have exceptional retention. that slackrs tell us is the kind of thing they didn't know they needed but once you have it, you can't live without it. it's not going to be one of the items that are cut. emily: how much do these market fluctuations -- how much are you lowering what is happening in the global economy? >> we watch it like everyone else but it doesn't necessarily affect the way we run our business. ambition -- the markets do what they need to do. emily: you have these competitors with deep pockets and billions of users. how do you differentiate yourself? how do you compete when even you
say you haven't figured out the optimal price because it depends on what your competitors are doing? >> at slack we say we are competitor aware. it's hard to imagine how it could cause us to change our plans. one of the things we want to do is to put ourselves in a itition as a company to make more valuable. we have more value over each of our customers as they use the software. there is a whole world out there , and anotherware of categories, the number of dollars that they invest every year. in a world where we have 10 million daily active users, out of the 200 million plus who would benefit from slack, it's wild. emily: that was stored but are filled -- stewart butterfield
and alan shim. this might be more of a question, can microsoft handle slack? right now, slack is generally .iewed as a leader the industry is undergoing a phenomenal amount of change. people are looking for alternatives to email, things that move faster and smoother and i think slack does a fantastic job of doing that. emily: we had a lot of questions about why they chose a direct listing. stuart, do you think i got an answer? >> i think so. he was able to explain that the main reason slack was looking to do a direct listing was because they do not want to dilute any
further. they have a lot of cash, they feel confident they don't need to raise any more money and doing a direct listing elastic do that. -- allows you to do that. it allows you to go public and not dilute new shares to sell. emily: why did they raise as much as they did? they have said they have as much money as they need, money for a rainy day. so why? >> it must have felt worth it at the time. he said this morning, we were always getting a fair valuation, capital was available. and it is true, slack has always been a darling of the venture capital world and i can imagine they were able to negotiate the deals they were really good for them in the private market and don't feel the need to raise more. emily: i have a chart that shows how the u.s. ipos and u.s. tech ipos have been performing so far this year. you know, stephen, you ran
office, you ran windows. one of the big questions about slack, is it just a nice-to-have? if companies will cut budgets, if there is an economic downturn, and there is a lot of uncertainty, why would they pay for slack and not cut office? >> the thing about the workplace, even during bad times, it turns out that companies think of information technology as a way to invest to make it through the bad times. you become more efficient, you communicate better, get more done, serve customers better and that reduces the impact of these economic cycles. we have seen that for decades in the way that technology investing looks. slack is not just a nice to have, it is fundamentally rethinking companies really approach the sharing information and making it much more modern. moving from silos of email to an open communication platform.
emily: stevenson stenofsky there and bloombergs ellen huet. we should note that bloomberg's investment arm is an investor in slack. up next, our conversation with sheryl sandberg and what she has to say about the new cryptocurrency already facing blowback on capitol hill. and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio and on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: facebook unveils plans for a new cryptocurrency called libra that will soon launch next year. the former paypal ceo spoke to bloomberg about the goals of the new project. he will now lead the new organization that will help to oversee libra. >> we went to the blockchain about because, by design, we
launched 100 different global organizations that will participate in the governance of this new network. 27 organizations. we need a way to decentralize governance because no one company should control a network that is basically a protocol for value on the internet. emily: still, lawmakers are calling for the social network to stop developing libra immediately until lawmakers weigh in. facebook coo sheryl sandberg says a lot of details need to be worked out and also spoke about the m&a strategy. >> if you see something that is very targeted to you and you think it has violated your privacy to get there, it's really creepy and scary and a lot of people believe that. if you understand the truth, which is we have not given any individual information, but we have just taken that ad and shown it, all of a sudden, it is a better experience. we have to do a much better job
explaining our business model and explaining why targeted advertising is so important to small businesses around the world so that people feel more comfortable because it is a great service. caroline: in a one-on-one message, you would still see that ad, but it would not feel creepy even thought it is a one-on-one message? sheryl: we are working on it. but again, it depends. if you believe no one is reading your messages, and let's be clear, no one is reading your messages -- that is a good experience. if it is targeted to you and you are worried about how that happened, you are less comfortable, and that's why we need to make the case in a clearer way. caroline: i like that you brought up this has become a focus point, privacy, and we have heard murmers from mark saying, "i realize i did not get it quick enough. i made a mistake here." do you think facebook -- have you come to understand the way in which the consumer is viewing privacy and how you are building that into your culture and your
business model? sheryl: there is a growing understanding of how important privacy is and how we have to protect it. if you look at the early iterations of facebook, we were allowing people to share too much data early on before 2014. if i used an app, i would share my information and i could share my friends' information. it's really hard to remember. and this is not an excuse, because i think we should have done better. but the real concern data was that we were hoarding data and not sharing it. people were very concerned that we were a walled garden and we could not share. we had this vision that we would enable you to make your apps more social. you have a playlist, we are friends, i want to hear your playlist. my friend has a birthday, i want to import that to my calendar. those are great experiences. what we have learned over the years is we need to share the minimal amount of data in ways people really understand it and have full control so we can
create those experiences, and i think we are doing that now. we are also looking for the best models around the world. we are in europe. gdpr is the most far-reaching privacy legislation that has been passed. it did not pass anywhere else in the world, but we took those same controls and made them available everywhere because we know people care about their privacy and we know we need to give them the tools to understand this. it is your information. you choose to share it with your friends on facebook. you can choose to share it with businesses or not. that is up to you and we need to make it clearer how that works. caroline: do you think the anger that you saw, that you witnessed was justified? how did you take it personally? sheryl: this has been hard, you know? as anyone who kind of wakes up in the morning and is working hard and trying to do the very best i can, being attacked personally not something i've experienced before and definitely hard, but i think it should be hard because mark and i, and the other facebook
leaders, and even our employees, we have a really big responsibility. i have a really big responsibility. there are things we missed. we wish we had understood the russian interference in the u.s. election. we didn't, we missed it. we have worked hard to get ahead of it and i think we have done much better in the eu elections, the u.s. midterms, but the fact that this is hard is important because we have a responsibility to people around the world who are using our services. we have a responsibility and i have a responsibility to protect them. caroline: it is really nice to hear you say that. thank you. also, what i really like you bring up is gdpr, eu elections. we are already talking about the 2020 elections in the u.s. are the right safeguards in place, do you think? sheryl: we are definitely working at building them. if you think about what happened with election interference in our platform, if you go back to 2016, we were worried about
foreign actors interfering, but what that meant at the time was primarily hacking into data. that is what foreign actors did. we built a consensus there. i think we had a really good track record. what we really did not foresee at all -- we missed it, everyone missed it, but that is on us -- a new, more insidious threat where people did not hack in and take stuff, but they wrote fake stuff. once that happened and we understood it, we knew we needed to put serious engineering, serious money behind it. we have put billions of dollars into protecting our platform, but we also need a better relationship. the u.s. department of homeland security has a task force on it now. they did not have that then. we work with them very closely. in the eu, we had a very local approach. we took everything we learned in the u.s. but worked with experts from 28 countries and had a local operations center here, and we were able to systematically find and take things down. we are now taking down one million fake accounts a day,
almost all we take down before anyone has seen them. i am never, ever going to say to you or anyone else we know everything that is happening on facebook. we don't. but here's what we know -- we know we can come together with governments around the world and other companies to do better. we know that we are doing better. we have seen it in the eu, we have seen that we can take down these coordinated behaviors now. we know that new threats have not been invented and we have to be really vigilant to prevent against them, and that is what we are doing. you saw it in the eu, in the u.s. midterms, and we are going into elections around the world and the u.s. 2020 elections, we are going to be as prepared as we possibly can. emily: that was facebook coo sheryl sandberg with our own caroline hyde. in the meantime, lawmakers have been skewering facebook's plans. sherrod brown of ohio responded immediately, saying facebook is already too big to dominate another industry without oversight.
he joined david westin thursday. sen. brown: facebook is too big and too powerful. i don't know that people would have said that three or five years ago, but the public increasingly believes that they are too big and too powerful to engage in a risky cryptocurrency, running a cryptocurrency system out of a swiss bank is a big concern. we, first of all, wants to know more, second want rules about this. we know about what happened to our banking system 10 years ago, and there is this collective amnesia about what wall street did. and trump regulators, the white house looks like a retreat for wall street executives. we know that trump regulators are never as aggressively aimed at big companies, whether they are wall street banks or silicon valley, as they should be. so we want to shine light on this and figure out what
facebook is trying to do and begin to move with the regulators to protect the public, protect the financial system, and the economy. especially the attacks on privacy we know facebook is so well known for. emily: that was senator sherrod brown. are you packing your suitcases? it is one of the busiest times of the year for travelers, but is market volatility impacting them? our conversation with expedia's ceo next. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: last week, we learned airbnb is expanding its experience business and doubling down on tourism. this is as they brought in its business in advance of an ipo, likely next year. just one of the many travel players trying to be a one-stop shop for all vacation needs. so how are traditional travel sites gearing up to compete? expedia's ceo joined us to weigh in. >> with have always been at the forefront of travel.
we've been at this for 20 years and one thing that has been consistent is this is an incredibly competitive industry. despite the competitive forces, expedia last year did $100 billion of bookings, multiples of the size of airbnb and many of these players out there. we have thousands and thousands of the top engineers, data scientists, and product minds in the world focused on travel, and that is how we stay ahead. emily: let's talk about the short term rental business and go bigger picture. you recently rebranded brbo. >> you will get used to it. emily: why? why not consolidate homeaway? why not make it just one experience? mark: vrbo has been around for a
long time. if you go back in time, people used to talk about getting a vrbo for the weekend, it was the noun. as we went through and did a ton of research and internationally about all the different names that we could call the new vrbo, vrbo was the one that resonated the most. so we decided to put all of our effort behind that brand. we are pretty excited about rolling it out globally. emily: will we be seeing you make acquisitions and investment in this phase? >> m&a is always part of our playbook, so i would never say never. we are pretty happy with what we've got and are excited about all of our efforts behind vrbo. emily: let's talk about macroeconomic issues. obviously, it is june, peak travel season. and yet we have a u.s.-china trade war, market volatility, and incredible amounts of political uncertainty around the world. how is that impacting traffic? mark: so far, so good. it looks like a healthy travel environment to us.
recent research by expedia in the u.s., 85% of people are planning on taking a trip this summer. 15% was for budget constraint. and this is broadly consistent with what we have seen. americans are traveling, and global travel industry looks pretty healthy. so far, so good. emily: are you thinking about it? do you have a plan b for if things go south? which, you know, who knows in this administration? mark: we are fortunate that we are a global business. in good times and bad times, we definitely see shifts in travel patterns. but people often take their trip as the last thing that they cut. maybe they will take a trip closer to home, maybe they won't take a trip overseas, but they travel. if you look at our results from 2008-2009, those were some of our strongest years. emily: coming up, on top of facebook's digital currency news, money gram and ripple have
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.
♪ 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 network. @tictoc. this is bloomberg. ♪
isn't just a store. it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.
♪ >> it is among the most profitable carmakers in the world. yet in 2013 this french carmaker was facing bankruptcy. since then, the executives have achieved a remarkable turnaround. and then have done it again across the border in germany. >> this is "bloomberg: turnaround." join us to see how they put peugeot back in the race. ♪ >> it is a source of pride for the nation.