Michael Dell – Invest America Act Becomes Law, AI Talent Wars, Compute Demand, Market Update | BG2

0:00 Is the are the productivity gains from this going to be as big or bigger than what we saw from personal computers and the internet? >> Oh, it's far bigger. It's far far bigger. Yeah. I I I feel >> 98% confident. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Hey guys, great to see you both. Uh, Bill, maybe I don't know, you're up in Tahoe or something and we're thrilled to have one of our great friends, Michael Dell on to chop it up with us. Happy 4th of July, you guys. Most of you know Michael. Um, he's built obviously one of the most iconic technology companies.

0:44 Starting in his dorm room, I don't know what, 40 years ago, Michael. I think you just had your 40th anniversary. >> 41 years ago. >> 41 years ago. and now a major player in AI. You know, you you spun off VMware, of course, and now you're a major owner of Broadcom and Dell remains a hundred billion dollar business. I think you own uh you know, like like Larry Ellison, you own a lot of the business, maybe half of the business, and it's one of the largest builders of AI servers on the planet. And obviously, in addition to that, you and your incredible wife Susan have an amazing foundation. You do you do great work in Texas and around the country. I saw that you just contributed to uh the disaster relief.

1:24 What a tragedy in Texas. And so kudos to you both for all the good work you do on so many issues, but particularly in the state of Texas. And then, you know, of course, it was great to have you and Susan as partners on Invest America. I know we're going to talk about that today. And everybody should run out and read your book, Play Nice But Win. Um, I'm actually I would recommend they listen to it because Michael took what I understand to be a very painful process for an author to read their entire book, but it's Michael's voice and the inflection and the like you get nuances I don't think you would get just with the writing.

2:00 >> Well, thank you for saying that, Bill, and and uh appreciate the kind introduction, guys. Look, I mean, I think if you're going to take the time to write a book, which is a major endeavor if you really do it yourself and do it right, and I did have somebody helping me, by the way, so I'm not going to take full credit for it. I think you should take the additional time to record the audio book because you can uh display emotion, intonation, and really tell the story in your own voice. and and it's it's a powerful uh way to convey uh thoughts and emotions at the same time. And uh I love audio books. I love I love going outside and walking, hiking, and turning on a good audio book is a great way to do to do it.

2:48 >> Totally. Well, in in the spirit of storytelling, Michael, do you remember when you first met Gurley? >> Yeah, I do remember when I first met Gurley. Uh this was this was in the in the '9s and Bill had written this research report that was super thick. And I'm reading this report and I'm like how the bleep bleep bleep does this guy know more about our business than we do. It's like what? We must be totally screwing up here. and and uh he had uncovered a whole bunch of analysis and thoughts about our business and we were so busy uh kind of distracted by growth that we had missed a few things and Bill shined a massive light on that and it was super helpful. So I I I uh became a fan instantly of his work and I've been a fan ever since.

3:44 >> Brad, that was 32 years ago. Even Even though when when I read the report, I was like, damn, uh, we we should have figured this out. >> This was 32 years ago. I was 28, Michael was 29, and running a public company, and I've always cherished the fact that Michael's a year older than me, so I always have time to catch up. >> Well, it's great to great to be here with the kids. Bill, what was tell us just a second about um because the '9s I think has some some parallels to the period that we're living in now. So you know Dell was growing incredibly fast obviously building lowcost highquality computers what inspired you to start covering Dell and then you know uh was what led you to these insights like did you just focus on that company? Was it was this a you know a breakthrough piece of work for you? Well, Michael's heard this before, so I I'll hopefully won't bore bore him, but um I I had worked in the PC industry. I spent over two years at Compact in Houston. And you know, interestingly, I think being inside of Compact, we had a view of Dell that wasn't as respectful as it should have been. Um and once I got outside and was able to look at the numbers in a different way, I was able to see things more clearly. But but the gentleman that that made this all click in terms for me was Michael Moeson who you know of um but he had taught me to look at return on invested capital. That's part of what Michael was referring to. The company had insane um you know balance sheet turnover um in a way that that the the cash flow relative to the earnings was really high and the ROIC was 10x anyone else in the business. Um and um yeah and then for some reason probably just youth I went and did a strong buy on the initiation which um Michael made a bunch of his employees rich. I I ended up making a bunch of the salespeople rich there at CSFB just as a result of of uh riding on their coattails. But it was it was quite >> the 90s were fun. The 90s were fun. I mean you know uh yeah stock went up 130,000%. We had seven stock splits. Uh, four.

6:11 >> What was the value of the company when you went public? >> What was the total enterprise value or market cap when you went public, Michael? >> Was like it was like $150 million or something like that. >> I mean, see, that's that's the beautiful thing. That's like I mean that is a series A in venture capital. >> It went up 100x after this initiation like in the public markets. >> Yeah. So, Bill, I just need you to recommend our stock one more time and then >> there was there there there was an element that I think is is super interesting like that that was also part of what Michael was referring to, but their their inventory turns were so damn high compared to the rest of the industry. So, they were they were, you know, building to individual customer order. They weren't building to inventory. They're building to demand.

6:56 And um because component prices fell so much, we calculated they got a 200 basis point gross margin advantage just by having the FIFO Q. >> Oh my goodness. Yeah. Exactly. >> Just in time. >> This this was a this was a structural competitive advantage. Uh by the way, it still is. Um but so so the the point is that the cost of the materials are always coming down. And if your competitor has, let's say, 90 days of inventory in a series of cues with distributors and dealers, and you have six days of inventory, which we actually had for about seven years in a row, six days of inventory, uh, think about that. Um the it's a structural competitive advantage because you're you have fresher inventory, you have fresher costs, >> and of course you don't have all that capital tied up. And so you're you're return on capital is essentially infinite, especially when you're paying your suppliers uh on uh a period longer than your your customers pay you. And so you have a a negative uh cash conversion cycle which which we still have typically around negative 50 days cash conversion cycle.

8:25 >> That's powerful. >> It's a beautiful thing. >> Yes, it is. Well, let's transition from uh 32 years ago to the present. >> Cash is king. Everything else is an opinion. >> No, no doubt. No doubt. So, so you two just um had a big win with this Invest America uh program that was just announced as part of the big bill and I know I know that Brad this was your baby and you spent a ton of time on it, but Michael came on board and helped out as well. So, why don't you tell everyone the details? We've talked about it before, but tell them the details of what landed.

9:00 >> Yeah. Well, thanks. and and and you know I remember last Fourth of July we were talking about this bill and I was sitting right here and honestly I thought the chance of of getting this passed into legislation was you know maybe 10% at best and we had some good fortune. Um as you know um we the legislation was called the Invest America Act. It was a bipartisan standalone bill and it ended up like a lot of other pieces of legislation getting subsumed by the reconciliation bill. Right. So, a lot of these things got packaged together in this one bill.

9:34 And of course, it was signed into law on July 4th down at the White House. You know, I've been at this four years. You know, I tried to get it done under Biden, but the stars just aligned in this moment. And and Michael was pretty early to get on board and support this. joined the CEO council um for Invest America but played a critical role with the president to help get it into the reconciliation bill over the course of the last 60 days. But let's just talk about exactly what it means now that it's become law. So I think of this as a pretty significant evolution in the social contract. It creates private investment savings accounts, privately owned for every child at birth, seated with a thousand bucks in the S&P 500.

10:21 So, parents, companies, philanthropists can add money. Anybody can add money to these accounts. You can't take the money out of the accounts, right? It just compounds in the S&P 500 until you're 18 years old. So, we will spend the next year putting the program in place. It has to be launched under the terms of the legislation by July 4th, 2026, the 250th birthday of America. And basically, we got it expanded. So all kids under the age of 18, that's 65 million kids are eligible. And I give a lot of credit to Senator Cruz who fought to expand the pool of eligibility here.

11:00 So what that means is that they can open up an account, but only children born after January 1, 2025 get the $1,000 from Treasury, right? >> The other the others will have an account that someone else could put money in on their behalf >> and and they can add money to and there are a lot of advantages for their parents adding money uh for companies adding money to it. So it makes a lot of sense and my for Michael and I I think the key performance indicator here is if we're having this conversation a year from now we want to have 50 or 60 million kids signed up. Now of course if your child is born after July 4th of 2026 then they're going to automatically get an account set up when they get their social security number and they will automatically get the $1,000. But we have this one-time group all kids under the age of 18. We're going to have a big campaign to get all those folks signed up over the course of the next year. And and I guess for me, I was reflecting on this um over the course of the last few days. And you know, at a time when you have an avowed socialist like Ma'am Donnie, you know, winning the primary in New York, it seems like, you know, the Invest America Act is really just the exact opposite, right? You're both trying to attack the problem of the wealth gap, but this is by getting everybody into the game of capitalism, making everybody actual owners in the upside of America's success rather than resorting to price controls, attacking businesses and success and creating really more dependency on government.

12:36 So, I think we're at this critical crossroads in America and I think the Invest America Act comes at an important point in time. I think a lot of people think of it like a 529 account bill, but I think that dramatically underestimates what this is. >> This is a lifetime investment account. So, they can compound over the course of your life. If you start with $1,000 and you add $750 per year, at 18, that's worth $50,000. At 30, that's worth $170,000.

13:06 And at 50, it's worth a million dollar. Right? So, it really is a platform for unlocking dramatic compounding and savings in the upside of capitalism from birth. And um it wouldn't have happened without Michael. Well, and Brad, uh look, you deserve uh 99.9% of the credit. So, I'm going to give it to you. Uh you you really drove this thing uh passionately for several years, and it's amazing that it got done. I do think you'll see many companies provide uh matching contributions and u you know a number of companies have already said they're going to do that uh and it'll be like a benefit you know come work at our company and and uh have a kid and your your your child will get this uh and it's just going to be super easy for anyone to add to those accounts. I think it's also a chance to teach every child about financial literacy and about uh capitalism and free markets and uh you know look up in 15 or 18 years and you've got 70 million kids with these accounts. I also think you're gonna have philanthropists and uh Susan and I will will definitely be a part of that that will say hey you know this is a really good way to get money directly to the next generation in a uh way that is going to compound and have a difference in in their life.

14:42 Our foundation has studied it this very carefully and we believe it's worthy of a significant contribution and Brad's been working you know with with the Treasury Department and others to set this up so that you know any philanthropist would be able to say hey you know here's a zip code here's a county here's a state here's a group of kids that I'd like to help I don't know who they are exactly but uh I want to help and I want to help their future and uh I I think I think you'll see a lot of philanthropists get very excited about this. I've had a discussion with a number of them and this could be a major platform for philanthropy in our country. And and and just to put a a sharper lens on that, Michael, they might >> back every kid in a state or everyone in the nation on a year or just >> adopt the state, adopt uh a series of zip codes.

15:44 >> Uh you know, I think again it'll be a platform for philanthropy. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I think of it, Bill, you know, in some ways like the giving pledge 2.0. I mean, we we we've had massive wealth creation in this country, like unprecedented wealth creation in this country, right? But one unique feature of America that I don't think there's any other civilization in history that you can point to, okay, that has this character, which is the super wealthy in America by and large want to give away the vast majority of their wealth during their lifetime or shortly after they they die. I certainly know that that Michael's in in that group. Okay, think about this. In Europe, right, they invented generation skipping trusts. It was about coming up with legal mechanisms for creating dynastic wealth so as to not give any of your money away. Okay? And we have a culture in this country where people want to give away large sums of money.

16:42 The challenge is the charitable infrastructure has not necessarily scaled to meet the needs of people who want to give away billions of dollars at a time. And I I I said to I asked Michael and Susan the question over a year ago. I said, you know, if you wanted to give away a lot of money in the state of Texas today, like how would you do it directly to kids? And there's not a good answer, right? Because there's not a financial infrastructure in place that has a set of rules associated with it, you know, where you could have somebody like the Treasury Department. We're gonna have a poolled Invest America account at Treasury where Michael and Susan or other philanthropists could give money to this pulled account and it would be dispersed to all these kids accounts subject to all the rules and regulations of use. So the kids can't take the money out but they can see it compound. That simply does not exist today. It's impossible to do that at scale today. And at the the the long end of the curve, if you think about, you know, my family as an example, we do a lot with the East PaloAlto school district, um you know, uh some of these lowincome school districts in the state of California where I can just adopt that school and say for every kid in that school, I'm going to give $1,000 a year to. So this unlocks, I think, massive creativity, Michael, around philanthropy. And that's what I mean. What we know in Silicon Valley if you build an open platform a million applications can bloom. A million ideas can be built on top of this. I mean we've heard from states that want to add $10,000 for every kid born in the state if they, you know, if they graduate from high school in the state. So, I think we haven't even scratched the surface of the beautiful competition and the beautiful philanthropy and the long tale of philanthropy, churches and parents and friends that we'll be able to give to these accounts. And so, our job is to make sure that we make it as frictionless as possible that we work and we're we're that's one of the core things that we're doing.

18:42 >> And what you're describing those accounts don't don't solely take money at the initiation. and they can take money all along the way, which is how you could support a school or something like that. >> Correct. So, the way it works, Bill, is um and all of this, I mean, Michael and I, I think, learned a lot about the the the act of of legislation going through this because, you know, it's one thing to get it put in the reconciliation bill. It's one thing to get high level buy in, but just in the last two weeks, we were negotiating the nitty-gritty. I think this was 23 pages of tax, you know, uh changes in the reconciliation bill associated with the Invest America Act. So, families can give um or or recipients can receive up to $5,000 a year from family, from f friends, uh uh you know, etc. Companies can give $2,500 a year per recipient tax-free, so pre-tax. Um so Dell Corporation for example has raised their hand and said you know we intend to give uh to the kids of of our employees. So has Uber so has Nvidia so has Oracle. So has Salesforce. So has uh T-Mobile. So has iHeart Media. So you know it's an incredible list that has already come together. And we're going to go to the business round table. We're going to go to the largest companies in America and we're going to ask them all to do it.

20:02 Now we're not telling them the amount they need to give. All we're saying is give an amount that's appropriate to your company and to your employee base. I just heard from Tony yesterday uh at Door Dash. He retweeted something about this. Sam Alman I heard from over the weekend once he heard it was passed, you know, retweeted something about this. So, I think the the the business enthusiasm is going to be very big and substantial. But remember, the most powerful givers are moms and dads, grandparents, friends, birthdays, and bar mitzvah. And all of those dollars ultimately like don't really generally find a home for savings and compounding.

20:41 And we're going to make it as easy as Venmoing in this money, Apple paying money in. And you know, one of the studies that we did that was really profound in partnership with the Milkin Institute. They found a whole host of of things. One was that lowincome cohorts tend to save at about the same rate as higher income cohorts. if they have an account. The problem is that nobody in a low-inccome cohort has a savings account or investment account. So, I think you're going to see, you know, a lot of giving a lot of contributions by all sorts of folks once we set this up. We also learned that once we do this, kids are more likely to graduate from high school and college, more likely to start a business, more likely to buy a home, less likely to be incarcerated. So, I think the societal ROI of this will be really large over time. And it sounds like you're going to try and find a way where if someone wanted to donate, Michael mentioned zip codes, but some other way that if people wanted to just target the the lowincome, most needy, that there'll be a way to do that.

21:48 >> Yeah, this was really this was a really important issue to Michael and to myself and and you know, I'll just, you know, give you a bit of a window into the weeds. you know, we tried to get uh household income as one of the one of the targeting mechanisms and we weren't able to get bipartisan agreement on that, but we were able to get a proxy for that, which is you can target by uh by zip codes. So, you can target down to groups of 5,000 or more by zip code. And we think through that geo targeting, so for example, Michael could target the Rio Grand Valley. I could target, you know, East Oakland. Um, you know, so there there there zip codes that you could target that I think uh certainly include a predominance of lower income uh households.

22:35 >> That's fantastic. >> Hey, Bill, I know you've been involved in financial literacy and education for a long time. Tell us about the organization you're partnering with and, you know, perhaps as a you know, kind of a a a potential partnership for Invest America. Yeah, my wife and I have been giving to an organization called NextGen Personal Finance. Um, there's a gentleman there named Tim Ranzetta who has just been pushing for financial literacy in high schools. So, we can add a link in here, but from 2021 to 2025 in only a 4-year window, um, we've gone from 11 states to 29 states. Um, and Texas just passed this very recently, a few weeks ago. And so the idea, which sounds obvious, it's actually quite shocking that it's not true, is just to add a semester of financial literacy to the high school curriculum. Um, we send kids out to get jobs and we haven't taught them, you know, how credit cards might take advantage of them and how to build a monthly budget and how to use a checkbook and, you know, how how to how to plan. And so I think you know these two things u complement each other quite a bit but but that's another movement that it's nice to see gaining momentum simultaneously with this one.

23:56 >> Yeah it's you know I talked to Tim Texas just became you know like you said 29th state I think to require a semester of financial literacy education. Um and you know some people said you know the Treasury Department, Invest America, they're not going to own the financial literacy. What what again I think when you create a platform of ownership now it makes all of these financial literacy programs and organizations across the country just way more effective. Right?

24:26 Because when you're talking to a kid who actually you say open up your Invest America account on your phone. Let's talk about how you got 12,000$14,000 into that account. Let's look at how it's compounded. Let's talk about what it means to own the companies that are listed there. What it means to be a shareholder. I think you just have a much more engaged student, right? Because today 95% of those students don't own anything and they look at their parents and their parents don't really own things. And so it's a lot harder to get motivated to learn about something when you don't think you're going to have the prospect of ownership.

25:01 There are so many great organizations like Tim's out there. Um, and I look forward to seeing how they take this platform and run with it to turbocharge their own efforts. >> Brad, I know you wanted to mention um the budget deficit and and the funding for this program and put it in a little bit of perspective just with all the talk and concern about how big the budget deficit is. >> Yeah. I mean, listen, you know, we've had a uh a huge debate among our our our friend group um uh about this and you know, and some of my friends were even critical that, you know, this is part of the problem, if you will. So, you know, to break this down, um the max cost of this is 3.7 billion a year. We have a 3.7 million kids born every year. If you give them each $1,000, that's 3.7 billion. So just to you know kind of put that in context 3.7 billion is about what we contribute we give to Afghanistan and Nigeria in the terms of foreign aid every year. So I think one of the things as a country we just have to ask is about priorities. Is it more important to give every kid in America a private investment account a little seed from birth and get them on the right track or to give $3.5 billion to Afghanistan Nigeria? And I think those are the type of choices we're going to be forced to make. And I'm not saying that the dollars going to Afghanistan, Nigeria are wasted, but we make these decisions every single day in our budget. And so for me, this is, you know, that's one angle. The second angle is just as a percentage of our national revenue. This is 1/100th of 1% of our national revenue. So it it it's pretty inconsequential in terms of the overall budget. But the final point on it is, as you've heard me argue, according to the studies that were done on this, this will actually be revenue contributing 20 to 30 years out because the taxes you have to pay when you exit the accounts on the capital gains will be more than what the government is contributing on an annual basis into the accounts. And so among the things we should be worried about when it comes to the budget, I don't think this is one of one of them.

27:07 However, I would say unquestionably that um I remain as concerned about the budget deficit as ever. Um and you know been a supporter of a balanced budget amendment for a long time. I happen to think that this is something that is aligned with that, not at odds with that. Making every kid a capitalist from birth is going to better align us with the policies that allow the company country to be continue to grow. Um, and I think growth is a critical element to making sure that we get our deficit to GDP back in a uh, you know, in in a manageable place. Michael, I know you care a lot about that issue. Any any other thoughts on on that particular point?

27:45 >> Yeah, I mean, government's obviously been spending too much and uh, there's been some some renewed attention and focus on that. That that's a good thing. Uh, it gets priced into to the currency, right? And we see it in all the effects uh you know whether it's inflation or the value of the currency >> and uh you can't really uh escape that. I I think the the the spending has to come under control. Uh now maybe we get this incredible uh productivity lift.

28:23 I'm sure we're going to talk about that as we get to the AI fund portion here. Um, but we shouldn't be spending uh so much more than than we're taking in as as a government. We, you know, we I've sort of stepped back from the hysterics and you say we don't have a loan to value problem as a country. Um, we we have a spending problem. >> Talk to us about the I want to dig into that because it's a really important point. Talked about loan to value. When you say loan to value, what do you mean by that?

28:59 >> Yeah, what what I mean is the value the the you know loan to value is a common term and phraseology used in banking and credit markets and essentially refers to you know the the uh amount of a of a loan relative to the value that it's it's being borrowed upon. If you think about the deficit uh you know as against the value of all the assets in the United States, we don't have a loan to value problem.

29:32 >> And of course, >> so the total value of all the assets in the United States are a couple hundred trillion. Our annual deficit is 2 trillion. So you would look at that and say as a loan to value, that's not an issue at all. >> Well, I I would look at the total deficit as against the the the total value of the assets. All right. Now you have >> so 36 billion 36 trillion of debt against 200 plus trillion of assets.

29:54 >> Right? Now you have to take into account uh private uh assets and private debt also. So it would be a different equation there. But also the government has taxing authority and so it could you know increase the taxes but net it all out. Uh the government shouldn't be spending what it's spending relative to what it takes in. And there's many ways to address that, but um we we should we should be worried about where the deficit is and the rate of increase.

30:29 >> Let me ask a question about that. Um well, first maybe to level set. So the argument out of the White House is that the reconciliation bill cuts the deficit. So the deficit was about 1.9 trillion. Their argument um is that it cuts the deficit by about 150 billion a year. So 1.5 trillion over 10. Okay. And then they also argue you get another $250 billion in tariff revenue incremental from the start of the year. Right? We saw that in the run rate revenue in the month of May. So you add those two things together, now you're at 400 billion. So if you were at 1.9 trillion deficit, now you're down to about $1.5 trillion deficit. By my math, that drops it to about 5% deficit to GDP. Bessant has said he will get it to 3% deficit to GDP, which is what most people say is, you know, reasonably healthy. Um, I think people would like to, you know, not have any at all, but I think most people view 2 to 3% as as as reasonable. He thinks he can get there by 27 or 28 through the two things I just mentioned, right? tariff revenue and the deficit reduction in the reconciliation bill plus an incremental 100 to 200 basis points of growth in the country caused by you know lower taxes less regulation AI productivity etc. Um so you know are is your view that we just have to wait and see you know like does that show up or does it not show up?

32:04 Well, obviously we have to wait and see see. Uh I think on the on the on the trade and tariffs front, I think this is this is very tricky, right? Uh we have uh products flowing back and forth and we have uh services flowing back and forth. And if you think about you know the market cap of the US companies versus the rest of the world uh hey guys uh US is doing really well relative to the rest of the world in market cap and the reason is that we have a substantial lead in the most valuable industries in the world.

32:51 >> Correct. And and so the the issue there is that if you if you think about um you know uh the the trade in products, you also have to think about the trade in services and you know how that's going to be dealt with in a negotiation. I don't know how that'll all get sorted out, but I I I don't think it's a I don't think it's a simple one uh line item fix. >> Right. Right. No, I think it's, you know, I it's all relevant right now.

33:25 Elon's talking about forming a third party, the American party, really in response what appears to be frustration over uh Doge and the budget deficit and the concerns by folks like Ray Dallio about, you know, a debt spiral in the United States. Um, you know, you got guys like Scott Bessant saying, you know, Elon, you catch rockets, leave the finances to me. Um, Bessant seems very confident that he's going to get this back down to two to 3% deficit to GDP. I I actually like the the uh suggestion, Bill, by Dantis. Um, you know, rather than forming a third party, which seems to me just chaotic and a lot of overhead and has not historically been that successful. I would love to see Elon, you know, like if this is his his main issue, if it's if if it's the budget deficit and debt, which I would love to see him take on, right? He could do a series of things. Number one, he could really sponsor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States under article 5. If he put $10 billion against that effort, it would be the single largest constitutional effort in the history of the country. I think there's broad bipartisan support uh for a balanced budget amendment. We have 30 32 states that have supported this in the past. I think you only need 34 to get it uh uh constitutional convention called. 38 states to get it ratified. You know, it would it hasn't happened. Um, you know, the founders made it hard to amend the Constitution for a reason, but I actually think if he put those type of dollars and that type of focus behind it, we could get it done. And then on top of that, he could target both Democrats and Republicans in primaries around this issue. And to me, it just seems like that targeted approach, that very focused approach uh to balancing the budget would have all sorts of positive impacts. Number one, it keeps the country focused on this issue. It keeps this administration focused on this issue. And, you know, I think you have an outside chance at getting a constitutional amendment, and you certainly are going to have a lot of of Republicans and Democrats who will run on that issue if they think they'll get, you know, Elon support. So, I'm not sure how this will all evolve, whether there's going to be a third political party or not, but I would love to see this issue get dealt with. I remember Ross Perau tackling it. 1992, 1991, Michael, um I I know you know you you knew Ross and um you know, to me that that type of attention is the type of attention that that we're going to need.

35:58 >> Why don't we why don't we shift gears here for a second? Um, this one I, you know, I've been dying to ask you both about. There's this really unprecedented war for AI talent going on. Um, and it it was kicked off by by Zuckerberg and Meta. They made the Aqua hire of of scale for $15 billion. Um, they brought on board uh, Alexander Wang, you know, to help lead that effort. Then they brought on board Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross. They've poached a bunch of people from OpenAI, a bunch of people from Google, and now today another, you know, announcement of somebody from from Apple. The talk is 75 to$100 million annual pay packages, massive signing bonus, really dollar amounts. Michael and Bill, I don't I've never heard of uh you know, in the tech industry. So, Bill, given that recent set of facts, like what is this is Is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing? What do you think the downstream implications of this are?

37:04 >> Well, I mean, I would I would back up a little bit. I don't think it started with Meta. I mean, I think it started with the cycle that we've been under in the private funding market. you know, we saw some of this stuff during Zer, but um you know, we've moved to a world, and I I talk about this in detail on on Oshanessy's podcast if someone wants to go listen to it from a few weeks back, but we've evolved to a place where when there's a successful company, the latestage private market at large tries to shovel feed cash into them. And so we have private companies that have raised not just a hundred million but a billion or more. And we have a handful of private companies um including OpenAI who are um voracious and audacious enough to burn two, three, four, five billion dollars a year. And so you start doing that and you create a situation where private companies and we saw this a lot during Zer but private companies have an odd advantage against public companies in that their the the investors are more willing to let them lose a lot of money than the public investment you know investors may be willing to. And so they get bold and they get audacious and you know Openai, Anthropic, they were all paying people tons of money before Meta did this. Um they were paying them 10 million a year. You know maybe smaller than what you were talking about but they were doing it. Um and they were providing liquidity earlier like 2 years in instead of waiting for four and liquidity is a private company and all of these things which in some cases may have let these people leave because they didn't have any lock in. So that may that part may have backfired. Um but in Zuck you know you have someone who's had his back against the wall a couple times and gotten bold and changed what he was doing and succeeded again. And so he has conviction that he's willing to take a big bet. I think he's very willing to look at cost as a percentage of his market cap and to view risk as spending against a percentage of his market cap.

39:21 Not everyone's capable of doing that. I think it may be the right math actually. >> Um in terms of you know how how big a bet he wants to make. Um but yeah, it's an what he has done here in the past three weeks is is an experiment that's never been tried before. But there's unlimited free agency in business unlike sports. And he just went and bought the, you know, 27 Yankees, you know, of AI. >> Yeah. I mean, and and I think your point is a great one. And listen, we're shareholders in Meta. We're shareholders in Open AI. I wouldn't be a shareholder in in in Meta if I didn't think, you know, in fact, I remember back in 22 when um you know, when we took our big position there and people said to me, "Oh, what are you what are you doing?

40:04 this is a founder controlled company. He's never going to become more efficient. He's never going to do these things. I said the whole reason I want to be all in on this company is it's founder controlled. I think it is a massive advantage that he has today, right? And he's talking about risking 1% of his company, right? In order to reboot around AI, that seems to me to be a very very rational economic decision. And there's no and this is just a talent war. He's got to, you know, Llama 4 was not where it needed to be to compete heads up, but he has one advantage none of those other companies have. He has the world's biggest printing press shooting out billion dollar bills, right? He's not relying on the beneficence of venture capitalists. The guy has a business model that is generating the cash to fund all this.

40:53 And so, he's leveraging that cash as a source of competitive advantage, which seems to me to make a lot of sense. I think it's going to make it very difficult and I'm, you know, that's why I was asking about the downstream implications, Bill. If you're a company that's trying to compete against that, I don't think many venture companies can compete against that on a on a durable long-term basis. >> Certainly not the real startups. >> Yeah. Yeah. I was having a discussion with a real AI startup uh founder this weekend and, you know, he was asking about talent and like I I don't know what you do. I mean, I don't think you hire anyone that's top thousand in the Bay Area. Um, you won't be able to afford them. But, but I do think there is a fundamental question because it's easy to and I want to get Michael's opinion on this. It's easy to say the percentage of market cap and make that bold decision. But there are cultural implications, right, of bringing in employees that make radically different amounts of money than the other employee base. How how do you think that will be?

41:56 How difficult will that be to manage? I think it'll be a challenge culturally for sure. Um, you know, uh, he could have a long line outside of his door, uh, w with people, uh, you know, wanting this or complaining about that and that could be a distraction. So, you know, I think people uh, generally have a sense of fairness, right? and they they want to be treated fairly um relative to others and relative to the the opportunities that they have out there in in the overall market. And if they feel that they're not being treated fairly, uh that's going to be a problem.

42:38 So, I don't know how that I don't know how that gets sorted out. I do think the math could work for them given given everything you guys just talked about. Uh and and obviously if you uh reduce this down to a race to super intelligence or something along those lines, the size of the prize is is tremendous. And they do have an incredible business that is aided by these advancements uh in a in a big way.

43:09 And there aren't a whole ton of companies that can go do this. >> Yeah. And by the way, Brad, you mentioned that they have the this unfair advantage of this huge printing press, but Apple and Google have the same exact printing press and chose not to do this. >> Yeah. I But but but neither of them are controlled by founders. And you know, that's what I was the point I was trying to make. These are the type of bets that I think it's very very difficult for a Google or an Apple to make um for the reasons you mentioned, Bill. you know, can they sell it to the public markets? You know, do they have the type of decision-making in the boardroom that allows this to occur?

43:51 I mean, at the end of the day, I think at Meta, if Zuckerberg wants to do it, that's what's happening. And that board, you know, gets on board. In fact, he's reshaped the board over the course of the last couple years with folks who are, I think, signed up for this uh for this mission with him. Michael, to your point, that's why I think he reorganized this into the kind of super intelligence division. I think the way they'll try to manage this culturally is to say, listen, there's going to be an elite SEAL team 6 group, which is called super intelligence, and we're going to pay them elite pay because it's good for the entire business. That doesn't mean we're going to inflate everybody else. And in fact, what I think that Meta will do is uh you know, you'll probably see them rolling back like you see with Microsoft, like you see with Amazon. My sense is that companies are generally going to get smaller, right, on the backs of the productivity gains from AI, but they'll redeploy some of those profits into these areas. If you're in the model business and you want to be on the frontier competing in the front, you know, for super intelligence and there only whatever 5 to seven companies that really are in that game, then I think you're going to have to have something similar. Now, in the case of Open AI, it's only 2,800 employees and they're all part of that division effectively.

45:12 But you have to really get scale quickly because if you're not bringing in 10, 20, 30, $40 billion of annual revenue, I don't think you can stay in this game. Um, and so the question is whether or not Anthropic and X and OpenAI have a sufficient escape velocity, right, that they can take on this frontal assault by uh by Meta and and and still compete. Um I my sense is OpenAI does my sense is both of those companies do but it's not a long list uh that can compete with that.

45:45 >> And by the way the the Nat Freiedman edition was particularly interesting just with his GitHub background. You know we had talked in the past that Meta had made a couple of hires on the enterprise side and we had heard rumors of you know certain payments when they passed through the the cap on the open models. Um but you know you have to wonder with Nat coming on board if there are more aspirations on the enterprise side.

46:10 >> Yeah I I it's a great point and certainly one of it creates some optionality there. Hey Michael, question for you. You know on this related topic of productivity gains from leveraging AI and kind of what you're seeing at Dell. Um we've talked on this podcast what we call the golden age of margin expansion. you know, this idea that you're seeing AI is uh certainly reacelerated your top line in a pretty dramatic way. Um, but doing that at a lot of companies at the same time, you're able to do more with less. Um, is that overstated or do you think that we're in this phase over the next 3, four, 5 years where generally as an economy and certainly within a lot of companies that they're going to be able to, you know, have their top lines grow faster than their operating costs?

46:59 because of AI. >> It's it's absolutely real, Brad, and we are doing it. We know of other companies that are doing it. And I think, you know, maybe only 10% of companies, large companies have figured this out and the other 90% are sort of a bit confused at this point. But you know if I step back and look at this you know 10% productivity improvements pretty easy 20% uh you know reasonably common sightings of 30% or 40%. Those are massive numbers. If you sort of step back and you think about this, you know, you got a $114 trillion global economy, right?

47:44 In 2025 and services economy is twothirds of that. You know, if we believe that a 10% improvement is possible in productivity, if you just keep it simple and you say 10% improvement, uh, that's worth 10 trillion dollars, right? And so uh the amount of investment that is occurring today in AI could be uh quite a bit less than is really justified. I mean if if if if if we if we believe in a 10 to 20% improvement and I don't say that lightly because that's like that's like an enormous thing if if it were to occur. But let's just stick with this for a second. If we had a 20 10 to 20% improvement, the investment in AI should be more on the order of two to four trillion dollars per year.

48:39 >> Yeah. Yeah. And and that's not that's not where we are. >> Uh it's a lot less than that. So, uh, you know, uh, I don't want to get too ahead of myself here, but but I I I do think there is a big change that is occurring and we're just at the beginning of it and it's going to affect every part of uh our our world. >> Well, you you you have particular standing here, Michael, right? You saw the productivity gain that came from a computer on every desktop. You saw the productivity.

49:15 >> That was the '9s. That we were talking about that the '9s. That was fun. >> You saw the productivity gain from the internet. And now you're two years into observing this. Is the are the productivity gains from this going to be as big or bigger than what we saw from personal computers in the internet? >> Oh, it's far bigger. It's far bigger. Yeah. I I I feel 98% confident that it's far bigger than than than the PC.

49:44 >> Uh the internet. >> What about the internet? >> Yeah. I mean, so of course all these build on each other, right? Yes, >> it's compounding but this is this is this is bigger because it is essentially all knowledge work and uh I think I think it's an expansion of the pie right it's it's really easy to figure out what will be more efficient and how you can reduce costs uh but you know if you go back 20 years ago it was very hard to see where the new jobs would be. I think we're in a similar situation here as well. Uh I do I do think it will be expansionary for the overall economy and for prosperity and for well-being and human potential broadly across all domains whether it's in education, health, societal outcomes etc.

50:46 Uh but yeah, this feels this feels bigger. >> I remember in 2001 2002, Michael, some companies that were early to, for example, Google, they figured out how to gain, you know, like I think a booking.com, right? They figured out how to arbitrage the internet and Google to build this giant business, right? And so I would say like they figured out productivity gains before the next person and and and that was hugely advantageous. And when you say that only 10% of companies are are leveraging this today, it kind of sounds like the same thing, like the early companies are really there, but there's a huge amount yet to come.

51:26 >> Well, you know, I think I think a I think about the big companies in the world. I'm talking like, you know, 10 billion plus revenue companies, uh, you know, uh, 50 billion, 100 billion plus revenue companies. These companies have an incumbency of sorts, right? They have data, they have customers, they have brands, they have IP, etc. But if they don't move quickly to reimagine their businesses given all this technology, they will be destroyed by new companies that come in with a totally clean slate.

52:02 And you know, that's you can already see signs of that happening. So uh I think this is all going to play out you know in the next 3 to 5 years uh and it will become sort of an urgent priority for companies to re reimagine themselves and uh you know what what we've done at at Dell is is uh you know our our team knows this because we we talk about it all the time internally um you That was I think it was almost two years ago. I stood up in front of a group of our leaders and I said that five years from then, that would be three years from now, we're going to have a new competitor and that new competitor is going to be in every business that we're in except they're going to be faster and more efficient and more capable and they're going to put us out of business.

53:00 >> And the only way we're going to prevent that is we're going to become that company. And and this is how we're going to do it. and I sort of laid out our best guess as to how to do that, you know, two years ago. Uh we're pretty far, you know, uh into that path and well on our way and it's working, but it's not an easy thing to do, right? This is a this is sort of gut-wrenching stuff to reinvent, reimagine. We've had to do it many times. If you don't do it, you just go out of business. So, >> and that's no fun. So, we're not doing that. and and and not everybody wants to do it, you know, it's it's uh true. It's hard.

53:41 >> Yeah. You're you're I was wondering if you could expand on that a little bit. So, your server division is your fastest growing division. You've you know, we've talked about on this podcast some of the big wins you've had as part of large AI clusters. How did how did you get Dell in a position to be part of that next wave? And what are the key what's the key value ad from your products in those large deployments?

54:07 >> Yeah, so last year our server networking business grew 58% uh year-over-year. Um in the first quarter we had uh we received 12.1 billion in AI orders. Uh and by the way, our shipments uh for all of last year in AI servers were about $10 billion. So So we Soion two years ago were two billion.

54:38 >> Yeah, it was it was it was not very much two years ago. So we we took orders in the first quarter for over 12 billion and last year we shipped about 10 billion. So this is growing super fast. And now we have a backlog of of uh a little over 14 billion. So what happened? Well, um you know, we we we're already the leader in servers. Um we we kind of saw the GPU thing and it's a it's a combination of things. I mean, when when Nvidia releases a reference design, um it it's kind of a reference design.

55:23 It doesn't really work. You know, we love Nvidia, but but uh you know, somebody's got to make all this stuff. And so we uh tons of tons of engineering and obviously there's a logistics the supply chain building these 100,000 plus GPU clusters and making them work reliably is super complex. So it's a combination of engineering uh operations um you know we we often will help with the financing of these with our uh Dell financial services and uh you know this the scale of these things is enormous. me right we talked about this at Deltech world right now we're deploying these systems that will produce uh you know deliver more than 50 trillion tokens per month and if you put that in the context of Google statements or Microsoft statements I mean this is massive scale uh systems and uh yeah I don't think there are a ton of companies that that are able to to to do this and have them work reliably.

56:41 >> And Jensen has said, you know, you guys have distinguished yourself against your competitors, um, other ODMs like Foxcon or Quanta, etc. Um, you know, you've been first to market. You're launching the GB300's right now. You're partner. >> Yeah, we delivered the first GB300's uh, a couple days ago to uh, Core Weeave. We announced that we actually have delivered another GP00 GP300 system to another customer. Uh I don't think we've disclosed who that is yet, but um informed listeners of this podcast will probably guess. So, so the the thing that I'm, you know, a year ago, we were all sitting around and talking about the ups and downs of the overbuild in 2000, right, around the internet. And you know, and and and yet when I look at the trajectory that we're on, right, I saw Mike Intrur on, you know, CNBC today and he said, "Listen, we're still underestimating the amount of demand that's out there in the world." And when when he says it or when you say it or when Jensen says it, in some ways people would argue it's self- serving. Of course, you guys are going to say that.

57:52 That's your business. You're going to you're going to tell everybody your business is great. But you're known as a very sober guy who tells it like it is. And what I want you to do is reflect a little bit on the comparison between this and the period in early 2000 when we did get overbuilt, right? And you know the as the saying goes, every shortage ends up in a glut. Why are we not near that point yet today uh in this market?

58:22 >> Well, I mean you you guys as students of the market can go back and you know uh sort of review what the multiples were on earnings and cash flow you know around that time. We're nowhere near that for the most part. Right. >> U but if we go back to the uh underlying activity here uh it's all about the tokens, right? And as we go from basic queries to uh test time compute to deep reasoning to agents and multi- aent systems, the number of tokens just explodes. And what are we talking about in token? When we're talking about tokens, we're talking about knowledge, right?

59:10 And >> exactly >> um you know I don't know about you but I'm using these tools like 50 times a day as my thought partner >> to solve problems and >> uh you know quelch my curiosity >> and uh you know my usage is skyrocketing and uh you know often multiple models and it's going out there and querying all these websites doing calculations for me and helping me solve problems you know faster than I ever could in in the past and uh you know the this this I think it's just at the beginning right and uh the substrate for all of this of course is compute and data right so we love that at Dell Technologies because that's what we do >> and so there is a there's just a ton of >> growth here I think It will also be um highly distributed. I think it will be uh you know it'll occur in devices.

60:16 It'll occur in the edge. It'll occur uh you know in all sorts of places and it it does does feel like we're we're still a lot closer to the beginning here. >> What can you share about onprim AI deployments? Michael, are you seeing anything interesting there? Yeah. So, we we in in the last year um you know delivered a little over 3,000 of these Dell AI factories and you know those are increasingly to enterprise and commercial customers that want to bring the AI to their data not the data to the AI.

60:57 >> Yeah. And you know there's just a ton of data that uh is still on prem and being generated on prem. And it turns out you know these large models are fantastic but you don't always need the largest model to solve every problem. A lot of the corporate use cases are perfectly uh done with smaller models and open source models. And so you see this enormous proliferation and hugging face of models of all shapes and sizes, tons of cascading innovations.

61:32 And so I think this is going to be highly distributed. Uh and we're definitely seeing growth in onrem and and coloss are also a big deal. uh you know because many customers don't want to have the data center themselves and so they'll they'll put it in a collocation facility and we've also adopted the consumption type model so you can pay on a you know usage type basis. what is your you know when you look at just kind of the relative distribution between you know kind of the custom AS6 world what you see happening across you know folks like AMD and Nvidia um you know there's obviously a lot of chatter you have an interesting perspective both as a consumer of these products also as a builder and distributor of the products um is is there are there any you know pending big changes or as you look ahead over the course of the next year or two that's probably as far ahead as you and see does it look like the relative landscape is stable or are there big breakthroughs coming that may unseat somebody like like Nvidia you know Nvidia is in a great spot I mean to your question I think uh for the larger um model companies and hyperscalers uh certainly custom AS6 are gaining a lot of share and when you have control over the workload and you can uh you know take the time to optimize your workload.

63:11 Um you know that's certainly going to be a part of what occurs in the infrastructure but it's a it's not a large number of customers you were talking about the number of companies developing models. It's sort of that number of customers but they're large right as you've seen with Google and Meta and others. uh who are who are deploying the AS6, >> you know, maybe just in the to be respectful of time, Bill, um I could talk to Michael for uh you know, for hours about this particular subject, but maybe do you know, one of the people I talked to when the market's going wild is is is Michael. Um you know, we certainly saw that earlier this year.

63:53 Um, you know, it's pretty incredible to see the snapback that we've seen out of the NASDAQ, the S&P. I think the NASDAQ is now up 32% off of its bottom uh 2 months ago. Just as a data point, I think I think Dowell got as low as I don't know 75 72 bucks. It's back at 120 bucks now. That is an incredible bounce off the bottom, but it's still basically up I don't know 5 or 10% on the year.

64:20 It's not like it's in this astronomical range when you look at kind of year-to date or over the course of the last 12 months. And and so when I look at the markets and I want to get both, you know, your read on this is as well, Michael. Here we are. We have the the NASDAQ and the Q the Q's and the S&P on an all-time highs. Bitcoin Bitcoin's near an all-time high. The VIX is back to 15 or 16, basically where it was in February.

64:47 uh despite you know uh all of the things around uh tariffs the 10-year everybody talks about this you know the great debt spiral that we have in the country but the 10ear has been between 3.7 and 4.7 for the last two years it's at 4.2 to kind of smack dab in the middle if not at the lower end of that range. Um, you know, and then you see companies like TSM and Nvidia and Microsoft, Oracle, Booking.com, Uber, Dash, they're at all-time highs, but notwithstanding the fact that they're at all-time highs. You have Tesla down over 20% on the year, Apple down 15% on the year, Google's down on the year, um, Amazon's basically flat on the year. So you have a lot of dispersion in the market when you look at the at at the market. Um you know does it feel to you again like we're in this bubble territory? Does it feel uh as uh a company that is that it's kind of accurately reflecting set aside your stock. I don't want you to comment on your stock. I'm just talking about the mar market at large. Are the US markets higher in three to five years or are they are you know or are they not given given where we sit today? I would bet they're higher. I would bet that more and more companies figure out how to, you know, grow their businesses. You know, I talked earlier about the productivity and efficiency. I think the ultimate benefit is going to come from the speed at which companies transform and the growth that they're able to create. That's certainly how we see it in our business. And um yeah, I think I think you know a lot of these companies will be able to compound their earnings on a double-digit basis and the market largely you know overall indices will will become more valuable.

66:43 >> Yeah, it's a you know I do think that this moment in time we're seeing a lot of dispersion. And I mentioned it, right? Some companies being down this year, some companies up a lot. I really think the companies that are leveraging AI that are in a position to leverage it and to capture that margin expansion, we're going to see a reaceleration. And we've heard this out of folks like McDermott and Shredar and Jensen, you know, at all these companies, how they're reacelerating topline, but they're not adding people, right? That, you know, it's kind of net flat. We see this out of Uber. We see it out of Dell >> when the markets dipped down. Uh, our share buyback program went into went into high gear, you know, >> right? And >> we bought back 22 we bought back 22 million shares. So, you know, stock >> worked out well for you.

67:31 >> As I look at this flight path, we just we just landed, >> you know, the reconciliation bill. So, there was a lot of uncertainty in the world to start the year. One was what was going to happen? Was this reconciliation bill going to pass? Now, it's passed. So we have tax predictability, right? You have an extension of the existing tax regime and then you have the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime. So you have this incremental stimulus now coming from the reconciliation bill. On top of that, you know, tariffs while still up in the air, the market kind of is digested the tariff stuff, right? and absent some big blow up between us and China um you know if we follow the Besson accords that they reached in Switzerland um and then reiterated in London it seems like the big pieces of the tariff puzzle are falling in place and then on the rate front the market is estimating that the next move is down whether we're going to have one or two rate cuts you know at the end of the year um is is the question some people the Fed is saying we're on hold we're going to wait and see whether or not inflation reacelerates this summer due to tariffs.

68:39 So, that's what everybody's eyes are on over the course of the next 6 to 8 weeks. Does core PCE tick up, you know, due to those tariffs? I'm taking the the under on that, but we're going to have to wait and see. And then on fundamentals, I think what we're hearing from companies, and this is where the rubber meets the road, earnings, I think we had 85% of companies beat in the S&P 500 in the quarter. And if you just go through and look at keywords, it was accelerating, it was AI, it was reinventing our business. There is a real growth um you know feeling in the market and among these companies. And so from our perspective and we try to uh give people an indication of where we are. I mean, I was as negative, as you well know, Michael, um, early in the year, I was as negative as I' I've been in 10 years because I thought if we were going down the path of Navaro and $2 trillion of tariffs that it was all, you know, every all bets were off. That was a scary path, you know, and and you know, we talked about how >> if they went down that path, I thought they would reverse course >> because it wouldn't work, >> you know. And this I think this is a very >> iterative team that will experiment, lay some stuff out there. Not all of it's going to work. There'll be some bad ideas and then they'll reverse course.

69:58 >> Yeah. I hope we don't >> we did do that. I hope we don't snatch uh defeat from the jaws of victory here with with policy though. You know, I think you know going back into the tariff game um some type of bold confrontation with China um and you know our AI policy. I mean, one thing we didn't talk about in this past week, the the AI moratorum got removed from the bill and we're going to have 70 state laws in the United States, which is not great for AI startups. So, anyway, I hope we don't I hope we don't I hope we don't I hope bad policy doesn't upset what would be an otherwise uh very potent landscape based on AI.

70:44 >> Yeah, fully agree. I I think it's one thing that the three of us are in violent agreement on. One of the things that's moved this country forward for the last three decades is we've led globally in technology. And we've led globally in technology because we've allowed our best technologies to move freely around the world and to compete and to win. This is the first time since I've been in this business that we're talking about export controls and AI diffusion laws that are restricting the ability of our technology to go compete and win. Right. And there's both the question mark as it relates to inside of China, but also the question mark outside of China. And while we've seen the repeal of the Biden diffusion um uh rule, what I'm told is that no new licenses have been granted for uh you know for distribution of AI technologies around the world despite all of the discussion around this. So, it's critical that Washington follows through and that we accelerate diffusion around the world of the entire American AI stack that we don't regulate that out of Washington. And then I think there are some legitimate regulations that you can have as it pertains to China. But even there, I would much rather let our deprecated chips out of Nvidia go compete against Huawei in China. keep the developer mind share in China because it's going to make it easier for us to win globally and elsewhere around the world. Um, and I think it's important that that Michael, myself, everybody else, Bill, you are those voices are being heard. We're not out of the woods on this by a long shot.

72:20 >> By the way, you you reminded me of one other thing I'd just like to harp on, which is the skilled immigration piece. So uh someone highlighted to me that they made like the huge wanted poster of all the people that Meta has borrowed from other companies like like 60 or 70% of them were were of Chinese origin. And as I understand it right now, you know, there are PhD students or are candidates in China that can't get visas and get in um to the United States right now. And we go back to what Trump said on Allin that he wanted to staple a visa to every diploma. I'd really like to get, not that we're in charge, but I'd love to get that conversation going again. Um, it would be very powerful for the country to increase skilled immigration.

73:09 Um, and it feels like we might be decreasing it. >> Yeah, absolutely agree. And and to your point, Brad, I mean, if if we don't aggressively work to, you know, sell our technologies around the world, uh, other countries are going to do that. And you know reminded of uh story long time ago. The defense department had this thing called MTOPS and it was a it was a uh Bill might remember this but it was it was like a restriction on how fast the computer was that you know you had to get approval from the government and to sell it. And uh I was in this group of technology CEOs and we we went we went to the Pentagon to talk to the generals and uh and before we went we went to Toys R Us store and we bought a PlayStation [Laughter] and we took it out of the box and we brought it to the the Pentagon, you know, this big room and we, you know, set the PlayStation down on there and we said, you know, this exceeds the MTOP uh restriction, >> right?

74:23 >> Uh but unfortunately, you know, it's not it's made by a Japanese company and so, you know, it doesn't follow under the rules, so anybody can buy it. It's it's also $399, right? So, uh, you guys think you're going to control the access to this thing or little things that, you know, move easily, uh, you're kind of fooling yourselves. >> Yeah. >> And so, we have to come up with more intelligent ways to restrict access to the most advanced technologies.

74:57 And um often times you just get all kinds of unintended consequences with these rules that are created and it doesn't create the outcome that that uh the government was originally looking for. >> Well, and and I think that's a a good way to wrap. Um Michael, it's awesome having you here. I I I wanted to say, you know, Michael and myself, Darasher Shahi, David Solomon from Goldman, Renee Hos from ARM, uh, you know, uh, Bill McDermott from, uh, uh, Service Now, and and a group of us were at the White House, uh, a few weeks ago to testify on the Invest America Act, and Michael kicked it off, and, uh, if you haven't seen the video of it, we'll include it here. you should watch it. But he reminded everybody, captivated the entire room.

75:54 >> We view this initiative as a powerful platform for philanthropic innovation aimed at helping children thrive wherever they come from, particularly those families who have been historically left behind. Mr. President, you articulated it perfectly. These Invest America accounts will give every new American child a genuine opportunity to participate in history's greatest engine of economic growth, the American economy. These in the funds in these accounts invested in American enterprise and innovation will grow over time into substantial nest eggs providing support for education, home ownership, and starting families. The ability of families, friends, benefactors, and employers to match the government's generosity amplifies the life-changing potential of this initiative. Thank you, Mr. President, for your visionary leadership on this critical issue. These Invest America accounts will profoundly impact countless young Americans, ensuring they truly benefit from what Abraham Lincoln described as the right of every American, the right to rise. As I sit here on on the Fourth of July weekend, you know, I'm just I'm I'm super grateful to you, Michael. You did a huge service to the country by helping us get the Invest America Act passed.

77:11 And I think everything that we just talked about here, including allowing American technologies to go compete. Remember, these Invest America accounts are only worth something if America does great, right? And the fact of the matter is Warren Buff Warren Buffett has said Warren Buffett has said the smartest thing he did was just bet on America. He bet on America. And I'm I'm betting that the next 50 years, next hundred years are going to be an American century again. But we can't get in the way of the innovation and the entrepreneurship uh you know and um the the creative destruction frankly that has allowed America to be so great. And uh finding that balance between between government and Silicon Valley has always been uh you know challenging. you know, as you just related, Michael, with MTOPS, but you know, we have to show up. We have to have a voice. We have to, you know, continue to push in that direction. Um, I think if we're allowed to compete, our best days lie ahead. If we get in the way, Bill, like you talk about, then I think we can upend our advantage. Thanks for joining us, though. Notice, Michael, great to see you.

78:18 >> Appreciate it. >> Great to see you. Byebye. >> We'll talk soon. Take care. [Music] [Applause] [Music] As a reminder to everybody, just our opinions, not investment advice.