Speaker 1:
From the library of the New York Stock Exchange at the corner of Wall and Broad streets in New York City, you're Inside The ICE House, our podcast from Intercontinental exchange on markets, leadership and vision and global business. The dream drivers that have made the NYSE an indispensable institution of global growth for over 225 years. Each week, we feature stories of those who hatch plans, create jobs and harness the engine of capitalism. Right here, right now at the NYSE and at ISIS Exchanges and Clearing Houses around the world. And now welcome Inside The ICE House. Here's your host, Josh King of Intercontinental Exchange.
Josh King:
Regular listeners of Inside The ICE House will note that several times we've brought you inside special events happening in and around Intercontinental Exchange. The most recent of these was episode 205, which was recorded at the New York Stock Exchange's, Institution Equity Forum, where I had the pleasure of interviewing Axios co-founders Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen for a live recording of the podcast. The forum covered a variety of topics that have shaped the market in 2020 from the political lens that Jim and Mike expertly brought into focus to how COVID will continue to affect the economy to the uptake in Special Purpose Acquisition Companies or SPACs that have made up over 70% of the listings on the exchange this year. And today we're going to dip back into that well of content and bring you the marquee fireside chat posted by New York Stock Exchange, president Stacey Cunningham with Chamath Palihapitiya, the founder and CEO of Social Capital, as well as chairman of both Virgin Galactic that's NYSE symbol SPCE and Social Capital Hedosophesia Holdings.
Josh King:
Chamath is well known in the finance world and beyond for both his business acumen and his sharp takes. He's a sought after voice for understanding the future of technology and investing. And he like recent podcast guest Chinh Chu is on the short list of Blank Check' Barons. And as we'll hear, it takes a long term view to understanding how society is progressing that falls in line with the "I-we-I" curve that recent and podcast guests, Robert Putnam, and Shaylyn Romney Garrett also point to. His conversation with Stacy touched on the potential impact of American politics on the economy, as well as his thoughts on SPACs crypto and why Silicon Valley's hesitancy to tap the public markets has been shortsighted. The next voice you hear after the commercial break will be Stacy Cunningham. President of the NYSE. Take it away, Stacy.
Speaker 1:
The growth of Brent Crude is the story of a global benchmark. It's the story of managing risk is market dynamics, technology, and economies evolve. And it's the story of Intercontinental Exchange. Oil was largely considered a landlocked commodity until Brent was discovered and extracted from the north sea floor in the 1970s. As production became commercialized, market participants needed protection against price moves. In response, the Brent futures contract was developed by the oil industry in the 1980s. Brent quickly became the global price benchmark for crude oil as a water born supply, easily transported across trade routes. And is the basis for refined products such as diesel and jet fuel.
Speaker 3:
In 2001, when ICE first acquired the international petroleum exchange, the Brent contract had just begun its ascent towards being recognized as a global benchmark. We worked with the industry to shift towards electronic trading and it transformed the market boosting transparency and market access. We've worked closely with our customers to manage their oil price risk across global markets. We serve a wide range of customers from commercial users and producers to financial players.
Speaker 1:
With over 20 plus consecutive years of record volume. ICE Futures Europe is the world's leading global oil exchange. Two thirds of the world's oil is priced relative to brand providing security and liquidity to the global market and at ICE we're hoping customers navigate global oil markets.
Stacy Cunningham:
Hi, this is Stacy Cunningham. Welcome. I'm excited to close off our final fireside chat and I'm thrilled to be joined today by our final distinguished guest of today Chamath Palihapitiya, CEO of Social Capital, chairman of Virgin Galactic. Social Capital is focused on solving the world's most challenging problems. And certainly this year Chamath we've been throwing some problems out there adding some to the list, but a little bit of Chamath's background. He rose quickly through the ranks in major tech companies throughout the 2000s before breaking out on his own to become one of today's foremost investors. He's also a board member of several companies, an owner of the Golden State Warriors. He's a competitive poker player, a partner and dad, but many of you may best know Chamath for his frequent interviews on CNBC where his straightforward and sometimes incendiary commentary are always refreshing to watch.
Stacy Cunningham:
He's a great friend of the NYSE. We work together to launch a number of Social Capital SPACs, and we're honored to have him featured here today as a speaker. Chamath, welcome. And we're definitely going to talk about SPACs today, but first I want to touch on a topic that I'm personally really passionate about and that you've tweeted recently about. And you tweeted just a few weeks ago about the orthodoxy in Silicon Valley around not going public. And that turned out to be really bad advice. Can you explain this mindset and where that comes from and why you think tech companies shouldn't delay going public?
Chamath Palihapitiya:
Sure. But before I say that, I just want to say thanks for including me and Stacy I think you're fabulous. And I think the organization you guys have built at the NYSE is just amazing. When I really intersected with the NYSE for the first time it was to take IPOA public and it was like a dream come true, just walking onto the floor and doing all of that. And I think you guys have been fantastic partners for us. So I just want to say, thank you. Look, I think that tech companies at their best really start to look at problems from first principles. And a first principle's mindset really is encapsulated by one word, which is the word why. And if you successively ask why you can solve some of the world's hardest problems. So if you take something very complicated, how would you launch a rocket into space?
Chamath Palihapitiya:
You can break that problem down successively by asking why, 10, 15, 20 times, and you'd get to what's called the rocket equation, which is a very simple, actual way of describing how to get anything into the earth orbit. If you thought trying to edit a gene, if you asked why successively, 100s or thousands of times, you'd get to what, Jennifer Doudna just won the Nobel prize for, which is CRISPR. And so whenever really smart people think from first principles, they kind of push the world forward. In a much smaller version of this, I think what's happened over the last 20 years is that people have become so obsessed with the money in Silicon Valley that they've forgotten the process of company building. And the reality is that company building used to be very different. When you look at companies like Microsoft or Google or Apple those companies collectively Amazon raised, I think, less than 200 million total before they went public.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
If you add in Facebook, that's about a billion something, but collectively now you have, multiple trillion dollars of market cap where all told these guys raise less than 2 billion. Now you see companies raising 6, 7, 8, 9 billion individually, and the outcomes are much less have been a multi-trillion dollar outcome. So I think what's happened is that people have become infatuated with the private markets. They think that there's some kind of arbitrage to be had, but reality what's happened is that people have stayed private far too long. As a result, they've raised too much money from too few people. What that creates is a very brittle government structure, very poorly run companies, and the window is closing for them. And what I mean by that is that all of a sudden the companies turn over younger companies come up and are able to raise equal amounts of money, but they do something that is more disruptive because they have a cleaner, fresh white sheet to start with.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
And so the solution is actually to go, go back to how things used to work. And if you were thinking from first principles, you'd say, why is it so bad to go public when there's 25 or 50 million of revenue? Why do you need to be a unicorn at all? Why not be a multi hundred million dollar public company? And if you have the right sponsorship, now this is an onboarding to SPACs maybe or direct listings. You can build a fabulous company with broad based appeal. People need to sort of push back on the lunacy of Silicon Valley, which sort of has these hyperbolic anecdotes. And all of a sudden you have tens of billions of dollars get allocated because of these things, It's dumbfounded to me.
Stacy Cunningham:
Yeah, I totally agree with everything you just said and the discipline and the governance of the public markets and still is really powerful. And I also feel strongly that it contributes to the wealth divide when those fastest growing years are happening in private markets and not everybody has access to them. So Social Capital is certainly focused on helping humanity and really providing op opportunity. And the public markets does that right, too. We certainly saw that this year as so many companies were raising money in the public markets to battle the impact of the pandemic. So you've been at the forefront of this back game for so long and SPACs have certainly been the headline story for the capital markets in 2020 with so many SPACs being launched this year. You spur this trend, you have three just this month that we're launched on NYSE, following IPOA, B and C before, what are your thoughts on this back boom? How do you think about that process? And what's happens once you launch? What does it look like after day one? What's that acquisition process like?
Chamath Palihapitiya:
I think that SPACs are a tool. If you look in a toolbox, sometimes you'll use a screwdriver. Sometimes you'll use a hammer. Sometimes you'll use a wrench and the output is really what that tool does in the hands of the person that holds it. And I don't think that this is dissimilar to that sort of analogy. So if I think about the way to go public, there are really three main ways. There's an IPO, there's a direct listing. And now there's a SPAC which is effectively a reverse merger. I think that IPOs are really good for very specific kinds of companies. And those companies are ones that really focus on cashflow and whose past is very useful and predictive of the future. And I think that that's important because the typical S-1 process has these strict guardrails on forward looking statements and forecasts, you just can't do them.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
So if you're for example, a typical company in a private equity portfolio that is known to generate a lot of free cash flow, that can be thought of in terms of how it's going to distribute that free cash via dividends or through dividend recaps. I think a traditional IPO makes a lot of sense. If you're incredibly well known brand, then a direct listing could make sense if you don't need to raise incremental capital. Kind of fringe. And I don't think it's really going to work at scale for many companies. And then you get to the reverse merger. And what's important for a reverse merger is to understand that the guardrails are different because it's an S-4 process because you can talk about your forecast and because you can talk about what your forward product strategy is. Now, if you think about a dynamic high growth tech business, that's everything. Because the past doesn't really mean much.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
You think about what happened to Facebook as an example, talking about the past didn't mean a lot of anything after they went public, because all of a sudden it was the future that mattered the most. It was about mobile. And being able to talk about the future became very constraining and the stock rerated until it didn't. But if you think about a technology company's ability to talk entirely about the future, where the ask is really more of an indication of a process and a mentality and a mindset, but you can talk thoughtfully about here's my future product strategy. Here's what I'm building. Here's what I think that product strategy yields in terms of a future forecast of revenue. I think what it happens is that the buy side can understand these technology businesses more thoughtfully. I think there'll be more trust between the buy side and the technology company itself.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
I think that there'll be better governance so that when there are hiccups in the business or when they want to pivot and implement new strategies, there's a context for that. And then I think the most important thing for me, and the most exciting thing is that you unlock retail's ability to come a long for the ride. And why that's important for a company is that I think you actually have less volatility because I think the thing that people don't estimate is yes, there's going to be the hundreds of thousands of Robinhood traders. Great. But there are millions and millions of normal folks who want to buy companies that they understand set it and forget it there is, I think I read $,30 trillion in 401ks. I mean, that's an enormous amount of buying power. It exceeds the buying power of the entire private equity industry really right. Most of the hedge fund industry really, pensions. And so I think that SPACs are an incredible way to do that. So that's where SPACs sit in the ecosystem of going public.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
Once we raise the three, we have a pipeline of now hundreds of businesses that have reached out to us, what's great for us is because we've done three, we have a lot of inbound demand. And so we're able to just sort of segment out the sectors and the categories that we think are the most bang that we think the buy side, as well as retail will be most interested in the ones where we'll be the most excited to put our money to work. And then it's a multi-month process of diligence because we're writing so much of our own capital. And it's a grind, Stacy. I mean, we're looking at businesses, we're modeling things, we're getting inside the weeds and trying to understand these business' is inside and out. And then we try to make good decisions with our own money and hope that folks want to participate beside us because they see that we're really trying to focus on our capital first.
Stacy Cunningham:
Yeah. It's interesting that you mentioned retail very often. I mean, I talk to a lot of CEOs bringing their companies public and they don't think about that aspect of the market very often. And there is so much capital tied up in the retail community. And we had a discussion earlier today at this forum around the rise of retail. And it's not just Robinhood, it's across retail platforms and retail engagement in the market is much higher. I want to make sure they're doing it thoughtfully and considering the risks associated with it, but it's great to have retail engagement. What do you say about the naysayers on SPACs? They argue that there's less transparency. You start to hear a lot of concern about the lack of governance and you mentioned the S-4, there is a filing process and an oversight process, but I think that's less understood.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
Again. I think that that's just kind of a little bit lazy thinking. I think that what I would ask is let's get to the first principles of it. Why do you think that is? So here's what I see in a SPAC. When the SPAC initially gets formed, the sponsor has to put out a very explicit strategy of how they see the market and why you should trust their capital allocation decision making process. And essentially when that IPO happens, there's a vote and buy side investors, including retail can vote, whether they believe in that strategy or not, then there's the actual process of doing a deal. And when there's a target and a sponsor that come together, not only does the Target's board of directors now think of a Silicon Valley company, this is the blue chip of blue chip of technology investors who I think could go in any one direction.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
They have to vote that that transaction is accretive. At the same time, the board of the SPAC has to look at that deal. And from the buying side, agree that that deal is accretive. So now there's essentially two more votes. Then there's a fourth vote after the S-4 gets put to the SECC and you basically go through a redemption process where anybody that doesn't like the SPAC can get their $10 back. So it seems actually the exact opposite of a normal IPO. In an IPO. There's no four bites at the apple to say, no, there's no bite at the apple. And if you misprice a deal, and all of a sudden the stock trades up massively, and your cost of capital was much more expensive than you thought you were. You don't get a redo button. You don't get to say, "No, wind it all back, put the allocations back, let's start all over. And actually we should have priced this differently."
Chamath Palihapitiya:
Or if the IPO fails, you don't get a reset and say, "Nope, sorry, let's start all over again." So I think the people that say there's less transparency are stupid, at a minimum they're lazy, and they don't understand how this works. So you have four explicit discrete chances to deeply understand from both the buying side and the selling side to decide whether you want to participate. Then there's the actual quality of the -4 versus the S-1. And again, the big difference in my opinion is because you can actually have forward looking statements in an S-4 you can much more deeply understand a forecast and a forward product strategy. You can ask more thoughtful questions in the de backing process. You can have a much more thoughtful analyst day. In my opinion, that those are all mechanisms that create more transparency, not less. You understand the compensation of everybody involved. That's more transparency, not less. So, I don't know. I think the people that say that there's less transparency are not taking the time to really understand it, probably because they're insecure and they have other things going on.
Stacy Cunningham:
Yeah. That was the transparency, the guidance, the forward looking guidance was an important part of Spotify's direct listing path is they wanted to be able to provide that visibility coming into the public markets and being able to describe what you intend to do and what that's going to look like going forward. Certainly, what we hear that a lot as companies are, are coming out. So let's go back to the start of your career. You worked at two big name tech companies between AOL and Facebook, but you've been a vocal critic of Silicon Valley and Venture Capital more broadly. With Social Capital, it only feels like you're trying to change the system. So what about your experiences in the early days of your career really shaped your vision for Social Capital?
Chamath Palihapitiya:
I mean, I like everybody else. I think I'm just a byproduct of my surroundings. At AOL, I joined at a point in the trajectory of that business, where it was a business and decline, and it was a wonderful moment to actually be a part of such a big company, which was based basically de-leveraging itself, not just from a balance sheet perspective, but human capital product strategy, it was essentially being milked for cashflow at that point. And so I learned a lot of things that I thought were patterns to not repeat. So I learned a lot of things that didn't work. And so you could understand better the few things that did work because you were essentially, fighting a really big headwind. When I joined Facebook, I think I joined a tailwind and I was able to be a pretty impactful part of that, but I saw as well, how success sort of pace over all kinds of dysfunction and politics and ill will or whatever.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
And so I've seen both sides of the coin. My net takeaway, and this is something that actually somebody else, Toby Lutke, the CEO of Shopify told me, and it really resonated with me. He said, "In my opinion, companies are roughly a five out of 10." And I would general agree whether I was at AOL or at Facebook, maybe one was at the bottom quartile. One was at the top quartile, they're all roughly kind of five out of 10s. And I think how I interpreted that is that there's so much room for companies to be built better. How do you create more autonomy? How do you create more ownership? How do you create more diversity? What does that look like? How do you create a more engaged stakeholder mindset? Because I don't think that you can just be bottom dollar focused anymore and win.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
And even if you wanted to make the most money, I think the way you do it is you have to be more mission-oriented because you're not going to get young people to work for you otherwise. So there are all these complicated things that I learned through the process of working at sort of at these bookends. The reality of working at these bookends is that most companies are actually just oscillating between a three and a half and a five and a half out of 10 in terms of its potential. And I think the next set of great companies that will get built over the next 50 years will figure out how to be stakeholder oriented. Maybe there'll be 50/50 men, women. Maybe they'll be just super diverse in the composition of folks of all kind of groups that are coming together to work on problems. Now, because of sort of this from home culture, maybe they'll be completely geographically dispersed as well.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
So we don't know what company building will look like. At Social Capital, I kind of have this approach, which is we have to arm the rebels, right? That seems like a really apt description for what people want these days. If you look at retail, they want to have a seat at the table. If you look at startups, they want to disrupt the status quo. If you look at all this political chaos, it's all about the edges. It's all about people who are trying to be a part of a dialogue. And I think that's an important trend to observe. So what I like to do is work on projects that kind of do that, that arm the rebel, so to speak. So I like this idea of distributed capitalism, that average, random, everyday folks can make money too. I think that's an important way to deescalate a lot of the tension in society, shorten this window of dis equality that exists.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
I like working on projects that can arm the rebels. How do you 3D print a rocket? How do you reforest at scale? How do you build an inert bacteria that destroys plastics in the lotions? That's sort of... So I get, I think that's like what I've learned at these companies is that we're all roughly the same. There's a lot more to be done. And what I'm trying to do at Social Capital is learn what a six out of 10 company could look like, what a six and a half out 10 company could look like. And the best thing is, all it takes is money. And money's not that important of a thing actually. It's not such a precious resource. And I think the people that covet it are missing a huge opportunity. And so that's kind of my-
Stacy Cunningham:
Money and a clear mission. And you certainly have that. I mean, advancing humanity by solving the world's hardest problems is no small feed, right. But in, you've already been focusing on problems so far. Tell us a little bit about some of the things that Social Capitals already focused on and spent some of the impact you've had to date.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
Well, look, mine's been a journey and I'll give you the honest answer, which is that I started investing in things that were super hard, healthcare, education, FinTech, deep science only to learn that the payback periods of that would outlive the longevity of the business model of my funds. And so I had to pivot and deeply embrace practical ways of making money. And within the first two or three years of Social Capital, by 2013 or 14, I was all in on things like crypto, things like a public side hedge fund, things like enterprise SAS. And we did that. Took in about two and a half billion, spun it up to about 10 billion. Everybody made a ton of money, but then what I was able to do was, and 50% of that was my own capital.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
So I was able to get the money back out to folks and say, "I did what I signed up for." But then I was able to sort of now become more long dated in the risk that we took. And I could go back to some of these hard areas and actually just do that. So that was one realization, which is that to work on hard things requires a lot of your own money. And it requires a window of time that a fund is not well suited to deliver on. I think these are 15, 20, 25 year bets and in a 10 year private fund life you can look like a bozo and go out of business. And it's kind of that whole Buffet thing. Rule number one, don't lose money, rule number two, don't forget rule number one. So I pivoted I did what I needed to do.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
I made a lot of money for my LPs and for myself, so that we could go back and focus on this, but now what I've done is I've taken a more measured approach. And we work on these things like reforestation or 3D printing, or all this stuff, but we fund them with things that are more practical and understandable and where I can make money for ourselves, but also make money for folks that want to work beside me. And that's the big pivot. So I would say we make money here. Things like SPACs are a wonderful way for us to be in market, to keep our investing skills sharp, to make money, to do good things, to find really discontinuous 10 year return opportunities. But the reality is when that makes money, I can take that and I can pump it into climate change.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
I can pump it into CRISPR. I can pump it into things that will be really useful for the world that at the end of the day, the only person that'll lose that money is me. And so I don't feel obligated to anybody. I don't value money that much. And so those bets are really powerful. They keep me motivated. That's the Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde of my life. And that's what Social Capital is under the hood. It's going to work every day, doing good work, generating 30% RS, but then taking that and pumping it into this stuff, knowing that there's a very high chance, it goes to zero and that's okay.
Stacy Cunningham:
Is this why you say that investing is not a team sport? I mean, is it so that you can focus on these long term, bigger problems with a smaller team? I mean, is that the strategy behind? It's an interesting thing to say. It's not a team sport, but it sounds like you're describing why.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
This is going to sound really. I don't mean it to mean to sound mean ish, but it will. I think if you're running a fund for fees, it's a team sport. I think if you're running a fund, it's a team sport. I think if you're trying to be one of the best investors in the world, it's an individual effort. And I think the reason is because at least as I've seen it, or at least as I've defined the problem to myself, the best investors in the world as I've observed them from far away, and it could be very different up close is that they are very lonely people in an individual pursuit of perfection where their only competitor is yesterday's version of themselves. I think, again, at least I've reduced the problem, at least in my mind that Buffet wakes up and is competing with yesterday's version of him and says, "Am I going to be one, 1000th of a basis point better version of me today?"
Chamath Palihapitiya:
And so he's spending time in the things that allow him to be a better version of himself, and he has the best understanding of himself. Otherwise he'd probably be running around, talking to LPs, raising money, you're in the business of being a business. That's not the business of being a great investor, the pursuit of psychological self-actualization. I know it sounds corny, but that seems to me what the best investors do. Now, maybe there's one exception, like, Jim Simon's and Tent Tech, and you spin up an algo and all of a sudden this algo just prints money. And you have a tree in your backyard that grows 100 bills. Great. But if you're not up that person and you're a Buffet or a Munger or a Druckenmiller or all these guys, when you really unpack how they talk Tepper, they are talking in psychological terms. When they have been at their best, they've tamed their worst versions of themselves. And so that's an individual thing. It's not a group effort.
Stacy Cunningham:
No, actually I mean-
Chamath Palihapitiya:
It is a group effort in the sense that, look, I have a team that helps me, I have two therapists, I have a partner, work. I have friends. I mean, yeah, it's a team effort that way. But what is the goal? I am battling my own psychological biases and insecurities every day.
Stacy Cunningham:
But when we have a longer term time horizon, I mean, that's one of the challenges people often highlight with the public markets is that it's hard to manage to the long term. And so it makes sense that it's easier to do that when there are fewer influences on those investment decisions, you talked about Warren Buffet a lot. The first stock I ever bought when I first got my first bonus check was Berkshire B. Because I have a lot of respect for Warren Buffet. So it's with great pride that we go out and tout that he said one of the best decisions he ever made was listing on the New York Stock Exchange. And you can quote me on that is how he finished that sentence, which is fun for us, but and when Warren different on cryptocurrency. So why are you bullish on Bitcoin? Warren certainly has a different view on that.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
Every generation has a different form of breaking the problem down, because again, we are a byproduct of our lived experiences. I think that if you look at, take a snapshot of, Buffet's investing approach and compare it to Ben Graham, his mentor, there are key differences. And then his experience by living through the second generation of his life with Charlie Munger, he's a different person than he was in the first generation of the Buffet partnership. So you can see an evolution and again, he's a byproduct of his lived experience. I think the most seminal thing is that he was pretty principally active and learning in the '70s, '80s and '90s, through a period of Volcker on down where you were dealing with 20% interest rates going to zero, and you saw a really legitimate form of monetary policy and then independence between monetary and fiscal policy.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
Now I'm a byproduct of a very lived experience. My maturation as an adult was really from the mid-2000s onwards where what we saw was essentially a loose coupling that has now become a much harder coupling where central banks and governments interact and work together in a way that I think is quite historic. And I think that what it's created is a level of correlation that is poorly understood except when there are drawdowns. And I think in that it begs a question, which is, are there assets that are less correlated to the orthodoxy? And in the orthodoxy, orthodoxy are bonds and stocks and currencies. And that's just true and real estate. They're all a basket of, we all have believed things work this way. And I like asking the question, well, is there something that exists that is the opposite or the inverse of that?
Chamath Palihapitiya:
And again, if you go back to first principles and ask what or why enough, I think what people have is not a well grounded a reason to not believe in it, except that it forces them to re underwrite their definition of what the orthodoxy is. And they don't like that. And so I think it's a discomforting de settling process that creates insecurity, that insecurity gets manifested in vitriolic, back biting, sniping hatred for what Bitcoin is. I don't suffer from that insecurity because I'm less emotionally attached to it, to the idea of the orthodoxy working. It's not like it worked for me. And so I own it.
Stacy Cunningham:
That's great. I know we're out of time, but I have one final question that I'm going to ask you anyway. I kicked off the session today talking about how 2020 has felt like several years rolled into one and we're each quarter being its own standalone year with Q4 underway, an election next week, we still have more to come as we wrap up this year. What's your outlook? What's top of mind for month?
Chamath Palihapitiya:
I really just want us to get back to a level of human decency. Honestly, the thing that I care about the most Stacy, is that there's some form of a resolution, whether it's a vaccine or whether it's a trusted, scalable therapeutic, or whether it's just rapid testing that can give you an answer in a minute and then it costs a dollar so that we can all start to live a little bit more of a normal life. I think that there is an enormous amount of hidden anger and resentment and rage that people have in just being cooped up and isolated.
Chamath Palihapitiya:
And I think that there's only so many Zooms you can do until you want to shoot your computer and just go outside and just see somebody and see your friends and congregate. So my hope honestly is that happens because the combination of some form of testing or a vaccine or a therapeutic, so that broadly speaking, everybody can get back to a semi-normal life. We'll deescalate a lot of this tension and we'll start being more decent to each other and we'll be so much more appreciative when we see people physically face-to-face. That's my that's honestly the thing that I care about the most,
Stacy Cunningham:
It very stressful to worry about your physical safety. And it's very stressful to worry about your financial security. And so many people are facing both of those is right now that it's just raising the tension. I, I agree. It's a good point. And I am optimistic that many of the companies that are focused on therapeutics and vaccines right now are making tremendous product progress. And so I share your sentiment. Thank you so much for being with us today. I look forward to seeing everything else you bring to market with the three news facts and what's to come from Social Capital in the years, several years long term horizon to come.
Josh King:
Thank you again, to Chamath Palihapitiya, the founder and CEO of Social Capital, as well as chairman of both Virgin Galactic that's NYSE symbol SPCE, and Social Capital Hedosophesia Holdings. Chamath was in conversation with our own NYSE president Stacey Cunningham. If you like, what you heard, please rate us on iTunes so other folks know where to find us. And if you've got a comment or a question and like one of our experts to tackle on a future show, email us at [email protected] or tweeted us at ICE House Podcast. Our show was produced by Grace Devlin and Pete Ash with production assistance from Ken Abel and Ian Wolff. I'm Josh King, your host signing off from the library of the New York Stock Exchange. Thanks for listening. Talk to you next week.
Speaker 1:
Information contained in this podcast was obtained in part from publicly available sources and not independently verified, neither ICE nor its affiliates, make any representations or warranties, express or implied as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and do not sponsor, approve or endorse any of the content here in all of which is presented solely for informational and educational purposes. Nothing here in constitution offered to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy any security or a recommendation of any security or trading practices. Some portions of the proceeding conversation may have been edited for the purpose clarity.
