---
title: 'Ben Horowitz and David Solomon: The Sweetest Macro Environment in 40 Years'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=jLVgGGz5bvk'
video_id: 'jLVgGGz5bvk'
date: 2026-07-28
duration_sec: 2135
---

# Ben Horowitz and David Solomon: The Sweetest Macro Environment in 40 Years

> Source: [Ben Horowitz and David Solomon: The Sweetest Macro Environment in 40 Years](https://youtube.com/watch?v=jLVgGGz5bvk)

## Summary

In this conversation, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon and a16z co-founder Ben Horowitz discuss the current macroeconomic environment, the evolution of their firms, and the impact of AI and crypto policy. Solomon describes the current conditions as the sweetest macro spot in 40 years, while Horowitz shares insights on scaling a venture capital firm and the policy battles shaping technology.

### Key Points

- **GDP Contribution by Largest Companies** [00:13] — Last year, the four largest companies contributed 1% to GDP growth with $400 billion of spending.
- **Sweetest Macro Spot** [00:28] — David Solomon says that for businesses attached to financial assets, this is as sweet a macro environment as he has seen in 40 years.
- **AI Solves Problems with Data and GPUs** [00:41] — Ben Horowitz states that with proprietary data and enough GPUs, AI can solve almost any problem, calling it 'magic'.
- **Goldman Sachs Evolution** [02:26] — Solomon joined Goldman in 1999 just after its IPO. He notes the firm's transition from a private partnership to a public company while maintaining a partnership culture with 450 partners.
- **Advising vs. Owning Responsibility** [05:36] — Solomon highlights the difference between advising CEOs and owning the responsibility as CEO, emphasizing the need to own strategy and direction.
- **US Financial System Dominance** [06:18] — The six most important financial institutions in the US are all US-based, with no global competitor matching their relevance. Goldman and Morgan Stanley are institutional firms, while JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citi are retail banks.
- **Scale as a Strategic Risk** [07:29] — Solomon worries about scale: Goldman's balance sheet is $1.9 trillion vs JP Morgan's $4.5 trillion. He estimates Goldman needs at least $3.5 trillion when JP Morgan reaches $6 trillion.
- **Funding Risk** [08:22] — Goldman lacks a traditional deposit platform but now has $500 billion in deposits (up from zero 15 years ago). Wholesale funding is undesirable.
- **Best Time to Raise Money** [09:55] — Ben Horowitz on a16z's founding in 2009: the best time to raise money is when nobody has money, as people want to invest high and walk away low.
- **a16z's Founder-Friendly Product** [11:21] — To become top tier, a16z designed a better product for entrepreneurs, enabling founders to build and run their companies, rather than replacing them.
- **Software Eating the World** [12:13] — Marc Andreessen's 2011 essay predicted the number of large tech companies would grow from 15 to 150 per year, requiring a scalable VC firm.
- **a16z Market Share** [13:55] — In 2025, a16z raised 18.3% of all US venture capital, becoming the largest VC firm.
- **Andy Grove's Leadership Insight** [14:26] — Horowitz recalls Andy Grove's principle: if you are the leader of an industry, the growth of that industry depends on you. This drives a16z's policy work.
- **Macro Cocktail** [15:50] — Solomon outlines the current macro drivers: fiscal stimulus, monetary stimulus (rate cuts), capital investment supercycle, and deregulation, creating a powerful cocktail.
- **M&A and IPO Outlook** [19:43] — Under the previous administration, the answer to M&A was always 'no'; now it's 'maybe'. Solomon predicts 2025 could be the biggest M&A year in history.
- **AI Driving IPOs** [21:47] — AI companies are growing fast, from zero to $100 million in less than a year. The 'mythical man month' no longer applies: leads can be overcome with capital and GPUs, necessitating IPOs for funding.
- **Crypto Policy** [23:25] — a16z focused on passing the Genius Act and Stable Coin Bill. They now work on the Market Structure bill for token classification.
- **AI Policy Principles** [25:59] — Horowitz argues against regulating math; instead regulate applications. He warns against 50 state AI laws and emphasizes the need for copyright training to compete with China.
- **AI at Goldman** [28:43] — Goldman's two-pronged AI strategy: (1) put smart tools in employees' hands, (2) reimagine core processes (1GS 3.0). They spent $6 billion on tech last year but are constrained by returns.
- **AI in Investing** [33:34] — Horowitz notes that AI models work on past facts, but investing often requires adapting to new, unexpected events, so human judgment remains crucial.

### Conclusion

The conversation underscores a unique macro environment fueled by stimulus and deregulation, while AI and crypto present both opportunities and regulatory challenges. Both leaders emphasize the need for scale, adaptation, and proactive policy to maintain competitiveness.

## Transcript

of things you want to be the largest in the world. Wholesale fund not one of >> We got a lot of criticism like why are you raising money now? What are you stupid? And it turns out that the best time to raise money is when nobody has
>> Last year the four largest companies contributed 1% [music] to GDP growth with their $400 billion of spending. M&A and capital raising IPOs are driven by whatever the question was, the answer was no. Okay. Now, whatever the question
you've been at Goldman now over 25 years. You know, what are you focused on to position Goldman for the future? >> If you're in our kind of businesses, if you're attached to financial assets, this is as sweet a spot that I've seen.
>> With AI, if you have proprietary data and you have enough GPUs, you can solve and you have enough GPUs, you can solve like almost any problem. It is magic.
working at least indirectly for both David Salman and and Ben Horwitz and uh have a lot of affection for both Goldman Sachs and A6Z. Um if you haven't read, I Partnership uh which is written by a guy named Charles Ellis which chronicles
named Charles Ellis which chronicles Goldman's nearly 160ear history. And I Goldman's history is the fact that it's not a business built through a series of bank mergers. Unlike many of its peers, it was really a business built brick by
brick by generations of entrepreneurial partners raising their hand, going off was expanding into Europe or starting the merchant banking business or the many of these business units became global franchises. And I'd argue that,
of the most entrepreneurial financial institutions in the world. And as I think about where we are in our own evolution at Andre and Horowits, I kind Goldman Sachs must have felt like, you know, 50 or 75 years ago. You know, a
betting on a future >> weren't as rich as you guys that that >> also Goldman stopped speaking to Sachs like forever. >> Like they got very mad at each other over was it Sachs who supported Germany
in World War I? So he's you actually remember your history. Wow. Yeah. on the future with big hopes and ambitions. I'll I'll leave it at that. >> Thank you. Um but maybe, yeah, maybe just, you know, pulling on that thread,
um you know, David, you've been at at Goldman now over 25 years. You joined the firm, I believe, in in 1999, just after the firm's IPO, you know, how has the firm evolved during your tenure? And maybe more importantly, um you know,
Goldman for the future? Oh, before before first of all, it's everybody. Before I start on that, I just say one of the big lessons I have firm, it's a private partnership. Don't spend six months negotiating so you
carry over past the IPO date. Join join before join before the IPO. It's a good good lesson for all of you in private partnerships. Um, you know, it's it's really appreciate what you said about the firm and the entrepreneurial spirit
of the firm. The firm was for a long time a private partnership. And the thing about private partnerships is you have this mutual agency where people go off and they do things. There's some structure that creates a collective each
year or each cycle where everything comes back and then there's a re-evaluation of the partnership shares and you go off again, you know, into the future to do more. And that served the firm incredibly well and the firm stayed
a partnership much longer than than any other real totally say that the firm stayed a partnership until the last moment when it absolutely because it needed the permanent capital to really make it a relevant business.
If the firm hadn't gone public in 1999, it would have missed kind of the global expansion of capital markets and probably would look more like, not to more like Lazard >> today than than like Goldman Sachs. And
so, you know, the stewards of the firm at that point did an incredible job. I 25 years and I think you know the leadership team over the last eight years has really done an incredible job at this working together to do this is
somehow 25 years after an IPO we still have this partnership culture it's highly aspirational every two years to become a partner of Goldman Sachs we have 450 people who really are compensated and a correlation to how the
overall enterprise does um but the big thing that that I'm really proud of that as a broad leadership we've done is We've started to recognize that that and you can't be a public company and not grow and have some form of top down
strategic direction. Yeah. That that really gets the whole thing making, you know, the 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus one equal, you know, more than what the math adds up to. And that's been a journey and it's been bumpy. You were there for
>> True. Um but um but I think we've we've navigated well and I you know we've got I I I still think you know the principles the values that we kind of sit upon as a firm. We really strive to be the most exceptional financial
always get there but we strive for that and you know we really sit on four core integrity and excellence. Try to live it and um and I think the firm's in a really good place. But it's it's in some ways it hasn't changed at all in 26
changed massively. >> Are there a few things you're most forward, you know, for the next five or ten years? >> Sure. You know, one of the things I've I I was a banker and I advised CEOs for a
lot of my career, but actually owning the responsibility. That's one of my big takeaways the last eight years is very different than um than giving advice. thing that a CEO has to do in a big enterprise like this is they have to
kind of own the strategy and the direction of the firm. And you know, I'm focused on how we ensure we're executing toward growing the firm because I know we have to do that to perform on a relative basis. But then I'm also
thinking about and worrying about, you know, big picture strategic risks that can make the firm less relevant, less successful, less important, less competitive. And you know for us I think there are two things that the firm is
one of the one of the things that makes the United States an extraordinary place capital markets most extraordinary financial system. The most extraordinary that the six most important financial institutions in the US are all US
financial institutions and there is no global institution that can compete in terms of its relevance in the world with the six most important US institutions. When you look at those institutions, there are there are different kinds of
institutions. There are retail banks, more traditional banky banks. Um that more traditional banky banks. Um that would include JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, City Bank. They all have global businesses, but they are
truly banks and what they do. They have retail platforms, retail businesses. And That doesn't mean they don't touch individuals in different ways, but Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are both institutional firms. And Goldman
one in the context of the way we're positioned as an institutional firm. And island to one in terms of the way they're positioned. >> and I just went through all those firms. The two smallest firms of all those
firms are Goldman Sachs and Morgan and Stamale. And so when there's turbulence in the world, you always want scale. scale in these businesses because they're so mature gives you enormous leverage and latitude.
>> And so we continue to think a lot about scale and we think out 5 10 15 years how are we going to maintain a level of scale that makes us competitive? scale that makes us competitive? 10 years ago um it would be in
unfathomable that Goldman Sachs could have a $ 1.9 trillion balance sheet >> but at the moment JP Morgan has a$4.5 trillion dollar balance sheet. when JP Morgan's six, we're gonna have to be at least three and a half,
>> you know, at least three and a half. And so, we have to think about how we can these are very mature businesses and it's hard to really build that scale um you know, just purely organically. So, that's one. Two, funding. Funding these
risks to these enterprises. These enterprises live on funding and liquidity and you know we don't have a traditional deposit funding platform. We've got and you participated in this a very excellent digital deposit platform
that now has you know over $200 billion in deposits and we've also we have about $500 billion of total deposits. 15 years ago we had zero. >> So we fund about 40% of the firm deposits but deposits is a much more
>> Commercial paper. >> Yeah. We were we were the largest ago. There are a lot of things you want to be the largest in the world. Wholesale fun not one of them. Um and so um that strategically is another thing
on stepping back and getting away from the execution dayto-day and thinking 10 here running the firm but it's still my responsibility >> to steward and and chart that. I worry about that in the short term you know
the organization. and how technology shifts the way we do things, how we're we do. >> Absolutely. >> Um Ben, maybe uh transitioning to you.
Um you know, you and Mark started the firm at an auspicious time uh in the wake of the financial crisis in 2009. >> 2009. really interesting moment because it was, you know, the beginning of mobile
and the rise of the cloud. >> Well, it's funny also, you know, we got >> Well, it's funny also, you know, we got a lot of criticism. um in kind of venture capital like why are you raising money now like what are you stupid um
and it turns out that the best time to raise money is when nobody has money I mean like it's it's very obvious in you know when you say it that way but uh >> just the nature of investing is people always want to invest you know high and
they always want to walk away when the market is low and it just is uh is one of those things so we we got very fortunate that I think. Yeah. evolution of the firm, you know, since you started and and again maybe what
future as well. >> Yeah. So the original idea and in venture capital like the the fundamental thing that you have to be is you have to be what's known as top tier because if you're not top tier then the best
entrepreneurs won't take your money. And so like there are times when you can, you know, when the market is so blazing hot that, you know, you can be like a not important venture capital firm and dump into good deals and make money, but
in most times if you're not top tier, uh you're going to go out of business and um and and so you have to be that. And and the difficult thing about being top tier is historically the way you became top tier was reputationally. So if
you're a Sequoia, you had invested in Apple and Cisco and Yahoo and Google. And so it's really hard to make up that ground if you're starting in 2009. So the idea we had originally to get to top tier was um to basically have a
better product, a better product specifically for entrepreneurs. So the venture capital product was great for LPs and um but we thought mediocre for LPs and um but we thought mediocre for entrepreneurs. So we designed the firm
uh to basically really enable a founder to uh basically build his or her own company um and run it uh as CEO which wasn't kind of an idea then the idea was
much more to replace the founder um and you know there's a lot that went into it and because we were founders we knew what that was and so we kind of created what that was and so we kind of created a firm to give a founder like a brand
and power and access and all these kinds of things. Uh VC said they did, but they they didn't have to because like they were top tier. It didn't matter. Uh and so we did that and that's kind of how we got into position to kind of be a
got into position to kind of be a longlasting firm. The second phase uh was really kind of based on something that Mark wrote in 2011 called software is eating the world. And the idea with software as eating the world was
basically uh if you looked at venture capital up to that point there were these studies that said in any given year there are going to be 15 you know approximately 15 technology companies that get to 100 million in revenue
that are worth money and nothing else is going to be worth money. So the whole venture capital sport was how many of those 15 can you get into? Uh
to eat the world though we thought well maybe that 15 is going to be 150. Um and maybe one of the features of a venture capital firm is going to be you're going to have to be able to scale it. uh and none of the you know traditionally
I remember Dave Swenson the great Dave Swinson RIP saying to me who was the uh ran the Yale endowment for years he said you know a good venture capital firm's like a basketball team you know five maybe six players that's it uh but you
can't address you know a market where you have to be in 150 companies with six players so how do you organize how do you scale how do you design the firm so opportunity and yet still be like really really good
at investing and not have more than five or six people talking about a deal. Uh and so that was sort of phase two and and that's really kind of I would say when we somewhat left the building in terms of um you know what was going on
Silicon Valley uh because nobody else was thinking that way. And so this last was thinking that way. And so this last year 2025 about 18 what is it 18.3% of all venture capital raised in the US was raised by us. So we're we're now like
raised by us. So we're we're now like from tier one to the biggest um and going forward what I think that looks like is and then I I get a lot of this thinking my uh my old mentor was uh Andy Grove um
his life but one of the things he said to me that I always remember and for for me for those of you who don't know him he was uh you know he ran Intel and he and and changed the company probably the
greatest tech CEO we've seen. Um but he said something that is very obvious in a way but also profound which was you know if you're the leader of an industry um then the growth of that industry depends on you. Uh you have to grow the
market like nobody else is going to do it. It's not going to like that that is coming on you. And he he really took that seriously at Intel. And so when I think about you know what we are as a firm a lot of it is
of the work that we've done on policy for crypto and um things that we're doing internationally things we're doing on American dynamism is like how do we win not just you know we Andrea Horowitzman but how does the country win
technologically how do we uh continue to compete with China how do we uh be relevant in the next hundred years like we were in the last hundred years and so and And that drives backwards into how we think about how we have to develop
some horiz. >> Awesome. Maybe maybe we'll transition just a little bit to to markets. Um, you know, David, you know, how would you You know, what are you hearing from the CEOs that you, you know, work and advise
>> Sure. You know, first Justin and and and Ben >> good times >> if you're in um if you're in our kind of businesses, if you're attached to financial assets or investable assets,
um this is, you know, I've been doing this for 40ome years. This is as sweet a spot um that that I've seen kind of macro picture. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't all sorts of um difficult complex things going on in
the world, but I think we're at a moment. Let's just be here in the United world and talk about anywhere you want, but let's just start here in the United States. The combination of the significant
amount in continued continuing to increase fiscal stimulus, and by the way, the big beautiful bill that started in 26 just adds more to stimulative place, we just added a whole bunch more. We have fiscal stimulus, we
have monetary stimulus because we're in a rate cutting cycle. That doesn't mean rate cuts, but we're probably going to see a couple more. We are in a capital investment super cycle, like something we've never seen. Last
year, the four largest companies contributed 1% to GDP growth with their 400 billion of spending. Um we are in a deregulatory um unwind cycle from a massive regulatory
surge during the last administration to a deregulatory windback that is very stimulative. All these things it's it's just such a cocktail of stimulus that it's very very hard to slow the economy down. And while average Americans
definitely feel a lot of stress because everything's more expensive. You could three, but the bottom line is everything is 25 to 30% more expensive. And that's the way Americans feel it. There's pressure, but at the same time, there's
enormous financial leverage that keeps the economy going and it makes the economy a little bit more versatile. And so, if you own monetary assets or investable assets, um, if you're around growth and technology, these are pretty
give you a hundred things that can set it off. Um, last April, you know, if you people felt the same way. And then in April, we had a speed bump, but was all of you short speed bump. And I think one of the things that also has there are
moving ahead. One, you've got a president that if you look at the speed bump last April, he marks to market to that market every single day. And the market's going in the wrong direction, he has no problem adjusting very, very
he has no problem adjusting very, very quickly. And number two, the and putting it into the enterprise and having the enterprise pick it up. The they expect to be delivered over the next 1, two, three, four years.
>> And so that's a that's a pretty prime macro environment. Now geopolitics much tougher. We're moving back to a multip-olar world and the risk of a multip-olar world and the risk of a geopolitical
just I'm not saying it's high but it's much higher than it's been from the last for the last you know kind of 10 20 30 years since the wall fell and um you know look the world is the world is fragile social media creates a lot of
absorb information the way information moves more volatile Um and so a lot can go wrong but at the moment from an economic a base economic perspective that cocktail of stimulus is
>> Maybe a follow-up question for for both of you. I mean you know do you expect to see a lot of M&A or IPOs this year? How how are you sort of advising your CEOs? >> a lot of them in the audience. It's a good banker respon
>> just just factbased. Okay based we had you had a very very tough regulatory environment. M&A and capital raising IPOs are driven by confidence and so if that is something that affects confidence from an M&A perspective on
strategic M&A for the last four years whatever the question was the answer was >> okay now whatever the question is the answer even if it's very very significant the answer is maybe so what do C CEOs like to look forward they like
to do big things they want to and so there's there's a lot of activity fact and so I I just think Again, this is an environment where you're going to see a significant I think this could be the biggest M&A year. This is just me
predicting. I think it'll be the biggest M&A year in history this year. It's thinking a bunch of these big companies that are finally deciding they want to have a view on that too. Um I being a public company is a horrible thing. I do
not rant. Do not rant. [laughter] Do not rant. [laughter] It is challenging from kind. >> a lot >> all the time. Um, you know, it's funny.
We had a company that just went public and they're like, "We might get sued." I sued. You're public. This is America." Like, what are you talking about? Um, so I agree. I agree a lot on on the M&A front except with the
front except with the uh kind of exception that like it's not uh kind of exception that like it's not clear uh the FTC uh kind of position on these things yet and so far
>> yeah especially on big tech even on like small tech they've been very very small tech they've been very very aggressive um so I think M&A will happen but it may happen more in the form of IP transactions and that kind of thing than
transactions and that kind of thing than as a traditional M&A. Um I hope not, but but that that may be the case. And then yeah, look, I I think there's going to be a lot of IPOs coming out of our world. So I think there's going to be
some out of necessity that the companies are growing so fast. We have so many companies uh like went zero to over hundred million dollars in less than a year. Um some zero to over a billion dollars in less than a year. So which
like we've never seen that before. And uh and then the kind of correlary to that in AI is that um leads aren't what they once were. So for my whole life in software, there was this thing called the mythical man month. And the way the
mythical man month, you know, nine women cannot have a baby in a month. Uh, and so you can't just if you're Google, you can't just put a thousand software engineers on a product and wipe out a startup because you can only build that
product with say seven or eight people and once they figured it out, they've got that lead and you're going to have to, you know, you're going to be behind to, you know, you're going to be behind for a long time. That's not true uh with
for a long time. That's not true uh with AI. Um so with AI uh if you have data you know particularly proprietary data and you have enough GPUs you can solve and you have enough GPUs you can solve like almost any problem. It is magic. Uh
but it means that you can throw money at the problem. Uh and we've never had that in tech. And so I think that that's actually going to drive a lot of IPOs because people are going to want to get out and have the capital to continue to
compete uh because it's really necessary. You don't just have a lead you can sit on. Uh so so it's going to be a very exciting year. I think earlier. I know you and Mark are spending a lot more time in DC than you
>> Chris >> and Chris? Yeah. Um you know what are some of the policy uh you know agendas you're most focused on and and why do important now than it's ever been? Well, the first one was crypto because um you
know we we thought then and we continue to think crypto is an extremely to think crypto is an extremely important technology. Um it's kind of uh you know not not just the kind of most profound breakthrough in kind of
financial technology that we've seen but a real breakthrough in um just how society works. So everything from you know how do property rights work on on
the internet you know like uh you know how what what is the right architecture how what what is the right architecture for things that where uh creatives um contribute most of the value what's the right business architecture what is
stakeholder capitalism really um these are all things that that get solved with crypto so we thought it was so important and so important for the advance of society and to not have us like descend into communism and these kinds of
into communism and these kinds of things. Uh and it got completely banned through a legal process, not through a legislative process, but just through legislative process, but just through like sheer will and you know, we'd say
abuse of power of the of the government, including techniques like debanking. Our company got wells notices um which I've never seen before in a private company. So just an attack from the government on uh an industry, a technology industry in
this country. And so we were like, well, we've got to get in and work on that. And um so the first thing was the uh Genius Act and the Stable Coin Bill, which passed and is now law and we're very proud of that. The second one which
we think is the more important bill is the clarity act which is also known as market structure which um kind of establishes and it's such a necessary thing for this technology because you have these tokens that can represent
Pokemon card that can rep represent a stock certificate that can represent a dollar um and there were no rules to say well which one is this token and the everything's a security to the point where they sued artists for like, oh, I
painted a picture and I made an NFT. Oh, you sold a security. Like that that crazy. Uh, so this one we're trying to get past right now and uh we've had some drama around it which I'm not going to comment on, but uh that's a thing. The
second one that's really important is AI. So uh you know like with I think AI. So uh you know like with I think with the automobile or with electricity uh with these new technologies people uh kind of freak out about them um because
they they do have big impact they are going to change the world and with AI in particular uh you know there's some of the calls are coming from within inside the house where people are really trying to kind of scare the population
sometimes to achieve regulatory capture and other things. But if you ban the technology, which some people are calling for, uh, or ban some people are calling for, uh, or ban or kind of infringe people's ability to
do mathematics, which is something that a lot of people are calling for, um, lose the AI rights to China, which has like massive, you know, hundredyear implications. Uh, and so the key things we're trying to protect are one, the
model is the model. It is a model. It's a mathematical model. It predicts things. It's not like a uh sentient being. Like maybe we'll figure out how yet. So, it's not sentient. Um it's just a model. Uh so, we're trying to say
don't regulate math. Um regulate the applications of that math. So, if somebody uses AI to break into a bank or um you know, steal your money or uh you know, make a robot that that uh shoots somebody, then that's illegal. Um but
the technology itself shouldn't be illegal. Uh and then there's uh the the illegal. Uh and then there's uh the the kind of most pressing one right now is um every state wants to have their own set of AI laws which will basically make
innovate because you can't comply with 50 different laws from 50 different states. So we're trying to get that done. Um, kind of shortly following that, there's an issue of how copyrights
are treated. Um, and can you build a statistical model over copyritten work, not reproduce the copywritten work, but just build a model about it so that the just build a model about it so that the kind of software becomes smarter. Um, we
China absolutely doesn't respect copyrights even. They don't respect just copying it. uh let alone building a statistical model and we're going to have kind of a weaker uh AI if we can't train on all the data, can't train on
things that we're trying to push forward. >> Awesome. You know, one of the things that that was very evident to me during client centric the firm was and I know 1GS was a big kind of focus of yours. Um
you guys both work internally and and also how you're delivering, you know, also how you're delivering, you know, better for clients. Sure. Well, the I mean firm is the firm's business is serving our clients and so I you know I
technology has for decades and decades and decades been making productive people more productive. Goldman Sachs is a professional services firm filled with productive and technology has been changing the way they work, evolving the
consequential, allowing them to expand the scope and the footprint of what they impact. Um, and you know, this technology is another acceleration of that for sure. Um, you know, in the in the simplest form
and and this is a a a a broad oversimplification, so please take it as such. There are two things that we're focused on. One, we've got lots of smart applications. We're trying to get them into their hands and give them access to
them and access to models and access to applications. Um, so that they can experiment with them, play with them, figure out how on a day-to-day basis is the things they're doing, they can be
more impact. Um, we're good at this. We've done this before. Our people are good at it. Um it takes time but we we know how to do this and we're doing it and you know it's really constrained by
how we get the best tools, the best models, the best applications, get them by the way regulatory cleared because we have to deal with regulatory constraints That's a huge barrier for us. We're just
great. Let's try it. We have to have a huge process before we can try anything. But we know how to do that. We're doing that and that is that is expanding the productivity of our people and and you see real time uptake on that that's
really accelerating. The more interesting thing to me as the CEO is that this technology allows us to really look at fundamental operating processes on a massive enterprise and completely reimagine them to automate them and make
them more efficient. Not just simply for the benefit of doing them with less people or with less costs, but for the benefit of taking some of that savings and giving us more capacity to invest in growth areas of the business where we're
constraint. And so we don't have the ability to just spend as much money as want. We actually have to be held accountable every year to how much money how much money we spend and how much money we make and what kind of a return
>> Thanks for generally don't last forever. >> No, they don't last forever. But they companies that have proven that they can last for 1015 years where the deploying your capital is put off for a long period of time. We have to look at
last few years we've been constrained just simply we spent last year we spent $6 billion on technology. I would have loved to spend eight. Okay. But if I hundreds of basis points lower. And you know what? We couldn't do that.
>> Sure. Now if we can actually find $2 billion of efficiency around reimagining processes then I can spend eight and wind up with the same returns. So we we laid out we actually called it 1GS 3.0 a program where we picked six specific
processes in the firm and we said we are going to do the work to really completely reimagine them. We have not put out publicly how that changes workforce, how much capacity that creates, but it's super significant. And
it's not that there are only six. These are just the first six. So, this is one forward. I think this opportunity is huge, but this is hard. This is hard because you're asking people to go kind of take away their empire and do their
empire differently. It's got to be driven top down and uh and it's hard, progress. So those are two simplification but those are two big things what I like to sum >> anything Ben you you'd add to that just
proliferation of this technology in the enterprise and what are you most 5 to 10 years >> well I think that for kind of the reasons David cited like we're at the very very beginning in the enterprise um
you know like changing people and processes and so forth in a in a big existing company is no matter what the technology is is complicated technology is is complicated Um you know in our firm as you know uh
we are kind of taking very aggressive approach to kind of first automating all the things people do and don't like to do or you know it's not like the funnest part of the job. We've also kind of gotten all
of hard data in a data bricks data lake and so we can ask you know basically any portfolio. customer support for it works fantastic. >> You know, a AI gentic investing is going to be very very interesting because
you know models work on the facts that are available and one of the things about investing is sometimes the biggest changes and the way you have to think things that are completely new and unexpected. It can't be incorporated in
past. Yeah. >> Can't be something from the past. So the can be quickly incorporated models and models can load very quickly but still you know you start from a place and so it's I I'm I'm really interested to see
how it works and look one of the things you've got to you've got to wonder why there are handful of people there are a handful of people who have so outperformed as investors over a long period of time but you encounter
speaking you know people underperform And so if the models are based on the underperforming all have, it's going to be interesting to see whether something different comes out of it. >> Awesome. I think we're running out of
time, but um maybe one last bonus question. Um favorite DJ. No, no >> Favorite DJ today? >> Yeah. Or it could be in the past. >> I mean John Summit is John Summit is doing really really cool things as a DJ.
He's incredibly interesting young guy that's got a lot of energy and he's he's evolving very much the context of how kind of big club house DJs do what they job. >> Ben, I'm going to stay in my lane, which
is the past and hip-hop DJs. I'm going to say DJ Jazzy Jeff. Um, who is a like very underrated because his partner, the Fresh Prince, became Will Smith. Um, but
DJ Jazzy Jeff is a great great alltime Egypt. Yeah. Awesome. Thank you guys so >> Thank you, David. >> Awesome. [applause]