To build a fire — but not destroy the market by doing so. That’s the goal right now. It’s not as easy as in the famous Jack London short story (“To Build a Fire”) where, in the end, the survivors profit rather than freeze to death in their sleep. In the early part of this decade, we saw the rise of Robinhood (HOOD) and the distribution of investments from the serious to the ephemeral. These days, Robinhood has the appearance of one gigantic bonfire of young people’s money. The gamification concept was real and the exodus of investors was noisy — culminating with the ridiculous self-immolation of GameStop (GME), AMC Entertainment (AMC) and the meme stocks. Those who fought this trend abandoned Twitter, hired bodyguards and tried to hide from the angry mob that was attempting to will stocks higher by savaging the sellers. No tinder from these clowns. Then there was the much larger-than-expected romp to crypto. The people who bought it somehow ensconced their brains into something they didn’t understand. As a result, they overran their brains and outsourced them to others who claimed to know more than they did. You had to oppose a phalanx of vociferous, self-promoting scoundrels and their fintech allies in government and venture capital — all of whom should feel shame, but shame eludes them. They will not accept their intellectual disgrace, and instead, continue to argue that it was all about blockchain and DeFi (decentralized finance). They want to explain to you why they got it right and you got it wrong, even as they lost everything and you were safe keeping your cash at JPMorgan. I wish I had a hubris scale, something like a gigantic thermometer that could measure these arrogant promoters and give them the hook when they contend that they are smarter than you for believing in something with a best-use case as untraceable ransom money. But this era is running out. It’s going to be done with a fight, of course, as we see its representatives defend themselves with specious arguments that sound so self-serving and outright phony that even neutral minds are repelled and rebelling. The money furnace that was Robinhood burns blandly compared to the napalm of crypto. The interests that defended crypto can’t go quietly because they will empty the coffers of their crypto banks and cause waves of bankruptcies; the $34 billion that we know of that was destroyed by Sam Bankman-Fried — the disgraced former boss of failed crypto exchange FTX — pretty much propped up everything. We keep getting stung by the alleged due diligence done by so many who should have known better, with only a couple of institutions writing their investments to nothing, along with their explanations, or lack thereof. Here’s the problem: If it all goes away — crypto and all the institutions supporting it — the money that’s left won’t help push equity prices higher. It was once a magnet to a couple of trillion dollars. Now I wonder if there’s $400 billion to the entire edifice. The whole thing reminds me of a line from the film “Beau Geste,” when two of the main characters are under attack: “You’ll do your duty better dead than you ever did alive.” The biggest guns are most likely liquidating as they talk, the duplicitous cads. They will tell us that we are fools not to believe in blockchain as if somehow that is dispositive to something other than lies and blunders. My point is this: The crypto con and the Robinhood dollar conflagration can’t produce enough money to buoy stocks. There’s not enough left in these embers to do anything but marvel at how much there used to be and how little bankruptcy produces. No matter how many hearings, we will never know the full culpability behind those in Congress and those in the Securities and Exchange Commission who opposed SEC Chairman Gary Gensler. He came on CNBC specifically to warn us of made-up coins and institutions that give you too high a return compared to cash in a real bank. Self-serving cryptocurrency players have been critical of the SEC. They want to school Gensler and let him know he can only go so far before running into all the well-endowed entities and their secret paid supporters. The horror! The horror! So where else will the money come from? Unlike the chimerical trillions that vanished into thin crypto air, the fuel will come from four stocks that have a combined total of $6 trillion to donate: Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL) and Amazon (AMZN). There is simply too much money in these names to take us higher, or at least how high we can go after the Federal Reserve’s next meeting this week. But I think some of that investor money will be transferred into the stocks of companies that have the most voracious buybacks. Those are the companies without enough stock available to handle all the money that will flood in. Money in those four stocks will be pulled out, kicking and screaming, until the valuations become earthly — better than Meta Platforms (META) and more like the S & P as they are revealed to be mortal. Not until then can the rally start in earnest. Can these valuations be played out? It’s happening as you read this. Of course, there’s one other enemy to the advance and it’s a powerful one: The 4.5% yield from 2-year Treasurys is outrageously bountiful in a market where anything north of 4% in equities is likely tied to plummeting oil. However, we cling to the oils, betting that they can maintain their well above market prices when Russia can’t produce its endless reserves and China goes voracious upon reopening. I think we will win. Bottom line We will hold Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon, even as we’ve trimmed them higher. Their spiral down to earth, however, will be painful. If we hadn’t sold some, it would be getting late in the game. But I suspect there’s more pain to come. Why take it? Because these companies still have value, even though it won’t surface until the selling’s done and we don’t know when that will occur. It’s too dangerous now to depart, although Apple could see $120 and Microsoft a 10-point decline. Amazon and Alphabet control their own destinies through headcount reductions. The good news? The selling could end after the Fed meeting. The bad news: If it does, there will not be enough rocket fuel. The big four need to shed a trillion minimum to power things higher. I think it will happen in time. Which would mean a brutal week until the transfer begins to be made. Hold on to what you have, but get ready to be lifted by the stocks with the strongest buybacks. That’s where the accumulation will matter the most. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Satya Nadella, chief executive officer of Microsoft Corp., during the company’s Ignite Spotlight event in Seoul, South Korea, on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2022. Nadella gave a keynote speech at an event hosted by the company’s Korean unit.
SeongJoon Cho | Bloomberg | Getty Images
To build a fire — but not destroy the market by doing so.
That’s the goal right now. It’s not as easy as in the famous Jack London short story (“To Build a Fire”) where, in the end, the survivors profit rather than freeze to death in their sleep.
In the early part of this decade, we saw the rise of Robinhood (HOOD) and the distribution of investments from the serious to the ephemeral. These days, Robinhood has the appearance of one gigantic bonfire of young people’s money. The gamification concept was real and the exodus of investors was noisy — culminating with the ridiculous self-immolation of GameStop (GME), AMC Entertainment (AMC) and the meme stocks. Those who fought this trend abandoned Twitter, hired bodyguards and tried to hide from the angry mob that was attempting to will stocks higher by savaging the sellers. No tinder from these clowns.
Shopee reportedly conducted three rounds of layoffs this year as its parent Sea Limited struggles towards profitability.
Lauryn Ishak | Bloomberg | Getty Images
More tech startups in Southeast Asia laid off workers this year, as macro headwinds widened losses and venture capitalists pushed startups to extend their runways.
Both companies cited challenging macroeconomic challenges.
There are signs that we are entering into a recession, if we are not already in one. Therefore, customer demand is likely to be slower in 2023.
They join Sea Group and other companies in the region in downsizing headcount. Sea Group, according to local media, laid off more than 7,000 employees over the past six months.
“Founders are being prudent by managing costs in this environment to ensure there is sufficient runway till late 2024,” Jia Jih Chai, co-founder and CEO of Singapore-based e-commerce brand aggregator Rainforest, told CNBC. Chai was previouslyasenior vice president at Carousell and a managing director at Airbnb.
“There are signs that we are entering into a recession, if we are not already in one. Therefore, customer demand is likely to be slower in 2023,” said Chai.
Read more about tech and crypto from CNBC Pro
In a note to Carousell’s employees, CEO Quek Siu Rui acknowledged “critical mistakes” were made. He said he was “too optimistic” about the Covid recovery and underestimated the impact of growing his team too quickly.
“The reality is that we were quick to grow our expenses and hire, but the returns took longer than expected,” said Quek, adding that there have been cost-cutting measures in the past few months and Carousell’s leadership will take voluntary pay cuts.
Quek also said it’s only prudent that the company get to profitability as a group as quickly as possible, as it is unclear if market conditions will improve.
“I was astonished that companies predicted that the Covid behavior changes would last forever,” Alex Kantrowitz, a Silicon Valley journalist, who also runs an independent newsletter and podcast called Big Technology, told CNBC’s “TechCheck” Monday.
“Clearly, once you are allowed to go out to restaurants, hang out with friends outside, your usage of Netflix, Facebook, Shopify and Amazon would go down. So why do all of them build as if that would last forever?”
“Previously, the companies were designed for fast growth. So there needs to be changes made when the organization is shifting from strong growth to sustainable growth. For example, you may not need too many marketing people if the marketing budget is cut,” said Jefrey Joe, co-founder and managing partner at Indonesia-based Alpha JWC Ventures.
Tech startups in Southeast Asia are still largely unprofitable, with names like Sea Group and Grab amassing billions of losses annually.
Existing investors in the company are also actively advisingfounders to prepare for winter, Jussi Salovaara, Antler’s co-founder and managing partner for Asia, told CNBC. Venture capitalists are pushing founders to have a longer runway, he said.
Southeast Asia tech layoffs in 2022
Startup
Employees affected
Glints
18% of total headcount
Sea Group
7,000+
GoTo Group
1,300
Zenius
200+
Carousell
110
Foodpanda
60
Carsome
Less than 10% of total headcount
iPrice Group
50
StashAway
31
*this list is not exhaustive
Source: CNBC research
“We say to the founders that they need to be prepared that next year is not going to be easier than this year,” said Joe.
“These companies may be doing well operatively. They still have some growth. They might be close to profitability, but they need to make sure that they’re sustainable for the future,” added Salovaara.
Tech companies are only seeing the beginning of layoffs, said Kantrowitz.
Globally, tech companies have been conducting mass layoffs, especially the U.S. tech giants. For example, Meta cut about 11,000 jobs while Microsoft reportedly laid off less than 1,000 people due to a slowdown in growth.
After a yearlong review, Meta’s Oversight Board on Tuesday said the company’s controversial system that applies a different content moderation process for posts from VIPs is set up to “satisfybusiness concerns” and risks doing harm to everyday users.
In a nearly 50-page advisory, including more than two dozen recommendations for improving the program, the board — an entity financed by Meta but which says it operates independently -— called on the company to “radically increase transparency” about the “cross check” system and how it works. It also urged Meta to takesteps to hide content from its most prominent users that potentially violates ruleswhile it’s under review in order to avoid spreading it further.
The cross-check program came under fire last November after a report from the Wall Street Journal indicated that the system shielded some VIP users — such as politicians, celebrities, journalists and Meta business partners like advertisers — from the company’s normal content moderation process, in some cases allowing them to post rule-violating content without consequences. As of 2020, the program had ballooned to include 5.8 million users, the Journal reported.
At the time, Meta said that criticism of the system was fair, but that cross-check was created in order to improve the accuracy of moderation on content that “could require more understanding.”
In the wake of the report, the Oversight Board said that Facebook had failed to provide crucial details about the system, including as part of the board’s review of the company’s decision to suspend former US President Donald Trump. The company in response requested that the Oversight Board review the cross-check system.
In essence, the cross-check system means that when a user on the list posts content identified as breaking Meta’s rules, the post is not immediately removed (as it would be for regular users) but instead is left up pending further human review.
Meta says that the program helps address “false negatives” where content is removed despite not breaking any of its rules for key users. But by subjecting cross-check users to a different process, Meta “grants certain users greater protection than others,” by enabling a human reviewer to provide the full range of the company’s rules to their posts, the Oversight Board said in its Tuesday report.
The board said that while the company “told the Board that cross-check aims to advance Meta’s human rights commitments, we found that the program appears more directly structured to satisfy business concerns … We also found that Meta has failed to track data on whether cross-check results in more accurate decisions.”
The Oversight Board is an entity made up of experts in areas such as freedom of expression and human rights. Itis often described as a kind of Supreme Court for Meta as it allows users to appeal content decisions on the company’s platforms.Although Meta requested the board’s review, it is not under any obligation to incorporate its recommendations.
In a blog post published Tuesday, Meta President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg reiterated that cross-check aims to “prevent potential over-enforcement … and to double-check cases where there could be a higher risk for a mistake or when the potential impact of a mistake is especially severe.” He said Meta plans to respond to the board’s report within 90 days. Clegg also outlined several changes the company has already made to the program, including formalizing criteria for adding users to cross-check and establishing annual reviews for the list.
As part of a wide-ranging advisory for restructuring cross-check, the Oversight Board raised concerns that by delaying removal of potentially violative contentby cross-check users pending additional review, the company could be allowing the content to cause harm. It said that according to Meta, “on average, it can take more than five days to reach a decision on content from users on its cross-check lists,” and that “the program has operated with a backlog which delays decisions.”
“This means that, because of cross-check, content identified as breaking Meta’s rules is left up on Facebook and Instagram when it is most viral and could cause harm,” the Oversight Board said. It recommended that “high severity” content initially flagged as violating Meta’s rules should be removed or hidden on its platforms while undergoing additional review, adding, “such content should not be allowed to remain on the platform simply because the person who posted it is a business partner or celebrity.”
The Oversight Board said that Meta should develop and share transparent criteria for inclusion in its cross-check program, adding that users who meet the criteria should be able to apply for inclusion into the program. “A user’s celebrity or follower count should not be the sole criterion for receiving additional protection,” it said.
The board also said some categories of users protected by cross-check should have their accounts publicly marked, and recommended that users whose content is “important for human rights” be prioritized for additional review over Meta business partners.
For the sake of transparency, “Meta should measure, audit, and publish key metrics around its cross-check program so it can tell whether the program is working effectively,” the board said.
Facebook owner Meta threatened to remove news content from its platforms on Monday following reports that US lawmakers have added controversial legislation favoring news media to the annual defense authorization bill.
The warning highlights the danger that Meta perceives to its business model in the face of the proposed bill, known as the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA).
The legislation introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar and backed by more than a dozen other lawmakers from both parties would create a four-year exemption under US antitrust law allowing news outlets to bargain collectively against social media platforms for a larger share of ad revenue in exchange for their news content. It is one of several tech-focused antitrust bills currently pending on Capitol Hill.
“If Congress passes an ill-considered journalism bill as part of national security legislation,” Meta said in a statement tweeted by spokesman Andy Stone, “we will be forced to consider removing news from our platform altogether rather than submit to government-mandated negotiations that unfairly disregard any value we provide to news outlets through increased traffic and subscriptions.”
Meta has shown willingness to follow through on its threat. When similar legislation was on the verge of passing in Australia last year, the company briefly suspended users’ ability to share and view links to news stories on its platforms. (It later changed course and the legislation passed later that year.)
On Monday, Fight for the Future, a digital rights organization, told reporters that “multiple sources” had said a push to include the JCPA in the annual defense bill was successful and that the National Defense Authorization Act included the JCPA’s language. CNN has not independently confirmed the change to the defense bill.
A spokesperson for Klobuchar didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The tech industry has strongly opposed the JCPA, but the bill has also attracted criticism from more than two dozen civil society groups that are often at odds with Big Tech on policy matters.
In a letter Monday to congressional leaders, those groups said the JCPA could make mis- and disinformation worse by allowing news websites to sue tech platforms for reducing a story’s reach and intimidating them into not moderating offensive or misleading content.
The letter also said the JCPA could end up disproportionately favoring large media companies over the small, local and independent outlets that have been hit the hardest by falling digital ad revenues.
Among those that signed the letter were the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Wikimedia Foundation and Public Knowledge.
Digital Content Next, a trade association representing digital media companies, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Evercore ISI analyst Mark Mahaney sat down with CNBC Pro to share the tech names he is looking at going into 2022. He also breaks down what stocks he views in the travel space that could do well, even in a possible recession.
Pedestrians walk past the NASDAQ MarketSite in New York’s Times Square.
Eric Thayer | Reuters
It seems like an eternity ago, but it’s just been a year.
At this time in 2021, the Nasdaq Composite had just peaked, doubling since the early days of the pandemic. Rivian’s blockbuster IPO was the latest in a record year for new issues. Hiring was booming and tech employees were frolicking in the high value of their stock options.
Twelve months later, the landscape is markedly different.
Not one of the 15 most valuable U.S. tech companies has generated positive returns in 2021. Microsoft has shed roughly $700 billion in market cap. Meta’s market cap has contracted by over 70% from its highs, wiping out over $600 billion in value this year.
In total, investors have lost roughly $7.4 trillion, based on the 12-month drop in the Nasdaq.
Interest rate hikes have choked off access to easy capital, and soaring inflation has made all those companies promising future profit a lot less valuable today. Cloud stocks have cratered alongside crypto.
There’s plenty of pain to go around. Companies across the industry are cutting costs, freezing new hires, and laying off staff. Employees who joined those hyped pre-IPO companies and took much of their compensation in the form of stock options are now deep underwater and can only hope for a future rebound.
IPOs this year slowed to a trickle after banner years in 2020 and 2021, when companies pushed through the pandemic and took advantage of an emerging world of remote work and play and an economy flush with government-backed funds. Private market darlings that raised billions in public offerings, swelling the coffers of investment banks and venture firms, saw their valuations marked down. And then down some more.
Rivian has fallen more than 80% from its peak after reaching a stratospheric market cap of over $150 billion. The Renaissance IPO ETF, a basket of newly listed U.S. companies, is down 57% over the past year.
Tech executives by the handful have come forward to admit that they were wrong.
The Covid-19 bump didn’t, in fact, change forever how we work, play, shop and learn. Hiring and investing as if we’d forever be convening happy hours on video, working out in our living room and avoiding airplanes, malls and indoor dining was — as it turns out — a bad bet.
Add it up and, for the first time in nearly two decades, the Nasdaq is on the cusp of losing to the S&P 500 in consecutive years. The last time it happened the tech-heavy Nasdaq was at the tail end of an extended stretch of underperformance that began with the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Between 2000 and 2006, the Nasdaq only beat the S&P 500 once.
Is technology headed for the same reality check today? It would be foolish to count out Silicon Valley or the many attempted replicas that have popped up across the globe in recent years. But are there reasons to question the magnitude of the industry’s misfire?
It was supposed to be the year of Meta. Prior to changing its name in late 2021, Facebook had consistently delivered investors sterling returns, beating estimates and growing profitably with historic speed.
The company had already successfully pivoted once, establishing a dominant presence on mobile platforms and refocusing the user experience away from the desktop. Even against the backdrop of a reopening world and damaging whistleblower allegations about user privacy, the stock gained over 20% last year.
But Zuckerberg doesn’t see the future the way his investors do. His commitment to spend billions of dollars a year on the metaverse has perplexed Wall Street, which just wants the company to get its footing back with online ads.
The big and immediate problem is Apple, which updated its privacy policy in iOS in a way that makes it harder for Facebook and others to target users with ads.
With its stock down by two-thirds and the company on the verge of a third straight quarter of declining revenue, Meta said earlier this month it’s laying off 13% of its workforce, or 11,000 employees, its first large-scale reduction ever.
“I got this wrong, and I take responsibility for that,” Zuckerberg said.
Mammoth spending on staff is nothing new for Silicon Valley, and Zuckerberg was in good company on that front.
Software engineers had long been able to count on outsized compensation packages from major players, led by Google. In the war for talent and the free flow of capital, tech pay reached new heights.
Recruiters at Amazon could throw more than $700,000 at a qualified engineer or project manager. At gaming company Roblox, a top-level engineer could make $1.2 million, according to Levels.fyi. Productivity software firm Asana, which held its stock market debut in 2020, has never turned a profit but offered engineers starting salaries of up to $198,000, according to H1-B visa data.
Fast forward to the last quarter of 2022, and those halcyon days are a distant memory.
Layoffs at Cisco, Meta, Amazon and Twitter have totaled nearly 29,000 workers, according to data collected by the website Layoffs.fyi. Across the tech industry, the cuts add up to over 130,000 workers. HPannounced this week it’s eliminating 4,000 to 6,000 jobs over the next three years.
For many investors, it was just a matter of time.
“It is a poorly kept secret in Silicon Valley that companies ranging from Google to Meta to Twitter to Uber could achieve similar levels of revenue with far fewer people,” Brad Gerstner, a tech investor at Altimeter Capital, wrote last month.
Gerstner’s letter was specifically targeted at Zuckerberg, urging him to slash spending, but he was perfectly willing to apply the criticism more broadly.
“I would take it a step further and argue that these incredible companies would run even better and more efficiently without the layers and lethargy that comes with this extreme rate of employee expansion,” Gerstner wrote.
Activist investor TCI Fund Management echoed that sentiment in a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, whose company just recorded its slowest growth rate for any quarter since 2013, other than one period during the pandemic.
“Our conversations with former executives suggest that the business could be operated more effectively with significantly fewer employees,” the letter read. As CNBC reported this week, Google employees are growing worried that layoffs could be coming.
Those special purpose acquisition companies, or blank-check entities, created so they could go find tech startups to buy and turn public were a phenomenon of 2020 and 2021. Investment banks were eager to underwrite them, and investors jumped in with new pools of capital.
SPACs allowed companies that didn’t quite have the profile to satisfy traditional IPO investors to backdoor their way onto the public market. In the U.S. last year, 619 SPACs went public, compared with 496 traditional IPOs.
This year, that market has been a bloodbath.
The CNBC Post SPAC Index, which tracks the performance of SPAC stocks after debut, is down over 70% since inception and by about two-thirds in the past year. Many SPACs never found a target and gave the money back to investors. Chamath Palihapitiya, once dubbed theSPAC king, shut down two deals last month after failing to find suitable merger targets and returned $1.6 billion to investors.
Then there’s the startup world, which for over a half-decade was known for minting unicorns.
Last year, investors plowed $325 billion into venture-backed companies, according to EY’s venture capital team, peaking in the fourth quarter of 2021. The easy money is long gone. Now companies are much more defensive than offensive in their financings, raising capital because they need it and often not on favorable terms.
“You just don’t know what it’s going to be like going forward,” EY venture capital leader Jeff Grabow told CNBC. “VCs are rationalizing their portfolio and supporting those that still clear the hurdle.”
The word profit gets thrown around a lot more these days than in recent years. That’s because companies can’t count on venture investors to subsidize their growth and public markets are no longer paying up for high-growth, high-burn names. The forward revenue multiple for top cloud companies is now just over 10, down from a peak of 40, 50 or even higher for some companies at the height in 2021.
The trickle down has made it impossible for many companies to go public without a massive markdown to their private valuation. A slowing IPO market informs how earlier-stage investors behave, said David Golden, managing partner at Revolution Ventures in San Francisco.
“When the IPO market becomes more constricted, that circumscribes one’s ability to find liquidity through the public market,” said Golden, who previously ran telecom, media and tech banking at JPMorgan. “Most early-stage investors aren’t counting on an IPO exit. The odds against it are so high, particularly compared against an M&A exit.”
There have been just 173 IPOs in the U.S. this year, compared with 961 at the same point in 2021. In the VC world, there haven’t been any deals of note.
“We’re reverting to the mean,” Golden said.
An average year might see 100 to 200 U.S. IPOs, according to FactSet research. Data compiled by Jay Ritter, an IPO expert and finance professor at the University of Florida, shows there were 123 tech IPOs last year, compared with an average of 38 a year between 2010 and 2020.
Buy now, pay never
There’s no better example of the intersection between venture capital and consumer spending than the industry known as buy now, pay later.
Companies such as Affirm, Afterpay (acquired by Block, formerly Square) and Sweden’s Klarna took advantage of low interest rates and pandemic-fueled discretionary incomes to put high-end purchases, such as Peloton exercise bikes, within reach of nearly every consumer.
Affirm went public in January 2021 and peaked at over $168 some 10 months later. Affirm grew rapidly in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, as brands and retailers raced to make it easier for consumers to buy online.
By November of last year, buy now, pay later was everywhere, from Amazon to Urban Outfitters‘ Anthropologie. Customers had excess savings in the trillions. Default rates remained low — Affirm was recording a net charge-off rate of around 5%.
Affirm has fallen 92% from its high. Charge-offs peaked over the summer at nearly 12%. Inflation paired with higher interest rates muted formerly buoyant consumers. Klarna, which is privately held, saw its valuation slashed by 85% in a July financing round, from $45.6 billion to $6.7 billion.
The world’s richest person — even after an almost 50% slide in the value of Tesla — is now the owner of Twitter following an on-again, off-again, on-again drama that lasted six months and was about to land in court.
Musk swiftly fired half of Twitter’s workforce and then welcomed former President Donald Trump back onto the platform after running an informal poll. Many advertisers have fled.
And corporate governance is back on the docket after this month’s sudden collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which managed to grow to a $32 billion valuation with no board of directors or finance chief. Top-shelf firms such as Sequoia, BlackRock and Tiger Global saw their investments wiped out overnight.
“We are in the business of taking risk,” Sequoia wrote in a letter to limited partners, informing them that the firm was marking its FTX investment of over $210 million down to zero. “Some investments will surprise to the upside, and some will surprise to the downside.”
Even with the crypto meltdown, mounting layoffs and the overall market turmoil, it’s not all doom and gloom a year after the market peak.
Golden points to optimism out of Washington, D.C., where President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act will lead to investments in key areas in tech in the coming year.
Funds from those bills start flowing in January. Intel, Micron and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company have already announced expansions in the U.S. Additionally, Golden anticipates growth in health care, clean water and energy, and broadband in 2023.
“All of us are a little optimistic about that,” Golden said, “despite the macro headwinds.”
Sebastian Siemiatkowski, CEO of Klarna, speaking at a fintech event in London on Monday, April 4, 2022.
Chris Ratcliffe | Bloomberg via Getty Images
HELSINKI, Finland — Klarna will become profitable again by next year after making deep cuts to its workforce, CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski told CNBC.
Klarna lost more than $580 million in the first six months of 2022 as the buy now, pay later giant burned through cash to accelerate its expansion in key growth markets like the U.S. and Britain.
Under pressure from investors to slim down its operations, the company reduced headcount by about 10% in May. Klarna had hired hundreds of new employees over the course of 2020 and 2021 to capitalize on growth fueled by the effects of Covid-19.
“We’re going to return to profitability” by the summer of next year, Siemiatkowski told CNBC in an interview on the sidelines of the Slush technology conference last week. “We should be back to profitability on a month-by-month basis, not necessarily on an annual basis.”
The Stockholm-based startup saw 85% erased from its market value in a so-called “down round” earlier this year, taking the company’s valuation down from $46 billion to $6.7 billion, as investor sentiment surrounding tech shifted over fears of a higher interest rate environment.
Buy now, pay later firms, which allow shoppers to defer payments to a later date or pay over installments, have been particularly impacted by souring investor sentiment.
Siemiatkowski said the firm’s depressed valuation reflected a broader “correction” in fintech. In the public markets, PayPal has seen its shares slump more than 70% since reaching an all-time high in July 2021.
Siemiatkowski said the timing of the job cuts in May was fortunate for Klarna and its employees. Many workers would have been unable to find new jobs today, he added, as the likes of Meta and Amazon have laid off thousands and tech remains a competitive field.
“To some degree, all of us were lucky that we took that decision in May because, as we’ve been tracking the people who left Klarna behind, basically almost everyone got a job,” Siemiatkowski said.
“If we would have done that today, that probably unfortunately would not have been the case.”
His comments may raise eyebrows for former employees, some of whom reportedly said the layoffs were abrupt, unexpected and messily communicated. Klarna informed staff of the redundancies in a pre-recorded video message. Siemiatkowski also shared a list of the names of employees who were let go publicly on social media, sparking privacy concerns.
While Siemiatkowski admitted to making some “mistakes” around moves to keep costs under control, he stressed that he believed it was the right decision.
“I think to some degree actually, Klarna was ahead of the curve,” he said. “If you look at it now, there’s been tons of people who’ve been making similar decisions.”
“I think it’s a good sign that we faced reality, that we recognized what was going on, and that we took those decisions,” he added.
Siemiatkowski said there was some “insanity” caused by the competition among tech firms to attract the best talent. The job market was largely employee-driven, particularly in tech, as employers struggled to fill vacancies.
That trend is under threat now, however, as the threat of a looming recession has prompted employers to tighten their belts.
Earlier this month, Meta, Twitter and Amazon all announced they would lay off thousands of workers. Meta let go 11,000 of its employees, while Amazon parted with 10,000 workers. Under the reign of its new owner Elon Musk, Twitter laid off about half of its workforce.
The tech sector has been under pressure broadly amid rising interest rates, high inflation and the prospect of a global economic downturn.
But the mass layoff trend has been criticized by others in the industry. Julian Teicke, CEO of digital insurance startup Wefox, decried the wave of layoffs, telling CNBC in an interview that he’s “disgusted” by the disregard of some companies for their employees.
“I believe that CEOs have to do everything in their power to protect their employees,” he said in a separate interview at Slush. “I haven’t seen that in the tech industry. And I’m disgusted by that.”
A new report suggests that may not be the end of their worries, as the dismissal of employees could have a ripple-effect on those who remain in the company.
People analytics firm Visier found that employees are 7.7% more likely to leave after an “involuntary resignation” or termination occurs within their team, while 9.1% are more prone to resign if a team mate’s exit was voluntary.
This phenomenon is called “turnover contagion,” the report said, where workers quit their jobs because of their peers.
When a co-worker’s intentions to quit becomes obvious to others, their behaviors, thoughts and attitudes about their job and the company can become a trigger for others to re-evaluate their own employment situation.
The people analytics firm conducted an experiment across 86 organizations, with more than 1,000 employees around the world.
“Employee resignations are not isolated events, but happen in a social setting,” it added. Turnover in a team can also create disruption and frustration for remaining team members.
“Humans have a tendency to imitate other people,” Andrea Derler, Visier’s principal of research and value told CNBC Make It.
This is especially so in a hot job market, where employees receive more “pings from recruiters” than before, Derler added.
“[This] can provide the ideal breeding ground for turnover contagion as the interviewing process and learning more about potential other employers is made easier for employees.”
According to Visier, smaller teams are most at risk of turnover contagion. For example, employees who work on teams of 3 to 5 are 12.1% more likely to resign after a team member quits, compared to 14.5% for teams of 6 to 10, said the study.
That is due to “strong interdependencies” and personal relationships between co-workers in smaller teams, said Derler.
“Smaller teams may interact more frequently and get a better sense of each others’ shared experiences of the working conditions, the organization as a whole or even management — and of course, each other’s turnover intentions.”
Turnover contagion can last as long as 135 days, the report added, from the moment an employee voluntarily resigns.
For layoffs however, the contagion window is shortened to 105 days, it added.
Derler stressed that it’s “easy to get carried away” when team members resign and she recommends doing a proper evaluation of one’s own work situation before jumping the gun.
Some questions to help evaluate one’s own circumstances would be:
Do I feel engaged at work?
Can I support my current employer’s mission?
Can I balance my work with my life outside of work?
What is my perceived burnout status?
Do I feel fairly compensated and can I see a future for me at this company?
Is the driver for my thoughts and feelings about quitting influenced more by my peer who is leaving, or based on my own motivations?
While there are a multitude of personal, professional and economic reasons that can influence a person to quit, companies underestimate the impact that “one person’s resignation can have on their peer’s decision to leave or stay,” the report added.
For employers who are worried about losing more people to resignations, there are “pre-quitting behaviors” that they can look out for, according to Visier.
That includes decreased productivity, a lesser commitment to long-term timelines, or leaving early from work more frequently than usual.
“While line managers should always work on talent retention activities … it may be particularly important during the first five months after losing a team member to focus on career conversations, ‘stay-interviews,’ or the exploration of internal mobility opportunities to further engage remaining team members,” Visier said in its report.
Drought conditions are worsening in the U.S., and that is having an outsized impact on the real estate that houses the internet.
Data centers generate massive amounts of heat through their servers because of the enormous amount of power they use. Water is the cheapest and most common method used to cool the centers.
In just one day, the average data center could use 300,000 gallons of water to cool itself — the same water consumption as 100,000 homes, according to researchers at Virginia Tech who also estimated that one in five data centers draws water from stressed watersheds mostly in the west.
“There is, without a doubt, risk if you’re dependent on water,” said Kyle Myers, vice president of environmental health, safety & sustainability at CyrusOne, which owns and operates over 40 data centers in North America, Europe, and South America. “These data centers are set up to operate 20 years, so what is it going to look like in 2040 here, right?”
CyrusOne is formerly a REIT, but was purchased this year by investment firms KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners. When the company moved into the drought-stricken Phoenix area, it used a different, albeit more expensive method of cooling.
“That was sort of our ‘aha moment.’ where we had to make a decision. We changed our design to go to zero consumption water, so that we didn’t have that sort of risk,” said Myers.
Realizing the water risk in New Mexico, Meta, formerly known as Facebook, ran a pilot program on its Los Lunas data center to reduce relative humidity from 20% to 13%, lowering water consumption. It has since implemented this in all of its center.
But Meta’s overall water consumption is still rising steadily, with one fifth of that water last year coming from areas deemed to have “water stress,” according to its website. It does actively restore water and set a goal last year to restore more water than it consumes by 2030, starting in the west.
Microsoft has also set a goal to be “water positive” by 2030.
“The good news is we’ve been investing for years in ongoing innovation in this space so that fundamentally we can recycle almost all of the water we use in our data centers,” said Brad Smith, president of Microsoft. “In places where it rains, like the Pacific Northwest where we’re headquartered in Seattle, we collect rain from the roof. In places where it doesn’t rain like Arizona, we develop condensation techniques.”
While companies with their own data centers can do that, so-called co-location data centers that lease to multiple clients are increasingly being bought by private equity firms in search of high-growth real estate.
There are currently about ,1800 co-location data centers in the U.S., and that number is growing, as data centers are some of the hottest real estate around, offering big returns to investors. But the risk from drought is only getting worse. Just over half (50.46%) of the nation is in drought conditions, and over 60% of the lower 48 states, according to the latest reading from the U.S. Drought Monitor. That is a 9% increase from just one month ago. Much of the west and Midwest in ‘severe’ drought.
“We need to innovate our way out of the climate crisis. The better we innovate the cheaper it becomes, and the faster we’ll move to reaching these climate goals,” added Smith.
NEW YORK — The rapid collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX into bankruptcy last week has also shaken the world of philanthropy, due to the donations and influence of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried in the “effective altruism” movement.
The FTX Foundation — and other related nonprofits mostly funded by Bankman-Fried and other top FTX executives – says it has donated $190 million to numerous causes. Earlier this year, the foundation’s Future Fund announced plans to donate an additional $100 million, with hopes of donating up to $1 billion in 2022. Because of the bankruptcy, that won’t be happening now.
And donations to numerous nonprofits, even those that have already received money from groups related to Bankman-Fried, are now in doubt.
FTX, the hedge fund Alameda Research, and dozens of other affiliated companies sought bankruptcy protection in Delaware Friday after the exchange experienced the crypto equivalent of a bank run. Customers tried to remove billions of dollars from the exchange after becoming concerned about whether FTX had sufficient capital.
Bankman-Fried has resigned from the company. His net worth, estimated earlier this year at $24 billion, has all but evaporated, according to Forbes and Bloomberg, which closely track the net worth of the world’s richest people.
On Thursday night, FTX Future Fund’s leadership team resigned, warning grantees that they were unlikely to pay out promised funds.
“We are devastated to say that it looks likely that there are many committed grants that the Future Fund will be unable to honor,” the team wrote in a joint post in the Effective Altruism Forum. “We are so sorry that it has come to this.”
ProPublica, the investigative journalism nonprofit, said it has been told by Building a Stronger Future, a foundation funded by Bankman-Fried, that the remaining two-thirds of its $5 million grant to report on pandemic preparedness and biothreats is now on hold.
ProPublica received one-third of the grant in February and expected one-third annually until 2024. The nonprofit said Building a Stronger Future is assessing its finances and that it was talking to other funders about taking on some of its grant portfolio.
“Regardless of what happens with the remainder of the grant, we are deeply committed to this important work and the team we have assembled to pursue it,” the nonprofit said in a statement. “We will use other resources to make sure that work continues.”
Bankman-Fried, 30, is the best-known proponent of the “effective altruism” social movement which believes in prioritizing donations to projects that will have the largest impact on the most number of people. Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook and current Asana CEO and co-founder, and his wife Cari Tuna, are also major funders and backers of the movement, which also emphasizes that the lives of all people should be weighted equally, regardless of where they live now or if they will inhabit the earth generations in the future.
“I wanted to get rich, not because I like money but because I wanted to give that money to charity,” Bankman-Fried told an interviewer in a YouTube video called “ The Most Generous Billionaire,” published in January last year.
His ability to promote himself and FTX gave the exchange a higher profile than larger companies. FTX purchase the naming rights to the Miami Heat’s home arena last year, though Miami-Dade County decided Friday to terminate its relationship with the company and rename the arena. It purchased a buzzed-about ad during this year’s Super Bowl.
Bankman-Fried did set up a philanthropic infrastructure through his exchange, FTX, which promised that 1% of its crypto exchange fees would be donated to charities. It also matched user donations made through its platform up to $10,000 a day. In total, the company said more than $24 million was donated through user fees, donations and its matching program before it suspended its services.
Some “effective altruism” proponents advance the idea that making a lot of money is ethical as long as your goal is ultimately to give it away — sometimes shortened to “earning to give.” Bankman-Fried believed in this, signing The Giving Pledge in June as a promise that he would give away the majority of his wealth.
However, some now blame Bankman-Fried’s “effective altruism” mindset for FTX’s troubles.
“Either (‘effective altruism’) encouraged Sam’s unethical behavior, or provided a convenient rationalization for such actions,” tweeted Moskovitz, who has also signed The Giving Pledge. “Either is bad.”
William MacAskill, a philosophy professor at Oxford University and a co-founder of the “effective altruism” movement, condemned Bankman-Fried for allegedly misusing customer funds.
“Sam and FTX had a lot of goodwill,” MacAskill, who was also an unpaid advisor to the FTX Future Fund, wrote in a thread on Twitter. “And some of that goodwill was the result of association with ideas I have spent my career promoting. If that goodwill laundered fraud, I am ashamed.”
MacAskill’s book, “What We Owe The Future,” prompted a wave of media coverage of the “effective altruism” movement this summer.
Requests for comment were sent to the largest grantees listed on the FTX Future Fund’s website, including other “effective altruism” advocates like the Long-Term Future Fund and the Centre for Effective Altruism and Longview.
In an interview with The Associated Press in May, Nick Beckstead, the CEO of FTX Foundation until he resigned Thursday, said there were about five people working at the foundation and that they were still working out how the various philanthropic projects started by Bankman-Fried would be structured.
“It’s a bit shoestring,” he said.
The community grew out of the work of philosophers at Oxford, including MacAskill, and debates of the merits of approaches and proposals on forums reflect the high-flying thinking of its origins.
Beckstead acknowledged the community can be “strange and intense,” but also that its emphasis on quantifying impact helps decide where to direct donations. Beckstead did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“What is the cost per life saved or what is the cost per quality adjusted life year from this kind of activity?,” he previously said were some of the questions he likes to try to answer, drawing on input from subject matter experts.
—————
Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.
From the FTX bankruptcy and downfall of crypto “rock star” Sam Bankman-Fried to the chaos at Twitter, it has not been a good week for the geniuses of capitalism. Elon Musk’s abrupt and in some cases already reversed decisions since taking over the social media company back up his contention that so far his tenure “isn’t boring,” but also expose the type of corporate governance issues that are too often repeated to the detriment of shareholders.
“Without a doubt, Sam Bankman-Fried is a genius,” said Yale School of Management leadership guru Jeffrey Sonnenfeld in an interview with CNBC’s “Taking Stock” on Thursday. “But what’s hard is that somebody has to be able to put on the brakes on them and ask them questions. But when they develop one of these emperor-for-life models … then you really don’t have accountability,” Sonnenfeld said.
Few would doubt the genius of Elon Musk, or Mark Zuckerberg, for that matter, but few would put them in the same class with many companies that have failed spectacularly, though Sonnenfeld says they share the link of being allowed to operate without enough corporate oversight.
“It’s not crazy to talk about Theranos, or WeWork, Groupon, MySpace, WebMD, or Naptster – so many companies that fall off the cliff because they didn’t have proper governance, they didn’t figure out, how do you get the best of a genius?” Sonnenfeld said.
In the case of Bankman-Fried, who stepped down from his CEO role at FTX as the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday, Sonnenfeld pointed to the lack of a board that should have been asking tough questions.
Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images
But boards are often unable to manage genius, Sonnenfeld said. Zuckerberg is another example. When Meta, formerly Facebook, announced it would be shifting its focus to the metaverse last year, Sonnenfeld said his board members were essentially powerless. Meta laid off 11,000 of its employees this week and announced a hiring freeze as it has faced declining revenue and increased spending on a metaverse bet that Zuckerberg has said may not pay off for a decade.
Musk (though not Tesla’s founder) and Zuckerberg oversaw the creation of two trillion-dollar companies, though both have now lost that market-cap status in stock declines caused by a variety of factors — from macroeconomic conditions to sector-specific risks, a market valuation reset for high growth companies, and also leadership decisions.
Market research shows that founders can be a financial risk to company value over time. Founder-led companies have been found to outperform those with non-founder leaders in early year, according to a study from the Harvard Business Review that examined the financial performance of more than 2,000 public businesses, but virtually no difference appears three years after the company’s IPO. After this time, the study found that founder-CEOs “actually start detracting from firm value.”
Major players in Elon Musk’s Twitter deal, including Fidelity Investments, Brookfield Asset Management and former Twitter CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey, did not take a seat on the company’s board or have a voice throughout the transaction, Sonnenfeld said, which gave the deal no oversight. Musk is now splitting his time between six separate companies: Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity/Tesla Energy, Twitter, Neuralink and The Boring Company.
Companies led by lone geniuses need strong governance first and foremost. Sonnenfeld says having built-in checks and balances and a board that has field expertise as well as the ability to watch out for mission creep is critical to allowing these businesses to function with less risk of costly blunders.
Tesla and Meta governance scores within ESG rankings have long reflected this risk.
That doesn’t mean the market doesn’t need geniuses.
“Sure, we’re better off with Elon Musk in this world as we are better off with Mark Zuckerberg,” Sonnenfeld said. “But they can’t be alone.”
Through the recent issues, these under-fire leaders have been critical of themselves.
FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried tweeted Thursday morning that he is “sorry,” admitting that he “f—ed up” and “should have done better.”
Zuckerberg said of the mass layoffs at Meta in a statement equal parts apology and unintended restatement of the governance problem, “I take full responsibility for this decision. I’m the founder and CEO, I’m responsible for the health of our company, for our direction, and for deciding how we execute that, including things like this, and this was ultimately my call.”
Musk tweeted, “Please note that Twitter will do lots of dumb things in coming months.”
But whether an apology or an admission from genius that it too can be dumb on occasion, Sonnenfeld says these leaders would be better off letting others do the criticizing — much sooner, and much more often.
“They have to be managed, they have to be guided and they have to have a board that can help get the best out of themselves and not let them develop this imperial sense of invincibility,” he said.
Investors feeling giddy about last week’s sharp rally for stocks might want to give a listen to Tom Waits’ song, “Whistlin’ Past the Graveyard” from 1978, to sober up for the dangers that still lurk ahead.
The surge in stocks catapulted the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.92%
almost back to the 4,000 mark on Friday, also lifting it to the biggest weekly gain in roughly five months, according to Dow Jones Market Data.
“We are not convinced this is the beginning of a new bull market,” said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CRFA Research. “We believe that we are headed for recession. That has not been factored into earnings estimates and, therefore, share prices.”
Stovall also said the stock market has yet to see the “traditional shakeout of confidence capitulation that we typically see that marks the end of the bear markets.”
Yet, information technology stocks in the S&P 500 jumped 10% for the week, while financials, which stand to benefit from higher interest rates, rose 5.7%, according to FactSet.
That could reflect optimism about the odds of a slower pace of Federal Reserve rate hikes in the months ahead, after sharp rate rises helped to undermine valuations and pull tech stocks dramatically lower in the past year. However, Loretta Mester, president of the Cleveland Fed, and other Fed officials since the October inflation reading on Thursday have reiterated the need to keep rates high, until 7.7% annual rate finds a clearer path to the central bank’s 2% target.
The stock-market rally also might suggest that investors view continued mayhem in the crypto sector as contained, despite bitcoin BTCUSD, +0.42%
trading near its lowest level in two years and the shocking collapse in recent days of FTX, once the world’s third-largest cryptocurrency exchange.
Blows to the American economy rarely have been good for stocks. A look at seven past recessions, starting in 1969, shows declines for the S&P 500 as more typical than gains, with its most violent drop occurring in the 2007-2009 recession.
The more than 37% drop of the S&P 500 from 2007 to 2009 was the worst of its kind in a recession since the late 1960s.
Refinitiv data, London Stock Exchange Group
While a looming U.S. recession isn’t a foregone conclusion, CEOs of America’s biggest banks have been warning about the risks for months. JP Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon said in October that a “tough recession” could drag the S&P 500 down another 20%, even though he also said consumers were doing fine, for now.
Still, the steady stream of warnings about the recession odds have left many Americans confused and wondering if one can even happen without an increase in job losses.
Big moves lately in stocks also have been hard to decode, given the economy was shocked back to life in the pandemic by trillions of dollars in fiscal stimulus and easy-money policies from the Fed that are now being reversed.
“What I think goes unnoticed, certainly by the average person, is that these moves are not normal,” said Thomas Martin, senior portfolio manager at Globalt Investments, about stock swings this week.
“It’s all about who is positioned how — and for what — and how much leverage they’re employing,” Martin told MarketWatch. “You get these outsized moves when people are offside.”
Here’s a view of the sharp trajectory upward of the S&P 500 since 2010, but also its dramatic drop this year.
Sharp rise of S&P 500 since 2010, but recent fall
Refinitiv Datastream
While Martin isn’t ruling out the potential for a seasonal “Santa Claus” rally heading into year-end, he worries about a potential leg lower for stocks next year, particularly with the Fed likely to keep interest rates high.
“Certainly what’s being priced in now is either no recession or a very, very mild recession,” he said .
However, Kristina Hooper, Invesco’s chief global market strategist, said the overarching story might be one of stocks sniffing out the first steps in a path to economic recovery, and the Fed potentially stopping its rate hikes at a lower “terminal” rate than expected.
The Fed increased its benchmark interest rate to a 3.75% to 4% range in November, the highest in 15 years, but also has signaled it could top out near 4.5% to 4.75%.
“If often happens that you can see stocks do well, in a less-than-good economic environment,” she said.
The S&P 500 rose 4.2% for the week, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.10%
gained 5.9%, posting its best weekly gain since late June, according to Dow Jones Market Data. The Nasdaq Composite Index shot up 8.1% for the week, its best weekly stretch in seven months.
In U.S. economic data, investors will get an update on household debt on Tuesday, retail sales and homebuilder data on Wednesday, followed by jobless claims and housing starts data Thursday. Friday brings existing home sales.
An attendee wears a “Will Work for NFTs” shirt during the CoinDesk 2022 Consensus Festival in Austin, Texas, US, on Thursday, June 9, 2022. The festival showcases all sides of the blockchain, crypto, NFT, and Web 3 ecosystems, and their wide-reaching effect on commerce, culture, and communities.
Jordan Vonderhaar | Bloomberg | Getty Images
A year ago this week, investors were describing bitcoin as the future of money and ethereum as the world’s most important developer tool. Non-fungible tokens were exploding, Coinbase was trading at a record and the NBA’s Miami Heat was just into its first full season in the newly renamed FTX Arena.
As it turns out, that was peak crypto.
In the 12 months since bitcoin topped out at over $68,000, the two largest digital currencies have lost three-quarters of their value, collapsing alongside the riskiest tech stocks. The industry, once valued at roughly $3 trillion, now sits at around $900 billion.
Rather than acting as a hedge against inflation, which is near a 40-year high, bitcoin has proven to be another speculative asset that bubbles up when the evangelists are behind it and plunges when enthusiasm melts and investors get scared.
And the $135 million that FTX spent last year for a 19-year deal with the Heat? The crypto exchange with the naming rights is poised to land in the history books alongside another brand that once had its logo on a sports facility: Enron.
In a blink this week, FTX sank from a $32 billion valuation to the brink of bankruptcy as liquidity dried up, customers demanded withdrawals and rival exchange Binance ripped up its nonbinding agreement to buy the company. FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried admitted on Thursday that he “f—ed up.”
“Looking back now, the excitement and prices of assets were clearly getting ahead of themselves and trading far above any fundamental value,” said Katie Talati, director of research at Arca, an investment firm focused on digital assets. “As the downturn was so fast and violent, many have proclaimed that digital assets are dead.”
Whether crypto is forever doomed or will eventually rebound, as Talati expects, the 2022 bloodbath exposed the industry’s many flaws and served as a reminder to investors and the public why financial regulation exists. Bankruptcies have come fast and furious since midyear, leaving clients with crypto accounts unable to access their funds, and in some cases scrapping to retrieve pennies on the dollar.
If this is indeed the future of finance, it’s looking rather bleak.
Crypto was supposed to bring transparency. Transactions on the blockchain could all be tracked. We didn’t need centralized institutions — banks — because we had digital ledgers to serve as the single source of truth.
That narrative is gone.
“Speaking for the bitcoiners, we feel like we’re trapped in a dysfunctional relationship with crypto and we want out,” said Michael Saylor, executive chairman of MicroStrategy, a technology company that owns 130,000 bitcoins. “The industry needs to grow up and the regulators are coming into this space. The future of the industry is registered digital assets traded on regulated exchanges, where everyone has the investor protections they need.”
Saylor was speaking on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” as FTX’s demise roiled the crypto market. Bitcoin sank to a two-year low this week, before bouncing back on Thursday. Ethereum also tanked, and solana, another popular coin used by developers and touted by Bankman-Fried, fell by more than half.
Equities tied to crypto suffered, too. Crypto exchange Coinbase tumbled 20% over two days, while Robinhood, the trading app that counts Bankman-Fried as one of its biggest investors, fell by 30% during the same period.
There was already plenty of pain to go around. Last week, Coinbase reported a revenue plunge of more than 50% in the third quarter from a year earlier, and a loss of $545 million. In June, the crypto exchange slashed 18% of its workforce.
“We are actively updating and evaluating our scenario plans and prepared to reduce operating expenses further if market conditions worsen,” Alesia Haas, Coinbase’s finance chief, said on the Nov. 3 earnings call.
The downdraft started in late 2021. That’s when inflation rates started to spike and sparked concern that the Federal Reserve would begin hiking borrowing costs when the calendar turned. Bitcoin tumbled 19% in December, as investors rotated into assets deemed safer in a tumultuous economy.
The sell-off continued in January, with bitcoin falling 17% and ethereum plummeting 26%. David Marcus, former head of crypto at Facebook parent Meta, used a phrase that would soon enter the lexicon.
“It’s during crypto winters that the best entrepreneurs build the better companies,” Marcus wrote in a Jan. 24 tweet. “This is the time again to focus on solving real problems vs. pumping tokens.”
The crypto winter didn’t actually hit for a few months. The markets even briefly stabilized. Then, in May, stablecoins became officially unstable.
A stablecoin is a type of digital currency designed to maintain a 1-to-1 peg with the U.S. dollar, acting as a sort of bank account for the crypto economy and offering a sound store of value, as opposed to the volatility experienced in bitcoin and other digital currencies.
When TerraUSD, or UST, and its sister token called luna dove below the $1 mark, a different kind of panic set in. The peg had been broken. Confidence evaporated. More than $40 billion in wealth was wiped out in luna’s collapse. Suddenly it was as if nothing in crypto was safe.
The leading crypto currencies cratered, with bitcoin dropping 16% in a single week, putting it down by more than half from its peak six months earlier. On the macro front, inflation had shown no sign of easing, and the central bank remained committed to raising rates as much as would be required to slow the increase in consumer prices.
In June, the bottom fell out.
Lending platform Celsius paused withdrawals because of “extreme market conditions.” Binance also halted withdrawals, while crypto lender BlockFi slashed 20% of its workforce after more than quintupling since the end of 2020.
Prominent crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital, or 3AC, defaulted on a loan worth more than $670 million, and FTX signed a deal giving it the option to buy BlockFi at a fraction of the company’s last private valuation.
Bitcoin had its worst month on record in June, losing roughly 38% of its value. Ether plummeted by more than 40%.
Then came the bankruptcies.
Singapore-based 3AC filed for bankruptcy protection in July, just months after disclosing that it had $10 billion in assets. The firm’s risky strategy involved borrowing money from across the industry and then turning around and investing that capital in other, often nascent, crypto projects.
After 3AC fell, crypto brokerage Voyager Digital wasn’t far behind. That’s because 3AC’s massive default was on a loan from Voyager.
“We strongly believe in the future of the industry but the prolonged volatility in the crypto markets, and the default of Three Arrows Capital, require us to take this decisive action,” Voyager CEO Stephen Ehrlich said at the time.
Next was Celsius, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in mid-July. The company had been paying customers interest of up to 17% to store their crypto on the platform. It would lend those assets to counterparties willing to pay sky-high rates. The structure came crashing down as liquidity dried up.
Meanwhile, Bankman-Fried was making himself out to be an industry savior. The 30-year-old living in the Bahamas was poised to pick up the carnage and consolidate the industry, claiming FTX was in better position than its peers because it stashed away cash, kept overhead low and avoided lending. With a net worth that on paper had swelled to $17 billion, he personally bought a 7.6% stake in Robinhood.
SBF, as he’s known, was dubbed by some as “the JPMorgan of crypto.” He told CNBC’s Kate Rooney in September that the company had in the neighborhood of $1 billion to spend on bailouts if the right opportunities emerged to keep key players afloat.
“It’s not going to be good for anyone long term if we have real pain, if we have real blowouts, and it’s not fair to customers and it’s not going to be good for regulation. It’s not going to be good for anything,” Bankman-Fried said. “From a longer-term perspective, that’s what was important for the ecosystem, it’s what was important for customers and it’s what was important for people to be able to operate in the ecosystem without being terrified that unknown unknowns were going to blow them up somehow.”
It’s almost as if Bankman-Fried was describing his own fate.
FTX’s lightning-fast descent began this past weekend after Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao tweeted that his company was selling the last of its FTT tokens, the native currency of FTX. That followed an article on CoinDesk, pointing out that Alameda Research, Bankman-Fried’s hedge fund, held an outsized amount of FTT on its balance sheet.
Not only did Zhao’s public pronouncement cause a plunge in the price of FTT, it led FTX customers to hit the exits. Bankman-Fried said in a tweet Thursday that FTX clients on Sunday demanded roughly $5 billion of withdrawals, which he called “the largest by a huge margin.” Lacking the reserves to cover the virtual bank run, FTX turned to Zhao for help.
Binance announced a nonbinding agreement to acquire FTX on Tuesday, in a deal that would’ve been so catastrophic for FTX that equity investors were expecting to be wiped out. But Binance reversed course a day later, saying that FTX’s “issues are beyond our control or ability to help.”
Bankman-Fried has since been scrambling for billions of dollars in an effort to stay out of bankruptcy. He says he’s also been working to maintain liquidity so clients can get their money out.
Venture firm Sequoia Capital, which first backed FTX in 2021 at an $18 billion valuation, said it was marking its $213.5 million investment in FTX “down to 0.” Multicoin Capital, a crypto investment firm, told limited partners on Tuesday that while it was able to retrieve about one-quarter of its assets from FTX, the funds still stranded there represented 15.6% of the fund’s assets, and there’s no guarantee it will all be recouped.
Additionally, Multicoin said it’s taking a hit because its largest position is in solana, which was tumbling in value because it “was generally considered to be within SBF’s sphere of influence.” The firm said it’s sticking to its thesis and looking for assets that can “outperform market beta across market cycles.”
“We are not short term or momentum traders, and we do not operate on short time horizons,” Multicoin said. “Although this situation is painful, we are going to remain focused on our strategy.”
It won’t be easy.
Ryan Gilbert, founder of fintech venture firm Launchpad Capital, said the crypto world is facing a crisis of confidence after the FTX implosion. While it was already a tumultuous year for crypto, Gilbert said Bankman-Friedman was a trusted leader who was comfortable representing the industry on Capitol Hill.
In a market without a central bank, an insurer or any institutional protections, trust is paramount.
“It’s a question of, can trust exist at all in this industry at this stage of the game?” Gilbert said in an interview Thursday. “To a large extent the concept of trust is as bankrupt as some of these companies.”
Meta is laying off 13% of its staff, or more than 11,000 employees, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a letter to employees Wednesday.
“Today I’m sharing some of the most difficult changes we’ve made in Meta’s history,” Zuckerberg said in the letter. “I’ve decided to reduce the size of our team by about 13% and let more than 11,000 of our talented employees go. We are also taking a number of additional steps to become a leaner and more efficient company by cutting discretionary spending and extending our hiring freeze through Q1.”
Shares of Meta were up about 4% in premarket trading.
The layoffs come amid a tough time for Facebook parent company Meta, which provided lukewarm guidance in late October for its upcoming fourth-quarter earnings that spooked investors and caused its shares to sink nearly 20%.
Investors have been concerned about Meta’s rising costs and expenses, which jumped 19% year over year in the third quarter to $22.1 billion. The company’s overall sales declined 4% to $27.71 billion in the quarter while its operating income dropped 46% from the previous year to $5.66 billion.
“I want to take accountability for these decisions and for how we got here. I know this is tough for everyone, and I’m especially sorry to those impacted.” Zuckerberg said.
He said Meta is making reductions in every organization but that recruiting will be disproportionately affected since the company plans to hire fewer people in 2023. The company extended its hiring freeze through the first quarter with a few exceptions, Zuckerberg said.
“This is a sad moment, and there’s no way around that. To those who are leaving, I want to thank you again for everything you’ve put into this place,” he added.
Impacted employees will receive 16 weeks of pay plus two additional weeks for every year of service, Zuckerberg said. Meta will cover health insurance for six months.
Meta is heavily investing in the metaverse, which generally refers to a yet-to-be developed digital world that can be accessed by virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. This hefty bet has cost Meta $9.4 billion so far in 2022, and the company anticipates that losses “will grow significantly year-over-year.”
Zuckerberg said during a call with analysts as part of its third-quarter earnings report that Meta plans to “focus our investments on a small number of high priority growth areas” during the next year.
“That means some teams will grow meaningfully, but most other teams will stay flat or shrink over the next year,” Zuckerberg said. “In aggregate, we expect to end 2023 as either roughly the same size, or even a slightly smaller organization than we are today.”
Meta counts more than 87,000 employees as of the end of September.
Here’s Mark Zuckerberg’s letter to employees:
“Today I’m sharing some of the most difficult changes we’ve made in Meta’s history. I’ve decided to reduce the size of our team by about 13% and let more than 11,000 of our talented employees go. We are also taking a number of additional steps to become a leaner and more efficient company by cutting discretionary spending and extending our hiring freeze through Q1.
I want to take accountability for these decisions and for how we got here. I know this is tough for everyone, and I’m especially sorry to those impacted.
How did we get here?
At the start of Covid, the world rapidly moved online and the surge of e-commerce led to outsized revenue growth. Many people predicted this would be a permanent acceleration that would continue even after the pandemic ended. I did too, so I made the decision to significantly increase our investments. Unfortunately, this did not play out the way I expected. Not only has online commerce returned to prior trends, but the macroeconomic downturn, increased competition, and ads signal loss have caused our revenue to be much lower than I’d expected. I got this wrong, and I take responsibility for that.
In this new environment, we need to become more capital efficient. We’ve shifted more of our resources onto a smaller number of high priority growth areas — like our AI discovery engine, our ads and business platforms, and our long-term vision for the metaverse. We’ve cut costs across our business, including scaling back budgets, reducing perks, and shrinking our real estate footprint. We’re restructuring teams to increase our efficiency. But these measures alone won’t bring our expenses in line with our revenue growth, so I’ve also made the hard decision to let people go.
How will this work?
There is no good way to do a layoff, but we hope to get all the relevant information to you as quickly as possible and then do whatever we can to support you through this.
Everyone will get an email soon letting you know what this layoff means for you. After that, every affected employee will have the opportunity to speak with someone to get their questions answered and join information sessions.
Some of the details in the US include:
Severance. We will pay 16 weeks of base pay plus two additional weeks for every year of service, with no cap.
PTO. We’ll pay for all remaining PTO time.
RSU vesting. Everyone impacted will receive their November 15, 2022 vesting.
Health insurance. We’ll cover the cost of healthcare for people and their families for six months.
Career services. We’ll provide three months of career support with an external vendor, including early access to unpublished job leads.
Immigration support. I know this is especially difficult if you’re here on a visa. There’s a notice period before termination and some visa grace periods, which means everyone will have time to make plans and work through their immigration status. We have dedicated immigration specialists to help guide you based on what you and your family need.
Outside the US, support will be similar, and we’ll follow up soon with separate processes that take into account local employment laws.
We made the decision to remove access to most Meta systems for people leaving today given the amount of access to sensitive information. But we’re keeping email addresses active throughout the day so everyone can say farewell.
While we’re making reductions in every organization across both Family of Apps and Reality Labs, some teams will be affected more than others. Recruiting will be disproportionately affected since we’re planning to hire fewer people next year. We’re also restructuring our business teams more substantially. This is not a reflection of the great work these groups have done, but what we need going forward. The leaders of each group will schedule time to discuss what this means for your team over the next couple of days.
The teammates who will be leaving us are talented and passionate, and have made an important impact on our company and community. Each of you have helped make Meta a success, and I’m grateful for it. I’m sure you’ll go on to do great work at other places.
What other changes are we making?
I view layoffs as a last resort, so we decided to rein in other sources of cost before letting teammates go. Overall, this will add up to a meaningful cultural shift in how we operate. For example, as we shrink our real estate footprint, we’re transitioning to desk sharing for people who already spend most of their time outside the office. We’ll roll out more cost-cutting changes like this in the coming months.
We’re also extending our hiring freeze through Q1 with a small number of exceptions. I’m going to watch our business performance, operational efficiency, and other macroeconomic factors to determine whether and how much we should resume hiring at that point. This will give us the ability to control our cost structure in the event of a continued economic downturn. It will also put us on a path to achieve a more efficient cost structure than we outlined to investors recently.
I’m currently in the middle of a thorough review of our infrastructure spending. As we build our AI infrastructure, we’re focused on becoming even more efficient with our capacity. Our infrastructure will continue to be an important advantage for Meta, and I believe we can achieve this while spending less.
Fundamentally, we’re making all these changes for two reasons: our revenue outlook is lower than we expected at the beginning of this year, and we want to make sure we’re operating efficiently across both Family of Apps and Reality Labs.
How do we move forward?
This is a sad moment, and there’s no way around that. To those who are leaving, I want to thank you again for everything you’ve put into this place. We would not be where we are today without your hard work, and I’m grateful for your contributions.
To those who are staying, I know this is a difficult time for you too. Not only are we saying goodbye to people we’ve worked closely with, but many of you also feel uncertainty about the future. I want you to know that we’re making these decisions to make sure our future is strong.
I believe we are deeply underestimated as a company today. Billions of people use our services to connect, and our communities keep growing. Our core business is among the most profitable ever built with huge potential ahead. And we’re leading in developing the technology to define the future of social connection and the next computing platform. We do historically important work. I’m confident that if we work efficiently, we’ll come out of this downturn stronger and more resilient than ever.
We’ll share more on how we’ll operate as a streamlined organization to achieve our priorities in the weeks ahead. For now, I’ll say one more time how thankful I am to those of you who are leaving for everything you’ve done to advance our mission.
Mark”
Watch: Meta has to go back to their core advertising business and double down.
An avatar of Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., speaks during the virtual Meta Connect event in New York, US, on Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2022.
Michael Nagle | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Facebook parent Meta could begin large-scale layoffs as soon as Wednesday, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.
The layoffs are expected to impact thousands of employees, the report said, and the move would mark the first major headcount reduction in Meta’s history. At the end of September, the company reported that it had more than 87,000 employees.
A representative for Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Meta shares plummeted 73% this year, falling to their lowest since early 2016, and the social media giant is now the worst performer in the S&P 500 in 2022.
–CNBC’s Jonathan Vanian contributed to this report.
The Satori Fund founder Dan Niles shares his macro analysis of the large-cap tech sector, when he thinks the market will hit the bottom, and which names he thinks are poised to rebound going into 2023.
NEW YORK — Instagram said it was working on an issue that left a seemingly large number of users locked out of their accounts Monday morning.
Some users reported seeing a message that they were locked out but were still able to scroll through their feeds. Others posting on Twitter said they were completely shut out. Some reported that their number of followers dropped, presumably because those accounts were locked.
The number of people complaining of being locked out of their accounts began to spike around 8:30 a.m. Eastern.
It was unclear whether the problem was an internal issue or whether the social media site had been hacked.
“We are aware that some Instagram users in different parts of the world are having issues accessing their Instagram accounts,” said a spokesperson for Meta. “We’re working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and apologize for the inconvenience.”
Users flooded social media platforms about the issue and Instagram acknowledged the problem on Twitter at 10:14 a.m. Eastern. In a couple of hours, the tweet had received more than 14,000 comments and was retweeted more than 40,000 times.
In this photo illustration, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s archived Twitter account is shown on a phone screen with the Twitter logo in the background.
Sheldon Cooper | Lightrocket | Getty Images
A decade ago, Twitter’s future was looking bright. The company was benefiting from a flood of funding into the social-networking space, eventually leading to an IPO in 2013 that raised $1.8 billion.
Now the company is back in private hands. And they happen to be the hands of Elon Musk, the richest person in the world and one of the app’s most high-profile provocateurs.
It’s a massive moment. Twitter has become a key place for people to debate, joke and pontificate in their own circles of politics, sports, tech and finance. It’s also served as a platform that gives voice to the voiceless, helping protesters organize and express themselves in repressed regimes around the world.
In recent years, however, Twitter and social media rivals like Facebook have been at the center of controversy over the distribution of fake news and misinformation, sometimes leading to bullying and violence.
Investors had grown concerned about Twitter as a business. The company was generally unprofitable, struggled to keep pace with Google and Facebook, and often killed popular products with no real explanation.
What follows is a brief history of Twitter, which — despite its many flaws — is one of the most iconic companies to come out of Silicon Valley in the past 20 years.
2006
In March, Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams created Twitter, which was originally a side project stemming from the podcasting tool Odeo. That month, Dorsey would send the first Tweet that read, “just setting up my twttr.”
2007
In July, Twitter received a $100,000 Series A funding round led by Union Square Ventures. The app’s popularity started to explode after being heavily promoted by the tech community during the annual South by Southwest conference.
2008
Dorsey stepped down as CEO in October, and was replaced by Williams. According to the book “Hatching Twitter” by journalist Nick Bilton, Twitter’s board fired Dorsey over concerns about the executive’s management style and public boastings.
2009
Twitter’s popularity continued to soar, leading to a high-profile appearance from Williams on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show alongside celebrity Ashton Kutcher. Kutcher would also write about Williams and Stone as part of Time Magazine’sTime 100 issue. Twitter was now a mainstream phenomenon.
2010
Twitter reached space, with NASA Astronaut Timothy Creamer sending the first tweet live from outer orbit. Behind the scenes, however, management woes continued with Williams stepping down as CEO, replaced by operating chief Dick Costolo.
2011
Twitter became an essential social media tool used during the Arab Spring, the wave of antigovernmental protests throughout Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Protesters used the site to post reports and to organize. As the Pew Research Center noted, Twitter’s role in “disseminating breaking news” was not “not limited to the Arab uprisings – the death of Whitney Houston, for example, was announced on Twitter 55 minutes prior to the AP confirming the story.”
2012
Twitter’s reach expanded to 200 million active users. Barack Obama used the “platform to first declare victory publicly in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, with a Tweet that was viewed approximately 25 million times on our platform and widely distributed offline in print and broadcast media,” according to corporate filings.
2013
Twitter went public in November. The combined wealth of Williams, Dorsey, and Costolo hit roughly $4 billion.
“I think we’ve got a tremendous set of thoughts and strategies to increase the slope of the growth curve,” Costolo told CNBC at the time. “I would consider some of them tactics, some of them broader strategies, in service of doing what I referred to as bridge the gap between the massive awareness of Twitter and deep engagement of the platform.”
2014
Slowing user growth led to several stock drops and analyst downgrades. Twitter also deemed 2014 the year of the “selfie.”
2015
Compared to rivals like Google, Facebook, and even LinkedIn, Twitter was starting to look like the runt of the Internet litter. Twitter was still unprofitable as its ad business struggled mightily against its larger competitors. Dorsey would also return as CEO of the company, while still maintaining the top job at his other company, Square (now Block).
2016
Rumors began circulating that Twitter was looking to be acquired, with Salesforce as a potential suitor. Meanwhile, Twitter and Facebook were criticized for their role in letting prominent users like Donald Trump, who would win the U.S. presidential election that year, spread misleading information without consequence.
“Having the president-elect on our service using it as a direct line of communication allows everyone to see what is on his mind in the moment,” Dorsey said at the time. “We’re definitely entering a new world where everything is on the surface and we can all see that in real time and we can have conversations about it.”
2017
For a moment, Twitter appeared to be on the upswing. Its stock was finally trending upward as the company’s finances were improving. Meanwhile, Trump as president continued to use Twitter as his megaphone. According to Twitter’s own data, “Trump was the most-tweeted-about global leader in the world and in the United States” that year, CNBC reported.
2018
Dorsey and Facebook’s then-operating chief Sheryl Sandberg testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about alleged interference by Russia-linked actors in the 2016 election. Trump and fellow Republicans became increasingly vocal about alleged political bias by Twitter and other social media sites.
“In fact, from a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the platform,” Dorsey said at the time.
2019
Analysts found correlations between President Trump’s voracious use of Twitter and various markets, including gold, underscoring the cultural power of Twitter. Trump met with Dorsey — a Twitter spokesperson said “Jack had a constructive meeting with the President of the United States today at the president’s invitation.”
“They discussed Twitter’s commitment to protecting the health of the public conversation ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections and efforts underway to respond to the opioid crisis,” the spokesperson said.
2020
As Covid-19 spread across the globe, the spread of misinformation dominated the online conversation. And Twitter continued to struggle to grow its business. The service was also hacked that year, and miscreants gained access to over a dozen high-profile accounts, including those controlled by Joe Biden, Jeff Bezos, and Musk
2021
Twitter permanently banned Trump over inflammatory comments the president made during the U.S. Capitol riots in January that the company said could lead to “further incitement of violence.” Trump would allege that Twitter workers “coordinated with the Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me.” Later, Dorsey suddenly stepped down as CEO and was replaced by Parag Agrawal, the company’s chief technology officer.
2022
Musk took over Twitter after a protracted legal spat that would have culminated this week in a trial in Delaware’s Court of Chancery. The Tesla CEO agreed in April to pay $44 billion for Twitter, but then attempted to renege on the deal. He changed course and opted to proceed, walking into the company’s San Francisco office on Wednesday with what appeared to be a porcelain bathroom sink in his hands.
“Entering Twitter HQ – let that sink in!” he tweeted, with a video of his entrance.
Musk immediately began making changes, firing Agrawal, finance head Ned Segal, and head of legal policy Vijaya Gadde.