저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
한줄결론: 박스(Box)를 AI 시대의 최상위 수혜 기업으로 꼽았고, 대형 기술주와 데이터 프라이버시 문제에 대한 견해를 밝힌 2018년 인터뷰 영상이다. 박스 투자 근거: 아마존·구글 다음으로 AI 수혜주로 박스를 선택했고, 드롭박스보다 기업 침투율이 깊다고 주장했다. 박스 근거 수치: 시가총액 약 33억 달러이며, 포춘 500·1000 기업 약 70% 침투율을 언급했다. 이탈률(churn)이 매우 낮아 상위 10% 수준이라고 평가했다. 박스 성장 전망: 10년 내 10배 성장(약 30억 달러 규모)이 가능하다고 봤고, 저평가 상태라 안전마진이 크다고 말했다. 대형 기술주 평가: 아마존 3조 달러 기업 전망과 테슬라 투자 아이디어를 과거 성공 사례로 언급했다. 데이터·프라이버시: 빅데이터 수집은 AI의 위협 요인이며, 무료 서비스 사용자는 고객이 아니라 상품일 수 있다고 주장했다. 정부 규제 강화가 예상된다고 봤다. 구글 평가: 구글은 사용자 실명을 직접 알기 어려워 페이스북·애플 등과 달리 개인 식별 수준이 낮다고 구분했다. 시장 리스크: 대형주는 우수하지만 AI 확산으로 레거시 산업에서 일자리 감소와 시가총액 하락, 일부 기업 소멸이 예상된다고 경고했다. 페이스북: 셰릴 샌드버그 관련 발언과 함께 페이스북 공매도에는 기술적 이유보다 사용자 성장과 수익 구조 변화를 봐야 한다며 반대 입장을 밝혔다. 기타: 과거 스포츠 베팅 성과(SWN, 골든스테이트 워리어스)를 언급했다. 투자 원칙으로 좋은 사업은 팔지 않는 것을 강조했다.
다듬은 글
Did you tell Aaron Levy that this would happen? I said. So he knew. He really knew. OK. Because he must have been sitting there thinking, " Great." So your previous best ideas were: Amazon is going to be a three trillion dollar company, Tesla, and now Box, which is tiny compared to these guys, you think is in the upper echelons of the best- positioned companies right now.” Yes, absolutely.
I mean, the wording I used was this: if you're interested in artificial intelligence and you think it's going to be valuable to the world in the future, and I think it is, then there are only a few companies you can belong to. Amazon and Google are obvious ones . And then, after sorting through what else was around, we found Box.
What about Dropbox, which just went public? It is bigger. Hmm, but don't they have the same benefits as Box? Yes, Dropbox is a great company, and Drew is a good friend of mine. But I would tell you that Box has much deeper penetration into the enterprise sector . And when you talk about customers who are repeat customers and willing to pay millions of dollars or potentially tens of millions of dollars a year on a predictable basis, it's usually not consumers, but large companies and Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies, I think, with almost 70% penetration.
So you think this will be permanent. It's not like , you know, I'm familiar with this, you know, companies need someone to manage things in the cloud, and so maybe Box came out first, but maybe Dropbox looks good tomorrow, or maybe one of the other cloud providers. Why can't someone just come there?
That's a great question. I mean, when you think about how persistent something is, the most important thing to look at is a concept called churn, which is how quickly people leave a service. And, uh , specifically, you can look at the companies that are leaving the service, or the amount of dollars that you are losing.
And by any of these metrics, Box is phenomenal. This is probably the highest decile in terms of its ability to retain customers and increase revenue. So it's an incredibly complicated thing when, after a decision is made, it takes a very long time to reverse it. How big do you think Fox can become or how valuable, how good an investment do you think this company is?
Well, it's a $ 3.3 billion company that I think has a huge margin of safety. This is one of the cheapest stocks. It is growing at an incredibly fast pace. And I tend to think when I think about these companies, can they grow 10x in 10 years? And I think that's also possible. So you think it can grow from $3 billion to $30 billion?
In 10 years, I think it's possible. Wow. OK. Maybe someone will come and attack. I mean, they would be an attractive acquisition target initially, or I think that, uh, you're probably right, as people look at how they expand into AI. Um, a lot of these big Fortune 500 companies will tell you who I can buy to get a foothold in this market, and at the applied level of AI, these guys are going to be, um, some of the best.
Let's talk about artificial intelligence for a minute, because when you were talking earlier, I was reminded , um, that a lot of AI is powered by big data, and what is big data? Well, it's the need to aggregate all of our personal information that's causing a lot of backlash right now. So, is privacy a threat to big data and a threat to AI?
Is there any way for all of this to coexist? This is a huge threat. And I think we need to think about it this way. Um, when someone gives you free software or someone gives you something for free in general, you, the consumer, I think you have to ask yourself, am I a customer? And when I'm a customer, I have rights.
So think about, for example, when you buy a car, right? You give money. Ford gives you a great car, but they also give you a warranty. There are laws that protect you and so on. But if you're not actually paying anything, I think we have to be really open to the idea that maybe we're not really the customer, but actually part of the product itself.
And in this context, I suspect that governments will have to get more involved to create proper protective barriers. They think about the well-being of citizens, and then create laws and regulations that allow us to look at data privacy differently. So let me ask you about Google, which you singled out as one of the companies that will benefit from this whole shift to AI.
Today, the magazine calls Google perhaps worse than Facebook when it comes to data collection. And we're just not that aware of it , and we're not blaming him for 2016 or anything like that. Um, if that's the case, then I as a user am saying that I don't want them to have all this information or all this power, or, you know, regulators coming in , it's an existential threat to Google in achieving what you think it can achieve.
I think it's important to make sure that when we talk about data privacy, we try to figure out who knows what , and in the case of Google, the reality is that they don't actually know who you are. They can know the location of the phone. They may know a random email address . They may know a bunch of search queries associated with an IP address.
But it's very difficult for them to actually know your first and last name. In fact, it's just a few companies, Apple, Facebook, and a few others. So you think the difference is that those companies that actually know us as a person with that name. And you don't think Google is one of them? I think there's a hierarchy to this, and I think that, uh, we can ask a pretty logical question about who knows these kinds of things.
You know, the IRS knows your first name, last name, and address. Uh, other government agencies know, state and local police. Uh, as for private business, there are only a few who know. And so I think that when regulators, governments, etc. really get the hang of this, the same requirements and protections that they demand from others, they will demand from these companies as well.
So what do you think about these... let's go back to the markets for a second and some of the ideas, the companies that you like. Are there any big pitfalls that you see? You know, maybe some of these companies that have become so big, so beloved, especially recently, and that you feel like they're just not there anymore?
Hmm, no, I think most of these large- cap companies are memorable for a reason. They have phenomenal business models; all of them have phenomenal MSEs. Hmm, these are all great businesses run by great teams. However, I think where they become successful or continue to accumulate success, it probably makes sense to take a step back and start asking yourself: where are the other markets with legacy businesses that can't adopt the same technology?
Hmm, how are they positioned? And I think that's where you're going to see a lot of job destruction, unfortunately, if we're not careful. You will definitely see a significant drop in value and market capitalization. And you'll see some truly iconic companies disappear over the next few decades. And I think this is really the moment where we need to have a different type of conversation, which is about how we can better distribute these gains so that we can preserve jobs, so that we can actually raise wages, and we can be more humane in how we build economic momentum.
Two quick last questions for you. First, regarding Facebook: when was the last time you spoke to Sheryl Sandberg? Uh, I actually saw her last weekend, and how do you know what you think about it? Um, I think these guys are doing the right thing. I think they work to support privacy. They are trying to figure this out.
This is really hard work. She is very thin. Um, but they're trying really hard, and I think they'll figure it out. Did you hear Jeff Gunlock say he would sell the stock short because he didn't like how Zuckerberg's appearance on the Hill went? Yes, I think if you're going to short Facebook, you're going to have to do it, probably not just for technical reasons.
Honestly, I think you have to understand other things that, frankly, aren't there yet in this business. There is a dynamic user business. There is a dynamic growth in income. And until those things change, I just mean we can agree to disagree. Last question, since we have seen the success of some of your previous elections.
What made you more money? Uh, your picks for SWN or the Golden State Warriors over the last few years? Uh, I mean, the honest answer is the SN pick because the dollar amount is bigger, but, um, the Golden State Warriors, I would say, are catching up to them. When and where do you sell? I mean, you have to know when to buy, but you also have to know when to sell .
You know, I really believe in this idea of Buffett's that if you buy a really good business, the best thing you can do is never go back to it . And this applies to the basketball team as well. Yes. Actually, the reason I would tell you this is because I think in a world where we're all constantly in front of our phones, things that give us a connection to the people around us, things that physically bring us together in a certain environment, have a huge premium value.
And one of those things is sports. Yes. Movies can do that. Potentially, music can do this, but I would put sports at the top of the hierarchy in terms of its ability to bring people together. Well , I know I'm rooting for him. First we need to get Steph Curry back in the lineup , okay? And then we'll see Chimat, thank you very much for your time today. Thank you. Chamat Paula Hapia joins us here at the Stone conference. .
Comments 0