Sequoia's Ravi Gupta: AI researchers are structurally underpaid, Zuck is assembling a team not a star, and great companies compound at 30% forever

the stream, Ravi. How are you doing? I'm so glad we were able to get some sleep. I hope you slept well. I was about to stay up all night debating you, but I said I'm gonna stop texting him because he's coming on the stream. We can have the debate live. Uh, how are you doing?

Are we even on different sides of the debate, man? I just feel like we might be we might even be agreeing. Although I I I'm sorry, I forgot my blazer. You guys are looking good. Yeah. No, no, no, no. It's all good. Uh, but first I have to ask you, uh, explain to me who is, uh, Lavar Ball.

By the way, I I I do maybe you guys can flash up the tweet because I I I don't have a lot of banger tweets, but this one was one where I wanted to email Elon if I had his email address and just kind of be like, I think the algo is broken. Lavar Ball is I I tweeted that I want to become the Lavar Ball of AI researchers.

Yes. And Lavar Ball is the father of three NBA players or two NBA players and another one. He has three sons, you know, uh Lonzo, LaMelo, and LiAngelo. and he's been very famous about like trying to make them into NBA players from birth. And he's a very he's kind of a blowhard. Yeah. And I have three sons.

And with some of these pay packages that are going out for the AI researchers, I said, you know, why would you mess around trying to make them NBA players? Like look, their genetics might lean a little bit more towards becoming AI researchers.

So I think the best thing my wife and I can do would be for me to become the Lavar Ball of AI researchers. And I tweeted this thing thinking that I'm going to get verality. TBPN's going to be talking about it. And I got like 13 likes and it was it was pretty painful. We did put it on the show.

I think uh you might have just underrated the fact that tech loves aesthetic the aesthetics of sports, but no one in tech actually understands sports. No, here here's here's the thing. Here's the thing.

uh the haze paradox which I created which is the idea that the the more funny that you think something is the less likely it is to go viral right because the thing that's going to be most funny to you is like super niche and just entirely dependent on what you find fascinating and interesting but that doesn't mean that the entire public will also I remember I posted paradox is true I mean I I was so disappointed yeah we I posted something that was like a very obscure reference to the fact that like Ben Thompson was on vacation this particular week and and it just completely flop because like people woring people broadly are not tracking Ben Thompson's vacation schedule like I am and and Jord had no John I I listen I think it might be that the algo was broken for those let's leave it there it's the yes we're built different us it's it's it's you algorithm um but but but let let's actually talk more serious seriously about like what the Lavar Ball of AI researchers would actually look like because uh we were kind of we we were talking about so there's these crazy trade deals that that are happening hundred million dollar offers uh are we going to see recruiters that can actually bring these people in the door get crazy salaries?

Is that the next wave that we're going to see? Are we going to see a recruiter go to a mag company get 10 million or something? Feels like it's founder mode. Yeah. feels like it's founder mode. And then the question I had for you was that you know who's really good at spotting AI researcher talent? Venture capitalists.

So are the venture capitalists going to get poached and they're going to say, "Hey, yeah, you're making a lot of money as a GP at a tier one venture firm, but you want to come over to Meta and start doing recruiting and just bring these folks right in here. We can pay them out like it's liquidity event on day one.

" So how how does this all shape out? I think that I I don't know how the recruiter take shapes out. I I guess my perspective on this is like I think that high performing people in Silicon Valley have probably been uh underpaid relative to their performance because of things like comp bands for a long time.

And I think that if you think about it, you know, comp bands imply that uh everyone within a certain level is producing within some range, right? You know, maybe one to twox of each other. And I think anyone who's ever worked in a business knows that like that's just not true.

like there are people that are that you would uh do anything to keep within a level and then there's other people it's like okay if they left like you know we'll deal with it and so I actually think that the high performers have been you know mistreated for a long time so I'm actually quite happy with this idea of like if you are really uniquely good I mean I'm talking like truly otherworldly good you should get paid like you're otherworldly good and I think that one of the things you and I were talking about last night John that I think is also relevant is like these aren't guaranteed contracts.

They're vesting every month. If someone if you think someone is life-changingly good and they turn out not to be life-changingly good, they don't have to work there anymore and you don't have to pay them anymore.

And so, I actually think that like I think that to me the big thing that you actually people have comp bands because they want harmony and they don't want to explain to somebody that somebody else is performing better.

If you're going to do this, I think all you have to be willing to do to the other person who's not getting paid like that is like, look, I might be wrong, but you're not producing like the $und00 million player.

And you might think you are, but you got to make it more obvious because we're going to have a few hundred million dollar players. And those $100 million players are changing the entire trajectory of what we're doing.

But yeah, like you know what, there's money in the banana stand if you want to go and produce like a hund00 million player. I guess my the one one thought on the Lavar Ball analogy is like a big question we've been kind of debating is will these same types of offers exist in 5 years, 10 years, will they exist in a year?

Is this his momentary blip? It's like Lavar Ball had his sons and Lavar Ball played basketball. I don't think he played in the NBA, but he knew that in 18 years he wanted his he wanted to be watching his sons play in the NBA, and he knew it'd be a pretty good job.

I think the big question now is, you know, how sustainable is it for uh top talent to be, you know, we've always joked on the show that that Tim Cook is felt underpaid, right?

running running the most important consumer tech company in the world uh making less than uh uh you know or making about the same as Otani who's hitting hitting a baseball which is important and good but it's around $75 million a year for Tim Cook's salary and one tariff negotiation going correctly is a $200 billion proposition on market cap easily like no one debates that that if he has a good conversation with the president he can save the company from losing 200 billion or add 200 billion in a quarter like pretty easily with because he's from such a high base.

It's a it's a multi- trillion dollar company. Yeah. So Jordy, I guess to your question, I don't know on the AI researcher side if this will still be the case in five years because I think the input to it is sort of like you believe that one of these people can change the trajectory of your company, right?

Even on like a scaled company, right? And I think that uh or they can make your investment in the capex you know that you're doing on the GPU side that you can make that more valuable. I think I don't know if that will exist in 5 years.

What I do believe will exist in five years is there will be somebody or a set of people that you believe can change the trajectory of your big company and those people are going to get paid a ton of money.

And I think that this is actually a good thing on that dimension which is making it more normal that excellence gets rewarded.

And I think that those of us who played sports in any form or fashion, when someone's playing more than you or getting paid more than you in the case of your professional, your reaction is not like that's not fair. It's like I need to play better.

And I think that this to me, if it normalizes sort of like excellence gets paid, that's great. But I think to your point, the real Lavar Ball move for me would be figuring out what the industry would be for my kids to go and enter in that will be getting these kinds of paychecks five or 10 years from now.

And like AI is not a bad bet, but maybe it's robotics. Yeah. No, no, no.

The other thing that's interesting is like one one of the the major promises of the industry is that eventually the AI agents themselves will get so good at AI research that that uh and they'll just copy and paste themselves, you know, billions of times and then then we won't even need humans.

So, it's like it's almost a call option on that future of like if you really just need to build the AI researcher, how much would you pay for an AI researcher that could build an AI researcher that you could copy and paste infinitely, right? The smartest person in our house is my wife.

And I did make a pitch to her of like, "Hey, listen. Why don't we think about you abandoning your medical practice and just go all in next 18 months, become like a baller AI researcher and try to get one of these packages?

" And she kind of looked at me like I was not as intelligent as some of the AI researchers, but I thought that was a good idea. Um, yeah, it's hilarious.

Uh, I want to tussle a little bit more with uh the comparison and actually how comp works as a founder versus an AI researcher versus an NBA player because NBA players have uh these these locked contracts where even if they underperform, they might be still getting $10 million a year.

Uh if they overperform, they might be underpaid for a little bit, but then they can enter free agency, re renegotiate. um even even if they and then there is some variability on top with like the signing like the sponsorship deals. So you might be underpaid but monetizing very well with a Nike shoe deal for example.

Uh on the founder side, it's kind of like feast or famine, but you have this uncapped upside. With the with the AI researchers, you have yeah, you you have the ability to like get fired, but you don't have as much of a clear signal on the impact.

Or maybe maybe I'm misunderstanding that, but if I think about there is there going to be what like 50 50 key players on the super intelligence team at Meta. This is a tens of thousands of employees, trillions of dollars in market cap. Like it's very hard to say this researcher moved the market cap this much.

They justified that hundred million as opposed to if you hit the winning three-pointer, it's very clear you won the game and we can look at your stats specifically in your contribution. You can do moneyball very easily.

Uh and in the founder seat, you know, it's like, yeah, you hired the key people, you got the sales contract, you raised the next round, you added, you took the company from a hund00 million in uh, you know, series A post to a billion dollar unicorn.

You should get all that credit, all that credit, and you should get that financial upside. And so it feels like it's a little bit squishier, but do you think that there will be more moneyball applied to this?

Do you think that we'll just see kind of massive churn based on vibes like hey you came in couple months didn't do anything that crazy or there will be more like internal politics to make sure you're justifying that massive salary once you get in.

And then last question is kind of like the the idea of jelling these teams. You know the the example we heard previously was like LeBron went to the Heat. They had the dream team. Still took him a year. Tyler Cowan didn't know that he was a basketball b you got to put us side by side next time. Yeah.

So, so, uh, yeah, just just, ju and I would just chime in and say like I look at it as he he he acquired a team. He didn't acquire any one individual player. And so, you're really measuring, hey, I spent x number of billions.

What am I getting from that versus micromanaging in the short term 3 months in oh what have what have you done so far is a good question to ask but not necessarily like you're paying you're getting the team to deliver the thing that you want which is maybe unclear but yeah I I think so by the way I will tell you I think this is like my dream come true the idea of like chatting with uh some new friends about like the mix of technology and basketball and you know a little bit of like compensation thrown in like this is this is amazing um But I simul this is the best.

It's the best. I think that Okay, so I actually think Jordy, I agree with you. I think that the way this is going to go down for these companies and let's just use meta as an examples.

I think they're going to look at their aggregate investment in you know capex as well as in people and they're going to have some absolute goal of like are we one of the leading players in reaching super intelligence or not and I actually think that the people cost of that are much much much smaller than the capex cost.

And I think that but I think that overall it ought to be judged as like a team. It's just like are we going did they become did they enter the race? Are they you know one of the leaders in the race?

And then I think within that I suspect that you know Alex Wang, Natt Friedman, some of these other folks that are going to be leading this lab. I suspect that they'll do normal managerial stuff of like are we actually getting the most out of each of these people.

I do think that it's way easier to figure that out with 50 people than there is with, you know, a thousand people or, you know, 5,000 people. And I actually think that this idea of like Dunbar's number is like really appropriate here.

You know, below 150 people is just like such a different management challenge than uh above 150 people because everyone knows what everyone else is doing. And there's some element of like game recognizes game, you know, of like do the other people on the research team think the other people are carrying their weight.

And so I actually think it's quite smart um that the teams are the 30 to 40 to 50 people and I think the core research team at each of these places is smaller than people tend to realize and so I think it is more clear you know who's doing great work and who's not.

So I actually think in this case it actually is a little bit more like a sports team. I mean you think about it like the size of you know the team that is talking about assembling is like smaller than an NFL football team. you know, like you kind of know who's playing and who's not within that. Yeah, it is.

It is another interesting thing that I think is actually healthy is like you shouldn't need to quit your job to make a billion dollars. Like there's been this thing in the valley which is like you can man you can have a great life working at a at a big important company.

But if you want to be a billionaire, you're going to have to like quit your job and go start a company. That's like basically the default pathway outside of some key executive positions.

And I do think it'd be the the the sports comp is like LeBron, like you're super talented, like we value you, but if you want to if you want to achieve what you want to do on the on the compensation side, go set up your own team and just build build an organization from scratch.

And LeBron might say, "Well, I don't actually want to I actually like doing this one thing, but I just want to do this one thing well, which is play basketball. I don't want to deal with, you know, finding finding a stadium and and, you know, uh investors and all these other things.

" So, I actually think it's healthy that people can Dude, John's got a joke ready. He's You can tell by the look on his face, he's got a joke ready. I I I don't have a joke. I have a I have an interesting uh similar anecdote. I mean, we keep going back to to Tim Cook uh and being underpaid at 75 million.

Um but I I think Andy Jasse might be a more extreme scenario to kind of tussle with here. Um so Andy Jasse joined Amazon in 1997 as a marketing manager. Uh he was named CEO in 2021, granted a 10-year equity package uh uh valued at 212 million.

He's making about 40 million a year now, but he is widely considered as like the reason AWS exists. So he created in many ways 2005 500 billion of market cap like hundreds of billions of dollars of market cap and hasn't really captured that in the right way. I mean he's done fabulously. He's lauded as a great CEO.

I love him. We all love him. But the question is like is there some world where you can have an employee who comes in as a as a marketing manager sticks with you doesn't need to do the round trip.

I I I've talked to some people who work at big tech companies and they say often like if I want to get promoted I need to leave and then come back. And I'm like that feels like a market failure.

It feels like there should have been a way or you know you know there were Google had a bunch of early employees Paul B Paul Bukite creates Gmail like can he get a couple extra points because that drove so much more but like the structure of these companies just doesn't really allow for that and I don't know if that's good or bad I mean it all works out to your point look I think uh if everyone kind of gets the same thing then it gets distributed to people that didn't create Gmail also I would presume that there are some people at Google who were early who did not contribute that much who kind of just like benefited from the large s you know like and that's effectively Paul Buck height like paying them some of the money he should have gotten you know and so I think that like you know look I think people I am interested to see how this ends up playing out over the next few years of like does this power law start to apply more frequently of okay you know does every company start to think about the 20 to 30 people inside of the company that they're like oh my gosh what would I do if they That would be terrible, right?

And make sure that they're paid super differentially. You know, does that start to happen? I think that the thing that to your point though, John, that's interesting is I'll give you an example for me.

Um, you know, when I was at KKR a long time ago, I think that I was actually pretty wrong on the value I was creating relative to the value the platform created. I think the value the platform created was actually a lot more than the value I created.

And I think it actually took me leaving to realize how valuable the platform was. And so I think on some of these there are people that actually probably have been overpaid because the platform that they were a part of is what created the value rather than them. And then there's people that are dramatically underpaid.

I think one of the big lessons for me is like the range is probably pretty wide of like there are people that these places that have been dramatically underpaid even if they made a lot and there's other people that have been dramatically overpaid, you know, uh even if they made a little less.

And hopefully the market that ends up getting created over time is that people are paid more like in line with their unique contributions relative to the platform. Yeah, that that that is a great take and that that that makes a ton of sense.

Um, what do you think the recent kind of zombie aqua hires done to uh does to the earlier stage venture market?

If I had to concoct a strategy that feels like it could not fail, it would be to try and write preede checks into just everyone with amazing, you know, uh, AI research papers on their resume and super high IQ teams because every lab is just going to hoover up all these call options at some point.

And I just have such a floor to uh to my investment that even if the product doesn't work, I'm going to do great. Uh, is that reasonable? Is this distorting the VC market? What's your strategy? Spray and prey. No, no, no. It's not spray and prey.

It's It is select for a It is select for a very different criteria than traditional venture capital, which is what is the market? What is the product? Don't build a Who cares about the product? Don't even tell me. Tell me.

Tell me your resume and and have you been getting calls from Mark Zuckerberg because if you have, I'll get in I'll get into 10 million pre or something. Who knows? I don't even know if that's possible. Good luck getting in. No, no, I get it. I get it.

I think maybe there's a conversation for the landscape and there's a conversation for Sequoia like look I think at Sequoa it's pretty straightforward like you know the people want to help founders build incredible companies right like that is the reason people are here.

The mission statement is you know we help the daring build legendary companies. It doesn't it just like doesn't compute to try and like do it another way.

And I'll tell you like just truly there's like this real currency at Seoia of like do you have an investment that's gone up on the wall of like the main conference room and like it's not going up on the wall if you sort of did it the other way. You know what I'm saying?

And I think that uh so I think culture stuff matters a lot there. I actually think what you're saying though like will happen. I think people will try to figure out like every gap in venture gets closed so quickly. Yeah. Right. Because it's intensely competitive and there are really good people going after these things.

So, I think that exactly what you just said is going to be written down by some young person right now. They're going to go and mobilize against it. They're going to create some sort of ranking system of how many um likelihood of being acquire aqua hired. Yeah.

Um and I think that that'll get pushed out and those prices will move from whatever the number is now for companies like that to higher.

I do think though at seed uh my impression and I spend most of my time in growth is that like I I do think that people are actually far more important than the idea because people move around a lot on their ideas anyway.

And so I think the thing you're suggesting is acquiraability rather than just like the reason people matter right now in seed is this idea of like are you going to stick with it and build something and figure take in the data and figure out something amazing.

I think your point is there might be another metric that people look at on like acquiraability and I suspect that'll happen. It won't happen at Sequoia, but it'll happen somewhere. What's the uh criteria for the wall again? Because I have a strategy.

I'm going to join Sequoa as an associate, rip 500K into secondary, buying up Figma right before the IPO. Put me on that wall. I got a preo company. No, no, listen. This is a good question. The investor is not on the wall. That would be meaningless. It's the company name. Robbie's face massive.

It is the company name on the wall. So, you would be, you know, you'd be associated with Figma, but but I think folks would know that Dylan and the team deserve the credit and Andrew made the investment in the first place.

But, but you I don't know, you have a big media platform, so you might be able to go out and kind of take the credit for it at some point. Yeah, you should you should take knows that guy. John, take credit, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Andrew was on TVPN and sort of looked like he might be an AI himself, right?

With that like blue background if I recall correctly. Yes, he was verticalizing blue that day. He was blue on blue. Switching switching gears uh slightly, I um uh there's all this excitement and potential around consumer agents. And when they talk about agents, they say you're going to be chatting with an agent.

You're going to say, "Go get me groceries or book me a car, book me a flight, book me a hotel. " And then when you think about what a human would do to do those things today, they might go to Instacart and they might browse around. They might see some ads.

They might go to Uber and browse around, see some ads, they might go somewhere else and see ads.

And in a world where agents are sort of browsing and sort of, you know, doing the things that a a human would traditionally do, there's been this question that a lot of people have brought up around um, you know, a lot of platforms have a lot of their a lot of meaningful amount of revenue coming from advertising and then an equally meaningful or potentially more meaningful amount of their actual profit.

Um, given that you were at Instacart, how how how are you imagining kind of the the agent market playing out and the sort of economic model for the internet broadly in a world of agents? Yeah. Well, so I think that it's a good question.

I think the most pronounced like use of agents today I would suspect is in customer experience, right? And so let me come back to the consumer side in a second, but I think I'm on the board of Sierra, which is Brett Taylor and Clayavavor's company.

And I think you see it already of like the resolution rate that they have at Sierra for you know uh the customers that they serve is incredible.

And so you already have people human beings interacting with agents to solve their problems and to solve more complicated problems that they've otherwise had and to do it honestly like at any time of night and with no wait time.

So I think that the promise of agents is quite amazing and I think you can actually already see it in certain things. So that's cool.

I think to your question on sort of like what happens in the consumer world and what happens to advertising the honest answer is I don't know right I think that the thing that I find to be most compelling is a little bit of what I think Andre Karpathy said on X at some point which is sort of like the internet right now is built for humans and over time it'll be built for agents and I think that as that happens I do think that there will be new ad units new ad models and I don't think I know what those are going to be yet but I think that there will be a complete rewriting of like how are how is Instacart or other consumer apps written because they will need to appeal to two different audiences.

One is agents, one is humans and I just don't know that the the rate of change on that and how it will happen.

I do think that um you know uh today on grocery shopping for instance a very high percentage of grocery shopping still happens like not even online it happens offline in the store right it happens like the way advertising happens in a store is like endcaps and side caps you know and then you have online it happens and it's much more dynamic and then you have for agents so I just think there'll be like three different approaches to ads some of which is like offline some of which is online to humans and some of which is to agents but over time Jordy I think that the entire way the internet's written will be changed and written for agents, but I don't know that I have a great prediction on how that will work other than it'll be way more dynamic.

If you imagine like right now in the store, the end caps and sidecaps don't change, but for every week, the ads on Instacart change very frequently. The ads for agents, the ads on Instacart for humans change very frequently.

The ads for agents, I would presume, are like incredibly dynamic, changing by the minute or something. Yeah. Yeah. It's also interesting. Maybe maybe it doesn't look dramatically different.

Maybe companies just have to pay more attention to supporting their APIs and it just looks very similar to to how it's looked the last Well, the other thing is I think this is where like this interpretability is a big deal just like knowing why an agent is doing what it's doing.

I actually one of my favorite things when I use the AI tools is just to like click on the details portion and to see what it's actually doing. You know what I'm saying? Like um I I love seeing that. I love seeing why it's doing what it's doing, how it's getting to the answer that it's getting to.

Um, and I think that companies will need to get really good at understanding why an agent's doing what it's doing.

I think that's actually probably one of the most practical changes that will happen is there will be real teams at companies trying to uh discern why an agent is going through the behavior that it's going through and we'll build its products accordingly. Yeah.

I have a question uh about just like the the the broader economic climate and how Seoia what the processes to take a temperature check on the the the health of the broad economy like the 2008 famous RIP good times memo uh fantastically deep with economic analysis and looking at uh you know credit rate defaults on consumer credit cards and loans and stuff.

Um, we last week we were kind of like, oh, there's too many top signals. Then we just had Lucas from CO2 on uh the East meets West uh conference was extremely bullish and then uh JP Morgan just beat earnings. The health of the American economy seems undefeated. But I'm less interested in for context.

We put together a list of like 15 15 or 20 different most of them were like funny that were kind of funny profile pictures coming back or something all these random things. Um but but I guess my question is like what is the what is the temperature checking function look like at Sequoia?

What what do you actually like how often do you do this? How do you think about it? How do you actually build a thesis? And how does that relate to like the venture strategy? Yeah, great question. Look, I think RIP Good Times, which as you've noted 2008, like I think is notable because it's rare, right?

It is very rare that I think we have like a macro view that is worth sharing with a bunch of companies that were lucky enough to work with. I think the reason that that's relevant is like we're not macro investors, right?

We make uh our returns by like investing in great companies kind of independent of the time that they're created. Like, you know, it's a it's like a trope, but it's discussed all the time. Like I think you know Google was started during like 1999 and 1999 is often discussed as like a bad period for venture.

So I think that one of the big things that happens for us is like hey whatever you think is going on in the outside world go meet the best companies. Go meet the most interesting people. Don't let the macro stop you from going and doing your job at the early stage. Do you see what I'm saying?

I actually think that's like a huge deal.

Now I do think John we tend we try to be like financially oriented and we try to re think about like how far ahead are we paying right and I think that the the the thing that the mechanism for that is like we do try to like look at where multiples are over some period of time where are we how hot are they and just to understand like you know are we paying three years ahead are we paying four years ahead are we paying two years ahead what are we doing I think the thing that I would tell you is it always comes back to company quality because effectively like the the faster the growth, the more you believe in a future that looks super different than today, the less the multiple matters.

You know what I'm saying? Because ultimately what you're betting on is this big future. And so I think that what we focus a lot on is like how big do you think it can be and how durable do you think it will be?

One of the observations we have that I don't think is unique, but I think is true is the companies that ended up being huge, huge, huge, huge, like hundreds of billions of dollars or trillions of dollars, they didn't grow at 100% the longest. They grew at 30% the longest. You know what I'm saying?

Like what they ended up doing was they compounded forever. And so so much of what we're looking for is like why do you believe that this will continue to compound at 30 plus% 10 plus years from now when it's well over a billion dollars or $5 billion or10 billion of revenue. And I think that is what we're looking for.

That's the stuff that goes up on the wall and that's the stuff that is basically macroindependent. You know, like you could have never dreamed I I could be wrong on this, but I think Meta grew at like 22% last year on like $150 billion of revenue or something. And like there's no after. Yeah.

Like there's no model that you're going to run in 2005 on like, well, maybe it'll add $30 billion of like high margin revenue 20 years from now, right? But but I do think that the bet you have to be making when you're in our business is sort of like don't worry about the macro so much.

Make sure that you believe that it's really going to be uniquely great. Yeah. Yeah. That's fantastic. Uh I mean we could leave it there. Do you have you have a last thing? This is fantastic. We'd love to have you back soon. This is you are the you're the Lavar Ball of AI research to us. Hey guys, we're excited.

We're excited for the world to recognize. Yes. If this did nothing else but popularize, you know, uh, sports, tech, uh, and, you know, friends hanging out, I I'll be I'll be super happy. I'll be honored. This time next year, that post goes viral because we will have shifted the discussion.

We will have taught everyone the sports analogies at such a deep level that they will get the joke and they will repost. All right, fellas. Great hanging out with you. Talk to you soon. Cheers. Really quickly, let me tell you about Wander. Find your happy place. Find your happy place.

Book a wonder with inspiring views, hotel grade amenities, dreamy beds, top tier cleaning, and 24/7 concier service. It's a vacation home, but better, folks. And also, you go over to getbzzle. com. Your bezel concierge is available now to source you any watch on the planet. Seriously, any watch.

Um, and we have our next guest coming in to