Genius Business
@GeniusBusiness_ • 90,271 subscribers
I expose how billion-dollar empires were really built. The real stories of capitalism. Building the #1 business page on X
Shorts
Videos
Jamie Dimon explains why JPMorgan stopped letting managers decide who works from home: The question put to him was simple: why not let each manager decide? Dimon's answer: they tried that. "I believe in pushing power as far as down as you can. You know, regulators want all centralized. I push as far... to the branch manager, to the trader, to... with rules and, you know, constructs and stuff like that." But on remote work, the delegation failed: "We tried that with this, but the fact is they simply didn't exercise managerial skill. Everyone gave everyone everything, including people at my management table, by the way. And I eventually said, 'I've had it with that.'" He is clear that he isn't against remote work across the board. He points to a test the bank ran: "We have 10% of our people working home full time. We put virtual call centers in Baltimore and Detroit. We did it to see if they'd be effective. They're highly effective. They work from home. They're mostly minorities. That's why we did it. It's a home run. So I'm not against it where it works." His position on employees who object comes down to choice on both sides: "I also completely defend your right to say, 'I don't want to,' but I don't defend your right to tell me what J.P. Morgan's going to do. So you have a free market. You can do one thing, I can do another. That's what's called a free market." He also argues that the debate is narrower than it sounds: "You all may not know this, but 60% of Americans worked the whole time. Where did you get your Amazon packages from? Your beef, your meat, your vodka. Where did you get the diapers from?" He lists UPS and FedEx, manufacturing, agriculture, hospitals, schools, nurses, sanitation, firefighters and the military, then says: "It's only these people in the middle who complain a lot about it. I'm being quite serious." Then he gives three reasons it doesn't work in banking. 1. Young people fall behind, and the damage compounds. "The amount for the younger people being left behind. I've known this for a while. We can prove a little bit of it. And that is cumulative. It's not like the first month you're working. It's by the second year you have less people, you're put in less assignments, you know less what's going on, you have less conversations at the water cooler or in the cafeteria. So it's leaving them behind. I won't do that." He adds that bringing juniors in while their bosses stay home doesn't solve it: "And to have the younger people coming in, but not their bosses, I have a problem with that, too." 2. People think they are focused when they aren't. Dimon says he always hears "it works for me," and he describes what he saw on a call the day before: "As I was talking, there were 12 people in the room and four people on the screen, and all four people on the screen were on their phone." 3. Management happens in constant, informal back-and-forth. "When we meet in the morning, we talk, we have these debates all day long. We're talking, 'Hey, no, I checked on that. You're right about that. Here's what I think we should do.' All day long, constant update, constant share of information." And on culture, he is blunt: "It's impossible to do culture that way."
Genius Business903,592 次观看 • 23 天前
Jeff Bezos paid himself about $80,000 a year at Amazon and never took additional equity for 27 years. He asked the comp committee not to give him any. "I was a founder, I already owned a significant amount of the company, and I just didn't feel good about taking more. I felt I had plenty of incentive." He owned more than 20% before dilution. The word choice is the tell. Not "unnecessary," not "the math didn't justify it." Icky. "I just would have felt icky about it. And I'm actually very proud of that decision." Then he pivots to a different scoreboard: "Somebody needs to make a list where they rank people by how much wealth they've created for other people."
Genius Business124,790 次观看 • 18 天前
Jack Dorsey on the day a departing employee switched off Donald Trump's Twitter account: Andrew Ross Sorkin asks Twitter's CEO what happened. "We had an employee who on his last day took it upon themselves to deactivate the account," Dorsey says. His first conclusion is blunt: "first that should never be possible." What followed was an audit of Twitter's own internals, "we started looking into the controls that we have in place and what we could improve and where we have weaknesses and where we have gaps" and a second look at "the particular policies around what agents have control over and what they don't." Dorsey is precise about what actually happened to the account, and the precision is the point: "The account was not removed, it was not suspended, it was deactivated, which is a very different state than what you would assume. So it was not deleted. It was put in a state waiting for the owner to come back to it and reactivate it." The president came back to it and reactivated it. Asked whether Trump called him, Dorsey gives four words: "We have conversations." Then Sorkin turns the incident into the harder question. "What would the president have to say on Twitter to be kicked off?" Dorsey's answer starts with the principle: "We hold every single account to the same standard, to the same rules, and to the same policies." And then immediately concedes where the principle breaks down: "Where we haven't been great is showing the interpretations of our policies as it pertains to enforcement." The example he reaches for is not a president: "If an account were to publicly attack or harass a private citizen, for instance, we would take action and we would, of course, have conversations with the party involved and the abuser, the harasser." So: a customer support employee, on their way out the door, had enough access to switch off the most consequential account on the internet. And the rules governing that account were, by Dorsey's own description uniformly written but opaquely enforced.
Genius Business191,058 次观看 • 2 个月前
![Steve Ballmer on how Microsoft spent up to 15 years preparing Satya Nadella to become CEO: When it came time to find his replacement, Ballmer says the decision was essentially made before the search began. "I kind of knew up front, look, we've been grooming this guy for about 10 years, 15 years. This guy is really talented, so he gets the job, obviously." The grooming wasn't accidental. Ballmer explains that Satya, "a very technical person," was repeatedly moved into areas where he had no background: "We said hey, you don't really know anything about an area called general ledger and accounting, but why don't you go run this thing called Dynamics, probably called Great Plains at the time. I can't even remember." Then, "quite rapidly," another unfamiliar problem: "We got to get this search thing together. This is the high potential guy. This is a guy who can learn new things. He's technically minded. Boom, throw him a new problem, and he's building new skill sets along the way." Search exposed Satya to machine learning, which Ballmer describes as a fundamentally different style of software: "Old programs were supposed to generate the right answer. Many new programs are supposed to generate the statistically best answer, and you only know after whether it was precisely the right answer." He did well in every one of these roles. Ballmer lists what became clear along the way: "He clearly had good people skills. He clearly had an affinity for product. He clearly had a knack for understanding how to think about particularly our enterprise selling operation." So Ballmer, Bill, and the senior leadership team agreed: "This is a guy we should be thinking about for the future of the company." Ballmer then recalls a conversation with Satya about his father, a senior government official who worked with people who went on to become prime ministers. His father told him: "Look, Satya, a lot of people come to the leadership positions in government and they're just not ready. But guess what? They learn what they don't know pretty well on the job." Ballmer's read on what that gave Satya is a pairing of two traits that usually pull in opposite directions: "The irrational confidence, which I can get there, partly backed by kind of his father's experience, as well as a lot of realism about where he was." That realism sat alongside real range: "He had huge skills in many areas of the business, more than anybody else… He knew more of the breadth of this place than anybody." His verdict today: "He's done an incredible job with the company." He even admits, "I never know whether I'm supposed to say we or you or they [when I] talk about Microsoft. I lapse into we pretty easily."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2102382622479691885/amplify_video_thumb/2102382522890121216/img/NRA2rrnbN7WepPyU.jpg)
Steve Ballmer on how Microsoft spent up to 15 years preparing Satya Nadella to become CEO: When it came time to find his replacement, Ballmer says the decision was essentially made before the search began. "I kind of knew up front, look, we've been grooming this guy for about 10 years, 15 years. This guy is really talented, so he gets the job, obviously." The grooming wasn't accidental. Ballmer explains that Satya, "a very technical person," was repeatedly moved into areas where he had no background: "We said hey, you don't really know anything about an area called general ledger and accounting, but why don't you go run this thing called Dynamics, probably called Great Plains at the time. I can't even remember." Then, "quite rapidly," another unfamiliar problem: "We got to get this search thing together. This is the high potential guy. This is a guy who can learn new things. He's technically minded. Boom, throw him a new problem, and he's building new skill sets along the way." Search exposed Satya to machine learning, which Ballmer describes as a fundamentally different style of software: "Old programs were supposed to generate the right answer. Many new programs are supposed to generate the statistically best answer, and you only know after whether it was precisely the right answer." He did well in every one of these roles. Ballmer lists what became clear along the way: "He clearly had good people skills. He clearly had an affinity for product. He clearly had a knack for understanding how to think about particularly our enterprise selling operation." So Ballmer, Bill, and the senior leadership team agreed: "This is a guy we should be thinking about for the future of the company." Ballmer then recalls a conversation with Satya about his father, a senior government official who worked with people who went on to become prime ministers. His father told him: "Look, Satya, a lot of people come to the leadership positions in government and they're just not ready. But guess what? They learn what they don't know pretty well on the job." Ballmer's read on what that gave Satya is a pairing of two traits that usually pull in opposite directions: "The irrational confidence, which I can get there, partly backed by kind of his father's experience, as well as a lot of realism about where he was." That realism sat alongside real range: "He had huge skills in many areas of the business, more than anybody else… He knew more of the breadth of this place than anybody." His verdict today: "He's done an incredible job with the company." He even admits, "I never know whether I'm supposed to say we or you or they [when I] talk about Microsoft. I lapse into we pretty easily."
Genius Business93,594 次观看 • 1 个月前
Today, Jio is worth $100B+ with 40% market share. What looked like "financial suicide" became history's most brilliant market takeover. India's digital economy exploded to $200B. Millions of businesses went online, digital payments soared to 8.3B transactions monthly.
Genius Business84,206 次观看 • 1 年前
AppLovin founder Adam Foroughi lays out the long-term vision for the company: turn ads into something so well-targeted they function as content, and use a billion-strong audience of mobile gamers as the distribution layer. The starting point is the audience itself. Adam explains that AppLovin reaches over a billion users who play games every single day around the world, with more than 150 million adults in the US alone. The power user isn't who you'd expect: "That's not the same 21 year old who's on Instagram for six hours a day. The power user who's playing casual games, Candy Crush for 2-3 hours a day, as an example, is more of like a middle-aged person who has more time and is just getting relaxation here." These users are willing to sit through long ads. Adam notes that the average ad on the platform runs over 35 seconds — "like a television commercial on the mobile device." For years, that attention was only used to push more games. Adam describes the old loop bluntly: "We used to take a user and say game, game, game, game, game. If you weren't in the business of switching games, that's a pretty bad ad format to show you." The expansion into e-commerce changed that, and Adam frames it as the first step toward a much bigger thesis — that as the targeting models get better, ads stop feeling like interruptions and start feeling like discovery. He explains: "The diversity will go up, the technology is already capable to do it, and then the value to the end consumer will go up. And that whole thing I said earlier of the ad becomes more like content." Then comes the punchline that defines the vision: "The hope we have is that we can get the local laundromat discovered by someone playing a game because we serve a really good ad to someone who needs their clothes washed. If that happens and we get to that level of scale, this business is going to be much, much bigger than it is today." Adam is clear about who he wants to serve first. AppLovin has no sales force, so large enterprises will eventually come to the platform on their own. The real opportunity, in his mind, is the small and medium businesses that nobody else helps: "We want to help those small to medium sized businesses. What made us really successful in gaming was going to the companies that really didn't have much support at most of the other businesses and going, what's your 10 people? Let's work together. Let us grow your business." The end state is a single targeting engine pointed at a billion adults, capable of matching them to the right local shop, the right Shopify store, the right product — not the right game. When advertising gets accurate enough, it stops being advertising.
Genius Business15,371 次观看 • 5 个月前
没有更多内容可加载