Janne and An-Invils indeed was exactly the thought I had in mind. Thank you for all of you for your wonderful presentations. Few remarks of the background that I tried to make, remarks or comments. I am the director of the newly established Rule of Law Centre at the University of Helsinki at the Law Faculty. So, of course, when one drives with the horses, one talks about the horses, it comes from that angle to this discussion. And before I make my comments, when it comes to Rule of Law, there is exactly that same kind of debate going on as with democracy, that particularly after Afghanistan, the question is that I mean it was at least two billion dollars that was spent only by the World Bank to increase the rule of law, the principle of rule of law in Afghanistan, and how did it turn out. And maybe the latest report, if you want to have a closer look, is done by the court of auditors in EU, in Luxembourg, and it involves the rule of law work done in Western Balkans. So, we are not at the very highest, the lowest level of development, vis-à-vis the presentations we heard today. But nevertheless, the work done by EU or financed by EU commission in Western Balkans, according to that latest report, it's number one from this year in the court of auditors, if you want to have a closer look, estimating that in general the impact of the 700 million euros spent in that region between 2014 to 2020, the impact was close to zero. In some of the cases, but in very similar cases, it did make a difference to a better, but in worst cases. It actually sort of was a negative impact due to the course that it enhanced or it helped the court system or strengthened the institutions in the legal world while missing that the whole country or the basic attitudes of the leaders and the political system was illicit or wasn't democratic enough, they were not buying it. So, it turned out that with this aid, you were helping a court that looks like a court to be more effective using IT systems better, but the whole grounding, for example, when it comes to corruption, didn't change. So, this is the angle I was listening in your presentations today, because there is more and more questions and debate, even some studies already asking about this triangle of rule of law, democracy and human rights. And what is their role in developing in general, but also that which one comes first at which stage when you are trying to help a country to develop itself. Quite often there have been debates, also I have to reveal you together with Janne, that is there a possibility that we should discuss and study more closely if we bring up elections at the two early stage in a country, but there isn't really actual room for that. And then we start to play along as if this is real democracy and as if the structures we are building upon these elections are the real ones. And that's quite easy to point out in Afghanistan, but right now we as a center, we are also going to sample experts concerning Somalia around the issue that what are we talking about when we are trying to, maybe in the future to help to build up a rule of law that based on what are the main crownings and how should we scrutinize whether this is real, whether the stakeholders or the actors are actually letting it, even though it's through the election systems that we have sort of brought into the country. So this is the way I'm now saying few comments on the excellent speeches. First of all, of Eric, I think it was really a relief to hear that this is, it's similarly difficult to study when it comes to this economic growth vis-a-vis aid as it is with building up a rule of law and the volatility and the fact that you could define that there are differences from various sources also when it comes to these phases that there is a rapid growth or there isn't growth at all and how difficult it seemed to be find any clear answers or patterns so that you would go and say one size fits all. That is I think the most valuable outcome of it all and also reminds me that when we need similar studies as we heard that has been done on democracy when it comes to rule of law, that these backgrounds of what are the factors we are looking at needs to be similar way down when it comes to economic development of the country. In quite a many of these studies that did the rule of law work actually work or did it do anything, there's almost a lack of economic background studies. And when I was listening to your studies I thought that once again I think that without that kind of economic background studies you cannot really estimate development. And then what Anke Hoeflen was saying us was also I was listening once again that this evidence is mixed and it seems to be quite difficult but when you notice the, when you showed up this circle of development and the legitimacy was questioned kind of a part was there that that's how it's that you need to take into account that if there is that the legitimacy of a nation or all the governments is questioned that seems to be a really relevant actor in this whole circle of development. That is exactly the same thing we are now looking forward. A week ago the prime minister of Estonia, Mrs. Kallas was here at Helsinki. She was visiting the Baas Association in Finland and she told from her own experience that how come Estonia developed from Pirochiro in all the ways economic, democracy, rule of law, human rights within 13 years as being one of the examples of great success. For example, when it comes to corruption that now they are right after the Nordic countries in transparency international lists and she pointed out that immediately and very rapidly after the independence this leximity of the government that this is our country, this is our things turned into a mindset of the people that helped to turn out everything else. And one of the questions I think that we should have a closer look in all of these aspects you were talking about is that how is this mindset awareness raising particularly when there are so many young people in these countries can be attacked. And when it comes to education now this is already remarked to your wonderful presentation was also that when we are talking about education how much do we actually study and pay attention to that within the education there should be strong emphasizes on awareness raising towards democracy, rule of law, taking control of their own matters towards anti-corruption. Otherwise we might end up building younger generations to attitude that education is my pathway to being one of those that I've been seeing repressing the lower ones that is just sort of taking care of me and my family in order to help ours without this part of being partly of the whole curriculum rule of law anti-corruption. And then my final remarks, I'm looking at the timetable also when it comes to Henrik's was that if you look at the one, the one, the, sorry, now I forgot the, with the youth and the urbanization. Yes, that was the thing. I'm not sure whether we have understood when it comes to rule of law or democracy also that the urbanization part has been taking seriously and quite a many literates that we are talking about former tribe courts and sort of trying to build upon those as an alternative or all the mistakes we have done when trying to bring a Nordic or Western rule of law method into a country that the alternative would be this old tribal courts and let's start to build upon that that that world doesn't exist. Not that, at least to that extent as it should be. So I thank you for that as well. And from Rachel, there was so much, I loved about what you were saying. And my final conclusion is that when thinking about the outcome of the rule of law, let's go back to this audit, the court of auditors recent report 1.22, what they stated was that it seems that if it's not long standing, if it's only two or four years in a row approaches, it doesn't work. If it doesn't pay attention severely and really deeply into civil society and freedom of press and capacity of free press to actually control and scrutinize the power and the sort of a commitment of the country and particularly of the rulers, it doesn't work at all. So what we heard today about that you need to want peace badly. My last conclusion is after hearing you, you also need to scrutinize whether the current rulers or the stakeholders of the country really want rule of law anti-corruption badly. And if you have doubts about that, I think you should have another look before entering just doing what we have done so far because there's quite a lot of evidence that what we have done so far isn't effective enough. It seems to look good, but it doesn't really try to be as effective as it can. Thank you. Thank you, Tuja. And I'll now invite all the panel to join me here that I'm not sitting here alone looking sad. And while the panel is moving here, I'll challenge all of you to put forward questions. For me, I am, please join me, I am really struck by the two things, the dynamic picture the panelists have been able to draw with the economic migration demographic really, and then the question they are putting to us, are our interventions effective in that dynamic picture that they have drawn? But now questions, the panel is here. Ladies in the center, first here with the pink jacket, please. Hi, thank you so much, this was an excellent panel. You all kind of touch upon a lot of dynamics that seem to be highly relevant to understand, but most of the analysis were focused kind of on a national level. So I was wondering to which extent you could improve your analysis to really understand the mechanisms of driving these really complex interactions by looking more closely at the subnational level and what is going on. So for instance, on the paper from Eric and Kunal on the growth episodes and fragility, for instance, one of the main things that I was thinking is how is growth actually distributed across space, across groups to really understand how these episodes of growth link back to fragility because of course if there's high growth episodes, but these are then centered in certain spaces, for instance, if you look at Mozambique, which we talked about earlier, it was really highly centered in areas that were already in favor and marginalized areas were left behind, which I think is one of the key drivers also of the dynamics we see right now. And then the same with aid and fragility, where does aid actually flow in space in which communities are favored? And then also to understand, for instance, what Tujar was talking about earlier, the rule of law, there's different dynamics that are happening and also during conflict, for instance, are set up is like different levels of rule of law, different actors that become highly relevant and how can we do a better job of understanding and supporting these like local efforts to actually drive rule of law and understand also what kind of concepts do people in this country or across different communities within that country understand to help them better. And I think that might be a way to improve these analyses. Sorry, could you introduce yourself? Of course, I forgot. Hi, my name's Laura Saavedra Lux. I'm a new research associate here at wider. Actually, I just joined a few weeks ago. Thank you. And then I'll remind you, we have a hard deadline at one o'clock. So my intention is to gather few questions, short ones, I hope, and then give the panel one shot each of them. So I think we will need one minute each. So we have three minutes to have questions and then five minutes to have answers. So next, please. Thank you. I'll be quick. My name is Katarina Mustasilda. I work for the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. I would have many questions. The panel was so excellent. Thank you very much, everyone, but I will direct my question to Rachel. I thought it was really interesting, the studies that you went through in terms of democracy aid, none of the studies that you reviewed were actually budget aid. And I wanted to ask if you know about this, how much of the democracy aid de facto goes to indeed projects and what type of projects and how much of it goes to budget aid. And related to that, we saw that Sweden's democracy aid indeed seemed to be particularly good in terms of the significant positive impact. So could you tell us a little bit more about the nature of Sweden's aid, democracy aid. Thanks. I have two gentlemen in two sides and then at the back with the great jacket, please. And then next we'll go ahead. Thanks for the presentation. So my question is particularly for Eric, but maybe also for the other presenters. I missed a bit, Eric, the relationship to what we call the institutional setup of a country and how does it relate to fragility. The reason is because many economists today are convinced that what you need for long-term growth is stable institutions. And so how would you see your work on the fragility index? How does that relate to the institutional literature? Thank you. Thank you. And then the other side and if it's the short one, we might still have one. There is conditionality here. Thank you. And the Hinsley from the UK's Foreign Commonwealth Development Office. So linked to this question about on-budget aid, possible tension between state capability and aid effectiveness. The aid effectiveness agenda from the Paris 2005 agreement suggests that aid should flow to government systems to build capability of those systems. But we heard this morning in the opening session about the importance of grassroots or Chris Blackman's recent book on why we fight emphasizes that you need decentralization, you need to move away from centralization of powers, which is a big cause of fragility. So is there a tension between objectives around building state capability and aid effectiveness with fragility and how we use aid? Looking. There is a one, let's take one here. That comes from a kind of a chat question. We need to have one, so go ahead. And this is the last one, sorry. And I want to give the panel time to answer. Thank you. So there is a question by Nicholas Ouma to Herrick. As a pathway out of fragility, have there been interventions with regards to youth skill development, especially in technical and vocational education and training, have these been evaluated for impact? And it's also open to the panel if someone else wanna say something. Thank you. Thank you, and I'll now put it back to the panel. All the panelists will have one minute before the deadline, so we will start with Eric and go with that order. Go ahead, please. Okay, thank you for the questions. These are wonderful. With respect to Lara's questions around subnational growth, in our theoretical framework and with the case studies, we don't look at subnational from a geographic perspective, but we do from the distribution of business and business interests. And we argue and find in country case studies that when high growth accrues to companies, rather, that make their profits through their relationship with government discretionary regulatory rents, then that can lead to the consolidation of perhaps an illegitimate political settlement and result in growth with less legitimacy and investments in state capacity. Looking geographically is a really interesting idea. And then Philip's question around institutions, I think that's also fascinating. Again, part of the argument for the earlier book was that when you look at how institutions predict future economic growth, or whether if you improve institutions, how much, whether you'll get a better growth episode, it turns out there's very little correlation at that level looking forward. And so our argument that something else, other than institutions, drives growth at the level of the growth episode in the medium run. And therefore, looking at fragile countries, we also find that both high growth and low growth emerge under weak institutions. So we need to look beyond that. Okay, please. Thank you very much. So Laura, for your question on subnational, are you looking at the subnational level? So there's some really interesting work by Leonston Comana and co-authors. So does health aid give you health? And they look at what happens around health facilities. Now, this fragility aid is a bit more difficult and it does. And I think this is a very useful direction this aid literature is taking on aid effectiveness. Now, fragility is a sort of state concept. We measure this for states. And I think we aren't quite there yet to sort of really look at fragility in more in the micro context. Tillman Brück and co-authors just had something in the review of development economics on sort of looking exactly at fragility from the micro perspective. What does it actually mean for people to live in a fragile environment? So I think we are going there, but we are not there yet. And thank you for your suggestion. Very briefly on Katarina's on aid allocation. So there's a big aid allocation literature. And actually when you look at it, so it's recipient need. These countries are poor. There's also merit. Only if you democratize will you get money and human rights and so on. And of course donor self-interest and then also some proximity factors. Very little aid is allocated according to recipient what I'd call marriage. There's lots of talk and when you actually look at it, very little allocated. Thank you. Henry. Thanks to Nicholas question on technical vocational training. That's not something we've looked at specifically, but we'll be looking at in this extension project. Just want to say very briefly on the desegregated aid literature. There is, as I'm sure many knows about the Aid Data Research Consortium. Very interesting results coming out of that including on Chinese aid and corruption that for those of you interested in democracy should check out. And we've also in a new study now found that there is some interesting divergence between Nordic countries and Netherlands and other countries in terms of needs-based approaches where we find that Nordic countries and Netherlands are actually reaching the poor and need-in to a greater degree than other donors. Very chocolatey. Okay, thank you. I think I'll start with Katarina's question about aid modalities. And this is, as Anka mentioned, it's a really important literature and I think there's a lot of strong views on the best ways to provide aid. I mean, our data suggests that the vast majority of aid, democracy aid, by our limited definition goes to project support. But as you pointed out, the evidence is not so clear on what aid modality works best. And I think you've clearly, you're pointing to an area where there could be, there should be a lot more work. And perhaps without more work, there shouldn't be such strong claims either way. I also wanted to come back to Tuya's comment about building institutions that not only look like institutions that work, but institutions that actually work. And this is a big discussion, certainly in development, for instance, with Lance Pritchett and Matt Andrews and Michael Wilcox discussion of isomorphic mimicry. And it's, I think, a big discussion in all of our work, especially when we think about sort of measuring the things that we're trying to study, how do we capture something that is actually looking, functioning the way that we would like it to function, not only looking in terms of structure, like a democratic institution or like a functional state. So thank you for that. I think it's something we all need to be continuing to focus on. Please. Thank you. Well, my comment is corruption, corruption, corruption. Kind of also answer to the question of remote places and cities and also maybe the follow-up of the aid. Also what was said recently about not, not that the benefits of the countries that are helping are not getting they act together. This has been said already for 30 years. I remember when I started in the parliament, it was already a problem. There seems to be something wrong with our thinking also. Maybe it's not corruption, but maybe laziness or something that once we have this money, we should take more effort already at the starting stage to have a closer look what we are doing together and do we also take into account anti-corruption work?


From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world, this is a CUBE Conversation. Hello everyone, welcome to this special CUBE Conversation. I'm John Furrier, joined Dave Vellante for a special report and analysis on the Dell Technologies VMware spinout, transaction, contemplation, story, circling, rumors. Thanks for joining, Dave, great to see you. Yesterday we filmed the Zoom. I was at home, you were in the office. We had to get the story out for the hot take on the news that Dell Technologies is spinning out VMware. We had a lot of hot takes. You got some amendments to make, but one of the things that came out of that was that we, after we had the interview, we said, look, let's just go get some more data. So I went out off on my own, you went off on your own to get some dig ins to get some data and get some reporting on this, investigate this further. Here's what I've found. I've heard a rumor and have confirmed from a great source that Michael Dell isn't selling. So the story's off, which would mean our half our analysis is off, but I also got some data that points to some other things that we said are consistent. So one, I want to get your thoughts. The rumor that I'm hearing is that Dell is not selling from my sources. What are you hearing? Yeah, I think there's a different take here, John. I mean, everybody assumed when the press release came out in the 13D that Dell was spinning off, it's stake if people inferred from that that they were selling. I think in fact, this is not a sale. I think everybody was wrong about that. I think in fact what Dell is going to do is distribute its stake, its 81% stake to shareholders. And so to Dell shareholders, and of course what's going to happen is Michael Dell owns a very large portion of Dell technologies. I think by recollection, I think it's over 60%. And as a result, he's the largest shareholder of Dell and that 81% is going to get distributed to the Dell shareholders. So he's going to end up with more than half of the ownership of VMware all said and done. So Michael Dell is I think ultimately going to have more than half of the ownership of Dell technologies. I think it's 60, 65%, probably 63, 65%, somewhere in there by my recollection. And he's going to end up with more than 51% of VMware, John. And so you're going to have, I mean, it would make sense, wouldn't it, that the majority shareholder is going to be chairman of both companies? And so you've talked about people on this, is that right? So just to get some background, where did you get that? Yeah, I think some people on Wall Street have figured this out, but it's definitely not hit the mainstream news.  I, I, I'm not happening at all. I don't think that's happening at all. I also, I've talked to a number of customers, John, about this, asking them what they thought about the news yesterday. And there was a big shrug.  I bought File from NetApp. They both made great products. They both were VMware friendly. This doesn't affect me one bit. And other customers I talked to said, yeah, I don't really see any, any big change here. I don't think anything's going to change. I think if Michael Dell is the chairman of both companies, I don't think anything changes. All right, so to correct what we had, what we had our hot take, which was, oh, untethering, spinning out VMware, implying that there's going to be an untethering or VMware can make it on their own, which I think, I think our analysis was right on the value of VMware.  It's the specifics of Dell technologies appearing as if they're unloading it. Okay, so that's the nuance here. So the nuance is Michael Dell actually is going to maintain, stay in control. He's not going anywhere. That's what you're just saying. Is that true? Yeah, picture the block diagrams. You've got Dell over here, and inside of Dell you have 81% ownership of VMware, and over here you have VMware. But essentially what Dell is doing is saying, okay, all you Dell shareholders, we're going to allow you to now directly own those VMware shares. And so they're going to transfer essentially from owning Dell to owning VMware directly. Of course, Michael Dell now is going to own VMware directly as opposed to owning it through his ownership of Dell. As a result, it cleans up the hair on this conglomerate structure, which means it's unlocked, and you've seen it in the stock market today, in the last month, it's unlocking value for Dell. It's unlocking value for VMware. John, on June 22nd, prior to the Wall Street Journal breaking that they were contemplating this, Dell's core value, in other words, the value net of VMware was around negative 23 billion. Today it's negative four billion. So they've already compressed about $20 billion out of that negative value. And that's the arbitrage play now. And it just goes up here. The second thing is a lot of investors that I talked to won't touch VMware stock because it's controlled by Dell. This liquidity hangover that I always talk about, I think this is going to bring other investors in from the sideline. So that is everybody inferred that Dell was becoming untethered. Dell becomes a lot less interesting without VMware. That's wrong. Nothing really changes in terms of the commercial relationship between these two companies and the impact on customers. So essentially, if I oversimplify it from my simple brain here, Dell is IPOing shares of VMware to the shareholders of Dell. What a benefit that is. Yeah, I mean, again, they're just- I mean, it's not an IPO in the sense of an IPO. It's basically saying, hey, shareholders of Dell, good job, you want the value of VMware, go take it. So you remember how this all came about? I mean, remember when Dell bought VMware, they had a gap between the amount of cash they could raise, the amount of debt they took on, the amount of cash that Michael Dell and Silver Lake and a couple other partners threw in. It was only about $4 billion to get $67 billion. And the way they covered that gap was they created a tracking stock called DVMT. And DVMT was supposed to track VMware value. It really didn't. And so what happened was, DVMT was a public company. Dell wanted to go public again and said, okay, we're going to do this through the DVMT vehicle and we're going to issue shares of Dell. And you remember Carl Icon and Elliot, they were very active and they sort of got Michael in a headlock and said, we need more if you're going to do that. And they did. Ultimately, Dell goes public, but then they faced this liquidity hangover. And so also you might recall that Dell floated Pivotal and monetized that to D-Levver. They paid down some debt. And then basically went to VMware and said, okay, you're going to buy Pivotal back. They used some cash and they issued shares. So the Dell's ownership of VMware escalated to 81% at the time. That's how they got to 81%. I remember thinking, wow, how much of this company are they going to own? Well, this is what it allowed them to do. It now allows them to distribute the shares and allows Michael Dell personally to have the majority ownership of VMware. And it's absolute genius. And it cleans up the structure of the organization. So instead of having to own VMware through Dell, which by the way, I've always said, it's a cheap way to own VMware. A good move if you bought Dell, stock to own VMware. Now you own VMware directly. And of course, Michael Dell owns it directly. Absolute genius move over the last three, four, five years. Yeah, and one of the things we did say in our hot take yesterday was that that negative value of Dell technology world, Dell technologies gets shrunk and also can create value. Here they're even getting more value into ownership of VMware. So I got to, but I got to ask you, you mentioned a comment about this liquidity hangover and they have this dividend. Could you explain that? Because I just not following this liquidity problem. Well, this is very interesting. So Dell, because it has so much debt, number one, number two, because it has controlling share ownership of VMware and it has 90 plus percent voting power. Shareholders penalize Dell. And so the big thing here is the debt. What essentially Dell is doing it, people always joke that VMware is Dell's piggy bank. That's true. And here it comes again. We saw that with Pivotal, we saw that with DVMT. What I think is happening, John, is Dell is going to essentially transfer some of its debt to VMware. So it's going to have VMware take on a little bit more debt. It has said that they want to maintain investment grade ratings for VMware, which currently has great ratings. Dell does not have investment grade rating. It needs to pay down more debt. So essentially it's going to shift some of that debt to VMware through a special dividend of which Dell will be a great beneficiary and will allow Dell to pay down some of that debt so that it can come investment grade. And they want to take on an amount of debt that will not crush VMware's balance sheet so that it will also be investment grade. So they're creating this equilibrium, if you will. Now, I've heard the ceiling on VMware's debt in order to get to equilibrium or in order to maintain investment grade is no more than five billion. But I've also heard much, much higher numbers, as high as eight to 10 to maybe even 12 billion. I don't know if VMware can take on that much debt and maintain investment grade. The point is there's some number there which Dell is going to force VMware to take on that debt. Now, one last thing I'll say is, despite Michael Dell's technology's ownership and control 90 plus percent control, it has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. But my view is it's meeting that responsibility because the value, it's unlocking value. So who can complain? It's again, it's absolutely fascinating and brilliant. But that's what that dividend is all about is Dell saying, okay, VMware, you're going to take on more debt and you're going to help us pay down the Dell debt and you're going to take on more where both be investment grade. And they both get value and increase. Yeah. So it's a financial engineering deal. Michael Dell still can run both companies. Do you still think he will be running both companies? Yeah, I think there's no question that Michael Dell will be the chairman of Dell. He is the chairman of Dell Technologies, chairman of VMware, and he's going to continue to be. And so this commercial agreement that they're going to assign is a wired deal with VMware and Dell. And by the way, there is every incentive for VMware to do this. People may say, hey, they're strong, I mean Dell, but VMware, Dell is a huge distribution channel for VMware. And I'll tell you something that Dell has done that better than EMC and Joe Tucci ever did. And you know, we're big fans of Joe Tucci, but Dell has unlocked a channel for VMware the way EMC never did. VMware through Dell has seen incredible growth and really as Dell as I would say VMware's most important partner, biggest partner because Dell didn't apologize for super gluing itself and VMware to it. Whereas EMC was always much more cautious trying to play the ecosystem game. Well, they were saving their storage business with VMware. I mean, VMware saved EMC, some would say. Yeah, I would say. I mean, if it weren't for the acquisition of VMware back for $650 million in the early 2000s, you know, the EMC would have been a really uninteresting company over its last five to seven years. So they milked that storage drive, but then they had that uplift with VMware. Michael says, hey, I'll put this right in the family. And this is what it is. It's a deal where it's in the Dell family portfolio. And what Michael's doing is to your point and what you're saying is he's unlocking all this value for both Dell and VMware and saying, okay, let's go to market and figure it out. I got to tell you this, John. I mean, as a founder, the co-founder, you know, obviously we're a little smaller than Dell, but you got to appreciate what Michael Dell has done here. He went through hell taking his company private. You know, took on Carl Icon. I said yesterday, who beats the great icon? Well, Michael Dell beat the great icon. You know, who outmaneuvered Elliot? I mean, Elliot is a very influential player in the market. Michael Dell said, you know what? I'm not going through that again. I have control of Dell technologies. I have voting control over VMware. I'm going to do what's right for me, for my company and my shareholders. And look, Michael Dell's making his shareholders money.   I mean, Michael Dell knows how to make money, right? He's always been a great money maker. He's also a geek. He loves to get down and dirty in the tech. He's got two 49 inch Dell monitors. Obviously it's his company. He gets the best gear. All kidding aside, you know, he built a company, went public, took it private. That was a reset.  This is his swan song. He's having a ball and he's financially engineered this success with the power that he built. And it's a whole nother level, whole nother chapter in his life. And he's a money maker. He knows how to make money. You put Silver Lake and Michael Dell together. You put Michael Dell with these kinds of brains, with his asset base, as you say, the cash flow of Dell, with the asset of, say, a crown jewel like VMware that literally can pave the path to the future. He could ride on the cloud back all day long. He doesn't need a public cloud for anything. Yeah, well, so before we talk about that, I just want to double down on what you said. People just always say, yeah, Michael Dell, you know, he's a finance guy. It's not true. Yes, he's got a, well, he's got a finance team that is amazing and no doubt Michael is instrumental there, but he's a business genius. I mean, he really had business visionary. Yeah, that guy built his own PCs in college.  He's a visionary. He's one of the top, I don't know, 10 visionaries in the computer industry, I would say history. So now you're absolutely right. Well, you say it doesn't need a cloud. I think my concern about this whole deal yesterday when I misunderstood that this was spinning off and becoming untethered is what about the edge? What about multi-cloud? You know, what's a Dell's play there? Well, Dell's play is still VMware. Their strategy hasn't changed one bit. I mean, nothing changes. The only change is the direct ownership of VMware stock which unlocks value. Nothing else changes.  Just in interface with Michael over the years and knowing him personally, seeing him up close, here's how I think his mind works. You mentioned he assembled PCs in college, okay? He built out, he pioneered putting suppliers in supply chain, getting prices lower, direct mail. He pioneered that direct to consumer. All these successes. This whole world that's in there is like assembling a PC in his dorm room, except he's got it with billions of dollars.  I mean, he's essentially a financial geek at this point.  He loves some of the things he's doing with VMware. He likes to look under the covers and see the engine. But he's a financial assembler now. So he's looking at this and you can see how it's all working and to your scoop here. Yeah, I guess it looks like a spin out if that's what people want to call it and the press jump on that. But if it pieces, it takes the hair off the deal. That's basically makes the I.O. move better. He's got a, you know, good bus there, 32 bits. Again, assembling a PC, assembling companies and creating value. He makes money. I love it. It's a great analogy. The piece parts are a little bit more valuable, but I just want to clarify what I said. The other thing that changes is the income statement. Dell will no longer recognize VMware revenue. And so that changes. And of course, the balance sheet changes. That's a huge change. Now, I guess the caveat is this in theory couldn't happen, but it just makes so much sense. I was kind of sniffing around it in my breaking analysis when this thing first leaked. And I said in that, John, if the financial geniuses at Dell can figure out some way to monetize this, well, here it is. It now is becoming much, much more clear. And I'm impressed. Well, Dave, he was assembling PCs in college. Now he's assembling companies. What did we do in college? Don't even go there. Dave. Let's end it there. We'll end it right there. Dave, great, great scoop. Top story. Michael Dell is not selling VMware. It's transaction. It's going to have all that value. And it's unlocking more Dell tech value. Look for the shares. We distribute it to the Dell technology shareholders. And it's the same game, super gluing together, creating value for both. Dave, great scoop. Thanks for joining me. Thank you, John. Thanks for having me. Keep special report and analysis here in studio in California, Dave Vellante in Massachusetts. I'm John Furrier. Thanks for watching.