A (4:23)

Well, I just think what previously the way that you would get, get rich I guess was, other than that was inheritance. Inheritance. And so there's just so much wealth being created right now and that in a generation, in a decade, in a matter of years, you can create what would have taken a lifetime and then some to, to, to, you know, to create. So I just think there is so much opportunity, there's so much leverage right now.

B (4:54)

And that's, I would say why. So you think it's, it's leverage is it is. It's all AI and the collapsing all the things that we talk about here on the podcast or anything Else that you would say is making that happen? Kind of. I'd say maybe the democratization of access to the tools that create wealth where they used to be. Like you used to need to have a railroad or an oil refinery or 20 royal of those, and now you just need a computer or an app or something like that.

A (5:28)

Because anybody can get access to the tools of wealth. Wealth is finding the right people. I mean, I really do think that that's. That's the case. I mean, I think if this were 100 years ago, you know, there are sadly probably, you know, people with amazing ideas who just wealth and opportunity didn't find, and now it's finding it. It's just. And the pace is just happening so fast.

B (5:53)

So. So would you rather inherit a billion dollars then and protect it or start from zero and build five billion?

A (6:02)

I mean, clearly I'd rather. I mean, I'd rather build it. You know, just. It's funny though, because, like, if you.

B (6:11)

Inherited it, you have it, whereas if you build it, you actually have to work for it. I'm with you. And it kind of annoys me because I feel like that's a dumb answer.

A (6:21)

Yeah. I mean, the answer would be the same if it were the same billion, right? Because in your scenario, there's five times as much because you built it. My answer would be the same if it was the same. My answer, I think it'd be the same if it were half as much.

B (6:36)

Is that just the personal satisfaction of having done something yourself? Yeah.

A (6:41)

And I think I'm more of a builder than a capital allocator, so I don't know how great I would be if I had it at necessarily scaling it. You know, I probably would need to give it to other people to invest. I enjoy the building and the creative process more. And I think it's important to know just that about you. Like, what are you good at? You know, are you the kind of person who's good at the building side or are you better at the capital allocation side? Because we know a lot of builders who they built, they've made the money and then they get into the capital allocation, they don't realize that they're not very good at that. They lose it all, and then they kind of got to start back over again. So, yeah, I don't know, man. And I do think that there's a lot of dignity in earning. That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong if you inherit it to building up that as well. Just for me, like, what am I Good at. What do I enjoy? What do I.

B (7:40)

You know, it's a lot more fun to build it, you know, Bingo. I like that. And so there were 14 newcomers who added a collective 113 billion in wealth. So that means that the newcomers had an average of 8 billion each. Four of them broke the 10 billion threshold. And so we were looking at kind of some of the patterns. AI infrastructure made sense that that would be one of them. That's Edwin Chen with Surge. AI Energy Exports was another Robert Pender. Michael Sable at Venture Global, LNG fintech Platforms. Vlad Tenev at Robinhood. It was kind of cool to see him on there. Although, you know, the order flow thing with Robinhood is questionable in my mind. Scaled retail formats. Travis Boresma from Dutch Brothers. These are not, like we said, these are not flashy apps. These are builders, like builders of the hidden plumbing of. Of the economy. So I think that's really interesting. Only one, not one of them, not one came from social media. And so does that surprise you, or do you think it proves that quiet wealth is the new real wealth?

A (8:53)

Why? And I also just think that the. I mean, when you say didn't come from social media, do you mean from, like, as an influencer?

B (9:00)

Yes. And I mean also didn't come from, you know, from like Facebook or like, those are kind of set right now, I think, unless there's some.

A (9:08)

Yeah, exactly. I mean, I think the money has been made from that, you know, so, yeah, I'm not surprised there. I mean, I think there's that. That's like none of it came from the railroads. I mean, that was last generation's wealth builder. It's now going to come from a different place.

B (9:23)

Yeah. And real estate, which used to be giant also. Right. A lot of people would say, you know, 90% of the wealth in America comes from real estate. It's not anymore. The real estate is digital primarily, I think, more than anything.

A (9:35)

Yeah. And there, there are plenty of places where it's good, where you can still get very, very rich. It just may not make you one of the 400 richest people on Earth. So it doesn't mean that $3.8 billion.

B (9:47)

Threshold is pretty crazy. Yeah.

A (9:48)

There are only so many things that will get. That will consolidate that much wealth.

B (9:53)

So. So the question is, like, how did they do it? And more importantly, how can you and I replicate the same wealth creation plays but at a smaller scale? And that's where we created a framework that we are calling bottlenecks. And it's kind of cool because bottlenecks are one of the primary ways that these people do that. So that's creating choke points that you own. So Serge AI, Edwin Chen there, who was in at 18 billion built wealth controlling labeled data which a lot of people have never even heard of, that's basically just human verified data that AI models use to train on. So that's kind of interesting. And it's also interesting in the picks and shovels kind of. If you guys are familiar with that, you know, it's not necessarily the people that own the mines that get rich, it's the people that sell, the people who want to own the mines, picks and shovels. And so in every gold rush, the richest person is not the miner, it's the person that controls the road to the mine. Which I thought was, is an interesting thought. So the arbitrage play here would be identify some scarcity and that might be power near substations. There's a lot of data centers that located there. It might be HIPAA grade medical data, it might be zoning permits, it might be mining permits. And then once you've identified that scarcity, acquiring undervalued operators like transcription firms or regional utility contractors, or boutique permitting consultancies like these are kind of obscure things that you then professionalize. That's step three. You add compliance, you add enterprise conflict contracts, you add recurring revenue and then rebrand them as infrastructure and court the buyers that buy those infrastructure kind of companies. So that would be like, you know, big tech, Amazon, Google, et cetera, the faang, although I think those initials have changed a little bit. Cloud platforms like Databricks or snowflake infrastructure, PE like Brookfield, or utilities like Duke, those are all potential buyers. And then you're exiting at a 10 to 12 multiple on something that you ended up acquiring in the 3 to 4 range. So I think the, it's a really solid play to own those bottlenecks in today's in demand scarcity areas. And it's kind of like the modern monopoly, right? It's the Hunt Brothers, was it. They kind of tried to corner the silver market instead of cornering a commodity like that. Now you're looking for something that is really powering the infrastructure of what's happening in the future. So do you think controlling bottlenecks is ethical or, or do you have problems with it? What do you think?

A (12:53)

I mean, yeah, I don't have a problem with it. I mean at the end of the day, if you cross the line, there's going to be plenty of government institutions that'll be there to Stop you. And also the, the, the, the market is going to create the competition. So I don't think you're going to have the opportunity to establish a full blown monopoly. What I can tell you is that going out there and controlling a bottleneck of you know, some of these very like these Giganto markets, it's hard and very often they're established. And so you might be thinking like okay fine, but like I don't know that I can necessarily, you know, control and occupy the ground that the data centers are on or you know, I'm not, I'm not the energy company. So to think about the second and third order players that are, that are out there, that, that's where I would be. That's, that that's where for me like I'd more be wanting to play. Well, that's because not only is there opportunity, what was that?

B (13:54)

That, that's, that's what we're saying. So we're not saying so like the step one is what is the scarcity and so it's power near substations. But you don't go and buy a substation, right?

A (14:05)

That's going to be a tough one.

B (14:06)

Right. You don't go and buy a mine. But what you do is you look at who are the smaller underwrite, undervalued operators. So like a medical transcription firm has, is a bottleneck because they have all of the data that they've created through transcriptions that can then be used for the AI labeling. Right? That then is. So they're mini bottlenecks, right? That, that they're not monopolies. And so that's why I think it's important to say bottleneck, not monopoly because we're playing to the monopoly companies as acquirers of our small bottleneck mini moats that we've, you know, that we've, that we've got so that we, that, that.

A (14:47)

We got the client does underground tanks for the, for you know, generators that would go in the, you know, data centers, for example. Right. And so you think about a data center, you think about all the stuff that goes into a data center. Nobody thinks about the person that needs to put in the underground tanks that are going to power the generator that needs to be there in the data center. And yet they, that's a hyper specialized company that just does that. Right? And that's one, there's going to be dozens and dozens and dozens of smaller companies and contractors in and around just that one opportunity. And there's dozens and dozens of opportunities like that. So what are kind of the second and third order opportunities that these gold rushes are creating. So yep, there's the picks, there's, there's the shovels, there's the roads out to the mines, there's gold rushes all over the place. What are the picks and shovels and the second and third order picks and shovels that are creating the bottlenecks that you can get in front of that.

B (15:48)

Are also going to appeal. That are bottlenecks in industries that are critical to or going to appeal. The current trending monopolies is the thing I would add to that. So like, because I think that you can say, well, let's own the company that's doing the underground things. That is definitely. There's demand for that and, and everything, but it's not likely. There's not a lot of additional value transformation that can be added that's going to jump the multiple on it. Whereas if I buy a transcription company that's a bottleneck for data that can be used then repositioned as an LLM train, you know, AI labeling, then the AI labeling company, which has more money than, you know, than anybody now, because that's where all the money is flown to, is going to pay a hefty premium for that. Because the premium they pay is still just a fraction of the valuation that they've got in terms of even in multiple. Right. Because they're typically trading at public multiples that are crazy, crazy high. So I think that's, that's just the caveat is just be careful that you're. I mean, you can definitely make money with the one, but if you're like shooting for the, you know, let's hit that threshold. I think you have to, to look a little higher. Would, would you rather own a bottleneck in an emerging industry like AI or one that was more stable and boring like utilities?

A (17:12)

If it's me, I'd rather own the stable, boring one because I'm a big.

B (17:17)

Fan of the trendy one.

A (17:19)

No, I give me the doubles and singles. Um, the. Cause I'll tell you the other, the other thing about chasing trends. Not only is it, is it very zero sum, but everybody's in it. Like there's just so much competition. You know, it's not that I don't feel like I can compete, but. But I would much rather, you know, I'd much rather be the, the, the kid. I remember going back and when I was in high school, like. Cause I'm not tall, you know that. But I remember when I was in high school, know Going back to my junior high and a bunch of kids like, hey, let's play basketball. And all of a sudden, what do you know? I was the tallest one there, right? That's what I want to be, right? I want to be the short high school guy playing against junior high kids. And so. And that ain't going in there and playing an AI today. So that's kind of more where I'm living.

B (18:12)

All right, so the B in our bottlenecks acronym is actually bottlenecks. The O is order flow. And the perfect example here is something that was relatively controversial, is how Robinhood made the most of its money. So Vlad Tenev, who was on the list with Robinhood, basically, they profit by selling payments by charging processing companies for order flow, meaning the processing of the tickets that the Robinhood trades generate. And so Robinhood democratizes investing by allowing you to purchase fractions of a share and get into the stock market and play it for not much money. And then they pass the order flow, the execution orders on to other firms that they charge, I think, hundreds of millions, as I recall, like minimum processing to have the order flow and the firms buy the order flow and profit from it. And I thought that was kind of interesting because it's basically, you know, you don't have to. You don't have to sell the fish if you own the dock. Like, they don't, they don't have to sell order flow because they already own the place that everybody is coming up to. And the arbitrage play here is acquiring fragmented brokers like freight claims brokers. Again, it's brokers, not the people in the middle commodity, adding AI automation for matching and pricing. So how does the broker then use AI to connect people and price dynamically? Roll up four to six of those brokers, get to a national platform, monetize the spread the margin per transaction and the float the interest that you're getting on the cash that you're holding. And then you're exiting to PE at eight or nine times. It's an easy 10x. You know, you could have a $20 million investment cost that ends up being 200 millionx, because Robinhood makes billions not by trading, but by selling the flow of trades. It's that that's the genius. That's the trick. But the question is, like, does that only work until regulators step in, or do you think that's going to be like, will that be in the current environment, which seems to be kind of deregulatory? Is that a play that you like?

A (20:26)

It would make Me very, very nervous. It also starts to look a lot like skimming. We're not adding a ton of value. We're sort of just, you know, it. It's not a business that I would necessarily, if I've got my choice that I would want to go into, because you're likely spending as much money on lobbyists as you are on marketing and acquisition. So I, and I would wonder.

B (20:50)

I mean, it's a control of an audience more than anything. Like, if you look at Robinhood, mostly it's just the control of the audience by making something available that wasn't available before. So that play has worked in the past and will probably work in the future. And I think that Robinhood's method of making money is a bit sketchy. But there are. If you were just like, if you bought a freight group and then AI, automated matching and, you know, we're holding money, making money off the interest. There's, there's a, there was a company that we were working with that, that is a dump truck brokerage that brokers dirt, people that have dirt that want to get rid of it and dump truck owners that want to pick it up and take it to other places. And so I feel like they're adding tremendous value because they've created this marketplace of buyers and sellers. They've added AI, automation and you know, they get paid a fee each time they make a connect. They have, they, they have true value. And so I think that like they have the audience and they're getting paid for order flow also. That's an interesting business and one that I would never have thought of this one. The beautiful thing you and I get is we get to look at all these businesses. You're like, holy crap, how do you make money doing that? But would you say though, then that order flow businesses can scale beyond finance and freight? Or is like. Or are they always risking being replaced by the platform that they're dealing with? You know, like the. I would, I would say I'm trying to ask a question while I have seven in my head. So let me see if I can get it down to one. Do you think that this applies outside of finance and freight? I guess that would be the first thing.

A (22:35)

So, yes, I mean, because I think a lot of it is any, any brokerage type business is going to somewhat look like this. And I think the question is, are you adding a layer of value beyond merely just controlling access? If all you are is a toll booth and you're simply saying, I got these people over here and I'M just charging them to get to you over here. At some point, these two parties are going to figure out a way around you. Yeah, right. They are going to figure out how to bypass you. And so if you're not adding value in that exchange, then you got to know that, that you're going to get cut out because you deserve to be. And so I think that's the, that's the thing that you got to figure out, is it. So can it, can it happen outside of finance? Yep. I think the reason that it works more in finance is it is easier to control the pipes in finance. Like there's just so many more ways inside of finance just to make sure that the two do not talk to one another. Just the lockdowns that exist in that particular market that technologically make it possible that own others. But you still see it.

B (23:44)

Yeah, I agree.

A (23:45)

Not a business that I love.

B (23:47)

That leads us to the T, which is tools selling the picks and shovels, which I do happen to love. So you've got Jensen Huang, who, who created Nvidia. GPUs are the shovel and AI is, you know, for the, for the AI gold rush. The arbitrage play here would be targeting niche AI tools. So like annotation qa, you know, quality assurance on the annotations for AI, bias detection, hallucination, guardrails, model monitoring, retrieval, analytics, rights management, all of those things for training data. You could acquire 5 to 10 million ARR. SaaS, companies that were in those areas or that were adaptable to those areas at relatively modest multiples. SaaS multiples are down right now. Bundle that into AI DevOps suites with unified billing and support, cross sell into enterprise accounts, scaling to 50 million ARR exit to, you know, somebody like Nvidia or another hyperscaler at 10 to 12 AR. And you're, you're doing pretty good. So you've got Nvidia, that's worth over a trillion right now dollars, because it sells the shovels for the AI gold rush. But tools are only valuable until the gold rush ends generally. So how do you know which tool makers are going to outlast the hype? And Nvidia, which went from graphics card to AI, basically card, even though it's kind of the same thing. Like, is that, do you think that, is there a way to kind of identify what's the next one of those? And if you are Nvidia, are you a little concerned that you got a big target on your back and you got a whole bunch of people coming for you or do you think they've got it kind of safely tucked aside right now?

A (25:33)

There's no business that's safe. I mean that's like, that's the classic.

B (25:36)

Only the paranoid Intel, I think just got an investment from the US government because they were doing so badly and they were the player for chips forever. Right, Exactly.

A (25:49)

I mean, yeah, Nvidia was just, just kind of like they sold little graphics cards to gamers. You know, the fact that those just happened to work the best for AI. Yeah, I mean, look, I'm sure that there was some foresight there. No, nobody can, can convince me that there wasn't also a giant heaping helping a luck that they got the double.

B (26:11)

They got the double luck though, right? They got bitcoin mining, crypto mining first and then AI. Like, you know, just as crypto maybe was being questionable, it's like, oh no, now we've got this limitless demand for AI. I just don't understand how everybody else missed it.

A (26:29)

Yeah, I mean, I think what it is is, you know, classic innovators dilemma. You had the biggest chip player in the world, intel, saying we got to just keep doing what we're doing and they just didn't pivot fast enough. And I think AMD was so busy competing against intel that they were just trying to beat them that they didn't see Nvidia as being the competition they should have been competing with.

B (26:51)

Yeah, it's one AI surprised everybody too, right? It was like OpenAI comes and Google's like, holy crap. And then Apple's like, oh my gosh, we missed everything.

A (27:00)

Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, I think one of the most important decisions you make in business is your choice in competitor. And I think if you choose. Because when you choose your competitor, what you're really choosing is, is the category that you're competing in. And so I think that was the mistake that AMD made. But they, they weren't as they were able to move faster than intel did obviously. And so they're moving along faster. But yeah, I mean it worked out great for Nvidia. I don't know that there's a phenomenal model there beyond. Yep. If you can be the big shovel and yeah, I mean if you can be the only one there holding a shovel in, in the gold rush, then you're golden. But I don't know, I mean, you tell me like, would you rather be the startup making the shiny beautiful AI app or you know, do you want to be the, the boring toolmaker? Like where do you want to be.

B (27:58)

On the ecosystem every time Toolmaker and I like, like the, the play that we, so we're not laying out really, you know, become Nvidia here, guys. We, we're laying out knowing that things like this come and looking and deconstructing the 11 levers that we see the people that are on this list of self made billionaires doing. What could you do? You could absolutely acquire a 5 to $10 million ARR. Annual recurring revenue SaaS. You could probably find one that's in trouble and then it's not already. An AI SaaS is the key.

A (28:36)

Right.

B (28:36)

Then you're bundling that into this DevOps suite for AI. So the transformation in value is coming from. We've got a component of this thing that we know that the Nvidia type companies are going to want to buy and we are transforming the, the raw rock that we've mined, you know, by finding this company that will fit that mold into the gold or the diamond by applying the AI skin on top of that, that filter of, you know. Now this could be just a boring SaaS or it could be AI DevOps. Let's position it as AI DevOps. And then we put four or five of them together into a suite and we've got something. And so that just don't forget that that's like we're not just talking about being the next Nvidia, but we can't help but comment on that as we talk about the smaller play. Right?

A (29:36)

Yeah.

B (29:37)

So the next two.

A (29:37)

I think the thing you got to worry about when you're, when you're talking about the smaller play just to look out for is if there is a bigger pick and shovel provider and you want to provide a smaller pick or shovel, just make sure that it's not clear that obviously the bigger pick and shovel provider isn't just going to build in the thing that you're doing into their stack. Yeah, right. I mean if there's, if it's so.

B (30:03)

Obvious developing, let's say an app called Meerkat. Yeah, right. Meerkat was, was it for Twitter?

A (30:12)

I think so, yeah. I mean it was the.

B (30:15)

It basically got completely absorbed. It was like a big deal and it got crushed because it got just built. It's like, oh yeah, we do that now.

A (30:34)

Hey, before you go, if this episode sparks something, a fresh idea, a little clarity, or even just the comfort of knowing that you're not crazy for doing this whole entrepreneur thing, then I want you to imagine what happens when you're in the room with 750 other founders who are right there with you. That's what Get Scalable Live is all about. Three days San Diego, November 18th through the 20th and again, this event was built exclusively for seven and eight figure business owners who are looking to scale something real. There's no fluff, there's no ego, there's no washed up celebrities delivering keynotes with zero takeaways. This is just strategies, systems and the copy and paste tools and tactics that you actually need to scale. There's amazing stuff at the front of the room, of course, but also at dinner, in the hall and over drinks where the real conversations happen. You're going to get great stuff there as well. So if you've ever thought I can't step away or this whole thing breaks or I build something that works, but it's starting to feel like a trap, then this is your room. Roland and I are going to be there. Our team is going to be there. And if this is your year two level up, you should be there too. Head to getscalablelive.com use the code LUNCH to save 25% off your ticket. Again, get scalablelive.com and code LUNCH. But you need to do it now. Not only are prices going up, but this event absolutely will sell out. It does every year. So if you're ready to finally step out of the chaos, if you're ready to build a business that scales without you, and if you're ready to surround yourself with people who actually get you, go to getscalablelive.com use the code LUNCH and I will see you in San Diego. Trust me, you're going to be glad that you did.