Kevin Gordon (3:58)

The key word is maybe. And I think today is sort of, you know, the end of the final day of the quarter is emblematic of the whiplash environment that we've been in. And that's really how we've been characterizing this market. It's not impossible to trade. But when you're really kind of starving for accurate information out of both sides in terms of what is the condition of the Strait of Hormuz, what does the traffic look like, what is the potential for that to get back online? What is the knock on effect gonna be for the global economy? All of these unanswered questions. I think that just makes markets a little bit more aggressive and volatile when you get any snippet of good news. But also to the downside, we've had our fair share, especially at the end of last week. That was a clear example of all the negative news. Compounding, I think that today's move doesn't really surprise me. I think that one thing to look at in terms of the strength of the durability of the move, I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into it because if you look at the underlying breadth and subsurface moves of the S&P 500, at least advancing volume wasn't that strong. It was actually a little bit, last I checked right before I joined you, so I'll have to check for the official closing stats. But last I checked, it was actually stronger last Monday than it was today in terms of advancers relative to decliners. And when you look at what was lifting the index significantly, it was Actually tech and communication services. So yes, you still had a majority of members in the S and P that were advancing, but it was a lot of that mega cap strength reasserting itself because those have actually gotten hit. Those are some of the hardest hit markets so far this year, even if you back it out actually over the past six months. So a little bit was a, was sort of this reversion into those names, but also just sort of this classic momentum trade going in reverse. Where energy had been the leader today, it got, you know, hit the hardest. Similar with, you know, with tech and communication services. They had been struggling a lot and then they had found, you know, sort of the strongest move and the strongest bid today. So I wouldn't put a whole lot of, a whole lot of weight into just one day. But especially because some of the background conditions, whether it is the breadth underneath the market or whether it is actually the fact that oil prices continue to move higher today, I think that in and of itself is a little bit of a reason to sort of step back and not extrapolate the move that we saw for, for U.S. stocks.

Ed Elson (6:16)

I'm so confused as to why investors appear to be either buying or selling in huge numbers based on what Trump says. But that seems to keep on happening. He says, okay, this was going to end soon and then markets go up and then he's actually probably not. And then markets go down. Is it your belief that what is happening, what happened in the markets wasn't necessarily a response to what happened in Iran because it was mostly a rally in the tech sector? Or are the two still quite related?

Kevin Gordon (6:48)

Yeah, I mean. Well, when you look at the contribution to the indexes gained today from tech, I kind of lump tech and communication services in with each other because they have kind of become that big tech, that tech like trade lowercase T. They're clearly different sectors and they have very different makeups in terms of their membership profile. So it is important to make the distinction. But if you combine those two, you're talking about around 40% of the S&P 500's market cap. So if they're advancing and doing well, pretty hard for the headline index to struggle vice versa. A lot of what we were experiencing year to date, right before the war, those sectors were struggling. They were sort of taking a step back from their leadership positions and that was kind of giving the illusion that the headline S and P wasn't doing as well. But underneath the surface, you had actually seen a lot more improvement in the average stock doing quite well. The equal weighted S&P 500, if you want to think of that, as the proxy for the average stock that had been doing well. So yes, I do think most of the move today was kind of just that snapback and that reversion for a part of the market that didn't necessarily get a lot of love or hasn't gotten a lot of love for the past six months. And I would add to it, not only was the sort of the subsurface breadth not as good as I had mentioned earlier, but the flow data actually into a sector like tech was not very strong today. So there wasn't this sort of high conviction on the part of traders, especially in the retail crowd. I was looking specifically at that cohort. There wasn't a lot of high conviction in terms of that move really bringing them back in. Certainly nothing akin to what you had seen in April of last year when we were going through those, what we were calling these rip your face off rallies after you had gotten the series of delays for imports for China.

Ed Elson (8:29)

What do you make of this quarter as a whole? It feels like there have been two major market moving events. I guess the first one was AI is killing software. And I mean some of the drawdowns we've seen even in the companies that are technically AI, companies like Microsoft, even Nvidia has gotten pretty crushed recently. That seems to be one story which surprised people for various different reasons. And then also Iran and what that has done to oil supply and what that may do to the economy. I guess I'd be interested to hear your reflections on Q1. I mean, I, I don't think these are two things that people necessarily predicted. But how does it change your outlook for the year? And what are your reflections on what has been kind of an insane quarter?

Kevin Gordon (9:22)

It has been an insane, I mean, insanely long quarter. I feel like it's, it's been a year because, you know, this dates back even to Venezuela and Greenland. I mean, that was in the same quarter. You know, it's hard to imagine that so much has gone. I've been joking that we're still in January and so it just feels drawn out. But I think that for Iran in particular, yes, I think it will change the calculus of how we think about the trajectory of the economy moving forward. What's difficult is there's just so many unknowns in terms of what is the strategy of, of the US And I think that matters in the sense of trying to figure out and sort of game out a scenario analysis for where oil ultimately ends up because I think that going up to $120, I'm just sort of using rounded numbers out of the air. But $120 a barrel for oil, if you get up to that, that doesn't really tell me much. I want to know what is sort of the floor after that and where do you ultimately kind of plan out and find a sustained floor? Because if it is around 100, that's a meaningful shock up from 60, which was the recent low that probably keeps gasoline prices at least a little bit above $4. And gasoline prices take longer to come down than oil does. So I'm thinking about it from the mindset of the consumer. To me, this is much more of a sort of direct to consumer shock versus something like Liberation Day last year, which was more of a direct to business shock because those are the ones that sort of faced it first in terms of the import fees and the hike in rates that they had to pay. The consumer, as we've sort of learned, didn't face too much of that tariff burden through last year. There were bits and pieces and certainly in the goods market there was some pass through. We've actually started to see some pass through earlier this year. But I think of this as more of that direct to consumer shock. And if you think about the two things that the average consumer in America, I would say probably the world, but in America in particular, thinks about as the most important gauges of economic health. It's grocery prices and it's gasoline prices. So to the extent that this starts to cause a little bit of a shift in how they spend their money, that I think will ultimately lead us to sort of change how we think about the trajectory of the economy. I will say though, there needs to be, I think, an important distinction. And so far this has played out in the economic data that we've gotten. There does need to be a distinction between what is a consumption shock and what is a labor shock. Because if you do hit the consumer spending power or you hit the sort of consumption basket, that's one thing. But if you start to take away consumer spending power via lower income through layoffs, that's a very different story. So far that hasn't been the case. Initial jobless claims, which we get every Thursday morning at 8:30 Eastern, those have actually rolled over. They haven't picked up much. We haven't really gotten any sort of company notices of mass layoffs across industries. So as long as that's the case, I think that it will keep the economy sort of on track to grow. But I Think it's probably relatively easy to say that we're going to have to take down growth estimates for this year just based on that consumer, consumer aspect alone.

Ed Elson (12:26)

Well, while you're on that point, we just had this news that Oracle is laying off thousands of employees. It kind of just came out of the blue. They just sent an email and thousands of employees were dismissed. And again, it is one of those stories of. This was an AI story. And we have seen more of these. We've seen it with Pinterest, we saw it with Amazon, we saw it with Block. Block was another big one. Are those AI layoff stories significant enough to you to make to pose real problems in the labor market going forward? Like, is that just more of a. This happens to a handful of tech companies and, you know, it might be very shocking for that industry itself, but not necessarily going to have a massive implication for the larger economy. Where do you land on these AI layoffs in terms of their impact going forward?

Kevin Gordon (13:22)

I lean that way just because in just sort of simple math terms, I mean, the information sector, it's hard because the bls, you know, they don't have tech specifically carved out as a name of an industry, but information is essentially, that's the name that we can sort of associate with tech. That's pretty low single digits in terms of the percentage share of overall payrolls. So number one, that's a pretty small sort of impact directly, at least for overall payrolls. But number two, that shares actually been rolling over for a couple of years, almost a couple of years now. So we've started to, actually, we've continued to see, we started to see it a couple of years ago, but we've continued to see this move away from tech dominance in terms of that share of employment growing because it had been growing for a while, but now that's actually started to reverse slower and it's been in favor of areas like health and education, private health services. So we've seen that handoff in that timeframe. Of course the economy has continued to grow. The labor market has continued to grow. Not in a strong way, not as strong as we've been used to, but we've still continued to see economic growth. So I think that it keeps that a little bit more idiosyncratic. But at the same time it is emblematic, I think, of what's happening to the broader tech industry and I think actually brings up an interesting point about tech for this sort of next earnings season. What I found interesting so far, year to date, is that tech earnings revisions within the S&P 500, that sector has actually seen the most aggressive of upward revisions. So analysts have continued to get more optimistic on what EPS is going to look like for this year. I'm going to be very sort of hawkeye focused on in the next earnings season. Whether that is driven by sort of this profit margin protection of laying more people off, or whether they're actually continuing to see strong organic revenue and strong demand. I think those are two very different things. And that to me will determine a lot of the sort of the fate of where tech goes for the rest of the year.

Ed Elson (15:16)

And it's striking because it's gotten so crushed this quarter. I mean it's just one of those sectors where they keep on posting great earnings, keep on beating estimates by and large, and then they still get punished either way. Just as we wrap up here, it seems as though as it stands, end of Q1 2026, I don't know if you agree with this, but it seems as though this might be one of the most uncertain times in market history. It seems as though investors are incredibly unanchored from what is actually happening on the ground because they're asking so many questions about what the future might look like and they're not really willing or very interested in looking at the previous backward looking data because everyone's view is kind of like, well, the future is completely uncertain. We don't know what's going to happen in Iran, we don't know what's going to happen at the price of oil, we don't know what AI is going to do to the job market, what it's going to do to software, to tech, et cetera. So it's kind of like a free for all is the way I feel right now. I'd be interested to hear if you agree, like do you agree that this is the most uncertain time we've seen, at least in the past, I don't know, 10 years.

Kevin Gordon (16:30)

The U word I would use is actually unstable and unstable and uncertain to me are different. That was actually a key theme that we had coming into 2026. Not that we in any way predicted, you know, the war that we're in right now, but, but instability is a little bit more, it's definitely less comfortable in terms of, you can see these things that are shifting. You just don't necessarily know how to respond as an investor. So not that we think you need to respond to all of these events. I would actually argue against that and say that you should be lengthening time horizons and really reassessing what your risk tolerance and your emotional risk tolerance is in these environments. But I think to your point, something I've been thinking about lately and going through all of these, these things that are happening right now, it's sort of a monster mashup of prior crises or it's sort of the ghost of prior crises, you know, pasts that are coming to haunt us all at once. Because you have the AI story, a lot of people liken it to the late 90s with the Internet bubble. You have an energy crisis going on right now that people liken to 1990 or the mid to late 1970s. But then you also have this tariff regime that we're still in which harkens back to 17 and 18 or even last year. So it's all of this sort of happening at once and mashed up. And I think that's what's causing a lot of the stress and the anxiety around how can the market continue to do well or not sell off as much as we'd expect with all of this going on? But to me, it gets back to, I guess, a framework that I've been using for these moments, which is what is the front page risk? What is the bottom line risk? We've gone through a lot of front page risks and faced a lot of that this year, whether it was Venezuela, whether it was Greenland, whether it was everything with the Fed. But the bottom line risk wasn't as acute or as sharp because it wasn't filtering down to how is this going to affect S&P 500 earnings? Because at the end of the day, it's probably what the market, that is what the market cares about the most. This more recent conflict I think is kind of narrowing the gap between those two. So that's what I'm on watch for, is to see how much of this direct to consumer hit really manifests and how much of it grows. And that's where I could see this translating from just the front page stuff to an actual bottom line risk.

Ed Elson (18:40)

All right, Kevin Gordon, head of Macro research and strategy for the Schwab center for Financial Research. Kevin, always love having you. Thank you for joining us.

Kevin Gordon (18:47)

Thanks, Ed.

Ed Elson (18:49)

After the break, an update on the chips market. And if you're enjoying the show, please follow our new Prof. G Markets YouTube channel starting next week. That is where you will find all of our new content on YouTube. The link is in the description. Subscribe now.

Doug O'Laughlin (19:05)

Foreign.

Advertisement/Announcer (19:11)

Message is brought to you by E. Trade from Morgan Stanley. Simplify your finances and discover the convenience of investing in banking. All in one place with E Trade from Morgan Stanley. Choose from a wide range of investment choices and award winning banking solutions together in one platform. Plus get up to 1500 dollars when you open a brokerage account with a qualifying deposit today. Learn more@etrade.com offer banking products and services are provided by Morgan Stanley Private Bank National Association Member fdic. Terms and other fees apply. Investing involves risks. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC Member SIPC. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn it's a shame when the best B2B marketing gets wasted on the wrong audience. Like imagine running an ad for cataract surgery on Saturday morning cartoons. Or running a promo for this show on a video about Roblox or something. No offense to our Gen Alpha listeners, but that would be a waste of anyone's ad budget. So when you want to reach the right professionals, you can use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals and 130 million decision makers according to their data. That's where it stands apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority, skills, company revenue, all so you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience. That's why LinkedIn Ads boasts one of the highest B2B return on ad spend of all online ad networks. Seriously, all of them. Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one. Just go to LinkedIn.com Scott that's LinkedIn.com Scott Terms and conditions apply.

Doug O'Laughlin (20:51)

K pop demon hunters, Haja Boy's breakfast meal and Hunt Tricks Meal have just dropped at McDonald's. They're calling this a B for the fans. What do you say to that Rumi?

Ed Elson (21:00)

It's not a battle. So glad the Saja boys could take breakfast and give our meal the rest of the day.

Kevin Gordon (21:05)

It is an honor to share.

Ed Elson (21:07)

No, it's our honor. It is our larger honor.

Doug O'Laughlin (21:10)

No, really, stop. You can really feel the respect in this battle. Pick a meal to pick a side and participate in McDonald's while supplies last.

Ed Elson (21:27)

We're back with Prof. G Markets. The relentless rise of chip stocks has hit a roadblock. Last week, U.S. memory chip stocks shared $100 billion in market value after Google revealed an algorithm called Turboquant that could reduce demand for the chips. Stocks rallied yesterday though, as investors bought the dip, but they are still down for the past week. Meanwhile, the Iran war is stoking fears of a supply crunch in helium, a critical material in chip manufacturing. Despite yesterday's broad market rally. Nvidia is still trading at a forward PE below the S&P 500 for the first time in 13 years. So lots going on in the chips market right now. Here to break down what's happening, we're speaking with Doug o', Loughlin, president of Semianalysis. Doug, great to see you. This. This movement in the chip market that we're seeing is a little bit confusing. I mean, first Google comes out with this algorithm, Turboquant, which supposedly is going to kill memory stocks. And people were calling it Google's or Memory's deep SEQ moment. But then the memory chip stocks rise yesterday. So did all the other semiconductor stocks. What is going on here?

Doug O'Laughlin (22:42)

Okay, so I think what we're actually seeing is a lot of leverage under the surface. Right. Memory has been a really popular trade year to date, and it's become very crowded. Right. That's the most simplistic way to think about it. And I think SK Hynix, which is a cheaper alter, like the stock is cheaper on fundamental metrics, but it trades in Korea. It's recently been talking about leasing, you know, an adr. And because of that, that's going to kind of, you know, move some of the supply of rather some of the demand for Micron away from Micron shares into SK Hynix shares. That's one simplistic way to think about it. The other side of it, I think, is just a lot of momentum unwinding. A lot of the moves were very like multiple standard deviations out of the normal, specifically for negative chip stocks and positive software stocks. That's effectively been the most popular trade year to date. And so what I think what you're witnessing in terms of the confusing moves is more a function of degrossing than fundamental information. And I definitely want to talk about Turboquant because, like, Turboquant's fake. I mean, I have no other way to put this. Okay. And I can even give some, like, insider baseball. I feel like that will really help one. Almost always what happens is in a closed lab, if they're willing to publish a paper about it publicly, that means that there's some kind of breakdown that means it can't scale at a larger amount, because if it did work at a larger amount, you just keep it inside and you would essentially increase your margin versus your competitors. It's so much so that I know that closed labs have a political movement. So pretty much like if you want to screw someone's career as you publish the finding that they worked on, I really don't think Turboquant is a big of deal as people think. And if you scale it up, pretty much what happens is that there's an immediate throughput disadvantage. Partially a big part of it too was comparing the quantitation schemes. So it's like a 32 bit versus I think it was like a 4 bit. That difference alone accounts for a meaningful uplift in the KB cache compression. But last and not least is, is the most important portion of this whole thing is if you get more context and via kvcache essentially users will just use more context. So I think it really is a nothing burger. Like I really cannot express this enough. I know that if it was really, really special and secret and good, it wouldn't have been released. There are optimization techniques for kbcache that happen at every of the leading labs and this is just one of them that was published to the public.

Ed Elson (25:03)

Yeah, it's interesting how the market reacted to that Turboquant release which was again, I mean Google comes out with this algorithm that the idea is that it's going to reduce the amount of memory that is needed to run these large language models and everyone freaks out. But it appears that now markets are kind of re understanding what's happening because memory stocks are now rising again. And what I read is that that Bernstein had put out some research saying we're not so worried about this. Everyone decides to buy again. The point being it seems that investors kind of don't know what's going on here just on a technical basis. They're waiting for someone else to tell them this is the deal, this is what this means for you. Would you agree with that? And if so, what does that mean for this market?

Doug O'Laughlin (25:55)

I would mostly agree with that. And I think it really comes down to risk appetite and what's happening at investors all around the world. Stocks that go up very quickly often give it back very quickly. And I think that that's the big thing that we're witnessing. Micron trades really cheap on a forward price to earnings, but oftentimes memory stocks kind of top out at a cheap price earnings because they're inherently cyclical. Now in this point in time, I think what happens is like as it becomes, you know, cheaper and cheaper and cheaper as the memory price goes up and up and up effectively it's like a game of chicken. One day the memory price will go down and what will happen is the, the, the shares which often are very, very cheap at the top become, you know, the operating leverage is meaningful to the downside and so this is like the history of every memory cycle. But at this point in time, I want to be pretty clear about this. We still continue to believe that there is way more demand than there is supply. And supply has a unique constraint that pretty much there's no meaningful blocks of supply that will come online until the second half of next year. That's because the long lead time items of like, like building a whole clean room takes a long time. And so that's kind of going to be this continued supply demand gap that we see in the market.

Ed Elson (27:07)

I just want to shift to some other names here. Nvidia as an example, which is as I mentioned, is trading at a Ford PE that is below the S&P 500 average. In fact, Nvidia's forward PE is now lower than ExxonMobil's forward PE, which is pretty remarkable. What has changed in terms of the Nvidia narrative here? Why is it, I mean this is the AI company and yet investors are saying we're not so excited. In fact, we're more excited about ExxonMobil.

Doug O'Laughlin (27:41)

This is a hard question and one that I've been answering to a lot of my clients. It's really hard for us to understand why the big companies trade the way they do. I'm going to actually look to history a little bit and give an example of a company that won so, so stupendously in its market that, that the earnings multiple collapsed. The company that comes top of mind is Apple. Apple once upon a time in the like late teens or maybe even mid teens, I don't know, late teens, I think IT traded for 8 times earnings x cash the entire time the company was growing at a healthy clip. But what happens is sometimes effectively, if you think about it, there needs to be an incremental buyer. It's the single biggest company in the world. It's a well understood story. And I think what's going to happen is the stock will probably continue to work based on its earnings growth. Which if you, the reason why you know the their forward earnings is so low is because they're expected to grow over 70% revenue this year. And that's a pretty remarkable revenue growth rate at a company that their size. So I think Nvidia is going to be fine. But I think part of it is when you're at the top there is kind of a whole different special set of second rules. And they are the single biggest company in the world. And so the flow, the liquidity kind of really fights against you. You become such a big portion in indexes. It becomes a little bit of a battle I think from a supply and demand of your shares and that's what I think is capping the near term, let's say stock revisions. And I think continued execution is what will make Nvidia's stock and the value of its earnings be valuable again. Because you can look at other parts of the market for AI and there's many, many, many different parts that trade for 30, 40 very healthy times multiples of earnings because there's a lot of excitement. I think it's just a difference in magnitude of scale.

Ed Elson (29:21)

Yeah. If Apple is the, is the comparison then it would lead me to believe that perhaps this is a good buying opportunity. I certainly seem to think that about Microsoft which is. I was just looking. It's now trading roughly where it was after Liberation Day after that meltdown last year. Microsoft is another AI company building the data centers, getting absolutely crushed right now. Meta, by the way, is in a slightly similar position also trading near where it was after the meltdown, after Liberation Day. Just before we let you go here, I'd love to get your views on those two names, Meta. Microsoft and why they too are getting clobbered at least so far this year.

Doug O'Laughlin (30:02)

Yeah, I think it's really interesting and I think it's time to think about how AI impacts both their business models because I think that that's the big difference. Microsoft, I think the big difference is that they're a horizontal software company with, with Office 365 and there is no company that has challenged more than they are at a core basis from ChatGPT, from Anthropic's cowork and obviously they're working really hard to fast follow kind of like they did with teams and Zoom. Right. And you could argue Slack as well. But at the same time, when the pace and the speed of the market is moving so quickly in AI, I think that there's a real invalid reason to question the longevity of Microsoft's core business. Right. Office 365 is under threat if AI is going to be doing a lot of the information processing that humans on a seed based software consumption model previously did. Now at the same time, Azure happens to be the biggest, we'll call it Neo Cloud in the world. They are the single biggest infrastructure player and that business is working at a very healthy clip. So I think that there's a kind of a narrative headwind to Microsoft where they have have kind of barbarians at the gates of their core business. But at the same time you know the barbarians at the gate happen to be their biggest customers, right? So there's this kind of this push and pull, but at some price, I believe you're kind of going to be able to get Office for free because the value of the Azure portion and the revenue acceleration from that and then if you include or X out Windows, the stock becomes pretty cheap. But I do believe that there's going to be quite so like, look, it's probably a very cheap and exciting stock, but there's definitely some narrative headwinds I think. On the other side of it you have Meta, right? Meta. Meta's business model is actually, you can argue, one of the most advantageous in terms of like high ROI spending. And that's also another question. I think the hyperscalers are coming to roic is going down as they spend all these big dollars, but they're able to get pretty good returns on capital on this huge base. That's like a side thing. But Meta specifically can sit there and use all the GPUs that they have to make better recommendation learning models and sell higher value ads with more impressions so they can make the users that they have more engaged as well as the value of the advertisement slot for the user more valuable. And you can see this in CPMs going up, impressions continues to stable out. And so they have a really high ROI opportunity. But at the same time they also are missing something really important which is a core fundamental AI lab. And so they have this ability to monetize the GPUs at a high rate. But I think that there's a fear and concern that they're going to kind of be left at the roadside. And Zuck said this many, many times, he doesn't want to lease the future. Like kind of how he had to essentially rent Apple's toll booth, right? He wants to own a foundational AI lab. And so I think that that's going to be a big part of the value of the company in the future. And I think the misexecution in Avocado, which is their large pre trained model that they just recently finished, wasn't as good as other Chinese open source products. That's kind of the rumor and I think because of that people are viewing that as Meta isn't going to do a really good job from an AI perspective. So that's kind of the narrative, I think around Meta. But I do think that they're the most scaled player with a meaningful ROI of deploying AI into their core business. And I think Meta will continue to do well. And Zuck's not the type to lose. He's very competitive. So that's kind of the meta story, I think.

Ed Elson (33:29)

On the other hand, Doug o', Laughlin, President of Semianalysis, very interesting time to be the president of a semiconductor research company. So I congratulate you, Doug, and appreciate your time.

Doug O'Laughlin (33:40)

Yeah, thank you so much.

Ed Elson (33:45)

So here's the latest on the insider trading scandals that continue to come out of the White House. According to a new report from the Financial Times, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tried to make a multimillion dollar investment in a defense defense fund before we went to war with Iran. That was according to multiple people familiar with the matter. Reportedly, Pete Hegseth's broker at Morgan Stanley had contacted BlackRock to invest in the Defense Industrials Active ETF on his behalf. And again, crucially, this was shortly before we bombed Iran, a decision which Peter Hegseth was responsible for. Now, to be fair, they didn't go through with that investment, but not because they gained some form of moral clarity on the matter, but because it turned out they actually weren't able to invest because that fund was not yet available for Morgan Stanley clients to buy. So that is why they didn't invest. At the same time, we also have no knowledge of whether they decided to simply invest in a different defense fund. For all we know, they could have just gone and bought another one. And that would add up because this is becoming something of a trend in this administration. Also, before we attacked Iran, Trump's children invested millions of dollars in military drone companies that had contracts with the Pentagon. We have covered that before. Before we attacked Venezuela, the new secretary for the Department of Homeland Security bought up a bunch of oil and defense stocks. Again, that was before we went in and captured Maduro. Before Trump announced Liberation Day and tanked the stock market by one of its largest margins ever, more than a dozen government officials decided to sell significant amounts of stock at basically exactly the right time. There are plenty of other examples which I review in my latest newsletter, Simply Put, which you can read on substack@simply put.profgmedia.com I go through through all of the scandals that we've seen. But the point being, insider trading is now standard, ubiquitous, whatever you want to call it in this administration. So it's just hard to believe that the defense secretary wouldn't have gone and bought a different defense fund or perhaps other defense stocks after he had literally tried to buy it and gotten rejected by blackrock. And again, he's down to do this because there are no consequences anymore. The SEC has been gutted. Enforcement actions have plummeted, and the number of prosecutions for white collar crime have literally been cut in half. This is all by design. However, you know all of this because I've told you all of this before. But here I am telling it to you again because we are seeing the same news again. Another insider trading scandal. One of a series of insider trading scandals that have already been reported. Who knows how many scandals haven't been reported? But one thing remains pretty clear, at least to me. We have not seen the end of this. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Patterson and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Shalon, Isabella Kinsel, Kristen o' Donoghue and Mia Severio. And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Property Markets from Property Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.