Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:01]
A
Support for the show comes from bcx, the public ticker for Private tech. The US Stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation. From factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha, anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out. Until now. Introducing vcx, a public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges and expenses. This and other information can be found in the Fund's prospectus@getvcx.com this is a paid sponsorship.
- [00:47]
B
This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome? That's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50 page restoration. Or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it, ready to make anything online make sense. There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required compatibility and availability various 18/.
- [01:17]
C
Money Market Map if money is evil,
- [01:20]
D
then that building is hell.
- [01:21]
C
Show goes on the Right America Network wants to sell Sell.
- [01:28]
D
Welcome to Prof. G Markets. I'm Ed elson. It is July 30th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices fell sharply as President Trump vowed to resume strikes on Iran. He told Fox News, quote, we're going to beat the out of them. Brent crude rose back above $90 per barrel. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve held interest rates steady, sending stocks even lower. More on that later. And finally, treasury yields surged. Okay, what else is happening? Two of the largest companies in tech reported earnings yesterday, but investors only rewarded one of them. Meta grew revenue 28% slightly beating expectations. But its profits fell 13% because costs jumped 55%. Its operating margin dropped from 43 to 31%, and company's sales forecast came in under analyst expectations. The stock fell as much as 11% in after hours trading. Microsoft was, on the other hand, had great news. Revenue was up 18% year over year. Profits grew 32%. Azure, its cloud business, accelerated to 43% growth, which was faster than last quarter and faster than analysts expected. The stock popped as much as 10% after the bell. What the two have in common is spending. Both are building AI infrastructure at record scale and neither show any signs of slowing down. But investors seem to be more frightened than excited. Microsoft stock is down nearly 20% this year Meta's is down 10%. This raises an important question, how much longer will investors fund this build out here? To help us answer, we're speaking with Gil Luria, head of Technology research at DA Davidson. Gil, good to see you. We'll start with Meta and then we'll get to Microsoft. Investors are not happy with these Meta results, at least in after hours. We'll see how it moves throughout the day. What did you make of that earnings report?
- [03:34]
C
It was barely passable, so they beat by just a little bit and they guided below expectations for next quarter. As you pointed out, they're growing expenses faster than revenue, they're growing CapEx faster than revenue. They increased their CapEx guidance by just a little bit, which was a little relief. But overall it's not an impressive result. More importantly, Mr. Zuckerberg had a whole hour to explain how he's going to monetize the massive AI investments and he didn't really give us a firm answer. He basically said, we'll figure it out as we go. And that's just not good enough right now, not with how nervous investors are about this investment. And he just left investors wanting more. That's why you're seeing this disappointment that
- [04:21]
D
was going to be. My main question is, has he laid out a plan for how he will actually generate a return on these incredible AI infrastructure investments which continue to rise? I mean, as you say, he raised the capex by a little bit, but he still raised the capex. Is there anything, I mean, do we have any understanding? There was the rumor, for example, that Meta would start a cloud business. That was the reporting we heard. Do we not know at all?
- [04:52]
C
We know what the pieces are. And he confirmed that that is one of the pieces they have on the board. So one is, hey, we sell a lot more ads for a lot more money. They've been doing that recently, let's not forget. Let's be kind to Meta for a second. They just grew 28%. That's almost twice as fast as Google. They're massive share gainers in the advertising market. That's the part investors would love to own. It's all the other stuff that they're more less comfortable with. But what he said is, okay, we do that right? Then we do have this opportunity to sell Compute to others. We have opportunity to sell enterprise products now. But really what we want to do is be selling Compute to consumers. We think we have the biggest opportunity in selling personal assistant to consumers. We think we're going to be better at that than anybody. How Those pieces rank. There were a lot of questions on the call and he wasn't clear about priorities or timing on any of that. But those are the pieces and they intend to monetize in any of those pieces while continuing to invest. He was asked the question directly, why are you still investing while you turn around and sell capacity? And he said, well, we're selling it for more than we bought it at, so we're going to keep doing that and it's going to help us fund the build out, which is somewhat satisfactory at best.
- [06:15]
D
Help me understand what's going through his mind and his team's mind, because this is the multi trillion dollar question. He knew this was coming. This is the only question shareholders have. This is the question everyone has. And he comes out and seems to filibuster. I mean, I can only glean from that. Maybe he actually doesn't know what they're doing with that data center capacity. Like, what do you think is actually going through his head?
- [06:44]
C
Well, we have to remember that Mr. Zuckerberg has controlling interests in Meta. He's the owner, founder, and he treats Meta as such. And when you invest in Meta, you're along for the ride. This is much like Elon Musk companies, especially SpaceX, right? He no longer controls Tesla, he still controls SpaceX. You're on for the ride. And if Mark Zuckerberg wants to invest because he wants to win the AI race and compete with Anthropic and OpenAI, he gets to decide to do that. He doesn't have the type of governance that many of the other companies that we talk about. We'll talk about a good one, Microsoft, soon. And so he can just decide to do that. This has been much to the frustration of investors over the years. This is why Metatrades at such a low multiple of earnings, is because it's Mr. Zuckerberg's show and he gets to decide how to run it.
- [07:36]
D
Let's pivot to Microsoft. A very different story. Investors are very excited. What did you make of Microsoft's earnings?
- [07:45]
C
This is a narrative breaking result. So Microsoft for most of this year has been cast aside as losing an AI because AI is so good that it's going to ruin the software business. And then AI is so bad that they're wasting money investing in data centers. And they got the raw end of both of those narratives. And what they just reported will break both of those narratives. Their software business is doing very well on the office side, on the commercial side, on the infrastructure software side. Azure accelerate after growing four quarters at around 39% and accelerating to 43. Amy had just guided to 45 next quarter. This is a business that's more than $100 billion that's growing that fast. And so the both the software side's doing well, the infrastructure side's doing well, so they're accelerating growth at the same margins, which is to say a lot of incremental profit that should be paying for those investments. But at the most important thing she just did on the earnings call is let us know that capital expenditures are going to be up year over year from this year. So I want to emphasize why that wording is so important. If she sat down year over year, all hell would break loose in the market. As a reaction, all semi stocks would get cut in half. If she said when the CFO of Google said last week that CapEx is going to grow significantly and put mustard behind that significantly, then Microsoft would be in a lot of trouble just like Google was. But she went right down the fairway and said capital expenditure is going to be up. That's very good news because if they can grow Azure at 45% and grow capital expenditures is a lower rate, that means cash flow is bottomed and is increasing from here. And by the way, Google's cash flow negative meta basically break even. Microsoft had $20 billion of positive free cash flow in the quarter and they just guided that they will also have positive free cash flow next year. So they delivered a great result. That should really change the narrative on Microsoft going forward.
- [10:04]
D
Now that you bring up Google's negative cash flow and while we have you, I'd love to get your reactions to that. I mean it seems like everyone is worried about childish like spending when it comes to AI irresponsible spending. It seems like Microsoft has demonstrated with this report that they are something of an adult in the room. It's hard to make the case for Google at this point. I was quite struck by that negative free cash flow that they reported. How did you feel about it?
- [10:33]
C
Absolutely, it was shocking. This is one of the best businesses ever created and they went to cash Flow negative and showed intent to stay there. It was jarring. It wasn't jarring. The market reacted appropriately to that news and really took a step back. That's why I was looking forward to this Microsoft result because you said exactly right. They're the adult in the room. In the past they've shown that and they continue to show that if the returns are there, they'll invest, but they're not doing it in a big game. Theory, game of chicken, competition with the other companies. They're doing it because it's good business, not because they feel a need to beat somebody at something or get artificial general intelligence first or anything like that. And that's why I expect there to be a big sigh of relief across the AI trade. Because if Microsoft is setting the tone as opposed to less responsible actors like Mr. Zuckerberg or to some extent Google, then maybe we're in better hands than we thought.
- [11:37]
D
We are just looking at the stocks of some of these names. I mean we'll see after hours trading might change things. But as of close year to date, Microsoft is down 18%, Meta is down 10%, Google's up 9%. Just what is your view of the valuations at this point? You mentioned how low Meta's multiple is. Where do you stand on the prices at this point?
- [12:07]
C
I think the important player here is Microsoft and Google. A year ago when everybody thought Google was done, Microsoft was trading at 30 times and Google was 18 times. As of a week ago it had completely flipped. Google was the big winner, Microsoft was the big loser. Google is trading at 30 times. Microsoft was trading at 18 times. We were expecting a reversion to the mean. And between the Google result and this Microsoft result, we're going to get it. Why should these revert to the mean? Because they're very similar companies with very similar positioning in AI. They both have very good assets to bear in the growth of AI. They're growing revenue and earnings at a similar rate. So they're very comparable as they should trade at a similar multiple. But that that pendulum swung way too far a year ago. It's one in Google's favor. This year we expect there to be a reversion to the mean.
- [13:01]
D
Final question before we let you go, Gil. It seems like the AI trade has had something of a shaky few weeks. I mean the chip stocks have been getting crushed, the credit default swaps and a lot of these names like Nvidia, those have been rising. There is increased fear that a lot of these companies, these big tech companies which are now issuing these billions of dollars of debt might default, that they might not actually make those payments. Combined with this news or this reporting that we saw from Nikkei basically telling us that there is almost $2 trillion worth of debt that is off balance sheet for a lot of these tech companies that is being issued in these SPVs that are largely funded by private credit firms in some a lot of weirdness and concern. You cover this sector, what do you make of those concerns? Do you think that they are warranted?
- [13:57]
C
Yes. And we should be concerned and we have to be balanced. You're going to hear me say that I believe that the investment in AI infrastructure is a wise one, that we're going to get good returns. We're already starting to do that. But I don't like circular financing. I don't like that we're building on leverage. We have enough cash flow, we have enough cash on our balance sheets to do this build out. I don't like the special purpose vehicles. You know where that term came from. I don't want to go back to Enron. So we have to be balanced here. We do need to be worried about excessive behavior while at the same time we can believe that these AI tools and the technology are going to pay off both for consumers as well as businesses and be worth the investment. We need to do both and we need to encourage these companies to to invest wisely because the good ones will and they'll emerge as winners. The bad ones will put the whole system at risk. But specifically on cdss, on Nvidia and other mega caps, the credit rating and credit worthiness of Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and Google is better than any country but the United States of America. So I'm not too worried about their ability to pay their debt. Their technology is so good and they're winner take all markets and that they're literally charging a global tax on technology that means they can pay down their obligations. So I wouldn't go as far as worrying about the credit worthiness of these big companies.
- [15:26]
D
All right, Gil Luria, head of technology research at DA Davidson. Gil, always appreciate it. Thank you so much.
- [15:33]
C
Thank you.
- [15:36]
D
After the break, the Fed holds rates again. And if you're in general enjoying the show so far, tune in on Sunday for our founder series. We will be speaking with Brian Schimpf, the CEO and co founder of Anduril.
- [15:57]
E
Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales and somehow none of them talk to each other. That's where Odoo comes in. An all in one business management software that brings every part of your business together from sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today@odoo.com Vox that's O-O-O.com Vox
- [16:32]
B
foreign.
- [16:37]
D
We're back with Prof. G markets. In one of the closest calls in recent years, the Fed decided to hold rates steady. The vote was 9 to 3 to keep the interest rate unchanged with three officials dissenting in favor of a quarter point hike. The Fed's policy statement hardly changed from June with officials pledging to quote, deliver prices stability. But the Fed offered little insight into what comes next, leaving investors to weigh the possibility of a rate hike at the September meeting. Yields on longer term U.S. government bonds surged after the decision. The 30 year treasury yield jumped to 5.21%, the highest level since mid 2007. And the Dow dropped 1,100 points, its worst day since April 2025. Joining us to discuss this federal interest rate decision, we are joined by Mike Gapen, Managing Director and Chief US Economist at Morgan Stanley. Mike, thank you for joining us. I have heard this interest rate decision described as a hawkish hold. Do you agree with that characterization? What do you make of the decision?
- [17:47]
F
Not necessarily. I do think markets went into the meeting thinking the risk here is that we would get a Fed chair who wanted to demonstrate inflation fighting bona fides and would, would raise rates despite what was generally favorable incoming data over the intermediate period. And you're right, it was nine to three and there were three dissents in favor of a hike. But what, what you didn't hear was say a Fed chair that, that said, oh the, the decision was close. We debated it. Some wanted to hike, some didn't. Here was the rationale behind that. He didn't really offer much of a, in any way of an explanation of why the Fed decided to stay on hold or why the three dissenters in favor of a hike felt that way. So yes, on the vote alone it was nine to three. It felt like maybe there was debate for a hike, but I'm not convinced it was a hawkish hold in the sense that he didn't say necessarily express a willingness to tighten policy in the near term. So I think markets came away from this a little bit confused. I, I think it's fair to say the, the Fed chair that wants to hike just for credibility reasons, though that path has diminished in terms of its probability. It's unclear what came behind it. If the market reaction is, is any vote, it was a little more of a dovish hold because what the markets did was take down the probability of rate hikes later this year and it raised what we would call break even rates of inflation. So there's a gap between yields on nominal treasury securities and yields on real treasury securities. And that gap includes the market's view of inflation expectations. So what we call break even rates of inflation. So those went up today. So I think the market's a little confused and it wonders if maybe the bar for rate hikes is higher than they thought and what that would mean is potentially inflation that runs hotter. So I think it was a bit of a confusing message for markets.
- [20:02]
D
Yeah, I've been trying to gauge what the markets are actually saying because the bond market did not seem happy. If we look at the 30 year yield hitting 5.2 highest since 2007, stock market did not seem very happy either. Basically all of the major indices were down. And I can't quite tell if this is to do with the Fed decision or if it's to do with maybe Iran or maybe tech earnings. I mean if you had to sort of characterize what the market seems to care about right now and the extent to which it relates to the interest rate decision. And also at the same time, like if my assumption is that investors are not looking for a rate hike right now or at least equity investors. And so if the takeaway is maybe it's more dovish than expected. But I guess to your point, there doesn't seem to be consensus on that, then you think that maybe investors would be happy about that. I'm waffling a little bit because it's clear that we don't really understand. So what do you think the markets are actually telling us?
- [21:13]
F
Let me answer this or start an answer anyway by taking a step back and seeing what markets did going into the meeting. Right. So Warsh did, he was nominated, he came in, he gave press conference in June. We had some initial remarks from him that the market's interpreted as fairly hawkish. A Fed chair who might be committed to achieving 2% inflation outcomes, chastising the Fed for not having delivered on that for, for five years. So then we got some positive inflation data and the market thought, well that must matter and it reduced its likelihood for rate hikes. But then we got more conflict in the Middle east and oil prices went up somewhere in there before the oil conflict came around and oil prices went up. Share wash had said that the ECB's meeting in Sintra in Portugal, he said, well, you know, inflation risks have, have come down, right? So we, we got favorable inflation, oil prices came down. He said things were moving in the right direction. Then all of a sudden oil went the other direction. And what did markets do? Markets responded to that by increasing the probability of hikes in the short term. And it raised 10 year yields almost on a one to one basis with movements in oil in moving 10 year yields higher, real rates rose, but market expectations of inflation stayed stable. My interpretation of that is they viewed Chairman Warsh as bringing a hawkish reaction function. And if oil prices mattered on the way down, they must matter on the way up. Therefore the Fed's going to respond to this by raising rates. So it went into the meeting with the yield curve flattening, right? Moving higher, but flattening because they priced in hikes in the front end and moved a 10 year yield higher and real rates went higher and the dollar appreciated. What happened after today's meeting? All of that reversed. The front end yields came way down. Nominal 10 year yields actually went up. As you noted, the 30 year rate went up a lot and the dollar depreciated. So the market took down probability of cuts and priced in inflation running higher than it had expected. Now one would interpret that as saying that the Fed has a more dovish reaction function than we thought. I think as you're saying, and I would agree, not sure that's the right takeaway, what we know is that maybe that inflation fighting Fed didn't appear today. Will it appear tomorrow? Maybe, maybe not. But the market came out of today thinking there's a higher bar to raise rates. And if so, the market is probably testing the Fed. Now it's saying, oh, you want to restore price stability, but you're not really saying that tighter monetary policy or higher short term interest rates are part of that solution. So that's about the best I can do given development that helps.
- [24:24]
D
On the inflation front itself, we had the personal consumption expenditures for May which hit 4.1%. That is the Fed's preferred measure. So you'd think maybe that's what they're going off of. But also we had the CPI which came in a little bit lower in June 3.5 directionally speaking, though still not great. The target is 2. The Iran conflict. There's a new update every day. We had another one today that Iran's going to take a beating. That was per the President. I mean, if you had to put your money on this thing resolving itself soon, I think you'd have to bet no. And then the outcome of that would probably be higher prices. But who knows? Where do you stand from your seat on the inflation picture right now? Do you think that we will get it under control anytime soon?
- [25:22]
F
Well, we do think inflation will come down into year end. So that 4% figure you mentioned we think is probably the peak and inflation will be coming down. I think the question is ultimately in our minds how far does it come down? So, and I think this is an argument that the rest of the committee was probably debating today. So Chairman Warsh has a view, you can call it unconventional. That's fine. The rest of the committee, I would say has a fairly conventional view. And I think what they're debating is it feels like inflation will be coming down. The question is how much and how long do we let this play out? And so you may still get rate hikes later this year. If you talked to the rest of the committee, and that's what I think the dissents were today, our view is that inflation comes down to around 3.3 or so by the end of the year and could diminish further in 2027. And if that's right, then we think the Fed can stay on hold for the rest of the year. If not, and that's too optimistic, you're right. Maybe oil prices have greater second round effects on other transportation costs. So it's not just a gasoline story. It's things like airfares and food prices. So maybe conflict in the midd Middle east can keep oil prices and other core inflation prices elevated. The Fed has no choice but to respond to that or cooler heads prevail over time and exit ramps are taken and pay back from tariff inflation and shelter prices and so forth. Pull inflation down, we'll see. That's still highly uncertain. Our view is that inflation will moderate enough to keep the Fed where it is. But obviously the risk is that doesn't happen later this year. The Fed still has to come back in and raise rates.
- [27:13]
D
That is encouraging to hear. Just before we wrap here, just confirmation on your interest rate expectations. Sounds like you think that we'll stay where we are until the end of the year.
- [27:25]
F
That's our expectation is that we feel like disinflation is coming. We feel like we've gotten a strong enough signal for that. If so, we think the Fed will roll into each meeting and just decide to stay where they are. Obviously the risk to our view is that that's not true. Inflation stays firm and we get rate hikes later this year.
- [27:45]
A
All right.
- [27:46]
D
Mike Gapen, managing director and chief US Economist at Morgan Stanley. Mike, always appreciate your time. Thank you.
- [27:52]
F
Thank you.
- [27:59]
D
FIFA football's 122-year-old nonprofit organization has just made a controversial decision. It will be selling its profits. The FIFA Forward Enterprise is FIFA's new investment vehicle which plans to sell a 20% stake in the entity at a valuation of roughly $20 billion. What actually is the FIFA Forward Enterprise? It's essentially the new legal home of all of FIFA's media and commercial rights, basically all the ways that FIFA makes money. Now, why is this so controversial? Well, because FIFA is and always has been a nonprofit. The mission of FIFA is to, quote, promote and improve the game of football. It is expressly not to generate financial returns. And that is literally written into its charter. According to FIFA's financial statute, the association is, quote, a nonprofit organization and is obliged to spend its funds for this purpose. The statute goes on to clarify that as an association, quote, no dividends are paid. In the event of the dissolution of FIFA, its funds shall not be distributed, but transferred to the supreme Court of the country in which the headquarters are situated. In other words, FIFA is legally bound to not profit from its operations. And by the way, that was by design, because the founders clearly knew that by selling access to football to the beautiful game, well, the beautiful game would cease to be beautiful. So how is it even legal for Gianni Infantino, FIFA's president, to be selling a stake in FIFA? Well, here is the catch. He's not selling a stake in FIFA. He's selling a stake in the FIFA Forward enterprise, the for profit entity that he made up specifically in order to circumvent the laws that were put in place by this nonprofit organization all of those years ago. This is financial hijacking of the highest order. Infantino, who presented Trump with the very first FIFA Peace Prize, has now taken a page to out of Trump's financial playbook. He is now using financial engineering to steal value from one of the most storied institutions in the world and then redistribute those funds to his financial backers and ultimately to himself. If that sounds almost exactly the same as what Trump has done with the White House, it is. And it's not a coincidence that the two of them have become very good friends. This is the beginning of the end of football as we know it. And I say that as a lifelong football fan. But don't take it from me, take it from UEFA, the European Football association, which recently said that this quote crosses a line that football's governing associations should never cross. The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade, especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. That was UEFA's statement, which I endorse. However, I would add one small edit, and that is that we do know who gains financially. It's JP Morgan, the bank that'll advise and execute this deal. It's Josh Kushner, the OpenAI investor and the brother of Jared Kushner, who is expected to lead the deal. It is basically anyone involved in this transaction. We are reaching historic lows as a society. And if ever you thought the Beautiful Game was exempt from this corruption, or from greed or fraud or any form of scammery, well, think again. This is just beginning. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Shalon, Kristin o' Donoghue, and Mia Silverio. And our our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Prof. G Markets from Profg Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. Tune in tomorrow for a conversation with legendary short seller Jim Chanos.