Loading summary
Transcript142 lines
- [00:01]
A
From the Goldman Sachs trading floor in 10 minutes or less. Investors and analysts share timely analysis on the week's market activity. The markets podcast from Goldman Sachs. Listen now.
- [00:16]
B
This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Listening to this podcast Instead of doom scrolling Smart move. Another smart move getting help from one of State Farm's 19,000 local agents when you choose to bundle home and auto bundling. Just another way to save with the personal price plan. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and savings and eligibility vary by state. Morning decisions.
- [00:44]
A
How about a creamy mocha Frappuccino drink? Or sweet vanilla smooth caramel maybe?
- [00:49]
C
Or a white chocolate mocha? Whichever you choose, delicious coffee awaits. Find Starbucks Frappuccino drinks wherever you buy your groceries.
- [00:57]
A
Today's number, $26.2 million. That's how much the citizens of Atlanta spent on onlyfans last year. The of any US City. Ed, why did the Scarecrow win an award?
- [01:09]
D
Why?
- [01:10]
A
Because he was outstanding in his field. So in case you need to be caught up, I'm going to tell dad jokes until Michael Cymbelis, the chief investment officer from JP Morgan accepts our apology for offending him for telling a dirty joke on the episode he appeared.
- [01:36]
D
I actually find the dad jokes funnier than the sex jokes.
- [01:39]
A
I'm sorry, we need to fix that. Why can't you hear a pterodactyl in the bathroom?
- [01:43]
D
Why is that?
- [01:43]
A
Because the pee is silent. Michael, accept our apology or don't release the dick jokes.
- [01:51]
D
Actually, that's my new position. I don't want him to accept it. I like this new direction.
- [01:56]
A
How are you, Ed?
- [01:56]
D
Doing very well.
- [01:57]
A
It's coming home.
- [01:58]
D
I don't know about that because that was a pretty shocking performance. This will come out on Monday and we're recording before Sunday night, so we'll see if England's still in the World Cup. But yeah, the Congo performance was not great.
- [02:10]
E
Do they.
- [02:10]
A
They have to play in Mexico? They have to play. Is the next game Mexico at Azteca.
- [02:15]
D
Yeah, Mexico Sunday.
- [02:16]
A
Yeah, it's going to be a tough one. Did you see Team usa?
- [02:18]
D
Team USA looks good.
- [02:20]
A
The scary part is the. The star of the US Team Folarin. I think it's Baligan, received a controversial red card. Yeah, I saw you see that. That was a. I think that's very anti American. I don't. And by the way, Genesis
- [02:36]
D
discrimination against. Against the Yanks.
- [02:38]
A
Do you know what Foller and Baligan and Scott Galloway have in common? Other than exceptional athletic skill.
- [02:44]
D
What's that?
- [02:44]
A
We're both anchor babies. His mother was seven months pregnant and the airline wouldn't let her fly. And so he was born in the U.S. that's why I was on Team USA and Sylvia Levine and Tom Galloway, who met in Toronto at a dance. My mom was seven and a half months pregnant. Pretty sure they went wed. I think they've been lying to me about that and too late to check now. And they decided they couldn't endure another winter. This is a true story. And my mom read in the Toronto Globe and Mail that the city with the best weather in North America was this city called San Diego. So they loaded up my mom's Austin Mini Metro, which is essentially a lawnmower with doors. I don't know if you've ever seen Mr. Bean. It's a go kart. And seven and a half months pregnant, my mom and my dad traversed across the US with no air conditioning in their car and landed in San Diego. And five weeks later, I was born. So had these this ridiculous attempt to Turn back the 14th amendment been in place now, yours truly would not be an American citizen. So what I am asking is that the IRS recognize that I'm not a citizen, as I want to move to Dubai, and I want the $100 million in taxes me and my company have paid over the last decade. I want it back. According to you fucking Stephen Miller and Donald Trump, I am not a citizen, meaning I'm not obligated to pay taxes in the United States. So anchor baby here. Anchor baby. Revoke my citizenship and tax status, please.
- [04:16]
F
Love it.
- [04:17]
D
I'm kind of a reverse anchor baby. Or I guess maybe I'm an anchor baby in Britain. American parents go to the uk, Born in the uk. Come back here.
- [04:26]
A
Oh, my God. We're housing an undocumented worker. Someone call ICE column.
- [04:33]
D
Take me away.
- [04:34]
A
Oh, my God. It's almost bonus time. I'm going to be like that bitch that called I ICE on the roofers when they were done roofing her house and she didn't want to pay them, so she called ICE. Literally, December 30th. Merry Christmas. Please meet Mr. Sanchez from ICE. I'm sorry, Ed. I love it. We were going to pay you a bonus, but it just wouldn't be right. It just wouldn't be right. Get him out of here. Why does that make me happy? Why does that make me happy? I'm colonized on Ed Elson. Oh, that's hilarious.
- [05:05]
D
That's good. That's good.
- [05:07]
A
That's Hilarious.
- [05:08]
D
Well, you can try it.
- [05:09]
A
Are you a citizen?
- [05:10]
D
Yeah, but I'm a citizen, so I've got the dual passport, so it's not really going to work out, but you could try it.
- [05:15]
A
Wait, so you weren't. You weren't born here, so your parents applied for your citizenship?
- [05:19]
D
I don't really know what they did, but they're American, so.
- [05:21]
A
Sure you don't, you little illegal immigrant. Well, everyone knows what's going on here. Everyone knows what's going on here. Okay.
- [05:31]
D
All right. Well, now that we've figured out our citizenship status, you will have it revoked. And I apparently, am illegal currently. Shall we get into our three big stories? We've got a lot to talk about today.
- [05:43]
A
Let's get to the news. Stop bantering.
- [05:45]
D
Let's do it.
- [05:47]
A
Now is the time to buy. I hope you have plenty of the wherewithal.
- [05:54]
D
There were two strange updates in the AI world last week. First, OpenAI proposed giving the Trump administration a 5% stake in the company. That stake would be worth roughly $43 billion. Sam Altman has reportedly argued that a government stake in the company would be the best way to share in the upside of AI with the public. And there's a vision for other AI companies to potentially join in, essentially creating a sovereign wealth fund. And then, in the second piece of news, Meta is reportedly becoming a cloud provider. The company is preparing to sell its excess AI computing capacity. That is a notable shift after spending billions to build out infrastructure that it previously said would be necessary for its own AI ambitions. Investors did welcome the news, though, sending Meta shares up nearly 9%. But the reaction wasn't nearly as positive. Elsewhere, shares of NeoCloud, companies like CoreWeave and Nebius fell roughly 12% on the news. So, Scott, lots to get into in the AI department first. I'm just going to take my own little personal victory lap, because if you follow me on Twitter, you know that I actually bought Meta last week at $564. Here we are. The reason I bought is because I thought the stock was way undervalued. Trading 20 times earnings, S&P trading at 25 times. So that's pretty cheap relative to the rest of the market. And this is a player that obviously is positioned for AI if we do see an AI boom. Plus, the last time it traded that low was in 2022. And since then, revenues have grown more than 70%. Gross margins have increased 200 basis points. So the whole thing just looked very attractive. The market was very worried that Zuckerberg was investing all of this money into these data centers, but hadn't laid out a plan for how he was going to monetize those data centers. Well, now he's given us the answer and he's basically just going to do what AWS did and what the cloud providers do. We just rent out the chips and sell it to enterprises. Now there is a lot of debate over whether this is actually bullish or bearish, because what we also know is that the plan was to use all of that compute to build their own AI products. And now they're saying, no, we're not going to do that anymore, we're going to sell it to someone else and someone else is going to build the AI products. Which begs this question, who's going to build the AI products and why isn't Meta down to do it if they are one of the most capitalized companies in the world and they are supposedly supposed to be a leader in AI? That's the bearish question. Lots to get into your reactions.
- [08:34]
A
This scent chills down my spine. Or I had real deja vu of 99 again, because what do we have here essentially? And I don't listen to markets nor enjoy it unless I'm on it. But I did find that guy you had on, Ed Citron. He's very good and I, I was fascinated by what he said. He's basically saying this whole thing's crumbling. It's, that's how, that's my takeaway. And I was fascinated by, I mean, his basic thesis and tell me if, if I have this right, is that all of the demand that trickles down to the trillions of dollars of capex and infrastructure and unbelievable valuations from construction firms to the chips guys, is now basically down to demand being created by two players. And that is anthropic. And OpenAI are still growing. But Meta and Xai, who are planning to create demand themselves with their own customer bases, needs for AI products have basically said, oh, we overestimated the front end demand we could create, so we're going to lease out our infrastructure. So all of a sudden it looks like we've gone from another unbelievable pivot from a crisis of supply to a crisis of front end demand. And probably the strongest evidence of that, of the kind of demand shock, if you will, is OpenAI delaying their IPO in this market. You would think even if they'd lost some momentum, they would be jonesing to get out. And I mean it looks as if. So what did we have? We had Grok has 5% market share Cloud has 14, ChatGPT 49, Gemini 20 and Llama had 2.1. And I don't think it was the market saying, okay, we like the revenue that these guys are going to pick up. It's actually a drop in the bucket for these guys. I think what the market was saying is this is a capex race that is going to be a loser. And we like that. Meta's beginning to look more like Apple and they're not. They're basically getting out early of these capex wars. And this all feels very 99 to me. And that is you had. So we knew the Internet was going to be huge. People were confident that. But the front end guys, the application layer, the pets.com, the Amazon.com, the eToys, it was clear that they weren't going to be able to create the kind of revenue in the short term that justified their valuations. So everyone thought, wait, let's go to B2B. So we went from OpenAI to B2B anthropic, which was big in the enterprise, right? And then we found out there was companies, you don't remember this, like Internet Capital Group, which was supposed to be a marketplace so Pepsi could buy sugar. And then what everyone realized is it was just total bullshit, that it was much easier to pick up the phone or just send a fax. And the B2B guys collapsed. And then I thought, well, hold on, okay, B2C and B2B, maybe we can't pick the winners, but the Internet's huge, we need infrastructure investment. So people threw in the hat on trying to pick which front end or which B2B application of the layer was going to be huge. And they invested in infrastructure and they invested in Cisco, right? They invested in fiber. And then Cisco from 99 to 2001 lost 92% of its market capitalization. And that sort of feels like what's happening here is the front end is stressed, it's not creating the demand originally anticipated. So we went from OpenAI to wait, anthropic is B2B. That's where it's at. Now we're starting to see, what is it? Token nausea. People are saying, you're spending too much in the enterprise on this shit, you need to scale it back. And I think the next shoe to drop is going to be in the infrastructure layer. And what people don't. And that's not to say the technology is not amazing. That's not to say these companies won't be great companies that'll be around in 20 or 30 years. Amazon lost 90% of its value in a 24 month period. It's obviously recovered then. And some the Internet has lived up to the hype, but they went through incredible volatility because the initial, I mean, it's gone from not what can AI do? To will AI pay? And right now it seems to me we're starting to see real cracks in the wall or in the narrative.
- [13:03]
D
Just to go to what Meta and Mark Zuckerberg had previously said about these hundreds of billions of dollars that they were investing and spending on building all of these data centers, which again, the market didn't like because they didn't have a clear answer to the question of how are you going to monetize them? But basically, here are some quotes that executives at Meta said that told us roughly what they were thinking. So Zuckerberg said in 2024, quote, Our goal with Meta AI is to build the world's leading AI service, both in quality and usage. So the idea was we're going to build our own AI stuff in 2025. The CFO said when she was asked about the ROI question, she said, quote, even with the capacity that we're bringing online in 2025, we are having a hard time meeting the demand that teams have for compute resources across the company. That is, we are building all of these AI products and we can barely keep up with the demand for our own teams within the company. Then this is the most important quote. When asked if he would ever just start a cloud business, which he's now doing as of last week, Zuckerberg said, this year, quote, we haven't done that yet because we think that we have a use for the compute. Obviously, if we get to a point where we feel that we have overbuilt, then that is an option that we have and that is partially what gives us confidence in investing, in building this out. Well, they've now done the thing that they said that they would only do if they felt that they had, quote, overbuilt. So the question is, have they overbuilt? And I think that it would be a very, very reasonable answer to say yes, they have, because look at what they're now doing. So I think that you're right in pointing out the difference between the front end of AI, I. E. Using ChatGPT, using Claude, etc and the back end which is building the infrastructure, building the data centers. Meta clearly tried to, to build a front end AI business. They try to do llama, as you said, 2% market share. Clearly it didn't work. So now they're shifting to the back end. They say, we're not going to build those products, we're going to sell stuff to other companies, we're going to build the products. Xai, similar position. They tried to build a front end business, mostly hasn't worked. Grok has like 5% market share. They're shifting to the back end, they're shifting more focus on building the data centers which they are now renting out to other companies that they should really be competing with. And so now most companies are basically deciding building the front end is a bad business. Better to build the back end, build the infrastructure and sell it to the front end AI businesses. So then the question becomes, okay, who are these front end AI businesses that they're selling to that supposedly is a good business they've invested hundreds of billions of dollars into? And the answer is there are two companies. It's Anthropic and it's OpenAI. And that's basically it. And when we look at our estimates, those two companies alone account for between 60 to 80% of the AI revenues for Amazon, for Google and for Microsoft. And according to the information, those two companies alone make up half of the entire revenue backlog of the hyperscalers, that is the big tech companies. Meaning that the backend infrastructure business only works if OpenAI and Anthropic continue to pay all this money and keep this whole thing afloat. Which then begs the question, do you think they'll keep actually paying? And this is where the financials are so important, which were leaked by Ed Zitron, who we had on. And we learned that OpenAI made $13 billion in revenue last year. Okay, great. But they spent 34 billion, so their operating loss was $21 billion. Anthropic. We don't know the financials, but we at Prof. G have done some estimate. We know that they made four and a half billion dollars in revenue last year. Based on our estimates, they probably spent around 15 and a half billion. That's an $11 billion operating loss. Meaning the front end AI business only works if the VCs continue to subsidize it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And by the way, if the hyperscalers continue to subsidize it, but if they stop doing that, then suddenly this business of building front end AI doesn't work anymore, which means the business of selling the back end doesn't work anymore, which basically means the whole thing falls apart. Which brings us to OpenAI and their recent news, which is that they have decided that the best bet is to go to the government for what seems to be something like a bailout. And that is, according to the Financial Times, they've discussed giving a 5% stake to the US government. And so it seems as though instead of Silicon Valley subsidizing those losses, maybe now just the taxpayers will. And maybe that's the plan and maybe that's a good idea because that's what the banks did in 2008. And it didn't work for some of them, but it worked out for most of them. And so you have to think maybe they see this collapsing and that's why they go to the government. But either way, both of these pieces of news in the same week, that's very, very bearish in my view and seems to indicate that this is a growing bubble that is nearing a point of maybe not collapse, but certainly massive course correction.
- [18:32]
A
OpenAI I predicted six months ago that the biggest bailout in corporate history was about to happen and it was going to be the bailout of Nadella Altman, Dario Amadei, and it would be dressed up as investment or growth. It's not. It's a bailout. If the government were to take a 5% stake in OpenAI, great, they're going to favor OpenAI. They're going to over regulate their competitors and under regulate OpenAI. They're going to provide them with protection money and direct access to the White House. It's not even socialism, it's cronyism. It's like when things are really good, we want to capture all the gains ourselves. But when things are bad, we want to socialize the losses. That's not capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down is cronyism. And that's what's being offered here. It's also evidence that things are there's something wrong in Mudville. And then, just as the great flippening was the reversal of fortunes in from the massive leakage of momentum from OpenAI to anthropic, we've seen another incredible flippening. But this is one geographic and that is free. Chinese models went from 30% of AI traffic to 60% in six months. The dominating AI models are now imports. I mean, this is the thing that rocked the automobile industry was a product called the Honda Civic that was sort of a slow moving train wreck over 10 years. This has been 10 weeks. GPU rates are collapsing. The hyperscalers built $300 billion of infrastructure for customers who are switching to deep Seq for free. The way to describe this historically is this is the fiber overbuild of 1999.
- [20:21]
D
The Chinese model problem is like another problem on top of all of their other problems, because, I mean, as you pointed out, a lot of these large companies are now switching. I can go through a list of some of them who have switched to Chinese models. Coinbase is now using Kimi. Cursor is using Kimi. Shopify is using Quan. Airbnb is using Quin. Siemens is using Deep Seq. Microsoft is now apparently testing Deepseek. And the reason they're all doing this is because the Chinese models are way cheaper. And we've talked about why is that the case. Some say it's because Chinese have cheaper energy, and that might be part of it. But also it seems that they're kind of just stealing the models from the US Companies through this process of distillation.
- [21:06]
A
I don't think the Chinese would do that, Ed.
- [21:09]
D
They hate stealing ip. It's not their game. Yeah, that's probably what's happening. And unless you can do something to stop that, then this train's going to keep running here and the Chinese models are going to continue to take up market share. And the real problem is the fact that it has now sparked OpenAI to supposedly consider reducing their own prices. And if you're a company that's making $13 billion and spending $34 billion and you're going to decide that actually we're going to reduce the revenue number because we're being priced out by other companies that are offering not just comparable products, but literally equal products. I mean, studies have been done. These models are perfectly good on a variety of different metrics. That basically means that OpenAI's business is in big, big trouble. And again, they can say that they're giving the stake to the US Government because they want the American people to all share in the upside. But what they're really saying is we want the American people to all share in the downside, because right now, the business is currently all downside. You haven't figured out a way to make this product profitable. You haven't figured out a way to sell this product without spending literally like billions and billions of dollars on sales and marketing. Almost $6 billion. They could have bought super bowl ads for a decade. Every single super bowl ad for literally a decade like this is a business that clearly hasn't proven itself. And they're already going to government and saying, you guys support us. What I can't tell, though, is whether that. I mean, clearly I'm bearish after hearing about the meta news. But now I'm wondering, okay, if the government just bails them out, then maybe it will all work out. I don't know if we should necessarily be betting against companies that are literally going to be subsidized by the full force on the balance sheet of the US Government. I don't know if that's actually what's going to happen here. And I don't think it's fair. And I think it's honestly reprehensible. And I can't believe that we can't learn from our mistakes in the past and continue to do the same thing over and over and over again. And I know it's going to create hatred of these companies among the American people, that is the taxpayers who are going to pay for all of this. But part of me thinks maybe that works just getting bailed out and maybe that means that they can figure out a way to reach profitability if they can just continue to have their losses subsidized by someone who's way richer than them. It started off with Silicon Valley, then it went to big tech like companies like Microsoft, and now it's going to literally the U.S. government. I mean, maybe that's a winning strategy. I don't know.
- [24:01]
A
This is a common theme in America and that is my generation or the incumbents if you will. It's not old versus Young, it's not rich versus poor. It's incumbents versus entrance. But the incumbents who are sitting on top of of a company recently valued at 875 billion, it's okay if they go to $100 billion, they're still going to be worth twice what Ford is worth. They're still going to be one of the 100 most valuable companies in the world. Companies trading at $875 billion shouldn't get bailouts. Now you could argue that if ford goes from 10 billion to zero and has to lay off a couple million people in middle class jobs are lost in the Midwest, okay, maybe that's at least a feasible argument for government invention having societal implications or a positive or justification OpenAI and Anthropic burn baby burn. If all of a sudden Nvidia goes from being worth more than the entire German and Spanish stock market to just being worth what the French stock market is worth, okay? There's absolutely no justification for me to whip out your credit card and run up our deficit such that the current owners, the private owners of anthropic and OpenAI shares can maintain their gains. This isn't about an existential crisis where you think we would lose millions of jobs and the very existence of this category and losing this game. This is about keeping the incumbents rich. And that is basically a curse or a virus that infects America. I have two college degrees in a bunch of homes. Gonna make it harder for everybody else to get one, such that the value of my current assets go up. No, that's not the way America is supposed to work. And the idea that we're even talking about this for companies that are. If Anthropic were in Europe, it was founded five years ago, it would be one of the four most valuable companies in Europe right now. What company that's one of the 20 most valuable companies in Europe has any discussion of a bailout? The plane is running at Mach 3 and doing just fine. Why do the pilots need to bail out? Why do we need to pay for these things? These things say they lose 80% of their value. Amazon lost 92% of its value. We didn't bail them out. That's fine. That's part of capitalism. So the fact that this is even being discussed, in my opinion, is Sam Altman saying, I have no fidelity to capitalism. I did this weird fucking deal with TPG and other private equity firms that guarantee them a 16 or 17% pick. All that does is start to crush the previous rounds of investors because those numbers will start to add up pretty fast. But, my God, if they lose 80% of their value. So you're saying it's only worth as much as the entire US Auto industry sounds. Tesla.
- [26:57]
D
But it's almost like they want to be systemic. They want to be. It's like OpenAI is essentially like a zombie child that was formed by all of the big tech companies that have become systemic to the stock market. And it's like Sam Altman is trying to make the company as systemic as possible, such that eventually, when things go wrong, we have no choice. Too big to fail but to bail them out. It seems like this is almost all part of the design that he wants to be too big to fail. He wants for the US government to own a 5% stake in it, so that if anything ever goes wrong, why wouldn't the US Government figure out a way to bail them out? And it's almost like all of these. None of this growth is organic. Like, give ChatGPT its credit on a user basis. That was organic growth. People loved the product and they started using it, but they haven't figured out how to monetize it. In a realistic or sustainable way. And so all of the growth that we've seen from the valuations, from the circular deals, now going to the government, all of that is basically a setup where they are artificially growing this thing and they're trying to make it so big and so core and such a part of our lives, such that by the time the business truly does flounder, we'll have no choice but to say, hey, we need this thing. We're all in this together. Let's bail them out. It feels like that is the direction that they are taking, that they want to become as systemic as humanly possible. And it's like, it's honestly gross. I just can't I that seeing that headline. And I bet Trump is down because he basically will do anything for anyone who shows up to the White House and kisses his ass. This is what we've seen time and time again.
- [28:47]
A
It's more than just showing up to the White House. What is it? 93% of GDP growth, 75% of earnings growth come down to these firms continued spend. So just as we have convinced ourselves it makes Sense to spend $7 trillion on government spending with 5 trillion receipts just to keep the good times and the sugar high coming, Trump does not want the economy to slow down, especially going into the midterms. So he will potentially be open to the notion of doing whatever's required, including pulling out your credit card to keep the music playing. But this is no different. Corporations. You know, Mitt Romney tried to tell us corporations are people. I don't think that's true. I think that corporations, you let your thoroughbreds run. The idea is they pay their taxes and then you try and fund a navy and parks and snap payments and unemployment insurance for actual people. But this really is no different than say someone who's worth $100 million and they really like being worth a hundred million dollars and they're really good friends with Trump and they're really good for their community and they spend a lot of money everywhere. I'm like, oh no, my business is shit. And I need the government to invest in my business and give me government contracts and also maybe put some of my competitors out of business, maybe give me government backed loans such that I'm not worth just 25 million. Is that a good use of the government's money? So if, if OpenAI or Anthropic lost 75% of their market cap, they'd only be worth as much as Uber or Adobe or Charles Schwart or Amgen. But because this run up this sugar high has been fueled by these, you know, this new technology and the unbelievable expectations there. This could, this would be the absolute worst thing for our economy that we could do is to decide that these thoroughbreds that are amazing companies and worth a ton of money need to be propped up. It would be absolutely no different than picking the wealthiest hundred Americans and saying we're going to use the credit card and the debt capacity of future generations to make sure you maintain that you continue to be the top 100 wealthiest people in the world. And to a certain extent, that's what we've been doing by weaponizing housing, by weaponizing or sequestering degrees to college again, yet another transfer to the already super fucking wealthy.
- [31:14]
D
We'll be right back after the break and if you're enjoying the show so far, send it to a friend and please follow us on YouTube and Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [31:32]
G
Support for the show comes from Indeed. When the pressure's on and you need to hire the right person for the job. Indeed Sponsored Jobs has got your back and matches you with quality candidates fast, so you don't need to spend tons of time searching for that elusive new talent. According to their data, Sponsored Job posts directly on indeed are 95% more likely to report a hire than non sponsored jobs. Join the 3.3 million million employers worldwide that use Indeed to connect with quality talent that fits their needs. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results when you need the right person to cut through the chaos. This is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves@ Indeed.com podcast. Just go to Indeed.com podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. That's indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply.
- [32:29]
D
Need the ride?
- [32:30]
A
Hire fast?
- [32:31]
G
Then this is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.
- [32:39]
A
Support for the show comes from Framer.
- [32:41]
G
If your team wants a website that looks and feels handcrafted but is still fast to ship, Framer is built for that you design on a visual canvas with responsive layouts, hosting and a CMS built in so the work is production
- [32:52]
A
ready from day one.
- [32:54]
G
Agents work alongside you to draft pages and polish sections. Then you review and publish what goes live. Framer is the pro site builder for creators, teams and businesses that want a professional site and care enough to get every detail right. Agents solve the gap between AI generated ideas and production ready website work. The agent works in the same place where the real site is designed, managed, reviewed and published. It lands on the canvas, stays editable, and can be published when the team is ready. Agents and Framer work alongside teams to streamline collaboration on the same canvas, build custom code components, create and manage CMS content, optimize SEO settings, and ship everything all in one place.
- [33:32]
A
Learn how you can get more out
- [33:33]
G
of your site from a Framer specialist or get started building for free today@framer.com markets for 30% off a Framer Pro annual plan. That's framer.com markets for 30 percent off framer.com markets rules and restrictions may apply.
- [33:51]
H
Uncovered windows can make your home feel up to 20 degrees hotter. Stay cool and save up to 50% off custom window treatments during the 4th of July mega sale@blinds.com from outdoor shades to room darkening blinds, finding the perfect fit is easy. Get free samples, expert design help and professional measure and install services or DIY with confidence and support every step of the way. Shop up to 50% off site wide plus huge savings on door busters right now during the 4th of July mega sale@blinds.com.
- [34:25]
D
We're back with property markets. The Trump accounts are officially live As a reminder, this is a program that creates government backed investment accounts for children. Babies born between 2025 and 2028 will a one time $1,000 contribution funded by the government to help kickstart long term savings. Michael and Susan Dell started a separate initiative for children born between 2016 and 2024. The kids who don't qualify for the federal contribution. They are providing a $250 deposit for families living in zip codes with median incomes of $150,000 or less. So Scott, these accounts have officially launched. How do they work? As I said, if you're born between 2025 and 2028, you get $1,000 immediate into your investment account. It will be funded by the Treasury Department. This is a pilot program. If they decide it works, then maybe they'll continue it. Every account can then receive a contribution of up to $5,000 per year, tax deferred. The money can only be invested in a qualified index fund that uses no leverage and that charges no annual fee of more than 0.1%. And then when you turn 18, it converts into a traditional IRA and it basically functions just like a retirement account. This, I think I've said it before, is the best thing the administration has done by a mile in my opinion. I actually support this 100%. I hate that they're calling it Trump accounts and that Trump had to put his fingers on this thing because now I feel like it's been politicized and people don't want this to succeed. But it really started with Brad Gerstner coming up with this saying, pushing it through to the White House, going to the White House, getting Trump to agree to it. Probably had to say that it had to be called a Trump account for the thing to even happen in the first place. Then Michael Dell comes and gets involved. There are some caveats that we can get into, but big picture, huge fan of this thing. I think this is exactly what we should be doing and what we should be using government money on.
- [36:31]
A
Yeah, I agree with you. I really like this in concept of friend of mine in Los Angeles, Alex von Furstenberg was a big fan of this. And there's been a lot of different iterations. I personally would have gone bigger. I would have gone $7,000, which would be I think 40 billion a year. And I would infantilize and I would hold it. I would force people to be in these low cost index funds until they're 65 and essentially position it like the Chinese do, go kind of 50 year plans. I think in 30 years what you could say is if you gave every baby $7,000 by the time they're 65, based on historically market returns, they end up with a million bucks. And then in 30 years I would announce that we're 30 years away from not needing Social Security and I think interest rates would go down and this would start to pay for itself. I think we need another way to leverage the marketplace and compounding to replace the out of control social spending, entitlement spending that is dragging our economy down and putting too much tax on young people. Having said that, I, I would have gone bigger and bolder with this. Having said that, I think this is a good idea. I think the Dells should be applauded, not mocked for them doing this. Ray Dalio is doing something similar. What I don't like is the notion that we have to count on the kindness of strangers, including the Dells, who are good people, but also happen to be awarded a piece of TikTok. I think that probably Elon Musk may have said, hey, I have an idea. Lean on the NASDAQ 100 and the SEC to include me in the NASDAQ 100 prematurely, unlike any other company in history. And I think I might give $10 billion, $100 billion in baby bonds. I don't like depending. To me this feels like a government program that the government should finance. That's about long term thinking and reducing entitlements over time as opposed to just sort of this giveaway. And we're depending upon the generosity of billionaires like the Dells and the Dalios of the world. But again, I moved to my glass half empty pessimism. On the whole, I think this is a really good idea. I like the fact there's a income cap on it. I like the fact that it's leveraging the greatest, as Einstein was credited with saying, but actually didn't say, the greatest force in the universe. And that's compound interest. I agree with you. I think generally speaking, it's a really good idea.
- [38:51]
D
Yeah. Just to go through what that money will become. That first thousand dollars, if we assume 10% annual growth, which is the S&P's average over the past several decades, by age 18, that will be worth five and a half thousand dollars. But if you contribute $1,000 a year, then it will be worth $50,000 by the time you're 18. And if you contribute to the maximum $5,000 a year, it'll be worth a quarter of a million dollars by the time you're 18. So I mean, it's just hard to argue with the numbers there. That would be amazing. The problem, and I found myself violently agreeing with you again, is that a lot of people seem to see this and see the Dell's contribution, which is spectacular. Take nothing away from them. They seem to see this as the catch all solution to the problem of inequality in America. That instead of taxing people and instead of going in some direction close to a billionaire tax, we can get into what actually is the right solution. But instead of taxation, we rely on voluntary philanthropy. We tell rich people we're not going to take your money. But please, please, pretty please, will you invest billions of dollars into these, these child investment accounts? And to be fair, some people have. The Dells have done it. Ray Dalio did it. He committed $75 million to kids in Connecticut. Brad Gerstner's done it. He's committed $250 to every child under five in Indiana. That's great. However, we were also told that this was going to create a landslide of donations. Brad came on the show and he said, you watch, everyone's going to do this. I said, is Zuckerberg going to do it? He said, yep, Zuckerberg's going to do it. So far only six individual donors are on record having committed to the Trump account. It's Dell, it's Dalio, it's Gerstner, it's Harold Ham, it's Nicki Minaj, and then it's an anonymous donor in San Francisco. Elon has not given anything. Zuckerberg hasn't given anything. Bezos hasn't given anything. I mean, if you were to put Elon, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos together and they gave away 5% of their wealth, they could fund this program for nearly two decades. And they haven't done it. And so I'm completely with you if we're thinking that this is the solution, that this is how we're going to redistribute the wealth. This is how we're going to get the money back into the hands of the American people so that we don't see this crisis of faith in the American system, so that young people no longer believe not only in America, but in capitalism itself. This is probably not going to do it. Unless we see some waterfall and everyone starts investing in these Trump accounts. Then, yeah, let's not wait on Elon Musk to suddenly like find the charitable bone in his body and give it all back to the children. What we've seen so far is he doesn't really want to give much away at all.
- [41:54]
A
Depending on the kindness of strangers to fund the well being of our kids when they get older is a little bit like thinking, oh, Sheryl Sandberg wrote a book on gender equality. She couldn't come up with a business model that results in teen girls cutting themselves. This is the government. We elect people. And by the way, this just wouldn't be that hard to fund. Here's an idea. The top tax rate is 37%. You make over a million dollars a year. There's no capital gains deduction that goes to 20% or 22.8. It's 37%. Oh, and by the way, that 37% tax rate is alternative minimum tax. We had that brilliant woman Ray Madoff on our podcast. She blew my mind with the following stat and the framing. Everybody thinks the biggest expenditure is entitlements at $1.5 trillion. Social Security, I think Medicaid's 1.2. The military is now 1.5. Our interest on our debt's 1 trillion. She said, no, the biggest expenditure is a $2.3 trillion expenditure. And it's the following. It's the money we give back to corporations and wealthy people in the form of tax loopholes. And it just blew my mind. What a genius framing that is. And that is, we don't need to raise tax rates, we just need to enforce them. And the government should be giving every kid $7,000 and then infantilize them and say, nope, can't touch it till you're 65. And by the way, within 20 or 30 years, the debt in the bond markets are going to go wow, in a few decades, which will go fast. They will no longer need Social Security, and you're going to see interest rates go down on everyone's credit card bill, auto loan, everyone's mortgage will go down, and this thing will pay for itself. But we need to. But you know what this feels like, Ed? It feels like the mayor of Bogota donates the land, but we need Pablo Escobar to pay for the grass and the nets. No. If it's a civic stadium and it's good for the people, it's the government's responsibility to tax everyone equally. And then not for podcasters to say, a good billionaire, bad billionaire. I'm sick of like waiting on their better angels. I don't care if they're good or bad people. I just want them to pay their fucking taxes. And then we elect people who decide what to do with the money.
- [44:09]
D
Plus, the new argument from a lot of these guys is that philanthropy in general is bullshit and that the truest form of philanthropy is starting a company that's super valuable. Like just to quote Musk, he said, quote SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, and the boring company are philanthropy. If you say philanthropy is love of humanity, they are philanthropy. There was a Twitter account that post made this ridiculous post. They said that Mackenzie Scott's donations were, quote, making the world a worse place.
- [44:39]
A
He said that?
- [44:40]
D
Well, he responded. Yes. So he, he co signed that statement because they've got it in their heads that Mackenzie Scott is woke liberal, the the rest of it. And they've said that the billions of dollars that she has given away is making the world a worse place. So I mean, if they really want us to count on them to, as you say, find their better angels, redistribute the immense wealth that they have accumulated over the years and give it back, they're not doing a very good job of sell that they are actually going to do that because so far all we've seen is that it's not just that if you give your money to the government, it's. That's waste, fraud and abuse. They're saying that if you give money to a nonprofit or a foundation or a charity, it's waste, fraud and abuse because the charities are now woke and the charities are libtards. So this is the problem. It's like at a certain point, I'm sorry, but I have to assume that if you're worth a trillion dollars and you can barely find it within yourself to give back a fraction of a percentage of your net worth, I don't believe that you have any interest in the Commonwealth or the well being of anyone. And now you're arguing that the companies that you built are the philanthropy that you've now done your part so you can no longer make the argument. And I keep on hearing people make it. People who support really who are just against wealth taxes and against billionaire taxes in all forms. They say this is the way to do it. Voluntary philanthropy. Stop making that argument because no one believes it. No one thinks that these people are actually going to go through with it. Apart from a handful of great guys like Dell and Dalio and Gerstner. They are in the minority, at least so far.
- [46:30]
A
You're being a little bit it's not like they're cutting off aid to HIV positive mothers such that hundreds of children oh wait, never mind, never mind.
- [46:39]
D
I hate that I'm laughing at it.
- [46:40]
A
Let me be very harsh right now and invite a lawsuit that'll be dismissed in court. The thing that will mark this era is that the world's wealthiest man is killing the world's poorest children. So folks, if you're waiting on the better angels of these people to show up, and that's what our government is dependent upon, don't hold your fucking breath, tax them and then elect good people who come up with systemic ways to address these issues.
- [47:10]
D
We'll be right back and for even more markets Content Sign up for our newsletter@profgemarkets.com.
- [47:25]
B
I get so many headaches every month. It could be chronic migraine. Fifteen or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.
- [47:33]
E
Botox prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for Those who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulties swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, negative neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, Myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.
- [48:18]
B
Why wait? Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.
- [48:25]
F
Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [48:47]
B
of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 or 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes
- [48:52]
C
and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes me slow when network is busy See terms Hey there, it's Wayfair here where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone. You're relaxing in an old hammock scrolling Wayfair's app when you spot it. A brand new patio set. Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up. Oh, you need a new grill too. All right, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's Room of Choice delivery and and fast expert setup on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit Wayfair.com or the Wayfair app.
- [49:22]
D
Wayfair Every style, Every Home. We're back with profit markets. Bending Spoons went public on the NASDAQ last week. Oh did it?
- [49:36]
A
Did it now.
- [49:37]
D
And it is off to a day strong start. It raised $1.68 billion in its US debut and shares jumped 40% on their first day of trading, closing at $40.50. The Italian company has built its business by acquiring underperforming software companies, cutting staff and improving profitability. Its portfolio includes well known brands such as Vimeo and aol. Not really sure how well known those companies are anymore. Either way, many have compared its strategy to private equity companies. But most importantly, Scott, you called this one last week. You said you were expecting a very strong first day pop. The strongest we've seen. Stronger than SpaceX, which indeed it was. Let's play the clip.
- [50:21]
A
The best performing one day IPO the biggest pop of a tech company of an IPO in June is not SpaceX at 22% there's a company being taken out by JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. I think it's pricing next week sometime bending spoons. My prediction, the biggest first day pop of a tech company is going to be this little known company out of Italy that has found all these orphaned brands that are great businesses. Thank you. Ladies, watch the shoulders. Hello ladies. Hello. Surrender to the dog. This deserves a little celebration.
- [51:01]
G
That's right.
- [51:02]
A
That's right.
- [51:03]
D
So that was on audio. I think you know what he's doing. He's again taking the shirt off and rubbing the belly for some reason. That's the celebration.
- [51:11]
A
Oh my God, Ed, my nipples are hard. My nipples are hard. Ed.
- [51:14]
D
Reflections how did you come up with this prophetic prediction?
- [51:20]
A
I don't think the greatest engineer in the world is or the greatest designers in the world is Johnny Ivory Elon Musk. I think the greatest engineers in the world are JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. I think you just know when they're taking a company out it's going to get at least a 20% pop because A, they make more money, they get their green shoe, they get their fees, their. Every institution in the world wants in on this ipo. As a result, they do business with these companies, they get a free like gift with purchase. Another way of saying this is the IPO game has become totally rigged. But it's legal.
- [51:53]
D
Yeah.
- [51:54]
A
And also then they get to manage the money. And so they use AI, an incredible marketing team of people, some of the brightest people at J.P. morgan and Goldman working high net worth, they call these people, they build an unbelievable book. They go back to the CEO and say, look, this is a once in a lifetime branding event and even though you risk some additional dilution that you wouldn't have had to have taken, if you price it to perfection to be able to say Your stock's up 20% or is up 40% as Ben Xmoon's was yesterday is worth the additional dilution. So there's all these stars and moons that line up around engineering a first day pop of this sort of. I thought this one was going to beat SpaceX because I thought the story was good. If you look at the pe, it's actually trading at a relatively, you know, a relatively modest pe. If you look at the revenue per employee, it was actually greater than Meta. I personally wanted to pimp this stock a little bit because I'm just so sick of talking about American AI companies and I like their model and they, they have a great narrative. They say that they get something like 400,000 applications for jobs and they hire, you know, eight people or a small point of. They say they're the most selective company in the world. Some of that is spin because basically what they do at these companies is they replace a 40 year old making $300,000 a year with a 25 year old who I'm sure is very bright making $140,000 a year. And they essentially like a private equity shop, clean up the back end. A lot of these companies probably overspent, but it's essentially. It kind of reminds me of the old WPP model pioneered by Martin Sorrell. And that is their ability to maintain this valuation and increase. It will be their ability to find good companies trading at X x multiple of Ebitda and then present it to the market and get 1.3x in the marketplace. And that's what Martin Sorell did by taking out key man risk. A little bit of synergy on the back end, not as much here, but he would basically buy these key man risk ad agencies for eight times Ebitda and then turn around to the market and he would get 12 times. It was essentially a market arbitrage or consolidation. Arbitra arbitrage. So it's a little bit of wpp, a little bit of private equity. I thought the small float, the excitement coming out of the SpaceX IPO and just what felt like an insanely cheap valuation was going to handily beat the 20% and it was up, I think, 40%. It's checked back a little bit today, but I thought this was a really interesting company. Neat business model, kind of beloved brands, but forgotten a little bit. Sort of the Berkshire Hathaway of beloved but forgotten brands, if you will. I just liked it.
- [54:38]
D
You kind of sound like you own it. Do you own it?
- [54:40]
A
Yes, I do. I do. I didn't get as much as I wanted though, to be honest.
- [54:47]
D
So there's the investor disclosure. Just to be clear, I haven't really taken a look at the stock and I'm not recommending it and I'm not buying it, but Scott owns it. So take that that information as you will.
- [55:00]
A
I'm not buying more at this price. I think it's a great. Moving forward, their challenge will be to show that this model is scalable. And to their credit, I do think that. I think there are a ton. I think the list of companies that didn't become Airbnb or didn't become Meta, but are good companies is really long and 88% of their revenue is recurring. Anyway, I was really excited I felt like this one was getting no attention and was a good company. And I kind of stumbled onto it just before Cannes.
- [55:37]
D
What I don't want this segment to be is a stock pumping segment where we're encouraging people to go buy it. That's not why I'm interested in this company and I don't think that's why you're interested. I just want to be clear to anyone listening, like that's not the interesting thing and no one's recommending this. But I think what is interesting about this company is the model. And they've said that the idea is, quote, to be a hybrid between a private equity firm and Google. And I think it's kind of, I kind of like it because they're taking this sort of creative novel strategy where they're basically, they have their own software engineers and they're going up and they're buying these companies as a private equity firm would, and then they're putting those software engineers into those companies. And so that's sort of the Google Meets Cake, AKR or Blackstone thing. And it's interesting because they're kind of, it's the same thing that the private equity firms would do back in the day where they say, you know, what we're going to do is we're going to find these unloved companies and we're going to find synergies in between them. And what that was basically Latin for is we're going to go in and we're going to fire as many people as is physically possible. And that is basically what they're doing, but they're doing it with like an AI thing. It's sort of like, oh, we're going to use AI and we're going to streamline everything. And that's a great story. But in reality, what they're mostly doing is firing people and crucially leveraging cheap labor in Europe. And that is they pay their selfware engineers around $75,000 a year. The average software engineer at Google makes around 150 to $200,000 a year. At Met, it's a little bit higher. They can do that because they're Italian company. They can go in Italy and hire these smart people and not pay them that much and, and do what you will with that information. You could say that you don't like that and I'd understand a lot of people don't like private equity firms. And the fact they just kind of go in, find these companies, gut the companies, lay off all the employees and then figure out a Way to fatten the bottom line. But it's a great thing for shareholders and that's kind of what they're doing. And so I think it's a good bet for those reasons. But I'm sure that they're going to get, get a lot of heat as well when people start to kind of realize like what, what it is exactly that they're doing. And that is the same thing that private equity does, the same thing that consulting firms do. They go in, they make a pitch and then ultimately it comes down to fire as many people as possible. It's basically what they're doing.
- [58:09]
A
They will call it efficiency, but they're operating at the same revenue per employee, a little bit better than meta. Look, I don't, I think that's capitalism. I'm not agreed, I'm not. I, I think, I think your ability to lay off people and create revenue and margin, create profitability, opportunity to start new companies that creates higher paying jobs. So I'm all about whatever you want to call it, creative distraction or what have you, but this company felt like at seven to eight times revenues, it felt like a buy. Now it's a 10 to 12 because of the run up yesterday. I checked back a little bit. I don't want to say it feels fully valued right now, but they're going to have to show their thesis or demonstrate their thesis that with a public currency and a list of a ton of companies like this, they can go out and kind of wash, rinse and repeat. But in sum, I thought this company's business model, execution and opportunity set, or TAM for lack of a better term, was not reflected. And that there was so much attention given to SpaceX that people kind of overlooked this company. And also, just to be blunt, when JP Morgan and Goldman take something out now, they engineer a 20% plus pop that they do. And by the way, it's not illegal. Is it rigged? Is it unfair? Is it a transfer of wealth from retail investors who don't get much access to institutions? Yeah, it is. I'll leave it there.
- [59:34]
D
It's not a great place to leave it, but that is certainly what is happening. And I think that we have done a good job of making that clear. Just how rigged that IPO game really is. A lot of people try to sort of paper over what's really happening, but that is what's happening. They don't usually let these IPOs fail and they price it such that it will get that pop. I think when we think about like, I mean, now that I know you own it. I'm going to just do a little bit of jobbing at the company.
- [60:04]
A
You mean like you do it? My emotions,
- [60:09]
D
I think what their advantage is, I don't think of this as an AI company. I think of this as basically a private equity company. And their advantage is they're in Europe, they know how to operate, they know how to fire people, and they know how to get really top talent at really low prices. And that last piece is crucial because what they're doing is they're buying these people. Businesses that are run, basically the product is dependent on how good your engineers are. I mean, these are mostly software businesses that have gotten crushed after the SaaS apocalypse, which if you thought that the pain that we're seeing in the public markets is bad, just go. Wait till you see what the pain in the private markets looks like. Which spells opportunity, taking advantage of that. And then they're also leveraging these engineers. But we went on the Bending Spoons Reddit thread where the engineers get together and they talk about their problems. And to be fair, Reddit is a very negative place in general. But here was something that we saw. Quote, a friend of mine worked four years at Google, then she got a job at Bending Spoons when she moved to Amsterdam and was fired after eight months because she was not working quote, hard enough. You have to be autistic and probably have no life in order to resist working for them. Not even anthropic. Who pays top of the market? Is this crazy? And then someone followed up and got like 300 upvotes. Quote, they don't even pay that well. So that's kind of their advantage.
- [61:32]
A
You know, who likes that, that environment, that culture, Shareholders.
- [61:36]
D
Yes.
- [61:38]
A
And here's the thing, you brought up something. A couple important things. One, one of the reasons I like this and I tried to find shares was that the word I didn't learn as a younger man. And the reason I've been rich three times, which means I've gone broke twice, the reason I've gone broke twice is that I didn't understand the power of diversification. And it's easy to become concentrated without even knowing it. You know, Prof. G Media is essentially an American company talking about American tech. We get a lot of advertisers from AI. I am over invested in technology stocks. I am so concentrated and non divested, accidentally think, well, I'll buy some S and P funds. Well, okay, 40% of the S&P is in 10 companies now, all related to AI. So one of the reasons I like this company as a personal investment is, I want to invest more in Europe. People have basically given up on Europe. Investors have basically given up on Europe, and that's when you buy. And two, I want diversification out of anything American and tech related because winter is coming, as Daenerys and every other person from Game of Thrones said. And then also the labor arbitrage. What do you think a talented senior product manager costs in San Francisco versus Milan, especially off to AI?
- [62:55]
D
Why exactly?
- [62:57]
A
It's not like it's child labor. I would imagine that in Milan, if you're making €120,000, actually, Milan's gone up a lot in price, but I would imagine for €120,000 in Milan, you can probably have a reasonable lifestyle in San Francisco. You're still living with your parents, so the market is just a gorgeous thing. It is. Europe's been left for dead. And that's the reason why I think it's an economic opportunity. And I'm spending a lot of time looking at European stocks right now.
- [63:30]
D
Let's take a look at the week ahead. We will see the minutes from the Federal Reserve's June meeting, and we'll also see earnings from Pepsi and from Delta. Scott, any predictions?
- [63:42]
A
No, I'm just going to stand on my bending spoons. 1. I can't do much better than that. I'm going to bask in the glory of that. Oh, no, I do have a prediction. I think that Team England is gonna beat Mexico in penalty kicks once again.
- [63:54]
D
This is coming out after because we're not at Sunday night yet, so we'll find out. So just make sure you're down to do that. You might be humiliated on the day it comes out.
- [64:04]
A
Oh, like I don't get humiliated every day. Did you just say Reddit? Have you seen my subreddit? Oh, my God, you are so mean. My, I, I, I don't even go on my subreddit anymore. It's like, God, he's so old. God, he's fucking lame. Jesus. Oh, what's wrong with his face? I mean, it's just like, so rough.
- [64:27]
D
You can't read the Reddit. The Reddit people are, they're rough. We love you, but you're also a little bit unwell. That's a little bit of the problem.
- [64:34]
A
Oh, my God, it's, it is rough.
- [64:37]
D
So, okay, make the prediction. Then England wins.
- [64:39]
A
I am not scared of humiliation. You know. You want to know what my safe word during sex is, speaking of humiliation?
- [64:46]
D
Not particularly, but tout me, my safe
- [64:48]
A
word is Maybe this has been a good show anyways. Penalty. Team England wins and penalties at the Azteca Stadium, which, by the way, Mexico, I don't think has ever lost at. They've never had a score, a goal scored against them. Is that what you told me?
- [65:07]
D
That's what I heard the commentators say. But now I'm kind of like, I
- [65:10]
A
think they've lost twice, but only twice in their history. It's going to be an amazing game. It's going to be an amazing game, but I'm predicting team England wins in a penalty shootout. Or maybe I should just predict that Team England wins. How's that?
- [65:24]
D
I mean, it depends how bold you want to be. This is the pole A. I'm going
- [65:28]
A
to say Team England.
- [65:29]
D
Less upside in that it's not a very bold one.
- [65:31]
A
Where do they go? Should we go to the game? Where do they go? Actually, I can't afford that.
- [65:35]
D
We should go to the game. Yeah, you can.
- [65:36]
A
Come on.
- [65:36]
D
Where do they, where do they go?
- [65:39]
A
Where do they go?
- [65:40]
D
I'm not sure. If they end up in New York, New Jersey.
- [65:43]
A
Oh, they go to Miami. Oh, how much fun would that be?
- [65:48]
D
It would be good.
- [65:49]
A
Everyone loves to roll with a dog in Miami.
- [65:51]
D
It would be good. I would like that.
- [65:53]
A
Yeah.
- [65:54]
D
My prediction. Well, I had previously made a prediction that if the AI bubble pops, it will be because OpenAI implodes. That was about a year ago, I think.
- [66:05]
A
Oh, it'll pop before that. It'll pop well before that.
- [66:08]
D
Well, no, I hold, I hold to that. I hold to the OpenAI. My new thinking on OpenAI. Two paths for OpenAI. Either it implodes or it gets a bailout. Those are the two paths. So that's my prediction.
- [66:23]
A
There you go.
- [66:27]
D
This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Carty. Our research team is dan Shalon, Kristen O' Donoghue and Mia Silverio. Jake McFerson is our social producer, Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof. Markets from Prof. Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and tune in tomorrow for a fresh take on the markets.
- [67:02]
A
You happy and kind reunion
- [67:13]
G
as the world turn.
- [67:30]
H
Your team just added its 67th AI tool and also your 67th security blind spot. The good news, the Vanta agent works like a GRC engineer in the background finding every app your team uses, scoring the risk and drafting fixes for you. Vanta is the platform used by over 16,000 fast moving companies like Ramp, Cursor and Harvey, who are shaping the future with AI and staying ahead of AI risk. Get started@vanta.com.