Searching For Value Outside the U.S. — ft. Lyn Alden

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Searching For Value Outside the U.S. — ft. Lyn Alden"

Prof G Markets, a Vox Media Podcast Network production hosted by Scott Galloway and Ed Elson, delves into the intricacies of the global capital markets. In the episode titled "Searching For Value Outside the U.S. — ft. Lyn Alden", released on March 20, 2025, the hosts engage in a comprehensive discussion with Lynn Alden, an independent analyst and author of Broken Money. This episode explores the recent market correction, the implications of U.S. tariff policies, capital rotation between U.S. and international markets, the establishment of a national crypto reserve, and strategic portfolio adjustments.

---

1. Market Correction and S&P 500 Decline

Timestamp: [25:04]

The episode kicks off with an analysis of the recent downturn in the stock market. The S&P 500 has plunged approximately 10% from its peak, officially entering correction territory. This dip is attributed to rising anxieties surrounding tariffs, geopolitical tensions, and recession fears.

Lynn Alden offers historical context, noting that the equity markets had experienced favorable conditions in 2023 and 2024, buoyed by substantial fiscal deficits and nominal GDP growth. She explains:

"[25:50] "Equity markets were a lot more highly valued than for example, they were in the beginning of Trump's first term if we use a comparable baseline. So the combination of pretty high valuations, a lot of global capital all stuffed into US Markets, overweight us and especially overweight US Large cap growth has been very much the consensus play that keeps winning."

Alden emphasizes that high valuations combined with concentrated investments in U.S. large-cap growth stocks have amplified the market's vulnerability to corrections. The current sell-off is seen as a natural response to these elevated valuations and changing economic policies.

---

2. Implications of U.S. Tariff Policies

Timestamp: [29:42]

The conversation shifts to the contentious topic of U.S. tariffs. Alden articulates the structural issues tied to the U.S. trade deficit and the dollar's status as the global reserve currency. She states:

"[29:42] 'I think that in the context of understanding some of the voices in the administration to see what they're at least trying to do. I get that. But yeah, I would generally agree with the consensus view that tariffs are more likely to slow down or impair an economy than help it.'"

Alden argues that while tariff policies aim to address trade deficits, they introduce uncertainty and costs into the economy, potentially leading to inflationary pressures and disrupting established supply chains. She points out that such measures can have long-term repercussions, including deindustrialization and rising populist sentiments.

Timestamp: [33:08]

Scott Galloway interjects with a broader perspective on capital flows, suggesting that the U.S. might experience a reversal in capital inflows, a theme Alden concurs with but regards as a potential turning point rather than a temporary setback.

---

3. Capital Rotation: Shifting Focus from U.S. to International Markets

Timestamp: [35:07]

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the anticipated rotation of capital from U.S. markets to international markets. Alden highlights factors such as rate-cutting cycles, tariff uncertainties, and China's economic maneuvers as catalysts for this shift.

"[35:07] 'I do continue to hold the view that it's more likely than not that this is early sign of a rotation because now there are a number of things there.'"

She underscores that international equities have historically served as an anchor in diversified portfolios, but the current market conditions signal a need to reassess and possibly reallocate investments towards non-U.S. assets.

Timestamp: [37:48]

Scott probes the impact of increased European defense spending, equating it to stimulus measures that could bolster European markets. Alden cautiously agrees, noting that while European fiscal actions may not be as explosive as direct household stimulus, they contribute positively by enhancing employment and spending power within defense supply chains.

---

4. Establishment of a National Crypto Reserve

Timestamp: [44:07]

The conversation takes a turn towards cryptocurrency policy under the Trump administration, focusing on the establishment of a national crypto reserve. Alden analyzes the executive order, which differentiates Bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and Cardano.

"[44:42] 'I generally take the under on the idea that they're going to go out and buy a million bitcoin as some of the proposals have said.'"

She explains that the reserve primarily involves seizing and holding cryptocurrencies obtained through illicit activities, with a clear distinction made for Bitcoin. Alden views this as a strategic but limited move, avoiding the pitfalls of favoring specific cryptocurrencies that could lead to conflicts of interest.

Scott Galloway challenges the strategic value of such a reserve, questioning its necessity compared to traditional reserves like petroleum:

"[48:15] 'There's nothing strategic about a strategic bitcoin. Like if there's a strategic petroleum reserve, if we run out of petroleum, that's bad. We can't make tanks, our cars stop. If we run out of bitcoin, I don't see any existential crisis to the US.'"

Alden counters by comparing Bitcoin to gold holdings, suggesting that while not as critical as petroleum, Bitcoin serves as a digital commodity with potential strategic advantages in global transactions and as a reserve asset.

---

5. Portfolio Strategies and Investment Insights

Timestamp: [53:23]

Towards the episode's conclusion, Alden shares insights into her personal investment strategies amidst the current market dynamics. She emphasizes the importance of diversification and identifying overvalued sectors, particularly within U.S. growth stocks. Alden advises investors to:

• Identify Overvalued Stocks: Look for high P/E ratios, as exemplified by her view on Costco's valuation.

• Diversify International Holdings: Seek value in international markets, especially in regions like China where certain tech stocks are becoming more shareholder-friendly.

"[56:01] 'I think I would look for areas of overvaluation, things that you're not comfortable with, and reduce those overweight positions.' "

Scott Galloway aligns with Alden's perspective, indicating a deliberate rotation away from U.S. tech giants like Apple and Amazon towards more diversified international holdings. This strategy aims to mitigate risks associated with overconcentration in U.S. growth sectors and capitalize on undervalued opportunities abroad.

---

6. Conclusion and Takeaways

Timestamp: [58:30]

The episode wraps up with Lyn Alden reaffirming the necessity of staying adaptive in portfolio strategies amid shifting global economic landscapes. She cautions against overly reactive investment decisions, advocating for measured and informed adjustments based on evolving market conditions.

Key Takeaways:

• Market Corrections Are Natural: Elevated valuations and concentrated capital in U.S. growth stocks make the market susceptible to corrections.

• Tariff Policies Have Mixed Impacts: While intended to address trade deficits, tariffs can introduce economic uncertainties and disrupt supply chains.

• Capital Rotation is Imminent: There is a growing likelihood of funds moving from U.S. to international markets, driven by economic policies and global capital flows.

• Crypto Reserves Are Strategically Limited: The establishment of a national crypto reserve, primarily focused on Bitcoin, serves as a strategic reserve rather than an investment overhaul.

• Diversification Remains Crucial: Investors should seek opportunities in undervalued international markets and avoid overreliance on U.S. growth sectors.

---

This episode provides a nuanced exploration of contemporary financial challenges and strategic investment considerations, offering listeners valuable insights into navigating a complex and evolving global market landscape.

Transcript

[Scott Galloway]

Support for the show comes from public.com if you're serious about investing, you need to know about public.com that's where you can invest in everything, stocks, options, bonds and more and even earn a 6% or higher yield that you can lock in with a bond account. Visit public.comproPG and get up to $10,000 when you transfer your old portfolio. That's public.com Prof. G paid for by Public Investing. All investing involves the risk of loss including loss of principal. Private brokerage services for U.S. listed registered securities options and bonds in a self directed account are offered by Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC. Complete disclosures [e-mail] disclosures I should also disclose I am an investor in Public.

[Snoop Dogg]

Today at T Mobile I'm joined by.

[Big Snoop Dogg]

A special co anchor what up everybody? It's your boy Big Snoop deal.

[Snoop Dogg]

Double G Snoop where can people go to find great deals?

[Big Snoop Dogg]

Head to T mobile.com and get four iPhone 16s with Apple Intelligence on us plus four lines for 25 bucks.

[Snoop Dogg]

That's quite a deal Snoop and when you switch to T Mobile you can save versus the other big guys. Comparable plans plus streaming Spang when we.

[Big Snoop Dogg]

Up out of here see how you.

[Claire Miller]

Can save on wireless and streaming versus the other big guys@t mobile.com switch Apple Intelligence requires iOS 18.1 or later.

[Lynn Alden]

You think you know what working on your wellness sounds like. But there's one thing that truly sounds like the best thing you can do for your overall wellness. Every great performance starts with a great night's sleep. And every great night's sleep starts with Natrol, the number one drug free sleep aid brand in America. 100% drug free and non habit forming. Get yours now at Target or wherever you shop. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

[Scott Galloway]

Today's number 40. That's the percentage of college basketball fans who've admitted they've called in sick to watch a March Madness game. True story. When I worked at Morgan Stanley, I called in sick and my boss said, you don't sound sick. And I said, well, I've been fucking my pet rabbit all day. Does that sound sick enough for welcome to Prop G markets today. That's right. First job. Can you imagine what a great employee I was? Today we're speaking with Lynn Alden, independent analyst and the author of Broken Money. But first, it's time for banter. Ed, did you have a pet rabbit?

[Ed]

No, I did not have a Pet rabbit. And I just want to say, did.

[Scott Galloway]

You have any pets?

[Ed]

I did. I had a dog. And I've told you about that.

[Scott Galloway]

The dog you didn't like.

[Ed]

That's right. Okay. You remember.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah. You're the first person I've ever met. It's like. Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of my dog.

[Ed]

I wasn't a big fan of my dog. He was lame and he bit other dogs. I think I've said this before. I just want to point out I.

[Scott Galloway]

Tweeted about this on Twitter. You're still on Twitter.

[Ed]

I also posted it on Threads. Yeah, I'm going to cast a wide net.

[Scott Galloway]

Okay, sorry, go ahead.

[Ed]

So I assume you watched White Lotus this weekend?

[Scott Galloway]

I did, yeah.

[Ed]

So the scene that everyone's talking about where Sam Rockwell is talking about getting.

[Scott Galloway]

Railed by other men as he's. Yeah, right.

[Ed]

Yeah, correct.

[Scott Galloway]

I call that a Tuesday night.

[Ed]

Okay, so the face that the other guy makes, that's me at the opening of every single show on this podcast.

[Claire Miller]

Sex is a poetic act.

[Ed]

It's a metaphor.

[Claire Miller]

Metaphor for what? Are we our forms? Am I a middle aged white guy.

[Ed]

On the inside too? Or inside, could I be an Asian girl? Right.

[Scott Galloway]

I did see that thread and people loved it.

[Ed]

Your reaction?

[Scott Galloway]

I've always thought a decent. A non zero probability is my end is very similar to Kung Fu star Keith Carradine. There were several prostitutes involved in Thailand, and I thought, you know, if you're gonna go, go out with all guns blazing. I mean, did you ever see Kung Fu? That a white guy playing like a monk who could kick the shit out of, like, it was kind of politically incorrect but very kind of politically correct at the same time. And that next half hour I'd be like, okay, Tonto, like, smell the ground for other savages.

[Ed]

Right now I feel like the guy in white, loaded. I'm like, oh, oh, really? Hmm.

[Scott Galloway]

I didn't know. And then, you know what? I'd watch let's go through. I mean, it would be impossible for me not to be, like, pretty fucked up. Based on the steady diet of media. I watched two hours a day, four episodes of I Dream of Jeannie. We were one of the first communities in Orange county to get cable tv. And they had Jeannie on four times a day. I watched all four of them. So I grew up. My formative years were, yes, master, or go to your bottle genie. Anyways, I'm like, fucking Alan Aldo. I've come a long way, Ed. What did you grow up on?

[Ed]

I grew up on SpongeBob SquarePants and Dexter's laboratory.

[Scott Galloway]

That just means you should be abusing drugs. I don't. That's not that. Claire, come in here. What did you grow up on?

[Claire Miller]

I actually grew up on the same shows you did, weirdly, because I didn't have cable, so.

[Ed]

Oh, wow.

[Claire Miller]

Yeah, I basically watched PBS Kids and then this channel called MeTV, which just played reruns of all those old shows like I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, Bewitched, the Brady Bunch.

[Big Snoop Dogg]

Yeah, all your favorites.

[Scott Galloway]

Did you watch Partridge Family?

[Claire Miller]

Of course.

[Scott Galloway]

Yeah, that was pretty good. That was my favorite thing about Brady Bunch was that Greg was fucking the mom, Florence Henderson, and the dad was closeted and died of aids, obviously. Very tragic. The Brady Bunch was not what it appeared to be. It was not what it appeared to be. God, get me out of this. How do I get out of this? How do I get out of this? Gdp? AI all right, let's get. Let's get to the headlines. Ed, now is the time to buy. I hope you have plenty of the Puerto toll.

[Ed]

Buy now, pay later firm Klarna has officially filed for an IPO on the New York Stock Exchange. Analysts estimate its valuation is around $15 billion. That is a sharp decline from its $46 billion peak during the pandemic. Google is acquiring cybersecurity startup Wiz for 32 billion to strengthen its cloud security offering. Back in July, the companies were in talks for a $23 billion deal before Wiz walked away from the deal. Now Google expects to close on its largest acquisition to date next year. And finally, Intel's new CEO, Lipp Bu Tan, is just days into his tenure and has already outlined his new plan for the company. His strategy includes revamping chip manufacturing with a focus on chips that power AI servers. Scott let's start with Klarna, which is looking to IPO now. This is a buy now, pay later company. I've been pretty critical of Buy Now, Pay later in the past. I think you have, too. My view is that this is basically just a misleading rebrand of a product that already has a very negative reputation in society. And that product is debt or credit. People do not like debt. They don't like credit. They don't like these banks that make money off of the people they service defaulting on that debt and that credit. And so companies like Klarna and a firm which is another BNPL firm, and afterpay they came in, they said, hey, we don't like debt either. We hate those big, mean banks. So we have a new product. It's called Buy Now, Pay Later. It lets you purchase things now, and then you delay your payment of those items in the future. And, of course, this is literally the definition of debt. It's just repackaged in a different format with a different brand and a different name. To be fair to Klarna, they have sort of cleaned up their actual, um. They're a lot more forthcoming now about what they're actually selling. But I'm still a little bit wary of this company because I especially, especially worry, looking at the language in the prospectus for this ipo, which begins with this tirade against traditional banks. The CEO says that Klarna is an amazingly diverse group of people with really one thing in common, and that is their resentment of traditional banks. So I. I'm still a little bit iffy on Buy Now, Pay later and Klarna, but the company is doing quite well. Revenue's up almost $3 billion, expected to go public at a $15 billion valuation. What do you think of Klarna's potential IPO? Scott?

[Scott Galloway]

So I agree with you. I'm not a fan of the BNPL space, and basically, it's sort of the way it works is you can walk up to the till at a retailer and they say, would you like to buy $300 worth of stuff? And you get automatic credit right now. And the retailers love it because it inspires additional basket size on the spot. And it's sort of tapping into people's, young people's. And I'd be curious what the age the numbers here are, offering them cheap and easy credit, which sometimes leads people to bad places. Having said that, you can't infantilize people. They get to make their own decisions. But it's yet another kind of easy credit way of juicing retailer sales. I would argue these guys seem to be really solid operators, and that is, they went from a loss of a quarter of a billion dollars in 2023 to a $21 million profit last year. And they claim, and some of this is marketing, but some of it's also probably real, that they've really embraced AI and that they're. From 2022 to 2024, Klarna cut sales and marketing costs by 38%, R&D costs by nine and a half percent and customer service costs by 29%. So, know, cutting your customer service cost by a third is real. Meanwhile, its revenue has surged 48%. So their story is a compelling story. We're using technology and management discipline and AI to decrease costs while not losing growth, which results in a massive increase to the bottom line. There's been some analysis that says the savings from AI have been overstated, but this is smart from an IR standpoint. 15 billion feels reasonable to me. I don't know if they're growing faster than the other guys, but I would bet this actually gets a pretty warm reception in the marketplace because they're very good at using the term AI they used. They said AI or mentioned AI 142 times in their prospectus. Their strategy of from a comms perspective, trying to create Klarna as synonymous with AI is both smart and effective. And I think they'll get a nice pop here. What's also interesting is they decided to list in the US and it's really interesting. The umbrella brand of US listing increases your market cap. By the analysis that the team brought together that the average company listing in the US trades at a multiple of 24 versus 18 in the UK. Now you might argue, well, there's more growth companies and they deserve a higher valuation. But some of it is definitely the halo or the brand halo of going public on a US exchange which tends to attract the best companies globally. And they've decided to opt for a listing on the nyse. I thought that was kind of interesting. Your thoughts?

[Ed]

I think one thing to mention there, you're asking about or you know, proposing the idea that they're targeting young people. That is exactly what they're doing. 70% of their users are Gen Z or Millennial. And as soon as you look at the logo, that makes sense. It's sort of this sort of Gen Z ified clean logo with a pink background. And some of their marketing campaigns I find quite funny. They have partnered with high profile celebrities including Paris Hilton, asap, Rocky and Snoop Dogg. So this is definitely targeted to young people. Again, I have no issues investing in the ipo. I agree with you. I think this is a very reasonable valuation. But I do think if you are a user of Klarna and if you are someone who's young and you somehow think that you're getting a great deal by paying with Klarna. Oh, maybe I'm circumnavigating credit card debt. I just want to remind you again, this is no different from that. This is credit. It's basically the same as using a credit card. It's just packaged differently. You're still borrowing money. Let's move on to this acquisition of Wiz by Google. This is very interesting because 10 months ago you and I were discussing this same headline, except it was that they were requiring Wiz for $23 billion. And we talked about how that was going to be a huge win. You warned Wiz employees, many of whom would have made millions off of this, not to get too excited because we believed that given the situation from a regulatory perspective, maybe this wouldn't go through. And then a couple weeks later, the deal was actually called off. Wiz said they were walking away from the deal and they said that they were going to pursue an initial public offering instead. So here we are 10 months later, it's the same deal, except this time it's for $32 billion. It's 40% higher than when we last discussed it. Scott, what do you make of this and what do you think changed? They tried to do this 10 months ago, they said no, and then suddenly they're down to do it again.

[Scott Galloway]

Trump, basically, Jonathan Kantor and Lina Khan are no longer there to threaten. I mean, if they get a good, if they're gonna go public and they think they're gonna get a great valuation and there's a chance that they'll go through six or nine months or 12 months of headache trying to b DOJ or the FTC and maybe end up with a negative decision, let's go public. But if it's Google showing up and saying, why would you even risk it? We're back. We're going to close in 30 days. The Trump administration is very friendly. They've, you know, fired the FTC and DOJ people. There's, we have pretty decent certainty of close and we'll up our, we'll up our price. Why take the risk and why put up with earnings calls? And, you know, every senior manager here is about to be worth a shit ton of money and they don't have to digest their stomach and go on CNBC and put up with pesky analysts. So this was Trump and it sounds like they increased the valuation and boom, we're off to the races. I think they're smart to do this. I wouldn't. I mean, if you can get. Basically a public filing is a few things. One, it's a disclosure of certain data, but it can also serve as basically a kind of a whistle, or what I would call speak now. Forever hold your peace to any company trying to acquire them. Because once a company is public, acquiring it is really difficult and you gotta get shareholder approval. And there's a media class action suit saying you're buying us for too little. And there's all sorts of SEC issues around acquiring A public company, it's pretty clean and pretty easy to acquire a private company as long as the FTC and the DOJ aren't going to get in the way. So what changed here? Trump changed.

[Ed]

I'm in agreement with you that that's why they did this. Where we might disagree, I think they are misassessing the positions of the DOJ and the FTC under Trump, because as we discussed with Jonathan Kanto, who used to lead the antitrust division at the doj, these new heads at both the DOJ and the ftc, these people are not soft on antitrust. These are the people who decided to continue the frameworks that were established under Biden. They're very tough, they're very active, and they're very much focused on big tech and on cracking down any and all monopolies that are emerging in that industry. So if Wiz has done this under the assumption that they're now in a more lenient environment when it comes to antitrust, I would encourage them to go look at Andrew Ferguson's resume, who's leading the ftc. Go look at Gail Slater, who's leading the antitrust division of the DoJ. These are not the big tech sympathizers you think they are. It might have seemed that way based on Trump's positioning and having all those guys over for lunch at Mar a Lago, but the leaders of these agencies themselves are not gonna be cozying up. I don't think it's gonna be the cakewalk that they think it is, but we'll see. If I were to predict, I don't think this necessarily falls through, but I do think we're gonna see massive scrutiny and it's again, going to be a one or two year ordeal. Because the other side note to this is that it's Google's largest acquisition by far. So I think this is going to be long and drawn out. But I do agree with you. I think they, they saw a regime change and they said, okay, now is our time to strike. Let's go over the proposed changes for intel as outlined by their new CEO, this guy Lip Bhutan. So we've been talking about Intel a lot and the issues that have been ailing this company. And here's what he wants to do with Intel. Now, this was reported by Reuters. He wants to focus more on AI, as we know, intel has been more focused on this standard computing. He wants to restructure the company, likely in the form of layoffs. So he's going to fire a bunch of people. He wants to, quote, revamp the company's manufacturing operations. I don't really know what that means. And I think the big question that remains here, which we do not have an answer to, is whether he's going to break the company up or not. I think a lot of people are expecting that he's going to split it into the chip design business and then also the chip manufacturing business and go for an all out corporate breakup and operate those two as separate companies. So far we don't know. We can only speculate. So Scott, your reactions to the new Intel CEO and your thoughts on what might happen under his leadership.

[Scott Galloway]

So Tan was on the board and he resigned from the board after a dispute with then CEO Gelsinger about layoffs. This stuff never gets out into the public arena. That a board. I've had pretty serious fights with other board members and CEOs. The fact that it escaped the room that Tan had left the board over a disagreement about how many people to lay off at a place like intel where everyone's like playing golf at Woodside Country Club together, I mean, that means it was really heated and that Tan was pissed off. And then what's even more interesting is the board called him back and said, hmm, you were right. Do you want to come be the CEO? So this is really, this is like high dudgeon boardroom drama. When a board member leaves, he's so pissed off at the CEO and then the board fires that CEO and calls him and says, come back as the CEO. And this is a company that I think the markets say there's a lot of potential here, a lot of ip, a lot of brand, a lot of distribution, probably a lot of fantastic human capital. And that it has arguably been one of the worst managed companies over the last two or three decades, given the space it's in. And evidence of that is the new CEO coming in and acting like he's aggressive, he's bold, he's going to shake shit up. The stock's up 25% in the last few weeks. He's already added, you know, $20 billion or $25 billion in market cap just by virtue of this aggressive CEO who believes he has a vision. You know, he's also pulling a klarna and mentioning AI a bunch. He is. Clearly the markets are happy about change, disruption and for God's sakes, do something. There's real assets here. So it'll be interesting to, it'll be interesting to see what he does. But he's very successful. He served as he was the CEO of Cadence Design Systems and the company was up 33x while he was there. And he's already sort of paid for his salary several exponentially just by virtue of the market as excited, maybe not as much about him, but more specifically just the prospect of serious change. Your thoughts?

[Ed]

Yeah, I think it's important what you mentioned there about his time on the board of Intel. So yes, he was the CEO of Cadiz Design Systems, which is this software company that actually makes the software that Nvidia uses to design their chips. So he's deep in the AI game. He joined the board of intel in 2022 and then he resigned in 2024. And as you point out, it's because he had these disputes with the CEO Pat Gelsinger, who he thought was too nice, too bureaucratic, wouldn't lay people off, he thought he was too risk averse. All of these criticisms that made him very unpopular at the time. But in hindsight he was totally on point. And so it does certainly feel to me at least that he's almost the perfect guy for the job. He's been inside the machine, he's seen under the hood, and he was the only one who said, hey guys, none of this makes sense to me. I don't like the way this is set up and he got ousted or maybe he resigned. We don't really know what happened. But I think it does make sense to bring him back because he's the only one who called bullshit when it really mattered. We'll be right back after the break for our conversation with Lynn Alden. And if you're enjoying the show so far, be sure to give profit. You'd markets a follow wherever you get your podcasts.

[Scott Galloway]

Support for the show comes from ZBiotics. I love a good cocktail, but I could do without feeling like garbage the next morning. That's where ZBiotics comes in. ZBiotics pre alcohol probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiot. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. And according to Zebiotics, here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. This is the part of the ad where I'm supposed to talk about my personal experience. I have used ZBiotics and I have found that the next morning I feel less bad. I'm also trying to cut down my alcohol consumption because obviously that's the best thing to do to feel less bad the next morning. But I'm also using ZBiotics. Go to ZBiotics.com profg to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use profg at checkout. ZBiotics is backed with 100% money guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com profg and use the code profg at checkout for 15% off. Support for the show comes from public.com all right, if you're serious about investing, you need to know about public.com that's where you can invest in everything. Stocks, options, bonds and more. They even offer some of the highest yields in the industry, including the bond account's 6% or higher yield that remains locked in even if the Fed cuts rates. With Public, you can get the tools you need to make informed investment decisions. Their built in AI tools called Alpha doesn't just tell you if an asset is moving, it tells you why the asset is moving so you can actually understand what's driving your portfolio performance. Public is a FINRA registered SIPC insured US based company with a customer support team that actually cares. Bottom line, your investments deserve a platform that takes them as seriously as you do. Fund your account in five minutes or [e-mail] propg and get up to $10,000 when you transfer your old portfolio. That's public.com profg paid for by Public Investing. All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. Brokerage services for U.S. listed registered securities options and bonds and a self directed account are offered by Public Investing Inc. Member Family, FINRA and SIPC. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures I should also disclose I am an investor in Public. Support for the show comes from Indeed. You know when you're in the middle of a meeting and someone asks who was supposed to be on top of that and everyone collectively realizes in real time that no one was ever on top of that. Luckily, when you need to hire people yesterday, there's Indeed with Indeed you can find relevant candidates and qualified talent quickly. Indeed Sponsored Jobs allows your listings to jump to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster. Plus, with Indeed, Sponsored Jobs are no monthly subscriptions no long term contracts and you only pay for Results. Join the 3 1/2 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to hire great talent fast. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of the show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility and Indeed. Indeed.comprofg just go to indeed.comprofg right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com profg terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.

[Ed]

Okay, welcome back. Here's our conversation with Lynn Olden, independent analyst, full time investor and the author of Broker and Money. Lyn, thank you for joining us again.

[Claire Miller]

Thanks for having me back. Always happy to be here.

[Ed]

So I'd like to start with your reaction to this sell off that we've seen in the stock market. So the s and P500, it's down around 10% off of its high. It's officially entered correction territory. We're seeing all of this anxiety around tariffs and geopolitics and people talking about recessions. Again, I'd like to just start with your initial reaction to the drawdown. Any thoughts on this correction and perhaps any thoughts on how this compares to previous corrections in stock market history?

[Claire Miller]

Sure. So there's been a pretty good couple years in the market. So 2023, 2024 were both good for the market. One of the things I emphasized was the size of fiscal deficits during that time, which were generally stimulative and all as being equal positive for markets in a nominal sense as well as GDP running nominally on the hot side. And when we enter this year, some of that is is slowly changing. So there is potentially fewer upside surprises in store, more downside uncertainty, things like tariffs, things like, you know, attempting to tackle the fiscal deficit in pretty kind of shock and all ways, kind of the start of the administration. And so I think it's natural, especially because equities were priced at a pretty high valuation. Now in this whole kind of decade long period, they've been on average a little bit more highly priced than very long term averages. But even given this kind of cyclical ebb and flow evaluations, equity markets were a lot more highly valued than for example, they were in the beginning of Trump's first term if we use a comparable baseline. So the combination of pretty high valuations, a lot of global capital all stuffed into US Markets, overweight us and especially overweight US Large cap growth has been very much the consensus play that keeps winning. I Think for the first time in a while there are some challenges to that. I think the sell off is natural. Partly how deep it has to go will depend on policy decisions. There tends to be a somewhat feedback loop there. So, you know, don't really mind 5% corrections. We start getting into 10% and people aren't really sure where the end game is. You know, they start making noise and you see kind of rhetoric shift around that. And I think, you know, one of the ways to mitigate it was to have a fairly diversified portfolio. So for a long time having international exposure was kind of an anchor on a portfolio. Whereas in this particular sell off international equities on average did better. It's kind of early rotation potential as well as owning other types of assets. I mean gold's poking around its all time highs. And so it's kind of funny because when I look at a portfolio it's like nothing to write home about, like a kind of a week, month long period or more. But the sentiment on social media from what I've seen has been pretty kind of surprised. And I think it's mainly because the things that underperform the most tend to be the consensus. So some of the large cap growth underperformed the S and P and then the S and P underperformed global and that, that just kind of messed up a lot of people's positioning.

[Ed]

Yeah, it does almost feel like all of the, the truisms of finance and portfolio management are suddenly true again. It's like, you know, you should, you shouldn't just be overweight US Tech, you should also invest in dividend stocks and international stocks and treasuries, et cetera. A lot there. That's very interesting that we will definitely get into. I do quickly just want to get your take on tariffs and this tariff policy. I'm sure we're all getting bored of it, but I do want to get your position because I think everyone we've talked to has had the same view, which is this is a bad idea and it's bad execution. And I actually just read a tweet from our friend Morgan Housel and I love this. I think it's very true. He said nutritionists fiercely disagree on what's the best diet but all seem to agree that sugar is bad. The same seems true for economists and tariffs. I would like to get your view because I don't think you're, you know, you're an outside of the box thinker. I would say I just want to check in. Do you have a different reaction to tariffs. Is there anything positive about this or is it mostly bad?

[Claire Miller]

I wouldn't necessarily have a different reaction, but I think I might come at it from a different timeframe or a different perspective. So one of the things I have been writing about for a while is the structural US trade deficits and why they do matter. And I've kind of pointed out that that's pretty tied at the hip with the dollar being the reserve currency. So basically compared to most other currencies other than maybe one or two other sizable ones, there's a lot of countries that want to hold US assets or US currency directly. It's basically the biggest, most saleable network effect for money in the world at the current time. And so a lot of international contracts and trade are priced in dollars. A lot of financing is priced in dollars. So a lot of countries and corporations have dollar dominated debt that's not even owed to American entities. It's often owed to European entities or owed to other foreign entities. It's basically cross border dollar financing. And so that's this really powerful network effect. And so for most currencies, they tend to trade on things like industry differentials, trade balance differentials, things like that. There's kind of this control loop that happens if a currency gets too expensive, too cheap. The dollar is kind of different because it has this more structural bid on top of the normal things like industry differentials and trade. Because basically the whole world needs dollars. And the way that they get dollars is basically we just pour them out trillions of dollars over time, generally through structural trade deficits. And the mechanism is that because so many people hold it, they inflate the value of the dollar. So our import strength gets, you know, stronger and our ability to export lower margin things shrinks. And so we're, you know, we can be good at tech, healthcare and finance, but it's hard to be good at manufacturing in that environment. And when you run that policy for decades, you, you kind of hit more critical parts, you get more de industrialization, you get rising populist politics and changes on the electoral map. So it's. So I start from the viewpoint that the trade deficits do matter and it's not surprising to see that increasingly become a political touch point. But I do think that the shock and all tariff policy is likely to have backlash. I think we're already seeing that. So it's not necessary to say that I endorse that approach. And the other thing that I generally point to is if you kind of look at the administration, there's Obviously different actors in it. One of the ways to help at least understand the somewhat intellectual framework that they're doing is Steven Mirren wrote a paper, he's Trump's nominee for his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. He wrote a paper in November 2024 that talked about realigning global trade. And it kind of laid out, it's kind of like the more intellectual, if you were to steel man, what they're trying to do, that's the paper to read because that's kind of the more intellectual version, which is, okay, he kind of looks at tariffs, he looks at the trade balance, he looks at some of these things I just talked about, then says, okay, which approaches could address that? And then what are the risks of using those approaches? Because he freely admits these are risky tools to be using. So I think that in the context of understanding some of the voices in the administration to see what they're at least trying to do. I get that. But yeah, I would generally agree with the consensus view that tariffs are more likely to slow down or impair an economy than help it.

[Ed]

And how will those tariffs affect the dynamic you described there, where we have this trade deficit that has that kind of works because of the dollar's status as the global reserve currency. And we, we've sort of been, you know, floating off of this benefit that we didn't necessarily earn, perhaps. I mean, what do implementing these tariffs do to that dynamic?

[Claire Miller]

It adds uncertainty and it adds costs. And so around the margins, it can change where that, where those things go. Now the issue is that tariffs can impact in the very short term. You can just flip a switch and tariffs are on, whereas supply chains take a very long time, especially at scale to move. And so, you know, my original background is engineering, so I always kind of look at things from a pretty tangible perspective. It's easy to kind of sit in New York or sit in Washington and kind of look at everything numbers on a chart. But when you actually are moving facilities, moving logistics hubs and things like that, that's actually a really time consuming thing. So in the near term, it's likely to be inflationary and disruptive. Longer term, I think the best case scenario is it can kind of signal a priority shift. In that paper, the Economist covers not just the tariff side, but also ironically, trying to discourage the rest of the world from stashing all their excess value in U.S. financial assets and overvaluing the dollar because of that. So it's kind of like this one, two punch of trying to make imports more expensive. And then also trying to discourage excess capital recycling.

[Scott Galloway]

Lynn, it was good to see you. One of our big themes for 25 was that the rivers would reverse, that the constant flow of capital into us, specifically US growth would not only stop, but that it would reverse. And we're starting to see some signs of this. Do you think this is a temporary blip or is this structural where we might go into a 10 or 15 year period of underperformance of US markets relative to non US markets? Do you see this as a significant turning point or something that kind of wait and see?

[Claire Miller]

So I think it's a potential turning point and I started writing about that last year before all the terror stuff came into effect. My initial catalyst was the US was entering a rate cutting cycle. And so it'd be the first window since 2019 that could be a catalyst for some of those capital outflows. Now 2019 didn't really end up doing that because within a year Covid hit and the big US network effect, tech stocks really benefited from that. And also the US did more fiscal and came out a little bit more explosively than the rest of the world while China and other places were still in contraction mode. That didn't work out last time. My framework is this is the next window for it. Now, window doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it basically means that it's one of the first higher probability areas in a while. The area of my portfolio that has been more challenging has been expecting a little bit more of a rotation earlier. So I've been early on that trade. So I'm kind of, I'm always a little bit cautious to say, okay, this is the big rotation because I'm mindful of the difficulty of making that call. But I do continue to hold the view that it's more likely than not that this is early sign of a rotation because now there are a number of things there. There's the, there is the initial rate cutting period, then there's all the tariff uncertainty, then there's the fact that I've been emphasizing China because they've been in a balance sheet recession for a while that, you know, they're trying to deflate their property market, it kind of deflate bubbles there and kind of a gradual pace. But last year they started to hit certain pain points on Chinese social media. They were, you know, it was, it was starting to come up and then they were starting to hit red lines in the equity market where their kind of priority shifted. And so my view was that they were going to come out with some sort of hyper stimulus, but that they're going to come out with a series of smaller ones whenever they keep bouncing into these red lines and that they're starting to put a floor under things rather than a ceiling over things. And so when we see, you know, European fiscal open up a little bit, not necessarily for great reasons, but European fiscal opening up a little bit, Chinese consumer stimulus opening up a little bit, while at the same time the US Is still being fairly tight with monetary policy, while also around the margins trying to contract fiscal and then you add tariffs. It's a pretty good recipe for the rest of the world, especially because there's also that big valuation differential and everybody is on one side of the boat stuffed overweight into US markets.

[Scott Galloway]

So you've talked a lot about something that struck me the last couple times we've talked is just how impactful it is to have $2 trillion in additional stimulus in the form of deficits that's just going to inflate the market or that's going to be tremendously stimulative. Do you think that, and this is a comment wrapped in a, or disguised in a question, do you think that the renewed emphasis on taking European defense spending from 1.9% of GDP to 3%, they're talking that we're about to see kind of a similar multi trillion dollar stimulus come into the European market that might be very bullish for stocks there?

[Claire Miller]

I think, yes, but smaller. It's not the same thing as say sending checks out to households or PPP loans that turn into grants. And it's not quite as explosive as what we come used to. But it's similar, I think, to the kind of the US 2023, 2024 period where Social Security was basically pretty big cost of living adjustments and the pretty top heavy demographics that's pouring out into the economy, even interest expense is pouring out into the economy, which is spendable around the margins. And so defense spending isn't some rapid effect stimulatory thing, but it does trickle out to all the people that work in those supply chains and their spending power and their employment. And so in the marginal sense, we can say that basically Europe's going from kind of low fiscal to maybe moderate fiscal, while the US isn't really increasing anymore. And so on the margins that fiscal difference has narrowed. And so I think you do get a similar effect in Europe, just maybe smaller.

[Ed]

This is interesting. I mean, we're five months into fiscal year 2025 in the US and the deficit is currently at around 1, I think a little over $1.1 trillion, which is a record high. And that includes the four months under Biden, but also the first month under Trump. And Trump has said he's going to change this. He said that he's going to balance the federal budget. That's word for word what he said. We're going to balance it. And, you know, the fiscal deficit is such a huge part of your analysis. It seems to inform many of your investment decisions. What is your outlook for fiscal spending under Trump? He's talked a big game about cutting spending. We've obviously had Doge, which has been dominating the headlines. Do you think that spending in the short term or maybe the medium term in America will come down, or is it going to remain the same?

[Claire Miller]

The short answer is I don't think it will come down. It could maybe flatline for a little bit just because of the renewed focus on it. The issue is that the vast majority of the spending is these really big buckets that are hard to cut. So Social Security, Medicare, interest expense, defense spending, veterans benefits, and if you look at, even for example, back in the Paul Ryan Republican era, so the past decade, they were trying to reform Social Security, Medicare, raise retirement age, trim things, potentially privatize some of it. Um, whereas in, in kind of the Trump version of the Republican Party, like if you look at, at 2024, GOP platform promise, 24 is don't cut Social Security or Medicare and don't raise the retirement age, which is normally what you see in a, in a, say, a Democratic platform. Historically, that's where the biggest stuff is. So the, the optics are the idea that there's a lot of government waste, a lot of employees, and you can start trimming that. And while you can rack up a lot of these, like optical wins or dramas, depending on what side of any given issue you are, it doesn't really eat into the biggest things on the pie chart. Probably the only area that is big enough discretionary speaking is defense. But then the issue there is every single congressperson who has some program in their jurisdiction is going to fight tooth and nail to keep it. So you have to go through all that, let alone the fact that outside of defense and outside of all those big transfer, like those transfer programs we look at, faa, Department of Education, xyz, all those little tiny slices on the pie chart compared to those really big things. So my view is generally that all the optics aside, when we look at this, in a year or two, while they might have consolidated in some areas, I don't think they're going to really be effective at touching any of the big things.

[Ed]

We'll be right back.

[Snoop Dogg]

Today at T Mobile, I'm joined by a special co anchor.

[Big Snoop Dogg]

What up everybody? It's your boy big Snoop. Do double G Snoop.

[Snoop Dogg]

Where can people go to find great deals?

[Big Snoop Dogg]

Head to T mobile.com and get four iPhone 16s with Apple Intelligence on us plus four lines for 25 bucks.

[Snoop Dogg]

That's quite a deal. Snoop and when you switch to T Mobile you can save versus the other big guys. Comparable plans plus streaming respect.

[Big Snoop Dogg]

When we up out of here, see.

[Claire Miller]

How you can save on wireless and streaming versus the other big guys. @t mobile.com/apple intelligence requires iOS 18.1 or later.

[Unknown]

Your data is like gold to hackers. They're selling your passwords, bank details and private messages. McAfee helps stop them. Secure VPN keeps your online activity private. AI powered text. This scam detector spots phishing attempts instantly. And with award winning antivirus you get top tier hacker protection. Plus you'll get up to $2 million in identity theft coverage, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit McAfee.com, cancel anytime terms apply.

This episode is brought to you by State Farm. You might say all kinds of stuff when things go wrong, but these are the words you really need to remember. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. They've got options to fit your unique insurance needs, meaning you can talk to your agent to choose the coverage you need, have coverage options to protect the things you value most, file a claim right on the State Farm mobile app, and even reach a real person when you need to talk to someone. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.

[Ed]

We're back with Prof. G Markets. I want to pivot us to crypto. Trump has established this national crypto reserve that will include Bitcoin but also many other cryptocurrencies, Ether, XRP or Ripple. Solana Cardano. He intends to keep buying those cryptocurrencies in regular installments. I know you've written a lot and done a lot of research on crypto, especially Bitcoin. I know that you are a bitcoin bull yourself. What do you make of this national crypto reserve and do you think it's a good idea?

[Claire Miller]

Well, so there are a couple different phases of this. There is that he posted on Truth Social that they would have Bitcoin, Ethereum and then those three others that got some backlash not just among Bitcoin proponents, But also some CEOs of major exchanges that are involved in multiple cryptos. There's one of the projects in particular that is not well liked by the rest of the space and that's probably what encouraged some of that backlash. Which one is that XRP is particularly controversial in the space. The way that the executive order actually came out seemed to include or take into account a lot of that criticism and probably behind the scenes lobbying, which is they separated bitcoin from other crypto. So bitcoin's part of a reserve, whereas crypto, the other, other crypto is part of a stockpile. And those two pools, at least as far as its executive order remains in effect, it could be undone by a later executive order, either by this President or a later one. But under this current framework, the bitcoin is instructed not to be sold and that Besant and Lutnick are authorized to find budget neutral ways to accumulate more of it. That's how it's worded. Whereas the crypto stockpile the Treasury Secretary. So Besant has discretion on how to handle those, which could include sales, and that they're not really meant to accumulate more other than through the normal course of seizures and forfeitures, which is how they have all these holdings in the first place. So I actually think that the executive order came out better than it could because instead of going out and buying crypto XYZ that probably passes the Howie test and makes certain insiders and VCs rich and was pre mined and has an issuer. And it's kind of like if the US pick certain stocks to own and not other stocks to own, that's rife with all sorts of conflict. I actually think that they separated out pretty well. The thing I wrote about before this all happened is my base case is they ring fence the bitcoin they already have, which is basically what they did. They're capitalizing it with the bitcoin they already have from seizures and forfeitures. They'll see if any of those should legally be returned to certain entities. There's a particularly big bucket of those that is probably owed to an exchange that they got hacked. They weren't involved in criminal stuff. So we'll see what happens there. But other than maybe that big chunk I think they hold that they might accumulate a little bit more. I generally take the under on the idea that they're going to go out and buy a million bitcoin as some of the proposals have said. So I tend to assume that it'll be roughly the size it is now. Maybe a Little bit larger because they probably want to get some optical winds of, hey, look, we, we sold this crypto and we put the proceeds toward a budget neutral acquisition of a little bit more bitcoin. Or we did this and we bought a little bitcoin, but we'll see.

[Ed]

I was just going to say, is this not exactly that an optical win? Because what you're essentially describing is all of the cryptocurrencies that the government already had from seizing them from illegal transactions. I think people don't really realize that, yes, we have billions of dollars worth of bitcoin held by the government, but we only have that because there was criminal transactions happening and the government went in there and they seized the bitcoin. And what you're basically saying is Trump made this whole statement, we're going to become the bitcoin nation. We're going to go out and buy a bunch of bitcoin. People pushed back. And now he's saying, oh, actually we're just going to hold onto the bitcoin we do have. Except there's a new name for it. I mean, it sounds like essentially nothing has happened on the crypto front.

[Claire Miller]

It's not quite that because I think, you know, their policy before was to gradually sell the coins they have. And so merely not selling them is a.

[Ed]

We're holding.

[Claire Miller]

Yeah, it is a tangible change to. It would take a reversal to undo that, which is not impossible, especially if you get a different administration. It's a ton of free marketing. So a lot of that is just optics. But then it also like the fact that they, that they did differentiate bitcoin from other crypto, I think was good. It could have turned out more problematic, more prone of conflicts and things like that.

[Scott Galloway]

So, Lyn, you're, I think, presenting what I would call a kind of a neutral and sober view of it. I bring a bias here, and that is this makes absolutely no fucking sense to me. There's nothing strategic about a strategic bitcoin. Like if there's a strategic petroleum reserve, if we run out of petroleum, that's bad. We can't make tanks, our cars stop. If we run out of bitcoin, I don't see any existential crisis to the US So effectively, and I'm very open to pushback here, we've decided that we're in the business of being asset managers and seizing stuff and not selling it is not much different than buying it. Because traditional US Policy is when we seize a yacht or assets, we turn it into money and give it back to the victims, or we put it into the Treasury. So not selling it is not really any effectively any different than buying it. And when you're running deficits, the net effect of this is we have decided to buy a certain asset class and increase the deficits. So how is this any different than us deciding to increase the deficit and go buy four or five stocks that the President likes who gave him a quarter of a billion dollars, as the crypto community did? This just feels totally asymmetric or nonsensical.

[Claire Miller]

I agree with probably two thirds of it. I think the fact that not selling it is effectively the same as buying it is true, which is why I mentioned that this is not just an optical change. There actually is substance to it because it involves either not selling or selling potentially hundreds of thousands of coins. And so that's fully true. It just means that the purchases were essentially already made. It doesn't mean that more purchases are coming, but they're still effectively purchases in that sense. And it's also true that it's not like oil, where the US could find itself suddenly deficient in Bitcoin and needs Bitcoin. I think there are other countries where it can serve a more strategic purpose, which is that if they're, if they're worried about getting cut off by like sanctions or things like that, or hyperinflation or hyperinflation. Yeah, but like they, they even just for the fact that they could make a payment to another nation that settles in a half hour with multiple, you know, under multiple blocks, that, that, that actually gives them something. Whereas if you are the US Global reserve currency issuer, then effectively the value you're getting is it as an investment. So in that sense, it's not like oil. It's more like the gold holdings. And then the question is, is it worth adding to our gold holdings? Is it worth adding another kind of monetary like asset to that? Now, the part that I would see a little bit differently is it's not quite the same as holding five stocks the presidents like, because Bitcoin doesn't pass the Howey test. So it's effectively a digital commodity. It's an asset without an issuer. And so I do put it more on gold in that case, with the caveat that it's still a fairly small asset. And this does obviously benefit those who hold Bitcoin or that are bullish on Bitcoin. So it does potentially help certain constituents, not others. And as you point out, many of them did lobby for it. And so I don't really disagree with that part, other than to clarify that I would see a big difference between them doing with Bitcoin versus them doing it with crypto XYZ that literally had VCs, founders, a pre mine, insiders, things like that. It is somewhat different, but at the end of the day it is basically just an investment decision. If Bitcoin should over the coming 5, 10 years go up 5 or 10x in price, then they have effectively made a good investment decision. Whereas if it stagnates, if it goes down, then it will have been a waste. Now I think at the scale that they're doing it on, it probably gets disproportionate attention in the sense that they're not saying, hey, we want to go out and accumulate trillions of dollars with this. They're basically saying the couple hundred billion we have, which is a month or two of fiscal deficits and a pretty small fraction of the gold reserve. So it's kind of, I think there is controversy to it, but I kind of put it on small enough potatoes that, you know, it is what it is and it's a little bit different than a security.

[Ed]

Just want to begin to wrap up here. I'd love to just check in on your portfolio. One thing I admire about you, Lyn, is that you make your portfolio public so everyone can see what you're doing and what kinds of investments you're making. Are there any changes that you've made to your portfolio recently? Are there any investment themes or theses that you are focused on in 2025?

[Claire Miller]

So I haven't made any major decisions, but the parts of the portfolio that are working or not working are certainly changing. So it used to be that the US growth stocks were great, obviously Bitcoin and MicroStrategy were great. The gold slice has been. I purposely was kind of a bond bear and wanted some of that slice in gold, which has been a good decision. The part that I mentioned before, the anchor has been the international equities and to a lesser extent the U.S. dividend stocks. The U.S. stocks are doing pretty good, but they're not the MAG7, for example. And the recent rotation is basically saying that there might be some current wake up on overvaluation among US growth and a little bit of wake up on opportunities elsewhere. One thing I like to point out is that it's not just tech everybody focuses on. Obviously the tech is popular and expensive, but I've been highlighting the fact that Costco has been trading at 60 times earnings and it's like a 45 year old retailer. I'm not even sure exactly what date, but it's a four or five decade old retailer. It's a great company. I mean their growth numbers are good. I'm very bullish on the underlying company, just not at 60 times earnings. There's actually a lot of things like that that are just priced, maybe not that extreme, but there's a lot of things that are just priced pretty expensively. And so I think we're entering the period where that starts to matter. But because I have been concerned for that for a while, I'm already positioned for some of that. And the caveat that is that during where only US growth mattered, the equity side had a little bit of anchor on it, which lately has turned into a little bit of a booster. And so it's not that I'm making changes, it's that I'm noting things that are happening. And I think my biggest question now is to see if this has follow through because I mentioned that the rotation has been a very hard call to make. I think this has likes to it, but I do want to see continued evidence that it has legs to it.

[Ed]

Scott is rotating out. He's talked about it on the podcast. He's rotating out of US stocks into international stocks. I would say quite aggressively. Scott, you can interject wherever, but from my understanding, Scott, you are dumping all of your Apple, I think all of your Amazon too, and you're going to put it into international stocks. It sounds like Lyn, you agree it's time to start rotating. For anyone who's listening right now, who feels overweight US Stocks, how would you do it? How would you rotate out? Would you trim? Is there a certain percentage of your U.S. stocks that you would trim in favor of international? What would the rotation actually look like?

[Claire Miller]

I think I would look for areas of overvaluation, things that you're not comfortable with, and reduce those overweight positions. The S&P 500 is very concentrated. The NASDAQ 100 is very concentrated. I do still think there's pockets of value in the US just generally not in the big US Growth. And I also differentiate on a company by company basis. Apple is a case that I've not been bullish on that for a while just because it's kind of a value stock that's priced like a growth stock. And that's been the challenge. When you look internationally, there are pockets and it's funny because some of them have the same issues. Brazil has had some friction lately because of its budget deficits, but the budget deficits have not really been that different than the US and it's just a matter of whether or not there's external demand for the currency and the assets or not. But I generally, I find I've been less, less bearish on Brazil than it seems like the average consensus investor was, especially given some of the valuations and opportunities there. Like I said, I have been bullish on China with the caveat that there's a small percentage that something geopolitically happens and it entirely messes up that side of the portfolio, like what we saw with Russia, for example. And so it's like 90% chance. I was like, these are undervalued, super cheap. They actually became more shareholder friendly. So for some of the big Chinese tech stocks were like initiating dividends or buying back shares when they were super cheaply priced. And I mean, that's kind of a change in that space. So more shareholder friendly policies. I do think that there are a lot of pockets out there that are quite interesting and Europe I have historically found a little bit less compelling. But when it's been dead money for a while and you do have marginal fiscal waking up, it's nice to own some of that, at least compared to American dividend stocks. You can look around and say, are there ways I can diversify my value or dividend exposure?

[Ed]

Lynn Alden is a full time investor, independent analyst and the author of Broken why Our Financial System Is Failing Us and How We Can Make It Better. Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, MarketWatch and CNBC. She has also served as a consultant to startup companies, hedge funds and executive committees. You can find her [e-mail] Lynn, always a pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you again for joining us.

[Scott Galloway]

Thanks Lynn.

[Claire Miller]

Thank you.

[Ed]

This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Mia Silverio is our research lead. Isabella Kinsel is our research associate. Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Profg Markets from the Vox Media Podcast network. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday.

[Claire Miller]

In kind reunion.

[Snoop Dogg]

Today at T Mobile I'm joined by a special co anchor.

[Big Snoop Dogg]

What up everybody? It's your boy, Big Snoop. D O double G Snoop.

[Snoop Dogg]

Where can people go to find great deals?

[Big Snoop Dogg]

Head to T mobile.com and get four iPhone 16s with Apple Intelligence on us plus four lines for 25 bucks.

[Snoop Dogg]

That's quite a deal. Snoop. And when you switch to T mobile you can save versus the other big guys. Comparable plans plus streaming respect.

[Big Snoop Dogg]

We up out of here.

[Claire Miller]

See how you can save on wireless and streaming versus the other big guys at t mobile.com/apple intelligence requires iOS 18.1 or later.