Ed (2:24)

He's celebrating his. His book. The 15 year anniversary of his. Of his book. Goodbye, Gordon Gecko.

Scott Galloway (2:31)

I'm sorry. They have parties to celebrate anniversaries for.

Ed (2:35)

Books now, which I respect because he's figuring out ways to Bring people together and to rent out a nice place. I mean, I think it's good stuff. I know you're gonna shit on it, but I just wanna get my opinion out there first.

Scott Galloway (2:49)

I didn't get invited, so I'm not a fan of this party. How's things on the home front? Are you living with your girlfriend yet?

Ed (2:55)

I've been living with her for a while.

Scott Galloway (2:57)

I knew that. How's it going? And how's it going? Have you guys got a dog yet?

Ed (3:02)

No. I think I've told you this before. I'm not the biggest dog person.

Scott Galloway (3:06)

Okay? So all you need to do to fix that is to get a dog or get another dog. Your dog sounded awful. Occasionally get a bad dog.

Ed (3:13)

That's good.

Scott Galloway (3:14)

You remember I had a bad dog public service announcement. And I'll link this back to our show. The markets we talked about how sales of Hamburger Helper and Rice a Roni are up, which is a negative forward looking indicator for the economy. Another negative forward looking indicator is that people surrendering their pets to shelters has spiked. All these people who thought it'd be a good idea during COVID to get a pet and now they're struggling economically, turning their dogs back in. There are so many amazing dogs at shelters right now. If you just go to Google and type in or go on Instagram, type in Brooklyn shelter. And I've had muts and I've had purebreds. Actually I've only had one purebred and she's a total neurotic. But the mutts you get at shelters are just amazing.

Ed (3:59)

Are they not a little crazy themselves? I mean, you're kind of signing up for an emotionally damaged animal.

Scott Galloway (4:04)

No, no dogs out of shelters. Mutts are, I mean, first off, it kind of makes sense. Purebreds are literally like the Norwegian family monarchy in the 18th century. Like half of them are, you know, have three legs and are, you know, no teeth because there's so much inbreeding. When a dog gets popular, they become shitty dogs because they get overbred. Mutts are absolutely the way to go. They're outstanding.

Ed (4:31)

Do I have to go for a rescue dog? I mean, that's, that's really what I'm zeroing in on here. Someone who's sort of abandoned their dog and then the dog is definitely very damaged and very upset. It's probably going to be a little weird. Like I'm looking for something very simple. I want to basically not have to deal with my dog very much. If I'm getting A dog, which I'm not going to.

Scott Galloway (4:50)

The premise of your question is factually incorrect because the dogs. Dogs are surrendered because usually for economic reasons or people are moving or people get a job and they can't be at home. But mutts, it's almost as if they know, especially I got my last dog from a shelter. It's almost as if they know you've saved their life and they're really grateful. Whereas my Great Dane is a total expectant bitch. She expects to fly business class, wants jewelry on her birthday. I mean, and this is a Great Dane. Whereas the rescue pup that I picked up, our Puerto Rican rescue him.

Ed (5:26)

She's writing thank you notes when you take her on the Net Jets.

Scott Galloway (5:29)

I'm pretty sure she's a sewer rat. I'm not even sure she's an actual dog, but she's. Or she. He is. And he's awesome. He tries to hump everything. He's awesome. He's really. I'm telling you, rescue or dogs from shelters are absolutely the best dogs. One, they're usually already spayed or neutered. Two, they're already trained and they're. And you're, you know, you're saving a dog's life and they're just. They're fantastic. I've had such good luck with dogs from shelters. And you can go down. And right now you can find so many amazing dogs at shelters because they're just brimming. There's just too many dogs anyways. And one. Annette, I think you need this. They're very good for your mental health. They're very calming. And I'd say next to working out, it's been my antidepressant. I've been my dogs, my kids come home and then, you know, really bum me out. But then I hang out with the dogs and I'm fine. And then they're a fantastic security system. So all the surveys of incarcerated people who commit crimes say the one thing that always turns them off is they never go into homes with dogs. So it's an incredible security system. They teach your kids, which you will eventually have. I'm convinced you're on the verge of procreation. They teach your kids about loss and responsibility and they make you more interesting. Like, you're a little rough around the edges. You're a little rough around the edges.

Ed (7:02)

That's what I need. I need to be more interesting to people.

Scott Galloway (7:06)

They soften the ed. They soften the ed. Seriously, it's a great way to meet people. I go out in the park, and people come up and just start talking to me. Because you have a dog. It's really nice. So basically, the steps of mating are you stop using condoms after you both get STI tests. That's a big moment in a relationship. You. You meet her parents. That was an awkward transition. That was an awkward transition. You meet her parents, you start kind of commingling money. Like, you don't keep track of it, or you do keep track of it? I don't know. I don't know. I never did that. You move in together, and then the next step is you get a dog. Because pretty soon her ovaries are going to start blinking.

Ed (7:52)

You notice how I've been silent for maybe six minutes? I've just let you dig yourself further and further into this hole. And by the way, the thing I still cannot get over, I'm still getting over the fact that the thing that is awesome about your dog, the thing that you love, the first thing you reference, is that he tries to hump everything.

Scott Galloway (8:11)

Everything. Even though we chopped those nads off a while ago, no one told him.

Ed (8:17)

That'S what Scott loves about his dog. That, and it's a good security device.

Scott Galloway (8:22)

He breaks in every visitor and pillow with a little. A little hello in the form of a tiny dog going at it. But what I was going to say is the dog is the way to put off the baby for 12 to 24 months. It doesn't solve the problem, but it's how you practice.

Ed (8:40)

Why do you want to do. Why do you want to put off the baby? I mean, I like the idea of getting some practice in.

Scott Galloway (8:44)

You don't want to have kids. You're a dude. It's like getting married. No dude wants to get married. And I secretly believe, deep down, no dude really wants to have kids. We get forced into this shit.

Ed (8:55)

So wrong.

Scott Galloway (8:56)

Wake up, wake up.

Ed (9:02)

Just totally, totally off base. Dudes love children.

Scott Galloway (9:10)

Yeah. Once they have them, because this instinct kicks in and they look, smell, and feel like you. So all of a sudden, they start getting. I wouldn't say you love them. They get less awful every day. But, yeah, you do wake up at some point and think, okay, this isn't that bad. This isn't that bad.

Ed (9:25)

A lot of wisdom. First six minutes of this podcast. Just make sure you're taking notes, everyone.

Scott Galloway (9:31)

Little soulful dad advice. Sorry, dad. Let's get to the headlines.

Ed (9:34)

Let's talk about the stuff you're actually an expert in. Let's talk about business.

Scott Galloway (9:40)

Now is the time to buy. I hope you have Plenty of the wherewithal.

Ed (9:47)

OpenAI just unveiled Sora 2. That is its latest audio and video generator. The tool lets users create digital cameos of themselves and others in videos and even generates speech alongside it. They launched a new social platform for sharing and discovering these AI made videos, trying to position itself as a competitor to TikTok. Meanwhile, Meta is rolling out its own version of these short form AI clips and it is called Vibes. This is going to be essentially like TikTok as well. So what we have here is two big AI companies, two of the biggest players in AI, both getting into the same game, and that is they're getting into AI generated videos in a feed that will look almost exactly like TikTok. Now some people have been very excited about this, especially Sora too, which I don't know if you've seen these videos, but it's pretty incredible how realistic these videos are. You basically just type in your name, Ed and Scott riding a dragon, and you will get it and it will look pretty spectacular. So some people are very excited about it, others are less excited about it. And the reason that people are less excited about it is because what we are beginning to see is this massive inflow of what people are calling AI slop. What is AI slop? I'll just read you the Wikipedia definition, which I think is a pretty good definition. AI slop is a term for low quality media made with generative artificial intelligence. It is characterized by an inherent lack of effort and is currently being generated at an overwhelming volume. So that is sort of the downside of these two potential social media platforms, Vibes and also Sora. Scott, I'll stop there.

Scott Galloway (11:37)

Let's get your reactions claiming this is going to be some sort of internal social media thing. And he used the word, oh, we want to connect people. That's nothing but a false flag and a head fake from what they're really trying to do. And that is show every movie producer, executive at a studio that think about what you can do and for how much less you can do it using this technology, that there's just not going to be an intra network TikTok for families. That's not where they're headed. When I first saw it, I thought, okay, they're trying to be the Everything app. They announced they're getting into shopping, they announced they're getting into content generation or video content generation. Fine. Say at least give people the perspective that at some point, as Justin Wolfers, the Economist said, the leading AI company might be able to skim off. It might Be almost like a credit card. If everyone in the world had a credit card and every transaction they ever made for anything was through that credit card and they could take 2 or 3%, that company would be the most valuable company in the world. And so what they're saying is, hey, we might be in shopping, we might be in content creation. But what they're essentially saying to the world is, or the content creation or the movie studio world is like imagine what you can do if you learn these skills and imagine how less expensive it'll be. And I don't know if you saw, but they've. And also they've announced and this is just fucking ridiculous that you're going to have to opt out if you don't want them to steal your ip. So Sam, use this as official notice. I am opting out. I do not use my shit without my permission or paying me. And this was so this I think was just an attempt, I think it was a branding event to say, wow, studio executives and commercial producers and advertising agencies get your greed gland, gentlemen, start your greed glance. Because if we can do this fairly easily for cents or just a couple hours of time and show Family Guy talking to Wednesday and it looks real and it's kind of cool, imagine what you're going to be able to do for how little money. What they're clearly doing is already illegal and in violation of all sorts of IP laws. But what they're doing is they're taking a note out of the big tech playbook. And that is why go through the hassle of establishing business licenses and standards. If you're launching a ride hailing app in Argentina, just sign up. People start giving rides and the fines are much less than the market cap accretion. When you continue to demonstrate growth and momentum and essentially OpenAI has probably put a billion dollars aside, they will eventually lose the case. You are not allowed to use people's likeness like this. Eventually it'll work its way through the courts, but meanwhile they'll keep violating people's IP and the increase in stock price will go up. And the analogy I always use is that if you had a parking meter in front of your house that cost $100 an hour, but the ticket was 50 cents, you too would make a conscious decision to break the law. So I'm increasingly believing that Hollywood, that the Panzer tanks with David Ellison helming them are rolling over the Sepulveda Pass into over the Hollywood Hills and have the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Waldorf Astoria in their sights, or Burbank I don't know what the right analogy is. They're coming for Hollywood and ad agencies and content creation because some of these things are just remarkable and they don't cost very much. Your thoughts Ed?

Ed (15:02)

Yeah, I think the real opportunity is in the technology and what it can use be how it can be used for the entertainment business. So for those big production studios, I think for ad agencies as well. What is interesting though is the way that they are presenting this product. I mean they released the technology, they put out this incredible video where you can see how it works and I mean, let's be real, it was a great ad for the product and for the technology. But I'm just fascinated by the fact that they are so dialed into this idea that it has to be a social media app. We saw the same thing with Meta. Meta is putting these AI generated videos and they're calling it Vibes AI and it's its own TikTok feed that's going to be social media. And just to read you some of the quotes from OpenAI so they, in the, in the release statement for Sora too they said, quote, we see this as the beginning of a completely new era for co creative experiences. They said, quote, a lot of social media has moved away from the idea of friends and family connections. We believe that Sora can lean into this because it's just so easy to create. So they have this strange obsession, I think it's strange at least with making this about socializing with other people and creating stuff with your friends. And I'm going to, you know, oh, Scott, I'm going to make a video of you, I'm going to send it to you and then we're going to.

Scott Galloway (16:26)

Make stuff together, strengthen our relationship.

Ed (16:29)

Strengthen our relationship. And this to me is a, it's just sort of not really on the right track of what they're supposed to be doing as an AI company, which is they're supposed to be selling the technology for the actual creators, the entertainment studios to entertain us. But instead they're taking this social media route and same with Meta. And I wonder if these, these CEOs and, and, and the management team behind these companies, I wonder if they're too obsessed with this idea that be social media. We have to put it in some short form, content form and ultimately I don't think that's going to work. And we're already seeing the backlash where people are correctly saying this is just an endless stream of slop. And I love that word slop. It really does describe these videos quite well, they're photorealistic. They look pretty amazing. But then after about two seconds you're like, okay, I've seen enough videos of dragons flying through the air or AI cats wearing tuxedos. I mean, at a certain point it becomes very boring. Anyway, I just want to get your views on this social media angle that both companies are really driving towards.

Scott Galloway (17:43)

So I actually think they're doing the right thing. They're just lying about it. I don't think they're headed down social media. Look at. So this is what OpenAI wrote of Sora wants. Open quote, Sora is becoming available to a number of visual artists, designers and filmmakers to gain feedback on how to advance the model to be most helpful for creative professionals. Which is Latin for you can make a movie or a commercial for 90% fewer people. I think what their objective is, is when we're putting these things out is studios are. And again, agency executives are. The riglands are going to. But I don't think Sam wants to freak out the creative community and get a ton of pushback. I don't think he. I think the more honest thing would be to say, hey, sag, AFTRA and the wga, we're coming for your bitch asses. Your, you know, your member, your membership to San Vicente Bungalows and your BMW and your vacations in Cabo are my opportunity. You're. You're not going. This industry is ripe with fat waste or they're coming for them. And I think what they're doing is saying effectively putting out an ad that will accomplish what they want, and that is demonstrate what can be done while pretending it's about connecting people.

Ed (19:02)

If that is the case, I think that's the right decision from a business perspective. I mean, you look at like image, AI image generation. Just as an example where, I mean, you might remember when ChatGPT's image generator came out and everyone went absolutely crazy about this thing because it was pretty remarkable. And you looked at these images and I'd type in, you know, Scott and Ed recording a podcast in the style of Studio Ghibli. That Studio Ghibli trend was like the huge trend. Everyone was playing with this thing and it seemed like everyone was going to be a creator. But then eventually, within about a few weeks, three, four weeks, suddenly no one was really generating these images anymore. And then we actually looked into the data here and actually ever since that image generator was released, search interest for AI image generation has fallen by nearly 80%. You have another study showing that all of this AI art that exploded online, suddenly that's plummeted as well. Searches for midjourney, that was a big name as well in the AI image generation community. That's also fallen off. Fun fact at last year, searches for Scott Galloway almost overtook searches for midjourney. And this was an illustration of this theme where it might seem as though everyone's going to be a creator and that might be the way you think about things at first, but ultimately these platforms are for the consumer and we're not interested in using the product because we want to be creating content ourselves. Some of us might be interested in creating content, but ultimately the vast majority of us who are using the platform, we're there to consume. We want you to do the work, you being the company or the production studio or the content creator, and we're going to do the consumption. And Ben Thompson talks a little bit about this in Stratecheri. There's this old Internet adage called the 1% rule, which is basically this rule that it's only 1% of the users who actually create stuff. The other 99% of the users consume. Point being, if it is the case that this social media angle is just basically an advertisement or a distraction from what the real goal is, I think that is actually the right direction. Because the real goal here shouldn't be trying to get everyone to create AI videos, it should be trying to sell the AI video technology to the companies who are going to create the AI videos which are going to be distributed to all of us users. That's where they should really be headed with this.

Scott Galloway (21:44)

Well, there is a non zero probability that the anodyne nature of what these LLMs produce work for data, maybe even more for narrative, but don't work as well for creative. And that is if you look at design mid journey, you would have thought initially a year ago we were saying, oh, poor design firms and poor designers, they're the first to go. What you've seen happen at tech companies is the ratio of designers to programmers has actually gone up because as coding and the architecture of a site become less differentiated because they can all be reverse engineered and everyone's using AI to build their sites and reduce the amount of code. The one way you can differentiate is with great, great UX and great design, which still requires humans. So actually design, you know, these companies. OpenAI is hiring a ton of designers. OpenAI paid so fucking stupid 5 or 7 billion dollars for Jony. I've to cosplay his younger self.

Ed (22:50)

Meet Sam Altman for coffee on camera.

Scott Galloway (22:53)

I'm just a billionaire looking at another billionaire asking him to make me a trillionaire.

Ed (22:57)

Sam is a revolutionary.

Scott Galloway (22:59)

Good God, just get a room. Anyway, but so far, designers have not only not been replaced their role in all of this, they're the cells on the chip of AI which is highly anodyne feels. You watch it and you just feel like it's like, what's the opposite of horny? You're just like.

Ed (23:23)

Depressed. Yeah.

Scott Galloway (23:24)

You just feel kind of. Huh.

Ed (23:25)

And you know, it's AI that's the other thing that's so interesting. Everyone thought that we wouldn't be able to tell. You just always know there are all these little signals because as you say, yes, it is so anodyne in a way that reality somehow isn't.

Scott Galloway (23:38)

But I feel that way with these superhero films. So much CGI and shit that I.

Ed (23:44)

Feel like, agreed, AI could make those movies.

Scott Galloway (23:46)

All these things lead to one really one place. And that is you should go to a shelter and adopt a rescue pit and name it Mid Journey. Your new dog Mid Journey.

Ed (23:56)

But just going back to OpenAI as a business, I mean, I look at this SORA social media feed and I think you guys are kind of focusing on the wrong thing. I mean, if what you say your theory is true, that this is a distraction, mostly they are focusing on the B2B and going to the production studios and the TV networks and the ad agencies. Good, all for it. That's a revenue driver. But I think the thing that OpenAI needs to think about is they need to stop making money. Like they've got millions and millions of users. Everyone knows about ChatGPT. They figured out all of the marketing. They figured out how to become a household name. Now is step two. Now you need to start becoming profitable, especially if you're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next several years. Especially if you're going to have to raise hundreds of millions, excuse me, hundreds of billions in debt and you don't want to get a shitty interest rate. You need to start getting profitable and that means monetizing the product. So go to the production studios and sell the AI technology. But there are other things that they should be focusing on. As an example, they just released the shopping feature Instant Checkout, which will allow you to buy products directly on the platform. That's a good idea. I think we should be seeing more emphasis on that. But the other thing that I think we should really be seeing more emphasis from, from OpenAI on is turning on the ad switch. You know, we've talked about this several times. That's the way they're going to do it. But we've seen no indication that they're doing anything to build their ad network and to build a solid ad stack. And if that's, I mean, that's the way they're going to have to make money here, I don't see any other way they're going to do it unless they're going to go crazy with the subscriptions. But it seems to me that that's where they should be putting all of their creative energy. Go do what Google did, where Google bought DoubleClick, which was their most expensive acquisition ever and it was just a giant ad network and that's what really took Google into Lightspeed. So I feel like that's where OpenAI should be taking this business if they want to start getting profitable. But what do you think is the right strategy ahead for OpenAI?

Scott Galloway (26:14)

I agree with you. They're likely to go shopping and make some tuck in acquisitions and maybe a couple major acquisitions now that they have this currency worth half a trillion dollars. And any, when you're trading at whatever it is, 40 times revenues, any acquisition you make is accretive. It increases your earnings per share. Where I disagree is they need to get profitable. If I were on the board of OpenAI, I would be saying we need to show growth, massive growth, massive customer acquisition and you know, disruption of certain, certain industries, if you will. But no, no, no, no, we don't want to be profitable. We just want to show massive top line growth. I don't think this company, quite frankly, I don't think this company needs to be profitable for five or 10 years because it took, I forget how long it took Amazon, 15 or 20 years. The playbook is disruption and growth, not profitability. And this does. There is an argument that the best AI, that there can only be one, that there's going to be one AI kind of running everything. And so leadership and growth and raising massive amounts of capital are kind of the whole game here. I would put profitability way down on the totem pole. So I don't think, because all of the margins, if you look at the gross margins on the things they do, they're usually 99%. There are no costs here. Once you've set up, there's tons of capex. Massive capex, but the processing power is what the energy costs to power these, these data centers. But the gross margins are just near, near 100% essentially. AI has become the, you know, has become the mother of all capital wars like who can they, they don't want to spend stupidly, but as long as they can grow, show that type of top line growth. I mean just the numbers here are just staggering because they realize, I think they realize whoever's number one is going to trade at 10 to 30x what the number two player is. Do you want to hear my moral dilemma that fits into all of this?

Ed (28:17)

Please. Yeah.

Scott Galloway (28:17)

Have you used my Google Labs profile yet?

Ed (28:22)

No, I haven't.

Scott Galloway (28:23)

Well, thank you, Ed. It's nice to see you're investing in this relationship. So, just some headline news here. I get a lot of emails from young men looking for advice, usually professional advice, sometimes advice about investing, and I can't answer them all. And so about 18 months ago, the team here at Prof. G built a thin layer of innovation on top of an LLM and built Prof. AI and we were getting 2, 300 queries a day. Google Labs approached us specifically. I had a graduate student instructor, or fancy word for ta, who's just a super impressive woman who now works at Google, approach me and say, we can do much better. We're working with a bunch of thought leaders and do you want us to. Do you want to be one of them? I said, great, I would love to do that. They spent a lot of time on this thing and it launched last night. And in the last three months I have become increasingly uncomfortable with character AIs and synthetic relationships. Now the upside is a lot of young people who don't have access to my content and have a specific question can get access with this thing. And I've tested it and it's actually pretty good. I'd say it gets 70 to 90% of what I would say in the tone I would say it. In the last several months, there's been some really ugly instances of suicide and people having psychotic breaks because they thought they were in relationships with these synthetic character AIs. In addition, I hate the idea of a young man slowly but surely spending less time or taking less risk to try and establish his own mentorships and friendships in real life. And so this thing launched yesterday and I said, well, anyways, I'll stop there. What would you suggest if you were me? Would you leave it up or would you take it down or what would you do?

Ed (30:04)

I don't think that it's actually that valuable to have an AI giving you the answers to things. And I think a lot of the idea, the thing that is inspiring to people when they ask you questions isn't just the answer that you give. It's the fact that they actually connected with you. I mean, that to me is a big piece of reaching out to people and getting advice. I mean, the content of the answer itself is only one part of the equation here. A lot of this is about the actual connection with the individual and realizing that this person thought about it, thought about my situation, recognized me as a person and gave me a response as a human. So I don't know about taking it down, but my view on these AI avatars is I just don't think they're that valuable. I mean, I think Google is a. If you want the answer to something and you don't really even care about connecting with the person, just go on Google and like see what Google has to say about it. I don't think that means you need to take it down. I don't think it means that you need to delete the thing. But I just, I struggle with the value of these things from the get go.

Scott Galloway (31:15)

I think that's a really thoughtful answer. And yeah, you summarize a lot of the way I'm feeling. I feel like the ground has shifted beneath us the last six months and I'm really freaked out about the idea of young men establishing synthetic relationships and using them as a replacement for organic relationships. Anyways, long story short, I pulled it down.

Ed (31:38)

Oh, you did?

Scott Galloway (31:39)

Yeah, I just. Something naval said that Twitter philosopher. I don't know what he does, but I think of him as a philosopher.

Ed (31:46)

Vc. They're all vcs.

Scott Galloway (31:49)

He's a vc?

Ed (31:50)

Yeah.

Scott Galloway (31:51)

Oh God.

Ed (31:51)

Angel investor. He's. He's started companies as well.

Scott Galloway (31:54)

Right. Anyways, he says something that really struck with me and that is if you're, if you're spending a lot of time trying to decide something, the answer is almost always no. And I thought, yeah, there's, there might be some missed opportunity to get good advice. But I'm like, they can read a book, they can dial into office hours, they can read one of my newsletters, but I just hate anything that reduces a young man's fire to go up to a teacher, a boss, a potential boss or whoever, or email me and try and make some sort of personal connection.

Ed (32:30)

We'll be right back after the break. If you're enjoying the show so far, please vote for us at the Signal Awards. We'll leave a link in the description to make it easy for you. Thank you and stay with with us.

Scott Galloway (32:49)

Support for the show comes from Anthropic, the team behind Claude. When analyzing complex market movements or policy implications, the difference between surface level commentary and real insight comes down to asking better questions about the data. Cloud is for AI for minds that don't stop at good enough. It's a collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow and thinks with you, not for you. Whether you're strategizing your next business move or diving deep into economic analysis, Cloud extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter. For finance professionals exploring earnings reports or economic policy ripple effects, Cloud works through complexity rather than rushing to conclusions. It helps spot connections across multiple sources, challenge assumptions, and develop insights that go beyond the obvious. Try Cloud for free at Claude AI Propagandarkets and see why the world's best problem solvers choose Cloud as their thinking partner. Support for the show comes from Vanta. This message is for startup founders, engineers, IT professionals and business leaders who need to prove trust and manage risk efficiently. I know we have those people in the audience, so pay attention. Vanta is a trust management platform that helps businesses automate security and compliance. Demonstrating trust to customers and prospects is critical to closing deals, but it can also be costly, time sensitive and complex. Vanta helps companies of all sizes get compliant fast and stay that way with industry leading AI, automation and continuous monitoring. So whether you're a startup tackling your first SoC2 ISO 27001 or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta's trusted management platform makes it quicker, easier and more scalable. Vanta also helps you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster so you can win bigger, bigger deal sooner. The results According to a recent IDC study, Vanta customers slash over $5,000 a year in costs and are three times more productive. Establishing trust isn't optional. Vanta makes it automatic. Visit vanta.com markets to sign up for a free demo today. That's V-A-N-T A.com markets.

Ed (34:49)

Support for profit markets comes from Quince as the weather cools, I'm swapping out my summer fits for my warm, durable and comfy clothes. Quince delivers every time with wardrobe staples that'll carry you through the season, like their 100% Mongolian cashmere from just $60. A classic fit, denim and real leather and wool outerwear that looks sharp and holds up. Their suede trucker jacket is perfect for layering and just looks really casual. But put together by partnering directly with top artisans, Quince cuts out the middlemen to deliver premium quality at half the cost of similar brands. I've tried some pieces from Quince myself. I've tried their linen shirts. I've tried their cashmere sweater. Love all of their products. I highly recommend you can layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look. Go to quince.com markets for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada too. That's q u I n c-e.com markets, free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com markets. We're back with Profgy Markets. Deal making surged in the third quarter with global MA topping $1 trillion for the second time ever. The main standout was EA's $55 billion buyout which we covered on the Daily Show. But beyond that, There were also 13 megadeals that surpassed 10 billion dol. What is also surprising is how the landscape has shifted. The scale of the deals is getting bigger, but the total number of deals hasn't budged. Total deal value jumped 27% year over year even as deal volume stayed flat. So, Scott, you actually predicted that M and A would be the business trend of 2025. You also predicted that we'd see the largest take private ever. Let's play the clip of your prediction.

Scott Galloway (36:49)

Corporations have record profits, they're running out of growth and if they're in challenged industries, they want to bulk up. You're just going to see tons of M and A here. There's been M and A has been largely moribund because the Biden administration was enacting more FTC and DOJ reviews, which by the way, I think was the right thing to do. But you're going to have a much more M and A friendly head of the FTC and the DOJ now. And these companies have so much money on their balance sheets, they're just going to go shopping.

Ed (37:20)

So we have got trillion dollars in M and a in the third quarter and 3 trillion so far this year. That total number is up 35% year over year. Crashed it on that prediction. What was the incentive or what was the impetus for that prediction?

Scott Galloway (37:36)

So the way I would describe it is for a small set of companies, everything's 50 or 80% off. And that is if you're, if you're Palantir Technologies and you're worth $440 billion and just five years ago, right, you were worth 20 billion. Everything is on sale for 95% off because when you buy a company, you issue shares to buy it. So let me put it another way. When I raise your salary from 10 bucks an hour to 20 bucks an hour, technically your rent gets cut in half as a percent of what would be required for you to sacrifice. So when OpenAI goes from being worth 20 billion to 440 billion in five years, the universe of potential acquisitions goes up a thousand fold. In addition, when they're trading at 50 times revenues or whatever it is, any acquisition they make is technically accretive. That increases their earnings per share. So when a banker, bankers meet with Carp every few weeks and they're really smart people, they look at different channels, distribution strategy, understand your strategy. Wouldn't this be a great tuck in strategy? Because they're trying to figure out a way to generate fees. The book of potential strategic options now in terms of acquisitions has gone from two pages to 200. And so what are we going to see here? The prediction was we'd see the biggest take private that's happened. What we're going to probably see in the next six months is the biggest merger or acquisition in history. Because if you're Nvidia and you're trading at a $4.5 trillion market cap, you can go buy a hundred billion dollar company for a 2.5% bet. You can bet the bankers are working overtime and the selection set and the opportunity to go buy a company worth 50, 100 or 200 billion, that wasn't even thinkable before. It all spells one thing. We have not seen anything yet. We are going to see some just titanic deals. In addition to you layer on top of the fact that essentially the DOJ and the FTC have somewhat been anesthetized. You know, they're just under, they're just not awake right now. So all of these moons are lining up to where this is banker Lollapalooza. You're gonna see the largest banking fee ever registered on a deal in the next six months. It'll be because the wonderful thing about M and A, I, when I was working at Morgan Stanley, it's all perspective. The deal doesn't close, you get zero. But if the deal closes, the fees are outrageous. Because if someone is pitching OpenAI and says, all right, Gartner stock is down, they have some good IP around technology, you should just acquire them and they're worth 12 billion. You can acquire, I don't know, you can acquire them for 15 billion. They're not going to argue over whether the fee is 140 million or 170. They brought us the deal. They have to rally 40 people to work day and night for 90 days to close this thing. So your margins are just extraordinary. There's no, there's very little pricing pressure in M and A. The lawyers rack up their Bills, you know, inflate their bills. Everyone just makes a shit ton of money because there's, you know, it's like, it's almost like the real estate business. That is an incredibly inefficient business where you know, your friend Marge, who's very friendly and you know, went to junior college and is, knows Everybody can get 5% or split with another person 5% of your, the value of your home by figuring out a transaction. And it's all based on relationships. Anyways, we're going to see more of this. In my opinion, it's only getting started.

Ed (41:37)

Yeah. And that's the bank earnings when earnings season comes up will be so interesting. But if you're wondering why is JP Morgan up 30% year to date? Why is Goldman up 37% year to date? Why is Citigroup up up 41% yesterday? Why are all the bank stocks absolutely ripping in 2025? This is the answer. It is. M and A banks have generated $95 billion in investment banking fees this year. And that is the second highest in this time frame ever. So these banks are absolutely printing money on these gigantic deals. And we've seen a ton of these megadeals. We saw, I mentioned the EA take private $55 billion. We saw Palo Alto Networks buying CyberArk for 25 billion. DOL billion, Anglo American buying tech for 50 billion. We're seeing these gigantic deals. Now the one thing that I find very interesting, I'd like to get your reaction to record M and A market in terms of dollar value, deal size, but not a record M and A market in terms of deal count. The actual actual number of deals that are happening. So what is actually happening here when you dig into the numbers? Basically what's happening is you're seeing a ton of deal making, really big companies, large caps. And then the opposite is happening among small cap companies. So just the numbers here. Deals worth less than half a billion dollars are down 18% this year. Deals worth less than $2 billion are down 25% this year. Deals worth more than $10 billion are up 26% this year. So what you have is the gigantic companies are getting acquired and no one's really touching the small companies. And this reminds me very much of the discussion that we've been having. When we look at the GDP data and we look at the underlying economic data among consumers in America, the numbers are going up. But then you dig into it and you realize, okay, actually let's look at it by bracket, by income. Hold on. The very top are the Ones that are creating all of this activity. And when we look at the bottom, actually the activity is in decline. So we saw that in the consumer market, and we're seeing it as well in M and A. The small companies are not really being touched when it comes to these big acquisitions. Your reactions.

Scott Galloway (44:08)

So, first off, two thirds of acquisitions fail. People get excited about them. They have to pay a premium. Integration is always more costly and timely than you thought. Two thirds of them end up not working. And also, integrating a billion dollar acquisition isn't much easier than integrating a $20 billion acquisition. And then the company's making smaller acquisitions are the S&P 490. Right. Meanwhile, the big guys have made so much fricking money. And it goes back to what we were talking about before. The opportunity set or target market has expanded exponentially because now they can afford to buy almost anyone. So it would just make sense that the S&P 490, who have not registered the same returns don't feel as flush or as rich and are, by the way, usually dodging incoming projectiles in the form of tariffs and all this other nonsense, are not out shopping because they don't feel like their stocks are inflated. They don't feel like they have their preloaded credit card, whereas the big guys are like, yeah, fuck, I could go buy Ford Motor right now. Like, pitch it to me, I mean, or whatever the company is. So it would make sense that it's the big game. If you saw a run up in the Russell that tracks small business or small caps, you would see, and oftentimes small caps, traditionally small caps, have outperformed the big guys because they're supposed to be more nimble. That dynamic has entirely changed the last couple decades. Of the 500 companies that were unacquirable because they were so big, like, you know, no one would have thought of buying Chevron. They could have merged with them, but they couldn't buy them now. It's acquirable. There's companies out there, there are pools of capital, and there are companies with market caps that now make these companies acquirable. So I just think it's just a function of the haves and the have nots. The haves have preloaded credit cards the likes of which they've never had before. The have nots, the mediums and the smaller cap guys are kind of licking their wounds, waiting to see if their tariffs on Brazil is going to go to 100% based on the blood sugar level of the President.

Ed (46:17)

I just find it remarkable how every story we dig into on this show, the more you keep digging. Ultimately there is one trend that just runs through all of it and it's inequality. Like we see it in the consumer economy, we see it in the stock market. I mean the fact that the Mag 7 now makes up 35% of the entire market cap of the S and P right now. And you look just a few years ago, 2019, it was 19%. So you've gone from a fifth to a third in just about five years. And the downstream effects of that inequality are, are spreading out everywhere, including M and A of all markets. I mean the fact that if you want to get bought as a company you need to hope that you are worth at least $10 billion. Otherwise the chances of you getting, getting acquired are actually lower than they were a year or two years ago. And then what is even more interesting is the fact that because the dollar amounts are so big on those big deals, it distorts all of the data and it makes you think, think oh this is this giant M and A market, everyone's making deals. And then if you're a small company you're like well why isn't it, why isn't it happening to me? And the reality is you're not an exception. Actually you and the rest of the other small cap companies are not getting acquired. It's just the big dogs at the top and we see this everywhere. I think the other interesting question that we have to go to then is what does that mean? I mean what are the implications of that? What does that mean for smaller companies? What does it mean for a company like us, like Profg Media? We're not a large cap, we're not a mid cap, we are a small startup. What does it also mean for entrepreneurs and founders who are probably going to realize that there is just simply not a lot of exit opportunity unless you are a 10, 20, 25, $30 billion company.

Scott Galloway (48:18)

What you have is, is a situation where a small number of companies are going to garner the majority of the spoils and the 99% of the rest of us and companies are going to have the oxygen sucked out of the room. What do you do or what does it mean? It means it's a winner take all economy which plays into an unfortunate or a double edged sword of American society. And that is our superpowers, our optimism. We all believe that our kid is at 1% or that our company is going to be the big winner. And the downside is we don't recognize that it is getting harder and harder to Break through. The spoils are greater if you break through, but it's getting harder and harder. So I think where we're headed is the following civil unrest or just, you know, unrest at the ballot box. And I do think the opportunity is really ripe for massive antitrust that comes in and says, okay, Apple, you're not Apple, you're five companies. Why does the App Store have to live with you? Oh, Google, why on earth do you own the largest streaming video service and the largest autonomous automobile company? And you share. You coordinate and cooperate with each other, making it hard for smaller companies to break through? So I think you're going to see, I'm hopeful that at some point then it's not going to happen in this administration, but in the next administration, I think you're going to see a lot of, of mojo and justification to go in and oxygenate the economy with a massive breakup of the big guys, the winners. Because some of these companies, you just. How do you compete with them?

Ed (49:51)

And I think there's the question of when people are going to wake up to the fact that this administration lied to them about all of this. I think the funniest lie that we saw was at the beginning when Scott Bessen said, it's Main Street's turn. It's not about Wall street anymore, it's about Main Street. I'll just point you right back to what we said at the beginning. JP Morgan up 30%. Goldman up 37%. Citigroup up 41%. $95 billion in investment banking fees this year, the second highest in the history of Wall Street. The fact that the Mag 7 is ripping right now, I mean, this is the same thing again. It's just the only difference with this administration is that we were promised something completely different.

Scott Galloway (50:35)

To your point, the big guys right up 30 or 40% off of huge market caps. I just typed in regional bank index and there's something called the KSW NASDAQ Regional Banking Index. It's up one and a half percent this year. It's flat. So it's pretty simple. How are you doing? Are you small or are you big? And anyways, there needs to be. I believe what Vice President Mike Pence said. You know, he and I run at the same Atlantic Festival together.

Ed (51:06)

Oh, wow.

Scott Galloway (51:07)

Yeah, me and Mike, me and Vice President Pence. He said the best economies are refereed capitalism. And right now there's. We've never had bigger, meaner players on the field. The referee is nowhere to be found.

Ed (51:22)

We'll be right back after the break. And for more markets content, hit follow and sign up for our newsletter@profgmarkets.com subscribe.

Scott Galloway (51:41)

Support for the show comes from Workday, the to do list of a small business leader. Close the books, get your people paid and bring on new hires. Look, running a small or mid sized business can be exciting, but it can also be chaotic. That's where Workday comes in. Workday Go makes simplifying your business a whole lot simpler. Imagine this, the important aspects of your company, HR and finance all on one AI platform. No more juggling multiple systems, no more worrying about growing too fast. Just the full power of Workday helping small to mid sized businesses like yours run more smoothly. And Workday Go activates quickly. You can be up and running in 30 to 60 business days, so simplify your business. Go for growth. Go with workday go. Visit workday.com go to learn more. Support for the show comes from public.com you're thoughtful about where your money goes. You've got your core holdings, some high conviction picks, maybe even a few strategic option plays on the side. The point is, you've engaged with your investments and Public gets that. That's why they built an investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public, you can put together a multi asset portfolio for the long haul. Call stocks, bonds, options, it's all there plus an industry leading 3.8% APY high yield cash account. Switch to the platform built for those who take investing seriously. Go to public.comproPG and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.comproPG 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 assist self directed account are offered by Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC. Complete disclosure available@public.com disclosures SAM.

Ed (54:28)

Every day millions of customers engage with AI agents like me. We resolve queries fast, we work 247 and we're helpful, knowledgeable and empathetic. We're built to be the voice of the brands we serve. Sierra is the platform for building better, more human customer experiences with AI. No hold music, no generic answers, no frustration. Visit Sierra AI to learn more. We're back with Profgy Markets. Last week Charlie Javis was sentenced to seven years in prison for defrauding JP Morgan. Back in 2021, she convinced the bank to pay $175 million for her startup, claiming it had 4 million users. In reality, the platform never had more than 300,000 users, this case raises a bigger question, a question we've asked on the podcast before and that is where is the line between visionary storytelling and outright fraud? And we've seen this question before, when it came to Elizabeth Holmes, when it came to Sam Bankman Fried. And we might even be seeing it today in AI where many investors are worried about these creative accounting issues, where I mean, one of the biggest things we're seeing is this arrangement, accounting magic where companies are signing these one off contracts and then they're annualizing those numbers as ARR to make it seem like they're making more money than they actually are. That's probably another talk track. But the point being we have here yet another example of a founder who flew too close to the sun, crossed that line. It was storytelling and then it was fraud and now she's in prison. So Scott, you've spoken about this before. You've built many companies. Your reaction to this news and your thoughts on where do you draw that line as a salesman, as a storyteller and as a founder.

Scott Galloway (56:22)

Well, I empathize with her because in college when I'd go on a date, I would borrow my mom's Acura Legend and I would say it was mine because no woman can resist the Acura Legend. The smooth clean lines and the mellow acceleration of, of the premium brand from Honda. Look, there's. She committed outright fraud. If you're in due diligence and you're asked to put into the data room a list your clients and you work. I guess she was working with some academic who figured out a way to manufact manufacture like sort of accounts that look sort of real, that's fraud. You should probably go to prison. There is a fine line though, and this, this was not a fine line. But really being out there and embellishing the prospects of your company and their performance and recategorizing what's ARR and what isn't regular revenues. What is services revenue. What is is what is. What is. What is technology revenue to try and increase. Remember that company we called out and eventually went bankrupt? I think we were one of the first ones. A bunch of my buddies invested in LA and called me and got angry. Remember that credit card that was claiming to. It was claiming to solve the climate crisis and it was just a fucking credit card aspiration. You can say that you're raising the consciousness of the planet and it's buyer beware, but if you start lying about specifically financial results, that's when you get into trouble. What? There is some Political and brand issues though, and that is, I think the difference between Elizabeth Holmes and Adam Newman is that Adam Newman's board wanted to save face and gave him. No one has ever gotten a $10 billion commission on losing or a billion dollar commission on losing $11 billion of other people's money. And I think the board, if his board had been angrier, I think he would have been a world of hurt. Elizabeth's home Theranos's board was angry and I always thought it was just sort of uncomfortable that the first person that got sentenced to a decade long prison membership happened to have ovaries. 2% of unicorn founders are female and the most famous one got stuck in prison. And there was some misinformation around that. No one ever got a false diagnosis. What she did was she lied about the capabilities of the machine and she did lie about some of the order volume, I believe. But it wasn't people saying, well, it's different, it's healthy. No one was getting like HIV negative results when they were HIV positive from these machines. She was exaggerating the capability of the machines. Anyway, I think that there is a fine line between, well, let me go. I think when you say I'm taking the company private for $420 a share and funding is secured, funding secured, and you're like, wow, the Stock goes to 400, but it's going to be at 420, so you buy in at 400 and then you find out that the guy was either on ketamine or lying and the stock plummets.

Ed (59:25)

This is Elon a few years ago.

Scott Galloway (59:27)

Yeah, you're lying about finance, you're lying about numbers. There is an objective truth around what he said and that was not it. That was a lie. So yeah, look, the whole thing is a cautionary tale that if you're the CEO of a startup, you have to be able to spin a narrative that gets people's greed glands going. And sometimes there's a thin line between exaggeration and downright lying. But what you should never ever lie about is the numbers or number of customer accounts, the revenues they all play with, like categorizing or recategorizing revenues as a certain type of revenues or pulling revenues forward, all that bullshit. Public companies do it all the. I think AI is going to serve a really valuable role in terms of issuing sort of a diligence or a good housekeeping seal of approval. Now, projecting the future is not lying. You can just be wrong. But this is, I think it's a real cautionary tale. And she's going to spend the majority of her younger years in prison. Now, it's a real tragedy for her, for the firm, but she picked the wrong company to fuck with because if it had been a smaller company that just wanted to ignore it and not be embarrassed, they might have just let the whole thing go. Go.

Ed (60:43)

Yeah. I think the thing that's a shame is that it's. I mean, your point about Elizabeth Holmes and perhaps the justice system and the world was too harsh on her. It's almost like on the way up, when the stock's up, you're a visionary. When the stock's down, you're a fraudster. And that's the part that is, I think, a little bit unfair is why is it that we're down to accept the lying when things look like they're going? Well, it's because we're all down to buy into the lie because there's the prospect of making money on it. And the perfect example of that is Elon. I mean, Elon is committing, as you say, fraud. When he says funding secured, $420 or $410 a share, he's kind of committing fraud again, sort of blurring the line. But when he says that we're going to have a million robotaxis on the road by next year, and then 10 years later they have two, I mean, that's another form of lying. That is something we should look down upon. But the reason that we don't or the reason that we turn a blind eye is because we look at the stock price and the stock price is up. And so people decide, oh, whatever, it doesn't matter. He's a visionary. But as soon as that stock comes crashing back down, suddenly people get very sensitive about the difference between fraud and lying and exaggeration. Same thing happened with Sam Bankman Fried. Everyone was down for it while that FTT token was going up. As soon as it came crashing down, suddenly everyone got their investigative hats on and they decided that they were investigating fraud. But it's like, okay, well, where was that energy when he was out raising money from Sequoia and all these other big VCs and making billions of dollars on this FTT token? And by the way, I think the perfect example of this, which we talked about in one of the episodes, what is the next aspiration? What is the next wework? In my view, it's this company, Fermi America, which just went public last week. And one of the things I predicted on the episode is that we would see A big pop in the stock because it would have this AI feel to it. It's got this meme stocky potential. That is indeed what happened. Shares closed up 54% on their first day of trading. It's at a $15 billion valuation right now. But I mean this is a company that has zero revenue. And they say that they're going to revolutionize AI because they are building a power grid and they're going to have nuclear power plants and they're going to bring 11 gigawatts of energy to AI companies which is five times greater than the output of the Hoover Dam. It's two and a half times greater than the amount of energy consumed by all of Manhattan. I mean they're, they're pumping this story and yet they have zero revenue. They also don't even own any infrastructure. All they have is a contract to have some gas turbines that are currently sitting disassembled all around the world. And so again, perfect example in my view, this company comes crashing down the same way as aspiration. That's my prediction on Fermi America. But the stock's up, so people don't care.

Scott Galloway (63:53)

I love this by the way. It's on 7% today. When I, I remember right in 99 after I'd sold profit, I came to New York and I said I'm going to be the ideal labs in New York. One tech team, one engineering team, one office space, one legal team, one corp dev team and I'm going to punch out E Commerce Concepts. And I raised 15 million at a pre money of 35 million. So me and a PowerPoint presentation were worth 35 million. I remember thinking this feels wrong like this could I, I remember I called my lawyer like can I get in trouble now? No. These are accredited investors. They're smart people, people. Goldman invested, JP Morgan invested. Anyway, this is essentially, this company right now has a $14 billion market cap. This is a company with a management team and a business plan that is worth $14 billion. And I mean unfortunately they're not trading options yet. I think something has to be out for 30 or 60 days. This company, it's at 30 bucks. I, I, this thing's going to be single digits in 30 days or I mean this company at 18 billion. You're right. This is, look out below, look out below.

Ed (65:05)

Let's take a look at the week ahead. We'll see earnings from Constellation Brands. That's the distributor of beers like Modelo and Corona. We'll also see earnings from Pepsi and Delta. We likely won't get any of the scheduled economic data because of the shutdown. However, we should still see the minutes from the Federal Reserve September meeting and we'll be watching that release for signals of the Fed's path forward. Scott, any predictions?

Scott Galloway (65:30)

Well, it goes along the lines of the biggest M and A and mergers in history. All the moons are lining up and this is one that is a little bit out there, but I see the industrial logic behind it and that is I think Netflix with a $440 billion market cap is likely to make make a tectonic acquisition. And my thinking is that there are a lot of existential threats right now around Netflix. Specifically I think there's, we're raising a generation of consumers who can't sit still for for 90 minutes or 60 minutes. I think the TV screen is getting turned on so little that it's going to start impacting their business. I don't know about you, I haven't. It's really strange. In the last six months I've stopped turning on the tv. I don't watch TV anymore. It's really weird. I used to watch. It used to be appointment viewing. It used to be just Ozon, then it went to appointment viewing. Now my TV's never on unless occasionally I have a Premier League game on and my kids never have the TV on. In addition, when you look at what AI is doing around content creation, it could work for Netflix, it might not. And it's trading at a market cap of $490 billion. 490 and a PE of 50. So my favorite is and they wouldn't call it an acquisition, they'd call it a merger. But I think if Netflix were to merge with and or acquire Disney, it would make all sorts of industrial logic why Disney has a management and succession problem right now. The person running Disney could best be described as Neville Chamberlain in a cashmere sweater, minus the dignity. He's a 73 year old man who has fucked up and shown incredibly poor judgment around some key decisions. The person who was supposed to be a successor, one of his successors has gotten caught up in this Jimmy Kimmel nonsense. Netflix has an enormously talented management team. The co CEO who you never hear about, you hear about Ted Sarandos who's probably demonstrates more aplomb than any media executive in history. It's just hard not to like a guy who's built a half a trillion dollar company. Actually you'd say, well, the vision of Reed Hastings who started working in video stores, right. His co CEO is extraordinary talented. They have two great CEOs and an unbelievable bench there. So that solves the management problem. In addition, if Netflix faces these existential threats of being totally focused on this one business called streaming, Disney has this singular business. Parks and Cruises, Play Space Entertainment, nothing like it. Their Broadway shows of the Lion King, their parks, just singular OpenAI and whoever it is, snap or name Nvidia. These companies can't replicate Disneyland and Disney Cruises and Disney Broadway theaters where they're getting a little bit long in the tooth is the IP in those parks. Darth Vader, Cinderella, you know, the Muppets. This shit's getting a little tired. What does Netflix have? Oh my gosh, the Stranger Things ride at Disneyland. Can you imagine the wait for that shit? The Squid Games competition, the Wednesday Broadway show, The two of these together, the IP and the parks accretive from a management standpoint. And then you have one streaming platform that is Netflix Disney and Hulu. It's game over and streaming.

Ed (69:18)

Now.

Scott Galloway (69:19)

This merger should not be allowed to happen because it would be so fucking dominant. It would create the first $1 trillion true kind of old Hollywood media company. But it could get through now because again, see above, the DOJ and the FTC are asleep at the switch. So Netflix has a stock that is so fully valued. I think their bankers are probably getting some reception from management team thinking how are we going to grow Netflix to justify this position given some of the threats on the horizon. We have this amazing company where the C suite is five years past their expiration date and we have a huge management team. We have all this IP we could monetize downstream, which we aren't monetizing right now in the form of Play Space Entertainment, which is much more enduring than the streaming world. I think that Netflix is going to make a tectonic acquisition and my favorite candidate is Disney.

Ed (70:16)

I really like that prediction. I just want to add onto it, I agree with you. They need to do something to justify this valuation. Half a trillion dollars, 50 times earnings. If they don't, the stock's coming down. And this is all to say I'm very bearish on Netflix. I really don't think it has any business trading at half a trillion dollars. So we'll see what happens in terms of M and A. But I'll just add my predict. Bearish Netflix. Perhaps we should dig into that next week.

Scott Galloway (70:44)

Let's do it.

Ed (70:48)

This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Mia Silverio is our research lead. Our research associates are Isabella Kinsel, Dan Shalon and Kristen o'. Donoghue. Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Profit you Markets from Profit Media. Tune in tomorrow for a freshman take on the markets. And Doug Limu and I always tell you to customize your car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual.

Scott Galloway (71:51)

But now we want you to feel it.

Ed (71:53)

Cue the emu music, Limu.

Scott Galloway (71:55)

Save yourself money today. Increase your wealth. Customize and save, we say.

Ed (72:05)

That may have been too much feeling.

Scott Galloway (72:07)

Only pay for what you need@libertymutual.com Liberty.

Ed (72:09)

Liberty Liberty Liberty Savings Ferry Unwritten by.

Scott Galloway (72:13)

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and affiliates Excludes Massachusetts.