Too Situationally Aware to Fail

Summary

Slate Money – “Too Situationally Aware to Fail”

Original Air Date: August 1, 2026
Hosted by: Felix Salmon (Bloomberg), Elizabeth Spiers (NY Times), Emily Peck (Axios)

---

Episode Overview

This lively episode offers a sharp, entertaining roundup of the week’s major finance and business headlines – with a special focus on the spectacular hedge fund implosion of Leopold Aschenbrenner and the concept of “situational awareness.” From the mechanics behind hedge fund blowups and margin calls, to global oil dynamics and the brouhaha over making quarterly corporate reporting optional, the hosts bring a skeptical, irreverent tone to the week's most complex stories. Memorable quotes, trenchant analogies, and good humor abound as they debate what matters most in these headline-dominating sagas.

---

Key Topics & Discussion

1. The Leopold Aschenbrenner Hedge Fund Implosion (03:10–26:00)

Who is Leopold Aschenbrenner? (03:10–04:55)

• At just 24, Aschenbrenner ran an AI-focused hedge fund (at one point managing up to $45 billion).

• Background: Columbia University valedictorian at age 19; stint at FTX; then OpenAI; famed for his viral 165-page essay “Situational Awareness.”

• Felix quotes Aschenbrenner’s essay to highlight his hubris and self-regard:

  “Right now there are perhaps a few hundred people, most of them in San Francisco in the AI labs, that have situational awareness. Through whatever peculiar forces of fate I have found myself among them.” — Felix, quoting Aschenbrenner (04:25)

The Bet & The Bust: Leveraged AI Investments (04:55–10:24)

• Aschenbrenner parlayed his viral AI “thesis” into raising billions, making aggressive, leveraged bets on AI-related stocks, like Nvidia, SK Hynix, Bloom, and Sandisk.
• “If you have gazillions of dollars and you are pouring them aggressively into relatively small stocks, those stock prices go up...It becomes like this self-fulfilling prophecy.” — Felix (06:14)
• The fund’s rapid ascent echoed the rise and fall of Bill Hwang’s Archegos: leveraged bets inflated prices until a market reversal led to catastrophic margin calls.
• Citadel’s Ken Griffin “rescues” Aschenbrenner by buying his stock positions at a discount during the forced unwind, only to see prices bounce back almost immediately after.

Was It a Targeted Attack? Wall Street Intrigue & The “Pain Trade” (07:21–12:30)

• Emily wonders if the professionals, like Ken Griffin, “orchestrated a pain trade to make him lose as much money as quickly as possible” given his inexperience and the visibility of his fund’s positions. (07:21)
• Felix affirms: “I totally think it was [targeted]. This is Ken Griffin doing what he normally does. This is sort of his M.O...” (12:35)
• The group discusses Citadel’s surprise Fed prediction and the possibility of using media signals to spark panic.
• Entertaining aside: Aschenbrenner was getting married the same weekend his fund faced collapse—leading to rumors Griffin “swooped in” to tidy up his crisis before the nuptials.

Risk Management Lessons: Lack of Expertise & Staff (13:56–19:49)

• The fund (“Situational Awareness”) had just eight employees, likely zero traders, and relied heavily on overnight borrowing from prime brokers—a setup ripe for disaster when positions sour.
• “You can’t be that big of a hedge fund and not have your own traders. It’s insane.” — Felix (16:30)
• The panel debates whether Aschenbrenner relied on AI for operations/trading, and discusses the limits of long-only, concentrated, unhedged bets on sector themes.

Systemic Lessons: Is This Archegos 2.0? (22:32–26:00)

• While some frame the blowup as an “Archegos moment,” the hosts note that, unlike Archegos, this didn’t endanger banks or the system—AI stocks are volatile and hard to “fairly value,” making this more casino than systemic risk.
• “The failure of situational awareness has not killed that [AI] narrative. And as Elizabeth points out, Situational Awareness has not actually failed. He’s still up 50% for the year. Your guy will be fine.” — Felix (24:35)
• Emily, tongue-in-cheek: “If I was his mother, I would be so proud...He’s going to get some great wedding presents.” (25:38)

---

2. Oil Markets and the Wild World of Crack Spreads (28:33–35:44)

Mysterious Oil Dynamics (28:33–30:31)

• Despite war and supply chain shocks across the Middle East, oil prices are relatively subdued—but diesel prices and refining margins (“crack spreads”) have spiked.
• “The difference between the price of diesel and the price of oil is measured by a wonderful thing called the crack spread.” — Felix (28:58)

Explaining the Spike (30:02–31:49)

• Global supply shocks: Ukrainian drones have hammered Russian refineries; some Middle East refineries are also offline; U.S. refineries are running above 100% capacity.
• “There have been American refineries that have been running at greater than 100% capacity, which is kind of wonderful. I love it when that weirdness has happened.” — Felix (30:43)

The Role of China (32:31–34:49)

• China’s drastic reduction in oil imports has kept global prices down—an “amazing flex” of economic power enabled by large reserves and investment in EVs and solar power.
• “It’s almost like not opposing alternative energy is a good idea.” — Elizabeth (33:43)
• Remote work in the U.S. and demand destruction in China also help restrain retail gas price hikes.

Final Thoughts: Structural Changes, Not Just Markets (34:49–35:44)

• The hosts note that China’s ability to dial down demand illustrates policy levers the West often lacks.

---

3. The Quarterly Reporting Debate (38:22–49:49)

Trump Administration and SEC Move to Make Quarterly Reports Optional (38:40–40:24)

• Trump and the SEC propose ending mandatory quarterly earnings reports; companies could switch to just semiannual reporting.
• The move generated a record-breaking flood of public comments; over 99% urge keeping quarterly reports.
• “99% of these comments were like, ‘No, do not do this. We want quarterly earnings reports. We forbid it!’” — Emily (39:48)

Why the Uproar? Transparency for Investors (40:24–42:52)

• Retail investors, galvanized partly by platforms like WallStreetBets and The Motley Fool, see less frequent reporting as a threat to transparency and discipline.
• Elizabeth reads from a WallStreetBets comment:

  “Many of us learned what a 10Q was the hard way...But it's also the entire mechanism by which a generation of retail investors taught itself to read financial statements. And the commission is now proposing to cut that mechanism in half.” (40:24)

Balancing Companies' Burden vs. Investor Needs (42:52–45:52)

• While companies and their lobbyists cite “burden,” the cost ($198,000) is trivial for public firms.
• Felix: “As a general rule, most CEOs like to do things that make their stock price go up and don’t like to do things that make their stock price go down. Any company that [cuts reporting] will see its stock price go down. Therefore, they are not likely to do it.” (44:29)

IPOs Might Go for Less Reporting (46:22–49:49)

• The real effect may be on future IPOs, where trendy, “long-termist” companies could shun frequent reporting.
• Elizabeth: “If your company is so small that you can't afford to do quarterly reporting, you probably should not be going out to public markets. It's sort of like there’s a cost to going public.” (47:25)
• Felix: “If you’re managing for the long term...you can understand the logic of a founder...being like, ‘quarterly earnings is a distraction.’” (46:22)

The Information Pullback Trend (49:49–51:41)

• Emily and Elizabeth note this fits a broader pattern of reduced transparency from government and institutions—citing less hunger reporting, less Federal Reserve info, and military secrecy.

---

4. Numbers Round & Lightning Analysis (51:45–end)

Emily’s Number: $450 Billion (52:09)

• Microsoft’s market cap jump in a single day post-earnings—a record gain, powered by cloud and AI. “What a company this Microsoft is...from Bill Gates, to Steve Ballmer, to Satya Nadella: just making oodles of cash.” (53:26)
• “Stocks only go up!” — Felix (53:25)

Felix’s Number: 353 (55:06)

• The oddball fact of the week: 353 out of 100,000 saber-toothed tigers had spinal nerve tumors—likely due to inbreeding as their population collapsed.
• “Because they were going extinct and they were forced to like inbreed. And then the inbreeding caused the tumors and then the tumors caused them to have to try and chase the camels in the tar pits rather than out where there wasn’t tar.” (56:43)

Elizabeth’s Number: $54.99 (57:04)

• The price of an AI-generated children’s picture book—purchased by grandparents for their grandkids, but reportedly boring and unappealing to children.
• “The assumption is that children are all narcissists who like to see their little names in a book. But they don’t, because they actually do like children’s books for the stories and the characters and so on.” (58:06)
• Quirky detour: Gen A now uses “that’s AI” to mean “that’s fake/bullshit.”

Additional: The Proliferation of AI Slop (59:09)

• Emily highlights a NYT piece on mass-produced AI biographies.
• Felix: “All of this reflexive rejection of AI-written books just because it’s AI...admittedly, [the biographies] were all false. But, you know, these are niggles.” (59:50)
• “Who needs real information anymore when we have so much fake information?” — Emily (60:11)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On hedge fund leverage:
  “If you have a leveraged $20 billion public equity bet, there's a huge amount of trading...You can't just...put it all in SK Hynix and then go to the beach.” — Felix (19:06)

• On systemic risk:
  “The difference between the AI casino and the crypto casino is that the AI casino I think is systemically dangerous if it bursts in a way that crypto was not.” — Felix (24:00)

• On transparency:
  “Information is an accountability mechanism, so reducing it on all fronts kind of increases the executive branch’s power to do whatever they want without the public understanding.” — Elizabeth (51:13)

• On investor education:
  “We bought stock, watched it fall 40% on an earnings release, and then read the filing to find out why. That is a stupid order of operations, and we acknowledge it. But it's also the entire mechanism by which a generation of retail investors taught itself to read financial statements.” — Quoted by Elizabeth, from WallStreetBets (40:24)

---

Key Timestamps

• 03:10 — Kickoff: Who is Leopold Aschenbrenner?
• 04:55–10:24 — Essay-to-hedge fund, risky levered bets, collapse, and bailout
• 12:30–17:59 — Targeted trades, Wall Street machinations, and lack of staff/traders
• 22:32 — Is this systemically significant?
• 28:33 — Why aren’t oil prices soaring? What’s a “crack spread”?
• 32:31 — The role of China and demand destruction
• 38:40 — Quarterly reporting: regulatory fight and flood of public comments
• 46:22 — Why IPOs might choose semiannual reporting
• 51:45 — Numbers round (Microsoft, saber-toothed tigers, AI kids books)

---

Overall Tone

Witty, skeptical, and highly accessible, the discussion is filled with dry humor, sharp analogies, and pop-culture riffs. The hosts balance the arcane with the everyday, delivering finance news with a distinctively human, sardonic flair.

---

Conclusion

From the epic rise and fall of a wunderkind hedge fund manager to the crack spread’s ripple effects at the gas pump and retail investor activism on SEC rulemaking, this episode is a lively crash course in the chaos and quirks of 2026’s finance headlines. Whether you’re an industry insider or a casual observer, Slate Money’s blend of expertise, snark, and storytelling will leave you both wiser and entertained.

Transcript

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Foreign.

[Felix Salmon]

Welcome to Slate Money, your guide to the business and finance news of the week. I'm Felix Salmon of Bloomberg with Elizabeth Spires of the New York Times.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Hello.

[Felix Salmon]

With Emily Peck of Axios.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Hello.

[Emily Peck]

Hello.

[Felix Salmon]

And we are going to talk about Leopold Aschenbrenner and situational awareness and the latest imploding hedge fund. We love this story. So much going on there. We are going to talk about crack spreads. If you don't know what a crack spread is, you should and you will find out. We are going to talk about quarterly reports. Are they a good thing or are they a bad thing? The SEC seems to make want to make them optional. Should they be optional? Should they not? We will have a spirited debate. We have a Slate plus segment on gas stations and whether it is worth driving out of your way to get cheaper gas. It's a fun one this week, so stay tuned. It's all coming up on Slate Money.

[Emily Peck]

Meet Amazon Ads rising star Darrell Spencer, who set out to redefine men's self care with his brand Crown Skin. Amazon ads helped him grow.

[Felix Salmon]

I walked away from big tech to build a luxury brand in a category that no one was paying attention to. With the help of Amazon Ads, I'm reaching relevant audiences and competing with the biggest names in men's grooming. We've scaled to over $500,000 in monthly revenue.

[Emily Peck]

Watch Crowned Skin Story at advertising.Amazon.com Rising-stars. This episode is sponsored by hey Jen. If creating video content feels like a trade off between looking professional and protecting your time, there's a new way to think about it. HeyGen lets you turn a script, photo or presentation into a polished video of you in minutes without setting up a camera or hiring a production team. Whether you're a financial advisor explaining market updates, an attorney answering common client questions, a real estate agent showcasing listings, or a creator growing your audience, it helps you stay visible without constantly filming new content. It's rated the number one AI video platform for small business on G2, trusted by more than 30 million people and 85% of the Fortune 100 and supports over 175 languages so your message can reach audiences wherever they are. Here's the wild part. Record yourself for just 15 seconds and hey Jen builds an AI avatar that makes professional videos for you on demand so you can post everywhere your audience is as yourself without filming every time. Your first three videos are free at heygen.com pod that's H E Y-G-E-N.com P O D.

[Felix Salmon]

Okay, so we need to start with the gloriously named Leopold Aschenbrenner. Because whenever someone named Leopold Aschenbrenner is in the news, obviously we need to talk about it. Elizabeth, who is Leopold Aschenbrenner?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

He is a 24 year old hedge fund manager who until recently was running an AI focused hedge fund that had, I believe $20 billion under management.

[Felix Salmon]

Now he's running an AI focused hedge fund that has $10 billion under management. I think at the peak it was like 45 billion. This guy has an astonishing risk appetite is pretty clear. But yeah, he graduated from Columbia, his parents are German. He goes straight to say what age

[Emily Peck]

he was when he graduated Columbia.

[Felix Salmon]

Oh yeah, at the age of 19.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

And he was valedictorian apparently.

[Felix Salmon]

And he goes straight to work for Sam Bankman Frieda ftx, which is obviously a great idea and he's running like the effective altruism chapter of Columbia. And then he does that kind of stuff at FTX for a hot minute and then FTX implodes. He goes to work for OpenAI because of course he does leaves under a little bit of a cloud, but manages to write like 165 page essay called Situational Awareness which I do need to quote from the beginning of because it is so, it is so glorious. He says right now there are perhaps a few hundred people, most of them in San Francisco in the AI labs that have situational awareness through whatever peculiar forces of fate I have found myself among them.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Characteristic humility for, you know, Silicon Valley people. Although he's, he's, I suppose the East Coast.

[Felix Salmon]

He then ends by saying, sure, going all in leveraged long Nvidia in early 2023 has been great and all, but the burdens of history are heavy. I would not choose this. So Basically this is 150 pages. You know, AI superintelligence is coming and no one really appreciates this except for me and 200 other people in the Bay Area. He takes this 150 page essay which kind of goes viral, especially in Silicon Valley, and does the obvious thing, which is turn it into a hedge fund, which is basically this is an, this was an essay about AI, but now it's an investment thesis and we can all make lots of money if we can see AI coming before anyone else. He raises I think about $5 billion for the hedge fund and then turns it into $45 billion. Because he is actually early to the AI trade. He makes massive leverage bets not just on Nvidia, but also on like SK Hynix, on a company called Bloom. On Sandisk, he's quite good at identifying who the hot stocks are. And to be honest, he has $45 billion, or at least 20, 30, a constantly rising number of dollars borrowing against to buy more of those stocks. And we saw this with Bill Hwang, with Archegos, right? If you have gazillions of dollars and you are pouring them aggressively into relatively small stocks, those stock prices go up. And so you actually wind up moving the market with your buys and everyone else, because this is the dumbest timeline, everyone else sees the stocks going up and they pile in after you and you become. It becomes like this self fulfilling prophecy and he starts making enormous amounts of money. But as we saw with Bill Hwang at Archegos, you know, that amount of leverage can bite you in the ass extremely quickly, which is exactly what happened. And then this week, you know, all of the stocks that he had been pushing upwards started going down and he started facing margin calls and things started looking a bit hairy for him until his fairy godfather, Ken Griffin, bailed him out.

[Emily Peck]

Do you have a question for the group, Felix?

[Felix Salmon]

Sure. So my first question is, Emily, how much do you think that the smart money on Wall street, by which I mean Ken Griffin and his friends were like super aware of Ashen Brenner and his positions and, and just like totally orchestrated a pain trade to make him lose as much money as quickly as possible?

[Emily Peck]

Yeah, this is the fun intrigue bit that I like. So I guess Aschenbrenner's hedge fund was eight people. Only half had any investing experience. Aschenbrenner himself doesn't have any investing experience. But as we learn from his 165 page manifesto, he has a lot of confidence. He went for it okay. And so he did something that I know from television is maybe a bad idea. He wrote a letter to investors basically saying he made a lot of mistakes in the past month, lost a lot of money. The Wall Street Journal had the details on this. Tipping his hand. We're in trouble. That was like the between the lines of the letter. And after that it was like, it seems like it was indeed game on. Because then that's gotta catch Ken at Citadel's attention and the attention of Wall Street. Oh, hedge fund in trouble. There's a sale and the sale is on stocks. These stocks aren't doing very well right now, but probably will do well going forward.

[Felix Salmon]

I will put that in a stronger position. It's not that there's a sale on stocks and they're cheap and so I should buy them. I Think it's there is a massively leveraged position in these stocks that needs to be unwound. And so there's a forced seller. And so what I do is short those stocks because they are going to go down and that is going to push the stock price down even further, increase the pain on situational awareness. And you get this vicious cycle which just causes this massive crash in the stock price. And then eventually you just need to wait until you see the whites of their eyes. And when he is absolutely forced to sell absolutely everything at any price at all, that's when you buy.

[Emily Peck]

Yes. And that seems to be what happened. And I just want to add two more fun things, which is Citadel, Ken Griffin's firm, put out this analysis. I think it was Tuesday. I don't remember saying they think the Federal Reserve is going to hike rates, which was surprising. Like, some people maybe thought that, but like, no other note said anything like that. It got a lot of attention and it made people even more nervous and increased sort of like volatility and downward vibes just everywhere. So some people are like, he did it on purpose. He was thinking six chess moves ahead and that somehow was gonna give him more leverage over situational awareness, which I think is funny. Also, this dude, Leopold is getting married this weekend. So some people are also saying that Ken Griffin swooped in and was like, don't you want this all just taken care of super easily before you head off to get married? And that that made him, you know, wanna do this deal even more. And did you say what the deal was? That Citadel came in and bought all

[Felix Salmon]

of its stock and then immediately that Ashen Brenner is, like, basically wiped out of his entire public equities portfolio and he sold all of his stocks. Then two minutes later, they all bounced back up again. You know, that the Korean stock market, which he was very heavily invested in, goes up 20% in one day. The whole thing is just, like, batshit.

[Emily Peck]

The whole stock market went back up.

[Felix Salmon]

The whole stock market went back up. And what this reminds me of very much is, do you remember fab Fabrice Turet in France, you know, the rogue trader at Soc Gen who blew up and, like, everyone thought that the stock market was imploding, but it wasn't the stock market that was imploding. It was just this rogue trader who was imploding. And the Federal Reserve came out and did an emergency rate cut in response to the stock market. When, in fact, it was just like, you know, a crazy guy at Soc Gen who'd got out over his skis. And this kind of reminds me of that. The minute that the, you know, overexposed hedge fund trader person, know, basically throws in the towel and says, okay, I'm out, then everything bounces up. But the thing that interests me is that if you just look at the headlines, Ken Griffin, who is running a bank, Citadel securities, bought, you know, however many like 10 billion plus dollars worth of stock in a sort of job lot at a discount at a fire sale. Which means, you know, because he's a bank that now Ken Griffin, you would imagine, is going to have to sell all of this stock. And the market, because it's reading all of the headlines, knows that Ken Griffin is going to have to sell all of this stock. And so you would imagine the stock would continue to go down because there's still this overhang of stock that is owned by Ken Griffin. But that didn't happen. The stock market went up. How do you explain that? Well, one way to explain that is to say that maybe Ken Griffin doesn't have to sell all of the stock because he was short, that he had shorted all of that stock against Aschenbrenner and then he was just covering his short when he rescued.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

There are a couple of things going on here. I don't really think that it was some coordinated move against Aschenbrenner.

[Felix Salmon]

Oh, I totally think it was.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

This is Ken Griffin doing what he normally does. This is sort of his M.O. i do think that he sincerely believed that we were going to get a rate hike, which if Kevin Marsh were not the head of the Fed, I think a lot of people would have thought we were getting a rate hike. The second thing is just that he bought the portfolio at a discount. So Ken Griffin is going to make money. Unless you really think the entire sector is going to tank, which I don't think anybody believes that. And that's why Aschenburg are still in a pretty sweet position. He's held onto his Anthropic stake, which Anthropic is expected to go public shortly. He's still managing $10 billion. He has not changed the composition of the fund. As far as we know, it is still a directional bet on the future of AI and it's not, as far as we can tell, hedged either, because even the short positions in the fund are betting against software stocks based on the thesis that AI is just going to wipe them out. So as far as I can tell, Ashenbritter is still sitting pretty. Ken Griffin's going to make money off of the stake that he bought. And I don't think that you have to sort of feel conspiratorial about it to see this as a potential outcome. I think, if anything, Ashenburger kind of did what I think a rational fund manager with a fund that had that composition would do if they started getting margin calls, which is let Ken Griffin buy a stake and hold onto that anthropic stake.

[Felix Salmon]

I've watched a lot of people blow up over the years. This is something that happens relatively regularly on Wall street is that some hedge fund somewhere blows up. And 99 times out of 100, when a hedge fund blows up, there are one or more people on the other side of that trade who make an absolute fortune. And most of the time that's Ken Griffin. The reason why I'm pretty sure that there was a targeted attack on Situational Awareness's actual holdings rather than just a broad sell off in chip stocks is if you look at the letter that Aschenbrenner sent to his investors this week. He this is, I'm quoting Bloomberg here, compared the dynamics facing his fund to a quote, bank run and said the fund saw, quote, adverse trading in names publicly associated with us. In other words, the market in general knew what, what stocks. He was long and specifically targeted those stocks too.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

So also I want to just read this other quote from Aschenbrenner from the early stages of the fund where he was giving an interview to the Financial Times and he says, obviously not blowing up is sort of like task number one and number two or whatever.

[Felix Salmon]

So I need to mention this. Actually there's this wonderful, unrelated. There is a line in Paul Krugman's email on Friday morning where he's talking about Kevin Walsh and the Fed. He says the Fed funds rate has little direct economic significance since nobody making important investments relies on overnight money. Aschenbrenner was relying on overnight money. That's exactly what he was doing. He was borrowing money overnight from his prime brokers and pouring it all into AI stocks and being like, the AI stocks are going to go up a lot and that's going to be more than enough for me to pay back the overnight funds that I'm borrowing from my prime brokers. Whoops. The thing that struck most people when this, when the headlines first appeared is that apparently situational awareness, whether it's $45 billion, whatever, had eight employees. I am going to go out on a limb minute here. I don't know this for absolute certain, but I just can't imagine how it would be Any other way if you only have eight employees? I'm pretty sure that he had no traders. I think this was a $45 billion hedge fund with zero traders and that all of his trading was done via his prime brokers. And if he just, if he wanted to buy or sell stocks, he would just phone up his prime broker at Morgan Stanley or whoever and be like, I want to buy this. I want, you know, can you put money into this? Can you take money out of that? And that he. And that if you are trading relatively obscure, illiquid stocks like Blue Manji or whatever, without a trader who is just thinking all day, every day about risk management, like, what the fuck, you know, you need. You can't be that big of a hedge fund and not have your own traders. It's insane.

[Emily Peck]

Do you think he was relying on AI to do some work? Like his thesis is AI, you know, his thesis now is sort of conventional wisdom really, that AI is going to do a lot of work and you can have a small company with only a few employees because the miracle of AI is there for you. Maybe this is the failure of that thesis too.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

I think it's also. He is essentially running a long fund. I don't think he. And the composition of his portfolio. It's not like he's managing, I think that many positions in that many companies. He's really just betting on some of the bigger AI stars heavily concentrated in Nvidia. So if he's not going in and out of the stock that much, I don't. You know, it does seem weird if he had no traders, but I think he doesn't need to build the operation on the back of a trading operation.

[Felix Salmon]

I'm saying that if you are, if you have a leveraged $20 billion public equity bet, there's a huge amount of trading that you need to do on a day to day basis to be able to roll over those loans. You know, manage your derivatives exposure, manage the stock exposure. When you buy the stock you want to buy in in such a way that it doesn't move the price too much. Or maybe you don't. Maybe you want to buy in such a way that it moves the price a lot so that everyone piles in after you. You know, obviously he is selling. You know, he is exiting positions when he wants to rotate into another stock that he thinks is going to do even better. And when you're exiting the position, you definitely don't want to move the stock down too much. There's a lot of just real sort of lock and tackle sort of trading that you need to do even when you have a long only fund.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

I think that's assuming though that he's doing a lot of rebalancing. I think his whole shtick is that he's not, he's taking these giant positions and just accumulating and holding onto them. He's making an entirely unhedged sector bet.

[Felix Salmon]

You can be 100% long AI but if you're doing that in a leveraged basis, you still have a lot of positions that you need to manage. You can't just kind of, you know, take your brokerage account, put it all in SK Hynix and then go to the beach. That is not what he was doing.

[Emily Peck]

So the borrowing in the leverage hedge fund is from the, like that's Fed overnight reserves. It's not, I don't know why from

[Felix Salmon]

the Fed, it's from the prime broker. It's from like Morgan Stanley.

[Emily Peck]

So Morgan Stanley goes and like borrows money every day and like makes it all make sense.

[Felix Salmon]

Morgan Stanley is lending Ashton Brenner money against his own portfolio. Basically what they're saying is we will lend you up to 50% of the value of your portfolio to go off and buy stock.

[Emily Peck]

Okay.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

So when the stocks go down, they issue margin calls, right?

[Emily Peck]

So then, okay, so I'm just trying to connect it back to the Federal Reserve. So this week everyone was like, the price of that money, the short, the, the Fed funds rate is about to maybe go up. And then Citadel was like, it's totally going up. So then the bankers were like, the

[Felix Salmon]

amount that, the amount that Aschenbrenner had to pay in daily interest, that money that he was borrowing would go up

[Emily Peck]

because the, the short term rates were going up in anticipation of maybe the Fed raising rates already or the bank

[Felix Salmon]

or even, or even just like the, the people who understood what Aschen Brennan were doing was saying like this guy can barely make his interest payments as it is. If the Fed fund rates goes up, then he's definitely not going to be able to make his interest payments and therefore he's going to have to sell. And Elizabeth, to your point, this is why you can't just go to the beach when you're running a leveraged long fund because none of these equities are paying dividends, none of them are cash flowing. So you need to pay interest on that debt somehow. So you need to raise cash by selling something in order to just pay interest on your margin loans.

[Emily Peck]

When do you pay the interest? Every day? Every week?

[Felix Salmon]

Well, so that is done by negotiation with your prime broker. Right. So if your stocks are going up a lot, then they will be happy to capitalize the interest and just be like, oh, we'll just, we'll just add it to the amount you owe. But if the stocks go down, they're like, no, you need to make that interest payment.

[Emily Peck]

Okay. And can you relate this back to, I think, my colleague at Axios Markets. Please subscribe. Matt Phillips had a story recently, a few months ago, I don't know, about the increasing amount of margin debt in just overall in the market. More. There's more borrowing going on to buy stocks right now, I assume.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Is that all?

[Emily Peck]

How much is that? How much of that is Leopold Aschenbrenner generally, like I.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Where the borrowing is concentrated. What kind of stocks are people fine?

[Emily Peck]

I don't know. That's a good question I was asking.

[Felix Salmon]

I think it's. I think it's pretty much like the, the Matt Phillips thesis was that it was largely retail.

[Emily Peck]

Yeah.

[Felix Salmon]

So it's the kind of stocks that retail gets into, which, you know, a lot of retail is into the AI trade. A lot of retail is also just into the, you know, buying, like, broad ETFs that they think are going to go up and they want to make leverage bets on that.

[Emily Peck]

Right. There's all these leveraged ETFs now. That's driving what drove them.

[Felix Salmon]

There's a lot of, like, embedded leverage inside some of the ETFs. Yeah, the leverage appears in a lot of different places. I would quibble a little bit with Matt's thesis that the amount of leverage in the stock market is high. I think it's higher. I still think it. On an absolute level, it's still pretty low.

[Emily Peck]

Yes, it's higher. I think he would agree. That was what I mean. His chart and data show. Don't mess with my co writer. I guess one question I did have is two questions. Is this a significant moment in the AI boom? Because it seems like it's not. It's going to be a blip. Others would say, no, this is a significant moment. The Times said this is an archegos moment. And I was like, what's an archegos moment? And then they reminded me, I know what happened. You just talked about it also. But like, why did it matter systemically? And they were like. And then I was like, oh, yeah, bank in Europe, Credit Suisse went bus.

[Felix Salmon]

You know, who cares?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Who cares?

[Emily Peck]

So I was like, maybe this doesn't matter either. Like, you're actually New York Times. Your point is that it doesn't matter because if some European bank goes bust, then I, as in a selfish American, doesn't really care very much.

[Felix Salmon]

It looks, it looks a little bit like an FTX moment to me. You know, that everything did go down a lot in crypto when FDX went bust, but then it bounced back up again before it fell again. So you know, right now it looks like we're having a bounce back up. We don't know how. It's basically impossible to come up with fair value for any of these stocks. It's a little bit like valuing crypto in that way. You just kind of, it's worth whatever someone's willing to pay for it. And so yeah, you just sort of play in this casino and you make money or you lose money. The difference between the AI casino and the crypto casino is that the AI casino I think is systemically dangerous if it bursts in a way that crypto was not like crypto. You had like, you know, a trillion dollars of crypto or something all held in the hands of bros who could afford to lose it. But you know, when you have the AI economy and all of these, you know, mega caps which are worth like $4 trillion each, all pouring huge amounts of money into AI, not just, you know, into stocks, but into the real economy and data centers which are like basically accounting for 100% of GDP growth right now. And you know, we've talked about this a lot then. Yeah, if that narrative fails then we could be in a world of pain. That narrative has not failed. The failure of situational awareness has not killed that narrative. And as Elizabeth points out, situational awareness has not actually failed. It's still, it's still going, it's. He's still up 50% for the year. Like you know, your guy will be fine. And a lot of the schadenfreude that we saw earlier in the week about, haha, look at this 25 year old kid who just blew up. Yeah, I mean like his risk management wasn't great but it was good enough that he was, you know, that he's lived to fight another day.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

He's still up 80% over the year, which is.

[Emily Peck]

I was his mother, I would be so proud. I'd be kivelling. I'd be just so proud.

[Felix Salmon]

He's going to get some great wedding presents. He's going to be fine.

[Emily Peck]

Oh, he's going to have a great wedding. Good for him.

[Felix Salmon]

Yeah.

[Emily Peck]

This episode is sponsored by. Hey Jen. If creating video Content feels like a trade off between looking professional and protecting your time. There's a new way to think about it. Heygen lets you turn a script, photo or presentation into a polished video of you in minutes without setting up a camera or hiring a production team. Whether you're a financial advisor explaining market updates, an attorney answering common client questions, a real estate agent showcasing listings, or a creator growing your audience, it helps you stay visible without constantly filming new content. It's rated the number one AI video platform for small business on G2, trusted by more than 30 million people and 85% of the Fortune 100, and supports over 175 languages. So your message can reach audiences wherever they are. Here's the wild part. Record yourself for just 15 seconds and hey Jen builds an AI avatar that makes professional videos for you on demand so you can post everywhere your audience is as yourself without filming every time. Your first three videos are free at heygen.com pod that's H E Y-G-E-N.com pod.

[Monica Reinagle]

This message is brought to you by Cologuard. If you recorded songs off the radio for a mixtape, it might be time to screen for colon cancer. The Cologuard test is non invasive, requires no special prep or time off, and you start screening right from your home. It's just three simple setup, sample and ship. If you're 45 or older and at average risk, ask your doctor about the Cologuard test, available by prescription only. Learn more or request a [e-mail] podcast hello, I'm Monica Reinagle, host of the Nutrition Diva podcast. Summer is here and with it the hot and sticky weather. A morning working in the garden or maybe on the golf course can leave you more depleted than you realize. And plain water isn't always the most efficient way to restore the balance. That's where Liquid IV comes in. Its science backed formula is clinically proven to hydrate faster than water alone. Whether you're exercising, playing outside, or simply surviving a summer heat wave, it's an easy way to stay hydrated. Shop [e-mail], liquid IV, hydration that goes wherever life takes you.

[Felix Salmon]

Okay, let's talk about the more real world and grounded part of the market. Rather than AI stocks which just, you know, invent a number and that's what they're worth. Oil prices. Everyone. We have talked many times on this show about there's been a massive war in the Middle east going on for almost six months now, and if you had told anyone there's going to be a massive war in the Middle east going on for six months. And the Strait of Hormuz is going to be effectively closed for six months. Where's oil going to be? Everyone would say it would be like 150, $200 a barrel or something enormous. It's not. And we have talked a lot about the strange phenomenon of oil prices being lower than you would think, given the war. But if you then look at diesel prices, they are through the fucking roof. And it turns out that the price of gasoline and the price of diesel in particular is really has gone up a lot, much more than the price of oil would suggest. And the difference between the price of diesel and the price of oil is measured by a wonderful thing called the crack spread. So the big thing that seems to have happened is that even though oil prices haven't gone up, the price of refining that oil into diesel in particular, has gone up enormously. And Elizabeth, do you have a theory for why?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Well, there's some global pressure because Ukrainian drone strikes have really hammered Russian refineries. So that's sort of cut off some of the supply for refined oil. And the Strait of Hormuz is still affecting everything. On a macro level, I think those are the two biggest problems.

[Felix Salmon]

The drone strikes are absolutely on. Russian oil refining capacity are a huge part of the story. I don't think that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has much effect on crack spreads.

[Emily Peck]

The war, though, has knocked out a few refineries in the Middle east, and that's not helping either. Yeah, so refinery capacity is down globally, so that's refineries.

[Felix Salmon]

There have been American refineries that have been running at greater than 100% capacity, which is kind of wonderful. I love it when that weirdness has happened.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

I like that the American refineries are all up significantly. Their shares are up, but Philips 66 is specifically up 66%.

[Felix Salmon]

Yeah, they're doing quite well, but they're not doing as they're not. One of the interesting things is their share prices, that people expect them to make more money, because this squeeze is not going away anytime soon. So far, it hasn't shown up quite as much in profits as you might think. You know who's making money from this is Archer Daniels Midland. When you do a bunch of refining, what you need to buy are these little sort of green credits. In America, like, believe it or not, we still have these green laws saying that if you're not going to put biofuels in your diesel, then you need to sort of pay Archer Daniels Midland for green corn fuel credits to make up for that.

[Emily Peck]

Okay.

[Felix Salmon]

And so adm, just by not doing refining but by growing corn, is making lots of money. It's kind of wild.

[Emily Peck]

That's fun. I didn't know that.

[Felix Salmon]

And then the other thing that is happening is that there's this sort of two to four week lag between crack spreads and fuel price gasoline prices. So crack spreads now, they're like $65 a barrel. Like, it's almost as much as the price a barrel of oil at this point. And the rising crack spreads have shown up in rising petrol prices, as Emily will attest, but not fully. And so the chances are that gasoline and especially diesel, but also gasoline prices are going to go up even more just to reflect how much it's costing to refine today.

[Emily Peck]

Have we talked about China and oil on this podcast yet?

[Felix Salmon]

I'm not sure, but we can never do it too much. Because the reason this is the number one reason why oil is not $200 a barrel is because Chinese oil imports have just fallen off a cliff, basically.

[Emily Peck]

Yeah, it's been really amazing. Like, I think it's safe to say, like, China wasn't like, we will come to the rescue of the global oil market by slashing our imports of oil and therefore keeping a lid on the price. But that is, in fact what has happened. And it's like a remarkable flex of a power. I don't think people realized China sort of even had. I think there's been an assumption like, okay, yeah, they cut imports of oil, but at some point they're going to have to buy this stuff again. But as you said, Felix, it's been like six months. And they're like. And they're like, no, bro, we're good

[Felix Salmon]

cruising around in our EVs and we have like the largest installed solar capacity on the planet.

[Emily Peck]

We bought a lot when oil was cheap. We have a lot of reserves, and companies have a lot of reserves. Government has a lot of reserves. They have a lot of power to direct people, to train, travel and away from airplanes. They have this amazing EV industry, this amazing solar panel industry. They were ready.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

It's almost like not opposing alternative energy is a good idea.

[Felix Salmon]

Well, they have this thing called demand destruction. We've seen it a little bit in America. One of the reasons why gasoline prices have not risen as much as you might expect expect, given the rise in crack spreads, is that people are actually driving less and consuming less gasoline than they were.

[Emily Peck]

Well, you know, I bet people aren't talking about this as much, but remote work is definitely helping here. It's not the conversation it was a few years ago, but about 20%. I think it's. 20% of workers can just stay home and not, you know, drive back and forth on a commute every day. Like, there's less demand overall, maybe for gas. I'm just. I'm making this up. I don't have.

[Felix Salmon]

No, no, I think that's absolutely correct. And so there is. There's a little bit more elasticity there than maybe there used to be before the age of remote work. But I think what we've learned is there's a lot more elasticity in China. And that when China wants to reduce demand for gasoline, there's a bunch of little knobs and dials that it can twiddle. And it has done so extremely effectively. And no one really knew those existed until push came to church.

[Emily Peck]

Yeah. And it comes at a time when China's standing in the world. I talk like an article to be sure.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

No.

[Emily Peck]

Comes at a time when China's standing in the world is. Has overtaken the United States. Just like in public opinion polling, China is now.

[Felix Salmon]

Is that something. Is that something where if you put it in an Axios bullet point, it would be like situational awareness. China's standing in the world.

[Emily Peck]

I mean, I didn't bring this up earlier, but, like, I had never actually heard the term situational awareness until Axios, but I'm sure it existed before then.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

But it's like a military term.

[Felix Salmon]

It is an official Axios axiom. If you ever wondered what those little things in bold are called when you read an Axio story. They're called axioms. And they're like, you know, the big picture and why it matters, why it matters. And from day one, situational awareness has been on the list.

[Emily Peck]

My editor, the wonderful Jeffrey K. Suggested. He was like, I really want to do situational awareness. Colon. Situational awareness hyperlinked when the story was breaking, which I thought was funny. This episode is sponsored by. Hey, Jen. If creating video content feels like a trade off between looking professional and protecting your time, there's a new way to think about it. Heygen lets you turn a script, photo, or presentation into a polished video of you in minutes without setting up a camera or hiring a production team. Whether you're a financial advisor explaining market updates, an attorney answering common client questions, a real estate agent showcasing listings, or a creator growing your audience, it helps you stay visible without constantly filming new content. It's Rated the number one AI video platform for small business on G2. Trusted by more than 30 million people and 85% of the Fortune 100 and supports over 175 languages. So your message can reach audiences wherever they are. Here's the wild part. Record yourself for just 15 seconds and hey Jen builds an AI avatar that makes professional videos for you on demand. So you can post everywhere your audience is as yourself without filming every time. Your first three videos are free at heygen.com pod that's H E-Y-G-E-N.com pod

[Elizabeth Spiers]

this

[Emily Peck]

episode is powered by AT&T Business. For every small business owner, there's a moment they remember when they realized they wanted to start their own business. It can be a life changing moment. But those first steps are never easy. Figuring out the right building blocks, your goals, your schedule, your mindset. You have to think about an entire ecosystem. Not just the big stuff, but the little bits too. In this day and age, a major point for any successful business is strong connectivity. Spotty Internet has led to some terrible work calls in my life. But when you're running a business, connectivity can make or break you. AT&T business has the tools, team and expertise you need for a reliable network you can depend on. They make connecting easy. And that's the main thing you want in a provider. Less time stressing so you can focus on the million other things on your plate. Can I hire more people? Should we get a bigger office space? Don't lose sleep over the small stuff. Keep focusing on the big things. AT&T business built to work. Get AT&T [e-mail]

[Felix Salmon]

Let's move on. What's next?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Quarterly reports.

[Felix Salmon]

Oh my God, Yes. I love this story that was written by a journalist I follow online named Emily Peck.

[Emily Peck]

That's me.

[Felix Salmon]

That's you?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Yeah. She's the best.

[Felix Salmon]

So, Emily, what was your story?

[Emily Peck]

Let me see if I can remember. Oh, okay. This was a few days ago that I wrote this story. Okay, so President Trump wants to do away. He's like a few others, wants to do away with mandatory quarterly earnings reports from public companies. And the SEC was like, okay, we'll bite. And proposed a rule making them quarterly reports optional. Companies if they want, under the rule, would be able to just report semiannually twice a year, plus an annual report and they put out the proposal. And as part of the rulemaking process, as nerds will know, there's a public comment period. So people can send in comments. Well, typically the public comment period is boring. Most people who Write in are like lawyers, interested parties, you know, nothing too exciting. With exceptions, for sure. But at the sec, a lot of institutional investors, pretty boring. But this time, no, no, no. The SEC received a flood of comments. Hundreds of thousands. A new record high number of comments. And 99% of these comments, according to this guy, wonderful professor that I talked to, accounting Professor In Ohio, 99%, more than 99% of these comments were like, no, do not do this. We want quarterly earnings reports. We forbid it. We, this cannot happen. And it's funny because when I told my daughter about this, because she was like, what are you working on? And I had to like quarterly reporting. What's that? Public companies. Anyway, she was like, oh, well, no one wants it, so is it not going to happen? And the TLDR is. I don't know. It could still happen. These comments are not. It's not voting. It's not democracy. Doesn't matter.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

I think it's still going to happen just because the Trump administration wants it. But what's interesting to me is the sort of retail reaction to it and that it's so strong. And I just want to read a piece of the R wallstreetbets comment that was submitted. It says, many of us Learned what a 10Q was the hard way, which is to say we bought stock, watched it fall 40% on an earnings release, and then read the filing to find out why. That is a stupid order of operations, and we acknowledge it. But it's also the entire mechanism by which a generation of retail investors taught itself to read financial statements. And the commission is now proposing to cut that mechanism in half. I think to the average person, this just looks like a push for less corporate transparency. And the institutional investors don't like it because you want more data rather than less. You know, when I was an equity analyst, if somebody had given me daily reporting, it would have made my models better. So, but, you know, the retail reaction is kind of surprising.

[Felix Salmon]

It's not surprising to me. I think it's almost axiomatic that investors won't like. Right. And so what the SEC is saying and what the administration is saying is that, like, we are trying to balance the interests of investors with the interests of companies. And companies do like this. And obviously the number of companies, the number of public companies is dwarfed by the number of investors. So you're going to get 99% of the comments are going to be like, no, because 99% are going to be coming from investors. And to a first approximation, 100% of investors are going to be opposed.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

That's true. But how is it. It's not normal, I think, for this many retail investors to comment on any.

[Felix Salmon]

No, no, it's not normal at all. This is. You're absolutely right. This has really touched a nerve because the investors don't really feel that they have any control over the companies. The companies are just going to do what the companies do. And all investors can do is hope that the discipline of forced quarterly reporting will keep the companies more or less on the straight and narrow. And if the companies don't have to report every quarter, then they will have more freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, which already they have an astonishing amount of freedom to do whatever the fuck they want. And the investors are like, we're just investors. And we want this not just for our sake, but also for the sake of, like, imposing a certain amount of discipline on the companies.

[Emily Peck]

Yeah. And I think the only positive comments I saw were from the Chamber of Commerce, which, you know, represents companies. The Business Roundtable also Speak, a trade group that represents companies, and Shell, which is a. Also a company. But there were some interesting comments. There was one from the former Netflix CFO who had also run a company in Europe or UK which doesn't have quarterly reporting requirements anymore. And he was like, I've been on both sides of it. Yeah, it's kind of a pain to have to do it, but it's really good. We need to do it. It keeps us disciplined, holds us to account. All of this, which I thought was pretty interesting. And I guess the other thing I would say is the accounting professor, great guy who I talked to, who's tracking this using AI, blah, blah, blah. His explanation for why it touched such a nerve, not only for all the reasons Felix just said, but also because rule changes are usually really complex, overcomplicated, hard to understand, kind of boring, maybe we would even say. But this one was really easy to understand. Companies do this thing four times a year that you're all really familiar with, and we want to make it optional. Like, that's easy to understand. And Motley fool and Better Markets advocacy group both urged their readers and followers to. To write in and gave them, like, suggested language and all of this. And those campaigns were, like, very successful. They got tens of thousands of, like, form letters and petitions too. The SEC did, because of all the confluence of, like, we really care about this. We actually understand what it means kind of a thing.

[Felix Salmon]

One of the interesting things about this is that assuming it goes through in the first instance, basically nothing will change. Every single company that you have heard of, Even Shell will continue to do quarterly reporting. You know, Shell, I'm sure would like the option to move to twice a year, but it's not going to exercise that option because all of its shareholders are just going to be like, don't you fucking dare. And on some level, it still listens to the shareholders and it would probably put it up for some kind of a boat. And then the shareholders would be like, fuck no. And then it would say, okay, never mind. As a general rule, most CEOs of most companies like to do things that make their stock price go up and don't like to do things that make their stock price go down. And any company that moves to reporting every other quarter, that move will make their stock price go down. And therefore they are not likely to do it also.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

It's just not a big regulatory burden for a large company. It costs them around 198k, which is just a drop in the bucket, even for administrative costs. So part of the rationale for doing this is that it's a kind of deregulation that reduced costs, but the costs are so insignificant in this case that I don't think anybody buys that rationale.

[Emily Peck]

Yeah. Although I guess to be fair, the SEC has a initiative called Make IPOs Great Again. You can guess where the phrasing comes from. But part of making IPOs great again is making it easier for companies, private companies, to file to go public. And the theory is if you reduce the amount of paperwork that's needed, the amount of stuff that you have to do for smaller companies, 198,000, I guess theoretically makes a difference.

[Felix Salmon]

No, it is, it's meaningful. And that was where I was going with what I was saying. Existing public companies, 99% of them will just keep on with quarterly earnings. But if you are anthropic, say, or some other hot company that is going public, or even a not very hot company that is going public, Jersey Max. If you come out from day one and be like, remember like when Google IPO'd and they were like, we're a different kind of company. Don't buy Google stock if you want a normal public company. We do things differently around here. And like 100% they would have gone, oh yeah, we're not going to report quarterly earnings because that's a distraction. And we are managing for the long term. And you know, quarterly earnings just implies short termism. And manage managing quarterly earnings. And no one wants the managers to do that. We want the managers to care about the next 10 years, not next three months. We've all heard these arguments, right? And you can absolutely believe that a company like Google, when it went public would have been like, yeah, we're just,

[Elizabeth Spiers]

I don't think so. Because if they are a small company, first of all their cost is going to be way less than 198k. And also if your company is so small that you can't afford to do quarterly reporting, you probably should not be going out to public markets. So it's sort of like there's a cost to going public.

[Felix Salmon]

It's not, it's not a question of whether you can afford to. It's also just a question of whether you want to. And if you can find a bunch, remember that most IPOs are oversubscribed, right? So if, if you, if you, when you ipo, if you're like, I only want the kind of investors who are in this for the long term and who are, you know, who are buying my stock with a 10 year time horizon and not a 3 month time horizon. And those guys will be fine if there isn't quarterly reporting and fuck the rest of them. And then you only sell to those. Like, you can understand the logic of a founder trying to sell into the public markets and being a little bit scared of this daily referendum on how his company is doing, you know, which is the stock price and being like, well I, you know, this is a little way of making the markets just a tiny bit, little bit less scary for me. I can definitely see people choosing that

[Elizabeth Spiers]

research though that says that there's, you know, reducing reporting by that little, you know, three months instead of, or six months instead of three months doesn't really change shareholders orientation towards short termism. Like I think if you were really going to do kind of long termism, you would, you would reduce reporting to annual.

[Felix Salmon]

It's a marginal change to be sure.

[Emily Peck]

Yeah. Someone I talked to was like, if you really care about long termism, you do every five years. And like that's just completely unacceptable. Like no investor is going to wait around for information every five years. Like that's just, it's not.

[Felix Salmon]

And I definitely believe that the majority of IPOs will also continue with quarterly reporting. I just think that the one place where we are going to see a significant number of companies opting to do twice a year reporting is going to be in the IPO market. I think assuming this rule goes through, we will see it first have effect in the IPO market. And I don't know how often we'll see it in the IPO market, but it will show up there before it shows up in the already existing companies.

[Emily Peck]

The one thing I would like to add is that this proposal to have less information from public companies fits into a larger pattern from, I think, lately from the White House of giving us just less information, less transparency on a lot of vectors. One thing I care about is people going hungry, for example. And the usda, I think it was this year, said it would stop releasing a report tracking hunger because they were like, we already tracked that and other things. Okay, we have Mr. Washington. Mr. Washington, Kevin Warsh over at the Fed saying he's going to give us less information about what the Federal Reserve is doing. I just. There is something happening now where people are talking more than ever. We can go to AI and get all this information. You know, the CEOs and executives who are arguing for less reporting from companies are like. They say things like, CEOs talk all the time. You can turn on CNBC and see the CEOs of public companies. They're always communicating, but they're not saying they're not giving you the actual information. You know what I mean? They're spinning you. We're in, like, this, like, massive. This moment of just overwhelming spin and like a pullback on actual information is, I don't know, something to follow.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Well, it's. This administration information is an accountability mechanism, so reducing it on all fronts kind of increases the executive branch's power to sort of do whatever they want without the public kind of understanding what's happening. Yeah.

[Emily Peck]

The other example, I guess, is the Department of War, Defense, whatever we're calling it now, which they kicked the reporters out of the building, and they're not giving them briefings. And we're in the middle of a war. Just saying.

[Felix Salmon]

Just saying.

[Emily Peck]

Just saying. We need information, people. AI is not the answer.

[Felix Salmon]

Well, you know where we get information?

[Emily Peck]

No. From the numbers round. They're.

[Felix Salmon]

From the numbers round. Okay, numbers round. Emily, what's your number?

[Emily Peck]

My number is $450 billion.

[Felix Salmon]

You came up with that number very quickly for someone who didn't have a number.

[Emily Peck]

I came in not having a number, but luckily I write stuff all the time, so I can just be like, what did I write? Oh, yeah, this was $450 billion. Is the increase in market cap for Microsoft on Thursday. Just one day. And it was, according to your friends at Bloomberg, Felix, the largest increase in market cap that a public company has had ever. Beating out the likes of your Nvidias and such this happened because IT's stock rose 16% on Thursday, which is the biggest jump the company has had since 2008. And it's because of their quarterly earnings report. So I don't know why a company would want to get rid of such a thing. Investors really, really liked it. Microsoft makes a fuck ton of money on its cloud business and even more so right now because of AI. How many times have we said AI in this? Are you so sick of this? Aren't you so sick of it? Anyway, Microsoft makes a lot of money. Investors like companies that make a lot of money. They drove up the stock price. Now Microsoft is worth a half trillion more in a day than it was the day before. I don't know what goes up. Must come down. Maybe, maybe not.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

I don't know.

[Felix Salmon]

It's a stock. Stocks only go up.

[Emily Peck]

They only go up. But I just want to say one more thing, which is I took, I was like going to write about it and I was like, what can I say that's funny about Microsoft? So then I wound up on YouTube watching Steve Ballmer run around developers, developers, developers sweating. And I was just like, what a company this Microsoft is. What a time we have had with it over the years. Just an incredible, like you wouldn't think, like, we're in this, like, I don't know, third, fourth phase of technology. The Internet, software and this company, it just keeps going. It's gone from. It was Windows, it was Bill Gates, that little nerd, then it was the sweaty guy, and now it's an AI giant. And what an amazing, amazing company we all like to talk about. Anthropic and OpenAI and Sam Altman and Dario and like kids like this Ashenbrenner guy. But like they're all along up in Redmond making it rain.

[Felix Salmon]

Is Satya Nadella the best CEO in Silicon Valley?

[Emily Peck]

Definitely, yeah.

[Felix Salmon]

Is he the best CEO that Microsoft has ever had?

[Emily Peck]

Definitely, Obviously, yes. I don't know, maybe you could argue Bill Gates was, but like, he was so controversial. And like Satya Nadella just like plugging along, just making oodles of cash. Like, what could be better? Doesn't hot take very often. As far as I'm like, remember, like, he doesn't have an AI manifesto, you

[Felix Salmon]

know, I don't think he appears on the podcasts.

[Emily Peck]

Yeah, I don't think he goes on podcasts though. He could come on ours, I think would be. I'd be fine with that. Yeah, he's just chill. He's not pictured usually. Is he pictured usually sitting behind, you know, with the other CEOs at like White House events and stuff. I feel like.

[Felix Salmon]

No, I haven't, I didn't see him at the inauguration.

[Emily Peck]

So. Yeah, even Tim Cook. I feel like Satya Tim Cook had bad earnings this week. Well, bad earnings in that the stock market didn't like them. So.

[Felix Salmon]

Okay, I have a fun number this week which is353, which is obviously this being Slate money. A number a about inbreeding in saber toothed tigers.

[Emily Peck]

Go on.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Which everyone is talking about. Everyone.

[Felix Salmon]

Everyone's talking about this. It's the Schmuckel analysis. So you know when you go to the La Brea tar pits and there's all the sabertooth tigers there?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Totally as you do.

[Felix Salmon]

So why are they there? Because they're trying to eat the camels or whatever that got stuck in the tar pits. Normally a tiger would not try and go after a camel in a tarpit because there is an obvious risk that you, the tiger will also get stuck in the tar pit and die. But if you have a spinal nerve tumor, then you can't really chase a camel. You kind of need the camel to be stuck in the tarpit before you can really catch the camel. And spinal nerve tumors are very rare in the modern human population. Less than one in a hundred thousand people has a spinal nerve tumor. But in the saber tooth tiger population, there was like 353 saber toothed tigers out of every hundred thousand had a spinal nerve tumor. Why were these tumors so prevalent?

[Emily Peck]

Saber tooth black spatulas?

[Felix Salmon]

No, it's inbreeding. Because they were going extinct and they were forced to like inbreed. And then the inbreeding caused the tumors and then the tumors caused them to have to try and chase the camels in the tar pits rather than out where there wasn't tar.

[Emily Peck]

Damn, Elizabeth, how are you going to beat this? I know you will. I know you will.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

My number's 5499 and that's dollars. And that is how much you pay for a hardcover children's book from Imagi Time, where you can insert your child via AI and any sort of narratives that you want. So boomers have been buying these AI slapped children's books for their grandchildren. And this has become, you know, a sore spot for Gen Xers and millennials who have kids. There's also a service called Story WonderBook that for $14.99 you can subscribe to it and it will create 20 fake stories. But according to the reporting from Wired, children don't like these books. Because they think that they're uninteresting and boring. They're too verbose. They're not imaginative enough.

[Felix Salmon]

So when I was a kid back in the 20th century, my grandparents used to give me, like, personalized children's books where they would, like, you know, this is the story of Felix and his.

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Yeah, see there, though, they had human writers and they would just substitute your name for whoever was the main character.

[Felix Salmon]

What did these things do that those things didn't?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Basically, the grandparents, like, let's say the grandparents have hobbies that they like to do with their grandchildren. You know, they have the AI like, make up some sort of narrative around that. So they don't really have any kind of character development that you have in, you know, actual children's books. They don't have the kind of imaginative qualities. And the assumption behind it is that children will like these books because they're all narcissists who like to see their little names in a book. But they don't, because they actually do like children's books for the stories and the characters and so on.

[Felix Salmon]

But those things aren't dispositive. Right. Like, if and when AI stories start becoming better stories, then will the children start liking them because they have their names in them?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Probably. Possibly. I mean, this is why we're all calling this kind of content AI Slop right now. Maybe at some point it'll be AI Genius, but they're definitely not there yet. But also another antidote that's kind of related to this. Apparently the Gen A's are now saying that's AI when they mean that's bullshit or that's fake, which that gives me hope.

[Emily Peck]

Did you guys read Friend of the pod, Kashmir Hill's piece? She looked into. There was an AI Written biography of Kashmir Hill, New York Times reporter. And then she, like, went deep and she found this guy who writes AI books, like several AI books every day. And she talked to him, and let me tell you, her article was so good that by the end I was like, should I be writing AI books? Because occasionally. Occasionally he hits it. It's like a volume game. You write like 200 books, and then one of them comes out during the holiday season and people buy it because it's like a sports book you can give to your uncle and father or whatever, and he makes, like, a few thousand dollars. Maybe this is not a bad idea. What do you think? Let us know.

[Felix Salmon]

Yeah, I don't know. All of this reflexive rejection of AI written books just because it's AI No I read some interesting things in that Kashmir Hill biography. And admittedly, admittedly, they were all false. But like, you know, these, these are niggles, you know?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Yes.

[Emily Peck]

Who needs real information anymore when we have so much fake information?

[Elizabeth Spiers]

Exactly.

[Felix Salmon]

Fake information is just as nutritious.

[Emily Peck]

It's powerful.

[Felix Salmon]

Okay, I think that's it for us this week. Thank you for listening to Slate Money. Thank you for emailing us on slatemoneylate.com thank you to Jessamyn Molly for producing, and thank you for being a Slate plus member. If you are, then you will delight in Emily Peck's stories of whether or not she goes out of her way to find cheap gasoline. That's coming up in Slate Plus. Otherwise, we will be back next week with more Slate.

[Monica Reinagle]

This message is brought to you by Cologuard. If you recorded songs off the radio for a mixtape, it might be time to screen for colon cancer. The Cologuard test is non invasive, requires no special prep or time off, and you start screening right from your home. It's just three simple setup, sample and ship. If you're 45 or older and at average risk, ask your doctor about the Cologuard test, available by prescription only. Learn more or request a [e-mail] podcast hello, I'm Monica Reinagle, host of the Nutrition Diva podcast. Summer is here, and with it, the hot and sticky weather. A morning working in the garden or maybe on the golf course can leave you more depleted than you realize. And plain water isn't always the most efficient way to restore the balance. That's where Liquid IV comes in. Its science backed formula is clinically proven to hydrate faster than water alone. Whether you're exercising, playing outside, or simply surviving a summer heat wave, it's an easy way to stay hydrated. Shop now at liquidiv. Com Liquid IV hydration that goes wherever life takes you.